Prea puţină lume a dat importanţă unei dispute apărute cu puţine săptămâni în urmă tot de-a lungul invizibilei frontiere Est-Vest – de data aceasta pe tema rolului religiei în sfera publică. După adoptarea noii Constituţii de către Parlamentul de la Budapesta în data de 18 aprilie, o parte a comunităţii internaţionale, dar mai ales Germania, a criticat aspru noua lege fundamentală a Ungariei, denunţând-o drept un „atac la pluralism” care ar consolida, în plus, intoleranţa la adresa minorităţilor religioase şi sexuale. O prestigioasă revistă politică germană a opinat chiar că Ungaria a devenit „ruşinea Europei”. Indiscutabil, Constituţia lui Viktor Orban epatează prin doctrina ei conservatoare şi prin seria valorilor etice eminamente tradiţionale, din managementul cărora Guvernul Orban speră să-şi derive legitimitatea. Ministrul adjunct de Externe al Germaniei, liberalul Werner Hoyer, a declarat că Germania urmăreşte „evoluţiile din Ungaria cu mare atenţie şi preocupare”, considerând că noua lege fundamentală a ţării ar fi chiar mai îngrijorătoare decât mult-blamata lege mass-media, care atrăsese Ungaria într-un scandal european de proporţii. Budapesta a reacţionat rapid la criticile Berlinului despre presupusa incompatibilitate a noii Constituţii cu valorile europene, omologul maghiar al lui Hoyer denunţând, lapidar, „amestecul inacceptabil în politicile interne ale ţării”.

Preambulul Constituţiei Ungariei abundă în referiri la creştinism, iar corpul legii stipulează, printre altele, protejarea vieţii fătului din momentul concepţiei sale, definind instituţia căsătoriei drept „uniune dintre un bărbat şi o femeie”. Prin aceste şi alte articole, şi-a atras oprobriul unor grupuri de influenţă cu mare trecere pe lângă Bruxelles sătule de modelul social tradiţional, bazat pe ideea nucleului familial. Susţinătorii Constituţiei argumentează în schimb că aceasta nu condiţionează existenţa nucleului familial de căsătorie şi recunoaşte parteneriatele înregistrate ale cuplurilor de acelaşi sex, punând în plus un accent deosebit pe protecţia copilului, a mamelor, a vârstnicilor, precum şi a persoanelor cu dizabilităţi.

De cealaltă parte, guvernul de coaliţie de la Berlin pare să se ghideze din ce în ce mai puţin după regulile creştin-democraţiei, deşi principalul partid de guvernământ este cel creştin-democrat. Doctrina în cauză s-a născut la sfârşitul secolului al XIX-lea ca o reacţie de protejare a catolicismului în faţa liberalismului şi a secularizării. Konrad Adenauer, părintele Germaniei Federale moderne, ar fi considerat, probabil, părţi ale acestui tract al guvernanţilor maghiari drept periculos de permisive.

Deocamdată, disputa dintre Germania şi Ungaria pe această temă pare a se fi încheiat, iar mai-marii de la Bruxelles, cu preşedintele CE Barroso în frunte, au dat între timp fuga la Roma pentru a asista cu evlavie la beatificarea Papei Ioan Paul al II-lea. Patimile ce stăpânesc Uniunea Europeană a zilelor noastre – înfiinţată în 1958 de fapt ca o comunitate preponderent catolică – sunt departe de a mai putea fi numite creştine, darămite catolice. Cu excepţia Germaniei postnaziste, nici una dintre noile democraţii europene nu s-a demonstrat tributară doctrinei creştin-democrate – nici măcar Polonia. Legislaţia UE este astăzi bazată aproape integral pe principiile umanismului secular, Uniunea pornind din start la drum cu dezideratul proteguirii autonomiei individului şi a principiului neamestecului în viaţa cetăţeanului, vizând transformări doar acolo unde clericalismul îşi punea amprenta până şi asupra legilor. De atunci, majoritatea organizaţiilor religioase au ajuns din ce în ce mai mult în defensivă, având în vedere că modul lor de abordare a acţiunilor caritabile contravine unui număr crescând de reglementări europene, bazate toate pe principiul diversităţii în societate. După ce Parlamentul Marii Britanii a adoptat, anul trecut, noua lege unică a egalităţii, nu puţine societăţi catolice de adopţie au preferat să-şi închidă porţile decât să agreeze adopţia unui copil de către un cuplu homosexual. Ciocnirea dintre drepturi devine pe zi ce trece mai greu de evitat, iar antagonismele apărute servesc exclusiv statului, a cărui strânsoare determină, până la urmă, individul să cedeze în faţa voinţei generale, în sensul definit de Rousseau, a populaţiei.

Marile carenţe ale noului secularism sunt lipsa de viziune şi impasibilitatea. Principiul său dominant rămâne non-judecata, care a degenerat însă rapid în indiferenţă. Iar aceasta merge mână în mână cu multiculturalismul ori de câte ori există reţineri tacite în privinţa cetăţenilor cu o conduită apreciată drept o abatere de la normă, dar ajunşi acceptaţi, de bine, de rău, pentru ca respectiva civilizaţie urbană să poată funcţiona în toată complexitatea ei. Nu trebuie să mire, prin urmare, că pleiada seculariştilor fără viziune este exasperată de noua Constituţie a Ungariei, ale cărei trimiteri creştine vor fi deranjat, indubitabil, cel mai mult. Şi la adresa societăţii româneşti aflate încă eminamente sub influenţa preceptelor creştine există destule ameninţări. Dar în România ameninţarea vine nu din partea seculariştilor, ci chiar a principalei instituţii religioase a ţării ca urmare a modului în care înţelege să-şi proiecteze influenţa. Poate că tema în cauză merită analizată într-un articol distinct.

Tom Gallagher este politolog britanic. Volumul său cel mai recent despre România este „Deceniul pierdut al României: Mirajul integrării europene după anul 2000″.

Aparut 16 Mai 2011 in Romania Libera: http://www.romanialibera.ro/opinii/comentarii/interminabilele-razboaie-culturale-ale-europei-225370.html

My book ‘Church and State: Religious Nationalism and State Identification in Post-Communist Romania’ is now published and can be purchased in two or more ways:

Amazon UK:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Church-State-Nationalism-Identification-Post-Communist/dp/1441168575/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1

35% Discount flyer: Print and post

Church and State (Expires 31 August 2011)

You may use the following link to read the advance copy:

http://jcs.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/04/08/jcs.csq136.full?keytype=ref&ijkey=Qq0zuZEV0mhIfd2

To download a pdf of the advance copy (for personal/research use only) use this link:

http://jcs.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/csq136?ijkey=Qq0zuZEV0mhIfd2&keytype=ref

http://cipg.codemantra.us/UI_TRANSACTIONS/Marketing/UI_Widget.aspx?ID=WP9781441168573&ISBN=9781441168573&sts=r

Source: Evenimentul Zilei Daily, Wednesday 9 March 2011

Lawmakers have approved a state law that reimbursed 80% of the social programs of the Church

Electoral potential of the church is not overlooked by lawmakers, who gave the green light to a law yesterday that up to 80% of the money to social projects run by the church to be borne by the state budget. The remaining 20% would be covered by sponsorship and donations.  Funds would be awarded by a panel of seven members, three representatives of local government and four from the cults.

Orban: The church is being subordinated to the political power 

The law on church and state relations was passed yesterday by both the government and opposition MPs. Only seven members opposed the adoption of the enactment, and another five abstained. “The church is basically tied to the government by this law, because the allocation of funds will be carried by government decisions, which obviously would interfere and offer state an arbitrary role especially in the church’s social activity. In this way, the church is basically being subordinated to the power political “, argued Ludovic Orban against the liberal vote. 

Turcan: full transparency must go on 

Liberal Democrat Raluca Turcan, the initiator of the project, rejects however the idea that the church’s actions would be virtually politicized. “ Politicization can occur wherever there are people and human decisions. But by the principles laid down by this law and the criteria for these projects’ funding, the chances for politicization are reduced. We must rely on full transparency and on the local authorities’ request,” said Raluca Turcan. 

She said that through this project, “LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) is giving a direct response to the debate on health reform by providing a right wing solution, which is naturally emerging from its Christian doctrine, and ensured through the involvement of local authorities and the church.” 

Lawmakers’ interest in the church is not new. Whether concerning the amendments to the budget or the “payment” of votes by intentional government decisions, the elected officials include the churches on their refunds budget list.

http://www.evz.ro/detalii/stiri/iertarea-pacatelor-cu-bani-de-la-buget-923480.html

This article examines the access to remedies available to individual actors or groups in cases of violations of the freedom of religion. The emphasis of this article is on the Human Rights Courts, first at the international level and then within the European political and judicial institutions. After outlining the remedy mechanisms available to states, organisations and individuals in relation to religious human rights violations in the international courts, the article will proceed to examine a number of cases and treaties handled by the European Court of Justice, European Commission, European Parliament, Council of Europe and Parliamentary Assembly, regarding the freedom of religion. The argument put forward is that in spite of the universally recognised de jure protection of freedom of religion as a normative principle in international law, this human right is not always recognised de facto by the European regional human rights bodies. Whereas Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms clearly recognises and protects religious freedom, this author will argue that it has often been used as a way to limit religious freedom rather than offer remedies, protect and expand such freedoms, especially in relation to new and minority religions.

Volume (Year): 3-4 (2010)
Issue (Month): (December)
Pages: 85-97

http://ideas.repec.org/a/lum/rev4rl/v3-4y2010ip85-97.html

The article is now available to download and read at:

http://jls.upa.ro/attachments/064_Jurnalul de Studii Juridice 34 Dec 2010-4.pdf

Moscow (ENInews). The Russian Orthodox Church has ruled that hierarchs (church leaders) and clergy can run for office in exceptional cases when their presence is needed to fight “forces striving to use electoral power to fight the Orthodox Church.”

A document passed on 2 February by the Bishops’ Council, which was meeting in Moscow, describes potential opponents of the church as forces “including schismatics and those of other religions,” without naming any specifically, and says the church has the right to pass moral judgment on political programs and statements when they touch on issues including moral relativism, family values, historical monuments and the environment.

The document stresses that each case would be considered individually, that candidates must be chosen by church hierarchs, and that even if they are running for office, candidates cannot violate the Russian Orthodox Church’s rule against clergy joining political parties.

It also makes clear that it is referring not just to clergy within Russia’s borders. The jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church extends across the former Soviet Union. Ukraine, which has seen a volatile political situation, also accounts for a significant part of the Russian Orthodox Church.

In another document, passed on 4 February, the Bishops’ Council, led by Patriarch Kirill I, said clergy and lay people must use all legal means to fight “blasphemy and slander” against the church in modern society.

The Russian Orthodox Church is playing an increasingly prominent role in Russian society, but is also facing growing criticism. According to the document, “slander should be differentiated from criticism of negative phenomena in the life of the earthly church that need to be corrected and overcome from the point of view of Christian teaching.”

Some Russian Orthodox clergy were involved in politics in the late 1980s and 1990s, as the Soviet Union disintegrated, and there were priests in Parliament under the tsar and in politics after the February Revolution of 1917 that brought down the tsar.

President Dmitri Medvedev, whose wife, Svetlana, is a prominent patron of the Russian Orthodox Church, received the Archishops’ Council in the Kremlin on 3 February. Medvedev told the bishops that the church is essential to overcoming the ethnic strife that has shaken Russia recently, pitting young Russians against Muslim migrants from the Northern Caucasus. “Today, a great deal depends on your views, your sermons, your teaching, the pastor’s word directly addressed to young people,” said Medvedev.

Some Muslim leaders in Russia have said Muslim clergy might follow the example of the Russian Orthodox Church and run for office as well.

http://www.eni.ch/featured/article.php?id=4704

Senatorul Nicolae Robu, preşedintele PNL Timiş, a abordat tema finanţării bisericilor de la bugetul statului. Acesta doreşte o schimbare de legislaţie în acest sens, astfel încât nici un om politic să nu se mai poată ocupa de aducerea de bani către biserici, ci aceste fonduri să fie stabilite prin legea bugetului şi să fie alocate direct.  “Constatăm cu toţii că bisericile, indiferent de cult, sunt din ce în ce mai mult implicate în politică, prin mecanismul prin care se face finanţarea unor lucrări de construcţie sau de reparaţie, reabilitare a bisericilor. Consider că trebuie să schimbăm legislaţia, astfel încât niciun om politic să nu se mai poată ocupa de aducerea de bani către biserici. Trebuie stabilit prin legea bugetului cât este fondul prin care guvernul în exerciţiu doreşte să-l aloce pentru biserici pe culte, aceşti bani să ajungă şi de aici încolo să rămână treaba exclusiv a conducerilor naţionale ale bisericilor cum distribuie banii către diversele parohii. Printr-o astfel de iniţiativă am lăsa Biserica să-şi vadă de cele sfinte şi nu am mai implica-o în jocurile politice”, spune Nicolae Robu.

http://www.ziuadevest.ro/eveniment/16968-nicolae-robu-nu-mai-dorete-implicarea-politicului-in-treburile-bisericii.html

Democracy means government by the people for the people. It makes government accountable by giving its citizens ultimate control of those ruling them, either directly or indirectly through elected representatives. It is accountable to values and truths which transcend regimes or parties; it protects and values the individuals and institutions which form the society; and it is an open-ended process which does  not claim to provide all the answers to society’s problems, but allows space for open debate and self-criticism.  Its vision inspires hope for a society in which all people are truly equal, free and just, and yet where difference is respected, social responsibility prevails and the gulf between rich and poor is overcome.

The historical relationship between Democracy and Christianity

The relationship between Christianity and democracy has fluctuated historically, sometimes ambiguous and even hostile. Often democracy was not necessarily compatible with historical churches (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) which espoused tendencies toward hierarchy and absolutism. However Christianity has often embraced the democratic values of freedom, individual conscience, and human rights as compatible with the gospel, arguing that fundamental principles inherent of democracy can be traced back to the Christian tradition as it unfolded over centuries. These include, among others, the egalitarian communal experience of the Early Church as a model for modern emphases on social equality. The notion of subsidiarity and common good are said to have developed amidst the interaction between medieval Christianity and Aristotelian political philosophy. Also, concepts like individual’s dignity, human rights, freedom of conscience or religious tolerance may be traced back to the radical Reformation, English non-conformity and North American liberal Protestantism.

The dawn of the European Enlightenment and the French Revolution brought a major change of perspective. Because the thrust of the French Revolution was anticlerical and sometimes anti-Christian in character, European democracy became a political expression of secularism and atheism. This was different from Britain where the nonconformists were supporters of democratic governance; and the United States, where Christianity was formative to the constitution of the new American republic. Nevertheless, in the European countries under Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant Christianity, the 19th century state churches tended to eschew democracy, as it was perceived to undermine their role as the moral guardians of the nation.

During the 20th century, having experienced the failure of the Fascist, Nazi and Communist totalitarianisms, churches began to develop a new appreciation for democracy. On the political scene, the defeat of Germany in war was recognized as a victory for democracy, and led to the establishment of democratic governments in most of the defeated countries as well as across countries formerly under colonial rule. By the 1990s, the collapse of the Eastern block brought about the transition of many formerly communist countries to democratic forms of governance. Passive sufferers or active militants against totalitarian regimes, churches became supporters of democratization. The examples of South Africa and the role of the Ecumenical Church in the TRC or the role played by the Catholic Church in Poland or by other evangelical churches in Eastern Europe, have shown that they can make a crucial contribution to democracy.

Liberal democracies in particular have offered a political form of organization which Christians have welcomed. A form of representative democracy where the political power of the government is moderated by a constitution which protects the rights and freedoms of individuals and minorities, democracy ensures a moral basis for respect and fairness for all, tolerating and protecting those spheres within which people find meaning for their lives. Unlike totalitarian forms of government, liberal democracy seeks to affirm the protection of all human rights – personal, civil, political, economic and social. Churches support democracy because it sustains the freedom for religious faith and practice, which entails, for example,  freedom to believe, to worship, to teach, to evangelize, to collaborate in works of mercy, and to witness to the public good.

Evangelicals and Democracy

Evangelical churches in particular relate to democracy mainly in terms of their own religious equality and freedom, often with little regard for the democratic process in its entirety. This is true of the Latin American context, where the struggle for religious equality was carried out with a dual purpose: to gain freedom of action in the religious sphere, and to secure equality of treatment in the public sphere. An emphasis on ethnicity and national identity is more often found in the context of evangelical missions in Africa, parts of Asia and Eastern Europe. In Eastern Europe, evangelical mission emphasized religious equality in the context of dominant churches such as Catholic and Orthodox, which attempted to limit their ‘sectarian’ activities. During Communism, Evangelicals existed as dissident religious denominations, and remained strong in spite of a very controlled freedom of propagation. The political changes in the early nineties opened the door for an evangelical attempt to gain equality of civil status with the dominant church and equal space in the public sphere. The search for equal treatment from government and the law as the majority religion of the country often sums up the reason for evangelical presence in politics. However their support for laws and policies that benefit larger denominations like themselves, but are utterly discriminatory against unrecognized religious minorities (Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Greek Catholics, etc.) is indicative of a deficient understanding of religious freedom.

Nevertheless, a commitment to religious plurality and equality ensures a democratic culture and helps overcome the hegemonic tendencies of the state churches. Evangelical churches offer a free social space, a new personality and responsible participation in and solidarity with the civil community. Evangelical mission has an important role in moralizing democracy by means of the Christian message, which brings about values and virtues first in individuals and then in civil society. Evangelicals can revitalize civil society through their support of voluntary associations which intrinsically promote plurality and democracy. In most countries from Central and Eastern Europe that have joined or are in the process of joining the European Union, the contribution that these religious bodies can bring is crucial to developing a pluralist mentality which is suitable for an international community which cuts across religious and ethnic boundaries and liberates societies from xenophobia, national extremism and religious domination.

Evangelical churches in the countries from the Eastern block have been less influential in helping the process of transition to democracy as they are to the process of consolidating that democracy. Major social and political changes undergone by the Romanian society over the twenty years of transition from totalitarianism have found the Evangelicals retreated to the soul-saving mandate with no regard for the surrounding society. With their foreign originating roots, Evangelicals were accepted with difficulty at the dialogue table in a context characterized by the rise of nationalism with ethnicity closely linked to religious identity. Like in other places in Eastern Europe, being a Romanian meant being an Orthodox, just as being a Croat meant being a Catholic. However, particularly because of the freedom Evangelical churches enjoy from nationalist tendencies that are prevailing in the historical churches, they can become an essential asset to developing a pluralist mentality suitable for a democratic society.

Responsibilities for the Church’s mission

Reinhold Niebuhr wrote: ‘Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary’. Liberal democracy can stress the importance of human freedom to the detriment of social responsibility. Churches’ support for democracy therefore should be critical and prophetical in character, stressing the need for a society in which individual needs and rights are not pursued at the expense of the community. There are limitations in any democratic system, whose utopian vision will never be fulfilled and realized by a human form of government. The Church is pledged to the growth of the Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus Christ, and consequently maintains a critical distance from all the governments of the world and from any social, political or economic order.

In transitional societies, religious commitment often leads to intolerance towards others, reinforcing social and political divisions. The Church should promote a culture of tolerance, respect and mutual understanding first among Christians and then in relation to other religious communities. This is crucial in parts of the world like the Middle East where democratization is often perceived as a Western cultural imposition. These attempts at bringing a western form of democracy must take into account the cultural differences that exist between Western countries and the Arab states. For newly founded constitutional governments to survive and for democracy to succeed in the Arab states, there is a need not just for effective checks and balances, a free press and independent judiciary – which may take a long time to evolve – but also for dialogue between Muslim and religious minorities.

Democracy is a human form of political organization which does not determine or define christian freedom. The freedom of the Church is derived from faithfulness to God’s justice and the implications this has to the prophetic witness to human justice and equity. Only in exercising this freedom is the Church contributing and supporting the establishment or the consolidation of the democratic social order.

Bibliography:

De Gruchy, John W.  Christianity and Democracy: A Theology for a Just World Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

_____.  “Democracy” in The Blackwell Companion to Political Theology, Peter Scott and William T. Cavanaugh, eds. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004: 439-54.

Freston, Paul.  Evangelicals and Politics in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Plant, Raymond.  Politics, Theology and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Villa-Vicencio, Charles.  A Theology of Reconstruction: Nation-building and Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Cristian Romocea

Dictionary of Mission Theology: Evangelical Foundations, edited by John Corrie, Nottingham: IVP Press, 2007, pgs. 90-93.

…

The episode of the construction of the Romanian Orthodox national cathedral is illustrative of the continuing nationalist preoccupation of the church in post-Communist Romania. The project has aptly been dubbed the “Orthodox Marriott” by Razvan Theodorescu, referring to the expensive cost of building a cathedral that would host ten thousand believers in the center of Bucharest. The idea for a national cathedral goes back to the nineteenth century, when the Romanian Kingdom secured its independence from the Ottoman Empire. Intended to show the victory of Orthodoxy over the Muslim Ottomans, the cathedral received strong support but never materialized due to misunderstandings regarding its size and location. The project was revisited in the 1920s, guided by Metropolitan Miron Cristea and benefiting from the support of the crown, but lack of funding meant it was eventually postponed. After the fall of Communism, Teoctist used the seventieth anniversary of the Orthodox Church’s independence to propose a new project for the national cathedral, appointing a committee that would work on the design and other technical features of this massive project. Despite criticism from various quarters, in 2004 the municipal council of the capital city approved the church’s request to build the cathedral in Carol Park, only to be later moved to the Arsenal Hill (Dealul Arsenalului) behind the House of the People.

As Stan and Turcescu noted, the nationalistic connotations of the name of the new construction are inescapable, implying a theological conception whereby salvation is not an individual act but a national function. Such a nationalist discourse for the cathedral project stands in historical continuity with the Orthodox Church’s identification with the state. As if further evidence were required, the cathedral project received not only the blessing of the political elite, including those of President Emil Constantinescu and President Traian Basescu, but also the active support of nationalist organizations like ASCOR (the Romanian Christian Orthodox Student Association) and Fundatia Studentilor Ortodocsi din Bucuresti (Bucharest Theology Students’ Foundation). In reaction to these criticisms, Fr. Bartolomeu argued that the nation being a sociohistorical, metaphysical, and theological reality, salvation is obtained collectively and nationally, rather than individually.