"Christian freedom rests on two pillars: the grace of God and truth."Human dignity or freedom to abort?In our times, an individualistic conception of the freedomThe idea of freedom, which has been developed mainly in the corridors of American universities, has identified the idea of freedom with the capacity to choose.
According to this vision, a real poisoned candy, increasing human freedom consists exclusively in creating new spaces of choice. I am freer if I can work in any country of the European Union than if I can do so only in my own country; if I can change my sex when I so decide than if I cannot, or if I can marry one or more persons belonging to one of the different affective genders (bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, asexual, omnisexual, etc.) than if only the heterosexual option is possible. A woman who can decide to terminate a pregnancy with complete freedom for unlimited reasons (economic, psychological, aesthetic) is considered freer than if she has to justify them or flatly rejects abortion, who can decide whether or not to consume drugs than if she cannot, or to distribute pornography without any restriction than if she can.
Taken to its ultimate consequences, this individualistic vision of freedom culminates when one conquers the space of one's own freedom, that is, when one can make the decision to end one's own life and therefore one's own capacity to make decisions. In this way, the circle is perfectly closed.
Freedom and independence
This myopic vision of freedom is based on an ethic that its great advocate, the American philosopher Ronald Dworkin, called ethical independence.. Ethical independence grants absolute personal sovereignty in the area of what Dworkin calls foundational matters (life, sex, religion, among others), so that, in these matters, a person should never accept someone else's judgment in place of his own. Therein lies his dignity.
To implement this social model, public authorities must refrain from dictating ethical convictions to their citizens about what is better or worse to achieve a successful life. Since freedom is a foundational matter, no government should limit it except when necessary to protect life (not embryonic, not terminal), the safety or freedom of others (especially to enforce non-discrimination). This individualistic conception seeks at all costs to eradicate any kind of ethical paternalism that might favor one choice over others.
In the end Dworkin unwittingly fell into his own trap. His requirement that public authorities should refrain from dictating ethical convictions to their citizens constitutes, in itself, the imposition of an ethical conviction. Apart from this structural error, which damages the pillars of its own intellectual construction, it seems to me that this way of understanding freedom and the ethics that sustain it is enormously reductionist, thus impoverishing the very meaning of freedom and morality. Moreover, the alleged ethical neutrality sought by Dworkin is impossible to achieve given the intrinsic connection between morality and politics.
It is true that freedom of choice is one of the most important expressions of our human freedom, and as such it must be protected, although not absolutely, but freedom is more, much more, than mere choice. Freedom is also found, and I believe in a purer and more sublime state, in the capacity to accept.
In the key of acceptance
He acts with a wonderful freedom who accepts his parents and siblings, his land and his culture, his language and his history, his illness, his dismissal, even if he has not decided about it. He acts with great freedom who accepts the fact of having been born without having been asked, and leaving this world without knowing the precise moment. The acceptance of reality as it is, and above all the acceptance of the founding reality, that is, of God, of his paternity and mercy, is, in my opinion, the greatest act of human freedom, and the one that opens wide the doors of Love.
The individualistic vision disconnects freedom from the common good, from solidarity and love. There is an intrinsic connection between the particular good and the common good, private and public morality, love of self and love of others, for the unity of love, of good and therefore of morality is indestructible. It comes from the factory. This unity of love and goodness makes the right exercise of freedom a purely solidary one, even though decision-making may be individual. Therefore, a solidary vision of freedom in no way reduces individual freedom, but rather enhances it, since it allows for a broader decision-making process, thinking of the good of others, of the political community, of humanity, and not only of one's own interests. It is a freedom founded on love, which is the source of freedom.
The 21st century has been called the century of solidarity, just as the 20th century was the century of equality and the 19th century was the century of freedom. The time has come to develop a framework for an authentic freedom of solidarity, which is the maximum expression of the correct exercise of individual freedom.
