Religion and Politics
+ Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney
24 Oct 2004
The Federal elections have come and gone. Life goes on.
The election was a bit unusual because religion played a small part in the electioneering and one of the successful minor parties, Family First, is clearly inspired by Christianity.
The old rule in Australian social life that you don’t discuss politics or religion with strangers still holds in many ways. Should Christians be allowed to form political parties? Is this a prudent course for Christians and is it good for Australian life?
As a priest and certainly as a bishop I have never endorsed any particular political party. However I have commented on political issues such as the war in Iraq, the treatment of refugees, stem cell research and education. Every Australian has a right to speak publicly on any issue and sometimes a bishop has a moral duty to speak.
While I personally do not favour church parties, and prefer serious Christians to work in all the major parties where they are welcome, it is not surprising that some Christians would organise to protect values and institutions which are under attack. They have every right to do so.
Recently, I was interviewed on the radio about the role of religion in public life. The suggestion seemed to be that if you were irreligious this was OK, that being secular meant you were fair and reasonable but that religious principles should not intrude into public affairs.
In reply I pointed out that Christians had the same rights as anyone else in our democracy and could propose whatever policies they choose. If people did not like their policies, they could vote for another party.
The interviewer professed to be scared of the prospect of Christian political parties although he didn’t say why, and then moved on to President Bush who, he claimed, not only set out to do God’s will, but claimed to be given special Godly instructions or revelations.
I do not claim that all President Bush’s policies are prudent and right. They might or might not be. But he must not be condemned simply because he is a serious Christian.
In all honesty the interviewer conceded that there was no evidence at all that President Bush was claiming to hear voices and lapsed into silence when I explained that for me it was a consolation if a world leader was trying to do God’s will rather than setting out to do whatever he could get away with. Isn’t it better, I asked, to have a leader who believes that in the next life he will have to answer for the decisions he makes in the here and now?
Christians should co-operate together, and with others, in public life to promote prosperity and freedom, to work for social and educational justice, to protect life, marriage and family.
How they do so is their democratic choice and the verdict remains with the voters.
