State and Religion in Norway in Times of Change
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
STATE AND RELIGION IN NORWAY IN TIMES OF CHANGE INGVILL THORSON PLESNER1 A committee, appointed by the National Council of The Church of Norway (the state church) finalised its evaluation of the State/Church system in 2001. The majority of the committee (16 out of 17 members) suggested “new relations” between the state and this church in which 85% of the population are members. The recommendations of the “Church/State Committee” have been highly debated after the presentation of the final report2, both inside the Church of Norway and in broader public debate. Also, the recommen- dations of the committee led to the appointment in 2003 of a public commission by the government. The commission shall make recom- mendations within the year 2005 on whether the state church system should continue, be reformed or abolished. The main focus in this article will be on the recommendations and arguments made by the majority of the Church appointed committee, focusing on the legal implications of the suggestions. However, to understand these recommendations and scenarios first a brief presentation of the present religio-political system in Norway is necessary3. I. THE TWO MAIN PILLARS OF THE NORWEGIAN RELIGIO- POLITICAL SYSTEM The core provisions of the Norwegian state church system are the articles 2, 4, 12, 16 and 27 of the Norwegian Constitution of 1814. Article 2, first 1 Research Fellow (Ph.D. candidate) at the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, working on a dissertation on “Religio-political Models and Principles”. 2 The report was called “Same church – New relations” (“Samme kirke – ny ordning”), and is published by The Church Council (2002). 3 For a more in-depth presentation of the constitutional and other legal provisions in this field, see the article on Norway in the previous volume of this European Journal on Church and State Research (2001). 264 I. T. PLESNER paragraph, states that the “Evangelical-Lutheran Confession remains the public religion of the state”. However, in its second paragraph, article 2 underlines that “All inhabitants should enjoy the right to free exercise of religion”4. This article hence states the two main pillars of the Norwegian religio-political system; a) the state church and b) freedom of religion or belief. As we shall see below, the possible tensions between these two pil- lars were among the main concerns of the Church/State Committee. The particular responsibility of “the King” (in practice the members of the government who are also members of the state church, cf. article 12 and 27)5 for the state church laid out in the constitution also has impli- cations for the Parliament who shall see to the financial support for this church out of the state budget, and establishes laws concerning the organ- isation of the Church of Norway, for instance the Church of Norway Act of 1996. In addition to the funding out of the state budget, the munici- pal authorities are obliged by the1996 Church Act (article 15) to provide the funding e.g. for the restoration and use of the church buildings, for the administration and for certain employees at the local level of the church. There has been a development in the legislation for the Church of Norway during the last decades, granting more autonomy to the elected church bodies like the Parish Council on the local level, the regional Diocesan Council and the National Church Synod. The 1996 Church of Norway Act, which replaced the 1953 Act on the Organisation of the Church of Norway has so far marked the peak of this development, stat- ing e.g. that the local parishes have the status of legal persons (cf. article 2 of the Act) which is a status that the church representative organ at the national level (the Church Synod) does not yet have. However, the 1996 Act gave more competence to the National Church Synod (cf. article 24) 4 This also includes the right not to have a religious conviction (Andenæs 1991). 5 The article 12 states that at least half of the Government should “confess” the Evan- gelical-Lutheran religion”, which is in practice interpreted as demanding that they should be members of the Evangelical Lutheran state church, The Church of Norway. In con- nection with the making of some of the recent Governments, especially representatives of the Social Democratic Party have expressed that this quest makes it more difficult for them to establish a government. Since the Social Democratic governments often consist of exactly 50% or a little more members of the Church of Norway, it has sometimes proved difficult to get the church affairs that should be treated by the government (like appointing bishops and deans) treated by the Government in due time, as this then demands that nearly all the church members of the Government are present at the weekly Friday meeting at the Royal Palace where such decisions are made. Due to travels and other obligations, it is not so rare that some of the ministers that are also church members are not present, and hence that no decision concerning the church affairs can be make. STATE AND RELIGION IN NORWAY IN TIMES OF CHANGE 265 than it had before, for instance the legal competence to make plans and programmes for the diaconal activities and the religious education of the church and to develop qualification criteria and determine the main tasks for the positions as deacons, teachers and musicians in the church. The Diocesan Council has been empowered by the increased delegation of legal competence from the Ministry of Church Affairs on behalf of “the King”, e.g. the power to employ and dismiss pastors within the diocese. However, the appointment of bishops and deans and hence the main responsibility for the clergy still remains a task of the King/the Govern- ment. Also the basic financial premises for the church activities are set by the Government in making decisions about the allocations to the regional and national church bodies. Since 1969 there has been an Act on Faith Communities that applies for The Church of Norway as well as all other faith communities in Norway. By the very inclusion of the Church of Norway in this act, the double identity of the church is underlined: It is a state church, but still should be respected as a faith community. As we shall see later in this article, the tensions related to this two-fold identity of the majority church – and the implications of these tensions both for the Church of Norway and for other faith communities – were among the main concerns addressed by the Church/State Committee. The 1969 Faith Communities Act says in article 19 that – upon request – other faith communities should be provided with the same economic support per member a year that the Church of Norway receives per mem- ber a year, both at the state and municipal level. Since 1981 a similar Act on Financial Support to Life Stance Communities has stated the right of secular communities (in practice so far only the Humanist Ethical Union) to receive such support. This right to economic support might be seen as a result of the aim of securing equal treatment for other faith and life stance communities. The same regard is underlying other rights given in the same act to all faith communities, registered as well as non-registered. Some rights are limited to those who are registered, like the right to have a grave- yard of their own (cf. article 18). In addition to these provisions granting certain corporate rights to faith communities, the 1969 Act underlines the individual dimension of freedom of religion or belief, e.g. the right to take part in religious activ- ities (article 1) and the freedom from religious coercion by means of forced membership in any religious community (article 2) is underlined. In this way the Act further outlines the general provision on freedom of religion or belief given by the Constitution in article 2. 266 I. T. PLESNER II. THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE’S MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS The suggestion of the majority of the committee (16 out of 17) was to change all the constitutional provision regarding the Church of Norway (§§2, 4, 12, 16, 21, 22, 27) and establish “new relations” between Church and State. They agreed that there should be a consti- tutional provision outlining the responsibility of the state in supporting all faith and life stance communities to secure good conditions for their activities. Also, the first part of article 2 of the Constitution about freedom of religion or belief for all should be prevalent6. The majority was, however, divided on the question on whether the Church of Norway should be mentioned in particular in such a paragraph7. Eleven members wanted a particular reference to the major- ity church because of its “particular position in the Norwegian society, in history, and today”, and argued that this was not necessarily in conflict with the equal treatment principle. Rather, mentioning the majority church in particular would underline that this church should be treated on the same level as other faith communities from now on, while at the same time expressing “continuity” with the past. The other five members – the “minority in the majority” of the committee – did not want such a particular reference to the Church of Norway since they thought this would be more in line with the principle of equal treatment. On the question of what should replace the 1996 Church of Norway Act, the group was divided along more or less the same lines, although everybody agreed that the Act could not be kept in its present form8.