Secular, secularization, secularism
"On many occasions I have spoken for generations: mine, my predecessor, future generations. For me the crucial node of the current situation. Admittedly, the passage from one generation to another has always posed problems of adaptation, but what we live today is very special.
The theme of secularization should help us, too, to understand. She has been an unprecedented acceleration in the 60s. For men of my generation and even more for those who have preceded me, often born and raised in a Christian environment, it was a major discovery, the adventure of their lives. They therefore came to interpret "openness to the world" desired by Vatican II as a conversion to secularism.
Thus we lived, or even encouraged, an extremely powerful self-secularization in most Western churches. "
These comments are excerpts from a speech by Archbishop Brugues, rectors of seminaries pontifical. Bishop Bruguès has 66 years, a Dominican, bishop Angers until 2007 he was secretary of the Congregation for Catholic Education, Vice-President of the Pontifical Society of priestly vocations and member of the Committee for the training of candidates for the priesthood. It is also part of the Pontifical Academy Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Secularization: the term keeps coming up in ecclesiastical documents. In his evocation, the speakers take a crestfallen, look up to heaven and sighed deeply. The word refers to the new original sin of the late 20th century and hence the easy explanation of all evil. "They do not all die, but all were beaten. "
What are we talking about? First, when we speak of "secular" means the unique mission of the lay faithful who lives and has shown its faith in the century, the society of his time.
Then the priest means "secular" versus those who live under the rule, the "regular".
As for secularization and secularism, we must ask the subtle mind of Pope Paul VI to shed light on the distinction. Here's what he says in his encyclical Evangelii Nuntiandi " one hand, one is forced to note in the heart of this contemporary world the phenomenon which is becoming almost its most striking characteristic: secularism. We are not talking about secularization, which is the effort in itself just and legitimate way incompatible with faith or religion, to discover in creation, in each thing or each happening in the universe, the laws regulate them with a certain autonomy, inner conviction that the Creator has placed these laws. The recent Council stated, in this sense, the legitimate autonomy of culture and particularly the sciences. We consider here a genuine secularism : A world view according to which the latter is explained by itself without the need for God, who thus becomes superfluous and cumbersome. Such secularism, to recognize the power of man, therefore ends up by doing without God and even deny God. "(55)
According to Paul VI, secularization is not a disease of society. It is even necessary to its development and that of man as Benedict XVI acknowledges in his Encyclical "Caritas in Veritate," for responding fully to his human vocation.
Use this term only in its negative aspect that suits the "secularism" by applying it to the Church, maintains the suspicion that any effort of integration in the century, any recognition of our membership in our time is subject to betrayal of the Faith . Could not we just take the warning of Jesus: "You're in this world, you're not the world"?
I belong to that generation which, according to the head of Rome, was "converted to secularization." I knew him as a Christian church where the priest was Man of the sacred.
But already many priests returned from war and captivity were practicing with their parishioners that they had close fraternal known in appalling conditions of overcrowding imposed. Catholic Action had reinforced this image of the priest more than companion pontiff. My generation has in the footsteps of these pioneers. We did not " converted to secularization," but we wanted to make the gospel message simply desirable and affordable. We wanted to give the priest a friendly face and a merciful heart. Have we spent
ignore the requirements of any loyalty? Have we exceeded certain limits? Maybe. Have we blunt the edge of the Word by highlighting human Jesus and a friend of men and women of his time? Have we made a pact with the secularism of society? I do not know.
I do know that the Church took advantage of secularization. This has allowed the great missionary journeys, the setting of texts in writing, transmitting the Christian message across languages and thought patterns of different cultures, not to mention the profusion of rites, music, architecture that the Church has carried along with her across the centuries.
Will we ever criticize the Pope John XXIII to have grown a mustache when he was a secular nurse during the First World War? Does it require accounts to John Paul II because it has largely used the air corridors and most efficient aircraft? Will he not suspected to have died one day, driven by his century, the cult of personality when he gathered the crowds? And the priests of the XXI century who read their office on their handheld they think they thus participate in a "conversion to the secularization "Their prayer? To prevent poisoning, should stop feeding? To prevent secularism, shall we alternatives to the leak of this century or the fight against society?
What I know, finally, is that Christ himself, noticed that the crowds who followed him were not present during the last appointment on the Cross that St. Peter and the disciples were with him slow to engage in the ascent to Calvary, there is always a time when the attraction, enthusiasm, sympathy, empathy with the century and the world face the contradiction, denial, sin, betrayal, spine, nails and spear. Every religion has its followers and martyrs, but they are recruited in the former.
pretext of restoring the figures of a Christian "which argues" that of a priest and human challenges and even opposition, taking care not to expel all those who believe that through our close message Jesus was good news for them, even if they have drunk the cup lip? Would it not, again, the temptation of a pure religion? Besides, who can say, except him, had drunk the cup to the dregs?
"On many occasions I have spoken for generations: mine, my predecessor, future generations. For me the crucial node of the current situation. Admittedly, the passage from one generation to another has always posed problems of adaptation, but what we live today is very special.
The theme of secularization should help us, too, to understand. She has been an unprecedented acceleration in the 60s. For men of my generation and even more for those who have preceded me, often born and raised in a Christian environment, it was a major discovery, the adventure of their lives. They therefore came to interpret "openness to the world" desired by Vatican II as a conversion to secularism.
Thus we lived, or even encouraged, an extremely powerful self-secularization in most Western churches. "
These comments are excerpts from a speech by Archbishop Brugues, rectors of seminaries pontifical. Bishop Bruguès has 66 years, a Dominican, bishop Angers until 2007 he was secretary of the Congregation for Catholic Education, Vice-President of the Pontifical Society of priestly vocations and member of the Committee for the training of candidates for the priesthood. It is also part of the Pontifical Academy Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Secularization: the term keeps coming up in ecclesiastical documents. In his evocation, the speakers take a crestfallen, look up to heaven and sighed deeply. The word refers to the new original sin of the late 20th century and hence the easy explanation of all evil. "They do not all die, but all were beaten. "
What are we talking about? First, when we speak of "secular" means the unique mission of the lay faithful who lives and has shown its faith in the century, the society of his time.
Then the priest means "secular" versus those who live under the rule, the "regular".
As for secularization and secularism, we must ask the subtle mind of Pope Paul VI to shed light on the distinction. Here's what he says in his encyclical Evangelii Nuntiandi " one hand, one is forced to note in the heart of this contemporary world the phenomenon which is becoming almost its most striking characteristic: secularism. We are not talking about secularization, which is the effort in itself just and legitimate way incompatible with faith or religion, to discover in creation, in each thing or each happening in the universe, the laws regulate them with a certain autonomy, inner conviction that the Creator has placed these laws. The recent Council stated, in this sense, the legitimate autonomy of culture and particularly the sciences. We consider here a genuine secularism : A world view according to which the latter is explained by itself without the need for God, who thus becomes superfluous and cumbersome. Such secularism, to recognize the power of man, therefore ends up by doing without God and even deny God. "(55)
According to Paul VI, secularization is not a disease of society. It is even necessary to its development and that of man as Benedict XVI acknowledges in his Encyclical "Caritas in Veritate," for responding fully to his human vocation.
Use this term only in its negative aspect that suits the "secularism" by applying it to the Church, maintains the suspicion that any effort of integration in the century, any recognition of our membership in our time is subject to betrayal of the Faith . Could not we just take the warning of Jesus: "You're in this world, you're not the world"?
I belong to that generation which, according to the head of Rome, was "converted to secularization." I knew him as a Christian church where the priest was Man of the sacred.
But already many priests returned from war and captivity were practicing with their parishioners that they had close fraternal known in appalling conditions of overcrowding imposed. Catholic Action had reinforced this image of the priest more than companion pontiff. My generation has in the footsteps of these pioneers. We did not " converted to secularization," but we wanted to make the gospel message simply desirable and affordable. We wanted to give the priest a friendly face and a merciful heart. Have we spent
ignore the requirements of any loyalty? Have we exceeded certain limits? Maybe. Have we blunt the edge of the Word by highlighting human Jesus and a friend of men and women of his time? Have we made a pact with the secularism of society? I do not know.
I do know that the Church took advantage of secularization. This has allowed the great missionary journeys, the setting of texts in writing, transmitting the Christian message across languages and thought patterns of different cultures, not to mention the profusion of rites, music, architecture that the Church has carried along with her across the centuries.
Will we ever criticize the Pope John XXIII to have grown a mustache when he was a secular nurse during the First World War? Does it require accounts to John Paul II because it has largely used the air corridors and most efficient aircraft? Will he not suspected to have died one day, driven by his century, the cult of personality when he gathered the crowds? And the priests of the XXI century who read their office on their handheld they think they thus participate in a "conversion to the secularization "Their prayer? To prevent poisoning, should stop feeding? To prevent secularism, shall we alternatives to the leak of this century or the fight against society?
What I know, finally, is that Christ himself, noticed that the crowds who followed him were not present during the last appointment on the Cross that St. Peter and the disciples were with him slow to engage in the ascent to Calvary, there is always a time when the attraction, enthusiasm, sympathy, empathy with the century and the world face the contradiction, denial, sin, betrayal, spine, nails and spear. Every religion has its followers and martyrs, but they are recruited in the former.
pretext of restoring the figures of a Christian "which argues" that of a priest and human challenges and even opposition, taking care not to expel all those who believe that through our close message Jesus was good news for them, even if they have drunk the cup lip? Would it not, again, the temptation of a pure religion? Besides, who can say, except him, had drunk the cup to the dregs?
0 comments:
Post a Comment