Social Policies (Doctrine) of the Roman Catholic Church: An Evaluation

Contents

Overview  (Church and State, Government and Religion)

Introduction

Purpose of the Church's Social Doctrine

Intellectual Property Rights

God-given Social Laws and Social System

Pentateuch
Good Government and Management
Trustful Co-operation (Ten Commandments)
Social and Economic Security
Community

Catholic Church's Social Policies and Church-State Relations

Underlying Basis
Romans 13: Verses 1-10
Verses 1-7 (Romans 13):  Church and State
Verses 8-10 (Romans 13):  Social Laws and Social System
Participation and Decision-making
Meaning and Use of Abstract Words and Phrases

Social Cause-and-Effect Relationship

Unavoidable Consequences of Behaviour
Predictions of the Prophets
Hardships and Suffering
Open Your Hand to Your Needy Brother

Genesis and Evolution

Genesis
Original Sin and Fallen Humanity
Adam and Eve in Garden of Eden

Power Corrupts

Nephilim and the Tower of Babel
Globalisation

Planet-wide Danger

The Flood
Flaming Sword

Choice and Decision-making

Conclusions

Purpose of the Church's 'Social Doctrine'
Jesus Taught: The God-given Social Laws and Social System
The Church Preaches (Teaches)
Vague Abstract Words and Phrases
Intellectual Property, Acknowledgement and Copyright
Nephilim and Globalisation
Adam and Eve in Garden of Eden, 'Original Sin' and 'Fallen Humanity'
Evolution and 'Flaming Sword'
Planetary Danger

Recommendations

Relevant Current and Associated Works

Notes <..>

References {..} and Links

Appendix 1: Meaning and Use of Words

Relevant Subject Index Pages and Site Overview

Overview: Church and State, Government and Religion

This report is one of a series, which together lay bare the controversies between church and state, between religious belief and practice on the one hand, and the government on the other. Each work is self-standing but together they provide the knowledge needed for understanding the causes of conflicts and point to solving them.

The works in this series bring together findings and conclusions from Manfred Davidmann's published reports and provide new knowledge and insights, exploring their subject in depth, generally in advance of current knowledge.

Introduction

Before me lies the Catholic Church's volume called 'Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church' which was released on 25 October 2004 at a Press Conference at the Vatican {27}.

Social knowledge and policies are intermingled with religious pronouncements and beliefs and with guidelines about politics and church-state relations. It seems a more appropriate title would have been 'Statement by the Catholic Church of its Social Policies and about its Church-State Relations'.

This is the first time that the Vatican has published such a statement. Its text is over 300 pages long, and intended "first of all for Bishops", then for "priests" and then for "men and women religious".

We begin our evaluation by looking at church and state, government and religion, at their aims and purpose, at the conflicts and confrontations between them. Taking the information from {11}, what words such as state and religion mean and imply, is as follows:

Government

The group or organisation ruling a country or conducting its affairs. It can also refer to the government's style of management (authoritarian or participative, dictatorship or democracy).

Religion

A system of faith and worship, based on belief in the existence of a God (mostly benevolent), usually expressed by believers living according to its doctrine (principles, rules of behaviour, customs).

State

Somewhat vague term which refers to the combination of government and the community (country, population) being governed. Its use ignores important distinctions between people, government and the government's style of management, and their often conflicting interests. For example it does not distinguish between a government which serves its people and one which serves a country's rulers.

Church

Refers to the religion's clergy, or to its hierarchy. It can also refer to the religion's organisation, its decision-making processes, the doctrine it follows and the policies it applies.

But then there are different kinds of states and different kinds of churches {16}:

Some states consist of governments which serve the rulers by oppressing the people so that they can be exploited and such states stifle opposition and protest. Here those at the top and their experts tell people what they should do and have to do.

Other states consist of governments where those who govern serve the people and are accountable to them, where decisions are made at the lowest possible level by referendum with experts explaining the consequences both ways when a decision has to be made.

Similarly some churches serve rulers and in effect condition their people into gladly serving the rulers, into gladly allowing themselves to be exploited, the general approach then being 'gladly accept the tough life you are leading, the reward will come in a next life'.

And other churches preach that it is the will of God that all people are equal, that no person may exploit another, that it is the role of the establishment to serve the people.

For background information and underlying knowledge and understanding, see section 'Relevant Current and Associated Works' which lists titles (as links) and short descriptions.

Purpose of the Church's Social Doctrine

Throughout, quotations from the Church's statement are set in as follows:

"Quotation from church's statement ... ..."

The purpose of the Church's social concerns is clearly stated, as follows:

"... the Church's social teaching is itself a valid instrument of evangelization. ... In this light, and only in this light, does it concern itself with everything else: the human rights of the individual, and in particular of the 'working class', the family and education, the duties of the State, the ordering of national and international society, economic life, culture, war and peace, and respect for life from the moment of conception until death". {40}

'Of evangelization' means 'Of preaching or of spreading the Gospel to, of winning over to Christianity' {26}.

'In the light of' means 'taking into consideration' so that 'only in the light of' means 'taking only this into consideration'.

In other words:

The Church's social teaching is ... a valid instrument of preaching and converting to Christianity. Taking only this into consideration (For this purpose only) ... it concern itself with social teaching ('doctrine') about everything else: the human rights of the individual, ...'

The lay faithful are to be formed on the basis of the Church's social teaching ('doctrine'), to serve the common good in their daily activities. And a political conscience should be formed

"in order to prepare lay Christians to exercise political power. 'Those with a talent for the difficult yet noble art of politics, or whose talents in this matter can be developed, should prepare themselves for it, and forgetting their own convenience and material interests, they should engage in political activity'." {53}

So the purpose of the Church's 'Social Doctrine' is to convert others to the Catholic Church's type of Christianity and to gain political influence.

Intellectual Property Rights

The Church's statement lists over 1200 references to sources from which it quotes. The extracts it quotes are to a large extent selected sentences. With the exception of some references to the Bible, the extracts are largely drawn from what appear to be internal sources, that is, Vatican announcements and pronouncements <17>.

Referring to internal documents as sources makes it difficult to change and update earlier statements and publications, to correct past mistakes, as people know each other and as the credibility of the organisation and hierarchy could be affected. The same mistakes tend to be made again and again, tend to be perpetuated.

Sentences from different internal (Vatican) sources tend to follow each other in order to make a point. Successive sentences then tend to use similar-seeming but different terms, and so the sentences could be out-of-context.

We are told by the Church that

1. "The Church's social doctrine finds its essential foundation in biblical revelation and in the tradition of the Church." {30}
   
   
2. "The Church's social doctrine avails itself of contributions from all branches of knowledge, whatever their source, ... ." {31}
   
   
3. "The social doctrine belongs to the Church because the Church is the subject that formulates it, disseminates it and teaches it." {32}

In this context, the word 'doctrine' means 'set of principles and beliefs held by a religious group'. The word 'policy' means 'course or general plan of action adopted by a church'. {26}

The word 'doctrine' is well applied to social policies based on biblical revelation, as shown below. But no matter how well-intended and plausible-seeming the points being made, the Church appears to be pronouncing on social problems from a standpoint which differs materially from that of the God-given religion on which it is based. And it appears to be struggling to find ways of linking its social policies to its religious foundation and teachings, as we shall see.

Here, however, we continue by looking at points (2) and (3) above, in which the Church states the source of its social doctrine and policies.

What is clearly missing from the Church's statement are references to the vast body of existing and new knowledge and understanding about the social, economic and political problems of our times, local and multinational (global), which have been and are being made world-wide. Perhaps now we know why.

The Church seems to state, in point (2) above, that it can include all knowledge regardless of its source. And in point (3), that when they include such knowledge in their teachings that this knowledge then belongs to the Church.

Which would appear to be a recipe for appropriating intellectual property belonging to others without acknowledging the source, and without paying for the use of that knowledge. Seemingly rephrasing and anonymising other people's achievements, apparently taking credit for, appropriating, the achievements of others.

To me it seems that the problem this Church is trying to overcome is simply that it cannot any more convincingly teach religion, the Bible (Pentateuch), Genesis and what this states (for example, about evolution, morality, or good and evil) without including (the simultaneously both revealed and proved) religious and social findings (discoveries) in my published works <18>. If they included the findings, they would need to acknowledge the source which is outside their Church's hierarchy or tradition.

This could be a reason for the Church appearing to claim that it can use (that is, include in its 'social doctrine')

'contributions from all branches of knowledge, whatever their source',

which then belong to the Church

'because the Church is the subject that formulates it, disseminates it and teaches it.'

As far as I can see, being a church does not allow a church to plagiarize <15>, or to appropriate another's intellectual property.

Intellectual property (advances in human knowledge and understanding, their source, ownership and copyright) have to be respected and acknowledged.

And in this case, the use of another's intellectual property has also to be paid for. After all, I had to pay a considerable sum of money for the Vatican-published copy of the Church's Social Doctrine which I am here evaluating.

God-given Social Laws and Social System    <1>

Pentateuch    {1}

What stands out is that human beings, guided by God, learned the difference between the brutal behaviour of their beastly ancestors, and the humane socially-responsible behaviour of human beings.

Their struggles and achievements were recorded in the Pentateuch <2> which has been handed down unaltered to this day. Also recorded were the social system and social rules of behaviour which underlie a good life of high quality combining freedom, independence and liberty <3>. Positive and constructive, rewarding what is good, punishing that which is inhuman, providing social security and a good life of high quality, limiting and restraining those in authority in government and management.

The beliefs of Christianity include the social laws and social system of the Pentateuch. Jesus taught that all the laws had to be kept, that belief and practice included and had to include the Ten Commandments, the social laws and the social system of the Pentateuch which include the Good Government (Kingship) laws. {2, 11}

Struggle between church and state, religion and government, is about the application in our everyday lives of the social provisions of the Pentateuch. So first we look at some key social laws of the Pentateuch, and describe its social system, to illustrate what the confrontation between religion and government, between 'church' and 'state', is about. <1>

Good Government and Management    {1}

The laws of the Pentateuch restrain the behaviour and limit the power of 'rulers', that is of government, of top executives and of the establishment, of those in positions of trust, responsibility or authority, no matter whether secular, religious or military, no matter what the hierarchy or organisation. {13, 14}. The Pentateuch {7} states clearly what they must not do.

They may not amass servants and may not oppress the people. They may not amass possessions and wealth, may not grasp power or behave promiscuously. In other words, they may not put themselves above others by grasping power, may not satisfy personal desires at the expense of others.

And a ruler (person in position of trust, responsibility or authority) has to follow these laws and abide by them every day if he wishes 'to prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children'. For 'kingdom' read 'position' and include 'influence'.

These Pentateuch laws lay down that those in positions of trust, responsibility or authority must not oppress people so as to increase their own possessions and power. These laws forbid personal gain from the misuse of authority, wealth or position. Those in positions of trust, responsibility or authority may not grasp power, may not oppress the people, may not behave promiscuously, may not gain wives or wealth. {13}

Trustful Co-operation (Ten Commandments)   {1}

The Ten Commandments <4> are so important and are so well known because behaviour in accordance with these rules is the basis for people trusting each other and so for people co-operating and working well with each other. The Ten Commandments underlie freedom, independence and strength to oppose and resist oppression. Wherever there is any independence of the mind and material freedom today it exists because people followed these rules of behaviour and it exists to the extent to which they do so. {13}

Take these two commandments (principles of behaviour):

You must not steal.
You must not desire anything which belongs to your neighbour.

Much trust and community friendliness is gained when people follow these principles.

But consider that these laws apply equally to the rich and powerful. It is also the rich and powerful who must not steal from the poor even the little which the poor have. It is the rich and powerful who must not cast longing glances at what little the rest of us possess, it is the rich and powerful who must not aim to gain at our expense.

Social and Economic Security   {1}

All persons have the right to be free and independent masters of their own fate and no person may oppress or exploit another. Because people can be exploited through their needs there has to be a system of social and economic security which guarantees freedom from needs and so protects people from becoming dependent on others for essential income, protects against loss of material and spiritual independence.

This is what is laid down in the Pentateuch as a matter of law {13}:

1. The community has to provide ('lend') money to those who need it, free of interest.
2. All such loans, if outstanding, are to be cancelled every seventh year.

Community   {1}

But only those are supported who themselves genuinely support the Pentateuch's benevolent ideals and principles and their application and who themselves live and act accordingly, who behave humanely. {13}

Catholic Church's Social Policies and Church-State Relations

Underlying Basis

The Church states that

"The Church's social doctrine finds its essential foundation in biblical revelation and in the tradition of the Church." {30}

Bible revelation clearly refers to something which has been made known for the first time in the Bible.

A tradition is a belief, custom or procedure, often long-established and often handed down verbally.

The Church states that its social doctrine is based on Bible revelation and on the Church's tradition, and this confuses and ignores the important distinction between the sources, namely their relative authority.

We know that parts of the Bible have been compiled, edited and translated by man, at times with misleading results {3}, and throughout we need to distinguish between God-given revelation and rules of behaviour on the one hand, and man-made statements and assertions on the other. Man-made assertions and statements cannot override God-given revelation and rules of behaviour.

At issue between 'church' and 'state' are the God-given social laws and social system. These include the Good Government (Kingship) laws and the Ten Commandments.

The Good Government (Kingship) laws lay down that those in positions of trust, responsibility or authority must not oppress people so as to exploit them. These laws forbid personal gain from the misuse of authority or position.

The Ten Commandments underlie freedom, independence and strength to oppose and resist oppression.

Jesus taught that all these laws had to be kept, that belief and practice included and had to include the Ten Commandments, the social laws and the social system of the Pentateuch which include the Good Government (Kingship) laws. {2, 11}

So we would expect the Church's 'Social Doctrine' to be based on the God-given social laws and social system and the Church to be in the forefront of the struggle for a better life here on earth on behalf of God and people.

And what do we find in the published Social Doctrine of the Church? In other words, what are the Church's actual teachings, beliefs and practice?

The Catholic Church states {45} that

'Saint Paul defines the relationships and duties that a Christian is to have towards the authorities (Romans 13: 1-7).'

Which means that the relationships and duties of a Christian towards the authorities are as stated by Paul in (Romans 13: 1-7) and that the Church is apparently teaching this.

Romans 13: Verses 1-10

Paul's letter is clear and to the point, as follows (Romans 13: 1-10):

1. All authority comes from God,
   so that rulers (those who are in a position of authority) have been appointed by God.
   Hence let every person
   submit to those who rule.
   
   
2. It follows that whoever resists the rulers
   resists whom God has appointed
   and those who resist rulers will be punished,
   
   
3. for rulers do not terrorize those whose conduct is "good", but those whose conduct is "evil".
   
   If you want to live without fearing the person who is in authority, then do what is "good" and you will be praised,
   
   
4. for he rules over you in God's place for your own good.
   
   But if you do that which is "evil", be afraid,
   for his is not an empty threat;
   he will in God's place punish the doer of "evil".
   
   
5. Therefore one must be obedient,
   to avoid their anger (if you do not obey)
   and because to obey is the right thing to do.
   
   
6. For the same reason you also pay taxes,
   for those in authority collecting taxes
   are acting on God's behalf.
   
   
7. Pay all those in authority what they demand,
   taxes, revenues, respect, honour.
   
   
8. Your only obligation to others is to love one another;
   Because he who loves another has fulfilled "the law".
   
   
9. For this

   You shall not commit adultery,
   You shall not murder,
   You shall not steal,
   You shall not bear false witness,
   You shall not covet;
   

   and if there be any other commandment,
   it is summed up in this saying:
   You shall love your neighbour as yourself.
   
   
10. Love does not do harm to a neighbour;
    therefore love (is) the fulfilling of the law.

Verses 1-7 (Romans 13):  Church and State

According to the Catholic Church, Paul's verses 1-7 define "the relationships and duties that a Christian is to have towards the authorities".

Consider them for a moment.

They give his own point of view and personal ideology and he gave them an authority which they would not otherwise have had by means of a self-proclaimed vision. {2}

Astonishingly and without good reason he states that those in authority rule by 'divine right', that whatever they do is justified because in his opinion they act on God's behalf. Paul calls 'good' whatever those in authority do or want and those who resist or oppose them do 'evil' and will be punished. Paul wants all to obey those in authority and to be obedient, to pay taxes and revenues, to respect and honour those in authority. {2}

He is arguing that one must fear and obey those in authority and do for them and give them all they ask, without regard to how selfish, corrupt, inhuman or evil they may be. What Paul is saying and putting forward in (Romans 13) is neither God's word nor is it what Jesus taught. {2}

My findings, about the origin of Christianity, describe and prove how Paul changed what Jesus had taught, were first published in 1994 {2}. And in our more educated and enlightened age, what Paul is putting forward in verses 1-7 about the absolute power of those in authority, has become unacceptable to ordinary people, to many Christians.

So the Church appears now to be softening what it is preaching and teaching:

For example, the Church's paragraph {45} <16> also states that

'... insofar as the authorities are at the service of God for the good of the person (Romans 13: 4)'.

Verse 4 (Romans 13: 4) on its own, that is out of context, away from what Paul is saying in verses 1-7, gives a misleading impression of what Paul said.

It is not Paul but the Church which is implying that one also needs to consider the extent to which an authority serves God for the good of the person.

The Church repeatedly attempts to soften Paul's political ideology, as follows:

"Since God made men social by nature ... every civilized community must have a ruling authority, and this authority ... has ... God for its author." {46}

"Political authority must always be exercised within the limits of morality and on behalf of the dynamically conceived common good, according to some kind of legal framework. When such is the case citizens are conscience-bound to obey." {47}

"The mere consent of the people is not, however, sufficient for considering 'just' the ways in which political authority is exercised." {48}

"Authority must be guided by the moral law. {49}

The moral order ... has God for its first source and final end."
The moral order precedes authority and is its basis and ... 'has no existence except in God'." {49}

The Church's next statement to look at {50}, is:

"Authority must ... respect ... essential human and moral values.
These are innate ... .
... and must simply be ... respected ... as elements of an objective moral law, ..."

Let us look at this statement {50} in more detail:

"Authority must ... respect ... essential human and moral values.

Well-sounding but vague without clear meaning provided for the words used. Readers use their own individual and widely-varying ideas of what the words mean. Perhaps the Church ought to define in clear terms what it considers to be 'essential', 'human' and 'moral' 'values'? <5>

These are innate ... .

The word 'innate' means 'born with it', and the Church appears to be mistaken when it says that human beings are born with the 'essential human and moral values'. To resolve this question the Church would need to clearly define the 'essential human and moral values' they are referring to.

... and must simply be ... respected ... as elements of an objective moral law, ..."

At this point we do not know what the Church means by 'moral law', or how an 'objective moral law' differs from this. <5>

Concerning what is innate, that is what people are born with, and relevant essential human and moral values, see the following:

1. For comprehensive information on how the human mind evolved and works, see {9, 3, 6}.
2. For comprehensive information about the family and how it functions and the pressures which it faces from outside the family and from within, see {10, 3, 5}.

In the next paragraph of the Church's statement {51}, the Church cites Paul (Romans 13: 2), stating:

"Authority must enact ... laws that correspond to
what is required by right reason. ...

Authority that governs according to reason
places citizens in ... obedience to the moral order and, therefore,
(in obedience) to God himself
who is the ultimate source."

"Whoever refuses to obey an authority
that is acting in accordance with the moral order
'resists what God has appointed (Romans 13: 2)'."

The Church here appears to be stating that:

An authority which governs and enacts laws according to 'right reason' makes people obey the 'moral order' and thus God.

Such an authority rules by 'divine right' and has to be obeyed (Romans 13: 2).

Compare this with what Paul actually said {2} in his letter to the 'Romans' (Romans 13: 1-2), namely that:

1. All authority comes from God,
   so that rulers (those who are in a position of authority) have been appointed by God.
   Hence let every person
   submit to those who rule.
   
   
2. It follows that whoever resists the rulers (authorities)
   resists whom God has appointed
   and those who resist rulers (authorities) will be punished,
   
   

So Paul said that every person has to submit to those who rule, and that those who resist rulers are to be punished.

The Church, however, with reference to (Romans 13: 1-2), states that every person has to submit to those who rule as long as those who rule make people obey the 'moral order', and that those who resist such rulers are to be punished.

In each one of this sequence of paragraphs {46-51}, the Church moderates Paul's statements in such ways, for example referring to morality, to the common good, to human and moral values, to right reason, to moral law, and to moral order.

We now see clearly and understand what the Church is doing. The Church is softening the application of Paul's statement by saying it applies only to rulers who follow and apply such abstract undefined <5> value judgements and ideologies.

However, my published findings {2} were that, throughout the ages, Christians of goodwill chose intuitively to interpret Paul's statements about those in authority, and about Christian belief and practice, as meaning that

'the authority of those in authority only comes from God to the extent to which they themselves live according to and apply the Ten Commandments, the social laws and the social system laws including the Good Government (Kingship) laws'. Only those can 'love one another' who comply with all these laws. {2}

Verses 8-10 (Romans 13):  Social Laws and Social System    {2}   <6>

Look again at the social laws and social system of the Pentateuch <14> which include the Good Government (Kingship) laws. You will see how the laws of the Pentateuch ensure freedom and material independence and provide a good life of high quality here and now, backed by effective social security. No one may oppress or exploit another and all are equal, as a matter of God-given law. {1}

It is these laws of behaviour, it is these social laws and this social system which Paul opposes. Having just declared that those in authority rule by 'divine right' (Romans 13: 1-7), he next (Romans 13: 8-10) tells people that they do not need to keep the core social laws and social system of the Pentateuch, as follows {2} <6>:

Paul lists only the last five of the Ten Commandments <4>. These five commandments protect people against anti-social behaviour of others by prohibiting the doing of that which would harm or injure other people, prohibiting adultery, murder, theft, false witness and coveting.

But one person's idea of 'love' could be another person's 'insult' or 'hurt'. And to say that 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself' contains all the other laws, is in effect abrogating, bypassing, annulling the core social laws of the Pentateuch by replacing them with a person's likes and dislikes, even by a pervert's feelings.

Paul himself leaves us in no doubt about his intentions when he says that "Your only obligation to others is to love one another". His intentions are to stop people from observing other essential laws of the Pentateuch.

The laws he does not wish people to observe include the first five commandments (of the Ten Commandments) which he pointedly left out from his list and thus include the social laws and the social system laws which together ensure freedom and material independence and social security.

Among the commandments <4> he does not want people to observe, are:

One must not respect or serve oppressing, exploiting or enslaving beliefs or ideologies.

One must not use God's name to lend authority to a statement which it would not otherwise have or to a false or misleading statement.

Among the social laws of the Pentateuch, for example, are the Good Government (Kingship) laws <14> which state that those in authority must not oppress people so as to increase their own possessions and power, that they must not put themselves above the people and so enrich themselves. They are warned against oppressing people and against forming enforcing squads or organisations so as to multiply their own power, must not be promiscuous and must not amass wealth. They must know and observe the law and its intent and aim to see the law applied.

Jesus taught that all the laws had to be kept, that belief and practice included and had to include the Ten Commandments, the Good Government (Kingship) laws, the social laws and the social system of the Pentateuch. {2}

And so {Romans 13: 1-10} is of fundamental importance to Christian belief and practice because it runs counter to what Jesus had been teaching {2}. Verses 1-7 and 8-10 are part of a whole, adding to and explaining each other. Their meaning is crystal-clear when, as intended by Paul, they are read together. Paul acted on behalf of the rich and powerful when he tried to convince people that those in authority were God's representatives on earth and that the social laws did not have to be kept. {2}

But the Catholic Church pointedly refers only to verses 1-7. In all the 331 pages of its 'Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church', it does not even once refer to verses 8-10. Verses 1-10 stand or fall together. And to the extent to which the Church considers only verses 1-7, to that extent the Church appears to be quoting out of context, apparently condoning and teaching what Paul says in verses 8-10.

So much has been written about Christianity and Judaism that it is fairly easy to select one sentence or two from one place, and a sentence or two from a completely different place, and more from another part unrelated to the others, and so on. These can then be added together or compared to arrive at conclusions which back the personal opinion of the individual doing the selecting.

What is valid within the meaning of one record is not necessarily valid within the meaning of another. And the process of 'quoting out of context' often results in conclusions which are totally different from the contexts from which they were selected.

So that the Oxford Dictionary {26} defines 'Out of context' as meaning 'without the surrounding words and therefore giving a false impression of the meaning'.

Paul made changes which have had the most severe consequences for those who follow Paul's ideology. But more about this later.

Participation and Decision-making

The style of management or government in different countries can be anywhere on a scale from fully authoritarian (dictatorship) at one end of the scale to fully participative (policy decided by the people) at the other end. {17}

This is a fundamental scale which cuts across artificial political divides - dictatorship of the left is dictatorship just like that of the right. Dictatorship is dictatorship no matter whether the organisation, hierarchy or political party is on the left or on the right of the political spectrum. Under authoritarian government or dictatorship the government and its 'experts' tell the people what the government or rulers decide the people have to follow. {17}

Under participative government and democracy the government and leadership put into effect the wishes of the people, the policy decided by delegates directly appointed by and directly responsible and accountable to the people. {17}

So the real conflict and struggle is about decision-making in all community organisations and at all levels, and the extent to which an organisation is either participative or authoritarian "depends ... on the degree of participation in decision-making which is practised. {17} <7>

"One can determine the degree of participation in decision-making <7> of any system of running a company or organisation, or of governing a country, by considering for example whether and to what extent decisions are being made at the various levels or whether people merely follow orders, ... and to what extent authority is centred at the top, or where the balance of power lies between those who direct and those who work, on the balance of authority between ruler and ruled, between owner and worker, between the establishment and the population." These findings were published years ago {17} and are taught worldwide.

The Church's statement shows that the Church follows Paul's ideology that rulers rule by 'Divine Right' and have to be obeyed. Rulers make the decisions, there is no question of decision-making by others, there is no question of participating in decision-making, of democratic decision-making by the people. This the Church shows by defining the word 'participation' to mean 'participating (taking part) in activities with other people' {37}. Participating in work being done or in community groups is very different from participating in making the decisions.

One could say, for example, that the Hebrew slaves in Egypt had a 'right to work' and that they participated in 'activities', in 'carried-out functions'. What the slaves did not have was a say about what to do, for whom, at what rate of pay, about when to work and when to rest, and so on.

Examples from the Church's 'Social Doctrine' are:

"... participation ... is ... a series of activities by means of which the citizen ... contributes to the ... life of the ... community." {37}

"... it is clearly evident that every democracy must be participative. This means that the different subjects ... at every level must be informed, listened to and involved in the exercise of the carried-out functions." {38}

"... in ... countries ruled by totalitarian or dictatorial regimes, ... the ... right to participate in public life is denied at its origin, since it is considered a threat to the state itself." {39}

This question of decision-making (who decides what) is closely linked to what is referred to as 'globalisation'. Consider the relevant reports by Manfred Davidmann {18, 19, 20} and the maxims he laid down in 'Multinational Summits and Agreements, Top-level Decision-taking and Democracy' {18}, maxims such as

Representatives, governments or government officials do not have the authority or right to override, reduce or sign away the participative (democratic) rights of the electors, of the population.

Meaning and Use of Abstract Words and Phrases

The Church ought to define in clear terms the many vague abstract words, phrases and ideologies which make up a considerable part of its 'social doctrine'. Like those already mentioned earlier on ('essential', 'human' and 'moral' 'values'). <5>

For example, abstract words (see Appendix 1) like 'infallibly' and 'truth' can mean different things to different people and this applies also to phrases such as 'right attitude'. Such words and phrases need to be clearly defined in detail when they are used.

For example, the word 'infallibly' is generally taken to mean 'incapable of making mistakes or being wrong'.

Another example is the word 'truth'. In Appendix 1 this is defined as follows:

Consider two media reports of a current event. Each reports the same event, each apparently telling the truth, each report giving its viewers different impressions of what actually happened.

How come? Can there be more than one truth?

Such reports may tell only part of what happened, may report only what seems relevant to the reporter, may then be selecting what seems to support the particular viewpoint of those who prepared the report.

Compare these 'truths' with that demanded from a witness in a court of law: 'The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.'

Which means that what is required in a court of law is the truth with nothing taken away and nothing added.

If we agree on this as a definition, then the word 'truth' has become more meaningful.

So if we agree that for us the word 'truth' means the truth with nothing taken away and nothing added, then the word 'truth' has indeed become more meaningful.

Clearly, abstract words like 'infallibly' and 'truth' (see Appendix 1) can mean different things to different people. Such words and phrases need to be clearly defined in detail when they are used, and particularly so when they are used for laying down principles of faith (doctrines).

Social Cause-and-Effect Relationship  <8>

Unavoidable Consequences of Behaviour  {1}

The Social Cause-and-Effect Relationship is recorded in the Pentateuch as a fundamental scientific law, in the language of religion.

"This law states <8> that the consequences of keeping or not keeping the Pentateuch's laws are inescapable, that what happens to one is in the end the inevitable result of one's own behaviour. Also clearly stated is that this is a scientific law which was defined and stated using the language of religion so that people would benefit from knowing the effects (consequences) of their behaviour. The relationship is stated in precise terms {1}. History {14} and social science {22} confirm it."

"We are told that the relationship applies to all without exception and at all times, wherever one may be, regardless of type of government, form of religion or social system or country. It applies whether you like it or not, agree or disagree. We are also told that the process is reversible: Increasingly disregarding the laws (rules of behaviour) results in greater suffering and oppression, increasingly behaving according to the laws results in greater freedom, liberty, independence and a better life." {1}

"If we want freedom, independence, good life of high quality, then we have to follow these laws. If we do not, then we lose freedom, independence, good life and the country in which we live. The consequences of our behaviour cannot be avoided but we can change the course of events by changing our behaviour." {1}

Predictions of the Prophets

The prophets <9> foretold what would happen as a result of how people were behaving if people continued to behave as they did. To someone who has no knowledge or understanding of science and its laws, a scientist's prediction appears to be a 'prophesy', a foretelling of what will happen as if by divine inspiration. And so the predictions of the prophets were regarded as divinely inspired prophesies by those unaware of the knowledge which the prophets had. {13}

"The prophets, motivated by a deeply seated sense of social responsibility and urgency, by love of God, Pentateuch and people, continued with increasing frequency and increasing urgency to warn of the inevitable consequences unless rulers and establishment changed their ways, pointing out that all the people would suffer horribly unless behaviour changed. They were bitterly opposed by the rulers and establishment of the day and struggled for God and people while alone and unsupported. They were not listened to, the rulers and their establishments continued to corrupt and oppress the people until both kingdoms were destroyed and the people most viciously dispersed." {14}

What the prophets foretold were predictions based on knowledge and understanding of the Social Cause-and-Effect Relationship in the Pentateuch, and thus of the inevitability of the events predicted by them, of the events which would follow from the way the rulers and their secular and religious establishments were behaving. {13}

The Cause-and-Effect Relationship is just as valid today as then, and it applies to all at all times, no matter where they live or what they believe in or their state of development. {13}

Hardships and Suffering

We saw that Paul attempted to stop Christians from observing the God-given social laws and social system of the Pentateuch, and the Christian establishment near that time apparently based beliefs and practice on his verses. So Paul's (establishment's) version became accepted as official Christian doctrine and apparently it is this which tends to be taught today. {2, 11}

We also saw that the Social Cause-and-Effect Relationship is a scientific law which applies to all without exception and at all times. Increasingly disregarding the laws (rules of behaviour) results in suffering and oppression, increasingly behaving according to the laws results in greater freedom, liberty, independence and a better life. The consequences of keeping or not keeping the Pentateuch's laws are inescapable. What happens to one is in the end the inevitable result of one's own behaviour. {1} <8>

Hence the Christian establishment condemned Christians to unavoidable inescapable consequences, to sufferings and severe hardships according to the extent to which they follow Paul's ideology, in accordance with the Social Cause-and-Effect Relationship. Which the prophets knew and understood, which we now know and understand.

And which any Church which continues to preach Paul's ideology, needs to know and understand.

Open Your Hand to Your Needy Brother

In the Church's Social Doctrine {28} we find this quotation from the Pentateuch:

"If there is among you a poor man, one of your brethren, ... you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him, and lend him sufficient for his need" (Deut 15: 7-8).

The verse is quoted by the Church without any comment or explanation, which gives the reader the mistaken impression that believers are asked to 'lend' charitably to those in need. Left out is the phrase

'... within any of your gates, in your land which the Lord your God gives you, ...'

and the end of the verse

'in that which he wants.'

This verse actually refers to the Pentateuch's social system which is to be instituted and followed and in this case provides community-backed social security as a matter of right. This is what is laid down as a matter of law {13}:

1. The community has to provide ('lend') money to those who need it, free of interest.
2. All such loans, if outstanding, are to be cancelled every seventh year.

But the Church replaces effective social security as a right, with charity:

"the more fortunate ... should place their goods more generously at the service of others." {36}

Charity can be used to exploit the needs of the needy by making the receiver indebted to, and depending on, the giver for survival.

Which compares with the Pentateuch's right to social security to enable the receiver to remain an independent breadwinner, to enable one to remain the master of one's own fate.

Consider the abject poverty of the bulk of the population in traditionally 'catholic' countries where Catholics are the majority, where the 'Church' appears to be influential, well off and apparently powerful. For example, in Latin American countries, in the Philippines. On the whole, the populations of these countries are poor, destitute and oppressed.

In such countries, however, individual Christians of all ranks speak up for, and stand beside, the oppressed and impoverished people <10>.

Genesis and Evolution

Genesis

In the Church's Social Doctrine can be found the following to my mind irrelevant and misguided interpretation which refers to (Gen 2: 18-24):

"The Book of Genesis teaches that human dominion over the world consists in naming things." {33}

To illustrate the point, in {3} see 'Evolution towards Good' where the note to verse 20 states

'Man' learns to communicate which enables co-operation and teamwork with another (others). And lays the basis for closer associations between two or more of his own kind.

And verses 21-22 record that God made a woman, and brought her to the man.

So I consider that the naming process enabled 'man' and 'woman' to communicate and cooperate with each other and live together as a family. (Gen 2: 23-24)

Taking the matter further, in {3} we also see that:

The immense knowledge and understanding which underlies the Pentateuch (of which Genesis is a part) could not have been understood or comprehended by those then living. And what is there has been overlaid with the dust of millennia, with accumulated interpretations and comments limited by the then current knowledge, understanding and misconceptions. What is stated in Genesis is thus much more meaningful than is generally appreciated.

In Genesis the then-beyond-comprehension beginning of life on earth and its evolutionary progress towards humankind is being described.

And Genesis records 'God' to be that which caused and generated the beginning and development of life on this planet and of its development from the first bacteria to humankind. What we have at the beginning of Genesis is a description of how life, human beings, good and evil developed on this planet, in religious terms.

Original Sin and Fallen Humanity

The Church spends much of its time both defining and teaching the difference between good and evil as it sees it, to enable its adherents to choose good instead of evil. Indeed the whole volume about the Church's Social Doctrine appears to be aimed, at least in theory, at showing their adherents what the Church considers 'good' or desirable.

Surprisingly, the Church has some harsh things to say about what took place when Adam and Eve found out in the Garden of Eden about the difference between good and evil. As follows:

"It is in the free action of God the Creator that we find the very meaning of creation, even if it has been distorted by the experience of sin. In fact, the narrative of the first sin (Gen 3: 1-24)" describes (how Adam and Eve found out about the difference between good and evil)." {29}

"It is in this original estrangement that are to be sought the deepest roots of all the evils that afflict social relations between people, of all the situations in economic and political life that attack the dignity of the person, that assail justice and solidarity." {29}

"By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice." {34}

It seems that what the Church is suggesting is out of proportion to what it considers to have happened in the Garden of Eden. The second of the Ten Commandments, for example, states that future generations of the worst kind of sinners would be punished, in the following ways.

First, the relevant extract <4> from the second commandment:

For I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate Me, but showing mercy to the thousandth generation of those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Then the whole of the second commandment, in plain English <4>:

Those who love Me and keep My commandments are shown mercy to the thousandth generation.

But those who respect and serve other gods, respect or serve oppressing, exploiting or enslaving beliefs or ideologies, they hate me and they and their children will suffer the consequences even in their fourth generations.

The Church, however, teaches:

"The doctrine of original sin ... encourages men and women ... not to ... continuously (be) seeking scapegoats in other people and justification in the environment, in heredity, in institutions, in structures and in relationships." {35}

So teachings about 'original sin' or a 'fallen humanity' appear to be aimed at telling suffering humanity to blame themselves and not the system or others, for the sufferings and hardships of their lives.

In other words, it seems that what is implied, what we are being told, is: 'Do not blame the Church (its doctrine, its teachings, its hierarchy), the government, or the oppressor, blame yourself.'

That is, blame yourself for all the sufferings and hardships of life brought about by the Church teaching Paul's ruler-serving pronouncements instead of standing up for the God-based teachings of Jesus. Sufferings and hardships which are so clearly described in the God-given Social Cause-and-Effect Relationship as the inevitable consequences of behaviour, of not following 'good', of choosing 'evil' instead of 'good'.

To me it seems unreasonable for the Church to guide its believers into following the word of man (Paul) instead of following the word of God, while apparently telling believers to blame themselves for the inevitable harsh and bitter consequences of following the Church's teachings, of following the words of Paul instead of following the teachings of Jesus.

Adam and Eve in Garden of Eden

(Genesis 3: 1-24) tells the well-known story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, is about how Adam and Eve became aware of the difference between good and evil, and the resulting consequences. This story is an allegory, that is it is

'a story or description in which the characters or events symbolize some deeper underlying meaning' {26}.

What is recorded in (Genesis 3: 1-24), what it really means, is:

Mammals had evolved from reptiles, and developed feelings of care and affection towards others and developed some more advanced brain functions. If there is to be further development towards good then there has to be knowledge of and understanding of good and evil and of the difference between them so that people can choose between them. {3}

And the human brain evolved from the mammalian brain. Homo erectus was followed and replaced by Homo sapiens (Wise man, ourselves, with considerably larger brain size), commonly referred to as humans, human beings, humanity.

It is the appearance of Homo sapiens, that is the evolution of the neocortex {9}, which is recorded in Chapter 3 of Genesis. The neocortex consists of the grey matter, the bulk of the brain in two symmetrical hemispheres, separate but communicating. To a considerable extent it is our neocortex which enables us to behave like human beings {9}, to know the difference between good and evil and to choose between them. {3}

It is this which is told in (Genesis 3: 1-24) including, for example, that childbirth became more difficult as a result of the increased brain size, and stating the necessary division of work between the male and the female in protecting and bringing up their children. {3, 10}

Genesis (Chapter 3) describes the evolution of Homo sapiens in a way which could be understood at the time it was written, and which can now be understood as it was intended to be understood, following the publication of Manfred Davidmann's 'The Meaning of Genesis: Creation, Evolution and the Origin of Evil' {3}. This shows that there is no conflict, no contradiction, only agreement, between what is recorded in Genesis and what we know about the evolution of human beings. And Genesis defines good and evil, pointing to the root of evil.

Power Corrupts

Nephilim and the Tower of Babel  {6}

The Church records that there were some who were turned against God but apparently fails to see the extremely important teachings {6} of the allegory of The Tower of Babel. The Church records:

In the divine plan, all peoples had "one language and the same words" (Gen 11: 1), but humanity became divided, turning its back on the Creator (Gen 11: 4). {52}

Actually, the allegory <11> of The Tower of Babel describes key and focal events which determined the quality of life itself, and which enabled the development of humane behaviour, life and living. Of the greatest importance then, of utter and determining importance at the present time. {6}

It is essential that we understand the deeper underlying meaning and significance of these events and apply the knowledge we will have gained to the way in which we live and organise our lives, to communities, societies and social organisation. {6}

At the present time, the fate and future of humankind, of all human beings, is balanced on a razors edge between oppression, exploitation and enslavement on the one side, and liberty, equality and a good life for all on the other side. {6}

So what is the underlying meaning of the allegory? What follows has been taken from, or is based on, Manfred Davidmann's 'Genesis: Nephilim, Dominance and Liberty' {6}:

We are told that 'Nephilim' are human beings with hereditary abilities which seem extraordinary. Their abilities and skills appear to be somewhat rare. These abilities apparently enable them to influence, organise, manipulate, control, dominate other human beings. {6}

They are 'anshe ha-shem' (People of name, that is 'well-known people'). They are misusing their abilities for their own ends, their behaviour is 'evil'. Nephilim are corruptly and evilly misusing their extraordinary abilities. {6}

And in Genesis we can see that an individual called Nimrod was one of the nephilim, that the beginning of his kingdom was Babel in the land of Shinar. In this way Nimrod is linked with the events told in the allegory <11> of The Tower of Babel, that is with founding the city (Babel, Gate of God) and with building the tower 'with its top in heaven'. {6}

The driving force behind the building of the tower appears to be Nimrod. The 'fallen' nephilim are selfish, corrupt, dominating, exploiting and oppressing. It is the ability of such nephilim to manipulate ordinary people into working for the nephil, which is here being pointed out and criticized. Ordinary people are being manipulated into serving nephilim, into working to increase a selfish and corrupt nephil's personal influence and power. {6}

Aiming to reach heaven and become god-like, to set themselves up in opposition to God. Which means that Nimrod, who is referred to as their king, is attempting to gain, to assign to himself, god-like (absolute) authority and power. Assuming, taking to themselves, god-like power over people concerning good life or bad life, concerning life or death. Opposing God by what they were doing, they were scattered by God. {6}

So 'let us go down' ... 'and there confound their language': 'In this way we shall destroy the prerequisite that assures the success of their work' {8}. That is, destroy their organisation and their ability to organise on a large, overall dominating, scale by destroying their ability to communicate and cooperate, their teamwork. {6}

So they are apparently driven by Nimrod who, being one of the nephilim, is using his extraordinary abilities for setting himself up as all-powerful overlord in opposition to God, that is in opposition to humane behaviour, equality, independence, liberty, shared wealth and good life for all. {6}

We know that they are with us here and now just as before, within our communities at the present time. That they are referred to as 'fallen' indicates that their capabilities are being used for selfish ends. Their descendants are 'mighty' (powerful) and 'of renown' (well-known, prominent, in the public eye). {6}

In other words, there are among us people with extraordinary abilities which are hereditary and who are using them for their own selfish ends, and who are likely to be powerful or influential and well-known. {6}

And so the allegory states that if any become too powerful, a threat to that which is humane and good, then they need to be, and are to be, dispersed. In other words, their tower (power, organisation, country, empire, corporation, monopoly, government, rulers, multinational, global corporation, hierarchy) needs to be dispersed. {6}

'Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely'. Humanity and human behaviour depend on opposition and balance, on scattering and dispersal, on democracy, on limiting and taming the struggle for global power and dominance. {6} <12>

Globalisation

What the Church advocates in its Social Doctrine concerning globalisation, can be seen from the extracts below which are set in like this example,

and which are followed by what may be clearer descriptions in plainer English of what they seem to be saying, set in like this.

Our modern era is marked by the complex phenomenon of economic and financial globalization, a process that progressively integrates national economies at the level of the exchange of goods and services and of financial transactions. {41}

Economic and financial globalisation progressively integrates national economies (exchange of goods and services, financial transactions).

It is evident that, because of the great disparities between countries regarding access to technical and scientific knowledge and to the most recent products of technology, the process of globalization ends up increasing rather than decreasing the inequalities between countries in terms of economic and social development. {42}

... the process of globalization ends up increasing rather than decreasing the inequalities between countries in terms of economic and social development.

The loss of centrality on the part of States must coincide with a greater commitment on the part of the international community to exercise a strong guiding role. In fact, an important consequence of the process of globalization consists in the gradual loss of effectiveness of nation-states in directing the dynamics of national economic-financial systems. The governments of individual countries find their actions in the economic and social spheres ever more strongly conditioned by the expectations of international capital markets and by the ever more pressing requests for credibility coming from the financial world. Because of the new bonds of interdependence among global operators, the traditional defensive measures of States appear to be destined to failure and, in the presence of new areas of competition, the very notion of a national market recedes into the background. {43}

International 'capital' is increasingly determining the economic, financial and social policies of individual countries who are increasingly losing their independence to interdependent global operators. Probably meaning that Capital (global corporations) are increasingly overpowering democratic national governments.

The sphere of politics too, just like that of the economy, must be in a position to extend its range of action beyond national boundaries, quickly taking on an operative worldwide dimension which alone will permit it to direct the processes now underway not only according to economic parameters but also according to moral criteria. The basic goal is to guide economic processes by ensuring that the dignity of man and his complete development as a person are respected, in the context of the common good. Taking on this task entails the responsibility of accelerating the consolidation of existing institutions and the creation of new entities responsible for this. Economic development, in fact, will be lasting only to the extent that it takes place within a clear and defined normative context and within a broad plan for the moral, civil and cultural growth of the entire human family. {44}

Politics must extend its beyond-national-boundaries actions worldwide to direct the processes now under way (globalisation) in economics and morality. Globalisation (planet-wide commercial operations?) can only last

if it is combined with political control which has a broad plan for moral, civil and cultural growth (which are more warm and comforting abstractions which are meaningless till their meaning is defined).

It seems to me that the Church, supporting 'globalisation',

apparently fails to see or understand the important teachings {6} of the allegory of the Tower of Babel, and

seems to have forgotten that, within living memory, totally corrupted governments were defeated during the Second World War only by external forces, as were the Khmer Rouge.

Regarding the social problems of 'globalisation', I would suggest that reference could have been made to relevant reports by Manfred Davidmann {18, 19, 20}, also quoting from the maxims he laid down in 'Multinational Summits and Agreements, Top-level Decision-taking and Democracy' {18}, maxims such as

Representatives, governments or government officials do not have the authority or right to override, reduce or sign away the participative (democratic) rights of the electors, of the population.

No elected representative, government or government employee has overriding right or authority

1. to hand over to corporations (that is to those who own and control them), to any other organisation or to anyone else, an overriding control over the present and future, economic and social, welfare of the people, or

2. to sign away democratic rights of their people for the self-determination of key fundamental aspects of their lives.

Where 'Participative (democratic) rights', of course, includes decision-making by a well-informed population.

Decision-making by leaderships has to be replaced by decision-making at the level of the people.

The real struggle is not between political left and right, but is a struggle for participation (the right to take decisions).

But we are not allowed to follow a multitude to do evil.

Planet-wide Danger

The Flood (Genesis Chapters 6-8)

The material in this section has to a considerable extent been taken from "Genesis' Secrets: Pre-flood Evils and the Social Problems of Our Time" {4} which is comprehensive and detailed, published in year 2,000.

Life forms are evolving towards greater viciousness (evolution by the survival of the strongest, most vicious), human beings are misusing and exploiting each other for personal gain. So they were wiped out, Noah was the exception.

The history of life on this planet tells of a major planet-wide happening which corresponds to what is recorded in Genesis about the Flood, caused by a massive volcanic eruption in Sumatra, occurring at the right time in the history of human beings. As follows <13>:

Pre-flood there was no objective knowledge of what constituted good, humane, behaviour. There were no rules of behaviour to enable people to resist and overcome the temptations of evil. Human beings as a whole were using their thinking and evaluating abilities towards evil, towards evil behaviour.

Genesis Chapters 6-8 record the events of the Flood, linking what happened to the inhuman ways in which human beings behaved.

Genesis from then on defines evil more closely and describes and lays down what humane behaviour is and how it can be achieved, stressing justice and retribution. Genesis describes what constitutes humane, good, behaviour, how to resist, counter, overcome beastly temptations, to compare good with evil so as to choose good. And Genesis makes the point that if human beings wish to survive and prosper they need to follow the rules of behaviour laid down by God.

The Flaming Sword

Following the flood, Genesis states (Gen 8: 22) that

'While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.'

To me it seems that the list seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, refers to essential environmental characteristics on which depends the continuation of human life on the planet. A warning to humanity.

Again, following the flood, Genesis (Gen 9: 9) records God saying

'As for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you, and with your seed after you;'

A covenant is an agreement in which each of the parties undertakes duties and obligations towards the other. It is not a one-sided promise or obligation.

And so God is saying:

'As for Me, behold':

meaning 'On my part (as long as you do your part, as long as you behave like human beings), I ...'

Genesis (Gen 3: 1-24) describes, in the language of religion, the evolution of Homo sapiens, human beings, ourselves. We know the difference between good and evil and can choose between them.

But verse 24 (Gen 3: 24) states:

So He drove out the man;
and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim,
and the flaming sword which turned every way,
to keep the way to the tree of life.

We have come a long way towards creating and modifying life forms, towards selecting different characteristics. Such work is proceeding in different directions in a haphazard way, uncontrolled, in often socially irresponsible seeming directions. Now threatening the survival of human beings on this planet as a species, because such knowledge and understanding is being misused for personal profit without concern for the survival of the species or the good of the community of human beings.

It is the rich and powerful, the nephilim of our times, who would be able to appropriate knowledge about extending lifespan, would consider modifying or replacing Homo sapiens (human beings, ourselves) for benefiting only themselves.

Brutal viciousness, oppression, exploitation, corruption, evil could dominate unbalanced if they gained the upper hand, and this cannot be allowed to happen under any circumstances.

Many fires are started by socially irresponsible behaviour, by carelessness or by accident, but are noticed in time and are put out before too much damage results. What frightens us is that the fire brigade can arrive too late to control the fire, that one socially irresponsible act may drastically and irreversibly condemn future as yet unborn generations, that one incident can start a sequence of events which could make this planet uninhabitable for human beings. {22}

The fate and future of humankind, of all human beings, is balanced on a razors edge between oppression, exploitation and enslavement on the one side, and liberty, equality and a good life for all on the other side. {6}

Choice and Decision-making

Here I find myself in the position of the medical specialist who is talking to a very good friend and notices certain symptoms. Unless treated the disease is fatal. So what can one do? I can ask him how he feels, and he says he feels well. I suggest he goes and sees a doctor and as he is feeling well that could be the end of a beautiful friendship. But I know and he doesn't know that he can be cured but only if he takes action fairly quickly. In the end all that I can do is to tell him something about my qualifications, describe one or two of the symptoms in a mild sort of way and suggest that investigation is required. What he does after that is up to him. {24}

Meaning that the Catholic Church has a conscious choice to make, has to decide. It can continue to follow Paul (Romans 13: 1-10, as a whole or in part) and so condemn its catholic believers to the unavoidable consequences, to sufferings and hardships, which followed in the past and will continue to follow. Or begin to understand, follow and teach the God-given social laws and social system of the Pentateuch including the laws of Good Government (Kingship).

But wherever there is extreme poverty and suffering and pain you are likely to find Christians who are struggling on the side of the oppressed. Christians, for example, such as priests who provide encouragement and guidance to oppressed and suffering people in their struggle for a better life against the ruling establishment, against the established ruling oppressors, doing so at much risk and without thought of personal gain. {12}

Conclusions

Purpose of the Church's 'Social Doctrine'

The purpose of the Church's 'Social Doctrine' is clearly stated, namely to convert others to the Catholic Church's kind of Christianity and to gain political influence.

Jesus Taught: The God-given Social Laws and Social System

The social laws and social system of the Pentateuch ensure freedom and material independence and provide a good life of high quality here and now, backed by effective social security. No one may oppress or exploit another and all are equal, as a matter of God-given law. {1}

Jesus taught that all the social laws and the social system of the Pentateuch had to be kept, that belief and practice included and had also to include the Ten Commandments and the Good Government (Kingship) laws. {2, 11}

The Ten Commandments underlie freedom, independence and strength to oppose and resist oppression. The Good Government (Kingship) laws lay down that those in positions of trust, responsibility or authority must not oppress people and also forbid personal gain from the misuse of authority or position. Those in authority must not be promiscuous and must not amass wealth.

The Church Preaches (Teaches)

Paul acted on behalf of the rich and powerful when he proclaimed that those in authority were God's representatives on earth and had to be obeyed, and that the social laws and social system did not have to be kept. What Paul said and put forward in (Romans 13: 1-10) apparently became official Christian doctrine and is still taught today. But it is neither God's word nor is it what Jesus taught. {2, 11}

We saw that the Social Cause-and-Effect Relationship is a scientific law which applies to all without exception and at all times. It clearly states that increasingly disregarding the laws (rules of behaviour) results in suffering and oppression, increasingly behaving according to the laws results in greater freedom, liberty, independence and a better life. The prophets knew and understood this relationship, and predicted accordingly, just as we now know and understand it. The consequences of keeping or not keeping the Pentateuch's laws are inescapable. What happens to one is in the end the inevitable result of one's own behaviour. And we can change the course of events by changing our behaviour. {1} <8>

Hence the Christian establishment condemned Christians to unavoidable inescapable consequences, to suffering and hardships, according to the extent to which they follow Paul's ideology.

When looking at Genesis Chapter 3 (Adam and Eve in Garden of Eden) we see that it is misunderstood as if it implied some kind of personal guilt. What we are being told by the Church in teachings about 'original sin' or a 'fallen humanity' appears to be: 'Do not blame the Church (its doctrine, its teachings, its hierarchy), the government, or the oppressor, for the sufferings and hardships of your lives, blame yourself.' It appears that the teachings of the religious hierarchy condemn their Christian believers to sufferings and hardships while the hierarchy seems to tell the believers to blame themselves and not the hierarchy!

The Church is apparently teaching that the relationships and duties of a Christian towards the authorities are as stated by Paul in (Romans 13: 1-7). The Church's statement shows that the Church follows Paul's ideology that rulers rule by 'Divine Right' and have to be obeyed.

My findings, about the origin of Christianity, describe and prove how Paul changed what Jesus had taught and were first published in 1994 {2}. And in our more educated and enlightened age, what Paul is putting forward in verses 1-7 about the absolute power of those in authority, has become unacceptable to ordinary people, that is, to many Christians.

So the Church appears now to be softening the application of Paul's statement by saying that one obeys those rulers who follow and apply some kind of vague abstract benevolent-sounding but undefined ideology <5>.

Verses 1-10 of (Romans 13:) stand or fall together. And to the extent to which the Church considers only verses 1-7, while ignoring the core social statements in verses 8-10, to that extent the Church is quoting out of context, apparently condoning, and allowing to stand, Paul's annulling of the God-given social laws and social system. And thus opening the door to, condemning their believers to, the inevitable sufferings and severe hardships which the Social Cause-and-Effect Relationship so clearly states.

The Pentateuch's right to social security, for example, enables the receiver to remain an independent breadwinner, to remain the master of his fate.

But the Church replaces the right to effective social security, with charity:

"the more fortunate ... should place their goods more generously at the service of others." {36}

Charity can be used to exploit the needs of the needy by making the receiver indebted to, and depending on, the giver for survival.

In the context of management, government and church-state relations, participation means participating in decision-making.

But it seems that to the Church it is rulers who decide, that there is no question of participating in decision-making, of democratic decision-making by the people. This the Church shows by defining the word 'participation' to mean

'participating (taking part) in activities with other people' {37}.

Participating in work being done or in community groups is a very different matter from participating in making the decisions.

Vague Abstract Words and Phrases

One is left with the impression that the Church's volume consists of a large number of extracts from other Church documents, the Church using a wide range of abstract words with the reader left to imagine what the words could possibly mean. Wishful thinking on the reader's part makes him imagine that what he would like the meaning to be, is what is actually meant. Benevolent appearing, apparently well intended, warm sounding, comforting and vague and thus to that extent opinions and assertions. Which means the Church ought to define in clear terms these vague abstract words and phrases which make up such a considerable part of its 'Social Doctrine'.

Abstract words like 'essential', 'human', 'moral', 'infallibly' and 'truth' (see Appendix 1) can mean different things to different people <5>. Such words and phrases need to be clearly defined in detail when they are used, and particularly so when they are used for laying down principles of faith (doctrine).

Intellectual Property, Acknowledgement and Copyright

The Church seems to state that it can include all knowledge regardless of its source. And that when they include such knowledge in their teachings that this knowledge then belongs to the Church.

Which would appear to be a way of appropriating intellectual property belonging to others without acknowledging the source, and without paying for the use of that knowledge. Seemingly rephrasing and anonymising other people's achievements, apparently taking credit for, appropriating, the achievements of others.

To me it seems that the problem this Church is trying to overcome is simply that it cannot any more convincingly teach religion, the Bible (Pentateuch), Genesis and what this states (for example, about evolution, morality, or good and evil) without including (the simultaneously both revealed and proved) religious and social findings (discoveries) in my published works <18>. If they included the findings, they would need to acknowledge the source which is outside the Church's hierarchy or tradition.

This could be a reason for the Church appearing to claim that it can use (that is, include in its 'Social Doctrine')

'contributions from all branches of knowledge, whatever their source',

which then belong to the Church

'because the Church is the subject that formulates it, disseminates it and teaches it.'

As far as I can see, being a church does not allow a church to plagiarize <15>, or to appropriate another's intellectual property.

Intellectual property (advances in human knowledge and understanding, their source, ownership and copyright) have to be respected and acknowledged.

And in this case, the use of another's intellectual property has also to be paid for. After all, I had to pay a considerable sum of money for the Vatican-published copy of the Church's Social Doctrine which I am here evaluating.

Nephilim and Globalisation

There are among us people with extraordinary abilities which are hereditary and who are using them for selfish ends, and who are likely to be powerful or influential and well-known. {6}

The allegory of the Tower of Babel states that if any of them become too powerful, a threat to that which is humane and good, then they need to be, and are to be, dispersed. In other words, their tower (power, organisation, country, empire, corporation, monopoly, government, rulers, multinational, global corporation, hierarchy) needs to be dispersed. {6}

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Humanity and human behaviour depend on opposition and balance, on democracy. Hence the great need, and the importance of the need, for scattering and dispersal, for limiting and taming the struggle for global power and dominance. {6} <12>

It seems to me that the Church, supporting 'globalisation',

apparently fails to see or understand the important teachings {6} of the allegory of the Tower of Babel, and

seem to have forgotten that, within living memory, totally corrupted governments were defeated during the Second World War only by external forces, as were the Khmer Rouge.

The question of decision-making (who decides what) is closely linked to what is referred to as 'globalisation'. Consider the relevant reports by Manfred Davidmann {18, 19, 20} and the maxims he laid down in 'Multinational Summits and Agreements, Top-level Decision-taking and Democracy' {18}, maxims such as

Representatives, governments or government officials do not have the authority or right to override, reduce or sign away the participative (democratic) rights of the electors, of the population.

Where 'Participative (democratic) rights', of course, includes decision-making by a well-informed population.

Adam and Eve in Garden of Eden, 'Original Sin' and 'Fallen Humanity'

The Church's teachings about 'original sin' or a 'fallen humanity' seem to be based on a misinterpretation of Pentateuch texts and appear to be telling suffering humanity to blame themselves and not the system or others, for the sufferings and hardships of their lives.

In reality, Genesis Chapter 3 (Adam and Eve in Garden of Eden) actually describes the evolution of Homo sapiens in a way which could be understood at the time it was written, and which can now be understood as it was intended to be understood, following the publication of Manfred Davidmann's 'The Meaning of Genesis: Creation, Evolution and the Origin of Evil' {3}. For example, Genesis records that childbirth became more difficult as a result of the increased brain size, and states the necessary division of work between the male and the female, as equals in different roles, in protecting and bringing up their children.

Evolution and 'Flaming Sword'

Genesis (Gen 3: 1-24) describes, in the language of religion, the evolution of Homo sapiens, human beings, ourselves. We know the difference between good and evil and can choose between them. {3}

But verse 24 (Gen 3: 24) states:

So He drove out the man;
and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim,
and the flaming sword which turned every way,
to keep the way to the tree of life.

We have come a long way towards creating and modifying life forms, towards selecting different human characteristics. Such work is proceeding in different directions in a haphazard way, uncontrolled, in often socially irresponsible seeming directions. Now threatening the survival of human beings on this planet as a species, because such knowledge and understanding is being misused for personal profit without concern for the survival of the species or the good of the community of human beings.

It is the rich and powerful, the nephilim of our times, who would be able to appropriate knowledge about extending lifespan, would consider modifying or replacing Homo sapiens (human beings, ourselves) for benefiting only themselves.

Planetary Danger

Following the flood, Genesis states (Gen 8: 22) that

'While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.'

To me it seems that the list seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, refers to essential environmental characteristics on which depends the continuation of human life on the planet. A warning to humanity.

Again, following the flood, Genesis (Gen 9: 9) records God saying

'As for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you, and with your seed after you;

A covenant is an agreement in which each of the parties undertakes duties and obligations towards the other. It is not a one-sided promise or obligation.

And so God is saying:

'As for Me, behold':

meaning 'On my part (as long as you do your part, as long as you behave like human beings), I ...'

Genesis from then on defines evil more closely and describes and lays down what humane behaviour is and how it can be achieved, stressing justice and retribution. Genesis describes what constitutes humane, good, behaviour, how to resist, counter, overcome beastly temptations, to compare good with evil so as to choose good. And Genesis makes the point that if human beings wish to survive and prosper they need to follow the rules of behaviour laid down by God.

I warned a long time ago that if we did not observe and put into effect the social laws (rules) and social system of the Pentateuch and its code of behaviour, then the planet would become uninhabitable for human beings. This danger has since become common knowledge, people have become aware of the risks. {22}

The fate and future of humankind, of all human beings, is now balanced on a razors edge between oppression, exploitation and enslavement on the one side, and liberty, equality and a good life for all on the other side. {6}

Recommendations

Here I find myself in the position of the medical specialist who is talking to a very good friend and notices certain symptoms. Unless treated the disease is fatal. So what can one do? I can ask him how he feels, and he says he feels well. I suggest he goes and sees a doctor and as he is feeling well that could be the end of a beautiful friendship. But I know and he doesn't know that he can be cured but only if he takes action fairly quickly. In the end all that I can do is to tell him something about my qualifications, describe one or two of the symptoms in a mild sort of way and suggest that investigation is required. What he does after that is up to him. {24}

And now the Catholic Church has a conscious choice to make, has to decide. It can continue to follow Paul (Romans 13: 1-10, as a whole or in part) and so continue to condemn its catholic believers to the unavoidable consequences, suffering, hardships and evil which followed in the past. Or it can begin to understand, follow and teach the God-given social laws and social system of the Pentateuch including the laws of Good Government (Kingship).

It is only when people struggle for a better life, struggle for the God-given social laws and social system to be applied and followed, that a better quality of life can be achieved on this planet for all human beings, instead of just for a few at the expense of poverty and deprivation for many. {12}

My published findings {2} were that, throughout the ages, Christians of goodwill chose intuitively to interpret Paul's statements about those in authority and about Christian belief and practice, as meaning that

'the authority of those in authority only comes from God to the extent to which they themselves live according to and apply the Ten Commandments, the social laws and the social system laws including the Good Government (Kingship) laws'. Only those can 'love one another' who comply with all these laws. {2}

Wherever there is extreme poverty and suffering and pain you are likely to find Christians who are struggling on the side of the oppressed. Christians, for example, such as priests who provide encouragement and guidance to oppressed and suffering people in their struggle for a better life against the ruling establishment, against established ruling oppressors, doing so at much risk and without thought of personal gain. {12}

Relevant Current and Associated Works
Manfred Davidmann   (www.solhaam.org)

Back to Contents list

Notes <..>,   References {..}   and Links

Notes <..>

Back to Contents list

References {..} and Links (www.solhaam.org)

Back to Contents list

Appendix 1

Meaning and Use of Words    {25}

Words vary considerably as regards their value for communication. They differ in their level of abstraction. The greater the level of abstraction, the less meaning do they have, do they convey.

LEVELS OF ABSTRACTION

1. Objects

   Objects represent a relatively low level of abstraction as they can be seen and touched and their characteristics detailed accurately.

   Examples are: Table, chair.

   
   

2. Events

   In addition to objects, both action and time are implied, and so these are more complex.

   Examples are: Accident, sale, party.

   
   

3. Generalisations

   Words are also used as labels for groups and collections of objects or events. These generalisations are more abstract and less precise.

   Examples of such labels are: Furniture, machine tools, employees, parents.

   Employees, for example, can be full-time, part-time, shift working, office working, home working, male, female, young, old, single, married, unskilled, skilled, professional, and more.

   
   

4. Value Judgements or Ideology

   Value judgements and ideology are at the highest level of abstraction and words used as labels for them are quite useless for effective communication until the meaning of the word used is clearly defined in detail.

   Examples of such labels are: Beautiful, valuable, necessary, luxury, lazy, free enterprise, truth, infallible, 'right attitude'.

   Such words can be strung together and mixed with generalisations to provide good-sounding speeches and statements of the kind politicians like to use, to provide speeches and statements with no real meaning attached to the words used. Listeners or readers use their own idea of what the words mean and so their understanding of what is being said differs widely from person to person.

I listed the word 'truth' as an example of a label for a meaningless abstraction. Surely 'truth' ought to be more than a meaningless value judgement, so let us look at this in more detail.

Consider two media reports of a current event. Each reports the same event, each apparently telling the truth, each report giving its viewers different impressions of what actually happened.

How come? Can there be more than one truth?

Such reports may tell only part of what happened, may report only what seems relevant to the reporter, may then be selecting what seems to support the particular viewpoint of those who prepared the report.

Compare these 'truths' with that demanded from a witness in a court of law: 'The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.'

Which means that what is required in a court of law is the truth with nothing taken away and nothing added.

If we agree on this as a definition, then the word 'truth' has become more meaningful.

Back to Contents list

Relevant Subject Index Pages and Site Overview

• General Management  (Middle, Senior and Top Level)
• Motivation
• Community  (Social Responsibility and Accountability)
• Economics

• Judaism
• Christianity
• Islam
• Religion, Government and People

• Teachings  (Quotations, Summaries, Current Problems)
  
  
• Press Notices

• About Manfred Davidmann and his Works

• Home, Site Overview  (solhaam.org)
• Terms of Use

• Contact form   (Suggestions and Comments Welcome)

The Site Overview page has links to all individual Subject Index Pages which between them list the works by Manfred Davidmann which are available on the Internet, with short descriptions and links for downloading.

To see the Site Overview page, click Overview

Back to Contents list

Copyright    ©    2005    Manfred Davidmann
All rights reserved worldwide.

History
06/03/05 To Website.

Updated   2021:
Links to 'THEME OF THE WEEK', 'BOOKS', 'Donations' and 'Privacy Notice' were added
Terms of Use
Privacy Notice