Back appointment with the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, "in defense of life. Today we see how John Paul II made his gaze to the paradox of our society while protecting the inviolable rights of the person, who trample havoc tolerates the inviolable right par excellence, namely the right to life:
THE VOICE OF THE BLOOD YOUR BROTHER CRIES TO ME FROM THE GROUND
" Am I my brother's keeper? "(Gen 4:9):
perverse idea of \u200b\u200bfreedom
18. The panorama described needs to be understood not only in the phenomena of death which characterize it, but in many cases which determine it. The Lord's question "What have you done?" (Gen. 4, 10) seems almost like an invitation addressed to Cain to go beyond the material of his murderous gesture, in order to grasp the gravity of the motives which are all ' origin and the consequences resulting therefrom. Decisions that go against life sometimes arise from difficult or even tragic situations of profound suffering, loneliness, lack of economic prospects, of depression and anxiety for the future. Such circumstances can mitigate even to a notable degree subjective responsibility and the consequent culpability of those who make these choices in themselves are evil. But today the problem goes far beyond the necessary recognition of these personal situations. It stands at the cultural, social and political level, where its most sinister and disturbing in the trend, more and more widely shared, to interpret the above crimes against life as legitimate expressions of individual freedom, be recognized and protected as actual and their rights. In this way, reaching a turning tragic consequences, a long historical process, after discovering that the idea "human rights" - rights inherent in every person and prior to any Constitution and State legislation - now incurs a surprising contradiction: just in time when we are solemnly proclaimed the inviolable rights of the person and is publicly affirmed the value of life, the same right to life is being denied and trampled upon, especially in the most emblematic of existence, the moment of birth and death. On the one hand, the various declarations of human rights and to the many initiatives that they say they are inspired by the emergence of a global moral sensitivity, more alert to recognize the value and dignity of every human being as such, without no distinction race, nationality, religion, political opinion or social class. On the other hand, these noble proclamations are unfortunately contradicted by the facts, their tragic denial. This is even more distressing, indeed more scandalous, precisely because in a society that makes the affirmation and protection of human rights its primary objective and its boast. How can these repeated affirmations of principle with the continual increase and widespread justification of attacks on human life? How can we reconcile these declarations with the refusal of the weak and needy, elderly, or designed? These attacks go directly against respect della vita e rappresentano una minaccia frontale a tutta la cultura dei diritti dell'uomo. È una minaccia capace, al limite, di mettere a repentaglio lo stesso significato della convivenza democratica: da società di "conviventi", le nostre città rischiano di diventare società di esclusi, di emarginati, di rimossi e soppressi. Se poi lo sguardo si allarga ad un orizzonte planetario, come non pensare che la stessa affermazione dei diritti delle persone e dei popoli, quale avviene in alti consessi internazionali, si riduce a sterile esercizio retorico, se non si smaschera l'egoismo dei Paesi ricchi che chiudono l'accesso allo sviluppo dei Paesi poveri o lo condizionano ad assurdi divieti di procreazione, contrapponendo lo sviluppo all'uomo? Should we not call into question the very economic models often adopted by States for pressures and constraints of an international character, cause and aggravate situations of injustice and violence in which the life of whole peoples is degraded and trampled upon?
19. What are the roots of a contradiction? We can find them in an overall assessment of a cultural and moral nature, beginning with the mentality that extreme and even distorts the concept of subjectivity, recognizes as a subject of rights only the person who enjoys full or at least incipient autonomy and who emerges from a state of total dependence from others. But how to reconcile this approach with the exaltation man as being "unavailable"? The theory of human rights is based precisely on the fact that humans, unlike animals and things, can not be subjected to domination by others. We must also mention the mentality which tends to equate personal dignity with the capacity for verbal and explicit, in any case, experimentation. Clearly, with this in mind, there is no room in the world for those who, like the unborn or the dying, a subject is structurally weak, appears completely at the mercy of others and radically dependent on them and can only communicate through the silent language of profound sharing of affection. It is, therefore, the force a farsi criterio di scelta e di azione nei rapporti interpersonali e nella convivenza sociale. Ma questo è l'esatto contrario di quanto ha voluto storicamente affermare lo Stato di diritto, come comunità nella quale alle "ragioni della forza" si sostituisce la "forza della ragione". Ad un altro livello, le radici della contraddizione che intercorre tra la solenne affermazione dei diritti dell'uomo e la loro tragica negazione nella pratica risiedono in una concezione della libertà che esalta in modo assoluto il singolo individuo, e non lo dispone alla solidarietà, alla piena accoglienza e al servizio dell'altro. Se è vero che talvolta la soppressione della vita nascente o terminale si colora anche di un malinteso senso di altruismo e di umana pietà, non si può negare che una tale cultura di morte, nel suo insieme, tradisce una concezione della libertà del tutto individualistica che finisce per essere la libertà dei "più forti" contro i deboli destinati a soccombere.
0 comments:
Post a Comment