We don’t want theocracy or secular tyranny
Last month Quentin de la Bédoyère asked readers to respond to the arguments of a militant secularist. This is what you had to say
28 March 2008

I should have known better than to challenge readers to respond to the National Secular Society's Terry Sanderson's views on the secularisation of society. But here I am, studying nearly 60 pages of text, and attempting to draw out the key themes you have expressed. And this would have been easier if you had all been in agreement within these themes; I think Mr Sanderson himself would be surprised at the variety of views in a group which he is inclined to think leaps to attention at the raised papal hand.

But the responses are not a poll; they are the thoughts of those who chose to write, and not necessarily typical of Catholics as a whole. Both sexes are represented, and a variety of life experiences, as well as the clergy, though sadly under represented. Without exception, contributions showed evidence of considerable thought, and always expressed irenically. I am extremely grateful to all.

A major strand was the view that Christian faith was not just an add-on but a vision and orientation which informed the whole of life, giving it purpose and meaning. Far from opposing the secular, it enriched and expanded it. Militant secularism was seen not just as an alternative to religion but actively opposed to it. It was a faith position in its own right, which sought to diminish religion and, at the very least, to sideline it to a superstitious eccentricity. It was seen as impoverishing life, reducing it to a grey monotone, and by its very nature, leading to the violation of a bundle of human rights.

Where, as some admitted, the Church had once been mistakenly intolerant of unbelievers, the militant secularist had learnt the lesson and the boot of intolerance was very much on the other foot. Consult, it was suggested, the National Secular Society's website, and there you will see the snarl behind the Sanderson smile. (The NSS, incidentally, claims a membership of 7,000, which, given that the subscription is not nominal, is substantial. We must assume that a far larger number are sympathisers to a greater or lesser degree.)

None of you championed an ecclesiastical society; in fact a secular, but free, society under the rule of law was seen as a good environment. "Render unto Caesar..." But you did ask that our rights to conscience and the actions which flow there from should be respected, and so should our freedom to witness to our beliefs on an individual and collective basis. In doing so we were claiming no more than the militant secularist does. But, by doing so, we could act as a leaven in the secular dough.

There was scant sympathy on the question of indoctrination. Not only do parents have the duty to transmit the life values they hold to be important, but in practice they will, perhaps unconsciously, do so through example and attitudes. If Mr Sanderson has family he will undoubtedly have indoctrinated his own children, and will have continued to do so by sending them to schools which share his values, just as Catholic parents do. In recent history it is the atheist regimes who have specialised in forced indoctrination.

And that, in part, is an answer to Mr Sanderson's problems with faith schools. There are those 70 per cent of state schools which do not conflict with his principles, while only the remainder are available to believers. The proportion is fair, but no more than fair.

Catholic education was the topic most frequently mentioned - perhaps because it is one about which readers have the most direct experience. A strong defence was mounted, arguing that the school acted on behalf of parents, and so should reflect their values. But some respondents had more mixed feelings - ranging from holding that too many Catholic schools fail to provide a good Catholic element in their education to being quite happy with the abandonment of Catholic schools, especially at secondary level. Several mentioned that, if Catholic schools left the state sector, substantial tax relief to compensate would then be appropriate. The irony that universal education found its source in religious schools was noted. Mr Sanderson should take some comfort from how little Catholic teaching seems to remain in adult life. We should not.

Far from feeling that Catholic leadership in matters of public concern to be damaging to the interests of the Church, several suggested that Catholic values should be expressed more explicitly in the public forum. We, both leaders and laity, are hiding a light, which our woeful society needs, under a bushel. Much of that light illuminates the dignities and rights of the human person.

There was one loud cheer for Bishop O'Donoghue's firm views on Catholic education, and a general deploring of secular education's immoral and counterproductive approach to sexual integrity. The damage to society, and to individuals, was plain to see.

Abortion was unequivocally condemned, and there were several accounts of women overcome with remorse following an abortion. One reader suggested that the toll of abortion should be added to the huge number of deaths brought about in the 20th century by atheistic regimes.

The issue of Catholic adoption societies and the placement of children in civil partnerships did not figure strongly in the comments, but it was seen as an example of an ideological attack on conscientious objection. We accept that society's views have changed here in contradiction to long held tradition, but see no reason why it should be imposed, for no practical benefit, on us.

There was little patience with the Sanderson complaint that MPs were being instructed how to vote in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Burke was quoted: "Your representative owes you... his judgment; and he betrays you, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

If Catholic MPs seek deeper understanding of the Church's teaching they are doing no more than their duty in informing their consciences before freely exercising their judgment.

The Vatican's influence, as a sovereign state, you maintained, has nothing to do with acreage but with breadth of influence. It represents a vast international body of some 1.2 billion Catholics and so fully justifies its diplomatic links and its place at top tables. One reader authoritatively pointed out that the sovereignty of the Holy See had been acknowledged by most states long before the Italian concordat and that this was enshrined in international law. And indeed the point was made that, if it lost its independence, it might find itself within, and subject to, a regime run by Mr Sanderson's friends - as indeed, in the absence of a concordat, it might have done in Mussolini's Italy.

And now, with the benefit of all your views to guide me, I will try to outline my own answer to the original question: what kind of society do we want?

I believe that our society should be integrated under the rule of law, but it cannot be this unless it shares at least core moral values. Far from being homogeneous, it should rejoice in different views, including those of Mr Sanderson, and value eccentricity. This has always been the British way. Government can only draw its authority from its service to the best interests of all its people. There is nothing sacred about democracy, which can indeed be abused by the tyrannising of minorities. But, in its own bumbling and imperfect way, it seems to work better than anything else.

One shared value, long cherished but now in need of repair, is a high degree of tolerance. The bias should be in favour of freedom of activity, conscience and privacy unless these can be clearly demonstrated to be a source of disproportionate damage. The level of proof must be high. The "blueprint" society which seeks to regulate every activity looks ideal on paper but in practice always kills the human spirit because it does not fit human nature. A free society may look at first sight tricky to manage. But in fact, providing the principles are observed, it largely manages itself.

You can find more of your comments at Quentin de la Bédoyère's website.