It aimed to examine the place of the Orthodox tradition within modern Europe, particularly its potential role within the context of the expansion of the European Union. In other words, to consider the question whether Orthodoxy might indeed be able to contribute towards the building of a common European identity. This is by no means an empty question.

Many Orthodox believe the structures and even the very idea of the EU to be inimical to the Orthodox tradition. Equally there are many within the EU who subscribe to the remark of the Austrian foreign minister that 'Europe stops where Orthodoxy begins'. I shall give in what follows a sketch of some of the main contributions made in the course of the conference.

Metropolitan Kyril of Smolensk, President of the Department of External Relations of the Moscow Patriachate, gave a very searching account of the tension between traditional and liberal values in the modern globalised society. In particular, he stressed that the future of Christianity will be determined by its ability to remain at the heart of human existence -- to be not merely a private affair, such as it is permitted to be in the modern liberal mindset, but a way of life. One cannot be a Christian in isolation, in one's spare time. Christianity must be all-inclusive, embracing all aspects of life and rooted in tradition.

While not subscribing to any kind of anathematisation of change per se, Metropolitan Kyril insisted that, for the Orthodox, the tradition of the Church, its living apostolic witness, must be regarded as normative.  Deviations from the tradition are violations of the rule of faith and can therefore be regarded as heresy. Of course the only way to grasp the nature of the tradition is to consciously live the life of the Church. Such an existence necessarily entails the rejection of the liberal understanding of human freedom, the idea that man must be liberated as he is, in his sinful, fallen condition. Such an understanding is, in essence, a particularly vicious form of anthropolatreia. True freedom, according to the tradition, is liberation from sin -- something that can only be achieved by, and in communion with, God. Metropolitan Kyril thus indicated very clearly the tension between the values of traditional Orthodoxy and those of liberal humanism.

Metropolitan Kyril went on to consider what approach the Russian Church should take in the face of globalisation and European expansion.  He rejected the isolationist model, an approach that would condemn Russia to a kind of national-religious ghetto and, in effect, betray its missionary duty, its obligation to witness to the truth. He equally rejected the wholesale transplantation of the Western liberal model to Russia, a scenario that would imply the obsolescence of the domestic tradition and again see Orthodoxy restricted to a kind of native reservation. His own 'third way' (excuse the cliché!) would be to recognise the value of liberal economic and political structures, and indeed of the beneficial value of liberal humanism in the field of international relations, but to reject liberalism outright on the moral level. The Church, he continued, has a duty to affirm traditional Christian values and to involve itself in all aspects of life. It must try to embody the tradition in the modern world, to give answers to today's problems. It should, in particular, address the issues of Church-State relations, nationalism, the economy, the ecological crisis, feminism, sexual minorities, the family, and bioethics. Many of these issues could scarcely have occurred to the Church Fathers.

The Church has a formidable task before it -- to produce an authentically Christian response to the challenges of the modern world, to 'manifest itself in life'. It should not be afraid of the West, or indeed of other religious traditions. The West, for its part, must recognise that its values are not universal values and accept the diversity of the traditions that have gone into the shaping of Europe. Only through such an advance in mutual understanding can the notion of a 'common European identity' have any meaning or value.

The question of Church-State relations was also addressed by Andrej Zubov of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Zubov underlined the breakdown in society caused by the communist dictatorship, a breakdown from which Russia was only slowly, if at all, recovering. He outlined some of the aspects of the interplay between Church and State in recent years: the Patriarch's blessing of Vladimir Putin as he took office as Prime Minister; the Patriarch's de facto third place in the state hierarchy; the use of Orthodox standards by the army and navy; the presence of icons in government offices. All this is strictly non-constitutional, but appeals to the fundamentally religious sentiments of the Russian people. Zubov had few suggestions to make as to the possible regularisation of the place of the Church in the modern Russian polity. He did tentatively, and perhaps naively, suggest England as a possible model of a country with an established Church that was neither exclusive nor state-building.

Ivan Dimitrov of the University of Sophia spoke of the parlous situation of the Orthodox Church in Bulgaria -- seriously undermanned, poorly attended, weakened by internal schism and faced with a relentlessly secular government. The situation in Romania, as presented by Metropolitan Daniel of Moldavia and Bukovnia, was rather better.

Despite its many socio-economic problems, Romania remains one of the most religious countries in Europe, proud of its long Christian history and of its fusion of Latin and Byzantine orthodox traditions. Outlining the tasks of the Church in the years ahead, Metropolitan Daniel spoke of the need to overcome the separation between faith and culture brutally imposed by the communist state. Sacred art can, he argued, help bridge this gap, becoming a focal point of creative theological endeavour. As an example he cited the cultural and theological universe expressed by the synthesis of Byzantine and Gothic traditions in the churches of Moldavia. The Church must also rediscover the link between philanthropy and spirituality, to recover a sense of the presence of Christ not only in the liturgy but also in all those who suffer. Like Metropolitan Kyril, he emphasised the cardinal importance of the social programme of the Church. Metropolitan Daniel went on to stress the need to unite freedom to responsibility. Decades of submission to the structures of the communist state have left many in Eastern Europe ill-equipped to deal with the new freedoms and uncertainties of life in a liberal-capitalist society. Equally, the western model has not been able to instil a sense of civic, let alone, moral responsibility into the populace at large. The Church can certainly help underline the intimate link between freedom and responsibility in all aspects of human life.

The Church must also work out the place of Christian spiritual and moral teaching within the modern process of globalisation -- no easy task. Similarly, she must affirm the values of sanctity against those of secularism. To do so, she must acknowledge her responsibility for contemporary secularism -- something that will require a real spirit of repentance. Metropolitan Daniel noted that the experience of the Church at the hands of the militant atheists has been an experience not only of the Cross but also of the Resurrection. It is only this kind of re-birth that can enable the Church to fully overcome the communist era and to pave the way for a process of re-evangelisation. Europe needs a soul and only Christ can be that soul. Christians of all denominations must therefore struggle to provide a common witness to Christ, co-operating at every level of their ministry. The Romanian Church for one is committed to achieving such a common witness.

The focus then moved to the Serbian Church. Metropolitan Amphilohije of Montenegro gave a historical survey of the Serbian Church, stressing the organic relationship that has existed between Church and nation from the Battle of Kosovo (1389) onwards. This closeness has, he noted, placed the Church at risk of being used for merely political ends notwithstanding the condemnation of Philetism in 1872. This kind of confusion must be acknowledged as having contributed in some way to the anti-Christian revolutions of the C20. Metropolitan Amphilohije went on to speak of the creation of the Yugoslav state, the re-establishment of the patriachate and the bloody events of the Second World War. The tensions of the war years were, he reminded us, never resolved during the decades of communism and consequently erupted with re-doubled ferocity following the collapse of that system. The recent Kosovo campaign, he stressed, is a cause for shame not only for NATO but also for the government of Serbia and much of the Albanian population. The savagery unleashed by this campaign has caused horrific and almost unprecedented destruction, particularly of churches and monasteries, in full view of the international community. One must ask, Metropolitan Amphilohije asserted, to what extent this destruction has been begotten by the triple marriage of Islamic fundamentalism, modern liberalism and post-totalitarianism -- united with the aim of destroying the Church. In this respect the crucifixion of the Serbian Orthodox Church in our time must be seen as having universal Christian relevance.

The situation of Orthodoxy in modern Greece was addressed by Vasilios Makrides, of the University of Erfurt. Like Serbia, Greece suffers from the confusion of Church and nation consequent upon the eclipse of Byzantine universalism. The Church and the State are intimately connected in Greece -- more so than in virtually any other Orthodox country. The State pays the clergy, the Church participates in all State ceremonies, religious education is compulsory, and proselytism is forbidden. Even PASOK, the Socialist Party, has abandoned its commitment to the separation of Church and State. The Church is, in fact, a monopoly -- even the Roman Catholic Church is not a legal entity in Greece. This is of course a situation which will have to change in time -- Greece has been repeatedly condemned by European bodies such as the Court of Human Rights for its failure to respect the rights of minority religious groups.  Much has also changed with the accession of the new Archbishop, Christodoulos, who has very clearly stated his attention to bring the Church to the very heart of the life of the country and is more than ready to express his opinion on all issues affecting modern Greek society. All this in marked contrast to his predecessor, Archbishop Seraphim.  Christodoulos is enormously popular in Greece, more so than any politician. One should not, however, assume, that the Church of Greece is without its problems. While there is certainly a 'diffused religiosity' in the Greek people, this does not necessarily go much deeper than a nostalgia for ritual forms or a sense that to be Greek is to be Orthodox never mind if one happens to be an atheist. Greece in fact has a lower regular Church attendance than Italy, Spain or Portugal -- even if its ratio of civil to church weddings is the lowest in Europe. Greece also faces the problem of Orthodox fundamentalism, witnessed, for example, by the zealots of Athos and the 'neo-Orthodoxy' of intellectual circles of the 1980's. The Church of Greece must also work out its attitude to the EU and seek to resolve, in co-operation with the Patriachate of Constantinople, the thorny problem of the Greek diaspora. As for its relations with the Greek State, Makrides concluded by suggesting not a divorce but a kind of partial separation -- living together but no longer sharing the same bed.

Father Boris Bobrinskoy, Dean of the Institut St-Serge in Paris, spoke of the diaspora as a possible 'bridge' between Eastern and Western Europe.   He outlined the history of the Russian diaspora in Europe: the role of the Institut St-Serge, the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius, the Fraternité Orthodoxe and inter-episcopal assembly in France. The establishment of a vibrant Orthodox presence in Western Europe reminds us that Orthodoxy is the heritage not of the East alone but of all Christianity. Orthodoxy has, however, tended to define itself by opposition to the West. It must cease to be so defensive, and open itself to towards dialogue, to an experience of Pentecost. It must witness to the crucified Lord in the time and culture in which it finds itself. To do so it requires a creative faithfulness to tradition, a faithfulness that will allow it to impart its rich spiritual patrimony to the Church at large. The possibilities opened up by the disapora are not accidental but rather the work of Christ the master of history -- as Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia has often said. The Church lives in a kind of double existence -- both by the 'waters of Babylon' and already tasting the Kingdom. We are, he concluded, called to live in the world without being of the world.

The closing session of the conference was also one of the most lively. It began with an analysis by Christos Yannaras of the roots of the Schism between East and West. Yannaras began by considering differing understandings of catholicity in East and West: the East seeing each eucharistic community, gathered around its bishop, as the manifestation of the Church in its wholeness; the West defining catholicity in juridical and geographical terms -- Augustine being the chief villain of the piece.

In the former interpretation the Church is a mode of divine existence in which we participate; in the latter it is a merely human construct.   Yannaras also stressed the East's refusal to exhaust the truth in formulations -- in other words its apophaticism. Again this is linked to the experience of Truth by participation. Yannaras went on to consider the historical circumstances of the Schism, in particular the impact of the alternative Christian Empire of the Franks. He spoke of the gradual entrenchment of the Schism through the Crusades and the Renaissance, noting the development of an inferiority complex amongst the Orthodox, to such a degree that they can blithely accept the Western devaluation of 'Byzantium', as perpetrated by Gibbon, Montesquieu, Voltaire _et alii_. Contemporary Orthodoxy has only a very secondary place in the Western mindset (the mindset with which many Orthodox are also afflicted) -- at best admired for its 'mysticism'. Yannaras ended on a somewhat pessimistic note - given that the Christian tradition now occupies such a peripheral place within society, it is very difficult to see how the Churches are really going to contribute anything of substance to the formation of a united Europe.

Thomas Pidlík, of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, gave a modest but perceptive paper on the progressive estrangement of Orthodox and 'Catholic-Protestant-Enlightenment' Europe. He criticised the tendency to propound simplistic juxtapositions between East and West, for example Lossky's contrast of the 'life in Christ' of the East and the 'imitation of Christ' of the West. Surely, as St Nicholas Cabasilas points out, the one invites the other. pidlík also had some useful things to say on the subject of Sophiology, stressing its poetic quality. Sophia should not be dogmatised or materialised. Its primary function is as a symbol of the supreme beauty that is Christ. This thought led pidlík to call for an 'encounter of beauty' between East and West (as Metropolitan Daniel had done). Such an encounter might itself be said to be symbolised in a Vatican chapel dedicated to Ss. John of Damascus, Thomas Aquinas and Gregory Palamas. Since they certainly get along in heaven, observed pidlík, let us hope we can do the same on earth!

Hervé Legrand, of the Institut Catholique in Paris was then called on to give a response to the two papers. He said a few words about pidlík's paper and then turned to that of Yannaras. He began with some very warm remarks about his 'dear friend' Yannaras, at which point it was very clear that he was about to launch into a severe critique. This duly followed. Legrand objected to the unhistorical nature of Yannaras' presentation, for instance the assertion that Augustine knew no Greek and was consequently unable to assimilate the riches of the Hellenic tradition. Legrand pointed out, quite rightly, that Augustine did know Greek, although he tended to exaggerate the extent of that knowledge.

He also queried Yannaras' thoughts on catholicity, arguing that the 'geographical' element of catholicity had its roots not so much in Roman Law as in Scripture -- see the Saviour's injunction at the close of the Gospel of Matthew. The title 'Roman Catholic Church' is, he somewhat disingenuously added, not an auto-characterisation, but rather a Protestant designation; it cannot, therefore, be used as evidence of a given notion of catholicity. Legrand virtually derided Yannaras' sub-Romanidesian interpretation of history and put forward a rather more optimistic view of the future, citing the very positive developments witnessed in the Balamand statement. He ended by somewhat mischievously thanking Yannaras for the 'radicalism' of his presentation.

Yannaras had a brief opportunity to respond to all this. With some justice, he accused Legrand of a reductio ad absurdum and of failing to really address the key, existential, issues: the nature of truth, the origins of atheism, the lure of the consumer society and so forth. We must, he argued, look for unity in a shared experience of Truth himself -- only then can death be truly vanquished by love.