Suchergebnisse

The Catholic Church has traditionally raised four objections to the doctrine of human rights in its liberal version: the lack of reference to God as the source of human rights, individualism, the absence of a list of human duties accompanying individual rights, and the doctrine's vulnerability to proliferation and creative interpretation of those rights. The paper mainly focuses on the first two concerns. From the point of view of secular liberalism, the idea of God appears as an unnecessary by-product of the process of human evolution. From the point of view of Christianity, creation in the image and likeness of God is the source of man's inalienable dignity, and serves, at the same time, to safeguard his rights from reinterpretation by the state, should the state consider itself the source of such rights. Christianity presents man as an inherently social being, with two communities, i.e., the family and the nation, that are recognized as natural. Liberal individualism views people as a collection of elementary particles that collide with one another but never connect. The difference is fundamental when it comes to attitudes towards obligations prior to individual decisions, but also when it comes to a person's emotional backing. The human being, therefore, seeks to create either family-type ties, or merely ones based on a voluntary contract. It is a paradox that the more atomized a society is, the more necessary a strong state becomes to guarantee individual rights and a sense of security in times of crisis. As a result, a system called statist individualism comes to existence. Religion not only reveals the ultimate meaning of human life and the reasons for which it is worthwhile to be human, but it has also been a source of public morality. The liberal concept of neutrality and the privatization of religion reopen the question of the axiological foundations of the state. On the one hand, why, in the end, should people obey state laws when the state itself convinces them that they are morally neutral? On the other hand, this raises the question of the preferred model of education. From the point of view of the state and society, can a culturally and axiologically neutral education, in which children are taught about what is allowed and what is forbidden by law, but not about what is morally right and wrong, be sufficient? One answer suggests that a liberal state conceived in this way is unstable, and able to exist only for a while. The alternative would be a liberal state that is imperfect, culturally charged, and open to the presence of the Church as a public and publicly meaningful authority.
Benedict XVI, in a discussion on Marcello Pera's interpretation of the doctrine on human rights, says: "It was only thanks to your book that it became clear to me how much the encyclical Pacem in terris had set a new direction in thinking. I was aware of the strong influence of the encyclical on Italian politics: it gave a decisive impulse to the opening of Christian Democracy to leftist views. However, I did not realize to what great an extent it signified a new premise also to the basis of the party's thinking". Pera himself believes that the Church, by making the doctrine of human rights part of the Church Magisterium, proclaimed "by virtue of the Gospel committed to her" (Gaudium et spes, 41) has fallen into a "liberal trap".

The text analyzes the differences between cultural diversity (a state meaning coexistence in one area of different cultures) and multiculturalism (ideology). The latter often tries to impose various forms of mixing cultures from above, proclaiming the positive fruits of such activities. For this reason, it omits the nature of man (objective, universal and common to all people), often turns against the national identity in which he sees an obstacle to the emergence of one global universal culture imposed from above. The creators of this ideology have their own system of values, which they often try to implement without the natural law.

The doctrine of human rights is undergoing a difficult test today. On the one hand, we are dealing with a recurring question about its universality. Is it only an expression of Western anthropological sensitivity and should therefore be observed only in the West, or does it refer to human nature as it is and should therefore be observed everywhere, including in Islamic civilisation? On the other hand, secularisation detaches the doctrine from its theistic sources, resulting in its positivisation. Human rights in this version would only be the result of agreements between people and, therefore, like any other social contract, could be freely changed or reinterpreted. An example of such a reinterpretation of the doctrine is the proposal to recognise abortion as a human right. The author also addresses these issues from the position of Catholic social teaching and raises the question of the consequences of these changes for the Church and its official absolute or conditional support for the doctrine.

This article addresses the issue of the relationship between God's law and secular law, and presents a thesis for the legitimacy of the right to the objection of conscience "in which the voice of God speaks." Considerations relate to conscience as the power of knowing good and duties, the universality of this knowledge, its legitimacy and conditions for its reliability. By referring to stoicism and neo-Platonism, but especially to the elements of St. Paul's theology and the views of Benedict XVI, the author shows how important it is to introduce the category of nature and conscience to a secular, rationalist reflection on law. He presents the position of Christian theologians who spoke out against religious law and his own arguments, as well as the view expressed, among others, by Benedict XVI about the corrective role of religion with respect to human reason, as well as the importance of human reason for religion. The author also highlights the significant lack of reflection on natural law in modern science and the dramatic consequences thereof, such as the denial of the right to conscientious objection.

The policy and values in John Paul II's activity in the field of international politicsJohn Paul II's role in international politics and the political situation in the world at the time when Cardinal Karol Wojtyła assumed the position of the head of the Holy See. A preferential option for culture – this has to do with John Paul II's statement about the primacy of culture and moral life (conscience) over the "means of physical power". In his deliberations on this subject the Pope made frequent reference to personal experiences and the history of his nation. The silent triumph of human conscience – this part characterizes the communist system and its foundations: violence, falsehood and a life devoid of God. John Paul II's reluctance toward violence which reluctance is supposed to be closely associated with his belief about the inherent power of truth. John Paul II claims that being faithful to the truth "disarmed the enemy because violence always has to resort to a justification by falsehood, it always has to assume false pretences of defending some right or of an answer to some danger". Moral grammar – the international policy of persuasion – John Paul II was frequently referred to as "the pope of human dignity" or "the pope of human rights". He recognized the fact that nowadays the truth about man is sufficiently well expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. However, what he had in mind was not merely a list of rights collected in one document, but he meant also that the universal moral right, inscribed into the heart of every man, is a sort of "grammar" which is necessary for the world. The knowledge of the "grammar" of natural law is the gateway to the policy of moral persuasion. Respecting human rights as the condition of true peace – John Paul II emphasized the fact that respecting human rights is not only the question of showing respect to human dignity, but it is also the fundamental question of maintaining just peace in the world. Therefore since the promulgation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations the Catholic Church frequently emphasized the necessity of introducing certain additions to this important document. John Paul II's words: Forgive, and you will be at peace! Despite his belief in the power of the truth and the final triumph of human conscience, the Blessed John Paul II was not a utopian. Despite his opposition to the "logic of violence", he was not a pacifist. He was profoundly aware that a completely pacifistic society is an illusion and that brutal and systematic violence sometimes has to be opposed with military means.

The question arises whether the coherence between Democracy and the Christian vision of the person and Society as something much more essential or is it simply a matter of chance? It is only with Christianity, with its teachings on the concept of inviolable rights of the person, equality, political rights of the people, and the absolute value of relationships based on law and justice as the basis of society and based on fraternal love, created a new Vision of political order which all contemporary nations aim to implement. If not for the Christian concept of democracy, the democracy that we know today, would probably have taken a different form. The Church's support for democracy is something unquestionable. However, not every kind of democracy automatically is in keeping with the teachings of the Church. This depends on a democracy's relation to truth and freedom. The Church supports democracy today, however it does not support one, concrete vision of the political system of the State. It respects the just autonomy of the democratic order, and it does not have a concrete reason for supporting one particular institutional and constitutional solution or another.