Peter Kennedy Homilist January 8-9 2011
Last Sunday, we celebrated the Feast of the Epiphany. The dictionary informs us that an epiphany is “a sudden intuitive leap of understanding” eg. “it came to her in an epiphany what her life work was to be”.
Recently, one of you wrote to me and among mostly positive comments, added, “I don’t always agree with everything you say”. Well that gives me the courage to ask the question, which incidentally requires no answer. What if all that we think we know about ourselves is an illusion – a case of mistaken identity? We do not truly know who we are. The fact that so many of you have taken the CD’s and DVD’s of Eckhart Tolle also gives me the confidence to ask that question.
Today’s feast is the celebration of the Baptism of our Lord. In Christianity baptism symbolizes bath to the self/ego – to that idea that there is a “me”. In Hinduism it’s not so much a dying to the self/ “me” but the recognition that there is no self/ “me” – that illusory reference point from which we all live our lives.
That “belief” in a “me” is in fact the cause of all our suffering. However, for most of us this teaching is untenable. In fact we are forever working on our self image- one must develop a positive self-image. We, moreover, confuse our identity with our story – our life situation, Tolle calls it. Today, in this world of cyber communication, if you want to know who I am, log onto my Face-book page.
Now you and I have been raised in a literal understanding of Christianity which is dualistic eg. heaven and hell, good and evil, truth and heresy, black and white. The mind by nature is dualistic- it can only think in terms of opposites – it is by nature divisive. A literal understanding of Christianity has to be rational, based on thought or reasoning. Questions are asked. Answers are given. eg. Who made the world? Answer: God made the world. True belief is to be found through the teaching authority of the Church – any deviation from that teaching is erroneous. But if you think about it, beliefs are just human constructs – just thoughts in the mind.
With Christianity there has been a long tradition which some people, like Tolle, call non-dual ie. Oneness. I would call it the mystical/contemplative tradition. This tradition has been suppressed by a literalist Christianity, time and time again, down through the centuries.
Within this Christian mystical tradition, there is only Oneness – if you like, there is only God – God is such an overused word that I prefer to use the word Mystery. There can be no separation in Oneness – diversity, yes – in fact a rich diversity of a multiplicity of life of which the human is one – that arise briefly out of the Mystery, like an appearance in a mirror and then collapses back into the Mystery – the Oneness from which they came.
Lie a wave upon the Ocean, it has a brief existence only to collapse back into the Oneness of Ocean. There never has been any separation from Oneness-– only the appearance of separation. As Terry said last Sunday quoting the German medieval mystic, Mechtild of Magdeburg 1207-1282, “the day of my spiritual awakening was the day I saw – and knew that I saw – all things in God and God in all things”.
This mystical/contemplative tradition emphasizes the way of not knowing – of unknowing, a letting go of all that you think you know (including the idea of a separate me). The tradition doesn’t look for answers, because the tradition is about not knowing – the mind cannot help – one by necessity has to stay with the Questions, with the Mystery, and only the Heart – that Intuitive aspect – that which is beyond reason (mind) can help us, that “sudden intuitive leap of understanding”- an epiphany!
In literal Christianity, all our Christian life we’ve been looking for answers and the joke is that answers are not the point of it at all. The point is not to hold back from the Mystery in which we are embedded, just because there is no final understanding. We must be satisfied to not know, to stay with the Mystery. Along the journey incredible understandings will come out of the Mystery, but the Mystery itself will remain.
The Church has sold us short – this contemplative mystical tradition was always treated with suspicion by the hierarchy. It was not encouraged for the vulgar crowd but was the preserve of contemplative monks and nuns. The emphasis down the centuries for the vulgar crowd, was always on sin and how easily we could imperil our eternal salvation. This life was a veil of tears – to be got through – and heaven awaited those who were obedient to the Church and her teaching. Salvation was only possible through the grace mediated to us by the Brokers through the Sacraments and the Mass.
The tradition that I have been talking about encourages us to accept life as it is – here and now – in the present, because the present is all we have. To surrender to life as it unfolds- just to show up every moment of our lives and embrace it as it is, in all its wonder and beauty- in all its suffering and horror – to live not for the “me” that false reference point – but from the heart – the Heart of Compassion and Gratefulness.
30/01/2011 at 8:16 pm Permalink
Comparison to other Christian traditions leads me to think the Catholic church of 2011 includes in it’s worship spaces, liturgy, and practises, traits of the contemplative religious tradition more so than other Christian denominations – perhaps it is not as obvious and this may be frustrating, but it is there and can be sought out. A choir member today at the old St Mary’s where I help organise the music said to me “this church (the old St Mary’s) makes everything I play sound louder!”. I’m considering very carefully what this choir member said because they lecture in music at tertiary level, they are one of Brisbane’s best. The old St Mary’s is a contemplative space – a beautiful acoustic, rated by the better SMX(SME?) musicians as one of the best, if not the best in Brisbane. It’s simply not fair to ask the best St Mary’s musicians (i.e. me and others, who shaped the community of Peter Kennedy over decades) to leave that church and play our music in a small office space. Not that I don’t work in office spaces with music – I did music photography for a band in such a space last night. It was fun. But I wonder if Peter’s love of the contemplative tradition comes in quite large part from so many years, in such a beautiful, contemplative space.
31/01/2011 at 12:25 pm Permalink
Hello Tim,
During the period of the Russian Revolution, when that society was going through a period of profound social, political and economic upheaval, the topic of discussion among the clergy of the Russian Christian Church was the sanctity of their vestments. And you are talking about the sound of music!
The old “church” of the fear crippled old men in the Vatican is dead. Can’t you see that? Equally dead are the so called other Christian denominations. The Biggest event in Christian history, since the operation got going under the mass murderer Constantine, is happening in our time: it’s the Great Walk-Out. The big statistic is not that priest numbers have dropped to near extinction, it’s that about ninety percent of the People have walked out on the thing. As Marx almost said: it’s the People who make religion. Buddhism in Japan is copping it too for more or less the same reasons.
Some devout catholic friends, I do know such people, tell me that the great comeback will come from the growth of the so called church in the Third World. This reasoning amazes me. If the tragic conditions of those societies are what Christianity needs to survive then it is not a religion it’s a disease.
I do not know if Peter’s cult is leading anybody anywhere but at least they are moving. Although, I suspect that H. St. John might be right. I suspect that the story most relevant to us, in our great affluence, is the Book of Job.
Love Fosco
31/01/2011 at 12:43 pm Permalink
thanks ‘Fosco’ (and other pseudonyms that use this site) for your meanderings through history, scripture, doctrine… I’m taking a much less broad sweep and speaking from my experience in church music and don’t expect those not versed in music to rate this area highly or understand it’s role in the St Mary’s church. I would say though, that the Catholic Church music was the major contributor to the formation of European Art music tradition and our major/minor key system, and for that I am in awe of the Catholic Church. I would refer you to the previous homily by Joan Mooney on this website – she is the best liturgically qualified music co-ordinator that I’m aware St Mary’s has had, although I don’t know St Mary’s church music of very early times (but would love to find out more). Joan is one of the musical gems at SMX(SME?) and hence why describing SMX as a “cult” really doesn’t fit with Joan, and certainly doesn’t fit with the homily that by now you are reading.
02/02/2011 at 10:51 am Permalink
Hello Tim,
“Fosco” is my real name, I am a real person. The name is Italian which translates into English to mean dark, gloomy, not transparent, opaque, something of a spiritual darkness. If you feel that we should only take seriously people using their real names that is fine by me. But you do run into a bit of a problem: while “Luke” was really Luke, “Mathew” “Mark” and “John” were not Mathew, Mark and John, “Paul” was not Paul and some even say the “Jesus” was not Jesus. Not much is left of the Christian writings.
I have read Joan’s homily. As I said in a comment under Peter peddling his book, Joan does not know the difference between lollipop iconic constructions of culture and real people. Just to give but a small example. Joan quotes Gandhi who we are told is the “Father of India”. Pity his son missed out, he detested the great soul.
If Peter’s cult is not a cult but something in exile to the Vatican fear cripples then, like Lot’s wife, it will turn into a pillar of useless salt. The People have moved and spiritual “leaders” like Peter must follow along. They don’t have to, of course, they can continue discussing their dress code.
Love Fosco
03/02/2011 at 8:57 pm Permalink
Thank you Love Fosco for the scripture lesson.
Some of St Mary’s during the Kennedy era was perhaps too liberal, a great deal of it was not. This community, for better or worse (and perhaps partly their own doing but perhaps not) was made an example of made famous which was not the wish of a considerable number of its members. Hundreds of people left the old church, 5 stayed to help keep it alive and build a new community so that an historic and beautiful Brisbane church would not die. Perhaps you can appreciate the pain in that, if you step back from a little, to reflect on what a church community is – it’s about people. I am writing here because I do not believe the issues involved in this split were not at all black and white, they were complex. Neither is Joan’s homily – it’s a considered and researched, and caring address.
I wonder at the neo-conservatism that seems to be the mode of many traditional churches of today – perhaps it is better to err on their side, perhaps some of that conservatism is rooted in fears from new external threats our world faces on a global scale, and advances in theology and research. Perhaps all the above are tenable and not incompatible with each other. In any case, St Mary’s in the whole grand scheme of things in terms of it’s building and people, both the old and the new, is a small church and now 2 strong though separate communities (although there are friends and family at both churches), where the spirit at both churches is to support each other, and great each with care and kindness.
Of course, we have not always succeeded, but that is the spirit of St Mary’s, which would include using a first and last name in a blog, I believe.
05/02/2011 at 5:58 pm Permalink
1. “Oneness” is a heathen post-religion construct.
2. “Vale of tears” (psalm 84.6 – “in valle lacrimarum …”) is not some kind of burka.
3. “Tim Roberts” approaches “John Smith” in anonymity, perhaps you should supply your driver’s licence number too. (No, I’m not going to look on Face-book).
4. “The great walk-out” is in part a reaction to the year round singing of Christmas carols.
The church should stick to core business, that is, trying to save people from going to hell.
4a.
Q. What is 3 score years and ten divided by infinity.
A. Zero.
05/02/2011 at 9:20 pm Permalink
This has officially descended into a very weird blog… Get a life.
05/02/2011 at 11:24 pm Permalink
David from Brizzy, You are disoriented and confused, go back to your sausage sizzle.
06/02/2011 at 11:56 am Permalink
Yes I agree.. “H. St.John” (whoever that is)’s comments are eccentric to say the least, and his (her?) comment attempting to trivialise the issue of supplying your name if contributing to a local church community blog.. well, I’ve attended St Mary’s over a quarter of a century – people at SME/St Mary’s know who I am without knowing driver’s license number, or facebook account. Am I every going to be greeted by someone at mass saying “G’day I’m H.St.John”? Readers don’t have the faintest idea, much less want to know who “H. St. John” or the other nom de plumes are on this blog. However factual or authoritarian their comments appear to be, if you see “H.St.John” or what appears to be a pseudonym readers, skip over their comments and avoid reading them – they are cowards not to use their own names. We’ll read your comments when you use your real name.
06/02/2011 at 3:13 pm Permalink
Tim Roberts,
What a paradox that you have so eagerly bonded with “David from Brizzy” who has appeared like a streaker on a cricket pitch. Good luck with your mission to keep the riff raff out from your internet! Have you ever punched anyone out on the church doorstep? Marched out a few vagrants? If your panic-stricken over-reaction has something to do with a fear of “going to hell” you can relax. I have no special powers to put you in there, so if that’s where you think you’re heading, you’ll have to take the credit yourself.
06/02/2011 at 8:42 pm Permalink
Dear “H.St.John” (or whatever nom de plume you choose next month to attempt to change your identity on this site)
Well done for continuing to defend your use of a pseudonym on this small, local church blog by method of personal analysis and insight as an attempted grand smoke screen to reveal absolutely nothing about yourself. It’s smart politics on your part, and you’re a tough customer. But why is that sort of tactic so see through, and inappropriate to this small, local, community church blog?
Because it goes entirely against the grain of St Mary’s both old and new for many, many years, where the whole point of community is to get out from anonymity (in whatever form you chose it, a computer screen, or an editorial), and come and meet and talk to people and have a cup of tea, and learn to deal with people of a wide range of backgrounds and politics.
That’s hard. Hiding behind a pseudonym to reveal nothing about yourself, while you launch some fanciful ‘religious’ speech is well… however well read you are, it’s an ignorant and meaningless position.
Hence readers, avoid “H.St.John” and his/her other nom de plumes.
cheers,
Tim Roberts
06/02/2011 at 9:31 pm Permalink
Tim Roberts,
I haven’t, nor do I plan to, contribute under some different name but so what if I did. There is a word for your type of condition which springs to mind – paranoia. Your habit of making irrelevant accusations adds nothing to any theological argument. I’m not interested in drinking your tea. Your “ownership” of this webpage is in complete contradiction to the invitation directly in front of me which says “Hi Stranger, leave a comment:”.
06/02/2011 at 10:58 pm Permalink
Dear “H.St.John”, or “Bozo the Clown”, “Bart Simpson” or any other irrelevant name you choose to call yourself (other than your own name)
I am replying in equal measure to what really is on your part a pretty distasteful use of this webpage to defend the use of false names, and as such you are equally “owning this website” (whoever “you” happens to be). “Hi Stranger, leave a comment” is a friendly invitation to people to blog, it is not meant to be taken literally as /or not as “stranger”.. it’s a friendly invitation – emaphasis on friendly – being friendly would generally imply using your own name?
We haven’t even got near anything approaching “theological argument” as well why? Your anonymous blog contributions I do not regard contributions. If I wanted analysis I could just look up a theological text. I think you’ve entirely missed the point of blogging, dear pseudonym.
And of course you’ve twisted my words regarding a “cup of tea” (to symbolise community spirit, and meeting people face to face to learn to discuss differences) to suit your own purposes. You are a humorless, and an unhappy sort… “theology” to you is just textbook legalism provided with no author – no name. Why bother?
cheers.
Tim robert
07/02/2011 at 12:39 am Permalink
If you’re having massive brain explosions over a public blog, some friendly advice might be, get help.
As for my right to free expression, I’ll say what I want, when I want, however I please. So how’s your mate “David from Brizzy” faring under your regime? And out of genuine curiosity, what’s your real issue, the one you’re covering up?
07/02/2011 at 9:05 am Permalink
I don’t mind that this blog stands as a permanent, public record of a stoush with one of those creatures named [pseudonym] “lurking in the shadows”, with no name, and only an intent to debunk the theology of a community. Well (a) i’m not part of the SME community (b) this has not been a discussion about theology, and (c) i have conservative orthodox Catholic friends at the old St Mary’s who disapprove entirely of the methods of such “shadow lurkers”. Kennedy and his community have been harangued by them for decades, even as far back as the 1980s. Peter was nearing retirement anyway – St Mary’s could have been handled much differently, and these shadow lurkers, can just go away and lurk somewhere else, and leave us with the guts to use our real identities to participate in community.
07/02/2011 at 10:22 am Permalink
There was no stoush, there was just you having brain-snaps. This website boasts of “threatening Rome” (maybe tongue in cheek – I don’t know), so if they dish it out it’s appropriate they can take it too, without unrepresentative people such as you claim to be, resorting to personal attacks and lots of name-calling, based on assumptions which are wrong.
The problem with some of you liberals is that you just want to tear down the old without even understanding the full implications of what you are doing or having anything to replace it with. You have provided another example of wrong-headedness in a world which doesn’t really need yet another one.
You are most like a dog yapping at the postman.
07/02/2011 at 12:18 pm Permalink
Sorry mate, it is a stoush. There is not one single scrap of good will between myself and people like you writing on small, local community church blogs when you don’t use your real name.
You are just here to tear ideas and people down, while hiding your own identity – that’s the act of a coward. So if that’s not a stoush me saying that, then I don’t know what is…
The assumption I have made that “H.St.John” (or other nom de plumes) on this website do NOT use their correct name is correct… is not a “wrong” assumption.
The assumption YOU have made that I am a “liberal” (“you just want to tear down the old…”) is so far in the territory of “joke”, it’s just a debate I can’t get into on this blog because it’s a waste of my time (but that’s what you want – to get away from the cowardly use of nom de plumes and “debate”).
There is a level of antagonism and anger in the fact “H.St.John”, or “Santa Claus” or other doesn’t use his/her real name – that is evident in responses from other bloggers on this website in previous times.
Forget the “threatening rome”, the “theological debate”.. we haven’t even got to that because.. well who are we talking to? Some nom de plume lurking in the shadows… weird.
07/02/2011 at 12:50 pm Permalink
So you are in firm agreement with “David of Brizzy”.
07/02/2011 at 1:12 pm Permalink
First of all, since “H St. John” has yet to provide their real identity, could we call this person Harasser St.John which is what they are – continually haranguing people whilst not revealing their identity – or perhaps Stalker St John would fit better? Certainly Stalker St. John has a ring to it and describes the sort of person we’re potentially dealing with… “David of Brizzy” has left a very brief one line message saying this blog is “weird”, and I agree – I don’t feel at all comfortable dealing with Stalker St John, and this is my last message too (although absolutely no doubt I’ll bet my house on it there’ll be another message below from Stalker to “cross examine” and prove his/her validity).
The last word of my previous message to describe this behavior of “H.St.John” was “weird”. “Weird” also fits perfectly wit the bizarre first (point form) message on this blog by Stalker St.John in which there was no courteous acknowledgment of the letter form, reflective style of this blog to not SIMPLY have a legalistic theological debate (or a legalistic debate which is the only mode Stalker can operate in) but reflect on a community, and add to Peter’s homily. That’s what I did in my first blog message here. There rest of my messages have been to deal with the act of someone continually writing message after message on this website without using their real name. That goes entirely against the grain of what St Mary’s has been / is. The homily used his real name. Joan used her real name. I’ve used my real name. Why can’t you Stalker?
End of debate.. I’ve out of here.
07/02/2011 at 2:51 pm Permalink
Feel free to say whatever you want and I’ll decide for myself if I agree or not, thanks.
07/02/2011 at 3:23 pm Permalink
This is not some large news website blog with a news story posted and 1000s of anonymous blog responses received within a day where the blogger handle is irrelevant given the number of participants, it’s not even some social blog site with 150 bloggers.
Here, on this small church community blog with a dozen participants and only a handful (though not insignificant number) of readers, the anonymous blogger “correcting” the errant “cult” community’s theological shortcomings is just entirely missing the point. It shows an incredible lack of sensitivity to that community’s history, and diversity, and the authoritarian tone of anonymous blogger X’s “contributions” are just painful and miss the mark. In some court, or university debate, yes, of course, here, dear Stalker St. John fails miserably.
07/02/2011 at 4:34 pm Permalink
You should get your own internet and kick everyone out, except “David from Brizzy”.
07/02/2011 at 4:56 pm Permalink
And maybe you Stalker St. John should kick everyone out of your own church (wherever that may be – who knows and who cares?) and then you can sit and listen to the sound of your own perfect sermons because that seems to be the only person your theological attacks on this website seem perfect for – yourself. They are a completely inappropriate and offensive when measured against the long and interesting story of a little church founded in the 19th century, who’s story you seem to know absolutely “zero” about wrapped up in your own theological “correctness”.
Caring for other humans is irrelevant to you in your blogs – only your glorious, perfect little sermons and debunking the other person – defeating the enemy. There are sad people like you who creep around in the shadows of some places, pios, and oh so perfect, and … for what? You’ve totally missed the boat with Christianity – it’s about understanding the human story… about compassion. You will NEVER in a blog comment on this site make mention of the pain this community’s been through in recent years – only your sanctimonious, pios little perfect sermons in the little perfect lonely world that is you
Sad Stalker St. John.
07/02/2011 at 5:17 pm Permalink
Hello Tim,
As I briefly said in a comment on Eric, when Peter and his supporters were in battle with the archbishop of Brisbane it was they who chose to go to the wider media – TV, radio and newspapers – seeking support from the general community. Peter could have conducted his struggle within catholic church structures,( and would have got totally done over), could have remained within the catholic press/media,( and still totally done over). Had he do so St Mary’s would never have heard from me. I do not know about H.St John, but I live in Melbourne and had never heard of St Mary’s. By his actions Peter put St Mary’s into the public domain. By his actions Peter invited support and with it discussion, disagreement and all that goes with “going public”. Peter played the media “progressive-catholic-priest-battling- archconservatives” card for all it was worth. He knew that it would attract the attention, interest and support of many Catholics – about 4 million – who like myself have walked out in the thing yet still have a great interest. If you do not believe this just have a look at Peter’s performance on the ABC program Q & A. It’s all there. So it seems that Peter wanted our support but not our say. Which means he is just like Pell.
Love Fosco
07/02/2011 at 5:35 pm Permalink
Hi Fosco Antonio
Peter’s appearance on Q&A was not representative at all of the quiet pastoral man and good friend and person that Peter has been to many – it was a media role thrust on him for 15 seconds, and one he was not suited for. The appearance was an embarrassment to some St Mary’s members who may have stayed at the old church, left the old church and joined SME, or simply left. That is the tragedy of St Mary’s events in recent years – as I’ve explained in these blogs, under all the media 15 second hype of 2008/09 is just a relatively small community of many good people (now 2 small communities of good people). Walk into St Mary’s South Brisbane sometime – it’s a little gem of a church, nestled in a big burgeoning, multicultural inner city suburb, where a beautiful mass is said and sung twice on Sundays, where Catholic Prisons Ministry has a home in the house adjoining – it’s a place of peace and tranquility – a beautiful little space. Or go to the TLC community and find similar – a relatively small, caring community of many good folk, where often the highlight is the homily from someone who’s had a difficult life journey and been helped by meditation and prayer, and community. True SME has moved even further away now from Catholic orthodoxy than when it formed in 2009 but it is a good group of people, nonetheless.
The injustice is that community needs a permanent home – just like any local, small church where many of it’s members are 50s, 60s, 70s and look to their local church for networking and support. That is the story of St Mary’s – a brave 15 seconds of fame to make a point, coming at a cost.
07/02/2011 at 5:40 pm Permalink
So I’m wrapped up in “theological correctness” and I’ve missed the boat that you and “David from Brizzy” are on, a boat where brain explosions and name-calling passes for compassion (is that right?), it seems to make even less sense as it goes on. Well go on then, cry on my shoulder?
07/02/2011 at 6:05 pm Permalink
No you are wrapped up in irrelevance Stalker St. John lol. This blog has moved to a much more interesting topic which is the communities of St Mary’s. lol. It’s moved on because one of it’s contributors had the courage to tell a bit more of themselves.
07/02/2011 at 6:17 pm Permalink
I like it when you tell me about myself.
07/02/2011 at 6:21 pm Permalink
Wrong again stalker friend.
Blog moving on had NOTHING to do with Stalker.St.John
but another third party…
07/02/2011 at 7:00 pm Permalink
1. Just another detested nom-de-plume according to you.
2. So what is your issue, exactly?
Cheers, Hieronymous from Brizzy.
07/02/2011 at 7:16 pm Permalink
Issue is that stalking and harassment are criminal offenses, and I find your behavior on this blog somewhat intimidating and perhaps to be misinterpreted by some as leading in that direction, IP addresses tracked, reported, etc… anyway, back to the other blog discussion which doesn’t involve the bullsh*t artists… Thanks for your honest contribution Fosco Antonio.
07/02/2011 at 7:30 pm Permalink
Oh well thanks for all the pointless abuse of the last 24 hours. Maybe I have spared some more sensitive person from your free expression. It’s lucky for you you hang out in a church with old ladies and not a pub where you would have quite likely been punched out by now!
07/02/2011 at 9:08 pm Permalink
Again…
Horrible St. John’s knowledge of St Mary’s community is scarce, so let’s fill him/her/it in. St Mary’s has for many years to a considerable degree been run by old ladies, as almost any good church is. Marg, Joan, you have been our guides and pillars of strength over the years. When Marg and Joan walked off down the road in 2009, they were replaced by another group of old(er) ladies, and that’s fine by me… did the politics, or the doctrine change? Does it matter? It’s still older ladies who run the church!
HOWEVER, in regards to the old St Mary’s being populated by old ladies entirely, well no, it’s a very diverse place. Only last year at church, I got into an argument with an old man was I felt for half a second might be about to punch me out, and low and behold, since then we’ve both changed our tack, and I am growing in respect for this older Catholic man with each passing week. I though I would, that I would have a great deal to learn from the more orthodox Catholics who’ve come back to the old St Mary’s and I have.
I only wish so many of the Liberal Catholics had not left because I dream of a church where both respect each other. Peter was so strong on involving the laity, on the wonderful homilies which he and many gave, but not so strong on encouraging some of the more orthodox Catholic traditions and that’s a shame – but not entirely his fault, given the likes of Horrible St. John have been harassing him after countless masses, and telling him he sucks. He doesn’t.. he always had a position he would pull back from, just he kept getting pushed…
That’s about it for old ladies.
07/02/2011 at 10:08 pm Permalink
I remember the place from reading the newspaper. So they had a nice little piece of realestate but the landlord kicked them out for having a buddha statue on the premises. It’s not my fault if your new drop-in centre is a scout hall in the suburbs. It’s probably your fault, and what have you learned? Either not much or nothing by my guess.
07/02/2011 at 11:14 pm Permalink
Well SME don’t even own a Scout hall in the suburbs. They own nothing because they spent all their efforts over decades giving money to support a local fledgling welfare agency to grow into a very good service for homeless persons. You could argue the ‘mix’ wasn’t right in going about this, but if you argued that at St Mary’s in 2005 you would not have much of a voice. The Buddhist statue was a red herring, but wow, a Buddhist statue in a Catholic church?!? That’s news! No it wasn’t.. Monday meditation group was going on for years. Interest in inter-faith studies, at least to some degree was given air during St Mary’s homilies – so? Other Catholic priests make reference to other faiths in their homilies.
The Christian gospels and Christ still held center stage, it was a Christian church. But it didn’t APPEAR that the balance wasn’t there to honour more orthodox and traditional Catholic ritual, and that is something that could have been addressed. There were for example, more traditional weekday masses – they were not advertised in the weekend mass sheets. Why not? Don’t ask me. There were ‘orthodox’ Catholics who had their meetings, prayer services at St Mary’s pre-2009 and who stayed after the SME/St Mary’s split. why wasn’t that in the old news bulletin? Don’t ask me.
And a more ‘metaphorical’ reading of the gospels? It only your strengthens your modern faith, when you look at the Nicene Creed – you gain a stronger appreciation for those old texts. There is a simple, conservative approach to Catholic worship which does not need to exclude liberalism, and yet somehow the “God-speak” of many orthodox Christians does exclude them. Hence the need it now seems for a new denomination, Progressive Christianity. Good on em. It’s a damn brave move when the infrastructure isn’t there yet to give wings to that new network, and maybe the whole issue with SME is just that there timing is just slightly wrong – off by about 5 or 10 years or whatever, and I hope they can hold out that long until the network is there.
09/02/2011 at 12:33 am Permalink
A buddha statue isn’t a red herring, it’s a clear symbol of an “anything goes” mentality. Maybe they were wrong by a few years, about 40 years I would say, they should have tried it on in 1971. I think you people have confused the place with a nice piece of real-estate and done things with it that could have been done just as well outside. I am skeptical that anything-goes-liberalism is the best way to help homeless persons, I would argue that the local tafe college was more effective (“… teach a man to fish …”). I would argue that all you people did was dilute and corrupt the main function of the place, admittedly, you were not alone in that!!!
(nb. my argument comes from a sort of academic curiosity, not from some sort of fanatical conviction.)
09/02/2011 at 9:33 am Permalink
You (whoever you is – again it must be stated that it offensive and hurtful to people you take up so much space on this blog when you can’t use a real name) can look up in the archives Peter’s response to the silly issue of the statue. It was not an issue. The issue was that St Mary’s did not have good administration and the needs of a community and a very good welfare agency on site were not balanced – a community hall would have been highly beneficial for the community’s needs, and then many items that were not suitable for being in the church could have been removed to the hall. The welfare agency you are denigrating is highly regarded. Your message is offensive on 2 counts – (a) you clearly show you were not part of this community and not aware of the issues, and (b) you can’t use your own identity in blogging. Which is why the site administrator here needs to track your IP address and block it. Better solution – not have a blog. You’re phrase “a nice piece of real estate” is truly offensive to me. You don’t have the first clue about St Mary’s South Brisbane. I don’t how else I can spell it out here: your messages are offensive and hurtful to present and past members of this community.
09/02/2011 at 11:37 am Permalink
According to you everyone is using false names. Isn’t the idea of running a website to persuade people to your point of view? I should advise you that personal and off-topic attacks aren’t very persuasive.and that people generally are wise to passive/aggressive methods too. If you find you can’t control your internet how you’d like, maybe you are right, shut it down like they do in China. As for “nice piece of real-estate”, the Catholic church has plenty of them, and I would say accountants have as much say in the Vatican as anywhere else. As for denigrating your welfare agency, no not really, just questioning your priorities. Do you really need a sacred site to hand out old blankets? Anyway if you people want to be progressive I would say go for it and progress all the way back to the first century but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater which you seem to have done. The first step forward for you personally would be to admit some mistakes. Why not come up with a pen name for starters, you might calm down a bit.
09/02/2011 at 6:08 pm Permalink
Dear Harasser St John
I’ll spell this out because you’ve missed it in the last few messages: Fosco Antonio when he realized he might be mistaken for a nom de plume, provided a full name, and gave a context – a city – a history – a general one of course – he doesn’t have to reveal a heap of detail about himself. Just enough to say, “yeah we get it, we respect your story, it may not be my story of course, but we respect…”. I have provided that context too – you have my name, you have the fact that (although you’ve forgotten it which is just stupid on your part and you cant’ read, can’t remember, or are just dishonest) that I am not part of what you describe as “You people” – I belong to the other community. Without you providing ANY of that context, we’ll provide it, we’ll give you your identity on this website, and it’s an identity that – well, why would any human being want to be the cowboy that you are here?
That’s not what Christianity or Catholicism is about. It’s about giving a human face – not just some bizarre and inappropriate nom de plume that is laughable.
09/02/2011 at 9:59 pm Permalink
I’m not interested in your personal ID details.
09/02/2011 at 10:08 pm Permalink
Is that it? Has Howard had the last word? Or will there be a pause to take breath?
Maybe it is time for a comment from some impartial person – someone who has been on the receiving end of verbal abuse from BOTH Tim and Howard:
Tim is partially correct in referring to this as a local community blog. On the other hand, as fosco has pointed out (echoing a point that I had already made), if it was just that it would be of little interest to anyone outside the community. However, the webmaster continues to allow it to be used as a forum for anti-catholic bigotry, and it should not be surprising that comments come from outside the community. Even from people whose names might not meet Tim’s exacting standards of nominative orthodoxy.
09/02/2011 at 10:14 pm Permalink
It’s interesting, isn’t it, this name business. If Howard St.John were to write in to confess that he was really Barry Brown from Brisbane, would his comments thereby be transformed from deep philosophy to irritating trivia (or vice versa, depending on your point of view)?
I may be in a sense partly to blame because my name happens to be the same as a fictional character, but whence comes this strange suspicion of any name with a European flavour, or a name perhaps suggestive of the upper class? Is South Brisbane such a parochial backwater, or is there some psychological chip on the shoulder peculiar to people with a fairly commonplace Anglo name?
09/02/2011 at 10:31 pm Permalink
Perry Mason,
after everything?
Sigh, do I really have to put the wink
Or should we all put on suicide vests and sit there dumbly in some odd blog form of mutually assured destruction?
If I said for example I’m going to tear someone to pieces, I mean, what with, the mouse pad?
As for whatsisname, he is just a bipolar.
09/02/2011 at 11:07 pm Permalink
simple, guys (Perry, and H.St.Whatsiname)…
(1) you use your name
(2) say a bit about yourself (without having to give infinite detail of course) so we actually can see your not a vindictive bastard, but a human being
(3) state your case
(4) people don’t have to agree with you but they respect you cause you can’t do (1) and (2)
(1) and (2) is just plain human courtesy and i regard you (as many others do at SME/the old St Mary’s or friends i talked to today) your behavior on this site as cowardly.
i talk to members of SME (of which i am not a member) – they hardly use this on occasion (not a lot), but they quickly make mention of the pseudonyms like you… “don’t reply to them”, one cautioned me – “they don’t use their real names”. well i reckon it’s time to reply and create a stink and get the site administrators to deal with you once and for all – of course you will be within hours onto another computer and back with a new email, IP address and pseudonym to “bash SME” … who are you bashing? a large number of the people you are bashing up on are middle aged or older folk, many professionals, retired folk, who are just good people contributing to you their community.
this community doesn’t need your abuse, Perry Mason, Harraser St. John.
but don’t take my word for it or resort to the psychological abuse of branding people with mental illnesses they simply don’t have, as you’ve done in the above message “H.St…….” in your above message…no i don’t have bipolar actually – i am just really bloody angry at your behavoiur on this site beating up on people who are hardly canon law scholars – they are just good and decent folk.
You are what to me defines cowardly, and if you are Christians, I’m ashamed to be one. Fortunately, i don’t define myself by your standards.
Tim
09/02/2011 at 11:30 pm Permalink
and Perry.. try some of these names for size… Ogbujieze, Tubb, Nabas, Lee, Macario, Pereira, Wei, Sasube, Kormon, Jennings, Del la Cruz, Curry, Youm, Zettl, Li, Luo, Millar, Nugyen… see any pattern? No i don’t either.. these are some of the last names of choir members at my church in recent times.. South Brisbane a “parochial backwater”? No i don’t think so. “Chip on the shoulder”? Nope. Many people SME/and not are just tired of your berating this community and trying to psychoanalyze people on these blogs while hiding yourselves. That’s the act of a coward, not a Christian.
10/02/2011 at 12:07 am Permalink
Stop asking strangers for comments then.
10/02/2011 at 7:53 am Permalink
not asking strangers for comments.. asking them to just say who they are if they want to contribute to this blog..
(for the 20th times….) you can’t even do that.
10/02/2011 at 2:11 pm Permalink
HStJ,
It was not me but fosco that you threatened with ‘tearing to pieces’. Me, you just accused of being one of ‘you liberals’, which still makes me a bit dizzy to think about. (Sorry, I can’t work out how to use those smiley face things!)
10/02/2011 at 2:45 pm Permalink
What the? lol. Your last message Perry is a confused mishmash. Let’s leave the mishmashy thing for a minute.
Put it to you and Happy St John in another way – the whole process the old and new communities of St Mary’s have been threw has been a major upheaval. Many people need time to rebuild and move on… and sensitivity is required in dealing with these people, including me. Hopping on a blog and prooving yourselves to be “in the right” doctrinally, or theologically, doesn’t address the main issue here I think. I guess that’s what I’m trying to say. Maybe this is very hard to grasp if you aren’t actually a local who’s been involved significantly in either current St Mary’s community, or the St Mary’s or 2009 and previous.
Tim
10/02/2011 at 3:25 pm Permalink
Tim, one minute you are having FUN on the blog, the next you are ‘b…y angry’. Are you sure Howard was wrong in his diagnosis?
If it will help with your ‘name paranoia’, I will admit that Perry is not the name on my birth certificate, but one that I am known by amongst a diminishing circle of friends at the bingo hall. My real first name is too embarrassing to reveal publicly. I shudder to think of the fun that some of the coarse-languaged contibutors to this blog would have at my expense.
There now, I’ve said it. When can I expect the warm wellsprings of progressive christian charity to start flowing?
Tim, the good and decent people of SMX, some of them at least, seem to have a change of personality when it comes to the catholic church. My first email to this blog was to the defence of an archbishop who was being publicly vilified for an abuse of power (when all he had done was to appoint a catholic priest to a catholic church). Then there was the outcry over the non-issue of a baptismal certificate (from people, both priest and parents, who don’t believe in catholic baptism anyway). Then there was the gentleman angry over the catholic church (which he had left) planning to change the liturgy (which he no longer used) by which the church expresses its beliefs (which he no longer held). I could go on ..
The most useful thing you can do, Tim, to rid this website of irritating outsiders would be to persuade your chums at SMX to focus on their journey, and to come to terms with the fact that they have left the catholic church, both physically and spiritually.
10/02/2011 at 4:50 pm Permalink
Perry Mason,
You have already extracted the evidence I was looking for – the “name paranoia” is being used as a cover-up for the central issue, my comment back on the 5th: “The great walk-out” is in part a reaction to the year round singing of Christmas carols…
Whatsaname,
The advice from PM above is correct. Name-calling and vilifying me is just another way of avoiding the inevitable, that is, setting out on your new journey. Over to you for the all-important last word, and by the way, you haven’t called me Hitler yet!
10/02/2011 at 5:39 pm Permalink
Let’s deal with the “year round singing of Christmas carols”
As a university qualified musician with 37 years experience and church music experience from the age of 11, I would say that “year round singing of Christmas carols” goes back to a very early comment on this blog that it’s descended into being “very wierd”… “Year round singing of Christmas carols” is just makes you look embarassingly inept in your musical knowledge and knowledge of St Mary’s. In fact, I’ve absolutely no idea what “year round singing of Christmas carols” relates to. If it relates to a St Mary’s musician like Joan Mooney with a masters in composition and organ who brought events such as Brisbane Biennial concerts, and groups such as Topology to St Mary’s, and musician like John Curro…. then it sounds like you know nothing about the history of St Mary’s – only what you’ve seen and read in the media. a theme running right throughout this blog which Antonio Fosco .
Back to the central issue: the “cowards” (as people I’ve talked to over the last couple of days” describe them who continually write on a small, local, church community blog (not some large public government or media blog) and can’t use their own names, which is totally against the spirit of a local church and verging on harrassment and stalking:
If any of my words are “name calling” or vilifying” I am truly angry at the contribution of this creep “H.St.John”, and I make no apology for my anger. Does it mean i’ll take any further action, apart from having contacted the site administrator here and suggest they block your IP address, or remove the blogging facility on this website so they are not open to attacks from cowards like H.St.John?
No. Waste of time to spend any more time thinking of “……..” [psuedonym].
11/02/2011 at 1:22 am Permalink
ps.
Well, my dog can bark “God Save The Queen”.
Here’s some more music for ya, from Bob.
“Aaaaah!
My name it ain’t nuthin’ my age it is less,
twang twang, twang twang,
The country I come from is called the midwest!”
Just joking, I’m a Purcell fan.
Also known to appreciate peace and quiet.
11/02/2011 at 8:43 am Permalink
I’ve contacted Terry Fitzpatrick and SME and suggested they delete the blog facility on this website. Most church websites have no such facility – the old St Mary’s church has no such facility nor will it on it’s new site. The information posted on this site speaks for itself – an email contact can be given after each posting of a homily or other news for those seeking further information – spammers and harassers such as H.St.John can be dealt with like any email annoyance and their IP / email blocked. That is my position now – if I ever post again on this website it will be to suggest in the strongest terms this blog facility is removed. This community doesn’t need the attacks from creeps like H.St.John.
11/02/2011 at 11:15 am Permalink
I venture to say that the St Marys Catholic Church, like most church websites, does not run a blog because it does not regularly invite controversy by publishing disparaging comments about other religions.
11/02/2011 at 11:44 am Permalink
Hello Contributors,
The internet is not the problem. Peter and also Terry presented themselves in the media, not just in one poor interview but in a blitz lasting well over a year, as radical, revolutionary Catholic priests forging the spiritual tradition of Christianity with our age of Humanism. This is the sparkle that so many in the “Church” are awaiting; almost as much as they await the Second Coming. For them it will be the beginning of the New and Greatest Reformation of them all!!! Heady stuff! I refer anybody who may be interested to the ABC program “Australian Stories” on Peter and Terry. Even John Lennon would have applauded. Indeed John would have been moved to tears.
It now has come to light that this image was a manipulation to serve in a squabble between a dwindling to its death little parish and petty functionaries of the fear crippled old men of the Vatican.
Terry and management can introduce freedom of speech controls if they so desire. It’s their website. However, they should acknowledge that they are false, that they ran to the media to serve their own agenda and their own career needs.
If they do censor freedom of speech then what is the difference between them and the “old” church? Dress codes, it seems.
Thank you H. St. John for your chaotic contributions. A movement, and for that matter an individual, must first descend into chaos before it can find truth. No, I did not get that from a lolly wrapper; it’s the fundamental message of the Books of Exodus, the Book of Job and the death of Rabbi Jesus. Now that we are all Mystics in the church, where else does the dark night of the soul begin, I ask?
Love Fosco
11/02/2011 at 1:38 pm Permalink
Perry
“I venture to say that the St Marys Catholic Church, like most church websites, does not run a blog”… “because it does not regularly invite controversy by publishing disparaging comments about other religions.” are completely unrelated statements. Whether or not comments about other religions are spoken or published by SME members or any other church and deemed (by who? you of course – you are the great abitrator and judge in this debate) to be “disparaging” or not deemed to be negative is an absolutely rediculous claim to make: you would have to check your claim against millions of other churches who do not run blogs on their official websites and then make your arbitrary, personal judgment about each church, whether it publishes or in any way make what you deem to be disparaging statements about “other religions”.
Even more to the point, you have no idea in your statement as to why the “St Mary’s Catholic Church” (and I’m assuming you mean the old church on the previous site) doesn’t intend to include a blog on their website.
Fosco:
The Australian Story episode was one of the most balanced reports on Peter Kennedy, and did not come down definitively in “favour” of St Mary’s OR the Catholic hierarchy, but did what it always does, and that is present a story in the short space of a 30 minute television time slot. More than 30 minutes was need to tell this story in fact, and as I’ve pointed out more mundane issues such as administration, that were critical to the story, were not covered. Writing or publishing often tells you what is left out. If you know more about St Mary’s than the reportage of 2008-09, contact the churches involved, and politely tell your side of the story.
AN IMPORTANT NOTE: Following the change at St Mary’s of April 2009 1 or 2 (only 1 or 2) of the “know it all” types – all knowledgeable about church music, theology, doctrine, faith, canon law, and the whole bit, did attend the old church, and quite soon drifted on, after they realised it was just business as usual, there was little if any controversy (as detailed in media coverage, such as the ABC documentary you mention), rather the old church was just what you would find at any church really, Catholic or otherwise – many good people, getting on quietly with the business of volunteering to help run their local community – cleaning, arranging flowers, preparing music, reading, gardening, and so on and so on… as with SME – some people like Marg & Doc Ortiz, John Fitzwalter, and others, have worked incredibly hard to make their community function week to week and be the meeting place and support it is to it’s several hundred members who wish to continue their acquaintances and friendships by meeting at TLC. Two good communities, with many good people.
cheers,
Tim
11/02/2011 at 5:23 pm Permalink
Tim:
Yes, I think we are talking about the same church – the one where in 2009 the archbishop acted to ensure that catholic sacraments were administered by catholic priests.
Fosco:
You keep referring to ‘frightened old men of the Vatican’, as if saying something often enough will make it so. Anyone objectively looking at the lives of the present and the last pope (especially JPII) would not see ‘frightened men’ but examples of great strength in adversity. (Here I must apologise to Tim that this is not based on a survey of millions of people, but on simple, unprejudiced, common sense.)
11/02/2011 at 7:17 pm Permalink
Perry’s missing the point – the issue is not simply about enforcing Catholic doctrine – people GET that part – the issue is HOW the changes at St Mary’s took place… that more subtle point takes not just intelligence, but patience and humility and I dare say participation in either community over a considerable amount of time to grasp hold of what this fairly unusual change is for – now – 2 communties.
Can you quote other examples of entire Catholic churches (500 people) in recent times walking out of their church half-way through a mass, with the exception of 5 people? I’d love to know.. in fact it would be helpful to both our communities to make sense of what we’re going through if you could “educate” us Perry, that’s your role here Perry, right, to educate us and set us straight?
St Mary’s, as Perry’s dialogue seems to suggest, is not just a case of a clothing chain replacing a boss in a clothing store and all the customers leaving because they don’t like the new stores clothes. For many who’ve moved on to SME (or those who left St Mary’s in 2009 and now go to neither church), they cherish much about the ‘traditional’ and orthodox Catholic faith, and it is very special to them – it is to me. Some aspects they question, they are concerned about.
St Mary’s community under Kennedy was where many of these SME people (and myself) met for many years, it’s where we prayed, laughed, learnt, made life friendships, grew to understand people and our own strengths and faults, gave our money in the collection plate to Rome, got married, enjoyed wonderful music, and build up a store of many of perhaps our most precious life memories – not all of Peter from the pulpit – it was a diverse community. It’s where, whatever your doctrinal point of view, I personally have tears when I think about my life and my long history over the decades with this church. I might not agree with all the Peter Kennedy said/says from the pulpit, I respect him for all that he’s given to me and my community and is one of the most interesting people I’ve met.
So Perry, feel happy to ignore all this and trundle on with your doctrinal lesson on this blog.. Because.. the campaign has started now to get the blog facility removed so that you lose your voice on this website, and the SME community organisers are listening to that campaign… I certainly won’t mind losing my right to speak here, but I relish the day, when you no longer participate in the SME blog because of the pain I think you and H.St.John are potentially causing to others.
cheers,
Tim
12/02/2011 at 6:07 am Permalink
Tim, sorry to be ‘doctrinal’ again, but you really should try to understand that the Catholic mass is a service of worship of God, culminating in the most important sacrament of the Eucharist. If, as you say, 500 people walked out in the middle of a mass, that would have been an act of crass, uncatholic rudeness.
12/02/2011 at 11:41 am Permalink
No shit Perry. We all get what the Catholic mass is about, about the wonderful prayerfulness, reverence, and sacredness of the Eucharist. Those qualities were never lost from St Mary’s – it might say something about the WAY this was handled (not the doctrinal or other reasons) that a community met for mass – walked out of their church, then said mass in an office building. It might say something to you about how they felt as a community allowed to exist and pay their taxes to Rome for many years.
It is a grave mistake for SME to have ever run this blog in the first place and given you a voice to brandish your hurt on a community that’s suffered enough. So enough blogging – this blog facility on SME needs to be removed. But your reply will be below, you’ll “correct” and “admonish” this community, and anyone like me who stands in your way and says “hang on – yes, Perry, we know what you’re saying, but there are more issues involved here.” There are no more issues involved for you here – you are black and white, and here to cause hurt, and inflict psychological damage and you need to go elsewhere… not have a voice here.
12/02/2011 at 4:11 pm Permalink
Just in defence of Perry Mason, your psychological damage appears to be self-inflicted. Your blog-rage and bipolar issues are suggestive of long term substance abuse. I would strongly advise you to, in future, avoid all types of mind altering substances, from cannabis and amphetamines, all the way down to coffee, preferably even tobacco and black tea. In some extreme cases you could have even become emotionally destabilised through exposure to car exhaust fumes – possibly even contaminants in the tap water. When you have purified your body, eventually, your mind should follow. Good luck and best wishes in this regard.
12/02/2011 at 6:24 pm Permalink
I don’t need creeps (stalkers, harassers, people with no name off the internet) to psychoanalyze me and tell me what my personal problems are. For the record: I’ve never put a cigarette to my lips, used an illicit drug, and I don’t smoke. The “bipolar” issue I responded to in the negative many messages ago – your repeated use of that is just harassment. Soon this blog will disapear and the abuse from Harasser St John will be gone, and this community can get on with positively looking to the future, not defending themselves from your abuse, stalker man.
12/02/2011 at 6:27 pm Permalink
sorry “and I don’t drink” (not “smoke” – I don’t smoke either). Both St Mary’s communities have had a couple of people blow through who fit the description of the character traits shown by the way this “H.St.John” writes – a couple of guys who would keep people away from our churches if they showed up, they are so vile. You can understand the sensitivity therefore that we don’t what that same behavior and abuse shown by people blogging on our church websites who can’t even use their names. That’s harassment or worse and needs to be dealt with by shutting this blog down. End of Story.
12/02/2011 at 7:33 pm Permalink
What you describe is not a Christian church, but a cult. As far as I can see you’re the only member. You should definitely seek outside help in relation to your personal abuse issues.
12/02/2011 at 8:24 pm Permalink
I’m glad harasser St.John that you see only 1 SME member contributing to this blog (even though I’ve explained many many messages ago I’m not an SME member). I’m just here to confront the stalkers and creeps like yourself with their anonymous no-name antics and use yourscores of messages you’ve written to get this blog facility turned off.
Why are there not many SME members contributing to this blog? Because they are not here to argue with bush cowboys like you about your bullshit, unscholarly “truths” – they have lives to lead, jobs to do, and people to meet with face to friendships to nurture, pets to play with, gardens to tend, sons and daughters to take to cricket practice – in other words they have a life.
So they won’t miss this blog when it’s deleted.
What a coward you are: hiding behind an internet handle and message after message telling me I about my “issues”. That’s no Catholic or Christian I know.
12/02/2011 at 9:38 pm Permalink
You are just not contributing anything with your spiteful comments and your persecution mania. The whole idea of an internet blog is to solicit comments from the wider world. You insist on contaminating this blog with your megalomaniac paranoid delusional nonsense so much that I suspect you must be already institutionalised. Nothing you say seems to add much to the torrent of insults and abuse you have already put down. If it offends you so much why don’t you a) get off or b) pluck out your eye.
12/02/2011 at 9:58 pm Permalink
ah yes… one apparently “new” item into the conversation in each message from Harasser St. John.. in this last message, he’s added a little tid-bit (“instutionalised”).. how exciting and dramatic for readers.. something new? never been mentioned before… ever.. in this blogsite!!
attention: readers!!! log on… don’t miss it!! You MUST log on or you’ll miss something that Harasser St John has to reveal that will totally alter the complete tone of this conversation! New information revealed.. new, new.. new!!!
get *NEW* information with every Harasser St. John message!
can’t wait. however…
The concept of junkets and “a little bit more information” this is just the stock standard tactic of the online harasser and stalker like Harasser St John.. and it’s a borrowed tactic.. “new” is just as old as .. well.. computers and tired old salesman talk.
it’s tired, and it’s dead.
what’s not tired and dead is the lived SME and St Mary’s members have lived today, working, playing, spending time with friends, preparing their churches for workship tonight and tomorrow… these are good, and healthy and fruitful activities.
So is my contacting peter, terry, david, and other SME organisers today and putting the case to them that the blog site must be closed. What are you going to do Harasser St John, contact them and put the case for the negative (with just a tiny bit “new” information they’ve NEVER heard before), and then sign your thoughts, “H.St.John”?
If anyone sent me an email signed “H.St.John” it would take me about .5 seconds to block their IP and email and never hear from them again.
Cheers.
12/02/2011 at 10:20 pm Permalink
No I’m not going to do anything because I don’t think I “own” this blog. If they stop inviting me to leave a comment so be it. Why don’t you get your own Face-book page and kick everyone off it, instead of trying to kick everyone off a web page that is not even your own! You run about stalking and harassing everyone who legitimately leaves a comment as they are requested to do. I was invited to put a comment on another page and I see you have stalked up with your silly dribble, making nonsensical claims against me! You are not even on topic, you are just raving about yourself every time! Anyway it’s not my blog so you can go ahead if that’s what you want to do. But since you are lacking in both wit and originality you are generally diminishing the whole project. It’s little wonder you want your rubbish deleted. Can you not try to come up with anything meaningful, entertaining or worthwhile? Perhaps you could do a cut & paste from somewhere.
13/02/2011 at 6:45 am Permalink
Sure, i’ll cut and paste from somewhere “Comparison to other Christian traditions leads me to think the Catholic church of 2011 includes in it’s worship spaces, liturgy, and practises, traits of the contemplative religious tradition more so than other Christian denominations.” – the very first sentence of the very first blog posting on this page. It’s my blog posting, and it’s in response to a homily that mentions mystical traditions, and contemplative spirituality. So in response to “You are not even on topic”, I believe the first posting on this page (mine) is on topic. My posting was not a “support Kennedy” or “bash Kennedy” post – but simply reflecting in a positive way on the homily.
What followed was, in the theme of “bash SME” similar to all other postings by Harasser St John, a pulling apart of Peter Kennedy’s talk, a personal attack on me because I don’t use a nom de plume. So I’m on topic – still – many messages later – in reponse to your blog posting. I’m calling your posting and you for who you are – you are a coward and a creep who lurks around in the shadows hiding behind an internet handle on a small local church blog, and this blog site needs to be stopped so that you stop bashing up on this community and REAL people (not nom de plumes) who “contribute” to it. This community, and the Catholic church they left, have work to do. They don’t have to put up with your psychological abuse, in the typical Catholic tone of the “admonisher”. I’ve spent enough time in my life away from the Catholic church to have my own identity and I love the Catholic church and see it for it’s faults and failings, but it doesn’t consume me to the point I need to embark on trying to destroy people’s psyches to defend the faith. No faith is worth defending in that way by abusing other people, stalking, and harassing them on a website with an anonymous internet handle as you dear, my dear man.
cheers,
Tim Roberts
13/02/2011 at 8:46 am Permalink
This is one of the saddest discourses I’ve read. I logged on this morning after St Mary’s was recommended to me as a potential church to attend; goodness knows it’s hard to find a church that respond’s to life’s hardships and the realities we face in 2011 from a strong theological, intelligent and perhaps radical perspective. Tim, perhaps you have grief for the loss of the whole pre-2009 St Mary’s. I would find this totally understandable. I know nothing. This blog has been interesting but maybe ultimately inappropriate and unhelpful. I fear you have misunderstood H.St.J and become angry unduly and have resorted to swearing! In your second comment you weren’t so upset with pseudonyms. Take it easy. H.St.J meant no harm. St Mary’s has indeed opened the doors to free comment, even I know that and, as I say, I know nothing. Pseudonyms? Who cares?! Whatever’s good, whatever’s true, whatever’s noble, whatever’s lovely, let’s think on these things. Now I’m late for church! x
13/02/2011 at 9:55 am Permalink
OK I have checked out your top posting and yes it’s all about you, you, you.
And now the internet is giving you psychological problems – what a precious flower you are.
Good luck with controlling the internet.
13/02/2011 at 10:58 am Permalink
Of course my blog post involves me – as opposed to some internet stalker pseudonym such as yourself who reveals almost nothing and waits and preys on SME members and other blog contributors to (supposedly) inflict psychological damage as the Catholic church has done countless times in the past to people and as is your way Stalker St John – why does my post make mention of me? Because it’s a personal reflection based on experience over 3 decades at St Mary’s church where Peter Kennedy resided and now doesn’t – my post’s not claiming to be canon law, or a theological “truth” as you claim – it’s something different, and you struggle with that. Not everyone who blogs in reply to a homily needs to support or refute theological arguments made in that homily. Get it?
What you won’t also ever get (because this point doesn’t fit into your “bashing” people on this site) is that it’s not an argument about internet “control” – that’s an old argument. This is a much more specific argument about this site and this community being bashed by creeps like you in 2008-2009 and this community needs to move on and restrict the 1 or 2 individuals like yourself who are simply out there to “bash SME”. I’ve also explained 1 or 2 unsavory characters have engaged in the local Brisbane community have been engaged in what really amounts to harassment of this community, past and present members, and you could be possibly mistaken for being one of those local characters THEREFORE your behaviour on this website might be considered stalking which in Australia anyway, is an offense if convicted incurring years of incarceration.
The only response to your creepish behaviour is to shut this blog down, and for this community to move on from exposing themselves to your online harassment.
You denied many, many messages that as I suggested there was any “stoush” between you and me. I’m calling your behavior on this site as harassment and have reported you. What do you reckon now mate, is this a stoush?
cheers mate,
Tim
13/02/2011 at 12:09 pm Permalink
It’s not a stoush because you are a galah.
13/02/2011 at 12:21 pm Permalink
Hello Contributors,
Peter’s Opus Humanae has come to a dilemma. How should it deal with the Critic? Should it follow the example of the Vatican fear cripples who for centuries have simply done a “chop off”, or in many cases a burn off. It could of course, but there is the problem that Peter and Terry, elders of Opus Humanae, were themselves “chopped off”. And it’s a bad media look for a “chopped off” to then chop off others; especially so with the internet media toppling two tyrants in two weeks.
Peter did of course very skilfully use the power of the internet, with it’s anarchistic, free expression, creative, in-your-face argument style, in his battle with the archbishop. Putting online the letters of His Grace was masterly. It made the officious cannon law quoting instrument of the Vatican look like a tragic and pathetic figure from a bygone age. But this is not necessarily an obstacle to killing the Critic; using freedom of speech to get one’s want then denying it to others to protect what one has is nothing new.
But this is not really a media question. It is more a question of transformation. Killing the Critic will transform Opus Humanae into Opus Dei.
Love Fosco
13/02/2011 at 1:18 pm Permalink
Fosco & Harasser St John
you are referring to 2008/09 – that’s 2 years ago.
the community’s moved on and continued badgering i.e. Harasser St John is
living in the past for this community, and harking back 2 years. that’s another characteristic of the badgering, stalker type tho – the are stuck in the past.
this blog needs to come down so the community can move on….
comprende guys?
13/02/2011 at 1:42 pm Permalink
THE COWARDLY 4 STEP METHOD OF AN CYBER STALKER/BULLY ON SME WEBSITE:
why do SME members no longer leave comments here? Because (1) some nom de plume creep like Harrasser St John will tear their ideas apart if they do leave comments (even if they are just reflections), then (2) when they respond a tad angry Harasser will make it personal and psychoanalyse the offending party, and (3) then that party responds angrily asking why you can’t even reveal your own name you’ll claim “self defence” do that sort of illogical question (who’s “you” that is being defended tho? there is no “you on this website!!) and round and round in circles continuing your online harassment (while protecting you’re identity of course – you need to do that in order to harass people online) and (4) you’ll continue your psychological online abuse until the person you have offended gives up, and doesn’t visit this website, then you’ll go back to right back to steps (1) (2) (3) (4) with the next person who dares to blog on here.. and the next, and the next….
That’s all you are on about – that’s your only tactic – to tear down the homilies, then attack the people who question your tearing people down, and your anonymity on this site…
Pathetic and cowardly.
13/02/2011 at 2:31 pm Permalink
Hello Contributors,
Tim has accused H. St. John of cyber bully, internet stalking and harassment. Further, Tim has stated that he has “reported” H. St John, although it is not stated to what higher authorities the report was made. Unless evidence is submitted of H. St. John making personal contact with Tim the evidence of the “alleged” criminality is the seventy or so commentaries on the Opus Humanae blogs. Although I did not go to the Jesuits, my education was with the Christian Brothers, in the spirit of the great jurists (maybe Perry Mason can give more expert judgement) I have analysed the evidence of the matter.
My findings are thus: Tim gave as good as he got, I preferred H. St. John’s humour and doctrinal insights but the psyche energy of the commentaries was Tim’s. The break -up of the old St Mary’s seems to have been a hurtful affair. Some still carry the pain. If anybody is to be blamed – I do not think anybody is to be blamed because events sometimes take us where they will – it can only be the people involved. The old catholic parishes are dying anyhow. My interest in what Peter and the people around him have done is that they have at least tried to move to something new. At the same time I reserve the right to my own perspective.
Love Fosco
13/02/2011 at 2:48 pm Permalink
Fosco, yes it will be interesting to see how it pans out. Like Howard, I think it is entirely a matter for the website owners. Unlike Tim, I think the motivation for shutting down comments would be to allow a public medium to be used for anti-catholic propaganda without any fear of contradiction.
13/02/2011 at 7:09 pm Permalink
Perry
If there is no blog facility here, only a contact for the author, for example, Dermet Dorgan’s homily 12nov2011, and you email Dermot with your referenced ( i stress referenced, not just unscholarly) suggestions (e.g. perhaps his focus was well intentioned intially, but perhaps there is a broader context? perhaps the mention of “middle class” is not an accurate description of what you see in your church as Dermot describes in his homily?) then Dermot will listen and take note, and will mostly likely reply – to 1, perhaps 2 of your emails – he won’t reply to 10 I would suggest!
If you just say “this is bumkem, this is wrong, this is simply humanist bullcrap”, then he will act defensively I would suggest, as is the way with a church community that has felt it has been bullied over many years (not just the last few).
Unfortunately this means you will not have the satisfaction of a public criticism of Dermet’s homily, unless you make reference to it elsewhere, and if you are serious about theology, perhaps you are involved elsewhere in more scholarly debate, rather than simply “policing” the known world to find errant Catholic thought.
A homily, after all, is one person’s personal reflection – it is not gospel. I have not replied analysing the theological points made – I have simply replied in kind, with a short personal reflection and some more historical points, and from my perspective as a church musician, that could add to the wider reader’s understanding of the history of SME – particularly pre-exodus from their Catholic church building. I think those points COULD be of interest on a public blog, but I’m happy for them to be expressed in private, and they have been: I have been in contact in recent times with musicians from St Mary’s who have long since moved on from our church – actually a couple from the Catholic faith. That is a profound thing. Why have they moved on? Why too, has Dermot long ago left the priesthood?
These are not questions to say “they should have done this, or they SHOULD have believed this…”. This is simply their life story. And they are quite profound, as you grow older, witnessing how people’s lives pan out. A church’s history is I believe very important. Two church communities now lay claim to the history from the same old church. At some point, we should reconcile this to be happy.
I remember a couple of times psychiatrists coming to my church over the last couple of years to attend mass (the church most SME attended before April 2009) and they asked me in casual conversation after mass “has there been reconciliation between Peter Kennedy, and the Brisbane church?”. i’m sure H.S.John will have a bit of a joke about “psychiatrists”, but on the serious side, they are the ONLY 2 people I have talked to, to ask this specific question, and that says something powerful to me. What happened in 2009 and they way St Mary’s community has continued on – in 2 locations, is sad, whatever your theological point of view. It’s not simply a case of hopping on this blog site and “repremanding Kennedy” and blaming him as the culprit. It’s not even about blame. It’s just a passing of a type of church in Brisbane – not just St Mary’s – the whole church in Brisbane, that is now another era. SME is moving on further away from Catholic orthodoxy, many of them are happy about that. And an era has passed.
That is profound.
13/02/2011 at 7:26 pm Permalink
Fosco
oh gosh no.. i havent reported H.St.John anywhere else – i couldnt be bothered. i just reported him to the people who decide whether this blog facility continues or is canned. unless you are desparate tho and need to hunting thru the archives, these blogs will be long down the page and consigned to the archives. I don’t take them seriously. Just take offense at someone posting on the most recent blogs just to can the author. Seriously, if you have gripes, shouldnt you be contacting the author directly??
Tim
13/02/2011 at 9:39 pm Permalink
Cheryl 8.46am,
There are great prospects for things that have violent and messy beginnings.