The Foundation of the European Union

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) 

Working Definition of Antisemitism

In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism.

On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:

Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
   
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
   
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
   
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
   
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
   
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
   
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
   
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
   
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
   
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
   
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
   

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

Now you know what European value$ are.

Francis’ first interview with a German language publication

“I am a Sinner and am Fallible”

 

  

[and am modernist,

and am rabbinical traditionalist,

and am a heretic,

and am gabby,

and am an idiot,

and am a powderkeg,

etc...]

Giovanni di Lorenzo interviewing Francis for Die Zeit in Casa Santa Marta.

Francis granted his umpteenth interview this time to the German national weekly newspaper, Die Zeit (The Time).  It was conducted by Giovanni di Lorenzo in Italian and then translated by him into German.  Francis proof read and gave the German translation his approval.  Francis has retained the ability to comprehend the German language when it is written or spoken slowly from the time he lived in Germany and was doing research for his still uncompleted doctoral thesis on Romano Guardini.  There is much laughter and joking in the interview compared to others.  It’s obvious that Giovanni and Francis had a rapport as it is very relaxed atmosphere.  The interview can be found here, “Ich bin Sünder und bin fehlbar” on the Die Zeit website in its original German.  This entry will cover some but not all of this most recent interview.

The interview begins with Francis discussing how he came across his favorite devotion, Mary Untier of Knots.  We hope sometime in the future to do a post on just this subject.  There is then discussion on the shortage of priests and how the church is nothing without the Eucharist. From there they move briefly onto the topic of Cardinal Burke of whom Francis says, “an excellent jurist”.  Next up in the conservation is Benedict XVI and his words, “The church of the future will be small”.  Francis opines that Benedict XVI is “a great theologian”.

Francis then clarifies (if that is possible) that the commission to study the question of women deaconesses is only to explore their role in the early church but not to open the door to them.

Francis then endorses the historical-critical method in the task of studying the Bible and Catholic theology. This comes into play a little later in the interview when Francis mentions Old Testament’s Book of Genesis and Judas in the New Testament.  It is also front and center every day at the Casa Santa Marta where Francis gives homilies according to his gospel.

What the Church teaches...

“We believe, then, that We have set forth with sufficient clearness the historical method of the Modernists. The philosopher leads the way, the historian follows, and then in due order come internal and textual criticism. And since it is characteristic of the first cause to communicate its virtue to secondary causes, it is quite clear that the criticism We are concerned with is an agnostic, immanentist, and evolutionist criticism. Hence anybody who embraces it and employs it, makes profession thereby of the errors contained in it, and places himself in opposition to Catholic faith.”

source: Pius X, Pascendi dominici gregis, #34

“It is clear, on the other hand, that in historical questions, such as the origin and the handing down of writings, the witness of history is of primary importance, and that historical investigation should be made with the utmost care; and that in this matter internal evidence is seldom of great value, except as confirmation. To look upon it in any other light will be to open the door to many evil consequences. It will make the enemies of religion much more bold and confident in attacking and mangling the Sacred Books; and this vaunted “higher criticism” will resolve itself into the reflection of the bias and the prejudice of the critics. It will not throw on the Scripture the light which is sought, or prove of any advantage to doctrine; it will only give rise to disagreement and dissension, those sure notes of error, which the critics in question so plentifully exhibit in their own persons; and seeing that most of them are tainted with false philosophy and rationalism, it must lead to the elimination from the sacred writings of all prophecy and miracle, and of everything else that is outside the natural order.”

source: Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, #17

In Francis’ world insults are OK but “gossip is terrorism!”

You knew it had to come, Francis now pulls out his insult book. Once again he takes aim and fires at his favorite target, Catholic fundamentalists (traditionalists, pre-Vatican II) when he says that, “crisis is central to the faith, if you are not in crisis you are not growing.  When Jesus hears Peter’s assurance, which reminds me of many Catholic fundamentalists, he says: ‘You will deny me three times.’  But I will pray for you. Peter denied Jesus, he was in a severe crisis.  And then they made him a pope. (Laughs)  I do not want to say that crisis is the daily bread of faith, but a faith that does not fall into crisis doesn’t grow, it remains infantile.”  Wow!  Not only does Francis have the audacity to say that faithful Catholics will deny Christ, he says that unless they accept the crisis that his revolution is causing they will remain infantile in their faith!  Note to Francis, you might want to re-read the New Testament, Jesus the Christ made Peter the Pope not “they”. 

Next up, Francis opens up about his anger, his crises of faith, his moments of darkness, “No, I just do not get angry anymore.  (Laughs)  My Lord is a lord of sinners, not of the righteous, even of the righteous, but he loves sinners.  The crisis helps us to grow in faith.  Without a crisis, we can not grow, because what fulfills us today will not satisfy us tomorrow. Life puts one to the test.”   Another wow!  Yes, crises often do help one grow but to say that what fulfills us today will not tomorrow!  He is saying in one sense that Christ won’t satisfy unless you are in a crisis.  What rubbish! 

Francis continues, “Yes.  Yes ...  (pause)  Moments of emptiness ...  (pause)  I've talked of dark moments and of empty moments.  I also know empty moments.”  The conversation carries on towards the devil whom Francis is a firm believer of in his existence and says, “he makes life difficult for me at times.”  Francis is just getting warmed up, he next describes The Book of Genesis as a, “mythical narrative” and proceeds to inform us that Adam was not evil when he sinned and that the first evil act was committed by Cain when he murdered Abel!  Francis follows that with, “The rebellion against the work of God, against man as the image of God — that’s the devil’s work.”  What!?  The devil (Lucifer) was a fallen angel who rebelled against God Himself and His Law!  Where does he get this trash?

Has Giovanni just handed Francis the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi?

Lorenzo then asks Francis if God could forgive mass murderers such as Hitler and Stalin to which Francis replies, “I do not know, it’s possible ... I do not know.  I can tell you something however that has deeply touched me.  In the Burgundy village of Vézelay, where the Way of St. James begins, is the Basilica Sainte-Marie-Madeleine.  There is a capital on the one side of which the hanged Judas is to be seen,  and on the other (side) the good shepherd who carries him on his shoulders.  This was the theology of the Middle Ages, as the monks taught them.  The Lord forgives to the end.”  What?  When Call Me Jorge... researched this capital with Judas at the University of Pittsburgh’s Vézelay Abbey website we read, “On the left side of the capital a man carries Judas's body over his shoulder.”  Where in the world is he getting this idea from?  His pectoral cross?

On the left, the images of Judas hanging himself and then being carried off by an unidentified man whom Francis claims is Jesus in the Basilica Sainte-Marie-Madeleine.  On the right, the pectoral cross of Francis carrying a sheep.  Has he interpolated the two?  Previously in late 2016, Francis said in a homily that, “Judas is the most perfect lost sheep”.

Giovanni then tries to give Francis an out by asking, “But you must ask forgiveness?”  Instead Francis replies with this nonsense, “At least one must feel the burden of his sin.  I do not claim that Judas is in heaven and saved.  But I do not claim the opposite.  I can only say, look at this capital, and what the monks of the Middle Ages thought, who taught the catechism with their sculptures.  And look at the Bible in which it is said:  When Judas becomes conscious of his deed, he goes to the high priests.  The Bible uses the word repentance.  Perhaps he has not pledged forgiveness, but he has repented.”  Francis is just regurgitating the favorite blasphemous ideas of the revolutionary, Fr. Primo Mazzolari.

What the Church teaches...

Ver. 3. Then Judas, ... repenting himself. A fruitless repentance, accompanied with a new sin of despair, says St. Leo. (Witham) [...] Although Judas conceived a horror at his crime, and confessed it, and made satisfaction to a certain degree by restoring the money, still many essential conditions were wanting to his repentance: 1. faith in Christ, as God, as a redeemer, as the sole justifier from sin; 2. besides this, there was also wanting hopes of pardon, as in Cain, and a love of a much injured and much offended God. Hence his grief was unavailing, like that of the damned. If Judas, says an ancient Father, had had recourse to sincere repentance, and not to the halter, there was mercy in store even for the traitor. (Haydock)

source: Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition, St. Matthew 27, 3

Even though Call Me Jorge... has asked this question before, we ask 

it again — Does Francis see himself as a modern day Judas Iscariot?

Francis proceeds to then criticize those he sees as hypocrites such as the mafia, “it makes me even more angry when the Holy Mother Church, my mother, my bride, does not behave as the gospel says.”  This is only a segue into his one of his pet subjects as Francis isn’t finished with taking jabs at those whom he sees as of the conservative bent.  He warns of the “the spirit of the world” and that we must not support one who promises to “preserve the identity of the people!”  For this Francis believes is how Hitler rose to power and adds, “Populism always needs a messiah.”  Call Me Jorge... is no fan of Hitler and guesses that Francis wants us to instead support someone like himself who is doing everything he can to further the de-christianization of Europe. 

As Francis continues we find out exactly what he means as he believes populism only uses the people and “populism is evil and ends badly.”  So who does Francis recommend as examples of real leaders?  “(Robert) Schuman and (Konrad) Adenauer” because they are for the fraternity of Europe and not populists.  “These men had the gift of serving their country without placing themselves in the center, and this made them great leaders. They did not have to be a messiah.”  Schuman and Adenauer are two of Francis’ favorites and he thinks they are great because they helped create the anti-Christian monstrosity known as the European Union.  Francis previously compared the Italian pro-drug, pro-divorce, pro-abortionist Emma Bonino to the pair.

Next he shares his belief that the whole world is at war.  Duh Francis, hasn’t it always been that way?  Better make sure you are sitting down for the next one that flies out of Francis mouth is a dandy, “I am a sinner and am fallible, and we must not forget that the idealization of a person is always a subliminal kind of aggression.  When I am idealized, I feel attacked.”  You have to be kidding us!  The man who runs a personalty cult in the manner of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Castro wants us to believe that he feels attacked when the crowds and the mainstream media shower him with adulation?

Francis loved the pasquino but not so much the faux L’Osservatore Romano.

Francis when asked what he thought of the paquino and faux L’Osservatore Romano replies, “The fake Osservatore Romano no, but the Roman dialect of the posters was great. That wasn’t written by some guy off the streets but by someone who is smart.”  Is he saying that the author is not from the marginalized?  Or the peripheries?

Francis briefly returns to the subject of Cardinal Burke saying of him, “I do not regard [him] as an adversary.”  This goes against the narrative that some conservatives in the media have crafted of the relationship between the two even though Burke has said, “I’m not resisting Pope Francis, because he’s done nothing against doctrine.”

Francis and Burke, two modernist peas in a pod.

Francis gets into the scandal of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and says he still considers Burke a Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and explains that someone with a “different personality” was needed to clean up the Order.

Roberto Benigni as Guido who is marching out to be shot in ‘Life is beautiful’

Mr. di Lorenzo asks Francis, “Life is beautiful!  Have you seen the film of Roberto Benigni?”  To which Francis responds, “Yes, only the fact that it was so decent and clean in the camps did not please me.  The real camps were quite different.  But it's just a movie.”  Not exactly a ringing endorsement is it?  Would you expect any other attitude from a clown who relishes mocking the Crucifixion of Jesus the Christ and says his favorite painting is Chagall’s blasphemous ‘White Crucifixion’?

• Jorge jokes about Our Lord's Crucifixion

• The Last Lunch

• Francis tells his favorite blasphemous joke again!

• update on the White Crucifixion

The six-million Jews who perished in the concentration camps are the Golgotha of the Novus Ordo. The crucifixion has been replaced by the Holocaust.  You never see Francis joke around when it comes to his ‘true’ religion instead he is full of piety and seriousness.

The talk then moves onto to what Francis’ travel plans for the future are and where he would like to go and is finished with Mr. di Lorenzo showing Francis and then gifting to him the Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi in the German language.

Sono finiti!

Is it any wonder Europe is a mess?

Jean-Claude Juncker President of the European Commission 

(i.e. Juncker is the Prime-Minister of the European Union)

Is he taking psychedelic drugs and hallucinating

or

is he meeting with demons?

Was this a close encounter of the third kind?

Spiritual hugs after Francis receives the Charlemagne Prize.

Juncker’s intergalactic space travel!

The media speculated if Jean-Claude Juncker was drunk here when he slapped Viktor Orbán’s face and called him a dictator for defending his country’s borders.

And to think that such people are governing Europe!

Related:

• Francis & the Outer Limits

Francis is doing his part in ensuring that the destruction of Christianity in Europe is complete

...Francis needs to put down his pipe and stop smoking the freemasonic crack.

Are these Moslem refugees going to turn into future Christians and future retirement system contributors or will they become the victorious proxy army occupying Europe for their masters?

Excerpted from DISCORSO DEL FRANCESCO AGLI ECC.MI PRESULI DELLA CONFERENZA EPISCOPALE SLOVACCA, IN VISITA "AD LIMINA APOSTOLORUM" and translated through an online translator into English.

I wish to encourage the pastoral work you carry out, despite the difficulties of the current moment, characterized by rapid changes in many spheres of human life and the challenge of globalization. In it they are found sometimes threats to nations less numerous, but at the same time also elements that can offer new opportunities. An opportunity, became a sign of the times, is the phenomenon of migration, which needs to be understood and addressed with sensitivity and sense of justice. The Church is called to proclaim and witness the reception of migrants in a spirit of charity and respect for the dignity of the human person, in the context of a necessary observance of legality.

Faced with the prospect of an ever-expanding multicultural environment, we must assume an attitude of mutual respect to favor the meeting. It is desirable that the Slovak people to maintain its cultural identity and heritage of ethical and spiritual values, closely linked to its Catholic tradition. So it can open without fear confrontation in the wider horizon continental and world, contributing to a sincere and fruitful dialogue, including on issues of vital importance such as the dignity of human life and the essential function of the family. Today more than ever it is necessary to illuminate the path of peoples with Christian principles, seizing the opportunities that the current situation offers to develop an evangelization which, with new language makes it easier to understand the message of Christ. Therefore it is important that the Church infuse hope, that all changes in the present turn into a renewed encounter with Christ, that push your people to real progress. The lay faithful, are called to animate temporal realities with the evangelical ferment, they can not refrain from operating even within the political processes aimed at the common good. To be joyful witnesses of the Gospel in every environment, they need to feel a living part of the Church. It is your task to recognize their own role in the life of the ecclesial communities, including as regards the development and implementation of pastoral projects.

I really appreciate what you are doing in favor of the family, who faces many difficulties and it is subject to many pitfalls. These efforts need to be accompanied by a full family ministry at the diocesan and national levels, including adequate guidance to families, even those not complete, especially if there are children. As part of the pastoral care of the family, it is necessary to exploit the young, the hope of the Church and society. Pulsates in them a strong desire to serve others and solidarity, which requires guidance and confidence of the pastors to become a living encounter with Christ, in a definite project of spreading the Gospel. In fact, despite the many enticements that invite to hedonism, mediocrity and immediate success, young people do not allow themselves to be easily intimidated by difficulties and are particularly sensitive to the commitment without reservations, when you present to them the true meaning of life. They therefore need to have from you a clear indication of doctrine and morals, to build the city of man in the city of God.

Boy this is rich, the man who believes, "proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense" wants Slovakia to welcome the Moslem invaders into their country and show the Islamic religion respect.  While the Slovaks are doing this they should be careful to keep their cultural identity and heritage because they can "evangelize" these same Moslem invaders and "build the city of man in the city of God."

Back in August 2015, the government of Slovakia agreed wisely to take in only Christians from war torn Syria and they capped the number at 200 people.  The bureaucrats of the European Union were not happy with this and demanded that Slovakia, Romania, Czech Republic, and Hungary take in 160,000 of the Moslem invaders for 2015.  Slovakia is a country of only 5.4 million people.  And what of the "family" values and "Catholic tradition" of the Slovaks which Francis extolled in his speech? According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD):

The number of children born per woman in the Slovak Republic is also low, at 1.41, compared to an OECD average of 1.74. Only 9 other OECD countries have lower fertility rates.

Doesn't sound like the typical Catholic family, consisting of two parents and five plus children of two generations ago, does it?  Amazingly, Slovakia is considered one of the least secularist countries in Europe.  This must be why Francis singled it out for special attention.  The Talmudists, international bankers, Moslems, and freemasons are all hell bent on seeing the last vestiges of Christianity in Europe destroyed and, it is safe to say, so is Francis.  The question is will the peoples of Europe wake up and begin practicing the Catholicism of their forebearers before it is too late or will the Pan-Europa nightmare co-created by Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi end as his life did by suicide?

Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi

A freemason (freemasonry is Kabbalah for gentiles),  married 3 times

to Jewesses, and father of the European Union.

Related:

• Francis sacks head of the Swiss Guards

• Francis wants you to welcome this invading army into your Christian country

• someone besides Francis wants Europe to welcome the Moslem 'refugees'

• Remember Francis wants you to welcome these 'refugees' into your home and show them the culture of encounter

• Francis' support of the invading Moslem Army

What a day!

Francis addressed the European Parliament, the Council of Europe, and conducted another in-flight interview!  Don't worry he was at his best with name calling and insults, planned photo-ops, schmoozing, his pet causes, and only once did he mention Jesus the Christ!  All in a day's work for the man of chaos!

Pope Francis’s address to the European Parliament in full

Mr President and Vice Presidents, Members of the European Parliament, all associated with the work of this Institution, dear friends, I thank you for inviting me to address this institution which is fundamental to the life of the European Union, and for giving me this opportunity to speak, through you, to the more than 500 million citizens whom you represent in the 28 Member States. I am especially grateful to you, Mr President, for your warm words of welcome in the name of the entire assembly.

My visit comes more than a quarter of a century after that of Pope John Paul II. Since then, much has changed throughout Europe and the world as a whole. The opposing blocs which then divided the continent in two no longer exist, and gradually the hope is being realized that “Europe, endowed with sovereign and free institutions, will one day reach the full dimensions that geography, and even more, history have given it”.[1]

As the European Union has expanded, the world itself has become more complex and ever changing; increasingly interconnected and global, it has, as a consequence, become less and less “Eurocentric”. Despite a larger and stronger Union, Europe seems to give the impression of being somewhat elderly and haggard, feeling less and less a protagonist in a world which frequently regards it with aloofness, mistrust and even, at times, suspicion.

In addressing you today, I would like, as a pastor, to offer a message of hope and encouragement to all the citizens of Europe.

It is a message of hope, based on the confidence that our problems can become powerful forces for unity in working to overcome all those fears which Europe – together with the entire world – is presently experiencing. It is a message of hope in the Lord, who turns evil into good and death into life.

It is a message of encouragement to return to the firm conviction of the founders of the European Union, who envisioned a future based on the capacity to work together in bridging divisions and in fostering peace and fellowship between all the peoples of this continent. At the heart of this ambitious political project was confidence in man, not so much as a citizen or an economic agent, but in man, in men and women as persons endowed with transcendent dignity.

I feel bound to stress the close bond between these two words: “dignity” and “transcendent”. “Dignity” was the pivotal concept in the process of rebuilding which followed the Second World War. Our recent past has been marked by the concern to protect human dignity, in constrast to the manifold instances of violence and discrimination which, even in Europe, took place in the course of the centuries. Recognition of the importance of human rights came about as the result of a lengthy process, entailing much suffering and sacrifice, which helped shape an awareness of the unique worth of each individual human person. This awareness was grounded not only in historical events, but above all in European thought, characterized as it is by an enriching encounter whose “distant springs are many, coming from Greece and Rome, from Celtic, Germanic and Slavic sources, and from Christianity which profoundly shaped them”,[2] thus forging the very concept of the “person”.
Today, the promotion of human rights is central to the commitment of the European Union to advance the dignity of the person, both within the Union and in its relations with other countries. This is an important and praiseworthy commitment, since there are still too many situations in which human beings are treated as objects whose conception, configuration and utility can be programmed, and who can then be discarded when no longer useful, due to weakness, illness or old age.

In the end, what kind of dignity is there without the possibility of freely expressing one’s thought or professing one’s religious faith? What dignity can there be without a clear juridical framework which limits the rule of force and enables the rule of law to prevail over the power of tyranny? What dignity can men and women ever enjoy if they are subjected to all types of discrimination? What dignity can a person ever hope to find when he or she lacks food and the bare essentials for survival and, worse yet, when they lack the work which confers dignity?

Promoting the dignity of the person means recognizing that he or she possesses inalienable rights which no one may take away arbitrarily, much less for the sake of economic interests.

At the same time, however, care must be taken not to fall into certain errors which can arise from a misunderstanding of the concept of human rights and from its misuse. Today there is a tendency to claim ever broader individual rights; underlying this is a conception of the human person as detached from all social and anthropological contexts, as if the person were a “monad” (μονάς), increasingly unconcerned with other surrounding “monads”. The equally essential and complementary concept of duty no longer seems to be linked to such a concept of rights. As a result, the rights of the individual are upheld, without regard for the fact that each human being is part of a social context wherein his or her rights and duties are bound up with those of others and with the common good of society itself.
I believe, therefore, that it is vital to develop a culture of human rights which wisely links the individual, or better, the personal aspect, to that of the common good, of the “all of us” made up of individuals, families and intermediate groups who together constitute society.[3] In fact, unless the rights of each individual are harmoniously ordered to the greater good, those rights will end up being considered limitless and consequently will become a source of conflicts and violence.

To speak of transcendent human dignity thus means appealing to human nature, to our innate capacity to distinguish good from evil, to that “compass” deep within our hearts, which God has impressed upon all creation.[4] Above all, it means regarding human beings not as absolutes, but as beings in relation. In my view, one of the most common diseases in Europe today is the loneliness typical of those who have no connection with others. This is especially true of the elderly, who are often abandoned to their fate, and also in the young who lack clear points of reference and opportunities for the future. It is also seen in the many poor who dwell in our cities and in the disorientation of immigrants who came here seeking a better future.

This loneliness has become more acute as a result of the economic crisis, whose effects continue to have tragic consequences for the life of society. In recent years, as the European Union has expanded, there has been growing mistrust on the part of citizens towards institutions considered to be aloof, engaged in laying down rules perceived as insensitive to individual peoples, if not downright harmful. In many quarters we encounter a general impression of weariness and aging, of a Europe which is now a “grandmother”, no longer fertile and vibrant. As a result, the great ideas which once inspired Europe seem to have lost their attraction, only to be replaced by the bureaucratic technicalities of its institutions.

Together with this, we encounter certain rather selfish lifestyles, marked by an opulence which is no longer sustainable and frequently indifferent to the world around us, and especially to the poorest of the poor. To our dismay we see technical and economic questions dominating political debate, to the detriment of genuine concern for human beings.[5] Men and women risk being reduced to mere cogs in a machine that treats them as items of consumption to be exploited, with the result that – as is so tragically apparent – whenever a human life no longer proves useful for that machine, it is discarded with few qualms, as in the case of the terminally ill, the elderly who are abandoned and uncared for, and children who are killed in the womb.

This is the great mistake made “when technology is allowed to take over”;[6] the result is a confusion between ends and means”.[7] It is the inevitable consequence of a “throwaway culture” and an uncontrolled consumerism. Upholding the dignity of the person means instead acknowledging the value of human life, which is freely given us and hence cannot be an object of trade or commerce. As members of this Parliament, you are called to a great mission which may at times seem an impossible one: to tend to the needs of individuals and peoples. To tend to those in need takes strength and tenderness, effort and generosity in the midst of a functionalistic and privatised mindset which inexorably leads to a “throwaway culture”. To care for individuals and peoples in need means protecting memory and hope; it means taking responsibility for the present with its situations of utter marginalization and anguish, and being capable of bestowing dignity upon it.[8]

How, then, can hope in the future be restored, so that, beginning with the younger generation, there can be a rediscovery of that confidence needed to pursue the great ideal of a united and peaceful Europe, a Europe which is creative and resourceful, respectful of rights and conscious of its duties?

To answer this question, allow me to use an image. One of the most celebrated frescoes of Raphael is found in the Vatican and depicts the so-called “School of Athens”. Plato and Aristotle are in the centre. Plato’s finger is pointed upward, to the world of ideas, to the sky, to heaven as we might say. Aristotle holds his hand out before him, towards the viewer, towards the world, concrete reality. This strikes me as a very apt image of Europe and her history, made up of the constant interplay between heaven and earth, where the sky suggests that openness to the transcendent – to God – which has always distinguished the peoples of Europe, while the earth represents Europe’s practical and concrete ability to confront situations and problems.

The future of Europe depends on the recovery of the vital connection between these two elements. A Europe which is no longer open to the transcendent dimension of life is a Europe which risks slowly losing its own soul and that “humanistic spirit” which it still loves and defends.

Taking as a starting point this opening to the transcendent, I would like to reaffirm the centrality of the human person, which otherwise is at the mercy of the whims and the powers of the moment. I consider to be fundamental not only the legacy that Christianity has offered in the past to the social and cultural formation of the continent, but above all the contribution which it desires to offer today, and in the future, to Europe’s growth. This contribution does not represent a threat to the secularity of states or to the independence of the institutions of the European Union, but rather an enrichment. This is clear from the ideals which shaped Europe from the beginning, such as peace, subsidiarity and reciprocal solidarity, and a humanism centred on respect for the dignity of the human person.

I wish, then, to reiterate the readiness of the Holy See and the Catholic Church, through the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of Europe (COMECE), to engage in meaningful, open and transparent dialogue with the institutions of the European Union. I am likewise convinced that a Europe which is capable of appreciating its religious roots and of grasping their fruitfulness and potential, will be all the more immune to the many forms of extremism spreading in the world today, not least as a result of the great vacuum of ideals which we are currently witnessing in the West, since “it is precisely man’s forgetfulness of God, and his failure to give him glory, which gives rise to violence”.[9]

Here I cannot fail to recall the many instances of injustice and persecution which daily afflict religious minorities, and Christians in particular, in various parts of our world. Communities and individuals today find themselves subjected to barbaric acts of violence: they are evicted from their homes and native lands, sold as slaves, killed, beheaded, crucified or burned alive, under the shameful and complicit silence of so many.

The motto of the European Union is United in Diversity. Unity, however, does not mean uniformity of political, economic and cultural life, or ways of thinking. Indeed, all authentic unity draws from the rich diversities which make it up: in this sense it is like a family, which is all the more united when each of its members is free to be fully himself or herself. I consider Europe as a family of peoples who will sense the closeness of the institutions of the Union when these latter are able wisely to combine the desired ideal of unity with the diversity proper to each people, cherishing particular traditions, acknowledging its past history and its roots, liberated from so many manipulations and phobias. Affirming the centrality of the human person means, above all, allowing all to express freely their individuality and their creativity, both as individuals and as peoples.

At the same time, the specific features of each one represent an authentic richness to the degree that they are placed at the service of all. The proper configuration of the European Union must always be respected, based as it is on the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, so that mutual assistance can prevail and progress can be made on the basis of mutual trust.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Members of the European Parliament, within this dynamic of unity and particularity, yours is the responsibility of keeping democracy alive for the peoples of Europe. It is no secret that a conception of unity seen as uniformity strikes at the vitality of the democratic system, weakening the rich, fruitful and constructive interplay of organizations and political parties. This leads to the risk of living in a world of ideas, of mere words, of images, of sophistry… and to end up confusing the reality of democracy with a new political nominalism. Keeping democracy alive in Europe requires avoiding the many globalizing tendencies to dilute reality: namely, angelic forms of purity, dictatorships of relativism, brands of ahistorical fundamentalism, ethical systems lacking kindness, and intellectual discourse bereft of wisdom[10].

Keeping democracies alive is a challenge in the present historic moment. The true strength of our democracies – understood as expressions of the political will of the people – must not be allowed to collapse under the pressure of multinational interests which are not universal, which weaken them and turn them into uniform systems of economic power at the service of unseen empires. This is one of the challenges which history sets before you today.

To give Europe hope means more than simply acknowledging the centrality of the human person; it also implies nurturing the gifts of each man and woman. It means investing in individuals and in those settings in which their talents are shaped and flourish. The first area surely is that of education, beginning with the family, the fundamental cell and most precious element of any society. The family, united, fruitful and indissoluble, possesses the elements fundamental for fostering hope in the future. Without this solid basis, the future ends up being built on sand, with dire social consequences. Then too, stressing the importance of the family not only helps to give direction and hope to new generations, but also to many of our elderly, who are often forced to live alone and are effectively abandoned because there is no longer the warmth of a family hearth able to accompany and support them.

Alongside the family, there are the various educational institutes: schools and universities. Education cannot be limited to providing technical expertise alone. Rather, it should encourage the more complex process of assisting the human person to grow in his or her totality. Young people today are asking for a suitable and complete education which can enable them to look to the future with hope instead of disenchantment. There is so much creative potential in Europe in the various fields of scientific research, some of which have yet to be fully explored. We need only think, for example, of alternative sources of energy, the development of which will assist in the protection of the environment.

Europe has always been in the vanguard of efforts to promote ecology. Our earth needs constant concern and attention. Each of us has a personal responsibility to care for creation, this precious gift which God has entrusted to us. This means, on the one hand, that nature is at our disposal, to enjoy and use properly. Yet it also means that we are not its masters. Stewards, but not masters. We need to love and respect nature, but “instead we are often guided by the pride of dominating, possessing, manipulating, exploiting; we do not ‘preserve’ the earth, we do not respect it, we do not consider it as a freely-given gift to look after”.[11] Respect for the environment, however, means more than not destroying it; it also means using it for good purposes. I am thinking above all of the agricultural sector, which provides sustenance and nourishment to our human family. It is intolerable that millions of people around the world are dying of hunger while tons of food are discarded each day from our tables. Respect for nature also calls for recognizing that man himself is a fundamental part of it. Along with an environmental ecology, there is also need of that human ecology which consists in respect for the person, which I have wanted to emphasize in addressing you today.

The second area in which people’s talents flourish is labour. The time has come to promote policies which create employment, but above all there is a need to restore dignity to labour by ensuring proper working conditions. This implies, on the one hand, finding new ways of joining market flexibility with the need for stability and security on the part of workers; these are indispensable for their human development. It also implies favouring a suitable social context geared not to the exploitation of persons, but to ensuring, precisely through labour, their ability to create a family and educate their children.

Likewise, there needs to be a united response to the question of migration. We cannot allow the Mediterranean to become a vast cemetery! The boats landing daily on the shores of Europe are filled with men and women who need acceptance and assistance. The absence of mutual support within the European Union runs the risk of encouraging particularistic solutions to the problem, solutions which fail to take into account the human dignity of immigrants, and thus contribute to slave labour and continuing social tensions. Europe will be able to confront the problems associated with immigration only if it is capable of clearly asserting its own cultural identity and enacting adequate legislation to protect the rights of European citizens and to ensure the acceptance of immigrants. Only if it is capable of adopting fair, courageous and realistic policies which can assist the countries of origin in their own social and political development and in their efforts to resolve internal conflicts – the principal cause of this phenomenon – rather than adopting policies motivated by self-interest, which increase and feed such conflicts. We need to take action against the causes and not only the effects.

Mr President, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, awareness of one’s own identity is also necessary for entering into a positive dialogue with the States which have asked to become part of the Union in the future. I am thinking especially of those in the Balkans, for which membership in the European Union could be a response to the desire for peace in a region which has suffered greatly from past conflicts. Awareness of one’s own identity is also indispensable for relations with other neighbouring countries, particularly with those bordering the Mediterranean, many of which suffer from internal conflicts, the pressure of religious fundamentalism and the reality of global terrorism.

Upon you, as legislators, it is incumbent to protect and nurture Europe’s identity, so that its citizens can experience renewed confidence in the institutions of the Union and in its underlying project of peace and friendship. Knowing that “the more the power of men and women increases, the greater is individual and collective responsibility”,[12] I encourage you to work to make Europe rediscover the best of itself.

An anonymous second-century author wrote that “Christians are to the world what the soul is to the body”.[13] The function of the soul is to support the body, to be its conscience and its historical memory. A two-thousand-year-old history links Europe and Christianity. It is a history not free of conflicts and errors, but one constantly driven by the desire to work for the good of all. We see this in the beauty of our cities, and even more in the beauty of the many works of charity and constructive cooperation throughout this continent. This history, in large part, must still be written. It is our present and our future. It is our identity. Europe urgently needs to recover its true features in order to grow, as its founders intended, in peace and harmony, since it is not yet free of conflicts.

Dear Members of the European Parliament, the time has come to work together in building a Europe which revolves not around the economy, but around the sacredness of the human person, around inalienable values. In building a Europe which courageously embraces its past and confidently looks to its future in order fully to experience the hope of its present. The time has come for us to abandon the idea of a Europe which is fearful and self-absorbed, in order to revive and encourage a Europe of leadership, a repository of science, art, music, human values and faith as well. A Europe which contemplates the heavens and pursues lofty ideals. A Europe which cares for, defends and protects man, every man and woman. A Europe which bestrides the earth surely and securely, a precious point of reference for all humanity!

Thank you!

[1] JOHN PAUL II, Address to the European Parliament (11 October 1988), 5.
[2] JOHN PAUL II, Address to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (8 October 1988), 3.
[3] Cf. BENEDICT XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 7; SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 26.
[4] Cf. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 37.
[5] Cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 55.
[6] BENEDICT XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 71.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 209.
[9] BENEDICT XVI, Address to the Members of the Diplomatic Corps, 7 January 2013.
[10] Evangelii Gaudium, 231.
[11] FRANCIS, General Audience, 5 June 2013.
[12] Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Gaudium et Spes, 34.
[13] Cf. Letter to Diognetus, 6.

Pope Francis: Address to the Council of Europe

Mr Secretary General,
Madame President
Your Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

            I am happy to address this solemn session which brings together a significant representation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, representatives of member States, the Judges of the European Court of Human Rights as well as the members of the various institutions which make up the Council of Europe.  Practically all of Europe is present in this hall, with its peoples, its languages, its cultural and religious expressions, all of which constitute the richness of this continent.  I am especially grateful to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, for his gracious invitation and for his kind words of welcome.  I greet Madame Anne Brasseur, President of the Parliamentary Assembly.  To all of you I offer my heartfelt thanks for your work and for your contribution to peace in Europe through the promotion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

            This year the Council of Europe celebrates its sixty-fifth anniversary.  It was the intention of its founders that the Council would respond to a yearning for unity which, from antiquity, has characterized the life of the continent.  Frequently, however, in the course of the centuries, the pretension to power has led to the dominance of particularist movements.  We need but consider the fact that, ten years before the Treaty instituting the Council of Europe was signed in London (5 May 1949), there broke out the most lethal and destructive conflict in the memory of these lands.  The divisions it created long continued, as the so-called Iron Curtain split the continent into two, from the Baltic Sea to the Gulf of Trieste.  The dream of the founders was to rebuild Europe in a spirit of mutual service which today too, in a world more prone to make demands than to serve, must be the cornerstone of the Council of Europe’s mission on behalf of peace, freedom and human dignity.

            The royal road to peace – and to avoiding a repetition of what occurred in the two World Wars of the last century – is to see others not as enemies to be opposed but as brothers and sisters to be embraced.  This entails an ongoing process which may never be considered fully completed.  This is precisely what the founders grasped.  They understood that peace was a good which must continually be attained, one which calls for constant vigilance.  They realized that wars arise from the effort to occupy spaces, to crystallize processes and to attempt to halt them.  Instead, the founders sought peace, which can be achieved only when we are constantly open to initiating processes and carrying them forward.

            Consequently, the founders voiced their desire to advance slowly but surely with the passage of time, since is it is precisely time which governs spaces, illumines them and makes them links in a constantly expanding chain, with no possibility of return.  Building peace calls for giving priority to actions which generate new processes in society and engage other persons and groups, who can then develop them to the point where they bear fruit in significant historical events.

            That is why the founders established this body as a permanent institution.  Pope Paul VI, several years later, had occasion to observe that “the institutions which in the juridical order and in international society have the task and merit of proclaiming and preserving peace, will attain their lofty goal only if they remain continually active, if they are capable of creating peace, making peace, at every moment”.   What is called for is a constant work of humanization, for “it is not enough to contain wars, to suspend conflicts… An imposed peace, a utilitarian and provisional peace, is not enough.  Progress must be made towards a peace which is loved, free and fraternal, founded, that is, on a reconciliation of hearts”;  in other words, to encourage processes calmly, yet with clear convictions and tenacity.

            Achieving the good of peace first calls for educating to peace, banishing a culture of conflict aimed at fear of others, marginalizing those who think or live differently than ourselves.  It is true that conflict cannot be ignored or concealed; it has to be faced.  But if it paralyzes us, we lose perspective, our horizons shrink and we grasp only a part of reality.  When we fail to move forward in a situation of conflict, we lose our sense of the profound unity of reality,  we halt history and we become enmeshed in useless disputes.

            Tragically, peace continues all too often to be violated.  This is the case in so many parts of the world where conflicts of various sorts continue to fester.  It is also the case here in Europe, where tensions continue to exist.  How great a toll of suffering and death is still being exacted on this continent, which yearns for peace yet so easily falls back into the temptations of the past!  That is why the efforts of the Council of Europe to seek a political solution to current crises is so significant and encouraging.

            Yet peace is also put to the test by other forms of conflict, such as religious and international terrorism, which displays deep disdain for human life and indiscriminately reaps innocent victims.  This phenomenon is unfortunately bankrolled by a frequently unchecked traffic in weapons.  The Church is convinced that “the arms race is one of the greatest curses on the human race and the harm it inflicts on the poor is more than can be endured”.   Peace is also violated by trafficking in human beings, the new slavery of our age, which turns persons into merchandise for trade and deprives its victims of all dignity.  Not infrequently we see how interconnected these phenomena are.  The Council of Europe, through its Committees and Expert Groups, has an important and significant role to play in combating these forms of inhumanity.

            This being said, peace is not merely the absence of war, conflicts and tensions.  In the Christian vision, peace is at once a gift of God and the fruit of free and reasonable human acts aimed at pursuing the common good in truth and love.  “This rational and moral order is based on a conscientious decision by men and women to seek harmony in their mutual relationships, with respect for justice for everyone”.

            How then do we pursue the ambitious goal of peace?

            The path chosen by the Council of Europe is above all that of promoting human rights, together with the growth of democracy and the rule of law.  This is a particularly valuable undertaking, with significant ethical and social implications, since the development of our societies and their peaceful future coexistence depends on a correct understanding of these terms and constant reflection on them.  This reflection is one of the great contributions which Europe has offered, and continues to offer, to the entire world.

            In your presence today, then, I feel obliged to stress the importance of Europe’s continuing responsibility to contribute to the cultural development of humanity.  I would like to do so by using an image drawn from a twentieth-century Italian poet, Clemente Rebora.  In one of his poems,  Rebora describes a poplar tree, its branches reaching up to the sky, buffeted by the wind, while its trunk remains firmly planted on deep roots sinking into the earth.   In a certain sense, we can consider Europe in the light of this image.

            Throughout its history, Europe has always reached for the heights, aiming at new and ambitious goals, driven by an insatiable thirst for knowledge, development, progress, peace and unity.  But the advance of thought, culture, and scientific discovery is entirely due to the solidity of the trunk and the depth of the roots which nourish it.  Once those roots are lost, the trunk slowly withers from within and the branches – once flourishing and erect – bow to the earth and fall.  This is perhaps among the most baffling paradoxes for a narrowly scientific mentality: in order to progress towards the future we need the past, we need profound roots.  We also need the courage not to flee from the present and its challenges.  We need memory, courage, a sound and humane utopian vision.

            Rebora notes, on the one hand, that “the trunk sinks its roots where it is most true”.   The roots are nourished by truth, which is the sustenance, the vital lymph, of any society which would be truly free, human and fraternal.  On the other hand, truth appeals to conscience, which cannot be reduced to a form of conditioning.  Conscience is capable of recognizing its own dignity and being open to the absolute; it thus gives rise to fundamental decisions guided by the pursuit of the good, for others and for one’s self; it is itself the locus of responsible freedom.

            It also needs to be kept in mind that apart from the pursuit of truth, each individual becomes the criterion for measuring himself and his own actions.  The way is thus opened to a subjectivistic assertion of rights, so that the concept of human rights, which has an intrinsically universal import, is replaced by an individualistic conception of rights.  This leads to an effective lack of concern for others and favours that globalization of indifference born of selfishness, the result of a conception of man incapable of embracing the truth and living an authentic social dimension.

            This kind of individualism leads to human impoverishment and cultural aridity, since it effectively cuts off the nourishing roots on which the tree grows.  Indifferent individualism leads to the cult of opulence reflected in the throwaway culture all around us.  We have a surfeit of unnecessary things, but we no longer have the capacity to build authentic human relationships marked by truth and mutual respect.  And so today we are presented with the image of a Europe which is hurt, not only by its many past ordeals, but also by present-day crises which it no longer seems capable of facing with its former vitality and energy; a Europe which is a bit tired and pessimistic, which feels besieged by events and winds of change coming from other continents.

            To Europe we can put the question: “Where is your vigour?  Where is that idealism which inspired and ennobled your history?  Where is your spirit of curiosity and enterprise?  Where is your thirst for truth, a thirst which hitherto you have passionately shared with the world?

            The future of the continent will depend on the answer to these questions.  Returning to Rebora’s image of the tree, a trunk without roots can continue to have the appearance of life, even as it grows hollow within and eventually dies.  Europe should reflect on whether its immense human, artistic, technical, social, political, economic and religious patrimony is simply an artefact of the past, or whether it is still capable of inspiring culture and displaying its treasures to mankind as a whole.  In providing an answer to this question, the Council of Europe with its institutions has a role of primary importance.

            I think particularly of the role of the European Court of Human Rights, which in some way represents the conscience of Europe with regard to those rights.  I express my hope that this conscience will continue to mature, not through a simple consensus between parties, but as the result of efforts to build on those deep roots which are the bases on which the founders of contemporary Europe determined to build.

            These roots need to be sought, found and maintained by a daily exercise of memory, for they represent the genetic patrimony of Europe.  At the same time there are present challenges facing the continent.  These summon us to continual creativity in ensuring that the roots continue to bear fruit today and in the realization of our vision for the future.  Allow me to mention only two aspects of this vision: the challenge of multipolarity and the challenge of transversality.

            The history of Europe might lead us to think somewhat naïvely of the continent as bipolar, or at most tripolar (as in the ancient conception of Rome-Byzantium-Moscow), and thus to interpret the present and to look to the future on the basis of this schema, which is a simplification born of pretentions to power.

            But this is not the case today, and we can legitimately speak of a “multipolar” Europe.  Its tensions – whether constructive or divisive – are situated between multiple cultural, religious and political poles.  Europe today confronts the challenge of creatively “globalizing” this multipolarity.  Nor are cultures necessarily identified with individual countries: some countries have a variety of cultures and some cultures are expressed in a variety of countries.  The same holds true for political, religious, and social aggregations.

            Creatively globalizing multipolarity calls for striving to create a constructive harmony, one free of those pretensions to power which, while appearing from a pragmatic standpoint to make things easier, end up destroying the cultural and religious distinctiveness of peoples.

            To speak of European multipolarity is to speak of peoples which are born, grow and look to the future.  The task of globalizing Europe’s multipolarity cannot be conceived by appealing to the image of a sphere – in which all is equal and ordered, but proves reductive inasmuch as every point is equidistant from the centre – but rather, by the image of a polyhedron, in which the harmonic unity of the whole preserves the particularity of each of the parts.  Today Europe is multipolar in its relationships and its intentions; it is impossible to imagine or to build Europe without fully taking into account this multipolar reality.

            The second challenge which I would like to mention is transversality.  Here I would begin with my own experience: in my meetings with political leaders from various European countries, I have observed that the younger politicians view reality differently than their older colleagues.  They may appear to be saying the same things, but their approach is different.  This is evident in younger politicians from various parties.  This empirical fact points to a reality of present-day Europe which cannot be overlooked in efforts to unite the continent and to guide its future: we need to take into account this transversality encountered in every sector.  To do so requires engaging in dialogue, including intergenerational dialogue.  Were we to define the continent today, we should speak of a Europe in dialogue, one which puts a transversality of opinions and reflections at the service of a harmonious union of peoples.

            To embark upon this path of transversal communication requires not only generational empathy, but also an historic methodology of growth.  In Europe’s present political situation, merely internal dialogue between the organizations (whether political, religious or cultural) to which one belongs, ends up being unproductive.  Our times demand the ability to break out of the structures which “contain” our identity and to encounter others, for the sake of making that identity more solid and fruitful in the fraternal exchange of transversality.  A Europe which can only dialogue with limited groups stops halfway; it needs that youthful spirit which can rise to the challenge of transversality.

            In light of all this, I am gratified by the desire of the Council of Europe to invest in intercultural dialogue, including its religious dimension, through the Exchange on the Religious Dimension of Intercultural Dialogue.  Here is a valuable opportunity for open, respectful and enriching exchange between persons and groups of different origins and ethnic, linguistic and religious traditions, in a spirit of understanding and mutual respect.

            These meetings appear particularly important in the current multicultural and multipolar context, for finding a distinctive physiognomy capable of skilfully linking the European identity forged over the course of centuries to the expectations and aspirations of other peoples who are now making their appearance on the continent.

            This way of thinking also casts light on the contribution which Christianity can offer to the cultural and social development of Europe today within the context of a correct relationship between religion and society.  In the Christian vision, faith and reason, religion and society, are called to enlighten and support one another, and, whenever necessary, to purify one another from ideological extremes.  European society as a whole cannot fail to benefit from a renewed interplay between these two sectors, whether to confront a form of religious fundamentalism which is above all inimical to God, or to remedy a reductive rationality which does no honour to man.

            There are in fact a number of pressing issues which I am convinced can lead to mutual enrichment, issues on which the Catholic Church – particularly through the Council of Episcopal Conferences of Europe (CCEE) – can cooperate with the Council of Europe and offer an essential contribution.  First and foremost there is, in view of what I have said above, the area of ethical reflection on human rights, which your Organization is often called to consider.  I think in particular of the issues linked to the protection of human life, sensitive issues that demand a careful study which takes into account the truth of the entire human being, without being restricted to specific medical, scientific or juridic aspects.

            Similarly, the contemporary world offers a number of other challenges requiring careful study and a common commitment, beginning with the welcoming of migrants, who immediately require the essentials of subsistence, but more importantly a recognition of their dignity as persons.  Then too, there is the grave problem of labour, chiefly because of the high rate of young adults unemployed in many countries – a veritable mortgage on the future – but also for the issue of the dignity of work.

           It is my profound hope that the foundations will be laid for a new social and economic cooperation, free of ideological pressures, capable of confronting a globalized world while at the same time encouraging that sense of solidarity and mutual charity which has been a distinctive feature of Europe, thanks to the generous efforts of hundreds of men and women – some of whom the Catholic Church considers saints – who over the centuries have worked to develop the continent, both by entrepreneurial activity and by works of education, welfare, and human promotion.  These works, above all, represent an important point of reference for the many poor people living in Europe.  How many of them there are in our streets!  They ask not only for the food they need for survival, which is the most elementary of rights, but also for a renewed appreciation of the value of their own life, which poverty obscures, and a rediscovery of the dignity conferred by work.

            Finally, among the issues calling for our reflection and our cooperation is the defence of the environment, of this beloved planet earth.  It is the greatest resource which God has given us and is at our disposal not to be disfigured, exploited, and degraded, but so that, in the enjoyment of its boundless beauty, we can live in this world with dignity.

Mr Secretary General, Madame President, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

            Pope Paul VI called the Church an “expert in humanity”.   In this world, following the example of Christ and despite the sins of her sons and daughters, the Church seeks nothing other than to serve and to bear witness to the truth.   This spirit alone guides us in supporting the progress of humanity.

            In this spirit, the Holy See intends to continue its cooperation with the Council of Europe, which today plays a fundamental role in shaping the mentality of future generations of Europeans.  This calls for mutual engagement in a far-ranging reflection aimed at creating a sort of new agorá, in which all civic and religious groups can enter into free exchange, while respecting the separation of sectors and the diversity of positions, an exchange inspired purely by the desire of truth and the advancement of the common good.  For culture is always born of reciprocal encounter which seeks to stimulate the intellectual riches and creativity of those who take part in it; this is not only a good in itself, it is also something beautiful.  My hope is that Europe, by rediscovering the legacy of its history and the depth of its roots, and by embracing its lively multipolarity and the phenomenon of a transversality in dialogue, will rediscover that youthfulness of spirit which has made this continent fruitful and great.

            Thank you!

In-Flight Interview from Strasbourg to Rome

About your words on the real strength of the people and international powers: are you a social-democratic Pope?

“That is reductionism my dear man. It makes me feel like I’m part of an insect collection: look, that one there is a social-democratic insect! I don’t know if I’m a social-democratic Pope or not … no, I would not dare take sides, I dare to say that this comes from the Gospel, this is the message of the Gospel followed by the social doctrine of the Church. I have never moved away from the social doctrine of the Church which comes from the Gospel and the Christian tradition in any of the social or political comments I have made … what I said about people’s identity is an Evangelical value, that was what I was referring to … but you made me laugh, thank you!”

The streets of Strasbourg were pretty empty this morning. People said they were disappointed. Do you regret not going to Strasbourg Cathedral for its Millenary anniversary? And when will you go on your first visit to France and maybe to Lisieux?

It has not been planned yet. But I must go to Paris of course. Lourdes is another possibility … I have asked to go to a city a Pope has never gone to before, to greet the people. But no preparations have been made. As far as Strasbourg Cathedral is concerned, we did think about it but to pay a visit to it meant visiting France, this was the problem.”

You mentioned the concept of transversality and to meetings you had with young politicians in different countries. You also spoke of the need for some sort of intergenerational pact. Out of personal curiosity: is it true you have a devotion for St. Joseph?

“Yes, whenever I have asked St. Joseph for something he has granted me my wish. My wish for transversality is important. In conversations I have had with young politicians representing different parties and nations here and in the Vatican, I have noticed that their tune is different, it leans toward transversality. It is a gift, they are not afraid to go outside their own beliefs, without rejecting these, in order to engage in dialogue. They are courageous and I think we should follow their example and also engage in intergenerational dialogue … Europe needs this act of going out to find people to engage in dialogue with.

In your second speech you spoke of the sins of the children of the Church. How did you react to the news about the incident in Granada which you helped bring to light?

“I read about it, I called the person and I said to them: you go to the bishop tomorrow. I wrote to the bishop asking him to get to work, hold an inquiry and get things moving.  How did I react to the news? With great pain, great, great pain. But the truth is the truth and we must not hide it.”

You spoke both about the threat of terrorism and about the threat of slavery. Both are characteristic of the Islamic State which poses a threat to much of the Mediterranean, Rome and yourself. Do you think it is also possible to engage in dialogue with these extremists or is it a lost cause?

“I never see anything as a lost cause, ever. Maybe dialogue is not possible … But I never close any door. It is difficult, almost impossible one would say, but the door always stays open, no? You used the term threat twice. It’s true, terrorism is one of the many existing threats. But slavery is a reality that forms part of today’s social fabric. Slave labour, human trafficking, child trafficking … It is a tragedy, let us not turn a blind eye to this! Slavery,the exploitation of people, is a reality today … It is a threat from these terrorists …. But there is also another threat: State terrorism, when every State takes it upon themselves to decide and thinks it is their right to slaughter terrorists. But many innocent people die alongside them … this is high-level anarchism and it is very dangerous. We must fight against terrorism, but I repeat, when an unjust aggressor needs to be stopped, this is done with the consensus of the international community. No country has the right to take it upon themselves to stop an unjust aggressor.”

When you travel, does your heart tell you are travelling as the Successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome or the Archbishop of Buenos Aires?

“I really don’t know … I think I travel as all three … but how come you ask me this? You’re really making think now. My memory is that of the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, but I am no longer that … Now I am Bishop of Rome and Successor of Peter. I think I travel with this memory and this reality. I am concerned about Europe at the moment. As Bishop of Rome … I am Roman …and Successor of Peter, I want to help it move forward. Thank you so much for your work , it has been an intense day, don’t forget to pray for me.”