San Marino. Don Gabriele Mangiarotti: “Who is afraid of… an hour of religion?”
We receive and publish the new message from Don Mangiarotti entitled “Who’s afraid of… an hour of religion?”:
“The Regency Decree of 3 October 2022 on ‘Curricular Indications for the Teaching of the Catholic Religion’ seems to have given rise to a debate that perhaps calls for greater attention, avoiding the harsh tones of the secularist crusade.
And I use this word consciously, because the terror of a Catholic revanchism that takes possession of the very young minds of the ‘very little’ kindergarten students seems to dictate apocalyptic accents, rather than favoring a serious and motivated confrontation.
First of all I hope that in the ‘Ancient Land of Freedom’ the right of reply is valid, given that I am called into question as the referent of a ‘disciplined teaching of a confessional nature’, this in cahoots with the ‘Curia’ (who knows if it is considered the ‘bilge of all vices like ancient Babylon’?).
In particular, I am referring to the UDS press release not only because it calls me into question, but because it offers the opportunity to set out clear reasons.
- I start from a somewhat shareable consideration. The state (and even the school) is not the master of the students. There is a role of the family that must always be taken into consideration. And this not in alternating phases (and above all when sensitive issues are addressed – life, affection, sexuality, religious choices…) but on every occasion. And the school would certainly have an advantage. I have taught for years and meeting families has always been a great opportunity. It would not hurt to take up these considerations from a teacher (lay, yes, but not secularist) who was Mario Lodi: ‘I was wondering: if these parents were free to choose the person who will educate their child as they are free to choose the doctor, the the tailor, the hairdresser, the insurer, would they come to me? In a school that had finished the integral and trauma-free formation of the child, the choice of the teacher, or rather of the pedagogical direction, should be the first topic to be discussed between parents and teachers at the time of enrolment. Instead we don’t even talk about it, as if the school were the owner of the children’.
- Ignorance (of the law) does not excuse. If it is unfortunately true that in San Marino decrees and laws sometimes fall on deaf ears, however it is also true that the Agreement between the Republic and the Vatican (not with the CEI as erroneously stated by some) and the subsequent agreement between the secretariat of State and the Diocese has been subscribed for some time. If this Agreement (‘we learn it now’ has been said) has fallen into oblivion, I don’t think it is the fault of whoever put it into force in its entirety.
- Since the UDS communiqué concerns what is stated in the delegated decree on the teaching of religion in kindergartens (which is expressed as follows: ‘In kindergartens the great themes of a religious nature come together in the teaching of religious culture, which – taking into account the specific educational needs connected to the age of the children and the opportunity for a playful and holistic approach – is entrusted to the section teachers and is linked to the Areas of experience which traditionally accompany the logics planning of San Marino kindergarten’) I do not think that such teaching promotes ‘a vision of the world and of humanity of the creationist type [che] should never be a goal of public school, [ma] rather, as it already does for all other disciplines, it should promote a rational, critical thought free from any dogmatism’. This norm is not a Christmas tree to which all the balls can be attached indiscriminately. Perhaps reading the decree in its entirety would not hurt anyone.
- Secularism does not mean secularism. And religiosity, even for the very little ones, is not an abstraction, but an experience. For this reason, the expert voice of the Catholic component (could it be the infamous ‘Curia’?) is nothing but the inevitable condition of a journey shared with those who, in San Marino, are in some way ‘experts’. And these experts know, perhaps better than those who continue to confuse religious culture with catechism, both the difference between the two ambitions and the necessary freedom of those who do not come from a Christian experience and do not want to be ‘indoctrinated’ at all. We love the freedom of this Ancient Earth too much to use little means to condition it.
- As for ‘reasonableness’, it seems to me that the Catholic Church has many witnesses and protagonists on its side, who have often been capable, beyond stale ‘nineteenth-century’ preclusions, of building bridges of dialogue and confrontation. In any case, it does not seem to me that the presence of a teaching qualified as Catholic has forced the people of San Marino into an imposed and forced faith.
PS 1: If in San Marino satire weren’t a servant of the dominant thought (after all of power) but had more backbone, perhaps there would be reasons to correct mistakes instead of making one-way propaganda.
PS 2: A discussion with experts would be desirable (and this has often happened and happens in the Republic) to discuss these issues, which involve school and family, and which are an opportunity for an authentic service to the growth of young people.
PS 3: As for the Church, we feel at the service of those (educators, teachers, parents) who want to take advantage of our educational experience”.
Don Gabriel Mangiarotti