DOCUMENTA

Le christianisme et lÂ’Europe

La « nouvelle » Europe en train de se construire souhaite à juste titre devenir un « édifice » solide et harmonieux. Cela signifie quÂ’il faut trouver un juste équilibre entre le rôle de lÂ’Union et celui des États-membres, ainsi quÂ’entre les défis inévitables que pose la mondialisation au continent et le respect de ses particularités historiques et culturelles, les identités nationales et religieuses de ses peuples, et les contributions spécifiques que peut apporter chacun des pays membres. [Â…]

Il est nécessaire que lÂ’Europe reconnaisse et préserve son patrimoine le plus précieux, constitué par ces valeurs qui lui ont garanti, et continuent de le faire, une influence providentielle dans lÂ’histoire de la civilisation. [Â…] Diverses racines culturelles ont servi à affermir ces valeurs, mais il est indéniable que le christianisme a été la force qui a permis de les promouvoir, de les concilier et de les consolider. CÂ’est pourquoi il paraît logique que le futur Traité constitutionnel européen, qui vise à parvenir à « lÂ’unité dans la diversité » (cf. Préambule, 5), devrait faire explicitement mention des racines chrétiennes du continent. Une société qui oublie son passé sÂ’expose au risque de ne pas être capable dÂ’affronter le présent et – pire encore – de devenir la victime de son avenir !

Aux participants de la Rencontre promue par la Fondation Robert Schuman pour la coopération des démocrates chrétiens dÂ’Europe, 7-11-2003.

Musica liturgica e inculturazione

Canto e musica richiesti dalla riforma liturgica – è bene sottolinearlo – devono rispondere anche a legittime esigenze di adattamento e di inculturazione. EÂ’ chiaro, tuttavia, che ogni innovazione in questa delicata materia deve rispettare peculiari criteri, quali la ricerca di espressioni musicali che rispondano al necessario coinvolgimento dellÂ’intera assemblea nella celebrazione e che evitino, allo stesso tempo, qualsiasi cedimento alla leggerezza e alla superficialità. Sono altresì da evitare, in linea di massima, quelle forme di “inculturazione” di segno elitario, che introducono nella Liturgia composizioni antiche o contemporanee che sono forse di valore artistico, ma che indulgono ad un linguaggio ai più incomprensibile.

In questo senso san Pio X indicava – usando il termine universalità – un ulteriore requisito della musica destinata al culto: “pur concedendosi ad ogni nazione – egli annotava – di ammettere nelle composizioni chiesastiche quelle forme particolari che costituiscono in certo modo il carattere specifico della musica loro propria, queste però devono essere in tal maniera subordinate ai caratteri generali della musica sacra, che nessuno di altra nazione nellÂ’udirle debba provarne impressione non buona” (San Pio X, Motu proprio Tra le sollecitudini, in «Pii X Pontificis Maximi Acta», vol. I, p. 78, n. 2). In altri termini, il sacro ambito della celebrazione liturgica non deve mai diventare laboratorio di sperimentazioni o di pratiche compositive ed esecutive introdotte senza unÂ’attenta verifica.

Chirografo in occasione del centenario del Motu Proprio “Tra le sollecitudini” sul rinnovamento della musica sacra, emanato da Papa San Pio X (22 novembre 1903), 3-12-2003.

Los medios en la familia: un riesgo y una riqueza

Los que elaboran las políticas en los medios de comunicación y en el sector público deben favorecer también una distribución equitativa de los recursos de los medios de comunicación tanto a nivel nacional como internacional, respetando la integridad de las culturas tradicionales. Los medios de comunicación no deben dar la impresión de que tienen un programa hostil a los sanos valores familiares de las culturas tradicionales, o de que buscan sustituir esos valores, como parte de un proceso de globalización, con los valores secularizados de la sociedad consumista.

Mensaje para la 38ª Jornada Mundial de las Comunicaciones Sociales, 24-1-2004.

Le fait religieux

Les communautés de croyants sont présentes dans toutes les sociétés, expression de la dimension religieuse de la personne humaine. Les croyants attendent donc légitimement de pouvoir participer au dialogue public. Malheureusement, on doit observer quÂ’il nÂ’en est pas toujours ainsi. Nous sommes témoins, ces derniers temps, dans certains pays dÂ’Europe, dÂ’une attitude qui pourrait mettre en péril le respect effectif de la liberté de religion. Si tout le monde sÂ’accorde à respecter le sentiment religieux des individus, on ne peut pas en dire autant du « fait religieux », cÂ’est-à-dire de la dimension sociale des religions, oubliant en cela les engagements pris dans le cadre de ce qui sÂ’appelait alors la « Conférence sur la Coopération et la Sécurité en Europe ». On invoque souvent le principe de la laïcité, en soi légitime, sÂ’il est compris comme la distinction entre la communauté politique et les religions (cf. Gaudium et spes, n. 76). Mais distinction ne veut pas dire ignorance ! La laïcité nÂ’est pas le laïcisme ! Elle nÂ’est autre que le respect de toutes les croyances de la part de lÂ’État, qui assure le libre exercice des activités cultuelles, spirituelles, culturelles et caritatives des communautés de croyants. Dans une société pluraliste, la laïcité est un lieu de communication entre les diverses traditions spirituelles et la nation. Les relations Église-État peuvent et doivent donner lieu, au contraire, à un dialogue respectueux, porteur dÂ’expériences et de valeurs fécondes pour lÂ’avenir dÂ’une nation. Un sain dialogue entre lÂ’État et les Églises – qui ne sont pas des concurrents mais des partenaires Â– peut sans aucun doute favoriser le développement intégral de la personne humaine et lÂ’harmonie de la société.

La difficulté à accepter le fait religieux dans lÂ’espace public sÂ’est vérifiée de manière emblématique à lÂ’occasion du récent débat sur les racines chrétiennes de lÂ’Europe. Certains ont relu lÂ’histoire à travers le prisme dÂ’idéologies réductrices, oubliant ce que le christianisme a apporté à la culture et aux institutions du continent : la dignité de la personne humaine, la liberté, le sens de lÂ’universel, lÂ’école et lÂ’Université, les Âœuvres de solidarité. Sans sous-estimer les autres traditions religieuses, il reste que lÂ’Europe sÂ’est affirmée en même temps quÂ’elle était évangélisée. Et lÂ’on doit en toute justice se souvenir quÂ’il y a peu de temps encore, les chrétiens, en promouvant la liberté et les droits de lÂ’homme, ont contribué à la transformation pacifique de régimes autoritaires, ainsi quÂ’à la restauration de la démocratie en Europe centrale et orientale.

Audience au Corps diplomatique accrédité près le Saint-Siège, 12-1-2004.

THE HOLY SEEÂ’S INTERVENTION AT THE 21^ST SESSION OF THE CONFERENCE OF EUROPEAN MINISTERS OF EDUCATION

The theme of the present Session of the Conference of Ministers of Education – “1ntercultural Education: managing diversity, strengthening democracy” – has never been more relevant. The beginning of this new millennium is characterised by the colossal occurrence of human mobility and emigration, which makes our European societies, too, ever more multiethnic and multicultural. Europe is asked to make a huge effort to welcome and integrate these people, in a way that will reinforce and safeguard social cohesion, and involve all of civil society, including families and religious communities. There are many current experiences of successful co-operation in this area, and there are present-day efforts to foster inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogue that allow us to anticipate a vision of unity in diversity. This gives us great hope for the future.

Culture is, without doubt, manÂ’s highest expression; it is a specific way of his being and existing. Each culture is an attempt to reflect on the mystery of the world and, in particular, on the mystery of man; it is a way of expressing the transcendent dimension of life. The acceptance of oneÂ’s own culture, as a structural element of oneÂ’s own personality, is an element of universal experience. Without this foundation, a serene and balanced development of the human person would be difficult. Therefore, it is important to know how to appreciate the values of oneÂ’s own culture; but it is also necessary to avoid transforming oneÂ’s sense of cultural belonging into a barricade against others. A necessary antidote to this danger is the serene knowledge of other cultures, which is not conditioned by negative prejudices. It can also be said that when subjected to careful and rigorous analysis, the various cultures often show that, beneath their more external variations, they have common elements of meaning. Therefore, cultural diversities must be understood from the basic viewpoint of the unity of the human race, in the light of which we can grasp the deep meaning of those same cultural diversities.

In the area of culture, education has a responsibility to teach an awareness of one’s own roots, and to furnish points of reference that allow the individual to place him or herself in the world. At the same time, education must teach respect for other cultures, and encourage people to discover the richness of the history and values of others. In this perspective, education and the school are called to provide young people with those elements that are indispensable for developing an inter-cultural vision. This means following a formative and educational itinerary that leads from simple tolerance, through acceptance of our multicultural reality, to the search for reciprocal understanding. The inter-cultural perspective brings with it a real paradigmatic shift on the pedagogical level, passing from more or less successful models of integration and respect for diversity, to the search for a living in a harmony of differences. That means learning to live as one and, above all, to construct a common destiny. Our end-point is to arrive at attitudes of co-operation, harmonious living and kindness, and to create a path of civilisation that people can walk together. Needless to say, this is not a simple easily attainable ideal. It demands, on the one hand, a search for ethical foundations that characterise cultural experience, and, on the other hand, an avoidance of losing one’s own identity and taking on generic ideals, which could lead to fragmentation and become factors of instability. Here, dialogue takes on a fundamental role. As the Pope has reminded us, “dialogue between cultures […] emerges as an intrinsic demand of human nature itself, as well as of culture. It is dialogue which protects the distinctiveness of cultures as historical and creative expressions of the underlying unity of the human family, and which sustains understanding and communion between them. The notion of communion […] never implies a dull uniformity or enforced homogenization or assimilation; rather, it expresses the convergence of a multiform variety, and is therefore a sign of richness and a promise of growth” (John Paul II, Dialogue Between Cultures for a Civilization of Love and Peace: Message for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1 January 2001, n. 10).

Man is at the centre of every culture; and it is human beings who, in their dealings with each other in a way that is open to dialogue, construct a vital synthesis of the various cultures. Here we see ever more clearly the importance of the role of education, which has among its most important objectives that of making man ever more human: man who can be more, not just have more. To achieve this aim, man must learn not only to live with others, but also to live for others.

We can easily see that inter-cultural education is something in which many people are involved and which takes place in various educational situations. Among the latter, the school maintains a central place, since it offers such a number of educational services that other locations find difficult to match. These manifold educational services, which are regulated by the principle of subsidiarity, give life to various synergies among the family (which is primarily responsible for education); teachers and educators; young people themselves; Non-Governmental Organisations; Churches and religious Communities; and various persons who, on different levels, contribute to the formative process. The Holy See expresses here its satisfaction in seeing, in the preparatory documentation of the Conference, references to the family and its educational role.

The promotion of inter-cultural education requires educational policies that are both courageous yet respectful, which promote an atmosphere of dialogue and calm, and which do not forget the central objective of education – the comprehensive development of the human personality, in all its dimensions including the religious dimension, both on the level of knowledge and that of values.

S.E. Mons. Giuseppe Pittau, S.I., Secretary of the Congregation for the Catholic Education, Chief of the Delegation of the Holy See, 12-11-2003.

NOMINE PONTIFICIE

Il 30 dicembre 2003 il Santo Padre ha nominato Membri del Pontificio Consiglio della Cultura ad quinquennium gli Eminentissimi Signori Cardinali: Frédéric Etsou-Nzabi-Bamungwabi, Arcivescovo di Kinshasa (Repubblica Democratica del Congo), Dionigi Tettamanzi, Arcivescovo di Milano (Italia), Polycarp Pengo, Arcivescovo di Dar-es-Salaam (Tanzania), Francis Eugene George, Arcivescovo di Chicago (Stati Uniti dÂ’America), Francisco Javier Errázuriz Ossa, Arcivescovo di Santiago de Chile (Cile), Lubomyr Husar, Arcivescovo Maggiore di Lviv degli Ucraini (Ucraina); e gli Eccellentissimi Monsignori: Michael Louis Fitzgerald, Arcivescovo titolare di Nepte, Presidente del Pontificio Consiglio per il Dialogo Inter-Religioso, Mark Benedict Coleridge, Vescovo titolare di Teveste, Ausiliare di Melbourne (Australia) e Fabio Duque Jaramillo, Vescovo di Armenia (Colombia).

Il 30 dicembre 2003 il Santo Padre ha confermato Membri del Pontificio Consiglio della Cultura in aliud quinquennium gli Eminentissimi Signori Cardinali: Józef Glemp, Franzis Arinze, Antonio María Rouco Varela; e gli Eccellentissimi Monsignori: Rosendo Huesca Pacheco, Raphael S. Ndingi MwanaÂ’a Nzeki, Józef Miroslaw Życiński, Joseph Doré, Anselme Titianma Sanon, William Benedict Friend, Donal Brendan Murray e Adrianus Herman Van Luyn.

Il 30 dicembre 2003 il Santo Padre ha nominato Consultori del Pontificio Consiglio della Cultura ad quinquennium il Rev. Mons. Peter D. Fleetwood, Segretario Generale aggiunto del Consiglio delle Conferenze Episcopali dÂ’Europa; il Prof. Pedro Morandé, della Pontificia Università Cattolica di Santiago de Cile (Cile), il Prof. Nurukyor Claude Somda, Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso), il Dott. Alfredo Augusto García Quesada (Perù), il Sig. Léon Zeches, Direttore del quotidiano cattolico Luxemburger Wort (Lussemburgo), la Sig.na Manuelita Nuñez, Incaricata della Cultura presso la Conferenza Episcopale di Panama (Panama), la Sig.ra María Eugenia Díaz de Pfennich, Presidente internazionale della Union Mondiale des Organisations Féminines Catholiques – UMOFC (Messico), la Sig.ra Agnès Adjaho Avognon, Cotonou (Benin) e la Sig.na Annie Lam Shun-Wai, Presidente dellÂ’Associazione della Stampa Cattolica dellÂ’Asia Orientale (Hong Kong).

Il 30 dicembre 2003 il Santo Padre ha confermato Consultori del Pontificio Consiglio della Cultura in aliud quinquennium S.E.R. Mons. Theotonius Gomes; i Reverendi Mons. Carlos Manuel de Céspedes García-Menocal, Mons. Bruno Forte e Mons. Werner Freistetter; il Rev. Pierre Gaudette, il Rev. Jean Mbarga, il Rev. P. John Mansford Prior, SVD, il Rev. P. Ivan Marko Rupnik, SJ; gli Illustrissimi Prof. Gaspare Mura, Prof. Yoshio oyanagi e il Sig. Krysztof Zanussi.

Il 27 gennaio 2004 il Santo Padre ha confermato Consultore del Pontificio Consiglio della Cultura in aliud quinquennium il Rev. George Palackapilly, sdb.