Religion, science and social order.(Letters)(Letter to the Editor)

SIR: The essays by Archbishop Pell, Michael Casey and John Russell in the July-August issue call for a response both individually and taken as a set of reflections on Catholicism in contemporary society.

John Russell's piece stands in the very best traditions of Quadrant. While unflinchingly pointing to the intolerance and bitter divisions which have characterised Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant, for much of its history, Russell shows how recent lessons have been painfully learned and that Catholicism has become more comfortable with liberal principles in recent decades than ever in the past. He acknowledges the complexity of the matter and does not indulge in shallow apologetics or ideological cant.

Archbishop Pell's reflection is also an admirably lucid and constructive piece of writing. I have been reading Tess Livingstone's recent biography of Pell with some fascination of late and rather admire his constancy as a stalwart believer in a time of upheaval within the Catholic Church. His basic point, if I follow him at all, is that Catholicism will live or die by its commitment to the doctrines hammered out in ages past and not by trying to be all things to all men in a secular society.

It is, again, Quadrant that is the natural forum for such views to be propounded. Not because Quadrant is a Catholic journal or because its editorial board share George Pell's doctrinal beliefs, but because it is committed to the deep underlying values and institutions which constitute Western civilisation and to civilised debate between the free citizens of this liberal polity--a significant number of whom are Catholics.

Yet I am one of those who cannot subscribe to the doctrines Archbishop Pell cherishes. He states that truth must have primacy over conscience and I am inclined to agree. The problem is, how do we agree on what is the truth? After thirty years of wrestling with a conscience formed in Catholic schools, I find myself less than ever persuaded that Catholic doctrine is "true" in any sense of the word to which I can subscribe. On the contrary, it seems to me to be insupportable.

Whereas Pell's prominent public figure declared himself not a Christian but "not frightened to meet my Maker after death", I must say that I have not the slightest expectation of meeting a "Maker" after death. Nor am I frightened of being mortal. It's just a fate I share with every living thing. I see no reason to take the Bible as authoritative on any point at all. Indeed, it fascinates me that so many people still do so. I consider myself not simply "non-Christian" but post-Christian, rather like a Platonist contemplating polytheistic religion in classical times, I suppose.

Which brings me to the short essay by Michael Casey. Casey makes the peculiar assertion that "The truth does not contradict itself and for this reason there is no contradiction between science and faith." Here we part company. Since he is familiar with Nietzsche's writings, he might recall Nietzsche's remark that faith means the commitment to false-hood at any price. Dr Casey surely need only ask himself what his attitude is to the relationship between Marxist-Leninist faith and science, or between Islamic fundamentalist faith and science, in order to see how dubious his claim is.