Pope Benedict XVI's refusal to address the European parliament for fear it is becoming "militantly secularist" initially struck me, a humanist MEP, a triumph of equality and rationality for the EU.But on deeper reflection, I think it's a cop-out of the grandest scale, setting a dangerous precedent for other cultural and religious leaders to "opt out" of EU proceedings if they are dissatisfied with their values and methods.
By refusing to take part in the parliament's Year of Intercultural Dialogue, the pontiff is effectively holding the EU to ransom. Declining to speak to MEPs, giving the excuse of other commitments and his age, sends out a very clear message: "Unless you play by my rules, I'm not taking part."
(His age has not, incidentally, stopped him visiting Australia and America this year.)
I read the Vatican's contention that the EU has become increasingly "secularist" over recent years to mean less Christian. In some respects this is true. The EU refused to mention "God" in the now moribund constitution and has permitted the use of EU funding for research involving stem cells.
Since its inception over 50 years ago the EU has indeed moved away from the deeply Christian beliefs of its founding fathers in order to bring together an estimated 497m Europeans.
The 2008 population count across the EU includes an estimated 16m Muslims, over a million Jews and approximately 18m atheists.
Under the EU's Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development stem cell research can be funded, on a case-by-case basis, subject to certain conditions.
These conditions include a guarantee that EU cash would not be used for the destruction of human embryos, a compromise with critics of stem cell research.
Such compromises are required to continue the development and expansion of the EU so that, in the words of Pope John Paul II in the last papal address to the EU in 1988, human society and civilisation can be preserved.
What greater purpose can a parliament have than this? And what other parliament is working so fast to achieve it across multinational borders? Despite the loosening of religious ties within the EU, the Pope is wrong to call the EU "militantly secularist".
Since Jaques Delors' time the European commission has met regularly with religious leaders of all denominations.
In a meeting of European religious leaders five days after the 2005 terrorist attacks on London, commission president Jose Manuel Barroso said: "More than ever Europe must show it is united in its religious diversity to reject and condemn terrorism on its soil."
He went on to add: "Spiritual movements have an important role to play in helping us keep this at the forefront of our minds."
These are not the words of a "militantly secularist" organisation, but of an organisation negotiating and compromising to try to bring people from Anglican, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim and no faith together to unite in the cause of peace.
The UK doesn't always get what it wants on the European parliament's agriculture committee, but as we recognise the far greater good of being part of the EU than sulking on the outskirts, we compromise.
Similarly, when the Grand Mufti of Syria addressed the Strasbourg parliament earlier this year he acknowledged that his (Muslim) religious views may clash with others: "Tolerance means defending one's views, hearing out others and respecting their convictions."
However, Pope Benedict's rejection of the same invitation to address the European Parliament indicates that compromise and tolerance is not what the Catholic church is about.
The Vatican is in danger of looking like it is withdrawing from the proceedings of the EU because it is not in agreement with all its decisions.
This is fateful for both the future of Europe and the future of the Catholic church, especially as Commission President Borrosso has offered the churches a "major contribution to the EU's ongoing dialogue".
This rejection of democracy and refusal to represent the beliefs of over almost a third of all Europeans is a disappointment, to say the least.
The vast majority of MEPs, myself included, would have listened attentively to what the Pope had to say.
This would, I imagine, have given him a far greater chance of influencing the future proceedings of the EU than taking his bat home to his comfort zone in Rome.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce