European Court of Human Rights supports right of Church to deal with dissent

The Journal is reporting that the European Court of Human Rights has found that it was lawful for the Spanish State to sack a religion teacher who had publicly rejected aspects of Catholic teaching.

This is a hugely significant judgment from the European Court of Human Rights.  The judgment gives some general guidance on the autonomy of Churches, including their rights to deal with dissent, and the extremely limited rights that the State has to interfere in these matters.

If you're reading, Brian D'Arcy and Tony Flannery - the ECHR says your right to dissent means you can leave the Church you no longer agree with.

Also interesting to note the respectful way the Court refers to the Church's Canon Law - clearly it doesn't think it's as meaningless as Irish politicians seem to think.

Below the extract from the Court's Press Release:

Decision of the Court

Article 8

The Court reiterated that there was no general right to employment or to the renewal of a fixed-term contract. However, there was no reason of principle why the notion of “private life” should be taken to exclude professional activities. In the present case, private life and professional life were particularly intertwined, as factors relating to private life were regarded as qualifying criteria for the professional activity in question. The Court thus found Article 8 applicable, as the non-renewal of the applicant’s contract, on account of events mainly relating to personal choices he had made in the context of his private life, had seriously affected his chances of carrying on his specific professional activity.

The Court noted that the Ministry of Education had acted in accordance with the 1979 Agreement between Spain and the Holy See, supplemented by the Ministerial Order of 11 October 1982, which was an international treaty and incorporated as such into Spanish law in conformity with the Spanish Constitution.  The non-renewal of the applicant’s contract of employment had thus been based on the applicable Spanish law. 

The Court noted that the Bishop had relied in particular on the notion of “scandal” to justify his

decision. Even though the notion of scandal was not expressly provided for in the part of the Code of Canon Law concerning religious education teachers, it could be considered to refer to notions that were themselves in the canons such as “true doctrine”, “witness of Christian life” or “religious or moral considerations”. Those provisions expressed specific requirements with foreseeable effects.

Since Mr Fernández Martínez had been the director of a seminary, he could have foreseen that the public display of his militancy against certain precepts of the Church would be at odds with the applicable provisions of canon law and would not be without consequence. On the basis of the clear

wording of the Agreement between Spain and the Holy See, he could also have reasonably foreseen

that in the absence of a certificate of suitability from the Church his contract would not be renewed. 

The Court found that the non-renewal of his contract was thus in accordance with the law. Like the parties, the Court took the view that the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of the Catholic Church, and in particular its autonomy as to the choice of persons qualified to teach religious doctrine.

As regards the autonomy of faith groups, the Court noted that religious communities traditionally and universally existed in the form of organised structures. The right of believers to freedom of religion meant that they should be allowed to associate freely, without arbitrary State intervention.  

The autonomous existence of religious communities went to the very heart of the protection which Article 9 of the Convention afforded. It had a direct interest, not only for the actual organisation of

those communities but also for the effective enjoyment by their members of the right to freedom of

religion. Were the organisational life of the community not protected by Article 9 of the Convention, all other aspects of the individual’s freedom of religion would become vulnerable. 

However, Article 9 of the Convention did not enshrine a right of dissent within a religious community. In the event of any disagreement between a religious community and one of its

members, the individual’s freedom of religion was exercised by the option of freely leaving the community. 

Respect for the autonomy of religious communities recognised by the State implied, in particular,

that the State should accept the right of such communities to react, in accordance with their own

rules and interests, to any dissident movements emerging within them that might pose a threat to

their cohesion, image or unity. It was therefore not the task of the national authorities to act as the

arbiter between religious communities and the various dissident factions that existed or might

emerge within them.  

The Court reiterated that, but for very exceptional cases, the right to freedom of religion as guaranteed under the Convention excluded any discretion on the part of the State to determine

whether religious beliefs or the means used to express such beliefs were legitimate. Moreover, the principle of religious autonomy prevented the State from obliging a religious community to admit or exclude an individual or to entrust someone with a particular religious duty.

As a consequence of their autonomy, religious communities were entitled to demand a certain degree of loyalty from those working for them or representing them.  

The Court, whilst observing that Mr Fernández Martínez had not received the dispensation from the

obligation of celibacy until after the publication of the newspaper article, took the view that, by

signing his successive employment contracts, he had knowingly and voluntarily accepted a special

duty of loyalty towards the Catholic Church, which limited the scope of his right to respect for his

private and family life to a certain degree. Such contractual limitations were permissible under the

Convention where they were freely accepted. The Court was not convinced that at the time of the

publication of the article in La Verdad, this contractual duty of loyalty had ceased to exist.   In choosing to accept a publication about his family circumstances and his association with a protest oriented meeting, Mr Fernández Martínez had severed the bond of trust that was necessary for the

fulfilment of his professional duties.  

The Court observed that Mr Fernández Martínez had voluntarily been part of the circle of individuals who were bound by a duty of loyalty towards the Catholic Church. The fact of being seen as campaigning in movements opposed to Catholic doctrine clearly ran counter to that duty. In addition, there was little doubt that the applicant, as former priest and director of a seminary, had

been or must have been aware of the substance and significance of that duty.  

Mr Fernández Martínez had been able to complain about the non-renewal of his contract before the

Employment Tribunal and then before the Murcia High Court of Justice, which had examined the

lawfulness of the measure in question under ordinary labour law, taking ecclesiastical law into

account, and had weighed up the competing interests of the applicant and the Catholic Church. At

last instance the applicant had been able to lodge an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court.

Since the reasoning for the non-renewal decision had been strictly religious, the domestic courts  had considered that they had to confine themselves to verifying respect for the fundamental rights at stake. Thus, the Constitutional Court had taken the view that the State’s duty of neutrality precluded it from ruling on the notion of “scandal” used by the Bishop to refuse to renew the contract, or on the merits of the optional celibacy of priests as advocated by the applicant. It had examined the extent of the interference with the applicant’s rights and had found that it was neither disproportionate nor unconstitutional, but that it could be justified in terms of respect for the lawful exercise by the Catholic Church of its religious freedom in its collective or community dimension.  

The Court was of the view that the domestic courts had taken into account all the relevant factors

and had weighed up the interests at stake in detail and in depth, within the limits imposed on them

by the necessary respect for the autonomy of the Catholic Church. In the light of the review

exercised by the national courts, it did not appear that the autonomy of the Church had been

improperly invoked: the Bishop’s decision could not be said to have contained insufficient reasoning, to have been arbitrary, or to have been taken for a purpose that was unrelated to the exercise of the Catholic Church’s autonomy.  

Having regard to the margin of appreciation afforded to the State, the Court found that the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life had not been disproportionate.

The Court concluded by nine votes to eight that there had been no violation of Article 8.

Having regard to its conclusion under Article 8, the Court found that there was no need to examine

the other complaints separately.

Waiting for the saviour of Ukraine

At a time like this you would want anybody else to be President of the Unite States, even Jimmy Carter.

Petition to Philippe, the King of the Belgians

Please sign the petition asking the King of the Belgians to do his duty before God and refuse to the sign the law on children's euthanasia.  You need a name and email address. 

Petition is here.  Don't have to be Belgian, but based on text should be European.  The text of petition is below:

Your Majesty:

You are the King of the Belgians and as such committed to your people. You are used to signing every law that has been adopted by the democratically elected Parliament, even if you do not agree with them. However, there are laws that will affect not only Belgium but also Europe in the long term.

This law is unique and it serves as a sign to other countries that it might be permissible to introduce such laws. Please listen to the many voices at home and abroad, warning you of the dangers of this law - your Episcopal Conference and the members of parliaments across Europe who have spoken up clearly against this law.

As concerned citizens of Europe, we write to you to urge you not to sign this bill, even if it will be a challenge for you to defend this decision. Please do not say yes to the most frightening law on euthanasia worldwide.

Listen to your conscience and stand as a monarch with ethical principles. Show yourself worthy of the challenge for which you have been prepared throughout your life.

Turkey's not voting for Christmas

While unrest in Turkey continues to capture attention, more subtle and more telling events concerning the Islamification of Turkey — and not just at the hands of Prime Minister Erdogan but majorities of Turks — are quietly transpiring. These include the fact that Turkey’s Hagia Sophia museum is on its way to becoming a mosque.
Hagia Sophia — Greek for “Holy Wisdom” — was for some thousand years Christianity’s greatest cathedral. Built in 537 A.D. in Constantinople, the heart of the Christian empire, it was also a stalwart symbol of defiance against an ever encroaching Islam from the east.
After parrying centuries of jihadi thrusts, Constantinople was finally sacked by Ottoman Turks in 1453. Its crosses desecrated and icons defaced, Hagia Sophia — as well as thousands of other churches — was immediately converted into a mosque, the tall minarets of Islam surrounding it in triumph.
Then, after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, as part of several reforms, secularist Ataturk transformed Hagia Sophia into a “neutral” museum in 1934.

Thus the fate of this ancient building is full of portents. And according to Hurriyet Daily News, “A parliamentary commission is considering an application by citizens to turn the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul into a mosque…. A survey conducted with 401 people was attached to the application, in which more than 97 percent of interviewees requested the transformation of the ancient building into a mosque and afterwards for it to be reopened for Muslim worship.”

Even lesser known is the fact that other historic churches are currently being transformed into mosques, such as a 13th century church building — portentously also named Hagia Sophia — in Trabzon. After the Islamic conquest, it was turned into a mosque. But because of its “great historical and cultural significance” for Christians, it too, during Turkey’s secular age, was turned into a museum and its frescoes restored. Yet local authorities recently decreed that its Christian frescoes would again be covered and the church/museum turned into a mosque.

Similarly, the 5th century Studios Monastery, dedicated to St. John the Baptist, is set to become an active mosque.

And the existence of the oldest functioning Christian monastery in the world, 5th century Mor Gabriel Monastery, is at risk. Inhabited today by only a few dozen Christians dedicated to learning the monastery’s teachings, the ancient Aramaic language spoken by Jesus, and the Orthodox Syriac tradition, neighboring Muslims filed a lawsuit accusing the monks of practicing “anti-Turkish activities” and of illegally occupying land which belongs to Muslim villagers. The highest appeals court in Ankara ruled in favor of the Muslim villagers, saying the land that had been part of the monastery for 1,600 years is not its property, absurdly claiming that the monastery was built over the ruins of a mosque — even though Muhammad was born 170 years after the monastery was built.

Sourced here.

When a story's not so much of a story but a more interesting story

Irish papers and media are all over the story of a German cardinal sanctioning the use of the so-called "morning after pill" for rape victims.  They see it as a chink in the armour and of course have no understanding of any of the issues in any meaningful way.

Let's be clear, if a woman has been raped it is entirely legitimate that she take steps to prevent conception occuring.  What Cardinal Joachim Meisner of Cologne is saying is that he has been advised that there are certain pills which prevent conception but do not interfere with implantation of an already fertilized egg.  If that is the case then there is no moral difficulty in using them in the case of rape.

Of course the central issue is the words "if that is the case".  When in doubt we get into a more complex area of moral theology. 

There are some who will maintain that if there is any doubt at all as to the possibility of a pill preventing implantation of an already fertilized egg, then it is morally illicit.  Such a view would seem to be a form of tutiorism or rigorism.

The priniciples of probabalism would seem to apply in this case so I think we should give the Cardinal and his episcopal colleagues some space to present their case.  Catholic encyclopedia article here.

Sign petition against EU funding of embryo research

There is a new online petition up and running which I encourage you to sign here.  Click on your country of residence and fill in all your details.  There is a requirement that your privacy be respected.

The “One of Us” campaign launched this month calls for the European Union to stop funding efforts that destroy pre-born life, including groups that perform abortions in developing countries.

You can read more of the background here and here.

German gold - time to worry?

Not sure how worried we should be by this.  But it seems that the Germans have decided to repatriate their gold reserves currently held in America, London and Paris.  States often keep their gold reserves spread in different countries, to protect it against invasion, wars or other things that can happen in the home country.  Germany, for example, wanted to protect its gold during the Cold War.  What does bringing it home mean?  This article provides some analysis, reasons why you would bring your gold home.  But ultimately it seems to imply a lack of trust in both the United States and the Euro.  Germany is battening down the hatches and preparing for serious economic changes in the world.


1.       Changing geo-political landscape

2.       Do not trust the custodian country to keep track of it when lending it out

Back in the mid-1920s, the head of the German Central Bank, Herr Hjalmar Schacht, went to New York to see Germany’s gold. However the NY Fed officials were unable to find the palette of Germany’s gold bullion. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Benjamin Strong was mortified, but to put him at ease Herr Schacht turned to him and said ‘Never mind, I believe you when you when you say the gold is there. Even if it weren’t you are good for its replacement.’

The fact that there has not been an audit of Germany’s gold for some time, not since 1979 in the New York Fed, gives some validity to GATA and others’ concerns. Added to this the refusal by the Federal Reserve to conduct an independent audit of the gold reserves in Fort Knox, as campaigned for by Dr Ron Paul, and worries build as to whether the custodian is ‘good for’ the gold.

3.       Do not trust the custodian country to protect the value of their own currency

Every few months there is a discussion regarding what China are planning on doing with the gold they both mine and import every year, with many believing they are hoarding the metal as an insurance against the billions of US Treasury bonds, notes and bills they hold. Many believe they will issue some kind of gold-backed currency in the short-term and dump its one trillion dollars’ worth of US Treasury securities. Whilst, at the moment the US seem to take their monopoly currency for granted, should the Chinese or anyone else behave in such a manner, the US will need to respond – most likely with gold, which on its own it does not have enough of.

4.       Foresee the need to protect the future of your own monetary system

Germany, like other countries in the EU, has a responsibility to protect its citizens’ wealth and standard of living. At the moment this is being threatened as the successful export country props up other fiscally different countries to its own. Gold, as we have long said, is a protector of wealth. The euro, many have said was designed to act ‘like a gold-standard’ unfortunately you can’t dress up a fiat currency to glister, as it seems the Germans have realised.

5.       It’s yours, you want it where you can see it.

According to the Irish Independent Ireland owns six tonnes of gold, the bulk of which is held at the Bank of England.  But apparently at its peak in the 1960s, Ireland owned more than 70 tonnes, and five and half tonnes disappeared when we joined the Euro (Frankfurt?).