By ALBERTO PIEDRA
World War I was supposed to be the war that would end all wars and bring stability and peace to Europe and all civilized nations on the planet. The Treaty of Versailles was supposed to open the door to this desirable goal. The end result was World War II, the greatest slaughter that the world has ever known.
There is no need to mention in this brief essay the many errors and failed policies resulting from the signing of this treaty and its accompanying agreements. It changed the map not only of Germany but also of Central Europe and the territorial boundaries of the major European powers in Africa and Asia.
Probably, the most fervent critic of the Versailles Treaty was the eminent British economist John Maynard Keynes, a representative of the UK treasury at the conference. He had no hesitation in recommending the economic revival of Europe, especially of Germany but his suggestions were to no avail.
The historian Paul Johnson claims that Wilson, obsessed with the League of Nations, was uninterested in economic revival. The U.S. Treasury was also horrified with Keynes’ ideas. Keynes, finally, left the conference in disgust. Through the years, many prominent scholars have also joined Keynes in his criticism of the Treaty of Versailles.
Pope Benedict XVI in his book Europe: Today and Tomorrow has this to say: “The Treaty of Versailles had deliberately planned to humiliate Germany and impose enormous burdens on it, which reduced its people to dire straits, thus opening the door to extremist ideologies and dictatorships.”
Wilson’s love affair with his pet project the League of Nations, as well as his support for the ideas of what he called “collective security” and the “self-determination of peoples,” were undoubtedly well intentioned but turned out to be total failures in the light of the events occurring in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s, which impacted negatively the remaining colonial empires. The two major supporters of the spirit and letter of the League, Britain and France, did not have the power to impose their will on the violators of the Covenant. Eventually, they also lost their empires under the banner of “self-determination of peoples.”
After the disappointing results of the Treaty of Versailles and the disastrous upheavals brought about by the horrors of World War II, the following question posed by Pope Benedict XVI has become extremely pertinent and worth meditating upon: “…is there an identity of Europe that has a future and to which it is we can sincerely commit ourselves?”
According to the Roman Pontiff: “For the fathers of European unification after the devastation of the Second World War — Adenauer, Schuman, de Gasperi — it was clear that such a basis does exist and that it consists in the Christian patrimony of our continent, which owes its very existence to Christianity.”
However, this optimistic expectation did not last very long. The goal of reaching a European unification founded on a common Judeo-Christian heritage soon evaporated and “proceeded almost exclusively from the economic perspective,” and scant attention was paid to the question of the “intellectual foundation of such a community.”
Without going into an analysis of the European constitution, Ratzinger mentions the following three basic elements that must be included in it:
1) The validity of human dignity and the respect for human rights. They are principles that the legislator is obliged to respect and, let us stress, are not bestowed upon the people as an act of generosity on the part of the state. They are innate within the nature of man; 2) part of the European identity is monogamous marriage. It is the foundation for the construction of civic society, and 3) freedom of religion or reverence for that which is holy to other persons. Otherwise, a free society will tend to perish.
Pope Benedict XVI reminds us also that if Europe is to survive, it needs acceptance of itself, and he has no hesitation in warning us about the dangers of multiculturalism as it often implies “a refusal to accept that which is one’s own or indeed a flight from that which is one’s own. Without shared constants, without criteria rooted in that which is one’s own, multiculturalism cannot endure. It surely cannot survive without reverence of that which is holy. This involves encountering with reverence that which is holy to another, but we can do this only if the Holy One, God Himself, is not foreign to us.”
Few people would doubt that the European Union, as it stands today in the second decade of the 21st century, is in full crisis. Revival of nationalism and rival economic interests among its members are threatening its very existence. Economic power has taken precedence over a common unifying European heritage which is tearing the continent apart. Both of these factors have created serious fissures to the founders’ earlier belief in a unified Europe with a common economic policy which would serve the purpose of an integrated Europe with common political goals.
These cracks have only created further divisions between the wealthier northern European countries and the less developed ones bordering the Mediterranean. Even countries like the UK in the north oppose further encroachments by a bureaucratic-controlled center in Brussels, which tries to impose its views on that “which is Britain’s own.” Brexit is a good example. Britain’s example may soon be followed by other European nations.
The bottom line is that there is no common spiritual denominator which would serve as the primary unifying factor. Without it the European Union is destined to collapse.
During the early 19th century the German philosopher Hegel in his Lectures on the History of Philosophy compared the Middle Ages with a ship lost in mid-ocean that did not reach the safety of port until the arrival of Descartes and the Enlightenment. Everything in between Classical Antiquity and the Enlightenment should be skipped, he asserted.
Something similar but at the transcendental level can be said of our modern era, but precisely the reverse of Hegel’s interpretation of history. Since the mid-1960s there has been a gradual but consistent flight from spirituality and the very idea of the transcendental. The Western World is being overcome by a wave of hedonism, crude materialism, and a false progressivism which has blinded man to the eternal values which constitute the foundation of our Judeo-Christian heritage.
Even the concepts of good and evil have been blurred to such an extent that it is difficult to distinguish between them. A sort of a real dark age seems to be in the making.
The identity of Europe is being put at risk. For modern man his future wellbeing lies in reinforcing its traditional values without abandoning its rich Christian heritage.
Alasdair MacIntyre, the distinguished professor of philosophy at Vanderbilt University, reminds us that “in the actual world which we inhabit the language of morality is in a state of grave disorder.” He continues: “We possess indeed simulacra of morality, we continue to use many of the true expressions. But we have very largely — if not entirely — lost our comprehension, both theoretical and practical of morality.”
Without virtuous men and women, it is impossible to have a healthy society and this applies even more to the success of economic and political unions.
The late Pontiff John Paul II affirmed that de-Christianization involves not only the loss or perversion of faith, but also of necessity a decline or obscuring of the moral sense. In his encyclical Veritatis Splendor, he wrote:
“Today’s widespread tendencies toward subjectivism, utilitarianism, and relativism appear not merely as pragmatic attitudes or patterns of behavior, but rather as approaches having a basis in theory and claiming full cultural and social legitimacy.”
Natural Law
Let us hope that men of goodwill shall listen to these wise words and not be carried away by false utopianisms which will not only lead to the failure of the European Union but also to chaos and the rise of totalitarianism.
Policymakers must be reminded that no matter how excellent are the economic and political structures of the union, it will inevitably end up in failure if there is no common denominator that unites them all. In my opinion, a recognition and acceptance of natural law which lies at the heart of all men and has been part of the European Judeo-Christian heritage is the “sine qua non” of success.
Let me conclude with a note of optimism. The British historian Christopher Dawson wrote: “…It is natural that the Dark Ages of history — the hour of human failure and impotence — should also be the hour when the power of eternity is manifested.”
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress