“The Second Vatican Council is the great starting point that sanctioned an epoch-making turning point within the Catholic Church’s self-awareness and its mission in modern times” says Coda, also President of the Italian Theological Association. “The Second Vatican Council however, did not mark a split but rather reform within continuity and – as has been said – there is only one event of similar importance in the Church’s history, the so-called Council of Jerusalem, when the Christian community abandoned the limited circle of belonging to an ‘historical Israel’, to embrace all other cultures and people of all eras”. According to Coda, the Church considers the Second Vatican Council not merely as the point of arrival in its renewal, but the “real springboard for the future”. Although, precisely because of its importance, it is still “difficult to provide a serious assessment of its results and this will only be possible over the long term”.
Küng criticises Wojtyla, and to a certain extent also Ratzinger, for having forgotten the Church of the Second Vatican Council, and having in a certain sense “restored” the Tridentine Church. What do you think of this accusation?
Actually, John Paul II was a Pope who matured at the Council’s school. It is sufficient to read his work entitled At the source of the Council’s Renewal, which he wrote when he was a Bishop, to mediate the Council’s teachings in his Church in Krakow. After all, his first encyclical, Redemptor hominis, is simply the project for implementing all that is expressed in Gaudium et Spes – the Church’s Constitution in today’s world – in which humankind is seen as Christ and the Church’s path. There is also another important aspect in his ministry, that is in line with the Second Vatican Council, and that is the Day of Prayer for Peace between Religions in Assisi, which he described as an icon of the Council’s Church. On the other hand, an area he did not work intensely on in achieving what the Council hoped for, was the one more ad intra in the Church’s life, in the sense of encouraging real dynamics of synod-like characteristics and hence participation and co-responsibility at all levels. Although it was precisely Pope Wojtyła who had the courage to make a statement, still I believe little acknowledged, according to which renewal’s great charismas are as fundamental for the Church’s identity and mission as the ministerial institution.
What about Pope Benedict XVI?
This Pope is certainly better equipped as a theologian to interpret the dynamics of the Church’s internal life and the significant cultural challenges of modern times, and in this sense, as Kung also said, he has sent important signals from the very beginning of his papacy. There is however, in my opinion, difficulty in expressing constructiveness that is worthy of the signs of the times deeply rooted in the modern Church’s general situation, which demands a vulnerable openness to the work of the Holy Spirit in reading the Gospels, and the courage to risk new forms of allegiance and of bearing witness to what is fundamental to believing in Jesus Christ.
On a number of issues, there seems in effect to be a sort of “regression” compared to the times of the Second Vatican Council. For example ecumenism and the Council’s statement regarding the possibility of redemption also outside the Church (in the Nostra Aetate there is a mention of “seeds of truth” present in other Christian Churches). The Dominus Jesus on the contrary, written by Ratzinger and signed by John Paul II, seems to go in the opposite direction: nulla salus extra ecclesiam.
The subject of redemption outside the Church’s visible boundaries is an acquired subject in ecclesial tradition and addressed by the Second Vatican Council within the framework of a coherent ecclesiology; Christ’s grace is at work where there is an upright conscience and the exercising of freedom referred to goodness and to justice. Hence this is not a subject up for discussion. What at times seems to be a regression, in the communication provided on these subjects by the media, concerns instead the attitude assumed with regard to the followers of other religions and those with different ideas. The Dominus Jesus, in fact, is the expression of a belief founded within the Church’s conscience. Hence the fact that those following their own consciences and act referring to goodness are visited by grace, and therefore the object of redemption in Christ, must not allow us to forget the fullness and universality of life and love offered to us by God in Jesus Christ. I would say that the Dominus Jesus is a typical example of a case in which one puts one’s foot on the brake so as not to turn back, but so as to better understand how to move forward in the sense of the progress imprinted, for example by Assisi Day.
This subject is linked to relations with the world, the subject of Gaudium et Spes. It seems that today’s Church once again questions that optimistic perspective of history, denouncing its excessive progressivism and perhaps a lack of awareness of the presence of evil. Is this correct?
Certainly, it is a fact. The Council was influenced by that particular moment in the West’s history, and more broadly speaking in that of the planet. It was the Sixties, Khrushchev, Kennedy, the thaw and the economic boom.. It was a moment of great momentum, after which we experienced the fall of the communist regimes, the disasters arising from the ambitious capitalist system in terms of the impoverishment of underdeveloped areas in the world, and the previously unforeseeable forms of terrorism at a scientific level. Hence there was a spiritual and cultural change, in the sense that optimism gave way to a more serious awareness of the many looming difficulties. More than in the days of the Second Vatican Council, the Church too is aware today of the immense challenges humankind is now faced with.
Will this not result in a risk of “historicizing” or relativising the Second Vatican Council, even from a non-historicist perspective? And renouncing the Church’s “avant-garde” role as the spokesperson for ethical change in society?
Yes, there is such a risk. The Church, as the prophecy of new humanity, as proposed by the Second Vatican Council and as perceived in the world, might risk being seen instead as a champion of conservatism. It is often a question of language, and, in a deeper sense, the manner in which contemporary humankind and society are addressed. One cannot stand on the outside brandishing the criteria of the definitive understanding of the various issues. One must instead, as the Second Vatican Council teaches us, become the travelling companions of today’s men and women, in the quests, the anxiety and the positive aspirations that exist.
On this subject however, at times one is under the impression that today’s Church, instead of being the People of Believers walking on history’s path, as the Second Vatican Council stated, is perceived instead as a “societas perfecta”. A more Tridentine perspective perhaps? Or not?
Precisely because the Church is part of the rhythm of history, and today we are experiencing an identity reaction due to global dynamics affecting the human experience, the Church too may fall into the temptation of having such a reaction, a danger it must be careful of. The balance to be maintained is the one between faithfulness to the most radical evangelical identity, and total openness in conformity precisely with the most true evangelical identity, as proved by Christ on the Cross experiencing His own identity in giving his life for all humankind. This is also the Church’s cross, as with its own hands it lies on the Cross of Christ and must never leave it, but maintain alive the paradox of the Gospel within itself and in the word it spreads.
And yet one perceives a degree of difficulty precisely as far as change is concerned, hence in the attempt to self-reform without losing the identity you mention. It seems that at times the Church, to avoid conflict, prefers to hold tenaciously on to the positions it assumed in the past. I am speaking for example of issues left open by the Second Vatican Council, such as the subject of contraception, priestly celibacy, priesthood for women. These are subject around which there seems to be no current debate.
After all, the teachings and the practices of the Church have not yet fully addressed the anthropological maturation expressed in the new awareness of female identity and role, within the Church and within society, and hence the exercising of sexuality – in the complete sense of the word – in a more dynamic and anthropologically pertinent manner. Let us not forget however, that the Second Vatican Council paved the way in an important way when, for example, it defined the meaning of sexuality, not only referring to procreation, but also as an expression of matrimonial and conjugal love and that John Paul II wrote the Mulieris dignitatem. These are delicate and important anthropological issues that require calm, free and far-reaching refection.
Simultaneously however, the assertion of moral themes takes centre stage, while theological-evangelical subjects are overshadowed. Why is there this “obsession” with ethical subjects?
The problem involving anthropological identity is a serious one. There is a danger of going adrift in every sense and even the risk of a disintegration of the identities of men and women. Hence the syndrome that at times appears in the official positions assumed by the Church is that of a powerful reassertion of principles so as to confront any possible ‘drifting’. This however is insufficient, and often it is not the right path to follow. A reflection capable of linking these subjects to a positive perspective of humankind in God’s loving plan and reviving an adequate and abundant anthropological proposal is more urgent. This requires a demanding change in mentality and language and a serious effort of openness to all positions worthy of attention.
So do you think there is a need for a new Council, as Cardinal Martini had wished?
It is difficult for certain subjects of great importance to be debated without a qualified assembly expressing the self-awareness of the Church that is constantly listening to Christ’s eternal message and becoming modern today as it listens to the Holy Spirit. At the same time it is hard to say if the time is right for a Council, this because it would be best to first experience maturity at a local level in the sign of synod-like and community discernment. I believe that Martini’s proposal has had a positive provocative effect, stating that there are issues that must in any case be addressed. How and when this will take place is hard to say. I repeat, there is a need for serious and shared preparation.
You have just attended the conference of the Fondazione Italiani Europei, where a lively debate resulted from a statement by former Foreign Minister Massimo D’Alema concerning the Church being afflicted by the satanic temptation of power. How would you comment on this statement? And what is your opinion regarding the modern Church’s relationship with politics, especially if compared to the Second Vatican Council’s rejection of an alliance between the throne and the altar?
During the Conference I said that the Church’s position of principal and its strategic position within society is the one Jesus described using the metaphor of salt and yeast. Hence a presence that is active, responsible and critical, rejecting pre-established or prejudicial attitudes of power or strategies that are not balanced ones, specifically in the evangelical sense of service and of love. The Christian community, like all human communities, is not immune from temptation to take shortcuts, to incur in short circuits, to use improper methods also when stating positive points of view. The path to be followed is another. It means being radically coherent with the evangelical choice of salt and yeast. On the other hand, one should not identify the Church’s position, especially in social and political sectors, with the opinions expressed at a strategic level by the hierarchies beyond reaffirmation of principles that are within their competence. The Church cannot be identified simply with the hierarchy, but it is God’s people, still today filled with innovative unrest, with options and experiences that try to translate into the here and now of the history of Jesus’ message for mankind of all times.
Translation by Francesca Simmons