Rocco Buttiglione said Europe’s problems are not the massive Islamic immigration now underway, but Europeans’ failure to procreate.

He’s ruffled feathers before. Last fall, Buttiglione, Italy’s European affairs minister, withdrew his candidacy for European Union commissioner for justice and home affairs after being rejected by a European Parliament committee for calling homosexuality a sin.

That won’t keep him from lobbying the European Parliament for policies promoting childbearing. He spoke to Register correspondent Edward Pentin Jan. 10 at the Ministry for European Affairs in Rome.

How disappointed were you about the events of last fall? Did you consider it to be a personal defeat?

I very much wanted to become a European commissioner, and of course I was disappointed. On the other hand, there are things more valuable than a seat on the commission, and one’s conscience is one of them — perhaps first and foremost. I must add that when I resigned, I felt I was completely alone, abandoned and defeated. But immediately after that, I realized there was an enormous current of support for me, personally and for my positions. I have received so many messages, email contacts, letters — not only from individuals, but organizations, and not only Catholic or Christian organizations. I’m thinking of the evangelical churches, the patriarch of Athens, also of many liberals, not in the current sense of the word, but according to the traditional meaning — people who can make a distinction between ethics and politics and who think that you do not have a right to set up a kind of inquisition or “conscience police” in order to inquire into the religious convictions of anybody, and in particular of a possible commissioner.

 This was, to a certain extent, a surprise. Many people stand, or stood, by liberal principles, not only in Italy. Then I went to Spain, Germany and…Poland. I had the possibility of speaking about what really had happened, and I think there is a large part of public opinion — a majority, at least in some countries — who understand that what happened in the European Parliament was a shame. 

Do you think the affair had more to do with Europe’s institutions rather than European society as such?

It had to do with some European lobbyists, and it was a disgrace — a disgrace from the point of view of a balanced Europe. Everyone says they don’t want a European super-state, and now they have taken a right that belongs to the member state. They wanted to do that, and, to a certain extent, they have succeeded: to take a right of a member state and give it to the European Parliament. I remember someone telling me that he would never have wanted to have me in his government. Of course he was right; I would never have wanted to sit in his government. But in a government, you make a political distinction, and a socialist cannot, I think, sit with a Christian Democrat. But in the commission, it is not so. In the commission, the commissioner is indicative of the member state, and that’s why people who could not sit in the same government must be able to sit on the commission. So this was one aspect. 

The second aspect is that you cannot discriminate on conscience — and this was done. According to these principles, Konrad Adenauer, Alcide de Gasperri, Robert Schuman, would not have sat on the commission. By the way, according to those principles, George W. Bush could not sit on the commission, and not even John F. Kerry, because although he is a liberal, he thinks that abortion is morally evil, although it should not be punished by the law. And this, by the way, is exactly the position I held in the commission (vis-a-vis homosexuality). 

So there is a kind of new orthodoxy, and those who hold to this orthodoxy believe there is only one truth, and this truth is that there’s no truth. Anybody who stands by objective values, anybody who thinks that there is any kind of truth, although he keeps them carefully distinguished (the sphere of religious truth from the sphere of politics), he is at least considered suspect. He’s a second-class citizen.

And the third aspect is that it is odd that the European Commission has no competence on family issues, and the fact that they struggled so much against me leads to the suspicion that they are willing to put pressure, from Brussels, on the member states in order to determine in Brussels, and not in the member states, what should be considered as family in the different member states, which is against the existing body of laws and against the European Constitution. 

One member of the European Parliament says it was simply a “put-up job,” that it was staged.

Of course, it was staged.

How are new immigration trends in Europe affecting Italy? 

Quite a lot. First, the real problem is not immigration. The real problem is that we’re not having children. If Islam would prevail and if Islam would occupy Europe, it would not be its fault; it would be our fault. If we have no children, what is wrong in occupying a continent that has become void, empty? And this is what could happen over the next 100 years if there is not a change in our general culture.

You mean a kind of demographic suicide?

Yes, there is a demographic suicide, and its cause is this hedonistic culture which has led the attack against me. So the real enemies of Europe are not in Islam; they are among ourselves. 

Second, the model of multiculturalism has entered into a deep crisis. We should not talk anymore only of multiculturalism; we should go back to the old idea of natural law. There are some rules that belong to human nature. Nobody can come to us and say, in the name of my particular culture, I pretend to violate those natural rules. Shall we accept human sacrifices if a Gnostic community comes to us and says, “Well, this is a significant part of our culture. We have a right to do that in Europe.”? I think we should say No, and I should add that Europe has a culture which is Christian, and those who come to us should respect this culture. They should, if possible, love this culture.

 I’ve been in the U.S. for quite a while, and I’m European — I’m very proud of being European — but I have learned to respect and love American culture. The last time I was in Washington, at the time of Hanukkah I visited the home of a friend, Michael E. Dean, and I prayed with them. And I did not consider their religious symbols as something bad; I considered them as symbols of high cultural and religious value although I’m not a Jew. I don’t see why those who come to Europe should see in the symbols of Christian religion a threat or something to be ashamed of. 

This takes us back to secular fundamentalism in a way, doesn’t it?

Yes. And third, I think that it is easier for Islamists to have a dialogue with Christians than with nihilists. What they are afraid of is not so much Christianity, but the idea of a Western culture that destroys all values and reduces humanity only to the level of those vital values, usually sex and power, that do not need to have any moral justification. 

How significant was the recent assassination by a Muslim extremist of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who made a controversial film on Islam?

That was a turning point.

Do you think that it’s a sign of things to come in Europe?

I think it’s a sign of the crisis of a multiculturalism that was connected with moral relativism. We must have a multicultural society, but this cannot be grounded in moral relativism. It must be grounded in human rights. You can respect the culture of another people without renouncing your own culture, and you can respect the culture of another people without being a moral relativist. It’s enough that you think that the main value is the human person, and that every person has his or her way to God. It’s possible that his or her path goes through things you do not agree with, that it goes through sin, and you have to respect their way, although you have the right to tell them what you think. The primacy of the human person, and not moral relativism, is a sound foundation for democracy and for a multicultural society. 

Do you think conservatism in Europe and Europe’s institutions might be becoming a thing of the past?

No. It depends on what you mean by conservatism. In order to preserve values and what is valuable, you have to change a lot of things. So you can be a social reformer just to preserve the important values. But I don’t think that’s the issue today in Europe. I rather think the issue is: Shall we preserve the fundamental values that allow us to live, or shall we lose them? If we lose those values, the result will not be a society without values; the result will be the death of Europe. Europe will disappear. The nihilistic Left leads us towards the suicide of Europe, so it is not a matter of a struggle for conservative values; it is a struggle for Europe. 

Look at the United States. In the 1970s or the beginning of the ‘80s, a lot of what is said about Europe could have been said of the United States, and was said. I still remember books on the end of the “American age,” the decay of the American empire, and everyone was convinced that the future belonged to Japan and Europe. They said Europe, but really they meant Germany. Today, nobody would say that, and what is the reason? I think there’s a simple moral reason — the values that were prevailing in the U.S. in the 1970s and 1980s are now prevailing in Europe, and in the U.S., there has been a reaction that has led to a coming-back to some fundamental natural values; I should not say Christian values — they are also Christian — but, above all, they are natural values. 

The natural law?

Yes, and if a society abandons natural law, betrays natural law, does not abide by natural law, the result will be the dissolution of that society. There is a very beautiful quotation of St. Thomas Aquinas which says that the natural law has a certain correct relation of people to one another. If this is preserved, the society will flourish. If it is abandoned, society will decay and disappear. 

So you’re saying that America has gone through what Europe is experiencing and come out the other side?

There’s been a reaction — a very positive reaction — but when I say this, please do not identify me with uncritical support of Mr. Bush, because the reaction goes through the presidency of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush’s father and William Jefferson Clinton, who is a Christian. You might say he’s a sinner, yes — we’re all sinners — but he’s a Christian, and he won the elections on a platform in which family values were central, and then you have George W. Bush. All those presidents have incorporated into their program family values and a substantial coming-back to Christian values. 

Albeit somewhat Calvinist?

Well, so be it, but we’re all sinners. George W. Bush is a born-again Christian. Which makes me think, I wonder whether W. J. Clinton could have overcome the opposition of my position in the European Parliament? It is very interesting what he said about the defeat of Kerry. He said we Democrats will never win again an election in the United States until we find somebody who is not afraid of speaking out in the name of God and saying clearly that we’re against gay marriage. Kerry was against gay marriage but did not say this with enough conviction and not often enough. This is not Buttiglione speaking, but a quotation of William Jefferson Clinton. 

There was some dispute recently when President Bush wouldn’t see you on a recent trip you made to Washington. Could you tell us more about this?

I had nothing to do with a dispute. I had no encounter with him; no meeting was scheduled; nothing was organized through official channels. Of course, I would have been very honored to meet President Bush, but I’m not complaining. Some friends would have liked me to see President Bush, and I would have been honored, of course. 

But Christian values are very important to you both, aren’t they?

Yes, that’s true. I very much admire what President Bush has been doing. Nevertheless, we’re talking not of President Bush but of profound movements within the depths of American society, and I would not say that these movements only involve the Republican Party or only the political position of Mr. Bush. There is something more profound that is moving in American society.

Are you concerned, though, that the division between Europe and the United States will become further entrenched over the next few years?

Will it? I don’t know. Very often Europe has followed suit with the United States after a while. The United States have been the avant-garde of modernity, and yes, it is difficult for the modern Left. They have always thought that the advance of modernity coincides with decay of Christianity and find it hard to accept the idea that the United States is the avant-garde of modernity and yet, at the same time, maybe more religious than Europe. But this is not a problem of Europe; it is a problem of the European Left. 

You said after what happened last fall that you were going to found a new Christian movement in European politics. Have there been any further developments on this proposal?

I’m trying to build up a portal in which different groups and movements that have expressed their solidarity may communicate with one another, can give ideas to one another and can also coordinate themselves to defend common values in European politics. I’m not thinking of any hierarchical or traditional movements like Communion and Liberation or Focolare — this would be wrong because most people who showed their solidarity already belong to one of these groups. We must create circumstances for these people to know about each other, not to feel alone, to coordinate for common purposes and, of course, to elaborate critically their position in front of European Affairs.

How concerned are you that overt Christianity in politics, personified by public figures such as yourself and President Bush, will be perceived as fundamentalism, resulting in a possible backlash from secular groups who wish to push their agenda ever more forcefully?

I’m worried about this secular fundamentalism, but fundamentalism is always a sign of weakness. Anyone who identifies President Bush as a fundamentalist shows that he doesn’t know much about the United States, because in the camp of G. W. Bush, you can find Jerry Falwell, no doubt, but they are not all Jerry Falwells, and you can find very fine people. You can speak of intellectuals like Michael Novak, Richard John Neuhaus, George Weigel, Peter Berger — I could continue for a long while. The same was true in Europe. When I was a young man, I remember that the Christian fundamentalists had only anathemas and the secular intellectuals had arguments. When I look at the public debate today, I see that we have a lot of arguments, and they only have only a dogmatic attitude. They say, “Oh, this is not possible,” and you ask them why and they have no answer. You cannot say this in the 21st century, and if you ask them why, they don’t know why. 

But even though they may have misinterpreted George W. Bush’s Christianity, is there nevertheless a danger of secular and religious parties in politics becoming ideologically opposing forces — Christianity becoming ideological, which is what it shouldn’t be?

I don’t know. First of all, the cultural and political struggle have many points of contact with one another, but nevertheless they are not one and the same thing. I already pointed out, certainly with less force, that you find people who are really devoted to Christian values, family values, in the Democratic Party of the United States. This shows clearly that you cannot consider the two strands as one and the same thing, though of course they are connected with one another. Second, in my personal case, I was surprised — and was very happy with this surprise — that people who no one could consider as exponents of Christian values in politics — like Guiliano Ferrara, Ernesto Galli Della Loggia and many others, the best part of the liberal intelligentsia — sided with me. The battle here is not about Christian values, and here we’re different to the United States. What we defend here are not just Christian values, but at the same time, liberal values — freedom of conscience, of speech, freedom of being equal although you have a different moral stand. In this struggle, we have found an alliance of a lot of people who are not known for their religious beliefs. I say this because it corresponds to the liberal tradition. A liberal would not say that he is not religious; he would say that his religious belief is his own business and no one else has the right to stick his nose in it. 

We’re coming back to the natural law here. Would you agree that the natural law is the way, as the Pope has recommended, of reaching out to secular groups? 

The natural law is a Christian concept — you find it in St. Thomas Aquinas — but at the same time, and perhaps at the same time even more forcefully, it’s an Enlightenment concept. You cannot think of the American and French revolutions without a strong idea of the natural law. The natural law can be a common body on which we can meet, secular and Christian Europeans, and we can build up a common institutional home. 

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said we perhaps need to find another name for it in order to attract more people to the concept. Do you agree with that?

I think we can — we can change the name if we want. But the concept is extremely valuable. On the background of natural law, you can also build up a multicultural society. Without that background, multicultural society is likely to degenerate. The murder of van Gogh is not a first sign of this because we already have had such signs. But it is a turning point, a death knell for relativistic multiculturalism. 

Edward Pentin writes from Rome.