Click here if you don’t see subscription options
Austen IvereighJanuary 01, 2011

Pope Benedict's message for today's World Day of Peace (text here) is a powerful and succint argument for religious freedom as the foundation of all other human rights and freedoms. It's not an academic matter. Mounting violence against Christians in the Middle East -- the Pope begins with the massacre in Baghdad, since then eclipsed by last night's in Alexandria -- as well as below-the-radar daily persecution and discrimination across the world, makes this an urgent matter, as is the growing exclusion of Christianity from the European public sphere in the name of equality. The genius of the Pope's message is his linking of religious fundamentalism and aggressive secularism, seeing them as the mirror images of each other.

"The same determination that condemns every form of fanaticism and religious fundamentalism must also oppose every form of hostility to religion that would restrict the public role of believers in civil and political life", he says, adding: "religious fundamentalism and secularism are alike in that both represent extreme forms of a rejection of legitimate pluralism and the principle of secularity."

Defending "secularity" against "secularism" is turning out to be one of the interesting intellectual keynotes of this papacy. In October, the Synod on the Middle East in Rome positioned the Church as the region's advocate of what it called (not without controversy) "positive secularism [laicite]", meaning a healthy relationship between state and Church, faith and public square, religion and reason. A similar message lay at the heart of Pope Benedict's address at Westminster Hall on his visit to London last September. The first had its eye on the Islamic states of the Middle East, while the second looked to the rise of what he has called Europe's "dictatorship of relativism". 

The Pope sees both as urgent and necessary. But asserting the freedoms and rights of Christians in Islamic states or China is politically and intellectually more straightforward. The Church can appeal to international law, not least the 18th Article of the Declaration of Human Rights which enshrines  “the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”, a right which “includes freedom to change religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest [one’s] religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”.

As the Pope comments: "The international order thus recognizes that rights of a religious nature have the same status as the right to life and to personal freedom, as proof of the fact that they belong to the essential core of human rights, to those universal and natural rights which human law can never deny."

The challenge, in other words, is not persuading western nations of the case for freedom of religion, but for mustering sufficient political will on the world stage to put religious freedom as high on the western political agenda as other human rights. And that's where the link with the other part of the argument comes in. 

Theocrats and secularists have this in common: they usually cannot see what the problem is. Just look, for example, at China's reaction to the Pope's Christmas Day criticism of the country's lack of religious freedom. Because China has no grasp of the separation of realms, it sees the Vatican's insistence on the right to appoint bishops as interference in sovereignty.

So, too, in Europe, when you raise the issue of religious freedom; you usually get told that it's ridiculous for Catholics  to complain: people are free to believe and to practise their faith. The idea that faith might have corporate rights -- the "freedom to manifest belief", a vital part of religious freedom, requires, for example, that Catholic organisations might need to hire and fire people on the basis of their beliefs and lifestyles -- is one that doesn't often occur to Europeans.

The problem for the Church is that on issues of sexuality -- and the gay rights agenda in particular -- it is seen as opposed to basic democratic freedoms and rights, or at least selective in their application. There is a strong suspicion among European and other western intellectual elites that the Church argues for the freedom to believe in and practise what the Church teaches, but not what it doesn't.

That's why attacking "aggressive secularism" in modern western democracies can sound to secular humanists like attacking what the Church dislikes. That's not fair, and reflects a blind spot in contemporary secularism, one that Pope Benedict brilliantly takes on in his recent book interview, Light of the World, in which he shows how tolerance is being overturned in the name of tolerance.

But it's a complex, sophisticated argument which flies high above the heads of most. Rather than pick intellectual fights in lofty terrain, the Church needs to advance a positive vision for politics and society -- a new humanism, if you like, that can compete with the narrow secular narratives currently on offer. 

That's where religious freedom comes in. It is a positive concept which appeals to the sacred modern icon of freedom. And it's the keystone of a religiously-inclusive -- and therefore genuinely pluralist -- democracy.

The Pope's Peace Day message argues for religious freedom as the cornerstone of everything western democracies hold dear. The denial of it, he says, is to create injustice, stifle peace, and inhibit humanity's growth. Enabling it, on the other hand, is to allow for people to choose fore themselves what is right and good. "Religious freedom should be understood," he says, "not merely as immunity from coercion, but even more fundamentally as an ability to order one’s own choices in accordance with truth."

The commentary on the Message by the president of the Vatican's Justice and Peace Council, Cardinal Peter Turkson, notes that the Pope uses the concept of religious freedom to refer to "man’s freedom to express his being capax Dei: his freedom to respond to the truth of his nature as created by God and created for life with God without coercion or impediments.  It is in this that man finds his peace, and from there becomes an instrument of peace."

In other words, we have here the way of ordering a society -- its laws, its institutions, its priorities -- which maximises human flourishing by giving expression to the core human freedom.

To a contemporary (western) society that suspects the Church of restricting and chilling that freedom, that's a message that's hard to hear. And yet, Pope Benedict argues, "The sincere search for God has led to greater respect for human dignity. Christian communities, with their patrimony of values and principles, have contributed much to making individuals and peoples aware of their identity and their dignity, the establishment of democratic institutions and the recognition of human rights and their corresponding duties."

He goes on:

"Through the democratic activity of citizens conscious of their lofty calling, [society's] laws and institutions must adequately reflect the authentic nature of the person and support its religious dimension. Since the latter is not a creation of the state, it cannot be manipulated by the state, but must rather be acknowledged and respected by it."

Or as the Pope also neatly puts it: "It should never be necessary to deny God in order to enjoy one’s rights”.

God precedes the state; and the state's acknowledgement of that is the door which opens up all other freedoms, because the state is acknowledging that it is not the arbiter of right and wrong, but at its service. That'swhat makes society possible. And that is why, as the Pope argues, "With due respect for the positive secularity of state institutions, the public dimension of religion must always be acknowledged. A healthy dialogue between civil and religious institutions is fundamental for the integral development of the human person and social harmony."

What undermines religious freedom, in other words, is what distorts the delicate balance between temporal and spiritual, the eclipse of one by the other, leading to fundamentalism enthroned in theocracy, or relativism enthroned in totalitarianism. As Cardinal Turkson says, relativism, syncretism and fundamentalism are "all abused forms of religious freedom".

A leading official told at the J&P Council told me recently that the its agenda over the coming year would be, essentially, "Caritas in veritate plus the Pope's Peace Day message". 

It is, essentially, the social Catholic agenda of the coming era, a "third way" between fundamentalism and relativism, just as social Catholicism was a third way between liberalism and totalitarianism in the 1920s-30s. The historic parallels seem to me unmistakable. This year looks exciting already.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Charles Erlinger
12 years 11 months ago
Ref your para; 

''But it's a complex, sophisticated argument which flies high above the heads of most. Rather than pick intellectual fights in lofty terrain, the Church needs to advance a positive vision for politics and society - a new humanism, if you like, that can compete with the narrow secular narratives currently on offer. ''

I don't see complex, sophisticated arguments as being mutually exclusive with respect to advancing a positive vision.
Bill Mazzella
12 years 11 months ago

You deserve credit for presenting this issue with relevant data. You should understand, however, that those who doubt the Vatican's sincerity, or at least credulity, because of its action in those occasions when it does have major government influence. A stirring example is the Iraq war initiated by Bush, with a now universally acknowledged faulty claim, with the support of Catholic neocons, namely, Richard John Neuhaus, who was a Vatican favorite. I know that John Paul II came out publicly against the war but his meetings with Bush betray support for a war mongering government leader. Bush capitalized on every encounter with John Paul II to give him leverage with Catholics which was decisive for his reelection. Richard John Neuhaus fantasized a Christian Catholic theocracy in which religon would dictate public policy. Again, one might say that the pope was against the war but the Vatican's presence around Neuhaus betrayed a different view. There are, of course, other examples. 

So your agreement with Benedict when you quote him is questionable to say the least. '"Or as the Pope also neatly puts it: "It should never be necessary to deny God in order to enjoy one’s rights”.' How about the reverse. "It should never be necessary to acknowledge God, especially when it is against your view, in order to enjoy one’s rights”

Further, it has become also axiomatic that John Paul II and Benedict are insistent on the rights of others outside the church but negligent about the rights of Catholics within the church. Accordingly, we might approach the matter of religious freedom with more humility and honesty rather than the usual polemic.  
Stephen SCHEWE
12 years 11 months ago
I’m with Bill.  The Pope argues not so much with the West’s “aggressive secularism” as with our applications of democracy and the Enlightenment.  It’s certainly possible that I’m as blind to our similarities with fundamentalist theocracies as Austen suggests, but there’s a radical difference, not a similarity, between what’s being done to the Christian minorities in China or Iraq vs. the tension between various truth claims of the Catholic Church and the rule of civil law in the United States or Europe.  Benedict properly asserts the central place of religious freedom to the Western idea, and it would have been better if the European Union had acknowledged its religious heritage when it wrote its constitution.  It would be even more meritorious if the Pope applied his defense of religious liberty to the governance of today’s Church.  The Church could actively align Vatican II’s reforms in a dialogue with democratic sensibilities, rather than retreating from those reforms in favor of an anti-democratic clericalism.  Such a Church would be better positioned to witness and to evangelize effectively in the West.
Joseph O'Leary
12 years 11 months ago
So many weasel words... Visiting the sites of the Spanish Inquisition in Toledo, Cordoba, Seville last week I found that the Spanish have a keen sense of the connections between that Catholic totalitarianism and the evil totalitarianisms of the 20th century. Prominently displayed in the Seville palace of the inquisition are the texts from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights about freedom of opinion and freedom of expression. The Church (the Vatican) is extremely far from fully appreciating these human rights or the practices of open discussion and consultation that are part of the very tissue of democracy. Its stalinistic attitude to "dissenters" over the last 32 years tells a damning story, at least in the eyes of those who truly prize the values of democracy and the rights of human beings to flourish in mature freedom.

The latest from america

A Reflection for the Feast of St. Andrew, Apostle, by Cecilia González-Andrieu
Cecilia González-AndrieuNovember 30, 2023
Gloria Branciani alerted church authorities about Father Rupnik's behavior years ago, but her fight with the church system was, as she recalled, a lost battle.
Federica Tourn- OSV NewsNovember 30, 2023
This deep dive episode of “Inside the Vatican” explains the key events and dynamics of the synod, combining recordings from synod events with a diverse selection of interviews, inviting you to “listen in” on this historic meeting.
Inside the VaticanNovember 30, 2023
A Homily for the First Sunday of Advent, by Father Terrance Klein
Terrance KleinNovember 29, 2023