The Victorian Inquiry, “Religious Freedom,” and Why Semantics, Tradition, and History Are Poor Arguments

Semantics. Tradition. History. Three excuses that too often protect coercion.

Recently, The Catholic Weekly published an article claiming that the Victorian Inquiry into Cult Recruitment might threaten religious freedom. Their framing of issues immediately raised red flags — because when someone starts arguing about definitions instead of behaviours, it’s usually a sign they’re trying to divert attention from accountability.

As someone who was raised Catholic, I hold a genuine appreciation for the Church’s beauty, rituals, and sense of community. But I’m also acutely aware of its less-than-ideal past — and I know how language, tradition, and history can be weaponised to excuse harm. So, let’s unpack why the arguments being put forward in this debate don’t hold up.

1. Arguing About Definitions Is a Distraction

The article quotes the executive director of Freedom for Faith, who claims that defining the word cult is “almost impossible” — suggesting that any faith group could be unfairly swept up under the term.

That’s the oldest trick in the book. My daughter’s cult leader uses this tactic all the time, and seeing the Catholic Church deploy the same rhetorical move is deeply disappointing.

I also found it curious that the Catholic Church — the same institution that popularised the term “cult” centuries ago to describe its devotion to saints — is now relying on an Anglican spokesperson to criticise its use. (For those interested, I’ve written another blog about the etymology of the word “cult” and how its meaning has evolved over time.)

When someone says, “You can’t call us a cult because your definition is wrong,” they’re not engaging in good faith — they’re shifting the focus from what they’re doing to what you’re calling them.

Sure, definitions matter in law. But behaviour matters more. Coercive control, spiritual abuse, and manipulation can all be identified through observable behaviours that have measurable psychological and emotional impacts.

After hearing too many cult leaders play semantic games, I created a rubric of 12 common coercive control behaviours that can be used to assess whether a group operates as a cult. A group doesn’t need to display all 12 to qualify — even a few at high intensity can indicate high-control dynamics.

2. Tradition and History Aren’t Moral Justifications

Tradition ≠ Morality.

The Catholic Weekly piece also leans on the idea that religious institutions have existed for centuries — implying that longevity equals legitimacy. But history doesn’t make something moral.

Plenty of things were once “tradition”:

• Some Christians justified slavery.

• Marital rape was once legally acceptable.

• Child abuse in institutions was excused as “discipline.”

  
  

As our understanding of trauma grows, our laws evolve — and that’s a good thing. Tradition should never be used as a shield against progress, especially when progress protects the vulnerable.

The moment we say, “That’s just how it’s always been,” we stop growing. Healing — both individually and culturally — means updating the narrative when we learn better.

3. Calling Out Corruption Is Part of Christian History

Calling out culty behaviour in the Church isn’t anti-Christian. It’s one of the most Christian things you can do.

Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to a church door to protest corruption. Dante used his poetry to condemn clerical greed. And more recently, the Royal Commission into Institutional Abuse exposed what happens when power goes unchecked.

So, if the Catholic Church feels “under attack” during the Victorian Inquiry, that isn’t persecution — it’s accountability.

History has shown us that when religion resists scrutiny, abuse festers. When sunlight hits those dark corners, healing begins.

In this video, I discuss how the Catholic Church's response to the Victorian Inquiry into cult recruitment intersects with religious freedom and coercive control.

Where the Catholic Church Ranks on My Coercive Control Rubric

Overall, I’d grade the modern Catholic Church a 4 out of 10. This means that most parishioners generally experience reasonable freedom and personal autonomy. However, those higher up in the hierarchy are likely subjected to greater pressure, and certain Catholic sects — both past and present — would definitely rank higher.

It’s important to note that not all Christian denominations have coercive control features. Some large megachurches and small congregations operate without any whatsoever, proving that it’s not the belief system that’s the issue — more often than not, it’s the behaviour of leadership.

A Recommendation — and a Challenge

To the Catholic Church, the director of Freedom for Faith, and anyone else concerned about being scrutinised by the Inquiry: Learn the language of coercive control.Listen to cult survivor stories.And take an honest look at the power structures within your own organisation.

If your group operates like a high-control environment, the solution isn’t to argue about semantics — it’s to change your behaviour.

Be like Jesus: create spaces where everyone’s nervous system can be at peace.

The Catholic Church has faced many storms over the centuries, and I have no doubt it will weather this one too. But the difference between surviving and healing lies in transparency and accountability.

And honestly, I’d love to know what the Pope thinks about all this. If someone can pass the message along — please do.

Final Thoughts on Religious Freedom:

When semantics, tradition, and history are used to protect coercion, they stop being sacred. Religious freedom should never be an excuse to abuse.

True faith doesn’t fear scrutiny — it welcomes it.

Because light only threatens what’s hiding in the dark.