What’s Europe opinion?

There is an aspect of the speech delivered by Pope Benedict XVI at the UN past April 18th which gives Europe reason for concern. It consists in the need to give a content and a foundation to what we describe as the values, rights and duties, that ought to guide individual and humanity’s actions in order to dissipate rhetorical and chaotic interpretations. In Europe there is widespread consensus over the definition of values and rights. But if look at what really happens and we confront each other on the content of these words then problems and rhetoric take over, since often these words are meaningless. What is the significance of ‘human dignity’ in debates regarding euthanasia? Or when discussing experiments regarding the use of embyo stem cells? Or when addressing the relationship between our European Countries and those Countries where people die of starvation or violence? Is justice the criteria that is truly employed in Europe-Africa relations? In his address the Pope highlights the urgent need to undertake the difficult path leading to the identification of a common foundation to rights and values which will prevent their disintegration; in order to rescue them from those anarchical interpretations ascribing to values a relative connotation bound to their respective cultures, philosophies, ideologies… to stop these values from becoming overtly pragmatic. Men seek to reach common stands in order to make life more endurable, with the least number of accidents. Rights need not be confined to the legal sphere only, as if they were the product of legislators. What would a universal body like the UN be founded on if there were no permanent values, rights and principles having the same meaning for the whole of humanity? How can we continue building European unity without values, rights and principles which are the same for all European Countries? Is Europe just a pragmatic reality? What should a European “common good” be based on? How can we involve all European Countries, especially Central and Eastern European ones in EU regulations decision-making? How can we establish a foundation obliging “Europe to take on responsibilities regarding major world issues such as peace and the environment?” Benedict XVI also indicates the steps along this path enabling the recovery of these foundations. Rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent since they refer to the human person. Human dignity precedes States, institutions and particular interests. It’s universal. The human person is a whole and cannot be viewed in fragments. This is why also human rights are indivisible. The essence of the human person is the relationship with other people, and therefore also rights are individualistic. In the human person is inscribed a natural law that is common to all cultures and civilizations. Human reason has the ability to grasp this law which is inscribed in reality and in individuals. Finally, the human person is open to the transcendent element and is created in his relationship with the transcendent element. The religious experience reveals the ultimate and astonishing value of individuals, creature and image of God. At this point the Pope seems to ask himself: why do States want the exclusive right to answer people’s expectations and safeguard their dignity instead of granting a space to the religious dimension with its significant contribution to humanity? Isn’t Europe the Continent appearing to renounce this unique contribution of the religious and transcendent dimension in order to recover the meaning of life and introduce the novelty of love in the relations between individuals and peoples, to transmit the absolute dignity of the human person? Is this not a too heavy burden for States and public institutions? It’s a matter of granting scope to religion, not of mixing the political and the religious spheres. Religions are clearly marked by authenticity, void of all manipulations or exploitations conducted in the name of God to justify acts of violence. At the same time, religions are aware of the authentic laity of the state and of the public sphere. In the United States it appears that laity was originally inspired by the will to grant freedom and authenticity to the religious dimension, acknowledging its unique contribution for the human person and coexistence between peoples. What’s Europe’s opinion?