Damiano Migliorini

In this article, we consider the integration of declared (civilly united or married) same-sex couples into the Catholic community and the possibility of blessing for said couples in light of the recent synod dynamics and the recent documents of the Catholic Church (e.g. Fiducia Supplicans). We propose three modes of integration within an “unchanged doctrine”: “pre-Amoris Laetitia”, “post-Amoris Laetitia”, and a middle way. What emerges from these modes is that the public blessing of same-sex couples generates coherence between traditional moral doctrine and the concrete life of people living in “irregular” situations. The choice of the best mode should be the responsibility of the local Episcopal Conference. As long as there is no doctrinal change, it can adopt the solution it considers best for the care of the soul of the faithful in the historical, social, and cultural context in which it operates.

This "argument from aliens" demonstrates that the supernatural is not necessarily the best available explanation of miracles. Belief in miracles is rationally possible, but it is a choice not grounded in greater probability. Both the naturalistic explanation (through aliens) and the theistic one are acceptable accounts, but ultimately faith is required in either case. Faith is faith precisely insofar as it demands trust in a position (the existence of God) that is no more reasonable or probable than its alternatives (such as atheism).

Damiano Migliorini’s book offers a rigorous and original inquiry into the possibility of formulating a coherent trinitarian theism through the development of a relational ontology and a metaphysics grounded in the doctrine of the Trinity. Situated within the framework of analytic philosophy of religion, the work engages deeply with metaphysical questions surrounding the nature of being, substance, relation, and divine personhood, while proposing a speculative model capable of integrating theological tradition with contemporary ontology and epistemology. The book begins by addressing the longstanding aporia between divine omniscience and human freedom, which has led some to embrace open or process theism. While recognizing the merits of these models, Migliorini aims to avoid their conceptual pitfalls—especially their tendencies toward monism or pantheism—by returning to the trinitarian dogma as a possible ontological key. He argues that divine relationality, when properly understood, may offer a path beyond the metaphysics of pure substance without abandoning the coherence required by rational theology. Chapters 1 through 3 provide a systematic reconstruction of the concept of relation in classical and contemporary thought, with particular attention to Aristotelian substance theory, modern critiques of substantialism, and the ontological implications of quantum physics and structural realism. Migliorini distinguishes various types of relations (internal, external, causal, transcendental) and addresses the problem of Bradley’s regress as it affects relational metaphysics. This historical and theoretical mapping reveals the inadequacy of traditional metaphysical categories in accounting for the dynamic, interpersonal structure of divine being as confessed in Christian theology. The central chapters develop the theological and metaphysical core of the project. Chapter 4 examines the Trinity as a speculative philosophical hypothesis, arguing that relationality and multiplicity must be considered transcendental features of being if the doctrine is to be rendered intelligible. Drawing from Aquinas, Kant, and contemporary analytic theology, Migliorini defends a model in which divine persons are conceived as “subsisting relations”—a notion that challenges classical logic but is not irrational if situated within a hyperphatic epistemological horizon. Chapters 5 and 6 articulate the author’s original metaphysical proposal: an “Eventist-Infinitesimal Ontology” (EIO), in which entities are fundamentally events or subsistents characterized by gunky, infinitely divisible relationality. This model is developed in dialogue with power ontology, process philosophy, and the metaphysics of quantum entanglement. Migliorini argues that this framework permits a speculative analogy with the divine perichoresis and offers a coherent ontology for theistic realism. The concluding vision is a “Trinitarian metaphysics” that affirms the irreducible relationality of all being, anchored in the triune God. Rather than eliminating contradiction, the project embraces it as a sign of metaphysical depth and the limits of discursive reason. The Trinity, thus, is not a logical anomaly but a rationally necessitated hypothesis for any ontology that seeks to account for both unity and multiplicity, being and becoming, immanence and transcendence. This work contributes significantly to the philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and theological ontology by proposing a relational model of reality grounded in both rigorous philosophical analysis and Christian doctrinal insight.

In this paper I will argue that the Trinity is part of natural theology although it is a contradictory doctrine because, even if all the “solutions” for the Trinity’s aporias are unsatisfactory, anyone wondering about the nature of God comes to think in a trinitarian way. Given this theoretical impasse (our reason should state both that God must be Triune and cannot be Triune) a “Kantian-inspired argument” allows us to still believe in the Trinity. This Argument is based on the assumption that we and antinomic situations in the ontological realm of fundamental entities and in the realm of God’s nature. This is our common way of knowing and, thus, the Trinity is a plausible metaphysical option. The Argument implies a rethinking of our metaphysics and of our religious epistemology, but it could also inspire new interesting research agendas in contemporary Philosophy of Religion.

Nel testo saranno prese in esame le obiezioni sollevate dal prof. Brambilla in un recente articolo circa alcune mie proposte negli ambiti della filosofia trinitaria e della questione gender. Cercando al contempo di allargare lo sguardo sulle ragioni e le forme di tali proposte. In particolare, la metafisica trinitaria e l’ontologia gunk saranno inquadrate nel contesto dell’“epistemologia iperfatica” e della “cristeologia”; si daranno ragioni per utilizzare il termine “ideologia” per il pensiero anti-gender, per poi evidenziare il modello “interazionista” che sta alla base della mia concezione sul genere, nonché l’antropologia relazionale che si può sviluppare a partire proprio (ma non solo) dalle questioni di genere.

Reconsiderando y valorando la polivalencia de significados de la Eucaristía presentes en la Tradición (sacramento de curación, de alimento y de perfección), se muestra que no existen razones bíblico‑teológicas para negar a un bautizado, en cualquier situación irregular en que se encuentre, el acceso a la comunión eucarística en la celebración litúrgica. A la luz de la teología de la misericordia y de la acción de Jesús, esta actualización doctrinal permite resolver algunas cuestiones pastorales de forma más armónica e integradora, salvaguardando la razón sistemática del sacramento en relación con la penitencia.

The idea that something can be present at every place has engendered much discussion both in the past and at present. Typically, omnipresence is thought to be a divine attribute, but the question as to how something can be omnipresent has not been historically confined to the status of a divine being. The Oxford Handbook of Omnipresence offers an insight into historical accounts of omnipresence and its developments in ancient, medieval, modern, and contemporary thought. It further widens the study of omnipresence by including less widely studied strands of thought on this topic from mystical, process theological, feminist theological, and phenomenological perspectives. Additionally, whilst the study of omnipresence has typically focused on Christian thinkers, the volume broadens the range of voices on this attribute further by including Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Sanskrit, and Donghak accounts. The Handbook provides an introduction to the main facets of omnipresence, both historical and contemporary, and opens up new avenues for research that are yet to be fully explored.

Rethinking and valuing the Eucharist’s polyvalence of meanings that we can find in Tradition (as sacrament of healing, nourishment, and perfection), the article shows that there are no biblical-theological reasons to deny the access to Eucharistic communion in the liturgical celebration to a baptized person, in whatever irregular situation he or she may be. In the light of the theology of mercy and Jesus’ ways of action, such doctrinal updating allows for a more harmonious and inclusive resolution of some pastoral issues, while safeguarding the systematic reason for the sacrament in relation to penance.

The rational explanation of the Eucharist is at the centre of a revived debate in philosophical theology. After describing gunk-relational ontology, I show how it allows us to understand transubstantiation differently than other traditional and contemporary accounts, from which it draws a few points but combining them in a new way. In gunk-relational ontology every substance is its own relations, which constitute a gunky fundamental reality. The liturgical celebration of the Last Supper therefore creates a new relational situation for the bread: the substance of the bread (its relations) profoundly changes its nature.

The Power Structuralist View (PSV) is an account of causation in which causal relations are reduced to the powers that are activated in the subject by another subject’s power, instantly and simultaneously. PSV is based on two main assumptions: (a) holism; (b) reductionism. After justifying the choice to place PSV within the so-called ‘process accounts’ of causation (PA), I will show how, generally, every PA must solve the so-called “transference paradox” (TP) and why PSV is an innovative account. However, PSV creates two main problems: (1) how to explain the instantaneous activation between correlatives; (2) how to explain which kind of “nexus” takes place between powers. I will argue that, in order to solve (1), PSV needs to adopt an intervalist position, but this leads to a form of monism that contradicts (a). Regarding (2), the reductionist approach implies the assumption that “all relations between powers are internal” and, therefore, a form of monism, again against premise (a). PSV reduces causation to a ‘primitive concept’ (the ontological dependence) but, in this way, point (2) remains unexplained. The problem of physical transference (or reciprocal influence) remains unanswered, and PSV seems to be a covert form of occasionalism. [NOTE: the version on the Journal's site has problems in the footnotes. DOWNLOAD the correct version here in PhilPapers]

There is a lively debate in contemporary Analytic Philosophy of Religion about the consistency of the Trinitarian doctrine. In this context, the notion of ‘mystery’ has become crucial. However, although it is currently considered the main challenge of Trinitarian theology, its definition remains rather partial and superficial. After a brief description of today’s Mysterianism, I analyse three ‘emblematic’ positions in light of the current debate: Aquinas, Leibniz and Hegel present three ways to believe in a mysterious Trinity. I will point out a few possible weaknesses in the positions of the first two authors in order to better highlight the usefulness of the Hegelian position, often underestimated in the contemporary analytic debate. I will also analyse the connection between the three positions and their respective metaphysics, showing the epistemological premises (e.g., analogy and univocity) that need to be better investigated in the future.

In the recent debate on Christian theism, the position called Open Theism (OT) tries to solve the dilemma of omniscience and human freedom. In OT, the key word of the human-divine relationship is “risk”: in his relationship with us, God is a risk-taker in that he adapts his plan to human decisions and to the situations that arise from them. “Risk” is the fundamental characteristic of any true love relationship. According to OT, God has no exhaustive knowledge of how humans will use their will, and the divine plan for this world is not seen as fixed for eternity. OT distinguishes between meticulous providence and general providence and denies that the former can exist. After illustrating these positions and a particular view of OT called essential kenosis, I highlight some of their weaknesses and conclude by asking whether the concept of mystery (at least in some of its possible interpretations: I outline four “solutions”) can enable a reconciliation between classical theism and OT. By applying an approach to the notion of mystery usually connected to the Trinity, I show that the dilemma of omniscience, human freedom and providence does not compromise the plausibility of theism.

In the essay I analyse Micheletti’s three theses concerning: (a) the notion of mystery in relation to the “evidentialistic claim”; (b) analogical metaphysics in relation to “univocist immanentism” and to the importance of developing an analogical theism; (c) the fallibilistic conception of reason in relation to natural law, universalistic ethics and the so-called “essentialism” applied to individual human nature. I will try to show how deep is the intertwining and mutual implication of mystery and analogy – in metaphysics and theology, in epistemology and ontology, in anthropology and ethics – and how Micheletti’s works have been an important step in bringing these two notions back to the center of the discussion that introduces oneself in the “question of God” and in the “question of Human being”.

The book aims to examine how a Trinitarian Theism can be formulated through the elaboration of a Relational Ontology and a Trinitarian Metaphysics, in the context of a hyperphatic epistemology. This metaphysics has been proposed by some supporters of the so-called Open Theism as a solution to the numerous dilemmas of Classical Theism. The hypothesis they support is that the Trinitarian nature of God, reflected in a world of multiplicity, relationality, substance and relations, demands that we think of God as dynamic, internally multiple and relational. However, if the expression «God is love» – understood as the formula of the Trinity – is the key to a new theism, it leaves a problem open: how can it be translated philosophically? The research develops on two different levels: first, it assesses whether the expression should be translated into the Trinitarian paradigm, and the aporias it generates; secondly, it tries to assess whether this paradigm (eminently relational) has a correspondence in ontology: is there a satisfactory Relational Metaphysics already available? The suspicion is that such Trinitarian-Relational Ontology, invoked by many as a solution to the incongruities of classical theism, has yet to be formulated in a satisfactorily manner, despite the existence of various attempts to formulate Relational Ontologies. In order to provide an evaluation of all these attempts and to outline some possible new perspectives, the thesis consists of five chapters. It is the aim of the present dissertation to evaluate such attempts, and to outline some possible new solutions. In the chapters some points have been established: 1. there must be at least one irreducible real relation (non-reductionist realism); 2. the relation must be equally fundamental to the substance: this means that it is both external and internal; 3. this relation must be able to account for contingent causality; 4. holism is a plausible position; 5. the Trinity is a good theistic model of the divine, apophatic but rational. The last chapter then returns to ontological questions: several Relational Ontologies are examined – including ontic structural realism and process (or eventist) ontology – together with their applications in philosophy of religion (e.g.: the Relational God, Process Trinitarianism, the Entangled God). This assessment shows how all these ontologies postulate real transcendental relations (subsistent relations), inside the substances or inside the powers, inside the tropes or the structures, describing them as monads or processes (or actual occasions). These relations are the same we need to describe the Trinity. Therefore, they are either possible for both domains – ontology and theology – or they are both impossible. It has been opted for the second conclusion. But they are both impossible and inevitable: the fundamental entities of the world and their interactions (causation) must be described as real transcendental relations because each ontology transforms entities or relations into real transcendental relationships at some point. Thus, neither relationalism nor substantialism are convincing: from the fall of these two dogmas (or, rather, from the fall of their naive interpretations) we can realise that the fundamental reality is something that lies between processism (relationalism) and substantialism. It is impossible to completely substitute the notion of substance with the notion of event, process, structure or relation, both in speaking of God and in speaking about the entities of fundamental ontology. Neither monism nor pluralism can be affirmed in their pure forms. The hypothesis proposed, then, is that the notion of gunk-junk is the only one that can translate the relationality hitherto sought in an ontological model. The central part of the chapter describes the merits and defects of an eventist-infinitive ontology (EIO) based on the concept of gunk, and its potentiality to generate new theistic accounts. Through the notion of infinityings it seems to be possible to find some solutions for the questions left open by the causal relation, and therefore to defend at least the existence of one relation (external and internal). Each fundamental entity is described, in this ontology, through four transcendentals: ‘entity’, ‘relation’, ‘unity’ and ‘multiplicity’. The co-primarity between substance and relations (borrowed from the notion of relatio subsistens) differentiates EIO from the process philosophies precisely because it does not pretend to eliminate the substantial principle, or the category of substance, but wants to think of it with the transcendental of relationality. Of course, EIO poses a challenge to the role, the method and the explicative capacity of metaphysics, because what we can state of the fundamental reality is antinomic. EIO tries to assume the antinomy as a result, to make it the basis of a kind of apophatic ontology. If our best ontology is gunky, then it is possible to confirm what has been said in chap. 4: the ‘how’ of individual substances is unknown to us at least as much as the ‘how’ of God. Even in the world we have the mystery of a distinction that is not division. However, the convergence of these antinomies can find an ultimate explanation in a theistic metaphysics (EIM): God creates inside of Himself and his Trinitarian substance is “contracted” into the worldly entities. They are made contingent and ontologically different by this self-limitation, but it is still the infinity of God that makes space in Himself for something new, even though He is totally present in every entity. It is not absurd to think that the substances of the world keep track of the divine nature, even in His “contraction”. Among the characteristics of the divine nature that each created entity maintains we have the subsistent relationality, the pericoretic indwelling (the infinite gunk-junk), the fact of being always one-and-many. If EIO and EIM are accepted as a good compromise between relationalism and substantialism, even in their apophaticity, then, on this basis, a Trinitarian Philosophy is possible. The picture of reality that emerges represents the world as multiple, substantial, contingent and intrinsically relational, forcing us to postulate the transcendental of relationality and multiplicity. Such transcendental leads us to think of the world and God (and their relations) in a Trinitarian way – With the necessary acknowledgement that this is a reasonable but apophatic discourse.

In the article’s first section, the author clarifies how the metaphilosophical question can be interpreted. In the second and third sections, a Hegelian phenomenological method is applied to the diachronic theoretical development of feminist philosophies – especially two of its moments, sexual difference thought and Judith Butler’s version of queer theory – to understand whether any indications emerge from this development concerning the contents, model of rationality, identity, and methods of these philosophies. The Hegelian metaphilosophical premise is that we can understand what it means to do feminist philosophy only by observing, like the Owl of Minerva, the history of its theoretical development and interpreting the indispensability of each of its moments, and, at the same time, the presence in them of elements for their dialectical sublation. At the end of this analysis, some conclusions for the future of feminist philosophies are drawn. The author argues that the evolution of feminist philosophies shows that they cannot have a defined content or method. They are intrinsically open to their destabilization and sublation, passing from questions about women to general philosophical questions. How to understand the latter – and whether to welcome this ‘sunset’ as a positive, eminently queer event – is the topic of the final reflections.

Richard Swinburne is one of the best-known names in the international philosophical scene. His apologetic project is considered one of the largest and most impactful and profound of the last century. The interview conducted here explores many biographical and theoretical issues (Omniscience, Eternity, God’s existence, Free will, Analogy, Relational ontology and Powers ontology, Soul-Body relation, Trinity, Evil) and it aims to trace a broad (albeit necessarily partial) path through his numerous works. The interview took place in 2016, in Oxford, at Swinburne’s home. Today, Swinburne’s thought is discussed in monographs and doctoral theses, witnessing to an influence that will undoubtedly be lasting.

The author analyzes the origin and meaning of the expression ‘Ethics of Sexual Difference’ (ESD), contextualising it in the paradigm ‘thought of Sexual Difference’, in which the potentiality and aporias arising from the debate within the feminist movement are highlighted. Possible interpretations of these ethics, developed in the Italian philosophical context, are illustrated and evaluated. The author proposes a critical comparison with other models, for example, the queer theories, and attempts to show how the ‘Thought of Sexual Difference’ (TSD) opens itself to destabilization produced by the emergence of new subjects (gay and lesbian, transgender, intersex) and their corresponding scientific knowledge. The author therefore proposes an update to the plural, ‘Ethics of Sexual Differences’ (ESDs), listing the possible methodological and content assumptions (including the development of a relational model in all scientific disciplines) and the disciplinary implications (also in the psychoanalytic field) of an ethics so defined. A reference is made to the discussion of socalled "gender ideology", in which the protagonists have often showed a certain difficulty in implementing an ESDs.

The text published below is the translation of a part of this published article: "Il Dio che rischia e che cambia: introduzione all’Open Theism". The issue of omniscience is one of the most debated in contemporary Analytical Philosophy of Religion. However, what is often lacking in this discussion is a deep understanding of the dilemma of omniscience and human freedom within a complete epistemological (what can we really say about the divine and the world), metaphysical and theological framework. For example, it is often forgotten to frame some issues within a clear definition of the notion of mystery.

My analysis on the category of signs of times (SoT) shows how it can help to explain a few aspects of synodality. I will explain how synodality and SoT support each other and why Synods should teach a correct judgment of SoT. It is a way to educate God's people to their theology. We may also wonder if in the anti-gender campaign the church was unable to implenaent the theological vision implied in the SoT. This campaign has highlighted the Church weakness in accepting the world-church relations implied in SoT theology. This weakness due to a lack in education must be corrected re-launching the Synods' tasks and processes.

I will reflect on the reconciliation between “subjective” life and “objective” doctrine experienced by Catholic lgbt couples. Even though their particular experience cannot be considered as universal it can nevertheless constitute a case study for theological reflection. I will propose a theological model for the integration of lgbt Catholics into Christian communities. The case of lgbt Catholics also helps us address the theoretical difficulties of religious pluralism. Their experience of faith is an example of “lived pluralism”. In the lexicon of religious pluralism, this experience is an intra-system or intra-theistic diversity, but it also touches upon the meta-theological issue of the model of reason that is to be applied to every system. I believe that every possible case of pluralism is worth considering if we want to theorize this concept. This may lead us to consider pluralism as a premise from which to start, articulated at different levels.

Indice del capitolo: 1. introduzione; 2. primo sguardo alla bibliografia e punti fermi; 3. la "negazione simbolica" al fondo della strategia anti-gender; 4. il gender come sfida antropologica per la teologia cattolica; 5. teologia del maschile e del femminile, mistero nuziale; 6. unità duale; 7. complementarietà e reciprocità asimmetrica; 8. una caro, fenomenologia dei gesti, integrazione; 9. una teologia inclusiva per un'antropologia adeguata; 10. matrimonio, verginità, relazione pura; 11. note sulla teologia trinitaria della famiglia; 12. antropologia trinitaria; 13. conclusione.

Il testo vuole incarnare una possibile mediazione tra universi culturali lontani ed essere una lettura propedeutica per chi intenda addentrarsi nella tematica, lasciando che la fede cristiana s’interroghi liberamente sul ‘gender’. Un approccio sereno e critico sia alla cultura laica di genere – della quale si esaminano i nodi principali – sia a quella cattolica, con l’intento di superare le reciproche diffidenze e cercare insieme una verità umanizzante per tutti. L’obiettivo è gettare delle basi condivisibili su cui costruire una sintesi teologica più ampia. Un testo che, nell’esaminare i nodi teoretici, volge lo sguardo alla recente campagna ‘anti-gender’, cercando di fornire le coordinate utili a svelenire il clima e muoversi al suo interno con padronanza di lessico e concettualità. In questo senso, l’opera vuole essere uno strumento per formatori, pastori e attivisti che vogliano introdursi nella complessità senza scorciatoie, per cogliere la ricchezza del ‘pensiero di genere’: nell’orizzonte della promozione di un benessere comunitario e individuale.

In the following essay I will describe the cultural and disciplinary areas in which Open Theism has been developing and deal with the main authors, who has defended this new doctrine, and their main works. In the second section I will analyse their main theses about divine attributes, some theological questions, several objections to this new non-standard theism and their rebuttals. In the conclusion I will highlight the problems still open and evaluate the overall Open Theism’s theoretical work. At the end, also the text "Omniscience, Freedom, and Mystery", a part of the article TRANSLATED into english. The issue of omniscience is one of the most debated in contemporary Analytical Philosophy of Religion. However, what is often lacking in this discussion is a deep understanding of the dilemma of omniscience and human freedom within a complete epistemological (what can we really say about the divine and the world), metaphysical and theological framework. For example, it is often forgotten to frame some issues within a clear definition of the notion of mystery. I defined what we can mean by “mystery” in this forthcoming article: "Trinity and Mystery. Three Models: Aquinas, Leibniz, and Hegel" In the same article (and also in the first article mentioned above) can be found a reflection on the analogical use of terms, which involve the terms (the notions) of “freedom” and “omniscience”. This use, therefore, could make possible to develop the argument I propose.

In the following paragraphs, I will describe ten strategies through which we can show the weaknesses of every form of theism based on the "One God", while postulating that the Trinity is a good solution. This approach follows up on Swinburne’s claims about the existence of a priori and a posteriori proofs for the existence of the Trinity (his proofs are part of the sixth strategy). Clearly, these strategies are not “new”: they have been advocated by many thinkers in the past and in the present. I merely revived them, and brought them together in a kind of cumulative reasoning: the strength of them arises when these strategies are considered together, showing that the Trinity is a reasonable hypothesis even though it is contradictory. The proposed strategies lead to the conclusion that there must exist in God something similar to what we call ‘real relations’ and ‘multiplicity’; and in order for God to be relational, there must exist in Him some “distincts” that relate to one another. This is postulated by philosophical reasoning, not just by Revelation, and regardless of the choice to support a process metaphysics. As Trinitarian theology contains the mystery of eternal generation, the strategies do account for the fact that in philosophy we contemplate the mystery of eternal self-distinction and of all the other ‘self-actions’ of the One. The eternal generation remains mysterious, but it is the idea that best helps us describe how God is (One and Triune) and how he creates the world. God must be Triune in every theistic system. The One God is, as One, also Triune. The Unity-Trinity of the Principle is the only apophatic point that we can reach from many quarters. Once autonomous paths of reason have established that God is a Person and Persons, One-Multiple, Creator (communicated), Free, Relational and Infinite possibility, it therefore emerges that our most reliable hypothesis is that of the Trinitarian God.

The author investigates whether the model prevalent today of an “humble reason” - based on fallibilism and epistemic humility - is the most appropriate to express the theological truth, even in the light of the debate within the contemporary theism (rational theology). To answer this question it is necessary to examine the epistemological status of “human truth” and the “truth of faith”, in order to develop a common approach to sciences, philosophy and theology. Finally, the author shows how the communitarian dimension and the “choice” (a call for freedom) are inherent to theology understood as “critical faith”, whose peculiarity is to posit itself without nostalgia in the middle between fideism, rationalism and a certain relativism. From the path, finally, it emerges the proposal of a new “cristeologia”. Il rapporto tra fede e ragione è la questione meta-teologica per eccellenza. L’autore si propone dunque d’indagare se il modello oggi prevalente di “ragione umile” – basato su fallibilismo e umiltà epistemica – sia il più adeguato per esprimere le verità teologiche, anche alla luce del dibattito interno al teismo contemporaneo (teologia razionale). Per rispondere a questa domanda è necessario esaminare lo statuto epistemologico della verità umana e della verità di fede, per poter elaborare un metodo comune alle discipline scientifiche, filosofiche e teologiche, capace di trovare un equilibrio tra fideismo e positivismo teologico. Dopo una breve panoramica storica dei rapporti tra fede e ragione nel pensiero occidentale (con particolare attenzione alla dottrina dei praeambula fidei), l’articolo cercherà di mostrare come, nel paradigma della verità relazionale e del fallibilismo sia necessario integrare il problema delle fonti, dell’autorità, del concetto di ispirazione e della nozione di “rivelazione”, giacché contraddistinguono la teologia rispetto alla filosofia. Si mostrerà infine come la dimensione comunitaria e della scelta (appello alla libertà) siano connaturate alla teologia intesa come fede critica, la cui peculiarità è di collocarsi senza nostalgie nel mezzo tra fideismo, razionalismo e un certo relativismo. Dal percorso emergerà infine la proposta di una nuova "cristeologia".

Referring to Reichlin’s reflections, the author analyzes the aporias arised in the debate on euthanasia, proposes to establish some general principles (e.g. inviolability of human life, the prohibition of extend unnecessary suffering, the principle of autonomy) and a method of application of them to controversial cases. The combinatorial ethics that emerges can probably solve the aporias and can harmonize the common sense (about the possibility of euthanasia in extreme cases) with Catholic doctrine – specifically referring to the Natural Moral Law theory – in an attempt to integrate the results of combinatorial ethics with the principles established in this doctrine. The conclusions, although admittedly provisional, are translated into indications for an hypothetical legislator, in order to overcome the legislative aporia. In the final part, analyzing the religious aporia, the author proposes to include some forms of euthanasia in a total rethinking of the meaning of death, starting with the teachings of Christian faith. Basandosi sulle riflessioni di Massimo Reichlin e James Rachels, l’Autore intende analizzare le principali aporie che emergono nella riflessione etica sull’eutanasia – quella filosofico-metodologica, deontologica, legislativa e religiosa. Attraverso quest’analisi, l’Autore propone di riprendere alcuni principi generali (tra cui l’indisponibilità della vita, il divieto di prolungare sofferenze inutili e il principio di autonomia), fornendo poi un metodo d’applicazione ai casi concreti. L’etica combinatoria che emerge da questa impostazione, riesce in buona misura a risolvere le aporie analizzate, armonizzando alcune intuizioni comuni (circa la liceità dell’eutanasia in casi particolarissimi ed estremi) con la dottrina cattolica corrente in materia. Nel confronto con la morale cattolica, in particolare, viene analizzata e discussa la teoria della legge morale naturale, nel tentativo di integrare i risultati dell’etica combinatoria con i principi affermati in questa dottrina. Le conclusioni teoretiche, anche se dichiaratamente provvisorie, si traducono poi in indicazioni praticate per un ipotetico legislatore, nel tentativo di superare l’ultima grande aporia, quella legislativa. Nella parte conclusiva, analizzando l’aporia religiosa, l’Autore propone di iscrivere la liceità di alcune forme di eutanasia all’interno di un complessivo ripensamento del significato della morte, partendo dal dato di fede cristiano, nel tentativo di superare la “logica della rimozione” che sembra caratterizzare la nostra contemporaneità.

In 1924 B.Russell wrote that the issue of relations is one of the most important in philosophy, and that many unresolved philosophical problems depends on how relations are understood. Such observation is more than still fundamental for the contemporary philosophical agenda: ontology, philosophy of religion and other fields of theoretical inquiry require to account for the very nature of what a relation is and how it works. The present edited collection is a fresh contribution to the international debate. Leading scholars from all over the world address the topic from different viewpoint: history of philosophy, ontology, philosophy of religion, and history of religious doctrines.

The paper is the summary of a wider work, a research program. The hypothesis is that if Fundamental Ontology is apophatic – that is, if it has the same dialectical nature (relationality-substantiality) as the Trinity – we can accept that Trinity is also apophatic. The apophatic-relational explanation may sound odd, but it is the most honest one, because it does not hide the problems under the carpet. What emerges is a coherent form of Trinitarian Theism – since there is correspondence between the human (un)ability to know the two levels of reality (the World and God) – that is based on an inevitable relational-apophatic paradigm. The apophaticism that we see in the Trinity (and in ontology) ensures that Trinitarian Theism can neither be proven nor disproven.

C’è bisogno di una nuova sintesi. Inter- e intradisciplinare, con una visione d’insieme coerente, scientifica, senza pregiudizi, al servizio di una Chiesa che – con papa Francesco – è alla ricerca di nuove analisi e di proposte pratiche innovative. Necessaria è la prospettiva della piena integralità umana delle persone omosessuali, che interroghi il loro amore in tutta la sua complessità. La psicoanalisi, per prima, può contribuire a elaborare una visione dell’affettività omosessuale complessiva, integrale e positiva. La teologia può ascoltarne le conclusioni, senza rinunciare alle sue categorie etiche, ma aggiornando la propria posizione, proponendo una visione pienamente cattolica della persona e della sua sessualità. Visione che si traduce in indicazioni pastorali in grado di aiutare una persona omosessuale a vivere in serena pienezza la propria situazione, la propria affettività e spiritualità cristiana.