"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".