Homily for A Summer Mass

Ephesians 3:14-21
Psalm 107
Galatians 3:25-29
Luke 4:14-21

This text is being fulfilled today even while you are listening:

Good news to the afflicted,
Liberty to captives,
Sight to the blind,
Freedom to the oppressed.

Neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, gay nor straight, Catholic nor Anglican, progressive nor conservative, Republican nor Democrat, Trumpian nor Pelosian, Labor nor Liberal, One Nation nor Green, Brexit nor Remain.

We gather One in Christ.

It is in the abundance of God’s glory that we are enabled to grow strong in our inner selves with Christ living in our hearts.

Knowing the love of Christ, not seeking or gaining the approval of others, we are filled with the utter fulness of God.

We give thanks to Yahweh for he is good, his faithful love lasts forever.

In this Eucharist, we are giving thanks for the lives and contribution of those who are LGBT. In doing so, I call to mind the salutary advice of the American Jesuit James Martin who used be given a hard time by some bishops for his advocacy and pastoral solicitude for those who are LGBT. Martin puts it well when he says, ‘When you are dealing with an LGBT person, you are dealing with someone, to quote [the prophet] Isaiah, [who is] “acquainted with grief”.’ The ecclesiastical opposition to Martin has fallen away since Pope Francis called him to a private audience with an international public photo op last September.

Speaking to America Magazine, Father Martin would not reveal what the pope said to him in the course of their conversation, except that ‘we both laughed several times.’ He did reveal that ‘among other things, I shared with Pope Francis the experiences of LGBT Catholics around the world, their joys and their hopes, their griefs and concerns. I also spoke about my own ministry to them and how they feel excluded.’ He ‘saw this audience as a sign of the Holy Father’s care for L.G.B.T. people’.

I’m a Catholic priest who was a member of the Ruddock Panel. One bishop had banned me from his diocese in the wake of the public debate on the same sex marriage plebiscite.

On the Ruddock panel, we received 15,000 submissions and held 90 public consultation meetings around the country. We incurred the wrath or displeasure of both ends of the spectrum on the issue of religious freedom because we did not think there were many major issues. To quote our report: ‘The Panel heard repeatedly that religious adherence in Australia is at a critical juncture. Changing patterns of religious adherence, a loss of trust in mainstream institutions, and changing social mores are challenging the traditional role that religion has played in Australian society.’ ‘The Panel did not accept the argument, put by some, that religious freedom is in imminent peril, it did accept that the protection of difference with respect to belief or faith in a democratic, pluralist country such as Australia requires constant vigilance.’

The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion set out in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a human right. Like all human rights, it is a right enjoyed by human beings, not a right granted to corporations. We said that the human right to freedom of religion ‘protects those whose views on faith or belief change over their lifetime. It is not a protection for religions. It is a protection, a human right, for the religious, the non-religious and those who subscribe to other systems of belief.’

We did not think that religious freedom was in imminent peril. But like many previous inquiries, we did accept that there was a shortfall in the federal legal architecture for the protection of religious freedom. Despite our being a signatory to the ICCPR, we have not passed the necessary domestic legislation to protect this right.

Most countries similar to ours have legislated some form of national human rights legislation or placed a bill of rights in their Constitution. We have done neither. Having chaired the National Human Rights Consultation for the Rudd Government a decade ago, I knew there was no appetite on either side of the legislative aisle for a national human rights act.

Many religious groups and religious leaders who, in the past, have been eloquent opponents of a national human rights act called for a religious freedom act. We opposed that because we thought it risked privileging some rights over others without providing a comprehensive means for resolving any conflict of rights. We spelt out our reasons. We ‘did not support enactment of a standalone Commonwealth enactment of this kind at this time. Specifically protecting freedom of religion would be out of step with the treatment of other rights. Moreover, the statutory expression of positive rights would need to be carefully crafted having regard to the need to reconcile them with the full suite of other human rights. As a matter of practicality, this necessitates a framework which provides equal treatment for a wide range of human rights.’

But we did see a place for a federal Religious Discrimination Act. We noted a shortfall in the protection of religious freedom not just at a national level but also in some of the states. There is a shortfall in the NSW and South Australian legislation. Some LGBT advocates have said they are opposed to any religious discrimination legislation. I find that strange. Presumably they are not calling for the repeal of section 14 of the Victorian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities which provides:

14. Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief
(1) Every person has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience, religion and belief, including—
(a) the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or
belief of his or her choice; and
(b) the freedom to demonstrate his or her
religion or belief in worship, observance,
practice and teaching, either individually or
as part of a community, in public or in
private.
(2) A person must not be coerced or restrained in a
way that limits his or her freedom to have or adopt
a religion or belief in worship, observance,
practice or teaching.

We thought the Australian Human Rights Commission should be seen to be treating the protection of religious freedom as part of its day job, this being a right every bit as important as the other rights within the purview of the commission. But we did not favour a full-time religious freedom commissioner. We thought that would risk a Balkanisation of the commission in the present climate.

Since the Ruddock review, many religious groups have continued to agitate for a Religious Freedom Act. We thought something more modest and more consistent with present federal laws would be appropriate. If you have a sex discrimination act, age discrimination legislation, disability discrimination legislation, and a racial discrimination act, then why not a religious discrimination act? We recommended ‘that steps be taken … to develop a Commonwealth Religious Discrimination Act directed at the provision of comprehensive protection against discrimination based on religious belief or activity, including the absence of religious belief’.

Mind you, we saw that even a religious discrimination act would have some added complexity. In a pluralistic democratic society like Australia, there is probably a fair consensus on the exceptions which should be permitted for women or Aborigines to set up exclusive arrangements for themselves, even in the public square with taxpayer assistance. When people want to gather or act exclusively in a group on the basis of some unchangeable, readily identifiable characteristic, it is easy enough to set the legal limits on acceptable positive discrimination. When people want to gather or act exclusively in a group on the basis of their religious beliefs, especially when those beliefs motivate them to provide public services and to evangelise, it is a more complex task to set the legal limits on acceptable positive discrimination.

Now we come to the politics. The Morrison Government has decided not to pursue the Ruddock recommendation of a clean, lean religious discrimination act. Rather, in response to those who have long advocated a religious freedom act, the Morrison government is attempting to formulate what we might call a Religious Discrimination PLUS Bill which will include some bells and whistles you would not expect to find in a standard piece of anti-discrimination legislation. In a democracy like ours, there is no requirement that government stick rigidly to the recommendations of an expert panel. And there is nothing wrong with those citizens opposed to the findings of the expert panel agitating for a different legislative outcome. That’s why I have kept out of the issue since we submitted our report.

I note that those citizens who are anti-religious tend to view the present legislative exercise as a piece of special pleading pandering to a political interest sympathetic to the more conservative groupings in the federal Coalition. Some of the LGBTI groups think this is a rear-guard action by the churches and other religious groups who ‘lost’ the plebiscite, even though the evidence shows, for example, that Catholics who voted in the plebiscite voted ‘yes’ in the same numbers (or slightly more) as the community generally.

I think there is little prospect of any Religious Discrimination PLUS Bill passing the Senate. When such a bill is ultimately rejected by the Senate, I do hope that our federal politicians will have the good sense to legislate a neat and clean Religious Discrimination Act, and our politicians in the NSW and South Australian parliaments will have the good sense to bring their legislation up to an appropriate standard honouring our commitments and undertakings under the ICCPR.

There is undoubtedly increased religious antipathy in the Australian community. For example, I encounter more anti-Catholicism today than I did twenty years ago. Given that all human rights are to be treated equally, I don’t think it is good enough that religious freedom at a national level be treated simply as a catalogue of exceptions or exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act. That leaves the perception that religious folk are always engaged in special pleading wanting to discriminate adversely against others.

Let me conclude by stating a few propositions which I think should underpin any law or policy in this area.

Religious schools should be able to exercise a preference for students and families who support the school’s religious ethos and who want to benefit from that ethos. You mightn’t want to send your kid to such a school, and you should have a realistic choice. But society is the better when everyone has that choice, and when everyone knows what is involved in making that choice.

Religious schools should be able to choose leaders for their staff who are animated by and supportive of the school’s religious ethos and beliefs. If political parties, women’s groups and Aboriginal organisations can be selective in their choice of leaders and staff who ‘get it’ and who want to ‘evangelise their mission’, why shouldn’t religious groups?

We should not discriminate against our fellow citizens on the basis of religion or belief in the provision of public services or in our activities in the public square.

But neither should we discriminate against our fellow citizens on the basis of their sexuality or gender in the provision of public services or in our activities in the public square. The most recent report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief to the UN Human Rights Council notes: ‘It is not permissible for individuals or groups to invoke “religious liberty” to perpetuate discrimination against groups in vulnerable situations, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, when it comes to the provision of goods or services in the public sphere.

In attempting to legislate these propositions, it is essential that government consult widely with the community. The Ruddock panel was of the view ‘that it is important that the Government consult widely on draft legislation to avoid any unintended consequences’. I continue to think positive religious freedom would be best enhanced by a national human rights act. But I won’t be waiting for that from any Liberal or Labor government in the near future. In Australia, we may have to await the Parousia on that one. Convinced that there is no chance of minority parties in the Senate signing off on anything more than a clean, lean discrimination law, I won’t be too exercised about all the agitation going on presently about the bells and whistles that might be added to such a piece of legislation.

In the meantime, let’s pray with the psalmist:

Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good;
his love endures forever.
2 Let the redeemed of the Lord tell their story—
those he redeemed from the hand of the foe,
3 those he gathered from the lands,
from east and west, from north and south

Let’s rejoice that the Lord has:

lifted the needy out of their affliction
and increased their families like flocks.
42 The upright see and rejoice,
but all the wicked shut their mouths.
43 Let the one who is wise heed these things
and ponder the loving deeds of the Lord.

May those acquainted with grief have good cause to give thanks and to rejoice this day, for the text of Luke Chapter 4 is being fulfilled as we gather here at St Mark’s at the table of the Lord. Indeed our differences remain, but we are one in Christ seeking justice, truth and compassion for all, whatever their religion, and whatever their sexual orientation.