thank friends and Paola Luciano for reporting!
I've always uncomfortable with the way you normally place the relationship between church and civil society at both theoretical and practical. Lately
discomfort became acute.
There are three closely related aspects relating to this subject, I'd like to discuss with friends:
1. the relationship the church and civil society in Italy today-political
2. whether the distinction between personal law and civil law
3. dialogue between summit and base ecclesial
The notes of this intervention are to avoid a dense extension inappropriate. The result is a commitment to read that readers will excuse me.
1. In practice, the hierarchy (Italian, Vatican) supports the current political right to power.
flood of ad personam laws, threats to democracy and the tripartite division of powers on which it is based, command-webs that are dwarf those of the ancient DC, of \u200b\u200bsectarianism communication media for the superpower, sitting at state expense obscene, vulgar ways of propaganda, lies and betrayal systematic ruling hostility towards immigrants ... these and other facts of the Right in power do not seem to weigh much in the overall verdict of the Magisterium. Yet, inter alia, carrying with it a troubling aspect of education, because it appears to be gradually acquired by the people as government policy.
What are the reasons then this unbalanced support of the Magisterium? Leads to the second point for a plausible answer.
2. I will not go on a second possible hidden intentions. I stand by the reasoning
assets: the protection of primary values human rights in civil legislation.
The Italian right now is an ally in this defense.
propose again a question as old and repetitive, as not properly addressed: I have the right and duty to enforce the civil law with the values \u200b\u200bof my personal consciousness to those who do not agree with?
For some, yes, the personal conscience and the transfer to the civil law should be hand in hand.
I paid attention, but I have not yet found an acceptable foundation for this thesis.
For others, including myself, but the two do not necessarily go hand in hand. They argue: a.
the common good sometimes requires, or at least allows a civil law differs from the staff. So in the Papal States for a long time, the Pope has allowed the brothels because they were considered a lesser evil than the free prostitution, dangerous to public health and elusive almost every legal prohibition, of course, the conscience of the Pope did not approve the sale of bodies!
b. freedom of the other is an immense treasure to defend strenuously! Thesis is not to prove, is a native of cohabitation.
Common sense, however, adds a limitation to be defended, yes, but as long as possible. It is often not possible. This imposes restrictive: there are cases in which one can or should limit others' freedom when this in turn would harm the freedom of others.
But for individual cases, the restriction must be sustainable. And that's the point dolens.
In recent years, and recently before the regional elections, I chased in vain that argument in the pronouncements of the Magisterium on so-called "ethically sensitive matters" (abortion, artificial insemination, living will ...). They are addressed to the conscience of the Christian legislating exactly as if it were directed at Christian in his personal conduct.
Should we conclude that the Magisterium does not agree with the distinction between personal law and civil law? that does not agree that the freedom of others and certain conditions of the common good in the law allowing civil behavior non consentito alla coscienza personale? Ritengo e spero non sia così.
Potremmo invece supporre in maniera più verosimile che il Magistero condivide la distinzione in linea di principio e però non la considera applicabile in alcuni casi come sarebbero le suddette materie eticamente sensibili. Allora dovrebbe precisare perché in questi casi il valore umano in gioco è tale da essere "non negoziabile", cioè deve essere trasferito perentoriamente in legge civile.
Il Papa al n. 83 del "Sacramentum caritatis" dice non negoziabili le "leggi naturali". Quali sono?
Oggi l'idea di "legge naturale" non è di facile e comune condivisione, almeno quanto alla sua conoscibilità. Ma poi anche quando una certa legge or some universal prohibition reflects the natural good, I must consider and respect, as long as possible, the freedom of others. What right do I have to impose other of the completion of his good?
3. Between top and base ecclesial dialogue which exists today on that group of delicate issues? And in the very basis on which dialogue interventions of the Magisterium? Silent obedience or silent indifference. And fear.
is certainly not as a Christian community. We must change course. Let's do it at least before they boost alarmingly silent apostasy of those Catholics who do not just say that the teaching should be more cautious in imposing the faithful conduct civil-political, he should discuss with the base of the Church must motivate. Eh! no. They do not believe, or do not believe anymore, "in principle", which the Magisterium has the right to dictate anything to the consciousness of the believer in civil. This for me, a believer-priest is serious. And rampant!
What do you think friends?
Don Enrico De Capitani, pastor of MS Crowned - I
0 comments:
Post a Comment