Sixty years ago this month, six leaders signed a treaty that changed Europe. Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany approved the Treaty of Rome beneath the tapestries of the Palazzo dei Conservatori on the Capitoline Hill. A printing delay meant that leaders did not sign the treaty text itself, but rather a document consisting only of a frontispiece and blank pages.
When the European Union’s heads of government meet in Rome later this month they will also be facing something of a blank page. They know that the EU, as it is currently configured, cannot meet the 21st century’s challenges. But they are not sure how to reshape it so that it can. The summit is critical: in April the French will begin voting in a presidential election that could potentially unravel the union.
European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker has presented member states with five possible paths following Britain’s departure from the 28-member bloc that represents some 500 million people. The options range from a “multi-speed” EU to a European superstate. Leaders must decide which option to pursue at their meeting on March 25, 60 years to the day after the Rome treaty laid the EU’s foundations. The day before, they will meet Pope Francis. Some are hoping for a motivational speech. Others want Francis to give the EU a concerted push down one of the five paths.
There is a certain irony in European leaders turning to the Pope for help 14 years after they ignored St John Paul II’s request to acknowledge the continent’s Christian roots in the EU constitution. Back then secular liberalism was in the ascendant. The eurozone crisis, Brexit, the rise of nationalist parties and the election of a Eurosceptic US president have shaken that once formidable faith.
Following Barack Obama’s departure, Pope Francis is arguably the EU’s most influential external supporter. But if leaders heading to Rome this month expect nothing but affirmation, they might be in for a shock. For the Pope has shown that he is no mere cheerleader for integration; he is, rather, a stern doctor who offers a blunt diagnosis of the EU’s ills and proposes a gruelling treatment plan.
To the consternation of some feminists, Francis has repeatedly compared Europe to a grandmother, “no longer fertile and vibrant”. He wants the continent to become “Mother Europe” once again: a creative, nurturing culture that welcomes and integrates those fleeing war. He implies that the EU itself is partly to blame for today’s nationalist insurgencies, because it has replaced “great ideas” with “bureaucratic technicalities”. In his view, the present crisis requires nothing less than “the re-foundation of the European Union”.
Are EU leaders prepared to contemplate such a radical step? It seems unlikely given the size and diversity of the union. A system built on consensus rewards caution, not boldness. The Pope may be offering the right prescription, but the patient may be so weakened that he prefers the illness to the cure.
Under new government plans, sex education may soon become compulsory in all schools in England. Parents will have the right to withdraw their children from such classes, as is only proper, as they are the primary educators of their children.
Sex education should perhaps be best taught in the home, by parents themselves, though this ideal is fraught with difficulty, as most parents and their children can imagine. But sex education is a perilous undertaking for other reasons that go beyond mere embarrassment.
If we imagine that sex education can be reduced to the mere imparting of facts, then we delude ourselves, for with facts always come values, and a sex education that professes to be morally neutral will often be anything but. The way we talk about sex with the young necessarily carries with it values. Children must learn about this important aspect of human nature, but they cannot do so in a way that is separated from morality.
And if they are to learn morality (as they must) it is vital that they are taught the right sort of morality. This is one of the most challenging aspects of the matter: while the Church knows what constitutes sexual morality, there is no longer any consensus in society on this matter. Sex education, improperly taught in Catholic schools, could be a Trojan Horse for a permissive morality that would undermine any Catholic school’s religious ethos. For this reason, many Catholics are wary of compulsory sex education.
However, if sex education involves a risk of getting things wrong, it is not an option to neglect the matter entirely. Children today are surrounded by sexualised images and exposed to pornography more than ever before. In this way they imbibe twisted and misleading ideas about human sexuality, and these ideas need to be combated.
We cannot allow our children to learn about sex from pornography. We need a sex education which challenges the prevailing culture. That means we need a sex education which is in keeping with the Church’s teaching and modern methods of education, and which is, above all, an education to chastity.
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.