Secular Democracy Guided by "Values": Strong Enough to Save Europe?

A number of concerns arose in my mind last week when I read the headlines about the Holy Father's speech to the members of the so-called "European People's Party." In the speech, Benedict insisted on three values which democracies ought to uphold: the protection of life in all its stages, the natural structure of the family (e.g., no two daddy families), and the right of parents to educate their children. But he also spoke about religion and the public square: the "Christian heritage" and Europe's "religious tradition . . . despite its denominational variations" conveys "values" that are fundamental for the good society and so the Christian heritage's contribution cannot be regarded as negative but one of great positive good. I quote:

"In this context one has to recognize that a certain secular intransigence shows itself to be the enemy of tolerance and of a sound secular vision of state and society. I am pleased, therefore, that the European Union’s constitutional treaty envisages a structured and ongoing relationship with religious communities, recognizing their identity and their specific contribution."

This all seems wonderful, of course, even if it is stated in rather indifferentist language. At bottom, Benedict seems to be defending the notion of a properly secular, democratic state: it is one in which various "religious communities" can exist and make "their specific contribution." Benedict is eager to see that the voice of the Holy See is not silenced in European political life, as well he should be. But at least in bare outline, I don't see how what he has proposed is going to work.

In the coming years (and it has already begun in earnest), Christians "despite . . . denominational variations" will exit the scene, helping themselves to depart by not reproducing, by the collapse of economies without workers, and perhaps finally by the unique views of their new neighbors. These new neighbors are, of course, the Muslim hordes who are even now teeming in the poorer areas of the once great European cities. Many of these Muslims are eager to make "their specific contribution" to European society. They too would not see the secular state closed to the contributions of "religious communities." Finally, of all the populations in Europe, they will be the ones in the best position to take advantage of the pre-existing democratic structures.

Of course, I have no doubt that Benedict knows the threat which the Muslim population constitutes for Europe; Cardinal Ratzinger was a vocal opponent of Turkey's entry into the European Union, which might have become (and still may) a floodgate of Muslims into the EU. What I question is his support for democracy in lieu of an accompanying proposal about how popularly ratified laws and policies are to be regulated. Granted, he is saying, in line with Evangelium Vitae #70, that certain values can never be eliminated by any state, society or majority. Further, Benedict is stating what those values are. But he seems to be content with a society in which the Catholic Church is one among many voices, one among the many religious communities contributing to the values to be promoted by the democratic state.

At present, this arrangement works, to a limited extent, in a place like the United States. I say "to a limited extent" because of abortion and other crimes beyond the pale, like the murder of Terri Schiavo a year ago. But the European situation, though similar, is worse (think of such crimes as the murder of less than optimal children in Dutch hospitals) and the situation looks incomparably worse when the sharia laws of the Muslim religion loom on the horizon. I should say, though, that the imposition of sharia would be a great boon in terms of eliminating many evils like so-called euthanasia, abortion, public immodesty, pornography, and the like. But on the other hand, besides certain unacceptable laws (involving the cruel treatment of women), they remain laws of a false and violent religion - enough reason that they should never be in effect.

In the coming years, how will the Holy See address this threat to Europe? Will it continue to preach democracy and the contribution of "religious communities" to the public sphere? Isn't the situation already far more urgent than such mild words?

As Catholics, we cannot forget that the ideal state of society is the reign of Christ the King in society. I apologize for quoting Droleskey-style, but the fact is, ever so many Catholics are ignorant of these words or have not grasped their relevance for the grave situation we face today:

It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power. . . .

. . . the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: "His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ." Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. In Him is the salvation of the individual, in Him is the salvation of society. . . . He is the author of happiness and true prosperity for every man and for every nation. . . . If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ. What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. "With God and Jesus Christ," we said, "excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation."

When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony. Our Lord's regal office invests the human authority of princes and rulers with a religious significance; it ennobles the citizen's duty of obedience. . . . If princes and magistrates duly elected are filled with the persuasion that they rule, not by their own right, but by the mandate and in the place of the Divine King, they will exercise their authority piously and wisely, and they will make laws and administer them, having in view the common good and also the human dignity of their subjects. The result will be a stable peace and tranquillity . . . .

If the kingdom of Christ, then, receives, as it should, all nations under its way, there seems no reason why we should despair of seeing that peace which the King of Peace came to bring on earth -- He who came to reconcile all things, who came not to be ministered unto but to minister, who, though Lord of all, gave himself to us as a model of humility, and with his principal law united the precept of charity; who said also: "My yoke is sweet and my burden light." Oh, what happiness would be Ours if all men, individuals, families, and nations, would but let themselves be governed by Christ! "Then at length," to use the words addressed by our predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, twenty-five years ago to the bishops of the Universal Church, "then at length will many evils be cured; then will the law regain its former authority; peace with all its blessings be restored. Men will sheathe their swords and lay down their arms when all freely acknowledge and obey the authority of Christ, and every tongue confesses that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father."

The Church recognizes democracy as a licit form of government. But a secular state is one inherently unjust, for it does not give the honor and worship due to the Almighty God nor does it defer in matters of morality to the Church founded by Christ. As long as we remain in this valley of tears, men will make mistakes and rulers will abuse their powers, but the situation will be vastly better once the State acknowledges the authority and place of the Church. The Church is not one among many voices; she is the voice of the Truth, and she alone can guide society and the State safely.

I do not think that Benedict nor any one of us should take it as a fait accompli that the State guided by the laws of religion has vanished. Indeed, we need only look at several countries of Mohammedans to see that this is not the case. But what I am suggesting here is that this may not continue to be the case in Europe either. Even leaving aside the idea that the current regime in Europe, guided by liberalism and the principles of the Enlightenment, are a religion (and a diseased, satanic religion) in themselves, the "faith tradition" of Islam may yet take Londistan and the other cities and countries of Europe under its sway.

Secular democracy, even when "guided by values", like those proposed by Benedict in his recent speech, is not strong enough to resist the Muslim onslaught. Even if the EU protects the natural family structure, say, this will not change the fact that no one is having children. Even if the EU outlawed abortion (instead of rabidly promoting it), this will not change the fact that no one is having children and that these children are not educated as Catholics and so are in grave danger of losing their immortal souls (which is the bottom line, so to speak, in our discussion of all of these matters). Finally, secular democracy remains open to being hijacked from within; I mean, sharia-like laws can be passed (or abortion laws or whatever) without undermining the structures of the system. Whereas in a State which recognizes the prerogatives of the Catholic Church, the whole state must be overthrown before such wicked things can happen. In a democracy (as we know them today), it can be the matter of a single election or referendum or a group of judges and the most wild evils are suddenly unleashed.

The Holy See must return to the message of Quas Primas, Libertas Praestantissimum, Immortale Dei and the like in order to find a plan strong enough to address Europe's (and the world's) ills.


go to main page