The right to blaspheme - a new right for France?

Isabelle de Gaulmyn has an interesting observation following the recent attacks in France: Le droit au blasphème, nouveau droit français?

Her post points out that one cannot accuse a person who does not hold to a particular religious belief of blasphemy against that religion - blasphemy is a concept that can only apply to those who hold the religion that has been so offended. In pluralist societies the notion of blasphemy does not make any sense in positive law or in a discussion of public rights. Ms Gaulmyn ends her post as follows:

Drôle de glissement qui sous prétexte de ne pas reconnaitre un traitement de faveur aux religions, leur inflige un régime particulier, et qui protégerait l’injure au prétexte qu’elle concerne le religieux. Le droit de critiquer et de débattre existe en France pour toute institution, et donc aussi pour les religions. Et c’est heureux ! Mais celui d’insulter n‘est pas plus recevable pour les religions que pour la politique ou la culture, par exemple. Ce n’est d’ailleurs pas seulement une question de droit. Mais simplement de vivre ensemble…

[It is a funny notion which, under the pretext of not recognising a special treatment for religions, imposes on them a specific regime, which will protect insult on the grounds that it is about religion. The right of challenge and of debate exists in France for all institutions, and therefore also for religions. And it is as well! But the right to insult is no more acceptable for religions than it is for politics or culture, for example. It is not only a question of right. But simply of being able to live together ....]

It is worth reading some of the comments on the post too. 

The Extraordinary Synod on the Family: some thoughts

I recall an observation to the effect that there were two Vatican II's, one being the Council as it took place within the Vatican Basilica and the various meetings associated with the Council itself, and the second being that which took place in the news media. One might perhaps add a third: the one which, again making use of the news media, looks back to the Council through its own slanted perspective. I have found it quite an eye-opener, for example, to read the text of some of the addresses given by Cardinal Augustin Bea, Pope John XXIII's right hand man in developing the Catholic Church's ecumenical engagement at the time of the Council. What they portray as the principles of ecumenical activity on the part of the Catholic Church would now be seen as decidedly "conservative", though ecumenical endeavour was one of the "liberal" motivations to emerge from the Council. The point, though, is that they probably represent rather better than much else a genuine understanding of where the Catholic Church stands on ecumenism.

Likewise the Synod on the Family. There is the "real" Synod and the "media" Synod, the Synod that recognises that, in the world wide preparatory questionnaire there was not one single question asking for views about the truth or otherwise of Catholic teaching, and the Synod that calls for change or "dialogue" about the Church's teaching on the grounds of responses to the questionnaire that show that many Catholics do not follow the teaching. And there is also the focus of media discussion on the question of the admission of divorced and remarried Catholics to Holy Communion.

My first thought is that the question of marriage and family life is indeed a major pastoral priority/concern for the Catholic Church. Many years ago now, I was part of a conversation reflecting on what it was that enabled some families to successfully hand on the practice of the Catholic faith to their children as those children moved into adult life and what it was that meant that other families did not succeed in that. Irregularity in marriage situations was a clear part of the latter experience of some taking part in that conversation, with the marriage situation leading to loss of practice of the faith.

My second thought is that the concerns that will be brought to the Synod in October will differ according to the part of the world that the Bishops come from. The concerns of the developed nations are not going to be the same as the concerns of the African nations, for example. Isabelle de Gaulmyn reflected on this on the site of La Croix, commenting on a visit to Benin in West Africa:

D’une certaine manière, les sujets abordés en Afrique sont plus graves, plus urgents, touchent les problématiques économiques et culturelles de la société. On ne se polarise pas sur les divorcés remariés.

Mais il est question des femmes, de leur dignité, du mariage forcé, des enfants esclaves, de la polygamie, largement admise : que doit dire le pasteur, sur le terrain ? Quelle attitude ? Jusqu’où condamner ? Comment accompagner ? Plus généralement, l’Église est partagée entre une vision plus « moderne » et individualiste du couple et de la famille, revendiquée d’ailleurs par les jeunes générations, et des traditions de solidarité familiale qui peuvent parfois involontairement étouffer les personnes.

[In a certain way, the subjects arising in Africa are more serious, more urgent, touching on the economic and cultural problems of society. People do not divide over the divorced and remarried.

But it is a question of women, of their dignity, of forced marriage, of child slavery, of polygamy, largely accepted. What must the pastor say, on the ground? What attitude should be taken? Only as far as condemning? How should they accompany? More generally, the Church is caught between a more "modern"  and individualistic vision of the couple and of the family, shared moreover by the young generations, and traditions of family solidarity which can sometimes by accident repress persons.]

Certainly, it will not be the case that the only voice to be heard at the Synod is that of the news media calling for change in the Church's teaching.

I suspect that the address that Bishop Egan gave to SPUC's annual conference recently will not have been everything that those of a traditionalist frame of mind would have wished to hear, with its suggestion that outcomes from the Synod might and should represent development in doctrine in Newman's sense. Bishop Egan's address gives a useful account of what Pope Francis has said about the origins of the themes for the extraordinary synod due this October and the ordinary synod that will follow next year, in particular pointing out that there is a much wider context to the synods than just the question of admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Communion. At the end of his address, Bishop Egan indicates the situation of the person who wishes to be received into the Catholic Church but who, at that point, encounters something irregular in their marital situation that becomes a barrier to their entry into the Church. It seems to me that the question of admitting remarried persons to Communion is not a question that refers to one single narrative; there are a whole range of different situations that might admit of different pastoral resolutions with due reference to the truth of Catholic teaching and the demand of mercy.

My fourth thought arises from the legislation in a number of countries in favour of marriage for same-sex persons. In the UK, the campaign against this development used the idea of "redefining marriage" as its strapline; in France, it was instead the right of the child to a mother and father and resistance to gender ideology. But what I think emerges from the discussions about Holy Communion for the remarried prompted by the theme of the Synod is that for many people in wider society, and therefore for many Catholics who are not immune to the influences of wider society, marriage had already been re-defined almost out of existence. Do we, for example, recognise that the understanding of marriage represented by celebrities who divorce and remarry, with their second and third marriages gaining high profile media coverage, is far distant from what Catholic teaching understands by marriage? And if we do recognise that, what do we really believe we are doing when we ourselves get married, with all the implications of the answer to that question for the nature of the consent that is given and is necessary for he validity of the marriage? There is certainly a pastoral challenge to be faced here, both in terms of the quality if marriage preparation and in terms of the care towards those who are remarried. The terms in which Gaudium et Spes analyses the situation of marriage in its introduction to its treatment of marriage are strikingly prescient (cf n.47):

Yet the excellence of [marriage] is not everywhere reflected with equal brilliance, since polygamy, the plague of divorce, so-called free love and other disfigurements have an obscuring effect. In addition, married love is too often profaned by excessive self-love, the worship of pleasure and illicit practices against human generation. Moreover, serious disturbances are caused in families by modern economic conditions, by influences at once social and psychological, and by the demands of civil society. Finally, in certain parts of the world problems resulting from population growth are generating concern.

One can almost suggest that the situation faced by the Synods in 2014 and 2015 was foreseen by the Council in 1965. We can share Bishop Egan's hope that the Synods will enable the brilliance of marriage to shine forth more beautifully in the world.

15th August 2013: Marian procession in Aleppo

Reported by La Croix: Retour en images sur la Consécration d’Alep à la Vierge Marie.

Secularity, laicite and gay marriage

In 1997, I stood for Parliament as a candidate for the Pro-Life Alliance. Depending on my frame of mind, I look back on this as either being one of the more interesting experiences of my life or one of the more insane. Be that as it may, my reason for referring to it now is to recall a conversation I had at the time with one of the local Catholic priests. He mentioned to me that he was being asked by some of his parishioners as to why he was not expressing support for me during the election campaign. My reply was to say that, not only was I not expecting him to make any such declaration of support for me, but that it had not even occurred to me that he should do so. My reasons for this reply were two. Firstly, as a lay person with a certain amount of political acumen, I felt it was entirely within my own competence to judge the wisdom or otherwise of my involvement with what the Pro-Life Alliance were doing, and that I did not need any priestly permission or imprimatur for my decision to engage in the election. Secondly, like any political enterprise, what I was doing had great potential for going wrong, and that with a great deal of unpredictability. As an individual, and bearing in mind the freedom that went with that, I could quite easily wipe the proverbial off  and carry on; but not so the local Catholic parishes, if they had launched out in backing me. There, the proverbial would have stuck with a certain permanence.

I believe this to have been an example of what Pope Benedict XVI termed an "appropriate secularity"; it also represents the genuine meaning of the French term "laicite". It is for lay persons to mediate the mission of the Church into the political arena, where they engage as citizens; it is not for the priests, religious or bishops in the name of the Church to so engage. [That is not to say that they should remain silent on matters that have political implications. One can perhaps particularly expect bishops to teach with regard to whether particular legislative proposals are in accordance with Catholic teaching or not. But it is not for them to take on the leadership of the associated political campaigning.]

As far as the proposals to allow same sex couples to marry in the United Kingdom are concerned, the Catholic bishops have clearly spoken out against the proposed legislation. The website of the Bishop's Conference has a page dedicated to the issue; and some individual bishops made their own well publicised statements. And yet, according to the Tablet report, some 60% of Catholic MPs voted in favour of the  Marriage (Same Sex Couples) bill at its second reading. One might see "appropriate secularity" in play again here, as some might make the judgement that secular law should allow something that they do not consider morally just. But one can certainly see that the bishops cannot displace the responsibility of the relevant members of the lay faithful in the political working out of this issue.

The same question in France has a more complex character to it. The major opposition to the legislation proposed there to open marriage and adoption to same sex couples is a "collective", a kind of informal organisation, "Manif pour tous". Its nearest parallel in the UK is the Coalition for Marriage, and the parallel to "Manif pour tous" huge demonstrations the Coalition for Marriage's 600 000 plus signature petition. Whilst Catholic bishops in France have indicated their support for the demonstrations organised by "Manif pour tous", they have not directly taken part in them - see my previous posts here. They have, if you like, respected the lay nature of "Manif pour tous".

However, the video I saw first linked at Laodicea - French police give Catholic priest a kicking - does need to be seen in a proper context. First of all, watch the whole, not just the 4 minutes onwards. And secondly, recognise that these appear to be priests and laity associated with the Society of St Pius X. Exactly what the video shows - I certainly didn't see the arrested priest being kicked, and he did appear to place himself in the way of CRS officers arresting another individual, and the video certainly shows protestors violently attacking a static police barricade - is open to some question. I am unsure what the priests present - and their attendant cameras - were really trying to do. The context can be seen in this report at La Croix: La « Manif pour tous » espère mobiliser 50 000 personnes à Paris, which includes a reference to the steps being taken by the organisers of this afternoon's demonstration to respond to possible violence by groups attaching themselves to their demonstration. Another report - Qui sont les opposants radicaux au mariage pour tous - includes an integrist group l'Institut Civitas, associated with the Society of St Pius X, among the fringe groups involved in potentially violent protest.

An analysis of the French situation from a Catholic point of view, in both its current and historic contexts, can be found here: Le catholicisme intransigeant, une tentation permanente, par Mgr Dagens. I would suggest reading this alongside viewing the above mentioned video clip, which is not necessarily exactly what it appears....

UPDATE: A very careful look at the video clip does show a CRS officer kicking the arrested priest, somewhat gently I suspect by CRS standards, as he lies on the ground behind the police barricade ....  If you watch the earliest part of the video clip you can see the stewards of the "Manif pour Tous" demonstration between the demonstrators and the police line, and the request from the "Manif pour Tous" organiser for the demonstrators to disperse (it is now the end of their earlier demonstration), a request ignored by the priests and others present. The main events shown in the video clip develop after the "Manif pour Tous" stewards have left the scene.

There is also a longer video clip of the events here, the title of which attributes the events concerned explicitly to l'Institut Civitas.

Rishma Masih: further reports

La Croix is carrying coverage of the aftermath of the arrest of Rishma in a suburb of Islamabad - under the worrying title: « Les chrétiens doivent s’en aller, sinon ça va dégénérer » ["The Christians must leave, otherwise it will get worse"].

La Croix's report gives a claimed account of the arrest of Rimsha, and describes the departure of many Christian families from the Mehrabad quarter of Islamabad since the incident.

Perhaps most worrying is the following paragraph of the report:

A quelques pas de lui, se tient debout Hafiz Mohamed Zubair, l’un des deux mollahs de la mosquée. Lui ne perd pas son sang-froid mais explique avec calme : « Oui, c’est vrai, aujourd’hui les chrétiens doivent partir. Nous ne pouvons plus cohabiter, ce ne sont plus nos frères. Ce n’est plus possible de vivre ensemble. » [Nearby we met Hafiz Mohamed Zubair, one of the two mullahs at the mosque. He did not lose his composure but explained calmly: "Yes, it is true, today the Christians must go. We can no longer co-exist, they are no longer our brothers. It is no longer possible to live together".]

There is further reporting here: Imam accuses Christian girl of 'conspiracy' (this is an agency report from Agence France Press). Sources such as the British Pakistani Christian Association view these claims as completely false.

SSPX: Yes, No or Maybe?

The response of the Superior of the Society of St Pius X to the "doctrinal preamble" has been received at the Holy See. The guarded official comment of the Pontifical Council Ecclesia Dei reads as follows:

"The text of the response of Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, as had been requested at the meeting of 16 March 2012, was received by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith on 17 April 2012. The text will be examined by the Dicastery and then submitted to the judgement of the Holy Father.

Fr. Federico Lombardi, head of the Vatican Press Office, said that, with the latest response, “steps forward have been taken, that is to say, that the response, the new response, is rather encouraging. But there are still developments that will be made, and examined, and decisions which should be taken in the next few weeks.”

The gossip says:

The superior of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) has signed a doctrinal preamble set out by the Vatican as a basis for further reconciliation talks, a top Vatican commentator said yesterday.

Andrea Tornielli, journalist for the Italian newspaper La Stampa, said Bishop Bernard Fellay had signed the document “with some slight modifications”.

The Society of St Pius X have issued a very cautious communique in response to the press coverage: Communiqué de la Maison généralice de la Fraternité Saint-Pie X (18 avril 2012, citing the statement of the Pontifical Council Ecclesia Dei, and denying that Bishop Fellay has given a "positive response" to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, saying that he has replied to the request made of him by Cardinal Levada for clarifications with regard to the doctrinal preamble.

More detailed coverage can be found at La Croix: Les lefebvristes acceptent la main tendue du pape.

I have previously commented on the "doctrinal preamble" here and here; and my views on it can be summarised by these three points:

1. Since we all have a stake in the content of the Doctrinal Preamble, should it not at some point become the subject of public discussion in the Church rather than just of private discussion between a dicastery of the Holy See and the SSPX?

2. If the rule of faith considered appropriate for those joining the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, and so "achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See", is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, why should this same catechism not provide the rule of faith to which the SSPX are expected to adhere?

3. The speculation is that, should the SSPX accept the Doctrinal Preamble, their canonical status in the Church might become that of a Personal Prelature. This might be diplomatically convenient, but I am not sure that it represents the status best reflecting the nature of a priestly society.

I find it difficult to believe (though would be happy to be proven wrong) that any modifications made to the "doctrinal preamble" (previous discussions seemed to accept the possibility of "clarifications", but not modification) by Bishop Fellay are just slight as Andrea Tornielli suggests, or that they are without some doctrinal or pastoral significance. The report at La Croix quotes the Holy See's spokesman, Fr Lombardo, as saying that :

"la réponse contient des demandes ou propositions de précisions sur le texte du Préambule doctrinal proposé à la signature" [the response contains requests or suggestions for clarifications of the text of the doctrinal preamble put forward for signature].

I therefore trust that the Pontifical Council Ecclesia Dei will be suitably critical in its examination of any such modifications/clarifications, and thereby respectful of the needs and interests of those who have faithfully adhered to the teaching and life of the Church as expressed in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and in the pontificates since that Council.

Good news or bad news? Let's wait and see.

"Laicite": a debate about religion and state

Some controversy has occurred in France over a debate that is taking place today about the idea of "laicite", that is, about the relationship between the organisations of the state and the religions. In some ways, the debate takes the 1905 law that decrees a separation of Church and state from its original context of reference to the relationship between the Catholic Church and the state to the modern context where other religions, and in particular Islam, are significantly represented in French society. The point of controversy arises because this debate is being sponsored by one of France's political parties, rather than by a politically neutral forum, and that it will also involve a number of proposals. The proposals will make up a "code of secularity (laicite) and of religious liberty".

La Croix carries a report today: L’UMP veut donner une vision positive de la laïcité. Yesterday, they outlined the questions that are raised by this debate. While I have not had time to read this report fully - Le grand chantier de la laïcité - I think the range of the questions is interesting. They are: extending the obligation of neutrality of functionaries of the state (eg teachers) in the context of a debate about private providers whose services are state funded; clarifying the funding of different religions by the state (eg the funding of cultural and social centres run by mosques); taking account of religious demands (eg areas of cemeteries for use be Jews or Muslims, questions of halal meals); making more precise the right of religious expression in the public sphere (eg questions of the burqua, of prayers in public and of religious processions); clarifying the place of religions in schools (eg the display of religious symbols, allowed in private schools but not in public - the distinction between private and public being rather different than that existing in the UK); improving the representations of religions in relations/dialogue with local and national government.

The debate does, I believe, have international implications. Pope Benedict XVI speaks of an "appropriate secularity", and the questions being raised in this debate in France explore the practical implementation of such an "appropriate secularity". Recent events in the Arab world also indicate evidence that, within the Islamic world, there is also a trend of thought that would be supportive of the same sort of idea. Whether the resulting "code of secularity and of religious liberty" will genuinely reflect a concensus of opinion in French society is yet to be seen, but it will also need to be cognisant of Christian and Islamic ideas of "appropriate secularity". It might well provide precedents that could be transferred to the situation in the United Kingdom, something that would have a certain historic irony. A number of religious orders, particularly teaching orders, moved their houses from France to Britain in the years after France adopted its 1905 law on separation of Church and state. That a thorough analysis of "appropriate secularity" might make the same journey across the Channel is an interesting thought!

UPDATE: Having had an opportunity to look in more detail, it is not at all obvious that the idea of secularity being promoted by the UMP is the same as the "appropriate secularity" of Pope Benedict XVI. More to follow!