The following is the news report and the
full text of Dr. Bert B. Beach's presentation to a Roman Catholic
Conference on the subject of religious liberty and special
consideration of minority church rights and problems.
Dr. Bert B.
Beach
Catholics Invite Adventist Church
Leader to Discuss Religious Liberty
Weingarten, Germany ... [ANN] Seventh-day
Adventist leader Dr. Bert Beach participated in an inter-church
‘first’ as an invitee to a Roman Catholic conference of canon law
experts, judges, and university professors meeting in Weingarten,
southern Germany, November 27-29.
Beach, director of Inter-Church Relations
at the Seventh-day Adventist Church World Headquarters in Silver
Spring, Maryland, USA, was a specially-invited speaker to the
conference. He was asked to address the meeting on the subject of
religious liberty from a non-Catholic perspective, giving special
emphasis to the rights and problems of minority churches.
"The meeting was an opportunity to deal
with such issues as minority church rights in the international
agreements and documents, the use of pejorative terminology,
proselytism, the Catholic Church’s claim to statehood, and the
question of seventh-day Sabbath observance," said Beach.
The theme of the conference dealt with
human rights and church law. Beach’s lecture will be published by
the Catholic Academy of Stuttgart-Rottenburg. [Jonathan
Gallagher]
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
SEEN FROM A NON CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE
WITH SPECIAL
CONSIDERATION OF MINORITY CHURCH RIGHTS AND
PROBLEMS
Introductory
Remarks
I feel both very honored and humble at being invited to address
this distinguished audience of scholars and specialists. While I am
very much interested in religious liberty, my expertise is limited
when it comes to Catholic canon/church law and the specifics of the
German situation. Finally, as you are about to notice, my knowledge
and especially practice of German ist sehr begrenzt. I would have
much preferred to speak in English or French. I am also handicapped
by the fact that all my documentation is in English and don’t have
the German wording of some of the UN or other documents I quote and
have had to provide my own, unofficial translation. But since this
is a conference regarding human rights and freedom of religion, I
believe I can count on your tolerance and some form of Catholic
"indulgence."
I hope you will bear with me, if I refer from
time to time, to a personal experience. One of the great days of my
life was December 7, 1965, when I was able to witness in Rome the
acceptance by the Roman Catholic Church, at the close of Vatican II,
of a "Declaration on Religious Liberty." And since then there have
been very significant changes in the religious liberty situation in
Catholic countries like Italy, Spain and Portugal.
A Wealth of International Human Rights
Instruments
During the second half of the 20th century there has been a
general upsurge of human rights documents in general and religious
liberty and minority rights in particular. There are literally
scores of international instruments. All this has happened since I
graduated from college half a century ago. We have numerous
documents from 1) the UN 2) UNESCO 3) International Labor
Organization 4) Regional Conventions, such as those coming from the
Council of Europe 5) Conferences on Security and Cooperation in
Europe (Helsinki Process), 6) National constitutions, legislation
and judicial decisions 7) other miscellaneous documents. All this
has been made more real and less hypocritical by the collapse of
totalitarian Communism in Europe, not least in eastern Germany.
RCC Accepts Religious
Liberty
It is in this historical setting that Vatican II accepted
religious liberty and in so doing produced a changed situation. It
is obviously easier to control in an autocracy than in a free and
voluntary society, but coercion has really no place in a religious
society; force should be alien to Christianity. The atmosphere of
liberty in belief, worship, and expressing one’s religious
convictions is the most auspicious milieu for the affirmation,
growth, and diffusion of religious truth and church
organizations.
It is thus, from a Protestant viewpoint, pleasing to notice that
the 1983 revised Code of Canon Law represents some liberating
changes from the 1917 Code. The section which prohibited
"publishing, reading, keeping, or selling certain large categories
of religion-related writings" has been entirely eliminated, though
the section on prior censorship of books has been kept "in a
modified and attenuated form."
All this has come as a natural consequence of
Vatican II accepting religious liberty in civil society. After all,
churches do not live in a vacuum.
A Negative Right
One aspect of the Vatican II teaching regarding the right to
religious liberty, I find not very often mentioned. I refer to its
negative nature. This right involves "immunity
from coercion in society," in such a way that 1) a person is not
to be forced to act against conscience--absolute principle 2) nor
"be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience:--not
an absolute principle, for this right is limited by "public order."
(justice, morality, peace). Without going into the matter of the
elasticity and ambiguity of public order, I would like to mention
that the religious liberty defined here is a negative right. It is
not the right to follow the dictates of one’s conscience and fully
profess one’s religion, but immunity from coercion in religious
matters. From a Protestant viewpoint a positive formulation is more
desirable.
Fortunately, in his advocacy of religious
liberty, Pope John Paul II has advanced beyond the negative
formulation of Vatican II--freedom from constraint--to positive
affirmation of religious liberty (e.g. in his 1988 World Day of
Peace message).
The Basic Right
Before going on to some other points, may I just
briefly touch upon the relationship of religious liberty to human
rights in general. In fact, the very topic of this conference
recognizes such a relationship. There is no doubt that religious
liberty and certain human rights do overlap each other. For example,
freedom of speech, assembly, press, education. So much so, that some
people say we should not be promoting religious liberty as such, but
human rights in general. I would agree that a good human rights
situation is conducive to religious liberty. However, I think it is
misguided to see religious liberty as simply one of the human
rights. It is sui generis. Human rights generally have only a
horizontal --person to person--dimension. Religious liberty has not
only the horizontal dimension, but also the vertical dimension--the
human-divine relationship. On this basis, religious liberty is not
just a human right, but it is the fundamental human right which
undergirds all human rights.
Dignity, Equality , and
Non-Discrimination--Some Theological Considerations
There are three key words (among others) that are basic to
religious liberty. The first is dignity--that is the dignity of
the human person. The UN documents, and even more clearly
Vatican II, recognize the dignity of the human person as the basis
for religious liberty. For us Christians, this dignity is based on
the fact that human beings are created in the image of God. God
gives liberty. He says in effect "I have set before you life and
death" (Deut. 30:19). Of course, God wants us to choose the good
which leads to life, but the choice is ours and so are the
consequences.
The dignity of the human person requires us to respect the
conscience of others. You will recall the New Testament controversy
regarding eating foods previously offered to idols (1 Cor. 8:4-13).
The majority said it was alright to eat such food, but a minority
objected for reasons of conscience. While Paul sided with the
majority, and considered the conscience of the majority as
objectively correct, he also stated that the church must take into
account, respect and protect the unenlightened conscience of the
minority. If this is to be the case in the church, then it is all
the more imperative in today’s pluralistic society.
The second word mentioned is equality. Certainly we are
equal before God, because we have all sinned and fallen short of the
glory of God. Furthermore, equality of all human beings is a concept
that now receives universal acknowledgment in theory, if not always
in practice. Equality before the law is a well-accepted juridical
concept.
Equality of individual people should have as its logical
corollary, the civil equality of their religious beliefs and
churches. No legal difference should be made between churches and
denominations, large or small, old or young, popular or
disliked.
The third word is non-discrimination.
This is, of course, linked to equality. Religious liberty declines
as equality decreases and discrimination increases. It is
interesting to note that the concept of non-discrimination is
anchored in the very charter of the United Nations, which is to
promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and
fundamental freedoms for all
without distinction as to ... religion."
Respect for God’s Sovereignty and
Judgment
Actually, it seems to me that the use of doctrines or historical
traditions as a justification for religious discrimination of people
belonging to another church or belief, is absolutizing one view over
another--a form of idolatry. Equality and non-discrimination involve
respect for God’s sovereignty by placing no limitations on
God’s freedom to communicate to man through man. From this
viewpoint, religious liberty and non-discrimination deal not so much
with the freedom of man, as with the freedom of God to speak to and
through all human beings.
Finally, religious liberty respects God’s day
of judgment. Both the Old and New Testaments highlight God’s day
of judgment. The apostle Paul says: "Judge nothing before the time,
until the Lord come" (1 Cor. 4:5). For individuals to act as
inquisitors, to assume the right to judge motives, to oppress those
that have the "wrong" belief, is a sort of usurpation of divine
authority that God will exercise on the day of judgment. Is it not a
form of quasi idolatry to make absolute claims of rightness and try
to establish a doctrinal or juridical platform to judge fellow human
beings, thus providing justification or at least a basis for
religious discrimination and even persecution? Is this not, to say
the least, "eschatological impatience"? We must not forget that in
Jesus’ parable, the good wheat and the tares grow together until the
day of final harvest.
Rights of Minority Churches in
International Instruments
Few would doubt the rights of majority or established churches.
However, minority churches also have rights. In fact, on the basis
of equality and non-discrimination, one can make the case that the
rights of minorities should be much the same as those of majorities.
On the other hand, it is inherent in democratic societies that the
majority wins and rules in the political sphere. Nevertheless,
democratic societies generally recognize that there are fundamental
human rights, including the right to religious beliefs, that are not
to be inteferred with, and are thus beyond the reach of the
majority.
It must be pointed out that the rights of minorities, including
religious minorities are now deeply ingrained in various
international instruments. Let me mention a few:
The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide, defines genocide as including acts committed with the
intent of destroying a religious group in whole or in part, such as
deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about
the group’s physical destruction, in whole or in part.
The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in
Article 27 states that religious minorities should not be denied the
right, in community with the other members of their group "to
profess and practice their own religion."
The Concluding Document of the 1989 Vienna Conference on Security
and Cooperation in Europe in its Principle 16, presents quite
a list of rights, with a view to support the liberty of the most
basic minority, the individual person, to practice his religion.
Principle 19 says that the participating states will protect and
create the conditions to promote the religious identity of national
minorities, "and ensure their full equality with others."
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) in Article 30
states that a child belonging to a religious minority shall not be
denied the right, in community with other members of his group, to
profess and practice his or her religion. This seems an obvious
right, but is not always so in practice.
The 1990 "Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on
the Human Dimension of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe" , affirms in Principle 32 that no disadvantage may arise
from exercising the choice or right of belonging to a national
minority. Principle 33 goes even further and says that the
participating states are to protect the religious identity of
national minorities, create conditions for the promotion of such
identity, and take measures to that effect. These measures are to
"be in conformity with the principles of equality and
non-discrimination with respect to the other citizens."
Principle 36 then goes on to say that a climate of mutual
respect, understanding, cooperation and solidarity, without
distinction as to religion, is to be promoted by the states.
Principle 40 condemns discrimination against anyone and the states
are to take measures to protect against violence based on religious
discrimination.
The 1990 "Charter of Paris for a New Europe" makes a fundamental
statement: The rights of national minorities are "part of universal
human rights." As a result, the religious identity of national
minorities are to be protected "without any discrimination and in
full equality before the law."
We also have the 1992 "Declaration on the Rights of Persons
Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic
Minorities." Article 1 states unequivocally that these persons have
the right to profess and practice their minority religion "without
interference or any form of discrimination." This means that
minority persons have the right "to participate effectively in...
religious... and public life" and not be subject to discrimination
or disadvantage when exercising minority rights. States are to take
measures required to create favorable conditions for persons to
express their minority religious characteristics in full equality
before the law, "except where specific practices are in violation of
national law and contrary to international standards". You will note
that it is not sufficient to be in violation of national law, but
this violation must also be contrary to international standards.
This is a new concept. This new concept is further enlarged in
Article 8 by the principle that measures taken by states to ensure
effective minority rights "shall not prima facie be considered
contrary to the principle of equality contained in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights."
This is rather important, because on occasion authorities in
refusing minority religious rights, will use the argument that
granting such a right violates the principle of general
equality.
The World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna in 1993
reaffirmed the obligation (not just the desirability) of states to
ensure minority rights in accordance with the already mentioned 1992
Declaration on these rights. The UN Commission on Human rights is
called upon to examine ways and means to both promote and protect
effectively minority rights including, of course, those of religious
minorities.
Finally, there is a strong statement from Pope
John Paul II in his 1989 World Day of Peace Message. He emphasized
the need to "respect minorities" and especially their religious
liberty. He said: "Religious minorities must be able to worship as a
community, according to their own rites. They must also be in a
position to provide religious education through appropriate teaching
programmes." He then states that government authorities should
ensure religious freedom "especially when, alongside the great
majority who follow one religion, there exists one or more minority
groups of another faith."
Some Problems
While there appears to be a broad theoretical consensus regarding
religious liberty in general and minority religious liberty rights
in particular, there are some problems that exist and can trouble
church-state and inter-church relations. I mention a few; not
necessarily in order of importance.
1. Issues of Terminology:
I think that all churches have sins to confess in this area,
including minority churches. Fortunately, since the ecumenical
movement and Vatican II, we have been less prone to think of the
others as dangerous heretics, schismatics, blasphemers and so forth,
and more as separated brothers and sisters, nevertheless
brothers and sisters in Christ.
There is one term that is quite easily bandid about by majority
churches and that is the term sect. Interestingly enough, my
church is never a sect but only other churches are!
While, at least in English, the term sect, when used by
sociologists is at times appropriate, when used by churchmen it has
definitely a pejorative meaning and should be avoided when referring
to smaller or newer minority denominations.
In German or French or other languages, the situation is even
worse. In English we have the word cult -- another "four
letter word" -- to use when we really want to stigmatize another
religious group. However, in German and other languages there is
only the word sect and it is used to include what would be called
cults in English. It seems to me the proper thing is to follow the
ecumenical principle of referring to religious groups by the
terminology they use for themselves. This may not be possible in all
instances, but at least we should use respectful terminology and not
systematically put minority churches down.
2. Issue of Ignoring Minority Churches
Some church leaders have a great burden to preserve the religious
status quo at all cost, perhaps especially when their church
is experiencing amembership or financial decline. One way to do this
is simply to systematically ignore--at least publicly--other
religious groups, especially those that might bring a little
theological or other controversy into the public debate. This is an
oft-used devise by politicians running for reelection. "Don’t
mention the other candidates. This will only make them better
known." Sometimes silence can be the kiss of ecclesiastical death.
Let me give you three illustrations from my own experience. These
are just illustrations and I’m not trying to disparage anyone or any
country. In 1962, I was in Rome observing the opening of the Second
Vatican Council. I approached one of the Spanish bishops and asked
him: "We are now hearing a great deal about the ‘separated
brethren’. Can you tell me what is the relationship in Spain between
the Roman Catholic Church and the separated brethren?" His answer
was: "Oh, there is a good situation. In Spain we have no ‘separated
brethren’!"
Then, several years later in 1975, my own church was having its
world assembly in a neighboring country to Germany. It was a rather
big meeting lasting ten days, with some 15000 people in attendance,
providing it would seem, legitimate public interest. However, prior
to the assembly the leading church figure in that country called a
meeting of representatives of various churches and suggested that
they ignore this assembly and ask the press to do likewise. This
strategy was quite successful in several ways.
In contrast, when we had our last world assembly (it takes place
every five years) in Utrecht, in 1995, the Cardinal Primate
of the Netherlands actually came and attended the assembly for
several hours. He obviously did not believe that ‘ignorance is
bliss", as the English saying goes.
3. Access to the "Public Square" and Media
One of the difficulties faced by minority churches, related to
the point we have just made, is access to the "public square" and to
the mass media, especially television. This varies from country to
country. I have been told that this is a problem in Germany, as it
is for minority churches in many countries. Principle 16 of the
Concluding Document of the 1989 Vienna meeting of the Conference on
Security and Cooperation in Europe lists as one of the rights
allowing for the profession and practice of a person’s religion,
participation by religious communities in the public dialog,
includingr through use of the mass media. States are specifically
asked to adopt a positive and favorable attitude toward this
participation by religious communities. It would seem to me,
however, that it is not only necessary for the states to have in
this regard a positive and helpful attitude, but it is important to
urge the majority churches to be less jealous and protective of
their status in public affairs and in the use of the media, and more
willing to and even desirous of sharing public time and platforms
with the religious minorities. It would seem that it should be
possible to solve this and other problems "through," what the
already mentioned 1990 Copenhagen Document called "dialogue
based on the principles of the rule of law."
4. The Issue of Proselytism
This is not a simple problem. There is little doubt that
evangelism - preaching the Christian gospel - to every nation,
kindred, tongue and people (Rev. 14:6) - is a Christian imperative.
A non-evangelistic church is an emasculated - probably even dying -
church. In terms of the traditional dictionary definition of
proselytism, all evangelism is a form of proselytism. It is at this
point that we have a problem. The English dictionary defines
proselytism as conversion from one belief to another. This seems to
be quite in harmony with the great New Testament gospel commission
to go and teach all people. Minority churches--at least those that
are growing--are active in evangelistic outreach,and therefore
accused by the more sedate churches of "proselytism," or to use the
more lurid expression, of "sheep stealing."
The problem with the term proselytism is that it has various
meanings, most of them quite different from the original dictionary
meaning, and people, when using the expression, should make clear in
what way they are using proselytism.
There is the definition of the World Council of Churches:
corrupt witness, that is using false, improper methods, such
as offering financial inducements, providing untrue or misleading
information. The 1997 WCC statement "Toward Common Witness" offers a
characterization of proselytism that involves such things as "unfair
criticism," "caricaturing the doctrines of another church" and
exploiting people’s loneliness, illness, distress or even
disillusionment with their own church to convert them. Wrong
methods.
We have the definition of the Orthodox: proselytism is not
so much using wrong methods as using the wrong address.
Anyone baptized, even though that person would seem to have no
living, active relationship with Christ, is off limits. Wrong
person.
Then we have a Catholic definition used by Bishop Pierre Duprey,
Secretary of the Vatican Council on Christian Unity: An organized
effort to enlarge one’s church at the expense of another church.
When there is awrong motivation you have proselytism.
It is obvious that minority churches that have a missionary
spirit are not going to stop witnessing, nor should they. However,
it would be helpful to get them involved in dialog and endeavor to
reach agreement on what the French call a "code de bonne conduite."
Some orthodox have called for a "missionary pact of
non-aggression."
5. Church-State Issues
While the international instruments deal extensively with human
rights issues, they do not treat very much church-state issues in
general, nor the question of church-state separation in particular.
The reason for this, is presumably because there are many models of
church-state relations, varying from country to country. In other
words, there is no international consensus concerning these
matters. In some countries churches are subsidized by the state,
in others this is considered unconstitutional. In some countries
religion is taught in the schools and in others this is not the
case. Some countries practice strict separation of church and state,
while in others church and state are essentially one.
If there is some theoretical international consensus emerging, it
is in the area of equality and non-discrimination.
Should not religious minorities enjoy the same privileges given to
majority churches and to citizens belonging to these churches.
The 1990 Copenhagen meeting of the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe states that belonging to a minority should not
result in a disadvantage for the person making that choice and that
states should protect religious minorities by adopting measures
which "are in conformity with the principles of equality and
non-discrimination with respect to the other citizens" (Principle
38).
In harmony with this thinking it would seem out of place for
certain states to require individuals to belong to a certain
religion or confession in order to serve in public office (e.g., to
be head of state). It seems discriminating, for example, for bishops
of the church of England to sit in the House of Lords, but not
leaders of other churches. If a state grants financial subsidies to
churches, then these should be available to all, not just to
privileged religious groups. If religion is taught in schools, then
all religions should have the right to teach religion to their
children.
In this connection, the question arises regarding the
Kirchensteuer. Is it not discriminating for certain churches to
receive large funds via the state, while others receive nothing? I
have asked regarding the rationale for using Caesar to collect money
from church members to be given to their church.
The justification for this practice that I have heard is "if we
did not have the Kirchensteuer we would get less money." If this is
true, does this bring into question the spiritual vitality of the
church and the persuasion of the formal members?
There is one delicate church-state issue that I hesitate to
raise, but I believe it cannot be indefinitely ignored. I am
referring to the Holy See (that is the Pope and Curia of the Roman
Catholic Church) claiming and receiving the status of a political
state. It is in practice impossible to differentiate between the
Pope as head of the Roman Catholic Church and as head of the Vatican
City State. In fact, diplomatic relations are not with Vatican City,
but with the Holy See. An ambassador to the Holy See is, in essence,
an ambassador to the head and governing body of the Roman Catholic
Church.
With all due respect, it seems to me that from a New Testament
perspective the concept of Christ’s church being a state is
troubling. From the viewpoint of minority churches--in fact all
other churches--this arrangement seems discriminatory and runs
counter to the pluralistic principle of equality before the law of
all religious bodies. This issue is not only a theoretical one, but
has practical results of a discriminatory nature. For example, at
the United Nations the Holy See sits with non-member states, while
other Christian churches, including the World Council of Churches,
sit in the back as non-governmental organizations. In the United
States, for example, the Catholic Church through the papal pronuncio
has direct access to the State Department and the White House; other
churches do not have this diplomatic channel. I find it strange,
though rather interesting, to receive mail from the Vatican through
diplomatic pouch, rather than the regular international postal
service.
Despite the significant international role of the current pope in
promoting peace and human rights, it would seem to this Protestant
onlooker that sooner or later the Vatican is going to have to face
up to the implications of the Holy See as a state, not to mention
the economic burdens of financing a costly world-wide diplomatic
service.
6. A Problem of a Minority Church - Day of Rest and
Worship
In closing I would like to mention one problem faced by the
members of a specific free church. I mention it, because I’m
personally acquainted with it, since it deals with my own church. It
is one problem that illustrates, no doubt, numerous problems that
are specific to other churches. I refer to the day of religious
worship and rest. As you know, Seventh-day Adventists are out of
step with most other Christians, in that they worship and rest on
the Biblical Seventh-day Sabbath, not on the traditional Sunday. You
can well understand that this often causes problems, even hardship,
for Sabbath keepers.
When I was a child, it was quite normal for a Seventh-day
Adventist to loose his job and for Seventh-day Adventist children
and their parents to have frequent problems regarding the required
school attendance on Saturday, including examination schedules.
Young people had problems with military service on Sabbath.
Fortunately, I can say that the situation is generally much more
favorable today, including in Catholic countries like Italy, Spain
and Poland. The growth of the concept of religious liberty has
helped. So have some international instruments. I refer to just two:
1) The 1957 Convention No. 106 Concerning Weekly Rest in Commerce or
Offices (Art. 6) says that "The traditions and customs of religious
minorities shall, as far as possible, be respected." 2) The 1981
"Declaration on the Elimination of all forms of Intolerance and of
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief" states (in Article 6,
section h), that every person has the right to observe days of rest
in accordance with the precept of his religion.
It is important for majority churches in promoting Sunday
observance and legislation favoring their right to a day of rest and
family worship, to remember and help protect the rights and needs of
minority churches who worship on a different day.
CONCLUSION
We have come a long way since the days of the Inquisition, the
burning or execution of heretics by both Catholics and Protestants,
and the systematic oppression of and discrimination against minority
churches. There is today the beginning of a consensus emerging
regarding basic human rights and religious liberty. However, there
are dark clouds on the religious liberty horizon: 1) The free
profession of the Christian religion is not accepted in Muslim
countries, 2) The growth of religious fundamentalism and extremism
is inimical to tolerance and religious liberty; 3) The rise of
nationalism and a religious territorial and cultural mentality is
once again endangering the rights of religious minorities in certain
countries. When these various forces--religious fanaticism,
political nationalism and cultural religious imperialism--combine,
you have indeed an explosive mixture which can very well blow
religious liberty into oblivion or at least badly damage it. A
conference like this one helps remind us that the price of religious
liberty is always eternal vigilance.
Bert Beverly Beach
|