“I am not quite sure why I should have been invited to give this
public lecture this evening. I am not a demographer or an expert on
emigration questions.
While I did spend much of my life working in the
area of international affairs, I have now been Archbishop of Dublin for
over nine years and I have had little time at my disposal to be an
armchair economist or a demographer.
My reflections this evening will be personal rather than scientific
and may be disappointing in that I cannot propose many specific answers
to the questions which the challenge of migration poses to our world
which likes to call itself globalized but which so often is otherwise.
Many of my comments will reflect the Irish situation in which I live, in
which the challenges of immigration and a more diverse society are at a
very different stage to that here in Great Britain.
I come as much to learn as to lecture. Ireland is undergoing a
transition regarding migration. We have high levels of emigration and
also of immigration. We are at a stage when we can avoid the mistakes
that were made elsewhere. The challenge is that once mistakes are made
they are often almost irreversible, and sadly on the other hand they are
so often only noticed when it is too late.
Anyone who has even a minimal interest in international affairs or
international development policy or indeed in international peace knows
that global migration is certainly a key question in international
reflection today. It involves so many dimensions of international life –
political and economical questions, traditional security and human
security issues, local and regional and global concerns and of course
religious diversity. It also involves many strongly held ideas and high
emotions. It is thus enormously complex and controversial. It is the
focus of academic reflection and is one of the themes which can easily –
and at no great cost – be manipulated for political reasons. It is one
of those themes which can be used to instil fear and anxiety. Fear is a
powerful factor in influencing popular attitudes, but it is not the
healthiest motive for those interested in, as the title of your
conference says, building a common life.
Many of the terms we use when speaking of global migration can be
understood in a variety of ways. They apply in different ways to
different parts of the world and different situations. Let me give you
one example which touches my own country. Most studies on global
migration will discuss how emigration can give rise to a brain-drain in
developing countries.
A recent year-long study of Irish emigration,
however, found clear evidence that, with emigration levels now four
times as high as they were just seven years ago, a disproportionate
number of highly educated young people are leaving Ireland. In fact, 62%
of recent young emigrants have a tertiary qualification of three years
or more. The brain-drain is not limited to developing countries.
As I said, many of the terms we use when speaking of global migration
can be understood in a variety of ways. We talk about tensions
between immigrants and the indigenous population. Yet the indigenous
population of most Western Nation States is not homogenous. Certainly
we will all admit that the United States’ population mix is greatly the
fruit of immigration and of a particular form of assimilation.
But the
same can be said for most nation States if we go back far enough in
history. They consist of people who emigrated or moved at various stages
in history. Population movement is as old as the world. Many European
States have within them diverse ethnical groups, at times with different
languages. Italy has been united for a little over 150 years and
interestingly it has been shown that the most significant factor in the
evolution of a common Italian language spoken right across the country,
over and above the various dialects, was the much more recent
introduction of national television.
The only illustration of pure ethnic identity is our common humanity
and our very similar DNA. It is important to remember that attempts to
preserve ethnic purity as in Nazi Germany, or racial identity as in
apartheid South Africa, or territories which were to be ethnically
cleansed, were presented within a framework of science, but in fact were
based on ideologies which were totally unscientific. Migration and
changes in what is looked on as ethnic mix constitute open ground for
pseudo-science and prejudice. Hence, we see the importance in civil and
political debate of generating clarity in all our concepts and
focussing on facts.
The Christian believer must always set out from a different concept:
that of the God-given unity of the human family. It is a concept based
not on fear but on a sense of fundamental fraternity and solidarity.
It is a concept on which we can build dialogue with Islam and other
great religions. Just as with political society, religious leaders have
to generate clarity in the use of their concepts. They have to work
together to unite on a clear understanding of common concepts, such as
the unity of human family which springs from the recognition of God’s
sovereignty.
The concept of a transcendent and sovereign God, a God who cares,
loves and communicates that caring and love in the works of his
creation, in the genius of humanity, in the unity of human family and in
the integrity of all of creation, is the basis for such common language
between faiths.
God is other. Faith in a transcendent God is a faith, which, though
not insensitive to the realities of the world, is not determined by
them. Faith in God should free the believer from closed ideologies and
narrow prejudice in order to be a constant seeker for truth. Faith in a
transcendent God should lead the believer to realise than he or she has
never attained truth in its fullness. The believer must be as much a
doubter and questioner as one certain of his own certainties. The
truth we must seek is a truth, which attempts to comprehensively explain
our life as individuals and as a society. Certainly, such a concept of
truth can be exploited and be turned into totalitarianism and into
fundamentalism. Where believers lack an integrated doctrine, political
expediency rather than the integrity of God’s design tends to set
standards of thought and action.
But it is important to remember that there can also be a
fundamentalism of the relative and the workable, the agreed-on and
compromise and the neutral, which can lead to arrogance and to an
intolerance of those with deep-felt convictions. Our society, which
calls itself pluralist, can appear very intolerant to people of faith
who have strong convictions.
Fundamentalism is not just religious.
Reductionism of the significance of religion in society can often lead
to new forms of secularist dogmatism.
The certainty of faith and the certainty of the believer are
different from scientific certainty. When I say that the believer must
be as much a doubter and a questioner as one certain of his own
certainties, I am not advocating an anything-goes theory of religious
adherence. I am talking about an attitude which can live with both
certainty and doubt.
There is the paradox that in general those who
are secure in their religious beliefs are those who contribute in a
concrete way to the building up of the common good in diversity, while
those who become insecure and feel threatened about their religious
belief and identity are those who are most open to fundamentalism. This
has specific consequences in looking at the type of religious education
which is most appropriate in a society marked by diversity.
Catholic social thought links the concept of the unity of the human
family with another principle of the social teaching, that of the universal destination of the goods of creation. It
is a complex title which tries to explain a simple principle. It
stresses that God destined the earth and all it contains for all and for
all peoples, so that created things could be shared fairly by all
humankind, under the guidance of justice, tempered by charity. This
principle affirms that God gave the earth to the whole human race for
the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favouring
anyone.
The principle of the universal destination of the earth’s goods is
quite developed and elaborated in Catholic social thought. From the
principle of the universal destination of created goods there emerges a
universal right to use the goods of the earth. Each person should have
access to the level of well-being necessary for his or her full
development.
The right to the common use of goods has been described by Pope John Paul in his Encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis as “the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine”.
Pope Paul VI in his earlier Encyclical Populorum Progessio
had stressed that: “All other rights, whatever they are, including
property rights and the right of free trade must be subordinated to this
norm [the universal destination of goods]; they must not hinder it, but
must rather expedite its application. It must be considered a serious
and urgent social obligation to refer these rights to their original
purpose”.
The universal destination and utilization of goods is not a naive
affirmation that everything is at the disposal of everyone or anyone.
It means rather that there is a social mortgage on all property.
Property is never simply private, withdrawn from social responsibility.
It applies especially today to intellectual property. It applies to
freedom of movement of goods and services but also to the movement of
the talents and the aspirations of people.
The affirmation that everyone is born with the right to use the goods
of the earth can only flourish, however, if it exists within a
juridical order on a national and international level.
Catholic social teaching is quite elaborate on this principle, but
its application remains very much on the intellectual level, especially
when applied to migration. The same can be said of society in general.
There is no single UN organization with an overall vision on migration
policy. The fact is that cooperation on an international level is only
at its beginning and is highly fragmented.
It is easier to build
international cooperation that is repressive and restrictive than to
generate broad reflection on the issues. International law sets out
some dimensions of a framework for common action. It involves refugee
law, humanitarian law, demographic and even maritime law. As in many
aspects of today’s world, global realities exist, but the instruments
that we possess for governing these global realities is still lacking.
Even within such an integrated body as the European Union there are
major differences of opinion and policy on migration. The legal
instruments which set out to govern global realities are most often
negotiated by people paid to defend national interest.
The construction of a common life cannot be determined just by norms
and legislation alone but must be the fruit of human interaction. It
must be the fruit not just of institution but of witness. It must look
at concrete realities and respond within concrete communities. It must
not just be about structures but about attitudes.
The Church, according to the definition of the Second Vatican
Council, is a sign of the unity in Christ of all peoples. It greatest
contribution to the building of common life in society is precisely in
being witness to that calling. The first thing then that the Church and
the Churches are called to do is to ask themselves how far and how
radically they witness at world level and especially at local level to
being a sign of the unity of different peoples.
Anyone speaking about migration and a common life in these days
cannot but look at the recent tragic events at Lampedusa, where hundreds
of lives have been lost when, as Pope Francis said on his visit to
Lampedusa earlier this year, “so many died at sea, in boats which were
vehicles of hope and became vehicles of death”.
Pope Francis, in trying to articulate the responsibility for what
happened, went beyond the language of international legal reflection to
the more humanistic language of the bible. He went back to the very
narrative of creation, in which the biblical author attempts to present
an explanation of the roots of sin and division in human life. The
Pope took up two phrases in that creation narrative and based his
reflection on them. Let us look at the reflection of Pope Francis.
“Adam, where are you?” “This”, the Pope said, “is the first
question which God asks man after his sin. Adam lost his bearings, his
place in creation; because he thought he could be powerful, able to
control everything, to be God. Harmony was lost; man erred and this
error occurs over and over again also in relationships with others, when
‘the other’ is no longer a brother or sister to be loved, but simply
someone who disturbs my life and my comfort”.
“The second question”, the Pope asks, “is: “Cain, where is your brother?”
The illusion of being powerful, of being as great as God, even of being
God himself, leads to a whole series of errors, to a chain of death,
even to the spilling of a brother’s blood!”
Pope Francis notes that when the sense of the sovereignty and the
transcendence of God is lost, then human relations run the risk of
breaking down. This is not just a theological principle which many
would say cannot become the basis of common action between believers and
non-believers. The non-believer will reject any idea which asserts that
only religious faith can underpin the unity of the human family and
indeed will point to religions as being responsible for disunity and
division.
Pope Francis however directs his reflection especially at believers.
He reminds us that in facing the challenge of the common life, God
addresses in the first place not institutions but each of us.
Institutions will always reflect the sentiments of society and the
sentiments of society will only be changed by the witness and commitment
of individuals, and the creation of a genuinely participatory society.
The Pope stresses that the question “Where is your brother?” is not a
question directed to others; it is a question directed, to each of us:
“These brothers and sisters of ours were trying to escape difficult
situations to find some serenity and peace; they were looking for a
better place for themselves and their families, but instead they found
death. How often do such people fail to find understanding, fail to find
acceptance, fail to find solidarity”.
We live in a world, which is marked so many signs of our
inter-relatedness. Pope Benedict described today’s world as being
marked by “an explosion of worldwide interdependence. The problem is
that the de facto interdependence of people and nations is not
matched by ethical interaction of consciences and minds that would give
rise to truly human development.
Pope Francis speaks often about “the globalization of indifference”.
It would be interesting for us to examine what are the mechanisms which
would create an opposing globalization – the opposite of indifference –
a globalization of care and concern, of support and solidarity. That
change requires roots and requires men and women who witness in their
lives to what is most fundamental about life. It requires courage and
vision. Politics may be the “art of the possible”. That does not mean
that is simply the realm of pure compromise. It requires also men and
women who are uncompromising in reaching out towards the ideal and that
truth which can comprehensively explain our lives.
In such a vision of the unity of the human family an appropriate
framework within which to realistically develop both legislation and
public policy on such an explosive issue is immigration? Is it
realistic simply to affirm a right to emigrate and yet not have
international norms about the management of immigration? Is
migration just a safety valve to ensure that there can be a temporary
cheap workforce? Pope Francis’ visit to Lampedusa was not greeted
favourably by all. One US media commentator expressed his horror that
Pope Francis was blessing illegal immigrants. Ideals must be confronted
by realities. The boats from which so many lives were lost at Lampedusa
were vehicles of hope which became vehicles of death, but they were
also vehicles of trafficking and exploitation and extortion.
Reflection on international migration must be concrete in addressing
its objectives. It must be attentive to see that our noble ideals do not
end leaving the weak being exploited by the unscrupulous.
International reflection on migration must address the question of
the trafficking and exploitation which takes place at the expense of men
and women and children who are at their most vulnerable moments. It
must look at the unscrupulous mechanisms which exploit the needs and the
hopes of those who seek security and a better world. It must look at
the roads of exploitation which people pay to travel on before they
board the boats of further exploitation. It must address the
exploitation of immigrant workers on their arrival, when they are denied
the same rights enjoyed by nationals, rights which should be guaranteed
to all without discrimination. Immigrants fill a labour need which
would otherwise remain unfilled where the local workforce is
insufficient or unwilling to engage in the work in question. They
remain however human beings who contribute to society by their work and
whose work and worth entitle them to rights and security for themselves
and their families.
Much of your work and reflection is dedicated to the question of how
to integrate and welcome immigrants from different cultures and of
religious adherence within already existing communities. At times, as I
said earlier, you are faced with pathologies which exist and which could
have been prevented. You often have to foster hospitality and common
life together in a climate which is not the most propitious.
I have stated earlier that there are very few nation states which are
populated by a single cultural and ethnic group. But the nation state
is in reality an important cultural unit. It is the fundamental place
in which institutional support and solidarity are built, through
taxation and social services. I am not what some call a “post national
visionary” or idealist. I am well aware that the so-called
international community can turn out for many to be a “nonentity”. A
passport marked “international community” will get you nowhere.
Political stability and economic progress pass through nation states,
though no individual State can exist in isolation.
There is ample literature today, which asks how widespread
immigration can affect the cohesion of the nation state. The answers
vary and the data available is not univocal in its conclusions. One of
the most challenging things is to avoid the building up of ghettoes in
which large numbers of immigrants live in enclaves and have little
contract with others. It is natural for immigrants to want to live
closely with people of their own culture. Migrants will look to live in
areas where the cost of housing is affordable. Very often local
authorities’ housing policies contribute to the formation of ghettoes.
Neither multiculturalism nor integration will be achieved if people live
in closed communities, especially if these communities are marked by
frustration and a sense of marginalization.
In Ireland, we have witnessed in recent year a unique wave of
immigration into a country where immigration had very little
tradition. In the diocese of Dublin there are today over 70,000
Catholic Polish immigrants who came in recent years to a country where
traditionally – the Polish ambassador told me – there were 300 Polish
citizens. There are also large communities of Lithuanians, Rumanians,
Nigerians and many others.
In addressing the pastoral needs of these immigrant communities, I
was faced with the option of encouraging the immigrants to take part in
the life of their local parish or to establish a specific pastoral
ministry for each immigrant group, with the possible result of creating
religious ghettoes. In the end I opted for a little bit of each, as an
interim approach, hoping that the school system would lead to a greater
integration in the coming generations.
The question of religious education is a vital one for the Ireland of
the future. Our school system in Ireland is particular in that until
recently practically all primary schools, and many secondary schools,
were under denominational religious patronage and ownership. This is
often presented as example of Catholic dominance of the educational
system in Ireland but in fact it is an unintended fruit of history. The
national school system introduced in Ireland in the mid-nineteenth
century aimed at having a system of state schools for all, but with
separate religious education within the school.
Some protestant
authorities rightly saw that this system might effectively leave them as
a permanent minority in every school. They withdrew from the system,
leaving the majority of schools demographically catholic and with the
passage of time they became institutionally catholic.
I believe – and I have said so publicly – that in a country like
Ireland there is a public interest in supporting and defending
independent protestant schools in order to allow the particular role of
the protestant communities in Irish society to flourish. These separate
schools have in fact lead to an enrichment of Irish society through
allowing the specific contribution to society of the protestant
communities to emerge.
Today, I find myself in the position of personally being patron of
almost 90% of primary schools in the Dublin area. These schools are
institutionally catholic schools but are with the passage of time
becoming demographically less so, and thus their precise ethos is less
clear. There is, thank God, a growing pluralism today in patronage of
schools in Ireland but the vast majority of the population attends a
school that is Catholic.
Is the dominance of a religious ethos in schools, which are publicly
financed, still appropriate today? Is it open to accusations of
sectarianism? Is the teaching of denominational religion within a public
school appropriate? These are questions, which are debated right
across Europe.
Obviously, the situation and the cultural heritage of each country
will be different and I am not proposing an Irish answer to the
challenges of other countries.
I believe that denominational education has a place within a
pluralist society but for that to work it requires that those in
leadership in both religious education and education of other
inspiration have to change attitudes and be mutually respectful and open
to dialogue. I fear religious fundamentalism and indoctrination. I
also fear a State, which feels that a pluralist society must be
monochrome and neutral and cannot be built around a plurality of
visions.
Religious education has moved a long way from simply repetition of
catechism formulae without any discussion on the reasonableness of
religious belief. I do not believe that a simple course in the history
and the sociology of religion will do justice to what religious
education is about. For religious education and religious culture to
bring value to a pluralist society it must be sustained in its
originality. This is not to say that there are not non-negotiables
concerning religious activity within the norms of a pluralist and
democratic society. However, freedom of religion is also one of the
pillars of a rights based society.
I said at the beginning of these reflections that I was not quite
sure why I had been invited to deliver this public lecture, also as one
who comes from a very different cultural environment to that which you
encounter. The challenges which I have to meet are different to yours,
but we all share a similar challenge of helping to construct, beginning
at the level of local communities, a society where people of different
faiths and cultures can come to know each other better and to respect
each other and realise what we have in common. What we have in common
is our common humanity, but that humanity exists only in cultural
expressions.
Our common humanity cannot therefore be witnessed to
through imposed uniformity and pallid political correctness, but only in
rejoicing in the difference and diversity with which God wished to
endow creation.