www.repubblica.it by Ezio Mauro So probably unconscious, but certainly painful for him, is leading Beppino Englaro in the light of day after day, some unsolved problems of the modern state of which we are citizens, and we look - or should we - as the sole holder of sovereignty. This is, as noted by Roberto Saviano, the father of Eluana looking for a solution to his family tragedy in a public, precisely because the teacher makes almost universal, in the eyes of the entire country, forced for the first time collectively to question about life and death, from compassion for an individual. Aside from the pettiness of those who seek a short-term political gain from this personal and national tragedy, making a hasty round of government claims of the Church against a ruling Republican Party and the delays aphasics on the other side of those who linger to talk instead of Villari, what we are living - and suffering - is a high point of the debate civil and morale of the country. Provided understood. Certainly is part of public discussion that must involve all, the intervention of Cardinal Poletto. It is the bishop of Turin, the city where the regional president, Mercedes Bresso, said she was ready to host Eluana and his family for that last act that the State has recognized as legitimate with a final ruling, and that the government wants to avoid any means. While other Catholics have argued that "death has found a home in Turin," the Cardinal has not used these tones, but said it condemns euthanasia, although you feel close to the father of Eluana, pray for him and not judge. But I want to discuss publicly, if possible, the deeper meaning and scope of the two statements of the Cardinal. The first is the invitation to conscientious objection of doctors, who Poletto must refuse to stay in Piedmont force feeding Eluana, coming into conflict with the family's request and with the ruling that the legitimate. There is no doubt that the individual conscience can rebel against this outcome, and the doctor - believer or not - can live a deep labor between his public role in a state hospital serving the citizens and their demands, his duty professional who puts in the service of the sick and their suffering, and indeed its most authentic moral beliefs. This labor can lead to extreme decisions completely understandable and respectable, like that to object to his public role and their professional task precisely because the conscience does not allow it, whatever the cost: in some cases, as noted here yesterday Adriano Sofri The cost of this opposition of consciousness was very high. It seems to me - just in consciousness - the very different case in which believers are urged doctors collectively by a cardinal (almost as a single profession from moving and confessional union) to mobilize the same time and anywhere for aborting a sentence of State, regardless moral and rational reflection of everyone, from the time and manner with which everyone can freely settle the matter, the different sensitivity to the piety and Christian charity, but in a common faith. Here you can talk if you are honest, conscientious objection: if anything the bond of belonging, because the Catholic identity of those doctors became lever and collective instrument to bet on hierarchical pulse to nullify a ruling of the Republic. This is possible because the Cardinal explains clearly the concept of dual obedience and hierarchy that follows. The modern state and secular, free "from the" Church as the free grants "in the statement, apply the distinction between the fundamental law of the Creator and the creatures of the law. Poletto argues that since the law of God can never be against the man, going against God's law is to go against the man, so if the two laws come into conflict "because the law is not a man good law, "and the Catholic can break it. The law of God is above the law of man. This statement is worth pondering, for the consequences that necessarily entails. It is the conception announced a few years ago by Cardinal Ruini, that Catholicism is a kind of second nature of the Italians, then the laws that conflict with Catholic principles are automatically unnatural, and as such not only can, but deserve to be disobeyed. This idea follows the theory of the new Italian Catholicism in recent years: the moral precepts of the Church's social doctrine and its overlap with the natural law, then state law must base its strength on the coincidence with this Catholic moral and natural, thus transforming Catholicism as a religion of people in civil religion, creating a sort of real political idea of \u200b\u200bthe Christian religion. But if the law of God is above the law of man, if in obedience to double back to the Church on the State also prevails in the application of laws and judgments, two questions arise: what is a citizen of the devout Catholic, if he lives the possibility of being asked to violate the hierarchy, argue, disobey? And that concept has the Italian Church, with its bishops and cardinals, democracy and the rule? Someone has to remember that in the separation of church and state, after merging the functions of the pagan priest to civil authorities, religion is not part of "jus publicum" human law is not part of the divine with the Church that administration, public institutions and their acts are autonomous from the chair of the bishops and denominational teaching. The town doctor who is ordered to act on behalf of a third identity - Supreme -, that of a Catholic, does not object on behalf of his conscience, but to obey authority as opposed to the state, and calls for greater obedience, final, total capital to the Truth, out of which everything relativism. Only in a democracy that all truth is relative, even the beliefs and values \u200b\u200bare relative to those who profess them, and nobody can impose it on others. Because there is no truth outside of reserves than the free play of democracy, which of course must give full freedom for all religions to rule on any matter, including the responsibility of the State to reaffirm its doctrine. Knowing well that the Church speaks to the conscience of believers and those who recognize the moral authority, but the decision in its practical policy choice is the autonomous decision of lay people - believers and unbelievers - under their responsibility: that is the word of modern democracy and conscious, with whom Barack Obama has signed the start of his presidency. Therefore there is a form of "religious obligation" on the basis of the laws of a free democratic state, in which indeed no person can claim 'to possess the truth any more than any other can claim to possess. " It should finally go down a moral equality in the public discussion, by denying the prejudice that modern democracy, the modern state and the civic culture that are deficient without the resulting bond with the eternity of Christian thought, is insufficient in substance. It is from this injury such violence of language against the new right-wing Catholic who calls the state law, court rulings, the Republican rules. As if to lay his life is not a value, and practice the culture of death. As if the concept of freedom for a family torn apart, fraternity for a father in front of a supreme test, for sharing his pain that is not imaginable, not count. As if it were only the Italian Catholic consciousness. Finally, as if the Catholic conscience in a democracy, was unable to finish in the minority before the state.
0 comments:
Post a Comment