Posted on

The Church Should Untangle Civil from Sacred ‘Marriage’

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2015/07/14/4273269.htm

ABC Religion and Ethics 14 Jul 2015

The church must distinguish what belongs to Caesar from what belongs to God. If the church is no longer wedded to the word ‘marriage’, it will have nothing to lose if and when the civil law changes.

“Don’t mess with marriage” was in my face when I reached for the parish newsletter at last Sunday’s mass. Before I turned the page of this pastoral letter from the Catholic Bishops of Australia, there was already a problem: the mess predates this “same-sex marriage debate.”

Our church has never had a monopoly on the meaning of marriage – an institution that existed long before Christianity. Marriage was never ours to begin with and has been continually re-defined throughout history by many institutions, including the church itself.

If the “faithful” relinquish the word marriage and give it back to secular society, religious institutions could dust off and reinstate the holy sacrament of matrimony, with all the sacred implications.

When I was a child, Easter Sunday was used in church to mark the most definitive day on the Christian calendar. As we learned that Easter derives from the Saxon goddess of Spring, Eostre, one of many pagan notions adopted into church traditions, my parish now calls it Resurrection Sunday – and rightly so. Eostre was the goddess of fertility, hence the association with the bunny. This revolution away from borrowed names to reinstate the original event helps untangle history.

It was only 500 years ago, at the Council of Trent in 1563, when marriage was officially deemed as one of the seven sacraments. Long before marriage was adopted as a sacrament, it was a strategic alliance between families for economic reasons or class reasons, often arranged by parents. Love and offspring were secondary.

As I read the pastoral letter, I cringed at the timing of our faithful assuming the moral high ground and pontificating about sex while harrowing revelations continue in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. While the churches have a legitimate role to contribute to moral debates, why does the Catholic church appear to do most of the heavy lifting whenever this debate rages in Australia? After all, synagogues and mosques also profess the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage, but we do not see such public protests from rabbis and imams.

The pastoral letter defines marriage as a covenant that is “open to the procreation of children,” which is problematic for couples who choose not to have children. Last Sunday’s homily reminded me that family is a “holy” trinity between father, mother and child(ren).

The pastoral letter explains its central concerns about children, not because of the same-sex “parents” per se, but because of the church’s fundamental teachings on surrogacy, IVF and “the lure of the technology of artificial insemination.”

Australian census data attests that the institution and sanctity of marriage has been continually evolving and indeed eroding for decades. Popular culture and television programs have redefined marriage as a competition for of vanity, originality and fashion. The sacrament and “holy trinity” rarely enters into the equation when scoring points over wedding dresses, decor, catering and music to win the luxury honeymoon prize.

I was affronted by the pastoral letter asserting that “mothering and fathering are distinctly different” and that absence of a mother or father may “impede child development.” As a widowed father of three children, I can testify that it is the quality of parenting rather than the (in)equality of gender that most influences the child’s development.

Soon after my wife died, our parish priest gave me the classic Rembrandt painting, The Return of the Prodigal Son, and pointed out that the father figure had both paternal and maternal features. This image has been displayed in many confession boxes (sacrament of reconciliation) and reminds us that we are all wired to fulfil dual roles. I think it is more nurture (culture) than nature that leads to these gender distinctions.

The most compelling arguments in the pastoral letter pertain to the rights of children, especially to know their right to know their biological parents. Although the “consequences of redefining marriage” examples in the pastoral letter may be perceived as scaremongering, Australia needs safeguards to prevent these anomalies and protect the religious institutions and private institutions.

Exclusion clauses need to be enshrined for ancillary services such as cake bakers, hotels, photographers and clergy who refuse to extend their services to same-sex couples, in “good faith.” Otherwise, we run the risk of replacing one form of discrimination against same-sex couples with another form of discrimination against those who refuse to recognise the couples as married.

If the opening slogan is “Don’t mess with marriage,” the closing slogan may as well read, “What next – polygamy?” And it is indeed these examples of state-sponsored punishment that need to be placated if the civil law changes are to retain a civil society.

Yes, the religious institutions cannot impose their sacred definition of marriage onto civil society, but in turn civil society cannot impose its redefinition onto religious institutions. That would be inequality.
We can discern what belongs to Caesar (civil society) from what belongs to God (sacred society). If we in the church faithful are no longer “wedded” to the word marriage, we have nothing to lose if and when the civil law changes.

 

Posted on

Job applicants without correct creed don’t have a prayer

Job applicants without correct creed don’t have a prayer
Published: February 2, Canberra Times

This story was found at: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/job-applicants-without-correct-creed-dont-have-a-prayer-20130201-2dpyi.html

It is ironic that our moral pillars are defending their right to lawful discrimination, when they should ostensibly be crusading against this. Church-based groups insist that while they are not above the law, their fundamental right to freedom of religion trumps the right to freedom from discrimination.

The irony is richer when one looks at the submissions made a year ago in the lead-up to the Consolidated Human Rights and Anti Discrimination Bill that is currently before the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee.

When submissions were called by federal Attorney-General Nicola Roxon in September 2011, she gave pre-emptive reassurances that ”religious exemptions will continue as under the current scheme”. These untouchable aspects that will not change deserve as much scrutiny as the ”protected attributes” that will change, such as sexual orientation and gender identity.

A total of 230 submissions were posted on the Attorney-General’s website, mostly from individuals. Virtually all the faith-based submissions were from churches, with none from the other major faiths. Responding to questions 20 to 22 in the discussion paper regarding these religious exemptions, these 17 church ”corporations” sang from same hymn sheet, virtually verbatim.

The first verse is led by Churches Commission on Education (YouthCARE) and anchored to Article 6(b) of the UN Declaration on the Elimination of all forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief (1981) ”to establish and maintain appropriate charitable or humanitarian institutions”. This is now interpreted broadly as the right to practise religion ”corporately”, which means that ”some roles … are entitled to include a requirement of acceptance and practise of a specified religious faith” and to ”shape organisational advertisements and job descriptions … to include certain religious dimensions”.

When I was interviewed for social work roles in faith-based corporations, a personal commitment to their ”doctrines, tenets and beliefs” did not need to be stipulated as an ”inherently” desirable attribute in their selection criteria – it was common sense. And when I was interviewing candidates in such corporations, a person of a different creed who wished to embrace our faith was welcomed. Their professional credentials trumped their personal creed. Indeed, a robust and respectful debate about the teachings of the church is encouraged in my children’s Catholic school, not grounds for refusal or dismissal.

The Australian Baptist Ministries led the next verse by vowing that ”rules pertaining to the employment of staff by a religious organisation ought to be considered on similar grounds as employment of staff by a political organisation”. This is a self defeating argument because greens or gun lobbies are not exempted from the discrimination laws and do not insist on the right to select candidates of their own colour to prevent being tainted.

The next verse rejects the language of exceptions or exemption because the ”right to religious freedom … should be seen as a fully fledged right in itself”, identical wording used by both YouthCARE and Anglicare submissions.

The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference adds weight by insisting that religious freedom is a ”fundamental human right that government is obliged to protect”. This is akin to arguing that we should never open this door because it has always been that way.

The chorus was a covenant cited by virtually all the faithful voices: Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights (1966) which enshrines the right of religion ”in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his [sic] religion or belief in worship, observance, practise and teaching”. However, article 18(3) adds that this freedom ”may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect … the fundamental rights and freedom of others”.

This negation of the religious freedom trump card is challenged by the YouthCARE submission which argues that ”in situations where there is a conflict of rights, a specific right of persons to practise their religious beliefs … prevails over a general right of persons not to be discriminated against on the ground of religion”. Indeed, it is an existential threat – ”Without this requirement, we cannot maintain our character as a Christian organisation or carry out our mission”.

The haunting hymn culminates with scaremongering by Christian Schools Australia about an atheist nation where ”freedom of religion may effectively become freedom from religion”.

But are these old arguments red herrings? Where is the research which verifies how often these discrimination exemptions have been invoked? How many non-believers would apply for such jobs if the exemptions were lifted?

The exposure draft of this consolidated bill was issued in November last year and adopts the spirit of this hymn. Section 33 states that it is ”not unlawful” for religious bodies to discriminate ”in good faith, and conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of that religion, or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion”.

Conjuring old covenants, declarations and ”traditions going back centuries” are not contemporary or compelling arguments to counter the ”public money means public liability” paradigm. Surely the royal commission into institutional responses to child abuse has heralded a new era to rethink old ways and open the church doors, not close them.

The hymn should sing something more akin to biblical covenants than man-made covenants: even if we are immune from the law, we will not discriminate any more. We have nothing to hide and will have nothing to fear.

Joseph Wakim is a former multicultural affairs commissioner and a founder of the Australian Arabic Council.