Spirituality Has No Owner

The pope’s visit revives a debate over secularism, religious authority, and the freedom of conscience in a shared civic space.

Spirituality Has No Owner
Secularism, Religion, and Freedom of Conscience Ahead of the Pope’s Visit
By Santiago H. Pereira Testa

The pope’s upcoming visit to Uruguay has revived a discussion that should be addressed clearly.
The problem does not lie in denying the respect he deserves as a head of state, religious leader, and figure of international relevance.
The issue arises when there is an attempt to turn Parliament, the common forum of all citizens, into a platform for a religious authority.
Those who question that possibility have been accused of intolerance, of practicing an extreme form of secularism, and even of rejecting spirituality.
That accusation is based on a mistaken idea.
It assumes that religions own the spiritual dimension of human beings.
Spirituality, however, predates and extends beyond any creed.
It arises from the human capacity to question the meaning of existence, examine one’s own conduct, seek truth, cultivate values, and pursue inner transformation.
It can be expressed through religion, but also through philosophy, art, knowledge, contemplation, service, or the conscious pursuit of self-improvement.
Religion can be a spiritual path for many people.
It is not the only possible path.
Still less can it claim exclusive representation of a dimension that belongs to the inner life of every human being.
Religion organizes narratives, symbols, rituals, authorities, and answers.
Spirituality keeps the search alive.
Religion points to a path.
Spirituality preserves the right of every conscience to find its own.
The difference becomes especially important when dogmas appear.
Dogma is not presented as an idea that can be examined or corrected.
It is presented as a truth that must be accepted.
At that point, an inevitable tension arises between religion and free will.
Believers may question, interpret, and reflect, but generally within limits previously defined by doctrine.
They may search, provided that they do not call the fundamental answers into question.
For that reason, it is debatable to claim that dogma necessarily expands spirituality.
It often limits it, channels it, and subordinates it to an external authority.
Secularism does not deny spirituality.
It protects spirituality from every form of appropriation.
By preventing the state from adopting a religion or privileging a doctrine, it guarantees that every person may believe, doubt, investigate, change convictions, or live spiritually without submitting to a religious authority.
It also protects believers, because it prevents another creed from being imposed on them by those in power.
Denying the pope a parliamentary platform does not mean censoring him.
He has churches, institutions, media outlets, and public spaces from which he may freely address those who wish to listen to him.
The question is not whether he may speak.
The question is from what position of authority he speaks and what institutional meaning is acquired by the place from which he does so.
Parliament represents believers, agnostics, atheists, and people who cultivate their spiritual lives outside every religion.
Precisely because it represents everyone, it must not symbolically place itself under the authority of any faith.
Spirituality does not belong to the pope, the Catholic Church, or any other religion.
It belongs to every human being who seeks to understand existence, govern conscience, and freely construct the meaning of life.
Secularism does not impoverish that search.
It sets it free.

Secularism and the state
Freedom of conscience
Spirituality and dogma

Continue reading in Global Order and Geopolitics