Stefano Fontana
The status of Politics vis-à-vis the Faith
Introduction to the reading of “Catholics in Politics” by Most Rev.
Crepaldi
Alleanza Cattolica - Castelletto di Brenzone – 30 December 2010
The fundamental issue tackled by Most. Rev. Crepaldi’s book (Catholics in
Politics, A Handbook for the Recovery, Cantagalli, Siena 2010) is the
status of politics, what politics is, and in doing so it assumes a
metaphysical vision of politics, which serves as the epistemological basis
for a theological foundation of politics. To paraphrase what Horrkheimer
had to say in “Nostalgia of the totally other-than-self”, and Joseph De
Maistre even before him, politics is first of all and above all a theological
issue. This is the book’s main premise and on that basis it challenges
Catholics in politics. Opening up before us on the basis of this approach to
things is a complete series of fundamental questions. Let us take a close
l o o k
a t
a
f e w
o f
t h e m .
Augusto Del Noce asserted that the Christian faith presupposes a
metaphysics and that Christian philosophy – or philosophizing in the
faith – is none other than the becoming explicit of this metaphysics. In
order to remain “in metaphysics” philosophy needs to remain “in the
faith”, since if it detaches itself there from – and here the affinity with
Ratzinger is evident – it necessarily becomes “positivism” (and thereby
fideism, because what is not empirically evident “is believed in”). In
cultural and therefore political terms as well the main hurdle to
communication nowadays between Catholics and “the others” is precisely
the metaphysical issue. When Catholics talk about person, family,
relations, community, common good, nature, soul and life, etc., they
understand them in a metaphysical sense, while “the others” no longer
understand all these things in a metaphysical sense. If in order to
dialogue with others Catholics cease to understand them in a
1
metaphysical sense they will necessarily end up by understanding them
in a functional and subjectivist way, and at that point will have already
l o s t
g a m e ,
s e t
a n d
m a t c h .
Politics as well should be understand in this same sense by Catholics,
even if there is noting farther removed from current conventional wisdom.
This is an important point for being able to understand Bishop Crepaldi’s
book, which strikes me as being based on the premise that at stake in
politics are matters with absolute meaning, as we read in several parts of
the book.
When Catholics speak about “faith” they also understand it in a
metaphysical sense. Not only does the faith presupposes metaphysics, but
metaphysics as well presupposes the faith. In fact, given to us in
metaphysics is the ‘uninfluenceable’ (i.e. what is impervious to any effort
on our part to exercise any influence at all on it), and the same holds true
for the faith: in it we are not the ones to reach the ‘uninfluenceable’, but it
is this reality that erupts into our life. The metaphysical attitude entails
not a “doing”, but, as Ratzinger writes in the Introduction to Christianity,
a “being”, an openness to the Word that reveals itself just as the faith
does.
This book therefore presents politics in a manner quite different from
what current opinions espouse, thereby indicating that no renewal of the
political presence of Catholics will be possible if they do not first regain
conscious ownership of this their “traditional” – in the strongest possible
sense of the term – vision of politics. This is not an endeavor that
constitutes the community, but presupposes that the community is
constituted by something else. Here we come face to face with the main
collision flagged by the book: the collision between Catholic politics that
fully accepts laicity – or the maturity of democracy as Dossetti was wont
to say – unto the point of thinking it can constitute itself in an
autonomous manner, and Catholic politics, according to which, as
Benedict XVI says, a Godless world is not a neutral world, it is a world
without God.
This is the bottom line of the outstanding issue of laicity, democracy and
the autonomy of earthly realities to which Bishop Crepaldi refers in the
2
beautiful and profound Introduction to his book. Gradually becoming
stronger and stronger over the last few decades has been an indepth and
complex orientation tending to lead Catholics to acquire this maturity of
democracy understood as the complete metaphysical wholeness of the
finite with respect to the infinite. Not by chance does Bishop Crepaldi
mention in his Introduction three works dating back to the 1970’s, which,
even though beginning from differing points of departure, refuted this
claim. In his opinion, the Magisterium of Benedict XVI, well within the
mainstream of that of his direct predecessors, has definitively clarified
these misunderstandings, sustaining that a Godless world is not a neutral
world, but a world without God. I venture to insist on this point because I
consider it fundamental: reason without faith is not neutral, it is just
reason-without-faith: it elevates itself to a state of new absoluteness
insofar as it sees and constructs a world “without God”. There is an
absoluteness of a world constructed on God, but there is also an
absoluteness of a world constructed without God. This naturally applies
as well for reason in politics.
One of the most interesting parts of the book is the chapter on the
expansion of political reason and the new ideologies, evident within which
are the consequences of a political language by now bereft of metaphysical
density. When the Holy Father speaks about ‘sustainability’ he is not
using the word as it is used by Latouche or in reports of specialized
United Nations agencies; when he talks about ‘moderation’ he does not
mean it in the sense used by pro-ecology and animal protection
movements; when referring to “safeguarding creation” he is not echoing
Green Peace; when he evokes peace he does not use the slogans heard
during the Perugia – Assisi march. It is evident, however, that Catholics
often settle into meanings such as these, which, by reducing or excluding
the metaphysical density of concepts, end up cancelling the true meaning
and leaving no space at all for a religious meaning. From a conceptual
point of view religion without metaphisical space is deprived of the
possibility to breathe. The horizontal thrust of political language is by no
means bereft of negative consequences for politics in action.
As we can see, a very important facet of the issue is the epistemological
one. If faith is not “knowledge” in the true sense of the word it will add
3
itself on from the outside to rational knowledge, which in itself is
autonomous. But in itself autonomous rational knowledge is not
autonomous at all, since, as we have seen, reasoning outside the faith is to
fall into positivism and a Godless world, which is a world without God and
not a neutral world. Therefore, the faith is destined to be expelled from
the realm of knowledge. Today there is an “epistemological laicity” which
necessarily becomes “epistemological laicism”. Well paved is the road
along which this transpires: claiming an autonomy on the rational revel
with respect to that of the faith, which, however, really means an
expulsion of the faith from life. All this has fundamental political
repercussions.
This is why Bishop Crepaldi’s book says that the political presence of
Catholics begins upstream from politics as such. He does not only say –
also, but not only – that seminaries, Catholic universities, institutes of
religious sciences, diocesan communities, etc., no longer form people to be
present in politics. This is true as well, but he seems to want to go all the
way down to the roots and acknowledge that political formation does not
take place because Catholics no longer recognize the faith as having a
constituent cognitive significance; because people accept the neutrality of
political issues with respect to the perspective of the faith. But if this is
added on “afterwards” it means it is never added on, because if you add it
on afterwards it means that things could have been fine even ‘beforehand’.
I would like to underscore how Benedict XVI continues to insist on this.
Many of his statements dedicated to a myriad of differing topics have this
same distinctive thread: his critique of the absolutization of the critical
historical method; the insistent way he proclaims that the work of
theologians is never conceptual alone insofar as the Christian faith
believes in God, Truth and Love; the affirmation that only the wisdom
that opens to the mystery is true knowledge; when he says that without
God there is no true knowledge of reality; when he explains to us what
Tradition truly is: not a manipulation of historical events, but a deeper
penetration and contextualization of them, not a deformation of the
Scriptures, but an illumination of them.
This helps us to understand in full the presence of the theme of the “non
negotiable principles” in the book. Bishop Crepaldi insists on them quite a
4
bit and also gives politicians some very precise behavioral indications.
Nonetheless, he never reduces these principles to operational indications;
in fact, they refer back to the absolute foundation of politics that only the
Christian faith is able to guarantee. They are not the last bulwark behind
which to take up a defensive position, but the point of strength for a
“recovery” launched to create a place for God in society. We can thereby
also understand how the book deals with the issue of religious pluralism,
maintaining ever alive the “duty” – as Humanae Vitae states – of societies
towards the true religion.
The subject of the book, therefore, is whether the city of man can be
suitably constituted without reference to the city of God. It is a matter of
the autonomy of the temporal with respect to the spiritual, of nature with
respect to race, of politics with respect to religion. A fundamental theme
for all times, but especially for ours, which seem to even have lost the
selfsame sense of the problem at hand, to say nothing of its solutions. St.
Augustine pondered the causes behind the downfall of the Roman empire.
He defended the Christians against those who accused them of being the
main cause and called the pagans into the picture saying the empire had
fallen due to the vices that had replaced the traditional virtues. But this
means the virtues existed even before Christianity. Gilson notes in this
regard: he specified this so people would not deceive themselves about the
specific supernatural aim of the Christian virtues. The Christian virtues
make Christians citizens of another city. But in so doing Christianity also
releases all the constructive forces of temporal society and it is not
necessary for the temporal sphere to refuse looking upon itself as a stage
towards eternity. This is why I consider the more important phrase of
Bishop Crepaldi’s book to be the one on page 63; a phrase well worth the
whole book: “When a Catholic in politics strives to clarify the problem of
laicity for himself I think he should ask himself two questions: the first is
if Christ is just useful for the building up of social togetherness in
harmony with human dignity, or if He is indispensable. The second is if
eternal life after material death has any relationship with the community
organization of this life in society”.
5