Europe’s Vision and Soul
Cardinal Matteo Maria Zuppi reflects on Europe’s moral foundations, warning against nationalism and the return of the logic of force while calling for a renewed European vision rooted in dialogue and the dignity of the person
This article is an edited version of remarks delivered by Cardinal Matteo Maria Zuppi at the event “L’Europa in cammino. Dialogo, democrazia, libertà”, held at Bocconi University on 27 February 2026. The discussion brought together Cardinal Zuppi, Andrea Sironi, Francesco Billari and Sylvie Goulard to reflect on the future of the European project at a time of geopolitical tensions, rising polarization and declining trust in democratic institutions.
When speaking about Europe, there is a risk of getting lost in minimal principles—that is, in small interests, which become ever smaller and more divisive, until we lose sight of the bigger picture. For this reason, the starting point must be different: vision, future, hope. Without this broader horizon, the European discourse reduces itself to conflict, opposition, and self-assertion against others.
Europe directly concerns Christians—not only because Churches played a significant role in its origins, but because among its founders were Christian, and in some cases Catholic, figures who conceived the European project as a response to the nationalisms that had destroyed the Continent. For this reason, Europe cannot be treated as someone else’s issue. It concerns everyone, especially those who feel responsible for a spiritual and civic tradition.
The central question is therefore what Europe’s vision is today, what its soul is, what its values are. Yet speaking of values can easily descend into cheap moralism or formulas thrown like stones at others. Truth, when reduced to a stone, attracts no one. Europe must regain its character as something compelling.
Pope Francis offered a powerful image: faced with the sirens of consumerism, there are two responses—Ulysses tying himself to resist, or Orpheus composing an even more beautiful song. Europe needs the latter: not merely defending itself, but expressing a higher and more convincing promise.
That promise cannot be reduced to the market. The market matters, but it does not exhaust Europe’s meaning. If, on all fundamental issues, one depends on others, one must ask how much one truly intends to count and what one wants to be. Institutional maintenance, while necessary, is insufficient without vision. Without vision, one merely administers.
At the heart of European values remains the person. Europe is still a place where human life retains essential centrality, symbolized also by the absence of the death penalty. But the value of the person must not be confused with individualism. The individual needs the “we”; without the “we,” one becomes distorted and even self-defeating.
Europe’s greatness lies precisely in having combined the primacy of the person with the capacity to live together. This is a defining trait of European humanism, born from many roots intertwined over time into something shared.
From this stems concern about the return of a logic in which force prevails over law.
When force becomes law, one enters a dangerous dynamic, because force generates more force. Its logic is always escalation. Eighty years ago, Italian constitutional framers understood this well: rejecting war also meant limiting sovereignty and defending institutions capable of resolving conflict.
The intelligence of that vision was not abstract proclamation, but understanding that peace requires institutions, rules, and common instruments. It was once thought that a third world war would be the last; today we see many fragments of war, yet we have not fully grasped that these fragments can endanger everything.
Thus, De Gasperi’s warning remains fully relevant: a united Europe was not born against nations, but against the nationalisms that destroyed them. Nationalisms remain viruses, and the response to them must be a broad vision rooted in the person, openness rather than closure, dialogue rather than opposition.
This also applies to the war in Ukraine. Europe finds itself supporting the legitimate defense of an attacked country, which is understandable. But everything cannot be reduced to armed defense. Europe’s distinctive trait should also be the capacity to rebuild law where it has been broken—to work toward an architecture capable of composing conflicts. On this terrain, European initiative has been insufficient. That is why Europe stands midstream today.
Dialogue must not be confused with complicity, weakness, or surrender. Dialogue is the only way to resolve conflicts and should be Europe’s true specialty. To make dialogue credible, however, Europe must equip itself with the tools necessary for its own security.
From this perspective, even defense points toward the need for a European army—not to accumulate separate, poorly interoperable arsenals, but to build a common defense capacity coherent with a common foreign policy. One cannot think of having a foreign policy without the instruments to sustain it.
The issue of vetoes and differentiated cooperation must be read in this light. When the stakes are as high as they are today, mechanisms must be found to move forward. Those who wish to proceed must be able to do so, without breaking the common horizon, but without remaining paralyzed.
If Europe fails to react, it risks shrinking into a minimal club: a condominium progressively stripped of what is common, leaving only residual regulation.
And yet there is also an almost natural Europe, especially in the eyes of young people, who move, study, and work across borders as something obvious. This European naturalness is a tremendous asset, but it must grow and consolidate.
Ultimately, Europe must not betray itself by returning solely to the logic of force. It must rediscover its soul, its enthusiasm, its vision. Only then can it be worthy of its history and of its responsibility toward the future.
IEP@BU does not express opinions of its own. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
