When addressing Europe’s challenges, one particular body must first be kept in mind: the Council of European Bishops’ Conferences.
The CCEE is a unique and crucial institution. It was established during the Second Vatican Council, as a personal initiative of the bishops of Europe, institutionalized by Paul VI in 1971, and further reformed by John Paul II in the 1990s, until it assumed its current form. It is a council that brings together the presidents of the Episcopal Conferences of the European continent, from the Atlantic to the Urals, from Portugal to Russia, not forgetting Turkey.
While the composition of this body has changed—first it was composed of delegated bishops, then of the presidents of the episcopal conferences—its nature has not. It was a geographical grouping from the beginning, at a time when Europe did not breathe with two lungs, to use an expression dear to John Paul II, because part of Europe was beyond the Iron Curtain.
Why is the CCEE important when discussing religious freedom? Because the topic of religious freedom has forcefully entered the history of European bishops, and was also crucial in the events that led to the fall of the Iron Curtain.
And I am convinced that even today, at a time when religious freedom seems to be experiencing a general crisis, the issue of religious freedom can be a key element for a finally reconciled Europe.
Religious freedom among the themes of European bishops
Looking back at history, the pivotal year is 1975. Two interconnected events occurred that year, decisive for the future. The first was the approval of the Helsinki Final Accords on August 11, 1975, which was part of the process of easing relations between the Western and Eastern blocs.
The second is the Third Symposium of European Bishops, held from October 14 to 18, on The Mission of the Bishop at the Service of the Faith, and features Cardinal Karol Wojtyła as one of the keynote speakers. During the discussions, he will forcefully recommend that the CCEE take action to implement the agreement, with the support of the then Archbishop of Bruges, Emiel Jozef De Smedt (1909-1995).
Only a cardinal from the other side of the Iron Curtain could understand both the significance of the Helsinki Treaty and the role it could play for the Churches of Eastern Europe and beyond. And only a cardinal from the other side of the Iron Curtain could understand that it was time for bishops to make a qualitative leap, to look at the affairs of the world, to be present and live them.
Why is the Helsinki Act so important? Because its seventh principle emphasizes “the freedom of the individual to profess or practice, alone or in community with others, a religion or belief, acting in accordance with the dictates of his or her own conscience.”
The formulation had been proposed by the then Monsignor Achille Silvestrini (1923-2019), Vatican negotiator at the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
The Holy See participated at the request of the Soviet Union, which had promoted the meeting and aimed to strengthen its borders, given that the Soviets had never had such a strong foothold in Central and Eastern Europe. The invitation sparked widespread debate within the Secretariat of State. Indeed, the Secretary of State, Cardinal Jean-Marie Villot , was opposed, while the then Archbishop Casaroli considered it an extraordinary opportunity. And Paul VI agreed.
In fact, according to Paul VI and Casaroli , the conference could capitalize on the work done in dialogue with the countries beyond the Iron Curtain, and at the same time reaffirm Europe as a single continent, without any “curtain dividing it.”
Hence the Holy See’s idea to focus on the issue of religious freedom, a question raised not without emotion by Archbishop Silvestrini on March 7, 1973.
Europe—the reasoning went—shares a common culture, Christian culture, and that’s why religious freedom was a key issue. No one had thought of it, and the paradigm shift was important. Until then, the conference had focused primarily on border stabilization, and the proposals had focused on cooperation in the economic, scientific, environmental, and humanitarian fields.
The proposal was accepted, and all European countries joined, including the two Germanies, the Holy See, and the Principality of Monaco. Only Albania voted against, but it was a logical exception, being the only avowedly atheist country in Europe—it would join only in 1990.
However, Eastern European countries probably did not imagine how this simple paragraph would impact their systems.
Cardinal Wojtyła, on the other hand, imagined it. And, obviously, Paul VI also knew it, who, in his closing address to the symposium of European bishops, insisted so much on Europe’s Christian tradition and its unity.
Bishop Šuštar, Secretary General of the CCEE, echoing Paul VI’s speech, highlighted that the Pope had particularly emphasized Christian tradition and unity, and explained that these two emphases “after the Helsinki Conference are of primary importance for the Church,” and that now “the collaboration of the European Episcopal Conferences needs to be further encouraged,” and for this reason “the Pope’s address is an invitation to development and cooperation, for which the symposium must prepare.”
From the election of John Paul II to the fall of the Berlin Wall
In 1978, that same Karol Wojtyla was elected pope and took the name John Paul II.
He recognized the potential of the CCEE and the situation in Eastern European countries. With his pontificate, he began a different approach, aimed at greater accountability for global affairs. Speaking at the CCEE Symposium on Young People and Faith, held in 1979, John Paul II emphasized that “Europe is still the cradle of creative thought, pastoral initiatives, and organizational structures,” and that it has “a magnificent missionary past.” But isn’t Europe “about to become a missionary continent itself?”
The question remained unanswered because John Paul II wanted all the bishops to participate in this process, and for this reason, “those who are absent must be made intensely present.”
John Paul II’s urgings were immediately heeded. In 1980, the bishops of Europe gathered in Subiaco, where Saint Benedict began his extraordinary project that lies at the root of European culture, and drafted a declaration on the Responsibility of Christians towards the Europe of Today and Tomorrow.
On the 1500th anniversary of the birth of Saint Benedict, the bishops stated that “despite undoubted progress, human rights remain threatened both by the abuse of freedom that goes so far as to demand the right to unrestrained consumerism, and by the obliteration of the human person in society.” They added that the Church “cannot allow itself to be silenced when human rights are threatened.” While appreciating the Declarations on Human Rights, they emphasized, “some of these declarations remain in part a dead letter,” and for this reason “it is necessary to fully commit ourselves to the cause of human rights,” since “we cannot fully defend man unless his dignity is concretely respected in all its aspects.”
What can the Church in Europe do, then? Stand in solidarity “with those who fight for justice, freedom, and peace,” but also foster reconciliation, because “while it is true that the Church has on other occasions been a factor of unity in Europe, it is equally true that it is precisely on our continent that lacerations in the ecclesial fabric have originated, with serious consequences.” The bishops, therefore, outline forms of collaboration among bishops, among the particular Churches of different nations, within the Church in Europe, and in the ecumenical journey, without forgetting men of goodwill.
With the Subiaco document, there is therefore a change in pace in the mentality of the Council of European Episcopal Conferences.
At the Pope’s urging, the Council’s goal was defined as a strong, attentive European presence, present at the local level and connected at the continental level. The text contains all the major themes that would be addressed in subsequent years, and which remain relevant today.
The theme of religious freedom
The issue of religious freedom, as the first of all rights, becomes part of a very strong dialectic. It is commonly believed that it was precisely the possibility afforded by the Helsinki Declaration that created a rift in the Soviet world and laid the foundations for the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Cardinal Paul Poupard told me in an interview that John Paul II sent him behind the Iron Curtain to engage in theological debates based on religious freedom and the meaning of faith, to overcome the system’s flaws through dialectics. It was the Wojtyla method: you don’t fight the regime head-on, but you work on culture, and you create new cultural foundations.
Wojtyla, however, had another inspiration: reconciliation. In 1965, Cardinal Bronislaw Kominek, Archbishop of Wroclaw, launched the initiative to write a letter from the Polish Episcopate to the German Episcopate. “We forgive and ask for forgiveness” were the key words of the letter.
It was a letter of reconciliation, which stemmed from the awareness that Europe could not be rebuilt without forgiveness between the nations that had been opposed during the Second World War.
Robert Schumann made his famous declaration on May 8, 1950, precisely to address the need for reconciliation between peoples and to make war impossible.
Today, I believe it is time for a new reconciliation and a new Schumann Declaration.
Religious freedom under attack
The societies established on European soil are increasingly endangering religious freedom, the freedom of all freedoms. France recently included the freedom to abort in its constitution, with a wording that doesn’t even allow for conscientious objection. Scotland is currently preparing to approve a bill on abortion that would automatically outlaw anyone who silently prays outside abortion clinics.
In a world where religious freedom is threatened, even the very idea of God is being sidelined. But if God is sidelined, where is the basis for that absolutely necessary exercise of forgiveness?
We see the fruits of the war in Ukraine and realize that it is also a war of narratives, in which the wounds of the past return with force and harshness, striking again. It is a war that finds its justification in wounds that have remained deep and that no one has ever healed. And these wounds have remained deep precisely because the role of faith has been sidelined. In Ukraine, there was even a law that forced priests to go to the front, in an act of blind defense of the homeland that transcended all religion.
For this reason, the experience of the Council of European Episcopal Conferences, their work on religious freedom and their subsequent work on reconciliation, can be a real key to a reconciled Europe, and to the reconstruction of today’s wounded Europe.