Cardinal Pell 3, Royal Commission 0.

 

In the last few days we've been treated to an extraordinary display of an ancient and very specific skill. There's a specific word for it, and that's casuistry. Casuistry is a form of bloody-minded reasoning and hair-splitting argument that dates back to ancient Sumeria, at least three centuries before the Code of Hammurabi, usually considered the world's first set of workable laws.

It reached the peak of its 'modern' form in the period 1550 - 1650 with the Jesuits, the Catholic organisation that used case based reasoning and a certain moral flexibility to argue any case, black or white, in support of the Catholic Church's position outside the laws of civil society. It was a triumph of rhetoric over truth, of skilful argument in a given situation over the broader truths the Church and churchmen were meant to express and embody.

The primary purpose of casuistry is to appear to answer specific questions honestly while using terms which prevent any moral responsibility, or personal immoral act from ever coming to rest in the hands of the priest under questioning. The key to this is simple. Keep all answers related to the specifics, while making it almost impossible for those specific answers to be connected to any moral compass, or higher values that should guide a 'righteous' man.

It allows a specific group of men, Catholic priests, to engage in situational ethics, a form of moral slipperiness that their supposed Christian morality should consider repugnant. While clinging to the social respectability of 'holy' men, men of righteousness and faith, these priests use rhetorical and linguistic devices to avoid being pinned down by anyone with lesser skill. That this is hypocrisy, dishonest and self-serving hypocrisy, is never firmly established at the time and place of the contest. And while priests will use canon law, the Church's private code of laws, to hide behind, they claim the props of civil law, ie: the presumption of innocence and the demand of those opposing to prove beyond doubt their charges, to place their opponents (who are 'enemies' of the Church) at a disadvantage.

Over time it became so notorious in its ability to justify mass burnings under the Inquisition, righteous slaughter in South America, and financial, moral and sexual corruption within the Church hierarchy that the term became a pejorative, a term of moral disgust at the use of intellect to avoid responsibility for any crime by any priest, in any place, at any time. And it does so today, at the public hearings of the Royal Commission into Child Abuse, in the guise of Cardinal George Pell.

Those who have followed this blog over time will know I've written about Pell's skill, hypocrisy, slipperiness and situational morality with some asperity before now. Frankly, I loathe the man. But you have to give the devil his due. As a casuist he is probably this country's finest. And the counsel questioning him today was, frankly, lousy at picking apart his obfuscations, claims of injured innocence, and personal presumption of purity of intent. She was outclassed. So much so that a woman in the public gallery was heard to say, with a tone of both grudging respect and disgust,

"He'll do well in Rome."

Just so.

At one point the Cardinal said that while he was 'guided by compassion it had to be tempered with justice'. The counsel questioning him was clearly knocked off her stride by this astounding claim, and sadly, never really regained it. Pell was calling on these two sacred principles as the pillars of his actions, his decision to fight in court the case for compensation of Mr Ellis, the victim of abuse, while feeling a brand of compassion for him that involved no effort or action on Pell's behalf. None whatsoever.

Had the QC been a little quicker on her feet she might have questioned Pell's decision to accompany self-confessed paedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale to court to give him moral support when receiving his first sentence. An act of compassion (for a man so notorious he has his own WIkipedia page) tempered with a bizarre notion of justice indeed, when Pell was simultaneously doing absolutely nothing to meet the needs of that priest's victims. Whose needs and concerns he would fight to deny, diminish and repudiate as he advanced up the clerical food chain.

But, alas, she was not. And the moment was lost.

Questioning will resume tomorrow.

In a week or two Cardinal Pell will leave us far behind, and kick the dust of Australia off his sandals. He will take up his new role as guardian of the Church's notoriously corrupt finances. His skill in casuistry will serve him well. If he uncovers a scandal he'll be well equipped to justify to himself and the Vatican that such a scandal can only hurt the church, and should therefore be buried. And if it blows up in his face he'll be far too clever to be found responsible in any specific, legally binding way.

Whatever his future holds we can be sure of one thing. 

He is doing this country a great service by leaving it.

 Cardinal Pell, the Great Casuist

.

Something Spiritual for Christmas?

.

Or, why our Immigration Policy is
The Hand Of God Moving in Mysterious Ways.

I have a new IPad app that lets me listen to British radio stations (oh yes, the thrill of it all!) and I recently caught the tail end of a conversation with an Anglican Bishop who was bemoaning the decline in Church attendance. He made the following comment:

"The Evangelical movement has failed as a reform movement within the Church."

I was amazed he had ever thought it could be one, when, to paraphrase my youngest daughter, it could best be described as "petri-dish mysticism" [i]. So, lest I be damned at Christmas, let me explain: First, churches operate at two levels:

1.     The communal and religious: the human urge to come together and sing uplifting songs, hear the word of their God expounded, and unite in worship and that warm feeling of virtue and connectedness. Enjoying communion - being part of a spiritual community.

2.     The individual and spiritual, or mysticism: an individual and direct personal spiritual connection to God, the Godhead, the Universal Soul (or whatever term works for you).

The first is the visible part of the church: the people it includes and all the charitable, generous, open-hearted and 'inspired' works they do. Which is the part of most Christian churches that's dwindling just as fast as their congregations are aging and dying.

The second is the personal spiritual connection that's always been distrusted and tightly controlled by Christian churches. Known as mysticism, it's about personally penetrating the 'cloud of unknowing' to reach and connect with the ineffable mystery of God. And that's why the Evangelical movement in Catholic and Protestant churches is a problem: it's a hybrid form of communal mysticism. All that speaking in tongues and spiritual healing and what looks uncomfortably like mass hysteria is the spirit of Christ, or the Holy Spirit, or whatever you want to call it, reaching down and overwhelming the faithful with bliss and rapture. It's a group orgasm of the spirit.

And if you think this doesn't have anything to do with you let me remind you that our Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison is a very senior Evangelical. His faith guides him, and therefore his attitudes and actions. And this is where the 'petri-dish mysticism' comes in. There are four levels or stages of transcendent experience involved in mysticism. They are:

1.     Bliss, or rapture.

2.     Illumination - the enlightenment bit, where you get new insights and a little humility.

3.     Exstasis, the separation of the soul from the body, and:

4.     Merging with the infinite, the Universal Soul, or God.

The problem is that Evangelicals aren't reaching beyond the first level. The 12th century Christian mystic and Augustinian monk Richard of St Victor described it thus:

"In the first degree spiritual feeling sweeter than honey
enters into her soul and inebriates her with its sweetness.."

That inebriation, being spiritually drunk (on the Holy Spirit), is what Evangelical services offer. Mass drunkenness, without alcohol. A cathartic emotional release which can wash away guilt and pain and regret without the understanding, insight or reflection of personal mediation or prayer. When people break out into babbling and gibberish it isn't a sign of over stimulation, mental intoxication and emotional overload it's a sign of holiness, of purity, of God's acceptance of who you are, with all your faults. And there's the rub. If this emotional and spiritual hot-tub washes only God's chosen vessels then we are, by definition, absolutely worthy, upright and deserving, true and correct in all our opinions and beliefs.

The Catholic and other traditional churches' long-held suspicion of this 'rapturous connection' is based on a genuine spiritual concern. People who are in this state of spiritual and emotional openness are enormously suggestible. And there's plenty of charismatic individuals in any generation willing to allow themselves to be first adored, then worshipped as beyond ordinary conceptions of morality, then obeyed to the letter in any despicable act or impulse. Cult leaders from Jim Jones to Charles Manson are notable examples of rapture followed by bloodshed. And while the Church may debate the degree of demonic influence involved the results here on earth are still bloody, appalling and socially destructive. 

Defensiveness, cults and reactionary politics

And it's not just religious cults that feed on this emotional and spiritual orgasm. When historian Robert Waite described Hitler as the 'Psychopathic God' this process is exactly what he had in mind; the cynical and systematic manipulation of people's emotional states to prey on their religious needs and instincts. The cult of personality around Lenin or Mao are similar extremes, but you can see the same fervour at an Obama rally, or in the cult of personality around Ronald Reagan among the conservative 'faithful'. People in groups will quickly connect and hype each other up emotionally, but intellectual processing drops to the lowest common denominator just as quickly. There is no need, or use, or room for intellect, discernment or logic. Just the rush, and the obedience of the herd.

That rapture, for the solitary individual praying or meditating is a sign that you're becoming spiritually open and emotionally responsive. It's there to motivate you to engage in the hard work of reflecting on yourself and your place in the world. On honestly seeing yourself in a broader context, which should produce humility. 

Instead Evangelical Churches favour an anti-intellectual Biblical literalism whose status as 'the absolute truth' is directly proportional to the fevered fervour of their emotional and spiritual experience. Which is the greatest, most powerful experience of their lives.  So there are no questions which can't be answered by their 2000 year old book of fables, myths, eye-for-an-eye morality, xenophobia, selective editing and obscure metaphysics. 

The head-shaking and derision this elicits from the rest of us does not make them feel loved. It only serves to amplify their self-imposed cultish isolation. And with all cults isolation breeds defensiveness, suspicion and a pseudo-martyr complex. God knows, they know they're right (about everything no matter how ridiculously uninformed they may be). They have God's miracle of orgasmic spiritual fever to prove it. 

This is the mindset that inspires reactionary politics: suspicion of outsiders, possession of a Holy Truth that others lampoon, direct authority from God for their opinions, no matter how small, or petty or cruel, or selfish, or self-serving or .. well, you get the drift. And when they get the power to punish others for their temerity in questioning God's chosen people.. well, watch out, Buddy.

I once worked with an Evangelical Catholic and his most prominent trait was an astonishing level of spiritual arrogance. He truly believed he was 'chosen of God' if not chosen by God. He was, unsurprisingly, reactionary and conservative, and he closely identified with the authority structure of the organisation, becoming progressively more humourless and authoritarian the longer he held any organisational power over others. He went from being regarded with amused condescension, to mockery, to animus, to fear and eventually outright hatred for his punitive, bullying manner and acts of spite and petty revenge.

The 'holier than thou' reactionary politics of Evangelical Christians is consistent with history's worst religious excesses. Pogroms, massacres, jihads and crusades all stem from religious fervour and fear. Fear which morphs into hate, and hate which generates violence. 

The cumulative weight of micro-aggressions targeted at refugees and other outsiders makes our society uglier and more hateful. It isn't just the 'boat people' who suffer. We all do when they arrive here damaged and in pain, embittered by their treatment, angry and resentful. And while Scott Morrison and Tony Abbott may keep them from staying here we will all still have to live in a society with new norms of behaviour that are progressively more hate-filled, mean-spirited and extreme, less tolerant of difference and diversity, more abusive, authoritarian and violent. 

And no God worth a good goddamn could be pleased with that.

And A Merry Christmas to You All.

PS: If anyone would like to engage me upon the rest of the four levels of transcendent whotsit, mine's a very large rum.

---

[i] An acerbic and insightful young lady, she once memorably described the idea that pole-dancing empowered women through physical mastery as 'petri-dish feminism'.

Money For Old Rope.

I've been watching the debate, for want of a better word, on MPs entitlements for some time now and I'm appalled by the sloppy thinking of commentators and journalists on the matter, all waffling incoherently about what is and isn't reasonable. MPs meanwhile have been predictably talking about 'grey areas' and the difficulty of deciding what is and isn't a rort or a ripoff. It's truly depressing to see the half-assed reporting on this issue, which is at heart a matter of informing both the public and politicians about the limits of naked self-interest and the underlying principles that need to be applied. So, for all those journalists too lazy or stupid to work it out for themselves here's how it works:

Members of Parliament are employed to do two things: represent their constituents in Parliament and consult with their constituents on policies and anything else their constituents want to be consulted about. That's it. That's the job. And anything in the way of expenses incurred in doing either or both of those two things is entirely legitimate and should be reimbursed.

There's a second class of activities, related to the first, where expenses should be covered. That's any activity that helps inform the MP about policy questions or solutions that can be applied to their work in Parliament. This includes attending boring infrastructure conferences, meeting with academics, experts and similar drones, talking to community leaders and travelling to see how social, economic and environmental problems have been solved in other places.

So, travelling to Germany to see how solar power is being used to fundamentally change how green power can save the environment and change the energy industry into a more democratic model is expensive but entirely appropriate. Travelling to a wedding because there will be useful political contacts is not. Not ever. NEVER.

Travelling to remote parts of Australia to inform the MP on policy performance in Aboriginal communities is entirely appropriate. Travelling to talk to industry lobbyists is not. If an industry lobbyist wants to talk to a politician or Minister then that lobbyist should do the travelling and cover his own costs. If that lobbyist offers to cover the MPs costs to travel to meet the lobbyist, or for any other purpose, that offer must be rejected. It is 100% NOT ok for any lobbyist, or private citizen to fund MP's travel or expenses. No matter how trivial the cost it puts the MP in that citizen or lobbyist's debt, leading to a conflict of interest.

So travelling to the wedding of any private citizen is not, under any circumstances, something the public purse should pay for. If there are rich and influential people at the wedding that the MP may talk to then it is even more inappropriate. The rich have enough influence as it is. Taking their money and hospitality is absolutely NOT ok. Going to the Melbourne Cup is fine. Accepting free tickets to it is NOT ok. Having the public purse pay for you and your spouse's travel and accommodation is NOT ok.
 

The same principle applies to ANY sporting event, whether the MP is going as a spectator or a competitor. There is no public interest in any MP, including the Prime Minister, being in a triathlon. It isn't 'engaging with the community', it's a personal activity with political payoffs for the MP, or PM's image. It's a professional politician advertising his own brand, not to mention any other brands he happens to be wearing. The only possible exception to this is the Sports Minister, and that only applies to attending, not taking part.

Which brings us to our second principle. The distinction to be drawn here is the difference between political work as an MP, and party political work as a professional politician. If an MP, or PM, is working in parliament, or consulting with his electorate, or meeting with experts or visiting places where policies are being implemented, then it's work for the public good and can be paid for by the public purse. If he is doing political work for his party, making public appearances to get elected, attending weddings where rich campaign donors will be, or attending political party meetings, conferences or rallies he is doing party politics and this is his and his parties responsibility. And he or his party must pay for his expenses. 

There is no grey area here. 

The party pays, not the public.

This is always the case. 

ALWAYS.

Politicians will always fudge the question here. Attending a short 'work' meeting to cover a trip that's 90% private business is a typical and obvious example. And politicians will generally band together to support such cheap and shoddy conduct. It's our job, and the job of journalists, to pull them up short and say no, not good enough. Get used to it. It's part of the $$ price of democracy: eternal vigilance over the not so petty amounts of travel and accommodation expenses that a politician, or former politician will gladly rack up and charge to the public purse.

The only further issue here is the question of family and politics. This is a huge country. If you are a Minister from WA, for example, spending weeks at a time in Canberra and away from family strains relationships. So it's reasonable that we cover SOME of the costs of spouses and children's travel. Bringing family to stay in Canberra can be justified. Taking extended holidays  overseas and attending cultural and sporting events on the public dime is stretching the point beyond the friendship.

If a politician claims it's all too confusing and complicated it's an admission that they aren't up to the challenge of being a politician, dealing with complex, messy questions of the nation's politics, economy and future. They should quit, get out, find another employer. We need people who do understand these principles and will commit to following them.

Rant over.

.