I address the question of Marx’s understanding of the role and function of religion in social life. Marx’s pronouncements on this topic are few and far between. Yet relying on them I undertake to examine the proposal ostensibly made by Marx that it was possible, or even necessary, to purge religious institutions and religious attitudes from social life. I point to a number of inconsistencies and errors that Marx committed in making such proposals.

Celem artykułu jest pokazanie, w jaki sposób zastosowanie teorii dyskursu do problematyzowania rozumienia religii i sfery publicznej może skierować uwagę na nowe aspekty w badaniu publicznej roli religii. Artykuł składa się z trzech części. W pierwszej, krótko prezentuję dotychczasowe badania na temat publicznej obecności religii, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem koncepcji teorii deprywatyzacji i religii publicznej José Casanovy. W drugiej części pokazuję, jak przyjęte przez Casanovę założenia dotyczące religii oraz sfery publicznej przekładają się na ograniczenia dla rozumienia i badania publicznej obecności religii. W odpowiedzi na te krytyczne głosy, w trzeciej części, wskazuję, w jaki sposób teoria dyskursu może być przydatna w radzeniu sobie z takimi ograniczeniami, a w rezultacie pozwolić na trafniejszą diagnozę oraz interpretację roli religii w sferze publicznej.

Contrary to a widespread thesis about the non-cognitive character of religious beliefs, I argue that it is beneficial to highlight and not marginalize the place of religion in the epistemic sphere. At least some religious beliefs (especially theism) can be qualified as true or false. Holding them as true is usually based on the evidence which is not widely accepted. This, however, does not entail that these beliefs are not true. If they are true, then holding them to be true should be seen as rational, despite of the fact, that the supporting evidence does not seem to be strong in the light of current epistemic standards of justification. It does not mean, however, that such beliefs can be hold with the highest assertion if they evoke serious doubts. Changes in religious doctrines and religious pluralism do not constitute a sufficient reason for excluding religion from the epistemic sphere, as a similar situation concerns many academic disciplines, such as philosophy, or psychology.

Joseph Ratzinger warns about a multitude of trials to superficially undertake the subject of religion. In this diverse world of religion, he sees some common points. The first step in the history of religion was to transcend the primitive, moving into myth. Second, most important step, was to leave the myth behind. This leaving is threefold – which is represented by three irreducible shapes of religion: the identity mysticism, the monotheistic revolution and the enlightenment. An expression of the first two are, respectively: the identity mysticism and the personal love mysticism. The fact that religions are affecting each other must not be omitted, either. The place of Christianity in the history of religion – nota bene gained by both, the dialogue with other religions and standing against them – defines standing with the God of faith and the God of the philosophers, and the decisive choice of faith and mind together with the truth and the cult. In his thoughts concerning the dialogue of religions, J. Ratzinger points out two types: the mystical and theist, of the religion. Along them walks as a temptation the pragmatic type, in which the question about the truth is ignored. The result of the dialogue of the religions will not be a unification of all religions. In this dialogue, the truth cannot be ignored. At last, it cannot be forgotten that there is a religio vera, and that it is Christianity.

The Methodological Status of Theology of Religion

Summary

In the article its author outlines the history of scientific research on religion (engaging the perspective of philosophy, theology and religious studies), the decisive factors influencing the rise of theology of religion and its place among the religiological sciences. Having presented the subject of the theology of religion, as well as the current methodological discussions associated with it, the author elaborates on the contemporary paradigms of the branch: exclusivism, pluralism and inclusivism. The last part of the issue displays the relations existing between the theology of religion and the fundamental theology as disciplines historically, essentially and methodologically related.

According to Professor Czesław S. Bartnik, the scopes of both faith and culture are analogous to the human phenomenon. At the beginning, there is an individual person – hence both the faith and individual culture (microculture); then the specific community appears, and with it also the common culture (macroculture) as well as the community faith. Usually, culture is understood as an action that makes a person become more human (active aspect of culture). According to Bartnik’s personalism, the aspect of experience, any reception of the world (passive aspect of culture) should be added. The same dimensions can be seen in the experience of faith (active and passive). There is a correlation between faith (religion) and culture: religion defines culture, and culture defines religion (whereas culture is “earlier” in man than religion). The article shows that they both constitute a kind of dyad which leads to personalization of the human being (who nowadays is constantly threatened with unbelief and anti-culture – depersonalization). The culture–faith dyad is subject to the laws of history, and may assume various forms during its course. Former cultures used to be almost entirely built on natural faith in God although they had their atheist element, too. Currently, we already have an epoch of culture that strives to take an entirely atheist shape, however, even this culture does not exist without a religious (or pseudo-religious) form. However, the culture-faith dyad does not become disintegrated.

This work attempts to reconstruct the culture that contributed to the philosophical way of thinking. My goal is to extract two important factors: religion carrying individual experience and the importance of certain ideas which are present in that culture. Sources of philosophical thinking can be found in the structure of polis. Only on its basis could the idea of the wise man and citizen as well as religion-oriented individual experience be raised. Greek polis paves the way for a new style of thinking by creating the conditions for its citizens to follow the ideal, regardless of the position they occupy in society. Sustainability, which should be a feature of a good citizen, is also the essence of society. Highly positioned wisdom as moral reflection tinged with religiosity allows thinking according to the laws of logos. Finally, the experience offered by the mystery cults leads to the transformation of their own existence and the emergence of a way of recognition of reality different than before. Undeniably, all the elements related to structure policies with its ideals contribute to the emergence of a new way of thinking in the form of philosophy. One could say that the philosophical objectivity is preceded by the subjectivity and rationality of its roots dating back to irrationality.

The names of stations in the Way of the Cross may be used as titles of pictures and sculptures, each corresponding to a particular event in the Passion of Christ, or as titles of meditations. The article focuses on the second meaning, but the trends of the development of both kinds of names are similar. The study is based on material consisting of about 200 texts of the service that have been published from the beginning of the 20th century to the present (2020). The purpose of the article is to describe the changes that have taken place in the 20th century, a period of particularly turbulent changes in religious discourse. The article deals with the function, syntactic structure and features of style, such as the use of archaic or colloquial vocabulary. These properties are considered in connection with social and cultural changes. At the beginning of the analyzed period, it was customary to use relatively long titles, which informed the participant or reader about a particular event using expressive and evaluative lexis. Those titles gradually gave way to short, schematic names. Since the Second Vatican Council, titles of a new type have appeared. Their purpose is to attract the attention of the recipient. They are based on a riddle, a contrast, allusions, etc. Therefore, the recipient derives satisfaction from deciphering the puzzle or finding the source of the quote or allusion. These phenomena are known from research on the language of press or fiction, but they can also be linked to current trends in the so-called new evangelization.

Artykuł dotyczy osobistego stosunku osób prowadzących badania społeczne nad religią do przedmiotu ich studiów. Podejmuje kwestię autorefleksji w socjologii religii i krytycznie omawia propozycje namysłu nad usytuowaniem badawczym przedstawione przez Neitz oraz Altglas i Wooda. Propozycje te korespondują z postulatami silniejszego osadzania socjologii religii w teorii społecznej i problematyce relacji władzy. Niedostatecznie się jednak odnoszą do współczesnej debaty o epistemologii i metodologii nauk społecznych, która destabilizuje tożsamości, zwraca uwagę na polityczne i etyczne uwikłanie działalności akademickiej oraz na relacyjny charakter wytwarzania wiedzy. Artykuł zachęca do dalszego namysłu nad problematyką usytuowania badawczego w socjologicznych studiach nad religią. W obrębie studiów prowadzonych w Polsce ów namysł mógłby wzmocnić te kierunki analiz, które działają na rzecz przełamania praktyki badawczej zwanej „metodologicznym katolicyzmem”.

In his article, the author attempts at pointing out the initial conditions of inter-religious dialogue and the conditions under which it can be fruitful as a method of pursuing truth in Catholic theology. The initial conditions on the Christian part follow from the fact that dialogue is understood here as a form of love (agape), and from methodological assumptions of theology. On the one hand, what the author means is the capacity to witness to Christianity as a good in which all people should participate to the extent in which it is a gift of God. On the other hand, the author means humility with which the Church should perceive her historical limitations and weaknesses in receiving and expressing this gift. Such an attitude enables you to understand that the partner in dialogue may adopt a similar attitude to your own religion. The author emphasizes that although a symetry of initial assumptions of all the partners in dialogue is their natural desire, practically, the nature of a partner's distinctness may also comprise a distinct understanding of the aims and principles of dialogue. The least possible partner ship, according to the author, includes serious treatment of the partner and of the very issue of dialogue; it alsoincludes being representative and properly prepared along the principles of the given religion, readiness to listen and willingness to learn (at least to some extent) from the Christian partner. In the course of the dialogue, attention is given to sincerity and honesty in listening and presenting a subject, in asking and answering questions, and to the important role of the breaks between the meetings, necessary for ruminating and communicating the fruit of interreligious meetings at the forum of one's own theology, in the circle of one's fellow believers. Furthermore, the author points it out that - from the Christian point of view - we may expect results coming asa gift from God the depth of which supercedes what could result from learning truth from each other by the earthly partners of the dialogue. This possible gift brings about a human obligation to accept, express and share it with the brethren as suitablyas possible. One of the features of theology is unpredictability of its results. Application of interreligious dialogue as a method, and, especially the effects of its application are still, basically, an issue of the future of theology. However, one can mention some of them that can already be noted despite the scarcity of the initial steps made in this field so far: these include attempts at breaking stereotypes in thinking about other religions, questions asked with all seriousness about the role of other religions in God's plans for humanity, appreciation of ideas drawn upon from beyond Christianity, not only from the classical Greek philosophy.

Secularity is a historical product of modern ages that signaled a diminishing role of transcendence in public as well as individual life, changing effectively the common understanding of key social institutions: economy, state, knowledge, the family, religion. It may take on the form of a neutral lack of transcendence in public life and personal orientation (secularization); it can also appear as an active ideological presence – an ambitious project to remove any reference to transcendence from public life in view of creating “a religion free zone” (secularism). In the first case secularity comes about as a result of a civilization process of subtraction, in which religion melts under the pressure of modern technology, science, economy, a new philosophical orientation, and political frameworks. In the second one, it assumes the form of a bellicose ideology which implies a specific agenda of actions against religion. Secularity came into being as an outcome of philosophical, cultural and political shifts that strived to free individuals from being subjects of the old moral order, and make them inde-pendent autonomous agents that live in the unprecedented conditions of novus ordo seculorum and secular, ordinary time.

Since Vatican II there have been issued many Church documents of different rank, which are explicitly devoted to dialogue with non-Christian religions or contain statements on the matter; there is also a very comprehensive bibliography on interreligious dialogue. The article presents three issues which occupy a signifcant place in these works. The frst is the theological bases for dialogue. They have been expressed in the trinitarian structure. At the heart of the dialogue is faith in God, the creator and father of all people, in the Son, through whom universal salvation took place and the Spirit, which everywhere personifes the salvation work of God in three persons. The second issue, which is the content of the article, expresses a unique position of Judaism in dialogue of Christianity with other religions. The importance of Israel for the emergence and existence of the Church, and at the same time for her salvation role for the entire Jewish people, is an important spur to the refection on the salvation relationship of christianity to other religions. The dialogue is diffcult to operate without a proper spiritual attitude. This issue is the subject of interest of the third point in the article. Spirituality shaped by attitudes of conversion and submission to the will of God, especially in the prayerful elation of the human heart, becomes a source of behaviours which are conducive to dialogue.

In analyzing selected aspects of the debate over offending religious feelings, the author discusses Saby Mahmood’s argument that religiousness in public discourses of the Western world is basically perceived as a speculative phenomenon concerning the sphere of abstract beliefs. It is assumed therefore that the harm that can be produced by the publication of a blasphemous illustration is lesser and less palpable than in the case of hate speech directed toward a race or sexual orientation. The author’s analysis, which is undertaken from a Durkheim perspective, shows that, for example, the caricaturized presentation of a religious symbol constitutes not so much an act of undermining the abstract image as—in the affective perspective of the religious—an act violating the sense of ontological security of a given moral community which that symbol represents. At the same time, the Durkheim perspective facilitates an understanding of why religious symbolic resources can be ambivalently used in processes of legitimating social actions, beginning with constructive forms of civil public religions to extreme fundamentalist movements making use of violence and the discourses of political extremism.