When threats replace debate on the question of stem cells

Cardinal George Pell was not the only leading Australian Catholic who threatened "consequences" for Catholic MPs who voted for stem cell legislation. Perth Archbishop Barry Hickey went further than Cardinal Pell. He not only asserted that Catholic politicians supporting stem cell research should be excluded from holy communion - he added the threat of excommunication.

The statements of Cardinal Pell and Archbishop Hickey are now to be considered by the Privileges Committees in their respective states.

In NSW we saw a number of MPs on on both sides of the debate strongly disagree with Cardinal Pell's attempts to boost the number of No votes by speaking of “consequences” for any Catholic MP who backed the stem cell legislation.

In Western Australia the Speaker of the Parliament, Fred Riebeling, stated that the Archbishop’s words "were threatening".  

Archbishop Hickey had stated, "Catholics who vote for the cloning of embryos destined for destruction are acting against the teaching of the church on a very serious matter and they should, in conscience, not vote that way, but if they do in conscience they should not go to communion".

As the debate unfolded, Mr Riebeling commented on the Archbishop’s statement. "He has said he didn't make a threat. I think he's the only person in Australia that doesn't think that."

I will watch with interest how the WA inquiry proceeds. In NSW it was pleasing that the new President of the Upper House Peter Primrose agreed to a Greens request to ask the Privileges Committee to investigate the comments of Archbishop Pell on the stem cell debate.

When I asked my Catholic friends about these developments they said that the Cardinal's muscular Catholicism was nothing new. Cardinal Pell has used his position to refuse communion in the past. In 1998 as archbishop of Melbourne, he would not give the sacrament to homosexual activists wearing rainbow-coloured sashes. He offered them a blessing instead.

The response to the Greens request that the Privileges Committee consider if Cardinal Pell was in contempt of parliament elicited an unsurprising comment from those fellow travellers Daily Telegraph reporter Joe Hilderbrand and Opposition leader Barry O'Farrell. They labelled the inquiry a "stunt". I wonder if they would use the same language for the WA inquiry.

Mr Hilderbrand became quite excitable when he described the work of the Privileges Committee. He detailed plans "to have the highest ranking Australian Catholic interrogated". Considering the Committee has not yet met and so there are no plans in place to call the Archbishop before the Committee I was left wondering where this Telegraph journalist gathers his version of the news.

Accuracy also deserted this article (unfortunately not on line - Daily Telegraph P2 16 June 2007) when Mr Hilderbrand resorted to the murky allegation that the Greens want to "muzzle" the Cardinal. This charge was not levelled at all those other MPs who took exception to Cardinal Pell attempting to meddle in their religious life to gain a bit of leverage in the battle for votes.

Although it is obvious I am happy to restate what I have said in numerous interviews. Cardinal Pell obviously has a right to be part of the debate about the stem cell legislation. But to threaten MPs with consequences for their religious life should not have happened.

The Cardinal obviously liked the Telegraph "muzzle" line. In today’s SMH he has embellished it stating that there is a "whiff of Stalinism" about the Inquiry. Surely freedom of speech extends to parliamentary inquiries. Maybe the Telegraph could run a report about Cardinal tries to "muzzle parliamentary inquiry".

The good news is that it looks like the stem cell legislation will pass through the NSW Upper House. The religious right will try and amend the legislation in what will be presented as a compromise but I doubt it those tactics will fool anyone.

The debate on the stem cell legislation is expected to start in the NSW Upper House on Tuesday 19 June 2007.