 |
|
|
|
 Forty years after 1968:
it is a time of debates and situational stocks, as well as a wind of
contestation. Benedict XVI in ’68 has seen a “historical caesura” and a
“cultural crisis in the West”. The theologian Ratzinger interpreted the
’68 as a conflict between religious vision and secularist option and
found the way of writing it in his autobiography. The Carmelite Bruno
Secondin is a lecturer of spirituality in the Gregorian University of
Rome and is committed to the spiritual animation of groups and
communities. He is expert in themes on Religious Life, a speaker in
national and international congresses and collaborates with various
magazines on themes of spirituality, consecrated life and new pastoral
experiences. We have addressed to him some questions on this historical
period, rich in cultural hints and ferments.
In 1968, the then young professor Joseph Ratzinger wrote a book:
“Introduction to Christianity”, translated into more than thirty
languages. The text of Pope Benedict XVI was published in a year of
important social and cultural revolutions. Can we still consider it
actual and such as to reveal his theological thought?
“That
book was a revelation for all of us, because it brought to new light the
eternal questions on the Christian identity. It was a time of great
theological fervours and of new proposals such as: the theology of hope
(J. Moltman), the theology of politics (J. B. Metz), a new theology of
sacraments (E. Schillebeeckx), a re-thinking on justification (H. Küng),
etc. They were also the first years after the Concilium, the
international magazine of theology in which Ratzinger himself
participated: they were truly formidable years and the text of Ratzinger,
though he was then a young theologian, impressed us enormously because
of its clarity, efficacy and a new cultural sensitivity. We were trying
to orient us with wisdom and intelligence towards the newness that was
emerging dizzily. Even today we read the mentioned book with
satisfaction and surprise”.
Pope Benedict XVI has recently defined the encyclical Letter of Pope
Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, published on 25th July 1968,
“a sign of contradiction” extraordinarily actual. Do you consider it
still actual, forty years after its promulgation?
“Paul VI had the courage and the audacity of publishing that Encyclical
Letter against the opinion of the majority members of the special
commission instituted by himself. There were also whole national
Episcopacies that opposed reservations and tried some practical
mediations that oriented those indications in a less rigid manner. Those
years caused plenty of sufferings for Paul VI, but he carried the cross
of his choice with humility and firmness. At a distance of four
decenniums we must recognise not only the wisdom of that choice, but
also the formidable revolution that has taken place in the field of
bioethics: with problems much more dangerous than the then
contraception, that affect the roots of the source of life: the menaces
deriving from the savage manipulation –covered with pure scientific
exigencies- of these roots can be seen by all of us. Sure, today we
would need to make a very complex re-thinking, before the emergencies in
action. The Catholic morality pursues almost with spasm a savage
development, with very risky consequences, which were unthinkable at the
time of Paul VI. Benedict XVI is covering ways similar to those of Paul
VI, watching intelligently and intervening with courageous freedom in a
field of complexity and ambiguity.
Referring to the year of enormous contestations, Benedict XVI, spoke of
the “crisis” of the cultural struggle provoked in ’68, when it seemed
that the historical phase of Christianity had passed away… the promise
of ’68 have not been kept. What is the position of the Church before the
epochal ferments?
“At
the distance of many years, it is surely possible to take stocks of the
situations and to count losses and gains, and I have seen several of
them in our time. In general, I think that the layout of such
verifications lacks a perspective. He who lived that historical phase –I
lived it fully on my skin and in my soul, as well as in my experience as
a young consecrated priest- knows that there were several convulsions,
but it was also common to hear about the sensation of a certain
polygenesis (a renewal from the very foundation). I truly feel that May
’68 was a blessing also for the Church: not because of what it destroyed
and for the ruins and debris it left behind (which are not few), but
because it has given us the possibility of living an ardent season of
utopia and experiments, of breakages and new explorations, of not sad
passions and a shuffling of every card. Many were lost on the way, many
did not have the solidity of soul to discern and orient themselves.
There was surely also plenty of the Holy Spirit in that context and this
is proved by: the ecclesial movements being born or renewed in those
years: the enormous efforts to understand the original charismatic
inspirations of many religious Institutes: the new ecclesial
experiences that took launching and parresia in that humus, for
instance the basic ecclesial communities in Latin America. I could add
many more things. Surely, in the total chaos of that period –helped also
by the deaf and stupid resistances of an obtuse conservationism- we came
to know also dry losses of values and secular experiential patrimonies.
However, in similar cases, grave losses near charismatic innovations and
original discoveries are normal happenings. I would not speak of not
kept promises, but of a logical and painful selection between utopia and
dreams, for which it was not possible for everything to come to light,
to be realised and renewed. To demonise that period or to ridicule it
means to be ignorant of the historical dynamics and to be deceived by
the thought that the epochal changes take place according to wise
gradualism and architectures, while they always happen in the confusion
and chaos. Thus, this is better than the actual calm chaos.
Do you share the observation of Edmond Berselli published on Republic
according to which “the year ’68 did not undertake a political
revolution, but rather it triggered a spiritual transformation, by
presenting itself as an event of crisis?
“If
we take the word krisis in its etymological sense as a journey of
judgement and evaluation, of discernment and selection among various
polarities, we can say that besides the spectacular phenomenology of
many “contestations”, there has truly been a non superficial shaking of
the whole system, especially in the cultural and spiritual ethos. What
would have happened to our religious collective feeling, if there had
not been this crisis in favour of a new inventive and creative
exploration, for a not sad passion, for a utopia, though exaggerated,
which we were in need of? Certainly, forty years would not be enough for
the breaking shakes of a system that was harder than a concrete
structure, and the re-building of a new paradigm, as a mature and
stable fruit. Everything started running, everything still looks
(perhaps I am exaggerating) like the debris of ground zero, but
we must thank heaven for having been compelled to inhabit new horizons,
to live provisional certainties, to burn dusty catafalques of
life-styles and Institutions made unduly sacred. We have not yet reached
a mature and shared re-composition. And who can say that we shall never
reach a historical phase of so very ample and reconciled changes? We
live not only in an epoch of changes, but also in an epochal, paradigm
change. The sussultatory and undulatory earthquake in the vital and
binding nuclei of living and hoping is not yet over. John Paul II
himself gave strong pushes to set Christianity and reality on dancing.
Now Benedict XVI feels even more urgent to offer settling shakings, to
express it with the image of the earthquake, but surely they also will
not go without panic.”
In 1968 the Church came out of the great Ecumenical council Vatican II,
whose works had been concluded three years before. How many of the
council’s hints have been assimilated today in the Church and which of
them in particular have proved precious for the women religious?
“Even
before its conclusion, the Council had already provoked some havocs,
showing that there was a pile of obsolete things, of living models out
of culture, of out-of-focus and empty languages, of impostures masked
with sacredness, and that we needed to do whatever possible for a
serious and urgent re-generation that could no longer be postponed. Like
all other historical Councils, Vatican II also gave a sure proof that it
will take at least some generations before the orientations and the
proposal may become reality, acquired habit, qualifying identity. Each
of the four past decenniums has had its positive focal points, but also
its catastrophes, audacious prophets and the fearful and confused
victims of those who safeguarded the “status quo”. Out of the
acquisitions, which we may consider as consolidated for the consecrated
life –in this long period, but also it may take two more generations- we
mention: the centrality of the Word of God as nourishment of a true
spirituality, the awareness of having an ecclesial function of not pure
support, but of audacity and geniality (”the “feminine genius”); the
acquisition of an adequate learning to inhabit this history and to
discern with freedom rather than with a supine submission; solidarity
with the scourged of the earth , not only with compassion, but mainly
with intelligent strategies and participation in the important
decisional organisms; solidarity with the ferment of the lay world ,
more than with the clerical worries and the dusty layers of the “fuga-mundi”;
the awareness of having to inhabit the emergencies with audacity and
prophecy, more than limiting oneself to the management of traditional
heavy works, which often produce ambiguous effects. I could continue
speaking of new formative itineraries, of the new missionary awareness,
of the new generation of theologies, of a more contemplative prayer and
less taxing devotions and pious practices, etc.
Dossetti, don Milani, don Mazzolari: to what a priestly icon do they
associate the 1968?
“I
would not associate them directly to the ’68. Don Milani and don
Mazzolari have not even reached it. Each one alimented in one’s own way
the roots that gave the lymph to the ’68, but there were surely other
priests who were in the vanguard in those years, without, however,
becoming the unique models. For instance, many remember Father Balducci,
Father Turoldo, Father Carretto, but also Monsignor Bettazzi, don
Giussani, Monsignor Riva, Father Sorge, just to mention a few of them.
But there are also “suspicious” names -such as don Franzoni, don Mazzi,
don Cuminetti, Father Brugnoli , don Barbero, etc. – who in those years
gave perhaps aggressive and sharp contributions, leaving a sign behind
them. True, history today is different, but we still have these
audacious explorers, genial interpreters, prophets with penetrating
eyes. We need them urgently, if we do not want to die of sadness. To
speak of Dossetti, he remains an example of cultural and ecclesial
probity that accompanied the sussultatory phase, however always
remaining anchored to the great lines of the Council and digging within
those intuitions, without mixing too much with the momentary
contingencies. We need these contributions in stormy moments. Others
have done the same thing, almost remaining in the background of the
convulsions, but keeping kindled the lamp of the deepest truth, without
despising the momentary anxiety, rather listening to it with wise
patience”.
In
the light of the feminine movement which made itself be noted with a
collective mobilitisation and processions, how did the role of the woman
and of the women religious change in particular in 1968?
“Undoubtedly, the year ’68 caused an immeasurable turmoil also in the
identity and in the social position of the woman. We must not look only
at the feminine exaggerations of women who wanted to free themselves
from the male repressions and oppressions, but also from a secular
culture that had confined them to the margins of social institutions and
public responsibilities, within stereotypes (maternity, frailty,
subaltern and emotive dimensions), made sacred and, unluckily, still
very much diffused. We observe also the maturing of a new identity, a
new protagonist phenomenon, a new co-responsibility, a new complementary
and independent “geniality”. Of course, there have been exaggerations
and self-referent profane mythologies (for instance, ‘The uterus is
mine and I shall manage it’); however, the entire world has undergone a
revolution from its very foundation through the best pushes of non-
aggressive feminism; also for the sisters this has been a new horizon of
sense and values, which has involved them.
There
is still a long way to go: however, it does not matter if it has not
been totally covered; what matters is that it moves ahead and not
backward, perhaps because of fear or auto-censorship, because of
clerical menaces or because we are frightened by the loss of the male
identity. This would be a true tragedy: the loss of the male security
and identity before the new woman, before her autonomy, her cultural and
managerial geniality. To me, also in the religious life the crisis of
identity affects more men than women, because men have not yet
metabolised the female identity, to stand before it with
authenticity. Too many (conscious or unconscious) fears emerge from our
experience and crystallise in rigid and paternalistic attitudes, sign of
an uncertainty that is to be cured and not made sacred with magic
recourses to authoritarian or alarmist resistances, covered by a
prudence unable to conceal how disconcerting a mature freed and freeing
conscience is –in ecclesial communion, of course- of women, including
the consecrated women”.
 |
