No, but the history is on the public record.
It shows that after he created a stir the first time and was warned, he entered into new contract negotiations.
I posted an article (here) which characterises Folau being 'at peace' with, at times, difficult negotiations.
He signed the agreement and it beggars belief that he did so not knowing about the obligations that came with that agreement.
Clearly his views about homosexuals didn't change so it stands to reason that he decided that complying with the contract was a price he was willing to pay.
He then broke the agreement by doing exactly what caused the problem in the first place. Again, he must have known the likely consequences. He placed his employer in an untenable situation and they terminated, after seeking independent advice, his contract.
His actions, in breaking the contract, were unprincipled and immoral. The actions he took to bring on this crisis were discretionary, it is not an article of faith that members of his denomination, much less 'true' Catholics, are required to act in this way as an expression of their religious beliefs.
Responses « Back to index | View thread »