What does religious freedom mean?” “

A meeting organized by the Bologna-based Catholic journal “Il Regno” on the theme “Chistianity and democracy in the future of Europe” was held at the monastery of Camaldoli (in Tuscany) from 12 to 14 July. It provided an opportunity for a debate between exponents of the European Union, theologians, representatives of civil society and members of parliament. “That it is possible in a democracy to plunge into the inferno or to become saints below an ochlocracy [government by the plebs] or in a dictatorship, is entirely true. But it’s not true that as Christians it is possible to strive, aspire, or consent to an ochlocacy or a dictatorship with just as much conviction as to a democracy: with this quotation from Karl Barth of 1938, Eberhard Jüngel, director of the institute of hermeneutics at the Evangelical Faculty of the University of Tübingen, tackled the complex question of the relation between the Christian Churches and democracy in the perspective of the construction of the European Union. “The Church – continued the theologian – was for centuries sceptical or mistrustful of democracy. But here too the saying holds good that wisdom comes with hindsight. And so we ask ourselves today whether the Christian community does not have a particular affinity with democracy”. At the same time, with regard to the recognition of the “Christian heritage” of Europe by the founding documents of the Union, Jüngel affirmed: “It’s important that religious freedom in the EU not be limited exclusively to a freedom of individual religion, but that freedom as ‘collective’ religion also be recognized. As regards the appeal to the name of God in a future European Constitution, I am decidedly in favour: the word ‘God’ reminds man of his limits. It prevents him from deifying his ideals”. “I too agree on the need to recall the Christian values in a strong manner – said Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission – but we shouldn’t forget the historical analysis and two centuries of laicism and religious conflict. There are countries in which these questions cannot be tackled without running the risk of inflaming the internal political debate”. Prodi then described what he called a great process of “inculcating democracy”: namely, the enlargement of the Union to a further 10 countries (Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Cyprus and Malta), while another two countries (Romania and Bulgaria) are preparing for entry and even Russia is urging a closer relation with Europe. Nonetheless, “Russia’s entry into the Union is not on the cards – said Prodi – since it would throw its structures into total disarray; the possible scenario is therefore that of a very close link of sharing rather than one within the institutions themselves. The same choice could be made for the countries of the Mediterranean”. From Russia, more particularly from the Russian Orthodox Church, came a message from Kirill, metropolitan of Smolensk and Kalinigrad and head of the foreign relations Department of the Patriarchate of Moscow: “The existence of liberal institutions at the level of economic, political and social life and of relations between States – writes Kirill in his message to the conference – is acceptable, desirable and morally justified only if philosophic liberalism is not imposed on the individual in interpersonal relations, nor even on the national and cultural communities. The Church has the duty to counterbalance this principle by affirming, in dialogue with the other Christian confessions and the followers of other religions, the Christian values in education and in the formation of interpersonal relations”. The historical tradition of tolerance characteristic of the Swiss institutions in the religious but also in the linguistic and cultural fields was pointed out by Alberto Bondolfi, professor of ethics at the Universities of Zurich and Lausanne. “The single confessional identities – he said – can only be reaffirmed if renewed inside themselves by the encounter with other identities. The different traditions will no longer be seen, therefore, as a threat to one’s own identity but as a source of reciprocal enrichment and the precondition for establishing new identities”. Chiara Santomiero