Pluralism, culture and recognition
WambertGomesDiLorenzo
Translation - Alfredode J. Flores
That trial first is to argue that pluralism is a necessary condition for dignity is further stated that from the premise that all ethics presupposes una antropología, es preciso sostener que solamente el personalismo hace posible un pluralismo auténtico permitiendo superar los desafíos del multiculturalismo desde la práctica del reconocimiento, que es la sustancia de la dignidad de la persona humana.
En su obra Los derechos del hombre y la ley natural, Maritain dice que una sociedad de hombres libres está fundada en las siguientes bases: el personalismo, el comunitarismo, el pluralismo y el “teísmo”. [1]
Hablando en términos más específicos, es posible apuntar que dicho autor afirma que la sociedad debe ser una totalidad de personas cuya dignidad, anterior a itself presupposes spiritual freedom, also asserts that the natural inclination of every man to communion is a necessary means for the good of all and the development of the person requires autonomy of individuals and groups to which they belong, their rights , freedoms and proper authorities. Finally, it should be "theistic" to the extent that everyone, believers or not believing in the dignity of the human person, justice, freedom and love of neighbor, cooperate in the pursuit of realizing the common good.
That can be argued that pluralism is reflected in the thought of Jacques Maritain as a fundamental premise of dignity of the person, dignity and claims that it requires.
That happens in view of that dignity has a bipartite structure, there exists an endogenous aspect and one that is exogenous. The first of these is the relationship of the person herself, while the second aspect of the relationship of the person is given their own environment. Speaking otherwise, we could say that every dimension of human existence - individual and social - corresponds to one aspect of their dignity. That is, the realization of dignity in turn requires two basic experiences that are full and recognition.
Thus dignity the person assumes full direct involvement and recognition so that a negative can be given to one of these areas implies that the other will also be denied.
It follows that a pluralistic society is a necessary means for the attainment of dignity, for freedom is a necessary antecedent to the experience as well as for full recognition.
Freedom is something peculiar to man, where we can say that is the essence of the person and that is a hallmark of his nature. The man is inseparable from freedom because she is a defining attribute of the genus to which it belongs, in addition to composing the individual experience is individual. Freedom oriented towards the fullness, making the person turns to itself and to the exterior. Without freedom there is no dignity. Without pluralism is no freedom.
Furthermore, although Maritain Integral Humanism comes to point only to communitarianism and staff - in addition to the pilgrim look - as temporary bases City [2] , in the same work introduces the concept of pluralism as content the ideal of a new Christendom. Pluralism expresses the overcoming of medieval idea of \u200b\u200ba sacred rule of God over all things holy liberty of the creature unites God's grace. Medieval pluralism based on the number of institutions - that were favored by the particular legal and customary law - gives space to national minorities to demand the resignation medieval dream of unity and the assumption of an organic heterogeneity in the constitution of society. [3] Civil society is composed of private companies, according to the measure of the common good, must have a high degree of autonomy and diversity according to the convenience of their own natures. [4]
turn, Hannah Arendt defines pluralism not as a political concession to the diversity of groups and individuals, but as a condition of humanity itself: that is, belong to the genus, without that meaning that we are absolutely equal. In the formulation: we are all the same, or are human, no one is exactly like any person who has existed, exists or comes into existence. [5]
Returning to work Integral Humanism, note that Maritain had deepened the concept of pluralism from economic and legal pluralism. Indeed, were responses to the issues of his time. With the recent riots in some Western societies and the ongoing conflicts between East and West however, is put on the agenda of this new millennium the debate on cultural pluralism.
That explains why, according to Aristotle, riots born of little things but always looking for great goals. [6] The Aristotle says that the riots occur whenever inequality given [7] and there is a mood of those who defend them whenever they come to see that, although they are considered equal really are at a disadvantage compared to others who have more than them. [8]
addition, the philosopher listed as causes of the riots uncontrolled growth of cities. Compare the city with the body that must grow harmoniously so as not to be deformed, keeping the proper proportions. So, you end up making a direct reference to distributive justice [9] , noting that this is when there is an excessive mass of poor. [10]
Aristotle declares that it is still a factor to the instability the lack of unity of race concomitant with the absence of spiritual unity:
Indeed, as a city does not come from a crowd either, nor any way at a time. The fact that so far, cities have been admitted as co-founders foreign and co-colonizers of another race, that motivates much of the riots. [11]
reflection
From Aristotle, we find that genuine pluralism is the result of a very complex equation between equality and diversity, which is the common factor. These constraints of the problem have led to the neologism multiculturalism, and this has become the most important challenge to distributive justice in modern times. Multiculturalism is
atual expression of social pluralism. The social sectors have varied in their internal distinctions are now invited to a social network is built and harmonious unit is even while preserving and developing their own autonomy and appearance. [12]
Such symmetry in the social order is based on the principle of secularism, tolerance factor among those who are different. In the words of John Paul II, the principle of secularism
"ensure the free exercise of religious activities, spiritual, cultural and charitable communities of believers. In a pluralistic society, secularism is a place of communication between different spiritual traditions of the nation. " [13]
The principle of secularism, between therefore not be confused with secularism. The latter is the true expression of an intolerant state, which has the claim to be clean but in fact, with his estate confessional, corruption becomes one's own liberalism and democracy, introducing the germ of totalitarianism. Taking
obvious intolerance for even more serious that makes multiculturalism, transforming what was a pluralistic society in a segregated society, in turn continues to be equally obvious that tolerance goes through the overcoming of differences. These differences in themselves should not be encouraged, but tolerated and respected. So, in summary fashion, states that tolerance passes right by overcoming differences and promoting common values, in the midst of diversity are the foundations of unity and social harmony.
In short, tolerance is indeed the middle of the dignity, because in politics it is substance to pluralism and social at the substance of recognition.
Thus, in political terms the case is an absence of pluralism in the expression of intolerant secularism that is hostile to the cultural and religious policies. You could say that, particularly in regard to the West, persists in trying everlasting by that secularism to discredit the political and social commitment of Christians by the fact of obedience to the moral duty of consistency ahead of their own conscience. In other words, the position involves secular moral anarchy that denies pluralism itself, destroying the foundations of human society own because it has the effect of supporting the strongest power in front of the weakest. [14]
When it comes to the social plane, it must be recognized as a fundamental premise of the dignity of the individual. In fact, taking account of those riots in the suburbs of Paris in 2005 - and in an expressive current view of the precise observations Aristotle - has noted the French philosopher Jean-François Mattei: There is a lack of recognition, identification and moral. [15]
In that regard, it recalls highlight what Luis Fernando Barzotto, that recognition is a response to the other's existence as a person, the only correct answer before the fact of his personality. Thus, in the words of the Brazilian legal philosopher, three times the activity of recognition: the first of them is what is targeted towards acceptance as a response to the personality, summarized in this premise: every man is a person. In turn, the second concerns reciprocity as a response to equality, which presents a summary of the axiom: people are equal. Finally, the responsibility in response to dignity, which is signed in the decision: the person is in order. [16]
Thus Barzotto argues that the fundamental condition for recognition is not in the political community but on fraternity. So begins his argument from the Weberian ideal type of ethics of brotherhood. Max Weber suggests an ethic of brotherhood which is the simple reciprocity approach summarized in the golden rule for you today, tomorrow for me. In fact, a critique Barzotto in the sense that this ethic of community by Weber is an ethic of neighborliness, is particularistic and operates a restricted recognition. On this criticism, Barzotto proposes an ethic of universal brotherhood type which operates the full recognition of every human being as a person. And, finally, proposes a model of Christian ethics that ethics from the parable of the Good Samaritan as a synthesis of the model in two dimensions: the praxis (recognition) and law (the gold). [17]
In this parable, Jesus introduces the universal recipient of the gold from the assertive as you would have others do to you, do also to them. Meanwhile, to practice law invoked in the parable, which is the love your neighbor as yourself, [18] not enough to know the law.
To comply with the love of others is essential to recognize the other as neighbor. The parable Jesus tells is not intended to deepen the legal and theological knowledge of the examiner, but their ability to recognize the other. [19]
recognition, therefore, is not a conceptual speculation but a particular attitude, an identification of another as a person. [20] It follows that recognition is considered the other as a being for himself, or autofinalístico, which can not be used as a vehicle for purposes other than himself. [21]
recognition, as already stated, is the external dimension of the dignity that, in the words of Barzotto, is a binding event, a positive value and purpose of an identity. Dignity is inherent to the identity, ie the dignity imposes a conduct, an attitude in relation to the other, which is essential for its realization. [22]
At the epistemological level, dignity goes through the formation of reason the identity of the man, what he is ultimately an individual. Therefore, we can say that recognition is an experience of truth, specifically the truth about the man. A truth that is achieved not so much speculation, but by experience. Indeed, an encounter with the man's identity substantially without any accident or predicate values, for man as an object of speculation is an essence, while as a person is an existence.
Anyway, it is important to remember that the exaggerated estimates of the accident is responsible for separating the men and their social groups. Stick with the accidental way stop epistemological to the reality of the other, substantial character, his identity. It is in the apprehension of identity is experienced substantial equality, the only matter to say, there enter the men's nature and dignity.
In this sense, multiculturalism is a challenge to pluralism, to the extent that recognition must be a two-way hands. The differences are accentuated in recent conflicts result from an attitude of sticking to the differences as if they were the ultimate goals.
Hence, if the host culture than the social environment goes through a respect for culture and tradition human groups linked to these cultures, so for those looking to be hosted imposing a duty of recognition for the values \u200b\u200bof their host town. That had already been affirmed by Mattei: Only democracy can while there is recognition of all who come to possess a sense of belonging to the same public space [23] .
Furthermore, Mattei would even remember that the cultivation of particular values \u200b\u200bof groups that come into collision with society, for example, female circumcision practiced by social groups living in the middle of Western societies, [24 ] hinders integration to close cultural people in cultures that are very specific and closed, where they make it almost impossible to integration.
However, it is still appropriate to say that intolerance with reference to specific traditions and not offensive to the common good, such as using religious symbols or demonstrate veil is an act of violence of states that are already corrupted by a diversion strong feature is nothing totalitarian pave the way toward integration among peoples.
Speaking in a more specific stimulus such differences may become an obstacle for recognition and, therefore, to arrive and dignity. However, respect for differences is the way to the recognition that the other is an all-in himself, he has a rational nature is presented as a single substance, as already said masterfully Boethius, which is unknowable. Well, admitting the existence of human nature, we can not know the nature of the person, it is infinite in its possibilities, it is done, experience, relationships and existence.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Aristotle. Policy. Lisbon: Vega, 1998.
Arendt, Hannah. A human condição. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 10th ed. 2001.
Barzotti, Luis Fernando. Person, Society and Law. www.maritain.com.br , accessed on 25/09/2006.
________ Person Recognition. In press.
Maritain, Jacques. Human Rights and Natural Law. Rio de Janeiro: José Olympio, 1967. __________
Integral Humanism. Rio de Janeiro: José Olympio, 1967.
MATTEI, Jean-François. Interview: antiiluminismo. First Reading, No edition 46, p. 43, December 2005.
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.
© Abogado. Secretary-General del Instituto Jacques Maritain Rio Grande do Sul Professor en la Pontificia Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul
[1] Maritain, Jacques. Human Rights and Natural Law. Rio de Janeiro: José Olympio, 1967. p. 29.
[2] Cf Maritain, Jacques. Integral Humanism. Rio de Janeiro: José Olympio, 1967. p. 105.
[3] See id. Ibid. p. 128
[4] Id See Ibid. p. 130.
[5] Cf ARENDT, Hannah. The human condition. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 10th ed. 2001. p. 16.
[6] See ARISTOTLE . Policy. 1303b, 15.
[7] Id See Ibid. 1301b, 25.
[8] See Id Ibid. 1302nd, 25.
[9] Ibid ID Cf. 1302b, 35.
[10] See Id Ibid. 1303rd.
[11] Ibid ID. 1303rd, 25.
[12] Cf Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church, 151.
[13] Address to the Diplomatic Corps (January 12, 2004) in: Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church, 572.
[14] Cf Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church, 572.
[15] Mattei, Jean-François. Interview: O antiiluminismo. Primeira Leitura, edição n. 46, p. 43 dezembro 2005.
[16] BARZOTTO, Luis Fernando. Pessoa, fraternidade e Direito. p. 3. Www.maritain.com.br , acceso en 25/09/2006.
[17] Ibid Id. p. 2.
[18] Leviticus 19, 18
[19] Barzotti. Op. 2
[20] Cf Barzotti. Person recognition. (Although the published). p. 10.
[21] See Id Ibid. 11.
[22] See Id Ibid.
[23] MATTEI, Jean-François. Op. p. 39.
[24] See Id Ibid.
WambertGomesDiLorenzo
Translation - Alfredode J. Flores
That trial first is to argue that pluralism is a necessary condition for dignity is further stated that from the premise that all ethics presupposes una antropología, es preciso sostener que solamente el personalismo hace posible un pluralismo auténtico permitiendo superar los desafíos del multiculturalismo desde la práctica del reconocimiento, que es la sustancia de la dignidad de la persona humana.
En su obra Los derechos del hombre y la ley natural, Maritain dice que una sociedad de hombres libres está fundada en las siguientes bases: el personalismo, el comunitarismo, el pluralismo y el “teísmo”. [1]
Hablando en términos más específicos, es posible apuntar que dicho autor afirma que la sociedad debe ser una totalidad de personas cuya dignidad, anterior a itself presupposes spiritual freedom, also asserts that the natural inclination of every man to communion is a necessary means for the good of all and the development of the person requires autonomy of individuals and groups to which they belong, their rights , freedoms and proper authorities. Finally, it should be "theistic" to the extent that everyone, believers or not believing in the dignity of the human person, justice, freedom and love of neighbor, cooperate in the pursuit of realizing the common good.
That can be argued that pluralism is reflected in the thought of Jacques Maritain as a fundamental premise of dignity of the person, dignity and claims that it requires.
That happens in view of that dignity has a bipartite structure, there exists an endogenous aspect and one that is exogenous. The first of these is the relationship of the person herself, while the second aspect of the relationship of the person is given their own environment. Speaking otherwise, we could say that every dimension of human existence - individual and social - corresponds to one aspect of their dignity. That is, the realization of dignity in turn requires two basic experiences that are full and recognition.
Thus dignity the person assumes full direct involvement and recognition so that a negative can be given to one of these areas implies that the other will also be denied.
It follows that a pluralistic society is a necessary means for the attainment of dignity, for freedom is a necessary antecedent to the experience as well as for full recognition.
Freedom is something peculiar to man, where we can say that is the essence of the person and that is a hallmark of his nature. The man is inseparable from freedom because she is a defining attribute of the genus to which it belongs, in addition to composing the individual experience is individual. Freedom oriented towards the fullness, making the person turns to itself and to the exterior. Without freedom there is no dignity. Without pluralism is no freedom.
Furthermore, although Maritain Integral Humanism comes to point only to communitarianism and staff - in addition to the pilgrim look - as temporary bases City [2] , in the same work introduces the concept of pluralism as content the ideal of a new Christendom. Pluralism expresses the overcoming of medieval idea of \u200b\u200ba sacred rule of God over all things holy liberty of the creature unites God's grace. Medieval pluralism based on the number of institutions - that were favored by the particular legal and customary law - gives space to national minorities to demand the resignation medieval dream of unity and the assumption of an organic heterogeneity in the constitution of society. [3] Civil society is composed of private companies, according to the measure of the common good, must have a high degree of autonomy and diversity according to the convenience of their own natures. [4]
turn, Hannah Arendt defines pluralism not as a political concession to the diversity of groups and individuals, but as a condition of humanity itself: that is, belong to the genus, without that meaning that we are absolutely equal. In the formulation: we are all the same, or are human, no one is exactly like any person who has existed, exists or comes into existence. [5]
Returning to work Integral Humanism, note that Maritain had deepened the concept of pluralism from economic and legal pluralism. Indeed, were responses to the issues of his time. With the recent riots in some Western societies and the ongoing conflicts between East and West however, is put on the agenda of this new millennium the debate on cultural pluralism.
That explains why, according to Aristotle, riots born of little things but always looking for great goals. [6] The Aristotle says that the riots occur whenever inequality given [7] and there is a mood of those who defend them whenever they come to see that, although they are considered equal really are at a disadvantage compared to others who have more than them. [8]
addition, the philosopher listed as causes of the riots uncontrolled growth of cities. Compare the city with the body that must grow harmoniously so as not to be deformed, keeping the proper proportions. So, you end up making a direct reference to distributive justice [9] , noting that this is when there is an excessive mass of poor. [10]
Aristotle declares that it is still a factor to the instability the lack of unity of race concomitant with the absence of spiritual unity:
Indeed, as a city does not come from a crowd either, nor any way at a time. The fact that so far, cities have been admitted as co-founders foreign and co-colonizers of another race, that motivates much of the riots. [11]
reflection
From Aristotle, we find that genuine pluralism is the result of a very complex equation between equality and diversity, which is the common factor. These constraints of the problem have led to the neologism multiculturalism, and this has become the most important challenge to distributive justice in modern times. Multiculturalism is
atual expression of social pluralism. The social sectors have varied in their internal distinctions are now invited to a social network is built and harmonious unit is even while preserving and developing their own autonomy and appearance. [12]
Such symmetry in the social order is based on the principle of secularism, tolerance factor among those who are different. In the words of John Paul II, the principle of secularism
"ensure the free exercise of religious activities, spiritual, cultural and charitable communities of believers. In a pluralistic society, secularism is a place of communication between different spiritual traditions of the nation. " [13]
The principle of secularism, between therefore not be confused with secularism. The latter is the true expression of an intolerant state, which has the claim to be clean but in fact, with his estate confessional, corruption becomes one's own liberalism and democracy, introducing the germ of totalitarianism. Taking
obvious intolerance for even more serious that makes multiculturalism, transforming what was a pluralistic society in a segregated society, in turn continues to be equally obvious that tolerance goes through the overcoming of differences. These differences in themselves should not be encouraged, but tolerated and respected. So, in summary fashion, states that tolerance passes right by overcoming differences and promoting common values, in the midst of diversity are the foundations of unity and social harmony.
In short, tolerance is indeed the middle of the dignity, because in politics it is substance to pluralism and social at the substance of recognition.
Thus, in political terms the case is an absence of pluralism in the expression of intolerant secularism that is hostile to the cultural and religious policies. You could say that, particularly in regard to the West, persists in trying everlasting by that secularism to discredit the political and social commitment of Christians by the fact of obedience to the moral duty of consistency ahead of their own conscience. In other words, the position involves secular moral anarchy that denies pluralism itself, destroying the foundations of human society own because it has the effect of supporting the strongest power in front of the weakest. [14]
When it comes to the social plane, it must be recognized as a fundamental premise of the dignity of the individual. In fact, taking account of those riots in the suburbs of Paris in 2005 - and in an expressive current view of the precise observations Aristotle - has noted the French philosopher Jean-François Mattei: There is a lack of recognition, identification and moral. [15]
In that regard, it recalls highlight what Luis Fernando Barzotto, that recognition is a response to the other's existence as a person, the only correct answer before the fact of his personality. Thus, in the words of the Brazilian legal philosopher, three times the activity of recognition: the first of them is what is targeted towards acceptance as a response to the personality, summarized in this premise: every man is a person. In turn, the second concerns reciprocity as a response to equality, which presents a summary of the axiom: people are equal. Finally, the responsibility in response to dignity, which is signed in the decision: the person is in order. [16]
Thus Barzotto argues that the fundamental condition for recognition is not in the political community but on fraternity. So begins his argument from the Weberian ideal type of ethics of brotherhood. Max Weber suggests an ethic of brotherhood which is the simple reciprocity approach summarized in the golden rule for you today, tomorrow for me. In fact, a critique Barzotto in the sense that this ethic of community by Weber is an ethic of neighborliness, is particularistic and operates a restricted recognition. On this criticism, Barzotto proposes an ethic of universal brotherhood type which operates the full recognition of every human being as a person. And, finally, proposes a model of Christian ethics that ethics from the parable of the Good Samaritan as a synthesis of the model in two dimensions: the praxis (recognition) and law (the gold). [17]
In this parable, Jesus introduces the universal recipient of the gold from the assertive as you would have others do to you, do also to them. Meanwhile, to practice law invoked in the parable, which is the love your neighbor as yourself, [18] not enough to know the law.
To comply with the love of others is essential to recognize the other as neighbor. The parable Jesus tells is not intended to deepen the legal and theological knowledge of the examiner, but their ability to recognize the other. [19]
recognition, therefore, is not a conceptual speculation but a particular attitude, an identification of another as a person. [20] It follows that recognition is considered the other as a being for himself, or autofinalístico, which can not be used as a vehicle for purposes other than himself. [21]
recognition, as already stated, is the external dimension of the dignity that, in the words of Barzotto, is a binding event, a positive value and purpose of an identity. Dignity is inherent to the identity, ie the dignity imposes a conduct, an attitude in relation to the other, which is essential for its realization. [22]
At the epistemological level, dignity goes through the formation of reason the identity of the man, what he is ultimately an individual. Therefore, we can say that recognition is an experience of truth, specifically the truth about the man. A truth that is achieved not so much speculation, but by experience. Indeed, an encounter with the man's identity substantially without any accident or predicate values, for man as an object of speculation is an essence, while as a person is an existence.
Anyway, it is important to remember that the exaggerated estimates of the accident is responsible for separating the men and their social groups. Stick with the accidental way stop epistemological to the reality of the other, substantial character, his identity. It is in the apprehension of identity is experienced substantial equality, the only matter to say, there enter the men's nature and dignity.
In this sense, multiculturalism is a challenge to pluralism, to the extent that recognition must be a two-way hands. The differences are accentuated in recent conflicts result from an attitude of sticking to the differences as if they were the ultimate goals.
Hence, if the host culture than the social environment goes through a respect for culture and tradition human groups linked to these cultures, so for those looking to be hosted imposing a duty of recognition for the values \u200b\u200bof their host town. That had already been affirmed by Mattei: Only democracy can while there is recognition of all who come to possess a sense of belonging to the same public space [23] .
Furthermore, Mattei would even remember that the cultivation of particular values \u200b\u200bof groups that come into collision with society, for example, female circumcision practiced by social groups living in the middle of Western societies, [24 ] hinders integration to close cultural people in cultures that are very specific and closed, where they make it almost impossible to integration.
However, it is still appropriate to say that intolerance with reference to specific traditions and not offensive to the common good, such as using religious symbols or demonstrate veil is an act of violence of states that are already corrupted by a diversion strong feature is nothing totalitarian pave the way toward integration among peoples.
Speaking in a more specific stimulus such differences may become an obstacle for recognition and, therefore, to arrive and dignity. However, respect for differences is the way to the recognition that the other is an all-in himself, he has a rational nature is presented as a single substance, as already said masterfully Boethius, which is unknowable. Well, admitting the existence of human nature, we can not know the nature of the person, it is infinite in its possibilities, it is done, experience, relationships and existence.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Aristotle. Policy. Lisbon: Vega, 1998.
Arendt, Hannah. A human condição. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 10th ed. 2001.
Barzotti, Luis Fernando. Person, Society and Law. www.maritain.com.br , accessed on 25/09/2006.
________ Person Recognition. In press.
Maritain, Jacques. Human Rights and Natural Law. Rio de Janeiro: José Olympio, 1967. __________
Integral Humanism. Rio de Janeiro: José Olympio, 1967.
MATTEI, Jean-François. Interview: antiiluminismo. First Reading, No edition 46, p. 43, December 2005.
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.
© Abogado. Secretary-General del Instituto Jacques Maritain Rio Grande do Sul Professor en la Pontificia Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul
[1] Maritain, Jacques. Human Rights and Natural Law. Rio de Janeiro: José Olympio, 1967. p. 29.
[2] Cf Maritain, Jacques. Integral Humanism. Rio de Janeiro: José Olympio, 1967. p. 105.
[3] See id. Ibid. p. 128
[4] Id See Ibid. p. 130.
[5] Cf ARENDT, Hannah. The human condition. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 10th ed. 2001. p. 16.
[6] See ARISTOTLE . Policy. 1303b, 15.
[7] Id See Ibid. 1301b, 25.
[8] See Id Ibid. 1302nd, 25.
[9] Ibid ID Cf. 1302b, 35.
[10] See Id Ibid. 1303rd.
[11] Ibid ID. 1303rd, 25.
[12] Cf Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church, 151.
[13] Address to the Diplomatic Corps (January 12, 2004) in: Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church, 572.
[14] Cf Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church, 572.
[15] Mattei, Jean-François. Interview: O antiiluminismo. Primeira Leitura, edição n. 46, p. 43 dezembro 2005.
[16] BARZOTTO, Luis Fernando. Pessoa, fraternidade e Direito. p. 3. Www.maritain.com.br , acceso en 25/09/2006.
[17] Ibid Id. p. 2.
[18] Leviticus 19, 18
[19] Barzotti. Op. 2
[20] Cf Barzotti. Person recognition. (Although the published). p. 10.
[21] See Id Ibid. 11.
[22] See Id Ibid.
[23] MATTEI, Jean-François. Op. p. 39.
[24] See Id Ibid.
