The Catholic Church and its Moral Authority.

I ask the question – a valid question – where is God? Is God “up there”, here, everywhere? If, as I suspect, God is everywhere why is it then claimed that a priest is a required “intermediary” through which a believer can “talk” to God.

If God is everywhere is a priest really necessary?

This brings me to comment on the truly appalling, even horrifying revelations in the 2017 Report by the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

The Catholic Church, while certainly not the only one, has the worst record of any institution mentioned. The Catholic Church, through its Archbishops in Australia, has stated, in answer to recommendations in the Royal Commission Report, that any change to the requirement for priests to be celibate, and changes to the confessional will not be considered.

My questions then are:-

Why is “celibacy” so important to the Catholic hierarchy?

Also, why is the Confessional so “sacrosanct”?

And why is it that “Canon Law” cannot be challenged or altered?

Celibacy:

The Church, as I understand it, considers clerical celibacy to be not a doctrine, but a discipline. 

There has never been any doubt, however, that it is an ecclesiastical discipline, as Pope John Paul II said at a public audience on 17 July 1993, that celibacy "does not belong to the essence of priesthood.” He went on to speak, nevertheless, of its aptness for the requirements of sacred orders, asserting that the discipline "enters into the logic of (priestly) consecration."

Because the rule of celibacy is an ecclesiastical discipline and not a doctrine, it can, in principle be changed at any time by the Pope. Nonetheless, the current Pope, Pope Francis, and his predecessors have spoken clearly of their understanding that the traditional practice was not likely to change.

Throughout the early centuries of Christianity, let it be known, clergy continued to get married, though marriage was not required. It was not until the turn of the first millennium that the church started to canonically regulate clerical marriage, mainly in response to clerical abuses and corruption. It was of particular concern that at the death of a clergyman, his wife and children would inherit church property. The Council of Pavia (1018), for example, issued regulations on how to deal with children of clergy, declaring them serfs of the church, unable to be ordained and barring them from inheriting their father's “benefices” (income connected to a church office or parish).

So, it can be seen that celibacy has nothing to do with God (at least no more so that any other human activity) but a lot more to do with mercenary and ecclesiastical considerations – the wealth and authority of the Catholic Church.

Confessional:

Again, as I understand it, this requirement was originally imposed in the Middle Ages, at least in part, by church leaders who expected priests to interrogate penitents and learn if they might be heretics.

Confession and the authority to grant absolution also greatly enhanced the power of the priest. With sins absolved, the believer would gain heaven. Without absolution, death could bring the spiritual pain of purgatory or the eternal damnation of hell.

It would appear that from the very beginnings of the confessional, practices varied widely among both priests and laypeople. Some clergy emphasized compassion and forgiveness and faithfully kept secret what they heard. Others exploited their power and the information captured during the sacrament. The 11th-century monk Peter Damian (1007 – 1072) famously excoriated clerics for the sexual abuse of minors, which often began with the penitent-confessor relationship. In the later Middle Ages, apparently criminality among confessors was widespread and entrenched. Much of the criminality involved sexual assaults and priestly transgressions against the church's sexual mores (adopted as a rule or canon).

So, again, there is nothing “sacred” about the confessional – quite the reverse. At best a priest should be acting only as a counselor for a troubled parishioner.

Canon Law:

I offer the following (adapted from Wikipedia):- “The canon law of the Catholic Church is the system of laws and legal principles made and enforced by the hierarchical authorities of the Church to regulate its external organization and government and to order and direct the activities of Catholics toward the mission of the Church.

What began with rules ("canons") adopted by the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem (held about 50 AD) has developed into a highly complex legal system incorporating not just elements of the New Testament, but some of the Hebrew (Old Testament) Roman, Visigothic, Saxon and Celtic legal traditions.

It is the internal ecclesiastical law, or operational policy, governing the Catholic Church and other churches. Canon law wasn't just a body of rules and regulations governing members of the church, but rather an elaborate code of ethics shaping family life and marriage. Due to this, it was able to manipulate the fundamental operations of family life within the areas that it oversaw. The Catholic Church (and other churches), have manipulated the basis and validity of marriage, the ability to end a marriage as well as remarriage abilities, and the norms for sexual behaviour. The way that such church laws are legislated, interpreted and at times adjudicated varies widely. In all these traditions, a canon was originally a rule adopted by a church council; these canons formed the foundation of canon law.”

So you see, again, there is nothing really “God like” or sacred in these canons (laws) – at least no more so that in the Common Law of Australia. A canon law cannot, ever, take precedence over the Laws of Australia. Otherwise should we now allow “laws” that apply to Scientology, to Islam, the Hindu or any other faith to also take precedence?

The Catholic Church has no claim to any “moral authority” while it hides behind these so called inviolable “laws of the Church”. They are nothing of the sort.

So I ask again, where is God? Is God “up there”, here, or everywhere?  

Tragedy of the Commons

The term “Commonwealth of Australia” should mean something – it is not just a title – the wealth (in this case derived from its inherent resources) is – or should be – a common wealth for all. 

The metaphor, “tragedy of the commons,” lends emphasis to the argument that free access and uncontrolled demand for any particular finite resource (the “commons”), will diminish that resource, either temporarily or permanently, through over-exploitation. More pertinently it refers to situations in which individuals (or a groups of like minded people), acting to meet their own short term interests make choices that are detrimental to society as a whole.  This occurs because the benefits of exploitation always accrue to individuals or groups, each of whom is motivated to maximize use of the resource to the point in which they become reliant on it, while the costs of the exploitation are borne by all those to whom the resource is available – in this case the citizens of Australia.

(Adapted from the original article “Tragedy of the Commons”, by Garrett Hardin, Science, 1968).

When money is considered pre-eminent and more important than people, we have a real problem. It must be remembered, at all times, that money and commercial enterprise are tools for the benefit of Man (as in human beings) and not Man as pieces on some economic game board to be moved at will for the benefit of money and commercial enterprise.

It is time that “big” miners and the other players in the resources industry were reminded that what they are exploiting is the “commons” of all Australians (including resident shareholders) that does not “belong” to any one company. When the resources are exhausted, as they will be, what will the “commons” consist of – a pock marked Luna landscape no use to anyone? Who will pay the rectification costs? We, the citizens of Australia, will be called upon – once again – to bear that burden and we will all be doubly impoverished with a degraded environment and higher taxes to pay for it (Adani’s proposed coal mine? All opencast mining?).

This is the “tragedy of the commons” and why I, personally, support and always have supported, some form of payment by the “resources industry” to redress the environmental degradation they cause. I know that a “mining tax” is way off the radar of all politicians at present but I firmly believe that the chickens will come home to roost – somewhere. It is essential, as I understand it, for the long-term benefit and the “common wealth” of the citizens of this country that this “tragedy of the commons”, this untenable situation, be addressed, and soon. 

Because I live here I have chosen to use Australia as an example - but this would apply to any country.