H07 ingles

year iV

c h r i s t i a n a n t r hop ol o gic a l a n d c u lt u r a l r e v i e w / n º 7 / y e a r i v

Beatification of Paul VI Joseph Ratzinger What is Man

7

PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE

José Granados Reflections on Paternity

HUMANITAS Christian Anthropological and Cultural Review HUMANITAS review came into being to provide the University with a source of reflection and study at the service of the academic community and the wider public in general. Its objective is to reflect the concerns and teachings of the Papal Magisterium (Decree of the Rector from the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile 147/95, par. 2).

EDITOR Jaime Antúnez Aldunate EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Hernán Corral Talciani Samuel Fernández Eyzaguirre Gabriel Guarda O.S.B. René Millar Carvacho Pedro Morandé Court Ricardo Riesco Jaramillo Francisco Rosende Ramírez Juan de Dios Vial Correa Juan de Dios Vial Larraín Arturo Yrarrázaval Covarrubias ASSISTANT EDITOR Bernardita M. Cubillos WEB CONTENT MANAGER Francisco Javier Tagle Montt COUNCIL OF CONSULTANTS AND COLLABORATORS Honorary President: H.E. Cardinal Francisco Javier Errázuriz Ossa, Archbishop Emeritus of Santiago de Chile.

Héctor Aguer, Anselmo Álvarez O.S.B., Carl Anderson, Andrés Arteaga, Francisca Alessandri, Antonio Amado, Felipe Bacarreza, Rémi Brague, Jean-Louis Bruguès O.P., Rocco Buttiglione, Massimo Borghesi, Carlos Francisco Cáceres, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, Stratford Caldecott, Cardinal Antonio Cañizares, Jorge Cauas Lama, Guzmán Carriquiry, William E. Carroll, Alberto Caturelli, Cesare Cavalleri, Fernando Chomalí, Francisco Claro, Jesús Colina , Ricardo Couyoumdjian, Mario Correa Bascuñán, Francesco D’Agostino, Adriano Dell’Asta, Vittorio di Girolamo, Carmen Domínguez, Carlos José Errázuriz, Jesús Colina, Luis Fernando Figari, Alfredo García Quesada, Juan Ignacio González, Stanislaw Grygiel, Gonzalo Ibáñez SantaMaría, Raúl Hasbun, Henri Hude, José Miguel Ibáñez, Raúl Irarrázabal, Lydia Jiménez, Paul Johnson, Jean Laffitte, Nikolaus Lobkowicz, Alfonso López Quintás, Alejandro Llano, Raúl Madrid, Javier Martínez Fernández, Patricia Matte Larraín, Carlos Ignacio Massini Correas, Mauro Matthei O.S.B., Cardinal Jorge Medina, Livio Melina, Augusto Merino, Dominic Milroy O.S.B., Antonio Moreno Casamitjana, Fernando Moreno Valencia, Rodrigo Moreno Jeria, José Miguel Oriol, Máximo Pacheco Gómez, Mario Paredes, Francisco Petrillo O.M.D., Bernardino Piñera, Aquilino Polaino-Lorente, Cardinal Paul Poupard, Javier Prades, Dominique Rey, Héctor Riesle, Florián Rodero L.C., Alejandro San Francisco, Romano Scalfi, Cardinal Angelo Scola, David L. Schindler, Josef Seifert, Gisela Silva Encina, Robert Spaemann, Paulina Taboada, William Thayer Arteaga, Olga Ulianova, Luis Vargas Saavedra, Adriano Dell’Asta, Juan Velarde Fuertes, Aníbal Vial, Pilar Vigil, Richard Yeo O.S.B., Diego Yuuki S.J.

Council of Consultants and Collaborators Héctor Aguer: Archbishop of La Plata, Argentina.

Anselmo Álvarez O.S.B: Abbot of Santa Cruz del Valle de los Caídos.

Carl A nderson: Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus.

Andrés Arteaga: Assistant Bishop of Santiago.

Francisca Alessandri: Professor, Faculty for Journalism, PUC. Antonio Amado: Professor of Metaphysics, University of Los Andes.

Felipe Bacarreza: Bishop of Los Ángeles, Chile.

Rémi Brague: French Philosopher. Ratzinger Prize 2012.

Jean-Louis Bruguès O.P.: Archivist of the Vatican Secret Archives and Librarian of the Vatican Library, Bishop Emeritus of Angers, France.

Massimo Borghesi: Italian philosopher, senior professor of the University of Perugia, Italy.

Rocco Buttiglione: Italian philosopher and politician.

Carlos Francisco Cáceres: Member of the Academy of Social, Political and Moral Sciences, Institute of Chile.

Cardinal Carlo Caffarra: Archbishop of Bologna, Italy.

Stratford Caldecott: Director of the Centre for Faith and Culture, Oxford.

Cardinal Antonio Cañizares: Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Cult and the Discipline of Sacraments.

Jorge Cauas Lama: Member of the Academy of Social, Political and Moral Sciences, Institute of Chile.

Guzmán Carriquiry: Secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America.

William E. Carroll: Aquinas Fellow in Theology and Science, Blackfriars. Faculty of Theology, University of Oxford.

Alberto Caturelli: Argentine philosopher.

Cesare Cavalleri: Director of Studi Cattolici, Milan, Italy.

Fernando Chomalí: Archbishop of Concepción. Member of the Pontifical Academia Pro Vita, PUC. Francisco Claro: Professor at the Faculty for Physics, PUC. Jesús Colina: Director of Aleteia.

Ricardo Couyoumdjian: Professor History Institute, PUC. Member of the History Academy, Institute of Chile.

Mario Correa Bascuñán: Secretary General PUC, professor at the Law Faculty, PUC. Francesco D’Agostino: Professor of Philosophy of Law at the University Tor Vergata of Rome, former President of the National Bioethic Committee of Italy.

Adriano Dell’Asta: Professor, Catholic University, Milan, Italy.

Vittorio di Girólamo: Professor and art historian.

Carmen Domínguez: Director of the PUC Centre for the Family. Professor at the Law Faculty, PUC. Carlos José Errázuriz: Consultant of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, professor at Pontifical Università della Santa Croce.

Luis Fernando Figari: Founder of “Sodalicio de Vida Cristiana”, Lima, Peru.

Alfredo García Quesada: Pontifical Consultant for the Cultural Council, professor of the Pontifical and Civil Faculty of Theology, Lima, Peru.

Juan Ignacio González: Bishop of San Bernardo, Chile.

Stanislaw Grygiel: Polish philosopher, tenured lecturer of the John Paul II Chair, Lateranense University, Rome.

Raúl Hasbun: Priest of the Schöenstatt Congregation, professor at the Pontifical Senior Seminary of Santiago.

Henri Hude: French philosopher, former Rector of the Stanislas College, Paris.

Gonzalo Ibáñez Santa-María: Professor and former Rector of University Adolfo Ibáñez.

José Miguel Ibáñez Langlois: Theologian and poet.

Raúl Irarrázabal Covarrubias: Architect, President of the Chilean Association of the Order of Malta.

Paul Johnson: British historian.

Jean Laffitte: Bishop of Entrevaux. Secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Family.

Nikolaus Lobkowicz: Director of the Eastern and Central European Studies Institute, University of Eichstätt, Germany.

Alfonso López Quintás: Spanish philosopher. Member of the Royal Spanish Academy of Moral and Political Sciences.

Alejandro Llano: Spanish philosopher, former Rector of the University of Navarra, Spain.

Raúl Madrid: Professor, Law Faculty, PUC. Patricia Matte Larraín: Member of the Academy of Social, Political and Moral Sciences, Institute of Chile.

Mauro Matthei O.S.B: Benedictine monk and priest.

Historian.

Cardinal Jorge Medina: Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Javier Martínez Fernández: Archbishop of Granada, Spain.

Carlos Ignacio Massini Correas: Professor at the National University of Cuyo, Argentina.

Livio Melina: President of the John Paul II Pontifical Institute for Studies of Marriage and the Family.

Augusto Merino: Political Scientist, professor at University Adolfo Ibáñez.

Dominic Milroy O.S.B: Monk at Ampleforth, former Rector of the Ampleforth College, York (G.B.).

Fernando Moreno: Philosopher. Member of the Academy of Social, Political and Moral Sciences, Institute of Chile.

Rodrigo Moreno Jeria: Member of the Chilean Academy of History.

José Miguel Oriol: President of Editorial Encuentro, Madrid, Spain.

Mario J. Paredes: Director of Catholic Ministries at American Bible Society.

Francesco Petrillo O.M.D: General Superior of the Orden de la Madre de Dios.

Bernardino Piñera: Archbishop Emeritus of La Serena, Chile.

Aquilino Polaino-Lorente: Spanish psychiatrist.

Cardinal Paul Poupard: President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Culture.

Javier Prades: Dean of the Faculty for Theology at San Dámaso, Madrid, Spain. Member of the International Theological Commission.

Dominique Rey: Bishop of Tréjus-Toulon, France.

Florián Rodero L.C: Professor of Theology, Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum, Rome.

Alejandro San Francisco: Professor at the Institute of History, PUC. Romano Scalfi: Director of the Christian Russia Center, Milan, Italy.

Cardinal Angelo Scola: Archbishop of Milan.

David L. Schindler: Director of the John Paul II Institute for Studies of Marriage and the Family, Washington D.C., U.S.A. Josef Seifert: Austrian philosopher.

Gisela Silva Encina: Writer.

Robert Spaemann: German philosopher.

Paulina Taboada: Medical doctor, member of the Pontifical Academy Pro Vita.

William Thayer Arteaga: Member of the Academy of Social, Political and Moral Sciences, Institute of Chile.

Olga Uliánova: Ph. D. in History, University of Lomonosov, Moscow. Researcher at the University of Santiago.

Adriano Dell’Asta: Vice-president of Fondazione Russia Cristiana.

Juan Velarde Fuertes: Member of the Royal Spanish Academy of Moral and Political Sciences. Príncipe de Asturias Prize in Social Sciences (1992).

Aníbal Vial: Former Rector of University Santo Tomás.

Pilar Vigil: Medical doctor, member of the Pontifical Academy Pro Vita.

Richard Yeo O.S.B: Abbot and President of the Benedictine Congregation, England.

H U M A N I T A S

Humanitas Nº7 2014 - Year IV

Bia nnual English Digital Edition EMBRACING FROM AFAR: REFLECTIONS ON PATERNITY José Granados, DCJM

10

SYNOD ON THE FAMILY Scola / Laffitte

26

ON FORGIVENESS Rémi Brague

34

WHAT IS MAN? Joseph Ratzinger

46

BEATIFICATION OF PAUL VI Pope Francis / Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger / Cardinal Karol Wojtyla

70

LANDSCAPES OF NOTHINGNESS William E. Carroll

106

HIGGS BOSON AND THE GENERAL THEORY OF EVERYTHING Michael Smith S.I.

118

TOWARDS A HEALTHY PSYCHOLOGY Pablo Verdier

126

THE GLORY OF SPACE Andrea Dall'Asta S.I.

134

THE NIGHT IS FAR GONE Anselmo Álvarez Navarrete O.S.B.

162

notes

albert camus, absurd and nostalgia Gianfranco Morra

170

pope francis visits albania Verónica Griffin

175

Summary Editorial Notes The Pope in his own words The Church and the world Books About the authors Front cover:

Amedeo Brogli, Pope Paul VI in prayer

3 6 170 180 202 214 228

H 1

H U M A N I T A S

O N

T H E

I N T E R N E T

See the Digital Version of English and Spanish edition on our page www.humanitas.cl

HUMANITAS

Serving the encounter of faith and culture

HUMANITAS (ISSN 07172168) publishes articles by its regular, national and foreign collaborators as well as authors whose subject matter is in harmony with the goals of HUMANITAS. The total or partial reproduction of articles published by HUMANITAS requires authorization, with the exception of commentary or quotes.

Art direction and design: Ximena Ulibarri, Publicidad Universitaria UC Design and production: María Pía Toro, Javiera Aldunate | Abril Diseño Letters: HUMANITAS / Centro de Extensión de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile / Av. Libertador Bernardo O’Higgins 390, 3rd floor / Santiago / Chile Tel: (56 - 2) 354 65 19 - Fax: (56 – 2) 354 37 55 – email: humanitas@uc.cl

H 2

HUMANITAS

Summary n°7 (Second Semester 2014) Biannual English Digital Edition

EMBRACING FROM AFAR: REFLECTIONS ON PATERNITY, by José Granados, DCJM. The contemporary view has accustomed us to love that forms and vanishes in just a moment, separate from the journey of life. Many may have the intention to live and love without a father; the intention to build a fullness that has no origin other than themselves—their own love and desire to give of themselves; the intention to live absorbed in their love, dedicated to a quiet life without any future goal. Man lives then in a dream, a life without beginning and therefore without history. Man needs to awaken, which means being within time with others. But we only exist in time because of a father and a mother. The question of fatherhood is, in the end, a question of life’s aim, of the horizon of life, of its hidden source and ultimate destination. The author reflects on the essence of paternity and its difficulties, questioning the possible redemption of the father figure, and analyzing the mystery of the Father as the last window that fatherhood opens before man’s life.

Humanitas 2014, VII, pp. 10

ON FORGIVENESS, by Rémi Brague. In the following pages, the author analyzes the meaning of forgiveness, particularly the Christian sense of the word. He highlights that Christianity does not put blame on people, but that it instead frees them from the feeling of guilt since “for every sin there is mercy.” Once forgiven, man can start all over again. However, this focus on mercy presupposes that there is also sin, which is what is forgiven. God always forgives. So the difficulty with the forgiveness of sins lies in the fact that man has to accept forgiveness in order to free himself from his guilt. The great deed consists in making our freedom accept forgiveness and thereby transforming that freedom within us. The New Testament narrates the “economy of salvation,” that is, the device invented by God to liberate freedom itself: to humble oneself in such a way until one dies in the cross, so that no one can feel humiliated for obeying such lord. Incarnation was needed to respect man's freedom. Christianity is not a system based on coercion; its strength comes from love, and it is the only true strength, since there is nothing more demanding than love.

Humanitas 2014, VII, pp. 34

WHAT IS MAN?, by Joseph Ratzinger. The answer to the question What is the man?, has been attempted in the contemporary world by portraying man as a product of law and social and biological determinism. In these pages, the once Professor Dr. Ratzinger reflects on the Holy Scriptures in order to illustrate that what constitutes man as a man is that he projects himself beyond the world, that he is capable of the absolute, that he carries within himself that openness of his existence, which is what takes him above and beyond all circumstances of the world to the eternal itself, giving him an added value that protects him from any termination in the merely mundane. The following text is from a lecture given in the Tübingen times, between 1966 and 1969. This journal publishes this text in English with the authorization of Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

Humanitas 2014, VII, pp. 46

BEATIFICATION OF PAUL VI. Pope Paul VI was the Pontiff to whom the Divine Providence granted the enormous task of being the helmsman of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, qualified as many- both Christians and non Christians- as the most important event of the Twentieth Century. The suffering he bared during those hard years left marks on his face. Of no lesser significance than the cross of leading the Council, was his defense of family and of human life. The beatification of Paul VI by Pope Francis on October 19th, at the closure of the first part of the Synod, has been a particular moment of grace for the Church. With the purpose of paying homage to this important figure, Humanitas has dedicated these pages to Blessed Paul VI, recalling his memory through the eyes of his successors Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and Pope Francis.

Humanitas 2014, VII, pp. 70

H 3

LANDSCAPES OF NOTHINGNESS, by William E. Carroll. Is the ancient adage, that nothing comes from nothing, true? Must there always have been something, existing in some way, in order for there now to exist anything at all? Ancient Greek scientists and philosophers, from the pre-Socratics to Plato, Aristotle, and on to the Stoics, would all affirm that something cannot come from nothing —at least if we properly understand what we mean by “something,” “come from,” and “nothing.” Embracing this principle, the ancients all agreed that the universe must be eternal; there could be no absolute beginning “before” which there was nothing. In seeming contrast to the universal principle that from nothing, nothing comes, Jews, Christians, and Muslims were and are pressed with the need to make sense of their belief that God is the source of all that is; God did not work with some pre-existing stuff to create the universe, since if there were such material, it itself would not be created by God, and, hence, God would not be the cause of all that is. This sense of God’s absolute and complete sovereignty over all things is captured in the doctrine of creation out-of-nothing. In defense of this doctrine, thinkers as Thomas Aquinas do not contradict the first principle of the natural sciences; they recognize that creation, properly understood, is not a change at all. Clearly, the absolute nothing referred to in creation out-ofnothing does not include God. It only refers to the absence of anything other than God. Creation “out-of-nothing” does not mean that God changes “nothing” into something; rather it is a way of affirming that it is God alone, and nothing else, who is the cause of absolutely everything that is.

Humanitas 2014, VII, pp. 106

HIGGS BOSON AND THE GENERAL THEORY OF EVERYTHING, by Michael Smith S.I. Peter Higgs’ discovery of the Higgs boson —2013 Physics Nobel Prize— is a great contribution toward the awareness of the General Theory of Everything in relation to the origin of the universe, which starts with the Big Bang. But this discovery also raises questions for the believer on the role of God as a creator. The scientific method does not allow us to discover how God interacts with the universe, but it is sensible to believe that an explanation that covers all reality will be given in the end. Our faith should allow us to trust in the laws of science and therefore believe that they are an important part of God's creation, more than just being something that should be explained separately, or as something contrary to the love of God towards creation.

Humanitas 2014, VII, pp. 118

TOWARDS A HEALTHY PSYCHOLOGY, by Pablo Verdier. Clinical psychology does not deny certain experiences as the source of psychopathology, but it has been unable to detect the moral demand present within them. Therefore, it has ignored all kinds of links between psychopathology and the moral order. By denying this order, clinical psychology has had to give an account of the harmful characteristic of those experiences, building a whole new anthropology. Anthropology and Christian morality are opposing each other because of this new explanation of man that possesses a scientific appearance, but that implicitly denies the natural moral order. In view of this situation, it becomes difficult to establish a dialogue and to achieve a synthesis between psychology, on the one hand, and anthropology and morality on the other. This is because the former a priori adheres to statements that disqualify, deny, and substitute the latter. In psychotherapy, all that raises or supports the natural order is therapeutic, that is, intervention will not be therapeutic if it transgresses the natural order. A healthy psychotherapy seeks the restitution of the will's dispositions and the sensitive powers to the natural order. With that, internal freedom will be given back to the patient. Therefore, any intervention, even if there is some immediate relief perceived, that goes against the natural law, obtains only partial and temporary results, and risks being a harmful intervention for the patient.

Humanitas 2014, VII, pp. 126

H 4

THE GLORY OF SPACE, by Andrea Dall'Asta S.I. Light, as an image of the divine, has been used in Christian architecture in different ways. In the Romanesque cathedral, the concentrated light signals an ideal path towards God; but in the Gothic cathedral the projected light through stained glass windows expresses the divine luminosity that radiates over the world. Analogous symbols are found in the golden backgrounds of medieval paintings and in Byzantine mosaics, where characters emerge as images from the true light that is God. In this article, the author approaches Glory as the space and light in art and architecture in medieval and Byzantine periods, following then with the Renaissance and Baroque eras, and finally concluding with their manifestations in the modern era.

Humanitas 2014, VII, pp. 134

THE NIGHT IS FAR GONE, by Anselmo Álvarez Navarrete O.S.B. You cannot say we are in the time of man, even if common appearances and interpretations maintain this. We are not thus for at least two reasons: man is absent from himself as long as God is absent from man. Man nullifies himself when he destroys his substantial ecology: the air, the light, and the energy with which he lives, namely God. Humanitas 2014, VII, pp. 162 NOTES ALBERT CAMUS, ABSURDITY AND NOSTALGIA, by Gianfranco Morra. Albert Camus died on January 4th, 1960 in a car accident —he was not even 47 years old—, shortly after being awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. In 2013, his hundredth anniversary was celebrated. This is an opportunity to express a moderate judgment on his conception of life as sometimes dark and sometimes bright; on his atheism in relation to suffering; on his “homme révolté” that goes beyond existentialism’s stinginess and hermetic nature, towards a double union with nature and the neighbor: a tormented dialectic between the absurdity of living and the nostalgia of existing, expressed mostly in his literary work but also in some of his shorter philosophical texts.

Humanitas 2014, VII, pp. 170

Only Albania, by Verónica Griffin. On September 21 this year, Pope Francis made a pilgrimage to Albania. For his first visit to Europe, he choose a peripheral country, Above all, the Pope sought to take a message of hope and closeness to a country that has suffered a dramatic history, to a noble and proud people, but one subjected to terrible humiliations, to a land that today has very much to tell us.

Humanitas 2014, VII, pp. 175 BOOKS INTERVIEW TO PROFESSOR JOHN JOWETT with Paula Baldwin Lindt. On his edition of Sir Thomas by Arden Third Series. The textual history of Sir Thomas More is perhaps one of the most fascinating in terms of authorship, composition and censorship. Most likely written in or around 1600, the only surviving text is a manuscript kept at the British Library. According to scholars, we can distinguish the work of different dramatists in the manuscript, identified with varying degrees of probability as Henry Chettle, Thomas Heywood, William Shakespeare, and Thomas Dekker. Doctor John Jowett is an English Shakespeare scholar and editor. He is Professor of Shakespeare Studies at the University of Birmingham and Deputy Director of the Shakespeare Institute in Stratford-upon-Avon, England. He is the general editor of the New Oxford Shakespeare and general editor of Arden Early Modern Drama.

Humanitas 2014, VII, pp. 214

H 5

III Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops message

W

e, Synod Fathers, gathered in Rome together with Pope Francis in the Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, greet all families of the different continents and in particular all who follow Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. We admire and are grateful for the daily witness which you offer us and the world with your fidelity, faith, hope, and love.

Each of us, pastors of the Church, grew up in a family, and we come from a great variety of backgrounds and experiences. As priests and bishops we have lived alongside families who have spoken to us and shown us the saga of their joys and their difficulties.

The preparation for this synod assembly, beginning with the questionnaire sent to the Churches around the world, has given us the opportunity to listen to the experience of many families. Our dialogue during the Synod has been mutually enriching, helping us to look at the complex situations which face families today.

We offer you the words of Christ: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will enter his house and dine with him, and he with me” (Rev 3:20). On his journeys along the roads of the Holy Land, Jesus would enter village houses. He continues to pass even today along the streets of our cities. In your homes there are light and shadow. Challenges often present themselves and at times even great trials. The darkness can grow deep to the point of becoming a dense shadow when evil and sin work into the heart of the family.

We recognize the great challenge to remain faithful in conjugal love. Enfeebled faith and indifference to true values, individualism, impoverishment of relationships, and stress that excludes reflection leave their mark on family life. There are often crises in marriage, often confronted in haste and without the courage to have patience and reflect, to make sacrifices and to forgive one

H 6

HUMANITAS Nº 7 pp. 6-9

EDITORIAL another. Failures give rise to new relationships, new couples, new civil unions, and new marriages, creating family situations which are complex and problematic, where the Christian choice is not obvious.

We think also of the burden imposed by life in the suffering that can arise with a child with special needs, with grave illness, in deterioration of old age, or in the death of a loved one. We admire the fidelity of so many families who endure these trials with courage, faith, and love. They see them not as a burden inflicted on them, but as something in which they themselves give, seeing the suffering Christ in the weakness of the flesh.

Love, of its nature, strives to be forever to the point of laying down one’s life for the beloved (cf Jn 15:13). In this light conjugal love, which is unique and indissoluble, endures despite many difficulties.

It is one of the most beautiful of all miracles and the most common.

We recall the difficulties caused by economic systems, by the “the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose” (Evangelii gaudium 55) which weakens the dignity of people. We remember unemployed parents who are powerless to provide basic needs for their families, and youth who see before them days of empty expectation, who are prey to drugs and crime.

We think of so many poor families, of those who cling to boats in order to reach a shore of survival, of refugees wandering without hope in the desert, of those persecuted because of their faith and the human and spiritual values which they hold. These are stricken by the brutality of war and oppression. We remember the women who suffer violence and exploitation, victims of human trafficking, children abused by those who ought to have protected them and fostered their development, and the members of so many families who have been degraded and burdened with difficulties. “The culture of prosperity deadens us…. all

H 7

those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us” (Evangelii gaudium 54). We call on governments and international organizations to promote the rights of the family for the common good.

Christ wanted his Church to be a house with doors always open to welcome everyone. We warmly thank our pastors, lay faithful, and communities who accompany couples and families and care for their wounds. *** There is also the evening light behind the windowpanes in the houses of the cities, in modest residences of suburbs and villages, and even in The family is thus an mere shacks, which shines out brightly, warming bodies and souls. authentic domestic This light —the light of a wedding story— shines from the encounter between spouses: it is a gift, a grace expressed, as the Book of Church that expands Genesis says (2:18), when the two are “face to face” as equal and to become the family mutual helpers. The love of man and woman teaches us that each of families which is the needs the other in order to be truly self. Each remains different from ecclesial community. the other that opens self and is revealed in the reciprocal gift. It is Christian spouses this that the bride of the Song of Songs sings in her canticle: “My are called to become beloved is mine and I am his… I am my beloved’s and my beloved teachers of faith and of is mine” (Song of Songs 2:16; 6:3).

love for young couples as well.

This authentic encounter begins with courtship, a time of waiting and preparation. It is realized in the sacrament where God sets his seal, his presence, and grace. This path also includes sexual relationship, tenderness, intimacy, and beauty capable of lasting longer than the vigor and freshness of youth. Such love, of its nature, strives to be forever to the point of laying down one’s life for the beloved (cf Jn 15:13). In this light conjugal love, which is unique and indissoluble, endures despite many difficulties. It is one of the most beautiful of all miracles and the most common.

This love spreads through fertility and generativity, which involves not only the procreation of children but also the gift of divine life in baptism, their catechesis, and their education. It includes the capacity to offer life, affection, and values —an experience possible even for those who have not been able to bear children. Families who live this light-filled adventure become a sign for all, especially for young people.

This journey is sometimes a mountainous trek with hardships and falls. God is always there to accompany us. The family experiences his presence in affection and dialogue between husband and wife, parents and children, sisters and brothers. They embrace him in family prayer and listening to the Word of God

H 8

EDITORIAL

—a small, daily oasis of the spirit. They discover him every day as they educate their children in the faith and in the beauty of a life lived according to the Gospel, a life of holiness. Grandparents also share in this task with great affection and dedication. The family is thus an authentic domestic Church that expands to become the family of families which is the ecclesial community. Christian spouses are called to become teachers of faith and of love for young couples as well.

Another expression of fraternal communion is charity, giving, nearness to those who are last, marginalized, poor, lonely, sick, strangers, and families in crisis, aware of the Lord’s word, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). It is a gift of goods, of fellowship, of love and mercy, and also a witness to the truth, to light, and to the meaning of life.

The high point which sums up all the threads of communion with God and neighbor is the Sunday Eucharist when the family and the whole Church sits at table with the Lord. He gives himself to all of us, pilgrims through history towards the goal of the final encounter when “Christ is all and in all” (Col 3:11). In the first stage of our Synod itinerary, therefore, we have reflected on how to accompany those who have been divorced and remarried and on their participation in the sacraments.

We Synod Fathers ask you walk with us towards the next Synod. The presence of the family of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph in their modest home hovers over you.

United to the Family of Nazareth, we raise to the Father of all our petition for the families of the world: Father, grant to all families the presence of strong and wise spouses who may be the source of a free and united family.

Father, grant that parents may have a home in which to live in peace with their families.

Father, grant that children may be a sign of trust and hope and that young people may have the courage to forge life-long, faithful commitments.

Father, grant to all that they may be able to earn bread with their hands, that they may enjoy serenity of spirit and that they may keep aflame the torch of faith even in periods of darkness.

Father, grant that we may all see flourish a Church that is ever more faithful and credible, a just and humane city, a world that loves truth, justice and mercy.

Vatican, October 18th, 2014

H 9

ÂŤThe mother better represents eternity, the present that does not pass, the relation of time with its plenitude; the father, on the other hand, introduces the origin and the ultimate destination in view of time, lending time its direction, its growth. From such a point of view, sexual difference cannot be expressed through a story in narrative terms, from a beginning to the destiny that fulfills all. Pretending to objectify the difference by 10 separating it from its narrative is to dissolve all that is specific to it.Âť Father and son by Chagall.

H

embracing from afar: reflections on paternity

By JOSÉ GRANADOS, DCjM

I

n Paul Claudel’s The Humiliated Father, one of the characters, young Pensée, lives conflicted with her father and in love with Orian. Because of the drama she goes through, the rejection of her father figure and the attraction for love, Pensée says the following: “it is not important from whom we are born, but for whom…”1 In this way she thinks she has solved the difficulty that fragments her life: one can throw oneself into love without worrying about one’s origin; one can move forward without knowing where one comes from; one can fight without watching one’s back. The young woman represents, thus, the intention of living and loving without a father; of building a fullness that has no origin other than herself, her own love and desire to give herself.

A similar dilemma from a father’s point of view is the one posed to Aeneas, whom Virgil presents as an exemplary father by calling him pater Aeneas. Can Aeneas live for Dido, absorbed in his love, dedicated to a quiet life, forgetting the constant march that is his mission? The Aeneid makes this clear: there can be no wedding if it is not open to the son’s future and if the duty entrusted to Aeneas by his forefathers in the service to his people is forgotten.

These questions pose the problem of the origin of life and its importance in man’s happiness and mission. Filiation and paternity are related aspects. John Paul II intuitively knew this when he said: one cannot be a father without learning first to be a son.2 In the absence of a direct principle, when one does not have a father, it is difficult to understand life as a river that flows toward a goal; the gaze tends, then, to become static, to stop, absorbed in a never-ending present. Thus, love, “for whom” we live, becomes a circle that spins around itself, incapable of opening up a path, of tracing a horizon, incapable of engendering life.

Contemporary view has accustomed us to a love that forms and vanishes in just a moment, separated from the journey of life. Inception, a Christopher Nolan film, reflects on this difficulty through the image of the dream. The film imagines a way of sharing dreams that are built and inhabited by the person who

HUMANITAS Nº 7 pp. 10-25

Life is a story, a narrative with a scheme and plot, with a setup, confrontation, and resolution. It is only in this way that life goes beyond our own boundaries, given that existing in time is being with others, living from others and towards others. Only a person who has a father or mother can exist in time and, from them, project towards their children.

The question of fatherhood is, in the end, a question about life’s aim, of the horizon of life, of its hidden source and ultimate destination.

1 P. Claudel, Le Père humillé, Gallimard, Paris, 1920.

2 K. Wojtyla, “Radiation of Fatherhood” in The Collected Plays and Writings on Theater, University of California Press, Berkely, 1897, 339.

H 11

The question, then, comprehends life as a whole, from its origin to its destination. When we accept that our path starts and ends in another, that it is not a circle that spins around ourselves, only then do we perceive life’s opening towards love; adolescent individualism is broken, and life and identity start being built.

H 12

designs them. A hint is offered that distinguishes between dream and reality: dreams do not have a beginning, which is why they do not have history either. We suddenly find ourselves in them without any preparation. That is the reason why people who appear in it are idealized and only turn out to be projections of the self. In the end, one is trapped and unable to distinguish between dream and reality, as Nolan’s film portrays.

With the temptation of perpetual sleep, it is necessary for man to wake up and be open to the reality that surrounds him, with an invitation to know it. Well, this awakening entails acknowledging that life is a story, a narrative with a scheme and plot, with a setup, confrontation, and resolution. It is only in this way that life goes beyond our own boundaries, given that existing in time is being with others, living from others and towards others. Only a person who has a father or mother can exist in time and, from them, project towards their children. This is the viewpoint that will allow us to approach the problem of paternity: the question of fatherhood is, in the end, a question about life’s aim, of the horizon of life, of its hidden source and ultimate destination.

On one extreme we locate the acceptance of the father; on the other, the exercise of fatherhood. The question, then, comprehends life as a whole, from its origin to its destination. When we accept that our path starts and ends in another, that it is not a circle that spins around ourselves, only then do we perceive life’s opening towards love; adolescent individualism is broken, and life and identity start being built. Our thesis will be that paternity must provide a testimonial of origin, meaning, and the vistas of man’s own path; as a counterpoint, we could also discuss the description of maternity, which offers the first welcome to man in the world; it is the presence that holds him, reassuring him of the goodness of his concrete situation.

We start by delving into the essence of paternity (1), to later face the difficulties that lurk about it (2), today more than ever before.

Then, we will pose the question of the possible redemption of the father figure (3), followed by an analysis of the mystery of the Father, the last window that fatherhood opens before man’s life (4).

1. The essence of paternity Hannah Arendt already said that birth is a key experience in understanding human action.3 Every born child is a witness of the plausibility of novelty in that which we embark, the new beginning despite apparent failures. Birth refers the child to his parents’ love and assures him that the spring where his life flows is neither due to fortune nor necessity, but a personal communion that procreated him as its ripe fruit. The encounter with father and mother refutes the desperate Segismund’s perception, in Life Is a Dream by Calderón, when he says that “man’s worst crime is to be born.” When fatherhood and motherhood are present, being born is unveiled as a blessing, an original gift. Segismund’s statement is the exception that makes the rule, given that the hero suffers from the absence of a father, who is frightened by the menace that the son poses for him and eager to control his child’s destiny. When the father is missing, life is perceived as a crime for which we are punished.

What is the shape of the original gift revealed by paternity? The difference between male and female appears at the beginning of human life, from the child’s very first experience: the origin presents itself in the form of union between father and mother. Here lies the first view that allows us to discover the meanings of masculinity and femininity, the first way it appears in human life: the child’s gaze. No man owes its existence purely to another man or his own will. In accordance with the Creator’s original design, man comes from the communion between people, from the love between man and woman.

What do we learn from this difference that is at the origin of all human life? It is not about the “other half,” as in the myth of the Androgyne, which divides the characteristics between men and women. Someone who wanted to describe, for example, the masculine as activity and the feminine as passivity would make this mistake. Man and woman are not simply halves, but whole persons; moreover, their union is not a closed bubble, but a polarity that opens up to transcendence, as a violin duet inspired by the same music. We should add to this that difference is certainly not only diversity, as among races and cultures. The masculine and the feminine are actually complementary, understood only as mutual light, as is expressed in Genesis when woman is called “a fit helper” for man and uses for that the word “kenegdo,” “being face to face” (Gn 2:18).

It is precisely fatherhood and motherhood that help us understand the essence of sexual difference. Seen in this way, the difference between men and women manifests in relation to a

The difference between male and female appears at the beginning of human life, from the child’s very first experience: the origin presents itself in the form of union between father and mother. Here lies the first view that allows us to discover the meanings of masculinity and femininity, the first way it appears in human life: the child’s gaze.

3 H. Arendt, The Human Condition, Chicago, 1958, 177178.

H 13

Birth refers the child to his parents’ love and assures him that the spring where his life flows is neither due to fortune nor necessity, but a personal communion that procreated him as its ripe fruit.

ÂŤIt is precisely fatherhood and motherhood that help us understand the essence of sexual difference. Seen in this way, the difference between men and women manifests in relation to a third party, the offspring. The risk of presenting this difference as the closed bubble of the androgynous other half is thus avoided. But how is this difference understood in light of the child birthed from this union? In respect to the child, the mother represents the first presence that is always there, sheltering him in his arrival into this world. The father, on the other hand, is located, at first, at a distance, as a shrouded figure that hides and is placed in the horizon.Âť Mother with her child, by Goya.

H 14

third party, the offspring. The risk of presenting this difference as the closed bubble of the androgynous other half is thus avoided.

But how is this difference understood in light of the child birthed from this union? In respect to the child, the mother represents the first presence that is always there, sheltering him in his arrival into this world. The father, on the other hand, is located, at first, at a distance, as a shrouded figure that hides and is placed in the horizon. It is in this way that Millet’s First Steps is conceived, which later inspires Van Gogh’s homonymous work. In addition to that, Karol Wojtyla used to say that in, Radiation of Fatherhood, the father is absent, but, nevertheless, always perceived as present.4 Wojtyla added that the mother teaches the father about the mystery of paternity because every man knows what it is to be a father through a woman.5 However, as Wojtyla says women receive fatherhood from men, because in fatherhood lies the mystery of transcending origin. From this point of view, both paternity and maternity refer to divine mystery; they make it evident in the child’s life. They are two ways of representing the Origin, be it as sheltering presence (motherhood) or as the presence in the distance which invites one on one’s own path (fatherhood). The fact that the origin takes this shape (and is not identified with only one individual, man or woman) secures its transcendence and, at the same time, the child’s dignity, given that he will not owe his life to another man’s direct decision, but to the fertility of a love by which man and woman open up themselves to mystery. That is why the mother can give testimony to the unmovable fidelity of God, as the Scriptures state: “Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you” (Is 49:15).

On his part, the father bears witness to the path, the distance, the necessary steps to inhabit the world, to give oneself to work; he also testifies to divine transcendence, the presence of God, who is always beyond.

We can sum up what has been said: both father and mother are two complementary forms of presence. The first one is that which is always there, anticipating all goals beforehand; the second appears in the distance, inviting us on our journey and to growth.

Gabriel Marcel described fatherhood as “creative fidelity.”6 With the idea of “fidelity,” a view of time opens up that is associated to paternity. The mother better represents eternity, the present that does not pass, the relation of time with its plenitude; the father, on the other hand, introduces the origin and the ultimate destination in view of time, lending time its direction, its growth. From such a point of view, sexual difference cannot be expressed through

Someone who wanted to describe, for example, the masculine as activity and the feminine as passivity would make this mistake. Man and woman are not simply halves, but whole persons; moreover, their union is not a closed bubble, but a polarity that opens up to transcendence, as a violin duet inspired by the same music. (…)

4 K. Wojtyla, “Radiation of Fatherhood”, 345.

5 K. Wojtyla, “Radiation of Fatherhood”, 362.

6 G. Marcel, Homo Viator.

Prolégomènes à une métaphysique de l’espérance, Aubier, Paris, 1951, 125.

H 15

(…) We should add to this that difference is certainly not only diversity, as among races and cultures.

The masculine and the feminine are actually complementary, understood only as mutual light, as is expressed in Genesis when woman is called “a fit helper” for man and uses for that the word “kenegdo,” “being face to face” (Gn 2:18).

7 J.A. Granados – J. Granados, La alianza educativa, Monte Carmelo, Burgos, 2009.

8 A. Macintyre, Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need Virtues, Open Court, Chicago, 1999.

9 J. Gomá Lanzón, Aquiles en el gineceo o Aprende a ser mortal, Pre-textos, Valencia, 2007.

10 C. Risé, El padre: el ausente inaceptable, Madrid, 2006.

H 16

a story in narrative terms, from a beginning to the destiny that fulfills all. Pretending to objectify the difference by separating it from its narrative is to dissolve all that is specific to it.

This difference permeates the whole of a person’s education.

There is the wrong notion of education as education in mere autonomy.7 It is expressed by saying that its purpose is for the child to be able to decide for himself; for him to reach a point in which he can see what is good and be autonomous, without the need of having someone tell him what to do. This view is mistaken because human maturity does not only consist of autonomy. In this respect, Macintyre has spoken of man as an independent rational animal.8 According to this well-known philosopher, one must educate within an acknowledged dependence, understanding that life is not built on one’s own; it is about educating within gratitude and acknowledgement.

Here, maternity plays a key role, helping the student understand the world as a gift and the original promise hidden in everything.

This first relationship with the good origin that gave birth to us and that is received in existence, handed down mostly by the mother, cannot be left behind. Now, it is not possible to simply stay in it, in a childishness that would end in perpetual narcissism. This is where the role of the father most appropriately comes in, introducing the child to life by teaching him that the original relationships that received him in the world have social value and can elevate existence. The father reminds him that it is necessary to walk beyond that first dwelling and be introduced to life. It is necessary to receive the wound of mortality, to accept the limitations of the body, as is demonstrated by Gomá Lanzón in Achilles in the Gynaeceum.9 Without a mother, the self would rebel against a hostile world, being incapable of reconciling it with itself. Without a father, the self would be confined within the mother’s circle, without growing or maturing, anchored to a satisfied self-contemplation.

Having sketched the essence of fatherhood, we shall go on to analyze its decline in modern times.

2. The decline of the father Why has the father become the “unacceptable absentee” of whom Claudio Risé speaks of?10 He is absent because he is no longer found anywhere and unacceptable in that he is still needed in spite of everything.

The question is an old one. It can be said that there is a natural temptation in the human heart to reject paternity. The original

narrative of the fall in the book of Genesis shows the wound of fatherhood. At least, that is how it has been read by John Paul II in his work Radiation of Fatherhood. Sin firstly turns against God, against his fatherly character. This is due to mistrust towards his goodness and a rejection of the path marked in his commandments. The temptation is thinking that God is not a father, but a master who tyrannizes his creature, somebody who is jealous of man’s growth. It is interesting to see how, losing this view of divine paternity, the mutual love of Adam and Eve, which does not seem directly damaged by sin, soon suffers the consequences. Thus, the logic of domination is introduced into God’s words after the sin: “he shall rule over you” (Gn 3:16). Now, when man no longer sees himself as a son, it is impossible for him to be a husband and his openness to fatherhood is also broken.

We have just mentioned John Paul II’s reading in Radiation of fatherhood. His is a new point of view because it interprets in Adam’s sin an escape from his paternal mission. In sin, fatherhood and motherhood have been damaged. John Paul II concretely portrays for us a fleeing Adam, as the prophet Jonah, rejecting the greatness of the mission that was assigned to him. Once more, sin is shown as hiding in a hole; it is not so much the desire of grandeur, but the desire for pettiness, of excluding oneself from the great duty of life. And like this, the consequence of denying God as Father is forgetting one’s own paternal mission. Adam prefers loneliness and isolation to having to take on the destiny of others, which Gabriel Marcel describes as the sins of paternity, and which is interesting to look over.

We have, on one hand, the father who hides from his children, who does not want anything to do with them, and who refuses to know them. The drama in the book My Daddy’s Name is Donor reflects this situation well.11 Here, we read Katrina Clark’s story, a girl who was conceived in vitro and starts off on a journey to find her father in sperm donor databases, only to achieve it almost by luck and, after trying to build a friendship with him, to find out that he does not want to go further with the relationship.

This, then, is the representation of the risk of a father who has not understood the gravity of his generating act, because he has not had a conjugal relationship that allows him to do so. For the mother, this detachment is more difficult, for the union with the child is in her own corporeality. However, for a man the bond is not immediate to him: he must acknowledge it, make him his own, receive the child.

On the other hand, we have the father who projects himself in the child, wants to see his life go on with him and takes control

They are two ways of representing the Origin, be it as sheltering presence (motherhood) or as the presence in the distance which invites one on one’s own path (fatherhood). The fact that the origin takes this shape secures its transcendence and, at the same time, the child’s dignity, given that he will not owe his life to another man’s direct decision, but to the fertility of a love by which man and woman open up themselves to mystery.

11 E. Marquardt – N. D. Glenn – K. Clark, My Daddy’s Name Is Donor: A New Study of Young Adults Conceived Through Sperm Donation, Institute for American Values, New York, 2010.

H 17

The father reminds THE CHILD that it is necessary to walk beyond that first dwelling and be introduced to life.

It is necessary to receive the wound of mortality, to accept the limitations of the body.

H 18

of the other’s destiny, therefore smothering his freedom. This is a father who does not recognize the novelty of his child and wants to absorb that destiny for himself. A comparison to adoption can be especially helpful here. When parents adopt, they have to ask themselves why they are doing it. If their motivation is the mere desire of having a child, there is still something missing in their understanding. The right reason to adopt is the need of the child who lacks parents. Those who understand it in this way are willing to take responsibility of that child’s destiny, take it on their own shoulders. Thus, we understand the magnitude of paternity and how disproportionate it is to human forces. Only he who discovers that one’s life is opened to a bigger mystery than oneself is capable of accepting the challenge of paternity.

“Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?” (Lk 12:20). The biblical parable of the rich man who, after building his last storehouse, realizes that his life has come to an end can be read as an invitation to focus on eternity, away from the normal track of time. In fact, riches pass and the human eagerness to plan, store, and build numerous barns cannot stop the decay that time provokes.

However, there is another possible interpretation to this text. What this rich man is lacking, above all else, is another way of preparing for the future: to have children and educate them. There are no children in the parable and their absence is a cry of condemnation of that man. The option of procreating and educating children does not match the preoccupation for barns, a symbol for someone who tries to plan his future and possess it. It is another way of looking at tomorrow, making it his, but not in the way of those who plan and dominate it beforehand, but in accordance with the generosity of the one who becomes a father. The man in the parable is a fool, not because he has planned the future, but because he has done so incorrectly. Although paternity does not secure the mystery of the future, it makes it appear in a different way in the steps of man, placing it in the future that is opened by the son.

Only he who understands that the mystery of time is in the hands of a Father can dare have a child. And he will, not to dominate it, but to accept it from the mysterious undercurrent of existence, to receive him as a gift from above that is entrusted to his care and capable of extending his days towards eternity.

Thus, we approach one of the greatest conflicts of modern man.

After having left his father, obsessed with reaching adulthood, he has made himself incapable of becoming a father and has chosen the future of technology, controlling ahead, closing in this way the horizons of his life. Cannot modern times be described

(…) Without a mother, the self would rebel against a hostile world, being incapable of reconciling it with itself. Without a father, the self would be confined within the mother’s circle, without growing or maturing, anchored to a satisfied selfcontemplation.

«We approach one of the greatest conflicts of modern man. After having left his father, obsessed with reaching adulthood, he has made himself incapable of becoming a father and has chosen the future of technology, controlling ahead, closing in this way the horizons of his life. Cannot modern times be described as the “decline of the father”?

Since the age of reason, isolated man, who is incapable of belonging to others or making other’s destiny his own, became absolute. God’s presence was deemed uncomfortable in the pretensions of a man who thought he had reached unbeatable maturity. This difference permeates the whole of a person’s education.»

Oil on canvaz, by Chagall.

H 19

There is a natural temptation in the human heart to reject paternity. The original narrative of the fall in the book of Genesis shows the wound of fatherhood.

as the “decline of the father”? Since the age of reason, isolated man, who is incapable of belonging to others or making other’s destiny his own, became absolute. God’s presence was deemed uncomfortable in the pretensions of a man who thought he had reached unbeatable maturity.

This has serious effects in the way man understands and lives family love, which is where his identity is formed. There still is, on one side, puritan love, in which the father appears as a repressive figure who inhibits freedom with an oppressive authoritarianism of individual desires. Romantic love appears as a rebellion against this hated father. Romanticism set desires free, emphasized the role of emotions and, by doing so, it made the moment an absolute, because it did not want to go back to an origin or go toward a goal.

As opposite as they are, puritanical and romantic loves are tied by a common denominator: they lack origin; the father has disappeared.

So this is the crisis we are in. It has been accelerating in recent times. In the society of “liquid love,” i.e. a love without shape and commitment, reduced to the individual’s autonomous desires, starting one day and ending the next, and inconstant; paternity has also lost its own shape. The father’s absence is especially noticed in the inability of our era to structure personal time and social time. Hence, we go back to the character of Pensée in Claudel’s work. Let’s remember how the young woman expresses the drama: “it is not important from whom we are born, but for whom.” The phrase seems to convince us: is not love what is essential? What is the good of chaining oneself to the past? The problem is that, when this happens, when one loses consciousness about the origin, love soon ends and is unable to project towards the future.

We understand, then, Pensée’s mistake: it is impossible to live for someone if one does not live for someone and from someone; it is impossible to give love if love is not before received; it is impossible to become a wife if one does not have a father. Is there any hope for this to happen?

3. The father’s redemption Watching such a scene, can the father’s redemption be expected?

Can his figure be recovered? Can his absence be filled in a time when it seems to worsen due to the desire for autonomy? Is not the father figure under Modernity’s permanent suspicion?

Man will forever seek his father and his figure will be essential to find his route. The first chapters of the book of Genesis confirm that this task is not impossible. It is stated there, firstly, that God continues to bless human love with fertility. It is true that a

H 20

punishment seems to be uttered after sin: by the sweat of your face you shall eat bread; in pain you shall bring forth children. We usually tend to focus on the sweat and the pain without giving importance to the other extremes: the bread produced by the earth; the children conceived in the womb. The latter are signs of divine presence, of its blessing. And, hence, the punishment takes a secondary role. More than anything else, what is announced is that, despite man’s bad behavior, God is still present in human actions and human love, for it is characteristic of God to bless with fruit.

Moreover, It is later added that Adam passes along his image and likeness to his son (Gn 5:3) in a clear reference to the divine likeness and image with which Adam himself was created (Gn 1:26). Thus, it is clear that the mystery and responsibility entrusted to Adam have not been taken back. The mission is still possible, for God’s presence as Father still reflects from the very heart of human experience.

Moving on in the history of the Covenant, it can also be said that Israelite Law is an education in paternity, given that the family is the first sphere where the Torah is learned and lived.

In this respect, it is important to notice the particular role of the fourth commandment: to honor both father and mother is stated affirmatively and is placed precisely next to the commandment that speaks about the Sabbath, guaranteeing the fertility of labor and of the earth. It is true that the Law does not speak of any commandments referring to the parents, but this does not mean that they are absent from it. In fact, it should be said that the whole Law is directed to them, for it is their mission to instill it in their child’s heart. Going even further, the main commandment of the father is memory (Dt 6: 6-9): to remember the work of God, which gives foundation to all the effort demanded by the Law by giving it an origin and a destination.

In the final lines of the Old Testament, Christianity offers a surprising revelation about paternity. In fact, the Good News consist precisely of “see[ing] how great a love the Father has bestowed on us,” for he has called us his children and we are (1 John 3:1-2). Actually, the whole of Christ’s message can be summarized in Phillip’s question: “show us the Father, and it is enough for us”; and to Jesus’ answer: “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14: 8-9).

On the one hand, Jesus is He who reveals God’s paternity. His life, since his birth from the virginal bosom, is evidence of the primal origin in the Father, source of all creation and history.

Jesus’ secret is that he comes from the Father, and in the Father

the consequence of denying God as Father is forgetting one’s own paternal mission. Adam prefers loneliness and isolation to having to take on the destiny of others, which Gabriel Marcel describes as the sins of paternity.

H 21

In Christ, the act of giving life, which goes together with his death on the Cross, defeats death; we have here a father that is alive, immortal, and opens a path so that his children can walk on it. Now the father’s absence is finally overcome. (…)

12 J. Granados, “Priesthood: A Sacrament of the Father,” Communio: International Catholic Review 36 (2009), 186-218. Here, some of the points of view expressed in this article are further developed.

H 22

he finds his nourishment, the source of his activity. That is why Christianity can be summarized as the revelation of the Father, his new and complete apparition in a history that had forgotten him. The radiation of the Father, which should have shined through Adam to enlighten his children, is resumed in Christ’s life, in his obedience until his death on the Cross. Therefore, God reveals himself as eternal Father, as he who has always had a Son. That is, he is not a lonely or a jealous God, but that God whose ultimate perfection is to give himself completely, as Father, to his Son. God’s paternity has been revealed through his Son. We have already spoken of the distance of fatherhood, which the father does not fear to open so that the son can grow and mature.

Well, we can say that God himself has not feared the distance of paternity when he sent his Son to the depths of the world and to a world of sin. Here is the utmost sign of paternity: in the Son’s mission, in the distance of the road that must be taken, in the suffering of he who is delivered to death on the Cross, the Father is not absent. This is his distant embrace, or his “embracing” distance, which reaches its completeness in the resurrection, the definite embrace that the Father gives his Son in his humanity.

On the other hand, Christ also presents himself as “father.” The title could surprise us, for it does not appear much in Scriptures nor in the Fathers of the Church. However, there are enough testimonials that refer to Jesus as father.12 The most important are the comparisons between Jesus and Adam, common in the Pauline epistles. Here, the parallel with the first father reveals us that Christ is also a father. If Adam’s was the lineage of the ancient race, Jesus begins a new descent, a new way of being born in the flesh.

Thus, with Jesus, paternity is recovered and, at the same time, is transformed, because its relation with the global horizon of life is made even clearer: your Father who is in heaven and conducts history from its primal origin to its ultimate end. That is why fatherhood, in Christ, is able to defeat death, that insurmountable limit with which every father has to count on. In fact, the birth of a child is always a reminder of one’s own mortality, that every communicated life has its limit. Having a child means accepting our own finitude, recognizing that the future can only be inhabited by others. This is the reason why learning to be a father is learning to be humble. But in Christ, the act of giving life, which goes together with his death on the Cross, defeats death; we have here a father that is alive, immortal, and opens a path so that his children can walk on it. Now the father’s absence is finally overcome; it takes the shape of a presence that accompanies

his Church in this path, though in an invisible way. And from it, we can go toward the ultimate mystery that every father reflects: God’s paternity.

4. The mystery of the father Jesus' life helps us approach the ultimate mystery of paternity, the mystery of the heavenly Father. Underlying every paternal mission is the origin from God. The epistle to the Ephesians reads that from Him comes all paternity in heaven and earth (Eph 3:14-15).

God obviously overcomes sexual difference. He is neither man nor woman and, in this sense, he is neither father nor mother (see the affirmations of Mulieris Dignitatem 8). However, He reveals himself precisely in the intricate web formed by fatherhood and motherhood. His light shines through the glass of communion made in sexual difference, where every son discovers his origin and finds the calling to walk toward his destination.

Why is this mediation necessary? God is both immanent and transcendental, more intimate than intimacy, and an immeasurable horizon that can never be apprehended. It is precisely the difference between father and mother that allows God to express his mystery. The mother reveals it through presence; the father does it through perspective and a path. The difference shows that God’s mystery can never be locked in within our categories.

Trinitarian arguments in the primitive Church clearly affirmed this divine paternity, while, at the same time, they showed that it transcends human fatherhood. On one hand, God’s paternity is understood by means of human paternity. Procreating is a kind of perfection that is found in its highest state in God’s very heart.

The anti-Arian struggle helped to clarify this extreme. Confessing Jesus as true God does not diminish the Father’s divinity. On the contrary, the fact that the Son is God as a whole must be seen as a reinforcement of the Father’s divinity, for in showing his capacity of giving everything with no reservations, the height of his love is revealed. Because of that, the more the Son’s divinity is confessed, the more the Father’s divinity is strengthened.

At the same time, it is underlined that God is the Son’s Father in a unique way, different to other fathers. This is how Saint Gregory of Nazianzus says the Father has always engendered the Son, and that he communicates to the Son everything he has, which is a characteristic not present in human paternity. In fact, we are first men and then fathers; but God has always been Father; we

(…) it takes the shape of a presence that accompanies his Church in this path, though in an invisible way.

And from it, we can go toward the ultimate mystery that every father reflects: God’s paternity.

H 23

God is both immanent and transcendental, more intimate than intimacy, and an immeasurable horizon that can never be apprehended.

It is precisely the difference between father and mother that allows God to express his mystery.

The mother reveals it through presence; the father does it through perspective and a path.

The difference shows that God’s mystery can never be locked in within our categories.

13 D. García Guillén, “Padre es nombre de relación”: Dios Padre en la teología de Gregorio Nacianceno, Analecta Gregoriana, 308, Gregorian and Biblical Press, Rome, 2010.

14 Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, Ignatius Press, New York 2008, Chapter 5: “The Lord’s prayer”

H 24

communicate to our children part of our beings, but there are still levels of our existence that the child does not know or influence.

On the contrary, of God it can be said: “the Father is truly Father, and in a more true way than the fathers among us, because he is father in a unique and specific way, unlike corporeal beings; he is a unique father, because he is so without conjugal union; he is father of only one, because he is the father of the only begotten Son; he is only father, because he was not a Son before; he is a complete Father of the complete Son […]. And he is Father from the beginning, for he was not after” (Saint Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio 25, 16).13 We conclude, then, these reflections on paternity. We have understood the difficulty of the father’s mission in an adolescent society. When there is no father it is impossible to educate for life; there will be education only in a smothering affection that is unable to find a path and, therefore, a logos, an ultimate meaning.

We have also understood that the reeducation of paternity must follow in two ways: teaching in God’s image and in the father’s experience. He who understands how God is Father will be a good one. And he who is a good father will get to know better the mystery of God. We end by making reference to a reflection by Benedict XVI in the first part of his Jesus of Nazareth. There, he recommends reading the Lord’s Prayer “backwards,” so that the pilgrim steps of Israel through the desert continue to go on.14 After being freed—“deliver us from evil” —from Egypt’s oppression; after transgressing— “forgive us our trespasses” —the need for mercy; after receiving the manna—“give us our daily bread” —that pours down in the desert, and work —“Thy kingdom come” —in divine service, Israel reaches its goal, Sinai, where the sanctity of the divine name is revealed, “hallowed be Thy name.” And that name, the ultimate word of wisdom, is also the most familiar one, the best known, the most native: Father. The Father is, then, at the beginning and at the end. It is the first and last word about God. This is the reason why his figure always resists its apprehension to enter our poor categories. It can only be uttered in plenitude at the end of the road, when we finally encounter his distant embrace.

Translated by Ana María Neira

«The radiation of the Father, which should have shined through Adam to enlighten his children, is resumed in Christ’s life, in his obedience until his death on the Cross. Therefore, God reveals himself as eternal Father, as he who has always had a Son. That is, he is not a lonely or a jealous God, but that God whose ultimate perfection is to give himself completely, as Father, to his Son.» Christ face by Chagall

H 25

synod on the family and mindfulness of the sacredness and inviolability of family.

His Holiness Pope Francis has entrusted the work of the

Bishops during the Synod to the Holy Family of Nazareth, “Trinity on Earth.” One of the invocations to Jesus, Mary and St. Joseph, composed by the Pope, says:

“Holy Family of Nazareth, may the approaching Synod of Bishops make us once more mindful of the sacredness and inviolability of the family” humanitas is glad to present in the following pages reflections by Cardinal Angelo Scola, Archbishop of Milan, and Mons. Jean Laffitte, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Family, ―both members of the Council of humanitas― on the occasion of the Synod of Bishops.

H 26

HUMANITAS Nº 7 pp. 26-33

Synod on the Family

INTERVIEW WITH CARDINAL ANGELO SCOLA

“SAYING ‘NO’ TO THE DIVORCED IS NOT A PUNISHMENT” During the Synod on the family, Cardinal Angelo Scola, Archbishop of Milan, gave his impressions on the life of the Church a year and a half after the election of Pope Bergoglio.

Eminence, sometimes it seems that for the European Church it is difficult to understand the novelty of Francisco. The Synod also holds heterogeneous positions. Is it possible to reach a consensus regarding some conclusions?

I am convinced that it is. Before the conclave, we Europeans expressed a clear conviction about the life of the Church, speaking explicitly of the unlikelihood that a European Pope could be elected. Today, we have a Pope whose pastoral experience has undergone the painful and deep coexistence with marginalization, poverty, and even formulated a significant theology and culture for all. For us Europeans, this constitutes a provocation that, at first, can even be destabilizing, but if we embrace it, as the communional nature of the Church requests of us, the results are absolutely invaluable. We are advancing in that direction and, therefore, the future is charged with hope. Among other things, while it is true that Europe is weary, it is also true that this is a result of the very complex problems it has carried on its back for centuries. The European mens will continue to be a strong force in the construction of a new civilization and a new world order.

The relationship between Christ as bridegroom and the Church as bride is a model not only for the married; it is much more than that: it is the foundation of their marriage. I believe that the link between Eucharist and Marriage continues to be substantial. Therefore, those who have remarried are in a condition that, objectively, does not allow access to sacramental communion.

Far from being a punishment, it is an invitation to a journey.

H 27

Cardinal Angelo Scola, Archbishop of Milan

Pope Francis wishes that, above all, the Synod should be an occasion for confrontation. How does this seem to you?

In the assembly of the Synod there has been an extraordinary listening to one another. There is no other place in the world where 250 people coming from every country work together like this. The Catholicism of the Church is tangible and visible. Furthermore, the practice, introduced in 2005 by Benedict XVI, of leaving an hour at the end of the meeting for free confrontation has been maturing. Everyone has the opportunity to take up the intervention of another and say “I haven’t understood this, I would say it like this, etc.� Truly, it is a growth of the exercise of collegiality.

The pre-Synod discussion in the media has been focused on the theme of giving communion to the divorced and remarried.

But the subject of admission to Eucharistic communion for the divorced who have remarried is placed within the context of the need, felt by everyone, to refer to the complete reality of the family which

H 28

Synod on the Family

has an enormous value for the Church and for society. We tried to find an adequate way and the most comprehensible language possible through which to communicate the beauty of the Christian proposal which is offered to all. Additionally, in the debate other complex and difficult situations have risen. For instance, the theme of polygamy has had a great weight in the interventions of both the African and Asian fathers. In any case, no delicate theme, not even homosexuality, has been silenced.

What do you think about the possibility of giving communion to the divorced and remarried?

I have been the successor of Roncalli (later Saint John I have not found an XXIII) in Venice and I have been able to see certain notes con- answer yet to the cerning pastoral issues. Roncalli links the pastoral directly possibility of their with history and salvation. It is pastoral to propose Jesus access to sacramental as the fulfillment and salvation of the concrete person. He communion without is the way, the truth and the life for each one, whatever his colliding with the or her situation. Personally, I perceive the need to assume fact that marriage is fully Roncalli’s idea that recognizes the inseparable link indissoluble. In brief, between doctrine, pastoral practice and discipline. Only from indissolubility, either enters the existentially that unitary perspective can an adequate ecclesial practice concrete, or it is a emerge for the divorced who have remarried. It is true that Platonic idea. I must add the Eucharist, under certain conditions, has a component of that many fathers have forgiveness of sins, but it is also true that it is not a “healing requested a review of the sacrament� in the proper sense. In addition, the relationship way in which the nullity between Christ as bridegroom and the Church as bride is a of marriage is verified, model not only for the married; it is much more than that: giving more weight to it is the foundation of their marriage. I believe that the link the Bishop. I myself have between Eucharist and Marriage continues to be substan- made such a proposal. tial. Therefore, those who have remarried are in a condition that, objectively, does not allow access to sacramental communion.

Far from being a punishment, it is an invitation to a journey. These people are within the Church, they participate actively in the life of the community. Some exclusions may be reviewed: for example, their participation in a Pastoral Council and the possibility of teaching in a Catholic school. But personally, from the substantial point of view, I have not found an answer yet to the possibility of their access to sacramental communion without colliding with the fact that marriage is indissoluble. In brief, indissolubility, either enters the existentially concrete, or it is a Platonic idea. I must add that many fathers have

H 29

requested a review of the way in which the nullity of marriage is verified, giving more weight to the Bishop. I myself have made such a proposal.

In the Synod, the suffering of homosexual couples has also been mentioned. How does the Church see these persons today?

It is beyond all doubt that we are slow when assuming an absolutely respectful look at the dignity and equality of homosexual individuals.

As regards their unions, words represent things: it is not just to raise, directly or indirectly, confusion about something as decisive as the family. I consider that the word “family,” together with the word “marriage,” must be reserved for a stable union between a man and a woman which is open to life. For the homosexual couple, another word must be found. Also the question of filiation, particularly with the subrogation of maternity, opens up very serious problems. There is the risk of raising orphan children with live parents.

An intellectual answer is not enough. One must Is there a new freshness in the Church? regenerate the people The Pope, with his very particular style, who joins us of God from below, arriving even half an hour earlier, who goes to meet people with a new education where they are, who comes to drink coffee with us, who says in love, starting from hello to the waiters, has generated a new climate. Undoubadolescence, and with the tedly, the Church is facing a great trial: the confrontation with consciousness that the family is the subject of the sexual revolution is a great challenge, perhaps no smaller the pastoral, and not the than the Marxist revolution. Starting from the self-evidence object. of Eros – man understands who he is with reference to sexual difference – we must compare our very different visions of man. An intellectual answer is not enough. One must regenerate the people of God from below, with a new education in love, starting from adolescence, and with the consciousness that the family is the subject of the pastoral, and not the object. Our parishes, associations, and movements must be above all homes that show the beauty and the compassion of the Gospel, that enter into the necessary discussion of a pluralistic society, with frankness, aiming at the maximum recognition possible.

Paolo Rodari

H 30

Synod on the Family

pluralism of family and affective life styles Monsignor JEAN LAFFITTE

Secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Family.

President of the Pontifical Council “Redemptor Hominis�

1. Regarding the communion of persons: the lifestyle of the family and its affective expressions involve the personalities, the original character, and the exercise of freedom of its members. From this point of view, each family is unique, just as the persons who are part of the family are also unique. Therefore, there is actual plurality of family identities and of their lifestyles.

Each family is unique, just as the persons who are part of the family are also unique. Therefore, there is actual plurality of family identities and of their lifestyles.

2. But to speak of pluralism is not only to take note of this actual plurality; it is to promote a right to this plural expressiveness. This major step forward may seem evident to some, and it is true, negatively, that imposing a single style of life on families would constitute totalitarianism.

3. However, a problem arises. Of what plurality, of what differences are we talking about? Isn’t it important to distinguish between those which positively display the richness of the human in a positive way, and those which damage it? (a) Certain diversities enrich humanity. For instance, there are families that develop a real artistic creativity (for example, the Bach or

H 31

Mozart families). Their original experience of beauty grants a special tone to their family communion, and even radiates beyond it, into society and culture. It would be both stupid and totalitarian to try to impose or forbid such fecundity. What is true in artistic matters is also true in many others fields: hobbies, sports, social or political commitments, etc. (b) Unfortunately, there are other “diversities” that damage the dignity of individuals and of families. Manifestations of family violence, for instance, also represent “a lifestyle” and “a way of emotional expression.” In the most serious cases, social services Before promoting the are authorized to intervene in order to protect the weak “right to difference” and punish the guilty. Obviously, one cannot transform or the principle of this difference into “a right” in the name of the pluralism of “pluralism of expressions emotional expression. of affection,” one must examine the contents 4. Thus, before promoting the “right to difference” or of these differences or the principle of “pluralism of expressions of affection,” one of these expressions, and evaluate them from must examine the contents of these differences or of these the point of view of the expressions, and evaluate them from the point of view of promotion both of the the promotion both of the dignity of individuals and of the dignity of individuals good of the family and of society. Expressions of affection and of the good of the do not have in themselves a justification. When I experience family and of society. a desire, a drive or a repulsion, anger or compassion, I still cannot discern what value they have from the point of view of my actual good and the good of others. In this aspect, our culture is very ambiguous. On the one hand, it promotes a kind of immediate subjective sincerity that makes this discernment difficult. There is an Italian publicity slogan which declares: “Live your emotions!” On the other hand, after having taken this logic to its conclusion, one ends up finding acts that are very damaging for the persons involved and then one falls into brutal condemnation. In this respect, the question of pedophilia is very significant from 1968 up to the present day; but something similar happens with manifestations of sexual violence in general.

5. The problem of affection lived without the distance of discernment is that in the present or immediate moment, it produces a feeling of total freedom, but in the long term it turns into slavery: in fact, at that moment every margin of freedom is lost. “Live your emotions” is no chance publicity slogan; a person adopting such behavior becomes

H 32

Synod on the Family

a being who can be completely manipulated. The problem resides in the promotion of “the pluralism of lifestyles and of affective lifestyles,” without thinking about basic questions: superficially, one might see a great openness, a great tolerance; but what happens in the long term –on the personal and social level– with an affectivity that is entirely self-justifying?

6. “To discern” means to adopt a certain distance in order to evaluate what has been lived from the point of view of the construction of the true good. This supposes being conscious that there is one truth about man, and about that which promotes his humanity and his dignity. This is what is classically called “natural law,” that is, the deep dynamisms that structure the human being and according The problem of affection to which his own humanity is expanded. Thus, to discern lived without the distance is to integrate in one’s own acts and in one’s own choices of discernment is that in the emotional impulses that allow this expression. In this the present or immediate way, they will be enriched and reinforced, and will allow moment, it produces a the original personality that is their source, to be imprinted feeling of total freedom, in them in a higher way. To discern, in the short term, is but in the long term it also to prevent a dangerous impulse for me or for others to turns into slavery: in fact, turn into an action: if I experience anger against someone, at that moment every undoubtedly I must control my wish to hit him. In the lon- margin of freedom is lost. ger term, it is to work in the field of my emotions for these to express themselves increasingly spontaneously in the good sense. In classical moral teaching, it is the battle against vices and the development of virtues. In certain cases, today one would add therapeutic considerations: the help that someone occasionally needs to find larger freedom with respect to certain wounds of his/her previous life. Once again, there is no possibility of therapy without the criteria to distinguish between positive emotional and constructive dynamisms and those that confine the person in different forms of slavery, and that may in a broader way damage the family or social bond.

7. Thus, “pluralism of family and affective life styles” can only be promoted on the basis of such references linked to the natural law, the promotion of the dignity of persons and families, and the cultural and social common good.

H 33

«“Being or doing wrong” may refer to a transgression of the moral law (its not being respected). I lied; I have cheated in a card game. The authority will be recognized again by an act of regret: I should not have done it and I regret it.»

Study for Saint Jerome in prayer. Rembrandt (Paris, Louvre)

H 34

on forgiveness

By RÉmi Brague

T he French usually say “pardonner une faute” (literally: forgive a fault). This is not truly proper. One cannot forgive a fault, because a fault is a thing, not a person. In actual fact, forgiveness is bestowed upon persons who have done something wrong.

What to forgive?

What is to be or do wrong? To begin with, let me start by sketching a typology of wrongness: • ‘Being or doing wrong’ refers, on one hand, to the fact that something is wrong, i.e. not working well. Speaking pedantically, if you want, one will talk of a dysfunction.

Thus, if something should work unhindered yet it shows difficulties in doing so, it is precisely the well-functioning of a system, be it a mechanism (breakdown) or an organism (illness or disease), and the mechanic or physician should identify what is wrong and then fix it.

• ‘Being or doing wrong’ may also refer to the violation of a civil law. I did not pay my taxes. Or I passed a red light.

The judge or policeman will apply the law by means of punishing me (that is, the culpable one): I will be fined; I will have to assume the consequences of my infraction; and could end up in jail.

• ‘Being or doing wrong’ may refer to a transgression of the moral law (its not being respected). I lied; I have cheated in a card game. The authority will be recognized again by an act of regret: I should not have done it and I regret it.

• ‘Being or doing wrong’ may finally refer to wronging someone. I slapped my neighbor; I called him all kinds of names; I stole from him. This wrongdoing shall be overcome when the one who committed the act has apologised and (if possible) made reparation.

HUMANITAS Nº 7 pp. 34-45

Regret does not free me from the obligation to make reparation for the harm done; on the contrary, it obliges me to it. Regret without reparation is mere hypocrisy. Yet even when regret is accompanied with reparation, the latter does not exempt me from punishment.

H 35

Christianity does not blame people; on the contrary, it liberates them from the feeling of guilt, for once forgiven, one may forget, and above all, start anew. Now, sin is precisely what is forgiven. Even more, this is its definition.

The proverb may be taken literally: “there is mercy for every sin.”

God always forgives.

1 Marx, Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie, § 282; Werke, Berlin, Dietz, vol. 1, p. 237.

H 36

These aspects do not coincide, nor do they generate from one another.

Thus, due reparation will not vary according whether the harm done is or is not penalized by law. For example, making restitution for what I have stolen will be the same act regardless of whether the act was done voluntarily or under coercion.

Punishment is not necessarily accompanied by regret. A wrongdoer bored in his cell may lament allowing himself to be caught, but more frequently he will blame what happened on his bad luck or on his accomplices, rather than feeling regret for the wrong he did.

Regret does not free me from the obligation to make reparation for the harm done; on the contrary, it obliges me to it. Regret without reparation is mere hypocrisy. Yet even when regret is accompanied with reparation, the latter does not exempt me from punishment.

In which cases can one speak of forgiveness?

In the first case, the one of dysfunction, forgiveness simply has no room at all. It would be absurd to forgive one’s own car for breaking down, or one’s own heart for a heart attack.

In the second case, that is, the transgression of a civil law, there will be rough similarities to forgiveness, namely: amnesty or pardon. Yet it should be asked whether these, being roughly similar to forgiveness, do not follow a different logic, foreign to civil law: for example, a purely technical prudential rule or a calculation of psychological politics.

Thus, the state may shut its eyes before certain fiscal frauds, because investigating them and paying the competent functionaries to do so would cost more money than could be regained. Similarly, in the case of pardon: this is a remnant of royal privilege based on the idea that the latter is of divine origin; in which case, the pardon, being an anachronism, will be protested, as so did the young Marx.1 In both cases, there is an access to something akin to forgiveness only by being separated from civil law’s proper sphere, either by getting out of it from below or transcending it from above.

In the third case, that of not respecting the moral law, the law cannot apply any punishment to those who transgress it, nor can it forgive them. It is purely a norm by reference to which it becomes possible to measure the activities of

men; yet it remains in itself indifferent to the latter’s attitude towards it. As St. Paul says, the law does not provide but the consciousness of sin (Rm 3:20); it does not help avoiding sin. For morality, faults are transgressions, nothing more: a limit is trespassed; a rule is not respected; a code or a law is violated. The limit, the rule, the code, or the law cannot forgive. As the French say, “cela ne pardonne pas” (literally: that does not forgive). Once harm is done, “what is done is done,” and the fault remains with the culpable. Only in the fourth case may one properly speak of forgiveness.

From what has been said, I conclude: Forgiveness is essentially personal. The person is the subject and object of forgiveness. There is always one person forgiving another. In the first case (breakdown or illness), there is no forgiveness because there is no person whom one may forgive. In the second and third cases (transgression of a law), there is no one who may forgive.

Sin The notion of person is the basis for an understanding of the meaning of the term “sin.”2 There are a thousand things in the world, in society, in us, that are “not going well.” I have given a short list at the beginning. All this can be narrated, described, examined, or analyzed, as much as one wants, maybe even explained, but sins are not to be found there. Economists, politicians, and physicians speak of dysfunctions. Psychologists speak of disturbances or obsessions. There is certainly much truth in their diagnoses, and much good will in the treatments they prescribe.

However, in all this I am never responsible. We always accuse someone or something else: society; my memories in kindergarten; my miserable social origin or, on the contrary, my having been spoiled too much; the aggressiveness to be found in the “reptilian brain”; etc. Sin begins when I recognize myself as responsible and as needing forgiveness.

Certainly, most of us have never committed a crime, and even less so, ever organized a mass-killing (genocide), yet that is not the point. A fault is measured according to the occasion.

It is not meritorious to avoid that which we do not have the

I am waiting for the objection: this is somehow too easy!

Actually, it is here where the difficulty begins. God always forgives; yet something else is also required, namely: that we accept to be forgiven.

2 See my book: Du Dieu des Chrétiens et d’un ou deux autres, Paris, Flammarion, 2008, Ch. 7.

H 37

If someone says he regrets what he has done, yet refuses to make reparations, how can we believe he is sincere? If he refuses to restore what he stole, if he rejects punishment for his felonies, how can we not suspect that he wants to get out of trouble with minimum damage to himself? In the Gospel, Zacchaeus, the tax collector, restores the money which he misappropriated and even accepts to pay a fine (Lk 19:8). These very concrete elements are constituent parts of forgiveness.

The Return of the Prodigal Son. Rembrandt (Haarlem, Tyeler Museums)

H 38

H 39

God is above all the one who forgives, for He is the most personal being there is, more personal than us human beings, who are also things. He is personal to the point of being nothing but personal. That is why He is the one who can forgive.

chance to commit. A pagan thinker has already stressed this: Epictetus, the stoic. One of his students makes a mistake in a logic exercise. His master reproaches him vehemently. The student, irritated, replies: “Calm down! I haven’t killed my father!” Epictetus answers: “Did you even have the chance to? You had an opportunity not to make a mistake. You have wasted it. Who can tell me that if you had had the chance to commit parricide, you would not have done it”?3 Thus, from a certain standpoint, all faults are on a par. No moral system is therefore stricter than any other, like that of Christianity, for example. Common morality is the strict one; for example, the morality of philosophers, such as Epictetus, whom I have just referred to. And it is necessarily so. In fact, what morality asks for is nothing but perfection. Certainly, Aristotle defines virtue as a mean between two extremes;4 yet he demands that we be virtuous, not moderately, but supremely. It is not possible to be too virtuous, too much as one ought to be. The “right mean” is indeed a height.

Let me observe the following: sin, of which Christianity speaks, is not a fault worse than others; it is rather a fault seen from a certain standpoint, that of forgiveness. Christianity does not make up new faults; it focuses on them from the viewpoint of forgiveness. Sometimes the impression emerges that Christians speak only of sin; that this obsesses them and they see it everywhere. Now, what they actually speak of is the forgiveness of sins. The Creed says: we believe in “the forgiveness of sins.” It is not that Christians believe in sin; they believe in God, who forgives sins.

Christianity does not blame people; on the contrary, it liberates them from the feeling of guilt, for once forgiven, one may forget, and above all, start anew. Now, sin is precisely what is forgiven. Even more, this is its definition. The proverb may be taken literally: “there is mercy for every sin.” God always forgives.

Whom to forgive?

3 Epictetus, Discourses, I, VII, 30-32; ed. H. Schenkl, Leipzig, Teubner, 1894, p. 29.

4 Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, II, 6, 1106 b 36.

H 40

I am waiting for the objection: this is somehow too easy!

Actually, it is here where the difficulty begins. God always forgives; yet something else is also required, namely: that we accept to be forgiven.

«The most horrifying thing about people who have been accomplices of tyrannical regimes is their having a clean conscience. I particularly remember a documentary from a German television network I saw two years ago. The interviewers questioned some generals who had directed the political police in Eastern Germany (Stasi) and were now enjoying themselves with their pension money. In their conversation, I could not find a single trace of remorse...»

The problem Christianity attempts to solve is not whether God shall forgive or not; it is rather how to proceed so that human beings accept His forgiveness and thus become free. Let’s suppose they are so corrupted that they do not want to accept forgiveness, or in such an unconscious state that they do not even feel the need to be forgiven. How can one act upon freedom?

Erich Honecker along with members of the Politbüro of the Communist Party of the GRD.

In order to be forgiven, I must recognize the need to be forgiven; I must recognize that I have sinned, and from this I work out the consequences.

I am not asked to share the sort of diffuse culpability that some intend to instill in us. Such sensibility can recur in a formula Dostoyevsky puts in the mouth of the starets Zosima: “Each one of us is certainly to blame (виновен) for all and for everything on earth, and not only on account of the universal fault of the world, but also each one universally for all people and for every man on this earth.”5 This culpability poisons

5 F. Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, II, IV, 1; Moscow, ACT, 2004, p. 166. The formula is repeated four more times in the novel: II, VI, 2, p. 292; 3, p. 323; IV, XI, 4, p. 592; XII, 13, p. 751.

H 41

For God, the easy thing to do would be to take revenge, that is, remove the sinner, yet that would only be an apparent victory.

The sinner would be removed, but not the sin. Sin would still be strongest, for the sinner would not have changed. (...)

H 42

us, paralyzes us till we are impeded from making any reparation. On the contrary, each one of us should recognize what he himself has done; what other did is their problem.

We cannot forgive offenses done to others. This would be easy to the point of being odious. Christ asks us to offer the other cheek when we are slapped (Mt 5:39). Moreover, it is required that it be our own other cheek. If another person is slapped, we have no right to recommend offering the other cheek; it would indeed be quite ignoble. On the contrary, it is our obligation to intervene. And we also have the obligation to stop the aggressor from slapping other people. It is the role of the state, and is not a matter of pretending to substitute it by a vague “angelicalism.”

We cannot forgive ourselves. Sometimes people say, frequently with a negative connotation, “I will never forgive myself for this.” It is no more than a manner of expression.

Forgiveness must be asked for, and it can be given to us by our neighbor. One cannot forgive oneself, or consider oneself forgiven by God, based on one’s own judgment regarding oneself. A disposition to forgive oneself, that is, not to realize that one has committed a fault, is rather a negative sign.

The most horrifying thing about people who have been accomplices of tyrannical regimes is their having a clean conscience. I particularly remember a documentary from a German television network I saw two years ago. The interviewers questioned some generals who had directed the political police in Eastern Germany (Stasi) and were now enjoying themselves with their pension money. In their conversation, I could not find a single trace of remorse...

How can we know if someone accepts forgiveness? It is impossible to read other people’s minds, but there are probable signs. If someone says he regrets what he has done, yet refuses to make reparations, how can we believe he is sincere? If he refuses to restore what he stole, if he rejects punishment for his felonies, how can we not suspect that he wants to get out of trouble with minimum damage to himself? In the Gospel, Zacchaeus, the tax collector, restores the money which he misappropriated and even accepts to pay a fine (Lk 19:8). These very concrete elements are constituent parts of forgiveness.

From what has been said the following can be derived: protecting a criminal out of compassion does not amount to serving him, even when acting out of compassion. On the contrary, it hurts him; it hinders him from truly regretting his fault, thus expiating and repairing it. Socrates’ paradox should be taken seriously: being punished, when done justly, is better than escaping punishment.6 There was a case of this kind in France in the 1990s. Paul Touvier became a member of the French Militia during World War II, an organization that collaborated with the Nazi occupation. He had an important role in the region of Lyon, where he was an accomplice to various murders. Being wanted during the Liberation, he took refuge in religious houses and convents on many occasions. The priests and monks that took him justified their actions by pointing out that he regretted what he had done.

I am in no position to judge the motives of the priests and religious who hid him. Nor can I judge the quality of that dialogue, and I certainly hope it was sincere. I must confess, however, that I doubt it was, for I ask myself: why did he not turn himself in? And why did the priests who confessed him not ask him to do that?

True compassion should make the moral progress of the one receiving it possible. A physician does not try to free his patients from anything disturbing them. Of course, he avoids causing useless pain, but what he aims at is the patient’s healing. Let’s use an innocuous example: Who is a smoker’s best friend? Who wishes him well? It is not the one telling him tobacco is not dangerous, but the one who warns him about the risks he is taking, about the higher chances getting cancer.

Crushing the sinner would in fact amount to betraying one’s own weakness, one’s own impotence, and also one’s own stupidity: God would mistake the victim, for his enemy is not the sinner, but sin, of which the sinner is himself the first victim.

Who forgives?

Only persons can be forgiven, and only persons can forgive.

An impersonal institution cannot forgive. The state cannot forgive, not because it is evil and vindictive, but simply because it is not a person. That is why felonies committed against it do not prescribe. As the French saying goes: “Qui l’oie du roi a plumée cent ans après en rend la plume” (literally: he who plucked the king’s goose returns the feather after a

6 Plato, Gorgias, 472 e.

H 43

The Old Testament recounts the “economy of salvation,” that is, the device invented by God to free freedom itself: He lowers Himself, to the point of dying on the cross, in such a way that no one can feel humiliated by obeying such a lord... Incarnation was necessary to respect man’s freedom.

7 I do not say that God is “a person,” in order to avoid this word from being confused with the Trinitarian hypostases.

8 Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, III, 122, beginning.

9 See J. Greisch, Du “nonautre” au “tout autre”: Dieu et l’absolu dans les théologies philosophiques de la modernité, París, P.U.F., 2013.

H 44

hundred years). If the state arrogates the right to forgive, it does so only insofar as it preserves a trace of its supra human origin (be this real or not). Thus, the right to pardon which presidents have is a remnant of kings’ power, which in itself is a trace of the power of God. God is above all the one who forgives, for He is the most personal being there is, more personal than us human beings, who are also things. He is personal to the point of being nothing but personal.7 That is why He is the one who can forgive.

It is not that He would forgive for other people’s sake, forgive the harms done to them, for it could be said: He has no difficulty in forgiving; it is no burden to him, since He is not the one harmed.

In a certain way, sin offends God. In our act of contrition we say: “My Lord, I regret having offended you...” How is this possible? If God is God, we cannot do anything to Him, i.e. we cannot hurt or disturb him, as we can with man.

Our faults hurt ourselves. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote: God is not offended by us except by what we do against our own good.8 In the book of Genesis it is said that man is made in God’s image (Gen 1:26). If one spits on a painting, in a way that does nothing to the painter; it is the painting that one ruins. The painter nevertheless suffers when he sees his work ruined. It is in this sense that God is hurt (except that in the case of sin it would be as if the painting spat on itself).

Offending God and offending other men are therefore not two things. It is impossible to do one without doing the other.

Yet there is more: it is a bit too hasty to say without proper reflection that God is another, that He is the “utterly other,” as it is now usually said. This is true, but so is the fact that He is “the not-other,” as Nicholas of Cusa said, who used this expression as the title of a treatise. And perhaps it would be worthwhile to walk again the secular path recently described

by Jean Greisch.9 Christians say, in general lines, that God became man in Jesus Christ, who, being the only one who was perfectly innocent, suffered. Why? The problem Christianity attempts to solve is not whether God shall forgive or not; it is rather how to proceed so that human beings accept His forgiveness and thus become free.

Let’s suppose they are so corrupted that they do not want

to accept forgiveness, or in such an unconscious state that they do not even feel the need to be forgiven. How can one act upon freedom?

For God, the easy thing to do would be to take revenge, that is, remove the sinner, yet that would only be an apparent victory. The sinner would be removed, but not the sin. Sin would still be strongest, for the sinner would not have changed. Crushing the sinner would in fact amount to betraying one’s own weakness, one’s own impotence, and also one’s own stupidity: God would mistake the victim, for his enemy is not the sinner, but sin, of which the sinner is himself the first victim.

The same would happen were God to simply clean our slate without taking man’s freedom seriously, who says “no” to Him. We know from the Old Testament that God is merciful and always forgives unconditionally. The highest ability consists in our making our freedom accept His forgiveness, thus transforming it from within. The Old Testament recounts the “economy of salvation,” that is, the device invented by God to free freedom itself: He lowers Himself, to the point of dying on the cross, in such a way that no one can feel humiliated by obeying such a lord... Incarnation was necessary to respect man’s freedom.

Christianity is not a system of coercions. Its force is that of love, and it is the only true force. Nothing is more demanding than love. It even has a terrible aspect. The Bible says so at the end of the Song of Songs, and we should take this statement very seriously: “for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave” (8, 6).

Christianity is not a system of coercions.

Its force is that of love, and it is the only true force. Nothing is more demanding than love. It even has a terrible aspect. The Bible says so at the end of the Song of Songs, and we should take this statement very seriously: “for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave” (8, 6).

Translated by Rafael Simian

H 45

H 46

WHAT IS MAN? A Lecture by Prof. Dr. Joseph Ratzinger, TÜbingen

According to Prof. Dr. Siegfried Wiedenhofer from Frankfurt am Main, who was Ratzinger’s assistant from 1966 to 1977, this is a lecture from the Tübingen period (1966-1969). So far a more precise date cannot be determined. The recordings are at the archive of the Pope Benedict XVI Institute, and they were provided by Prof. Dr. Vizenz Pfnür from Münster in order to be published in German. ("Was ist der Mensch?" Vortrag 1966/69, in Mitteilungen, Institut-Papst-Benedikt XVI. 1, 2008, 28-32; 41-49).

Mrs. Jutta Gerardy from Trier has made the transcription. Prof.

Rudolf Voderholzer has slightly edited the text and has inserted headings. Overall the text preserves the style corresponding to a lecture. HUMANITAS Review publishes this lecture for the first time in English with authorization of Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

«In Jesus Christ, the crucified and the risen, a new humanity has appeared, the second humanity so to speak, and only this second humanity, the humanity of the crucified and risen Jesus Christ, is the true and real humanity, i.e. man is only this being still to come. He is a being of the future, which remains to be made and which in Jesus Christ began to enter into its own true future. He is a being which does not have its origin in his technical skill, but in the gift of a greater love; a love which can only be donated and which opens the real future of the being called “man” that is still to come.»

Christ in Majesty, Chapelle des Moines, Berzé-la-Ville.

HUMANITAS Nº 7 pp. 46-69

H 47

W

hat is man? This was declared by Kant to be one of the fundamental questions of philosophy. And beyond that, it is simply a question that is posed to man through his very existence.

It is a question he cannot avoid at all, simply because he exists as an open question; because he is not a closed, round essence, which is, so to speak, already made, and that is self-answered and consummates itself by itself. Rather, the decision regarding what man is must fall anew within the sphere of his very existence; his existence lies before him as an open possibility, which he himself must answer. Whether he likes it or not, he will reach a The man is the being of decision, for even if he lets his ‘being a man’ pass him manipulability, not only in the sense that he views the by undecided, he gives it a form, namely one which world as an object for his does not understand itself by itself. He thus answers power to make things, but in the question about what man is. This has been strongly the sense that he increasingly emphasized by existential philosophy. Jean-Paul Sartre experiences himself too, his views this as a frightening fact of man’s destiny: that essence, as material for his man is so to speak condemned to freedom; that he manipulating techniques. (…) cannot at all avoid this abysmal openness of his essence, which lacks the beautiful shelteredness enjoyed by the animal, whose essence is fixed and realizes itself in its unmistakable form.

On the contrary, man is condemned to have no essence, as it were.

He is condemned to create himself anew as man; to have to answer anew what it means to be a man.

I. The frightening Openness of the Question In view of the collapse of complete conceptions of man during this century, we become newly aware of the breadth of the question about man, of the frightening openness of this question. And also the question about freedom becomes visible again. In a time when the old normative conceptions can all be put into question, when nothing is stable anymore, the full immeasurable openness of the question about man has become an existential problem.

Yet at the same time the opposite experience is certainly characteristic of our century. For in the same period in which we witness the disintegration of everything firm that seemed to structure man, and in which we again palpate what man can become from this essence, we have at the same time become

H 48

conscious, again and forcefully, of the enormous subjection of man within the biological universe. We see that man emerges from evolution; that he himself forms part of the chain in this stream of ever changing life; that his biological past not only continues to have an effect upon him, but that—as behavioral research strives to bring out—it remains its present; that he represents therefore an element of the stream, of life, of coming-to-be, and of evolution, still in its way in a process of development which we do not yet see where it leads.

This idea, which, as it were, pulls man down from (‌) This whole picture the high spheres of his illusion of freedom, and which runs into a third stream teaches him to recognize that he comes from the of thought coming from midst of animality and carries it forth with him, can the Marxist camp, which nevertheless be made coherent with the idea of freedom. always makes us ever This is possible insofar as we come up with the idea more firmly aware of the that evolution has reached a phase with man, in which fact that man cannot he himself makes the evolution; in which he himself be explained merely by recourse to his individual has become manipulable, and can in great measure freedom, nor simply determine what it means to be a man both for others and by means of biological for those to come. He is the being of manipulability, not laws. Rather, man is a only in the sense that he views the world as an object product of society and for his power to make things, but in the sense that he its economic relations: a increasingly experiences himself too, his essence, as new disappointment for the spirit, which thereby material for his manipulating techniques. appears as a reflection of This whole picture runs into a third stream of thought social necessities. coming from the Marxist camp, which always makes us ever more firmly aware of the fact that man cannot be explained merely by recourse to his individual freedom, nor simply by means of biological laws. Rather, man is a product of society and its economic relations: a new disappointment for the spirit, which thereby appears as a reflection of social necessities. This, I think, roughly describes the whole seething picture of the question about man and our own existence, in the midst of all this openness and closeness.

When in this situation one makes an effort to see and understand what the Christian actually thinks about man; where (in which place or path) in this process of being and becoming man does the Christian stand, then one becomes very disappointed with

H 49

the current answers, which we once heard—more or less—in school. Before this openness, which we find there (however much is left unexplained and unsatisfactory), Christian answers seem notoriously stale now. For example, when we are told that man is a being consisting of a mortal body and an immortal soul. And then it looks as if it all came down essentially to keeping the soul (constantly threatened by the body) out of this shell, in order to save it for a better eternity.

The whole new problem regarding the essence of man, into which he is thrown by the experience of freedom, and by his The first great fundamental being formed by historical, societal, and biological text about man is to be necessities, has at least the advantage of forcing us to found in the story of ask in this place what the Christian answer actually creation (Gen 1:26-27), is—the Christian contribution—to the question about where the creation of man’s ‘being able to be a man’ [Mensch-Sein-Können]. man is presented with I would not dare to present this Christian answer, in that especial solemnity; a the midst of all the uncertainties of our present time, creation in which God does not only speak a word of actually as the answer. For the Christian answer is in power, but even describes a certain way similar to the being of man itself. This the mystery of man. (…) answer is not to be taken as a finished round block; rather, it can only be lived and vividly experienced always anew, and thus be translated into the new situation of man. Today we face the task of living Christianity anew, and of thus making it again translatable and expressible, so that we stay in the midst of this open endeavor to experience again as living a word of Christian faith in our present humanity. In this way we can provide it again with its contemporaneity, but we must not thereby falsify it in its originality, which alone can guarantee its sense. For Christianity is not the reflection of our desires, but the answer to what we are and should be.

What has lastly been said demarcates the limits of what I can (and could want to) do here. What I would like to say now can only be a tiny part, as it were, of this great endeavor, imposed on every generation (and on ours quite especially), to bring Christianity into the present. There are two equally important things for the endeavor, namely: that what is brought into the present be genuine Christianity; but also that it be truly brought into the present, so that others listen to it and it becomes effective.

H 50

II. A First Answer: Man as Image of God and its Interpretations I would like to do this just by referring to a couple of fundamental passages of Scripture about man, in which we encounter the Christian discourse about man; and by translating them into our thinking.

As is known, the first great fundamental text about man is to be found in the story of creation (Gen 1:26-27), where the creation of man is presented with that especial solemnity; a creation in which God does not only speak a word of power, but even describes the mystery of man. He lets man come into being within (…) He lets man come His own dialogue with Himself: thus man, so to speak, into being within His is from then on already integrated into God’s inner own dialogue with soliloquy. This is again confirmed when it is said that Himself: thus man, so man is created in God’s likeness as an image of Him. to speak, is from then on already integrated And the same fundamental idea appears in Psalm 8, into God’s inner in which man is presented as a paradoxical being, that soliloquy. This is again is actually so miserable, so insignificant, that one is confirmed when it is surprised at the fact that God should look after him: this said that man is created experience challenges us today in the infinitely changing in God’s likeness as an universe, in such a way that we discover man really as image of Him. a completely insignificant particle of dust in an immeasurable world, and ask: How could it be that God’s theater revolves around man? Which naïve anthropocentrism lies behind the desire to make this miserable particle of dust on the tiny point called Earth the center of God’s action? We are not the first ones to experience this. The prayer in the Old Testament was also challenged by it.

He also knows man as a worm that already by the time it rises fades; and thus one cannot actually understand that he be worthy of God’s concern. Yet the Psalmist experiences man at the same time as a paradoxical being, which in the midst of its quantitative insignificance, has something by means of which it immeasurably outshines quantitative magnitudes, so that at the same time it can be said: “Yet You have made him a little lower than God” (Ps 8:6).1 We could affirm, therefore, that this is the first great statement: man as man is an image of God. Now, what does this really mean? The Bible 1 T.N.: This is the reference given in the original text. However, in many English translations of the Bible the quotation corresponds to verse 5.

H 51

«It is striking that the Old Testament repeatedly presents the pair of brothers who stand opposite to each other like brightness and obscurity, light and darkness. We have Cain/Abel as the opening of history; and then again we have Ishmael/Isaac, Esau/Jacob—and it is quite clear that this is a conscious theological construction.»

Cain and Abel, Ghent Altarpiece with open wings, by Jan van Eyck.

has not attempted to define and fill in this statement with content.

The Bible rather provides a functional statement, albeit one with truly revolutionary weight. Indeed, for the Bible this ‘being an image of God’ means that those who have the countenance of a man The Bible rather provides thereby acquire a divine rank. That is, the unconditional a functional statement, albeit one with truly universality of the picture of man surfaces for the first revolutionary weight. time. Man is as man an image of God, regardless of race Indeed, for the Bible this or achievement. This discovery of man behind historical ‘being an image of God’ particularities—the discovery that man as man is a king, means that those who and that fundamentally it is more to be a man than to be have the countenance of a king or minister or anything else: this takes place in this a man thereby acquire a discourse about the image of God, which is how Adam, that divine rank. (…) is, man as such, was created, and in him every man. Even in what is most miserable shines the image of the Lord of magnificence.

The decisive knowledge expressed there becomes clear in Gen 9:5f., i.e. in the text following the one about the flood. In this passage man is, as it were, set once more in the story of creation, and all things, even animals, are handed over to him. The world is at his disposal. He has appropriated it, and it has been entrusted to him as his domain. Only man, it is claimed, is inviolable. Animals and plants belong to him. But the blood of him who sheds a man’s blood shall then be shed by another man, for God has made man in his image. Now, here the meaning of the idea that man is an image of God actually comes to light: not a substantial, philosophical definition of man, but a functional statement of the highest gravity.

Man is an image of God. A certain dignity corresponds to every

H 52

man, however miserable, deprived of rights, or insignificant he might be. This dignity is independent of his social position and racial origin. A certain dignity corresponds to every man, which nobody can take from him. He is as man a good reserved for God, inviolable. Things belong to man, but he does (…) That is, the unconditional not belong to himself. Man is not, and cannot become, universality of the anybody’s property. It is very important to listen to this picture of man surfaces again in a world in which the slave is treated as an object for the first time. Man to be purchased, as subject to property law, as property, is as man an image and as a thing. He is nobody’s property, nor is he his of God, regardless of own property. He is a good reserved for the Creator race or achievement.

This discovery of Himself. Being an image of God, then, primarily means man behind historical the fundamental equality among all men; the discovery particularities—the of man in man; and it means the higher value of every discovery that man as man in opposition to all merely biological and sociological man is a king, and that considerations. It means the holy inviolability of man, fundamentally it is more who can by no means ever become the mere property of to be a man than to be man, but preserves a dignity in virtue of which he always a king or minister or anything else: (…) soars infinitely higher than all other creatures. And it also means—and this, I believe, concerns us, like the whole of it, even now—that man never owns himself as a thing, but encounters in himself also the mystery, the utterly other, the eerie, which he does not have at his disposal, but must respect. He encounters that which is infinitely greater than him; or, as Pascal expressed it: “L’homme passe infiniment l’homme.”2 Man is always infinitely more 2 T.N.: In French in the original text: man transcends man infinitely.

H 53

than himself. Nor is he ever given to himself as a thing, for this mystery of self-transcendence is present in him and constitutes him.

The Bible does not directly say more about the content of man’s ‘being an image of God.’ Scripture expresses only this directly, namely that all men have one thing in common: they are all aliquid divini; there is something divine present in them, a divine right.

They have a right which has not been established by man, and which cannot be abolished by him either. There is an entitlement in them which is not the product of man, and over which he is also no lord, but can only bow before it. A right of which he (…) This takes place in this discourse about the is not the source, but which exists independently of him, image of God, which is and which he cannot abrogate without doing something how Adam, that is, man illegitimate. A higher value which does not proceed from as such, was created, and his own valuations, but exists independently of them. in him every man. Even And we, who have experienced, and still experience, in what is most miserable totalitarian regimes; who also know the hidden shines the image of the Lord of magnificence. totalitarianism of the so-called free society, with its cult of technological feasibility; we shall know the function that accords to faith in keeping this alive, and what it means: that there is a right here that man has not established and that therefore no man can abolish; which is not at his disposal, nor is it manipulable; a right that impedes men from being co-opted, whatever be the political system.

Of course, theology has increasingly asked whether, over and above this, one could not determine a bit more of the content and intelligibility of that in which it consists to be an image of God (a functional statement which is clearly very important, and for the history of mankind, not only once, but always revolutionary).

Theologians, under the influence of philosophy, frequently thought they must give the following answer: man’s ‘being an image of God’ consists in man’s spiritual nature. God is God, it was said, man has a spirit, and this is the element connecting him with God; the element that makes him appear as an image of God. Yet nothing in the text justifies this limitation. And so it becomes understandable that since the last century an objection came up, namely: the thought that Scripture assumes a naïve conception of God and views man’s similarity with God rather as something corporeal. The Bible has a specific conception of God,

H 54

and man would be similar to Him, for example, because of his erect appearance, and the like.

I think it can be shown that both interpretations are mistaken.

The text never made the distinction clearly between spirit and body.

Such a philosophical division is foreign to it. All anthropological concepts of Holy Scripture refer to man as a whole. The Bible views him from different angles, stresses therefore certain aspects more than others, yet none of those concepts Men are all aliquid divini; there is divide him. For example, when the concept of soul something divine present appears, an existence, a whole man, is meant, and vice in them, a divine right. versa: when the concept of flesh appears, man as a whole They have a right which is viewed from a different angle. The Bible, therefore, has not been established knows of no division. It only knows man as undivided by man, and which and as a unity ultimately indivisible; as man who is a cannot be abolished by him either. There is an creature of God, and who as such and as a whole is a work entitlement in them of God. So he, as this creature, as an indivisible creature, which is not the product is a good reserved for God. Consequently, this man, the of man, and over which actual, living man as such and as a whole, is the image he is also no lord, but can only bow before it. A of God and the good reserved for Him. If one wants something more in terms of elucidation, right of which he is not one could at most turn to a couple of facts from the history the source, but which exists independently of religion, which, as it were, show the spiritual line in of him, and which which the texts are to be placed; and which, by means he cannot abrogate of what was overcome, allow us to see more clearly what without doing something is actually meant here from the path that was travelled, illegitimate. A higher and from the part of the path that was by then finished. value which does not The history of religion does not initially start with the proceed from his own valuations, but exists anthropomorphic God. For the primitive man defines independently of them. himself, i.e. man, as a being so weak and miserable and vulnerable; so miserable compared with the powers and forces he has to deal with, that he by no means could view himself as, so to speak, the paradigm of absolute power—which is what he means by God. And so he initially worships the powers he has to deal with, which he encounters in the forces of nature, or also in the land and trees and so on, to then arrive at a God—naturally schematized—of animal form; to find the mightiness of the divine expressed in the wildness of beasts, in the lion, the bull and so on, more than in anything else. Then, a God came of mixed form

H 55

(already a certain form of abstraction), which makes it apparent that no existing being suffices to represent and name this different power, which he means by God. Already the knowledge that this different power is something distinct, that it is to be found behind this being, and that the latter can only be codified through it, can be expressed through this. And then finally, only in a very late stage, the anthropomorphic God appears. The conception appears, therefore, that man is the purest and highest approximation to God. At first one could think that there is a regression The statement: man is the only authentic image here when compared with the abstraction of the being of God, is not only the of a mixed form, with this codification that singles God discovery of God instead of out from existing beings. Actually, one should rather the gods. It also comprises speak of a higher form of abstraction, though the danger the discovery of man, who of a regression exists, for this conception of God does then for the first time finds not look at what is externally powerful; rather, it has himself therein. understood that what is distinct, which shines forth in man, is greater and the greatest. Man is the greatest approximation to the form of God. Accordingly, there is a prohibition in the Old Testament of making images of God, for He Himself has made an image: man. This is the only rightful image: the living man. Only he, the living man, is the image that to a certain extent allows us to rightfully suspect what God is, who Himself has made this image and therein presents Himself. What God is becomes visible in man’s humanity: yet not in what once could be painted of a man, but in man’s humanity, which alone God can make and has made. Man is the only authentic image of God. This is not only the breakthrough of the humanization of religion, as we tend to see it, but also the reverse process. It is man’s final breakthrough to himself, in that he discovers that there is more in him than he himself. The statement: man is the only authentic image of God, is not only the discovery of God instead of the gods. It also comprises the discovery of man, who then for the first time finds himself therein. Man is man, therefore, when he expresses more than himself, when he does not merely represent himself, but is an expression of the divine, the holy, the utterly other. He is not man when he confines himself to himself and considers himself with no perplexity as his own. Rather, he is mostly himself when he has stopped wanting to be only himself, when he has recognized

H 56

«The decisive knowledge expressed there becomes clear in Gen 9:5f., i.e. in the text following the one about the flood. In this passage man is, as it were, set once more in the story of creation, and all things, even animals, are handed over to him. The world is at his disposal.»

Gustave Doré, The Flood.

H 57

that behind him an abyss lies open, that his essence reaches the infinite. In other words: He is a man when he stops acting only for himself; when he stops considering himself as finished and closed in himself; when he recognizes himself as the irruption of the divine. He has first discovered man when he has discovered God. This comes close to a thought that was developed in the theology of the Church Fathers, which does not in this way follow directly from the Bible, yet corresponds to its overall conception. I present it in a single sentence from St Augustine, who once said: Eo quippe ipso imago eius est quo eius capax est eiusque esse particeps potest:3 Man is an image of God because he is capable of God and can form community with Him. Or one could shortly translate: being an image of God means being capable of God—capax est et particeps esse potest. Being an image of God, as can be seen, is not here defined as a substantial concept, so that one would say that the Man is an image of God because he is capable substance of man is something similar to the substance of of God and can form God; rather, it is understood as a relational concept. Being community with Him. an image of God consists in being capable of God. That Or one could shortly between man and God there is a relation of a special kind translate: being an image is of itself understood by means of the concept “image.” of God means being Something is an image not on account of its substantiality, capable of God. on account of the substance of the colors used and so on. If I consider quantity in itself, then the latter remains in itself.

Something is rather an image on account of its relation that consists in being an indication of something that is being imaged. His being an image is therefore based on a relation, not on what he is in himself, but on his being an indication of something imaged beyond himself. And so it is understood here regarding man. His being an image is not something he has in himself, but consists in his referring to something beyond himself; it consists in a relativity of his existence by means of which it points beyond itself. Unlike a dead material image, the relation and the relativity here is itself alive; something that as movement, at least as a capacity to move, resides in man. To be an image of God amounts to intrinsically indicating—to being an indication of—transcendence. It amounts to our being-an-indication’s possibility, to its intrinsic necessity, as it were, of transcending itself to the absolute. In other words: 3 Augustine, De Trinitate, XIV, 8, 11 (CCL 50A, 436).

H 58

being an image of God does not simply amount to a relation from top to bottom, as is proper of all things insofar as they are created (according to our faith), but as it were to a back and forth relation— like the recurrence of the echo, but now as something living, such that man relates to God not only as Someone who is behind him, but now faces Him. ‘Being an image of God’ is an expression for the unmediated relation of the human spirit with God; a relation that is signalled by the fact that man is capable of God. ‘Being an image of God’ refers to the essential openness to God, which is thereby declared as the proper constituent of the essence of man, so that one could literally say that man’s being-an-imageBeing an image of of-God consists in his being capable of God, which befits God does not simply him insofar as he is a corporeal-spiritual person. amount to a relation The pretension of defining what man is can be made from top to bottom, as clearer by means of a contrast. The question: What is proper of all things constitutes man actually?—Where is, so to speak, the insofar as they are Rubicon of ‘becoming a man’?—, has become acute created (according to our faith), but as it again in a completely new way because of the theory of were to a back and evolution and paleontology. Scientists have looked for the forth relation—like the most disparate criteria to be in a position to say: here one recurrence of the echo, may speak of a man; this or that constitutes man. Many but now as something proposals have been made: for example, the ability to living, such that man speak, or the use of fire, and the like. Marxism has taken relates to God not only a stand on this subject in its own way, for it says that the as Someone who is behind him, but now use and production of work tools is what differentiates faces Him. man from the animals. The first fundamental condition of all human life, says Engels, is work, and certainly to such an extent, that we must in a certain sense affirm that work has made man.

You see that, evidently, behind all these efforts to find a boundary and a constitutive feature, a picture of man, a picture of the world, a fundamental decision about man is implied. Here for example: work is what created man. Behind this there is the world picture of the homo faber;4 this determination of man ultimately derives from his technical condition.

I think that, as Christians, we must from here say: man is the being capable of transcendence. The Rubicon of being and becoming a man is passed where a man is not only capable of 4 T.N.: In Latin in the original text: man the laborer, the maker, the artificer.

H 59

«And also the question about freedom becomes visible again. In a time when the old normative conceptions can all be put into question, when nothing is stable anymore, the full immeasurable openness of the question about man has become an existential problem.»

Poster and graffiti, Paris, May 1968.

having a world and an environment, but of projecting himself into the absolute. This does not mean that everyone actually does it, or even that everyone actually tries to be able to do it. Rather, it means that the constitutive feature of man is fundamentally to have the capacity, even if it perhaps does not actually come to be exercised, of projecting himself into transcendence. And we must say: this is what ultimately constitutes man as man, such that he stretches beyond the world, that he is capable of the absolute, that he bears in himself the being-an-indication-of of his existence, which relates him with the eternal, beyond all worldly relations. And this relation gives him the higher value which protects him, as a partner of God, from being monopolized by what is merely mundane.

III. Man’s two-fold Countenance in light of the biblical subject of the two Brothers With this, we would be referring to the first line of the biblical statement about man. I would like to shortly place a second one by its side. If, on one hand, we find in the Bible the epic poem, as it were, of human greatness, man as the being who is directly connected with God and hence remains always a good reserved for him; there is, on the other, a second group of statements in the Bible that show the latter’s incredible realism, and also that it does not loose itself in idealistic fantasies. I mention, without commenting too much on them, a couple of passages. The wellknown text after the flood, Gen 8:21: “I will never again curse the

H 60

ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Man, the impotent being that fundamentally does not have the strength to hold on to transcendence, but rather moves along the ordinary natural needs and the laws prescribed by these needs. Or Gen 2:7: Man formed from dust. He does not belong to a divine, but to an earthly world. This actually appears to be a descent to the ground of our condition. According to the great narration, man is described as belonging to God’s sphere, yet now he is the one made of dust. He is thus shown to be just dirt, like the other animals of this world. The text shows in this way his interlocking with the stream of life. Here now emerges a second universality, completely different from the one we found earlier, according to which even the poorest is a man, and as man he can be more than a king or an emperor. The different universality we find now is this: that man, even at his highest, remains only dust; and that all, even those who have risen higher, ultimately belong to this stream of cosmological becoming, and are nothing but a part of it. This is confirmed in Gen 3:19: “for dust you are and to dust you will return.” A word that surely reacts to the fateful and sinful fallenness of man, but which nonetheless only extracts what from the beginning is constitutive of him.

This we see again in the New Testament, when Jesus, in Mt 7:11, with the obviousness of that which one does not especially need to say, mentions in passing: “If you then, who are evil,” do this and that. These words clearly make explicit again what was said after the flood: What can one actually expect from man? He

H 61

is the one who carries a heavy weight, the heavy weight of his egoism, and who has to see to his own existence, and who simply revolves solely around himself and his ordinary needfulness: dust and ashes before God. Yet this takes on an even more dramatic line, if we think of what follows from the story of the fall at the beginning of Scripture, in Gen 2: the fall in Paradise; in Gen 4: the first death; in Gen 6: the decadence leading to the flood; in Gen 11: the Babylonian tower. Throughout this whole narration man does not appear merely as the fallen one anymore, but at the same time as obsessed with his fallenness, as the rebellious being that reaches for heaven and thereby lands on the earth or the gutter. He appears as the inconstant, hounded being, disagreeing with himself, dissatisfied, homeless, and incapable of finding satisfaction anywhere: man as a filthy and pathetic being. And if What constitutes man we heard earlier, in exalted and purer form, everything actually?—Where is, so great that men ever knew to say about men; here we are to speak, the Rubicon of presented with that existential experience that dominates ‘becoming a man’?—, the literature of our century, which we have, on one has become acute again hand, in Kafka, and, on the other, in French existential in a completely new literature. This experience of fallenness, of filthiness, that way because of the theory of evolution and is to be found in man’s being, and that imposes itself paleontology. again and again over any idealism, is here presented and rendered without gloss, in all its realism. The harrowing conclusion of this whole series of experiences that we encounter in Scripture is at the same time clearly the point from which they are overcome from within. I mean the passage in John 19:5: “Pilate brings Jesus before the people.” This text penetrates deeply into spiritual history. Diogenes tells us that he looked for men with a lantern, a scene which was then again picked up by Nietzsche: the mad man who searches for the dead God. Diogenes looked thus for men. So little is given to man, that one has to look for him on the brightest day. And the Cynic Pilate, the Skeptic, follows the Cynic Diogenes. And although he belongs to Diogenes’ school and does not believe in man, at the sight of Jesus wearing the crown of thorns a belief escapes from his lips: idou ho anthropos—see, here is the man. We do not know how consciously he said this, but for the evangelist this becomes a word that, as it were, rises in the middle of world history. The Cynic becomes unwillingly a prophet

H 62

that affirms the truth. This is the man, and probably the passage goes back to the text in Gen 3, at the place where, after the flood, God says: “now, this is the man,” a king dressed in fool’s garment, a wounded, impotent being, disfigured and degraded: that is the man. Yet this is not mere cynicism and skepticism and resignation that does not believe in man (and that has put the lantern aside a long time ago) because it is convinced that the man of whom we dream, the humanitas of homo¸5 is nowhere to be found. On the contrary, it is said: here you have found without a lantern what you were searching for. That is really the man you were on the way to search for. Because this king dressed in a fool’s garment, in which the pitifulness and the needs of man come into view so properly, is nevertheless a king. Christ, Jesus Christ, The passage gives expression to the doctrine should be understood here as the answer for the world of the two Adams, and to the open question about man. Here is a man, who is so to the promise of a completely human like us, and yet who truly is the man man as the being still whom we had searched for in vain with all our lanterns. to come, which became What has just been said points to and anticipates a real in Christ. It is said third, concluding point. Here we shortly want to state that the man Adam is the one who on his own how these two series of statements stand together, authority considers namely the one about man as a being belonging to God, himself a God, and and the other about man as a piece of clay that hardly degrades himself by rises above animality and always falls back into it. The deceiving himself, by Old Testament makes a first attempt to elucidate things turning his being into a with this dilemma, with this paradox of the two-fold lie, for he is not God. (…) essence of man. It is striking that the Old Testament repeatedly presents the pair of brothers who stand opposite to each other like brightness and obscurity, light and darkness. We have Cain/Abel as the opening of history; and then again we have Ishmael/Isaac, Esau/Jacob—and it is quite clear that this is a conscious theological construction, for we know in each case that also other children, for example, those of Abraham and others, existed, and that the prominence of these two 6 is meant as a theological schema to show the dilemma, the paradox, the division, and the ultimately ineradicable unity of man’s dual essence, of an essence that comprises a two-fold countenance.

5 T.N.: In Latin in the original text: the humanity of man.

6 T.N.: The author presumably means the pairs of brothers just mentioned.

H 63

«And the Cynic Pilate, the Skeptic, follows the Cynic Diogenes. And although he belongs to Diogenes’ school and does not believe in man, at the sight of Jesus wearing the crown of thorns a belief escapes from his lips: idou ho anthropos—see, here is the man. We do not know how consciously he said this, but for the evangelist this becomes a word that, as it were, rises in the middle of world history.

The Cynic becomes unwillingly a prophet that affirms the truth. This is the man, and probably the passage goes back to the text in Gen 3, at the place where, after the flood, God says: “now, this is the man,” a king dressed in fool’s garment, a wounded, impotent being, disfigured and degraded: that is the man.»

Christ before Pilate and the people by Rembrandt (1634), London, National Gallery.

There is thus, on the one hand, the genealogy of Cain, the “race of Cain,” the men of power, the men whose hands are tainted with blood, the men who seek a sevenfold vengeance seven times; and there is, on the other, the genealogy of Seth, the “race of Abel,” the subjected, the powerless. In connection with this, I would like to refer to the poem of a priest from East Prussia, Otto Miller (1876-1958), who in the Nazi period gave expression to this two-foldedness of man’s fate. I think here the truth of what is said in these dualities of the Bible becomes quite clear against the background of the then present situation. It says: Race of Cain, despiser of God, you, the highly honored, Yours is might on earth, and with might also right, Fools and literate alike admire you astounded, The mob and the king and the servant give yells of approval

H 64

«The answer to the question about man is Pilate’s finger, which points to the King crowned with thorns: “This is the man”! (John 19:5).» The veil of Veronica by Claude Mellan (1649).

H 65

Race of Abel, with pure hands and pious thoughts Favorite of misfortune, your share is the opprobrious blow.

When on life’s way of sorrows your weary knees falter, Cain’s laughter resounds, his hordes laughing with him.

Cain, with pleasure you wash the fraternal blood on your hands, Victory and success and the glory of History are yours.

Whereas you, Abel, bleed out silently without complaints, No one testifies for you, no one defends you.

Cain, you idol of the masses, crowned as destiny’s chosen one, Reverent the mob still gawks amazed at your pretentious grave.

But I see branded in your forehead The mark of God, and turn away in silence.7 (…) On the contrary, in the humility of the cross Jesus is the opposite image of the first Adam, who presumptuously strives to be like God. He is the one who does not use his high position to exist for Himself, but to distance Himself from Himself and approach others. Thus man comes to his proper possibility. (…)

We certainly know the concrete character this had in that time of the trials of the Jews, of the triumph of injustice, which establishes itself as law through might.

Yet we also know the terrible persistent reality of man that is expressed here.

If one looks closer in the Bible, something quite peculiar can be detected. Both halves of the story, which seem to be so opposed to each other, are not so distant from one another. One can note, indeed, that, considered merely from the standpoint of the history of literature, which immerses us into the inner core of the conception, both genealogies—the genealogy of Cain and that of Seth— are from the beginning fundamentally two variants of one and the same genealogy. Therefore, Cain is in Abel, and Abel in Cain.

And this is even clearer in the case of Esau and Jacob. Here we are consistently told how strangely, and in a deeply human way, fates cross. Here Jacob is not exalted, such that he would appear as the pure Abel, who would stand in opposition to the brutal Cain. And at last there is the word of Jesus to the one who called him good teacher: “Why do you call me good? No one is good; no one can

7 Otto Miller, Die Rasse des Kain und die Rasse des Abel [The Race of Cain and the Race of Abel], in: Ermländischer Hauskalender A.D. 1959, 92nd year of Julius Pohls Hauskalender, 112.

H 66

exalt himself.” This outrageous and for us sometimes depressing realism of the Bible demythologizes, as it were, what we interpret as the proper gloire8 of being a man. If we are objective, there are certainly great differences between men, yet Cain is in every man.

When the powerless come into power, it becomes evident all too quickly how true this is, how much the reality deprived of all our illusions is what actually takes place: oudeis agathos—no one is in his innermost core reliable and good; no one belongs in his innermost core to the divine sphere. In this sense, it may be said that in the Old Testament this ends depressingly; and Ecclesiastes expresses the depression of the enigmatically dark essence of man with its almost existential tone, with its skepticism devoid of all illusions.

IV. The new Adam Paul picks up this two-fold grouping, which we have (…) The arbitrary selfexamined in the Old Testament as the grouping Abel/ aggrandizement of the Cain, Esau/Jacob, etc., in his doctrine of the two Adams, first Adam amounts to the self-destruction of and leads it to its conclusion and to a new path. For him, man. For if each one too, there is this duality, viz. the first and the second knows only himself and Adam, which for him means: the whole of mankind is a considers himself as a single man, is Adam, not just Cain. But neither is it Abel: God and the center of the the whole of mankind is in all respects Adam. But in Jesus world, then the essence Christ, the crucified and the risen, a new humanity has of man is torn apart appeared, the second humanity so to speak, and only and destroyed, and man himself is turned into a this second humanity, the humanity of the crucified and lie. (…) risen Jesus Christ, is the true and real humanity, i.e. man is only this being still to come. He is a being of the future, which remains to be made and which in Jesus Christ began to enter into its own true future. He is a being which does not have its origin in his technical skill, but in the gift of a greater love; a love which can only be donated and which opens the real future of the being called “man” that is still to come.

Perhaps I can try to bring this to light in a clearer way with the aid of the old Christian hymn which is preserved in chapter 2, verses 5-11, of the Letter to the Philippians, where it says: “Have 8 T.N.: In French in the original text: glory.

H 67

this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess (…) The service of that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” the second man, his What does this say? The passage gives expression to “being-for-others,” his the doctrine of the two Adams, and so to the promise being a man as being a man for others, had of a man as the being still to come, which became real as a consequence the in Christ. It is said that the man Adam is the one who reinsertion of man in on his own authority considers himself a God, and the kingdom once lost to degrades himself by deceiving himself, by turning his him, and the admission being into a lie, for he is not God. On the contrary, in into God’s community.

The crucified is elevated, the humility of the cross Jesus is the opposite image of and here the right path the first Adam, who presumptuously strives to be like to the elevation of man is God. He is the one who does not use his high position to indicated. exist for Himself, but to distance Himself from Himself and approach others. Thus man comes to his proper possibility. The arbitrary self-aggrandizement of the first Adam amounts to the self-destruction of man. For if each one knows only himself and considers himself as a God and the center of the world, then the essence of man is torn apart and destroyed, and man himself is turned into a lie. The service of the second man, his “being-for-others,” his being a man as being a man for others, had as a consequence the reinsertion of man in the kingdom once lost to him, and the admission into God’s community. The crucified is elevated, and here the right path to the elevation of man is indicated. It can only be an elevation in the second Adam: in the community with Him as the new way to be a man, received by us as a gift, which does not proceed from what is technically feasible, but from the donation of love. We all—this is what the text wants to say—are the first Adam, i.e. the being of arbitrary self-aggrandizement and self-assertion, which amounts to self-

H 68

destruction. That does not mean that every spark of the dignity I first mentioned is lost in us. That dignity is indestructible. It does mean, however, that we repeatedly conceal it with our own power; that we are not in a position to create the real future of man, for the latter is essentially impossible to create. The message of the crucified Christ says the salvation of man primarily and solely takes place when he is ready to become the second Adam, that is, when he replaces self-assertion with donation; self-aggrandizement with service. Man comes into his real kingdom when he gives up his authority and turns to the weaker, vulnerable The message of the values of truth and love. He becomes truly man when he crucified Christ says abandons the first disposition, this natural heavy weight the salvation of man of our existence, the tendency of our existence towards primarily and solely egoism, and replaces it with the fundamental tendency takes place when he to donate himself. Only the second humanity is the true replaces self-assertion humanity: man’s becoming man. This means that the with donation; selfactual discovery of man follows only from Christ as the aggrandizement with service. Man comes into ultimate man; and that man comes to completion in this his real kingdom when design and self-design based on Christ, and in throwing he gives up his authority oneself upon Christ. This implies many things, which and turns to the weaker, cannot be developed here any further, for they should vulnerable values of only be pointed in the direction of the movement of the truth and love. whole. This I would like once more to clarify with the great passage in Titus 3:4, where it says: “The humanity of our God has appeared to us.” This is the true humanity, the answer to the open question about man; the answer that challenges us to become men. The true opposition of the Bible is not that between body and soul, but that between the first and the second Adam; between the being which is turned backwards and the one turned forwards; between the fundamental tendency towards egoism and the fundamental tendency towards donation. The answer to the question about man is Pilate’s finger, which points to the King crowned with thorns: “This is the man”! (John 19:5).

Translated from the German by Rafael Simian

H 69

BEATIFICATION OF PAUL VI P ope Paul VI was the Pontiff to whom the Divine Providence granted the enormous task of being the helmsman of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, qualified as many, both Christians and non Christians, as the most important event of the Twentieth Century.

The suffering he bared during those hard years left marks on his face. Of no lesser significance than the cross of leading the Council, was his defense of family and of human life.

The beatification of Paul VI by Pope Francis on October, 19th, at the closure of the first part of the Synod, has been a particular moment of grace for the Church.

As a way of paying homage to this great Pontiff, Humanitas is pleased of publishing in its pages three reflections on the figure of the Blessed Pope Paul VI, by his successors: Pope Francis, Joseph Ratzinger -still a professor in the time he addressed his words, and Cardinal Karol Wojtyla.

H 70

HUMANITAS Nยบ 7 pp. 70-105

Beatification of Paul VI

H 71

Amedeo Brogli, Pope Paul VI in prayer

H

Dina Bellotti, Paul VI, 1963-1978.

72

Beatification of Paul VI

who was paul vi

A

fter the canonizations of John XXIII and John Paul II, we see another pontiff ascend to the honors of the altars in this year of 2014.

For a more profound and detailed biography, see the entry “Paolo VI” in Treccani Encyclopedia, written by Giovanni Maria Vian, current director of L’Osservatore Romano.

Named Giovanni Battista (Enrico Antonio Maria) Montini in the world, he was born on September 26, 1897, in Concesio, in the province of Brescia. Ordained priest in 1920, three years later he began both his studies at the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, and his collaboration with the Secretary of State, during the pontificate of Pio XI. He worked as an attaché for five months in the Warsaw Apostolic Nunciature, before going back to Italy and graduating in Philosophy, Canon Law, and Civil Law.

Ecclesiastical Assistant of the ICUF

For eight years, between 1925 and 1933, he was Ecclesiastical National Assistant for the ICUF (Italian Catholic University Federation) (www.fuci.net), before being appointed, in 1937, substitute under the Secretary of State, where he worked in close contact with the future Pio XII (Eugenio Pacelli).

During World War II he engaged in intense activity in the Holy See, especially to obtain news about soldiers and civilians at the front. He also played a significant role in the assistance that the Church offered to refugees and Jewish people.

Archbishop of Milan

On November 1, 1954 he was designated Archbishop of Milan, where he worked tirelessly for dialogue and conciliation between all social forces during a particularly difficult historical period. Soon after his appointment, the new pontiff – now Saint John XXIII – designated him cardinal in the Consistory of December 15, 1958, putting him at the top of the list. They had been friends since 1925, and had collaborated quite closely, for which reason he was sent to represent the Pope in various parts of the world, in addition to participating actively in preparations for the Second Vatican Council.

H 73

262nd Bishop of Rome

He was elected 262nd Bishop of Rome and the successor of Saint Peter on June 21, 1963. His pontificate was certainly not easy, especially because of the intensification of the conflicts between the Church and the rest of the world, in which the processes of secularization were steadily advancing, with far-reaching consequences. In 1964, he gave up wearing the tiara, a symbol of sovereignty, and initiated the Second Vatican Council, displaying a great capacity for mediation, assuring doctrinal strength, and commencing a muchneeded updating of the Church in unexplored subjects (third world, peace, human life defense).

The First to ride an Airplane

He was the first pontiff to ride use an airplane to visit every continent, beginning with the Holy Land, in 1964, fifty years ago. On that occasion, he embraced the Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras I, thus beginning an approach towards schismatic churches, which later culminated in the Common Catholic-Orthodox Declaration of 1965. He visited the United Nations, and was in Fatima, Genebra, Bogota, and Uganda.

In 1970, he traveled to Oriental Asia, Oceania, and Australia.

He also met with many celebrated people, starting with the United States President, John Kennedy, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, and the Dalai Lama.

Synod and World Peace Day

Paul VI was also the Pope who formally established the permanent institution of the Synod of Bishops, thus favoring a greater collegiality, and who abolished the index of forbidden books. In 1967, he announced the creation of World Peace Day, to be celebrated on January 1 every year from then on.

The Encyclicals

In his seven encyclicals, he dealt, among other subjects, with the theme of sacerdotal celibacy (Sacerdotalis caelibatus, June 24, 1967) and the complex issues of birth control and contraception (Humanae vitae, July 25, 1968). Also interesting is the encyclical Mense maio (April 29, 1965), about the devotion to the Virgin during the month of May, and the encyclical that contains the invitation to entreat the Virgin Mary’s intercession in October for the cause of peace (Christi matri, September 15, 1966). He also wrote encyclicals dedicated to the

H 74

H

75

Beatification of Paul VI

Eucharist (Mysterium fidei, September 3, 1965), social issues (Populorum progressio, March 26, 1967), and to the mission of the Catholic Church in the world (Ecclesiam suam, August 6, 1964).

In 1967, he established a “Year of Faith,” as a consequence of the Council, and also to celebrate the nineteenth centenary of the ma r t yrdom of Sa i nt Peter and Saint Paul.

That year ended on June 30, 1968 with a Solemn Profession of Faith, the Creed of the People of God. Also characteristic of Paul VI was his haste and zeal for the new evangelization, writing, on December 8, 1975, the apostolic exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi. On December 24, 1974, he inaugurated the Holy Year of 1975 (Jubilee), with the opening of the holy gate broadcast live on television.

The Reformation of the Curia

During his pontificate, numerous institutions of the Roman Curia were established, such as the Pontifical Commission for Social Communications (later turned into the Pontifical Council); the Secretariat for Non-Christians and the Secretariat for Non-Believers; the Pontifical Council for the Laity; the Prefecture of the Papal Household; and the International Theological Commission. Finally, the Holy Office was transformed into the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.

Paul VI passed away on August 6, 1978, the feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord, in the summer residence of Castel Gandolfo. On the Vatican website, the text of the speech elaborated for the Angelus of that morning can be read – it was never given due to the Pontiff’s illness. In it, he reflects on all those who suffer due to the special conditions in which they find themselves, starting with the unemployed and those who suffer hunger.

H 76

Beatification of Paul VI

The funeral was extremely restrained, and so was the coffin, made of light wood, on which a Gospel was placed.

This simplicity inspired his successors. He is buried in the Vatican Caves, under Saint Peter’s Basilica.

An International Center for the Study of the Figure of Paul VI

Following his death, an initiative emerged in his native city, Brescia, as part of the Work for Christian Education – an International Center for the Study and Documentation of his figure: http://www.istitutopaolovi.it/index.asp

Cause for Beatification and Heroic Virtues

The cause for beatification was opened on May 11, 1993, according to the wishes of Pope John Paul II. On December 20, 2012, on receiving a favorable opinion from the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, Pope Benedict XVI authorized the promulgation of the decree concerning the heroic virtues of Paul VI, who at that point assumed the title of Venerable.

The Nomination

The diocesan headquarters of the cause for beatification are at the Holy Mary of Grace Sanctuary in Brescia. The presenter is Father Antonio Marrazzo.

The miracle attributed to Paul VI occurred in 2001 and concerns the inexplicable healing of an American boy who should have been born with physical disabilities due to the rupture of the fetal bladder while still inside his mother’s womb, during the fifth month of pregnancy. Today, aged thirteen, he lives a normal life.

There are also numerous graces attributed to the Venerable.

“A true servant”: this is the way in which an article by the vice-postulator of the cause for beatification, Don Antonio Lanzoni, describes him.

In the article mentioned above are all the documents that can be consulted (homilies, constitutions, motu proprios, encyclical letters, letters, prayers, etc.) in chronological order and in several languages, starting with Latin, drafted by Paul VI during his pontificate.

GIOVANNI TRIDENTE Oasis Traslated by Andrea Simian

H 77

Beatification of Paul VI and closing Mass78of de Synod of Bishops in Rome

H

Beatification of Paul VI

Paul VI, seen by his successors

thank you, our dear and beloved pope paul vi!

By pope francis

Excerpts of the homily of Pope Francis during the closing Mass of the Extraordinary Synod on the Family and Beatification of the Servant of God Paul VI.

(…) On this day of the Beatification of Pope Paul VI, I think of the words with which he established the Synod of Bishops: “by carefully surveying the signs of the times, we are making every effort to adapt ways and methods… to the growing needs of our time and the changing conditions of society” (Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Apostolica Sollicitudo).

When we look to this great Pope, this courageous Christian, this tireless apostle, we cannot but say in the sight of God a word When we look to as simple as it is heartfelt and important: thanks! Thank you, our this great Pope, this dear and beloved Pope Paul VI! Thank you for your humble and courageous Christian, this tireless apostle, we prophetic witness of love for Christ and his Church!

In his personal journal, the great helmsman of the Council cannot but say in the wrote, at the conclusion of its final session: “Perhaps the Lord sight of God a word as has called me and preserved me for this service not because I am simple as it is heartfelt particularly fit for it, or so that I can govern and rescue the Church and important: thanks! from her present difficulties, but so that I can suffer something for Thank you, our dear and the Church, and in that way it will be clear that he, and no other, is beloved Pope Paul VI! her guide and saviour” (P. Macchi, Paolo VI nella sua parola, Brescia, 2001, pp. 120-121). In this humility the grandeur of Blessed Paul VI shines forth: before the advent of a secularized and hostile society, he could hold fast, with farsightedness and wisdom – and at times alone – to the helm of the barque of Peter, while never losing his joy and his trust in the Lord.

Paul VI truly “rendered to God what is God’s” by devoting his whole life to the “sacred, solemn and grave task of continuing in history and extending on earth the mission of Christ” (Homily for the Rite of Coronation: Insegnamenti I, (1963), 26), loving the Church and leading her so that she might be “a loving mother of the whole human family and at the same time the minister of its salvation” (Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam, Prologue).

(Vatican, 19-X-2014)

H 79

Paul VI, seen by his successors

the transfiguration

By Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

Four days after Paul VI's death, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Archbishop of Munich and Freising, celebrated Mass in his Bavarian Cathedral on 10 August 1978 for the late Pope. His homily was printed in the archdiocesan bulletin, 'OrdinariatsKorrespondenz'. For the 50th anniversary of Pope Montini's election (21 June 1963), 'L'Osservatore Romano' translated and published the text in n.141 of the Daily and a synthesis was published in the English weekly edition, n. 26.

The transfiguration promised by faith as a metamorphosis of man is primarily a journey of purification, of suffering.

Paul VI increasingly accepted his papal service as a metamorphosis of faith into suffering.

i

n the Eucharistic Prayer in Holy Mass for 15 years we have said the words, "we celebrate in communion with your servant our Pope Paul". As of 7 August this sentence no longer applies.

The unity of the Church for the moment has no name; his name is now in the memory of those who have come before us in the sign of faith and who are resting in peace. Pope Paul was called to the Father's house on the evening of the Feast of the Lord's Transfiguration shortly after hearing holy Mass and receiving the sacraments. "It is well that we are here", Peter had said to Jesus on the mountain of the Transfiguration. He wanted to stay there.

What was then denied him was, on the contrary, granted to Paul VI on this Feast of the Transfiguration in 1978: he no longer needed to descend into the daily routine of history. He could stay there, where the Lord is seated at table for eternity with Moses, Elijah and all those who arrive from East, West, North and South. His earthly pilgrimage had ended. In the Eastern Church which Paul VI so deeply loved the Feast of the Transfiguration has a very special place. It is not regarded merely as one event among many, one dogma among others, but rather as the recapitulation of all things: in it are brought together the Cross and the Resurrection, the present and the future of creation. The Feast of the Transfiguration is our guarantee that the Lord does not abandon creation; that the body is not discarded as though it were an article of clothing, that it does not exit history as though it were a theatrical role. In the shadow of the Cross we know that creation moves

H 80

Beatification of Paul VI Pope Paul VI gives the Cardinal’s Cappello to the Archbishop of Munich Joseph Ratzinger

toward transfiguration in this very way.

By bearing it as a What we designate as "transfiguration" is called "metamorphosis" suffering he gave new ("transformation") in New Testament Greek and this emphasizes meaning to authority an important aspect: transfiguration is not something remote as service. He took no that can happen in perspective. In the transfigured Christ faith pleasure in power, in is far more clearly revealed for what it is: transformation, which position, in having had in human beings takes place throughout their life. From the a successful career; biological viewpoint life is a metamorphosis, a never-ending and precisely because transformation that concludes with death. Living means dying, it he bore authority as a means metamorphosis toward death. The narrative of the Lord's responsibility "another Transfiguration adds something new: dying means being restored will gird you and carry to life. Faith is a metamorphosis in which man definitively matures you where you do not and becomes mature in order to be definitive. For this reason wish to go" — his John the Evangelist, fusing transfiguration and cross, describes authority became great the Cross as glorification. In the final liberation from oneself the and credible. metamorphosis of life reaches its goal.

The transfiguration promised by faith as a metamorphosis of man is primarily a journey of purification, of suffering. Paul VI increasingly accepted his papal service as a metamorphosis of faith into suffering. The last words the Risen Lord spoke to Peter after making him the shepherd of his flock were: "when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go" (Jn 21:18). It was a hint of the crucifixion that lay in store for Peter at the end of his journey.

H 81

It was, in general, a hint of the nature of this service. Paul VI, increasingly, let himself be taken where, humanly, by himself, he did not wish to go. For him his pontificate meant more and more allowing another to clothe him and allowing himself to be nailed to the cross. We know that before his 75th birthday — and also before his 80th — he fought strenuously against the idea of retiring. Moreover, we can imagine how heavy the thought must be of no longer belonging to ourselves; of no longer having a single private moment; of being enchained to the very last, with our body giving up and with a task that day after day demands the total, vigorous use of Paul VI resisted telecracy a man's energy. "None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies and demoscopia, the two to himself. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die dictatorial powers of the to the Lord" (Rom 14:7-8). These words of today's Reading word present time. He was for word defined Paul VI's life. By bearing it as a suffering he able to do so because he gave new meaning to authority as service. He took no pleasure did not adopt success in power, in position, in having had a successful career; and and approval as the precisely because he bore authority as a responsibility "another parameter, but rather will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go" — his his conscience, which is authority became great and credible. measured by truth and Paul VI carried out his service for the faith. This gave rise to by faith. both his firmness and his willingness to compromise. He was obliged to accept criticism for both, and some comments after his death have not devoid of bad taste. Today, however, to the eyes of our time, a Pope who does not stand up to criticism will fail in his task. Paul VI resisted telecracy and demoscopia, the two dictatorial powers of the present time.

He was able to do so because he did not adopt success and approval as the parameter, but rather his conscience, which is measured by truth and by faith. This explains why on many occasions he sought compromise: faith leaves much open, it offers a broad spectrum of decisions; the parameter is love felt as a duty to all things, thus, imposing deep respect. For this reason he was able to be inflexible and decisive when the essential Tradition of the Church was at stake. This firmness within him did not stem from the insensitivity of one whose path is dictated by the pleasure of power and contempt for people, but from the depth of his faith which enabled him to stand up to opposition.

In his inmost depths Paul VI was a spiritual pope, a man of faith. A newspaper that described him as a diplomat who had left diplomacy behind him did not err. In the course of his career in the Curia, he learned to dominate

H 82

Beatification of Paul VI

the instruments of diplomacy virtuously, but they faded ever further into the background in the metamorphosis of faith to which he had subjected himself. Deep in his heart he was finding his way, with ever greater certainty, simply in the call of faith, in prayer, in the encounter with Jesus Christ. In this way he became increasingly a man who was profoundly good, pure and mature. Those who met him in his last years could directly experience the extraordinary metamorphosis of faith and its transfiguring power.

It was possible to see how this man, an intellectual by nature, For this reason he was was giving himself to Christ, day after day, how he was letting able to be inflexible himself be changed, transformed and purified by him, and how and decisive when the this made him ever freer, ever more profound, ever kinder, more essential Tradition of perceptive and simple. the Church was at stake.

Faith is a death, but it is also a metamorphosis in order to enter This firmness within authentic life on the way to transfiguration. One could note all of him did not stem from this in Pope Paul. Faith had given him courage. Faith had given the insensitivity of one him goodness. And in him it was also clear that convinced faith whose path is dictated by does not close but opens. In the end, we cherish in our memories the pleasure of power and the image of a man with outstretched hands. He was the first pope contempt for people, but to have gone to all the continents thus establishing an itinerary of from the depth of his faith the Spirit which began in Jerusalem, the fulcrum of the encounter which enabled him to and separation of the world's three great monotheistic religions. stand up to opposition.

Then came his journeys to the United Nations and to Geneva, his meeting with humanity's greatest non-monotheistic religious culture, India, and his pilgrimages to the suffering peoples of Latin America, Africa and Asia. Faith stretches out its hands. Its symbol is not a fist but an open hand.

In his Letter to the Romans St Ignatius of Antioch wrote the marvellous sentence: "It is good to set from the world unto God, that I may rise again to him" (II). The Bishop-Martyr wrote this as he journeyed from the East to the land where the sun sets, the West. There, in the sunset of martyrdom, he hoped to receive the dawn of eternity. Year after year, Paul VI's journey became a journey in ever greater awareness of witness borne, a journey into the sunset of death which summoned him on the day of the Transfiguration of the Lord. Let us confidently place his soul in the hands of God's eternal mercy. Let us allow his example to be an appeal to us and to bear fruit in our soul. And let us pray that the Lord send us another pope who once again fulfils the first mandate which the Lord gave Peter: "Strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32).

H 83

H 84

The encyclical Humanae vitae contains not only clear and explicit norms for married life, conscious parenthood and a correct regulation of birth, but through these norms it indicates the values. It confirms their correct meaning and warns us against false meanings. It expresses a profound solicitude to safeguard man from the danger of altering the most fundamental values.

Beatification of Paul VI

Paul VI, seen by his successors

the truth of the encyclical "humanae vitae"

By Cardinal Karol Wojtyla (L'Osservatore Romano English Edition, 16 January 1969)

A Testimony

It will seem strange that we begin our thoughts about the encyclical Humanae vitae with quotations from the "Autobiography of M. Ghandhi".

"In my opinion —wrote the great Indian— to maintain that the sexual act is a spontaneous action analogous to sleeping or eating, is crass ignorance. The existence of the world depends upon the act of The encyclical of Paul multiplying —upon procreation, we say— and since the world VI as a document of the is the dominion of God and a reflection of his power, the act of supreme Magisterium of multiplying —of procreation, we say— must be subjected to the the Church presents the norm which aims at safeguarding (the development of life on teaching of the human earth). The man who is aware of all this, will aspire at all costs to and Christian ethic in dominate his senses and will furnish himself with the necessary one of its key points. The knowledge to promote the physical and spiritual growth of his truth of Humanae vitae offspring. He will then pass on the fruits of this knowledge to is therefore primarily posterity as well as using them for his own advantage". In another a normative truth. passage from his autobiography, Gandhi says that twice in his It reminds us of the life he was influenced by the propaganda for artificial means principles of morality, of contraception in conjugal life. However he arrived at the which constitute the conviction that "one must act primarily through interior force, objective norm. This in the mastery of oneself, that is through self-control". norm is even written in With regard to the encyclical Humanae vitae, these passages the human heart. from the Autobiography of Ghandhi take on the significance of a special testimony. They make us recall the words of Saint Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, concerning the substance of the Law inscribed in the heart of man and demonstrated by the dictates of an upright conscience (Rom. 2, 15). Even in the times of Saint Paul, the voice of an upright conscience was a reproach for those who, even though "possessors of the Law", did not observe it.

Perhaps it is also good for us to have before our eyes the testimony of this non-Christian man. It is appropriate for us to be aware of "the substance of the Law" written in the heart of man and demonstrated by the conscience, in order to be able to penetrate the profound truth of the doctrine of the Church contained in Paul VI's encyclical Humanae vitae. For this reason at

H 85

Karol Wojtyla receives the Cardinal’s biretta from Pope Paul VI

The Pope is also aware of the difficulties to which modern man is exposed, as well as the weaknesses to which he is subject. However, the path towards the solution of the problems must be through the truth of the Gospel: "To diminish in no way the saving teaching of Christ constitutes in eminent form of charity for souls" (HV 29). (‌)

the beginning of our thoughts, which aim at clarifying the ethical truth and the objective foundation of the teaching of Humanae vitae, we have used such a testimony. The fact that this testimony historically precedes the encyclical by a few decades does not lesson its significance: in fact, the essence of the problem remains the same in both, and even the circumstances are quite similar.

The True Meaning Of Responsible Parenthood

In order to answer the questions presented at the beginning of the encyclical (HV 3), Paul VI analyzes the two great and fundamental "realities of married life", conjugal love and responsible parenthood (HV 7), in their mutual relationship. The analysis of responsible parenthood constitutes the principal theme of the encyclical since the questions posed at the beginning present this problem: "Could it not be admitted, that is, that the intention of a less abundant but more rationalized fecundity might transform a materially sterilizing intervention into a licit and wise control of birth?

Could it not be admitted, that is, that the finality of procreation pertains to the ensemble of conjugal life, rather than to its single acts?... has not the moment come for him to entrust to his reason and his will, rather than to the biological rhythms of his organism, the task of regulating birth?" (HV 3).

To answer these questions the Pope does not resort to the traditional hierarchy of the purposes of marriage of which the first is procreation, but instead he analyzes the mutual relations between conjugal love and responsible parenthood. This is the same formulation of the problem as that contained in the pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes.

Marriage As Total And Integral Love

A correct and penetrating analysis of conjugal love presupposes an exact idea of marriage itself. Marriage is not "the product of unconscious natural

H 86

Beatification of Paul VI

forces" (HV 8), it is "the communion of beings" (HV 8) based on their reciprocal gift of self. And for this reason a correct judgment of responsible parenthood presupposes "an integral vision of man and of his vocation" (HV 7). To acquire such a judgment "the partial perspectives—whether of the biological, psychological, demographic or sociological orders" (HV 7) are not at all sufficient. None of these views can constitute a basis for an adequate and just answer to the questions posed above. Every answer that comes from a partial view can only be a partial one. In order to find an adequate answer, it is necessary to have a correct vision of man as a being, since marriage establishes a communion of beings which is born and brought about through their mutual gift of self. Conjugal love is characterized by the elements which result from such a communion of beings and which correspond to the personal dignity of the man and the woman, of the husband and the wife. It is a matter of total love, or love which involves the whole man: his sensitivity, his affectivity, and his spirituality, which must be both faithful and exclusive. This love "is not exhausted in the communion between husband and wife but it is destined to (…) The motive of continue raising up new lives" (HV 9); it is therefore fruitful love. charity towards souls This loving communion of a married couple, through which they and no other motive constitute, according to the words of Genesis 2, 24, "a single body" moves the Church which is a kind of condition of fecundity, a condition of procreation. "does not cease... to This communion being a particular type —since it is corporeal proclaim with humble it is in the strict sense "sexual"— of realization of the conjugal firmness the entire moral communion between beings, must be brought about at the level law, both natural and of the person and must befit his dignity. It is on this basis that evangelical" (HV 18). one must form an exact judgment of responsible parenthood.

This judgment concerns, first of all, the essence of paternity —and under this aspect it is a positive judgment: "conjugal love requires in husband and wife an awareness of their mission of responsible parenthood... " (HV 10).

The encyclical throughout its text formulates this judgment and proposes it as a basic answer to the questions posed above: conjugal love must be fruitful love, that is, "directed toward parenthood". Parenthood which comes from love between persons is "responsible parenthood". One could say that in the Encyclical Humanae vitae responsible parenthood becomes the proper name for human procreation.

This basically positive judgment of responsible parenthood, however, requires some further explanation. It is only through these further explanations that we can find a universal answer to the initial questions. Paul VI offers us these explanations. According to the encyclical, responsible parenthood means "both... the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, and... the decision... to avoid for the time being or for in indeterminate length of time, a new birth" (HV 10). If conjugal love is fruitful love, that is, open to parenthood, it is difficult to think that the meaning of responsible parenthood, deduced from its essential properties can be identified only with the limitation of birth.

H 87

Thus responsible parenthood is realized both by those couples who, thanks to their generous and meditated decision, produce a large family, as well as by those couples who for "grave motives and with due respect for the moral law" (HV 10) decide to limit the number of their offspring.

Biological Processes And Respect For The Human Person

According to the doctrine of the Church, responsible parenthood is not and cannot be only the effect of a certain "technique" of conjugal collaboration: in fact, it has primarily and "per se" an ethical value. A true and fundamental danger —to which the encyclical purports to be a providential remedy— consists in the temptation to consider this problem as being outside the sphere of ethics, to make an effort to divest man of the responsibility for his own actions which are so profoundly rooted in his entire personal structure. Responsible parenthood —writes the Pope— "means The normative truth the necessary dominion which will and reason must exercise" of Humanae vitae is over the tendencies of instinct and passion (HV 10). Thus this strictly tied to those domination presupposes "the knowledge and respect of the values which are biological processes" (HV 10) and this places these processes expressed in the objective not only in their biological dynamism, but also in their personal moral order according to integration, that is, at the level of the person, since "the human their proper hierarchy. intellect discovers in the power of giving life biological laws These are the authentic which are part of the human person" (HV 10).

human values which, are connected with conjugal and family life.

The Inseparable Connection Between The Meanings Of The Conjugal Act

Love is the communion of persons. If parenthood, and responsible parenthood, correspond to this love, then the way of acting which leads to such parenthood, cannot be morally indifferent. In fact, it decides whether the sexual activity of the communion of persons is or is not authentic love. "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fulness the sense of true mutual love..." (HV 12).

Man "cannot of his own initiative break the inseparable connection between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning" (HV 12). It is for this reason that the encyclical supports the previous position of the Magisterium and maintains the difference between the so-called natural regulation of birth which calls for periodical abstinence and contraception which uses artificial methods. We use the word "maintains" because "the two cases are completely different from each other" (HV 16). There is a great difference between them with regard to their ethical qualification.

A Norm Written In The Human Heart

The encyclical of Paul VI as a document of the supreme Magisterium of the Church presents the teaching of the human and Christian ethic in

H 88

H

89

Beatification of Paul VI

one of its key points. The truth of Humanae vitae is therefore primarily a normative truth. It reminds us of the principles of morality, which constitute the objective norm. This norm is even written in the human heart, as is demonstrated at least in the testimony of Ghandhi which we quoted in the beginning of this article. Nonetheless, this objective moral principle easily suffers from subjective deformations or common obscuring. On the other hand many other moral principles such as those which were recalled in the encyclical Populorum progressio have met a similar fate. In the encyclical Humanae vitae, the Holy Father expresses above all his full understanding of all these circumstances which seem to speak out against the principle of conjugal morality as taught by the Church. The Pope is also aware of the difficulties to which modern man is exposed, as well as the weaknesses to which he is subject. However, the path towards the solution of the problems must be through the truth of the Gospel: "To diminish in no way The questions which the saving teaching of Christ constitutes in eminent form of agitate modern man charity for souls" (HV 29). The motive of charity towards souls "required from the and no other motive moves the Church which "does not cease... teaching authority of the to proclaim with humble firmness the entire moral law, both Church a new and deeper natural and evangelical" (HV 18).

reflection upon the principles of the moral teaching on marriage: a teaching founded on the natural law, illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation" (HV 4).

A Correct Hierarchy Of Values

The normative truth of Humanae vitae is strictly tied to those values which are expressed in the objective moral order according to their proper hierarchy. These are the authentic human values which, are connected with conjugal and family life. The Church considers herself the custodian and guarantor of these values as we read in the encyclical. In the face of any danger which threatens them the Church feels it her duty to defend them. The authentic human values constitute the basis and at the same time the motivation of the principles of conjugal morality mentioned in the encyclical. It is useful to emphasize them once again even though they have already been demonstrated in the preceding discussions, and the matter is quite clear, since the true meaning of responsible parenthood was already expressed in the encyclical in relation to conjugal love.

The value which is at the foundation of this demonstration is the value of human life, that is, of that life already conceived and blossoming in the living together of the married couple. The responsibility of parenthood, to which the entire encyclical is principally dedicated, itself speaks of this value.

The Conception A Person By Means Of Persons

The fact that this value of life already conceived or in its origin, is not examined in the encyclical within the framework of procreation as the purpose of marriage, but rather within the vision of the love and the responsibility of the partners, places the value of human life itself in a new

H 90

Beatification of Paul VI The examination of these values and through them the examination of the norm itself of responsible parenthood formulated in the encyclical Humanae vitae carry with them a particular stamp of the Gospel.

light. Man and woman in their matrimonial life together which is a living together of persons, must create a new human person. The conceiving of a person by means of persons —this is the just measure of values which must be used here. This is, at the same time, the just measure of the responsibility which must guide human parenthood.

The encyclical recognizes this value. Even though the encyclical does not seem to speak of this value very much, nevertheless it indirectly emphasizes it even more when it places it firmly within the context of other values.

These are the fundamental values for human life, and, at the same time the specific values for marriage and the family They are specific because only marriage and the family —and no other human environment— constitute the specific field in which these values appear. They are the fertile soil in which they grow. One of these is the value of conjugal and family love, the other is the value of the person, or his dignity which is manifested in the closest and most intimate human contacts. These two values permeate each other so completely that in a certain sense they constitute a single good.

The Achievement Of A Full Spiritual Maturity

And this is the spiritual good of marriage, the greatest wealth of the new human generations: "...husband and wife fully develop their personalities, being enriched with spiritual values. Such discipline bestows upon family life fruits of serenity and peace... it favours attention for one's partner, helps both parties to drive out selfishness, the enemy of true love; and deepens their sense of responsibility. By its means, parents acquire the capacity of having a deeper and more efficacious influence in the education of their offspring; little children and youths grow up with a just appraisal of human

H 91

H 92

Beatification of Paul VI

values, and in the serene and harmonious development of their spiritual and sensitive faculties" (HV 21). This is the full context and at the same time the universal framework of the values upon which the doctrine of responsible parenthood is founded, the attitude of responsibility extends over the entire conjugal life and over the entire process of education. Only those who have reached the full maturity of their person through a complete education can succeed, in educating new human beings. Responsible parenthood and the chastity of the mutual relations between the married couple inherent in it are the verification of their spiritual maturity. Thus they project their light over the entire process of education which is carried out in the family.

The Conjugal Love: Authentic Giving Of One Person To Another

The encyclical Humanae vitae contains not only clear and explicit norms for married life, conscious parenthood and a correct regulation of birth, but through these norms it indicates the values. It confirms Revelation as the their correct meaning and warns us against false meanings. expression of the eternal It expresses a profound solicitude to safeguard man from the thought of God permits danger of altering the most fundamental values. One of the most us, and at the same fundamental values is that of human love. Love has its source time commands us, in God who "is Love". Paul VI places this revealed truth at the to consider marriage beginning of his penetrating analysis of conjugal love because it as an institution for expresses the highest value which must be recognized in human transmitting human life, love. Human love is rich in the experiences of which it consists, in which the marriage but its essential richness consists in being a communion of partners are "the persons, that is of a man and a woman, in their mutual self-giving. free and responsible Conjugal love is enriched through the authentic giving of one collaborators of God the person to another person. It is this mutual giving of self which creator" (HV 1). must not be altered. If in marriage there is to be the realization of authentic love of persons through the giving of bodies, that is, through the "bodily union" of the man and the woman, then out of regard for the value of the love itself, this mutual gift of self cannot be altered in any aspect of the interpersonal conjugal act.

Authentic Value of Human Love

The value itself of human love and its authenticity demand such a chastity of the marital act as is required by the Church and is repeated in the encyclical itself. In various fields man dominates nature and subordinates it to himself through the use of artificial means. The sum total of these means in a certain sense is equivalent to progress and civilization. In this field, however, where love between one person and another is expressed through the marital act, and where the person must authentically give himself (and "give" also means "to receive" reciprocally) the use of artificial means is equivalent to an alteration of the act of love. The author Of Humanae vitae is aware of the authentic value of human love which has God as its source,

H 93

and which is confirmed by a correct conscience and a healthy "moral sense".

It is precisely in the name of this value that the Pope teaches the principles of ethical responsibility. This is also the responsibility which safeguards the quality of human love in marriage. This love is also expressed in continence —even in periodic continence— since love is capable of giving up the marital act, but it cannot give up the authentic gift of the person.

Renouncing the marital act can be in certain circumstances an authentic gift of self. Paul VI writes in this regard: "...this discipline which is proper to the purity of married couples, far from harming conjugal love, rather confers on it a higher human value" (HV 21).

Donation Requires The Mastery Of Oneself

In expressing the thoughtful concern for the authentic value of human love, the encyclical "Humanae vitae" addresses man and calls It seems to us proper upon his sense of dignity as a person. In fact, love, according that for this witness man to its authentic Value, must be realized by man and woman in must make a certain marriage. The capacity for such love and the capacity for the sacrifice for the sake of authentic giving of self demand from both partners the sense authentic values. The of personal dignity. The experience of sexual value must be Gospel continually permeated by a vivid awareness of the value of the person. This confirms the necessity of value, in fact, explains the necessity for the mastery of oneself such a sacrifice, and it is which belongs to the person: in fact, the personality is expressed confirmed by the work in self-control and self-domination. Without these man would not of Redemption which is be capable of giving himself nor of receiving that gift according expressed in its totality in to the measure of the value which must characterize such an the Easter Mystery. (…) interchange. And therefore the moral doctrine proclaimed by the Church contributes "to the establishment of a truly human civilization; she engages man not to abdicate from his own responsibility in order to rely on technical means; by that very fact she defends the dignity of mail and wife" (HV 18).

Other Aspects Of The Problem

The encyclical Humanae vitae formulates this hierarchy of values which proves to be essential and decisive for the entire problem of responsible parenthood. This hierarchy cannot be overturned and the correct order of values cannot be changed. We would risk such an inversion and changing of values if, in order to resolve the problem, we were to take partial aspects as our point of departure rather than starting from "the integral vision of man and his vocation". Each of these partial aspects is very important in itself, and Paul VI does not diminish their importance in the least; whether it be the demographic-sociological aspect or the bio-psychological aspect. On the contrary, the Pontiff carefully considers them. He only wishes to prevent any of the partial aspects —no matter what their importance— from destroying the correct hierarchy of values and from divesting love of its true significance

H 94

Beatification of Paul VI (…) The cross of Christ has become the price of human redemption. Each man who walks along the path of true values must assume part of this cross as the price which he must pay in exchange for authentic values. (…) as the communion of persons and from divesting man himself of his true significance as a person capable of authentic self-giving, a self-giving in which mail cannot be substituted by "technology". In all this, however, the Pope does not overlook any one of the partial aspects of the problem; as a matter of fact he confronts them, establishing their fundamental content and declaring the correct hierarchy of values. And it is precisely along this path that there exists a possibility of birth control and therefore also the possibility of resolving the socio-demographical difficulties. And therefore Paul VI was able to write with all certainty that "...public authorities can and must contribute to the solution of the demographic problem" (HV 23).

When it is a matter of the biological or even the psychological aspects —as the encyclical teaches us— the path towards the realization of the respective values passes through the heightening of the value of love itself and of the person. Here are the words of the eminent biologist, professor P. P. Grasset of the Academy of Sciences: "The encyclical is in agreement with biological data, it reminds doctors of their duties and Points Out to man the way by which his dignity-both physical and moral-will not suffer any offence" (Le Figaro, 8-10-1968).

H 95

One might say that the encyclical penetrates the nucleus of this universal problem which had engaged the Second Vatican Council. The problem of the development "of the world" both in its modern demands and in its more distant perspectives leads to a series of questions which man poses to himself. Some of these are expressed in the pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes. A correct answer to these questions is not possible if one does not realize the significance of those values which make man and his life truly human. In the encyclical Humanae vitae Paul VI dedicates himself to the examination of these values in their central core.

Evangelic Profile

The examination of these values and through them the examination of the norm itself of responsible parenthood formulated in the encyclical Humanae vitae carry with them a particular stamp of the Gospel. It is important to point this Out again at the conclusion of the present considerations even though this very idea has been the connecting thread throughout.

The questions which agitate modern man "required from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection upon the principles of the moral teaching on marriage: a teaching founded on the natural law, illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation" (HV 4). Revelation as the expression of the eternal thought of God permits us, and at the same time commands us, to consider marriage as an institution for transmitting human life, in which the marriage partners are "the free and responsible collaborators of God the creator" (HV 1).

Christ himself confirmed this perpetual dignity of married persons and he inserted the totality of married life into the work of the Redemption, and lie included it in the sacramental order. By the sacrament of Marriage "husband and wife are strengthened and as it were consecrated for the faithful accomplishment of their proper duties, for the carrying out of their proper vocation even to perfection, and the Christian witness which is proper to them before the whole world" (HV 25). Since the doctrine of Christian morality was set forth in the encyclical, the doctrine of responsible parenthood understood as the just expression of conjugal love and of the dignity of the human person, constitutes an important component of the Christian witness.

And it seems to us proper that for this witness man must make a certain sacrifice for the sake of authentic values. The Gospel continually confirms the necessity of such a sacrifice, and it is confirmed by the work of Redemption which is expressed in its totality in the Easter Mystery. The cross of Christ has become the price of human redemption. Each man who walks along the path of true values must assume part of this cross as the

(‌) This price consists in a particular effort: "The divine law, as the Pope writes, demands serious engagement and much effort", and he adds right after this that "...such efforts ennoble man and are beneficial to the human community" (HV 20).

H 96

Beatification of Paul VI Throughout all the arguments and appeals of the encyclical which are full of dramatic tension, we can hear the words of the Master: "by your endurance you will gain your lives" (Luke 21, 19).

For in the last analysis that is precisely the point. price which he must pay in exchange for authentic values. This price consists in a particular effort: "The divine law, as the Pope writes, demands serious engagement and much effort", and he adds right after this that "...such efforts ennoble man and are beneficial to the human community" (HV 20).

The last part of the encyclical is in appeal for this serious engagement and these efforts which is addressed both to the human community, in order that it "create all atmosphere favourable to education in chastity" (HV 22), and to public authorities as well as men of science in order that they may succeed in "providing a sufficiently secure basis for a regulation of birth, founded on the observance of natural rhythms" of fertility (HV 24). The encyclical finally appeals to married persons themselves, to the apostolate of families for the family, to doctors, to priests and to bishops as pastors of souls.

For contemporary men who are restless and impatient and who are at the same time threatened in the sphere of their most fundamental values and principles, the Vicar of Christ recalls the laws which rule over this sphere.

And since they lack patience and seek after simplifications and apparently easy solutions lie reminds them of the necessary price for true values and of how much patience and effort are necessary for the realization of these values. It seems that throughout all the arguments and appeals of the encyclical which are full of dramatic tension, we can hear the words of the Master: "by your endurance you will gain your lives" (Luke 21, 19). For in the last analysis that is precisely the point.

H 97

the silence of nazareth

N

azareth is the school in which we begin to understand the life of Jesus. It is the school of the Gospel. Here we learn to observe, to listen, to meditate, and to penetrate the profound and mysterious meaning of that simple, humble, and lovely manifestation of the Son of God. And perhaps we learn almost imperceptibly to imitate Him. Here we learn the method by which we can come to understand Christ. Here we discover the need to observe the milieu of His sojourn among us – places, period of time, customs, language, religious practices, all of which Jesus used to reveal Himself to the world. Here everything speaks to us; everything has meaning. Everything possesses twofold significance.

The first is exterior, that which the spectators’ senses and perceptiveness can immediately derive from the Gospel scene. It is the impression gained by those who look merely at externals, who study and examine only the philological and historical trappings of the holy books, that part of which in Biblical terminology is called “the letter.” This study is important and necessary, but it is opaque to one who stops there, and even capable of engendering illusions and intellectual pride in the observer who approaches the external elements in the Gospel without clear vision, humility, a good intention, and a prayerful spirit.

There is also an interior significance – that is, the revelation of divine truth, of supernatural reality – which the Gospel not only contains but also manifests, though, to be sure, only to the person who puts himself in harmony with its light.

This harmony is due partly to uprightness of spirit, that is of mind and heart – a subjective and human condition which depends on the personal initiative of each person. At the same time it flows from the mysterious, free, and unmerited outpouring of grace, which, in keeping with the mystery of mercy governing mankind’s destiny, is never lacking; indeed, at the proper time and in the appropriate manner it never fails any man of good will. This second element, distinct from “the letter” of the Gospel, is called the “the spirit.”

It is here, in this school, that one comes to grasp how necessary it is to be spiritually disciplined, if one wishes to follow the teachings of the Gospel and to become a follower of

H 98

Beatification of Paul VI

Christ. Oh, how We would like to repeat, so close to Mary, Our introduction to the genuine knowledge of the meaning of life, and to the higher wisdom of divine truth!

But O u r st e p s h er e a r e h u r r i e d , a n d We must take leave of Our desire to pursue here this never-ending education in understanding of the Gospel. Nevertheless, We cannot depart without r e c a l l i n g br i e f ly a nd fleetingly some fragments of the lesson of Nazareth.

The lesson of silence: may there return to us an appreciation of this stupendous and indispensable spiritual condition, deafened as we are by so much tumult, so much noise, so many voices of our chaotic and frenzied modern life. O silence of Nazareth, teach us recollection, reflection, and eagerness to heed the good inspirations and words of true teachers; teach us the need and value of preparation, of study, of meditation, of interior life, of secret prayer seen by God alone.

The lesson of domestic life: may Nazareth teach us the meaning of family life, its harmony of love, its simplicity and austere beauty, its sacred and inviolable character; may it teach is how sweet and irreplaceable is its training, how fundamental and incomparable its role on the social plane.

The lesson of work: O Nazareth, home of “the carpenter’s son,” We want here to understand and to praise the austere and redeeming law of human labor, here to restore the consciousness of the dignity of labor, here to recall that work cannot be an end in itself, and that it is free and ennobling in proportion to the values – beyond the economic ones – which motivate it. We would like here to salute all the workers of the world, and to point out to them their great Model, their Divine Brother, the Champion of all their rights, Christ the Lord!

Paul VI. Address at the Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth.

5 January 1964

H 99

prayer during paul vi’s visit to the holy sepulcher “We are here, Lord Jesus.

We have come here like guilty people who return to the scene of their crime.

We have come like the man who followed You but also betrayed You, so often faithful and so often unfaithful.

We have come to acknowledge the mysterious relationship between our sins and your Passion, Our work is your work.

We have come to beat our breasts and ask You for forgiveness, to implore your mercy.

We have come because we know You that you can that you can forgive us because you atoned for us: You are our redemption and our hope.”

January 4, 1964

H 100

Beatification of Paul VI Paul VI kisses the stone where Jesus instituted Peter's primacy.

H 101

an involuntary recording of the encounter expected for a thousand years On January 5th 1964, at 21:30, the Holy Father Paul VI met for the first time with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras at the Apostolic Delegation in Jerusalem. The dialogue between them- published by Daniel Ange ("Paul VI, un regard prophĂŠtique", 1979) and recently republished by Alfredro Pizzuto (Paolo VI in Terra Santa, 2012)- meant to be private, but the microphones of the RAI remained turned on during the conversation and recorded it by accident.

Paul VI: I understand English but I do not speak it fluently Athenagoras: Then we can speak in French.

Paul VI: That will be easier for me... I want to express all my joy, my excitement. Truly I think that this is a moment we live in the presence of God. Athenagoras: I repeat, in the presence of God. Paul VI: I do not have another thought than that of speaking with God while I speak with you. I am very well, your Holiness.

Athenagoras: .... deeply touched. Tears come to my eyes.

Paul VI: And since it is truly a moment of God, one must live it with full intensity, complete truth, with a total desire to continue ahead.

Athenagoras: .... on the path of God. Paul VI: Does your Holiness have any idea, any particular desire, to which I can correspond?

Athenagoras: We have the same desire...

Paul VI: Thus it is, we are two roads that perhaps are going to meet.

Athenagoras: We have the same desire. As soon as I read in the newspapers that you had decided to visit this country, immediately it occurred to me that we would meet here and I was sure I would receive, from your Holiness the answer. ...

H 102

Beatification of Paul VI Paul VI: affirmative Athenagoras: affirmative, since I trust in your Holiness. I see it, I see it, without wanting to flatter you, in the writings of the apostles, I see it in the Letters of Saint Paul, of whom you take your name, I see it here, yes I see it.

Paul VI: I speak to you as a brother: know that I have the same confidence in you. I think that Providence chose you to continue this history Athenagoras: I think that the Providence chose you to open the road of your predecessor.

Paul VI: Providence chose us so that we can understand it.

Athenagoras: Centuries were expecting this day, this great day... what a joy... in this small room. What joy there was in the Sepulchre, what joy there was in Golgotha, what joy on the road you walked yesterday. [the Way of the Cross] Paul VI: I am in a way brimming with thoughts that will take time to settle themselves and to interpret this wealth of emotions I have in my spirit. But I want to take advantage of this moment to express the absolute loyalty with which I will always treat you with.

Athenagoras: I feel the same way.

Paul VI: Never will I hide the truth from you.

Athenagoras: I will always trust you.

Paul VI: I have not a single desire to disappoint you, to abuse

H 103

your good will. I do not desire any other thing than to follow the way of God. Athenagoras: I have absolute confidence in Your Holiness.

Absolute, absolute. I will always have confidence, I will always be on your side.

Paul VI: Not to make myself unworthy of it, now Your Holiness should know that I will pray every day for the Church and for the intentions that we have in common for her sake.

Athenagoras: Given that we have this great moment, being together. Walking together. ... Seeing Your Holiness, to your Great Holiness sent by God, yes, the Bighearted Pope. Do you know how I call you? megalo-kardos, the Bighearted Pope.

Paul VI: We are small instruments Athenagoras: It is necessary to see things this way.

Paul VI: The smaller we are, better instruments we become, that is to say that the action of God may prevail Athenagoras: prevail Paul VI: And be the guide of all our actions. For my part, I live in docility, in the desire to be more obedient to the will of God, and to be toward you. Holiness, toward your brothers, toward your environment, the most comprehensive.

Athenagoras: I believe it, even without asking, I believe it.

Paul VI: I know that it is difficult, I know that there are difficulties, that there is a psychology but I also know...

Athenagoras: on both sides Paul VI: that there is a great righteousness and a desire to love God, to serve the cause of Jesus. It is in this that I trust.

Athenagoras: In this I have confidence, together, together‌ Paul VI: I do not know if this is the moment, but what is lacking, is to study.

Athenagoras: to study Paul VI: together or to appoint someone.

H 104

Beatification of Paul VI

Athenagoras: Yes, from both sides Paul VI: I would like to know what are your Holiness’ thoughts, those of your Church regarding the constitution of the Church. It is the first step.

Athenagoras: We will follow your opinions.

Paul VI: I will tell you what I believe to be the right thing, derived from the Gospel and from the will of God and authentic tradition. I will tell you if there are points that do not coincide with your idea of the constitution of the Church. ...

Athenagoras: The same on my part.

Paul VI: We will discuss, we will seek to find the truth.

Athenagoras: The same from our side and I am sure that we will always be together.

Paul VI: I hope, I think, that perhaps it will be easier than what we think. There are two or three points of doctrine in which we have evolved as we have progressed in their study that I would like to explain – if you consider it pertinent – to explain to your theologians, without putting in anything artificial nor accidental but plainly what we believe, the authentic thought.

Athenagoras: in the love of Jesus.

Paul VI: And another thing that seems secondary but that has its importance: everything referred to discipline, honor, prerogatives, I am more than willing to listen to what your Holiness believes is best.

Athenagoras: The same on my part Paul VI: No question of prestige, of supremacy besides the one that has been set by Christ; but regarding honors, privileges, nothing of that. Let’s see what Christ asks us and let each one of us take position but not with human parameters of priority, compliments, advantages, but of service.

Athenagoras: How dear you are to me in the deepest part of my heart...!

Paul VI: … but of service

H 105

landscapes of nothingness

By William E. Carroll

H 106

«A universe which began to be, in the sense of an absolute beginning to time (as Christian faith, for example, affirms), would not be the result of a change. Such a “beginning to be” would be the result of God's creative act: not a change from not-being to being.»

Creation of the two luminaries: the sun and the moon (fourth day).

Basilica di San Marco, Venice.

HUMANITAS Nº 7 pp. 106-117

H 107

I

s the ancient adage, that from nothing, nothing comes, true? Must there always have been something, existing in some way, in order for there now to exist anything at all? Ancient Greek scientists and philosophers, from the pre-Socratics to Plato, Aristotle, and on to the Stoics, would all affirm that something cannot come from nothing – at least if we properly understand what we mean by “something,” “come from,” and “nothing.” Embracing this principle, the ancients all agreed that the universe must be eternal; there could be no absolute beginning “before” which there was nothing.

In seeming contrast to the universal principle that from nothing, nothing comes, Jews, Christians, and Muslims were and are pressed with Great thinkers in all the need to make sense of their belief that God is the source of all three of the religious that is; God does not work with some pre-existing stuff to create traditions of the West the universe, since if there were such material, it itself would not contributed to the be created by God, and, hence, God would not be the cause of all theological enterprise of that is. This sense of God's absolute and complete sovereignty over setting forth as clearly all things is captured in the doctrine of creation out-of-nothing.1 as possible what God's The doctrine of creation stood out, in seeming stark contrast, creative act means. It to the heritage of classical antiquity which denied the possibility was Thomas Aquinas, of getting something from nothing. Reason appeared to deny the in the 13th Century, very possibility which faith proclaimed. Thus, to make sense of who provided the finest “creation out-of-nothing” became an important task for theologians discussion, philosophical in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. That undertaking included and theological, of creation profound reflections on what it means for God to create and how out-of-nothing. (…) to create is fundamentally different from producing a change in and among things. It was not enough simply to say that God is omnipotent, one needed to defend the intelligibility of creation out-ofnothing: to defend, that is, that what is believed is not absurd. At least this is important if one were to affirm that faith and reason are complementary.

Great thinkers in all three of the religious traditions of the West contributed to the theological enterprise of setting forth as clearly as possible what God's creative act means. It was Thomas Aquinas, in the 13th Century, who provided the finest discussion, philosophical and theological, of creation out-of-nothing. In discussing how to understand the Christian

1 The conclusion of ancient thinkers that the universe is eternal was a related problem for traditional belief in creation.

Scripture affirmed that there was a beginning of time and creation was understood to be necessarily connected to a finite past. Such an interpretation of the opening of Genesis was solemnly declared by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). For many believers – even today – an eternal universe is the opposite of a created universe. An eternal universe came to be seen as a self-sufficient universe; a universe not in need of a cause. It will be the genius of Thomas Aquinas to distinguish between creation understood philosophically (in metaphysics) with no reference to temporality (and hence a beginning) and creation understood theologically, which included the view that there was a beginning to time. As a result, he was able to defend the intelligibility of a universe created and eternal. In this essay I will not examine in any detail the distinction between a philosophical and a theological analysis of creation; my focus is the logically prior notions of what it means for God to create and how to understand the “nothing” in “creation out-of-nothing,” in the context of developments in contemporary cosmology.

H 108

The Spirit of God hovering over the surface of the waters.

Mosaic s. XIII, Basilica di San Marco.

commitment to God's creating everything “out of nothing” and also accepting the principle that one cannot get something from nothing, Thomas makes a crucial distinction: creatio non est mutatio [creation is not a change]. It is true, Thomas would say, that all change requires a pre-existent something which changes: from nothing, nothing comes, that is, if “to come” means to change. This principle is a first principle of the natural sciences, which have as their subject the world of changing things. All changes produced by agents within the universe must begin with some existing thing which is transformed in some way to something else. But God's creative act describes a very different kind of dependency, a fundamental dependence in the very order of existence: a kind of causing which is radically other than that which creatures can exercise.2 2 Since God transcends the created order, his causality does not compete with that of creatures.

H 109

If the natural sciences are competent to explain everything that needs to explained, including why there is something rather than nothing, then the first principle of the natural sciences (that from nothing, nothing comes) would be a first principle for all explanations. One cosmologist, Lee Smolin, in Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, comments that the universe “cannot have been made by anything that exists outside of it, for by definition the universe is all there is, and there can be nothing outside it.” Accordingly, “the first principle of cosmology must be ‘There is nothing outside the universe.’' …

The first principle means that we take the universe to be, by definition, a closed system. It means that the explanation for anything in the universe can involve only other things that also exist in the universe.” We need to recognize, however, that there are different senses of “first principles” – some are first with respect to a limited area of investigation (e.g. (…) In discussing how to the natural sciences), others would be “first” in a kind of absolute understand the Christian sense, referring to all categories of explanation. commitment to God's If one thinks that existence itself does not need an explanation, creating everything “out that it is simply a “brute fact,” then one would have to conclude that of nothing” and also the very notion of creation as cause of existence is meaningless. accepting the principle A first principle of metaphysics, however, concerns the source of that one cannot get being or existence as such, and this principle, that existence needs something from nothing, a cause, leads us ultimately to the realization that there must be Thomas makes a crucial an omnipotent agent who is the cause or origin of all that is – of distinction: creatio non everything, that is, in which “to exist” is not essential to what it est mutatio [creation is means to be that thing. We can conceive of every such thing as not not a change]. existing. Thus, if it exists it is in need of an extrinsic cause. God does not fall into this category, since in God alone the distinction between existence and essence (what it means to be something) disappears.

Thus, to ask the question “what causes God?” is to misunderstand what it means to be God. Still, the beginning of such an argument requires the acceptance of the first principle that existence needs a cause, and a first principle – precisely because it is first – cannot be demonstrated; it can only be argued to dialectically. This fact does not challenge its truth; it only recognizes that the truth of first principles is discovered through an intellectual process different from a demonstration. An analogy with geometry can help make this clear. The existence and definition of lines and points, for example, are not the conclusions of demonstrations in geometry; they are, however, principles from which such demonstrations proceed.

That there are these principles, and what they are, is disclosed in dialectical discourse which ends in a kind of intellectual intuition. Indeed, without such intellectual intuition of first principles in every discipline, there can be no demonstrations at all. Careful thinking requires a coordination among first principles and the recognition of which principles are appropriate to which discipline.

H 110

The Creator is the complete and continuing cause of whatever exists, and to create, so understood, does not call into question the truth of the principle that all change begins with something which undergoes the change. Nor does the first principle of change call into question the intelligibility of creation out-of-nothing. Creation is a relationship of absolute dependence; it is not a change. Whether the universe as a whole has a beginning or not concerns the kind of universe that is created, not the more fundamental issue of whether it is created. An eternal universe would be just as much a created universe – and created out-of-nothing – as one which had a temporal beginning. Were God not causing an eternal universe to be, and to be eternal, it would not be at all. A universe which began to be, in the sense of an absolute beginning to time (as Christian faith, for example, The “singularity” affirms), would not be the result of a change. Such a “beginning in well-established to be” would be the result of God's creative act: not a change from Big Bang cosmology, not-being to being. Following the traditional interpretation of the somehow beyond opening of Genesis, Thomas Aquinas believed the universe was traditional categories temporally finite (although he did not think that science could of space and time, is prove this), but he did not think that the universe began by way sometimes confused of motion or change. with the creation of Confusion about creation as a philosophical and theological the universe. That notion and the relationship between explanations of God as cause singularity may well of existence, and the appropriate autonomy of the natural sciences represent the beginning to explain change in its varied forms, continues to pervade much of the universe we of current discourse about the implications of evolutionary biology observe, but we cannot and cosmology for religious belief. Here one could point to several conclude that it is the of the books written by Stephen Hawking, and especially his most absolute beginning, the recent one, The Grand Design, which he co-authored with Leonard kind of beginning which Mlodinow. Misunderstandings concerning what it means to create would indicate creation. were especially evident in that book. The authors mistakenly thought that to deny a beginning to the universe necessarily meant to deny that the universe is created. To identify “to be created” necessarily with having a beginning of time is to miss the fact that to be created is fundamentally a metaphysical dependence with no reference to temporality.3 In what follows, I should like to focus on “nothing” – that is, on the various senses of “nothing” about which scientists, philosophers, and theologians speak – and the danger which ensues from a failure to keep distinct these different senses. It may seem strange, but my task here is to make crucial distinctions about nothing.

3 See my "Stephen Hawking's Creation Confusion," Public Discourse, 8 September 2010 [http://www. thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/09/1571]. See also Humanitas (English Edition n. 2, pp. 130-134).

H 111

A good locus for this analysis is the new book by the North American theoretical physicist, Lawrence Krauss, A Universe from Nothing. Why There is Something Rather than Nothing (New York: Free Press, 2012). The book has been widely cited in the popular press, and Krauss, director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, is somewhat of a media personality. In fact, the book grew out of a lecture he gave in 2009 to the Atheist Alliance International, and it has been viewed on YouTube more than one million times. Another reason for using Krauss' book is that he does not shy away from making provocative philosophical and theological claims.

Offering a striking landscape of ever deeper senses of “nothing,” beyond that even of vacuums and empty space, he concludes: “We have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing – involving the absence of space itself – and which Many think that to one day may return to nothing via processes that may not only explain the Big Bang as be comprehensible, but also processes that do not require any the fluctuation of a primal external control or direction.” Krauss is aware of philosophical vacuum eliminates the and theological objections to any attempt to relate his sense or need to have a Creator. senses of nothing with the “nothing” central to the traditional But the Big Bang doctrine of creation out-of-nothing. Nevertheless, he writes:

“explained” in this way is still a change and, as we have seen, creation, properly understood, is not a change at all.

«Some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine ‘nothing’ as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe. But therein, in my opinion, lies the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern philosophy. For surely ‘nothing’ is every bit as physical as ‘something,’ especially if it is to be defined as the ‘absence of something.’ It then behooves us to understand precisely the physical nature of both these quantities. And without science, any definition is just words.»

When it comes to understanding how our universe evolves, “religion and theology have been at best irrelevant. They often muddy the waters, for example, by focusing on questions of nothingness without providing any definition of the term based on empirical evidence.”

Such analyses are not limited to physicists. Peter Atkins, a physical chemist at Oxford, has written a book, On Being (2011), in which he offers some commentary on what he calls “the great questions of existence.” In the first chapter, “Beginning,” he confronts what he calls the biggest question of all and notes that it is his “intention to show that everything, including Nothing, is within science's reach, and that science provides the prospect of understanding even the most stupendous of phenomena... [that] there is hope for a scientific elucidation of creation from nothing.” What he has in mind is that somehow a kind of primal, absolute nothing, which he capitalizes as Nothing, unfolds into the polar opposites that comprise what

H 112

The separation of light from darkness (first day). Mosaic s. XIII, Basilica di San Marco.

we understand to be energy (positive and negative) and other fundamental features of the world. Writing more than fifteen years earlier, in an essay entitled “The Limitless Power of Science,” Atkins observed that science must be able to account for the “emergence of everything from absolutely nothing. Not almost nothing, not a subatomic dust-like speck, but absolutely nothing. Nothing at all. Not even empty space.”

Attempts to speak in quasi-scientific terms about the nothing prior to our universe are not new. Several years ago, one cosmologist, Andre Linde, suggested that “at some moment” billions of years ago our universe emerged when “a tiny speck of primordial nothingness was somehow filled with intense energy with bizarre particles.” One wonders at what greater size this “primordial speck” would be “something” rather than “nothing”!

Other cosmologists have used insights from quantum mechanics to offer

H 113

accounts of the Big Bang itself. They speak of the Big Bang in terms of “quantum tunnelling from nothing,” analogous to the way in which very small particles seem to emerge spontaneously from vacuums in laboratory experiments. Alexander Vilenkin, one of the proponents of this explanation, noted that the “nothing” in his account is a “state with no classical spacetime... the realm of unrestrained quantum gravity; it is a rather bizarre state in which all our basic notions of space, time, energy, entropy, etc. lose their meaning.” Describing these speculations in his book, The Inflationary Universe (1997), Alan Guth appropriated traditional theological terminology in a chapter called: “A Universe ex nihilo.”

The “singularity” in well-established Big Bang cosmology, somehow beyond traditional categories of space and time, is sometimes confused with the creation of the universe. That singularity may well represent the As we have seen, when beginning of the universe we observe, but we cannot conclude that thinkers such as Thomas it is the absolute beginning, the kind of beginning which would Aquinas defend the indicate creation. We need to guard against any identification doctrine of creation of the Big Bang with creation itself, not only because cosmology out-of-nothing, they do only explains change (even if on a grand scale), but also because not contradict the first increasingly there are cosmological theories embracing scenarios principle of the natural which eliminate a primal singularity. Indeed, Gabriele Veneziano, a sciences; they recognize theoretical physicist at CERN and one of the fathers of string theory that creation is not a in the late 1960s, has recently noted that “the pre-bang universe change at all. has become the latest frontier of cosmology.”

Many think that to explain the Big Bang as the fluctuation of a primal vacuum eliminates the need to have a Creator. But the Big Bang “explained” in this way is still a change and, as we have seen, creation, properly understood, is not a change at all. Similarly, the “nothing” in these cosmological models which speak of “quantum tunnelling from nothing” is not the nothing referred to in the traditional sense of creation out of nothing. This is true even in the case of recent theories which speak of space, time, and the laws of physics themselves, emerging from an even deeper nothing than “empty space” or some primal vacuum. The various senses of “nothing” in current cosmological reflections may very well be nothing like our present universe, but none of them is the absolute nothing, the sheer absence of any reality whatsoever, central to what it means to create; they are only that about which the theories say nothing.

Lawrence Krauss recounts ever more evanescent examples of the “nothing” out of which some have thought physical reality has emerged.

He notes that increasingly “empty space” (which pre-modern thinkers might have thought of as nothing) has come to be seen as a source of energy. Empty space, “this simplest version of nothing,” is now recognized as the source of something “precisely because the energetics of empty

H 114

space, in the presence of gravity, are not what common sense would have guided us to suspect before we discovered the underlying laws of nature...

Empty space endowed with energy can effectively create everything we see.” He recognizes here that it would be “disingenuous” any longer to call empty space nothing: empty space is a “boiling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence.” Nevertheless, in this scenario, such a popping into existence is still a kind of change; we do get something from something else.

Krauss thinks that “empty space” is only “the tip of a cosmic iceberg of nothingness.” Were we able to have an adequate quantum theory of gravity, “then the rules of quantum mechanics would apply to the properties of space and time, not just to the properties of objects in space and time.” He thinks that the “absence of space and time” Nor ought we to is a “nothing” which is at the very frontier of quantum cosmology. think that this means For him this is a radically new sense of “nothing,” a sense which, that there are two at least in principle, is within the possibility of scientific discourse. “realities,” two ultimate Of course, all this, Krauss admits, is highly speculative. However, principles: God and even within these speculations, Krauss' views remain consistent nothing. Creation with the ancient principle that from nothing, nothing comes. For the “out-of-nothing” does “nothing” in the title of his book turns out to be really something, not mean that God even though it is very different from anything of which we presently changes “nothing” into have experience. something; rather it is

There are fundamental confusions in Krauss' analysis. In a way of affirming that defence of his understanding that something comes from nothing, it is God alone, and he tells us that the principle “out of nothing, nothing comes,” is a nothing else, who is “metaphysical rule” which he denies. The principle, however, is the cause of absolutely not a principle of metaphysics, it is a principle of all the natural everything that is. sciences. Recognizing its truth requires a good understanding that all change comes from a prior something – and this is really what Krauss himself admits, even though he calls this prior something, “nothing.” As we have seen, when thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas defend the doctrine of creation out-of-nothing, they do not contradict the first principle of the natural sciences; they recognize that creation is not a change at all.

Clearly, the absolute nothing referred to in creation out-of-nothing does not include God. It only refers to the absence of anything other than God. In a way, to speak of “other than God” risks the danger of locating God and things on the same metaphysical plane, perhaps differing only in degree.

Nor ought we to think that this means that there are two “realities,” two ultimate principles: God and nothing. Creation “out-of-nothing” does not mean that God changes “nothing” into something; rather it is a way of affirming that it is God alone, and nothing else, who is the cause of absolutely everything that is.

H 115

Creation of the firmament (second day). Mosaic s. XIII, Basilica di San Marco.

One can speak intelligibly of a universe's coming “from nothing,� its being created, and also accept the principle that all changes proceed from a prior something. The latter concerns the world of changing things, from subatomic particles, to acorns to galaxies – small changes, distant change, or slow changes over immeasurably long stretches of time. The former, creation, concerns why there is anything at all other than God. But here we need to be careful not to think of God as just one other thing, among many things, that exists. There is an infinite gulf between Creator and creatures.

Finally, we must admit that there would be no sciences of nature, no nature in the first instance, were not God causing things to be.

H 116

Lawrence Kraus simply rejects any appeal to notions of “nothing” which are beyond the explanatory domain of the natural sciences. As he said in an interview on National Public Radio in the United States in January 2012: “the question of why there is something rather than nothing is really a scientific question, not a religious or philosophical question, because both nothing and something are scientific concepts, and our discoveries over the past 30 years have completely changed what we mean by nothing.” Krauss goes well beyond what most physicists would claim when he says: “the distinction between something and nothing has begun to disappear, where transitions between the two in different contexts are not only common, but required.”

Indeed, he has a whole chapter in his book on why nothing is unstable.

In a way, of course, he is right. As we have seen, the “nothing” he attributes to various cosmological theories is really something. The The former, creation, distinguished French physicist, Étienne Klein, author of Discours concerns why there is sur l'origine de l'univers (2010), observes that, contrary to Krauss' anything at all other speculations, we do not have the conceptual tools to try to explain than God. But here we how something can come from nothing; indeed, “that which pre- need to be careful not exists our universe is never nothing,” since all change starts from to think of God as just one other thing, among a prior something.

It surely is the case that contemporary physics offers various many things, that exists. accounts of how something comes from the “nothing” (or perhaps There is an infinite gulf the nothings) to which some physical theories refer. But since these between Creator and various “nothings” are really something, the ancient principle creatures. of the natural sciences remains true, despite clever ploys to equivocate about what one means by nothing. It also remains the case that the fundamental question of why there is something rather than nothing is a metaphysical and theological question – and with respect to such a question the natural sciences necessarily have nothing to say.

Simply stipulating that it is only the natural sciences that properly speak to the origin and evolution of the universe, as Krauss does, is a kind of summary dismissal of metaphysics and theology as legitimate areas of discourse. As we saw, for Krauss: “without science, any definition is just words.” One wonders what scientific evidence supports such a claim! The desire to separate the natural sciences from the alleged contamination of the “word games” of philosophy and theology is not new; now, as always, it reveals an impoverished philosophical judgment.

H 117

From the very instant after the universe’s fuse was lighted up, the fundamental particles began to react in order to produce the “bricks� of the universe: particles like neutrons, protons and others, then hydrogen and helium, and finally the atoms and molecules which form the stars and planets that we see every day around us.

higgs boson and the general theory of everything by michael smith s.i.

Peter Higgs, Nobel Prize in Physics 2013.

i

t has been a race: a staff of scientists working at the Large Hadron Collider1 (LHC), built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN: Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire) beneath the Franco-Swiss border, was competing against scientists working at the Tevatron Collider in Illinois (USA) for verifying the existence of an elementary particle called the “Higgs boson” and measuring its energy (which is equivalent to its mass). In 1964 Peter Higgs2 proposed for the first time the “Higgs field” and the particle (the boson) related to it. There were five other scientists working on the same subject, and elaborating similar concepts. Higgs’ idea explained why some particles had mass when other particles did not have any. The particle was the

HUMANITAS Nº 7 pp. 118-125

1 The hadron is a subatomic particle held together by a strong nuclear force. It is not a fundamental particle even if it is made of fermions and bosons.

2 Peter Higgs received the Nobel Prize in Physics shared with François Englert in 2013.

H 119

For those who believe that God was present in the beginning, there are further questions that must be considered in order to conciliate the very first moments of reality with the Christian faith in one eternal God. (…)

key piece of the “Standard Model” puzzle, which intended to incorporate all the observations of physics related to fundamental reality and quantum theory.

Since then, this particle-hunting has occurred. The Higgs boson is a heavy particle, and its production requires powerful accelerators. The Trevatron accelerator in the USA could have found it if its mass had been less, but, at the end, the world’s most powerful accelerator—the CERN’s LHC—reached the goal. If this particle had not been found after measuring all possible mass, it would have been necessary to reformulate wide-reaching physics theories, which implies major reflections, new enthusiastic ideas, and a lot more of work for scientific thinkers. But now the model we have possessed through many years has found instead an exterior verification.

The General Theory of Everything Nonetheless, there is now a more ambitious goal: the “General Theory of Everything.” It is a model that gathers all the knowledge about scientific reality; it will include the Standard Model, but also quantum and gravity theories. This goal was at hand until a few years ago, when astronomers understood that three quarters of matter in space is what is called “dark matter.” We do not know what it is or where it comes from; it is invisible out of its gravitational field. Actually, it may not exist at all since our understanding of gravity may be wrong. In any case, this general theory now seems to cover a rather small part of everything.

Einstein’s general theory of relativity offers a model that describes the effects of gravity with great precision; quantum theory and the Standard Model provide an increasingly complete

H 120

description of interactivity on a small scale, but only by taking into consideration the effects of gravity. The verification of the existence of Higgs boson is a step forward toward the validation of the Standard Model, nonetheless, even if it may seem complete and definitive, it does not mean the end of physics, because physics continues to explore the complexity and implications of the theory. And in any case, CERN’s accelerator, or maybe some other one more powerful, may find new particles that show how our knowledge at the moment has not been pushed far enough.

There is a likely suspect in the existence of a long list of particles still to be discovered, and which acknowledged, would help us to take one more step toward the general theory of everything.

The energies involved both in CERN’s and in Tevatron’s accelerators are so powerful, that it is unlikely for us to be able to find elsewhere on Earth what we find in them, unless we do not exclude an occasional reaction caused by very powerful cosmic rays that hit us from some point out in space. The real interest in the discovery of the Higgs boson is that its knowledge will offer us a more complete picture of the origin of the universe, of that Big Bang that was at the beginning of everything. As we know so far, from the very instant after the universe’s fuse was lighted up, the fundamental particles began to react in order to produce the “bricks” of the universe: particles like neutrons, protons and others, then hydrogen and helium, and finally the atoms and molecules which form the stars and planets that we see every day around us.

Scientific research has not reached further than the Big Bang: in general—as it is said—because the concept of “before” has no meaning as time began in that moment; or because that very first uniform meteor could not have any information concerning a previous structure or origin, if it existed at all.

(…) We believe that time began with the Big Bang; nonetheless God is out of time, and therefore God the creator would not have had any problem creating time along with any other physical reality.

H 121

The beginning

(…) But in what terms may we speak about God’s action before (even if we may not use this word here) time began? And how must we understand God’s continual sustainment of creation?

H 122

For those who believe that God was present in the beginning, there are further questions that must be considered in order to conciliate the very first moments of reality with the Christian faith in one eternal God. We believe that time began with the Big Bang; nonetheless God is out of time, and therefore God the creator would not have had any problem creating time along with any other physical reality. But in what terms may we speak about God’s action before (even if we may not use this word here) time began? And how must we understand God’s continual sustainment of creation?

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (Jn 1:1-5). Perhaps it is not by chance that these opening words of St. John’s Gospel echoes those from the book of Genesis: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gn 1:1). The New Testament speaks about the continuing role of God through the Son in sustaining creation: “He [the Son] is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col 1:17), or: “[The Son] is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word” (Heb 1:3). St. Thomas Aquinas agrees that “the world exists forasmuch as God wills it to exist, since the being of the world depends on the will of God, as on its cause” (Summa Theologiae I, q. 46, a. 1, co.).

In addition to this and to many other ways in which the faith in creation and in God’s love for the world has been expressed, there have also been proposed thorough the centuries many different models explaining how such care is manifested. Many Christians do not appreciate the mechanical model of creation, or the idea that God only chose to create the physical realities that determined the Big Bang, stepping aside after that to let events simply happen: the formation of fundamental particles, Hydrogen and Helium atoms; then heavier atoms and the molecules that we now know; then the formation of planets from the dust of exploded stars; and finally the first forms of life in at least one of these planets.

We would like to think that God had and does demonstrate that He is not interested in just being the maker and first spectator of a mechanical process of the creation of the universe. But it is not simple to go from a mechanical model of creation to a model in which God takes continuous care of us.

St. Thomas Aquinas agrees that “the world exists forasmuch as God wills it to exist, since the being of the world depends on the will of God, as on its cause.”

Does it work like a clock?

There arises a problem when we try to combine God’s work in creation with scientific models. Any material intervention of God in the processes of the universe implies a violation of one or more of the laws of physics, according to which the quantifiable properties of any physical system of the universe do not change if the system evolves. Even the transmission of information from God to the universe must imply at the same time an energy transfer, but science has never found such violations. If that must and could happen, it would undermine the basis of entire scientific thought, as its fundamental principles would be broken. The

H 123

The scientific method at the moment does not allow us to discover how God interacts with the universe; in order to do so, we must find a model that explains correctly all known phenomena and foresees some new elements whose existence may validate it.

H 124

principle of conservation of energy is a basic principle of science, and anything God does would violate that principle. At the present stage of our knowledge, this is one of the few subject-matters on which science must reject any hypothesis of divine intervention.

We will now ask ourselves how God manifests His love for the order He created. But a mere scientific approach to the problem will not give us an answer. Faith—as Aquinas clearly said—considers God as the source of the universe’s rationality and existence; not because He is a kind of “divine scientist” who bypasses the laws of physics in order to accomplish His own ends.

The scientific method at the moment does not allow us to discover how God interacts with the universe; in order to do so, we must find a model that explains correctly all known phenomena and foresees some new elements whose existence may validate it.

This model is usually mathematical, and in order to confirm its validity we need two things: first, we need to demonstrate that the values of the physical constants (i.e. the mass and the charge of an electron) are correct; second, it would be good if the model showed us that there are more elements to discover. That model has hypothesized a particle and a field that we call the Higgs boson and the Higgs field; the verification of their existence by CERN is a big step forward for the Standard Model.

Al these models are based on extensive scientific data compilations, which are measured in many ways, and collected through hundreds of years. But they are strictly physical data; therefore they will never explain and predict anything that is not a proper physical phenomenon. The scientific answer to the question about why the universe (or all universes, according to some theories) is how it is or how it came to be is: “because matter and energy are this way.” If we stay within the range of science, we cannot ask ourselves further questions.

Faith and science Today scientific theories, on the whole, are not refuted. They are approved and accepted as they are a part of more general theories.

This is why Newton’s laws of motion are still here to tell us what will happen if we drive our car on the wrong side of a busy street, but those laws are true only if the bodies have a random mass (if it is not as small as an electron, or as big as a star) and if they have basic speeds (not higher than a fraction of the speed of light).

Aside from these limitations, theories like Einstein’s theory of relativity show how the laws of Newton—inside that range of mass and speed—are just an approximation to a more general theory.

Now maybe Einstein’s theories are waiting to be considered part of something more general and even more complete.

But these developments of scientific theories must not either develop distrust in science or the believe in God as a “stopgap,” when there is a gap perceived in actual scientific knowledge which may convince us that there is room for something else that science is not able to explain, and that may only be explained by resorting to a supernatural source, which is God. Our faith allows us to trust in the laws of science (and in the validity of scientific efforts) in order to believe that they are an integral part of God’s creation, rather than something that must be explained apart from or in spite of God’s love for creation.

Our faith allows us to trust in the laws of science (and in the validity of scientific efforts) in order to believe that they are an integral part of God’s creation, rather than something that must be explained apart from or in spite of God’s love for creation.

Translated by Nicolás Olivares Bøgeskov

H 125

Oil painting by Henri Matisse (1914).

towards a healthy psychology

By Pablo Verdier

Psychology with soul

For a dialogue with the right philosophy and theology

P

sychology and psychiatry, because they treat man directly, need more than any other scientific discipline to dialogue with a right philosophy and theology. In a celebrated series of speeches delivered during professional congresses, Pius XII declared the principles of anthropology and morality on which such dialogue must rest. During the Vatican Council II, the council Fathers had such an idea in mente (in their minds), thus coining the formula “healthy psychology” (cf. Decrete Opta tam totius No.3 and No.11).

They referred to that psychology that not only does not contradict the truths of faith and morals, but is also positively founded on and is nourished from the principles of Christian anthropology.

Unfortunately, psychology and psychiatry have followed roads that, as a whole, are not compatible with such papal formulations (cf. John Paul II, Address to Members of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, February 5, 1987, and January 25, 1988). Deprived of this encounter with Christian philosophy and theology, these human sciences are tempted to reduce themselves to natural sciences (cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Work Group of the Pontifical Academies of Sciences and Social Sciences, November 21, 2005). This is observed, for instance, in the neurobiological reductionism in which the mind is reduced to and is identified with the functions of its biological support, i.e. the brain; in the dynamic reductionism in which all the motivational and efficient instances of psychology are reduced to one of its partial dynamisms; in the naturalistic reductionism that considers man exclusively in his inter-worldly historic reality. Thus not only a gap is opened between these sciences, anthropology, and Christian morality, but such sciences along with its postulates have come to implicitly question and substitute the Catholic doctrine on man and on moral good and evil.

Psychologists and psychiatrists will then have to cultivate other disciplines that will form them in those human realities of which their science does not inform them. “The task of healing others and ensuring their psycho–social equilibrium—said John Paul II—is indeed important and delicate. Together with scientific knowledge there is need of great wisdom in those who devote themselves

HUMANITAS Nº 7 pp. 126-133

Psychology and psychiatry, because they treat man directly, need more than any other scientific discipline to dialogue with a right philosophy and theology. Deprived of the encounter with Christian philosophy and theology, these human sciences have been tempted to be reduced to natural sciences.

H 127

Thus not only a gap is opened between these sciences, anthropology, and Christian morality, but such sciences along with its postulates have come to implicitly question and substitute the Catholic doctrine on man and on moral good and evil.

H 128

to this work” (Address to the Members of the American Psychiatric Association and The World Psychiatric Association, January 4, 1993).

This is a philosophical wisdom that rescues non-empirically verifiable human realities, and therefore are realities that science “does not see,” nonetheless they are the therapist’s implicit assumptions that influence the understanding of clinical signs and the treatment of the patient. Let us remember some of them, showing their crucial importance in the clinical field.

The spiritual soul. The human soul, since it is spiritual, transcends the materiality of the body that informs it, and therefore man transcends the materiality of the world in which he lives, opening himself to the realities of spiritual nature. This dimension of man is full of laws, motives, attachments, and dynamics that are specifically human. Can a professional of human health, therefore, pretend he does not know, ignore, or underestimate this dimension? To consider man disregarding or denying a realistic notion of the human soul is to reduce him to his purely biological functions and his resemblance to animals; it is to pretend to understand him, for instance, as solely from the neurosciences. While psycho-pharmacology has contributed in relieving human suffering, this is not a reason to emphasize that it will at least foresee a solution to specific human problems.

Human freedom. How does a psychology without a spiritual soul, and therefore with a materialistic view of man, explain, for instance, human freedom? Neither the testimony of world history nor Revelation allows us to doubt civic and moral categories such as responsibility, guilt, punishment, merit, prize, reprisal, etc.

What meaning would these categories possess if human freedom was a mere illusion? Only if human freedom is real and not an illusion will the aforementioned civic and moral categories also be real. Otherwise, we will reach a difficult point and declare that modern science has unmasked the illusion of freedom with which humanity has lived for centuries, thus increasing knowledge of man’s reality, but, paradoxically, not maintaining with that a parallel growth in freedom. Under this condition, truth would not make us free.

A psychology that denies freedom is self-excluded from the whole group of human disciplines that do take it into account, and subsequently the unity of the knowledge about man is lost.

We ask ourselves, for instance: What service can a psychology without freedom lend to judicial order, to a canonical tribunal?

Without freedom: How could the patient personally participate in his psychotherapy? The assumption of a scientific psychology, that is, of a psychology that disregards human realities not empirically

«The task of healing others and ensuring their psycho-social equilibrium —said John Paul II— is indeed important and delicate. Together with scientific knowledge there is need of great wisdom in those who devote themselves to this work.»

verifiable, leads us to a “psychology without person.”

Human “instincts.” Man does not satisfy himself by living a merely biological life. The self-preservation instinct, for instance, is not a mere natural impulse for the preservations of his biological life, but also and above all, it is an impulse of the spirit that creates other demands for man, through which he aspires to different realities than from those needs that are proper to his bodily condition. Man not only does not wish to physically die, but he does not want to bury his spiritual life either, with his loves, his dreams, his yearnings, his work. Man, therefore, has an instinct of self-preservation which specifically results from the will to exist as a person and to save the value of the person in itself (cf.

John Paul II, Address in the Meeting for friendship among peoples, August 29, 1982). On this spiritual “instinct” of self-preservation rests a large part of human emotional, moral, and spiritual life.

In all human behavior—healthy or pathological—one can track down the presence of this impulse to preserve and confirm the value of the person in itself. Thus there are two consequences: (a) just as in the order of the human body medicine has been able to determine the objective demands for preserving health, in the same way, is it not possible to determine the objective demands for the spiritual order—laws of the spirit, moral laws—without which it is impossible for man to live a life that, in the specifically human, is also healthy and satisfactory?; (b) in the healthy man, “instincts” are not merely animal impulses, but they are informed by the spirit, and consequently, are tendencies subject to reason and freedom.

To consider man disregarding or denying a realistic notion of the human soul is to reduce him to his purely biological functions and his resemblance to animals.

H 129

Only if human freedom is real and not an illusion will the aforementioned civic and moral categories also be real. Otherwise, we will reach a difficult point and declare that modern science has unmasked the illusion of freedom with which humanity has lived for centuries.

«The assumption of a scientific psychology, that is, of a psychology that disregards human realities not empirically verifiable, leads us to a “psychology without person.”»

Roy Lichtenstein, 1961.

H 130

Psychology with soul

Personality and maturity. This will to exist as a person and to save the value of the person in itself, is a love that assumes and commands the partial desires of man, locating and integrating its respective objects in a fully human viewpoint. Under this perspective, one finds a mature personality only when the specific desires and impulses are referred to a human meaning that transcends its respective partial objects, enabling the person to overcome his partial and immediate gratification, putting it at the service of personal dignity and vocation. This love that orders partial tendencies and desires is not a covering or external molding that exercises its influx from “outside,” violating the “true” dynamisms of man, but is the factor that puts in order the partial inclinations, placing them at the service of the entire person, who is the last subject for the attribution of such dynamism. Those who understand the moral—which is the order of love—in terms of an extrinsic order, cannot but see it as threatening and an enemy of the true development of man. This misunderstanding is an obstacle that prevents fruitful dialogue between psychology and morality. Psychology, therefore, needs, together with a descriptive notion of psychological maturity understood as behaviors, attachments, and achievements typical and proper to each stage of life, the notion of moral perfection, understood as the wholesome order of the loves according to which man orients himself toward his final end. Maturity and depth of a personality is therefore measured by man’s affective connaturality with true values.

In the clinical field, a question arises: From the point of view of mental health and of psychotherapeutic intervention, is it the same for man to behave or not behave according to those objective demands of the spirit? The psychological understanding of a person’s illness as well as the therapy that he or she needs depends on the answer to this question. Thus, in the psychopathogenic order, it is frequently observed that the pain and anguishe of the patient emerges from situations and behavior in which the individual has transgressed—from their own faults or somebody else’s—the objective moral order—objective demands of the spirit. Transgression—noticed or not—of the natural order deprives the individual from a certain good that is connatural, which is lived as violence or the diminishing of the value of his own person. Here the concepts of evil of guilt and evil of punishment are at stake. (cf. S.Th. I, q.48, a.5 and a.6; De Malo q.1, a.4). The former, as a transgression of the objective moral order; and the latter, consisting in affective pain suffered by the individual when he finds himself deprived of the connatural good that the moral law points out. According to the way in which the

In the healthy man, “instincts” are not merely animal impulses, but they are informed by the spirit, and consequently, are tendencies subject to reason and freedom.

H 131

Psychology, therefore, needs, together with a descriptive notion of psychological maturity understood as behaviors, attachments, and achievements typical and proper to each stage of life, the notion of moral perfection, understood as the wholesome order of the loves according to which man orients himself toward his final end.

«This is a philosophical wisdom that rescues non-empirically verifiable human realities, and therefore are realities that science “does not see,” nonetheless they are the therapist’s implicit assumptions that influence the understanding of clinical signs and the treatment of the patient.»

Erich Heckel, Sleeping Girl, 1913.

individual responds to the fault and the punishment, several clinical manifestations may take place, which may be located within the field of psychotherapy and psychiatry which may imply a redundancy in the neurobiological modifications of psycho pharmacological intervention. In other terms, the transgression of the moral law is itself the cause of anguish and sorrow. Pius XII states this when he says: “(…) who offends and transgresses

H 132

Psychology with soul

the laws of nature, will have to suffer before or afterwards the terrible consequences in his personal value, and in his physical and psychological integrity” (Address to the Italian Medical Biological Union "San Luca", November 12, 1944).

Clinical psychology does not deny certain experiences as a source of psychopathology, but it has been unable to “see” the moral demand present “within them,” ignoring, therefore, any link between psychopathology and the moral order. While denying this order, it still has had to respond to the harmful character of such experiences, building an entirely new anthropology.

Anthropology and Christian morality are now faced with this new explanation of man with a scientific appearance, but that encloses in his heart the denial of the natural moral order. Facing this reality: How can one start a dialogue, how can one achieve a synthesis and integration between psychology on one hand and Christian morality and anthropology on the other, if the former’s a priori adheres to stances that disqualify, deny, and substitute the latter?

In the field of psychotherapy everything that arouses or supports the natural order will be therapeutic, consequently, the intervention shall not be therapeutic if it transgresses the natural order. Every therapeutic process, of growth, maturing, healing, liberation of complexes and psychological inhibitions, carries with it an increase in the capacity of self-government and self-determination; this supposes an increase in inner freedom.

Now, the moral theologian understands that, in the natural order, freedom is only possible in the field of virtue. Therefore, if a patient is going to heal his incapacity/illness, if he is going to grow in freedom, he will necessarily have to cultivate and reach for the virtue opposed to the ill/incapable disposition that he suffered.

In other words, he will have order to his loves. Thus, a healthy psychotherapy seeks the restitution of the dispositions of the will and the faculties sensitive to the natural order, and with that it will restore the inner freedom of the patient. On the contrary, every intervention that goes against natural law—even if it produces some immediate relief—will obtain partial and transitory results, and will risk being an iatrogenic intervention.

A healthy psychotherapy seeks the restitution of the dispositions of the will and the faculties sensitive to the natural order, and with that it will restore the inner freedom of the patient.

On the contrary, every intervention that goes against natural law— even if it produces some immediate relief—will obtain partial and transitory results, and will risk being an iatrogenic intervention.

Translated by Marlene Hyslop

H 133

THE GLORY OF SPACE

light in art and architecture

BY ANDREA DALL’ASTA, S.J.

Light, the image of what is divine, has been used in a variety of ways in Christian architecture. In Romanesque cathedrals, concentrated light signals an ideal path towards God; in Gothic ones, projected light through stained-glass windows manifests divine light that illuminates the world. Similar symbols are found in medieval paintings with golden backgrounds, and in Byzantine mosaics where figures rise as images of the true light that is God. Light, in the Renaissance, no longer has a symbolic meaning in churches, but it illuminates a rational and harmonic space; Baroque light, on the other hand, returns to the idea of an order that has been established by God in the world’s chaos. Today, except for some worthy exceptions, light in churches is functional and has lost its symbolic dimension and sensitivity. The author is director of San Fedele Gallery in Milan.

Space is never a mere container. Because of light, we inhabit space; we live in it. Space is a physical place, but its strength lies in its expressive and symbolic weight, which cannot be translated into rationalfunctional logic. (…)

L

ight defines an original human experience. It gives life to all forms and colors and individualizes objects, creating relations among them. It gives them depth. Light allows us to see each particular reality and locate it in space, providing it with autonomy, making it rise from a context.1 Light and space are closely connected.2 In fact, architecture is the capacity for capturing and condensing light by means of the articulation of surfaces. Nevertheless, light does not merely allow objects be seen or perceived. It is not about lighting a Cartesian space with the purpose of obtaining an optical functional result for perception. Space is never a mere container. Because of light, we inhabit space; we live in it. Space is a physical place, but its strength lies in its expressive and symbolic weight, which cannot be translated 1 Roberto Tagliaferri’s reflection about these topics is quite interesting. See R. TAGLIAFERRI, “Luce e spazio architettonico. La comunicazione visiva de llo spazio sacro,” in V. SANSON (ed.), Lo spazio sacro. Architettura e liturgia, Padova, Messaggero, 2002, 129-144.

2 To talk about light means opening up an endless amount of chapters on the history of man, inter-curricular studies among philosophy, theology, and anthropology. It is enough only to think of the Indo-European root that means “light” and from which divus and, later, “God” comes from. Originally, “luminous” referred to the manifestations of the gods in the sky, be it daylight or lightening (as the later Romans Iuppiter Lucetius y Iuppiter Fulgurator).

H 134

HUMANITAS Nº 7 pp. 134-161

Light of the Soul

H

135 Basilica of St. Sernin, Toulouse, XI Century.

(‌) Light and space go hand in hand in the same experience of inhabiting the world. In this sense, space opens up a horizon of meaning.

H 136

Light of the Soul

H

Monastery of San Salvador, Leyre, Spain XI 137 Century.

H

138 Cathedral of St Etienne of Bourges, France, XII Century.

The glory of light: Gothic stained glass How has Christianity “captured” the vitality of light, transforming it into “space”? Since the first centuries, a theological aesthetics has reinterpreted ancient thought.5 Closely linked to the pursuit of beauty as a way that elevates man to God, the neo-platonic concept of light is at the heart of the matter. If God is certainly infinite light and beauty, the universe is like a splendid luminous cascade and a descent of beauties that emerge from the original fountain in an incandescent radiation of perceptible brightness, which is embodied in creation. God, the most High, Immutable, Transcendent, gives all that is created, with different levels

Light of the Soul

into rational-functional logic. Light and space go hand in hand in the same experience of inhabiting the world. In this sense, space opens up a horizon of meaning.

Light refers to a central theme in Christian architecture.3 There is a biblical-theological foundation in the origin of an aesthetics of light. It is a reflection that begins at the moment of creation, in which light is separated from darkness (see Gn 1:3-5),4 in order to take place in the New Testament, where Christ, the Son of God made man speaks of himself in terms of light (see Jn 8:12). Light is the symbol of the divine presence which reveals the sense of what is real. Without it, reality would certainly seem dark, confusing, surrounded by shadows, “shape-less”, senseless. The light/darkness dialectic characterizes the whole of Christian theology and symbolically portrays the good-evil relationship. The history of Christian architecture, and perhaps architecture tout court, has as a starting point this easily forgotten intuition.

Actually, from an architectural point of view, light cannot be separated from darkness. They work together instead, interacting in the definition of space.

The use of Gothic stained-glass windows creates, on the other hand, a constant bright background, a lux continua. Everything seems transfigured by the light filtered through the stained glass. The cathedral is a heavenly Jerusalem, where light reveals God’s splendor. It is the city that descends from the heights. It is the city of heaven, where shadows have been ultimately defeated.

3 This is a common characteristic between Christianity and other religions that deem light as a space of divine revelation. There are a vast number of texts that ponder over light in ancient religions. We confine ourselves here by quoting M. ELIADE, Trattato di storia delle religioni, Turín, Bollati Boringhieri, 1976. In chapter III the author reflects deeply about the sun and its cults.

4 In the book of Genesis we read: “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.

God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light ‘day,’ and the darkness he called ‘night.’ And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.” (Gn 1:3-5).

5 Through Plato, we arrive at a theory of light by neo-platonic thinkers, with reflections from Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, John Scottud Eriugena, and Robert Grosseteste, until we reach Buenaventura and Thomas Aquinas.

H 139

If everything is a reverberating and radiating light in creation, reality in its whole alludes to what is absolute, to what is invisible. Everything speaks through signs, allusions, pointing us to the Creator. And the beauty of God manifests itself, above all, through the one who reveals his shape: Christ.

Church of "Les Jacobins", Toulouse, XIII Century.

of intensity, a part of Himself.6 This is the starting point for interpreting Gothic architecture.

In the choir of the Saint-Denis cathedral (1136), abbot Suger inaugurated an unprecedented concept of light from an architectural viewpoint.7 He designed the choir chapels seamlessly, one next to the other, in order to eliminate dividing walls. The Romanesque wall opens up. Divided by arches and lighted by a rosette at the front, which clearly showed direction, the stout walls separate inner from outer spaces in order to provoke a rejection of the world: Morimondo, recalls the name of the Milanese abbey.

The small splayed windows allow the light to enter, creating a strong and bright intensity which focuses on points that determine a path. The brightness of the rays of light give 6 See J.M. Teze, Théophanies du Christ, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1988.

7 On this subject, the following text is well-known: E. Panofsky, “Suger, abbot of Saint Denis”, in Il significato delle arti visive, Turin, Einaudi, 1955.

H 140

Light of the Soul

meaning to the silence of profound darkness, as if these small openings that capture the light’s movement are able to personify the desire of a man living in the shadows to move toward the light; a way to God. No decorations or ornaments stand in the way. Because of this strong chiaroscuro, space is characterized by solid, firm, determined volumes.

The use of Gothic stained-glass windows creates, on the other hand, a constant bright background, a lux continua.

Every space is immersed in light. Shadows are in some way annulled by a subtle play of lights and backlights. Everything seems transfigured by the light filtered through the stained glass. The cathedral is a heavenly Jerusalem, where light reveals God’s splendor. It is the city that descends from the heights, a divine gift, and is built with clear materials that allow themselves to be pierced by light. It is the city of heaven, where shadows have been ultimately defeated to make way for a daylight that knows no sunset because God is always present.

The new aesthetics of light manifests the splendor of the city of God that, as the book of the Apocalypse reads, shines in the brightness of gold and precious stones. The theological neo-platonic aesthetic seems to be rightfully reassumed in the inscription Suger requests be placed in the cathedral’s entrance, which states that natural light is an aid in the path toward the light of Christ.8 Everything is called to be transformed into light. The stained-glass windows of the choir can be defined as sacratissimae vitrae as far as they let divine light get through: the True Light. Luminism and verticalism meet here to create a space where light and architecture are intimately connected in one coherent theological vision.

Architecture becomes a space for contemplation, of revelation, a theophany. It is similar to the path of elevation, of spiritual and intellectual ascent towards the divine. If everything is a reverberating and radiating light in creation, reality in its whole alludes to what is absolute, to what is invisible. Everything speaks through signs, allusions, pointing us to the Creator. And the beauty of God manifests

Because of gold, God, beyond being, reveals himself; what is visible can rise in man as a sudden and immediate apparition, born from the light, in a moment in which the notion of time is suppressed.

8 We quote a translation of the text: “The noble work shines, but the work that shines nobly illuminates the mind in such a way that it can move forward, through real lights, towards the true light where Christ is the true gate. It exists in worldly things and shows it at the golden gate: the blind mind rises to what is true by means of the material, and, darkened as it was, it elevates to see this light.” (H. Sedlmayr, La luce nelle sue manifestazioni artistiche, Palermo, Aesthetica, 2009, 42).

H 141

H 142

Light of the Soul

H

143 Santa MarĂ­a del Mar Cathedral, Barcelona, XIV Century.

itself, above all, through the one who reveals his shape: Christ. The Incarnate Word, lumen de lumine, as the Nicene Creed states, is the path that leads to the Ultimate Beauty, to the original Light that is God Himself.

The light without shape: the icon

The image becomes an evocation of what is infinite, transfiguring all human reality and projecting it into a new divine universe. It is the descent of eternity into time. It is the apotheosis of seeing. It is the space of grace.

H 144

Light also has a fundamental role in the manner in which theological aesthetics interprets an image, such as Byzantine icons or medieval paintings with golden backgrounds. Here, light acquires shape in the warm tone of the background that surrounds various scenes because gold is the visible expression of the origins, truth, and authenticity of all things.

It is the gaze of God in the world, the revelation of divine glory. Because of gold, God, beyond being, reveals himself; what is visible can rise in man as a sudden and immediate apparition, born from the light, in a moment in which the notion of time is suppressed.

The background is homogeneous. The different scenes represented in the image are penetrated by its radiation, by a bright flux that crosses through objects from the outside to the inside, if it is true, as Plotinus’ philosophy reminds us, that there is an inner light that is present in every being’s deepest levels. Gold is light which expands as a perfume and radiates to every point in space. It is inapprehensible light that is visible everywhere.

Gold creates an atmosphere where everything is lost and fades into the light. The light of gold has a spiritual value: it turns into color when in touch with the opaqueness of matter.

It is the manifestation of grace involving the order of nature.

Thus, the naturalism of classical forms is contested to show the superiority of a transcendent world, an absolute world.

Furthermore, the image becomes an evocation of what is infinite, transfiguring all human reality and projecting it into a new divine universe. It is the descent of eternity into time. It is the apotheosis of seeing. It is the space of grace.

The image becomes the divine signal that allows man to gaze from the earth towards eternity. Everything is static and weightless. It is the epiphany of a supernatural reality, the apparition that comes down from eternity toward history, the revelation that crosses absolute spaces of transcendence to arrive beyond the world’s conjuncture. In this sense, icons do not try to imitate reality, but express the birth of the faithful in the heart of the world, driven back to this truth.

Light of the Soul Russian Bizantine Icon.

If divine reality envelops everything, there cannot be darkness. The golden background effectively creates a space of bright radiation that envelops all things. Therefore, there cannot be any black, but only an accentuation of every color that creates a luminous symphony. Shadow is the lack of light in the same way that evil is the absence of good. Just as evil does not have any ontological consistency whatsoever, shadow does not possess any stature at all. It is a pale shadow, a temporary decrease of brightness’ intensity.9 Shadow is the “absence of.” Moreover, the purpose of our lives is to see the light in the visio beatifica, as Thomas Aquinas would say. A perfect, absolute light. Timeless light, a-temporal.

Without shadows. In this sense, there cannot be drama in the image. Man’s life, even in its most painful moments, is not sketched in the shadows of despair, but instead moves toward an encounter dominated by light itself, the symbol of God’s presence that encompasses man’s life.

This is a very different concept to that which is consolidated

by Caravaggio in the early 17th Century. He replaces the plaster background where were made the colors of the medieval painting as well as the landscape on the Renaissance canvass with a reddish brown on top of which he places the strongest shades and the most intense lights.

The space is inhabited by the grace of daylight, overcoming every nocturnal aspect of the human experience, still pierced by sin. Gold creates an atmosphere in which all elements of architecture are lost and dissolved in light.

9 On the subject of shadow as a decrease in light’s intensity, we recommend F. Jullien, L’ombra del male. Il negativo e la ricerca di senso nella filosofia europea e nel mondo cinese, Vicenza, Colla, 2005.

H 145

It is an enveloping space where the faithful are called to become that same light by which they are illuminated. The believer turns into what he is observing: light.

Everything must be pierced by the light that comes from the heights to become light.

Thus, the bright intensity shifts from the highest point of light to the highest point of darkness by means of an infinite multiplicity of steps and degrees. The painting changes its code. The background is no longer entirely luminous and its figures are colored radiations. They rise from the dark background as if they belonged to it. The colors also come from the background, as if they were witnesses to the dark nature from which they emerge.

Man no longer lives in a light-governed reality, rising instead from a reality of darkness. Only the light of grace concentrated in a ray can save. Evil takes on all its strength, its consistency. Life is a drama, a continuous struggle, a never-ending battle between light and darkness. The shadow is not purely pale shadow submitted to light anymore. It becomes gloomy, inapprehensible, leaden. It expresses itself in a confusing and irrational darkness. It turns into a symbol of the reality of sin. In this drama, in this battle between light and darkness, the history of man takes place. If the light does not emerge, it is death, then, that takes the lead.

Light without shadow: Byzantine mosaics The icons’ background follows the same timeless light of Byzantine architecture, in which the mosaic’s embellishment leads to a dematerialization of space, diminishing the walls of an unreal surface. This space does not seem limited by surfaces as in the Romanesque, transforming itself instead into the dense, vibrant, and changing flux of light obtained from the brightness of the mosaic on the golden background.

“Either light was born here or captured; here it reins freely”10 is written on the walls of St. Andrew’s Oratory, in Ravenna.

In this space, everything tends to eliminate strong contrasts, marked chiaroscuros. The space is inhabited by the grace of daylight, overcoming every nocturnal aspect of the human experience, still pierced by sin. Gold creates an atmosphere in which all elements of architecture are lost and dissolved in light.

It is a space of light, transfigured, very different from Greek and Roman buildings. It is a space that grants the privilege of inwardness and intimacy. The light of what is inside seems infinite. Spatial articulations fade with the mosaic coating, the contour of the arches are deformed, 10 We quote the legend in Latin from St. Andrew’s Oratory (5th Century): “Aut lux hic nata est, aut capta hic libera regnat”.

H 146

Light of the Soul

angles are softened. All intersections of planes are negated.

There cannot be a marked chiaroscuro, but only the intensity of light tones. The architecture seems to be supported on nothingness. Everything seems devoid of volume and is weightless. Everything seems to be suspended, as if it were floating in air or expanding in space.

While the mosaic’s elements are fixed in the layer of plaster on many levels and different inclinations, the irregular surface reflects light in different angles, refracting it in multiple directions. Natural light enters from the exterior through small openings. Space catches this light, which is never static, but rather in constant movement. The light bounces forwards and backwards, it becomes reflected light, creating infinite relations. The space vibrates. It continuously changes. It is always new. It is a space with a tremulous, throbbing energy. It is not, however, a confusing brightness.

In fact, the walls are covered with images that, being devoid of plastic relief and chiaroscuro, become pure surfaces of color, transparent, impalpable and inapprehensible visions.

By rejecting imitative Greco-Roman realism, Byzantine art turns to the creation of interior, transcendent, and absolute visions. We immediately imagine the artificial light of torches or candles. Images become apparitions, revelations, theophanies that rise from the background to present themselves in our world. We recognize the biblical figures of Mary, Christ, the apostles, the martyr saints‌ They have defeated death. Without weight or volume, they seem to have lost contact with the ground. In their sanctity, they appear as glorious transfigured bodies in the light of supernatural life. They are surrounded by an atmosphere of grace.

The space is inhabited by a tremulous light from which the expansive energy of colors irradiates. The faithful are enveloped by an atmosphere of prayer. It is a space for contemplation, for retreat, of the revelation of what is invisible, where light is an advance of heavenly glory which breaks down into the multiplicity of colors in order to unify and replenish into a primary source of life. It turns its back to the Greco-Roman perspective to be introduced in a space of pure vision. It is not a space that places itself in front of us, very much like when we watch the drama taking place onstage in a theater. It is a space that surrounds us.11

Here, light acquires shape in the warm tone of the background that surrounds various scenes because gold is the visible expression of the origins, truth, and authenticity of all things. It is the gaze of God in the world, the revelation of divine glory.

11 On these subjects, see R. Court, Sagesse de l’art. Arts plastiques, musique, philosophie, Paris, Klincksieck, 2006.

H 147

Because of Giotto, and mainly the Italian Renaissance, light is emphasized as a physical phenomenon that allows for the perception of natural reality.

In the Renaissance, light becomes both a physical and metaphysical element at the same time.

H 148

Basilica of Saint Mark, Venice, XI Century.

It is an enveloping space where the faithful are called to become that same light by which they are illuminated. The believer turns into what he is observing: light. Everything must be pierced by the light that comes from the heights to become light. Every effect of light, confusion or diversion of perspective, disappears. In this way, light creates a unified space where each detail is submerged with the One, in the will of dissolving all separation and externality to lead us again to the essence of things, so that the soul can ascend toward the original light, to God Himself.

Byzantine art was conceived with the purpose of leading man to the abysmal depths of his own interiority by means of a luminosity without which everything would stay in the silence of darkness. Because light is space. Light creates space. The building becomes, therefore, a hierophany, a manifestation of sacredness; the place where the divine presents itself in our world; the image of a supreme order transformed into architecture in human order. A space of total luminosity.

Light of the Soul

The physical light of the Renaissance Because of Giotto, and mainly the Italian Renaissance, light is emphasized as a physical phenomenon that allows for the perception of natural reality. It is necessary, then, to study its reflections, its vibrations, its radiations in the atmosphere’s transparency and its relations with different colors. The way of inhabiting light changes with the coming of modernity. In the Renaissance, light becomes both a physical and metaphysical element at the same time, as in the Pala Montefeltro by Piero della Francesca. While on one hand light is a symbol of divine presence, on the other it is a physical element whose scientific and phenomenological components are studied. We “notice� that air has density.

Certainly, in the making of a space both physical and metaphysical, geometric perspective works together with aerial perspective, with which the atmosphere blurs contours and colors in a range of blues less defined by increasing the distance from the point of observation.

In this way, what is invisible becomes present at the center of history. Renaissance space, represented in its geometricmathematical coordinates and in its atmospheric density, turns into the place of the revelation of God. We see objects in a position of being studied and analyzed. Volumetric masses now seem to be suspended, occupying a real space.

The same happens with light.

The change is radical. What is invisible is no longer just something that appears briefly in our lives. God lives in the temples and spaces of our history. God does not only live in an improbable afterlife, He is here with us. From a monocular point of view, as a photographic objective, man contemplates the world of nature and of history.

This effect of unity and the organization of a geometric point is strengthened by adopting a fundamental source of natural light which, projecting itself directly in the center of the action, allows a definition of forms and volumes due to the play of chiaroscuros, creating a tridimensional illusion.

Thus, light acquires a physical character from the moment in which the laws of nature and history are discovered without the aid of theological categories. All reality is interpreted in such a way from its internal laws, in every one of its disciplines. Now, the comprehension of nature is reached in laws independent from faith.

What is invisible becomes present at the center of history.

Renaissance space, represented in its geometric-mathematical coordinates and in its atmospheric density, turns into the place of the revelation of God.

H 149

H

150 Apotheosis of Saint Ignatius, by Andrea Pozzo

Light of the Soul

The meaning of light also completely changes from an architectural viewpoint. By recovering Greco-Roman Antiquity, Renaissance architecture subverts the Gothic architectural approach. The whole of space spins around a central point as a place from which the observer can perceive space, conceived by means of symmetry and proportion criteria. The gaze can cover the spaces that are opened up in front of it: embracing them to dominate them, to be their protagonist, to be able to see harmony in them through the approach’s uniformity and geometry. Brunelleschi’s architectural solutions are nothing less than ideal views of a world built entirely by man, made of geometry, measurement, and proportion. Rhythm is born from the repetition of a module. The world that surrounds us is understood by man in terms of relations, of measurements defined by his own dimensions. Space created by man for man.

Architecture and the cosmos correspond to each other in a magical harmony. Everything transforms into rhythm and proportion. In this context, light creates the perfect proportions in which an architecture reproducing cosmic order may arise. It is intellectual light which emphasizes the articulation of spaces built in compliance with a precise modular scheme that defines a purely human field.

Let’s take Leon Battista Alberti as an example. In his treaty De architectura, the lighting of churches must be balanced and tangential, not excessive, but not too dark either, to highlight the continuity of space. To Alberti, light is, above all, an object of scientific speculation. The humanist studies the effects of natural light: how it operates over human perception and the emotions it provokes on man. Specifically in relation to architecture, he studies perceptive mechanisms linked to the adopted lighting, be it natural or artificial. In short, the “light” problem is less related to symbolic-metaphysical problems than to artistic and architectural dealings and their functional demands.

If we immediately analyze the work of Filippo Brunelleschi, we see how the pursuit of luminosity is based on the desire of creating a blurred light that emphasizes the modular character of the whole building. In the churches of San Lorenzo (1421) or Santo Spirito (1444), in Florence, the use of modules, with the rhythmic repetition of architectural elements in “pietra” (stone) serena, defines a very clear

The change is radical.

What is invisible is no longer just something that appears briefly in our lives. God lives in the temples and spaces of our history. God does not only live in an improbable afterlife, He is here with us.

From a monocular point of view, as a photographic objective, man contemplates the world of nature and of history.

H 151

By recovering GrecoRoman Antiquity, Renaissance architecture subverts the Gothic architectural approach. The whole of space spins around a central point as a place from which the observer can perceive space, conceived by means of symmetry and proportion criteria.

articulation of perspective. Light emphasizes the space’s rationality, which is underlined by the elements that form a perspective grid. There are no effects of greatly contrasting chiaroscuros. Light emphasizes in great measure the unity of the ensemble by means of a subtle gradation in brightness that progressively diminishes from the center nave towards the dim light of the lateral naves, to the gloomier light of the chapels. This generates an accurate effect of depth perspective. The light gives way to a homogeneous, isotropic, and centered spatiality starting from a unique point of view, as in the paintings of the time, built from the rules of central perspective.

In this way, light unveils different parts of the building, highlighting its rationality and modularity. It is a physical light in relation to an architecture deemed as a complex organism that welcomes functions, rites, celebrations. At the same time, it is a metaphysical light that reveals a harmonic architectural space, seen as a mirror of a rational order of the world because of its geometric-mathematical construction.

Light unveils, therefore, the truth of unitary space.

However, there seems to be a re-articulation. From an essentially symbolic view, where the light was located as the generating and founding center of the space that placed man in an elevating spiritual world towards God, we reach a phenomenological perspective, whose purpose is to highlight the space in its articulation and organization of perspective, as in Alberti, or as a mirror of the cosmos’ rationality where man is located at the center, as in Brunelleschi. Is this, perhaps, the starting point from which aesthetic-theological aspects become more “marginalized” from the projective genesis of s sacred space?

The glory of the Baroque sacred space The last episode in the history of architecture where we find a desire of uniting aesthetic-theological and architectural aspects is the “Baroque”. During the 18th Century, the Catholic Church asserts its own prestige in front of the protestant Reformation, in which the characteristic impulse of the first and second part of the 16th Century had come to an end.

H

152 ílica de San Marco, Venecia, siglo XI.

Light of the Soul In this context, light creates the perfect proportions in which an architecture reproducing cosmic order may arise. It is intellectual light which emphasizes the articulation of spaces built in compliance with a precise modular scheme that defines a purely human field.

Pala de Montefeltro by Piero della Francesca, XV Century

Aesthetics and theology are, here, closely linked in an indissoluble unity, where painting, sculpture, and architecture are joined together with the same desire for asserting God’s supremacy in every aspect of man’s life.

Light is the protagonist. Let’s consider, for example, Triumph of the Name of Jesus, in the Church of the Gesù in Rome, by Giovanni Battista Gaulli, known as Baciccio. It represents a Glory in a fresco in the central nave of the church, designed

by Vignola. While the lateral chapels are immersed in an

H 153

The light gives way to a homogeneous, isotropic, and centered spatiality starting from a unique point of view, as in the paintings of the time, built from the rules of central perspective.

H

San Lorenzo, Florence

intense and suggestive half-light, the nave is an explosion of light. Everything leads towards the revelation of the Triumph of the Name of Jesus, which is visible in the part of the ceiling that seems to open up in order to make the divine vision possible.

The architecture of the vault is made of a golden space occupied by festive angels and saints filled with supernatural joy. Everything becomes light in this space. With images of ardent fantasy, the name of Jesus, the monogram IHS, written with light, attracts all creation towards itself. The name works as a vector that pulses every spiritual body towards a vortex, a bright point, in a permanent beyond. Like a magnet, the name creates a vortex toward which all men are mysteriously attracted. God is a principle of tension that avoids dispersion, chaos, shapelessness.

And God is the light from which all other light is radiated, as a magnet that acts in the opposite direction to the force of gravity, as a spiritual principle that stands against the forces of matter. While this one is attracted towards the center of the earth, all human experience, on the contrary, is directed Ad maiorem Dei gloriam—says Ignatius of Loyola—toward the infinite heavens, toward the light that has no decline. Because

154 Ă­lica de San Marco, Venecia, siglo XI.

Light of the Soul

of light, everything becomes fluid. Matter seems to be immersed beyond the physical boundaries of space to adopt new curved shapes, as if it acquired a new spiritual character.

Bodies become flexible and elastic, seen as ensembles or masses. A kind of labyrinth of the continuum, where all is organized in conformity with a rhythmic principle that is expressed through dilation-contraction, as in a sort of cosmic breathing. Even though the world is marked by an essential chaos, there is still an end that gives order and meaning. It is the telos that allows the ordering of everything that is created.

This principle is God himself; i.e.: the Light.

Probably, Baroque light is the last experience of an explicitly theological universe. Let’s think solely about impressionist paintings. To paint light is to represent a world of phenomena filtered by the artist’s moods beyond all preliminary notion; to portray the impressions of the air, of the atmosphere. Light for the impressionists is physical, earthly. It seems to lose all symbolic dimension. It lights objects, breaking down into different colors.

All man sees is light and color. Both color and light are permanently changing, moment after moment, depending on the source of the light’s position or the artist’s. Painting en plein air means to rip a moment from the world in the moving perpetuum of life, from its intangible atmosphere, from decomposition, and from the light’s vibrations of the dynamic view of the subject.

However, the theological light enveloping the spaces of human life and accompanying them to the divine vision seems to disappear forever. If there is no longer a place for this theological light, the world can only be illuminated by the light of human reality, in its continuous coming and going and flux. The background of medieval gold used to represent being in its transcendence and stillness. During the Renaissance, physical and symbolic light reproduced a reality where both being and phenomenon met. Modern light is earthly, natural. Divine light, at the core of both Eastern and Western representations for many centuries, becomes physical light in our world.

At the same time, it is a metaphysical light that reveals a harmonic architectural space, seen as a mirror of a rational order of the world because of its geometric-mathematical construction. Light unveils, therefore, the truth of unitary space.

H 155

Which light today?

From an essentially symbolic view, where the light was located as the generating and founding center of the space that placed man in an elevating spiritual world towards God, we reach a phenomenological perspective, whose purpose is to highlight the space in its articulation and organization of perspective.

H 156

When designing the dynamics of a sacred space, it is necessary to ask oneself about the light that is to be “interpolated” so that it becomes meaningful. What is the symbolic effect to be achieved? The quality of the space depends on the light’s modulation and its architecture captures the light three-dimensionally. If contemporary churches often fail to satisfy, it is not only because of their dismal architectural design, but also due to the fact that their light quality is no different from the light present in so many other buildings: a supermarket, a shed… For instance, contemporary architecture no longer has any structural limits related to window dimensions. The endless possibilities of modulating light have not risen in quality. While there was a time when the way in which light influenced a space was studied with great wisdom, today we are not prepared. Light used to determine space, as in Romanesque architecture, or it created a space by means of vibrations of brightness, as in Byzantine architecture.

Modern architecture produces spaces that are totally transparent, with a natural light lacking all dialectic between light and shadows. There is no more darkness.

So, a homogeneous, level, and functional light is created in relation to rites and celebrations, but without “mystery”, insignificant. Lightning is no longer the same. It has become flat. Everything gains great visibility, but the space has no depth. It is the death of space, the end of its expressive strength, of its symbolic weight. The place seems to be a “no place,” devoid of identity.

This effect appears with an even greater intensity in artificial light. While ancient man let himself be guided by the light in order to build his own architecture, creating harmony between natura naturalis and natura artificialis, between nature and architecture, light today has become purely functional, practical. It has lost its symbolic dimension. It has been robbed of its sensitivity. It no longer speaks of sacred space and time. Contemporary sacred architecture has lost all sense of mystery, creating spaces that risk being feeble, devoid of symbolic strength.

To design a church does not simply mean to trace lines and angles, but to understand the full/empty relationship and light’s influence. If vision results from a light/darkness contrast, this means sensing how the chiaroscuro relations

Light of the Soul

Luz del alma Cathedral of Cologne

The last episode in the history of architecture where we find a desire of uniting aesthetic-theological and architectural aspects is the “Baroque”. Aesthetics and theology are, here, closely linked in an indissoluble unity, where painting, sculpture, and architecture are joined together with the same desire for asserting God’s supremacy in every aspect of man’s life. Light is the protagonist.

H 157

Even though the world is marked by an essential chaos, there is still an end that gives order and meaning.

It is the telos that allows the ordering of everything that is created. This principle is God himself; i.e.: the Light.

Notre-Dame du Haut, Ronchamps

H

158 Ă­lica de San Marco, Venecia, siglo XI.

Light of the Soul

work so that the architecture turns into a space that is dense in presence, with its particularities relating to light and its symbolism, without reducing itself to the spatial translation of the mere functionality of celebration.

In this sense, the basic elements of tradition, such as the orientation of sunlight towards the apse, the representation of the heavenly Jerusalem, or the spatial filter of brightness that was the narthex, must be understood with regards to the way in which they introduce us to a space that is truly meaningful, the liturgical poles.

In the 20th Century, we cannot fail to find examples of architecture with a great intensity of brightness, as the chapel of Notre-Dame du Haut, in Ronchamps (1950-55),

by Le Corbusier, where the quality of the space’s play of chiaroscuros is undeniable, even if it is missing liturgical codes that characterize the chapel as a sacred Christian place. Actually, the architecture seems to evoke a mythical, archaic space.

The colored space generated by the stained-glass window

by Gerhard Richter, at the cathedral of Cologne (2007), is also very interesting and, perhaps, one of the most meaningful contemporary examples of the play of light creating a mystic, inner space.

Another example of great expressive intensity is the Church of the Light (1988/89), by Tadao Ando, in Ibaraki. Its interior, as the designer himself explains, is true darkness, where a cross of light reverberates. This is what we find: “Outside light, which has been architecturally manipulated and gains abstract character with the openings in the wall, introduces tension into the space and sanctifies it,” states Tadao Ando.

Richard Meier, who designs the Church of God the Merciful Father or the Jubilee Church in the suburbs of Rome (2000), recognizes the essence of sacred architecture in the space’s relation of chiaroscuros.

Modern architecture produces spaces that are totally transparent, with a natural light lacking all dialectic between light and shadows. There is no more darkness. So, a homogeneous, level, and functional light is created in relation to rites and celebrations, but without “mystery”, insignificant. Lightning is no longer the same.

H 159

H 160

Church of the Light, Ibaraki, Japan.

Light of the Soul Church of the Light, Ibaraki, Japan.

It is the same light and shadow dialectic that is present in our conscience, symbol of the permanent struggle between good and evil, which is too often flattened into a halfhearted, lifeless contrast. It is a light that gradually becomes weaker until it reaches indifference. In Caravaggio, the battle between light and shadow represents the history of man.

But if there is no longer a contrast, everything becomes flat within nonsense, as in so much architecture that is incapable of communicating meaning for man’s life.

There are few examples of architectures where light turns into revelation, into vision. And the vision is born from the contrast between light and shadow, from the wise play of chiaroscuros. To give birth to a space is to allow the light to create relations, interrelations, to bounce on surfaces, to play in its infinite vibrations, because in every variation of light’s influence, space is reborn, relives, is recreated. Only with this knowledge is it possible to create the space of the spirit’s vitality, so that the church is a place that lives in the heart of the world, a place that gives meaning to the rest of spaces in daily life, so that light awakens men to life.

The basic elements of tradition, such as the orientation of sunlight towards the apse, the representation of the heavenly Jerusalem, or the spatial filter of brightness that was the narthex, must be understood with regards to the way in which they introduce us to a space that is truly meaningful, the liturgical poles.

Translated by Ana María Neira

H 161

H 162

the night is far gone

By Anselmo Alvarez Navarrete, O.S.B.

Situation

W

e all perceive the density of the shadows that enwrap us along with small flashes of the light. The night is falling upon us: “this is your hour, and the power of darkness.” Jesus also did live through this experience, thus Christians and the Church must endure the same to resemble their Master. And the night is falling also upon Spain and Europe. We cannot believe that things will continue much longer as they are, nor that they can worsen indefinitely, although they may become graver in unexpected ways. We have entered the “dark night”; so everyone We cannot believe that must put on their light or make it brighter to avoid being engulfed things will continue by the shadows. Not only has the charity of many grown colder, as much longer as they warned in the Gospel “And because of the increase of lawlessness, are, nor that they can the love of many will grow cold,” (cf. Matt. 24:12) but many have worsen indefinitely, renounced, at least momentarily, the desire to understand and live although they may their human and divine condition. But the spiritual ruin, for which become graver in we are all responsible, is not all that will come. When a society has unexpected ways. We been emptied, systematically and consciously, of spiritual, moral, have entered the “dark and human values, one must expect any catastrophe. night”; so everyone Within this context, even if appearances and common opinion must put on their light assure us otherwise, we cannot maintain that we find ourselves in or make it brighter to the time of man. We can say this because of two reasons: firstly, man avoid being engulfed by is absent from himself in the same measure that God is absent from the shadows. him; man annihilates himself when he abandons his substantial ecology— the air, the light, and the energy in which man survives is nothing but God Himself. Therefore, it is the time of man’s eclipse, despite his various activities that only serve to hide his emptiness. Secondly, it is not man’s time because it is, rather, the time of his opponent, Satan, “prince of this world,” whose flattery chokes and supplants him.

The time we are living in can only be understood through the lens of theology of history. Like all times, this one in particular is the time of God: A fundamentally theological time. A decisive time, in which Evil is waging its last battle against God and against man, and in which the fortunes of both are at stake. All times are theological and all men are theological realities: the historical dimension is only the temporal expression of God’s project over man. To accomplish its foreseen achievement, God today prepares his and man’s return.

HUMANITAS Nº 7 pp. 162-169

H 163

It has been thus since the first page of time and man: on the one hand, there is God’s creative act that initiated time and the creatures that develop their activity in time; on the other hand, there is the action of man that expresses himself in obedience or in opposition to God’s plan. Nobody can evade this dimension, although so many ignore it. Outside of this theological framework we risk the failure of understanding anything: neither of man nor of his history.

All that we are, everything that happens, belongs to the history of God within us. We do not possess our own history, even if it has been accomplished by us, even if it is the history of our freedom; because it is freedom in relation to the project and the destiny inscribed in each personal history. Therefore, when there is no affinity with God and freedom has stubbornly missed the right choice, personal history becomes a human byproduct, irrelevant within the final count.

Every day there is less time for human resource and solutions: When a society has been we have gone too far on the road of denial and irrationality; we emptied, systematically have destroyed too many supports. However, we must act as if and consciously, of everything depended on us.

In this sense, it is necessary to underline that what damages spiritual, moral, and human values, one must human society and the Church the most is the irresponsibility expect any catastrophe. of Christians, and, particularly for the Ministers of God, the lack of commitment to their faith or their duties, because they have known the truth and possessed the grace that enables them to be the light and salt of the earth.

The problem is that we the believers are full of hesitation and distrust, that the solitude in which we are left weighs heavily upon us, the awareness of ridicule grips us, and the freedom of those who have left or have never possessed the truth, tempts us. The problem is that we don’t love what we believe, and we do believe more strongly in what the world invites us to love. The problem is that the concupiscence of life is more powerfully attractive than the love of the Gospel. God, on the other hand, does love and believe in man.

Meanwhile, we observe the attempts to eliminate some of the most fundamental cornerstones of Christianity. On the one hand, there is a direct attack aimed against the historicity of the Holy Scriptures, particularly those pertaining to Jesus; this bears consequences for theology, faith, and the Church. These elements represent the structural foundations of Christianity. On the other hand, human supports are also being eroded. The system of Christianity, that vehicle and memory of Christian history and culture—despite all of its weaknesses—has been particularly undermined, as can be observed in the exhaustion, though not complete extinguishing, of Europe, the representative stronghold of Christianity. Still in force, perhaps now more than in 1982, is John Paul II’s exhortation addressed to Europe in

H 164

Santiago de Compostela: be yourself. Not only in loyalty to its own history, but in fidelity to Christ.

In brief, “Our inheritance has been turned over to strangers, our homes to aliens.” (Lam. 5:2). In some countries, perhaps like Spain, events are already out of human control, and evidently the solution has been beyond political channels since long ago. Before this total challenge the most of us “have decided to face the storm alone” (Dozulé), but history continues under the lordship of God.

Reaction It could be said that a sudden epidemic has wiped out all Meanwhile, we defenses and lulled the sensibilities before this retreat of the human observe the attempts spirit into its prehistory. But this retreat should not, in fact, surprise to eliminate some of us. Since the time of the prophet Daniel, and particularly in the the most fundamental New Testament, we had been warned of the tribulations awaiting cornerstones of Christianity. On the humanity and particularly the people and the Church of God. We must pay careful attention to the “signs of the times” in order one hand, there is a to better understand the meaning of events. We are immersed in too direct attack aimed many interwoven histories, too enigmatic in their interpretation, against the historicity too unforeseeable in their outcome. Those who have ears to hear of the Holy Scriptures, particularly those must listen, and those who have eyes must see.

Truly, as Saint Paul says, “the night is far gone, the day is near. pertaining to Jesus; this Let us then lay aside the works of darkness and put on the armor bears consequences for of light” (Rom.13:12). We do not know what time of night it is, and theology, faith, and the like the prophet we ask: “Sentinel, what of the night? (Is 21:11). Church.

But, on the other hand, we do know what happened once in the middle of the night: “when everything was immersed in a deep silence and the night was at its highest point, the omnipotent Word of God descended upon us from its royal seat” (text of the Christmas Liturgy).

To God’s action, that will undoubtedly occur, we must add our own: “But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36). That is to say, we must be well prepared to react to the situation. In Pascal’s words, “Just as it is a crime to disrupt peace where truth reigns, it is also a crime to maintain our peace when truth is destroyed.”

We must forcibly banish accommodating postures: it is imperative today for any lucid mind to go against the tide, to have the determination to react, to know how to say no in front of the man of our times’ submission to the madness that surrounds him. Hidden within the incentive to practice what is politically correct is an indirect invitation to desertion. Like Christ, the Christian must be “the faithful and true witness” (Rev. 3:14; 19:11). “Every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of

H 165

the antichrist” (I John 4:3). A Christian must have in his heart and on his lips the same words as the Archangel Michael: “Who like God?” and the assertion of faith which is proper to the Christian: “Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:11). “What the Christian needs when he is hated by his enemies, is not persuasive words, but greatness of the soul” (Saint Ignatius de Antioch, 2nd Century).

One must order man, put him in order with himself, in his heart and in his mind; to erect a wall in front of the cloud of confusion that invades us. This demands reestablishing the order of relationship and harmony between man and God. The book of the Revelation (18:4) says to all of us: “Come out of Babylon, my people, so that you do not take part in The problem is that her sins, and so that you do not share in her plagues.” Or as listed we don’t love what among the last exhortations of the same Book (22:11): “Let the we believe, and we do righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.”

In spite of the storm clouds and threats we must say: “Who will believe more strongly in what the world invites separate us from the love of Christ? Will hardship, or distress, or us to love. persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” We find ourselves in the week of the Passion, but this week will end on Resurrection Sunday. Meanwhile, each of us must take up his cross, because “whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:38). “Always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our bodies” (2 Cor. 4:10).

Hope Western man has been pursuing regeneration for several centuries: through humanism, the “Reformation”, philosophy, the Enlighment, science, progress, change, and permanent innovation. But this regeneration has revealed itself as a degeneration, decline, and twilight, beyond so many material achievements. It has intended “the death of God” but it is man that has succumbed. For his resurgence the moral reestablishment is not enough nor is it possible.

The Christian perspective has only one road to regeneration in sight: the one that starts from man’s theological clues that give back to him the fundamental data about himself in order to attain the precise achievement of the human project. Regeneration through a rebirth, as Jesus said to Nicodemus: “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above … no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit,” nor can anyone enter into a new human reality. Saint Peter warned: “put away your former way of life, your old self, corrupt and deluded by its lusts, and to be renewed in the spirit of

H 166

your minds, and to clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.” (Eph. 4:23-24).

Then the emergence of the heavens, the earth, and the new man will be possible at the voice of He who says: “See, I am making all things new.” We shall need the infusion of a new heart and a new spirit. Therefore a new baptism, a new Pentecost, a new creature: a renewal of the human nature that will require, perhaps, an extraordinary intervention of God in order to bring it close to its original purity and energy. And that will come about with our collaboration or against our opposition. The natural order of creation must be reestablished because the harmony of God’s The Christian perspective has only one work requires it so.

A regeneration must begin within each one of us, without road to regeneration in waiting to look around to see how others are doing. This requires sight: the one that starts the mobilization of all our spiritual resources from now on, because from man’s theological we know that though human beings are almost depleted, the clues that give back to him the fundamental supernatural remain untouched. rd Saint Cyril of Jerusalem said in the 3 Century, that it is was a data about himself matter of “acquiring a new heavenly configuration, to transform our in order to attain the nature by the incorporation of the Holy Spirit in us, which allows precise achievement of us to think that we are no longer simply men but sons of God.” the human project.

The possibility of renewal in any organism comes not from what changes, but from what is unmovable, from what constitutes its own being.

The being renews itself only through its own energy, in fidelity with itself. “ I write to you, young people, because you are strong and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one. Do not love the world or the things in the world. The love of the Father is not in those who love the world; for all that is in the world—the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, the pride in riches—comes not from the Father but from the world. And the world and its desire are passing away, but those who do the will of God live forever.” (I John. 2:13-17).

In order to maintain ourselves, or recover this youth, we must become deeply rooted in Christ, in the Church, in the faith, in the sacraments, in Mary, in prayer, in virtue, and prepare ourselves for the test, not a future one, but the existing one: “For he has graciously granted you the privilege not only of believing in Christ, but of suffering for him as well” (Phil. 1:29).

We must also remember that prayer is the supreme teacher of wisdom. It gives us the maximum capacity of criticism and analysis. A prayer does not allow for the falsifying of reality, because it puts us before the Light, before the Truth. Prayer allows us to drink from the fountains of truth, to capture the signs of the times. Both things are essential to have eyes to see in this night.

H 167

It is the hour of testimony, to now be witnesses of Christ, because it is hardly worthwhile to survive in the current society if one does not live only to give testimony to Him, or, as Christ himself said, to give testimony to the truth.

Now is the time of greatest expectation: for us, because we are awaiting the results of the challenge issued towards God; and for Him, too, who is “in a vigil of arms,” in a vigil before entering action, like in the Easter Passover that preceded the exodus from Egypt, the way to liberation, that comes after the desert and its trials, before reaching the promised land. God is prepared to face Egypt again, to knock down the towers of Babel (or of paper, it is the same), “for the battle is the Lord’s” (I Sam. 17:47).

It is the hour of faith, and of unyielding hope in God. Only He possesses present and future: that of eternity, but also that of history: He is the living one, the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, “His is time and eternity”(Liturgy of the Easter Vigil). In fact all times are His. Revelation states: “See, I am coming soon” (22:12): “I will bring near my deliverance swiftly, my salvation has gone out and my arms will rule the peoples; the coastlands wait for me, and for my arm they hope.” (Is. 51:5).

Because He is the One who has the only words of eternal life, the only one who can say: “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness” (John 8:12). That is why He is “the stone that was rejected by you, the builders; it has become the cornerstone ” (Acts 4:11).

He is the owner of the whole reality: human and cosmic, as it has been said before: He has “a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph. 1:10) because “God has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things” (Eph. 1:22), as He himself has stated: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matt. 28:18). Therefore, “take courage; I have conquered the world!” (John16:33). It has been written of him: “He is our peace” (Eph. 2:14): He is the Truth and the Hope of the world. With all those who hope, we also repeat: “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev. 22:20). We also count on Mary, the woman who steps on the head of the dragon and has the crescent moon under her feet (cf. Rev. 12:1). The Mother who repeats again to her Son, there is no wine left: they have exhausted grace, life, light, love; they have exhausted your Gospel, and who says to her sons: do what He says. Mary, the glory of our people “just as Mary made Christ to come into this world for the first time, She prepares the road to make him win a second time” (St. Louis Ma. Grignion de Montfort).

We trust the end of Revelation: the sword of the mouth of God with which He will fight against the heretics (2: 16); the great sword that was given to the riders in charge of sowing the plagues of God on earth (6:4-8); or that of the heavenly riders carrying sharp swords in their mouths to punish the nations that oppose the kingdom of the Word (19: 15).

H 168

“The Lamb on Mount Zion” (Revelation 14, 1-3). The Apocalypse of Angers, Tapestry.

We count on the generations of believers that have lived before us, those who have repeated: “God has always been our pride” and they have served him as perhaps no other people have done. We count on all the warriors of God, those yesterday and of the day before yesterday: on our saints, small and large, known and unknown; on our mystics, apostles, and missionaries; on our martyrs.

We, so small and so few, are in fact, many, and much more than what is apparent. “If God is for us, who is against us?” As it has been said to Israel, so is it said to us: “And I will make you to this people a fortified wall of bronze; they will fight against you, but they shall not prevail over you, for I am with you” (Jer. 15:20). “The kings of the earth will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings” (cf. Rev.17:14). God is always “God with us.” Therefore “as the dying, we are alive” (cf. 2 Cor. 6:9).

Someone has come to “gather the flock before it gets dark.”

Translated by Marlene Hyslop

H 169

notes albert camus, absurd and nostalgia

by Gianfranco Morra

A lb er t

Ca mu s d ied on Camus has been hastily clear that they both had January 4th 1960 in a car assigned the label of little in common, both in accident. He was not “Existentialist,” which terms of phenomenology yet 47 and had recently is hardly credible. and the absurd—cold and received the Nobel Prize in Educated on the solar satisfied in Sartre, while Literature. The year 2013 and marine nature of his dramatic and passionate has been remembered as native Algeria, he never in Camus—evidenced by the centennial of his birth. mingled with the group the terms of their political It is an apt moment to form at Café de Flore, where commitment, which lead a measured judgment on Sartre lectured. In 1952, the first to justify the worst his simultaneously dark a harsh conflict made “revolutions” and the second and light conception of life, it clear that they both to reject all of them in the his atheism of suffering, his had little in common. name of “rebellion.” “homme révolté” that goes The discovery of the absurd beyond the Hermeticism for Camus lies jointly with the and meanness of existentialism toward a consciousness of the undefeatable presence of joint marriage with nature and neighbor (see Evil in the world. Like Dostoyevsky’s Ivan, he Noces, 1938): a tormented dialectic between cannot believe that a God could allow for the the absurdity of living and the nostalgia of torture and death of a child (judge Othon’s existence, expressed mainly in his literary son in The plague, 1974). He explicitly confesses and dramatic works, but also in some of his his atheism (“I’ve never entered the Christian brief philosophical writings. faith”), but it is neither positivism’s scientific atheism nor Nietzsche’s mystical atheism: it is an atheism of suffering, to which—Camus Hardly existential has no doubt—no religion nor philosophy Camus has been hastily assigned the label can provide an answer. “Contemporary of “Existentialist,” which is hardly credible. skepticism is no longer supported by science, Educated on the solar and marine nature as it was by the end of last century. She denies of his native Algeria, he never mingled science and religion at the same time. It is no with the group at Café de Flore, where Sartre longer reason’s skepticism before the miracle. lectured. In 1952, a harsh conflict made it It is passionate skepticism.”

H 170

HUMANITAS Nº 7 pp. 170-174

of hate.” In this way, Meursault succeeds in understanding the absurd, i.e., man’s Camus’ theater is born under the dismal absolute and insurmountable alienation in flag of the absurd, finding its most lucid the world. It is not only him, but also any formulation in Caligula (1939). There is an man who is an étranger, from others and, insurmountable fracture between man’s much more, from themselves.

Camus’ first philosophical work, The Myth reason and the surrounding (mute!) world: “This world, such as it is, is not tolerable. of Sisyphus, was written in the same year as Therefore, I need the moon, or happiness, The Stranger. If life is nonsensically absurd, why keep living? We or immortality; I need should ask ourselves s o m e t h i n g wh ic h i s first if it is worth it. perhaps demented, but “There is but one truly which is not from this serious philosophical world.” Caligula will problem, and that is find that “madness” in suicide.” Camus rejects a behavior inspired in physical suicide, as he the logic of the absurd a l so exc lude s what (violence, murder, cruelty). h e c o n s ide r s t o b e In The Misunderstanding spiritual suicide, i.e., (1943), the return to “the religious faith. Then, father’s house” ends with all that is left is a cold the traveler’s murder by and lucid acceptance the mother and sister: of the absurd together the loneliness, lack of wit h t he attempt of com mu n icat ion, a nd achieving small spaces injustice experienced by Albert Camus (1913-2013) of happiness, as the the Son while traveling around the world, find him again in his artist and Don Juan do with their “brief homeland. There is no place where one can eternity experiences.” It is a happiness that is always doomed to fail, as for Sisyphus, escape Evil.

This absolute domination of the absurd the absurd hero who does not give up and finds its most shocking expression in the novel starts anew his useless ascent over and over The Stranger (1942): little travet Meursault’s again from the bottom with the heavy stone cold and indifferent life goes by between the of life: “One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”

“Happiness”

office and small meaningless joys. Killing a man during a fight, he perceives his own existential situation, which is everyone’s: convention and noninvolvement, solitude and lack hope. All he is left with, then, apart from honesty during the trial and in death, is an absurd and useless wisdom: “For me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries

But the absurd is not enough Camus reaches the peak of his theory of the absurd in such an extreme way that it provokes rejection and demands to be reversed. As he himself confessed in the famous interview with Les Nouvelles Littéraires on May 10th, 1951: “If we admit that nothing makes sense, we must conclude that

H 171

the world is absurd. But does really nothing problem I know.” This is precisely the reason make sense? I have never thought that one can why, as the plague (the disease of living) has remain in that position.” Camus’ pessimism closed all gates and all men are imprisoned, is so genuine that it cannot be fitted into a he has “taken the victims’ side” and will give cynical nihilism, aspiring to go beyond the his life to heal the sick.

The plague is not just an epidemic; it absurd toward the good and fulfillment.

Not only in The Plague, but also in The State also reassumes war and genocide, the evil in the world and torture of of Siege, the pièce of 1948, does the innocent. Therefore, the he express this need, again What is undoubtedly first problem is no longer with a plague, of surpassing worthy of respect is the suicide, as in The Myth of the absurd in human charity torment Camus feels Sisyphus, but the sacrifice by means of love, bravery, and before evil, injustice, and and voluntary offering for rebellion. The same happens the lies of civilization, others. It is completely like in The Just Assassins, the play before the absurd, to Christian charity, love for of the following year, a strong which he turned his the neighbor, but absolutely call to the common destiny back with charity and independent of God’s love, of all men who must try and rebellion, both of which “which does not show itself.” struggle together against are not possible without At first, Rambert thinks of injustice without fearing to admitting a human escaping Oran, filled with offer up their lives. It is not nature endowed with the plague, but realizes that that Camus overcomes his rights, a brotherhood he has the obligation to stay atheism of suffering, but he that is above selfishness, there. “Man is a short-term translates it into a summons, a respect for the other. idea if he is distracted from not only of charity (like He postulates these love. Being happy alone Leopardi in The Broom), but values, though he is not may be embarrassing.” It is also of rebellion in the name able to justify them an absolutely selfless love, of repressed and smothered within his atheism: “How which makes him take on human beings, today more to live without grace— his cross (without Christ). than ever, by totalitarian that is the question that ideologies. dominates the twentieth Undoubtedly, during his Man in rebellion century.” last period of activity, Camus made sure to for mulate The calling for solidarity a personalist vision capable of sensing discovered by Camus is not only linked to those few but important positive elements interpersonal relationships, but also to social that allow to overcome the absurdity of and political commitment. This commitment living during a brief lapse of time. In is defined in L’homme révolté (1951), a vigorous The Plague, this commitment with others dispute against Hegel and Marx’s amoral is the building block of the novel and historicism, “the evil geniuses of our determines its prodigious style; humble time.” In the name of a future utopia, they and simple, moderate and firm. It is not destroyed the present, the only place where about overcoming atheism nor a religious it is possible to achieve a brief and difficult conversion, as is clearly understood from happiness. Against all revolutionary utopias, Tarrou’s words: “Knowing if it is possible Camus states that “true generosity toward to be a saint without God is the only real the future consists in giving everything to

H 172

the present.” The absurdity of the world is admired lawyer, who is actually egocentric fought through rebellion; an amoral rebellion and cynical, fake and indifferent, incapable against tyrannies, totalitarianisms and their of loving and being loved, a suffering demon, but who refuses to redeem himself. ideologies (nation, race, party, State).

After being a communist in his youth, Guilty of having witnessed the suicide Camus will shortly become a determined of a young woman in the Seine without adversary to Stalinism and will roughly preventing it, he becomes a prophet. It is not argue with Sartre. When “rebellion” turns a conversion, but a new “fall” into which he into “revolution,” it establishes the most pulls everyone else into common perdition. tyrannical and inhumane regimes: “Every “How intoxicating to feel like God the Father new social order is inevitably unfair and and to hand out definitive testimonials of bad character and habits!” In this oppressive.” The absurd philosophical monologue, ma n k nows ver y wel l Camus moves from the Mediterranean life of that Kant killed God and cynical indifference to the first narratives is no Robespierre killed the king; the acknowledgement longer present, but rather the he knows that he is alone of every human grey, somber, and obsessive in a world devoid of sense, being’s value; but this monotony of the Zuiderzee. and only expects to receive participation and this The tormented and anxious a dim hope by becoming rebellion are also atheism of previous works a n “ h omm e ré v olté .” He lacking foundation. degrades into a conventional knows that there is little he How can man be “sacred” and repetitive dispute in can do to limit the world’s without “Sacredness”? resistance to the alleged insurmountable injustice, b e t raya l of t he C hu rc h but continues his pursuit of his “permanent and disorganized” rebellion. against Christ’s “vital” message.

What is undoubtedly worthy of respect The nostalgia for fulfillment is strong in Camus, but the desired and sought after is the torment Camus feels before evil, overcoming of the absurd is only manifested injustice, and the lies of civilization, before in a sincere and genuine nostalgia, in a fickle the absurd, to which he turned his back with and sterile aspiration, which is evident in charity and rebellion, both of which are not his last texts. The six narrations that were possible without admitting a human nature compiled in 1957 show up in exact terms of endowed with rights, a brotherhood that is Christian anthropology in the title: L’exil et le above selfishness, a respect for the other. He royaume. They are Pascalian terms. Camus uses postulates these values, though he is not able both, but the first only expresses an existential to justify them within his atheism: “How to reality, exile, given that the kingdom to which live without grace—that is the question that dominates the twentieth century.” we must return is just a myth.

It is true that he never uses the scornful expressions we find in Sartre in relation A new pessimism to m a n: m a n i s a “u s ele s s pa s sion” This is even more evident in the long (L’existentialisme est un humanisme, 1946), he na r rat ion t hat is a lso na med a f ter a finds himself within walls (Le mur, 1939) and biblical term, La chute (1954). Clamence, the closed doors; all human doing is equivalent protagonist, is perhaps the most despicable and indifferent, the conclusion of every character out of Camus’ pen: a rich and action is always defeat; human relationships

H 173

are condemned to annoyance and reciprocal day of nuptials with the world.” But who has exclusion: man is “alone, without excuse” celebrated these “noces”?

(L’être et le néant, 1948) and “hell is other If “everything is the same, everything people” (Huis clos, 1947). Together, all which is absurd, everything is indifferent,” as exists, including ourselves, cannot provoke Sisyphus proclaims, what conversion or anything but “nausea” for Sartre, a reaction triumph could ever be possible? to the consciousness that what is real is There is another assertion by Sisyphus absurd and nonsensical, that everything is that helps us understand the mistake that contingent: “Everything is free, this garden, prevented Camus from carrying out the this city, myself. When one change of conversion: “More realizes this, one feels sick than resigning oneself to the and everything starts to lie, the absurd spirit prefers Desperation imprisons fluctuate. That is the nausea” to adopt, without hesitating, and smothers, anxiety (La nausée, 1954).

K i e r k e g a a r d ’s a n s w e r, reveals and widens (The desperation.” It is not so. To concept of anxiety, 1844).

Kierkegaard, desperation The overcoming of the Much desperation, is not an answer; it is only absurd cannot happen less hope man’s worst sickness, which in social solidarity, but Ca mus’ sen sit iv it y is is not able to go beyond its only as a leap of faith, different: “I do not experience own finitude; it is “an endless which spontaneously any contempt for the human death without dying,” an translates into species.” On the contrary, he “impotent self-destruction” solidarity, or, better, participates in other’s pain, (The mortal sickness, 1848). It charity. he rebels against evil in the is different from anxiety, the name of every man’s dignity. beginning of an existential Undoubtedly, The Plague rediscovers genuine road t hat leads to t he overcoming of personalism, as is clearly understood from its faith in Christ as all men’s contemporary. conclusion: “There are more things to admire Desperation imprisons and smothers, in men than to despise.” Camus moves from anxiety reveals and widens (The concept of cynical indifference to the acknowledgement anxiety, 1844). The overcoming of the absurd of every human being’s value; but this cannot happen in social solidarity, but only participation and this rebellion are also as a leap of faith, which spontaneously lacking foundation. How can man be “sacred” translates into solidarity, or, better, charity. without “Sacredness”? Seeing the plague, Undoubtedly, this tendency was present Rieux convinces himself that “something in Camus, as he made it clear in 1958: “After must be done” and organizes the resistance. twenty five years of work and activity, I still But in the name of which values, if the esprit live feeling that I have not started my work absurde very well knows that “the world and yet.” In everything he wrote and in his short life are neither rational nor irrational, but life, there is no clear sign of this leap; but, devoid of reason and meaning”? Camus fortunately, man is much more than what aspires, as does everyone, to return and he does and writes. find a lost harmony: “Our faces damp with sweat, but our bodies cool in light clothing, we would flaunt the happy weariness of a Translated by Ana María Neira

H 174

notes pope francis visits albania

By Verónica Griffin

The name Albania comes from the Latin

albus, meaning “white,” referring to the snow of the Dinaric Alps that cross the region.

Albania is a small country of 3 million inhabitants and 28,748 sq. km. Located on the peninsula of the Balkans, it borders Montenegro in the north, Greece in the south, and Serbia and Macedonia in the east. The west coast faces the Adriatic that separates the country from southern Italy by only 71 km.

HUMANITAS Nº 7 pp. 175-179

On September 21 this year, Pope Francis made a pilgrimage to Albania. For his first visit to Europe, he chose a country that is not completely integrated into the European Union, but is only a potential candidate. He did not choose a Christian country, but the only one with a Muslim majority on the European continent. Nor is it a country of great political significance, but could be said to be peripheral. Above all, the Pope sought to take a message of hope and closeness

H 175

to a country that has suffered a dramatic history, to a noble and proud people, but It is Albanian the one subjected to terrible humiliations, to a Virgin of Good Counsel, who is today venerated land that today has very much to tell us, in in Genazzano, Italy, the West. and was miraculously The main moments of this brief and transported there from intense visit of the Pope were the Mass the town of Scutari [Shkodër] in Albania, and the prayer of Vespers with priests, in 1467, a year before religious, seminarians and members of lay the country fell into the movements; the meeting with the leaders hands of Islam. of the main Christian and non Christian communities present today in Albania; and the visit to the Betania Center that cares Bible into Latin [the Vulgate], and Saint for handicapped children and children in Niceto, who is said to be the author of danger. the hymn Te Deum Laudamus, were both His central purpose has Albanians. And, according been to honor the martyrs to tradition, the Virgin of His central purpose of the Catholic faith, and Good Counsel, who is today has been to honor the with them, the suffering of venerated in Genazzano, martyrs of the Catholic their people; to highlight Ita ly, was m i rac u lously faith, and with them, the exemplary coexistence transported there from the the suffering of their today between Orthodox town of Scutari [Shkodër] people; to highlight the and Cat holic Christ ians in Albania, in 1467, a year exemplary coexistence with the Sunni and Bektashi before the country fell into today between Orthodox Muslims; to give meaning the hands of Islam. and Catholic Christians to the freedom recovered Th e ye a r s of I sl a m ic with the Sunni and by the Albanian people and domination came to an end Bektashi Muslims (…) at the same time to remind with the breaking up of the them of their Catholic roots Ottoman Empire during the threatened by increasing secularization Balkan wars of 1912. Years of great political extending through Europe and, in general, instability followed: the reign of Ahmet Zog, throughout the planet. the Italian invasion, the Nazi protectorate and, thereafter, decades of the Communist regime.

A history that is born with The Catholics were so reduced in numbers Catholicism that today they represent only 12% of the The history of Catholicism in Albania entire population. goes back to Saint Paul and is part of the However, the two national heroes most history of Christianity. It was the apostle remembered by the people are Catholics: himself who brought the light of the Gospel Mother Teresa of Calcutta (1910–1997), who to these lands (Rm. 15:19). was born in an Albanian family from Skopje Until the fifteenth century, Albania was in Macedonia. “I am Albanian by blood – she Catholic. Saint Jerome, who translated the used to say – and Hindu by citizenship and

H 176

The two national heroes most remembered by the people are Catholics: Mother Teresa of Calcutta (1910–1997), who was born in an Albanian family from Skopje in Macedonia. “I am Albanian by blood – she used to say – and Hindu by citizenship and Christian from my heart.” The other hero is Giorgio Castriota, called “Skanderbeg” (1405– 1468) due to his likeness to Alexander the Great.

He was a child given to the Turks by his father, as a surety. Castriota grew up in the teachings of Islam. Converted to the Catholic faith, he vowed to defend Albania and Christianity.

Christian from my heart.” The other hero against the “non-Communists.” The first is Giorgio Castriota, called “Skanderbeg” accused were the cultured Albanians, whom (1405–1468) due to his likeness to Alexander he saw as a threat to his government. They the Great. He was a child were few in number, about given to the Turks by his 60 people, but they were the (…) to give meaning to father, as a surety. Castriota intellectual elite of Albania. the freedom recovered grew up in the teachings They were sentenced to by the Albanian of Islam. Converted to the death and eliminated. people and at the Catholic faith, he vowed That same year, ferocious same time to remind to de f e nd A l ba n i a a nd religious persecution that them of their Catholic Christianity. He excelled la sted for dec ade s a l s o roots threatened as a notable warrior and began. The first arrested by increasing wa s t h e mo s t b r i l l i a nt wer e pr ie st s u nder t he secularization strategist of his times. Until pretext of being “spies for extending through h i s d e at h , S k a n d e r b e g the Anglo-Americans and Europe and, in general, kept Albania free from the the Vatican,” and who were throughout the planet.

Turkish menace, in such a accused of preparing an way that Pope Paul II, with armed insurrection. The admiration, called him “the athlete of faith.” majority of these priests were, in fact, “guilty” of having warned the faithful of the dangers of Communism before the elections The sad and dark times of that would bring Hoxha to power.

Communism The increasing intensification of atheism The dictator Enver Hoxha came to power by the Government reached its height in 1945, surrounded by nationalist and when the Constitution declared Albania an populist propaganda that found an echo atheist state and banned religions, imposing among the people who lived through these “a materialistic and scientific view of the times of instability, despite the fact that world” (Art. 37, Constitution of 1967). The Hoxha declared himself an atheist, Marxist- regime sought to create a new man, devoid of Leninist and profound admirer of Stalin. cultural, historic and family roots, and any The following year, he started the processes sense of belonging.

H 177

Those who were suspected of being refused to abandon their religious habits Muslims, Catholics or Orthodox, were then were undressed in public and thrown naked brutally pursued. The persecution was into the street after having been tortured. mainly aimed against the Catholic Church, Many of the religious leaders spent decades considered an enemy par excellence of the in prison. Among the entire Catholic clergy, atheist project by virtue of its proclaiming no case of apostasy is recorded.

At the beginning of the Communist the dignity of man above the state and its aim to fill the entire life of the individual regime, there were seven Bishops in Albania, with spiritual values opposed to those of more than 200 priests and hundreds of nuns.

In 1991, when the tyranny fell, there were the Communist regime.

There were good reasons to listen to only 30 priests alive and some nuns, many the Church. Franciscans and Jesuits had of whom had gone through jail and torture. played a major role in modern Albanian All of them were old and sick by then. It is culture. The Franciscans had probably calculated that about 2,100 people, including Christians and Muslims, arrived when Saint Francis were murdered due to their himself had returned from Those who were faith.

Syria in 1219. The Jesuits suspected of being I n 19 6 7, H o x h a h a d d id n’t a r r ive u nt i l t h e Muslims, Catholics or already destroyed 2,200 nineteenth century, but they Orthodox, were then places of worship, 327 of contributed to the promotion brutally pursued. which were Catholic. They of Albanian nationalism in a The persecution was were dynamited or turned nation dominated by the mainly aimed against into theaters, gymnasiums, Ottoman Empire to which the Catholic Church, stables or workshops. it belonged. Other religious considered an enemy The world really didn’t orders and communities par excellence of the know what was happening had also settled here, like atheist project by virtue in Albania. The small size the Salesians, the Servants of its proclaiming the of the territory in the face of Mary and other religious dignity of man above the of large powers and t he g roups t hat ma naged state absolute isolation imposed hospitals, kindergartens by the regime resulted, in and even business schools.

In brief, Catholicism, although a minority those days, in a complete lack of awareness religion, was deeply integrated with the at world level of the horrors that were being Albanian national identity. endured there.

The martyrdom of the Church

The 40 Servants of God

Albania represents the resistance in faith by a people. Tens of Bishops, priests, nuns and religious were arrested, attacked in public, deported to work camps, subjected to compulsion and murdered. Those who

Currently, t he works of t he Positio, instructed by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, regarding t he fort y Servants of God killed with the advent of the Communist regime are in their final

H 178

phase. The majority of the Servants were The sense of pain shot, hanged or brutally murdered.

In the prison camps, torture took an In Albania today, Muslins and Christians unusual form of cruelty. Father Gardin, a coexist peacefully in a population with a Jesuit survivor, wrote in his notes: “The Muslin majority. This good relationship majority are struck on their bare feet; the owes very much to the living memory of the fleshy part of the legs and the buttocks are awful suffering that all people of religious slashed and rock salt is put under the skin faith experienced with the persecutions of that afterwards is sewn up again; the feet are the tyrant Enver Hoxha. This communion put into boiling water until in pain turned the Albanian the flesh comes away and people into a brotherhood, then they are rubbed with and from there arises the salt, the Achilles’ tendons are will not to fall again into perforated with hot wires; old religious fights t hat some are forced to eat two had divided them since the pounds of salt and deprived fifteenth century. of water for 24 hours; their The morning after his teeth are extracted without return to the Vatican, the Gjon Shllaku deacon and martyr anesthesia; they are put into Holy Fat her went to t he holes with excrement up to Ba si l ica of Sa nta Ma r ía The world really their necks; they are put into Maggiore to thank the Virgin didn’t know what was cages with nails and then for h i s recent apostol ic happening in Albania. they turn the cage around journey. He went down on The small size of the and around.” his k nees and prayed in territory in the face I n a n i n t e r v i e w, t h e silence before the Marian of large powers and Fra nc i sc a n Mon sig nor image of Salus Populi Romani, the absolute isolation Angelo Massafra, and when saying good-bye imposed by the regime Archbishop of Shkodërhe left behind a present of resulted, in those days, P u lt a n d C h a i r m a n o f a bunch of white, red and in a complete lack of t he Alba n ia n Episcopa l yellow flowers that he had awareness at world Conference has said: received the night before level of the horrors “Our martyrs are now the during his last encounter that were being endured strongest model that we have with the Albanian people. there. to encourage the Albanian “These f lowers are for us a people to not reject their simple testimony of faith and are origins in the midst of a dominant culture given to you by this people whose history Europe that tends to choke the identity of the people. must never forget.”

They have the possibility of refounding Albania whose heroic history, while sad, cannot be annulled and is a warning for the future”.

Translated by Marlene Hyslop

H 179

H 180

The Pope in his Words

“THE TEMPTATIONS MUST NOT FRIGHTEN OR DISCONCERT US” Address of His Holiness Pope Francis for the Conclusion of the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops at the Synod Hall on Saturday, 18 October 2014

D

ear Eminences, Beatitudes, Excellencies, Brothers and Sisters, With a heart full of appreciation and gratitude I want to thank, along with you, the Lord who has accompanied and guided us in the past days, with the light of the Holy Spirit.

From the heart I thank Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, Secretary General of the Synod, Bishop Fabio Fabene, under-secretary, and with them I thank the Relators, Cardinal Peter Erdo, who has worked so much in these days of family mourning, and the Special Secretary Bishop Bruno Forte, the three President delegates, the transcribers, the consultors, the translators and the unknown workers, all those who have worked with

HUMANITAS Nº 7 pp. 180-201

true fidelity and total dedication behind the scenes and without rest. Thank you so much from the heart.

I thank all of you as well, dear Synod fathers, Fraternal Delegates, Auditors, and Assessors, for your active and fruitful participation. I will keep you in prayer asking the Lord to reward you with the abundance of His gifts of grace!

I can happily say that – with a spirit of collegiality and of synodality – we have truly lived the experience of “Synod,” a path of solidarity, a “journey together.”

And it has been “a journey” – and like every journey there were moments of running fast, as if wanting to conquer time and reach the goal as soon as possible; other moments of

H 181

This is the Church, the vineyard of the Lord, the fertile Mother and the caring Teacher, who is not afraid to roll up her sleeves to pour oil and wine on people’s wound; who doesn’t see humanity as a house of glass to judge or categorize people. This is the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and composed of sinners, needful of God’s mercy. fatigue, as if wanting to say “enough”; other moments of enthusiasm and ardour. There were moments of profound consolation listening to the testimony of true pastors, who wisely carry in their hearts the joys and the tears of their faithful people. Moments of consolation and grace and comfort hearing the testimonies of the families who have participated in the Synod and have shared with us the beauty and the joy of their married life. A journey where the stronger feel compelled to help the less strong, where the more experienced are led to serve others, even through confrontations. And since it is a journey of human beings, with the consolations there were also moments of desolation, of tensions and temptations, of which a few possibilities could be mentioned: - One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today –

H 182

“traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

- T he tempt at ion to a dest r uc t ive tendency to goodness that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”

- The temptation to transform stones into bread to break the long, heavy, and painful fast (cf. Lk 4:1-4); and also to transform the bread into a stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick (cf Jn 8:7), that is, to transform it into unbearable burdens (Lk 11:46).

- The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfill the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God. - The temptation to neglect the depositum f i d e i not t hi n k i ng of t hemselves as

One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots.

It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.” guardians but as owners or masters; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them “byzantinisms,” I think, these things…

Dear brothers and sisters, the temptations must not frighten or disconcert us, or even discourage us, because no disciple is greater than his master; so if Jesus Himself was tempted – and even called Beelzebul (cf.

Mt 12:24) – His disciples should not expect better treatment.

Personally I would be very worried and saddened if it were not for these temptations and t hese an imated discussions; t his movement of the spirits, as St Ignatius called it (Spiritual Exercises, 6), if all were in a state of agreement, or silent in a false and quietist peace. Instead, I have seen and I have heard – with joy and appreciation – speeches and interventions full of faith, of pastoral and doctrinal zeal, of wisdom, of frankness and of courage: and of parrhesia. And I have felt that what was set before our eyes was the good of the Church, of families, and the “supreme law,” the “good of souls” (cf.

Can. 1752). And this always – we have said it here, in the Hall – without ever putting

into question the fundamental truths of the Sacrament of marriage: the indissolubility, the unity, the faithfulness, the fruitfulness, that openness to life (cf. Cann. 1055, 1056; and Gaudium et spes, 48).

And this is the Church, the vineyard of the Lord, the fertile Mother and the caring Teacher, who is not afraid to roll up her sleeves to pour oil and wine on people’s wound; who doesn’t see humanity as a house of glass to judge or categorize people. This is the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and composed of sinners, needful of God’s mercy. This is the Church, the true bride of Christ, who seeks to be faithful to her spouse and to her doctrine. It is the Church that is not afraid to eat and drink with prostitutes and publicans. The Church that has the doors wide open to receive the needy, the penitent, and not only the just or those who believe they are perfect! The Church that is not ashamed of the fallen brother and pretends not to see him, but on the contrary feels involved and almost obliged to lift him up and to encourage him to take up the journey again and accompany him toward a definitive encounter with her Spouse, in the heavenly Jerusalem.

This is the Church, our Mother! And when the Church, in the variety of her charisms, expresses herself in communion, she cannot err: it is the beauty and the strength of the

The temptation to transform stones into bread to break the long, heavy, and painful fast (cf.

Lk 4:1-4); and also to transform the bread into a stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick (cf Jn 8:7), that is, to transform it into unbearable burdens (Lk 11:46).

H 183

The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfil the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God. sensus fidei, of that supernatural sense of the faith which is bestowed by the Holy Spirit so that, together, we can all enter into the heart of the Gospel and learn to follow Jesus in our life. And this should never be seen as a source of confusion and discord.

Many commentators, or people who talk, have imagined that they see a disputatious Church where one part is against the other, doubting even the Holy Spirit, the true promoter and guarantor of the unity and harmony of the Church – the Holy Spirit who throughout history has always guided the barque, through her Ministers, even when the sea was rough and choppy, and the ministers unfaithful and sinners.

And, as I have dared to tell you, [as] I told you from the beginning of the Synod, it was necessary to live through all this with tranquility, and with interior peace, so that the Synod would take place cum Petro and sub Petro, and the presence of the Pope is the guarantee of it all.

We will speak a little bit about the Pope, now, in relation to the Bishops. So, the duty of the Pope is that of guaranteeing the unity of the Church; it is that of reminding the faithful of their duty to faithfully follow the Gospel of Christ; it is that of reminding the pastors that their first duty is to nourish the flock – to nourish the flock – that the Lord has entrusted to them, and to seek to welcome – with fatherly care and mercy, and without false

H 184

fears – the lost sheep. I made a mistake here. I said welcome: [rather] to go out and find them.

His duty is to remind everyone that authority in the Church is a service, as Pope Benedict XVI clearly explained, with words I cite verbatim: “The Church is called and commits herself to exercise this kind of authority which is service and exercises it not in her own name, but in the name of Jesus Christ… through the Pastors of the Church, in fact: it is he who guides, protects and corrects them, because he loves them deeply. But the Lord Jesus, the supreme Shepherd of our souls, has willed that the Apostolic College, today the Bishops, in communion with the Successor of Peter… to participate in his mission of taking care of God's People, of educating them in the faith and of guiding, inspiring and sustaining the Christian community, or, as the Council puts it, ‘to see to it... that each member of the faithful shall be led in the Holy Spirit to the full development of his own vocation in accordance with Gospel preaching, and to sincere and active charity’ and to exercise that liberty with which Christ has set us free (cf. Presbyterorum Ordinis, 6)… and it

The temptation to neglect the depositum fidei not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them “byzantinisms,” I think, these things…

I have felt that what was set before our eyes was the good of the Church, of families, and the “supreme law,” the “good of souls” (cf. Can. 1752). And this always without ever putting into question the fundamental truths of the Sacrament of marriage: the indissolubility, the unity, the faithfulness, the fruitfulness, that openness to life is through us,” Pope Benedict continues, “that the Lord reaches souls, instructs, guards and guides them. St Augustine, in his Commentary on the Gospel of St John, says: ‘let it therefore be a commitment of love to feed the flock of the Lord’ (cf. 123, 5); this is the supreme rule of conduct for the ministers of God, an unconditional love, like that of the Good Shepherd, full of joy, given to all, attentive to those close to us and solicitous for those who are distant (cf. St Augustine, Discourse 340, 1; Discourse 46, 15), gentle towards the weakest, the little ones, the simple, the sinners, to manifest the infinite mercy of God with the reassuring words of hope (cf. ibid., Epistle, 95, 1).”

So, the Church is Christ’s – she is His bride – and all the bishops, in communion with the Successor of Peter, have the task and the duty of guarding her and serving her, not as masters but as servants. The Pope, in this context, is not the supreme lord but rather the supreme servant – the “servant of the servants of God”; the guarantor of the obedience and the conformity of the Church to the will of God, to the Gospel of Christ, and to the Tradition of the Church, putting aside every personal whim, despite being – by the will of Christ Himself – the “supreme Pastor and Teacher of all the faithful” (Can.

749) and despite enjoying “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church” (cf. Can. 331-334).

Dear brothers and sisters, now we still have one year to mature, with true spiritual discernment, the proposed ideas and to find concrete solutions to so many difficulties and innumerable challenges that families must confront; to give answers to the many discouragements that surround and suffocate families.

One year to work on the “Synodal Relatio” which is the faithful and clear summary of everything that has been said and discussed in this hall and in the small groups. It is presented to the Episcopal Conferences as “lineamenta”.

May the Lord accompany us, and guide us in this journey for the glory of His Name, with the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of Saint Joseph. And please, do not forget to pray for me! Thank you!

(Vatican, 18-X-2014)

The duty of the Pope is that of guaranteeing the unity of the Church; it is that of reminding the faithful of their duty to faithfully follow the Gospel of Christ; it is that of reminding the pastors that their first duty is to nourish the flock that the Lord has entrusted to them, and to seek to welcome – with fatherly care and mercy, and without false fears – the lost sheep. I made a mistake here.

I said welcome: [rather] to go out and find them.

H 185

H 186

H 187

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS A SHARED SPACE “When a person is secure of his or her own beliefs, there is no need to impose or put pressure on others: there is a conviction that truth has its own power of attraction,” said S. S. Francis during his meeting with leaders of other religions and other Christian denominations in the Catholic University of “Our Lady of Good Counsel” in Tirana, Albania.

A

lbania sadly witnessed the violence and tragedy that can be caused by a forced exc lusion of God f rom persona l a nd communal life. When, in the name of an ideology, there is an attempt to remove God from society, it ends up adoring idols, and very soon men and women lose their way, their dignity is trampled and their rights violated. You know well how much pain comes from the denial of freedom of conscience and of religious freedom, and how from such a wound comes a humanity that is impoverished because it lacks hope and ideals to guide it.

The changes that have come since the 1990’s have had the positive effect, among other things, of creating the conditions for an exercise of authentic religious freedom. This has made it possible for each community

Albania sadly witnessed the violence and tragedy that can be caused by a forced exclusion of God from personal and communal life. When, in the name of an ideology, there is an attempt to remove God from society, it ends up adoring idols, and very soon men and women lose their way, their dignity is trampled and their rights violated.

H 188

to renew traditions which were never really extinguished, despite ferocious persecution. With this religious freedom has come also the possibility for every person to offer, according to their own religious convictions, a positive contribution; firstly, to the moral reconstruction of the country and then, subsequently, to the economic reconstruction.

In reality, as John Paul II stated during his historic visit to Albania in 1993, “Religious freedom […] is not only a precious gift from the Lord for those who have faith: it is a gift for each person, because it is the basic guarantee of every other expression of freedom […]. Only faith reminds us t hat, i f we have one Creator, we a re therefore all brothers and sisters. Religious freedom is a safeguard against all forms of totalitarianism and contributes decisively to human fraternity” (Message to the Albanian People, 25 April 1993).

He immediately then added, “True religious freedom shuns the temptation to intolerance and sectarianism, and promotes attitudes of respect and constructive dialogue” (ibid.).

We cannot deny that intolerance towards those with different religious convictions is a particularly insidious enemy, one which today is being witnessed in various areas around the world. All believers must be particularly vigilant so that, in living out with conviction our religious and ethical HUMANITAS Nº 73 pp. 132 - 149

We cannot deny that intolerance towards those with different religious convictions is a particularly insidious enemy, one which today is being witnessed in various areas around the world. code, we may always express the mystery we intend to honour. This means that all those forms which present a distorted use of religion, must be firmly refuted as false since they are unworthy of God or humanity.

Authentic religion is a source of peace and not of violence! No one must use the name of God to commit violence! To kill in the name of God is a grave sacrilege. To discriminate in the name of God is inhuman.

Seen in this light, religious freedom is not a right which can be guaranteed solely by existing legislation, although laws are necessary. Rather religious freedom is a shared space –like this one– an atmosphere of respect and cooperation that must be built with everyone’s participation, even those who have no religious convictions. Allow me to outline two attitudes which can be especially helpful in the advancement of this fundamental freedom.

The first attitude is that of regarding every man and woman, even those of different religious traditions, not as rivals, less still enemies, but rather as brothers and sisters.

When a person is secure of his or her own beliefs, there is no need to impose or put pressure on others: there is a conviction that truth has its own power of attraction. Deep down, we are all pilgrims on this earth, and on this pilgrim journey, as we yearn for truth and eternity, we do not live autonomous and self-sufficient individual lives; the same applies to religious, cultural and national communities. We need each other, and are entrusted to each other’s care. Each religious

tradition, from within, must be able to take account of others.

The second attitude which fosters the promotion of religious freedom is the work done i n ser vice of t he com mon good. Whenever adherence to a specific religious tradition gives birth to service that shows conviction, generosity and concern for the whole of society without making distinctions, then there too exists an authentic and mature living out of religious freedom. This presents itself not only as a space in which to legitimately defend one’s autonomy, but also as a potential that enriches the human family as it advances.

The more men and women are at the service of others, the greater their freedom!

Let us look around us: there are so many poor and needy people, so many societies that try to find a more inclusive way of social justice and path of economic development!

How great is the need for the human heart to be firmly fixed on the deepest meaning of experiences in life and rooted in a rediscovery of hope! Men and women, inspired in these areas by the values of their respective religious traditions, can offer an important, and even unique, contribution. This is truly a fertile land offering much fruit, also in the field of interreligious dialogue.

I also wish to mention something which is always an illusion: relativism, “everything is relative”. In this regard, we must keep in mind a clear principle: we cannot enter into dialogue if we do not approach it from the perspective of our own identity. Without identity, there can be no dialogue. It would be an illusory dialogue, a dialogue without

No one must use the name of God to commit violence! To kill in the name of God is a grave sacrilege. To discriminate in the name of God is inhuman.

H 189

I also wish to mention something which is always an illusion: relativism, “everything is relative”.

In this regard, we must keep in mind a clear principle: we cannot enter into dialogue if we do not approach it from the perspective of our own identity. Without identity, there can be no dialogue. substance: it would serve no purpose. All of us have our own religious identity to which we are faithful. But the Lord knows how to guide history. May each one of us begin with our own identity, not pretending to have another, because it serves no end and does not help; it is relativism. What unites us is the path of life, is starting from our own identify for the good of our brothers and sisters. To do good! And so, we walk together as brothers

Pope Francis embraces Fr. Ernst Simoni, martyr of the Albanese Communist regime.

and sisters. Every one of us offers the witness of our identity to others and engages in dialogue with others. Then dialogue can move onto theological questions. But even more important and beautiful is to walk together without betraying our own identity, without disguising it, without hypocrisy.

This is what I like to think.

(Tirana, 21- IX- 2014)

THE EAGLE DOES NOT FORGET ITS NEST, BUT FLIES INTO THE HEIGHTS “Demonstrations of great courage and constancy in the profession of the faith are not lacking. How many Christians did not succumb when threatened, but persevered without wavering on the path they had undertaken!,” exclaimed S.S. Francis in the homily during the Holy Mass celebrated at Mother Teresa Square, Tirana.

T

he Gospel we have just heard tells us that, as well as the Twelve Apostles, Jesus calls another seventy-two disciples and that he sends them to the villages and cities to

H 190

announce the Kingdom of God (cf. Lk 10:1-9, 17-20). He comes to bring the love of God to the world and he wishes to share it by means of communion and fraternity. To this end he

Through the ages, the message of peace brought by Jesus’ messengers has not always been accepted; at times, the doors have been closed to them. In the recent past, the doors of your country were also closed, locked by the chains of prohibitions and prescriptions of a system which denied God and impeded religious freedom. Recalling the decades of atrocious suffering and harsh persecutions against Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims, we can say that Albania was a land of martyrs. immediately forms a community of disciples, a missionary community, and he trains them how to “go out” on mission. The method is both clear and simple: the disciples visit homes and their preaching begins with a greeting which is charged with meaning: “Peace be to this house!”. It is not only a greeting, but also a gift: the gift of peace. Being here with you today, dear brothers and sisters of Albania, in this Square dedicated to a humble and great daughter of this land, Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta, I wish to repeat to you this greeting: May peace be in your homes! May peace reign in your hearts! Peace in your country! Peace!

I n t he m i ssion of t he s event y-t wo disciples we see a reflection of the Christian community’s missionary experience in every age: the risen and living Lord sends not only the Twelve, but the entire Church; he sends each of the baptized to announce the Gospel to all peoples. Through the ages, the message of peace brought by Jesus’ messengers has not always been accepted; at times, the doors have been closed to them. In the recent past, the doors of your country were also closed, locked by the chains of prohibitions and prescriptions of a system which denied God

and impeded religious freedom. Those who were afraid of the truth did everything they could to banish God from the hearts of men and women and to exclude Christ and the Church from the history of your country, even though it was one of the first to receive the light of the Gospel. In the second reading, in fact, we heard a reference being made to Illyria, which in Paul’s time included the territory of modern-day Albania.

Recalling the decades of atrocious suffering and harsh persecutions against Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims, we can say that Albania was a land of martyrs: many bishops, priests, men and women religious, laity, and clerics and ministers of other religions paid for their fidelity with their lives. Demonstrations of great courage and constancy in the profession of the faith are not lacking. How many Christians did not succumb when threatened, but persevered without wavering on the path they had undertaken! I stand spiritually at that wall of the cemetery of Scutari, a symbolic place of the martyrdom of Catholics before the firing squads, and with profound emotion I place the flower of my prayer and of my grateful and undying remembrance. The Lord was close to you, dear brothers and sisters, to sustain you; he led you and consoled you and in the end he has raised you up on eagle’s wings as he did

All of you, fly into the heights!

Go high! I have also come to involve the young generations; to nourish you assiduously on the Word of God, opening your hearts to Christ, to the Gospel, to an encounter with God, to an encounter with one another, as you are already doing and by which you witness to the whole of Europe.

H 191

for the ancient people of Israel, as we heard in the First Reading. The eagle, depicted on your nation’s flag, calls to mind hope, and the need to always place your trust in God, who does not lead us astray and who is ever at our side, especially in moments of difficulty.

Today, the doors of Albania have been reopened and a season of new missionary vitality is growing for all of the members of the people of God: each baptized person has his or her role to fulfil in the Church and in society. Each one must experience the call to dedicate themselves generously to the announcing of the Gospel and to the witness of charity; called to strengthen the bonds of solidarity so as to create more just and fraternal living conditions for all. Today, I have come to thank you for your witness and also to encourage you to cultivate hope among yourselves and within your hearts. Never forget the eagle! The eagle does not forget its nest, but flies into the heights. All of you, fly into the heights! Go high! I have also come to involve the young generations; to nourish you assiduously on the Word of God, opening your hearts to Christ, to the Gospel, to an encounter with God, to an encounter with

one another, as you are already doing and by which you witness to the whole of Europe.

In the spirit of communion among bishops, priests, consecrated persons and laity, I encourage you to bring vitality to your pastoral activities, which are activities of service, and to continuously seek new ways of making the Church present in society. In particular, I extend an invitation to the young, of whom there were so many along the way from the airport to here. This is a young people, very young! And where there is youth, there is hope. Listen to God, worship him and love one another as a people, as brothers and sisters.

To the Church which is alive in this land of Albania, I say “thank you” for the example of fidelity to the Gospel. Do not forget the nest, your long history, or your trials. Do not forget the wounds, but also do not be vengeful. Go forward to work with hope for a great future.

So many of the sons and daughters of Albania have suffered, even to the point of sacrificing their lives. May their witness sustain your steps today and tomorrow as you journey along the way of love, of freedom, of justice and, above all, of peace. So may it be.

(Tirana, 21- IX- 2014)

THIS ENEMY IS ASTUTE: HE SOWS EVIL IN THE MIDDLE OF GOOD “We all know that the demon is a sower of weed, one who always seeks to sow division between individuals, families, nations and peoples,” warned S.S. Pope Francis, after the Angelus.

T

hese Sundays the liturgy proposes several Gospel parables, that is, short stories which Jesus used to announce the

H 192

Kingdom of Heaven to the crowds. Among those in today’s Gospel, there is a rather complex one which Jesus explained to the

disciples: it is that of the good grain and the weed, which deals with the problem of evil in the world and calls attention to God’s patience (cf. Mt 13:24-30, 36-43). The story takes place in a field where the owner sows grain, but during the night his enemy comes and sows weed, a term which in Hebrew derives from the same root as the name “Satan” and which alludes to the concept of division. We all know that the demon is a “sower of weed”, one who always seeks to sow division between individuals, families, nations and peoples. The servants wanted to uproot the weed immediately, but the field owner stopped them, explaining that: “in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them” (Mt 13:29). Because we all know that a weed, when it grows, looks very much like good grain, and there is the risk of confusing them.

The teaching of the parable is twofold.

First of all, it tells that the evil in the world comes not from God but from his enemy, the evil one. It is curious that the evil one goes at night to sow weed, in the dark, in confusion; he goes where there is no light to sow weed.

This enemy is astute: he sows evil in the middle of good, thus it is impossible for us men to distinctly separate them; but God, in the end, will be able to do so.

And here we arrive at the second theme: the juxtaposition of the impatience of the servants and the patient waiting of the field owner, who represents God. At times we are in a great hurry to judge, to categorize, to put the good here, the bad there.... But remember the prayer of that self-righteous man: “God, I thank you that I am good, that I am not like other men, malicious” (cf. Lk 18:11-12).

God, however, knows how to wait. With

patience and mercy he gazes into the “field” of life of every person; he sees much better than we do the filth and the evil, but he also sees the seeds of good and waits with trust for them to grow. God is patient, he knows how to wait. This is so beautiful: our God is a patient father, who always waits for us and waits with his heart in hand to welcome us, to forgive us. He always forgives us if we go to him.

The field owner’s attitude is that of hope grounded in the certainty that evil does not have the first nor the last word. And it is thanks to this patient hope of God that the same weed, which is the malicious heart with so many sins, in the end can become good grain. But be careful: evangelical patience is not indifference to evil; one must not confuse good and evil! In facing weeds in the world the Lord’s disciple is called to imitate the patience of God, to nourish hope with the support of indestructible trust in the final victory of good, that is, of God. In the end, in fact, evil will be removed and eliminated: at the time of harvest, that is, of judgment, the harvesters will follow the orders of the field owner, separating the weed to burn it (cf. Mt 13:30). On the day of the final harvest, the judge will be Jesus, He who has sown good grain in the world and who himself became the “grain of wheat”, who died and rose. In the end we will all be judged by the same measure with which we have judged: the mercy we have shown to others will also be shown to us. Let us ask Our Lady, our Mother, to help us to grow in patience, in hope and in mercy with all brothers and sisters.

(Vatican, 20-VII-2014)

H 193

THE SOCIETY LIVED HUMILIATION ALONG WITH THE HUMILIATED CHRIST; IT OBEYED “The ship of the Society has been tossed around by the waves and there is nothing surprising in this. Even the boat of Peter can be tossed about today.

The night and the powers of darkness are always near,” said S.S. Francis in his speech during the celebration of vespers and Te Deum on the occasion of the Bicentennial of the re-establishment of the Society of Jesus (1814).

T

he Society under the name of Jesus has lived difficult times of persecution. During the leadership of Fr Lorenzo Ricci, "enemies of the Church succeeded in obtaining the suppression of the Society" (John Paul II, Message to Fr Kolvenbach, July 31, 1990) by my predecessor Clement XIV. Today, remembering its restoration, we are called to recover our memory, calling to mind the benefits received and the particular gifts (cf.

Spiritual Exercises, 234). Today, I want to do that here with you.

In times of trial and tribulation, dust clouds of doubt and suffering are always raised and it is not easy to move forward, to continue the journey. Many temptations come, especially in difficult times and in crises: to stop to discuss ideas, to allow oneself to be carried away by the desolation, to focus on the fact of being persecuted, and not to see anything else. Reading the letters of Fr Ricci, one thing struck me: his ability to avoid being blocked by these temptations and to propose to the Jesuits, in a time of trouble, a vision of the things that rooted them even more in the spirituality of the Society.

Father General Ricci, who wrote to the Jesuits at the time, watching the clouds thickening on the horizon, strengthened them in their membership in the body of the Society and its mission. This is the point: in a

H 194

time of confusion and turmoil he discerned.

He did not waste time discussing ideas and complaining, but he took on the charge of the vocation of the Society. He had to preserve the Society and he took charge of it.

And this attit ude led the Jesuits to experience the death and resurrection of the Lord. Faced with the loss of everything, even of their public identity, they did not resist the will of God, they did not resist the conflict, trying to save themselves. The Society - and this is beautiful - lived the conflict to the end, without minimizing it. It lived humiliation along with the humiliated Christ; it obeyed.

You never save yourself from conflict with cunning and with strategies of resistance. In the confusion and humiliation, the Society preferred to live the discernment of God's will, without seeking a way out of the conflict in a seemingly quiet manner. Or at least in an elegant way: this they did not do.

It is never apparent tranquillity that satisfies our hearts, but true peace that is a gift from God. One should never seek the easy "compromise" nor practice facile “irenicism”. Only discernment saves us from real uprooting, from the real "suppression" of the heart, which is selfishness, worldliness, the loss of our horizon. Our hope is Jesus; it is only Jesus. Thus Fr Ricci and the Society during the suppression gave priority to

The Society under the name of Jesus has lived difficult times of persecution. During the leadership of Fr Lorenzo Ricci, "enemies of the Church succeeded in obtaining the suppression of the Society" (John Paul II, Message to Fr Kolvenbach, July 31, 1990) by my predecessor Clement XIV. history rather than a possible grey “little tale�, knowing that love judges history and that hope - even in darkness - is greater than our expectations.

Discernment must be done with right intention, with a simple eye. For this reason, Fr Ricci is able, precisely in this time of confusion and bewilderment, to speak about the sins of the Jesuits. He does not defend himself, feeling himself to be a victim of history, but he recognizes himself as a sinner. Looking at oneself and recognizing oneself as a sinner avoids being in a position of considering oneself a victim before an executioner. Recognizing oneself as a sinner, really recognizing oneself as a sinner, means putting oneself in the correct attitude to receive consolation.

We can review briefly this process of discernment and service that this Father General indicated to the Society. When in 1759, the decrees of Pombal destroyed the Portuguese provinces of the Society, Fr Ricci lived the conflict, not complaining and letting himself fall into desolation, but inviting prayers to ask for the good spirit, the true supernatural spirit of vocation, the perfect docility to God's grace. When in 1761, the storm spread to France, the Father General asked that all trust be placed in

God. He wanted that they take advantage of the hardships suffered to reach a greater inner purification; such trials lead us to God and can serve for his greater glory. Then, he recommends prayer, holiness of life, humility and the spirit of obedience. In 1760, after the expulsion of the Spanish Jesuits, he continues to call for prayer. And finally, on February 21, 1773, just six months before the signing of the Brief Dominus ac Redemptor, faced with a total lack of human help, he sees the hand of God's mercy, which invites those undergoing trials not to place their trust in anyone but God. Trust must grow precisely when circumstances throw us to the ground.

Of importance for Fr Ricci is that the Society, until the last, should be true to the spirit of its vocation, which is for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls.

The Society, even faced with its own demise, remained true to the purpose for which it was founded. In this light, Ricci concludes with an exhortation to keep alive the spirit of charity, unity, obedience, pat ience, eva ngelical simplicit y, t r ue friendship with God. Everything else is worldliness. The flame of the greater glory of God even today flows through us, burning

In times of trial and tribulation, dust clouds of doubt and suffering are always raised and it is not easy to move forward, to continue the journey. Many temptations come, especially in difficult times and in crises: to stop to discuss ideas, to allow oneself to be carried away by the desolation, to focus on the fact of being persecuted, and not to see anything else.

H 195

Reading the letters of Fr Ricci, one thing struck me: his ability to avoid being blocked by these temptations and to propose to the Jesuits, in a time of trouble, a vision of the things that rooted them even more in the spirituality of the Society. every complacency and enveloping us in a flame, which we have within, which focuses us and expands us, makes us grow and yet become less.

In this way, the Society lived through the supreme test of the sacrifice unjustly asked of it, taking up the prayer of Tobit, who with a soul struck by grief, sighs, cries and then prays: "You are righteous, O Lord, and all your deeds are just; all your ways are mercy and truth; you judge the world.

And now, O Lord, remember me and look favorably upon me. Do not punish me for my sins and for my unwitting offenses and those that my ancestors committed before you. They sinned against you, and disobeyed your commandments. So you gave us over to plunder, exile, and death, to become the talk, the byword, and an object of reproach among all the nations among whom you have dispersed us". It concludes with the most important request: "Do not, O Lord, turn your face away from me". (Tb 3,1-4.6d).

And the Lord answered by sending Raphael to remove the white spots from Tobit's eyes, so that he could once again see the light of God. God is merciful, God crowns with mercy. God loves us and saves us. Sometimes the path that leads to life is narrow and cramped, but tribulation, if lived in the light of mercy, purifies us like fire, brings much consolation and inflames our hearts, giving them a love for prayer.

H 196

Our brother Jesuits in the suppression were fervent in the spirit and in the service of the Lord, rejoicing in hope, constant in tribulation, persevering in prayer (cf. Rom 12:13). And that gave honour to the Society, but certainly not in praise of its merits. It will always be this way.

Let us remember our history: "the Society was given the grace not only to believe in the Lord, but also to suffer for His sake" (Philippians 1:29). We do well to remember this.

The ship of the Society has been tossed around by the waves and there is nothing surprising in this. Even the boat of Peter can be tossed about today. The night and the powers of darkness are always near. It is tiring to row. The Jesuits must be brave and expert rowers (Pius VII, Sollecitudo omnium ecclesiarum): row then! Row, be strong, even against a headwind! We row in the service of the Church. We row together! But while we row - we all row, even the Pope rows in the boat of Peter - we must pray a lot, "Lord, save us! Lord save your people." The Lord, even if we are men of little faith, will save us.

Let us hope in the Lord! Let us hope always in the Lord!

Father General Ricci (‌) watching the clouds thickening on the horizon, strengthened them in their membership in the body of the Society and its mission. This is the point: in a time of confusion and turmoil he discerned. He did not waste time discussing ideas and complaining, but he took on the charge of the vocation of the Society. He had to preserve the Society and he took charge of it.

And this attitude led the Jesuits to experience the death and resurrection of the Lord. Faced with the loss of everything, even of their public identity, they did not resist the will of God, they did not resist the conflict, trying to save themselves.

The Society, restored by my predecessor Pius VII, was made up of men, who were brave and humble in their witness of hope, love and apostolic creativity, which comes from the Spirit. Pius VII wrote of wanting to restore the Society to "supply himself in an adequate way for the spiritual needs of the Christian world, without any difference of peoples and nations" (ibid). For this, he gave permission to the Jesuits, which still existed here and there, thanks to a Lutheran monarch and an Orthodox monarch, "to remain united in one body." That the Society may remain united in one body!

A nd t he Soc iet y wa s i m med iately missionary and made itself available to the Apostolic See, committing itself generously "under the banner of the cross for the Lord and His Vicar on earth" (Formula of the Institute, 1). The Society resumed its apostolic activity of preaching and teaching, spiritual ministries, scientific research and social action, the missions and care for the poor, the suffering and the marginalized.

Today, the Society also deals with the tragic problem of refugees and displaced persons with intelligence and energy; and it strives with discernment to integrate the service of faith and the promotion of justice in conformity with the Gospel. I confirm today what Paul VI told us at our 32nd General Congregation and which I heard with my own ears: "Wherever in the Church,

even in the most difficult and extreme situations, in the crossroads of ideologies, in the social trenches, where there has been and there is confrontation between the deepest desires of man and the perennial message of the Gospel, Jesuits have been present and are present." These are prophetic words of the future Blessed Paul VI. In 1814, at the time of the restoration, the Jesuits were a small flock, a "least Society," but which knew how to invest, after the test of the cross, in the great mission of bringing the light of the Gospel to the ends of the earth. This is how we must feel today therefore: outbound, in mission. The Jesuit identity is that of a man who loves God and loves and serves his brothers, showing by example not only what he believes, but also what he hopes, and who is the One in whom he has put his trust (cf. 2 Tim 1:12). The Jesuit wants to be a companion of Jesus, one who has the same feelings of Jesus.

The bull of Pius VII that restored the Society was signed on August 7, 1814, at the Basilica of Saint Mary Major, where our holy father Ignatius celebrated his first Mass

Sometimes the path that leads to life is narrow and cramped, but tribulation, if lived in the light of mercy, purifies us like fire, brings much consolation and inflames our hearts, giving them a love for prayer. Our brother Jesuits in the suppression were fervent in the spirit and in the service of the Lord, rejoicing in hope, constant in tribulation, persevering in prayer (cf. Rom 12:13). And that gave honour to the Society.

H 197

on Christmas Eve of 1538. Mary, Our Lady, Mother of the Society, will be touched by our efforts to be at the service of her Son. May she

watch over us and protect us always.

(Chiesa del Gesù, Rome, 27-IX-2014)

CONSECRATE US IN TRUTH, AND TO PROTECT US FROM THE WORLD “So often we today can find our faith challenged by the world, and in countless ways we are asked to compromise our faith, to water down the radical demands of the Gospel and to conform to the spirit of this age,” said S.S. Pope Francis in his homily during the Holy Mass for the beatification of Paul Yun Ji-Chung and 123 martyr companions.

W

ho shall separate us from the love of Christ? (Rom 8:35). With these words, Saint Paul speaks of the glory of our faith in Jesus: not only has Christ risen from the dead and ascended to heaven, but he has united us to himself and he grants us a share in his eternal life. Christ is victorious and his victory is ours!

Today we celebrate this victory in Paul Yun Ji-chung and his 123 companions. Their names now stand alongside those of the holy martyrs Andrew Kim Taegon, Paul Chong Hasang and companions, to whom I just paid homage. All of them lived and died for Christ, and now they reign with him in joy and in glory. With Saint Paul, they tell us that, in the death and resurrection of his Son, God has granted us the greatest victory of all.

For “neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 8:38-39).

The victory of the martyrs, their witness

H 198

to the power of God’s love, continues to bear fruit today in Korea, in the Church which received growth from their sacrifice. Our celebration of Blessed Paul and Companions provides us with the opportunity to return to the first moments, the infancy as it were, of the Church in Korea. It invites you, the Catholics of Korea, to remember the great things which God has wrought in this land and to treasure the legacy of faith and charity entrusted to you by your forebears.

In God’s mysterious providence, the Christian faith was not brought to the shores of Korea through missionaries; rather, it entered through the hearts and minds of the Korean people themselves. It was prompted by intellectual curiosity, the search for religious truth. Through an initial encounter with the Gospel, the first Korean Christians opened their minds to Jesus. They wanted to know more about this Christ who suffered, died, and rose from the dead. Learning about Jesus soon led to an encounter with the Lord, the first baptisms, the yearning for a full sacramental and ecclesial life, and the

In God’s mysterious providence, the Christian faith was not brought to the shores of Korea through missionaries; rather, it entered through the hearts and minds of the Korean people themselves. It was prompted by intellectual curiosity, the search for religious truth. beginnings of missionary outreach. It also bore fruit in communities inspired by the early Church, in which the believers were truly one in mind and heart, regardless of traditional social differences, and held all things in common (cf. Acts 4:32).

This history tells us much about the importance, the dignity and the beauty of the vocation of the laity. I greet the many lay faithful present, and in particular the Christian families who daily by their example teach the faith and the reconciling love of Christ to our young. In a special way, too, I greet the many priests present; by their dedicated ministry they pass on the rich patrimony of faith cultivated by past generations of Korean Catholics.

Today’s Gospel contains an important message for all of us. Jesus asks the Father to consecrate us in truth, and to protect us from the world.

First of all, it is significant that, while Jesus asks the Father to consecrate and protect us, he does not ask him to take us out of the world. We know that he sends his disciples forth to be a leaven of holiness and truth in the world: the salt of the earth, the light of the world. In this, the martyrs show us the way.

Soon after the first seeds of faith were planted in this land, the martyrs and the Christian community had to choose between following Jesus or the world. They had heard the Lord’s warning that the world would hate

them because of him (Jn 17:14); they knew the cost of discipleship. For many, this meant persecution, and later flight to the mountains, where they formed Catholic villages. They were willing to make great sacrifices and let themselves be stripped of whatever kept them from Christ –possessions and land, prestige and honor– for they knew that Christ alone was their true treasure.

So often we today can find our faith challenged by the world, and in countless ways we are asked to compromise our faith, to water down the radical demands of the Gospel and to conform to the spirit of this age. Yet the martyrs call out to us to put Christ first and to see all else in this world in relation to him and his eternal Kingdom. They challenge us to think about what, if anything, we ourselves would be willing to die for.

The example of the martyrs also teaches us the importance of charity in the life of faith.

It was the purity of their witness to Christ, expressed in an acceptance of the equal dignity of all the baptized, which led them to a form of fraternal life that challenged the rigid social structures of their day. It was their refusal to separate the twin commandment of love of God and love of neighbor which impelled them to such great solicitude for the needs of the brethren. Their example has much to say to us who live in societies where, alongside immense wealth, dire poverty is silently growing; where the cry of the poor is seldom heeded; and where Christ continues to

They had heard the Lord’s warning that the world would hate them because of him (Jn 17:14); they knew the cost of discipleship. For many, this meant persecution, and later flight to the mountains, where they formed Catholic villages.

H 199

Pope Francis prays at the birthplace of St. Kim Taegon Andrea, the first Korean priest.

The martyrs call out to us to put Christ first and to see all else in this world in relation to him and his eternal Kingdom. They challenge us to think about what, if anything, we ourselves would be willing to die for. call out to us, asking us to love and serve him by tending to our brothers and sisters in need.

If we follow the lead of the martyrs and take the Lord at his word, then we will understand the sublime freedom and joy with which they went to their death. We will also see today’s celebration as embracing the countless anonymous martyrs, in this country and throughout the world, who, especially in the last century, gave their lives for Christ or suffered grave persecution for his name.

Today is a day of great rejoicing for all Koreans. The heritage of Blessed Paul Yun Ji-chung and his companions –their integrity in the search for truth, their fidelity to the

H 200

highest principles of the religion which they chose to embrace, and their testimony of charity and solidarity with all– these are part of the rich history of the Korean people. The legacy of the martyrs can inspire all men and women of good will to work in harmony for a more just, free and reconciled society, thus contributing to peace and the protection of authentically human values in this country and in our world.

May the prayers of all the Korean martyrs, in union with those of Our Lady, Mother of the Church, obtain for us the grace of perseverance in faith and in every good work, holiness and purity of heart, and

They were willing to make great sacrifices and let themselves be stripped of whatever kept them from Christ – possessions and land, prestige and honor – for they knew that Christ alone was their true treasure.

THE ANTIDOTE TO THE SPIRIT OF DESPAIR

I

n today’s second reading, we heard Saint Paul tell us that Christ is the new Adam, whose obedience to the Father’s will has overturned the reign of sin and bondage and inaugurated the reign of life and freedom (cf. 1 Cor 15:24-25).

True freedom is found in our loving embrace of the Father’s will. From Mary, full of grace, we learn that Christian freedom is more than liberation from sin. It is freedom for a new, spiritual way of seeing earthly realities. It is the freedom to love God and our brothers and sisters with a pure heart, and to live a life of joyful hope for the coming of Christ’s Kingdom.

Today, in venerating Mary, Queen of Heaven, we also turn to her as Mother of the Church in Korea. We ask her to help us to be faithful to the royal freedom we received on the day of our Baptism, to guide our efforts to transform the world in accordance with God’s plan, and to enable the Church in this country to be ever more fully a leaven of his Kingdom in the midst of Korean society. May the Christians of this nation be a generous force for spiritual renewal at every level of society. May they combat the allure of a materialism that stifles authentic spiritual and cultural values and the spirit of unbridled competition which generates selfishness and strife. May they also reject inhumane economic models which create new forms of poverty and marginalize workers, and the culture of death which devalues the image of God, the God of life, and violates the dignity of every man, woman and child.

As Korean Catholics, heirs to a noble tradition, you are called to cherish this legacy and transmit it to future generations. This will demand of everyone a renewed conversion to the word of God and a passionate concern for the poor, the needy and the vulnerable in our midst.

In celebrating this feast, we join the Church throughout the world in looking to Mary as our Mother of Hope. Her song of praise reminds us that God never forgets his promise of mercy (cf. Lk 1:54-55). Mary is the one who is blessed because “she believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord” (Lk 1:45). In her, all God’s promises have been proved trustworthy. Enthroned in glory, she shows us that our hope is real; even now it reaches as “a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul” (Heb 6:19) to where Jesus is seated in glory.

This hope, dear brothers and sisters, the hope held out by the Gospel, is the antidote to the spirit of despair that seems to grow like a cancer in societies which are outwardly affluent, yet often experience inner sadness and emptiness. Upon how many of our young has this despair taken its toll! May they, the young who surround us in these days with their joy and confidence, never be robbed of their hope!

(Homily during the Holy Mass on the Solemnity of the Assumption, Republic of Korea, 15-VIII-2014)

Combat the allure of a materialism that stifles authentic spiritual and cultural values and the spirit of unbridled competition which generates selfishness and strife.

Reject inhumane economic models which create new forms of poverty and marginalize workers, and the culture of death which devalues the image of God, the God of life, and violates the dignity of every man, woman and child.

H 201

the church and the world

APOSTOLIC VISITS OF POPE FRANCIS Albania, September 21

Pope Francis:

“An example of fruitful coexistence among people of different creeds.”

P

ope Francis visited Albania on September 21 this year. It is his fourth apostolic visit and the second by a Pontiff to the “Country of the Eagles.” The first such visit was made by John Paul II in 1993, two years after the fall of the dictatorship and with the

H 202

establishment of diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the Republic of Albania. On that occasion, the Pope celebrated Mass in the Cathedral of Shkodër [Scutari], which had been transformed into a palace of sports under the Communist regime, and he

HUMANITAS Nº 7 pp. 202-213

blessed the first stone to reconstruct the “sanctuary” of the Virgin of Good Counsel, erected in 1895 and demolished in 1967. In the last few years, the Jesuit Church of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Orthodox Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ have also been rebuilt in Tirana.

The Holy Father traveled to Tirana where he was received at the airport dedicated to Mother Teresa by the representatives of the religious and civil authorities, among them the Apostolic Nuncio in Albania, Archbishop Ramiro Moliner Inglés and the Prime Minister of Albania, Edi Rama. From there, he traveled by car to the Presidential Palace of Tirana for the welcoming ceremony where he was received

by the President of Albania, Bujar Nishani. After a brief conversation, the President accompanied the Pope to the Skanderberg Room where he met with the civil authorities, the diplomatic corps and some of the country’s religious leaders.

In his speech, the Holy Father spoke about Albania’s road towards the recovery of its civil and religious freedom, he warned of the instrumentalization of different religions and he praised the peaceful coexistence and collaboration between the adherents of different creeds within Albania. After he finished his speech, the Pope went to Mother Teresa Square to celebrate Mass.

H 203

Angelus

“Young people, say yes to meeting and solidarity.”

B

efore concluding the Sunday liturgy, Pope Francis greeted all those present who had come from Albania and other neighboring countries and thanked them for their presence and witness to the faith. But he wished to talk particularly to the youth. “They say that Albania is the youngest country of Europe,” said the Pope smiling, and invited them to “build [their] lives on Jesus Christ.”

“The one who builds on God builds on rock –he said– because he is always faithful, even if we sometimes lack faith (cf. 2 Tim. 2:13). Jesus knows us better than anyone else; when we sin, he does not condemn us but rather says to us, ‘Go and sin no more.’ Dear

H 204

young people, you are the new generation, the new generation of Albania, the future of the country. With the power of the Gospel and the example of your ancestors and the martyrs, you know how to say ‘No’ to the idolatry of money –‘No’ to the idolatry of money!–, ‘No’ to the false freedom of individualism, ‘No’ to addiction and to violence; you also know how to say ‘Yes’ to a culture of encounter and of solidarity, ’Yes’ to the beauty that is inseparable from the good and the true; ‘Yes’ to a life lived with great enthusiasm and at the same time faithful in little things. In this way, you will build a better Albania and a better world, in the footsteps of your ancestors.”

Two witnesses of the persecution speak

A

fter visiting the University of Our Lady of the Good Counsel, the Holy Father went to Saint Paul’s Cathedral to celebrate vespers with the priests, religious, seminarians and members of different lay movements.

The Archbishop of Tirana, Monsignor Rrok K. Mirdita, said a few words and was followed by the testimony of a very old priest and a religious who spoke about the persecution suffered under the Communist regime.

Father Ernesto Simoni, an 84-year-old diocesan priest, addressed the people present and recalled how, when the Communist party came to power, they began to arrest and kill several priests who died exclaiming, “Long Live Christ the King.” His diocesan superiors were shot, he said.

He added that after eight years of priesthood, they discovered him, arrested him and imprisoned him in inhuman conditions, saying to him: “We hit you because you preach Christ,” because they wanted him to renounce his beliefs. When he was on the point of death, they set him free.

He also recalled how, when in jail, they put a false prisoner in with him in order to incite him to speak against communism and thus gain a reason to condemn him. He was in jail for eighteen years and he

had written in his cell: “My life is Jesus.” Thereafter, he was assigned to forced labor.

With the downfall of communism and the return of religious freedom, he is now a parish priest and attends to 118 villages.

Maria Caleta, an Estigmatina nun, described how her parish priest was imprisoned for eight years, and when he was liberated he was dying. He returned to his faithful, but found that his parish no longer existed.

Today, the cause for canonization of this parish priest has been set in motion.

The nun belonged to the congregation of the Estigmatinas for seven years, until the Communists closed the community and dispersed the nuns. She, with other people, tried to maintain the faith. “Sometimes I wasn’t sure if they were spying on me, but I continued to disseminate faith,” she said. Thereafter, the time of forced labor came. One day, a lady belonging to a communist family asked her to baptize her son; she was afraid it might be a trap, but she took water from the street and she baptized him. She talked about her wish to attend Mass, and to receive the sacrament.

When Sr. Maria Caleta thinks about what she did then, she still is astonished to have been able to do that little act in such a hostile context.

“A people of martyrs”

A

fter the testimony of the old priest and of the Estigmatina nun, the Holy Father led the prayers of Vespers and afterwards he said a few words. Quoting the text of Vespers, he said: “Over the past two months I have been preparing for this Visit by reading the history of the persecution in Albania. For me it was surprising: I did not know that your people had suffered so greatly! Then today, on the road from the airport to the square, there were all those pictures of the martyrs. It is clear that this people today continues to remember their martyrs, those who suffered so dearly! A people of martyrs… And today at the beginning of the celebration, I touched two of them.

What I can say to you is what they themselves have said, by their lives, by their plain words… They told their stories simply… yet they spoke of so much

pain! We can ask them: ‘How did you manage to survive such trials?’ And they will tell us what we heard in this passage from the Second Letter to the Corinthians: ‘God is the Father of mercies and the God of all consolation. He is the one who consoled us!’ They have told us so, and in a straightforward way. They suffered greatly. They suffered physically, mentally, with the anguish of uncertainty: they did not know whether they would be shot or not, and so they lived with this anguish. And the Lord consoled them…

I think of Peter, imprisoned and in chains, while the whole Church prayed for him. And the Lord consoled Peter. And the martyrs, including those whom we heard today: the Lord consoled them because there were people in the Church, the People of God – devout and good old women, so many cloistered nuns… – who

H 205

were praying for them.

This is the mystery of the Church: when the Church asks the Lord to console his people, the Lord consoles them, quietly, even secretly… He consoles them in the depths of the heart and he comforts them with strength. I am certain that they [the martyrs] do not boast of what they have experienced, because they know that it was the Lord who sustained them.

But they have something to tell us! They tell us that we, who have been called by the Lord to follow him closely, must find our consolation in him alone. Woe to us if we seek consolation elsewhere! Woe to priests and religious, sisters and novices, consecrated men and women, when they seek consolation far from the Lord! Today I don’t want to be harsh and severe with you, but I want you to realize very clearly that if you look for consolation anywhere else, you will not be happy! Even more, you will be unable to comfort others,

for your own heart is closed to the Lord’s consolation.

You will end up, as the great Elijah said to the people of Israel, ‘limping with both legs.’

‘Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all consolation, who consoles us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to console those who are in any affliction with the consolation with which we ourselves are consoled by God.’ That is what these two [the martyrs] have done, today. Humbly, without pretense or boasting, they have done a service for us: they have consoled us.

They also tell us this: ‘We are sinners, but the Lord was with us. This is the path. Do not be discouraged!’

Excuse me, if I use you as an example, but all of us have to be examples for one another.

Let us go home reflecting on this: today we have touched martyrs.”

Francis talks to the journalists of his emotion during his visit to Albania

D

uring his flight back to Rome, the Holy Father answered the questions of three Albanian journalists who had covered his apostolic trip to Albania which we reproduce below: - Your Holiness set out with a certain idea of Albanians, of Albania. How Albanians have suffered but are also tolerant. Did you find any other qualities in the Albanians whom you met? Are these qualities the right ones to make the eagle return to the nest?

“I would say that I came to a better understanding of those things you mentioned, but I was also able to see at close hand the suffering which you Albanians endured. The matter of tolerance… I would put it differently. Albanians are not so much ‘tolerant’ – they are brothers and sisters. They have the ability to be brothers and sisters: and that is something more important. And this is evident in the way they live with one another, in the cooperation between Muslims, Orthodox and Catholics. They cooperate, but as brothers and sisters, no? Another thing which struck me from the beginning is how young the country is.

After I noted this, I was told that it is the youngest country of Europe. But Albania has, it is clear, a superior development in culture and also in governance,

H 206

thanks to this brotherhood.”

- Your Holiness, what were your emotions as you drove down the central boulevard of Tirana, under the pictures of the clergy who were martyred during the Communist regime, in a country in which until twentyfive years ago atheism had been officially imposed?

“For two months I have been working to understand that difficult period in Albania; I tried to understand how it began. But from the beginning you [also] have beautiful, strong cultural roots, a great culture.

I tried to understand this and it was a cruel period; the level of cruelty was horrible. When I saw those photographs (and there were not only Catholics, but Orthodox, also Muslims as well…) and I thought of how they were told that they could not believe in God… [and when they said:] “I do believe in God,” they were immediately executed. So I would say that all three religious groups bore witness to God and now they are bearing witness to brotherhood.”

- Your Holiness, you visited Albania, which is a country with a Muslim majority. But your visit took place at a very uncertain time in our world. You yourself have said that the third world war has already begun. Is the message of your visit for Albanians alone, or for others too?

“No, it is for others too. It is broader. Albania has taken the route of peace, coexistence and cooperation, which extends to other countries which also have various ethnic roots. You said that it is a country with a Muslim majority. True, but it is not a Muslim country; it is a European country. This was a surprise to me. Albania is a European country precisely because of its culture – the culture of coexistence, also its past culture.”

- Now that you have made this visit to Albania, which is in Europe, what will be your next ones?

“I can’t alter the geography. The next visits will be on November 25 to Strasbourg, for both the Council of Europe and the European Parliament. And then November 28, perhaps, to Turkey, to be present on the 30th for the Feast of Saint Andrew with Patriarch Bartholomaios.”

- Your Holiness, we have come to see that you have a vision of Albania somewhat different than that

of Europeans. In other words, we see Europe pretty much as the European Union. You chose as the first European country which you visited a country on the periphery, one which is not a member of the European Union. What might this say to those who only see the Europe of the “powerful”?

“That this trip of mine is a message, it is a sign: it is a sign which I wish to give.”

- I think that all of us saw you weep for the first time; you were greatly moved by that encounter [with the living martyrs]. It was, I believe, the most moving moment of the visit.

“To listen to a martyr speak about his own martyrdom is powerful! I believe that all of us present were moved: all of us. Those witnesses spoke as if they were talking about someone else, so naturally and so humbly. It did me good!”

The Catholic Church in Albania: statistics

F

rancis visited Albania on September 21, 2014, which was his first apostolic trip within Europe.

Albania is a country that has three million inhabitants, where Christians are a minority. Almost 7% of the population belongs to the Orthodox Church of Albania and 10% declares itself Catholic, whereas the majority of the population is Muslim.

The Albanian Muslims and Catholics share a painful past. In 1967, the Communist dictator Enver Hoxha proclaimed the world’s first atheist state in Albania and closed all the mosques and churches in the country.

He began a persecution that lasted for decades.

Currently, the two religions live peacefully side by side. That is why interreligious dialogue was expected to be one of the key points of the Pope’s visit.

The presence of the Catholic Church in the country has been reduced to 8 Bishops, 147 priests and 494 religious.

When he announced his visit, Francis underlined that another of his main objectives was to “strengthen faith” in this country. He will be the second pope to visit it, after John Paul II travelled there in 1993.

H 207

POPE FRANCIS IN ASIA Korea, August 13-18

The Apostolic Visit to Korea was seen as the gateway to Asia

T

he occasion for the visit of the Holy Father to Korea was the 6th Meeting of Asian Youth (MAY), which was attended by 4,000 young Koreans and another 2,000 young people from 22 countries. Pope Francis met with them for the first time in the Sanctuary of Solmoe, where he spoke to them of vocation, of the merciful Father, and prayed with them for the unity of Korea. The 6th Asian Meeting of Youth ended with the Pope’s Mass in the castle of Haemi, in which he invited the young people to give the world testimony of their faith.

H 208

Another of the high points of the apostolic trip was at Gwanghwamun Gate in Seoul, where the beatification of Paul Yun Ji-Chung and his 123 martyr companions took place. This was in addition to the holy Mass in the World Cup Stadium, in the city of Daejon, in which 50,000 people participated and who received the Holy Father with great enthusiasm.

Here, Francis prayed the Angelus and encouraged those present to be “joyful heralds of the dawn of a world of peace.” The Pontiff’s visit to the “House of Hope” Center in Kkottongnae where he embraced

the sick and handicapped also made a great impact.

The President of South Korea, Park Geun-hye, met the Pope at the Cathedral of Myeong-dong, where the Pontiff celebrated a mass for reconciliation and peace between the North and the South.

On the fifth and last day of his apostolic visit, Pope Francis met with Korean leaders of different confessions and religions at the building of the old curia.

When he said good-bye at the airport, in a brief ceremony, the Holy Father was particularly gracious

when he met with Cardinal Andrew Yeom Soo-jung, Archbishop of Seoul, and the Bishops of the sixteen dioceses of South Korea.

The First Minister of South Korea, Jung Hong-won, was also there, as were other local authorities.

This is the first time a Pontiff has flown over the territory of continental China with the authorization of Peking, which had been denied to John Paul II; and that could now open concrete perspectives of dialogue with the existing regime.

H 209

Francis to the religious leaders: “We are and we walk as brothers.”

T

he Pope had a brief encounter with the Korean local leaders of different confessions and religions at the Cathedral of Myeong-dong. He was received by the Rector in front of the building of the old Curia.

Inside, he greeted the different religious leaders.

Francis, friendly and smiling, extended his hand to each of them and exchanged a few brief words and received some gifts.

Finally, the Holy Father made an improvised address in Spanish, which was translated by a priest at

his side. “Life is a road, a long road, but a road that we cannot walk alone, we have to walk with our brothers in the presence of God,” began the Pope. Likewise, he acknowledged “this gesture of walking together in the presence of God as God asked Abraham to do.” And thus, he recognized “we are brothers, who recognize each other as such and we walk. Let God bless us and please, I beg you, pray for me.” At the end of the encounter, a group photograph was taken.

Official logo of the event:

“Arise! Shine, for your light has come, the glory of the Lord has dawned upon you.” (Is. 60:1) Two flames, one blue and the other red that cross each other, and on the base of which there are two waves that represent a boat. The logo is inspired by the motto: “Arise! Shine, your light has come, the glory of the Lord has dawned upon you” (Is. 60:1).

The colors chosen represent both

H 210

Koreas, and the crossing of the flames is meant to highlight the desire for reunification. The blue waves that form the boat resemble the blades of a knife, a signal of the sacrifice of the martyrs of the Church in Korea. The blue indicates the mercy of God, as great as the Ocean.

Bishops of Korea

“With his testimony the Pope has taught us the mission of the Church.”

T

wo Bishops of South Korea who were directly involved in the organization of Pope Francis’ visit to the country made a general evaluation of the visit and were agreed in emphasizing that the Holy Father has shown with his personal actions the mission of the Church in these Asian lands.

Monsignor Peter Kang U-il, Bishop of Cheju and Chairman of the Episcopal Conference and of the Preparatory Committee for the Visit of Pope Francis to Korea, said “From the first day, I was surprised by the Pope because he has taught us to love in a unique way, accompanied by good humor.”

The Bishop also said afterwards that “the visit has served to encourage us all to be workers for peace, not only in the case of war, but when a society looks for justice to fill every corner of life. That is the mission he has given us.”

“The Asian continent is big as regards population, but the number of Christians is relatively small. We have to grow in the dissemination of the Gospel” and “lead this task of evangelization in Asia.”

At his side, Mons. Cho Kyu-man, Coordinator of the Preparatory Committee and Auxiliary Bishop of Seoul, asserted that the Holy Father “has come to Korea to show us with his actions what we must do. As he has shown, Jesus came close to the poor in the past. I believe he has left a small seed in our land and it is our turn to work to pick up its fruits. We have to make it grow many more times.”

“On this same subject of the fruits, I don’t think we are going to see this right away, it will take some time.

But it is also important for us to ask every Catholic in Korea in a personal way what have we learned from Pope Francis’ visit,” he concluded.

H 211

The Catholic Church in South Korea: statistics The number of Catholics in South Korea has grown exponentially in the last fifty years.

If in 1949 the Catholics represented 1% of the population, today they constitute already 10% in total.

Then, the country had scarcely 81 priests, and today there are over 4,000.

On average, around 100,000 adults are baptized every year in South Korea. In 2011 they amounted to 109,000. As a comparison, that same year 3,000 adults were baptized in France, and 43,000 in the

H 212

United States of America.

It is not strange, then, given these figures, that the Church should launch the “20-20� plan, via which it aims for Catholics to constitute 20% of the population by the year 2020.

Catholics in South Korea also play an active role in fields such as education and healthcare. The Church runs over 500 residences for the elderly and handicapped people, and about 300 schools.

January 2015

Pope Francis will visit the Philippines and Sri Lanka Accepting the invitation of the civil authorities and the Bishops, Pope Francis will make an apostolic visit to Sri Lanka on January 12 and 15, 2015, and to the Philippines on January 15 and 19, 2015, reported the Information Office the Holy See. This will be the fourth international trip of Pope Francis and his second trip to the East after this visit to the Republic of Korea made last August.

The Bishops of Sri Lanka invited the Pope during an ad limina visit. At the beginning of February, in an encounter at Saint Peter’s with a community of Sinhalese, the Pope thanked them for the invitation made by the Bishops to visit the Asian country.

On that occasion, the Pope had said: “I thank Cardinal Ranjith for the invitation.” The Cardinal

of Colombo, during a meeting with the Pope in the Basilica of Saint Peter’s, explicitly said: “We wait for you in Sri Lanka.”

Pope Francis is giving priority to Asia, as confirmed by the agenda of his international trips to Korea, Philippines and Sri Lanka. We shall see if this effort will contribute to the difficult dialogue with China, one of the great difficulties that the last pontificates have faced, particularly that of Benedict XVI. For the time being, there is no news regarding the possibility of establishing diplomatic links with China, although the Hong Kong South China “Morning Post” reported in June that the Chinese Government is seeking an approach with the Vatican, news that has not been confirmed by the Holy See.

H 213

BOOKS interview with prof. john jowett on his recent edition of sir thomas more by arden third series.

“[thomas] more 'belongs' to london, to the church, to england, to europe, and the world.”

By PAULA BALDWIN LIND

T

he textual history different dramatists in the of Sir T h om a s Mo re* i s manuscript. Now they are perhaps one of the most identified with varying fasci nat i ng i n terms of degrees of probability as authorship, composition, Henry Chettle (Hand A), and censorship. Most likely Thomas Heywood (Hand B), written in or around 1600, William Shakespeare (Hand the only surviving text is D), and Thomas Dekker a manuscript kept at the (Hand E). ‘Hand C’, whose British Library (Harley MS name is unknown, seems 7368). The main part of it to have guided the process is a copy made entirely by in his role as playhouse Anthony Munday from a lost annotator or scribe. draft in which he probably Doctor John Jowett is an Professor John Jowett worked with Henry Chettle, English Shakespeare scholar a contemporary playwright. and editor. He is Professor Later, and possibly after Edmund Tilney’s of Shakespeare Studies at the University of censorship, additions and revisions of this Birmingham and Deputy Director of the original text were added in separate leaves. Shakespeare Institute in Stratford-uponAccording to W.W. Greg, one of the leading Avon, England. He is the general editor of the Shakespeare scholars of the twentieth New Oxford Shakespeare and general editor century, we can distinguish the work of of Arden Early Modern Drama, a series that

H 214

HUMANITAS Nº 7 pp. 214-226

publishes non-Shakespearean drama of the early modern period. He has recently edited Sir Thomas More in The Arden Shakespeare, Third Series,* to the highest standards of scholarship.

— In the f irst lines of your Introduction to the play you state that, “Sir Thomas More dramatizes the rise and fall of the humanist and Catholic martyr Sir Thomas More. He opposed King Henry VIII’s divorce of Katherine of Argon, siding with the Pope, and as a consequence was executed for treason on July 6, 1535” (p. 1).

Even though after the reign of Elizabeth I and with the accession of James I to the throne English Catholics were no longer seen as enemies to the crown, a play portraying a favourable picture of More could have been considered a subversive action against the authorities that would have been punished severely. Why did these dramatists run such a risk?

— The answer to this intriguing question can only be speculative. The dramatists were clearly anxious. In the play, Henry VIII's divorce from Katherine of Aragon is never mentioned directly, and the content of the 'articles' that More and other members of the King's council are required to sign is not specified. With historical hindsight these are potent silences. They are so conspicuous that they speak of the very matter that cannot be articulated directly. The dramatists may have thought that they had done enough, or rather been silent enough, to get away with it. They were not far wrong, in that although Edmund Tilney, acting as the court censor, deleted lines from the crucial council scene, he let most of this part of the play stand as

the dramatists had written it.

There are various reasons why they might have wanted to write on Thomas More. A play survives called Thomas Lord Cromwell, and another play called Cardinal Wolsey is on record. Part of the story therefore concerns the late Elizabethans' interest in the politics of the reign of Queen Elizabeth's father. It was safer to place the emphasis on Henry VIII's chancellors rather than on Henry himself.

But this is a very partial explanation. The play insistently puts forward a figure who was rarely mentioned by Elizabethan writers except as the author of Utopia. It is broadly sympathetic to More. If it had been put on stage, it would have presented the London audience with More as a Londoner who, despite his rise to power, remained popular for his reputation for supporting the citizens. In other words, the play elevates anecdotal stories about More's humility, generosity, and support of the poor, making them crucial to its own story of the saintly politician. In this, it creates a popular ownership of the More biography.

This is a striking political intervention that asserts an affinity between the interests of the London citizens and the political environment of the pre-Reformation Catholic past. These are contrasted with the alliance that the play suggests existed between the privileged protestant immigrants from Europe and the English court as the centre of protestantized political authority. This is in some respects a simplified account of the play's politics, but it illustrates its subversive thrust, and suggests that the dramatists were at the very least intrigued by the possibilities inherent in putting together such a play.

* John Jowett (Editor), Sir Thomas More, Third Series, Arden Shakespeare, London 2011, 360 pp.

H 215

— In that same Introduction you argue that “the personal and spiritual life of an author is a troublesome basis on which to read a work” (p.

15). However, it is quite striking to realize that Anthony Munday, the main author of the text, was known as an enigmatic dramatist who had an ambiguous religious affiliation and wrote anti-Catholic pamphlets. Why would he try to rehabilitate the figure of a Catholic martyr such as Thomas More?

pamphlets report the burning of Catholic martyrs in loathsome detail. Why, in the following decade, would such a man write a play about Catholic martyrdom from such a different perspective? One can speculate as to the mind of the author, and wonder whether it was some kind of act of atonement. One can point to the strong evidence that Munday was always intrigued by Catholicism, and yet at the same time notoriously unreliable and opportunistic. Such a figure might — This is a real interpretative crux. In write a play that reflected both the stability of his fascination and the answering the first question instability of his point of I was addressi ng t he The play insistently puts view. Alternat ively, one play as a theatre work in forward a figure who might argue that the religion its cultural and religious was rarely mentioned and psychology of the author context, without reference to

by Elizabethan writers are irrelevant; the theatre the question of authorship. except as the author company wanted a play on Was Anthony Munday the of Utopia. It is broadly the topic, and professional main author? I believe so. The sympathetic to More. If dramatists would be grateful main hand in the manuscript it had been put on stage, for the employment. This is certain ly Munday's. I it would have presented anti-authorial approach to refer here to penmanship, the London audience the question has the appeal which isn't the same thing as with More as a Londoner and the limitation of any authorship, as Munday could who, despite his rise to intervention that cuts the hypothetically have copied power, remained popular Gordian knot. Ultimately I out another dramatist's work. for his reputation for believe it's too glib simply Both Christopher Marlowe supporting the citizens. to remove the question you and William Shakespeare ask. Munday is there, and have been proposed as the original author, but, although there is a Munday is a problem. compelling case for Shakespeare helping to revise the play, there is no credible case for — In Murder in the Cathedral by T.S. Eliot we either Shakespeare or Marlowe writing it in witness the assassination of Archbishop Thomas the first instance, and no credible case for Becket because of his conflict with Henry II of England over the rights and privileges of the dissociating it from Munday.

The problem is that Munday, on the face Church. Sir Thomas More not only presents a of it, is the last person whom one would similar political and religious conflict, but also expect to be involved in writing a play that the protagonist ends up as a martyr. What is the rehabilitates Thomas More. He not only wrote notion of martyrdom presented in this early against Catholics; he acted against them, modern play? Was it different to be a martyr spying on them and giving testimony against in England during the twelfth century? them in trials for treason. His testimony was vital to the verdicts, and so to the horrible — Would it make sense to say that Thomas executions that Munday witnessed. His More is a secular martyr? And that in some

H 216

sense he embodies the protestant spirit? a riot of London citizens against foreign My point is that, although historically he immigrants. He appeals to the notion of defended the prerogatives of the church authority as a general principle: if one doesn't over the incursions of the state, he was acknowledge authority, one subscribes to not himself a man of the Church. The play social chaos and the collapse of civility. deals with the parallel arrest and execution And he asks the citizens the humanitarian of John Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, question: what would it be like for you if but only very incidentally, as if to say that you were exiled from home and treated More's secular status gives him his added barbarously in the place where you tried to value as the point of focus. Furthermore, settle? The scene is fine on three counts. It is intellectually interesting. for reasons connected with It contains the play's most censorship, the play does The play elevates eloquent a nd engag i ng not engage very far with anecdotal stories rhetorical language. And it the issues of legality that about More's humility, is dramatic, showing More concerned More himself. generosity, and support stepping forward into a What the play does give of the poor, making them highly dangerous situation, us is the figure of More as crucial to its own story turning rioters into listeners, isolated, intelligent, morally of the saintly politician. outbidding violence with aware, self-conscious, and In this, it creates a eloquence. The scene also knowingly responsible for popular ownership of has an uneasy edge to it, his actions. Despite his the More biography. This because, despite his fine Catholic affiliations, his is a striking political language, More is at this mentality is perhaps rather intervention that asserts point acting as an agent of the protestant. an affinity between the state, and his intervention interests of the London leads immediately to the — There is a specific annotation citizens and the political arrest of the rioters. It is in the manuscript—Hand environment of the prealso deeply embedded in C’s entry of the name of the Reformation Catholic the play's themes, for in actor T homas Goodale at past. (…) advocating obedience to the beginning of Scene 9— authority More is arguing which indicates that revisers might have been looking for staging possibilities. against his own later belief that one should Nevertheless, as you clearly explain, “It is not obey conscience rather than authority.

My claim that this is the best scene is known whether Sir Thomas More ever reached the stage in the early modern period” (p. 96). Is supported by comments I have heard from there any particular scene you believe would many students who saw the play performed have had a strong impact on the audience by the Royal Shakespeare Company. They if performed? Would it have been difficult always remarked on the effectiveness of to perform this play on an early modern this scene, even if they were unaware of the authorship issue surrounding it. stage? Why? Having said that, I'd add that the final — At last, a question with a straightforward scenes of the play leading to More's execution answer! The best scene in the play was written have a quiet and understated intensity of their

by Shakespeare. It was added when the play own, a characteristic that comes out well in was revised. In it, More intervenes to quell performance.

H 217

— A Man for All Seasons, the 1966 film based overriding theme is also shared between the on Robert Bolt’s play of the same name about Sir Elizabethan and the neo-Elizabethan plays.

Thomas More, ranked number 43 on the British Film Institute’s list of the top 100 British films. In — After having read so many historical and 1995, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of literary sources for the play and worked for so cinema, the Vatican listed it among the greatest many years with the manuscript, what is your religious movies of all time. Some critics, own idea of Sir Thomas More? Who do you however, consider that the character of like best: the historical or the literary figure?

More in this film represents — But where is the historical the paradigm of freedom (…) These are contrasted figure? The early accounts of speech rather than the with the alliance

by Roper and Harpsfield are defender of faith. What is that the play suggests already deliberate acts of your opinion? existed between the myth-making, ideologically privileged protestant and politically motivated.

— This is a good way to think immigrants from Correctives are offered in the historically about a third (or Europe and the English English chronicles of Hall fourth) historical moment. court as the centre and Holinshed, but these The El i zabet ha n play of protestantized have their own contrasting deals more with freedom political authority. agenda of upholding the to withhold—freedom not This is in some respects monarchy as the lynchpin to sign a document, not to a simplified account of nation. The biography give verbal assent. As I've of the play's politics, of More was riddled with suggested, that is partly but it illustrates its anecdote from the start. The because of the conditions subversive thrust, play Sir Thomas More follows under which the dramatists and suggests that the suit, and even introduces worked. For Bolt, working dramatists were at the an anecdotal scene that is in the 1960s, freedom of very least intrigued attributed in the play to speech is an inevitable issue, by the possibilities More but actually based whether one thinks about the inherent in putting on a story about Cromwell.

Cold War or the gathering together such a play.

More 'belongs' to London, to student protest movement. the Church, to England, to Perhaps the issue of freedom of speech was the necessary condition for Europe, and the world. In the sixteenth and establishing a play about a long-dead martyr seventeenth centuries Utopia was widely as the basis for a compelling and popular circulated throughout Europe, and wherever film. Though A Man for All Seasons is a less it landed it was adapted to the circumstances extreme case, one might think comparably of its new home.

But to answer the question with all of Martin Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ of 1988, where the original narrative (in this this in mind: Thomas More as a literary case from the Bible) is heavily reinterpreted figure tends to be idealised as martyr, to the exclusion of More's less attractive traits to meet the outlook of the time.

Nevertheless, for a figure such as More, the reflected in his persecution of Tyndale and theme of conscience mediates between those the English Lutherans. The literary figure is two issues that you set in opposition, freedom more admirable; the historical figure is more of speech and defence of the faith. This interesting.

H 218

THE DRAMATISTS AND THE CENSOR OF THOMAS MORE Facts about the dramatists involved in the process of writing, copying, and revising Sir Thomas More, as well as information about the censor of the text, have all been taken entirely from: Michael Dobson and Stanley Wells, eds.

The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).

ANTHONY MUNDAY (1560-1633) Playwright, poet, and writer of prose.

After working for a short period of time as a bookseller’s apprentice, he enrolled at the English College—the institution for Catholic exiles—at Rome in 1579, probably as a government spy. He published a journalistic account of these experiences, The English Roman Life, in 1582. During the 1580s he wrote anti-Catholic propaganda and informed against Catholics as well as writing and translating prose romances.

He gave evidence against the Jesuit Edmund Campion at his trial in 1581.

Between 1594 and 1602 he produced plays for the Admiral’s Men (theatre company), after which he concentrated on writing pageants* for the city of London and on revising the Survey of London by John Stow. His play based on the Robin Hood legends, The Downfall of Robert, Earl of Huntingdon (1601), seems to have been popular. Munday’s religious affiliations remain an enigma. He is believed to be the main author of Sir Thomas More or the dramatist who copied most of the manuscript that is kept at the British Library. * Public entertainments consisting of a procession of people in elaborate, colorful costumes, or an outdoor performance of a historical scene.

HENRY CHETTLE (c.1560-c.1607) Printer, pamphleteer, and playwright.

He s tar te d life as a s tationer ’s apprentice, then went into partnership

with the printer John Danter in the 1590s. In 1592 he transcribed, from a manuscript written by the dying Robert Greene, the last of Greene’s prose works: Groatsworth of Wit. The pamphlet attacked Christopher Marlowe as an atheist and Shakespeare as a plagiarist. Chettle may also have rewritten sections of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet for the pirated edition printed by Danter in 1597. He wrote a huge number of other plays—mostly in collaboration—but very few survive.

THOMAS HEYWOOD (1573/4-1641) Poet, playwright, and miscellanist. He claimed to have had a hand in some 220 plays, but only 20 or so survive.

His best plays fall, broadly speaking, into two categories: lively studies of domestic and marital politics, often in a middle-class setting, such as The Wise Woman of Hogsdon (1638), The English Traveller, and his tragicomic masterpiece, A Woman Killed with Kindness (1607); and spectacular dramatizations of classical myth and legend, and his Ovidian theatrical epic in five instalments: The Golden Age (1611), The Silver Age (1613), The Brazen Age (1613), and the two parts of The Iron Age (printed in 1652). He also published the most elaborate defence of the English stage of its times, An Apology for Actors (1612).

THOMAS DEKKER (c.1572-1632) Playwright and pamphleteer. He was born in London and wrote about it with intense affection throughout his life. He began his career in the 1590s working for Philip Henslowe, many of whose employees were short of cash. Dekker was twice imprisoned for debt. He collaborated with Michael Drayton, Thomas Middleton, and John

Ford. Some scholars think he revised a few of Shakespeare’s plays. His output was prodigious: between 1598 and 1602 alone he wrote about 40 plays for the Admiral’s Men (theatre company). His best-known works are comedies—The Shoemaker’s Holiday (1599), which tells the story of an eccentric shoemaker who became Lord Mayor of London, and the moralistic fairy tale Old Fortunatus (1599) —but he wrote well in any genre.

During the War of the Theatres at the turn of the century he was attacked by Ben Jonson in a series of theatrical satires, to which he responded with Satiromastix (1601).

He also wrote many pamphlets, such as The Wonderful Year (1603) and Lantern and Candlelight (1608), which paints a vivid picture of life and death in the Jacobean metropolis.

SIR EDMUND TILNEY He was the Master of the Revels— institution in charge of providing enter tainment for the cour t and licensing all playbooks for public performance—from 1579 to 1610. He developed a system of censorship whereby playwrights had to submit each play they wrote to him in order to be approved for publication and performance. In the case of Sir Thomas More, he made comments against the insurrection scenes and the passage dealing with the Oath of Succession when Rochester and More refused to sign the articles. Tilney required the playwrights to omit both episodes as a requirement to give them the official authorization or patent. He also became well-known because of his work, The Flower of Friendship (1568), a fictional dialogue in which he praises Queen Elizabeth I’s virtues, mainly her chastity.

H 219

— Much has been discussed over the years about the relationship between history and drama.

Shakespeare was a poet and a playwright; he was definitely not a historian. However, as Paola Pugliatti explains in Shakespeare the Historian (1995), it is most likely that “the commercial need to have new plays written and produced may have suggested [dramatists] the new, almost unexplored, source of intricate plots that national history offered.” (p. 4). Do you find any difference between this play and Shakespeare’s Histories?

There are consequences for both politics and structure.

Shakespeare's mainstream history plays always involve battles. In Sir Thomas More the modus operandi is that of civic politics. The other English history plays take their popular audience imaginatively into the centre of power. In contrast, Sir Thomas More maintains a citizen perspective: the King and court are always off-stage; as Chancellor, More has achieved a dizzying and dangerously precarious Munday is the last height for a commoner. person whom one would As for st r uct ure, t he — Agreed, Shakespeare was expect to be involved pattern of rise and fall is not a historian as we would in writing a play that simpler than that of any now understand it. But then, rehabilitates Thomas Shakespeare history English history was not a More.

He not only wrote play, but t hereafter t he university subject, and early against Catholics; he two tetralogies are more modern historians were often acted against them, effectively held together not historians as we would spying on them and as individual plays—as now understand it. To state giving testimony against well as constituents of a the obvious, Shakespeare was them in trials for series. Sir Thomas More more interested in writing treason. Why would such reads almost like two short plays than in studying history a man write a play about plays linked by a series of for its own sake. But he clearly Catholic martyrdom disconnected episodes. The thought deeply about the from such a different opening scenes are all about documentary basis of history, perspective? the insurrection that More about different notions of pacifies. The short episodes historical truth, and about the historical and cultural impact of his own follow, and then the story of More's arrest activity as a writer of a series of history plays and execution. The revisers were aware of of unparalleled ambition. He had a historical a structural weakness, because (apart from imagination. He also had a historiographical anything else) they sought to consolidate and connect the middle episodes. Sir Thomas More imagination.

Shakespeare's mainstream histories follow is a fascinating and nearly-cohesive play, but the model he found in the chronicles of even in its revised state it can at times have Hall and Holinshed in that they organize the disconnected 'scenes from the life of...' feel historical narrative around the lives of kings. of a second-rate biopic.

This is something that Sir Thomas More does not do. The pattern of rise and fall is — Every year newspaper headlines in different particularly prominent precisely because parts of the world claim, supported by academics, More is not a member of a royal family, or that William Shakespeare did not exist or that he even an aristocrat. The play exaggerates his was not the author of the popular plays, sonnets humble origin to make this even clearer. and poems that we know. The seminal work by

H 220

Page written by 'Hand D', supposedly William Shakespeare

H 221

Brian Vickers, Shakespeare, Co-Author: A of evidence that can be investigated in a Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays manuscript. But Sir Thomas More is remarkable (2004), examines the processes of collaboration even among the handful of manuscript plays. and the methods used by authors during the To do the counting: there are seven 'hands' in Elizabethan period, thus provides an evaluation of the sense of different handwritings: Anthony the claims made for Shakespeare’s co-authorship Munday as copyist of the original full-length of plays such as The Two Noble Kinsmen, play, Edmund Tilney, the court official who Henry VIII, among others. Do you think we censored it, four dramatists identified as can speak about co-authorship in the case Henry Chettle, Thomas Dekker, Thomas of Sir Thomas More? Isn’t it rather unusual Heywood, and Shakespeare who revised to find five different ‘hands’ working in the it, and an unknown 'Hand C', evidently a same play? Are there any other cases of such member of the theatre company, who coordinated the work of the collaborative enterpr ise revisers and copied out some d u r i n g S h a k e s p e a r e ’s The play deals with of their work. Tilney and lifetime? the parallel arrest Hand C are not dramatists, and execution of John a nd so t he number of — Actually, Vickers's findings Fisher, Archbishop of professional dra mat ists are all present in the earlier Canterbury, but only whos e ha nd i s d i rec t ly (1987) Textual Companion to very incidentally, as present in the manuscript the Oxford Shakespeare, and if to say that More's is, as you say, five. Munday his account of Shakespeare as secular status gives him probably had a collaborator collaborator fails to address his added value as the in drafting the original text; various other probable copoint of focus. but if as is usually argued that authored plays, of which the collaborator was Chettle, there are about thirteen in all. The pragmatic investigation of what the number of dramatists remains the same.

What is really remarkable is that four Shakespeare did and did not write is an ongoing project, and a very important aspect dramatists should be involved in the more of current Shakespeare scholarship. So too limited task of revising a play that already is the follow-on, our rethinking about the existed, rewriting less than a third of it in kind of authorial figure that Shakespeare is. total. Did this save time? Possibly not, for the Nevertheless, the extent of solo-authorship revisions were themselves revised, making in Shakespeare's case remains quite striking. the process of their evolution complex, and Collaboration was widely prevalent in Hand C had some difficulty in different dramatic writing of the period. To find more pieces of writing on different sheets of paper than one hand in Sir Thomas More is not at all into a continuous text that could be followed remarkable. But the number of hands present sequentially.

As a footnote: the arguments saying that in the play is remarkable indeed.

In referring to 'hands' we can speak of someone other than Shakespeare wrote his something that we usually don't see at all in works as a whole are palpably absurd and early modern English plays: the penmanship command no respect whatsoever. A useful in a manuscript. Most plays, including all collection of essays edited by Paul Edmonson other associated with Shakespeare, survive and Stanley Wells entitled Shakespeare Beyond only in print, which suppresses the kind Doubt (2013) addresses this issue.

H 222

— In one of the appendices of your edition to the play, you state that “[s]tylistic evidence suggests that it was Shakespeare who composed Addition III, a short new opening to the revised Scene 8, and perhaps also a short draft of Addition V which Heywood expanded” (p. 384). Can you describe and explain the most relevant elements that distinguish Shakespeare’s style from that of the other dramatists who participated in this editorial project?

— To beg i n wit h t he short passages: fragments of less than about 150 lines are very difficult to test stylometrically: that is to say, using tests that depend on quantitative results. The two additions in question belong to this class. But such passages can be examined for parallels of diction or phrasing, a task that has become both easier and, with care, more reliable since the advent of electronic databases such as Literature Online. At this level, 'style' is something conscious and literary. For

instance, to represent political disturbance in terms of a metaphor of a river overflowing its banks is recognisably Shakespearian. This does not mean that no-one else would write such a metaphor; but that Shakespeare kept returning to it, and that there is a recurrent vocabulary within the recurrent metaphor.

The relatively hard evidence comes only when a particular word or phrase is shared with Shakespeare but with no other member of a group of possible contenders.

It would take some time to answer the question further properly. To simplify the task I will confine myself to the style of Shakespeare and that of the original text, ignoring the revisers who worked with Shakespeare. The original text is, relatively speaking, light, whimsical, and sentimental, with touches of lyricism. The verse is relatively uniform, in that it is less strongly inflected according to the speaker, and more heavily rhymed. It is pleasant, though sometimes dissatisfyingly contrived in its small effects of wit:

downes:

Sir Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England, I arrest you in the King's name of high treason. more: Gramercies, friend.

To a great prison, to discharge the strife Commenced ’twixt conscience and my frailer life, More now must march. Chelsea, adieu, adieu.

Strange farewell: thou shalt ne’er more see More true, For I shall ne’er see thee more.—Servants, farewell.— Wife, mar not thine indifferent face. Be wise.

More’s widow’s husband, he must make thee rise.— Shakespeare is more intellectually and emotionally engaged and urgent. His units of articulation flex between the short and the very long. His metaphors are more pervasive

and more insistent. And Shakespeare is not afraid of throwing together the demotic and semi-comic prose of the citizens with the empassioned verse of More:

Imagine that you see the wretched strangers, Their babies at their backs, with their poor luggage, Plodding to th’ ports and coasts for transportation, And that you sit as kings in your desires, Authority quite silenced by your brawl, And you in ruff of your opinions clothed:

H 223

What had you got? I’ll tell you: you had taught How insolence and strong hand should prevail, How order should be quelled. And by this pattern Not one of you should live an aged man; For other ruffians, as their fancies wrought, With selfsame hand, self reasons, and self right, Would shark on you, and men, like ravenous fishes, Would feed on one another. doll: Before God, that’s as true as the gospel. george betts: Nay, this’ a sound fellow, I tell you. Let’s mark him.

Edmund Tilney, relative of Queen Elizabeth I, occupied the position of Master of the Revels for a long period in the history of English drama.

He was the Court official responsible for regulating and licensing plays; therefore, Sir Thomas More was submitted f or h i s r e v i s io n wh ic h has become a remarkable example of censorship in ea rly mo der n Eng la nd.

Some of his interventions are related to the early London riot scenes and to the passage dealing with the Oath of Succession when Rochester and More refused to sign the articles. Tilney required the playwrights to omit both episodes.

— Undoubtedly, the Oath passage directly challenged the authority of King Henry VIII, but insurrection scenes were licensed later in other Shakespearean plays such as Coriolanus and Antony and Cleopatra when Tilney was still in office. What is your opinion about this? Was censorship not as strong as before?

H 224

— It's worth keeping in mind that as far as we can see Shakespeare's contribution to Sir Thomas More was not censored; the censorship probably came some time before the revisers got to work. The theatre company must have thought that they could get the revised play past Tilney, and Shakespeare as the key dramatist must have agreed.

Tilney was heavy-handed in his earlier response to t he insurrection scenes, demanding that they should all be removed and replaced with a short indirect report of More's success in calming t h e m o b. T h e r e v i s e r s took another course and decided to rewrite much of the offending material; this very much suggests that circumstances had changed.

The exercise of censorship in early modern England was always dependent on the circumstances of the moment. It is probable that between the writing and censorship of the original text and its revision Queen

The best scene in the play was written by Shakespeare. It was added when the play was revised. In it, More intervenes to quell a riot of London citizens against foreign immigrants. He appeals to the notion of authority as a general principle: if one doesn't acknowledge authority, one subscribes to social chaos and the collapse of civility. And he asks the citizens the humanitarian question: what would it be like for you if you were exiled from home and treated barbarously in the place where you tried to settle?

Elizabeth had died and James I come to leaves in each box. Access is heavily restricted, and normally the librarians will deliver no power.

Sir Thomas More was asking for trouble more than one box at a time. This is odd in with Tilney from the outset. It touches various an ontological sense, in that to all practical political raw nerves. The most surprising purpose the manuscript as a whole does thing perhaps is that Tilney, despite taking not exist. It can also make study of the offence, didn't ban the play entirely. His manuscript difficult at times. For instance, message to the dramatists was: 'Leave out the I came to the conclusion that two leaves insurrection wholly and the cause thereof, stored in different boxes must had been cut and begin with Sir Thomas More at the Mayor’s from the same sheet (it seems to me that the sessions, with a report afterwards of his distribution and movement of sheets of paper good service done being Sheriff of London is a vital issue for understanding the process of revision). In this case the upon a mutiny against the librarians kindly granted Lombards—only by a short The most surprising special permission to look at report, and not otherwise, thing perhaps is that leaves from different boxes at your own perils.' In other Tilney, despite taking at the same time, so I could words, 'Go ahead with this offence, didn't ban examine such matters as the play, but on my terms only, the play entirely. spacing and off-vertical lean and at your risk'. For him, a His message to the of the chainlines in the paper. play on Thomas More was dramatists was: 'Go For day-to-day work in my not necessarily a bad thing. ahead with this play, but office I depended mainly on on my terms only, and at three resources: a black-and— The table of contents of your your risk'. For him, a play white photofacsimile of 1910, edition of Sir Thomas More on Thomas More was not of good quality for its time, includes a subtitle that reads: necessarily a bad thing.

W.W. Greg's letter-for-letter “An apocryphal play: editions transcript for the Malone from Dyce to Arden.” In what way do you feel your edition builds on the Society that was published a year later in work of previous editors and in what way 1911, and Vittorio Gabrielli and Giorgio does it differ? What were the most difficult Melichiori's 1990 edition for the Revels challenges you had to face when working series. In many respects Greg's facsimile is unlikely to be replaced. Greg knew what with the manuscript? he was doing, and some of the readings he — For an editor, Sir Thomas More has these was able to decypher in 1910 have since then characteristics: the editor's text is based on become lost through further deterioration of an original manuscript; that manuscript is the manuscript.

Gabrielli and Melchiori wrote a relatively extraordinarily complex; it is also heavily short introduction that mainly described damaged; and as compared with mainstream the manuscript and proposed an account of Shakespeare plays it has been little studied.

I worked closely on the manuscript in the its genesis. This was important scholarship, British Library in London. Each manuscript supported by separately published articles. leaf has been preserved by clamping it But I came to disagree with it in some between transparent sheets of rigid plastic. important respects, including the sequence These are stored in a series of boxes, five of events surroundi ng Shakespeare's

H 225

contribution, and the dating of both the play. No such account had previously been original text and the revisions. written, so there was plenty to do here too.

The sense of exploration, of undertaking Throughout my work I was aware of a original scholarship, was stronger with particular responsibility in editing the play t h is play t han wit h any for the Arden Shakespeare. other I have worked on.

This is only partly on account For an editor, Sir A nd publ ic at ion i n t he of the prestige and scholarly Thomas More has these Arden Shakespeare series credentials of the series, characteristics: the meant t hat I had plent y only partly on account of editor's text is based on of space to work in. The the rigorous but generous an original manuscript; textual study was the hard oversight of t he general that manuscript is part, and in some ways the editors Richard Proudfoot extraordinarily most crucial. Nevertheless, and Henry Woudhuysen. complex; it is also I didn't want the general The significance of the series heavily damaged; and reader to be con fronted for my editing of Sir Thomas as compared with with the technical aspects More was that the play had mainstream Shakespeare of the analysis in a way that never before been edited as plays it has been little would discourage t hem a member of a Shakespeare studied. from engaging wit h t he series. I referred before to play. I therefore consigned new ways of thinking about discussion of the manuscript, the hands Shakespeare that arise through attention to that are present in it, and questions of his work as a collaborator. My edition was dating to an extensive set of appendices. itself part of this development. It was staking The Introduction was freed up for thematic, out a claim for the play, and it was making historical, and theatrical criticism of the Shakespeare look different too.

H 226

H 227

About the Authors José Granados, DCJM. Vice-President of the Pontifical Institute John Paul II for Studies on Marriage and Family in both Washington DC and Rome.

Rémi Brague. French Philosopher. Professor at the Sorbonne (Paris), and at the Ludwig Maximilian University (Munich). 2012 Ratzinger Prize of Theology. Member of the Council of Consultants and Collaborators of humanitas Review.

William Carroll. Thomas Aquinas Fellow in Theology and Science at Blackfriars Hall, Oxford, and a member of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Oxford. Member of the Council of Consultants and Collaborators of humanitas Review.

Michael Smith, S.J. Professor at St. Aloysius’ College, Glasgow.

Pablo Verdier. Psychiatrist Professor of the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile.

Andrea Dall’Asta, S.J. Director of the St. Fedele Gallery of Milan Dom Anselmo Navarrete. Abbot of Saint Cross Abbey at Valle de los Caídos, Spain Gianfranco Morra. Sociologist at the Faculty of Political Science of the University of Bologna. He is member of Studi Cattolici.

Verónica Griffin. Collaborator of HUMANITAS review.

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Jaime Antúnez. Director of Humanitas review. PhD in Philosophy. Member of the Academy of Social, Political and Moral Sciences of the Institute of Chile.

Hernán Corral. PhD in Law. Former Dean and Professor of the Faculty of Law, University of Los Andes. Member of the Academy of Social, Political and Moral Sciences of the Institute of Chile.

Samuel Fernández. PhD in Theology. Former Dean and Professor of the Faculty of Theology of the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. Director of the Padre Alberto Hurtado Study Center.

Gabriel Guarda O.S.B. Abott Emeritus of the Benedictine Monastery of St. Trinity of Las Condes. National Prize for History, l984.

Member of the History Academy of the Institute of Chile.

René Millar. PhD in History. Former Dean of the Faculty of History, Geography and Political Sciences of the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. Full Professor of the History Institute. Member of the History Academy of the Institute of Chile.

Ricardo Riesco. PhD in Geography. Member of the Academy of Social, Political and Moral Sciences of the Institute of Chile.

Francisco Rosende. Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences of the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile.

Master of Arts in Economics, Chicago.

Juan de Dios Vial Correa. Former Rector of the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. Former President of the Pontifical Academy for Life. Member of the Academy of Sciences of the Institute of Chile.

Arturo Yrarrazával. PhD in Law. Former Dean of the Faculty of Law of the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile.

H 228

HUMANITAS Christian Anthropological and Cultural Review HUMANITAS review came into being to provide the University with a source of reflection and study at the service of the academic community and the wider public in general. Its objective is to reflect the concerns and teachings of the Papal Magisterium (Decree of the Rector from the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile 147/95, par. 2).

EDITOR Jaime Antúnez Aldunate EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Hernán Corral Talciani Samuel Fernández Eyzaguirre Gabriel Guarda O.S.B. René Millar Carvacho Pedro Morandé Court Ricardo Riesco Jaramillo Francisco Rosende Ramírez Juan de Dios Vial Correa Juan de Dios Vial Larraín Arturo Yrarrázaval Covarrubias ASSISTANT EDITOR Bernardita M. Cubillos WEB CONTENT MANAGER Francisco Javier Tagle Montt COUNCIL OF CONSULTANTS AND COLLABORATORS Honorary President: H.E. Cardinal Francisco Javier Errázuriz Ossa, Archbishop Emeritus of Santiago de Chile.

Héctor Aguer, Anselmo Álvarez O.S.B., Carl Anderson, Andrés Arteaga, Francisca Alessandri, Antonio Amado, Felipe Bacarreza, Rémi Brague, Jean-Louis Bruguès O.P., Rocco Buttiglione, Massimo Borghesi, Carlos Francisco Cáceres, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, Stratford Caldecott, Cardinal Antonio Cañizares, Jorge Cauas Lama, Guzmán Carriquiry, William E. Carroll, Alberto Caturelli, Cesare Cavalleri, Fernando Chomalí, Francisco Claro, Jesús Colina , Ricardo Couyoumdjian, Mario Correa Bascuñán, Francesco D’Agostino, Adriano Dell’Asta, Vittorio di Girolamo, Carmen Domínguez, Carlos José Errázuriz, Jesús Colina, Luis Fernando Figari, Alfredo García Quesada, Juan Ignacio González, Stanislaw Grygiel, Gonzalo Ibáñez SantaMaría, Raúl Hasbun, Henri Hude, José Miguel Ibáñez, Raúl Irarrázabal, Lydia Jiménez, Paul Johnson, Jean Laffitte, Nikolaus Lobkowicz, Alfonso López Quintás, Alejandro Llano, Raúl Madrid, Javier Martínez Fernández, Patricia Matte Larraín, Carlos Ignacio Massini Correas, Mauro Matthei O.S.B., Cardinal Jorge Medina, Livio Melina, Augusto Merino, Dominic Milroy O.S.B., Antonio Moreno Casamitjana, Fernando Moreno Valencia, Rodrigo Moreno Jeria, José Miguel Oriol, Máximo Pacheco Gómez, Mario Paredes, Francisco Petrillo O.M.D., Bernardino Piñera, Aquilino Polaino-Lorente, Cardinal Paul Poupard, Javier Prades, Dominique Rey, Héctor Riesle, Florián Rodero L.C., Alejandro San Francisco, Romano Scalfi, Cardinal Angelo Scola, David L. Schindler, Josef Seifert, Gisela Silva Encina, Robert Spaemann, Paulina Taboada, William Thayer Arteaga, Olga Ulianova, Luis Vargas Saavedra, Adriano Dell’Asta, Juan Velarde Fuertes, Aníbal Vial, Pilar Vigil, Richard Yeo O.S.B., Diego Yuuki S.J.

Council of Consultants and Collaborators Héctor Aguer: Archbishop of La Plata, Argentina.

Anselmo Álvarez O.S.B: Abbot of Santa Cruz del Valle de los Caídos.

Carl A nderson: Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus.

Andrés Arteaga: Assistant Bishop of Santiago.

Francisca Alessandri: Professor, Faculty for Journalism, PUC. Antonio Amado: Professor of Metaphysics, University of Los Andes.

Felipe Bacarreza: Bishop of Los Ángeles, Chile.

Rémi Brague: French Philosopher. Ratzinger Prize 2012.

Jean-Louis Bruguès O.P.: Archivist of the Vatican Secret Archives and Librarian of the Vatican Library, Bishop Emeritus of Angers, France.

Massimo Borghesi: Italian philosopher, senior professor of the University of Perugia, Italy.

Rocco Buttiglione: Italian philosopher and politician.

Carlos Francisco Cáceres: Member of the Academy of Social, Political and Moral Sciences, Institute of Chile.

Cardinal Carlo Caffarra: Archbishop of Bologna, Italy.

Stratford Caldecott: Director of the Centre for Faith and Culture, Oxford.

Cardinal Antonio Cañizares: Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Cult and the Discipline of Sacraments.

Jorge Cauas Lama: Member of the Academy of Social, Political and Moral Sciences, Institute of Chile.

Guzmán Carriquiry: Secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America.

William E. Carroll: Aquinas Fellow in Theology and Science, Blackfriars. Faculty of Theology, University of Oxford.

Alberto Caturelli: Argentine philosopher.

Cesare Cavalleri: Director of Studi Cattolici, Milan, Italy.

Fernando Chomalí: Archbishop of Concepción. Member of the Pontifical Academia Pro Vita, PUC. Francisco Claro: Professor at the Faculty for Physics, PUC. Jesús Colina: Director of Aleteia.

Ricardo Couyoumdjian: Professor History Institute, PUC. Member of the History Academy, Institute of Chile.

Mario Correa Bascuñán: Secretary General PUC, professor at the Law Faculty, PUC. Francesco D’Agostino: Professor of Philosophy of Law at the University Tor Vergata of Rome, former President of the National Bioethic Committee of Italy.

Adriano Dell’Asta: Professor, Catholic University, Milan, Italy.

Vittorio di Girólamo: Professor and art historian.

Carmen Domínguez: Director of the PUC Centre for the Family. Professor at the Law Faculty, PUC. Carlos José Errázuriz: Consultant of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, professor at Pontifical Università della Santa Croce.

Luis Fernando Figari: Founder of “Sodalicio de Vida Cristiana”, Lima, Peru.

Alfredo García Quesada: Pontifical Consultant for the Cultural Council, professor of the Pontifical and Civil Faculty of Theology, Lima, Peru.

Juan Ignacio González: Bishop of San Bernardo, Chile.

Stanislaw Grygiel: Polish philosopher, tenured lecturer of the John Paul II Chair, Lateranense University, Rome.

Raúl Hasbun: Priest of the Schöenstatt Congregation, professor at the Pontifical Senior Seminary of Santiago.

Henri Hude: French philosopher, former Rector of the Stanislas College, Paris.

Gonzalo Ibáñez Santa-María: Professor and former Rector of University Adolfo Ibáñez.

José Miguel Ibáñez Langlois: Theologian and poet.

Raúl Irarrázabal Covarrubias: Architect, President of the Chilean Association of the Order of Malta.

Paul Johnson: British historian.

Jean Laffitte: Bishop of Entrevaux. Secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Family.

Nikolaus Lobkowicz: Director of the Eastern and Central European Studies Institute, University of Eichstätt, Germany.

Alfonso López Quintás: Spanish philosopher. Member of the Royal Spanish Academy of Moral and Political Sciences.

Alejandro Llano: Spanish philosopher, former Rector of the University of Navarra, Spain.

Raúl Madrid: Professor, Law Faculty, PUC. Patricia Matte Larraín: Member of the Academy of Social, Political and Moral Sciences, Institute of Chile.

Mauro Matthei O.S.B: Benedictine monk and priest.

Historian.

Cardinal Jorge Medina: Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Javier Martínez Fernández: Archbishop of Granada, Spain.

Carlos Ignacio Massini Correas: Professor at the National University of Cuyo, Argentina.

Livio Melina: President of the John Paul II Pontifical Institute for Studies of Marriage and the Family.

Augusto Merino: Political Scientist, professor at University Adolfo Ibáñez.

Dominic Milroy O.S.B: Monk at Ampleforth, former Rector of the Ampleforth College, York (G.B.).

Fernando Moreno: Philosopher. Member of the Academy of Social, Political and Moral Sciences, Institute of Chile.

Rodrigo Moreno Jeria: Member of the Chilean Academy of History.

José Miguel Oriol: President of Editorial Encuentro, Madrid, Spain.

Mario J. Paredes: Director of Catholic Ministries at American Bible Society.

Francesco Petrillo O.M.D: General Superior of the Orden de la Madre de Dios.

Bernardino Piñera: Archbishop Emeritus of La Serena, Chile.

Aquilino Polaino-Lorente: Spanish psychiatrist.

Cardinal Paul Poupard: President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Culture.

Javier Prades: Dean of the Faculty for Theology at San Dámaso, Madrid, Spain. Member of the International Theological Commission.

Dominique Rey: Bishop of Tréjus-Toulon, France.

Florián Rodero L.C: Professor of Theology, Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum, Rome.

Alejandro San Francisco: Professor at the Institute of History, PUC. Romano Scalfi: Director of the Christian Russia Center, Milan, Italy.

Cardinal Angelo Scola: Archbishop of Milan.

David L. Schindler: Director of the John Paul II Institute for Studies of Marriage and the Family, Washington D.C., U.S.A. Josef Seifert: Austrian philosopher.

Gisela Silva Encina: Writer.

Robert Spaemann: German philosopher.

Paulina Taboada: Medical doctor, member of the Pontifical Academy Pro Vita.

William Thayer Arteaga: Member of the Academy of Social, Political and Moral Sciences, Institute of Chile.

Olga Uliánova: Ph. D. in History, University of Lomonosov, Moscow. Researcher at the University of Santiago.

Adriano Dell’Asta: Vice-president of Fondazione Russia Cristiana.

Juan Velarde Fuertes: Member of the Royal Spanish Academy of Moral and Political Sciences. Príncipe de Asturias Prize in Social Sciences (1992).

Aníbal Vial: Former Rector of University Santo Tomás.

Pilar Vigil: Medical doctor, member of the Pontifical Academy Pro Vita.

Richard Yeo O.S.B: Abbot and President of the Benedictine Congregation, England.

year iV

c h r i s t i a n a n t r hop ol o gic a l a n d c u lt u r a l r e v i e w / n º 7 / y e a r i v

Beatification of Paul VI Joseph Ratzinger What is Man

7

PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE

José Granados Reflections on Paternity