Europe and Christian Values: An incompatible pair?

A sign of a trend

A proposal contained in guidelines of  the European Commission, released on November 29, to abolish a set of expressions to enable “correct communication” caused much discussion.[1] Among them, the wish for a “Merry Christmas” was to be replaced by “Happy Holidays.” It is a sign of a more general tendency to erase from Europe anything that does not appear to be in line with what is considered to be the common feeling;  think of the attempts to rewrite history or correct film scripts and novels because they are considered politically incorrect. But, unlike the demolition of monuments, or the censorship of circumstance, it is significant that the proposal, even if promptly withdrawn, comes from an institutional governing body. This was an initiative aimed at imprinting a precise behavioral direction.

The initial proposal  raises many questions. Who, for example, can establish in theory what characteristics a culture with “correct communication” should have? And what characteristics should it have in an increasingly stratified and complex society? Erasing the differences and historical traditions that have contributed to forming the identity of a nation, of a continent, would lead to the dictatorship of the “single thought,” which is determined by the fashion of the moment.

Europe’s identity is the result of a slow and varied interweaving of different traditions: Greco-Roman, Jewish-Christian, Enlightenment, Romantic. As Paul Ricœur notes, they have been above all spaces of welcome, integration and stability.[2] This recognized and accepted diversity is the authentic condition for dialogue, because when one culture is structurally open to others, their interweaving actually contributes to its formation. A similar process happens with the genesis of a language, which contains within itself the presence of other languages that have crossed its path: Italian has terms that come from Latin, Greek, Arabic, English and French. Moreover, every language is structurally open to other languages, which can be learned, starting from one’s mother tongue. 

The moment it tries to cast aside this heritage, Europe becomes not more tolerant, but more fragile and poorer. Today’s tendency to erect walls, to close oneself off from welcoming and offering hospitality is a consequence of the lack of acceptance of one’s own cultural heritage. It is not by chance that the guest and the stranger were given great prominence in classical and biblical tradition, which considered the stranger protected by God.[3]

Reinhart Koselleck, speaking of the historical development of a nation, introduces the well-known polarity between the space of experience (inheritance of the past) and the horizon of expectation (openness to the future, place of hope, desire and fear). It is in the interaction between these two aspects that historical identity is shaped, both at the individual and community level, and the basis for planning and continuity over time is laid, delivering a heritage of values to subsequent generations. This is the basis of the “generational pact,” which is indispensable for the survival of a civilization. Forgetting the one affects the relevance of the other, reducing tradition to archeology and planning to wishful thinking. For Ricœur, this double forgetfulness reveals a serious pathology of the historical sense that afflicts Europe, leading it to live in the present with discomfort, depriving itself of stable points of reference and extinguishing hope in the future.[4]

Neil MacGregor, who was director of the British Museum in London from 2002 to 2015, presenting the “Living with the Gods” exhibition on the BBC, expressed concern about the cultural impoverishment that the disappearance of religion has brought to the United Kingdom: “We are the first society to function without religion, a very unusual society. We are trying to do something that no society has really done. We are trying to live without an agreed narrative, a change that began in the 1960s.”[5] Religious experience, he added, is part of a people’s identity;  it confers a sense of belonging;  it forms the imagery of a society, in every aspect. That is why it benefits everyone.

A common heritage

It cannot be denied that Christianity is one of the essential components of Western Europe. Think of art and literature, but also of the street names, monuments and historic buildings of our cities; they would be largely incomprehensible without the Bible.

This presence is detected even by those who have distanced themselves from the Christian faith, but who strive to ensure that such richness is not lost. Umberto Eco noted that “there is not one aspect of our culture, including Marxism, that has not been influenced by the culture expressed in the Bible… Why should children know everything about the gods of Homer and very little about Moses? Why must they know the Divine Comedy and not the Song of Songs? (Also because without Solomon one cannot understand Dante).”[6]

A century earlier Francesco De Sanctis confessed, with great intellectual honesty, similar perplexities: in front of the Bible, he had initially felt a sort of spontaneous allergy, but then reconsidered when he decided to open it.[7]

A classic text on the subject is The Great Code by Canadian literary critic Northrop Frye. The author decided to hold university courses on the Bible from a literary point of view, finding its presence in the main authors of Western thought – not only in English – such as Dante, Goethe, Rimbaud, Hegel, Kierkegaard. He chose to title his course “The Great Code,” taking up an expression of William Blake (“The Old and New Testaments are the great code of Art”).

Frye explained his decision to choose the Bible as the textbook for a literature course in these words : “My interest in the subject began in my earliest days as a junior instructor, when I found myself teaching Milton and writing about Blake, two authors who were exceptionally Biblical even by the standards of English literature. I soon realized that a student of English literature who does not know the Bible does not understand a good deal of what is going on in what he reads […]. My main purpose was simply to give students enough information about the Bible so that they could understand the extent of its influence.”[8]

Piero Boitani, in his recent Rifare la Bibbia, a journey through two thousand years of the presence of the Holy Scriptures in Western literature, clarifies the meaning of the research with a quotation from Boris Pasternak: “The Bible is not a book with a rigid text, but rather the diary of humanity, and so is everything that is eternal.”[9] For this reason, anyone who loves poetry and storytelling will feel its fascination, discovering in these texts a breath of eternity.

Art and most of the masterpieces of Western thought would not exist without that book “so enormous and disproportionate.” Even a brief bibliographical search will not struggle to find traces of it not only in the masterpieces of Western realism (Auerbach), but also in comic strips, science fiction, and rock songs.[10] The Bible can be appreciated by everyone. This concern to do justice to the cultural richness of the Book of Books is one of the reasons that led the publishing house Einaudi to bring out  a philological version, accompanied by an erudite commentary (almost 4,000 pages, including 200 pages of introduction) aimed at a cultured public of different backgrounds and affiliations.[11]

Similarly, it is not necessary to be a believer to appreciate the beauty of a work of art. The philosopher Alain de Botton, who defines himself as “a convinced atheist,” invites us to recover the cultural richness of the religious perspective. In it he finds the sense of beauty, of an order that escapes human planning and for this reason he is able to arouse enchanted wonder even in a person who is at first sight far from religious sensibility: “Although I was strongly influenced by the attitude of my parents, after the age of twenty my atheism sent me into crisis. Doubts surfaced when I listened to Bach’s cantatas for the first time;  they developed while I was observing some of Bellini’s Madonnas and became a torment when I approached Zen architecture […]. I realized that my protracted resistance to theories about the afterlife or the inhabitants of paradise was not sufficient justification for dismissing music, buildings, prayers, rituals, celebrations, shrines, pilgrimages, communal meals, and illuminated manuscripts.”[12]

In order to appreciate the beauty of a work, it is not so important to apply a label to it at all costs. It is a question of listening to its message, discovering in it at times a similarity that is greater than any possible divergence. Cardinal Martini, echoing Norberto Bobbio, noted that the great divide in spiritual life is not between believers and non-believers, but rather between thinkers and non-thinkers.[13]

Christmas belongs to everyone

Christmas also belongs to everyone; it should not be seen as a threat to be wary of, because it has its own beauty that has shaped the collective imagination, as can be seen from the influence it has had at  literary, artistic, musical and cinematic levels. It has given rise to a rich tradition that is shared heritage. And its loss worries even the non-believer.

Massimo Cacciari, denouncing the reduction of Christmas to consumerism, reclaims its original meaning and the relevance it can have for anyone: “I, who am not a believer, ask myself: Is there a symbol that has made an extraordinary contribution to our history, to our civilization, to our sensibility? Christianity is a fundamental part of my journey, of my story; it is something with which I am confronted every day.” And he attributes its emptying of meaning above all to those who, while professing to be believers, “do not reflect, because they do not remember this shocking history.”[14] Massimo Recalcati has also recently made a contribution  on the subject.[15]

Therefore, not erasure, but mutual knowledge is the optimal condition for hermeneutical dialogue, to borrow a famous expression of Ricœur, a dialogue that enriches all parties.  Closure and isolation encourage intolerance and fundamentalism, both religious and profane.

Political institutions, a link between the sacred and the profane

The presence of this heritage is also detectable at the social and political level: the signs of the Christian tradition emerge clearly the moment one notices their presence, even  in the most profane spheres,  as, for example, the dates in the calendar, or the events that mark the life of a nation.

Regarding the United Kingdom, it is still impressive to see the images of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth in 1953. Entering Westminster Abbey, she arrived before the archbishop, who vested her in white and gave her the symbols of power: the scepter and the orb. To this day, the monarchy remains a fundamental element in the imagination of the average Englishman, an image that is, indeed, sacred. “What is very striking about our society now,” MacGregor notes, “is the fact that our head of state has been invested with her power by God, directly, in a public ritual, and that is something that most citizens do not know. That idea has dissolved with incredible speed in this country. The idea of separating religion and politics is impossible. Both are about how you relate to the world around you.”[16]

Another political event worthy of note is the speech addressed by President Emmanuel Macron to the president of the French Episcopal Conference, Georges Pontier, on April 10, 2018. It constitutes an event of extraordinary importance for the dialogue between politics and religion. France, which has always been a champion of secularism and separation from the “religious,” has seen a number of unprecedented initiatives in this field in recent years.

In June 2017, Macron spoke at the end of Ramadan; in September, he met at the Hôtel de Ville in Paris with the Protestant Communities on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation; and in March 2018, he attended a dinner with the Representative Council of the Jewish Institutions of France. His speech on April 10, 2018, can be considered the first official meeting of a president with the Catholic Church. On that occasion, Macron reread the history of relations between the State and the Church in terms of mutual trust, even though he knew how delicate such an operation might appear: “The link between the Church and the State has deteriorated and it is up to us to repair it. I consider that laicity in no way has the mission to deny the spiritual in the name of the temporal, and even less to eradicate from our societies the sacred dimension  that nourishes so many of our fellow citizens.” His speech conveyed awareness of the difficult historical moment that institutions, both religious and secular, are going through and the need for a mutual collaboration for a shared “realistic humanism,” summarized in three words: wisdom, commitment, freedom. These are three gifts that must be held in a complex balance, fragile, but necessary, in the desert of values and meaning that characterizes the scene not only in France, but in  the entire West. It is a  France that remains, however, the fruit of the contribution of the Christian cultural heritage: “Our contemporaries, whether they are believers or not, need to hear about another perspective for humanity and they need to slake another thirst, which is the thirst for the absolute.”[17]

This intervention represented an epochal turning point in the dialogue between politics and religion in France. To appreciate this, one only has to think of the words with which the then-president, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, commented on the decision to exclude all reference to Christianity in the European Constitution, erasing even possible allusions to the historical and cultural roots of Europe: “Europeans live in a purely secular political system, where religion does not play an important role.”[18]

And yet, it is precisely at the political level that it is possible to find an important trace of this role: many of the values present in Western democracies – the equality and dignity of every human being, the protection of the weakest – have a Christian basis. As we have noted, when these values are uprooted, they no longer find any possible justification and are reduced to empty slogans: think, for example, of the theme of human rights.

The legal philosopher Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, a member of the German Federal Constitutional Court, expressed this idea in a striking manner: “The secularized liberal state lives on assumptions that it cannot guarantee. This is the great risk it has taken for the sake of freedom. On the one hand, it can exist as a liberal state only if the freedom it guarantees its citizens is regulated from within, that is, from the moral substance of the individual and the homogeneity of society. On the other hand, however, if the State seeks to guarantee these internal regulating forces by itself, that is, by means of juridical coercion and authoritative command, it renounces its own liberality and falls back – on a secularized level – into that same instance of totality from which it had removed itself by means of confessional civil wars.”[19]

This is what is called “Böckenförde’s paradox”: a State, in order to be liberal, must justify the rights it proclaims on a juridical level; however, in order to do so, it must renounce a technical-instrumental use of reason and leave room for those positions which it has excluded on principle. If it does not resolve this dilemma, the liberal State risks dying as a democracy, giving rise to dangerous consequences, such as populism and solutions, which truncate the debate by mere force of imposition. But, above all, the State ends up assuming those confessional tones from which it had wanted to distance itself in the current  era.

At a conference sponsored by the Community of Sant’Egidio on the theme “Is Europe at an end?”, the then-Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, presented the dialogue between Christianity and institutions as indispensable, not only for the survival, but also for the credibility of secular liberalism: “Unless the liberal state is engaged in a continuing dialogue with the religious community, it loses its essential liberalism. It becomes simply dogmatically secular, insisting that religious faith be publicly invisible; or it becomes chaotically pluralist, with no proper account of its legitimacy except a positivist one (the state is the agency that happens to have the monopoly of force).”[20] It is a restatement, in other terms, of Böckenförde’s paradox.

Lessons from the past

Rereading history without trying to erase it or modify it at will is also important for understanding the obstacles that have prevented this dialogue. This attitude toward Christianity can find its explanation in the history of Europe, marked by religious wars and persecutions, involving violence, bloodshed and pain, inflicted over centuries by the Church, for which Pope John Paul II publicly asked forgiveness.[21]

As a result of such irreconcilable clashes, it became necessary for an increasingly large portion of modern culture to distance itself from Christianity in order to protect itself from persecution, bans on teaching and research, as well as torture and death sentences. Brad Gregory summarizes this state of affairs clearly: “Not only did they give rise to a poisoned legacy that still endures at the beginning of the 21st century, but it was they, the protomodern Christians, who unwittingly provided a solid base of momentum for ideological and institutional secularization […]. The violations of caritas made religion as such easily associated with oppression and violence, strengthening  the conviction, still widespread today, that emancipation, autonomy, freedom and modernity imply the  rejection of religion.”[22]

It took centuries for the Church to recognize the legitimacy of the values of secularism, such as the distinction between the  sacred and the  profane, between State and Church, the autonomy of research in the various disciplines, tolerance, pluralism and freedom of conscience. This, in the opinion of many scholars, has made European secularization very different from that of other continents: “The exception is Europe: to be precise, Western and Central Europe.”[23]

Today, however, on both sides, we see new possibilities for encounter, on different bases. Jürgen Habermas, in his dialogue with the then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, acknowledged that post-secular society contains within itself two mentalities – secular and religious – so intertwined that they are difficult to separate; for this reason, they can educate each other. This requires that religious authorities renounce the claim to exercise a monopoly of authority, opening themselves to the plurality of proposals, and that the separation between politics and religion is indispensable for the common good. On the profane side, reason must recognize those limits which in the course of modern times it has sought to transcend, becoming prey to those mythological narratives it wished to challenge, and must open itself to other forms of knowledge indispensable for its functioning .[24]

The need for mutual aid

The complex social issues that have characterized this past decade have led to a growing collaboration between Church and State to care for the “common home” (Pope Francis). From this perspective, Christianity can help society in at least three ways.

First of all, the Church functions as  a protector of the poorest and weakest, especially after the recent economic crises and the Covid-19 pandemic, actively collaborating with state institutions. We think of the contribution of Caritas and other associations that have made it possible to bring meals, medicines and aid to those who were unable to work or were unemployed. We can recall in particular the initiative of the “Jesus Divine Worker Fund” – established by Pope Francis – which saw the collaboration of the City of Rome and the Lazio Region to meet the new situations of poverty. Thus, it was possible to provide help, during the first wave of the pandemic, to about 1,800 families in the city of Rome in serious economic difficulty, for which the state was unable to do. The then-mayor of Rome, Virginia Raggi, thanked the diocese of Rome for the help offered at the level of assistance by voluntary associations and, in particular, for the work of Pope Francis. The  civic authorities on their own, she added, would not have been able to cope.[25]

This is perhaps the most recognized and appreciated point regarding the contribution that the Church can offer to society, providing material help and comfort, which would not otherwise be possible, however, without the presence of moral and spiritual motivation, such as sharing, gratuitous giving and the desire to help those in difficulty. Volunteering cannot be made a profession;  it is born of gratuitousness and the attraction  of spending oneself for others.[26]

A second way is the contribution  of the Magisterium of the Church, acting in order to protect the most marginalized,  challenging  the claims of the market, which tends to disregard moral norms and values. The scientific journal Nature, on the day after the publication of the encyclical Laudato Si’, noted the authoritative contribution that a pope can offer on this theme, because of the role he occupies.[27]

A third possible way of collaboration is the promotion of the common good, against the dominance of individualism, particularly around ethical and social issues.

The increasingly serious and complex problems regarding these and other fundamental aspects of life often find Western societies in a dangerous stalemate. They are struggling with issues such as the growing flow of migrants, demographic collapse, the problems linked to aging, the disintegration of the social fabric, the crisis of the values, foundations and credibility of institutions. These are not simple and easily solved issues, certainly, but they are issues that require cooperation between the parties involved, for the good of all.

As the sociologist José Casanova notes, “Western modernity is at a crossroads. If it does not establish a creative dialogue with the other, with those traditions that are challenging its identity, modernity will probably triumph. It is also possible, however, that it will end up being devoured by the inflexible and inhuman logic of its own creatures. It would be deeply ironic if, after all the defeats it has suffered from modernity, religion ended up helping modernity – without intending it  – to save itself.”[28]

DOI: La Civiltà Cattolica, En. Ed. Vol. 6, no.3 art. 14, 0322: 10.32009/22072446.0322.14

[1].      Cf. “Ue, polemica su nuove linee per la comunicazione inclusiva: la Commissione le ritira”, in https://tg24.sky.it/mondo/2021/11/29/natale-ue-nuove-linee-comunicazione

[2].      Cf. P. Ricœur, “L’Europa e la crisi della coscienza storica”, in Vita e Pensiero, No. 6, 2017, 9.

[3].      Cf. M. Cacciari, “L’invenzione dell’individuo”, in Micromega, No. 8, 1996, 121-127.

[4].      Cf. P. Ricœur, “L’Europa e la crisi della coscienza storica”, op. cit., 7f; R. Koselleck, Futuro passato. Per una semantica dei tempi storici, Bologna, Clueb, 2007, 304f.

[5].       A. Singh, “Neil MacGregor: why Britain stands alone when it comes to religion”, in The Telegraph, October 11, 2017.

[6].      U. Eco, “Perché l’Iliade e non la Bibbia?”, in L’ Espresso, September 10, 1989.

[7].      “I read I know not where the wonders of that book, as a document of high eloquence, and, distracted  from the subject of my lessons, cast my eye over the book of Job. I was appalled. I found nothing in my classical erudition comparable to that greatness […]. With the exaggeration of neophytes, we forgot our classics, even Homer, and for several months we heard nothing but the Bible. There was something solemn and religious about our experience, which raised the spirits […]. I am amazed that in our schools, where so many frivolous things are read, a biblical anthology has not penetrated, one that is very apt to keep alive the religious sentiment, which is the same as the moral sentiment in its highest sense” (F. De Sanctis, La giovinezza, Milan, Garzanti, 1981, 192f).

[8].      N. Frye, The Great Code: The Bible and Literature, New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982.

[9].      B. L. Pasternak, Safe Conduct: an autobiography and other writings. New York, New Directions, 1949; cf. P. Boitani, Rifare la Bibbia. Ri-Scritture letterarie, Bologna, il Mulino, 2021.

[10].    Cf. M. Granieri – L. Miele, Il vangelo secondo il rock, Turin, Claudiana, 2018.

[11].    Cf. M. Rizzi, “Il romanzo dell’uomo s’intitola Bibbia”, in Corriere della Sera/La Lettura, December 19, 2021. See E. Bianchi – M. Cucca – L. Monti (eds), Bibbia, Turin, Einaudi, 2021.

[12].     A. de Botton, Del buon uso della religione. Una guida per i non credenti, Parma, Guanda, 2011, 11.

[13].    Cf. C. M. Martini, Per una Chiesa che serve. Lettere, discorsi, interventi 1993, Bologna, EDB, 1994, 460.

[14].    S. Zurlo, “Natale non è solo dei cristiani. In ballo c’è la nostra  civiltà”, in il Giornale, November 30, 2017; C. Nardini (ed), Il Natale. Arte e letteratura, Florence, Nerbini, 2011.

[15].    “The child in the manger reveals the condition of abandonment in which we all are from our origin. The destiny of little Jesus is already written and it is to die on the cross. However, this mortal destiny does not erase the necessity of caring for the life that comes into the world; on the contrary, it strengthens it. His fragility manifests that what makes life human is the grace of attention that surrounds it, the warmth of contact, the presence of the other, the gift. Isn’t this the most important lesson of the feast of Christmas, that in the heinous and unheard-of time of Covid we should learn to hold onto  before anything else? The life of the helpless one  is that of a strange God who requires care to survive. Here is the formidable paradox of the Christian Christmas! Its sacred sense insists on reminding us of the fundamental gesture of welcome, without which life does not become human but collapses  into absolute abandonment”, in M. Recalcati, “Istruzioni per un altro Natale”, in la Repubblica, December 22, 2020.

[16].     A. Singh, “Neil MacGregor: why Britain stands alone when it comes to religion,” op. cit.

[17].     C. de Pechpeyrou, “Macron alla conquista dei cattolici francesi”, in Oss. Rom. (www.osservatoreromano.va/it/news/macron-alla-conquista-dei-cattolici-francesi), April 10, 2018.

[18].    Quoted in “Unholy Row on God’s Place in EU Constitution”, in Christian Century, April 5, 2003.

[19].     E. W. Böckenförde, La formazione dello Stato come processo di secolarizzazione, Brescia, Morcelliana, 2006, 68 f; cf. G. Cucci, “Giustizia. Una virtù scomoda”, in Civ. Catt. 2021 III 121-133.

[20]      . http://rowanwilliams.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/1179/religion-culture-diversity-and-tolerance-shaping-the-new-europe-address-at-the-european-policy-centr.html

[21].    Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente, November 10, 1994, Nos. 34-35. As the Huguenot writer François de La Noue noted, “If we ask ourselves who produced such a crop  [of atheists], it will not be inaccurate to answer that it was precisely our wars of religion that made us forget religion” (F. de la Noue, Discours politiques et militaires, Genève, Pierre et Jacques Chouët, 1613, 8).

[22].    B. Gregory, The Unintended Reformation. How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society, Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 2012. As Paul Gilbert notes, “The great philosophers of early modernity were more or less convinced Christians; the thinkers of second modernity much less so; certainly agnostics and atheists, they even attempted to exile the Church from social life” (P. Gilbert, “Prefazione”, in Id. [ed], L’uomo moderno e la Chiesa, Rome, Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2012, 5).

[23].     P. Berger – G. Davie – E. Fokas, America religiosa, Europa laica? Perché il secolarismo europeo è un’eccezione, Bologna, il Mulino, 2010, 19. For an in-depth study of the subject, cf. Cucci, Religione e secolarizzazione. La fine della fede?, Assisi (Pg), Citadel, 2019.

[24].    Cf. J. Habermas, “I fondamenti morali prepolitici dello Stato liberale”, in J. Habermas – J. Ratzinger, Etica, religione e Stato liberale, Brescia, Morcelliana, 2005, 38f.

[25].    Cf. F. Beretta, “Nasce ‘Alleanza per Roma’: Stato e Chiesa uniti per ridare dignità ai ‘nuovi’ poveri”, in Il Faro
(www.ilfaroonline.it/2020/06/12/nasce-alleanza-per-roma-stato-e-chiesa-uniti-per-ridare-dignita-ai-nuovi-poveri/345214), June 12, 2020.

[26].    Cf. G. Cucci, Altruismo e gratuità. I due polmoni della vita, Assisi (Pg), Cittadella, 2015.

[27].    “Scientists and political leaders in favor of climate action have rightly expressed gratitude and admiration for Pope Francis’ bold move. Given the pope’s moral authority and continuing  popularity – not just among Catholics – his words may go further than the sober scientific reports of bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Those reports  tend to overflow with jargon and are read by relatively few people” (“Hope from the Pope”, in Nature, Vol. 522, 2015, 391).

[28].      J. Casanova, Oltre la secolarizzazione. Le religioni alla riconquista della sfera pubblica, Bologna, il Mulino, 2000, 415.