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