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.

Bank Ethics (and trust).

I feel that I may (repeat may) possibly have had a small influence in the Australian Banks decision to "allow" a Banking Royal Commission - I'm not boasting mind!! Some weeks ago I wrote to the Australian Bankers Association and I offer this contribution for those interested to read:-

The Chief Executive Officer

Australian Bankers' Association
Level 3, 56 Pitt Street,
Sydney. NSW 2000

Dear Ms Bligh,

Re: Bank Ethics (and trust).

I am sure I need not remind you that it is obvious, not just to me, that the lack of ethics and morals evidenced by banks in Australia needs to be addressed. Banks, ALL banks, direct their activities at preserving and protecting shareholders, their “market position”, their liquidity and their profitability, with SERVICE and the poor old CUSTOMER way down the list of priorities.

We have had, in the recent past, the terrible social effects of the blatant greed and moral shortcomings evidenced by Wall Street banks in 2007-2008, (the GFC); we have had the LIBOR scandal in London; we have seen many billions of dollars in penalties paid by banks world-wide for aiding and abetting questionable financial transactions - now it is the Australian banks falling foul of the regulators, the public and politicians.

So far all four of Australia’s biggest banks have allegedly been guilty of breaching laws and regulations set by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). The banks have been variously accused of defrauding customers through questionable investment advice and dodgy insurance cover, rigging the Inter Bank Rate, lacking moral judgment and generally being unethical in their dealing with their customers money.

I will reiterate what I have said before, many times, that without customers (people) there would be no money, no need for banks and therefore by default, no need for shareholders. Money is not “self-emergent” – it is a human construct.

Pursuing the logic of this it would appear to be a “no brainer” that customers (i.e. people), are the vital part of the banking system, not just in Australia but world-wide. It should be a simple case of “look after the customer” first and foremost, legally, ethically and with moral undertaking. Do this and the money will look after itself. And what is of utmost importance, trust in the banking system would be restored and banks would no longer invite opprobrium and be considered “bastards”.

This will require a cultural shift  - the “fiduciary culture” - by all concerned, starting with the boards of directors, chief executive officers and managers. Until all these people conduct themselves with ethical and moral underpinnings nothing will change.

Unfortunately, for all concerned, until there are changes, banks will continue to be mistrusted and reviled.

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

Yours sincerely

Andrew Campbell-Watt

The difference between Ethics and Religion

I know I have written about this before but it is a very good question and today an ever more important one. They are, however, two quite different things. To me the very basis of ethics is the “golden rule”:– Only do to others what you would like them to do to you.

All religions (repeat all religions) have this written somewhere in their “Book” or “Books”. But to me the words – written and book – are the problem with religions. The “words” were written by human beings and are interpreted by human beings, no matter how Holy, or Divine, or educated, or devout they may be, it will still be their writing and their interpretation of what they heard or saw. And people, all people, religious or otherwise will interpret what they see and hear through the filter of their life experiences. It cannot be otherwise. Remember that not one (not one), not Buddha, Jesus or Mohammad, ever wrote anything down. There is some dispute as to whether or not they were even literate. Everything that we know about them and their teachings was written by their followers – sometimes many years later.

People have opinions based on their life experience, education and current circumstances. This, most certainly, colours what they do and say – also what they write.

And there is a difference between Religion and Spirituality. Religions, in my understanding are supposed to give guidance to followers, to understand how to get closer to God (or Allah, or Yahweh, or the Great Artificer, or whatever name you give to the Almighty). In other-words how to become a better person and (possibly) more spiritual. If this were not so, why follow any religion?

There are over 7 billion people on earth at present. There are, I believe 72 Jewish sects or interpretations or schools of teaching; there are 3 sects in Islam with, as far as I can determine, 73 different basic interpretations or schools of teaching; there is dispute about how many Christian denominations, sects or schools of teaching there are – a quite astonishing figure of about 20 000 (twenty thousand) has been quoted; there are 5 basic divisions in Buddhism with many difference interpretations or schools of teaching; Hinduism – the oldest surviving religion in the world, has hundreds of different interpretations of the various teachings (I am unable to determine how many).

But (with the exception of Buddhism) they all claim to worship God - a Supreme Being (presumably the same one).

There are so many religions and interpretations because we are all different, with different expectations and views on life. We are not clones. People will always try to find some form of worship that is close to their way of thinking, something that satisfies them and brings them comfort and peace.

Another problem is that religions (all religions) give power to the leaders or teachers. A classic example is the Catholic Church, which is a vastly wealthy organization, and the Pope (an elected leader) wields immense power in many areas.

Power always brings corruption and abuse of power (as Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 8th Baronet, famously wrote, “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”). And with human beings, fickle as they are, this always has been and always will be, even with checks and balances. Corruption is not ethical. People in power will always try and use it for their own benefit or to make them seem “better” in their own estimation.

There is, and always has been, abuse (sexual and physical) of women and children in all religions – Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. Priestly abuse and paedophilia are oxymorons. They should not go together, but they often do, unfortunately.

This is why, in my understanding, there is a difference between Ethics and Religion even though all religions have written somewhere:- Only do to others what you would like them to do to you.

And again, that question of spirituality. This I cannot answer. But I know that religiosity is not the same as spirituality. Never was.

If anyone is interested I was born into a not very devout family – Church of England. 

Iatrogenesis

This, by my standards, is a rather long post.

Iatrogenesis, for me, is a new word. I had never heard of it before. Apparently it from the Greek for "brought forth by the healer" and refers to (quote), “any effect on a person, resulting from any activity of one or more persons acting as healthcare professionals or promoting products or services as beneficial to health, that does not support a goal of the person affected”.

This is a rather long-winded way of saying that a medical professional, instead of doing “no harm”, is actually causing harm.

The fact that word “Iatrogenesis” even exists gives cause for concern and gets me on my “high horse”, again! This is particularly so in relation to mental health.

NOTE - In case you were unaware:-
Common adverse effects of antidepressant medications include headache, nausea, agitation, sedation, sexual dysfunction, cognitive changes, weight gain, and metabolic abnormalities.

Rarer, more serious adverse events include cardiac, neurologic, and hepatic effects. Possible increased risk of suicidality is also an issue in certain patient populations.

In this regard there is quite surprising information in the 2012 report of the Australian National Mental Health Commission. According to this report:

“…. there is little or no accountability as to what improvements we are getting for such a significant investment, whether it improves the health and wellbeing of people with a

mental illness and provides them with the services they need.

Most Australians may not know that treatments with prescribed psychiatric drugs may lead to worse physical health. There are increased risks for some specific treatments such as antipsychotics and for those with underlying vulnerabilities such as diabetes. This can mean that the antipsychotic medications that are prescribed to manage severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, contribute to the risk of having severe physical illnesses.”

Interesting. I wonder why this information is not widely disseminated?

If, as many mental health professionals assert, mental disorders are genetic in origin it is interesting to note the curiously plaintive comment made by David Kupfer, MD, Chair of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, version 5 (DSM 5) Task Force, in the American Psychological Association (APA) press release No. 13-33, dated 3^rd May 2013 wherein he stated:

“The promise of the science of mental disorders is great. In the future, we hope to be able to identify disorders using biological and genetic markers that provide precise diagnoses that can be delivered with complete reliability and validity. Yet this promise, which we have anticipated since the 1970s, remains disappointingly distant. We’ve been telling patients for several decades that we are waiting for biomarkers. We’re still waiting.”

In all this the human brain remains a 1.4 kilogram (3 pound) lump of grey matter, alive but without any sense of touch (it has no pain receptors).

Now I fully appreciate that, often, with mental health, “the facts are uncertain, values are in dispute, stakes are high and decisions are urgent”. In such circumstances it is difficult to resist the temptation to cherry pick data to suit whatever popular theory is being promoted at the time.

Mental health, however, cannot ever be “cured” by drugs alone – in fact antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs are not as effective as “big Pharma” would like us to believe.  I read somewhere (source unknown) that one can hardly prescribe drugs without knowing what is wrong with the patient - and that requires the delivery of a diagnosis – but diagnosing problems in mental health is fraught. There is currently no way – repeat no way – to accurately diagnose a mental health “problem” – apart from Alzheimer’s disease.

The reasons for relying on drugs is an important question that is more often than not ducked by “Health Professionals” and left unanswered. There is, however, a great deal of information available, that is both alarming and illuminating, if one is prepared to dig around.

My point is IF (and it is a big if) these drugs - which have been around in one form or another for over fifty years - are so effective, and if the percentage of people with mental health issues has remained constant for years, at (so we are told) about 1 person in 5, why then is the use of these drugs increasing – not just in Australia, but worldwide?

The medicines, the pharmaceutical drugs that have been developed for use in situations when a person’s mind is deemed to be unhinged or they are behaving in a manner considered to be “abnormal”, work up to a point, to maybe calm the patient. But no one (psychiatrists, psychologists, neuroscientists, pharmacologists et al) knows WHY or HOW they work.

Using the same methods over and over again expecting different results each time is not very clever – in fact I believe this is an indication of some mental problem! Following the same course of action – prescribing medications that cause problems that further application of more powerful medications cannot alleviate is, also, not very clever. And yet this is the current approach to mental health!!!

So there!!!

It has been admirably stated by others that, “If you talk to God you are praying. If God talks to you, you are schizophrenic.”

Consider Moses (Exodus 3.2) - he heard the voice of the Lord coming from a burning bush but no one thinks that’s odd. Now if I presented myself to a medical professional and said that I heard the voice of the Lord coming from a burning bush I know that I would be diagnosed as schizophrenic and immediately medicated!!

A “mental illness” may affect a person’s behaviour - something that they DO.  How can anyone, except the person concerned, determine if such behaviour is “wrong” or “abnormal”? To my knowledge there is no universally accepted definition of “normal” – what is “normal” for me may not necessarily be “normal” for you.  Is it not conceivable that certain behaviours  may be considered eccentric? Surely there are enough “odd-ball” and eccentric people in the broader community to allow for the odd extremes without hospitalising and forcing pharmaceutical drugs on them against their will.

Fixed name diseases – a patient “is” psychotic; or “is” schizophrenic. Whereas another patient may “be a” diabetic; or may “have” breast cancer. Note the difference – the patient is not “breast cancer”. At least with cancers and diabetes there is a physiological condition – something that may be confirmed with a biopsy, a blood test or by other medical means.

What chemical, hormonal or neurological predisposition is there for psychosis, schizophrenia or depression? There are none. That people do suffer from mental problems is indisputable – but what is the cause? And what is the “best” remedy? Is there a “remedy”? If so, why and how would the remedy “work”?

Is it not possible that any and all “mental problems” are the result of the sufferer’s retreat from a perceived threat; a shutting down of “normal” reactions and defence mechanisms; an overwhelmed emotional system; the result of some “unconscious” fear?

More drugs are not the answer!