A necessary dialogue” “

The Eu institutions are re-launching an ongoing dialogue with the religious communities, and with the philosophic and humanistic associations, “as expressions of European civil society”. Such dialogue has already been in progress for years, conducted, albeit with different modes and frequencies, by the Executives headed by Delors, Santer and Prodi and revived by the current European Commission President José Manuel Durao Barroso. On Monday 5 September, the Vice-President of the Commission, JACQUES BARROT , presented a draft “Declaration on dialogue with the churches and non-confessional organizations” to the European Parliament. INFORMATION AND POINTS OF VIEW. Barrot, in his presentation, first of all pointed out that, according to the Treaty of Amsterdam, “the Eu shall respect and not prejudice the status that the churches and religious confessions enjoy in the member states by virtue of national law”. Moreover, the Treaty “recalls the importance of the status of the philosophic and non-confessional organizations”. In the Eu Constitution, still awaiting ratification, the question is regulated by article 52, which incorporates the Amsterdam provisions, and then affirms: “Recognizing their identity and specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with such churches and organizations”. This dialogue “consists essentially in an exchange of information and points of view”. It offers an “open door” to civil society, of which such communities are an expression, and involves “regular and open meetings, in conformity with the principle of equality of treatment for the various interlocutors”. In fact, President Barroso has already had some meetings with the religious communities and on 12 July met the representatives of the Christian churches and Jewish and Islamic communities. Jacques Barrot lastly announced a meeting with the humanistic associations for the autumn. PROS AND CONS IN THE EP. During the recent plenary assembly of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, there were many interventions on the matter, mainly favourable to a form of ongoing consultation between the Eu and the religious communities. But some contrary positions were also expressed: the Commission was accused of “making preferences among the interlocutors”. ALOJZ PETERLE, Slovene People’s Party exponent, gave his full support for the initiative: “Occasions need to be created to open the institutions to people and bring citizens of various religious and philosophic beliefs closer together”. Proinsias De Rossa, Irish Socialist, though favourable to an inclusive dialogue, said he was “disappointed by the Commission’s declaration because it does not clarify the terms in which such meetings should take place, with a worrying lack of transparency”. For his part GRAHAM WATSON, English Liberal-Democrat, explained: “My group is favourable to this open dialogue, according to the formula of ‘free church in a free state'”. Watson too called for “transparency”, adding that it is the task of the Union to defend freedom of religion and belief”. Views contrary to, or at least with misgivings about, the Commission’s proposal were expressed by the Greens, by the left, and by radical and euro-sceptic exponents. Nor were polemical phrases lacking either, of the kind: “no to Vatican Europe” or “Europe is not a cow to be milked for the Vatican”. In this regard MARIO MAURO, Italian People’s Party exponent, and Vice-President of the EP, declared to SIR: “In the EP various positions emerged, aimed at marginalizing Christians in Europe and contrary to a free and serene dialogue between Union and Churches, respectful of their various statuses and roles. I also detect a kind of ‘preventive intimidation’ in view of an ongoing relationship as called for by the Constitutional Treaty”. TREANOR: “AN ETHICAL BASIS FOR THE COMMON HOME”. Contacted by SIR, Monsignor NOËL TREANOR, general secretary of COMECE (Commission of the episcopates of the European Community), commented: “First of all, I think it is right to point out that the majority of the MEPs who intervened in the debate declared themselves favourable to this dialogue. Some of them called for ‘transparency’ and we cannot but share this need”. “I can only remind all those who expressed doubts about the initiative that the churches are dedicated to the promotion of the dignity of man, peace, solidarity and the well-being of citizens. That’s why denying the possibility of a dialogue between the religious communities and the Union betrays a lack of tolerance, which could lead to discriminatory attitudes”. Treanor also said he was convinced that “ethical and anthropological foundations are essential for political life with a view to a united and cohesive Europe. A reflection on contemporary society needs to be begun, so as to respond as effectively as possible to citizens’ expectations. Comece has repeatedly called for the entry into force of the Constitution, though the existing text has aspects that could be improved”.