The Role of the Church Concerning Human Rights in Canada

Remi Deroo

A Personal Preface

In 1973 I was approached by the government of British Columbia, through the Minister of Labour, to take the Chairmanship of that province's new Human Rights Commission, I accepted the position, but had some reservations. I anticipated possible negative reactions to a Roman Catholic Bishop being in rather high profile position in a province that has a very small Catholic minority. I wondered about my effectiveness in the social context of diverse cultural groups and whether my being a church person might be held against me. In debating with myself, I reasoned "after all, we did declare at the Vatican Council that the church was interested in mankind, and, if I enjoy the freedom to be critical, I first must be cooperative". I decided human rights work should be a priority for me.

I must say that in the four years of working under considerable tension and in a variety of complex situations (circumstances familiar to anyone active in the human rights field), I did not run into obstacles arising from the fact that I was a Bishop. Everywhere I found people who appreciated the special dimension that someone acting out of a church context can bring to the human rights scene. They spelled that out: in terms of a philosophical grasp of human rights; in terms of a broadening of the perspective because of a technological background; and in terms of the contact with the very rich and varied experience of the Christian Church.

Ecumenical Context

The Church does have 2000 years of memory and tradition, and has not hesitated to define itself, in the words of three Popes, namely John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II, as an "expert in humanity". I address myself to the problem unreservedly from this point of view. However, I am also very conscious of the growing understanding that human rights work must be ecumenical in the broadest sense of that term, that is beyond the strictly Christian definition. Human rights activity predicated on the universal basis of common humanity and a common dedication to the well being of mankind. Working in human rights cannot be exclusively denominational, for then it risks being increasingly ineffective.

Church Point of View

In discussing "the role of the church", I understand "church" in the broadest sense, meaning not only the various Christian denominations, but also the total membership within the body that calls itself Church. The role of the church concerning human rights has ben shaped by an evolving pastoral concern rather than by abstract ideals or a theoretical master plan, and this is quite normal. Our experience in applying the gospel insights to the human problems and crises occasioned by current events, has gradually heightened our awareness of, and sharpened our focus on, both the various dimensions of the church's role as well as on the very nature of human rights. While I present my observations from a church (and more specifically Roman Catholic) point of view, I trust that what I say will find a resonance in the experience of other church groups who share our vision of mankind made in the image of God, and hence of transcendent and eternal dignity and value.

Presupposing Church Involvement

I am assuming of course that the Church, by its nature, will be involved in human rights. I think history illustrates that the church has been there in varying degrees and with a variety of results, some successful and others not so successful. One would only have to document the multitude of statements, both from Papal sources and from ecclesiastical bodies like our own Canadian Bishops' Social Action Department. We could cite the encyclical letter of Pope Pius XI against Nazi totalitarianism and atheistic communism; the Christmas messages of Pius XII during the Second World War; the now famous encyclical of John XXIII, "Pacem in Terris"; the pastoral document of the Second Vatican Council, "Gaudium et Spes"; the encyclicals of Paul VI, "Populorum progressic" and "Octogesima adviens"; the establishment of the Pontifical Commission on Justice and Peace in 1967; the Working Paper No. 1 of this same commission in 1975; and the direction of the Synod of Bishops in 1971 and 1974, as well as that of the World Council of Churches at Uppsala in 1968 and Nairobi in 1975.

More recently, Pope John Paul II, speaking to the United Nations, supported in its entirety, the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - with its train of many declarations and conventions on highly important aspects of human rights, in favour of children, of women, of equality between races, and especially the two international covenants on economic, social and cultural rights and on civil and political rights - must remain the basic value in the United Nations organization with which the consciences of its members must be confronted and from which they must draw continual inspiration.
In this same address John Paul II enumerated a partial list of human rights:

"In a movement that one hopes will be progressive and continuos, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international and national juridical instruments are endeavouring to create general awareness of the dignity of the human being, and to define at least some of the inalienable rights of man. Permit me to enumerate some of the most important human rights that are universally recognized: the right to life, liberty and security of person; the right to food, clothing, housing, sufficient health care, rest and leisure; the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to manifest one's own religion either individually or in community, in public or in private; the right to chose a state of life, to found a family and to enjoy all conditions necessary for family life; the right to property and work, to adequate working conditions and a just wage; the right of assembly and association; the right to freedom of movement, to internal and external migration; the right to nationality and residence; the right to political participation and the right to participate in the free choice of the political systems of the people to which one belongs. All these human rights taken together are in keeping with the substance of the dignity of the human being, understood in his entirety, not as reduced to one dimension only. These rights concern the satisfaction of man's essential needs, the exercise of his freedoms, and his relationships with others,; but always full human dimension".

He reminded his listeners at the U.N. of the pre-eminence of the spiritual values, and their importance as the basis for human rights:

"Permit me, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, to recall a constant rule of the history of humanity, a rule that is implicitly contained in all that I have already stated with regard to integral development and human rights. The rule is based on the relationship between spiritual values and material or economic values. In this relationship, it is the spiritual values that are pre-eminent, both on account of the nature of these values and also for reasons concerning the good of man. The pre-eminence of the values of the spirit defines the proper sense of earthly material goods and the way to use them. This pre-eminice is therefore at the basis of a just peace".

Humility Required

I want to emphasize that I approach this topic of the Church's record in an attitude of humility in the pursuit of truth and of justice. The historical ambivalence and ambiguity of the church's record concerning human rights has been frequently documented. Let me only quote the 1975 working paper referred to "Justice and Peace", about the church's record: "To frequently it was characterized by hesitations, objections, reservations and on occasion, even vehement reactions against developments in human rights". That is on record. We can approach this in an attitude of accepting as openly as possible, criticisms of the church, past, present, and future.

I do not feel that we have a hot-line to God, or that we are privileged information regarding his will, or that we have inherited a detailed blueprint about a Divine Plan for society. If at one time scholars did think about that, today I hope we are humbler and more realistic. Incarnational theology admits that our Gospel insights both challenge society and are tested by the events of history and of human experience. To indulge in perpetual self-flagellation or recrimination is only to cultivate guilt. I believe that any growth will come from the mutual affirmation with which we approach other human beings on the basis of values and not on the basis of destructive criticisms or to blame.

Fearing No Labels

Nor should the church fear labels. A Lutheran scholar (and friend of mine, whom you may also know), Richard Neuhaus, in a recent book titled Christian Faith and Public Policy, subtitled his work with a phrase which I think is very significant: "Thinking and acting in the courage of uncertainty". Our principles at the abstract level may be clear, but their implementation in a pluralistic society is subject to criticism and to divergent options as their focus centres more sharply on evolving reality. So let us simply admit in the church a diversity of opinions and honestly appreciate these alternatives.
As a churchman, I have been criticised (depending on the vantage point from which people came, or depending on their own vision of reality or their ideology) as a radical, as a liberal, as a conservative, and even as a Marxist. I can live with these labels because the church as long as it's going to be a non-conformist in the good sense of the word, will be seen as "radical" when it proclaims absolutes, and relativizes all ideologies, as it should. It will be seen as "liberal" when it emphasizes or promotes freedoms and develops alternatives. It will also be seen as "conservative" when it admits the limitation of the social and political order, when it stresses the value of tradition, when it holds to customs and develops culture.

A Terrible Responsibility

It is good (for our humility) to recall that all temporal achievements will always be proximate, no matter what the idealistic banner. But, on the other hand, as we assume the obligations, as church, of voicing a judgement on some of these achievements, we must be very conscious that it is a terrible responsibility to proclaim God's judgement. The prophets themselves knew the price they had to pay.

The Church's Role: Six Aspects

At this point, let me briefly synthesise under six headings what I see as the role of the church. This obviously cannot be exhaustive, and I see it as opening the field, rather than promoting specific conclusions. I describe this role under the following subtitles which are somewhat arbitrary. First of all, study, in the broadest sense of research and education; secondly, internal life or church polity; thirdly, prayer or worship; fourthly, leadership; fifthly, advocacy; and finally, political involvement.

Study/Research
First of all, it is extremely important that we pay more attention to the area of study (or research, or education), because of the continuing ignorance of the full reality and implication of human rights. We need serious reflection if we are to assist in promoting human rights effectively. We have to discipline ourselves as well as welcome the contribution of the other sciences, in order to develop a more realistic, effective, and deeper knowledge of reality.

The work of people like Peter Berger can be helpful here. In his "Social Construction of Reality" he reminds us that, if on the one hand, institutions are formed by ideas and attitudes, conversely, attitudes and ideas and values are shaped by social structures. Institutions influence the evolution of ideas and attitudes, and also the expression of these values. It is not just a one-sided process, but rather a mutual inter-penetration and relationship.

An Example
We have to be conscious of the awesome power that lies in the hands of the communication experts and the technocrats; they have either inherited by default or have taken unto themselves, the prerogative of defining reality. That is power which is not without its demonic implications. The church must, on occasion, speak fearlessly to this situation, because a few people in society today are able to define reality for the lives of too many other people. This is a situation where the church must have good study and research if it is to analyse the attitudes and the structures which are causing the discrimination that we deplore in the field of human rights. Thus, it is the task of the church, from its own vantage point, without any illusions about having the totality of knowledge, to examine perseveringly what are the operative assumptions in society.

For instance, if someone says there is a trend towards the consumption of a particular item, or to certain attitudes, or kind of music, or that the trend of the future clothes styles will go in this direction, does it necessarily follow that it all has to happen? Is it rather a case of certain people in positions of influence making those decisions?

Develop Awareness
It is here where the church needs to "conscientize" (to use a word we inherited from Latin America) to develop the awareness of the people. Here is where it will be important to keep substantive justice issues in focus. The definition of human rights cannot go too far in one direction: individual, civil, or political rights; collective rights, economic, social, cultural, or religious. It will be the role of the church, on occasion, to help to establish or to clarify certain norms, and even set up certain boundaries and in effect to say: "Beyond a certain extreme you cannot go because you are threatening the integrity of the human persons".

Working with Others
For instance, in questions of the control of human beings, by scientists or others, and over the definition of life, there are points at which the church has to declare: "Here lies the boundary of the sacred, here is where human beings should cease to play God". As I said, we have no direct revelation in most of these matters, and we must work together with the other sciences. A practical application of this of cooperation is the tremendous progress that has been made in the field of moral theology as a result of the developments in psychology, of biology, and related sciences. We understand so much more about the mystery of life, and as a result, many of the things that the church said, with the limited insights of a pre-scientific era, are obviously adapted, modified and possibly even changed in the modern context.

Our Responsibility to Share
The major issue here is one of responsibility. The church does have, because of its experience, its tradition, and its special insights, the task of raising specific questions based on its expertise in humanity that it has developed over 2000 years. The church does have definite values to insert into public discourse. It will be remiss if it withhold the frank statement of these values because of fear of misunderstanding.

The church must not fear to voice constructive criticism. For example, there is room for criticism of the proliferation of lists of human rights, which may well be leading us into a new era of legalism. This kind of neo-legalism that some people want to use as a basis from which to define morality could very well be counter-productive. We could also foul up the whole judicial process by the multiplication of legal cases that no one will benefit. Ultimately the very legal system itself could face a crisis of credibility.

Internal Life of the Church
In the second place, the church must also look at its internal life when describing its role in human rights work. We must take our social tasks more seriously than we have in the past, primarily because of the eternal significance of human life. If we believe that the social order is a good, that is something willed by God, then we must follow through with the consequences. if we believe that morality is not abstract from history, but that it is also worked out in concrete realities of life, then we have to do something about it. If we are convinced that many of the positive claims for human rights are not actionable by law (in other words, that you cannot effectively legislate morality), then we have to face our responsibility of improving the attitudes that condition morality.

We must not fear to look at this social order and see where it is threatened by individual sin or corporate (social) sin. If we believe in human solidarity under God's rule, then we must not hesitate to address our members and to call forth from them those gifts of public concern which they inherit on the basis of their humanity. Frequently our churches have been at fault. How effectively do we honour the calling of those dedicated human rights workers who are our members? How well do we sustain them?

To act or not to Act
In a democratic social order, obedience has to be the heightened exercise of individual and communal responsibility, not merely docility to what some might call "the law", or "this is the very way everybody does it". In fact, passivity can be disobedience in a Christian context.

The church is not only a religious community, but also a corporate, legal entity. It is an economic and a political force, whether we like to admit it or not. By action or default, we are a very powerful force, and (to paraphrase a recent saying) for our part, not to make political decisions is to make a political decision. Where human rights are at stake, abstention is a vote for the status quo.

Thus we must exercise this public office with all its rights and duties. We have a corporate public responsibility. Our very credibility is at stake in exercising that responsibility. That is why we must not be afraid of self criticism, nor of recognizing the fact that we have to grow. In particular, we must avoid proclaiming privileges for ourselves and at the same time being hypercritical of others. St. James in his letter tells us that faith without deeds is dead, so we must positively live our definitions of ourselves. In other words, in the midst of society, we the church must signal visibly, and must illustrate in concrete fashion what we proclaim.

To be a Bridge
The church has a role to bridge the gaps, to extend the bonds of universality, to proclaim the sisterhood and brotherhood of all mankind under one common Heavenly Father. Our role is to promote, in a sense, by anticipation in our own midst, the better society which is a seminal expression of the Kingdom we wish to recognize as already faintly present in our midst. Let us be conscious that we live in one of the few remaining democracies and that the world is watching this democratic experiment, looking for rays of hope.

Archbishop Hurley of South Africa summed up his concerns in this expression: "what the church needs most of all today is a pastoral theology of social change for oppressed and oppressors alike". The ultimate test, as we are reminded time and again, will be our attitude towards the poor, the powerless and whether or not we are willing to as a church to let go of certain powers. The Vatican Council itself reminds us that we must accept to be dispossessed, if that were necessary for the credibility of our own testimony.

Prayer and Worship
In the thrived place, as church involved in human rights, we must also not be afraid of our role in worship, prayer and proclamation. The theological securing of political life as an integral part of Christian piety and obedience, to quote Neuhaus, is one of the most important dimensions today. If we believe that God's rule is all embracing, then we must not oppose the secular and the sacred, nor must we separate personal salvation from public hope. We must express in our prayer, the belief that the social order is included in God's will for the world. The implication of this is that we must support those people who are trying to improve the political order.

Our emphasis then will be on wisdom and freedom for our members. We will not hesitate to prophesy, remembering always that it must be out of mercy and love. We will be conscious always that the ultimate justice is beyond the purely human ideal. It will only be found in the divine order of justice, which embraces those biblical values of integrity and truth, of mercy and compassion.

Leadership of the Church
Fourthly, it is very important that the leadership of the church help to clarify the process whereby the church influences its members and society. The process we as church leaders use may be our sharing of our own reflection, our planning for response, our goal setting, and eventually, our corporate commitment. The Canadian Roman Catholic Bishops, particularly in their recent document "Witness to Justice", have outlined that process for their members. I know that other churches are doing parallel work.

Leadership will also involve public statements, made both individually and corporately, to facilitate and reinforce other initiatives, as well as to magnify the voice of the powerless. These statements will help to set certain gospel limits in extreme cases. We have a role in shaping social consciousness and transforming attitudes. This obviously must be done in solidarity with other churches and other bodies, local and international, who work in the same field.

Advocacy
A fifth description of the role of the church in human rights will be that of advocacy. We tend to believe in the witnessing power of action. It is important, especially today, not only that we teach, but that people see us doing something. We need the local impact, that frequently the church can bring better than other groups, particularly when dealing with questions of transforming attitudes and structures. Action from a distance will achieve but little. Hence, we have to get down to our grass-roots communities.

The church here has an autonomy and a freedom that we must both honestly recognize and not be afraid of. We can offer an independent platform: a stage from which people who are oppressed can relativize the absolutes of some political design that control their lives, where we can relativize the authoritarian or the totalitarian ideologies. In some present day situations, only the church remains the voice that can still speak.

It is important also that we resist certain tendencies to put too restrictive a definition on religious activity, from people who say: "You are church people, stay over there in you church corner". We must say: "No. The whole of social reality is our responsibility". We must sustain the marginalised and the powerless and provide them with access to the political process. Frequently, our local church communities are the groups that can best achieve this.

Political Involvement
A sixth and final aspect of the church role in human rights, and possibly the most difficult, and most delicate to deal with, is political implementation. As a general background, we as churches must be aware of the political, economic, ands structural independence of reality. One caution may be mentioned about the distinct roles, from a Roman Catholic point of view, of the Laity and of the Bishops and the Clergy and their relative involvement with temporal affairs. The Laity are to be directly involved. The Ordained have another role of remaining symbols of unity in their congregations, and must not arbitrarily get involved in options that may prove to be divisive. There is a question of delicate balance here: official church agents have the responsibility of promoting unity in a context of transcendent gospel principles; but not saying, thereby, that they have nothing to do with political life. We must not hesitate to move forward into the political realm, each with our respective responsibility.

Obviously, we must not confuse gospel power with the limitations of human power. but once again, we must not abdicate our responsibility, and that is why we must exercise our influence in the various areas, for example, in the mass media, in testifying before legislative and policy-setting bodies, and in lobbying on occasion. The church must exercise its responsibility in diplomatic activity, as is done particularly in more restricted circles, for instance, the influence of the Vatican at the United Nations. In certain cases, even litigation in the courts may be a church responsibility, although that is fraught with difficulties. Using our economic power on occasion is an increasing trend, as a number of churches are involved in the questions of investments, boycotts and the likes.

Very cautiously, do we approach maybe the most delicate area of all, which is that of electoral politics. The most recent Christian tradition has been for churches, as churches, to stay out of the direct electoral political processes. That seems to be wise, because in that case we are directly into temporal options and we have seen the lessons of history. It is dangerous to attach oneself to any political program, no matter how idealistic. I do not think that the church should normally identify with a specific political option. I do believe that lay people, engaged as they are in the temporal order, have responsibility of making those choices. That means tensions. We'll have to live with that, because I think that's one of those illustrations of creative tension without which there is no life.

Conclusion

I hope that by opening the field a little, and showing both some of the complexity and the riches of the role of the church respecting human rights, we may make a further step in the progress, as we deliberate together from a theological perspective. I welcome the opportunity to do some good theological reflection. a most practical thing is good theory.

___________________________________________________

Bibliography:

The Documents of the Vatican II, Walter M.Abott, S.J., General Editor, Guild Press, New York (1966).

On Evangelization in the Modern World, Pope Paul VI, Daughters of St. Paul Press, Toronto (1975).

Redemptor Hominis, Pope John Paul II, Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops, Ottawa (1979).
The Church and Human Rights, Pontifical Commission "Justitia et Pax", Working Paper No. 1, Vatican City (1975).

Pro Mundi Vita Bulletin, "The Church and Human Rights", January 1976.

The Social Construction of Reality, Peter L. Berger & Thomas Luckman, Anchor Books A589 (1967).

Claims in Conflict: Retriving and Renewing the Catholic Human Rights Tradition, David Hollenback, S.S. Paulist Press, Toronto, (1979).

The Church and the Rights of Men, Edited by Alois Muller and Norbert Greinacher, No. 124 Concilium Series, Sedbury Press, New York (1979).

Christian faith and Public Policy: Thinking and Acting in the Courage of Uncertainty, Richard John Neuhas, Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis (1977).

Witness to Justice: A Society to be Transformed, Episcopal Commission for Social Affairs, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, Ottawa (1979).

‹‹ RETURN TO HUMAN RIGHTS AND THEOLOGY

© 2007 Atlantic Human Rights Centre, St. Thomas University