The ‘HSFG’ shrine is said to be "a fitting tribute to the Aboriginal people who originally owned the land on which the Cathedral is built. As well it acknowledges the Aboriginal people’s search for God." The shrine is an example of ‘installation’ art, comprising seven panels and their surrounds. The surrounds also include stonework comprising subtly outlined figures of a kind readily recognizable to those familiar with Aboriginal rock art. The shrine is the work of well-known Koori ‘Fraser Island/urban’ artist and sculptor Ms Fiona Foley. The art also speaks to a white audience familiar with ‘conceptual’ or ‘idea’ art and the techniques of ‘bricolage’ and ‘pictogram’. In both its Aboriginal and in its western dimensions, this is art which is meant to be read. The key to ‘reading’ it is an understanding of the symbols and representations contained in the shrine – the ‘visual language’ which Ms Foley employs.

The Story So Far …

This issue of NFTP concerns the sign in the St Stephen’s Cathedral shrine, ‘The Human Search For God’. Readers will recall that in recent issues NFTP particularized how the artist had physically coded three letter-to-word plays into the panels of the shrine, specifically: ‘K_u_n_a/pipi’, the four letter ‘c-word’ and ‘L_u_c_i_f_e_r’. These three word plays are the keys to understanding the sign, which reads:

Given the many aspects available for incorporation into a "tribute to the Aboriginal people who originally owned the land on which the Cathedral is built", ‘Kunapipi’ appears a curious choice. As indicated in NFTP_9, Mudrooroo has pointed out Kunapipi’s "linkages with the Tantric cults of India, which in the sixth century AD spread to Java and Sumatra and from there to Arnhem Land." Equally curious perhaps in the light of the church’s above statement are the references to Arnhem Land and, as indicated in previous issues, to Fraser Island. If there are connections here to Brisbane or to a much older tradition, they are not immediately apparent.

Readers will recall that NFTP_8 set out the four letter 'c-word’ coding and its various correlations with occultist and word play enthusiast Aleister Crowley’s published codes and symbolry. It was noted that the ‘c-word’ and ‘Lucifer’ word plays were derived from panels which are themselves configured very precisely (as to number, structure & placement) in such a fashion as to present not merely sole but inter-weaved Crowley-esque ‘functions of 4’. Also, NFTP_8 set out how the ‘c-word’ coding was, in Crowley’s terms, a reference to ‘Tetragrammaton, the great enemy’, i.e., YHWH: God Himself.

For those versed in Crowley’s occult symbolry, the ‘c-word’ coding in ‘The Human Search For God’ is a signal reference to – and rejection of – the Christian God.

Aleister Crowley was also famous for his ‘Hymn To Lucifer’. ‘Lucifer’, of course, is the classic ‘angel of light’. The name ‘Lucifer’ means ‘light bringer’ and, per The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary, is a reference to one ‘seeking to dethrone God.’

In the light of the foregoing, it can be readily appreciated that the artwork and the sign form the one integrated work. Further, a key part of its significance seems to be not so much, as the sign appears to suggest, that ‘parts’ ‘2’ & ‘3’ were envisaged, but that the answers to ‘our (three part) search’ were already coded into a fully complete shrine from the outset. Note also in this respect that over the past nine years, the purported ‘parts’ ‘2’ & ‘3’ simply never materialized.

Continuing readers will recall the Archbishop’s statement, dated 29 June 1998, that the shrine is -

In the light of what we now know about the shrine, it seems to NFTP more than likely that His Grace was misinformed and, in all probability, deceived on the matter.

That such was the case seems all the more probable given the apparent unauthorized mis-appropriation into the shrine of Aboriginal ritual knowledge from the "secret-sacred" domain, (as indicated in NFTP_9.) Further, it seems unlikely in the extreme that the artist and the church’s own people could have been unaware of the seriousness of the appropriation involved under Aboriginal customary law. Such considerations alone provide a compelling rationale for why a church which has taken such a high profile on Aboriginal issues has never actively promoted its own ‘Aboriginal’ shrine.

As also outlined in earlier issues, there are genuinely Aboriginal elements to the shrine. That these elements serve to complement a certain eclectic, cross-cultural and ‘Crowley-esque’ occultism merely adds - if that were possible - to the degree of offence offered via this shrine to Aboriginal people of both traditional and Christian persuasions.

Further, the shrine is an example par excellence of precisely why the Roman Catholic Church has world-wide rules governing ‘inculturation’ matters. Needless to say, had such criteria been followed in 1989, the present embarrassing predicament could not have arisen.

Lastly for this issue, it is clear that despite the problems experienced in other areas of church administration in recent times, the church in Brisbane still does not have appropriate accountability processes in place to deal satisfactorily with the range of issues which arise from time to time.

Tim Pemble-Smith
3 – 111 Central Avenue
Indooroopilly Q 4068
after hours: (07) 3871 2047