The European Commission Engages in Josephism

Facts

In a communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of Europe, titled “Protecting yourself against COVID-19 during winter,” the following advice is given on page 5: “For ceremonies, consider avoiding important services or using online, television or radio broadcasts, ... and prohibiting group singing.”

These two lines raise some questions. Does the European Commission intend to abolish national courts? Does it believe itself above the laws of the member countries? Does it think it has authority over the ceremonies of the Church? Or how the manner in which they are celebrated?

This is even more surprising, if we note that the principles involved in the ruling of the State Court are not limited by any particular national territory, but that their validity is universal.

Indeed, the judgment notes on the one hand that there is “a serious and manifestly illegal attack on the freedom of worship.” It further considers that “if certain establishments open to the public other than places of worship remain closed [such as cinemas and theaters], the activities which are carried out there are not of the same nature and the fundamental freedoms which are in play are not the same.”

To disregard this judgment in this way is not only mocks a French court, it also ignores principles that are valid everywhere.

If you want proof, just look to Switzerland. In a judgment passed on December 3, the Constitutional Chamber of the Court of Justice of the canton of Geneva - which is, let us remember, a state - suspended an order of the Council of State of the same canton. This decree, dated November 1, prohibited “religious services and other religious events accessible to the public.”

The reasons given are at the heart of the matter. The chamber found that “the contested measure constitutes a potentially serious infringement of religious freedom, since it was of an almost absolute nature.” In addition, it “poses a serious problem of respect for the principle of proportionality,” between the prohibited measure and the health hazard to be contained.

Especially since, as the Chamber noted, “it has not been shown that places of worship were particular sources of contamination.”

Admittedly, the two judicial bodies use the terms “religious freedom” or “freedom of worship” in a “secular” sense, certainly imperfect; but it allows, in this case, the Catholic Church to defend herself against the encroachments of civil power.

A Feeling of Déjà Vu

The Emperor of Austria, Joseph II (1765-1790), gave his name to a political doctrine, known as Josephism. In its religious aspect, this system sought to place the entire administration of the Catholic Church under state supervision. He made an effort to rule everything in the life of the Austrian Church, right down to the ringing of the bells. Frederick II of Prussia bestowed on Joseph II the nickname of “sacristan,” which has remained with him.

The European Commission, which already has a pronounced tendency towards interventionism in the political and social fields, would now like to become a “sacristan” to succeed Joseph II. If it wants to keep this nickname for future history, it is free to do so, but Catholics will not be able to accept its “advice,” already invalidated by state courts.