Saturday, September 18, 2010

The Pope’s Speech in Westminster Hall

Mr Speaker,

Thank you for your words of welcome on behalf of this distinguished gathering. As I address you, I am conscious of the privilege afforded me to speak to the British people and their representatives in Westminster Hall, a building of unique significance in the civil and political history of the people of these islands. Allow me also to express my esteem for the Parliament which has existed on this site for centuries and which has had such a profound influence on the development of participative government among the nations, especially in the Commonwealth and the English-speaking world at large. Your common law tradition serves as the basis of legal systems in many parts of the world, and your particular vision of the respective rights and duties of the state and the individual, and of the separation of powers, remains an inspiration to many across the globe.

As I speak to you in this historic setting, I think of the countless men and women down the centuries who have played their part in the momentous events that have taken place within these walls and have shaped the lives of many generations of Britons, and others besides. In particular, I recall the figure of Saint Thomas More, the great English scholar and statesman, who is admired by believers and non-believers alike for the integrity with which he followed his conscience, even at the cost of displeasing the sovereign whose ”good servant” he was, because he chose to serve God first. The dilemma which faced More in those difficult times, the perennial question of the relationship between what is owed to Caesar and what is owed to God, allows me the opportunity to reflect with you briefly on the proper place of religious belief within the political process.

This country’s Parliamentary tradition owes much to the national instinct for moderation, to the desire to achieve a genuine balance between the legitimate claims of government and the rights of those subject to it. While decisive steps have been taken at several points in your history to place limits on the exercise of power, the nation’s political institutions have been able to evolve with a remarkable degree of stability. In the process, Britain has emerged as a pluralist democracy which places great value on freedom of speech, freedom of political affiliation and respect for the rule of law, with a strong sense of the individual’s rights and duties, and of the equality of all citizens before the law. While couched in different language, Catholic social teaching has much in common with this approach, in its overriding concern to safeguard the unique dignity of every human person, created in the image and likeness of God, and in its emphasis on the duty of civil authority to foster the common good.

And yet the fundamental questions at stake in Thomas More’s trial continue to present themselves in ever-changing terms as new social conditions emerge. Each generation, as it seeks to advance the common good, must ask anew: what are the requirements that governments may reasonably impose upon citizens, and how far do they extend? By appeal to what authority can moral dilemmas be resolved? These questions take us directly to the ethical foundations of civil discourse. If the moral principles underpinning the democratic process are themselves determined by nothing more solid than social consensus, then the fragility of the process becomes all too evident - herein lies the real challenge for democracy.

The inadequacy of pragmatic, short-term solutions to complex social and ethical problems has been illustrated all too clearly by the recent global financial crisis. There is widespread agreement that the lack of a solid ethical foundation for economic activity has contributed to the grave difficulties now being experienced by millions of people throughout the world. Just as “every economic decision has a moral consequence” (Caritas in Veritate, 37), so too in the political field, the ethical dimension of policy has far-reaching consequences that no government can afford to ignore. A positive illustration of this is found in one of the British Parliament’s particularly notable achievements – the abolition of the slave trade. The campaign that led to this landmark legislation was built upon firm ethical principles, rooted in the natural law, and it has made a contribution to civilization of which this nation may be justly proud.

The central question at issue, then, is this: where is the ethical foundation for political choices to be found? The Catholic tradition maintains that the objective norms governing right action are accessible to reason, prescinding from the content of revelation. According to this understanding, the role of religion in political debate is not so much to supply these norms, as if they could not be known by non-believers – still less to propose concrete political solutions, which would lie altogether outside the competence of religion – but rather to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles. This “corrective” role of religion vis-à-vis reason is not always welcomed, though, partly because distorted forms of religion, such as sectarianism and fundamentalism, can be seen to create serious social problems themselves. And in their turn, these distortions of religion arise when insufficient attention is given to the purifying and structuring role of reason within religion. It is a two-way process. Without the corrective supplied by religion, though, reason too can fall prey to distortions, as when it is manipulated by ideology, or applied in a partial way that fails to take full account of the dignity of the human person. Such misuse of reason, after all, was what gave rise to the slave trade in the first place and to many other social evils, not least the totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century. This is why I would suggest that the world of reason and the world of faith – the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief – need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilization.

Religion, in other words, is not a problem for legislators to solve, but a vital contributor to the national conversation. In this light, I cannot but voice my concern at the increasing marginalization of religion, particularly of Christianity, that is taking place in some quarters, even in nations which place a great emphasis on tolerance. There are those who would advocate that the voice of religion be silenced, or at least relegated to the purely private sphere. There are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such as Christmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none. And there are those who argue – paradoxically with the intention of eliminating discrimination – that Christians in public roles should be required at times to act against their conscience. These are worrying signs of a failure to appreciate not only the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, but also the legitimate role of religion in the public square. I would invite all of you, therefore, within your respective spheres of influence, to seek ways of promoting and encouraging dialogue between faith and reason at every level of national life.

Your readiness to do so is already implied in the unprecedented invitation extended to me today. And it finds expression in the fields of concern in which your Government has been engaged with the Holy See. In the area of peace, there have been exchanges regarding the elaboration of an international arms trade treaty; regarding human rights, the Holy See and the United Kingdom have welcomed the spread of democracy, especially in the last sixty-five years; in the field of development, there has been collaboration on debt relief, fair trade and financing for development, particularly through the International Finance Facility, the International Immunization Bond, and the Advanced Market Commitment. The Holy See also looks forward to exploring with the United Kingdom new ways to promote environmental responsibility, to the benefit of all.

I also note that the present Government has committed the United Kingdom to devoting 0.7% of national income to development aid by 2013. In recent years it has been encouraging to witness the positive signs of a worldwide growth in solidarity towards the poor. But to turn this solidarity into effective action calls for fresh thinking that will improve life conditions in many important areas, such as food production, clean water, job creation, education, support to families, especially migrants, and basic healthcare.

Where human lives are concerned, time is always short: yet the world has witnessed the vast resources that governments can draw upon to rescue financial institutions deemed “too big to fail”. Surely the integral human development of the world’s peoples is no less important: here is an enterprise, worthy of the world’s attention, that is truly “too big to fail”.

This overview of recent cooperation between the United Kingdom and the Holy See illustrates well how much progress has been made, in the years that have passed since the establishment of bilateral diplomatic relations, in promoting throughout the world the many core values that we share. I hope and pray that this relationship will continue to bear fruit, and that it will be mirrored in a growing acceptance of the need for dialogue and respect at every level of society between the world of reason and the world of faith. I am convinced that, within this country too, there are many areas in which the Church and the public authorities can work together for the good of citizens, in harmony with Britain’s long-standing tradition. For such cooperation to be possible, religious bodies – including institutions linked to the Catholic Church – need to be free to act in accordance with their own principles and specific convictions based upon the faith and the official teaching of the Church. In this way, such basic rights as religious freedom, freedom of conscience and freedom of association are guaranteed. The angels looking down on us from the magnificent ceiling of this ancient Hall remind us of the long tradition from which British Parliamentary democracy has evolved. They remind us that God is constantly watching over us to guide and protect us. And they summon us to acknowledge the vital contribution that religious belief has made and can continue to make to the life of the nation.

Mr Speaker, I thank you once again for this opportunity briefly to address this distinguished audience. Let me assure you and the Lord Speaker of my continued good wishes and prayers for you and for the fruitful work of both Houses of this ancient Parliament. Thank you and God bless you all!


Anonymous len said...

Thomas More hero of the Catholic Church, his all consuming passion in life was to capture Saint William Tyndale—the translator of the Bible into English— and BURN him at the stake!!
Sir Thomas More had Saint William Tyndale— the father of the English Bible— arrested and burned alive for translating Matthew 16:18 in the correct form:

"When Jesus came into coasts of the city which is called Cesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples saying: whom do men say that I the son of man am? They said, some say that thou art John Baptist, some Elias, some Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He said unto them: but whom say ye that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: THOU ART CHRIST THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. And Jesus answered and said to him: happy art thou Simon the son of Jonas, for flesh and blood hath not opened unto thee that, but my father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my CONGREGATION. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee, the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou bindest upon earth, shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou loosest on earth, shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:13-19). (Tyndale's New Testament,1534).

18 September 2010 at 10:29  
Blogger Preacher said...

The church of Rome has No heritage from Peter, she has held her people in bondage through fear of purgatory & other false teachings that she invented i.e that Jesus is re-sacrificed in the mass, a total contradiction of the teaching in the book of Hebrews, the confession box is a joke, only the blood of Christ removes sin not the promise of a cleric, no wonder that the likes of Tyndale were burned as the church of Rome attempted to hide the truth of scripture that would reveal her falsehoods. Soft Words will not turn away the wrath of God on the day of judgement, "Come out of her my people" says the Lord "Wash your garments in the Blood of the Lamb that you may be found sinlesss on that great & terrible day. accept the redemption that Christ offers instead of the fear & fetid stench of false religion that has more in common with Simon Magus than Simon Peter.

18 September 2010 at 12:31  
Blogger Patrick O'Neil said...

Cranmer - Thanks for posting this. As usual His Holiness is profound and eloquent, "the world of reason and the world of faith – the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief – need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilization."

Shame that there has been no intersection of faith and reason among your commenters so far.

18 September 2010 at 14:45  
Blogger Patrick O'Neil said...

YG, I should also say welcome back. Especially enjoy some of your twitter posts in the side bar. I've linked to you at my blog here and gave you a well deserved hat tip. Not much traffic on my blog relative to 5 - 20 thousand hits per week, but I'd be honoured if you popped by. In the meantime this is what I had to say about you, "I should also note that my primary source for analysis of the Pope's visit to England is Archbishop Cranmer's blog. At time's he is a harsh critic of the Catholic Church, but he is always reasoned and succinct in his analysis."

Continued blessings on you and your blog.

18 September 2010 at 15:40  
Anonymous len said...

What is the difference between Catholics and Protestants?.Can the two faiths unite? Should they unite for the sake of harmony, the sake of unity, present a united front to an unbelieving world?
Was the reformation all a mistake?
Is the price of unity denying the basic foundations of your faith?and ultimately selling your soul?
I believe Jesus summed up the whole thing with;
Matthew 16:6: “Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Leavening agent where it is not desired, such as in unleavened bread, leads to serious consequences. A little leaven spreads throughout the whole batch of dough. Likewise, a few false doctrines sprinkled throughout God’s word corrupt the listeners.

This is the major point of contention.True Bible believing Christians who will not conform to worldly pressures or take on board errant doctrines will be seen as hostile, opposing moves towards the drawing together of the 'faith community'.

Well the Truth of God`s word is more important to me than the approval of the 'World'!

18 September 2010 at 15:57  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Vatican Radio's running an interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury on yesterday's historic Evensong in Westminster Abbey

18 September 2010 at 19:43  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

It is clear that what is happening in the world is in line with Biblical prophecy. I'm stunned that it is happening in my lifetime.

18 September 2010 at 20:37  
Blogger srizals said...

Len said.. "Matthew 16:6: “Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees".

Could this mean we have to fear the zionists or just the holy men of the jews?

Preacher said.."no wonder that the likes of Tyndale were burned as the church of Rome attempted to hide the truth of scripture"

The problem is which is which? Who is telling the truth and who is lying? Can you tell? Can you refer to Jesus' companions? The Hawariyun?

18 September 2010 at 23:02  
Anonymous len said...

"Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees"

The Pharisees tried to correct Jesus with their own man-made laws that were not from Moses. They made up their own laws that were not from God to correct Jesus. Jesus’ whole ministry was in conflict with their teachings, and more often than not he was addressing the religion that they perpetrated upon the people. They were very religious and most were in awe of how blessed they were. They were were well known and wanted everyone to learn and follow their ways and interpretations of the Scripture. If there is anything we can learn from Jesus on this it is to not submit to man made laws, traditions of men or false Bible interpretations by famous religious men who are known by all. The main point is that we are all are to be subject to the same authority and standard, the Word of God. No man can make you submit to their own words unless you want to. However they have clever ways to convince you by guilt, fear and just plain spiritual manipulation just like the Pharisees.

(This is relevant today as it was in Jesus`s time on Earth! In adding to Jesus`s teachings you don`t make them better you cancel them out! )

19 September 2010 at 09:11  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older