Di Cosmo Intini
(Second Part)
As outlined, therefore, the "no confidence" secular existential perspective, just as "free of custody and security" (in a word as "faithless"), is revealed clearly, and "desperate", as well as subject to the ' genius "even the" fate "and" need. " And in fact, admits Zagrebelsky: "None of us, ordinary mortals, can never aspire ... to shake off our world to put on another. None of us will ever think of giving a meaning, a direction to his and others' lives and turn them into something totally different. " [i]
Completely alien to the Christian concept of recognizing in "cooperation" between free will and human action "evidence" of God's grace the way for the realization of the "vocation" of man to his "transcendence", that vision morbidly adherent to the secularist assumptions shows all his "anti-humanist" in the reaction which gives rise. In fact, the obvious mortification of the fundamental and tutt'affatto "natural" human yearning to "break quality" of his own limitations, when it involves one part in a resolution of no confidence "operated from the outside" (from what is of "ontological quality" different and higher) on the other can not simultaneously avoid creating a "autodivinizzazione," an "idolatrous myth" of its values \u200b\u200b"quantitative" precisely because it demands a compensation of mortification all'innaturalità said. Because, of course, the secularist-man aspires to the "best": "... the meaning of life ... is to work together ... so that the condition of the labyrinth that is the human condition, to be gradually made more bearable, more humane, less unjust, " [ii] well, with an ontological subversion the "ipervalori" are lifted up to be confused with "metavalori. The term "salvation," but only that which "will be by ourselves! There is talk of "virtue", but only those that "man proposes itself as such"! The "democratic values" become "metavalori! [iii] And so forth!
The great confusion perpetrated by Zagrebelsky focuses on the claim to reduce the Christian faith in "human morality" on the "immortal life of the hereafter" where, in parallel, the secular-democratic principles are the "foundations of moral life the wing of here. " [iv] Thus, faith is to be "unnatural" and "in context" so much so that he adds: "... does not consider the possibility that here, in freedom, there can be a real moral worth ... at least as much faith in promises of rewards and punishments. " [v] Here we are, therefore, the reductive humanization also the third theological virtue, so that the "faith" remains indeed conceivable, but only as an ontological and moral option! And in this regard, recalling the 'prophetic warning of Solov'ev, "here's what has got to enforce HE Cardinal Giacomo Biffi: "... Christianity is reduced to mere humanitarian action in the various fields of assistance, solidarity, philanthropy, culture and the Gospel message identified in the commitment to dialogue among peoples and religions in search of welfare and progress, I urge you to respect nature, the Church of the Living God, the pillar and foundation of truth, mistaken for a charitable organization, aesthetics, socialize: this is the mortal danger that is looming today for the family of redeemed by the blood of Christ "! [vi]
Furthermore, an immediate consequence of this is that it becomes possible also operate in reverse, so that even the "moral wing of here," it can somehow imagine that "faith", as well as "love and hope": that is, as something that is transformed, getting rid of its primary field of dimension "profane"! Look Zagrebelsky fact that democracy "is always willing to correct ... ... (subject) its substantive and procedural conditions ... ..." consecrated "(sic) in intangible rules of the Constitution." [vii] E 'in the light of this reversal, which he defines as reductively "faith" as "concrete evidence", while it enhances the "democracy as" abstract value ", unless then holding it, with yet another opportunistic stunt rhetoric, itself a" faith "! [viii] Anyway, here is short, the groundwork for replacing the idolatry, the worship of Christ, the "sacred" worship of a totalitarian political system (ie "not limited or restricted by anything"): the "realm "Democrats just secularist!
E 'has been rightly said that "now ... everything has been incorporated under the cloak of democracy is like an atmosphere that embraces all and all it contains and outside of which there is only nothing ... In this way the nature, things, reality take a back seat in front of the new deity on the altar, if necessary, must be sacrificed ... The word democracy is used as a talisman entitled ... Modern democracy is presented as a real religion, though an atheist, because ... 'democracy is essentially religious, since every religion is based on dogma and ritual': 1) the doctrine is that the power derives from the people, and 2) the ritual is in the designation of those who wield power through the election. It 'a dogma that one must believe that his refusal will anathema, and even the persecution of' heretics politicians', to use the expression of J. Maritain. In this way we will establish a new era of justice and welfare, which is normal and inevitable consequence of democratic development: it is the heresy of the Grand Sillon Plus, condemned by St. Pius X, by making Christianity the needs of modern democracy in fact left him, proclaiming the independence of a man with the natural order ordained by God, religion is the heresy of democracy, that it is no longer to convert people to Catholicism, but to convert to Catholicism ideas modern. In this sense, one must speak of democracy as a religion. " [ix] In more than one occasion
Zagrebelsky advancing the 'insinuation "that the Catholic Church hide the (for him) reprehensible and shameful aversion to democracy. Indeed, without mince words, he often provides even their almost incompatibility: "religion, especially if organized hierarchically structured churches and faith are a democratic union difficult, not without its dramatic moments." [x] But what a nice discovery! How can he claim that the Church agrees to be overwhelmed by the degeneration of idolatry which we defined to be the "religion of democracy", which aims to appropriate anti-Christian His chief of the nature of "confession of worship" and then replace it with an attitude of true "aping"!?
The problem, in our view, is not whether the Church is "incompatible" with the democratic formula, but rather whether the democratic secularist religion today is compatible with the Church. This fact does not deny the diversity in itself, but can not share if it is designed in such a key, in fact, ethical relativism! If Zagrebelsky, with yet another ambiguity, on the one hand endorses the unacceptability of relativism by stating: "... This does not mean that democracy ... take ethical relativism as its substrate, [xi] or even that "democracy does not presuppose that moral relativism that the Magisterium of the Church rightly condemns" [xii] the other hand, immediately reveals instead its real position by proclaiming that democracy "... is based not only on a specific public ethos: the opening to the possible right to assert himself as payable to all forces and political ideas that respect the equal rights of others, but also requires different private conceptions of the common good "; [xiii] or even that" democracy is precisely the regime opportunity to explore, through discussion and debate and the logic of the lesser evil or greater good in the given conditions. " [xiv] And in addition to the admission that "democracy" is a true "religion" relativistic, not only writes the "Decalogue (sic) to learn democracy," [xv] but states plus "I, a little 'to provocation, I would say that we, as believers (sic) in democracy, we must assert relativism as the great advantage of democracy itself." [xvi]
His concern, in respect of an alleged "incompatibility" Church with democracy, thus born from an unlawful overlapping meanings in different realities, and conceal more than all the subtle claim that the Church always, in the name of their sincere approval of an absolute "equality ethics" of individuals, that ratifies surrogate which is represented by a fully relativistic "egalitarianism" between the individual! In other words, it should be the difference in philosophy between the so-called "equality as a fact" and the "equal value": the former equality is to be inferred based on the simple "fact" that "everyone is brothers, because all are children of God, "while in the latter equality derives from the requirement of a secular chief" value "to that" all should be equal "legally and politically (formal equality) as well as socially and economically (substantive equality)!
How can I understand now, this difference of interpretation of 'equality' means in short, a different way of understanding the concept of personal identity, ie, the "person" in the first case if the man is in fact also been perceived as a spiritual substance, in the second case, he is regarded only as a pure and simple collection of moods. From this discrepancy also follows, therefore, a different conception of ethics, as the Catholic inform their behavior in the light of awareness that the biological and sociological identity converges and is justified in a more theological identity - which is the thesis of the Thomistic '"substantial unity of the human person" -, while the secular, for its part, refuses to pass the first stage and considers the ethics free from any dogmatic precept. Now, Zagrebelsky states in a completely misleading, that "... in the report that the theologian of the Papal Household, Wojciech Giertych, recently held (12 February 2007, note) at the International Congress on natural law ..., it is recognized that human nature is not a biological concept or sociological, but, with Thomas Aquinas, theological. " [xvii] The tactic secularist insists that its subtle nature "disruptive" (dia-Ballico), distort the accuracy of the facts and overturn the consequences so that they are inherently more convenient! If it were as Zagrebelsky says, then admits the Christian view as "operator" a "bifurcation" of "human nature", his "Severability" component in "physical and mental, on the one part and component "spiritual", the other, and also would like to see also the "denial" of the first against an exclusive "exaltation" of the second. Well, if so, the result would be very similar to the Monophysite heresy! Evidently
by secularist, this is not only wants to defend its position by invoking a legitimate "right to freedom of opinion", but it tends to inoculate unlawfully distorted perspectives that they can immediately convert into as many "battering rams! When St. Thomas says that 'primum principium quo intelligimus, sive intellectus sive dicatur intellective soul, east form corporis', [xviii] this means that "... the self that we find in the body such as affective states (in some affective states) is the same that I, thinking, consciousness has to know, to contemplate the beauty of doing The man takes metaphysics ... as one. " [xix] He adds: 'ipse idem homo est percepit here if et et intelligere feel' [xx] . In the words of Archbishop Carlo Caffarra, "... therefore, the thesis aims to describe the substantial unity in the first place the fundamental human experience: the experience of the unity of the self in the plurality of specific its operations "! [xxi] For St. Thomas, then, human nature is not a concept "only" the biological and sociological, but "also" theological!
Zagrebelsky instead tries to show that the "natural reality" in the broadest sense - in particular meaning that is inclusive even of "human nature" - is, as it is conceived by the Catholic vision, a concept "unnatural" and therefore ironic perplexity asks: "What is the human being should understand considering his relationship with God the fundamental precepts of natural law would be seen only by means of metaphysical intuition the purpose of existence, an intuition of faith ... Fides et gratia, therefore, as a condition for the Christian discourse on nature: what's more 'unnatural' nature of this vision, from the point of view of those - legitimately, it is assumed again - is not a believer? Here's how nature can become a form of oppression. " [xxii]
The 'error' is here again in the secularist claim that the Church for what it takes for granted but it is not at all: a clear "severability" logic between the visible and invisible, a "irreducibility" ontological between the body and spirit, a "fracture" between the social and political ethics and religious context! Again it takes the typical work of his "dia-ballo"!
It 'clear that at this point, however, the discussion requires clarification of what is the meaning of principal by which to understand the term' nature ', located as it is the basis of the fundamental concepts of "natural world" and "human nature "and" natural law "! Here again
Zagrebelsky proceeds in a mystifying, because before arbitrarily assigned to the church membership to a mentality that is very simplistic in accordance with an "old injury "that arises as a base, the choice of ethical rules, the combination of" nature-artifice "as incorrectly set:" ... the original frame of mind, which affects the relationship between us and the world, is the contrast between what is natural and is outside us, and what is artificial and proceeds from within us. " [xxiii] After passing the de-legitimization of such "outdated way of thinking" that purported to tie himself to the Church, to delegitimize the Church: "... it is the current time, a time when even ' nature 'of human beings may be the product of his 'Trick' - the power of genetics - and the time when the inside and outside us, that we have become the subject and object are confused, frustrated in that distinction ... [xxiv] No wonder at all that just when has become untenable, the binomial nature-artifice has been rediscovered, to find in it the rule of human actions, a provision that gives the course the first on the artificial, synonymous with deceit, abuse, adultery ... So be it by the Church Catholic to oppose the changes in terms of unions, euthanasia, scientific experimentation, genetics, etc.., and to return to the old, in terms of family, contraception, abortion, etc... " [xxv]
The falsification of the terms of the speech made so secularism, unable to conceal the matrix from which it originates: the confusion! The same Zagrebelsky if you let slip when he says triumphantly that nowadays the subject and the object-person-person, inside and outside man, "merge"! No more short stays in place, neither logically nor ontologically or ethically!
If the distinction is believed to be wrong that there be an interruption between inside and outside of man - as well as between the visible and invisible, between the body and spirit, between the socio-political and religious -, but even this can not be understood in the sense that it is to implement the two elements of such a random and disorderly hendiadys "confusion." Rather, they will be implemented between an 'organic unity "or better to say, a mutual" subjectivity "(which is different than the" relativized ") which is made possible only ever in the light of an identical objective and absolute common denominator: God the Creator! According to the Catholic concept of "human nature", "... created in the image of God is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical expression this reality with a symbolic language when he says: 'God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being' (Genesis 2:7). The whole man is therefore willed by God ... [xxvi] The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul as the 'form' of the body, which means that because of the soul spiritual body, composed of matter, is a living human body, spirit and matter, man, two natures are not joint, but their union forms a single nature. " [xxvii] In Under this "unity" between soul and body, "... man sums up in himself, for his bodily, the elements of the material world, so that they, through him, and reach their high praise for their voice freedom in the Creator. So it is not lawful for a man to despise the bodily life, and he even has to look good and honorable one's body, precisely because it was created by God and destined for resurrection on the last day. " [xxviii]
Conceived in this way, then, the question can not be trivially reduced to a dichotomy of nature-artifice! Given that "the term designates soul ... also all that in man there is more intimate and more valuable, especially that for which he is the image of God, " [xxix] Well the Catholic Church does not" demonize "all that" proceeds from the inside 'man', as it is presented as the result of the arbitrary free soul and remains, for this, "an integral part of human nature itself." Moreover, Bishop Caffarra always had a way of expressing this, saying: "The body is the transparency of the human person, the only creature in which the invisible visible." [xxx]
not Accordingly, there is in human nature, no solution of continuity between its constituent inner-and outer-spiritual body, and in the absence of such a solution even its component body and the natural world outside of him - because of that his already mentioned here are to the divine will, as supreme synthesis of the natural world itself -, well, it is quite ironic and laughable to accuse the Church of "unnatural" because it carries the opposition against ethical relativism, and as such opposition is based on simple awareness that everything that the human person was made "against nature," must also "against human nature same! But the bias of
Zagrebelsky, commenced discovered in his attempt to defend the ethical relativism, does not stop here! To deny it the character of absoluteness of the "natural" and therefore its ethical superiority compared to the 'artificial', goes on to specify what their position on the legal concept of the "right". And so the formula: "In the field of justice, the opposition is reflected in the tension between natural law and positive law, ie legislation. Justice in the polis is of two kinds - Aristotle said -, the natural and the legal, natural justice is everywhere the same way and not because it is recognized or not. Legal justice, however, is that relating to what, originally, it is irrelevant and can vary in space and time. " [xxxi] Zagrebelsky practice here in quotes, "almost" in full, the pitch of the fifth book of the Nicomachean Ethics (V, 1134b 18-24) where it is enshrined in the traditional distinction between natural and positive law (or legal). Exposed like this, it would almost seem that according to Aristotle, this distinction not only puts the two rights on an equal footing, but even in spite of all the conclusions reached unanimously Aristotelian criticism, implicitly recognizes the legal right which justify a certain preference. In fact, it took Zagrebelsky "omit" the continuation of Aristotelian thought - which, after "... what, originally, it does not matter" as he continued: "... but that is irrelevant once it is established" - the suggestion to a reading that they seem almost as if Aristotle, without making any distinctions, to endorse the relativism of a right that "there always remains indifferent and moreover varies according to times and places! In truth, Aristotle not only never loses an opportunity to reaffirm the superiority of "natural" than the "legal" as well as the 'universal' compared to the "special", but additionally, always below the fifth book introduces the important concept of "fairness" - which obviously does not Zagrebelsky no mention - by which means: "the rectification of the positive law where there is insufficient for its universal character ", that" the correction made by the natural law of positive law in cases where it would be unfair to apply it "(see Nicomachean Ethics, V, 1137b 26-27). The importance of the concept of "fairness" in fact derives from the fact that it has authority to regulate what is considered right by law with what is considered right by nature. "Equity reaffirms the universal justice where it is inadequate for detail. The assumption, therefore, is inadequate compared to the universal ... But the composition of the universal (natural law) and particular (legal right, positive) made by equity is only apparent because, in reality, the particularizes' universal. This is not simply autonomize the particular respect for the universal or the particular hypothetical exemption from the universal rule, since, on the contrary, the homogeneity of universal justice and equity particular ... For Aristotle, the fairness a special form of justice and not a provision of a different kind (cfr.V, 1138th 2-3) ... The homogeneity of universal justice and equity particular thus refers to an additional justice in particular not only fairness, but the same universal justice is a special case. The justice further particularizes that the same universal justice is called by Aristotle 'justice in the first sense' and 'justice in the absolute sense'. " [xxxii]
So, to sum up: according to Aristotle, the positive law may be subject to error if not sufficiently adapted to the natural law and the fair, for its part, "Is right, and is better than a certain kind of right, not just in absolute terms, but the mistake that causes the formulation as absolute" (EN, V, 1137b 24-25). It was with this recognition of the existence of what he calls "the first right, or right in an absolute sense, Aristotle does in fact refer to something that has actually occurred prior to any expression in the form of law" and thus not only give a definitive no room for the slightest temptation-relativistic interpretation of positive type, but it clearly shows that it considered to be a point of view so-called "theological" as well as areas of physics and metaphysics, ethics giustappunto that too! [xxxiii]
To return to the relationship between natural and positive law, it is therefore fair to say that justice "... does not end in positive law. It is known that the issue was Aristotle ... (his) way of posing the problem has the merit to show that natural justice is not a legal body abstract, ahistorical and separated from the political right, but a component or a layer of this. The natural right is fundamental and originating layer of justice, the ultimate foundation of political legitimacy, but it is insufficient by itself to order social life. Therefore it must be materialized, determined and developed in the common good of all people from the political right for the Convention of the Law, ie, from the political right that we call here positive law. " [xxxiv]
Zagrebelsky Yet, despite everything, continues to plead that "... the natural law is not the way of consensus that embraces the whole of humanity in the name of justice universally recognized. In contrast is the land of the most radical conflicts. First, what is the 'nature' to which we appeal? If we turn to the past, we see a lot of confusion. For some, such as Christians, is God's work, but for others, the Gnostics, is the work of the devil ... Regardless of God and the devil, then, for some mother nature is beneficial and for others, evil stepmother. " [xxxv] And thus concludes: "... there is a kind of all recognizable. You can talk about nature, and thus the natural law, only from within a system of thought, a worldview, but systems and visions belong to cultures, not to nature. " [xxxvi]
The glaring flaw in this approach which it falls, the result of clear "ethical relativism" - attitude, then, that only seems to disavowed Zagrebelsky is elsewhere - is to be able to assume (And hence the need) to recognize an "ontological superiority" to "nature" and thus the "natural right", only on the basis of a mutual and total agreement! If so - that is if you could make such an assessment based on a simple criterion of opinion, belief system, vision of the world - to make such "superiority" not enough time, in accordance with the democratic spirit, even only a "majority"? And in fact we could say then that was precisely what was claimed to have occurred in the past, when Gnosticism manicheistico, the thought that, based on a conception of "dualistic" thought the natural world precisely "the devil", is not never constituted within the European-Christian culture more than a "minority" view, sectarian and heretical. [xxxvii] While, on the other hand, the accession "almost general" natural law in the classical sense of its value, then what would have been entitled would substantially as ethically superior! On the other hand, much less stand up approach based on an assessment that would take into account data such as the emotional and sentimental, just as such, constitute themselves as purely subjective and inevitably 'partial'! The same "vision" rationalistic forces, their lovers, which avoids indulging in positions that naively evaluate the "nature" on the basis of parameters such as "benign or malignant"!
Ultimately, if someone falls in the mistaken claim to give an opinion on any kind based approach to relativistic "cultural", well that's just Zagrebelsky! The assumptions of the Catholic Church are quite different in that they focus on "natural reason" understood as a dowry "absolute" and not merely accidental, the human being. Through reason, "of course" conferred ab initio from God, man takes in fact, their dignity, their freedom, their own will and power, and is what he is made "similar" to God himself, to which the same reason it is ordered! "The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, for it is human reason which requires him to do good and forbidding him to sin ... This limitation of human reason, however, can not have the force of law unless it is the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be subject ". [xxxviii] And also: "The legislation human is in the nature of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus it is clear that it draws its strength from the eternal law. To the extent that moves away from reason, it must be declared unfair, because it makes the concept of law: it is rather a form of violence. " [xxxix] In other words, the divine and natural law is so called "... not in relation to the nature of irrational beings but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature." [xl]
Zagrebelsky Whatever they say is really no doubt that the "natural right", in addition to not being at all cause of confusion, and instead remained largely unchanged throughout history, indeed, it represents a decisive factor in the development of civil peoples and cultures: we have seen with Aristotle in the Hellenic world, but we can recognize in ancient Rome with the basic concept of ius gentium, as it was put to good governance and protection of justice. [xli] And as it was for Aristotle (he spoke before his theological ethics), even more so for the Roman world, the natural law, jus, metaphysical established intimate relations with the divine! It can be seen from the fact that "... jus (from 'ie * Yous), even before a deadline of the lexicon legal, means 'the rule of regularity, normality, rituals required by the rules' and requires that to which we must follow. Roman law is based on the absolute rule: jus proceeds from Fas which is inextricably linked as the cause and effect which has its justification. " [xlii] The Fas (BHA * from e-), for its part indicated "the living word in itself": where Fatum, that "the word appears, the will of God that becomes the standard and the law for men and the gods, "and Fastus that" what is right according to divine law and realizes it in the world! Cicero, moreover, taught that "... there is a true law: right reason, and it conforms to nature, is in all men, and is immutable and eternal, and his call to duty precepts, its prohibitions turn away from ... It ' replace it with a crime against a law it is forbidden to practice not a single provision, then no one has the chance to abolish it completely. " [xliii]
As is symbolically shown by the fact that often appears in the oldest sources of the significant sentence: Roman jure Vivit Ecclesia (the Church lives by Roman law), the Church then sinks its roots in this complex legal humus, that would be understatement want to define only an occasional "system of thought." The recognition shown by all major civilizations about the need to "conform to the natural law" (not "give consent", as Zagrebelsky), it clearly expresses the innate human awareness of the basis of this intrinsic law, required to establish the proper limits within which maintain the social order: the proof is the immutability with this awareness has gone through and even accompanied the diverse political systems and different religious beliefs that have marked the different historical moments of individual civilizations same! The
secularism, which he rails against the Church, accusing it of wanting to undermine the ethical-relativist to replace it with natural, therefore, makes a double hoax! When Zagrebelsky says: "... we reason as if our society had no identity, having lost or destroyed, and therefore we discuss how to give a new or how to restore the old. The rediscovery of the 'Christian roots' is the culmination of these arguments. Because apparently it is to fill an absence, the promoters of identity ... not act to fill gaps but to start substitutions ... they are fighting a battle for cultural hegemony that is not only, but above all against. Benefactors but are not conquerors; [xliv] Well this is not just the umpteenth time that "the ox said cuckold donkey," as it is the secularist view that considers the legitimate "replace" what for many centuries served as a, although in different social and political realities, the "right and natural" common ethical norm, but here plus you deny the spiritual sense, "of divine revelation," which is the very premise of "natural law" to "replace" subverted with something merely "human." If the Catholic teaching says that "the natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in harmony with the work of the Spirit," [xlv] by his hand, Zagrebelsky believes that "the basic unit of society and government is the human being as such, neither more nor less. The spiritual origin (sic) of this revolution is humanism, the fulfillment, the six-eighteenth-century rationalism, which resulted in the French Revolution. The product of this emancipation is the constitutional secular state ". [xlvi] This
real "act of rebellion", perpetrated by man against the secular order established from God is revealed in an even more striking when Zagrebelsky distinguished: "Originally, there is the invitation of St. Paul to the Christians of Rome to obey authority, because in accordance with God: nothing potestas nisi a Deo (' no power except from God ', note) ... [xlvii] if you still want to use, the present day, the Pauline motto you should turn (sic) nothing potestas nisi a hominibus (' no power except by men ', note). The men get together and do not obey authority in the name of God but of their common rights. " [xlviii] This contains the assumption very ambiguous and dangerous, because in this way, the concept of "justice" is to be separated from that of "freedom", so that the right loses its absolute character! It 's what makes the same Zagrebelsky: "... the doctrine (sic) of rights is not a lay Catholic, as reflected in a crucial point: first, the limit of rights is the equal right of others; for second, the natural order right. The difference is fundamental. The first doctrine is aimed at freedom, and the second to justice. " [xlix]
One of the most abused "workhorse" secularists - to substantiate argument that the Church carry out an unlawful interference and mystifying about the "civil power" as an expression of "authority", even conceiving it as necessarily "coming from God" - is the famous quotation from the Gospel passage about the problem of " tribute to Caesar "and the relationship of this with God (Mt 22.21, Mk 12.17, Lk 20:25). The introduction to the book we are discussing, written by director E. Mauro, we read that "... can not become Caesar, two thousand years later, units of Christ, after the Gospel had separated them as separate authorities, each with its load of debt for man-citizen, dividing the realms and worlds. " [l] For its part, subtly and in complete bad faith, Zagrebelsky then tries to grab even his own (alleged) conformity with the true spirit of Christ, saying that Jesus is betrayed when, despite the explicit wording of your " render to Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God, His Church instead claims (so he says) to establish Catholicism as a "civil religion": "... for the immediate material benefits that may ensue, and men of the church than by the state. This political idea of \u200b\u200bthe Christian religion, though deeply rooted history would seem to be a curse ... (sic) from the point of view of the message of Jesus of Nazareth, reduced to an instrument of government or ideology. In any case it is an aberration from the point of view of the supreme principle of secularism that is written in the Constitution. " [li]
But that is not the case! Zagrebelsky obviously, which is still enjoyed in other contexts to evoke a dialogue between Jesus and Pilate, but does not like to take into account all the words spoken by Christ at that juncture, when clearly points out how every "authority", and thus also civil, "is from above" (Jn 19:11). It must be said, however, that peddle Caesar, the sacred Roman Empire, the pontifex maximus rex et sacerdos, for any modern (and secular) President of the republic or the parliament, charged that only "obligations for the man-citizen" and not primarily "to the tutelary deity of Rome," is not only a distortion of history, but also to a falsification of the theology inherent in the Roman civil power that Pilate certainly could never even begin to conceive. That makes absolutely out of place to treat the figure of Caesar paradigmatic precursor of "secularity" of the state! But beyond that, the wording of Jesus to "render unto Caesar ... etc.." is mainly meant that "we must return to the owner what already belongs to him legitimately." Now, as in the episode of "tribute to Caesar" is clearly stated that it is legitimate because this would "return" the money that he coined, but is not explicitly said what it is legitimate to "give back" to God! Jesus actually say later, when before Pilate during his trial, just leave a clear sense that, among other things, the authority of Caesar must be "returned" to God!
When the Magisterium of the Catholic Church states that "The political community and authority public have their foundation in human nature and therefore belong to the order established by God," [lii] and then also specifies that "if the authority belongs to the order established by God, establishment of political regimes and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens. The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to natural law ... can not achieve the common good of nations to which they have been imposed, " [liii] Well Church does not show that much dreaded "irreconcilable" with the pluralistic-democratic system, but rather only the exaggerated form of "totalitarian democracy" which is represented by secularism.
starting point is the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate, writes HE Cardinal Julian Herranz, "Meditating on the same dramatic trial of Jesus, John Paul II wrote: 'So, therefore, the condemnation of God by man is not based on truth, but the arrogance, the devious conspiracy. It is precisely this truth of human history, the truth of our century? In our day the sentence was repeated in many courts under the oppression of totalitarian regimes. And it is also repeated in the democratic parliaments, when, for example, by a law duly enacted, condemning to death the man not yet born? '. We must, therefore, to state clearly and forcefully - to defend the inalienable right to life, but also to prevent the honest minds against the sophistry of false democrats - that this reduction purely subjective and agnostic of freedom and law is not only contrary to the doctrine Christian social but also to the traditional concept of democracy and healthy. It was, in fact, noted by philosophers like Maritain, Del Noce or powerful as lawyers and Cotta, Hervada, Finnis or Waldstein, but only some names, which the classical authors prior to spreading dogmatic agnostic liberal ideology have always interpreted democracy as a social order of freedom with natural boundaries. Not with the outer limits, whether imposed from without authoritarian (totalitarian tendency) or imposed by a simple and comprehensive treaty agreement (liberal-radical tendency), but with boundaries having an inherent basis: the natural law, natural law or ius gentium . Unfortunately, the liberal-radical ideology, founded sull'agnosticismo religious and moral relativism, in removing the foundation of democracy, its principles and objective values, made it dangerously uncertain limits of rationality and legitimacy the standard. This has deeply undermined the democratic legal system faced with the temptation of a denaturalization freedom: a freedom that is, truly free without the constraints of objective truth about nature and human dignity and human life. " [liv]
being the case, then you must ask: why so much rage against the alleged secularist "antidemocraticità" of the Church? What might be the "question" that prevents recognition of the Catholic Church rather than the historical institution which, for your very specific nature, more than any other is the guarantor for the man of "freedom and Law "?! To try to give us an answer, however, must proceed in an orderly fashion!
is primarily what is being said by Zagrebelsky: "Different was the spirit that animates many pages of dialogue, open to hope, the Second Vatican Council, in which the 'modern world' is taken as a positive partner was different ... the conception of the relationship between faith and reason, between faith and work of Christians in the world ... But (today) is still the case? ". [lv] And elsewhere he adds: "But who would dare deny that over the centuries the Church has opposed rather than democracy and supported every kind of autocracy, which has engaged over the imposition and to respect the consciences? Who could forget the violence of which was released in the name of faith that kept? Who can ignore the memory so short that the only 'freedom' has been approved to join the true religion and that all claims of freedom otherwise addressed was the subject of harsh sentences? ". [lvi]
Now, in the light of this, there arises a suspicion that now more than a "ruling" to be solved here it is in fact an "injury" that you want to bring to the Church! Nor can it be otherwise if, in an apparently opportunistic, on the one hand we want praise the Vatican II on the basis of his "alleged" acceptance of the liberal-secularist-modernist instances, while the other side it holds up equally with contempt "alleged" autocratic longstanding provision of the Church. Moreover, this contradiction is also stained dall'incongruenza that the Church itself, in two thousand years of its history, was opposed to democracy "ever", as if this form of government has not established until much later in just two centuries ago! But contradictions and inconsistencies do not play in favor of claims that aspire to establish itself as evidence, let alone provide a guarantee of sincerity! You can understand better in the hereafter, where Zagrebelsky says: "The civil wars of religion are in front of us, to teach what produces the intertwining of politics and religion after there has been a unity of faith. Cracked the unity of Christians from heretical movements from the twelfth century, then route the Lutheran Reformation and the Anglican schism, the interweaving fed only division and oppression. Christian Europe became divided battleground, with cruel feuds between Christians of different denominations, inquisitions, witch hunts, burning of heretics and pogroms of Jews. States Army took to the field in the name of the different religious professions. Religion, once the route his unit, insurance was no longer any 'premise legislation'. Or rather, had become endemic factor of subversion, hatred, poverty, hostility. It came with no winners and losers but a constitutional settlement: the emancipation of the State, its distinction from religion and the regulation of this as an element of individual and social conscience, and not directly as a politician. " [lvii]
What! While the Catholic Church to establish a nature accustomed to tyranny, arrogance, the soverchieria, even here you grant, in full contradiction with respect to many other occasions, that Europe was actually Christian in origin and catholic in its common identity?! "The reduction in European history in Christian history is a false history," [lviii] argues elsewhere Zagrebelsky! It also gives you that its original common Catholic identity has been questioned due to loss of 'unity of faith "?! But then, the crux of the matter is not so much by the 'intertwining of ethics and morality of politics and religion "or a completely fictitious" antidemocraticità "of the Church, but rather, just what is and is always saying the Magisterium Catholic, loss, and therefore the lack of "unity of faith" the one Church of Jesus Christ! Says the Catechism: "The unity which Christ has bestowed on his Church from the beginning ... we believe that there is no possibility of getting lost in the Catholic Church and we hope it will grow each day until the end of time ... The Church should always pray and work to preserve, strengthen and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her ... The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit "! [lix]
However, while avoiding any concession to the historical value of Catholicism, the unit is considered imperative that Zagrebelsky from an "impossible condition", at least to restore; [lx] and also an 'insuperable difficulty "exists against non-believers, as" ... to what constitutes the being and acting in accordance with what the 'existence of God requires, the layman does not know and people of faith have fought for a thousand years each believing the other to know better. Authority should be recognized and understood that both the Catholic magisterium. But how can you ask a non-believer to contradict himself so deeply to the point of relying on what they say about a God who does not know? The Board so that the Church addresses the non-believer (ie to sort out their lives 'is veluti daretur Deus', 'as if God exists', note) has only one contradictory meaning: follow me, "act of faith." [lxi]
But in this way the contradiction is not in fact suffered by the Church, but by the "snake biting its tail! As shown by Zagrebelsky fact, the issues at stake are reversed in their logical sequence, since it is obvious that the "non-believer" does not know God if they knew, then I think! And then the Church does not claim at all, but merely suggest (as indeed he himself acknowledges, albeit ironically) that does not pretend to "be followed by faith," but recommended "to have faith to be able to follow it! If we wanted to explain a point of view of syntax, that "an act of faith" is not in fact an addition to "limiting", but "fashion". And despite its subtlety, this is not an irrelevant nuance!
If in fact the process of "division of the Christian faith," the action of the give-dall'anticristicità dance work first through the heretical movements, then and now with the breakaway Protestant-Masonic liberal secularism, in the centuries has caused the progressive alienation State by Church, social and political ethics from religion and, in the terminal phase, led to the inevitable loss of "knowledge of God" by many Christians - ie just the loss of their faith - will never be as Well can "know God" without that faith which was rejected and lost? Magisterium says: "Faith seeking understanding: it is intrinsic to faith that a believer desires to know better the One in whom he has put his faith, and understand better what He has revealed, a more penetrating knowledge will in turn call a faith great. The grace of faith opens 'the eyes of the mind' (Eph 1:18) ... So, according to the words of St. Augustine: 'Do you understand, the better to believe'. " [lxii]
It is therefore safe to conclude that secularism, the Church wants to impose "anti-democratic" His truth, if by democracy we must understand "what makes a free choice in the light of a right, just because faith involves , next to the intervention of divine grace, intelligence and cooperation of the human will. To arrive at faith, or the knowledge of God - which is a right that God has bestowed on man - it is necessary in short, the "free consent" of the individual intellectual!
But such a consensus that leads to knowledge, can not pass through the exclusive loyalty to the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ! Remember about the Catechism: "Faith is the faith of the faithful of the Church received from the Apostles, the treasure of life that is enriched by being shared." [lxiii] Everything that was taught by Christ to the Apostles was relayed by them to the Church, which continues to speak and act "in his name" so that "he is known! An example is the prayer of the Pater Noster, "When Jesus openly entrusts to his disciples the mystery of prayer to the Father, reveals to them what will be their prayer, and our ... ... The novelty is to 'ask in his name' (cf. Jn 14:13). Faith in the Son introduces the disciples into the knowledge of the Father, because Jesus is 'the Way, the Truth and the Life' (Jn 14:6). " [lxiv] What a hypocritical sham, therefore, in the words of Zagrebelsky, when this same prayer diminishes bubble, with sentimentality, as "... the text where he could hide more easily (sic) a theological discourse on truth, (but) is on the contrary (only) a touching expression of filial spirit! [lxv] Continued ...
Completely alien to the Christian concept of recognizing in "cooperation" between free will and human action "evidence" of God's grace the way for the realization of the "vocation" of man to his "transcendence", that vision morbidly adherent to the secularist assumptions shows all his "anti-humanist" in the reaction which gives rise. In fact, the obvious mortification of the fundamental and tutt'affatto "natural" human yearning to "break quality" of his own limitations, when it involves one part in a resolution of no confidence "operated from the outside" (from what is of "ontological quality" different and higher) on the other can not simultaneously avoid creating a "autodivinizzazione," an "idolatrous myth" of its values \u200b\u200b"quantitative" precisely because it demands a compensation of mortification all'innaturalità said. Because, of course, the secularist-man aspires to the "best": "... the meaning of life ... is to work together ... so that the condition of the labyrinth that is the human condition, to be gradually made more bearable, more humane, less unjust, " [ii] well, with an ontological subversion the "ipervalori" are lifted up to be confused with "metavalori. The term "salvation," but only that which "will be by ourselves! There is talk of "virtue", but only those that "man proposes itself as such"! The "democratic values" become "metavalori! [iii] And so forth!
The great confusion perpetrated by Zagrebelsky focuses on the claim to reduce the Christian faith in "human morality" on the "immortal life of the hereafter" where, in parallel, the secular-democratic principles are the "foundations of moral life the wing of here. " [iv] Thus, faith is to be "unnatural" and "in context" so much so that he adds: "... does not consider the possibility that here, in freedom, there can be a real moral worth ... at least as much faith in promises of rewards and punishments. " [v] Here we are, therefore, the reductive humanization also the third theological virtue, so that the "faith" remains indeed conceivable, but only as an ontological and moral option! And in this regard, recalling the 'prophetic warning of Solov'ev, "here's what has got to enforce HE Cardinal Giacomo Biffi: "... Christianity is reduced to mere humanitarian action in the various fields of assistance, solidarity, philanthropy, culture and the Gospel message identified in the commitment to dialogue among peoples and religions in search of welfare and progress, I urge you to respect nature, the Church of the Living God, the pillar and foundation of truth, mistaken for a charitable organization, aesthetics, socialize: this is the mortal danger that is looming today for the family of redeemed by the blood of Christ "! [vi]
Furthermore, an immediate consequence of this is that it becomes possible also operate in reverse, so that even the "moral wing of here," it can somehow imagine that "faith", as well as "love and hope": that is, as something that is transformed, getting rid of its primary field of dimension "profane"! Look Zagrebelsky fact that democracy "is always willing to correct ... ... (subject) its substantive and procedural conditions ... ..." consecrated "(sic) in intangible rules of the Constitution." [vii] E 'in the light of this reversal, which he defines as reductively "faith" as "concrete evidence", while it enhances the "democracy as" abstract value ", unless then holding it, with yet another opportunistic stunt rhetoric, itself a" faith "! [viii] Anyway, here is short, the groundwork for replacing the idolatry, the worship of Christ, the "sacred" worship of a totalitarian political system (ie "not limited or restricted by anything"): the "realm "Democrats just secularist!
E 'has been rightly said that "now ... everything has been incorporated under the cloak of democracy is like an atmosphere that embraces all and all it contains and outside of which there is only nothing ... In this way the nature, things, reality take a back seat in front of the new deity on the altar, if necessary, must be sacrificed ... The word democracy is used as a talisman entitled ... Modern democracy is presented as a real religion, though an atheist, because ... 'democracy is essentially religious, since every religion is based on dogma and ritual': 1) the doctrine is that the power derives from the people, and 2) the ritual is in the designation of those who wield power through the election. It 'a dogma that one must believe that his refusal will anathema, and even the persecution of' heretics politicians', to use the expression of J. Maritain. In this way we will establish a new era of justice and welfare, which is normal and inevitable consequence of democratic development: it is the heresy of the Grand Sillon Plus, condemned by St. Pius X, by making Christianity the needs of modern democracy in fact left him, proclaiming the independence of a man with the natural order ordained by God, religion is the heresy of democracy, that it is no longer to convert people to Catholicism, but to convert to Catholicism ideas modern. In this sense, one must speak of democracy as a religion. " [ix] In more than one occasion
Zagrebelsky advancing the 'insinuation "that the Catholic Church hide the (for him) reprehensible and shameful aversion to democracy. Indeed, without mince words, he often provides even their almost incompatibility: "religion, especially if organized hierarchically structured churches and faith are a democratic union difficult, not without its dramatic moments." [x] But what a nice discovery! How can he claim that the Church agrees to be overwhelmed by the degeneration of idolatry which we defined to be the "religion of democracy", which aims to appropriate anti-Christian His chief of the nature of "confession of worship" and then replace it with an attitude of true "aping"!?
The problem, in our view, is not whether the Church is "incompatible" with the democratic formula, but rather whether the democratic secularist religion today is compatible with the Church. This fact does not deny the diversity in itself, but can not share if it is designed in such a key, in fact, ethical relativism! If Zagrebelsky, with yet another ambiguity, on the one hand endorses the unacceptability of relativism by stating: "... This does not mean that democracy ... take ethical relativism as its substrate, [xi] or even that "democracy does not presuppose that moral relativism that the Magisterium of the Church rightly condemns" [xii] the other hand, immediately reveals instead its real position by proclaiming that democracy "... is based not only on a specific public ethos: the opening to the possible right to assert himself as payable to all forces and political ideas that respect the equal rights of others, but also requires different private conceptions of the common good "; [xiii] or even that" democracy is precisely the regime opportunity to explore, through discussion and debate and the logic of the lesser evil or greater good in the given conditions. " [xiv] And in addition to the admission that "democracy" is a true "religion" relativistic, not only writes the "Decalogue (sic) to learn democracy," [xv] but states plus "I, a little 'to provocation, I would say that we, as believers (sic) in democracy, we must assert relativism as the great advantage of democracy itself." [xvi]
His concern, in respect of an alleged "incompatibility" Church with democracy, thus born from an unlawful overlapping meanings in different realities, and conceal more than all the subtle claim that the Church always, in the name of their sincere approval of an absolute "equality ethics" of individuals, that ratifies surrogate which is represented by a fully relativistic "egalitarianism" between the individual! In other words, it should be the difference in philosophy between the so-called "equality as a fact" and the "equal value": the former equality is to be inferred based on the simple "fact" that "everyone is brothers, because all are children of God, "while in the latter equality derives from the requirement of a secular chief" value "to that" all should be equal "legally and politically (formal equality) as well as socially and economically (substantive equality)!
How can I understand now, this difference of interpretation of 'equality' means in short, a different way of understanding the concept of personal identity, ie, the "person" in the first case if the man is in fact also been perceived as a spiritual substance, in the second case, he is regarded only as a pure and simple collection of moods. From this discrepancy also follows, therefore, a different conception of ethics, as the Catholic inform their behavior in the light of awareness that the biological and sociological identity converges and is justified in a more theological identity - which is the thesis of the Thomistic '"substantial unity of the human person" -, while the secular, for its part, refuses to pass the first stage and considers the ethics free from any dogmatic precept. Now, Zagrebelsky states in a completely misleading, that "... in the report that the theologian of the Papal Household, Wojciech Giertych, recently held (12 February 2007, note) at the International Congress on natural law ..., it is recognized that human nature is not a biological concept or sociological, but, with Thomas Aquinas, theological. " [xvii] The tactic secularist insists that its subtle nature "disruptive" (dia-Ballico), distort the accuracy of the facts and overturn the consequences so that they are inherently more convenient! If it were as Zagrebelsky says, then admits the Christian view as "operator" a "bifurcation" of "human nature", his "Severability" component in "physical and mental, on the one part and component "spiritual", the other, and also would like to see also the "denial" of the first against an exclusive "exaltation" of the second. Well, if so, the result would be very similar to the Monophysite heresy! Evidently
by secularist, this is not only wants to defend its position by invoking a legitimate "right to freedom of opinion", but it tends to inoculate unlawfully distorted perspectives that they can immediately convert into as many "battering rams! When St. Thomas says that 'primum principium quo intelligimus, sive intellectus sive dicatur intellective soul, east form corporis', [xviii] this means that "... the self that we find in the body such as affective states (in some affective states) is the same that I, thinking, consciousness has to know, to contemplate the beauty of doing The man takes metaphysics ... as one. " [xix] He adds: 'ipse idem homo est percepit here if et et intelligere feel' [xx] . In the words of Archbishop Carlo Caffarra, "... therefore, the thesis aims to describe the substantial unity in the first place the fundamental human experience: the experience of the unity of the self in the plurality of specific its operations "! [xxi] For St. Thomas, then, human nature is not a concept "only" the biological and sociological, but "also" theological!
Zagrebelsky instead tries to show that the "natural reality" in the broadest sense - in particular meaning that is inclusive even of "human nature" - is, as it is conceived by the Catholic vision, a concept "unnatural" and therefore ironic perplexity asks: "What is the human being should understand considering his relationship with God the fundamental precepts of natural law would be seen only by means of metaphysical intuition the purpose of existence, an intuition of faith ... Fides et gratia, therefore, as a condition for the Christian discourse on nature: what's more 'unnatural' nature of this vision, from the point of view of those - legitimately, it is assumed again - is not a believer? Here's how nature can become a form of oppression. " [xxii]
The 'error' is here again in the secularist claim that the Church for what it takes for granted but it is not at all: a clear "severability" logic between the visible and invisible, a "irreducibility" ontological between the body and spirit, a "fracture" between the social and political ethics and religious context! Again it takes the typical work of his "dia-ballo"!
It 'clear that at this point, however, the discussion requires clarification of what is the meaning of principal by which to understand the term' nature ', located as it is the basis of the fundamental concepts of "natural world" and "human nature "and" natural law "! Here again
Zagrebelsky proceeds in a mystifying, because before arbitrarily assigned to the church membership to a mentality that is very simplistic in accordance with an "old injury "that arises as a base, the choice of ethical rules, the combination of" nature-artifice "as incorrectly set:" ... the original frame of mind, which affects the relationship between us and the world, is the contrast between what is natural and is outside us, and what is artificial and proceeds from within us. " [xxiii] After passing the de-legitimization of such "outdated way of thinking" that purported to tie himself to the Church, to delegitimize the Church: "... it is the current time, a time when even ' nature 'of human beings may be the product of his 'Trick' - the power of genetics - and the time when the inside and outside us, that we have become the subject and object are confused, frustrated in that distinction ... [xxiv] No wonder at all that just when has become untenable, the binomial nature-artifice has been rediscovered, to find in it the rule of human actions, a provision that gives the course the first on the artificial, synonymous with deceit, abuse, adultery ... So be it by the Church Catholic to oppose the changes in terms of unions, euthanasia, scientific experimentation, genetics, etc.., and to return to the old, in terms of family, contraception, abortion, etc... " [xxv]
The falsification of the terms of the speech made so secularism, unable to conceal the matrix from which it originates: the confusion! The same Zagrebelsky if you let slip when he says triumphantly that nowadays the subject and the object-person-person, inside and outside man, "merge"! No more short stays in place, neither logically nor ontologically or ethically!
If the distinction is believed to be wrong that there be an interruption between inside and outside of man - as well as between the visible and invisible, between the body and spirit, between the socio-political and religious -, but even this can not be understood in the sense that it is to implement the two elements of such a random and disorderly hendiadys "confusion." Rather, they will be implemented between an 'organic unity "or better to say, a mutual" subjectivity "(which is different than the" relativized ") which is made possible only ever in the light of an identical objective and absolute common denominator: God the Creator! According to the Catholic concept of "human nature", "... created in the image of God is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical expression this reality with a symbolic language when he says: 'God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being' (Genesis 2:7). The whole man is therefore willed by God ... [xxvi] The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul as the 'form' of the body, which means that because of the soul spiritual body, composed of matter, is a living human body, spirit and matter, man, two natures are not joint, but their union forms a single nature. " [xxvii] In Under this "unity" between soul and body, "... man sums up in himself, for his bodily, the elements of the material world, so that they, through him, and reach their high praise for their voice freedom in the Creator. So it is not lawful for a man to despise the bodily life, and he even has to look good and honorable one's body, precisely because it was created by God and destined for resurrection on the last day. " [xxviii]
Conceived in this way, then, the question can not be trivially reduced to a dichotomy of nature-artifice! Given that "the term designates soul ... also all that in man there is more intimate and more valuable, especially that for which he is the image of God, " [xxix] Well the Catholic Church does not" demonize "all that" proceeds from the inside 'man', as it is presented as the result of the arbitrary free soul and remains, for this, "an integral part of human nature itself." Moreover, Bishop Caffarra always had a way of expressing this, saying: "The body is the transparency of the human person, the only creature in which the invisible visible." [xxx]
not Accordingly, there is in human nature, no solution of continuity between its constituent inner-and outer-spiritual body, and in the absence of such a solution even its component body and the natural world outside of him - because of that his already mentioned here are to the divine will, as supreme synthesis of the natural world itself -, well, it is quite ironic and laughable to accuse the Church of "unnatural" because it carries the opposition against ethical relativism, and as such opposition is based on simple awareness that everything that the human person was made "against nature," must also "against human nature same! But the bias of
Zagrebelsky, commenced discovered in his attempt to defend the ethical relativism, does not stop here! To deny it the character of absoluteness of the "natural" and therefore its ethical superiority compared to the 'artificial', goes on to specify what their position on the legal concept of the "right". And so the formula: "In the field of justice, the opposition is reflected in the tension between natural law and positive law, ie legislation. Justice in the polis is of two kinds - Aristotle said -, the natural and the legal, natural justice is everywhere the same way and not because it is recognized or not. Legal justice, however, is that relating to what, originally, it is irrelevant and can vary in space and time. " [xxxi] Zagrebelsky practice here in quotes, "almost" in full, the pitch of the fifth book of the Nicomachean Ethics (V, 1134b 18-24) where it is enshrined in the traditional distinction between natural and positive law (or legal). Exposed like this, it would almost seem that according to Aristotle, this distinction not only puts the two rights on an equal footing, but even in spite of all the conclusions reached unanimously Aristotelian criticism, implicitly recognizes the legal right which justify a certain preference. In fact, it took Zagrebelsky "omit" the continuation of Aristotelian thought - which, after "... what, originally, it does not matter" as he continued: "... but that is irrelevant once it is established" - the suggestion to a reading that they seem almost as if Aristotle, without making any distinctions, to endorse the relativism of a right that "there always remains indifferent and moreover varies according to times and places! In truth, Aristotle not only never loses an opportunity to reaffirm the superiority of "natural" than the "legal" as well as the 'universal' compared to the "special", but additionally, always below the fifth book introduces the important concept of "fairness" - which obviously does not Zagrebelsky no mention - by which means: "the rectification of the positive law where there is insufficient for its universal character ", that" the correction made by the natural law of positive law in cases where it would be unfair to apply it "(see Nicomachean Ethics, V, 1137b 26-27). The importance of the concept of "fairness" in fact derives from the fact that it has authority to regulate what is considered right by law with what is considered right by nature. "Equity reaffirms the universal justice where it is inadequate for detail. The assumption, therefore, is inadequate compared to the universal ... But the composition of the universal (natural law) and particular (legal right, positive) made by equity is only apparent because, in reality, the particularizes' universal. This is not simply autonomize the particular respect for the universal or the particular hypothetical exemption from the universal rule, since, on the contrary, the homogeneity of universal justice and equity particular ... For Aristotle, the fairness a special form of justice and not a provision of a different kind (cfr.V, 1138th 2-3) ... The homogeneity of universal justice and equity particular thus refers to an additional justice in particular not only fairness, but the same universal justice is a special case. The justice further particularizes that the same universal justice is called by Aristotle 'justice in the first sense' and 'justice in the absolute sense'. " [xxxii]
So, to sum up: according to Aristotle, the positive law may be subject to error if not sufficiently adapted to the natural law and the fair, for its part, "Is right, and is better than a certain kind of right, not just in absolute terms, but the mistake that causes the formulation as absolute" (EN, V, 1137b 24-25). It was with this recognition of the existence of what he calls "the first right, or right in an absolute sense, Aristotle does in fact refer to something that has actually occurred prior to any expression in the form of law" and thus not only give a definitive no room for the slightest temptation-relativistic interpretation of positive type, but it clearly shows that it considered to be a point of view so-called "theological" as well as areas of physics and metaphysics, ethics giustappunto that too! [xxxiii]
To return to the relationship between natural and positive law, it is therefore fair to say that justice "... does not end in positive law. It is known that the issue was Aristotle ... (his) way of posing the problem has the merit to show that natural justice is not a legal body abstract, ahistorical and separated from the political right, but a component or a layer of this. The natural right is fundamental and originating layer of justice, the ultimate foundation of political legitimacy, but it is insufficient by itself to order social life. Therefore it must be materialized, determined and developed in the common good of all people from the political right for the Convention of the Law, ie, from the political right that we call here positive law. " [xxxiv]
Zagrebelsky Yet, despite everything, continues to plead that "... the natural law is not the way of consensus that embraces the whole of humanity in the name of justice universally recognized. In contrast is the land of the most radical conflicts. First, what is the 'nature' to which we appeal? If we turn to the past, we see a lot of confusion. For some, such as Christians, is God's work, but for others, the Gnostics, is the work of the devil ... Regardless of God and the devil, then, for some mother nature is beneficial and for others, evil stepmother. " [xxxv] And thus concludes: "... there is a kind of all recognizable. You can talk about nature, and thus the natural law, only from within a system of thought, a worldview, but systems and visions belong to cultures, not to nature. " [xxxvi]
The glaring flaw in this approach which it falls, the result of clear "ethical relativism" - attitude, then, that only seems to disavowed Zagrebelsky is elsewhere - is to be able to assume (And hence the need) to recognize an "ontological superiority" to "nature" and thus the "natural right", only on the basis of a mutual and total agreement! If so - that is if you could make such an assessment based on a simple criterion of opinion, belief system, vision of the world - to make such "superiority" not enough time, in accordance with the democratic spirit, even only a "majority"? And in fact we could say then that was precisely what was claimed to have occurred in the past, when Gnosticism manicheistico, the thought that, based on a conception of "dualistic" thought the natural world precisely "the devil", is not never constituted within the European-Christian culture more than a "minority" view, sectarian and heretical. [xxxvii] While, on the other hand, the accession "almost general" natural law in the classical sense of its value, then what would have been entitled would substantially as ethically superior! On the other hand, much less stand up approach based on an assessment that would take into account data such as the emotional and sentimental, just as such, constitute themselves as purely subjective and inevitably 'partial'! The same "vision" rationalistic forces, their lovers, which avoids indulging in positions that naively evaluate the "nature" on the basis of parameters such as "benign or malignant"!
Ultimately, if someone falls in the mistaken claim to give an opinion on any kind based approach to relativistic "cultural", well that's just Zagrebelsky! The assumptions of the Catholic Church are quite different in that they focus on "natural reason" understood as a dowry "absolute" and not merely accidental, the human being. Through reason, "of course" conferred ab initio from God, man takes in fact, their dignity, their freedom, their own will and power, and is what he is made "similar" to God himself, to which the same reason it is ordered! "The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, for it is human reason which requires him to do good and forbidding him to sin ... This limitation of human reason, however, can not have the force of law unless it is the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be subject ". [xxxviii] And also: "The legislation human is in the nature of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus it is clear that it draws its strength from the eternal law. To the extent that moves away from reason, it must be declared unfair, because it makes the concept of law: it is rather a form of violence. " [xxxix] In other words, the divine and natural law is so called "... not in relation to the nature of irrational beings but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature." [xl]
Zagrebelsky Whatever they say is really no doubt that the "natural right", in addition to not being at all cause of confusion, and instead remained largely unchanged throughout history, indeed, it represents a decisive factor in the development of civil peoples and cultures: we have seen with Aristotle in the Hellenic world, but we can recognize in ancient Rome with the basic concept of ius gentium, as it was put to good governance and protection of justice. [xli] And as it was for Aristotle (he spoke before his theological ethics), even more so for the Roman world, the natural law, jus, metaphysical established intimate relations with the divine! It can be seen from the fact that "... jus (from 'ie * Yous), even before a deadline of the lexicon legal, means 'the rule of regularity, normality, rituals required by the rules' and requires that to which we must follow. Roman law is based on the absolute rule: jus proceeds from Fas which is inextricably linked as the cause and effect which has its justification. " [xlii] The Fas (BHA * from e-), for its part indicated "the living word in itself": where Fatum, that "the word appears, the will of God that becomes the standard and the law for men and the gods, "and Fastus that" what is right according to divine law and realizes it in the world! Cicero, moreover, taught that "... there is a true law: right reason, and it conforms to nature, is in all men, and is immutable and eternal, and his call to duty precepts, its prohibitions turn away from ... It ' replace it with a crime against a law it is forbidden to practice not a single provision, then no one has the chance to abolish it completely. " [xliii]
As is symbolically shown by the fact that often appears in the oldest sources of the significant sentence: Roman jure Vivit Ecclesia (the Church lives by Roman law), the Church then sinks its roots in this complex legal humus, that would be understatement want to define only an occasional "system of thought." The recognition shown by all major civilizations about the need to "conform to the natural law" (not "give consent", as Zagrebelsky), it clearly expresses the innate human awareness of the basis of this intrinsic law, required to establish the proper limits within which maintain the social order: the proof is the immutability with this awareness has gone through and even accompanied the diverse political systems and different religious beliefs that have marked the different historical moments of individual civilizations same! The
secularism, which he rails against the Church, accusing it of wanting to undermine the ethical-relativist to replace it with natural, therefore, makes a double hoax! When Zagrebelsky says: "... we reason as if our society had no identity, having lost or destroyed, and therefore we discuss how to give a new or how to restore the old. The rediscovery of the 'Christian roots' is the culmination of these arguments. Because apparently it is to fill an absence, the promoters of identity ... not act to fill gaps but to start substitutions ... they are fighting a battle for cultural hegemony that is not only, but above all against. Benefactors but are not conquerors; [xliv] Well this is not just the umpteenth time that "the ox said cuckold donkey," as it is the secularist view that considers the legitimate "replace" what for many centuries served as a, although in different social and political realities, the "right and natural" common ethical norm, but here plus you deny the spiritual sense, "of divine revelation," which is the very premise of "natural law" to "replace" subverted with something merely "human." If the Catholic teaching says that "the natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in harmony with the work of the Spirit," [xlv] by his hand, Zagrebelsky believes that "the basic unit of society and government is the human being as such, neither more nor less. The spiritual origin (sic) of this revolution is humanism, the fulfillment, the six-eighteenth-century rationalism, which resulted in the French Revolution. The product of this emancipation is the constitutional secular state ". [xlvi] This
real "act of rebellion", perpetrated by man against the secular order established from God is revealed in an even more striking when Zagrebelsky distinguished: "Originally, there is the invitation of St. Paul to the Christians of Rome to obey authority, because in accordance with God: nothing potestas nisi a Deo (' no power except from God ', note) ... [xlvii] if you still want to use, the present day, the Pauline motto you should turn (sic) nothing potestas nisi a hominibus (' no power except by men ', note). The men get together and do not obey authority in the name of God but of their common rights. " [xlviii] This contains the assumption very ambiguous and dangerous, because in this way, the concept of "justice" is to be separated from that of "freedom", so that the right loses its absolute character! It 's what makes the same Zagrebelsky: "... the doctrine (sic) of rights is not a lay Catholic, as reflected in a crucial point: first, the limit of rights is the equal right of others; for second, the natural order right. The difference is fundamental. The first doctrine is aimed at freedom, and the second to justice. " [xlix]
One of the most abused "workhorse" secularists - to substantiate argument that the Church carry out an unlawful interference and mystifying about the "civil power" as an expression of "authority", even conceiving it as necessarily "coming from God" - is the famous quotation from the Gospel passage about the problem of " tribute to Caesar "and the relationship of this with God (Mt 22.21, Mk 12.17, Lk 20:25). The introduction to the book we are discussing, written by director E. Mauro, we read that "... can not become Caesar, two thousand years later, units of Christ, after the Gospel had separated them as separate authorities, each with its load of debt for man-citizen, dividing the realms and worlds. " [l] For its part, subtly and in complete bad faith, Zagrebelsky then tries to grab even his own (alleged) conformity with the true spirit of Christ, saying that Jesus is betrayed when, despite the explicit wording of your " render to Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God, His Church instead claims (so he says) to establish Catholicism as a "civil religion": "... for the immediate material benefits that may ensue, and men of the church than by the state. This political idea of \u200b\u200bthe Christian religion, though deeply rooted history would seem to be a curse ... (sic) from the point of view of the message of Jesus of Nazareth, reduced to an instrument of government or ideology. In any case it is an aberration from the point of view of the supreme principle of secularism that is written in the Constitution. " [li]
But that is not the case! Zagrebelsky obviously, which is still enjoyed in other contexts to evoke a dialogue between Jesus and Pilate, but does not like to take into account all the words spoken by Christ at that juncture, when clearly points out how every "authority", and thus also civil, "is from above" (Jn 19:11). It must be said, however, that peddle Caesar, the sacred Roman Empire, the pontifex maximus rex et sacerdos, for any modern (and secular) President of the republic or the parliament, charged that only "obligations for the man-citizen" and not primarily "to the tutelary deity of Rome," is not only a distortion of history, but also to a falsification of the theology inherent in the Roman civil power that Pilate certainly could never even begin to conceive. That makes absolutely out of place to treat the figure of Caesar paradigmatic precursor of "secularity" of the state! But beyond that, the wording of Jesus to "render unto Caesar ... etc.." is mainly meant that "we must return to the owner what already belongs to him legitimately." Now, as in the episode of "tribute to Caesar" is clearly stated that it is legitimate because this would "return" the money that he coined, but is not explicitly said what it is legitimate to "give back" to God! Jesus actually say later, when before Pilate during his trial, just leave a clear sense that, among other things, the authority of Caesar must be "returned" to God!
When the Magisterium of the Catholic Church states that "The political community and authority public have their foundation in human nature and therefore belong to the order established by God," [lii] and then also specifies that "if the authority belongs to the order established by God, establishment of political regimes and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens. The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to natural law ... can not achieve the common good of nations to which they have been imposed, " [liii] Well Church does not show that much dreaded "irreconcilable" with the pluralistic-democratic system, but rather only the exaggerated form of "totalitarian democracy" which is represented by secularism.
starting point is the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate, writes HE Cardinal Julian Herranz, "Meditating on the same dramatic trial of Jesus, John Paul II wrote: 'So, therefore, the condemnation of God by man is not based on truth, but the arrogance, the devious conspiracy. It is precisely this truth of human history, the truth of our century? In our day the sentence was repeated in many courts under the oppression of totalitarian regimes. And it is also repeated in the democratic parliaments, when, for example, by a law duly enacted, condemning to death the man not yet born? '. We must, therefore, to state clearly and forcefully - to defend the inalienable right to life, but also to prevent the honest minds against the sophistry of false democrats - that this reduction purely subjective and agnostic of freedom and law is not only contrary to the doctrine Christian social but also to the traditional concept of democracy and healthy. It was, in fact, noted by philosophers like Maritain, Del Noce or powerful as lawyers and Cotta, Hervada, Finnis or Waldstein, but only some names, which the classical authors prior to spreading dogmatic agnostic liberal ideology have always interpreted democracy as a social order of freedom with natural boundaries. Not with the outer limits, whether imposed from without authoritarian (totalitarian tendency) or imposed by a simple and comprehensive treaty agreement (liberal-radical tendency), but with boundaries having an inherent basis: the natural law, natural law or ius gentium . Unfortunately, the liberal-radical ideology, founded sull'agnosticismo religious and moral relativism, in removing the foundation of democracy, its principles and objective values, made it dangerously uncertain limits of rationality and legitimacy the standard. This has deeply undermined the democratic legal system faced with the temptation of a denaturalization freedom: a freedom that is, truly free without the constraints of objective truth about nature and human dignity and human life. " [liv]
being the case, then you must ask: why so much rage against the alleged secularist "antidemocraticità" of the Church? What might be the "question" that prevents recognition of the Catholic Church rather than the historical institution which, for your very specific nature, more than any other is the guarantor for the man of "freedom and Law "?! To try to give us an answer, however, must proceed in an orderly fashion!
is primarily what is being said by Zagrebelsky: "Different was the spirit that animates many pages of dialogue, open to hope, the Second Vatican Council, in which the 'modern world' is taken as a positive partner was different ... the conception of the relationship between faith and reason, between faith and work of Christians in the world ... But (today) is still the case? ". [lv] And elsewhere he adds: "But who would dare deny that over the centuries the Church has opposed rather than democracy and supported every kind of autocracy, which has engaged over the imposition and to respect the consciences? Who could forget the violence of which was released in the name of faith that kept? Who can ignore the memory so short that the only 'freedom' has been approved to join the true religion and that all claims of freedom otherwise addressed was the subject of harsh sentences? ". [lvi]
Now, in the light of this, there arises a suspicion that now more than a "ruling" to be solved here it is in fact an "injury" that you want to bring to the Church! Nor can it be otherwise if, in an apparently opportunistic, on the one hand we want praise the Vatican II on the basis of his "alleged" acceptance of the liberal-secularist-modernist instances, while the other side it holds up equally with contempt "alleged" autocratic longstanding provision of the Church. Moreover, this contradiction is also stained dall'incongruenza that the Church itself, in two thousand years of its history, was opposed to democracy "ever", as if this form of government has not established until much later in just two centuries ago! But contradictions and inconsistencies do not play in favor of claims that aspire to establish itself as evidence, let alone provide a guarantee of sincerity! You can understand better in the hereafter, where Zagrebelsky says: "The civil wars of religion are in front of us, to teach what produces the intertwining of politics and religion after there has been a unity of faith. Cracked the unity of Christians from heretical movements from the twelfth century, then route the Lutheran Reformation and the Anglican schism, the interweaving fed only division and oppression. Christian Europe became divided battleground, with cruel feuds between Christians of different denominations, inquisitions, witch hunts, burning of heretics and pogroms of Jews. States Army took to the field in the name of the different religious professions. Religion, once the route his unit, insurance was no longer any 'premise legislation'. Or rather, had become endemic factor of subversion, hatred, poverty, hostility. It came with no winners and losers but a constitutional settlement: the emancipation of the State, its distinction from religion and the regulation of this as an element of individual and social conscience, and not directly as a politician. " [lvii]
What! While the Catholic Church to establish a nature accustomed to tyranny, arrogance, the soverchieria, even here you grant, in full contradiction with respect to many other occasions, that Europe was actually Christian in origin and catholic in its common identity?! "The reduction in European history in Christian history is a false history," [lviii] argues elsewhere Zagrebelsky! It also gives you that its original common Catholic identity has been questioned due to loss of 'unity of faith "?! But then, the crux of the matter is not so much by the 'intertwining of ethics and morality of politics and religion "or a completely fictitious" antidemocraticità "of the Church, but rather, just what is and is always saying the Magisterium Catholic, loss, and therefore the lack of "unity of faith" the one Church of Jesus Christ! Says the Catechism: "The unity which Christ has bestowed on his Church from the beginning ... we believe that there is no possibility of getting lost in the Catholic Church and we hope it will grow each day until the end of time ... The Church should always pray and work to preserve, strengthen and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her ... The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit "! [lix]
However, while avoiding any concession to the historical value of Catholicism, the unit is considered imperative that Zagrebelsky from an "impossible condition", at least to restore; [lx] and also an 'insuperable difficulty "exists against non-believers, as" ... to what constitutes the being and acting in accordance with what the 'existence of God requires, the layman does not know and people of faith have fought for a thousand years each believing the other to know better. Authority should be recognized and understood that both the Catholic magisterium. But how can you ask a non-believer to contradict himself so deeply to the point of relying on what they say about a God who does not know? The Board so that the Church addresses the non-believer (ie to sort out their lives 'is veluti daretur Deus', 'as if God exists', note) has only one contradictory meaning: follow me, "act of faith." [lxi]
But in this way the contradiction is not in fact suffered by the Church, but by the "snake biting its tail! As shown by Zagrebelsky fact, the issues at stake are reversed in their logical sequence, since it is obvious that the "non-believer" does not know God if they knew, then I think! And then the Church does not claim at all, but merely suggest (as indeed he himself acknowledges, albeit ironically) that does not pretend to "be followed by faith," but recommended "to have faith to be able to follow it! If we wanted to explain a point of view of syntax, that "an act of faith" is not in fact an addition to "limiting", but "fashion". And despite its subtlety, this is not an irrelevant nuance!
If in fact the process of "division of the Christian faith," the action of the give-dall'anticristicità dance work first through the heretical movements, then and now with the breakaway Protestant-Masonic liberal secularism, in the centuries has caused the progressive alienation State by Church, social and political ethics from religion and, in the terminal phase, led to the inevitable loss of "knowledge of God" by many Christians - ie just the loss of their faith - will never be as Well can "know God" without that faith which was rejected and lost? Magisterium says: "Faith seeking understanding: it is intrinsic to faith that a believer desires to know better the One in whom he has put his faith, and understand better what He has revealed, a more penetrating knowledge will in turn call a faith great. The grace of faith opens 'the eyes of the mind' (Eph 1:18) ... So, according to the words of St. Augustine: 'Do you understand, the better to believe'. " [lxii]
It is therefore safe to conclude that secularism, the Church wants to impose "anti-democratic" His truth, if by democracy we must understand "what makes a free choice in the light of a right, just because faith involves , next to the intervention of divine grace, intelligence and cooperation of the human will. To arrive at faith, or the knowledge of God - which is a right that God has bestowed on man - it is necessary in short, the "free consent" of the individual intellectual!
But such a consensus that leads to knowledge, can not pass through the exclusive loyalty to the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ! Remember about the Catechism: "Faith is the faith of the faithful of the Church received from the Apostles, the treasure of life that is enriched by being shared." [lxiii] Everything that was taught by Christ to the Apostles was relayed by them to the Church, which continues to speak and act "in his name" so that "he is known! An example is the prayer of the Pater Noster, "When Jesus openly entrusts to his disciples the mystery of prayer to the Father, reveals to them what will be their prayer, and our ... ... The novelty is to 'ask in his name' (cf. Jn 14:13). Faith in the Son introduces the disciples into the knowledge of the Father, because Jesus is 'the Way, the Truth and the Life' (Jn 14:6). " [lxiv] What a hypocritical sham, therefore, in the words of Zagrebelsky, when this same prayer diminishes bubble, with sentimentality, as "... the text where he could hide more easily (sic) a theological discourse on truth, (but) is on the contrary (only) a touching expression of filial spirit! [lxv] Continued ...
[i] Idem, pg.136.
[ii] Ibid , sg.
[iii] See Idem, pg.108.
[iv] See Idem, pg.147.
[v] Ibid .
[vi] G. Biffi, Beware of the Antichrist! The prophetic warning of V. Solove 'ev, Piemme, Casale Monferrato 1991.
[vii] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.20.
[viii] See Idem, pg.47.
[ix] Estanislao Cantero Nunez, Evolution of the concept of democracy, in Papers of Christianity, the year I No 3, 1985.
[x] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.47.
[xi] Idem, pg.21.
[xii] Idem, pg.46.
[xiii] Idem, pg.21.
[xiv] Idem, pg.125 sg.
[xv] See supra note 56.
[xvi] not possumus: Church divided society?, Cit.
[xvii] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.170.
[xviii] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q.76, aI
[xix] S. Vanni-Rovigo in A. Ales Bello and F. Brezzo (ed.), The Wire (sofare) of Ariadne. Routes of feminist thought in the Twentieth Century, ed. Mimesis, Milan 2001, pg.55.
[xx] St. Thomas Aquinas, ibid footnote 115.
[xxi] Archbishop Carlo Caffarra, "Corpore et unus soul": the ethical relevance of the substantial unity of man into the third millennium, the International Thomistic Congress, Rome 24 / 9 / 2003.
[xxii] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.170.
[xxiii] Idem, pg.165.
[xxiv] Ibid .
[xxv] Idem, pg.166.
[xxvi] Catechism of the CC, 362.
[xxvii] Idem, 365.
[xxviii] Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution. Gaudium et Spes, 14.
[xxix] Catechism of the CC, 363.
[xxx] "Corpore et unus soul", op.cit.
[xxxi] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.166.
[xxxii] Giampaolo Azzoni, the idea of \u200b\u200bjustice between universal and particular, Report to the XXII National Congress of the Italian Society of Legal Philosophy and Politics, Macerata 2 to 5 October 2002.
[xxxiii] See in this John Dudley, God and contemplation in Aristotle. The metaphysical foundation of the Nicomachean Ethics, Vita e Pensiero, Milano 1999.
[xxxiv] Angel Rodriguez Nuno, positive law, natural law and justice today, "Nuntium" VII/19 (2003), pp. 45-50.
[xxxv] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.167.
[xxxvi] Idem, pg.168.
[xxxvii] The contradictory logic and ontological vision of a "dualistic" in the world of Gnostic-Manichean, was already refuted by St. Augustine with his doctrine concerning the explanation of the existence of "evil"! We recall how this doctrine teaches that evil can not be considered either as "being" (because in this case, it would be good) nor as "non-being" (because it just would not be), but rather as "deprivation, absence of being. " Thus, as a principle that has consistency in himself, the devil can not even assume that "creator" of anything, but only as a symptom of "breakdown"!
[xxxviii] Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter. Libertas praestantissimus; Leonis XIII Acta 8, 219. See Catechism of the CC, 1954.
[xxxix] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q.93, a.3, ad 2. See Catechism of the CC, 1902.
[xl] Catechism of the CC, 1955.
[xli] See, for example, Gaius, Institutiones I, 1.
[xlii] M. Polia, Imperium, Ed The Circle Rimini 2001, pg.20.
[xliii] Cicero, De re publica 3, 22, 33.
[xliv] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.105 sg.
[xlv] Catechism of the CC, 1960.
[xlvi] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.55.
[xlvii] See 13.1 to 2 Rm.
[xlviii] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.54 sg.
[xlix] Idem, pg.85.
[l] Idem, pg.5.
[li] Idem, pg.99.
[lii] Catechism of the CC, 1920.
[liii] Idem, 1901.
[liv] Humanity is at the crossroads, op.cit.
[lv] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.149.
[lvi] Idem, pg.83.
[lvii] Idem, pg.56.
[lviii] Idem, pg.87.
[lix] Catechism of the CC, 820.
[lx] See The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.57.
[lxi] Idem, pg.58.
[lxii] Catechism of the CC, 158.
[lxiii] Idem, 949.
[lxiv] Idem, 2614.
[lxv] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.120.
[ii] Ibid , sg.
[iii] See Idem, pg.108.
[iv] See Idem, pg.147.
[v] Ibid .
[vi] G. Biffi, Beware of the Antichrist! The prophetic warning of V. Solove 'ev, Piemme, Casale Monferrato 1991.
[vii] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.20.
[viii] See Idem, pg.47.
[ix] Estanislao Cantero Nunez, Evolution of the concept of democracy, in Papers of Christianity, the year I No 3, 1985.
[x] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.47.
[xi] Idem, pg.21.
[xii] Idem, pg.46.
[xiii] Idem, pg.21.
[xiv] Idem, pg.125 sg.
[xv] See supra note 56.
[xvi] not possumus: Church divided society?, Cit.
[xvii] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.170.
[xviii] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q.76, aI
[xix] S. Vanni-Rovigo in A. Ales Bello and F. Brezzo (ed.), The Wire (sofare) of Ariadne. Routes of feminist thought in the Twentieth Century, ed. Mimesis, Milan 2001, pg.55.
[xx] St. Thomas Aquinas, ibid footnote 115.
[xxi] Archbishop Carlo Caffarra, "Corpore et unus soul": the ethical relevance of the substantial unity of man into the third millennium, the International Thomistic Congress, Rome 24 / 9 / 2003.
[xxii] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.170.
[xxiii] Idem, pg.165.
[xxiv] Ibid .
[xxv] Idem, pg.166.
[xxvi] Catechism of the CC, 362.
[xxvii] Idem, 365.
[xxviii] Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution. Gaudium et Spes, 14.
[xxix] Catechism of the CC, 363.
[xxx] "Corpore et unus soul", op.cit.
[xxxi] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.166.
[xxxii] Giampaolo Azzoni, the idea of \u200b\u200bjustice between universal and particular, Report to the XXII National Congress of the Italian Society of Legal Philosophy and Politics, Macerata 2 to 5 October 2002.
[xxxiii] See in this John Dudley, God and contemplation in Aristotle. The metaphysical foundation of the Nicomachean Ethics, Vita e Pensiero, Milano 1999.
[xxxiv] Angel Rodriguez Nuno, positive law, natural law and justice today, "Nuntium" VII/19 (2003), pp. 45-50.
[xxxv] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.167.
[xxxvi] Idem, pg.168.
[xxxvii] The contradictory logic and ontological vision of a "dualistic" in the world of Gnostic-Manichean, was already refuted by St. Augustine with his doctrine concerning the explanation of the existence of "evil"! We recall how this doctrine teaches that evil can not be considered either as "being" (because in this case, it would be good) nor as "non-being" (because it just would not be), but rather as "deprivation, absence of being. " Thus, as a principle that has consistency in himself, the devil can not even assume that "creator" of anything, but only as a symptom of "breakdown"!
[xxxviii] Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter. Libertas praestantissimus; Leonis XIII Acta 8, 219. See Catechism of the CC, 1954.
[xxxix] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q.93, a.3, ad 2. See Catechism of the CC, 1902.
[xl] Catechism of the CC, 1955.
[xli] See, for example, Gaius, Institutiones I, 1.
[xlii] M. Polia, Imperium, Ed The Circle Rimini 2001, pg.20.
[xliii] Cicero, De re publica 3, 22, 33.
[xliv] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.105 sg.
[xlv] Catechism of the CC, 1960.
[xlvi] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.55.
[xlvii] See 13.1 to 2 Rm.
[xlviii] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.54 sg.
[xlix] Idem, pg.85.
[l] Idem, pg.5.
[li] Idem, pg.99.
[lii] Catechism of the CC, 1920.
[liii] Idem, 1901.
[liv] Humanity is at the crossroads, op.cit.
[lv] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.149.
[lvi] Idem, pg.83.
[lvii] Idem, pg.56.
[lviii] Idem, pg.87.
[lix] Catechism of the CC, 820.
[lx] See The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.57.
[lxi] Idem, pg.58.
[lxii] Catechism of the CC, 158.
[lxiii] Idem, 949.
[lxiv] Idem, 2614.
[lxv] The State and the Church, op.cit., Pg.120.
0 comments:
Post a Comment