Freedom of religion, a matter of national interest still to be resolved successfully in the Federal Parliament, has yet again become a focus for the nation’s football codes. The Essendon Football Club in the Australian Football League has followed Manly in the National Rugby League and the NSW Waratahs in the Rugby Union Super League in being caught up in controversy.
Yet again it has been the conflict between negative attitudes towards homosexuality and support for social inclusion which has become the inflammatory issue. In the Super League it was Israel Folau’s public posts calling homosexuality sinful. In the NRL it was some players refusing to wear a Pride jumper because of their cultural and religious beliefs.
At Essendon FC it involved a controversy over its recently appointed CEO, Andrew Thorburn, formerly the National Australia Bank CEO, who resigned after just 24 hours in the job. Thorburn is the chairman of the City on the Hill group of conservative Anglican churches, whose Melbourne church, in a 2013 sermon, used extravagant language to compare the record of abortion to that of concentration camps, and condemned homosexual acts as sinful.
When asked by the Essendon board to choose between his role at the church and his new job at the football club, Thorburn chose his church governance role, for which there is no Catholic equivalent for a lay person, over football and resigned, warning of threats to freedom of religion. The club, however, framed the choice as an irreconcilable tension between the club’s inclusive values and conservative Christian values. It soon became a national issue. Among Thorburn’s supporters was the Anglican Bishop of South Sydney, Michael Steed, who issued a statement on behalf of the conservative legal think tank, Freedom for Faith.
Club members and supporters played a major role on both sides. The Purple Bombers, the club’s official LGBTIQA+ supporter group, were critical of the appointment and welcomed Thorburn’s resignation, but the highest profile participants were two Catholics: the Victorian premier, Daniel Andrews, and the Archbishop of Melbourne, Peter Comensoli. Both were Essendon members. They too did not hold back and used strong language.
Mr Andrews condemned Thorburn’s church for bigotry and hatred and expressed disappointment in Essendon’s appointment, although he indicated that he would maintain his membership.
'The promise by the new Labor government, to legislate for freedom of religion before the end of its first term will turn out to be another big hurdle to jump.'
Archbishop Comensoli described Essendon’s decision as ‘a chilling message to ordinary faith believers in Victoria that they can’t be trusted to exercise leadership and service in the community.’ He indicated that he would be ceasing his club membership in protest.
Mr Andrews pushed back against his own faith leader. In his words: ‘I’m a Catholic. I send my kids to Catholic schools. My faith is important to me and guides me every day.’ Clearly just what is acceptable teaching within Australian Christianity can be debated among believers.
None of the major participants in this sorry saga are entirely without fault. Unfortunately, in this era of culture wars such controversies often feature more heat than light. Competing ideological positions are already set in stone in church and society.
Once again, this controversy has demonstrated how it is issues with a religious-cultural component, not economic issues, which most polarize our society and are the most difficult for politics to resolve harmoniously. They defeated the efforts by the Morrison government to do so. The promise, recently repeated, by the new Labor government, to legislate for freedom of religion before the end of its first term will turn out to be another big hurdle to jump.
Catholics should reflect upon several aspects of this debate.
First, the Church has an appalling record in Australia in demonstrating freedom of conscience and speech within its own ranks. It allows little freedom of religious belief within the church itself. There are many well-known examples of those who have been ‘cancelled’, which are themselves a ‘chilling example’, to use Archbishop Comensoli’s terminology, to many Catholics that their own church penalises those who speak out and restricts their opportunities to exercise service and leadership. This record will be in many people’s minds when they hear the Church criticising others for restricting freedom of religion.
Secondly, the Church has not provided much space for the voices of LGBTIQA+ Catholics to be heard within the Church. They were one of the absent voices at the recent Plenary Council. Catholics demonstrated during the 2017 same sex marriage debate that many do not share the views of some of their more conservative leaders, including Archbishop Comensoli, who campaigned against recognition of same sex marriage. One useful consequence of this Essendon controversy would be an open conversation within the church about respecting the dignity of LGBTIQA+ Catholics and celebrating the contribution that they, ordained, religious and lay, make within the Church.
Thirdly, once again the Church has found itself embroiled in culture wars in a re-run of the earlier same sex marriage campaign. We have found ourselves grouped in the public’s mind with with some of the most conservative elements in Australian Christianity. That is not where many Catholics, including some other Church leaders, want to be; but it is difficult for most Catholics in leadership roles to say so while maintaining Church unity.
John Warhurst is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University and Chair of Concerned Catholics Canberra Goulburn
Main image: A woman carries a rosary (Omar Marques / Getty Images).