While the EU is supposed to be a community of shared values that its institutions claim to represent, tensions are increasingly visible between the progressive vision driven from Brussels and the Christian roots that historically shaped Europe. Funding policies and legislative frameworks reflect a tendency that sytematically excludes religious organizations, especially Christian ones, from decision-making processes and the distribution of resources. Large progressive NGOs and lobbies aligned with gender ideology, extreme environmentalism, or European federalism now occupy the space that once belonged to religious communities and local organizations rooted in traditional values.
Faced with this scenario, resistance is organizing within the European Parliament itself. Conservative and patriotic groups are trying to give a voice to the churches and defend their fundamental role in social and community life, ministerial commissioner, EU expert Bernadett Petri told europeanconservative.com.
What is the main difficulty in the relationship between the EU and traditional churches?
The main difficulty lies in the fact that, although the EU is formally obliged to engage in dialogue with the churches under Article 17 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, in practice, this dialogue has been emptied of substance. Periodic meetings are organized, but they have no real influence on policy design or on the distribution of funds. Important decisions are made without considering the experience and deep knowledge that churches have regarding the needs of local communities, social challenges, cohesion, and peace.
Moreover, we have detected serious irregularities in European programs: systematic preference is given to progressive NGOs, while religious organizations are excluded because they supposedly do not comply with the values of Article 2, which are increasingly interpreted in an ideological and restrictive manner.
Do you think the EU no longer considers Christianity an essential part of Europe?
That is a very interesting and worrying question. It seems that the humanitarian and moral dimension of Christianity is only recognized in external relations—when the EU speaks about humanitarian aid on other continents. But within Europe, these dimensions seem to hold no importance.
Even when churches offer social services, care for the needy, contribute to the integration of the marginalized, or to the defense of human rights, the EU prefers to channel resources to secular NGOs that act as ‘parallel churches,’ but without the values-based background and without historical legitimacy. This is not just an administrative issue; it is a cultural and spiritual denial of Europe’s roots.
Why do you think European institutions act this way? Don’t they need the churches?
It’s a mix of aggressive secularization and political calculation. Secularization has hollowed out churches’ public role, reducing them to private actors without institutional voice. Politically, the EU has opted to strengthen progressive networks, which are easier to align with Brussels’ centralized objectives.
Churches, on the other hand, represent local communities, national traditions, and ways of thinking that often clash with current ideological agendas. That makes progressive Brussels bureaucrats uncomfortable. Even formal structures like COMECE, the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community, have lost relevance. Although under Pope Francis there was some activity, real participation in decisions has been minimal. And with a new pope yet to be elected, the uncertainty only increases.
Are there allies in the European Parliament to reverse this situation?
Yes, the main allies are among the conservative MEPs, especially in groups like the Patriots or the ECR group (European Conservatives and Reformists). Surprisingly, even many who call themselves Christian Democrats do not prioritize this issue. But the context may change.
Negotiations for the new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) are approaching, which will be key. Within that framework, we can propose changes to highlight the current inequality and allow churches to participate on equal footing. With a well-designed strategy and the support of parliamentary allies, there is room to introduce reforms.
Are you optimistic about the future? Can Christianity survive in the European project?
There are reasons for hope, but not for naivety. Countries like Hungary show that close collaboration between government and churches can strengthen public policies and national identity.
Poland had a successful model under the Law and Justice (PiS) government, but now, with the political shift, churches are being marginalized even at the local level, under pressure from Brussels. European institutions are using financial power as a political tool: if you collaborate with the churches, you don’t get funds. This is a serious threat.
Therefore, to win, we need to change the rules from within, especially in the legislative arena.
Do national governments have any capacity to protect themselves from these impositions?
They should have it, but it is becoming increasingly difficult. Brussels is now pushing the so-called smart conditionality, which means that European funds will not be delivered to governments unless they meet certain criteria, many of which are defined politically and ideologically under the umbrella of the ‘rule of law.’
This allows bypassing national governments and directly funding NGOs aligned with progressive values, reinforcing their power. If these trends are not stopped, not only churches but also the member states themselves will lose real sovereignty.
