Which direction for Europe?

It looks like the ethnic and cultural aspects of Europe are “parting for good”, yet “there still are signs of hope”. The continent is paralyzed by a crisis “which is endangering its own existence”. “In order to survive” Europe must undergo “a renewed – albeit critical and humble – self-acceptance process”. In October 28th’s issue of the ‘Osservatore Romano’, Catholic Dogmatics professor in Treviri, director of the Papst Benedikt XVI Institut in Regensburg Rudolf Voderholzer presents the outline of Europe in the words of Benedict XVI (drawn from his speeches, lectures and publications). “A strange form of hatred” and the “seeds of hope”. Voderholzer highlights the Pope’s description of the Western world’s “strange self-hatred”, which “is trying to open itself, full of understanding, to external values”, but “sees only what is deplorable and destructive, while it is no longer capable to perceive what is great and pure”. The author thus refers to the Pope’s admonition: multiculturality “cannot exist without common features, without points of reference grounded within its own values”. We are therefore exhorted to “recuperate” Europe’s “own peculiarities”. A “sign of hope”, Voderholzer remarks, is the “paradox” brought up in a debate of 2004 between the then cardinal Ratzinger and philosopher Jürgen Habermas. The latter noted that Europe thrives on prerequisites “which it cannot guarantee” but which it still “nourishes on”. The question is if this “supply” could be soon “completely worn out”. Recovering history and identity. “A society of citizens that are only concerned with their personal interests has no future – Voderholzer warns -. Also the Church and Christian tradition, which expressed their view discretely, along with the most hostile observers, increasingly agree with the pre-political significance of religious belief: laws in the last analysis are useless without social and spiritual content, if they lack an ethical and moral substrata”. Therefore, “if we want that Europe, with and by means of its rich foundations, continues preserving the possibility of its own future”, it “a positive relationship with its own history and its own identity will have to be recovered, notably by acknowledging God as the foundation of the truth”. The objection that “mentioning the Christian roots of Europe would hurt the sensitivity of non-Christian European citizens”, is “not very convincing”. First of all, “with this indication we are simply referring to a historical fact which cannot be denied. Furthermore, it cannot be objected that the spiritual and moral direction established thought these tenets refers to a crucial trait of European identity”, namely “its spiritual grandeur”. “ Veluti si Deus daretur”. As for those who could feel hurt and regard their identity as being threatened, the dean of the Regensburg Institute points out that “the Muslims themselves, who are largely taken into account to this regard, are not offended by the profession of faith in God by Western societies, and by the ethical code on which it is based. Rather, they are offended by the “cynicism” characterizing “secularized societies that no longer regard anything as sacred”. The same “can be said for our Jewish fellow-citizens, since the roots of Europe extend until Mount Sinai. It is not the mention of God that offends the members of other religions, but rather the attempt to create the human community without God. As for the missed reference to God in the EU constitution, Voderholzer recalls that already in the year 2000, when it became clear that an invocatio would not be included in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, Ratzinger said: “At this point we once again ask ourselves whether, given the tradition of European humanism and its motivation, the Charter should also have borne a firm mention of God and human responsibility towards Him. This was not done to oppose the idea that the State could prescribe a religious belief. And it must be respected”. According to Ratzinger “it was necessary to highlight a fundamental aspect for all cultures: the respect for what is sacred, in particular the respect for what is sacred in the highest sense, the respect for God, which we expend to find, and justly so, also in those who are unwilling to believe in God”. “The attempt conducted until the end to organize human action regardless of God – Voderholzer warns – brings closer and closer to a chasm, namely to the elimination of man”. Hence the author refers to Ratzinger’s proposal to reverse “the axiom of the enlightened and say: even those who don’t find the way for the acceptance of God, should try to live and organize life vita veluti si Deus daretur”. This is “the advice that Pascal gave to his atheist friends (…) so no one will be limited in his freedom, and all our things find the support and the criterion they urgently need”.