Search blog.co.uk

  • HOW ENGLAND'S LAITY CAN SAVE THE CHURCH

    By Paolo Gambi
    (From The Catholic Herald, december 2nd 2005)

    As a young Italian Catholic journalist who has worked in England, I sometimes wonder if you English Catholics realise how proud you should be of the tradition of “lay pride” that runs in your veins. Do you know that your model of laity could be the solution for our Italian religious problems?
    Nobody in Italy much cares for the adjective “lay”. Unbelievers treat it as a synonym for atheist. Believers are keen on the word “clericalist”. Beneath our shining Italian sun, there is a depressingly black-or-white vision of religion.
    On one side, there is the “white” vision painted by priests, monks, bishops and nuns, who seem to have exclusive possession of everything that smells of faith; on the other side, the “black” depicted by secularists who do not belong to the Church and actually hate it. There are o shades of grey. As a result of this dichotomy, nobody, believer or unbeliever, is really able to understand what being a lay Catholic actually means. It does not matter that the Second Vatican Council took place in Rome. The flag of the laity celebrated during the Council does not fly from the towers of Italian churches – but, rather, from the tops of English Catholic churches.
    In recent months, the Italian struggle between clericalists and their opponents has rediscovered an old battlefield: the conception of Italy as a secular state. This is a struggle rooted in the 19th century, and especially the battle against the Papal States. Since then, the views of the warring factions have changed little. In the secular corner, there are those who think that the Pope and the bishops should not express their opinions about anything but the perpetual virginity of Mary, and should leave discussion of every other subject to non-believers (preferably atheists). In the Catholic corner, there are those who think that the Pontiff and the bishops are entitled to express their opinion about everything, and whatever they say they is ipso facto right – a sort of an extended infallibility.
    When Pope John Paul II visited, for the first time in history, the Italian parliament at the end of 2002, he had clear words for Italians. “Truly deep is the bond that exists between the Holy See and Italy,” he said. “We all know that this association has gone through widely different phases and circumstances, subject to the vicissitudes and contradictions of history. But at the same time we should recognise that precisely in the sometimes turbulent sequence of events that bond has had highly positive results, both for the Church of Rome, and therefore for the Catholic Church, and for the beloved Italian Nation.” The Holy Father also spoke about “beneficial cooperation” between Italy and the Holy See.
    Ever since, Italian bishops have increased their public intervention in Italian politics. Sometimes they have chosen the right topics, such as the defence of life: last spring, three quarters of Italians followed the advice of the hierarchy and did not vote in a referendum about the relaxation of laws on artificial fertilisation. At other times, bishops have seemed more like politicians than religious leaders – for example, by expressing opinions on the reform of the Italian Constitution.
    Pope Benedict has recently written a letter to Pierferdinando Casini, the President of Chamber of Deputies, reasserting that the Church “does not intend to reclaim any privilege” but only wants the possibility to fulfil its mission, respecting the legitimate secular status of the State; he adds that this status is not in conflict with the Christian message. Thus Benedict, as bishop of Rome, is restating the principle of detached but beneficial cooperation that John Paul II spoke about. In contrast, we see the Italian Bishops’ Conference involving itself deeply in Italian politics, with official Catholic statements about everything. Meanwhile, outside the Church, there are many people who wish to reduce Catholics to complete silence.
    But something is slowly changing, both inside and outside the Church. Consider, for example, the writings of the distinguished Catholic journalist and author Vittorio Messori, or those of Renato Farina, deputy editor of Libero, a conservative lay newspaper. These laymen, among others, are considered by public opinion to form a sort of unofficial Catholic position, and they probably reach many more consciences with their free Catholic-inspired opinions than the official statements of the bishops’ conference could ever do. Interestingly – and this is where the situation is different from that in other countries – this fresh lay voice of the Church is not in conflict with official doctrine or moral teaching, and somehow strikes a more genuine note than many episcopal pronouncements.
    But also outside the Church something is changing. A few non-believing scholars have become passionate supporters of John Paul II and Benedict XVI’s struggle against ethical relativism. The philosopher Marcello Pera has written against relativism and in favour of “natural law”, notably in a book co-authored with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Meanwhile, the editor of Foglio newspaper, Giuliano Ferrara, also not a believer, has used his columns and his television programmes to argue for Christian values, invoking their connection with the classical liberal tradition.
    In other words, Italian Catholicism can no longer leave its response to the secular world to its clergy; it cannot build a dialogue with relativistic culture simply with bishops’ statements. What is most required is a new generation of mature Catholic lay people – men and women who can feel free to express positions about secular matters without asking permission of their parish priests.
    England has a head start on us in this respect. You were lucky to have a “Glorious Revolution” (albeit a Protestant one) and not a French Revolution. English Catholics are not chained to the concept of an over-mighty State that has humiliated Europeans. Your heritage is one of individualism – and one that I hope will not be eroded by the European Union.
    While Italian and most continental European churches are nowadays finding it difficult to define a role for Christian laymen, English Catholicism has understood the true meaning of laity ever since the witness of St Thomas More. He was not a bishop, a priest or a monk, but the example of his martyrdom still lies at the very heart of the English Catholic Church.

    Indeed, Italian Catholics are increasingly looking to England for examples of great Catholic laymen, not necessarily saints: G.K Chesterton, J R R Tolkien. Young Italian Catholics have taken these people to heart – though English people are probably unaware of it. These are the laity to whom we look back for inspiration, in the aftermath of Vatican II. The English lay tradition of sanctity – or simply of Christian example – is perfectly suited to the contemporary era.
    So here is a challenge. Will England help the rest of Europe discover the pride of being lay?

  • Putten Principles: Freedom, Morality and the State

    A thought struck me while attending Acton’s "Toward a Free and Virtuous Society" conference in Putten, the Netherlands: This is an experience that all young Europeans should have. Those who attended, more than thirty young people from the Netherlands, Lithuania, Italy, France, Germany, Austria, Finland, and Belgium, came up with some extraordinary ideas at the conference, ideas that Europe seems to have forgotten. The Acton Institute and the Edmund Burke Foundation, organizers of the conference, enabled us to grow profoundly in our understanding of liberty and virtue. Although I was the only Italian there, I did not feel so lonely; the atmosphere was very welcoming and allowed for the formation of new friendships.

    The most interesting part of the conference, in my opinion, was the lecture time. We had the occasion to attend lectures by Dr. Sam Gregg and Rev. Jerry Zandstra, and we were able to dialogue with those lecturers on very important topics. The lecturers first pointed out that what we were really looking for was the correct conception of the human person. The answer to the main question "Quid sit homo?" was the key to understanding the whole conference. And there were other issues: Is the human person capable of arriving at truth, or is he only someone that is trying to maximize pleasure? What is human freedom? If we identify what freedom is, how can we prepare people for it? Where do we find the justification for a free society, in utilitarianism or in the moral life?

    These questions have been answered by using different anthropologies. There is a great clash, though, between a conception of the human person based on the inheritance of Aristotle, Christianity and the natural law, and another based on secularism. The first anthropology sees the human person as a being with integrated mind, spirit and body, as a truthseeker intrinsically worthy of rights. Secularism, on the other hand, bases everything on desire, and consequentially on utilitarianism; it says that we do not use reason to see if something is good or bad, but to see how to get what we want. The type of anthropology used has an influence on one’s conception of civil society. The role of the Church, or of the Churches, in civil society, as seen from a Christian prespective, is to remind us that the human person is an image of God - nothing more, nothing less.

    At the Putten conference, we Europeans also had the privilege of listening to words spoken against legal positivisim, which is at the heart of the most common positions of European “bold-state” thinkers. There are two different tendencies to look at with regard to the role of the state: the tendency to the “bold State,” and the tendency to the “no State.” The first one sees people as evil, unable to make the right decisions, and irresponsible; it makes use of coercion. The second onesees people as good, rational, and responsible. Because power is seen as a corrupted force, “no State” conception does not make use of coercion. Of the two options for the state, limited government seems to be the rational choice.

    The lecturers also posed this important question: Who restrains the power of evil and promotes the good in single individuals? The answer, which we are not used to hearing in Europe, lies in subsidiarity. According to this principle, power is located in the following places and in the following order: 1) oneself; 2) the family; 3) community and Church; 4) larger communities; 5) local government; 6) state government; and 7) federal government. A classical European answer would be: 1) State; 2) State; 3) State.

    Lastly, we also discussed the field of economics in its relation to ethics. Today, much of the distinction between right wing and left wing is based on different conceptions of economic markets. If we follow orthodox Christian anthropology, we view the market as being comprised of people, and this means that we would see business relations as vehicles not only of economic relations, but also for affirming non-economic values. Furthermore, the spread of these kinds of person-based commercial relations allows for the growth of intermediate societies that have the capacity to allow human beings to flourish. Thus, there is a deep relationship between morality and the economic life.

    The Putten conference stimulated us to think about the nature of freedom, morality and the State -- fields which in Europe we normally separate in a strict manner. We had the occasion to hear great ideas from the American experience based in the Christian tradition of liberty. These ideas provide rational and concrete solutions to the problems of the relationship between morality, economics and the State.

    If I can put my two cents in, this is what Europe needs today.

    Paolo Gambi was born in Ravenna, Italy, where he still lives. He got a degree in Law at the university of Bologna, where he is now a teaching assistant of Canon Law. He also studied Theology for two years in Bologna, in a branch of the "Angelicum". He is also a journalist, editorial director of a local weekly paper, "La Romagna",and heworks with several Italian newspapers.

    * a special thanks to Mike Mcclane, who helped me in translating my Italian-English to the American-English.

Footer:

The content of this website belongs to a private person, blog.co.uk is not responsible for the content of this website.