Cardinal Antonio Cañizares and José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero have been on opposing sides of socio-cultural, political and religious debate in Spain for a long time.
Do we only have religious fundamentalists or do we have also secularist fundamentalists?- Fr Joe Borg
The cardinal, considered by many to be conservative, is the current Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, having previously served as Archbishop of Toledo and Primate of Spain from 2002 to 2008.
Zapatero was elected for two terms as Prime Minister of Spain, in the 2004 and 2008 general elections. His tenure was characterised by several secularising trends, for example the legalisation of same-sex marriage and the liberalisation of abortion law, which brought him into frequent conflict with the Church.
Only recently both engaged in a lively debate in a crowded auditorium of the Palace of Congresses in Avila, Spain, where they discussed – and disagreed – about 21st century humanism. As was to be expected, both learned gentlemen proposed different worldviews and value systems.
My only English source of the debate is the report in Zenit.org, the news service run by the Legionnaires of Christ.
Zapatero, in line with his ‘anthropological optimism’, stressed that we live in the best possible world, if we compare it with other historical periods.
Cañizares warned his audience about the path Europe has taken, saying relativism undermines democracy and true humanism.
Cañizares spoke of Christian values: solidarity, community spirit, helping one’s neighbour, respect of life, the safeguarding of human dignity; Zapatero spoke of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, of democratic states,of the Spanish Constitution in which article 16 safeguards religious beliefs, and humanitarian aid. Both agreed there is no democracy without the values of humanism.
On some points they heartily agreed, while on others they strongly, but respectfully, disagreed. And so should a mature debate be. There was another aspect of the debate which makes it noteworthy: the high profile of the participants.
These two aspects can perhaps help us reflect on the level of debating in Malta. An important subset would be political debating but that is only a subset.
There are so many different forms of debating and subjects to be explored. I am mainly interested in the debate between the Church and society.
Let me dream a little about the two aspects shown in the Cañizares and Zapatero debate.
A Maltese equivalent to Cañizares and Zapatero could be, for example, a debate between Archbishop Emeritus Joseph Mercieca and Alfred Sant.
Both of them are high profile, very intellectual and hailing from different cultural and philosophical backgrounds. Would the Bishop of Gozo, who just the other day spoke about humanism and relativism, be ready to debate with Prof. Kenneth Wain whose liberal philosophy is well known?
A good moderator would make them generate a lot of light and hopefully, several sparks.
Why not discuss the 21st century humanism and its influence, if at all, on contemporary Maltese society?
The Church maintains that it wishes to enlighten society without imposition. Its opponents complain that it does exactly the opposite.
Why not a debate where both sides discuss what is the legitimate level of exerting influence without imposition? Do we only have religious fundamentalists or do we have also secularist fundamentalists?
Our style of discussion is what I describe as the ‘I say yes, you say no’ style. Can we take a leaf from one of the books of our compatriot Edward de Bono?
He suggests a different method of discussion where everyone involved will first explore all the Yays on a subject and then everyone will proceed with discussing all the Nays about this same subject?
The Church should try to provide such a dialogic space. In all fairness I happily note that the Converse project at Palazzo de Piro, Mdina, is moving in this direction. It should perhaps move more quickly.
Some other time I will discuss the level of political debate, particularly the use that is being made of the party media and the social networks.
• Are you being broadcast live?
Don’t be surprised at this question. You are already being recorded and filmed in so many different streets, commercial establishments, parking lots, and so on. Your images are stored in so many different places.
Technology is now taking us a step further. Google glasses are the new fad in real-time recording and transmitting eyewear.
They look like, and in fact are,a pair of glasses; but an innocent pair of glasses they are certainly not.
This technological innovation was showcased at Google’s tech I/O. The company’s co-founder, Sergey Brin, orchestrated a conference call on Google Plus with skydivers, BMX bikers and rock climbers, all wearing Google Glass so the audience could see what was going on in real time.
It was an impressive do, but is there not a danger that the surveillance state – inquisitive individual, unethical journalists, unscrupulous TV producers and the like will continue eroding our quickly vanishing privacy rights?
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt