Rebel priest Peter Kennedy gives up on worshipping God
http
://www.couriermail.com.au/news/rebel-priest-peter-kennedy-gives-up-on-worshipping-god/story-e6freon6-1226102271330
REBEL Brisbane priest Peter Kennedy has further distanced himself from the Catholic Church, saying he no longer believes in worshipping God or the power of prayer.
He also has questioned why God would allow the terror attack to happen in Norway.
The priest who was directed to leave St Mary’s Church in South Brisbane in 2009 for unorthodox practices, also revealed that he had doubts that Jesus existed.
His views were expressed in an interview with the ABC, which airs tonight, and with The Courier-Mail yesterday when he questioned why God would allow tragic events to unfold, including the terror attacks in Norway.
“I do not believe in worshipping God. Whatever God is . . . that God does not need to be worshipped,” he said. “To be asking God to intervene in our lives, why didn’t he intervene in Norway the other day?”
Though he still leads his congregation in prayer, Father Kennedy said his own praying was more like “meditation”. “I think my way of prayer is to stand in wonder at the beauty of people and the wonder of life,” he said.
Asked whether he still considered himself a Catholic, Fr Kennedy said he was, but not in the “literalist” sense.
“The reality is you are culturally a Catholic but so many of us disagree with the literalist understanding of Christianity the Catholic Church preaches,” he said. “I think we (the St Mary’s Church-in-exile) are truly catholic because we are truly inclusive. To put it simply, I think the institution of the Catholic Church is exclusive.”
He also repeated his previous statements that there was “very little corroborating evidence” for the existence of Jesus.
Nearly two-and-a-half years after leaving the church where he had preached for 28 years, Fr Kennedy said the St Mary’s Church-in-exile attracted more than 400 to the three weekend masses. The congregation knew his views well, he said.
“We’ve lost about 20 per cent but we have gained people,” he said. “They know how I feel. I am very honest with them.”
Fr Kennedy told comedian Judith Lucy in the debut episode of her six-part series Judith Lucy’s Spiritual Journey that for years he had not believed in the value of prayer. Lucy visited the priest at a Sunday service where he now leads his congregation. The 73-year-old Kennedy was asked whether he thought there was any point in praying.
Kennedy: No. For years I’ve never believed in the value of prayer in the sense of asking.
Lucy: But that does make up part of the service here?
Kennedy: Yes it does, because they like it. If I had my way we wouldn’t have it.
The interview then cuts to a clip of Fr Kennedy leading his congregation in the Lord’s Prayer. “Let us pray,” he begins.
02/08/2011 at 11:47 am Permalink
I suppose most of Peters supporters will be saying to themselves who have I been following and then feel angry at themselves for being taking for a ride… Credit to Peter for coming clean and showing his true colors… Time to return to the Catholic Church and stop this ongoing nonsense.
02/08/2011 at 8:25 pm Permalink
The place and purpose of prayer is a very difficult philosophical question. The dogmatic Catholic position is very mechanical – you pay to get God to do things and if you don’t have things done by God then either you haven’t prayed enough or there is a hidden plan. Alternatively, process theology has set up a prayer model that explains why some prayer is not answered. Far from being taken for a ride, the events of the expulsion have put Catholic dogma (especially papal infallibility) into the realms of fantasy. I am not a SM parishioner, but I applaud Peter Kennedy for thinking outside of the Catholic square. From one point of view, if God is immanent (with us in life) then formal prayer does not make sense – is God only immanent when we pray formally? (Catholic dogma has it both ways with God transcendent and immanent – sort of a divine psychotic with the Spirit guiding and Christ/Mary, etc answering prayer). What happens if 500 million Christians formally pray at the one instant with only a dozen or so saints and divine persons to answer?
04/08/2011 at 8:07 pm Permalink
Hello Christians,
Peter is now saying he thinks the Rabbi Jesus Story is a fable. Pete seems to have changed his mind from views deeply held years gone by. Big deal!!!
Back in the 70’s, in the early years of the Great Walk Out, we found out that biblical scholars had know of the fable for nearly a century but the two faced lying hypocrites didn’t tell the rest of us. Consecrated thugs of Vaticanism, like Peter was, still kept verballing anybody who dared to question. I was told by one of Peter’s brothers in Christ that the only reason for my questioning was because I “was screwing some bird”. But it was not the foul mouth of the foul mouthed priest that bothered me. What did bother me was a supposed spiritual teacher of the Catholic Church thought women were “birds” and human sexuality was “screwing”. Actually the foul mouth did me a favour: after that I stopped bothering with the “ordained”.
The truth is simple: Peter has no credibility, he doesn’t know what he is talking about and he is making it up as he goes along. Where is the guaranty that next week, next month, next year, Peter does not appear on the ABC to tell us that he has change d his mind, that the new age gobbledygook nonsense he now throws out there is like the catholic gobbledygook nonsense that he threw out there in previous incarnation as a priest. Peter being the centre of attention seems to be the only constant.
Love Fosco
05/08/2011 at 10:44 am Permalink
I am a bit disappointed that Peter has rejected the historical Jesus. There are many figures from ancient history of which there is only one or two primary sources of information, usually something found in their grave by archaeologists, and even less corroborating secondary sources. The four gospels and the writings of Josephus is pretty substantial compared to other ancient history figures.
However, if we are to look at the biblical record of Jesus, especially in the context of the Old Testament law and prophets that the bible records Jesus as claiming to fulfil, we will see that the historical Jesus had absolutely nothing to do with Roman church orthodoxy including the nature of god and the purpose of prayer.
Perhaps the most famous christian prayer ever is “The Lord’s Prayer” that is recited in church services and parliaments alike. Very few Christians are not able to recite the Lord’s prayer.
But what does Jesus teach us about prayer, specifically about the Lord’s prayer? Consider Matthew 6: 5-9 where Jesus introduces the Lord’s prayer…..
5″And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
7″And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. 9 Pray then like this:….
But the church of the empire of Rome has used the Lords Prayer exactly as the gentiles did (called “babbling pagans” in other translations) and totally ignored Jesus’ teachings about prayer – and this is just one of many, many issues where the symbolism of Jesus has been used to promote Hellenic and imperial religious traditions, not the indigenous Hebrew Jesus movement.
Perhaps the greatest religious fraud of the the Hellenic Church has been the notion of God. Christendom has embraced the old man in the sky concept of God which is firmly based in the Greek word “theos” that is an etymological derivative of the word “Zeus” and has meaning in terms of Olympic cosmology. However the Hebrew words used in the Old Testament are “elohim” – a collective of spirits and “Yahweh” that means the existential “I AM”.
I support Peter and others who reject Roman imperial notions of God and prayer but I ask them to be able to distinguish between the biblical baby and the imperial bathwater. The Prophets of the old testament and Jesus of the new testament are scathingly critical of religious, political and economic orthodoxy of imperial domination and would appear to confirm much of the philosophy articulated by Peter (including protesting against God for allowing tragedy, just read Job).
05/08/2011 at 2:45 pm Permalink
Hello Christians,
Round and round the merry go round of gobbledygook we go, as Keith points out. Peter tells himself he is coming up with something new by making the merry go around some new age gobbledygook. That’s where Peter lost the plot: he had the anchor experience in the prison but instead of going more deeply into to it he ran away, back to delusional gobbledygook. Forget “god”, forget “prayer”, forget “religion”, forget all that stuff and become immersed in the human experience. If there is a “God” he/she will show up, and if there isn’t then we will know it is all our responsibility.
If people are really into to “prayer” go and make cups of tea to the homeless people using the social justice services. That’s what Rabbi Jesus did!
Love Fosco
07/08/2011 at 10:55 am Permalink
Some recent posts here illustrate a remarkable phenomenon – that the most strident of anti-catholic commentators tend to be those who show no indication of having bothered to find out what catholic teachings actually are. Take keith, who thinks that ‘the events of the expulsion have put Catholic dogma (especially papal infallibility) into the realms of fantasy.’ You wonder what he could possibly think the term ‘papal infallibility’ means. (Maybe ‘the catholic church will never do anything that I, keith, disagree with?) Likewise his assertion about prayer: ‘The dogmatic Catholic position is very mechanical – you pay to get God to do things …’
You see it so often – stridency combined with ignorance – that you are tempted to wonder whether there is some underlying reason for it; perhaps a psychological avoidance mechanism to avoid the risk of encountering an ‘inconvenient truth’. If you tell yourself often enough that the church is just a primitive cargo cult, or is run by frightened old men, you can save yourself the trouble (and possibly danger) of investigating it seriously.
13/08/2011 at 10:27 pm Permalink
Hi………………I have been a St Mary’s follower for 10 years or more…………..I feel very strong about the spirituality of St Mary’s…….something I do not feel in other church communities…………I drive a good 50 minutes each Sunday evening to be spiritually enriched by this prayer service. But now I am very confused and dissolutioned with Peter’s words in his homilty last week. I strongly believe in the prayer of asking…………I believe God is there for me and is waiting for me to ask for his help and he is right there beside me. I am very concerned about the issues raised last week………………..I am very open to exploring new ways of thinking but fundamentally my faith / belief in the power of prayer is what has helped me through the many turmoils of my life…………and when Peter says ‘he no longer believes in the prayer of asking’ ……….I find this a difficult concept…………….what to do now is my predictament????
16/08/2011 at 10:32 am Permalink
Thanks for all your responses, its clear to me that Peter is a religious fraud who has been exposed, Its time we minister to Peter and try to bring him back to the fold, lets all have a hard think and respond to our true God, lets regroup and return to the true St Mary’s !!
16/08/2011 at 8:02 pm Permalink
Hello Christians,
Perry Mason describes my understanding of Vaticanism as “stridency combined with ignorance”. Allow me to share my life encounter with the Holy Faith: three days after my birth I was received into “holy baptism”, in a culture with a two thousand year tradition of Catholicism, at age seven I was holy confessed and holy communioned by a priest who spent most of his time in and out of psychiatric care while his assistant is a convicted child abuser, at age fourteen I was holy confirmed by a bishop who clearly did not believe a word he was mouthing about us receiving the “Holy Spirit” by his laying of hands. I have not received holy orders because I never entered the priesthood nor have I received the holy last rites because I am not yet dead. I have not received holy matrimony because nobody has ever wanted to marry me – a judgement I completely agree with; I would not have wanted to marry anybody who would have wanted to marry me. This gives me four out of six in the “sacraments”. From age five to nineteen I went through three catholic schools during the age of terror of the 50’s and 60’s. I could go on about the profound depth of my doctrinal knowledge but I will instead claim greater authority: my victimhood. The wounds from the psychological slaughter yard of 50’s Catholicism is my authority.
Love Fosco
17/08/2011 at 11:43 am Permalink
No need for Anne Neiland to be in a predicament (unless for some reason she feels the need of Peter Kennedy’s approval for her beliefs). You believe something; he believes something else. That’s the SMX way isn’t it? Diversity, tolerance? The only person who might have a problem here is the one who is prepared to stand up and say something he doesn’t believe – just because ‘they’ want to hear it. There was a video shown here once with Peter reading from the Gospels (fairy tales according to him) then making a show of reverently kissing the Bible! No doubt sensing that was something ‘they’ wanted to see.
18/08/2011 at 10:29 pm Permalink
Sorry, fosco, but, you know, your very first sentence just serves to prove my point. ‘Vaticanism’? That’s it, just keep repeating the dismissive cliches and save yourself the trouble of thinking.
My comment was about catholic doctrine. The stories of the various lamentable episodes in your life don’t disprove catholic doctrine. If anything, they confirm it. We live in a world originally made good, but fallen. No one is free of sin – not popes or priests or laymen … Now, you may not agree with those doctrines, but, if you want to be rational, it’s no good arguing against them simply from the fact that you have encountered flawed people within the church.
By the way, I can tell you from personal experience that public schools could be pretty grim too, in years gone by, and not all their teachers were paragons of virtue.
19/08/2011 at 3:16 pm Permalink
Hello Christians,
Anne Neiland has come to the cornerstone of the New Christianity. She has found what “works” for her; she does not need validation from Peter, popes, priests or any other pantomime dress up. Having found some of the “treasure hidden in the field” she should keep on searching, as Rabbi Jesus says. Maybe one day Peter, the pope and the priests may join her in the search, at present these tragic figures are too entangled in their delusions.
Love Fosco
23/08/2011 at 1:30 pm Permalink
The homilies continue to be the feature of this site – they always have been for decades the main feature of St Mary’s parish, and distinguished St Mary’s liturgy. I think the point tho, and the lack of comments in many other pages on this website bears this out is that the discussion about St Mary’s and SME has moved on – it’s happening elsewhere, not this website. I think that’s a good thing, there’s been a lack of referencing comments, first hand personal knowledge of both St Mary’s communities in this blog by many contributors, and lack of respect for the monumental change members of both St Mary’s communities have been through. I think lack of informative and well researched scholarship is lamentable – but also appropriate that it does not happen on a parish website, but rather in more universal and better supported forums. The parish experience for many Catholics – their faith – is a private affair – this may be different from protestant denominations. I remain curious about ‘progressive Christianity’ – SME continues to be described in terms of what it is NOT (i.e. not in communion with the Catholic church), but the failure to firmly describe the community in terms of what it IS, is putting the recording of our parish’es history 1980-2009 at risk, paritcularly for me in regards our music history, which is my area.
27/08/2011 at 1:46 pm Permalink
Hello Christians,
Perry Mason says that my not seeing the profound rational beauty of Vaticanism, and my lack of respect for the fear crippled old men who preach the stuff, must be due to some psychological impediment on my part. There is a little bit of a contradiction here! The notable 50’s television lawyer argues his case invoking the authority of social science BUT psychology attempts to understand the human condition from human experience: no god, no soul, no original sin, no Resurrection of Christ, no day of judgement, no Satan, no doctrine of the trinity, no papal infallibility, in fact no church stuff at all. This contraction would collapse even in a fictional television court drama.
Both Perry Mason, by sticking to 50’s Vaticanism, and Peter, by his going off on new age Nowist nonsense; stuff that anybody can pick up in Byron Bay (now there is a centre of spirituality: if god does not appear in the Om or the raising of the kundalini, never mind do drugs instead) don’t get it. New Christianity must find its spirituality in the context of human experience. When I first saw him on the ABC talking about his anchor experience in the prisons, I thought that was where Peter was going, instead he has gone back to delusion.
Love Fosco
29/08/2011 at 10:12 pm Permalink
Fosco, if there was an Olympic event in Jumping to Conclusions, you would be a shoe-in for gold. I simply wondered if you had any logical arguments against Catholic teachings. Apparently not, judging by your latest posting.
30/08/2011 at 2:31 pm Permalink
Unsure what the fuss is all about. Peter says what he thinks. Imagine if those Catholic priests convicted of sexual abuses said what they thought – we’d all have had a flying chance of escaping. Peter says what he thinks – if you don’t like it, no bother either leave, or respectfully disagree. What is the problem with questioning common conceptions (or misconceptions) of God/gods/goddess and/or prayer v. meditation? Without questions, justice is impossible to achieve for ourselves and for others. Be kind to yourself, question, find out what works for you and stick with it, and then reevaluate and start again. I’m so confused – because for me, prayer is meditation. Prayer’s about asking questions, or thankfulness, meditation is about seeking the answers. But then, it’s different for everyone. Find what you will – no need to be dogged about it.
Regina