front page" "
“You’ll have problems in Brussels” is one of the warnings we often hear. Usually they refer to environmental regulations, agricultural prescriptions, technologies. But sometimes they also concern civil liberties. Calling certain problems by their proper name causes resentment. The politically correct replaces with incredible effectiveness the former opinion-makers of the Communist Party. We are used to looking to Brussels with the same feelings that formerly accompanied our deference to Moscow. But with one difference: the anonymity of ideology. The Communist Party had well defined and even more strenuously defended ideological positions. Brussels seems without an ideology of its own, but in actual fact possesses one. “That’s what’s said, “that’s not spoken about”… we don’t know why, but we are convinced that that’s how it is. Otherwise “we’ll have problems in Brussels”. The Slovak Parliament is being called to vote on the accord with the Holy See on conscientious objection. It’s a unique agreement of its kind. With other States, in fact, conscientious objection is inserted in the Cordordat or regulated by other laws. Even though the Slovak Republic has adopted a law that provides for autonomy in decisions of a moral, ethical and cultural order, thus assuring itself in this way of at least a relative autonomy from Brussels, the accord with the Holy See, which ought to guarantee freedom of conscience, is encountering enormous problems. Some circles in Brussels go so far as to consider it a threat to human rights and a possible cause of discrimination. Small politicised groups, though groups that can boast of wide diffusion in the mass media, such as the homosexual association “Equality of Choice”, are travelling to Brussels to find out which of the 732 MEPs are willing to express an opinion contrary to the accord or at least to voice doubts about it. Such attitudes are enough to create in the country, on the part of the press, forms of sensationalism and alarms with the magic phrase “we’ll have problems in Brussels”. Even though our new ‘European Capital’ is linked to no ideology, it runs the risk of promoting a lifestyle that involves a certain morality, certain values or non-values. A void is felt and all this creates a space for manoeuvre for groups with conflicting interests. But it also creates an opportunity to “give a soul” to Europe which is being deprived of one. To the Churches, in particular, a great opportunity is offered: that of fulfilling their own mission, without letting themselves be cowed, marginalized or ghettoized. Between Brussels and Moscow Christians are beginning to rediscover their vocation to the construction of the common good in Europe and in the world. Their time is coming and no one can replace them.
