0320
15 March 2020 Monthly Year 4
Artificial Intelligence and Social Justice: A Challenge for the Church
The Berlin Conference and Civil War in Libya
The Beginning of the Universe and
.03 the Question of God o Our Concern for the Future: One year on from the signing of the Human Fraternity Document
OLUME 4, N 4, OLUME
V Protection of Minors:The pope’s steps forward after the February 2019
2020 2020 Meeting
Women and Men in the Church
Abandoning the Myth of Nuclear Deterrence
Three Biblical Cities
The Culture of Tolerance
Terrence Malick’s ‘A Hidden Life’
BEATUS POPULUS, CUIUS DOMINUS DEUS EIUS
Copyright, 2020, Union of Catholic Asian Editor-in-chief News ANTONIO SPADARO, SJ
All rights reserved. Except for any fair Editorial Board dealing permitted under the Hong Kong Antonio Spadaro, SJ – Director Copyright Ordinance, no part of this Giancarlo Pani, SJ – Vice-Director publication may be reproduced by any Domenico Ronchitelli, SJ – Senior Editor means without prior permission. Inquiries Giovanni Cucci, SJ, Diego Fares, SJ should be made to the publisher. Francesco Occhetta, SJ, Giovanni Sale, SJ Claudio Zonta, SJ Title: La Civiltà Cattolica, English Edition Federico Lombardi, SJ
ISSN: 2207-2446 Emeritus editors Federico Lombardi SJ ISBN: Giandomenico Mucci SJ 978-988-79391-3-9 (ebook) GianPaolo Salvini SJ 978-988-79391-4-6 (kindle)
Published in Hong Kong by Contributors UCAN Services Ltd. Drew Christiansen SJ (USA) Fernando de la Iglesia Viguiristi SJ (Spain) P.O. Box 69626, Kwun Tong, Joseph You Guo Jiang SJ (China) Hong Kong Friedhelm Mennekes SJ (Germany) Phone: +852 2727 2018 David Neuhaus SJ (Israel) Fax: +852 2772 7656 www.ucanews.com Vladimir Pachkov SJ (Russia) Arturo Peraza SJ (Venezuela) Publishers: Michael Kelly, SJ and Marc Rastoin SJ (France) Robert Barber Jean-Pierre Sonnet (Belgium) Production Manager: Paul Soukup SJ (USA) Grithanai Napasrapiwong Marcel Uwineza SJ (Rwanda) Andrea Vicini SJ (USA) CONTENTS 0320
15 March 2020 Monthly Year 4
1 Artificial Intelligence and Social Justice A Challenge for the Church Antonio Spadaro - Paul Twomey
11 The Berlin Conference and Civil War in Libya Giovanni Sale, SJ
25 The Beginning of the Universe and the Question of God Gabriele Gionti, SJ
40 Our Concern for the Future: One year on from the signing of the Human Fraternity Document Laurent Basanese, SJ
50 Protection of Minors The pope’s steps forward after the February 2019 Meeting Federico Lombardi, SJ
62 Women and Men in the Church Federico Lombardi, SJ
72 Abandoning the Myth of Nuclear Deterrence Drew Christiansen, SJ
83 Three Biblical Cities Pino Stancari, SJ
89 The Culture of Tolerance Giancarlo Pani, SJ
101 Terrence Malick’s ‘A Hidden Life’ Jean-Pierre Sonnet, SJ LCC 0420: APRIL
APRIL TITLES
• Seven Years Of The Pontificate. Jesuits and the Papal Vision INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIPTION • Religious Symbols and $49.95 FOR 12 MONTHS Political Instrumentalization. A Biblical reflection ● Ideal for Church leaders, theologians, scholars, seminarians etc • Leadership and the Elaboration of Reconciliation ● Monthly editions available both in ePub and Mobi • People and Robots: An Ideal Relationship? ● Subscriber gets unlimited online access
• Cop25, Lessons On The ● Access to Perspectives Series - Six Thematic Climate Crisis Issues of the Journal
• Presentation of Pontifical Biblical Commission Document GROUP SUBSCRIPTION “What Is Man?” $250 FOR TWELVE MONTHS
• Life of the World to Come: ● Ideal for Catholic universities, libraries, Reflections on Eternity institutes, congregations etc. ● Multi-user, unlimited access for one year. • Tolo Tolo: A Journey Between luck and the dream ● Subscribers access unlimited logins in different devices within the same IP address
● Monthly editions available both in ePub and Mobi
● Access to Perspectives Series - Six Thematic Issues of the Journal
For educational and bulk rates, please email [email protected] SUBSCRIBE TODAY AT laciviltacattolica.com Artificial Intelligence and Social Justice A Challenge for the Church
Antonio Spadaro - Paul Twomey
The poor in a world dominated by ‘big data’ Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping human experience in ways not visible to, nor fully apprehended by, the vast majority of the world’s population. The explosion of AI is having a notable impact on our present rights and future opportunities, 1 determining the decision-making processes that affect all in today’s society. Enormous technological change is occurring. It promises great benefits and poses insidious risks. The proportion of risks to benefits will become apparent, depending on the pioneers and creators of this technology, and, in particular, on the clarity of their vision of the common good and on how correct is their understanding of the nature of human experience.1 We need to understand that Artificial Intelligence is a challenge and an opportunity for the Church. It is a social justice issue. In fact, the pressing, greedy and non-transparent search for 2 big data, i.e. the data needed to feed machine learning engines, can lead to the manipulation and exploitation of the poor: “The poor in the 21st century, as well as the cash poor, are the ignorant, the naive and the exploited in a data-dominated world.”3
La Civiltà Cattolica, En. Ed. Vol. 4, no. 03 art. 1, 0320: 10.32009/22072446.0320.1
1.Cf. G. Cucci, “For a digital humanism” in Civ. Catt. 2020 I 27-40. 2.Big data indicates a collection of data so extensive that it requires specific technology and analytical methods for the extraction of value or knowledge and the discovery of links between different phenomena and the prediction of future ones. 3.M. Kelly - P. Twomey, “Big Data and Ethical Challenges” in Civ. Catt. En. July, 2018. https://www.laciviltacattolica.com/big-data-and-ethical-challenges/ ANTONIO SPADARO - PAUL TWOMEY
Moreover, the same purposes for which AI systems are geared can lead them to interact in unpredictable ways to ensure that the poor are controlled, monitored and manipulated. Presently the creators of AI systems are increasingly the arbiters of truth for consumers. But the philosophical challenges of understanding truth, knowledge and ethics multiply as AI capabilities grow toward and surpass human cognitive limits.4 As the 21st century progresses, the Church’s experience and formation should be essential gifts to populations to help them to formulate an approach to controlling rather than being controlled by AI. The Church is called to reflect and to work. In the political and economic spheres where AI is fostered, there is 2 a need to introduce an ethical and spiritual framework. AI is a discipline and a community hungry for evangelization in the 21st century. The Church’s response to this new era has to be one of informing and inspiring the hearts of many thousands of people involved in the creation and formulation of artificial intelligence systems. In the final analysis, itis ethical decisions that determine and frame what problems an AI system should address, how to write code, and how to collect data to feed the machine learning. The code which is written today will be the foundation of future AI systems for years to come. What we identify as the challenge of the evangelization of AI represents a combination of Pope Francis’ emphasis on the importance of seeing the world from the periphery and the experience of 16th century Jesuits whose pragmatic approach to influencing the influential could be reworded today as sharing discernment with data scientists.
What is artificial intelligence? The definition and dream of AI has been with us for over sixty years. It is the ability of a computer, or a computer-
4.Cf. A. Spadaro - T. Banchoff, “Artificial intelligence and the human person. Chinese and Western perspectives” in Civ. Catt. En. July, 2019. https:// www.laciviltacattolica.com/artificial-intelligence-and-the-human-person- chinese-and-western-perspectives ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE controlled robot, to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings, such as reasoning, discovering meanings, generalizing or learning from past experiences. AI’s long development is the evolution of thinking about how machines can learn, accompanied by a recent radical improvement in computing capacity. The first idea was AI, then followed machine learning, and more recently we have neural networks and deep learning. Basic Machine Learning is the first level of AI. It provides for the traditional input of data into handwritten software with a specific set of instructions to carry out a particular task. In other words, it employs algorithms to sort large amounts of data, builds a mathematical model from this data; and then makes determinations or predictions about certain tasks without 3 specific instructions. The result is still a specific task – so it is called “Narrow AI” – but the task is mostly performed better than humans can. Examples of Narrow AI include activities such as image classification or face recognition. Neural networks are a set of algorithms, modeled broadly after the human brain, that process data through discrete layers and connections to recognize patterns and provide predictive analytics. Deep learning is where vast numbers of neural networks are connected together, and trained with huge amounts of data so that it can automatically learn representations from data without human input.
Benefits Silently but quickly, AI is reshaping our entire economy and society: how we vote and how government governs, predictive policing, how judges pass sentences, how we access financial services and our credit scores, the products and services we purchase, our housing, the media we consume, the news we read, automatic translations of texts and speech. AI increasingly designs and helps drive and navigate our cars, determines how we get a loan to buy our cars, decides which roads should be repaired, identifies if we have broken the road rules and even determines whether we should be imprisoned if we have. These are just some of the many AI contributions already in place. ANTONIO SPADARO - PAUL TWOMEY
AI can assemble and consider more data points and elements than humans can, and often provides less biased or unclear outcomes than humans making decisions. Examples range from the prevention of medical errors, to increasing productivity and reducing risks in the workplace. Machine learning can improve job descriptions and provide better recruitment processes. Written well, algorithms can be more impartial and pick up patterns people may miss.5 Scholars Mark Purdy and Paul Daugherty write: “The impact of AI technologies on business is projected to increase labor productivity by up to 40 percent and enable people to make more efficient use of their time.”6 The World Bank is exploring the benefits of AI for development. Others identify farming, 4 resource provision and healthcare as sectors in the developing economies that will benefit greatly from the application of AI. Artificial intelligence will also contribute to less pollution and less economic waste.
Artificial intelligence for social justice AI can certainly be a force for social good, but it also presents social justice issues. The Church has an opportunity and an obligation to bring its social justice teaching, voice and status to bear on some of the most foundational issues for the future. Some of the important social justice issues include the impact on employment for billions over the next decades, and addressing the problems of bias and the further marginalization of the poor and vulnerable. Impact on employment. Much has been made of the impact of AI and robotics on jobs, especially since Osborne and Frey’s 2013 article estimating that 47 percent of jobs in the US were “at risk” of being automated in the next 20 years.7 Further study
5.Cf. J. Angwin - J. Larson - S. Mattu - L. Kirchner, “Machine Bias” in ProPublica, May 23, 2016, (www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk- assessments-in-criminal-sentencing). 6.M. Purdy - P. Daugherty, Why Artificial Intelligence is the Future of Growth (www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-artificial-intelligence-future-growth). 7.Cf. C. B. Frey - M. A. Osborne, “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerization?” in Technological Forecasting and Social Change 114 (2017) 254-280. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE and debate has traced the exact nature of this impact: the full or part erosion of existing job tasks, the impact across sectors and across developed, emerging and developing economies. Forecasting in such areas is inherently difficult. But a recent summary by the McKinsey Global Institute reflects a mid-way analysis. Sixty percent of occupations have at least 30 percent of constituent work activities that could be automated. It will also create new occupations that do not exist today, much as technologies of the past have done. Scenarios suggest that by 2030, 75 million to 375 million workers (3 to 14 percent of the global workforce) will need to switch occupational categories. Moreover, all workers will need to adapt, as their occupations evolve alongside increasingly capable machines.8 5 If the pace of adoption continues to outpace previous major technological adoption, the scale of social dislocation is likely to be greater.9 Codes and prejudices. Code is written by human beings. Its complexity can therefore accentuate the defects that inevitably accompany any task we perform. Preconceptions and bias in writing algorithms are inevitable. And they can have very negative effects on individual rights, choice, worker placement and consumer protection. In fact, researchers have discovered bias in the algorithms for systems used for university admissions, human resources, credit ratings, banking, child support systems, social security systems, and more. Algorithms are not neutral: they incorporate built- in values and serve business models that may lead to unintended biases, discrimination or economic harm.10 The increasing dependency of the socio-economy on AI imparts tremendous power to those who write it, and they may
8.Cf. McKinsey Global Institute, “Jobs Lost, Jobs Gained: Workforce Transitions in a Time of Automation” (in www.mckinsey.com). 9.See discussion in Seve Lohr, “A.I. will Transform the Economy. But How Much, and How Soon?” New York Times, November 30, 2017. 10.For example, media reports have pointed out clear racial bias resulting from reliance on sentencing algorithms used by many US courts. See R. Wexler, “When a Computer Program Keeps You in Jail” in ibid, June 13, 2017. ANTONIO SPADARO - PAUL TWOMEY
not even be aware of this power, or the potential harm that an incorrectly coded algorithm may have. Because the complex dimension of interacting AI continues to evolve, it is also likely that existing algorithms that may have been innocuous yesterday will have significant impact tomorrow. AI can be distorted through specific commercial and political interests that influence the framing of the problem; selection bias or bias/corruption in data collection; bias in selection of attributes for data preparation; bias in coding. The result can be significantly flawed outputs delivered under the guise of “independent” automated decision making. Risk of further marginalization of the vulnerable. A society- level analysis of the impact of Big Data and AI shows that its 6 tendency toward profiling and limited proof decisions results in the further marginalization of the poor, the needy and the vulnerable.11 Politician Virginia Eubanks explains well how interrelated systems reinforce discrimination and narrow life opportunities for the marginalized: “Poor and working-class people are targeted by new tools of digital poverty management and face life-threatening consequences as a result. Automated eligibility systems discourage them from claiming public resources that they need to survive and thrive. Complex integrated databases collect their most personal information, with few safeguards for privacy or data security, while offering almost nothing in return. Predictive models and algorithms tag them as risky investments and problematic parents. Vast complexes of social service, law enforcement, and neighborhood surveillance make their every move visible and offer up their behavior for government, commercial, and public scrutiny.”12
11.Cf. J. Obar - B. McPhail, “Preventing Big Data Discrimination in Canada: Addressing Design, Consent and Sovereignty Challenges” Wellington, Centre for International Governance Innovation, 2018 (www.cigionline.org/articles/ preventing-big-data-discrimination-canada-addressing-design-consent-and- sovereignty). 12.V. Eubanks, Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor, New York, St Martin’s Press, 2018, 11. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
The struggle for the truth Artificial Intelligence, both in its present manifestations and those of the next decades and centuries, is also a philosophical challenge. The pervasiveness of AI, married to the saturating digitization of daily human experience, means that the purposes of AI engines are increasingly defining what is important and accepted in society AI changes the way we think and our basic concepts about the world. Through choosing what question to answer, and controlling and understanding clearly what the training data actually represents, AI owners are the arbiters of truth for consumers. The algorithms tend to focus on utility and profit. It will be all too convenient for people to follow the advice of an algorithm 7 (or too difficult to discard and reject it), so much so that these algorithms will turn into self-fulfilling prophecies, and users into zombies that consume only what is put under their noses. Protected by intellectual property claims and opaque coding and training data, AI engines are effectively black boxes that can deliver unverifiable inferences and prediction. “AI has the capability to shape individuals’ decisions without them even knowing it, giving those who have control of the algorithms an unfair position of power.”13 With its complex and opaque decision making, there is a tendency by some to see AI as being separate from human agency within the building, populating and interpretation of AI. This is a grave error and fails to understand the true role of the human within the algorithm: Humans need to be held accountable for the product of algorithmic decision making.14 Yet some deep learning machines are starting to challenge the boundaries of human responsibility.15
13.Ibid. 14.Cf. L. Jaume-Palasí - M. Spielkamp, “Ethics and algorithmic processes for decision making and decision support” in AlgorithmWatch Working Paper, N. 2, 6-7 (algorithmwatch.org/en/publication/ethics-and-algorithmic-processes- for-decision-making-and-decision-support). 15.Cf. M. Tegmark, Vita 3.0. Essere umani nell’era dell’intelligenza artificiale, Milan, Raffaello Cortina, 2017. ANTONIO SPADARO - PAUL TWOMEY
These various manifestations of an intelligence which is not human, nor even biological, pose essential questions of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and political theory. The Church should bring its experience and expertise in these fields to assist society to adapt – or adapt to – AI. A failure to appreciate the philosophical and anthropological challenges of AI could result in the servant becoming the master. As the cosmologist Stephen Hawking warned: “Unless we learn how to prepare for, and avoid, the potential risks, AI could be the worst event in the history of our civilization. It brings dangers, like powerful autonomous weapons, or new ways for the few to oppress the many… it would take off on its own, and re-design itself at an ever-increasing rate. Humans, who 8 are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete, and would be superseded.”16
Engagement of societies and governments Over recent years there has been an increasing call by technical and scientific leaders, unions,17 civil society and technology companies themselves18 for governments to intervene to ensure human control and values are mandated in AI development. In May 2019, important progress was made when the 35 member countries of the OECD agreed on the OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence.19 These complemented the AI Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI adopted by the European Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on AI in April 2019.20
16.R. Cellan-Jones, “Stephen Hawking Warns Artificial Intelligence Could End Mankind” in BBC News (www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540), December 2, 2014. 17.Cf. Top 10 Principles for Workers’ Data Privacy and Protection, UNI Global Union, Nyon, Switzerland, 2018. 18.Cf. Microsoft, The Future Computed, Redmond, 2017, (news.microsoft. com/cloudforgood/_media/downloads/the-future-computed-english.pdf). 19.OECD Principles on AI (www.oecd.org/going-digital/ai/principles/), June 2019. 20.Cf. European Commission, Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI (ec. europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai), April 8, 2019. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
The OECD Principles’ goal is to promote innovative and trustworthy AI that respects human rights and democratic values. They identify five complementary principles and five recommendations pertaining to national policies and international co-operation. The principles are: foster inclusive growth, sustainable development and well-being; respect human-centered values and fairness; promote democratic values, transparency and explainability; robustness, security and safety; and accountability of those who develop, distribute and manage them. The recommendations are: invest in AI research and development; foster a digital ecosystem for AI; shape an enabling policy environment for AI; build human capacity and prepare for labor market transformation; promote international co- operation for trustworthy AI. 9 In June 2019, the G20 group of countries drew from the OECD Principles to adopt as non-binding the G20 AI Principles.21 The challenge for the next several years is twofold: the further spreading of these or similar principles across the international community; and the development of practical steps to make operational these principles within the G20 and the newly created OECD AI Policy Observatory. There is an opportunity opening up for the Church to reflect on these policy objectives and input at local, national and international fora to promote an approach consistent with Catholic social teaching.
Evangelizing AI? While the above suggestions for government and societal engagement are important, at the heart of AI are individuals designing systems, writing code, and collecting and processing data. It is the mindsets and decisions of these individuals which determine the degree that future AI will meet appropriate ethical and human-centered standards. Presently these individuals are a technical elite of code writers and data scientists – more likely measured in hundreds of thousands rather than millions.
21.Cf. G20 Ministerial Statement on Trade and Digital Economy (www.mofa. go.jp/files/000486596.pdf), June 2019. ANTONIO SPADARO - PAUL TWOMEY
Here is an opportunity for Christians and for the Church to live the culture of encounter, to live and offer an authentic personal realization for this particular community. To continue bringing the Gospel and the Church’s deep experience of ethics and social justice to data scientists and software engineers is a blessing for all – and also the most likely way to change the culture and practice of AI for the better. 22 The evolution of Artificial Intelligence will be a powerful force to shape the 21st century. The Church is called to listen, reflect and engage with an ethical and spiritual framework for the AI community and thus serve the universal community. In the tradition of Rerum Novarum, here there is a call to social justice. There is a need for discernment. The Church’s voice is 10 needed in the ongoing policy discussions about how to define and implement ethical principles for AI.
22.Research by Pew Charitable Trusts has shown that AI algorithms are compiled primarily to optimize efficiency and profitability, considering human beings a mere input into the process, rather than seeing them as real, sentient, sensitive and changeable beings. This would result inan altered society, conditioned by the logic of algorithms. In order to counter this perception and the consequent risks of bias in the AI, the commitment to the definition of purposes and to the collection and use of data is fundamental. As ethics expert Thilo Hagendorff says: “The checkboxes to be ticked should not be the only ‘tools’ of AI ethics. A transition [...] to a situation-sensitive ethical criterion based on personal virtues and dispositions, expansion of knowledge, responsible autonomy and freedom of action is necessary” (T. Hagendorff, “The Ethics of AI Ethics - An Evaluation of Guidelines” [arxiv.org/abs/1903.03425], February 28, 2019). The Berlin Conference and Civil War in Libya
Giovanni Sale, SJ
The Berlin Conference on Libya, attended by representatives of 11 countries (mostly heads of government) and major international organizations, January 19, 2020, produced a joint declaration that supports the efforts of the United Nations for a lasting truce, for enforcement of the arms embargo and for the 11 dismantling of militias supported by foreign powers who are fueling a “proxy war” in the country. So far several points set out in the communiqué have not been acted upon. The truce, signed only by President al Fayez al-Sarraj, essentially still holds, although almost every day both sides attack each other.1 It is necessary for the warring parties and the major powers involved in the conflict to make concrete moves towards peace in order to implement the Berlin declarations. “If peace is not achieved as soon as possible,” said German Chancellor Angela Merkel, “chaos in Libya will affect the whole Mediterranean.”2 In order to understand this event, its strengths and also its weaknesses, it is necessary to take a step back and retrace the course of the war and diplomatic efforts of recent months.
La Civiltà Cattolica, En. Ed. Vol. 4, no. 03 art. 2, 0320: 10.32009/22072446.0320.2
1.At the negotiations opened in Geneva, the two sides agreed to turn the “truce” into a “lasting ceasefire,” although they have yet to agree on how to implement this objective. 2.M. Ansaldo, “I colloqui con Merkel su Libia e profughi” in la Repubblica, January 25, 2020. GIOVANNI SALE, SJ
The Libyan civil war between Haftar and al-Sarraj The Libyan civil war began on April 4, 2019, when General Khalifa Haftar commenced an assault on Tripoli, leading the self-proclaimed Libyan National Army (LNA).3 The capital was controlled by the Government of National Agreement (GNA), led by Fayez al-Sarraj, which has the official recognition of the international community, i.e. the UN, and was supported by the militias of western Libya. In those spring days, Haftar’s warlike propaganda Haftar made one fear an immediate conquest of the city. The general, who controlled much of the country – i.e. Cyrenaica and Fezzan – and hoped that many cities in Tripolitania would switch to his side, felt victory was at hand. Haftar, an 12 officer in the Gaddafi regime during the defeat in Chad in 1987, had fled into exile in the USA but was convinced that he was fulfilling his lifelong dream of triumphantly ruling in Tripoli.4 Things turned out differently. For months pro- Haftar militias remained almost stationary a few kilometers from the capital, occupying minimal territory. Only in recent weeks, with the taking of Sirte on January 7th, has the “siege” of the capital intensified. In these eleven months of civil war the death toll has unfortunately been very high: about 2,000 soldiers and more than 200 civilians killed. “If it is the Libyans who are fighting and dying,” it has been written, “it is to a large extent the foreign powers that are pulling the strings of this war.”5 In fact, both sides of the struggle are supported by regional powers that, after the end of the bloody Syrian conflict, are fighting a proxy war in Libya for the domination of the Maghreb, which is rich in oil and gas (when it was occupied by Italy from 1911 until 1947 it was described as “a useless sandbox”), and for the control of the Mediterranean. Turkey, Qatar and some Maghreb countries
3.Cf. G. Sale, “L’attacco del generale Haftar a Tripoli” in Civ. Catt. 2019 II 456-469. 4.Cf. G. Di Feo, “Il signore della guerra totale” in la Repubblica, January 11, 2020. 5.M. Herbert, “Alta tecnologia sul campo di battaglia” in Internazionale, December 20, 2019, 32. THE BERLIN CONFERENCE AND CIVIL WAR IN LIBYA
– in particular Tunisia and Algeria – support al-Sarraj and the GNA, while Russia, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and, “under the radar,” France support the General from Cyrenaica. In these months of struggle foreign allies have offered both sides diplomatic support, military equipment (in particular drones), qualified military personnel and mercenaries of all kinds. In Libya “a war without armies is underway, with two jagged fronts, composed of militias willing to sell themselves to the highest bidder, local leaders who dictate the law, few units really trained and willing to go on the attack.”6 This explains why, after so many months of war, neither side was able to defeat their opponent. With al-Sarraj are the military forces of Tripoli, and above all the well-trained and equipped militias 13 of Misurata. Without the presence of the latter, according to several analysts, the General from Cyrenaica would already have been able to enter the capital. Supporting Haftar’s LNA are many militias, ranging from the secular Gaddafians to the pro-Saudite Salafists (sent from Riyadh to fight the hated Muslim Brotherhood, entirely deployed on the other side), totaling about 20,000 men.7 A characteristic of this civil war has been the widespread use of drones on both sides. In fact, the GNA and the LNA can count on their allies for their supply. Turkey has sent dozens of Bayraktar Tb2 drones, in addition to ground control units.
6.G. Stabile, “Due eserciti incapaci di combattere senza gli aiuti degli alleati esterni” in La Stampa, January 20, 2020. 7.The core of Haftar’s army is made up of two brigades: the 106th, composed of about 7,000 soldiers (many of whom are career soldiers), armed by the Russians and commanded by his son Khaled; and the 73rd, also composed of about 7,000 men and equipped with the latest generation of weapons, with modern armored vehicles and drones sent by the Emirates. The LNA’s strong point seems to be aviation. These regular units have been joined by dozens of militias, particularly the Madkhalists, followers of the Saudi preacher Rabi al Madkhali. On al-Sarraj’s side, there are about 15,000 fighting men. These are militias that fought against Gaddafi in 2011, and many of them are linked to the Brotherhood (this explains, among other things, the coalition of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates against the government in Tripoli). The core of this “army” is the militia of Misurata and other cities near the capital, which, unlike the mercenaries, are well motivated to fight. GIOVANNI SALE, SJ
The Emirates have supplied Haftar with Chinese produced Wing Loog II drones. These unmanned aerial vehicles, which cost much less than warplanes, are used for reconnaissance missions, to give air cover to units involved in ground strikes, or even to hit precise targets, both military and civilian, such as weapons depots or airports as happened on January 5th, when a drone hit military school cadets in Tripoli, killing 30 cadets. 8 According to al-Sarraj, this attack was “a war crime.” It seems that there have been more than 1,000 drone attacks on both sides in recent months. This inaugurates a new way of “making war.” According to some observers, the conflicts of the future will move in this direction, both because drones can carry out relatively precise attacks and because they are cheaper 14 than aircraft.9
Russia and Turkey enter the Libyan conflict As had previously happened in Syria, since the autumn of 2019 the “civil war” in Libya has turned into a strategic-military challenge between the major powers, particularly between Putin’s Russia and Erdoğan’s Turkey (behind which other regional powers are moving). The aim of both is to extend their influence in that strategic region of North Africa, but also in the Mediterranean, which, until a few years ago, was considered the “American sea par excellence.” This filled the gap left in these months of war by the EU and the U.S., the powers that overthrew Gaddafi’s regime in 2011. As far as the EU was concerned, the problem of migrants – and its effects at the national level – had obscured the ongoing war, although European governments insisted, mostly rhetorically, on the need to “stabilize Libya.” These are empty words, which have usually not been followed by any decisive action on the part of the EU. The surprising evolution of the Libyan conflict escalated in September, when Moscow, unofficially, began to send mercenaries – it seems about 500 men – to Haftar’s aid.
8.Cf. F. Battistini, “Strage di cadetti, accuse ad Haftar” in Corriere della Sera, January 6, 2020. 9.Cf. M. Herbert, “Alta tecnologia sul campo di battaglia” op. cit., 32. THE BERLIN CONFERENCE AND CIVIL WAR IN LIBYA
These are men who are operating in agreement with the Kremlin in various crisis zones. At first Putin did not seem intent on getting caught up in the Libyan chaos, but then things changed: the Russian leader realized that he could capitalize in Libya, both in terms of regional influence and new opportunities for Russian companies, first and foremost in the energy sector. Therefore he decided to cultivate both sides, by maintaining close relations with Tripoli and carefully intensifying support for Haftar (officially denied), maintaining Russian interests on the field and in negotiations.10 Never before has Russia’s presence extended as far as the Mediterranean and the coasts of Syria and Libya, to the long-desired warm water ports, thus fulfilling an old dream of the czars. The men sent by Putin to Libya are fighting alongside the 15 Haftar militia without uniforms, badges or other identifying insignia. Highly skilled contractors are employed by the notorious Wagner Group, run by Yevgeny Prigozhin, nicknamed “Putin’s cook,” because he ran a catering company that had the exclusive right to cater for receptions in the Kremlin.11 These are the so-called “little green men” – much appreciated as snipers and known for their cruelty – who had been fighting in Ukraine for years to support the secession of the Donbass region: a war that has already caused 14,000 deaths. Wagner’s contractors operating anonymously removes any direct responsibility for the cruelties of the conflict from Moscow, but has given it the opportunity to act as an intermediary and negotiator between the parties to the conflict.12 On November 27, 2019, the Government of al-Sarraj signed two Memoranda of Understanding with Turkey on military cooperation and maritime borders in the Eastern Mediterranean, implementing the proposals made by the Turkish President in his New Year’s speech. The short term objective of the GNA was to
10.Cf. O. Moscatelli, “Putin in Libia ha mancato il colpo grosso” in www. limesonline.com/libia-russia-putin-haftar-accordo-petrolio/116244. 11.Cf. P. Garimberti, “Putin nel Mediterraneo” in la Repubblica, December 21, 2019. 12.Cf. L. Caracciolo, “Pessime notizie dalla guerra per procura in Libia” at www.limesonline.com/ GIOVANNI SALE, SJ
repel the forces of Haftar, which were surrounding Tripoli more and more closely, but also to consolidate the relationship with the Turks in order to stop once and for all Haftar’s offensive, pushing him back into his own territory. With this intervention, Ankara wanted to safeguard the gains 13 made with these memoranda. They committed Tripoli to accept Turkish claims over a large area of the eastern Mediterranean, which would then become an exclusive zone (Zee) of Turkey, with the right to drill there and more. This agreement has been severely criticized by Greece, which is a member of the EU, and also by Cyprus and Egypt, who are claiming their rights to that slice of the sea. In retaliation, Greece has severed diplomatic relations with Tripoli.14 16 As expected, on January 2, 2020, the Turkish Parliament authorized the sending of soldiers to Libya and adopted a resolution by 325 votes to 184. In fact, this decision formally violated the UN arms embargo on Libya (UN Resolution 1970 of 2011), something that was not actually being observed by any of the parties. It should be remembered that Erdoğan intervened in the theatre of war not by an act of force, but on the basis of an agreement providing for military assistance and at the invitation of the GNA.15 Turkey, by widening the conflict and arming al-Sarraj’s forces, exposed the inconsistency of the peace process and the multilateral negotiations launched with the support of the EU and by the United Nations, whose attempts to resolve the crisis diplomatically had failed. In Libya, Turkey can afford to show its cards and come out into the open, because the U.S. has withdrawn from that front. “The Americans are outside Libya, but also outside the Sahel and all of Africa. Their strategic mandate is only to contain
13.Cf. M. Yesiltas, “Perché la Turchia manda i soldati a Tripoli” in Internazionale, January 10, 2020, 20. 14.Cf. M. Cousins, “Una pericolosa offerta turca” ibid., December 20, 2019, 33. Greece, Cyprus and Israel in those days signed an agreement for a gas pipeline that conflicts with Turkish interests in the area. Cf. M. Rafenberg, “EastMed, le projet de gazoduc destiné à contrer Turquie” in Le Monde, January 4, 2020. 15.Cf. M. Jégo, “Ankara prêt à intervenir militairement en Libye” ibid. THE BERLIN CONFERENCE AND CIVIL WAR IN LIBYA
China and Russia globally [...]. This has opened a space that has allowed Russia and Turkey to define themselves as new protagonists and to claim it publicly.”16 It should also be pointed out that Ankara intervened in Libya – supplying men,17 weapons and latest generation drones – not against Moscow, but to be present in a strategically important region and to protect its economic interests. In fact, Erdoğan’s ambition is to find a negotiating space with Putin in order to divide the country into areas of influence. In this way,” writes Vincenzo Nigro, “the heirs of the Ottoman and Russian empires, after working on the partition of Syria, will discuss the division of Libya, without Europe and especially without the United States.”18 Ankara’s real adversaries in this game are, in reality, the other countries that support Haftar, namely Egypt, the UAE 17 and Saudi Arabia, who are fighting the Muslim Brotherhood, allies of both the GNA and Turkey, in Libya. The speed of these military developments has taken the Western powers by surprise. Paris has discovered that it has lost the role of main ally to the Cyrenaica General, putting its oil interests at risk in that region, where the French company Total operates. Meanwhile Italy, which has important economic interests in Tripolitania, for example with ENI, has seen its 19 “privileged partnership” with the GNA being snatched away, all this to the apparent indifference of other European governments. Rome and Paris almost competed for first place in the dispute in 2018 (with the Palermo conference, which did not produce any final document) and in 2019 they set in motion their diplomacy, in agreement with the UN, to organize meetings between the warring parties and agree on some suspension of the conflict, but without achieving any significant result.
16.A. Camilli, “La vera posta in gioco nell’intervento turco in Libia” in https://www.internazionale.it/bloc-notes/annalisa-camilli/2020/01/04/libia- turchia-russia-guerra. 17.Most of the soldiers sent to Libya are members of Sunni Islamist militias who fought for Erdoǧan against the Kurds in northern Syria. 18.V. Nigro, “Tripoli cade?” in la Repubblica, December 14, 2019. 19.M. Molinari, “Libia, è ancora di Putin ed Erdogan” in La Stampa, December 15, 2019. GIOVANNI SALE, SJ
The conflict in Libya and the diplomatic route January 8, 2020, was an important day for the Libyan crisis. The leader of the GNA, President al-Sarraj, met in Brussels with the EU High Representative for Foreign Policy, Josep Borrell, and the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli. He was supposed to go to Rome in the evening to meet Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, who argued for a political and negotiating solution to the crisis, but he cancelled his visit and returned to Tripoli after learning that Conte had recently met Haftar at the Palazzo Chigi, the seat of the Italian government. A visit to Rome by al Serraj took place a few days later, but it was only technical, with the aim of “repairing” the Italian diplomatic gaffe. 18 On January 7th the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom met in Brussels to discuss the situation in Libya. They have once again ruled out EU military involvement – as al-Sarraj would have wanted – in the North African country, where there are soldiers sent by other world powers. The summit also condemned the Turkish military intervention alongside the GNA and did not rule out the possibility of the Sophia naval mission being equipped with new ships, as well as aircraft.20 On January 8th, in Istanbul, an important summit took place involving the Turkish President Erdoǧan and the Russian President Putin. Officially the two leaders met to inaugurate the Turkstream gas pipeline, which will bring Russian gas from southern Turkey across the Black Sea to the whole of Europe. But they also dealt with the Libyan crisis and called for a ceasefire to be adopted by January 12th. According to some observers, this “Russian-Turkish pax,” designed along the lines of the one implemented in Syria, had,
20.In order to safeguard the ceasefire decreed in Berlin, the EU has decided to relaunch Operation Sophia, which will no longer have to deal with “human traffickers,” but will have the main purpose of monitoring the UN arms embargo. In addition to ships, aircraft and reconnaissance satellites will also be used in the operation. According to Josep Borrell, this is because arms trafficking today takes place mainly in African deserts. Cf. “Regge la tregua in Libia” in Oss. Rom., January 22, 2020. THE BERLIN CONFERENCE AND CIVIL WAR IN LIBYA in fact, as its main objective to limit the influence of the UN and the EU in the ongoing negotiation process, and allow Moscow and Ankara to get their hands on Libya and its oil. “We express our commitment,” said the two leaders, “to a de-escalation of tensions in the region and call on all parties to act with balance and common sense and to give priority to democracy.”21 Haftar was not happy with the decision taken by the “great powers” in Istanbul. Two days earlier, in fact, he had achieved an important military victory when his forces entered Sirte, a coastal city, former stronghold of Gaddafi and capital of the Islamic State Group in Libya from 2014 to 2016. But it must also be said that the general’s troops entered the city without firing a shot. In fact, the two major ex-Gaddafi groups present in Sirte – the Gaddafa and the Warfalla – had formed an alliance 19 with Haftar, seeing in him a worthy successor to the Libyan dictator, capable of defeating the Misurata militias, whom they consider their greatest enemies. On January 13, the combatant parties were invited by Putin to Moscow to sign a general ceasefire in Libya, a document prepared by the Russians and Turks in support of diplomatic action under the auspices of the United Nations.22 The document was signed by al-Sarraj, while Haftar left the Russian capital without signing it, stating that “our demands have not been met,” and asking for time to reflect on the document with his allies. In fact, the document was not to the liking of the Egyptians either, who wanted to make Libya into a sort of vassal state. The same was true of the Emirates and the Saudis, who did not want to accept a text drafted by
21.G. Agliastro, “Erdoǧan e Putin, patto sulla Libia: “Ora si fermino i combattenti” in La Stampa, January 9, 2020. 22.In the joint statement Putin and Erdoǧan stated: “With great concern we follow recent events, in particular the intense fighting around Tripoli [...] with consequences for irregular migration, the spread of arms, terrorism and crime, including smuggling.” Immediately afterward, the inviolability of Libya’s sovereignty, independence and territorial and national integrity was reaffirmed, “objectives that can only be achieved through a political process, led by the Libyans and based on a sincere and inclusive dialogue between all” (A. Scott, “Erdoǧan e Putin mediano in Libia: ‘cessate il fuoco’” in Il Sole 24 Ore, January 9, 2020). GIOVANNI SALE, SJ
the Turkish protectors of the Muslim Brotherhood and urged Haftar to continue his enterprise in order to gain ground before the next round of negotiations. Russian diplomacy had underestimated the role that these countries played in the current war, and in particular the determination of the Emirates, whose drones are indispensable if Haftar is to continue the conflict. In the end, the latter, in order not to weaken his position, considered it appropriate to drop Putin’s proposal and promise his participation in the Conference on Libya, in Berlin, January 19, under the auspices of the EU (with the support of the UN), and in which Europe was trying for the first time to speak “with one voice.” 20 The European Union, despite internal divisions and its substantial absence from the conflict for years, has tried “to resume the diplomatic thread and, under the direction of Germany, has invited all those involved in the conflict to the Conference in the German capital.”23 This initiative also had the support of Moscow and Ankara, who specified that the foundations of the Berlin meeting had already been laid in the previous one in Moscow and that, in any case, its decisions would then have to be approved by the UN.
The Berlin Conference on Libya The day before the Berlin Conference, General Haftar made a sudden decision to block the sale of Libyan oil, closing the five ports – Brega, Al Sidra, Tobruk, Ras Lanuf and Zueitina – from which crude oil from inland oil fields in the eastern part of the country are exported, forcing the national oil company, NOC, to declare “force majeure” (which is the contractual formula for suspending export contracts). Haftar’s tactical move prevented the sale of some 800,000 barrels of oil a day, that is, 70% of Libyan exports. In this way, the general intended to present himself in Berlin “with the production blockade card, which controlled the flow
23.O. Moscatelli, “Putin in Libia ha mancato il colpo grosso,” op. cit. THE BERLIN CONFERENCE AND CIVIL WAR IN LIBYA of money and a possible humanitarian crisis,”24 believing that this would be beneficial to him from a negotiating point of view. In fact, while the eastern part of the country can rely on financial aid from the Emirates, the western part is economically dependent on oil revenues. Until that moment, despite the harshness of the conflict, Haftar had avoided touching the two pillars on which the economy of the entire country is based, namely the state oil company and the Central Bank, which collects and distributes oil revenues among the different territorial components. If the closure of exports were to continue for a long time, as well as damaging the country, it could affect the price of oil in the global market. The long-awaited Conference took place on January 19th. 21 It was attended by delegations from 11 countries, represented at the highest level. The two “belligerents” al-Sarraj and Haftar did not attend the plenary meetings: they were in two separate rooms and were informed by their respective representatives. The meeting was also attended by the U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, which makes clear the importance of the event even for those who had distanced themselves from the Libyan conflict. The Conference worked on a draft previously elaborated by some EU countries and the UN, which was divided into six chapters and 55 points. The final document provides for a step-by-step peace process: “UN-monitored ceasefire; arms embargo and dismantling of militias; safeguarding of the state oil company, political negotiations, economic reforms and protection of human rights; elections and a new government.”25 The very ambitious text outlines a path that can be divided into two phases: the first focused on the need for an immediate ceasefire and the immediate withdrawal of the powers that intervened in various ways in the conflict; the second is oriented toward the political and programmatic
24.F. Battistini, “Libia, bloccati i porti del petrolio. Le pressioni di Haftar su Berlino” in la Repubblica, January 19, 2020. 25.T. Ciriaco, “Tregua ed embargo sulle armi. Il piano per il futuro della Libia” in la Repubblica, January 19, 2020. GIOVANNI SALE, SJ
aspect, aiming to stabilize the country, but to begin only later. According to the declaration, the so-called “phase two” should activate an equitable political process, leading to the creation of a “Presidential Council and a single, unified, inclusive and effective Libyan national government.” Not two Libyas, but one, governed by one political leader. In fact, all the parties involved have pledged to support this path; they have promised to respect the arms embargo and to reject external interference. Angela Merkel, in her meeting with the press, admitted that, although not all the problems had been solved, the main result for which the summit had met had been achieved. “We all agree,” said the German Chancellor, “that we need a political solution [to the crisis], because there is no 22 possibility of a military solution.”26 One of the most important advances has been in the designation of five names nominated by each of the parties (i.e. Haftar and al-Sarraj) for the formation of a joint Libyan Military Committee, which will have the task of monitoring the ceasefire and establishing the line of deployment and should meet, under the auspices of the UN, in Geneva as soon as possible. This body, proposed by the United Nations – whose Security Council will have to evaluate the documents approved in Berlin – should help consolidate the truce. The document, approved – with greater or lesser conviction – by all the countries that participated in the Conference, was not, however, signed by the two main actors, Haftar and al- Sarraj, who left Berlin without meeting. This makes Libya’s “stabilization process” rather uncertain. One weak element of the document, according to observers, is that it does not provide for sanctions for those who break the truce or violate the arms embargo. It seems that everything is entrusted to the good will of the parties concerned, or rather to the international bodies responsible for ensuring the truce. In fact, the signatories of the declaration include countries that are openly violating the UN embargo on arms sales in Libya. They are the same players who in
26.Ibid. THE BERLIN CONFERENCE AND CIVIL WAR IN LIBYA
Syria have shown that they can use force without too much trouble. There has also been talk of sending a peacekeeping force to Libya to ensure respect for the ceasefire. The EU is willing to send its soldiers on this mission. Other countries – for example Turkey – have made it known that they prefer this task to be carried out by the UN military. For many analysts, the Berlin Conference marks a watershed with the past. In fact, it has brought the EU back to the forefront, handing back to the UN “a crisis management otherwise entrusted to the double protectorate of Putin and Erdoǧan.”27 Moreover, for the time being the agreed truce is “in part” holding up, and that is a good thing. It should be remembered, however, that four days after the summit, on January 22nd, the Haftar militia launched Russian-made rockets against Tripoli 23 airport, where military drones were deployed, without causing any serious damage. The oil pipelines that were closed by Haftar on Saturday January 18th, have not yet been reopened, despite protests from the international community. This risks causing considerable economic damage to a country already weakened by the conflict.28 Even after the Conference, Arab soldiers sent by Turkey continued to enter Libya, and the Emirates continued to send weapons encouraging Haftar to continue the conflict.29 It will not be possible to make an assessment of the effectiveness of the planned measures for some time. In any case, the Berlin Conference was an important event, and the decisions taken there with the help of the major powers (in particular Russia
27.Ibid. 28.The EU, in a statement, said it was “deeply concerned that NOC has been forced to suspend activities in major oil plants in the country and called for an immediate resumption of activities.” The document is not intended to denounce the party that closed the wells (in view of the French obstruction of a condemnation of Haftar), but to take a common position toward an act that is harmful both to Libya and to the international oil market. See V. Nigro, “Libia, Haftar rompe la tregua. Razzi sull’aeroporto di Tripoli” in la Repubblica, January 23, 2020; “Nessuno convince Haftar a fare la pace” in Internazionale, January 24, 2020, 12. 29.Cf. G. Di Deo, “Se in Libia si torna a sparare” in la Repubblica, January 24, 2020. GIOVANNI SALE, SJ
and Turkey), could facilitate the continuation of the truce and thus put an end to the massacres and destruction. After all, wars of this kind, as has been written, have gone through several agreements and several trialogues, before diplomacy ended up reaching a peaceful solution.30 On the day the Conference was held, Sunday, January 19th, in the Angelus prayer, Pope Francis spoke words of encouragement, hoping that “this summit, so important, is the beginning of a path toward an end to violence and a negotiated solution that will lead to peace and the much desired stability of the country.”31
24
30.Cf. P. Haski, “Da Berlino piovono buone intenzioni sulla tregua in Libia” in https://www.internazionale.it/bloc-notes/annalisa-camilli/2020/01/04/libia- turchia-russia-guerra. 31.Francis, Angelus, St. Peter’s Square, January 19, 2020, in w2.vatican.va The Beginning of the Universe and the Question of God
Gabriele Gionti, SJ
The vision of the universe from the Old Testament to St. Thomas Aquinas The Old Testament view of the universe is greatly influenced by the fact that the Jewish people were heirs to Semitic culture. For this reason we cannot separate the vision of the cosmos of the 25 Old Testament from that of the surrounding Semitic cultures. That conception saw the earth as flat. The sky that overlooked it was the “natural” place where God was. However, in a close parallel to the foundations of human dwellings it needed foundations on which to stand, and the columns of heaven were raised on these foundations, situated at the edge of the flat earth. Beneath them were all the stars, the sun, the planets and clouds you can see in the sky. Above the firmament, and separated from it by the columns of the sky, was water. In fact, there had to be a place to contain the water that spilled onto the earth during rain. Beyond it was the heaven of heaven, and above it was God.1 This vision was not shared by classical Greek culture, in which the dominant cosmology was that of Aristotle. The philosopher from Stagira took up ideas of natural philosophers before him and elaborated the theory of the natural elements. He thought that there were five natural elements: earth, water, air, fire and ether (which was an incorruptible element).2
La Civiltà Cattolica, En. Ed. Vol. 4, no. 03 art. 3, 0320: 10.32009/22072446.0320.3
1.Cf. R. A. Simkins, “Worldview” in D. N. Freedman - A. C. Myers - A. B. Beck (eds), Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, Grand Rapids (Mi), Eerdmans, 2000, 1387-1389. 2.Cf. [Aristotle, De caelo, Milan, Bompiani, 2002. GABRIELE GIONTI, SJ
The motions, according to Aristotle, occur in such a way that the elements move to their natural places: earth goes toward the earth; water toward water, which is higher than the earth; the air toward the air, which is higher than the water; and the fire toward the fire, which is higher than the air. Then there are the “violent” movements, in which the elements can move under the influence of a force toward places that are not necessarily “natural”; for example, the earth toward the air, etc.. The fifth element, the ether, is an element that lies beyond the moon, and could be called “perfect,” because it is not subject to generation and corruption like the other four, but remains always the same. Earth is at the center of the universe, and the moon, its 26 satellite, revolves around it in a circular orbit. The other planets, including the sun, rotate around the earth in circular orbits. Earth and the other four elements are located under the sublunar circle, bound by the orbit of the moon. Above it is the circle of the orbits of Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn (all the heavenly bodies observed with the naked eye). Then there is the circle of fixed stars, beyond which there is the circle of the first unmoved mover, which is considered to be the primary cause of all other movements, but itself does not move. The Aristotelian vision of the universe continued to be considered valid throughout the Middle Ages and is also found in the cosmology and theology of St. Thomas Aquinas.3 Dante Alighieri was deeply influenced by it and used it in the Divine Comedy. In this work, in fact, we observe that Hell lies at the center of the earth, which is divided into two hemispheres: that of earth and that of water. On the surface of the hemisphere of the earth rises the city of Jerusalem, while diametrically opposite it, on the surface of the hemisphere of water, there is Purgatory, and then the Earthly Paradise. Below we find the various circles, of which we have already spoken and which in the Divine Comedy correspond to the various skies, until we reach the eighth starry sky, the ninth
3.Cf. Sum. Theol. I, q. 65; q. 74. THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE QUESTION OF GOD crystalline sky of the First Moved, and the quiet sky with the beginning of the empyrean zone, the abode of the blessed and the nine angelic circles with God at the center.
From the Aristotelian to the Copernican system Although this Aristotelian cosmology was considered reliable, a fairly serious problem arose, however, concerning the motion of the planets in the sky. In fact, observing the planets at different times of the year, one could see that they moved differently in the sky than other celestial bodies. The first to try to solve this problem was the Alexandrian mathematician and astronomer Ptolemy, who wrote the Almagest. He believed that the motion of the planets was, in fact, the composition of two motions. There was a circle with 27 its center on planet earth, called the “deferent circle,” around which rotated the center of a second circle, called the “epicycle,” around which the planet rotated. The rotation was in the same counterclockwise direction. The composition of these two motions gave rise to the retrograde motion of the planet with respect to the earth. The geometric figure of this last motion is called “cardioid.”4 Later, however, as observations – which were still being made with the naked eye – became more and more accurate, it became apparent that Ptolemy’s model was not accurate. Tycho Brahe, a Danish astronomer, proposed a variation, according to which the sun revolved around the earth and the other planets revolved around the sun. This allowed observations to be better explained.5 But it was Nicolaus Copernicus, in his book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, who first proposed the heliocentric system in comparatively modern times. This system was taken into serious consideration by Galileo Galilei, whose great merit, in the astronomical field, was to turn his telescope up to the sky. Obviously he was not the inventor of this instrument, which had been discovered in Holland, but he did improve it.
4.Cf. “Tolomeo, Claudio” in Treccani Encyclopedia on line (www.treccani. it/enciclopedia/claudio-tolomeo). 5.Cf. A. Fantoli, Galileo per il copernicanesimo e per la Chiesa, Vatican City, Libr. Ed. Vaticana, 2010, 26-32. GABRIELE GIONTI, SJ
One of the first things Galileo noticed was that there were black spots on the surface of the sun, which he called sunspots. Their position sometimes changed over time, as they appeared, then disappeared or new ones were formed. Galileo understood that this implied a change in the surface of the sun, in contrast to the Aristotelian vision of the supralunar world, constituted by the ether and considered immutable, in the sense that it was not subject to generation and corruption. Moreover, observing sunspots for a long time, Galileo understood that their movement on the solar surface could be better explained by assuming that the earth revolved around the sun, and not vice versa. The scientist also studied the phases of the planet Venus, which confirmed for him the idea that 28 Aristotle’s theory of the ether could not be valid. Galileo’s observations on the motion of the Medici satellites around Jupiter have remained famous. They showed that not every body in the universe had to rotate around the earth. As decisive evidence of the motion of the earth around the sun, the scientist from Pisa used the tidal phenomenon, but as we know that evidence was wrong. However, he insisted, and rightly so, that astronomical observations were better explained by the heliocentric system. As is well known, Galileo was put to trial by the Church because he supported the Copernican system. A commission set up by the Court of the Holy Office of the Roman Inquisition judged and condemned the theses of Copernicanism in 1633, and Galileo had to abjure the Copernican system. The Commission stated that Galileo did not provide definitive proof of this system. This would only be given a long time later, in 1833, with the measurement of the parallax of the nearby stars by the German astronomer, Bessel. In fact, if we assume that it is the earth that revolves around the sun, then the same star should be seen, at two different times of the year, by an observer on earth, at a different angle. This angle is larger the closer the star is to the earth. But, since the stars are very far from the earth, even the nearest ones have a very small and difficult to measure parallax angle (this is why they were called “fixed stars,” because they seem to always stay in the same place).6
6.Cf. ibid., 107-233. THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE QUESTION OF GOD
Even before the definitive experimental proof of the earth’s rotation around the sun, Isaac Newton had formulated the three principles of the dynamics of classical physics and the law of universal gravitation, which allowed him to understand that, for physical reasons, it was the earth that revolved around the sun. Furthermore, he was able to calculate the orbit of the earth around the sun and confirm that it was an ellipse, as Kepler had deduced from Brahe’s observations. Newton also had the distinction of having been the first to demonstrate that the force of gravitation, called “central force,” gives rise to trajectories that are always, as expressed in geometric language, “conic,” that is, their orbits can be either ellipses or parabolas or hyperboles. The planets, for example, always describe ellipses, as Kepler had already said.7 The Newtonian 29 universe is therefore a universe in which the sun is at the center, the planets rotate around it on elliptical orbits, and the stars are fixed and grouped in constellations. Later Kant and Laplace developed a theory about the birth and evolution of the solar system from an originating nebula. In this vision the universe, even though it was thought to be made up of stars, was considered static: local movements of the stars could take place, but the universe as a whole did not expand; it remained stationary.8 The birth of modern cosmology can be traced back to the German astronomer, Olbers, who imagined an infinite universe, infinitely old and with an infinite number of stars. Let us suppose we were astronomers before the 20th century, and ask ourselves how many stars we can see. If the universe really is static and infinitely old, then the night should be clear. Olbers madea simple calculation in which he assumed that the light flow of a star at distance R from an observer was inversely proportional to the square of the distance. By considering the density of the stars constant and calculating the total brightness, we arrive at a formula in which the brightness differs, and therefore the night should be light, whereas in reality it is dark.
7.Cf. D. E. Roller - R. Blum, Fisica, Bologna, Zanichelli, 1984, 277-299. 8.Cf. L. Gratton, Cosmology, ibid., 1987, 139-143. GABRIELE GIONTI, SJ
Olbers proposed a solution to this paradox with the case of a static universe. He said that we cannot see the distant stars, because their light has not yet reached us. In other words, according to him there was a horizon beyond which the stars could not be seen, while their light, within that horizon, could reach us. As our distance from the horizon increased, the radius of the horizon grew over time.9
General relativity and the birth of relativistic cosmology The definitive explanation of Olbers’ paradox would be given only after the discovery of the theory of general relativity and relativistic cosmology. Albert Einstein is rightly considered the scientist who, more than any other, made fundamental 30 contributions to physics in the 20th century. He tried to formulate a theory of gravity that was a field theory and in which there was no action at a distance, as in Newton’s theory. For Einstein, a massive body “immediately” feels the presence of another body, and it can be said that this system implies a propagation with an infinite speed of gravitational perturbations. Obviously Einstein knew Maxwell’s theory of electro- magnetism well and wondered how gravity could be described, not as an action at a distance, but as a field whose perturbations propagate with the speed of light. It took him 10 years from the discovery of special relativity to answer this question, and finally, in 1915, he came to the formulation of general relativity. This theory represents, in the history of physics, the beginning of a marriage between physical theories and complex mathematical theories. In fact, general relativity would not exist without Riemannian geometry, or rather without Lorentzian geometry. The theory of general relativity is based on two fundamental postulates. The first is that the gravitational mass of each body is equal to its inertial mass, that is, the numerical value of the mass by which two bodies attract each other is equal to that of the inertial mass, which indicates how a body opposes movement.
9.Cf. S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology, New York, John Wiley and Son, 1972, 611-613. THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE QUESTION OF GOD
The second postulate is the principle of covariance, according to which the laws of physics are the same, therefore covariant, in every reference system. In particular, this theory includes non-inertial reference systems, i.e. those that have a relative acceleration with respect to each other. In the theory of special relativity, reference systems that have only a constant relative speed with respect to each other are taken into account. In this way space-time becomes a physical entity, which is no longer an element indifferent to physical phenomena, but is modified by the presence of massive bodies or the presence of energy and acquires a curvature. So gravity is no longer a force at a distance, but becomes a field theory.10 This means that, if I have a body of mass m1 and move its position, another body of mass m2 will feel the displacement (perturbation) of the position of m1 not 31 immediately, but after a time equal to the time it takes the light to travel the distance that separates the bodies m1 and m2. A consequence of all this is that if a ray of light that is emitted from a distant star to reach us passes close to the sun, it is deflected by the curvature generated by the mass of the sun, so that its apparent position with respect to an observer on earth does not coincide with its actual position. Immediately after the publication of the theory of general relativity, many physicists and mathematicians tried to derive exact solutions from the equations to which it gave rise. Friedmann,, Robertson and Walker (FLRW), independently of each other, found that, if we assume that the distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, on a large scale, the solutions of the equations of general relativity foresee a universe that is, in the spatial part, a (three-dimensional) surface of a four-dimensional sphere, whose radius represents time. This sphere expands, and so the universe expands in time. To express this by analogy, three-dimensional space behaves as if it were a two-dimensional spherical surface on which all the galaxies and elements in general of the universe are located. Like a fairground balloon, this sphere expands, so the distance between galaxies increases over time.
10.Cf. ibid., 67-70; 91-93. GABRIELE GIONTI, SJ
Einstein did not like this solution, and he branded it “abominable.” For this reason he modified the equations of general relativity, introducing a constant, called “ the cosmological constant,” which provided a solution in a static universe that did not expand. However, the measurement of the recession of the Hubble galaxies and, before that, the redshift of the spectral lines of the stars showed that the universe was actually expanding. When he realized this, Einstein declared that he had made the biggest mistake of his life.11 But if the universe expands, then, going back in time, there must have been a primordial period when it was very small. This gave rise to the idea of the Belgian priest and cosmologist Georges Lemaître, who hypothesized that in the beginning the 32 universe was the size of an atom (which he called “ the original atom”), and that therefore the laws governing this original universe-atom were those of quantum mechanics. Lemaître also had the distinction of having deduced from the cosmological model FLRW, purely theoretically, before Hubble’s measurement, the existence of the recession of the galaxies. However, as there were still no accurate measures of this phenomenon, he published his article in a little-known French magazine, so the credit for the famous law that bears his name went to Hubble.12 This view of the evolution of the universe aroused much suspicion among many scientists, who noticed a close proximity to the biblical episode of creation in the Book of Genesis. To make fun of Lemaître’s theory, Fred Hoyle, an English astrophysicist, called this theory “Big Bang.” He developed his own theory called the Steady State Universe, in which the universe expanded while maintaining a constant density of energy-matter, so that it had no beginning and no end, but it was necessary to assume a continuous production of matter-energy.13
11.Cf. Ibid., 407-458. 12.Cf. D. Lambert, The Atom of the Universe, Krakow, Copernicus Center Press, 2016, 121-145. Two years ago the International Union of Astronomy recognized Lemaître’s merit and established that Hubble’s Law can be called Hubble-Lemaître’s Law. Cf. Gibney, “Belgian priest recognized in Hubble-law name change” in Nature on line (www.nature.com/articles/d41586- 018-07234-y), October 30, 2018. 13.Cf. S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology, op. cit., 459-464. THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE QUESTION OF GOD
These two models of the universe remained in competition with each other for several years, until, on November 22, 1951, Pius XII – who was certainly one of the pontiffs most attentive to scientific questions – delivered a speech at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. It was entitled “An Hour”14 and in it he hinted that the cosmological model of the Big Bang confirmed the story of the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis. In this speech, with its clearly Neo-Thomistic approach, the pope re-proposed the “ways” of establishing the existence of God of Saint Thomas Aquinas, especially the first and the fifth, based, respectively, on mutability and finality. In the Neo- Thomistic vein, he brought to support mutability the processes of change observed in nature, and to support the finality he 33 brought into play the second principle of thermodynamics, according to which in the processes of nature the entropy of a closed physical system always increases. This theological approach, in which scientific theories were used to confirm theological positions, was later renamed “concordism.” Lemaître felt called into question by this speech, because in the past he had already been suspected of concordism. Moreover, a problem then arose, because the following year the meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) was to be held in Rome, and Pius XII had been invited to give the inaugural speech. Therefore Lemaître left South Africa to go to Rome, where, through the mediation of the Jesuit Fr. O’Connell, then director of the Vatican Observatory, he met Pius XII. Obviously we do not know the content of the conversation between the pope and Lemaître. The fact is that Pius XII gave his inaugural speech at the IAU on September 7, 1952, but made no mention of concordism.15 For his part, Lemaître continued to keep the theological and scientific planes distinct at all times, as two parallel planes that do not intersect or, better still, as two independent sources of knowledge.
14.Cf. Pius XII, An Hour, in w2.vatican.va 15.Cf. J. Turek, “Georges Lemaître and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences” in Vatican Observatory Publications 13 (1989/2) 167-175. GABRIELE GIONTI, SJ
In 1965 two scientists from Bell Laboratories, Penzias and Wilson, thanks to a large antenna built for astrophysics measurements, detected a uniform radiation in all directions with a temperature of about 3 degrees Kelvin. This radiation, now known as the “Cosmic Microwave Background” (CMB), represents the first light emitted by the universe 400,000 years after the Big Bang, and can only be explained by the Big Bang theory, and not by that of the “stationary universe.”16 Today the scientific community agrees that the universe in which we live was born 13.83 billion years ago, from a very hot phase, involving a cosmological event we call the “Big Bang.” In the initial moment, called “ the singularity,” Newton’s equations are no longer valid. Immediately afterward, the universe 34 underwent a great expansion, at a much greater rate than it is expanding now, an exponential expansion known as “inflation.” About 400,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe emitted its first light, and then, little by little, all the structures were formed. In 1998, the study of the redshift of the light spectrum from Type IA supernovas showed that the universe not only is expanding, but accelerating. Now, if the force responsible for this expansion is gravity alone, then the universe should expand by decelerating. If it accelerates, it means that a force opposite to gravity, a sort of anti-gravity, is operating. To explain this acceleration, the cosmological constant that Einstein had introduced in his equations was taken up again and the hypothesis of the existence of a non-visible energy called “dark energy” was formulated. In this way one gets a system that explains an accelerated expansion of the universe.17 The nature of “dark energy” is not yet clear, and moreover it has not yet been directly observed. According to the latest measurements provided by the Planck satellite, “dark energy” should account for 68.3% of all energy-matter in the universe.18 To this “exotic” element from the point of view of observations
16.Cf. S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology, op. cit., 511. 17.Cf. Id., Cosmology, Oxford (UK), Oxford University Press, 2008, 1-100. 18.Cf. Planck Collaboration, “Planck 2015 results XIII. Cosmological Parameters” in 2016a Astronomy & Astrophysics, 594 A13. THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE QUESTION OF GOD is also added “dark matter.” In fact, the rotation curves of spiral galaxies have a radial velocity graph as a function of the distance from the center of the galaxy that does not coincide with the theoretical graph, which can be explained by the presence within the galaxy of non-conventional matter, which is called “dark matter”. The latter is 26.8% of the total matter- energy of the universe, while the matter-energy observed in the universe is only 4.9%. It is therefore understood that this model of the universe, called ΛCDM (Λ is the cosmological constant and refers to dark energy; CDM stands for Cold Dark Matter, not high-energy dark matter), has many aspects that are still research topics and that do not allow us to say that a definitive model has been established.19 35 Quantum gravity and some questions involving science and faith Now we need to delve into the “quantum gravity” of our universe; what Lemaître had called the “primitive atom,” because it has given rise to many debates on questions of science and faith. As it is usually classified, quantum gravity is a phase of our universe that goes from the initial instant of it to Planck time, which is about 10-43 s. It is a very small interval of time, in which Einstein’s equations, which we mentioned above, lose their predictive meaning. Therefore we need a new theory that combines two worlds of physics that seem irreconcilable: quantum mechanics, which provides the laws of physics for the behavior of particles at the atomic and subatomic levels, and Einstein’s general relativity, which describes the behavior of bodies on very large scales, beyond the galactic scales. This theory, which “should” – the conditional here is necessary, since we do not yet have a definitive theory – combine general relativity and quantum mechanics is called “quantum gravity.” One of the first approaches to this theory is the so-called “canonical approach,” which basically consists in the attempt to write an equation for the wave function that should indicate
19.Cf. Id., “Planck 2015 results XIV. Dark Energy and Modified Gravity” ibid. 594 A14. GABRIELE GIONTI, SJ
the entire primordial universe. This is Wheeler-DeWitt’s equation20 and is without the variable “time,” so it is said that the wave function of the primordial universe is timeless. This has generated a lot of confusion; however, it should be noted that a parameter of evolution is still necessary to describe the evolution of the universe: for example, in some cases, as the universe expands, the volume of the universe is used as a parameter of evolution. Hartle and Hawking have come up with a solution for the Wheeler-DeWitt equation that goes under the name “Hartle-Hawking proposal.” It is a fairly complex solution from a mathematical point of view, which aims to eliminate the problem of the initial “singularity.” The Hartle-Hawking 36 model suggests a sort of phase transition, in Planck time, from the Lorentz regime to the Riemannian regime. Thus, under Planck time, there are compact surfaces that have no singularity, and therefore no privileged points. For this reason, as Hawking has repeated in public lectures and in several of his writings, there is no beginning and there is no need for a God who acts as a “first cause” to initiate the process through which the universe evolves. Hartle and Hawking claim that, under Planck time, time is imaginary and therefore behaves like other spatial coordinates. The transition from phase to Planck time makes the transition from imaginary time to the physical time of true evolution. This “Riemannian phase” of the universe, which goes from the initial instant of the universe to Planck time, is the “empty state” of the Hartle-Hawking model. Hawking maintains that the state of emptiness is the nihil of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, and that the imaginary time under Planck time would explain the absence of time 21 “required” by creatio ex nihilo. As the Jesuit William Stoeger has pointed out, excessive manipulation is being carried out
20.A comprehensive explanation of the primordial universe can be found in E. W. Kolb - M. S. Turner, The Early Universe, New York, Addison - Wesley, 1994, 447-464. 21.Cf. W. R. Stoeger, “La Cosmologia del Big Bank è in conflitto con la creazione divina?” in G. Consolmagno (ed.), L’infinitamente grande. L’astronomia e il Vaticano, Vatican City, Libr. Ed. Vaticana, 2009, 174-181. THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE QUESTION OF GOD
here by Hawking. The nihil in the above mentioned doctrine means that nothing really exists, not even physical laws, while in reality in this quantum vacuum there are both energy and physical laws that regulate phenomena. Moreover, to say that time does not exist in the sub-Planckian region, because time is imaginary, is also far-fetched. The problem is that the Big Bang and “singularity” refer to an original event whose cause is unknown, and scientists fear that this cause must be a God who, like a demiurge, gives birth to the universe and then disappears, as suggested by some forms of deism. For this reason Hawking felt the need to develop a model of quantum gravity that is completely autonomous and does not need to resort to an original cause: that is, according to him, one can do without God. 37 However, there are two points to be clarified here. The first is that the Hartle-Hawking model is not the fundamental solution to quantum gravity, but a possible solution, which we do not even know whether it has occurred in nature.22 The second is that to think that one has to resort to a God-demiurge to explain a cause one cannot clarify otherwise is to commit a philosophical error. Descartes made a similar error when he resorted to the existence of a good God to make sure that no one had deceived him when he was building his philosophical system. This God who is used when something cannot be explained is called by some the “God of the gaps.” But this is not a proper way of thinking in theology. In fact, if one day it were discovered that there is a phase of the universe before the Big Bang – and pre-Big Bang theories already exist – then this God-demiurge would no longer be useful, because science would explain that there is something before the Big Bang, and therefore God would not exist. However, the problem of the beginning of the universe continues to be present in the minds of many scientists, because it is considered as a “prime cause” that needs recourse to a God-demiurge, especially since this beginning is confused with the term “creation.”
22.Cf. ibid. GABRIELE GIONTI, SJ
The Christian concept of creation is, instead, completely different from that of the God-demiurge of scientists. God creates first of all from a state where before there was really nothing (creatio ex nihilo): neither initial energy nor physical laws. Indeed, he creates both energy and physical laws from nothing and keeps them in existence; he supports his own creation (creatio continua). Creation is then a “relationship,” as 23 Saint Thomas Aquinas said or creatio est relatio, between the Father and the Son, who is the “Logos” through whom the Father creates the world and thanks to whom creation has a “logical” structure. This relationship between the Father and the Son is a relationship of Love, that is, the Holy Spirit, the third 24 Person of the Trinity. In this way we have the creatio ex amore, 38 so in creation we find the traces of God’s Love. Therefore, creation has a basically Trinitarian structure.25
Conclusion We have briefly traced the development of cosmology from the Old Testament to the present day. It is interesting to note how we have gradually moved from a vision in which God was part of the cosmological system to a vision in which, with the modern science of Galileo’s experimental inductive model, God is no longer part of the cosmological model. Today we have a cosmological model that works quite well with observational data; however, as we have seen, it is necessary to use ad hoc “elements,” such as dark matter and dark energy, to explain some otherwise unexplained phenomena. In this sense one could think, with all the reservations and cautions of the case, that there could be an analogy between the theory of the epicycles of Ptolemy’s geocentric system, invented to explain the motion of the planets, and the hypotheses of dark matter and dark energy, introduced to adapt the cosmological model to otherwise unexplained phenomena. In other words,
23.Cf. Sum. Theol. I, q. 45, a. 3. 24.Cfr S. J. Youngs, “Creatio Ex Amore Dei: Creation out of Nothing and God’s Relational Nature” in The Asbury Journal 69 (2014/2) 165-186. 25.Cf. P. Gamberini, Un Dio relazione, Rome, Città Nuova, 2007, 148-163. THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE QUESTION OF GOD it must be said that, despite all the progress that has been made in science, and in particular in current cosmology, the myth of a “very precise” science, without any shadow, must certainly be debunked. The truth, however, is that even the scientific models that we possess today and which we use to describe nature have limitations, and therefore do not possess to any degree the character of infallibility that a new dogmatic “scientism” would like to attribute to them. Since ancient times there has existed a close union between cosmology and religion. In ancient cultures, starting from the harmony and order existing in the visible universe – which at that time was simply the starry sky – people have always tried to hypothesize the existence of an “architect” God. Let us remember the so-called “cosmological tests,” guarantors of 39 such harmony. However, the ancient conflicts – for example, the “Galileo case” and the subsequent fracture between science and theology – lead us to think that, following Lemaître, the right approach is the separation between the theological and scientific planes. But this does not prevent someone from seeing in the harmony and order of the universe a beauty that reflects the imprint of the Creator and the Love with which God created and wove the universe. However, this is not proof of the existence of God, but rather an a posteriori observation, valid only for those who are believers. Our Concern for the Future: One year on from the signing of the Human Fraternity Document
Laurent Basanese, SJ
“Dialogue is not a magic formula,” declared Pope Francis at the San Luigi Pontifical Theological Faculty of Southern Italy, on June 21, 2019.1 In reality, it requires efforts, meetings, “geological patience” – in the words of the great Dominican 40 Islamist, Georges Anawati – and above all, concrete acts. The Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together of February, 2019, signed by Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Ahmad al-Tayyeb, has entered the delicate phase of its reception, thus it is worth remembering two important elements. First of all, the text is an appeal to be put into practice, especially written for people and institutions that can influence society, i.e. “authorities, leaders, men and women of religion from all over the world, relevant regional and international organizations, civil society organizations, religious institutions and leaders of thought.” Clearly what Pope Francis and the Grand Imam Ahmad al-Tayyeb hope is that the Document on Human Fraternity will not remain a dead letter, but will be incorporated into real laws and reforms of cultural mentalities and society in general. Secondly, this is not just yet another Islamic-Christian declaration: the words “Islam,” “Christianity” and “Islamic- Christian dialogue” do not appear in this document.
La Civiltà Cattolica, En. Ed. Vol. 4, no. 03 art. 4, 0320: 10.32009/22072446.0320.4
1.P. Di Luccio - F. Ramírez Fueyo, “Theology or renewal of ecclesiastical studies. The indications of Francis in the speech of Posillipo” in Civ. Catt. 2019 III 47-. OUR CONCERN FOR THE FUTURE
Instead, it is addressed to all, far beyond religious affiliations: “We call upon intellectuals, philosophers, religious figures, artists, media professionals and men and women of culture in every part of the world, to rediscover the values of peace, justice, goodness, beauty, human fraternity and coexistence in order to confirm the importance of these values as anchors of salvation for all, and to promote them everywhere.”
Some remarkable fruits The universal scope of the Document on Human Fraternity transcends community divisions. It is in fact rooted in a broad earlier reflection, both Muslim and Christian, on the future of humanity. Following the terrorist attacks claimed in the name of Islam 41 that marked the beginning of the 21st century, and with the Arab revolutions of 2011 and the appearance of the Islamic State group on the international scene in 2013, Muslim leaders, sometimes with Christians, Jews and representatives of other faiths, from all over the world, have gathered in an attempt to respond to these bloody crises. Long before the fruits of the Document on Fraternity could be perceived, other high-level meetings were scheduled, such as the visit of Pope Francis to Morocco on March 30, 2019, where King Mohammed VI invited the pope to “go beyond” the classic interreligious dialogue and promote education to confront violence and radicalism. Punctuating his text with Koranic verses, a passage from the king’s welcome speech, punctuated with Koranic verses, deserves to be read carefully: “The dialogue between Abrahamic religions is manifestly insufficient in today’s reality.” As paradigms change, everywhere and above all interreligious dialogue must also change. The dialogue focused on “tolerance” will last a long time, but will not achieve its purpose. The three Abrahamic religions do not exist to tolerate each other, out of fatalist resignation or haughty acceptance. They exist to open up to each other and to get to know each other, in a valiant competition to do each other good. Mohammed VI said: “Radicalisms, whether religious or not, are based on the non-knowledge of the other, ignorance of the LAURENT BASANESE, SJ
other, ignorance in general. ‘Co-knowledge’ is a denial of all forms of radicalism. And it is this co-knowledge that will allow us to face the challenges of our troubled present.” To deal with radicalism, he continued, “the answer is neither military nor budgetary; it has only one name: education. My call for education is a call against ignorance: it is divisive conceptions and lack of knowledge that threaten our civilizations. Never religion.” The Fraternity Document is, however, a remarkable milestone in interreligious relations. In a certain sense, it calls for a concrete renewal of the discourse and style of interreligious encounters, moving not only from words to actions, but also from “politically correct” to healthy confrontation and true cooperation, in order to rethink together “fraternity” – that is, 42 the future of humanity – involving “believers and non-believers, and all people of good will,” as the text says. As proof of the seriousness of the intention, on February 25, twenty days after the pope’s trip to the United Arab Emirates, a delegation from the Gulf country, led by Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdallah Ben Zayed Al Nahyan, told the pope in the Vatican of the first decisions resulting from the Joint Declaration. These decisions include the International Foundation for Co- existence, the Zayed International Fund for Co-existence, which is responsible for funding educational programs that promote pluralism and fraternity the construction, as well on Abu Dhabi’s Saadiyat Island, of the House of Abraham’s Family, a mosque, a church, a synagogue and a training center to commemorate the historic visit of Pope Francis and the Grand Imam Ahmad al-Tayyeb, to which will be added a Hindu temple, on a site of over 100,000 square meters along the road between Abu Dhabi and Dubai. In this same new spirit of concrete and fraternal dialogue in search of peace and harmony, a few months later, on August 19, the Superior Committee for Human Fraternity was established; it is a group of religious leaders, scholars of education and cultural leaders from all over the world. It is charged with supporting and promoting the reforms inspired by the Document on Fraternity, including negotiations with national and international authorities. This Committee met for OUR CONCERN FOR THE FUTURE the first time in Rome on September 11, a highly symbolic date, and a second time in New York a few days later, on September 20, coinciding with the opening of the 74th Plenary Assembly of the United Nations. On December 5, again in New York, the members of the Committee met with the Secretary General of the United Nations, António Guterres, and gave him a message from Pope Francis and the Grand Imam Ahmad al-Tayyeb, in which it is proposed that February 4 be declared “World Day of Human Fraternity,” and the UN has been asked to participate, together with the Holy See and al-Azhar, in the organization, in the near future, of a World Summit on Human Fraternity. Despite the inevitable criticism from some Catholic and Muslim groups who regret the ambiguity of certain terms or 43 stress the risk of sentimentality and irenicism, the Fraternity Document is generally perceived as a very important event in the history of dialogue between peoples and cultures, as was the interreligious meeting in Assisi in 1986. Also worth noting is that the signing of the Document coincided with the 800th anniversary of the meeting – in the midst of a crusade, in 1219 – of Saint Francis with the Sultan al-Malik al-Kāmil in Damietta, Egypt. The Document has been taken up, commented on and integrated in one way or another as a remarkable contribution to interreligious dialogue, even as a foundation stone for the future of humanity. Thus the declaration entitled “A Brotherhood for Knowledge and Cooperation,” signed by 22 Muslim leaders and intellectuals on July 9, 2019, considers the text “an unprecedented event on an institutional level in the history of relations between Christians and Muslims.” Likewise, at the conference Human Fraternity: A Jewish Reflection for a Common Existence on November 8 at the Pontifical Gregorian University, Ronald S. Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress, said: “On behalf of the world Jewish community, I can tell you that the Abu Dhabi Declaration is a decisive international document that we, Jews, deeply respect. We share its fundamental values and approve of its fundamental principles.” The diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See has LAURENT BASANESE, SJ
also organized important meetings in Rome to raise awareness among its staff and its networks, in particular the embassies of Japan and the Argentine Republic, in the presence of religious leaders, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs. It could also be said that the “spirit” of the Document equally provokes and invites us to be more cautious in the use of vocabulary when speaking of the “other,” the “differently religious” and their instrumentalization by politics. Without explicitly mentioning the Document on Fraternity, the Declaration of Mecca, signed on May 31, 2019, at the end of the ordinary session of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, once again distances itself from the policies that use religion to foment conflict. It reaffirms the necessary respect for cultural and 44 religious differences and also indicates interreligious dialogue among the instruments useful to counter violent discourse. A few months later, on September 17, Muhammad Issa, Secretary General of the World Muslim League, recognized, at an international peace conference in Paris, that “political Islam represents a threat and a (source of) division in society.” Finally, during the XI Colloquium in Iran between the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Islamic Culture and Relations Organization (ICRO), on November 11 and 12 in Tehran, on the theme “Muslims and Christians together in service of humanity,” many Shiite exponents expressed the desire to give their contribution to the reflection opened by the “Document on Human Fraternity.”
Beyond the enclosure of ‘Abrahamic religions’ The proof, however, that the Document is not destined to remain in the enclosure of “Abrahamic religions” is that Pope Francis himself promoted its insights by taking it to Asia. During his trip to Thailand on November 21, he presented a copy to the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand, Somdet Phra Ariyavongsagatanana IX. During his speech, he insisted on the importance of human fraternity for peace and coexistence, referring to his first apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, thus showing the continuity of his thinking: “When we have the opportunity to appreciate OUR CONCERN FOR THE FUTURE
and esteem one another despite our differences (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 250), we offer a word of hope to the world, which can encourage and support those who increasingly suffer the harmful effects of conflict. Occasions like this remind us how important it is for religions to become more and more beacons of hope, as promoters and guarantors of fraternity.” The same message was delivered by the pope the next day before the academic world, at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, and in the presence of 18 religious leaders of the country, representatives of traditional Thai religions, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism, and the different Christian denominations. He made many allusions to the Fraternity Document: “Long gone are the days when an insular mode of thought could determine an approach to time and space and 45 appear to offer a valid way of resolving conflicts. Now is the time to be bold and envision the logic of encounter and mutual dialogue as the path, common cooperation as the code of conduct, and reciprocal knowledge as a method and standard. In this way, we can provide a new paradigm for resolving conflicts and help foster greater understanding and the protection of creation. In this regard, religions, like universities, have much to offer, without having to renounce their specific character and special gifts. Everything we do in this regard will be a significant step toward guaranteeing younger generations their right to the future, while serving the cause of justice and peace.” The same happened a few days later, on November 25, in Japan, during the meeting with the government and the diplomatic corps in Tokyo. There the pope reiterated that “our shared concern for the future of the human family impels us to the ‘adoption of a culture of dialogue as the path; mutual cooperation as the code of conduct; reciprocal understanding as the method and standard’” directly citing again the Document on Human Fraternity.
Rethinking education fundamentally If there is a field in which it is possible to act concretely to change mentalities, to imagine a new future together and to work to build a livable world for all in peace and respect for LAURENT BASANESE, SJ
cultural differences, it is education. If fraternity in diversity is the heart of the message brought by the Document, the formation and education of the younger generations are the breath and lungs that will finally allow them to live together and breathe fully on Earth. The King of Morocco is convinced of this: he asserted that because God is love religions and cultures are called to interact and open up to one another. It is extremely significant that the Zayed International Fund for Co-existence of the United Arab Emirates was created precisely to fund formation programs that promote pluralism and brotherhood; that the Superior Committee on Human Fraternity includes educational experts, professors and diplomats concerned about peace, culture and 46 collaboration among peoples; and that Pope Francis emphasized in Bangkok the primary role of universities, which can offer the world “a new paradigm for conflict resolution.” In this effort “to imagine with courage the logic of encounter and mutual dialogue” at the university level, we can also mention the creation, in Rome, a few weeks after the publication of the Document, on March 27, of a joint research group between the Center for Interreligious Studies of the Pontifical Gregorian University and the Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies on the theme: “The Document on Human Fraternity: Theological, Philosophical and Social Reflections and Developments.” It can be said that the reform of education systems worldwide is and will be the main fruit of the Document on Fraternity in the coming years. The link between fraternity and education was established by the pope himself during his already mentioned June 21 speech in Naples: “How can we take care of each other within the one human family? How can we foster a tolerant and peaceful coexistence that translates into authentic fraternity? How can we make it so that the welcoming of the other person and of those who are different from us because they belong to a different religious and cultural tradition prevails in our communities? How can religions be paths of brotherhood instead of walls of separation?... [...] I dream of theological faculties where one lives differences in friendship, OUR CONCERN FOR THE FUTURE where one practices a theology of dialogue and welcoming; where one experiences the model of the polyhedron of theological knowledge instead of that of a static and disembodied sphere, a place where theological research can promote a challenging but compelling process of inculturation.” In a certain sense, a renewed, integral and inclusive formation will be the response that the Catholic Church will give to implement the Document: an educational system that dialogues with all, for the building of world peace and for the good of societies that are ever more just and fraternal, “and also for the safeguarding of creation.” Much more: a formation in which dialogue – once updated – will be taken as an inevitable method and criterion of learning, in which Christianity, Judaism, Islam and other religions will seek mutual knowledge and peaceful 47 coexistence, in a world that will tomorrow be even more multicultural and multi-religious. To begin with, a first step must be taken to reach this ambitious goal: one must overcome an aggressive, defensive, identitarian and dominating mentality, and acquire a benevolent, proactive, open and courageous spirit. The apologetics of manuals and proselytism as a method of meeting the “other” no longer make sense in a world that has changed considerably and that has become similar to a small interconnected village in perpetual effervescence. With regard to Christianity and teaching as it is practiced in Western schools and universities, much remains to be done to network knowledge and work together in an interdisciplinary way, far from self-referential and competitive ways of reasoning. To take refuge in the past and its world is certainly not the right direction if theology and thought are not to sink into decadence: such an attitude will lead to avoiding the present and not living the challenges of today and tomorrow. As regards curriculum reform in Islam, the textbook problem was made public long before the emergence of the Islamic State Group and remains crucial. Some texts, particularly those concerning jurisprudence, regularly contain caricatures of other religions and incitements to hatred of or even violence toward LAURENT BASANESE, SJ
the “different” other. They invite teenagers to jihad and provide them with a one-dimensional view of reality, a distortion of history, and also stereotypes about women. In recent years various Muslim majority countries have tried to seriously change their school curricula by introducing critical thinking and the spirit of research, pluralism and tolerance. But many of these changes have provoked strong opposition from conservatives and Islamic parties, many of whom perceive these changes as a form of submission to the demands of the West and a violation of Muslim identity. As a result, with some exceptions, attempts at educational reform in Muslim-majority countries have been hesitant and superficial. Up to now, schools have not succeeded in 48 training the younger generation to be safe from extremism and ostracism. Cardinal Louis Raphaël I Sako, Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans, acknowledged that the Document on Fraternity is “an essential reference point,” reiterating the importance of reforming school education in Iraq, and more generally in the Middle East, so that school books are free of “all forms of hatred,” together with the call to “raise public awareness of human rights and the principles of citizenship and equality.” The Church’s response to the Fraternity Document will be essentially pedagogical and interdisciplinary: to build a new alliance between school, family and the best energies of societies, both religious and civil, in order to put the integral development of the person and the safeguarding of creation at the center. This is in fact the objective of the great world event that will take place in the Vatican on May 14, 2020, that will have as its theme: “Rebuilding the Global Educational Pact.” The initiative was promoted by Pope Francis and launched in a Message, published on September 12, 2019, which in turn recalls the Document on Fraternity. It emphasizes that education is not limited to classrooms and universities. Education, or rather formation, is a transversal process that touches all areas of life and all dimensions: art, sport, literature, economics and politics. During this event, which will be above all the beginning of a process, representatives OUR CONCERN FOR THE FUTURE of the main religions, representatives of international bodies, of the academic, economic, political and cultural world will sign an alliance for a renewed “Global Educational Pact,” to give the younger generations a common fraternal home.
A necessary reflection on diversity in a plural world If religions can contribute to a global educational pact and to the formation of a generation that is truly open, mature and engaged in dialogue, the well-focused issue in the Document on Human Fraternity is indeed broader than a simple reform of school curricula; it is cultural and intercultural. The rejection of fraternity, incitement to hatred and violence proliferate not only in schools and religious courses, but also in the family, at political gatherings or at the cinema, at work, at 49 the market or in the street. And this from the Middle East to Rome and from Asia to New York. Hence the need to rethink otherness, “the different from the self,” and to learn or invent how to live together in a different way. In order to move from hatred to simple tolerance and to achieve sincere living together, simple laws, unilateral reforms and coercive measures are insufficient. It is necessary to accompany these changes by creating a climate, a culture of encounter that fosters mutual acceptance and promotes peaceful and inclusive societies. Protection of Minors The pope’s steps forward after the February 2019 Meeting
Federico Lombardi, SJ
The Holy Father’s decision to exclude accusations, trials and decisions regarding sexual abuse committed within the Church from the “pontifical secret” was published on December 17, 2019. The decision resonated widely and many 50 people have hailed it as a very important step forward – some have even called it historic – in the fight against these very serious crimes. Twelve months after the Meeting on the Protection of Minors in the Church (February 21-24, 2019)1 it is right to take this opportunity to retrace the path taken since then, because in the meantime there have been other steps, no less important, taken by Pope Francis.
The protection of minors in Vatican City and the Roman Curia The first step had been taken a few weeks after the meeting; the fruit of work that was already underway before the meeting began. On March 26 the pope signed the motu proprio On the Protection of Minors and Vulnerable Persons, concerning people in the Roman Curia and Vatican City State. It was accompanied
La Civiltà Cattolica, En. Ed. Vol. 4, no. 03 art. 5, 0320: 10.32009/22072446.0320.5
1.The Acts of the Meeting were published in Italian in the volume Consapevolezza e purificazione, Vatican City, Libr. Ed. Vaticana, 2019. On the Vatican website one can find the texts of all the reports in various languages: http://www.vatican.va/resources/index_it.htm; Cf. https://www. laciviltacattolica.com/after-the-meeting-on-child-protection-in-the-church”, in Civ. Catt. En. April 2019. PROTECTION OF MINORS by a new law of the Vatican City State on the subject, and guidelines for the Vicariate of Vatican City.2 Although the law and guidelines cover a narrow geographical area and a small number of people, these steps are actually very important. Thanks to the motu proprio, the new law applies not only in the territory of the Vatican City State, but to all the staff of the Roman Curia, including the diplomatic corps abroad, and Vatican employees. The pope’s document sets out fundamental principles, including the “duty to report abuse to the competent authorities”; the right of victims “to be welcomed, listened to and accompanied”; the right of defendants to “a fair and impartial trial, in compliance with the presumption of innocence, as well as the principles of legality and proportionality between 51 the crime and sentence”; the removal of convicted persons from their duties, but also supported in their psychological and spiritual rehabilitation; appropriate training for the protection of minors and vulnerable people. Significant improvements were achieved with the updated law: “vulnerable” persons are now identified as minors3; crimes related to child abuse will be prosecuted “ex officio,” even without an accusation being made; the statute of limitations is increased to 20 years after the victim’s 18th birthday; there is an obligation to report for all public officials (i.e. the majority of those who work in the Vatican or for the Holy See); an accompanying resource for victims is established at the Health Department of the Governorate of Vatican City; procedural guarantees are introduced for minors called to testify. The Guidelines for the Vicariate of Vatican City – which define duties and competencies not in the civil, but in the canonical and
2.The text of the three documents can be found in L’Osservatore Romano, March 30, 2019 and on the Vatican website. The new law is No. CCXCVII “On The Protection of Minors and Vulnerable Persons.” Previous regulation was contained in the motu proprio Ai nostri tempi, of July 11, 2013, accompanied by Law No. VIII, which had also introduced the crime of child pornography. 3.Article 1(3) states: “Any person in a state of infirmity, physical or mental deficiency, or deprivation of personal liberty which in fact, even occasionally, limits his or her ability to understand or desireor in any case to resist the offense, is vulnerable.” FEDERICO LOMBARDI, SJ
pastoral spheres – also provide numerous operational instructions. These will be of great help not only in dealing with possible cases of abuse, but also in establishing and spreading a true culture of protection and prevention throughout the life and activities of the Vatican institutions and the Holy See. This responds to the repeatedly stated need for institutions that act in the name of the universal Church to set a good example and serve as models throughout the Church, and for the laws and regulations in force in the Vatican City State and in the institutions of the Roman Curia to be consistent with international conventions, ratified by the Holy See also in the name of and on behalf of the Vatican City State.
52 Throughout the Church: offices in each diocese and obligation to report On May 9, 2019, the pope took the next step – this time addressed directly to the universal Church, and therefore of much wider scope – publishing a new motu proprio on sexual abuse and violence, entitled Vos estis lux mundi – You are the light 4 of the world (known as VELM, from the initials of the title). This is a law that applies to the whole Church, and therefore imposes juridical obligations, in part new, in part more clearly formulated than in the past. This document brings into effect the words of Pope Francis in his final speech at the February meeting when he spoke of “strengthening and reviewing” guidelines used by episcopal conferences. He insisted it was necessary to apply “parameters that serve as rules and not simply indications. Rules, not simply indications!”5 Beginning about 10 years ago many episcopal conferences commenced formulating guidelines, and many dioceses have moved to implement them at the instigation of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. But not all of them had yet done so; moreover, these guidelines are not binding (except in the United States, at the request of
4.Full text and commentary articles in Oss. Rom., May 10, 2019. 5.Francis, Address at the end of the Meeting “The Protection of Minors in the Church”, February 24, 2019. PROTECTION OF MINORS the Episcopal Conference), that is, they do not oblige the bishops of a diocese to implement the proposed measures. Pope Francis, with his new legislation, removed all delay and doubt, and, invoking his authority as pastor of the universal Church, has obliged all the bishops of all the regions of the world to provide in a very short time – one year from the promulgation of the law! – to set up a public, reliable and accessible system to ensure that victims are welcomed and heard, and that those who report are protected from retaliation. Every diocese must have a specific office and designated person to receive the submission of reports. This is a very important step: too many people did not know who to turn to and, unfortunately, were sent from one place to another, which involved great suffering and 53 frustration. Now all the faithful have a right to know how and to whom they can report abuse or violence. Given the complexity of relations in the global and articulated system of the Catholic Church with all its cultural and administrative differences around the world, this step is a sign of astonishing courage. Another crucial aspect of the document is that it states in no uncertain terms the obligation to report, specifying who has the obligation and the subject matter of the obligation.6 All clerics and religious – both men and women (therefore also all nuns) – are subject to the obligation to inform, while lay people and even people who do not belong to the Church can do so, without being obliged to do so. Reports may refer not only to sexual violence against minors or vulnerable adults, but also to the possession or distribution of child pornography material, to sexual acts of violence or intimidation, and – a significant point – to the concealment of these crimes, even when the latter is committed by higher ecclesiastical authorities (such as bishops, cardinals, or superiors general of religious orders).
6.Naturally this is a “canonical” obligation, i.e. relative to the Church and its organization, while in the civil sphere it is necessary to follow the laws of the country in which one lives also with regard to reports of abuse. FEDERICO LOMBARDI, SJ
It is a very great step forward in the direction of involving the entire people of God in co-responsibility to eradicate the scourge of sexual abuse, in line with what Pope Francis expressed and 7 hoped for in his Letters to the People of God. It is truly significant that the reporting of the different forms of abuse must now be directed through a single main channel, which must have its representative in each diocese. There is not only sexual violence against minors at the hands of clerics – which has its own specific gravity and procedure – but there are also other crimes, such as child pornography, sexual acts against adults as a result of violence or abuse of power, concealment by superiors and so on. The difference in responsibilities in judging and dealing with these different cases has often been a source of disorientation. 54 Now all cases are to be referred to the same system, which will have to deal with them in the appropriate way. For example, the violence or abuse suffered by religious women at the hands of the clergy (a dramatic problem that has been more openly discussed in recent years) must also be reported – it is now a legal obligation for religious women too! – and complaints must be promptly and robustly examined.
The procedure for complaints concerning higher ecclesiastical authorities A very important aspect of the motu proprio, developed in the second part of the law, concerns the procedure for the investigation of abuses and violence or their concealment by bishops and cardinals, as well as male and female superiors general.8 These are people who hold positions of power in the Church who have no other higher authority (apart from the pope).
7.We recall in particular the Letter to the Pilgrim People of God in Chile, May 31, 2018, and especially the Letter to the People of God, August 20, 2018, which for the first time deals with the scourge of abuse and the crisis that follows, addressing the entire universal Church. Coherently, Pope Francis invited representatives of all the Episcopal Conferences and of all forms of religious life to the meeting last February to express the synodal and collegial nature of the Church’s response. 8.Although they are not frequent cases, the abuses perpetrated by high ecclesiastical authorities create a scandal and inflict incalculable damage on the people concerned and on the Church: just think of the cases of Father Marcial Maciel and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. PROTECTION OF MINORS
The expectation that these people, too, could be called to account for their actions and omissions in the field of abuse and violence, in particular their actively covering-up crimes committed by people they oversee – a fact, unfortunately, not uncommon, especially in the past – was long-awaited both by victims and organizations, and by the press, particularly in English-speaking countries. This is one of the main aspects of the theme of accountability, which had not by chance been explicitly placed at the center of the reflections on the second day of the February meeting, and which had already been the subject of intense reflection and discussion by the bishops’ conferences of the English-speaking countries, especially the United States. On this matter, VELM courageously formulates a universal 55 norm valid for the whole Church, stipulating procedures to be followed in the first phase of the investigation – that is, what actions must take place at the local level – on a key element of the hierarchical constitution of the Church, specifically the figure of the metropolitan, the senior bishop of an ecclesiastical province. In fact, he must receive reports concerning the bishops, and he must proceed with the investigation, using if appropriate the help of lay experts. As for the second phase of the procedure, in Rome, there would be a final judgment by the pope, helped by the departments of the Roman Curia competent in the various cases. There was already a previous motu proprio, Like a Loving Mother, of 2016, which refers not only to issues of sexual abuse or their cover-up, but more generally to cases of negligence on the part of bishops and other superiors. Repeated delays that prevent a timely and effective response to reports received in cases of sexual abuse is another issue that has caused unnecessary suffering and drawn strong criticism. In order to reach conclusions within a reasonable time, VELM responds to this problem by setting very tight deadlines for investigations to be completed. The bishop or the metropolitan must promptly forward the report to the competent dicastery of the Roman Curia; the latter must respond to the bishop within 30 days, giving instructions FEDERICO LOMBARDI, SJ
for the investigation; the bishop must then report every 30 days to the dicastery and conclude the investigation within 90 days (unless extended). With this strategy put into practice, the progress of investigations compared to current practice should be notable. We also note that VELM is in continuity with the regulations already promulgated on March 26, adopting the equivalence between minors and vulnerable persons, as well as the definition of the latter. Clauses on the duties of care for victims and their families, and for the protection of those who report abuse, are carefully worded, specifying that “An obligation to keep silent may not be imposed on any person with regard to the contents of his or her report” (Article 4.3), as well as for the protection 56 of suspects (their information and presumption of innocence).
The removal of the ‘pontifical secret’ on abuse Pope Francis’ third important step was the Rescriptum with which he issued the Instruction On the Confidentiality 9 of Legal Proceedings December 6, 2019. The document states that “accusations, trials and decisions involving offenses” in the field of child abuse, sexual violence, child pornography and cover-up of abusers by superiors are not covered by the pontifical secret. In order to understand well and not to equivocate or confuse the significance of this abolition of the pontifical secret, itis necessary to distinguish three different kinds of secret. There is first of all the one called “confessional,” relative to the sacrament of confession. The Church considers it inviolable, despite the fact that today it is questioned in some countries in the context of the debates on abuse (for example, in Australia, but also elsewhere). This is in no way whatsoever what is being talked about in the new Instruction.10 Then there is the “office secret,”
9.The publication, with immediate effect, took place on December 17, 2019. Text and commentary articles in Oss. Rom. December 18, 2019. Very useful, for a correct interpretation of the meaning of the Instruction, is the article by Msgr. Juan I. Arrieta, “Confidentiality and Duty to Report.” 10.The Note of the Apostolic Penitentiary of June 29, 2019, On the importance of the internal forum and the inviolability of the sacramental seal, published in Oss. PROTECTION OF MINORS which in this instance is regulated by canon law and concerns certain information “to ensure its security, integrity and confidentiality” to “avoid any instrumental and erroneous use of that information proper to private, social and ecclesial life.” This, too, is in no way called into question by the Instruction, which, on the contrary, explicitly reaffirms it in No. 3. It would therefore be totally wrong to think that the Instruction intends to allow a wave of uncontrolled publicity on all issues and causes of abuse, encouraging scandal and misplaced curiosity. What is removed, with regard to the field of sexual abuse, is the “pontifical secret,” that is, a particular duty of confidentiality imposed in certain cases on certain categories of persons (for example: bishops, pontifical representatives or Curia officials) on certain subjects with whom they must deal by reason of their 57 office, with the aim of protecting the common good ofthe ecclesial community and the good of individuals. Now, the Instruction Secreta Continere, of 1974, which still regulates the pontifical secret, mentioned among the matters subject to this legislation (for example: the drafting of pontifical documents, consultations on episcopal appointments, information of the pontifical representatives to the Holy See, etc.) also accusations, trials and decisions concerning serious crimes against morality; therefore, in practice, all the issues relating to the problems of abuse and sexual violence. This posed a number of problems that urgently needed to be clarified, both in relation to the obligation to report under recent new legislation and in relation to compliance with state laws and requests for information and documentation by civil judicial authorities, as well as information on the causes and sentences, including for victims of abuse. These topics were also discussed at length during last February’s meeting, the third day of which was expressly dedicated to the theme of transparency in the life and behavior of the Church. The motu proprio of March and the motu proprio of May, specifically insisting on the obligation to report, and on
Rom., July 1-2, 2019, accompanied by a comment from the Major Penitentiary, Cardinal Mauro Piacenza. FEDERICO LOMBARDI, SJ
respect for state laws and collaboration with civil authorities, urged a change in the discipline of the pontifical secret on the matter and a clarification of the limits of the “official secret,” which – as the new Instruction specifies – can in no case be opposed to the compliance with the obligations of state laws and the executive requests of civil judicial authorities (No. 4). Consistent with what has been said previously about VELM, the Instruction also reiterates another limit to the duty of confidentiality, stating that no constraint of silence can be imposed regarding “the facts of the case” on “the person making the report, the person who claims to have been offended and witnesses” (No. 5). Considering how many times attempts have been made – even through clumsy negotiations – to obtain the 58 silence of people subjected to the offense, it must be recognized that this point also indicates a clear willingness to move forward without uncertainty on the path to full transparency. Commenting on the Instruction, Prof. Giuseppe Dalla Torre 11 emphasizes how the termination of the pontifical secret is relevant to facilitate all phases of the canonical procedure, from reporting to the investigations, to the preliminary phase and the debate, up to the decision, both in the local offices and in Rome at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. But above all, it highlights its importance and advantages in order to avoid situations of uncertainty, difficulty or conflict with civil authorities, particularly when there are legitimate requests for cooperation to obtain evidence and documentation. Prof. Dalla Torre concludes by optimistically noting that the innovations introduced “contribute to favoring the passage of the canonical order from an attitude of distrust and defense toward state systems to an attitude of trust and healthy collaboration.” On the same day that the new Instruction was published, another expected and useful Rescriptum from Pope Francis was also published with two important provisions for the completion and consistency of regulations dealing with cases of abuse. Lay faithful possessing the requisite qualifications could now
11.See G. Dalla Torre, “Un atto che facilita la collaborazione con l’autorità civile” in Oss. Rom. December 18, 2019. PROTECTION OF MINORS take on the role of lawyer and procurator in diocesan courts and in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a role carried out until now only by priests; and the crime of child pornography was defined from the canonical point of view as when the subjects represented in the images are under the age of 18 (and no longer under 14), as was already the case under Vatican State Law.
The fight against abuse and for the dignity of children continues All the provisions spoken of so far are to be seen as an effective sequence of actions by Pope Francis proving his commitment to relentlessly combat abuse. The February Meeting was a crucial moment but this struggle is always ongoing. Other actions are expected and will certainly follow.12 59 Meanwhile, episcopates and local churches in different parts of the world are also making great strides in addressing the problem. The first major Latin American Congress on the prevention of abuses in the Church was held in Mexico City, November 6-8, 2019, with the participation of 400 delegates from all over Latin America, including bishops, priests, consecrated and lay people. Among the speakers were three organizers and protagonists of the February meeting, Cardinal Blaise Cupich, Archbishop Charles Scicluna and Fr. Hans Zollner. Similar gatherings have taken place in other continents and countries, while meetings and training courses of various kinds and levels for personnel dedicated to ecclesial service in this field are multiplying. In Italy, the “Service for the protection of minors” is being established not only nationally, but also regionally (all those responsible have been appointed) and at the diocesan level (at the beginning of December 100 dioceses out of 226 had appointed those responsible).13 The February
12.My article “After the Meeting on The Protection of Minors in the Church” (https://www.laciviltacattolica.com/after-the-meeting-on-child- protection-in-the-church/) indicated a series of commitments still to be implemented, such as the revision of Book VI of the Code of Canon Law (dedicated to Sanctions in the Church) or the publication of a vademecum for bishops or a system of help for dioceses that find themselves in difficulty coping with their tasks in this delicate and complex field, etc.. 13.See Interview with Msgr. L. Ghizzoni in Avvenire, December 7, 2019. FEDERICO LOMBARDI, SJ
meeting is producing the effects that Pope Francis intended, that is, to set in motion an effective response of the Church to the dramatic challenge of abuse. Finally, we note that also on the front of the protection of minors in the digital world there was an important new intervention by Pope Francis on the occasion of the International Meeting Promoting Digital Child Dignity. From Concept to Action, held at the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, November 14 and 15, co-sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, the Child Dignity Alliance and the Interfaith Alliance (based in the United Arab Emirates). The meeting was conceived as a continuation of the commitment started with the World Congress held at the 60 Gregorian University in 2017 on Child Dignity in the Digital 14 World. It was attended by about one hundred scholars, experts and technical and business operators of the digital world, representatives of international institutions and NGOs, religious and political leaders. Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Ahmad al-Tayyeb and Queen Silvia of Sweden contributed, among others, during the two days of work. Also worth mentioning – it seems to have been a “first” – were representatives of all the Big Five of the digital world (Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook), who declared themselves willing, in principle, to develop a common code of responsibility in the field of the protection of minors, beyond the pressures of mutual competition. The pope delivered a wide-ranging speech to the participants, receiving them at the opening of the conference, reiterating the need for a collaborative commitment of all – scientists, politicians, legislators, businesses and technicians, educators and religious leaders – to face the challenges of the development of the digital world, and in particular the risks they present for children, their integrity and their human and spiritual growth (online abuse, pornography, etc.). Pope Francis said that it is necessary “to find an adequate balance between the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression
14.See H. Zollner - K.-A. Fucks, “The dignity of minors in the digital world. An International Congress at the Gregorian” in https://www.laciviltacattolica. com/the-dignity-of-minors-in-the-digital-world PROTECTION OF MINORS and the social interest in ensuring that digital media are not used to commit criminal activities against minors”. He made a strong appeal to the responsibility of the big companies in the digital world, and to the creativity of computer engineers to develop “ethical algorithms,” preventing negative consequences for children surfing the net.15 The Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, intervened at the end of the Conference to reaffirm the solidarity and commitment of the Holy See and the Catholic Church in such a broad and decisive research area and in action for the new generations and the entire human family. In short, in collaboration with all persons and institutions interested in the true good of youth, the Church continues to be committed, both internally to her own purification and also 61 externally. This is the right path. And Pope Francis guides the Church with decision and charisma. Beyond the suffering and darkness of scandals and the presence of evil, the Church finds new momentum in her mission.
15.The text of the speech is in Oss. Rom., November 15, 2019. We also recall the pope’s previous extensive speech on the theme of the protection of minors in the digital world, delivered on October 6, 2017. On the subject of ethical algorithms, see also A. Spadaro - P. Twomey, “Artificial intelligence and social justice. A challenge for the Church” in this issue. Women and Men in the Church
Federico Lombardi, SJ
We should be grateful to Anne-Marie Pelletier for her recent book L’Église, des femmes avec des hommes, which collects and develops several lines of reflection on the relationship between women and men in the Church that she had already initiated in 62 previous writings.1 This issue is topical and of crucial importance. After all, the popes have been talking about it for decades, and John XXIII had rightly identified the new awareness of the dignity and responsibility of women among the main “signs of the times” in his famous encyclical Pacem in Terris (1963). There has been no lack of interventions and very important documents. Above all, John Paul II repeatedly turned his attention to women during his long pontificate (think, for example, of the apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem, 1988, or the Letter to Women, 1995). Without denying all this, Pelletier rightly observes that declarations are one thing, their reception in the life of the Church is something completely different. Numerous, beautiful words of homage to women by popes have often been met with suspicion
La Civiltà Cattolica, En. Ed. Vol. 4, no. 03 art. 6, 0320: 10.32009/22072446.0320.6
1.A.-M. Pelletier, L’Église, des femmes avec des hommes, Paris, Cerf, 2019. Anne-Marie Pelletier has taught Linguistics and Comparative Literature at several universities. She obtained her doctorate in the Science of Religions with a thesis on the Song of Songs, published by the Pontifical Biblical Institute of Rome. She taught Scripture and Hermeneutics at the Faculty of the Collège des Bernardins in Paris. She has published several articles and books on women in the Church, including Le christianisme et les femmes (2001) and Le signe de la femme (2008). In 2014 she was the first woman to receive the Ratzinger Prize. In 2017 she was invited to write the texts of the meditations on the Way of the Cross presided over by the pope on Good Friday at the Colosseum. WOMEN AND MEN IN THE CHURCH by those engaged in movements for their promotion and emancipation on the grounds they appear to confirm stereotypical visions of women instead of questioning any possible ambiguities.2 It is therefore necessary to continue to approach women without fear and distrust as they make their arduous historical journey toward the full recognition of their equal dignity and their rights. Pelletier – and only a woman could do this credibly! – helps us to understand the plausible reasons underlying a feminist criticism that is sometimes marked with a certain aggressiveness, and so in turn causes defensive reactions in the ecclesial sphere. In retracing the history of relations between the Church and women over past decades and in the context of today’s great social and anthropological transformations, the author highlights 63 the distance and misunderstandings that have been created and that we must try to overcome. There are in particular two thematic nuclei on which she dwells: contraception and the ministerial priesthood. On the first, Pelletier cannot but observe “the strange situation” in the context of which the reflections that appeared in Humanae Vitae were “conducted without using the experience and the personal testimony of women (apart from some inserted sparingly, attributed to “ a couple” in one of the commissions appointed by the pope).” The author notes in very strong terms: “Continued censorship of the feminine voice and her intimate knowledge of the flesh and life necessarily go to the heart of the subject. It is also a censorship of the history of generations of women, overwhelmed by incessant pregnancies lived as a destiny, and dangerous experiences associated with theological suffering in a perverse way.3 It is, therefore, censorship of their pain and desire” (p. 20). Pelletier is fully aware of the seriousness of the problems addressed by the encyclical, as well as of the risks of dehumanization
2.Well known, for example, is the critical examination made by Lucetta Scaraffia of the category of “female genius,” used by John Paul II in Mulieris Dignitatem. 3.Pelletier evidently alludes to the “painful birth” of Gen 3:16 and its unacceptable interpretations today. FEDERICO LOMBARDI, SJ
inherent in the growing separation between sexuality and procreation, and points out that they need to be re-contextualized today. This “will imply finally listening to women on this subject, at least on an equal footing with men” (p. 39) with discernment and responsibility. In 1968, in fact, an encounter between women and the Church “was missed,” and the magisterial discourse – on the life of couples, on contraception, on the pluralistic vision of sexuality – was perceived by many women as too insistent and even “indiscreet.” In this perspective, the current approach of Pope Francis appears innovative. The other great theme Pelletier focuses on is the problematic situation of women in the Catholic Church where the ministerial priesthood is reserved for men. Pelletier has no 64 intention of arguing for the priesthood of women. Her work focuses on the meaning of the baptismal priesthood lived “in the feminine.” What she points out, however, is that the series of magisterial documents on the subject, in their evident concern to avoid all sorts of uncertainties and discussions, has aroused in many women – including among those Catholics who are not inclined to argue polemically – an unease and a growing sense “of an insurmountable divorce between them and the ecclesial institution” (p. 43), perceived as closed in a sort of self-defense of male authority.
Read and re-read the Scriptures Courageously delineating the status quaestionis with these two very strong and hardly questionable facts, Pelletier moves on to a “constructive” discourse, appropriately dedicating a beautiful and ample part of her work to reading or re-reading Scripture from the point of view of women. Her view is that it is from the Word of God that one must always set out again to find the right path. “The overcoming of an exclusively masculine point of view and the acceptance of readings conducted through the prism of sensitivity, of commitments, and of feminine concerns will ensure that through contemporary reading new perspectives arise, and an abundance of ignored details emerge to increase the sense of biblical reading and manifest, for the benefit of all, its anthropological and spiritual intelligence” (p. 57). WOMEN AND MEN IN THE CHURCH
All those who have practiced making these perspectives their own – men and women, both in the area of biblical studies and in the more pastorally oriented disciplines – cannot but enthusiastically share these words. Pelletier re-reads synthetically the texts of the first chapters of Genesis on man and woman in a relational key, retraces the long history of conflicts and hostility between the sexes in the Bible, highlights the patriarchal order and the condition of inferiority of the women who characterize it and whose profound inadequacy must be felt. But then she also highlights the presence and splendid wealth of female figures throughout the Old Testament: the heroines of Israel and their place in the history of salvation, the prophetesses, the feminine traits with which God’s Wisdom is described or with which God’s tenderness, faithfulness and 65 mercy are revealed, up to the fascinating and mysterious covenant dialogue of the Song of Songs, in which the female voice dominates. It is not a question of denying that the masculine references in Scripture are more abundant than the feminine ones, “whatever certain feminist readings may say,” but “the decisive point is that it is necessary to weave together both references in order to get a little closer to the knowledge of God, of which the Jewish tradition recalls the unknowability, rejecting the nonchalant use of His Name” (p. 95). Even the New Testament, in particular the Gospels, re-read with true attention to “female episodes,” becomes a repository of surprises, beginning with the questions posed by the presence of Galilean women in the itinerant company of Jesus (cf. Luke 8:2-3). It is right that we dwell on it, marveling at how little we had paid attention to it in the past: “Beyond a tradition of holy women who followed Jesus to the cross, the text imposes the much more shocking reality of a group of women following a rabbi, therefore a man, in this case Jesus, in his public ministry. Itinerant women, walking in his wake through Galilee, evidently free from the family and conjugal ties inherent in their female condition. The questions multiply: how did they, within a group of men, take on this transgressive role, and how were they perceived? What reputation could a woman like Joanna, who left her husband and the court of Herod Antipas to FEDERICO LOMBARDI, SJ
accompany Jesus have? What was the nature of the service these unexpected disciples performed for Jesus? Did it go beyond a merely material and financial dimension? And again, what about the insistence of the text in describing several of them as people who had been ill or possessed? The fact is that, unlike the men around Jesus, they were not the object of a call: they presented themselves, and Jesus accepted their assiduous presence. He ratified it; he even reserved to them the first announcement of the resurrection (p. 100). There is the freedom and boldness of this female companion of the Lord, with Mary Magdalene playing a clear role as human and spiritual leader, so effectively highlighted by Pope Francis: the “apostle of the apostles”! But the female figures that we meet in the Gospels are 66 many and they enter the story of Jesus with a greater weight than we have often thought. Suffice it to recall the Canaanite woman (cf. Matt 15:21-28), a pagan and a mother grieving for her daughter’s fate, who in her humility touches Jesus to the heart and induces him to broaden the horizon of his mission to the Gentiles. One cannot minimize the fact that the Gospel text clearly says that it was the woman who “changed” Jesus’ attitude.4 Pelletier reports the delicate commentary on this episode by a woman exegete, Dolores Aleixandre, who imagines the reflections of the daughter of the Canaanite woman on the mystery of her healing and the audacity of her mother before Jesus: “She challenged him to cross the border that still remained for him and called him to the other side, where we were still like a lost flock in the bush. He had to hear in her voice an echo of his Father’s and he decided to cross that border” (p. 220). Of course, the New Testament also reflects its cultural context and poses a series of challenges for women’s reading or a reading attentive to women. One must therefore know how to approach it with confidence, but aware of its complexity. It is striking, for example, that in the enumeration of the apparitions of the Risen One made by Paul in chapter 15 of the First Letter to the Corinthians, those to women are totally ignored,
4.In this episode the woman’s argument about the “crumbs falling from the table” is so delicately attentive to everyday life, so typically feminine, that it cannot be the invention of a man, albeit an evangelist. WOMEN AND MEN IN THE CHURCH which is not the case in the Johannine tradition, for which the first apparition of the Risen One is to Mary Magdalene. But even the Pauline discourse culminates in a definitive overcoming of the “enmity between man and woman”: “Men and women are touched by a recreation that allows them to exist face to face free from the disfigurements of sin.” This is what is manifested in the famous and almost shocking formula of the letter to the Galatians: “Now in Christ there is neither man nor woman” (Gal 3:28) (cf. pp. 106f).
Women ‘leaven of an ecclesiological conversion’ Pelletier’s discourse then moves on to the current question of women in the Church. The author is determined not to limit herself to the issue of retouching the organs of the institution, 67 focusing – as most people do – on a problem of distribution of roles and “power.” Although this, too, should not be denied, for Pelletier it is more important to try to go deeper, to the level of the theological realities on which the Church is founded, to the central point of the Christian vocation. The author therefore concentrates on the articulation of the baptismal priesthood and the priestly ministry, looking in the face, without fear, at the fact that – the latter being denied them – women, unlike men, must live their Christian vocation in an “asymmetrical” relationship with the priestly hierarchy of the Church. This condition has assumed and often assumes a connotation of inferiority and humiliation and risks “making their identity fragile.” Precisely for this reason it becomes urgent to deepen our understanding of what it means – beyond all differences in power, state of life or function – to belong to Christ, to be called, by baptism, to give body and presence to the realities of the Kingdom (cf. p. 121). It was the Second Vatican Council – after a long history in which the ministerial priesthood had concentrated in itself knowledge and authority in a strongly hierarchical Church – that brought back to the center of the ecclesial reality the baptismal priesthood, common to all the faithful, within and at whose service the presbyterate exists as an expressive and effective sacrament of Christ’s presence, through the proclamation of FEDERICO LOMBARDI, SJ
the Word, the Eucharist and Reconciliation. In this perspective, every form of exercise of the ministerial priesthood as power and not as service, every temptation to live the priesthood as belonging to a privileged caste must be definitively and decisively overcome. Here we understand the insistent and strong call of Pope Francis against “clericalism” and in favor of the co-responsible journey of God’s people, animated by the anointing of the Spirit. At this point one cannot but mention the situation of crisis and trial in which the ministerial priesthood has been led today by the scandal of sexual abuse and which makes particularly urgent its radical purification from all forms of undue exercise of power (“of abuse of power, of conscience and sexual abuse,” 68 as Pope Francis repeats). Of course, the common priesthood concerns men and women in the same way. But the author’s thesis is that women, precisely because the ministerial priesthood is denied them, “are available to carry high and strong the affirmation of the insuperable dignity of the baptismal priesthood” (p. 158), “they are like the leaven of ecclesiological conversion,” which entails the revision of the role of the ministerial priesthood. Pelletier speaks in this context of a “sign of woman” within the ecclesial Body and of an “inverse hierarchy” of the two priesthoods: “If the ministerial priesthood has a function of decentralization [toward Christ and his gift of grace] essential to the life of the Church, in the very mystery of the Church women without this priesthood have a function that is no less essential: this time a function of centering / refocusing that reminds everyone (clerics included) of the center of gravity of every evangelical life, beyond the roles, distinctions and hierarchies that structure the ecclesial institution at present” (p. 161). At this point it is Pelletier herself who observes that this value of a woman’s “sign” – on which she insists so much – would disappear if the claim to the ministerial priesthood of women were fulfilled. The Council’s discourse on the “universal vocation to holiness” in the Church, in evident continuity with that on the common baptismal priesthood, also receives a very strong light from women’s lives. It is no coincidence that the very beautiful WOMEN AND MEN IN THE CHURCH
pages of the apostolic exhortation of Pope Francis Gaudete et Exsultate (on holiness in ordinary life) make many references to the living conditions and activities of women (wives, mothers, grandmothers, educators, nurses...). Even in the growing number of canonizations of women in the twentieth century – though always with a large majority of consecrated women – Pelletier recognizes “the attention paid to a feminine holiness whose greatness lies in sanctifying the ordinary, that is, the flesh of the real” (p. 169). Speaking of women in the Church, Pelletier evidently welcomes the fact that several of them are entrusted with tasks of greater responsibility in the Roman Curia or in the ecclesial institution. However, it is not so much a matter of limiting oneself to a redistribution of powers as of “stimulating the 69 ecclesial body with baptismal femininity” (p. 174), rediscovering the Church as life, community and communion. Decisive in this perspective is diakonia, the service of charity, and the service of the Word. As for the first, thinking of the experience already offered by many women in assistance in hospitals or prisons, or in other situations of suffering, or in religious or ecclesial communities, it is right to mention not only their extraordinary service to those suffering bodily, but also the irreplaceable service of listening, of consolation, of spiritual accompaniment, which becomes an integral part of a journey of encounter with God, even if it does not reach the properly sacramental act. We observe in passing that those who listen to and accompany victims of abuse know very well that in this field the role of women is not only precious, but absolutely necessary and indispensable,5 and that even in this context the value of a female contribution to priestly formation is becoming increasingly evident. As for the diakonia of the Word and, more widely, the intelligence of faith and its expression, fortunately the horizon is widening. Who today could really think that “a male
5.A woman abused by a man, or even worse by a priest, will evidently experience a largely insuperable resistance to open up to a man and thus begin a path of healing. FEDERICO LOMBARDI, SJ
discourse would be capable of taking charge, alone, of the whole of the Christian experience and the mysteries of faith” (p. 182)? How can one not be surprised at the fact that Marian theology has been developed for centuries essentially by men?6 Of course men can say very correct and profound things about Mary, but cannot women do so too? And if we do not have the contribution of women, is it not likely that we will lack extra wealth and depth?7 Pelletier’s volume concludes with a “small inventory” of the “woman’s sign”, a series of figures for our time who help us to understand that there are ways to go through the experiences of life and faith characteristic of women, but whose value and preciousness we all feel. It will be the way Armenian Zabel 70 Essayan takes on and shares the tears of all mothers who mourn their lost children, refusing to escape the depths of the mystery and scandal of evil in the world. Or the way Etty Hillesum approaches death in a world dominated by the ever-increasing darkness of Nazi oppression, reaffirming her faith in God with a sublime and disconcerting unitive depth: “One thing is becoming clearer and clearer to me: it is not you who can help us, but we who can help you.” Or the feminine way of patiently living time, experiencing in it the mystery of motherhood, with its dimensions of expectation and fidelity, so precious yet forgotten today because of the haste, activism and acceleration of every aspect of life. Or the teaching “of the radicality of life in love,” which is so characteristic of Saint Teresa and other women proclaimed as “doctors of the Church.”
6.Pelletier notes that a text as beautiful and important as the encyclical Redemptoris Mater, of 1987, makes references to male authors from top to bottom, in a practically exclusive way. 7.Fortunately, it is now common experience that in community Scripture readings the contribution of women is an extraordinary and necessary enrichment. Who, if not women, can comment with true participation and existential understanding on Gospel episodes that see women as protagonists in their spiritual or physical femininity, such as the anointing of Jesus or healing from the flow of blood (Luke 8:43-48)? Or bring to light female figures often left in the shadows, but actually more relevant in the biblical story than you think? For example, Nuccia Resegotti Palmas wrote an interesting and well- documented book, Le ragioni di Sara, on the events of Israel’s origins experienced from the perspective of Abraham’s wife (cf. Oss. Rom., July 10, 2017). WOMEN AND MEN IN THE CHURCH
Finally, we cannot fail to reflect deeply on Mary, who was targeted in so many feminist battles as an instrument to preserve the condition of the passive woman who is alienated from the path of history. This is the Mary of whom the Gospels speak to us, the Virgin who holds in her heart the mystery of which she is a witness, the Virgin who in the Magnificat reads history in the light of God, the Virgin who resists in hope until Calvary, a woman in solidarity with women of every place and time. In conclusion, we note that in the course of its pages – thanks to her broad historical, ecclesial, biblical and theological culture, and her sincere attention to the condition of women – Pelletier succeeds in making her male readers, especially those involved in ecclesial realities, understand a great series of questions and even discomforts that concern women in the Church, and of which 71 they are often not sufficiently aware. This is very important. It would be tragic for the Church if the problems were not felt in their depth and urgency. But Pelletier manages to do this without ever going in the direction of an opposition or a division between women and men. Her discourse avoids a simplified vision of the “complementarity” of men and women, and yet manages to make people understand that in the experience of the journey toward God and his knowledge, as well as in the witness of Christian life in all its wonderful richness, one cannot afford to do without the contribution of women. To recognize and live it in the concreteness of ecclesial life in its various aspects, there is a long way to go. Pelletier helps us all – women and men – to walk together in the right direction. Abandoning the Myth of Nuclear Deterrence
Drew Christiansen, SJ
When the U.S. bishops began drafting their ground-breaking pastoral letter on nuclear weapons, “The Challenge of Peace,”1 in the early 1980s, Bill Spohn, a brother Jesuit and a fellow ethicist, was a colleague on the faculty of the Jesuit School of Theology 72 at Berkeley. All faculty members at that time were engaged in dialogues with parishes and schools around the San Francisco Bay area. We expounded the criteria of the “Just War,” probed the morality of nuclear warfare, and led discussions on the drafts of the bishops’ letter. During his speaking engagements Bill Spohn sounded a theme that has stayed with me ever since. During their exile in Babylon, Bill contended, the Israelites had to learn a new way to relate to God. Deprived of their Temple, far from the Promised Land, they wondered, “How could we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?” (Psalm 137:4). So today, Bill argued, Americans and citizens of the other nuclear-armed states had to ask, “How can we live without nuclear weapons as the ultimate guarantor of national and world security?” Nearly 40 years later, that is again the challenge in an especially acute way for all the nuclear powers. How can they live parted from their nuclear arsenals? Can they follow
La Civiltà Cattolica, En. Ed. Vol. 4, no. 03 art. 7, 0320: 10.32009/22072446.0320.7
1.The complete text is available here: http://www.usccb.org/upload/ challenge-peace-gods-promise-our-response-1983.pdf On this theme, cf. D. Christiansen, “The Church says no to nuclear weapons” in Civ. Catt. English Edition, May 2018, https://www.laciviltacattolica.com/the-church-says-no-to- nuclear-weapons-pastoral-and-moral-implications/ ABANDONING THE MYTH OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE the admonition of Jeremiah to “seek the peace of the city” (Jer 29:7)? Can they pursue the global common good of a positive, nonnuclear peace? International Relations specialists sometimes derisively refer to entrenched ideological positions as “theologies” by which they mean theories that their adherents support unswervingly like a religious dogma. For the past 70 years, chief among such secular dogmas is the theory of nuclear deterrence, the conviction that the best defense against threat of a nuclear attack is a credible threat of retaliation. While the world has changed dramatically since the Cold War, subverting the logic of deterrence in numerous ways, military analysts, politicians and diplomats still hold to the doctrine of deterrence as a totem of national security. 73 Bill Spohn argued that, like the Jews of the Exile, Americans in the Reagan era would have to learn a new way to think about the secular god of national security. As events unfolded, following the Reykjavik Reagan-Gorbachev summit in 1986, the superpowers signed and implemented new arms control treaties, perhaps lulling the public into feeling the nuclear issue had vanished. But today, like people awaking from a dream, we confront a far more dangerous world with the risk of events cascading out of control. Americans, NATO allies, those under “the U.S. nuclear umbrella,” as well as Russians, Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis and others need to learn to live without the Bomb as their hedge against destruction. Deterrence is a failing god. The relative stability between the two superpowers presumed in the 1980s has been replaced 40 years later by an unstable multipolar world in which the threat of nuclear war has grown. The superpower balance that made nuclear deterrence plausible no longer exists. Furthermore, non-nuclear states are subject to intimidation and domination by nuclear-armed ones, whether it is Ukraine in relation to Russia or Iran vis-à-vis the U. S. 2 Global terrorist networks exacerbate the danger even more.
2.On the inequality nuclear weapons create in the world system, see Nuclear Weapons: A Time for Abolition, a contribution of the Holy See to the 2014 Vienna DREW CHRISTIANSEN, SJ
The time has come for the world powers to turn their backs on nuclear deterrence as the ultimate guarantor of state security. Pope Francis has condemned deterrence as immoral, most recently during his trip to Japan in November, 2019. “With deep conviction,” he told a crowd at Nagasaki’s Peace Memorial Park, “I wish once more to declare that the use of atomic energy for purposes of war is today, more than ever, a crime not only against the dignity of human beings but against any possible future for our common home. The use of atomic energy for purposes of war is immoral, just as the possessing of nuclear weapons is immoral, as I already said two years ago. We will be judged on this.”3 Possession and threat, the two objects of Pope Francis’ 74 condemnation, are the two principal components of deterrence. In their 1983 pastoral letter “The Challenge of Peace,” the U.S. episcopate condemned nuclear war, but conceded that nuclear weapons might still be held solely for purposes of deterrence against nuclear attack. Since the Second Vatican Council had already solemnly condemned attacks against wide areas and their populations, the moral defenders of deterrence argued that a morally justifiable nuclear deterrent had only to possess “a centimeter of ambiguity” to be regarded as morally acceptable. Ambiguity, however, is a thin reed on which to rest the moral legitimacy of the threat of nuclear destruction. After all, the bishops condemned nuclear retaliation to nuclear attack, and they endorsed No First Strike pledges as conducive to a stable nuclear balance. Catholic moralists accepted the argument of ambiguity uncritically, and the downward reduction of weapons following the Reagan-Gorbachev Reykjavik summit, the fall of the Iron Curtain (1989) and the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991) may have lulled us into complacency as the old strategic order came undone.
Conference on Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Weapons, (http://www.fciv. org/downloads/Holy%20See%20Contribution-Vienna-8-DEC-2014.pdf). 3.Cf. Francis, Address at the Meeting for Peace, Hiroshima, November 24, 2019. ABANDONING THE MYTH OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE
As reductions of nuclear arms continued through the early 2000s, a morally conditioned deterrent continued to seem plausible. But as reductions fell with the unrealistic strategic offensive reduction and limitation treaties between 2003 and 2010, the illusory nature of the ambiguous position should have become clear to attentive observers. Indeed, the Holy See understood this. In 2013, Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, the then Vatican foreign minister, told the United Nations that plans for modernization of nuclear arsenals put in question “the good faith” of the nuclear weapons states. He contended that “the chief obstacle to [nuclear disarmament] is continued adherence to the doctrine of deterrence.”4 While military academies and war colleges made “The 75 Challenge of Peace” required reading, many nuclear strategists never regarded conditioned deterrence as a true and effective deterrent. In their minds deterrence requires certainty. “A centimeter of ambiguity” about the use of nuclear weapons is just not enough. For deterrence to be real there must be a real threat of their use. Furthermore, while the bishops had stipulated that nuclear weapons could be used solely to deter nuclear attacks, veteran arms control negotiators report that, as far, at least, as the U.S. was concerned that strict understanding of deterrence as solely to deter was probably never a believable policy. What is more, a succession of Nuclear Posture Reviews (Pentagon reports on U.S. nuclear strategy) confirmed that the use of nuclear weapons was often contemplated in response to nonnuclear threats. It is unlikely, especially in the last two decades, that any of the other nuclear powers regarded the moral conditions of “The Challenge of Peace” as restraints on their use of nuclear weapons. In his 2013 address, Archbishop Mamberti announced the emperor had no clothes. He declared, “the military doctrines based on nuclear arms, as instruments of security and defense of
4.Cf. Mamberti, Address of the Holy See to the High-Level Meeting On Nuclear Disarmament, September 26, 2013, (http://www.vatican.va/ roman_curia/secretariat_state/2013/documents/rc-seg-st-20130926_mamberti- nuclear-disarmament_en.html) DREW CHRISTIANSEN, SJ
an elite group, in a show of power and supremacy, retard and jeopardize the process of disarmament and non-proliferation.” He concluded, “Starting work on a global approach to providing security without relying on nuclear weapons is urgent.”5
A New Strategic Environment Much of the case for a renewed focus on nuclear abolition has focused on the increased risks posed by modernization of nuclear arsenals. Hypersonic, drone submarine and other new delivery systems, designed to evade detection and existing counter-measures, increase the risks for first use of nuclear weapons while minimizing the danger of retaliation. They increase the incentives for the use of nuclear weapons, 76 and, therefore, make new approaches to disarmament even more urgent. Incidentally, a recent study, supplementing the Humanitarian Consequences Movement earlier in the decade, has shown that even a limited regional nuclear conflict could result in a nuclear winter for the entire planet.6 The complexity of today’s geostrategic environment presents heightened reasons not just for widespread alarm, but for the moral condemnation of deterrence Pope Francis has voiced in the course of the last two years. The existing arms control and disarmament regime dating to the Cold War and especially to the Reagan-Gorbachev era is in disarray. It presumed a bi-polar world dominated by superpower competition and later an entente between Russia and the United States. For some time, moreover, the nuclear powers have been nine in number, and four of the nine (Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) are not party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In addition, the Nuclear Weapons States (the U.S., Russia, China, the U.K. and France) that are parties to the NPT have, for the most part over the past two decades, failed to make good on their commitments to disarmament under Article VI of the treaty. This requires state parties “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of
5.Ibid. 6.International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, “Nuclear Famine: Two Billion at Risk” (https://www.ippnw.org/nuclear-famine.html) ABANDONING THE MYTH OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”7 The post 9/11 threat of global terrorism has exacerbated the dangers in the current strategic environment with the fear that non-state actors like al Qaeda and ISIS might acquire nuclear weapons. The Abdul Qadeer Khan (the “father” of Pakistan’s first atomic bomb) network in Pakistan had already supported those the U.S. calls “rogue states” like Libya, Syria and North Korea in undertaking their own nuclear programs. Since U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and following the assassination of General Qaseem Suleimani,8 the Islamic Republic of Iran has announced it will resume full- scale production of enriched uranium five years ahead of the 77 point when it would have been permitted by the JCPOA. If Iran moves to weapons production, then Saudi Arabia and other states, like Egypt, will probably be close behind. Furthermore, the failure of the U.S. president and the North Korean leader to agree on how to begin a process of denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula, even as both countries press forward with development of new weapons systems, demonstrates how difficult it is to restrain “rogue states” and other belligerent states from de-stabilizing international security and greatly increasing the risk of nuclear war. North Korea has shown that even impoverished states are capable of “going nuclear.” In the past, moreover, the challenge of developing ballistic missile systems seemed to reduce the threat of strategic attacks by break-out states like North Korea. But by developing sophisticated delivery systems, this country has shown late-comers may no longer be at a disadvantage. One by one, the barriers to non-proliferation have been crossed. The new nuclear arms race can be expected to spin out of control, with both advanced and less-developed states competing to build their own nuclear arsenals.
7.Cf. “Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons,” July 1, 1968, at https://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2005/npttreaty.html. 8.Cf. G. Sale, “L’uccisione del generale Soleimani e lo scontro tra Usa e Iran” in Civ. Catt. 2020 I 249-262. DREW CHRISTIANSEN, SJ
At the same time, the remnants of the Cold War and post- Cold War arms control framework have been abandoned, most notably with the withdrawal of the U.S. and Russia from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the treaty’s termination in August, 2019. While Russia has explored extending New START before its 2021 expiration, U.S. officials have been non-committal, objecting that the treaty favors Russia. Both the legal and technical apparatus that to a considerable degree protected the world from a nuclear conflagration are sorely weakened, greatly heightening the urgency to find a new path forward toward elimination of nuclear weapons. Shifts like these in the geostrategic environment have led to the development of a new moral environment around nuclear 78 weapons, including a re-assessment of the extension of the conditional moral acceptance of nuclear deterrence, formulated in the 1980s, into the 21st century.
A New Moral Environment It was the dangers inherent in the chaotic complexion of the post-9/11 world that persuaded senior U.S. statesmen, led by former Secretary of State George P. Shultz, to turn in 2005 to abolition as a remedy for a sorely troubled strategy of deterrence. These former policymakers (Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry and Sam Nunn) realized that in today’s geostrategic environment, it is no longer reasonable to trust in deterrence in a vain hope for security and international stability. As Henry Kissinger told his colleagues, “[I]t is not possible for the United States to say nobody else can proliferate or build-up nuclear arsenals while we continue to rely entirely on nuclear weapons.”9 To move beyond deterrence, the Shultz Group proposed concrete steps to move toward a world without nuclear weapons in the belief that cooperation on near-term feasible steps will lead people to understand that Nuclear Zero is an achievable policy goal. According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative,
9.P. Taubman, The Partnership: Five Cold Warriors and Their Quest to Ban the Bomb, New York, HarperCollins, 2012. ABANDONING THE MYTH OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE two-thirds of former U.S. secretaries of state and defense and national security advisers have signed on to the proposal, demonstrating that abolition is not a policy of amateur outsiders, but one embraced by much of the U.S. nuclear establishment.10 In addition to the Shultz Project, the Humanitarian Consequences Movement (2013-15) and the U.N. Treaty to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons (2017) have contributed to a new political and legal dynamic, favoring abolition as a goal of international policy. Both have widened the gulf between the Nuclear Weapons States and non-nuclear ones. Their differences have led to strained relations over the NPT, with the nuclear powers refusing to join in the majority consensus in the 2015 NPT Review Conference and in the 2019 NPT Preparatory Review Conference (PrepCon), in view of 79 the 2020 NPT revision conference. It has also led to their reneging on prior commitments under the NPT such as the one to facilitate the establishment of a Middle East Nuclear Free Zone. The geopolitical climate surrounding nuclear policy is now one of widening alienation between the nuclear powers and their associates, on the one side, and the non-nuclear states, most of whom belong to Nuclear Weapons Free Zones, on the other. There is no longer consensus over the NPT. As the Nuclear Weapons States re-arm, fail to comply with their disarmament commitments, and indulge favorites, overlooking some proliferators and penalizing others, the grand bargain between the rest of the world and Nuclear Weapons States has, it seems, been irreparably damaged. The two conditions, then, that underlie the new moral environment around nuclear weapons policy are: 1) the loss of trust in the Nuclear Weapons States as responsible interlocutors within the international community, and 2) the wholesale defiance of the previously stated moral norms on nuclear weapons policy, and those pertaining to nuclear deterrence in particular. To these may be added a heightened
10.Cf. Nuclear Threat Initiative, “Nuclear Security Project: Working Toward a World without Nuclear Weapons” (www.nti.org/about/projects/ nuclear-security-project/) DREW CHRISTIANSEN, SJ
awareness of the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. The Church, of course, has additional reasons to oppose nuclear weapons. In particular, their cost in terms of the loss of resources needed for the general welfare and especially for the alleviation of poverty.11 This is the background against which Pope Francis’ repeated condemnation of nuclear weapons must be read. The condemnation is a judgment on a system of national and alliance-wide defense that has squandered its moral legitimacy, and which in a very unstable geostrategic environment presents a heightened risk to the future of the planet.12 There is no interim ethic for morally justifying today’s nuclear disorder. Abolition, therefore, is no longer just a 80 desirable policy goal; it has become a moral necessity. Pope Francis’ condemnation of deterrence, which he describes as “the threat to use as well as their very possession,” is a solemn affirmation of that undeniable moral demand. He made this clear in Hiroshima. Ethical justifications of marginal steps toward disarmament must be judged primarily in light of their contribution to elimination of nuclear weapons. The Treaty to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons, as imperfect as it may be, is the fundamental framework for abolition. Its limited provisions for disarmament and verification need to be strengthened, either by amendment or with supplementary treaties, such as a treaty that lays out the contours of a new world free of nuclear weapons. The Schultz group of American statesmen have crossed the threshold from deterrence to abolition thanks to a speech from Max Kampelman, a former Reagan arms negotiator, whose address on “The Power of the Ought” which precipitated their shift, after long hesitation, from
11.On the Church’s concern for the cost of nuclear weapons to the poor, see Vatican Council II, Gaudium et Spes, 81; John Paul II, Address to the United Nations, June 7, 1982; Francis, Address to Participants in the International Symposium “Prospects for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons and for Integral Disarmament,” November 10, 2017. 12.On instability in one critical region, see M. Krepon et al., Deterrence Instability and Nuclear Weapons in South Asia, Washington, Stimson, 2015. ABANDONING THE MYTH OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE guardians of deterrence to advocates of abolition.13 For the Church the fundamental shift took place in 1965 at Vatican II. Gaudium et Spes, the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, condemned total war, weapons of mass destruction, and the nuclear arms race as “an utterly treacherous trap for humanity.”14 Two decades later, in Centesimus Annus, Saint John Paul commended the nonviolent protesters of 1989 for discerning, through their identification with the sufferings of Christ, “the often narrow path between the cowardice which gives in to evil and the violence which, under the illusion of fighting evil, only make it worse” (an oblique criticism of war as an instrument of just peace).15 The events of the last 20 years, moreover, particularly the lost 81 opportunities for disarmament after the fall of Communism in 1989, demonstrate the dangers latent in countenancing nuclear deterrence. In view of the worsening geostrategic situation, it is possible to take up with fresh conviction the Council’s advice that we approach the question of nuclear war and deterrence “with an entirely new attitude.”16 First, “church-wide and parish-deep” Catholics must appropriate fully for ourselves Vatican II’s condemnation of total war and understand that the condemnation applies particularly, though not exclusively, to nuclear war. Secondly, it means Catholics, the wider public, that is, men and women of good will, and just-war analysts in particular, should approach with critical suspicion efforts to find loopholes in the prohibition against total war. In third place, it requires of all an honest historical recognition of the insufficiency of previous efforts to constrain nuclear arms development with carefully crafted ethical restrictions.
13.For Shultz’s account of the Kampelman talk, see his “The Power of the Ought” in Hoover Digest, October 9, 2009, (https://www.hoover.org/research/ power-ought). 14.Gaudium et Spes, 80-81. 15.Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus (On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum), 25, my italics. 16.Gaudium et Spes, 80. DREW CHRISTIANSEN, SJ
In fourth place, it entails imagining Nuclear Zero as a feasible development, and, like Shultz and the Nuclear Security Initiative, finding suitable steps to put nuclear-armed states on the road to Nuclear Zero.17 In fifth place, all people of conscience should be alert to the ways in which contemporary just-war casuistry might assist us in making the transition to abolition. Finally, we must never lose sight of the goal: elimination of nuclear weapons; and we must be vigilant so as not to be lulled into accepting without suspicion and criticism any condition short of full abolition as a settled outcome. In short, the time has come, as Bill Spohn advocated, to learn to live without nuclear weapons, to abandon the myth 82 of deterrence and measure international security in new ways consistent with the Church’s message of a positive peace.
17.On steps that may be taken toward the goal of abolition, see S. D. Drell and J. E. Goodby, The Gravest Danger: Nuclear Weapons, Washington, Hoover, 2003; S. Lodgard (ed.), Stable Nuclear Zero: The Vision and Its Implications for Disarmament Policy, New York, Routledge, 2017, 53-130. Three Biblical Cities
Pino Stancari, SJ
Within the bible we can see cities as symbolic representations of three different ideas. These three city figures are arranged along an itinerary that corresponds substantially to the development of the whole history of salvation. 83 Cain and the birth of the city The first time there is talk of a city in the bible iswhen Cain is struggling with the anguish that made him restless and always fleeing from relations with others after having shed the blood of Abel (cf. Gen 4:3-12). Not even the sign of benevolence received from the Lord reassures him (cf. Gen 4:13-16). Genesis recounts subsequently: “Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and named it Enoch after his son, Enoch” (Gen 4:17). The fact is that after killing Abel, Cain is no longer willing to face other fraternal relationships. In the grip of anguish and anxiety about a probable exacting of revenge and distrust of himself and his own behavior, he wants to find in his city the haven that will allow him to look out onto the horizon of the world beyond, where he can be assured of the exclusion of fraternal contact with any presence, be it already nearby or intending to approach him. From Babel (cf. Gen 11:1-9) to the “beast” of Revelation (cf. Rev 13:1-10), the biblical cities are built and follow this pattern: social forces are organized and work and commerce grow with ever more efficient technology and machinery; juridical, administrative and political institutions take on the increasingly complex forms of a true project of civilization; at the same time,
La Civiltà Cattolica, En. Ed. Vol. 4, no. 03 art. 8, 0320: 10.32009/22072446.0320.8 PINO STANCARI, SJ
within its walls – visible or invisible – the city is able to provide ever more sophisticated services; and all this is on the condition that concern for any true fraternal relationship is eliminated (cf. Gen 4:18-24). In reality, the city of Cain – which the Bible will gradually identify with the various examples of imperialism that systematically intersect the course of salvation history – carries within itself a monstrous physiognomy: based on a structural will to die; it becomes the breeding ground of all idolatry. The prophets will speak of it extensively with dismay and passion, ready to grasp and signal the intrinsic self-destructive process that transforms into vertigo the enthusiasm of the city, aiming as it does to conquer the world (call it Nineveh, Babylon, or 84 Rome...), to the point of converting it into a bursting belly that becomes a chasm in which it devours and consumes itself (cf. Exod 1:11; Josh 2-6; Ezek 27:1-36; Amos 1:9-10; Nah 3:1-7; Hab 2:5-8.12-14; etc.). In any case, the history of humans – from Cain onward – now becomes the history of the city. That is why God’s mercy, which is revealed through a history of salvation, comes upon the city. And since the city wants to take possession of the world, provided that all fraternal relationships are removed, salvation for humans will be worked out by God in such a way as to show that a way back to fraternity is open for those people who, for their part, no longer know how to do without their city.
Jerusalem The second figure of a city in the bible is that of Jerusalem. It functions as the laboratory desired by God to develop experiments in fraternity. From David onward, the whole history of salvation is directed toward this city. The pilgrim who goes up to the temple sings: “For my brothers and my friends I will say: ‘Peace be with you!’” (Psalm 122:8); “How very good and pleasant it is when kindred live together in unity!” (Psalm 133:1). Jesus also goes up to Jerusalem to realize the gesture of fraternity. In fact, he will be brutally rejected in Jerusalem. But it is precisely the exclusion Jesus suffers that becomes the foundation for every encounter between brothers. The shedding THREE BIBLICAL CITIES of his blood in obedience to the Father establishes and seals bonds of fraternal consanguinity that even death can never again destroy. Jerusalem is the city where Cain’s enterprise has now been subverted and overturned once and for all. Where fraternity is denied by human history, it is precisely there that the sign of rediscovered fraternity has been placed by God. Inseparable from Jesus and his Passover of death and resurrection, Jerusalem has become the sacrament of fraternity, in that it gives human history the now definitive sense of the history of a single family, which is constituted in the diversity of men, peoples and cultures. The city, built by Cain on the spilt blood of his brother, will be truly brought to fruition as a relationship of consanguinity between brothers who 85 recognize and reconcile themselves by virtue of a debt of love that is stronger than death.
The new Jerusalem Then the third city figure appears in the bible: it is still Jerusalem, but it is new and comes down “out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Rev 21:2). She is the Bride of the Lamb, whom John contemplates in the final visions of Revelation (cf. Rev 21-22), but who already appears in the course of human history as that city in which God dwelled. In it every diversity of language, cultural charism and historical path finds ways of sharing in the works and intentions of hearts. As the city of Cain collapses (cf. Rev 14:8; 18:1-23), the blood of the martyrs and of all the poor people whom human history has crushed and eliminated appears (cf. Rev 6:9-11; 18:24). Thus appears the city which is founded on the blood of the Lamb and the blood of all who belong to the Lamb and follow him wherever he goes (cf. Rev 14:4), in communion with his death and resurrection. It is the city in which the brothers recognize themselves, so that Cain will no longer have to flee elsewhere. It is no longer true that the city is built to avoid fraternal relationships; on the contrary, the very relationship that has been rejected becomes the PINO STANCARI, SJ
unshakable foundation that finally makes any true reconciliation possible and that sustains the growth of the only human family, because of a stronger witness of welcome and piety. Behold, then, the bride of the Lamb; behold the city that is being built from martyrdom to martyrdom, through the rediscovered consanguinity of love that reveals the glory of God and his Lamb, while it gives every person the purest joy of universal compassion.
What ‘city’ in Nain of Galilee? Among the biblical authors who have most reflected on the presence of the city in human history, a special place must certainly be reserved for the evangelist Luke. In his writings 86 – Gospel and Acts of the Apostles – there emerges the mature experience of a man who has lived in one of the great metropolitan realities of his time. In fact, Luke was born and culturally trained in Syrian Antioch. The fact is that the term polis (“city”) appears many times in his writings, even when it comes to small villages. In his theological language it is evident that the design of salvation fully addresses the city of Cain, with all its grandeur and contradictions. This is the case of that “city of Samaria” where everything must be subject to the rules of the market for Simon the magician (cf. Acts 8:5-25); and it is also the case of that “city” where the relationship with the “woman” is evaluated in terms of a trade in love (cf. Luke 7:36-50). But here we want to consider another Gospel episode, which usually goes under the title “The meeting of Jesus with the widow of Nain” (cf. Luke 7:11-17). In fact, the otherwise unknown village of Nain is also called “a city.” In fact, it even seems to be an urban center, with walls and gates. It is right at the “city gate” (v. 12) that the encounter between two processions takes place: on the one hand, Jesus arrives “with his disciples and a large crowd” (v. 11); on the other hand, a funeral procession comes from inside the city, accompanying “a man who had died who was being carried out. He was his mother’s only son, and she was a widow; and with her was a large crowd from the town” (v. 12). THREE BIBLICAL CITIES
It is no coincidence that in only two verses Luke uses the term “city” three times. This is evidently no longer a private episode, but a real study about the public function that belongs to the city. From Cain onward, in fact, the city produces death and expels it: it is not able to absorb or mediate it; if anything, it can transform itself into a necropolis. In itself, those walls, which express its internal identity through the signs of efficiency and beauty, should guarantee its relationship with the outside world, allowing it to take advantage of every reality while maintaining due distance from it (and above all distance from fraternal relations). At the end of the day, however, those walls become the emblem of an impossible mediation. Like an impassable limit, they overlook the chasm of death, to keep it at a distance, but in fact they only manage to 87 record how the city has already been conquered by death, until it is invaded from within. In this Gospel passage, the dead man is “his mother’s only son, and she was a widow.” Under these conditions, it may well be assumed that his mother died with him; indeed, the city of men dies with her. But now the mother – and the city – is under the gaze of Jesus: and it is he who “has compassion for her,” because he sees her “weeping” (cf. v. 13). It is he who notices those tears – perhaps invisible to other eyes – that document the tragic pain of human history. Thus oceans of petrified tears accumulate. Jesus has compassion for that mother, because he has compassion for our city, that is, for this human history of ours that sinks into the abyss of a brotherhood irreparably lost, and is just as irreparable as that death by which relations between generations, between peoples and between cultures are broken. The human city is weeping. Jesus also sees the invisible tears. Then “he came forward and touched the bier” (v. 14). This is as resolute as it is disconcerting. The fact is that Jesus ritually contaminates himself personally, making that procession stop, until he speaks directly to the dead man: “Young man, I say to you, arise!” (v. 14). Jesus speaks to the death produced by human history: that death which can only produce more death. He not only calls PINO STANCARI, SJ
into question the death of a person, but the exhaustion of a whole project of historical growth, which gradually evolves into a tragic process of decadence, in the course of which all the cities of men are consumed, one after the other. When the dead man “sat up and began to speak,” “Jesus gave him to his mother” (v. 15). Once again we recognize here the city of Cain, but in an unexpectedly new light: under the gaze of Jesus and the sweetness of his gesture, that city, crying in silence, desperate to overcome the failure of its history, is powerfully called to the fruitfulness of a new maternal gestation. We too are spectators of this absolute novelty, and we say: “A great prophet has risen among us” and “God has looked favorably on his people!” (v. 16). 88 In the city of Cain there are already those who listen to the lament of the stones and recognize familiar faces in all human faces devastated by the desperation of death or by the worsening of violence. There is already a visitor, Jesus, who seeks out and builds bonds of brotherhood in human history that are stronger than death. The Culture of Tolerance
Giancarlo Pani, SJ
The issue of tolerance and intolerance has, for centuries now, been one of the most debated issues.1 A number of important events occurred in 2019 that touch on this problem in a new way. Two in particular should be mentioned: the Year of Tolerance proclaimed by the United Arab Emirates, and the publication of 89 the Abu Dhabi Document. The UAE declared 2019 the Year of Tolerance and drew up a Declaration of Principles of Tolerance, based on the 1996 UN guidelines. It reads: “Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the richness and diversity of the cultures of our world, [...] it is harmony in difference. […] Tolerance is a virtue that makes peace possible and helps to replace the culture of war with a culture of peace.”2 Pope Francis has often spoken about tolerance, especially with regard to respect for others, the marginalized, the poor and refugees. The theme was prominent in the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Life Together, signed in Abu Dhabi February 4, 2019, by Francis and the Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Ahmad al-Tayyeb. It states: “We, who believe in God,
La Civiltà Cattolica, En. Ed. Vol. 4, no. 03 art. 9, 0320: 10.32009/22072446.0320.9
1.Cf. F. Battaglia, “Tolleranza” in Enciclopedia Italiana, vol. XXXIII, Rome, Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1937, 980f; C. Gallicet Calvetti, “Il problema della tolleranza” in M. F. Sciacca, Grande antologia filosofica, vol. VIII, Milan, Marzorati, 1964, 1708-1716; H. Kamen, Nascita della tolleranza, Milan, il Saggiatore, 1967; J. Lecler, Storia della tolleranza nel secolo della Riforma, vol. I-II, Brescia, Morcelliana, 2004 (or. 1967); F. Lomonaco, Tolleranza. Momenti e percorsi della modernità fino a Voltaire, Naples, Guida, 2005, 7-26. 2.See https://dubaitaly.com/2018/12/28/2019-lanno-della-tolleranza GIANCARLO PANI, SJ
call upon the leaders of international politics and the world economy to work strenuously to spread the culture of tolerance and peaceful coexistence.”3 But what is a culture of tolerance? In order to talk about it, it is necessary to articulate a discourse that embraces a considerable number of topics, because this theme has interested many people, particularly since the Enlightenment. Today, “tolerance” is still widely discussed, but often with no great depth of understanding. The terms “tolerance” and its opposite “intolerance” date back to the time of the Reformation and it is not easy to define them, because in history they have had different meanings with contrasting nuances. One can try to describe them, along the 90 lines that “tolerance” means the right of the citizen to hold ideas or engage in behavior considered wrong or otherwise harmful to society, while “intolerance” means their clear condemnation and punishment both by physical violence and by other means. Originally, such behavior was monitored by civil authority in relation to the lawfulness or non-lawfulness of the repression of religious dissent in a society where there were conflicting religious groupings.4 However, the reality they express has its roots in antiquity and in the history of Christianity: tolerance and freedom of conscience are distinctive features of the Gospel message and Christian life. The author of the Epistle to Diognetus noted this as early as the middle of the second century: “[God] sent his son to save, to persuade, not to cause violence, for there is no violence in God.”5 This teaching has been taken up by many Church Fathers, and some apologists, including Tertullian and Lactantius,6 who called loudly for the imperial authority to respect freedom of conscience. Later, tolerance was strongly
3.Cf. Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Life Together, http:// w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/travels/2019/outside/documents/papa- francesco_20190204_documento-fratellanza-umana.html 4.Cf. W. Post, “Tolerance” in Sacramentum mundi, vol. VIII, Brescia, Morcelliana, 1997, 364-375. 5.Epistle to Diognetus, 7:4. 6.Cf. Tertullian, Apologeticum, 24, 6; Ad Scapulam, 2, 2; Lactantius, De Institutionibus divinis, V, 19, 11-13.23. THE CULTURE OF TOLERANCE reiterated by Augustine,7 and in the Middle Ages by Abelard and Innocent III.8 During the Enlightenment, tolerance and freedom of conscience were defended by John Locke in his 9 Letter Concerning Toleration and reiterated in Voltaire’s Treatise 10 on Tolerance, to quote the most famous authors. Tolerance, however, also involves its opposite, intolerance, and this also has its origin – however paradoxically – in an interpretation of the Gospel proclamation. If the truth is in the Gospel and in Christ, it does not admit ambiguity or compromise, it is “intransigent” or, if you like, to a certain extent, “intolerant.” Hence there was the aspiration of Christianity to be the only true religion, and the consequent intolerance toward other religions present in the Roman Empire. The two practices – tolerance and intolerance – during the course of numerous 91 events mark the history of Christianity from its origins to the present day.
Tolerance and dialogue From the legal point of view, tolerance today means the public recognition of the right of an individual not to be violated in the intimacy of his or her ethical and religious world, and therefore not to be prevented from expressing his or her individual feelings and ideas. The concept and experience of tolerance as a legal status enjoyed by a person derives entirely from his or her inner self: tolerance is the willingness to dialogue, and intolerance is the refusal to converse, to communicate with others on an equal level. Bear in mind that in ordinary conversation, when we talk about tolerance, we assume a relationship of inequality, because tolerating a person implies power, and the tolerated individual is in a position of inferiority. Hence the need for mutual respect.
7.Augustine, Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John, homily 26:2. “It may happen that someone enters the church against his will and, against his will, approaches the altar and receives the Sacrament, but he cannot believe if he does not want to.” 8.Cf. M.-D. Chenu, Il risveglio della coscienza nella civiltà medievale, Milan, Jaca Book, 2010 (or. 1969), 32f. 9.Cf. J. Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689). 10.Cf. Voltaire, Traité sur la tolérance (1763). GIANCARLO PANI, SJ
So, at the outset, tolerance is a condition of openness of spirit much more than a formulation of rights due to individuals and their living in a society.11 On the basis of this explanation of tolerance as a willingness to dialogue, anyone who recognizes at least publicly an individual’s freedom to think as they wish and to spread their ideas, but then excludes certain groups of people from the conversation, can turn out to be deeply intolerant. This kind of behavior is quite common toward those of faith, who, for many non-religious people, are people they talk about and do not talk to. It is clear that this attitude, whatever the pretexts under which it is defended and justified, must be qualified as intolerance. 92 Tolerance as such has the task of confirming its own authenticity as a legal and political approach. It should be noted, for example, that a willingness to engage in dialogue implies something more than the rights discussed above, because it also includes the extra possibility of forming one’s own convictions. And this extra is very important, particularly from a cultural, legal and political perspective; and it is not true to say that this extra dimension is simply the correlative of the right to speak. We must be realistic and take into account how the formation of an individual’s opinions and choices is conditioned by too many circumstances, too much bias and doubt, for freedom of speech on its own to safeguard it. When, for example, one excludes from a university library books that belong to a certain ideology, one commits an act of intolerance, because in this way one refuses to converse with a whole group of people who have every right to be heard, and prevents a specific category of students from forming their beliefs according to that ideology. It is an intolerance that does not prevent anyone from speaking, writing or publishing, but prevents them from listening. For example, it happens that in Italy, the libraries of the faculties of Literature and Philosophy often lack recent
11.Freedom of expression in community and society is nothing other than the extension of the experience of tolerance to the sphere of public relations, just as life in society is the expression and fulfilment of individual aspirations. THE CULTURE OF TOLERANCE critical editions of the Bible. And vice versa, the classical texts of the Enlightenment and secular culture are sometimes absent from the libraries of the Faculties of Theology.
Freedom of thought and minorities An individual’s right to decide on their own beliefs applies in precise circumstances. If people are nominally given the faculty to think the way they want, but at the same time they are forced to live as part of a minority or even in isolation because they choose not to accept a set of imposed attitudes and ideas, then violence is being used against them, which has precisely the name of “intolerance.” The strength of will to be in the minority, to resist the threat of isolation, is a difficult virtue; to impose it on one’s neighbors is tantamount to not respecting 93 their right to freedom. Man cannot live alone, as we read in the Bible (cf. Gen 2:18.20); we do not know how to be alone,12 and therefore end up conforming to others, precisely because of our innate need to converse and communicate. The Christian spirit is inclined to take everyone seriously and not to simplify, for the sake of ease, relations with others; but it also knows that it is obliged to continue the dialogue and not to form an everlasting judgment on others, because people do not remain the same, and instead they turn to the good or toward evil; and also because one can never be sure that one has fully taken into account everything that others have to say. Such openness obviously has its limits. This is a fact that tends to make the boundary between tolerance and intolerance sometimes difficult to discern. It is not possible to prolong the dialogue indefinitely, nor to converse with all people who exist on the face of the earth; even those closest to us can only be engaged with to a large but still limited extent. These restrictions are clearly applicable in matters of faith. Contrary to common opinion, the space available to the Christian conscience for conversations and discussions on this
12.“No man is an island entire of itself,” wrote the English poet John Donne. Cf. M. Walzer, Sulla tolleranza, Rome - Bari, Laterza, 20032, VII; T. Merton, Nessun uomo è un’isola, Milan, Garzanti, 1988. GIANCARLO PANI, SJ
subject is vast, because the variety of theological schools and spiritual orientations provides for a wide range of freedom.13 At a certain point, however, it is inevitable that there are limits to any discussion and that it will not be possible to go further. Any religion has such limits, and the dogmatic debate that takes place internally cannot extend beyond the community without undermining its own premise and becoming something other than what it is. Any reality is susceptible to change; indeed, the possibility of change is a constant; but when change goes beyond certain critical points, that reality ceases to be itself and becomes another. This critical point in the conversation could be called “the insuperable boundary”: further on, in fact, you move from that 94 network of conversations and end up somewhere else. But while for Christian consciences there is a tribunal (once it was the Holy Office), for a secular conscience the “tribunal” is a much more personal act: every single conscience is itself a tribunal. It also has an authority that demands intransigence and rejects compromise, and it is a permanent institution. There is a common attitude among non-religious people, leading them to make these decisions based on clear and rigorous beliefs, like a judge on the bench. To understand the importance of this tribunal in the world we live in, an example may be useful. There is a sort of modesty that prevents some from approaching confidently the Bible (at least a good edition), the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, the ancient and recent classics of Christian literature, all books apparently that a “cultured” person is better off not knowing about. While on any other subject it is not very sensible to speak without having first documented oneself, for a secular conscience ignorance in things concerning the faith (including Christian faith) and the freedom to discuss them without being informed constitute almost a point of honor.
13.For example, among the theological schools the divergence in philosophy, in biblical or spiritual theology and in liturgy is so great that it seems like an abyss, and one would say it would tend to swallow everything except some essential aspects of faith. THE CULTURE OF TOLERANCE
Tolerance in the secular world The non-religious have also developed their own concept of tolerance: “From the conviction that dogmatic and theological differences have a secondary value before the fact of our common origin and the fundamental principles of revelation accepted by all, the idea of tolerance arose in some Christian circles, partially out of charity, with a view to the reconciliation of opposing groups. But in other environments and in other circumstances, tolerance is a consequence of spiritual attitudes closer to skepticism, or syncretism. This may derive from the conviction that reaching the supreme truth is humanly impossible, for no person has the right to proclaim the absolute truth of one doctrine in comparison with others, or that the truth itself 95 can be reached by different means, each of which has its own justification.”14 The first journey just described is that of Christian tolerance; the other gave rise to the secular concept of tolerance as religious relativism. This is the kind of intolerance that is hidden, protected and passed off as tolerance. Its first formulations were those of religious naturalism: the true religion is the natural one,15 while the explanations of documents and positive religions are completely accidental. “The dedication of religious souls to the will of God does not depend at all on the concept of religion that the various religions have made of Him.”16 Dogmatic choices are entirely relative: what matters is the human, even if brought back to Christianity, but to a Christianity reduced to the lowest common denominator of all religious experiences. What counts,
14.F. Battle, “Tolerance” op. cit., 980. 15.Natural religion entails the certainty, ordinarily achieved by demonstrative means, that God exists, that He is infinite, that He created the world and governs it through His Providence; that man is bound to recognize God and worship Him, that public worship corresponds to man’s social nature and to his need for sensitive manifestations even in his relations with God. 16.G. E. Lessing, Nathan der Weise, Act III, Scene 1. This play is a classic on the theme of religious relativism. In the eighteenth century it often happened that religious issues were discussed through plays. Cf. G. E. Lessing, Teatro, Turin, Utet, 1981, 238; K.-J. Kuschel, “L’Ebreo, il Cristiano e il musulmano s’incontrano”? “Nathan il saggio” di Lessing, Brescia, Queriniana, 2006, 42-44; 187-189. GIANCARLO PANI, SJ
it has been said, is “the desire of the soul,” that is, the dynamic of religious aspiration, regardless of any consideration of the final term of that dynamic. It should be noted that the term “religious relativism,” to which the secular experience of tolerance refers, also has a precise dogmatic content: that which makes it possible to exclude as irrelevant any specifics that are added to natural religion through Revelation. This dogmatic content includes at least, through the exclusion of Revelation, the thesis that God has the right to speak and to speak in human affairs; in fact, it is said, all the alleged revelations have led to absurd fratricidal wars between peoples.17 God can exist, as long as God does not intervene in human affairs. We are thus exactly at the opposite 96 extreme to biblical experience, where God directly appears in history and guides us to a goal freely set by him. These dogmatic developments are widely suggested in the works of the Enlightenment, but – an absolutely characteristic fact! – there was no possibility of discussion and they were taken as givens, at least among those who accepted the light of reason. But when they escape discussion under any pretext (and it takes a very specific pretext to deny God the right to speak), one is intolerant; and all the more intolerant the more one claims to place oneself outside and above any dogmatic controversy. This intolerance is manifested in practice through a very stern refusal to engage with the religious theories of others, justifying this by the fact that those who accept a religion are fools, and it is useless to talk with fools; but above all it is manifested in the inability to understand positive religions, and especially Christianity, in their context, in their own light. It is clear that this way you easily get to make other people’s beliefs strange and ridiculous. Of this game, which smells of superficiality or bad faith, the most brilliant master is Voltaire: it is the game of voluntary misunderstanding, and therefore of pure intolerance.18
17.Cf. Voltaire, Treaty on tolerance, op. cit. 62. The fundamental thesis of the Treaty, with regard to the intolerance of Christians, is clear: “Tigers only fight to eat, while we have exterminated ourselves for paragraphs.” 18.Voltaire has the great ability to expose the facts in a way that mocks Christians. His themes are always proposed in terms that are unacceptable to THE CULTURE OF TOLERANCE
On the other hand, ridicule is always a refusal to talk, as well as to understand. For the Enlightenment, certain conclusions are regarded as evident in the eyes of the ordinary person: without taking into account that the judgments of the ordinary person are influenced by countless factors, which are not all based on reason. To be ridiculous, one can solicit unobjective reasons for consent, and one can usually exclude the dispassionate and respectful attention that is necessary to arrive at a proper judgment. The Manichean soul that inspires these writings makes it much easier to mock and polemicize: words and texts of the opponent are sketched according to a division of light and darkness, obtaining an effective picture, or isolating within any image the dark and the bright part, and using one or the other depending on what is convenient during the discussion. It is a 97 process that Voltaire uses very much when he documents his speech historically.19
Tolerance and verbalism Put in these terms, the issue of tolerance goes back to the issue of verbalism.20 There is no doubt that on the Enlightenment side – and with the Enlightenment the secular spirit came of age – more ink has been used than on the Catholic side in favor of something called “tolerance”; but we have already seen that a voluntary misunderstanding of the point of view of others is one and the same thing as intolerance. those with whom he discusses; so that there is no real discussion, only invective. And what is more, he does so in a refined way: he insults without shouting, slanders without getting flustered, he renounces insult to seek only the most effective formulas to make accusations. 19.Cf. Voltaire, Treaty on tolerance, op. cit. The text is one of Voltaire’s masterpieces, in which the philosopher proposes his themes in terms absolutely unacceptable to those with whom he discusses them. If on the one hand violence, intolerance, prejudice and stupidity are rejected in them, on the other hand there is an accused who always receives his invectives. And the accused – who is the Christian, or the Christian conscience – never speaks in person, but only through the texts of the sentence. However, the universal prayer with which the text closes has a particular value, that “prayer to God” which asks that “all men can remember that they are brothers!” 20.Cf. S. Corradino, “L’uomo e la parola: la tentazione del verbalismo” in Civ. Catt. 2018 IV 447-458. GIANCARLO PANI, SJ
In this regard it should be noted that for the problem of tolerance this lack of willingness to be open to the spirit of others is much more important than the meeting or disagreement of opinions. The gulf between Catholics and the non-religious, and between the two respective concepts of tolerance, is less about dissent and more a contrast of spirits and dogmas. Dogmatic controversy engages the spiritual conflict, but never fully adapts it: it gives it a body, a pretext, nothing more. The real difference is in the soul, not in the thesis. The soul is more or less sincere, more or less closed, more or less willing to dialogue. Christians are often accused of giving too much importance to the doctrinal aspect of Revelation, and this may be true. But what is striking about the discussion is never the criticism, 98 however bitter, but rather the heart that has become impenetrable and hard as a rock, and seeks only an excuse to hit one in the face. Today there are Protestants with whom it is possible to speak in full communion of spirit, in mutual awareness of disagreements on many points. This is proof that the reason for the opposition is in the spirit and not in the exegesis of some biblical passage. Exegesis alone can lead to two conflicting goals: either to deepen, in substantial objectivity, the gift that comes from God; or to defend oneself, behind the letter of a text, from the genuineness of the Spirit and holy friendliness. For the Enlightenment, it was beyond doubt that religious choices were only different opinions in matters of theology, and so there were polemics against the intolerant who wished to impose their own opinion. Reducing religious choices to opinions is a controversial diminution. Regardless of whether they are more or less true or more or less false, religions lead to an underlying option that is quite different from the formulation of an opinion.
Tolerance and the Second Vatican Council The Church too, in its long history, has often been intolerant, but with the Second Vatican Council it accepted a new attitude to the problem. The term “tolerance” is not used in the documents because – as has been said – it seems to imply a superiority over others, which would hinder the meeting. THE CULTURE OF TOLERANCE
The Council goes beyond this language, affirming respect for all in fraternity, the foundation of human relations and peace.21 In particular, two Council documents represent the turning point in the history of Christianity: the declarations Nostra Aetate, on relations with non-Christian religions, and Dignitatis Humanae, on religious freedom. The latter categorically affirms the freedom of conscience of every person in the religious field: no one can be induced or forced to act against his or her conscience. Moreover, religious freedom is based on the dignity of the human person and is a civil right that emerges both from human reason and from the Word of God.22 Every person has the right to seek the truth in the religious field by following the dictates of conscience: a truth that must be in conformity with the dignity of the 99 human person in his or her social nature, in freedom, in dialogue and in mutual respect. “God calls us to serve Him in spirit and in truth, hence we are bound in conscience but stand under no compulsion. God has regard for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and we are to be guided by our own judgment and we are to enjoy freedom.”23 The declaration presents the Lord Jesus as a teacher and model who, yes, has borne witness to the truth, but has not imposed it on anyone and has never used force.24 The apostle Paul states in his Letter to the Romans: “For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.”25 This maxim became the official axiom that supported the rights of conscience over the centuries, both morally and legally. The formula “from faith” (ex fide) indicates what comes from good faith, and this requires one to follow the dictates of one’s conscience under pain of sin.
21.Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dignitatis Humanae (DH), No. 14. 22.Cf. DH No. 2. 23.DH 11. 24.Cf. ibid. 25.Rom 14:23. Omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est, “those who do not act from faith, that is in good conscience, sin.” Another translation reads: “for whatever does not proceed from conscience is sin.” GIANCARLO PANI, SJ
Already around the year 1200, Pope Innocent III, commenting on this passage of the Letter to the Romans and resuming Abelard’s interpretation, argued that it is preferable to suffer excommunication rather than go against one’s conscience.26 But we waited until Vatican Council II for the idea to become a universal doctrine of the Church. The prospects opened by the Council, the UAE Year of Tolerance and the Document on Human Brotherhood for World Peace and Living Together, truly lay the foundations for a “culture of tolerance, coexistence and peace.”27
100
26.Thus the pope responded to the Archbishop of Bourges, as is documented in the Decretals. Cf. M.-D. Chenu, Il risveglio della coscienza nella civiltà medie vale, op. cit., 32f. 27.Cf. Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Life Together, op. cit. Terrence Malick’s ‘A Hidden Life’
Jean-Pierre Sonnet, SJ
Terrence Malick’s latest film A Hidden Life has now been released on the big screen. Previewed at the 2019 Cannes Film Festival, it won the Ecumenical Jury Prize and the François- Chalais Prize. A Hidden Life reveals the power cinema has to become 101 epiphany, to be light about light. While the work represents the director’s return to a more structured narrative (after the experimental period of 2011-17), it also radically prolongs the art that underlies all of Malick’s films: from Badlands (1973) to Song to Song (2017), including masterpieces such as The Thin Red Line (1998) and The Tree of Life (2011), winner of the Palme D’Or at the Cannes Film Festival in 2011. The film is undoubtedly Malick’s most spiritual film: “it’s a movie you enter, like a cathedral of the senses,” wrote Owen Gleiberman in Variety. In it a man’s prayer is heard.
A hidden life Franz Jägerstätter (1907-43) was an Austrian conscientious objector executed by the Nazis at the age of 36. At the time of the plebiscite of April 10, 1938, he was the only one to vote against the Anschluss in his village of St. Radegund in Upper Austria on the German border. A young farmer, he was not part of any political organization; he was simply the husband of a woman of deep faith, Franziska Schwaninger (1913-2013), who encouraged him to read the Bible and the lives of the saints.
La Civiltà Cattolica, En. Ed. Vol. 4, no. 03 art. 10, 0320: 10.32009/22072446.0320.10 JEAN-PIERRE SONNET, SJ
When mandatory conscription came into force in 1940, Jägerstätter refused to swear allegiance to the Führer. The exemption for farmers, however, meant that he could return home. The choice of conscientious objection then became even more profound for him after that first encounter with the military, and also in response to the growing persecution of the Church and the campaign of extermination of adults with physical and mental disabilities by the Nazi regime. At a meeting with the bishop of Linz, the churchman’s inability to address radical issues left him disappointed. Jägerstätter was finally called up for active military service in February 1943. He had three daughters by then, the oldest aged six. He immediately declared his conscientious objection. 102 Imprisoned first in Linz and then in Berlin-Tegel, he was put on trial on July 6, 1943. Sentenced to death for obstructing the military effort, he was guillotined on August 9, 1943, in Brandenburg prison, the same prison where about 10,000 mentally handicapped and other sick people had been gassed as part of the “Aktion T4” euthanasia program. To the prison chaplain who, after giving him the last sacraments, had asked him if he still needed help, he replied: “I have everything; I have the Holy Scriptures, I don’t need anything else.” It took some 20 years after the war for the name of Franz Jägerstätter to re-appear in public memory, thanks to the writings of the sociologist Gordon Zahn and the Trappist monk Thomas Merton, both pacifists. In June 2007 Jägerstätter was recognized as a martyr by Pope Benedict XVI, and on October 26 of the same year, Austrian National Day, he was beatified in Linz Cathedral.
‘A form of narrative that can only be filmed’ Inspired by such a figure, Terrence Malick has created a film of powerful interiority, dominated by two protagonists, Franz and his wife Franziska or Fani (played by August Diehl and Valerie Pachmer, both with radiant presences). Historiographical – the film opens with the clip of a Hitler parade and is punctuated by dates displayed on the screen – the work is narrated from beginning to end, and so exploits the resources of storytelling. TERRENCE MALICK’S ‘A HIDDEN LIFE’
Every day the passing of the postman on his bicycle causes anxiety: does he carry the letter calling up the young farmer? Will the figures of approaching villagers join the chorus of those who reprimand this “traitor” to their country? The relatively linear construction of the film, however, does not stand in the way of Malick. British director Christopher Nolan has said he is talented like few others in crafting a “form of narrative that can only be filmed.” Malick’s real strength, writes Juliette Goudot, “is to have invented a new grammar of cinema that is based on a mixed and innovative use of Steadycam (allowing those famous travellings at human height) and voice-over.” In A Hidden Life, thanks to the Steadycam method of filming, the images continuously embrace the characters, 103 making one perceive the physical intensity of the drama, of the personality of the man soon to be struck and killed, of the couple in a loving embrace, of the three daughters often in the arms of their parents. The voiceovers slide over the world and the filmed action to reveal its deepest impulses. Whether they are interior monologues, echoes of spoken words or letters being read aloud, they make possible what Michel Chion has called “a decentralized narrative.” The voiceovers had never before had such an impact in Malick’s work for the simple reason that A Hidden Life is entirely a film about a drama of conscience, and they lead us straight to the sanctuary of Franz’s conscience. Even the inner monologues of other characters can be heard, which we imagine resonate even in the protagonist’s conscience. The latter then projects itself onto that of the viewer, who benefits from the concert of all voices. The protagonist of the film is paradoxically a man who is mostly silent, especially in the days of detention and trial. Like the Suffering Servant in the Book of Isaiah, writes Joel Mayward, “Franz does not speak; like a lamb he is led to slaughter, dumb as a sheep before his shearers (cf. Isa 53:7).” When his inner voice is heard, he identifies with that of the Psalmist, in particular in Psalm 23 (“The Lord is my shepherd”), against the background of the voices of Nazi soldiers. Here, as in his other films, Malick is the director who rehabilitates the last of human rights, that of prayer. JEAN-PIERRE SONNET, SJ
The travellings at human height and the voiceovers are accompanied, however, in a typical Malick-like expansion, by panoramas of the natural world, of pastures and mountains. Nature is often a protagonist in Malick’s work, as much present as all the characters put together. Peter Debruge writes: “There is no battlefield in this war movie; there are only fields of wheat” and stretches of patiently mowed hay. As in Malick’s other war movie, The Thin Red Line, set on the island of Guadalcanal, a world away from Austria, the tall grass swaying under the wind offers a caress that soothes the cruel history of humanity. If nature can reflect the storms and dark days of history, it can also, with the return of spring, sustain hope, as Fani writes to her imprisoned husband. Malick’s vision here relates to the divine 104 response to Job (cf. Job 38-41), in which the natural world bears witness to a transcendent design that embraces all our dramas. In A Hidden Life, as in all Malick’s films, the song of nature is supported by the powerful sound of music: an original soundtrack by James Newton Howard, alternating with music by Bach, Beethoven, Händel, Dvorak, Gorecki, Schnittke, Pärt, Kilar, Jovanovič and Parsons. Between the breath of the wind on the tall grass or trees, the light waves and the flow of music, synesthesias develop that extend far beyond the sequence that generates them: A Hidden Life is a film that speaks to the duration of time.
‘I am free’ The drama of the protagonist of Malick’s film, writes Peter Debruge, has the particularity of “not being defined by his actions, but by his choices and, more specifically, by what he does not do.” Distinguishing himself from those around him, he chooses not to adhere to the cult of the “going force.” And he does so even though his parish priest explains the risks to him and his family, and his bishop reminds him that he has, like every person, a duty to his country. Franz answers him: “If God has given us free will, we are responsible for what we do and what we do not do.” The freedom of the young person is the price of a costly struggle, but this is always “already there.” To the lawyer who suggests to him to comply – “If you sign, they will let you free” – he replies: “But I am free.” TERRENCE MALICK’S ‘A HIDDEN LIFE’
“Do you think you can change the outcome of the war with your conduct?” asks the judge (Bruno Ganz, in his last appearance on the screen) a few minutes before the final sentence. The silence of the accused prompts him to ask, like a new Pilate, “Do you judge me?” “No,” Franz replies, “but I feel that I cannot do what I consider deeply evil and unjust.” Paradoxically, the freedom the young person experiences internally is also, from beginning to end, lived in dialogue. A Hidden Life is as much the story of Fani as it is the story of Franz. The relationship of the couple continues until the end, through their exchanged letters. Fani embodies the biblical formula, “I will make him a helper as his partner” (Gen 2:18), and lives a responsible realism in an ever renewed confidence. “I love you, whatever you decide, whatever happens, I’m with 105 you,” she whispers to him when she visits him in prison. The film’s intensity lies in the alternation it shows between Fani’s life, increasingly difficult due to the hostility of her compatriots, and Franz’s life, at the mercy of the authorities. Their distance is covered by the letters they exchange, enunciated by voiceovers, making play of the alternation of scenes. They hold each other, thank each other, and make daring gestures of solidarity towards others in need of immediate help. On the farm, the donkey is there, in obedient meekness, a Christ-like figure of the imprisoned man.
Cinema as epiphany The film is marked by a sentence pronounced by the bishop, the lawyer and the military judge: “Do you think you are changing the course of things? Nobody outside will know about what happens here.” Malick’s film is a denial of that belief. It has a way of making hidden things manifest: the judgments without appeal in the closed space of confrontations, the physical violence in the darkness of cells, the hope that is reborn in the secret of a soul. This is what makes the title of the film – A Hidden Life – even more relevant. The title echoes the words of George Eliot in her novel Middlemarch (1871): “the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with JEAN-PIERRE SONNET, SJ
you and me as they might have been is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.” The beauty of Malick’s film is that it reveals this hidden life while protecting its mystery. In this the film is epiphanic, and this is undoubtedly the climax of the work as a piece of cinematography. Cinema is an art of light, and Malick’s film underlines this origin and vocation. At one point in the film a friendly villager, a painter of sacred frescoes, shares his apprehension with Franz: “Is this year the end of the world? Is it the death of light?” Paradoxically, the more the film sinks into darkness, the more another light filters through, reaching Franz in the darkest of his days. “A new light is spreading,” he says, as he suffers humiliation upon humiliation 106 and receives blow after blow. His voice, gliding over the images of his dereliction, then marries that of the Psalmist who turns to God: “You are my light. Before you, darkness is not darkness. Let the light that does not end shine” (Ps 27:1; 139:12; 18:28). All the light collected from creation in the mountain landscapes is then concentrated and refracted in the most inner experience, imbuing cinema with a new quality, one that fulfills its innate epiphanic quality, that of revealing the art of light. In this it approaches the art of the icon, which also gestures toward a form of transparency. In his film about Rublëv, Andrei Tarkovsky has already explored the analogy (and difference) between the icon and the projected image. Malick gives the epiphanic vocation of cinema an entirely personal embodiment. The screen is, at every point, the place of a crossing and diffraction of light, which is an actor in its own right: filmed and projected, gathered on the peaks and in the depths of darkness, it diffuses on the screen and crosses all the screens of perception. The cinema in this is revealed to be of a theophanous nature; it emulates in many ways the creative words: “Let there be light!” The last time you hear Franz’s voice, in a letter addressed to his daughters, you hear him say as the light spreads: “When you read this letter, your father will be dead. I will pray for you on the other side.” Which side of the screen? From the light on the screen.