On Monday, October 21st, Joe de Bruyn, trade union heavyweight, former National President of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, former member of the National Executive of the Australian Labor Party, committed Catholic, was awarded an honorary doctorate at the Australian Catholic University. As is customary, he was also invited to deliver the occasional address to the students, their parents and their guests at the graduation ceremony.
After briefly congratulating the graduates, Mr. de Bruyn spent virtually the remainer of his address in recounting his own personal history in promoting and defending Catholic values in the trade union and political arenas. He spoke specifically of abortion, of access to IVF and of same sex marriage. Even though in each instance he confessed that his efforts to promote Catholic values were unsuccessful, nonetheless in concluding he urged the graduates not to be deterred from being as outspoken as he had been in defending and promoting Catholic values in their subsequent professional and personal lives.
Apparently, his advocacy of these Catholic values in a graduation address antagonised many of his audience, both students, staff, parents and guests, and they showed their disapproval by leaving the auditorium. The University was embarrassed by the walkout and attempted subsequently to alleviate the distress by returning graduation fees to the students and offering counselling to them and to their guests. The University had been aware of the content of Mr. de Bruyn’s address prior to its delivery and had suggested that he edit and moderate some of his more outspoken remarks, but all to no avail. Neither the Chancellor nor the Vice-Chancellor attended the graduation.
In the aftermath there has been a strong defence of Mr. de Bruyn’s right to speak on these matters in a graduation address and strong criticism of the University’s reactions, mainly from the conservative commentariat of the Australian newspaper and the officers of the Sydney Catholic Archdiocese, many of whom are still in thrall to the legacy of Cardinal George Pell, who had at times been a strong critic of ACU and its failure to be more upfront in promoting Catholic values. Both the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, Peter Comensoli, and the new Ukrainian Cardinal-designate, Mykola Bychok, also weighed in subsequently in defending Mr. de Bruyn’s right to address these matters even in the context of a graduation address.
It has been an unfortunate incident, driving a (further) wedge between the University and official Church authorities. Mr. de Bruyn and his supporters have continued to defend his right to speak on these matters in a graduation address, and the University has not resiled from its belief that, at least in the context of a graduation address at a public university, it was inappropriate to address these topics which continue to be controverted not only generally but even in some Catholic circles. It regretted that, if one disagreed with Mr de Bruyn, there was no alternative to express one’s disagreement except by leaving the auditorium. But this would also mean foregoing a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to celebrate one’s graduation or that of one’s offspring or friend.
I have lectured and tutored in moral philosophy and bioethics at three different universities, I have been a member of over twenty clinical and human research ethics committees in universities, hospitals and research centres., and for most of the past fifty years I have lived as a priest cheek by jowl with university students in four different university colleges, and I must admit that as a result of those experiences I was not surprised by the audience’s reaction to Mr. de Bruyn’s address. I have come to appreciate that one cannot profitably explore with students (and, indeed, with their elders) the topics of Mr. de Bruyn’s address except in a context where there is a right to reply and where there is an opportunity to put an alternative point of view. To pontificate from the lectern or the pulpit is a recipe for disaster.
And there are further dimensions to the topics which Mr. de Bruyn addressed which would have made that address even less credible and attractive and likely to antagonise many of his audience, especially, I suspect, the students.
The first of these is that Mr. de Bruyn is a male. It is increasingly difficult for a man to speak credibly on abortion. Abortion is ineluctably women’s business. I suspect that in this day and age only a woman who has undergone abortion or a woman who has resisted the temptation to abort can speak credibly on abortion.
The second of these dimensions which limited Mr de Bruyn’s ability to speak credibly on the sexuality-related topics is the fact that he spoke as a committed member of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, for many students, even Catholics, the Catholic Church is viewed as an insensitive and authoritarian institution. Edicts from on high, especially on matters sexual, are given scant respect, particularly if they are issued from the pulpit and the lectern without the opportunity for debate and discussion.
The third dimension that diluted Mr. de Bruyn’s credibility is that the matters that he addressed relate, primarily at least, to women. For much too long the official Church has treated women as second-class citizens. Anything the official Church says about women is likely to be taken with a large grain of salt, and that not only by students, of course, but especially by them.
Fourthly, this compromise of his credibility is further compounded by the fact that the matters he addressed relate specifically to women’s bodies. Despite the fact that the Church is often perceived as authoritarian and irrelevant, despite its long-term inability to come to terms with the female mystique and treat women as equal, a male celibate clergy has never hesitated to pontificate on aspects of women’s bodies and women’s sexuality – even apart from abortion, there is contraception, reproductive technology, same sex marriage, gender diversity. It is not surprising if a younger generation in particular find these pontifications unconvincing and those who advocate them unpersuasive.
And finally, of course, there is what every Catholic spokesperson has to deal with, especially if he or she is unwise enough to enter the field of sexual ethics. There continues to loom large the spectre of pedophilia, the sexual abuse of children by clergy and the subsequent efforts of the Catholic hierarchy to protect the Church’s reputation by covering-up and minimising the incidence of these crimes.
Now, these five limitations of the Church’s credibility in these sexuality-related matters does not mean that there are not contexts where these highly contentious matters should not be addressed and what is relevant and cogent in the Church’s teaching should not be elaborated, promoted and defended. Mr. de Bruyn himself, as he reported in his address, has given eloquent witness to these values in trade union and party-political contexts. But I suspect that these were contexts where alternative points of view were accessible, and the matters were subject to debate. I cannot but have serious doubts, however, that a graduation address to students, their parents and guests at a public university is such an appropriate context. Perhaps there are still confessional Catholic tertiary institutions where a committed Catholic speaker will not labour under the five credibility compromises that have been outlined – perhaps Campion College in Sydney where Mr. de Bruyn was a board member is one of these. But I suspect the Australian Catholic University is not such an institution. It accepts students of all faiths and none. It is committed to engaging in non-confessional terms with the wider tertiary sector and the staff and students that people it. Granted that, a confessional graduation address must at best appear anomalous, at worst il-advised.
I am not surprised there was a walkout.
Bill Uren SJ AO is a Jesuit Priest, Scholar in Residence at Newman College at the University of Melbourne. He has lectured in moral philosophy and bioethics at the Universities of Melbourne, Murdoch and Queensland, and has served on over a dozen clinical and research ethics committees in universities, hospitals and research institutes.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
