Pope and Patriarch
From today’s Common Declaration:
We have viewed positively the process that has led to the formation of the European Union. Those engaged in this great project should not fail to take into consideration all aspects affecting the inalienable rights of the human person, especially religious freedom, a witness and guarantor of respect for all other freedoms. In every step towards unification, minorities must be protected, with their cultural traditions and the distinguishing features of their religion. In Europe, while remaining open to other religions and to their cultural contributions, we must unite our efforts to preserve Christian roots, traditions and values, to ensure respect for history, and thus to contribute to the European culture of the future and to the quality of human relations at every level. In this context, how could we not evoke the very ancient witnesses and the illustrious Christian heritage of the land in which our meeting is taking place, beginning with what the Acts of the Apostles tells us concerning the figure of Saint Paul, Apostle of the Gentiles? In this land, the Gospel message and the ancient cultural tradition met. This link, which has contributed so much to the Christian heritage that we share, remains timely and will bear more fruit in the future for evangelization and for our unity.
One small step for two prelates, one giant leap for a unified Christianity?
Maybe not, but it’s hard not to applaud BXVI for his efforts, and for bringing his keen intellect to bear, on the issue of reunification.
I fully support and admire the statement. But it deserves to be read with care. St. Paul did some significant evangelizing in the Anatolian peninsula, e.g., among the Galatians to whom he addressed a marvelous letter. Today the Anatolian peninsula in the name of nationalism or of certain religious tenets is not a place open to the Gospel message and is even rather unfriendly to those who merely wish to live there peacefully as Christians. There is a subtext to the statement and that subtext is comment on that situation. It may also be read as again raising the question: “What ought to be required of those who wish to joing the E.U.?” Or am I reading to closely?