“We do not betray the Gospel by wanting to put an end to migratory disorder”

“We do not betray the Gospel by wanting to put an end to migratory disorder”
“We do not betray the Gospel by wanting to put an end to migratory disorder”

“In the name of our faith, we will vote against the far right. » This column published in the daily The cross – signed by 6,000 Christians – calls on the faithful “to vote massively against the National Rally”. She also asks “religious institutions to explicitly position themselves” and of “mobilize firmly against the establishment of far-right ideas in our country.” The Gospel is called upon to support this call, particularly on the theme of welcoming the stranger.

Brandishing your faith and the Gospel to justify a political choice is not a trivial thing. Calling upon ecclesiastical leaders to demand that they, in turn, launch a similar appeal is not neutral either: the opinion of a few should thus become a categorical moral imperative for all, validated by the religious hierarchy.

It is one thing for Christians to judge personally and express publicly that voting RN is impossible for them in conscience. It is another to assert that the Gospel absolutely precludes a particular vote for all Christians and that this must be explicitly affirmed by religious leaders. However, the latter are justified in condemning major ideologies such as communism and Nazism, but not in directly intervening in electoral choices.

The appeal of 6,000 Christians: “In the name of our faith, we will vote against the extreme right”

I disapprove of this way of putting the Gospel at the service of one’s own opinions: this leads to exerting moral pressure on the other faithful, and political pressure on the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Voting is a personal choice which, to be free and informed, must be, as much as possible, protected from such constraints. On the other hand, disqualifying a vote in principle leads to dismissing without examination the ideas likely to motivate it.

However, from my point of view, the need for a more firm and restrictive migration policy is one of the options which does not deserve religious disapproval via the agitation of the RN scarecrow. On the contrary, it requires serious political examination instead of blaming Christians who have legitimate concerns for the future of their country and their children.

The primacy of consciousness

I consider it more fruitful to debate based first on political reason and accepting divergent options rather than establishing as an absolute what is deemed “Catholicly correct” or not. Furthermore, I am wary of literalism applied to sacred texts, in particular: “I was a stranger and you welcomed me. » Chapter XXV of Matthew is a summit of the Gospel but does not constitute migration policy.

Seeing Christians invoke their sacred book to irrefutably qualify or disqualify a political option does not suit me. However, I do not want to say that the Gospel has nothing to tell us when it comes to political choices. It is necessary, in fact, to pass one’s own opinions through the sieve of faith or natural law. But I affirm, in this area, the primacy of conscience and the refusal of pressure on it.

Véronique Margron: “No one will make their happiness based on the misfortune of others”

I am Catholic and it does not offend my conscience to consider a migration policy which would lead to a recovery of our borders, to the expulsion of illegal immigrants and foreign delinquents, to the redefinition of our visa policy or even conditions of access to French nationality, within the framework of the rule of law and with respect for human dignity. There is, in my opinion, no betrayal of the Gospel in thinking that, if our country does not put an end to the current migratory disorder, our internal security and our national cohesion, already largely affected, will plunge into the abyss.

On the other hand, it would offend my conscience if France went beyond political necessity to absolutely abandon any possibility of asylum, to refuse to rescue migrants on a boat in the Mediterranean and/or to organize a “remigration” movement, i.e. That is to say, expulsions targeting people who have done no harm and inhumane population movements. Fortunately, such projects are not supported by the RN. I therefore readily recognize that cold political rationality is not the only factor involved in a choice.

“RN voters expect the State to protect them”

In a certain way, there is a double movement in a personal deliberation, when choosing your ballot: on the one hand, evaluating the relevance of specific measures, their concrete feasibility, but also the personal and collective capacity to those who propose to implement them, or the context and the balance of political forces of the moment; on the other hand, pass these precise measures under the sieve of natural law and our principles of civilization which owe so much to the Gospel of Christ.

The challenge of the ethnic paradigm

At the heart of this debate, it seems necessary to me to evoke the burning challenge of the ethnic paradigm. Ethnicism is both foreign to French tradition – France is not an ethnic nation – and contrary to the universal Christian vision of the equal dignity of all men. It is true that ethnicity can make its nest slippery in migration issues. But I observe that it is lodged today in the dialectic of the struggles of the radical left, in some way opposing “white” and “racialized” people.

“The RN should not be thought of as a return of fascism”

Jean-Luc Mélenchon affirms it: “Everything must be conflicted! » To the point of conflicting the race? Mr. Mélenchon theorized the concept of “creolization” as a means of achieving what he calls “a new people”going so far as to assert that “those who call themselves ethnic French pose a problem to national cohesion”. Here is how he clearly conflicts with the ethnic issue…

Finally, it must be emphasized that the warning signals concerning a serious fracturing of the French nation go well beyond immigration: sociogeographic divide, divide between the people and the elites, religious divides, etc. Christians probably have something specific to contribute – as peacemakers.

Anne Muxel, political scientist: “Abstention is becoming a democratic mode of expression”

But it does not seem to me that it is enough to call for a fight against a particular “devil”, as if a single “demon” threatened concord and fraternity, or even to call for « reject extremes », as does the central block to keep the hand. Above all, we must address the issues on the merits: social downgrading, feeling of dispossession, cultural insecurity, endemic violence in our streets, growing precariousness, social injustices, educational failure, absence of common project, etc. So, ultimately, who should we vote for, in this political slump, in the face of fear of radicalism and violence and given the meager trust we place in the parties? It’s up to everyone to decide… consciously.

Find, as soon as they are officially published, the results of the 1st round of the 2024 legislative elections, municipality by municipality.



PREV [Ligue 1] “Mid-Range” Clubs Looking for Financing Solutions, TV Rights Nearing Finalisation
NEXT Pro D2 – The complete calendar for the 2024/2025 season!