In the last few days of the referendum campaign, I was struck by something Warren Mundine said. It went along the lines that the elites, including the Catholic Church leadership, were committed to the ‘Yes’ case and that his ‘No’ camp wasn’t going to waste time trying to convert such leaders but focused on talking with ordinary people.

Why was that? I wondered…

I decided to investigate what had the Catholic church said that would have made it useless to try to convince them about the ‘No’ case. What I found was that the worldview adopted by the bishops to frame the issue was fundamentally opposed to the worldview of the leaders of the ‘No’ case.

The bishops’ endorsement of a divisive class (or race) perspective of Australia’s relations with Indigenous peoples meant indeed it would be a waste of Warren’s time to discuss race relations and ways forward.

Given that an overwhelming proportion of their Catholic followers have rejected this worldview, it’s timely for the bishops to take stock of a further deep blow to their credibility – an own goal if ever there was one.

The Australian Catholic Bishops earlier this year published their Social Justice Statement, entitled: Listen, Learn, Love: A New Engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

The bishops’ recommended remedy to ‘transform the current situation’ is to adopt a different world view and they quote a few verses from the Bible:

Woe to those who are snugly ensconced in Zion and those who feel so safe on the mountains of Samaria.

Lying on ivory beds and sprawling on their divans, they dine on lambs from the flock and stall-fattened veal.

They bawl to the sound of the harp and invent new musical instruments like David.

They drink wine by the bowlful and anoint themselves with finest oil, but about the ruin of Joseph, they care not at all.

That is why they will be the first to go into exile: the sprawlers’ revelry is over.

( Amos 6:4-7)

The bishops continue:

The Amos text lashes those who live in comfort, thinking God will protect them against the Assyrian threat that was real at the time, even if they care not at all about “the ruin of Joseph”, who is the younger brother sold into slavery by his brothers (Genesis 37).

In many ways, Australia can be like that – living off the fat of the land, a life of great wealth and comfort, but not caring about the ruin of the Indigenous peoples who are Joseph here, the weak and defenceless who don’t matter and are even despised.

There you have it. The ‘in many ways’ nails the intention to provide biblical justification for multiple divisive angles on Australia’s race relations. That we are seen as uncaring and despising racists towards the Indigenous people is apparently legitimised, at least in some way, by the bishops giving a moral cover based on their use of Scripture.

Note that the bishops explicitly describe the situation of the Indigenous peoples – a present slavery in the midst of a wealthy unloving populace – as that of the historical Joseph in this world view of racial oppression in Australia.

Some may not be familiar with the story of Joseph, a youngest and most loved son who was sold into slavery by his many older brothers, but the musical ‘Joseph and the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat’ conveys the basic plot. Joseph suffers a further grievous injustice at the hands of the wife of his new owner who has him unjustly thrown into jail. However Joseph’s resilience and skills eventually impress the Pharaoh of Egypt who frees him from jail and installs him as chief minister and second in command.

But it is a serious distortion of this text to use it as an example of a tirade against unequal distribution of wealth and contempt toward the poorest.

These particular verses of the Bible aren’t about castigating the leaders of Israel for their lack of charity to the poor and downtrodden. The reason is that Amos is using a poetical reference, the ‘ruin of Joseph’, to refer to the ruin of the nation as it faced the growing risk of impending destruction at the hands of the advancing Assyrians. Amos is saying that the leadership is asleep at the wheel basking in idle entertainments and luxuries and giving no thought to the military peril they are in.

The New Jerusalem Bible, from which the quoted verses come has two clear notes supporting this interpretation.

But the introduction of the person of Joseph raises further issues about selective use of the Bible.

Joseph was a national hero and Amos certainly knew it. Hundreds of years later, the Bible tells us, the great Moses carried the bones of Joseph with him when he led the Exodus from Egypt.

The bishops, if alert, could surely have realised the educational significance of the whole story of Joseph, particularly once they had signed up to an identification of the Indigenous with Joseph.

Joseph’s life is not merely to be summarised by slavery. He is a heroic figure, and a genuine example to be pointed out to anyone wracked by pain and grievance due to injustice.

The basis for Joseph’s success lay in his attitude following his radically changed circumstances and injustices – and that is documented in the Bible (Genesis 41).

He did not embark on fostering internal grievances and growing them into hatred by retelling all the stories about the many injustices that he had endured. According to the Bible, Joseph had 13 years in slavery or prison.

After his release from prison and dramatic promotion, the bible says Joseph immediately journeyed around the country setting up arrangements for the tasks for which Pharaoh had appointed him.

Joseph’s attitude is summed up in the Bible firstly when he said God has made him entirely forget his troubles and his father’s house. And accordingly he named his first son Manasseh (Hebrew: to forget). Note that ‘entirely’! Not a vestige of grievance or vengeance still lurking to be reawakened.

And further, Genesis teaches us that Joseph acknowledged the benefits that had come his way after the shock of his uprooted fortunes. His second child he therefore named Ephraim (fruitful).

Both these outlooks are totally at odds with the mantras of many ‘Yes’ Indigenous activists.

In concluding, I just ask whether the Catholic bishops will now listen properly to the voices of those Indigenous leaders who want to abandon the politics of grievance, recrimination, payback, and an impossible return of full sovereignty…? And who recognise, despite the painful past, that there have been benefits for the Indigenous peoples for which some acknowledgment is appropriate and not total denigration? These surely are voices closest to Joseph’s response to deep past injustice as documented in the Bible.

The bishops had put up a sign which effectively said in capital letters ‘Joseph’s worldview not welcome here!’ And it was no wonder the ‘No’ vote leaders correctly saw that talking to the bishops would be a waste of time. And many Catholics, if they still occupy the pews despite their recent vilification, probably feel that as well.

Brendan is a retired economic consultant who has worked previously with engineering and computing consultants, the International Energy Agency and a government department. His current interests include reading history, studying the Bible passages relating to economic matters, music, photography and voluntary activities in the intellectual disability sector.