(Cont...)
Jesus instructed, 'you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church...'
It's safe to assume, Jesus wasn't going to dump thousands of sandstone blocks on top of Peter and build a Church right there...he meant Peter would be the 'shepherd' leading His Church. Jesus also instructed that when Peter (as the Pope and subsequent Popes) spoke specifically as God's representative on earth 'whatsoever you bind on earth, will be bound in Heaven', that his instruction would be 'infallible' in that capacity (and only in that capacity). If he tried to pick the winner of the first race at Doomben or Randwick, he's no more infallible than you or I and would likely suffer the same fate with the bookies.

In response to bushbasher: 1. Yes, Meg1 is definitely a treasure. 2. Certainly some Bible passages suggest God could be “more than a little bit schizo”. But many Christians are able to understand these without abandoning all rationality. Most mainstream Christians don’t look to the old testament for moral guidance. Some do but it seems pretty fraught.
I agree with Meg that the teachings of Jesus, along with the rest of the new testament, provide a pretty sound moral framework. This has broad general principles. And quite a lot of highly specific instructions too. The teachings of Jesus most relevant to evaluating the responses of the two church authorities in the original article I think are where Jesus is confronted by the scribes and pharisees. Jesus was always on the side of the outsider, the immoral, the law-breaker, the unclean against those who demanded adherence to theological precepts and moral laws. Because of this the religious legalists were on his case constantly and fiercely. It was they who had him arrested and killed. This struggle between libertarians and authoritarians has continued through history. Just the immediate issues change.
This battle is being waged at both St Mary’s and St Michael’s today. In both scenarios there is “tedious and distasteful bigotry”. But in both cases there are also calls for resolutions which reflect Jesus’s desire for tolerance, acceptance and unity.
In response to Meg1 on the Pope’s authority and infallibility deriving from Jesus’s words to Peter: This is one of the issues which separates the Roman Catholics from the rest of the Catholic church. It is also a topic of some lively discussion with the RC faith. In the matter of St Mary’s I wonder whether the words of Jesus to the pharisees are more immediately relevant than his words to Peter.

alan a, it's your church and your god. i really don't care. (that is, i don't care until some popelike cretin goes around africa spewing nonsense about condoms).

but i answered your question, and now i am curious as to your own answer. what on earth is "inspiring", in any sense of the word, about the passages you quoted? why do you think they are in any sense inspired by god? what is inspirational in these passages in a human sense?

why not simply treat them as a historical artifact, depicting the worst of human nature, and depicting a barbarism not yet extinct, but now almost universally derided?

why the special pleading?

as for jesus, i basically agree. i like jesus, especially the grumpy jesus. the one who pissed people off. especially church people. that i like.

Alan,

I have already asked those questions but in a slightly different way
see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2572&page=0#58722 for the full thread.

Sorry Meg but do you really know your bible?... sorry!

<<The books of the New Testament, however, ARE regarded as inspired writings...>>

Jesus, (Matthew 5:17-20), emphatically empowers the laws of Moses

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Verse 18 especially is unequivocal! It empowers all of Moses laws'

You must study more!

At this point Christians have a huge problem.

Either they should be running around stoning people or Jesus got it wrong, or the OT should be done away with completely because it is unsafe as a reference!

As any reasonable Christian would realise making a rape victim marry her rapist is absurd. What father, whose daughter was raped, would accept 50 pieces of silver to marry her permanently to the rapist?

But here it is

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found,

Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

So if this and other laws are wrong so is the oppression of homosexuals!

This Jesus character creates some real problems for fundamentalists!

Yes, bushbasher, the grumpy Jesus is kind of cool. Now see if this answers your question: It is quite rational to read all of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and find instruction and inspiration therein without having to accept all stories as literally true. Heaps of stories are parables or allegories – including many which seem to have been written as actual history: creation in six days, bears devouring 42 kiddies, the sun standing still in the sky. The bizarre stories of conquests, slaughters and supernatural visitations are read by many Christian today as parabolic. As with Indigenous Dreamtime stories they can be instructive without being true.
Similarly many ancient commandments are read today as intriguing insights into the ordering of a primitive - and sometimes appallingly cruel – early society. They are not regarded as binding for all time.
To figure which old testament teachings still apply, we read the new testament. The exhortations to economic and social justice in the OT prophetic books are clearly affirmed by Jesus and the other NT writers. Not so the punitive laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. My point in raising those questions was to clarify Meg’s understanding of homosexuality, which seems to have been the most divisive issue raised inadvertently by the original piece. More very soon in response to O2 ...

Alan A, my last post was in response to your question, not arguing the 'infallibility' of the Pope as reason for Fr Kennedy's adherance at St Mary's...although it's a valid reason for re-considering his position.

My partial response to your question was that Roman Catholics don't look to the Old Testament in the same way others may. Jesus' coming and subsequently the 'inspired' writing of the New Testament, more accurately represents His word. His instruction was to abandon the 'old ways' (including stoning, sexual abuse or perversions, etc.) and follow Him.

Your comment that Jesus always took the side of the unclean, the outsider...'against those who demanded adherance to thelogical precepts and moral laws'...is half right. He took the 'sinner's' side, the 'unclean' the 'tax-collector',the unpopular and those who were morally off-track for whatever reason...but you omit to add, he also told them to REPENT and be forgiven...to 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's'...he didn't say to usurp what belongs to another, quite the reverse! He didn't say live immorally or make your own rules...he said live within the law and keep my commandments!

He taught that no sin is unforgiveable...REPENT and be healed, be forgiven, start afresh...be re-born. REPENT and be forgiven... He didn't say change His instructions or commandments...nor that it's ok to do so...He said REPENT of your sins and sin no more...He didn't say it'd be easy.

Perhaps you're missing who's the 'outsider' here, who's the isolated and marginalised...Bishop Bathersby's been tolerant for a long time, he's obliged to act, to advise and encourage Fr Kennedy to lead/instruct/guide the St Mary's congregation according to the teachings of Christ...he's patiently tried to do so and is still exercising patience and restraint. Can the same be said of Fr Kennedy and the 'rent-a-crowd' that put on the media circus, complete with bomb-threat against the Church and random un-Christian, grossly intolerant remarks about the Church, flagrant bigotry and dispicable remarks about the Pope...and yes, it could be regarded as 'tedious and distasteful bigotry'...still easier, to follow a rent-a-crowd rather than defend the 'outsider'...just like 2000 years ago.
(tbc...)