Abstract
The EU project could not have become a reality without the foundation of Christian values such as human dignity, respect and solidarity. The Bishop emphasises the importance of ongoing belief in those values, and urges their continuation through the completion of the integration process within European borders. A policy to promote the common good must be pursued globally in order to come one step closer to a ‘civilisation of love’.
This year on 25 March was the 50th anniversary of the ratification of the Treaties of Rome–-the very beginning of the European Union. This jubilee was celebrated in Berlin at a summit of the Heads of State of all 27 Member States. In a solemn declaration, they reaffirmed the fundamental principle previously acknowledged: the inviolable dignity of the human being.
For the occasion, the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community (COMECE) organised a European Congress in Rome on the subject ‘Values and Perspectives for Europe’. More than 400 delegates from Bishops’ Conferences, religious orders and congregations, Catholic organisations and movements, and members of other churches took part in this event.
These were days of inspired discussions matched by celebration and prayer. With a feeling of enormous gratitude we rededicated ourselves to the commitment of the first founders of the European Union to extend shared values to a Europe united as one community: peace and reconciliation, freedom and solidarity, and broaden it with the commitment to act effectively and responsibly for humanitarian development and social justice in other areas of the globe, first and foremost in Africa, a badly neglected continent.
We appealed directly to those who were in charge of the EU, so that they might allow themselves to be led by the values and principles that had been the motivation for this unification–-values such as human dignity, the pursuit of the common good, mutual respect and reconciliation, solidarity and subsidiarity, and others in the same vein. We firmly stressed our Christian devotion to our communities, associations and every movement carrying out initiatives that genuinely respect human beings as made in God's own image and likeness, as was revealed by Christ himself [8].
We were summoned before His Holiness Benedict XVI, who fulfilled the duty entrusted to Peter and his successors of confirming his brothers.
The Holy Father was fully aware of several serious issues that were endangering European development: the lack of a healthy balance between economic and social trends, the declining birth-rate, the lack of international solidarity, the lack of agreement on fundamental human rights, the dilution of ethics, and the marginalisation of the role of Christianity in European Union affairs and policies, thus causing uncertainties among people about their identity. Pope Benedict XVI, exhorted us, therefore, not to give in to fatigue or discouragement, but rather “with God's help, to contribute to the consolidation of a new Europe which will be realistic but not cynical, rich in ideals and free from naïve illusions, inspired by the perennial and life-giving truth of the Gospel May the Lord make all your efforts fruitful and help you to recognize and use properly what is positive in today's civilization, while denouncing with courage all that is contrary to human dignity” (Benedict XVI [4]). 1
Benedict XVI [4]. “Build a new Europe, freed from a singular form of apostasy from itself” (this phrase not in the on-line version of speech).
A meta-political matter
The issue of connecting ultimate goals with political decisions belongs to the field of meta-policy, which transcends the domain of ordinary policy. It is neither democracy nor policy in a state subject to the rule of law to which we must look when formulating essential human rights. Such values do not owe their origin or validity to the state, yet they are to be protected and guaranteed by the state. They emerged with human existence itself, whether in the experience of solitary individuals or as the consequence of interpersonal relationships. Determining people's rights and clarifying what they involve is a task that should not be left up to politicians. Like all ordinary citizens, they are expected to respect those rights, and due to the nature of their position, they are called upon to ensure that these rights are respected by all citizens.
In a doctrinal memorandum concerning the contributions that Catholics make to political life, Cardinal Ratzinger, who was at that time Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, called upon the Catholic community, demanding a firm stance against democratic compromises on values. “If Christians must ‘recognize the legitimacy of differing points of view about the organization of worldly affairs’ ([15], Sect. 75) they are also called to reject, as injurious to democratic life, a conception of pluralism that reflects moral relativism. Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society” [6].
After his election, Pope Benedict XVI insisted on the same point during an audience with the participants in the congress of the European People's Party: “The principal focus of the interventions of the Catholic Church in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable.” The Pope highlighted some of these principles: protection of life from conception until natural death; recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family–-a union between a man and a woman based on marriage. He further stated: “These principles are not truths of faith, even though they receive further light and confirmation from faith; they are inscribed in human nature itself and therefore they are common to all humanity. The Church's action in promoting them is therefore not confessional in character, but is addressed to all people, prescinding from any religious affiliation they may have. On the contrary, such action is all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, because this constitutes an offence against the truth of the human person, a grave wound inflicted onto justice itself” [3].
Human dignity is unconditional. Human rights deal with issues taken for granted prior to any act or regulation proceeding from any kind of government, hence before any kind of political decision. This particular standpoint is denied by almost no one. The state does not legitimise human rights–-in fact the opposite is true: human rights constitute the state.
According to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, ratified in Nice in the year 2000, “inalienable and universal rights of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity” are mentioned as ground rules of the European Union. As for human dignity, it is specifically and unequivocally declared “inviolable” and “deserving to be treasured and honoured” ([9], art. 1 “Human Dignity”).
What happens, then, if a majority of individuals or their elected representatives impose restrictive interpretations or limitations on these rights? Moreover, is there any way to be confident that the democratically elected representatives of the people will make responsible and fair decisions? The possibility cannot be excluded that the opinion of a minority of individuals might actually be more respectful of the inviolable rights of the human being than that of the majority. Where can we find the answers to such questions?
The contribution of the Christian faith to the debate on values
What specific contribution can Christian faith supply in order to shed some light on issues pertaining to public matters?
Transcendental grounding
The most valuable and soundly critical contribution to cultural growth and social harmony that Christian faith can bestow upon the believer is that our Church anchors fundamental values in a transcendental bond; that is, in a Creator and Redeemer God who established a perpetual alliance with humans through Christ. What follows is a coherent vision of the world through time and space, a stand offering a privileged viewpoint upon a reality that transcends reason and whatever is perceived by our senses. Religious awareness that there is a God protecting humanity from every kind of abuse and arrogant behaviour acts as a guarantee against a dependence on alternating political majorities, sliding compromises, individual inclinations and earthly illusions, pragmatism and economic supremacy.
Deprived of its roots in God, the notion of human dignity is bound to lose its inalienable aspect, as happened so tragically during the last century under Nazi and Communist totalitarianism. It still takes place today in the continuous human rights violations and the inhumane living conditions of millions of people in underdeveloped countries. As we can see, fundamental human rights are tightly anchored in the experience of God and the truths revealed through faith; hence they exist prior to human society and human existence itself, since they were created together with human nature as it was conceived by God.
“This is why there is no greater contribution that Christians can make to their contemporaries than to suggest a vision of life in harmony with God's existence. In order to achieve this goal, radical paradigms from the age of Enlightenment must be turned upside down, since a world without God leads to a world without humans. Christians are today asked to do what Pascal did in his time: dare his sceptical fellows to imagine a world based on the idea that a God does exist. Just as in an age of religious upheaval and conflict the hypothesis ‘etsi Deus non daretur’ provided a common ground that helped humanity to rise above a time of great turmoil, supporting an ‘etsi Deus daretur’ philosophy now may well achieve the same task in a world where the absence of God is likely to cause society to give way before its own contradictions” ([5], summarising Ratzinger [18]).
As a matter of fact, grounding in transcendental values rules out the possibility of a false notion of autonomy, where “false notion of autonomy” stands for endless claims to the principle of self-determination. Such abuse draws one's attention far away from solidarity with one's neighbour, from the essential norm of sharing the world together; in other words, from the human condition itself. Autonomy cannot exist without heteronomy, and this works both ways: humans always find themselves entangled with an “other” their neighbour, and with an “Other” who is God, who created Earth and humanity. When facing the other, one meets not an autonomous “I”; rather one encounters someone to whom one should feel accountable, much in the same way one is responsible towards God, one's Creator. We used to say that human liberty starts from the assumption that everyone is equally subject to the Law of God. Such a condition is true when “[i]n the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience speaks to his heart” ([15], Sect. 16)
Promoting mutual agreement on fundamental values
The contribution of religion goes beyond the desire to encourage moral behaviour in individuals. It strives to increase the degree of consideration paid to the issue of common values. A variety of principles, ranging from the idea of the human to notions of good and evil, work as driving forces towards communal undertakings, even in the absence of detailed provisions within the law. Identifying interconnections between essential morals, as well as sorting them in a scale of importance, are matters of the highest consequence, since absolute values are indeed superior to relative ones–-the latter should never be considered as absolute.
At this point, a number of questions are usually raised: what should we do when two or more values are in conflict with each other? How can we build common agreement on the most essential principles regulating human coexistence in large urban environments, countries and continents? How can we overcome the tensions that always exist between individuals and society, liberties and responsibilities, individual freedom and governmental authority, personal initiatives and structural social restraints, private interests and the common good, a logic of profit and solidarity, between the functional and the relational, between a desirable uniformity and the benefits of diversity?
The social doctrine of the Church can answer these questions. These teachings were recently referred to as the “most well-preserved secrets of the Church”, alluding to the fact that this doctrine is hardly known even within the Christian community. Therefore the publication of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace [16] has come at exactly the right moment. 2
One year later, the same Council published the Dictionary of the Social Doctrine of the Church [17].
The social doctrine of the Church
Basing itself on the principles of the Gospels, the Catholic Church regards as one of its prerogatives the duty of evaluating government acts emanating from political structures. By performing this task, our Church hopes to add its contribution to a healthy public debate, promoting a dialogue between policy and faith within civil society. The separation of church from state, a most precious achievement, does not imply any detachment of faith from policy. The social doctrine of the Church, with its fundamental principles of ‘human dignity’ and ‘common good’ is corroborative evidence of the previous statement.
Human dignity
Recently the 40th anniversary of the “Declaration on Freedom of Religion” was celebrated. The Declaration, issued during the Second Vatican Council, is known under the title of Dignitatis Humanae, that is, ‘human dignity’ [14]. Already in the first line we are told that “a sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man”.
Human rights are rooted in this inalienable dignity created by God in God's own image and likeness and bestowed on every person without distinction. This is especially the case with respect to the right to freedom of religion, which entitles every person, alone or together with others, in private or in public life, to freely choose a creed according to his or her own conscience. Such entitlement is inalienable and must be recognised as an undeniable civil right within every legal system; it cannot be restricted, unless the state of law and order be threatened. Nevertheless, the Council linked this right to the moral duty of all to honestly seek out the truth, especially when faced with the ultimate questions of human existence, its origin and destiny. This right is closely interwoven with everyone's obligation to act sensibly and judiciously according to conscience.
Human rights apply to every human being without exception, since all humans have equal dignity. Thus, the present situation in which so many people are denied such rights because they suffer from afflictions–-poverty, oppression, discrimination, lack of schooling, social seclusion, lack of medical care, violence, terrorism and war–-cannot be tolerated.
Also, human rights apply to the human being as a whole. People are much more than their occupation or their position in life, more than simply what they own, more than what they may or may not achieve. They are not simply ‘individuals’ closed in on themselves, auto-sufficient, finite; they are expected to mature, to develop unique personalities and eventually to interact with other people. Human relationships cannot be measured nor can they be confined to fixed categories, yet they can be experienced. The ability to establish relationships with others is precisely what makes humans ‘human’. Humans are not just corporeal entities, beings of matter alone; they are also psychological, social, political, cultural, moral and spiritual beings. They are indivisible living creatures, beyond any dualism or reductionism. Only those humans who are aware of their spiritual dimension, who walk in the way of God and heed the word of God's Spirit, only they can attain an accomplished and mature self. This is why much more attention should be paid to nurturing and fostering the spiritual in every person.
The common good
Alongside the principle of human dignity we discover another, the principle of the common good of society, as a complement to the former. Every person is part of a community. As a group of individuals supporting each other inside a fair and peaceful environment, humans are interdependent and jointly committed to creating a setting where everybody can live a life in harmony with standards of civilisation and humanity. The common good is the purpose and the condition of every social and political regulation that aims to provide for the needs of everyone's existence, simultaneously enabling individuals to be as actively responsible for their own lives as they are responsible for the lives of others. It is the duty of government authorities to serve this ideal by promoting the healthy development of both individuals and groups while protecting the poor and the weak.
A policy of the common good applies not only to subjects living in the same country; it must cross boundaries and be broadened in scope, in order to include all the 27 Member States of the European Union, eventually embracing the whole of human society around the globe. It must have a geographical dimension, reaching far and wide, but this is not the end of it. It must also have a temporal dimension, stretching forward to future generations, since we are responsible today for the people of tomorrow.
These two principles of social doctrine are further specified by two more principles, very much in the same way that two columns are crowned by two capitals. The principle of human dignity requires an understanding of the idea of subsidiarity, a notion advanced for the first time by Pope Pius XI in the encyclical Quadragesima anno (1931). The notion of subsidiarity soon after became more broadly part of social doctrine and served later on as a guideline for the process of sharing out competencies between European Institutions and Member States. Subsidiarity means that high-level government bodies will not deal with issues that can be more appropriately managed by lower-level bodies. Subsidiarity is based on the right to take part in social life on every level: local, national and international. Such a right is balanced by the obligation to contribute effectively to national efforts and by a sincere commitment to comply with requests as promptly as possible. The principle of common good, in turn, requires the application of the idea of solidarity, which implies a willingness to provide active support to the cause of the common good at any level, through individual commitment, surrender of personal interests, awareness of other people's needs as well as one's own, a willingness to employ private resources and means, and so on. First and foremost, this obviously concerns one's own country, where hundreds of thousands of people still eke out an existence that we can hardly describe as dignified. However, solidarity should apply to the entire territory of the European Union, where recent events reveal a tendency towards ‘re-nationalisation’ as some countries seem to focus on issues of state interest and national profit. As a matter of fact, solidarity on a global scale is to be hoped for, since ‘human globalisation’ could bring about an improvement in the standards of human dignity throughout the world.
To be fair, the international community is well aware of this and has been working on the subject for quite a long time now. In the course of the 1970s, developed countries had already pledged to donate 0.7% of each country's gross domestic product (GDP) to developing countries, while in the year 2000, 189 countries from the United Nations signed the “Millennium Declaration” [19], committing themselves to eight Millennium Development Goals (MDG). These goals call for a collective effort against poverty and financial destitution on global scale and are supposed to be achieved before the year 2015.
Until now, very little has been achieved [20]; public opinion has to be roused therefore to deal with this pressing matter, especially when it comes to the younger generations, who will very likely be the first to suffer from the consequences of the global misgovernment of recent years. The achievement of the MDG should be included amongst the priority items of the Western world and of European Union political parties [12].
Even religious leaders from across the globe should feel compelled to address the issues raised by the MDG, in as much as the struggle against poverty is an essential condition for world justice and peace. In principle, true religions are supposed to make every effort to ‘fill the gaps’, in other words to establish solid human bonds of mutual responsibility between brothers and sisters among all humankind, endorsing and encouraging peace throughout the earth.
Commitment to the common good is not to be neglected. We cannot fail to see its value as long as we bear in mind that its authenticity does not lie in the mere collection of narrow private interests assembled from different cultural and religious entities. The common good goes far beyond all that and cannot possibly be mistaken for a narrow-minded vision coming from just one of these parties or factions. The common good harmonises private interests, creating balance among them, and the quest for it is likely to require sacrifices especially from the wealthier or more influential individuals in society to the advantage of those who are deprived and vulnerable. Moreover, the extent of the common good cannot be restricted by territorial boundaries; it must be brought to a higher level so that it can influence international trends.
A need for dialogue
The Council document Dignitatis Humanae insisted on the need for an earnest dialogue through which humanity can express its thirst for truth. A call for long-lasting cooperation in enacting true values and justice is also stressed, together with the exhortation to make the most out of peaceful and friendly relationships between nations. The Council sensed that the need for dialogue had been growing stronger: “All nations are coming into even closer unity. Men of different cultures and religions are being brought together in closer relationships. There is a growing consciousness of the personal responsibility that every man has. All this is evident” ([14], Sect. 15). Forty-years later, we cannot help but notice that the need for dialogue has grown even stronger, thanks to modern communication techniques and devices. Still, the real factors that stimulated this increased urgency are to be found in the unsettling conflicts and tensions aroused during this century between different cultures and religions, between nations and worldwide organisations.
Even if inter-religious discourse belongs to the forms of dialogue we are describing, intercultural dialogue appears more pressing and it is in fact the favoured option. This statement reflects the speech delivered by Pope Benedict XVI in his encounter with the Islamic communities on 20 August 2005 during the World Youth Day held in Cologne. On that specific occasion, the Pope emphasised the pre-eminence of conscience over religion as a priority issue [1].
According to the Pope, a promising dialogue must be centred on the topic of human dignity, transcending those cultural and ideological clashes where religions can sometimes find themselves implicated. The essence of the Pope's views is that a dialogue with Islam or with any religion whatsoever should not be focused on theological matters; rather, it must be placed in a larger context and be carried out in terms of exchanging insights on moral values; thus it must be configured as a dialogue between civilisations.
In so doing–-and this may apply to any dialogue undertaken in between policy and faith–-what is achieved is that through the combined effort of both partners in the dialogue, the international community can objectively reach a correct appraisal of commonly shared values, thus making a response to the problems and the challenges of our times ultimately possible.
Such dialogue does not invalidate the principle of separation between church and state. To use the phraseology of the Second Vatican Council, it “respects the autonomy of secular affairs”. In his [2] first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, Pope Benedict XVI points out that the Church will not take the State's place, nor will she take part in debates that are strictly political in nature. Then he states that the Christian Church and Christian individuals, as well as Christian organisations and groups, cannot step back from the common effort to make the socio-political system fair and right. This means that a connection between faith and politics can be and should be established. Building non-discriminatory and just sociopolitical structures is a major prerogative of the State; it is not for the Church to take on such a task. Nevertheless, in order to make its contribution, our Church can choose the way of dialogue and test political reasoning on the basis of its social doctrine. As the Pope explicitly declared, our Church has no wish to exert its influence on state affairs and by no means will it make use of ‘power’ ([2], Sect. 28); since the Church is fully aware of the difference between power and authority, she will speak with authority but never exercise power ([2], Sect. 28). In the aforementioned encyclical, the Pope repeatedly stresses that Church does not claim to ‘impose’ anything whatsoever on other parties. He then employs a formula that has become a benchmark ever since the Second Vatican Council ([15], Sect. 1): “ad nun-tium proponendum”; the Church's teaching is to be ‘proposed’, and not ‘imposed’ ([2], Sect. 28). Our Church can still do its part in stimulating moral and spiritual forces within our society, so that justice is supported and extended. Furthermore, the Church cooperates with governmental authorities through humanitarian organisations, charity associations and works of mercy by Christians within civil society.
As a matter of fact, the need for dialogue between faith and politics increases every day. Its aim is to look for better evaluations and understandings of universal values and civil rights, ultimately motivating common endeavours for a more dignified human society.
A spiritual choice
Even before their first European conference in Rome, the COMECE Bishops had issued an essay [7] offering a theological interpretation of the process of European political unification. This essay was published a year before the accession of ten new Member States–- eight of the ten recently freed from the domination of the former Soviet Empire–-to the Union (1 May 2004), and had its focus on “common European memory and heritage” despite the separation that had occurred after World War II. As the Bishops found out, “the conditions which enabled the reunification of Europe are in reality very close to those which permitted the birth of the European Union. In both cases we find a spiritual option to forgive and a determination to overcome violence through dialogue and solidarity. In both cases we see a commitment on the part of civil society and the ensemble of groups of active citizenry in several nations intent on living in democracy and in peace” (ibid., Sect. 7). The Bishops also offered a second reading of the process of the birth of the Union, triggered by Robert Schuman's declaration (9 May 1950), as “a spiritual act, for its potential is still being realised today” (ibid., Sect. 9), amending its content in consideration of “the turning point of the years 1989-1991 for its political significance and also for its spiritual implications” (ibid., Sect. 10), as we read: “The European Union, in its current stage of development, is based on the confluence of two historic movements charged with great spiritual significance” (ibid., Sect. 9). Such events cannot be explained unless we resort to the long history of the “Christian tradition” to which the European Union is a “privileged heir” (ibid., Sect. 11).
This is why the Bishops appealed to Christians as EU citizens, inviting them to “show their discipleship of Christ”. “Christian tradition does not belong only to the past. It is not simply a patrimony of historical experiences and of political and social wisdom. It continues to nourish the commitment of citizens who explicitly profess their belief in Christ”. Christians “are called on to pursue personal spiritual development and put their talents at the service of their brothers in humanity” (ibid., Sect. 12).
Towards the end of the essay, the Bishops make the following declaration: “The Church's primary mission is not to participate in the advancement of a political model. Its primary mission is to evangelise, to propose faith and to announce the Good News to all men and women. Our present aim is not to analyse the Church's directly pastoral options. At the same time as it carries out its primary mission, the Church makes a significant contribution to the unity of all humankind” (alluding to [13], Sect. 1).
This appeal of the COMECE Bishops reflects Pope John Paul Il's opinions as they are expressed in his post-synod Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Europe [10] as well as in his apostolic letter Novo Millennio Ineunte (2001), written at the end of 2000, the year of the great jubilee. In these documents, the Pope sketches the outline of a structured agenda, drawing inspiration from the Gospel and the living tradition. Both texts are precious sources of wisdom on pastoral perspectives, and local dioceses are called to transform their contents into “detailed pastoral orientations fitting each community's circumstances” (2001, Sect. 29). Specifically, in his post-synod exhortation the Pope describes the goals achieved through the application of the values of the Gospel to European realities: “Many are the spiritual roots underlying the recognition of the value of the human person and his inalienable dignity, the sacredness of human life and the centrality of the family, the importance of education and freedom of thought, speech and religion, the legal protection of individuals and groups, the promotion of solidarity and the common good, and the recognition of the dignity of labour” (2003, Sect. 19). In the same context he further states: “Each particular Church in Europe … must initiate a well-structured cultural and missionary outreach.”
Finally, we must consider the ultimate prospect of all our efforts towards a dignified and humanising future for our continent, serving peace and justice in the world. “The particular Churches in Europe need to restore to hope its primordially eschatological thrust. True Christian hope, in fact, is theological and eschatological, founded on the Risen One … By returning to Christ, the peoples of Europe will be able to rediscover the hope which alone can give full meaning to life” ([11], Sect. 21-2).
Faith in the Easter Gospel is dynamic, as it makes us see secular achievements in the light of eternity. God is greater than our petty concerns and plans. European unity is not an end in itself. It is rather an instrument, a means through which we can humbly sustain God's plan of salvation for all humanity.
In recognising the City of God as our genuine aspiration, we concluded our European Congress with the celebration of the holy Eucharist in St. Peter's (25 March 2007),
committed to developing responsibly a ‘civilisation of love ‘ in the world and to building a ‘reign of justice, love and peace ‘ on earth.
Footnotes