front page " "
The vote with which the Justice, Public Liberties and Security Committee of the European Parliament rejected the candidature of Rocco Buttiglione, designated by the Italian government to the post of EU Commissioner, has arousing opposing reactions, not only in terms of the episode itself, but, more widely, in terms of the relation between the various EU institutions, between the member states and Brussels, and between the many “diversities” (cultural, social, religious…) that “inhabit” a Europe aspiring to unity. The question of the audition of the Commissioner designated by Rome, and the vote that followed it on Monday 11 October, must in the first place be interpreted as one of the many compulsory vetting procedures to which members designated by the Executive are subjected. They are democratically shared procedures: to diminish their scope, or, conversely, force their sense, would mean traducing the rules that the EU has given itself. On the other hand, it should be said that during the fifteen days of auditions of the 24 new Commissioners sent to Brussels by the governments of the member states, there were other moment of friction, and at least five other future “ministers” were challenged by their respective committees. And even the pronouncement of the President of the European Parliament, the Spaniard Josep Borrell, who a few days ago declared his own esteem for Buttiglione, seemed a gratuitous affirmation, out of line with any institutional protocol. In substance, Rocco Buttiglione seems to have been “punished” for at least two reasons. The first concerns his frankness in repeating before the parliamentary committee his personal convictions on such delicate issues as homosexuality, the role of women in contemporary society, and the problem of irregular immigration. These ideas are shared by a large part of European citizens. They form part of the deeply rooted heritage of Christianity that it undoubtedly one of the sources of European civilization. In the second place Buttiglione could have been the victim of a prejudice against the current Italian government that has long been rife in EU institutions. Yet another question remains open. It transcends the episode that had the Commissioner-designate as its protagonist and recalls the recent debate in the EU on the possible, or opportune, citation of the “Christian roots” in the preamble of the Constitutional Treaty. Then, as now, the just and well-founded arguments on the Christian heritage of Europe, as supported by John Paul II, had emerged; but in the end, the decision to glide over this question gained the upper hand and preference given to a preamble based on a lower common denominator. To the pressure exerted by secular, perhaps also by Masonic, forces, had been added wider and far more worrying convictions linked to the advanced process of secularisation which has in fact led in Europe, over the last 30-40 years, to not only Christianity but any form of “credo” and “strong thought” being reduced to a minority position. In the restricted parliamentary committee that gave the thumbs down to Buttiglione, this “religious indifference” that often regards as problematic any convinced ethical position, any expression of “high” values, must also have gained the upper hand. If this latter observation were true, believers ought not to resign themselves or use the current situation as an alibi to withdraw into the “Christian citadel”. They should react instead with even more transparent witness of the Gospel in everyday life. The courage to express one’s own faith in the world, the capacity to be a prophetic, even dissident, voice, are the best response to the recent appeal of the Pope who, addressing the participants of the Social Week of Italian Catholics, recalled the need and the duty of Christians to commit themselves in politics, and more particularly in public and institutional roles, to serve humanity as a whole and the common good.
