The following is from Pp 74-76 in Richard Holloway's, Leaving Alexandria: a memoir of faith and doubt. Text Publishing, Melbourne, 2012.

Sadly, Christianity has been more intent on repressing and misrepresenting sex than on helping people manage it wisely. It wouldn’t be so bad if the Church had said to the children of the earth: ‘We know you are going to be enthralled by the mystery of sexuality, which is hardly surprising since it is the energy of life itself. We know it will have power to take you over for its own purposes, and we know you won’t always be able to resist it. Try at least to think about its possible consequences. Recognise that sex has the potential to hurt and devastate, as well as the capacity to thrill. Understand that it will get you all tied up with your need for consolation and acceptance. And never forget the fucking insanity of it all.’ Sadly that’s not how they put it, and their response has bedevilled Christianity’s relationship with humanity ever since. The tragic thing is that what they actually said was based on a wilful misreading of an ancient myth and a profound mistake about human origins. Bad enough in themselves – and causing centuries of anguish for many human souls – these mistakes also provide us with a classic example of religion’s difficulty in admitting that it has ever been profoundly mistaken about anything.

There are two elements to the mistake the early fathers made about sex, one more excusable than the other. The less excusable mistake was their failure to understand the nature of myth, which is the narrative form of all religions. The power of myth lies in its ability to represent ourselves to ourselves. A myth is a story that expresses but does not explain a universal human experience.

He goes on to say that the big mistake has been taking a myth as a historical event rather than what it was meant to be, a story.

‘The best myths have immediacy. We get them, see ourselves through them. They are mirrors.’ But the early Church by taking the creation stories in Genesis as historical facts projected onto them theological interpretations they were never meant to have.

Then Augustine mucked it up further. He invented the idea of original sin and said sex is its mode of transmission. Sex is not just a natural drive that can be misused; it is intrinsically disordered, wrong in itself.

There is some excuse for the second and lesser mistake because Augustine knew nothing about evolution. He thought God made us as we are. In fact sex took millions of years to evolve as a much better way of propagating beings, better that is than the way amoebas do it, but more complex as well, as amoebas as far as we know do not have the anguish we do nor the desires or Father McGillicutty looking over your shoulder saying “Don’t”.

But there is no excuse for taking myth literally.

Just by the way there is a report in today's Sun Herald of a piece of graffiti somewhere on the northern beaches(reported to the paper by St Patrick's College Strathfield old boy John Brogden:

Stop taking my book so literally.
God.

Thanks Enda for a very interesting and thought provoking article. As you say, human relationships are sometimes very complex and none of us are immune from making a wrong choice or decision.

Desi

The fundamental basis of our criminal law system is that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty

The police/prosecution have to prove guilt to a very high evidentiary standard -proof beyond reasonable doubt.

An accused person doesn't have to prove anything.

The right to silence needs to be seen in that context.Similarly the right not to give evidence.

However the reality is that many suspects don't have access to legal advice outside of normal hours and otherwise aren't aware of their rights. So they in fact do speak to the police.

I am assuming that you have led a comfortable law abiding existence. Might I suggest that if you were in a police station for the first time in your life and the police think you have committed a crime, then you might find the experience quite intimidating.You might be very nervous and not necessarily give a perfect account of events.

As the lawyer quoted in the SMH article states:

''The average person who gets in trouble for the first time generally thinks they're doing the right thing by telling everything to police,'' he said. ''But it would be an exception if there wasn't something in that record of interview that a decent prosecutor wouldn't latch on to and use against them. A mistake or a mis-statement won't be cast as a mistake or a mis-statement, it will be cast as a lie

.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/right-to-silence-reforms-based-on-outofcontext-british-law-20...

However our police stations and criminal courts aren't full of law abiding citizens like yourself.

They are the marginalised members of our community that David Shoebridge spoke about in his recent speech in the NSW Upper House during the debate on this proposed legislation:

The removal of the right to silence, as proposed by this Government—as anyone who studies the criminal justice system will know—will affect the most vulnerable in our society. It will not have a significant impact on those well-heeled defendants such as criminals in bikie gangs or criminal drug dealers, who will have access—as they do—to extraordinarily expensive legal counsel. The people who will be most affected by these changes will be the most marginal. We know who they are, because we see them time and again in the criminal law statistics. They will be Aboriginal members of our community; they will be people of lower socioeconomic standing in our community; they will be people with poor educational outcomes. On average, they will be people with an IQ substantially below the average IQ of citizens in New South Wales. They are the people who will have the right removed from them without adequate legal protections and without adequate legal resources to deal with it.

Some of these disadvantaged members of society ( particularly amongst or prison populations) share another characteristic - they have been victims of child hood abuse.

These changes will never impact on senior clerics.They may well impact on those who have experienced abuse in their childhoods.

For me here is something about preferential option in favour of the poor in all of this.

Maitland

Once again Stephen you have so eloquently spoken out on behalf of all the victims of CSA (and also for all who try to support them in any small and insignificant way).

It is a tremendous piece and I have taken the liberty of quoting it here, in full.

What I want to say below is echoed by the so many victims of abuse I have now come to know through life and through my study. Parts of it were written last year, others just now.

The church insurance/compensation/legal/professional agencies employ legalists who are totally detached from our real life stories - in this they have the upper hand: They employ the ‘best’ legal minds in the country – in this they have the upper hand: They have almost countless dollars with which to ‘support’ themselves – in this they have the upper hand: They know all the legal loopholes and process - in this they have the upper hand: They know they are dealing with mostly broken, confused, naive, angry/volatile 'children/adults' who usually have no idea about such things and who, even if they did, probably couldn't cope with them - and in this they have the upper hand: They know (or believe) that they have (still) some semblance of moral authority or weight (some call it fat) on which they can ‘rest their laurels’ - and in this they have the confidence (arrogance)/self-belief/psychological upper hand.

People, what we are dealing with here is a completely unlevel playing field. As I said to ‘the church’ one day (and added in my submissions to the two current commissions), “If you were truly serious about serving and healing sexual abuse victims you would be directing resources such as the above, the money, the legal experts, the compassion towards victims, and not towards defending yourselves and protecting your good reputation, a reputation obviously bound up with power, wealth and status. What hope do victims have against such a ‘body of Christ”.

Added to this: Not until “the church” as in the institution and its leaders (and I include this new body in that), not until ‘it’ starts including and acknowledging in any statements, the cover ups, the passing on of obviously criminal priests that also happened “in the past”, will that ‘church’ be believed or trusted by us. There have been many nice words about sadness of the sins of priests/religious/nuns in the past but virtually nothing about these cover-ups or shifting of criminal priests. Why? Well perhaps your legal representatives have advised you against such an admission of guilt. But, let me say categorically, that no one involved in the true healing of victims will trust you until this is fully acknowledged and admitted.

(Any comments from me would be superfluous but I have added emphasis to the words which really hit home to me!)

PS Sad to say, I don't think that it would make any impression with the Truth, Justice and Healing Commission. It should, however, be read in every Catholic Church in Australia!).

Peter, thanks for posting. I hope you and Betty are well. Thank you for your kind message when I came home.

It amazes me that I believed the guff for 70-odd years.
There was no hint from those whom we have learned to scorn, but who held us in sway for centuries, of any doubt at all that what we had jammed into us week after week was not true literally.

Of course, some of the poor buggers believed it all themselves. They, too, were deceived.

It all makes one wonder at the evil in which the nobs wallowed .in such earthly comfort much of it provided by the pennies of the poor.

These days, my contempt for so many of them is deep.

As Brian mentions often, our young have seen through the dreadful hypocrisy.
Their innate decency will see them through, much more comfortably during their many years of hormone management.
Thank Goodness for old age. I look, frequently, admire, appreciate, and go on my way without any lower torment.
Of course, I have Bett.

I shall go now, having well out-stayed my welcome

Delete the full stop at the end of the address provided by Bill. Search with the corrected address.

I had no idea the symptoms were so horrible. The link to the Guardian did not work, but it was easily read on Google. I tried to give a new link, but without success. Perhaps there is some censorship here, which may be a good idea, but the warning is timely. There is not only AIDS [dementia and blindness]. Promiscuity is a bad idea.

Stephen

This article touches on a number of issues.

My take on all of this( and I am open to be corrected )is as follows:

The issue of compensation/redress is quite clearly within the ambit of the Royal Commission:

what institutions and governments should do to address, or alleviate the impact of, past and future child sexual abuse and related matters in institutional contexts, including, in particular, in ensuring justice for victims through the provision of redress by institutions, processes for referral for investigation and prosecution and support services.

Whilst the latter part emphasises "redress by institutions", the earlier part clearly identifies that there is a role for government as well.

As I understand it in NSW there are two main ways by which a victim could pursue compensation:

(a)Civil proceedings against the perpetrator/offender and /or (in the case of of clerical abuse) against the order /diocese of the perpetrator.

(b)An application to the Victims Compensation Tribunal - these claims don't involve the offender and an assessment is made about the level of compensation that is received.These payments are funded directly by the State Government.As I understand it they are usually for amounts considerably less than what a victim might receive in a sucessfull civil action

Civil proceedings:

I think that the ABC article is mainly about the decision of Legal Aid NSW not to fund civil proceedings for compensation for institutional child sex abuse.

However I do question whether Legal Aid NSW was funding any sort of civil compensation claims in the courts - whether someone was injured at work,in a car accident or was the victim of child abuse.

My understanding is that they don't.This is probably true of most other Legal Aid Offices throughout the other states.I know of one state that stopped funding most civil court cases over 20 years ago

The main sources of funding for Legal Aid Offices are the Commonwealth and the relevant State Government.The funding model(introduced under the Howard government) is such that these types of cases would be funded out of the money provided by the State Government.

It is arguable that Legal Aid services in Australia have been seriously under resourced for a long time particularly compared to the system in the UK.There was perchance an article on this issue in yesterday's SMH:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-continuing-crisis-in-our-legal-aid-20130517-2js2m.html

Supposing the Royal Commission makes some positive recommendations for legislative reform (including abolishing the circumstances that allowed the Ellis defence) which would allow victims the opportunity to seek appropriate levels of compensation.

What would this mean however if government funding ( both Federal and in all states) of Legal Aid services is such that victims might not be able to afford representation ?

I think this issue is on all fours with the bit from the Royal Commission terms of Terms of Reference I cited above.

Some of the big plaintiff law firms have played a significant role in bringing various dioceses/orders to account through the legal system.No doubt they will continue to do so.Their services don't come cheap though.

NSW Victims Compensation Tribunal:

This was in in the news 9-10 days ago when the NSW Government announced proposed changes/time limits which in practical terms would prevent many victims of institutional abuse from being able to claim under this scheme.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-10/compo-concerns/4681610

These changes if implemented will save the NSW government a significant amount

But the NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell says it's wrong to claim that victims of sexual abuse are being shortchanged.

He says the 10-year limit is one of the most generous in the country, and there are other kinds of compensation available.

"This has nothing to do with the Royal Commission, because the Royal Commission itself has been charged with looking at the issue of compensation, and what its terms of reference directs it to is if compenstion is to be paid, it can be extracted from those institutions who it finds are responsible for the abuse that went on," Mr O'Farrell said.

Certainly I know of at least one similar scheme (Qld) which has a 3 year time limit.

However the I thought that the last paragraph by Premier O'Farrell was a bit cute.Of course there are other means of seeking compensation.Pity about the Ellis defence seriously impeding some civil claims against the Catholic Church. What has been your response Mr O'Farrell to David Shoebridge's proposals for reform on Ellis? Your proposed changes have everything to do with the Royal Commission.

I think governments often make decisions which try and protect themselves from legal liability and the associated compensation payments.Even when they are trying to do the right thing.

In the late 1990s

the Queensland Government commissioned the Forde Inquiry to investigate the treatment of children in licensed government and non-government institutions in Queensland. The inquiry covered 159 institutions from 1911 to 1999, excluding foster care and institutions providing care for children with disabilities or those suffering from acute or chronic health problems.

In response to the recommendations of the Forde Inquiry, the Queensland Government introduced the $100 million Redress Scheme in May 2007. The scheme provided ex-gratia payments ranging from $7,000 to $40,000 to people who experienced abuse and neglect as children in Queensland institutions (covered by the terms of the Forde Inquiry) to acknowledge the impact of past abuse and neglect and help people move forward with their lives.

Applications for a payment under the scheme opened 1 October 2007 and closed 30 September 2008. More than 10,200 applications were received by the closing date, with over 7,400 applications assessed as eligible for payment under the scheme.

Two levels of payment were offered through the scheme, with level two payments for those who were assessed by an expert panel as having suffered more serious harm. A definitive closing date was required to enable the two levels of payment offered under the scheme to be distributed accurately and equitably from within the funding allocation.

The scheme was finalised in June 2010. Any claims for monetary compensation from people who did not lodge an application to the Redress Scheme need to proceed through the normal legal process.

http://www.communities.qld.gov.au/communityservices/community-support/forgotten-austral...

$ 100 million was a significant commitment. It wasn't until Anna Bligh became Treasurer in 2006 that anything was done to implement the Forde Inquiry recommendations.She found the money - kudos to Anna !! However in order to receive payments under this redress scheme claimants had to sign away their rights to sue the Queensland Government.Many of these victims were wards of the state even if they were residing in a non government or church run facility.There was a duty of care owed by the government.If a reasonable proportion of those successful redress scheme claimants had sued the Queensland government then it might have cost a lot more than $100 million.

I think examples of governmental liability in these types of situations will get canvassed during the Royal Commission

Maitland

The Authentic Gospel of Jesus
by Geza Vermes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/dec/20/highereducation.news2

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/17/syphilis-sex-fear-borgias.

Syphilis is agonizing in its last torments.
We should continue to warn our young.

I had an experience of the Divine in early 1972 and life was never quite the same after. In the early 1990s I was contemplating the Agony in the Garden. It seemed to me that Jesus, who had tried all his life to do what he saw as the will of his Father, was trying to understand why it was going to end like this. It was suggested by the nun leading our programme that we should put ourselves in the scene as one of those in the story and see what we learnt from the experience.
The apostles went to sleep and I did not think of being an angel so I was left with imagining myself in the place of Jesus. I felt that I would want to understand why things had turned out this way. So that was my prayer. “Why has it come to this? Why after all the time I have spent trying to get the disciples to know You, they are all still far from the closeness I have with you. There have been many prophets over the years who tried to get us to a close relationship with you. Why did they not succeed. Why doesn't everyone listen to you??” I repeated my question in various ways and as I said again > “Why do they not listen to you?”, I heard a voice saying the words with me – with one very small but marked change. The voice said “Why don't WE listen to you?”
This certainly did not answer the question I had been posing but the Love that I felt in those words and the “knowledge” that Jesus was identifying himself with each and every one of us in our lack of complete understanding has allowed me to live with the many unanswered questions I come across. Jesus is truly the model we need.

Thank you very much for this, Brian, written so late in the night. I wish you did not need to do that.

Regarding peace in Europe, perhaps the new nuclear age realities will have the nations put aside their ancient hates.

You are well aware that greed drove the cave people and will be with us evermore.

I cannot thank you and your beauty sufficiently for all you give us day by day.
Your own essays give such value, much less everything else.
Of course, for me and all, I am sure, a 'Petal ' bestowed is joy-laden.

I hope you do not mind my writing that these are difficult days for me what with ugly evidence from my life-long supported Labor Party together with its losing badly in September, according to scribes.
There were years, in my strength, when I could 'mount the barricades' and struggle for what I am convinced is right.
Now, I can do nothing.
And am very sad.

I have just read that last bit nd have seen, so clearly, what a bloody ungrateful fool I am.
Here is my beautiful Bett. looking after me all day every day, with our 5 grown children ready to help in an way if asked, and the community of beautiful people here to suffer my ramblings.

Thank you, Brian, I owe you, mate.

And thank all here.

God will evaluate our performance at the end of our life.

G. Pell - The Sunday Telegraph

Fortunately, that will be after 'He/She/It' has read 'Hell on the Way to Heaven'.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/we-should-live-our-lives-as-if-we-will-be...

In the present climate this piece might seem contrary.

Be that as it may.

I am really sorry for anyone who has suffered a broken relationship. I am sorrier for those who have been abused in unequal relationships. But I am impatient with those who lack balance or who then spend their lives pursuing the one they think let them down or hurt them.

I have had a lot of experience with people who have had bad relationships. I know people, women mostly who have loved alcoholics; some whose every relationship has been with some kind of addict. They say things like, “Wouldn’t you think I’d have more sense or insight but here I am I have done it again.” Many of these people of course came from dysfunctional families and think dysfunction is normal. Many of their partners did too and think or feel the same things. The healthy ones are those who while working on themselves let the other go.

All I’m saying is stand back and don’t be too quick to take sides. Relationships are complex things. The truth is often not as clear as it seems. And if you are going to take sides be clear about your agenda. Don’t use this case to assuage your own hurt or vent your own anger. Don’t act out of resentment.

My father was a quiet man who seldom gave advice. The one piece of advice he gave me several times must have been important to him then. It was, “Never get involved in other people’s domestics.” ‘Domestics’ here meant other families’, especially other couple’s fights. Both he and my mother came from families where there were ‘domestics’. There were unhappy marriages, people who would not speak to each other often for years and years, people who were disowned by their parents or siblings. He hated all that. “And when you hear one of them badmouthing another one take no notice. You cannot trust an opinion given by a person like that, ex-wives, ex-husbands, ex-lovers, and indeed any people with an axe to grind. Even from people you like. Relationships are never simple. And usually if a relationship breaks down most of the people involved are a bit in the wrong. And often they were there for the wrong reason in the first place.”

I thought of this the other day when I read of a priest in trouble from a woman he once had a relationship with. She has gone to the papers and now he is banned from practising as a priest. My first question is, “And what has that achieved?” My second question is, “I wonder who really has the problem here?” It sounds like a domestic to me rather than an issue to profoundly change the Church.

As I have been knocking around the Church for half a century I know of priests who have fallen in love. It is one of the things humans do even if they have been ordained and are according to some people ‘ontologically changed.’ Some of these men have had relationships with women. I also know a number of women who have had relationships with priests. How much men and women in these situations were free agents I do not know but I know some of these have been as free as humans ever are. Priest or not the power has been equal between these people though sometimes the woman has been more mature than the priest and she has had the power. It happens.

In some cases the men have left the priesthood and married either that woman or someone else. Some have stayed in the priesthood. Many of these men who stayed are the more mature and the better men for having had a relationship. Some of the women I know who had relationships with priests who stayed have moved on richer for the experience. Some moved on scarred.

Richard Sipe claims that about forty percent of priests have relationships some of them long lasting and I have heard at least one bishop say he is not surprised at that figure.

I even know a family in which there were two sons priests. One had an affair that resulted in a child who was adopted out. Catholic adoptions had a number of priests’ children to adopt out over the years. The other left the priesthood and married. And the family disowned the one who left and married and honoured the one who fathered a baby and stayed.

In society generally people have relationships. Some people move away from relationships scarred. Some hurt for a while and then go on, in some cases they have grown as the result of their experience.

When relationships break up and you know both parties you will often get a different story from each side. That is fair enough. We can only see what we see and usually we see our own side more clearly, though not always.

For reasons I do not understand some people get stuck in the pain of a failed relationship whether it was a marriage or an affair. And others even more destructively make the failure and the hurt the meaning of the rest of their lives. My estimation is that people who do this damage themselves and often those around them. They sometimes do enormous damage to children involved in their lives.

This failure to move on also afflicts some people who are the victims of abuse. It seems to me a shame that one of the outcomes of broken relationships and abuse is that some people cannot let their hurt go. Thus they become victims again and again. I know that for some of these people there are deep psychological reasons for this but I still think it a shame and I always hope they will seek and get help especially those beset by shame.

Sometimes one party in a broken relationship can go on and grow while the other is crippled. While this is sometimes the fault of the one who goes on less hurt or entirely unharmed it is sometimes the problem of the one who is still living in the past.

One of the issues especially for priests who trained in the 1950s was that they were not trained to be adults. Some were I hope but many were not. Some were trained to remain children. They entered far too young, some as young as twelve. Once there they were kept immature by their training. And this in a Church with a distorted view of what sexuality is all about. Once ordained they were kept immature by clericalism and the myth of priesthood. I noticed when I wsa working among them that a priest could often get away with things no one else could. Ah! But if he left the priesthood he was a nobody. And his qualifications meant nothing.

Some priests who have had affairs are or were predators. Some are or were immature men finding themselves. Some are people who should never have been priests in the first place. This all goes for ministers in Anglican and Protestant churches. Marriage of itself solves nothing. Others are men who would make good married priests but the Church won’t allow that unless you were an Anglican first (surely one of the great leaps in logic and sense but a topic for another day).

Some of the priests who have had affairs have acted from a power position and taken advantage of women. But many have not acted from unequal power at all. Some of those people hunting priests who have had relationships are caught in a sort of reverse clericalism. Instead of seeing a man who made a mistake, or a man who grew through having an affair or an immature person who is in the wrong place they presume that all priests who have affairs are the same. And they give too great weight to the fact that a man was ordained.

Despite the clericalism of the official Church priests are men first. In some relationships the man even if he is a priest is in the less powerful position in terms of human relationships even if he is ‘ontologically different’ and even if many Catholics hold priests in special esteem or awe.

I think that some of these people are also practising a kind of sexism. They deny agency to women who engage in affairs or relationships with priests.

Some women make choices to have relationships with priests.

Some women and some men like or need to seek the unattainable. And believe it or not some women are predators. Some of these relationships fail. Some are bound to. Sometimes the woman is as much at fault as the priest. It is even possible she is more to blame. It is a domestic. To presume the priest is wholly to blame is as silly as thinking that men are to blame for all domestics. It is simply not true.

Now and then I feel sorry for the priests.

But I am not going to get involved. You can’t win in other people’s domestics.

Freeman, a young Buddhist monk switches lives with Anthony, a devoted Maronite Catholic. Over the two-week switch, Freeman opens up to many new experiences while Anthony's swap is somewhat different.

Sunnydaze

This is so abusive I can't believe that they would do something like this. When I tried 5 years after the fact 2003/2008 Legal Aid said they doubt if I would get anything maybe 2000 or some thing small like that, they said the 15,000 for on going treatment maybe will be classed as Compo in the end they were shocked that I got the maximum they told me because I did all the ground work with all my letters that is the reason but then they took back that 15,000 I was happy with that really because I was able to set up the house and get my car especially the car so I could get around instead of walking every where.

Macbee

And John Chuchman's reflection fits so neatly in with what is being discussed about the Holy Spirit.

His words today in Telegraph

:WE SHOULD LIVE OUR LVES AS IF WE WILL BE JUDGED BY GOD:

Then do it when you are questioned at the inquiry George.

Macbee

Dedicated to all 'good Christians' everywhere (with apologies to all the really good Salvos)and not a few Catholicans - I'm sure there may well be a few of us who get a kick out of this.

"You got the wrong attitude, brothers and sisters".

Sorry Bill, been looking for the lyrics but none around. In short, it's a send up.

Stephen

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/cece-bruce-waitress-tip-indianpolis_n_3287625....

Some information that I think is correct:

Before you have a funeral you must have a death certificate. If you die suddenly at home and your nearest and dearest call an ambulance, they will call the police. The police will set up a crime scene to see if it is a suspicious death and it may be that there will have to be a coronial enquiry before you can be buried/cremated.

If you want to avoid all that,if you know the person is definitely dead, do NOT call an ambulance. Call your GP and get that individual to come to issue a death certificate. If you have not seen a medical practitioner for six months or more, then they will not be able to issue the death certificate. So . . . good idea to keep a GP in close focus for any eventuality.

Gettin' there, Bill. Gettin' there. It's hard shaking off the victim mode, but I'm choosing my battles now and how to fight them. I have learned so much through all this, not the least about genuineness and truth.

I do get fired up though, for all those who will be affected by the last 2 NSW government decisions: statutes of limitations and legal aid. I mean, what are they thinking. Trust me, they know exactly what they are thinking: "Shit, this might cost us a lot of money; better pull out now or at least put laws in place that will protect us; stuff the victims. Being a bit emotionally reactive? Perhaps. But how else is one to read these decisions. Oh, yes, that's right, we can't afford it all. Hmm, I can think of a few places where they could trim the fat somewhat. Still, makes no difference; the message is the same: We can't afford you, you're not important enough; we don't really mean what we say when we say we care.

By the way Bill, chooks, ducks, kids and Liz are all great (not necessarily in that order). I'm starting to get somewhere finally with a new career and study and loving it. And having said that, got to get back to it again.

Thanks for asking my good man and love to yours.

Stephen

Liz and Stephen, wonderful to have your valuable contribution.
I admire the great strength of you both and do hope life is much easier for you nowadays.

With all good wishes.

Oh, George, thanks for that, a beauty, although Ground Control should have requested measurements.

Hope you have an enjoyable day.

Like others here I want to be cremated and my ashes scattered in the ocean off my favourite beach

Unsure whether I want " We shall overcome" ( Joan Baez ) or "Bright Side of Life" ( Monty Python ) as my recessional.

However might I suggest that people ensure that whoever they have appointed as executor of their will is onside in relation to your wishes.An executor usually has the responsibilty of arranging the funeral.Merely letting the family know or even including it in your will may not guarantee that this is what will actually happen.

Sadly I have known of serious family disputes arising because of differing views about burial vs cremation or where the parent is to be interred or what is to happen to the ashes.

Maitland

I am so, so, so sick of this. Whenever money comes onto the scene people's, governments', church's real hearts are laid bare for all to see. And where your treasure is there also will be your heart. Now we are seeing how committed people really are and how much of their 'concern' is just bullshit.

I wanted to put the following forward a few weeks ago; I have included it in my submissions to the Vic. Inquiry and the Royal Commission, not I suspect that I will change the world with my words. It is just, well, one of my overall conclusions having gone through everything I have including the 'compassion' of the church (Thank God, one person has come through and in a practical way as well). It is sitting still on my desktop as I am still trying to decide whether to send it to the new thingy church front - what's it called? The Truth and whatever thingy, you know.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What I want to say below is echoed by the so many victims of abuse I have now come to know through life and through my study. Parts of it were written last year, others just now.

The church insurance/compensation/legal/professional agencies employ legalists who are totally detached from our real life stories - in this they have the upper hand: They employ the ‘best’ legal minds in the country – in this they have the upper hand: They have almost countless dollars with which to ‘support’ themselves – in this they have the upper hand: They know all the legal loopholes and process - in this they have the upper hand: They know they are dealing with mostly broken, confused, naive, angry/volatile 'children/adults' who usually have no idea about such things and who, even if they did, probably couldn't cope with them - and in this they have the upper hand: They know (or believe) that they have (still) some semblance of moral authority or weight (some call it fat) on which they can ‘rest their laurels’ - and in this they have the confidence (arrogance)/self-belief/psychological upper hand.

People, what we are dealing with here is a completely unlevel playing field. As I said to ‘the church’ one day (and added in my submissions to the two current commissions), “If you were truly serious about serving and healing sexual abuse victims you would be directing resources such as the above, the money, the legal experts, the compassion towards victims, and not towards defending yourselves and protecting your good reputation, a reputation obviously bound up with power, wealth and status. What hope do victims have against such a ‘body of Christ”.

Added to this: Not until “the church” as in the institution and its leaders (and I include this new body in that), not until ‘it’ starts including and acknowledging in any statements, the cover ups, the passing on of obviously criminal priests that also happened “in the past”, will that ‘church’ be believed or trusted by us. There have been many nice words about sadness of the sins of priests/religious/nuns in the past but virtually nothing about these cover-ups or shifting of criminal priests. Why? Well perhaps your legal representatives have advised you against such an admition of guilt. But, let me say categorically, that no one involved in the true healing of victims will trust you until this is fully acknowledged and admitted.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So, sounds as if another huge institution of heartless, blind and deaf people need convincing, or, taught how to really care for its people. I can just imagine what so many victims/survivors must be thinking or, more importantly feeling - after being triggered by such news, and triggered they will be in oh so many ways. Sounds like the church and the NSW government are close bed fellows if you ask me, which no one is. (CAre to comment Maitland? Mind you, don' have time to respond and must get back to work.)

Roy and others, I can fully empathise with so many of your reactions. Mind you, when I went through Towards Healing I rejected a well known lawyer (cost too much as was a little gruff and off putting - can't deal with that still) for a little old Portuguese Catholic woman from Legal Aid who was a little out of her depth but who took my case very seriously and very compassionately while all the while having her nice Catholic background roasted somewhat. She was also deeply shocked at the attitude of the 'church's lawyers, how rude and unfeeling they were.

Stephen

........but carry the tainted English blood, an handicap experts tell us which arrived in the mists of time but appeared and appear stronger in the south.

Kind and knowledgeable Annie has endeavoured to ease your blow but........

Blessedly and despite west winds, the island a few miles to the west escaped and we descendants of those who were big enough to leave Ireland for her own good during the early years of the 19th century welcome you.

In another couple of years, researchers believe, living in Godzone will see you reborn and your blood will be as pure and rich as anybody sufficiently fortunate to be Australian.

In the meantime you are an adornment to our community.

Although it is a pity you were mis-directed and landed in the Dismal City instead of the Emerald City to your north.

Ps to all, please, please do not allow this to fall into the hands of the lady 'from the other.......'

Thank you all.

Thanks Sandra. I've just had an enjoyable time looking up those songs on youtube etc. and much appreciate having the list.

As for the rip-offs, seems when we are most vulnerable is when we need to be most diligent - difficult for most of us.

Cathy thank you for your reflection, with its good and immediate questions. You are asking us to consider how the Spirit works amongst us, here on Catholica.

We are a motley bunch, and I reckon the Spirit has a lively time creating community amongst us. But I do feel a sense of belonging here, a sense that we care about one another, whether we are well or not, whether we are here today or not, what we say, what we agonise or rejoice about. “Trust” is an important word. We don’t agree on everything, we don’t even understand one another’s drift at times, but that we trust one another to mean good rather than harm, to be genuinely seeking truth, to be willing to open ourselves to the Spirit, that is a key to our community.

Beehive, you end your post with the line "I mean our understanding of the love Yeshua has for each one of us."

"I don't think I have this sense anymore that there is "someone named Jesus or Yeshua" residing up in the clouds, in the tabernacle, or anywhere, who "loves me".

Brian, enough of the caricatures. The " or anywhere" though is pertinent. I believe in the presence of Yeshua within us. It's useless for me to quote you bits of NT.

"I have this sense of having prayed too often to God in the earlier part of my life for some solution to some challenging situation only to have the answer delivered as another container ship load of shit jettisoned all over my life."

Apart from early childhood, I've come to accept the shit as part of my journey. When things get really rough I do ask for help to get me through it. I have experienced this help many times.

I don't believe anymore in this "Jesus or God who loves me and will deliver me from trials as long as I recite the correct formula well enough". I've "been there, done that" and simply do not believe it anymore on the basis of lived experience.

I never believed that.

Another thing that perplexes me today is the question of whether, in fact, there was actually ever any individual named Jesus who made this journey that is preserved for us in the New Testament?

I leave that with you.

Did Jesus really exist? In a sense the New Testament might be likened more to a good novel or book of fiction in this case compiled by many authors who were trying to "make sense" of this journey we're all on called "Life".

The NT can be likened to many types of literature. But like any literary work it should be granted at least the same parameters as any contemporary narrative about a prominent historical person. 50 years for the NT after the death of Yeshua is not a long enough to exclude existing historical evidence of events. This week was the 50th anniversary of the assassination of John Kennedy. I remember the day when I read it in Time magazine and heard it on radio, and keenly followed up the aftermath. There are millions of people still alive like me. We were not eyewitnesses. But try telling us a furfey about the accounts and you will soon get put right. Both Kennedy and Yeshua of Nazareth were well known men in the limelight of contemporary history. Illiterate people also have very acute memories.
Even though the Gospels are not biographies, and have a different purpose, they could ill afford to distort well known local history. That would surely undermine their objective. There were plenty of temple priests et alia around ready to chew them to pieces and cash in on their historical mistakes. By and large they are silent.

"John P Meier SJ, suggests that perhaps only 10% of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the NT were actually said by Jesus. The rest, presumably from that observation, were "words put into the mouth of this person named Jesus"..."

I have no problem with that. It's generally recognised. We have to recognise the constraints on writing on papyrus or worse on scrolls. They did not use "Footers" or "Margins" for reference of Book/Author/date. There were no chapter and verse numbers in any scroll. The only short cut way to reference was through literary devices. Putting words in a character's mouth was one way of doing this. The clue suggested the reference point in some scroll were you could find a supporting idea written by someone else, just like Catholica uses "Links". These writers were not stupid. Their work is very intricate.

"If it "didn't really happen to a particular individual named Jesus", does that invalidate it all? I think not. The ultimate "proof" of my faith does not, for me at least, reside in whether how historically "true" the Jesus' story is. The "ultimate proof" resides in whether the Jesus' story is "good advice" for any person, making any journey, at any period in history!"

All I can say to such advice is "Forget it. Because if it's source is not scientifically demonstrated , or it didn't happen, the advice too is baseless.

Beehive

Problem is that's what the Republican Party reps look like to me (admittedly from a considerable distance).

Very token presence of black, Hispanic or female candidates.

Not unlike the US hierarchy.

I was a bit confused too by Herbie's comment, Beehive. I suspect he hadn't read your own responses to your own question HERE but was basing his post on your initial post at the head of this string.

Sounds bit racist to me MOF?!
georgeh

In some ways the answer is simple. What we value about the different religious orders is the vision and spirit that each has, that has led to particular ministries. So far those ministries have been carried forward by vowed people. Why not extend full membership to lay people, single or married. Many orders already have associated lay people, in various organisations. It's time for the division between vowed and lay members to be abolished. Problem solved.

There are probably many Jesuit-educated Catholics in the US who could continue the leadership of the university in the Jesuit tradition.

Annie

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-19/nsw-legal-aid-refuses-to-fund-sex-abuse-claims/46...

The New South Wales legal aid service has come under fire for its decision not to fund any compensation cases for institutional child sexual abuse.

Legal Aid NSW says it is expecting a large number of compensation applications as a result of the Federal Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

However, it has decided it will not fund the applications, saying they will impact disproportionately on its budget.

It follows the State Government's recent changes to the Victim's Compensation Scheme which means most victims of institutional abuse would not be eligible for compensation.

Greens MP David Shoebridge says it is a double blow for victims.

"This is a free pass for the Catholic Church and those other institutions that have abused children," he said.

This is the story of the poor blonde flying in a two-seater airplane with just the pilot.
He has a heart attack and dies. She, frantic, calls out a May-Day.

"May-Day! May-Day! Help me! Help me! My pilot had a heart attack and is dead.
And I don't know how to fly. Help me! Please help me!"

She hears a voice over the radio saying:

"This is Air Traffic Control and I have you loud and clear.

I will talk you through this and Get you back on the ground.

I've had a lot of experience with this kind of problem.
'Now, just take a deep breath. Everything will be fine!

Now give me your height and position."

She says, "I'm 5'4" and I'm in the front seat."

"O.K." says the voice on the radio....

"Repeat after me: Our Father... Who art in Heaven... "

georgeh

Thanks Brian for your enlightening posts.
Indeed as it was in the time of Jesus, as it is today we are continually asked--Who do you think I am--?!
We all have our own individual answers, that are everchanging,I guess?!
Keep up the good works,but do make sure you have that one in seven rest as well?!Even God did/does that,I guess?!
georgeh

Macbee, I can write only how magnificent I think you are.
Thank you for telling us.

Tony, thank you for your gentle posts lately.

I think you are doing two things, Beehive: (1) knocking down the Jesus/Servant of Y paradigm and (2) assuming that Geza had the real answers to the identity of Jesus of Nazareth.
Herbie

Herbie
(1)Could you please explain what you mean by "knocking down" the Jesus/Servant of Yahweh paradigm? I really don't undertand,

(2) What I think about Geza is that he did a good job by bringing a 1stC Jewish view point to bear on the historical Jesus.
However Geza rejects the NT teaching of Yeshua as the expected anointed king of David, and as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah.
I believe he did shed some important light on the Jewish Yeshua, but for me this falls far short of the complete identity of the Yeshua of 1stC "Christianity" as presented in the NT.

Beehive

Cathy

Wow from me as well !!

This Sunday's readings have alternatives for both the second reading and the Gospel.

Your wonderful post about various aspects of Catholica resonates (for me at least ) with the Corinthians reading:

There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit;
there are different forms of service but the same Lord;
there are different workings but the same God
who produces all of them in everyone.
To each individual the manifestation of the Spirit
is given for some benefit.

As a body is one though it has many parts,
and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body,
so also Christ.
For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body,
whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons,
and we were all given to drink of one Spirit.

Here's a reflection from NCR:

http://ncronline.org/node/51481

Preaching on Pentecost is, I think, a little like preaching on Easter Sunday. The Spirit, like the empty tomb, is hard for us to get our heads around. But as with the Easter event, there is some wonderful “evidence” left behind, clues that give us a glimpse of the ineffable, the unimaginable. I’m not talking doves or tongues of fire. The Spirit is evidenced by faith in action -- the faith of the first church and our faith today.

We know the Spirit is with us today because the church continues to journey together in spite of great human frailty, intractable pride and sexual sin. We know the Spirit is with us because there are still heroes among us who choose justice over law and pay the prophet’s price. We know the Spirit is with us because men and women from many nations and faiths hear the same message of peace, compassion and human dignity. Organizations like Church Women United, World Council of Churches and Monastic Interreligious Dialogue testify to the indiscriminate action of the Spirit in our midst.

Maitland