tim's experiment

There is something endearingly antiquated about the row over a Catholic priest, Father Thomas Law, who was rather misleadingly reported as “likening Li Ka-shing to the devil”.  Generally the modern habit is to keep the religious rhetoric for religious contexts and condemn the exploiters of the poor or gullible in terms borrowed from sociology or economics.  Perhaps this is a shame. Anyway I thought Father Law was subjected to a certain amount of poetic licence by local reporters. Actually he did not compare anyone to THE devil. In a clearly jovial speech at a party he compared property developers generally to devils,  an obvious metaphor because he was speaking at a Halloween party. Devils in the plural are a different matter from Beelzebub in  the singular. Plural devils used to flourish in mediaeval paintings, where they could be found pitchforking sinners into the furnace, but they don’t really feature in modern mythology, at least outside the wilder fringes where exorcism in still practised, and in the resulting movies.  This was not a devastating figure of speech in its context. It seems this point was not lost on the property developers, because none of the others has complained.  Mr Li featured by name in the next sentence, which contained the observation that he should be worried about what would happen to him when he died. This was perhaps a bit personal. As I understand it in the Catholic view we are all sinners so most of us should share the same concern.

On the other hand I seem to recall that Father Law’s boss — the real boss, not the one in charge of fund-raising for Caritas — did say something to the effect that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. If the difficulty is proportionate to the wealth it seems a legitimate theological observation that Mr Li will have a lot of talking to do when he reaches the Pearly Gates.  Father Law then went on to say something critical about Cafe de Coral, but so many people have done that lately that this was not considered newsworthy.

The really interesting bit comes next. There was a telephone conversation. On one side we have a senior member of the Li empire. We were assured that this was not Mr Li in person but that is not surprising. Being rich means never having to do anything for yourself. Even procreation can be outsourced these days. On the other end of the conversation we have a senior spokesman for the Church who, we are also assured, did not apologise. It seems he offered some carefully worded assurance that Father Law’s views were not necessarily shared by the Pope, and in return received an assurance that Mr Li would continue to donate to Caritas.

It seemed to me rather unfortunate that these two topics had come up at the same time. Many years ago it was considered acceptable for the Church to sell what were called “indulgences”. The way this worked was that you supported the Pope of the day in his purchases of hand-painted chapel ceilings and other artistic extravagances, and in return were promised a reduction in your stay in purgatory, a sort of half-way house between Heaven and Hell where moderate sinners could pay for their errors before joining the Choir Invisible. But that was many years ago. While I cannot say the Beatitudes are my daily reading I think I have visited them often enough to say that in the traditional version there is nothing along the lines of “Blessed are the property developers, because they shall be cossetted by the Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong”, and nor was there one saying “Blessed are donors to Caritas, because all their sins shall be forgiven them.”

Well, Mr Li’s charitable impulses do him credit. Quite how much credit I leave to Saint Peter. Where a church which is supposed to “hunger and thirst after righteousness” should draw the line in its fund-raising is a tricky matter. I realise that the church sincerely wishes to help the poor and the money to do this has to come from somewhere. Also, local standards in these matters are low. Few charities refuse the assistance of the Jockey Club, whose money comes from the industrial exploitation of a notorious vice.  Still a church is a church, not the Heung Yee Kuk. Like most Hong Kong people I am not a Catholic. Quite a lot of non-Catholics, I imagine, found Father Law’s original observations refreshing and apposite, if expressed in what seemed to us rather picturesque language.  The subsequent non-apology was … shall we say less inspiring?