The gay agenda will change our culture dramatically
The Most Rev. Anthony Fisher,
O.P., Archbishop of the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, delivered the Acton
Lecture on Religion and Freedom at the Centre for Independent
Studies on Wednesday, 14 October 2015.
The year is 2025 - nine years after a plebiscite narrowly approved
same-sex "marriage" and Parliament amended the Marriage Act and many other laws to remove all references to
"a man and a woman," "husband and wife" and "mother
and father."
After an initial
flurry of rather colourful same-sex "weddings," numbers have now
plateaued to only a few hundred each year.
Sociologists
debate the long-term effects on public understandings of marriage and family.
Certainly there have been political ramifications: no major party allows
dissenters on this issue; this caused some significant haemorrhaging from
Parliament before the 2019 election; even for most "independents,"
going against "the tide of history" on this matter is regarded as
disadvantageous.
While provisions in the Marriage (Marriage Equality
Amendment) Act exempting
Registered Ministers of Religion and Registered Places of Worship from taking
part in "gay weddings" have continued to stand in law, the High Court
has ruled that section 116 of the Constitution does not protect faith-based
schools from having to teach a "gay friendly" state-imposed
curriculum; continuing to teach that marriage is an opposite-sex union was held
by a majority of the Justices to be motivated by outmoded and bigoted attitudes
and to be harmful to children.
Already one
Catholic bishop has been briefly gaoled for refusing to apply the
state-approved "LGBTIQQ Safety Protocols and Awareness Program" to
the schools in his diocese; and parents at Jewish and Muslim schools have been
advised that they may not withdraw their children from such programs.
Many clergy
and teachers in faith-based schools have been cowed with threats of prosecution
for "hate speech" if they teach that divine law limits marriage to
people of opposite sex. There are also actions pending against Evangelical
Christian and Maronite Catholic business owners for failing to provide
photography, stretch limousine and hospitality services for "gay
weddings."
Greens and
others have used this issue to chip away at the remaining
"exemptions" and "benefits" enjoyed by churches and
faith-based schools, hospitals and welfare agencies. Government schools in most
states no longer allow Scripture classes and church-based adoption services
were forced to close. Religious organisations are now required to extend
spousal benefits to same-sex "married" employees, have lost their
charitable status, and now pay the same taxes and rates levied on any other
business.
By 2025
public speeches and debates on same-sex "marriage" and like issues
are rare as few organisations and venues are willing to risk the vilification
that follows upon hosting them. The idea that marriage is a natural institution
that precedes states and religions, that it is founded on sexual
complementarity and oriented to family formation, is now regarded as
unspeakable in the public square - though from time to time the usual suspects
still raise it in their "extreme right-wing" think-tanks, newspaper
columns or pulpits.
Will all
this come to pass in the decade ahead and, if so, what does it say about the
quality of our democracy right now and about our nation's particular take on
secularity and religious freedom?
Many years
ago, when I was still a young priest and academic, the commentator B.A.
Santamaria asked me how it was that I was so optimistic about our culture. I
responded that it was probably partly temperamental, partly my reading of the
trends, and partly a matter of theological hope. He responded that he was not
as naturally sunny in temper as I was, that he read the trends in our
civilisation more pessimistically, and that Christian faith only promises
things will turn out for the best "in the end": in the meantime,
things could get very bleak indeed!
In this
lecture, I will turn first to the political theology of Pope Francis. In the
second part, I will use that theology as a prism through which to examine the
state of democracy in contemporary Australia. And finally, I will ask how we
might preserve a space for religious liberty in Australia.
1. Is the Pope a watermelon?
Pope Francis on expecting more from democracies
1.1. Francis on constructing a natural and human
"ecology" that is pro-God, pro-creation and pro-people
In his encyclical letter Laudato Si': On the Care of Our Common Home, and a
number of very recent speeches, Pope Francis has articulated the idea of an
integral ecologism that is pro-God, pro-creation and pro-people, and what this
might mean for politics as well as personal life, including respect for
religious liberty.
For touching on matters such as anthropogenic climate change and
other ill-effects of a technocratic, consumerist culture the Pope has been
characterized by some as a "watermelon" - green outside and red
within. Yet no usual member of the watermelon commentariat would be so
forthright in insisting that human beings are not pollution, their population growth not the problem; that we must respect our natures as
male or female and the implications for self-image, relationships and
institutions such as marriage; that the "little ones" most at risk
are not merely the economically poor, but the unborn and the spiritually poor;
and that we must seek not merely political or financial solutions but moral and
spiritual ones and not expect governments to solve everything for us.
In some ways, Pope Francis's call to asceticism, and his attention
to the local and personal, are very traditional. Much of what he says about
ecology rebrands things long said under other labels such as "the natural
and supernatural economies," avarice, sobriety, temperance, fasting and
conversion. Of course, there is a particularFranciscan attention to the limits properly imposed upon
our ambitions by our natural environment and the needs of the poor. But where
the papacy long resisted the democratizing impulses of the age, Francis like
his recent predecessors seems to presume the moral superiority of democracy
over other experiments in government and to be asking more of them.
What is that more? For one
thing, it is breadth of vision. The
starting point for Laudato Si' is "that human life is grounded in three
fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbour
and with the earth itself." Our natural and social ecologies are
profoundly interconnected: true reverence for one (for instance, for forests or
seals) must complement reverence for the other (fellow citizens, refugees, the
unborn); neglect or misuse of one often overflows to the other; and all these
interrelate in complex ways with our sense of transcendent value, of the
supernatural ecology. What is required, he thinks, is a sense of these interconnections,
an ability to look beyond the immediate and comfortable, and a willingness to
take courageous and farsighted action.
1.2. Francis on the potential and shortcomings of
contemporary democracies
Though
widely acclaimed for his positive and non-judgmental manner, Francis can be a
sharp critic and readily names the failures of contemporary democracies to
address some natural and social challenges. All too often, he suggests, our
leaders seem driven by the desire for short-term success and to be ready to
appease various interests or their electorate with "bread and
circuses." Such approaches lead not only to bad policy, but also to
disengagement by ordinary people from politics. Continuing in this way, he
warns apocalyptically, will make electorates cynical, will hurt especially the
poor, and will leave future generations only "debris, desolation and
filth."
True statecraft, he insists, is principled statecraft: even in difficult times it respects
rights, pursues the common good, and enables intermediate groups such as
churches and families to play their essential subsidiary role.
In the shadow of that encyclical, Francis recently took the
challenge of true statecraft to a joint
session of Congress. High sounding visions and principles are not enough, he
insisted. Statecraft is a practical art: it is intended to achieve things. "You
are asked to protect, by means of the law, the image and likeness fashioned by
God on every human face," he said. Thus "a good political leader is
one who, with the interests of all in mind, seizes the moment in a spirit of
openness and pragmatism," initiating improvements for others rather than
merely protecting his/her own interests, "restoring hope, righting wrongs,
maintaining commitments, and thus promoting the well-being of individuals and
peoples."
Francis further developed this call to a principled and practical
statesmanship when he addressed the General
Assembly of the United Nations. Politics must be people-centred, he
insisted. The "economic and social exclusion" of some by those lucky
enough to possess much denies fraternity, offends against human rights and is
irreverent toward creation and Creator. Constantly aware of the real people who
stand "above and beyond" all plans and programmes, "government
leaders must do all they can to ensure people have the spiritual and material
means necessary to live in dignity and support a family." This minimum
includes not only food, housing and work, but also religious liberty and access
to education, culture and the natural environment.
A right
relationship to "our common home" is premised upon a sense of
universal fraternity and deep respect for the sacredness of every human person.
Without such commitments, even great democracies will fail to deliver what human
beings most need.
1.3. Francis on the spiritual and moral underpinnings
of democracy
Pope Francis's next address on these matters was at the place
in Philadelphia where the Declaration of Independence was signed. I was
there to hear him read from the lectern used by Lincoln for his Gettysburg
Address. Citing that declaration and that great President, he highlighted that
the dignity and equality of every human being, "endowed by their Creator
with certain inalienable rights" which governments exist not to invent but
to protect. Each generation must re-appropriate, re-articulate and re-enact
those foundational values if a democracy is to remain true to itself and
achieve its high purposes.
In that speech as in many other places, Pope Francis identified respect for the democratic
ideal of religious liberty as an
essential pre-condition of peaceful coexistence, of an enriching pluralism, and
of friendship and collaboration between people of different spiritual
traditions. Democracies ignore religions at their peril. Religious communities
play a crucial role in reminding democracies "of the transcendent
dimension of human existence and our irreducible freedom in the face of any
claim to absolute power." Precisely because it reminds us that there is
more to creation than ourselves, that we are creatures and not gods, religious
faith well-lived provides the wherewithal to resist mandated orthodoxies and
totalising ideologies.
If religion
is to continue making this contribution to democratic societies, it must not be
reduced "to a subculture without the right to a voice in the public
square." The right "to worship God, individually and in community, as
conscience dictates," is certainly part of what religious freedom means.
"But religious liberty, by its nature, transcends places of worship and
the private sphere of individuals and families" and must be respected and
valued in the public square as well.
Reiterating
what he has said on many occasions, the Holy Father recognized that in this
"age of martyrs" the religious liberty of Christians and other
minorities is now openly attacked in places such as Syria, Iraq, Nigeria and
North Korea; but it can also be compromised in contemporary democracies.
Driving religion from the public square and hollowing it out from the inside by
reducing it to rituals and private beliefs undermines democratic foundations.
If democracies are yet to do great things they must maintain and renew their
founding ideals.
Following his predecessors Pope Francis has set the bar high for
democracy, emphasizing in particular a visionary, principled and
practical statesmanship that reverences God and people, especially the weak. How, by
those standards, are we faring in Australia?
2. The state of
democracy in contemporary Australia
2.1. Coup capital of the democratic world
"Coup
capital of the democratic world": so Canberra was recently labelled by the
BBC. Commentators have compared Australian government in the post
Hawke-Keating-Howard period with a Tarantino film and dubbed leadership spills
our national sport. Without commenting on the quality of our Prime Ministers,
six in eight years and four in only 27 months, mostly at the hands of
representatives rather than electors, is extraordinary.
Several commentators think our revolving door leadership is a sign
of malaise in our democratic ideals and practice. They have noted apathy,
distrust, even cynicism, among ordinary people about politicians and their
antics; complacency, intellectual torpor and other diminishment in debate and
policy-making; decline in Cabinet process and teamwork, including internecine
leaking that makes confident leadership and confidential discussion impossible;
blindly adversarial and obstructionist postures by government, opposition and
minority parties, that paralyse governments to affect the policies for which
they are elected; governments that appeal to the basest fears rather than the
noblest aspirations of their electorates (for instance, over refugee policy);
electorates that punish leaders who embrace sound policies that come with
short-term pain (such as higher taxes or reduced benefits);over-responsiveness
of representatives and commentators to opinion polls, the 24/7
news cycle and spin; and a ruthlessly anti-authoritarian media culture that
discourages quality candidates from offering themselves for political service.
2.2. The need for a transcendent perspective
This year marks the eight-hundredth anniversary of that Magna Carta which King John signed in the hope of buying
collaboration from his rebellious barons and the barons signed in the hope of
limiting state power with principles against arbitrary imprisonment, fines and
the like. The charter is an important marker in the evolution of those ideals,
dispositions and traditions of practice that underpin our version of democracy.
Here we meet the first stirrings of the notion that good
government requires the consent of the governed. As Lord Acton observed,
following not Lincoln but Thomas Aquinas, "legislation ought to be for the people and by the people." Yet respect for the general
will is not enough to ensure good government. So the charter began to
articulate the principles grounding various checks upon the evanescent will of
electors and elected which have evolved since - such as constitutions, upper
houses, cabinets and committees, the public service, the courts of law, natural
justice, parliamentary conventions and protocols. Such principles are in need
of rearticulation today, for as Lord Acton observed, though democracy is far to
be preferred to tyrannies, the "one pervading evil of democracy" is
that "the majority, or rather of that party that succeeds" can be
tyrannical also.
Magna Carta is, in fact,
a rather religious document. Its self-described purpose is to honour God, exalt
holy Church and better order the Kingdom. In it King John acknowledges that he
rules "under God" and that the rights and responsibilities recognized
in the charter are God-given rather than his inventions; to fail to recognize
them would, the document claims, imperil the king's soul.
The Constitution
of Australia, though more modern, reflects the fact that our particular take on
democracy, like that of Britain and the United States, is hugely influenced by
our Judeo-Christian inheritance. It records that the decision "to unite in
one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown" relied upon three
things: the consent of the people of the several states, the sovereign power of
the king in parliament and, thirdly, "the blessing of Almighty God."
Some would dismiss all this constitutional god-talk along with
prayer in parliament as mere flourish to add gravitas or heirlooms of a by-gone
age: Australia, they might say, ain't that way anymore. In next
year's census, the "no religion" option will be placed at the top of
religion-identifying question for the first time, as if it were now the default
position; pundits expect a leap in the number identifying as "none"
from the 20% who did so in 2011 and a consequential decline in the 60% who
identified as Christian.
There are
other signs of fading religiosity in Australia and many people seem happy to
identify as Christian, live as practical agnostics, but draw upon the inherited
spiritual-social capital of religious beliefs and practices, even as
ideological elites seek to reduce that influence in law and culture.
John Emerich
Edward Dalberg-Acton - the Lord Acton for whom this lecture is named - joined
Edmund Burke, Alexis de Tocqueville, G.K. Chesterton and others in viewing the
state as a partnership between the living, the dead and those yet to come,
between science, art, virtue and religion, always working to improve the lot of
the members. Though none was a fan of theocracy or ideology, they were equally
wary of a democracy without respect for tradition and without a vision beyond
the present.
Just as a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions have abandoned
their ancestors' views on faith and law, life and love, so political elites and
opinion-makers in Australia commonly press it in a more secularist direction.
In 1992, the American Court famously shunned all religious, customary or
objectivist accounts of early human life and morality, declaring in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that, "At the heart of liberty is the right
to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of
the mystery of human life." This year the court did the same for marriage.
As Chief Justice Roberts said, dissenting in Obergefell v. Hodges, today:
"the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half
the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed
the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han
Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?"
Much might be said about postmodernity's denial of metanarratives
and "thick conceptions of the good," but let me mention just one
effect I think worthy of consideration. It is often observed that for all the
government'sintergenerational reports,
ours is the least fertile generation in history; and that for all the rhetoric
aboutinfrastructure, our generation is the least likely
to construct it.
I believe
our failure to add much to the stock of rail, water, sewerage and other
infrastructure inherited from our answers and our failure even to replace
ourselves in population terms are connected. Projects of the scale of the Snowy
Mountains Scheme required leaders and participants who cared deeply about the
future: they knew it would be their descendants, not themselves, who would
benefit.
But our democracy today lacks "transcendent" vision, not
just in the sense of a vision of the sacred but also ofhope: a vision
of a future for our descendants and an eternity in which unnoticed good will
yet be rewarded. As children and grandchildren loom much smaller in the public
consciousness, we are less likely to sacrifice for their sake in politics or
elsewhere.
Whether
enlightenment liberalism or a more watermelon-hued political correctness can
provide for our democracy the transcendent authority and horizon beyond
self-interest it needs is yet to be demonstrated.
2.3. The need for civil discourse: The case of the
same-sex marriage "debate"
Eight centuries ago, rights-talk was less fashionable than it is
today: yet already people were aware of duties owed and grievances sustained.
The first right recognised in the Magna Carta was religious liberty; the ecclesia Anglicana was to be free to order her affairs and enjoy
her liberties "unimpaired." We are heirs to the idea that religion,
in the very broad sense of speculation about the higher order of things, or the
ultimate ground of reality, and consequent honour or worship for the Person(s)
or good beyond the here and now, is a universal good. People should in general
be free to search and find and believe what they will religiously, and given a
wide latitude to worship and live according to their conscientious beliefs. This
is not a case of making exceptions for benighted
eccentrics, but a recognition of something essential to human flourishing and
enriching for the community. The right to the free exercise of religion is
recognized in multiple international treaties.
I will not rehearse my case for marriage as traditionally
understood and for retaining that understanding of marriage in our laws which I
have offered on other occasions. I would like to reflect instead
upon the conduct of the public "debate" on this issue so far and what
this reveals about the state of our democracy.
When people like me and some of you enter the fray on marriage, we
now expect to be tagged "ultra-conservative," "tedious
imbecile," "delusional nutter," "evangelical
clap-trapper" and even "nauseating piece of filth" not just in
the anti-social media but even in mainstream. But what is new is that such ad hominem now hails not just from fevered activists and
net trolls but from respected journalists and public figures.
The ABC's Q&A programme intrudes the same-sex issue, whatever
the published topic of the evening; but even when a whole episode is devoted to
debating the question it is very clear that only one view will gain serious
attention. A number of commentators have noted the biased
reporting on the same-sex marriage issue in many media outlets and the refusal of some to
allow even paid advertisements for the other side. When the ABC'sMedia
Watch said it was
time to give both sides a hearing, it was roundly
scolded on the basis
that hate has no rights and that it is "false balance" to give the
pro-traditional-marriage side any attention at all.
Closed-mindedness is, of course, no monopoly of people engaging on
same-sex "marriage." But I think the refusal to listen is presently
mostly on one side. Those in favour of the traditional understanding of
marriage know their opponents' slogans and arguments well: "tolerance and
diversity," "love is love," "no to hate" - hence
"marriage equality." But advocates of "gay marriage" seem
to think no reasonable person could think other than as they do; that not only are
they right on this issue, but that their opponents are irrational and operating out of blind traditionalism or,
more likely, hatred.
This is surely one of the strangest aspects of the
"debate" so far: that the understanding of marriage found in pretty
well every serious civilisation, legal system, religion and philosophy until
recently - that marriage brings together a man and a woman as husband and wife
to be father and mother to any children that follow from their marital union -
is now incomprehensible, even unspeakable, for many
of our intelligentsia, journalists, politicians and business leaders.
As Brendan
O'Neill observed,
"a chokingly conformist climate" now prevails on this and many other
issues in Australia, so that those who dare to disagree will be demonised,
harassed and marginalized rather than refuted. That the Catholic Archbishop in
Tasmania has been taken to
that state's anti-discrimination commission for distributing a joint bishops' pastoral
letter on marriage is a sign of how far things have gone and are likely to go
in the near future if not resisted.
2.4. Religious liberty at risk
Same-sex "marriage"
proponent, Senator Penny Wong, has insisted that there is nothing to fear from
"marriage equality," that religious liberty will be unaffected, and
that those who support traditional understandings of marriage are "stubbornly
clinging to discriminatory laws" and only offer arguments that are
"increasingly irrational." Such claims of bigotry and irrationality
are strange given that Wong herself opposed the redefinition until fairly
recently. In any case, international experience of redefining marriage belies
Wong's optimism about religious liberty.
In the joint
pastoral letter of Australia's bishops for which Archbishop Porteous of Hobart is being
prosecuted, the bishops noted many examples of individuals and groups who have
suffered vilification, financial, social or legal sanction for holding to
traditional marriage in places that have legislated for same-sex marriage or
civil unions. Since that pastoral was published there have been more cases.
Ministers of religion and places of worship may receive niggardly
"exemptions" in such regimes, but ordinary believers and their
businesses are given no leeway and even religious institutions such as schools,
hospitals and welfare agencies expected to tow the PC line. Some Australian
civil liberties commentators fear that
were same-sex "marriage" legalised here the power of the state will
be similarly mobilised against dissenters. In the Tasmanian case, the
complainant seeks not to have the Archbishop sanctioned but also to have all
Church schools forced to promote LGBTI "awareness," tolerance and
behaviour.
In early 2013, lesbian couple Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman asked
the Oregon bakery Sweet Cakes to bake a
same-sex wedding cake for them. Although bakery owners Melissa and
Aaron Klein had always served all comers, they believed that baking a
distinctively same-sex wedding cake would be facilitating a same-sex
"wedding" and explained that this would violate their religious
belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Cryer and Bowman filed
a complaint that they had suffered discrimination based on sexual orientation
and the government agency upheld that complaint. Meanwhile the baker couple
faced vilification, boycotts of their business, violent protests and even death
threats, and were forced to close their shop and work from home. They were then
fined $135,000 and encouraged to receive behaviour modification therapy so they
could be rehabilitated.
Even if it
would not have been unethical for bakers to assist a same-sex "wedding"
in so remote a way, "democracy" degenerates into despotism when it
licences such vilification of people's conscientious beliefs.
3. Preserving a
space for religious liberty in Australia
3.1. The Australian take on secularity
Tom Holland opens his book
about the world around the year 1,000 AD with the fateful meeting between Pope Gregory
VII and the Emperor Henry IV. In an age of caliphs and Viking raiders, knights
and bishops jockeying for power, feudal vendettas and the rest, Western Europe
emerged as a distinctive culture and expansionist power. At the heart of this,
Holland argues, were the disappointment of millennial hopes and the settling of
a new relationship between ecclesial and civil authority that gave Christendom
its particular energy and focus.
There are many views of the proper relationship between Church
(various faiths and their agencies) and State (civil government and its
departments). Secularism, laicite or "the separation of Church and
State" has many forms. What was essentially a millennial Christian
contribution to our civilisation - reflected also in the great charter - has
mutated in various ways and places.
In West Europe, for instance, as in the communist East of old, the
tendency is to say with respect to Church and State that ne'er the twain shall meet.
Governments and courts increasingly exclude faith-based organisations from
decision-making and service delivery. Dogmatic secularists ban Christmas
decorations from public places, church bells from towers, crucifixes from
schools or nurses' necks, and any residual religious values in law and policy.
Some want believers to renounce their most deeply held beliefs or stay silent
about them in the public square. Religion is thought to be so inherently
backward, even dangerous, that the tag "believer" - let alone
"ultra-Catholic" - disqualifies one from civil leadership.
If there are
countries in which state or culture-imposed atheism is dominant, there are
others in which religious leaders dictate terms to government and society,
including to those who do not share their faith. In the nightmare of the Arab
Spring turned Jihadi Winter, extremists seek to impose the only
"pure" version of the only approved faith even on their
co-religionists. While on Tom Holland's view it was Christendom that first
distinguished the spheres of God and Caesar, pope and emperor, to the great
advantage of the development of the West, we know it suited many Christian
leaders through the centuries to blur those lines; the same is so for some
believers today. And there are still conceptions of Church and State that
recognize no such line even to be blurred. In theocracies, as in secular
tyrannies, either religion is in charge of everything or secular politics is,
but no compromise between the two is possible.
As if
supportive of this no compromise view, the United States seems to have the two
extremes at once, with lots of public religious rhetoric, as if being religious
is expected, and various bans on public religion, as if irreligion was
compulsory. Bakers are fined and marriage registrars gaoled for refusing to go
along with same-sex marriage, as if this were a dogma of the state religion.
Richard John Neuhaus famously thought an "iron curtain"
or "wall of separation" had been erected between Church and State in
America, so that that nation's foundational ideals and people's deepest
convictions are now regularly ruled "out of bounds"; this leaves the
public square so "naked" that Americans were unable to engage in the
properly political task of determining how to live together.
Here in
Australia, we distinguish between the spheres of activity proper to Church and
State, each with its proper inspiration and responsibilities, instrumentalities
and methods. Church and State in this country mostly leave each other alone. So
far no bakers have been required to put two brides atop their cakes. Where the
spheres of Church and State overlap, Australians have been inclined to a
healthy, pragmatic cooperation for the public benefit rather than iron curtains
or trench warfare. So we've had fruitful collaborations in law and policy,
provision of education, health and aged care, and various welfare services, in
special religious education in government schools, chaplaincies to state
institutions, state funerals and so forth.
The biggest
religious gathering, youth gathering, gathering of any sort in the history of
our country - World Youth Day 2008 - was an example of this. Every sector of
our community co-operated in the planning and delivery: not Catholics or
Christians only, or the private non-profit sectors only, but practically
everyone. That said something powerful which our visitors commented upon: that
Church and State, people of various religions and none, can "live and let
live," give each other "a fair go," honour diversity, seek
common ground, and work together. But wherever religious liberty is at risk
such coexistence and collaboration are also threatened.
3.2. Where to draw the line between claims of
conscience and of law
A member of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
recently said that, sympathetic as she is to religious freedom, there's a
"zero-sum" game with respect to religious freedom and LGBT rights;
instead of attempting to balance such competing liberties, society must opt for
LGBT rights over religion every time. Several
Justices in Obergefell acknowledged that would be the inevitable effect of the
decision to legalize same-sex "marriage."
Yet true democracy is a political order that acknowledges deeply
held moral and religious convictions are important, permits differences in
these matters and, as far as reasonable, allows expression of those differences
in action or inaction on conscientious grounds. The democratic state concedes
that people must obey both God and Caesar. That is why the various human rights
instruments and their underpinning political philosophies acknowledge the right
to hold different religious or moral convictions as a non-derogable right, and also rights to express those
convictions in public and not be compelled to act against them, to be protected
in this by the state and not denied it by powerful ideological, financial or
majority-political interests.
Not that
claims of conscience will always be trumps: as the centrality of the human
person and the common good grounds respect for conscience, it also requires
that practices like child sacrifice be forbidden. Beyond such extremes,
considerable latitude is possible. But in post-modernity, having principles,
internally consistent and embraced with passion over a long period, is not only
less common but can seem unimaginative, even fanatical. The desire to "get
along" may mean we give each other space to "do our own thing";
but we are left suspicious of what the other person's "thing" might
be and sceptical that there is any truth in matters of life and love. As
conscience reduces to personal tastes, respect for its claims are harder to
sustain.
Thus while
totalitarian secularists will concede some pleas of conscience to oddballs,
they aim to rid law and policy of any whiff of incense and are inclined to view
conscience claims as marginal, even anti-social. Beyond a narrow field for
worship, they would similarly reduce the scope of religious liberty.
Conclusion
The year is 2025 - nine years after the plebiscite to redefine
marriage was defeated, partly because most Australians still treasured marriage
as traditionally understood, partly because they thought government had no
business regulating other friendships, partly because they were convinced a
mature democracy does not rush into such important decisions and partly because
they feared "marriage equality" would make Australians less equal in matters of faith and conscience.
Rather than
taking the divisive turn proposed back in 2015, other signs of respect for
people with same-sex attraction have been embraced by most Australians. Terms
like "man and wife" and "mother and father" survive in law
and practice, and new measures help support marriages and marriage-based
families. A robust but courteous debate continues, but most agree the
decade-long exercise of patience and respect in pursuit of a moral consensus in
this area has demonstrated democratic maturity and strengthened, not
diminished, common life.
In this
2025, faiths still play a major role in our community as providers of much
human and supernatural support, of formation in crucial moral and political
values, and as providers of charitable services in education, health and aged
care, welfare and the like. Believers feel supported rather than threatened by
the state in holding their high ideals and there is healthy dialogue between
people of different faiths and between believers and "nones."
Australians
are proud of their historic "compact" between Church and State,
freedom of conscience and the rule of law - all the more so in a world where
too many countries take a less tolerant direction and whole populations have
suffered persecution, exile or death as a result. Most agree we should resist
totalizing ideologies that would seriously upset that historical balance. Most
want our bakers to be left to bake good cakes, unencumbered by such ideologies.
My more
sanguine 2025 required people back in 2015 to embrace the mission of not only
rebuilding the nation's physical infrastructure, but also renewing its
spiritual capital so that it might be visionary, principled and practical, with
a right reverence for God and people - to use Pope Francis II's inherited tests
of democratic health.
Having and
following principles, internally consistent and embraced with passion but also
publicly contestable, is not only regarded as epistemically and psychologically
defensible, but also socially and politically essential.
Forming
people in such ideals and giving them confidence in their application was
something to which the Church devoted much energy in the intervening decade.
Teachers, scholars, lawmakers, commentators and other thoughtful individuals
have made important contributions to renewal of our democracy.
"Liberty," as Lord Acton observed, "is not the
power of doing what we like, but the right of being able to do what we
ought." In the 2010s and 2020s we realized that only by renewing our
social-spiritual capital could we ask what that ought is that we should do with our liberty and then
be able to do it.
