‘Comment’ Notice
This site enables its readership to leave comments in response to individual articles.
Recently this consideration has been negated by a few commentators resulting in comments that have little or nothing to do with the initial article.
Comments will now be reviewed and retained if they are responsive to the article and removed if they are not of specific relevance.
We encourage constructive responses to articles posted and request that our readership maintain such considered comments.
15/02/2011 at 7:51 am Permalink
Well done web team. The feedback facility, which is non existent in most main stream Catholic churches, has been used often by angry cowards, hiding under phoney names and taking pot shots at our community. We welcome back the forum for it’s intended use which has always been enlightened discussion and debate.
15/02/2011 at 2:18 pm Permalink
It would be more effective to remove the blog facility off this site and provide author contact (e.g. email) below article and invite queries to author (if the author does not wish contact in regards to specific article then general contact site could be left?). “Relevance” is arbitrary, and best determined by author surely, not IT/admin persons administrating this site?
Contributions can thus be controlled by authors, not admin. It is frustrating on this site to have no author contact. This “Comment’s Notice” also fails to encourage referencing of comments, I would suggest more likely in email format than open blog format, particularly when queried directly by the author in response to comments. Authors do not blog here, and that is patently a major failing of this blog facility. I don’t think this blog achieves much, and it’s tone has been negative, and I can’t see that changing because admin here hasn’t thought through why the blog facility needs to be deleted…
The guy running this site is a really nice guy, but like so much of SME/previous St Mary’s the devil is in the messy administration… Blogging was nice idea when this site was set up but it hasn’t worked for very good reasons, and the above proposal is, as with much of SME/previous St Mary’s, messy
THANK YOU FOR THESE SUGGESTIONS TIM,
SHOULD YOU WISH TO DIALOGUE DIRECTLY WITH THE AUTHOR OF ANY ARTICLE WE ARE ABLE TO INVITE THEM TO DO THIS WITH YOU VIA EMAIL.
A DIALOGUE WITHIN THIS FORUM IS POSSIBLE AS WE ARE ABLE TO INFORM THEM OF ANY COMMENTS DIRECTED TO THEM SO THAT THEY CAN RESPOND SPECIFICALLY TO SUCH COMMENTS.
15/02/2011 at 8:57 pm Permalink
I applaud the web team for not caving in to a campaign to close down the comments facility. That would have pointed to a community willing to dish out criticism, but not take it in return. Having said that, the recent marathon thread could have been called closed when it descended into irrelevance, name calling and unsavoury language. The original article hardly had the substance to warrant any comment at all.
16/02/2011 at 5:32 pm Permalink
Exactly Perry, the webteam needs you and other ‘SME bashers’ because that’s part of the discourse, particularly of the baby boomer grey brigade of oldies at SME .. it’s newsworthy (apparently) such exciting “polarisation” (or opposing views? are there? or are you just a construct and one and the same?), and SME without a shop front they need to make this site look ‘alive’. But do they? Is that really what the quiet the guts of this contemplative spirituality is about? Are blogs just cheap, and does a Catholic church need a blog? Or better, links to where blogging is more suited?
What’s much more mundane than a polarised ‘debate’, are issues such as referencing, and the much more complex grey areas in the split of this community from the Catholic church and formation of 2 new communities – this are the hard and heart wrenching fine print people are looking for in truth because there is no simple answer to staying or leaving the Catholic church. A priest in the 90s who in a ceremony at St Mary’s in the 1990s took off his priestly garb, was interviewed on the ABC and in the Catholic leader last week as took up his commission again as priest in Catholic church. Is that any easy story to cover? I would think not.
I support accountability of organisations, large and small, and particularly large in the case of the Catholic church. The question is, where is the BEST and most scholarly and well constructed viewpoints from authors and critics to be found? Do we have to turn to the ABC, BBC and the like for balanced debate? The homilies here are interesting, but the debate isn’t balanced, and the webteam trying to put their hand in and make it so is just going to water it down further.
Make references to other (better) blogs that critique religion and the church.
But delete this blog site, dear Perry.
16/02/2011 at 8:03 pm Permalink
Tim, your last response was unwarranted.
17/02/2011 at 2:46 am Permalink
I too applaud what I see as being a foray into new media interactive religion debates (not a closed shop) and I hope it grows from here if you’re brave enough to want that. Who knows what you might end up with in a few years, depending on how it catches on around the country, but the way things are nowadays I would say a few good sensations and you never know, you might find yourself up there with Andrew Bolt and the shock jocks. This flak about angry cowards taking pot shots I personally find quite inexplicable but traditionally religion debates have always had a tendency to become quickly inflamed, which I guess, in a very small part, drives my curiosity. Add to that the modern phenomenon of claustrophobic anonymity that produces road-rage, air-rage, etc., and it’s no surprise you need a mediator if you want to go national with a blog. There’s a good chance humanity is not even mature enough to deal with a religion blog but presumably it will be at some point. Until that far off day when we all get it right I wish all contributors good luck with remaining patient and open-minded and not reading assumptions into contributions that may not actually be intended by the writer or even existent in any form in the text. Theosophical debate is probably due for a comeback so maybe the website operators have placed themselves at the cutting edge, I hope so and I wish them every success. I think it’s a worthwhile experiment. I think more people should make the small effort to contribute.
17/02/2011 at 5:54 pm Permalink
How distressing, Can I suggest if you carn’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen, why this censorship??? This forum has not come of age, its still very much backward!!! What are you scared of???
MARCUS WE ARE UNSURE OF WHY YOU HAVE USED THE ANALOGY OF ‘HEAT IN THE KITCHEN’, RELEVANCY TO THE ARTICLES IS THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING READERS TO LEAVE COMMENTS; TO ENCOURAGE DIALOGUE, DEBATE AND THE ABILITY FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION
17/02/2011 at 9:05 pm Permalink
I’m just personally tired of the “enlightened debate” on this site which is just fluffy, and time wasting – it’s not academic, not referenced to propper sources.. It’s just lightweight rubbish mostly, I would like to see a links section on this site to proper theological websites, if that’s what you bloggers are aiming for – I am not – I just add a personal reflection in response to homilies, I find the polite gentleman’s prattle and pseudonyms annoying, and I’m just going to ignore them from now on (I did ignore them pretty much when I hopped onto this website many months ago to add a personal perspective as one of the minority who stayed at the old St Mary’s – an incredibly difficult decision but one based on weighing up a broad range of issues, and feeling personal responsibility given I’m one of the better St Mary’s musicians over the last 25 years. I feel a deep sense of concern about this “SME” community, as many do. As much as we have abiding friendships and respect for the personal and pastoral skills of Peter and Terry, I fear, as others who attend SME do, that this SME admin team are just not up to the job of founding a new church. I can’t see much progress at all on the issue of linking with another denominaation or network – SME members I know doubt Progressive Christianity will ever become a denomination but simply a description of individuals and sections of existing denominations. Without a denomination the issue of succession as Peter retires and others move on from SME is a real dilemma. SME needs to be asked the tough questions on this site, because I don’t want to see this community shrink to not much more than house church, and I my parents not have a place to call home like they did for many years. If you are genuinely serious about founding a new church, you need to get serious about some good administration and linking to a network, and pretty soon, not dither around with your fluffy theological ‘debates’ on this website, while virtually nothing else here exists -no building fund report, or the like. It’s not enough to spend the rest of your days “protesting” you need a church and you’ve got an awful lot of work to do to achieve that.
cheers, Tim
17/02/2011 at 9:06 pm Permalink
I’m just personally tired of the “enlightened debate” on this site which is just fluffy, and time wasting – it’s not academic, not referenced to proper sources.. It’s just lightweight rubbish mostly, I would like to see a links section on this site to proper theological websites, if that’s what you bloggers are aiming for – I am not – I just add a personal reflection in response to homilies, I find the polite gentleman’s prattle and pseudonyms annoying, and I’m just going to ignore them from now on (I did ignore them pretty much when I hopped onto this website many months ago to add a personal perspective as one of the minority who stayed at the old St Mary’s – an incredibly difficult decision but one based on weighing up a broad range of issues, and feeling personal responsibility given I’m one of the better St Mary’s musicians over the last 25 years. I feel a deep sense of concern about this “SME” community, as many do. As much as we have abiding friendships and respect for the personal and pastoral skills of Peter and Terry, I fear, as others who attend SME do, that this SME admin team are just not up to the job of founding a new church. I can’t see much progress at all on the issue of linking with another denominaation or network – SME members I know doubt Progressive Christianity will ever become a denomination but simply a description of individuals and sections of existing denominations. Without a denomination the issue of succession as Peter retires and others move on from SME is a real dilemma. SME needs to be asked the tough questions on this site, because I don’t want to see this community shrink to not much more than house church, and I my parents not have a place to call home like they did for many years. If you are genuinely serious about founding a new church, you need to get serious about some good administration and linking to a network, and pretty soon, not dither around with your fluffy theological ‘debates’ on this website, while virtually nothing else here exists -no building fund report, or the like. It’s not enough to spend the rest of your days “protesting” you need a church and you’ve got an awful lot of work to do to achieve that.
cheers, Tim
18/02/2011 at 12:06 pm Permalink
Hello Contributors,
Isn’t uplifting to learn that admin is disorganised, dysfunctional and incompetent. There must be movement of the Spirit in that one. People wanting order can always go to Papa and the Vatican fear cripples. And be crippled with them. Peter’s Opus Humanae is not an organisations, it is more powerful than that: it is an idea. The essence of the idea is we place the teachings of Rabbi Jesus in the context of the human condition. And if they do not fit we are faced with two consequences: either we do not understand the jewish rabbi or Jesus is wrong. I gave up listening to priests four decades ago and still have doubts about the two elders. However, Peter captured my attention when in a media interview he talked about his experiences visiting prisons. Confronted with the tragedy of human brokenness he began to rethink his beliefs. The second such statement he made was his unexpected experience of co-parenting. He described with great eloquence of the power of the experience and the effect it had on him.
I know nothing about the internal dynamics of the Split, as I live on the other end of the country – southern end I’m not some WA redneck. However, as Che almost said; to move when the movement is on requires a greater faith.
Love Fosco
THANK YOU FOSCO, WE ARE UNCERTAIN AS TO WHY YOU WRITE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS ‘DISORGANISED, DYSFUNCTIONAL AND INCOMPETENT’ AND OF YOUR REFERENCE TO THE ‘MOVEMENT OF THE SPIRIT’?
WE ASK ALL READERS TO LEAVE COMMENTS THAT ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ARTICLE TO WHICH THEY ARE MADE. SHOULD YOU HAVE OTHER MATTERS TO DISCUSS PLEASE DO SO USING POST, PHONE OR FEEDBACK.
John Fitz-Walter,
liturgy group.
18/02/2011 at 2:55 pm Permalink
To the person who responded to my comment, thank you, but please who are you, what is your name and under what authority do you speak, It seems to me if your are critical of this church you are its enemy, why have a forum if one is unable to speak???
Its also time for Peter Kennedy to answer questions, not some lacky (sorry) acting on his behalf.
Once again please tell me who you are and your authority???
THANK YOU MARCUS,
I AM JOHN FITZ-WALTER, A MEMBER OF THE LITURGY GROUP AND IT IS FROM THIS INVOLVEMENT THAT I RESPOND. I DO NOT ACT ON PETER’S BEHALF AND SHOULD YOU HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING ANY MATTER DISCUSSED BY PETER IN AN ARTICLE THEN PLEASE ASK IT SO THAT PETER CAN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO IT. THIS FORUM IS TO ENABLE ALL TO SPEAK WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ENCOURAGING DIALOGUE, DEBATE AND ENABLING FURTHER INVESTIGATION
19/02/2011 at 12:25 am Permalink
Dear Moderator,
I protest this brazen disrespectfulness from all contributors. There should be a return to fear. The church in its physical form is there to inspire and what better and more relevant emotion to channel than fear.
I’m personally tired of the “enlightened debate” on this site which is just fluffy, and time wasting – it’s not academic, not referenced to proper sources.. it’s just lightweight rubbish .. I find the polite gentleman’s prattle and pseudonyms annoying, and I’m going to ignore them from now on.
Everyone should get back to the core business of insuring against being cast into the underworld. The persistent, plaintive cries of social club types are just hopelessly misdirected.
19/02/2011 at 12:38 pm Permalink
Hello Contributors,
The Censor has “invited” me to clarify certain comments regarding “administration”. Now, I am a very insulting person but in this case no insult was intended. Since walking out on the so called catholic church four decades ago I have been involved in a few idealistic organisations with no money and no money making prospects. “Admin” was always chaotic. That’s just the nature of such things. You have to go with the spirit of the movement.
Blog censoring is not the issue here. The nature of the organisation is the real question. Since most of us, although I suspect not all of us, I think there are a few Protestants lucking around, are spiritual children of the Holy Faith of Rome we all know what censorship says about that dictatorial operation.
Peter’s entity has no clear self definition: is it a cult, is it the old church or a new church? Being in exile implies that there will come the day of return. Return to what? So far I am the only contributor who has come up with a defining name. And nobody has thanked me.
Love Fosco
THANK YOU FOSCO, REGARDING YOUR QUESTION, ‘is it a cult, is it the old church or a new church?’ ST MARY’S IN AN ‘INTENTIONAL SPIRITUAL COMMUNITY’ AND REGARDING YOUR QUESTION ‘ Being in exile implies that there will come the day of return. Return to what?’ THIS WAS FIRST USED AS RELATING TO A COMMUNITY THAT HAD BEEN ‘PUSHED OUT’ BY THE TRADITIONAL CHURCH AND THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO HAVE ANY DIALOGUE WITH THE COMMUNITY. AS WE AS A COMMUNITY CONTINUE CONSIDERATION WILL HAVE TO BE GIVEN TO THIS REFERENCE. YOU ALSO SAID ‘So far I am the only contributor who has come up with a defining name.’ WHAT WAS THAT DEFINING NAME?
20/02/2011 at 5:42 pm Permalink
John thanks for not answering my question! Under what authority have you got to place censorship on this forum? What are you scared of?
THANKS MARCUS, MY ‘AUTHORITY’ IS FROM THAT OF THE COMMUNITY AS SOMEONE WHO IS AN ACKNOWLEDGED REPRESENTATIVE OF THIS COMMUNITY. WE HAVE NOTHING TO BE ‘SCARED’ OF AND AS HAS IT BEEN STATED REPEATEDLY THE PURPOSE OF COMMENTING IS TO ENABLE ALL TO SPEAK WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ENCOURAGING DIALOGUE, DEBATE AND ENABLING FURTHER INVESTIGATION. COMMENTS GIVEN OTHERWISE HAVE NO PURPOSE WITHIN THIS CONTEXT AND WILL NO LONGER BE PUBLISHED AS THEY LACK RELEVANCE.
21/02/2011 at 12:46 am Permalink
PERSONALLY I WELCOME CENSORSHIP AS LONG AS IT IS CONSERVATIVE NOT LIBERAL.
24/02/2011 at 7:47 pm Permalink
Dear Moderator,
I am concerned that the problems described in these pages are caused by a hippie mentality which has crept up from Lismore, Kyogle, Byron’s Bay and Nimbin. There is strong evidence of a culture of the self and worse, self gratification and self love. It is not the function of the church to indulge individuals in the gratification of their own egos, or in using mind-altering substances – in whatever subtle ways this type of thing may be sanctioned.
Others may say the priests used to be too authoritarian. Well they have over-compensated now.
H. St. John,
Religion Expert
H.ST. JOHN,
HOW IS IT THAT YOU RELATE TO THE SITUATION OF ST MARY’S AS A ‘HIPPY MENTALITY’ AND THAT YOU ASSERT THE SELF/SELF-LOVE/SELF-GRATIFICATION CLAIM?
WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF MIND-ALTERING SUBSTANCES BEING USED OR BE SANCTIONED AT ST MARY’S?
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO GIVE SOME SUBSTANTIATION TO THESE CLAIMS THEN THERE IS NO OTHER ACTION LEFT BUT TO CEASE ALL COMMENTARY FROM YOU UNTIL YOU HAVE DONE SO.
MODERATOR, JOHN FITZ-WALTER
25/02/2011 at 5:14 pm Permalink
“Hippie Mentality” ??? As John says, where do you get this rubbish from??? You have no idea what our community is on about, no clue about what we do and clearly no idea about much at all.
25/02/2011 at 8:51 pm Permalink
Dear Moderator,
Thank you for your probing question and I refer you to your contributor David Pincus who writes of his anti-authoritarian heart. Anti-authoritarianism is great in its place but that should not be confused with an excess of liberalism leading to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Now please don’t misconstrue my presence as a religion expert to be a SMex expert or a Catholic police spy, I am neither of those, I am not making personal comments either, I am simply commenting from the internet on other words which appear on the internet. If that is enough to get me lynched or even crucified, excellent! Neither are my actual objective but either would be a very fine outcome. We have seen in the media our countryman Mr. Assange is to be crucified for acting as a conduit for information and opinions. I think there is nothing better than to be attacked by a mob or best of all vested interests acting on imperfect interpretations of simple expression of thought. Whatsmore, the greater the paradox, the greater my delight…
I don’t offer any solutions to anyone’s reaction or over-reaction to their personal interpretation of whatever comment I provide. I am not appearing as some sort of counselling service. I am only commenting as a religion expert of specific expertise, and not as a general pontificator. As I mentioned before, all this liberalism is a reaction to WW2 and the over-reaction of drug-addled Nimbin persons is the extreme of the spectrum. Leftist mobs howling for blood are also at that end. I hope you can benefit from my outside perspective as much as I appreciate the existence of your embryonic religion blog. Whether I am to be censored or not and for whatever reasons doesn’t concern me as it’s your web-page. So go ahead if that’s what you want.
About ten years ago I was up at the Arctic Circle and the church door was locked, so I walked away. Imagine if it was open but the way was barred by a few people who objected to my accent. And don’t forget, some ordinary words from other languages mean rude things in English!!!
Good luck on your journey.
25/02/2011 at 9:37 pm Permalink
On ‘Hippie mentality’.
From Wikipedia I find:
“Many hippies rejected mainstream organized religions in favor of a more personal spiritual experience, often drawing on indigenous beliefs and folk religions, among others. If they adhered to mainstream faiths, they embraced Buddhism, Hinduism and the Jesus Movement.”
Howard St.John does not seem to be too far off the mark here.
THE REJECTION OF THE ST MARY’S COMMUNITY WAS BY A MAINSTREAM ORGANIZED RELIGION AND THE ST MARY’S COMMUNITY HAS ACTED CONTRARY TO THE CLAIM OF SEEKING A MORE PERSONAL RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE ESPECIALLY GIVEN THEIR CONCERNS FOR JUSTICE AND THEIR ACTIONS TO SUPPORT THIS. THE PREVIOUS REMARKS MADE HAVE CAST ASPERSIONS ON WHAT APPEARS TO BE A LIMITED AWARENESS OF THE SITUATION.
25/02/2011 at 10:09 pm Permalink
Many unsubstantiated claims are made on this website. Not long ago someone accused a senior catholic cleric of an ‘abuse of power’ (a much more serious allegation than ‘substance abuse’) without any complaint from the moderator. I guess it is the case that what constitutes an unsubstantiated allegation depends on where your sympathies lie.
THANK YOU PERRY, CAN YOU PLEASE BE SPECIFIC IN REGARDS TO THE POSTING WHERE THIS OCCURRED SO THAT WE MAY MORE FULLY CONSIDER YOUR CONCERN
26/02/2011 at 10:58 am Permalink
Dear moderator,
For evidence of “self gratification and self love” I refer you to the comment above by “David from Brizzy” which appears to be lacking in reflectiveness. Can “David from Brizzy” substantiate the claim that I have “clearly no idea about much at all”.
?
If “David from Brizzy” fails to substantiate that, will there be NO OTHER ACTION LEFT BUT TO CEASE ALL COMMENTARY FROM HIM UNTIL HE HAS DONE SO.
?
Just curious that’s all – not objecting – you go ahead and run the place how you want.
26/02/2011 at 9:28 pm Permalink
My thanks to the moderator, but there is no need to search the archives because you have just yourself repeated the claim using different words. The community was not ‘rejected’ by anyone. In fact, they were asked to stay and work with the new parish priest, but chose to walk away knowing that to stay would mean a return to mainstream church practices. I know this is a rehash of an old conversation and also that Tim claims that the community has ‘moved on’ from it. However, as you have just demonstrated, the accusation keeps on surfacing, and in my view justice calls for a response to be made.
27/02/2011 at 1:25 pm Permalink
Mr Moderator .. John, there is tension in the camp already. hmmm
I think it is very important to be transparent ie all points of view are accepted on this forum, not just what suits the moderator… of course no bad language…. Just a short point, are there any guidelines in process or are we at the mercy of one person??
04/03/2011 at 2:35 pm Permalink
Still waiting for a reply from my last comment…hmmm