St Mary's priest will take his flock with him (renegade priest to break with Rome)

Courier Mail ^ | January 9, 2009 | Trent Dalton

[NYer]

MAVERICK priest Father Peter Kennedy says he will lead a breakaway congregation if Brisbane's catholic Archbishop forces him to leave St Mary's Church.

There are fears that exclusion from the historic South Brisbane property will be the final act in a long-running dispute that has reached the Vatican. The dispute has attracted national and international attention because it represents the battle between conservative and less traditional forces within the Catholic Church.

There are more Roman Catholics in Australia than any other religious group. Each week, St Mary's attracts large congregations while many more orthodox Catholic parishes struggle to fill pews. In a rare and exclusive interview, Father Kennedy said he was determined to carry on.  "The reality is that, if we are excluded from this church, the Trades and Labor Council have already offered us their place just down the road," he said. "I will continue. Our community will continue down there. We get 800 to 900 people coming every week. It's a vibrant, alive mass with people from all over the city."

St Mary's is known for its unconventional Catholic practices - allowing women to preach, blessing homosexual couples and recognising with ritual the traditional sovereignty of the indigenous people of the area. The latest round in the battle was sparked by a complaint direct to the Vatican in August from an aggrieved church-goer.

Brisbane Archbishop John Bathersby accused the parish of operating outside the accepted practices of the Roman Catholic Church and encouraged Father Kennedy to fall in line or face closure. The parishioners responded to the accusations but - in a follow-up letter to Father Kennedy, dated December 22 - Archbishop Bathersby said: "St Mary's has not yet adequately given proof of its communion with the Archdiocese of Brisbane and the Roman Catholic Church."

[wiley]

The definition of a ‘nun’ is one who takes solemn vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience and lives a monastic life.

One of the classic signs of a modernist liberal is to attempt to change the definition of terms. There are many ways for women to profess devotion to God. One who chooses to live a monastic life is a ‘nun’. Period.

Please choose a different term for the kind of women’s vocation you are talking about. Don’t obfuscate the Catholic definitions.

Vatican II did not alter any Catholic dogma, though many would love to believe that. The so-called “Spirit of Vatican II’ is dying due in large part to Benedict XI who started to kill it as a Cardinal. Good riddance to that horrific attempt to wound the Body of Christ.

BTW, Christ and St. Paul both spoke of celibacy as the ideal way to dedicate one’s life to Christ. The married priesthood has always been a merely tolerated discipline. Even in the East, the celibates have always been more highly regarded (the monastic tradition started in the East as did the concept of ‘hermit’.).

It was suggested to you that you obtain real Catholic catechesis. If you choose not to do that, then don’t attempt to pander your liberalism as Catholicism.

And I’d be happy to go toe-toe with your priest. He evidently needs some catechesis as well if he permits you to hold your non-Catholic views (the concept of ‘female priests’ is condemned as contrary to the Faith by the Catholic Church, and the holding to the concept of a ‘married’ nun shows theological ignorance if not liberal double-speak.).

[jilliane]

Nice to hear from you Dr. There is no religion I would rather be, no other faith I could ever be.

In regards to words and phrases that cause some to release the safety, I too am sensitive to flags but there has to be more than flags to outright denounce another person’s heart and motive. As a parochial student throughout my schooling (except college), religion classes were daily and consisted of so many pillars: catechism was pounded into my head for as long as I can remember. In digging for the truth, I am very literal (to my repeated points that the article was not informative about the exact nature of the accusations).

I can quickly assess something with hair on it disguised as something else. I think there are people on this posting who also have that ability and realized I wasn’t disguised as something else. Perhaps those who felt it necessary to insult me only prove they are dishonest to themselves about their current status of full spiritual consciousness.

I know I’ve not arrived. But, I should have exercised restraint and compartmentalized my annoyance in a tiny box.

You are right, I will never consider myself more Catholic than the Pope or any person who has devoted their life to theology.

[kstewskis]

Dear Jilliane,

This has been a good thread for all of us.

Thank you for your kind words, I like many here try to live our faith in everything we do, especially in charity. We all want and try to be good Catholics, and always try to do what is pleasing to God. I myself owe a lot to many here on this forum (both current and past) to getting a foothold on my own faith, and will be always grateful to them.

Putting together the pieces to the puzzle, and looking at the big picture is what I believe someone said is a lifelong process. It's so true, I can't emphasise that enough. But in that process, your love for Christ and His Church will only grow, and help your soul.

Many here have already posted in this thread some wonderful responses, that I hope more will read and benefit from.

Again, many of God's blessings and peace to you.

Now go you your homework ;o)

[AnAmericanMother]

Hey MD 2020! (I've always wanted to call you that!)

You might be interested in this thread, maybe even offer some input. Maybe even some humor . . . ?

Best regards,

AAM

[frogjerk]

I’m a baptized Catholic, 13 years of Catholic schooling, married a Catholic, baptized our children in the Catholic church, send our children to Catholic schools and I work in a Catholic school. I love the priests I’ve worked with and they struggle to grow their community as their defined demographic priest is very difficult to find. I don’t know all the teachings of this priest but what I’ve read here doesn’t upset me.

You need to be re-evangelized because your knowledge of the Catholic Faith is severely lacking. I hope you aren't teaching Catechism in the school you work in!

[frogjerk]

Why can’t priests marry? Priests used to be able to marry until the church and the wives disagreed over the priest & wifes’ property when the priest died.

Prove it. This is a lie. Fr. Pacwa was speaking about this very subject last night on EWTN and he challenged someone to prove this as a fact. It is a bold faced lie of the left.

This is a mad made rule. In fact, there is a loophole; a married protestant minister who converts to Catholicism may become an ordained priest.

This is not a loophole. Since you don't know the nature of the Sacrament of Holy Orders you are terribly misinformed. A priest can be ordained if he is married prior to being a priest not the other way around. Anyway, it is a discipline and an ancient discipline at that. Go back to around 300-400 AD and read some of the documents of the Church councils back then and understand.

If the church allowed priests to marry, many good priests who’ve been excommunicated would never have left and would be still serving the good work of the Catholic church.

Please back this up with data. Secondly, there is a permanent ordained Diaconate in the Church that can be married. They can do many of the duties of a priest except consecrate the sacred species and hear confession for example.

I recommend you start reading this:

[jilliane]

Who knew this has all been hashed out on FR before...look at the sum total of the discussion in an essay that a Freeper previously posted.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1558383/posts

You need to take a breath, read the total thread and read what I wrote (that you quoted) again before giving me your lecture about how misinformed I am...I said “a MARRIED protestant minister” who converts can be ordained...that is true. I never said anything about the other way around.

[jilliane]

P.S. I first heard that priests were married in the past through a couple I know who converted to Catholicism and that’s what their Catholic priest (in a totally different diocese than I am in) told them. I asked a priest in the diocese I am in about it and he said it was true. So if you are right, then these priests are lying.

[frogjerk]

P.S. I first heard that priests were married in the past through a couple I know who converted to Catholicism and that’s what their Catholic priest (in a totally different diocese than I am in) told them. I asked a priest in the diocese I am in about it and he said it was true. So if you are right, then these priests are lying.

Peter was married and so were some of the early priests but so what. What I stated was that the celibacy of the priesthood goes back a long, long way. I never said a married man cannot be a priest. Some priests are married in the Church but what you are failing to understand is that once a priest is ordained he cannot enter into Holy Matrimony, this cannot be changed.

Also, why would we want to throw out the charism of celibacy which builds up the Body of Christ, the Church? It doesn't make any sense.

[frogjerk]

You need to take a breath, read the total thread and read what I wrote (that you quoted) again before giving me your lecture about how misinformed I am...I said “a MARRIED protestant minister” who converts can be ordained...that is true. I never said anything about the other way around.

Here is the deal, you prefaced your first comment on this thread about how Catholic you were (13 years of Catholic education, working in a Catholic School, etc...). Had you not done that and then spoken out of ignorance of the Faith and inadvertently spoken calumniously against the Church you would not be getting spoken to so abruptly by many on this thread. One of the spiritual works of mercy is to instruct the ignorant.

Everything is supposed to be done with Charity so I apologize for the abruptness of my comments.

[Mad Dawg]

Actually, I kind of like "mad made".

I don’t know all the teachings of this priest but what I’ve read here doesn’t upset me.

First we should look at the outcome. He and those who follow him prefer having their own way to the way of the Church to which at least He made certain vows of conformity and obedience.

So one thing that's going on here is, as it were, the fruition of a lie. If he's blessing homosexual unions while the Church is teaching that homosexuality is gravely disordered, and if he's allowing women to preach while the Church is re-asserting that lay people should not preach, then either he was ordained while falsely representing himself and his intentions or he has decided to accept and exercise the priestly function while rejecting the Church and the authority under which he was ordained.

And I would encourage you to study the Catechism and to consider whether maybe your years in the Church and work in institutions connected with it have not made clear to you the meaning and role of Church Traditions ("mad made rules"). Or perhaps, despite their having been made clear, you reject the authority of the Church. Either would be sad. But if you reject the authority of the Church in which you have spent so much time and effort, I think there's a problem here.

Isn't it kind of flying false colors to go to Mass, to work in a Catholic School, to make the declarations involved in baptizing one's children in any "denomination" while not believing the teaching of that denomination? That seems like it might be a serious spiritual problem to me.

[Mad Dawg]

Well, thanks for the heads-up.

I think it’s sad, really. You know what I think about clergy talking about “MY ministry.” Bad stuff.

[jilliane]

Please read my more recent posts as a lot of ground was covered in this thread and I received great answers to my questions. Thanks for your thoughts.

[jilliane]

Frogjerk wrote: “Peter was married and so were some of the early priests but so what.”

So what? So that was my only point. It used to be. Read the amount of postings here who insulted me for saying that.

[jilliane]

Mad Dawg wrote: “Isn’t it kind of flying false colors ..., to make the declarations involved in baptizing one’s children in any “denomination” while not believing the teaching of that denomination? That seems like it might be a serious spiritual problem to me.”

P.S. I’m appalled that you would imply we should not have baptized our children Catholic because I have asked questions. First, questioning is not the same as “not believing in anything.” Second, as parents, when we baptize our children we vow to bring them up Catholic...and have done so in every way including expanding their faith fully by sending them to Catholic school. We, and every other Catholic school parent, have devoted time and treasure to insure their spiritual upbringing is reinforced daily in the classroom ...the public schools here are excellent so we had choices. We have a christian household, discuss faith and morality regularly, and we pray....not that this is any of your business. They have received their sacraments and in their confirmation it is our children’s choice to continue Catholic faith for themself. And if you think my questions disqualify me from going to mass or working in a Catholic school, then rather than lecturing me about my spiritual problem, I would recommend you go speak to a priest about your thoughts and whose compass needs recalibration.

[Mad Dawg]

Oh, and in our parish, it's generally the young people who applaud when the priests speak out strongly on moral issues. The gripers and complainers are almost all in the 50+ years old age range.

That's pretty much the case in my shoppe. But we have some dynamos within the blue-haired mafia.

[Mad Dawg]

My wife and I have never practiced contraception and we have our 6th child on the way.

Wow! Congratulations! May your children be like olive shoots (except for the bickering and food fight parts, which I think are unavoidable) around your table!

[Mad Dawg]

At your request I (re-)read the thread. it doesn't change my opinion of my first post to you.

Maybe the catechists were really confused for my 13 years.

That could be the case. I am currently involved with an RCIA class and the lifelong Catholic wife of a candidate is also his sponsor. She said that all she got when she was coming up was social teaching and some morality. She loves what we're doing. We're talking about the Trinity, the Son, His Body the Church, and the Church's teachings.

Or maybe I always had trouble believing that my friend was going to hell because she wasn’t a Catholic.

Well, SOMEBODY was poorly catechized, maybe two somebodies.

Touch the host to the teeth and forever be damned. How many holy, good people lived and died in agony because the host touched their teeth?

As long as you're clear that that wasn't doctrine, that was just outrageously awful teaching by some renegades to the right. And one aspect of its being doctrine was a Catholic who was motivated could have spent a little time learning that what s/he was being taught was nonsense.

When the laity leave the religion to the priests, bad stuff happens. When we work with our clergy, good stuff happens. I nearly always have one or two theological questions simmering between one of our priests and me. This doesn't mean that I end up in trouble, it means I end up being asked to teach classes and write papers.

how about my letter in my desk drawer from our bishop telling me that it is ok to vote for pro-abortion candidates as long as the candidate does not make it a political platform?

That's interesting. It is, theoretically, okay to vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion if your carefully derived opinion is that the other candidate would do something even worse. It is NOT okay to vote for a pro-abortion candidate BECAUSE s/he's pro-abortion.

More generally, and touching your post about our hypocrisy, I'm wondering what you think of the sacrament of reconciliation and of the idea that the life of a Christian is one of continual repentance -- sometimes joyful, sometimes tearful, but always repenting and converting.

Failing to conform to Church teaching is endemic. Claiming that those failures are virtues is at least disobedience.

The point I’m raising is that they need to look at some of the teachings...they are not all from the Word of God, some were written by men.

Do you mean "take a look at" or "change"? It is incredible to think that they do not review the teachings often in the face of opposition like yours. It is also almost incredible to find the "Word of God v. word of man" opposition put forth by a catechized Catholic. There are gradations in there, Word of God, Dogma, Pious Opinion, Discipline, Custom .... The Church has the authority and the responsibility which the Apostles received from Christ to establish discipline.

Should married Catholics all just be rabbits, abstain, or leave the church?

Or none of the above? Have you looked into Natural Family Planning programs? Do you know, have you taken the trouble to meet some of the happy and fulfilled couples who practice NFP? The problem is that these days we hold up coupling like rabbits, that is like impulsive animals instead of like reasonable creatures made in the image of God, as a kind of right and sign of sexual health. With that attitude toward the marital act, there's no wonder that artificially preventing conception or implantation of the conceptus is seen as attractive. Your proposing only the choices of "be like rabbits" or "abstain" is an indication of the problem. You're suggesting that outside the church they could couple like rabbits but avoid the natural sequel to doing so. Sub-human or eschatological abstention are the choices you present. There's a third choice.

Catholic priests must be men. Single men. God said so, right?

Catholic priests must be men. God said so, right?
Substantially

Single men. God said so, right?
Wrong. And the Church does not teach that. She DOES in the Latin Rite have that discipline that in the vast majority of cases married men cannot be ordained. Ordained men cannot marry. This discipline is far more than 1,000 years old.

I’m appalled that you would imply we should not have baptized our children Catholic because I have asked questions.

Well, I'm appalled that you describe emphatic statements of disagreement with Church dogma as innocent questions and then pretend that my QUESTION (NOT implication, but a leading question) about reconciling your stated disobedience with making implicit professions of conformity at Baptisms was about your "questions." "Questions" like: Or maybe I always had trouble believing that my friend was going to hell because she wasn’t a Catholic.

You have called us hypocrites and described us as judgmental. You have misstated Catholic teaching and taken the Church to task for what she does not teach. And then you are "appalled" because I respond to what were most definitely NOT questions.

As and for being appalled, that's neither here nor there. This is not about feeling. This is about understanding and reprehending what happens when a man comes to a parish as a representative of his bishop and then leads the people entrusted to his care astray. This is about a man who when he has what we may hope is a conscientious (though wrong) disagreement with the Church doesn't have the integrity to ask to be taken out of the game while he makes up his mind but instead abuses the trust of his bishop and of his flock.

You work for a priest. What should he do if you decide not to do as he asks but do only what you think should be done? What should you do if you think you can no longer do as he asks? Would it be right for you to present your self to him as his employee?

What should be done in that case, of course, is that you should discuss the issues with him, and if you cannot reach an accommodation you should resign. This priest has despoiled the Bishop's flock and led them a way after himself. It is a grave sin. We should pray for him and for them.

If you think your statements should be treated as questions and my questions should be treated as statements, then I think more than one compass may need recalibration.

[Mad Dawg]

AAM:

Aw Jeez! You ping me to this thread and I spend over an hour on it.

Time for some more of that fine wine in the flat bottle with the screw off cap!

[AnAmericanMother]

Any time the ego gets in the way it's bad, not just in the priesthood -- but the consequences are so very bad there.

In the business context, my dad calls it "Believing your own press releases."

This poor priest (and I really do feel for him) has gotten his personal opinions and desires all messed up to the point that he thinks they have primacy over the teachings of the Church he promised to obey and serve.

It all comes down to that in the end, doesn't it? "Non serviam."