John Warhurst | Calvary Hospital acquisition a true battle between church and state

The church has declared that it will fight the decision and not lie down, setting up a campaign team and launching a "Save Calvary Hospital" petition. Given the defiant response of the Catholic leadership, such a test might once have been seen as a case of an irresistible force, the church, versus an immovable object, the government. The test for the church is whether such a characterisation still contains any truth.

The recent political record of the Catholic Church in the ACT is poor. The territory voted strongly for same sex marriage in 2017 against official church advice. Church leaders strenuously opposed the introduction of euthanasia in the territory to no avail, and in the 2022 federal election, its favourite son, Zed Seselja, lost his Senate seat to a campaign for, among other things, territory rights and stronger local representation by popular independent candidate David Pocock. The question now is whether it can mount a successful last stand under the rallying call "enough is enough".

The context for the church campaign is unfavourable. Once a very Catholic city, built on a disproportionate number of Catholics in the Commonwealth public service, Canberra is now the most secular of Australian jurisdictions. This was confirmed by the 2022 census which showed a higher number of no religion citizens in Canberra than anywhere else.

The church has also been weakened because affiliation is in steep decline, despite successful Catholic schools. Those who remain are divided. There is a core of traditional, committed orthodox Catholics, but also a lack of trust in church leadership among those seeking urgent church reform and those opposed to recent church amalgamations and cuts to church services. Both these groups are ageing. The large influx of Catholics in Indian and Asian immigrant communities is new to both the church and local politics. Whether the Archdiocesan leadership can mobilise this whole divided Catholic community behind this church campaign is highly problematic.

The campaign itself, couched in high voltage language such as "madness" and "dictatorial", contains several main elements.

The first frames the government action as another general attack on religious freedom and the rights of faith-based bodies. It points to the Assembly health committee report in April which accused Calvary in relation to abortion of restricting medical services, "due to an overriding religious ethos".

The second defends the record of Calvary Hospital's general service to the community and scorns the "incompetent" government management of health services and damns the comparable record of the Canberra Hospital.

The third appeals to a broader constituency on the grounds that "Australia is a free and fair country. But for how long?" Campaign headquarters asks, in explosive language, "Who is next? What other faith groups, welfare agencies, educational institutions, and community organisations are in the ACT government gun? When will the trigger be pulled?"

Some of these arguments, rejected by the government, may touch a nerve in the wider community. Whether any will do so remains untested. They will need to as even the unified support of Catholics, which is unlikely, will not be enough.

The local church is not alone in its campaign, but the value of its allies is uncertain. The acting leader of the ACT Liberal opposition is strongly on side, but it is not in a competitive political position against a 21-year-old Labor-Green government. The Australian Salaried Medical Officers ACT is critical too, along with some other prominent doctors, but the Australian Medical Association supports at least some of the government's arguments.

More criticism may emerge, including among other churches and faith groups. If there is ecumenical opposition that will lift the spirits of the Catholic church, but other Christian churches have their own internal problems.

MORE JOHN WARHURST:

National support is problematic. Federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton called on the ACT government to change its mind. Former prime minister Tony Abbott claimed it is yet another assault on the church. Neither person has traction in the ACT and their opposition is more likely to be counterproductive.

Calvary CEO Martin Bowles has strongly defended the hospital and objected to being blindsided by the government. However, he heads a national organisation of which Calvary Canberra is just one small part. The Calvary national board may be more interested in moving forward under just terms than engaging in a bitter political fight.

The same is true of Catholic Heath Australia, the national Catholic health lobby, which has given generalised support for Calvary, but may not want to make the ACT a test case. It has a raft of bigger church-state problems to deal with in other parts of the country.

The biggest battalions at Archbishop Prowse's disposal might be his national and international church colleagues. In ascending order that would be the Archbishop of Sydney, Anthony Fisher, the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, presided over by Archbishop Tim Costelloe of Perth, and the Vatican, which, in 2008, vetoed the agreed sale of the hospital by the Little Company of Mary to the government.

Archbishop Fisher might. Archbishop Costelloe probably wouldn't. Archbishop Charles Balvo, the Pope's ambassador in Canberra, has a watching brief and a big file on his desk. They all know that any intervention would likely be counterproductive. It might help fight a battle, but, in 2023 in the ACT, it will not win the church-state war.