The year of dialogue

The June number of “Europe infos”, monthly of COMECE (Commission of the episcopates of the European Community) and OCIPE (Catholic Office of Information and Initiative for Europe) focuses on the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue in 2008. “Intercultural dialogue has now become a key element of politics: after the events of 11 September, the various cultures of the peoples that live in Europe occupy the centre of the scene”, says MICHAEL KUHN . The debate on the biotechnologies and the right to conscientious objection are also among the issues discussed in the review.INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE. “Up till 11 September – observes Kuhn – this issue had not really preoccupied policies”, whereas today the European Union “considers it necessary to act and has announced that 2008 will be the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue“. 10 million euros have been allocated to the Year, to be subdivided into three fields of action in 27 countries: “the resources – says Kuhn – are limited and insufficient for wide-ranging activities”, therefore “the projects co-financed by the EU will only have a symbolic character”. “Cultural diversity” in the continent – he warns – ought not to form an obstacle to its development. On the contrary, it ought to be used as creative potential”. In this “the Churches and the religious communities have their own responsibility. For it is they, and not the public players, who conduct the dialogue between the confessions and religions”; and this dialogue “should also form part of intercultural dialogue, just as religions shape cultures, or are shaped by them”. So the Churches are “called to commit themselves in a more visible way” in this sphere, especially “on the basis of their own experiences” and of the “various activities begun at the local level that facilitate the understanding and co-existence of people of different religious beliefs”.BIOTECHNOLOGIES. “Promoting the research and development of biotechnological applications; favouring competitiveness, the transfer of know-how and innovations; encouraging well-informed public debates on the advantages and risks of the life sciences and biotechnologies; ensuring the sustainable contribution of modern biotechnology to agriculture; and improving the legislative provisions”: these, says KATHARINA SCHAUER, “are the five priorities identified by the European Commission” following its mid-term assessment on the “European strategy relating to the life sciences and biotechnologies (2002-2010)”, conducted in April. Noting that the issues in question concern, among others, advanced therapies, tissue engineering, gene and cell therapies, and hence the debate on the use of embryonic stem cells, COMECE, declares Schauer, “will closely monitor the ways in which the Commission will organize these ‘well-informed public debates’… All citizens are invited to take part in the discussion. Nonetheless – she concludes – the Commission ought not to be the only one to establish what constitutes a well-informed position”. Further information: http://ec.europa.eu.  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION: it’s a debate in constant evolution, says JOANNA LOPATOWSKA , who points out that “these last few years have been marked by the emergence of tendencies that reflect possible limitations to the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”. These possible limitations concern in particular “fields of application that some define as fundamental human rights, such as abortion, assisted suicide, marriage between same-sex couples and access to contraception”. “Modern societies no longer embody the opposition between the individual and the State”, says Lopatowska; they are, rather, the theatre of “collision between the rights of the individual and those of the community”. Just to cite one example: “Catholic adoption agencies in the UK are having to come to terms with the recently adopted provisions of British law on equality, which makes any kind of discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal”. “Should the right to conscientious objection – asks the human rights expert – yield” to the aforesaid rights to abortion, assisted suicide or marriage between couples of the same sex? The fact that “these rights may enter into collision demonstrates that none of them is unlimited”. These question, according to Lopatowska, require “a multidisciplinary study” at a time when an individualist conception of human rights” seems to prevail. “How to establish the limits of conscientious objection” and “who is qualified to take decisions of this kind” are questions that “arouse growing interest among jurists specialized in human rights and canon lawyers”. EU member states have applied the principle of conscientious objection to military service, “but the cases outlined above – concludes Lopatowska – are very important and equally urgent, and we cannot permit ourselves the luxury of waiting ten years to resolve them”.