Marcello Pera

An Attack on the Pope and on Democracy

(Corriere della Sera)

The recent uproar in Germany about paedophile and homosexual priests is an attack on the Pope. It would be a serious mistake to think that it is too monstrously daring to harm him. And it would be an even worse mistake to think that the whole affair will be quickly brought to an end like so many others. This is not the case.
There is a war on. It is not openly against the Pope in person as that would be impossibile on this ground. Benedict XVI is proof against any such thing, his serene calm, transparence, firmness and doctrine make him unassailable. His gentle smile is enough to scatter a whole host of adversaries. No, the war is between anticlericalism and Christianity. The anticlericals know that a spot of mud on that white robe would mean that the Church was sullied, and if the Curch were sullied so the Christian religion likewise. So they accompany their campaign with such refrains as who will take the children to Church?" or "who would send their children to Catholic schools ?" or "who would have our little ones cared for in a Catholic hospital or clinic?".
A few days ago an anticlerical casually revealed their real thinking: "The extent of the problem of child abuse by priests undermines the right of the Catholic Church to educate the very young". No matter that this sentence contains no evidente as "the extent of the problem..." is carefully concealed. Are the paedophiles one per cent of the priesthood ? Ten per cent ? All of them ? No matter that the sentence lacks logic: it would be enough to substitute the word "priests" with "teachers" or "politicians" or "journalists" to undermine the legitimacy of state schools, of parliaments and of the press. What matters is the insinuation that, regardless of the coarseness of the subject matter, priests are paedophile, therefore the Church has no moral authority, therefore Catholic education is dangerous, therefore Christianity itself is a fraud and a danger.
This war against Christianity is a total war. One has to look back to nazi rule or communism to find anything like it. The means change but the end is the same: today as yesterday the aim is the destruction of religion. Then the price paid by Europe was the loss of her freedom. It is incredibile that Germany once again a democratic country still beating her breast in memory of the sacrifice she inflicted on the rest of Europe, should forget and not understand that her democracy would be lost if Christianity were vanquished again. The destruction of religion then brought about the destruction of reason. Today it would not lead to the triumph of secular reason but to another barbarity.
From an ethical angle it is the barbarity of those who kill the foetus because its life might endanger the mother's phsychic health; those who consider an emhryo a "cluster of cells" useful for experimentation; those who would kill an old person because he has no family to look after him; those who would hasten the death of a son because he is unconscious and incurable; those who think that "parent A" and "parent B" are the same as "father" and "mother"; those who believe that faith is like the coccyx, that part which no longer has any place in evolution because man no longer needs a tail and can stand up by himsel. And so on.
Or looking at the political side of the anticlerical war against Christianity, barbarity will mean the destruction of Europe. Because, once Christianity is vanquished, we would be left with multiculturalism which claims that each group has a right to its own culture; with relativism which claims that every culture is as good as any other, and pacifism which denies the existence of evil.
This war on Christianity would not be so dangerous if the Christians understood what was at stake, but a large number of them join in the general incomprehension.
They are those theologians who are frustrated by the Pope's intellectual superiority. Those hesitant bishops who believe that the best way to update the Christian message is to compromise with modernity. Those cardinals with a faith crisis who begin to insinuate that celibacy for priests is not a dogma and that it might be better to rethink the issue.Those stealthy catholic intellectuals who think that there is a feminine problem within the church and an unresolved problem between Christianity and sexuality. These episcopal conferences where mistakes are made with the agenda and, while they wish for an open frontier policy, haven't the courage to denounce the attacks against Christians and the humiliation suffered when they are all indiscriminately brought to the bench of the accused. Or even those chancellors from the East who put on show a handsome homosexual foreign minister whilst attacking the Pope on every ethical question or those born in the West who believe that the West must be anticlerical, that is anti-Christian.
This anticlerical war will continue, if only because a Pope like Benedict XVI who smiles but doesn't give an inch, fuels their fire. But if we understand why he is immovable, then the situation can be in hand and there is no need to just wait for the next blow. Those who are content with merely agreeing with him are either like a man who goes to the Garden of Olives at night under the cloak of darkness or one who doesn't realise why he is there anyway.

Pontifical Lateran University, Vatican City

1609-2009 From Galilei's Telescope to Evolutionary Cosmology. Science, Philosophy and Theology in Dialogue



GENERAL PROGRAM


Sunday November 29th Afternoon
(reserved to Invited Guests)
18:00 Galilei's Historical Exhibit Inauguration
20:00 Reception at the Hall of the Pontifical Lateran University (PUL)


Monday November 30th Morning
Plenary Session - Aula Magna
9:30 Welcome Introduction
RINO FISICHELLA (Rector PUL) NICOLA CABIBBO (President PAS)


Chairperson: GIANFRANCO BASTI
10:15 OWEN J. GINGERICH, University of Harvard, USA (History of Astronomy and Astrophysics)
11:00 GEORGE F. SMOOT, University of California at Berkeley, USA, Nobel Laureate (Observational Cosmology)
11:45 GIANFRANCO RAVASI, President of the Pontifical Council for Culture (Biblical Cosmology)
12:30 STEPHEN HAWKING, Cambridge University, UK (Invited)
General Discussion
13:30 End of Session


Monday November 30th Afternoon
Physics Session: Cosmology, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and GUT's
Aula Pio XI
Chairperson: MARCELLO PERA
14:30 CARLO RUBBIA, CERN, Switzerland, Nobel Laureate, Member of PAS (Cosmology, GUT's and Quantum Mechanics: LHC Physics)
15:15 ROGER PENROSE, Oxford University, UK (Cosmology, GUT's, and Relativity Theory)
16:00 NICOLA CABIBBO, University of Rome "La Sapienza", President of PAS (The state of art of GUT's in Physical Cosmology)


Chairperson: NICOLA CABIBBO
17:15 LEE SMOLIN, University of Ontario at Waterloo, Canada (Current Thinking on the Reality of Time and the Nature of Law at the Cosmological Scale)
18:00 MARCO BERSANELLI, University of Milan, Italy (Presentation on the ESA Planck Space Mission devoted to the study of the early universe)
18:45 General Discussion with all the Speakers
19:15 End of the Session


Tuesday December 1st Morning
An Audience with the Holy Father has been requested


Tuesday December 1st Afternoon
Philosophy Session: From Physical to Metaphysical Cosmology
Aula Pio XI
Chairperson: MARCELO SANCHEZ SORONDO
14:30 MARCELLO PERA, University of Pisa, Italy and Pontifical Lateran University, Vatican City, Senator of the Italian Republic (Epistemological and Cultural Relevance of the Current Debate)
15:15 ENRICO BERTI, University of Padua, Member of PAS (From Physical to Metaphysical Cosmology)
16:00 WILLIAM CARROLL, University of Oxford, UK (Time and Creation: Thomas Aquinas and Contemporary Cosmology)


Chairperson: ENRICO BERTI
17:15 GIANFRANCO BASTI, Pontifical Lateran University, Vatican City (Divine Causality vs. Physical Causality. The Formal Ontology Approach)
18:00 MARCELO SANCHEZ SORONDO, Chancellor of PAS (The Common Being of Nature and the Human Subsistent Being)
18:45 General Discussion
19:00 End of the Session


Wednesday December 2nd Morning
Theology Session: From Physics and Metaphysics to Theological Cosmology
Aula Pio XI
Chairperson: WILLIAM CARROLL
09:00 GIUSEPPE TANZELLA NITTI, University of the Holy Cross, Rome (Physical Cosmology and Christian Theology of Creation)
09:45 CHARLES MOREROD, St. Thomas Aquinas University, Rome (From Physical Cosmology to Theological Cosmology: The Analogy Path)


Chairperson: CHARLES MOREROD
11:00 GEORGES COTTIER, Former Theologian of the Pontifical Household (Causa Prima et Causae Secundae)
11:45 RINO FISICHELLA, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life and Rector of the Pontifical Lateran University (Science, Philosophy and Theology in Dialogue on Cosmology: Is a Synthesis Possible?)
12:30 Final Discussion
13:00 End of the Conference


Conference Organizing Committee
GIANFRANCO RAVASI, President of the Pontifical Council for Culture
MARCELO SANCHEZ SORONDO, Chancellor of PAS
CARLO RUBBIA, CERN, Switzerland, Nobel Laureate, Member of PAS
NICOLA CABIBBO, University of Rome "La Sapienza", President of PAS
MARCELLO PERA, University of Pisa, Italy and Pontifical Lateran University, Vatican City
GIANFRANCO BASTI, Pontifical Lateran University, Vatican City
ANTONIO LUIGI PERRONE, Secretary of IRAFS, Pontifical Lateran University, Vatican City

A conference at the John Paul II Cultural Center, Washington DC

Religion, Dialogue, and Truth

The speech that Benedict XVI gave at the John Paul II Cultural Center on April 17th, 2008 was predominantly dedicated to what the Pope himself defined as "interreligious and intercultural dialogue". Since the two expressions are not equivalent, I'll first try to examine in what they differ and then defend two theses: that interreligious dialogue is not possible, that intercultural dialogue, on the contrary, is not only possible but necessary.
I have analyzed the Pope's speech carefully and I have my own views. But I will be neither so conceited as to try an authentic interpretation of the Pope's words nor so arrogant as to attribute to him opinions which are only mine. The admirable thing about Benedict XVI is that he intends to face up to everybody, without any prejudice. In doing so, the Pope is not foregoing the Christian truth, he is undertaking to discuss it with those who deny or question it. His plea to "creative minorities" is at the same time an act of intellectual modesty, because he brings himself down to our level, and a challenge, because he encourages us to question even our most deep-rooted assumptions. We should all live up to this challenge. An open and responsible discussion is just what we need, because what is at stake are the peaceful relations among people and countries and the future of our liberal and democratic states.


1. Goals of dialogue

In his speech, as well as in the one he gave at the United Nations the day before, Benedict XVI advanced four reasons in favour of interreligious dialogue.
First: dialogue is necessary to mutual understanding. As the Pope said, "in the dialogue between religions both the participants and society are enriched". This means that, through dialogue, each group comes in touch with the others' faith, understands how such faith is articulated, in what respects it differs, and what makes it similar to one's own.
Second: dialogue serves the sharing of fundamental ethical values. According to the Pope, such values are "discernible to human reason [and] venerated by all people of goodwill". It is thanks to dialogue that "we see that we share an esteem for ethical values", that is, we share a common ground we all appreciate.
Third: interreligious dialogue is valuable for reasons of solidarity. If, in a complex society, each group knows and respects the others' faith, then society can harmoniously grow. To use the Pope's own words: we ought to conceive dialogue "not only as a means of enhancing mutual understanding, but also as a way of serving society at large. By bearing witness to those moral truths which they hold in common with all men and women of goodwill, religious groups will exert a positive influence on the wider culture, and inspire neighbours, co-workers and fellow citizens to join in the task of strengthening the ties of solidarity".
Fourth: interreligious dialogue fosters the quest for truth. "The broader purpose of dialogue said the Pope is to discover the truth. What is the origin and destiny of mankind? What are good and evil? What awaits us at the end of our earthly existence?".
I have no doubt about the value of the first three goals. If believers in one faith come into contact with believers in another one, both groups will certainly benefit from better knowledge of each other's ways of thinking and acting. Both will be enriched and better disposed to mutual respect. Although understanding, which is an intellectual act, does not by itself imply respect, which is a moral act, it does at least remove the suspicion and prejudice that derive from ignorance which is a precondition for respect. Society at large undoubtedly gains from it.
However, the fourth goal mentioned by the Pope the discovery of truth seems to me to be problematic. What truth are we referring to? If the answer is "the truth about fundamental issues of man and his destiny", my questions are: does such a truth really exist, and can it be achieved by dialogue? No precise answer can be given unless we examine what, exactly, dialogue means, presupposes, and amounts to.


2. Dialogue "stricto sensu"

From a technical viewpoint, a dialogue is a dialectical exchange between two interlocutors who maintain different views but are willing to find the truth about them. Two aspects are particularly to the point.
The first aspect concerns the logical structure of dialogue. Dialogue uses refutation, that is, in a dialogue one participant (the proponent) tries to prove that the point of view of his interlocutor (the opponent) is untenable because it is logically contradicted by other views the opponent himself, due to the questions asked by the proponent, puts forward during the exchange. The role of refutation was aptly highlighted by Socrates, the first to use the dialectical method. As he said: "[I am] one of those who would gladly be refuted if anything I say is not true, and would gladly refute another who says what is not true." (Gor. 458a). In virtue of its logical structure, a dialogue is different from a simple conversation, in which each person informs the other about his own opinions, without feeling obliged to revise them or to disprove his interlocutor's beliefs. In a dialogue, the other person's opinions are used against him.
The second relevant aspect of dialogue is its purpose. Dialogue aims to find the truth, as Socrates says. More to the point, dialogue aims to eliminate errors from a set of opinions by a gradual process of refutation. The heart of dialogue is an act of both modesty and ambition, because, as Karl Popper has repeatedly stressed, the interlocutors implicitly agree on saying "I may be wrong and you may be right, and by an effort we may get nearer to the truth" (The Open Society, II, p.238). In this respect, a dialogue is different from an apodictic proof, which proceeds from first or self-evident principles, as well as from the presentation of a thesis, as is the case with a lecture, a rally, or a sermon.
If we put together the two aspects, we may reconstruct a dialogue as a sequence composed of a starting stage, with the proponent saying A and the opponent saying B, a series of intermediate moves which are rejected one after the other, and a final stage, when both interlocutors say A or B or concur to a new and different thesis C. In terms of the language of the game of chess, a good metaphor for dialogue, the sequence would be: "opening"-"capturing pieces"-"checkmate".
It should be noted that dialogue is both cooperative and contentious. It is contentious because it makes use of refutation: each interlocutor tries to put the other one in difficulty. It is cooperative because the two interlocutors realize they are fallible: only by joining their efforts can they attain the truth. This dual nature of dialogue sheds light on what may be termed its essential presupposition, i.e.: in a dialogue, every thesis is fallible and liable to revision.


3. The impossibility of interreligious dialogue

I am now in the position of embarking on my first thesis, namely, that interreligious dialogue is impossible. Since "dialogue", as we have seen, technically means dialectical exchange by refutation, this amounts to saying that no dialogue "stricto sensu" can be entertained between believers in different religions. This is precisely the view that Benedict XVI maintains in his Preface to my latest book.
The thesis follows straightforwardly from the essential presupposition of dialogue. The object of interreligious dialogue should obviously be religious, and dialogue which, let us repeat, uses refutation to eliminate errors should establish which religion, or which specific religious statement, is true or nearer to the truth than the other. But when a believer, let us assume a Christian, discusses with a non-Christian believer, let's say a Muslim, it is not this that is or can be the object of discussion. The Christian cannot reasonably try to prove to the Muslim, for example, that God is a Person, that He has become a Man, that Christ is the Son of God, that He died and was raised, that He is three yet one, and so on. Statements about God such as these are truths of faith that the Christian worshipper cannot put in doubt (or "put in brackets", as the Pope says). And, of course, the same is true with similar statements advanced by the Muslim. It would be unreasonable for him to try to convince the Christian, say, that Christ was just a prophet, or that God has no personal nature. But if a belief cannot be doubted, neither can it be the object of a dialogue, because that would violate dialogue's essential presupposition.
The point is that religions, in particular monotheistic religions, have dogmas, while dialogue has none, and believers are dogmatic while the participants to a dialogue are not. For believers, being dogmatic is not a defect or a fault; quite on the contrary, being dogmatic is the very manner in which believers preach and practice their faith. But if worshippers of different religions are by their very nature dogmatic, they cannot allow themselves to say "I may be wrong, you may be right", therefore they cannot even dialogue. They may indeed converse, that is, mutually expose the content of their faith and understand each others' points of view. But, as we have observed, conversation is different from dialogue, because it does not use refutation and, above all, it does not aim to find the truth. The most interlocutors can do in a conversation is to shed light on their own truths.
It could be objected that dialogue is such a powerful instrument, that it is even capable of bringing down dogmas. Isn't this the case of conversion? Does it not happen that, by argument, an interlocutor resolves to reject his own faith and embrace the opponent's one? Conversion undoubtedly exists and its effect is certainly that of conveying the convert from one set of dogmas to another, from one faith to the other. But conversion is a spiritual process, not a logical one. Nobody converts to another faith by letting his own faith be refuted, that is by accepting reasons that disprove it.
Consider two religions, A and B, and suppose that somebody is converted by reasons of this kind: "I am converting to A because I have realized that, according to B, God does not love all people in the same way", or "I am converting to B because I have understood that A's faith allows for violence". Conversions of this kind are certainly possible, but when they occur they show that the motives advanced are not really religious. They concern issues such as equality, dignity, mutual respect, love among people, and so on, which typically are ethical or, broadly speaking, cultural. But if the conversion from one religion to another occurs for cultural reasons, then the dialogue that induces it is intercultural, not interreligious.


4. The desirability of intercultural dialogue

This leads to my second thesis: unlike interreligious dialogue, intercultural dialogue is possible. And not only is it possible, it is also expedient and desirable.
In this case, too, the reason appears to me simple. In the first place, religions are conceptual systems organised around dogmas of faith. They are exclusive and mutually incompatible. Each has its own truth. Even when they talk about the same one God and they think of Him in the same way for example, saying that "God is merciful" they are not in fact referring to the same divinity. And even when they speak of the same relationship with God for example, saying that "we are all God's children" or "we are all Abraham's sons" it is not the same relationship they have in mind. Verbally, the expressions are the same, conceptually their meanings are different. For example, to be children of God for a Christian means to be loved by Him, in Islam it means to be subject to His inscrutable will.
But religions are not simply conceptual systems organized around a core of beliefs embraced by an act of faith. They do not live in empty space. They have consequences because they give rise to, or are connected with, cultural systems or ways of life. Take Christianity. If men are sons of God, created in His image, loved by Him, then men are equal, have the same dignity, deserve the same respect, are members of the same human family. These Christian ideas have effect on the culture, the values, the institutions of the society in which they are diffused. For instance, they lend their support today to liberal societies, to charters of fundamental rights, to the idea that States cannot invade the sphere of private conscience. Some Christian ideas, such as Christ's saying "let Caesar take what is his", also support the separation of Church and State.
The point is that religions are demanding. Once they penetrate in the surrounding social life, the "society at large" as the Pope calls it, they produce an ongoing process of give and take. If certain religious truths are admitted, then certain ethical values and certain social, juridical, political principles are also to be followed. Let us consider Christianity again. Due to the central tenets of his faith, the Christian requires that equality, parity of the sexes, respect for life, personal dignity, be recognized, granted and protected. Strictly speaking, these are moral, civil, legal, political, not religious principles. They may be thought of as the secular consequences, or counterparts, of religious dogmas.
This is precisely the ground for intercultural dialogue. If a Christian champions the Trinity and a Muslim objects that this amounts to polytheism, no dialogue is possible. But if the former claims that women should have the same rights as men and the latter denies it, or if the Christian claims that civil law and religious law should be separate and the Muslim disagrees, then dialogue, though difficult, is possible. Likewise, issues such as whether democracy is better than sharia, political struggle better than jihad, a legal sentence better than a fatwa, may all be discussed. Exactly as in Socratic dialogue, such discussions can make use of refutation. If, for example, somebody denies the equality of the sexes and then he comes to acknowledge that international rights charters should apply to all countries independently of their prevalent religion, then he is refuted.
Intercultural dialogue is also promising. By proceeding from certain shared starting points, such as ethical values or cultural claims or human needs, a proponent may try to convince his opponent that a given way of life is better or more desirable than another. For example, he may show how all women, independently of their religious beliefs, wish to be respected, or that corporal punishments are inhumane, that sexual violence, even towards one's wife, injures her dignity, that societies that draw a line between Church and State and between religion and politics are more free, that marriages not arranged by parents last longer, that a democratic society is preferable to one organized by caste, and so on and so forth. At the end of a similar dialogue, each interlocutor will most likely maintain his religious beliefs, but he may come to admit that not all ways of life have the same value. If this is the case and it usually happens this way then we may assert that, while interreligious dialogue is ineffective and fruitless, intercultural dialogue is hopeful, expedient and desirable.


5. Dialogue and the Western crisis

One last remark. What I have just said seems to me reasonable and helpful. It is certainly well intentioned. Why is there then such insistence on interreligious dialogue? And why so much neglect of intercultural dialogue? The problem is mainly a Western one and affects Christians. Neither Islam nor the other religions pose themselves the question of dialogue in the same pressing terms as Christianity does, especially in Europe. Why?
My short answer to the first question is: due to a new apostasy of Christianity, and the spreading of secularism, relativism, multiculturalism, and scientism, the West is losing its traditional religion, lessening its own identity, becoming less confident in itself. This makes it weak, and like any weak subject the West is forced to shield itself against the stronger party. Interreligious dialogue is intentionally considered a sort of protection against the firm faith of those who arrive in the West, especially Muslim. In this sense, interreligious dialogue is a substitute for self-respect, a way of avoiding responsibilities. It is presented as the post-modern, open, liberal response to the challenges of our complex societies, the best antidote against a possible clash of civilizations. Actually, it masks the capitulation of one culture to another.
My equally short answer to the second question is: the West tends to avoid intercultural dialogue because it proves too demanding. Intercultural dialogue, precisely because it is a dialogue "stricto sensu", requires the proponent to possess a culture he is confident in and ready to defend and spread. The West today does no longer seem to embody such a proponent. Quite on the contrary, it looks so affected by a sort of guilt syndrome and so poorly convinced of its own worth that it tends to believe that claiming the intrinsic value of the conquests of its civilization is tantamount to imperialism, and that defending its open society amounts to aggressive ethnocentrism. This is the reason why the West refrains from even asking for the reciprocity of those rights it considers fundamental and universal. No doubt the West, like any cultural system has many faults, drawbacks, defects to amend, and many virtues to learn. Discussing and questioning our own views, even the most deeply rooted ones, is a good critical attitude. Disparaging or rejecting them would be a mistake. I only hope that we will not have to pay too high a price for this.

...Why we must define ourselves Christians

A liberal speaks

An Interview with Marcello Pera
By
Wlodzimierz Redzioch

Senator Pera, when did you meet the present pope? How do you see, as a non confessional thinker, your relation with Joseph Ratzinger as a priest, theologian and nowadays pope?

Senator Marcello Pera

I met him after being elected President of the Italian Senate in 2001. I soon appreciated his logic and deep learning. Meeting cardinal Ratzinger was very important to me, both personally and intellectually. As a philosopher of science, I have always opposed epistemological relativism of part of contemporary philosophy. Meeting Joseph Ratzinger and conducting in depth study of issues he had himself dealt with, I focused my attention on moral relativism. Also, I remember that relativism was the object of memorable private audience I had with John Paul II.
Wlodimierz Redzioch

The title of your book itself provides an indication of the questions treated. The first one is liberalism. Is there a liberalism which does not oppose Christianity, which doesn't think of it as a hindrance to the progress of man and society?

Senator Marcello Pera

True liberalism is not anti Christian. In addition, liberalism must admit to being indebted to Christianity. Two of its tenets are derived from the Bible. First: God has made man in His own image: this implies human dignity. Second: God has made the truth known to us: the revelation of the truth implies freedom and responsibility. One of the greatest liberal thinkers, Friederich Hayek once said: "I am convinced that unless the cleavage between true liberalism and religious beliefs is bridged, there will be no hope for a revival of liberalism."

Wlodimierz Redzioch

Benedict XVI regards relativism as one of the evils of Western civilization, but most liberals regard it as the foundation of democracy. What do you think about it?

Senator Marcello Pera

Relativism is the doctrine of those who think of any idea, action, or belief as worthy of respect and tolerance, for the simple reason that, being the cultural product of a given society, it can be judged by the moral standards of that society. In other words, there are no moral values or standards which can be applied to all cultures. Everything can be said or done if anyone says or does it. It looks like the triumph of freedom, but it is an illusion. Let's make some considerations. There are groups or entire societies which admit infibulation, polygamy, combined marriages, incest, eugenics or the lex talionis. In my opinion we should not tolerate these practices in the name of relativism, i.e. on the assumption that each individual has his own beliefs. In particular, I think that democracy should be built upon indisputable values. After all, if we were really relativists, the international declarations of human rights which everybody in the Western world wants, relativists included, would not make any sense. Relativists contradict themselves: they deny what they state.

Wlodimierz Redzioch

The unification process of our continent has been going on for a half century. This process was stimulated by the action of Catholic statesmen like Konrad Adenauer, Alcide De Gasperi and Robert Schuman, who wanted to built a united and pacified Europe on Christian foundations. Nowadays the European Parliament is dominated by political and ideological groups socialists, communists, greens, radicals and liberals too with a world vision opposed to Christianity (this is reflected by the bills and documents passed in Brussels). What's happened in Europe over the last decades?
Senator Marcello Pera

Unlike America, Europe has forgotten its Christian roots, it has humiliated its identity. Nowadays laicism and relativism have prevailed; they are trying to marginalize the religious element. This is a mistake, since Christianity has provided us with some of the foundations of our civilization upon which we have built our liberal democracies. It is by no mere chance that whenever man eliminated religion from social life, as was the case with Nazism and Communism, he turned the world into a hell. Heaven on earth is a goal which will never be achieved. However, when we returned to paganism, we built a hell on earth. John Paul II realized that this was likely to take place in Europe, but unfortunately he didn't win this battle.

Wlodimierz Redzioch

Nowadays Poland does not enjoy a good reputation in Europe; we are regarded as half-hearted supporters of Europeanism. Actually, many people in Poland do not like the place reserved to the Church, the Christian heritage and Catholic politicians e.g. Buttiglione, in the European Union. To lots of Poles this European Union looks a bit like the old Soviet bloc. Are they mistaken?

Senator Marcello Pera

They are not mistaken. It is by no mere chance that another country with a strong Christian tradition like Ireland rejected the European Constitution. European heads of state and government know these things and therefore behave like enlightened dictators; they never let us discuss, participate or vote. They work and meet behind closed doors; they are trying to build Europe without the European people. As a result, nobody likes or is enthusiastic about this Europe devoid, as it is of ideals, with no cultural reference or common foreign policy. It is only a centre of bureaucratic control; a set of regulations which paralyze the life of Europeans without actually improving it. Unless Europe decides to rediscover its identity, to preserve its political, religious and cultural roots, it will inevitably be condemned to succumb, on the world scene, to competitors which, on the contrary, are greatly concerned about the promotion of their own identity. Let's put it like this: unless Europe becomes a necessity for Europeans, an ideal to fight for, it will be perceived as an obstacle, as a myth with no sense. Those politicians and intellectuals, I'm thinking of Habermas's constitutional patriotism, who advocate a European constitution built on abstract principles, which does not involve popular participation, should remember America, its Declaration of Independence and Constitution. If they are willing to reflect, at least once, on European identity and the role of Christianity in the building of basic human rights, they should look to the Polish constitution.

Wlodimierz Redzioch

Nowadays multiculturalism is a myth of the European left. The left, along with some liberal circles, says that we cannot emphasize our Christian roots or the role of Christianity as Europe is already and will be more and more multi religious, multiethnic and multicultural. Are we condemned to lose our Christian identity to build a multicultural society?

Senator Marcello Pera

People of different cultures can and must live together and mingle, but identities on a vast scale must be preserved and the values of our civilization must be defended. Multiculturalism is the other side of relativism: everything is the same, everything is blurred, there is no scale of values, only local habits and collective rights.

Wlodimierz Redzioch

Oriana Fallaci, your great fellow countrywoman, spent the last years of her life writing books in which she warned us against the danger of the islamization of Europe. Do you sense this danger too?

Senator Marcello Pera

Islam is a great civilization which is obviously not to be demonized or opposed as a whole. Muslims who arrive in Europe are proud to preserve their roots and tend to build "national Islams". This is understandable and reasonable, but becomes dangerous when "national Islams" do not recognize typically European values and principles, since this is a hindrance to integration. Europeans should insist on the defence of their identity as defined in their constitutions; however, they seem to be ashamed of their own roots and mortify them. What is more, they are not willing to work for the integration of immigrants. In addition, they do not ask the Muslim countries these people come from to guarantee religious freedom to the Christians who live there. There is a dangerous inequality likely to weaken Europe.

Wlodimierz Redzioch

Let us go back to the central point of our book. You explain why we need to recognize the link between real liberalism and Christianity. Could you give a short explanation to our readers?

Senator Marcello Pera

The values which made our civilization great originated from Christianity. Liberalism is founded on Christian principles. Attacking Christianity, mortifying it, confining it to the private sphere implies weakening the values I was talking about human dignity and freedom which are the foundations of liberalism. What will be left of our civilization, once we have severed our link with Christianity and betrayed liberalism, which has made us prosperous and free? Hence the necessity for all of us, even non believers, to identify with Christianity in terms of values and culture. Obviously, they must do this if they want to keep the freedom they enjoy.

Wlodimierz Redzioch

You received cardinal Ratzinger's call to non believers to live velut si Deus daretur i.e. as if God existed. Will you convince others to follow you?

Senator Marcello Pera

The Pope's proposal has marked an advance on his predecessors as far as the relation with the lay and non believers is concerned. By inviting us to follow the exhortation of Pascal and Kant to live as if God existed, Benedict XVI has cast a bridge towards all those who have not received to gift of faith. As for me, I think that this is an acceptable solution as it is far reaching: in this way we can be responsible for our actions. If God exists, there are limits we must impose ourselves and respect. In dealing with others, in passing laws and organizing society, we cannot give claim unlimited power or freedom. The negation of Christianity works like a drug: it gives euphoria at first, but then produces frustration and depression.