Elections

Church and State Laicality and Hope
The tragic facts of March 11th, the Christian experience in the debate on the European constitution… What can the Church offer Europe? Interview with the Primate of Hungary

edited by Alberto Savorana and Filippo Farkas

Eminence, the Madrid terrorist attacks have been called Europe’s September 11th. What new elements do the facts in Spain bring to the situation of the Old World as it approaches the elections to renew the European Parliament?
I don’t feel in a position to identify the consequences of such a grave and sad terrorist attack as that of Madrid. We have seen that in Spain herself the reactions have demonstrated some effect of that attack, but if several months from now there will be consequences in the world or on the European level, I couldn’t say. Our dear Europe is a culturally elderly continent with much experience, with many defeats and many tragedies. As a Hungarian song says, “In the earth of Europe there is already too much blood.” Certainly terrorism is unacceptable. Some means are never justifiable. In our country, the worry is not as great as it is in other Western nations because of the widespread opinion that we are not so important, and this is the reason for a certain trust in the fact that we will be left in peace, as can be seen in some opinion polls conducted in recent weeks in Hungary.

The Holy Father has intervened repeatedly in the debate on the new European Constitution to warn against a position that negates the utility, public also, of the Christian experience, and thus of any religious belonging, that brands religion as fundamentalism, and would relegate it to an exclusively private sphere. Can there be a Church without a world?
The Church is for the world. She is the lumen gentium, as the Second Vatican Council says. Christ founded the Church to announce the Gospel to all peoples and all ages. The Church’s mission is directed to the entire world. I would say that it was precisely Christianity that made possible in history–since late antiquity–the distinction between State and the religious sphere of man. The Church has always defined herself as the People of God, the Chosen People, as we read in Saint Peter’s letter. This means that, while walking in history and in the world, we are not completely of this world. The Church has always had, and has, an internal sovereignty for her own mission and also for the identity of those factors that constitute this People of God, that is, the Sacraments, the Word of God, and the person of Christ as foundation of the entire Church. And these factors do not depend on any State. The Church does not exist because she was founded by some power of this world.
The Roman Empire had religion as a matter of public law. At the beginning of the Corpus Juris Civilis, in Justinian’s code, already in the Christian epoch, we see that the basic principles refer precisely to the true religion. Thus, the Romans considered religion as the most important “state issue.” It was Christianity that gradually introduced the distinction between the spheres of religion’s competence and those of state power. The modern form of the separation between State and Church, State and religions, can be justified to guarantee the religious freedom of all. However, in order to be able to function, every State is based on society, and society cannot be independent from a vision of the world, from religion, from the conviction of its own members. Now, the basic values that ground the identity and also the internal structure of a society, its customs, etc., depend a great deal on a vision of the world and thus are linked with religion, with religions. This is true for every society and for every period of history. Since the State is not an abstract reality, but lives in society, the State and the religions meet at the point where the human person is, since society is composed of human persons. I think neither rejecting the relevance of every religion responds to the sociological reality of every time, nor, on the contrary, does identifying only one religion with the State, in an intolerant form, sufficiently respect the dignity of the human person. Drawing upon the [Second Vatican] Council declaration Dignitatis Humanae, on the one hand, religious liberty is a consequence of respect for man’s dignity and, on the other hand, it depends on the fact that man must also seek truth in the issue of faith, for what concerns “God” and His will, and also “the true Church.” If truth exists in these fields, then man must be free to seek, find, and follow the truth freely and with his own conviction. Thus, I wouldn’t say that one can only speak of the public utility of the Christian experience, but I would speak rather of the impossibility of not considering the reality of society. The State must keep in mind what man is in human society.

What can the Church offer Europe? Why should the nations of the East and the West respect her presence?
It seems to me that the Church already offers Europe many things; historically, it is one of the inexorable factors of the cultural identity of Europe herself. And today, the Church gives hope and meaning to the lives of many Europeans and to many beyond our continent. The Church can and must transmit Jesus Christ because His person is the source of our hope.
It is a hope against a culture’s desperation, weariness, and exhaustion, not as a means but as a guarantee, as a hope one meets in the person of Christ. The Church is obligated to transmit, to represent Christ in a sincere but humble way so that Christ Himself becomes visible. In fact, the Church does not exist for herself. Why should the nations of the West and the East respect the presence of the Church? They could very well not respect it, but if the Church is capable of transmitting Christ, of representing that hope, she rejuvenates the identity of the continent, even the cultural aspect and even the hearts of men. This is a great possibility! When some nations, above all in Eastern Europe, at the end of Communism wanted to rediscover their own cultural identity, they found that their Christian roots organically belong precisely to the national cultural tradition. Some nations also openly supported–not only for religious reasons, but also those of culture and public morality–the reconstruction of ancient churches, and not only the buildings, but also the communities.

You participate in a network of relationships and initiatives that involve the Archbishops of Vienna, Paris, and Brussels, and the Patriarch of Lisbon. What does this involve, and what contribution do you intend to offer the future of Europe?
This is a special mission to carry out in the big cities, which constitute a special pastoral challenge, where there is the danger of anonymity, but where there is also a diversity of ethnic groups, cultures, languages, and traditions that offer a great opportunity for the Church. Certainly these city missions are done on various levels, for the renewal of the parish community (something that we have already begun) and to promote openness toward the world in the missionary sense. This itinerary will culminate in the year of the great mission, with conferences and artistic and musical events. The experience of Vienna last year and this year and that of Paris were very instructive for us. A delegation from the other cities in this network is always present in the city where the mission is being conducted. It will be Budapest’s turn in 2007. I have to say that the movements work very hard for these initiatives.

Identity and tolerance… Many see these two terms in conflict, almost as if the experience of an identity were an index of closure to that which is different, and as if respect for others were possible only for those who have no certainty. How do you see the problem?
Identity and tolerance are not at all in conflict. Actually, each is a presupposition for the other. If there is no identity (cultural, religious, ethnic, or national), what is there to be tolerated? And, on the other hand, if a person has a true, not manipulated, identity, aware of the values of his own identity, his eyes are necessarily opened to the good qualities and the values of other cultures and of other groups, recognizing their preciousness. Thus, tolerance is reasonable only when you have your own identity, because only in this way do you become capable of recognizing the identity of the other as well. Certainly, once the word tolerance was used in a less open sense. When tolerance was beginning to be spoken of in terms of religion, we were still in the world of the denominational States. The State, openly or tacitly, was convinced that it knew the true religion and, for expediency, or to guarantee public peace, it also tolerated some other religions, “tolerated” without identifying with them. In this sense, tolerance meant a bit less than freedom.
Then another period followed in which the State seemed convinced that no religion was true, or that religious opinions were subjective. In this period, for tranquility or for expediency, all or some religions were tolerated, as, for example, in the final phase of the Communist period.
Today, when we speak of identity and tolerance, we have to have a wider vision and speak of “freedom” and “religious freedom,” “freedom and acknowledgment of cultural diversity.” In this sense, we are always dealing with appreciation of the dignity of the human person, because in the final analysis, man is always the object of the “acknowledgment” and of the “respect.” When the Second Vatican Council spoke in Dignitatis Humanae of religious freedom, it did not ground this freedom in indifference, whatever-ism, or limitless subjectivism, but on something else, the existence of a truth about the world, about man, about God, by which man, who was created intelligent and free, must seek, recognize, and accept freely this truth. Every constraint in this regard would be unjustified.
Naturally–this is a very modern question, almost post-modern–tolerance has its limits. In fact, there is the temptation to understand tolerance as respect for the subjective opinion of anyone, regardless of the content of this opinion. This nihilism or absolute subjectivism has demonstrated its limitations, because society, if it wants to live, if it doesn’t want to be destroyed, cannot tolerate every type of behavior, every type of opinion, because there can be some who threaten the life and liberty of the others. A guarantee of conviction is needed. In recent years, we have heard with a certain surprise the expression “zero tolerance,” because a society, certainly very fascinated with the idea of freedom, has felt bound to say “no” to a behavior like terrorism. But this does not exclude that there is a minimum of good sense, of human honesty, that has to be respected by anybody for the very survival of society. This means that as we deepen respect, we must also appreciate identity, we must believe in the possibility of a true knowledge and of a minimum of moral values that derive from the structure of reality, from the physiognomy of the human being, because if we forget this, tolerance won’t stand. Truth and freedom have to exist together, because each is a presupposition of the other.

What can Europe gain from the enlargement to the countries of the ex-Soviet bloc?
First of all, the countries of the ex-Soviet bloc have always belonged to Europe, and are a constitutive part of her. Europe isn’t being enlarged, because Europe already exists. The enlargement of the European Union certainly enriches all the peoples of the continent. The old members can look to a new market; I don’t think the new countries only expect economic aid. It is much more important that in distribution and in juridical solutions, the same dignity be given the new countries. The position of these peoples within the Union is structurally weaker; they have to adapt to and accept the rules of a game set up without them. In some countries, there is a notable sensitivity, not about economic issues, but about the assurance of equal dignity.

If you were to suggest to the new European Parliament members the gravest problems they should deal with in order to ensure a positive future for the new Europe, which would you indicate?
First of all, respect for human life. Without this, both the culture and the economy will collapse. I think it is necessary to pay attention to the questions of the recognition and protection of human dignity from the beginning of life until death.
Another important question is that of solidarity. If we take this principle seriously we can make life more just and human. This principle is very close to the social doctrine of the Church and to the sensibility of Catholics. Certainly, this solidarity cannot be closed in on itself; it is important that Europeans not only think of the European Union, but also of the peoples outside, not forgetting the rest of the world, because humanity is one, and Europe cannot offer on the long term advantages to one region if the others cannot have them too. Europe can be a force that contributes to greater justice in the world. This also means that exaggerated bureaucracy or collective egotism constitute dangers, and the European parliament members must be aware of this in order to be useful.
I think, then, that in the entire educational sector, and also that of health care and social security, there is an increasing contradiction and tension between scientific progress and the guarantee of free access to everyone. In the teaching sector as well, but above all in health care, there can be operations, methods, research, and communication tools that are very sophisticated, very efficient, and very expensive. Even though our age accentuates differences, justice and the needs of the neediest must always be a factor in our social and political calculations, on every level of the community.
Then, there is the question of freedom. In the educational sector, it is important that cultural and religious identity be conserved and its transmission be made possible also in the context of teaching. This does not only regard teaching religion or the hour of religion, but also the integral education of the human person, because the human person is one and unique, and the individual aspects cannot be separated. Thus, it can be very useful, though not always indispensable, to guarantee the possibility and the existence of institutes of teaching and of education that have a religious/ denominational character. In our age, with obligatory public instruction, organized through very complex legislation, we cannot exclude the aspects of identity and freedom.

One last question: in the face of the challenges of today’s world, what is the most urgent thing for Christians?
Hope! John Paul II also speaks of it in his post-Synod exhortation, because Europe needs hope. In many countries, there is a weary mentality; there’s a need for hope, for motivation. Even among the youth, I see at times that hope is a rare treasure.
But in order to have hope, you must have faith, because hope needs an object. The hope that many Eastern European countries had–that Communism would one day end–has come to pass, and yet we are not in paradise. Thus, it is clear to us that purely earthly hope is insufficient. Europe, like the rest of the world, needs Christ and the hope that flows from His person.
In this sense, we can risk saying that man is a being who lives by hope.