Yet another dishonest attack on the Church from this author.

The claim that Fr Kennedy was removed for no good reason is utter rubbish.

Fr K refused to offer valid sacraments of the Church! He refused to accept a ruling first from his bishop then from the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on the invalidity of the words he was using for baptisms, resulting in potentially thousands of his parishioners over a twenty year not actually being technically catholics at all!

He has on a number of occasions made public statements rejecting the divinity of Christ - which means his masses are of at best doubtful validity (and probably invalid, even before you consider the lack of proper form). And yes, I guess parking a statue of the buddha in front of the tabernacle probably did symbolise his pantheistic views!

His utter refusal to accept the concerns his bishop set out in a letter, to follow the rubrics of the mass and wear vestments, or to use the approved prayers didn't help his case.

All the other problems are symptoms, not the root issue.

As an atheist, I am specifically unqualified to comment on the religious connotations of this squabble.

But it does seem to me sensible that if you agree to be part of a group of any kind - political, social, whatever - there is a basic requirement to stick to the rules.

The options, when you find yourself in disagreement with the rules, are confined to petitioning and agitating for a global change to the rules, or leaving the club entirely.

Taking unilateral action in direct contravention to those rules, or suggesting that the rules should be waived or altered for you alone, would seem to me to be an unrealistic and untenable response.

Something to be resolved over a beer? Let's see now, the validity of the sacraments, whether Christ has a divine nature, obeying legitimate authority, following established liturgical norms. Not exactly trivial matters that can be negotiated "over a beer", or perhaps Alan just thinks that we define our faith as we go along, according to what the latest fad of the day is. And by the way Kennedy is not the only one working for the poor and excluded. Many organizations and thousands of people in the Church throughout Australia are doing this, but without seeking publicity and looking to be a public martyr.

"John Bathersby’s authority has suffered in failing to negotiate a better outcome."
What was a better outcome?

Fr. Kennedy should consider himself very fortunated to have survived his fight over dogma with the Catholic Church.

I watched transformed as a spokesperson for Vatican commented on an SBS program last week that "torture was a mistake, it was however considered to be a valid means of obtaining evidence"

He was ofcourse referring to the torture and burning of christians by the vatican during the "inqisistion". Like Fr. Kennedy, they were the wrong type of Christians.

"The most obvious losers are the many people with mental illnesses, broken relationships, addictions and other challenges who have been supported by a loving local community within the Catholic Church. They now no longer have both. Many have expressed profound grief in recent weeks."

And why does a 'loving local community' need a church to tell them what to do? Can't they go on being just as loving and supportive in that trade union building? Or is it just not the same without some official endorsement for your imaginary friend?

If it takes the threat of torment and hellfire or the promise of eternal bliss to make you a loving community, then perhaps you're doing it wrong.