Taiwanese bishops discuss China deal and papal visit with Pope Francis

CNA Staff, Oct 15, 2020 / 04:47 pm (CNA).- Sri Lanka’s bishops said Tuesday that the country’s democracy would decay if parliament passes a constitutional amendment that would strengthen the president’s power.

The bishops said the Twentieth Amendment, which would allow President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to take control of parliament, would be dangerous for the country. They instead encouraged government officials to focus on drafting a new constitution that safeguards democracy, law, and equality.

“We need to emphasize that concentration of power in an individual without checks and balances does not augur well for a Democratic, Socialist Republic,” they said in an Oct. 13 letter.

The letter was signed by the president and the secretary general of the Sri Lankan bishops’ conference, Bishop Winston Fernando of Badulla and Auxiliary Bishop Anthony Jayakody of Colombo.

Under the current constitution, adopted in 1978, presidential decisions are reviewed in court and the prime minister has the power to assign cabinet ministers who form central government. It also permits an independent commission to select officials to public institutions like the police force or the human rights commission.

If the amendment passes, the Associated Press reported, Rajapaksa would have the power to appoint judges, dissolve laws, and install or remove government ministers. The president would also be able to oversee any number of ministries giving him the power to appoint officials to public institutions.

Before parliament votes on the amendment, the Supreme Court must make a decision on whether specific aspects of the amendment will need a referendum to be approved. It is expected that members of parliament will approve the amendment, which needs a two-thirds majority to pass, the AP reported.

″A two-thirds majority of the members in the Parliament based on political parties does not necessarily manifest the true conscience of the people,” the bishops said.

“Therefore, let the entire membership of the parliament appoint an Independent Constitutional Council comprising a majority of men and women of proven integrity from the society who will take care of drafting a new constitution which ensures transparent democracy, the rule of law and the equality of all citizens.”

The Sri Lankan constitution established a unicameral parliament along with a powerful presidency. The Nineteenth Amendment, adopted in 2015, diluted the president’s powers; the proposed Twentieth Amendment would reverse the reforms of the Nineteenth.

“The Executive Presidency has been the bone of contention since it was created in 1978,” the Sri Lankan bishops reflected. “All elected presidents since 1994 vowed to abolish the Executive Presidency with powers vested in it by the 1978 Constitution and transfer power to the democratically elected Parliament, but none had the political will to do so for reasons not unknown to the people.”

The bishops said rules cannot be changed based on the inconsistencies and whims of individual political figures. They encouraged the installation of civilly responsible officials and challenged parliament to focus on rebuilding a constitution that protects and improves Sri Lanka.

“It is our view … to identify and elect or appoint suitable persons who will abide by the rules to safeguard true, justice, and the well-being of the country. It is the bounden-duty of the democratically elected Parliament to create wholesome governing structures capable of moving this country forward,” they said.

“Greater clarity is needed if the constitution is to serve the citizenry. Thus the 20th Amendment should not be proceeded with, in its entirety, and instead a new constitution needs to be the national priority at this moment.”

[…]

Flag of the People’s Republic of China / Yan Ke / Unsplash (CC0)

CNA Newsroom, Aug 24, 2022 / 02:21 am (CNA).

Chinese bishops allied with the government have promised to proceed with the “sinicization” of Catholicism in China.

During a national conference in Wuhan, two organizations elected leaders who vowed to bring the Church in China in line with the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party.

The 10th National Congress of Catholicism in China was attended by 345 Catholic bishops, priests, and religious of the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, reported UCA News.

At the end of the three-day gathering, new leaders of the association and of the Bishops’ Conference of the Catholic Church in China (BCCCC) were elected. Both of these organizations are sponsored by the Chinese state. 

The Catholic Church in the People’s Republic of China has been split between the government-sanctioned Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association and the underground Church, which is persecuted and whose episcopal appointments are frequently not acknowledged by Chinese authorities.

The Vatican does not officially recognize the CCPA. The state-sponsored congress is held every five years.

Archbishop Joseph Li Shan of Beijing was appointed chairman of the CCPA, while Bishop Joseph Shen Bin of Haimen was elected as the new BCCCC chairman.

The new leaders agreed to continue efforts towards the sinicization of the Church as laid out previously by President Xi Jinping. 

In 2018, the Vatican reached an agreement with the Chinese government on the appointment of bishops in the country; the terms of the deal, which was renewed in October 2020 for two more years, have never been fully revealed. The Sino-Vatican agreement is due to expire on Oct. 22.

Human rights advocates have voiced concerns after Pope Francis said the agreement was “moving well” and should be renewed.

Vatican officials have repeatedly said that the accord between China and the Holy See is focused solely on the appointment of bishops. According to reports, the agreement allows China’s state-sanctioned church (CCPA) to select episcopal candidates, who would then be approved or vetoed by the Holy See. 

In last year’s National Conference on Religious Affairs, the president said that religious practice in China would be brought into line with Marxist views and ideologies. 

[…]

Canberra, Australia, Sep 4, 2019 / 02:01 pm (CNA).- The president of the Law Council of Australia signalled dissatisfaction with the government’s religious discrimination bill Wednesday. Among his concerns are its ability to bolster conscience protections for medical professionals who object to participating in abortion.

Arthur Moses, head of the association of law societies and bar associations in Australia, addressed the bill in a Sept. 4 address to the National Press Club in Canberra.

According to Guardian Australia, much of his criticism focused on the suggestion the bill could protect expressions of racial discrimination.

The religious discrimination bill would make it unlawful to discriminate against people on the ground of their religious belief or activity; establish a religious freedom commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission; and amend existing laws regarding religious freedom, including marriage and charities law, and objects clauses in anti-discrimination law.

It would protect religious speech under commonwealth, state, and territory law.

The coalition government wants to make religious belief and activity a protected class, like race or sex. It also hopes to ensure that groups rejecting same-sex marriage are not stripped of their charitable status.

In its current version, the bill would not protect religious statements that are “malicious, would harass, vilify or incite hatred or violence against a person or group or which advocate for the commission of a serious criminal offence”.

The draft bill was released last week for public consultation by attorney-general Christian Porter.

Moses, in his prepared remarks to the National Press Club, said the Law Council welcomed the bill’s release “not because we necessarily agree with the government’s approach or with every provision. But because this provides an opportunity for a discussion that is long overdue about what type of nation we want to be.”

“An inclusive, tolerant and harmonious nation? A nation where people are vilified because of their sexuality in the name of religion? We need to get the balance right to ensure that there are no unintended consequences,” he stated, adding that “reasonable minds may differ about how we balance competing rights.”

He urged that “as a starting point, we need to have a clear definition of what we understand freedom and liberty to mean.”

Guardian Australia reported that Moses said the bill “doesn’t carry the same type of protection as section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act”.

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 makes unlawful offensive behaviour done publicly because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin if the act “is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people.”

Moses said that “the concept of offend and insult in section 18C is not to be found in this legislation – so the test is much more difficult to establish in relation to provisions of the religious freedom bill than what is currently contained in the Racial Discrimination Act.”

He maintained that “this is an area where we have said you need to be very careful because some comments that are made do have an impact on the most vulnerable members of our community.”

Moses also said the religious discrimination bill would allow employers to prohibit religious speech if they would suffer “unjustifiable financial hardship”.

He called this “an interesting concept … there is a mirage of freedom of speech but it’s confined by the employer’s bottom line. I think that’s silly, with all due respect.”

Australia’s coalition government is led by the Liberal Party, which is joined by the National Party. The opposition Australian Labor Party is expected to back the bill.

LGBT advocates are opposed to the bill, as it could override some provisions of Tasmanian law.

Some conservative members of parliament have asked instead for a religious freedom bill.

Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, of the Liberal Party, voiced concerns July 9 that the bill does not go far enough, saying it “would be defensive in nature and limited to protecting against acts and practices by others which are discriminatory on the grounds of religion.”

She said that “quiet Australians now expect the Coalition to legislate to protect their religious freedom.”

The religious discrimination bill is being introduced to implement a commitment made in the 2019 federal election.

A review of religious freedom in Australia was finished in May 2018, making 20 recommendations; among these was a Religious Discrimination Bill.

The government has asked the Australian Law Reform Commission to report on how to balance competing claims of religious freedom rights and LGBT rights.

Australia has seen debate over religious freedom in recent years with respect to the seal of the confessional, hiring decisions, and same-sex marriage.

When same-sex marriage was legalized in Australia in 2017, efforts to include amendments that would protect religious freedom failed during parliamentary debate.

Archbishop Anthony Fisher of Sydney noted last year that “we cannot take the freedom to hold and practice our beliefs for granted, even here in Australia,” and that “powerful interests now seek to marginalize religious believers and beliefs, especially Christian ones, and exclude them from public life. They would end funding to faith-based schools, hospitals and welfare agencies, strip us of charitable status and protections.”

[…]