0. Introduction: Secularization Theories - A Myth
During a Jesuit Theological Forum in Kolkata Prof. Miklós Tomka[1],
the Head of the Department of Sociology at the Catholic University of Budapest,
an ex-board member of “Concilium” and Vice-President of International
Sociological Association, presented a paper on “Secularization
Theories and their theoretical and empirical disproof”, held on 21st
February 2003 at Sr. Xavier’s College, Kolkata.
The guest lecturer spoke on the topic, though not directly theological, from a
sociological perspective giving certain trends towards a theology of
secularization, a phenomenon that is very strong in the midst of religious
fundamentalism. It was an outline of secularized thinking pattern existing
today in relation to other sciences while trying to disprove its current
understanding.
The whole debate between social science and theology has been there
both in the West and East. Trying to find a breaking ground for an
inter-disciplinarian study would be an interesting exchange. Here we speak of
secularization from the point of view of social sciences but at the same time affirm
that pastoral theology and sociology of religion are related. So much so, it becomes difficult to
say which is sociology and which is theology. In any case, if theology is not something abstract about God, but his
encounter with his people, it is a social
reality. In today’s term this could be a Public theology as well,
which is defined as “a theology of the victims who exercise their agency by
appealing to every man and woman, to the public, for a re-ordering of society
and nation” without “imposing any a priori theoretical framework on the
reality.” [2]
As the theories of secularization have made
religions insecure, the “religion of future” will have to “contribute to
overcoming the crisis that has gripped humanity and nature.”[3]
With this view we have to look at the social developments inside the society.
This itself is a big message of Vatican II council. The Catholic social
teaching or the Church herself is based on two ‘pillars’ namely, the Good News on one hand and the social reality on
the other. The combination of both is our life and the life of the Church.
While elaborating on the historical understanding of the concept of
secularization,
with its theories
within Social sciences, the author of this paper affirms on a life that is organized
in concentric circles in traditional society.
He enumerates on the elements of secular-spiritual thinking to prove
that experience contradicts the hypothesis of alternative theories. While criticizing
the secularization theories through their reconstruction and the meaning of the
concept, we shall try to elaborate on the phenomenal alternate possibilities of
a new religious and spiritual advancement in the society with new approaches (e.g.
Casanova’s “Public Religions”), especially within Christianity.
In an ongoing
de-Christianized society with various contemporary
cultural innovations, there is a spiritual challenge to secularism and multiculturalism
today. Thus a pseudo secularization and contaminated conscience call for
fulfilling a faith mission with a passionate and moveable heart through a
typical ‘Christian conscience’ based on social prognostics and public-practical
theology, by reconciling between the Christian organizations and the very
nature of Christianity itself.
1. Historical Changes in Understanding
Secularization
The
phrases, e.g. “deprivatization of the religious”
(Casanova), “return of the gods” (Friedrich Wilhelm Graf), “reenchantment of
the world” (Ulrich Beck) or, desecularization (Peter L. Berger) used by
scholars, prove today that there are “blurring boundaries” between religion and
society.[4]
It is a fact that the social significance of religion is weakening in today’s
societies.[5]
In Christianity, secularization is understood in
terms of the Bible and the Church’s impact on the society with a religion-based
(creed, codes, dogmas, rituals, doctrines, traditions, etc.) approach.[6] In
sociology, secularization is the process of transformation of
a society from close identification
with religious
values and institutions toward nonreligious values
and secular institutions. With the societal
progress, religious authority diminishes. Thus religion loses social and cultural
significance. Neo-secularization affirms that
secularization is taking place even if religious affiliation may not be
declining, and argues that as religion has diminishing authority, one looks
outside of religion for authoritative positions.[7] This concept of secularization in terms of diminishing
influence of the institutional religions on the society is a very narrow
notion.[8] It should be understood in relation to the
supernatural realm – an all-embracing concept - of which religion is only a
part. According
to Volkan Ertit, “[S]ecularization is the
relative decrease in the social prestige and social influence of the dominant
supernatural realm (that is, religions, folk beliefs, religion-like structures,
magic, and so forth) within a defined period of time and in a particular
place.”[9] Here, the
supernatural realm covers reasoning, thinking and events based
on belief, intuition, attitudes, commitments, beliefs and approaches with
regard to nature.[10] It is based
on the inter-relationship with the supernatural rather than religion, having an
influence on the daily practices, ethical values, aesthetics, existential
problems and social norms.
Basing on the above definition, we can say, neither theology nor
Social sciences had correct understanding of secularization in the past. Only
certain attempts were made in its independent field. Though the term is being
used in a specific sense, often it was used for different phenomenon, from the
3rd to the 10th century. The term ‘secularization’ has
not been defined fully. In the beginning the Church has seen it in giving
dispensation from Religious vows. Then came the authorization of Priests to
marry, (named in the Canon law in that form).
One historical development which defined secularization for
centuries was the Peace Treaty which resulted the end of religious wars.
This treaty allowed Catholic bishops change the Confession and hold Church
possessions as their arms. Church possessions moved into civil hands and it was
legalized. This development of delivery of Church possession and civil
ownership continued for the last four centuries and remained up to the late 20th
centuries. There was no other different understanding of this term before 1930.
As the meaning and expression of the term ‘secularization’ changed
gradually, more and more it meant the decline of the role of Religion or de-Christianization
or something similar. That means, neither in theology nor in sociology/social
sciences there was a straight and clear understanding of the word. So, there
was no single theory on secularization or a single definition of the term
itself but small attempts at theorizing Secularization. For the last 30 years
the more and more the term is used, this says either religion has something
wrong with it or the development of the society goes against religion etc.,
without defining the term to exactly what it means. For some, it is the neutral
description of social development. This could mean a Religious decline, a
shrinking of influence of religion and the Church, an increase of the profane
character of the world or a ‘disappearance’ of a place of God in creation.
Secularization can be something which can be better supported in
social scientific meaning as an emerging autonomy of this worldly reality in a
particular time and place. Finally, secularization or better secularism
which is a criticism of religion, is a position held against religion. Yet
these understandings of secularization don’t overlap.
2. Theories on Secularization in Social Sciences: A Historical
Background
The historical experience in the Western world shows how social role
and place of religion shifted with modernization in a strong way during the
last 200 years. That Church and Religion have different places in the society,
and have different influence in the life of the individuals. Without clear cut
understanding or an over-arching and integrating theory of secularization, there
are only some attempted theories of modernization which indicate towards secularization.
A
theory of modernization would include development of rationality, something
that include logic and gives an understanding towards secularization.
Rationality would mean a social system based on reason and racial situation,
where people act according to effects and expectations. They think that they
rule development and influence it. Individual and social rationality,
therefore, is relevant for development. It is an interesting process because on
one hand people learn how to cope with destiny, how to work in special job and
improve their products because they accumulate experiences of generations. This
is based on some autonomous rules which are not directly dependent on God.
People learn that everything that surrounds, has its autonomy without
influences from outside/supernatural reality.
There is a social differentiation in reasons and ideas. Different
groups in society specialize in different things, produce their own networks,
where general cultures disappear and sub-cultures set in. People of various
religions live together. These different groups are isolated and independent
from each other, depending on economic sense but independent in cultural sense.
All of them produce their life world. A big number of social situations emerge
side by side and form own cultures and convictions.
The fast important situation is mobilization. In such setting
sub-cultures generate and as a consequence a plural society emerges with
multiplication of ‘own life world’. Through such mobilization the places of
works and friends change hands. In modern life everything is short term. The
older order of social determination disappears. People are more motivated,
ready to change the work, social relation. Parents no more determine the
child’s future. In this state, if culture has no role to influence one’s life
then the choice is his/hers to decide what he/she has to do. Mobilization as a
chance and a reality is an important process today.
The central consequence of all of these is individualization. If
there is no social determination, if culture has no final goal in saving my
life, then the choice is in one’s own hand. This might seem to be too
idealistic, yet this is the process in which it takes place. This is the
realistic situation in Europe including the communist Europe .
3. Life is Organized in Concentric Circles in Traditional Society
In a traditional society culture has its possibility and the network
of the social organizations of the world is arranged in a concentric circle,
inclusive of both: pluralism and individualism.
NO
ALTERNATIVE KINDS
In an organized
religious structure, the Church is to be seen in the midst of such concentric
circles with no alternative kinds. If the family is the central unit,
relatives, neighbour, work colleagues,
clients, public life, social relation and, parish and religious life
consequently follow towards the outer
circles. One and undivided social milieu. This possibility of culture is
de-centralized. There are no alternatives. This kind of traditional social organization
is very strong because different levels of social life develop. Secondly, the
culture it represents intends to be over-arching of this world, which includes
the Transcendence/Imminence including the empirical and non-empirical.
Interpretation of this world is in religion, so in that way, one can say either
in the center or the whole culture is religion (e.g. Hinduism, Hindutva, Indian
cultures as part of religion).
Modern life changes relatively where a big part of life develops an
autonomy against human influence. Work-life which occupies major part, becomes
independent of the human interest or the interest of the society. For example,
mass media has its autonomy and inner logic.
DIFFERENTIATED SPHERES OF LIFE AND SOCIETY
Among the modern conditions the spheres of life and society are
differentiated. Under the sphere of community life we have the
ratio-differentiated and fragmented family life, public relations, work career,
relatives, neighbour and the parish. On the other hand, we have the sphere of
individual enterprise where people go out of the circles of friends and
relatives, and live independently but not without its autonomic logics. It
switches from morning to evening, from weeks to months with various different
expectations. But very soon these expectations are in collision with each
other. The individual decides which of these expectations are dominating
factors and are to be met. Here religion is relatively present in small part of
the life of the individual/community. Therefore, religion is safeguarded and
preserved within the Church/family. A relative small part of the challenges
includes religion too. In fact the
crosses are disappearing in the classrooms of European schools, and goddesses
from the public buses in India
4. Elements of Secular-Spiritual Thinking
Durkheim defines religion as “a
unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to
say, things set apart and surrounded by prohibitions - beliefs and practices
that unite its adherents in a single moral community.”[11]
If so, the official religions
are not the only supernatural entities that affect daily life. Secularization
is neither the decline of the frequency of religious practices (that differ in
different societies or belief systems), nor description of a situation, but the
definition of a process. It is defined as long-term trends[12] that includes
popular religions as well, that is, “the totality of all those views and
practices of religion that exist among the people apart from and alongside the
strictly theological and liturgical forms of the official religion”.[13] Certainly, secularization and secular thinking include development
and rationality. This rational thinking
transposes look in nature herself. Often the fact that the autonomy of
nature and society is a very Christian idea, which emerged in western Christian
culture.
As it has been mentioned earlier, Christian culture is based on
religion and society. Secularization,
superficially is a development of rationality, because an autonomous
rationality presupposes inherent laws in the nature and in the society. The
condition for the recognition and acceptance of an autonomous freedom which is
a world reality today, is a Christian concept of God. On one hand we have the concept of God the
Father, a totally different concept of God. From this sense, the world is
totally different from God. If so, God can have autonomy and is not obliged to
interfere and be in constant unity, then the world can be autonomous. To the
other hand, the Christian God who became human and therefore, he did not lose
interest in the world. So the statement
of God as totally different, is the condition of the acceptance of autonomy of
God and the whole development and civilization.
Following the Jain
philosophy and the Husserlian idea of overlapping contents, we can propose a
multi‑valued logic. That is, the different perspectives on a thing are not mutually exclusive, but share some
contents with each other, contrary to the total relativism and absolutism. As
Mohanty holds, they intersect each other (multi-circles) and not incommensurable.[14] In this above sense, we
need to take both religion and secularism seriously and broaden their
categories.
It has been said that
secularism is a gift of Christianity. During the medieval period both European
Christianity and Indian religions rationalized in their own ways, a feudal
order of social inequalities prevailing.[15] Many spiritual movements (e.g. Bhakti)
questioned the social exploitation. The
Bhakti spirituality served as a critique of religion as a partner in systemic
oppression of society.
Secularism as a deliberate stand for
human emancipation and striving for realization of human freedom has also an
origin in spiritual protests. On the other hand, Spirituality as a movement of
social and self- transformation, embodied in the life and work of many great
men and women, was a "practical spirituality" that not only was a
critique of secularism but also of religion.[16] Both critique and defense
of secularism require a radical supplement of spirituality for their fuller
realization. A broader understanding is possible through appropriate self‑cultivation
and spiritual preparation in self and society. Faced with a plural society we
need a plural mode of being. Therefore, the sharing between self and society is
a spiritual activity. Thus secularism as democratic equality has a spiritual
foundation, where spirituality is understood as a permanent critique of
violation of life and of the destructive power system.
According to Roberto M.
Unger[17], there are two kinds of
sacred: transcendental sacred and social sacred. Whenever a system of power
ignores the transcendental sacred it often becomes oppressive, justifying its
actions for the social sacred. Society becomes a system identical with its own
actions and intolerant of diversity. The
sacred thus emerges as an appeal to a possible Other. In a pluri-secular
society transdisciplinary participation within the perspective of spirituality
(self and social) has not only a semantic function, it has important
implications for our living. Therefore, there has to be a multi-dimensional
learning.
Gandhi helps us to
discover the religious resources for living in a secular society and to
initiate a spiritual transformation of the society. Secularism as a dignified
mode of inter‑religious and plural existence, obliges us to learn about each
other's religion. Gandhi said, “a friendly study of the world's religions is a
sacred duty.” This knowledge is part of the inclusive spiritual process of
feeling and realization.
Amartya Sen affirms that there must
be “equidistance” between State and religions, and not mere separation. He writes: “[T]here must be a basic symmetry
of treatment. In this view, there would be no violation of secularism for a
state to protect everyone’s right to worship as he or she chooses”.[18]
A socio-political culture based
on pluralism and tolerance would become the foundations of India. But one
notices contradictions in today’s Indian social-political and religious life.
Hindu Nationalism, working against the ‘pseudo-secular’ approach to national
building, and with its Hindutva ideology, asserts that Hinduism is the basis of
the Indian civilization and the Hindu ethos is the soul of the nation.[19]
The seeds of toleration which is
the most important part of successful secularism - according to Ashish Nandy[20], Partha Chatterjee[21] - must be laid in the
minds and hearts of learners of life. We begin then to know each other in an
open‑ended spirit of exploration through dialogue. This becomes a spirituality itself, which is
about the quality of relationship between the self and the other. In fact,
spirituality lies in the heart of relationships.
5. Experience Contradicting the Hypothesis
Which are the suppositions in hypothesis? Modernization in general
leads to religious decline. If this is the way things have been, then, is the
secularization hypothesis valid? From 1930 up to 1980 the hypothesis that modernization leads to developed secular
world and a religious decline in a continuous irreversible process, was
accepted. The present experience contradicts the hypothesis through the very
process of cross-cultural comparisons (England USA
Secondly, historical comparisons: the developed hypothesis, that it
is logical but the contradiction is with facts. That, if you try to control
history, you have ups and down in history. Historical compassions did not
support the hypothesis. Contemporary religious revival, very different kind,
Islam, fundamentalism, through sects and movements (Opus Dei, Charismatic, Neo
Catechumens, Folklore, etc.) where, we have to confess, that the
irreversibility of the process is closed. The hypothesis has certain value but
the overall validity is in question.
6. Alternative Theories
Certain alternative theories are proposed since 1980, that find its
proof in the coming religious state in the world. Holding Berger’s view that
‘Europe is a blind alley of Christianity’,
and some specific reasons produced this.
There are multiple religious
choice. Iannaccone speaks of
Counter theory by proposing a ‘Religious Market Place’, where there is
no monopoly of products that dictates
the prices. Monopolization goes against the interest of the customers and the
market itself. Tomka is against ‘one
country, one religion’ theory while mentioning of the division of Europe by
Catholics and the Protestants in the Peace Treaty; the monopoly of the
institution and organization that the Vatican overheads. This monopoly can
remain over a long time, who decides who has the power. Monopoly, therefore,
kills the very interest it produces, thus produces in turn alternative
religions and religious competitions. The present impasse in Europe is short
term, and will change with increase of religion.
We can agree with Dr. Niklas Luhmann’s[22]
view that modern individuals don’t need less, but more religion.
Individualization (enjoy life for oneself for this moment only) goes hand in
hand with religious needs. The specific reason of modern culture is the lack of
central, social and cultural regulations on one hand, and religious alternative
choices to select and opt for on the other. But then one has to decide without
enough information of the consequences of the alternative choice. This can be a
psychological and medical problem. Many are disoriented in social life, others
are fagged out, over burdening the medical sciences. People generally suffers
this burden and seeks for guidelines to be followed. Therefore, individuals has
much greater need of religion now then the people of all other ages before,
because it is an individual need.
We hold in support Walter Kaufmann (1921-1980) and Almond Gabriel (1911- 2002) in stating
that instead of religious decline a new structure is dominated by individual choices.
They argue that religious society and culture, is disappearing, and is no more
interesting. Individual has new kind of decisions, capabilities, and therefore,
has new needs. Secularization theory which is not formulated in anyway, does
not lead to any religious decline. Modern writers conclude that the term itself
is confusing.
Whatever be the theories that would go along with the present
reality, there is no valid theory in social sciences which would conclude from
social development to religious decline. Therefore, there are only certain
statements about secularization without a specific definition of the term.
These tendencies which are in modernization, support in complexity
and mobility and a decline of religious regulation on micro-social level.
Social orders are less and less religiously dominated. Religion is not
described anymore by society- not in culture or social
institutions/regulations. State and society are more and more profane, and
religion is less. But individualized choice is a very strong basis for
religion.
History does not hold a
common fate for all societies.[23] Therefore,
one should refute secularization theory, because single timeframe is not useful
for understanding the process of secularization[24] since
secularization is not the description of a particular situation. Secularization,
understood as the social decline in the influence of religion-like structures,
- sacralization of the secular domain, folk and supernatural beliefs - will
lead to a better empirical studies on it. If the supernatural realm enters the
daily social life and influences it more than the past, then we admit that this
society has become less secular. This possibly would help to explain the
relationship between different forms of the “sacred” and human beings under
secularizing process.
7. De-Christianized Society
The decline of Christianity and moral values in
general is reaching new lows in the Christian dominated countries. The number
of faithful has been decreasing in many quarters. There has been tremendous
change in the contemporary culture that brings this crisis of faith. Seeing the
decrease of Church attendance in its expressive form the Church may not survive
for more than 30 years in some countries.[25]
There is also lack of a shared moral code in social living with the loss of the
traditional sense of morality. As the world religious leaders warn about this,
a study carried out by Penguin books, albeit in conjunction with a promotion of
a recent book on the topic, said that nearly two-thirds of teenagers do not
believe in God.
Our social living in a secular country is going
to be "free of religious dogma". With the loosening of the ties of
law, customs and values there is a drifting from Christian moorings. The
sacredness of the human person, of equality and natural rights, of freedom,
that has religious root is being sold out, by pursuing a purely secular reason
over religion. Faith is confined to a purely private pursuit. Values are drawn
from secular and material sources. The society is forgetting God and is hostile
to Christianity. Religious belief is
looked upon as ‘a private eccentricity.’ Village evidence in religious
practices abounds of the severe decline especially in male participation. It is
becoming difficult to turn the trend
around.
Secularization tries to find solutions to the
everyday problems of society from a religious perspective and through dialogue
with the people.[26]
It is more of the declining power of religious authority[27] and
restricts religion into the private sphere. The anthropologist Anthony Wallace,
anticipating the impact of secularization says: “The evolutionary future of
religion is extinction. Belief in supernatural beings and supernatural forces
that affect nature without obeying nature’s laws will erode and become only an
interesting historical memory.”[28] This is
going to be so due to the “diffusion of scientific knowledge” and the
modernization process.
8. Christianity and Contemporary Cultural
Innovations
We may do a substantial comparison, between Christianity and
contemporary cultures from the secular perspective. The two dramatic
events: the fall of the Berlin wall (1989) and that of the twin Towers of the
World Trade Center in New York (2001), testify the worrisome conclusion of 20th
century and the beginning of the 21st century through a process of post-modern
secularization, often inconsistent with modernity.
We have here two ‘models’ that qualify the present society: private faith and lay morals(secular). In
this cultural and historical context we pass through analysis the encyclical of
Leo XIII: Aeterni Patris (1879),
following the path of Thomism and reach the Church document: Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) by
John Paul II (1998), quite a neo-Thomism, with the relative historical and
cultural references.[29]
This is a progressive development of human history.
Intentionality of human life and history, so much part of the
individual and part of man’s history, is something very specific before
Christianity. Secondly, in high culture if there was a thinking of history at
all, Christian thinking is observed in a linear structure of time from creation
up to final fulfillment. Thirdly,
acknowledging the uniqueness of each human being as son of God. The frame of
human freedom and responsibility is the autonomous worldly reality with its
inherent laws and regulations as entrusted to mankind. Taking the theological
position that God created mankind for total freedom, we affirm that God allows
men to choose among alternatives without His direct interference. This secular
reality, therefore, is the outcome of Christian thinking. But this growing
differentiation between culture and society, Christianity should accept and
support. The way of human realization is the contribution to the
self-fulfillment.
Following the Bhakti
movements (spiritual evolution) God is to be named in our immanent terms (Hari,
Jagannath, Khrista for Christ, etc.). This is the path of spiritual enlightenment charted
by Buddha. For a genuine secularism, we need to attend to the recent Christian
theology and spirituality, while considering the cultural and spiritual
aspirations of modern men and women.
In agreement with Felix
Wilfred, today’s Christianity not only has to assert its prophetic truths but open itself to the mysterious dimension of
religion, spirituality and the human condition[30]
through the work of unity. The quest
for unity has to be practical and not just at the abstract faith level, but by
addressing the concrete problems of men and women, here and now. This becomes a practical spirituality, a
spirituality of seeking and satisfying – of fulfillment. Such spirituality
provides multiple grounds for combining spiritual practice and social
service. The active love of God and of
humanity is at the core of spiritual engagement of the present and the future.[31]
9. Spiritual Challenge to
Secularism and Multiculturalism
Charles Glock states: “The more integrated a religion is
into the social structure, the more likely it is that the everyday actions of
man are defined by religious imperatives.”[32] There have
been religion-like structures emerged as a result of the “sacralization,
deification, and sublimation of the secular domain”.[33]
Christopher Partridge[34] emphasizes
that institutional religions should not be at the center of secularization but
spirituality, because today people designate themselves not as religious, but
as spiritual.[35]
Secularism defined as
pluralism within the multicultural society must learn to live in a multi‑religious
setting. In such a society different cultures and individuals learn each
other. This requires, “an adequate
appreciation of the epistemic role of 'culture'”.[36] According to Sunder Rajan[37] each culture provides
with knowledge of the world which finds fulfillment in a creative
universalization. It involves
development of the self, culture and society through "cultural
communication" and "cultural liberation" in these days of
divisions and deconstruction.[38] Each culture with its
superior dimension does not succumb to custom, convention and power. It is composed of dynamic set of values that
proclaim the truth of culture and relationship, “endowing it with soul”.[39] This requires a morally
just identity formation that calls for rethinking community, not merely as a
space of conformity but as a space of responsibility.
In such social living, we
need not be a slave to modernism or remain secure within the ‘house of
God.’ The purpose of living is not just
to "know of" but to "know with." To live in a plural
society we need a new ethics, politics and spirituality of self‑cultivation. We
need to work on reconciliations by overcoming dualism between transcendence and
immanence. Here, transcendence is life in the elements, in which soul and body
transcend dualism. Consequently, God is not a God of infinite distance from
earth and flesh, but “immanent in the finite, incarnate".[40] A God of freedom is not
someone beyond but one who is capable of being immanent precisely because of
being transcendent.[41] Thus emerges the
transcendence within the existential and value level of self and society, where
science, morality and religion are important parts of a spiritual evolution.
This is not a simple formula of unity‑in‑diversity but a process of unification
where unity is always a deferred state.
Within the
secularized world the Church is being marginalized. Why? Besides many causes, affluence
- the “buffered self” as Charles Taylor puts it - is a major one. Jesus said,
it’s difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, how
to be Christians when we’re affluent, sophisticated, and form part of the
cultural mainstream in this secular society? How to live out the Gospel in a
context of affluence and secularity? The answer is: live poor in spirit.
We need prophetic persons, with a passion and fidelity to God and men, and “fiercely
empathic to our secular world”[42], those who can incarnate their
faith by becoming poor and humble disciples of Jesus, within an affluent and
secularized world. According Charles Taylor, what is needed most
therefore, is a new religious and ecclesial imagination. Religions, here, will have to undertake
activities concerning the poor and suffering, and build the foundations for a
"generative well‑being"[43] and help them to develop
ethically, morally, and spiritually. Therefore, the challenge before
spirituality now is to work towards radical universality which transgresses the
boundaries of self and other, through relationships and solidarities, creating
transformative institutions of justice, well‑being and dignity.[44]
Pope Benedict XVI had warned the Catholic world that secularism can
infest the Church badly. He cautioned against worship that lacks the heart’s
experience, instead manifested in formal and empty worship. Faith mission being
fulfilled with a passion and a moveable heart cannot be taken for granted.
Today, there is always the temptation to reduce prayer to ‘superficial and
hurried moments’ driven by works and worries. To make heaven come down on earth,
God must be goaded in the present through respect and bhakti (devotion)
with importance of humaneness and brotherhood, and not taking the name of God
in vain. Only such mystical love with a Christian (Catholic) conscience can win over
violence, evil, hate and purge the contaminated conscience.
Is Catholicism that is contaminated
with secularism worth saving? Yes, but what
are we trying to save? Save some set of rules, the culture and the institutions -
parishes, schools and works of charity? Or is it of
saving something more fundamental? For many today the 'rules of play' of Catholicism have gone out of fashion. The
safeguarding of the "cultural
Catholicism" is about the
costumes of the clerical priests, the decoration of the altar of worship, the
liturgical rites or the clericalism itself. Catholicism is a unique way of thinking and acting that can
contribute to human civilization. We cannot claim to know God's rules
better than others.
It is a system of thought that
drives individual to develop their God-given talents and look at life around
through the psyche of God. It is about loving others as one loves
himself/herself. We are not out to convert
the rest to our rules ‘pseudoed’ as God's. Catholicism is a universal
religion that enables individual to be
God-like.
Conclusions
Social
prognostics and a Religion of future with a new face: In general, it can be stated that
contemporary traditional societies will follow same route of social
differentiation and de-regulation. Development will go on along with the
additionality to religious organizations, the relevance of individual and
community in religious life will grow henceforward. The inherent logics of
modernization was in traditional society. The key point is how to transport the
leading religious identity of a traditional society into modern society. An
answer to it is, support and conscientious effort. More specifically to support
individual development.
Minority religions are in better supportive position than the
majority, because they are in a greater challenge to survive. Less educated
people, at a lower cultural level without much reflection that would be
necessary for this change. The question needs yet to be answered: How to come to a level of reflection that is
needed to explain why this/that position is taken?
Practical and Public theology for a Popular Religion: In any case, there are important
conclusions for practical theology and for the Church. Integration of support of religious life as
stabilized by science and social expectations is needed. The two thousand years
of experience of the shepherd and the sheep of the Bible, about an existing
community, should be held together. So is the basic idea of having a community
together. The big challenge of modernization is the integrated community. The
modern society does not produce communities instead destroys it. The Church
presupposes its existence, the existence of community is out of time.
Maintenance, representations require new forms of religious and Church life.
But a question can be raised at this juncture, that after 2019 years of rich
Christian culture, Europe in post-Christian era, dumped ‘Christianity’ by not
mentioning it in its Vision Statement: How do we explain that? Does that mean
religion is dead? No, it has only taken a different look.
Religious community, as the integration and support of religious
life/community, will go on, while that which has been stabilized by traditions
will diminish or be all together distinct. Karl Rahner in speaking of Popular
Religion, mentions of three pillars of Christianity: Memory (culture, theology);
Church, as people of God; and Practice (religious expressions). Can we have
Christianity as a network without its content? A big question to answer! Or do
we need to see a Church that fulfills individual’s aspiration?
Demands
from Religious Organizations: Keeping the above arguments in mind, there is the need of communities
of Christian life. A care must be taken to ensure the Christian identity.
Christianity has to open up more to the growing diversity and differentiations.
To realize this, there must be the integration of representations of individual
community in the structure of the Church. Along with it, the assignment of
authority is to be given to other religions as well.
With the changes in the globalized society, the
time to realize Christianity with means of politics and social regulation, is
over. This is a task of individual Christian which cannot be fulfilled by any
organization. Christendom has to be replaced by ‘Christianity’. Christianity
cannot be realized by any organization but through the very nature of
Christianity. There must be a reconciliation between the two. Globalization
came quicker than we expected. Therefore, we need to accept multiplicity and
diversity. We need a global Church to keep the unity, unicity as well as the
universality (catholicity
[1] Besides many articles published in the
“Concilium”, some
of the publications of this Hungarian sociologist Miklós Tomka are: The Changing Social Role of Religion in
Eastern and Central Europe: Religion’s Revival and its contradictions, in,
Social Compass, 42 (1995), pp. 17-26; Church
State and Society in Eastern Europe, Washington, 2005; Expanding
Religion: Religious Revival in Post-Communist Central and Eastern Europe
(Religion and Society), De Gruyter, Budapest
2011; Church,
State, And Society in Eastern Europe (Cultural Heritage And
Contemporary Change. Series Iva, Eastern And Central Europe, V. 28), Council for Research in Values, 2005.
[2]
Cf. Felix Wilfred, Public theology in service of liberation, in
83(Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection, VJTR)7, July 2019, p.8; For a
better understanding of Public Theology, see, Id., Towards an Asian Public
Theology, in 74(VJTR), pp. 103-116.
[3]
Felix Wilfred, Public theology in service of liberation, op.cit., p.26.
[4] Cf. Detlef Pollack, Varieties of
Secularization Theories and Their Indispensable Core, in The Germanic
Review: Literature, Culture, Theory, 2015, 90:1, 60-79, DOI:
10.1080/00168890.2015.1002361, at https://doi.org/10.1080/00168890.2015.1002361, 29.11.2019.
[5] Cf. Bryan
Wilson, Religion in Secular Society, Religion in Secular Society: A
Sociological Comment, Penguin, Harmondsworth u.a 1969. p. 14.
[6]
Cf. Stark Rodney, and Laurence R. Iannaccone, A Supply-Side
Reinterpretation of the ‘Secularization’ of Europe, in Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, n. 33, 1996, p. 267; David Voas, and
Alasdair Crockett, Religion in Britain: Neither Believing nor Belonging,
in Sociology, n. 39, 2005, pp. 15–16; See also, Berger et al, Religious America, Secular Europe? A Theme and
Variations, Ashgate Publishing Company, Burlington 2008.
[8] C. John Sommerville (1998) broadly outlined six uses of secularization: differentiation within macro
social structures (economic, political, legal, and moral); individual religious
institutions transforming into a secular institution; transfer of activities
from religious to secular; transition from ultimate concerns
to proximate concerns (mentalities); broad patterns of
societal decline in levels of religiosity;
and unambiguous use of the term secularization to refer to declining of religion
in a generic sense. Cf. C. J. Somerville, Secular Society Religious Population:
Our Tacit Rules for Using the Term Secularization, in Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 37 (2), 1998, pp. 249-253.
[11]
Émile
Durkheim, Elementary
Forms of Religious Life, Oxford University Press, Oxford, [1912] 2008, p. 46.
[12]
Cf. Jan Bremmer, Secularization: Notes
toward a Genealogy, in Religion: Beyond a Concept, H. de Vries
(ed), Fordham University Press, New York, 2008, p. 432.
[14] In Self and Other, J. N. Mohanty
addresses contemporary questions of post-modernism with a shift from an
over-emphasis on identity in classical metaphysical thinking to an emphasis on
differences without the uncertainties of postmodernism.
Cf. J. N. Mohanty, The Self and Its Other: Philosophical Essays, Oxford University Press, 2002, p.
62.
[15] Cf. Thomas
Pantham, Indian Secularism and its
Critics, in Fred Dallmayr (ed), Border
Crossings, Lexington Books 1999, p.182.
[16] Cf. Patricia Uberoi, Freedom
and Destiny: Gender, Family, and
Popular Culture in India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi [1996] 2006, p.73.
[17]
Cf. Roberto M. Unger, False Necessity: Anti-Necessitarian Social Theory in the Service of
Radical Democracy, Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge 1987.
[18] Amartya Sen, Secularism and Its
Discontent, in The Argumentative Indian. Writings on Indian History,
Culture and Identity, Penguin Books, London 2005, p. 296.
[19]
Cf. Gino Battaglia, Neo-Hindu
Fundamentalism Challenging the Secular and Pluralistic Indian State, 216;
doi:10.3390/rel8100216, pp. 1-20, Religions 2017, 8, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/; www.mdpi.com/journal/religions, 29.11.2019.
[20]
Cf. Ashis Nandy, An Anti-Secular Manifesto, in Seminar n. 314,
1985, pp.14-24.
[21]
Cf. Partha Chatterjee, Secularism and Toleration, in, Economic and
Political Weekly, July 9, 1994.
[22]
Niklas
Luhmann (1927 – 1998) was a German sociologist, philosopher of social
science, and a prominent thinker in systems theory. He is considered one of
the most important social theorists of the 20th century. Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann, 26.11.2019.
[23]
Cf. David Martin, The Secularization Issue:
Prospect and Retrospect, in The British Journal of Sociology n.
42, 1991, p. 467.
[25] Paul Richardson an Anglican bishop, in an article published,
June 27, 2019, in the Sunday Telegraph newspaper affirmed only around 1% of
Anglicans attend Sunday services on average. A study of 1,000 teens showed that
59% thought religion has a negative influence on the world. It revealed that
half of those questioned have never prayed and 16% have never been to church.
Many are ignorant of the stories and the people who are fundamental to the
history of Christianity. Cf. Father John Flynn, Living in a De-Christianized
Society, Britain’s Leaders Warn of the Loss of Common Values,
Rome, July 5, 2009, Zenit.org., accessed on 5.7.2009.
[27]
Cf. Mark Chaves, Secularization
as Declining Religious Authority, in Social Forces n. 72, 1994, p. 750.
[29] Cf. Massimo Borghesi,
Secolarizzazione e nichilismo: Cristianesimo e cultura contemporanea, (edizioni
Canta-galli, Siena, 2005; pp. XI-212) as
the book reviewed by Angelo Marchesi,
Secolarizzazione nichilismo e concezione cristiana, Una raccolta di saggi di Massima
Borghesi in “L’Osservatore Romano,” Giovedì,
19 Genaio, 2006.
[30]
Cf. Felix Wilfred, Introduction: The Art of Negotiating the Frontiers, in,
The Special Issue of “Concilium” on Frontier Violations, April 1999, as
cited in, Ananta Kumar Giri, Spiritual Cultivation For a Secular Society,
Working Paper No. 176, Madras Institute of Development Studies, 2002, p. 23.
[31]
Cf. Bhaskar Roy, From East to West: The Odyssey of a Soul, Routledge, London 2000,
p.44.
[32]
Charles Y. Glock, On the Study of Religious Commitment, in Religious
Education, 57:S4 (1962), pp.106-107, DOI:10.1080/003440862057S407, 25.11.2019.
[34]
Cf. Christopher Partridge, The
Re-Enchantment of the West, Volume I, T & T Clark International, London 2004, p. 43.
[36]
Manoranjan Mohanty, Secularism: Hegemonic and Democratic, in “Economic and Political
Weekly”, Satya Prakashan, 1998, p. 240.
[37]
Cf. Sunder Rajan, Beyond the Crisis of European Sciences: New Beginnings,
Indian Institute of Advanced Studies, Shimla 1998, pp. 42-46.
[38]
Cf. Alain Touraine, Can We Live Together? Equality and Difference, Polity Press,
Cambridge 2000, pp.63-65.
[39] Veena
Das, Voice as Birth of Culture,
Ethnos 1995, p. 160.
[40] Cf. John
D. Caputo (ed.), The Religious,
Blackwell Oxford 2000, pp. 14‑15.
[41] Cf. Walter
Lowe, Second Thoughts About Transcendence, in John Caputo (ed.), The
Religious, Basil Blackwell, Oxford 2002, p. 250.
[42] Cf. Ron Rolheiser, Saints for a New Situation, http://ronrolheiser.com/en/#.XdORENXhXIU, 29.11.2019
[43]
Cf. Anthony Giddens, Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics,
Polity Press, Cambridge 1994, as cited in, Ananta
K. Giri, Spiritual Cultivation For a Secular Society, op.cit., p.25.
[44] Cf. Ananta Kumar Giri, Spiritual Foundations For a
Secular Society, Paper
presented at the seminar on "Post-Secular and Post-Religious Reflections
on Religion and Secularity: Emerging Frameworks in the Indian Context,"
University of Madras and DVK, Dharmaram, Bangalore, and held at University of
Madras, Dec. 14-16, 2001.
No comments:
Post a Comment