Church and state
Church has right to speak on public morality
+ Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney
17 Aug 2003
There was nothing new in this. As usual a number of people spoke for and against the proposal. What was odd was the claim by some commentators that a mysterious doctrine called the “separation of church and state” should prevent the Christian Churches speaking on questions of public morality. Even some Catholics gave out this Alice in Wonderland stuff.
Politicians, journalists, members of the public regularly urge Church leaders to speak out on public issues. Sometimes they criticise us for not doing so. Sometimes they urge us to say what their own political party refuses to espouse. They have every right in a democracy to do this, or to claim we are mistaken and attempt to prove it.
What is not legitimate is to do all this at one moment, and then when they disagree with the Christian position, claim that the Churches should keep quiet because Church and State are separate.
What does this doctrine of the separation of church and state mean?
Usually it means that no one particular religion should become the official religion of the state, nor should the state forbid anyone to practise his religion of choice or to be irreligious. Except in rare circumstances, ministers of religion should not have political office in a democracy, although there can be occasional exceptions to this, especially where educational levels are low.
The separation of church and state need not prevent the different levels of government cooperating with a variety of religious agencies to provide social services, run hospitals and help subsidise schools.
In a democracy the separation of church and state cannot mean that Christians or Moslems or Jews or Hindus or Buddhists are prevented from expressing their religious views on public and private matters.
In a democracy everyone votes to judge whether they accept these views, and the parliamentarians then elected make the laws. Parliament is the place for law-making, not the courts.
Christians have as much right as any other citizens to present their point of view and religious leaders have a duty to try to form the consciences of people and parliamentarians. Indeed as about 70% of Australians are Christians they have as much right as the declining number of the irreligious minority to voice their opinions.
A few neo-pagan voices in the debate on cloning, stem cells and in vitro fertilisation, often with big financial interests, sometimes try to deny Christians the right to argue their case.
They will continue to be disappointed. In a free society, Christians have a right and duty to speak and will continue to do so.
