.
The Catholic Church
and the
Dual Betrayal
'The Author of this document is a priest and lawyer based at the Sacred Heart
Monastery, in Kensington, Sydney. He is originally from Gooloogong in the New South Wales
Central West and is a member of the Society of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart (MSC).
He worked with aboriginal people at Port Keats in the Northern Territory for four years
and until recently managed the MSC Justice and Welfare Office. Contact details are
available at the conclusion of this document.'
The paper, Beyond Wik (Nov 1997), was issued by the
Australian Catholic Social
Welfare Commission so presumably it has the blessing of the Hierarchy of the Catholic
Church. The title given to it would indicate that the document purports to offer some
predictions in respect of the decision in that case. Whilst the deliberations of the
author, Libby Cooney, may well take us beyond Wik, in my view, much of it also goes well
Beyond Mabo No 2. Not only that but, it is arguable, the involvement by the Catholic
Church has gone well beyond the gospels.
The purpose of my paper is first, to present a point of view based on what I believe to
be the assumptions arising out of the decision of the High Court in Mabo No 2, and second,
to apply traditional Christian values to assess the involvement by the Catholic Church in
aboriginal politics. I will also add a few general comments.
The High Court states in Mabo No 2 that native title will be recognised according to
their
law and custom. A parallel for the purposes of clarification can be made thus: common
law title is a system of title to land the holder of which title is determined according
to our common law. Native title is a system of native land title, or communal ownership,
the holder (s)) of which title is determined according to their native law and custom.
Native law and custom, as it applies to tribal land, does not apply to people of mixed
aboriginal descent, thus, that group does not have native title rights according to tribal
law. The stumbling block to native title rights for mixed race aborigines is their
non-aboriginal heritage. Tribal law does not permit them to ignore it.
Native title rights to land must be confined to those indigenous people who are the
subjects of tribal law. The Canadian Supreme Court in R v. Van der Peet (1996) 2 S.C.R.
made the following comment on the Mabo judgment:
To base aboriginal title in traditional laws and customs, as was done in Mabo, is,
therefore, to base that title in the pre-existing societies of aboriginal peoples. This is
the same basis as that asserted here for aboriginal rights.
With this in mind, I take the view that it is unjust to the indigenous people of mixed
descent to lead them to believe that they have native title rights to land. That their
hopes of owning large tracts of land are raised unrealistically is nothing short of an act
of cruelty. Surely these people have suffered enough without being told a pack of
lies by people who are supposed to be helping them and who ought to know better. It is
common knowledge that the Native Title Act is not a faithful reflection of the decision of
the High Court in Mabo No 2 and that in recognising people of mixed aboriginal descent as
native title claimants, the Act goes well beyond the limits of native title as determined
in Mabo No2.
One of the requirements for establishing native title under the Act is the
identification of a spiritual connection to the land. Indigenous tribal aborigines
do not come into this world with a spiritual connection to the land; nobody does. The
spiritual connection results from years of living in a tribal cultural environment. An
indigenous person who has no physical connection to the land and thus has no experience of
tribal culture, and all that entails, can never truthfully claim a spiritual connection to
the land. A spiritual connection to the land, by definition, presupposes living the
traditional law and culture on tribal land.
The much-disputed right to
negotiate warrants some comment. This right does not
appear in Mabo No 2 nor is it known to the common law. It is a creation of the Federal
Parliament. The difficulty with the right to negotiate is that it arises as soon as a
native title claim is registered. Thus, even before the bona fides of the claimant are
established the claimant is given the right to negotiate in respect of certain activities
on the land under claim. The usual ploy is to demand payment in return for the possible
extinguishment of native title. These payments are often made in the interests of getting
on with the job. It is not good to have the law arranged in such a way as to facilitate
corrupt behaviour.
The only way I can make sense of the issue of
reconciliation is to regard it as
a political device designed to extract further compensation by pointing the finger of
blame at the current generation of Australian taxpayers. I have no difficulty with the
proposition that one ought to make up for what one has done wrong. I think some manner of
restitution is fundamental to all sound spiritualities. But I have no obligation to make
up for what somebody else has done wrong. In any case the alleged wrong wasn't done to the
current generation of Australian aborigines so what gives rise to their claims.
The Aboriginal Land Fund is a typical example of a Legislative imposition of a penalty on the
current generation in respect of the alleged sins of a former generation. If that Land
Fund was set up to buy land for mixed-race aboriginal people on the grounds that they have
been dispossessed, then I disagree with it. People of mixed aboriginal descent have never
had any entitlement to land whether legally, morally, under native law or any other way,
so how could they have been dispossessed
But, in my view, a much more damaging aspect of the reconciliation campaign (and indeed
the rest of the aboriginal political agenda for that matter) is the effect it is having on
the indigenous community. It keeps them firmly entrenched in a victim mode and it
generates hatred against the wider community. In other words it robs them of their
spiritual freedom. It is not healthy to be a victim and it is not healthy to be filled
with hatred. All we do in these circumstances is give our power away. I had the privilege
of living with aborigines in the Northern Territory for four years. To be a victim is
foreign to their culture and to be filled with hatred is anathema to their spirituality.
At the same time, it is not healthy to be filled with
guilt especially when it
relates to the actions of somebody else. The so-called stolen generation campaign is a
good example of an attempt to generate guilt in the innocent to achieve a desired end. It
is a mystery to me how the Catholic Church could accept, and indeed promote, such a
simplistic view of an otherwise complex issue.
Perhaps the most mystifying aspect of all is that the Catholic Church, by promoting the
aboriginal political agenda, has become an obstacle to the spiritual health of
Indigenous Australians. It is arguable that the Catholic Church is acting in a manner,
which is diametrically opposed, to the reason for its own existence. The last words Jesus
spoke summarises his work in reconciling Mankind to God: "Father forgive them for
they know not what they do".
Are any of the Bishops of the Catholic Church suggesting to Indigenous Australians that
reconciliation might require forgiveness and some measure of common sense. After all,
the people aborigines are directing their anger and demands towards have done nothing to
aboriginal people. Where is the justice in that? What ever happened to that
commandment to love one's neighbour or, indeed, one's enemy? I have never heard any Bishop
speak in true gospel terms to the aborigines. I fear for the spiritual welfare of the
Indigenous Community of Australia. If you think about it, not only has the Catholic Church
betrayed the pastoralists, it has also betrayed the aborigines. Mother Teresa would say it
is the aborigines, by being spiritually impoverished, who have suffered the most;
but isn't that always the way.
So what does the Catholic Church have to do to fulfil its obligations in respect of the
indigenous people of this country? Answer: Preach the gospel to them. What the aborigines
are hearing from the Catholic Church is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a gospel,
which seeks restitution from the innocent and declares guilty those who were
of good faith or those who were never there. It is a gospel, which uses the rhetoric of
political
agitation. It is a gospel driven by emotion-based prejudice which appears to be
ignorant of the dignity of love and the holiness of sacrifice. It is the
same gospel which, a long time ago, had a man called Jesus, crucified. In the
immortal words of Ned Kelly as he resigned himself to his fate: "So its come to this
then. Such is life."
It has become increasingly clear that the involvement of the Catholic Church, in
aboriginal politics is a matter of serious discontent, not only in the Catholic community,
but also in the wider community. Anyone with a native title claim over their property has
obvious concerns. But there are many others with no personal interest in native title who
are also disaffected with the role adopted by the Catholic Church. Their reaction ranges
from mild irritation to outright anger. What is happening in some places is that people
have ceased making financial contributions to the Church. There is no doubt that the
involvement of the Catholic Church in the aboriginal political agenda (and of course the
child abuse scandals) has changed forever the place of the Catholic Church in Australian
society.
Brenden T. Walters (MSC)
PO Box 13, Kensington. NSW. 2033
GO TO: NATIVE TITLE
verses TRIBAL LAW
