Extend tolerance to Catholic teachings, too

Freedom of choice. It’s a universally accepted, fundamental rule of civilised society. But which freedom has command over another in the hierarchy of rights? Does freedom of speech outrank freedom of opinion, and are they both junior to freedom of information anyway?

And what of religious freedom, the right of individuals and organisations to follow the dictates and teachings of their faith without unfair and unjustified interference? Where does that fall in the freedom pecking order?

I ask this in response to another anti-choice offensive from the Greens, this time in Tasmania, questioning the Catholic Church’s ability to reinforce its religious beliefs to families that have made a deliberate choice to educate their children in a Catholic school.

The Greens’ anti-discrimination complaint centres on a pastoral letter the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference that I chair asked schools to distribute to parents detailing the church’s position on same-sex marriage.

I must note that the unneces­sary hype around the support for the institution and meaning of marriage between a man and a woman comes mostly from those who haven’t read the letter in full. The content stresses dignity and love of all human beings regardless of their physical characteristics, gender or sexual orientation, while any form of unjust discrimination is condemned in the strongest terms.

The Australian yesterday described this challenge as a “test case” ahead of the national same-sex marriage plebiscite.

I agree, and would respectfully add it will also be a test of our nation’s tolerance. Just as those who oppose the “don’t mess with marriage” mes­sage have every right to protest, the Catholic Church must be allowed to stand by its beliefs. To argue anything else is to be tolerant of one and intolerant of the other.

The Greens’ protest follows news in Victoria that they are preparing a parliamentary bill to remove exemptions for religious schools from discrimination laws in staffing and enrolments under the Equal Opportunity Act. In other words, they claim Catholic and other faith-based schools should no longer be able to protect their identity according to the dictates of their faith.

On both fronts I find it difficult to accept a minority party can claim to be the sole protector of social redress, fairness and equality in our society and deny Catholic schools that have provided families with a specific, faith-based education for almost two centuries.

Catholic school students are taught about diversity, respect for others and treating everyone as equal. Secular critics who argue religion has no place in the public square or that it’s wrong for those with religious views to express them are, of course, entitled to their opinion. It is their choice, just as it is mine to disagree.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently struck a blow for religious freedom and tolerance with its decision to grant Loyola High School, a non-government Quebec school run by Jesuits, the right to teach religion from its faith-based perspective.

The Quebec education department’s decision to make all schools, whether faith-based or secular, teach morals and world religions from a neutral perspective was overturned on the basis that it contravenes freedom of religion. In her decision, judge Rosalie Abella said the school’s Catholic identity was at stake.

“Although the state’s purpose is secular, this amounts to requiring a Catholic institution to speak about its own religion in terms defined by the state rather than its own understanding,” she said. “Parents and schools are entitled to transmit their religious beliefs to their children.”

And therein lay the nub of this debate. When parents choose a faith-based school, they do so in full knowledge of the values and ideals attached to that religion. How do you then justify preventing the school operating in line with already stated beliefs?

Sadly, the ability to remain true to one’s faith in schools increasingly is being questioned, including in South Australia, where the government intends to force all schools to adopt a state-mandated code of conduct.

Attempted undermining of religious freedom in education is also occurring overseas: several Canadian law societies have refused to accredit lawyers graduating from a prominent Christian university because of the univer­sity’s stated policy that marriage involves a man and a woman, not same-sex couples.

The Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority is planning to ask all schools to teach more about religion in the compulsory years of schooling.

While education on ethics and world religions should be a significant part of the school curriculum — especially as Australia is increasingly a multi-faith, multi­cultural society — it is vital that any proposed change does not compromise the right of Catholic schools to teach according to Catholic values.

The heart and identity of all religious schools is seriously under threat.

I very much hope we will always remain tolerant of every member of society.



Denis Hart is the Archbishop of Melbourne.

Related articles
Government of Canada v. Face Coverings: A Debate on the Limits to Freedom of Religion (slaw.ca)
Quebec NDP candidate reconsiders proposal to reopen Constitution for Senate, niqab (cp24.com)
NDP message on niqab ban remains muddled as Tom Mulcair looks to shore up support in Quebec (news.nationalpost.com)
Toronto Employment Lawyer Comments on the Conflict between Safety and Religious Accommodation (prweb.com)
NDP candidate backs off proposal to reopen Constitution for Senate, niqab (timescolonist.com)
NDP's Mulcair faces tough questions on Quebec secession (theglobeandmail.com)
Harper 'playing a very divisive game' with niqabs, Mulcair says (cbc.ca)
Pope Francis' Visit Sparking Classroom Discussion in Area Catholic Schools (wjon.com)
Pope Francis' two-step at the White House: Fight global warming, protect religious freedom (religionnews.com)
CHRISTINE FLOWERS: Freedom of religion? Not for Catholics (pottsmerc.com)