Excellency, first of all, what do you mean, you think "secular"?
"It seems today that the word has four meanings. First of all secular means "not a priest" and "non-religious." Who is not a priest nor a member of a religious congregation of monks or nuns or monks is said to lay. My mother and father were laymen. Secondly, it can be said to lay people who believe that the political dimension of religion has its own autonomy, but at the same time to benefit from the moral and spiritual resources of religion and even that needs it, otherwise the policy itself to become an absolute religious . In a third meaning secular means people today live and reason without regard to religion, in other words mean indifference to religion. Finally, today is also to secular anti-religious, ie those who fight the religion, do not let it make, does not allow her to tell her in public. "
Could establish a hierarchy between these meanings? In your opinion what would be the true secularism?
"The first definition is not a problem for anyone. Among the other three I would say that the most correct is the first (ie the second in that list), while the second and third are incorrect, first of all from the point of view of secularism. That is very secular forms of secularism. "
I understand that you support those who fight that religion is very secular, but because those who do not take this into account, it does not matter, it would be a truly secular?
"Because it's already a rule God from the public. Even if you do not fight openly, if I say that the organization of society must not take into account the least of the religious dimension, but must be indifferent and, for example, that you should remove the religious symbols, set a school education that disregards entirely from religion, which Bishop can not hear his voice in public and Catholics can not achieve a form of explicit presence in the company or something like that ... I say I am indifferent, while I made a choice instead of exclusion. "
Therefore, you can not take a position on the question of God?
"It is not possible. And he considered it possible that secularism would be a lie. Secularism is an exercise of reason and do not use deception. It can be set to build a world without God or a God can not set a third way. Set a world about God, however, does not mean being fundamentalist, it means acknowledging their autonomy to human affairs, but also see them in their limits and, therefore, in their structural need for an additional resources to be themselves. For the same reason set a world without God does not mean to set a neutral world. "
Yet today it is said that the question of God is after, if those places. But she says it is first, because nobody can escape.
"The question of God comes before all others and there is no one who does not place it. This is because when we know the reality as we know it now in need of funds, unable to explain the way down by herself. There, in that perception, c'a you an idea - even if very general - of God, which then takes us forever. The idea of \u200b\u200bGod is not added and then after we have processed all the others. The lay person is one who seeks the right to organize their lives, but never as an absolute reason and come to terms with prison, keeps open the question remains available to an additional sense that reason alone can not be, but which itself refers to it as we see a need for wholeness that can not by itself. "
In this sense, then, only those who remain open to God is secular.
"I really think that way and I'll give two examples. French President Sarcozy, in his famous speech at St. John Lateran in a few years ago, coined the term "positive secularism". He wanted to show what a secularism that expresses a positive attitude of openness toward religion. Pope Benedict XVI has shown to appreciate the expression and broke it used during his trip to France two years ago. The second example is the following: Joseph Ratzinger, in his famous speech made by the cardinal, had invited the laity to "live as if God were." Here again the theme of positive religion. It would be very little doubt stay secular: and if God exists? The believer whose faith is never completely free from compete with disbelief, asking this of the secular intellectual honesty: he never stopped living to compete with the secular question: are we really sure that God does not exist? ".
And if a layman does not?
"I think that is more secular then. Become a dogmatic and intolerant would be led by a distaste for the religion which would render him unable to objectively see the meaning, would trade for cialtronesca superstition. In fact the fight, of course, in the name of secularism, but it would be a new religion dell'antireligione. There are many today, to lay intolerant. "
In a letter to his diocese for the Children of the feast of St. Nicholas, among other things, she said that children who live in a family of married parents are lucky. For this he was criticized for discriminating against both children and families. I consider examples of intolerant secularism?
"Secularism is the tolerance that allows the Church to express itself according to its own logic and not to say things that correspond to other logics. The Christian faith says that marriage is not just a contract express or implied, but the sacramental construction of a new reality that will live in so far as to accept to be vivified by the Lord. This is not contradicted by the fact that, unfortunately, many marriages fail in the Church humanely, nor an obligation to treat all forms of "family". I do not think it is tolerant to criticize the bishop because he says that the true model of Christian family is brought by God Himself in the Holy Family of Nazareth, lived and taught by the Lord Jesus Neither can you stop to say that to be born in such a family where the love of spouses is based in God's love for us and us to God, is a great fortune. I add here something more: this should be considered a right of every child. Who has experienced it knows that a great fortune. To say then that this would be the Bishop of discrimination is almost laughable: the love of the Church is open to all, but does not release to say how things are. "
Trieste is proud of its secular tradition. It's good?
"It's good because Secularism means the opening coexistence, mutual acceptance, friendly dialogue and not bias, absence of forms of fundamentalism. But this secularism is wrong when someone gives another meaning: that the truth does not exist, that the Church must preach Jesus Christ, considering that the Truth and Life, that the Church must evangelize and pray that the conversions increase, to criticize the ad, calling proselytism. Wrong or when someone wants to muzzle the bishop, or - which is worse - to tell the bishop what the world wants to hear, namely that everything is okay. All is not well: there are now forms of the family set that do not represent the true good of children and making them suffer, you knock on the right and left poor behind them, and downloading on the irresponsibility of adults. Secularism is not true that prevented the bishop saying these things. "
The Church urges its faithful obedience, not all men. Church calls for respect to others, thinking to perform a service to man and to express the spiritual and moral resources for the good of society. Get more than not asking privileges. Because nothing and no one can take her to the Church a "claim".
Which claim?
"The claim to bring a response to the real needs of man. Secularism must respect this above all: that the Church has the opportunity to fully express its message of salvation, which concerns the entire human life, thinking that by so doing, it performs a service to the human person. Who criticizes me because I support that living in a Christian home, enlivened by Christ himself and by his Spirit, is a great chance, that the Church did not agree with his message can claim to make life more human. But this intolerance against the Church can never accept. "
Source: International Observatory Cardinal Van Thuan on Catholic Social Teaching
0 comments:
Post a Comment