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?  

What the word Sacrifice really means.

We have been hearing quite a lot about the word “sacrifice” recently – particularly in relation to US Presidential candidate Donald Trump and his "dispute" with the Khan family.

I am no Latin scholar but as I understand it the word Sacrifice derives from the Latin Sacrificium, which in turn has its root in the  Latin sacrificus (performing priestly functions or sacrifices), which combined the concepts sacra (sacred things) and facere (to do or perform).

Now, to my mind the parents of the late US Army Captain Humayun Khan, who sacrificed his life to save the men he commanded, are quite right in their statement that Trump has sacrificed nothing.

I cannot conceive that building large structures, employing “thousands of people” and spending millions of dollars equates in any shape or form with the term “sacrifice”.

So there we have it – Sacrifice actually means to make Sacred.

Why do we ignore Arab influence on the West?

Forgetting the influence of Islam and Arabic scholars on Western culture and demonising them is not very clever. We need to recall the fact that Christianity started in the Middle East – among the Semitic people (those very same people - Jews and Arabs that history now condemns) so why demonise them? They are part of us. If we complain that “they” think and do things differently from “us” remember that “we” think and do things differently from “them”! So who is right? And does it really matter?

The current rigidity of political agendas, media alignment or religious thinking – be it Islamic, Christian or Judaic and the rise of the fundamentalism,  is a strong indication of desperation and a lack of desire for change – even an inability to see the need for change. A “them or us” or the even  more divisive, “are you with us or against us” attitude is grounded in ideology, in ignorance and lacks common sense. This malicious talk gives rise to the false belief that “my” religion is better than yours – therefore yours is inferior to mine; therefore, by default, I am better than you. This is dangerous thinking and gives rise to many of the problem that beset the world today. What concerns me is the  injustice that this type thinking engenders which, unfortunately,  is prevalent everywhere.

What is the difference between extremists of whatever faith, Christian, Islamic or Jewish? There are none that I can see. All worship God – by that name or by any one of many “sacred” names. God is God, but they are all blind to the fact that life, in whatever form, is a dynamic process.

In the11^th century Pope Urban II promised Christians an “eternal” reward if they joined a crusade against the Muslims to help “restore” the Holy Land to Christianity!! I wonder where I have heard this before? Don’t forget that the current crop of Muslim clerics (some of whom advocate violence against the “great Satan” – America)  make the same promises for those who sacrifice their lives for the “cause”. Violence of any kind is the result of moral bankruptcy.

The 11^th Century Crusaders shouted “God wills it” as they attacked Arab fortifications – the current 21^st Century Muslim Jihadist shouts, “It is the will of Allah” as he detonates a bomb!

So what is new?

Did you know that about the year 960 AD the Arabs were performing successful cataract operations with sharpened fish bones; that their knowledge of mathematics, astronomy, agronomy and science in general was centuries ahead of the “West”? Similarly with their manufacturing skills and philosophical understanding – they were way ahead of us “Westies”.

At this same time in history Christian clerics where arguing about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin (I kid you not)!!

At this time in history (the 10^th Century) the favoured  “Western” form of justice was a trial by ordeal – a brutal and crude judicial practice by which the guilt or innocence of the accused was determined by subjecting them to an unpleasant, usually dangerous experiences. In some cases, the accused were considered innocent only if they survive the test or if their injuries healed.  At that period of history the Arabs had a complete legal system and while we might not agree with all aspects of the way it is interpreted and applied, it is still operating today.

Laws and institutions have to adapt with the developments in our understanding. As we become more enlightened in our thinking, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change according to circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.  To do otherwise is to condemn our “civilised” society to remain forever under the regimen of our (possibly) less enlightened ancestors.  Fundamentalists, with their avowed intention to “go back to basics” and apply religious dogma according to a strict, literal, interpretation of the written word are a road block to this progress. This is possibly what has happened in the recent history of the Arabs and Islam and the Catholic Church.

There is also the fact that human activity will always – over a period of time – revert to the mean. By this I suggest that the swings from extreme left wing political views to extreme right wing political views will, over time, become more moderate and revert to the centre.

Over time the same will happen with any human activity. Corrupt authorities will give way to extreme puritanical regimes, which will in turn, over a period of years, change to a less extreme and more tolerant form of governance. But without a revolution (the Arab Spring?) or enlightened leadership this will take generations.

Rigid thought patterns and fundamentalism is the same however it is practiced. Really there is no difference – human nature is, after all, human  nature!!

(I am indebted to the author Jonathon Lyons  and his interesting book entitled  “The House of Wisdom” – subtitled ‘how the Arabs transformed Western Civilization’  which vastly increased my knowledge on this subject.)