Três figuras luminosas

No diário "Le Monde", Henri Tincq escreve sobre L'héritage de trois témoins du christianisme. Três figuras maiores que se foram em 2005, deixndo um testemunho luminoso. Alguns excertos:

"L'année 2005 gardera le souvenir de la disparition de trois figures exceptionnelles ? Jean Paul II, le Frère Roger, Paul Ricoeur ? que la foi et la date de la mort ont réunis. Leur vie fut un chemin, long et exemplaire pour les hommes d'aujourd'hui dans chacun des trois ordres de la vie chrétienne : le magistère, la contemplation, la philosophie. "Laissez-moi aller vers la maison du Père", a murmuré Karol Wojtyla avant de s'éteindre, à près de 85 ans, le soir du 2 avril. Le Frère Roger, 90 ans, est mort le 16 août dans des conditions dramatiques, poignardé à l'heure de l'office par une démente. Quand au grand philosophe protestant Paul Ricoeur, à 92 ans, il s'est éteint le 20 mai dans la paix de l'âge. Ces trois hommes ont eu en commun, outre leur foi et leur notoriété mondiale, d'avoir été d'authentiques hommes de Dieu et de leur temps. (...)
"Des hommes comme Jean Paul II, le Frère Roger ou Paul Ricoeur furent à la fois des signes de contradiction et d'unité. Le premier a suscité autant de controverses par son intransigeance morale et politique que de fascination par son intériorité, son goût de la rencontre et des foules. Avant d'imposer Taizé comme lieu de la réconciliation, le Frère Roger suscita aussi la haine, à une époque où protestants, catholiques et orthodoxes continuaient de s'ignorer, voire de se détester. Ses obsèques ont été célébrées sous le signe du pardon : pardon pour la meurtrière, pardon pour les confessions divisées, pardon pour les jeunes désorientés. De ce pardon dont le philosophe Paul Ricoeur faisait aussi, dans La Mémoire, l'Histoire, l'Oubli (Seuil, 2000), la clé de toute vie en communauté.(...)
"L'héritage de ces trois défunts a toute sa place dans le débat sur la "déliaison" sociale ou ce que Paul Ricoeur appelait la difficulté à vivre l'"altérité". L'écart se creuse, constate Marcel Gauchet, entre l'époque où "être soi" signifiait échapper à son individualité pour tendre vers un idéal collectif et aujourd'hui, où, à l'inverse, "être soi", c'est revendiquer sa différence sociale, ethnique, cultuelle, sexuelle et exiger qu'elle soit protégée par la loi. Sur des matières qui touchent à la solidarité, à la citoyenneté, à la famille, à la santé, à l'éthique, l'Eglise peine à se faire entendre. N'aurait-elle plus rien à dire ou est-elle condamnée, par son affaiblissement, à adopter un profil de plus en plus bas ? (...)".

Laicidade e liberdade religiosa
Esther Mucznik
Público, 9.12.2005

Sobre a polémica em torno da retirada de crucifixos em algumas escolas:

"(...) eu diria que o "combate" de uma associação como a Associação República e Laicidade - que denunciou a existência de crucifixos em determinadas escolas - não é o mesmo do das confissões não católicas, que na sua maioria não se revêem no "militantismo" laico que se dedica a esquadrinhar o país à caça de símbolos católicos para os erradicar do espaço público.Gostaria de dizer com toda a clareza que, de uma forma geral, não sou favorável à proliferação desses ou de outros símbolos religiosos nos edifícios públicos. Liberdade religiosa e liberdade de manifestação religiosa nem sempre coincidem e há momentos em que determinadas manifestações religiosas podem colidir com a liberdade religiosa alheia. Mas não faço disto uma questão principal e decisiva e acredito que, mais do que a legislação, é o bom senso que deve prevalecer, equilibrando sem dramas as regras decorrentes do estatuto de Estado não confessional, por um lado, o costume e as tradições, por outro. Se o consenso de pais e alunos de uma determinada escola for no sentido de porem o crucifixo, sinceramente não vejo qualquer problema. E não vejo qualquer problema porque, contrariamente à postura dos "laicistas", acredito que a liberdade religiosa não tem um conteúdo essencialmente negativo, mas sim positivo: possibilidade de expressão, de associação, de ensino, de visibilidade, de diálogo e reconhecimento público e institucional. Estas sim, são de facto questões decisivas, não negociáveis, da liberdade religiosa, e que não se obtêm através da erradicação da religião majoritária. Esta é uma visão negativa da liberdade religiosa que entretém a ilusão de que a liberdade de uns se faz à custa da liberdade dos outros. A história da humanidade já mostrou sobejamente as consequências trágicas dessa visão que no limite é uma visão revanchista e totalitária.Na raiz da argumentação "laicista" estão dois erros de base: o primeiro é o que identifica a laicidade com a não confessionalidade do Estado; o segundo é o que considera que a não confessionalidade do Estado é condição indispensável da liberdade religiosa. Com efeito, a laicidade, ou melhor, a laicização - palavra que traduz melhor a ideia de um processo em movimento -, é uma marca comum a todas as sociedades democráticas: significa a autonomização da sociedade em relação à religião, processo através do qual a religião deixa de estruturar a organização social e legal. As diferentes instituições religiosas podem fazer campanha em defesa dos seus valores e ideias, mas não têm força legal para os impor. (...)
Outra ideia generalizada é que a autonomia da religião em relação ao Estado obriga a banir Deus do espaço público. A América é a ilustração mais evidente da negação desta ideia: dotada de um sistema de clara separação entre o Estado e a Igreja, a religião tem no entanto uma forte presença não só na sociedade, mas nos próprios actos públicos. De maneira diferente, a Alemanha é outro exemplo disso: ainda muito recentemente, ao nomear formalmente Angela Merkel chanceler, o Presidente da República desejou-lhe "muito êxito, muita força e a bênção de Deus", tendo Merkel respondido com a fórmula prevista na Constituição "Assim Deus me ajude." Em Portugal, isto seria considerado uma ofensa à laicidade e uma "beatice". Podemos entender esta perspectiva do ponto de vista histórico, mas, em minha opinião, isto revela uma visão errada da laicidade, entendida não como a condição de liberdade religiosa, mas como a condição da erradicação da religião. É que apesar das juras em contrário, esta continua a ser encarada por muitos como "o ópio do povo".

"God isn't big enough for some people"
Umberto Eco
Daily Telegraph, 27/11/2005

God isn't big enough for some people:
"(...) Human beings are religious animals. It is psychologically very hard to go through life without the justification, and the hope, provided by religion. You can see this in the positivist scientists of the 19th century.
They insisted that they were describing the universe in rigorously materialistic terms - yet at night they attended seances and tried to summon up the spirits of the dead. Even today, I frequently meet scientists who, outside their own narrow discipline, are superstitious - to such an extent that it sometimes seems to me that to be a rigorous unbeliever today, you have to be a philosopher. Or perhaps a priest.
And we need to justify our lives to ourselves and to other people. Money is an instrument. It is not a value - but we need values as well as instruments, ends as well as means. The great problem faced by human beings is finding a way to accept the fact that each of us will die.
Money can do a lot of things - but it cannot help reconcile you to your own death. It can sometimes help you postpone your own death: a man who can spend a million pounds on personal physicians will usually live longer than someone who cannot. But he can't make himself live much longer than the average life-span of affluent people in the developed world.
And if you believe in money alone, then sooner or later, you discover money's great limitation: it is unable to justify the fact that you are a mortal animal. Indeed, the more you try escape that fact, the more you are forced to realise that your possessions can't make sense of your death.
It is the role of religion to provide that justification. Religions are systems of belief that enable human beings to justify their existence and which reconcile us to death. We in Europe have faced a fading of organised religion in recent years. Faith in the Christian churches has been declining.
The ideologies such as communism that promised to supplant religion have failed in spectacular and very public fashion. So we're all still looking for something that will reconcile each of us to the inevitability of our own death.
G K Chesterton is often credited with observing: "When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn't believe in nothing. He believes in anything." Whoever said it - he was right. We are supposed to live in a sceptical age. In fact, we live in an age of outrageous credulity.
The "death of God", or at least the dying of the Christian God, has been accompanied by the birth of a plethora of new idols. They have multiplied like bacteria on the corpse of the Christian Church -- from strange pagan cults and sects to the silly, sub-Christian superstitions of The Da Vinci Code.
It is amazing how many people take that book literally, and think it is true. Admittedly, Dan Brown, its author, has created a legion of zealous followers who believe that Jesus wasn't crucified: he married Mary Magdalene, became the King of France, and started his own version of the order of Freemasons. Many of the people who now go to the Louvre are there only to look at the Mona Lisa, solely and simply because it is at the centre of Dan Brown's book.
The pianist Arthur Rubinstein was once asked if he believed in God. He said: "No. I don't believe in God. I believe in something greater." Our culture suffers from the same inflationary tendency. The existing religions just aren't big enough: we demand something more from God than the existing depictions in the Christian faith can provide. So we revert to the occult. The so-called occult sciences do not ever reveal any genuine secret: they only promise that there is something secret that explains and justifies everything. The great advantage of this is that it allows each person to fill up the empty secret "container" with his or her own fears and hopes.
As a child of the Enlightenment, and a believer in the Enlightenment values of truth, open inquiry, and freedom, I am depressed by that tendency. This is not just because of the association between the occult and fascism and Nazism - although that association was very strong. Himmler and many of Hitler's henchmen were devotees of the most infantile occult fantasies.
The same was true of some of the fascist gurus in Italy - Julius Evola is one example - who continue to fascinate the neo-fascists in my country. And today, if you browse the shelves of any bookshop specialising in the occult, you will find not only the usual tomes on the Templars, Rosicrucians, pseudo-Kabbalists, and of course The Da Vinci Code, but also anti-semitic tracts such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
I was raised as a Catholic, and although I have abandoned the Church, this December, as usual, I will be putting together a Christmas crib for my grandson. We'll construct it together - as my father did with me when I was a boy. I have profound respect for the Christian traditions - which, as rituals for coping with death, still make more sense than their purely commercial alternatives.
I think I agree with Joyce's lapsed Catholic hero in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man: "What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?" The religious celebration of Christmas is at least a clear and coherent absurdity. The commercial celebration is not even that."

Para reflectir sobre a secularização

A propósito dos crucifixos nas escolas, levantou-se uma tempestade, com manifestos exageros dos laicistas e de alguns eclesiásticos (ou de leigos que são, frequentemente, mais papistas do que o papa).
Para reflectir sobre o que, nas sociedades ocidentais, está subjacente a este debate, vale a pena ler o livro "Sacred and Secular - Religion and Politics Worldwide", de Ronald Inglehart e Pippa Norris, publicado em 2004, e que acaba de receber o "Virginia Hodgkinson Research Prize". Encontra-se quase integralmente disponível online.
Destaco, da sinopse:
"Seminal thinkers of the nineteenth century -- Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud -- all predicted that religion would gradually fade in importance and cease to be significant with the emergence of industrial society. The belief that religion was dying became the conventional wisdom in the social sciences during most of the twentieth century.
During the last decade, however, the secularization thesis has experienced the most sustained challenge in its long history. Critics point to multiple indicators of religious health and vitality today, from the continued popularity of churchgoing in the United States, to the emergence of New Age spirituality in Western Europe, the surge of fundamentalist movements and Islamic parties in the Muslim world, the evangelical revival sweeping through Latin America, and the widespread ethno-religious conflicts in international affairs.
The traditional secularization thesis needs updating. Religion has not disappeared and is unlikely to do so. Nevertheless, the concept of secularization captures an important part of what is going on. This book develops a theory of secularization and existential security, building on key elements of traditional sociological theories and revising others. This book demonstrates that: (1) The publics of virtually all advanced industrial societies have been moving toward more secular orientations during the past fifty years; but (2) The world as a whole now has more people with traditional religious views than ever before-- and they constitute a growing proportion of the world's population. Though these two propositions may seem contradictory, they are not. The fact that the first proposition is true, helps account for the second?because secularization has a surprisingly powerful negative impact on human fertility rates."