Note cold - and therefore not emotional - on the ruling on the Crucified An important key, which rely on the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights dell’Uomo, Affaire Lautsi c. Italie, 3 novembre 2009, n. 30814/06, e la letteratura ecclesiasticistica e costituzionalistica anticattolica italiana che l'ha ispirata (è da pensare, attraverso il giudice Vladimiro Zagrebelsky), è inconsistente.
La leva, di carattere teorico extragiuridico, che ha operato anche nella sentenza della Corte CEDU, è non tanto, o non solo, la separazione tra religione (confessioni religiose) e sfera pubblica statuale, distinzione banale, ma quella tra cultura e religione. Si argomenta a più riprese nel testo, seppure un poco à batons rompus: se la croce è cultura, allora una ratio meramente civile della sua ostensione è offensiva per la religione cristiana (dimostra che it is now only "culture"), if the cross is religion, then it is a symbol of the confessional, inevitably of a confession, and as such its presence in schools is detrimental to the secular state. And again, or the Crucifix is \u200b\u200b"culture" of contemporary European, and has no relationship to what it was (Christian roots), putting it under the exclusive jurisdiction of state power, it is true or religious symbol, and then is detrimental to the individual right to religious neutrality of public space. There are two errors in the topic
complementary. The first: religion and culture are not separate universes, not really distinct. Antropologicamente la religione è parte costitutiva del sistema cultura; questo significa che la religione è cultura, non meno che: la cultura è religione. Un tale enunciato appartiene al linguaggio fenomenogico, e non ha alcuna implicazione secolaristica. Se la cultura è religione, un simbolo religioso millenario, e di rilevanza culturale assiale, è per se stesso culturale e religioso, inscindibilmente. Affermare il carattere culturale del Crocifisso è affermarne la portata civilizzante come simbolo religioso e la portata religiosa culturamente radicata.
Sul secondo: il tratto religioso-culturale del crocifisso è più che confessionale. (Osservo che, nonostante “confessione” abbia notoriamente un valore tecnico narrowly, the term is synonymous with religion surreptitiously adopted by many lawyers and judges.) Indeed, confessions and Christian communities that do not adopt it as a sign in the public life of the group, operating on the Tradition "to raise" reductively, then on theological and civilizzazionale heritage of Christianity. Not surprisingly, the bottom of the culture (pre) Legal northern Europe there are no residues of the liberal Protestant dualism. But this fund, and elite minority within the Italian Catholic, appears to our reception immediately striking and implausible. And we have reason to judge that, on theoretical grounds, first.
A small clarification of the relationship indicates religion and culture, therefore, that the religious and cultural symbols because of religion, and (in the anthropological perspective) is religious in that it is human culture, not an alienating otherness (or intimacy) meta-culture. That culture and religion (and therefore culture and faith) are not marked ball to each other by incommensurability, is a fundamental, always known and argued from the traditional Christian apologetics. Would not be conceivable, if not, the arguments of reason and common experience to accompany the soul to the threshold of credibility and faith. The deepening of the otherness of the twentieth century ended with the Christ of faith to deny, often not consciously, the evidence that Revelation is the first of assent of faith (fides qua), it is aimed at men because they believe (still not believers) to a precise and decisive announcement, the fides quae, and extend and preserve the world. Consent is, that, within reach of every man and culture. So also Christian symbols (forms, icons, but also set out key) is meant for every man, to perfection.
The dialectic between faith as a human achievement and faith as a gift (in and through Christ) is, as we know, the strength of Christian theology. This prospect, humanly rich as a Christian essential, it is difficult to understand, today, to believers and laity. A drift spiritualizing want faith used for the "intimacy of his own conscience. " Catholicism in its essence is opposed to procuring these, even if they have tried. Meanwhile, the results allow the occupation of public space (secularly neutralized) by anti-Christian values. So
: the Cross is culture because it is religiously-man culture. "Visible" the Christ of faith beyond the horizon of individual belief and praying community. Remember the integrity, the whole human being, the complex culture-and religion in which we exist, though insignificant in itself as any symbol, any "text" symbol, the crucifix can be seen but not contingently be read, be bed without being understood.
Particularistic and sectarian is not the permanence of presence / public exhibition of the crucifix, as it has, rather, his hide, aniconic secularization of the Christian communities that make performance of secularism. The Catholic argument, and several lawyers in the discussion above, the universality of the Crucified One significant and axiology is important because it counteracts the mindless climate "separatist" in decades.
Catholic voices emphasize the secular image of the Crucified, and again, its educational character. With reference to secularism we mean that the Crucified One means for those not participating in the personal form of faith (the fides qua), ie for each man. I do not like the use of secular / secularity to show common sense, rational conduct and beliefs shared, perhaps science (modern). And I would not recommend the Catholic culture. If they appear today, functional polemic with secularism, secular / secularity represent a compromise semantic field that attracts and integrates in its original meaning (the nineteenth century: laïcité appears around 1870) as you enter you again. Preferable to define the Crucified One, rather than secular, universal in the sense that universal call, and the universal scope of this call.
defend, however, the affirmation of the vital flow of educational message of Jesus, the Beatitudes to the redeeming Cross. Theme that had been the axis of the last two centuries of Christian apologetics, hastily abandoned by the post-Vatican II Catholic culture. Interesting how instead of new shared: education is constitutive of the Church, and we expect (and increasingly worldwide, with sparse exceptions and pathological conditions, one might add) that it educates. "From the beginning, in fact, motivated by his concern for man, has had a special vocation as educators of individuals, families and whole populations. 'Man is the way of the Church' (...) [This] can not but be interested in the formation of the human subject "beyond the boundaries and terms of their immediate teaching (C. Cardinal Ruini, Preface to The educational challenge. Prepared by the Committee for the Cultural Project of the CEI, Rome-Bari, Laterza , 2009, pp. IX-X). The Church's concern for the presence of the crucifix in public schools is a time of wider, non-waivable, concern for the man.
The significance of the Crucifix and erga omnes pro omnibus is, however you look deep and essential constantly puts Christianity and humanity on the decisive terrain of the Areopagus speech of Paul (Acts 17. 16-33, 30-31). "Well, who, without knowing it, you worship, I proclaim. (...) God passing over the times of ignorance, order that all men everywhere to convert, because he has fixed a day in which it will judge the world in righteousness by a man he has appointed, giving all certain proof by raising him from the dead. "
Catholic and secular cultures that have shaped the Christian roots of the new identity conservative-liberal alliance that governs today in Italy, can not distract from this paradigm. There is a sense of high politics, today, in the "look at the Crucified" (certificate of a small, precious volume of Joseph Ratzinger of 1984, in it. 1992). It prohibits prendere posizione su arretrate linee di laicizzazione credendo di farsi moderni e, peggio, di guidare così le giovani generazioni.
Pietro De Marco © Copyright L'Occidentale, 6 dicembre 2009