the excommunication of Rocco Buttiglione

Nick Spencer's avatar
Posted by Nick Spencer Fri, 29/10/2004 - 9:18am :: News and Current Affairs | more by Nick Spencer

The successful rejection of Rocco Buttiglione as EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security is a disaster.

Buttiglione is a committed Catholic and a close friend of the Pope. His views on abortion, the family, asylum, immigration and sexual practice are predictably conservative and have been a cause of concern in the past. Yet, when interviewed by MEPs in October, he said, ‘I may think that homosexuality is a sin but this has no effect on politics, unless I say that homosexuality is a crime.’

‘The state has no right to stick its nose into these things,’ he reasoned, ‘and nobody can be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation... this stands in the Charter of Human Rights, this stands in the Constitution and I have pledged to defend this constitution.’

It was not enough. Despite the new president’s determination to stick by his commissioner, left-of-centre MEPs forced him to withdraw his entire team and it is doubtful that Buttiglione will survive the reshuffle.

Buttiglione’s hounding from office brings to light one of the most distasteful and worrying trends of our time. It shows how moral conservatives are increasingly debarred from office, even when they agree to leave their convictions at the door. And it demonstrates how, in bowing their knee at the altar of ‘tolerance’, elements of the liberal left are prepared to adopt aggressively intolerant measures, to turn their own tolerance into a kind of dictatorial ‘totalitolerance’.

Most worryingly, it marks the eclipse of the liberal vision that has been the guiding light of progressive politics since the days of John Stuart Mill. Buttiglione’s insistence that the personal and political can coexist while being at odds is the cornerstone of liberal democracy. The alternative is for the thought-police to patrol our personal opinions, to ensure they conform to the political norms of the day.

Many fought against this in the 20th century, yet the excommunication of Rocco Buttiglione shows that this is precisely the state in which we now live. As Matthew Paris wrote in an intemperate if honest article in the Times, ‘I say: enough of tolerance. I do not tolerate religious superstition, not when it refuses to tolerate me. Sweep it from the corridors of power.’

If this sorry affair leads to the unmasking of the god Tolerance, we will benefit from it. If not, we stand on the threshold of a worrying future.

Nick Spencer

additional resources

Different newspapers have, not surprisingly, covered the crisis at the EU differently. See, for example, the Guardian’s special report 'Britain and the EU' (www.guardian.co.uk) and the Times’ ‘EU in Crisis as Parliament Rejects New Commission’ (www.timesonline.co.uk).

A profile of Rotto Buttiglione from the BBC website www.bbc.co.uk.

A European press review of the crisis in Brussels.

There are some arguments that Buttiglione’s case is essentially no more than a casus belli and that the real war is between factions in the parliament, specifically between socialist MEPs and the incoming president José Manuel Barroso’s free-market ideology. See the Telegraph, ‘Cheering MEPs welcome Barroso climb-down’ for more details (www.telegraph.co.uk).

Links to European institutions: the European Union; the European Parliament; the European Commission.

Great piece - spot on. Many
Posted by  freddie on Fri, 29/10/2004 - 11:50am.
Great piece - spot on. Many broadcasters missed the point totally by analysing the whole saga as a titanic battle between EU institutions as they made conclusions along the lines of 'the European Parliament has grown up and is asserting itself - so that must be good for democracy'. All of which is utter rubbish, as demonstrated by some of the MEP interviews this week and most notably Michael Cashman's vitriolic attack on Buttiglione's private views. A prime example of what happens when extremists push the political agenda while the rest of us mutter quietly to ourselves but do nothing....
What a refreshing read.
Posted by  Anonymous on Fri, 29/10/2004 - 12:23pm.
What a refreshing read. We were discussing Rocco in our office yesterday and a colleague let rip with a torrent of abuse about his bigotry. So I looked up 'bigot' : "a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others". This totally summed up her attitude! Is it time to speak out against the bigots who oppose basic Christian morality?
Roger Hubert
This Tolerance piece is great
Posted by  Anonymous on Fri, 29/10/2004 - 1:04pm.
This Tolerance piece is great. It is right to conclude that all this represents an exciting opportunity to 'expose the motives of mens hearts' and that it is also a dangerous time for the direction of how we order human relations politically. As secularism continues to diminish globally, it is obvious that the militant secularist agenda against Judeo-Christian morality is becoming particularly focused and organised with the EU. Notwithstanding the current debate about tolerance, the attempts to omit the refernces to the (in my view central) importance of Christianity in european history within the draft constitution represents perhaps the most audacious attempt at historical revisionism ever seen. With the tolerance debate, it is so interesting that secularists have sought for a century to contain Christianity by privatising belief, yet Rocco's defence was a Kantian separation of politics and morality. Hopefully, this historic event will compel people of faith across Europe to consider and defend what's important in their culture. If they don't, I believe that the attitudes that have surfaced in this debate will lead not only in culture death (which are already experiencing) but also, on the basis of history, in total civilisation death. Big stuff this.
Mr Buttiglione
Posted by  hyucz on Fri, 29/10/2004 - 1:21pm.
Excellent article.

In fact, I decided to email it with a covering letter to my area MEPs, or post it where there is no email. I have asked for a reply so I know where they stand on these issues. You never know!

Mike
Just a couple of thoughts
Posted by  Anonymous on Fri, 29/10/2004 - 1:37pm.
Just a couple of thoughts - first, is it realistic to say that it's possible to leave your moral convictions at the door of your office, and second ( and most important) even if it is, surely that isn't a Christian ethic for how to live your life?

Nick Parish, Bracknell, UK
Leaving convictions at the door of office
Posted by  Anonymous on Fri, 29/10/2004 - 2:31pm.
Thanks for this, Nick. They are both excellent questions, ones that go straight to the heart of political theology (presuming, of course, that you are using the word ‘office’ as I did to mean political office)

To my mind the answer to the first must be yes, but only to a degree. I may believe it is a Christian imperative to turn the other cheek, but I don’t believe I have a mandate to impose that view when developing legislation. Ditto, a whole host of other areas.

That doesn’t mean I must abandon those convictions myself, but simply that I shouldn’t seek to impose them on others through policy.

That inevitably begs the question, what is there in the Christian faith that can be drawn on when developing legislation – in other words, what is the basis for political theology – and that is a question that I don’t have the time (or the ability!) to answer. If you’re interested, it’s worth checking out the work of The Jubilee Centre (www.jubilee-centre.org) in this area, the Politics and Theology Programme at Sarum College (www.sarum.ac.uk/society/index.htm), and (if you’re feeling really brave!) the work of Oliver O’Donovan.

Kind regards
Nick
I'd suggest that the philosop
Posted by  freddie on Fri, 29/10/2004 - 2:36pm.
I'd suggest that the philosophical underpinning of Christian life in a liberal democracy is that while we want people to be convinced of the truth of the gospel, being realistic about it we know that many people are not and may never be convinced of it, so we cannot and should not legislate to force them to behave as if they did. Thus Buttiglione believes homosexuality to be a sin while acknowledging the fact that it's not a crime. Beyond the boundaries of our own lives in which we are called to personal holiness, John Stuart Mill & others argued the concept of legislating to prevent harm by others to those who either do not or cannot consent to such harm. That seems to be in line with Biblical principle. The difficult line which as a Christian I find difficult sometimes to draw is where the Bible teaches that harm is the inevitable consequence of sinful behaviour but that behaviour is between two consenting adults - viz homosexuality. But that principle doesn't stop us campaigning vigorously to make things such as abortion or euthanasia a crime.
Thanks Nick - this is a timel
Posted by  Toby Hole on Fri, 29/10/2004 - 3:00pm.
Thanks Nick - this is a timely and concerning piece. It is well known that Chirac and others ensured that the new European constitution expunged all mention of Europe's Christian heritage, and the Buttiglione affair reinforces the idea that we are faced with what appears to be an attempt to build a secular (un)Holy Roman Empire in which rival interpretations of Europe's history and destiny are quashed. Yet many of these same opponents of Buttliglione would welcome the proposed admission of Muslim Turkey into the EU on the grounds of pluralism. It strikes me that there is fairly ill-disguised anti-Catholic prejudice behind this week's shenanigans.

Toby
If he had been chosen as commissioner for Agriculture
Posted by  Anonymous on Fri, 29/10/2004 - 3:18pm.
If he had been chosen as commissioner for Agriculture, these isssues would have never been raised. But putting him in charge of an area where he is clearly unsympathetic, when the EU has made it clear that it takes a liberal view, makes no sense. Commissioners are obliged to follow the broad sweep of EU thinking in their areas, whilst making necessary changes. I didn't have any confidence in Buttiglione's ability to do this. There is an argument as to whether the EU should have the commitment it does to equality and civil rights, but whilst it does, then it is sensible that commissioners are chosen who can carry out that role effectively.
The fact that Barroso had already said that he recognised the need to remove some aspects of the job from Buttiglione emphasises his unsuitability for this particular role.
As a Turkish pastor, and some
Posted by  Zekai Tanyar on Sat, 30/10/2004 - 12:54pm.
As a Turkish pastor, and someone who came to know Christ through a personal conversion it saddens me that many European Christians still evaluate nations as Christian, Muslim etc. while the Bible seems to make the classification on the basis of 'Now if ANYONE does not have the Spirit of Christ he is not HIS' (Romans 8:9b). This 'national religious identity' creates the problem of showing national cultures as witnesses of the 'kingdom of God' (or of Christ) which has in fact historically made people shy from Christianity rather than embrace it! As a handful of Christians in our country, most of the time have to keep saying 'please don't look to the West as Christian, please assess Christ through the Bible'. With the attitudes prevailing and pervading Europe I would hesitate to call it Christian. While I can certainly see the political difficulties involved, nevertheless when a Christian chooses to assess such topics as Turkey's EU membership upon the Turkish majorities religion, I believe we are on thin ice and arguing against our own Biblical convictions.(Incidentally while certainly 99.9% of Turkey is Muslim in religion, Islam is not the state religion and the constitution is secular). I found Nick Spencers article and his comments on 'tolerance' very interesting, and my point is exactly that, that while we can point to the hypocricies of others regarding tolerance we need to be careful we do not fall in to the same trap ourselves.
Absolutely spot-on.
Posted by  Anonymous on Mon, 01/11/2004 - 6:42pm.
Absolutely spot-on. It is a falacy to suggest that Europe is Christian. There are many Christians across Europe but we are now a minority - a reality that we must face! Recently I read a statistic that there are now over 33,000 Christian denominations worldwide and this number is growing. This is worrying. It would seem that as a Christian community we are so busy fighting about the finer points of doctrine and forgetting about the unity our faith provides. Maybe if we did this we would be able to more easily meet the challenges that tolerance provides.
Rocco Buttiglione
Posted by  Keith Woollgar on Fri, 29/10/2004 - 3:12pm.
As ever thanks very much for the concise summary of events and the implication thereof in respect the above.

I had thought I had read in The Independent that Mr Buttiglione had said " I may think ... but ...", although as all subsequent reporting had been along the line that 'he said it is a sin' I was beginning to doubt my memory!! Hence my appreciation of your summary. The comments you make on the god of Tolerance are, again, a very helpful summary of where we are.

Question. Why is it that as a christian I find myself in agreement with the moral views of the Right, but not much of the practical outworking eg environment, war, capitalism etc., but I prefer the more holistic view of the Left and the practical outworking in environment, war, capitalism etc. but not the philosophical/moral perspective eg sexual ethics, religious understanding etc. I find my position deeply confusing at times as well as very uncomfortable.
Complexity
Posted by  Anonymous on Sat, 30/10/2004 - 3:20pm.

Whilst agreeing that there is in some quarters there is a tendancy to 'hound out moral conservatives' this particular case is much more murky and doesn't lend itself to simplistic analysis of this sort. There a number of threads that can be followed here.

On the facts of the matter, Mr Buttiglione may state that his own beliefs would have no bearing on the way he carried out his duty but he has past 'form' in doing exactly that; When he was the Italian Europe Minister in 2001 he called for the banning of artificial insemination. Then when serving on the committee writing the up the Constitution, he opposed the clauses that would have enshrined the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sexuality. Whilst claiming he believes in separation of the church and state he belongs to an organisation 'Communion and Liberation' which pursues exactly the opposite goal.

Then again there is his period in the cabinet of Silvio Berlusconi which dicriminalised false accounting whilst extended presidential immunity. Along with the ongoing investigations into the affairs of Giampiero Catone his ministerial aide.

It does not serve us as Christians to oversimplify cases like this - too often uncomfortable facts will then bite back.

Incidentally, even if Buttiglione was dropped from the current Commission lineup, there are still other reasons for supporting voting against it. Not least the appointment of the commissioners for energy and taxation.

typical Christian politics
Posted by  John McKeown on Sun, 31/10/2004 - 5:31pm.
Buttiglione may have been misrepresented unfairly by his critics, he is a philosopher not a 'Moral Majority' type. But after watching last night's TV epic on the religious right in the USA what I want to know is how on earth did Christians conclude that the key political issues are homosexuality, woman's-place-is-in-the-home, and abortion? To me that is majoring on the minor - there are just a few biblical texts on homosexuality, none directly on abortion, whereas there is much more on other topics such as oppression of the poor. With my cynical hat on I wonder if it is because homosexuality and abortion are issues outside, where the Christian can comfortably point at 'bad' people, whereas poverty is an issue where Christians have to look inside. When a Christian selects those 'easy' issues as the ones to focus on, that rings alarm bells for me.
abortion is certainly not a minor issue
Posted by  Anonymous on Mon, 17/01/2005 - 7:58pm.
dear john,
regardless whether the tv epic you watched gave an accurate portrayal of the 'religious right' (what about the 'atheist left'?) and their views - abortion is certainly not a minor issue. you're right it is not the only issue (though a very big one) and it is not a particularly christian issue (but there are biblical texts in abundance. e.g. Deuteronomium 5,17), but rather a human rights issue ('not killing' is really not the pinnacle of sainthood, it one of teh basics of every society). if opposition to abortion is perceived as a 'christian thing' than it's because of so many non-christians (though definitely not all) turning a blind eye to this mass homicide.
i'm from germany, so i know about this 'blind eye' attitude. and if americans had stuck to this view in the 19th century there'd still be slavery in the south and no civil rights for black people nationwide.
over 40 million butchered since 1973 - i don't think that's a minor issue. certainly 'caring for the poor' (how do you know what they think and do about that) is less vital than 'combating homicide' and i say: 'these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others'.

and as for the 'homosexual 'marriage'' issue: whether you think this way or that way, subverting the existing laws by re-interpreting the words to mean something different from what they originally intended (in this case marriage) should not be taken lightly (though it has been happening in the us for quite some time). Who knows what will be re-interpreted next.

as for the 'majors' of christianity, you can hardly legislate them.
Conservative equals Christian Believe?
Posted by  Hermann Loeh on Mon, 01/11/2004 - 11:45am.
I find it quite dangerous to argue along these lines as Christians:
1) Is somebody who claims to be a Christian and has "conservative" attitudes automatically doing politics in a truely Christian way? I have the impression that many of Buttigliones attitudes have little to do with biblical principles but a lot with very patriarchic, conservative ones. I would not agree that Bush can claim to act with biblical legitimation in many areas either - and I think as Christians we have to be very careful to make this discerment carefully!
2) Unfortunately, Butiglione and the other commissioners do not have any democratic legitimation even though they have a lot of political and policy influence. For the job Butiglione was assigned to, his attitudes do matter politically. So it is not a question of tolerance or not (as if he were assigned to be commissioner of agriculture), but of political direction of a democratically elected parliament. And I can understand that they do not want to have a commissioner who pushes women to stay at home or stigmatises single parent families.
A general response
Posted by  Nick Spencer on Mon, 01/11/2004 - 12:39pm.
Thank you all for your remarks above.

In particular I appreciate those who commented on aspects of Buttiglione’s past form of which I was unaware and those who made the important point that had Buttiglione been chosen as commissioner for a less sensitive area, such as agriculture, there wouldn’t have been this fracas.

Hermann Loeh’s opinion that ‘many of Buttiglione’s attitudes have little to do with biblical principles but a lot with very patriarchic, conservative ones,’ is probably fair.

I would say, in my defence, that I had not intended the piece to be a defence of Buttiglione’s opinions, many of which I do not share, let alone for it to imply that personal moral issues, of the type that have dominated this affair, are the only truly Christian ones (a point that bears repetition in this week above all!)

The fact that I (and many others) object to (aspects of) Buttiglione’s thought should be, in my opinion, neither here nor there when it comes to his election as commissioner (even commissioner for such a sensitive area). The political arena should be the one in which such opinions are tested and turned into policy, or not as the case may be, and to debar someone from office because his opponents believe that he is unsuitable on account of his beliefs sets a dangerous precedent. Matthew Paris is, in my opinion, a fine writer but to hear him say, ‘I do not tolerate religious superstition, not when it refuses to tolerate me. Sweep it from the corridors of power,’ depresses me.

Anon’s comment that ‘commissioners are obliged to follow the broad sweep of EU thinking in their areas, whilst making necessary changes,’ is an obvious riposte to this point-of-view, but that merely turns the question onto the EU: is there sufficient political flexibility within the institution or is the politicking merely confirming a fait accompli? I am in no position to answer this and would appreciate any thoughts in response.

I am not so naïve as to believe that personal opinions do not influence public and political ones, but I do believe we must retain the practical outworkings of their being theoretically divisible. The alternative necessitates a kind of thought police – not a state in which anybody wishes to live.

Nick
murk
Posted by  Brian Draper on Mon, 01/11/2004 - 1:52pm.
I think one reason this has proved 'murky' (according to Anon) is that we're not quite sure where all this fits into the democratic process, either. After all, one alternative 'reading' of last week's events was that finally this proved a triumph for EU democracy (surely a good thing?), with the elected parliamentarians defeating the unelected commissioners.

But Nick's main point (as I read it) about the paradox that lies at the heart of the 'liberal' agenda still holds. Totalitolerance is rife, and exhibited by the so-called intellectual elite in the Academy and by Jo Public on the streets and in the pubs of Britain; and we must unpack the very meaning of the words 'in/tolerance' as Christians in order to move the argument on. We must not be lazy or sloppy when it comes to the words and terms we use.

(In fact, I've asked Nick to unpack the words 'in/tolerance' for the next edition of EG, our termly mag. So watch this space...)
A quick question Nick.
Posted by  Anonymous on Tue, 02/11/2004 - 12:56pm.
A quick question Nick. Do you believe there are ever circumstances when personal belief should debar someone from office ?
A very good question...
Posted by  Nick Spencer on Tue, 02/11/2004 - 3:24pm.
... and one that goes to the heart of this whole issue. The short answer is yes, I do believe there are circumstances in which personal belief should debar one from office. Those who profess the belief that some ethnic groups are superior to others or that the holocaust never happened, to take two obvious examples, should, in my opinion, be debarred from public office.

Of course this simply begs another question: what criteria shape the decision as to which personal beliefs should and shouldn't debar one from office? That is an interesting and difficult question, and will, I guess, rest on one's vision of human nature and human flourishing, and on how widely one draws the circle of acceptable belief. My concern with the Buttiglione case was that that circle was being drawn too narrowly (although that should not necessarily be taken as an implicit approval of Buttiglione's opinions).

Your answer to your question would be...?

Nick
Your second paragraph alludes
Posted by  Anonymous on Wed, 03/11/2004 - 9:36pm.

Your second paragraph alludes to the follow up question I was about to ask.

In answer to your question. I do believe that there are certain personal beliefs that should bar one from public office. Without discussing them right now I'd like to touch upon the reasons I would feel uneasy with making too much of the Buttiglione case.

Myself and others have highlighted some of the other reasons to object to Buttiglione's position on the Commission - and the argument that his beliefs are conservative rather than Christian is very instructive. Let's look at the whole subject of tolerance though.

I'd agree that extreme forms of secular tolerance can be intolerant - though equally the 'political correctness gone to far!' argument is often a strawman. It seems to me that we should be pushing an alternative and healthier view of tolerance rather than simply railing against this injustice. In the wider world the latter tactic is too often used by people to hide genuine intolerance of the insidiuous kind. Some of them have even been Christians.

Without wishing to exaggerate, the church has not always dealt with the gay community in a way which would demonstrate 'the hate the sin, love the sinner' approach. And I think this goes some of the way towards explaining the degree of outrage triggered by Buttiglione's statements. We are always going to have to say things that make us unpopular, but we need to work harder at getting the entirety of our message across. That's is very probably one of the reasons why Everett Koop could get away with using the word 'sodomy', and Buttiglione couldn't get away with using the word 'sin'.

A healthier view of tolerance
Posted by  Nick Spencer on Thu, 04/11/2004 - 1:46pm.
Thanks for your reply.

On the whole I agree, especially with regard to your point that "we should be pushing an alternative and healthier view of tolerance".

I do, however, think that one step towards doing this is in unmasking 'totalitolerance'. In doing so I have no wish to allow people to "hide genuine intolerance of the insidiuous kind", still less to permit or excuse hateful attitudes to homosexual men and women, single mothers, asylum seekers etc, although I accept that there is a risk that some may use it in that way.

My insistence in the case of Buttiglione was because it seemed to me not to be a one-off, an anomaly based on Buttiglione's particular record, but entirely consonant with an increasing hostility towards Christianity and/or Christian morality in many circles (not, of course, implying that Buttiglione should be read as a case study of Christian morality).

Whether that is in Matthew Paris' desire to sweep 'religious superstition' from the corridors of power, my 'Beyond Belief?' respondents telling me that they would like to ban the word church because 'Christians are so intolerant', or in the EU's frankly bizarre attempt to ignore 1,500 years of European history, I do detect a hostility that all-too-often uses 'tolerance' as one of its weapons. Hence the 'vigour' of my original piece. I understand that it offended some people and I received several pieces of hostile criticism, but I also received rather more constructive criticism, for which I am grateful, and it did, at least, provoke an interesting debate on the message board!

Kind regards,
Nick
The myth of secular tolerance
Posted by  Ross Kendall on Mon, 01/11/2004 - 2:07pm.
The theme of 'tolerance' in this issue reminded me of a good Cambridge Papers article by John Coffey that I read some time ago. I found a copy on the Jubilee Centre website. Below is a quote, and a link to the full text.

"The resurgence of religious violence at the start of the twenty-first century has reinforced the myth of secular tolerance – the notion that whereas religious believers are instinctively intolerant, tolerance comes naturally to the secular mind. This paper challenges the myth. It suggests that secular people are not immune from the temptation to persecute and vilify others, and argues that the Christian Gospel fostered the rise of religious toleration."

Link to article: The myth of secular tolerance

I have also been wondering if the upcoming LICC event with John Gray titled "The Dangers of Secular Humanism" will offer some further insight.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.

With love (and extra resources, group-work ideas and links...)
from
www.licc.org.uk/culture.