Wednesday, March 04, 2009

An original analysis of the situation at St Mary's

...from a very interesting perspective.

Michael Carden describes himself as "an out gay man, a biblical scholar and currently (Jan 2009) an honorary research advisor in the School of History, Philosophy Religion and Classics at University of Queensland, Brisbane Australia." He has "a long history of trade union, queer community and AIDS activism in Brisbane", and "counts [himself] as a fringe Catholic by religion" who "sit[s] across the boundaries of a variety of catholic communions including the Roman one."

I refer you to his three part (so far) anaylsis:

http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2009/03/st-marys-1.html
http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2009/03/st-marys-2.html
http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2009/03/st-marys-3.html

I appreciate his anaylsis because I believe it to generally be either "wrong for the right reasons" or "right for the wrong reasons".

Except in one matter in particular in which I believe he is absolutely right, and that is in regard to the Eucharist:
I used to attend St Mary's fairly regularly but by 2002 had effectively walked away from it as I believed that it had stopped performing any kind of eucharist that I could recognise as such...

The whole life of the church, indeed its very existence is grounded in the eucharist. Without the eucharist there is no church period...

I also noticed that the eucharistic prayers began to change. More and more it seemed that St Mary's had developed its own anaphora or eucharistic prayer. More and more these prayers began to abandon the standard characteristics of what made a eucharist a eucharist. In the end the only thing eucharistic about it the was the words of institution. But the prayer as a whole lacked any explicit reference to Christ let alone to anything of the sacrificial real presence. Without the words of institution it could have been used in any sort of religious setting Christian or non-Christian with no problem whatsoever. In other words it had been evacuated of any meaningful content whatsoever. Hence I walked. It's a bit like turning up for a vegan feast and constantly being presented with spare ribs. What was happening at St Mary's was a communion service of some sort but not a eucharist.
Or, I would say, like turning up for a spare ribs feast and being offered a vegan dish. But then, I am an unrepentant carnivore (having a tough time during lent. I made a fairly tasty meatless version of chow mien for tea last night, though, a sort of cabbage curry... The kids liked it, believe it or not. But that's another story...)

46 Comments:

At Wednesday, March 04, 2009 2:28:00 pm , Anonymous matthias said...

Interesting comments by one who is truly a fringe dweller,and not at all supportive of Kennedy's Mob. Let Kennedy take his flock down to the Trades and Labour Council and see how long it would last as a congregation recognisable as being at all Christian.

 
At Wednesday, March 04, 2009 2:38:00 pm , Blogger Kiran said...

Interesting. Thank you. I am not nearly as omnivorous as you, and wouldn't have come across this otherwise.

I do sympathise about the spare ribs thing, being in much the same situation. Do share your chow mein story.

 
At Wednesday, March 04, 2009 6:10:00 pm , Blogger Louise said...

an out gay man

This is his first description of himself. See, I describe myself as a Catholic wife and mother. My most important aspects of being (woman being incorporated into wife and mother, of course).

Just saying.

 
At Wednesday, March 04, 2009 6:11:00 pm , Blogger Tony said...

This is what I talkin' about David.

It shows:
- that 'liberals', 'dissenters', insert-favourite-label here, are not some homegenious group with identical views (just as true of other 'labeled' groups too).
- there are things we can agree on or find common ground on in even the most unlikely types.

FWIW I think this post is less divisive than your 'Kung is Sad' effort.

surre: when you arre really certain

 
At Wednesday, March 04, 2009 9:33:00 pm , Blogger Louise said...

It shows:
- that 'liberals', 'dissenters', insert-favourite-label here, are not some homegenious group with identical views (just as true of other 'labeled' groups too).


I don't think anyone here really thinks that people adhere strictly to whatever labels are placed on them.

I don't mind labels, personally, they do convey some accurate information. My own descriptor of "Catholic wife and mother" is accurate and self-explanatory. That doesn't mean I agree with all other Catholic wives and mothers or vice versa.

I have no problem with "being divisive" myself, if it only means that people disagree with each other. And that does seem to be all it means.

In general, liberals are "provocative", "thoughtful" or "questioning the status quo" or "thinking for themselves.

Conservatives are "divisive."

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 1:14:00 am , Blogger eulogos said...

It seems that this man has faith, but like the rich young man, he went away sad. He has counted the cost and found it too high. I think we ought to pray for him.
Susan Peterson

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 7:55:00 am , Blogger Tony said...

It seems that this man has faith, but like the rich young man, he went away sad. He has counted the cost and found it too high. I think we ought to pray for him.

It seems to me that that is extraordinarily patronising Sue.

Conservatives are "divisive."

Tell me you can't see the irony in that Louise.

Labels, like the moon, have a dark side and light side. The light side is a useful shortcut when there is a consensus about what they mean. The dark side, the one I object to, is when they're used as rhetorical weapons; when they are used to 'position' your 'opponent'.

So I didn't make, and haven't made(and will not make), any statement suggesting that conservatives are "divisive". Not only would it would go against the very point I'm making, but it just ain't true!

My experience has been that people who are really sure they're right often use that as a reason to justify divisiveness and arrogance. No one group has a monopoly on that!

It seems to me that a sign of a strong faith is much more likely to be humility and a genuine capacity to see the POV of another. How many times? As many times as we're asked to forgive I suppose.

I'm not talking about a 'soft' approach here and I'm not suggesting that we should hold back from expressing our view.

Disclaimer: I don't claim to be a paragon of virtue in this context!

incravi: insatiable desire for all things Italian

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 9:11:00 am , Blogger An Liaig said...

One of the problems with labels is that they allow us to judge people who we would never dream of judging as individuals. In line with the desert fathers I know only my own soul and I know that I am a sinner who dares not judge any other soul. Even if their labels are self applied, even if those labels are gay, or abortionist or terrorist, I dare not judge them lest I be judged. However, because labels distance me from the person the label is applied to, the temptation to judge is there. This doesn't mean, of course, that I can't say the actions are immoral or that the views expressed are inconsistant with the teachings of Christ and His Church.

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 9:35:00 am , Blogger Tony said...

However, because labels distance me from the person the label is applied to, the temptation to judge is there.

This sums up, much better that I have so far (and in a much calmer tone!), what I'm expressing concern about.

aleit: to solve a problem by drinking another beer.

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 9:55:00 am , Anonymous matthias said...

I learnt many years ago to stop labelling people. phillip yancy's book "so what's amazing about grace" is a lesson in not labelling people ,whilst challenging sinful actions. C Everett Koop -Regan's Surgeon General - was a conservative Christian,yet he sought to stop the spread of HIV/AIDs ,whilst calling the gay community when he addressd them 'sodomites" .they yelled out "Koop Koop" because they saw thatn although he challenged their sinful behaviour ,he was the only one who was standing up for them at the highest levels of government.

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 11:15:00 am , Blogger Tony said...

I accept the thrust with what your saying Matthais, but I have a real problem with 'sodomites' because that is as bad as any label can get.

The dictionary meaning refers to 'any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality'.

I'm here to tell you that homosexuals don't have a monopoly on this!

It's also not a 'pre-condition' of homosexuality that they engage in 'any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality' anymore than it is with heterosexuals.

(It's one of the real bug-bears I have with the whole issue of homosexuality. The term 'homosexual acts' is bandied about like it has some 'taken as read' meaning.)

When we talk of heterosexuals there are generally no assumptions about the rightness or wrongness of their 'acts' even though it is safe to assume that morally questionable sexual 'acts' are pretty widespread among heterosexuals.

Two men kissing and hugging each other might be an 'act' in a gay bar or a soccer game.

unduc: the motion of recovering from a bow.

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 12:03:00 pm , Anonymous matthias said...

The gist is Tony and I hope you are not acting as an agent provocateur,that Koop was actively interested in their well being but at the same time made it clear that he did not agree with their sexuality.
Morally questionable sexual acts amongst heterosexuals yes like adultery,group sex,swingers, and in some cases paedophilia,and I think of the young girl Sherre Beazely who was sexually abused and then died at the hands of a married man -who was also an elder in a presbyterian church.
But if you have trouble with my quoting the word "Sodomite" wait until good cardinal pole arrives.

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 12:19:00 pm , Blogger Tony said...

Matthias,

I have 'trouble' for the very same reasons articulated before.

If nothing else, An Liaig's point applies:

... labels distance me from the person the label is applied to, the temptation to judge is there.

The label is presumptuous and implies 'acts' are a determinate of sexual orientation. It's not true of homosexuals any more than it is of heterosexuals. Judging 'acts' (however you actually define them) depend on circumstances, not orientation. 'Sodomite' implies a certain type of 'act' that may be applied to homosexuals or heterosexuals.

So, if it is OK to describe homosexuals as 'Sodomites' then I guess it would be OK to do the same for heterosexuals. I don't think it's OK for either.

hrottin: bad breath

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 12:36:00 pm , Anonymous matthias said...

Except Tony the act of sodomy is condemned in the Bible" it is an abominaton for a man to lie with another man" ,thus the name "sodomite" is used to label one who commits that act. you mighthave a copy of the Devised Standard Version of the Bible that might have a different interpretation. However I have no truck with the Westbro Baptist Church who seem to think they know God's mind and seem to impute thatGod does not love gays/lesbians. Funny all the members have the same surname-Phelps.

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 12:56:00 pm , Blogger Tony said...

Except Tony the act of sodomy is condemned in the Bible" it is an abominaton for a man to lie with another man" ,thus the name "sodomite" is used to label one who commits that act.

That, again, is presumptuous. It assumes that there is a common definition. I'd strongly suggest there is not. Labels are particularly damaging when they're used as a pejorative (I assume even Koop wasn't pretending this was a flattering description!) and where there are very different understandings (the example of the Westbro Baptist Church is very relevant in that context!).

Notwithstanding that, my status as a heterosexual neither depends on who I sleep with (I may be a heterosexual celibate for example) or what I do.

So to refer to homosexuals as 'sodomites' assumes that they are engaged in a particular activity and assumes that activity is essential to their sexual orientation.

slyst: sneaky hairdresser

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 1:16:00 pm , Anonymous matthias said...

I do not presume anything Tony except to call a spade a shovel. how does the term "sinners" go down with you if you do not like labels?? Big sins little sins ,no, all have come short of the Kingdom of God ..Sorry in this era of the Modern Smooth cross,they are not sinners,rather people who just need theological attitudinal adjustment!!No labels there

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 2:11:00 pm , Blogger Tony said...

I do not presume anything Tony except to call a spade a shovel.

Calling a spade a shovel has no moral connotations and is not subject to misinterpretation. Calling a homosexual a 'sodomite' or calling homosexuals 'sodomites' has both a moral connotation (an inaccurate and presumptuous one) and is subject to all sorts of misinterpretations (from the relatively benign to the downright nasty).

how does the term "sinners" go down with you ...

Depends on the context.

... if you do not like labels??

I don't 'not like' labels. As I said above, '... a useful shortcut when there is a consensus about what they mean'.

You don't seem to be consistent. Above, you say, 'I learnt many years ago to stop labelling people', which, I presume, means you don't like labels either.

Big sins little sins ,no, all have come short of the Kingdom of God ..Sorry in this era of the Modern Smooth cross,they are not sinners,rather people who just need theological attitudinal adjustment!!No labels there

I can imagine many contexts in which such a term would be appropriate and useful, and I can also imagine contexts where it would be as appropriate and useful as 'sodomites'.

I'm more interested in 'Timeless Accuracy' than 'Modern Smooth'.

diect: suicide cult

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 2:21:00 pm , Anonymous matthias said...

I don;t like labels-working with people who have a disability ,particularly mental illnesses taught me that and to not pidgeon hole them as depressed or psychotic ,however that is diagnostic and we are talking about activities that impinge upon Eternal destination,which falls within your Timeless Accuracy category. i understand your defence of the non use of the term sodomite ,if i offended you then i apologise but it does not take away the fact that like the rest of us they are sinners in need of repentance.

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 3:26:00 pm , Blogger Tony said...

I'm a little concerned that it is you who are 'acting as an agent provocateur'.

I don;t like labels-working with people who have a disability ,particularly mental illnesses taught me that and to not pidgeon hole them as depressed or psychotic ,however that is diagnostic

I too worked for nearly 20 years in that arena and had two brothers with severe disabilities. I learned close-hand how labels -- seemingly even diagnostic ones -- had the power to 'position' people and contribute to discrimination and oppression. Thus 'spastic' in some contexts was accurate in a diagnostic sense and pejorative (to put it mildly) in other contexts.

It was particularly my experience of the power of labeling with people with disabilities that set me on the path of awareness of labels in general.

and we are talking about activities that impinge upon Eternal destination,which falls within your Timeless Accuracy category.

No, we are talking about a label that assumes such activities. The term 'heterosexual' is independent of 'activity', just as the term 'homosexual' is independent of 'activity'. The term 'sodomite' however, assumes 'activity' and, depending on who says it and who hears it, it's meaning can - by way of analogy - be 'diagnostic' (that would be being very charitable) or 'pejorative'. To use it in the way Koop did falls very much into the latter IMO.

i understand your defence of the non use of the term sodomite ,if i offended you then i apologise ...

No need, I'm not personally offended. I believe such terminology is both unjust and, perhaps more importantly, inaccurate.

... but it does not take away the fact that like the rest of us they are sinners in need of repentance.

I haven't, at any stage, contested that.

chirk: to avoid going to church

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 3:35:00 pm , Blogger Schütz said...

Ummm... Have we got a little bit off topic, boys?

Still. I can't resist responding to this one:

Tony said:

It seems to me that a sign of a strong faith is much more likely to be humility and a genuine capacity to see the POV of another.

Well, humility is a virtue, and one ought always cultivate a "genuine capacity to see the POV of another". But in the NT "faith" (Gk. pistis - one of the three theological virtues) can also be translated "faithfulness", as in "be faithful unto death and I will give you the crown of life".

Thus strong faith is also the virtue remaining true and loyal to the Lord, especially when "the POV of another" argues against such loyalty.

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 3:44:00 pm , Blogger Tony said...

Try as I might David, I can't get a handle on your point.

I get lost after 'But' and can't see what follows from 'Thus'.

elizeran: marathon in honour of a queen.

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 3:53:00 pm , Anonymous matthias said...

I shall incommunicado myself for a time as punishment for going off the topic. With dark ale +++

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 4:01:00 pm , Blogger Vicci said...

Some good debate from you, Tony!
It's clear what points you are trying to make -and they are sound- even if others want to be a little bit snippy at the margin.
Matt and Dave take note.

Also like your 'chirk, and esp. diect.

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 4:04:00 pm , Blogger Tony said...

Matthias,

1. Dark Ale is hardly appropriate at this liturgical time of year - unless it is Coopers which is more of a staple.

2. Dark Ale will assist with topic deviation rather than act as an aid to topic focus, thus compounding the sin (with pleasure to boot).

3. The weather here has gone from a 'pale ale in the shade' to a 'stout in front of the fire' in a matter of days!

4. Finally, to the notion that we are all sinners, what can I say but, 'I'll drink to that!'.

mortiong: dirge

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 7:17:00 pm , Blogger Joshua said...

Let's get back on track - now, if one were licensed to make up a Eucharistic Prayer (rather than flagrantly disobeying the prescribed liturgical books - which a bishop I know told me would be a serious sin), one would I hope wish to write something holy and awe-inspiring about God and His Christ, Who have wrought such great works for us, that we can share in the Body and Blood of the latter, and thus be filled with the unspeakable blessings thereof, binding us ever more strongly into the mystical Body which is His Church, for whom we pray, as well as for the world at large, that all be graced by the Spirit to be saved and spared from all dangers temporal and spiritual.

Compared with such marvellous vistas, how terrible, how trite, how poverty-stricken, how banal, to have some prayer that (to quote Luther), but for the Words of Christ stuck in its midst like the ark in the temple of Dagon, had no explicit reference to Christ nor to His Real Presence nor to His Sacrifice - and that this sad effusion, if the Verba Domini were omitted, was so anodyne and meaningless that it could have fitted any vaguely religious situation whatsoever. Talk about selling one's birthright for a mess of pottage!

This actually makes me not angry (my usual state) but suddenly and unexpectedly profoundly sad and upset for these poor South Brisbanites - I feel tears, I think of those pleading words of Our Lord in the Apocalypse addressed to the wayward at Laodicea:

"... thou sayest, 'I am rich and have grown wealthy and have need of nothing,' and dost not know that thou art the wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked one. I counsel thee to buy of me gold..." (Apoc. ii, 17f)

Would that they lay aside their filthy rags and go not to broken waterless cisterns! God grant they obtain of Him gold, the gold of the sacred liturgy...

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 7:28:00 pm , Blogger Joshua said...

BTW, I've just gone and read Michael Carden's three posts and they're well worth looking at - while I would profoundly disagree with various of his positions, that makes his critique of South Brisbane all the more valuable. Not far from the kingdom of God.

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:16:00 pm , Blogger Louise said...

So I didn't make, and haven't made(and will not make), any statement suggesting that conservatives are "divisive". Not only would it would go against the very point I'm making, but it just ain't true!

Come off it, Tony. I don't see you taking pains to point out that "liberals" (or others, whoever they are) are also "divisive."

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:19:00 pm , Blogger Tony said...

Boy it's hard to know how to respond to your 'not angry, but sad' post Joshua. You leave no room for any other POV but your own.

A dark ale and Monty looks even more attractive now.

“NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.”

retroomy: old and spacious

 
At Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:41:00 pm , Blogger Tony said...

Come off it, Tony. I don't see you taking pains to point out that "liberals" (or others, whoever they are) are also "divisive."

What about (in this string):

It shows:
- that 'liberals', 'dissenters', insert-favourite-label here, are not some homegenious group with identical views (just as true of other 'labeled' groups too).


and

My experience has been that people who are really sure they're right often use that as a reason to justify divisiveness and arrogance. No one group has a monopoly on that!

??

I've been pretty consistent, Louise, on every DB I've participated in and, it's my observation, that often when you pull people up they assume you're attacking their ideas not their methods.

One day it could be, 'you're just having a go at me because your a liberal' and the next it's, 'you're just having a go at me because your a conservative'.

I don't pretend to be unbiased; I definitely notice it more with people of a more conservative persuasion, but I do try to be consistent in terms of principle.

symad: a gathering of unhinged bishops.

 
At Friday, March 06, 2009 7:33:00 am , Blogger Joshua said...

I'm not, thank Christ, Rowan Williams; and I do believe in objective truth; and I do assert my own point-of-view (not to do so would be hypocritical); and the nonsense at South Brisbane, as now given more detail by the fellow David quotes, is shown to consist in the substitution of the holiest part of the Church's liturgy, the Eucharistic Prayer, with some bizarre and meaningless production with the Verba stuffed in - and you whinge I haven't bent over backwards to give room for some other POV? Why the hell would I? This is surely your parody of sitting-in-a-circle consensus-building workshops?! Come off it, Tony, South Brisbane is indefensible - and yes, I don't give a stuff for their much-vaunted "works of social justice", which after all no one should crow about (don't let the right hand know what the left is doing, etc. - how amusing in this context), and also because it is not our works that justify us.

 
At Friday, March 06, 2009 10:38:00 am , Blogger Tony said...

Joshua,

I wouldn't suggest for one second that you risk hypocrisy by withholding your opinion.

However, you present the opposing view in such a negative light (punctuated by parenthetical observations) and then demolish them.

That's a recipe for corrosive gridlock IMO.

This situation needs peacemakers; people who understand that whenever you get close to a long-running dispute you find it more complex than the simplistic 'objective truth' you espouse.

subbet: handing over your stake to a luckier punter.

 
At Friday, March 06, 2009 2:44:00 pm , Blogger Louise said...

Yep, sorry Tony, I was looking for any qualifiers you had there, but didn't find them. Careless reading on my part.

So, I think it's possible that we can communicate with one another in an open kind of way, but while we can take care to be as kind as possible, I don't think we should shrink from debate on the basis that we might be "divisive." Because what looks like "divisive" to one person is just "diversity" to another.

At any rate, "carry on David," I say. After all, this is not a confessional combox!

And I'll just say this to Vicci, I'm not sure why you point the finger at David's style so much, given that your own style doesn't exactly strike me as conciliatory or unifying.

 
At Friday, March 06, 2009 5:16:00 pm , Blogger Joshua said...

Well, Tony, to be honest I see the South Brisbanites as completely unCatholic - they would be more honest if they set up their own denomination. I predict they'll be excommunicated, or at least their priests (it's happened before in the US, in upstate New York I think - the priests concerned set up their own place); and in the meanwhile, as they are illegally occupying the site, they ought be evicted. How harsh, I know; but I'd be lying if I wrote other than this. I think there's no point bending over backwards: they are completely rebellious and unrepentant, and now they need to be given their marching orders.

****

ameria - America in an alternative world where "C" was banned.

 
At Friday, March 06, 2009 5:41:00 pm , Blogger Tony said...

Well, Tony, to be honest I see the South Brisbanites as completely unCatholic

I'm trying to be honest too Joshua and I can't imagine being arrogant enough to accuse someone else of being 'unCatholic'.

they would be more honest if they set up their own denomination.

It's such a favorite insult. Well, if you have a problem with the way St Mary's is being handled why don't you join another church? If you have a problem with a church that is more tolerant of diversity of opinion than you, likewise.

(I actually don't mean it, I'm just trying to get you experience how such an invitation feels.)

I predict they'll be excommunicated, or at least their priests (it's happened before in the US, in upstate New York I think - the priests concerned set up their own place); and in the meanwhile, as they are illegally occupying the site, they ought be evicted.

Who says?

How harsh, I know; but I'd be lying if I wrote other than this. I think there's no point bending over backwards: they are completely rebellious and unrepentant, and now they need to be given their marching orders.

You don't want a church Joshua, you want an army.

blized: overcome with lies.

 
At Friday, March 06, 2009 5:53:00 pm , Blogger Louise said...

I'm trying to be honest too Joshua and I can't imagine being arrogant enough to accuse someone else of being 'unCatholic'.

At what point do we say that, by definition, a person is no longer Catholic? I mean, there must be a point somewhere, not for the sake of exclusion, but for the sake of clarity. I mean if a Buddhist declares me not to be Buddhist, do I have to feel excluded? Surely it's just a definition. And I'm not sure that Fr Kennedy even believes in God (though I can't find the report which led me to this idea). It seems to me that at the point where people deny Christ is both God and man, we can say their not Christians. That's not a value judgment, it's just that words should have some meaning.

FWIW, I do generally see all the baptised Catholics as Catholics until they formally apostasise or leave for another church, but those who want to change the whole moral thought of the Church (almost exclusively around matters sexual and liturgical) do stretch the definition a long way.

 
At Friday, March 06, 2009 6:45:00 pm , Blogger Tony said...

At what point do we say that, by definition, a person is no longer Catholic? I mean, there must be a point somewhere, not for the sake of exclusion, but for the sake of clarity.

Why must there be? How can that point come for people who are distant observers thousands of kilometres away?

Surely the only person who comes close to getting to a 'must' point is the local bishop?

I mean if a Buddhist declares me not to be Buddhist, do I have to feel excluded? Surely it's just a definition.

It's a completely different situation! You weren't born a Buddhist and (as far as I know) make no claim to be a Buddhist.

And I'm not sure that Fr Kennedy even believes in God (though I can't find the report which led me to this idea).

mmm

It seems to me that at the point where people deny Christ is both God and man, we can say their not Christians. That's not a value judgment, it's just that words should have some meaning.

OK, I'm not aware of Fr Kennedy saying that. If he said that, it is still up the the Bishop to officially respond.

It seems now too that your implying that Fr Kennedy should not only be regarded as non-Catholic but non-Christian.

do generally see all the baptised Catholics as Catholics until they formally apostasise or leave for another church, but those who want to change the whole moral thought of the Church (almost exclusively around matters sexual and liturgical) do stretch the definition a long way.

The definition does get stretched. That's the nature of the beast.

bacto: heal

 
At Friday, March 06, 2009 7:11:00 pm , Blogger Louise said...

Why must there be?

Because words mean things, Tony.

 
At Friday, March 06, 2009 7:16:00 pm , Blogger Louise said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At Friday, March 06, 2009 7:17:00 pm , Blogger Louise said...

If he said that, it is still up the the Bishop to officially respond.

And the bishop has responded.

It seems now too that your implying that Fr Kennedy should not only be regarded as non-Catholic but non-Christian.

I guess I was, so no I'll just state it categorically: to the best of my knowledge Fr Kennedy is not even a Christian. There was even something I read recently which made me think he's possibly not a theist either, but I can't find it.

The definition does get stretched. That's the nature of the beast.

It is? I don't think I understand what you mean here.

 
At Friday, March 06, 2009 10:09:00 pm , Blogger Joshua said...

"I'm trying to be honest too Joshua and I can't imagine being arrogant enough to accuse someone else of being 'unCatholic'."

Oh please! I know very well what the Catholic Faith is, and a simple comparisons shews these heretic ratbags to be gross dissenters from it (as any disinterested observer could discern by comparing their stated beliefs, as easily accessible via their dearly-beloved priest's statements in the mass media, with the teachings of the Faith as expressed in the Creed, the Catechism, and all such approved sources). Ergo, if they won't conform they should bugger off!

"You don't want a church Joshua, you want an army."

- Yes, Tony, I do: it's called the Church Militant, not the bourgeois claptrap basketweavers.

My problem is that the Church officially says such nonsense should not happen, and then lazily lets it happen while denying there is a problem: this is hypocrisy and dereliction of duty, a wilful neglect of the cure of souls. Now, the gangrene's got so bad the only treatment is amputation. I must say I put the blame on the negligence that has let this evil fester for so long that it has ensnared and deceived many.

Catholicism is not an amorphous blob. It has a clearly defined set of beliefs and practices. If persons persist in rebelling against its structures and flouting its faith and morals, then they are noxious pests worthy of peremptory removal, like lice from an infested child.

 
At Friday, March 06, 2009 11:06:00 pm , Blogger Tony said...

Joshua,

See the thing is, it's you who should be 'setting up your own denomination', you're so dissatisfied both with the likes of St Mary's and the official response to it.

smsant: insect text

 
At Saturday, March 07, 2009 4:55:00 am , Blogger Past Elder said...

Rock on, Tony! I'm staying out of this one. It is a hoot to see those who argue for things that once had to argue Oh yes we are too Catholic now turn around, once they have won, and be the ones that others have to say to Oh yes we are too Catholic.

angsjoi: angst at last dispelled on finding the joy of the noevelle theologie.

 
At Saturday, March 07, 2009 5:00:00 am , Blogger Past Elder said...

nouvelle.

 
At Saturday, March 07, 2009 9:36:00 am , Blogger Tony said...

It is a hoot to see those who argue for things that once had to argue Oh yes we are too Catholic now turn around, once they have won, and be the ones that others have to say to Oh yes we are too Catholic.

¿qué?

The 'hoot' reference hints at shadenfreuder, but that's as far as my understanding goes.

deriz: the opposite of 'derizent'

 
At Saturday, March 07, 2009 11:25:00 am , Blogger Past Elder said...

Hoot must be an Americanism.

Well, my point was, here's this mindset now excluding others for not thinking with the mind of the church, as you point out, when it itself was once excluded for not thinking with the mind of the church, as I point out.

 
At Sunday, March 08, 2009 7:28:00 pm , Blogger Michael said...

hi everyone, I'm glad to see my pieces on St Mary's have generated such interest. I've put up another instalment here

http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2009/03/some-more-on-st-marys-diptychs-missed.html

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home