My views of the Catholic Church in Australia - about the Confession

This is a letter I sent to the Archbishop below. It expresses my deeply felt feelings about this shocking practice. In addition I will add that it should be understood that the entire Canon was revised in 1917 by the then Cardinal Secretary of State in the Vatican, Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII). So these "sacred" laws are not "inviolable laws of the Church". They are nothing of the sort. They were written by a man; not received carved in stone in some Moses like event. 

  

His Grace Archbishop Peter A Comensoli

Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Melbourne

Your Grace,

Re: The Confession and "weasel words".

Few things get up my nose and arouse my ire like injustice and people, or organisations, using "weasel words" to try and escape scrutiny and to try and maintain their authority! It is almost as if their only "crime" was to be caught! Doesn’t seem to matter what they did. 

In relation to the recommendations of the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuses, you have stated that the church welcomed the extension of mandatory reporting to priests, but maintain that the seal of confessional could not be broken. 

"The keeping of the seal in fact might in real ways enhance the safety of children not put them at further risk," you are reported to have said. 

You explain that this was because of the anonymity the confessional offered to children.

"The breaking of the seal is not likely to lead to child safety, it's more symbolic than a practical solution," you are reported to have said.

Not likely to lead to child safety! And keeping the seal might in real ways enhance the safety of children!! These are children, abused children, vulnerable children! Words fail me – I’m staggered that anyone, anyone, would make such a claim. Your hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Weasel words indeed! It seems your need to protect the "Sacred" institution of the Catholic Church takes precedent over all other considerations.

In relation to your statement, mentioned above, you will be well aware of what follows – but it is worth repeating.

The Confessional:

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.

So, as you can see, nothing has changed! There is nothing "sacred" about the "seal of confession" – quite the reverse. At best a priest should be acting only as a counselor for a troubled parishioner, someone to talk openly with – not hide behind a screen. Hiding behind a screen while confessing, to God presumably, is hypocritical in the extreme. I ask, where is God in all this? Is God only "up there", or is God "everywhere" (as I strongly suspect)? If God is everywhere there is no place to hide – least of all behind a screen! 

Furthermore does a "paedophile sinner" require absolution from a priest – also possibly a "paedophile sinner" himself? Please!! 

More importantly, does an innocent child’s emotional and psychological future weigh less than a mature, if ethically challenged, adult who knew exactly what he (or she) was doing? The Catholic Church has no claim to any moral authority while it hides behind its so-called inviolable "laws of the Church". They are nothing of the sort.

Has nothing moved in the Catholic Church? It’s high time you realised that this is the 21 Century – 2000 years (and counting) after the birth of the man you profess to worship – the man of justice, the man of peace, the man of love and a man of God – and the man who loved children! 

It is a few centuries, I believe, since a Pope had the power to keep a kneeling King waiting in the snow for an audience! Today, Secular Law most certainly takes precedence over Canon Law.

Canon Law can be changed. It’s not as if it is written in stone by God! Men, men of the Church of God, devised and wrote the Canon Law. Men can change it.

If you do nothing I strongly believe that the decline in church attendance will continue at an accelerated rate as trust, that most fragile asset, is further eroded. And you will continue to suffer the censure of many in the public arena. 

The requirement for celibacy is another long story!

I will be very interested in any response you may offer.

Yours "faithfully"

Andrew Campbell-Watt

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?  

The Catholic Church and confessions.

In light of the Royal Commission into child abuse – set up by the Australian Government – it is important for the Catholic Church to accept that the world has moved on. The Catholic Church no longer has the influence it exerted in the middle-ages and the confessional is not what it once was.

The World is now, for better or worse, largely a secular world; a world in which spirituality is waning.

The confessional should be a place, a time, when a person admits to God before a witness that they have “sinned”. This may be satisfactory for them as they will have made their peace with God. But this can never be the end of the story. The “sinner” now has to make their peace with society. And society demands justice; society demands justice that is not only done but seen to be done. This means the courts of law to establish the extent of the “sin” (crime) and the determination of the type and extent of the punishment; this means a punishment according to the law as determined by the society in which the “sin” was committed; this means doing “time” or paying a penalty of some kind.

This is Justice.

Now, to have a clergyman, however exalted, say that a confession is inviolable and above the law of the land is plain wrong. It may be sacred (according to the Catholic Church) in the “eyes of God” but people, both perpetrators and victims live in the world; people suffer and will seek redress of some kind. For the Catholic clergy to hide behind the “sanctity” of the confessional and therefore ignore the plight of the victim(s) will not work today.

This is not justice.

If a clergyman – or any person for that matter – is guilty of child abuse of any kind they need to be tried in the courts – they need to pay the penalty.   

This is justice.

Catholics priests, Paedophilia and Cardinal Pell’s response.

Something is dramatically wrong when a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, the titular head of the Catholic Church in Australia, Cardinal Pell can say (in apparent justification) that, and I quote from the Weekend Australian newspaper dated 11-12 November 2012, despite the Catholic Church having received hundreds of complaints of child abuse and notifications of paedophilia in New South Wales and Victoria he believed “it was no worse than any other organisation, and had been unfairly vilified”.

I find this statement astounding, utterly beneath contempt and unworthy of any “organisation” – particularly a church like the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Pell is obviously looking after his position and is protecting his back. The statement was obviously made to protect the “image” of the Church and to diminish anyone who dares to criticise the activities of the Church and its ministers.

It would be well for Cardinal Pell to recall the words of Jesus (King James - Matthew 18.6):

 “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believes in me, it were better that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depths of the sea.”

As I understand it the whole point of a “Church” is that it espouses spiritual values and is supposed to guide, to nourish, to uplift its members. The whole point of priesthood is the (supposedly) spiritual training priests receive which is (supposedly) designed to make them “better” that the average parishioner so that they (the priests) may better minister to the needs of their “flock”. 

It would be well for Cardinal Pell to also recall the words of Jesus (King James – Matthew 22. v37 - 40):

 “37. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38. This is the first and great commandment.

39. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40. On these two commandments hang all the laws and the prophets.”

How can anyone trust an “organisation” such as the Catholic Church that breaks its own Laws, with children, innocent children; breaks the COMMANDMENTS, no less, of Jesus and then have its leader (Cardinal Pell) say, “We have been unfairly vilified?”

This statement beggars belief. Not only should a Royal Commission be set up to investigate the many hundreds of accusations of paedophilia and abuse but Cardinal Pell should stand aside from his position until this whole messy business is sorted out and the Church “cleansed” of its defilement.

I paraphrase Oliver Cromwell and say to Cardinal Pell and the Church hierarchy, “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

(For the record - I am a non-practicing Anglican).

Ethics, Big Banks, the Catholic Church and big Pharma – what ethics?

Oh boy! What a week this has been for the public exposure of unethical practice, fraud, total disregard for the welfare of human beings, pure unadulterated greed and moral bankruptcy.

Whistleblowers have done their good work again!! Greg Thorpe and Blair Hamrick – their names should be written in gold for exposing the unethical practices and fraud in the US division of the giant British based pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKiline (GSK). This big-Pharma is now $3 billion (repeat billion) poorer after being fined for healthcare fraud in the US.

It would appear, again, that “insider information” – in other words whistleblowers, alerted the authorities in the UK about the Barclays Bank fraud and corrupt practices (manipulating the benchmark London Interbank Offer Rate, known as LIBOR) which has resulted in the bank being charged with a $400 million fine.

Then  there is the Catholic Church and its outrageous conduct regarding the cover-up of priestly paedophilia (that is a real oxymoron if ever there was one!).

From a psychological point of view it is known that when many people gather together to share one common emotive experience (or organizational culture) the level of consciousness experienced will be well below what would be expected of individuals in a similar situation – just look at football crowds where “mob rule” seems to apply. Mixing with and being influenced by the wrong crowd or “bad company” is a well-known phenomenon. In other words take an individual out of that particular group situation and he or she will behave quite differently. Most parents will identify with this.

Many large organisations arrange group training, or bonding sessions for new staff to be indoctrinated into the “culture” of that particular organisation – boot camps are used for similar purposes.  In these sessions “conformity” is the rule – whatever you do must be the group way, must be the company way.  A person often yields to group pressure because they want to fit in with the group or they may conform because of fear of rejection by the group. This means adopting the culture – the “social” norms of the group (or organisation).

In group or organisational situations, by doing what everyone else is doing, an individual generally feels no responsibility and also no fear. There is anonymity and a safety in numbers.

The first casualty in these situations is ethics.

In the case of GSK (above) not only did the company commit fraud but they placed the lives of millions of people at risk by deliberately promoting the use of their drugs for unauthorised purposes – uses not approved by the Federal Drugs Administration (FDA) and they also committed fraud by over-charging. In this case greed (commissions) and profits took precedence over the lives and well-being of vulnerable people - the very people the drugs were designed to help. Another thing – aren’t these drugs called “ethical drugs” because they need a doctor’s prescription to be administered? In this case it is another oxymoron!

This appalling behaviour is not only immoral but is also unethical. By engaging in such behaviour GSK has not only damaged its “brand” but also, crucially, trust. Consumers of the GSK products (and those of other similar companies) will now have, justifiably, an element of doubt about the efficacy of the drugs they use.

Similarly greed (commissions), profits and maintaining shareholder dividends would all have featured in Barclays Bank’s extraordinary and outrageous conduct in colluding with other banks in manipulating the LIBOR. Barclays is guilty, with other banks, of collusion, of corruption, of veniality and grossly unethical conduct. Obviously “Group Think” took hold and like sheep those guilty of the manipulation complied with the attitudes of the group without an apparent care in the world.

No wonder I and others “bash” banks. They deserve everything that is thrown at them! Their “culture” of profits before service to their customers is a continual complaint of mine. Again, not only has Barclays activity damaged its “brand” but also weakened whatever trust people may have had in Barclays, in particular, and banks generally. The old Australian saying that ‘banks are bastards’ would seem to be holding up quite well!!

Then there is the Catholic Church – what a mess. It is rotten to its core and needs a clean out from the top down! Paedophilia is an abhorrent practice that damages the most vulnerable of all – children. Didn’t Jesus say “Suffer little children to come unto me”? Isn’t it a Christian Commandment that “Thou shalt not covert”? Isn’t it a Christian Commandment that “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”? Isn’t it a Christian Commandment that “Thou shalt not bear false witness”?

The Catholic Church leadership has broken every rule in the Book (the Bible) and ignored secular law by allowing these awful people to remain in the Church and worst of all, allowing them to go unpunished. Paedophiles need to be tried and convicted by a court of law – not an in camera church organised “enquiry” set up to protect its “image”! By condoning paedophilia within the ranks of its priesthood the Catholic Church is breaking the Commandments of the very Man, the Son of God, whom it professes to follow. No wonder Church attendances are falling!

Large organisations without exception have Codes of Ethics so I am sure GSK and Barclays have theirs. The Catholic Church has the Bible which should be even better. But unless ethics comes from the heart it becomes a disposable item – “use it if you feel like it” sort of thing.

Ethics is very simple really. Always treat other people the way you would like to be treated AND if everyone did what you are doing or propose to do, would the World be a better place? If you cannot answer both in the affirmative then you are not being ethical.

The Catholic Church and women priests

What do they think they are doing? Isn’t it extraordinary that the Catholic Church, in the 21st century, is apparently treating the ‘elevation’ – if that is the term – of women to the priesthood by ordaining them as a “grave delict” that can lead to the immediate excommunication of the people involved. In other words, in the eyes of the Catholic Church this is a ‘wrong’ that ranks with paedophilia and sexual abuse! Really? As far as I know, all priests and Popes, past and present, were all born of a woman in the normal manner. Even Jesus was born of a woman. Most men have a very soft spot and a great affection for their mother and most people had their first life experiences and basic education from their mother. In fact there is an old Roman saying “educate a woman and you educate a family, educate a man and you educate an individual.” All the men in the Catholic Church, including the Pope, as with all men everywhere learned from their mother. So why the antagonism against women as priests? They would just be carrying on where they left off, as it were, and instructing and helping people generally.

The Catholics say that because Jesus had only male apostles, only men can become priests. But then no one knows what was in the mind of Jesus when he chose his apostles or what criteria he used for the choices he made. The present church authorities have no idea what the actual, day by day, social situation was, in Palestine, when Jesus is supposed to have started his ministry in, about, the year 30 of the current era. It was after all a very turbulent time in that part of the world. Possibly the situation was too dangerous for women to travel on missions, as the apostles had to do. I know that men (and male children) traditionally tended the flocks of sheep and goats because, I suppose, they were better equipped – physically stronger – to protect the animals from predators. Maybe women had not the time – looking after children and keeping the home for their menfolk as they did.

Women (and the female of the species everywhere) are the traditional nurturers and carers of the young and are better equipped physically and emotionally for the role, than men. After all God created men and women didn’t He? The Catholic Church cannot ignore 50% of the population because of something that is supposed to have happened two thousand years ago. Men and women together would give a far better balance to the priesthood and, I suggest, make it a better organisation. It would also alleviate the current shortage of priests if women were ordained. I also suggest that it is because of this very bias towards males in the Church that the present problems – sexual abuses – are so prevalent. And who knows what happened in the cloisters and monasteries in past centuries before the age of mass media and the internet – men are men and have sexual urges regardless of wherever they are and in what age they lived. Celibacy is unnatural and the effects of trying to enforce it are now very evident.

And what about Mary Magdalene? What was her position in the early Church? She was, after all, very close to Jesus. The Catholic Church needs to rethink its position on women very carefully. Their recently affirmed attitude has certainly upset many women, including my wife.

Moral high ground

The moral high ground is when you think you are better than anyone else, or from a national point of view, believing that your country is guided by something higher than mere people and that all others are lesser beings because of this.

Problems are inevitable when this thinking prevails. This is pride, this is hubris to a high degree, and a fall is inevitable – such a high ‘standard’ can never be sustained. We have seen quite a lot of this recently.

There have been the Rugby League shenanigans – excessive alcohol consumption and sexual misconduct; British politicians rorting their allowances; former US President George Bush and his very ill advised invasion of Iraq; US policy of ‘rendition’; prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison; the on-going saga of incarcerating prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (‘Gitmo’); the Israeli treatment of the inhabitants of Gaza (attacks and sixty years of blockades); the shocking treatment of the harmless minority ‘Falang Gong’ by the Chinese Government, and of course their treatment of Tibetans; and then of there have the various reports in Australia and elsewhere on paedophilia, sadistic physical, sexual, emotional abuse, neglect and brutalisation of children, perpetrated by priests and nuns from various Catholic Church orders and organizations culmination in the recent Irish, Ryan Report about similar abuse in Ireland’s industrial school system (run mainly by the Catholic Church, particularly the Christian Brothers and the Sisters of Mercy).

It is a massive report – five volumes with a total of about 5 000 pages. I have not read the entire report, and I do not suppose I ever will because it is very distressing (it is available, in full, on the internet). Apart from the incalculable physical and mental harm to the children all the reported abuse diminishes the perpetrators and reduces them from being the upholders of a noble Christian ideal – care for and provide succour to the distressed, the lonely and those in need - to being criminals who used and abused those most vulnerable in our society, our children and who need to be brought to justice. These people and the institutions they represent have lost all moral authority to tell anyone, anywhere, what to do and how to behave. For them it is obviously a case of ‘do as I say, not as I do.’ This is hypocrisy on a grand scale.

I think President Obama has got the message and is doing his best to restore some semblance of moral authority to the US Government’s activities.

I am not sure the Israeli’s have learned anything and still follow their rather primitive Old Testament dictum of an ‘eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’

Rugby League and British politicians are cleaning up their acts purely and simply because it hurts their wallets, not because they actually believe they have behaved in an antisocial or unethical manner. Their standard response is ‘but I have done nothing wrong’ or ‘but she asked me up to her room.’

The Ryan Report highlights the truly astonishing level of abuse that some 800 priests and nuns are accused of perpetrating over a period of about 70 years in Ireland, UK, Australia, Canada, Gibraltar, India and the United States to many thousands of unfortunate children, now men and women. I am not at all sure that the Catholic Church has the inclination to really change.

You can lose a reputation in a second – and it will take a very long time indeed to restore.

“Indeed the Idols I have loved so long
Have done my Credit in Men’s Eye much wrong:
Have drown’d my Honour in a shallow Cup,
And sold my Reputation for a song.”

(Quatrain 69, Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, Edward FitzGerald translation)