Category: Public square

Britainâ??s democracy has stood out among nations both by its tolerance and its traditional respect for the value of religion in the public sphere. These are not principles in contradiction. Indeed British democracy has been exemplary precisely because these two principles are mutually reinforcing. There is no room for intolerant secular dogmatism or cynicism towards Christians. But I fear we may be seeing now exactly the appearance of such attitudes. So when Christians stand by their beliefs, they are intolerant dogmatists. When they sin, they are hypocrites. When they take the side of the poor, they are soft-headed liberals. When they seek to defend the family, they are right-wing reactionaries.

I do not think it an accident that this new secularist intolerance of religion has been accompanied by the stateâ??s increasing acceptance of anti-religious thinking. There is a modern British law, not actually on the statute book but widely observed, that politicians, in the famous words of Alistair Campbell, â??donâ??t do Godâ??. Politicians should stay clear of religion, and treat all religions alike. They are free to believe what they like, because the state â??has no beliefsâ??.

What looks like liberality is in reality a radical exclusion of religion from the public sphere, and such an exclusion does deep harm to the tolerance and inclusivity which has worked so well for so long. Yet this doesnâ??t sit easily with what the state often wants from religion. If one looks at Catholic schools, for example, one cannot deny that they are among the most popular schools in British society. Most of them are over-subscribed, they work hard at integrating pupils and are among the most socially diverse. Where they can, they are happy to receive a significant number of people from other faiths â?? or from none. Whenever I meet politicians, of whichever particular party persuasion, they invariably comment on how much admired our Catholic schools are. But I always say to them, â??You cannot have the fruits without the rootsâ??. Catholic schools are rightly recognised as gems in our education system but we must bear in mind that they are underpinned by a community of faith lived by ordinary families, families who are happy to contribute to the common good of our society. Remove the faith which motivates those parentsâ?? choice of a school and you remove the heart from those very schools.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-Oâ??Connor RELIGION AND THE PUBLIC FORUM â?? the Corbishley Lecture, 28 March 2007, Westminster Cathedral Hall. the full lecture is a Word document at the bottom of the page

Well roared, Cormac. Now what coverage has this speech received?

If modern Britain faces a challenge today, it is to recover the language and the spirit of the age of democracy, to forge a meeting place for all citizens where firmly-held beliefs are not disqualified because they are seen as â??outmodedâ?? or â??dogmaticâ??. The public sphere is the forum of collective reasoning, and it cannot be a space empty of tradition and particular belief. A tolerant society is not one without constitutive beliefs, since its tolerance flows from a very constitutive belief.

Pope Benedict rightly emphasises the use of reason. Reason informs discussion and reasonable decisions. The public sphere is the locus of a discussion in which society seeks a common mind about important matters. The importance of religion to that discussion is vital, because religion is, fundamentally, concerned with truth. Truth is not something we construct, but something we seek together. The right to religious freedom and to respect for the exercise of conscience on its journey towards the truth has been increasingly recognised as the foundation of the cumulative rights of the person. There can only be a democratic discussion when truth is a matter of universal concern. That is why freedom of religion cannot be a relative value. Freedom of religion is not unconditional, of course; but it cannot be made relative to other rights on the grounds that truth is not the concern of the state. A state which denies the freedom of religion is not a religiously neutral state, but a state which upholds relativism. Relativism takes its stand on a desire for equal treatment of different beliefs in the conviction that these beliefs are relative. Yet, in contradictory fashion, it does so because of a belief in human equality and dignity, which are not relative values. Relativism is no friend of true democracy. By banishing religion from the public sphere in the name of equality, it discounts religious perspectives from debate, banishes truth to a private sphere, labels it â??religiousâ?? and infers it to be irrational, and solidifies disagreements into divergent strands of belief. Debate is thereby impoverished, and democracy weakened.

The assertion of truth is not an obstacle to freedom but its precondition. If we allow religious perspectives in debate, we can discuss issues about truth on the basis of reason. We can search for the truth together, using reason in freedom.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-Oâ??Connor RELIGION AND THE PUBLIC FORUM â?? the Corbishley Lecture, 28 March 2007, Westminster Cathedral Hall. (The full lecture is a Word document at the bottom of the page).

The secular state, which we now risk adopting in Britain seeks a politics entirely independent of religion, in which religious principles have nothing to say in the â??realâ?? world of political action. The choice of the State to side with the secular is said to be neutrality; and it is usually justified by an appeal to equality. But this is in itself ideology, divorcing religion from the public realm on the pretext that religion is divisive. This sets up great tensions in society. The more determinedly secular a state becomes, the more pressure mounts for religious beliefs to assert themselves. We then no longer have a common search for truth on the basis of shared reason, but a series of monologues in which each side excludes the other. People talk past each other. There is little reasoned thinking. There is no adequate civil discourse. Society is then at risk of the fragmentation of its moral structure.

The Church claims only its legitimate part in the political process â?? to assist the very reasoning which is fundamental to the pursuit of justice. The Churchâ??s task is not to propose technical solutions to questions of governance or economic activity, but to help to form a social culture based on justice, solidarity and truth, for the common good. That is a culture that can form the kind of people who can develop those solutions against a transcendent moral horizon. The Churchâ??s task is of nurturing, to assist a public debate that is tolerant, reasoned and inclusive, but within a moral framework which seeks to defend and promote justice and human flourishing.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor The freedom to believe and the freedom to serve the common good – the Corbishley Lecture

Pope Benedict gave an unsparing account of European cultural collapse in his talk to participants in a Rome conference marking the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome: the pact that led to the establishment of the European Union. The conference was organized by the Commission of European Episcopal Conferences (COMECE), and centered on the theme of “Values and Perspectives for Europe’s Future.”

The Pope seized upon that theme, demanding that European leaders recognize the crisis that has been created by the failure to embrace the spiritual and cultural heritage of their continent. His speech reflected his dismay that the Rome Declaration, issued to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Rome treaty, did not mention the influence of Christianity.

Pope Benedict stated flatly that “it is unthinkable that we can build an authentic common European house by disregarding the identities of the peoples of this continent of ours. It is an historical, cultural and moral identity even before it is a geographic, economic or political reality. It is an identity built on a set of universal values in which Christianity played a role in molding them, which gives it a role that is not only historical but also foundational vis-à-vis Europe.”

It appears, the Holy Father said, “that the European continent is losing confidence in its future.” As a result, he said, the European Union “seems to be on a path that might lead to its twilight in history.”

Pope Benedict to the Commission of European Episcopal Conferences

The Commission of the Bishops Conferences itself produced a more anodyne statement.

We follow with great interest the dialogue between the heads of State and Government, the President of the European Parliament and the President of the European Commission, seeking a shared solution which will allow us to come through the present period of reflection in Europe. We hope that whatever the institutional solution that is found, it safeguards human dignity and the values which flow from it, such as freedom of religion in all its aspects. It must protect the institutional rights of Churches and of faith communities. It should also explicitly recognise the Christian heritage of our continent. It is through a dialogue on and for the common good of our citizens that we shall best contribute to that strong social cohesion which, today, is so important and so necessary for Europe.

As Christians, in our communities, in our associations and movements, we will contribute with our commitment to promote those initiatives which authentically respect human nature created in the image and likeness of God, as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, and thus promote authentically reconciliation, freedom, peace, solidarity, subsidiarity and justice. In the process of the continentâ??s integration, as recalled by Pope John Paul II, â??it is of capital importance to remember that the union will lack substance if it is reduced to its merely geographic and economic dimensions; rather, it must consist above all in an agreement about the values which must find expression in its law and in its lifeâ?? (Ecclesia in Europa, 110).

The statement was short on theology and ended by commending Europe to the Virgin Mary, but the Commission of the Bishops Conferences tried and perhaps that is the main thing. Now to get conferences of bishops in the UK, Anglican or Catholic, to produce some sort of statement.

THE vote by 168 to 122 in the House of Lord’s tonight (21 March) in favour of the Government’s Equality Act (Sexual Orientation Regulations) 2007 marks the imposition of a new morality.

It is a clear sign that despite saying they were going to consult and listen the Government has failed to respect the consciences of citizens whose values are formed and shaped by their deeply held religious beliefs, be they Christian, Muslim or Jewish. This could have been easily resolved by a simple conscience clause.

In a week where the whole country celebrates the 200th anniversary off the Abolition of Slavery, brought about, by and large, through the determined efforts of William Wilberforce, we would do well to remember his driving force and motivation stemmed from his Christian conviction. History will record that today’s vote marked the increased secularisation of Britain confining faith to private thought, rather than public manifestation in works of service for the whole community.

The consequences and implications of the SORs will unfold month by month. The result of the vote will mean that rather than balancing rights, the right to live a homosexual lifestyle will trump the right to live a Christian lifestyle. Many Christians will be affected by this new law.

Andrea Williams Christian Concern for Our Nation

Here is CARE‘s statement of two weeks ago

SECULARISATION MASQUERADING AS EQUALITIES SAYS CARE

Christian charity CARE has reacted with concern to the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ attempt to redefine what is meant by religious liberty in its highly controversial report published yesterday.

‘The committee is effectively making the case that religious freedom, as per Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, is about belief in one’s head and the freedom to worship in religious buildings. Thereafter, if ever there is a conflict between manifestation of religious belief and any other right like sexual orientation, there is a first principle assumption that religious freedom is the category that must be compromised.

Daniel Boucher director of parliamentary affairs continued, ‘The truth is that the heart of the Christian faith and freedom to practice that faith has never been restricted to beliefs in one’s head or prayer meetings in religious buildings. It has always been about action. The work of Christians in welfare service provision has always constituted an absolutely central part of the outworking their faith. Indeed, as the book of James makes clear, ‘faith without works is dead.’ On this basis reducing the heart of religious freedom down to beliefs in one’s head and prayer meetings in religious buildings does not even constitute the erosion of religious freedom but in a very real sense its negation.

Although the report is ostensibly about sexual orientation rights, it reads rather more as a secularists bid to reduce religious freedom masquerading as support for gay rights. The truth is that any credible definition of religious freedom must embrace a respect for practice which whilst not absolute (See Article 9 (2)), is not overruled as a matter of course whenever there is a conflict with another right.’

This was the week that the leadership of the Catholic Church in England and Wales disgraced itself. Pope Benedict XVI issued one of the most significant documents written by a pontiff for many years â?? and the English bishopsâ?? â??communications networkâ?? effectively killed the story.

Real anger is building up in the parishes over the bishopsâ?? behaviour, which led to the document â?? Sacramentum Caritatis – a historic, 60-page statement on the Eucharist and the Liturgy â?? receiving minimal coverage in most secular newspapers.

Why did the Bishops of England and Wales keep silent? Inevitably, conspiracy theories are already forming, suggesting that they didnâ??t like the contents of the document. And Iâ??m sure that some of them didnâ??t. Pope Benedict calls for all new priests to be trained to say the new rite of Mass in Latin â?? he has yet to pronounce on the future of the Old Rite â?? and for a return to Gregorian chant. He also seems to shut the door on the prospect of married priests. Not the sort of thing that the English Churchâ??s right-on employees like to promulgate.

But those are side issues. The real point of Sacramentum Caritatis (Sacrament of Love) was its fabulously lucid and intellectually daring synthesis of Catholic teaching on the centre of the Churchâ??s life â?? the Eucharist, or Holy Communion. Reading the exhortation, I was awestruck by the quality of Benedictâ??s thinking: this is the most intellectually gifted pope for centuries.

Damian Thompson Shameful silencing of the Pope

If you want to know before your friends do what may well be one of the major questions of the 21st century, keep your eye on two new documents. The first is the Berlin Declaration to be released by E.U. President Angela Merkel within the month. The second is the Brussels Declaration, a statement by prominent European academicians, community leaders, and national and European politicians, which disagrees with the tenets included in the Berlin Declaration and which has already been released in response to it.

The Brussels Declaration makes two points: First, that the ideal environment for all religions is not the theocratic state — the state that defines itself as identified by some single religion — but the secular state. Secondly, the Brussels Declaration points out that secularism and atheism are not synonyms. The secular state, the document argues, is not anti-religion. It is not atheistic. It is, instead, anti-establishmentarianism. It identifies itself with no particular religion and so it privileges no single religion. As a result, the document declares, it protects the right of all religions to practice without recrimination.

Joan Chittister Christian, Secular or Something Else Entirely
and see Secular values for Europe

Here is a little from the Brussel Declaration:

Freedom of Religion or Belief

For many people, their religion or belief is a profoundly important part of their life and of their personal identity. There can be no laws restricting freedom of belief, but freedom of religion does not extend to practices which could harm the rights of others. Freedom of religion includes the right to change oneâ??s religion or belief, or to reject religion entirely.

Europeans are free to practise their religion in any way they choose provided their practice conforms to the law.

There is no conflict between freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief. Attempts to outlaw defamation of religion are misplaced. It is the believer not the belief that needs protection. People and property are already protected by law. Religions and beliefs per se need no other protection and all demands for such protection should be rejected. Defamation of religious believers should be treated in the same manner as defamation of anyone else.

No institution should be immune from criticism. The right to question any belief and to freely express oneâ??s views on any matter is a human right. Human beings have human rights, religions, beliefs and ideas do not.

In the words of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, â??Problems arise when authorities try to use religion for their own ends, or when religions try to abuse the state for the purpose of achieving their objectivesâ??.

State Neutrality in Matters of Religion and Belief

No religion or belief should suffer discrimination compared to any other, nor should any religion or belief be especially privileged, for to privilege one is to discriminate against all others.

State neutrality in matters of religion is the only means by which the rights of all, believers and non-believers alike, can be protected. The neutrality of the state therefore needs to be constitutionally guaranteed.

State neutrality does not free religious groups from their obligation to abide by the law. Incitement to violence, for example, cannot be permitted on the grounds of religious freedom.

Those who seek to reintroduce religious privilege into public life frequently but wrongly equate the secular state with an atheist state, but secularism is not atheism. The secular state is neutral in matters of religion and belief, favouring none and discriminating against none. Only the secular state can guarantee the equal treatment of all citizens.

Democrats, of whatever religious persuasion, have fought to defend the secular state. Many religious are among the most stalwart defenders of secularism because they understand the danger of allowing religious privilege and discrimination to enter government and public life.

A Secular Vision for Europe

The Church isnâ??t arguing that gay parents shouldnâ??t be allowed to adopt, or even that the state shouldnâ??t place children with gay couples. As Notre Dame law professor Richard Garnett points out, the Church is merely asking for an exemptionâ??an exemption allowing it the freedom to continue to place children; an exemption that wouldnâ??t force it into the dilemma of either violating its own conscience or having to close its adoption programs.

In this case, the religious believers are clearly on the side of conscience and freedom, while secular liberals are promoting a state-imposed moralism that coerces everyone, at least everyone who desires to cooperate with the state for the common good. Thus, the Anglican archbishops of Canterbury and York, in solidarity with their Catholic brethren, wrote to Blair: â??The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning.â??…

From the Churchâ??s perspective, it would not be unjust for the state to prohibit the adoption of children by gay parentsâ??a child has a natural right to a mom and a dad. Itâ??s simply that in this case the governmentâ??s view is on the other side of the issue. And so the best the Church can hope for is a compromise of live and let live.

But this compromise will not be madeâ??for those on the side of gay rights, convinced of the truth of their argument, will not settle for it. Nor should they. The law doesnâ??t really imagine that Catholic adoption agencies are somehow preventing gay and lesbian couples from adopting elsewhere. The proposed law is, instead, a device to rebuke the Church, to tell the Church that its teachings about homosexuality and marriage are false, a way for gay-rights activists to attack Christianity under the mantel of nondiscrimination…

The stance that the government takes toward same-sex marriage will have implications not only for state marriage law but much elseâ??including religious liberty. Legal moralists on the left wonâ??t have it any other way.

Ryan T. Anderson Moralism and the UK Adoption Laws

And then read Maggie Gallagher on the coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty

Just how serious are the coming conflicts over religious liberty stemming from gay marriage?

“The impact will be severe and pervasive,” Picarello says flatly. “This is going to affect every aspect of church-state relations.” Recent years, he predicts, will be looked back on as a time of relative peace between church and state, one where people had the luxury of litigating cases about things like the Ten Commandments in courthouses. In times of relative peace, says Picarello, people don’t even notice that “the church is surrounded on all sides by the state; that church and state butt up against each other. The boundaries are usually peaceful, so it’s easy sometimes to forget they are there. But because marriage affects just about every area of the law, gay marriage is going to create a point of conflict at every point around the perimeter.

How much of the coming threat to religious liberty actually stems from same-sex marriage? These experts’ comments make clear that it is not only gay marriage, but also the set of ideas that leads to gay marriage–the insistence on one specific vision of gay rights–that has placed church and state on a collision course. Once sexual orientation is conceptualized as a protected status on a par with race, traditional religions that condemn homosexual conduct will face increasing legal pressures regardless of what courts and Congress do about marriage itself.

Nevertheless, marriage is a particularly potent legal “bright line.” Support for marriage is firmly established in our legal tradition and in our public policy. After it became apparent that no religious exemption would be available for Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, the church looked hard for legal avenues to continue helping kids without violating Catholic principles. If the stumbling block had been Catholic Charities’ unwillingness to place children with single people–or with gay singles–marriage might have provided a legal “safe harbor”: Catholic Charities might have been able to specialize in placing children with married couples and thus avoid collision with state laws banning orientation discrimination. After Goodridge, however, “marriage” includes gay marriage, so no such haven would have been available in Massachusetts.

Precisely because support for marriage is public policy, once marriage includes gay couples, groups who oppose gay marriage are likely to be judged in violation of public policy, triggering a host of negative consequences, including the loss of tax-exempt status. Because marriage is not a private act, but a protected public status, the legalization of gay marriage sends a strong signal that orientation is now on a par with race in the nondiscrimination game.

Maggie Gallagher Banned in Boston: The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty and see Marriage Debate for Marriage and the Law: A Statement of Principles

What if marriage really is an essential core institution of American society, a close kin in importance to private property, free speech and free enterprise, public education, equal protection of the law, and a democratic form of government? How then should law and society treat marriage?

Who would have thought that, in the early years of the twenty-first century, the most vibrant and serious field of Christian study would be the Church Fathers? But it is true. They are returning.

We certainly need their help. I teach at a Catholic university that employs hundreds of professors, and the evidence is plain to see. Only two or three scientists seem willing or able to speak about the relation between the truths of faith and the hypotheses of science. Nobody studies or teaches Dante. The extensive modern tradition of Catholic social teaching has no role to play in political science. The history department employs no one to teach the Middle Ages. Administrative initiatives consistently emphasize â??diversity,â?? and the practical effect, whether intended or not, is a slow reorientation of faculty and curriculum away from a collective focus on the Western Christian intellectual tradition. The retiring professor who specialized in Dryden and Pope is replaced by a young Ph.D. whose interests run to gender studies and postcolonial theory.

If this is happening at a self-consciously Catholic university, imagine what the situation is like at Yale and UCLA. Intellectual life is now dominated by the first truly post-Christian generation. A friend of mine at Yale two decades ago wrote his senior paper on James Joyce. He was fascinated by Joyceâ??s use of trinitarian language. Ignorant of Christian doctrine, he set out to find a faculty member who might provide guidance. I remember his dismay when he told me that he could not find anyone who could explain to him the classical Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

The situation has only gotten worse in the intervening years. A student at Princeton and Harvardâ??or Georgetown and Boston College, for that matterâ??now studies with teachers who have no knowledge of Christianity other than the crude caricatures long retailed by progressive illuminati. Christianity no longer exists as an integrated worldview that shapes the education and mental habits of modern people in the West. The loss is significant: None of us can reinvent a Christian literary imagination, political theory, scientific culture, or systematic theology on our own, because a Christian intellectual culture is a collective, multigenerational project.

It is not the case, however, that we must live alone in the ruins of Christendom. The poverty of the present need not cut us off from the wealth of the past. One of the most important new facts about Christian theology in North America is the sudden popularity of the theologians and pastors, monks and bishops, martyrs and missionaries, who first fashioned a Christian culture nearly two thousand years ago. The Church Fathers are returning as agents of renewal, guiding us toward the biblical source of a truly Christian culture.

R.R. Reno The Return of the Fathers