Google+
 
Pagina precedente | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » | Pagina successiva

BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

Ultimo Aggiornamento: 23/08/2021 11:16
Autore
Stampa | Notifica email    
05/12/2009 20:54
OFFLINE
Post: 19.015
Post: 1.662
Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009
Administratore
Utente Veteran



I don't think the Holy Father needs any aspirin at all about this! His 'populist' Catholicism, as in Bavaria and in grassroots Italy, is not the political one that Allen describes.


Benedict's headache
with populist Catholicism


Dec. 04, 2009


Like everybody else in this hyper-political age, Catholics are conventionally divided into "liberals" and "conservatives." (Whenever that taxonomy is rolled out, I'm reminded of a line from G.K. Chesterton: A progressive is someone who keeps making the same mistake, while a conservative is someone who prevents a mistake from ever being corrected. Chesterton is a patron saint for those of us who don't recognize ourselves in either camp.)

However useful that distinction can sometimes be, it's hardly the only way to slice the pie. Another is what we might call the difference between "institutional" and "populist" Catholicism.

In a nutshell, institutional types (however grudgingly) like to be on the same page with the Pope and the bishops, while populists (however respectfully) think the powers that be are occasionally full of it, so other Catholics have to say and do the things that bishops, for political or bureaucratic reasons, can't or won't.

Americans are certainly familiar with populist Catholicism, both on the right (including pro-life groups that sometimes seem as mad at the bishops for their timidity as at Planned Parenthood for its ideology) and on the left (think Patrick Kennedy's insistence that disagreeing with the hierarchy doesn't make him any less Catholic).

Among other things, this proves the point that populists of all stripes often have more in common with one another than with the institutional psychology against which they're reacting.

Recent events in Europe, however, illustrate the growing political punch of populist Catholicism on the global stage.

Last Sunday in Switzerland, voters approved a constitutional ban on the construction of minarets, the spires atop Islamic mosques where the call to prayer is issued five times a day. The result came over the explicit opposition of the country's Christian leaders, including the Swiss Catholic bishops, who issued a statement before the vote warning that "fear is a poor counselor."

Afterwards, an official from the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Migrants as well as L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, called the outcome a blow to religious freedom.

Despite that, 56 percent of Swiss voters favored the minaret ban. I haven't seen any exit polls, but one has to imagine that a decisive bloc was formed by those Swiss most concerned with their country's Christian identity, which would include a cross-section of Catholics. Switzerland is 42 percent Catholic, so the measure could not have passed without substantial Catholic support. [Not to mention that evangelical Christianity which accounts for 36.4% of the Swiss is probably better established in Switzerland than Catholicism!]

Officials of the Council of Europe said this week that the Swiss measure may be reviewed by European courts as a potential violation of freedom of conscience and human rights protections. [How can they rule that when it is the outcome of a free and open national referendum? It wasn't legislated!

A recent proposal from the far-right Northern League to add a cross to the national flag is producing a similar split between institutional and populist Catholic sentiment.

The Northern League, which routinely draws between five and fifteen percent of the national vote, is part of Italy's ruling center-right coalition. Historically the party has been fairly anti-clerical, seeing the Vatican as an expression of Roman centralization against the interests of its base of support in the north.

Recently, however, the party has repositioned itself as the voice of populist Catholic anxieties, directed against both the European Union and Islamic immigration. [In other words, they are using 'Catholic populism' exploitatively for their own ends!]

Roberto Maroni of the Northern League, currently Italy's interior minister, says his party is committed to the defense of grassroots Catholic values, "not what the elites want" – a catchy way of saying that while the Northern League may be taking up the Catholic banner, it's not taking cues from the Italian bishops or the Vatican.

From a populist calculus, the proposal to put a cross on the flag is a potent political double play. It comes in the wake of a controversial decision from a European court which held that displaying crucifixes in Italian public school classrooms violates church/state separation, and it also makes a statement about the Christian identity of Italy in the teeth of the country's rising Muslim population.

How serious the idea may be in a country where the tricolore, the three-colored flag, is something of a national fetish remains to be seen. What it illustrates, however, is a growing political sophistication among populists about the manipulation of symbolism.

[I think Allen over-states the significance of the Lega Nord proposal. Italian politicians, even the leading Catholic ones, are smart enough to know this is no winner, because it challenges Chucch and State separation unnecessarily. It is not an issue the Italian man-on-the-street will fight for.]

This arousal of populist Catholicism poses a real headache for Pope Benedict XVI.

In recent decades, the Vatican's highest priority for Europe has been recovery of the continent's Christian identity, and Benedict in particular has argued that Europe would be culturally incoherent if cut off from its Christian roots.

Yet at the same time, Benedict also has no higher inter-faith priority than outreach to Islam, the defining expression of his transition from "inter-religious" to "inter-cultural" dialogue. In essence, Benedict sees Christians and Muslims as natural allies in the struggle against secularism.

Benedict also has to worry about the fate of Christianity not just in Europe, but also in the Middle East, Africa, and India – places where the intersection of nationalism and religious identity makes life difficult for Christian minorities.

Many Church leaders fear that provocative acts such as the Swiss vote could trigger anti-Christian backlash in other parts of the world. [This was very much the primary reason advanced by the Swiss bishops and by the OR to denounce the minraet ban.] Italian essayist Massimo Franco recently described this as the Vatican's "geo-religious" perspective.

Looking down the line at the rest of the 21st century, declining fertility rates in the Middle East and North Africa suggest that the current high levels of Islamic immigration into Europe won't be sustained.

Long term, therefore, the Vatican may be able to hope for a "demographic fix" to its headache, since immigration might no longer be such a volatile force in European politics.

In the meantime, however, Benedict XVI has to walk a tightrope. He doesn't want to discourage those forces in Europe most passionately committed to a defense of Christian identity, but somehow he also needs to prevent them from upsetting his geo-religious applecart.

So far, there's been no comment from the Pope himself about either the Swiss vote or the proposal to put a cross on the Italian flag. The first test of Benedict's balancing act may come when, and if, this consummate European chooses to wade into these burning European debates.


The Pope will never make a statement about putting the cross on the Italian flag - it is not for him to say. For heaven's sake, the Vatican flag itself does not have the Cross on it! Diehard Italian secularists would say, "Then why don't you replace the papal seal on the Vatican flag with the Cross'?

As to whether the Swiss vote will make the situation more difficult for Christians in Muslim countries, it does not make a difference. The Muslim countries (with the exception of two Gulf emirates, whose immigrant Christian population easily outnumbers the native Arabs) do not allow Christians to construct any churches at all. The Swiss did not vote to ban the construction of mosques, just of minarets.

I also believe Allen may be overstating the case. Muslims themselves, after making the ritual protest noises, apparently do not consider the Swiss vote as insupportable as the French ban on burkas, or the Danish cartoons, for that matter.

In practical terms, only four of Switzerland's existing 150+ mosques have minarets - which means that even Muslim imams, at least in Europe, no longer find the minaret indispensable functionally [they use PA systems now for prayer calls], and obvously, quite optional in terms of mosque archtiecture.



[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 05/12/2009 20:56]
Amministra Discussione: | Chiudi | Sposta | Cancella | Modifica | Notifica email Pagina precedente | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » | Pagina successiva
Nuova Discussione
 | 
Rispondi
Cerca nel forum

Feed | Forum | Bacheca | Album | Utenti | Cerca | Login | Registrati | Amministra
Crea forum gratis, gestisci la tua comunità! Iscriviti a FreeForumZone
FreeForumZone [v.6.1] - Leggendo la pagina si accettano regolamento e privacy
Tutti gli orari sono GMT+01:00. Adesso sono le 07:41. Versione: Stampabile | Mobile
Copyright © 2000-2024 FFZ srl - www.freeforumzone.com