Father Kennedy - Beliefs vs Practice

I (and many others) have been following the drama surrounding Father Peter Kennedy and St Mary's Catholic Church over the past few months (and quite frankly, I've been wondering when I was going to get around to writing something about it on this blog)...

The Weekend Australian ran an article on Saturday, the 23rd May, called "The father, the shun and the holey spirit". It touched on some of the content of an interview that had taken place between the ABC's Steve Austin and Father Kennedy on the 11th of May. It is a great interview - very interesting. Steve Austin does a wonderful job here, trying to get to the heart of Peter Kennedy, the man repeatedly dubbed in the media as "the rebel priest". And Father Kennedy himself comes across as a very likeable character - the kind of person you'd love to have over for dinner for a big chat about life, the universe and everything.

Tess Livingstone's article touched upon issues that friends of mine and I have been talking about in relation to these dramas, but have not been given that much attention to this point. Bit by bit, the "theology" of Father Kennedy has come out, but now that he has been removed from his church role, he seems a lot freer to talk about such things. It seems that he doesn't really believe in a number of things that many Christians would argue are core beliefs of the Christian faith - EG that Jesus actually existed, or if he did, that he died and rose again... These would have to be two of the central beliefs of the Christian faith which at its core, requires a person to follow Jesus (who must exist to be followed) and to put their hope in the resurrection (the act on which all the hope of Christians rests). The Apostle Paul says, in 1 Corinthians 15, that if Jesus hasn't been resurrected, then the Christian faith is a joke. Even Steve Austin, who doesn't identify himself as Catholic, finds it hard to understand, that a Catholic priest might not believe in these core tenets of faith and still want to call himself Christian.

So, it is interesting that Father Kennedy on one hand, cites the example of Jesus as a rebel and a rule breaker, persecuted by the church for his unorthodox beliefs and practices (this image, of course, justifies his own situation and treatment); but then on the other hand, doubts the very existence of the person of his example. Instead, he seems to put more faith in less concrete cosmic themes like the rhythms of nature and the mysteries of life. Now, don't get me wrong, I have an appreciation of these themes and their important role in revelations of spiritual truths, but I don't see them shaping up as a replacement for what Jesus' existence and resurrection can tell us about who God is, what God is about and how we should then live. There is no doubt that Father Kennedy does not share the rthodox beliefs tof the mainstream Christian church.

But then there are the practices of Father Kennedy and the St Mary's congregation... The community of St Mary's is one where the poor and marginalised are welcome and the commitment to social justice is high. People who wouldn't go to other churches, go and are welcome, there. Issues that are not on the agenda of most churches, and should be, are given attention and resources there. And these are practices I woul argue are essential to the DNA of fair dinkum churches. So, in all this, my big question has been - what is more important? Right belief (orthodoxy) or right practice (orthopraxy)? Because many, many churches who have the so called "right" beliefs, do not commit to these right practices, yet there have been many criticisms about Father Kennedy and St Mary's for having "wrong" beliefs, while engaging in what are essentially right Christian practices.

I wonder which is the worse problem to have...

In the Bible, Jesus said that there are those who are going to call to him saying, "Lord, Lord", and he isn't going to know who they are. He told a story about the end time judgement, officated by Jesus, that tells us that the criteria for salvation is what people DID or DID NOT DO for "the least". And in another parable of Jesus, one son was considered to be "good" by the father, for DOING what his father wanted him to do, even after he said he wasn't going to; and the bad son was the one who said he would do it, but then DIDN'T do it. I don't know, but as go through the Bible, there is a pretty good case that can be mounted for the importance of doing the right thing in God's eyes, and that this is of more importance than we give it credit for in God's scheme of things. There are things we could say about Father Kennedy's "orthodoxy", but could criticisms of equal weight be leveled at many, many Christian churches, for their lack of "orthopraxy"? And why hasn't this counter-criticism been a more prominent part of the media comment and debate?

So finally, my big question for today really is, "What is the point of having all the right beliefs, if they don't lead to the right practices?"

Shalom!