Sovereignty and the Catholic world, Father Sorge's opinion
2020-02-07T15:40:11.378Z
Even within the Italian Catholic world, "sovereignty" is causing intellectuals, theologians and lay people engaged in politics to discuss. We know that Pope Francis, in his social Magisterium, has repeatedly warned against the dangers of populism and sovereignty, even with harsh words. But what, in the light of the Church's social doctrine, are the limits of this political orientation? Does democratic Catholicism still play a role in Italian society? What are the "structures of sin" that seriously affect Italian politics? We talk about all this with a great protagonist of Italian Catholicism: Father Bartolomeo Sorge. Jesuit Father Sorge has been the editor of two prestigious Catholic magazines for many years: Catholic Civilization and Social Updates. He also directed the Pedro Arrupe Institute of. Palermo. In his long intellectual apostolate he collaborated in the drafting of important documents of the Magisterium of the Church. He is the author of numerous essays. Among the latter we mention the one written with the political scientist Chiara Tintori: Why populism hurts the people. The deviations of democracy and the antidote of "popularism" (Ed. Holy Land, 2019). In the latest CENSIS report there is a point that has greatly affected public opinion: one Italian out of two "hopes for the" strong man in power ", who does not have to worry about parliament and elections. All of this in an increasingly "unpleasant" and anxious social context. What explanation has been given in this "hope" in the strong man? The CENSIS report confirms the crisis of representative democracy in Italy. This, which is the highest form of democracy experienced so far, gave citizens security because it rested on mass ideologies, which guaranteed cohesion, ideal inspiration and hope. At the same time, the existence of ideological parties, highly structured thanks to "democratic centralism", facilitated and to a certain extent required the participation of citizens in the elaboration and control of national politics. Mass ideologies have failed (denied by history), ideological parties have failed as a result, and citizens have found themselves disbanded and insecure. At this point, the innate need for security that we all fueled the illusion that overcoming the crisis of confidence and the confusion that followed the end of the ideological era would have been achieved by entrusting power to one "strong man". Thus were born the two pseudo-ideologies of populism and sovereignty. In populism, the "strong man" exercises power, referring directly to the people, practically ignoring the institutional intermediation, characteristic of representative democracy. The phrase of one of these "pseudo-saviors of the country" remained famous: "Even if the judiciary condemns me, it doesn't matter; there is the people who vote for me! »It is evident that by denying the balance and autonomy of the various powers, representative democracy is destroyed. In sovereignism, on the other hand, the strong man aims to democratically obtain "full powers"; he therefore acts as a defender of borders, values and national identity ("Italians first!"), and does not hesitate even to exploit faith and religious symbols. In doing so, however, it feeds and spreads an atmosphere of hatred, selfishness, racism and exasperated nationalism .. Pope Francis, with his social evangelical teaching, in recent years has warned against the dangers of populism and sovereignty. Nonetheless, several Catholics, even among the hierarchy, suffer sovereign charm. Why? What is the most dangerous thing about sovereignty? Catholics are particularly sensitive to the reasons just mentioned. After all. it is not the first time that members of the clergy and of the Hierarchy let themselves be fascinated by the defense that the "strong man" flaunts of some values that the Church cares about, such as the defense of life, the indissolubility of marriage, the public posting of the crucifix and other forms of religiosity. We do not realize that "good politics" does not consist only in protecting one or the other fundamental value, if at the same time - as happens in all dictatorships - freedom and other essential rights to human coexistence are denied. I ask you: as a scholar of the "social doctrine" of the Church, which is very attentive to the reasons of the poor, is there a way to bring democracy closer to the poor? The serious question of the relationship between democracy and poverty is not resolved with assistance (although in some cases, it is necessary), but the problem must be tackled at the origin and at the root, that is, eliminating inequalities. However, this is not possible, if politics does not recover the ethical and ideal tension, now lost, if economic policy, in particular, is not oriented towards the common good, which today is constantly sacrificed in search of profit and other interests. sector. Financial policy cannot be an end in itself. At the same time, however, it is necessary to find ways to directly address the poor and the social and existential peripheries, involving them as subjects responsible for their own development and not considering them only a goal to be achieved or a problem to be solved. In other words, it is a question of realizing a "mature democracy". What is the "structure of sin", to use a term of the social doctrine of the Church, which conditions Italian politics? Unfortunately there is not a single one, but the sinful structures that condition our national politics are numerous and of a different nature. Some dominate us from the outside, such as the international economic system, which - in this season of progressive globalization - are the ones that most generate inequalities between the North and the South of the world and in the development of individual peoples, even to "kill", as denounces Pope Francis. There are also many other "structures of sin", without solidarity, which aim exclusively at their own profit (think, for example, of the tax havens, the mafias and the various forms of organization of crime and corruption, the war and armaments) and prevent the birth of a fraternal and just, inclusive society capable of harmonizing development and integration. An authoritative Cardinal, in an interview with Corriere della Sera, said that democratic Catholicism has exhausted its relevance. I ask you: can democratic Catholicism still have a role in this Italy dominated by "sovereign" culture? Democratic Catholicism has by no means exhausted its driving force. Thanks also to the decisive and irreplaceable role it played both in the rebirth of the country, after the devastations of the last world war and the fascist twenty years, and in the elaboration of the Constitutional Charter, whose fundamental principles agree with the Catholic-democratic tradition (in full harmony with the social doctrine of the Church): personalism, solidarity, subsidiarity, common good. This is why the great protagonists of democratic Catholicism, from De Gasperi to Moro, have not lost their ideal and exemplary value, although their figure and their party practices are no longer reproducible in the changed society of today, post-ideological, secularized and globalized. There have been attempts, even recent, to reconstruct Catholic political instruments (parties of Christian inspiration), while the Italian Church also insists on the need for a more effective political presence of Catholics. Is there a way for a renewed prophetic lay protagonism? The presence of a Christian-inspired party (which was the Popular Party first and then the DC) was necessary in the era of mass ideologies, when voting for a party meant choosing a specific ideology, that is, preferring one or the other among alternative models of society. The DC, therefore, embodied the "Catholic" ideology, opposed to the "communist" and "liberal" ideology. Today, in the post-ideological and globalization era, parties are always necessary, but it no longer makes sense to speak of "ideological parties". Much less does it make sense to speak of a "Catholic" party or politics after the Second Vatican Council. In the globalized world there is no room for the old ideological oppositions. Instead, there is a need for a universal "good policy" based on a new common humanism. This is a difficult goal to achieve, because it is difficult to change mentality after fifty years of battles and ideological struggles; in fact we have not yet found what new form of presence Catholics must adopt to help achieve a universal "good policy", shared by all men of good will, beyond the old ideological belonging. Pope Francis dedicated some dense paragraphs of his first encyclical Evangelii gaudium (nn. 223-233) to this theme, which have yet to be well understood, deepened and applied. This is why educating and training especially young people in search of new forms of social and political commitment should be one of the most important pastoral concerns of the Church. A bit like Pius XI did in Italy, when, during the fascist dictatorship, he was concerned with preparing a group of mature lay people for social and political commitment, through Catholic Action and the Catholic University of Milan . If you were to indicate to a young person who wants to seriously engage in politics a figure to be inspired by, for example, who would you recommend? I would be spoiled for choice ... I would prefer, therefore, to explain the beauty of the political commitment in itself. I would insist that pursuing politics is a "vocation" and not a profession like any other. In fact, there are professional choices that suppose a vocation, in that they require the total donation of oneself to the service of others and of the common good, renouncing to seek one's own interest and affirmation; so it happens, for example, for a doctor or a priest. Having a vocation means above all realizing in one's life the synthesis between spirituality (ethical and ideal tension) and professionalism. To be good politicians (or doctors or priests) it is not enough to be "holy", it also requires professional preparation; but professionalism alone cannot suffice if there is no "holiness", that is, the oblative dimension, typical of those who live an ideal. In recent months the movement of the "sardines" has asserted itself. What struck you most? The phenomenon of "sardines" constitutes a positive reaction of the democratic conscience in the face of the pathological phenomena of populism and sovereignty and in the face of the crisis and inertia of the parties. The "sardines" must therefore be seen as a positive sign, a breath of fresh and fresh air! However, it is still too early to judge what the real consistency of the movement and its true political message are. We are facing a budding: it can grow and develop, but it could also "burn" and dry out. Last question: Do you have a dream for Italy? More than a dream, it is a vote and a commitment: that all Italians learn to live together, respecting each other. (Collaborated by Chiara Tintori)
Share
February 7, 2020 Even in the Italian Catholic world, "sovereignty" is making intellectuals, theologians and lay people engaged in politics discuss. We know that Pope Francis, in his social Magisterium, has repeatedly warned against the dangers of populism and sovereignty, even with harsh words. But what, in the light of the Church's social doctrine, are the limits of this political orientation? Does democratic Catholicism still play a role in Italian society? What are the "structures of sin" that seriously affect Italian politics? We talk about all this with a great protagonist of Italian Catholicism: Father Bartolomeo Sorge. Jesuit Father Sorge has been the editor of two prestigious Catholic magazines for many years: Catholic Civilization and Social Updates. He also directed the Pedro Arrupe Institute of. Palermo. In his long intellectual apostolate he collaborated in the drafting of important documents of the Magisterium of the Church. He is the author of numerous essays. Among the latter we mention the one written with the political scientist Chiara Tintori: Why populism hurts the people. The deviations of democracy and the antidote of "popularism" (Ed. Holy Land, 2019). In the latest CENSIS report there is a point that has greatly affected public opinion: one Italian out of two "hopes for the" strong man in power ", who does not have to worry about parliament and elections. All of this in an increasingly "unpleasant" and anxious social context. What explanation has been given in this "hope" in the strong man? The CENSIS report confirms the crisis of representative democracy in Italy. This, which is the highest form of democracy experienced so far, gave citizens security because it rested on mass ideologies, which guaranteed cohesion, ideal inspiration and hope. At the same time, the existence of ideological parties, highly structured thanks to "democratic centralism", facilitated and to a certain extent required the participation of citizens in the elaboration and control of national politics. Mass ideologies have failed (denied by history), ideological parties have failed as a result, and citizens have found themselves disbanded and insecure. At this point, the innate need for security that we all fueled the illusion that overcoming the crisis of confidence and the confusion that followed the end of the ideological era would have been achieved by entrusting power to one "strong man". Thus were born the two pseudo-ideologies of populism and sovereignty. In populism, the "strong man" exercises power, referring directly to the people, practically ignoring the institutional intermediation, characteristic of representative democracy. The phrase of one of these "pseudo-saviors of the country" remained famous: "Even if the judiciary condemns me, it doesn't matter; there is the people who vote for me! »It is evident that by denying the balance and autonomy of the various powers, representative democracy is destroyed. In sovereignism, on the other hand, the strong man aims to democratically obtain "full powers"; he therefore acts as a defender of borders, values and national identity ("Italians first!"), and does not hesitate even to exploit faith and religious symbols. In doing so, however, it feeds and spreads an atmosphere of hatred, selfishness, racism and exasperated nationalism. Pope Francis, with his social evangelical teaching, in recent years has warned against the dangers of populism and sovereignty. Nonetheless, several Catholics, even among the hierarchy, suffer sovereign charm. Why? What is the most dangerous thing about sovereignty? Catholics are particularly sensitive to the reasons just mentioned. After all. it is not the first time that members of the clergy and of the Hierarchy let themselves be fascinated by the defense that the "strong man" flaunts of some values that the Church cares about, such as the defense of life, the indissolubility of marriage, the public posting of the crucifix and other forms of religiosity. We do not realize that "good politics" does not consist only in protecting one or the other fundamental value, if at the same time - as happens in all dictatorships - freedom and other essential rights to human coexistence are denied. I ask you: as a scholar of the "social doctrine" of the Church, which is very attentive to the reasons of the poor, is there a way to bring democracy closer to the poor? The serious question of the relationship between democracy and poverty is not resolved with assistance (although in some cases, it is necessary), but the problem must be tackled at the origin and at the root, that is, eliminating inequalities. However, this is not possible, if politics does not recover the ethical and ideal tension, now lost, if economic policy, in particular, is not oriented towards the common good, which today is constantly sacrificed in search of profit and other interests. sector. Financial policy cannot be an end in itself. At the same time, however, it is necessary to find ways to directly address the poor and the social and existential peripheries, involving them as subjects responsible for their own development and not considering them only a goal to be achieved or a problem to be solved. In other words, it is a question of realizing a "mature democracy". What is the "structure of sin", to use a term of the social doctrine of the Church, which conditions Italian politics? Unfortunately there is not a single one, but the sinful structures that condition our national politics are numerous and of a different nature. Some dominate us from the outside, such as the international economic system, which - in this season of progressive globalization - are the ones that most generate inequalities between the North and the South of the world and in the development of individual peoples, even to "kill", as denounces Pope Francis. There are also many other "structures of sin", without solidarity, which aim exclusively at their own profit (think, for example, of the tax havens, the mafias and the various forms of organization of crime and corruption, the war and armaments) and prevent the birth of a fraternal and just, inclusive society capable of harmonizing development and integration. An authoritative Cardinal, in an interview with Corriere della Sera, said that democratic Catholicism has exhausted its relevance. I ask you: can democratic Catholicism still have a role in this Italy dominated by "sovereign" culture? Democratic Catholicism has by no means exhausted its driving force. Thanks also to the decisive and irreplaceable role it played both in the rebirth of the country, after the devastations of the last world war and the fascist twenty years, and in the elaboration of the Constitutional Charter, whose fundamental principles agree with the Catholic-democratic tradition (in full harmony with the social doctrine of the Church): personalism, solidarity, subsidiarity, common good. This is why the great protagonists of democratic Catholicism, from De Gasperi to Moro, have not lost their ideal and exemplary value, although their figure and their party practices are no longer reproducible in the changed society of today, post-ideological, secularized and globalized. There have been attempts, even recent, to reconstruct Catholic political instruments (parties of Christian inspiration), while the Italian Church also insists on the need for a more effective political presence of Catholics. Is there a way for a renewed prophetic lay protagonism? The presence of a Christian-inspired party (which was the Popular Party first and then the DC) was necessary in the era of mass ideologies, when voting for a party meant choosing a specific ideology, that is, preferring one or the other among alternative models of society. The DC, therefore, embodied the "Catholic" ideology, opposed to the "communist" and "liberal" ideology. Today, in the post-ideological and globalization era, parties are always necessary, but it no longer makes sense to speak of "ideological parties". Much less does it make sense to speak of a "Catholic" party or politics after the Second Vatican Council. In the globalized world there is no room for the old ideological oppositions. Instead, there is a need for a universal "good policy" based on a new common humanism. This is a difficult goal to achieve, because it is difficult to change mentality after fifty years of battles and ideological struggles; in fact we have not yet found what new form of presence Catholics must adopt to help achieve a universal "good policy", shared by all men of good will, beyond the old ideological belonging. Pope Francis dedicated some dense paragraphs of his first encyclical Evangelii gaudium (nn. 223-233) to this theme, which have yet to be well understood, deepened and applied. This is why educating and training especially young people in search of new forms of social and political commitment should be one of the most important pastoral concerns of the Church. A bit like Pius XI did in Italy at the time, when, during the fascist dictatorship, he was concerned with preparing a group of mature lay people for social and political commitment, through Catholic Action and the Catholic University of Milan . If you were to indicate to a young person who wants to seriously engage in politics a figure to be inspired by, for example, who would you recommend? I would be spoiled for choice ... I would prefer, therefore, to explain the beauty of the political commitment in itself. I would insist that pursuing politics is a "vocation" and not a profession like any other. In fact, there are professional choices that suppose a vocation, in that they require the total donation of oneself to the service of others and of the common good, renouncing to seek one's own interest and affirmation; so it happens, for example, for a doctor or a priest. Having a vocation means above all realizing in one's life the synthesis between spirituality (ethical and ideal tension) and professionalism. To be good politicians (or doctors or priests) it is not enough to be "holy", it also requires professional preparation; but professionalism alone cannot suffice if there is no "holiness", that is, the oblative dimension, typical of those who live an ideal. In recent months the movement of the "sardines" has asserted itself. What struck you most? The phenomenon of "sardines" constitutes a positive reaction of the democratic conscience in the face of the pathological phenomena of populism and sovereignty and in the face of the crisis and inertia of the parties. The "sardines" must therefore be seen as a positive sign, a breath of fresh and fresh air! However, it is still too early to judge what the real consistency of the movement and its true political message are. We are facing a budding: it can grow and develop, but it could also "burn" and dry out. Last question: Do you have a dream for Italy? More than a dream, it is a vote and a commitment: that all Italians learn to live together, respecting each other. (Collaborated by Chiara Tintori)
