Pope Francis and Religious Conscience: Interview with La Croix

Unlike his predecessors, Pope Francis seems to relish the chance to speak with the press.  No doubt he sees these "encounters" as opportunities to share the joy of the gospel with a wide audience.  Shortly after his election as Peter's successor, he gave a lengthy interview with America Magazine (here), and his in-flight press conferences with journalists covering papal pastoral visits to countries around the globe have become common place (see, e.g., here, here, here, and here).  Given Pope Francis' extemporaneous and pastoral style, it is not surprising that some of these interviews and press conferences have been a source of some confusion.  Thus, when these interactions with the press actually clarify the Pope's views with respect to matters of concern to the faithful, they should be welcomed.

Yesterday the French newspaper La Croix published a recent interview it conducted with Pope Francis.  (The English translation of the interview is available here).  In the piece, as in prior interviews, the Pope addresses a wide variety of topics including European identity, the plight of refugees, and the status of the Priestly Fraternity of Pius X.  Of perhaps special interest to MOJ readers were Pope comments on religious freedom.  

La Croix: The significance of Islam in France today, like the nation’s Christian historical foundation, raises recurring questions concerning the place of religion in the public arena. How would you characterize a positive form of laicity (Editor: ‘laicity’ refers to the French system of separation of Church and state)?

Pope Francis: States must be secular. Confessional states end badly. That goes against the grain of History. I believe that a version of laicity accompanied by a solid law guaranteeing religious freedom offers a framework for going forward. We are all equal as sons (and daughters) of God and with our personal dignity. However, everyone must have the freedom to externalize his or her own faith. If a Muslim woman wishes to wear a veil, she must be able to do so. Similarly, if a Catholic wishes to wear a cross. People must be free to profess their faith at the heart of their own culture not merely at its margins.

The modest critique that I would address to France in this regard is that it exaggerates laicity. This arises from a way of considering religions as sub-cultures rather than as fully-fledged cultures in their own right. I fear that this approach, which is understandable as part of the heritage of the Enlightenment, continues to exist. France needs to take a step forward on this issue in order to accept that openness to transcendence is a right for everyone.

La Croix: In a secular setting, how should Catholics defend their concerns on societal issues such as euthanasia or same-sex marriage?

Pope Francis: It is up to Parliament to discuss, argue, explain, reason [these issues]. That is how a society grows.

However, once a law has been adopted, the state must also respect [people’s] consciences. The right to conscientious objection must be recognized within each legal structure because it is a human right. Including for a government official, who is a human person. The state must also take criticism into account. That would be a genuine form of laicity.

You cannot sweep aside the arguments of Catholics by simply telling them that they “speak like a priest.” No, they base themselves on the kind of Christian thinking that France has so remarkably developed.

So, "[s]tates must be secular" as "[c]onfessional states end badly," and "a version of laicity accompanied by a solid law guaranteeing religious freedom offers a framework for going forward."  This proper understanding of laicity is not the exaggerated version of laicity regnant in French law and society.  Rather a proper understanding of laicity must grant people the freedom to externalize their faith," to profess their faith at the heart of their own culture not merely at its margins."

What this proper understanding of laicity and religious freedom means specifically in the case of unjust laws such as those recognizing same-sex marriage and euthanasia is that "[t]he right to conscientious objection must be recognized within each legal structure because it is a human right. Including for a government official, who is a human person."

During his visit to the United States last September, Pope Francis met briefly at the nunciature with Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licensed to same-sex couples in her name on grounds of religious conscience.  At the time, some Catholic commentators, like Rev. James Martin, S.J. (here) warned against reading too much into the meeting.  With fitting prudence, Father Martin cautioned that it is "ill advised to use a private visit with the pope to make political point" and that "the pope meets with many people" about whom the Pope may know next to nothing, such that any given papal visit "does not betoken a blanket blessing on 'everything' one does."

Comments that the Pope made during his return flight to Rome (here) clarified his support for the principle of religious conscientious objection even in the case of government officials.

I can’t have in mind all cases that can exist about conscience objection. But, yes, I can say the conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right. Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right.

When asked specifically whether this would include government officials, Francis responded: "It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right."

His comments in La Croix confirm this.  They do not settle the question definitively for American Catholics, at least to the specific contours of what religious accommodation for governmental officials should look like.  But they make clear that the casual (and, one might add, often caustic) dismissal of religious objectors who hold positions in government is not in keeping with the Catholic tradition.