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.

As I see it, this is a classic case of an inflexible, dogma-blinkered authority being unable to tolerate another way of looking at the Christian mission. Jesus must be weeping.

Possibly, Spikey.

>>As I see it, this is a classic case of an inflexible, dogma-blinkered authority being unable to tolerate another way of looking at the Christian mission. Jesus must be weeping.<<

But surely this is more like expecting Colonel Sanders to be comfortable with you selling lentil burgers and alfalfa in your KFC franchise?

The only reason - I suspect - they have been getting away with it for so long is that so far at least, they haven't been selling Big Macs.

I don't think it is unreasonable to insist that someone using your brand name accepts the responsibilities that go along with it - there is a pretty clear set of instructions, I would imagine, in the RC franchise code of conduct.

Given the number and diversity of religions, I don't see too much difference between a normal process of protecting the image and integrity of your brand, and what the Catholic church is insisting upon here.

Well Pericles, it's a droll analogy - the church as fast food franchise. Anyone for more bread or wine? Chicken or lentils? The Colonel or Macca's? Catholic or Protestant?

So it's come to this: "I don't think it is unreasonable to insist that someone using your brand name accepts the responsibilities that go along with it - there is a pretty clear set of instructions, I would imagine, in the RC franchise code of conduct."

So it's normal practice for the church to protect "the image and integrity of your brand"? I would have thought that if that's what the Catholic Church is doing, it ought to sever its contract with its current PR firm and find someone with better skills. How about we put Cardinal Pell on to the Gruen Transfer? They can sell anything there.

I'm an evangelical Protestant but I have a lot of sympathy for Archbishop Bathersby in his need to deal with flagrant violations of central matters of faith and doctrine by Father Kennedy.

No doubt Father Kennedy is a good man, and ministers caringly. So also does a good secular counsellor, like Dr Wendell Rosevear (also here in Brisbane), or another religious counsellor like Major Joyce Harmer (Salvation Army chaplain to 'hard case' prisoners). The issue is not the desire to care, but the theological content attached to it.

I don't understand why Father Kennedy appears to think he has to junk core Christian (not just Catholic) beliefs, such as the divinity of Jesus and the reality of the miracles, in order to practise social justice.

Use of the baptismal formula referring to "the Creator, the Liberator and the Sustainer" is feminist theology. Some women who have suffered abuse have difficulty with the traditional language of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (a formula which comes from the Great Commission in Matthew 28). While Spirit is non-gender-specific in English, it is feminine in some languages. But the terms Father and Son are certainly male. Unfortunately for supporters of feminist (or de-sexed) theology, there's no getting away from the fact that Jesus taught us to pray starting "Our Father ..." Nor is there any getting away from "This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Father Kennedy's toleration of a Buddhist statue in the church reflects the new Age-type belief that "there are many paths to God and all religions are essentially the same." They are NOT. Jesus made exclusive claims about himself when he said "I am the way, the truth and the life: no one comes unto the Father but by me"

Glorfindel, Jesus also said: "Some sheep have eyes not of this fold".

Glorfindel

"Jesus made exclusive claims about himself when he said "I am the way, the truth and the life: no one comes unto the Father but by me".

Then why is the religion of Chrisianity divided into so many denominations and sects?: Catholics, Protestants, Unitarians, Baptist, J.W.'s and so on and on.

The Catholic religion itself did not start with Jesus himself. There was no hierarchy at all during Jesus' time, it was an oral tradition - unless you are referring to the Jewish religion. Jesus never appointed a leader or 'pope'. Even though St Peter is held by the Catholic Church as the first pope, this was not so during the time of Jesus.

I would posit that Father Kennedy's 'open church' better reflects Christianity than the papal driven Catholic church with its rosaries, rituals and self-reverential 'righteousness'.

" ... I would posit that Father Kennedy's 'open church' better reflects Christianity than the papal driven Catholic church with its rosaries, rituals and self-reverential 'righteousness'. ... "

Yes, well said *Fractelle*

Further to some of Pericles's comments, I would point out that one needs to consider the nature of the "Priest/Ess/In Betweens"

If you accept that they have (and I prefer the God Concept that we all do let alone just the Priesties) have a 1 on 1 relation with Goddo, then that in turn affords the said person considerable latitude to claim personal "Divine Inspiration." And of course, we ought ask the question, how does the organisation evolve in its understanding?

Of course, personally inspired priests as may be the case in this article often fall afoul of the dogma of catholic papal infallibility and its other political control mechanisms.

This is of course arguabley accounts for much of the sheer idiocy that catholics preach, such as that in relation to contraception. The Europeans were quite right in my view seeking to have the <edit> no longer heard.

As for preaching against gays, he's lucky I'm not making the rules as I would impose criminal sanctions for the offence and have him tried and locked up, plus a "thorough" investigation over the alleged cover up in relation to child abuse.

Thank you for the feedback. First, yes, agree entirely with Terra, Pericles and Glorfindel that the archbishop had the right to insist the people of St Mary's leave the premises. Which they have done. No question. Once the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reached its 2008 decision it was all over for that worshipping community as Roman Catholics. But did the doctrine dudes make the right decision?
Agree totally with Terra, Mustard and Glorfindel that doctrine is vital and no, we cannot make it up as we go along. No-one is advocating this. Not sure Glorfindel is right suggesting we have here "central matters of faith and doctrine". More inclined to agree with Fractelle.
Will be back shortly with a tentative response to Blairbar regarding a better outcome. But first a retraction. I now accept it was flippant and inappropriate to suggest that such serious matters could be resolved over a beer. So I retract. It should have been a robust aged Hunter Valley Shiraz followed by a quality French Cognac.

Pericles has a point irrespective of whether people think that the Catholic Church fails to reflect Christianity or that Fr Kennedy is a good bloke. Fr Kennedy liked to go in the newspaper saying he doesn't believe there is a Catholic Church (stating that Jesus didn't start a Church) and saying he is an atheist. As has been pointed out he publically rejected virtually everything people associated with Christian belief and which is incorporated in the Catholic brand of the religion. He has sworn (to the God he doesn't believe in) that he would obey the Bishop but of course refused to do so. Indeed, according to the Archbishop, he bad mouthed both the Archbishop and the Roman hierarchy from the pulpit.

Interestingly he says that he is a Catholic. I presume such extreme polarity in that direction would be rare but conceivable. However he is a Catholic priest charged with bringing the Catholic faith to people. A lot of people who detest the Catholic Church might be a little disingenous about whether or not he can do his job as he has managed to bag the Catholic Church in the media quite effectively for some time. Nevertheless it is hard to believe that the Catholic haters genuinely believe that he could fulfil his role.

Blairbar, a number of outcomes better for all concerned can be imagined. It may have been better for the archbishop and the Vatican to have accepted that different contexts demand different approaches. St Mary's is quite unlike most local churches with the scale of its outreach to marginalised groups. Yet 'Good News to the poor' is supposed to be part of the ministry of Jesus. Some claim it is the ministry of Jesus.

Specifically, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith could have approved a limited number of alternative words for Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The archbishop could have defended the right of St Mary's to live its life and conduct its ministry in its congregational style. He could have asked Brisbane's liturgical commission to collaborate with St Mary's to tweak the liturgies acceptably. Nothing done at St Mary's seems outside accepted practice in similar churches working with the poor in other denominations. Nothing seems outside Biblical models. And nothing seems outside the spirit of Roman Catholic teaching. Whenever something amiss arises, then we may resort to diligent dialogue and debate.

Another outcome is imagined, much more eloquently, here. http://www.stmaryssouthbrisbane.com/community-to-archbishop

Looking at this situation from a financial perspective, it makes little sense to have a few thousand parishioners making little or no economic contribution. It would be far more sensible to chuck them out and sell the site for redevelopment.

Alan - The Church doesn't believe it has the power to just rewrite the words of the baptismal formula at will - they are after all Scriptural.

Congregationalism is a heresy that was rejected at the time of the reformation by Catholics.

And the Church is not just 'another denomination'!

The most interesting comments on this discussion are those of the people who love rules. The Roman Catholic church worships its rules. It has much in common with Islam and the Jewish faith in that regard. Roman Catholicism, Islam and Orthodox Jewry are obsessed with government from the top down, instead of from the bottom up, as Jesus Christ advocated, so members of all three religious streams mentioned above are rule followers rather than rule makers. They would refer to the very successful ministries of the likes of Father Kennedy and Hillsong as the Rule Breakers.

For the above reasons Judges and Magistrates if members of either Jewry, Roman Catholicism, or Islam, atheists, and agnostics are prepared to sell their souls for thirty pieces of silver, and break the great commandment delivered in the Sermon on the Mount, Judge not that ye be not judged. (Matthew 7:1). Unfortunately in Australia the Roman Catholics who accepted the Constitution and voted for it, when they got into Parliament have introduced Roman Catholic Law into Australia and abolished the system the English have so successfully used to govern themselves for about 750 years. Starting in 1215, the English with the Magna Carta took the teachings of Jesus Christ to heart, and avoided the very worst excesses of Roman Catholic corruption, that has caused the failure of every Catholic republic.

In direct contradiction of the Statutory Command in S 116 Constitution, the five anti Christian organizations cited above, have imposed their will on the people of Australia, and the States become Churches, based on the Roman Catholic system. They set the punishment, maintain the prisons, employ the Police, and they make the rules. Obey the rules, get good, disobey the rules, get punished, is the Lex talionis of the Jews, Roman Catholics and Islamics. We used to have the lex misericordiae, the law of mercy and forgiveness, and The Queen was its symbol. The Judas Priests who have sold their souls for thirty pieces of silver, have accepted this illegitimate and un-Constitutional legislation as Gospel. The Judges and Magistrates have a judgment day coming

Ay yes *Alan* ThankU for providing that link. It seems plain that the priest in question is much Luved by his flock and hopefully continues to nurture their Souls according to both their general and specific needs.

I would suggest that the catholic church, who are just another organisation that should have been disbanded by the world a long time ago for its crimes against humanity, is not deserving of *Kennedy's* talents and hopefully he will find his feet with other more Christed folk.

The "congregation" needs i.m.o. to be brought back to a 1 on 1 relationship with their God concept, and away from this grotesque compulsion to lay down their "I" to an individual and hierarchy clearly suffering from delusions of grandeur.

I do not consider myself a catholic hater per se, but I draw the line on persons of any persuasion who assume to have the right to dictate the behaviour of others in matters of Luv. And in that regard, the catholic church is a curse.

Alan A,

I suspect that the Archbishop already embraces such a pastoral style. I believe his Archdiocese has great variation and he is normally loathe to intervene. He left St Mary's alone for many years in spite of an awareness of the unorthodox practices. However discovering that the pastor at the Church was an atheist who publically rejected the notion of a Catholic Church founded by Jesus and was highly critical of it most probably made him feel obliged to intervene. Fr Kennedy's media stance probably sealed the fate. Is it possible that as an old rebel close to retirement he wanted to go out with a bang? Could it be that simple?

How about we wait and see if the Archbishop now cracks down on gay friendly parishes or places where women give homilies or even non standard liturgies (the latter issue supported by Archbishop's comments but I suspect they were more political than anything). That is what the media claimed it was about. I won't hold my breath.

"Yet 'Good News to the poor' is supposed to be part of the ministry of Jesus. Some claim it is the ministry of Jesus."

If you were an Archbishop reading Fr Kennedy's media comments wouldn't you have serious doubts as to whether giving the Good News to anyone was involved. Caring for the poor is commendable and was involved in the ministry of Jesus but without communion with the Church why are they more entitled to exclusively use Church premises any more than good atheist social workers?

"And nothing seems outside the spirit of Roman Catholic teaching." Why the weasel phrase "spirit of Roman Catholic teaching"? (I hope you are used to this type of expression and realise no offence is intended.) It reads like Denuzio's reference to the vibe of the Constitution in the movie The Castle when he couldn't produce an argument.

Thanks for these further inputs. Will let yours slide, Peter, as it’s off topic. DreamOn, are you generalising excessively?

Mjpb, I accept some of your observations but not yet convinced Kennedy is an atheist. Are you sure? Even Jesus nuanced his answers on his divinity when asked direct questions. On the matter of Church authority, Terra and I are pursuing this currently. You are welcome to participate. No, not at all offended by your choice of words, Mjpb, but just note that Dennis Denuto won in the end.

Back to the matter of words for the Trinity, Terra, changing them shouldn’t really be too much of a problem. Why not apply the power used not so long ago to make Holy Spirit an optional alternative to Holy Ghost? After all, the Bible and the church have many terms for Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When early church father Hilary of Poitiers discusses Jesus’ words “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” he uses ten different expressions for the Son. Different words can legitimately be used for the same truth.

Besides, Jesus never actually said Father. He used two Aramaic words, Allaha and Abbah. The closest in English is Allah, which most Christians prefer not to use. Fine. So use Father. Or Creator. Pastorally, what is a priest to do with an abuse victim who screams or fits at the word Father? Or Mother? Or any word that triggers a psychotic episode? Surely the Catholic church is big enough to allow parishes to use Creator in such exceptional cases. Perhaps the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith were not considering the right question.

Re congregationalism, Terra, will come back to this as it’s important. But you are right about the RC not being a denomination. So I retract again. How about a family of several score mini-denominations more or less connected, though displaying an extraordinarily exciting diversity?

I think the outcome is a positive one - Kennedy gets to keep running his ministry, and the Archdiocese of Brisbane gets to run things its own way. Perhaps a better outcome could have been achieved if they had sat down and discussed their differences out of the public eye.

No, I'm not advocating some sort of "cover-up" - I'm suggesting that the publicity has not been good for anyone. Quite a few years back, a Uniting Church community in Logan broke away from the greater Church because they disagreed with the updated stance on homosexuality. The break was quite low-key, and both have carried on quite nicely in their own directions. At the end of the day, Kennedy's situation was quite similar. He had led his congregation in a direction very different from that of the Archdiocese and, notionally at least, from that of the Catholic Church. In essence, what he was doing was no longer Catholic.

I'll steer clear of the fast food comparison here, but as a corporate entity the Catholic Church found itself in a difficult situation. How can the administrators of the Archdiocese of Brisbane develop a vision and a clearly-defined belief structure if they allow variation within their ranks? As an organisation dealing primarily in belief, it's hard to sell your product when you can't say what it is. Bathersby and his associates have stuck to the Vatican line of thought, while Kennedy sees things differently. Whether or not he fits into the Catholic Church is debatable; he certainly doesn't fit into the Archdiocese of Brisbane. Consequently, he could not remain a part of that body.

He could possibly have taken an unprecedented step and sought patronage from a more progressive diocese - they do exist elsewhere. Geographically, he would have been in Brisbane; spiritually, he would be elsewhere. This would require a bit of initiative on his part and a shift in thinking on the part of the Church, but as it is (to my knowledge) untested, who can say whether or not it would have worked?

Alan A says my last post was off topic. I strongly disagree. There are two streams of Christianity coursing through Australia’s veins, one is protestant Christian and the other Roman Catholic. The comparisons are not so good. The Roman Catholic version of Christianity cannot change the decency and honesty of most of their followers, but most if not all students indoctrinated in Roman Catholic or Anglican schools never darken the door of a Church, except for weddings and funerals, and most of their Churches are in decline. This outcome is right on topic.

Roman Catholic thinking is like a virus that destroys society and is mostly promulgated by celibate men with great problems with normal sexuality. Only the Ukranian Catholics have a sensible approach to Priesthood. If a man is married he can become a Priest, but if a man is RC, and has been blessed with normal desires for women’s company, he is excluded. Many of my friends when young were Roman Catholic men, and they considered women far more important that God himself.

The real problem is that without the balance that comes from the union between a man and a woman, that marriage brings to a relationship, a man is twisted and inclined to spend his entire life scheming to oppress his fellow men and women. This virally bad thinking has infested both England and Australia since WWII and the tried and trusted Protestant system of Government has been abandoned for a Roman Catholic model. The Roman Catholic model cannot stand beside the Holy Bible. The English worked this out between 1215 and 1300, and legislated the New Testament as their Constitution.

It is time the Roman Catholic Church accepted the reality that their model of government is a failure. Despite all their efforts, very few people attend their churches, and many of those that do, do so out of fear not love. We are all compulsory members of a Church. Those of us who must attend Church (court) should have the choice, Protestant or Roman Catholic. A Protestant court must have a jury, not a Priest

Peter,

Yet again your discussion is off-topic. This isn't about how much people hate Catholicism, as your spiteful and ill-thought-out posts would suggest. Nor is it about whether or not priests should marry. Interestingly, betwee 1215 and 1300, England was a Catholic country. Also, I suggest that if you took a look outside Australia, you would find that in many places A LOT of people attend Catholic churches on a weekly basis. A failing organisation? Not likely.

I also did not think that were "off topic"

*Peter the Believer*

I think you bring a number of interesting findings of fact to the discussion, notwithstanding the insipid efforts of some to narrow and limit terms of reference to compliment their own agenda.

Having said that I personally do not concur with all of your overall conclusions but am pleased that you share with us.

And oh yes, *Peter* was afraid and did a runner didn't he? But they say he met *Lordy* on the way out and changed his mind.

And at the times of the Nazis the Church was afraid, and understandabley so. But notwithstanding the number of catholics in germany, controversy over their cowardice and argueable choice to protect their own lives, positions and property at the expense of others remains.

No *Alan* your comments about "making it up as you go" & "psychotic episode" demonstrate negative characteristics and ignorance respectively.

They played *Lord Satan's Bible* here recently. I watched little of it, as I grew rapidly tired with the manner of presentation. However, I noted the fine Demonic figure illustrated within, dressed and adourned in symbols of supreme earthly power.

Now, I know not the churches current position, however, at the time the churches position was that this drawing was evidence of the Covenant the individual being tried had made with the Devil.

I imagine that if I was being forced to recant or be bricked alive into the wall by the church then the Devil I would draw would be a symbol of their evil.

And also recently a "scientific" presentation on the tale of

*Sodom and Gomorrah*

and the likely asteroid strike.

Indeed some Gays are a bit different and there has long been prejudice against them.

AND long have political miscreants played upon our prejudice to yoke and shackel us.

The issue of citizens of Sodom soliciting homosexual favours from the messengers who tried to warn the people to flee the pending catastrophe appears from the evidence just to be an after the fact ploy to shackel the people to a belief system and political construct such that the few could more easily control and dictate their behaviour.

More likely it would seem that the citizens of Sodom were simply as a collective too busy having a party of a time to take the messengers seriously for which they brought about their own doom.

No, if the population was not prejudiced against Gays, then I suspect the catholics would simply preach their bigotry, misplaced idealism and religious fervor against some other minority group or practice, juxtaposing this against some other co-incidental calamity and claiming "fire and brimstone"

And that *Alan* is more in truth an expression of a psychotic state of consciousness than the cries of a child abused at the hands of a perverted catholic.

Far safer would the children be with Homo and Bi Priests and Priestesses who as mature consenting adults are secure in their sexual identity and expression.

Well, this has been fun, hasn’t it? With a few moments of weirdness. First, an update: Services at St Mary’s in exile are now downloadable. http://www.stmaryssouthbrisbane.com. This should clarify what goes on and end speculation about atheism. Services seem definitely Roman Catholic, though towards the congregational end of the RC spectrum.

Which brings us to Fractelle’s question: Why is Christianity divided into so many denominations? One answer is that God loves diversity, as Otokonoko and others suggest. He created millions of creatures. He created humankind in a vast range of colours, races, languages and cultures. He placed us in an extraordinary variety of locations upon the Earth. And in the Church He is perfectly happy with a range of worship practices, authority structures and ministry styles within which that mystical unity of spirit may be found.

This is quite relevant to St Mary’s. The alleged heresies provide one set of issues to resolve. But when one body asserts it alone speaks for God then two extra problems arise. First, dialogue with a view to accord is virtually ruled out. Second, the additional ‘sin’ of defying authority is added.

All churches and factions within churches believe they have the fullness of truth and are in apostolic succession from the early church. Some are just more vocal about this than others. But the flaws in all attempted justifications of these claims – historically, logically and theologically – are hilariously glaringly obvious to everyone not in that group. Why not accept with humility that all traditions have errors we are seeking to identify and correct and that God's faithful remnant may be present in any tradition?

History does seem to show that denominations which have used their authority to punish heretics have frequently found themselves – always in retrospect – on the wrong side of the argument and having persecuted God’s servants unjustly. The lesser-known Post-Nicene father Alanaeus de Gard made this very point: "Punecius haereticvm inter magisterivm callidus semper faveo haereticvm". (In a blue between a rebel priest and the authorities the smart money is always on the rebel.)

Sad days for St Marys? Hardly.

This just shows that if people want to help others in their community they can, and they certainly do not need he Catholic Church to do it.

Or any other Church for that matter.

The move to another venue and from the Vatican's grasping fingers shows that people can operate intelligently even though they feel compelled to draw quite silly rules around themselves.

The help to Indigenous people, homeless, gay, whatever, can continue freed from Bathersby and the Popes backwoods view.

Let them continue to play their banjos.

Of course, why any woman would have anything to do with the Vatican, or any gay people, or any poor people is a real mystery, so despied by the Vatican are all these groups.

The sacking of this priest should send waves of doubt through Catholic believers, who should be able to see how easy it is to say 'no', but of course it will not.

Gradually, the weak will return to the dark rules they so love, women will hanker for their subjugation once again and gay people will, for what ever reason, still hold a glimmer of hope that the Pope and Bathersby could love them... they will of course die disappointed.

Good riddance... and good on yers Kennedy

I'm not sure anyone is any the wiser from this little discourse.

It is almost as if they are playing on different playing fields; the "Kennedy rools" team will continue to emphasise the pastoral care angle, while the "Bathersby's yer man" brigade will continue to point out the lack of adherence to the rules. And ne'er the twain shall meet.

But I was fascinated by Alan A's summary.

>>And in the Church [God] is perfectly happy with a range of worship practices, authority structures and ministry styles within which that mystical unity of spirit may be found.<<

Eh?

I would have thought that Alan is making some pretty bold statements here, principal among which is that he has the inside skinny on the thoughts of the Almighty.

Now I'm no bible scholar, but surely there are rules about that sort of claim? Involving being struck down, or cast into a fiery furnace, or similar.

Apart from its insurpassable arrogance, there must be some doubt about the concept at a very fundamental level. One has only to consider the violence that has been perpetrated over the years by competing religions, purely on the grounds that one knows God's word better than the other.

And it isn't even when religions are in competition with each other. One of the images that caused me to don the atheist mantle was that of the pre-dawn moments at Verdun, or Ypres or Mons etc..

In each set of trenches there is a padre, telling the troops that God is on their side.

Were they both right, both wrong, or one of each?

Or was the "right" army simply the one that won?

If so, what was the God-related situation when the Germans prevailed on Monday, but the Allies on Tuesday?

But I guess if Alan is right, and "God loves diversity" then God was probably having a bet each way.

Which in itself, I reckon, is a pretty poor reflection of the whole religion thing

AlanA,

Thank you for your reply. You seem to have virtually narrowed things down to whether or not Kennedy is an atheist. However you have also invited me to discuss Church authority and neither of us can obviously resist the Denuto issue.

On that latter point I thought you would type that. But I note that his lack of success required the matter be appealed. The High Court Barrister won on his own legal argument. Denuto was a figure head at the appeal even if it was good for his image and business.

My reason for labeling Kennedy an atheist is his comment in the Courier Mail February 21 (Qweekend) where he apparently stated that unlike Batthesby he wouldn’t talk to a God. He reportedly quoted with approval those he considered Hindu mystics and the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta – the worship not of a deity, but the discovery of self, of oneness with the world. The absence of belief in a deity I have inferred makes him an atheist.

I just did a google for a definition of theism and got this:

“n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.”

Kennedy’s belief seems to lack the belief in a god. I believe that he would consider the idea of a ruler of the world who wants worship an offensive idea. His belief system seems to lack theism. Hence my inference. What do you think?

I couldn’t help chuckling when you did a comparison with Kennedy and Jesus. He does that comparison in the media all the time. Of course he doesn't seem to believe that Jesus is God or that there is even a God so it probably isn't as arrogant as it sounds at first blush.

Thank you, The Blue Cross. Agree almost entirely. You probably noticed the original piece listed neither Father Kennedy nor the main body of the congregation as losers. They will do just fine. Not sure what you mean by drawing “quite silly rules around themselves”.

Once again, Pericles, you seem pretty much right also. (And you know how that really annoys us theists.) Except, perhaps, about the inside skinny. It does seems fairly clear from history that nobody ever has this with the Almighty - the point being advanced ineptly in the last three paragraphs of my previous post. Groups claiming to speak for God only embarrass themselves. Some with alarming frequency. Often with appalling consequences for innocent people. That God is happy with diversity was advanced as one possible answer to Fractelle’s question. There are certainly other answers.

Yes, there are rules, Pericles. But not many. Fewer than most churches claim. Most Christians take the Bible seriously, some more than others. But this resource doesn’t resolve all issues as various interpretations are available on most questions. For example, the continual conflict between Jesus and those wielding religious power can be read as evidence that God does not want us to be bound by stifling rules. But this view is not widely held in the churches today. Similarly, the accounts of Jesus’ life all emphasise that he lived with and ministered to the poor primarily. One Gospel writer actually quotes Jesus saying the level of care for the marginalised is the only question God will bother asking at the pearly gates. Not theology, not baptism, not communion, not vestments, not the way we describe our relationship with God. But different scholars interpret these passages differently.

So it does seem safest to opt for the ‘unity within diversity’ position, acknowledging always that there are other positions. With this outlook, it will seldom be necessary to act ungraciously towards others who have alternative interpretations to our own. You don’t have to be Galileo to know that actions of exclusion usually turn out to be disastrously wrong.
Back later to respond to Mjpb.

Thanks, Mjpb. No, there is no question about Father Kennedy being an atheist. He definitely believes in God – but “an everywhere God” or “the ground of our being” rather than an “elsewhere God”. From his interviews this seems fairly clear. The problem Catholic conservatives seem to have is not Kennedy’s atheism but his views of Jesus and the relationship Jesus has with God the Father. These are less clear in the interviews available, but still seem within the bounds of orthodoxy. Especially as expressed in the church services he conducts.

We could find out soon. There are suggestions Father Kennedy’s priestly faculties may be removed. This could only be done for serious heresy and will presumably require a full hearing.

My “comparison with Kennedy and Jesus” I have actually sought to avoid. (Failed again.) But I have certainly advanced the comparison between St Mary’s and the early church. In deciding how to respond to this situation – or in Pericles’ terminology are we on the "Kennedy rools" or "Bathersby's yer man" team – what are our criteria for assessment?

The teaching of Spanish biblical scholar Juan Mateos (Google Message of Jesus by Juan Mateos) seems directly relevant: “He proposed to create a new society, in which people could be free and happy (Mt 5:3-10). To attain this people had to voluntarily renounce the three false values: money (thirst for riches), glory (ambition for recognition), power (desire to dominate). Instead of hoarding, sharing; instead of ambition, equality; instead of domination, solidarity and humble, voluntary service. Where there was rivalry, hatred and violence, there should be fraternity, love and life . . .
“However, Jesus did not propose an ideology, and for this reason he did not preach his message to everyone. To the people he spoke in parables, to start them thinking. What he wanted was to form a group where this ideal would be lived. As long as there are no such communities, there can be no salvation, the aim Jesus proposed will be nullified and his doctrine and example become just one more ideology.”

An interesting read, Alan A.

>>The teaching of Spanish biblical scholar Juan Mateos... seems directly relevant<<

This is the sentence that caught my eye:

"Firstly, there was total liberty in the group; [Jesus] never imposed a rule to be kept, a holy day to observe or an obligatory practice."

This would seem at first glance to contradict the entire teaching of the Catholic church, which has throughout history seen a never-ending stream of rules to be kept (fish on Friday, no condoms), a full calendar of holy (saints') days, and a whole series of obligatory practices such as the various forms of service, that, by the way, create tremendous insecurity in the non-initiated, constantly alert to be standing when everyone else is standing, sitting when everyone else is sitting, and kneeling when everyone else is kneeling...

Does the Pope know about this guy?

It would certainly seem to validate the formation of a separate congregation that Father Kennedy is after, if he intends to follow this particular example.

But can he call it Catholicism?

That's where Juan Mateos' views would seem to be contradictory.

If Mateos represents the nub of Catholic belief, then Kennedy has been very hard done by indeed.

But if he doesn't represent Catholic beliefs, why is his teaching so prominent on the Jesuit site?

http://www.jesuits.ca/orientations/mateos.htm

No wonder so many of my Catholic friends are schizoid. Thank goodness it is not a problem I have to wrestle with.

Hi Alan,

"He definitely believes in God – but “an everywhere God” or “the ground of our being” rather than an “elsewhere God”."

I'm open to that but could you clarify for me. If he believes in an everywhere God why wouldn't he talk to God? Also without a deity surely there is no God rather than an everywhere God. In the back of my mind I have the word "pantheism" but those who supposedly qualify for that belief system still talk about God and often reverantly with God as a ruler of the Universe. Kennedy isn't into that. I'm not used to the types of comments Kennedy makes so any clarification is welcome.

"From his interviews this seems fairly clear."

That is easy for you to say. After what he is said and you are saying he isn't an atheist I'm not getting that clarity just yet.

"The teaching of Spanish biblical scholar Juan Mateos (Google Message of Jesus by Juan Mateos) seems directly relevant:"

When he speaks of sharing I think of Kennedy denying his orthodox mate the weekday masses he is so attached to, when he speaks of humble I think of Kennedy calling press conferences and giving the finger to the local ordinary, when he speaks of equality and hatred I think of Kennedy's actions against the parishioner when he tried to photograph Fr Fitzgerald out of uniform at a baptism, when he speaks of violence I think of bomb threats against the Archbishop and people at his gates aggressively telling him he will burn in hell after he sent a letter saying St Mary's isn't in communion. You have probably guessed that I am also not relating to that analogy.

Yes, Pericles, agree with you again, including that you atheists have fewer problems than we Christians. Grrr.

Mjpb, from the webcast church services and the online interviews it really does seem clear Kennedy believes in God and talks to God. Where did you hear to the contrary? Have you watched the services?

On the question of weekday masses, would you agree that the early church met on the first day of the week, and for fellowship over an actual meal? If the church permits such wide variations of practice – as it should – why are the variations at St Mary’s so objectionable? Can your mate find an orthodox midweek service elsewhere?

The matter of Kennedy’s action towards the photographer is a tricky one. On the one hand Kennedy has openly apologised for this (see online) and explained he was acting out of concern for the families there. On the other hand there is precedence for taking direct action to eject from a place of worship those there for contrary purposes.
Is anyone at St Mary’s or anywhere else justifying anonymous bomb threats?

Finally, to the matter of giving the finger to the local ordinary. This is a proud Christian tradition, greatly to be encouraged, yet disappointingly infrequent in Australia. Jesus delivered the digit many times to the religious authorities of his day, including condemnations of the scribes, pharisees and priests with extremely insulting language. Throughout church history the finger has been delivered to virtually every magisterium by subsequent magisteriums. In 1992 the Vatican comprehensively smacked the authorities who rejected Galileo in 1633. More locally and more recently the authorities who excommunicated Mary MacKillop in 1871 were given the finger by the current pope.

A number of contemporary deliveries, including that of St Mary’s, are discussed here: http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=12889

"Where did you hear to the contrary?"

Courier Mail 21 Feb states:

Writer: "Are he and the Archbishop, I ask Kennedy, talking to the same God?"
Kennedy: "No. Not at all," he says without flinching. "In fact, I wouldn't talk to God, really."

"why ... variations ... so objectionable?"
I don't think they drove the Archbishop.

"The matter of Kennedy’s action towards the photographer is a tricky one. On the one hand Kennedy has openly apologised for this (see online) and explained he was acting out of concern for the families there."

Is that a fair summary? I did a google:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,24491415-3102,00.html

Kennedy through a spokesperson unequivocally denied an assault on a photographer involving knocking a mobile phone camera out of his hand but admitted that he had tried to stop him taking photographs. His version was that he could somehow tell that children were in the frame and it had nothing to do with previous disagreements. The alleged victim's stated that he was just taking a photo of a priest not wearing a vestment.

A covert recording of the incident was later played on a current affair program with the alleged victim saying "You have damaged my camera." Kennedy's voice responds: "Good I hope I have! If you don't get out I'll damage you. You have no right to be here." The alleged victim replies "I'm Catholic, I can be here." Kennedy replies: "You are here to break up this community".

Kennedy responded to the recording thusly: "I knocked the camera out of his hand and he yelled out, which is what you've got, "That's assault". Well, I then realised that I was behaving badly, if I had sense I would have said to the family, "Do you want these people here?""

"Is anyone at St Mary’s or anywhere else justifying anonymous bomb threats?"
No they are anonymous as I understand it.

"Finally, to the matter of giving the finger to the local ordinary. This is a proud Christian tradition..."

Without overanalysing the rest of your paragraph...Do you think Bathesby who is the local ordinary would warm to it?

Thanks for your responses and questions, Mjpb. After listening further online, here are mine for you.

Talking to God. In 2003 President Bush said: "God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did." Do we believe Bush really talked with God and received specific instructions? Many orthodox Catholics just don't. Is there room in the church for a range of experiences of prayer? Including that at St Mary's which from the broadcast services does seem quite vibrant?

In an earlier post you said Kennedy "considered Hindu mystics and the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta". Yes, he does list as influences several non-Christian mystics. But he includes12th century mystic Meister Eckert whose theology still has a place in the RC scheme of things. Perhaps the atheism question depends on what descriptions of God we find acceptable. From reactions to the minor changes at St Mary's to the christening rituals some seem to believe God is like a border guard who will exclude anyone whose baptismal paperwork isn't perfect. Rejecting this view of God doesn't make one an atheist.

On the matter of the damaged camera, I think we agree. Kennedy behaved badly. But the intruder wasn't there to support the family.

Did variations in celebrating Mass drive the bishop? Yes, in part. Letters from both John Bathersby and chancellor Adrian Farrelly refer to practices at the Eucharist, including wearing vestments and the congregation saying some prayers. There were other issues as well.

My final paragraph. Would Bathersby warm to it? Possibly not. But was it fair? As little-known post-Nicene father Alanaeus de Gard observed, "Pontificis calciatus rubrum peccare numquam antequam mortuus. Atquin mortuus longus." The man in the red shoes is never wrong until he is dead. But then he is dead a long time.

Thanks again.

Apart from the Charismatics (who have very vibrant services) many orthodox Catholics wouldn't expect to dialogue with God in such a direct manner or at least not expect such a direct answer. They would talk to God but not expect Him to whisper in their ear so to speak. I believe there is room and is already a range of experiences in prayer. In answer to your earlier question I haven't watched the internet displayed services.

He hasn't mentioned Meister Eckert in anything I have read so that is of interest. "Perhaps the atheism question depends on ...God is like a border guard ...Rejecting this view of God doesn't make one an atheist." Frustrations aside, maybe he isn't an atheist. It is just that someone who doesn't believe in talking to God and doesn't believe in a deity seems to be an atheist. However it seems so strange to demand to be a priest at a Church if you don't believe in a deity so I'm still open to understanding an alternative explanation to atheism.

"On the matter of the damaged camera, I think we agree. Kennedy behaved badly. But the intruder wasn't there to support the family."

It isn't such an obvious mind read but lets just say if in the article where Kennedy claimed it had nothing to do with previous events the alleged victim had said he was just there to support the family I would also have been skeptical. Unlike Kennedy no admissions however were recorded. I note though that my understanding is that the Baptism was just after the Mass which he had attended so whether or not a desire to support the family was required for attendance at such a public event at that time is open to consideration.

"But was it fair?" The ABC didn't seem to think so based on their reporting of the matter. However when Crittenden criticised them for pulling the Religion Report he was immediately suspended for 3 months. The least that can be said is that it is normal.

There are two competing systems of government in the world, and both of them grow out of the Holy Bible. This dispute shows up the differences in a very stark light. Roman Catholic Christians and Muslims are governed by an authoritarian model, based upon similar interpretations of the message Jesus Christ brought to the world. Whereas the model adopted by the English Catholics, from 1215 is the alternative model that stresses individuality, and where the governance of Protestant Christian churches is carried out, it is by the parish grass roots rather than from the Archbishop down.

This sad little dispute illustrates the difference. What is really sad is that despite an Australian Constitution, which is said to bind the courts judges and people of every State notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State, and to which Roman Catholic Australians agreed in 1900, by participating in the referendum in 1899, the spirit of the agreement has been dis-honored.

Most post war immigrants from Europe and most from Asia have no tradition of Protestant Christian Government, because when the English colonized most lands, they left in place the existing legal system, and did not transplant the one existing in England except to the extent that it applied to their subjects while in those lands. The United States adopted the English model, in their Constitution, and while there are transplanted continental systems being introduced there, in parallel with the Protestant Christian tradition, it is quite obvious from literature that their system is mostly healthy.

Australia is a different story. Because of the small population, disinformation, and a mistaken belief by many that we are a secular country has allowed the Continental model to become established, with serious effects on the application of the Constitution. The Continental model is predicated on professional Judges. Trained from an early age, in an inquisitorial tradition, the Judges never practice as lawyers. Whereas it is fine to have lawyers preside in any court, it is not fine to have them as Judges. We cannot be half Catholic, we should be all or nothing

Your slip is showing, PtB.

>>There are two competing systems of government in the world, and both of them grow out of the Holy Bible<<

Has anyone informed Beijing of this? They'd be horrified to discover that their system of government is somehow non-competitive.

Anyone told Delhi?

It is only inward-looking folk that see the world as a competition between Christians and Muslims, PtB.

The rest of us see the a normal distribution of good people, less good people, bad people and terrorists.

And each group contains an equal number of all religions, plus the category "none".

Pericles, that so-called 'believer' fellow knows something about China, having read his Australian Prayer Network newsletter today.

Read on about China-the Christian nation.

Seems they are attracted to the "clean and joyous lifestyle" offered.

"Jonathan Shibley, Vice President of Global Advance says there has been substantial growth in the number of Christians in China, especially in Chinese business circles and predicts that within ten years China could become a Christian country. "All of a sudden, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of small businessmen fellowships taking place, both within major corporations in China, and within homes," reports Mission News Network.

"So businessmen are beginning to get a glimpse of what the Gospel looks like, transforming not only their own lives, but transforming the culture around them and becoming salt and light." It is estimated that around 8% of China's population are adherents of Christianity. In some provinces and regions it goes as high as 10%. Previously, 80% if not more of new people were becoming Christian because of healing miracles. Now they are attracted because of the clean and joyous lifestyle".

Well of course, The Blue Cross, that's where I get all my news from too.

>>Pericles, that so-called 'believer' fellow knows something about China, having read his Australian Prayer Network newsletter today.<<

However they have gathered their data, and whether or not the number is 8% or 10%, or a number much larger or smaller, it doesn't contradict the point that I was making.

PtB's claim was that:

>>There are two competing systems of government in the world, and both of them grow out of the Holy Bible<<

I merely pointed out that - ignoring all other aspects of his statement, which is itself considerably arguable - one look at China shows it to be wrong.

It is a well-known and understood theme on this forum for Christians to state categorically that we are at war with Islam. I make no apology for taking a metaphorical kick at those who push this barrow, every time it is wheeled into the discussion.

Sorry Pericles... I understand... I was mocking St. Peter, is all.

But of course, as the Internet tale of the ever evangelical US Army unfolds, the expose of the Good Work some Baptist soldiers are undertaking on behalf of Christendom, with the distribution of bibles in the local lingo, it would show that many do actually believe 'our' war is every bit a 'war against Islam'.

Check out this sad tale of gross stupidity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntZz37IZ1uk&feature=channel

And this story:

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/62269

And the Pew Global Forum shows that Christians, particularly the white trash variety in the US, believe torture is fine, and shootemup tactics are great, in this global war on sinners.

But the Pope will save us, bringing his special intelligence to the issue of Israel's invasion of Palestine... won't he?

And that will prove the superiority of Xtians over all sinners, especially Jews and Muslims....and add to the conversion rate of the heathen Chinese... just those pesky Injuns to go now.

Apologies for the mis-read The Blue Cross, very much a case of premature expostulation, it would seem.

Some posters are able to say exactly what you said, but actually mean it as well.

Scary, but true.

*Pericles*

I note yr quip re PtB. He could have perhaps better defined parameters, but still, I find some of his "church/legal history" contributions interesting, and note with interest that no one yet has challenged the substance that he raises, but rather just the manner in which he does it.

As for your loose language though, what does "schizoid" in relation to some of your catholic friends mean?

..

Coming back to it, and to push the chair back a bit so to speak, I think generally amongst the so called "Christian" world it is acknowledged and recognised, that is is the *Christ Being* that is the Head of the Church, not the pope.

So then it becomes a question of who knows what the God Concept would have of us.

Now, if in the catholic tradition it is accepted that a priest can be personally inspired by the "Divine" then I would assume that the entirety of Kennedy's views ought to be heard.

Now, I would agree with PtB that this should be public and with the full involvement of the parishioners. To conduct these sorts of affairs in back rooms without explanation is to me to fundamentally disrespect the Spiritual Individuality of all of those persons involved.

But then with the prejudice of catholicism, in that some how woman are less worthy for "Godly" duties and Gays are somehow unworthy, then perhaps the result for the st mary's parish ought be no surprise.

My view, lands conditionally bequeathed to the catholic church should be taken away from them and redistributed to others who do not preach prejudice and bigotry.

Loose language, DreamOn?

>>As for your loose language though, what does "schizoid" in relation to some of your catholic friends mean?<<

I am not well known for careless usage.

Here is the definition that underpins my observation:

"Schizoid personality disorder is characterized by a persistent withdrawal from social relationships and lack of emotional responsiveness in most situations. It is sometimes referred to as a 'pleasure deficiency' because of the seeming inability of the person affected to experience joyful or pleasurable responses to life situations."

Assuming you don't disagree with that as a definition, it accurately describes the emotions experienced by many of my Catholic friends when attempting to come to terms with their religion in the twentyfirst century.

They are these days flooded with an absolute tsunami of concepts and ideas that previous generations never had to contend with. Arguments over AIDS, contraception, paedophilia, celibacy etc. abound - plus, of course, gallons of stuff about local rebel priests, and the conflict of ritual versus progressive communitarianism or whatever.

Where it used to arrive in small paragraphs in newspapers, and could easily be filtered through the roseate lens of the parish priest, now it is everywhere.

Increasingly, they find themselves unable to reconcile the beliefs that they were brought up with as children, and that they had been for a while comfortable with as adults, with the contradictions and conflicts that they are exposed to, every day.

When our conversation turns to religion, as it tends to whenever topics such as politics, health, education, bringing up children etc. are raised - the normal gamut of adult conversation, in fact, they tend to withdraw, very quickly. Their religion has, to all intents and purposes, become a joyless burden to them. Which, of course, they assume to be part of God's will, and accept that it is a form of toughening-up for their trip through Purgatory.

>>re PtB [I] note with interest that no one yet has challenged the substance that he raises<<

Most certainly I have. But it is like talking to a brick wall. Anything that questions his position is ignored,

*Pericles*

No, granted, generally from my reading of yr posts U r not one usually to bandy language loosely.

Still, "schiz" disorders and the definition you provide may actually be referring to the manifestation of what is termed "flat effect."

It is recognised that neuroleptic medication of the antagonist variety, those that block receptor types reducing their bio-electrical efficacy, can produce this effect.

Thus, emotional response is blunted and not fully devloped, spontaneous and dynamic. In fact, my reading in the area suggests that the rate of thought in the consciousness stream can be drastically reduced from the "norm" for people who take this form of medication.

So, when I first read yr comment I wondered if you had a collection of certifiably crazy catholic friends who were taking too much medication?

;-)

I didn't actually, but I wasn't sure so thankU for clarifying.

Still "schiz" as the root word, I forget, perhaps something like "to be set aside or to be aside from the group, self absorbed, self consumed with inner considerations?

From a scientific medical point of view, as our understanding of the nature of these diseases grows so does our desire for more accurate words to describe relevant pathology.

Apology accepted, DreamOn.

>>Still "schiz" as the root word, I forget, perhaps something like "to be set aside or to be aside from the group, self absorbed, self consumed with inner considerations?<<

In fact the root schiz- comes quite straightforwardly from the Greek schizein, to split.

http://www.myetymology.com/greek/schizein.html

Mr Kennedy should be subject to an IQ test. He's a disgrace and possibly borderline retarded if not just deviant. If he is not intentionally leading people away from the Catholic church, than he does so from sheer stupidity. I wonder if their would be this much uproar and media attention had it been a Rabbi or Islamic Cleric?

We need the Catholic Church to be strong and rigid as society gets so full of itself that it implodes. We need it to not change with the times and maintain all that Christ God our Savior has given us- which is infinite in value and given to every human being- even the unborn!

Bach,

I doubt Father Kennedy is retarded. Few atheists can convince a large group of people that they have a God given right to be running the Catholic Church of their choosing.

Alan,

On the topic of atheism. The ABC had a story on Sunday about Fr Kennedy and Fr Fitzpatrick. It had him saying that there is no evidence whatsoever that God exists. Do you still think he is not an atheist?

It was a fascinating story which addressed some of the rumours floating around in the Catholic Church about Father Kennedy. There have been rumours circulating that Father Fitzpatrick has a child which he was carefully concealing. On the program his son was interviewed. Naturally double standards applied and the heterosexual nature of Fitzpatrick's liaison meant that he wasn't demonised as a result for his broken vows. The program also showed Fr Kennedy not only in the small Toowong(?) Brisbane flat that the media have previously associated with him but also at his Gold Coast property. Naturally the issue of how he got it or why he didn't fulfil the saintly media construct of him by selling it and assisting the poor with the proceeds was not raised. The program indicated that in spite of everything the Church still pays him a salary and he hasn't been excommunicated. It also had Fr Kennedy confessing to assaulting Mr Stokes. The early denials have evaporated and his version of events is the same as Mr Stokes' early allegations. Obviously the recording the ABC have aired previously was quite incriminating and self explanatory and explains why he now fesses up and why he doesn't persist with his early story about why he wanted Mr Stokes to go.

In spite of all this the program was very much set up to make Fr Kennedy look good. The revelations were probably more of an attempt to defang his detractors by getting the bad stuff in first in a favourable context than to portray him in a poor light.

Alan,

I have just had time to read your original article. I am not confident that the French media got their facts correct and I have questions and comments:

“No one can recall a case like it.”
It is very unusual for a liberal Catholic priest to turn on a liberal Catholic Archbishop like that as if attempting to get excommunicated or something. Further, liberal Bishops tend to only remove orthodox priests like the Fr Speekman (http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2007/feb2007p7_2444.html) incident but it makes sense as Kennedy seemed determined to force Batthersby to take action.

“The sacked priest at the centre of the conflict, Father Peter Kennedy…”
Kennedy may have admitted to assaulting a parishioner, admitted to being an atheist, given the finger to his boss, and refused to do his job but he has not been sacked. He has just been moved from St Mary’s. He is still on the Catholic Church payroll. After several months (if not years) of begging for Kennedy to do his job the Archbishop took a very gentle approach.

“Finally the complainants went direct to Rome. The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ruled in February that only the traditional names could be used. Then Bathersby was obliged to do what he never wanted to do and dismiss the errant priest.”

Yes but the ruling was February, 2008!

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801159.htm

Even late last year and early this year Batthersby was still giving Kennedy the opportunity to do valid Baptisms. Kennedy refused and made a lot of public criticisms of the Church.

“John Bathersby … absence from mediation meetings was worse.”
Is that what they tell you in France? Kennedy refused to attend mediation. (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25195404-3102,00.html)

“… win approval from a generally anti-religious watching world.”
If a Catholic priest questions any normal understanding of the Christian faith (eg. life after death, heaven, God, divinity of Christ) and bags the Catholic Church of course an anti-religious watching world will give approval.

" ... If a Catholic priest questions any normal understanding of the Christian faith ... "

Maybe its U who are not normal?

To say that there is no evidence of "God" does not make you an atheist. It just means that you are very likely rational, or perhaps you can enlighten us to the existence of such evidence mjbp?

No, I seem to recall you alleging as fact that the concept of there being many paths to God was a "new age" nonsense. The truth of course is that unless you are prophessing to 1st hand experience of the mystical then you cannot know this to be true, which to my way of thinking makes you no different from any other frothing at the mouth fanatic, who seeks to assert belief as fact.

"To say that there is no evidence of "God" does not make you an atheist. It just means that you are very likely rational..."

Therefore to believe that there is plenty of evidence that God does exist would mean that you're irrational. So Einstein for instance would be irrational by your definition.

Evolution is still indeed a theory and further more if evolution was a primary means to life and diversity it certainly does not prove that God does not exist. Yet to believe that there is not something great that put purpose and the fundamental pursuit of life into all organisms is merely simplistic arrogant denial. Just because we start to discover the mechanics of life does not mean that there is not a creator, on the contrary it proves there most certainly is a creator.

Think about all the billions and trillions of 'mere coincidences' that must have occurred to create and sustain life! Mathematicians (atheist ones at that) have worked it out to be almost in comprehensible.

Let's say for instance that God does not exist. What has society gained by making that assumption? To get rid of God's Law, the Ten Commandments, is to instill subjectivity in moral law- altered and manipulated by the current times it leaves us in total moral decay under the false pretense that it is 'good' simply because the majority rules. Just like abortion. We don't exactly know when life is life so 'rationally' how can we assume to know when life is not life. And what is at stake is a 'life'. Which it seems today is not worth that much. This is one example of the fruits of secularism.

There is most certainly a God and that God is a loving God. Man gets nothing from pretending that God does not exist, except freedom from guilt to serve his own purpose at the expense of others.

Well, Einstein never did have success with the development of a "Theory of Everything," and also had difficulty in his understanding of the fundamentals of particle physics.

Please note however, that I say not that to in anyway to undermine or belittle his "HugE" contributions to science and society. He was, by most accepted definitions I suspect, a giant in the intellectual arena.

However, I would be surprised to learn that he didn't know the difference between "belief" and fact, as science and law accept the definitions of these words.

The problem that I have with people like mjbp, and you too bach, is not that you have a Monotheist God concept, and not because you want to believe. It is because you assert "belief" as fact.

You can believe something, but that does not make it so. And if you run around stating belief as fact, you will soon enough be tagged as being delusional.

On the contrary, there is certainly much scientifically acceptable evidence in both the fossil and genetic record to suggest that the "theory of evolution" has much merit, though I would personally accept that this does not preclude the existence of Gods, or God ..

Of course, I don't think that serious science asserts evolutionary theories for the purposes of disproving God concepts.

As for abortion, that is the sole right of the individual who is pregnant i.m.o. Not some raving fanatic who seeks to tell what others may or may not do with their own body.

As already said by others:

"Keep yr rosaries off our ovaries!"

you asserted in your initial post that if one was to state 'there is no evidence of the existence of god' then that person is likely rational. Are we to assume if any evidence of god existed than you'd know about it? That you've done the research yourself?

In my last post I drew your attention to the fact that Einstein believed in the existence of god. To which you replied: "Well, Einstein never did have success with the development of a "Theory of Everything," and also had difficulty in his understanding of the fundamentals of particle physics."

I'm curious to know what difficulties Einstein had in "his understanding of the fundamentals of particle physics." because from what I know, Einstein was a pioneer in the field.

Though it seems that Einstein and any scientist, doctor, philosopher, academic etc who sees the evidence of the existence of god, by your standards are merely irrational disillusioned fools.

Now, to the worn mindless chants of "keep your rosaries of our ovaries". I'd like to point out to you that it's not actually your ovaries that pro-life advocates care about, rather anything after the point of conception. The reasoning is is that we actually believe that all beings have a right to exist (as irrational as that may seem to you). Therefore not even a mother has the right to terminate her child's life. If we knew at exactly what point life was life than we could understand abortion. Yet the truth is is that no one knows when a life is a life. So rationally, because life is so very valuable, we can't in good conscience endorse the decision to abort.

Abortion is a multi-billion dollar industry. Many mothers (or dead infants) who have abortions frequently go through immense episodes of chronic depression. Research the techniques that 'practitioners' use to terminate life, and also the agony in-which the unborn baby goes through and also the mental and physical scars that a mother must live with.

I suspect that if there was more than just subjective testimony as to the evidence of God, Gods, non corporeal existence or otherwise, that it would very quickly become BIG NEWS.

" ... I'm curious to know what difficulties Einstein had in "his understanding of the fundamentals of particle physics." because from what I know, Einstein was a pioneer in the field. ... "

*Eistein* by some accounts was a lover of certainty and predictability. With particle physics, we have not the tech to do more (as of the last news that I read) than to express in terms of probability. i.e. it is likely that the majority of the particles will fall within the confines of area "y" Of course, he did make a famous contribution in the understanding of the wave particle duality.

A good introductory book i.m.o. is something like:
"The Dancing Wu Li Masters"
As for Einstein, you may care to refer to the chapter entitled:
"Einstein doesn't like it."

I think that for purposes of discussion, it is helpful if "we" can agree on the definition of certain terms, as I suspect what you consider to be the definition of evidence by scientific and legal standards is somewhat other.

No, the mother does have the right. The likes of you simply "believe" otherwise, and we note the catholic churches history of persecuting free willed women during the witch hunts.

I agree with the Belgians, the delusional head of the vatican should not be heard. Otherwise perhaps he ought consider focusing on feeding the children that are, instead of letting them starve by the thousands whilst he wastes precious resource on his dogmatic, misplaced idealism and religious fervor.

http://www.misoprostol.org/File/guidelines.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misoprostol

Misoprostol/mifepristone (RU-486)

The World Health Organisation has a lot of scientific medical info on the matter.

From the ovaries comes the egg and the fact that the egg may become one with a sperm does not constitute grounds for others to claim rights over the body of the individual in question. If said individual wishes to induce menstruation on grounds of rape, health, youth or if she simply does not want to make the necessary committment for her own reasons, then that is her right.

catholics in particular ought be wary of making representations likely to incite violence.

DreamOn,

”Maybe its U who are not normal?”

Perhaps. But that doesn’t change the fact that he questions any normal understanding of the Christian faith. It is no secret that believing Jesus is God or that God exists are a normal part of the faith. Most atheists would be aware of that.

”To say that there is no evidence of "God" does not make you an atheist. It just means that you are very likely rational, or perhaps you can enlighten us to the existence of such evidence mjbp?”

When people say there is no evidence of God it indicates that they are an atheist. There is a theoretical possibility that a Christian could somehow have that belief and they made the statement to explain a particularly pedantic and surprising belief system. But that would be very surprising and it would be even more surprising if they didn't explain a statement like that if they did believe in God given that it makes them appear to be an atheist. Haven’t you heard about the evidence for God? You know creation, Jesus etc.? To suggest that anyone who accepts evidence of God is irrational is a little over the top.

” I seem to recall you alleging as fact that the concept of there being many paths to God was a "new age" nonsense.”

I don’t. Do you recall the exact words or the discussion topic? It is difficult to discuss something I don’t recall saying.

As regards ovaries I am still unclear how you are linking abortion to ovaries. The gamete from the ovary is not considered a living being. It is only when it combines with sperm and resides in the uterus it is considered a living being. The slogan doesn't seem to make sense. I don't know what you mean about inducing menstruation after rape? If it isn't the periodic blood flow and you are referring to the result of an abortion drug which looks similar surely it wouldn't be menstruation? Could you put your explanation another way?

No, I regret that my view remains that you continue to assert belief as fact.

You may "BELIEVE" that JC is God but not all Christian faiths are so. So, no it is not a fact that that he questions "normal" Christian views, whatever normal is supposed to mean.

Again, to say that someone who expresses the view that there is no evidence for God of necessity makes them an atheist is a nonsense and goes to support the contention that you simply do not understand what the word "evidence" means.

No, it's not over the top. The fact that there is a "creation" as you put it does not "evidence" that God exists. Neither does a story about a man called Jesus evidence that there is a God. For all you "know" it could just be a fairy tale.

If you were to say "I believe" that there is a God, and that IT created everything in 7 days or whatever, and something about JC, then that is fine. But you do not "know" of your own senses that these things are so, and neither do you have the "evidence" that it is so. These words have very particular meaning.

Unless of course you claim to have had 1st hand experience of God and that he has somehow made you aware that God made everything etc etc?

..

Maybe you should read the published medical threads if you wish to understand medically induced menstruation/abortion.

..

I have to wonder whether the vatican is really primarily concerned about their so called right to life notions, or perhaps rather is being driven by their belief that Baby Jesus will come again and they are doing their bit to ensure the risk of him becoming medical waste is minimised?

Afterall, didn't they even fiddle the calendar in an attempt to avoid the for want of a better term, "Herrodian Impulse"

Or does someone know that secretly somewhere Baby Jesus is growing up as we speak?