The Churches' Engagement with the EU Institutions
The origins of European integration were heavily influenced by devout Catholics. In 1950 Pope Pius XII welcomed the Schuman Declaration with enthusiasm. The Catholic Church clearly viewed the Project as a significant sign of reconciliation of European nations united by Christian values (COMECE, 2012).
In the early days of European integration Christians were heavily represented in the decision-making bodies of the European Communities. As European society changed, however, Christian influence in national governments, and correspondingly the European Council, declined and Christians in the Commission and the European Parliament (EP) became a small minority.
It was only when it became obvious that the key players in the European institutions were increasingly influenced by secular norms that churches and Christian organisations began to establish themselves in Brussels in order to engage with them, less as participants actively involved in the decision-making process, but increasingly as churches and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) attempting to influence them from the margins.
There are two main types of Christian representation in Brussels – the mainstream European churches which form the focus for this article, and the non-governmental organisations, who range from the pan-European European Evangelical Alliance to more narrowly focused organisations such as A Rocha, who lobby on creation care.
“Recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations.”
Church engagement
The vast majority of mainstream European churches are now represented in Brussels and, since 2005, those representatives have been engaged in formal dialogue with the EU Institutions at a senior level. This dialogue was given a legal basis in the Lisbon Treaty, 2009, which provided in Article 17(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) that; “Recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations.” The Commission states that it accepts as partners in dialogue under Article 17 all organisations that are recognised by Member States as churches, religious communities or communities of conviction. The key Christian interlocutors are representatives of the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox churches.
COMECE
This was established in 1980 with the purpose of influencing European policy making, through dialogue seminars, attending formal meetings and presentation of papers on particular topics, the latter being “forceful reminders of the Christian values of a European civilisation that is open to the world, taking care of the common good and the dignity of each individual as a whole human being.”
In the 1990s, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the expansion of competence following the Maastricht Treaty and the creation of the European Union, the COMECE increased the number of its staff and in its own words “began to understand how large its mandate was.” (COMECE, 2012) In the last two years topics they have explored included freedom of religion; the social market economy, with a particular emphasis on the protection of the most vulnerable; and social inclusion of the Roma people.
The CEC
The CEC is made up of 125 Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican and Old Catholic churches together with 40 associated organisations from all countries on the European continent, It came into being after the Second World War and in response to the fragmentation and division of Europe during the Cold War (CEC, 2013). Today it has offices in Brussels and Strasbourg and its Church and Society Commission (CSC) has a remit to examine European social, economic, ethical and environmental issues.
In its Charter, the Charta Oecumenica (2001) the European churches committed themselves to support the integration of the European continent in the following terms: “On the basis of our Christian faith, we work towards a humane, socially conscious Europe, in which human rights and the basic values of peace, justice, freedom, tolerance, participation and solidarity prevail.”
An example of these organisations working together is a recent meeting organised by the Irish Council of Churches, on behalf of COMECE and the CEC, under the auspices of Article 17. The representatives of a cross-section of Irish church leaders together with representatives of COMECE and the CEC, met the Irish Prime Minister and discussed the social impact of the economic crisis particularly on the vulnerable in society, including the increased numbers of working poor. One of their requests was for a weekly day of rest to be included in the revision of the Working Time Directive as “a clear and visible sign for the reconciliation of personal, family and professional life.”
The CEC member churches include the Church of England and the EKD, the Protestant church in Germany, which set up a Brussels office in 1990 and whose staff focus on work connected with the mission of the church, including asylum and migration, foreign, security and development policies, and religious freedom (EKD, no date).
Further analysis is needed to assess the added value of a separate representation to the EU. It would be interesting to consider whether they could assist Christians, to have a better understanding of, and engagement with, the EU. For example, There seems to be a considerable disconnect between the recognition of the importance of engagement at the leadership level in the Anglican Church, and the UK membership.
CROCEU
The Committee of the Representatives of the Orthodox Churches to the EU (CROCEU), has had an office in Brussels since 2010. The Russian Orthodox Church, which set up a representation in Brussels in 2002, is a key member of CROCEU, and its significant involvement in dialogue with the EU Institutions is clearly accepted, notwithstanding the fact that Russia is not a member of the EU. The other members are the Romanian, Greek and Cypriot Orthodox churches. The Cypriot and the Greek Orthodox churches (website information only available in Greek) also appear to have representations in Brussels. They are also members of the CEC but the Russian Orthodox Church is not, apparently, as a result of disagreement over the status of the Estonian church. (Representation of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2012)
The Orthodox Churches have expressed their deep concern about the social impact of the economic crisis in Europe from the perspective of the parishes in which they work, particularly Greece and Cyprus, as well as the position of Christians in the Middle East and concern over the survival of the Christian populations in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.
Discussion
There are three main points to make about the churches’ engagement with the EU. Firstly, it is impressive to consider the diversity of churches represented in Brussels and the level of unity they have achieved in expressing Christian values to the EU.
“Christians seeking to influence the EU now fulfill a very different role from that played by the founding Christian democrats”
Secondly, the concerns they have raised cover a wide range of issues, from religious freedom to the impact of the economic crisis and the general lack of values in the EU. Their information is gained from experience of the current impact of EU policies at the grassroots level, which is essential; but inevitably it will lack expertise and forward thinking in specialist areas, unless they are able to import it. This is particularly significant with respect to economic and environmental issues.
Thirdly, it is difficult to assess how successful the dialogue with the churches has been in influencing EU policy. The Commission set up a new department, the Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA), to provide a bridge between policy officials and members of civil society, including the churches. BEPA reports directly to the President of the Commission and, according to its website, is intended to inform policy making at an early level, with input and reports resulting from its dialogue with civil society. This structure has the strength that the views of the churches can be put directly to the most powerful part of the Commission, the President and his Cabinet. It has the weakness that the influence of the church is at one remove from those officials and experts within the Commission who are directly responsible for the development of policy. Christian views are therefore filtered through BEPA officials who may not be sympathetic to their opinions and who are also engaging with humanist and other groups in civil society.
This highlights the importance of Christians continuing to seek employment in, or election to, EU bodies. There is no published analysis as yet as to the impact of dialogue with BEPA on specific policies of the Commission, or whether the existence of this intermediary makes it more or less difficult for churches and Christian organisations to lobby Commission policy makers directly on particular issues of interest. Indeed, further analysis, based on primary research is needed to assess the impact of the relations between the churches and all EU Institutions on EU policy-making.
Conclusion
Christians seeking to influence the EU now fulfill a very different role from that played by the founding Christian democrats, as they seek to influence from outside the decision-making process, as one of a number of interlocutors in civil society. The extent to which they are successful depends on the level of knowledge and expertise they are able to bring, as well as the level of acceptance of their input by secular Institutions. It remains important for Christians to seek employment in, and election to, those Institutions. The churches discussed above alongside the NGOs working in Brussels cover a wide range of issues with an impressive degree of cooperation. However, further engagement is needed by Christians able to provide vision and shape the public debate, in particular, on issues of economic and societal transformation, and Creation care.
Rosemary Caudwell is studying for the MA in European Mission at Redcliffe. She worked as a lawyer specialising in EU law, including three years in the European Commission in Brussels in the 1990s.
Bibliography
Catholic Commission of the House of Bishops to the European Union (COMECE) (2012) A History. Available at http://www.comece.org (Accessed 20 May 2013)
Catholic Commission of the House of Bishops to the European Union (COMECE) (2012) How to build a European Model of the Social Market Economy. Available at http://www.comece.org. (Accessed 20 May 2013)
Catholic Commission of the House of Bishops to the European Union (COMECE) (2012) Inter-generational Solidarity. [Meeting between the churches and the Presidents of the European Commission, Council and Parliament] July. Available at http://www.comece.org. (Accessed 20 May 2013)
Conference of European Churches’ CSC (2001) Charta Oecumenica. Available at http://www.ceceurope.org. (Accessed 24 April 2013).
Conference of European Churches-COMECE (2013) Europe Needs a Social Dimension – Church Leaders Tell Irish EU Presidency, Joint Irish Council of Churches – CEC-COMECE Press Release, 20 May 2013. Available at http://www.comece.org. (Accessed 20 May 2013)
Conference of European Churches (CEC) (2013) History and Assemblies Available at http://www.ceceurope.org (Accessed 24 April 2013).
Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (EKD) (no date) EU Office Brussels. Available at http://www.ekd.de (Accessed 21 May 2013).
Representation of the Russian Orthodox Church (2012) Orthodox Church Leaders meet with the President of the European Commission, 18 September. Available at http://www.orthodoxru.eu (Accessed 24 April 2013)