Francis and Religious Freedom Arguments

In my presentation on religious freedom arguments to "reach the persuadable middle," I conclude with three things to learn from Francis in this context.

First, he emphasizes (like others) that freedom for religious organizations is--not solely, but very significantly--"freedom to serve,” especially those in greatest need. As he said in Philadelphia:

[R]eligious liberty, by its nature, transcends places of worship and the private sphere of individuals and families. Our rich religious traditions [also] serve society…. They call to conversion, reconciliation, concern for the future of society, self-sacrifice in the service of the common good, and compassion for those in need. At the heart of their spiritual mission is the proclamation of the truth and dignity of the human person and human rights.

As John Allen remarked in the pre-visit story Rick blogged about some time back, Francis’s emphasis--on "giving the Church freedom and space to bring the Gospel to the ‘existential peripheries of society’"-- is "potentially a game-changer” in the debates over religious freedom. He speaks with credibility about serving those in need. Others with such credibility need to speak up too. As Allen says, this is one the few hopes we have that "the push for religious liberty [might] transcend the divisions often associated with the wars of culture.”

 

Second, Francis respects and acknowledges other interests and perspectives. In his dialogues with secular/nonbelieving journalists and others of differing views, he goes out of his way to recognize their good will and the contributions they make to the common good. Respect for others must appear not only in how one argues for religious freedom, but also in the substantive scope of freedom that one claims. It is both unsupportable as matter of principle and unwise as a matter of pragmatics to make overbroad assertions that fail to take account of legitimate concerns of justice or policy that may appear on the other side of a dispute. I'm not saying here where those lines should be drawn for any particular case; that's a subject for (many) other posts. I'm just saying that in asserting or defending the (crucial) right to religious freedom, one should also give the kind of sympathetic consideration to others' interests that we rightly claim they should give to interests of religious conscience.

 

Third, the case for religious freedom should be presented in a way that reflects joy. Not simply dark mutterings about the downfall of society--those dark mutterings are sometimes wrong,  I think, and even to the extent they're right, the challenges should be addressed joyfully. Plus expression of joy in the act of service. From Evangelii Gaudium, paras. 12, 15:

The life of the Church should always reveal clearly that God takes the initiative, that ‘he has loved  first’ (1 Jn 4:19) and that he alone ‘gives the growth’ (1 Cor 3:7). This conviction enables us to maintain a spirit of joy in the midst of a task so demanding and challenging that it engages our entire life…. Instead of seeming to impose new obligations, [Christians] should appear as people who wish to share their joy, who point to a horizon of beauty and who invite others to a delicious banquet.