I had been meaning to do a post on Cardinal Ruini because in the recent brouhaha over Avvenire, and I had set aside a long article by him published last week in Il Sole 24 Ore on the subject of secularism in liberal democracies today.
Thankfully, Sandro Magister has now provided the translation to that article, plus an appropriate introduction for context. I feel this is particularly important after all the recent careless commentary, even by normally sensible reporters, that appeared to minimize or even denigrate the role Cardinal Ruini played to keep the Catholic presence felt on the Italian political scene in the years following the collapse of the Christian Democrats.
From the commentary, one would have thought he had acted out of bounds or to the detriment of the Church, or even that he was acting on his own without the approval of the Primate of Italy, whether he was John Paul II or now, Benedict XVI! How different from the all-around hosannahs that acclaimed his retirement back in 2007 after 15 years as president of the Italian bishops conference!
Early on in Benedict XVI's Pontificate, I was drawn to Cardinal Ruini not only for his record as CEI president and for his obvious loyalty and affection for the Pope, but because reading the texts of his speeches and writings, it was clear that he has a first-rate intellect which he uses entirely at the service of spreading and strengthening the faith. In short, very much in the model of Joseph Ratzinger. I must not forget to thank Sandro Magister, through whose constant and tireless agency, we outsiders got to see Ruini's texts.
Well, after the week that saw Ruini's beloved CEI - and himself and his successor Cardinal Bagnasco - put through the merciless meatgrinder that mass media can be, lo and behold, here is the cardinal launching a new book and relaunching a new stage in the "Cultural Project' of the Italian Church, a project he started ten years ago, and to which, even following his retirement, his fellow bishops elected him to a new five-year term in 2008 as president.
A free Church in a free state:
How Ruini sees it
With a book and with a major conference in Rome on God,
the cardinal re-introduces the "cultural project" of the Italian Church -
which emphasizes the priority that Benedict XVI has designated for his pontificate.
ROME, September 14, 2009 – The storm that in recent days has rocked the newspaper of the Italian bishops' conference, Avvenire, has reignited the discussion on relations between the Church and political power.
During the same period, a circular letter from the Vatican Congregation for Catholic Education sent to the bishops all over the world, on the teaching of the Catholic religion in the schools, has again broached one of the issues most commonly protested by secularists.
The relationship between religion and politics is a classic "borderline" question, as expressed in the title of a dialogue, CONFINI (Limits), which has now been published as a book, between the secular historian Ernesto Galli della Loggia and Cardinal Camillo Ruini.
Presenting the book at Palazzo Marino in Milan last September 9, Ruini gave a synopsis of how he views the public role of religion in modern democracies, and the points of agreement and disagreement between the Church and the secularist vision.
His speech, presented in its entirety below, is all the more interesting in that it goes to the "foundations" of the controversy over secularism.
It is a controversy that inevitably touches on the supreme question, about God.
Because "God or no God - that changes everything," in the words of the cardinal, who has dedicated a major conference to the question of God, to be held in Rome from December 10-12, organized by the Italian bishops' conference and in particular by its committee for the "cultural project," of which Ruini himself is president.
'GOD TODAY: With him or without him: it changes everything'
The conference will not be narrowly focused on the Church. It will range from philosophy to theology, from art to music, from literature to science.
And the speakers will be of absolute international prominence in their respective fields: whether Catholic or not, believers or agnostics, from Robert Spaemann to Aharon Appelfeld, from Roger Scruton to Rémi Brague, from Martin Nowak to Peter van Inwagen.
Nor will it be a parade of contrasting opinions, much less a sort of "forum for nonbelievers" of the kind organized years ago by Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini.
The objective is clear. It is aimed squarely at highlighting that "priority" which for Benedict XVI "stands above all the rest," at a time when "in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel."
The priority – as Papa Ratzinger wrote in his letter to bishops dated March 10, 2009 – is "to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God. Not just any god, but the God who spoke on Sinai; to that God whose face we recognize in a love which presses 'to the end' – in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen."
A conference of this magnitude is an absolute first for the Italian bishops' conference. It is one of the highest expressions of the "cultural project" that Ruini conceived.
Because this project is none other than "an effort to transform the Church's message for popular culture," as the rector of the Catholic University of Milan, Lorenzo Ornaghi, said in commenting on the book by Ruini and Galli della Loggia. An effort that has had, and still has, one of its most important platforms in
Avvenire.
But it's time to let the cardinal speak.
A positive secularism for the future
by Cardinal Camillo Ruini
Secularism ["laicità"] is one of the great issues that has been discussed for years with seemingly inexhaustible interest. For this reason, it is difficult to propose "innovative ideas" concerning it, as we hope do in this encounter.
In relation to the emergence of something new, I would like to point out in the first place the risk inherent in the word "laicità," not in itself, but because, in Italian cultural and political discussion, it tends to reflect its descent from the French term "laicité," which historically has carried a fairly precise meaning - one that, in my view, is rather narrow, compared to the current problems as well as the influence of the other strand, which for the sake of clarity we will call "North American."
In order that a "new" secularism may be formed conceptually, and above all, that it may take shape in reality, the American foundation seems to me much more useful than the French one.
But first, one must take serious stock of the prominence taken on by the presence of the different religions on the public stage, in addition to the questions posed both by the transformation of customs and lifestyles and by scientific and technological developments, particularly in the field of biotechnology.
I also feel it is important to add a consideration that is not ordinarily talked about, but seems indispensable to me for a correct or intellectually honest framing of the entire issue of secularism and the public role of religion.
This consideration is contained in the subtitle of the international conference on God, organized for next December [in Rome] by the committee for the Cultural Project [of the Italian bishops' conference]: "With Him or without Him, that changes everything."
In 2001, Robert Spaemann illustrated in a very cursory but masterful way the meaning of this statement, specifying that the answer to the question: Does it make any difference whether God exists or not? profoundly changes depending on whether it is given by believers or nonbelievers, by atheists or agnostics.
Authentic believers answer that the difference not only exists, but it is great and radical – in fact, it is the first and greatest – concerning both the manner of understanding reality and the orientation to be given to our lives: for them, in fact, God is the origin, the meaning, and the end of man and the universe.
Nonbelievers, on the other hand, may respond differently depending on whether they believe that faith in God is negative, positive, or irrelevant for the life of man and of society. But in teh strict sense, they are referring only to our belief in God, not to the actual reality of God, since according to them God does not exist, or in any case, we cannot know anything about him, not even whether or not he exists.
Recognition of this profound difference of approach between believers and nonbelievers clears the field of misunderstandings of false uniformity, but it does not at all imply the impossibility of coming together on concrete objectives that are not only important, but, under the current historical circumstances, essential. I will point out some of these later.
Returning to the question of secularism, I would distinguish between the aspects about which there is substantial agreement today, even if it is often obscured by opportunistic controversies, and the points on which disagreement is profound, and even tending to deepen.
Following on the one hand the entry "Laicismo" edited by Giovanni Fornero in the third edition of the
Dizionario di filosofia from Abbagnano, and on the other the documents
Gaudium et Spes and
Dignitatis Humanae from the Second Vatican Council, we can identify the aspects on which there is agreement, above all on the principle of the autonomy of human activities, meaning they develop according to rules that are their own, not imposed on them from the outside.
Behind this agreement, there also remain the differences between believers and nonbelievers - with believers saying that this autonomy has its origin and ultimate condition for legitimacy in God the creator (Gaudium et Spes 36).
A second element of agreement is constituted, despite appearances to the contrary, by the affirmation of religious freedom as an unalienable right of every person, and, at least according to the Catholic Church, of every community.
Decisive in this regard was the work carried out by Vatican II with the declaration
Dignitatis Humanae, compared to the Church's previous positions on this matter. But compared to the widespread view in the secular world about the ultimate foundation of this freedom, the Council intended it to exclude a relativistic approach incompatible with Christianity's claim of truth.
I would add that
Dignitatis Humanae (no. 7) clearly states that the freedom of man in society must be recognized in the broadest way possible, limiting it only if and as much as necessary. (No. 7)
On the basis of the two shared principles of the autonomy of human activities and freedom, particularly religious freedom, there is also widespread consensus – again, contrary to appearances – on the basic norms or criteria that should regulate relations between the state and religious communities, including those between the state and the Church in Italy.
In concrete terms, this refers to their distinction from each other and their reciprocal autonomy, as well as the pluralistic openness of the structure of the democratic and liberal state to the most diverse positions – including those of a religious and confessional nature – all of which have equal rights and equal dignity before the state.
The reasons for this openness and its dimensions are, however, fairly diverse, according to the viewpoint of the other side, as we will soon see.
The obstacle in Italy, which still survives to a certain extent in other countries, even in Europe, was that of a 'state religion', but this was institutionally overcome with the agreement in 1984 to revise the Concordat 'between the Vatican and the state of Italy]. The protocol added to Article 1 states: "The principle originally recalled in the Lateran Pacts, of the Catholic religion as the only religion of the Italian state, is considered to be no longer in effect."
As everyone knows, the basis for this revision was twofold - the Constitution of the Republic of Italy, on the one hand, and Vatican-II with its recognition of religious freedom on the other.
The objection that the very existence of the 1929 Concordat represented a privilege, contrary to the principle of the pluralistic and equal openness of the state to different religious confessions and cultural positions, did not seem insuperable after the revised agreement.
Concrete relations between a state and the different religious confessions present in the social body cannot, in fact, fail to take history into account, according to which the state may recognize a public character, and not only a private one, for the various confessions, with the concrete effects that follow from such recognition.
As for the aspects of secularism about which there are profound divergences - evident in the problems that have opened up in our time - these are mainly focused, in the liberal democracies to which I will limit my remarks, on the public role that religion can or cannot exercise, and on the conditions under which it can possibly exercise it.
The spectrum of opinions and positions in this regard is broad and varied, but it seems possible to identify two basic orientations, or, I would say, two sensibilities.
One of these tends to reduce the public role of religion, sometimes even to the point of suppressing it, justifies itself by emphasizing, on the one hand, the personal, spiritual, and intimate character, rather than social and institutional, of authentic religiosity; and on the other hand favoring, in the life of a nation, the properly political sphere over the social.
The other orientation tends instead to favor, or in any case to accept without mental reservations, the public role of religion, maintaining also that the social and institutional dimensions are essential for religion, and insisting on the autonomy and irreducible relevance of the social sphere.
It must be clearly stated here that these differences of orientation today appear tangential compared to the distinction, which is commonly made in Italy, between Catholics and secularists, as also between believers and nonbelievers.
Among Catholics, in fact, there are not a few supporters of a practice of religion concentrated on its spiritual aspect, who are quick to criticize the public role of religion and of Catholicism in particular, while among the secularists, especially after the emergence of the new and great ethical and anthropological questions, and after the renewed presence of the non-Christian religions on the world stage, there are many who willingly acknowledge such a role, and often hope for it.
I will now try to present my point of view on this issue in summary form.
Religious phenomena - that is, all of the religions, evidently including Christianity - have no less standing than any other social reality or phenomenon to influence the public sphere, including the specifically political dimension.
Naturally, religions must do this with respect for the rules of democracy and the rule of law, or, to use terminology currently in vogue, "the procedures through which political decisions are formed and expressed".
There is therefore no reason to impose special conditions for religion to exercise a public role: for example, conditions concerning the rationality of its arguments.
In a democratic society, the decision of whether a way of arguing is rational - better yet, plausible and convincing - rests ultimately and solely on the judgment made by citizens collectively in the appropriate forums, usually electoral.
Finally, I would like to indicate the reasons why the public role of religion – in particular of Christianity – is important, and can render a positive service to the life of society.
In other words, I would like to indicate the practical reasons for that "healthy" or "positive" secularism of which Benedict XVI has spoken repeatedly, meaning that it is open to the fundamental ethical demands and the religious meaning that we bear within ourselves.
One fairly significant reason was pointed out by E.-W. Böckenförde years ago, in his classic essay on "The formation of the state as a process of secularization".
The secularized liberal state, in fact, lives according to presuppositions that it cannot guarantee by itself, and among these, as Hegel had maintained, a particular role seems to be played by the moral impulses and limitations arising from religion.
Very recently, Rémi Brague, in a commentary on "Faith and democracy" published in the magazine
Aspenia in 2008, proposed an interesting, and in my view an essentially acceptable, updating of Böckenförde's thesis.
In the first place, he extended this thesis from the state to the man of today, who to a great extent has ceased believing in his own value, because of the tendency to reduce man himself to a phenomenon of nature and the total relativism that are at the basis of the current interpretations of secularism - contrary to the openness solicited by Benedict XVI.
It is man, therefore, and not only the state, who needs today – but, in my view, substantially always – a support that he is not capable of guaranteeing by himself.
In the second place, religion is not only, and not even primarily, a source of ethical impulses and limitations. Today, before establishing limits and boundaries, the task is to find reasons to live.
Precisely this has been, from the beginning, the function, or better yet, the mission most proper to Christianity: it, in fact, tells us first of all not "how" to live, but "why" to live, why to choose life, why to rejoice in it and why to transmit it.
The book
Confini [Limits], as the subtitle makes clear, is an exercise of "dialogue about Christianity and the contemporary world," which seeks to explore the motivations and restore the concreteness of a secularism which is not hostile to Christianity, but on the contrary, draws much of its strength from it.
Professor Galli della Loggia and I, despite our different points of view, agree on identifying Christianity as an essential guardian of the humanistic inspiration of our civilization.
To give Cardinal Ruini his full due, I am re-posting the most unusual letter to him by Benedict XVI on the day he retired as Vicar for Rome last year. This post originally appeared in the PRF.
Benedict XVI's tribute
to a retiring cardinal
The Vatican today (6/22/08) published the full text of the Holy Father's letter to Cardinal Ruini, following the editorial about it. Here is a translation.
Venerated Brother
Cardinal CAMILLO RUINI
Vicar General for the Diocese of Rome
Twenty-five years have passed since that 29th of June, 1983, solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, when in the Cathedral of Reggio Emilia, you received episcopal ordination with the imposition of hands by the late Bishop Mons. Gilberto Baroni.
You have praiseworthily chosen to celebrate this jubilee with priests of the Diocese of Rome who are also celebrating significant anniversaries this year.
Therefore, in this happy occasion, I wish to unite myself with you, dear and venerated brother, in giving thanks to God, recalling the stages of your fruitful episcopal ministry.
First of all, the first three years in your Diocese of Reggio Emilia-Guastalla, as Auxiliary Bishop, and titular to the ancient Church of Nepte. Having already been a well-known and respected priest to them, the faithful of Reggio Emilia and Guastalla rejoiced to see you as the primary collaborator of Mons. Baroni in the pastoral leadership of that Church, with the particular assignment of overseeing the formation and promotion of the lay apostolate and the celebration of a diocesan Synod whose theme was "The announcement of the Gospel today in Reggio and Guastalla".
In those years, you were also intensely committed to your work as vice president of the organizing committee for the national convention of the Italian Church that was to be held in Loreto.
Seeing in you a bishop who is faithful and wise, intelligent and far-sighted, my venerated predecessor John Paul II named you to be secretary-general of the Italian bishops conference (CEI) in 1986. Since then till March 7 last year, you have served the Italian episcopate uninterruptedly, particularly since 1991, when you became the president of the CEI.
As I had occasion to note in the letter I sent you on March 23, 2007, you have transmitted with courage and tenacity the magisterial and pastoral instructions of the Successor of Peter, showing great concern to help our brothers in order to receive them correctly and make them operational.
The reason above all which urges me to thank you at this time, Lord Cardinal, is your commitment in the service of the Church of Rome. It was on January 17, 1991, when the Servant of God John Paul II called you to succeed the late Cardinal Ugo Poletti, entrusting to you, as the beloved Pontiff wrote then, "that which is most my own and most dear to me: apostolic Rome, with its incomparable treasures of Christian spirituality and Catholic tradition; with its living strength in its priests, religious communities, and committed laymen, but also with its numberless human experiences, its thousand ferments, its materializations and its expectations."
He knew he would find in you "an expert collaborator who is trusted and generous" (ibid.), one who has known how to subordinate every other interest to the assiduous and affectionate care of the Diocese. You have offered the very same collaboration to me in these last three years.
In the Church of Rome, everyone could observe your great capacity for work, your simple and direct faith, your intelligent pastoral creativity, your faithfulness to the living identity of the Institution through union with the Pope even in the midst of difficulties, your trustful and smiling optimism.
Thus I extend to you, venerated brother, a fervent gratitude for all that you have done in this beloved Diocese. Above all, for having brought to fulfillment the diocesan Synod in 1993.
After the first phase led by your predecessor, you carried out the second stage, promoting the widest involvement of the parishes and all the other ecclesial entities present in the Urbe, particularly through the pre-synodal assemblies at the prefecture level, and through the initiative called 'Encounter with the City', working out an open dialog with the entire citizenry on the most important and complex problems of Rome today. Finally, you led the celebration of that Synod up to the publication of the Book of the Synod.
That book, which owes so much to you, continues to be relevant today to identify the ways suitable for favoring a real encounter with Christ in the areas of pastoral activity that the Church of Rome favors: the family, youth, social, economic and political responsibility, culture.
In order to carry out these pastoral indications, many occasions for reflection and dialog on the principal themes of faith and of pastoral programming continue to take place at the Basilica of St. John Lateran [the Cathedral of Rome]. I think, for instance of the 'Dialogs in the Cathedral' and to the annual church conventions, at which I have personally participated since I was called to Peter's Chair.
Among the commitments of these years of your episcopate in direct service to the Bishop of Rome, how can I not mention the preparation and celebration of the city's mission in preparation for the Great Jubilee of 2000? It was a mission in which the People of God were not only the beneficiaries but also its active protagonists.
Then, there was the Jubilee itself, whose high point was the 20th World Youth Day - an unforgettable experience for the universal Church, for which much is owed to the Diocese of Rome.
But one owes a special word of appreciation for your ordinary episcopal ministry. In the course of years, you have accompanied to ordination 484 diocesan priests, and have favored with various initiatives the establishment of 57 new parochial churches, of two subsidiary places of worship, and of the Church of the College of the Holy Korean Martyrs.
It is also thanks to you, Lord Cardinal, that numerous Catholic communities from other nations of the world have been able to have at their disposal in Rome a church for their celebrations and for keeping alive relationships among fellow countrymen and their lands of origin.
I wish to thank you, too, for what you have done for priests, deacons, religious men and women, seminarians, lay associations and all the People of God in the Diocese of Rome. In these years, the diocese has grown in communion and awareness of the urgency of mission.
In this respect, I must express to you my personal recognition of the dedication with which, during these years, you have introduced me to the complex reality of this beloved Church, accompanying me in my parochial visits, in encounters with the clergy, with the poor, with the sick, with the young.
Thank you for having supported my invitation for a serious commitment to education and for having convoked many times in St. Peter's Square so many faithful to listen, support and encourage the ministry of the Roman Pontiff.
In all these circumstances, you have been a faithful exemplar of your episcopal motto, "Veritas liberabit nos" - Truth frees us. In the name of this Truth, which is Christ himself, you have continually given yourself for the people of God who live in Rome.
For so many other services that you have rendered to the Church and to society in these 25 years of episcopate, one must thank you, venerated brother.
May the Lord, who knows the hearts of men, in particular, the joys and sufferings of pastors, reward you as only he knows, and continue to fill you with his gifts.
I entrust your beloved person to the Virgin Mary, Salus Popoli Romani, to St. Joseph, to the Apostles Peter and Paul, and to the virgin and martyr Agnes who watched over the years of your formation at the Almo Collegio Capranica and whose Basilica on via Nomentana you are the titular bishop.
With great affection, invoking a renewed outpouring of the Holy Spirit, I impart to you a special Apostolic Blessing, which I extend gladly to your family, to your co-workers and everyone dear to you.
From the Vatican
June 19, 2008
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 15/09/2009 15:03]