Social Compass 47(1), 2000, 103–112

Thomas JANSEN

Europe and Religions: the Dialogue between

the European Commission and Churches or
Religious Communities

The Treaties establishing the European Community and the European Union
make no mention of churches or religious communities. However, the
Amsterdam Treaty, which came into force on 1 May 1999, is accompanied by
a declaration stating that the Union ‘‘respects and does not prejudice the status
under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in
the Member States’’. Despite the lack of a legal basis, the European
Commission began in the early 1990s to develop and maintain relations with
the Christian churches and other religious communities. These informal but
regular links were forged largely at the request of the churches and religious
communities. In the face of Europeanization, churches and spiritual
associations are under pressure to adapt their own structures to the changing
context and to harmonize their forms of organization with the newly
emerging, enlarged ‘‘public space’’, i.e. the European Union.

Les traités établissant les Communautés et l’Union Européennes ne font

absolument pas mention des Eglises et des communautés religieuses.
Néanmoins, le Traité d’Amsterdam, qui est entré en vigueur le premier mai
1999, est accompagné d’une Déclaration qui établit que l’Union ‘‘respecte et
ne porte pas de préjudice au statut dont bénéficient, en vertu du droit national,
les Eglises et les associations ou communautés religieuses dans les Etats
Membres’’. Au début des années 1990, malgré l’absence de toute base
juridique, la Commission Européenne a commencé à développer et à
consolider ses relations avec les Eglises chrétiennes, ainsi qu’avec d’autres
communautés religieuses. Ces liens, informels mais réguliers, ont été tissés en
grande partie à la demande des Eglises et des communautés religieuses
elles-mêmes. Confrontées à une tendance à l’européanisation, les Eglises et les
associations religieuses se sentent contraintes d’adapter leurs propres
structures à un contexte changeant, et d’harmoniser les formes de leur
organisation avec cet ‘‘espace public’’ élargi et récemment émergé qu’est
l’Union Européenne.

The Treaties establishing the European Community and the European

Union make no mention of churches or religious communities, and have
been described as being ‘‘church-blind’’. However, the Amsterdam Treaty,
which entered into force on 1 May 1999, is accompanied by the following
declaration:

0037–7686[200003]47:1;103–112;012219
104 Social Compass 47(1)

The European Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of
churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States. The Euro-
pean Union equally respects the status of philosophical and non-confessional
organisations.1

This declaration does not constitute a justification of or a mandate for the

European Commission to develop activities vis-à-vis religious communities
or a competence for dealing with religious matters. Nor can such a compe-
tence be justified by the fact that discrimination against religious adherence
is being outlawed by the Amsterdam Treaty (Article 13, Treaty on the
European Community), though it might naturally contribute to overcoming
the ‘‘church-blindness’’ of the European institutions.2
Despite the lack of a legal basis, the European Commission started to
develop and maintain relations with the Christian churches and other
religious communities several years ago, under the influence of Presidents
Delors and Santer. These informal but regular links were forged largely at
the request of the churches and religious communities. In addition to the
European umbrella organizations representing the Christian churches—
Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox—there are several smaller Christian,
humanist or inter-faith associations as well as the Muslim and Jewish
communities which have secretariats, liaison offices or representatives for
dealing with the European institutions in Brussels.3 These organizations
maintain a critical but constructive watch on the activities of the EU
institutions, particularly the Commission and Parliament. Their function is
to keep the leadership and decision-making bodies of their respective
organizations informed about changes in European policy and, when their
interests are at stake, to use their influence at the level at which these
policies are formulated. In this respect they operate like the many other
organizations and federations, great and small, representing civil society,
which lobby Parliament and the Commission to promote their aspirations
and interests.
But whereas organizations representing economic, social and cultural
sectors are generally concerned with the outcome of certain questions and
the defence of material interests that are affected by a particular EU policy
and are thus the responsibility of a particular directorate-general of the
Commission, the same cannot be said of the churches and religious commu-
nities, whose concerns are more general and based on the ethical and moral
aspects of European unification and European policy. In other words, as
well as practical collaboration, the churches and religious communities want
to establish a dialogue with the European Commission on the meaning,
spiritual direction and ethical dimension of European unification and the
policies developed in this context.
The European Commission, on the other hand, values these partners in
the first instance not so much for the key role they play as actors in civil
society, but for their assistance when it comes to weighing up the ethical
dimension of the process of European unification and giving it meaning and
identity.
 Jansen: Europe and Religions 105

Over the years we have gradually come to appreciate the full importance of these
questions, and the churches can claim to have a special responsibility for the way they
should be answered. The imminent end of the century and dawn of a new millennium,
with the associated questioning of the direction we should be taking, undoubtedly has
something to do with this. Similarly, the collapse of the atheist Communist regime,
which has brought a return to democracy for the peoples of Central and Eastern
Europe, the intensification and extension of the process of integration, and the uncer-
tainty about the profound changes which we are currently experiencing as part of what
we call ‘‘globalisation’’ and ‘‘the information society’’ all bring us back to the question
of values that can offer reliable guidance as we try to revitalise our local, regional and
national communities and redefine Europe.4

Collaboration in Practice
The specific role and nature of the churches and other religious commu-
nities have naturally led the Commission to adopt a different approach to
entering into a dialogue and relations with partners of this type. In practice
it means that it is the President of the Commission who acts in this area and
who personally conducts the dialogue at the highest level. It also means that
the contacts, dialogue and cooperation in working relations take place
under the president’s authority and supervision. The Forward Studies Unit
has been asked to carry on the dialogue with the churches and other
religious or ideological communities (including humanist groups that are
not religious but are concerned with ethical questions).5 Its mandate com-
prises the following tasks:
— to brief the organizations representing the churches and other religious
and ideological communities based in Brussels; all partners are invited to
information sessions several times a year for a review of developments
and the state of European policy and a presentation of general Commis-
sion policy projections and objectives;
— to exchange ideas on particular themes raised by the partners. There are,
for example, about two ‘‘dialogue seminars’’ a year organized in Cuper-
tino with the European organizations of the churches, giving experts and
church leaders from the Member States a chance to meet with the
specialists at the European Commission and discuss specific matters
agreed among the partners;
— to promote dialogue between the faiths and churches and other religious
and ideological communities about their role in European society and
their joint contribution to unity, peace and reconciliation in Europe, the
conditions that enable the continent to play a constructive and exemplary
role in the world and to act as an architect of peace;6
— to advise on implementation of the programme A Soul for Europe:
Ethics and Spirituality; this is an initiative that enables the Commission,
in agreement with the European Parliament, to give financial support to
projects with a religious or ethical inspiration. Such projects must have a
spiritual, ethical and European dimension and also: help to interpret and
give meaning to the process of European unification; promote tolerance
and pluralism and emphasize mutual respect and acceptance of differ-
ences of nationality, sex, religion and culture; stress the concepts of
106 Social Compass 47(1)

freedom of opinion and action in the face of the multiple constraints of

modern society; promote solidarity with the most deprived in all areas;
involve people and groups that do not normally have a say in discussions
on European policy;7
— to support (with encouragement and advice) the efforts of the Commis-
sion directorates-general aimed at furthering collaboration with the
churches and religious communities in their area of responsibility, in
keeping with Community strategies on peace, development, solidarity
and integration.

The approach is still evolving and developing as the dialogue and collabora-
tion between the European Commission and its partners progress. In his
speech to the general assembly of the European Ecumenical Commission
for Church and Society, Jacques Santer had this to say on the subject:
At a time when the Union is becoming an ever more tangible reality for Europe’s
citizens, but their local, regional and national identity continues to be valued, it is good
that the relations between their religious and ideological communities and the Union
are becoming more visible; perhaps they should be organised more systematically.8

An Article in the Treaty?

It was the aim of the initiative which finally led to the declaration annexed
to the Amsterdam Treaty (quoted above) to organize these relations more
systematically.
This declaration is a reminder of the efforts to include a similar article in
the Treaty. An initiative to this effect was taken by the German government
and subsequently supported by the Austrian and Italian governments. The
background to this initiative was the German churches’ fear that increasing
integration and the growing tendency to bring policies and regulations in the
Union under Community control might jeopardize the highly privileged
position they enjoyed in so many respects. In a paper setting out their joint
position, published by the Central Office of the Evangelical Church and the
Secretariat of the Episcopal Conference in January 1995, they declared:
It would be better for the sake of future development if the legal position of the Church
were also to be incorporated into the constitutional structure of the European Union,
provided this did not lead to confusion. As regards the regulation of ecclesiastical
activities, responsibility for practical regulation would have to remain with the Member
States. Changes in Community law would have in future to take more account of the
direct and indirect effects on national provisions governing relations between Church
and State, and conversely the system governing relations between Church and State
would have to incorporate aspects of Community law to a greater degree than it has in
the past.9

From the start, the campaign to include an article on the churches in the
Treaty suffered from being too exclusively focused on the defence of special
interests. The churches of other Member States set less store by it, as few of
them enjoyed the privileges that were being defended. And though some of
them recognized the value of including an article on the churches in the
 Jansen: Europe and Religions 107

European Treaties, the formula proposed struck them as being far too weak
and passive. The version originally proposed by the German churches in a
memorandum read as follows:
The Community shall respect the constitutional status of religious communities in the
Member States as an expression of the Member States’ identity and culture and as an
element of the common cultural heritage.10

This version was adopted by the European organizations representing the

Catholic and Protestant churches, i.e. the Commission of the Bishops’
Conference of the European Community (COMECE) and the European
Ecumenical Commission for Church and Society (EECCS), after their
views were canvassed at a colloquium on 6 October 1996.
It was subsequently suggested, at the instigation of a group of inter-
national specialists in public and canon law, that Article F of the Treaty on
European Union should explicitly recognize the role of the churches in
national identity and the common cultural heritage (a) and Article 236 of
the EC Treaty should tackle the question of their legal status (b):
[a] The European Union recognises the special place of churches and other religious
communities in the national identity and cultures of the Member States and in the
common cultural heritage of Europe’s peoples. [b] The European Community shall
respect the legal system governing the churches and other religious communities in the
Member States and the particular nature of their internal structures.11

The exclusive references to the ‘‘identity’’ and ‘‘cultures of the Member

States’’ and the ‘‘common cultural heritage of Europe’s peoples’’ make the
‘‘special place’’ of the churches and religious communities sound partic-
ularly outdated. Nor does this declaration make any reference to the active
role which the churches currently play as ‘‘a factor for integration within the
Union’’.12
In the event, two different versions, expressing exactly the same sub-
stantive ideas, were presented to the Intergovernmental Conference in
autumn 1996: the German delegation submitted the version in the memo-
randum from the German churches, cited above, while the Austrian and
Italian delegations put forward the following version:
The Union shall respect the constitutional status of the churches and other religious
associations in the Member States as an expression of the identity and culture of the
Member States and part of the common cultural heritage.

In April 1997 talks took place between the churches and the governments
that had tabled the proposals, with a view to agreeing on a single formula
that might prove acceptable to the Intergovernmental Conference:
The Union shall respect the legal systems governing the churches and religious commu-
nities in the Member States which are recognised as an expression of the Member
States’ identity and an element in the common cultural heritage.

In the end, the Intergovernmental Conference failed to reach agreement on

such an article. There were a number of reasons for this: I have already
108 Social Compass 47(1)

mentioned the defensive nature of this initiative; and it is also possible that
the discussion and preparation by the parties concerned—the churches,
governments and parliaments—was not sufficiently intensive or systematic.
The fact that such an article places emphasis on the constitutional character
of the Treaty probably discouraged certain governments, while others were
worried about the sensitive question of how to define terms like ‘‘church’’
and ‘‘religious community’’. In the final analysis, however, the deciding
factor seems to have been the reservations of certain governments that
favoured a strict interpretation of the principle of secularism and their
reluctance to grant the churches a place in the public domain. It is thus all
the more surprising that the declaration cited earlier, which was the result of
a compromise, should have been adopted by the heads of state and gov-
ernment.
For the supporters of this initiative the compromise is a success, though it
would be unjustifiable to overestimate the prescriptive value of the declara-
tion. It does, however, represent something of a breakthrough in terms of
clarifying relations between the churches and religious communities and the
European Union and its institutions, even if it confines itself to the question
of legal status and makes no reference to the place or role of the churches
and religious communities.

Relations between the Churches and the European Union

The European Commission did not adopt any position in this debate. It is
thus in a purely personal capacity that I am speaking about this failure to
include an article on the churches in the Treaty. The adoption of such a
provision would certainly have been in the interests of European unification
and the Union itself. The churches are major partners and actors in
numerous fields where the Commission itself is involved in framing policies
and projects, for example development aid and the many sectors of social
policy.
But there is another aspect that is even more important from the point of
view of the process of European unification. I refer to the active role that the
churches play in practice ‘‘as a factor for integration within the Union’’.
They are an essential, dynamic and influential element in our societies and,
through their work beyond their national frontiers, contribute actively to
the emergence of a transnational European civil society.
Finally, an article on the churches would have underlined the constitu-
tional nature of the Treaty and lent weight to the legitimacy of the Union,
not least because an explicit and contractual (i.e. constitutional) recognition
of the existence and work of the churches and religious communities by the
European Union would at one and the same time have made it receptive to
the spiritual and ethical dimensions which they embody.
The campaign for an article on the churches and the discussion it pro-
voked at the Intergovernmental Conference and in the relevant circles
touch on an element of considerable importance to the future development
of the Union. This discussion has clearly demonstrated the need for a
 Jansen: Europe and Religions 109

consensus on the type of relations to be established between institutions of

the European Union and European organizations representing the chur-
ches and religious communities. The search for this consensus is
complicated by the fact that church–state relations in EU countries are
subject to widely differing rules and ideas. Nevertheless, progress has been
made. Thanks to the experience of collaboration and dialogue built up over
a decade, the ground has been prepared.
The next stage on the way to a consensus on relations between the
European associations of churches and religious communities and the EU
institutions could be to agree not to judge these relations in terms of the
concepts that are usually used in the debates in the different countries.
These concepts are shaped by an individual country’s specific history,
cultural environment and sensitivities. None of these could be applied as
they stand to the European context. This means, in other words, that neither
the German legal system governing relations between state and church, nor
the strict separation of church and state based on the French idea of
secularism can serve as a model; nor can the different state church models,
or indeed any other type of relationship currently operating in a national
context. All of these concepts should, however, be taken into consideration
at European level, because they undoubtedly have something to offer.

A New Definition of Church–State Relations

Regardless of the reasons which require the Union to organize construc-

tively its relations with transnational faith and conviction organizations,
Member States themselves need to revise the national frameworks in which
they conduct relations with religious institutions. Churches and religious
communities, too, have to rethink their relations with the state. This process
of revision is already underway. It is conveyed in a variety of initiatives that
cannot be analysed in detail here. However, in this context I should mention
two important trends which have special relevance to this process and, more
generally, call for a re-examination of traditional church–state relations in
the Member States of the EU. Both trends are relevant for the perspectives
of developing consensus in the medium or longer term.
On the one hand, this is about the Europeanization (which is proceeding
largely in parallel with globalization, or even in identical patterns) of almost
all aspects of life. In the face of this tendency, churches and spiritual
associations feel obliged to adapt their own structures to the changing
context (brought about by Europeanization) and to harmonize their forms
of organization with the newly emerging, enlarged ‘‘public space’’ (i.e. the
European Union). Otherwise, they are unable to fulfil their current role.
On the other hand, it is important not to overlook the fact that the
historically developed relations and legal frameworks governing state and
church relations in Europe, which are inherent in the nature, existence, and
organizational forms of the Christian churches, are no longer adequate in a
situation which involves many communities of different kinds or cultures,
notably Islam.
110 Social Compass 47(1)

The declaration on the status of churches and religious communities

annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty will probably help to build the new
European consensus about a modern and adequate formula for the relation
between the public actor and the religious communities. In keeping with the
subsidiarity principle, it expresses the Union’s commitment to respect the
status of the churches and religious communities in the Member States and
not to undermine it.
The declaration also expresses—at least indirectly—the European Uni-
on’s desire to recognize the special role and function of the churches and
religious communities. Moreover, it establishes for the first time in a
document of a quasi-constitutional nature a link between the European
Union and the churches and religious communities. Ideally, of course, this
aspect could have been expressed and justified more directly and more
explicitly, as the churches wanted. But, like the process of European
integration itself, it is not possible to achieve everything at a stroke. When
this question reappears on the agenda, it deserves a response that better
reflects its importance.

NOTES
1.
Declaration No. 11 annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam.
2.
See Louis-Léon Christians, ‘‘Droit et Religion dans le Traité d’Amsterdam:
Une étape décisive?’’, in Yves Lejeune, Le Traité d’Amsterdam, Espoirs et
déceptions, Bruxelles, Ed. Bruylant, 1998.
3.
Transnational structures of Churches, Religious and Humanist Communities
consist of:
Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the Member States of the European
Community (COMECE)
Commission for Church and Society of the Conference of European Churches
(CEC)
Bureau de l’Eglise orthodoxe auprès de l’UE
European Conference of Rabbis
Conseil Musulman de Coopération en Europe (CMCE)
European Evangelical Alliance (EEA)
European Network of Pentecostal Churches
Quaker Council for European Affairs
Union Bouddhiste Européenne
World Conference on Religion and Peace (WCRP)
European Humanist Federation.
There are also organizations representing national churches:
Büro der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (EKD)
Informationsbüro der Österreichischen Bischofskonferenz
Représentation de l’Eglise de Grèce auprès de l’UE
—and religious orders:
Centre de Recherche des Dominicains (ESPACES)
Office Catholique d’Information et d’Initiative pour l’Europe des Jésuites
(OCIPE)
Unio Conferentiarum Europae Superiorum Maiorum (UCESM)
Représentant des Franciscains auprès des Institutions Européennes
 Jansen: Europe and Religions 111

4.
See Note 1.
5.
In June 1982, President Gaston Thorn accepted the recommendation of the
Secretary General, Emile Noël, to set up a system of liaison with churches and
religious institutions. This task was confided personally to Umberto Stefani, Direc-
tor at the Secretariat General, named Special Counsellor on 13 September 1983 and
instructed to: take a census of religious organizations; establish an exhaustive
inventory of existing contacts (inside and outside the Commission); define the
modes of a more systematic cooperation; study the setting up of a liaison structure;
represent the Commission at unspecified events. In conformity with the wish of
President Jacques Delors and following the instructions of the Secretary General,
David Williamson, these duties were transferred on 18 June 1992 to the Cellule de
prospective under the direction of Marc Luyckx, who exercised them until Sep-
tember 1996. In October 1996, the task of monitoring and developing the
Commission’s relations with churches and other communities of faith and conviction
was confided to Thomas Jansen.
6.
In the run-up to the Euro-Mediterranean Conference in Barcelona (27 and 28
November 1995), the Forward Studies Unit organized a meeting in Toledo between
representatives of the religious communities of the Mediterranean Basin, with a
view to stimulating dialogue between the faiths and cultures and using this as a force
for peace in the whole region. The Barcelona declaration explicitly recognized this
initiative as a good example of what was needed and acknowledged the importance
of religion in international relations. Within the limits of the resources at its disposal,
the Unit participates in initiatives and projects in this field organized privately or by
the various governments.
7.
This programme is implemented in close cooperation with the partners. The
representatives of the religious and ideological communities examine the projects
proposed in a selection committee that meets several times a year. The selection is
made on the basis of criteria defined in conjunction with the Commission’s repre-
sentatives. The current Chair of this committee represents the non-religious
humanist groups, while the European Ecumenical Commission for Church and
Society is in charge of the Secretariat. The methods used to administer this pro-
gramme thus presuppose the existence of a dialogue between the Commission and
its partners and also a dialogue between the different religions and cultures, which
should be continued in line with European integration.
8.
See Note 1.
9.
Memorandum on the legal status of churches and religious communities in the
Treaties of the European Union, Bonn/Hanover, June 1995.
10.
Ibid.
11.
Proposal formulated on 4 March 1996.
12.
The Maastricht Treaty (Art. 138a) has thus qualified the European political
parties.

Thomas JANSEN has been a member of the Forward Studies Unit of

the European Commission since 1995, dealing with the relations with
churches and religious communities. He studied political science and
history at the Universities of Bonn and Munich. He was Secretary
General of Europa Union Deutschland, Representative of the Konrad-
Adenauer-Foundation in Rome, Secretary General of the International
European Movement, and (from 1983 to 1994) Secretary General of the
European People’s Party and the European Union of Christian Demo-
crats. His publications include the following books: Abrüstung und
Deutschland-Frage (1968), Europe: Bilanz und Perspektive (1973),
112 Social Compass 47(1)

Persönlich Keiten der Europäischen Integration (1981), Europe: Von der

Gemeinschaft zur Union (1986), Démocratie Chrétienne: Force
Internationale (1986) and The European People’s Party. Origins and
Development (1996). ADDRESS: Rue de la Loi 200, B-1049 Bruxelles,
Belgium. [email:thomas.jansen@cec.eu.int]