martedì 17 ottobre 2023

THE RIGHT OF ISRAEL

 

 - by Giuseppe Savagnone*



  Just a group of terrorists?

 In the face of the savage violence of Hamas's attack on Israel, the horror and unconditional solidarity of almost the entire Western world appear fully justified. A solidarity that immediately extended to the Jewish state's reactions to its attackers. 'Israel has the right to defend itself', was the phrase that resounded on the lips of politicians, of intellectuals, and which Pope Francis also made his own.

  There is, however, something unsaid in this incontrovertible statement that should be clarified, and that concerns the recipients and modalities of this defensive action.

  "We will crush terrorists, like Isis," Netanyahu promised. The question, however, is whether we are really only in front of a group of terrorists, of whom the two million people living in the Gaza Strip, controlled by Hamas (one million two hundred thousand are Palestinian refugees) would be "hostages", as Giuliano Ferrara claimed at the torchlight procession for Israel.

  In reality, the recent history of Gaza strongly casts doubt on this narrative. The Israelis (who in 1967 had wrested it from Egypt in the 'six-day war') withdrew in 2005, leaving it under the control of the Palestinian National Authority, with which the Tel Aviv government, in the Oslo accords, had made a pact back in 1993. But in the elections held the following year, in 2006, it was not this more moderate fringe that won, but the extremist Islamic movement of Hamas, which has been in power ever since.

  An outcome due to the growing discredit of the Palestinian Authority, which, under the leadership of the former President Abu Mazen, has long since lost all determination in claiming the rights of the Palestinian people and is increasingly drowning in corruption. So much so that today, even in the West Bank, the other territory of Palestine where Abu Mazen is still in power, he has avoided calling new elections for years because all the polls predict, should they take place, the sure victory of Hamas.

  Not even in Gaza, in fact, have there been new elections since 2006. And it is certainly not a liberal regime, as demonstrated by the systematic repression of women's rights - along the same lines as Iran, the Shiite Islamic state to which Hamas is closest - and of all opponents in general.

  A people of despair

 But to rally behind its government the people of the Strip came to the rescue, against its own intentions, precisely Israel which, in reaction to the 2006 election results, imposed a total embargo on the region, with a suffocating control of people and goods entering or leaving, leading to a disheartening condition of dependence and a further impoverishment of the inhabitants.

  The International Red Cross declared the illegality of this policy, which entailed 'collective punishment for the people living in the Gaza Strip' - two million human beings -, turning it into what the non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch called 'an open-air prison' last year, but to no avail.

  Thus, social anger - exasperated by these ruthless measures and the Palestinian Authority's culpable inertia - pushed the new generations into the arms of Hamas, which ended up expressing the despair of a hopeless people. In the end, today it is this people that is the real target of Israel's 'defence' action.

  It is, after all, also for logistical reasons. 'We must liberate Gaza even with bombs, even with tanks, even with the army', Giuliano Ferrara shouted to roaring applause in his fiery speech.

  But in a territory that is among the most densely populated in the world, with two million people crammed into an area of 360 square kilometres, the bombs are inevitably destined to hit mostly civilians. The toll of six days of air raids on the Strip is more than 1,500 dead, including 500 children.

  So it was with the embargo imposed by Israel in 2007. So it is now for the total blockade of fuel, water and light with which the Jewish State has responded to the Hamas attack. It is not only the 'terrorists' who are suffering, but the poor people, men, women and children, who are at the point of exhaustion. Even hospitals report that they can no longer operate their equipment, starting with operating theatres and incubators to save the lives of newborn babies, without electricity.

  It is strange that so many acute Western observers - journalists, political personalities, intellectuals - rightly horrified at the 'slaughter of the innocent' perpetrated by Hamas, have nothing to object, indeed in many cases applaud, this massacre of Palestinian children and women.

On this line of ruthless violence towards the population is also the latest order given by the Israeli military command, which ordered the evacuation within 24 hours of the north of the Strip. In this way, the poor people of this area - one million human beings, many of whom had already been driven out of their land, taken by the Israelis, and were living there as refugees - are forced, from one day to the next, to abandon their homes, their poor jobs, their world.

  A counter-terrorism that looks like terrorism

 But with this we are also faced with the answer to the second question, that of how. A few days ago, an out-of-the-blue newspaper headlined: 'Counter-terrorism is triggered. It looks a lot like terrorism'. Where the difference between war and terrorism is that the former is still subject to rules, established internationally, and targets enemy military personnel in order to destroy them, while the latter has no rules and, rather than defeating an army, aims to terrorise the civilian population.

  Now, in reality, this is the tactic of Hamas, which certainly cannot compete with Israel's military apparatus, but - as it did in the last attack - aims to strike the adversary by sowing fear. However, the tactics of the Jewish State are also very similar to this, as it knows full well that it cannot strike at the heart of the Hamas fighters - protected by a network of 45 km of fortified underground tunnels - with its air raids, but inflicts on the Palestinian population, in addition to the bombs, a series of hardships and inconveniences, in the hope (which has turned out to be fallacious, as we saw earlier) of detaching it from the armed organisation, without realising that it is playing its own game.

  Also part of this style is the Israeli air force's use of weapons banned by international conventions, such as white phosphorus bombs, which are banned by international conventions because they cause terrible burns and, in those who survive, serious illnesses.

  If the Jewish children burned by Hamas arouse our horror, no less so does the thought that there are so many Palestinians suffering the same fate these days. A tragic symmetry of monstrosities, which, absurdly, is not reflected in the assessments of Western public opinion, rightly shocked by the former, strangely insensitive to the latter.

 The importance of memory

 But the dramatic events of these days must be understood in the light of a history, which certainly cannot be invoked to mitigate the absolute condemnation of the atrocities committed by Hamas, even if it helps to understand their origin.

 A history that begins in 1947, when a United Nations General Assembly resolution established the constitution and coexistence of a Jewish and a Palestinian state. Jerusalem was to be an international zone.

 Although neither Palestinians nor Israelis ever accepted this partition, the former because they felt robbed of a land they had inhabited for almost two thousand years and from which they were now driven out, the latter because they saw in it the possibility of a return to their origins and wanted it all.

 In reality, more than seventy-five years later, that resolution remains unfulfilled. The Palestinian state never came into being and the territories that should have been itss, according to the UN resolution, are illegally occupied by Israel, except for the Gaza Strip and part of the West Bank, which do not even have territorial continuity. As for Jerusalem, it was proclaimed capital of Israel in 1980.

  What is more, in the territories that still remain to the Palestinians and are under its control, the Israeli government has in recent years multiplied new settlements of settlers, further violating the UN resolution.

  Since 2002, then, the Israeli government, in a decision condemned by the Court of Justice and the European Union, erected a fortified wall more than 300 km long separating the most important Palestinian territories in the West Bank from Israel, separating families and communities living and working on either side of the wall.

  The United Nations has explicitly declared these obvious prevarications illegal on several occasions, but neither Israel nor its allies - first and foremost the United States - took any notice of them.

  Lately, then, President Netanyahu - grappling with heavy accusations of corruption and needing, in order to escape prosecution, to strengthen the consensus of the extreme right, has endorsed others, this time going against the advice even of President Biden, who vainly tried to dissuade him. Then the deluge. Which, however, as should be clear, did not come 'out of the blue'.

To fight monsters

'The sleep of reason breeds monsters', wrote Goya. On both sides, many have been unleashed in this ruthless conflict, with appalling human costs. One does not solve the problem by erasing memory and reducing everything, as one tries to do, to a phenomenon of 'terrorism'.

  Hamas is not Isis, because it has behind it a people whose rights have been recognised by the UN and systematically trampled upon.

 In turn, one cannot claim to start, as Hamas does, from the premise that Israel has no right to exist. Only a mutual recognition - which for a moment seemed to have been achieved in Oslo - can constitute a real solution.

  It is necessary to strengthen, on both the Israeli and the Palestinian side, the fringes - which do exist - of reasonable people capable of reopening dialogue. Any justification of inhuman behaviour, on either side, is a favour done to the monster party.

  *Writer and Editorialist. Responsible for the website of the Pastoral Care of Culture of the Archdiocese of Palermo, www.tuttavia.eu

 

 

GAZA. BEING BORN IN A STRIP


The number one of Hamas (who currently resides in Qatar from where he released a video showing him praying to his God, thanking him for the massacre of Israelis by his people) is called Ismail Haniyeh and was born in 1962, the same year as I was born.

 

- by Vito Mancuso

    

The number two of Hamas (who is currently in the Gaza Strip and is already dead to the Israelis) is called Yahya Sinwar and was also born in 1962. I could have been their classmate, sitting in the same desk, playing ball together. Only on paper, of course, because in reality, while I was born in an industrious town in Brianza, part of a relatively prosperous nation-state, they were both born in a refugee camp in the Gaza Strip with no state to represent their nation (not by chance I had to write 'Strip', not state). What does it mean to be born in a Strip? What does it mean to be born and grow up in a refugee camp of people thrown out of their homes and expelled from their land, and without any credible prospect of being able to overcome that condition by finally having a nation-state and having a home again? It means growing up on bread and hate. Sometimes there may even be a lack of bread, hatred, however, never; indeed, it is certainly increased by the lack of bread.

It may be the same year I was born, but I cannot help but wonder what it would have been like for me to grow up in those conditions. What would I have become, having come into the world in the same year as Hamas number 1 and number 2, if I had been born there, to parents driven from their homes and their land, and seeing the hopes of re-establishing a modicum of decency in my living conditions instead of growing diminishing day by day to the point of non-existence?

 Do not think that this speech of mine is intended to justify or even judge less harshly the 7 October massacre perpetrated by Hamas militants, or rather terrorists. No, no justification of any kind. However, I am convinced that one should not deprive oneself of the intelligence that searches for the causes because only in this way can one get to the real root of the problems. One of the greatest Jewish thinkers of all time, Baruch Spinoza, whom I will quote extensively in this article, wrote: 'I have endeavoured hard not to deride, nor to pity, nor even to detest the actions of men, but to understand them' (Political Treatise, I, 4). Understanding: this is what it is all about, and so the question is: can the Hamas massacre be traced back to the conditions in which Palestinians have found themselves since 1948, which have become increasingly intolerable? "Can the 'largest open-air prison', as the Gaza Strip has rightly been called, and the continuous theft of land by Israeli settlers in the West Bank be a sufficient explanation for the murderous hatred of Hamas? To this question I answer no.

 I am not saying that the social and political situation of the Palestinian people is not at play in the genesis of that hatred; I am saying that it is not sufficient to explain the repeated beheading of Jewish children, taken as the most tragic symbol of the massive massacre. If the iniquitous conditions in Gaza were reason enough, we should logically conclude that the more than two million Palestinians in the Strip would be willing to perform the same act: all ready to slit defenceless little girls and boys' throats. Of course, I cannot know for sure that this is not really the case, but my reason refuses to proceed with such gross generalisations because its task is structurally another: distinction. Distinguishing is the job par excellence of properly conducted reasoning, and just as it cannot be inferred from the aggression and disregard for the property of others by Israeli settlers that all Israelis are ready to trample international law underfoot, so too it cannot be inferred from the Hamas massacre that all the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip are ready to commit the unspeakable crimes of a few days ago.

 But if socio-political conditions are not enough to understand the Hamas massacre, what other factors must be summoned? The answer is not difficult: hatred. Not hatred as a hotter-than-usual blaze of wrath that can sometimes set the soul on fire, no; far more radically, hatred as a persistent and systematic ideology that, coldly and totally in possession of its faculties, thinks of nothing else but the enemy and its elimination. Hatred as the fuel of a human being's life. Because this is the point: that one can make hatred one's source of energy, one's life source, one's reason for existing. Hate can lend a kind of macabre vitality and lucidity to the mind.

Said Sami Modiano, a survivor of Auschwitz: 'It is not true that hatred is blind, it has very sharp eyesight, that of a sniper, and if it falls asleep its sleep is never eternal, it returns'. And that hatred has very sharp eyesight is shown by the thoroughness with which Hamas prepared and conducted the massacre.

 Back to its leaders. One can be born in the same year, in the same city or refugee camp, even in the same family, and have different, even opposite lives. Fortunately or unfortunately, we are indeterminate beings. Fortunately or unfortunately, freedom does exist. Another Auschwitz survivor, the Viennese Jewish psychologist Victor Frankl, reflecting on conditions in the death camp, wrote: 'Everything that happens to the soul of man is the result of an internal decision. In principle, every man, even if conditioned by very grave external circumstances, can in some way decide what will become of himself'. One can read the Koran and draw from it teachings of hatred and violence; one can read it and draw from it teachings of love and peace. The same applies to the Bible, where there are also passages of fiery hatred and others of glowing love. Why do some read their holy book in the first way and others in the second? The same applies to every other reading, starting with the most important one of all, our life: why do some interpret it as hatred and others, all things being equal, as a desire for peace?

 After observing human actions in their genesis and development with the strictest detachment, Spinoza comes to the conclusion that 'hatred can never be good' (Ethics IV, 45). I completely agree with him. Never means 'never', even when it comes to responding to hatred received. Especially when it is the state that is acting, as Spinoza specifies: 'Everything we appetite because we are affected by hatred is vile and unjust in the state'. The defining characteristic of a true politician is the ability to confront the enemy with determination but without hatred, because, as Spinoza always wrote, 'everyone who is guided by reason also desires for others the good that he appetites for himself' (Ethics, IV, 73). Do you desire land? Give land even to your enemy. Do you desire water? Give water to your enemy. And so for every other vital good. Behind these words of the greatest Jewish philosopher, I see the noble face of Yitzhak Rabin.

 

La Stampa


domenica 15 ottobre 2023

THERESE DE LISIEUX, LA GRACE DE LA CONFIANCE


L’exhortation apostolique consacrée à sainte Thérèse de Lisieux intitulée «C’est la confiance» est parue dimanche 15 octobre, à l’occasion du 150e anniversaire de la naissance de la sainte normande, mais aussi du centenaire de sa béatification. En 27 pages en français, le Pape ausculte le génie spirituel et théologique de Thérèse de l’Enfant-Jésus et de la Sainte Face.



-         par Delphine Allaire – Cité du Vatican

         

«Seule la confiance, et “rien d’autre”, il n’y a pas d’autre chemin pour nous conduire à l’Amour qui donne tout.» La date de cette publication, mémoire de sainte Thérèse d’Avila, a pour but de présenter sainte Thérèse de l’Enfant Jésus «comme un fruit mûr de la réforme du Carmel et de la spiritualité de la grande sainte espagnole», explique le Souverain pontife en préambule, touché par «la lumière et l’amour extraordinaires» rayonnant de la jeune religieuse morte à 24 ans, patronne des missions, patronne de la France. Lire l'intégralité de l'exhortation.

 L'évangélisation «par attraction»

Dès le premier chapitre, le Pape revient sur l’âme missionnaire de la carmélite entrée dans les ordres «pour sauver les âmes».[1] Les dernières pages de l’Histoire d’une âme[2] sont un testament missionnaire, affirme François, saluant sa manière de concevoir l’évangélisation «par attraction»,[3] «non par pression ou prosélytisme».

«Cette grâce libère de l’autoréférentialité», note le Saint-Père, sondant le cœur de Thérèse dans lequel «la grâce du baptême devient ce torrent impétueux qui se jette dans l’océan de l’amour du Christ, emportant avec lui une multitude de sœurs et de frères».

 La primauté de la grâce divine sur l'action humaine

Le Pape François revient sur «la petite voie» de la confiance et de l’amour, cœur de la spiritualité thérésienne. Thérèse raconte cette découverte de la petite voie dans l’Histoire d’une âme :[4] «Je puis donc, malgré ma petitesse, aspirer à la sainteté; me grandir, c’est impossible, je dois me supporter telle que je suis avec toutes mes imperfections; mais je veux chercher le moyen d’aller au Ciel par une petite voie bien droite, bien courte, une petite voie toute nouvelle».[5]

 «Face à une conception pélagienne de la sainteté,[6] individualiste et élitiste, plus ascétique que mystique, qui met surtout l’accent sur l’effort humain, Thérèse souligne toujours la primauté de l’action de Dieu, de sa grâce», observe le Souverain pontife, précisant que cette façon de penser ne contredit pas l’enseignement catholique traditionnel sur la croissance de la grâce. Mais Thérèse préfère souligner la primauté de l’action divine et enseigne au fond que, puisque nous ne pouvons avoir aucune certitude en nous regardant nous-mêmes,[7] nous ne pouvons pas non plus être certains de posséder des mérites.

 «L’attitude la plus appropriée est donc de mettre la confiance du cœur hors de soi-même, en la miséricorde infinie d’un Dieu qui aime sans limites et qui a tout donné sur la Croix de Jésus-Christ», souligne le Pape, estimant que telle confiance illimitée encourage ceux qui se sentent fragiles, limités, pécheurs «à se laisser conduire et transformer pour atteindre le sommet».

L’abandon quotidien

23. Le Successeur de Pierre invite à ne pas comprendre la confiance que Thérèse promeut «seulement par rapport à la sanctification et au salut personnels», mais dotée d’un sens intégral qui embrasse la totalité de l’existence concrète et s’applique à toute notre vie où nous sommes souvent envahis par les peurs, par le désir de sécurité humaine, par le besoin de tout contrôler. C’est là qu’apparaît l’invitation à un saint «abandon», qui libère «des calculs obsessionnels, de l’inquiétude constante pour l’avenir, des peurs qui enlèvent la paix».

 L’héroïsme du feu et de la foi dans la nuit

25. Thérèse a aussi vécu la foi la plus forte et la plus certaine «dans l’obscurité de la nuit et même dans l’obscurité du Calvaire». Son témoignage atteint son apogée dans la dernière période de sa vie, dans sa grande «épreuve contre la foi»,[8] commencée à Pâques 1896. Dans son récit [9], elle relie cette épreuve à la douloureuse réalité de l’athéisme en cette fin du XIXe siècle, «âge d’or» positiviste et matérialiste. Lorsqu’elle écrit que Jésus avait permis que son âme «fût envahie des plus épaisses ténèbres»,[10] elle désigne ces ténèbres de l’athéisme et le rejet de la foi chrétienne. «Thérèse perçoit, dans ces ténèbres, le désespoir, le vide du néant [11]», assure le Saint-Père, rappelant comment «l’experte en science de l’amour» a vaincu le mal. «Le récit de Thérèse montre le caractère héroïque de sa foi, sa victoire dans le combat spirituel face aux tentations les plus fortes. Elle se sent la sœur des athées et se met à table, comme Jésus, avec les pécheurs (cf. Mt 9, 10-13)».

 «Elle vit, même dans l’obscurité, la confiance totale de l’enfant qui s’abandonne sans crainte dans les bras de son père et de sa mère». Pour Thérèse, en effet, Dieu brille avant tout par sa miséricorde, clé pour comprendre tout ce qui est dit de Lui. Selon le Pape, c’est l’une des découvertes les plus importantes de Thérèse pour le peuple de Dieu. «Elle est entrée de manière extraordinaire dans les profondeurs de la miséricorde divine et y a puisé la lumière de son espérance sans limites».

 Espérance et charité

29. Le Souverain pontife rappelle à cet égard que le péché du monde est certes immense, mais il n’est pas infini comme l’est l’amour miséricordieux du Rédempteur. «Thérèse est témoin de la victoire définitive de Jésus sur toutes les forces du mal par sa passion, sa mort et sa résurrection. Mue par la confiance, elle ose écrire: ‘’Jésus, fais que je sauve beaucoup d’âmes, qu’aujourd’hui il n’y en ait pas une seule de damnée. Jésus, pardonne-moi si je dis des choses qu’il ne faut pas dire, je ne veux que te réjouir et te consoler’’.[12]»

31. L’Histoire d’une âme est aussi un témoignage de charité, relève le Successeur de Pierre. L’acte d’amour “Jésus, je t’aime”, continuellement vécu par Thérèse comme une respiration, est la clé de sa lecture de l’Évangile. Elle habite l’Évangile avec Marie et Joseph, Marie Madeleine et les Apôtres.

 La grâce dans la plus grande simplicité

36. Thérèse vit la charité dans la petitesse, dans les choses les plus simples de la vie quotidienne. «En effet, alors que les prédicateurs de son temps parlaient souvent de la grandeur de Marie de manière triomphaliste, éloignée de nous, Thérèse montre, à partir de l’Évangile, que Marie est la plus grande dans le Royaume des Cieux parce qu’elle est la plus petite (cf. Mt 18, 4), la plus proche de Jésus dans son humiliation», écrit encore le Saint-Père, ajoutant: «Elle voit que, si les récits apocryphes sont remplis de passages frappants et merveilleux, les Évangiles nous montrent une existence humble et pauvre, vécue dans la simplicité de la foi». Ainsi Marie a été la première à vivre la «petite voie» dans la foi pure et l’humilité, rappelle encore le Pape.

 Le corps et le cœur de l’Église

38. François développe ensuite l’amour de Thérèse pour l’Église, hérité de sainte Thérèse d’Avila: «Elle a pu atteindre les profondeurs de ce mystère». 39. Au chapitre 12 de la première Lettre de saint Paul aux Corinthiens, l’Apôtre utilise la métaphore du corps et de ses membres pour expliquer que l’Église comprend une grande variété de charismes ordonnés selon un ordre hiérarchique. Mais cette description ne suffit pas à Thérèse, note le Pape. Elle poursuit ses recherches, lit l’“hymne à la charité” du chapitre 13, y trouve sa réponse: «La Charité me donna la clef de ma vocation. Je compris que si l’Église avait un corps, composé de différents membres, le plus nécessaire, le plus noble de tous ne lui manquait pas, je compris que l’Église avait un Cœur, et que ce Cœur était brûlant d’amour. Je compris que l’Amour renfermait toutes les vocations, que l’Amour était tout, qu’il embrassait tous les temps et tous les lieux... en un mot, qu’il est éternel!»

 40. «Ce n’est pas le cœur d’une Église triomphaliste, c’est le cœur d’une Église aimante, humble et miséricordieuse», remarque le Saint-Père, jugeant qu’une telle découverte du cœur de l’Église est aussi une grande lumière pour nous aujourd’hui, «afin de ne pas nous scandaliser des limites et des faiblesses de l’institution ecclésiastique, marquée par des obscurités ou des péchés». «“Je serai l’amour” est le choix radical de Thérèse, sa synthèse définitive, son identité spirituelle personnelle», proclame François.

 À la fin, seul compte l’amour

45. C’est ainsi la confiance qui nous conduit à l’Amour, libère de la peur, aide à détourner le regard de nous-mêmes, écrit le Saint-Père. «Cela nous laisse un immense torrent d’amour et d’énergies disponibles pour rechercher le bien des frères. Et ainsi, au milieu de la souffrance de ses derniers jours, elle pouvait dire: «Je ne compte plus que sur l’amour».[13] À la fin, seul compte l’amour. La confiance fait jaillir les roses et les répand comme un débordement de la surabondance de l’amour divin.»

 Au chapitre 4, le Pape François aborde sainte Thérèse non seulement comme une mystique, mais comme une «Docteur de la synthèse» 47. L’exhortation permet au Pape de rappeler que, dans une Église missionnaire, «l’annonce se concentre sur l’essentiel, sur ce qui est plus beau, plus grand, plus attirant et en même temps plus nécessaire. La proposition se simplifie, sans perdre pour cela profondeur et vérité, et devient ainsi plus convaincante et plus lumineuse».[14] «Le cœur lumineux c’est la beauté de l’amour salvifique de Dieu manifesté en Jésus Christ mort et ressuscité».[15]

 Docteur synthétique géniale

48. Tout n’est pas central, car il y a un ordre ou une hiérarchie entre les vérités de l’Église, rappelle François -et «ceci vaut autant pour les dogmes de foi que pour l’ensemble des enseignements de l’Église, y compris l’enseignement moral»-,[16] mais le centre de la morale chrétienne est la charité, réitère le Pape. 49. Et François d’affirmer là que l’apport spécifique de la petite Thérèse comme sainte et comme docteur de l’Église n’est pas «analytique, comme pourrait l’être par exemple celui de saint Thomas d’Aquin». «Son apport est plutôt synthétique, car son génie est de nous conduire au centre, à l’essentiel, au plus indispensable», conclut le Souverain pontife.

 Audace et liberté intérieure

50. «Théologiens, moralistes, penseurs de la spiritualité, ainsi que les pasteurs et chaque croyant dans son milieu, nous devons encore recueillir cette intuition géniale de Thérèse et en tirer les conséquences tant théoriques que pratiques, tant doctrinales que pastorales, tant personnelles que communautaires. Il faut de l’audace et de la liberté intérieure pour y parvenir», exhorte le Pape. 52. Du ciel à la terre, l’actualité de sainte Thérèse de l’Enfant Jésus et de la Sainte Face demeure dans toute sa «petite grandeur», ajoute-t-il, concluant l’exhortation par cette litanie pour notre temps:

 «En un temps qui nous invite à nous enfermer dans nos intérêts particuliers, Thérèse nous montre qu’il est beau de faire de la vie un don. À un moment où les besoins les plus superficiels prévalent, elle est témoin du radicalisme évangélique. En un temps d’individualisme, elle nous fait découvrir la valeur de l’amour qui devient intercession. À un moment où l’être humain est obsédé par la grandeur et par de nouvelles formes de pouvoir, elle montre le chemin de la petitesse. En un temps où de nombreux êtres humains sont rejetés, elle nous enseigne la beauté d’être attentif, de prendre soin de l’autre. À un moment de complexité, elle peut nous aider à redécouvrir la simplicité, la primauté absolue de l’amour, la confiance et l’abandon, en dépassant une logique légaliste et moralisante qui remplit la vie chrétienne d’observances et de préceptes et fige la joie de l’Évangile. En un temps de replis et d’enfermements, Thérèse nous invite à une sortie missionnaire, conquis par l’attrait de Jésus Christ et de l’Évangile.»

 

[1] Ms A, 69v°, p. 187.

[2] Cf. Ms C, 33v°-37r°, pp. 280-285.

[3] Cf. Exhort. ap. Evangelii gaudium (24 novembre 2013), n. 14 : AAS 105 (2013), pp. 1025-1026.

[4] Cf. Ms C, 2v°-3r°, pp. 237-238.

[5] Ibid., 2v°, p. 237.

[6] Cf. Exhort. ap. Gaudete et Exsultate (19 mars 2018), nn. 47-62 : AAS 110 (2018), pp. 1124-1129.

[7] Le Concile de Trente l’expliquait ainsi : « Quiconque se considère lui-même, ainsi que sa propre faiblesse et ses mauvaises dispositions, peut être rempli d’effroi et de crainte au sujet de sa grâce » (Décret sur la justification, IX : DS, n. 1534). Le Catéchisme de l’Église Catholique le reprend lorsqu’il enseigne qu’il est impossible d’avoir une certitude sur nos propres sentiments ou sur nos œuvres (cf. n. 2005). La certitude de la confiance ne se trouve pas en nous-mêmes ; le propre moi ne fournit pas la base de cette certitude, qui ne repose pas sur une introspection. D’une certaine manière, saint Paul l’exprimait ainsi : « Je ne me juge même pas moi-même. Ma conscience ne me reproche rien, mais ce n’est pas pour cela que je suis juste : celui qui me soumet au jugement, c’est le Seigneur » (1 Co 4, 3-4). Saint Thomas d’Aquin l’expliquait ainsi : puisque « la grâce est de quelque manière imparfaite en ce sens qu’elle ne guérit pas totalement l’homme » (Summa I-II, q. 109, art. 9, ad 1), « il reste aussi une certaine obscurité d’ignorance dans l’intelligence » (ibid., co).

[8] Ms C, 31rº, p. 277.

[9] Cf. ibid., 5rº-7vº, pp. 240-244.

[10] Ibid., 5vº, p. 241.

[11] Cf. ibid., 6vº, pp. 242-243.

 

[12] Pri 2, p. 958.

[13] LT 242, à Sœur Marie de la Trinité (6 juin 1897), p. 599.

[14] Exhort. ap. Evangelii gaudium (24 novembre 2013), n. 35 : AAS 105 (2013), p. 1034.

[15] Ibid., n. 36 : AAS 105 (2013), p. 1035.

[16] Ibid.

 EXORTATION APOSTOLIQUE

[AR - DE - EN - ES - FR - IT - PL - PT]



martedì 10 ottobre 2023

CAMEROUN - JARDINS SCOLAIRES


 GRACE A UMEC-WUCT,  LES ENSEIGNANTS ONT BENEFICIES D'UNE FORMATION SUR LES JARDINS SCOLAIRE  DANS LE BUT DE RENFORCER L'ETAT NUTRITIONELLE DES ENFANTS À L'ECOLE ET EN FAMILLE

lunedì 9 ottobre 2023

SYNOD: SILENCE AND PAUSE


 Silence throughout the synod is probably wise, 

but decisions will need to be explained adequately

 

-by Joseph Kelly*

 

For months now it’s been hailed as the most important meeting of minds in the recent history of the Catholic Church, and an event could well produce seismic changes in Catholic doctrine. On the other hand critics have complained that it’s a gathering of extreme exclusivity, internecine agendas and intellectual pomposity when it’s premise is to remove exactly those negative traits from the Catholic establishment.

 The Synod on Synodality has been such a long time in the making, and comes at a time when the Catholic Church has an urgent need to clarify and develop its theology not only for the benefit of the laity, but to reflect unprecedented social changes and global upheavals. For those of us old enough to remember it, this synod has much in common with the Second Vatican Council, which was convened under not entirely dissimilar circumstances.

 “I want to open the windows of the Church so that we can see out and the people can see in,” said Pope John XXIII at the time.

 The trouble that gave rise to Vatican II, and the trouble that Vatican II caused, was primarily due to the sexual revolution of the late 50s and early 1960s. After generations of social invisibility the younger population in particular had grown tired of the moral strictures of their parents’ generations, and so much that society had assumed to be inviolable was suddenly being challenged, or rejected completely. In the face of this moral stampede the Catholic Church had become like a besieged fortress defending itself against the imagined barbarians howling at its gates.

 One might easily be forgiven for thinking we’ve arrived at a somewhat similar juncture today – what with the furore over gender politics, free speech, abortion, euthanasia, global conflict, the climate emergency and the polarisation of the immigration debate. And that’s before we factor in our deepening internal and theological divisions.

 Little surprise then that many have marked up the Synod on Synodality as Vatican Three Lite.

 It’s a nice thought – but just as Vatican II promised far more than it delivered, this synod may well go the same way, despite Pope Francis’ determination that he wants radical new ground to be broken.

 As far back as 2016 Francis was revealing to his closest circle that it’s “not excluded that I will go down in history as the one who has split the Catholic Church” (at least according to the German magazine Der Spiegal – which didn’t give a citation!).

  For some, this unique and often unpredictable pontificate has the seeds of fantastic expectation and radical reordering within it, for others that same narrative is deeply troubling, heretical even. Where you stand depends largely on whether you think the Catholic Church should lead the world, or provide an antidote to it.

 Change in any organisation is never easy, and it’s especially difficult in an organisation where its central doctrinal premise is the eternal immutability of certain supposedly self-evident truths.

 Pope Francis is in no doubt where he stands; he has a vigorous antagonism towards the structure and outlook of the contemporary Church, which he feels is suffering from a particularly negative and paralysing fortress mentality. More than a decade ago – in an interview after World Youth Day in Argentina – Francis made his position clear: “I want to see the church get closer to the people. I want to get rid of clericalism, the mundane, this closing ourselves off within ourselves, in our parishes, schools or structures. Because these need to get out!”

 By November of that same year Francis had expanded these thoughts in his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium – On the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today’s World.

 “I prefer a church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security,” he wrote. “I do not want a church concerned with being at the center and then ends up by being caught up in a web of obsessions and procedures.” (EG,49)

 We can only hope that a decade later the Synod will deliver the Catholic laity something that is both meaningful, and relevant to the kind of lives that ordinary Catholics in the street are having to live through at present. Few are present at this great gathering, and the Catholic concerns of the masses have been conveyed to the debating tables by a lengthy process of consultation and upward distillation that in any organisation is rarely a healthy formula for democratic consent or unanimity.

 Such a mechanism also tends to create an equally unhealthy return of pronouncements, and even in the first few hours of this synod we’ve had several prime examples of this.

 To take just one instance: earlier this summer a group of five cardinals wrote a letter to Pope Francis asking him to answer five ‘dubia’, or doubts, that they had relating to the synod.

 Cardinals Walter Brandmüller (Germany), Robert Sarah (Guinea), Joseph Zen (Hong Kong), Juan Sandoval Íñiguez (Mexico) and Raymond Burke (USA) delivered their letter of concern to Francis on 10th July – but its contents, and the pope’s reply, was only made public this week.

 Clearly the five cardinals felt that Francis hadn’t answered their questions sufficiently, or rather had sidestepped them theologically. Such was their consternation at the pope’s replies that they redrafted the five questions in a manner that all but required a yes or no answer. So far there’s no indication that Pope Francis has replied and frankly it’s unlikely that he ever will, as Francis is not a man to reduce the complexities of the Christian life to a simple – or rather entrapping – ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

 The dubia that inevitably grabbed the media attention was the cardinals’ question about the validity of marriage and “other types of unions of a sexual nature”, and that the blessing of same-sex couples could give rise to a fundamental confusion amongst the laity about their validity, given that the Church otherwise regards such unions as  irrevocably sinful.

 Francis’ answer was well-crafted; and clearly too well-crafted for the five cardinals. His response also led many media outlets around the world to announce that Pope Francis was open to blessing gay couples. “Pope Francis suggests gay couples could be blessed in Vatican reversal,” shouted The Guardian on Tuesday in a conclusion that rang out similarly from media channels across the globe.

 Like so many such Catholic pronouncements across my 40+ years in Catholic journalism, everyone is of course right, and everyone is in the same instant equally wrong. Things said between theologians can have many contrary meanings – it’s in the very nature of the narrative, just as it’s in the nature of journalists to make a headline, and the nature of protagonists to mould words to support their case. Sadly, it’s invariably left to the rest of us to make sense of all the clamour, and in particular for grass roots clergy and the laity to peer through the glass darkly and try to discern how such arcane arguments might possibly relate to their lived experiences.

 Thus it comes as no surprise that yesterday, as the Synod was finally getting under way, Pope Francis asked its participants to avoid speaking to the press – and not just during the Synod but afterwards as well.

 Dr. Paolo Ruffini, the Prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery of Communications, confirmed that the information flow from the meetings will be “very limited,” suggesting yesterday that journalists can report instead on “the absence of news.”

 It was an announcement that if nothing else revealed that the Vatican knows precious little about the motivations of the media – as trying to shut down controversy is the one sure fire way of putting every journalist on the case.

 Perhaps some has pointed that out to the Prefect, who backtracked somewhat at today’s session, stating rather that “Every member of the synod makes their own discernment” in terms of whether to speak with the media.

 “We are not speaking of punishment or not, but a personal discernment the Pope asked of the members, and the discernment is left to each individual person,” Ruffini said.

 Sadly, the assumption that nothing ever needs to be explained properly, and then trying to hammer down on the discussion after the horse has bolted, is an all too familiar scenario when it comes to the expounding of Catholic teaching. To make matters worse, journalists have not been allowed access to this synod and, whilst there have been no non-disclosure agreements, “canonical penalties” apparently await those who do not maintain their silence, even after the synod is finished.

 (Much the same applied to the Second Vatican Council, though inevitably some individuals did eventually let slip the odd story here or there!)

 Not surprisingly, I’m pretty much on the side of the journalists, who are only ever trying to do their job in difficult circumstances. When I look back over some of the most inflammatory or damaging reports that the media has run about Catholic affairs across the past four decades, much of the damage could have been avoided if the Church had engaged and explained when matters first materialised. Few things are so terrible that they can’t be confronted, and they’re best confronted as early as possible; prevarication and procrastination invariably lead to rumour and exaggeration.

 For the record on the Pope Francis gay blessings story, His Holiness reiterated that matrimony is a union between a man and a woman, but that “pastoral charity” might give a priest the justification to bestow a blessing on a same-sex couple, so long as this was seen as the Church expressing its love and concern for the couple, but absolutely not endorsing their sinful behaviour.

 “For this reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of benediction, requested by one or more persons, that do not transmit a mistaken conception of marriage,” Francis wrote.

 “Because when a benediction is requested, it is expressing a request for help from God, a plea to be able to live better, a trust in a father who can help us to live better.”

 He said there were situations objectively “not morally acceptable” but the same “pastoral charity” required that people be treated as sinners who might not be fully at fault for their situations.

 But Francis also added that these circumstances were exceptions rather than the norm, “because the life of the church runs on channels beyond norms”.

 All of which makes perfect sense theologically, but also makes an entirely other kind of perfect sense to a non-Catholic journalist and headline writer.

 Like I said, it’s one of the great joys and frustrations of being a member of the Catholic faith that on matters of import we are often all right, and we are often all wrong.

 Given the events of the past few days, a silence throughout the synod is probably a wise decision, but sooner or later someone is going to have to tell the Catholic world exactly what we’re required to be thinking in the years ahead, and in a way that please God we’ll be able to understand and live with.

 *Joseph Kelly is a Catholic publisher and theologian.

  The Catholic Network

sabato 7 ottobre 2023

EECO - BULLETIN n. 46


EQUIPES ENSEIGNANTES DU CONGO  -  
membre de l’UMEC -WUCT    

     

Feuillet de FORMATION et d’ INFORMATION N°46 –SEPTEMBRE  NOVEMBRE  2023-  EECO

Produit par les Equipes Enseignantes du Congo

………………………………………………………….

VOICI L’HEURE DE LA NOUVELLE ECOLE

Premièrement, la vieille école place les parents en position de force, tel un dominant. Recours aux fessées, punitions ou menaces, l’enfant respecte le contrat motivé par la peur de la sanction. Personne n’a tellement envie d’utiliser ces techniques, elles sont en général le fruit de la fatigue, de la colère, de la frustration ou de l’exaspération. Les enfants ont besoin de constance, sans brutalité.

Deuxièmement, la nouvelle école place les parents dans le respect absolu des besoins de leur enfant. En effet, son cerveau n’étant pas mature, sa crise de rage est compréhensible, il est donc difficile de ne pas céder.

L’art de l’éducation relève de ce juste équilibre où les parents sont invités à être solides pour donner beaucoup de tendresse et corriger avec amour un petit être dont le cerveau n’est pas encore mature, mais pourtant destiné au Bien. 

L’enfance est l’âge de la pureté, des grands rêves, des éclats de rire. Un âge merveilleux mais parfois ardu à guider ! Les bambins cherchent à comprendre le monde et pour cela ont besoin d’en saisir les contours. Le rôle des parents, primordial et irremplaçable, est de fixer les limites, de guider vers ce qui est bon. D’autant que l’enfant est toujours reconnaissant d’évoluer dans un cadre exigeant, tant que ce dernier est juste et cohérent.  

Pelage UWIMANA 





Equipier OUESSO


Lire: BULLETIN EECO




ENSEIGNANTS AUJOURD'HUI. LUMIERES ET OMBRES


Vous êtes la lumière du monde.

Une ville qui est sur une montagne ne peut pas être cachée, et on n'allume pas une lampe pour la mettre sous le boisseau, mais on la met sur le chandelier, et ainsi elle éclaire tous ceux qui sont dans la maison.

Que votre lumière brille donc devant les hommes, afin qu'ils voient vos bonnes œuvres et qu'ils rendent gloire à votre Père qui est dans les cieux. » (Mt 5,13-16)

 

ENSEIGNANTS AUJOURD'HUI. LUMIÈRES ET OMBRES

 Webinaire

Jeudi 5 octobre 


Voir: DOSSIER