Inclusivity excludes the Cross of Christ. Movement to remove the Cross from the peaks of Italian mountains.
The inclusion that excludes the Crosses. Still on the CAI affair
A dear friend of mine - at least on my part - who obviously doesn't take my state of mind into account, just sent me a curious piece of news entitled: Mountains, the CAI: "Stop the crosses on the peaks, they are anachronistic and divisive ” . I was surprised because I encountered the famous club as a child when I attended the Oratory. Not only that, once I became a priest, I almost always met him in all the parishes I've been to and, needless to say, the President was always a practicing believer.
Thus I had cultivated a certain sympathy for CAI, although he has always preferred the sea to the mountains. This biographical digression has nothing to do with the motivations that Cai reports regarding the crosses on the peaks, because in a nutshell - I quote the subtitle - the mountaineering association considers them unsuitable for "a present characterized by intercultural dialogue and new landscape-environmental needs". And someone already removes them. Now, I am not informed about the new landscape-environmental needs, but about inter-cultural dialogue I don't understand how removing something that has marked a culture can annoy a dialogue about the culture itself. I don't understand, that is, how one can converse about culture having canceled one's own, because I ask myself: what would one be talking about? Of nothing?
At this point, it would be necessary to pickaxe the various chapels scattered along the mountain paths, undermine the churches (not only in the mountains, but also those of the city, obviously to be inclusive), burn anachronistic and divisive compositions in the public square such as the Divine Comedy or The betrothed (because they do not lead to the aforementioned intercultural dialogue), peeling off Giotto's frescoes and cutting the canvases of a Raphael or a Caravaggio, and still destroying the musical compositions of Bach or Mozart. But this would be a mess that no sane person would put into practice. Guareschi in the stories of Don Camillo made his Communist mayor say with an approximate Italian, but full of substance: "the future is fueled by the past. Woe to those who do not cultivate the memory of the past: they are people who sow not on the earth but on concrete".
I sense that "inclusivity" is a term that perhaps does not mean "erasing the past", ergo sowing on concrete. Wanting to eliminate part of one's history, because one no longer likes it, is not very sensible and basically means uprooting one's roots with the risk of falling from the branches on which one is perched due to the yielding of the plant. If so, "inclusiveness" is a word that I do not like and should not please everyone. Giovannino would always suggest responding to this ideological provocation with humour, which he is forced to reduce everything to the bone, in order to be able (more or less well) to make long speeches with very few words, perhaps using the form of the story he says without to say.
Here, this news reminded me of the story of that guest who, before sitting down for dinner, had expressed all his indignation about the model of the television that was in the living room. So, the thoughtful homeowner immediately got rid of it with deep satisfaction, although he was emotionally attached to the electronic device (because it belonged to his grandmother), immediately throwing it out the window. As luck would have it, it ended up right on the hood of his guest's car.
.jpeg)
Comments