Talking about other Faiths
A Position Statement
of the
Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission
of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne
Adopted by the Commission on 16th March 2005
Talking about other Faiths
A Position Statement
of the
Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission
of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne
Adopted by the Commission on 16th March 2005
1. The Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne
(hereafter, the Commission) is concerned that when Christians speak about other
faiths they do so in a way that befits their vocation as disciples of Jesus
Christ.
2. Since 2001, when the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act came into force, it has been illegal in Victoria to speak of a person’s religion in certain ways.
3. These regulations have received much media attention as a result of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal case between The Islamic Council of Victoria and Catch The Fire Ministries, Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scot.
4. We wish to simply state what Victoria’s religious anti-vilification laws are, why some people oppose these laws, why dialogue is a most appropriate form of discourse about religion, why Christians should not find themselves in the breech of anti-vilification laws, and finally why the Catholic Church sought to make an intervention into the VCAT case on behalf of the complainants.
A. What are Victoria’s Anti-Religious Vilification laws?
1. The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 came into operation in Victoria on 1 January 2002.
2. The objects of the Act were:
“a) to promote the full and equal participation of every person in a society
that values freedom of expression and is an open and multicultural democracy;
b) to maintain the right of all Victorians to engage in robust discussion of
any matter of public interest or to engage in, or comment on, any form of artistic
expression, discussion of religious issues or academic debate where such discussion,
expression, debate or comment does not vilify or marginalise any person or class
of persons.
c) to promote conciliation and resolved tensions between persons who (as a result
of their ignorance of the attributes of others and the effect that their conduct
may have on others) vilify others on the ground of race or religious belief
or activity and those who are vilified.
3. The legislation contains two main sections. The first main
section deals with “unlawful behaviour” which may give rise to civil
complaints. Under this section, the legislation declares acts of religious vilification
unlawful in the following terms:
“A person must not, on the ground of religious belief or activity of another
person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious
contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class
of persons.”
4. Furthermore, this section of the legislation declares that “the person’s motive in engaging in any [such] conduct is irrelevant”.
5. Exemptions apply in this section of the legislation for any
conduct that was “engaged in reasonably and in good faith” as part
of
a) “the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work”
b) “any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose; or
any purpose that is in the public interest”, or
c) “in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or
matter of public interest.”
6. Also exempted from this section of the legislation is any conduct “in circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that the parties to the conduct desire it to be heard or seen only by themselves”; however any conduct in which “the parties to the conduct ought reasonably to expect that it may be heard or seen by someone else” does fall within the scope of this legislation.
7. The second main section deals with “serious vilification
offences” which attract criminal penalties. It is an offence under this
section of the legislation for a person “on the basis of religious belief
or activity of another person or class of persons”:
a) to “intentionally engage in conduct that the offender knows is likely
to incite hatred against that other person or class of persons”, or
b) to “knowingly engage in conduct with the intention of inciting serious
contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class
of persons.”
B. Why are some people calling for a repeal of Victoria’s Anti-Religious
Vilification laws?
8. Some people and groups (mostly Christian, but not exclusively)
are calling for the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act to be repealed. Among
other things, they principally oppose this legislation because they regard it
as an unconstitutional infringement on the right to free speech, including:
a) the freedom to evangelise,
b) the right to robustly defend one’s religious beliefs, and
c) the right to critique the beliefs of others.
9. Questions have also been raised about the competency of the
courts to intervene in religious disputes. In particular, this raises questions
about:
a) the “separation of Church and State”
b) the suitability of the courts as a forum for inter-religious interaction
c) whether or not using an adversarial legal approach will achieve the objectives
of the legislation itself, ie. greater public harmony.
10. Many of those who oppose the Victorian anti-religious vilification laws do so on the basis that they feel that, by its nature, religious conduct has the ability to offend those who do not share the religious viewpoint of those engaging in the conduct.
11. Others raise specifically legal questions about the framing of the legislation, such as the difficulty in defining what “reasonable and in good faith” means.
12. In making this position statement, the Commission is not making a wholesale endorsement of the law remaining as it is; however, we do believe that the objectives of the law are worthy, that all religious discussions should be conducted in an objective and appropriate way, and that the sort of activities and speech that is barred by the law are not the sort of activity or speech in which Christians should be involved.
C. Dialogue as an appropriate and recommended method of religious discourse
17. Laws prohibiting religious vilification raise the question of appropriate methods of Christian discourse with regard to other religions.
18. Christians have traditionally used a number of ways to give account of their hope in Jesus Christ with “gentleness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15): these include proclamation, teaching, testimony, and apologetics (ie. the defence of the faith). Also much utilised since apostolic times is the practice of dialogue. The Commission promotes the practice of dialogue between people of differing religious belief.
19. The Second Vatican Council exhorted Catholics to engage in dialogue with those of other faiths:
“The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognise, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.” (Nostra Aetate 2)
20. The directives of the Council for ecumenical dialogue (between Christians), which apply also to those engaging in dialogue with those of other faiths, make clear that dialogue is not intended to obscure but to clarify the truth of the Catholic faith:
“The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded. Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility.” (Unitatis Redintegratio 11)
21. Dialogue includes many different facets, including
a) the dialogue of life, where people of different belief mingle
and meet; e.g. neighbours, workmates, fellow students, friends, marriage;
b) the dialogue of cooperation, where they engage in common tasks; e.g. peace
projects, raising money, political parties, soup kitchens;
c) the dialogue of experts who explore their respective traditions in a more
academic fashion; e.g. conferences, discussions;
d) the dialogue of religious experience, where people share at the deepest level;
e.g. visiting each other places of worship or religious practice, shared retreats,
being silent together.
22. Dialogue with people of different faith requires a knowledge of one’s own faith, and both humility and openness to the spiritual depths of the other person’s faith. While dialogue is not about finding a “lowest-common-denominator” of belief or a blurring of distinctions, it does demand that there should be no fear, no arrogance, no domination, and no exclusion in the discussion. It presumes a sense of adventure, a wish to work for the future, and a sensitivity to the infinite mystery of God.
23. In particular, the Second Vatican Council required of Catholics
engaging in dialogue that they recognise the human dignity of the dialogue partner:
“Respect and love ought to be extended also to those who think or act
differently than we do in social, political and even religious matters. In fact,
the more deeply we come to understand their ways of thinking through such courtesy
and love, the more easily will we be able to enter into dialogue with them.”
(Gaudium et Spes 28)
“With respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's intent.” (Gaudium et Spes 29)
24. Moreover, when Catholics engage in discussion with those of other faiths, or in discourse about other faiths, justice obliges them to acknowledge what real value there is in these other faiths:
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself (Cf 2 Cor. 5:18-19).” (Nostra Aetate 2)
25. Pope John Paul II has repeatedly addressed these issues in concrete situations where religious harmony is essential for the good of society. For instance, on 13 May 2003, he told the Syro-Malabar bishops of India on the occasion of their "Ad limina" visit:
“Authentic evangelisation is sensitive to local culture and custom, always respecting the "inalienable right" of each and every person to religious freedom. Here the principle remains valid: "The Church proposes, she imposes nothing" (Redemptoris Missio, 39). Therefore, in your relations with your brothers and sisters of other religions, I encourage you to "strive to discern and welcome whatever is good and holy in one another, so that together you can acknowledge, preserve and promote the spiritual and moral truths which alone guarantee the world's future" (cf. Address to Religious Leaders in India, 7 Nov. 1999, 3). This openness, however, can never diminish the obligation to proclaim Jesus Christ as "the way, and the truth and the life" (Jn 14:6). For the Incarnation of our Lord enriches all human values, enabling them to bear new and better fruit.”
26. The Commission therefore believes that dialogue should
be central to every form of Christian discourse on the beliefs of others; in
our proclamation, teaching, testimony and (especially) apologetics, our discourse
should be informed, sensitive, honest, and respectful of those who hold views
that differ from ours.
D. Why Christians should never find themselves in breach of the Anti-Religious Vilification laws of Victoria
27. The Commission understands that some have concerns about Victoria’s anti-religious vilification laws, and also acknowledges that legal opinion as to the quality of the legislation may differ. This statement is not intended to defend or approve of legislation as such, but rather to show that Christians, engaging in proper Christian conduct, should have no fear of ever finding themselves in breach of this legislation.
28. In particular the Commission has doubts about the advisability of taking disputes over religious matters into the courts of the state. Whenever possible Christians should heed Christ’s injunction to settle disputes peacefully in “out of court” circumstances (Matthew 5:25).
29. However, Christians should not regard the Victorian law as an infringement of their freedom to communicate the Christian faith, since the Christian’s own standards of just and ethical conduct should already preclude any activities of the kind forbidden by this legislation.
30. Jesus’ own commands, and the teaching of the apostles, exclude activity that could be said to vilify others. The following passages make this clear:
“But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire.” (Matthew 5:22)
“Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbour’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:1-3)
“In everything do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Matthew 7:12)
“So then, putting away falsehood, let all of us speak the truth to our neighbours, for we are members of one another.” (Ephesians 4:25)
31. Moreover, in any discourse about others, Christians will be guided by the Eighth commandment, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour”. The following passages from the Catechism of the Catholic Church make clear what type of speech is prohibited by this commandment:
2464 The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others.
2469 The virtue of truth gives another his just due. Truthfulness keeps to the just mean between what ought to be expressed and what ought to be kept secret: it entails honesty and discretion.
2475 Christ's disciples have "put on the new man, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness" [Eph 4:24]. By "putting away falsehood," they are to "put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander" [Eph 4:25; 1 Pet 2:1].
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude
and word likely to cause them unjust injury [cf. CIC, can. 220]. He becomes
guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation,
the moral fault of a neighbour;
- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults
and failings to persons who did not know them [cf. Sir 21:28] ;
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of
others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbour's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favourable way:
" Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favourable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved." [St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, 22]
2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honour of one's neighbour. Honour is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honour of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.
2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.
32. Some have pointed to various instances when the words or actions of Jesus or the apostles seem to verge on vilification (eg. Matthew 23:27,33; John 8:44; Jude 10-13 and 2 Peter 2:17-22). The extent to which we can use the example (as distinct from the teaching) of our Lord and the apostles as guidance in this matter is limited by the different contexts in which our discourse is conducted. A certain form of conduct in one setting will often convey a totally different meaning in another setting. In this way, certain modes of negative discourse, eg. name-calling and insult, which may have been acceptable in the past are not deemed to be so today.
33. When Christians do find it necessary to make robust statements about the faith of others, it is important that this is done, as the law of the state suggests “reasonably and in good faith”. Since it is difficult to know what this means legally, it is useful to consider how Judge Higgins of VCAT defined it in his detailed summation of the ICV v. CTF case:
“A person…will act in good faith if he or she is subjectively honest, and, objectively viewed, has taken a conscientious approach to advancing the exercising of that freedom in a way that is designed to minimise the offence or insult, humiliation or intimidation suffered by people affected by it… On the other hand, a person who exercises the freedom carelessly disregarding or wilfully blind to its effect upon people who will be hurt by it or in such a way as to enhance that hurt may be found not to have been acting in good faith… With regard to the test of reasonableness, this is defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as "agreeable to reason; not irrational, absurd or ridiculous, not going beyond the limit assigned by reason, not extravagant or excessive; moderate". The adverb "reasonably" is defined as "in a reasonable manner, sufficiently, fairly”.”
An example is also given:
“An act is done reasonably in relation to statements, publications, discussions or debates for genuine academic, artistic or scientific purposes, if it bears a rational relationship to those purposes. The publication of a genuine scientific paper on the topic of genetic differences between particular human populations might, for one reason or another, be insulting or offensive to a group of people. Its discussion at a scientific conference would no doubt be reasonable. Its presentation to a meeting convened by a racist organisation and its use to support a view that a particular group of persons is morally or otherwise 'inferior' to another by reason of their race or ethnicity, may not be a thing reasonably done.”
34. In addition to refraining from speech or action which might
vilify others, Christians will also come to the defence of any who may have
been victims of vilification. This is in accord with Jesus’ answer to
the question “Who is my neighbour?” (Luke 10:29-37). Such an act
of defence is not to be construed as the Church’s endorsement of the beliefs
of the victim (which may have been the subject of the vilifying statements),
but rather as an act of Christian mercy and justice.
E. Why the Commission supported the Complainant in the case Islamic Community Council vs Catch the Fire Ministries
35. The case of the Islamic Council of Victoria vs Catch the Fire Ministries was the first to come before the Tribunal.
36. Fr Patrick McInerney, a Columban priest from Sydney, appeared as an expert witness on behalf of the Islamic Council. Furthermore, Fr Peter Kenny, the Episcopal Vicar for Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations of the Archdiocese of Melbourne, sought to make an intervention on behalf of the Islamic Council of Victoria. The Uniting Church also sought to make such an intervention. Dr Gary Bouma, an Anglican priest, appeared as an expert witness on behalf of the ICV.
37. Many Catholics and other Christians have asked why Christian witnesses were appearing in court supporting non-Christians against another Christian group.
38. For our own part, we can say that Fr Peter Kenny, after consulting with the Commission, sought to make a written intervention in the case because it was believed that Muslims in Victoria had indeed been vilified by the activities of Catch the Fire Ministries. This opinion was justified on the basis of the transcript of the Seminar and the newsletter and website articles that were at the centre of the case. It was believed that any reasonable person reading this material would come to the same conclusion—an opinion which the finding of Judge Higgins eventually bore out.
39. Catholics in Victoria will be able to remember a time not so long ago when it was common for the Catholic Church to be the object of similar vilification. Indeed, anti-Catholic vilification still occurs in some corners of our society. Our sympathies therefore naturally lie with any who find themselves victims of such conduct. In standing with them in such situations we are seeking to act as neighbours to those in need (Luke 10:36). We do not first ask what the faith or belief of our neighbour is when we see them in such need, but rather we ask what justice, kindness and humility require of us (Micah 6:8).
40. The intention of the Catholic intervention into the case was to show the respect the Catholic Church has towards Islam. We wished to show our respect in the face of possible vilification, in accordance with “the official policy of the universal Catholic Church which…urges [Catholics] to “acknowledge, preserve, and encourage the spiritual and moral truths found among [Muslims], also their social life and culture”.
41. The intervention stated that:
"The Catholic Church welcomes robust debate and does not deny the now classical points of theological disagreement [between Muslims and Christians] but we are concerned at the implications of the comments made by “Catch the Fire” etc. for the progress of interfaith dialogue to which the Catholic Church is fundamentally and formally committed. We would feel thwarted if such statements prevented people of good faith from entering into reasonable and constructive dialogue. Indeed we wish in every way to develop and deepen the friendship, which already exists between the Catholic Church and the Muslim Community."
42. In all likelihood, attacks against Islam and the Muslim community,
and against other religions and faith communities, will continue despite the
legislation in Victoria. Although the Catholic Intervention, like the intervention
of the Uniting Church, was not accepted by the Tribunal, the Commission is of
the opinion that if the Archdiocese had not sought to make an intervention during
the case we would be hard placed to come forward offering support after it was
over. Although unsuccessful, the attempt at intervention was seen by the Muslim
complainants as support for their community in a time when they were under attack.
We are now able to continue to provide this support, which Archbishop Hart has
guaranteed to the Muslim community.
Download document in PDF format
We welcome feedback on this document. Please contact our Office if you wish to comment on this statement
Return to Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission Publications page