Gesu pianse...
Secondo un'articolo che e apparso in un'edizione speciale del giornale cattolico italiano Avvenire (19 marzo 2008) per segnalare la morte di Chiara Lubich, 'Hanno [i focolarini] deciso, "Niente lacrime a Roma [ai funerali della Lubich] perche non e morta. Vive per sempre in tutti noi." ' Piuttosto che dare una testimonianza della vita eterna ai milioni che hanno seguito la trasmissione in diretta su RAI 1 o sull'internet (e si suppone che questo era l'intenzione dei capi focolarini) questo atteggiamento stoico ha prestato una strana atmosfera di disagio agli avvenimenti. Un mio amico che non ha mai avuto contatti col movimento ma e familiare con le sue idee, mi ha detto che gli sembrava che i membri erano cosi abituati a ricevere ordini su come sentire e reagire che in queste circostanze straordinarie non sapevano come reagire affatto. In realta, avevano ricevuto istruzioni precisi su come comportarsi ed era questo che ha dato alla ceremonia l'aria di stranezza e distacco.
Io invece, un ex-membro che sente ancora affetto per tanti membri dell'Opera e certamente per la fondatrice - nonostante le mie tante obiezioni alle pratiche del movimento - era commosso fino al pianto e l'ho trovato molto strano che quelli che si vantano di essere i suoi seguaci piu fedeli sono rimasti impassivi. Solo don Oreste Basso, uno dei primi focolarini ed il 'co-presidente' del movimento dei Focolari, ha avuto un momento di commozione quando ha ringraziato i pezzi grossi presenti nel suo ruolo di rappresentate dell'Opera. Ma dall'altra parte, i vecchi hanno la tendenza alle lacrime ed e riuscito in poco tempo a calmarsi. Le prime compagne di Chiara, Eli Folonari e Graziella de Luca, invece hanno scherzato insieme fuori la Basilica dopo la ceremonia come fosse stata una Giornata od una Mariapoli molto riuscita.
I funerali della Lubich hanno messo in rilievo uno dei difetti piu grossi del movimento dei Focolari: la pressione sui membri di distaccarsi dalle loro emozioni. In questo caso, la pressione era cosi forte che la reazione spontanea della maggioranza dell'umanita in circostanze simili era assente. Suor Madeleine, fondatrice delle Piccole Sorelle di Gesu, disse una volta che prima di essere cristiani bisogna essere umani; ma questo e piuttosto difficile per i focolarini per i quali il termine stesso 'umano' e negativo!
I psicologi direbbero che il distacco dai propri sentimenti promosso dal movimento e patologico e molto pericoloso per la salute mentale. Difatti, puo darsi che questo sia la causa principale della depressione e malattia mentale che e cosi comune nel movimento a tutti livelli. Adesso che e scomparsa la fondatrice, un'indagine aperta e profonda su questo aspetto potrebbe essere di grande aiuto sia per i membri correnti sia per gli ex.
La vera buona novella non e certa una recetta per la malattia mentale. Se e veramente parola di Dio, deve essere proprio l'opposto. Mi ricordo, durante il mio soggiorno a Loppiano, del funerale di una ragazzina, figlia di focolarini sposati, che si e spenta in seguito ad una malattia ereditaria molto dolorosa. C'era un'amtosfera di celebrazione maniacale e neanche i genitori o fratelli hanno mostrato il minimo segno di tristezza o di lutto.
Mi domandai allora, ed mi sono domandato durante gli anni successivi, perche nessuno si e accorto che questo e lo stile dei focolarini e non del vangelo. Gesu era certamente in contatto con le sue emozioni e non temeva di mostrarle apertamente. In particolare, pianse sulla morte di Lazzaro, anche se doveva sapere che possedeva il potere di fargli risorgere.
Questo e sicuramente la reazione buona, umana alla morte di una persona cara. Ed e questo il cuore del problema. Cos'e la natura dell'amore predicato dai focolarini se e cosi disincarnato che sente nessuna reazione alla morte di una che ama al punto di essere pronto a morire per ella? Nella vita, come nella morte, la reazione alla perdita di amici che si suppone di essere cari e ugualmente fredda - come nel caso di membri che lasciano il movimento per esempio. E possibile che l'amore vero e compatibile con un tale mancanza di emozione?
Mi ha turbato per molto tempo che la virtu evangelica della compassione non trovava posto fra gli insegnamenti del movimento. Ma leggiamo che Gesu aveva compassione sulla folla e che pianse su quello che stava per avvenire a Gerusalemme. Si paragonava perfino ad una gallina che raccoglie i pulcini intorno a se: un'immagine piena di tenerezza ed emozione. Ma come possiamo aspettare che i foclarini riescono a 'sentire' o 'soffrire' con gli altri se mancono cosi tanto di fiducia nei sentimenti? Mi ricordo come, poco temo dopo essere uscito dal focolare, era commosso da un programma all TV, o forse era un film, che mi fece piangere per la prima volta in quasi dieci anni - il periodo durante il quale facevo parte del movimento. Non mi ero commosso in tutti quegli anni, ma di colpo i miei sentimenti erano liberati dalla loro prigione.
Ma com'e possibile obbedire al commandamento di Gesu 'Piangete con quelli che piangono' se non riusciamo a piangere noi stessi? Piuttosto che seguire la linea stoica dei focolarini, preferisco prendere la via indicata da Gesu: 'Beati quelli che fanno cordoglio perche saranno consolati.'
Monday 19 July 2010
Jesus Wept...
(This is an article I wrote immediately after watching the live internet broadcast of the funeral of Chiara Lubich, Founder of the Focolare Movement.)
According to an article that appeared in a special edition of the Italian Catholic daily Avvenire (19 March 2008) to mark the death of Chiara Lubich, ‘They [the focolarini] decided, “No tears in Rome [at Chiara’s funeral] because she is not dead. She lives for ever in all of us.” ' Rather than giving a witness to the millions who followed the live broadcast on Italian television or the internet feed - which was presumably what the Focolare old guard intended - this stoical approach lent an eerie atmosphere of uncertainty to the proceedings. A friend of mine who has had no contact with focolare but is familiar with its ethos, had the impression that the members were so used to being told what to feel and how to react that in these unprecedented circumstances they simply didn’t know what the appropriate response should be. In reality, they had been instructed exactly how to behave and it was this very fact that gave to the event its strange, unengaged quality.
As an ex-member who still feels affection for members of the movement and certainly for Chiara, despite my many criticisms of the organisation, I was moved to tears by the funeral and found it odd that those who profess themselves to be her most devoted followers remained dry-eyed. Only Oreste Basso, one of the first focoalrini and the ’Copresident’ of Focolare, broke down when he approached the altar to thank the distinguished guests on behalf of the movement, but then old men are notoriously prone to tears and he struggled successfully to regain his composure. Chiara’s first companions Eli Folonari and Graziella de Luca, on the other hand, had a jolly chat outside the basilica at the end of the funeral as though they had just concluded a successful Day Meeting.
Chiara Lubich’s funeral shone a very public spotlight on one of the Focolare Movement’s most serious shortcomings: the detachment from feelings encouraged in members. In this case, it was so strong that the spontaneous reaction most human beings would experience in such circumstances was absent. Sister Madeleine, founder of the Little Sisters of Jesus, once said that in order to be Christian, it is necessary to be human first; but that is rather difficult in the Focolare Movement in which ‘human’ is a negative term.
Psychologists would say that the detachment from ones emotions that this Movement promotes is pathological and dangerous. Indeed, it could well be the principal reason for the prevalence of depression and mental illness to be found in Focolare from the top down. Now that the Founder is dead, current and former members of the movement would benefit greatly from a probing and truthful investigation into this aspect.
The genuine gospel message is certainly not a recipe for mental illness . If it is truly God’s Word, it should be just the opposite. I remember attending the funeral of a child at Loppiano, the daughter of married focolarini, who had died after suffering terribly from a painful congenital illness. The atmosphere was one of manic rejoicing and not even the parents or siblings let slip any indications of sadness or mourning.
I wondered then, and I have wondered down the years, why no one pointed out that this is the Focolare approach and certainly not that of the gospel. Jesus was very much in touch with his emotions and did not shrink from showing them in public. In particular, he wept over Lazarus’ death, even though he must have known he had the power to raise him up.
This is surely the good, human reaction to the loss of a loved one. And here is the nub of the problem. What exactly is the nature of the love that Focolare preaches if it is so disembodied, so disincarnate, that it feels no reaction to the loss of someone one claims to have loved to the point of being ready to lay down ones life for them? In life, as in death, the reaction to the loss of close friends is remarkably cold - as in the case of members who leave the movement for example. Can real love be compatible with such a lack of feeling?
I have long been troubled that the gospel virtue of compassion was never mentioned in Focolare teachings. Yet we read that Jesus had compassion on the multitude and that he wept over the fate of Jerusalem. He even compared himself to a mother hen gathering her chicks: a more tender and emotion-filled image would be hard to find. Yet how can the focolarini be expected to ‘feel’ or ‘suffer’ with others if they mistrust feelings so much. I remember how, shortly after leaving Focolare, I was moved by a television programme or a film which made me weep for the first time in nearly ten years. My emotions had been released from their prison. How can we obey Jesus’ command to ‘Weep with those who weep’ if we are unable to weep ourselves? Rather than follow the stoical line of the movement, I prefer to follow the path that Jesus indicated: ‘Blessed are those who mourn for they shall be comforted.
According to an article that appeared in a special edition of the Italian Catholic daily Avvenire (19 March 2008) to mark the death of Chiara Lubich, ‘They [the focolarini] decided, “No tears in Rome [at Chiara’s funeral] because she is not dead. She lives for ever in all of us.” ' Rather than giving a witness to the millions who followed the live broadcast on Italian television or the internet feed - which was presumably what the Focolare old guard intended - this stoical approach lent an eerie atmosphere of uncertainty to the proceedings. A friend of mine who has had no contact with focolare but is familiar with its ethos, had the impression that the members were so used to being told what to feel and how to react that in these unprecedented circumstances they simply didn’t know what the appropriate response should be. In reality, they had been instructed exactly how to behave and it was this very fact that gave to the event its strange, unengaged quality.
As an ex-member who still feels affection for members of the movement and certainly for Chiara, despite my many criticisms of the organisation, I was moved to tears by the funeral and found it odd that those who profess themselves to be her most devoted followers remained dry-eyed. Only Oreste Basso, one of the first focoalrini and the ’Copresident’ of Focolare, broke down when he approached the altar to thank the distinguished guests on behalf of the movement, but then old men are notoriously prone to tears and he struggled successfully to regain his composure. Chiara’s first companions Eli Folonari and Graziella de Luca, on the other hand, had a jolly chat outside the basilica at the end of the funeral as though they had just concluded a successful Day Meeting.
Chiara Lubich’s funeral shone a very public spotlight on one of the Focolare Movement’s most serious shortcomings: the detachment from feelings encouraged in members. In this case, it was so strong that the spontaneous reaction most human beings would experience in such circumstances was absent. Sister Madeleine, founder of the Little Sisters of Jesus, once said that in order to be Christian, it is necessary to be human first; but that is rather difficult in the Focolare Movement in which ‘human’ is a negative term.
Psychologists would say that the detachment from ones emotions that this Movement promotes is pathological and dangerous. Indeed, it could well be the principal reason for the prevalence of depression and mental illness to be found in Focolare from the top down. Now that the Founder is dead, current and former members of the movement would benefit greatly from a probing and truthful investigation into this aspect.
The genuine gospel message is certainly not a recipe for mental illness . If it is truly God’s Word, it should be just the opposite. I remember attending the funeral of a child at Loppiano, the daughter of married focolarini, who had died after suffering terribly from a painful congenital illness. The atmosphere was one of manic rejoicing and not even the parents or siblings let slip any indications of sadness or mourning.
I wondered then, and I have wondered down the years, why no one pointed out that this is the Focolare approach and certainly not that of the gospel. Jesus was very much in touch with his emotions and did not shrink from showing them in public. In particular, he wept over Lazarus’ death, even though he must have known he had the power to raise him up.
This is surely the good, human reaction to the loss of a loved one. And here is the nub of the problem. What exactly is the nature of the love that Focolare preaches if it is so disembodied, so disincarnate, that it feels no reaction to the loss of someone one claims to have loved to the point of being ready to lay down ones life for them? In life, as in death, the reaction to the loss of close friends is remarkably cold - as in the case of members who leave the movement for example. Can real love be compatible with such a lack of feeling?
I have long been troubled that the gospel virtue of compassion was never mentioned in Focolare teachings. Yet we read that Jesus had compassion on the multitude and that he wept over the fate of Jerusalem. He even compared himself to a mother hen gathering her chicks: a more tender and emotion-filled image would be hard to find. Yet how can the focolarini be expected to ‘feel’ or ‘suffer’ with others if they mistrust feelings so much. I remember how, shortly after leaving Focolare, I was moved by a television programme or a film which made me weep for the first time in nearly ten years. My emotions had been released from their prison. How can we obey Jesus’ command to ‘Weep with those who weep’ if we are unable to weep ourselves? Rather than follow the stoical line of the movement, I prefer to follow the path that Jesus indicated: ‘Blessed are those who mourn for they shall be comforted.
Wednesday 7 July 2010
New Pontifical Council: in the midst of scandal, the New Movements more than ever the Great White Hope of the Vatican
On 28th June, Pope Benedict XVI announced the foundation of the first new Vatican organisation of his reign, indeed the first of its kind to be created in a quarter of a century. This year has seen what has probably been one of the most difficult periods in the history of the modern papacy. A beleaguered Vatican has struggled to respond to accusations from around the world relating to the paedophile priests scandal and attempts to hush it up. The Pontiff himself has been implicated - both when he was an archbishop in Germany and subsequently Prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - in moves to save the Church's face and the skins of those accused. The Catholic hierarchy - and even the Vatican itself - is facing high profile legal action in a number of countries of the world. This is a scandal that is likely to go on causing serious difficulties for the Church and undermining its authority for years to come.
Against this background, the announcement of a new Vatican body, marks an unexpected and bullish change of direction in the Ratzinger papacy - or perhaps a determined effort by Benedict XVI to get his pontificate back on message and achieve what he always had in mind.
The organisation will be known as the Pontifical Council for New Evangelisation and its principal aim will be a cause which was already an over-riding concern of Jozef Ratzinger when he was still the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - to combat the rising tide of secularism in Europe and the Americas, particularly in the former strongholds of Catholicism. The announcement is nothing less than a mission statement, responding as it does to new legislation which has come into force in recent month in traditionally Catholic countries. When visiting the pilgrimage centre of Fatima, Portugal, in May, in a speech to a crowd of half a million faithful, Benedict denounced the legalising of gay marriage in that country - it had just been signed into law by the President - as an 'insidious and dangerous' threat. In June a new liberal abortion law came into effect in Spain.
The creation of the new Vatican institution gives a clear signal that Pope Benedict's pontificate is back on track. A firm line has been drawn in the sand. But, in fact, this has been the Pontiff's aim from the start of his pontificate: the very choice of the name Benedict recalls the saint responsible for the re-Christianisation of Europe in a much earlier age. Just a day before his predecessor died, the then Cardinal Ratzinger delivered a speech condemning European secularism and analysing its historical roots. Significantly he chose Subiaco - the cradle of the Benedictine order - as the location for his statement. To underline its import still further, the occasion was his acceptance of the St Benedict Award for the promotion of life and the family in Europe.
The vehicle that Benedict has chosen for his new foundation is significant. The Pontifical Councils were created by John Paul II in the eighties in a major shakeup of Vatican structures. Their aim was to circumvent the lumbering bureaucracy of the Church's central government. The Councils were to be task-forces ready to strike instantly at any point of the globe at a word from the Pontiff - his praetorian guard. At the time there were 11 such organisations and, though many of them were based on existing bodies, each was concerned with an issue or group of particular concern to John Paul such as the Family, the Laity, Justice and Peace or - the only Council he created from scratch - Health Workers. It is a sign of the pro-active, practical nature that Benedict envisages for his new body that he has placed it within this category.
For anyone familiar with the New Catholic Movements, the term 'new evangelisation' will strike an immediate chord. As I pointed out in my book The Pope's Armada, first published in the United Kingdom in 1995, not only did this term become the rallying cry of Pope John Paul II's reign - a fact acknowledged by Pope Benedict in his speech announcing the foundation of the new Council - but it also became synonymous with the evangelising movements that were so dear to John Paul's heart. Vast papal rallies such as the World Youth Day and the Pope's Meeting with Families, which became the defining examples of the 'new evangelisation', were in fact based on similar events created by the New Movements.
There is every reason to believe that the formation of this new body in the Roman Curia signifies a central role for the movements in Pope Ratzinger's vision for the future of the Church. Firstly it was Ratzinger, theologian in chief of the reign of John Paul II, who provided the theological underpinning for the New Movements and their special bond with the papacy. According to the ranzingerian interpretation, only the Pope could recognise such new groups within the Church - as was the case with the mendicant orders of the Middle Ages - and thus at a stroke, he silenced the loud objections of local bishops who feared the disruptive influence of the Movements within the traditional structures of diocese and parish, and harnessed their tremendous power (both spiritual and material) to the throne of Peter. The movements and the papacy gave each other legitimacy and renewed force. If a new centralisation had been a key feature of the reign of John Paul, following the tendency to de-centralisation in the post-Conciliar years, Ratzinger had been its chief architect. The Movements had been placed firmly within this vision of Catholicism.
Secondly, when Benedict came to power, he talked repeatedly of a slimmed-down Church shorn of its dissenting or fringe members, but renewed in commitment and conviction: he seemed to be describing the New Movements. This was underlined when one of his first actions in office was to summon a meeting of these organisations for Pentecost 2005, identical to one of the largest and most significant gatherings of his predecessor's reign when that Pontiff met with the Movements in St Peter's Square on the feast of Pentecost 1998.
Thirdly, in the wake of the recent scandals in which the Catholic priesthood and even the hierarchy have been demonised by the press and in public opinion, this is the perfect moment to place lay movements centre-stage. Fifteen years ago, I pointed out in The Pope's Armada that John Paul II had sidelined the traditional religious orders, which he saw as rebellious and recalcitrant, in favour of the New Movements. Since then, these organisations have consolidated their position in the Vatican corridors of power, with members appointed to key roles in all the major Vatican bodies. On the other hand, many of those involved in the paedophile scandals have been members of the traditional religious orders. Indeed one of the most shocking and high-profile scandals of all involved Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, the Mexican founder of one of the newest religious orders, the Legionaries of Christ, much beloved of John Paul II. Not only was he addicted to prescription drugs and systematically sexually abused young boys for decades in the many seminaries he had set up to provide vocations to his order, but after his death in 2008, it turned out that he had secretly fathered children to at least two women. If ever there was a time it was in the Church's interest to switch attention from the clergy and religious and onto the laity, this is it.
Clearly the Movements are not unaware of the role they can play in improving the Church's image at this time of crisis. On 16th of May 2010, tens of thousands of their members converged on St Peter's Square for the Pope's traditional Sunday lunchtime appearance for the Angelus, to demonstrate their solidarity with the See of Peter. 200,000 members of the movements packed the Square in an orchestrated show of strength of which only these organisations are capable. The Pope was visibly moved and the press was impressed - dubbing the event Papa Day. And perhaps the Movements are also aware of a golden opportunity they have been offered to claim their position as 'The New Protagonists' of the Catholic Church, as they were designated in the title of a critical book written about them by a Rome-based theologian in the 1990s.
So it does not come as a huge surprise to discover a direct link between the new Council and the Movements. According to a report in the Italian daily Il Giornale written in April this year, accurately predicting the creation of the new Vatican organisation, it had first been suggested to Pope John Paul II in the early 1980s by Father Luigi Giussani, founder of the Communion and Liberation Movement. It was once again suggested just over a year ago to the current Pontiff by the highest placed member of that movement, Cardinal Angelo Scola, the Patriarch of Venice, who could well be a candidate for the next pope. This time the suggestion was seized on with enthusiasm by the Vatican's new incumbent. It is known that, while favourable to all the Movements, Pope Benedict has always found Communion and Liberation most congenial to his intellectual and traditionalist approach. He has remained supportive despite the organisation's sometimes questionable antics in Italian politics, especially in the 1990s, and was even instrumental in restoring good relations with Church's central government. It was Cardinal Ratzinger who represented the Vatican at the funeral of Father Giussani in 2005, presiding over the requiem mass and delivering the eulogy. The papal household is currently run by a group of women from Communion and Liberation's branch of consecrated members, the Memores Domini.
Till now, the New Movements have been lumped together with the rest of the Catholic laity under the aegis of the Pontifical Council for the Laity. Now it could be said that they finally have a Council tailored to their goals. It will be fascinating to watch the developments of the new body over the coming months as, against the disarray and scandal among the clergy and the hierarchy, the New Movements more than ever come into their own.
Against this background, the announcement of a new Vatican body, marks an unexpected and bullish change of direction in the Ratzinger papacy - or perhaps a determined effort by Benedict XVI to get his pontificate back on message and achieve what he always had in mind.
The organisation will be known as the Pontifical Council for New Evangelisation and its principal aim will be a cause which was already an over-riding concern of Jozef Ratzinger when he was still the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - to combat the rising tide of secularism in Europe and the Americas, particularly in the former strongholds of Catholicism. The announcement is nothing less than a mission statement, responding as it does to new legislation which has come into force in recent month in traditionally Catholic countries. When visiting the pilgrimage centre of Fatima, Portugal, in May, in a speech to a crowd of half a million faithful, Benedict denounced the legalising of gay marriage in that country - it had just been signed into law by the President - as an 'insidious and dangerous' threat. In June a new liberal abortion law came into effect in Spain.
The creation of the new Vatican institution gives a clear signal that Pope Benedict's pontificate is back on track. A firm line has been drawn in the sand. But, in fact, this has been the Pontiff's aim from the start of his pontificate: the very choice of the name Benedict recalls the saint responsible for the re-Christianisation of Europe in a much earlier age. Just a day before his predecessor died, the then Cardinal Ratzinger delivered a speech condemning European secularism and analysing its historical roots. Significantly he chose Subiaco - the cradle of the Benedictine order - as the location for his statement. To underline its import still further, the occasion was his acceptance of the St Benedict Award for the promotion of life and the family in Europe.
The vehicle that Benedict has chosen for his new foundation is significant. The Pontifical Councils were created by John Paul II in the eighties in a major shakeup of Vatican structures. Their aim was to circumvent the lumbering bureaucracy of the Church's central government. The Councils were to be task-forces ready to strike instantly at any point of the globe at a word from the Pontiff - his praetorian guard. At the time there were 11 such organisations and, though many of them were based on existing bodies, each was concerned with an issue or group of particular concern to John Paul such as the Family, the Laity, Justice and Peace or - the only Council he created from scratch - Health Workers. It is a sign of the pro-active, practical nature that Benedict envisages for his new body that he has placed it within this category.
For anyone familiar with the New Catholic Movements, the term 'new evangelisation' will strike an immediate chord. As I pointed out in my book The Pope's Armada, first published in the United Kingdom in 1995, not only did this term become the rallying cry of Pope John Paul II's reign - a fact acknowledged by Pope Benedict in his speech announcing the foundation of the new Council - but it also became synonymous with the evangelising movements that were so dear to John Paul's heart. Vast papal rallies such as the World Youth Day and the Pope's Meeting with Families, which became the defining examples of the 'new evangelisation', were in fact based on similar events created by the New Movements.
There is every reason to believe that the formation of this new body in the Roman Curia signifies a central role for the movements in Pope Ratzinger's vision for the future of the Church. Firstly it was Ratzinger, theologian in chief of the reign of John Paul II, who provided the theological underpinning for the New Movements and their special bond with the papacy. According to the ranzingerian interpretation, only the Pope could recognise such new groups within the Church - as was the case with the mendicant orders of the Middle Ages - and thus at a stroke, he silenced the loud objections of local bishops who feared the disruptive influence of the Movements within the traditional structures of diocese and parish, and harnessed their tremendous power (both spiritual and material) to the throne of Peter. The movements and the papacy gave each other legitimacy and renewed force. If a new centralisation had been a key feature of the reign of John Paul, following the tendency to de-centralisation in the post-Conciliar years, Ratzinger had been its chief architect. The Movements had been placed firmly within this vision of Catholicism.
Secondly, when Benedict came to power, he talked repeatedly of a slimmed-down Church shorn of its dissenting or fringe members, but renewed in commitment and conviction: he seemed to be describing the New Movements. This was underlined when one of his first actions in office was to summon a meeting of these organisations for Pentecost 2005, identical to one of the largest and most significant gatherings of his predecessor's reign when that Pontiff met with the Movements in St Peter's Square on the feast of Pentecost 1998.
Thirdly, in the wake of the recent scandals in which the Catholic priesthood and even the hierarchy have been demonised by the press and in public opinion, this is the perfect moment to place lay movements centre-stage. Fifteen years ago, I pointed out in The Pope's Armada that John Paul II had sidelined the traditional religious orders, which he saw as rebellious and recalcitrant, in favour of the New Movements. Since then, these organisations have consolidated their position in the Vatican corridors of power, with members appointed to key roles in all the major Vatican bodies. On the other hand, many of those involved in the paedophile scandals have been members of the traditional religious orders. Indeed one of the most shocking and high-profile scandals of all involved Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, the Mexican founder of one of the newest religious orders, the Legionaries of Christ, much beloved of John Paul II. Not only was he addicted to prescription drugs and systematically sexually abused young boys for decades in the many seminaries he had set up to provide vocations to his order, but after his death in 2008, it turned out that he had secretly fathered children to at least two women. If ever there was a time it was in the Church's interest to switch attention from the clergy and religious and onto the laity, this is it.
Clearly the Movements are not unaware of the role they can play in improving the Church's image at this time of crisis. On 16th of May 2010, tens of thousands of their members converged on St Peter's Square for the Pope's traditional Sunday lunchtime appearance for the Angelus, to demonstrate their solidarity with the See of Peter. 200,000 members of the movements packed the Square in an orchestrated show of strength of which only these organisations are capable. The Pope was visibly moved and the press was impressed - dubbing the event Papa Day. And perhaps the Movements are also aware of a golden opportunity they have been offered to claim their position as 'The New Protagonists' of the Catholic Church, as they were designated in the title of a critical book written about them by a Rome-based theologian in the 1990s.
So it does not come as a huge surprise to discover a direct link between the new Council and the Movements. According to a report in the Italian daily Il Giornale written in April this year, accurately predicting the creation of the new Vatican organisation, it had first been suggested to Pope John Paul II in the early 1980s by Father Luigi Giussani, founder of the Communion and Liberation Movement. It was once again suggested just over a year ago to the current Pontiff by the highest placed member of that movement, Cardinal Angelo Scola, the Patriarch of Venice, who could well be a candidate for the next pope. This time the suggestion was seized on with enthusiasm by the Vatican's new incumbent. It is known that, while favourable to all the Movements, Pope Benedict has always found Communion and Liberation most congenial to his intellectual and traditionalist approach. He has remained supportive despite the organisation's sometimes questionable antics in Italian politics, especially in the 1990s, and was even instrumental in restoring good relations with Church's central government. It was Cardinal Ratzinger who represented the Vatican at the funeral of Father Giussani in 2005, presiding over the requiem mass and delivering the eulogy. The papal household is currently run by a group of women from Communion and Liberation's branch of consecrated members, the Memores Domini.
Till now, the New Movements have been lumped together with the rest of the Catholic laity under the aegis of the Pontifical Council for the Laity. Now it could be said that they finally have a Council tailored to their goals. It will be fascinating to watch the developments of the new body over the coming months as, against the disarray and scandal among the clergy and the hierarchy, the New Movements more than ever come into their own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
