St Stephen’s Cathedral’s ‘The Human Search For God‘ (HSFG) shrine is said to be "a tribute to the Aboriginal people who originally owned the land on which the Cathedral is built", yet the shrine itself gives every appearance of breaching Aboriginal protocol and customary law.

In our last issue, we demonstrated how two of the panels in the shrine – panels 5 & 6 –were a re-working of another of Ms Fiona Foley’s works, ‘Moon Fish’, which is held in the collection of the Australian National Gallery. We examined how both ‘Moon Fish’ and panels 5 & 6 set forth ‘systems of meaning’ drawn from the numerology of the western occult. It was also revealed that ‘Moon Fish’ and panels 5 & 6 related to the Northern Territory and, under Aboriginal customary law, should only have been installed in St Stephen’s after obtaining permission from the traditional owners of the cultural knowledge involved.

Continuing the series, this issue of ‘NFTP’ looks at panels 3 & 4 . . .

As with panels 5 & 6, panels 3 & 4 bear obvious parallels with yet another painting – ‘Gunabibi 3’ – from the same period by the shrine’s artist, Ms Fiona Foley. ‘Gunabibi 3’ is reproduced on page 43 of Aboriginality, Contemporary Aboriginal Paintings & Prints, 1989, by Jennifer Isaacs.

In St Stephen’s, panel 4 presents 17 pipi shells and three leaves, forming a ‘U’ shape. This ‘U’ panel forms the second letter in each of the shrine’s ‘Lucifer’, ‘C u _ _’ and ‘Kunapipi’ word plays, as set out in NFTP 8 & 9. Also, ‘Gunabibi’ is an alternative, phonetic spelling for the secret-sacred name of ‘Kunapipi’, Aboriginal Earth Mother. (See Wisdom From The Earth, by Anna Voigt and Nevill Drury.)

Again, ‘Gunabibi 3’ and panels 3 & 4 contain the same numerological significances. In Ms Foley’s ‘Gunabibi 3’, there are three ‘U’ shapes and 17 small, round red shapes. In the translation from ‘Gunabibi 3’ to panel 4 in St Stephen’s, the 17 round shapes become 17 pipi shells and the 3 ‘U’ shapes become 3 leaves. Also, in the case of the ‘U’ shapes, the translation of the 3 ‘U’s into the one overall ‘U’ achieves the single ‘U’ required to effect the three ‘word plays’ referred to above.

At the same time, the three leaves within the one overall ‘U’ shape in panel 4 operate to preserve the sense of the 3 ‘U’s from ‘Gunabibi 3’.

Even the ‘pipi’ shells also correlate in yet another way with the western occult: "Another example is the name Pipi … One early alteration of the Tetragrammaton transformed it to YHYH … People accustomed to reading Greek, which, unlike Hebrew, is written from left to right, saw this as the Greek letters .. pipi. Pipi eventually came back into Jewish magic from Greek as a name of power." (The Black Arts, by Richard Cavendish) Also, see NFTP 8 & 11 for how the occult version of Tetragramm-aton had also been coded into the HSFG shrine in other ways.

From the fore-going and from previous issues of NFTP, we can see that in terms of word play, pseudonym, numerology and configuration, the panels in the shrine are literally loaded – over-loaded, in fact – with the western occult codes of Aleister Crowley.

As indicated in previous issues, ‘Kunapipi’/ ’Gunabibi’ is a word taken from the secret-sacred domain of Aboriginal spirituality. As it is both secret and sacred, any un-authorized use is a highly sensitive matter.

As Ms Foley herself has said, Aboriginal people must be in charge of the representation of their culture and, if possible, control of its keeping, (Museums Australia Conference, 1996).

According to the AITSIS/ATSIC paper, Our Culture is Our Future, "Given that indigenous knowledge is collectively owned, only the group as a whole may consent to the sharing of Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property. Such consent is given through specific decision-making procedures."

Ms Foley’s Aboriginal heritage is from the Butchulla people from Fraser Island and the adjoining mainland. Her access to the cultural knowledge associated with ‘Kunapipi’/’Gunabibi’ comes from her visits to the Northern Territory. Under Aboriginal customary law, the right to ‘paint’ ‘Kunapipi’/ ‘Gunabibi’, could only have been acquired from the relevant traditional owners in the Northern Territory.

The required permission appears to have been neither sought nor obtained. Further, per Our Culture is Our Future, any consent would need to have been acquired on a "full and informed" basis. For a range of reasons, it is not remotely likely that Ms Foley, had she sought it, would have been granted permission to ‘paint’ ‘Kunapipi’/ ‘Gunabibi’ in the way it is represented in St Stephen’s Cathedral.

A proper respect for Aboriginal culture is an integral aspect of the reconciliation process. This has been recognized by the Council For Aboriginal Reconciliation, the Australian Catholic Bishops and many others.

It will be clear to St Stephen’s Cathedral-goers by now that, in the approach taken to ‘The Human Search For God’ shrine, church authorities have not lived up to the standards the church in Australia sets for itself.

Should the church persist with the ‘do nothing’ approach taken to date, it could only ultimately be concluded that the Catholic Church in Brisbane had chosen to talk without moral authority, even on Indigenous issues. The alternative is to face the truth about a situation which the church in Brisbane has brought upon itself.

As indicated in earlier issues of NFTP, many questions of concern to Aboriginal people remain unanswered by Church authorities.

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