In my previous article I have tried to deal with the Italian philosopher Diego Fusaro the theme of Religion under attack, taking a cue from the results of a recent study published in the journal Current Biology by which children atheists would be more altruistic than believers. It seemed an absurd conclusion, but in line with other claims against the Church and every Religion in particular. Back here on the same subject because if Fusaro's answers reflected the point of view of a philosopher, independent student of Marx and Gramsci as the same Fusaro defined himself, it is also interesting to look for answers in other directions. Today it is with us Maurizio Blondet, well known Italian journalist. He was one of the first in Italy to not believe the official version on the attack on the Twin Towers, identifying the cause in an internal coup to American society. Catholic, deeply religious, Blondet has agreed to share with readers some of his opinions on the subject of Religion.
Q) Mr. Blondet, why in your opinion someone felt the need to analyze a characteristic of the human soul as altruism in a "atheists Vs believers"?
A) I do not know if I understand the question. Among other things, I am not so sure that altruism is "a feature of the human soul", namely a natural fact. Man is not born good, as Rousseau preached. The "altruism" and other virtues, social and spiritual, must be developed, educated, through education. In this sense there is the point of view "believers against atheists": who does not believe in God, why should be "altruistic"? It does much more selfishness. Dostoyevsky said: "If there is no God, everything is possible to man." In fact, the secularized societies are also those where egoism dominates in souls and altruism (also in the form of sociability) disappears: global terminal capitalism is the kingdom of the greatest injustices: wars, thefts, exploitation of the poor.
Q) But what sense does divide the children into atheists and believers if at that age many of us still believe in Santa Claus?
A) Faith is not "for adults". The children indeed understand better what is and what is involved. It is no accident that Christ says, "these things hidden from the wise, are known to the children." Until heroism: see the children-saints "volunteered" for the salvation of the souls of those who disbelieved, from Fatima onwards.
Q) The Catholic Church, but also that Greek Orthodox, suffered exceptionally virulent attacks usually directed against a real or alleged, selfish ecclesial opulence. I make then a question as old as our world: a Church rich or poor?
A) The Church rich existed particularly in the past: do you know how much Bernini's colonnade cost, how much the popes payed Michelangelo and Raffaello? This happened at a time when the Church was a world power, divided the world between Spain and Portugal, ambassadors came, and money by the world's faithful. This Church has attracted, at her hierarchical top, personalities hungry of power and enjoyment - it makes sense, where there is money: Pope Borgia, with his scandalous vices, gave the pretext to the Luter's revolt and the fatal schism of the West. The Sistina Chapel inspired everything except religion: Dostoyevsky understood this when he visited and wrote that the Christ by Michelangelo lacked only the saber to be "a German soldier." Well, even so, there were even then the greatest saints, miraculous. A pope can be privately unworthy, rich, power-hungry but what matters is his axial "presence", as successor of Peter, medium and channel of grace. Of course it is better if he is a worthy or holy person. But in these times the faith of the people tolerated more than what (perhaps rightly) does not tolerate now: bishops careerists for a place in the Vatican, for a song, for a gay lover, bishops opportunists to the world for an appearance on television. Precisely, these say they are "for the poor", now they go to the "peripheries of the world" to be seen by the pope. Evil is deeper than the simplistic and demagogic dilemma "Church poor - Church rich".
Q) Christians, Catholics in particular, seem to be asking the permission of the World to practice their faith, fearing not seem quite abreast of times more and more liberal and uninhibited. Maybe I'm wrong?
A) Obviously many people have an inferiority complex towards the "Modernity": they are evolutionists, scientistic, modernists. But this attitude was caused precisely by the Council and its bishops and experts. First, with the Syllabus of Pius IX, the Church had declared war on modernity. She was proudly anti-liberal, anti-modern, and therefore kept intact dogmas and rites. The Latin liturgy was saying this, even to non-believers: we are here, unchanged for two thousand years. Wrapped in the beauty of the Romanesque, of the Gothic windows and Gregorian, because we keep what is eternal: the day when you need immutable certainty, you will find us, the Church-Mother that will get you high. You do not know how many educated British and American approached the Church precisely in her "antiquity", for her liturgy. All this was thrown away by bishops and cardinals with the excuse of "reach out to modern man".
Q) Could you say that a "too modern" Church was born, cause of her own current ills because strangely helpless in front of the pagan god of the market?
A) The Council was conceived - as recently admitted Ratzinger - to bury the Syllabus, "declaration of war on modernity." The Church was not so helpless in front of the market, but - then - in front of communism, the man on the moon, to the rotogravure evolution. To communism, because they believed it would last thousands of years and that, after all, it was a Christianity that was realized in the social (equality, all poor) without the need of transcendence. There were prelates for the "theology of liberation": Marxism-colored Catholicism. An overwhelming fashion, today it is almost impossible to understand - sovietism collapsed after 70 years, for itself. In short, the Council was a crisis of faith: of the hierarchy, rather than of the people. As soon as the council was proclaimed, 50,000 priests and nuns left, the participation in Sunday Mass was suddenly halved. As Giussani said: "Was humanity that abandoned the Church, or the Church abandoned mankind?".
Q) In your opinion what has remained about the Faith, Christian but not only, in a world that has closed its borders thanks to technology, to transport, to an industry capable of inventing ever new needs as well as to satisfy the existing ones?
A) The Christian faith is the real presence of Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity in the consecrated Bread. This remains. Although all of humanity turns her back to this presence (it was foretold by Jesus) it is that she is damned. The world widens its borders? Look better: "progress" technical and scientific, economy, social relations without God, is proving an increasingly fierce and oppressive snout, is a terminus, it has no more to offer than euthanasia and abortion easier. People get seduced because the system takes away the rights to a fair wage, but it "grants" the wedding of the Sodomites and the smartphone at 600 Euros. It subtracts the Love and gives pornography. But all hopes in this earthly word are, to an eye practiced to Beauty, cheesy, mortuary, vulgar, empty. This is why the system has miseducate the masses to Beauty, because they cannot make any comparison.
Q) Is there a director, hidden but widespread, behind all the attacks that currently suffers the Religion, Christian or Muslim?
A) The actors of evil, the protagonists on the world stage, are obviously puppets. The Director is out of this world, even if it is called Princeps huius Mundi [Prince of His Own World].
Q) How do you see our future in twenty or thirty years? What solutions can you propose to stem the materialistic drift in which we are drowning?
A) I see no future for this society. It is astonishing that it may still exist in 20 or 30 years. This is the generation who has written its own condemnation by itself, for having chased a fake well and it will end up in some horrible world war, global conflagration. Since man was created for God, humanities that turns their back on God are simply deleted - why occupy the Earth? It's already happened many times and the cancellation of these humanities was so complete, that they could not hand down their story, but only a few traces remain in the myth: Atlantis, the Great Flood, the imperfect races in the myth of pre-Colombian. "Only a God can save us now".
Costantino Ceoldo - Pravda freelance