If you lived in Canada, you couldn't wear a cross at work.

Canada—a nation rooted in Christian traditions, both Protestant and Catholic—is currently undergoing a period of profound secularization. Although the Preamble to its Charter of Rights declares that the country is "founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the primacy of law ," faith is increasingly excluded from the public sphere . Those who express Christian values on sensitive ethical issues—such as the defense of unborn life, criticism of radical racial ideologies, or the LGBTQ agenda— are often branded as "divisive" and denied the right to free expression .

This dynamic, exacerbated in recent years, indicates genuine ideological censorship and even persecution of believers. A case in point is what happened during the Covid-19 pandemic, when Canadian churches faced restrictions more severe than those imposed on secular activities — with places of worship closed, faithful expelled, and pastors even arrested—while businesses considered "essential" such as supermarkets, liquor stores, and even adult entertainment venues remained open. In this article, we will critically analyze how Canada, once a cradle of vibrant Christian communities , is marginalizing religion from the public sphere. We will highlight complaints and testimonies from Catholic voices and other Christian leaders, including the Church's Magisterium's affirmations regarding the right to religious freedom and the participation of believers in the common good. The analysis will focus primarily on the Canadian context, adopting a critical tone regarding the political and cultural choices of the current leadership, in light of Christian teachings and the lived experiences of faith communities.

Christian roots and a new "closed" secularism

For centuries, the presence of the Christian faith has been an integral part of Canadian identity. European colonization saw Catholic missionaries in Quebec and Protestant communities in the English-speaking provinces; the first builders of the nation were overwhelmingly believers. Even modern official documents, such as the 1982 Bill of Rights, symbolically recognize this legacy by affirming the role of God among the founding principles of the country. However, in recent decades Canada has experienced an accelerated process of secularization, to the point that today religion is increasingly confined to the private sphere. A rigid interpretation of secularism has emerged, which some authors define as "closed secularism" , as opposed to the "open" and inclusive one advocated by many Christian thinkers ( In practice, instead of ensuring a public space where all faiths can contribute to democratic debate, there is a tendency to exclude religious voices in the name of a neutrality that often borders on hostility. This is even more significant considering that the seeds of this hostility are the same ones taking root in Italy and much of the Western world.

This radical secularism has been well described by Msgr. Francis Leo , the new Archbishop of Toronto, in a recent interview: he lists among the main challenges for the Canadian Church precisely "the disease of the secularism of a Western, prosperous and democratic society", that is, radical secularism. When secularism becomes ideology – explains Leo – and "is used to exclude and not to include, then it becomes a tumor of democracy". The signs of this degeneration are not lacking: they range from the marginalization of religious symbols (for example in Quebec a law known as Bill 21 today prohibits public employees from wearing symbols of any faith while working) ) to attacks against the faithful and sacred buildings. In 2021 alone , 884 acts of vandalism or violence against religious sites , mostly Christian churches, were recorded in Canada – a 67% increase over the previous year . This is an alarming figure, indicative of a climate in which religious freedom is being delegitimized in the eyes of public opinion. As the Canadian bishops note in their 2023 Pastoral Letter, there is a perceived "context that delegitimizes the freedom of faith" and ends up fueling such intolerance.

At the basis of this trend is an ideological postulate, widespread in post-modern thought, according to which religion should be rigorously confined to the intimacy of the individual conscience , without any external expression. The bishops denounce this vision as erroneous : " By separating thought from action, conscience from behavior, one can obtain greater public conformity, but not greater freedom and democracy", warns the episcopal document. One cannot truly exercise freedom of religion and conscience without manifesting it publicly . This statement fully reflects Catholic doctrine: the Second Vatican Council already taught that every person has the right to practice his or her faith "privately or publicly , individually or in association" without coercion, within the limits of just public order ( Dignitatis Humanae , the Council's declaration on religious freedom, adds that communities of believers have the right “not to be hindered in their public witness to the faith, whether spoken or written.” Ignoring these principles leads not to a freer society, but – paradoxically – to a creeping form of cultural totalitarianism , where a single, materialistic vision dominates.

The Catholic historian Christopher Dawson observed that once a society has embarked on the path of de-Christianization, it “cannot stop at the halfway point of liberalism; it must go all the way,” risking landing in a sort of secularist totalitarianism ( In the Canadian context, this manifests itself in the imposition of a uniformity of thought on once-debated ethical values . The ongoing "de-Christianization" —to use the words of Saint John Paul II—implies not only "growing indifference toward religion and a loss of faith, but also a darkening of the moral sense" in society. When reference to God and natural law disappears from public discourse, the boundary between good and evil also becomes blurred, and "wherever there is confusion about what is good and what is evil, it is impossible to protect and build a moral order," the Pontiff warned the Canadian bishops. The symptoms of this crisis of values are evident today: practices such as unlimited abortion, euthanasia on demand, or theories about gender identity—once considered unacceptable by a large portion of the population—are now celebrated as "achievements" of secular modernity, while those who dissent on the basis of religious convictions are stigmatized and excluded from civil dialogue.

Uncomfortable ideas labeled as “divisive” and censored

In the name of alleged inclusiveness , Canada has often adopted policies that effectively exclude from public life those who do not align with the dominant progressive thinking on ethical and social issues. The current prime minister—despite professing to be of Catholic background—has built his political agenda on positions diametrically opposed to Christian morality on issues such as abortion, sexuality, and family. Upon coming to power, Trudeau wanted Canada to be at the forefront of the global promotion of what Saint John Paul II called the “culture of death” : millions of dollars in public funds have been allocated to increase access to abortion both at home and in developing countries. In 2016, the Trudeau government legalized assisted suicide (MAID) and subsequently expanded its eligibility criteria. The Canadian bishops have strenuously opposed these excesses: “Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not the answer,” wrote Archbishop Richard Gagnon of Winnipeg in an open letter to Trudeau, inviting the government to reflect “with honesty and integrity on what kind of culture we are leaving to future generations” ( Unfortunately, these appeals have gone unheard, and indeed those who launch them are often branded as backward or even “divisive” .

The term "divisive" has become a catch-all label for delegitimizing inconvenient ideas. For example, those who defend the right to life of unborn children in Canada are regularly accused of wanting to "divide" the country and set it back decades. Justin Trudeau has never made a secret of his uncompromising approach: he banned openly pro-life politicians from running for office in the Liberal Party, claiming that their presence would conflict with "Canadian values." In 2018, his government required organizations applying for public funding for the Canada Summer Jobs program to sign a statement of adherence to pro-choice principles and LGBTQ rights , or face exclusion from funding. In practice, Christian summer camps and religious NGOs had to choose between recanting their beliefs or forgoing funding: "This is nothing but anti-religious bigotry ," a lawyer from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms denounced at the time. The policy was widely criticized as a violation of freedom of conscience, but the Trudeau government defended it in the name of “inclusiveness,” implicitly accusing faith-based organizations of being divisive and discriminatory.

A similar process has been seen in the field of education . Catholic schools and believers in general who challenge elements of critical race theory or gender ideology are accused of spreading hatred. In Ontario, bishops already expressed disbelief in 2012 at regulations that required Catholic schools to establish gay-themed student clubs (Gay-Straight Alliances), contrary to their own educational vision. More recently, several Canadian provinces have reported cases of Christian teachers or students being silenced for disagreeing with "woke" orthodoxy on racism and gender identity. The bishops note in their 2023 document that "without robust religious freedom, other fundamental freedoms, such as expression, assembly, and association, will be called into question, as can already be seen in numerous universities and professions across the country." Essentially, if you publicly express beliefs inspired by your faith—for example, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, or that all lives matter equally regardless of race—you risk being labeled as intolerant and losing your right to speak.

Such a climate ends up privatizing faith : "Moral norms recently recognized by secular society, such as the freedom of unrestricted abortion, the absolute freedom of all sexual expression (gender identity), or euthanasia 'on command' are not shared by many faiths, which are prevented from expressing it," the Canadian pastors write, emphasizing that " faith is thus forced to privatize to make it acceptable in the public sphere." The result is paradoxical: a society that prides itself on celebrating diversity ends up demanding total conformity, extinguishing true pluralism. "To be perfectly secular, society ends up imposing and extinguishing pluralism," the episcopal letter clearly warns. Anyone who dares to invoke absolute values or objective truths is accused of wanting to "impose" their own morality on others, while it is precisely extreme secularism that imposes itself as the only way of thinking.

The attitude towards the Catholic Church itself in public debate is also emblematic. In 2021, Canada was shaken by the news of the alleged discovery of hundreds of "mass graves" at former Native American colleges formerly run by the Church. Although subsequent investigations have not confirmed the existence of mass burials ( , the Trudeau government reacted by heavily accusing the Church and asking the Pope for an official apology "on indigenous Canadian soil". The Prime Minister – speaking "as a Catholic" – said he was "deeply disappointed" by the actions of the Church ( and engaged in highly symbolic gestures (such as leaving national flags at half-mast for months) that implicitly attributed collective guilt to the Church. This one-sided narrative fueled a wave of indignation, partly exploited by anti-religious groups: over 120 churches, both Catholic and non-Catholic, were vandalized or burned that year. . Well, faced with these serious hate crimes, Trudeau limited himself to declaring that these were "unacceptable but understandable " acts . Many faithful were disconcerted by this ambiguous response: calling the arson of churches "understandable" almost sounds like a moral justification. It is yet another proof of how, in the eyes of certain leaders, the Catholic Church – once the moral pillar of the nation – is today so delegitimized that even violence against it is relativized. Anyone who continues to defend its actions or values is immediately accused of wanting to "reopen wounds" and fuel divisions in the country.

Churches closed and pastors targeted during the pandemic

The rift between civil power and faith communities was dramatically exposed during the Covid-19 pandemic. Restrictions on religious gatherings were imposed around the world for health reasons, but Canada stood out for some particularly harsh and—in hindsight— discriminatory measures against churches. In 2020-2021, several provinces adopted lockdowns that completely closed places of worship, sometimes without any exceptions, while allowing other secular activities to continue, albeit with limitations. In some jurisdictions, the situation reached the point of absurdity: bars, restaurants, shopping malls, and even strip clubs remained open (with safety protocols), while Masses and services were completely banned. .

This unequal treatment has prompted many religious leaders to protest. Archbishop J. Michael Miller , the Catholic Archbishop of Vancouver, sent a 19-page appeal to British Columbia authorities in February 2021, asking them to remove the total ban on religious services in force in the province ( “We ask the government to ensure the Church receives fair, non-preferential treatment,” wrote the archbishop, wondering “why gathering for worship with limited numbers and safety precautions is not permitted, while bars, restaurants and gyms remain open” ( . In fact, in British Columbia, since November 2020, all in-person religious celebrations had been prohibited , with extensions that extended the ban for many months ( Meanwhile, as Miller noted, "no Covid outbreaks have been recorded in our churches—all rigorously sanitized, with masks and social distancing—while infections continue to emerge in ski resorts and commercial businesses that have been able to continue operations."

Similar situations have occurred elsewhere. In spring 2021, Ontario had a very strict limit of 10 people for any religious service, the same for a small country chapel as for large cathedrals. Cardinal Thomas Collins , Archbishop of Toronto, raised his voice, denouncing the unreasonableness of this measure: “It happens that only 10 faithful are allowed at funerals in St. Michael's Cathedral (1,500 seats), while nearby dozens of customers can enter the liquor store and thousands crowd the Eaton Centre (a large shopping mall). This makes no sense .” Collins, through the interfaith campaign #OpenOntarioToWorship , managed to mobilize thousands of citizens to ask the government to "treat faith communities fairly" by adopting percentage capacity limits (as was already the case in stores) rather than penalizing fixed numbers. Faced with pressure, the province of Ontario did indeed revise the regulations, raising the capacity limit to 15% in places of worship. But the fact remains that for several months, believers felt like second-class citizens, with their right to worship sacrificed far beyond what was imposed on other freedoms.

In some cases, tensions between believers and authorities have erupted into sensational incidents. Several pastors of evangelical Christian churches, especially in western Canada, have defied the bans by continuing to hold Sunday services (with due precautions) and have been arrested for this. The most notorious case is that of Pastor James Coates of GraceLife Church in Alberta: in February 2021, Coates was jailed for over a month for violating anti-Covid restrictions by celebrating with more people than permitted. He refused to pay the fine and, above all, to sign a promise not to hold any more in-person services – a condition that would have spared him prison time – explaining that, as a pastor, he could not fail in his spiritual mandate. His firmness impressed many: the local community remained close to him, and other ministers declared they were ready to suffer the same fate in order to assert freedom of worship. A few weeks later, another cleric, Tim Stephens of Fairview Baptist Church (Calgary), was arrested for similar crimes. Before being jailed, he publicly declared: “We understand the danger of Covid-19, but we must also understand the danger of the measures taken to combat it.” Stephens urged people to consider not only physical health, but also “mental and spiritual health,” which were seriously threatened by the isolation and prolonged closure of churches ( " Love for one's neighbor takes care of the whole person, body and soul ," he affirmed, emphasizing that the Church's mission remains the glory of God and the salvation of souls , even (and especially) in times of crisis. His community, he added, had reopened freely in May 2020 and had not recorded any cases of Covid since then. "We are no more a threat to public health than schools," he stated with a touch of polemic.

Another episode that went viral on social media is the police raid during Easter celebrations in 2021 at Pastor Artur Pawlowski 's church in Calgary. The video shows Pawlowski – of Polish origin, mindful of communist oppression – rudely chasing the officers away, shouting, "Get out of here, Nazis!" A few weeks later, he too was spectacularly arrested on the highway for continuing to gather the faithful despite the bans. Beyond the heated tone, these events raise serious questions: to what extent can a democratic state go in limiting freedom of worship for health reasons? And why so selectively target religious gatherings, while commercial activities were tolerated? Many believers felt treated like criminals , while at the same time, in some cities even cannabis stores and strip clubs remained open (in Quebec, for example, bars with nude shows were allowed to operate as restaurants to circumvent the bans). This disparity has taken a toll on trust in institutions: some Canadians are now comparing their governments' attitudes to those of regimes hostile to faith. While the comparison is extreme, it's undeniable that the pandemic has accelerated existing trends of marginalization of religion and punitive surveillance of churches.

It must be acknowledged that not all local political leaders have remained deaf. In some provinces, faced with respectful but firm protests from bishops and pastors, measures have been recalibrated. For example, the joint interfaith action led by Cardinal Collins in Ontario led to a more rapid easing of restrictions on religious rites ( . However, the message sent was received by the Christian community as clear: in the face of emergencies or thorny issues, faith is considered expendable and anyone who publicly appeals to it can be treated as a plague spreader or an agitator . As the bishops wrote, if believers "are prevented from practicing their faith", they will experience this restriction as extremely serious, and "the resulting marginalization fuels a further fragmentation of our society" ( Indeed, pushing religious communities to the margins only risks exacerbating tensions: some individuals, feeling persecuted, may turn to fanaticism or become radicalized, rather than collaborate positively for the common good. A truly cohesive society, however, also includes its religious communities, recognizing their moral and social contribution.

The Christian Response: Resistance and Appeals to the Common Good

Faced with this situation, prophetic voices have not been lacking. Christian leaders of various denominations in Canada have raised their voices to defend religious freedom and recall the country to its moral foundations. As already mentioned, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) published a robust Pastoral Letter in 2023 entitled "Living as Catholics in the Public Space: Freedom of Religion and Conscience in Canada." In it, the prelates, using authoritative yet dialoguing language, reiterate principles of the Magisterium to contextualize them in the current reality of their country. First, they dismantle the secularist idea that faith must remain invisible: "Freedom of religion and conscience allows us to publicly manifest our faith through worship, professional life, and public acts," they declare bluntly ( Implicitly referring to the conciliar doctrine, they emphasize that religious freedom is not a minor right , subordinated to others, but is rather intimately linked to the "metaphysical need" of every person to seek the meaning of existence. Therefore, it deserves the same protection as other civil liberties (expression, association, press, etc.), not an exception or a conditional tolerance.

The Canadian bishops also warn against legislative secularism : they note that laws on bioethical or family matters often restrict the right to conscientious objection for healthcare, education, legal professionals, and even politicians. This is unacceptable in a democracy. They conclude the letter with four concrete appeals: affirm the legitimate role of religion in the public sphere; preserve healthy relations between Church and State based on mutual respect; form consciences according to truth (i.e., on solid ethical foundations); and protect the right to conscientious objection of dissenting minorities. This is a genuine platform for rebuilding Canada's social pact by including believers as partners, not as hindrances.

Noteworthy initiatives have also emerged from the evangelical front. During the pandemic restrictions, over a hundred Reformed churches (Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.) found an unprecedented unity of purpose—defined by some as "true ecumenism" —in affirming principles that curiously coincide with those of traditional Catholic doctrine. They drafted a manifesto entitled "The Church Must Reunite," in which they declare: "We, the undersigned, believe that churches and believers should continue to gather in person for public worship, with or without the permission of civil authorities ... Let us bend our knees and consecrate our lives to King Jesus, head of the Church and our sole sovereign." These are strong words, echoing the ancient Christian conviction expressed by the apostles: "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). This group – the Liberty Coalition Canada – brought together pastors, lawyers, business owners and ordinary citizens, aware that “alone we cannot produce significant change, but together … we can produce change for the good of all Canadians”. It is striking how they reiterate a principle dear to Catholic Social Doctrine: the Church, united, is an essential presence for the Common Good and Christians can contribute best to society only if they are free to live their faith to the full. In a certain sense, the resistance of these evangelicals has "saved the Catholicity" of some principles – as an Italian journalist ironically observed – while in some Canadian Catholic circles the convictions on the necessity of the sacraments and of community life of faith seemed to have weakened. The lesson of this transversal alliance is clear: faced with a State that attempts to make itself "sovereign of God" , imposing its edicts also on worship, Christians of various denominations have rediscovered brotherhood and unity, understanding that they must make a common front in order not to give in to the blackmail of an aggressive secularism ( .

We must not forget, then, the voices of individual courageous pastors. We have already mentioned the open letters of some bishops (for example , Msgr. Douglas Crosby, who defined Trudeau's attempt to export abortion abroad as a Canadian value as "reprehensible Western cultural imperialism " ( ). Other prelates have spoken out publicly: Cardinal Gérald Lacroix, primate of Canada, has repeatedly defended the right of believers to contribute to the political sphere without ridicule; Bishop Christian Riesbeck (of Saint John, NB) has lamented the use of the “language of intolerance” towards those who profess Christian ideas on marriage and life. Even some secular intellectuals have raised their voices: the famous philosopher Charles Taylor – himself Canadian and Catholic – has promoted the model of “open” secularism , in which the state is neutral but not hostile to religion, and differences are resolved through honest dialogue. ( This model is the antithesis of the current trend in Quebec, which Taylor has severely criticized (calling the law on religious symbols a violation of fundamental rights).

From the Vatican, Pope Francis also launched appeals for dialogue and respect for pluralism during his trip to Canada in 2022 (a trip focused on reconciliation with indigenous peoples). Without entering into internal political issues, the Pontiff recalled that "the Church is the family of God in which there is room for every people" and that no culture can cancel out others. Even earlier, Benedict XVI had warned the West against the "dictatorship of relativism" , a climate in which those who believe in absolute truths are marginalized. In a writing of his also cited in Canada, he stated: "In all known historical cultures, religion is an essential element of culture, indeed it is its determining center; it is religion that determines the scale of values and, therefore, the internal cohesion and hierarchy of all these cultures" ( Removing religion from public life means uprooting culture from its deepest foundations.

The Canadian case must be an eloquent warning

The Canadian case offers an eloquent warning: a liberal democracy born and raised in a Christian environment can slide into subtle forms of secular intolerance if it forgets its roots. Canada, once proud of its multicultural and multi-religious mosaic, today risks establishing a sort of compulsory civil religion , made up of centuries-old dogmas on life, family, and sexuality, which does not tolerate heresies. Those who dissent for reasons of conscience or faith are easily silenced with the defamatory accusation of being a sower of division. But as the Church teaches, true unity is not built by eliminating legitimate differences, but by respecting them in charity and seeking truth through discussion. "The constant search for what is true, good, and just for all people and all groups always implies honest and respectful dialogue, and an overriding concern for the common good," Saint John Paul II wisely wrote to the Canadian bishops. This honest dialogue today appears to be in crisis. Yet, there is no shortage of positive signs: the mobilization of believers (Catholic and non-Catholic) to defend fundamental freedoms indicates that there is still a part of Canada that believes in faith – in its right to exist publicly and in its potential to enrich society.

It is now up to political leadership to choose whether to persevere along the path of ideological conflict or recover the authentic spirit of Canadian multiculturalism , founded not on relativistic flatness but on mutual respect . As the bishops wrote, "that members of our society—be they Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, or without religion—feel limited in the practice of their faith means that this restriction is undoubtedly serious." A truly free and just nation does not fear the voice of believers; rather, it values it as a critical conscience and a source of cohesion. It is therefore desirable that Canada rediscover that virtuous balance between secularism and faith that was the secret of its historic success. Several courageous bishops and Christian leaders are leading the way, paying the price if necessary—like those pastors imprisoned for asserting that God comes before Caesar. Their testimony embodies the words of Jesus: "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake" (Mt 5:10). If Canada can listen to these voices and recover from its ideological intoxication, it can heal its internal fractures and return to being, from coast to coast, a country where faith is not an enemy but an ally of the common good – just as its founders intended.

Sources: Benedict XVI, Truth and tolerance (2003); Vatican Council II, DICH. Dignitatis Humanae (1965); Pastoral letter of the Catholic bishops of Canada "Living from Catholics in the public space" (2023) ( ; Crisis Magazine ( ; National Catholic Register ( ; Global News ( ; Catholic News Agency ( ; The new daily compass ( .