CENTRO PRO UNIONE N. 59 - Spring 2001 ISSN: 1122-0384 semi-annual Bulletin In this issue: Letter from the Director....................................................p. 1 The Necessity for Theological Dialogue between Christians and Jews Jack Bemporad.....................................................p. 3 La bellezza: una via per l’unità? Bruno Forte.......................................................p. 7 Dominus Iesus: An Ecclesiological Critique Richard P. McBrien.................................................p. 14 The Church: God’s Gift to the World. On the Nature and Purpose of the Church. Alan Falconer.....................................................p. 23 Homily of Bishop Walter Kasper for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity 2001..............p. 30 Centro Pro Unione - Via S. Maria dell'Anima, 30 - 00186 Rome, Italy A Center conducted by the Franciscan Friars of the AtonementDirector's Desk In this issue of the bulletin we have the pleasure of presenting five of the conferences that were held at the Centro during this past year. The first of these engendered a lively discussion about the Jewish-Christian dialogue. Rabbi Jack Bemporad who was a visiting scholar at the Angelicum forcefully presented the reasons for “The Necessity of a Theological Dialogue between Christians and Jews”. It is our hope that we will be able to continue our discussion with Rabbi Bemporad again this Fall. Don Bruno Forte gave the third annual Paul Wattson/Lurana White lecture. The lecture was entitled “La bellezza: una via per l’unità?” and introduced the audience to the theology of aesthetics as a possible way of moving toward unity. Thisyear’s lecturer will be Dr. Anna Marie Aagard, professor emeritus of systematic theology at the University of Aarhus, Denmark. Her lecture will be held on December 13, 2001 and is entitled: “In Defense of the Body: Writings on ‘Being Church’ in Ecumenical Conversation”. The Document published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Dominus Iesus”, provoked much discussion in theological and ecumenical circles. It is for this reason that we decided to dedicate the month of January to treat ecclesiological questions. In the first of two lectures Dr. Richard McBrien clarified some of the major difficulties that surrounded the document’s publication. One of the majordifficulties was the mis- representation and over-simplification of this document that was made by the press. After clearing the air on this issue, our speaker proceeded to analyze the ecclesiological presuppositions upon which this document rests. The general reaction that came from most of our non Catholic participants was one of gratitude for such a positive and constructive presentation of a complex document that was too often criticized without having been read. The second ecclesiological presentation was made by the Director of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches, Dr. Alan Falconer. During our annualcelebration of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, Dr. Falconer presented the latest ecclesiological statement of the Faith and Order Commission “On the Nature and Purpose of the Church”. This document has been sent to the Churches for their evaluation much in the same way as the Lima Document Baptism, Eucharist and Minsitry. It is hoped that churches and theologians will respond in order thatthe process of revision will go forward and provide another consensus document such as the BEM document. Lastly we include the homily that was preached by Bishop (now Cardinal) Walter Kasper during our celebration of the word. Rev. Dr. Jonathan Boardman, the Rector of the Anglican church, All Saints, presided a very well attended conference and ecumenical celebration of the Word. We have had some very interesting visits during the past year: an ecumenical pilgrimage of 120 persons from Walsingham, England who came to the Centro for a talk on Dominus Iesus and Ecumenical relations and the pastoral implications of the declaration; 30 students from the Graduate School of the Ecumenical Institute of Bossey, Switzerland; we did a course for St. Olaf’s College, Northfield, MN; a group of interns from the Ecumenical Institute, Bossey, led by Alan Falconer; the visit of the Councilfor Christian Unity (Stockholm, Sweden) and a group of 15 Anglican Ecumenical Officers from variousdioceses in England. We hope that we will be able to welcome more of our friends during this coming year. Exceptionally we will not print the bibliography of the interconfessional dialogues in this Spring issue due to the fact our librarian was on maternity leave (she had a lovely daughter!) and we have been unable to prepare the material in time. The bibliography will appear in the Fall issue along with the texts of several other conferences held this year. This periodical is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, published by the American Theological Library Association, 250 S. Wacker Dr., 16th Floor., Chicago, IL 60606 (http://www.atla.com). Please note our new fax number is: (+39-06) 6813-3668. For more information on our activities, visit us at: http://www.prounione.urbe.it James F. Puglisi, sa DirectorN. 59 / Spring 2001Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 3 Centro Conferences CCCC The Necessity for Theological Dialogue between Christians and Jews by Jack Bemporad Director, The Center for Interreligious Understanding-USA (Conference given at the Centro Pro Unione, Thursday, 16 November 2000) In this paper I will discuss the process of dialogue, and why such a process should lead to theological discussion. I will then review Rabbi Soloveitchik’s position on theological dialogue, delineate the task of theological dialogue, and offer concluding remarks. I. The Process of Dialogue It is the process of dialogue that is really the most important element in inter-religious communications. The content of dialogue is secondary since it is the process, which will ultimately determine the content. The process of dialogue consists in establishing a proper atmosphere for effective dialogue. It is the attitude of the participants and the way in which they respond to one another, which sets the proper stage for discussion. Regard- less of the topics to be discussed, if people are not ready to talk, or if there is a lack of trust, mutuality, or respect, then genuine dialogue cannot take place. In his many writings and speeches, Father Remi Hoeckman has convincingly shown us that if a dialogue process is character- ized by a sense of trust and care, then a whole range of issues, (including theological issues) that initially no one would even think of discussing may gradually be included. It is important to recognize that Christians and Jews have much in common. The foundations of Christianity are in Judaism. In fact, Christians define themselves in relation to Judaism as part of their self-understanding. The Hebrew Bible is seen as the Old Testament to which the New Testament is indissolubly bound. As a result, in the new atmosphere of dialogue, there have been extensive endeavors to explore the areas of agreement or com- monality. The goal has too often been limited to searching for areas of agreement. In view of the past history of Christian representations of Jesus and Christianity as separate, alien, and Judaism as superseded, the process of reconciliation has, quite appropriately concentrated on the importance of finding common characteris- tics. The fact of the matter is that we have to proceed beyond looking for areas of agreement. The goal is not simply to agree. Instead, we should try to understand one another and the only way we can do that is by being willing to say, “Look, as a Jew, this is what I believe. This is why I believe it and this is how I live it.” And I expect the Christian response to be the same. It seems to me that unless we’re willing to be respectful and caring of one another, and ask the other to express his or her fundamental convictions, then we’re not engaging in the kind of dialogue that produces results required for proper understanding and harmoni- ous relationships. By investigating areas of both agreement and diversity we will not only learn to recognize one another in ways that are not subject to the all too frequent stereotyping and distortions of the past, but indeed to re-cognize one another, see one another in new and more accurate ways. The great Sage Hillel enjoined us not to judge our fellow human being until you stand in his or her place. What I believe he meant is that it is not enough to just put yourself in another person’s place, in that person’s shoes, or experience the world through that person’s categories, through their feelings, their hopes and fears. One must do something more. One must look at oneself with the eyes of the other. How do you look to him? With what eyes do you see me? In genuine dialogue there is an openness to depths of oneself and depths of the other that neither had any real awareness or knowledge of eliciting at its initiation. I would go so far as to agree with David Lochhead who claims that dialogue “is a way of knowing truth that neither party possesses prior to the dialogue.” 1 . Mutual communication requires a certain trust or comfort both with myself and with the other. If I fear that my partner in dialogue will misunderstand me because he is overly concerned with presenting his point of view and not really open to my point of view, Or of I am not fully clear in my mind as to what I really believe and why. Then true understanding cannot take place and then the dialogue will, at best, be superficial and polite, but will not reach the depths of true understanding. Often tension exists between the affirmations of fundamental beliefs and the openness needed for dialogue, that is why the atmosphere of dialogue is so important. Too often Christian-Jewish dialogue has been characterized as a process of negotiations with the intent to have the partner in 1 D. LOCHHEAD, The Dialogical Imperative. A Christian Reflection on Interfaith Encounter (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1988) 51.4 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 59 / Spring 2001 dialogue commit to predetermined positions. While this is important to reach agreement on specific issues it is inimical to theological understanding. In any process of communication one must order the content of the communication in relation to the respective value frame- work of the participants. Generally, if something is very impor- tant and central to us, we mistakenly assume that it must also be very important and central to the other. This is not so. What may be of central importance to one person may be of little interest to the other. Similar expressions, terms or concepts have very different associations or significance in Judaism and Christianity. For example terms like Messiah, Salvation, Covenant have different meanings in Judaism and Christianity. But even more, the importance, significance, and centrality of these concepts vary greatly in our respective traditions. Additionally, central concepts in one religious tradition may simply be non-existent in the other. That other religions differ from my own should make me consider the possibility that I may not have the full truth, and that the other may have something to teach me. It is presumptuous for us to maintain that the great religions of the world, which have been a source of inspiration and hope for millions of individuals with great religious teachers, have no insights to offer us. Dialogue is needed to present a more objective and historically accurate view of one another. One cannot deny that if one were to look at Christian attitudes towards Jews ands Judaism, and Jewish attitudes towards Christians and Christianity one would often see negative stereotypes and false representations. Past misunder- standings must be clarified and we must take a new direction in the way we view one another. Thanks to the great achievements of Vatican II with the document Nostra Aetate, the Guidelines, Notes, Papal speeches, the We Remember document, the European Bishop’s statements and the Israel-Vatican accord, much of the past negativity has been overcome. It is necessary to make both Jews and Christians aware of these great documents and developments. This will take a great deal of work. However I believe that an essential element has been lacking in Christian-Jewish relations, which has tended to distort and skew the dialogue in such a way as to make it impossible to derive the full benefits of dialogue and reach its essence. A symptom of this lack is that in all these years there have been no official statements coming from the Jewish side to clarify Jewish attitudes with respect to Christianity. On the contrary, discussion has been limited to two main topics: Anti-Semitism and Israel. I think this was a necessary first step. The devastating destruction of six million Jews made it necessary to come to terms with that horror and deal with the role that Christian teachings may have had in regard to it. I think that the We Remember document as well as many of the Bishop’s statements, and the Papal visit to Israel have significantly dealt with that. Also the Fundamental Accord clearly affirms the positive relation of the Vatican to the state of Israel. As essential as these documents and activities have been to prepare the ground for harmonious relations, nevertheless, I think that these were preliminaries to real dialogue. For dialogue to be fully effective between Christians and Jews, a fundamental question must be asked: “How can I be true to my own faith without being false to yours?” This means that one should strive to understand the other as he or she understands one’s self. One must be able to understand one’s own faith without distorting or denigrating the other’s faith. The question, of course, is whether this is at all possible if there are pre-condi- tions to dialogue that restrict its subject matter and approach. When the Pope first met with members of the Jewish commu- nity, he asked that Jews make an effort to understand Christians and Christianity. After establishing the indissoluble connection for Christians of Judaism with Christianity, the Pope then gave full assent to the Guidelines prologue, which asked Christians to strive to acquire a better knowledge of the basic components of the religious tradition of Judaism. The Pope said, “They [Christians] must strive to learn by what essential traits the Jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience.” The Pope emphasized that as essential as it is for Christians to under- stand Jews and Judaism, especially in the terms with which they define themselves; it is equally necessary for Jews to understand the Church and Christians in terms that they define themselves. Dialogue and communication is needed in order not to distort the other. The Pope said to the Jewish delegation, “You are here, I believe, to help us in our reflection on Judaism. And I am sure that we find in you and in the communities you represent, a real and deep disposition to understand Christianity and the Catholic Church in its proper identity today so that we may work from both sides toward our common aim of overcoming every kind of prejudice and discrimination.” (My italics.) What the Pope effectively said is that it is not enough for Christians to understand Jews and view them the way they view themselves; it is also very important for Jews to understand Christians the way they view themselves. Now, can Jews really understand Christianity? Can we really understand the Catholic and Protestant faiths without thinking theologically or without discussing theology? I believe that if we are to have full and mutual understanding, theological dialogue is essential. II. Rabbi Soloveitchik’s Position If all of the above is correct, why is it that theological dialogue is still such a hurdle in our process of communications? In 1964, the very famous (probably the most authoritative orthodox rabbi in America) Rabbi Soloveitchik wrote an article, entitled “Confrontation” in the orthodox journal Tradition. In that article he maintained that while it was legitimate for Jews and Christians to communicate on matters of social concern for welfare of the Jewish community he clearly rejected any dialogue of a theological nature. His justification for rejecting theological dialogue was the posture of the Christian community, which viewed itself as on a level above Judaism. A posture, which viewed Judaism as inferior and Jews as objects of conversion. In that situation Rabbi Soloveitchik says, “Non-Jewish society hasN. 59 / Spring 2001Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 5 confronted us through the ages in a mood of defiance, as if we were part of the sub-human objective order. We shall resent any attempt on the part of the populous community to engage us in a peculiar encounter in which our confronter commands us to take a position beneath him while placing himself not alongside, but above us.” What Soloveitchik was referring to, was the history of Christian-Jewish confrontations. Jews were subjected to an asymmetrical position with respect to Christianity for the simple reason that the community of the many had the power. Now, however, Rabbi Soloveitchik also said, “It is self evident that a confrontation of two faith communities is possible only if it is accomplished by a clear assurance that both parties will enjoy equal rights and full religious freedom.” There’s no question that dialogue for the last 36 years has been in terms of two faith communities that enjoy equal rights and full religious freedom. And, therefore, I agree with what Rabbi Soloveitchik says. The point I want to make is that the situation in 2001 is a very different situation from the one about which Rabbi Soloveitchik wrote in 1964, the year before Vatican II. Would not Rabbi Soloveitchik himself today grant our situation is different given all the changes enunciated above? We need to discuss theology because Jews cannot really understand Christianity without understanding Christian theology. Christians understand their faith theologically and a Jew who is not willing to try to grasp what Christian Theology entails is not going to accurately understand Christianity. More importantly, if we don’t discuss theology how are we going to prevent misunder- standing each other’s beliefs and doctrines? It is not clear why the Jewish partner in the dialogue should resist theology. Since there is always the danger that unless the statements and documents of the Church have a theological underpinning, they are subject to being dismissed as simply public relations tailor-made to the post-Holocaust situation. Furthermore, many of the problems that have arisen between Jews and Christians are due to theological representation of Jews and Judaism. These include exclusivists’ claims to salvation on the part of Christians and the theological imperative to engage in missionizing. All these are theological issues that need to be clarified. All religious traditions hold certain beliefs to be true, and have reasons for holding them to be true. When a religious tradition asks about what it believes and why it believes it, it is talking “theology”, since theology is concerned with the meaning and truth of the claims that a religious tradition makes. To affirm therefore, as some Jewish spokesmen have, either that Judaism is not theological or should not discuss theology, is to affirm either that Judaism makes no doctrinal claims, or if it does make such claims, it has no reasons of a rational character for making them. Both affirmations seem to me untrue. It seems clear to all engaged in dialogue that there are numer- ous distortions and misrepresentations of each other’s religion, many of these of a theological character. All agree that these should be corrected. But how can these distortions be corrected without theological dialogue since this assumes that each side already possesses the very knowledge that only the dialogue process can bring about. III. Future Prospects Where do we go from here? I believe the fundamental question for us to ask is, how can I be true to my own faith without being false to yours? I think this question should influence every single discussion on every level. I believe that question is the fundamental issue of dialogue. It’s not enough for me to say, “Here’s what Judaism believes, now you tell me what Christianity believes.” It’s important for me to say, “I can have a sense of myself without diminishing you in any way. I can affirm my beliefs without restricting, limiting or dwarfing your beliefs. I must do it while not denigrating or distorting yours.” Also in dialogue, move towards asking and answering the following questions: What is the place of Jews and Judaism in a Christian self-understanding, and what is the place of Christians and Christianity in a Jewish self-understanding? If we Jews really believe that Christians are monotheists, then we have to give up the doctrine that Christians fall under the category of B’nai Noah, the sons of Noah, which was a doctrine that originally applied to pagans and is a doctrine which involves minimal monotheism. If we’re really honest and believe that Christians are monotheists, then we must have the courage to re- evaluate such a position. Then we must recognize that Christians are B’nai Abraham, they are children of Abraham, children of monotheism, and indeed are our brothers. Also, if Jews have an irrevocable covenant with God, as Paul says in Romans, and has been repeatedly stated in numerous Church documents, then it seems to me that we have to ask, what sense does the distinction “according to the flesh and according to the spirit” make? Is the irrevocable covenant with flesh? Does that make any sense? Too often, Jews have seen this distinction as denigrating and it should be discussed. It is necessary that each position be presented in the most intelligible and noble light, no straw men, no denigrating con- trasts, but even more, there must be a common humanity, which we must appeal to in dialogue, common needs and hopes and fears. There must be common pre-suppositions and common goals we all share as human beings prior to and independent of what- ever may be our religious affirmations. Our discussion is not the same as the dialogue between science and religion nor is it the same as the discussion between religion and secularism. It is the dialogue of two historical faith communities, which share so much that, is essential and yet their interrelationships have never been historically explored in an authentic and honest manner to discover the truth that each can offer the other. I think that we should ask ourselves the following questions. “How can our respective traditions deal with the ultimate ques- tions we face as human beings — suffering, salvation, the nature of what it means to be a human being, the nature of God and creation, the nature of the good?” And from our own faith perspective, in trying to answer these questions, we will find that we will learn from one another, what we believe and why we6 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 59 / Spring 2001 believe it. And here I think it’s of utmost importance for us to recognize that we can learn from each other, that no one has cornered the market on truth. Theology is not merely a confession of what our faith affirms, i.e., what it means, what it asserts and how it is practiced. It also claims to be true. It is also necessary to state the reasons I have for affirming it to be true. An affirmation of faith is not self-authenti- cating. It requires justification in terms of processes that are universally recognizable, i.e., reason and experience. A common ground is essential to serve as a foundation for discussion. Here the common ground is itself a subject of contro- versy. However both of our traditions maintain that reason, our common character as human beings and our being creatures in the order of creation, as well as our being heirs of monotheism has constituted a foundation for dialogue. Also, in both Judaism and Christianity the historical element is essential and the transcendent is connected to the historical in our affirmation of revelation as well as our affirmation of the transcendent’s connection to the soul and the soul’s self aware- ness. IV. Conclusion In conclusion, it is essential to remember the nature of the subject matter being discussed. When religious issues are dis- cussed, when the deepest convictions by which individuals define their very essence and discuss beliefs upon which one’s whole existence is at stake, it requires a special sensitivity and under- standing which simply does not apply in other areas of discussion. I am not denying that other areas also require sensitivity and understanding; I am affirming that the emotional intensity and significance of inter-religious dialogue has a place of its own and needs special means of dealing with it. There is also the sense of grandeur and nobility of the religious quest that must be taken into consideration. We are dealing with the holy, the transcendent and highest manifestation of all that is and there is an intrinsic humility with which the human mind must manifest in the presence of discussions dealing with the Divine. Ultimately, both traditions recognize that what is at stake in dialogue is the trusteeship that human beings have in the created order. Both traditions must recognize that what we do counts for good or ill and that an issue of the greatest significance is at stake in our joint witness in our respective ways of the God who enables us to share in his grace and exercise his will. It is my hope and prayer that authentic, meaningful, theological dialogue, keeping in mind our mutual covenant with God, will result in a covenant between Judaism and the Church.N. 59 / Spring 2001Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 7 Centro Conferenze CCCC La bellezza: una via per l’unità? Conferenza annuale in onore di Padre Paolo Wattson e Madre Lurana White Bruno Forte Ordinario di teologia dogmatica nella Pontificia Facoltà Teologica dell’Italia Meridionale (Conferenza tenuta al Centro Pro Unione, giovedì, 14 dicembre 2000) 1. Fra lontananza e prossimità: il Tutto nel frammento È Hans Urs Von Balthasar il pensatore che più di ogni altro ha avvertito l’epocale attualità del bello come via per il recupero del vero e del bene in un’epoca tentata dalla debolezza rinunciataria, chiusa agli orizzonti di fondazione e di senso. La passione tutta cristiana dell’annuncio è in lui motivo di intensa concentrazione sul bello: “La nostra parola iniziale — scrive inaugurando la sua opera maggiore — si chiama bellezza. La bellezza è l’ultima parola che l’intelletto pensante può osare di pronunciare, perché essa non fa altro che incoronare, quale aureola di splendore inafferrabile, il duplice astro del vero e del bene e il loro indissolubile rapporto. Essa è la bellezza disinteressata senza la quale il vecchio mondo era incapace di intendersi, ma che ha preso congedo in punta di piedi dal moderno mondo degli interessi, per abbandonarlo alla sua cupidità e alla sua tristezza” 1 . La conseguenza drammatica di questo esilio della bellezza sta nella inevitabile perdita del senso del vero e del bene: “In un mondo senza bellezza... anche il bene ha perduto la sua forza di attrazione, l’evidenza del suo dover-essere-adempiuto... In un mondo che non si crede più capace di affermare il bello, gli argomenti in favore della verità hanno esaurito la loro forza di conclusione logica” 2 . Ciò di cui allora v’è urgente bisogno al compimento della parabola dell’epoca moderna è per von Balthasar un cristianesimo che recuperi rigorosamente la centralità e la rilevanza del trascen- dentale del bello: non basta più testimoniare l’alterità di Dio rispetto al mondo, compito pur necessario e prezioso in tante epoche. Ad un’umanità che tanto intensamente ha scoperto la mondanità del mondo e ha rincorso il progetto di emanciparsi da ogni dipendenza estranea all’orizzonte terreno, è necessario più che mai proporre il Dio in forma umana, lo scandalo al tempo stesso attraente e inquietante dell’umanità di Dio: e questo vuol dire riscoprire la chiave estetica di tutto il messaggio cristiano. “Soltanto chi ama la rivelazione dell’infinito nella forma finita è non soltanto un ‘mistico’, ma anche un ‘stetico’” 3 : e soltanto chi ha il senso della bellezza — e dunque dell’avvento paradossale del Tutto nel frammento — può anche veramente annunciare un Dio significativo per l’umanità resa ormai consapevole della piena dignità di tutto ciò che è storico e mondano. Solo l’esplicita ed argomentata consapevolezza dell’offrirsi dell’infinito nel finito, della lontananza nella prossimità, e dunque solo la comprensione estetica della rivelazione e della fede, potrà essere in grado di parlare efficacemente al mondo umano, “troppo umano”, che è il nostro mondo. Lo esprime questo testo dramma- tico dello stesso von Balthasar: “Quel Logos, in cui tutto nel cielo e sulla terra è raccolto e possiede la sua verità, cade lui stesso nel buio, nell’ango- scia ... in un nascondimento, che è proprio l’opposto dello svelamento della verità dell’essere... L’indicativo è perduto, l’interrogativo è rimasto l’unico modo di parlare. La fine della domanda è il forte grido. È la parola che non è più parola... Anche il Logos, che ha accettato la forma a lui adatta, deve essere privato della sua figura... La parola di Dio nel mondo è diventata muta, nella notte essa non chiede più di Dio; essa giace sepolta nella terra. La notte che la copre non è una notte di stelle, ma notte di desolazio- ne profonda e di alienazione mortale. Non è un silenzio pieno di mille segreti d’amore, che scaturiscono dalla avvertita presenza dell’amato; ma silenzio di assenza, di distacco, di vuoto abbandono, che arriva dietro tutti gli strappi dell’addio” 4 . 1 H.U. von BALTHASAR, Gloria: una estetica teologica. 1: La percezione della forma (Milano: Jaca Book, 1975) 10. Su von Balthasar cf. E. GUERRIERO, Hans Urs von Balthasar (Cinisello Balsamo: Paoline, 1991) con bibliografia. 2Gloria...., op.cit., 1, 11. 3 Gloria. 2. Stili Ecclesiastici: Ireneo, Agostino, Dionigi, Anselmo, Bonaventura (Milano: Jaca Book, 1978) 98: su Agostino. 4 H.U. von Balthasar, Il tutto nel frammento (Milano: Jaca Book, 1972) 223. 226.8 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 59 / Spring 2001 L’estetica teologica – intesa come percezione del Tutto nel frammento, educata alla scuola della kenosi del Verbo crocifisso e abbandonato — è al tempo stesso la via per glorificare l’Eterno nel miracolo della sua autocomunicazione nel finito e per annun- ciare al mondo la gioia della salvezza che nel “Verbum abbrevia- tum” gli è stata donata. Rivisitare i linguaggi della bellezza nella memoria teologica dell’Occidente sarà pertanto la via per rispondere alla domanda decisiva su dove e come sarà possibile al pensiero moderno e ai suoi naufragi di riappropriarsi della via salutare del bello, riconoscendovi anche una singolare via verso l’unità per cui Cristo ha pregato. È quanto tenteremo di fare — sia pur in maniera appena evocativa — nelle riflessioni che seguono... 2. I “numeri del cielo”: la Bellezza come forma Quale rapporto c’è fra la bellezza e Dio? L’intera esistenza di Agostino risponde a questa domanda: si potrebbe dire che tutta la sua riflessione è stata dominata dai temi, che egli considerava fra loro intimamente connessi, di Dio Trinità e del bello 5 . L’interesse per questo secondo tema è predominante nel tempo che precede l’ora decisiva della conversione. È lo stesso Agostino a riconoscerlo nella struggente esclamazione delle Confessioni, in cui il Tu dell’invocazione è rivolto a Colui che è la bellezza: “Tardi Ti amai, bellezza tanto antica e tanto nuova, tardi Ti amai!”6. Agostino ammette che proprio la bellezza delle creature lo aveva tenuto lontano dal Creatore e confessa che Questi lo ha raggiunto con la Sua bellezza per quella stessa via dei sensi, attraverso cui noi percepiamo il bello in ogni suo apparire: “Ecco, Tu eri dentro di me, io stavo al di fuori: qui Ti cercavo e, deforme qual ero, mi buttavo sulle cose belle che Tu hai fatto. Tu eri con me, io non ero con Te. Mi tenevano lontano da Te quelle cose che, se non fossero in Te, non sarebbero. Chiamasti, gridasti, vincesti la mia sordità; sfolgorasti, splendesti e fugasti la mia cecità; esalasti il tuo profumo, lo aspirai e anelo a Te; Ti gustai e ora ho fame e sete di Te; mi toccasti e bruciai del desiderio della Tua pace” 7 . Udito, vista, olfatto, gusto, tatto sono raggiunti e presi dalla bellezza: in un primo tempo da quella delle cose create; quindi, dalla Bellezza ultima, autrice di ogni altra bellezza. L’intero itinerario di Agostino appare così come un cammino dalla bellezza alla Bellezza, dal penultimo all’Ultimo, per poter poi ritrovare il senso e la misura della bellezza di tutto ciò che esiste nella luce del fondamento di ogni bellezza. Ciò che unifica in modo pregnante il tema di Dio e quello della bellezza è per Agostino il motivo dell’amore: in realtà, la bellezza può tanto su di noi perché ci attrae a sé con vincoli d’amore. Nella concezione di Agostino alla forza del richiamo del bello corri- sponde il movimento unificante dell’amore: è per questo che la teologia si occupa della bellezza, perché ha a che fare originaria- mente e costitutivamente con la rivelazione dell’amore e con ciò che essa significa per noi. È ancora nelle Confessioni che si trova questa considerazione: “Allora... amavo le bellezze inferiori, correvo verso l’abisso e dicevo ai miei amici: Non è forse vero che noi non amiamo che il bello?” 8 . Resterà convinzione costante di Agostino che non è possibile amare se non ciò che è bello: “Non possumus amare nisi pulchra” 9 . Fra rapimento e corrispon- denza, il movimento della bellezza non è che il movimento dell’amore: “ordo amoris” è il mondo della bellezza... 10 Da dove scaturisce la forza di attrazione della bellezza? Perché ciò che è bello attira l’amore? Agostino pone con estremo rigore queste domande, certamente riflettendo sul proprio cammino: “Che cosa è bello? e che cosa è la bellezza? Che cosa ci avvince e ci attrae nelle cose, che amiamo? poiché se in esse non ci fosse decoro e bellezza, non ci attirerebbero per nulla a sé” 11 . Due diverse risposte possono qui offrirsi: secondo la prima, la ragione formale della bellezza è nelle cose stesse che ci appaiono belle; secondo l’altra, la ragione del bello è nel soggetto, che ne prova piacere. Detto altrimenti: è bello ciò che è bello o è bello ciò che piace? È la bellezza che attrae o è la stessa attrazione, e dunque il piacere che gusta, l’origine del fascino della bellezza? “Anzitutto chiederò se le cose sono belle perché piacciono o se piacciono perché sono belle” 12 . Per chi, come Agostino, è giunto al forte senso dell’oggettività del vero, che illumina fin dal profondo il mondo del soggetto, non c’è alcun dubbio né esitazione nella scelta fra le due possibilità: “All’uomo, che è in possesso di un occhio interiore e che vede nell’invisibile, non cesserò di ricordare perché queste cose piacciano, in modo che sia capace di giudicare lo stesso diletto umano... In proposito, di certo, egli mi 5 Cf. la documentata ricerca di J. TSCHOLL, Dio e il bello in sant’Agostino (Milano: Ares, 1996) [originale tedesco: Leuven 1967]. 6 Conf., X, 27, 38: “Sero te amavi, pulchritudo tam antiqua et tam nova, sero te amavi!”. 7 Ibid., “Et ecce intus eras et ego foris et ibi te quaerebam et in ista formosa, quae fecisti, deformis inruebam. Mecum eras, et tecum non eram. Ea me tenebant longe a te, quae si in te non essent, non essent. Vocasti et clamasti et rupisti surditatem meam, coruscasti, splenduisti et fugasti caecitatem meam, fragrasti, et duxi spiritum et anhelo tibi, gustavi et esurio et sitio, tetigisti me, et exarsi in pacem tuam”. 8 Ibid., IV, 13, 20: “Tunc... amabam pulchra inferiora et ibam in profundum et dicebam amicis meis: “num amamus aliquid nisi pulchrum?”. 9 De musica, VI, 13, 38. 10 Cf. R. BODEI, Ordo amoris. Conflitti terreni e felicità celeste, Intersezione, 8 (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1991). 11 Conf., IV, 13, 20: “Quid est ergo pulchrum? et quid est pulchritudo? quid est quod nos allicit et conciliat rebus, quas amamus? nisi enim esset in eis decus et species, nullo modo ad se moverent”. 12 De vera religione 32,59: “Et prius quaeram utrum ideo pulchra sint, quia delectant; an ideo delectent, quia pulchra sunt”.N. 59 / Spring 2001Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 9 risponderà che le cose piacciono perché sono belle”13. La bellezza di ciò che è bello non dipende dal gusto del soggetto, ma è inscritta nelle cose, possiede una forza oggettiva. In che consiste questa struttura originaria? È ancora Agostino a risponde- re: “Gli chiederò poi perché sono belle e, se mostrerà qualche esitazione, gli suggerirò che forse sono tali perché le parti sono tra loro simili e, per una sorta di intimo legame, danno luogo ad un insieme conveniente” 14 . Bello è dunque ciò che presenta un’intima, organica “conve- nientia” delle parti che lo compongono, un “con-venire” che emerge dal profondo: “Chiediti che cosa ti attrae nel piacere fisico e troverai che non è niente altro che l’armonia: infatti, mentre ciò che è in contrasto produce dolore, ciò che è in armonia produce piacere” 15 . Agostino sviluppa quest’idea cogliendo la bellezza come l’affacciarsi dell’unità totale nelle parti del frammento, fra loro convenientemente disposte e relazionate nel loro insieme all’altro da sé: “Osservavo e vedevo che negli esseri corporei altro è il tutto e perciò il bello, altro ciò che conviene perché ben si adatta ad un’altra cosa, come una parte del corpo al suo universo o una calzatura al piede” 16 . La bellezza consiste dunque nell’affacciarsi del tutto nel frammento per via di una precisa corrispondenza delle parti che lo compongono, di una forma che riproduce l’armonica composizione degli elementi nell’unità ed in cui appare l’essenza (o species) della cosa: “Non a caso nel lodare si usa tanto il termine speciosissimum (che ha l’essenza in sommo grado) quanto il termine formosissimum (che ha la forma in sommo grado)”17. 3. Il crocefisso Amore: lo splendore del Bello Nella storia della teologia cristiana il rapporto fra teologia e bellezza, oltre ed accanto alla tradizione agostiniana, erede del mondo greco, è pensato secondo un’altra grande possibilità, quella dell’estetica propriamente cristologica, quale Tommaso d’Aquino l’ha sviluppata, assumendola nella potenza del suo genio creatore pur senza trascurare l’altra. Questa via può essere riassunta nella formula semplice e densa, che esprime la bellezza come “crocefisso amore”. La chiave interpretativa del momento estetico non è qui l’abisso, l’indicibile ulteriorità, la trascendenza misteriosa e raccolta. Qui la bellezza abita in un luogo, in un frammento: qui essa si nasconde “sub contraria specie” nel volto di Colui davanti al quale ci si copre la faccia, e che pure è il volto del più bello dei figli degli uomini (cf. Is 53,3 e Sal 44,3). È la via cristologica, la via della meditazione sulla bellezza costruita a partire dal frammento che è la Croce, vero “verbum abbreviatum” dell’intera rivelazione di Dio. È la via che ispira in maniera grandiosa la ricerca di Tommaso d’Aquino, nel movimento dall’apocalisse di una bellezza estatica, concentrata sull’eros dell’amore divino come rapimento verso l’a-di-sopra-di-tutto e l’al-di-fuori-di-tutto, alla tragicità del “mysterium paschale”, dove la morte è morte, nel mondo come in Dio, perché la vita sia vita. Tommaso riconosce il luogo proprio e caratterizzante della bellezza nel Verbo incarnato. Scrive nella Pars I della Summa Theologiae18: “Pulchritudo habet similitudinem cum propriis Filii” — “La bellezza ha a che fare con ciò che è proprio del Figlio”. Ed aggiunge a spiegazione di quest’affermazione netta, decisa, che perché ci sia bellezza occorrono tre cose, l’integritas, la proportio e la claritas: “Nam ad pulchritudinem tria requiruntur. Primo quidem, integritas sive perfectio... Et debita proportio sive consonantia. Et iterum claritas” — “Tre cose richiede dunque la bellezza: integrità o perfezione... debita proporzione o armonia. E luminosità”. Tommaso riconosce la presenza di questi tre aspetti esattamente nel Figlio inviato dal Padre, nel Verbo incarnato e crocefisso. La bellezza ha anzitutto a che fare con l’integritas, con quella perfectio che è realizzazione compiuta della cosa: “Perfectio est forma totius, quae ex integritate partium consurgit” — “La bellezza è la forma del tutto, che sorge dall’integrità delle parti” 19 . Nella bellezza è il tutto che si affaccia: “L’integrità dell’opera appare solo a chi sappia vedere il tutto nell’atto di animare le parti, di costruirsele e reclamarle e ordinarle” 20 . Così, nel Verbo incarnato è la totalità del mistero divino che si rivela, è la natura divina che si rende accessibile nella persona del Figlio, che ha assunto la natura umana: “Quantum igitur ad primum, similitudinem habet cum proprio Filii, inquantum est Filius habens in se vere et perfecte naturam Patris” — “Riguardo all’integrità, essa riguarda ciò che è proprio del Figlio, in quanto il Figlio ha in sé in maniera vera e perfetta la natura del Padre”. Tommaso è troppo profondamente discepolo dell’eredità classica per non percepire questo elemento di verità che la cultura greca ha consegnato anche alla fede cristiana: quando si ha a che fare col bello non ci si accontenta dell’interruzione, del frammento. La bellezza è rapsodia 13 Ibid., “At ego virum intrinsecus oculatum, et invisibiliter videntem non desinam commonere cur ista placeant, ut iudex esse audeat ipsius delectationis humanae... Hic mihi sine dubitatione respondebitur, ideo delectare quia pulchra sunt”. 14 Ibid., “Quaeram ergo deinceps, quare sint pulchra; et si titubabitur, subiciam, utrum ideo quia similes sibi partes sunt, et aliqua copulatione ad unam convenientiam rediguntur”. 15 Ibid., 39,72: “Quaere in corporis voluptate quid teneat, nihil aliud invenies quam convenientiam: nam si resistentia pariant dolorem, convenientia pariunt voluptatem”. 16 Conf., IV, 13, 20: “Et animadvertebam et videbam in ipsis corporibus aliud esse quasi totum et ideo pulchrum, aliud autem, quod ideo deceret, quoniam apte acconmodaretur alicui, sicut pars corporis ad universum suum aut calciamentum ad pedem”. 17 De vera religione 18,35: “Neque enim frustra tam speciosis- simum, quam etiam formosissimum in laude ponitur”. 18 Summa Theologica I q. 39 a. 8 c. Sull’estetica di San Tommaso cf. U. ECO, Il problema estetico in Tommaso d’Aquino (Milano: Bompioni, 1982 2 ), dove l’Autore riprende e valuta a distanza di anni la sua tesi di laurea, pubblicata nel 1956. Sull’estetica medievale resta prezioso E. de BRUYNE, Études d’estétique médiévale (Paris: A. Michel, 1998 2 ) 3 voll.. 19 Summa Theologica, I q. 73 a. 1c. 20 L. PAREYSON, Estetica: teoria della formatività (Torino: Edizioni di “Filosofia”, 1954) 284.Next >