Believe it or not, it now appears that Christian leaders in Australia can enter the political debate without being lectured concerning that which belongs to God and that which belongs to Caesar.Provided they choose a fashionable topic, of course. As in criticising the Howard Government's Work Choices legislation.
Take the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, for example.
Earlier this year Cardinal George Pell was severely criticised for his public comments opposing a bill to expand stem cell research, which was then before the NSW Parliament. So much so that his views were referred to the Privileges Committee, for possible censure, by the Greens MP Lee Rhiannon.
Pell was cleared.
But this does not negate the fact that Rhiannon believes the Archbishop's views should be curtailed when he speaks out on what is clearly an issue of faith and morals.
Last Wednesday Pell addressed the National Press Club in Canberra on the topic of World Youth Day, to be celebrated in Sydney in July. Following the talk, he was asked a number of questions, including one on Work Choices.
Pell reaffirmed that he'd been critical of the Howard Government's industrial relations reform agenda but said he was "very pleased" to see that the Coalition had "reinstated the no-disadvantage clause, especially for minimum wage earners".
Did Rhiannon have any objection to Pell's criticism of the original Work Choices legislation? Not at all.
It seems the Greens MPs only get upset when church leaders speak about morality and are unfazed by their entry into political debate, provided their views are at least compatible with a regulatory agenda.
During the question period, Pell was asked about Labor's education policy under Kevin Rudd - who has junked Mark Latham's approach at the 2004 election and brought the ALP into line with the Coalition. He replied that he was "certainly happy to endorse … the schools policy, for the Catholic and independent schools, of the Labor Party". Fair enough.
On the ABC Radio Sunday Profile program last weekend, the presenter, Monica Attard, claimed that Pell "has come out in support of the ALP - and its education policy, in particular".
Pell has not endorsed either Labor or the Coalition. Rather, he made it clear at the National Press Club that he was "more than happy" to leave the choice between John Howard and Rudd "to the individual voters".
This is the kind of howler that should be picked up by the ABC TV Media Watch program. But as Attard presents that program as well, this seems unlikely. Attard is focused on the (alleged) errors of others.
Attard's false claim re Pell occurred during an introduction to her guest Peter Jensen, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney.
As was to be expected, the presenter indicated her disagreement with Jensen on such matters as the consecration of female bishops in the Anglican Church.
However, the questions were much softer when Jensen criticised the Howard Government's reform of industrial relations. His point was that Australians are "financially wealthy" but "relationship poor". He advocates a re-regulation of the industrial relations system to bring about a "shared day off".
When the likes of Pell and Jensen express doubts about industrial relations reform, they invariably receive sympathetic coverage in the media. This suggests that, now at least, it's okay for church leaders to talk about politics - at least when they are opposing deregulation in particular and economic reform in general.
Most of the journalists and academics who comment on such matters agree with the Pell/Jensen position and this ensures favourable coverage.
For politicians who are committed to an economic reform agenda, however, the publicly expressed views of church leaders and clerical organisations can be frustrating.
This was evident when the federal Health Minister, Tony Abbott, addressed the Institute of Public Affairs, also on Wednesday.
Abbott, a Catholic, criticised bodies such as the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council and stated that "a political argument is not transformed into a moral argument simply because it's delivered with an enormous dollop of sanctimony".
Abbott's frustration is understandable. Industrial relations reform started with Paul Keating's Labor government and the rate of change was substantially increased due to the initiatives of Howard, Peter Costello, Abbott and the like. Before the reform process, unemployment was more than 10 per cent. It is now close to 4 per cent, with a rate of about 3 per cent a real possibility.
Yet the publications of such bodies as the Social Justice Council and the Australian Catholic Council for Employment Relations make virtually no reference to the fact that unemployment has been substantially reduced following the industrial relations reform.
Interviewed on the PM program on Thursday, Sister Libby Rogerson, social justice director for the Parramatta Catholic diocese, ran the same line as those two councils when she complained that "a young person from Mt Druitt going for his or her first job" is in "no position to negotiate their pay and conditions". Clearly she wants the trade unions involved.
Rogerson seems oblivious to the fact that, without industrial relations reform, such a young person would have found it very difficult - if not impossible - to find a job. This is something that church leaders, and organisations run by the Christian churches - such as the Social Justice Council and Anglicare - rarely acknowledge.
The unfashionable fact is that nations which have paid heed to Catholic social teaching have had poor economic outcomes.
Ireland and Italy come to mind.
Ireland recovered from high unemployment only after it embraced economic reform.
The churches have a right to enter the public debate.
And citizens - Christian and non-Christian - have the right to contest their views with respect to the secular and the spiritual.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce