This year’s Discern’s Gaudium et Spes lecture was by Rowan Williams, former Archbishop of Canterbury.
Williams maintains that a particular kind of historical narrative sees an irresistible march of enlightened and non-religious conviction following the European enlightenment and the political and cultural changes it brought about. This narrative sees an inevitable decline of religion.
He argued that this narrative is wrong. It has been undermined by the events of the last two decades. Religion has returned as an identifier, as a political force and an engine of social change. Nevertheless, although there does not seem to be an irreversible decline in religion, institutional religion is still being challenged and changed by the Enlightenment model as never before.
Paradoxically, the Enlightenment itself has deep roots in the Abrahamic faiths. Judaism, Christianity and Islam take it for granted that there is some distance between religion and governance. They assume that the given forms of political authority are not in themselves sacred and this conviction often resulted in tensions between the law of God and the law of the land. Therefore, within the history of these faiths there is an ongoing debate about the relationship between the political community and the community of faith.
This entails that there is something about the life of faith that is not at the disposal of the ruler of the day. A person’s identity as a citizen does not depend on his/her faith conviction. Equally, there is a dimension of a person’s identity as a human being that is not restricted by that person’s identity as a citizen. This means that there is a right of conscience at times to resist what the political establishment declares.
It has been argued that religious liberty is the foundation of political liberty
Hence, secularism, according to Williams, touches upon issues related to religious liberty. It has been argued that religious liberty is the foundation of political liberty. Once the State cannot dictate the beliefs of its citizens then it does not have the authority to determine their choices and priorities.
Williams stressed that religion cannot determine public policy without argument, as may have been the case in the past. At the same time, by participating in public debate, religious communities help fend off totalitarianism, which assumes that the State has the right to dictate every area of civic life.
In concrete terms, Williams referred to the debate in the United Kingdom about the possibility of assisted suicide. In this case, the arguments of religious persons were sufficiently in tune with those of others of no religion at all to fend off such proposals.
The continued resistance to some form of legalised euthanasia was based on a visible presence of religious leaders who managed to persuade others. A religious moral perspective thus entered the political debate, without a right to dominate but with a willingness to argue.
Such an environment where religious considerations form a significant part of the public discussion is fundamental to a proper understanding of religious liberty. It is also essential to preserve and nourish a society in which freedom of conscience remains a reality.
According to the former archbishop of Canterbury, the separation of civic and religious identity can be healthy and fruitful. To respond to a diverse world, people of faith need to understand the importance of affirming the liberty and equality of citizens, while challenging secular societies to allow them to continue making their case in the public sphere with all the resources they can manage.
As people of faith, Williams concluded, we continue to believe that, while we all have civic dignity, none of us is ever just a citizen because a human identity is not simply civic and legal. The healthiest society recognises this and allows the conscience-grounded dimension of our humanity to flourish in the whole of our cultural life.
Fr Joe Inguanez is executive director of Discern.