Rita Salerno (courtesy)
  

Italian version

Since January 2005, Brunetto Salvarani is the Director of the monthly CEM Mondiality and movement of the Xaverian fathers in Brescia, the first layman in the seventy years history of the mentioned magazine. In 1995, he obtained the Licentiate in Theology of Evangelisation from the Academic Theological Study of Bologna (STAB) with a thesis on the exegesis of the Old Testament , “At the defence of Job and Solomon, Giacomo Leopardi and the Bible”. He is among the national experts of Caritas Pax Christi Italia, of Rinascita cristiana, of Alfa-Omega and of the Segretariato Attività Ecumeniche (SAE). He is also a member of the Comitato Bibbia Cultura Scuola (a committee which proposes to favour the presence of the sacred texts and of the Hebrew-Christian tradition in the curriculum of our school institutions). As member of the ATI (Associazione Teologi Italiani and of the AETC, association of European theologians) he collaborates with several Master post-doctorates, giving lessons on topics of Biblical character and intercultural education in the Government Universities of Padova, Siena, Bologna and the Catholic University of Milan. As newspaperman, he participated in the fourth ecclesial congress of Verona.

In the Verona Congress, the Pope reiterated that the “Church is not and does not intend to be a political agent” and that the lay faithful committed to this field “works as citizen under his own personal responsiblility”. What image of the Church emerges in the light of the fourth congress in Verona and of the words pronounced by Benedict XVI?

“What emerges is the image of an Italian Church that, during the latest years, has concentrated her attention on the modality of being present in society.  It is a dense operation of re-thinking after the end of the Catholics’ political unity. This has been the important theme made compulsory by the passage from the first to the second republic, with the disappearance of the catholic party, namely of the Christian Democracy, of a season in which the Church had implicitly entrusted her own political issues to the said party. The successive theme was quite delicate. Probably, there was a moment in which they considered the hypothesis of bringing the party to life again.

I think that the words of Benedict XVI, quoted by the above-question, have put an end to this hypothesis, in case it is still present in somebody’s horizon at political level and the civilian, as the Pope said, acts under his own personal responsibility. This is an important relevance, provided it is not a total withdrawal from the community. I think that the question has two consequences today: the first is that the lay Catholic citizens, who are probably concerned with politics, must feel supported in the discussion and reflection of the community and not of b series, the other is linked to the necessary attention, which parishes and local churches pay to politics. We cannot consider this as something to be left exclusively in the hands of the persons assigned to work. It should be one of the natural tasks of the faithful. He should not be afraid of dirtying hid hands or of suffering judgements at ideology level. To me, it is important that politics may become more and more a horizon of work, of interpretation of reality on behalf of the local Churches, This iis actually what happens every day without our being aware of it. Today, we risk of considering only the negative component of politics, as a management of power or a split, while there is a relevant part linked to the civil community, to relations with the city, the urban transformations. It is decisive, at this level, that the Catholic civilians be present with their contribution, rather than withdrawing.  

What are the difference and the common points between the Verona Congress and that of Palermo?

”First I must say that I was not present in Palermo. I lived the congress through the narration of the witnesses and the readings, while I was present in Verona as a newspaperman. Eleven years have passed and we feel this very much. It has been a historically very dense period, with the acceleration of some processes and retardation of others. Above all, it has been a period of progressive erosion of the Christian dimension in a country like Italy. However, this does not mean that a popular dimension of Italian Catholicism exists no longer. To me, this seems to be a characteristic feature of Verona, perhaps also in relation with Verona. In fact, one of the most clearly recurring points in the fondant theological reflection of Brambilla is just this recuperation of the popular dimension of Catholicism in Italy. Thus, it is the matter of seeing what it means, not of bearing it, as he himself said, but of giving value to this dimension. Naturally, this is the task, which now waits for us. What has impressed me most is that, while in Palermo they took seriously into consideration the dynamics of the religious pluralism, which is now evidently imposing itself on everybody’s attention, with not always positive results, in Verona I felt that it was somehow omitted, a thing which shows the importance of working together.  I refer to the fact that in Palermo they entrusted the morning meditation to a Valdensian pastor, to a Rabbi, to a Muslim Iman and an Orthodox pope. They valued this dimension. In Verona, instead, there were the greetings of a Hebrew, of a Valdensian and an Orthodox My impression of the specific weight of this presence and of the dialogue theme, which is particularly dear to me, is that we have not faced it in a particularly deep manner. This has happened paradoxically, despite the preparatory document and number fourteen which speaks about the importance of working at ecumenical level in a European perspective.  I think that this ecumenical and inter-religious issue has not emerged much in the hall and in the results of the five foci. I know that something emerged here and there in the debate, which sparked off out of the five areas, yet in reality it was surely not a decisive element. Personally, I think that if this is not a step backward, it is surely a perplexity, if compared with what appeared as an evident trajectory.  Clearly, my basic choice is from a given angle of view, because Palermo was mainly an underlining of the Gospel of charity, while Verona underlined the choice of the popular Catholicism as an Italian model, which has still something to say even today in a season like the actual secularisation. This probably can attempt to propose itself as a model at European level.”

Which task does Christianity in Italy waits for after the Congress in Verona? What is the role of Consecrted Life in this journey?

“It is a burdensome and serious task. The demand of being a serious Christian today, in a Country like the one we live in, is quite binding. There is an evident erosion of numbers and meaningfulness in the Christianity and evangelical life of this country. I agree to the analysis of Ruini about the strong risk of indifference and irrelevance. We have the task of restoring the sense and significance of the Gospel life, asking ourselves seriously, what it actually demands. It is the matter of going deep into a process, which implies less priests, imported from countries rich in vocations. It is also the need of amalgamating the  parishes, a reduced presence of mature and aged generations in the Mass,  rather than of youths; scarce participation of boys and girls in the life of the parish, scarce incidence of the associative and active dimension, which in the past years seemed one of the most characteristic elements of the post-council period. I think that these things are still all present, without mentioning what they call “the submerged schism”. I mean those phenomena of silent desertions of religious-practices and interest towards religion, without anyone perceiving it as a serious problem. All this is something very much binding. I think that Verona has somehow caught here and there some aspects of this scenario, though probably no answer emerges from it. Perhaps we cannot expect these answers from Verona’s appointment, at least some assumption of increased responsibility before an opportune time.

It is a serious commitment still needful of a qualitative leap, also compared to the fundamental dimension of discussion within the Church, which is hardly utilised, as well as sketchy and fragmentary. I think that there is a certain respect towards some burning themes and too little desire of debating them within oneself. This is quite evident, even if we study attentively some cultural choices during these years. We cannot forget the role of Consecrated Life, which, to me, is a formidable richness of the Church. This is not just a statement of principle. It is the evaluation of different journeys, which we can hardly imagine today. To me, the most serious problem is that we find it difficult to resume the Pauline talk on the evaluation of charismas. In our Church, there are many buried charismas, which live an underground dimension. It is desirable that the hierarchy questioned itself on how much value we are giving to the richness of these charismas. Within this richness, I think that consecrated life, with its sensitivity towards prayer and mystical tradition, is a precious and modern gift, not old or already obsolete, at all.  This is a big question mark to me, because my wish is that we may give a large space to it. The voices saying something new today come from the world of religious orders or from the new monasticism. I think that this is a signal needful to be pondered deeply”.

Which proposal of Christian experience do we address to today’s man?

“This is the question of questions. We could divide it into two parts: which proposal we make and which one we should make today, in the light of the actual situation. To me, the proposal, which we concretely make today, is one of a traditionalist belonging, or of traditional type. In it the values are of a traditional belonging, of a local Catholic identity with the sharing of some values and not of others, which are underlined. For instance, they are the today’s fundamentally defined, not negotiable values. Near these ones, there are others sufficiently neglected. To me, this is something that risks missing a very important aspect of our Christian experience. I refer, for instance, to all the values concerning the area of peace, of social justice and of welcoming the least ones.  I think that the Christian experience would find more useful responses if it were more complete, more evangelical. The fundamental value is Jesus. The easy and at the same time difficult theme would be that of proposing Jesus as the Man who deeply interpreted the progeny with God and welcomed others in a sublime manner. This is what today man needs is most”.

Father Bartolomeo Sorge, director of the magazine “Aggiornamenti Sociali”, has written an article launching the proposal of a place where pastors and laity could meet for a reciprocal confrontation.

“I think that it would be important to debate and speak of it. Admitted that I would see it as good, I fear also the result of some forms of participating democracy. People diffused this after the Council, but did not find a real response to the exigencies of the local Church. I think of the pastoral councils, which, to me, are experiences with heavy breath. Certainly, in Verona there has been the emergency, as signal of a cultural backwardness, of wanting to give more value to the laity in the ecclesial dynamics. This is very true and obvious. However, it is negative, because it emerged in an old and obsolete modality, just as if the laypersons should have more space compared to that of the priests who should withdraw to create the space and power for them. All this has called to my mind past debates after the Council, debates, which I thought to be already obsolete. If this is the theme, I must say that the modality does not make me enthusiastic. However, if behind this issue there is, as I hope, the theme of giving value to the public opinion within the Church and of a real debate, I would welcome it as indisputable”.

Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi, Archbishop of Milan and president of the preparatory committee, hopes for the Church and society the so defined “triad”, namely a journey of communion, collaboration and co-responsibility. How do you evaluate this wish? To you, is this “triad” reserved to the Church in Italy or to every local Church?

“I evaluate it very positively since it is linked to a trajectory which the Italian Church had already tried to give to herself. I think that it is valid not only for Italy in general, but also for every local Church”.

During the work, a singular urgency emerged for the mission of the Church before today’s distance between faith and contemporary mentality. How could we answer this challenge?

“I think that we could answer first by taking the Gospel seriously and trying to question the Gospel on all that happens at cultural level. The cultural dynamics and the Gospel must be at the very centre of the challenge, namely the Bible and the newspaper, as Karl Bath says. They have spoken of the second phase of the cultural project. Certainly it could be interesting, we must see, however, how it will sort out”.

“It is not enough to be believer; we need to be believable”. This could be the slogan of the Veroma Congreess, which, as people say, we have not centred fully. According to you, which are the few points of the Verona’s proposal?

“If we truly believe to the very depth, we are also believable. The question arouses this witty thought in me. I feel that the newspapers have defined the weak point: the custom clearance of devout atheists. The idea of Christianity as a civil religion, which at the end could answer of Christianity, to me, is an illusion because certain dynamics never come back. This idea does not help us to step forward, but risks to lead us to the illusion of going back to seasons, which will instead no longer come back. The Church has to make her account with situations of minorities, which, however, could be occasions for renewal”.