Influencing Public
Policy - the Church's Role
APTO Conference, Auckland, 3 November 2006 Jim
Consedine
Public policy is a
major area where the Ôgood newsÕ of the Gospel needs to be constantly reflected
upon and presented to the wider community and where the Churches, despite
falling numbers and a myriad of other problems, can still make a real
difference.
In an age of
pluralism and George W. Bush, it is of interest to consider how much the moral
values of one particular stream of minority religious tradition should be
allowed to set the public policy of the majority. This is not an easy issue to
resolve. History is full of botched attempts.
We speak to public
policy when we do theology in the market place. We may or may not mention
Christ, the bible, the Church, or portray any Christian symbol in so doing That
is not the issue. We have the power of the Spirit in everything we do. ÔGod
co-operates with those who seek to do goodÕ, St Paul reminds us in Romans. The
fact of our Ômaking the Word become fleshÕ in certain areas of human endeavour
is how we Ôbring good news to the poor, liberate captives, open the eyes of the
blind and announce the LordÕs year of favourÕ in modern terms.
The principle that
emerges I believe is that each presentation needs to be argued in the
marketplace on its merits as being beneficial to the Common Good rather than as
a specific Christian teaching. In that way, the rest of the Christian baggage
doesnÕt hinder the process and the ÔvirtueÕ stands as a divine insight on its
own merits.
In this paper, I
look at three things surrounding formulation of public policy. Firstly, I point
to several public policy positions taken by our government in recent years
where in my view the influence of Christian teaching has helped form the
foundation for the policy. Secondly, I look at how non-violent direct action
can be not just a valid form of Christian moral action but at times a moral
imperative in terms of shaping public policy. And thirdly, I ask how in an
abrasive society, forgiveness could be promoted as an important component of
public policy in seeking the Common Good.
In recent years,
there has been several specific Christian campaigns have helped New Zealand
develop public policy in line with the basic principles of the Common Good.
There are probably many other examples but I highlight just four to illustrate
where the ChurchÕs influence may have been decisive.
This is not an
attempt to claim exclusivity in matters of policy change. That would be quite
wrong. We all know that often it has not been the Church which has initiated
these campaigns. Rather, she has been a Johnny-come-lately to the party. Having
said that, in all of these issues, (and there are many more), we have joined
others of good heart and intent to make changes which benefited the Common
Good. We have recognised the presence of God through solidarity, human rights
and the option for the poor which brings about the Kingdom of God in our midst.
The Church plays a vital but not exclusive role in this process. Public policy
is where eventually these truths can be held.
In the area of
development and aid, government policy (weak as it sometimes appears to be in
many ways at the moment) was largely shaped by a consensus coming from the
churches in the 1960s and 1970s that New Zealand needed to not just be involved
in helping our needy neighbours with aid, but also that we needed to apply
vigorous support to them as they struggled to build just societies free from
colonial domination. In this debate, the priority of the dignity of people made
in GodÕs image was presented, the need to be independent and free to think and
act was encouraged, and solid links were made with groupings here and abroad to
help implement more just structures. These continue today.
In the whole area
of peacemaking in the Pacific, where New Zealand has taken a lead in
nuclear-free issues to the point where even conservative political parties here
are reluctant to tamper with legislation keeping us nuclear-free, it is hard to
believe this would have happened without the involvement of the Churches. It is
Christian theology that we should not kill, that war is immoral, that
peacemakers are blessed. And it is a part of the gospel that many take very
seriously. There were, I suggest, Christian footprints all over the
nuclear-free legislation.
The struggle
against apartheid in South Africa was a hugely educative process during the
period 1960-90 for the New Zealand Churches and Christians generally. It
resulted in substantial change of attitude towards racially selected sporting
teams and race issues generally by a majority of active Christians in this
country. They joined community-based organisations like CARE and HART in
promoting equality for people, regardless of race. One could say that it was
because of the involvement of so many from the Churches in the apartheid
struggle, that impetus was created to join Maori to help redress injustices,
historic and otherwise, facing them.
In the areas of
criminal justice, it has been a bevy of Christians across the country who
constantly held up a mirror to rising prison numbers and harsher penalties who
eventually became the backbone of the movement which has led to both
habilitation centres and restorative justice now being accepted in public
policy and legislation. In this field, New Zealand has become a world leader
both in the juvenile field and in the adult arena.
But what happens
when normal persuasion fails? When vested interests ignore the Common Good? Not
once. Repeatedly. There is another honoured tradition that stretches back to
Jesus and the early Church. It is called non-violent direct action or
resistance. WasnÕt this the process engaged in by the early martyrs when they
refused to follow state policy and worship the emperor? Refusal became an act
of defiance against the state punishable by death.
Defiance in the
face of injustice is an Christian honourable tradition. It is the process
enacted when all other avenues have failed, when lobbying is ignored, when
those in authority wonÕt listen. It was the process of Te Whiti o Rongomai and
the people of Parihaka in the 1880s in resisting the CrownÕs land grab,
Mahandas K. Gandhi and thousands of supporters in India in the 1920-40s in the independence
struggle, Martin Luther King and thousands of Negroes seeking civil rights in
the 1960s in the US.
Many felt this was
their only option when the Irish Government gave its support for the war in
Iraq and refused to listen. The Irish Constitution guarantees the neutrality of
Ireland. Yet by 2003 Shannon Airport had become a virtual US base for which the
government receive E15 million in annual rental. More than 300 000 troops had
passed through in the previous year alone en route to the war. Hundreds of body
bags and thousands of injured soldiers have returned through Shannon Airport en
route back to the US. Huge demonstrations had failed to change government
policy.
In February 2003,
five Catholic Workers Ð Australian Ciaron OÕReilly, American Nuin Dunlop,
Scotswoman Karen Fallon and Irish citizens Damien Moran and Deirdre Clancy Ð
broke into an airport hangar at Shannon Airport in Co. Clare, Ireland. There
they followed the biblical injunction of Isaiah, and symbolically ÔdisarmedÕ a
US military C40A logistics supply plane by beating on it with hammers and
pouring their own blood over it. They then erected a shrine to the war dead in
Iraq and knelt in prayer awaiting arrest. The police were called and the five
were charged with criminal wilful damage.
Shannon Airport
had been dubbed by them Ôa pit stopÕ for the 36 000 US troops who had already
passed through in the first six weeks of 2003 on their way to war in Iraq. Part
of the aim of the action was to highlight the use of Shannon as a military base.
This fact was largely unknown to the Irish people. But they also sought Ôto put
the Irish Government on trialÕ during the subsequent court case. In other
words, they would seek to turn the case against themselves for criminal damage
on its head and ÔchargeÕ the Irish government for its complicity in the US/UK
war machine.
To make a moral
case for a defence of Ôlawful excuseÕ, the five argued that the protest was
necessary in order to prevent worst crimes taking place. These included the
continuation of an illegal war, the bombing of children, the destruction of the
earth and the environment, the death of innocents. This approach to peacemaking
flows not just from scripture and Catholic moral law but also from
international law. In 1946, the war crimeÕs Nuremberg Tribunal stated,
ÔIndividuals have international duties which transcend the international
obligations of obedience. Therefore (individuals) have the duty to violate
domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurringÕ.
The judge allowed
some moral argument to be presented. This was a significant legal breakthrough.
It meant that the morality which should underpin good law could be examined
along with legal definitions.
The five agreed
they had caused damage to the US Navy plane. But they argued that their moral
consciences demanded an initial law breach in order to effect a greater good,
namely the saving of lives, lands and property in Iraq. This constituted a
lawful excuse and enfleshed a greater moral principle than mere damage to
property. They also wanted to protect people, especially the old and the young
in Iraq, who were already vulnerable after a decade of economic sanctions. The
five also feared for the young US soldiers and were concerned that Shannon
Airport itself might become a terrorist target. They also hoped to motivate
others to act against the war and IrelandÕs facilitation of the military
build-up. Such thinking sits very well within the Catholic ChurchÕs moral
teachings.
It took the jury
less than three-and-a-half hours to find the five not guilty of criminal
damage. In effect, the jury agreed that to damage an American military plane in
these circumstances could not be considered a crime. Morally, the lives saved
potentially out-weighted the property damage.
In more than 100
previous Ploughshares trials in the US, Canada, Australia and several European
countries, the jury has rarely been allowed by the presiding judge to hear any
moral arguments about the underlying reasons for the protest action. The issue
has been decided simply on a basis of law Ð as if the law had no moral base and
all law was of equal importance. Previously, with two exceptions, juries have
found hundreds of peacemakers guilty as charged. Nearly all have been
imprisoned, some for several years.
It seems obvious
to me that sometimes one symbolic action based on prayer and good planning can
often present a ÔdivineÕ teaching in ways that a thousand academic papers and
teach-ins will never do. In my view, it is the Ploughshare activists, Catholic
Workers and others like them who believe in Ônon-violent direct actionÕ who are
the only ones capable of confronting the principalities and powers over issues
on war, the destruction of the environment, poverty and other systemic injustices.
The institutional churches are usually far too compromised materially and
spiritually to ever take a stand that will lead to positive change. Remember,
the scribes and Pharisees in the time of Jesus were not bad people. They were
simply compromised out of any relevance Ð hence could not hear the message of
truth that Jesus bought.
The Irish public
have been informed by the Pit Stop Ploughshares action in ways that no volume
of submissions or policy statements could ever hope to achieve. The net result is
that now there is a follow-up move to demilitarise Shannon Airport. ItÕs a
flow-on from their case and another way of conducting public debate when the
traditional avenues have been closed.
A similar action
took place in Australia. There has been considerable debate started in relation
to the US military base at Pine Gap in the heart of Australia. Four Christian
pacifists, tired of lobbying a government hell-bent on not listening, are
facing serious charges as a result of their non-violent prayerful protest at
the Pine Gap military installation. Pine Gap is AustraliaÕs most important
contribution to Ôthe military intelligenceÕ waging the war in Iraq.
The charges arise
from an action in December 2005 when a group of six people calling themselves Christians
Against All Terrorism
notified the then Minister of Defence of their intention to inspect the Pine
Gap base for terrorist activity as they believed it was being used to provide
targeting information for terrorist bombing in Iraq. After walking to the remote
site for five hours, Adele Goldie and Jim Dowling entered the base and hung
their banner on a security fence. It read ÔWhat have you done? Your
brotherÕs blood cries out to me from the earth,Õ a quote from the Book of Genesis. They then climbed
onto the roof of a building to take photos, before kneeling and praying for
peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. They were then arrested.
An hour later
Brian Law and Donna Mulhearn, dressed in white overalls inscribed with the
words ÔCitizens Inspection TeamÕ, walked through the outer restricted area right up to
the high security fence and started cutting through the wire before being
stopped. Both prayed, placed a crucifix against the fence and were arrested.
The final two members, Sean OÕReilly and Jessica Morrison, were arrested after
protesting legally with banners outside the base. Their charges have since been
dropped.
Donna Mulhearn
said, ÔWe were arrested for non-violent peacemaking at the heart of the war
machine. We were trying to expose the criminal role of Pine Gap in the
slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.Õ Jim Dowling, who lives
in a Catholic Worker community in Queensland with his wife and six children,
has been resisting AustraliaÕs involvement in war for three decades through creative
non-violence and prayer. He said that non-violent resistance was the most
effective tool in speaking to a government which does not listen to ChristÕs
message and wants to wage war. ÔNow Australia is at war again. It is immoral.
Christians have no choice but to resist.Õ
One would have to
conclude that non-violent resistance and direct action can have a wonderfully
liberating effect for the message of Christ in certain circumstances. Both are
certainly part of our Christian tradition and continue to help shape public
perception and hopefully public policy.
My final
reflection looks at where public policy might well benefit from a specific
Christian input to help society operate better My question asks whether
forgiveness should become part of public policy
New Zealand
society is now so angry, so unforgiving, so harsh in its condemnation of those
who offend, or are perceived to have offended. If anyone has any doubt about
this, note the response to the Norm Withers referendum on criminal offending
and its flow on effect Ð nearly 40 percent more in prison after only four years
in a time when crime rates were dropping. I believe forgiveness needs to become
a critical component of public policy to humanise the harshness of our punitive
culture. Not only do we need to be able to say ÔsorryÕ for hurts rendered and
mean it, but we need to be able to accept genuine apology when we are hurt. But
we need to learn to understand forgiveness, healing and reconciliation better
than we currently do.
In this debate,
the Church could provide a primary source of reflection and challenge. Church
practice already gives it notional assent. But we could be much more creative.
How desperately important it is for Christians and the Churches who claim to
understand something of these matters to be consistently putting them before
the public. The Catholic Church has a great theology of forgiveness and
reconciliation Ð but we have domesticated it almost out of existence and
ritually it is practised now only by relatively few.
Yet, things could
be so different. One of the more tragic events of the year occurred in early
October 2006 when five little girls from an Amish school in Nickel Mines,
Pennsylvania, were lined up and shot by an embittered gunman who then shot
himself. What made it even more compelling was that some of the Amish parents
and other community members immediately went to comfort the widow of the gunman
and his three children. More than one half of those who later attended his
funeral were from the Amish village. For them it was natural. They live in a
culture where forgiveness is central to everyday living. What an amazing
insight into the divine. How well did that action speak to the very essence of
the soul?
Just imagine if
George W. Bush and the evangelical Christians who form such a solid base for
his administration had joined forces with the Catholic bishops and mainstream
church leaders after September 11 2001 to practise forgiveness as a political
way forward. If they had said, there is something badly wrong here if whole
groupings of people are prepared to sacrifice their lives in order to make
their point. Instead, they found a scapegoat and marched off to war. TheirsÕ
was a response of vengefulness, the deadly effects of which far out-weight even
the hideous massacre of September 11 and from which the US has still to emerge.
Yet forgiveness is possible. Who will ever forget the
sight of Kim Phuc, the
nine year old Vietnamese girl, etched forever in the memory of the world through
that remarkable 1972 Time
magazine photo, running, screaming, suffering from massive burns to most of her
body from the napalm dropped on her village. If ever a picture encapsulated the
horrors of war, that one did. Now more than 30 years later, she has forgiven
those who attacked her and has grown through her pain to become a leader who
tours frequently on behalf of UNICEF asking the question Ôwhy warÕ and
demanding Ôwar never againÕ. Despite having a deeply scarred body, her spirit
is healed and is whole again Ð because she has forgiven. She is fully human,
fully alive because she has learnt mercy and forgiveness.
There are many other well-known stories of public
forgiveness for huge crimes committed. Gordon Wilson, for his daughter killed
in a bomb blast in Northern Ireland; Michael Lapsley, who lost an eye, two
hands and suffered nearly fatal internal injuries from a parcel bomb sent from
the apartheid regime; Camilla Carr, who was kidnapped and raped by Chechnyan
rebels in 1997. These represent only a small number of millions of people who
daily chose to forgive others who have grievously hurt them.
Many find it hugely difficult. An Anglican priest
whose daughter died in the 7 July 2005 London train bombing has taken time out
from parish work because she cannot forgive the bomber who took her daughter.
Publicly she can see the contradiction from her status as a priest to the very
difficult emotional position she finds herself in.
In many respects forgiveness is probably the most
difficult of all human virtues to practise. Yet it remains central to any
lasting healing process, personal or collective, though itÕs importance is
often underrated and unspoken. On the surface it sometimes seems an unfair
thing to attempt given the pain caused by an injustice. But practising
forgiveness is a foundation stone for healthy living. It is the step we need to
take to be free of the ongoing negative effects of past injustice. It has
transformative qualities not found elsewhere. To decide to forgive is to create
a different future from one controlled by events from the past. It doesnÕt mean
forgetting the past. It means remembering the past in a different way, leaving
one free to develop the future. One becomes re-empowered not controlled by
events from the past.
For many,
forgiveness essentially comes from God and is a divine gift. Specifically for
the Christian it flows from an understanding of the death and resurrection of
Christ. But regardless of religious views, forgiveness is among the most
healthy mature things we can do as human beings and is a derivative of love. It
can be freely offered or sought, given or refused. Forgiveness is a central
part of holistic healing and at some time needs to form part of the journey for
any party seeking to be fully restored from pain, loss or hurt.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who chaired the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission in South Africa through which a whole nation came to
grips with its criminal past, heard literally thousands of testimonies from
victims and offenders during the four years of the commission. He speaks
eloquently and passionately about forgiveness as an essential component of
healing.
ÔI have been bowled over by the incredible humility
one has experienced from the victims, both black and white, who have suffered
as much as they have. By rights they should have been hate-ridden by lust for
revenge. They have exhilarated me by how ready they are to forgive. I have come
to see that. Yes, of course you have an acknowledgment by the wrong doer that
they have done something that was very wrong, that they owe to us confession so
that the victim, the survivor be enabled to forgive. But I have come to believe
fervently that forgiveness is not just a spiritual and ethereal thing unrelated
to the real world, the harsh world out there. I have come to believe very
fervently that without forgiveness, there is no future.Õ
He points out that to forgive is not just to be
altruistic. It is the best form of self-interest. It is also a process that
does not exclude self-hatred and anger. These emotions are all part of being
human. As he says, ÔWhen I talk of forgiveness, I mean the belief that you can
come out the other side a better person Ð a better person than the one being
consumed by anger and hatred. Remaining in that state locks you into a state of
victimhood, making you almost dependent on the perpetrator. If you can find it
within yourself to forgive, then you are no longer chained to the perpetrator.
You can move on and even help the perpetrator become a better person too.Õ
Tutu goes on to say that Ôforgiveness is the capacity
to make a fresh start. That is the power, the rational of confession and
forgiveness. And forgiveness is the grace by which you enable the other person
to get up, to get up with dignity and begin anew. Not to forgive leads to
bitterness and hatred, which just like self-hatred and self-contempt gnaws away
at the vitals of oneÕs being. Whether hatred is projected out or projected in,
it is always corrosive of the human spirit.Õ1
In relation to crime, restorative justice advocate
Howard Zehr points out that the victimÕs forgiveness is a letting go of the
power that the offence and the offender have over him, while not condoning or
excusing that person. It means no longer letting the offence and the offender
dominate. ÔWithout the experience of forgiveness, without this closure, the
wound festers and takes over our lives. It, and the offender, are in control.
To forgive a person is to let go. It is to say that I will not define myself by
your actions towards me. I will not allow you to have any power over me. Real
forgiveness allows one to move from victim to survivor.2
In the area of restorative justice conferencing, there
are real possibilities for forgiveness to happen. In effect, this as another
area of public policy where forgiveness is a constitutive component. The same
applies to the thousands of youth justice conferences held each year.
Forgiveness is part of public policy.
Thankfully, New Zealand has already publicly started a
process of acknowledging wrongdoing and offering apology and reparation as a
process towards healing historic past injustices. This is most evident in
relation to Treaty of Waitangi claims. Each settlement contains not just
reparation by way of money and lands for illegal seizures but also a written
apology for hurt caused. It is a process that while it appears to be largely
symbolic from one perspective, it is important and acceptable from another.
In 2002, Prime Minister Helen Clark also formally
apologised to the Chinese people in New Zealand who had undergone more than 100
years of structural discrimination. She also that same year apologised to both
the Samoan people for the 70 years of discrimination they had suffered here in
New Zealand and to gay and lesbian people for the discrimination they have
faced since colonisation. The contrast with Australian PM John HowardÕs refusal
to say ÔsorryÕ for the genocide of Aborigines in Australia couldnÕt be more
marked.3
As we have seen,
the notions of apology, forgiveness and reparation are already a small part of
public policy in New Zealand. But there remains a harshness to modern life that
only a full debate about forgiveness and the steps required to make it happen
will satisfy. What might this mean?
We would need good
teaching. Most people in the street think that forgiveness means Ôgoing softÕ
and rolling over in the face of injustice. In fact, it means the opposite. It
is a tough, tough virtue which only strong people can enact. It involves
walking in the shoes of the opponent to get a better understanding; it involves
letting go of the pain of the hurt; it means praying daily for grace to make it
happen not once but every day; it involves seeing one self as the primary beneficiary.
What about the
Church? What if the Church took public rituals for forgiveness out of the
exclusive hands of the clergy and placed them also in the hands of the People
of God? What if she promoted such rituals among the laity as being so central
to Christian life that we couldnÕt live without them? What might happen to the
sacrament of reconciliation if we took it back to its origins?
What if the notion
of forgiveness was promoted at the heart of the criminal justice system in
political circles, in law schools, in the courts? What if training in
forgiveness and reconciliation became part of every judgeÕs training? What if
such training was inextricably tied to the notion of accountability?
Forgiveness
doesnÕt mean forgetting. But it is an essential component of civil life. It
doesnÕt come soft or cheap. But it is vital and needs to be part of the public
discussion of building a better future. Like Desmond Tutu, I believe that
Ôwithout forgiveness, there is no future.Õ
Jim Consedine was a Catholic prison chaplain for 23 years in New Zealand and was the founding national co-ordinator of the Restorative Justice Network. An international speake and workshop facilitatorr, he has authored three books on spirituality and restorative justice. He belongs to the Christchurch Catholic Worker - www.catholicworker.org.nz