EPP Group The 14th annual inter

Transcription

EPP Group
The 14th annual
inter-religious dialogue
2 EPP Group - The 14th annual inter-religious dialogue
EPP Group
The 14th annual inter-religious dialogue
The role and activities of churches and religions
in the Danube region
Achievements and future challenges
2011
3
INTRODUCTION
Following on from the open dialogue between politicians and religious representatives, the parliamentary Group of the European People’s Party in the European Parliament gathered in Esztergom (Hungary) from 9 to 11 November 2011 to debate the
roles and activities of churches and religions in the Danube region. The goal of this
conference was to deepen mutual un-derstanding and further cooperation between
politicians and religious leaders.
The financial crisis, social security and the role of religion and religious institutions
in tackling those problems were central themes at the two-day high-level conference
organised by the EPP Group. More than a hundred representatives of Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Churches, the Jewish community, high-level political leaders such
as Deputy Prime Minister Zsolt Semjén (Hungary) and Deputy Prime Minister Ján
Figel’ (Slovak Republic) and Members of the EPP Group gathered in Esztergom, the
historical religious centre of Hungary.
The participants unanimously adopted the “Esztergom declaration”. Participants in
the dialogue concluded that the current crisis has financial, economic, social, cultural
and ecological aspects. The reasons behind the economic problems are two-fold: the
crisis within the current financial system is clashing with our social market economy
model and, at the same time, the institutions do not yet have the necessary instruments
required to react adequately to globalisation. The over-consumption of non-durable
goods, the immense environmental degradation and slow economic growth might end
in social disaster, passing on economic and ecological debts to future generations and
to the poor.
According to those who took part, the social market economy is not an out-of-date
model but is now more important than ever. It upholds the Christian-Democrat belief
in the value of human beings and their integral role at the heart of the economy.
5
PROGRAMME
The 14th annual inter-religious dialogue
The role and activities of Churches and Religions in the Danube region
Achievements and future challenges
High-level conference involving EPP Group Members, representatives
of the Hungarian Government, religious leaders and national authorities
10 - 11 November 2011,
Esztergom, Hungary
View over Esztergom, Hungary
7
Wednesday, 9 November
19.00
Arrival at Budapest Ferihegy airport (bus transfer to hotel)
21.00
Dinner & Welcome speech at Thermal Hotel Visegrád
József Szájer MEP,
Vice-Chairman of EPP Group
Thursday, 10 November
08.30
Registration
09.00
Welcome addresses
Zsolt Semjén,
Deputy Prime Minister of Hungary
Card. Péter Erdö,
Archbishop of Esztergom-Budapest, President of the Council of the
European Episcopal Conference
Card. Péter Erdö,
Archbishop of Esztergom-Budapest, President of the Council of the
European Episcopal Conference
Ján Figeľ,
former member of the European Commission and Deputy Prime
Minister and Minister of Transport, Construction and Regional
Development of the Slovak Republic
Othmar Karas MEP,
Vice-Chairman of the EPP Group responsible for Inter-religious
Dialogue and Religious Affairs, Chairman of Inter-religious Dialogue
and Religious Affairs Working Group
10.00
Coffee Break
10.15
Session I - Identities
To discern and transmit meaning and values: religion’s mission in
secular society
Chair
Key speakers
Jaime Mayor Oreja MEP,
Vice-Chairman of the EPP Group in the EP
Metropolitan Emmanuel,
Archbishop of France, the Representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch
to the EU and President of The Conference of European Churches
Carlo Casini MEP,
Chairman of the AFCO Committee and Head of UDC Italian
Delegation in the EPP Group
Bernd Posselt MEP
Rev. Rüdiger Noll,
Director of the Church and Society Commission of CEC
Conclusions
Alojz Peterle MEP
11.30
Chair
Key speakers
Conclusions
Zoltán Balog,
Secretary of State for Social Inclusion, Ministry of Public
Administration and Justice, Hungary
The role of religious actors in debating moral issues within the public
sphere
Manfred Weber MEP,
Vice-Chairman of the EPP Group in the EP
Gergely Prőhle,
Deputy State Secretary for EU Bilateral Relations and Cultural
Diplomacy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hungary
Rev. Piotr Mazurkiewicz,
General Secretary of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of
the European Community
Domán István,
Chief Rabbi and Professor, University of Jewish Studies, Budapest,
Hungary
Jan Olbrycht MEP
12.45
Lunch hosted by the EPP Group
14.15
Session II - Society
Relations between the Church and State 20 years after the fall of the
Berlin Wall
Chair
Key speakers
Conclusions
László Tőkés MEP,
Vice-President of the European Parliament
Tadeusz Pieronek,
Bishop of Krakow, Poland
Pavla Bendová,
Director of the Department of Churches of Ministry of Culture, Czech
Republic
Bence Rétvári,
Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and
Justice, Hungary
Csaba Sógor MEP
9
15.00
The presence of Religion in the Media
Key speakers
Ulrich Ruh,
Chief Editor “Herder Korrespondenz”
Chair
Conclusions
Anna Zaborska MEP
Balázs Rátkai,
Director & Chief Editor of Hungarian Catholic Weekly “Új Ember”
Levi Matusof,
Rabbi and Director of European Jewish Public Affairs
Anna Zaborska MEP
15.45
Coffee Break
16.00
Session III - Economy
Social market economy, financial crisis and the social teaching of
Churches
Chair
Key speakers
Conclusions
Othmar Karas MEP,
Dialogue and Religious Affairs
Rev. Frank Turner SJ,
General Director of the Jesuit European Office, Brussels
László Surján MEP
Mario Mauro,
Head of PdL Italian Delegation in the EPP Group
Othmar Karas MEP,
Friday, 11 November
10.00
Chair
Key speakers
Conclusions
Session IV - Challenges for the Future
Mutual understanding and cooperation between politicians and religious
leaders
Martin Kastler MEP
Barbara Matera MEP
Kinga Gál MEP,
Vice-Chairwoman of the LIBE Committee
Rev. Ferenc Janka,
Deputy General Secretary of the Council of the European Episcopal
Conference
Latchezar Toshev,
Vice-President of EPP/CD Group to the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe and Member of Parliament, Bulgaria
Máté Botos,
Dean of Faculty of Humanities Pázmány Péter Catholic University
Mario Mauro MEP,
Head of PdL Italian Delegation in the EPP Group
12.00
Overall concluding remarks of the conference
András Gyürk MEP,
Head of the Hungarian Delegation
12.15
Closing remarks
Othmar Karas MEP,
INTERPRETATION: HU, FR, DE, ES, EN, IT
11
WELCOME ADDRESSES
Speech by József Szájer MEP
Vice-chairman of the EPP Group in the European Parliament
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Esztergom.
I would like to welcome you on behalf of both the Hungarian Delegation and on behalf of our Group Chairman, Joseph Daul, and wish you a very fruitful meeting in the
framework of our dialogue with the churches. I wish to welcome all the participants
here at the panel. I would like to remind you that we have a very tight schedule, a very
strict programme, so I ask every speaker, every participant to keep to this programme
in order to cover all items successfully.
I would like to welcome our guest, Deputy Prime Minister Zsolt Semjén, Cardinal
Péter Erdő, Archbishop of Esztergom, Ján Figel’, who also hails from the other side
of the Danube and is an old friend, former Member of the European Commission and
Deputy Prime Minister and, of course, our colleague Othmar Karas, who takes special
care of this dialogue and the churches.
György Hölvényi, Card. Péter Erdő, Zsolt Semjén, József Szájer, Paolo Licandro,
Othmar Karas, Jan Figel
13
Speech by Zsolt Semjén
Deputy prime minister of Hungary
Eminencies, Cardinal, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, first and foremost on behalf
of the Hungarian President and the Hungarian Government, I would like to welcome
all of you here today.
I would like to begin by describing in philosophical terms the importance of this event as
far as the religious, philosophical, theological aspect is concerned. I would like to describe
the links between and the way in which all of these different dimensions impact on our
views on the world. Of course, with the Cardinal beside me, I am taking a big risk speaking
about theology, particularly as he is my former professor, and any time I speak about these
topics, I feel as though I’m under his scrutiny. But I think it is important to talk about this.
We wish to accord full recognition to the concept of religious freedom. Religious freedom and religion is not simply something which applies to fields of faith, but rather
throughout all of one’s life. Jesus Christ did not leave practices and philosophies to be
applied only in the practice of religion – the same applies to Mohammed or to the other
main religious figures. The teachings were to be applied to all facets of life. The gospel
holds relevance to all walks of life, because it relates to the field of knowledge, to the
arts as well as to society. This is why freedom of religion would be limited if we called
into question the fact that religion has influence and importance for all walks of life, for
all facets of our lives. These have different names and different denominations. Nonetheless, every religion considers it to be completely obvious and natural that the teachings of religion apply to all facets of life and not simply to those that are experienced
within the walls of a church. Thus, from a theological point of view, we must clearly
state that we would be limiting freedom of religion, if we were to call into question the
fact that the Church and religious communities can provide teachings for all facets of
life, and that they should be able to express their views relating to all questions.
From a political perspective, I think that in our day and age we end up realising
that policies relating to religion and social philosophy based on religious notions
are often questioned. This is absurd. The reason that this is absurd is because people of the faith have never called into question the fact that Marxist or liberal ideals and notions should have an influence in the political discussions that take place.
Also, we cannot accept that someone may be calling into question that religious philosophy should also be one of the bases for these discussions and views. There was
a major discussion and debate on this in Hungary when a well-known right-wing
philosopher and politician stated that I could not use the word “guilt” in Parliament
and that this was absurd. She said I cannot use the word “guilt” in Parliament, though
I can use it in the church; why is that? Well, if she can be a politician and express
Marxist or liberal ideas, then why could we not also express our views as people who
hold the religion dear? Whether from a theological perspective or from other perspectives, freedom of religion can only be guaranteed if we include the notion that a given
religion is not simply applied to faith, but to all walks of life, to all facets of one’s life.
This brings me to my concluding statement, which is one of the basic philosophies
of government policies towards religions, which is that we should not continue along
the path of separation of church and state. Church and state have been separated; this
is done. We do not need to overzealously continue to try to separate them in every
possible way. On the contrary, there should be greater cooperation between the two.
There is a simple anthropological reason for this. We belong both to our churches and
to our countries. We are citizens of our countries and we go to our churches, so the
two can be made to coexist in harmony. When we speak about separation of church
and state, which is in fact a valid notion, we often end up instead with a separation of
church and society, which is on the contrary something completely wrong, because we
belong both to our churches and to our country. I should not need to divide my identity
as a Catholic from my identity as a citizen. The two, when working together, can be of
service to all of society. This is why we need to guarantee freedom of religion in the
broadest possible sense including the right of churches to share the teachings with all
walks of life and our goal should be to make sure that the church and the government
can work together in order to improve society in all of its dimensions. Thank you.
Speakers and audience at the conference
15
Speech by cardinal Péter Erdő
Archbishop of esztergom-budapest, president of the council of the European Episcopal Conference
Deputy Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, it is my great pleasure to welcome this
congress to Esztergom. After all, Esztergom has for a long time been a model city and an
example. It has been here since before Roman times. This is a particularly important site
in Hungarian history, because at the end of the 10th century, this became the Hungarian
capital where the first Hungarian king, Saint Stephen, was crowned, but over the course of
this long and rich history, Esztergom has belonged to many different empires.
As I mentioned, it was even part of the Roman Empire, along with many other Western
cities. It later became part of the Empire of Charles V, while it has also belonged to the
Ottoman Empire. We can still see some traces of this in the recently renovated temple in
the city, and specifically in the mosque. And this is a city which shows that many different
religions coexisted here, many different beliefs lived here in harmony and this is an example of a place where there was dialogue between different faiths. I think there is a need for
this and we have shared responsibilities, because we all wish to serve the common good
and to further the happiness of mankind. This is why we need to share our points of view.
Card. Péter Erdő, Zsolt Semjén, József Szájer, Paolo Licandro
We’re all convinced that mankind is not the only entity in creation, but that the Lord is
there as well and is guiding us. This notion is there to help us and we can use this in order
to be useful members of societies who contribute to its development, because within and
between societies we can serve the cause of peace and positivity. We can provide optimism in order to reassure people that, despite the crises and hard times that we may be
going through, we can always look to the future with a sense of confidence and hope and
it is in this light that I would like to welcome the discussions today. Thank you.
17
Speech by Ján Figel’
Former member of the european commission and deputy prime minister and minster of transport, construction and regional development of the Slovak Republic
I must admit that I feel almost at home, because home has different layers, of course,
my family, my country, but also my – our - common Europe. Central Europe is something very special for us, it’s a mosaic, and in all historical and current details, it’s
important to know neighbours, brothers, friends, and to live in this spirit together.
Coming here I want to contribute to and welcome the 14th annual dialogue which
demonstrates the commitment and engagement of Christian Democrats and Conservative Parties or EPP as a major group in the European Parliament for relations with
churches and religious communities, and also promotion of intercultural and interreligious dialogue.
Culture gives sense to our relations; economy is important, the daily news speaks
about hardships in economy or financial crisis. We are all aware that this crisis, like
all other crises, has an ethical dimension or roots, because living in debt is unsustainable. Debt crisis means that we live at the cost of future, at the cost of our sons and
daughters, and if the debt is growing, it means that we are depending more and more
on the future, which means we don’t pay tribute to or learn from history, but rather
expect more from those who are coming, and that’s not responsible.
György Hölvényi, Card. Péter Erdő, Zsolt Semjén, József Szájer,
Paolo Licandro, Othmar Karas, Jan Figel
The moral dimension of the critical time we live in speaks that irresponsible governments or leaders cannot solve the crisis. Thieves or robbers cannot solve the debts, so
more balanced, more accountable economy, budget, finance and policy is needed. The
objective cannot be a minus or a deficit, whether Maastricht or non-Maastricht, but
balanced or surplus perspective.
I wish to speak a bit more about this topic, because we all are created and have the
potential to procreate. So the answer is to consume less and to create more in order to
arrive at a balanced or surplus situation in our societies, to take less and to give more.
Heroes in our history were those who have been able to give all that a human can give.
I don’t want to speak too much about heroes or our heroic past, but there have been
many inspirational religious figures throughout European history, particularly in Hungary, Slovakia, Central Europe, many of whom are portrayed in the corridors here.
I want to remind you of that, because it’s very important for the critical time in which
we live today in Europe. Religion has a role not only vis-à-vis faith, but also through
faith vis-à-vis morals and ethics. With so many great examples of moral orientation,
Decalogue, which was and remains important for Christians, Jews and Muslims, demonstrated the basic principles of how to live not only in peace, but also together in cooperation, which means working towards environmental, economic and demographic
sustainability. We believe that humans have the gift of freedom, reason and capacity to
love and capacity to create. Once we use these basic gifts, we can find self-fulfilment
and contribute to society, to our relations.
I think churches and religious communities should help us individually and collectively to promote these basic human qualities, gifts and invitations. I was the Commissioner who last year launched the European Year of Creativity and Innovations.
We need to bring more creativity to our societies and economies in order to get out
of the crisis.
Here the role of churches and religious communities is tremendous. Through education, through the promotion of basic values, which unite us – if this is missing, then
technology or technique will not replace this basic commitment and gift. Our parties
should remain conservative and pro reform at the same time, which means staying
on the well-established values, principles, experiences, but also living at the time,
communicating and working in the 21st century. It’s not contradictory. Even from the
Church point of view, I recall a very nice Latin saying “Ecclesia semper reformanda”,
19
please deliver
photo in
higher quality
Mária Valéria Bridge
even the old institutions need to adapt, need to reform, to accommodate current communication and human being in terms of promoting truth in the current situation. Of
course, the fruit of truth is love, solidarity. Without that we are just preachers, politicians without any ability to embrace our people, our neighbours.
We are on the banks of the Danube, the great European river from Schwarzwald to
Schwarzsee (Black Sea), from Germany to Ukraine, a river which remembers a lot of
bloody times, Limes Romanus, but that is also a great symbol and a reality for living
together, bringing life and culture in Europe towards reality of community.
Enlargement comes from the West to East. I believe that being here in the Danube Region and speaking about intercultural and interreligious relations and responsibilities
is a great combination. I came actually across the renewed bridge between Štúrovo
and Esztergom, which was the last bombarded, destroyed bridge on the Danube, not
renewed until ten years ago; 25% Hungarian, 25% Slovak and 50% EU financial assistance means neighbourhood and European integration through investment in the
bridge, but more than bridges, connection between the people.
I want to complete by a call; I see leaders and representatives who were quite active
or famously active in the time of communist operation, fight for freedom, for religious
freedom and rights, political freedom, civic rights. As we have been active in that
time, I think, churches and religious communities have a role also now. Twenty years
after the collapse of communism, there is a new generation, which does not remember, and secondly which needs to continue in the construction of the common house
and policies on the same shared values, starting with human dignity as the first.
Sometimes it takes a long time, but I am happy that for example the Head of the
Slovak Bishops’ Conference and Cardinal Erdö signed, only five years ago, but still,
a great signal and Declaration here in Esztergom about relations, reconciliation and
shared responsibility between churches in Slovakia and Hungary.
We need you to help balance evolution in our countries, because the most risky picture
I see is that our societies will move from communism to consumerism, from collectivism to individualism, from something which is not sustainable to another extreme and
harm ourselves.
I think that with the contribution of the churches we can find the balance, we can help
bring back a greater sense for solidarity, subsidiarity, freedom with responsibility and,
of course, the major aim of all these principles is our common good.
So, happy to be here, feeling like in the family, I wish this Conference, these days in
Esztergom great fruits. Thank you.
Othmar Karas giving an interview
21
Speech by Othmar Karas MEP
Vice-chairman of the EPP Group responsible for inter-religious dialogue and religious affairs, chairman of inter-religious dialogue and religious affairs working
group
First of all, thank you for inviting us here. Thank you for the hospitality, for picking
for this meeting a venue with so much historic, cultural background with its roots and
traditions.
The Deputy Prime Ministers and your Excellencies, there are two reasons why we are
here. The first reason is that we wanted to seize this opportunity to meet at the seat
of the Presidents of the pan-European Bishops Conference to hold interreligious dialogue. Otto von Habsburg would say that pan-Europe is the whole of Europe.
The second reason is that this dialogue, this conference, was conceived at the peak
of the Hungarian Presidency. This brought about many different events, but we just
didn’t have time to fit this one in. The Council presidencies come and go and the subjects we had to discuss, the challenges, which exist, remain.
Othmar Karas
The third reason was the Danube Strategy. This is something which actually I didn’t
think of at the time; it’s the 14th interreligious dialogue which we are holding here
and one of the founding fathers, not of the European Union, but of this dialogue, Metropolitan Emmanuel is with us, so thank you for that, but the Danube links fourteen
different countries, eight of them member states and one future member state, Croatia;
three candidate countries, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro and two
third countries, Moldova and the Ukraine. Is there a more European river than the
Danube? No. Is there anything more binding, which is constantly in a state of flux than
the river? Probably not. And water, in many religions, has a particular significance.
The 14th interreligious dialogue is a link to the Danube, which itself links fourteen
different countries. I’d just like to say that the Danube is a link between many religious communities as well, two world religions and within Christianity, all of the
three largest confessions: Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox, and of course the Jewish
religion as well. Its cross-border nature means that it keeps crossing the borders of different identities as well. As part of the Danube Strategy, I think that there is an explicit
reference to religion. Is there any river which passes more abbeys and monasteries
than the Danube? Should we not try, on the basis of today’s conference, to develop
this Danube Strategy in the European Union and give it a soul which is interreligious,
intercultural, to promote intra-religious dialogue among all the religions which live on
the banks of the Danube, because of all the abbeys and monasteries along the Danube
with their historic, cultural and social and economic significance?
We talk about cycle paths, but do we talk about the paths between cultures and religions? I don’t want to take up too much of your time, but I would say that the motto
of the European Union is “United in Diversity”, and there is a great deal of diversity.
We can only unite that diversity if we fix common objectives, if we search for what we
have in common, not just among the religions, but also among political, religious and
cultural challenges. We can only create unity if we take account of what József Szájer
said, and not just talk to one another, but also think with one another, plan with one
another and act with one another.
We know that we need to have more in common and yet nonetheless, there is an increase in egoism and protectionism. Perhaps we know far too little about what unites
us and we talk far too much about what divides us. We should try to strengthen what
we have in common in democracy and politics, but we tend to use arguments regard23
ing exclusion and marginalisation. So, I think it is more important to rediscover values
and not ideologies, because this is the way to create trust and confidence. We can
strengthen religious and cultural identities.
Religious origin is strongly identified with European cultural origin. It is the families
and peaceful coexistence that we need to reinforce.
Next year, for the first time, we will have a year in which, in the European Union,
the demographic development will make society face challenges, and 80% of people
being cared for will be cared for by their families. How can we carry on doing this if
there is a collapse in the family structure and among all those who are prepared to do
the work of carers at the moment without being remunerated? So we have to remember the multidimensional crisis. We have to act against it and we have to overcome it
by remembering the principles of personality, subsidiarity, solidarity and sustainable
social market economy, which needs to be reinforced. Economy and work are not just
questions of statistics. They have to do with people and with respect for people. We
have to be prepared to assume political responsibility and not just talk to one another,
but also act with one another.
I hope that this conference will make a contribution towards intensifying cooperation,
so that various projects in the Danube area can be developed and adopted. Tomorrow
we are going to issue an Esztergom Declaration concentrating on the main points of
emphasis of this meeting and the pillars of our future cooperation, so that our meetings are not just individual events, but they all form part of a mosaic to strengthen our
cooperation and future work. Thank you.
Session I - Identities
To discern and transmit meaning and values: religion’s mission in secular society
Speech by Jaime Mayor Oreja MEP
Vice-chairman of the EPP Group in the EP
Good morning.
Now we’re going to continue with the first panel on the role of religions in the world
we’re living in. As Chair of this panel, I’d like to give you an introduction to two basic
points which I think will introduce us to the subject, and I’m sure that my colleagues
on the panel will pick up on these points and do the more challenging task of explaining the difficult role played by religions in the world today:
• The first thought is that we need to explain the world we’re living in, the world
we have - society,
• and the second part refers more specifically to the role of religions in this world.
Zoltán Balog, Rüdiger Noll, Metropolitan Emmanuel, Jaime Mayor Oreja, Alojz
Peterle, Carlo Casini, Bernd Posselt
25
In the European Union, in the countries of the EU, you know that we live in times of
great uncertainty and constant changes and upheavals. What wasn’t planned keeps
happening and keeps taking us by surprise. We’re taken unaware by every crisis and
this shows that, not only are we living in a time of economic and financial crisis, but
also it is the spearhead of a more profound crisis, a crisis which became apparent in
our model of society, in the way we live. Above all, it is a deep crisis of references,
of values, because the ultimate cause of the current crisis becoming apparent in economic terms and which will become apparent in political terms soon and then in social
terms was the abandonment by democratic societies of the most basic values on which
we have constructed our social models, our models of society.
We need to seek the causes of crisis in the triumph of relativism, in the replacement
of genuine values with false ones, which have been extended like a contagious plague,
propagated by those who don’t really believe in anything, by those who do not want to
recognise moral values and principles and see those as the enemy of the welfare state
and freedom.
The causes of the crisis have to be seen in the establishment of genuine values and
the replacement of these genuine values with false values, which at the end mean
that nobody has any duties or obligations anymore. I would say that freedom doesn’t
mean not believing in anything. Welfare, wellbeing doesn’t mean that we simply get
fat or grow rich instead of growing. The global crisis we’re experiencing arises from
a certain denunciation of values, the most essential values of all, values which should
inspire any system of moral values, any beliefs, whether they are religious or not.
Whatever religion they come from, and this is the value of truth.
We have been living a lie and that is why we lost our way. Governments have allowed public debt to grow without limit, far beyond what is sensible and there is speculation and risk
because of the financial systems. The citizens have got into debt far beyond their means and
their possibilities and so the crisis we are experiencing has been, above all, a crisis of truth.
Now we have detected the lie, we have encountered a crisis and we have been completely
defenceless and sometimes incapable of reacting. In this situation of weakness, we have
seen that we have had to undertake a journey back from lies, from this false economy, from
falsehoods of politics and we’ve journeyed back to the truth. This has been even more the
case in politics than in the economy, so we’re going to have to carry out this journey and
bring about a turning point. All this will depend on recovering the strength of the values of
truth in politics, in the economy and in the lives of each of us.
The politicians, the leaders, must assume their responsibility more than ever of telling the truth, and each of us has to accept that truth and live in accordance with it. So
we need to return to the starting point. We have to tell the truth. We’re not only living
through a crisis; we’re living through new times and we have to share out wealth and
welfare, wellbeing with new emerging countries in the world. In these new times, in
this new model, when this crisis is occurring, and there is a lengthy background to this;
there are serious risks. There are risks of radicalisation, of totalitarianism, risks of social
unrest.
This means that, in addition to facing up to relativism, as I said earlier, in a very short
time, we’re going to have to face up to the emerging phenomena, radicalised and
extremist phenomena. If truth doesn’t come from politics, then truth will be imposed
upon us with social unrest, and any policy, any line of action on the basis of this will
have the possibility of success. Anybody who develops their project on the basis of
moral values, relativism and so on is likely to succeed. So, the first thing we have to
do, is to recover and regenerate our values, the most transcendental values we have
as human beings, and this brings me onto the second thought in which we bring into
play the values, morals and the subjects we’ll be dealing with in this panel: the role of
religions when we are passing on our values to society.
The doctrine of relativism and its defence lie in religious beliefs. Relativism is based
on radical secularity. Religious confessions, religious beliefs are a limit on falsehood,
so we have to think about certain religious beliefs. Some people want to promote radical secularity and push religious beliefs into a corner.
If the primary value we have is to bring about a recovery of truth, then the duty of
all those who profess a religion means that we have to identify the most primary and
basic values, the most transcendental values, the ones which can be shared by all those
who live according to a religious belief, the defence of the individual, life, dignity of
the individual and the family, but bearing in mind that these values can be defended
by many other people who don’t have a religious faith, but who believe in a system
of values anyway. If we are able to bring together believers and non-believers sharing
these same transcendental values, then we will have strength and there will be many
more of us than we believe, and we will have strength enough together to help and
give form to this new model of society.
27
So, facing radical secularity, we have to promote a positive secularity, which changes
the sum total of our values into a faith for those who have religious beliefs and those
who don’t.
Pope Benedict XVI, in my opinion, is the deepest thinker who talks about the doctrine
of relativism and, in England recently, in Spain and in Germany on his latest trip, he
emphasised the need to recover the value of truth in public life by establishing an
ethical basis to politics - I repeat, an ethical basis to politics - based on reason, which
makes it possible to find points in common with those who do not share a religious
faith. Basically in these days, what we have to do is unite our strengths, and this is
how I see inter-religious dialogue at this time of great uncertainty. And that’s how I
see dialogue among believers and non believers. We have to pool our efforts and identify the values we hold in common. At the same time, we have to incorporate them
in all our spheres of action, in politics, education, the economy, communication and
any other sphere we’re active in. At a time of a crisis of values, such as the one we’re
experiencing at the moment, we also have a crisis of value in the singular, and this
is the first task we have to deal with. We have to overcome fear and defend our own
positions. It’s not a matter of religion being part of our private lives. What is at stake is
that among believers and non-believers, through reason, we’re able to defend the truth
in our daily lives, in our lives as individuals and in our family lives. That is the task
facing us; we have to establish the foundations for a new society, which is emerging
following this very deep crisis. Thank you for your attention.
Speech by Metropolitan Emmanuel
Archbishop of Rrance, the representative of the ecumenical patriarch to the EU and
president of the conference of european churches
This is an event that I hold very dear, and I make a genuine effort to be here every year.
I’d like to thank Mr Karas for referring to this cooperation, which has been ongoing
for a number of years, since 1995 in fact. That was when we had the first meeting.
Of course, that was in a very different context, at a different time, but that’s when we
launched our dialogue, which became the intercultural and inter-religious dialogue
that we know today. We have held this in the framework of the EPP, and I’d like to
thank them for continuing to hold this event. We really feel this is a crucial opportunity to take the floor, to be heard, because we feel it’s important to have this possibility
as people of the Church to be heard, to share and have discussions with you, share the
same values that the Chairman mentioned in his introduction.
Members of the European Parliament, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. The topic
of this first roundtable, which is focused on identity, is essentially the question of
discerning and transmitting meaning and values, which is the mission of religions in
a secular society.
Zoltán Balog, Rüdiger Noll, Metropolitan Emmanuel, Jaime Mayor Oreja
29
Let’s begin by stating that religions represent reference values and thus references in
our societies. Well, these are references. There is, first and foremost, a political, social
and economic dimension, which is very much lacking. Some sociologists refer to a
general disillusionment of the world according to a quote by Max Weber. In Orthodox
theology, it has to do with taking away the sacred from the world, according to the
words of Father Alexander Schmemann. This is a process, which in addition announces the death of God, the negation of God, and withdrawal of the divine. And then we
find what we see from the Russian author Dostoevsky in the “Brothers Karamazov”
namely the complete disappearance of God, which leads to the disappearance of an
upper reference in the wake of which the world loses all traces of hierarchy, whether
it be civilian, military, public, social, or of necessity, religious, and thus all these hierarchies disappear. This in turn means anarchy, chaos, which was foretold by the one
who announced the death of God, Nietzsche.
Of course, today through our society and the age of the Internet, of globalisation, of
secularisation, we can see this chaos, and I don’t think I’m painting too dark a picture.
In fact, I think I’m being quite conservative in my estimate. The ecumenical Patriarch
Bartholomew stated his views in his work “Towards the mysteries”, in which he said,
“in the end, secularisation represents an abandonment of the sacrament-based view
of the world.”
And what do I mean by sacrament and a sacrament-based vision? This has to do
with an inclusive view of the world where the views of humanity and of nature are
the product of an initial vision which is then extended to all fields. Secularisation, on
the other hand, is a fragmentation, increasing segregation, increasing independence
between each of these domains and turning away from the others. The teachings of
the Orthodox Church are very clear here and it is in this way that we can contribute
to the discussions today. The meanings and values that we are trying to promote, and
that we would like to see promoted, in respect for other religious traditions and the
institutional work that you are developing within the framework of the European Union, could be focused around the topics of reconciliation. Certainly you could reply
that we are not looking at the same types of values as peace and progress, for instance.
However, the notion of reconciliation, I feel, has a holistic and inclusive dimension,
one that can be median and thus represents a broad framework for thought. I think this
concept is present in every dimension of our lives, the lives that we share, and thus is a
key reference to a European identity, something which we share across this continent.
Now, we can see this reconciliation in different forms and in different fields. Firstly,
the one which, in my view, is a determining factor in European construction, has to do
with reconciliation of memories. Europe cannot exist today without the work and the
increasing cooperation between the French and the Germans. This reconciliation in
the wake of two world wars, in terms of the memories of these two nations continues
to be a source of hope for the challenges that we are currently facing. The role of religion in this process of reconciliation is a crucial one. After all, the symbolic dimension, as well as the instrumentalisation of religion must end. As leaders of religious
entities in Europe, we have to take our destiny in our hands by relaunching dialogue,
by multiplying meetings and common initiatives within the spirit of reconciliation,
and it is only in this way that we can create the conditions necessary for a lasting
peace. This is why religions need, first and foremost, to identify and express their role
within the changes in our modern society. A return to religion, which we speak of regularly, needs to be first and foremost a reinvestment in religions in and of themselves,
by themselves, and must be shown through a significant commitment in the field of
education, as the Chair said earlier, in order to no longer be marginalised, in order to
become fully-fledged players in the synergies that we see in society.
Ladies and gentlemen, when I speak of reconciliation, what I’m calling for, in fact, is
a re-illusionment, re-enchantment of the world, which we need to facilitate as much
as possible. This is why, within the framework of the work we’re doing today through
the EPP, I think we have a great potential of doing so.
The Orthodox Church’s position has to do with its mission in a secular society. Its
priority is reconciliation by restoring the sacrament to the world. We have to return
the Lord to the world in this perspective. And is this not, after all, one of the main
challenges of the 21st century, as was mentioned in André Malraux’s intuition? This
is what I feel. Thank you for your attention.
31
Speech by Carlo Casini MEP
Chairman of the AFCO Committee and head of UDC Italian delegation in the EPP
Group
Chairman, Excellencies, Colleagues. I’d like to base what I’m about to say on the
word “mystery”. Beauty and perfection which surround us have to come to terms with
decline and pain. The individual’s desire for the infinite has to deal with insignificance
and the limits, sickness, death and fear.
So, at the centre of each individual existence, there is a fundamental requirement
and a question: What is the meaning of each of us, what is the meaning of history?
The response can be different. It can lead to desperation or hope. All religions are
indicators of a positive response to this question. They are ways out of desperation,
and hope is a necessary part of life and solidarity. John Paul II, in the Encyclica, said
that each man has to experience love in order to give significance to his life, and this
is the Christian view. God is identified with infinite love, and so religion is a major
factor in the humanisation of civil society, as well. Society needs men and women
who can provide hope. The response to the individual search for the meaning of life is
indirectly the first and a major service provided by religion to society. But we need to
investigate a second service, that is, give a response to the search for the meaning of
history. Why the generations replace one another, what they are hoping for, why there
is this constant change in humanity which emerges from the darkness of prehistory
and goes on to the current domination of man over nature which seems to be limitless,
a domination of intelligence and spirit over material things.
History - is this something which is just casual and therefore the domination of the
absurd or does it indicate a rational purpose to be achieved in the course of time?
Does religion have something to say about this, about the meaning of history, the succession of the generations? Does religion simply talk about the relationship between
the individual and the Creator? Or is there a relationship with collective history, with
the episodes of history? Is time just an opportunity for individual salvation or is there
something collective to be built in the course of time? Is there a social mission entrusted to humanity as a whole?
Zoltán Balog, Rüdiger Noll, Metropolitan Emmanuel, Jaime Mayor Oreja, Alojz
Peterle, Carlo Casini, Bernd Posselt
If there is any purpose to history, it can only be peace and universal brotherhood,
the civilisation of love. Along those lines, the religious dimension plays an essential
role. It is true that we are aware of the contradictions: religions, which have been
used as reasons for war or violence and discrimination. Even today, in some parts of
the world, this is going on, but this happens because it seems to be part of the human
condition, that is to say the constant search, like the course of the Danube which meanders, but which inevitably always leads to the sea, and the sea is peace and universal
brotherhood.
In society now, I think that there is an initial obstacle to be removed, so that we can
have the correct sort of relationship between religion and civil society. In secularised
society, there is a mistaken view of what secularity is. So what is this mistake, what is
this mistaken view in this current concept of secularity? It is total separation between
religion and society, between individual welfare and collective welfare, between religion and faith, between religion and political views. Even in Christian thinking, in
many parts of Christian thinking, this separation is emphasised, perhaps over-emphasised. Caesar has nothing to do with God. That was the interpretation of Jesus’ reply
when he was asked whether this money could be given to Caesar, he said, “give to
God what is God’s and give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”.
33
From the culture of scission, this is where relativism emerges. There is no universal
secularity, so secularity has become a religion of doubt. There is a radical doubt in
society. Everybody acts and thinks as they wish, and the ultimate value is freedom,
but freedom is corrupted, because it is understood exclusively as self-determination
for the individual. In that context desire becomes a right. But there is a noble concept
of secularity which we need to re establish, I think, and that is one which trusts in the
possibility of all people to live together and to build their own future together, even
though religious views may differ, even though people may not have religious views
at all, but this trust that we can live and work together requires at least one certainty:
a different common faith, the certainty is equal dignity of each human being, trust in
reason.
Human dignity and equality have become the key concepts of modern society. We
need to recognise the equal dignity of each individual human being. This is a principle, which was set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. It
resulted from a lengthy historic tradition, which liberated, at least in thought, if not
in practice, which released slaves, black people and women. All these people were
emancipated, and now we have to think about people who are aliens, foreigners, and
people who are on the edge of society. Even in the Treaty of Lisbon, this begins with
the words “human dignity”. These words are referred to in Art. 1 of the Preamble.
The Union is based on human dignity and the respect of human rights. So, I think that
recognition of human dignity, i.e. the individual as an end and not a means, this should
be part of the noble concept of secularity.
The second element, which links us to religion, apart from faith, is reason. Reason
enables us to recognise and act. So, religion and reason are two essential references
when moving beyond a corrupt view of secularity. In all the statements regarding
human rights, equality and dignity are declared principles, but they’re not actually
proved. They are presupposed; they’re taken for granted.
If you read only the Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it shows
that humanity has experienced death, tragedy, blood and violence whenever it forgets
about human dignity. So, to confirm this reference, we refer to the intuitive approach.
Religion shows that there is equal dignity among human beings and this is a basis for
human dignity. Paradoxically it is religion which is the base for the noble version of
secularity. We could refer to what I said earlier, the quotation from the bible “render
unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, render unto God what is God’s”.
For the empire, the powers, the state, that is what you give things to, but what does
man belong to? This is a question which secularity never raises. Man belongs to his
creator. His value and his dignity are based on a religious dimension of existence,
penetration of the mystery surrounding us guided by the hope of an infinite, a beyond which is awaiting us and which came before us. So, people will understand
why churches, using the language of Pope Benedict XVI, use the language of values,
which are non-negotiable. A currency, the money, what is to be rendered unto Caesar,
is typically negotiable. What is the subject of trade? This symbolises all the things
which can be the subject of negotiation or bargaining, but man cannot be the subject
of trade. He is not the subject of negotiation, nor is his life, nor are his first explanations of his dignity and the fact that he cannot be commercialised. This means that
the dignity of man and the implementation of his dignity should be part of the final
purpose of politics, an identifying force in any politics which say that they are of
Christian inspiration.
Othmar Karas, Rabbi Levi Matusof, Ioannis Kasoulides
35
We are all familiar with the complexities of politics, with the difficulties, the emergencies we have to deal with, such as the economic crisis, but we should never forget
which way we’re going. We should not lose track, we can never commercialise these
supreme values with a view to obtaining an immediate advantage. These must remain
the guiding principles of politics, even when politics needs to achieve goals along the
course, objectives along the course which are not the ultimate objective, and I think
this is a clear message from the EPP: the identity and strength of which are linked to
this clear vision of human dignity and equality.
When we talk about religious freedoms, the family, the freedom of education, this is
what we’re talking about. This is what describes the identity of the European People’s
Party in my view. I think that we should not see these values explained by religious
beliefs as an obstacle on our action or as slowing down our action. We should use
them as resources for future action. Thank you for your attention.
Speech by Bernd Posselt MEP
Some years ago, in the European Parliament, there was an extremely interesting debate. It was at the time of Hans-Gert Pöttering’s presidency. We had a discussion as to
whether Pope Benedict XVI should be invited to Strasbourg or not. At that time there
was a debate between various Members of Parliament which led to an exchange of
correspondence, to open letters from a left wing Liberal colleague from The Netherlands, Sophie in ‘t Veld and me.
Personally, I found that debate very interesting, because Sophie in ’t Veld, the Dutch
Member, conducted this debate on behalf of a working party she had set up unofficially on the separation of politics and religion, I repeat, the separation of politics and
religion. In agreement with Carlo Casini, I said at that time that a separation between
politics and religion cannot happen; it cannot exist. Our European achievement is the
separation of the state and the Church. This can be structured in different ways. It can
be structured in a radical way, as happened in France. In my view that’s too radical.
It can be structured as a partnership, as happens in other countries, in Hungary, in
Germany or other countries, but that’s not the question here today.
The question is whether religion can be separated from politics. Of course it can’t,
because a politician must primarily be a realist. He has to deal with reality, and there is
Carlo Casini, Bernd Posselt
37
a fundamental difference between whether I think that God exists or not and whether
he is a reality or not, that changes my total view of reality.
Realism in politics depends on what I think reality is and what effects this then has on
people. People who have a soul, who are the creation of God, are essentially just organisms, made up of a lot of cells. This is a basic view, which has huge repercussions
on politics. Of course, you can ask if religion and politics cannot be separated; can
a religious person or a Christian, are they the only ones who can represent Christian
views in politics? That is not the case.
Our Chairman said, quite rightly, in his introduction that we have to gain the support
of non-believers, people who don’t have a religious faith. I’d like to compare that with
a glass of water. It is reasonable when a person who doesn’t know where a spring is to
drink, because otherwise he gets thirsty, but unless we have people who know where
the spring is, then in the end there will be no water, there’ll be no water supply for the
believers or for the non-believers. That is why in this debate on religion, we cannot
simply ignore the source, the spring. We’ve got to guard against relativising religion,
and this is a strong trend. People try to play it down or regard it as a nice little tradition. We talk, for example, about the Christian traditions of Europe. Obviously they do
exist, but people don’t want Europe to become a Christian museum to attract tourists
from the USA or Japan, just to show them how lovely our Christian countries were
at one time. That’s not my view of religion. There is this other way of domesticating
or belittling religion, and that’s by making it intellectual. Fortunately we don’t do
that here, but this is done in many discussions, panel discussions and podiums, and
religion is intellectualised to such an extent that nothing is left except religious games
or intellectual games.
Of course, as was already mentioned, there is the political abuse of religion, which
has occurred in the course of history. This political abuse normally has nothing to do
with the substance or the essence of religion but completely misses the point of religion. I’d like to give you an example of what I mean. I had the opportunity 35 years
ago to travel around Hungary, in 1984, and I got to know Hungary. I was near Pécs
in a little village. There was an upper village and a lower village. The upper village
was Evangelical and the lower village was Catholic. These two groups of immigrants
came from different parts of Germany in the 17th century, and that’s why one was
Evangelical and the other one was Catholic. They spoke different dialects and they
didn’t mix because of the difference in religion, and when I asked, how do you say this
or that in your dialect, the Lord Mayor of the village said to me, in Catholic it’s such
and such and in Evangelical it’s such and such, so that had nothing to do with religion.
It was simply a tradition. One had a Catholic tradition; the other had an Evangelical
tradition.
In Germany we have this meal called “Spätzle”, and they’re either round or long.
It’s a type of noodle, and in Württemberg we have Catholic Spätzle and Evangelical
Spätzle. It has no religious reason, it is because in the Catholic region, the Spätzle are
made in such and such a way and in the Evangelical region, they’re made in the other
way. I like to use this as an example of something we have to take very seriously, for
example, the conflict in Northern Ireland. People say that the war in Northern Ireland
was a war of religion, but it never was. It was a war between two ethnic groups, two
groups of immigrants who used religion for political purposes. It was never a question
of a religious dissent, and in my view that is a classic example of the abuse of religion
for political purposes. It begins with harmless examples, as I gave you in the beginning and turns into a conflict such as the one in Northern Ireland. So, what course
should we now follow?
The debate with Sophie in ‘t Veld was interesting, because she represented a completely different view from mine on the subject of Europe. We agreed that Europe,
politically, is a completely new venture, a supranational democratic unity to be created with great internal diversity, but externally could stand up against the dangerous
world. That was the view of Europe, that’s what we agreed on, but we didn’t agree
on the foundations, the basic values. She said that Europe culturally was something
completely new. In Europe we have the opportunity of breaking away from the past
completely and starting all over again with completely new European values, regardless of any religion. These were the new European values, which had to be newly created, just as the European institutions had to be newly created, but my view was and
is and this was the view of our founding fathers such as Robert Schuman, Konrad
Adenauer, Alcide De Gasperi Europe is not something to be invented. It is a rediscovery, a cultural reality, which is much older than our national states and which, after
the Second World War, had to be created from the rubble of the national states and that
reality is affected by Christian and Jewish beliefs, also affected by Greek philosophy
and by Roman law. Either we need to re establish our current European politics on
these fundaments or Europe will collapse with the same harmful consequences on
believers and non-believers.
39
Speech by reverend Rüdiger Noll
Director of the church and society commission of CEC
Distinguished participants, dear friends, thank you for giving me this opportunity to
be with you here today and for this warm welcome here on this panel. I’m speaking
to you on the basis of an experience of working with 125 churches working together
in the Conference of European Churches and then trying to bring a common witness
to the European institutions. Sometimes, I tell you, herding cats is easier. I do this in
all humbleness, because Metropolitan Emmanuel is the President of the Conference
of European Churches at present, and I’m quite happy that he has other commitments
to attend to, from what I understand, so whatever I’m going to say wrong in the near
future is not resulting in a salary cut for me.
Against this background, I want simply to remind you that this year we are also celebrating the 10th anniversary of what is called the “Charta Ecumenica”. Ten years ago,
the Conference of Bishops Conferences in Europe and the Conference of European
Churches signed together this Charta Ecumenica on behalf of their member churches
and the subtitle of this Charta Ecumenica is “Guideline for the growing cooperation
among churches in Europe”. I quote just two sentences out of that. In this Charta Ecumenica it reads, “…on the basis of our Christian faith, we as churches in Europe work
together on a humane, socially conscious Europe, in which human rights and basic
values of peace, justice, freedom, tolerance, participation and solidarity prevail…”
and then it continues to say, “…We are convinced that the spiritual heritage of Christianity, in this sense, constitutes an empowering source of inspiration and enrichment
to Europe.” This is the commitment of the Christian churches together in Europe and
for Europe. So it is based on values, we have said this here, tolerance, solidarity, human rights, but I don’t believe that as churches we can simply remain on the level of
values. The simple fact is that, even referring to the same values, on an operational
level churches often come to different conclusions.
We often speak about values as if values were something behind the clouds and we
just move the clouds away and everyone would stand in the sunshine. No, we have
gone to war with each other, all referring to the value of peace and freedom. We all
refer to human dignity, but still come to different conclusions when it comes to stem
cell research or abortion questions. So I believe, also as churches, we cannot remain
on this value level, values only start to speak, if we actually apply them to concrete
Zoltán Balog, Rüdiger Noll, Jaime Mayor Oreja, Alojz Peterle, Carlo Casini, Bernd
Posselt
situations and conflict situations which are at stake. That makes me believe that, as
churches, yes we are hopefully a spiritual source of inspiration for Europe, but we also
have then something to say to concrete decisions facing us. This is why, as churches,
we say something about the balance of social politics and economics in the EU2020
strategy. This is why we have something to say as churches how minorities in our
society, the Roma minority are treated in our society.
Then, as Jan Figel has addressed it this morning, we have something to say to the
limits of non-fatidic growth, and we have to say something about God the creator and
sustainer of our societies. So I say yes, value base, spiritual base, but as politicians and
religions, we have to dialogue on what that means in concrete terms, when it comes to
decisions and crisis in front of us.
I will also say that as churches we would speak in all humbleness in this area, because
as churches we have to commit that we have not lived up, in history nor today, to all
these values we are preaching and complaining. So also there, it does not seem to me
as if the churches do have the truth and just have to tell them to others. I think we are
sitting in the same boat, coming from different ends, but I hope we are rowing in the
same direction as politicians as well as spiritual communities. So much to the contents
of the church’s commitment.
41
But I personally feel at this stage, I find it almost more interesting, not what is the
content of our mission in Europe, but to look on how we pursue that mission in Europe
at this very moment. When this famous Article 17, for which we have fought so much,
entered the Lisbon Treaty, the article on the open, transparent and regular dialogue
between EU institutions and the communities of faith and conviction, as church and
society, Commission of the Conference of European Churches, we started a three-year
process to look on the role of religion in society. We were inspired and often came
back to what a German philosopher, Jürgen Habermas, recently published on the relationship of religion and present societies.
Contrary to the title, which we have for this session, he doesn’t speak of a secular
society. He speaks of a post-secular society, meaning that we have long left behind us
this age of secularism. We are living in societies, which are searching for meaning and
sense on so many conflicts and therefore the religions have a contribution to make,
and Habermas, some of you might know, calls himself in German “religiös unmusikalisch”. He hasn’t addressed religious topics for all his life long, but he rediscovered
them. But then Habermas and he speaks about a post-secular society meaning we
don’t want to come back to a pre-secular society, but we want to come to a society, a
secular society in which religion has a role to play in offering meaning and sense, and
he formulates three conditions for that to happen, three conditions for the religion.
The first one is, for religions to kind of accept the prerogative of the modern constitutional state, meaning pluralism, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This is
why it is so important for us in the Conference of European Churches to also train and
educate our member churches to become strong advocates in the human rights arena
and in fostering democracy.
The second condition Habermas is putting forward is to say, to reckon with the prerogative of science and reason, meaning that what we have as churches to say, we
need to translate in a language that it becomes a language acceptable to a broader
society. He has corrected this at a later stage; I might come back to this.
And the third condition he is formulating is to say, religions have to solve their conflicts by means of dialogue and discourse and not by using violence or force. Four
years later, after he had presented these conditions, he has also presented two conditions for a society and for political institutions to invite churches to have their role.
The two conditions he mentions are: First that religion must have a space in society, to
be dialogue partners with society and with the institutions. And secondly, that society
also has to accept that religion uses a different, a spiritual language than is normal
language in society. There is a certain plus in it. This is why we are so proud in Brussels that we are not just another NGO in the circus of thousands of NGOs that are in
Brussels, but that we also have a spiritual centre, for example, in the van Maerlant
Chapel, we show that we are a spiritual-based NGO in relationship to the institutions.
Against this background I’m afraid of two tendencies, and I call them at this stage
potential tendencies, but I see signs on the horizon coming up. The first tendency I
would call fundamentalism of the religious communities. I’m not talking about Al
Qaida here. I’m talking about the type of religion, which gives easy responses to what
I believe to be very complex questions and to say yes, we have the truth and we know
it all and therefore telling others rather than entering into discourse and dialogue. And
my second fear is on the side of society and political institutions, still the attempt to
try to ban religion from the public sphere and saying it’s something private or to enter
into a dialogue which, at times, is more window-dressing than going at the heart of
the core problems which we are facing today. It’s nice to dialogue, but when it comes
to crunch time, then this dialogue is needed.
So from this end I’m saying yes to this open, transparent and regular dialogue between
the European institutions, politics, societies and religions, but there is still a long way
to go to really get it implemented, so that it makes a difference in our societies. Thank
you.
43
Speech by Zoltán Balog
Secretary of state for social inclusion, ministry of public administration and
justice, Hungary
Thank you. The fact is that religion in Hungary, and particularly Christianity is something, which is quite contentious as in many other places in the world. The fact that
being Christian is in question, even more than simply religion - religion is seen as
something quite positive in public opinion, whereas Christianity is seen as a part of
the identity, which is mentioned in times of conflict.
Zoltán Balog, Rüdiger Noll
In the former socialist republics, former communist countries, we tend to think that
this is simply the fruit of communism and that Christianity is called into question. But
this is why it is also positive to have these links amongst one another, because we see
that the case is very similar in other countries. What we find is that the self-evident
aspect of Christianity has disappeared, if it was self evident at all in the past. The
discussions and conflicts and accusations that have been fielded are seen in general as
negative and we typically seek to apologise for our Christianity. But I think that, if we
begin with the basic tenets of Christianity, then we can see this as a positive challenge.
I also think that we can see this as a reflection of our own importance, of the fact that
there is a tension and that there remains to be a challenge, because we find that only
major issues come under fire in life. So this debate should be seen as an opportunity. I
am convinced that the main enemy of Christianity is not atheism but disinterest, boredom, when we don’t even bother to make accusations and to attack it.
In Hungary we find a certain duality. In the opening speech by Zsolt Semjén, we heard
that there is something that is self-evident in Hungary. This has to do with our culture,
our history. Our history has been closely linked to Christianity and so the fifty or sixty
years of communism have not been able to erase this. This is something we heard of
in Germany as well. Lay culture, the main culture is the Christian culture, because in
a sense we considered in Europe even Atheists are in some sense Christian because of
this. But it would be a mistake to believe that we don’t have to fight any further for
the fact that Christianity should be self evident. If it’s self-evident, then we do have to
fight for self-evidence day after day in different fields, in public, in private, we have to
fight for it in education in order to have it be present at a cultural level, in its contemporary cultural education of history. We had to fight to introduce this, to have it clearly
represented in the Constitution and we appreciated the support from theologians in this
effort. There was initial criticism when we wished to mention the name of the Lord in
the Constitution, but then we got some support.
We also have to apply these tenets in our work. This has to be represented in every
field of society. I’d also like to focus more on the other side of the coin, which is what
is not self-evident. There are things, which are quite secretive and secret. There are
sides of Christianity, which are seen as secret, as hidden, as mysterious. We are really
not far removed from this and I think this is one of the positive legacies of communism. We were forced into ghettos and as Christians were not very well known. There
was greater interest, because it was not an obvious fact, this curiosity came not just
from the fact that we were unknown, but also from the fundamentals of Christianity.
This is where we have the notion of mysteries, the secrets and the mysteries of Christianity, which are like a candle, which we must not hide. Mysteries are mysteries when
they remain pure. A German theologian has said that a puzzle is interesting until we
solve it, but once we solve the crossword puzzle, we no longer care about it, whereas a
secret, a mystery continues to fascinate us and the more we find out about it, the more
we want to explore it. If I can cite Calvin, it is the mysteries of Christ that we need to
constantly rediscover.
45
We could also speak in language of marketing, when we say that the novelty of Christianity, this value brought by Christianity, after 2000 years is crucial. We have to continue renewing Christianity in order for it to keep pace with society. This is also how
we can preserve its attractiveness.
The ability to attract people in the public sphere, as far as Christianity is concerned,
involves, I think, two main directions. We have heard about this in the introduction,
when he spoke about the reforms that the church fathers – this was not something that
only the reformist church applied, but there is the notion that there needs to be internal
renewal, constant internal renewal. This is something, which we need to have in our
personal lives as well, to live the mysteries, and live the full experience of our faith,
because after all, if we no longer find our own beliefs and faith interesting, then how
can we spread this interest to others?
In some ways we are behind the United States in Europe in the fact that politicians
very seldom recognise publicly their own Christianity and announce it. It’s no accident that in the bible, and particularly in the New Testament, man is very seldom
named as “you”, it is in the singular, but you in the plural and thus, this means that it is
up to us to take up this work, because if we ourselves feel this faith and interest, then
it will be felt by others as well.
This relates to credibility as well. We have to be credible in our words and in our
deeds. This is a particularly difficult task for politicians, particularly as communication has to do with what we are actually doing. It is something, which requires a
great deal of courage. I think courage involves constantly evoking the events that take
place, bringing them up and explaining how things can be interpreted. But we have to
constantly bring up the context for what is happening. It is not a simple explanation,
we’re not simply interpreting as Christians the events that are taking place, but it has
to do with learning from events and not simply suffering through tragic events.
We heard of reference to fundamentalism, but there is nothing more regrettable than
when Christians can only speak out at times of floods or earthquakes. In fact, it’s even
worse than regrettable because, while these are natural disasters, they still have to do
with the Lord. So we shouldn’t focus only on these natural disasters and other sudden
tragic events, but on the day-to-day lives as well.
We should focus particularly on poverty. I myself hold this to be one of my main fields
with regards, for instance, to the Roma in Hungary and the problems with the Roma.
If I look at the challenges, the greatest challenges are not simply what we have to do
nor how we can finance it, but who is going to do it. This is a very human question.
Government is also a question of humanity. If we don’t have passionate, interested
people, then they are not going to manage and the most ambitious projects are going
to fall through. If we don’t find people who invest their time and effort out of a sense
of welfare for their fellow men, then we are not going to succeed. And so we can ask
here again, who is going to succeed if not those who are devoted? It is only those
who know the benefits of love for their fellow men who can apply it as well. In other
words, the source of love is the Lord and this is how we can then promote this and
share it with our fellow men. I think this is true of all religions here in Europe. This is
the ultimate summary of love thyself, love thy fellow man, love the Lord, and I think
this is the foundation for our societies. Thank you.
47
Approaches of religious actors in debating moral issues in the public
sphere
Introduction by Alojz Peterle MEP
Ladies and gentlemen, dear speakers, let’s continue with our work. I decided to say
a few words about myself. I’m an EPP member from Slovenia. I was responsible for
this kind of dialogue in half of the mandate, let’s say. So I am pleased to be in this
theme again and I would like to introduce now the new panel.
We will speak about approaches of religious sectors to debate moral issues in public
sphere. I think we will continue in the spirit, which was introduced by former speakers. Here also we will deal with the question of language, how to deal with these issues in public and in political sphere.
It’s my honour to invite our first speaker, Mr Gergely Prőhle, Deputy State Secretary
for EU Bilateral Relations and Cultural Diplomacy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hungary. The floor is yours, Mr Secretary.
Alojz Peterle
49
Speech by Gergely Prőhle
Deputy state secretary for eu bilateral relations and cultural diplomacy,
ministry of foreign affairs, Hungary
Thank you very much, Chairman. Now, here is the situation. Initially I was going to
be in a completely different roundtable and then the organisers called up to say that
having two Secretaries of State in a single roundtable was too much, so this is why I
have been moved to another one.
As far as the topic of this roundtable is concerned, when I saw it, I felt a little bit queasy, because I’m not sure that it’s proper for a member of the government to contribute
on the role of religious actors in public sphere. However, I’m not only a member of
the government, but also one of the heads of the Protestant church in Hungary. If you
don’t mind, I’d like to speak not as Deputy Secretary of State, but as one of the heads
of the Hungarian Evangelical Church. I think it is fitting to speak about this as long as
I can change hats or change roles as it were.
I feel that many MEPs and many of our guests here today have come here from the
west, and I think it’s important to note that even twenty years after a change of regime,
churches in Hungary continue to suffer from the impact of communism, the fact that
communism was here and was present for decades. I was very fortunate in being able
to work in Germany and in Switzerland and these are countries where we saw the role
of the church very clearly and I think that was very important.
This leads me to my first remark, which is that, if we compare the practices in Eastern
Europe and Western Europe, then we can see that churches and their roles within society fall very much short in Eastern Europe compared to Western Europe. There are
many reasons for this.
First, the so-called “scissor in the head”. Very often leaders both of Church and outside of the Church feel it’s inappropriate for Church leaders to comment on secular
matters. They became accustomed, under communism, to restrict their comments to
the topics that were raised within the Church. So they had very few links with what
was going on in the outside world. This applies just as much to basic ethical questions
as well as to day-to-day lives. So this negative mentality remains even twenty years
after the end of communism, but this has led to some strong negative impacts on the
evolution of society as well, particularly from a legal perspective. Furthermore, the
infrastructure, the personal foundations, the human foundations and the organisational
structure of the Church are simply not able to match the needs of our diverse societies.
Thus, it’s very difficult for the Church to comment properly on all of these myriad
different dimensions.
Rabbi István Domán, Gergely Prőhle
In Hungary, a Church leader can comment, but as we can see in the legislative process,
there is a lack of experts, and so in light of the lack of expertise, Church leaders cannot contribute constructively to the legislative process. If you take a look at what’s
going on in Hungary, you can see that we deal with many issues which are major
issues across Europe - immigration for instance, which we also see as a major issue
in Germany. This has to do with the day-to-day lives of all the peoples including the
members of the clergy. And yet, we hear very few comments from Church leaders. We
should hear more because, after all, the story of the Good Samaritan is very much in
line with this. So there were very few comments in Hungary on the issue of immigration from the Church.
There are other fields as well. If we look at treatment of the homeless; this is a major
topic in Hungary at the moment. Here again, we haven’t seen very much input from
the clergy. Whether this is for political reasons or because this complex social issue
is too vast for the Church to be able to tackle properly, is uncertain. But I think we
51
can also raise the issue that Zoltán Balog will speak of, which is social inclusion. This
is, of course, closely linked to the challenges of immigration. How a majority of the
population relates to a minority. Can the Church play a role here? Can there be a biblical contribution? After all, there is the part of the Good Samaritan. There are other
dimensions, cultural and philosophical, which need to be taken into account. There
are things happening in society, which tend to make us ignore the biblical teachings.
Perhaps in these cases, the church simply doesn’t have the manpower and the organisational structure in place to contribute on these topics.
Something else which is highly challenging these days and, as a Hungarian Evangelical, is a topic which I have a certain knowledge of is the fact that discretion is something, which we are seeing less and less of in the public sphere, and this is the case not
just in Hungary but around the world.
We are finding that just about every facet of human society, of personality is coming
out and being discussed and being seen. Religions and churches which have based
themselves on morality and on the defence of morality are finding themselves in a
dangerous situation, because every single situation, were we to talk about paedophilia
or about other moral issues, and I don’t want to speak about this, but if we talk about
the links to our communist past, the Church staff turns into a target for the world media, because they can point out that there are no consequences.
Every mistake or every wrong move that a member of the clergy makes is pointed to
by the world media with a certain level of cynicism and the media states, “where are
the ethics, where are the morals in this very institution which claims to defend them?”
This can genuinely rock the foundations of the Church, and this is why, speaking from
my own background about the Evangelical movement, we decided upon taking a major step after communism, but this step came a little bit late.
The Church Council decided that, independently of the influence wielded by the different members of the leadership, we needed to try to establish what types of links
existed between the secret police under communism and the members of the Church.
There was a moral reason for this as well, but there was also the concern that this has
to do with the basic moral foundation of our Church. In order to be able to carry out
our moral mission, we needed to make things very clear and transparent on this topic,
which was a major one historically. If we lose our credibility, then we cannot fulfil
our higher calling. We’ve been trying to carry this out and unsurprisingly, this process
has at times been painful. It has turned out that some of our membership worked for
the secret police, but the point of it is not assigning blame. It is not about feeding
information to tabloids, it is instead more about establishing that under communism
people had to live with many different challenges – we need to establish what these
challenges were for the members of the Church – and how individuals were able to
protect their faith. This is, of course, not simply a question of human judgement, but
as well a call to the goodness of the Lord.
There is one final thing I’d like to speak of. It’s both a question and an expression of
where we stand, because we need to be able to determine whether the influence of the
members of the Church strengthens or weakens the Church. I think it strengthens the
Church, particularly in a context where, being able to be clear about one’s religion is
important and hiding one’s religious beliefs can be a source of criticism far more than
announcing to the world one’s faith. So, I think we need not be afraid, we can strongly
assert who we are, because in this way we can far more easily speak of moral issues,
which are important for all of society and for the future. Thank you.
53
Speech by reverend Piotr Mazurkiewicz
General secretary of the commission of the bishops’ conferences of the European
Community
Thank you for the invitation. The question posed to me here is about how the Catholic
Church perceives relations between religion, politics and ethics. I would like mostly
to refer to the notes prepared by Cardinal Ratzinger, the participation of Catholics in
political life which was issued ten years ago, so next year we will have an anniversary
in Auschwitz. It’s going to be an occasion to reflect on this document. It’s for sure
that Christianity is not a private religion, which could be lived in the privacy of one’s
home and being a public affair, it also wishes to exert influence on the public and
political domain.
The question is only the nature of this relationship between politics and religion.
Cardinal Ratzinger stressed that, if Christianity is interpreted as a strategy of hope,
the question that will naturally arise is, but which hope? A hope is focused on the
Kingdom of God. It’s very important to remember that the Kingdom of God is not a
political concept. Because of this it cannot serve as a political criterion by which to
construct in direct fashion a programme of political actions and to criticise the political efforts of other people.
If we miss this distinction between politics and the realisation of the Kingdom of God,
in this moment we will falsify both politics and theology. The result in politics will
be a rise of false messianic movements and political messianism, religious or secular,
always leading to totalitarianism. So this is what is at risk, if we misuse this Christian
hope and the idea of a Kingdom of God. But this doesn’t mean that there should be no
legitimate relation between Christian faith and political commitment. In “Gaudium et
Spes” the document of Vatican Council, we can read, “Hence, while earthly progress
must be carefully distinguished from the growth of Christ’s Kingdom, to the extent
that the former can contribute to the better ordering of human society, it is of vital
concern to the Kingdom of God.” So, in Catholic thinking, the link between politics
and religion is coming not through eschatology, but through moral theology or, in
other words, ethics.
Paolo Licandro, Father Piotr Mazurkiewicz
This is a remark of utmost importance also for politics. It is [healthy] for politics to
learn that its own content is not eschatological. One of the most important responsibilities of Christian theology is to separate what is eschatological from what is political. This separation implies relieving politics from excessive expectations, which it
cannot meet either in its present shape or in general. Relieving politics from eschatological expectations thus makes politics more lay.
Now I’d like to refer to the intervention of Pope Benedict in the Bundestag in September. In history, he said, systems of law have almost always been based on religion.
Decisions regarding what was to be lawful among men were taken with reference to
the Divinity. Unlike other great religions, Christianity has never proposed a revealed
law to the state and to society, that is to say a juridical order derived from the Revelation. That’s just an asset of the history of Christianity. We never propose this question,
such a concept that religious law should become the law of the state, but instead it has
pointed the nature of reason as the true source of law and to the hegemony of objective
and subjective reason, which naturally presupposes that both spheres are rooted in the
creative reason of God.
According to this teaching, the [light] of state and politics is perceived as an autonomy
of civic and political state in relation to the Church and the religious sphere, but not
in relation to moral principles. This separation between religious law and state law is
so important for Catholics that it was stressed many times also in the last decennium
55
by both Popes, that extremely sensitive situations arise when a specifically religious
norm becomes or tends to become the law of a state without due consideration for the
distinction between the domains proper to religion and to political society. But in all
these kinds of remarks, what is characteristic is that the Popes are more considerate of
the risk for the church, which this misunderstanding was provoking in the past.
In Westminster Hall, Pope Benedict said that, according to this understanding, the
role of religion in political debate is not so much to supplant these ethical norms, as
if they could not be known by non-believers, still less to propose concrete political
solutions which would lie altogether outside the competence of religion, but rather to
help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to discover objective moral
principles.
So it’s very important that when we are talking about ethical norms, which should be
at the base of political life and state law, we are not talking about the norms, which
are derived from religion, from Christianity. We are talking about natural law, which
can be recognised by every human being, believer or non believer, if only he is using
properly his reason and [thus] the problem arrives that it is not granted, but having the
reason that we are using our thinking in the proper way. In Greek philosophy there
was a term “orthos logos”, the right reason, and Pope Benedict stressed in Westminster Hall that here there is a place for the corrective role of religion vis-à-vis reason.
So Christianity would like to help human research for the truth to use properly our
natural forces.
In this relationship between reason and religion, this is a reciprocal, mutual relationship in the sense that also to be Christian, you need to use your reason and the reason
should purify religion also, because we also can experience misuse of religion and
misunderstanding of what is religious. In this vision of Pope Benedict it’s very important that, when Catholic Church is speaking of values, it is not talking of values, which
are derived from the Bible but of secular values, which are inscribed in human nature
and which can be recognised by everyone.
This role is very important in our contemporary time, especially because we are
tempted by cultural relativism. The Pope is saying that a kind of cultural relativism
exists today, evident in the conceptualisation and defence of an ethical pluralism,
which sanctions the decadence and disintegration of reason and the principles of natural moral law. So, there is a we can in a sense say , mainstreaming in our contempo56 EPP Group - The 14th annual inter-religious dialogue
rary western culture, which is provoking the decadence and disintegration of reason.
It’s very specific, especially for this Pope, he is always speaking on behalf of reason
and in defence of reason. We are less and less rational in Europe and the concept of
pluralism, which is spreading in Europe, is less and less rational. Here we need the
help of religion.
This false concept of cultural relativism is provoking also situations that lawmakers
maintain that they are respecting this freedom of choice by enacting laws, which ignore the principles of natural ethics and into ephemeral culture and moral trends, as if
every possible outlook on life were of equal value. In this moment and also on many
occasions, they demand from Catholics to give up the attempts to organise social, political and economical life in line with a proper vision of human person and sometimes
even to give up professing ethical evaluation in the name of misconceived tolerance.
In his speech given in the Bundestag, Pope Benedict is referring to historical evidence
that we had this concept already in the history of Europe and especially in the history of Germany, this was the German Pope speaking to Germans in the Bundestag,
and we know the results, and for this reason, we now have to really reflect on this
historical experience. Democracy cannot function unless it is based on the proper vision of human person. Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on
the proper vision of the human person, we read in the document I mentioned at the
beginning. Christians must recognise that what is at stake is the essence of moral law,
which concerns the integral good of the human person. In this document on Catholics
in political life, the Pope is also referring to a very concrete list of values, which are
in danger in our societies: laws concerning abortion and euthanasia. “Such laws must
defend the basic right of life from conception to natural death”, that’s his quotation.
In the same way it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of
human embryos. Analogue to say the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted
based on a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman and protected in its
unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce. In no way can other forms
of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal
recognition as such.
The next value. The same is true for the freedom of parents regarding the education of
their children. It is an inalienable right recognised also by the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. One must consider society’s protection of minors and freedom from
modern forms of slavery, drug abuse and prostitution, for example. In addition, there is
57
the right to religious freedom and a development of an economy that is at the service of
human persons and of the common good with respect for social justice, the principle of
human solidarity and subsidiarity and then, finally, the question of peace.
Pope Benedict calls this list of values I just mentioned as values, which cannot be negotiated. So, every politician should stand for these values in political life. And that’s
from the point of view a duty of every Catholic politician. But as I mentioned in this
perspective, these are natural values, so the duty is not limited only to Catholics but
to all people of goodwill.
This means that there should be a kind of ethical unity in politics. But ethical unity
doesn’t mean… It is not necessary that all Catholics or all Christians should be in
one political party. What is necessary is to stand for the same values and at the same
time to be able to cooperate with people who can be in other political groups for good
reasons, but who share the same values. In this text we can also find different reasons
for political pluralism, which is supported by the Catholic Church because of the
contingent nature of certain choices regarding the ordering of society, the variety of
strategies available for accomplishing and guaranteeing the same fundamental values,
different interpretations of basic principles of political theory, technical complexity of
many political problems and legitimate differences between the interests of different
social groups. But this principle of political pluralism means that the Catholic Church
does not identify with any single political party and there is no political party, which
would have the right to represent the Church. In this sense, Catholic Church stands
and should stand above the parties at the service of the common good.
Just to finish, I would like to refer, as a kind of summary to the principle of this Latin
formula, which probably devised in 17th century in nearby Split and was probably
formulated by Archbishop Marco Antonio de Dominis, “In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas” – unity in necessary things, liberty in doubtful things,
charity in all things.
That’s the summary of this message of the Catholic Church. These are the elements,
which are necessary to be defended and promoted. There is a necessity of liberty in
politics and a necessity of charity. Thank you.
Speech by Domán István
Chief rabbi and professor, university of jewish studies, Budapest, Hungary
The Talmud tells that Rabbi Joseph once became ill and he slipped into a coma. His
father, Rabbi Joshua Berlevi, remained by his bedside praying for his recovery. Fortunately Rabbi Joseph recovered. When he awoke from his coma, his father asked him,
“What did you see, as you hovered between this world and the next world?” Rabbi
Joseph said, “I saw a world turned upside down, I saw a topsy-turvy world.” Rabbi
Joshua listened and thought for a while and said, “You saw a clear vision of how
things really are; you saw the world as it is. As we now already are in the third millennium, there is a sense of ending, but not a sense of a new beginning. There are many
predictions of imminent catastrophes, ecological, military, nuclear, political, social,
and economic, but few expectations of an oncoming renaissance. We are searching for
our balance while living through an earthquake.”
The world seen by Rabbi Joseph, the world turned upside down, the topsy-turvy world
is our world. Many of the cultural, social, political and economic conditions that we
ready assumed to be lasting have been broken down or failed. Many of the values,
ideologies, ideas and institutions that seemed firmly in place not so long ago have
been shaken to their core. Rather than remaining clear and reliable, they have become
weak and amorphous.
Rabbi István Domán, Gergely Prőhle
59
The challenge before us Jews and Christians is to utilise the collective wisdom of our
respective traditions to apply all historical theology to our current situation, our tradition, to our condition, our inherited wisdom to our contemporary problems.
Judaism begins with Abraham discovering that there is one God who created the
world. The Talmudic Rabbis asked, “How did Abraham make this discovery?” The
answer is in the form of a parable. Abraham may be compared to a man who was
travelling from place to place, when suddenly he saw a palace in flames. Is it possible
that there is no master who cares for this place? The man wondered. Then the master
of the palace appeared and said, “I am the master of this place.” The Rabbis explained
the parable this way: Abraham is every person. The palace is the world. The world is
aflame with war, hatred, and evil, and God is the master of the palace.
Later commentators amplified the meaning of the parable. The world is aflame. The
master of the world, God’s presence in the world called ‘Shekhinah’ by the Talmudic
Rabbis and the Jewish mystics, is trapped in the place. What is the task of the person
who sees the place on fire? What is our task in the world: to enter the flaming palace,
to save the master of the palace, to prevent the palace from being destroyed and to
labour to restore it. In this interpretation of the parable we can detect a number of
vital teachings of classical Jewish theology that relate our inherited traditions to our
contemporary conditions.
These are:
1. our world is in danger. Our world is aflame with violence, injustice and evil.
2. despite its fragile and endangered condition, our world has a master alone. The
palace being aflame offers a poignant challenge to religious faith, i.e. is to the
claim that the palace has a master. The relevance of religious faith to our situation
relates to how we deal with the burning palace. As people of faith, our obligation
is to fight the fires of cruelty and injustice that threaten the place. Our obligation
is to labour, to save and to rebuild our world. What can we Jews and Christians
do to move toward a just, righteous and compassionate society?
3. we can try, each of us, to act justly, righteously and with compassion. The starting point for building such a society is with the self. People of faith must set the
standard for a moral behaviour, but this has not always been a feature of religious
life in our century. Instead of ecumenical fraternity, our century has witnessed
and continues to witness ecumenical genocide. The holocaust, the wars in Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq, and war in the Near and the Middle East are examples of ecu60 EPP Group - The 14th annual inter-religious dialogue
menical nightmares instead of ecumenical harmony. Religions cannot expect to
be credible in their opposition to strive unless they first eliminate triumphalism,
strives and injustice within and among themselves. Let us implement the Pope’s
call for fraternal dialogue and interfaith cooperation. We must stand together for
human dignity.
4. rather than strife with one another, we must join together to fight common enemies, but in so doing we should follow the advice of the Talmudic Rabbis to
despise and to destroy the sin and not the sinner. Our greatest common enemies
are ideological. They are ecumenical movements that affirm claims inimical to
religious faith, actions that restrain the development of a just, righteous and compassionate society and that increase the power of injustice and wickedness. Specifically, they are ideologies that deny human dignity and integrity, that teach
cynicism and nihilism, that embrace idolatry such as worship of technology that
places the value of machines over the value of their fellow human beings.
5. despite adversity, the personal fate must be an optimist against his better judgment. This means affirming that there is meaning [despite absolutely hope] despite adversity, redemption awaiting us at the twilight of history. But this also
means that optimism and idealism must neither be utopian nor naïve. We must
learn how to employ love and law, justice and mercy, compassion and sometimes
even cruelty. In the battle against evil, love and compassion are not adequate
weapons. Ours, we must not forget, is a messy world. The messianic age will be
an age of justice, righteousness, compassion and peace, but meanwhile there is
war, injustice and corruption. As long as our world remains messy, rather than a
messianic and unredeemed, rather than a redeemed world, we must realise that
there are no facile solutions to complex social problems, that no social order is
completely perfectible, that the best we do can never be enough.
6. we can work to make the world worthy of redemption, but we cannot redeem the
world. We can accelerate redemption, we can increase justice and compassion,
but we cannot initiate a messianic age. Our task is the world in partnership with
God in the fight against evil, in the task of separating the evil from the good, in
the challenge of saving the palace from destruction, in the improvement of society, in the prevention of additional injustice and de humanisation, in the movement of society from injustice toward justice, from cruelty to compassion, from
corruption to holiness
61
In a world in search of spirit to our moving, for people in quest of meaning in their
lives, for societies looking for moral guidance, our religious traditions can offer a
wealth of wisdom, experience and moral direction.
Ultimately human dignity, human integrity and the intrinsic sanctity of human life are
theological axioms that rest upon the assumption that there is a God and that we are
created in the image of God. As people of faith, we are custodians of those ideas and
values that are the ingredients for a life of moral and spiritual integrity. Our task is to
keep those ideas and values alive, to cherish and to practice them, to convey them to a
world whose very survival depends upon them. Thank you for listening.
Rabbi István Domán, Alojz Peterle
Session II
Church and State relationship 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall
Speech by László Tőkés MEP
Vice-president of the European Parliament
Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to welcome you with the welcome of the apostles so
peace be with you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
I would like to open the session following today’s lunch. We are going to have the opportunity to listen to Mr Tadeusz Pieronek, bishop of Krakow. Afterwards Mrs Pavla
Bendová will speak to us. Pavla Bendová is the director of the Department of Churches of the Ministry of Culture in the Czech Republic. Last but certainly not least, Bence
Rétvári, Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Ministry of Public Administration
and Justice, will speak, on behalf of our kind hosts here in Hungary. Finally, the conclusions will be presented by Mr Csaba Sógor, MEP, who is from Transylvania, just
as I am, in Romania.
László Tőkés
63
To begin, if you do not mind, I would like to introduce this topic by speaking of the
actions of the apostles and in particular of a book that defines them, the Acts, art. 5,
par. 29: “We must obey God rather than man.” This roundtable pertains to the relationship between man and the state. In the period following 1849, this has been very much
proven true. We must listen to the orders of the Lord and not of man.
As a practicing bishop I was bishop for 19 years I was faced, day after day, in Romania, with this fundamental issue: how can we relate to the post-communist Romanian
government, which bears within it the legacy of the communist Romanian government? We were essentially under the authority of the atheist communist government.
After 1989, we continued to see the centralisation of the State, of the government, in
the Ministry of Religion and Churches. The Ministry continued to treat us as if we
were under their authority. This was a particularly sensitive point for those of us who
belong to minority churches.
In Romania there is an official religion, which is the Romanian Orthodox religion.
The Romanian Orthodox Church played a key role and the minority religions were in
a weaker position. We would address all sorts of questions to the Ministry but it was
always difficult. On the one hand there was the legacy of communism, on the other the
tradition of the state religion. Those of us who were not part of this religion (Catholics, Evangelicals, Unitarians, Baptists, etc) had to face down this challenge in order
to call for the return of everything that was seized by the government under communism. Many of our churches had their schools confiscated. The Evangelical Church
had some 1,500 schools that were confiscated during communism. To this date only
some 30% of our property has been returned to us, out of which only some two dozen
schools have been reopened.
This policy towards religion has continued to be practiced. The government continued
to rule over the Church and tried to pull strings and to control it through the purse
strings, through financial measures. Therefore, in this context, it is of course all fine
and good for the Church and State to be separated, but there is in fact a greater need
for cooperation between the two. This is the case in Hungary as well. Instead of exclusivity, we should focus on complementarities. Instead of separation, we should focus
on cooperation. We heard this yesterday from the MEPJózsef Szájer, and this morning as well from the deputy prime minister. We heard it earlier: should we focus on
dialogue or confrontation? What type of relationship should there be between Church
and State? In fact, what we should focus on is dialogue, not confrontation. We need to
have dialogue. We need to avoid confrontation in order to move forward.
This has been the conclusion that we have come to over these past few years. These
topics have been discussed exhaustively. It is therefore extremely important to have a
clear position. A democratic state respecting the rule of law must be able to guarantee
a field of operation for churches, for religions.
Furthermore, the different religions need to play the part that they are allotted. We
heard about Charles V and we saw how the church stood up and stated: we are here
and there is nothing else to be done. Semper reformanda, for instance there is a need
for constant and ongoing reform. This is the hallmark of Western Christianity, which
is a view that there is a role for the Church to play within society, within a democratic
system and it is in this light that the Church must work.
Once again, thinking back again to the revolution in Romania in 1989, we saw the realisation of this spirit through Solidarność in Poland, where the Polish Church played
a major part in the revolution, in overturning communism in resistance. We can also
see in Eastern Evangelical Churches that they played an important part in the regime
change. In Timişoara, for instance, where the first protests in Romania took place
against Ceauşescu in 1989, we also saw an important role played by the Church.
We took up the part that needed to be played, the part of the opposition. Someone had
to do it. I think that we played an important part in the transition and in making sure
that the transition was a peaceful transition. Churches, religions, must assume the
roles and must accept the roles that they were given and that they played.
This is how I would like to open this roundtable. I would like to ask everyone to remain within the time constraints. I would like to give the floor to Mr Pieronek, bishop
of one of Poland’s oldest bishoprics. Please speak to us. Thank you.
65
Speech by Tadeusz Pieronek
Bishop of Cracow, Poland
Thank you. In Poland, the change in the relationship between the State and the Catholic Church is linked to the creation in 1980 of the independent trade union Solidarity,
supported by several million people before the collapse of the People’s Government
of Poland.
On 17 May 1989, the communist parliament adopted various laws on relations between the Catholic Church and the State in the People’s Republic of Poland. The
new parliament was formed after winning the elections on 4 June 1989. Then a new
government, emerging from Solidarity, was formed.
The Berlin Wall was a spectacular symbol of the collapse of communism and it was
only demolished on 9 November 1989. On 17 July 1989, diplomatic relations with the
Holy Church were re-established, with ambassadors accredited, announced in Poland.
The Polish government expressed its will to conclude a bilateral agreement with the
Holy See, the Vatican.
Pavla Bendova, interpreter, Tadeusz Pieronek, László Tőkés, György Hölvényi,
Bence Rétvári, Csaba Sógor
Other important questions were settled afterwards. There was a special procedure for
the return of ecclesiastical goods, which had been seized by the State. It was possible
to set up a military order and a statute for the Church and to introduce the teaching
of religion in state schools. It was agreed to organise the structure of the Church and
young people and children were given the right to practice a religion. The law of 1989
was amended on relations between the State and the Catholic Church.
All these different regulations were gradually extended to other religious faiths. The
concordat regulating almost all relations was negotiated in 1993, but because of the
opposition of left-wing groups, its ratification only took place in 1998, after the rightwing party had come to power. Permanent dialogue between the Church and the State
required the setting up of two committees:
• A mixed committee for the government of the episcopate, the purpose of which is
to deal with the interpretation of the law, dealing with relations between the State
and the Church, and a broader range of questions concerning both sides,
• A second committee, which is still working has been set up to implement the
concordat according to principles between the committee representing the State
and the one representing the Church.
What are the relations between the Church and the State in Poland today? To answer
this question we have to distinguish several factors at legal level and at socio-political
level. The legal area is administered by the concordat and by the state laws. This
guarantees freedom of religion and the principles of the Concilium of the Vatican.
When implementing existing laws, there are no major difficulties, although recently
we have experienced some cases where civil courts have intervened in the work of ecclesiastical courts. Now we are talking about the need for new legislation on funding
the church, although the present system is satisfactory.
As for the media, they are independent from political forces and aim to create a different image for the Church. The public media and both the traditional private and electronic media encourage secular ideas, moral relativism and politically correct policies.
The Church is being criticised above all for existing, for proclaiming the Bible and
for being rich because it has won back its assets, which were confiscated by the State
in the past; thirsty for power and inaccessible are other criticisms. It is also accused
of interfering in certain policies. It is furthermore reproached for not understanding
the world and for slowing down progress, because it won’t accept abortion or in vitro
fertilisation or legal recognition of same sex couples or equal rights for men and
67
women. It is accused of all the evils existing in the world, whether past or present. The
Catholic media are not able to change this mistaken image. Although there are many
different types of media, they do not have much influence and very often they make
things worse because they are radicalised, politicised, and therefore not very reliable
but we have to recognise however that sometimes the bishops and the clergy have not
been able to react appropriately and they are responsible for today’s situation.
In the socio-political area, this is very much diversified. Some political parties are
committed to a struggle for power and want to eradicate the Church from public life.
Other abuses concern religious symbols being used for political purposes, particularly
the cross. Others say there will be a vote in parliament on laws, which violate the rules
of Christian morals. This division in the political parties is dividing the general public.
Legislative elections have weakened the left, but new anti-clerical and anti-religious
parties have emerged.
The governmental coalition has a difficult task to accomplish. It has to undertake expensive reforms in the health and pension system, despite the worldwide financial crisis. Moreover, it also has to deal with serious moral problems such as the right to life,
and deal with in vitro treatment, which could complicate relations with the Catholic
Church. It seems that the review of current relations between the State and the Church
in the extreme liberal secular groups means that a reform is not possible because that
might undermine existing good relations. Thank you.
Speech by Pavla Bendová
Director of the department of churches of ministry of culture, Czech Republic
Ladies and Gentlemen, I am very pleased that I was invited to this event.
The persecution of churches after 1989 led to a renewal of complete religious freedom. In 1990, repressive activities were limited and they were dealt with by law, for
example the so-called state approval.
In 1991, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms was adopted. This fixed
the relationship between the Church and the State and full freedom of religions and
freedoms of the Churches to carry out their activities independently from the State.
Pavla Bendova and her interpreter
The rights of the Church are set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights enacted
in the law of 2002 on churches and religious communities. This law deals with the
registration, rights and duties of registered churches and religious communities and
determines the form of religious education given. Registration of a church or religious
community means that at least three people aged at least 18 have to be declared responsible. They can be nationals of the Czech Republic or foreigners. An important
concern of the application for registration is signatures of at least 300 nationals of the
69
Czech Republic or foreigners with long-term residence in the Czech Republic who
say that they belong to that Church or religious community. It is a very low number
and various other requirements were established so that there could be a free development of the churches active in the Czech Republic.
The registered churches or religious communities can take advantage of a special
status. This concerns the right to teach religion in state schools and it allows for conscientious objection in the armed forces, the right to exercise a religion when in prison
or the right to set up churches and the right to obtain funding from the national budget.
The right to benefit from the special status can be obtained by a Church or religious
community once it has been registered for at least 10 years, has published its annual
accounts for at least ten years and has fulfilled its obligations to the State and has
published the signatures of the people who say that they are part of the Church or the
nationals who have been long-term residents in the Czech Republic. That should be
at least one thousandth of the inhabitants of the Czech Republic. That is about 10,000
signatures.
At present in the Czech Republic, there are 32 churches and religious communities,
which are registered, including non-Christian religious communities such as the Central Islamic Community, the Hare Krishna Movement or a Hindu religious community. In addition to the 32 registered churches and religious communities, 17 are funded
from the state budget according to the law from 1994 on the economic guarantees
for Churches. The Church has a right to obtain state funding because the communist
regime confiscated all those church assets.
The basic question of relations between the Church and the State means a sharing of
assets, since the communist regime seized assets, and the form of funding. Twenty
years now after the change in the system in 1989, all these things are questions, which
still remain open. This process began in 1990 with laws according to which about 200
properties belonging to the Roman Catholic Church were returned. These are mainly
monasteries, monastery buildings, but because of a lack of political agreement, there
were no further transfers of assets to the Church.
It was not till 2008 that the government adopted a draft bill on the restoration of assets
to the Church and the religious communities, and this bill was tabled in parliament.
Negotiations, however, were broken off. Later, the parliament set up a temporary
committee to work on solutions for the question of assets belonging to the Church
or the State. This committee recommended that this draft be rejected and new negotiations begun with the Church but work was stopped, because the term of office of
parliament had come to an end.
After the elections in 2010 the government stated in its working programme that it
would take up the question of the return of assets, or the share of assets, between the
Church and State as soon as possible. The Ministry for Culture therefore tabled a new
bill on the sharing of assets based on the following principles: restoration of the assets
of the Church and religious communities, which are in the hands of the State at the
moment. This is above all a question of agriculture and forestry service areas. There is
financial compensation for the assets, which were not handed over, although a qualitative assessment has to be made of the Church assets seized by the communist regime.
Financial compensation will be paid to the Church and religious communities within
a period of 30 years. Part of this share of assets is a gradual relaxation of the payment
of cost by the State.
This week, the draft on the share of assets with the Church and the religious communities was concluded. This cooperation between the State and the Church and religious
communities in the context of public institutions is underway on the basis of agreements between individual authorities, the state administration and the Churches and
religious communities. It is having a positive effect in the army and in the prisons.
The representatives of the Church and religious communities work closely together
in this service. For health and social institutes, there is no particular legal regulation.
It is just based on the recognition of freedom, set out in the constitution. Among the
different religious groups, there are generally good relations, both at national and international level, oecumenical relations and dialogue developing among the different
religious groups in the form of joint services and projects. Also cooperation between
the Churches and the State in solving joint problems is fairly good we could say.
71
Speech by Bence Rétvári
Parliamentary secretary, ministry of public administration and justice, Hungary
Thank you very much and thank you for the invitation. Thanks to all who are either
here at the St Albert Centre or in Brussels in order to make this possible.
I would like to begin with a quote: “Hungarian churches and religious communities
are bearers of tremendous value in society and are also major players who, in addition
to their activities in faith, have an important role to play in education, higher education, healthcare, volunteer, social, family and youth activities, as well as culture, the
environment, sports and many other fields. They play a major part in the activities and
the life of the nation. Hungary recognises and supports the activities of churches and
religions.” This is a quote from the new law on churches, which entered into force in
2011. This is to give you an idea of our views on the churches and their activities in
Hungary, which will be reflected in the new constitution as of next year.
László Tőkés, György Hölvényi, Bence Rétvári
Hungary is a Christian country and by large a Catholic country. Before the transition from communism, there was an office in charge of supervising all churches and
religions. This still has an impact today. We still have a few pastors who call in to the
Ministry to ask what they should do in a given case and we always reply: you do not
need to ask us.
In the past, one of the keys after the transition was to guarantee proper treatment of
religions and churches. Since then, the possibility for religious freedom has been expanded. We started with tyranny; then there was a pendulum movement, which moved
towards increasing freedoms for churches.
In Hungary we did have some reimbursements, some returns of stolen property. There
are new initiatives including clergy having access to prisoners and to other people
who did not have access to them before. The Hungarian state has signed an agreement
with the Holy See as well as with other churches. This has defined the reimbursements
and repayments, which will often be managed over several years. The framework
is something, which has been set down. In addition, from a Catholic perspective, a
commission was set up, which has been able to work more closely with some governments, less closely with others. On the one hand, in the commission there are members of the Church and on the other hand members of the government. They are in a
position to make important decisions on these issues. The deputy prime minister as
well as a number of state secretaries are on it.
From a financial perspective things have changed as well. Churches now receive the
same level of financial support as any other government agency if they have activities
that are for the common good, for instance education or healthcare. The government
tries to support this because even when they do not, the local governments tend to add
their own financing. Furthermore, the churches receive about the same level of funding in order to make sure that all students and all individuals have the same access to
services. In addition to repayments, there is additional support for churches. There is
one other source of financing; specifically those people who decide to do so can have
1% of their income tax go to supporting the churches. The figure actually dropped last
year for that, but the government will try to correct the situation by making up for the
shortfall.
As for expenditures, I can say that the churches by and large spend their funds. They
do not spend it on the church itself. The Church spends 16% to people of the faith; the
rest is used almost in its entirety in order to serve society, whether it is for healthcare,
education or other ways of benefiting society. In fact, the churches help the government
tremendously in helping to maintain a decent level of services in these fields.
73
It has been over 20 years since the transition from communism to democracy. Thus we
need to take into account positions and perspectives that are different from those that
were important 20 years ago. This is why the law on religions needs to be updated.
We heard about examples in the Czech Republic with some 30 different religions or
churches. In Hungary there are maybe 10 times as many different entities, some of
which exist only on paper. About half of them did not have genuine activities over
the last few years and actually were simply used only for financial reasons. Some of
these were termed “business churches.” Some were simply in order to get tax breaks.
One was set up in order to maximise the so-called Budapest-Bamako Race. There
are many other examples of misuse. That is why we also needed to reform the law, in
order to make sure that only churches gain the benefit from the government services.
The most important thing for Hungary is cooperation with the Church. This is something, which is also going to appear in the new law. Wherever possible, we do try to
have positive cooperation with churches. As Christians I think we can say that it is
our duty not only to ensure freedom of religion here at home, something which has
been done for some time now in Hungary, which has been guaranteed in law for 20
years but we also have to defend freedom of religion around the world, independent
of the type of religion. In addition, we must not forget that in some 70 countries our
Christian brothers are unable to practice freely.
I started with a quote from a piece of legislation. I would like to do this again. It is very
brief, from the new constitution. It begins with the first line of our national anthem:
“God protect Hungarians.” The last line of the constitution also states “in knowledge
of god and man, this constitution will serve the Hungarian state.” In a way, we begin
with a type of preamble, stating that we are proud of the fact that our king Saint Stephen 1000 years ago set the foundations for a solid state and made it so that we would
belong to a Christian Europe and that the state in the future would be a Christian state.
This is now enshrined in the constitution. “Furthermore,” this is a quote as well “we
recognise the crucial role of Christianity.” The fact is that there might very well not
even be a Hungarian state here on the Danubian plain if it were not for the foundation
of a Christian state 1000 years ago. Not only do we need to mention these points but
furthermore, the constitution also states that one of the crucial elements of our society
is protecting the family, as well as faith and love.
I think that in the future, if we look at the relationship between Church and State, it
is important that we should work towards the fact that the two need to work together.
Each has their own views but in the long term it is very important that the Church also
has its say in social policies. As for the government, it is important that it creates a
solid basis for helping to finance the Church.
Finally, perhaps the most important paradigm shift has to do with recognition of the
activities of the Church, including in fields such as welfare and social assistance and
in protecting the environment, recognising the fact that there is a need not only for
good physical standard of the thing, but also a good spiritual spirit of the thing. This
is why we have to provide for a proper spiritual life. Twenty years after the fall of the
Berlin Wall, this is one of the most important goals that as politicians we can set for
ourselves. Thank you.
75
Speech by Csaba Sógor MEP
Before 1989, my colleague reformist pastor told me a story of the secretary in charge
of spirituality calling him. We simply had to know that it could not be allowed that my
fellow members of the party who took decisions were also involved in the Church.
The pastor said: of course, you picked the best candidates; we also picked the best
candidates. It is only normal.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, we have heard about societies in Central and Western Europe. In the past 20 years, the relationship between Church and State has been
shaped in large part by how aggressive the communist government was in its behaviour towards the Church. That is why we have to differentiate between East-Germany,
Hungary, the Czech Republic (or Czechoslovakia at the time), as well as Romania and
Bulgaria. As for issues relating to the culture of the former socialist states, there are
still many points of contention. We can look back at the disagreement over our readings of history: the question of wealth, of education.
Csaba Sógor
All in all though, we all agree that Church and State have the same task, i.e. to work
for the benefit of citizens. In many societies, still to date my colleague mentioned this
we not only see smaller churches but we have cooperation between different churches
and the government. In all of these situations, it is important to underscore the need for
dialogue over confrontation. The oecumenical work between churches and between different religions should be a model for the state. To be honest, I can only speak on behalf
of the Reformist Church but often we have trouble agreeing among one another as far
as even our charity work it concerned. Ideal cooperation needs to operate within a free
society. Let us not forget some of the comments that we heard earlier, particularly the
fact that in order to find solutions to the question, to the challenge that Christianity faces
in order to attract new believers, we have to operate in this way.
The Church suffered greatly during communism and learned to stay quiet, and it stays
quiet even today, when in fact it needs to speak out. My colleague this morning stated
this. As far as the EPP is concerned, there is self-criticism as well, because as politicians who associate with Christian values, we still face challenges and still do not
speak out, when we are denied the right to come together to pray. We are still criticised. Our Muslim colleagues get together five times a day to church. We actually end
up praying 8 times a day, when we get up, when we go to bed, and before and after
every meal. Of course, there will never be a common service for all the members of
the EPP at a Strasbourg session for a prayer session, but hopefully there will be more
attendees.
Furthermore, as we do see aggression towards Christians in the world, this is made
possible because Europe, which has Christian roots, has stayed quiet. Maybe it is
ashamed of its Christian past. Maybe it does not dare defend its own Christian values
and roots. When I ask acquaintances from Indonesia why they do not tolerate the oppression of their fellow Muslims, I am told that they cannot because otherwise people
will be oppressed, people will be discriminated against, if a majority of the members
of that religion does not stand up and defend them. I am not saying that the European
Union is responsible for the deaths of these Christians but by remaining silent, we
share part of the guilt.
I would hope that after the fall of the Berlin Wall, 40 years later, we will see a rise and
a change. We all took part in these revolutionary movements that took place in 1989,
in trying to bring about change. I am not sure how much of the spirit of change will
remain 40 years afterwards.
77
The presence of Religion in the Media
Introduction by Anna Zaborska MEP
Good afternoon. First of all, I would like to pass on the apologies of Mrs Korhola, our
colleague, who has been detained in her country, so I am going to stand in for her. I
would like to welcome our main speakers on this panel. I am not going to make an
introductory speech. I would just like to put two questions to begin with:
• Which image of faith, the church and religious communities do want to disseminate in the media?
• My second question is: what image of faith, churches and religious communities
are prepared to communicate in the media?
Monsignor, Eminence and Excellency, I would like to give the floor to our first speaker, Mr Ulrich Ruh, chief editor of the Herder Korrespondenz paper.
Anna Zaborska, Ioannis Kasoulides
79
Speech by Ulrich Ruh
Chief editor “Herder Korrespondenz”
Thank you very much for your words of welcome. Thank you very much for your
invitation. I am happy to come and join you.
The subject of religion in the media is so broad that you can only really tackle it from
one specific point of view. My point of view is the fact that I am the chief editor of
a monthly paper, which is a Catholic one but does not belong to the Church. It is not
subsidised so we really are a private publishing company and therefore have a certain
in-between position. We observe society and the media landscape from the point of
view of the Church without however belonging to the Church. We observe the Church
at the same time from the point of view of the media and with first-hand experience
of the media.
Then a second preliminary comment. My observations refer above all to the situation
in Germany. We just heard from Mr Pieronek how things are a bit different in Poland.
Of course, media are structurally slightly different in every European country. They
are also organisationally slightly different. I would say that I am talking primarily on
the basis of my experience in Germany. Of course, I am familiar with the media of
other European countries but only in a limited way.
Very briefly, just a few comments on the framework conditions. In Europe and elsewhere we have free, open and pluralist societies with a diversity of media. I cannot
list all of them, but I am talking about the normal media you have in every European
country and there is a gigantic range of media. At the same time, we have the religious
communities. They are organised differently and legally recognised as part of society,
but and here is the decisive restriction the religious communities do not have the last
say in society anywhere in Europe, but they are competing with other sectors of society, secular groups of society, and they are open to all the influences which are effective in society. Therefore it is meaningful and useful since the religious communities
use media, for their understanding, for presenting themselves to the outside world and
also for having dialogue with society, but they are also part of the general media. The
Church-friendly or Church-close media everywhere in Europe, as far as I am able to
assess, are only a tiny sector in a gigantic area. They are niche media you might say.
The next step is: how do the general media deal with the subject of religion, religious
communities? A first observation is on the subject of religion, religious communities
play a very subsidiary role in the media in general. Thus that reflects the situation in
society. As we heard earlier, the religious communities do not have the last say. They
are just one part among many others. In newspapers in Germany or anywhere else,
religion is not regarded as one of the main resources, such as politics, economy, culture or sport. Those different sections are parts of a newspaper, but religion is only a
part of a newspaper in an exceptional circumstance. Of course, in the state media in
Germany, in public broadcasting, the churches and religious communities do make
a contribution to the programmes. They organise some programmes and they have a
right to do so, but that is an exception, not a rule.
Ulrich Ruh
Then a second observation. For the general media, normal activities of church and
religious communities are normally not very interesting. What happens in a church, in
the services, is not really very interesting to the media. The media are interested above
all and primarily in what is spectacular, what is unusual, and what is scandalous, the
scandalous elements of religious communities.
81
For example, there was a visit by the Pope to Germany recently and of course the
general secular media reported very widely on this visit. They commented on it and
assessed it. All very well. But as an example of a scandal, there were reports on cases
of abuse in the clergy in the year 2010 and the media focussed on the churches and
insisted on them dealing with things. There is this trend to make things spectacular
when reporting on Islam as well. Only a tiny point of view of Islam is represented in
the media, namely where it has to do with terrorism and things like that, but normal
Islam is not commented on in the media at all.
The media on the whole tend to generalise and to distort. They show a lack of knowledge but we have to admit and again, I am speaking about Germany the general
media are not hostile to the Church or to religions in general. Of course, the media
generally are not hostile to the Churches, to religions.
My next comment: what should be done on both sides so that there is productive
cooperation between the media on the one hand and the religious communities on
the other? First of all, from the point of view of the religious communities, in our
country as well, in the Church, there is not enough in-depth coverage of religions. We
need more openness on the part of the religious communities, willingness to provide
information, recognition of one’s own mistakes and failings. Then the religious communities would be in a position to demand of the media that they report fairly and
competently on them. Again, from the point of view of the media, we would expect
that they include religion in their reporting but on the basis of proper knowledge with
the right background information, with tact, diplomacy, with experience. That does
not mean that only believers or church members are the right people to report on religion. Quite the contrary. I have press colleagues who are not active in the Church but
nonetheless they report with fairness and sympathy on religion.
Once these conditions have been established, then the media could make a contribution to the subject of religion, in an open, pluralist society, being dealt with in an
interesting and lively way. If they use this fairness, this sort of skill on the subject of
religion, they could encourage debate about religion in society; they could provide
food for thought. From that point of view, the media are not essentially necessary for
the religious communities but they can be useful and beneficial. Thank you.
Speech by Balázs Rátkai
Director & chief editor of hungarian catholic weekly “új ember”
As editor in chief of the “Új Ember”, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here. We have obtained information from Germany about the state of
Catholic media and I have heard that the Catholic media are toothless, unable to stand
up against the attacks, which are aimed at the Catholic Church in Poland. The situation in Hungary is even worse.
I would however like to speak about what a 66 year old Hungarian weekly magazine
can do in this situation. I would like to speak about that. I would like to speak about
some of the activities that we have engaged in over the last year and a half. That is the
amount of time I have been at the head of the editorial board.
Rabbi Levi Matusof, Balázs Rátkai, Anna Zaborska
This magazine was supposedly born out of the ashes following the bombing of Budapest after WWII. The survivors said that they wanted a new Catholic weekly, in
service to our Church. There have been a number of views that have passed since, of
course. When I was handed over the reins, I was very much aware that it would be
very difficult both to preserve the readership that has been steadfast over the last 66
years, as well as draw new readers. Believe it or not though, I am not the youngest
83
editor of “Új Ember”. The founding editor was 35 years old. I will speak briefly about
some of the traditions and some of the legacy that we have had.
We have seen the crisis that printed media have lived through. Young people aged
10 to 20 are almost completely unwilling to pick up printed media, except possibly
tabloids. Everybody uses smart phones, I-pads and other digital media, which have
become very much run of the mill. Young people use these media in order to inform
themselves, if at all. Without being overly pessimistic, I think it is fair to say that people have lost the custom of reading newspapers.
Before this roundtable, we heard a little bit about similar topics and we have spoken
with colleagues of the fact that there would be ever fewer articles in newspapers.
Everything is becoming shorter and briefer. The news on television is also more of
a few quick headlines. It is just really presenting 30-second reports. The tabloids are
ever more aggressive. They are sensationalist; they look for scandal. Whoever gets
the biggest scandal gets the most readers. They do not care about having accurate
information. Only negative information is printed. It is in this context that a Catholic
weekly needs to try to survive somehow, while maintaining its readership, despite the
economic crisis, and manages to survive in a media market where we face very stiff
competition.
The Catholic weekly has some 30,000 printed issues per week. This is considered
good, but there was a time during communism where this figure reached 60,00080,000 a week. It was considered the magazine of the political opposition. This has
obviously changed since the transition from communism and the readership has gone
down.
One year ago, we sent out a survey to our readers. We were able to get an image of
who our readers were. We asked them, among other questions, how they would respond if we were to change the content and the approach that the magazine has. When
I took over the reins, we did change some aspects. We included more in-depth reports.
I am still looking at options. We could ask questions such as: who are we? I asked my
colleagues to define who we are, how they see the magazine, how they see its future. I
have gathered these answers together and this has created an image of what we would
like the magazine to be. Those who pick up our magazine will see clearly what it is
that our expectations are, what a Catholic magazine needs to provide, what our job is
really and what we write about.
Here are just a few excerpts from the descriptions of the journalists of “Új Ember.”
The journalists are required to write articles that provide a clear opinion on the Catholic Church or the Catholic world, but we wish to communicate Christianity as a vision
of the world. It needs to appeal to all Christians. Many people in Hungary end up
reading only this magazine. It costs about €0.50, about 150 forints. It is inexpensive
and for many people living in rural areas, it is about the only medium that they have
access to. They purchase it and often they do not look elsewhere.
There is a need to inform our readers, give them clear points of view. We give them
information about the Church. We also deal with social issues as well as local issues.
We deal with many other topics besides, culture for instance. Our task has to do with
providing discussion of topics, which may not be common topics within the Church.
Church-going readers may not be aware of all what is going on in the world. It is
our job to provide them with as rich a palette of information as possible about the
Christian world, about what other Christian institutions exist elsewhere and what they
are doing. Seeing the world through Catholic eyes does not mean that our texts are
strongly religious but simply that we use our faith to guide us in our view of the world
and then we share our views with our readers. We serve our Catholic culture, which
means that we provide insights into Catholic culture and into culture for Catholics.
We have to be trustworthy and reliable. We have to provide a proper presentation of
Catholic ideals and notions in this day and age.
Tabloids aim to get simply numbers in order to get sales. It is obviously much harder
to get that with our type of magazine, because we wish to speak about positive things
as well and what people often want to read about are negative facts. We want to speak
about Church openings, about births, about positive events. Often there is much less
of a market for good news than for bad news.
Who do we have among our readers? We have primarily Catholic and up to a point
Protestant practicing Christians. We do not have to attract other readers at all cost,
readers who are not practicing. However, it is important that we do have a broader
appeal. While we do appeal primarily to readers who practice their faith, we do try to
appeal to others as well. We appeal to adults, people who are 30 years and older. We
have never been a youth magazine, but that does not mean that we do not deal with
issues that are youth issues. We do deal with them.
85
In addition to the Christian middle class, we also appeal to people living in rural areas,
30-40 year olds in particular. There is far more to say but I would in particular like to
raise one issue, which is distribution, which is a major problem for Church reviews
and magazines. Új Ember is available in Churches and in other religious institutions
but also from newspaper vendors. I think the main tool for increasing distribution
would have to be just a few words spoken by a pastor or a priest after the service. It
really does a lot to increase the sales of the magazine. If we can sell the magazine and
the editorial board can keep working, then the newspaper or the magazine in this case
can keep working.
We do try to work with other Catholic organisations, whether through Internet, radio
or television. We try to appeal as broadly as possible to readers and also to have links
to government and other bodies. We try to develop our network in order to increase
our ability to write good stories and give good reports. I am in daily contact with
various representatives of the Christian community. It is very difficult to do all of
this because of course everyone has to focus on their own issues and challenges first
and foremost but I do hope that the desire for renewal and to reach readers and reach
people of the faith will continue driving us forward.
I think the most important aspect, which I will try to summarise in a single sentence,
is to spread the word of Christ, to spread the message of Jesus Christ, in whatever we
write. This is what we strive to do. I hope that those who have come here to this conference and who are participating will rather recognise some of the challenges faced
by their local media. Thank you.
Speech by Levi Matusof
Rabbi and director of European Jewish Public Affairs
Religion always asks for some humour. I know that when you look at your watch, you
see that on the programme it says: coffee break. In some places it is now time for a
nap, so I will try to do what a good speaker should do: to have a good beginning, a
good end and try to make what comes in-between as short as possible.
We are all frequent travellers here. In fact, life is a long journey. This morning we
talked about what to wear when travelling. It reminds me of the story of someone
related to me who was travelling in a European country. He was in a taxi. When you
are in the driver’s seat it is easier to control where and how fast you are going, but
when you are sitting in a taxi and we often are we are worried where the taxi driver
is going to take us. This taxi driver in this specific city (it was in South Italy), was
going through every red light. When the light is red, he just speeds through it. The
gentleman sitting in the back is getting a little bit worried and at some point he sees a
green light and thinks: finally he is going to respect the law. Here the taxi driver stops.
The passenger says: I do not get it. Is everything opposite for you? “No, no, I am just
afraid that my brother is coming from the other side.”
Rabbi Levi Matusof, Balázs Rátkai, Anna Zaborska, Ulrich Ruh
87
When we know who we are dealing with, it is easier to deal with. Journalists often say
that they are the pessimistic ones. I am not here as a journalist. I am here in the role of
a religious leader, of a rabbi. I would like to focus my address today on three points:
• the timing of the conference;
• the connection between media, religion and politics and how they interact;
• and perhaps some practical suggestions, if I may.
The timing of this conference. This week Muslims celebrated Eid, their sacrifice,
which I think is a very important holiday in the Muslim tradition. Yesterday it was the
anniversary (73 years ago, 1941) of the Kristallnacht, which took place in Germany,
which is a very important date because we know that the foundations of Europe,
which were founded on Judaeo-Christian values, are post-war and we are aware of the
fact that we can get together on the rivers of the Danube in a place which 70 years ago
was going through the darkest times in Jewish history here in Europe. It is a sign of
hope and conveying the message of togetherness. Ján Figel’ was saying this morning
that learning from history is how to show our responsibility. It has always been said:
never again, and that we could sit here together. So Eid, the Kristallnacht, but also
the fact that the portion that Jewish people read this week the bible is divided into
53 sections is about Abraham. Abraham, we all know, is the father of monotheism. I
think we feel here very much a sense of unity.
President Barroso has been saying for some time and later this week he repeated that
the economic and monetary union will finally walk on its two legs, instead of walking
on one leg. Speaking about the crisis, there is the economic and the monetary aspect.
Someone asked him it was just two nights ago in Brussels what about the other parts
of the body? Where do you see the heart? The mind? He said something which we all
know: that the soul are the values, the soul is religion. Now if we think about this, if
the heart stops functioning, the body stops functioning. If we want the economic and
the monetary union to function, we need to focus on our values.
How many of you here I see that many members of the Parliament or almost all use
an I-pad, and you all have Facebook pages tweet actually? Some do. How many
of the religious leaders tweet? I am EU rabbi on Twitter. Very few do. MPs yes, and
I have actually pressed “like” on some of you that were saying that they would be
present here today. Very few use the media, and today we speak about social media,
because these are the ones that actually have the most influence, to convey a message.
A politician would like to convey a message of what he is doing, of what she is doing,
where they are, who they’ve met, to get their electorate moving, and of course to get
some media to write about it.
Why would the religious leader use Facebook and Twitter? What would he use the
social media for? To influence? To share their opinions? To share their knowledge, to
connect with world events taking place with a message, not just one of pluralism but
a message of values, a message that would actually help us, maybe perhaps to change
our lives, I would say.
There is a story of a couple that went to a rabbi and said: “We have a big problem. We
have four children and we just cannot influence our kids. Whatever we teach them, the
moral values we teach at home, it just does not work. One of them was just arrested
for speed driving, another son is on drugs. What should we do?” And the rabbi says:
“Can I come to your home?” It was in France. They said: “Sure, please come!” And
the rabbi asks: “Can I visit the house?” “Yes, sure.” He goes into the living room and
sees a big TV screen; he goes into the kitchen, there are two screens, for each side of
the table; he goes to the bedrooms and also sees big TV screens, and he says: “I do
not understand. You are not the ones in charge here. It is the remote control. The TV
is commanding here.” Yes, media influence our lives. Today we try to keep – and that
is what the previous journalist speakers mentioned – our message short, quick and
focused. Twitter, 140 characters. Try to keep it as short as possible.
What is the message that we could have? Clearly the message today is that we are facing a crisis. What kind of crisis are we facing? Economic, monetary, the euro crisis,
look what is happening in Greece, in Italy, in Europe, everywhere. There are the two
legs, but what about the heart, our values? It was mentioned this morning. Habermas
was mentioned, the clash of civilisations. Today perhaps it is not a clash of civilisations, as was reported at the time of the Forward Studies Unit which is now BEPA, the
Bureau of European Policy Advisors of the European Commission, under a report that
President Prodi had demanded. The conclusion was that today is the clash of ignorance. Today we just do not know: we do not know who, how, where, why. The crisis
today is an identity crisis. The question that we ask ourselves is: what is our identity.
Is what is in our pockets our identity? Or what is in our mind and in our heart? Which
crisis do we need to solve first?
The crisis that we need to solve first of course is the bread and butter. We need to feed
our families. We need to feed our people. How are we going to feed them? We need
89
to feed our thoughts as well. That is of course with values. The values are of course
sanctification of life, human rights, democracy, the rule of law… always remember
that these are at the core of Europe and at the core of our destiny.
Practically, how are we going to change the situation? Religion and media do come
across. What are the religions going to say? In some places, it has more of an effect;
in other places it has less of an effect. But it is not just about the places in which an
effect can be felt. I think each and every one sitting on this roundtable is a leader –
politicians, diplomats, religious leaders, journalists… We all have a chance to influence. Think about a knife. I have young children. I teach them how to use a knife, but
first they start with a plastic knife. Then they move on to a bigger knife and then they
can use at a later age a proper knife. What does a knife do? Why do we start with a
plastic knife or first with no knife at all? Because a knife is a weapon, it could hurt, it
could kill. Why then do we teach children to use a knife? Why do we use knives? We
use knives to eat. The same item can hurt but can also feed us. The same applies to
media. We are reading all kinds of reports of people saying some things about others.
Of course what works well is gossip. This is how we influence. If we have the right
food for thought to influence and to convey messages – messages of values, of identity that will speak to people – the day of tomorrow will be a better day. That answers
maybe the question that was asked this morning, which is not asked enough: the one
of education. This is at the core of our values. History is a very important element and
of course Europe is built on ashes but this is the past. How do we make sure that the
future does not happen again? We cannot change what our fathers, our mothers, our
grandparents did. We could change by our acts today.
I would just like to finish with some practical suggestions. One of them would be
perhaps that in the European Parliament I know that Vice President Gianni Pittella
is writing a report on this it should be more encouraged that there should be a unit
dealing with religions, values, morality, within the Secretariat General, not just within
the EPP, but cross-party. Having taken part in several of the EPP dialogues and I
would like to congratulate the members, Mr Karas, Mr Mauro, of course, the team
Paolo Licandro and our good friend György Hölvényi, which are year round working on this together with Nóra Kramer, Gabor Török and Marian Apostol I think we
should continue and encourage this dialogue, make it more inclusive: it has moved
from orthodox to Christianity to religions (the Muslims are not always around the
table), and to go home in fact knowing how we could convey a stronger message. If
there is a decrease of Members of Parliament attending, it is maybe because they are
solving other crises, that allow us to remember what is our priority, where is our heart.
Thank you very much.
91
Speech by Anna Záborská MEP
Thank you very much. I would like to make a few concluding remarks.
From what we have heard and from our experience, I can say that there is a certain
gap between what citizens experience, above all the believers, and what the media
broadcast. Very frequently, minority views are put forward as being majority views,
particularly on religion. It is also our responsibility to communicate more with the
media, to have discussions with them, and with the journalists, so that they understand
our positions better. I must say that perhaps it is also the fault of politicians because
sometimes, when we are talking about questions of religion or values, our replies are
very vague, very diplomatic, and sometimes ambiguous and that is not of interest to
the media. They do not pass on the message afterwards.
Anna Zaborska
I hope that during these two days, we will gain more courage to speak more bluntly.
I think there is a big difference between religions, between the Church and religious
communities, and between them and the media. The Church and the religious communities are looking for truth. Very frequently the media and politicians are looking for a
majority. The Churches are guided by writings, by encyclical, by binding documents
and they do not change for centuries. Sometimes what is broadcast by the media depends on the majority of the moment, however.
I would like to seize this opportunity to thank the journalists for their work one on
one side of me, one on the other who are trying to communicate a positive view, or a
correct view of the Church and religious communities. I am not talking about whether
they say enough or too little, but what they communicate is or should be correct.
One other thing: the vocation of a priest any priest of any religion, whether a rabbi
or a bishop or a cardinal or a pastor is very different from that of a journalist. Sometimes there are misunderstandings between the two, which leads to a lack of trust in
the media.
I would like to thank the speakers on this panel. I hope that this panel has clarified our
positions and improved our cooperation. May I make one final comment? In conclusion I cannot let that go by.
I cannot allow you to say that the churches are seeking truth and the media are not.
There are media, which are seeking the truth, quite emphatically so. It is not the truth
being represented by the Church but it is a different truth. Also in politics: if you are
not searching for truth, then things would go completely wrong. You cannot say that
the churches are seeking the truth and the media are not. On the contrary: the Church
is seeking the truth in a certain way. The media do not have a sort of agreement, nor
do politicians, but they have very high standards. If they try to achieve those, then we
can get good results. That is just a comment in passing.
93
Session III
Social market economy, financial crisis and the social teaching of
Churches
Speech by Otmar Karas MEP
Vice-chairman of the EPP Group in the EP, responsible for inter-religious dialogue
and religious affairs
Ladies and gentlemen, friends,
This is the last panel of the first day and I hope that, like me, you feel that this is extremely interesting and we’ve had a thorough discussion and debate on the first day.
We’re now going to look at the social market economy, the financial crisis and the social teaching of churches. Before we take our key speakers, in the light of today’s discussion, I’d like to raise one question: would there have been a financial crisis, if we’d
had a social market economy? If we really had a social market economy, then probably, we would not have had this form of financial crisis. We all know, not only since
today, that we don’t only have a financial crisis, but that we have a multidimensional
crisis, not just finances, but social, environmental, cultural crisis. Our market is not
social enough. The instruments, which we apply, are not appropriate for the globalisation facing us. What I mean is that we’ll have to organise the social market economy
as established in Christian social teaching. It’s not just an answer to the crisis. It would
be a preventive measure to stop crises occurring, but not any type of crisis.
The Treaty of Lisbon describes as an objective for the European Union a very competitive social market economy, and that’s a change in the Treaty. Until the Treaty of
Lisbon, the objective of the European Union was the free market, but since the Treaty
of Lisbon, the objective of the model of order is a sustainable social market economy.
The Treaty of Lisbon has redefined the market and de facto pushed it closer to Christian social teaching. The market is not an end in itself. It provides resources; it is an
instrument and bears responsibility. In the Treaty of Lisbon, and this is the second
very radical change, it is no longer competition in itself which is the objective, but
competition is an instrument, an instrument of politics, but not the only objective of
politics. A competitive social market economy aims for full employment and social
95
progress. It’s not merely into profits and part of that is the fight against social exclusion and discrimination, the promotion of social justice and social protection and putting men and women on an equal footing, solidarity among the generations, and the
protection of the rights of children. That is set out in Art. 3, par. 3 of the EU Treaty.
That is the role of the sustainable social market economy. The social market economy
is, therefore, not a self-regulating system, it is a free order based on the morals and
values of the actors, the players. This is true of entrepreneurial effort, banks, associations and other economic institutions, as it is true of each individual businessman and
person in the system.
This brings me to a decisive point. It’s not enough for us to redefine the Treaty in this
way. We have to remember this objective in our daily political activities and serve
that objective. I think that, at present, we know far too little about how we can implement this change in the Treaty in our practical daily lives. It all depends on people.
We shouldn’t just make everything dependent on the market, as we tend to do. We
shouldn’t just depend on the credit ratings agencies, as we often do, and we shouldn’t
be afraid of the stock exchanges, which we are on an almost daily basis but we have
to consider that this model of the social market economy, after this experience of the
crisis, requires measures, changes in regulations, and changes in attitude and behaviour. Everybody has to assume responsibility within their own sphere of influence
and action and has to look beyond one’s short sighted selfish interest and look at the
influence and the effect on everything else.
I’d like to raise a second aspect. John Paul II, of whom there are many photos in the
corridor outside the meeting room, and his spirit fills the room, he describes work as
the key social issue. It influences not only the economic, but also the moral and cultural development of people, families and the whole society. That’s what it says in the
Encyclical ‘Laborem Exercens’: Work is one of the key features which distinguishes
man from other forms of creation, because of his activities, which cannot always be
described as work, but only man is capable of work. He creates work and fills his
earthly existence with it. So, what role is played by our work, the value of work as
such? What role is played by this sort of definition of work in our definition of the
social market economy and against the background of competitiveness, growth and
employment? Does the definition of one fit in with the definition of work and the role
of work? But also in the many other encyclicals, which have been produced in recent
years, the subject of work has been something of a leitmotif. Work should help people to develop themselves and to blossom, so that people can assume more dignity.
I would add that they have to assume responsibility for themselves and others, from
personal dignity of the individual and their work. This is where people’s rights come
from. The right to work is a social right, and it is one of the original human rights, and
therefore is a right, which is inalienable and indissoluble. John Paul II described the
answer to the problem of unemployment as, well – he described unemployment as a
great evil and he called for cross-border planning to overcome unemployment and the
solution to this problem is a great responsibility for politicians and for the economy.
So, ladies and gentlemen, with those two or three concepts, the social market economy vs. the crisis, preventive measures and the answers, definition of the social market
economy and the definition in the Treaty and employment, work, those are a few
incentives.
Othmar Karas
97
Speech by reverend Frank Turner SJ
General director of the jesuit european office, Brussels
I’m very grateful for the honour of this invitation. I haven’t seen before what Mr Karas
was going to say, but you will see, I will be developing at least one point you made,
because with limited time I want to make one central point and two subsidiary ones.
The central point is the contrast articulated by Pope John Paul II between what he calls
a “free market economy” on the one hand and a free economy on the other hand and
the positive – not negative – relationship between freedom, justice, and solidarity, two
implications of that, the special place of the finance sector in our current crisis and
its relationship to the, what we call the “real economy” of goods and services and the
need for regulation.
And the third point, the second subsidiary point in this kind of regulation: the nature
and the importance of political responsibility.
Rev. Frank Turner SJ, Othmar Karas, Paolo Licandro
I’m going to quote mainly our Catholic sources in such a small time, but of course,
there is much common ground in this area of reflection between Christian churches
and beyond them into the Jewish and Islamic communities. In particular, I’ve learned
a lot from Rowan Williams, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, who may be the
best theologian writing in English in our time. There is a key passage of “Centesimus
annus” of 1991, in which Pope John Paul attributes to the state, and I quote, “the task
of determining the juridical framework within which economic affairs are to be conducted and thus of safeguarding the prerequisites of a free economy, which presumes
a certain equality between the parties, such that one party would not be so powerful as
to reduce the other to subservience.” In other words, only when it is just, only when
it promotes the substantive wellbeing of persons, and only when it safeguards fundamental equalities between persons, is an economy truly free. Now, the social philosophy of the New Right, which will be familiar to many, was very influential at the time
Pope John Paul wrote that, and it’s still powerful in a slightly new guise; this remains
a very live issue. The New Right fundamentally rejected both John Paul’s notion of
justice and his account of freedom, because the New Right rejected any attempt to
manage the working of the market, so as to produce some desired social outcome.
This theory goes that you cannot, it’s meaningless to evaluate society as if it had to
fit some a priori ideal of justice, such as certain equality between the parties. What
mattered to the New Right was individual freedom and since individuals clearly have
very diverse goals, the very notion of some desired social outcome is ideological. It
reflects only the prejudices and the self-interests of bureaucrats. This is not a stupid
argument. It is a very interesting argument, but it rests on a theory of rather absolute
individualism. For the New Right, social and individual freedom are divergent or even
irreconcilable. To summarise, for John Paul II, justice is essential to freedom. For the
New Right, maximised individual freedom is justice.
The second key point was the New Right regarded the state as not the promoter of
common good, of people’s wellbeing, it was the embodiment of legalised force, from
which it would be stupid to expect social welfare. So, in a sense, the guru of the New
Right at this time, and I think of Friedrich Hayek, in his best known book he argued
the state’s acceptance of the role that later John Paul would specify for it, that is, as
part of its nature to take responsibility for social justice, sets society on – and this is
the title of his book – “The Road to Serfdom”. Hayek and his liberal followers take
the free market to be the only neutral principle of social life. I spent three months
in Guatemala in 2005, and I was quite shocked to see quite a number of colleges of
further education named “Colegio Friedrich von Hayek”. Hayek wrote in 1960, in
99
an article with the amusing title “Why I am not a Conservative”, he wrote this: “It’s
part of the liberal attitude to assume that especially in the economic field, the self
regulating forces of the market will somehow bring about the required adjustments
to new conditions, although no one can foretell how they will do this in a particular
instance.” The assumption, that’s Hayek’s own term, that the market will somehow,
again his own term, bring about required adjustments, carefully abstracting from any
social suffering experience meanwhile, seems to me and I think would have seemed
to Pope John Paul, an act of pseudo-religious blind faith. Hayek denounced one absolute: the tendency of the state to tyranny, which he thought was inherent or inevitable,
as if democracy is a mere fiction. Now, I think we should recognise that Hayek, but
also John Paul II, had experience of totalitarian states. I would agree that unqualified
state control should be opposed. For example, I would not accept a strong version of
the doctrine of national sovereignty. That’s one reason why we need effective codes
of international law, and it’s also one reason why I favour the European Union. It
sets limits, salutary limits to national sovereignty. The problem was that, in opposition to this unacceptable absolute of state tyranny, Hayek proposed another absolute,
namely the market as both normative and absolute, whereas I want to suggest that the
problem lies in proposing any absolute. John Paul always insisted that the states must
respect the principle of subsidiarity. They must also respect free human creativity in
the economic sector including markets. Hayek denied that the market could properly
be limited by any factor outside itself or freedom is lost. So, John Paul contrasted free
market economy with the free economy, because for him, justice and freedom are mutually dependent. And just to point out what is probably obvious, that these economic
theories rest on anthropology, as has been said in various ways today. People expressing theories they think to be specialised theories rest on human values and human
ways of looking at the world which they may not even recognise.
So, two subsidiary points. The first is something of what I just said, was expressed by
Mr Karas in his introduction here. The social market economy is not simply Hayek’s
market, but the first particular comment I want to make is that the finance sector
is now the arena of economic life that does actually approximate quite closely to
Hayek’s style of free market economy. The real economy of goods and services links
profit to success in meeting some public need or demand, at least in principle. Of
course, we can all think of goods and services that are saleable, but which do not
promote the common good, whether it’s arms dealing, whether it’s prostitution – you
name it. But the real economy, of course, cannot function without finance, investment,
instruments for risk management, for promoting liquidity, etc. But that doesn’t imply
that all financial instruments are acceptable. Finance houses by means of speculative
instruments, such as credit default swaps, can gamble on the failure of companies or
even of countries and can profit from the very failure they help bring about. Therefore
they can impose massive costs on innocent people. Or consider the case of Goldman
Sachs. In April 2010 the USA Security and Exchange Commission announced it was
suing Goldman Sachs for recommending securities to its clients, while itself betting
on the failure of those securities. In July 2010 Goldman Sachs paid 550 million dollars
to settle that claim out of court. So you could say the system worked. There was a kind
of retroactive punishment, but there is still no effective regulation.
According to the International Labour Organisation, the finance sector now amounts
to about 8% of the total global economy. That makes 20% of the global profits. Some
of the most profitable sectors of international finance, such as the speculative international financial instruments, have so far proved almost impossible to tax. Some
governments including my own British government are resisting any tax that falls
short of instantly being globally applicable, because they don’t want to penalise their
own finance sector. In the absence of an international system, which is capable both
of regulation and of appropriate taxation, globalisation increases private and corporate wealth, but decreases public wealth and corporate accountability, and so we see
that the finance sector’s huge profits were privatised in the name of the free market,
but many of their losses were passed to the public sector in the name of the state’s
responsibility for the common good. It’s the perfect example of having it both ways.
Meanwhile extravagant bonuses linked to short-term growth, apart from sustainability, apart from demonstrable public benefit encouraged irresponsibility in the leaders. In the style mathematicians recruited for their skill in devising new instruments
who were not understood by their own managers, who were not, by definition, expert
mathematicians. The Holy See’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace has recently
gone as far as to claim that the speculative bubble in real estate and the recent financial
crisis have the very same origin in the excessive amount of money and the plethora
of financial instruments globally. That is why Caritas in Veritate, in 2009, in a much
more obviously globalised world even than John Paul was talking about 20 years
ago, proposed, what he called, a true world political authority, though regulated by
law, though marked by appropriate structures of subsidiarity, which is able, at least in
some measure, to shape globalisation, to promote solidarity and the common good.
The common good which is transnational by definition and the common good which
also by definition always includes the good of the poorest and the most marginal, who
are the last to gain by globalisation.
101
And my last brief point, if I may. I was anticipated in this a little bit by Jan Figel this
morning, I think: the relationship between these kind of realities I talked about and
political responsibility. I began by saying that, for Pope John Paul II, the state has the
responsibility of determining the juridical framework within which economic affairs
are to be conducted - the state, so at least at the national level. And my last point concerns this political task. State responsibility for the economy is both limited on the
one hand and crucial on the other hand. It’s limited because the political function is a
far richer concept than the state. In a globalised world the political function must be
realised beyond the state, in the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation and so
on. I think what Pope Benedict had in mind in Caritas in Veritate, was something like
an international migration authority, something like an international environmental
authority and so on, which we lack. Within the state the political function includes,
and must include, subsidiary bodies: companies, trade unions, civil society in general.
And secondly, the state function is limited, because politicians are in no way lords of
the economy. It would be disastrous to treat economic reality as something simply
inert which politicians can shape according to their will. They must, for example,
respect professional competence, in this case of economic experts. But then, you’ll
notice, they will receive all kinds of economic advice by experts, more expert than
themselves, but they have to choose which advice to take. They can’t leave that to yet
another group of experts. And that’s why politics is also crucial.
One function of civil society and especially of churches and religious communities
which proclaim principles, such as the common good, such as the universal destination of the goods of creation, is – and now I’m thinking of things said this morning
– in all modesty and always aware of our own failings, still there is a challenge, which
the churches cannot deny, of holding the political world to these standards of responsibility. In a financial crisis where, on the one hand coordinated austerity measures
threaten further recession – a kind of theory of people like Paul Krugman, a Nobel
prize winner, and on the other hand, as the opponents of Paul Krugman point out,
crude attempts to stimulate growth risk plunging societies even further into unsustainable debt, both public and consumer debt. Political leaders face a strong temptation to
populism or even to a kind of deception. Señor Oreja this morning talking about “la
mentira”. I’m not sure there is “la verdad” over against “la mentira”, but anyway. So
that’s another story.
For example, it’s very easy and very tempting for politicians to blame outside forces,
a neighbouring country or, as British politicians love to do, Brussels, for their failure.
It’s very easy for them never to mention the foreseeable longer term consequences
of their immediate proposals. I think, for example, of the US Tea Party’s position on
government spending and taxation or of EU member states’ resistance to tackling the
rapidly increasing national and global inequalities of wealth and of income, or of the
failure to critically examine the growth paradigm in the light of the equally urgent
environmental challenge.
The responsibility of elected politicians goes beyond the preferences of their electorates, and it’s right always to demand from leaders both courage and honesty. We know
it’s easier to say that from the outside where we don’t have to make the decisions, and
that is why, I think, church social teaching does and must go out of its way to honour
the honesty and courage of politicians.
103
Speech by László Surján MEP
Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Finally I have decided that I will speak my
mother language, Hungarian. So please use the earphones. As a matter of fact, listening to the presentation by Mr Turner, I can certainly simplify my own presentation,
because I have to say that I completely agree with him and I could finish it there. But
of course, that would present some difficulties to the Chair in terms of time management. So I will say a few more words on the topic.
I’d like to begin by saying what Angela Merkel said. Shortly after, in 2008, there were
many clouds on the horizon and we heard talk about crisis. She said that, under the
influence of this crisis, we have to come up with an entirely new financial system. In
other words, Pope Benedict XVI said that this crisis is an opportunity to do something
completely differently from the way we’ve done it in the past, because clearly we’ve
been doing it wrong. Otherwise we wouldn’t have ended up in this crisis. The question
is: what should this new world resemble? It’s not something that’s only been spoken
of by individuals like heads of the church or by political leaders like Angela Merkel.
The heads of the G20 have also called for a new era, which is based on a responsible
global economy. In the past we had many debates within the framework of the EPP
as well. Some are in favour of a completely free capitalist market economy and others in favour of a social market economy. Now, I think fundamentally when we speak
about a market economy, then we use an expression, the one I used earlier, the social
market economy, which is relatively understandable in Europe. The reason I say that
is, because 20 years ago when the first freely elected Hungarian government began its
work and it began its transition towards a market economy, it spoke of a social market
economy and people in the media called that a hoax and that there was no such thing
as a social market economy, but at the time, east of the former Iron Curtain, people
understood what the government was referring to. So, a call for a responsible market
economy is an appropriate way of explaining what we mean exactly, because there is
no way of misunderstanding that.
In order to have a clear view of what we mean, it’s important to look at what took
place in the past, and for some time, for at least 20 years, we have seen a situation
where there was more capital than value that was being created. This glut of capital
was reinvested in the economy as loans. Interest created still more capital and this
produced inflation. It was a low level of inflation, but inflation was the primary characteristic of the economy, even if it was only 1 to 2%. This is how we ended up with
László Surján
this overproduction of money, of capital, without it being put to work. This capital
then encouraged financial institutions to act more irresponsibly, to gamble, and this
led in turn to the fact that ultimately there was no way of reimbursing this capital. This
is how we ended up getting to the first major wave of this crisis, and that brought us
to the first real crisis, which was that in the United States the government accepted
the failure of a bank. They thought that with the failure of a bank, of Lehman Bros., it
would in turn help the entire system correct itself and that markets would adjust and
that it would end up working out, whereas in fact the first bank failures and bankruptcies created a tremendous loss of trust around the world.
This was a very different type of crisis than the ones that were seen in the 1970s
and the other local crises of Mexico and Asia and elsewhere. This crisis is unique in
that it affected the highest levels, the summits of the economic world, because it affected currency, it affected capital directly, and so the effects were far harsher than
anything seen since the Great Depression. And that Great Depression also started in
the United States. Thus, irresponsible credit and loans led us to a global crisis. But if
we look closely, we will find that there were problems earlier on as well, certainly at
the beginning of the twentieth century and, if we even include the first decade of this
new century, the global economy grew at a tremendous pace, as did per capita income
despite the increase in global population. This is a never before seen level of growth,
but there was also a never before seen growth in the gap between the rich and the poor,
which in turn creates tension in the system, and when we look to the future, we can
105
see that in fact that already leads us towards a danger zone. The loss of trust and the
loss of confidence which this caused made it very difficult to get out of the crisis and
it might be useful to mention that we can certainly blame the easy credit, which encouraged individuals and companies to stretch their capacities further, to overstretch
and go beyond their capacities, but it’s important to be careful, if one is a politician or
one is a governing party. It’s important not to point fingers because, after all, national
governments did exactly the same thing.
When we see in the Maastricht criteria, in the Convention’s criteria, that we cannot
have more than 3% of the GDP as deficit, then it already means that we’re providing
a loan for that amount. If this happens year after year, then we’re essentially stating
that there is a maximum national debt of 60% of GDP. But this, in fact, also makes
allowances for stepping past that. When confidence drops, interest rates skyrocket.
Interest rates on Italian bonds have gone up to 7% just today, which means that, if this
doesn’t subside, we’re going to have to face major issues, because the fact is that we
have to proceed in the future far more responsibly with credit than we have so far. But
how can we achieve this?
Well, it is, I think, relatively obvious. As Frank Turner has mentioned, we need an
agreement or an authority, which can create rules and regulations, can replace this
state of lawlessness, of complete liberalisation, can limit up to a point the freedom
of movement of companies, but which provides for freedom to spend more than their
means, but that also provides for caps to keep this overspending from harming others,
as in Greece.
Setting up such an agency would at first glance lead to a utopian society. A Papal commission recently presented a statement, which stated that we have to progress slowly,
but of course this can also be understood as the need for constant movement forward.
There is proof that there is development in this direction, for instance in decisionmaking that goes over the head of individual states. For instance, there was once upon
a time something called the “G7”. The G7 have been able to create rules that apply not
only to them, but also to all those below them. It may not have specific legal weight,
but it has weight. Hungarians have an expression, which roughly translates to “a gipsy
plays for the he who pays.” In other words, he who holds the money can force others
to do a great deal. But now, the situation has changed again. It’s no longer a G7, but a
G20. This means that more points of view have been incorporated into this informal
decision-making body. They cannot pass laws, but they can adopt common policies,
which will have an effect on the entire world. This is something entirely different
what we had before. It changes everything to have developing countries and emerging economies participate. So this again is a shift from decision-making at a national
level to decision-making at a harmonised supranational level. I don’t want to call it
really an institution above the national level. It’s not a specific entity, but still, it’s
somewhere in between the supranational and national.
There is also the IMF, for instance, which is another body which creates rules and
policies and that works above the heads of national leaders. I had many disagreements
with them and I apologise for this little tangent, but I did say to one gentleman from
the IMF, “Sir, here in Hungary, I can make health care work for people who earn 150
euros a day. If you can manage to go home and make it work for people who earn five
times this amount, then I’ll listen to your advice, because in the United States, they’re
trying to set up Medicare for employees to earn some 2,000 dollars, 2,000 euros a
month and failed.” So the IMF obviously has its own problems, but they did do a
great deal in order to try to allow us to overcome the crisis. Furthermore, the IMF has
also realised that a poorly managed economy in industrialised countries has a negative impact on third world countries and their development. The IMF did not have a
division, which focused on social policy initially, but it does today and has for some
fifteen years. This, too, is a major step forward. The reason I speak about all this is
to state that these entities and institutions are in a way the precursors of that which is
described in the Encyclical i.e. that shared challenges can only be resolved together,
not at a national level. This is a very important thing to recognise. The opinion of the
Catholic Church with regard to the crisis can be read in the Justitia in Pax statement,
which I highly recommend to readers, in particular, it gives three suggestions for what
to do.
1. First, that there should be a tax on financial transactions. I see in the United States
the “Occupy Wall Street” movement calling for an end to the freedom that traders
have. I don’t exactly share their ideas; it cannot be implemented in that way. The
German colleague is also right that there is something we can do at the EU level.
The EU is a vast area. It will be difficult but possible for financial transactions to
simply move offshore. I’m not in a position to give a useful comment on that. I
do, of course, have a great deal of respect for Mr [Chire], but even he says that, if
we don’t manage to find agreement within the G20, by implementing these rules
within the European Union, we will be able to facilitate their task as well. It’s
important to have this, because the goal of this reform is not simply revenues but
slowing down and restricting irresponsible flows of funds. The goal is not simply
107
taxing revenues. This is why it would be important, even with a very small tax;
this is particularly interesting in the European Union because the Commission
has accepted shifting some of the EU’s own revenues in order to come from the
source. Well, as long as the United Kingdom is a member of the EU, I don’t think
this will ever have any chance of passing, but nonetheless it is important to note
that this suggestion is on the table.
2. In addition to support for a tax on financial transactions, there is more. First,
while it’s true that we mustn’t abandon a bank that is sinking, it’s a very difficult
issue. We bailed out our banks, and then there was no real result. It simply led
to the fact that they didn’t fail then, but they are still in trouble today. It simply
saved the shareholders. Banks, of course, state that if they go bankrupt, then
everyone who has deposits in their bank will lose them, and that could concern
five million people as a guess, that’s bad as well. What we need to do is have a
bank recapitalisation with conditions as opposed to what happened in the United
States, where they got the money for free, basically. In the United Kingdom we
have a very good example of this. The government recapitalised banks in exchange for shares, which means that the national budget is not being spent, it is
being invested, and once the banks start doing better, the money will flow back
into the state coffers through the shares, because if I have a share in my hands, it
also means that I can speak at the shareholder meetings.
3. And third, we have to distinguish between investment banks and savings banks.
This is a rule which was actually passed in the United States, a law that was
passed in the US in 1935, and then along came the liberal 20th century, and in
1999, 66 years later, this law was cancelled, and here we are, about 15 years later,
and we are in trouble. So we should reintroduce this law.
Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to quote Pope John Paul II, who stated that in nation
states we move from vendetta to a state with a rule of law. This same shift needs to
occur in international law, because nation states can have disputes, and there are relatively few rules to oversee these. There are some, there are the Helsinki agreements
and others. But they are not very strong and they can do fairly little to halt a genuine
conflict.
In the past, vendetta’s revenge was also something very difficult to stop, but nonetheless the rule of law has been achieved within national law, and this is what John Paul
II said. I think he was completely right. I’d like to conclude with two thoughts.
1. The first is encouragement – it’s something that I read in the “Justitia in Pax”
document, it states that the spirit, resurrect the spirit at Easter and the chaos that
we’re currently seeing can be related. There is a need to get from the chaos that
countries are going through now to an entente, to a state of agreement and harmony. What exactly are we doing at the moment in Europe, within the European Union? Are we not in fact working to create a central authority that is stronger than
national authorities? Are we not in fact trying to set down the rules for shared
economic governance and oversight? Are we not, in fact, trying to create provisions for those who break the rules to be punished at an international level? Is the
European Union not the pilot project for what the Pope’s Encyclical described a
few years ago? I think that is exactly what’s happening.
2. Sometimes I feel very ill at ease working within the European Union when we
pass some very silly laws and rules or focus on very silly topics, but I can say
quite clearly that we, 27 member states, are within the heart of a trend which
moves in the direction that is going to be the most helpful to the world as a whole,
and I think that is the duty of all Christians. Thank you for your attention.
109
Speech by Mario Mauro MEP
Head of PDL Italian delegation in the EPP Group
Mario Mauro
I’d like to respond to the request made to me and adopt a position on a very provocative question: Do we really think that the church’s social doctrine is a response to the
problems of the economy and the markets? Do we really believe that the church’s
social doctrine can be a complex of instruments made available to economists, analysts, and politicians or do we think on the contrary that the church’s social doctrine
is a complex of moral judgements and values, which are used to wind up each of our
speeches when we speak in public? I’m putting this question intentionally, because in
my experience of life, I cannot forget the winter of 1982, when I was in Poland in a
tiny village at the foot of the Tatra Mountains at one of the harshest times of repression
by the Polish government against Solidarność. I was able to listen to a Christmas sermon given by a Polish priest, Jozef Kishner. That man said that it’s Christmas, it’s the
birth of Christ, and the power is trembling. So I’d like us to reflect on what Jozef Kish-
ner said in 1982. This is when people were dying of hunger, people were queuing up
at four o’clock in the morning when it was -20°C, and there was no food in the shops.
There was communism. There were objective conditions for planning the economy,
which very obviously was not able to respond to the needs of the people. And yet, that
man, that priest, that philosopher didn’t simply trust in the contradictions or teachings
of politics, but indicated a solution in standing up for an ideal, such a great ideal that
he set going the personal motivation of everybody involved in Polish society at the
time. So I think that the church’s social doctrine is for that purpose. It is not to dictate
the rules of the economy, but it is to give us reasons so that we Christians, Catholics,
Jews, religious people who think that the economy is not everything, power is not
everything, but there is something bigger than the economy and power, which gives
a significance, a meaning to the economy and to power and which is worth fighting
for, so that we people get together to discuss things and try to find the best solutions
for our problems. I think that this is true, because in fact in recent history, which we
have lived through, some of the fundamental principles of the church’s social doctrine
are at the end of the day the only practical instrument, which we have at our disposal
for moving out of the infernal circle we’re in and finding a response to our problems.
First of all, according to the principle of subsidiarity. In the Maastricht Treaty, it is not
defined as it is in the church’s social doctrine, because in the Maastricht Treaty the
principle of subsidiarity indicates vertical subsidiarity, i.e. is from the institution to the
institution. So, it says that the state shouldn’t do what the region can do. The region
shouldn’t do what the province can do. But there is a widespread social reality, social
creativity, so that anybody who sets up a business or anybody who sets up a family,
which is something which has to be taken into account. So that aspect that dimension of subsidiarity horizontal subsidiarity now is the only one, which can restore
to our concept of the institutions the real truth. The institutions are the fruit of a freedom pact, when the state was created, when we gave life to the European Union. We
handed over part of our personal and political sovereignty in exchange for guarantees
and services. The state, the institution is a guarantor, it is not the boss of the life of citizens and we have to look at the personal reasons which people have when producing
families or producing business. If I’m a young German, Italian or Dutch person and I
don’t have any good reason to set up a business or to set up a family, what happens? It
is the context that we’re in at the moment in the European Union.
We have 530 million citizens living together in the European Union and 70 million of
those are young. They are less than 25 years of age. In Egypt, which is a country with
111
80 million inhabitants, 60 million people are under the age of 25. Egypt, a country in
the south of the Mediterranean, alone has as many young people as the whole of the
European Union and it’s clear that this doesn’t only affect the social aspects of the
country, but also economic questions and development. Where there has been a lack
of the founding principles for the church’s social doctrine, the model of growth and
development, the economic model have turned in upon themselves and the only thing
that they have looked at is profits. They have forgotten that in the growth scenario
there are other factors, which are important. Growth cannot only be achieved through
profits. Anybody who is an entrepreneur, a businessman, knows that when he makes
investments, he has to take account of many different factors. In that huge investment
constituted by the European Union, we are still lacking the large numbers, which will
permit us appropriate development.
Do you want the proof? I’m an Italian. When I was born in 1961, this was the year
of economic boom in Italy, but also a demographic boom. Three people worked, one
retired. And now in Italy one person works and three retire, take their pension. Obviously this has a huge impact and completely upsets the possibilities of harmonious
economic development. What does this mean? It means that when the model of the
1960s is followed, people forget about the principles, which would have been able
to guarantee integral development of the person and the institution. This is what we
mean by the church’s social doctrine. It isn’t only the exercise of some good ideas,
which are used in the Sunday sermon. It is a matter of remembering when we look at
the subject of the development of work, of human resources, we have to focus on an
assessment which takes account of all factors, because Christian teaching can only be
a realistic vision, because the alternative, as my friend Mr Turner said quite rightly, is
ideology and the ideology of communist planning, for example, which leads to empty
stomachs and the impossibility of feeding people. Also, the relativist idea now, having
taken away the possibility of growth from a whole generation, has physically taken
away people’s abilities to be competitive with the rest of the world. So, be careful,
my friends, because the church’s social doctrine is not just something that we should
appreciate, but we should make use of it, we should use it politically, and that means
contributing to the institutional battle and responding to the problems of the economic
crisis that’s an economic and financial crisis, but it isn’t only economic and financial.
In terms of the institutional crisis, which has gone hand in hand with the financial crisis, we need to find answers to the question linked to what László was talking about,
that is: if we can find joint solutions as called for in the Papal Encyclical, mean that
we need to make the institutions stronger, the institutions which, at global level, can
help the markets to sort out their own contradictions, then we are harming enormously
the European project, because we are preventing the European project from fulfilling
itself. At a time when we in the European Union stop and do not go as far as the United
States of Europe, then we are preventing the task from being completed, because we
only have a common currency. We don’t have the question of common taxation, for
example. We’re not tackling the question of common welfare. So, what will happen,
we are lacking the reasons for solidarity, and it’s very difficult on that basis to explain
to a German worker that he can take his retirement at the age of 67 years with 70% of
the last salary in order to show solidarity with a Greek worker who takes his pension
at the age of 55 with 80 or 90% of his last salary. We’ve got to be realistic about this.
The deep well where we can be realistic is the church’s social doctrine. This doesn’t
mean changing the experience of politics into a religion. It means using, correctly,
reason. Thank you.
113
Session IV
Mutual understanding and cooperation between politicians and religious leaders
Speech by Martin Kastler MEP
Good morning everyone, ladies and gentlemen.
I would like to wish you a warm welcome to the final working day at our 14th interreligious dialogue, and hope that today when we discuss this important subject of cooperation between Church and State, between politicians and religious leaders, we will
all bear in mind that relations between Church and State are on a special level, very
much affected by the history of each country and also characterised by the diversity
of our different Member States. Now of course we are concentrating on the Danube
region, a region which is linked by the river, the Danube. It is a place where many
bridges are built. As we have heard, we are also building bridges between politics and
the Church. This is something that we are reviewing and rethinking.
Martin Kastler, Latchezar Toshev
115
Discussions yesterday showed that we do not need only to discuss the euro and the
question of money, but we also need to discuss values. Very often we hear far too
much about money, but not enough about the questions of values on which Europe is
based. That is sometimes which tends to be neglected in the current crisis.
Religion can give great incentives. I saw an example of this recently in Germany
when Pope Benedict XVI spoke to the German Parliament, the Bundestag, despite
all the discussions and controversy in advance. This was a sign of a new form of dialogue. I must say, as a Christian-Democrat, it was shameful that other parties, particularly on the left, caused so much controversy about whether a religious leader should
be allowed to speak in the German Bundestag. It was shameful. Although I am not a
member of the German Bundestag, it was shameful that some members of the German
Parliament left the room when the Pope took the floor. Even in Germany, there is this
difficult relationship, which is something that we want to look at today.
I would like to wish a warm welcome on the panel to my colleagues, Mrs Barbara
Matera from Italy and Mrs Kinga Gál from Hungary. I would like to welcome also
the two representatives, Reverend Ferenc Janka, the Deputy General Secretary of the
Council of the European Episcopal Conference, a warm welcome to you, and Mr
Latchezar Toshev from Bulgaria, Vice-President of the EPP Group in the Council of
Europe.
Europe needs dialogue with all religions. What sort of dialogue should it be? Can we
explore new courses? What role is played by religion in modern society? Can relations between the EU and its neighbours help achieve this? What do our representatives think hereof?
Speech by Barbara Matera MEP
It is an honour to speak at this important congress and speak at this panel about the
relations between politicians and religious leaders. Religion has been a key part in
the birth of philosophical and political doctrines of the states that represent the base
of modern society. For us, politicians, it is therefore necessary, in a globalised environment in which people interact from different realities, to count on universal institutions, which have such continuity in history and are able to guarantee balance in
society.
One of the biggest challenges at the international level that our society is facing is to
find a good harmony between religions and the political sphere. The religious institutions help politicians to broaden their vision on society and therefore allow them to
keep society going in the right direction. In my daily work, I realise the importance of
building a dialogue with an institution like the Church, that is open to everyone and
well-established on the ground, among poor and rich, from Bill Gates to the inhabitants of the favelas in Brazil.
The Church can be compared to a compass for politicians, with its presence everywhere, on every continent, and in all disciplines, as an open and global vision on
society. Dealing with foreign affairs, immigration, and climate change, the Church listens and observes the evolution of human activity. The Church is founded on values,
crystallised over the centuries, values that allow us as parliamentarians to conduct our
work in a better way. A concrete example of how the European Parliament is working and on which I feel my duty as a parliamentarian is the worsening situation of the
Coptic minority in Egypt. There are frequent cases of forced islamisation of Coptic
girls, kidnapped and then forced to marry Muslim men. I have taken the initiative to
send a written declaration to the European Commission for urgent action to restore the
fundamental rights of the Coptic minority in Egypt and understand which measures
the EU intends to take against the Egyptian government to stop this violation of human rights.
In the European Union there are many different religions and Churches, from the
historically rooted, such as the Christian, Jewish and Orthodox Church, to more Islam
presence as a consequence of the strong migration flows in Europe from the Arab
world.
117
Mario Mauro, Barbara Matera, Rev. Ferenc Janka, Martin Kastler, Latchezar Toshev
The European Union is becoming increasingly multicultural, as evidenced by the
prospect of European integration of some Western Balkan countries such as BosniaHerzegovina, Albania and Turkey, which will make the dialogue with Islam an internal dialogue in the Union.
I realise that the Church struggles to communicate its values to the frenetic contemporary society. I think it is crucial that political representatives, protagonists of public
life, should also respond to the rule of interculturalism of the Church, to ensure a
stable and continuous communication between politicians and religious leaders in the
21st century, without one dominating over the other.
In this speech, I would like to discuss three aspects of the relationship between politicians and the interreligious dialogue:
• First, the rule of religion in international relations;
• Then, the importance of the interreligious dialogue in the countries of the Southern Mediterranean;
• And lastly, the need for interreligious dialogue in our multicultural society.
Over the past decade there has been a return of the phenomenon of religion as a variant of international relations particularly after September 11, 2001. In the globalised
world ideologies have been replaced by religions. The dichotomy, clash or dialogue
between civilisations is often used to describe certain factors of international rela118 EPP Group - The 14th annual inter-religious dialogue
tions. Religion, as expression of culture is seen as the cause of international instability
or as justification for actions that affect the international balance. I think it is important to remember that two of the most important political events at the origin of the
European Union of today are in a fundamental way linked to religion as a source of
political inspiration.
Rev. Ferenc Janka, Barbara Matera
First of all, I refer to the process of European integration which began after the Second World War, and second, the moment of the Eastern enlargement where the Christian Church has played a leading role in dissident civil society, in particular in Poland
and East Germany. Religion is without doubt an important element of the policies and
processes that accrued.
Although I agree with the words pronounced by President Buzek during his recent visit
to Tunisia where he affirmed that religion and politics are two autonomous spheres and
that tolerance, social inclusion, mutual recognition and solidarity are important factors
for the stability of democracy, one must admit that there is still a long way to go to a reciprocal understanding amongst the different religious faiths of these countries.
119
As reminded by Mario Mauro in his book Guerra ai Christiani (War to Christians)
many people are condemned for apostasy or for converting from Islam to Christianity.
I believe that it is important to have a wider and more open dialogue, that the European Union has the force and the courage to express its voice in order to grant protection
and recognition to the religious minorities. In order to achieve this, we Europeans, and
in particular as members of the European Parliament and as members of the European
People’s Party must reaffirm and find our roots, our culture, our history.
Relativism – and I am arriving at my conclusion – is a phenomenon that has developed in different political and cultural environments of our society. Often the important value of laity degenerates into laicism, adopting measures that have the sole
intention of going against religion. It seems as if attacking our values, our culture,
our religious values, we want to make ourselves be forgiven of something. Only by
recovering these values, we will be able to face the challenges that a multicultural
society like the European one asks us to address. This defines the fundamental base
in order that the clash between religions does not become an insurmountable obstacle.
Speech by Kinga Gál MEP
Vice-chairwoman of the Libe committee
Let me welcome you all here in Esztergom and let me tell you how happy I am to be
able to speak to you all, to my colleagues, about these issues which are very relevant
and very important in our lives, especially when we look at our children and we want
to discuss these issues from their perspective.
Therefore, in my presentation, I will approach them from a totally different angle as
Barbara’s. I will go into our role as politicians and especially as European politicians
in cooperating, in promoting the civil society, the Church, in their role of helping our
children to find their right ways these days. If you allow me, I will continue in Hungarian.
Kinga Gál
121
As a politician in Europe, we see day after day the extent of the loss of faith in Europe. There are values which are increasingly being questioned, but these values are
key values. Because no matter what tragedies and disasters we had to go through,
they provided us with references, kept our societies together, our families together,
and provided guidelines. Our parents and grandparents, but even our generation, had
a fairly clear view of what was right and what was wrong. Today, when everything
is permissible, when values are being presented as entirely relative, it is very hard to
know which way we should move. Today these values, often known as references,
have become a pale shade compared to what they once were. People in Europe are
constantly seeking out the right path. More than ever before, we need to provide politicians with the right references.
As for us, members of the EPP, we have to stand for the traditional values, bring them
to the average human being, and make sure that we all behave in a way that is in line
with this, with respect for one another and for society. Our children are the most vulnerable. The younger generations need a renewal of values. We have to make them
understand that there is no such thing as independence from values, otherwise we
cannot have a future as parents, as citizens and as politicians – all the more reason to
work together with civil society and the Church in order to teach our children to find
the right path.
Education is an important player in this, but it has become difficult. Many have forgotten that the schools have a far greater responsibility than simply transmitting knowledge. They are also there to raise our children. This has to be corrected and we have to
return to a society where the family is an important value in society, where we work
to the benefit of our children, where we can construct on this foundation, because if
we do not have these foundations, our society runs into disaster.
The policies that we have to shape must be shaped in such a way that we do not wait
for society to try to save itself from disaster. We have to prepare for the future. This
is why we have to work with civil society. I would like to explain through examples
my point of view. I would like to explain it by mentioning the work of two priests,
who have tried to work on guiding people, the people around them, through concrete
actions. With their work to help children, they put into practice all the notions that we
have raised over the course of these workshops. A first example is a concert called
“Better with me than without me.” It involves young musicians, including a group
called “I won’t give up.” This group of musicians is composed of young people from
a variety of backgrounds, many of whom have had challenges but who are extremely
talented musicians and singers. They know how to appeal to an audience. In 2008,
they organised their first benefit concert for an orphanage in Transylvania. Some
9,000 people attended the concert. They raised about 11.5 million forints in order to
renovate the orphanage.
Ference Janka, Martin Kastler, Latchezar Toshev, Kinga Gál
I would also like to mention some of the activities of Brother Csaba1, who was in
charge of organising this. Brother Csaba set up an orphanage and then a foundation
to support the orphanage. They help several thousand children in Romania now in 62
different sites. This association provides children with care, with guidance and with
support, no matter what background they are from, whether it is Hungarian, Romanian, or Gypsy. The foundation works as a home in part, which is a shelter for children
who can stay there all day, morning till evening, so that they do not have to go back
to their situation of precariousness. They are provided with food, shelter and access
to education. There is also a part of the foundation, which functions as an orphanage.
There is a few hundred staff but far more volunteers. There are systems of foster parents that are set up, which lead to deep relationships. This is in the spirit of European
1 Csaba Böjte
123
volunteerism. Brother Csaba actually received an award for his volunteering from
Europe. As for the musical group, they were recognised in 2009 when they helped
another priest in his work.
As for the question of the Roma, Father János Székely is a model today in Hungary.
He considers that there is a tremendous need for the creation of jobs within the Roma
community, for increasing education and for having lucid, strategic policies. This
means that the spirit and the mind first need to take up this problem in order for us to
be able to implement proper policies and to work in the benefit of our society.
Father János believes that we can only love those that we have come to know, so it
is important that the non-Roma get to know the Roma and that the Roma also get to
know our common history. It is only through this exchange of knowledge and getting
to know one another that we can better live together. It is through prayer, through acceptance of their culture and respect, that we can do the most.
In 2009, with the concert, Brother Csaba and Father János, a new Catholic Roma
hymn was composed for the occasion. The concert the next day was a great success,
raising more than 5 million forints, which were used in order to subsidise education
for Roma.
To come back to the beginning of our presentation, the situation today is like the days
at the end of the Roman Empire. There are fewer marriages, fewer children born, a
greater gap between the rich and the poor. This is something we have seen in history
before. Christianity can provide renewal in this situation.
Every Christian family is an island, which is a defender of fundamental values of
society, but a single family cannot stand up to all of society. Thus families need to
be able to work together with the Churches and with all of Christendom. That is my
closing statement. What we see is that churches must be filled with life, because we
need to provide guidance to those who feel lost in this world that has lost its values.
These values can be found here. As parents but also as politicians we have a role to
play and we have a responsibility. We live in a time with great potential and we need
to be aware of this. Thank you.
Speech by reverend Ferenc Janka
Deputy general secretary of the council of the European Episcopal Conference
Ladies and Gentlemen. It is a great honour for me to be able to speak here today.
Thank you for your invitation.
First of all I would like to welcome all of the members of the audience, all the participants. I want to begin with a very brief introduction of myself and of the Council of the
European Episcopal Conference (CCEE)2. There are 33 members, the 33 bishoprics of
Europe. There are different members including the various bishoprics and archbishoprics. The CCEE’s job is to provide communication and cooperation opportunities
between the different Catholic bishoprics. It has an important role in ecumenical activities as well, for instance in taking part in this type of conference. It also builds ties with
other continents, thus communicating with conferences of bishops in South-America,
Africa, and elsewhere. The President is Cardinal Péter Erdő. We have a vice-president,
Barbara Matera, Rev. Ferenc Janka
2 Consilium Conferentiarum Episcoporum Euopae
125
who has been elected for five years, Angelo Bagnasco, and the bishop Józef Michalik3
from Geneva. The head offices are in Switzerland, in St. Gallen.
I would like to read out my speech. Before I do so, I would like to comment on one of
the comments that was raised yesterday: how we can try to make the ideal reality? The
state secretary raised the question. We heard a reply, which was: “do what is right and
avoid what is wrong.” That is one of the basic teachings. Today this seems like an order, one which is imposed from outside the family. People see it as someone imposing
their will on them. It is not enough in fact to do what is right, but we must also rejoice
in what is good and feel what is good. People say that youths begin to smoke because
they see the pleasure it provides on the face of smokers. What they like is not the taste
of cigarettes, but seeing this pleasure on other people’s faces. A colleague told me
this morning that Polish colleagues went down to swim. I thought it was maybe too
late this morning. In the elevator I saw people who said that there was still time and I
decided to go down and swim as well. I realised this is really a fantastic spa, it is really
well built and I did not regret doing it. I think that the discussions within Christianity,
the teachings of the Church, need to work in this way. Someone bears witness and
then we see others who are living with these teachings; we see their pleasure, then we
try it ourselves and we become convinced that yes, this is indeed good. Then it is not
words that convince people but deeds, because others see that we are happy. I think
happiness in the family, living a balanced life, having prosperous businesses which
can sail through a crisis unscathed, can do so because they have done what is good
and we need to show the way, why it is important to be religious and to be Christian.
To the question who are politicians and who are religious leaders. Before we can
speak about agreement between politicians and religious leaders, we have to come to
understand them exactly. A politician from a European democratic state and a leader
of the Church see their roles differently very differently than the leader of a Chinese
communist party or a religious leader from an Islamic state. The reason I refer to
these systems is because in our increasingly globalised society, the ability of different
regions to develop is quite specific. If we look at China for instance, we can see the
tremendous changes they have gone through the last few decades. We are also seeing increasing migration, demographic change. All of these represent challenges to
the systems we have in place. These challenges are not simply challenges abroad but
3 Exc. Mgr Józef Michalik, Archevêque de Przemyśl
also challenges within our own countries, in Europe. Therefore our questions are not
theoretical but quite practical.
I am also referring to challenges which affect politicians as politicians and which
affect religious leaders as religious leaders. We will try to think about what type of
cooperation there can be between European politicians and heads of the Church, and
how they can help one another.
Let us look at the tasks that politicians have in front of them. Politicians have to face
challenges at different levels: at the national, European and global level. The social
market model that we have here has been shaken. There is the economy, politics,
knowledge, research and development, the social sphere, healthcare, which includes
healthcare and social insurance, culture, which includes ethics and artistry. The basis
for all of these, the family, has shown the effects of the crisis.
Eisenbacher has a work called Philosophy and Niklas Luhmann as well. According to
Luhmann, these systems have different types of interactions between them but they
also all work within a system of self-regulation, which makes it very difficult to regulate them and guide them from the outside. Is this right? Are all these systems selfregulated to such a point that outside forces cannot influence them? For instance, if
the economic system or the financial system breaks down, is there a possibility of correcting the problem from the outside? When we look at marginalisation, for instance,
of families, of values, the dominance of certain parts of the system, for instance the
rule of a technocratic approach over a holistic approach, the rule of a market economy
and profit driven approaches have led to some serious issues and disasters even, for
instance in Fukushima. No one thought that that was going to happen. There can be all
sorts of side effects for instance if you think about genetics and genetic technologies.
GMOs can be useful but we do not know what effect it will have on the human body
in the long term.
The subsystems seem to work independently but in fact they all bear within them
the seeds for future crises. The subsystems must be dealt with. The problems inherent to them must be dealt with through legislation and through planning. We have to
make sure that we create a sustainable system, with sustainable structures. We can
see the examples of potential problems at different levels, including at the national,
European and global level. There are challenges sometimes elsewhere in the world,
for instance in Asia, in China. China currently has 40% of global savings so in a way
127
both Europe and the United States are already the property of China. If we look at
the population boom and the economic boom in India, these are also going to present major factors, as well as if we look at crises and wars elsewhere in the world.
Neither can we separate the future of European Christians from European politicians.
There has to be a sense of responsibility, not only to fellow members of one’s faith
but also to the broader system and to the impact that it will have if the system breaks
down. We have looked at some of the challenges that politicians face. Let us look at
specific challenges to the religious sphere. The question of religion, of an ecumenical
approach, is a major issue. Being religious is the product of personal choice. There
are challenges but there is sign of renewal as well. Studies have shown that more than
50% of youths today state that they are religious.
The interreligious dialogue is also an important factor. After Vatican II, it is now time
to review the values that we uphold. As for the Conference of European Churches and
the CCEE, they hold a meeting every year, which is a forum where we discuss some
of these topics.
As for the interreligious dialogue and the relationship between different religions, one
of the fundamental problems is the groups who call for fundamentalism. Many people
believe that religions are the source of strife and tension because of these extremist
groups. They believe that religion should be restricted to the private sphere. We can
think about the issue of the veil in France or the minarets for mosques in Switzerland.
In this context, religious leaders must together defend the notion that the Lord is the
Lord of peace. If anyone commits a crime or violence in the name of religion, then
they are confused. This was the message of Saint Francis of Assisi as well.
Pope Benedict reminded us that atheist dictatorships, like the Nazis or communism,
have outdone every previous regime in the level of violence. When man does no know
what is good, he becomes heartless, and as the greatest judge of all, the Lord, makes
sure that we try to live in an appropriate way. The link between religion and justice
is indubitable. It is only with the justice that one seeks through love that we can have
proper dialogue. Truth is the basis for justice and this is required in order to have a
development for all peoples.
As for politics and religion, the two are separate, yet can work together. European
politics and Christianity are certainly two different systems but can work together and
have things in common. First, working towards the common good. What is at stake
is developing Europe, improving the situation for everyone. The traditional values
of Christianity allowed Europe to become what it is today. One of the fundamental
questions that we have to ask ourselves is whether European churches and religious
communities have enough strength and enough faith to be the craftsmen of the future,
to craft the future that we will live in. Will Christian politicians have enough wisdom
to apply on a day-to-day basis the teachings of our Lord, Jesus Christ?
We can create the basis for a shared future. Bockenforde4 in his very well known work
has stated that a free, secular state exists on fundamental principles which it itself
cannot guarantee. This is also one of the key principles of Pope Benedict. The fact is
that a free, secular state cannot have a single doctrine. Organisations and institutions
which create these fundamental principles work together with the state in moving
forward the same goals. Therefore a free, secular state does not equal an atheist state,
which is in fact sometimes a radical state, with regard to gay, transgender, LGBT and
so forth. In Spain for instance, there is no longer a father and a mother, but spouse A
and spouse B. We must not expel the symbols of Christianity, the symbols of religion,
from the public sphere. For instance, we can look at the Lautsi case at the European
Court of Human Rights.
What is at stake here is to transmit the traditional cultural values that once allowed us
to become who we are. I wonder whether it is possible when the traditional population
becomes a minority. If you look at France, for instance, with Muslims, or if we look at
Brussels, according to statistics, the most common name for newborn boys in Brussels
is Mohamed, which means that over 50% of children born are Muslim. It is relatively
easy to draw conclusions from this.
The passive strategy that was implemented has failed. The question is how can
we facilitate successful integration into society, while protecting free religion?
How can Europe continue its fight for human rights, here and around the world?
It is said that European culture is on the ropes and that the values of Europe have
weakened. This is why we are seeing the population drop as well. Politicians and
leaders of the Church need to change this trend. Otherwise Europe is going to be
led by peoples and cultures that follow not a culture of death but a culture of life,
4 The democratic motivation. The modern secular state and its challenges through democracy in the
view of Ernst Wolfgang Bockenforde.
129
i.e. those who have children and thus have a future. We can only have a future in
Europe if we have a culture of life by having children, which is why I would like to
point out just one element from the charisma of people who have been christened.
This has to do with The Prophets. The Prophets are a shared treasure between all the
religions of the book. There is the book of The Prophets who speak on behalf of God.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all refer to these prophets. The prophets speak in
the name of God. A prophet is one who can fight against the current. When an entire
population has turned away from the light, then they were able to warn people that
there would be trouble if they did not respect the eternal will of the Lord and the rules
of God. It would lead to disaster. By the same token, when everybody had lost hope
and was enslaved, prophets were able to rekindle hope, telling people: “do not give up
hope, the Lord is your Lord and he will save you”.
All religious people, all Christians, are prophets in themselves in a way. I would hope
that all those who are present here today, who belong to different religions, and all of
the politicians would dare to become the prophets that their religions can turn them
into, to be brave, to say what needs to be said, and were people to lose hope, to have
the courage to rekindle their hope and to guide them. We have seen examples of this
amongst you and I would like you to thank you for this, for your heartfelt and intelligent comments and I hope that we will continue on this path. Thank you and God
bless you.
Speech by Latchezar Toshev
Vice-president of EPP/CD Group to the parliamentary assembly of the council of
europe and member of parliament, Bulgaria
Distinguished members of the European Parliament, ladies and gentlemen. I am invited here as one of the vice-presidents of the EPP group in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in the line of the cooperation between our two groups
because after the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the role of national parliaments in the
European decision-making process is increasing. We should strengthen our cooperation in order to achieve better results for our goals as EPP members.
Let me start first of all by expressing my gratitude to the president of the EPP group,
Mr Joseph Daul, for the invitation, which was extended to me once again to participate in this traditional dialogue between politicians and religious leaders.
I am also very grateful for the opportunity to be here in Esztergom, where have been
laid from 1183 to 1186 the holy relics of one of the most famous Bulgarian Orthodox saints, Saint John of Rila, the founder of the Rila Monastery which most of you
probably know and most of you visited already. His relics were for three years here
in Esztergom.
Latchezar Toshev
131
I would like to thank most cordially our Hungarian hosts for their hospitality, which
we enjoy. Among the most active promoters of this dialogue and cooperation between politicians and religious leaders since the early ‘90s is his all holiness, the
archbishop of Constantinople – New Rome –, and the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. These days he is celebrating the 20th anniversary of his election to
the throne of Constantinople, a throne, which was established by the first apostle
Andrew. I would like to take this opportunity to express once again my admiration
for his public activities, not only in Europe but as far as Greenland and the rain forest in Brazil, etc. He is one of the most active personalities in the Orthodox Church
and in the religious communities as a whole, and is communicating his messages
with politicians, scientists, etc. I would like to underline my admiration once again.
This dialogue is dedicated to the role of the churches in the Danube region. I am coming from this region. I am born here in the most southern point of the Danube. This is
the god-guarded town of Svishtov, important for Bulgaria and known as a university
town where most of Bulgarian foreign ministers, diplomats and foreign affairs actors
come from, as well as financial specialists. That is why this is for me a very special
dialogue, dedicated to the region where I am born. For us the Danube has never been
a dividing line but a bridge which has been connecting us with other people in Europe
for centuries.
The role of religions in our societies is a crucial one. It all comes down to the foundational values. Despite the secularism of contemporary Europe, the public role of
religions in promoting these values is of paramount importance for society. In our
united Europe, we should live together and interact with each other despite our cultural differences. This is in fact the European model. It stands for a collection of diverse
identities. It combines national differences and specificities into a common will for a
shared future, collective action, the establishment of supranational joint entities with
fair, multinational representation.
But nowadays in our society, we are witnessing also negative trends, like widespread
intolerance, growing discrimination especially against Roma and immigrants, rising
support for xenophobic and populist parties, foundation of parallel societies, Islamic
extremism, loss of democratic freedoms, presence of a population without rights, and
the potential clash between religious freedom and freedom of expression.
The insecurity arising from Europe’s financial crisis adds to the problem as does the
sense of relative decline, the distorted perception of large-scale immigration, detrimental stereotypes of minorities in the media and public opinion, and a clear leadership deficit in shaping Europe’s present and future.
At the end of last year we all heard the statements made by important European leaders, such as the President of France, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the Chancellor of Germany. They all, with different words but in the same direction, doubted
the success of the multicultural model of Europe. They said that maybe this model is
not working properly. This was a subject for great concern for all those who believe
in the European idea, the European model and European unification. It caused great
debate, also in the Council of Europe. We think that people who have wilfully come
to live in a country should not be expected to leave elements of their identity, faith,
language, culture, etc behind. However, they are expected to show willingness to integrate themselves into their new country’s society, not only by learning its language,
but also through gaining knowledge and understanding of the local culture. They must
respect democracy, human rights, including the rights of women, and the rule of law.
On the other hand, communities of origin should not ostracise those who choose to
change their faith or culture. We should build cultural bridges by encouraging European citizens to familiarise themselves with and respect the culture, language, tradition
and history of the immigrant groups. In this respect, the multicultural approach is not
enough to achieve the desirable results. We should turn to an intercultural approach,
which implies a more active interaction within our society.
This is easy to say but difficult to achieve. Religions respond to this challenge of our
times. We must acknowledge and appreciate the steps taken by various religious leaders to promote peace, tolerance and mutual understanding and their efforts to eliminate hate among religiously and culturally different peoples. There are for instance
the Vlatadon initiative of the ecumenical Patriarch which brought together high representatives of different religions from the Balkan region in 2001 and after, in order to
achieve tolerance between them; the World Day of Prayer for peace in Assisi, which
was an initiative taken by the Catholic Church during the pontificate of the late pope
John-Paul II which continues now, involving representatives of different religions; the
open letter signed by 138 eminent representatives of Islam to the Christians in 2007;
the theological dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholic Church and the adoption
of the joint document of Ravenna. These are only a few examples which show that
religions are playing their role in respect of promoting pan-European values. They
133
have played an important role also during Europe’s history and became a significant
part of our identity.
Religion is a dimension of culture which is valued by many, influencing their approach to the realities of the world. For some people today their religion is just a
tradition. The humanist movement for example is fighting to create a society where
the role of religions is insignificant or even entirely eliminated, but for others their
religion is the essence of life and their integrity, faith, justice, love, mercy and peace.
52% of the European Union’s citizens declared firmly that they believe in God,
against only 18% who are not believers. In some countries as Malta, the percentage
of believers is highest (95%). It is 90% in Romania and Cyprus, 81% in Greece, 80%
in Poland, Portugal, etc. As the ecumenical Patriarch clearly pointed out, in the states
where Christianity and religions were prohibited or subject to repressions during the
communist dictatorship, religion now looks growing weak.
Several years ago, during one of the previous dialogues, I said that people’s attempt
to rediscover their religion must be done in the right way. In this respect, education
about religions is of vital importance. It would help to avoid possible deviation or
religious fundamentalism which is far from original Christianity and other traditional
monotheistic religions.
There is not a single European arrangement for relations between state and religious
communities. In the member states of the Council of Europe, this model includes a
clear separation between state and religion, a state church, a concordat system between church and state and a predominant Church model, all of which are compatible
with Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights. There are also cases in
member states with no special arrangement for those relations.
There is also not a single education system concerning religions in the education at
school about religions. There are cases of confessional and non-confessional education. There are also cases of obligatory education, with or without alternative. In some
of the member states, there is a practice of non-obligatory education about religions.
In this education pupils receive cognition about faith, and background about religions but not faith itself. The religious education in the majority of member states
is practiced in Sunday classes or Church schools under the control of the particular
region but they are not a part of the school curriculum. It is important that during this
education positive examples be given and made widely known. An exemplary event
is the rescue of the entire Bulgarian Jewish community during the Holocaust, which
was achieved with the active participation of high representatives of the Bulgarian
Orthodox Church in 1943, not a risk-free action back then. To explain this remarkable
event, where values speak louder than ethnic and religious differences, I would like to
refer to the slogan of the Bulgarian Church struggles in the middle of the 19th century,
which was “freedom in order, unity in diversity.”
I would also like to stress the need for a strong common position in the EPP on the
problems related to bioethics where we could cooperate strongly with the churches.
Those problems touch on the deepest layers of human relations and form the core of
our values. Here we come to the phrase spoken by Horace, about 2000 years ago,
which is still valid: “quid leges sine moribus vanae proficient?” in vain are the laws
where there are no morals. This is where I see the role of the religions in Europe and
their dialogue with politicians to achieve this goal. Even as a secular part of society, a
political party as the EPP is defending and promoting Christian values in our society.
As you can see, we do this in a dialogue with the high representatives of the main
religions in Europe and its neighbourhood. Thank you.
135
Speech by Máté Botos
Dean of faculty of humanities pázmány péter catholic university
Mr Chairman, distinguished guests, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. Before I begin, I would like to ask that you look not at my necktie
because I do not want to represent any particular religious leaning in particular. My
task here is rather to give the position of an institute of higher learning, to give an idea
of how the fields of politics and religion cross paths, particularly for Hungarian youth.
I am going to speak about this because this is one of my fields of interest. I am very
curious about the future and the fate of religious institutions, religious schools specifically, and about the fact that there is a need for the education of religion in schools.
First, how much influence do government and the religious dimension have on one
another, particularly in the context of religious and political youth movements? It is
an interesting case because the current government in Hungary has always had, even
when it was in the opposition, an interest in defending these values. At the same time,
the previous governments have very much tried to achieve neutrality. Of course that
is still the case for political neutrality, for the government.
Latchezar Toshev, Máté Botos, Kinga Gál
However, if we look at the youth of today, they are politically passive but they are
also behaving differently with regard to their religious activities. I do not want to
place the responsibility on the last 8 years or the last 20 years. I think over the last 40
years, there have been trends coming to the surface, trends, which essentially bring
Hungarian society’s development in line with what we see in Western Europe. This is
particularly the case if we compare Hungary to other Protestant but even more to other
Catholic countries. Nonetheless, of course, there is a specific situation here. Secularisation in this perspective means that the government attempts to have religious neutrality. As for the citizens, particularly the youth, their religious leanings are defined
differently. It has a much more cultural aspect. It is a way of defining themselves,
more than it is a daily practice. Therefore, what this means is that the movements and
the initiatives, whether these are political or religious, which try to call on youths and
to interest youths, must use a new different language. This new language needs to
refer to the fact that many people have a family-based view of their religious leanings.
Basically it is something that they have inherited. According to how I see the world, it
is something that is important to underscore.
We have to focus less on using the sacred texts in order to draw younger generations
to religion. We should focus more on the fact that these youths are trying to find their
moral compass in a way. I think there are far more options in the civil sector than
in the political sphere. Political passivity as far as youths are concerned in Hungary
shows that we need to attempt a simpler and more direct approach. We need to help
them find answers to the question “who am I?” For this reason, we need not use language, which they do not understand. We need to use their own words. In this way, we
also gain credibility in their eyes and will not be seen as something far removed from
them and trying to exploit them.
The youths of today, particularly in the framework of our traditions and our past,
should be seen as fertile ground for this type of approach. This is also a field where we
can make a great deal of headway. Once we can draw them in, these values are going
to be preserved for their entire lives. For national thought, references to heathen times
make this type of process more difficult.
Without faith, they lack the opportunity to have access to lasting values, intrinsic
values for society. Without these, they cannot have a proper link to their own past, for
instance, the Ten Commandments and the religious statements and beliefs that have
been based on them are such links.
137
I would also like to point out that in the framework of the different cultural movements, religious movements also have an important role to play. Over the last ten or
twelve years, they have had a lot of challenges to face. Governments focussed heavily on eliminating mentions of any explicit systems of values from schools and other
institutions. As a result, universities as well as vocational schools and religious high
schools have found themselves in situations where, if they were religious schools to
begin with, they simply could not reconcile these two conflicting requests. The traditional religious schools have traditionally provided a higher level of learning and
better results than public schools.
This represents an opportunity because it may allow us to answer this dilemma. For
future generations, we may be able to provide them with materials so that they can
maintain their interest and maintain their practices. This is the case for my school, the
Pázmány Péter Catholic University, but for other schools as well.
We do place a focus, as do other, on the Catholic education. It is not only because they
try to define clearly their own curriculum, nor is it because they are trying to force
their students to learn about these facts. It is because that is what is expected of these
schools. Promoting faith and sharing faith is a private matter, but these institutions are
expected to provide those values and to teach those values which the students cannot
find on a day-to-day basis, notions that they cannot run into in their own families. For
instance, in the Hungary of today, we are seeing more and more divorce, more and
more single parent households, and in this context, parents have a much harder time
transmitting their own values to their children. This is why institutions need to take
the relay here and to help out.
The different parochial communities, schools, the youths who live in communities
across Hungary, are being communicated with but it is an ongoing process. We will
have to wait and see what results we can achieve over the next 10-15 years. I think
there can be a much greater role for educational institutions which receive government support, religious schools.
I too find it extremely important that people who are in the public sphere play an
important part, because these values must not only be accepted but must be taught in
an appropriate educational setting. Therefore, the civil sector has imagination and provides opportunities. I think first and foremost we should provide this type of education
and hand down these values through the educational sectors. Thank you.
Speech by Mario Mauro MEP
Head of PLD Italian delegation in the EPP Group
I would like to draw three brief conclusions, which I think will show us the importance of the debate held.
The first observation concerns the century we have lived through, the century we left
behind us. What happened in the 1900s was an attempt to create society without God.
Whenever man in the 1900s tried to create society without God, he built societies
against man. I think that this is a principle of history.
Mario Mauro, Rev. Frank Turner SJ
Fascism, Nazism, communism, what did they have in common? A concept of power
according to which power is everything and man is nothing. The primary consequence
is set out in the pages of Mein Kampf. Adolph Hitler in the first pages says that man
is the centre of the cosmos, the centre of the universe, just as it says in the Bible. But
then he says that the Jews are not people. This is a short-circuit of logic and metaphysics, which precipitated the hell of the 1900s into tragedy. What did we see happening?
At the end of the 1900s, we saw the incredible happening. Instead of a society without
God, people tried to use God for a project of power, the renaissance of fundamentalism, i.e. a transformation of religion into an ideological approach; nothing more or
less than Nazism, fascism and communism.
139
Islamist fundamentalism has perhaps left behind the most serious signs of what it
was doing at the Atocha station in Madrid, when it said: “We will survive because we
love death. We love death more than life.” That was the message left. I think we have
to remember this message to understand what is at stake in the relationship between
politics and religion in this new century and what our responsibilities are.
In fact, Benedict XVI, in addition to emphasising the seriousness of fundamentalism,
warned us against another risk, which he referred to as relativism. As our colleague
Matera reminded us of the drama of persecution of Christians in countries outside Europe, Mr Toshev illustrated the risks of discrimination against Christians and religions
in Western countries and in Europe. How can we solve this very crucial problem?
How can we see to it?
The relationship between religion and politics is not ruined by fundamentalism and it
is not ruined by forms of ideology which are trying to do without God. I think that in
order to have a realistic approach, we have to begin with the object of this, and the object of this is man, the person, his desires, his needs, his desire to have a home, to have
a family, to have children, to set up a business, to work, to have social relations, etc.
These are the three key problems of man: the problem of destiny, i.e. his relationship
with God; the problem of love, i.e. creating what he wants in life; and the problem of
politics, i.e. relationships with other people, friends.
In the final part of the 20th century, we began a political experiment, which was
perhaps an antidote to the monster of ideology. This political experiment was called
a united Europe. It really was the most advanced political project, which we made
available to a generation to guarantee peace and development. This was the political
project which speaks the language of Christian culture. That political project talks the
language of Catholic universalism, which attempts by embracing other religions to
enable man to be supported along the route to his fate. This political project is not a
religious or confessional project. It is a project which, because of the story of Europe,
has taken onboard secularity. We did not think up secularity. It is a result of our mistakes. When we united Europe, the Europe of the East and West, when we brought
them together, we found a great challenge. The Catholic Church had been against the
state for centuries. The Protestant Church and the Orthodox Church were used to being a state power for centuries. Secularity meant moving beyond all this, because it
meant a distinction between society and God.
At the same time, we cannot allow religion to be marginalised, because marginalisation of religion leads to the same conclusion at which ideologies arrived. Today is
the 150th anniversary of Italian unity. 150 years ago when the Italian state was born,
it took away all the schools from the Christian and Catholic churches. This vacuum
in education led to the adventure of fascism. We have to be very careful about that
because marginalising the role of religions leads to space being left for an approach
which means that the experience of humanity is marginalised. That is why we should
not be tempted by fundamentalist approaches. Nor should we be tempted by relativist
approaches. We have to remain attached to our anchors, the values of the European
People’s Party, which in the darkest years of the challenges of communism enabled us
to maintain relations with Eastern Europe and with those who prepared for the renaissance of the countries in the Danube region.
Today, this political culture is a hope for these countries but also for other countries
which are still experiencing the drama of civil war and revolution. Let us keep a close
eye on what is happening in the Southern part of the Mediterranean, where they are
discussing the role to be played by religion, where they are discussing the relationship
between religion and politics, where discussions have begun at constitutional level.
Mario Mauro
141
What should the constitution of Egypt be? How should the constitution of Tunisia
take shape? In that constitution, should the law really be anchored in the tradition of
Sharia? Be careful of this. The problem is not just a question of referring to God in the
constitution because God is referred to in the American constitution, but also in the
Sudanese constitution. The results have not been the same.
There is no God in the French constitution, there is no God in the Chinese constitution, but the results are not the same. We have to understand clearly that without a
realistic approach to man and his interests, and the possibility of understanding how
politics choose to serve the desires of man, unless we have this clarity of vision, we
won’t have the possibility of understanding how to value the presence of the Church
and the presence of religious communities in our society.
Basically, I think this is perhaps an unexpected conclusion, perhaps a simplistic conclusion, but when a conclusion is simple it does not mean that it is no less of a commitment. If you want to run 100 metres, that is easy, but if you run them at top speed
as the champion of the world, that has its own problems. We should do simple things
but be utterly committed to them, committing all our interest and our love for the sake
of our peoples. Thank you.
Overall concluding remarks of the conference
Speech by András Gyürk MEP
Head of the hungarian delegation in the EPP Group
Ladies and Gentlemen, dear colleagues, friends. I ask for a little bit of solidarity because I am in a rather difficult situation right now. You can imagine it is almost impossible to sum up in a few minutes, in a brief quarter of an hour, all the information,
knowledge and opinions we have been discussing during the past two days. Nevertheless, it is of course a pleasure to address you, since I am convinced that we have been
through a very successful event.
We are currently living through times when every high profile consultation in the
European Union is a discussion of the current crisis. As regards our conference, the
first question, which may arise is the following: if so many European leaders have
gathered here, why are they not seeking a way out of the crisis? Bearing in mind the
six roundtables of the last two days, the answer is simple: this is just what we have
been doing all along.
András Gyürk, Othmar Karas
143
Although the discussions of new financial solutions were not on the agenda today,
more important issues were discussed, such as our identity, our communities and our
traditions, i.e. the very fundamentals.
Another question we may ask is that if as many similar events have been devoted so
far to the issue of interreligious dialogue, is it then possible to say anything new on
the 14th occasion?
The presentations and the discussions of the past two days answer this concern also
and clearly prove that it is not only possible, but definitely necessary. It is necessary
because the crisis that has been making our lives difficult for years now can hardly be
remedied within the existing framework. There is a need for a profound shift because
not only is the entire planet facing an economic, financial and ecological crisis, but
it is also in the midst of a moral turmoil. This crisis of values is most likely the root
cause of all other crises. One who became detached from his creator finds his beliefs,
morals, family and society also in disarray.
I am convinced that we cannot put the crisis behind ourselves with the aid of just conventional measures. Deciding on one new package after another is surely important
but will not suffice and adopting new legislation and directives will not be enough either, because superficial treatment is inadequate in such circumstances. We will have
to dig down to the very foundations and we will have to reinforce them. As the past
two days were all about our identity, communities and traditions, I have organised my
conclusion based on these three themes.
As regards tradition, let me begin with something quite relevant. As it has been rightly
pointed out by Mrs Záborská, it is 11 November today, the Day of Saint Martin of
Tours. According to Hungarian traditions, this is one of the most important autumn
holidays. Work in the fields was usually completed by this time. This is when labourers were paid their year’s wage and new wine had matured by then.
In fact this is the day, which was kept as a turning point between autumn and winter.
Saint Martin of course was a real European. He had Slavic ancestors. He was born in
the territory of present-day Hungary, in the town of Savaria, which is now Szombathely. He was raised in Italy and then became the bishop of Tours. The worship of Saint
Martin spread quickly across Europe, his memories preserved by torch and lantern
processions on Saint Martin’s Day across the continent. His name is enshrined in the
names of towns and villages from Caen Saint Martin in France to Szentmártonkáta in
Hungary. Dozens of churches bear his name from Canterbury in the UK to Brassó in
Romania. The Saint Martin European culture route now connects most of the member states. Saint Martin would certainly be the patron saint of the European Union if
there were one. Respecting him is a worldwide tradition, but it is worth contemplating
what bishop Martin would tell us today, because the tradition is only alive if it carries
a meaning for men of today as well. Otherwise it is not worth more than a museum
object on a display.
As has been noted in a number of presentations, respecting our traditions is not turning towards the past and away from the present. It is rather a recognition of the fact
that the answers are the same to certain questions, regardless of age and place. Of
course tradition will come to life for our children and grandchildren if it is enriched
with our own experience as well. This is yet another aspect from which it is worth
recalling what is perhaps the most notable episode of Saint Martin of Tours.
This is the often-depicted scene: Martin, the Roman officer was approaching the gate
of Amiens on horseback. All of a sudden, his horse was taken aback because of a beggar who climbed onto his feet from the snow with merely rags on his bare shoulders.
He extended his hand towards the soldier for some alms, hungry and with teeth clattering from cold. Having just gambled away all of his money with his fellow officers,
Martin took his large cloak of his shoulder, cut it in half with his sword, and handed
over half of it to the beggar. The example set by Martin shows that we must find
the simplest but most straightforward solutions to the seemingly most difficult challenges. Not a useless lesson I am afraid, in Europe’s current situation.
Ladies and gentlemen, what seemed impossible yesterday became a reality today. The
question of difficult times, “What will we be facing tomorrow?” seems to be difficult
to answer once again. We, Europeans, have asked this question so many times during
dramatic moments of our history, in times of war, crisis and epidemics, when we saw
no way out. We have learned that in order to find an adequate answer, first we need to
clarify another, also fundamental question: who are we? That is why besides tradition,
the issue of identity has been in the focus of our conference also.
Hungary’s first freely elected prime minister after the regime change, József Antall,
was quoted in one of the roundtables. Let me repeat that quotation: “Religion and
belief are at the same time affecting the development of the mentality of nations.
145
Religion and belief make up the heritage which must become part of human dignity
for believers and non-believers alike.” He professed that even atheists are Christians
in Europe. Europe’s Christianity signifies culture, ethics, and attitude. I believe that
now when the European Union is facing the deepest crisis of its history, the ChristianDemocrat politicians must take the lead in reviving the union. We have a special
responsibility since we are the heirs of the founding fathers. We have to do so also
because action is the basis of our Christian belief. Perhaps it is not an exaggeration to
say that the biggest problem of Europe today is not the crisis itself but the loss of faith
in the future, the lack of hope. Therefore, the most important task for us today is to
overcome this hopelessness. I know that the situation is not easy, but let us recall the
words of the late Hungarian reformed Church bishop László: “God does not impose
on us the double burden, but if he does anyway, he bestows us twice the power too.”
We also have to continue our fight with this double power against hopelessness for the
preservation of our identity.
Ladies and Gentlemen, dear colleagues, the third big topic I would like to pick from
the subjects of our conference is the significance of communities, primarily our religious communities. Besides astonishing economic and financial situations, the crisis
finally has a peculiar effect on people. Citizens and indeed some of our leaders are
also prone to lose hope in such situations and let themselves drift along with the
tide, lamenting about our predicament. Yet if you recall the chronicles of the previous
crises, it is apparent that the champions following the crises have always been those
communities which were not paralysed by hopelessness during those crises and who
did not lose their belief or their capability to join forces. It is important therefore that
we empower our communities in order to combat the crisis.
Dialogue with churches and religious organisations has from the very beginning been
part of the identity of the EPP Group. This has come to be a tradition in the European
People’s Party if you like. This good and noble tradition is confirmed by the fact that
today we are also bound by legislation, as it has been rightly mentioned several times
in the past two days.
The Treaty of Lisbon provides for dialogue with churches. Article 16c of the basic
clause states that the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue
with these churches. Hence there is a need for a new framework of cooperation and
regular dialogue. Naturally, as a result of a sort of archaic thinking, certain liberal and
left-of-centre political groups and representatives of extreme laicism loudly demand
the separation of Church and State. This demand, however, has become somewhat
outdated. Church and State have long been separated in Europe. The question today
is how can these two players be brought closer together in the interest of the people?
By now it has become clear that the direct and indirect social influence and the valuecreating power of churches and religious organisations is indispensable. They bear
values which cannot be replaced by any kind of efficiently functioning state.
Dear ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues. I am convinced that Esztergom has been
an important stage in finding the right path, summing up ideas and gaining momentum, thinking together and taking account of the tasks for the future, from the impacts
of the economic crisis to media presence, from the relationship between Church and
State to the role of young people, from moral issues to an ethical market economy.
I believe that these two days have been more than just another conference. This gathering has been an accumulation of power for continued action. Thus today there is a
need for more than just dialogue. What is needed is practical cooperation and political action. The EPP group understands the social teachings of churches and religious
communities. It has sufficient experience in conducting a dialogue in the spirit of the
Treaty of Lisbon. The foundation of cooperation is a shared responsibility for society,
the public good and our own community. As the saying goes: when the door closes,
a window opens. To this effect, no matter how strange this may sound, the crisis is
an opportunity for us. It offers an opportunity to reconsider the years that are now
behind us and for rediscovering our old values as well as for finding new paths. It is
an opportunity for reinforcing the foundations, to rephrase our identity, rediscover our
traditions and reorganise our communities.
Colleagues, as I started my speech by paying homage to Saint Martin of Tours, please
let me invoke his figure at the end of my speech again. According to the other wellknown legend, the bishop of the town of Tours, died in 371. The locals asked Martin
to be their bishop and the leader, but he would have none of it. He became rather
frightened and fled to the border of the town and hid in the goose pan of the smallest
house. The geese, however, revealed his hiding place via their loud cackle. When the
townsmen eventually found him, Martin said: “I see that I cannot hide from being
your bishop, so I am ready to assume the task.”
The memory of Saint Martin reminds us, Christian Democrats, not to hide from challenges but to do our job. We should assume the task of fighting for our identity, our
147
communities and for our living traditions. As it is proven by the analogy in the New
Testament, the Biblical story of The Talents, acting based on our abilities and beliefs
is our obligation. We should not forget that we will have to answer for our actions and
not only before our constituents. Thank you very much for your attention.
Closing remarks
Speech by Othmar karas MEP
Vice-chairman of the EPP Group responsible for inter-religious dialogue and religious affairs
I do not want to make a final statement, because I think we should do that on the way.
What we have experienced in the last couple of days is something that we need to
think over. We do not want to draw it to a conclusion either.
I think that these two days – and I hope that you have the same view – were a source
of strength, a source of strength for our work. This has many causes. The main sources
are of course the participants, all the speakers, all the contributions, all the comments
made, the way in which we have dealt with one another, our contributions to the
discussion over the last couple of days. I think all this contributed to a different atmosphere from the usual political discussions we have. I would like to thank you very
warmly for all your contributions and for being here.
The second aspect was the subject. The subject was one, which brought us together.
We weren’t analysing religions, nor were we defending politics as opposed to religions, but we were searching for what we can achieve for politics by our contacts with
religions and what answers we can find to the crisis.
The third point is the venue, the place. On the banks of the Danube in Esztergom, I
think this has been an inspirational venue, because it is not just a historic place, a place
of contact with religions but it is also a cultural place. Perhaps we should hold fewer
meetings in our usual group meeting room and seek out places of cultural, religious
and spiritual inspiration more frequently. How often do we sit in meetings and feel
that we are not really doing much, apart from sitting there? How much time do we
spend sitting in meetings, getting bored and really do not know why we are sitting
together in the same meeting room? How little time have we spent with each other
in the last few days feeling that? How much more enriched we are going home! Is
it just thanks to us? Yes, it is thanks to us. The way we are going, the way we deal
with one another, what we talk about with one another and what we have done and
experienced in the time we spent together. That is all part of it. I would like to thank
149
all of those who have made a contribution to our being here, our Hungarian colleagues above all, the staff of the group and all representatives of the media and the
different religions and our own colleagues.
That brings me to my second point. It is Saint Martin’s day today. If I did not misunderstand you, you were saying that too much has been said about money and too little
about values. That is true, but is that really the challenge? Is that really the point? Or
is it not rather a question as to how we talk about money? If I have understood the last
couple of days correctly, then our understanding of the social market economy means
that we have to create the rules for the market. We need to discuss the role of work
in the market and should discuss how we earn our money and what we are spending
it on. How is it distributed? How transparent is this circulation of money and who
controls it? All of these questions relating to the monetary policy cannot be answered
without a basic set of values. It is not just a question of a discussion of values or
money, but it is a question of bringing these together, talking about exchange rates and
the point of view that we express in the debate.
If you stick to an “either or” approach to the world – and I recall what Mario Mauro
said – you are creating a society without God. A society without God is not a human
society, nor is it a society with a future. It is not a fair society. That is why in the
European Union we are really on the brink of collapse. How are we going to deal
with the crisis? Is the answer to the crisis only a question of the haircut? Or is the
question of the crisis only Eurobonds and the creation of money? Or is the answer to
the crisis only protection, more money, quantitative easing? Or is the answer to the
crisis not just something which can be answered in the terms of more or less money?
I think that this is what is being illustrated by the last two days. The causes of the
crisis are not just the way in which we deal with money and the answer to the crisis
is not just money.
That brings me to my next point. I think that this is something, which we can take
home with us. Yes, we want a separation between Church and State. It goes without
saying. We do not even need to discuss it, but we say clearly “no” to a separation
of religion and politics. There cannot be a separation between religion and politics
because a separation between religion and politics leads to politics without value,
politics without culture, politics, which cannot create trust or credibility because
everybody has their values. Everybody has their own views on religion. That is how
we conduct politics. We are not made from stone. We are not soulless beings.
There was also the question of religious freedom. Religious freedom as we see
it, is freedom for all recognised religious communities. Aren’t there people who
understand religious freedom as if it is just a freedom for their own religion and a
lack of freedom for other religions? We have to be prepared to guarantee for others
everything which we demand for ourselves. Otherwise we have misunderstood what
respect for one another means.
In conclusion, I would like to say that “Yes, we must seek dialogue with religion and
intensify interreligious dialogue” but, friends, dialogue with religions on 14th May
was more successful than our dialogue on the subject and the continuation of this
dialogue in the group. We have made more progress with this dialogue and it has
been easier for us to determine the consequences of that dialogue than we have been
able to do in our group, in our parties, in the European Parliament.
If we achieve a result today, it must be the result of a debate in the group, which
means that we find the right answer to the crisis and therefore give rise to political
hope for everyone in general. It is something which must not just remain here in
Esztergom in this beautiful room. It is a message, which we have to take home with
us if we want to find an answer, because we are on the way to a collapse of a united
Europe. It is not just a matter of preserving the status quo. Either we manage to take
the next step towards integration as an answer to the crisis, according to everything
we have discussed here in the last two days, or we will fall back and the unity in
diversity will suffer from this. That is how we need to conduct our future discussions. We do not need only discussion among religions or with religions but we need
dialogue to find answers to the problems of the current times. We need dialogue so
that we can understand one another and draw the right conclusions.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are not just concluding this meeting. We are not shutting
the door behind us. We are not waiting until the 15th interreligious dialogue next
year and not doing anything in the meantime but everybody should take home a
message from this meeting and use it in their daily work. That is why we have proposed an “Esztergom Declaration.”
It covers six points on religious, cultural and political identity.
• One of our main points is to make the family a central point;
151
• Another to act against the multidimensional crisis and,
• Not just find answers to the financial crisis;
• Furthermore, to take onboard personal responsibility in an increased way for the
crisis and for the responses to it;
• It is not always the fault of the others. We are jointly responsible for the causes
and the responses;
• We have to intensify dialogue and infer concrete conclusions.
If after these two days, we have some ideas we would like to include in the Ezstergom
declaration, we can add them. It is not a definitive, final statement. It is a source of
further discussion, which can continue to be revised, which will create a basis for others who were not able to attend today.
Thank you very much. Thank you for the source of inspiration. I hope we will take
a lot of strength and courage with us after this two-day meeting because we cannot
simply continue the status quo. Let us not be afraid of moving on.
Audience at the conference Theodor Dumitru Stolojan, Csaba Sógor
Esztergom, 10 - 11 November 2011
ESZTERGOM DECLARATION
Adopted by the 14th Interreligious Dialogue Conference organised by European
People’s Party Group in the city of Esztergom, Hungary
Preamble
In recent years, Europe has undergone profound changes. Globalisation, economic
pragmatism and pure capitalism, together with scientific and technological advances
have altered individuals’ positions in the world as well as the nature of social relations. In a pluralistic Europe, dialogue across dividing lines – be it religious or cultural
– is of the utmost importance.
In this time of crisis, there is an ever-greater need to reinforce the cooperation between
all parts of the society. Churches and religions perform an important role in and significantly influence individual lives. Over the past two decades, EPP Group consistently
demonstrated its strong commitment to continuing the dialogue and cooperation with
Churches and religious organizations. At this stage, it is increasingly urgent to further
this cooperation in order to prepare for future challenges policy makers and religious
representatives will face together.
The 14th Interreligious Dialogue Conference agreed that the following ideas should
be taken into account in the elaboration of future policy initiatives:
153
1. Rediscover values
As the EU integrates, enlarges and consolidates its role in the world, its responsibilities grow with visible ethical consequences. In this era of rapid societal change, it is
vital to reach beyond classic political approaches to more fundamental notions and
values, such as human dignity, which is equality for all human beings, family life,
solidarity, or the protection of the environment. Over the centuries, religious communities have built a tradition of representing, safeguarding and fostering fundamental
values. These values need to be re-discovered because they provide orientation.
2. Reaffirm religious and cultural identity
Many European countries passionately debate issues related to identity and cultural
heritage. Often, religion is at the centre of these discussions. The continent’s religious
heritage remains deeply intertwined with European cultural identity. Religious communities are committed to serve the society at every level. Individual religious and
cultural identity is renewed and enriched through contact with the traditions and values of others. Judaism and the Christianity confirm and empower these values, which
are first of all human and then religious. Therefore, they must be considered secular
values.
3. Support family life and social security
For the majority of Europeans, family life is the most valuable aspect of their lives.
Indeed, family is the natural and fundamental element of society. Therefore, it is essential to work for the promotion of genuine and adequate family policies. It should
involve the European Union, Member States and other actors in accordance with the
principle of subsidiarity. Social protection in Europe is fairly generous; however, EU
countries are facing common challenges such as an ageing population, an increase in
inequalities and exclusion, a changing labour market, and the problem of financing
social protection because of rising expenditure. As a result, all countries need to adapt
their social protection systems to the changes in the socio-economic environment.
Thus, it is essential to promote policies actively to help extend adequate levels of
social protection to all members of the society.
4. Counter the multidimensional crisis
The current crisis is not only financial, but also economic, social, cultural and ecological. The reasons behind the economic problems are two-fold: the market economy is not
social and ecological enough and the current institutions do not yet have the necessary
instruments to react adequately to globalization. The so-called anti-crisis measures that
seek to boost economic growth may deepen inequalities and worsen environmental conditions in the long-term. The over-consumption of non-durable goods, immense environmental degradation and slow economic growth may end in social disaster, passing on
economic and ecological debts to future generations and to the poor. This crisis proves
that there is no viable alternative model to that of a social market economy. It is not a
model of the past, but is now more important than ever. It is not merely a clever means
of balancing powers within the system. It also upholds the Christian-Democrat belief in
the value of human beings and their integral role at the center of the economy. One of
the major challenges is how to manage the process of complex anti-crisis measures in
light of the principles of the social market economy.
5. Consider personal responsibility
People easily project all blame and all responsibility into politicians and corporations.
Pope Benedict XVI in his Encyclical letter ‘Charity in Truth’ (§. 51) appeals to ideals
of sobriety and simplicity, ideals that can be inspired by the spiritual force of a faith
vision. He invites the contemporary society to a serious examination of its current
life-style. In many parts of the globe, this life-style is prone to consumerism, without
regard for the negative consequences. Instead of indiscriminate growth, people should
look towards solidarity and civic friendship.
6. Intensify dialogue with representatives of Churches, religious
communities and the civil society
More extensive local, regional, interregional and international co-operation and understanding are pre-conditions for the achievement of a climate of respect, confidence
and dialogue among people. Churches, religious communities and civil society bodies
are essential formative contributors to the European public opinion and consciousness
as well as to the elaboration of European policies. Each actor is crucial to designing
efficient and effective strategies based on shared fundamental ethical values and criteria to overcome the current crisis and make Europe stronger.
155
EPP Group
Neighbourhood Policy and Intercultural Activities Service - Staff
Paolo Licandro,
Deputy Secretary General
Head of the Service: Neighbourhood Policy and Intercultural Activities Service
Contact details Office Phone paolo.licandro@europarl.europa.eu
ATR3K064
+32 228 42596
Gabriella Tassinari,
Assitant to the Deputy Secretary General
Contact details Office Phone gabriella.tassinari@europarl.europa.eu
ATR3K038
+32 228 42234
György Hölvényi
Advisor
Responsible for Intercultural and Religious Dialogue
Contact details Office Phone gyorgy.holvenyi@europarl.europa.eu
ATR3K061
+32 228 42393
Gábor Török
Assistant
Intercultural and Religious Dialogue
Contact details Office Phone gabor.torok@europarl.europa.eu
ATR03K037
+32 228 32516
Ágnes Jouteux-Kada
Assistant
Intercultural and Religious Dialogue
Contact details Office Phone agnes.kada@europarl.europa.eu
ATR03K037
+32 228 32113
Marian Apostol
Assistant
Contact details Office Phone marian.apostol@europarl.europa.eu
ATR03K031
+32 228 41633
Eduard Slootweg
Advisor, Press and Communications
Contact details Office Phone eduardus.slootweg@europarl.europa.eu
ASP04H234
+32 228 42230
157
Published by: Press and Communications Service
Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats
in the European Parliament
Editor: Pedro Lopez de Pablo
Responsible: Fiona Kearns
Address: European Parliament
47-53 rue Wiertz
B - 1047 Brussels
Belgium
Internet: www.eppgroup.eu
E-mail: epp-publications@europarl.europa.eu
Copyright: EPP Group in the European Parliament

EPP Group The 14th annual inter

Transcription

Similar documents

Charts - College of Computer and Information Science

Sondela Mission Project

“95% of newcomers have spent substantial time on our website

Info Sheet

UDN News update - Uganda Debt Network

Item 3 Empty Commercial Properties

During my Italian field trip to Jesi I had the opportunity of hands

everything you need to know about the eu-central

June/July 2013 Issue Number2 Volume 4