Christian spirituality: Religion and the public square
Well-formulated and articulate arguments are being immediately shot down and dismissed, simply because of their origin
Mature and constructive debate is a vital element within any free and democratic society. Yet, we must admit that this vital element is sometimes found lacking in the local context.
In a special way, given the highly sensitive and ethically challenging issues that have recently been the focus of public attention, it is worth reflecting on how contributions in the public sphere are made by members of the Church (here understood in the widest sense possible as the community of believers) and how such contributions are received.
We have heard individuals airing their views in favour or (more likely) against certain legislative proposals with phrases such as “it’s a sin” or “Jesus said such and such”. The language used leaves much to be desired, often coming across as condescending at best, or oppressive at worst.
However, by the same token, we have also repeatedly observed well-formulated and articulate arguments being made that are immediately and summarily shot down and dismissed, simply because their origin – conceptually or vocally – is in some ways linked to the faith. As a Catholic and a citizen, I think we can – and must – be more open to debate.
In this light, it would be worth revisiting the debate held back in 2004 between philosopher Jürgen Habermas and the then cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on the role of religion in a secular, democratic society. The fact that such a debate took place was astonishing to many at the time, and given the ever increasing fragmentary and polarised nature of the society we inhabit – both locally and abroad – the very existence of this debate should serve as a sign of what mature discussion, characterised by genuine encounter and dialogue, should look like.
Speaking on societal issues that will affect a pluralistic audience, the believer must present their views in a way that is understandable by all
Over the course of the debate, both Habermas and Ratzinger noted the positive role religion plays in society, yet also the risks that exist arising from fundamentalist interpretations. Similarly, however, both saw the risk present in having a society that is untethered to any proper metaphysical grounding. When questions pertaining to abstract concepts such as the ‘good’, ‘dignity’ and ‘justice’ lack a solid answer or – worse still – become meaningless, society is at risk of undoing itself.
Thus, attempts to dismiss or discredit contributions made in the public sphere arising from religious points of view, solely because they are informed by faith, are to be considered not only as fallacious but as detrimental to secular society itself. At the same time, however, Habermas does introduce the caveat of ‘translation’ when speaking of the positive contribution of religion in society; religious contributions made in the public sphere must be presented using secular concepts and language.
On one level, this point makes sense; speaking on societal issues that will affect a pluralistic audience, the believer must present their views in a way that is understandable by all, using concepts that are recognised by all. We have much to learn in this regard.
At the same time, however, there will always come a point in any debate, as the search for truth delves deeper, where this exercise of translation fails and the Christian can only point at that truth which is the source of the desires found in the heart of all.