Information service of the Pontifical Mission Societies since 1927
Vatican City (Agenzia Fides) - If, when the Lord sent his disciples into the world, he had given them an agenda of problems with regard to the relationship they should have with societies and cultures, the poor men would have fled. This did not happen. They were “simply” to announce that God has come amongst us, to cure the infirm, cast out evil spirits, give freely of what they had received. Also the Church Councils sought nothing else but to deepen faith in the person of Jesus, to bring the world to God. However, the temptation of a misunderstood “ecclesiocentrism” - to say it in forbidden language - never dies: leads some “conciliar” Christians think that Vatican II produced “a new ecclesial vocabulary ”.
Here is an exemplary sample of a reading of the scenario of the world and the duties of the Church “in the light of the Council” - a compulsory insertion - , recurrent among the 'insiders', in this case one of the many presumed moderns and “well informed”: “A diverse manner of seeing dialogue with the contemporary world, with societies, cultures, science and with concrete men and women. The Council was followed by discussion, even clashes, until the schism in 1988” - that of Lefebvre. And then the unheard of scandal: “Dozens of theologians have been disavowed, criticised, suspended from teaching, silenced, in some cases expelled or forced to expel themselves from the Church because their research, their books, their teaching, ideas taken from the Council, intended to open new paths, not always welcomed, not always understood, not always clear”.
Almost as if, before the Council, the Church did not live in reality, that the patristic epoch, the medieval theologians and modern Saints never engaged in discussions, or heated arguments. As for the “so called” theologians being ‘silenced' really this statement is ridiculous: seeing that, for example, Leonardo Boff has just written a book against the thought and the person of the Pope. What is important, in some cases, is simply to speak “drawing ideas from the Council”; and in fact these are no more than ideas, and then to speak of something quite different, certainly not that which the Council really said. For many what counts is not so much what Vatican II actually said, but rather the interpretation of the Council: usually considered a “new creation”, thanks to which the Church's role in the world has become more than anything, to “denounce injustices and be involved in social issues” in the name of the faith, without first asking one's self what is faith, or worry about silence with regard to hope, no longer 'not of this world'! But what sort of theological virtue would it be if were valid only for this world?
It would appear that for the insiders, the “spirit of Council”, of which people spoke until recently, has abandoned the field to a “globalised and globalising ” ghost which “prowls around the Church on every continent bringing with it precise and unavoidable questions: what form of dialogue should be undertaken with the many different societies, cultures and religions? And if so far the Church has striven to discern the will of God ” - and I underline if - “it must now work to render the world less unjust?”.
To tell the truth the good Christian people are aware that the Holy Spirit blows in the Church spread throughout the world and that, if someone in her prowls “parallel”, it is not a ghost but instead “the devil like a roaring lion” (1Pt 5,8). Moreover, the Christian people know that the only mandate given by Christ to the Church is dialogue, yes, but dialogue of salvation which speaks of God, or, in a word, the Gospel; a dialogue ever new for every generation, as Paul VI's Evangeli nuntiandi recalls or the new Evangelisation of John Paul II. This is the unchanging duty of the Church: to heal man from sin, not with improbable prescriptions a la mode or with activism but with the medicine of immortality, Christ, who heals and brings back to life men and women of every generation, who would otherwise remain stricken and die.
This was not “invented” by any Council, nor could any other prescription be invented: it was valid before Vatican II and will be valid always. The sense of the correct interpretation of the Council which operated a reform not a break, is indicated by Pope Benedict XVI, it is valid in every epoch and ecclesial generation and it is none other than the continual implementation of the words of the Word: “Lo, I make all things new ” (Rev 21,5).
The real novelty today, would be dialogue between reason and faith, if it were not an ancient truth: it dates to John the evangelist who wrote: “In the beginning there was the Logos”, the Word, the Reason through whom all things were made. The Church reads the Council, understands it and implements it only in the light of the eternal Logos who is from the beginning and who animates her with the Holy Spirit. There exists no other spirit, not even ‘conciliar’, who can guide her. It would be simply a ghost. (Agenzia Fides 18/10/2007; righe 56, parole 821)
