"God wants us to be in the EU"

These are not the words of A Christian Outlook. These are the words of Cardinal Jozef Glemp, the primate of Poland, who once more gave the thumbs-up to his country's joining the European Union despite the opposition from a very vociferous lobby of Catholic conservatives.

There are Church leaders who, following the Pope's example, recognise the historical moment Europe is going through and totally support it and approve it.

A report by the US-based Catholic World News released on February 19 stated that the head of the Polish Church appealed for a Yes vote on joining the EU.

Cardinal Glemp told the Rzeczpospolita newspaper in a front-page interview: "I believe ... that God wants us to be in a united Europe. It would be bad if that did not happen." He added, "I believe that it is God's design that European nations... co-operate after the experience of so many wars."

Cardinal Glemp showed a lot of courage in publicly taking this stand. Though the majority seem to be in favour there is a vocal minority of Catholics who oppose accession. These Catholic traditionalists, mainly part of the lobby of Radio Maria, use the same argument used by local Eurosceptics.

Their campaign is also based on fear and misinformation. They argue that that Poland will lose its sovereignty and that traditional family values will be undermined, especially by EU attempts to force legalisation of abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex unions on member states. In his statements Cardinal Glemp continually downplayed those fears.

The strong position of Cardinal Glemp in favour of his country's accession to the EU is more significant in view of the critical stance he and several other Church people took vis-à-vis the publication of a draft of Articles 1-16 of the future Constitutional Treaty of the European Union. This draft was published so that members of the commission could submit suggestions and amendments.

Cardinal Glemp and other churchmen were disappointed at these draft articles but their position is radically different from that of the Maltese anti-EU lobby. The latter sensationalised these suggestions as if they were finalised and even misquoted the Pope to bolster their case. Glemp and other churchmen of international repute levelled their criticism, promised that they will lobby for change in this draft but continued expressing - in even stronger terms - their support to the EU, its enlargement and the positive elements of the same draft. Let us give a few examples.

COMECE, the organisation of European bishops, expressed their "hope that the role of religious faith will be recognised in the final version of the Constitutional Treaty." They also said that they "hope that legislative proposals submitted by COMECE and the Church and Society Commission of the Conference of European Churches... will be included in the final text of the treaty." But COMECE did not stop here.

Another part of their statement (unfortunately this was excluded in local press reports) said: "In its contributions to the Convention, the COMECE Secretariat promoted the values of respect for human dignity and human rights, freedom, democracy, justice and solidarity, the objectives of promoting peace and the common good. We therefore welcome the inclusion of all these elements, which are based on Europe's religious, cultural and philosophical heritage, in the draft articles."

The Rev. Rudiger Noll, of the Conference of European Churches (CEC), took a similar position. He lamented that the role of churches and religious communities has not been included so far but added: "In spite of this, article (article 2 of the draft) reflects many Christian values, and if one compares it with the first draft constitution of last November, it's already a step forward."

The position of Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican's Secretaryof State, is very interesting. He said that the Church, together with other Christian churches in Europe, requests "the juridical recognition of churches and religious communities; ...the safeguarding of their specific identity together with the provision for structured dialogue between the Union and these confessions; and respect of the juridical status that religious confessions enjoy in virtue of the national legislations."

Cardinal Sodano recognises the positive elements in the published document while expressing his surprise at certain lacunae and emphasising that not all is lost since there is time for making amendments. "Besides," he says, "the president of the Convention, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, assured all that there are other places and niches in the Constitution where the demands and requests of Christians can find a place."

The explanatory note accompanying the draft articles mentions a number of examples where these demands can be included. These are: "the Preamble, in Article 3 on the general objectives of the Union, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights (which, unlike this Article, does not, however, apply to autonomous action by the member states), in Title VI on 'The democratic life of the Union' and in the provisions enshrining the specific objectives of the various policies."

It is for these reasons that Church leaders of international repute (even when they do partial criticism) continue to totally approve and support the enlargement of the Union. They see the EU and its enlargement as a greater good, which outweighs and out does every disadvantage.