Catholicism Could Be “Made Illegal” Due to LGBTQ+ Rights, Says Archbishop

Archbishop Julian Porteous of Hobart

Catholics in Australia have voiced their objections to an archbishop’s new pastoral letter denouncing proposed changes to the nation’s anti-discrimination and religious freedom laws. The archbishop claimed that, if the changes pass, “it is not impossible in the coming years that the very expression of Catholic belief on certain matters could be essentially made illegal.”

In May, Archbishop Julian Porteous of Hobart, which is in the Australia province of Tasmania, published his letter due to his “concern over threats to religious freedom posed by ‘certain ideological positions’ imposed ‘by means of legislation,” according to a press release.

Porteous’ letter, entitled “We Are Salt to the Earth,” says “what we are now witnessing in our Australian society is the imposition of certain ideological positions on social and moral questions by means of legislation.”

Decrying pro-LGBTQ+ efforts, the archbishop criticizes activists working for inclusion as “an organised campaign to overturn the traditional Christian understanding of sex and sexuality in western society.” Some of Porteous’ targets include marriage equality, “a radicalised transgender lobby,” and laws banning conversion therapy. Notably, the archbishop positively cites the Vatican’s recent declaration Dignitas Infinita in his argument. 

Porteous also claims that the church is “facing an existential threat to our Catholic schools” because of proposals to enhance employment non-discrimination. As a result, according to the ABC, the pastoral letter was sent to Catholic school students across Tasmania, prompting sharp criticism from parents and teachers.

Rowan Richardson, president of Equality Tasmania, said the letter “has a number of misinformation and disinformation, and also some homophobic and transphobic beliefs in it.” Richardson, who is also a teacher and transgender man, explained further: “The views that are expressed in the letter are draconian and totally out of touch with what actually we need to do to make young people feel safe in schools and ready to learn.”

Kristie Johnston, a member of Tasmania’s parliament and Catholic school parent, characterized the archbishop’s words as “nothing short of hateful speech.” Johnston added:

“‘You can imagine how deeply hurtful this must be to a young person questioning their sexual identity, to receive a letter from the archbishop saying…that they’re not welcome in their local school. I’m very concerned that we have government funding going to a school or to a system which condones this kind of breach of anti-discrimination laws.'”

Rosalie Woodruff, the Tasmanian Green Party’s, also voiced concern:

“‘To call out people who are living their lives–trans people, non-married people, people who have sex outside of marriage–and to essentially demonise them–it has no place in Tasmania.'”

Renae Barker, a professor at the University of Western Australia School of Law, weighed in on the “false dichotomy” presented by the archbishop. At ABC’s Religion & Ethics, Barker conceded that while Porteous is correct that the rapidly changing laws have “reshaped our society’s understanding of sex and sexuality,” she rejects his conclusion that this is a result of radical campaigns and lobbying.

Instead, Barker noted that Australia’s religious demographics have changed dramatically over the decades: in 1986, 73% of the population called themselves Christian, with that percentage dropping to 52% in 2016 and down to 44% in 2021.  Meanwhile, other religious groups and those identifying with no religion at all have increased. Of this, Barker explained, “When we add to that the diversity of views held by Christians themselves on such matters, it is little wonder that the law is changing to reflect a different more diverse worldview.”

Barker also responded to Archbishop Porteous’s outrage at the government enacting legislation tied to morality as new or as an overstep:

“’Legislation has always shaped society on moral and ethical questions. There is no truly neutral position for a government to take on these matters. Even taking the position that these matters should be left entirely to the conscience of individuals is not neutral. Such a position is saying, in effect, that the government is indifferent to the effects of such individualistic decisions on society as a whole and on other individuals who may be affected by the choice of others. What has changed is which ideological position is being imposed upon society.'”

She pointed out that homosexuality being criminalized in Tasmania until 1997 was also a moral and ideological imposition, but happened to be one in line with how the archbishop seems to be characterizing church teaching. And so, she concluded:

“. . . [T]he question for Australian society is not whether an ideological position ‘on societal and moral questions’ is imposed by legislation–that is inevitable–but which ideological position is imposed. Archbishop Porteous has characterised this as a choice between the Catholic position versus the ‘woke movement’ and the ‘transgender lobby.’ This is a false dichotomy–one that sets up a zero-sum contest, leaving only winners and losers. But there are other options, which provide room for inclusion and diversity.”

Barker believes that disagreement itself can certainly be allowed to exist, but that inclusion and respect must remain intact at all costs, without “othering” those already marginalized:

“‘We must test any proposed law reform to ensure that there is less discrimination, not more. . . Discrimination, vilification, and persecution are not the same as debate, disagreement, criticism, and critique. We can and should have the latter without the former.'”

—Angela Howard McParland (she/her), New Ways Ministry, June 4, 2024