speak of the scandal concerning the future of manager . Meanwhile, we begin to wonder why none of the secular media has yet named, although it is one of those itchy events that usually attract an instant healthy first hail of stones on anything that smells even remotely of the Church. According to us - and we think the worst aspect of the whole story - what happened is also and above all a lost opportunity for the Catholic world.
Mind you, there was nothing to get too many illusions. However, in principle, this unfortunate situation could become even before the explosion, for pastors and all the intellectuals truly Catholic a wonderful opportunity to reaffirm in front of everyone, high and strong, a real lesson in secularism. Of those that only the Catholic culture that secularism was invented, it would be able to give, if only they showed less unconscious of itself.
First, by the leadership of CEI, he would have insisted on the concept that the Church condemns sin but never the sinner. Possibly, it should have been done in Caritatis room before the scandal broke, making news comes with holy prudence, the same ear Dino Boffo. In fact - as also pointed to the influential Vittorio Messori - the story of the sentence harassment had long been well known in the Episcopal, and more. Perhaps in this way could be achieved by Future greater discretion on the private matters of the Prime Minister. In the chorus of the secular press would not have certainly felt the lack of voice of the newspaper of the CEI, and if the thing could have a look on the publisher's director of censorship, well, who cares.
Moreover, to feel the same Avvenire, the position (after all moderate) on the alleged events of sexual premier was not spontaneous but had been requested by throngs of disappointed readers that the newspaper of Bishops have claimed greater severity and moral rigor against the outrageous (to do) the Knight libertinism. What you read in the editorial Boffo, in well over a parish of the beautiful country, where the able pastors every Sunday put Future bench of good press, we were advancing grim suspicion of cowardice, or worse, to compromise with Sodom and Gomorrah, the power of Berlusconi.
Precisely for this reason, therefore, from the bishops would have spoken loud and clear, in advance, just to the public of the Catholic faithful.
First, he could remember them, and everyone, that it was Catholicism that invented the possibility stessa di un approccio “laico” al rapporto del popolo con i governanti.
Infatti, è stato il cattolicesimo – e nessun altro – ad avere portato nel mondo la distinzione tra l’autorità spirituale e quella temporale. Senza l’esperienza storica della Chiesa cattolica, il potere secolare in Europa non avrebbe mai lasciato a nessun altra autorità il diritto di definire, in ultima istanza, cosa è morale e cosa non lo è. Tant’è che tutte le forme di governo che si sono succedute nel nostro Continente, dall’Editto di Costantino in poi, in un modo o nell’altro questo potere hanno sempre cercato di riprenderselo.
La storia della civiltà occidentale ci insegna that the relationship between the Church and the secular power has never been so troubled dialectic and on any issue, as on that of the right to have the last word on the morality of the rulers and the ruled. The most bitter disputes
between popes and emperors, ultimately, always referred to this crucial principle. There is no need to bother Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli, to prove the claim to absolute moral autonomy of the civil power, which also dates back many centuries before the Renaissance. At least since the time of the investiture controversy. Indeed, even before that, let's say from the time of Pope Gelasius I (late fifth century), who first formulated the theory of separation of powers, against the caesaropapism of the Byzantine tradition.
The history of this troubled relationship is nothing less than the history of secularism. E 'Catholicism was in fact the need to bring to the world - is now being claimed as a "secular" - a clear separation of the spiritual power to interpret the moral standards that God expects from men compared to temporal power in regard to the Government of policy.
Before the advent of the Catholic Church, in ancient societies all this religious power belonged to the civil power. E 'hardly necessary to recall that the Roman Emperor was also pontifex maximus , ie l’unico autorizzato interprete del rapporto tra gli uomini e la divinità, e quindi delle norme morali.
Ancora nel IV secolo, fu Costantino a convocare il Concilio di Nicea, nella convinzione – indiscussa ai suoi tempi – che l’Imperatore fosse il massimo responsabile delle questioni religiose. Dunque, solo per questo si deve riconoscere che è stata la Chiesa di Roma a “inventare” la laicità, togliendo al potere politico il compito sacrale di definire le norme della morale pubblica e privata. Un compito che, come vedremo, in Europa è ritornato nelle mani del potere “laico” solo con la riforma protestante. A seguito della quale, non a caso, le chiese sono tornate a essere “nazionali”, and to recognize the king as their supreme leader.
It is therefore not a quirk of history, nor the expression of a greater sense of civic duty, if they are still countries in the Protestant tradition those who place greater emphasis on sexual morality of their leaders. And at the same time, it is not a coincidence that the popular press in the Anglo-Saxon world wallows in a bed of political events with a delight that, prior to the event Noemi, Italy had not really ever seen.
To explain it, let us take it a bit 'at a distance, which unfortunately is necessary. In 1525, Martin Luther, to maintain the political support necessary for the dissemination of his theological reform, wrote to the Princes German (just waiting), the famous Exhortation to Peace that was considered legitimate use of brute force against the rebellious peasants of Swabia.
This is because, according to the great religious reformer, if any legitimate authority comes from God, the rulers were not to be bound by the moral law in suppressing the revolt of the peasants who had "took the sword without divine authority" . From this it follows that "a prince can, spilling blood, earning heaven" .
Luther concluded his letter with an exhortation to the present day, deep down, it would be very pleased to loyalists Antonio Di Pietro: "dear sirs, exterminated, slaughtered, strangled, and who can use it" .
Now what does this historical background with modern secularism and even more with the gossip about Mister B. and Mrs. D'Addario? A factor, a factor, because it is the Protestant tradition that comes the belief that the private behavior of public figures - especially with regard to the sexual sphere - may never be their only business.
fact in a democratic system, whether it is for the political power finally to determine what is moral and what is immoral, then it can not the fact that being a legitimate - even vital - that voters will affect the private morals of our politicians.
In a similar set of values, the people can legitimately expect that, after the elections, the private morality of the Prime Minister will be the same that will be claimed by them. E 'for this reason that the private virtues and vices of politicians in countries that have experienced the Calvinism in all its various forms, still become automatic in a deal that covers all citizens.
Precisely because of the lack of a spiritual authority distinct from the politics, the culture of Protestant mold has become quite natural that - quanto meno nella percezione dell’opinione pubblica – il livello medio dei costumi della nazione venga definito da come si comportano i governanti nel loro privato.
Invece, la cultura cattolica consente di mantenere ben distinti i due piani, proprio perché si basa sul principio per cui ciò che è morale in definitiva lo stabilisce Dio, ma non lo interpreta il Principe, bensì la Chiesa. E comunque, il potere politico non può usare la spada a cuor leggero e di sua autorità, per ripristinare la pubblica moralità violata. Questa ben diversa concezione, d’altra parte, nella storia ha sempre viaggiato in parallelo con il noto principio, altrettanto “laico” nella sua essenza, e parimenti forgotten by those Future, for which the Church condemns sin but never the sinner.
The doctrine of the traditional canonical potestas ecclesiae in temporalibus - so cursed by our laicones the amatriciana, because the mere mention of the phrase in Latin, gives them a sense of oppression and undue interference - has always been the caretaker of this fundamental principle of secularism. In fact, bringing the world the idea that the Prince must be considered subject to the spiritual authority of the Pope, is that it is not worth getting to the civil power lay down on his own canons of morality.
short, if Future or whoever it had spent two lines for this simple ripassino history of political and religious beliefs, perhaps the initiative would have been enough to remind everyone, Catholic or not, that the criterion for which you do not go under the Ravana sheets of public men is just a principle of Catholic culture. That is, of secularism. Why - other thing that should never be forgotten - the secular nature of the man who invented it taught to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's
As is evident, therefore, Burian that has unleashed by the accident happened to the poor Dino Boffo, yes it is a political issue, at least for a few days will involve the relationship between Church and State. But in its essence it is also a theological question, and no morals. Probably for this reason that the Holy See, so attentive to that which is not contingent on the political life of nations, it seems so far tried in some way to mitigate the morality of the Italian bishops' newspaper, regarding the events of private life Cav. and immigration.
And it is always why, in the rough story of the director of Avvenire, the bishops themselves have not only lost a great opportunity to exercise prudence Gospel. The newspaper of the CEI was also well able to remind those of his readers so kind and hard-liners, who tore their clothes for the licentiousness of the premier that one of the most important criteria for life, for a Catholic, should not be to judge not to be judged.
Indeed, once again, it is sad that no one who knew the story of Terni has invoked that golden ear of poor policy Dino Boffo, before exposing himself on the columns of his newspaper to preach to the jolly Berlusconi .
But other than that, more than anything, we regret that the pastors of the Church and especially the Catholic intellectuals have lost the opportunity to give everyone a good lesson in secularism.
L 'Osservatore Romano , almost unheard, at least tried to respond to moral theologians from overwork, like the ineffable Vito Mancuso, the souls that the Catholic Church accepts them and care, not condemnation.
doing the reverse - that is, to condemn the sinner not the sin, as used by the neo-Calvinist Republic of cattocomunisti and their friends - not only the symbol of the morally inferior. And 'well, what interests us most, an expression of total absence of meaning of secularism.
short, it was a missed opportunity, and we hope that next time, if you must there be one, go better. Even if, as things go in the Italian Catholic world there is too much to hope for, if not in the Seat of Wisdom, which is always the best thing to do. And we are asking where is this Seat of Wisdom, and if you are in Rome or elsewhere. Catholics in the pipe.
0 comments:
Post a Comment