The French passion

At a time when the question of the role of religions in society is returning to the foreground in the electoral debates being conducted in various democratic countries (Spain, Italy, Belgium, USA), at times also with the intervention of episcopates, France, the secular country par excellence , seems to be taking an unexpected new direction under the leadership of her new President. Last December, in fact, Nicolas Sarkozy gave an important speech at the Lateran, in the territory of the State of Vatican City, to define his idea of “a positive form of secularism”. After an historic process in France’s development, Sarkozy, in his Roman speech, underlined the depth of the Christian roots of France, and at the same time the importance of secularism as a distinguishing feature of French culture and as a fundamental freedom. But he added that “secularism does not have the power to separate France from her Christian roots” and that “a nation that ignores the ethical, spiritual and religious heritage of its history is committing a crime against its culture”. Hence “secularism cannot be the negation of the past”. According to the French President, the Republic must recognize “the spiritual fact” as an essential feature in the make-up of society, yet without exploiting religion for its own purposes. Moreover, Sarkozy considers positively the role of believers in the promotion of peaceful co-existence in a society that has become multicultural. In this sense, secularism, in conformity with the separation between State and religions, if it is to avoid any ambiguity, must become “positive”, in other words, organize real cooperation between the two. This positive interpretation of secularism is not wholly new. Bit by bit, ever since the end of the First World War, an official doctrine of secularism has been established. It is also enshrined in the Constitutions of the 4th and 5th Republic (respectively of 1946 and 1958): in broad outline it takes the form of a “pacified” secularism, even if this did not and does not exclude secularist backsliding. Yet secular France, to limit ourselves to two issues close to the heart of the Church, is now one of the countries in Europe where the State is most involved in guaranteeing the freedom of teaching, and hence the operation, of Catholic schools and of promoting a policy in defence of the family. Of course, things could be improved, but the French result is one in which Catholic schools are strong and the birth rate is one of the highest in Europe.Some scholars speak of open secularism, a secularism of cooperation, which can also be observed at the local level, in many local authorities where mayors have promoted a real policy of recognition of the religious fact and of religions in the social fabric. But at the same time an aggressive secularist tradition persists in France. Today, this is hardly present any longer at the institutional level, at the level of governments (a Socialist government adopted in 2002 the principle of an institutional dialogue at the highest level between the Government and the Catholic Church), or at the local level (Regions, Provinces, Communes), even if much depends on the local councils. Paradoxically, however, many impediments still remain, for example the refusal to make any reference to the Christian roots of Europe in the draft European Constitution and the refusal to recognize the degrees of Catholic Universities. Secularism, in the sense of open hostility to religions, especially to Catholicism, also remains strong in various components of the population: among teachers in lycées and lower secondary schools, in some universities and especially in the media, particularly in television. Freemasonry, which acts as a real lobby, also remains powerful. It is clear that secularism in France is far more complex than people say, outside France. But it always remains a French passion. President Sarkozy’s speech, in this light, takes on added meaning, and gains added importance, because for the first time the Head of State has dared to tackle the question without fear. He immediately provoked secularist reactions, some of them violent, but he confirmed his approach in subsequent interventions. Above all he opened a major debate on the meaning and form of a modern form of secularism. This will be useful also for the future of Europe.