Despite the drift of modernity that besiege us in the folds of post-modernity, I believe you can do today (as always) a good use of freedom. The issue is complex, because there is half the entire area of ethics (and, of course, for Christians, the entire territory of faith in the Lord). We must therefore, in defending a good use of the freedom to make strategic choices, that favor some goals than others, depending on what our time may or may not understand. Well, it seems to me that the project of cultivating the ties of solidarity is now a priority, in fact, the exercise of freedom. Means: from the family ties, through those of civil society, to those more properly political. And politics is to be understood now global politics, without forgetting the things in our house. All new enzymes related to freedom and justice have become, in fact, planetariums: wars, hunger, health, work, home, etc. . The most concrete sense of the moral law begins at this point. Because the moral law, in its various forms, is nothing but the set of “rules” that show us the way to succeed in life, but a life lived together. (For those who believe, then, this little word – “together” – extends beyond measure: it extends to the Father, the Son and the Spirit. And all that accompanies them along).
This means that a real solution of ethical problems, namely the use of personal freedom, we can now think only within a broader task. Freedom of conscience or freedom or economic freedom or other forms of media freedom, bound, prima facie, the singularity (the freedom “bourgeois”), should be protected, of course, but in solidarity with the neighbor and the away. In different ways, of course. The effort should be to escape from the neoliberal frame of existence, that is inculcated by the media in every way possible and that high risk of lock ourselves in a bunker under siege from the West, sooner or later swept away by the poor of the earth.
The neo-liberal tradition is the “contract”. You should negotiate everything. The moral law would, in the end, well it a nice collective agreement. But you can not live only for contracts of purchase and sale, falsely dressed up to equivalence. You can not, however, solve the binding of human in the contract, even if it were a “social contract” advanced. To quote a phrase, a little effect: the freedom from the bonds (inheritance of modern) should rather be converted into a freedom of bonds. But the only truly free bonds are the bonds of the attitude of gratitude in reciprocity. These are bonds in which the moral law is realized in its fullness. Why?