Cathedral-goers will be interested to know that 5 weeks on from "News From The Pews" ("NFTP") No.4, no response has been received. Readers will recall that NFTP No.4 ended with the following:

1. If the responsible parties do know the full meaning and spiritual significance, on what basis do they contest "News From The Pews’" claims?
2. Alternatively, if they do not know, on what basis can and will they provide Your Grace with the necessary confirmation that the shrine is acceptable?

Essentially what we have is a shrine in a Catholic Cathedral which is stated to be a "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." Yet, somehow, a full disclosure of the meaning and spiritual significance of the symbols and representations incorporated into the shrine is still not available for release … Why? What manner of tribute would relate to information which, it seems, cannot be revealed?

In the five months since this matter was first raised, nothing NFTP has said has been denied. No one has denied that the presence of this shrine in St Stephen’s Cathedral constitutes a breach of Church law and of the first commandment on the part of the responsible parties.

Your Grace, in order to assist in clarifying details relevant to the above questions, NFTP offers the following further questions and observations:

• As you appreciate, if the shrine fails on any one of the criteria listed above (ambiguity, magic, superstition, spiritism, vengeance and sexual connotations), it cannot be accepted as "sacred art" and therefore under Church law cannot be lawfully allowed in St Stephen’s Cathedral. In the opinion of the responsible parties, does the shrine pass any of the above criteria?

• Central to the difficulties associated with the shrine is the question of its ambiguity. Indeed, NFTP understands that the shrine is loaded with ambiguity to the extent that it is clear that the ambiguity itself was a key part of the design intent. Do the responsible parties contest this view?

• Does the lone totemic dingo, among other things, represent the Thoorgine (Fraser Island) dingo, which because of its island existence is a symbol of purity of breeding and, hence, an emblem of "racial purity"?

• Do the "female fertility" panels have anything to say about what may be termed highly sensitive "population control" practices? NFTP notes what appears to be a message involving certain leaves painted in a mixed colour tone, in a panel featuring what appears to be "death notice" bordering (a convention from western art). Does the lone dingo bear any reference to this message? Could meanings of this kind amount to an infringement of Commonwealth law on the part of people within the Church? Relevant provisions for your consideration include sections 17 and 18C of the Race Discrimination Act 1975 and sections 5, 6 and 7A of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914. The section 18D (RDA) exemption may well not apply in the circumstances. The archdiocesan solicitors should be able to provide advice on these questions and on other legal implications. It would seem prudent to seek the necessary advice without delay and to ensure that whatever is done conforms with appropriate accountability processes.

• Does the shrine portray marks of ritualized processes of preparation and installation? Does not the shrine proclaim its "authenticity"? Is it not the message to those "in the know" that this is an "exoticised" shrine, a shrine and a site of "presence"? NFTP recommends that you take specific advice on this from independent experts.

• Is not the shrine in the form of what is known in the art world as an "installation", (another of its western artistic dimensions)? Part of what this would mean is that the shrine is not merely the artwork itself, but includes its surrounds. The physical alterations to the surrounding space, the stones, the stonework itself, etc., would be an integral part of the work. Is it not the case that the work is "site specific" and is intended to be a "challenge", a "contestation" with the "host institution" and to "desanctify the space"? Do the responsible parties contest this?

• By its context, does not the shrine bear connotations which mock Christ and His sacrifice, in particular, the Holy Eucharist? Do not these messages relate among other things to Aboriginal burial rituals and to one or more practices "of great antiquity" including at least one which has often been misunderstood and is of great sensitivity? NFTP prefers not to be specific here. With your knowledge of the relevant area, you will understand.

• The shrine incorporates both western and Aboriginal dimensions. Are not certain connotations offensive to many black, white, mixed race and other Australians?

• Is it not the case that messages of rage and "racial disregard" bear reference both to male transgression and to Australian colonialism? Is it not the case that the connotations are alien both to Christian forgiveness and to reconciliation as the Church understands the term?

• On one level, is it not the case that the shrine incorporates elements of parody? Would this account for the curious wording of the accompanying sign?

As always, please be assured of our prayers.

Yours Sincerely,

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