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