A beautiful page for Europe

The fact that the judgment of the Great Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights reversed an earlier ruling adopted by a Chamber with unanimous vote is a sign of good will, wisdom and freedom. A civilization cannot be disrupted for superficial motivations. The judges courageously delved into the facts, without external conditioning. The European Court’s ruling is bound to step up European citizens’ trust in the Court and in European Institutions.The symbolical bearing of the ruling extends beyond the case of Italy. Let it suffice to consider the reactions triggered by the first ruling at world level. This ruling represents a page of hope, not only for Christians, but also for all European citizens who intend to preserve a great tradition resulting from centuries-long developments, which European identity is part and parcel of. Considering the presence of the Crucifix – Christianity’s primary and most significant symbol the most popular and significant symbol of Christianity -in the public arena as violating human rights is like denying the very idea of Europe. Without the crucifix, Europe wouldn’t exist. For this reason, the ruling is also a victory for Europe.The judges have recognized that the culture of human rights mustn’t exclude Christian civilization. This decision steps up the spiritual and moral foundations of Europe, recognizing their interdependence. The culture of human rights has its roots in Christian civilization. Denying one entails jeopardizing the other. With this decision the Court complies with Council of Europe charters stating that European States are “inébranlablement attachés aux valeurs spirituelles et morales qui sont le patrimoine commun de leurs peuples et qui sont à l’origine des principes de liberté individuelle, de liberté politique et de prééminence du droit, sur lesquels se fonde toute démocratie véritable”.This decision also underlies the intention to unify European populations. Before the risk of questioning individual identity, over twenty countries took a public stand endorsing the presence of the symbol of Christ in Europe’s public domain. The Court attentively considered Italy’s position along with that of ten countries authorized as “third parties”, “amicus curiae”, in support of Italy. These are: Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco, S. Marino, Romania and the Russian Federation, along with 11 Countries that presented public statements through their respective national governments, parliament or ministers, in support of Italy, namely: Albania, Austria, Croatia, Macedonia, Moldavia, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, Ukraine, Hungary, Norway. It’s remarkable that as many as 22 countries voiced their endorsement of a Court ruling. It is an existing European voice, which deserves to be listened to. This public gesture shared by such a large number of States testified to the fundamental fact that Christianity is at the very heart of Europe’s unifying bearing, that goes beyond all political and confessional divisions. The Court, respecting the visible presence of Christianity across societies, thus contributed to step up the unity of European culture.The Court recognized that Europe’s extraordinary richness consists in a tradition of tolerance and diversity. A great variety of positions regarding Church-State relations, the display of religious symbols and personal identity, have blossomed across Europe. Calling for uniformity is unworthy of Europe’s centuries-long evolution. Considering the principle of subsidiarity and appreciating national diversities is a token of respect for its patrimony.The Court has been called to deliver a verdict on a fact, namely, the display of Crucifixes in public schools in Italy, whose national population, in the light of its history and values, has decided in favour of the presence of the crucifix in public domains. Why should an international organism violate Italian people’s freedom and identity by forcing them to build their home according to different criteria? The March 18 ruling highlights a positive aspect of Church-State relations. The Court refrained from imposing “a secular concept of laicite”, alien to the majority of the member countries of the Convention of Human Rights. Laicite’ doesn’t imply a tabula rasa of the sacred in the public realm. The public realm is not an empty realm. History has taught us that an empty space is doomed to be taken over by destructive ideology. The European Court of Human Rights recognizes that religion is not the private affair of individuals, conversely, it has a social, collective and public dimension (Art.9). Removing the crucifix is not neutrality and impartiality, but rather imposition of precise ideology. Freedom of religion cannot be denied in the name of the freedom of religion!It’s unimaginable that a European organism such as the Court, given the ongoing historical period, marked by a recovery of religion in the public realm and of the reaffirmation of European Institutions, could make the historical mistake of ruling against the display of crucifixes, an expression of religious faith and of national history and identity. The question regarding the possibility of the long-term survival of a civilization stripped of the support of a great religion providing it with a soul is ever more urgent. This also applies to Europe, the Continent with a long history of culture and civilization.A court ruling concerned of eliminating a symbol like the crucifix, in a world called to address mighty challenges, would have been equally absurd. Humanity urgently needs a symbol like the crucifix which – if authentically interpreted – is unique in its proposal of the value of reconciliation, mutual respect, the law of love that encompasses life bestowal, notably, a sign of hope for many people wounded by life, subjected to the power of evil and suffering. Why should people living in sorrow be stripped of a source of light?The symbol of the Cross reflects the religious sentiment of Christians of all denominations. Moreover, owing to its human, dialogical, and spiritual value, and owing also to its value of solidarity, it can equally reflect the feelings of the faithful of other religions and of non-believers alike. Seeing in the crucifix, – representing a life donated until death for the good of humanity – a true violation of human rights, an indoctrination, a proselytism or a constraint to act against conscience or against one’s creed, is a paradox.We must be grateful to all those Countries and peoples who committed themselves with intelligence and sensitivity to write this new page that does Europe honour, starting from the Italian Representative Seat at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, in the person of Ambassador Sergio Busetto and co-representative Nicola Lettieri.(*) Permanent Observer of the Holy See at the Council of Europe