| |
Rezumat articol ediţie STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS BABEŞ-BOLYAI
În partea de jos este prezentat rezumatul articolului selectat. Pentru revenire la cuprinsul ediţiei din care face parte acest articol, se accesează linkul din titlu. Pentru vizualizarea tuturor articolelor din arhivă la care este autor/coautor unul din autorii de mai jos, se accesează linkul din numele autorului. |
|
| |
Rezumat: “The Dialoque with non-belivers” document from diplomatic archives of Foreign Affairs Office of Romania. After the 2nd Vatican Council, the Holy Chair’s point of view in what concerned the communist countries changed, thus making possible re-establishing relations with some of them, or starting unofficial discussions with other ones. An important role in establishing relations with the communist countries was held by the Secretariat for non-believers leaded by the Archbishop of Vienna, Frantz König, who on the 2nd of October 1968 draws up a document named “The Dialogue with non-believers”, to specify the conditions in which there will take place a future dialogue between Vatican and the other confessions, as well as the one with communist countries. Romania, through its representatives, namely the Embassy in Rome, analyses this document so as to be aware of the conditions imposed by Vatican for this dialogue. From this point of view, the Vatican widens the area of the themes to be discussed, from the political ones to the cultural or religious ones, should such a dialogue take place. Thus, the path to relations with Vatican was open for any state, even though there were not subject of immediate interest, but once the dialogue was established, there could occur other debate themes. In order not to exist any misunderstandings, the document makes a distinction between the public dialogue and the private one, recommending the public one but at the same time accepting the private one in case the above mentioned could not be possible. However this dialogue might have been, it was both necessary and advisable, therefore this initiative of the Secretariat for non-believers is to be praised, but there should not be a dialogue just for the sake of it, but for a better understanding and solving of the divergences. |
|
