You are here:   Faith > Christianity, Secularisation and Islam
 
The establishment of the Church of England at law is far from rendering superfluous the public role of the English Catholic Church. The capacity of the sacerdotium to influence the regnum was gravely weakened by the mid-16th century break with Rome, for this rendered -official English Christianity Erastian, blunting its cutting edge. “No -Popery” — anti-Catholicism, whether popular or sophisticated — drew its force from a disturbed conscience: one can sense its discomfort in the ambivalences of Shakespeare’s plays. The recusant community witnessed to something once well-known to the English people: the transnational reality of Christendom in the Catholic Church centred on Peter’s chair, and the consequent capacity of a wider communion to offset narrowness of temper, or distortion of aim.Protestant Nonconformity added its own protest against, not an organic relation between polity and ecclesia, but the effective identification of the two.

These non-Anglican churches and ecclesial communities are not merely associations of citizens who can, if they wish, lobby for their interests or points of view. Under the umbrella of the Crown in Parliament, there should be allowance for a plurality of public authorities, representing historic elements in the national community. Indeed, this is the only view that enables monarchy and Parliament to reclaim their own constitutive origins in the history of the country. In this perspective, the Catholic Church, as others, can be regarded civilly as an authoritative voice, albeit not one of an institution specially recognised at law. So may the Jewish rabbinate, whose religious humanism parallels the Christian ministry in its commitment to biblical virtues pertinent to the life of a people under God, the -supremely integrating Good. These authorities are not likely to teach against each other, though some (and notably one) may teach more -lucidly than others.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Lorna Salzman
February 19th, 2014
6:02 PM
This is another example of a believer mustering other believers behind the camel to promote the absurd and demonstrably false notion that morality can only exist through religion. This is not only patently false but a less than transparent expression of the growing fear of clerics at the continued progression of humanity towards secularism, the only system that can provide protection for religious minorities. This has been known since the Enlightenment as well as from the founding of the USA. Religious leaders wave the flag of moral degradation because they fear, rightly, the loss of their own church's power and control over human society. While articles like these are nuisances like gnats, they present no greater threat because the purpose behind them is quite clear. I enjoy watching religious leaders scramble to defend religion and castigate the so-called degenerate secularism that they fear. It indicates they see the handwriting on the wall and the direction of humanity as it finalizes the triumph of reason over superstition and the oppressive character of all religion.

Buchan
July 29th, 2008
11:07 AM
The author either does not know Islam or chooses to ignore some unpalatable facts about it. Islam has no intention of sharing or finding a 'space' within the framework of any non-islamic society: the goal of Islam, as defined clearly in the Koran, the supporting ahadith and the sira (life of Muhammad) is an islamic world in which Sharia is the way of life and jurisprudence for all. The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (1990) signed by 54 Moslem countries affirms, in its Articles 24 and 25 that Sharia is to be the only determinant of crimes and punishments. This link includes both that document and the Declaration of Universal Human Rights, sponsored by the UN in 1948: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Ohmyrus30816.htm Sharia is predicated upon the three inherent inequalities in Islam: between Moslem and non-Moslem, man and woman, and free man and slave. Sharia, and Islam, are antithetical to both Judaeo-Christian and secular concepts of Western societies. Why would any person, cognizant of these and other facts about Islam, wish to 'accommodate' Islam and thereby aid in the destruction of our humanely superior civilisation?

Hugh Eveleigh
July 9th, 2008
5:07 PM
An inspiring and thought-provoking article, closely argued and humanely based. As a non-catholic on-the-edge religious individual it may seem perverse but I agree with the argument and endorse its conclusion. Thank you Fr Nichols!

Athanasius of Alexandria
June 30th, 2008
11:06 AM
A splendidly rich and involving article, just as one expects from the Nichols quill. A light critique and something of a personal engagement with it is here, offered for your consideration: http://massinformation.blogspot.com/2008/06/aidan-nichols-islam-and-futu...

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.