Questioni giuridiche del pontificato piano
On the centenary of the death of Pope Pius X (August 20, 1914), many conferences and study days have been organized in order to re-examine his pontificate and his contribution to Canon Law. The multiple readings of this Pope’s work in the second half of the 20th century have been framed within the o...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2014 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Navarra |
| Repositorio: | Dadun. Depósito Académico Digital de la Universidad de Navarra |
| Idioma: | italiano |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:dadun.unav.edu:10171/36468 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/10171/36468 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Pius X Reform Modernism Code of Canon Law Roman curia Roman Vicariate Pío X Reforma Modernismo Código de Derecho Canónico Curia romana Vicariato de la Urbe |
| Sumario: | On the centenary of the death of Pope Pius X (August 20, 1914), many conferences and study days have been organized in order to re-examine his pontificate and his contribution to Canon Law. The multiple readings of this Pope’s work in the second half of the 20th century have been framed within the opposition between modernism and anti-modernism, reducing this Pope’s massive reforms to a task of traditionalist restoration. A study which pays greater attention to the historical and cultural context will allow us to focus on these events more respectfully and evaluate his pontificate in a different light. If we were only to analyze the reform of the Roman Curia, the Roman Vicariate and the re- form of Canon Law, especially regarding the impressive work that went into the first codification of canon law, it would become obvious that Pope Pius X was responsible for mod- ernizing the Church on a major level. This reform was not free from certain risks, as is demonstrated in the «Code of Canon Law» itself, and in the repression of «modernism» by means of instruments that were modern but that were not adequate to the life of the Church. In contrast to focusing his pontificate within the dichotomy of modernism and anti-modernism, we would like to suggest that the complexio oppositorum of modernity-anti-modernity, as proposed by Fantappiè, offers a more suitable framework. |
|---|