A papal journey, even to the most secular of countries, sure
gets people talking, thinking, and arguing about religion. My
on-the-spot research for this column began in Scotland on the day
Benedict XVI arrived for the first state visit of a pope to Britain
since the Reformation.
As I watched his Popemobile progress through the streets of
Edinburgh, the noises off included Protestant troublemakers in the
crowd chanting “down with old red socks” and “Nope to the pope,”
while Richard Dawkins on the radio was advising His Holiness, “Go
home to your tin pot Mussolini-concocted principality and don’t
come back.” But aside from such occasional rudeness, the general
public’s response to the pope was increasingly receptive. He made a
deep impact with a series of challenging speeches delivered against
the setting of Britain’s most historic buildings yet aimed at a far
wider international audience.
The most thoughtful discussions on and off the media were
focused on the questions Benedict himself had been asking in his
pre-visit writings and lectures: Can a society survive for long
without some kind of religious base? When a nation loses faith in
God, can it sustain faith in itself? Does Britain or Europe as a
whole have faith in itself anymore?
There are two elephants in the room when these issues are talked
about: Islamic extremists and aggressive secularists. Both groups
are causing growing problems in Europe, not only to the health of
the Church but also to the governance of the state.
Whether they are moderate or extreme, the 20 million or so
European Muslims are strong in their faith because of their
conviction that Islam provides a valid spiritual foundation to
their lives. When he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the pope
gave a 2004 lecture to the Italian senate in which he contrasted
the vigor of Islam with the weakness of European Christianity. As
Europe has largely abandoned its spiritual roots, he warned,
“Europe seems hollow as if it were paralyzed by a failure of its
circulatory system.”
Benedict confronted this hollowness by challenging the
secularists. Don’t marginalize religion was his central theme.
Speaking more as a Christian statesman than a Catholic pontiff, he
urged a rekindling of the dialogue between church and civil society
and warned: “There are worrying signs of a failure to appreciate
not only the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and
freedom of religion but also the legitimate role of religion in the
public square.”
This was a wake-up call that did not fall on deaf ears. For the
pope’s intellectual yet steely presentation struck a deep chord.
“He has a point,” was a common reaction among the vast audience of
viewers and listeners.
The point that made the most impact was Benedict’s view that
“secular extremism” is erasing from Western culture the old values
of tolerant and traditional religion. In their place is emerging a
new value system of intolerant political correctness. These values
are confined to a narrow spectrum of liberal-approved beliefs.
Anyone whose views fall outside this spectrum on issues ranging
from gay couples’ adoption rights to faith-lite Christmas carol
services finds themselves and their opinions getting marginalized
or even demonized. Many thoughtful people are becoming worried
about this. Perhaps it needed papal leadership to put the issue
high on the agenda of the public square-something many politically
correct church leaders and opinion formers have notably failed to
do.
Although the second elephant in the room-Islamist extremism-was
not explicitly raised in the pontiff’s speeches, it hit headlines
in the middle of the visit when six men of North African origin
were arrested by Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorist squad in connection
with an alleged assassination plot against the pope. Although the
suspects were later released, the episode acted as another wake-up
call. It raised this discussion point: at a time when followers of
Islam seem to be so fervent, and in some cases fanatical about
their faith, why has the Christian community become so lethargic
and laid back about its spiritual heritage?
Benedict XVI tackled this question obliquely yet so effectively
that even the skeptical media could scarce forbear to cheer him on.
“Pope’s Battle to Save Christmas” was the front-page headline of
Britain’s leading tabloid daily as it reported him saying: “There
are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such
as Christmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that
it might somehow offend those of other religions or none.”
On this particular topic the pope was pushing at an open door of
simmering public discontent over the activities of atheist and
agnostic campaigners who have tried to rename Christmas “Winterval”
and other such absurdities. Muslims by and large give no support to
those who try to impose such emasculation of Christian traditions
in the cause of multifaith uniformity. The pope picked up on this
by saying in one of his speeches that multiculturalism in a society
need not pose a threat to Christian values. Rather, it can offer an
opportunity to restore faith, with Muslims, Jews, and Christians
becoming allies in “bearing witness for faith” against those with
no faith.
THE CROWDS THAT TURNED OUT to hear Benedict’s speeches were
younger and larger than anticipated. Far from drowning in
allegations of abuse as the media had predicted, the pope’s tour of
Britain was a tour de force. This was because Benedict came, saw,
and conquered the agenda he had set. Although he carried out a full
ceremonial program of open-air masses, prayer vigils, and the
beatification of John Henry Newman, this was not a papal visit
dominated by preaching or proselytizing. Instead it was primarily
an initiative of humble yet highly effective dialogue between
spiritual leadership and civil authority.
For Benedict seemed to be accepting that in today’s secular
world of politics and government, the Catholic Church is going to
have to settle for influence rather than power, exercising the role
of what he called “a creative minority.” Nevertheless it will be an
influential and countercultural minority that challenges the idols
of our age and inspires its followers to lead better and more moral
lives in the service of communities, families, and God.
This was a papal message that showed up the shallowness of the
secularist campaigners and subtly restored religion to the agenda
of public discourse. The effects of this visit will take time to
evaluate. But to judge from the initial impact, it may just have
marked a turning of the tide in what Matthew Arnold called “the
melancholy long withdrawing roar” of the sea of faith in
Europe.
