The post on Instagram by Australian Wallaby, Israel Folau, is an example of the impact of our use of social media, and of the complex issues that are raised by it.
Folau posted a passage from St Paul's biblical Letter to the Galatians (chapter 5 verses 19-21), along with a warning that hell awaits eight categories of people unless they repent, in the conviction, as Folau posts, that Jesus loves them and desires their repentance. His post caused immense offence to members of the LGBTQI community and many others, as it referenced homosexuals, even though this reference is not in St Paul's list of 'sins of the flesh'.
Folau is a lay minister in his church and has been filmed preaching and baptising. There is no doubt that he, as an evangelical Christian with a literal understanding of the text, believes a whole lot of people will go to hell unless they repent.
But he is also an Australian representative, a sporting hero to many, and a contracted player for Australian Rugby. In that position, many found his post to be unacceptable hate-speech that violated the sport's code of conduct. Rugby Australia determined that he should show good cause why his $4 million contract should not be terminated. In all likelihood, the case will go to the courts.
Important issues around the role and responsibility of professional sport stars, the relationship of sport to social policy, sport as a business, and the rights and limits of free speech all come into play in what is emerging as a significant case in Australian public life. Numbers of commentators have taken up his case and some voices have linked it to a perception of attacks on religious freedom.
I remain conflicted about the sacking of Folau, as I believe his case does raise questions around important issues in a society that values diversity and that promotes inclusivity and tolerance.
Highly paid sports stars are indeed role models, and to publicly canvas that gay people risk going to hell because of their orientation has an impact on young people and their wellbeing and safety. A sporting star has clear responsibilities in this area to weigh the consequences of their words or actions. It is appropriate for governing sports bodies to enforce codes of conduct in this area and to insist on the responsibility of players.
"Is Australian Rugby heading dangerously towards imposing a religious or a political test for sporting selection?"
Moreover, the fact is that Rugby is a business and has a brand name to protect. Folau is an employee and has contractual expectations. After a previous incident around the same-sex marriage plebiscite he gave his word that he would not venture into this space again.
But he is also a sportsperson with a private life, and is a member of a small church. Should his employer have required of him to be silent on issues related to his faith? Is it discriminatory to require this on some issues but not on others? Should sports, and sportspeople, have public positions on social issues that don't directly relate to their sport, for example, officially endorsing same sex marriage, as distinct from ensuring a lack of bigotry or hate speech within a sport?
Rugby Australia enjoys a monopoly in terms of employment (playing Rugby), and unlike in other employment contexts Folau doesn't have a choice about employers — if he wishes to express himself he cannot simply look for another employer. It seems to me that this monopoly situation is relevant in what can or should be asked of a sportsperson. Selection for a sport to represent a country cannot be reduced to an employee relationship.
Is Australian Rugby heading dangerously towards imposing a religious or a political test for sporting selection? If a conservative Muslim player was to publicly support Sharia law would that disqualify them from representing Australia? If a Maronite Catholic player was to publicly affirm their opposition to same-sex marriage would that disqualify them from representing their country?
There is an important side issue here: how much influence should big sponsors have in determining policy? Qantas is clearly an issue — they are the Qantas Wallabies, and CEO Alan Joyce, and the company itself, were vocal supporters of same-sex marriage. It seems Rugby Australia feels the pressure here.
As a Catholic priest I have a very different understanding to Folau about the redeeming love of God. Threatening hell has no place in my way of seeing faith. But as a member of the Assemblies of God, Folau has a much stronger belief in the likelihood of people going to hell. In his post he named a whole lot of 'sinners' as he saw it, and how he wished to help 'save' them. I don't agree with his theology but it is hard to see in its intent, at least in a layperson's terms, as meeting the threshold of hate speech. His intent is repentance so that they can be saved.
Now, I don't for a moment doubt that many find these views hateful, but in a pluralist, multicultural society that cannot be, in itself, justification for silencing someone. I think his way of reading the Bible is dead wrong, but the Church learnt some time ago that it can't impose its understanding on other Christians.
Can Folau be held to account by Rugby Australia for expressing a religious belief that is shared by many millions? As one writer noted: 'there is no distinction between a person's beliefs, and publishing material consistent with those beliefs, as much as the latter might be dressed up as a code-of-conduct issue.'
Is race also an issue in this case? Over 40 per cent of professional Rugby players have Pacific Islander or Maori heritage, with many belonging to 'fundamentalist' churches. Like all communities there are a range of views within Islander communities, and various judgments about the rights of Folau to express his views the way he did, but I sense a growing unease among this part of our multicultural society about how Folau is being treated.
Are their cultural and religious sensibilities to be respected? As Paea Wolfgramm, who won Tonga's first-ever Olympic medal, silver, at Atlanta 1996 in heavyweight boxing, and who was critical of Folau writes: 'It now feels that Folau is under a sustained attack, and therefore his and our "Tongan-ness" is being attacked as well. As we counted our connection to Folau, perhaps with each attack our empathy as well as our sympathy grew.'
The Folau case remains disputed space that has raised genuine and serious issues on both sides, but also highlights how intemperate language and polarisation in our society poses such a challenge to debate in the public square.
Fr Chris Middleton SJ is the rector of Xavier College in Melbourne. This is an edited version of an article that appeared in the College's newsletter last week.
Main image: Israel Folau (right) and Karmichael Hunt celebrate Folau scoring a try during the round six Super Rugby match between the Waratahs and the Crusaders on 23 March 2019. (Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)