John Ashcroft Posted: 4 July 2008
Keywords: Government & Foreign Affairs,
The Irish have history when it comes to lessons about the Trinity. St Patrick, it is said, used the shamrock to explain the triune God. The recent rejection of the Lisbon treaty by the Irish provides a more political illustration.
In the 4th and 5th centuries Augustine and the Cappadocian fathers used various analogies in their attempts to explain and understand the concept of three persons – one God. The development of the historic creeds saw heated divisive debates. Europe today faces a similar intellectually taxing and divisive issue, needing to provide an account of European unity and integration whilst retaining distinct national sovereignty and identity.
The issue of shared purpose is a common answer to both questions. For the church Fathers, the complete unity of will between the three persons was an important element of being able to say that there was one God. Politically, without real deep-rooted shared purpose, union will either be unstable or an imposition. Union, without shared purpose, makes parity between the members far harder to achieve, as one can seek to impose their purpose on another. Defining the continent's decision-making processes can create a process for managing differences in purpose, and constraining the abuse of power, but will not create shared purpose or ultimately deal with the lack of it.
Purpose can follow identity. It is possible for a team to come together and discern purpose. For a church, shared purpose may grow out of the experience of unity. But that unity is accepted as a spiritual reality – being part of the body of Christ. Among the diverse nations of Europe, however, there is no sufficiently deep-rooted shared identity to create the space for shared purpose.
A unity of purpose is not, of course, the only relational dynamic of the Trinity nor is it all that is needed to resolve the dilemmas of a European constitution. But the conclusion of the early church was clear: being ‘one’ precluded different purposes that could be attributed to different agents. Thus a European constitution and a project of deeper integration without an agreed purpose are likely to fail. Compromises between the different purposes of different nations can only reinforce the differences of identity. Perhaps the squabbling Greek gods on Olympus are a better analogy for Europe.
A shared identity, shared purpose and equality – is this the holy trinity of European integration?
This is a Blog I posted recently on our church website Grace.ie
Disappearing Democracy. 26th May 2008.
It seemed such a good idea after two world wars fought mainly on European soil that the States of Europe should get together. But peace comes at a price and anyone working out the maths could see the day coming when, with a population of less that 1% of the whole, this Republic's voice would become a whisper.
What was perhaps less clear was the extent to which our nation’s statehood would be diluted. The answer is hard to find in the 287 pages of legal jargon which comprise the Treaty. Perhaps it’s an unfair comparison but the USA was founded on a constitution 7 pages long! There is some truth in the suggestion that the treaty was designed not to be read by voters but by lawyers.
The democratic deficit was seen when, despite the French and Dutch voters’ rejection of the Constitution in 2005, they were denied any say on the Lisbon Treaty - which is reckoned to be virtually identical to the rejected Constitution. Because it was ‘only’ a treaty, it was directly ratified by both countries’ governments. Indeed Ireland stands alone in Europe because it has a Constitution which cannot be altered without the consent of the people. A YES vote by Ireland would make our Constitution subservient to post-Lisbon European laws. This would effectively signal the end of a Constitution which has served us well in protecting our values through a turbulent era.
Perhaps this is inevitable as the EU has a tradition of disregarding inconvenient referendum results, but we should be aware of what we are leaving behind. Our Constitution with its Trinitarian introduction and particular reference to the person and deity of the Lord Jesus Christ indicates where its values lie. The Treaty makes no reference to our Christian heritage. The proposed legislation does not recognise the basic sinfulness of man and the measures for holding those in power accountable are far from adequate.
If we are to cede our sovereignty we should hold out for a better system than the present unintelligible mess.
George Morrison 25 July 2008
It seems unfortunate that Anglo-Saxon thinking is so permeated by the thinking of Mammon. It sees a purpose in a Europe of markets and free capital flow and is reluctant to see the need for solidarity and reconciliation amongst Europe´s nations ... The European Project was "understandable" to the Irish as long at the solidarity funds were flowing in from the EU ...
Erastos Filos 27 July 2008