THE EU RECOGNISES THE IDENTITY AND SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTION OF THE CHURCHES BY MEANS OF ARTICLE 17 OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EU (LISBON), AND ENGAGES ON THIS BASIS AN ‘OPEN, TRANSPARENT AND REGULAR DIALOGUE’ WITH THEM.

THANKS TO THIS ARTICLE, CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES WILL BE ABLE TO STRENGTHEN THEIR DIALOGUE WITH THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, COUNCIL AND PARLIAMENT AND SO CONTRIBUTE MORE EFFICIENTLY TO REFLECTING ON EUROPEAN POLICY. HOW DOES THIS WORK OUT IN PRACTICE? WHAT DIFFERENCE HAS THIS MADE SO FAR?

1. COMECE: COMMISSION OF THE BISHOPS CONFERENCES OF THE EU.

The Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community (COMECE) was set up in 1980 and followed on from an information office (Service d’Information Pastorale Européenne Catholique, SIPECA). Today its members are the delegates, each a bishop, of the 28 episcopates on the territory of the member states. They hold two plenary meetings per year to consider issues in EU policy. The COMECE is served by a secretariat, based in Brussels.

The establishment and work of COMECE are entirely a consequence of the Second Vatican Council which, in its Pastoral Constitution ‘On the Church in the Modern World’ (Gaudium et Spes, 1965), presented the Church as a “sign of that brotherhood which allows honest dialogue” with society “and gives it vigour” (GS 92). According to the Council, this dialogue is based on its statement “about the dignity of the human person, and about the human community and the profound meaning of human activity”, these principles being “the foundation for the relationship between the Church and the world” (GS 40). Consequently, the Council insists, “the Church must be clearly present in the midst of the community of nations” “to encourage and stimulate cooperation among men” (GS 89).

In accordance with these Council guidelines and with the agreement of the Holy See, the bishops of the countries included in the European Community decided to set up a specific body for dialogue with the EU institutions: a permanent commission of bishop delegates with a fixed secretariat in Brussels.

For their part, the European institutions, with the Treaty of Lisbon (1 December 2009) ratified the existence–which already had been recognised through official meetings for a number of years–of an “open, transparent and regular dialogue” with the Churches and religious communities (Article 17 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union). This occurred to the great satisfaction of the Churches, including our own. However, a common deliberation on how to structure this dialogue is still lacking. Already at the meeting of religious leaders with the three presidents of the EU on 30 May 2011 from our side I solicited therefore such a ‘dialogue on the dialogue’ (see further below).

From the very beginning, the Episcopates of the Member States have welcomed the ‘Christian’ intention of the founding fathers to base the European project on a “search for the common good” and on “respect for human dignity” (see the Preamble of the COMECE Statute).

Since 1980 they have wanted to created a stable form of fraternal collaboration in the process of European integration “in a way that promotes and protects the common good, in the light of the joy of the Gospel of Christ” (ib.).

This collaboration relates explicitly to the framework of the EU; only questions concerning the Union appear on the agenda of COMECE. In fact, it relates to ‘monitoring’ ”the activities” (Preamble) and “competences” of the EU (Article 1; see also the task of the Secretary General referred to in Article 16, clause d: “to study the problems concerning the competences and activities of the EU and the lines of development of its institutions”).

The interlocutor of the EU-COMECE dialogue is a ‘political-civil’ structure, a structure of “supranational” government. The position and activities of COMECE at EU level are practically analogous to those of a bishops’ conference in its dialogue with the government and civil society of its own country.

This does not mean that COMECE intrudes in purely political or legal questions in the technical sense; these are not within the competence of the Church. However, COMECE critically ‘monitors’ their ethical and moral value on the basis of the principles of the Social Doctrine of the Church and ‘partners’ the political process” in the exercise of its pastoral responsibility” (Article 2), concerning itself with the “pastoral questions connected to the development of the competence and activities of the Union.” (Article 1).

From this follows the importance of frequent, reciprocal relations between COMECE and the Bishops’ Conferences of the Member States. Not only the bishop delegates, but all the bishops in the EU must work towards “developing an awareness of the cultural, juridical and political importance of the EU and …sharing the pastoral responsibilities that arise out of it” (Article 1).

In the same spirit of shared fraternal responsibility, COMECE seeks commmunity with the Consilium Conferentiarum Episcoporum Europae (C.C.E.E.), the ‘pan-European’ Council of the Bishops’ Conferences (Article 18) and with those European Catholic organsiations “having aims related to the activity of the Union” (Article 19).

In an ecumencial spirit it maintains good and frequent contacts with the representatives of the other Christian Churches at the EU level, e.g. Council of

European Churches (CEC), and the Evangelisch Kirche (Lutheran) in Deutschland (EKD).

2. THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE (RC) CHURCH.

The social doctrine of the Church is for obvious reasons the intellectual background and the spiritual ‘movens’  of our work in Brussels. Be it the context of the European research policy or in the different reports on human rights that are published by the European institutions–we try to look at these initiatives from the angle of the dignity of every human person. In the larger debate on the future of Europe, we try to underline that the common good should be the ethical and political compass for European integration. The common good has to be translated into practise through the constant application of the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity. Subsidiarity includes also that we defend that the European level has to take the lead where a national initiative is no longer sufficient. This is currently evident for example in the area of energy policy. With regard to the principle of solidarity we stress that it is necessary but not sufficient to create a strong bond of solidarity among the EU-member states. The EU and its member states have an obligation to solidarity with other continents and humanity as a whole. There are well-known aspects of the work of the Church at the level of the European institutions.

A. HUMAN DIGNITY:

The 50th anniversary of the ‘Declaration on Freedom of Religion’ was recently celebrated. The Declaration, issued during the Second Vatican Council, is known under the title of ‘Dignitatis Humanae’, that is, human dignity. As we read 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 apply to every human being without exception, since all persons have equal dignity. Thus, the present situation of so many people being denied such rights because they are suffering from afflictions like poverty, oppression, discrimination, lack of schooling, social seclusion, lack of medical care, violence, terrorism and war, cannot be tolerated.

Also, human rights apply to persons as a whole. A person is much more than his/her occupation or position in life, more than what he/she simply owns, more than what he/she may or may not achieve. A person is not simply an ‘individual’ closed in on him/herself, auto-sufficient, finite; s/he is expected to mature, to develop a unique personality and eventually to interact with other people. Human relationships cannot be measured nor can they be confined in fixed categories, yet they can be experienced. The ability to establish relations with somebody else is precisely what makes a person ‘human’. A person is not just a corporeal entity, a thing of matter alone; s/he is also a psychic, social, political, cultural, moral and spiritual being. S/he is an undividable living creature without either dualisms or reductions. Only the person who is close enough to his/her spiritual dimension, who walks in the path of God and heeds the word of His Spirit, only that person can attain an accomplished and mature self. This is why much more attention should be paid so that every persons could be nurtured and fostered as a spiritual entity.

Human dignity is unconditional. Human rights deal with issues taken for granted before any act of regulation proceeding from any type 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 2000, ‘inalienable and universal rights of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity’ are mentioned as ground rules of the EU. As for human dignity, it is specifically and unequivocally declared ‘inviolable’ and ‘deserving to be treasured and honoured’.

B. COMMON GOOD:

Alongside the principle of human dignity we discover another, the principle of society’s common good, 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, they are interdependent and jointly committed to create a setting where everybody can live a life in compliance with standards of civilisation and humanity. 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 the individual to be actively responsible for his/her life as much as s/he is responsible for those of others. It is the duty of government authorities to serve this ideal by promoting a healthy development for both individuals and groups while protecting the poor and the weak.

Common good policy 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 28 member states of the EU, eventually embracing the whole of human society scattered around the globe. Truly, it can travel through space, reaching far and wide, but that will not be all. It must take a journey through time, stretching forward to future generations, since we are responsible today for the people of tomorrow.

These two principles of social doctrine are additionally specified by two more applications, very much in the same way as two columns are crowned by two capitals.

C. SUBSIDIARITY:

Human dignity requires the understanding of the idea of subsidiarity, a notion advanced for the first time by Pope Pius XI in the encyclical ‘Quadragesimo anno’ (1931). the notion of subsidiarity soon after became part of social doctrine itself, and later on served as a guideline in the process of sharing out competences between European institutions and member states. Subsidiarity means that high-rank government organs will not handle issues than can be more appropriately managed by lower-ranking bodies. Subsidiarity is based on the right to take part on social life as any stage: local, national and international. Such a right is balanced by the obligation to contribute effectively to common efforts and by a sincere commitment to comply with requests as promptly as possible, concerning problems transcending capacities of the lower level.

D. SOLIDARITY:

The common good principle requires the application of the idea of solidarity, which implies willingness to provide active support to the cause of common good at any level, through individual commitment, surrender of personal interests, awareness of other people’s needs as well as one’s own, eagerness to employ private resources and means, etc. First and foremost, this obviously concerns one’s own country, where hundreds of thousands of people still lead an existence that we can hardly define as dignified. However, solidarity should apply to the entire EU territories, where recent occurrences show a tendency to ‘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 of human dignity standards throughout the world.

Commitment to 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 accumulation of petty and private interests collected from different cultural and religious entities. 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. Common good is meant to harmonise private interests, creating balance among them, and its quest is likely to ask for sacrifices especially from the wealthier or more influential individuals in society to the advantage of the deprived and the vulnerable ones. Moreover, the exploitation of the common good philosophy cannot be restrained by territorial boundaries; it must be brought to a higher level, so that it can influence international trends.

3. THE NEED OF DIALOGUE.

In consideration of 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, the Church hopes to add its contribution to a healthy public opinion, promoting a dialogue between policy and faith within civil society. The separation of church from state, a most treasured achievement, does not imply any detachment of faith from policy. The Social Doctrine of the Church, with its pair of fundamental principles, ‘human dignity’ and ‘common good’, is corroborative evidence of the previous statement.

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 were born together with human existence, whether in the case of single individuals, or in interpersonal liaisons. Determining people’s rights and clarifying what they contain is a task that should not be left to politicians. As ordinary citizens they are asked as individuals to respect those rights, and due to the nature of their jobs they are called upon to ensure that these rights are respected by all citizens.

Such dialogue does not inviolate the principle of the separation of church and state. To use the phraseology of the Second Vatican Council, it ‘respects the autonomy of secular affairs…’  The Church can still do its part in stimulating moral and spiritual drives inside 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 from Christians within civil society. As a matter of fact, the need for dialogue between faith and policy increases every day. Its aim is to look for better assessments and understanding of universal values and civil rights, ultimately motivating common endeavours towards a dignified human society.

Three conditions are indispensable for every inter-religious and intercultural dialogue:

1. CAPACITY TO SELF-CRITICISE:

No-one, no group of persons, is capable of realising all the ideals of their faith or culture; no-one, no group of persons, is owner of the whole truth in perception of interpretation; no culture is the best culture, not even when it is the ‘Leitkultur’ (leading culture) in a country. This condition requires ‘reciprocity’ in every dialogue from all partners such as religious leaders, political parties, civil society…. With this condition it will be possible to avoid both the sense of superiority of one group over others and any form of fundamentalism at the cost of others.

2. OPENNESS:

Openness towards the positive elements in other religions and cultures. In a multicultural society there should not be any one-way traffic in the sense of the rigid ‘integration’ of one culture into another. Rather, there should be a process of ‘participation’ in which all the cultures present in society can fully participate and enrich society with their positive contribution to the common good.

1. CONSCIOUSNESS:

Consciousness that the common good is not the sum of all the particular interests of the different cultural entities, but is more than a kind of ‘archipelago’. For a civil society composed of members from many cultures and religions to share social life, both respect and care for the human dignity of every single person and the pursuit of the common good is required.

These two principles of the social doctrine of the Church require as consequences subsidiarity, or the right and duty to participate, and solidarity, or the willingness to sacrifice one’s own position and ambitions in the interest of the public sphere and of other groups, especially of those who are disadvantaged.

Moreover, we have to consider that in our time the common good is relevant both at the national level and with respect to a community of nations like the EU, and therefore the tendency towards ‘re-nationalisation’ is a disruptive development for the common good in our continent.

The common good however also concerns the human community worldwide, and crosses all the frontiers of space and time. Social justice is an ethical obligation touching all the continents of the world, with preference for the poorest countries–in his declaration of 9 May 1950, Robert Schuman made two references to Europe’s responsibilities towards Africa in the space of one typed page–and also includes the next generations who have the same rights as we have to the resources of the planet.

In my intervention during the meeting of religious leaders with the three p13-17 or 20-26residents of the EU referred to above, I mentioned we needed a

‘dialogue on the dialogue’. The practical application of Art. 17 should take into account the following aspects and dimensions:

• it should be ecumenical as well as offering the possibilities for unilateral consultations; in this sense it will be multilateral as well as bilateral;

• the dialogue will be structured qua content as well as qua partners; it should be clear who the partners will be from the side of the EU institutions as well as from the side of the churches; this will also require transparency; beside ‘official’ and formal contacts and meetings, the effectiveness of dialogue will also depend on informal action; the agenda for the more formal initiatives could be set by a contact group consisting of members of the EU institutions and the Churches (as in the case for the preparation of dialogue-seminars); the scope of dialogue should also be clear and transparent; this means that it could involve all those issues and topics that fall within the competence of the EU and which are different from those covered by the Council of Europe or the UN; the contribution of the Churches will tackle a wide range of topics as rightly featured in the social teaching of the Churches; the Churches will concentrate on principles and on concrete contributions of different church organisation/institutions to the different topics.

• a periodical informal exchange between representatives of the EU institutions and of churches and religious communities should ensure that no issue of importance will be neglected.

Catholic social doctrine is an important contribution in the dialogue with secularised and individualised society. This doctrine rests on two fundamental principles: the inalienable dignity of the human person, and the common good.

These two challenges underline the need for intercultural encounters and dialogue. Only then can we constructively search together for the best insights and ways to take the right decisions with regard to universal basic values and to bring together our strengths to attain the common good, which surpasses all cultural, religious and political interests. Together we are responsible for a globalisation of solidarity and spirituality.