Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Europe in search of its identity


Europe in search of its identity

The debate about the Christian roots of European Civilization

Andrea Bonazzi

While in Italy for my sabbatical year I have had the opportunity of becoming acquainted with a very lively debate going on all around Europe[1] about the new Constitution for the European Union. Pope John Paul II himself has taken this debate very much to heart, and has spoken of it with increasing fervour in many public addresses. He has asked that “the treaty explicitly acknowledge the Christian roots of Europe.” But the chances that his appeal will be acknowledged look very low at this moment.
  In this paper I would like to relate about a few aspects of this debate, taking advantage of the contributions
by Silvio Ferrari, and Pietro De Marco, about a dream that also belongs to Pope Wojtyla: the acknowledgment of the Christian roots of modern politics.

Europe, Secularity and Christianity

Why is it that the appeal by the pope looks unlikely to be accepted? One of the reasons widely repeated is that the future charter of Europe must be of a secular character, and that there is an irreconcilable contrast between secularism and Christianity.  But that’s not a good reason. Both on the philosophical and on the historical level, this contrast is a false one. The modern secular state has its roots in Christianity and in the distinction between religion and politics that it introduced. It is secular because it is Christian: this is the true nature of Europe. Silvio Ferrari, a professor at the state University of Milan and a great expert in religious law, explains this in an article published in the magazine of the Sacred Heart Fathers of Bologna, “Il Regno” no. 16, September 15, 2003. It was presented by Ferrari at the “Summer School on Religions in Europe” held last August at San Gimignano, Tuscany, and organized by the Association for the study of Religious Phenomena, ASFER[2].

“I am convinced, says prof. Ferrari, that the identity of Europe – and thus its specificity in regard to other civilizations – is found in its political secularity, and that this secularity has its roots precisely in Christianity.”  In a rough approximation, we can say that secularity consists in the refusal to identify a political system with any specifically religious conception of the world; that is, the refusal of a totalizing vision of society, in which public institutions act as an extension of a religion or an ideology. This refusal is, in large part, an appropriation from Christianity, which introduced into history – with much greater clarity than Judaism and especially Islam – the distinction between religion and politics.

This distinction implies that religion may inspire political choices, but does not constitute its direct and immediate justification: even the most delicate choices (one thinks of abortion and euthanasia) cannot be motivated on the political level with the affirmation “God wants it that way.” It is completely legitimate to maintain that abortion and euthanasia violate divine law and thus commit oneself to preventing their legalization, but in the political realm, this argument alone is not enough. One must prove the sound foundations of one’s convictions and choices, adding arguments that demonstrate their reasonableness. In this perspective, secularism presents itself as the platform for a “democracy by argument” where an exchange among various political choices takes place.

 This idea of political secularism alone would be enough to distinguish Europe from other continents, civilizations, and cultures. But I believe that it’s possible to go even further. The exchange among various political alternatives that constitutes the secularity of the state is founded on a presupposition: the existence of principles of universal validity that can be recognized and shared by all “reasonable” human beings; beings, that is, who are capable of using their reason well. [3] Without the conviction that good and evil, justice and injustice, exist, this exchange would be a useless waste of time. A politically secular society need not be relativistic: it can admit that there exist universal values capable of bringing together persons belonging to different cultures, religions, and ethnicities, and that these same persons can identify these values through a search and an exchange conducted according to the rules of the argumentation of ideas mentioned above.
This is another idea that Christianity has, over time, made its own: the existence of natural law – already affirmed by Greco-Roman thought – and human ability to know it are central to the Thomistic conception of society. Beginning with Grotius and Pufendorf, this idea underwent a process of secularization, but it was not obliterated: in other words, reference to God as the foundation of natural law was removed, but the idea that natural law exists and is rationally definable was not diminished.[4] The currently popular conception of the fundamental rights of the human person is based at least implicitly on this presupposition. Again, this seems to me an element that distinguishes the West, and Europe in particular. It was not by accident that the concept of the fundamental rights of the human person was born in the West and is accepted only with great reservations in other parts of the world: the idea of natural law – that is, the idea that there exists a law that binds all human beings even before the law that follows from their religious, political, or national adherence – is today very weak in Muslim thought, and is the object of significant criticism in Jewish cultural tradition. In the absence of natural law, law of religious origin becomes immediately the point of reference for the construction of political society as well, in which those who do not belong to the dominant religion are frequently marginalized.

  The plan for a secular state in which all – believers, non-believers, the faithful of various religions – can live together was born in Europe because the Greco-Roman and Christian cultural heritage gave us the idea of natural law: this permitted to identify a common platform of rights and duties beginning from which persons of different memberships, traditions, and convictions can work together in peace and equality. These, in synthesis, are the reasons why it should be maintained that the secularity of the state and of politics is at the heart of European identity. One should not forget that also the concept of “Christian forgiveness” has played a decisive role in the formation of Europe. It must be said that, after the breakdown of the Roman Empire, it is the Church that has taught the various semi-barbaric and very much violence-prone tribes and peoples that held sway over Europe, to live together.

 From the above, moreover, it is clear how much Christianity has contributed to the development of this idea of secularity. The fact that this was affirmed in consequence of the religious wars and then became the banner of the 19th century liberal state – the fact that secularism was imposed on Europe apart from the Church and in spite of its opposition – does not change the fact that it has its roots in the distinction between religion and politics proper to Christianity. It is for this reason that, during the last century, political secularism could be recovered as a truly Christian value by the Protestant Churches, the Catholic Church, and, more recently, the Orthodox Churches.

Christianity and the Constitution of the EU

Placed in this context, the preamble of the new constitution, proposed by the Convention, seems a bit disappointing. It contains a series of references to rights, liberties, and democracy, but omits any reference to secularism, the element that distinguishes Europe from other civilizations. Some propose to insert into the European constitution a reference to the Christian roots of Europe, but even that doesn’t seem like enough. In one sense, it lends itself to an interpretation in terms of “archaeology,” an homage to a past that has little influence on the questions that really matter today. In another, it doesn’t take into account the reasons for mentioning the Christian tradition in a Europe that is becoming ever more secularized and multireligious. A generic remembrance of the Christian roots of Europe would not highlight enough the nexus that binds secularism and Christianity, and would thus place itself in a somewhat eccentric position in respect to what, especially in a juridical and political document like a constitution, is the center of the problem: the question of the rights and liberties of the citizens, which find their fundamental guarantee in the secularity of the state.

Courage is undoubtedly needed in order to acknowledge the Christian roots of political secularism, and, on the other side, the value of secularism for the construction of a united Europe. For too long, secularism and Christianity have been presented and perceived in terms of irreconcilable contrast. This explains why neither secularism nor Christianity is ever mentioned in the draft of the European constitution. But in this way the risk is to remain prisoners of the prejudice of the past, while the present teaches us that, by now, secularism and Christianity are on the same side of the barricade. Their enemies – for example, political-religious radicalism – are frequently the same. Today, more than ever, it is clear that the contrast between Christianity and secularism is false, not only on the philosophical level, but on the historical level as well.

 As profoundly secularized as it is, contemporary Europe remains founded on principles and values of religious origin, and more precisely of Christian origin: this is the meaning of the statement by Carl Schmitt, according to whom “all of the most pregnant concepts of modern doctrine of the state are secularized theological concepts.” [5]
Prof. Ferrari has two concluding observations. A good constitution must strive to evaluate all of the contributions that have gone toward forming the heritage of the civilization on which it is founded. To that end, many have suggested mentioning in the preamble of the future constitution the “Jewish-Christian” heritage of Europe. In many areas, there may be continuities between Judaism and Christianity, but not in all. Jewish law, for example, is much closer to Islamic law than to canon law or that of the other Christian Churches, which were much more deeply impacted upon by Roman law. These differences probably would not be expressed by the mention of “the Jewish and Christian heritage” of Europe.

The reference to Judaism and Christianity leaves out only Islam from among the great religions of the Mediterranean basin. Apart from the fact that this is politically inopportune, it seems fundamentally unjust: around the end of the first millennium Europe acquired a debt toward Islam that the following centuries of conflict were not able to cancel. Spain, southern Italy, and the Balkans still preserve splendid traces of the Muslim civilization, and the studies of Bernard Lewis have shown how extended and profound is the contribution that it made to European science and culture.[6] Without wishing in any way to equate the roles that Christianity and Islam had in the history of Europe, to pass over the Muslim tradition in silence seems to some myopic and hardly generous. For all these reasons, if it is thought opportune to modify the second clause of the preamble of the future European constitution (which now reads, “Inspired by the cultural, religious, and humanistic heritage of Europe...”), one could consider a formula of this tenor: “Inspired by the heritage constituted by the Greek and Roman civilizations, by the Jewish and Christian religious traditions, in fertile dialogue with the Muslim tradition, by the philosophical currents of the age of the Enlightenment...”[7]

The sacrament of power

Now De Marco[8], for his part, wants to underline how the question of secularism founded on Christian political theology goes beyond the static separation of religious and civil authorities and their respective “citizenships.” In his profound reflection of a half a century ago, in an essay entitled “The New Science of Politics,” Eric Voegelin asserts: “In this way the political theology [of Varrone e Cicero] was ended by orthodox Christianity [of St. Augustine]. The spiritual destiny of man in the Christian sense cannot be represented on earth by the power organization of a political society; it can be represented only by the Church. The sphere of power is radically de-divinized; it has become temporal. [In reality,] the specifically modern problems of representation are connected with the re-divinization of society.”[9]
  The latter process is brought about, according to Voegelin, by heretical developments, which are then secularized, like the eschatological trinitarianism of Gioacchino da Fiore, or even the expectation of the ultimate earthly Kingdom. The foundation of secularism in orthodox Christian doctrine thus principally comprehends the protection of the de-divinized political order from the constant risk of its tendency toward absolutism, from the assertion of a single and salvific political power, from politics as a sacrament. This is what is really at stake for secularism.
  Paolo Prodi[10] ended his great book of 1992 “The Sacrament of Power” with an exhortation: “We must learn to both transmit to new peoples and to demand from them respect for the techniques and mechanisms of the democratic system, but in the first place the spirit of the [Christian theological-political] dualism. If it is true that desacralization is the fruit of Western Christianity, then the principle of dual belonging, a dual order, is our tragedy – but it can also be our salvation [and that of others, I would add].”
  What does secularism as the original and permanent de-divinization of politics imply? It implies that political modernity is essentially Christian, and, at the same time, that religious membership is necessary to guarantee that political citizenship not be corrupted. From this follows the recognition of Christianity, above all, and of the other founding religions. In the European constitutional charter that is being defined, this “datum” must be displayed. The historically shallow political culture of certain élites of the European community and the Christian subcultures that participate in their opacity must not think that they can smother an irreducible structure. It would not be the first time that history has punished these forms of ignorance.[11]

“Ecclesia in Europa”

Europe's crisis of values has been the topic of many of John Paul II's addresses this summer. He focused on the topic during six public addresses on Sundays to pilgrims gathered in the courtyard of the papal summer residence in Castelgandolfo to pray the Angelus. "It cannot be denied that, in these our times, Europe is going through a crisis of values, and it is important that it recover its true identity," the Pope said on Sunday when commenting on the apostolic exhortation "Ecclesia in Europa." That document gathered the conclusions of the 1999 Synod of Bishops of Europe. It took almost four years and 130 pages of text for John Paul II to sum up the 1999 special assembly of the Synod of Bishops for Europe. His conclusions are contained in this Apostolic Exhortation, published Saturday, June 28, and available on the Vatican’s web site. In it, the pope analyzes the situation of the Church in Europe in the light of the Apocalypse, the New Testament book that “discloses to the community of believers the deep and hidden meaning of what is taking place.” And just as among the seven Churches of the Apocalypse there were those with an impoverished faith, so too -– the pope says – it is among the Churches of Europe today. In paragraph 47 of “Ecclesia in Europa,” a concerned John Paul II writes: “‘When the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?’ (Lk 18:8). Will he find faith in our countries, in this Europe of ancient Christian tradition? This is an open question which clearly reveals the depth and the drama of one of the most serious challenges which our Churches are called to face”. John Paul II invites the Catholics of Europe to “awake, and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death” (Rev 3:2) and offers guidance in “promoting a new proclamation of the Gospel”.
"The process of enlargement of the European Union to include other countries cannot refer only to geographical and economic aspects, but must be translated in a renewed agreement of values to be expressed in law and in life," the Holy Father said commenting on the Exhortation.
  For the Pope, Europe is not just "a geographic place,"[12] but, rather, "predominantly a cultural and historical concept" to which the Christian faith has given its form, and whose fundamental values have inspired "the democratic ideal and human rights of European modernity."
  Beyond the lack of mention of the role of Christianity in the future European Constitution, which is in its final phase of redaction, what worries the Pontiff is the progressive secularization of the Continent in the form of "agnosticism and practical atheism" [see Angelus of July 27].
  Confronted with this situation, the Pope proposes "a renewed commitment" which is "indispensable if we are to face the challenges of secularization, so that believers may make their entire life a true spiritual worship that is pleasing to God," in particular, through rediscovering the "value of Sunday," as he explained at the Angelus on Aug. 3.

"This day is the symbol par excellence of all that Christianity has stood for and still stands for, in Europe and throughout the world: the perennial proclamation of the Good News of the resurrection of Jesus, the celebration of his victory over sin and death, the commitment to the human being's full liberation," he said. "By preserving the Christian meaning of Sunday, a notable contribution is made to Europe for the preservation of an essential part of its own particular spiritual and cultural heritage," he added. This proclamation of the essential message of the Gospel, he said on the 8th of August, must be supported by "effective human promotion," inspired by "the culture of solidarity." "Today too, it is necessary to give renewed hope to the poor, so that in welcoming and serving them, it is Christ himself who welcomes and serves," he said. "Many challenges in this regard confront European believers. Today, there are many categories of persons who are poor: among them, the unemployed, the sick, isolated or abandoned elderly persons, the homeless, marginalized youth, immigrants and refugees." "A service of love also means to re-propose faithfully the truth about matrimony and the family, to educate young people, engaged couples and families themselves to live and spread the Gospel of life, fighting against the culture of death," the Holy Father added.
  The Pope's constant reminder of the need to recognize the contribution of Christian values is based on his conviction, expressed the same day, that "only with everyone's contribution will it be possible to build a 'city worthy of man' in Europe and in the world, and a more just and stable international order."

Sunday 18th of August Address

1. The day before yesterday, the solemnity of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, the liturgy exhorted us to lift our gaze to heaven to contemplate Mary in the new Jerusalem, the Holy City that comes down from God (see Revelation 21:2).

"Behold, I make all things new," the Lord says (ibid., 21,5). In the Book of Revelation, the Gospel of hope resounds with vigor, which impels one to receive the "novelty of God," an eschatological gift that goes beyond every human possibility, and which only he can bring about. This "novelty" will be fulfilled at the end of time, but it is already present in history. Already now, in fact, through the Church, God is renewing and transforming the world, and the reflections of his action are perceptible also "in every form of human coexistence inspired by the Gospel" ("Ecclesia in Europa," No. 107).

2. The European Continent, which for 2,000 years "has heard the Gospel of the Kingdom inaugurated by Jesus" (ibid., 107), cannot but be understood by this "novelty." The Christian faith has given it form, and some of its fundamental values have later inspired "the democratic ideal and human rights" of European modernity. In addition to being "a geographic place," Europe is "predominantly a cultural and historical concept," characterized as a Continent thanks also to the unifying force of Christianity, which has been a primary factor of unity among peoples and cultures and of the integral promotion of man and his rights (see ibid., No. 108).

It cannot be denied that, in these our times, Europe is going though a crisis of values, and it is important that it recover its true identity. The process of enlargement of the European Union to include other countries cannot refer only to geographical and economic aspects, but must be translated in a renewed agreement of values to be expressed in law and in life (see ibid., No. 110).

3. Let us pray to the Holy Virgin, venerated in so many European shrines, so that she will help the Continent to always be aware of its spiritual vocation and contribute to build solidarity and peace "within its borders and throughout the world" (No. 113).[translation www.zenit.org].

Separation of church and state

Some people see active participation of religious leaders in political debates as an intrusion of the church, especially the Catholic Church, into politics and global affairs. But, according to others, that kind of criticism has only one purpose: to bully Catholics and other religious believers into being silent when they should speak up. People need to act on their convictions, especially their religious beliefs, or their convictions eventually disappear. Politics is the application of power to human affairs. The use of power always raises moral, and therefore religious, questions about the nature of right and wrong, and what constitutes the common good. So the Church would be very foolish – in fact, she would be unfaithful to her mission -- if she didn't actively promote religious freedom. How a society thinks about God, sooner or later shapes how it treats the human person. The right meaning of the "separation of church and state”, does not require an irreligious state. It's possible for a society to give preferential status to one religion without automatically persecuting others. But the devil is in the details. Many Muslims would claim that Islamic law, Shariah, achieves this by favoring Islam while guaranteeing certain rights to Jews and Christians. But the historical record shows the opposite: that Shariah actually marginalizes and oppresses Christians and other religious believers and prevents them from fully participating in the life of the nation. In Saudi Arabia, a Muslim who converts to Christianity risks his or her life, and all non-Muslim religious practice is banned.
  A genuine faith in God should always lead us to a deeper respect for the rights of the human person, including people with different religions from our own, because we are all created by the same Father. So Europe has a special opportunity and vocation in this field. It can offer a great example to the world of different religions living amicably with one another and cooperating for the common good. That can only happen, of course, if religious believers take their faith peacefully but vigorously into the public square -- including the voting booth. "Separation of church and state" should never mean exiling religion from public affairs. The U.S. Constitution, for instance, forbids the establishment of a specific state church. It does not forbid, and the founders never intended to forbid, active religious involvement in public debate.
  Politics is where the work takes place to ensure the common good and individual human dignity. So Catholics need to be very involved. They need to understand their Catholic faith, and they need to rely on it as a guide in their political decisions. Vatican II's pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world ["Gaudium et Spes"], declaration on religious liberty ["Dignitatis Humanae"] and the social encyclicals, including "Evangelium Vitae," are tremendous resources. Catholics should welcome cooperation with people of other religions, or no religion, who share a spirit of good will. The one thing Catholics cannot do is claim to be "Catholic" and then keep their faith out of their political actions. You can't personally believe in the humanity of the unborn child, and then vote for a law that allows the killing of that child. You can't personally support religious freedom, and then be silent about an "ally" that persecutes religious minorities. That's a form of lying.[13]

A Letter to Europeans from a European Muslim

“Europe is in debt to Christianity because, like it or not, that is what has given it its form, meaning, and values. Denying all of this means, for Europe, denying itself.” This is the lesson from the Muslim Khaled Fouad Allam.  Algerian by birth, Allam is an Italian citizen since 1990, and a professor of Islamic studies at the universities of Trieste and Urbino, a scholar highly respected and followed in ecclesiastical circles. On the front page of the September 23 edition of “la Repubblica,” the most important left-wing secularist newspaper printed in Italy, of which he is an editorialist, Allam published an open letter to Europeans that resounds as a severe lesson to all those who, by denying the Christian roots of Europe, in reality annihilate themselves and close themselves off from any acceptance of others.
  In his letter Allam also gives an interpretation of John Paul II’s vision of Europe: “What can the Holy Father do other than renew constantly St. Francis’ travels to the sultans of the world, toward other cultures and religions?” Over the following two days, the newspaper of the Italian bishops’ conference, “Avvenire,” gave a great deal of coverage to the article by Allam. And they contrasted it with what took place over those very days in Strasbourg, in the European Parliament. There, on September 24, an amendment by the European Popular Party aimed at introducing an acknowledgment of the continent’s Christian roots into the future constitution was rejected with 283 votes against, 211 in favor, and 15 abstentions. The most recent draft limits itself to mentioning, in its preamble, “the cultural, religious, and humanistic heritage of Europe.” Here are some excerpts from the article by Allam:

 […] A Muslim brought up within Islam, I left the land that produced Saint Augustine, Albert Camus, and one of the greatest Islamic mystics, Sidi Abu Meddin. I learned to live within a witnessing Islam, capable of meeting confrontation and encountering others, and for this reason the question of the roots of Europe brings into question my being both European and Muslim. There are many complex and difficult questions at stake, but one of them is essential: the question of the foundations of European identity. […] The call of John Paul II to consider the question of the Christian roots of the continent assumes a central importance and requires much more than a simple historical and cultural interpretation.
Certainly, many have argued against this approach: some fear that this call could be transformed into a means of infringing upon the principles of secularism; others, appealing to the juridical-constitutional sphere, assert that the task of a constitution is that of organizing relations among the different powers.
These arguments have always seemed feeble to me. […] The question the Holy Father asks makes us recognize the fact that political thought cannot be reduced to quantifiable expertise, and that it is always necessary to question politics in order to prevent it from becoming an instrument of manipulation or a cynical expression of power. In the case of the question of Christian roots, the political situation is inviting us to make interpretations, to seek out reasons in order to understand, construct, formulate hypotheses. I have often wondered why the topic of Christian roots still undergoes such sustained polemics, while the word “market,” which resounds like a leitmotif throughout the text of the convention, has not provoked any reflection on the relationship between the market and the construction of Europe.
Certainly, at first glance it is possible to make an exclusivist interpretation of the phrase “Christian roots,” but this is an incorrect reading, because it does not consider the context in which the question is posed: this question is an extension of the pope’s twenty-five years of activity all over the planet.
In reality, John Paul II’s insistence on the question of the Christian roots of Europe must not be separated from his many initiatives for dialogue: from the prayer meeting in Assisi in 1986 to his meeting with Rabbi Toaff in the synagogue of Rome; from his voyage to Israel to his meeting in the mosque of Damascus with the mufti of that mosque, and, even earlier, his meeting in Casablanca with young Moroccans in 1985. All these things have created a new outlook, a new interpretation of Christianity that the history of past centuries had impeded. And the building of Europe at the beginning of the twenty-first century is taking place in parallel with the shaping of this new Christianity that has broken free from its own history and has interiorized secularization. In effect, what can the Holy Father do other than renew constantly St. Francis’ travels to the sultans of the world, toward other cultures and religions?
The polemics over Christian roots lay bare our contradictions: the refusal to acknowledge these roots is the symptom of a fear, an inner block in regard to everything that European youth, now in their forties, learned on their school benches (crusades, religious wars, St. Bartholomew’s Night, etc.); but history demands a critical and honest distancing.
On cannot escape the fact that our modern political structures are rooted in Christianity: our law and institutions are the fruit of a complex elaboration that this civilization produced, apart from the fratricidal struggles that have marked it in past centuries.

But something even more profound has marked in an indelible way this continent, whose cultural boundaries are varied but in which we recognize a single essence, something that is difficult to elaborate rationally in a univocal way, but is present in the deepest heart of the European character. It is the passion for freedom – or rather democratic passions – and the sense of participating in a common history that have made Christianity the focal point around which Europe has defined itself. It is thus that we are moved by a Christ of Cimabue or find ourselves enchanted by Renaissance Madonnas, that we are carried away by listening to a motet by Bach or Mozart’s Requiem. None of this would have been possible without that debt. Europe is in debt to Christianity because, like it or not, that is what has given it its form, meaning, and values. Denying all of this means, for Europe, denying itself.
The question of Christian roots of Europe, at a moment in which everyone is talking about cultural diversity and multiethnicity, brings up other problems: how can one welcome the other while denying oneself? How can we seal a pact among the communities of the world if Europe refuses to recognize itself? Roots go down into the ground, where they meet, and will meet, other roots. The roots of Christianity are planted in Jewish and Greek soil, and now Christianity is facing Islam, while in the future it will encounter Asia and Africa.
This encounter is possible only if one is aware of one’s own roots. Considering the roots of Europe means considering possible, and sometimes unprecedented, extensions of the continent. Today America, China, and Africa are testing us, each with its own roots made of suffering and hope, while in Europe unease has already taken form, and is spreading. Europe, face to face with itself, is rich in wisdom but must still accept itself. To me, it represents the olive tree in the Koran, in verse 35 of the Sura of Light, which “is neither of the East nor of the West.”
[translation: www.chiesa.espressonline.it]

Again “Ecclesia in Europa”

Because of its particular nature, “Ecclesia in Europa” runs the risk of being read by very few people. Yet there are passages in it that merit attention. Following is a list of some of the most relevant for our topic. In the parentheses are the paragraph numbers.

[7] The age we are living in, with its own particular challenges, can seem to be a time of bewilderment. [...] I would like to mention in a particular way the loss of Europe's Christian memory and heritage, accompanied by a kind of practical agnosticism and religious indifference whereby many Europeans give the impression of living without spiritual roots and somewhat like heirs who have squandered a patrimony entrusted to them by history. It is no real surprise, then, that there are efforts to create a vision of Europe which ignore its religious heritage, and in particular, its profound Christian soul, asserting the rights of the peoples who make up Europe without grafting those rights on to the trunk which is enlivened by the sap of Christianity.

[9] At the root of this loss of hope is an attempt to promote a vision of man apart from God and apart from Christ. This sort of thinking has led to man being considered as the absolute centre of reality, a view which makes him occupy – falsely – the place of God and which forgets that it is not man who creates God, but rather God who creates man. Forgetfulness of God led to the abandonment of man. It is therefore no wonder that in this context a vast field has opened for the unrestrained development of nihilism in philosophy, of relativism in values and morality, and of pragmatism – and even a cynical hedonism – in daily life. European culture gives the impression of “silent apostasy” on the part of people who have all that they need and who live as if God does not exist.

[9] This is the context for those attempts, including the most recent ones, to present European culture with no reference to the contribution of the Christian religion which marked its historical development and its universal diffusion. We are witnessing the emergence of a new culture, largely influenced by the mass media, whose content and character are often in conflict with the Gospel and the dignity of the human person. This culture is also marked by a widespread and growing religious agnosticism, connected to a more profound moral and legal relativism rooted in confusion regarding the truth about man as the basis of the inalienable rights of all human beings. At times the signs of a weakening of hope are evident in disturbing forms of what might be called a “culture of death”.

[10] Yet, as the Synod Fathers made clear, man cannot live without hope: life would become meaningless and unbearable. Often those in need of hope believe that they can find peace in fleeting and insubstantial things. In this way, hope, restricted to this world and closed to transcendence, is identified, for example, with the paradise promised by science or technology, with various forms of messianism, with a hedonistic natural felicity brought about by consumerism, or with the imaginary and artificial euphoria produced by drugs, with certain forms of millenarianism, with the attraction of oriental philosophies, with the quest for forms of esoteric spirituality and with the different currents of the New Age movement.

[18] From the synodal Assembly there emerged the clear and passionate certainty that the Church has to offer Europe the most precious of all gifts, a gift which no one else can give: faith in Jesus Christ, the source of the hope that does not disappoint; a gift which is at the origin of the spiritual and cultural unity of the European peoples and which both today and tomorrow can make an essential contribution to their development and integration. After twenty centuries, the Church stands at the beginning of the third millennium with a message which is ever the same, a message which constitutes her sole treasure: Jesus Christ is Lord; in him, and in no one else, do we find salvation (Acts 4:12).

[45] Church in Europe, the “new evangelization” is the task set before you! Rediscover the enthusiasm of proclamation. [...] Let the proclamation of Jesus, which is the Gospel of hope, be your boast and your whole life. Carry on with renewed zeal in the same missionary spirit which, down these twenty centuries, beginning with the preaching of the Apostles Peter and Paul, has inspired so many holy men and women, the Saints who were authentic evangelizers of the European continent.

[46] In various parts of Europe a first proclamation of the Gospel is needed: the number of the unbaptized is growing, both because of the significant presence of immigrants of other religions and because children born into families of Christian tradition have not received Baptism, either as a result of the Communist domination or the spread of religious indifference. Indeed, Europe is now one of those traditionally Christian places which, in addition to a new evangelization, require in some cases a first evangelization.

[47] Everywhere, then, a renewed proclamation is needed even for those already baptized. Many Europeans today think they know what Christianity is, yet they do not really know it at all. Often they are lacking in knowledge of the most basic elements and notions of the faith. Many of the baptized live as if Christ did not exist.

[116] One and universal, yet present in the multiplicity of the Particular Churches, the Catholic Church can offer a unique contribution to the building up of a Europe open to the world. The Catholic Church in fact provides a model of essential unity in a diversity of cultural expressions, a consciousness of membership in a universal community which is rooted in but not confined to local communities, and a sense of what unites beyond all that divides.
[117] In her relations with public authorities the Church is not calling for a return to the confessional state. She likewise deplores every type of ideological secularism or hostile separation between civil institutions and religious confessions.
For her part, in keeping with a healthy cooperation between the ecclesial community and political society, the Catholic Church is convinced that she can make a unique contribution to the prospect of unification by offering the European institutions, in continuity with her tradition and in fidelity to the principles of her social teaching, the engagement of believing communities committed to bringing about the humanization of society on the basis of the Gospel, lived under the sign of hope. From this standpoint, the presence of Christians, properly trained and competent, is needed in the various European agencies and institutions, in order to contribute – with respect for the correct dynamics of democracy and through an exchange of proposals – to the shaping of a European social order which is increasingly respectful of every man and woman, and thus in accordance with the common good.

[120] Europe needs to make a qualitative leap in becoming conscious of its spiritual heritage. The impetus for this can only come from hearing anew the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the responsibility of all Christians to commit themselves to satisfying this hunger and thirst for life.
Consequently the Church feels it her duty to repeat vigourously the message of hope entrusted to her by God and says again to Europe: “'The Lord your God is in your midst, a mighty Saviour!' (Zeph 3:17). Her invitation to hope is not based on a utopian ideology; on the contrary, it is the timeless message of salvation proclaimed by Christ (Mk 1:15). With the authority she has received from her Lord, the Church repeats to today's Europe: Europe of the third millennium, “let not your hands grow weak!” (Zeph 3:16); do not give in to discouragement, do not resign yourself to ways of thinking and living that have no future because they are not based on the solid certainty of God's Word!
Taking up anew this invitation to hope, I repeat to you again today: Europe, as you stand at the beginning of the third millennium, open the doors to Christ, be yourself, rediscover your origins, relive your roots. Down the centuries you have received the treasure of Christian faith. It has grounded your life as a society on principles drawn from the Gospel, and traces of this are evident in the art, literature, thought and culture of your nations. But this heritage does not belong just to the past; it is a project in the making, to be passed on to future generations, for it has indelibly marked the life of the individuals and peoples who together have forged the continent of Europe.
[121] Do not be afraid! The Gospel is not against you, but for you. This is confirmed by the fact that Christian inspiration is capable of transforming political, cultural and economic groupings into a form of coexistence in which all Europeans will feel at home and will form a family of nations from which other areas of the world can draw fruitful inspiration.
Be confident! In the Gospel, which is Jesus, you will find the sure and lasting hope to which you aspire. This hope is grounded in the victory of Christ over sin and death. He wishes this victory to be your own.

[1] While I am writing the Intergovernmental Conference that must approve the new Constitution of the European Union is taking place in Rome.
[2] The ASFeR was founded in Florence in 1985. In the Association’s Statute it is specified that its aim is “to notice and analyse the religious phenomena in their ample meaning according to a multi-disciplinary criterion, based on the models and the instruments of the human sciences, without ideological and confessional foreclosures” (art.3). Referring to this intent the Association has originated a body of Italian and foreign scholars of sciences of religion belonging to different fields and methods, with the purpose of developing and increasing further the scientific understanding of the religious factor in today’s society. In this way, in a few years the ASFeR, thanks to its review, “Religioni e  Società” (Religions & Societies), to the organization of the Colloqui Internazionali  (International Colloquiums) and to the International School on Religions in Europe, has become a considerable cultural nucleus of promotion and a significant place of scientific research at the international level.
[3] Take for instance the Socratic “Epimeleia thes psyches” or the Kantian “gesunde Vernunft” which implies good care for an healthy reason and avoiding being brain-washed by the media, for instance.
[4] It remains to be seen if a secularised concept can live very long and with no substantial distortion without any kind of link with the metaphysical or theological concept that has generated it.
[5] Carl Schmitt, Le categorie del ‘politico’, Il Mulino, Bologna, 1972, p. 61
[6] Bernard Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton. Other scholars would question this assertion, saying that Islamic influence over Europe stopped at the XIII century.
[7] Prof. Ferrari makes an acknowledgment: “I owe to Pietro De Marco the idea of integrating into the new European constitution a reference to Jewish and Christian civilization ‘in fertile relationship with that of Islam.’” In effect, De Marco advanced this proposal for an addition to the preamble last June 4, on www.chiesa.espressonline.it.
[8] Professor of Social Sciences at the State University of Firenze.
[9] Eric Voegelin (1901-1985) is one of the most original and influential philosophers of our time. Born in Cologne, Germany, he studied at the University of Vienna, where he became a professor of political science in the Faculty of Law. In 1938, he and his wife, fleeing Hitler, emigrated to the United States.
[10] Professor of Modern History at the state university of Bologna.
[11] These problems have been debated also at the “European Symposium: University and Church in Europe“, promoted by the Council of European Bishop’s Conferences (CCEE) and held in Rome between 17th and 20th of July on the occasion of the 7th centenary of the Foundation of the University of Rome “La Sapienza”.  At this symposium more than a thousand between students and teaching staff in representation of about 40 different European countries, have taken part in a very fruitful and lively debate.  The university too is a “gift from the heart of the Church”,  and even if now is an independent institution, in order to keep its original role in society it must stay in touch with its Christian roots. For this topic I would like to refer to the following web page: http://www.universitas2000.org/
[12] Paul Valery (1871-1945) once commented that “Europe will become what it is in reality, that is a small promontory of the Asiatic continent”.
[13] See the “Doctrinal Note on the Participation of Catholics in Political Life”, published by Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in November 2002, available on the Vatican’s web site.




本稿は、2000519日、本学で行われた哲学講演の講演者H・ザイデル先生から直接に投稿されたものである。恐らく、時間切れのため、講演会で話せなかった部分だと思われる。H・ザイデル(Horst Seidl)教授は、1938年にドイツのベルリン市で生まれ、1970年から1979年までミュンヘン大学(ドイツ)、1980年から1988年までニーメゲン大学(オランダ)で、哲学の講座を担当する経歴をもった先生である。1989年から現在に至るまでローマのラテラノ大学哲学部で古代哲学を担当している。
ザイデル先生の専攻は古代哲学であるが、講演で明かになったように日本の思想家(特に西田幾多郎と西谷啓治)についても積極的に研究している。今回の講演会のテーマとして、先生自身が「哲学と宗教の関係について」(On the Relation between Philosophy and Religion)を選ばれた。今回の投稿では、西田幾多郎の『善の研究』をとりあげ、西洋の伝統的な哲学の立脚点に立ちながら、西田を批判している。先生の持論を簡単にまとめてみると、このようなことになると思う。つまり、西田や西谷の宗教哲学はハイデガーやジェームスに影響されて、宗教と哲学をうまく区別出来なかった。


西田の出発点である「純粋経験」(W・ジェームス参照)は、意識の中身として考えられている。けれども伝統的に西洋哲学では、意識とは存在や存在の善についての認識「と共に」(con+scientia, sunei,dhsij働くものである。従って、意識において一つと感知される主体と対象は、実際に(存在論的に)一つ「である」ということに必ずしもならないのである。神秘体験者は神と合一したと感じることは、二人は存在論的に一つであるということにならない。二つの存在論的レベル(創造者と被造物)があって、根本的に(本質的に)異なり、それぞれ違った認識能力(感覚的認識と理性的認識)を伴う。上層レベルにおいては理性が主体と対象を区別しないわけは、神は単なる対象ではなく、万物でもなく、万物ないしすべての経験の第一原因であり、意識をも起こす原因であるからである。
次に主観主義の立場から西田はもっぱら主観の活動性に集中し、認識的活動と実践的活動を混同させて取り上げるのである。結果としていのちは実践に還元されてしまう(Aktivismus)。結局、ショーペンハウアー(Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, 1819)と同じように、存在の原理を意志とするプロテスタント的な「主意主義」に陥る。


西田においては思惟が経験主義的な捉え方の下で、感覚的認識に還元されている。J・ロックが「経験主義」の基礎付けとして使った名句、「すでに五感になかったもので、悟性に上るはずがない」(nihil est in intellectu, quod non prius fuerit in sensibus)に対して、ザイデル氏はライプニッツの語で持って答える、「悟性自体以外」(nisi intellectus ipse!!)。悟性が諸々の感覚の束、感覚的刺激への反応に過ぎないのであれば実体のないものになり、従って思考も実体のないものになりはしないか。
意志も、過去の純粋経験から生まれた願望(思い出)によって成り立ち、自己を究極目標とする、単なる「心理的現象」(W. Wundtの心理学の影響が認められる)として扱われる。意志から生まれる運動は、スピノザと同様に、「決定主義的に」(deterministisch)理解される。従って、(スピノザと同様に)自由意志が否定され、自由と感じられるのは意識の「体系的発展」のうちであって、外界に及ぶ実質の目標(善)はないのである。


アリストテレスのintellectus agensも絶えず活動する意識であるが、そこではintellectus in potentiaintellectus in actuという区別が設けられ(De anima III, 4-5参照)、前者は単なる「準備」であって、後者だけは真なる認識を得るのである。スピノザの時代から、この区別は曖昧になり、同時にnatura naturans(実在)とnatura naturata(可能体)であるスピノザの神は、同時に原因と結果という、矛盾をはらんだものとなる。

善は当為によって定義されるのではなく、むしろ当為は善によって定義されるべきであると、ザイデル氏はアリストテレス的伝統(Ethica Nicomachea)の立場から反論する。行為は、命じられているから善いものになるのではなく、善いものとして認識された行為を命じるべきなのである。


1.     超個人的(集団的)自己(Selbst)ないし生命に基づき、主体は或る一つの絶対統一に吸収される。
2.     その絶対統一は、個人的自己の克服(捨てること)によってのみ達せられる。というのは、すべての区別的認識(主体・対象のような区別)は放棄されるからである。
3.     努力の結果、達せられる目標は主体の「神」ないし宇宙との融合である。
西田は、新約聖書を引用することによってキリスト教をもこのような宗教観に巻き込もうと試みる。ところが、こうした理論は宗教的体験そのものから出てくるのではなく、ある一つの一元論(Monismus)とも言うべき、観念論(ヘーゲルのWeltgeist参照)のようなイデオロギーの産物である。「十字架に付けられたキリスト」は、個人性と他人との区別の放棄を意味するものではない。むしろこの世的感覚に支配された生命を十字架に付け、霊に支配された命を得ることを意味するのである。「自由意志によって人間はほろび、恩寵によって神人はかれを自由にした」(Perierat homo per liberam voluntatem: venit Deus homo per gratiam liberatricem”, S. Augustinus, Sermo CLXXIV, 2)。個人の個性は悪ではない、神によって造られたものとして善である。ところが、「我々の神とは天地これに由りて(くらい)し万物これに由りて育する宇宙の内面的統一力でなければならぬ」(岩波文庫、217頁)と言うように、西田はキリスト教のことを、理神論(Deismus)という哲学と勘違いしている。確かに、神と人間、無限と有限を徒に対立させるべきではないが、短絡的にしかも内在主義的思想の枠組みの中で、その相違を止揚させるものでもないのである。

03KirikenKiyoトマス アクイナスにおけるanalogiaの理解



文化と宗教・どちらが上か? T・S・エリオットにおける文化と宗教


カルチャという言葉の第三の意味(社会全体の文化)は、人類学者によってよく使われる。例えば、タイラー(E.B. Tylor)がその著『原始文化』(Primitive Culture)の題名として使用したような意味は他の二つの意味とは独立に発展させるのである。ところで、我々が高度に発達した社会、殊に現代社会のようなものを考察しようとするなら、上記の三つの意味の連関を考えなければならない。文学者や倫理学者たちの間では従来、カルチャを第三の意味とは無関係に、はじめの二つの意味において、特に第一の意味において論じるのが普通になっている。エリオットは特筆すべき一例として、M・アーノルド(Matthew
Arnold)の『教養と無秩序』(Culture and Anarchy)を挙げる。アーノルドは第一義的に、個人の目指すべき「完成」を問題にしている。彼の分類法、「貴族(Barbarians)、ブルジョア(Philistines)、大衆(Populace)」において彼はそれぞれの階級に対する規範を取り扱っている。彼はそれぞれの階級の欠点を批判するが、各階級の本来の役割が何であるべきかを取り上げるまではいっていないのである。
ところが、我々はこれらのすべてを同時に念頭に浮かべることがめったにないのである。例えば、音楽や絵画に対する関心、あるいは美学的判断力ということがアーノルドの描いた教養人には見られない。けれどもこれらの芸能が教養において一役を担っていることを誰も否定しないであろう。他に、H・リード(Herbert Read)は『文化くたばれ』(To Hell with Culture)の中で指摘するように、文化という言葉を専ら、過去の造形美術に対する古物収集家的な孝行心(antiquarian piety)、または旅行案内書的な意味に使うことがある。


. 一定の社会が職能の複雑化、個別化の方向に発展するに従って、我々はそこにいくつかの文化的水準というものの出現を見ることができる、つまり階級もしくは集団の文化というものがおのずから現われてくるのである(例えば、コンピュータを利用できるかどうかは就職の分かれ目となること、あるいは医者になるための国家試験)。いかなる社会においても、過去のあらゆる文明社会においてそうであったように、これらの互いに異なる水準というものがなくてはならないことは疑う余地がないとエリオットは考える。いかに熱心な社会平等論者といえどもこの点に異論があるとは考えられない。意見の分かれるところは、集団文化の伝承が世襲によるべきものかどうか、種々の文化的水準がめいめい繁栄さすべきものかどうか、或いはそこに何等かの選択の機構が発見されて、その結果としてすべての個人が、然るべき順序を経て、資質があれば最高の文化的水準にまで登る可能性をもうけることが望ましいかどうかということである。ここで注意しておくべきことは、比較的高度の文化的集団が出現した場合、そのことによってその社会全体が決して影響を受けずにはいられないということである。その現象自体がその社会全体の変化する過程の一部を構成するのである。それにもう一つ確実なことは、殊に我々が芸術の世界に注意を振り向けるときにはっきりすることであるが、新しい価値というものが出現するにともない、また思想、感性、表現力がいよいよ精巧の度を増すにともなって、それ以前のいくつかの価値が消滅し去るということである。ということはとりもなおさず、すべての段階の発展を一ときに兼有することを期待し得ないということが明らかである。ポップスと、ミルトンの『失楽園』[3](演歌と万葉集)を同時に楽しめる民衆は期待できない。そして楽しめなくなった文化財産は廃れる傾向にある。そういえば、時間というものがあらゆる場合に確実にもたらすところの唯一のものは損失なのである。失われた文化の補償というものは、期待し得るとしても、決して確実なものではないのである。文明の進歩度によって、より特殊化された文化集団が生れ出ることは大体において誤りでないとしても、この発展が危険をともなわないものと思い込んではならない。社会のそれぞれの機能や分野はばらばらになることは、これは文化の解体、衰退を意味するが、文化の行きすぎた特殊化の結果として起りかねないからである。

文化的衰退(cultural disintegration)の危険

多種民族の入り混じる中央ヨーロッパにおいて、『文化的国家』(cultural nation)と『民族国家』(state nation)という区別が生まれた。共通の伝統と、共通文化の開拓とによって堅く結ばれた同質なる人種的もしくは言語的集団が存在するということを一見したのみで、単純に一個の独立した政治的単位を設け、これを維持すべき理由となすことはやめなければならないという結論に至った。この問題は、統一民族に国家の基礎をおく日本にもやがて及んでくると思われる。




そこで、「宗教」という言葉も「文化」という言葉もいずれも互いに異なる内容を意味しながらも、個人の立場からいっても集団の立場からいっても、それらの言葉は、現在ある集団が手に持っているものだけではなくして、目標として集団が努力しつつある理想をも含まなければならないことは争えないことである。この意味で、ひとつの宗教という時、それは一つの国民の生き方のすべて(way of life)、つまり、誕生から墓場まで、朝から夜中まで、いな、我々の睡眠の最中(夢も宗教的側面をもっている)をも含めた一つの生き方と見るべき面がたしかにある。ところで、その生き方たるものが同時にまたそのままその国民の文化なのである。子供が生まれると洗礼を授けたり、お宮参りしたり、結婚や死去なども宗教的しきたりにつながっていたりする。これらの宗教的行為は同時に文化的習慣になり、やはり人々の行き方全体とつながっている。やはり、宗教と文化は同じものの異なった側面としてみることのできる証拠である。
「市民宗教」(civil religion)

 ある民族の全体をおおっている共通の価値観の枠組み、民族としての自己理解を支え民族としての行動を方向づけている信念体系を「宗教」と考えるとき、多元社会アメリカの「民族性」もまさにこの意味における宗教から捉えることができる。アメリカは多数の人種によって構成される社会であり、曲がりなりにも「単一民族」という主張あるいは幻想が成リ立つかに見える日本とは違って、一つの統一性のある国家を形成するには、「公」に認められた共通の価値観の枠組みが必要になる。RN・ベラー[6]によれば、アメリカの統一性の基礎にある市民宗教は次のように構成される。アメリカの建国に関わったワシントンやリンカーンといった英雄の存在(これは古代イスラエルの族長アブラハムやモーセに対応する)、その英雄を中心とした建国の物語、信教の自由を目指したメイ・フラワー号の物語、独立戦争・ワシントン物語(正直者がホワイトハウスに入る)、南北戦争・リンカーン神話(丸太小屋からホワイトハウスヘいたる成功神話)によって表現された出来事は「アメリカ」のルーツについての聖なる物語(自由な国家、誰にでも成功への道が開かれ、人間は正直でフェアーでなければならない)である、その国家の理念を示した合衆国憲法(=聖典)、これらがアメリカの市民宗教(civil religion)の基盤を構成する。そして、この建国神話に対応した記念日と大統領の就任儀礼などによって、アメリカの「市民宗教」は国民にとって繰り返し体験可能な仕方で示されるのである。アメリカ人であるということは、このような「市民宗教」を自分のルーツとして受け入れることであり、それによってその人は、アメリカ人らしく考え、アメリカ人らしく行動することが可能になる。この「市民宗教」の共有という基盤の上に、多様な人種を包括する移民社会の統一性が成り立っているのである。では、このような「市民宗教」に示されたアメリカの理念とはどのようなものであり、またキリスト教とどのように関係するのであろうか。



[1] T.S. ELIOT, Notes towards the Definition of Culture, 1948. T.S. ELIOT, Christianity and Culture, Harvetst/HBJ, New York-London, 1968参照。『エリオット全集』、第五巻(深瀬基寛編)、中央公論社、一九六〇年(初版)の訳を参考にさせていただいた。
[2] ソフォクレスの名作。テーベ王オイディプスはテーベの王位を、アンティゴネの兄エテオクレスとポリュネイケスにゆだねた。2人は王位継承をめぐってあらそい、エテオクレスが権力の座についた。しかし、ポリュネイケスは兄の地位をうばうため遠征軍をひきいてテーベを攻略し、兄弟はたがいに殺しあった。新しく王位についたおじのクレオンは、エテオクレスのために栄誉ある葬式をもよおしたが、テーベをせめたポリュネイケスの遺体は裏切り者として、殺された場所に放置しておくよう命じた。父の死後、テーベにもどったアンティゴネは、神の法は現世の命令より優先させなければならないと信じて、クレオンの命にそむいてポリュネイケスを埋葬する。クレオンがやむなく彼女を生き埋めにするよう宣告すると、アンティゴネは地下の墓場でみずから首をつって死んでしまう。悲しみにうちひしがれた恋人、クレオンの息子ハイモンも彼女の後をおって、死体におり重なって自殺する。
[3] 「失楽園」は、ミルトン(1608-74)の代表作であり、世界の文学作品の中でもっともすぐれた詩のひとつといえる。この12巻からなる長詩でミルトンは、アダムとイブの堕落の物語を広大無辺のドラマ、奥深い思索としてかたった。この作品の目的は「人間に対して神がとる手段の正当化」であると、詩人みずからのべている。力強く質の高い文体で書かれたこの詩は、自由にはばたく想像力と、幅ひろい知的な理解力でいろどられている。
[4] ギリシアの哲学者ピュロンは、徹底的な懐疑論を展開し、いかなる知識をも否定することに至った。
[5] 深瀬基寛訳、『エリオット全集』、前掲、255頁(一部筆者による変更)。
[6] R.N. BELLAH, „Civil Religion in America“, in Daedalus (1967)4, 1-21RN・ベラー、『社会変革と宗教倫理』(未来社)。芦名定道、『宗教学のエッセンス』(北樹出版)参照。


Culture and Religion in T.S. Eliot          (Andrea Bonazzi)