This conception forbids citizens and politicians to base their political decisions
on their religious convictions, because they are considered dangerous.^35
Liberals fear danger for the individual conscience from a public religion:
‘[A] de-privatized ethical religion...could bring extraneous conceptions of
justice, of the public interest, of the common good, and of solidarity into the
“neutral”deliberations of the liberal public sphere.’^36 This is a good argument
if we consider the possibility of, for instance, Islamic political partiesfighting
for the enforcement of sharia law that negates fundamental freedoms and the
equality of man and woman. We justly reject such religious ideas as contrary
to the public order. In fact, modern Catholic social teaching renounces the
concept of a‘religious’state law. This is precisely what is expressed by the
concept of‘natural law’: human reason, not religious faith, is the source
of natural law. Even though the Catholic Church preaches natural law as
part of its official teaching, it is not‘religious’law—that is to say, the Catholic
political agenda. Rather, it is meant as a formulation of a universally valid
code of ethical norms on the highest level of principles, based on human
nature.^37 Besides, religious freedom as proclaimed by the Second Vatican
Council presupposes a separation (or at least the‘disentanglement’) of state
and church, as has already been described above. This also implies a legal line
of separation or division between the individual person’s conscience and the
political sphere: our religious decisions must be free of state interference.
At the same time, however, granting a civic right to religious freedom
presupposes the state’s protection and enforcement of this freedom. Freedom
from the state requires freedom through the state. Thus, the separation of
church and state does not imply a separation of the state from religion, or an
indifference of the state towards religion. Nor does it justify the privatization
of religion, that is, its exclusion from the public sphere. Why should reason-
able religious argumentsquareligious ideas not be present in the public
sphere, without requiring their translation into secular concepts? Why should
only religious arguments be considered dangerous, and not the secular ideolo-
gies as well? Have not the latter caused the great political tragedies of the
twentieth century, which also constituted the most terrible atrocities in the
history of mankind? Religions have a lot of wisdom to offer to secular societies.
In the case of Christianity, the double commandment of love of God and
neighbour inspires citizens to a devotion to the common good that a purely(^35) Cf. Nicholas Wolterstorff,‘The Role of Religion in Decision and Discussion of Political
Issues’, in Robert Audi and Nicholas Wolterstorff (eds),Religion in the Public Square: The Place
of Religious Convictions in Political Debate(Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997), 67–120,
particularly 70–3.
(^36) Casanova,Public, 55.
(^37) Benedict XVI underscored these ideas in his address to the German Bundestag, cf. http://
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2011/september/documents/hfben-xvi
spe_20110922_reichstag-berlin_en.html.
A Catholic Concept of Christian Humanism 209