A Theologian in Malaysia - Dr. S. Batumalai

 

1.0       Introduction

Studying the theological contribution and relevancy of the Bishop Datuk Dr. S. Batumalai raises a number of questions in two areas that were touched upon in this course. Firstly, deciding what “doing” theology is and what its contruction of the “Asian” genre is. This is essential to understand the good bishop’s contribution in terms of theology and the estimation of his contribution. I will paint a brief biographic picture of the person of Dr. S. Batumalai, and then attempt an analyis of his theological importance and his location in the spectrum of Asian Theology.

2.0       Brief Biography[1]

Dr. S. Batumalai is currently a retired Anglican bishop living in Kuala Lumpur. He was born in Cluny Estate near Slim River in Perak in 1946. The difficult rural backdrop of his early life, the isolation of South Perak due to Communist insurgency until the 1970s as well as the general poverty of the time, indeed suggest that they were formative as evidenced in his simple lifestyle. Though he called his childhood full of “pleasant memories” it is more in the nature of carefree days of childhood itself. Nonetheless, this has afforded him a somewhat personal understanding of the peculiar sort of problems of the rural Indians, that shaped his characteristic project and programme oritentated ministry. 

His father Mr. Sadayandy was a hard working man - a plantation labour supervisor who made a critical decision when Dr. Batumalai was ten, that the future of his descendants lies in the town, in an English education and in the whiteman’s religion. However, Dr. Batumalai saw this as more than a progressive mentality. After his baptism, he became the youthful volunteer with the Overseas Missionary Fellowship (OMF) that at the time were operating in the area under the auspices of the Anglican Church. Early Christian influence would include the late Bishop John Sawarimuthu (bishop from 1972-1994) was probably influential in Dr. Batumalai’s theological formation since they share a similar attitude towards Islam and the Government. The Rev. Kirumathapathy Jambulingam was also a source of early influence upon Dr. Batumalai.

Dr. Batumalai served the Diocese of West Malaysia of the Anglican Communion as an Evangelist in Singapore for two years before his ordination in 1973. His theological education extended to a doctorate in theology at the College of Ascension in Birmingham, UK in 1984; and a subordinate doctorate “M.Phil” in Islam in 1991. From 1984 till 1991 he served as lecturer at the Seminary Theoloji Malaysia (STM) teaching Islam and other religions. His notable contribution there was the initiating of the Tamil Theological Education by Extension (TEE) for the Anglicans but later became a mainstay of STM. His two doctoral students, were Dr. Wilfred John, presently the principal of Sabah Theological Seminary; and Dr. Solomon Rajah, presently the bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Malaysia. Dr. Batumalai was consecrated Assistant Bishop in 2008. In 2009, the Governor of Malacca awarded him “Darjah Mulia Seri Melaka” that carries the title “Datuk”. He retired in 2011.

2.1       Parish Ministry

His community-orientation in ministry was characteristic of him. It was an outworking of his theology, namely to make a presence or statement to the non-Christian community that is unmistakably an invitation to come hither and “to taste and see”. His work in the Holy Spirit Church, Ipoh (1973-1981) resulted in twenty youths going out to become clergy and no less than twenty youths who came to be active lay members holding leadership positions in various churches in Malaysia. I was a Hindu youth then, and one of those happy bunch of youths in that church. By his own admission, these parish years were some of the happiest days of his life.

Among Dr. Batumalai's clerical colleagues he stood alone in his espousal of such a vision of churchmanship, and it was no surprise that all his initiatives were actually dismantled or left neglected by his successors at the parish. It must certainly be a source of painful regret but he would come to find solace upon God. He came to understand that his destiny was set by God for him personally and the consequences of his work belongs to God. He would often say “My name is Batu, I am a rock. No one can shake me.” 

His name is entered in the three-volume Asian Christian Theologians[3] which gives a brief but bland summary of his theological struggle “to offer a Malaysian Gospel – the 5th Gospel” of the everyday life of Christians in their world.” That is nothing unique in the world of theology but Dr. Batumalai was not the most popular man for his theology. In fact, his parishoners were infuriated by his unadorned fundamentalist understanding of conversion. His one central theme of his sermons was a call to live true to one’s conviction in Christ, and not an inch otherwise. Often that led many to accuse him of a “lack of spirituality” or after his Sunday sermon felt they were “fed stones”. 

Few understood the almost militant sort of spirituality of Dr. Batumalai. In his view, after conviction comes work. The urgency lies in the fact that the ability to work comes within a limited time. And work is mundane. There was no desire or need for a supersensate experience or a burning desire to be “the centre of God’s attraction”. Accepting Jesus Christ to him meant one must set aside the old gods and accept God the Father, Yahweh. He enters into a tangible Covenant and this almost political affirmation of loyalty comes first. It is not difficult to see that this is an act of faith granted to us in Christ by grace. "With love comes obedience, and with maturity comes sacrifice." Outworking of this is one’s conduct and work – pure and simple. Knowledge of grace comes afterwards in a formative way. This he believed was enough. His academic colleagues and students were exasperated because of his repetitious style of writing or speaking in a “rambling sort of way”. Nevertheless, no one can doubt his energy, his commitment to the good work, and his clockwork discipline[4] or his Christian character.

2.2 Selected Works of Dr. Batumalai

Dr. Batumalai put together books to encourage Christians to think; and several edited books in local Tamil literature and Malaysian Anglican church history had been published. He put out an autobiography in 2011 as well. The following literature represent his theological output. Those marked with an asterisk are those that I have not been able to access.

____, “Christian Prophecy and Intercession: the Bible, Barth and Koyama in relation to Contemporary Malaysia,” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Birmingham (UK), 1984

____, A Prophetic Christology for Neighbourology (KL: 1986)

____, A Malaysian Theology of Muhibbah – A Theology for a Christian Witnessing in Malaysia, (KL: 1990)

____, An Introduction to Asian Theology (New Delhi: ISPCK, 1991)

____, Islamic Resurgence and Islamization in Malaysia - A Malaysian Christian Response, (Ipoh: 1996)

____ (ed), Vision 2020 A Malaysian Christian Response: Theoloji Wawasan 2020 – A
Dialogue Between a Christian Understanding of God’s Vision and the Vision 2020, (Kuala Lumpur: 1992)

____, “The Story of My People – The Malaysian Tamils – An Intercession for our Identity and Selfhood,” in Yeow Choo Lak (ed.), Doing Theology and People’s Movement in Asia - No.3 (Singapore: ATESEA, 1986) 88-93

____, “A Prophetic Way of Life in Malaysia,” Asian Theological Search 23 (1986)*

____, “The Task of Malaysian Theology,” Inter Religio 13 (Summer 1988)

____, “An Understanding of Malaysian Theology,” Asian Journal of Theology 4 (1990)*

____, “Malaysian Islamic Situation and a Response from a Malaysian Christian Perspective,” CTC Bulletin 12.1 (1994)*

____, “Learning the Faith of my Neighbour from a Malaysian Perpective,” Asian Journal of Theology 9.1 (1995)*

3.0       His Theological Mind and Career – Two Areas of his Thoughts

Dr. Batumalai has written consistently of a church that must be engaging, notably in his life and mission, (a) the Indian/Tamil community; and (b) the Malaysian Islamic community. His entire theology revolves around this one question: How can the church be an effective witness (“prophetic” in his parlance) and serve (“intercede” in his theological grapple) the society in which one lives? That is all. However, his theological work does represent a sensibility that is only beginning to make sense after his retirement. However, it was prescient of him to have already formed his central theological idea in the early 1980s. By the time he had finished his doctoral dissertation he had made significant contact with Muslims in influential positions in the Government as reflected in his work.[5]

3.1       His ‘Prophetic’ Witness to “My People”

The lesser aspect of his theological mind is his interest in the Indian community of Malaysia. Apart from the the above mentioned understanding of “conversion” as “loyalty to God and His Church”, for Dr. Batumalai to be a Christian was to be loyal to the Anglican Church. Though he would not use the word “covenant” this was foundation to his faith. All else is ethics and disciplined living, something that is not easy but all the more essential to glorify God. Everything else was a ritual side-show of which he was gently contemptuous about. He wrote an article “The Story of My People” and published it twice. In reference to these papers he points out that the difference between a Jew and the Indian is the idolatry, and there is much to gain in coming into a relationship with the God of the Bible. As an outworking of this conviction, he most strenuously endorsed the cultural and civilizational transforming power of the Faith, he certainly wanted to display in all earnestness the capacity of the Church to build, invite and share. This he himself exhibited eminently in his pastoral ministry in Ipoh and later in Malacca.

Having said that, he may be criticized for one thing. Though he espoused the progressive thoughts of his father (who never baptized until late in life) he failed to recognize the influence of the Dravida Kazhaga (DK) movement that held sway in rural Malaysia during his formative years. His interest in Tamil Language, emancipation of the Indian woman, commitment to education, anti-toddy temperance, dignity of work and anti-casteism are there in him in full force. If at all DK was rejected, it would be their “Dravidian” ethno-centrism and their ethos of atheism which made itself manifest in their anti-Brahmin rhetoric. Notwithstanding these two features of DK it is of interest to note that all other social doctrine of DK are quite compatible to Christian living. Contrary to DK ethos, Dr. Batumalai espoused religion, that is Christianity and the hybrid culture of Malaysia in all its ethnic ramification.

3.3       His witness to “My Nation”

The major aspect of his theology was his more matured desire to breakaway from using the whiteman’s benchmark. He knows how much an Indian youth can be infatuated by Western culture, and models of accomplishment. So he drove himself against odds, especially discouragement from colleagues and friends, to secure a doctoral degree. And his thoughts became more nuanced, and he began to address the issue of Asian and Malaysian theology towards the mid-1980s. Towards this end, I would refer to his An Introduction to Asian Theology (1991); A Malaysian Theology of Muhibbah (1990); and Islamic Resurgence and Islamization in Malaysia - A Malaysian Christian Response, (1996). These three books probably reflect the struggles of his time as well as the “prophetic” approach of Dr. S. Batumalai.

3.3(a)   The Context to Dr Batumalai’s Theology – Malaysian Politics of Islam

In 1981 John C. England, an early observer and scholar of Asian theological ferment, edited and published Living Theology in Asia. In it one will not find a single contemporary writer from Malaysia. In fact, the 1980s in Malaysia was a fateful time. The raging issue was Islamization, and church leaders were either happy to acquise with the Mahathir Government or the Church itself was pre-occupied with their own internal issues of succession and struggling with financial issues. The Government in turn was itself struggling to find a suitable locus for Islam in the statehood of Malaysia. The largest proponent of Islamic fundamentalism that emerged in the 1970s was the Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM or literally Army of Muslim Youth in Malaysia) ; and briefly they overshadowed the traditional Parti Sa-Islam Malaysia (PAS) as the champion of Islam. The young movement of modern and educated ABIM was brought under control by draconian measures but was allowed to coalesce into Islamic hardliners within UMNO and the Government. They had access to funds unimaginable twenty years prior, and were moving in directions that alarmed both the Government[6] and Dr. Batumalai. The word “Islamization” was coined, and the Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir was held responsible for it all. In those days, the premier would call upon church leaders at the Anglican Bishop’s mansion at Pesiaran Stonor personally to gauge the mood of the leaders. The Government itself was also worried if “Islamization” would trigger a church union.[7] Pusat Islam was worried if the wave of “charismatic revival” would unite the church.[8]  

However, the Church looked upon all these development somewhat quietly and without any sort of deeper participation. To say that the Church was indifferent would not be an exaggeration. In fact, the Church was invisible in the discourses related to the 1972 Constitutional amendments. If the Church or its leaders had any foresight to the effects of 1972 Constitutional amendment to Article 12(a), they would have at least made some gestures. I found no evidence of any. The truth seems like “Islamization” was offered to the Government with no discussion or consultation with the Church or any other religious bodies. It was in this sort of background that one find the work of Dr. Batumalai first appearing. It was not well received by his academic colleagues (who were then concentrated in STM) partly due to its rambling style but also partly due to the aversion many felt in making friends with Muslims or Government officials. Bodies such as National Evangelical Christian Fellowship and many churches affiliated to Council of Churches in Malaysia (CCM) took an unproductive adversarial approach. Nevertheless, Dr. Batumalai’s work was the beginning of a series of intellectual engagement with the whole issue of a Government committed to Islamization. The Church as a whole took Islamization and all the Government machinery geared to implement their objectives as an accompli fait. However, instead of grumbling about Governmental bias for Islam as was the case in most church quarters, Dr. Batumalai alone offered a cogent and theological response to this, a little too late but the first one to do so.

3.3(b) Opposition to his Theological Posturing

Some of the tendencies that Dr. Batumalai eschewed was the penchant among some Church leaders to treat the Government as anti-Christian; and to treat the Malays as a monolithic culture that is entirely anti-Christian, too. This is a form of racism tolerated within the church. Dr. Batumalai saw that the Malays were categorically divided in both politics and religiosity into several competing camps: liberals among the elite, moderates in the majority, powerful functionary hard-liners and the fringe fanatics. Church leadership must understand that the hard-liners who are fueling the Islamization process must be kept in check for the well-being of the whole nation – they should not be allowed to overstep their boundaries. To deal with them, Dr. Batumalai asserted that the Church must understand Islam. Secondly, he also pointed out that Islamic dogma posits Christianity in a particular way. “The identity of Islam is partly depended on what Christianity is.” While he felt that Islamic dogmatism cannot be challenged or not worth challenging (it may even be illegal to do so) he felt it is not necessarily bad and in fact, can be used to shape the Christian “prophetic and intercessory” role in a legitimate way.

While he came under much criticism from his more 'evangelical' colleagues for this very “Malaysian Theology” which Dr. Batumalai would call “Theology of Muhibbah” or borrowing Kosuke Koyama’s term “neighbourology” there is to date no other viable alternative theological response from the Church. Sometimes, it seems Dr. Batumalai endorsed some Indian theologians such as J. Samartha and M.M. Thomas because he quotes them in his books. This is somewhat unfortunate since some tried to label him an “ecumenical” that was a bad word among the 'evangelicals'. Another important bad word was “dialogue” which the 'evangelicals' felt was a poor substitute to “evangelize”. The fact of the matter is that Dr. Batumalai certainly never endorsed the removal of the centrality of Christ from Christianity or the need to proclaim Him, since it erodes the “prophetic” and “intercessory” role of the Church. He merely prescribed a particular way to do it. 

What he did not do is endorse the charismatic revival of the 1980's. He also pointedly refused to criticize the numerous Indian theologians who actually became apologists for the Hindu criticism of Christian missionary activities. Neither did he come out strongly saying that instead of addressing the problems of secularization of Hinduism that compromises or denies the Hindu political voice, these theologians have capitulated to the Hindu anti-Christian narratives. Dr. Batumalai felt D.T. Niles (1908-1970) was a lone exception to these people. The rest he felt were writing to a Western audience and somewhat unrelated to the ground level realities of the people.

Partly due to his rambling style of writing there was a difficulty for Dr. Batumalai to find publishers. But there was another peculiar set of problem. After the Official Secrets Act 1972, the Government began limiting public access to government papers, and both scholars and the public often learnt of any Islamization initiatives or programmes in the newspapers. This made Dr. Batumalai an avid reader of the many Malaysian newspapers. While people well acquainted with inter-religious dialogue such as the Inter Religio understood this as a reflection of the tensions in Malaysia, others closer at home were not so kind. His 1996 Islamic Resurgence and Islamization in Malaysia - A Malaysian Christian Response was written almost entirely using newspaper reference. Part of the reason for that book was that Dr. Batumalai wanted the people in Government authority to know that Christians are taking Islamization seriously despite the opacity in their formulation of policies. He undertook to publish A Malaysian Theology of Muhibbah in 1990, and Vision 2020 in 1992. In the former, he included a Malay translation of the Introduction. The latter book was a collection of essays reflecting upon Mahathir’s “Wawasan 2020” governance policy. Apart from the terse press statements of CCM or CFM, the only person engaging the Government and the people behind their Islamization agenda, right through the 1980s to early 1990s, was Dr. S. Batumalai.

4.0 How is Dr. Batumalai an Asian Theologian?

It is debatable but largely true that “Asian” theology as a genre of “doing” theology has its origin in the wake of nationalism in Asia in the last century. Christianity which arrived in many parts of Asia in the wake of Western colonialism were viewed at worse as conspirators with the colonial enterprise, or at best overly identified with Western interest. The Church felt a need to rationalize or theologize its continued existence by either “re-inventing” itself to locate itself into the fabric of the nation. The initial and more urgent need was to organically separate the church from any sort of patrimony with Western Churches. This was essentially a national enterprise and the theological undergirdings that came with its new sense of independence naturally, hence were labelled according to nations, hence “Indian theology”, “Japanese theology” or “Malaysian theology”. Later in the middle of the 20th century, other concerns such as well-being of indigenous people, sub-cultural identities, feminists interests, ecological concerns, and gender issues began to assert itself into the Asian theologizing paradigms. Of course, this later came to called “contextual theologies” giving rise to such ideas as “Minjung Theology” and “Muhibbah Theology” etc. In Dr. Batumalai’s work the transition is clearly seen. He began self-consciously as a writer of “Malaysian Theology” which later he also called a “Theology of Muhibbah” or a “Malaysian version of neighbourology”.

What is interesting of Dr. Batumalai’s Asian theology was his refusal to enter into colonial/post-colonial debate of churchmanship. For one, he is firmly convinced that we live in a global and hybrid culture overlapping neighbouring societies. And he is also convinced that such debates belong to “D.T. Nile’s generation” and irrelevant to present day. In his own words, “thinking like this, you talk bad about them (Western and formerly colonial nations) but accepting their money”. Some would say that this would not be not surprising because Dr. Batumalai not only studied in Birmingham but was pastoring and engaged in community work there. This is still defensible since colonialism, abuse or otherwise, forms the basis of the modern world. Complaining about it is not a matter of being charitable but simply a waste of time.

In any case, Asian Theology began to be identified as an intellectualization of concerns that must take into account what is called the “Asian reality”or “living context”, that is, theology must address the context of the church, namely the political, economic, cultural, religious and the ecological concerns of the people and nation in which the Church subsists. It is further posited that such theology must be (a) true to the Bible; (b) missiological in nature; and many would add (c) keeping to the credal orthodoxy of the Church. And Asia at the turn of the last century offered itself to its theologians with a definite context – a society shaped by issues of poverty and wealth; and religious pluralism. Later in the century, issues of justice and governance; age and gender issues; human rights; environment; and genetics began to push to the fore. Some of Dr. Batumalai’s contemporaries such as Dr. Yap Kim Hao had begun to explore the changing “living context” within the century.[9] It is clear from the above reasoning that there is a whole spectrum of theologians and theologies. 

Beginning in the late 1970s Dr. John C. England began to compile a corpus of theological writings of both Indian theologians as well as those from the rest of Asia. Living Theology in Asia came out in 1981. This project continues with greater collaboration right up to day. One of his greatest contributor to this project was Dr. Yeow Choo Lak who produced a series titled Doing Theology and People’s Movement in Asia under the auspices of ATESEA. Their work has not abated and the production of the 3-volume Asian Christian Theologies in 2003 was a welcome compilation. These are the features of their work: (a) Most writers were actually little known outside their country; (b) They are pastorally involved in their community; and (c) They think and work primarily in their own vernacular. And in this sense Asian theologians are “doing” theology in response to their own immediate needs, not writing to the Western oriented academic readers or working towards a global application. There is a “sub-altern” nature to their theology. In fact, Dr. Sathianathan Clarke terms these Asian theologians “sub-altern theologians”.[10] Viewed from this angle, In this sense, the sub-altern nature of Dr. Batumalai becomes clear.

Dr. Batumalai’s theology touches upon Malaysian Indian issues particularly addressing their poverty but it appears that it is part of his pastoral concern that filled his career rather than a theological concern. Even so, there were other issues but the overarching issue that he wanted to deal with the context of the Malaysian Indians - Islam and Islamization in Malaysia. His concerns to which he remained consistently faithful all through his career were (a) national unity and the danger of communal strife; (b) Malay political dominance and the danger to open governance; and (c) Islam that runs through every aspect of Malaysian life irrespective of race or religion.[11] Of course, his strategy of engagement was to encourage Christians of all walks of life to write and publish their views. He was “prophetic” or missiological and “intercessory” as he calls practical engagement. It was to Dr. Batumalai a very urgent task because he believed that the construction of Malaysian identity should not be left to Malays or Islam alone but needed to be built in the spirit of Muhibbah. This praxis of being true to the living context is typical of most Asian theologians and deserves careful mention. Dr. Batumalai’s 'evangelical' colleagues may continue to finger-wrangle to find “Biblical approaches” to Malaysian realities; or find easier access to funds to edit and publish their works; but reading through Dr. Batumalai’s rambling writing, one can see an original thinker, pioneering a praxis of engagement that is uniquely applicable to Malaysia.

5.0 Conclusion

The word “theology” or “theologian” has been used so liberally that it is quite believable that it has entered into common speech, at least among Christians. The dictionary meaning of the word is rooted in the Greek understanding about arriving at an understanding of the divine. The Church, of course, insists that it should take into account the revelation in the Bible, arriving at faith; and must inform one’s morals. The former gives orthodoxy and the latter, orthopraxis.[12] Theology as such should not dichotomize into right belief and right practice. Just as orthopraxis for the church resides in the contextual social reality of the person; orthodoxy is contextual to the understanding of human existential reality.

As such most of the Asian theologians who weigh their mind at arriving at praxis are dealing with only one aspect of theology per se. Most of the time they have no need to develop any new theological directions with a fresh understanding of human existence. The general exception to this would be Indian theologians who tend towards the monistic, and go back to fundamental questions of the nature of human in order to construct theological paradigms. In this sense, Dr. S. Batumalai’s works do not challenge the orthodoxy of our Apostolic faith defined by its creeds and justified by the Bible. He is nevertheless a theological thinker, a pastor who takes to heart his living reality in the defense and promotion of the Church – and in today’s discourse an Asian theologian all the same.

Bibliography

Victor Pfitzner & Hilary Regan (eds.), The Task of Theology Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998)

John C. England (ed.), Living Theology in Asia (London: SCM, 1981)

John C. England et. al. (eds.) Asian Christian Theologies – A Research Guide to Authors, Movements and Sources – Vol. 2 (Southeast Asia) (Delhi: ISPCK, 2003)

Yap Kim Hao, Doing Theology in a Pluralistic World (Singapore: Methodist Centre, 1990)

---

[1] Biographical data collected from his book The 50 Years’ Pilgrimage of a Malaysian Christian – An Autobiography (Melaka: 2011); and many mutual friends that include the Revd Jambunathan, Dr. Solomon Rajah, and the late Bishop John Sawarimuthu. The Bishop was the baptizer and pastor of the student – he remains a friend. Dr. Batumalai was interviewed with reference to this article on 26 September 2012. It should be noted that he agrees to its content and depiction of his life and theology. He wants it mentioned that he is more a practical minister rather than a theologizing scholar.

[3] John C. England et. al. (eds.) Asian Christian Theologies – A Research Guide to Authors, Movements and Sources – Vol. 2 (Southeast Asia) (Delhi: ISPCK, 2003) 302

[4] He would be up at 4.30am in the morning and would be at his desk at 7.30am. He would have organized the day’s work and would be home and in bed by 10.00pm.

[5] Dr. Ahmad Basri, once the director of Pusat Islam would perhaps be counted among his life-long friends.

[6] The Government while supportive of Islamic governance, vehemently curtailed any Middle Eastern style radical Islamic politics imported into Malaysia - Palestinian Islamic Jihad was founded in 1979; Hamas was founded in 1987; and Hezbollah was founded in 1982. This was not good for Malaysia because (a) US was Malaysia’s biggest trading partner; and (b) Malaysians do not want any sort of hate-politics, there is a very thin line between hating a Jew and hating another race – the hate is the same.

[7] There were other worries about the church, such as foreign dependence for funds, training and leadership; as well as the lack of a code of ethics in evangelism. This was spelt out by Dr. Mahathir himself in his speech at the 40th Anniversary Dinner of CCM held at PWTC on 25 April 1997. Berita CCM  June 1997, p.9

[8] Ghazali Basri, Pengaruh Karismatik dalam Agama Kristian (Kuala Lumpur: Institute for Policy Research,1996) 6-7

[9] Yap Kim Hao, Doing Theology in a Pluralistic World (Singapore: Methodist Centre, 1990) Dr. Batumalai rejects Dr. Yap for his endorsement of John Hick and his brand of liberalism that refuses the notion that salvation of the soul depends on Jesus Christ alone.

[10] I am not sure if he meant it in a derogatory way.

[11] Batumalai, An Introduction to Asian Theology (New Delhi: ISPCK, 1991) 374-376

[12] The Catholic Dogma insists that faith and morals of theology must be “decreed” by the authority of the Church vested in the papal office. “Theological Definitions” in http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04675b.htm