Catholics and the process of European integration

The Church looks benignly at international organisations, but cannot do so uncritically writes David Quinn

Is there a Catholic position on the European Union? By that I don’t mean does the Catholic Church believe in the EU or not. I mean is there a position all Catholics must adhere to like we must adhere to what it teaches about abortion, or about loving our neighbours as ourselves, to name but two?

The answer to the second question is no. Catholicism is often depicted as a dogmatic religion, and on certain issues it is, and must be. The Apostles’ Creed for example, is a dogmatic statement. It is not a prayer as such. When we read it at Mass every week (occasionally we read the Nicene Creed instead), we are declaring what we believe about Jesus, the Trinity, and the nature of the Church. These have always been extremely fraught questions and could easily have destroyed the early Church if broad agreement could not be found.

For example, the question of the divinity of Christ was, and is, absolutely crucial. If Jesus is not divine, then he is not worthy of worship.

Politics

On questions of politics, however, the Church is, and always has been, vastly more flexible. Down the centuries the Church has accommodated itself to monarchy, to feudalism, to empires, to nation-states, to fascism, to liberal democracy and even to communism to greater or lesser degrees.

In an age of monarchy, it taught about the Divine Right of Kings. In the age of the nation-state, it wanted to be patriotic. Under communism, when its rights were not completely taken away, it emphasised Christian teaching on equality. Under fascism, like under the nation-state, it emphasised patriotism.

Under liberal democracy it has accommodated itself to the separation of Church and State (an invention of Christianity by the way, dating back to Christ’s injunction to separate the things of Caesar from the things of God).

In an age of globalisation, when bodies like the EU and the UN have become important, the Church can easily re-emphasise Christianity’s universalist outlook and its teaching that we are all equally the children of God with equal rights, not group rights.

But likewise, there will always be tension between the Church and any particular political regime. Under monarchy, the Church often had to fight kings and nobles for its independence. Sometimes, the reverse had to happen.

Under the nation-state, especially in its most virulent form from the Nineteenth Century until 1945, Catholics were often suspected of disloyalty to the state and of a lack of patriotism because their ultimate loyalty was not to the nation or the state, and because the Church is a vast, international organisation not easily controlled by one state.

Under fascism, it opposed the idea that the state is all. Under its Nazi variation it opposed racism and the doctrine of survival of the fittest.

Under communism, it had to oppose its philosophical materialism, its atheism and its intent to either crush Christianity through violence or else relegate it to the private sphere in the hope it would wither on the vine.

In liberal democracies, the Church must draw attention to an exaggerated individualism (which leads easily to moral relativism), and a strong, secularising tendency that also seeks to drive religion to the margins.

Modern era

In the modern era, Christian Democracy is the political tendency the Catholic Church has felt most comfortable with, and in fact, the founders of what has become the European Union were mainly Christian Democrats. To a large extent, the EU, or at least the EEC, is a Christian Democrat invention.

Christian Democrats also had a big say in the development of the UN, and Christian democracy massively influenced both the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

So, it is no wonder the Church tends to look benignly at international organisations like these. They fit with the Church’s belief in universal values and an historical nervousness towards the nation-state.

But this is not to say the Church should be uncritical towards either the EU or the UN. Pope John Paul II, for example, was well aware of the very strong drive by UN organisations and some member-states to recognise abortion as a ‘universal right’ (even though it is mentioned in no UN document), and he fought back hard against this push, which still continues and gains momentum.

Tendencies

Within the EU these same strong tendencies exist, as they do at national level, and they become stronger as Christian democracy fades as a political force.

We can see the strength of what we’ll call a politically correct agenda within the EU in the attacks by Brussels on Poland and Hungary. In part, these attacks focus on Poland and Hungary’s undermining of judicial independence, but they also focus on the pro-life and pro-family policies of those countries. These should not be the business of the EU because they are member-state prerogatives, but the EU makes it its business all the same. In other words, we can see what ideology is dominant in Brussels, and it is no longer Christian democracy.

Therefore, a country that is still pro-life and still believes strongly in the family of mother, father and child as the fundamental group unit of society, has every reason to be wary of certain tendencies within the EU.

On the other hand, these tendencies are at least as strong in Ireland. We seem determined now to be the most ‘modern’ country in the EU. We might soon have euthanasia ahead of the vast majority of EU countries.

What, then, is the ‘right’ Catholic attitude towards the EU? There isn’t really one. We bring our principles to bear and then decide whether, on the whole, the EU is doing more good than harm or vice versa, whether the nation-state does more good than harm or vice versa, and what the right balance is between the EU and member-state sovereignty.

Christians are sojourners in the world. Politically, we should be willing to commit, but also to travel light, because politics is not ultimate. The nation-state isn’t ultimate, and neither is the EU. We commit to them insofar as they serve the common good, and no further.