In the name of secularism

A clash between the Catholic Church and the British government seems almost inevitable if the State continues to claim to be the bearer of moral values, said Archbishop VINCENT NICHOLS in a recent sermon in St. Chad’s Cathedral in Birmingham. The archbishop wished to make the point that “politicians neither have the mandate nor the competence to establish guiding principles in terms of morality”. He also referred to a potential conflict between the State and adoption agencies, hostels and schools run by the Catholic Church, which could stop collaborating with the Government if it were to compel them to consider gay couples on a par with heterosexual couples. This is, according to the Archbishop of Birmingham, an example of the interference of the State in the moral life of citizens, whereas the main role of the Government ought to be that of guaranteeing a structure of legislation within which citizens can freely pursue their own objectives. For Catholics and for the other Christian Churches, which disagree with the British government on such issues as abortion, the rights of homosexuals and stem cell research, the situation is very complex and a minefield of potential conflict. COMPULSORY QUOTAS. An example of how the secular State risks violating the freedom to profess one’s own religion and transmit its moral values was the government’s attempt to impose on Catholic schools compulsory quotas of non-Christian pupils. The measure was aimed at helping Muslim schools that are finding it difficult to recruit pupils of different religions, but it ended up by penalising Catholic schools, often linked to a parish, which must give priority to the children of families that are closely involved in the local church and support it everyday. SHARED CONCERNS. The same concerns as those voiced by Nichols were also expressed by the Anglican Primate, Archbishop Rowan Williams. Intervening in the controversy that erupted following the suspension of a female employee of British Airways who was prevented from wearing a cross at work, Williams insisted that the State cannot impose its own values on citizens, but must reconcile different value systems. The issue was also touched on in a lecture that Williams gave at the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences during his recent visit to Rome. Using words similar to those of Archbishop Nichols, the Anglican Primate explained that “there’s a risk of politicians, in the name of secularism, becoming the moral guardians of citizens”. On the other hand, “a debate on the state of the embryo in relation to genetic research or on legislation on euthanasia or on laws in favour of marriage involve values that are not limited to a pragmatic evaluation of the benefits of individuals or groups”. CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATIONS AND UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES. This is also demonstrated by the recent controversy on the Christian associations present on the university campuses of Exeter, Birmingham, Edinburgh and London that were banned by the students’ unions responsible for campus life, because they do not admit persons who do not share Christian values onto their executive committees. In a letter signed by the Catholic Bishop of Portsmouth Crispian Hollis, president of the Conference of Catholic University Chaplains, and by the Anglican bishop Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester and by the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey of Clifton, the Christian leaders express concern that “Christian students in many of our universities are having to come to terms with considerable opposition and discrimination that violate their rights to freedom of expression and association”. “Of course the student unions have the responsibility to ensure that the official societies [present on campuses] are run in a legal and appropriate way”, says the letter, “but that does not give them the right to restrict or change the essential values of these societies or to impose on them leaders who do not share these essential values. The Christian associations – says the letter – invite those who do not share the Christian faith to their meetings but it would be inappropriate for someone who does not share the objectives and values of these associations to become a member of their executive committees. By imposing non-Christian officeholders on Christian associations the secular state is interfering once again in the freedom of each citizen to practice his/her own religion”.