Forty-five years have passed since the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, the 21st such council in the history of the Church, but the problems arising from it remain alive and well. One of these problems is the relationship between the “letter” (the texts) and the “spirit” of the Council. These are advanced, respectively, by the two rival schools of continuity and discontinuity. The confrontation between these two schools, however, is in danger of becoming a dialogue of the deaf. The documents promulgated by Church authorities do not all have the same value, theologically speaking. If Benedict XVI expresses some opinions in an interview, as has happened in his latest book Light of the World, these should be received with great respect because they come from the Vicar of Christ. But regarding authoritative teaching, there is a difference between an interview and the definition of a dogma, since the former does not compel the assent of the faithful. The same can be said of a Council like Vatican II, which, as a solemn gathering of bishops united with the Pope, proposed authentic teachings that certainly do not lack authority. But only someone who ignores theology could attribute a level of “infallibility” to these teachings. Not all Catholics know that Papal infallibility applies only to rare, solemn pronouncements on matters of faith and morals, and many more non-Catholics do not understand this either.

A Council has the authority that the Pope who convokes and leads it would like to attribute to it. All the pronouncements of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI before, during and after Vatican II emphasise its non-dogmatic and pastoral dimension. Benedict XVI attributes to it the same pastoral and non-definitive intent and yet the “hermeneutic of continuity” he advocates is completely misunderstood by many Catholics, progressives and conservatives alike. The affirmation that Vatican II is in continuity with the Church’s Magisterium obviously presupposes the existence of some doubts and ambiguities in Council documents which therefore require some interpretation. For Benedict XVI, the criterion of interpreting such passages cannot be other than the Church’s Tradition, as he himself has repeated many times. If one agrees, on the other hand, with those such as the followers of the website “Viva il Concilio” (“Long Live the Council”) that Vatican II created a hermeneutical criterion for re-interpreting tradition, this would be paradoxically to attribute interpretative force to something that needs to be interpreted. To interpret tradition in the light of Vatican II, instead of the other way around, would be possible only if the position of Alberigo (the author of a very substantial 5 volume History of Vatican II) is accepted, which gives interpretative value not to the “letter” or the texts, but to the “spirit” of the Council. This is not, however, Benedict XVI’s position, which is critical of the hermeneutic of discontinuity precisely because it attributes primacy to the spirit , not the texts. Msgr. Gherardini, professor emeritus of Ecclesiology at the Lateran University, in his volume Concilio Vaticano II. Un discorso da fare (2009) has developed well the correct criterion of theological hermeneutics. Either one claims, as Gherardini does, that the Council’s doctrines are not compatible with previous definitions, and that they are neither infallible nor unchangeable and therefore not binding, or one assigns to the Council an authority that obscures the previous twenty councils of the Church, abrogating or replacing all of them. On this last point there does not seem to be a difference between the historians of the Bologna school, as Professor. Alberto Melloni, and sociologists such as Massimo Introvigne who seem to attribute infallibility to Vatican II.

There is also a second problem that goes beyond the question of the continuity or discontinuity of the Council texts, and it is not so much about theology as about history. It is the theme I wanted to tackle in my recent book Il Concilio Vaticano II. Una storia mai scritta (Editore Lindau). I have not attempted to undertake a theological reading of the Council documents, in the sense of wanting to assess whether they are in conformity or not with the Church’s Tradition, but I have tried instead to give a historical account of all that happened in Rome between October 11, 1962 and December 8, 1965. It is a work that complements theological studies and should not cause anyone to worry. It is impossible to understand the alarmist reactions of those who fear this history will be grist to the mill of the hermeneutic of discontinuity. Would this be a good reason for not writing the history of Vatican II? Should its history be left entirely in the hands of the Bologna school, which has made scientifically valuable but ideologically tendentious contributions? If elements of discontinuity were to emerge at the historical level, why should we fear bringing them to light? How can one deny a discontinuity, if not in the content then at least in the new language of Vatican II? A language which consists not only of words but also of silences, gestures and omissions can reveal the deeper currents of an event even more than the content of a speech. The history of the unexplainable silence about Communism on the part of a Council that should have been concerned with the facts of the world cannot, for example, be ignored.

The historian who has this task cannot isolate the texts of Vatican II from the historical context in which they were produced, because it is precisely the context, and not the texts, with which the historian is concerned. In the same way, the Second Vatican Council cannot be presented as an event that was born and died in the space of three years without considering the deep roots, and the equally deep consequences, that are also found in the Church and in society.

Separating the Council from the post-conciliar period is as unsustainable as separating the conciliar texts from their pastoral context. No serious historian, still less a person of common sense, could accept this artificial separation, which is born more from a partisan position more than from a calm and objective evaluation of the facts. Today we are still living with the consequences of the “Conciliar revolution” that anticipated and accompanied the revolution of 1968. Why hide it? As Leo XIII said when he opened the Vatican Secret Archives to scholars, the Church “must not fear the truth.”

Roberto de Mattei

Le Prof. de Mattei est intervenu dans le débat avec un article, publié dans le quotidien « Libero » le 12 décembre, que nous reproduisons ci-dessous.

Quarante-cinq ans sont passés depuis la conclusion du Concile Vatican II, le vingtième dans l’histoire de l’Eglise, mais les problèmes qu’il a entraînés sont encore présents et actuels. Un premier problème dont on discute est celui du rapport entre la « lettre » (les textes) et l’« esprit » du Concile, respectivement opposés entre les deux écoles de la continuité et de la discontinuité. Le différend, cependant, risque de se réduire à un dialogue de sourds.

Les documents promulgués par les suprêmes autorités ecclésiastiques n’ont pas, en effet, la même valeur du point de vue théologique. Si Benoît XVI exprime ses opinions dans une interview, comme cela s’est passé lors de la parution de son dernier livre Lumière du monde, il est évident qu’il faut les accueillir avec le plus grand respect, car celui qui parle est, de toute manière, le Vicaire du Christ. Il est également évident qu’entre l’interview et la définition d’un dogme il y une différence d’autorité qui n’engage pas, au même niveau, le respect des fidèles. C’est ce qui arrive aussi pour un Concile tel que le Vatican II qui, en tant que réunion solennelle des évêques unis au Pape, a proposé des enseignements authentiques certainement pleins d’autorité. Mais seulement ceux qui ignorent la théologie pourraient accorder un degré d’« infaillibilité » à ces enseignements. Même parmi les catholiques, pas tous savent que l’infaillibilité papale est utilisé très rarement et s’applique seulement à la foi et à la morale.

Si le Concile a l’autorité que le Pape qui le convoque et le dirige veut lui donner, tous les discours de Jean XXIII et de Paul VI, avant, durant et après le Concile Vatican II, en soulignent la dimension, non pas dogmatique, mais pastorale. Ce même but pastoral, étranger à toute définition dogmatique, est attribué aux documents conciliaires par Benoît XVI, dont l’« herméneutique de la continuité » est très mal interprétée par beaucoup de catholiques, tant progressistes que conservateurs. L’affirmation même selon laquelle le Concile Vatican II doit être considéré comme en continuité avec le Magistère de l’Eglise présuppose évidemment l’existence dans les documents conciliaires de passages douteux ou ambigus, ayant besoin d’une interprétation. Pour Benoît XVI, le critère d’interprétation de ces passages ne peut qu’être la Tradition de l’Eglise, comme il l’a maintes fois affirmé lui-même. Si, par contre, comme l’estiment les promoteurs du site web « Vive le Concile », on admettait que le Concile Vatican II était le critère herméneutique pour relire la Tradition, il faudrait donner, paradoxalement, une force interprétative à ce qui a besoin d’être interprété. Interpréter la Tradition à la lumière du Concile Vatican II, et non pas l’inverse, ne serait possible que si l’on acceptait la position d’Alberigo (auteur d’une œuvre monumentale Storia del Vaticano II, en 5 volumes), qui donne une valeur interprétative non pas aux textes, mais à l’esprit du Concile. Mais ceci, bien entendu, n’est pas la position de Benoît XVI, qui critique l’herméneutique de la discontinuité, justement pour la suprématie qu’elle accorde à l’esprit sur les textes. Mgr Gherardini, professeur émérite d’ecclésiologie à l’Université du Latran, dans son livre Le Concile Oecuménique Vatican II, un débat à ouvrir (2009), a bien développé le bon critère de l’herméneutique théologique. Soit l’on estime, comme Gherardini, que les propositions du Concile Vatican II, non liées à des définitions précédentes, ne sont ni infaillibles ni irréformables et donc même pas contraignantes, soit l’on accorde au Concile une autorité telle qu’elle éclipse les vingt autres assises précédentes de l’Eglise, les abrogeant ou les remplaçant. Sur ce dernier point, il paraît qu’il n’y a pas de différence entre les historiens de l’école de Bologne, comme le prof. Alberto Melloni, et les sociologues, comme Massimo Introvigne, qui semblent donner une valeur d’infaillibilité au Concile Vatican II.

Il y a pourtant un deuxième problème qui va au-delà de la discussion sur la continuité/discontinuité des textes conciliaires et ne concerne pas le domaine théologique, mais le domaine historique. C’est le sujet auquel j’ai voulu apporter une contribution dans mon récent livre, Il Concilio Vaticano II. Una storia mai scritta, publié par les éditions Lindau en décembre 2010. Dans cet ouvrage, je ne propose pas une lecture théologique des textes, au sens d’en évaluer la continuité ou la discontinuité avec la Tradition de l’Eglise, mais une reconstruction historique de ce qui se passa à Rome entre le 11 octobre 1962 et le 8 décembre 1965. Il s’agit d’un travail complémentaire à l’approche théologique et qui ne devrait donner du souci à personne. On ne comprend pas en effet les réactions préoccupées de ceux qui craignent que cette histoire puisse apporter de l’eau au moulin de l’herméneutique de la discontinuité. Faudrait-il alors renoncer à écrire l’histoire du Concile Vatican II ?

Ou faudrait-il admettre que seule l’école de Bologne a le droit de l’écrire, elle qui a offert des contributions certes remarquables, mais idéologiquement tendancieuses ? Et si des éléments de discontinuité devaient émerger, sur le plan historique, pourquoi craindre leur divulgation ? Comment nier une discontinuité, non pas dans les contenus, mais dans le nouveau langage du Concile Vatican II ? Un langage fait non seulement de déclarations, mais aussi de gestes, de silences et d’omissions, qui peuvent révéler les tendances profondes d’un événement encore plus que le contenu des textes. L’histoire de l’inexplicable silence sur le communisme, par exemple, de la part d’un Concile qui aurait dû s’occuper des faits du monde, ne peut pas être ignorée.

L’historien qui se prépare à cette tâche ne peut pas isoler les textes du Concile Vatican II du contexte historique au sein duquel ils furent produits, car c’est justement du contexte qu’il s’occupe en tant qu’historien. De même, le Concile Vatican II ne peut pas être présenté comme un événement qui ne concerne que trois années de l’histoire de l’Eglise, sans en considérer les racines profondes et les conséquences également profondes qu’il eut dans l’Eglise et dans la société.

La prétention de séparer le Concile du post-Concile est aussi insoutenable que celle de séparer les textes conciliaires du contexte pastoral où ils furent écrits. Aucun historien sérieux et même aucune personne de bon sens ne pourrait accepter cette séparation artificielle qui naît d’un pur parti pris et non d’une sereine et objective évaluation des faits. Encore aujourd’hui, nous vivons les conséquences de la « Révolution conciliaire » qui anticipa et accompagna celle de Mai 68. Pourquoi le cacher ? L’Eglise, comme l’affirma Léon XIII, ouvrant aux chercheurs les Archives Secrètes du Vatican, « ne doit pas craindre la vérité ». (R. d. M.)

in its October 2007 issue.  For purposes of documentation the passages quoted from

Antonio Socci’s book in the original Italian are transcribed in the endnotes.

(by Antonio A. Borelli) The Italian journalist and writer Antonio Socci sustains in his book the thesis that there is a part of the Secret of Fatima “that is not revealed,” and which he calls – certainly to make lighter a matter of such great seriousness – the fourth secret of Fatima (Il quarto segreto di Fatima, Rizzoli, Milano, 2006). DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

The first few months of 2010 alone have added ever more and new pieces to the dramatic jigsaw of anti- Christian persecutions around the world.

In Iraq those Christians who are still in the country ( more than 500.000 have already been forced to abandon it ) live their lives in terror above all in the Mosul area where they victims of kidnappings and murders; in India in the cities of Batala and Jalandar, the Hindus have attacked Churches, as well as houses and shops of Christians; in Lahore, Pakistan, a 12 – year – old Christian girl has been tortured, raped and killed by her employer, a well- known Muslim lawyer; in Laos Christians have been arrested and their goods confiscated, on the charge of threatening the Communist Government of the countries with their faith; in Nigeria, Christian communities are militarily attacked by Muslim groups who ransack their goods and destroy their Churches.

Such persecutions are not isolated gestures, but rather the result of a actual campaign of defamation and “Christian – phobia” which is spreading at an alarming rate throughout the world amid the silence of the international community. In order to better grasp the extent of the phenomenon is useful to read two investigation books published respectively by Thomas Grimaux (The black book of new anti – Christian persecutions, Fede e Cultura, Verona 2009, p.170 and following) and by René Guitton ( Christian – phobia. The new persecution, Lindau, Turin 2010, p. 316 and following). Both authors are French writers and well –known journalists. Their books are based on first – hand knowledge, also thanks to their own travelling experiences in the countries where the persecutions are taking place, both in the West and in the East. They are not books for Catholics only, but for all “lay” men who take an interest in human rights and freedom of thought, of conscience and of religion.

Guitton’s book offers us a blood-curdling account of the current situation spacing from the Maghreb countries (Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania) to the Holy Land, and from there on to Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran until the Far East: India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, North Korea, Vietnam, China and Indonesia. The same scenes are taking place in all these countries: profanation of Churches and cemeteries, rapes and violence of all kinds, crucifixion, burning of people alive, beheading by machete or hatchet, but also intimidations, abuse and legal discrimination. “Christians in Maghreb, Sub-Saharian Africa, Middle and Far East – Guitton writes – are persecuted, they die or disappear through a slow process, and are victims to the ever – increasing anti – Christian feelings”.

While Guitton’s book follows a kind of geographical fil rouge,  Grimaux analyses the origins of such phenomenon, and finds them in Islamic, Hindus, Buddhist and Communist Fundamentalism. Islam, which is spread all over the world, indeed constitutes the main source of all new persecutions in consideration of the enormous number and range of abuses perpetrated, the radical nature of its objectives and the wide reach of his weapons and means. But also Hinduism and Buddhism which are often seen as peaceful “postcard-type”  religions are prey of a strong and fierce aversion to Christianity. Reality of life for Christians in countries such as India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Mongolia and Myanmar ( former Burma) is the living proof that Hindus and Buddhist Fundamentalism alike set themselves the task of eradicating Christianity from those countries, through the means of political and social discrimination as well as of violence.

One should not, however, forget about Communism which is the ruling power in China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, is gaining strength in South America as well, and, from Zapatero’s Spain to Putin’s Russia, has not at all disappeared from Europe. The fight against religion has been, and still is nowadays, its very own essence. The genocide of Christians, that is the willingness to kill Christians as such simply because of their religious faith, is a reality which indeed belongs to the present. The 2009 edition of the Report published every year by the “Association Help to the Church which Suffers” confirms that 75% of religious persecutions in the world are in fact perpetrated against Christian communities.

A whole new book should indeed be written about the phobia and hatred of Christians in Europe; it finds its expression by means of the proclamation of the so-called “new rights”, starting from that to homosexuality, but also through the bans and restrictions imposed by European Institutions and the offensive and disparaging treatment of Christianity which is now wide-spread in books, films, songs, advertising and on the web. The sentence of the European Court of Human Rights of Strasburg pronounced on November 3, 2009, demanding that Italy ban all Crucifixes from schools, marks in fact the taking place of a “qualitative leap” in persecution of a judiciary and legal nature.

Mons. Louis Sako, Archbishop of the Chaldeans in Kirkuk, reminding the world of the difficult situation of all middle-eastern Christian communities, has however, underlined their determination not to surrender to pressures of any kind. “ We must stay and carry the Cross and bear witness, also with the blood of those who have been killed” ( from “L’Osservatore Romano”, Feb 24, 2010). The participation to the Sacrifice of Christ must indeed be a part of each and every Christian’s life; each knows that he/she must follow Christ along the path of the Cross. Jesus in the Gospels mentions the obstacles, intrigues and killings on the part of those who persecuted the Master, and will continue to persecute the disciples as well ( Matthew 10, 16-24) and advises that we must be true to ourselves and to God throughout tribulations, unfair trails and also in death (Luke, 21, 12-19). In fact, St Paul tells us, “ all those who want to live fully in Jesus Christ will  be victims of persecution” ( II, Tim 3, 12).

Abuse, slander, beatings and oppression of all kinds, even death itself, must not frighten the Apostle of Christ, but rather make his voice even stronger and louder. The fight between the witnesses of the True Faith and their persecutors has always brought to  the defeat of the latter; since they can indeed kill the mortal body, but cannot suffocate the voice of Truth which will echo into Centuries. “ God does not die!” did the President of Ecuador Garcia Moreno shout out as he was stabbed to death by a Freemason on the threshold of Quito Cathedral.
What is even more dramatic even than the persecution taking place, is in fact the indifference of the Western world to it, and even of the Catholic community itself. Persecuted Christians are asking for an international response in order to make the Governments of all countries intervene, but to no avail. Such shameful situation must change. Faced with the voice of blood crying from the earth to God, we cannot turn our heads to the other side and answer “ Am I the custodian of my brother?” ( Gen 4,9). Christianity is not an individual religion, but a whole Mystic Body, permeated with a spirit of social solidarity, within which each member participates to and shares the spiritual goods of others. Each member offers his/her actions for the development and perfection of the whole organism of the Mystic Body itself.

Just as a natural feeling of solidarity unites us to all human beings on the basis of the common origin of human nature itself, even more so a super – natural solidarity must unite us to all our brothers in faith. St Justin describes the martyrs as vine branches which have been cut so that the plant itself can bring more abundant fruit: “in fact as we are hit by swords, as we are crucified, as we are eaten by beasts, put into prison, given to the flames and exposed to all kinds of torments and tortures, we are not abandoning in any way our  profession of Faith. But, rather, on the contrary, the more such torments are inflicted upon us, the more other people become faithful and pious in the name of Jesus Christ. Just as a vine when someone cuts the branches which bring fruit,  gets the advantage of growing new and more numerous branches which bring even more fruit, the same happens to us” (Dialogue with Trifon, 110).

The blood of martyrs is seed of Christians, not only in number, but above all in the purity and integrity of the faith which is thus defended. It is also thanks to them that the Church continues its mission in history, overcoming all crises and difficulties on its path.

“So how does it feel to see your culture taken away from you?” That’s what a friend in Paris emailed to me after Rima Fakih won the Miss USA Pageant last week. It was a loaded question. Supposedly, I should have felt the sting of an Arab-American Shi’ite being crowned because she hails from Michigan, which is my home state as well. While it’s questionable if beauty pageants are inherently a constituent component of American culture, I’m sure our culture is not being taken away from us. If anything, it’s being given away.

But that was the point of the chiding email from the Parisienne. The two of us shared dinner many moons ago overlooking the Bosphorus, and I was more taken by the charms of Istanbul (Constantinople for the die-hards) than she was. Then as now, it was a hotly contested question whether Turkey should be admitted as a member of the European Union. Having romantic illusions about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its utility as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy, I made the mistake of equating Turkey’s 58-year membership in NATO with its ambition to be part of the EU. If our Turkish friends are useful to America as a moderate balancing force in the Islamic world, the snobbish Europeans need to grow up and get with the program, my logic went. This relationship seems all the more poignant today given Turkey’s shared border with Iran, Iraq and Syria, and all that’s going on in those hotspots.

The glitch is that Ankara’s loyalty is wavering. The government is having increasing difficulty keeping a lid on growing Islamic radicalism in the country, and last week Turkey signed a three-way deal for nuclear fuel with the leftist anti-American governments of Brazil and Iran. “There is no more ground for new sanctions and pressures,” Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said of the civilized world’s attempts to prevent the Iranian mullahs from becoming a nuclear power. This development has sounded an alarm that the semi-secular state founded by Ataturk in 1923 was merely a quaint experiment of the 20th century, and that the new millennium may witness a return of the Islamist orientation that defined the preceding Ottoman Empire for 600 years. This is hardly a foregone conclusion because Turkish politics teeter-totters through cycles of moderation and radicalism, but Turkey’s oft-neglected history is relevant no matter which direction the republic turns.

Roberto de Mattei tramples this ground in his book, “Turkey in Europe: Benefit or Catastrophe?” In short, he argues Turkish membership in the EU would be catastrophic because the Turks lack a shared culture with the West and they could exacerbate the threat of ascendant radicalized Islam inside Europe. “The European Union is not in a position to integrate a nation which is as foreign to our political, cultural and religious traditions as Turkey is,” Prof. de Mattei explains. The issue of integration is particularly pressing given demographic trends. Political power within the EU is based on population. Within 15 years, there will be more Turks than Germans and Frenchmen, giving the newcomer a disproportionate influence in directing Europe’s future.

Resistance to this fate is rooted in the long and bloody history of Turkish conquest in Europe, which culminated in the siege of Vienna in 1683. The cautionary tale is that Islamic jihadist armies made it that far into the heart of Europe and nearly prevailed. Many fear a new invasion is in the works. And indeed, in the Islamic world, the expansionist vision is not a relic of the past. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, declared that, “Islam will return to Rome conquering and victorious.” Religion is thus still central to this old conflict. Pope Benedict XVI addressed the subject when he was the Catholic Church’s doctrinal watchdog, known then as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. He said Turkish entry into the EU would be “anti-historical,” because, “The Ottoman Empire was always opposed to Europe … [Turkey] remains the nucleus of the former Ottoman Empire; it has an Islamic basis.”

The pope has a point, but the reality is Europe already has surrendered by ditching its own religious heritage. The Old World has been thoroughly secularized, if not outright repaganized. European culture isn’t being taken away; it has been given up.

Brett M. Decker is editorial page editor of The Washington Times.
www.washingtontimes.com

The appeal to repentance which is the key notion here is never detached from the repeated call to the “The ideals of holiness, charity and transcendent wisdom”, which in the past have made Ireland, and Europe as a whole, such a great country, and can still nowadays provide strong enough  foundations for its re-birth ( No.3).  The one and only foundation for such reconstruction is in fact Jesus Christ “who is the same yesterday, today and for ever” (cf. Heb 13:8) – ( No.9).  All the faithful of Ireland are invited by His Holiness “to aspire to high ideals of holiness, charity and truth, and to draw inspiration from the riches of a great religious and cultural tradition” ( No.12).

Such tradition has in fact never declined, even if “fast-paced social change has occurred, often adversely affecting people’s traditional adherence to Catholic teaching and values” ( No.4).  This is a crucial point in the letter and the Pope acknowledges that in the Sixties “the tendency”, also on the part of priests and religious, to adopt ways of thinking and assessing secular realities without sufficient reference to the Gospel” was particularly “significant”. “The programme of renewal proposed by the Second Vatican Council was sometimes misinterpreted”, and there was “in particular, a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situations”. “It is in this overall context” of  “weakening of faith and loss of respect for the Church and her teachings” “that we must try to understand the disturbing problem of child sexual abuse”( No.4).

And in what way has the Second Vatican Council been misinterpreted? Benedict XVI briefly and rather significantly touches upon such matter, and it is indeed worth it to further expand on it. We must remember that during the Vatican Council II the idea of a wandering Church, rather than a militant one, following the signs of times and ready to renounce the tradition and “virginity” of its doctrine in order to be “fertilized” by the values of the world.

All this simply meant for the Church to relinquish its very own values, starting with that which is most crucial to Christianity: the idea of Sacrifice, which steaming from the mystery of the Cross permeated all aspects of ecclesiastical life down to moral doctrine as well, and which once was the inspiring principle behind any life, be it secular or clerical, of those who had been baptized.

The Vatican Council II imposed on Bishops the duty of what was called “Pastoral sociology”, recommending that they open to the sciences of the world, ranging from sociology to psychoanalysis. During those years, the work of the Austrian psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich was re – discovered, after he died almost completely forgotten by the whole world in an American mental hospital in 1957. In his manifesto, the book entitled “The Sexual Revolution”, he had replaced the categories of middle – class and working – class with respectively those of repression and liberation, the latter term indicating the fullness of sexual freedom. This in turn entails the reduction of man to a mere ensemble of bio-physical needs, and in conclusion, of sexual energy alone. Family, which finds its foundations on monogamist and indissoluble marriage between a man and a woman, was considered the paradigm of all repressive social institutions: no sociological consideration could authorize its survival. A new moral philosophy, based on the sole exaltation of pleasure, was on its way to sweep away the traditional Christian morals, which, on the contrary, always had attributed a positive value to the concepts of sacrifice and suffering.

The new theology, while ecumenically embracing the values of the world, was in vain looking for an impossible – to – achieve dialogue between Christian morals and its enemies. The supporters of these new morals, who in Italy were theologians such as Father Enrico Chiavacci ( born in 1926), Father Leandro Rossi ( 1933 – 2003) and Father Ambrogio Valsecchi ( 1930 – 1985), acknowledged as masters of the new course authors such as Wilhelm Reich and Herbet Marcuse.

In 1973, edited by Valsecchi and Rossi, the Paoline publishing house, printed a rather pompous Encyclopedic Dictionary of Moral Theology, which aimed at substituting the classic, and still precious, Dictionary of Moral Theology compiled by the Cardinals Francesco Roberti and Pietro Palazzini ( the fourth edition being published by Studium in 1968). In the new volume, Enrico Chiavacci asserted that “the true human nature is not to have a nature” and that man is such because of the “tension” of his own conscience, which is independent from all kinds of “prohibitions” deriving from traditional morals. Valsecchi believed it necessary to free oneself from a concept of morals based on a metaphysical notion of human nature itself. The only sin, root and origin of all others, was that committed “against love” and the only virtue, that of following love, obviously in a natural, and not super – natural, manner.

These new moralists which someone calls “porno-theologians” did in fact substitute the objectivity of natural law, with the “person” , intended as will which can plan, free from all regulating laws and fully immersed into the historical and cultural milieu, that is what we call “the ethics of circumstances”. And since sex is an integral part of man, its role was re-discovered and re-defined as a “primary function of personal growth” ( in Valsecchi’s words) also because, according to them, the Council was teaching us that only through dialogue with “the other”, can the human being find its own realization.

They were quoting on this subject, the principle according to which “ I need the other to be myself”, deriving from No. 24 of the Gaudium et Spes Encyclical, which is the Magna Charta of such post – counciliar progressive attitude. Chiavacci, Rossi and Valsecchi publicly challenged the CEI (Italian Bishops’ Conference ) firm anti – divorce stance in 1974, but nevertheless continued to be regarded for many years to come, as the most respected and well-known “moralists” within the Italian Church. Still today in every single Catholic bookshop, you will find on the first shelves their books, published by Paoline editions or Queriniana.

Nevertheless, what should make us think are in fact their personal lives, such as that of Ambrogio Valsecchi who was Professor of Morals at the Faculty of Theology in Milan and consultant to the Cardinal of Milan, Carlo Colombo, during the Vatican Council II, and champion of the new morals then exonerated from his vows and married ( in Church ) in 1975, he has become in the last decade of his life, psychologist and analyst as well as couple therapist. Just as disastrous is the life of the man who is today, together with Hans Kung, the main accuser of Benedict XVI: Rembert Weakland. Defender to the bitter end of the “sexual revolution”, of “gay” rights and the ordination of women in the Church, Weakland is no longer Archbishop of Milwaukee since 2002 when, as Sandro Magister has proven on his website www.chiesa, he was exonerated after a former student of theology accused him of rape, even if Weakland himself had tried to buy his silence with 450.000 dollars taken directly from the Archdiocese cash book. The “liberal” press, far from condemning him, treated him with a lot of consideration and respect, as was due to a celebrated champion of the Progressive offshoot of the Church.

The enemies of Tradition have always and vainly, I may add, tried to champion the primacy of life over doctrine, of real – life Christianity over the abstraction of  preaching. The “Tribunal of Real Life” to which they so forcefully appealed to, has however overturned all their judgments and expectations. Those who turned their back to the firm austerity of principles in order to anchor themselves to the soft foundations of their own experience, have often abandoned that very Church they were pretending to better serve.

Those who deny the existence of a natural law to be respected, did in fact start to satisfy those instincts of nature, whose very existence they were denying, and, as a consequence, to favour those perversions which the will presented to their intelligence, which was by then totally alienated from the truth. The transition from heterosexuality to homosexuality, and finally to pedophilia, has therefore been for some, if not chronologically sequential, at least consistent from a logical point of view.

As a matter of fact, we can today read on the first page of the “Repubblica” newspaper in Italy that ecclesiastical celibacy is the direct cause of pedophilia as such, but no newspaper, for instance, could ever make such a firm and direct connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. This is in fact forbidden by specific laws currently in force in a number of European countries which have introduced the crime of homophobia, but also, and even more so, it is forbidden by the social and cultural censorship which is constantly at work for reducing the boundaries of what can be considered legitimate defense of moral principles as such.

Within a specific sector of the Catholic world, even more grievously is considered the affirmation that a relation exists, no matter how indirect, between the new theology of the Sixties and the pansexualism which invaded the Church following the Vatican Council II.  Benedict XVI had indeed the courage to make such affirmation, and we certainly must admire him for that.

The issue was first raised towards the middle of the Nineteenth Century with the so – called “social question” and with it a series of new doctrines, such as Liberalism and Socialism. The Rerum Novarum Encyclical promulgated by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 was considered the Catholic answer to such new challenges, but it was, as a matter of fact, the result of a wide debate which saw two different schools of Christian economists and sociologists challenging each other. The first maintains that the social question should be addressed above all in the light of the primacy of theological virtue of charity, while the second champions the primacy of the moral virtue of justice.

Undeniable consequences derive from both positions. The primacy of justice leads to the consequent emphasizing of the role of the State as regulating body in public life, administering justice to each and everyone.  The primacy of charity, on the other hand, underlines the role of the individual, as main actor in every kind of social relation. Therefore we have, on the one hand, the regulating State, by its own nature of a Socialist kind; and on the other, the protection of the free market, of private property and free individual enterprise.

The safest solution, as pointed out in the Rerum Novarum is that of a synthesis between Justice and Charity, which a slight prevalence of the latter, as Giuseppe Toniolo beautifully puts it:

“He who can do more, must do more; he who can do less, must receive more”. Charity is essentially the gift of oneself and of one’s possessions: it has its origin in the spirit of sacrifice and renunciation which is inherent in Christianity.

The Populorum Progressio by Pope Paul VI, in 1967 overturning the tradition which up to that date had been stronger in the Church philosophy, proclaimed the supremacy of Justice over Charity. This encyclical did in fact convey a negative view on liberal capitalism ( no.26), on the concept of  “free trade” ( no. 58) and called for Programs and Planning ( no. 33), envisaging even the limitation of private property and the redistribution of income ( no. 23 – 24 ), while emphasising  the cult of progress, of work and of “international solidarity” ( no. 58-59).

Benedict XVI, on the other hand, now brings back traditional doctrine albeit formulated in new terms, by further developing paragraphs no. 26 -31 of his previous Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, which were in fact focused precisely on the relation between Charity and Justice.

It is interesting to compare the Incipit of the above – mentioned Encyclical by Benedict XVI and Paul VI. Caritas in Veritate declares that “Charity in truth is the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity” ( no. 1) and constitutes “ the heart of the Church’s social doctrine”( no. 2). It is in fact “the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones)” ( no. 2).

Populorum progressio, on the other hand, did from the very beginning launch a call for the liberation of all peoples “from the ravages of hunger, poverty, endemic disease and ignorance” (no.1), on the wake of the post – Conciliar utopies which believed it possible to provide peace and well-being to all societies on earth. “Justice and Peace” were the key words which Pope Montini called for in order to achieve “man’s complete development and the development of all mankind” (no.5).

It is important to mention that the Charity which Benedict XVI refers to finds its roots in truth since “A Christianity of charity without truth would be more or less interchangeable with a pool of good sentiments, helpful for social cohesion, but of little relevance” (no. 4). The social doctrine of the Church is therefore “caritas in veritate in re sociali: the proclamation of the truth of Christ’s love in society. This doctrine is a service to charity, but its locus is truth”(no. 5). “Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way. In a culture without truth, this is the fatal risk facing love. It falls prey to contingent subjective emotions and opinions, the word “love” is abused and distorted, to the point where it comes to mean the opposite” (no. 3).

Also Justice is obviously has its place in the Encyclical. “Not only is justice not extraneous to charity, not only is it not an alternative or parallel path to charity: justice is inseparable from charity” ( n.6). Nevertheless “Charity goes beyond justice, because to love is to give, to offer what is “mine” to the other; but it never lacks justice, which prompts us to give the other what is “his”, what is due to him by reason of his being or his acting” (no. 6). Therefore, the concept of Charity is linked to that of gift. “Charity is love received and given” (no. 5).

In relation to his predecessor’s Encyclical, Benedict XVI takes on a position which is similar to the one he took with regards to the Second Vatican Council: it should re-interpreted in the light of Tradition. The Pope underlines that the Populorum progressio is still relevant to us today, only if “situated within the great current of Tradition” ( no.12). In order to fully comprehend the meaning and the role of the development which Pope Paul VI spoke about, “the correct viewpoint, then, is that of the Tradition of the apostolic faith, a patrimony both ancient and new, outside of which Populorum Progressio would be a document without roots — and issues concerning development would be reduced to merely sociological data” ( no. 10).

Populorum progressio under the influence of the neo – Malthusian teorie of the 60s, did in fact hint in quite an open manner, to the necessity of responsible limitation of births ( no.37). Benedict XVI, on the other hand, openly refers instead to the Humanae Vitae ( 1968) by Paul VI himself, and claims that “This is not a question of purely individual morality: Humanae Vitae indicates the strong links between life ethics and social ethics” ( no.15).

His Holiness is well aware that demographic growth does not produce poverty, but richness. As a matter of fact, “Morally responsible openness to life represents a rich social and economic resource” (no.44) and it is “at the heart of all real development” (no.28). “In view of this, States are called to enact policies promoting the centrality and the integrity of the family founded on marriage between a man and a woman, the primary vital cell of society”( no. 44).

Benedict XVI goes on to underline the positive value of the free market and enterprise, which should however always be firmly grounded onto ethical principles. “Admittedly, the market can be a negative force, not because it is so by nature, but because a certain ideology can make it so”. The market is merely an instrument and “it is man’s darkened reason that produces these consequences, not the instrument per se. Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility” ( no. 36). “Striving to meet the deepest moral needs of the person also has important and beneficial repercussions at the level of economics. The economy needs ethics in order to function correctly — not any ethics whatsoever, but an ethics which is people-centred” ( no.45).

In the opinion of many experts, the defense of economic freedom goes hand in hand with an absolute freedom as far as the moral sphere is concerned. For instance, many “liberals” are in favour of the liberalization of drugs, of abortion and of any kind of bio-ethical experimentation. In order to clarify this point, Benedict XVI affirms that “the social question has become a radically anthropological question, in the sense that it concerns not just how life is conceived but also how it is manipulated, as bio-technology and a pro-euthanasia mindset places it increasingly under man’s control” (no. 75). Therefore “we must not underestimate the disturbing scenarios that threaten our future, or the powerful new instruments that the “culture of death” has at its disposal”( no.75).

And finally, a assertion which brings about profound consequences and meaning: “God has to have a place in the public realm, specifically in regard to its cultural, social, economic, and particularly its political dimensions” ( no. 56). In fact, “without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is” ( no.78) : this first line of the Encyclical Conclusion is the core of the document itself, and possibly also the core of the whole Magisterium of Pope Benedict XVI.

Further fueling the constant enthusiasm of the participants (300 thousand according to the organizers), aside from the news that, for the first time, 51% of Americans oppose the interruption of a pregnancy, was a monitor with a number that continued to climb quickly: 71 thousand, then 72 thousand, then 75 thousand.  It was the number of those participating in the virtual march that had been organized over the Internet for those who could not make it to Washington. This year’s innovation allowed one to create an animated alter ego and see it moving along the streets of the US capital, towards the Supreme Court.

But the movement for Life did not convene in Washington to just say no to abortion. The agenda also includes the defense of Life from its beginning to its end, as noted by Bobby Schindler, brother of Terry Schiavo: the woman who had remained in a vegetative state for over 10 years before the removal of her feeding tube and, her consequent death, in March 2005.

Another novelty of the 2010 March for life was the vigil held the evening of Thursday, January 21st, before the White House.  Almost three thousand people—those authorized by the police—gathered for a peaceful demonstration that night to pray and sing.  “We pray and fast for you, President Obama, so that you realize that abortion is violence against the most helpless”, read their signs.

The long procession, closed by the travelling statue of Our Lady of Fatima accompanied by the American TFP’s band, included families and groups from all the American states, as well as from abroad: the “Lepanto Foundation” and Voglio Vivere” from Italy and “Droit de Naître” from France.

The day concluded with a conference dinner where Robert P. George, Professor of Law at Princeton University, was the keynote speaker.  Prof. George was one of the drafters of the of Manhattan Declaration, a document prepared by Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox leaders for the purpose of defending the sanctity of human life, as well as the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife.

In recent times both in Europe and in the United States, animated and sometimes bitter discussions have been taking place regarding relations between the political and the moral – religious spheres, above all as far as human life is concerned, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death.

In Italy, the discussion in the past few months has been concentrated in particular on the issue of the abortive pill RU486 and of the so – called biological will, thus bringing to light deep – rooted splits within a political world that, apart from these ethical issues, seems to be more and more homologated and monotonous.

Bishops are often in the eye of the storm, as they intervene on political issues which also have an ethical dimension, and are therefore accused of inappropriate interference with the politics of the State. Those same people who criticize the Church for this interference, also ask  political parties not to take a clear position on such issues, leaving it to the  conscience of each member of Parliament to decide. In both cases, they want ethical problems to be resolved by an individual conscientious choice rather than by political debate.

In order to clearly understand the terms of this issue, it is necessary to remember in fact the main principle which is the foundation of  our entire cultural tradition: that is the distinction between ethical and political sphere as follows from the Evangelical precept: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”  ( Mt. 22, 15-22) . Such principle does in fact distinguish two supreme authorities in their own right, without separating or, by any means, opposing them to each other.

Christendom in the Middle Ages has lived through moments of conflict but also others of deep consonance and cooperation with the other power. The modern world has, on the contrary, witnessed a process of emancipation of politics from the moral sphere, to start with Machiavelli and continuing with the great Revolutions of the XVIII and XX Century. The ultimate consequence of such process of secularization of society has been, in the XX Century, the complete absorption of the religious sphere into the political one, in totalitarian regimes such as Communism and Nazism which were in fact the natural heir of the French Revolution.

Islam, in the XXI Century,  also denies all distinction between politics and religion, by absorbing politics into religion. The motto of the Muslim Brotherhood is in fact “ The Koran is our Constitution” and it is a clear indication of the deep overlapping which exists between the two spheres.

If Communism has been in fact defined as the Islam of the XX Century, because of its totalitarian secularism, then Islam can rightly be considered in its turn the Communism of the XXI Century for its religious totalitarianism which involves Church and State, faith and politics.
The principle of distinction between the political and the religious – moral sphere is therefore inalienable. And what are the consequences? The first is that the Church has the right and the duty to express its position on all religious and moral issues in man’s life, both private and public.

An important part of the mission of the Church itself, is in fact that of supporting those which Pope Benedict XVI has rightly defined as “not negotionable” values  – ie life, family and education. The appeal must go out to all, including and in primis to politicians, in particular. Because bishops are shepherds of all souls, including those of politicians and it is their duty to remind them of their task of promulgating laws which are in conformity to natural and Christian principles.

From the point of view of this supreme natural order, there is no distinction between the individual and the social community since men, united into a society, are just as responsible under the natural law as they are as individuals. The State has the mission of providing material wellbeing, and, in this field, is the supreme authority, but the Church has the right to see that natural law, of which it is the custodian, and on which society as a whole is founded, is respected. Politicians, on the other hand, have the right and the duty of being consistent with their religious and moral principles. There cannot be in them a distinction between politics and morals. They cannot be honest, consistent and true to themselves in their personal life and, at the same time, dishonest and disloyal in their public one. And in the very same way, they cannot follow in their private life the natural law or the Gospels’ teachings and then contradict that same law in their public life.

Politics is certainly “the art of possibility”. This means that not always is possible to realize one’s own political and social ideals.  What really matters for a politician, is to do the best they can in order to promulgate good new laws or to improve existing ones, but not participating into the promulgation of bad ones. Politicians are not asked to be bishops, that is to divulgate the natural divine law: they must rather put it into practice in public life as much as it is possible for them to do. In the same way, bishops must not be politicians and they must avoid all kinds of Machiavellian cunning. In particular, they should not mingle into the world of compromising and mediation which is typical of politics by supporting laws which are not good in order to avoid even worst ones. The shepherds’ task is always that of pushing the flock in their care to achieve their best.

The main point is in fact what was once known as the distinction between thesis and hypothesis. The practical hypothesis can be that of a compromise which one has to accept. The condition sine qua non, though, remains that the thesis, that is the ideal towards which one must always strive, must be clear and always present.

In the past, the hypothesis could be that of the necessity of signing a new Agreement between the Holy See and the Italian Republic. But that was signed without achieving the optimum choice of calling Italy a Catholic State.  This was done on the pretense that a “neutral”  State as far as religion is concerned, is better than an officially Catholic State or society.

Today the hypothesis can be that of the impossibility ( which is, however, still to be verified) of amending for the moment the law 194 which legalizes abortion in Italy. The thesis, however, that one must never forget about, is that this law is inherently evil and must be abolished by principle. Catholics must wish for a society where abortion is not permitted under any circumstance nor for any reason. Not to mention this thesis, means to suggest to Catholics that the idea of a society which fully respects natural law is, from an historical point of view, an impossible goal to achieve. Which is obviously false and offensive towards God’s commandments.

Therefore to speak up clearly is first of all the mission of religious authorities, but also of public administrators since what is at stake here is the natural and divine law from which derives not only eternal salvation but also the material wellbeing of society.

The issue was first raised towards the middle of the Nineteenth Century with the so – called “social question” and with it a series of new doctrines, such as Liberalism and Socialism. The Rerum Novarum Encyclical promulgated by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 was considered the Catholic answer to such new challenges, but it was, as a matter of fact, the result of a wide debate which saw two different schools of Christian economists and sociologists challenging each other. The first maintains that the social question should be addressed above all in the light of the primacy of theological virtue of charity, while the second champions the primacy of the moral virtue of justice.

Undeniable consequences derive from both positions. The primacy of justice leads to the consequent emphasizing of the role of the State as regulating body in public life, administering justice to each and everyone. The primacy of charity, on the other hand, underlines the role of the individual, as main actor in every kind of social relation. Therefore we have, on the one hand, the regulating State, by its own nature of a Socialist kind; and on the other, the protection of the free market, of private property and free individual enterprise.

The safest solution, as pointed out in the Rerum Novarum is that of a synthesis between Justice and Charity, which a slight prevalence of the latter, as Giuseppe Toniolo beautifully puts it:

“He who can do more, must do more; he who can do less, must receive more”. Charity is essentially the gift of oneself and of one’s possessions: it has its origin in the spirit of sacrifice and renunciation which is inherent in Christianity.

The Populorum Progressio by Pope Paul VI, in 1967 overturning the tradition which up to that date had been stronger in the Church philosophy, proclaimed the supremacy of Justice over Charity. This encyclical did in fact convey a negative view on liberal capitalism ( no.26), on the concept of “free trade” ( no. 58) and called for Programs and Planning ( no. 33), envisaging even the limitation of private property and the redistribution of income ( no. 23 – 24 ), while emphasising the cult of progress, of work and of “international solidarity” ( no. 58-59).

Benedict XVI, on the other hand, now brings back traditional doctrine albeit formulated in new terms, by further developing paragraphs no. 26 -31 of his previous Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, which were in fact focused precisely on the relation between Charity and Justice.
It is interesting to compare the Incipit of the above – mentioned Encyclical by Benedict XVI and Paul VI. Caritas in Veritate declares that “Charity in truth is the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity” ( no. 1) and constitutes “ the heart of the Church’s social doctrine”( no.2). It is in fact “the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones)” ( no.2).

Populorum progressio, on the other hand, did from the very beginning launch a call for the liberation of all peoples “from the ravages of hunger, poverty, endemic disease and ignorance” (n.1), on the wake of the post – Conciliar utopies which believed it possible to provide peace and well-being to all societies on earth. “Justice and Peace” were the key words which Pope Montini called for in order to achieve “man’s complete development and the development of all mankind” (n.5).

It is important to mention that the Charity which Benedict XVI refers to finds its roots in truth since “A Christianity of charity without truth would be more or less interchangeable with a pool of good sentiments, helpful for social cohesion, but of little relevance” (no.4). The social doctrine of the Church is therefore “caritas in veritate in re sociali: the proclamation of the truth of Christ’s love in society. This doctrine is a service to charity, but its locus is truth”(n.5). “Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way. In a culture without truth, this is the fatal risk facing love. It falls prey to contingent subjective emotions and opinions, the word “love” is abused and distorted, to the point where it comes to mean the opposite” (n.3).
Also Justice is obviously has its place in the Encyclical. “Not only is justice not extraneous to charity, not only is it not an alternative or parallel path to charity: justice is inseparable from charity” ( n.6). Nevertheless “Charity goes beyond justice, because to love is to give, to offer what is “mine” to the other; but it never lacks justice, which prompts us to give the other what is “his”, what is due to him by reason of his being or his acting” ( n.6). Therefore, the concept of Charity is linked to that of gift. “Charity is love received and given” ( n.5).

In relation to his predecessor’s Encyclical, Benedict XVI takes on a position which is similar to the one he took with regards to the Second Vatican Council: it should re-interpreted in the light of Tradition. The Pope underlines that the Populorum progressio is still relevant to us today, only if “situated within the great current of Tradition” ( no.12). In order to fully comprehend the meaning and the role of the development which Pope Paul VI spoke about, “the correct viewpoint, then, is that of the Tradition of the apostolic faith, a patrimony both ancient and new, outside of which Populorum Progressio would be a document without roots — and issues concerning development would be reduced to merely sociological data” ( no. 10)

Populorum progressio under the influence of the neo – Malthusian teorie of the 60s, did in fact hint in quite an open manner, to the necessity of responsible limitation of births ( no.37). Benedict XVI, on the other hand, openly refers instead to the Humanae Vitae ( 1968) by Paul VI himself, and claims that “This is not a question of purely individual morality: Humanae Vitae indicates the strong links between life ethics and social ethics” ( no.15).

His Holiness is well aware that demographic growth does not produce poverty, but richness. As a matter of fact, “Morally responsible openness to life represents a rich social and economic resource” (no.44) and it is “at the heart of all real development” (no.28). “In view of this, States are called to enact policies promoting the centrality and the integrity of the family founded on marriage between a man and a woman, the primary vital cell of society”( no. 44).

Benedict XVI goes on to underline the positive value of the free market and enterprise, which should however always be firmly grounded onto ethical principles. “Admittedly, the market can be a negative force, not because it is so by nature, but because a certain ideology can make it so”. The market is merely an instrument and “it is man’s darkened reason that produces these consequences, not the instrument per se. Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility” ( no. 36). “Striving to meet the deepest moral needs of the person also has important and beneficial repercussions at the level of economics. The economy needs ethics in order to function correctly — not any ethics whatsoever, but an ethics which is people-centred ( no.45).

In the opinion of many experts, the defense of economic freedom goes hand in hand with an absolute freedom as far as the moral sphere is concerned. For instance, many “liberals” are in favour of the liberalization of drugs, of abortion and of any kind of bio-ethical experimentation. In order to clarify this point, Benedict XVI affirms that “the social question has become a radically anthropological question, in the sense that it concerns not just how life is conceived but also how it is manipulated, as bio-technology and a pro-euthanasia mindset places it increasingly under man’s control” (no. 75). Therefore “we must not underestimate the disturbing scenarios that threaten our future, or the powerful new instruments that the “culture of death” has at its disposal”( no.75).

And finally, a assertion which brings about profound consequences and meaning: “God has to have a place in the public realm, specifically in regard to its cultural, social, economic, and particularly its political dimensions” ( no. 56). In fact, “without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is” ( no.78) : this first line of the Encyclical Conclusion is the core of the document itself, and possibly also the core of the whole Magisterium of Pope Benedict XVI. (by Roberto de Mattei, published by “Il Foglio”)