Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the powerful Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said in a recent interview that Turkey should seek to join Islamic nations rather attempt to join the European Union. The German prelate told France's Le Figaro magazine that Turkey had always been "in permanent contrast to Europe," and that it should look to its roots for closer associations.

Cardinal Ratzinger's position is in contrast with the official position of the leaders of EU member states. Though, by and large, the vast majority of European leaders have accepted the principle that Turkey should join the EU, they all agree that the road that has to be travelled for this principle to be put into practice is still long and arduous.

To be fair, one must note that there were important political figures that have expressed opinions similar to that of Cardinal Ratzinger. He is not alone in holding this position. Ironically there is support from the French camp which ironically provided the staunchest opposition to the inclusion of a reference to Christianity in the European Constitution.

Let's return to Ratzinger's interview before commenting further.

"In the course of history, Turkey has always represented a different continent, in permanent contrast to Europe," Cardinal Ratzinger told the magazine, noting the history of Ottoman Empire, which once invaded Europe as far as Vienna.

"Making the two continents identical would be a mistake," he said. "It would mean a loss of richness, the disappearance of the cultural to the benefit of economics." The cardinal said Turkey "could try to set up a cultural continent with neighbouring Arab countries and become the leading figure of a culture with its own identity."

He added that he could envision such an Islamic entity forming certain ties with the EU, working together to fight extremism, for example.

Cardinal Ratzinger's position as the Prefect of the Congregation of Faith emanates from the fact that he is an authority on dogma. He is one of the finest post-Vatican II theologians. The question of whether Turkey should join the EU or not is a political question and not a dogmatic question. How should one explain this foray of the eminent dogmatist into international politics?

It is safe to assume that Cardinal Ratzinger would not have made these statements had he not had an understanding of sorts with the Vatican's Secretariat of State. So are we now to expect that his position would now be put forward as the official position of the Holy See? After the campaign in favour of keeping a mention of Christianity in the Constitution are we to expect a campaign for keeping Turkey out of the EU?

While it was totally acceptable (in fact dutiful) that the Vatican (and the rest of the Christian churches, for that matter) should lobby for the inclusion of the mention to Christianity in the Constitution, will it be considered acceptable for the Vatican to oppose Turkey's entry into Europe?

What are the boundaries that should be kept to distinguish between religion and politics? What is legitimate and what is not? Many would argue that if Cardinal Ratzinger took such a position then it is undoubtedly a legitimate position from the Church's point of view. It could not be otherwise, could it?

The Vatican has so far supported the accession of different countries to the EU. Since it was legitimate to take such a position one can argue to the legitimacy of the contrary position as well.

What will be the position of Turkey and the Islamic world to the stance taken by Cardinal Ratzinger and presumably by the Vatican? Can this be interpreted as evidence of panic by the Vatican because of the increased strength of Islam in Europe? Does the Vatican's position (if this is eventually taken) evidence a perspective that Europe is a "Christian" continent and this should not be put in danger by Turkey's accession? But is Europe still a Christian continent?

There are many questions that one can ask. These are some of them. Will anyone venture an answer?