Enrico Finotti
Today we hear frequently about “inclusiveness”. I understand that the word is a variant of the term “welcome”: of different ideas, cultural positions, traditions, etc. A bit like “looking for what unites and not what divides”. Even priests speak of “inclusiveness,” for example with regard to ecumenism and dialogue with other religions. I ask myself: To what extent? Is it possible to put together completely opposite ideas?
–A sociologist
The term in question ‘to be inclusive rather than exclusive’ is certainly widely used, especially in relation to the mass opinions and behaviors, which today seem to overwhelm society. Politicians, sociologists and clergymen speak of building bridges rather than erecting walls. It is the same concept, expressed with other images. The climate of dialogue, both ecumenical and interreligious, finds in the term ‘inclusive’ a suitable language for the path towards the unity of many components, which, with ‘exclusive’ behavior, could arouse relentless friction and greater misunderstandings. Undoubtedly John XXIII was also moved by evangelical charity in recommending what unites, rather than what divides.
However, it is necessary to argue on this issue. Think of another widely used binomial: aut-aut and et-et. The first is exclusive: or-or; the second is inclusive: and-and. In a superficial view, conforming to a large part of today’s mentality, the either-or should be completely abandoned and only the et-et accepted. It is believed that only on this condition could a social, cultural and religious agreement be built, which responds to the current situation of globalization. In reality, however, both must be welcomed with identical necessity and dignity. But how to compose this binomial, which gathers two particles that seem to be mutually exclusive?
In the process of seeking and determining the truth, one must resort to the either-or. In fact, there is only one truth and it is opposed to error. It is not possible to compose together truth and falsehood, good and evil, God and the devil: what relationship indeed can there be between justice and iniquity, or what union between light and darkness? What understanding between Christ and Belial or what collaboration between a faithful and an infidel? What agreement between God’s temple and idols? (2 Cor 6, 14-16). They are radically opposed and will never be able to agree. An alleged reconciliation of theirs would imply the denial and betrayal of their own identity: Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who change darkness into light and light into darkness, who give bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (Is 5, 20).
Anyone who makes a healthy use of rationality knows that the ‘principle of non-contradiction’ is immediately evident and is so basic in the intrinsic structure of thought, that it can never be considered outdated. This would imply the denial of rationality itself and would lead to the terrible confusion of irrational relativism, where all security would collapse and we would be overwhelmed by the vortexes of the ephemeral nihilist. The Church therefore in solemn dogmatic declarations, with which she definitively establishes the limits between truth and error, uses the aut-or and expresses it in precise formulas, drawn up with theological, technical, essential and as much as possible terms unequivocal.
Moreover, in the other acts of the Magisterium, the Church, especially when it exposes questions of faith and morals, adopts the either-or to teach dogma clearly and defend it from false interpretations. She knows well that only the Truth edifies and frees, but at the price of a continuous battle, which divides the children of light from the children of this world (Lk 16: 8), according to the Lord’s warning: Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword (Mt 10:34). The sword of Jesus is that of the word of God, which is alive, effective and sharper than any double-edged sword; it penetrates to the point of division of life and spirit, to the joints and marrow and knows how to discern the feelings and thoughts of the heart (Heb 4:12). The either-or declares this struggle and prevents the Church from treading the treacherous paths of irenic relativism and ephemeral pacifism.
Otherwise, having entered the horizon of truth and remaining within its safe enclosure, one will necessarily have to resort to et-et to recognize and compose together all those multiple aspects and those logical deductions, which form the multicolored prism and the unfathomable richness of truth itself, which is, however, devoid of any internal contradiction and united in all its parts by an unfailing coherence, despite its unstoppable development. In this context, the ordinary Magisterium of the Church takes place, which is characterized by the genius with which she knows how to put together every aspect of the single dogma of the faith, without easy reductions and in the complementarity of its parts. This singular balance is the sign that distinguishes Catholic Orthodoxy from any other sectarian and heretical doctrine, which in the context of the one and universal truth, unduly uses the either or the right, eliminating substantial parts of the Deposit of Faith. Here is in what sense the Catholic et-et is rightly exalted, with respect to the heretical aut-aut. In short, no suppression of one or the other particle, but rather clarity in assigning their specific area of use and in determining their own role in the journey towards the truth.
(From La spada e la Parola. Il liturgista risponde, 2018©Chorabooks. Translated by Aurelio Porfiri. Used with permission of the publisher. All rights reserved. Image by Ernesto Velázquez from Pixabay.)
Follow
