Foxy,

I'm just concerned that you might be gazing at me with your cyber eyes with great expectations and if I don't react the way you want me to it will hurt you.

Wouldn't it be safer if I didn't give you feedback after I finish it then if you are supremely confident about how it will affect me you can live with that.

I'd be comfortable to do that. I just don't want you to be disappointed just in case.

The book is well written and interesting to me. It is better than I thought it would be in some respects. Coincidentally when I first got it I immediately flicked through and was holding it when a young priest walked in the door of my place of work (not a particularly common occurrance). That made me self conscious and I tried to address it by suggesting that perhaps he could bless or exorcise the book and mumbled an explanation about why I had acquired it. He replied words to the effect "Paul Collins! You should just burn it!" It put a smile on my face when I read Collins' apparent negativity toward the current crop of young priests. The feelings seem to be mutual.

From what I've read so far I like the highlighting of the work of the Catholic Church but note that he is described as a "historian" on the first page yet his treatment of celibacy is amazingly historically thin with the 11th Century property comment and a reasonably likely misguided comment about apostles and a comment about their successors which misses the continence issue and a recourse to the stereotype about the Eastern branch that I know to be incorrect from my recent research. Perhaps his historical endeavours are more specialised and don't encompass that.

And the inside gos on the Brisbane Archbishop which confirmed the rumours was fascinating. That is the second time he has thumbed his nose at the Pope recently. He has always had that image as a covert thing but until recently it wasn't public. Perhaps as he approaches retirement he is increasingly emboldend (if that is a word).

Dear mjpb,

Your insights are very interesting and
I would be grateful to hear more of them.
Please don't worry about what I may or
may not think. My ego is not that big -
that I have to be right or that I want
you to agree with me. I respect and value
your opinion. Plus, I am interested
in opinions that may differ from my own.
How else will we learn and grow?
Although I suspect we've got more in
common that we realize. You certainly
had an effect on me - and made me
re-think so many things.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I would be
interested to get your take on the book.

Okay Foxy it would probably be disrespectful to not proceed after you have said that. I do note that it wasn’t your ego that I was concerned about it was just that human quality of yearning for something and getting disappointed. If I understand your rethinking comment correctly then perhaps we do have more in common than I thought. I RCIAed from a kind of sympathetic atheism into an Collins-like environment which excluded me from other perspectives. I found it both inspiring yet unsatisfying enough to look outside the Church. I eventually found something that where all the pieces seemed to fit but it turned out to be in the same Church I had struggled with. I’ll explain the impression I formed of Collins as, while it formed contemporaneously with getting the information from him, it may effect how I interpreted the information.

I get the impression he is a self identifying Catholic. He is very much an elderly man and unless expensive medical attention, healthy lifestyle, or a familial predisposition toward longevity kick in he statistically would be lucky to be around in 10 years time and I think he knows it. He appears to be a mover and shaker in that his activism appears to extend beyond the book. What he tries to achieve with his book is just an example of a hobby or passion. I sense fear of orthodox Catholics in his reaction to young priests and overseas priests. Perhaps this explains why he risks exaggerating when dismissing their significance (eg. what appears a reasonable estimate of people attending Latin Masses, given their minority, is included. It appears authoritative due to the reference. However I did some quick mental calculations which had me question the credibility, and track back the reference. He just references it to a conversation he had with someone). If I correctly sense fear it may explain his tolerance (which I would guess would normally be out of character) of what appears to be racism. In a particular context he is willing to rationalize it.

CONT

Another symptom may be his willingness to go into great detail on some things but gloss over things that are central to his argument as if he wants to fire off arguments that advance his wishes even if he isn’t confident he can cross horns with the orthodox arguments. Yet another example is, after buttering up Bishops with similar views with the pastoral label holding that rejecting Catholic doctrine and rejecting papal authority equates to prioritizing the flock and manifesting Christian headship (eg. p120 - 121 or p152 or p124), he calls for Bishops to do things which could reasonably be expected to result in excommunication. That seems unrealistic to expect but he calls them to action anyway as if he is trying anything.

He appears to believe that the power base for his belief system is Australia.

I believe that in spite of his vintage he has a good feel for many contemporary norms but, as Oliver points out, appears to misunderstand others. Although he seems willing to caricature his ‘opponents’ at times he correctly points out that the different camps shouldn’t be caricatured. Finally he demonstrates that he has some commitment to the Catholic faith (even if he rejects details) this enabled me to de-villainise him a little and discover more commonalities. Do you want multi-post detail of specific musings about the book? I’ll get started when the post limit allows just in case.

Never before have I seen such a refreshing detailing of the function of certain parts of the Catholic Church in society. I am not obtuse to the fact that he is partly wielding this as a way of lessening the importance of the core religious aspects by showing how much bigger it is but it is something that was long overdue to be researched and put in a book. It also demonstrates that he is not completely hostile toward the Church. Although a much more difficult and sensitive subject, his portrayal of the management of the abuse crisis in the Church as having tilted too far in the opposite direction also I believe contained an element of affection for the Church in spite of an incorporated implication that Bishops just can’t get it right so we need to guide them more.

I have no reason to doubt his interesting history of Catholicism in Australian society. Naturally it is written from his point of view and demonizes those who disagree with him but I don’t believe that he holds the monopoly on that approach. However his treatment of the history of celibacy was disappointing to say the least. I believe he devotes all of one paragraph to the issue (p77). It completely ignores the scriptures relied upon by the Church to support celibacy and virtually ignores the entire relevant history both that established by historical orthodoxy and certain issues that aren’t there yet but appear relevant as I have discussed. I wondered whether his research was 5 minutes of googling or whether he deliberately omitted the historical counterargument. Neither are probably ideal for a historian. I would have felt more comfortable if he had at least had a bash at arguing against the issues rather than failing to locate or avoiding them.

His comments about fundamentalist scripture quoting and communication difficulties between Church officials and non-religious are probably correct to that extent (eg. p63).