LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

purposes. But if God, instead, has created and willed every individual man, things are completely different. And if God Himself became a man, if He even suffered for man, then man shares in the dignity specific to God. Whoever errs about what man is, attacks God Himself. Respect for human dignity and respect for the human rights of each individual man, is the foundation of all authentic progress. Whoever, for a purported higher progress, abandons faith in Jesus Christ, abandons the foundation of human dignity. From this Christian humanism, the humanism of the incarnation, developed the peculiar character of Christian culture. All of its specific characteristics at a deep level can be traced back to faith in the incarnation, and they dissolve as soon as this faith is removed.⁵

      In other terms, morality always lives inscribed in a broader religious horizon that constitutes its breath and vital context. Outside this context, it becomes asphyxiated and formal; it weakens and then dies. The ethical recognition of the sacredness of life, and commitment to respect for it, needs faith in the creation as their horizon. Atheistic humanism, to which Christian humanism is opposed, in the final analysis is a contradiction in terms.

From this comes a consequence of great importance. In conformity with their nature, the virtues of Christianity can also be achieved without confessing Christianity; indeed, they can be achieved in the context of a non-Christian religion as well. However, they cannot be achieved in the context of a State that sees itself, in principle, as totally agnostic towards religion and that, as a consequence, tolerates faith only as a private opinion that cannot advance any public claims. A kind of State of this character – not secular but secularist – which gives to Christian faith substantially only that private tolerance that ancient Rome gave to it – in the end will always trample on human dignity, will always show itself to be the enemy of creatures and of the creation.⁶

Specifically on this basis, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, in continuity with his predecessors – and his successor Francis in continuity with him – has always emphasised that to obtain fruitful dialogue with Islam and the safeguarding of the dignity of every human person and the creation, we should value the way of understanding Islam starting with its core – total dedication to God. It is in this sense that we should understand the incipit of the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together, which declares: ‘Faith leads a believer to see in the other a brother or sister to be supported and loved. Through faith in God, who has created the universe, creatures and all human beings (equal on account of his mercy), believers are called to express this human fraternity by safeguarding creation and the entire universe and supporting all persons, especially the poorest and those most in need’.⁷

At the same time, naturally, this is a matter of rejecting, as well as the aggressive secularism of the Western kind, the interpretation of political-revolutionary Islam, where the religious element becomes a part of a cultural chauvinism and is thus subordinated to political demands. Benedict XVI thus wrote very significantly in his post-synodal exhortation Ecclesia in Medio Oriente of 2012: ‘Like the rest of the world, the Middle East is experiencing two opposing trends: secularization, with its occasionally extreme consequences, and a violent fundamentalism claiming to be based on religion. Some Middle Eastern political and religious leaders, whatever their community, tend to look with suspicion upon secularity (laicité) as something intrinsically atheistic or immoral. It is true that secularity sometimes reduces religion to a purely private concern, seeing personal or family worship as unrelated to daily life, ethics or one’s relationships with others. In its extreme and ideological form, secularity becomes a secularism which denies citizens the right openly to express their religion and claims that only the State can legislate on the public form which religion may take. These theories are not new. Nor are they confined to the West or to be confused with Christianity. A healthy secularity, on the other hand, frees religion from the encumbrance of politics, and allows politics to be enriched by the contribution of religion, while maintaining the necessary distance, clear distinction and indispensable collaboration between the two spheres. No society can develop in a healthy way without embodying a spirit of mutual respect between politics and religion, avoiding the constant temptation either to merge the two or to set them at odds. The basis of a constructive relationship between politics and religion is, first and foremost, human nature – a sound understanding of man – and full respect for inalienable human rights. A sense of this correct relationship should lead to the realization that relations between the spiritual (religious) and the temporal (political) spheres should be marked by a kind of unity in distinction, inasmuch as both are called, while remaining distinct, to cooperate harmoniously in the service of the common good. This kind of healthy secularity ensures that political activity does not manipulate religion, while the practice of religion remains free from a politics of self-interest which at times is barely compatible with, if not downright contrary to, religious belief. For this reason, a healthy secularity, embodying unity in distinction, is necessary and even vital for both spheres. The challenges raised by the relationship of politics and religion can be met patiently and courageously through a sound human and religious formation. Constant emphasis needs to be put on the place of God in personal, family and civic life, and on the proper place of men and women in God’s plan. Above all, greater prayer is required for this intention’.⁸

      To respond effectively to the great challenges of the present, investing in suitable formation is of decisive importance. Against the acritical acceptance of every ‘trend’ because of the simple fact that it is, or seems to be, supported by the majority, we need to reawaken, specifically in future leaders, the sensitivity of man towards truth, a sense of God, and thus the energy of the moral conscience, without which no commitment to safeguarding creatures and the creation will be really effective.

      And it is exactly within this framework that we should locate the contribution that it is intended to make with the Roman Study Seminars on Virtuous leadership presented here and with the following ‘Joint Diploma in Virtuous Leadership’ that the Joseph Ratzinger-Benedict XVI Vatican Foundation is about to launch. It is doing this, in cooperation with various Roman pontifical universities, with the ‘Expanded Reason Institute of the University Francisco de Vitoria’ of Madrid, and with the support of the Templeton World Charity Foundation: ‘Humanity needs a profound cultural renewal; it needs to rediscover those virtues which can serve as the solid basis for building a brighter future for all’.

¹ If you Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect the Creation. Message of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1 January 2010. In: http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace.html

² Ibidem.

³ The great addresses that Benedict XVI has given on this subject – at the University of Regensburg, at the College des Bernardins of Paris, at Westminster Hall in London, at the Bundestag of Berlin, at La Sapienza University in Rome, and yet others – constitutes almost the summit of an analysis that has lasted a lifetime. Volume 3, of two tomes, of the Opera omnia of Joseph Ratzinger, is explicitly dedicated to this subject. Cf. Joseph Ratzinger, Der Gott des Glaubens und der Gott der Philosophen. Philosophische Vernunft – Kultur – Europa – Gesellschaft, 3/1 and 3/2 of the Joseph Ratzinger Gesammelte Schriften (JRGS) (Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau, 2020).

⁴ Joseph Ratzinger, Die Verantwortung des Christen für Europa. Predigt zum Gottesdienst am 12. Mai 1979 im Dom zu München, JRGS 3/1, p. 788ff.

Скачать книгу