W hen Pope John XXIII called for the Second Vatican Council in 1959, he did not know fully what would be its outcome. He had an instinct, an inspiration taken on the basis of prayer and reflection that the Catholic Church needed aggiornamento, a bringing up-to-date, a manner in which its message of hope and salvation would be more relevant and effective in today’s society. Good Pope John, as he was called, died six months after the beginning of the Council in 1962 so did not live to see the dramatic development in the governance of the Church to fresh ecumenical outreach and a new way of being church in our modern world – and much else.
The Second Vatican Council was a seismic event in the history of the Catholic Church in the 20th century. Pope John knew that, like all General Councils, its conclusions would take many years to truly flourish and be fulfilled; indeed, I believe that only now, 50 years on, in the pontificate of Pope Francis, is the Council event being fully realised. However, Pope John told the assembled bishops not to be “prophets of gloom” and to go about their business with great trust in the Lord.
We have just detonated another kind of seismic event in the history of our country. While I have argued for continued membership of the European Union, a majority of voters in the referendum decided otherwise and opted for radical and risky change.It seems that comfortable assumptions we have all lived with for a generation can no longer be relied on.
One of these assumptions in Britain was that the vanishing ideological difference between the main political parties – Conservative and Labour – reflected a similar growing together of all the elements in our society. Now we look across a divide of education, expectation and economic prosperity between those who have ridden the tide of globalisation and those who have not and, perhaps more poignantly, between generations, the young and old.
I suppose the truth is that “Europe” has been a continuously controversial issue in our politics since we decided not to join the European Community in the 1950s. I remember an address of the late Sir Geoffrey Howe which he gave to Church leaders in the south of England in the early 1990s. After his speech I asked him why it was that the Conservative Party, which had been in power for so many years, had done nothing to educate or “form” British citizens on the implications, advantages and underlying vision of European union and cooperation. This is what had been first envisaged by its founding fathers soon after the Second World War. Sir Geoffrey replied to me – with a twinkle in his eye – “Ah, I used often say that to Margaret!”
Yet, at least in the earlier years of her premiership, Mrs Thatcher was not opposed to European union. As Charles Moore points out in his masterly biography, she did make genuine efforts to forge a cooperative relationship and was anxious to seem positive without ceding the national independence she prized. We seem to have voted principally for national independence and ignored the fostering of the positive relationship.
So where are we now? Leaving the EU is a huge step in our history and, like General Councils of the Church, the consequences will take many years to unravel. But, as Pope John said to the assembled bishops in 1962, we must not be prophets of gloom.
It seems to me that we have now an opportunity, and an obligation to address the result of the referendum, not as partisans of Leave or Remain but as citizens of a great democratic exercise which stands for certain principles and values and has, however imperfectly, managed to evolve a multicultural society which functions in relative peace and prosperity.
Our future influence will come from our own exertions, certainly, but also from the values we continue to share and the actions we continue to take in partnership with our fellow democracies. For all of our democracies are facing challenges almost unprecedented in so-called peacetime. While the economic consequences for Britain of leaving the EU are critical, even more important is what we do, together with our friends and allies, to address the shared challenges of security, stability, and social cohesion and to do so boldly and imaginatively.
In our own country, we have told the generation who will be in positions of influence over the next two to three decades that they cannot plan their and our country’s future on the basis of EU membership. So what, instead, are we going to offer them? Frankly, it is not enough, as our Prime Minister has said, that we wish to continue our friendly relationship with Europe. The fact is that most of us, including citizens of the other countries of the EU, believe that reform of the European Union is needed – indeed necessary, if it is to succeed in its aims well into the future.
This reform must happen, however long it takes. So when the electoral cycle on the continent of Europe is over next autumn, I hope our Prime Minister, the new French president and the German chancellor will sit down together with other leaders and not talk only about Brexit and the tariffs of BMWs, but how to regenerate confidence in our democracies and how we continue to work for a peaceful world through the various means at our disposal and which ensure effective means of a cooperative relationship.
Yes, such a conversation has to reflect the reality of Britain leaving the EU and the EU continuing without us. However, the hard truth is to digest the fact that in our world today, Europe needs us and we need Europe, and a process should be found of discussing this in a practical manner.
I suppose what I am saying is that some kind of decision-making structure between the European nations will be needed in the future if our country, as a strong but still middle power, continues to be in a position to exercise a positive influence in world affairs. Clearly, I am looking at many years ahead but, as I have said, the unravelling of Brexit will have consequences which as yet we do not know.
The Book of Proverbs says that “without vision the people perish”, and without a positive vision not only for Britain apart from the European Union but also of a Britain still close to Europe, all Europeans will be diminished and less able to contribute to that stability and peace we all desire.
I really do not like the term “Brexit”. It is too narrow and dismissive. Maybe an English translation of aggiornamento might be a friendlier word. We now celebrate Christmas, when we commemorate the birth of a child at Bethlehem to two strangers who were not made welcome. Yet from opposite ends of the economic spectrum, impoverished shepherds and prosperous wise men discerned in that birth something both remarkable and transformative.
So, in a totally different context, may a new birth of a Britain both in and out of Europe bring forth renewed hope, prosperity and peace.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor is the Emeritus Archbishop of Westminster
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.