0717

15 August 2017 Monthly Year 1

Bridge Diplomacy

Ten Years on since Aparecida

.7 The source of Francis’ pontificate o “Which Mary?” Francis at Fatima

Authority, New Media and the

OLUME 1, N 1, OLUME Church V

2017 , discernment, and Christian maturity

Surrogacy

God’s Sense of Humor

I, Daniel Blake: A Film by Ken Loach

CONTENTS 0717

BEATUS POPULUS, CUIUS DOMINUS DEUS EIUS

Copyright, 2017, Union of Catholic Asian Editor-in-chief News SJ

All rights reserved. Except for any fair Editorial Board dealing permitted under the Hong Kong Antonio Spadaro SJ – Director Copyright Ordinance, no part of this Giancarlo Pani SJ – Vice-Director publication may be reproduced by any Domenico Ronchitelli SJ –Senior Editor means without prior permission. Inquires Giovanni Cucci SJ, Diego Fares SJ, should be made to the publisher. Francesco Occhetta SJ, Giovanni Sale SJ

Title: La Civiltà Cattolica, English Edition Emeritus editor: Virgilio Fantuzzi SJ, ISSN: 2207-2446 Giandomenico Mucci SJ, GianPaolo Salvini SJ ISBN: 978-1-925612-18-9 (paperback) Published by 978-1-925612-19-6 (ebook) 978-1-925612-20-2 (kindle) Union of Catholic Asian News P.O. Box 80488, Cheung Sha Wan, Kowloon, Hong Kong Phone: +852 2727 2018 Fax: +852 2772 7656 www.ucanews.com Publishers: Michael Kelly SJ and Robert Barber Production Manager: Rangsan Panpairee CONTENTS 0717

15 August 2017 Monthly Year 1

1 Bridge Diplomacy Card.

13 Ten Years on since Aparecida The source of Francis’ pontificate Diego Fares, SJ

28 “Which Mary?” Francis at Fatima Diego Fares, SJ – Antonio Spadaro, SJ

41 Authority, New Media and the Church Paul A. Soukup, SJ

54 Amoris Laetitia, discernment, and Christian maturity Pietro M. Schiavone, SJ

65 Surrogacy Francesco Occhetta, SJ

77 God’s Sense of Humor GianPaolo Salvini, SJ

83 I, Daniel Blake: A Film by Ken Loach Virgilio Fantuzzi, SJ ABSTRACTS

DOCUMENT 1 BRIDGE DIPLOMACY: Round table to mark issue no. 4000 of La Civiltà Cattolica

Card. Pietro Parolin

As populism and nationalism advance in an increasingly fragmented world, Italy and the are united through the two fundamental principles of bridge diplomacy: dialogue and solidarity. This is the message that emerged from a round table hosted at the Italian Embassy to the Holy See to celebrate the publication of the 4000th issue of La Civiltà Cattolica.

ARTICLE 13 TEN YEARS ON SINCE APARECIDA The source of Francis’ pontificate

Diego Fares, SJ

Ten years after the Fifth General Conference of the of America and the Caribbean (CELAM) that took place in Aparecida, Brazil, between May 11 and May 31, 2007, it is worth reflecting on the impact the gathering has had on the life of both the South American continent and the universal Church. The conference was a key event not just because of the contents of the final Document but also for the process that actually produced the text. We reconstruct the most important passages of that experience, highlighting the continuity between Paul VI’s Evangelii Nuntiandi, the Aparecida Document and Francis’ . ABSTRACTS

LIFE OF THE CHURCH 28 “WHICH MARY?” FRANCIS AT FATIMA: The wounded world, prophetic shepherds, and Mother Mary

Diego Fares, SJ – Antonio Spadaro, SJ

Pope Francis visited Fatima on the exact date of the centenary anniversary of the Virgin’s apparitions, May 12-13. The pope canonized two of the three shepherds, Francisco and Jacinta Marto, who in 1917 lived this experience. Occurring between the pope’s trip to Egypt and the meeting with U.S. President in the Vatican, this visit had a special value for at least three major reasons. First of all, it was a prayer for peace; second, it is the first time that children who were not martyrs have been proclaimed saints: the most important of Fatima’s secrets is that things hidden from the wise are revealed to the little ones; and finally, the trip was an occasion to renew the fundamental question of who Mary is and which image of her do we have.

ARTICLE 41 AUTHORITY, NEW MEDIA AND THE CHURCH

Paul A. Soukup, SJ

Social media and search engines have changed the dimensions and understanding of the concept of authority today. This is an issue for the Church where the practice and understanding of authority are expressed in very different communication contexts. An analysis of the ecology of the media draws attention to the interactions between social practice, media, cultural ideas, individuals, leaders and other realities that determine our understanding of the world. Applying this analysis to ecclesial communication throws light on how people today interpret authority in the Church. ABSTRACTS

ARTICLE 54 JESUS NEVER IMPOSES: Amoris Laetitia, discernment, and Christian maturity

Pietro M. Schiavone, SJ

The Ecumenical of Constantinople Bartholomew has described how Amoris Laetitia reminds us above all of God’s mercy and compassion, and not just of moral norms and canonical rules. So how can family ministry be developed for the entire Church to welcome, accompany, discern, and integrate? Some criteria for applying the necessary discernment are in the text of the . To tune in with God’s will and reach a full discernment, the Church also has at its disposal the experience of among other riches drawn from tradition.

ARTICLE 65 SURROGACY

Francesco Occhetta, SJ

The issue of surrogate motherhood is one of the most manipulated in public debate. It often sees humanist categories give way to those of post-humanism, where public reflection accepts passively the achievements of science. When the dignity of the weakest – namely the unborn child and the pregnant mother – is damaged, how much can the subjective desire of the commissioning couple become a right in a democratic order? An anthropological approach to surrogate maternity faces the question at the very heart of science: how it can be useful to humanity without abusing the human person. ABSTRACTS

NOTES AND COMMENTS 77 GOD’S SENSE OF HUMOR

GianPaolo Salvini, SJ

Humor is a fundamental aspect of human existence. It is a dimension that seems to be in jeopardy in western society as day-to-day conflicts and tensions run the risk of radicalization and exasperation. Humor is part of wisdom and is a gift of the Holy Spirit. If the basis of humor is to be found in the law of contrast and in the convergence of opposites – Luke’s Gospel is rich with examples – it must be concluded that God is an insuperable master of humor. He chose what is weak in the world to confuse the strong. For this reason those who have humor love the world in spite of its imperfection. Rather, they love it where it is imperfect just as God does.

ART, MUSIC, THEATRE 83 I, DANIEL BLAKE: A FILM BY KEN LOACH

Virgilio Fantuzzi, SJ

Winner of the Palme d’Or at the 2016 Cannes Festival, Ken Loach’s film expresses indignation over the lack of respect for those on the margins of society in the United Kingdom. An elderly carpenter suffers a heart attack and is forced to resort to public assistance. He falls into a Kafkaesque network of control that renders his life impossible. He meets a single mother with two small children who are also forced to endure all kinds of humiliation. The solidarity between these people is not enough to raise them from their state of poverty. Instead of addressing the needs of the weakest, society today seems to regress to a cruel 19th-century logic where hunger is used to tame even the most ferocious of animals. Annual Digital Subscription $79

Annual Print Subscription Asia: $160* In Edition 0717: Australia/NZ/Oceania: $200* USA/UK/Ireland/ • Bridge Diplomacy Europe: $220* • Ten Years on since Aparecida Rest of the world: $260* The source of Francis’ pontificate Print + Digital Bundle • “Which Mary?” Francis at Fatima Asia: $200* • Authority, New Media and the Australia/NZ/Oceania: $240* Church USA/UK/Ireland/

• Amoris Laetitia, discernment, and Europe: $260* Christian maturity Rest of the world: $280*

• Surrogacy Prices in US Dollars • God’s Sense of Humor * Rates include postage & handling

• I, Daniel Blake: A Film by Ken Loach Educational and bulk rates are available, please email [email protected] The Diplomacy of Bridges Round table to mark issue no. 4000 of La Civiltà Cattolica

Cardinal Pietro Parolin

The Embassy of Italy to the Holy See hosted a round table to mark the publication of issue number 4000 of La Civiltà Cattolica. The theme for the round table was “The gaze of Magellan – the diplomacy of bridges in a world of walls.” After greetings by the Italian Ambassador, Daniele Mancini, 1 the May 10 event was introduced by Father Antonio Spadaro, Editor-in-Chief of the magazine. Speeches were then given by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin and Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni. The event was attended by many ambassadors and members of the Church and civil society. In his opening remarks, Ambassador Mancini noted that “throughout Italian history, from the monarchy to the republic, La Civiltà Cattolica has been a point of reference and encouragement to reflection, focused on reflecting loyalty to the pope with writings of substance and relevance, attentive to exploring cultural, scientific and technological developments.” He then introduced the theme of the round table, highlighting how is implementing “a change of perspective” in international politics, following a line “based on triggering processes and distinctively marked by a culture of dialogue.” This is a “premise to ‘great rapprochements’ – part of a vision of the Church as ‘builder of bridges’ in the political sphere.” Hence this round table “speaks to and stimulates those who are active in foreign politics: politicians, diplomats, academics and journalists.” CARDINAL PIETRO PAROLIN

This is the speech given by the Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin.

Mr. Prime Minister, Most Reverend Eminencies and Excellencies, Mr. Ambassador of Italy to the Holy See, Distinguished members of the Diplomatic Corps, Representatives of the Press, Ladies and gentlemen,

I was invited to speak alongside Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni by Ambassador Daniele Mancini and Father Antonio Spadaro, and it was with great pleasure that I accepted their 2 invitation. I am delighted to be one of the two voices speaking at today’s event of reflection devoted to the pope’s and the Holy See’s global vision of our world, its issues and its current needs under the suggestive title “The gaze of Magellan.” This event falls happily within the cycle of celebrations for edition number 4000 of La Civiltà Cattolica – a truly significant achievement, and one that is somewhat rare in the history of cultural magazines. La Civiltà Cattolica – which describes itself as “an intellectual experience illuminated by a Christian faith that is profoundly in touch with the cultural, social and political life of our times”1 – is a precision instrument for understanding and analyzing the of the supreme pontiffs from the days of blessed Pius IX to the current time of Pope Francis. It comes from a community of reflection and prayer that has accompanied the journey of the for the past 167 years. I want to take this opportunity to renew my best wishes to the magazine’s director, Father Antonio Spadaro, and to the entire College of Writers, with the same words used by Pope Francis in the chirograph sent to mark this occasion: may yours be “a magazine of bridges, frontiers and discernment.”

1.“Quattromila quaderni de La Civiltà Cattolica”, in Civ. Catt. 2017 I, p. 313. Available at http://www.laciviltacattolica.it/articolo/quattromila-quaderni-de-la- civilta-cattolica/. BRIDGE DIPLOMACY

I would also like to extend my thanks today to Professor Lucio Caracciolo of the journal Limes who has agreed to moderate this event.

The gaze of Magellan In his address to the College of Writers on February 9 in the Consistory Hall of the , Pope Francis highlighted the particular contribution of La Civiltà Cattolica to the life of the Church in the modern world by drawing on an evocative image of navigation. As historical situations fluctuate, as events and perspectives change, the pope invites us to “remain on the open sea,” navigating and exploring under the broadest of skies where we may encounter storms and unfavorable winds, “and yet the holy journey is always undertaken in the company 3 of Jesus, who says to his own: ‘Take courage. It is I. Do not be 2 afraid!’ (Matthew 14:27)” I think the image of navigation on the open sea painted by the Holy Father can shed light on the vision sustaining the Holy See’s commitment to facing the grave international challenges of our time. For many years we have heard talk of a time of crisis. We witness growing tensions and conflicts; we see a world in which many points of reference have fallen away, in which the system of international balances appears greatly weakened, and with it some essential elements of international law. We are living through a time tragically marked by the blind violence of fundamentalist terrorism that poisons human brotherhood under the blasphemous pretense of invoking the name of God. At the same time, we are witnessing a new and increasing affirmation of nationalisms and populisms that threaten to undermine the peaceful, orderly coexistence of peoples. We are not just living through an era of change but – as the Holy Father has pointed out – we are living through a real change of era. On this subject, I find Henry Kissinger’s introduction toThe Art of Diplomacy, published in 1994, still highly relevant: “The international system of the twenty-first century will be marked

2.Pope Francis, Address to the Community of La Civiltà Cattolica, Vatican, February 9, 2017. CARDINAL PIETRO PAROLIN

by a seeming contradiction: on the one hand, fragmentation; on the other, growing globalization. On the level of the relations among states, the new order will be more like the European state system of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries than the rigid patterns of the Cold War … At the same time, international relations have become truly global for the first time. Communications are instantaneous; the world economy operates on all continents simultaneously. A whole set of issues has surfaced that can only be dealt with on a worldwide basis, such as nuclear proliferation, the environment, the population explosion, and economic interdependence.”3 Hence during this change of era we are called upon to recapture somehow the “gaze of Magellan.” 4 At this point I want to mention a historical episode connected to my native region of Veneto. In 1519, Antonio Pigafetta – geographer, mathematician, astronomer and offspring of one of the major aristocratic families of Vicenza – was in Barcelona with the papal , Francesco Chiericati. While in Barcelona, Pigafetta was captivated by the attempt to circumnavigate the globe that was being organized by Ferdinand Magellan. With the support of the pope’s representative, he obtained permission from Charles V to take part in the expedition. His presence turned out to be providential: after the death of Magellan on April 27, 1521, at the Battle of Mactan, in the Philippines, Pigafetta was able to complete the incredible attempt along with some sixty survivors, rounding the Cape of Good Hope and arriving in Sanlucar, near Seville, on September 6, 1522.4 At the root of Magellan’s extraordinary adventure – and of similar ones throughout history – was a firm attitude of trust in the providence of God on the one hand, and in human ability on the other. Generally, these indomitable explorers aspired to something greater, to write a new page in the story of human adventure. This courageous approach to the unknown was underpinned by a threefold, deeply rooted dynamism of spirit:

3.H.A. Kissinger, Diplomacy, New York, 1994. 4.See M. Transylvanus, A. Pigafetta, Il Viaggio fatto da gli Spagniuoli a torno a’l mondo, Venice, 1536. BRIDGE DIPLOMACY by a sense of disquiet, by the humility of incompleteness, and by the courage of imagination. These are the attitudes of internal freedom advocated by Pope Francis in his address to the community of La Civilta Cattolica as the means to conduct research that is truly in the interest of the people and the Church. This freedom of spirit allows us to remain on the open sea – open to scanning the constantly changing horizon without retreating to the safe ports that offer apparent tranquility but actually prevent us from bravely re- embarking on the long voyage of history. I think a sense of disquiet, the humility of incompleteness, and the courage of imagination are also precious coordinates for understanding the attitude of Pope Francis and the pontifical diplomatic corps toward the urgent challenges of our time. I 5 now want to focus our attention on a few points of reference and elements for evaluation that have emerged during the first four years of this pontificate.

The coordinates of a spiritual itinerary Looking right back to 2013, we can trace a path through the pope’s international trips that helps to highlight some of his ecclesial, pastoral and social priorities. I invite you to recall the Holy Father’s first journey out of Rome on July 8, 2013, with his brief but intense visit to Lampedusa. During his homily at Holy Mass that day, Pope Francis asked three fundamental questions. The first two were: “Adam, where are you?” and “Cain, where is your brother?” These questions were intended to recall the anthropological perspective, to raise the fundamental question of our role today as humans in the project of Creation, and our responsibility to our neighbor, who is not the other to be feared or pushed away but the brother or sister to be loved and welcomed. The third question, referring to the tragedies in the Mediterranean Sea, was: “Has any one of us wept because of this situation and others like it?”5 This question introduced a different dimension, shifting the focus onto a modern society that

5.http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2013/documents/papa- francesco_20130708_omelia-lampedusa.html CARDINAL PIETRO PAROLIN

often neglects the fundamental experience of compassion – of suffering alongside each other, embracing the other’s aspirations and bearing the weight of their pain. Without this empathy, we inevitably fall into the “globalization of indifference.” The pope’s personal approach to current challenges is rooted in this spiritual dimension that urges an inclusion capable of destroying the wall of indifference, opening up new spaces, and taking care of the other with creative responsibility. Thus we see the connecting thread that guides the choice of destination for the pope’s apostolic trips. These trips reflect the particular sensibilities of Pope Francis, always attentive to situations of material and moral problems that damage humanity today. The pope’s spiritual itineraries are to be understood in this 6 light, as are the social and political implications of his 18 apostolic trips outside of Italy to date, ranging from Brazil to Egypt. On an ecclesiastical and ecumenical level, these trips have laid out a path of communion for the Church. I invite you to recall the two trips undertaken in 2014: the pilgrimage to the Holy Land and Jerusalem in May, and the one to Turkey in November where the pope met Patriarch Bartholomew in Istanbul for the Feast of Saint Andrew the Apostle. A little over a year later, in February 2016, saw Francis’ historic embrace with Kirill, Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, followed by ecumenical visits to Armenia in June and Georgia in September. We also saw historic encounters in Lund (Sweden) to mark the 500th anniversary of the Lutheran Reformation in October 2016, and in Cairo with Tawadros II and the Coptic-Orthodox Church in April 2017. Finally, there is the pope’s profound desire to travel to South Sudan with the to bring a shared and fraternal message of peace. Alongside these ecumenical itineraries, we remember other significant moments of interreligious dialogue in the Holy Land, Albania, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Central African Republic and Egypt. These were many stops on a single journey toward mutual encounter and friendship. This is a journey that starts from Jerusalem where everything begins in the Christian faith; a path from east to west, like the one traveled after ’s first announcement; a route that BRIDGE DIPLOMACY crosses very different historical, cultural and religious territories that find their common denominator in witness to the Gospel. And here we see another characteristic element of Pope Francis’ vision: reality is always superior to the idea. We must meet in the sphere of reality, of real life before we can meet in the encounter of different ideas and mindsets. In other words, only by embracing the other as and where we find them can we undertake together the journey of brotherhood toward truth and reconciliation.

The geopolitics of a journey from the peripheries to the center If the ecclesiastical journey of the current pontiff is a pilgrimage from east to west, his geopolitical journey traces a route from the peripheries to the center. Here, too, the pope is 7 implementing a sort of new Copernican Revolution, inspired by the Gospel. We all know of his attentiveness to the geographic and existential peripheries of our time. He starts from a simple acknowledgement: poverty, the vulnerability of the human person today, and the fragility of a de-structured, de-centered society are all damaging human dignity. At the core of this evangelical perspective is the belief that people and their lived experiences are more important than ideological, political and economic systems. In other words, the agenda of the international community cannot be dictated by the thirst for power, by the worship of money, or by the priorities of organized elites, but it must be based on the real needs and expectations of people and populations. It is paradoxical that in the era of absolute globalization – where communication is seamless and immediate and we are all interconnected – we should experience such piercing loneliness and abandonment. This is why Pope Francis seeks to represent the perspective of the “thrown away,” the abandoned, the wounded, those who are at the margins, and to be the voice and echo of their suffering. This is why – from Lampedusa to Lesbos, from Cuba to the -U.S. border, from the peripheries of cities in Europe and in developing countries – the pope calls on us to focus international attention on the question of the human person with rights and responsibilities. Only by truly comprehending these CARDINAL PIETRO PAROLIN

dynamics can we provide fresh nourishment for our society and its institutions on a national and international level. Only from this pragmatic perspective can we really commit to reforming and revitalizing international organizations and local institutions. Pope Francis is the first to set an example by seeking the authentic reform of ecclesiastical institutions so that they may function in greater service of the Gospel and the people of God. I think the Jesuit spirit of the Holy Father is evident in this dynamic, prophetic approach that is focused above all on the essential nature of the Gospel’s announcement and on translating this into a lived experience. In this mindset, the Church is called upon to be always “outward- facing,” reaching toward spaces of encounter with people of our time. Therefore, the Holy See 8 is particularly concerned with accompanying the journey of those who aspire to peace, seek reconciliation, and positively wish to build a better future for their country by healing the wounds of the past that still burn in the living flesh of the people. This is why Pope Francis called the Church a “field hospital,” highlighting the therapeutic aspect of its mission and of its geopolitical outlook. On a diplomatic level, we are all aware that the current, complex international situation requires a new impetus toward multilateral mediation, since the scale of crises and conflicts has increasingly become regional or transnational, involving neighboring countries and requiring shared responses from states and international organizations. In the sphere of international relations, I think there are three global challenges of which the pope has taken particular ownership: commitment to peace, nuclear disarmament, and protecting the environment. These priorities in turn lead to a series of other commitments on the global stage: promoting a culture of encounter, supporting the phenomenon of migration, sharing the earth’s resources, and valuing dignity in work, particularly for the new generations. Each of these horizons merits its own detailed analysis, which I do not have time for today. I will content myself with noting that Pope Francis – as he scans the horizon with the “gaze of Magellan” – seeks to open up new channels of communication BRIDGE DIPLOMACY and encounter, building ideal bridges between one continent and another, between different cultures and religions, between systems of thought and legislation that are often very far apart.

Dialogue and encounter: the heart of Francis’ journey This is the course of action followed by Pope Francis on his journey to Rome from the far end of the world, a journey that would take him from the Vatican along roads around the globe. At the heart of this journey is the word ‘dialogue’ – the main avenue to an inclusive approach, genuinely leading to an encounter with the other as brother or sister, first and foremost. Dialogue enables us to avoid the “reification” of the other, returning our focus to the dignity of the human person. This also requires an appreciation of the human capacity for 9 relating to others: the Holy Father does not think of people as “detached from all social and anthropological contexts, as if the person were a monad, increasingly unconcerned with other surrounding monads,”6 but as possessing the capacity to experience solidarity, “to sympathize with others and with the 7 whole. When one suffers, all suffer (see 1 Cor 12:26).” This is a core element in the pope’s encounters with European leaders, both in Strasbourg and when they were in Italy for the Charlemagne Prize and the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. Dialogue enables us to be truly inclusive and productive; through dialogue we open up to the world and to the future. Leaders have a responsibility to promote and sustain dialogue, to “determine what is essential”8 as a means of “discerning the paths of hope.”9 Pope Francis’ remarks to Europe’s political leaders are illuminating: “The founding fathers remind us that Europe is not a conglomeration of rules to obey, or a manual of protocols and procedures to follow. It is a way of life, a way of understanding

6.Pope Francis, Address to the European Parliament, Strasbourg, November 25, 2014. 7.Pope Francis, Address to the Heads of State and Government of the European Union, Vatican, March 24, 2017. 8.Ibid. 9.Ibid. CARDINAL PIETRO PAROLIN

the human person based on our transcendent and inalienable dignity, as something more than simply a sum of rights to defend or claims to advance. At the origin of the idea of Europe, we find ‘the nature and the responsibility of the human person, with a ferment of evangelical fraternity … with a desire for truth and justice, honed by a thousand-year-old experience’ (A. 10 De Gasperi, La nostra patria Europa).” However, the pope is not a demagogue launching slogans but a shepherd who encounters the people. This encounter occurs across time and space, as we are reminded by the four historical figures who appear in his address to the Congress on September 24, 2015 – Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton. All along the 10 journey of Francis are the stories and suffering of real people, to whom he extends his message of faith and hope and his gestures of charity. According to the Holy Father, we need a globalization based on solidarity and cooperation, capable of inverting our current course and starting afresh from the inalienable dignity of the human person. Thus the pope addresses members of the Global Foundation on January 13, 2017: “It is necessary above all for each of us, personally, to overcome our indifference to the needs of the poor. We need to learn compassion for those suffering from persecution, loneliness, forced displacement or separation from their families. We need to learn to suffer with those who see their loved ones die due to a lack of access to healthcare, or who endure hunger, cold or heat. This compassion (suffering with) will enable those with responsibilities in the worlds of finance and politics to use their intelligence and their resources not merely to control and monitor the effects of globalization, but also to help leaders at different political levels – regional, national and international – to correct its orientation whenever necessary. For politics and the economy ought to include the exercise of the virtue of prudence.”11

10.Ibid. 11.Pope Francis, Address to the Round Table of the Global Foundation, Vati- can, January 14, 2017. BRIDGE DIPLOMACY

For a diplomacy of mercy Via the unique route I have attempted to illustrate, Pope Francis invites us to defeat indifference by calling upon us to raise our eyes and reflect on the way of God, on his way of relating concretely to humanity as we see it for ourselves in the Bible. It is clear in the Genesis story of Adam’s sin and Cain’s murder of Abel: it is the mystery of broken brotherhood (Genesis 9:4-10). We return at this point to the two questions from which we started: “Adam, where are you?” and “Cain, where is your brother?” In the story of Exodus that tells us how the people of Israel were freed from slavery, God says to Moses: “I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. So I have come down to rescue them from the 11 hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey (Exodus 3:7-8).” And Pope Francis adds: “We should note the verbs that describe God’s intervention: he sees, hears, knows, comes down and delivers. God does not remain indifferent.”12 There is a profound and visceral attitude of mercy in God’s style. He observes, he knows the suffering of humans, and he takes personal responsibility for it. This brings us to the Christian mystery of the Incarnation. Jesus saw this suffering, but he did not stop there. As the pope says, “He touched people’s lives, he spoke to them, helped them and showed kindness to those in need. Not only this, but he felt strong emotions and he wept. And he worked to put an end to suffering, sorrow, misery and death.”13 I return therefore to the “gaze of Magellan” – or better yet, to the first steps of this pontificate. I ask myself: what is the pope demanding of our world, of the international community, and of all people of goodwill? When he addressed members of the diplomatic corps for the first time, a few days after his election, Pope Francis chose to outline the forthcoming journey of the Church and of the Holy See’s diplomacy under the guidance of the new

12.Pope Francis, Message for the XLIX World Day of Peace, January 1, 2017. 13.Ibid. CARDINAL PIETRO PAROLIN

of Rome. Three expressions are key to the current pontificate: fighting against both material and spiritual poverty; creating peace; building bridges. These are also compass points to guide our personal, social and global journey. A difficult journey if we remain trapped in the prison of our own indifference; an unmanageable journey if we believe that peace is simply a utopia; a journey that becomes possible if we accept the challenge of having faith in God and humankind, and commit to rebuilding authentic brotherhood and taking care of creation. Certainly, the pope makes a pressing and challenging appeal, today more than ever. He asks us to be very courageous and leave behind the easy certainties we have acquired, committing to an authentic conversion of the heart, of our priorities, and of 12 our lifestyle. Only by encountering the other can we encounter the flesh of Christ: a flesh that is often suffering, abandoned, wounded, rejected, but always capable of showing us the true face of God, who never tires of welcoming us or showing us mercy. At the spiritual center of Francis’ pontificate is the open door of mercy that the Church crossed in the year of the jubilee, seeking a future of peace for all of humankind. Ten Years on since Aparecida The source of Francis’ pontificate

Diego Fares, SJ

The spiritual plus of Aparecida Ten years after the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops of and the Caribbean (CELAM) that took place in Aparecida, Brazil, between May 11 and May 31, 2007, it is 13 worth reflecting on the impact the gathering has had on the life of both the South American continent and the universal Church. The last ten years have seen a growth in Latin America’s population by about 70 million people, but on the world stage it has ceded much of its political and economic influence to Asia and Africa. Moreover, Latin America must confront the social challenges that have arisen from a series of governments proposing a popular – some would say populist – narrative, leading to present governments that, for pragmatic reasons, are trying to win the vote of those who have no defined ideology but nevertheless constitute half of the electorate. Across the globe, post-war optimism has waned. It was an attitude that gave the center countries a sure hope for a better future while peripheral countries were losing patience that they could ever reach a similar level of prosperity.1 Today we live in an even tougher world (think of walls keeping immigrants out) more skeptical about long-term projects and increasing inclusivity. And yet a new wind is blowing in the Church,2 a breath of fresh air.

1.This hope in the fullness of time seen as the end of a journey has nourished development and revolutionary theories. (Cf. T. Halperin Donghi, Historia contemporanea de America Latina, Madrid, Alianza Editorial, 2005, 8.) 2.Cf. C. M. Galli, “El viento del sur de Aparecida a Rio. El proyecto misionero latinoamericano en la teologia y el estilo pastoral de Francisco”, in De la mision continental (Aparecida, 2007) a la mision universal (Rio de Janeiro y Evangelii Gaudium 2013) , Docencia, 2014, 61-119. DIEGO FARES, SJ

It is important to note that this breath of fresh air is neither new nor attributable to Pope Francis alone. It has a precedent in Aparecida where the synodal work encouraged by Cardinal Bergoglio, the then-President of the Commission for the drafting of the Final Document (AP), led to the assembly’s humble maturity in forming a solid consensus. Aparecida was really and truly an ecclesial event. This needs to be emphasized to highlight the experience – more or less shared by all – that the reality of Aparecida was “greater than the idea.”3 The reality of what happened was greater than the ideas discussed, voted upon, put into writing, revised during the Conference and later the final version of the document approved by the Holy See. It is worth pointing out one thing in particular: because 14 various versions of the Document had been circulating both inside and outside the assembly,4 it was possible, and it is still possible, to consult the various versions of the final Document to see points that were deleted, added, or amended.5 This fact – this intellectual freedom to look at and compare various ideas – detracts nothing from the authority of the Document; indeed, it increases the importance of the event as a whole in which the unity – manifested by the enthusiasm of the entire assembly and in the voting of individuals6 – was greater than the conflicts. Even those who assumed a more critical stance and painstakingly scoured all the changes made between the version voted upon and the final published version recognize that the “Aparecida event and everything that it gave rise to – even if it would later be dropped or modified – is a clear sign of the life

3.Cf. Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, n. 231. 4.Although it was not specified in the norms, it was permitted for bishops to receive counsel, for example, from those involved in Amerindia (a group of theologians and episcopal advisors formed in 1978 in conjunction with the Puebla Conference), who were operating out of a hotel adjacent to the Conference. 5.Cf. E. de la Serna, “Comparacion entre la 4a redaccion del Documento final de Aparecida,ultima aprobada por la asamblea y la version oficial aprobada por la curia romana”, in www.curasopp.com.ar/posaparecida/d05.php 6.The entire final document was approved by a margin of 97.5 percent (127 in favor, 2 opposed, and one abstention). During the voting on the individual parts, most of the paragraphs received 125 votes in favor and some even received 133 votes. TEN YEARS ON SINCE APARECIDA. THE SOURCES OF FRANCIS’ PONTIFICATE

blossoming everywhere. It is hard to deny or hide the fact that Aparecida was an expression of the Latin American journey that began in Medellin, grew strong in Puebla, and stopped to catch its breath in Santo Domingo.”7 Even though the theological and juridical value of these Conferences remains an open question, it is undeniable that in Latin America they have always had what we might call a pastoral authority. No sooner do they issue documents than the faithful, priests and bishops, read and implement them. From the middle of the last century, these Conferences have contributed greatly to the continent’s self-understanding and have allowed the people of God in Latin America and the Caribbean to make great strides forward.8 With the election of Pope Francis, the Fifth Conference in Aparecida has assumed not only a continental but also a universal 15 dimension; not in the sense that “the Latin American model should be exported and adopted everywhere, but that every Church should assume its own mission in its distinctive time and place.”9 In the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (EG), Pope Francis gave new impetus to the Conferences, taking up the vision of Vatican II (cf. Lumen Gentium (LG) 23) expressing the desire for the sufficient “juridical status of episcopal conferences that would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including some genuine doctrinal authority.” (EG 32)10

7.E. de la Serna, “Aparecida, un acontecimiento eclesial latinoamericano”, in Vida Pastoral, n. 267 (2007). 8.The first Conference was in Rio, Brazil, in 1955. That conference gave birth to CELAM. The second Conference was held in 1968 in Medellin, Colombia and paved the way to introducing Vatican II to Latin America. The Document approved by that Conference had the nihil obstat of Pope Paul VI. In 1979, the third Conference was held in Puebla, Mexico, and it received Paul VI’s 1975 exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi for Latin America. That Conference gave particular attention to the inculturation of the Gospel and the evangelization of culture. The fourth Conference took place in Santo Domingo in 1992. The tensions that arose at that assembly threatened the possibility of future Conferences. But both John Paul II and Benedict XVI supported conducting these Conferences in a way appropriate to Latin America, and this led to the fifth Conference at Aparecida. 9.C. Galli, “La teologia pastoral de Evangelii Gaudium en el proyecto misionero de Francisco”, in Teologia 114 (2014), 37 ff. 10.Cf. C. Schickendantz, “Le conferenze episcopali”, in A. Spadaro – C. Galli (eds), La riforma e le riforme nella Chiesa, Brescia, Queriniana, 2016, 347 ff. DIEGO FARES, SJ

Remembering the 20 intense days spent below the Shrine of Our Lady of Aparecida – where all of us who participated were able to observe the joyful piety of pilgrims as they walked and prayed above our heads during the debates – strongly brings to mind the conviction that we had lived through an ecclesial event of extraordinary richness during which “the Holy Spirit and we ourselves” – as Pope Benedict XVI put it at the opening Mass on May 13 – were the protagonists: a wish that proved prophetic. There was a notable pneumatological plus at Aparecida, so to speak. As Victor Fernandez (a priest and peritus at the conference, now a bishop) said: “The great pneumatological theme at Aparecida is the mission the Spirit is driving us toward. It is the call to come out of ourselves in order to avoid an 16 inward-looking Church: a theme well developed in the homilies of Bergoglio.”11 This is the hermeneutical key I would like to develop here: the accent on the role of the Spirit. What is actually at play here is the action of the Spirit in real persons – when two or three are gathered in the name of Christ – rather than the Spirit’s action in texts.

“Something useful for our people” “I have come so that we can together write something that will be useful to our people for the next ten years.” With this statement, Pedro Gregorio Rivas, an Augustinian from Santo Domingo, put an end to an argument that had arisen within a group of religious. He thus refocused attention to the future of our people and overcame the temptation to give in to factions among us: the same factions that, according to some, had impeded the Conference in Santo Domingo. In the end, the schema, discussed and revised several times, centered on “the life of our people.” The second part, dedicated to “Disciple Missionaries,” was placed between “The Life of our People in the Present Moment” (Part One) and “The Life of Jesus Christ for Our People” (Part Three).

11.V. M. Fernandez, “El estilo de Aparecida y el cardenal Bergoglio,” in Communio, December 21, 2013. Cf. www.communio-argentina.com.ar TEN YEARS ON SINCE APARECIDA. THE SOURCES OF FRANCIS’ PONTIFICATE

Ten years later, in the fifth year of Pope Francis’ pontificate, we can reinterpret the conference at Aparecida based on this conception of life – life as it presents itself12 in a particularly fruitful way. If we think about the great event that was the , we can say that 50 years later we are still trying to put into practice many of the inspirations the Spirit instilled in the hearts and minds of the conciliar fathers. The fruits of Aparecida – an important, although relatively small, sub-continental Conference – have been extended to the universal Church and well beyond her borders, thanks to the impetus Pope Francis has given to an evangelization that views the people of God, as a united entity, as a “missionary disciple” (AP 181), just as Vatican II wished (cf. AP 398). This evangelization is accomplished “through an overflowing of 17 gratitude and joy” (AP 14); with spiritual eyes that know how to discern a single crisis – ecological and social (cf. AP 3.5: The Good News of the Universal Destination of Goods and of Ecology) – and an incarnate Christology that knows how to see Christ in the poor (AP 392). As regards the way the Conference proceeded, it is worth pointing out the role Cardinal Bergoglio had in channeling the tensions in a synodal way to stave off polarization and give birth to a final, open Document.

The remote source of the pastoral program of Pope Francis Every morning of the Conference began with a concelebration of the attended by throngs of pilgrims to the Shrine. When Cardinal Bergoglio finished his homily in Spanish on Wednesday, May 16, the entire congregation broke out into applause. This applause – unprecedented and never repeated – instilled in many the certainty that the cardinal had something important to say and which the people of God had grasped. What did the Argentinian cardinal say? The day before, he had been chosen to preside over the drafting Committee and

12.Pope Francis often says that “we must take life as it is found in a particular place, just like the goalkeeper in soccer: he has to take the ball wherever it is kicked. Sometimes it goes in this direction, sometimes in that.” Speech to the Participants in “A Village for the Earth” Celebration, April 24, 2016. DIEGO FARES, SJ

take on the daunting task of summarizing everything that had been discussed and decided in Aparecida in a single document. In that homily, written in the early hours of the morning and received so enthusiastically, we discover, in a surprising way, the remote source of his pontificate. The next day, some Argentinian newspapers highlighted Bergoglio’s use of the term “excesses”13 as they read a description of marginalized people given in the “Intervention of the Argentinian Bishops.” What they had overlooked, however, and what had inspired the applause, was Cardinal Bergoglio’s non-scripted description of the humble image of Saint Turibio of Mogrovejo who died in 1606 after 22 years as a bishop, 18 of which he spent traveling 18 throughout his extensive diocese. When he died, a native played a traditional flute for his pastor’s soul to rest in peace. The passage in question went like this: “We do not, in fact, want to be a self-absorbed Church, but a missionary Church. We do not want to be a gnostic Church, but a Church that worships and prays. We, the people and the pastors who make up this faithful people of God, who enjoy an infallibility of faith together with the pope; we, the people and the pastors, speak on the basis of what the Spirit inspires in us, and we pray together and build the Church together; or better yet, we are instruments of the Spirit who builds her up.”14 We can clearly detect a bridge connecting this homily to Vatican II’s conception of the faithful people of God15 and to Pope Francis’ first greeting after his election to the papacy when he bowed his head and asked the faithful people to bless him. Lifting his head, he then said: “And now, let us begin this journey: bishop and people.” The same bridge extends to his first Mass with the cardinals during which he spoke of walking and building, and it continues in every step the Holy Spirit prompts

13.Cf. S. Premat, “Advirtio Bergoglio sobre el pecado social”, in La Nacion, May 17, 2007. Cf. www.lanacion.com.ar 14.J. M. Bergoglio, Homily, Aparecida, May 16, 2007. 15.The entire Church is missionary, and the work of evangelization is the fundamental duty of the whole people of God.” Paul VI, Evangelii Nuntiandi, n. 59, which also cites Ad Gentes, n. 35. TEN YEARS ON SINCE APARECIDA. THE SOURCES OF FRANCIS’ PONTIFICATE

Francis to make – just as it prompted Saint Turibio – to go out to the peripheries and dialogue with everyone.

The Holy Spirit and us: the walk of faith opened by Pope Benedict As mentioned above, Pope Benedict, a few days earlier, also referred to the Holy Spirit using an expression from the Acts of the Apostles: “The Holy Spirit and we.”16 In any case, at that moment, it was Pope Benedict who attracted media attention and troubled the participants in the Conference by asserting that “the proclamation of Jesus and of his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbian cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture.”17 And again at the General Audience on the following May 23, the Holy Father added: “It is not possible to forget the sufferings and the injustices inflicted 19 by the colonists on the indigenous peoples.”18 These were the dynamics stirring and worrying the assembly, together with the pressures some were exerting to “introduce” certain themes and others to “make them disappear.” The important thing was the powerful assertions Benedict made at the outset that paved the way for the Fifth Conference.

Cultures are open Benedict XVI affirmed that every authentic culture is open rather than closed. He said that the Gospel – as prone as it is to obfuscation by all sorts of exploitation – never alienates people, and that the native peoples who had survived had the wisdom and the magnanimity to inculturate the Gospel at the very moment they were rejecting – as they continue to do – everything that amounts to an imposition of structures opposed to the Gospel. These are affirmations that allow us to think of the real and current historical reality of the Latin American continent without falling into ideologies.

16.Benedict XVI, Homily at the Mass at the Beginning of the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean, May 13, 2007. 17.Id., Address to the Inaugural Session of the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean, May 13, 2007. 18.Id., General Audience, May 23, 2007. DIEGO FARES, SJ

The Aparecida Document picked up the thread of Benedict XVI’s General Audience, affirming that “the Gospel arrived on our lands in the climate of a dramatic and unequal encounter between peoples and cultures.” It also emphasized that “the seeds of the Word” present in autochthonous cultures made it easier for our indigenous brothers and sisters to discover in the Gospel vital answers to their deepest aspirations.” (AP 4 and 529) Regarding this theme, a great leap forward was made during Pope Francis’ meeting in with the indigenous communities of San Cristobal de las Casas on February 15, 2016. On that occasion, he looked not only at the accomplishments of the past but also at present and future opportunities, and in this meeting with “little cultures” – as they defined themselves 20 – he showed that, paradoxically, after centuries of being rejected and underappreciated by “big cultures,” the world is now “in need of them” and their “wisdom” which knows how to treat, respect, and love our mother earth. The pope said, “on many occasions, in a systematic and organized way, your people have been misunderstood and excluded from society. Some have considered your values, culture, and traditions to be inferior. Others, intoxicated by power, money and market trends, have stolen your lands or contaminated them. How sad this is! How worthwhile it would be for each of us to examine our conscience and learn to say, ‘forgive me!’” At the end of the Mass, three representatives of the indigenous peoples thanked him, saying, “You place your heart next to ours,” and “you carry us in your heart, our culture, our joys, our pains, the injustices we suffer.”19

The preferential option for the poor is Christological Benedict also affirmed – in the context of the question of the reality that includes God and of a culture of encounter – that “the preferential option for the poor is implicit in the Christological faith according to which God was made poor

19.Cf. A. Spadaro – D. Fares, “Il ‘trittico americano’ di papa Francesco”, in Civilta Cattolica 2016 I, 486 ff. TEN YEARS ON SINCE APARECIDA. THE SOURCES OF FRANCIS’ PONTIFICATE

20 for us in order to enrich us with his poverty (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9).” Paragraph 8, Number 3 of the Aparecida Document elaborates Pope Benedict XVI’s point: “This option is born from our faith in Jesus Christ, God made Man, who made himself our brother (cf. Heb. 2:11-12). This option, however, is neither exclusive nor does it exclude.21 If this option is implicit in the Christological faith, all Christians, as disciples and missionaries, are called to contemplate, in the suffering faces of our brothers, the face of Christ who calls us to serve him in them: ‘The suffering faces of the poor are the suffering face of the Lord’” (AP 292-293). We do not have to look too far for examples of Pope Francis’ support for a clear preferential option for the poor. But it is worth remembering that – in the face of attempts to minimize the magisterial authority of Pope Francis because of 21 his allegedly excessive focus on social issues – this preferential option is Christological, just as Benedict XVI had affirmed. Every time Pope Francis speaks of the poor he is doing Christology, a more elevated and incarnational Christology since whoever does not confess Christ in the flesh is not of the Spirit. The sensibility of the poor man is the essence of Christianity, as Albert Hurtado said.

The Holy Spirit and the question of the subject No less fundamental to the question of cultures and the poor is Benedict XVI’s initial invocation of the Holy Spirit and the vote of confidence he gave to the Conference and its synodal way of proceeding when, at the inaugural Mass, he said, “Leaders in the Church will argue and discuss but always in an attitude of religious attentiveness to the Word of Christ in the Holy Spirit. In the end we can affirm: ‘We have decided; the Holy Spirit and we …’ (Acts 15:28). This is the ‘method’ according to which we operate in the Church, both in small and large assemblies … ‘We and the Holy Spirit.’ This is the Church: we, the believing

20.Benedict XVI, Homily at the Mass at the Beginning of the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean, May 13, 2007. 21.Analogous additions were made after the approval of the Document and also caused tensions. Cf. E. de la Serna, op. cit. DIEGO FARES, SJ

community, the people of God, along with their Pastors called to guide them along the way; together with the Holy Spirit.”22 At this Mass, Pope Benedict XVI also spoke of the joy of creating space for the Word and communal discernment. These themes are connected to the question of who the ecclesial subject is – “The Holy Spirit and we, the people of God” – and these words in particular were firmly fixed in the minds of the assembly.

The Aparecida Document and Evangelii Nuntiandi Cardinal Bergoglio has always made a point of showing that Aparecida concluded by drawing upon the teaching of Evangelii Nuntiandi (EN). In an address to priests in 2008, he said that 22 “when drafting its final exhortation, Aparecida reached back 30 years to one of the most beautiful and powerful Magisterial documents – Evangelii Nuntiandi – and that its last sentence was ‘let us recapture the courage and fearlessness of the apostles.’”23 In a recent interview, Pope Francis said, “The pastoral focus I want to give the Church today is the Joy of the Gospel, an implementation of Pope Paul VI’s Evangelii Nuntiandi. He was a man ahead of his time. … He sowed the seeds history would go on to harvest. Evangelii Gaudium is a mixture of Evangelii Nuntiandi and the Aparecida Document. They were constructed from the ground up. Evangelii Nuntiandi is the best post-conciliar pastoral document and it has lost none of its freshness.”24 Actually, the Aparecida Document not only closes but also opens with Evangelii Nuntiandi and cites it in six key places, indicating challenges in concrete areas.

22.Benedict XVI, Homily at the Mass at the Beginning of the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean, May 13, 2007. 23.J. M. Bergoglio, Message of Aparecida to Priests, Villa Cura Brochero, September 11, 2008. See also J. M. Bergoglio, “Pastors of the people, not clerics of the State. The Message of Aparecida to priests”, in Civilta Cattolica 2013 IV, 3-13. 24.Pope Francis, Interview with El Pais, January 22, 2017; cf. A. Cano and P. Ordaz, “El peligro en tiempos de crisis es buscar un salvador que nos devuelva la identidad y nos defienda con muros”, in El Pais, January 22, 2017. Cf. www. internacional.elpais.com TEN YEARS ON SINCE APARECIDA. THE SOURCES OF FRANCIS’ PONTIFICATE

Missionary disciples as servants of Gospel joy In the Introduction to the Aparecida Document, the mission of the Church is described in harmony with “the evangelizing duty” referred to at the beginning of Evangelii Nuntiandi: “the duty of proclaiming the Gospel to the men and women of our time” as “a service” (EN 1) to the community and all humanity. The Aparecida Document specifies that “this is the best service – its own service! – that the Church can offer to people and nations” (AP 14). Therefore, forming missionary disciples who can perform this service with “greater love, zeal, and joy” (EN 1) is the Church’s “fundamental challenge” and “treasure”: “We have no other riches … no other joys or priorities” (AP 14). In the first chapter,25 we can see a sort of apologia on the part of Cardinal Bergoglio for the spiritual focus that is clearly 23 evident from the outset of the Document and which forms a contemplative outlook in those preparing themselves “to look at reality from the viewpoint of missionary disciples of Jesus Christ” (AP 20). There was a last minute motion to change the wording and begin with a “raw” look (this was indeed the specific proposal) at reality. Some participants “were asking to remove the brief expression of thanks that preceded the observation about reality and insisted that the document turn immediately to the words ‘to look at.’ Cardinal Bergoglio responded that it was better to keep the spiritual part before turning to the present reality in order to indicate the appropriate way of looking.26 There were 96 votes in favor of the proposal of the Redaction Commission’s president and 30 in favor of the originally proposed version.”27 Someone said that to Cardinal Bergoglio it seemed “too strong to go directly to a look at reality, and for this reason he

25.The first chapter is entitled “The Missionary Disciples” and it consists of three parts: (1) God’s Action of Grace, (2) The Joy of Being Disciples and Missionaries of Jesus Christ, and (3) The Church has the Mission to Evangelize. 26.On that occasion Bergoglio said that something very important was at stake that morning. His calm tone of voice gave the impression that he was speaking as someone convinced he was bearing the truth without any subjective emphasis as he asked the assembly to make the decision. 27.V. M. Fernandez, Aparecida. Guia para leer el Documento y cronica diaria, Buenos Aires, San Pablo, 2007, 157. DIEGO FARES, SJ

proposed a sort of doxology (i.e., praise to God).”28 In any case, paradoxically, this spiritual look implies the spiritual courage and daring that are proper to the Kingdom. Subsequently, many have noticed and mentioned what became known as the tone or the music of Aparecida. This is not a peripheral issue but one that regards the very subject who listens, looks, gives thanks, and then discerns and acts in a concrete manner.29 Through this spiritual gaze or look we are able to recognize the subject who praises the Father and confesses Christ: “the Holy Spirit and we, the people of God,” as Benedict XVI said. The “look” of missionary disciples is the same as that of the little ones mentioned in Matthew 11:25, and its purpose is to teach “the wise and the learned” how to see 24 well. From this viewpoint, the Church can offer a service of “discerning the signs of the times and interpreting them in light of the Gospel,” as Gaudium et Spes affirms in. n 4. In this way, we stave off the danger of looking and judging things from the perspective of an anonymous subject, as Guardini taught30: an anonymous subject characterized by a tendency to discuss abstractions detached from the life of the people. The evangelical look, on the other hand, to the extent that it is born from an attitude of praise and remains at the core of the original, living faith. This vision, from a pastoral perspective, allows for the harmonization of both the scientific and dogmatic viewpoints. Today, we recognize that it is precisely this look – one that favors a synodal way of proceeding and joyfully clears space for the Word and for community discernment as Benedict XVI indicated in his inaugural discourse in Aparecida – that Pope Francis particularly insists on, notwithstanding some naysayers.

28.E. de la Serna, “Informes diarios desde Aparecida,” www.curasopp.com. ar/Aparecida/m01.php#31 29.Cf. J. E. Scheinig, “Nueva evangelizacion y Pastoral urbana,” in https:// www.scribd.com/document/311043518/scheining-Jorge-Eduardo-Nueva- Evangelizacio-n-y-Pastoral-Urbana 30.Cf. M. Mosto, “El poder. Homenaje a a 40 anos de su fallecimiento”, in Sapientia 65 (2009), 195-202. Also available at http://biblioteca- digital.uca.edu.ar/greenstone/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=Revistas&d=poder-ho- menaje-romano-guardini-fallecimiento TEN YEARS ON SINCE APARECIDA. THE SOURCES OF FRANCIS’ PONTIFICATE

The concluding section of the Aparecida Document echoes 31 that of Evangelii Nuntiandi with an exhortation to missionary disciples: “Let us, therefore, rediscover the fervor of the Spirit. Let us safeguard the sweet and consoling joy of evangelizing, even when we must sow in tears.” Then follows an important mention of the evangelizers: “Let it be for us – just as it was for John the Baptist, Peter and Paul, the other Apostles, and the multitude of extraordinary evangelizers throughout the long history of the Church – an interior compulsion that no one and nothing can extinguish.” The task, therefore, is that of forming evangelizers: “Let us recover the courage and fearlessness of the Apostles” (AP 552). The entire second part of the final document is dedicated to the theme of “missionary disciples.” Just as in the working 25 document and in the first draft, the final document could have settled for a mere description of the ideal disciple. But instead, the “missionary disciple” remained even though it ceded center stage to the theme of the service of life. The Aparecida Document particularly emphasizes the role of the in missionary discipleship. The document twice quotes Evangelii Nuntiandi when it speaks of the specific mission of the laity as “embedded in the world” (AP 210, 282-283) and having no need to be clercalized. And, in this context, it particularly addresses the topic (often ignored in Church documents) of “the responsibility of husbands and fathers in families” (AP 9.6).

The people as the subject of the evangelization of their own culture The Aparecida Document addresses the processes and companionship necessary to form missionary disciples. It does so by showing the “complexity of the evangelizing action” (cf. EN, 17) that must renew humanity not in the form of a superficial veneer but in a vital and profound way that gets to the very roots of the culture and cultures according to the rich and abundant teaching of Gaudium et Spes (cf. GS 53-54). In Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis takes a further step by saying – still quoting Gaudium et Spes – that “grace presupposes

31.EN, 80. DIEGO FARES, SJ

culture” and not only nature: “the human being is always situated culturally: ‘nature and culture are very closely tied to one another’ (cf. GS 53). Grace presupposes culture, and God’s gift is incarnate in the culture of the one who receives it” (EG 115). In popular piety we can have an even better appreciation for the continuity and development that connects Evangelii Nuntiandi, the Aparecida Document and Evangelii Gaudium. Paul VI referred to “the reality that is often described today by the term ‘popular religiosity’.” He spoke of the rediscovery of its value. He recognized not only it limits but also its rich value and he exhorted believers to “be sensitive to it” and to “know how to perceive its interior dimensions and undeniable values” (EN, 48). The Aparecida document echoes this last point – “to perceive 26 its interior dimensions and undeniable values” – and takes a step further adding the phenomena of “popular mysticism” (AP 262) and “popular spirituality” (AP 263). Evangelii Gaudium clearly presents “popular spirituality and mysticism” as an evangelizing force within the people of God who, as a whole, are the “subject of evangelization” (EG 110 and following). “The different peoples among whom the Gospel has been inculturated are active collective subjects or agents of evangelization. This is because each people is the creator of its own culture and the protagonist of its own history” (EG 122). Summarizing the contributions of Paul VI and Benedict XVI to Aparecida, Evangelii Gaudium emphasizes the “evangelizing power of popular piety,” affirming that it is truly “‘a spirituality incarnated in the culture of the lowly’” (EG 124, cf. AP 263). This “culture of the lowly” is the cross-section of the people of God present in peoples throughout the world who are capable of inculturating the Gospel on the basis of the poverty and simplicity of spirit that becomes a leaven for various cultures across the globe. The extent of the humanism of any culture can be ascertained from the way it treats its poor, and this is an ethical value shared by the many different ideologies.

Humanity as the subject caring for mother earth and the poor Finally, let us briefly note how Evangelii Gaudium translates the insights of Aparecida and its retrieval of Paul VI into an TEN YEARS ON SINCE APARECIDA. THE SOURCES OF FRANCIS’ PONTIFICATE apostolic program by presenting the joy of the Gospel as its essential element, thus explaining the Aparecida Document’s focus on ecology (specifically the Amazon and Antarctica), which subsequently became the seed of Laudato Si’. A look of adoration and praise for the Creator allows us to connect two themes that world leaders do everything they can to keep separate: the poor and our care for the planet. The spiritual viewpoint of Laudato Si’ – a social rather than a green – is able to discern or see a social problem in the ecological question and see Christology in the question of the poor. .

27 “Which Mary?” Francis at Fatima: the wounded world, prophetic shepherds, and Mother Mary

Diego Fares, SJ – Antonio Spadaro, SJ Pope Francis’ trip to Fatima took place on May 12 and 13, exactly 100 years after the apparitions of the Virgin of Fatima. He canonized two of the three shepherd children who lived that experience in 1917: Francisco and Jacinta Marto. Lucia, the third 28 child, died in 2005 and the cause of her beatification is ongoing. This was the fifth trip of a successor of St. Peter to Fatima and follows those by Paul VI (in 1967 on the 50th anniversary of the apparitions of the Blessed Mother), by Saint John Paul II (in 1982, a year after the attempt on his life in St. Peter’s Square and again in 1991 and 2000), and by Benedict XVI (in 2010 on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the beatification of the shepherd children, Jacinta and Francisco). In the following pages we will provide a detailed report of the pope’s trip and we will pick out three elements that in our opinion were the important focal points of the trip in order to help better understand its meaning1: the political value of the trip; the importance of a prophetic message being entrusted to shepherd children; and the true meaning of Marian devotion.

Report of the trip The papal airplane landed at 4:35 p.m. at the military airport of Monte Real. Upon his arrival the pope was greeted by the President of the Republic of Portugal, Marcelo Nuno Duarte Rebelo de Sousa, and by a group of about 1,000 faithful. After

1.In order to comprehend the meaning of the message of the it is helpful to read the theological comment offered by then-Cardinal Ratzinger on the message of Fatima published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 26, 2000. “WHICH MARY?” FRANCIS AT FATIMA the standard greetings he was taken by car to a chapel on the base, where some sick members of the military and their families awaited him. Then he left the base by helicopter and went to the stadium at Fatima, where he was met by the bishop of Leiria- Fatima, Antonio Augusto dos Santos Marto and by the mayor, without any formalities or speeches. He went immediately to the chapel of the apparitions. The open area around the sanctuary was packed with nearly 500,000 faithful who expressed their joy on the pope’s arrival. The pilgrims had arrived as early as the night before, staying there despite the rain. Their joy slowly transformed into an intense prayer: the festive greetings turned into a profound, prayerful silence that joined itself to that of the pope. Francis, accompanied by his doctor, Prof. Soccorsi, prayed to the Virgin and then placed 29 a golden rose at the feet of the statue. All of this took place under a sunny sky that remained throughout the pope’s visit. Everyone waited in prayer while the pope went next door to the house Nossa Senhora do Carmo for a brief dinner and then returned for the blessing of the candles and the recitation of the around 9:30 p.m. The area around the sanctuary was lit and filled with Marian invocations. The prayer was introduced by a greeting from the pope who spoke to the pilgrims “of Mary and with Mary,” embracing all, especially the most needy. In this greeting he posed a question about Mary, about her identity, giving an efficacious Marian catechesis about which we will say more later. After the recitation of the rosary, the pope retired around 10:30 p.m. and a vigil Mass for the Marian solemnity of May 13th was presided over by Cardinal Pietro Parolin. A lengthy procession left from the chapel, passing by the new sanctuary of the Holy Trinity to arrive at the altar placed in front of the basilica. The Mass concluded after midnight. On Saturday the 13th the pope’s day began with a meeting with the Prime Minister of Portugal, Antonio Luis Santos da Costa, after which he said goodbye to the house Nossa Senhora do Carmo and then went to the basilica to pay homage at the tombs of the shepherd children. Afterward, the pope went into the sacristy to prepare himself to celebrate the Mass of canonization on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the apparitions. DIEGO FARES, SJ – ANTONIO SPADARO, SJ

In front of a field packed with people from over 55 nations, Francis declared Francisco and Jacinta saints. Among the many moving moments during the celebration that was filled with profound silence or joyous singing, what was noticed by all was the long and affectionate embrace the pope gave to a young Brazilian boy who had been cured through the intercession of the shepherd children from a cranial trauma that nearly claimed his life. This was the miracle that concluded the process of canonization for Jacinta and Francisco. During his homily Pope Francis twice repeated: “We have a Mother!” He continued: “Clinging to her like children, we live in the hope that rests on Jesus.” The pilgrim pope prayed for all, but particularly for the “sick and disabled, the imprisoned 30 and the unemployed, the poor and the abandoned.” He said that he felt himself accompanied by many pilgrims and he recalled this by citing Sr. Lucia’s Memoirs (III, n.6). She recounts Jacinta speaking just after having been blessed by a vision: “Do you not see all those streets, all those paths and fields full of people crying out for food, yet have nothing to eat? And the Holy Father in a church, before the Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying? And so many people in prayer with him?” Francis exclaimed: “Thank you, brothers and sisters for being here with me!” At the end of the celebration there was time for adoration of the Blessed Sacrament followed by a procession with Eucharistic benediction of the sick. Francis greeted them in a special way: “Dear sick ones” he said among other things “live your lives as a gift and tell the Blessed Mother, like the shepherd children, that you want to offer yourselves to God with your whole heart. Do not see yourselves as mere recipients of charitable solidarity, but feel yourselves to be full participants in the life and mission of the Church. Your silent presence is more eloquent than many words, your prayers, the daily offering of your suffering in union with that of Jesus crucified for the salvation of the world, the patient, and even joyous, acceptance of your condition are all a spiritual resource, a patrimony for every Christian community. Do not be ashamed to be a precious treasure of the Church.” “WHICH MARY?” FRANCIS AT FATIMA

It is also important to note the presence at the altar of five bishops of the Church of England2 – four of whom belong to the “Ecumenical Association of Friends of Fatima”3 – along with roughly 70 Anglican pilgrims who brought a spirit of ecumenism in the name of Mary to the celebration. Having concluded the Mass, the pope and those who had traveled with him had lunch with the bishops of Portugal. Soon afterward he went to the airbase of Monte Real where he was met by the President of the Republic. After the farewells of the delegations attended by some 700 faithful, a plane of the Portuguese airline, Tap, took Francis back to Rome.

Fatima between the first and the third world wars: a wounded world This pilgrimage occurred between Francis’ visit to Egypt4 31 and the visit to the Vatican by the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, which took place shortly afterwards, on May 24. In his prayer before the statue of the Virgin, the pope was able to pray in invocation, bringing together his intentions for the whole world: “Pilgrim of the Light who comes to us from your hands, I give thanks to God the Father who, in every time and place, works in human history; pilgrim of the Peace who, in this place, You announce, I give praise to Christ, our peace, and I implore for the world concord among all the peoples.” Here is the first consideration: this trip was to implore peace because Francis sees how the international scene is “covered by dark clouds and therefore requires greater knowledge of the necessary behaviors and actions for a path toward peace that

2.Jonathan Baker, ; Glyn Webster, ; , bishop of ; Jonathan Goodall, ; and Robert Ladds, bishop emeritus of Whitby. 3.The Association was founded and dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary at Fatima on May 15, 2001, by Rev. , Anglican bishop of Richborough, in the presence of the previous bishop of Leiria-Fatima, the Most Rev. Serafim Ferreira e Silva. The goal of the Association is the unity of Christians through the intercession of Mary. It organizes pilgrimages to Fatima every year for the celebrations of May 12 and 13. 4.Cfr. A. Spadaro, “Egypt, land of civilization and alliances. Francis’ dramatic, therapeutic and prophetic journey”, in Civ. Catt. English Edition 0617 (2017). DIEGO FARES, SJ – ANTONIO SPADARO, SJ

reduces tensions.”5 The motto of the trip was, “With Mary, pilgrim in hope and in peace.” Perhaps it was the pinnacle moment of an action of soft power for peace with spiritual roots of the kind that the pope undertakes day by day. In that prayer his political messages and embraces reverberate, such as that with the Imam of al-Azhar. In that prayer to the Mother of God is the echo of disgust at the recent description of a bomb as “mother” given its destructive force. Before God and the Virgin, a hermeneutic of history unfolds that Fatima represents, given its temporal placement in the middle of a world war. The Madonna of Fatima is the Madonna who – let us not forget – has a bullet inserted into her crown, that of 9 caliber that struck Saint John Paul II on May 13, 1981. Francis said before he left during his Wednesday 32 catechesis on May 10: “From her first appearance in the Gospels, 6 Mary has been drawn as if she were a character in a drama.” Francis has confirmed the position of Paul VI who said that the intention of his pilgrimage to Fatima was “the world, peace in the world.” Pope Paul VI noted, “everything seems to push the world toward fraternity, toward unity; but instead, tremendous and continuous conflicts erupt in the heart of humanity.”7 The words of yesterday hold true today. To those present, it was enough to look around at the flags of the more than 50 countries present to recognize the wounded nations of the planet; it was enough to read the signs they carried to hear the invocations for help from the continents and the shadows of so many “walls”: from Bangui to Caracas, from Korea to the Middle East. The words spoken by the Holy Father to the diplomatic corps on January 9 resounded in the context of the prayer. In fact, Cardinal Parolin cited them in his homily on the night of May 12. In that speech Francis said, “For many people today, peace appears as a blessing to be taken for granted, for all intents an acquired right to which not much thought is given. Yet,

5.Francis said as much on May 18, a few short days after returning from Fatima in his audience with the ambassadors of Mauritania, Nepal, Trinidad and Tobago, Sudan, Kazakhstan and Niger on the occasion of the presentation of their letters of credentials. 6.Italics added. 7.Paul VI, Homily of the Holy Mass in the basilica of Fatima, May 13, 1967. “WHICH MARY?” FRANCIS AT FATIMA for all too many others, peace remains merely a distant dream. Millions of people still live in the midst of senseless conflicts. Even in places once considered secure, a general sense of fear is felt. We are frequently overwhelmed by images of death, by the pain of innocent men, women and children who plead for help and consolation, by the grief of those mourning the loss of a dear one due to hatred and violence, and by the drama of refugees fleeing war and migrants meeting tragic deaths.” The pope chose to meet a family of refugees of Palestinian origin in a private moment during the morning of the 13th. These six adults and three children represented four generations. The family first moved to Iraq in 1948 but was constrained by the war in 2003 to seek refuge in . Then in 2012 it relocated to Libya because of another war. From there they arrived in 33 Lampedusa in November 2015. After a stay at the center for those seeking exile at Castelnuovo di Porto (Rome) – where they met the pope on Holy Thursday in 2016 – now thanks to resettling efforts the family lives not far from Fatima, in Batalha. This is a family that has lived the parabola of migration that the pope has defined “the true global political challenge of our times.”8 “This is the second time we have met; I want to see you the third time in Jerusalem,” confided the grandmother to Francis. He hugged her and asked her to pray for the holy city. Francis has touched the wounds of the world knowing that the “piecemeal third world war” requires prayers that are no less fervent than those sent up to heaven during the First World War or the Cold War. These prayers capture the truly “prophetic” message of Fatima, announced by the “prophets” who were none other than shepherd children, guardians of the authoritativeness the Lord reserves for the “small” and not for the “wise” or the “intelligent” (cfr. Mt 11: 25-26).

Shepherd children as “prophets” The second consideration to make is that children who were not martyred have been declared saints for the first time. The

8.“Papa Francesco incontra La Civiltà Cattolica in occasione della pubblicazione del fascicolo 4000”, in Civ. Catt. 2017 I 439-447. DIEGO FARES, SJ – ANTONIO SPADARO, SJ

essential message that radiates from all of the “messages” and the most relevant “secret” of Fatima is that those things hidden from the wise are revealed to the small. The small understand the message and put into practice its words with simplicity. Jacinta was only 6 years old at the time of the apparitions, Francisco was 9 and Lucia 10. The first “joyous announcement” is precisely this and it is necessary to learn to see and read it in all of those things that happened afterward. They began in the Spring of 1916 with the apparition of the angel to the children who taught them to pray. The messages continued every month on the 13th through 1917, including six apparitions of the Blessed Mother. They had their most dramatic moment with the illness and premature death of Francisco (April 4, 1919) and then Jacinta 34 (February 20, 1920), victims of Spanish influenza. All of them were set down in the recounting of Lucia. Now these happenings are crowned with the canonization of these two saints. They are among the youngest in the history of the Church. The pope explained their holiness synthetically during the Regina Coeli on May 14: “At Fatima the Virgin chose the innocent heart and the simplicity of little Francisco, Jacinta and Lucia, as recipients of her message. These youngsters received it worthily, so much so as to be recognized as reliable witnesses of the apparitions, and models of Christian life. With the Canonization of Francisco and Jacinta, I wished to propose to the whole Church their example of adherence to Christ and evangelical testimony and I also wished to propose to the whole Church the care of children. Their holiness was not the consequence of the apparitions, but of the fidelity and ardor with which they responded to the privilege received of being able to see the Virgin Mary.” The Blessed Mother appeared to the shepherd children and spoke to them, first alone and then among multitudes of people. Lucia, in her memoirs, retells something that then seemed to her not important to the matter that was being treated: “Now, when I read in the about those enchanting scenes of Our Lord’s passing through Palestine, I think of those whom Our Lord allowed me to witness while yet a child on the poor roads and lanes from Aljustrel to Fatima and on to “WHICH MARY?” FRANCIS AT FATIMA

the ! I give thanks to God, offering Him the faith of our good Portuguese people, and I think: ‘If these people so humbled themselves before three poor children, just because they were mercifully granted the grace to speak to the Mother of God, what would they do if they saw Our Lord Himself in person before them?’”9 After writing these words Lucia thought that there was “another distraction of the pen as it went where I did not want it to go. Another useless thing; but I didn’t take it out, so as not to render the entire notebook useless.” Nevertheless, her reflection on the “faith of the good Portuguese people” says to us today more than miracles, cosmic manifestations and secrets. As a chosen part of the people of God, the children understood the essence of the message, each in their own way, integrating 35 that knowledge by sharing it with each other. Francisco saw the Blessed Mother but did not hear her; his cousin told him everything she had said. Nevertheless, he profoundly understood that his mission was connected to the command of the angel in the third apparition: “Console your God.” These words made a profound impression on the heart of the young shepherd, so much so that “it seemed that he thought only of comforting the Lord and the Blessed Mother who seemed to him to be so sad.”10 Jacinta was so moved by the vision of hell and “seemed taken solely by the thought of converting sinners and of freeing souls from hell.”11 Lucia was given the responsibility of making the story known. Those children understood that they needed to pray a lot. The solid prayer of the angel did not leave any room for the imagination: “My God, I believe, I adore, I hope and I love You! I ask pardon of You for those who do not believe, do not adore, do not hope and do not love You.”12 Still, it is worth noting that the prayer is “to console God” and is for “the poor sinners.” What has been interpreted many times from the point of view

9.Memorie di suor Lucia, vol. 1, Fatima, Secretariado dos Pastorinhos, 2007, 175. 10.Ib., 153. 11.Ib. 12.Ib., 77. DIEGO FARES, SJ – ANTONIO SPADARO, SJ

of “duty” and “fear of punishment,” acquires new light when it is interpreted in the key of joy and mercy. The children understand the value of sacrifice. When Lucia asks with that concreteness which belongs to children, “How are we to make sacrifices?” the angel responds in an equally concrete manner: “Sacrifice everything that you can, and offer it to God, an act of reparation for sins.”13 It stupefies how the children understand the power of intercession and begin to make small sacrifices for others. With great ease they say that they gave to the poor their figs and their eggs. It is true that some sacrifices will tend to be overdone (the Blessed Mother moderates some so that the children would not risk their own health) but it should be noted that the first effect of this request 36 for prayer and penance was the children remaining “on their knees, with their faces down […] repeating the angel’s prayer.”14 These simple shepherd children understood very well that one “can console God,” that small and large sacrifices have intercessory value for others and that the grace they receive is for all people and for humanity. The pain that the “poor sinners” arouse in the shepherd children is the same that makes them feel the sadness of God. The fundamental feeling that is reawakened and that one sees in the concrete works of the children is mercy. The message of Fatima, its most interesting secret perhaps, is that there exists “a dialogue between God and the smallness of humanity.” God chooses the small – small persons and small peoples – because he can dialogue with these, he can “call them by their name” and not by their titles. The Blessed Mother also said that the Lord had looked with favor on her “lowliness.” Francis has affirmed: “When God has to choose people, including his own people, he always chooses the lowly.”15 And again, He is a God “in love with our smallness.”16 This smallness – full and rich – is the source of the speeches of the pope even when he speaks in cultural, social and political spheres; when the pope proclaims the value of the “small cultures” and of our need of

13.Ib., 78. 14.Ib. 15.Francis, Homily at Santa Marta, January 21, 2014. 16.Id., Homily in the Holy Mass of Christmas Eve, December 24, 2014. “WHICH MARY?” FRANCIS AT FATIMA their vision and of the cure of our sister, mother earth;17 when he speaks to popular movements, appreciating that they “work in the small things, in proximity.”18 Before an incredibly diverse public with different ideologies, often the pope inserts the Blessed Mother into his political and social speeches.19 Making an appeal to the hearts of his listeners, one time he invited them to “always keep at heart the Virgin Mary” defining her as “the homeless mother.”20 In the consecration to the Virgin of Fatima, the pope’s prayer implored her: “Teach us your own special love for the little and the poor, for the excluded and the suffering, for sinners and the wounded of heart: gather all people under your protection and give us all to your beloved Son, our Lord Jesus.”21 37 Who is Mary in the vision of Pope Francis In his greeting for the blessing of the candles and the recitation of the rosary, the pope asked a fundamental question about who Mary is, what image we have of her, and what is the meaning of her presence. This is the third consideration we want to make. “But which Mary?” – asked Francis – “A teacher of the spiritual life, the first to follow Jesus on the “narrow way” of the cross by giving us an example, or a Lady “unapproachable” and impossible to imitate?” And again, “A woman ‘blessed because she believed’ always and everywhere in God’s words (cf. Lk 1:42.45), or a “plaster statue” from whom we beg favors at little cost?” Finally, he asked a third question: “The Virgin Mary of the Gospel, venerated by the Church at prayer, or a Mary of our own making: one who restrains the arm of a vengeful God; one sweeter than Jesus the ruthless judge; one more merciful than the Lamb slain for us?” These questions allowed Francis to alert us to the “great injustice” against God and his grace, when one affirms “that

17.Cfr. A. Spadaro – D. Fares, “Il trittico americano di Papa Francesco. Cuba, Stati Uniti e Messico”, in Civ. Catt. 2016 I 472-488. 18.Francis, Address at the Second World Meeting of Popular Movements, July 9, 2015. 19.Cfr D. Fares, “Papa Francesco e la politica”, in Civ. Catt. 2016 I 373-385. 20.Ib. 21.Francis, Act of entrustment to Mary, Virgin of Fatima, October 13, 2013. DIEGO FARES, SJ – ANTONIO SPADARO, SJ

sins are punished by his judgment, without first saying – as the Gospel clearly does – that they are forgiven by his mercy! Mercy has to be put before judgment and, in any case, God’s judgment will always be rendered in the light of his mercy.” Mary has always had a central place in the life of Pope Francis. Her various titles – Queen, Our Lady, etc. – are correct but what is essential is that: “She is Mother, because she carries us to Jesus and she helps us with the strength of the Holy Spirit so that Jesus is born and grows within us.”22 In Fatima Francis proposed a meditation regarding how Christians perceive the presence of Mary in their lives and he called for a more profound and authentic understanding. The question posed at Fatima in his greeting leads us to 38 ask what is the role of the Virgin in Francis’ spirituality. The centrality of Mary is manifest in his gestures in an obvious way; he expresses a devotion understood by simple people who pray with gestures typical of popular mysticism, “applying the spiritual senses,”23 touching images and then making the sign of the cross. This now habitual devotion sees the pope taking time – at the beginning and upon his return from each foreign trip as well as on other important occasions – to go to the basilica of Saint Mary Major in Rome to entrust his mission to the Mother of God, and to thank her while bringing her a bouquet of flowers. One cannot forget that this was his first official act on March 14, 2013, the morning after his election as Supreme Pontiff. Francis has always gone to Saint Mary Major ever since his first visit to Rome as a Jesuit and the habit of taking flowers to the Virgin comes from his family’s devotion to Our Lady, Help of Christians. We know that as a Jesuit and later as bishop and cardinal, Bergoglio went every 23rd or 24th of the month to pray at the chapel of the Virgin in the church of Saint Charles – where he was baptized – taking flowers to Mary.24

22.Id., Dialogue during the Meeting with the Schönstatt Movement, October 25, 2014. 23.Ignatius of Loyola, s., Spiritual Excercises, n. 121. 24.The testimony of Father Jorge Casanova and of Father José Mario Repovz, in A. León, Papa Francesco e don Bosco, , Libr. Ed. Vaticana, 2015, 90-93. “WHICH MARY?” FRANCIS AT FATIMA

All of the theology of Pope Francis is concentrated in these gestures toward the Mother of God. What is said in them – and what is thought and done – especially of the Virgin Mary is said universally of the Church and individually of each of the faithful.25 Francis said at Saint Mary Major: “The Mother of God. This is the first and most important title of Our Lady. It refers to a quality, a role that the faith of the Christian people, in its tender and genuine devotion to our heavenly Mother, has understood from the beginning […] Theirs is the spontaneous and sincere reaction of children who know their Mother well, for they love her with immense tenderness. But it is more: it is the sensus fidei of the holy people of God that never, in its unity, ever errs.”26 Cardinal Bergoglio expressed it this way: “The Christian people understands that the protection of God comes to it through the 39 invocation of an image of Mary, personalized and singular, and that, therefore, Mary personalizes and renders singular that people. The people identify with the image of Mary: just as their ancestors did, so today they run to her with their problems. Admiring the personal virtues of Mary, popular piety takes advantage of her attributes to get to God. The miraculous action of Mary is the principal sign of the individualized protection of a place and from a place.”27 The Mariology of Francis emerges from this contemplation centered on the mysterious relationship between Mary, the people and each and every member of the faithful. It is translated in his gestures and in his homilies and writings, filling not only his

25.This phrase that Pope Francis loves to repeat is of Blessed Isaac of Stella: “Therefore, justly in the divinely inspired Scriptures what is said in general of the virgin mother Church, is understood singularly of the virgin mother Mary; and what is said in a special way about the virgin mother Mary, is to be referred in general to the virgin mother Church … Even the single faithful soul can be considered as Spouse of the Word of God, mother, daughter and sister of Christ, virgin and fecund. It is said then in general for the Church, in a special way for Mary, and in particular also for the faithful soul, of the same Wisdom of God that is the Word of the Father.” Cfr. J. M. Bergoglio, Catechesi nel 49 Congresso eucaristico internazionale, Québec, June 18, 2008. Cfr. also Isaac of Stella, Discorsi, 51 (PL 194, 1862-1863.1865). 26.Francis, Homily on the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God, January 1, 2014. 27.J. M. Bergoglio, Religiosità popolare come inculturazione della fede, January 19, 2008. DIEGO FARES, SJ – ANTONIO SPADARO, SJ

theological reflection but also his , moral reflection and social and political vision. Here is an example. In the conversation with the faithful of the Schoenstatt Movement, in a brief response to a question from a couple that had asked him to speak to them about Mary, one can see in action the way the pope thinks and reflects about her. Francis restated that Mary is essentially Mother. Immediately, his reflection turned to each individual member of the faithful: “A Christian – he said – cannot be a ‘guacho,’ an orphan.” He explained: “When we Argentinians encounter a person who seems bad, one who lets himself go … we say he is an orphan.” The moral conclusion was the following: “The Christian cannot be an orphan because he has Mary as Mother.” The consideration 40 then expanded to include an ecclesiological element: “A Church without Mary is an orphanage.” He then added this example: “In southern Italy, there is a devotion to Our Lady of the Mandarins, to whom slobs and thieves are devoted…” Tradition has it that when the Virgin sees one of her devotees in line among those arriving in heaven, she gives him a sign to step aside and wait, and then she herself opens the door for him at night when Saint Peter is not looking. “One devoted to Mary – concludes the pope – is not damned.” “Mary knows how to move the conscience.” The pope says that this is “a great theology” because it reveals a great truth: “A mother takes care of her children until the end.”

* * *

Traveling to Fatima, Francis celebrated the fact that from this place the message of conversion went out, having been given to the shepherd children by Mary our Mother. It is a message that looks at the world and that desires an “end to the many wars there are throughout the world and that are growing ever larger, as well as an end to the absurd, large and small conflicts that disfigure the face of humanity.”28

28.Francis at the Regina Coeli on May 14, 2017, the day after returning from his pilgrimage to Fatima. Authority, New Media and the Church

Paul A. Soukup, SJ

Writing about the history of the Bible in the 13th century, de Hamel notes, “The Bible, at least in Western Europe, was mostly still in Latin, by then used by fewer and fewer people. This gave it authority but obscurity.”1 A parallel situation has emerged in 41 the contemporary world in terms of Church authority. The Church possesses and exerts many kinds of authority, with the most serious and solemn connected to its teaching office in matters of faith and morals. Her various kinds of authority ultimately come back to a charism of the Holy Spirit, and theologians have labored to better understand Church authority. However, today’s communication situation has changed dramatically from that of even 100 years ago and, with it, the situation of Church authority. The contemporary world sees a growing gulf between a teaching authority that the Church understands it has and the authority that people appear willing to recognize. Scholars and theologians exploring this situation will find many ways to explain it, but communication study, particularly media ecology, can offer one way to make sense of this complex world. Media ecology proposes studying the communication world through the biological metaphor of an ecosystem, in which the various media, institutions, ideas, behaviors, actors, and so on continually interact. One can see this by thinking of the impact of the smartphone. Its advent, just 10 years ago, has changed how people stay in touch (text, not talk), listen to music (streaming services, not collections of recordings), watch

1.C. De Hamel, The Book: A History of the Bible, London – New York, Phaidon, 2001, ix. PAUL A. SOUKUP, SJ

video (again, streaming and not from a broadcast network), self-identify (through social media updates constantly refreshed online), obtain news (text or Twitter alerts on phones), and so on. While this change in communication technology does not act in a deterministic way, it does provide the opportunity for people to behave differently. This emerges clearly with various social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, or search sites such as Google. People look in these places for authoritative information. Similar observations occur should we consider people’s behaviors or the impact of media organizations or the influence of social actors. Journalism, for example, has witnessed a dramatic change in its own credibility, authority, and public place. Bell comments, “Two 42 significant things have already happened that we have not paid enough attention to: First, news publishers have lost control over distribution [to social media]. ... Second, the inevitable outcome of this is the increase in power of social media companies.”2

Models of Communication in the Church From a communication perspective’s analysis of organizational structure, the Church depends on hierarchy for its communication; and hierarchy, by its very nature, prefers a centralized or broadcast model of communication. In a reflection on theological thinking about communication after the Second Vatican Council, Dulles3 highlighted this as he correlated communication practices with the various models of the church, which he had first proposed in 4 1974 in his Models of the Church. In his work on ecclesiology, Dulles outlines five models of the Church. The hierarchical or institutional model focuses on Church structure and is “concerned with the authority of the office and the obligatory character of official doctrine.”5 Here

2.E. Bell, “Facebook is eating the world”, in Columbia Journalism Review, March 7, 2016, retrieved from http://www.cjr.org/analysis/facebook_and_media. php 3.A. Dulles, The Reshaping of Catholicism: Current Challenges in the Theology of Church. San Francisco, Harper & Row, 1988. 4.Id., Models of the Church. New York, Image Books, 1974. 5.Ibid., 112. AUTHORITY, NEW MEDIA AND THE CHURCH communication moves from the center to the members, “in the theological sense, as a descending process beginning from God and passing through the papal and episcopal hierarchy to the other members of the Church.”6 But the Church is more than this. The kerygmatic or herald model represents the Church as proclaiming the Gospel. Quoting from the Vatican II decree Ad Gentes, Dulles calls attention to the missionary aspect of the Church: “all baptized believers are bearers of the message.”7 “Here, the communication ministry of the Church is seen in relation to outsiders whereas the first model refers more to the inner communication within the Church.”8 This communication can take many forms, but often has its roots in face-to-face encounters, the works of charity, and the witness of a holy life. 43 A sacramental model of the Church calls attention to the sacraments as “sign and instrument of the living presence of Christ,”9 particularly in the liturgy.10 Fourth, the community or communion model locates the identity of the Church and its communication in the fellowship of believers, the People of God. Communication here finds expression in “witness and dialogue,” often the kinds of community taking place in parishes, schools, or among neighbors. Finally, Dulles presents the model of service, in which the Church as servant of Christ lives out the Gospel values of reconciliation, compassion, justice and service to the poor. In this model, the preferred communication becomes conversation, humility, providing a voice for the voiceless. As briefly indicated, each of Dulles’ models of the Church correlates with one or another kind of communication. Each model also reflects a particular media ecology. The present reflection on the impact of social media on Church authority will consider only two kinds of communication and

6.Ibid. 7.Ibid., 116. 8.F.J. Eilers, Communicating in Ministry and Mission: An Introduction to Pastoral and Evangelizing Communication, Manila, Logos, 2003, 51. 9.Ibid. 10.Cfr A. Dulles, The Reshaping of Catholicism…, op. cit., 117. PAUL A. SOUKUP, SJ

two of the models of the Church: centralized communication and its relations to the formal structure of the Church, and social media communication and an understanding of the community model of the Church.

An Ecology of the Media with Centralized Authority In its teaching function, the Church has made use over the centuries of a wide variety of communication technologies to reach its members. The homilies of the various Fathers of the Church deepened our understanding of the mysteries of the faith, but come to us because the Fathers (or their scribes) committed them to writing. Similarly, the decrees of the ecumenical councils – a more centralized and authoritative 44 Church teaching – survive because of their written form and the technologies of parchment, scroll, codex, and book. Writing and the technologies that support it act in centralizing ways. Beginning with a rhetorical style suited to persuasion and understanding, centralized Church communication gained power through its alliances with written communication and with postal systems that facilitated the carrying of messages. The same message could easily travel from one place to another throughout the entire Church, copied and multiplied along the way. Characteristics of the technology (the labor-intensive process of copying, the use of somewhat valuable materials, the investment in transmitting them from place to place, and so on) heightened the authority of the messages contained. The system reinforced itself, as Church administration not only used writing but also was in turn reshaped by the practices of writing. Over the centuries, the form of written teaching took on more authority, with bishops and theologians turning first to written texts. The criticism of objectionable or erroneous teaching became easier with textual evidence of what a given person actually communicated. The Church, of course, continued to use other kinds of communication to teach and support faith: the proclamation of the Scriptures, rituals, music, the art and decor of church buildings, even the very architecture of churches. Each of these other modes of communication constituted an authoritative AUTHORITY, NEW MEDIA AND THE CHURCH reference, reinforcing belief or ideas but in a way that was different and implicit compared to the official documents.

Changes in the Ecology of Communication and Authority The rise of more open, and more efficient, structures of mass communication illustrates how changes in the eco-system of communication can have far-reaching consequences.11 The printing press, the network of booksellers, and a flourishing practice of inter-regional trade in the 16th century allowed competing teaching authorities to flourish. During the Reformation, the printed book could spread ideas rapidly, particularly when those ideas appeared in vernacular languages. The Reformation period also illustrates wider issues of contested religious authority. While printed books spread ideas, so did what 45 an early generation of communication scholars described as a two- step flow of influence.12 Reformers who read works challenging authoritative teaching also communicated those works to others. In doing so, they multiplied the influence of the initial reformers. And they, in turn, led reform movements across Europe. While the challenge to the teachings of the Church may have gained the attention of a professional or educational class, additional challenges to the soft authority of the Church affected everyone. Where debates about theology and Church teaching took place among bishops and scholars, most people experienced the crisis in authority through the introduction of the vernacular Bible into existing patterns of worship and teaching. Within a relatively short period, the ecosystem of religious authority shifted in Western Europe. However, the printed book also proved remarkably helpful in spreading stabilizing ideas and in enforcing conformity. The Roman Missal of Pius V and the Anglican Book of Common Prayer helped establish uniform worship in the Catholic Church

11.See P. A. Soukup, “The Structure of Communication as a Challenge for Theology”, in Teologia y Vida 44 (2003), 102-122. 12.Cfr. P. F. Lazarsfeld – B. Berelson – H. Gaudet, The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes up his Mind in a Presidential Campaign, New York, Columbia University Press, 1944; E. Katz – P. Lazarsfeld, Personal Influence, New York, Free Press, 1955. PAUL A. SOUKUP, SJ

and the Anglican Communion, for example. Authorized Bible translations similarly united religious groups, even those without central teaching offices. Catechisms emerged as a new form, for both instruction and for summarizing the faith. Authority, as understood by the Church, remained vested in pope and council, bishop and university. But the Church no longer had more or less exclusive control of the media technologies and channels that communicated that authority. This change mattered because, from an organizational perspective, Church authority not only teaches, specifying the content, but also says who can teach, polices the books, exercises control over the means of communication, and attempts to create the environment for belief, and so on. 46 In the time since the Reformation, each Christian church clarified and sometimes codified its teaching. The Roman Catholic Church reinforced teaching authority hierarchically: Though each bishop remained the chief teacher in his diocese, the bishops looked to the , whose officers became the ultimate judges of orthodoxy. Enforced through the appointment of bishops, an index of forbidden books, seminary curricula, a system of approval (nihil obstat and imprimatur), devotions, the licensing and supervision of , and so on, the Roman Church established a centralized teaching authority, theologically justified, in the Petrine ministry. Other denominations adopted other mechanisms, with the Anglican Communion, for example, creating a representational form modeled on British parliamentary government and enforced by royal authorization. While initially troubled by the rise of mass media other than printed books – particularly the 19th century newspaper and popular press and the 20th century film and radio – Church authorities benefitted from the centralizing structure of the broadcast media. The papacy quickly embraced radio, for example, since it allowed the pope’s voice to reach Church members directly. Local dioceses published their own newspapers, as well as reinforcing a hierarchical teaching structure where Church approved catechisms took their place in Catholic schools and pastors read regular letters from bishops at Sunday Masses. AUTHORITY, NEW MEDIA AND THE CHURCH

A Media Ecology of Community Authority The media ecology of the communion model of the Church will have different characteristics. Even though and always influenced by the institutional and organizational aspects of teaching authority, community depends on face-to-face interaction. This communion model also reflects the place of the “sensus fidelium” (understanding of the faithful) as a source of authority in the Church, with lines of influence flowing in both directions. The institutional teaching authority shapes the understanding of local communities; the faith of the people exerts influence through the reception of teaching. From a communication or media ecology perspective, authority in these groups may depend more on personal charism, professional qualifications, individual knowledge, the 47 practices of ministry, personal witness, and those other things that fall under the category of authority, as expressed through art, architecture, music, ritual, environment, and so on. The various communication media play different roles as well. Authority not only depends on who has a position of authority, but on who has a voice, the ways in which people craft messages, the ways in which those messages fit into the ecosystem, the frequency of messaging, and the “horizontal” communication, that is the ways people interact with those around them, independently of how they interact with those at higher levels of the organization. And so the current situation of communication media, and social media in particular, opens up the question of authority again. The rise of different media leads to mixed outcomes for Church communication and for Church authority. Hjarvard13 accounts for this by appealing to Meyerowitz’s metaphors of the media as a conduit, a language, and an environment.14 As a conduit, the media provide information to society (including Church members) from the Church as well as from many other social actors. In this, communication institutions

13.See S. Hjarvard, “Mediatization and the Changing Authority of Religion”, in Media, Culture & Society 38 (2016) 8-17. 14.See J. Meyerwitz, “Images of Media: Hidden Ferment - and Harmony - in the Field”, in Journal of Communication 43 (1993) 55-66. PAUL A. SOUKUP, SJ

(ranging from broadcasters to internet service providers to companies like Facebook and Google) work well to connect a central teaching authority with the members of the church body. But these media and media organizations are not neutral, even if they seek a kind of objectivity. “The Church and other religious actors may also use various media to seek to reach fellow believers and disseminate information about their religion, but the traditional religious media, genres, and texts (e.g. sermon and Bible) play a less central role for the circulation of information about religion. In effect, centralized control of information by religious organizations has become increasingly difficult both because of mass media’s predominantly secular orientation toward this kind of information and as a result of the distributed, network- 48 like character of various interactive media.”15 Because each of these media has its own gatekeeping structure, each acts as a kind of filter for information, as a kind of implicit authority justifying what information passes through its channel. Criteria for transmitting information may reside in algorithms that act mechanically or in human judgments about newsworthy people or events. The same weakening of Church authority over information appears within the metaphor of media as language. In order to have a place in the communication world, the Church must learn to speak the “language of the media,” a point that Pope St. John Paul II made in his 1990 encyclical, Redemptoris Missio: “The first Areopagus of the modern age is the world of communications, which is unifying humanity and turning it into what is known as a ‘global village.’ The means of social communication have become so important as to be for many the chief means of information and education, of guidance and inspiration in their behavior as individuals, families and within society at large. In particular, the younger generation is growing up in a world conditioned by the mass media. To some degree perhaps this Areopagus has been neglected. Generally, preference has been given to other means of preaching the Gospel and

15.S. Hjarvard, “Mediatization and the Changing Authority of Religion”, op. cit., 10. AUTHORITY, NEW MEDIA AND THE CHURCH of Christian education, while the mass media are left to the initiative of individuals or small groups and enter into pastoral planning only in a secondary way. Involvement in the mass media, however, is not meant merely to strengthen the preaching of the Gospel. There is a deeper reality involved here: since the very evangelization of modern culture depends to a great extent on the influence of the media, it is not enough to use the media simply to spread the Christian message and the Church’s authentic teaching. It is also necessary to integrate that message into the ‘new culture’ created by modern communications. This is a complex issue, since the ‘new culture’ originates not just from whatever content is eventually expressed, but from the very fact that there exist new ways of communicating, with new languages, new techniques, and a new psychology.” (n. 37) 49 But learning that language and that culture can weaken the message and its authority, since the communication media indirectly convey the message that they serve as the guardians of the authenticity of the messages they convey. Hjarvard comments, “we must acknowledge that information about religion is molded in accordance with the demands of various popular media genres such as news, drama, consumer advice, and blogging. Journalistic news media play a significant role in framing religion and religious issues, and actors must usually comply with the demands of the journalistic news media in order to get attention.”16 In the past, and still to some extent, the Catholic Church avoided this danger by sponsoring its own media – church newspapers, radio stations, and television channels. But, if Meyerowitz is correct, the larger media world will continue to challenge the Church’s place in setting a religious agenda since that media world defines the language acceptable for public discourse. Here, the Church does not lose its teaching authority but rather sees its authority over language and mode of communication diminished, remaining authoritative but becoming obscure. In some ways this resembles the experience of the Reformation where the Catholic Church’s use of Latin in the liturgy ran up against the reformers’ use of vernacular languages.

16.Ibid. PAUL A. SOUKUP, SJ

Finally, thinking about Meyrowitz’s metaphor of the communication media as an environment shows how the modern communication world impinges on the social and cultural authority of the Church. Hjarvard again explains, “the media have acquired some of the societal functions that religious organizations had previously held a privileged position to perform. The media have become a significant arena for orchestrating public ritual events involving celebration as well as mourning.”17 Others, notably Lynch, have pointed out how communication practices and popular culture have taken on social, hermeneutic, and transcendent functions, such as religions once played in Western culture: providing people with a sense of community; 50 “with a set of resources (e.g., myths, rituals, symbols, beliefs, values, narratives) that may help people to live with a sense of identity, meaning and purpose”; and with a medium in which to experience something beyond themselves.18 Hjarvard makes a strong claim about the impact of medialization on religious messages and religious authority, attributing almost total authority to media. However, the shifting media landscape does help to illustrate the variety of sources of authority in contemporary society. The new social media, in particular, allow many voices the same direct reach to church members as the hierarchical teaching authority once held; they also provide access to the unchurched, to those who understand the various teaching functions of the Church as well as to those who judge all religious voices to have equal authority. All of this raises wider questions of the nature of authority and of the claims of competing kinds of authority. Within the ecosystem of the contemporary situation, many kinds of authority emerge. What kinds of authority work today? How extensive is the range of authority for the Church and contemporary society?

17.Ibid., 11. 18.See G. L. Lynch, Understanding Theology and Popular Culture, Malden (MA), Blackwell, 2005, 28; A. Hepp, Cultures of Mediatization, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2012; K. Lundby (ed.), Mediatization: Concept, Changes, Consequences, New York, Peter Lang, 2009. AUTHORITY, NEW MEDIA AND THE CHURCH

Types of Contemporary Authority Over the centuries and in different situations, authority in the Church has manifest all of the ideal types Weber first proposed (legal authority, traditional authority, and charismatic authority) as ways to teach, evangelize, and govern the Church body.19 “Legal authority exists where a system of rules that is applied judicially and administratively in accordance with ascertainable principles is valid for all members of the corporate group.”20 “Traditional authority is based on the belief in the legitimacy of an authority that ‘has always existed.’”21 Both of these kinds of authority very well fit a hierarchical organization such as the Church and both could aptly describe Dulles’ institutional model of the Church. Weber’s third type, charismatic authority, has a different origin. “Personal authority .... may have its source in the very 51 opposite of tradition. The power of command may be exercised by a leader – whether he is a prophet, hero, or demagogue – who can prove that he possesses charisma by virtue of magical powers, revelations, heroism, or other extraordinary gifts.”22 This authority, also present in the Church in the persons of saints, preachers, or other notable individuals, applies more to Dulles’ model of the Church as communion. Each of these still exist, but the growth of secularism, the rise of other religious bodies (Christian denominations, world religions), and the growing importance of business demonstrated other centers for each kind of authority. In the 20th century the organizations exerting authority often did so through control of or access to communication channels, which became yet other sources of authority. One overall result was a dilution of legal and traditional Church authority. Charismatic authority, most often exercised in groups (such as the communities of the Church) succeeded in larger settings through publicity. The authority of a demagogue rose along

19.See M. Weber, “Die drei reinen Typen der legitimen Herrschaft”, in Preussische Jahrbucher 187 (1922), 1-2. (Transl. H. Gerth, The three types of legitimate rule. Berkeley Publications in Society and Institutions 4 (1958), 1-11). 20.R. Bendix, Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait, Berkeley - Los Angeles - London, University of California Press, 1960, 294. 21.Ibid. 294f. 22.Ibid. 295. PAUL A. SOUKUP, SJ

with the public knowledge of speeches, radio or television appearances, newspaper coverage, and so on. Similarly the authority of a holy person like Mother Theresa of Calcutta increased beyond a narrow local group thanks to a BBC documentary.23 Here again, the media ecology interacted with sources of authority, but the organizational structure of the media limited the reach of charismatic authority. Today’s decentralized media systems (the whole collection of social media: specific sites like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google Hangouts, etc., all the way to the more generic web pages, blogging sites, and microsites) have opened up the exercise of influence and the possibility of authority, expanding the kinds of authority. 52 In addition to Weber’s ideal types, other kinds of authority play roles in contemporary society: - the authority of power or coercive force (military, police, armed groups, gangs, bullies, revolutionaries, terrorists – all those who use force or the threat of force, either directly or conveyed via online media) - the authority of knowledge (the use of information to justify claims or to manipulate people’s choices, professionals of all kinds – doctors, researchers, engineers, investment bankers, etc.) - authority over knowledge (those who allow access to knowledge or sources of knowledge, such as schools, libraries, online depositories, search engines, and so on) - the authority of presence (appearing on television, Facebook, YouTube, news sites, and so on) - the authority of ritual (the traditional practices and roles of a group, whether a family, religious group, work group, or civic group. The very practices of constituting and reinforcing the group identity confer an authority on the various roles individuals take on, although this authority attaches to the role, not to the individual) - political authority (an authority that results from the choices of a group – candidates they elect to office, and so on)

23.See M. Muggeridge, Something Beautiful for God, New York, Harper & Row, 1971. AUTHORITY, NEW MEDIA AND THE CHURCH

- participatory or democratic authority (an authority stemming from group processes; as all participate in group deliberations, the results of those deliberations take on greater significance) - community authority (the personal acceptance of authority within a group, often based on charismatic or traditional norms) - institutional authority (as found in schools, legal systems, businesses, and decision- making practices) - leadership authority (as found in various styles of leadership: leading in front, leading for, leading within, leading from behind). No doubt, this list falls short of the kinds of authority emerging through new communication technologies. But its scope should alert the Church to a much more complex environment for its teaching and governance. 53 * * *

This list of the kinds of authority emerging along with changes in the communication environment should also motivate theologians to greater reflection on the patterns of authority in the Church, the exercise of that authority, and the recognition of that authority by the faithful. The very variety of authorities should also motivate Church communicators to think very carefully about their communication plans. The kinds of presence in the communication environment that the Church has itself communicates a powerful message. While authority remains a charism of the Church, rooted in the Holy Spirit, Church authority runs the risk of obscurity. A communication environment that fosters and highlights a dizzying variety of authorities tends to obscure all authority. PIETRO M. SCHIAVONE, SJ

Jesus Never Imposes: Amoris Laetitia, discernment, and Christian maturity

Pietro M. Schiavone, SJ

“It is important to observe,” writes the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, “that Amoris Laetitia (AL) reminds us above all of God’s mercy and compassion, rather than solely moral regulations and canonical rules.”1 54 This is a theme that Pope Francis has been repeating since the beginning of his pontificate. In his speech opening the Pastoral Congress of the ,2 he affirmed “the sensitivity with which God looks at our families helps us to direct our consciences in the same way as his.” He said that “the emphasis placed on mercy puts reality before us in a realistic way, not, however, with just any realism, but with the realism of God,” and that it is necessary to reject the “enclosures” that “shelter us from the maelstrom of human misfortune, and instead enter into the reality of other people’s lives and know the power of tenderness.” He concluded: “this impels us to develop a family ministry designed to welcome, accompany, discern and integrate.” These are the verbs that the pope has resorted to in answering the question: “How do we prevent a double morality from arising in our communities, one demanding and one permissive, one rigorist and one lax?” After stressing that “neither are the truth,” he said that “the Gospel chooses another way. For this, use those four words – welcome, accompany, integrate, discern – without nosing into people’s moral lives.”

1.Bartholomew, “The compassion of the living God”, in L’Osservatore Romano, December 3, 2016. 2.Francis, “The joy of love: the journey of the families of Rome”, Cathedral of St. John Lateran, Rome, June 16, 2016. AMORIS LAETITIA, DISCERNMENT, AND CHRISTIAN MATURITY

Discern and integrate, taking into account mitigating factors and situations! Not least because, as we read in Amoris Laetitia: “The Church possesses a solid body of reflection about mitigating factors and situations” (AL 301). Discerning and integrating are not about exercising control, but about helping us understand the reality we live in starting from experience “so that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good, acceptable, and perfect” (Romans 12:2). These are the themes that we can consider as guidelines3 together with a quote that deals with the baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried: “The logic of integration is the key to pastoral care…” (AL 299).

Considering Concrete Reality 55 Of fundamental importance is the opening of the second chapter of Amoris Laetitia on “The Experiences and Challenges of Families.” Quoting St. John Paul II’s (FC), no. 4, the pope writes: “We do well to focus on concrete realities, since ‘the call and the demands of the Spirit resound in the events of history,’ and through these ‘the Church can also be guided to a more profound understanding of the inexhaustible mystery of marriage and the family’” (AL 31). This teaching was already presented by Gaudium et Spes (GS), nos. 4 and 11. The first text says: “The Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and interpreting them in light of the Gospel. Thus, in language intelligible to each generation, she can respond to the perennial questions that people ask about this present life and the life to come, and about the relationship of one to the other. We must therefore understand the world in which we live, its explanations and its longings” (GS 4). No less enlightening is the second text, “The people of God believes that it is led by the Lord’s Spirit, who fills the Earth. Motivated by this faith it labors to decipher authentic signs of God’s presence and purpose in the happenings, needs and desires

3.For the entire version of this study, see P. M. Schiavone, “Amoris Laetitia e santa discrezione. Una chance per conseguire maturità cristiana”, in Ignaziana 22 (2016), 248-262, cf www.ignaziana.org PIETRO M. SCHIAVONE, SJ

… For faith throws a new light on everything, manifests God’s design for the human person’s total vocation, and thus directs the mind to solutions that are fully human” (GS 11). These affirmations are the necessary foundation for considering people, times, places and other circumstances, precisely because the Spirit is present and working in historical events. Therefore it is necessary to pay attention to reality – the same reality that engages us in one way or another – to identify through discernment the requests and movements of the Spirit. This is what Pope Francies underlines by citing the Relatio Finalis of the synod (2015), no. 51, (contemporaneously quoting FC 84): “When faced with difficult situations and wounded families, it is always necessary to recall this general principle: 56 ‘Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations’” (AL 79). Again, following the Relatio Finalis he goes on to stress: “The degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases and factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision. Therefore, while clearly expressing doctrine, pastors are to avoid judgments which do not take into account the complexity of various situations and they are to be attentive, by necessity, to how people live and endure distress because of their condition.”4 It should be taken into account that the pope lists an “immense variety of concrete situations” (AL 296-300). As a consequence, neither the synod nor the exhortation can offer a “new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases. What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible, personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since ‘the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases,’ the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same”

4.“We have to remember each of us carries the richness and the burdens of our personal history; this is what makes us different from everyone else. Our life, with its joys and sorrows, is something unique and unrepeatable that takes place under the merciful gaze of God. This demands, especially of priests, a careful, profound and far-sighted spiritual discernment, so that everyone, none excluded, no matter the situation a person is living in, can feel accepted by God” (Francis, Apostolic Letter Misericordia et Misera, 14). AMORIS LAETITIA, DISCERNMENT, AND CHRISTIAN MATURITY

(AL 300).5 Furthermore, “the Synod Fathers stated that the discernment of pastors must always take place ‘by adequately distinguishing,’ with an approach that ‘carefully discerns situations.’ We know that no ‘easy recipes’ exist”6 (AL 298). The invitation to pay attention to concrete realities is continually present throughout the exhortation. The term “situation” is repeated no less than 90 times, “circumstances” 15 times, and “conditions” or “to influence” nine times.7 Concerning these concrete situations, it is important to remember that sometimes “we have also proposed a far too abstract and almost artificial theological ideal of marriage, far removed from the concrete situations and practical possibilities of real families” (AL 36). The pope realizes that “we also find it hard to make room for the consciences of the faithful, who very often 57 respond as best they can to the Gospel amid their limitations, and are capable of carrying out their own discernment in complex situations” (AL 37). He concludes: “We have been called to form consciences, not to replace them” (AL 37).8 We need to focus on “a positive and welcoming pastoral approach capable of helping couples to grow in appreciation of the demands of the Gospel” (AL 38) in imitation of Jesus who “set forth a demanding ideal yet never failed to show compassion and closeness to the frailty of individuals like the Samaritan woman or the woman caught in adultery” (AL 38). Pope Francis adds that it should be always kept in mind that “priests have the duty to accompany these people on the way of discernment according to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the bishop” (AL 300).

5.At this point the text has a note, number 336: “This is also the case with regard to sacramental discipline, since discernment can recognize that in a par- ticular situation no grave fault exists.” 6.Benedict XVI, Address to the VII World Meeting of Families, Milan, June 2, 2012. 7.We note AL 302 in particular because it recalls CCC 1735 and 2352. For further detail see Schiavone, “Amoris Laetitia e santa discrezione…”, op. cit., 252- 254. 8.This does not imply any tampering with, much less any devaluation of Catholic doctrine. Cf. AL 35. PIETRO M. SCHIAVONE, SJ

Discernment and the will of God What has been said implies careful evaluation of the concrete reality. This means both objective and subjective elements can contribute to reconciling us with the divine will. But how is an action done “in the Lord” to be identified from these elements? This is the question that requires “discernment.”9 Saint Paul exhorts the Ephesians to act “as sons of light” and teaches that the “fruit of the light is found in all that is good and right and true.” He invites them to “try to find out what is pleasing to the Lord” and to “be careful how you live, not as unwise people but as wise ones.” He concludes: “So do not be foolish but understand the will of the Lord.”10 Helping others to act not as “fools” but as careful researchers of 58 the divine will is one of the tasks of the presbyterate. This is what we read in the Second Vatican Council’s decree Presbyterorum Ordinis (PO): “As educators in the faith, priests must see to it either by themselves or through others11 that the faithful are led individually in the Holy Spirit to a development of their own vocation according to the Gospel, to a sincere and practical charity, and to that freedom with which Christ has made us free” (PO 6.2). And it adds incisively: “Ceremonies, however beautiful, or associations however flourishing, will be of little value if they are not directed toward the education of people to Christian maturity” (PO 6.2). But what constitutes this “maturity”? The unequivocal answer is that “in furthering this, priests should help people become able to see what is naturally required and what is God’s will in the important and unimportant events of life (quid res exigant, quae sit Dei voluntas)” (PO 6.2). This “quid res exigant” (res being the concrete reality) is echoed in AL 31 and in the situations, circumstances and influences. The parallels between “quid res exigant” and “quae sit Dei voluntas” should also be. Now, let us see how we can proceed following the path of Saint Ignatius of Loyola.

9.Cf. P. M. Schiavone, Il discernimento. Teoria e prassi, Milan, Paoline, 2016, 548-564. 10.Ephesians 5:8-17. 11.In the first place the and those who are called to consecrated life, lectors and catechists. AMORIS LAETITIA, DISCERNMENT, AND CHRISTIAN MATURITY

A method for this reading Let us start by pointing out that for Ignatius discernment is a 12 gift of the Spirit. We read in the Constitutions (C) of the that before making a decision those in authority should take into account “people, places, and times with the discretion given by the eternal light” (C 746). We also read that “charity and the discretion of the Holy Spirit will show the procedure to be followed” (C 219). “Charity and discretion” are two virtues that need to coexist. This is the meaning of the formula discreta 13 caritas (charitable discernment) (cf. C 209; 237; 269; 582, etc) : “A charity full of discernment and discretion, a discernment and a choice inspired by love, a love that makes discernment work and descends from the Spirit of Love.”14 The prayer of Paul comes to mind: “And this is my prayer, that your love may 59 overflow more and more with knowledge and full insight to help you determine what is best” (Philippians 1:9-10). To grow in knowledge and reach full discernment, it is worth insisting on the necessity to “proceed with great attention and thoroughness in our Lord” (C 204), taking into account “the variety of circumstances and the diversity of subjects” (C 367; cf. 64) and more concretely the “age, intelligence, inclinations, and the bases which one in particular had, or the common good that one hoped for” (C 354; cf. 92), talents (C 522) and also the “physical constitution” (C 298; 301), the “capacity of each to endure as discretion suggests” (C 285), the “disposition of persons” toward accepting or not a correction or a penance together with “the edification of all people and each person particularly, for the glory of God” (C 269), and finally, “greater service to God for the universal good” (C 618, 623, 626).15

12.Cf. Ignatius of Loyola, Gli Scritti, Roma, AdP, 2007 with comments by Maurizio Costa. 13.In C 754 we find “prudent charity”. “discreet charity” is opposed to “in- discreet charity” (C 217). C 182 speaks of “indiscreet devotions.” In C 211, 462 and 825 we have the formulas “discreet zeal,” “discernment and consideration” (cf C 193), and “discretion and moderation.” 14.Ignatius of Loyola, Gli Scritti, cit. 680, note 168. 15.The reminder to take into consideration various circumstances is repeat- ed in other passages and for other material. Cf ibid. 681, note 170. PIETRO M. SCHIAVONE, SJ

It is therefore important to keep in mind the “real” person (talents and charism, intellectual capacity and will, habits and conditions, temperament and character, etc.) and also the ambience (traditions, customs, mentality, and needs of the locals, etc.) and the influence, positive or negative that a decision can have on people, family, groups and others in general, without forgetting how adapting to individuals should be the principal constitutive element of discretion and a quality that should be present in a formator in faith. We should keep in mind the words Jesus said to his disciple concerning his revelation: “… you cannot bear the weight now” (John 16:12) and the basic principles of the Spiritual Exercises: “these have to be adapted to the dispositions of the persons who wish to receive them, that 60 is, to their age, education or ability, in order not to give to those who are uneducated or of little intelligence things they cannot easily bear and profit by.” (SE 18.1-2)

Whoever does not do this becomes, ipso facto, undiscerning. We take it for granted that before looking for the divine will we must cultivate inner freedom by “stripping ourselves of affection”; prefiguring “the greater glory of God, the common good, and this particularly to the extent possible” (C 222); asking for the light of the Lord and resorting to the advice of others. Leaders, in fact, “however many difficulties and doubts they have, the more will recommend the matter to God our Lord, and the more will deal with others who can help them discover the will of God” (C 211); or rather, “because God our Lord in this case indicates his most holy will” (C 220). Finally, they will weigh up “the reasons for one choice and the other” (C 222) and will adopt subsequent decisions. More incisively it is said that the one who is called to govern should “weigh all things and provide everything that will feel more pleasing to the divine and the fullness of goodness, for its greater service and glory” (C 437). The expression “everything that will seem to be more pleasing to the divine and fullness of goodness” is the equivalent of the frequent “in Domino” that we find in the Constitutions. It refers to the subject who, attentive and docile to the Spirit, AMORIS LAETITIA, DISCERNMENT, AND CHRISTIAN MATURITY remembers, examines and evaluates, reflects and prays, decides and acts. From this in-depth examination a judgement of discretion should emerge: all things considered, in conscience – that is in awareness and conviction – I feel before God (in Domino) that I have to adopt this (and not another) decision for the greater glory of the Most Holy Trinity and the integral good of each and every person involved. However, we do not need to imagine having a magic wand. “With all the competing values that bombard us today,” wrote the General Superior of the Jesuits Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, “making a free human choice is never easy. We very rarely find that all of the reasons for a decision are on one side. There are always pros and cons. This is where discernment becomes crucial. Discernment requires getting the facts and then reflecting, 61 sorting out the motives that impel us, weighing values and priorities, considering how decisions will impact on the poor, deciding, and living with our decisions.”16

“Solid food is for adults” In the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, the terms “discernment” and “discern” appear a total of about 40 times. Specifically, the following are called to discern17: pastors – that is, the bishops and priests – the local church, spouses, and the faithful. They should obviously have the necessary preparation and appropriate experience, as suggested by the author of the Letter to the Hebrews (5:12-14). For the pastors, it should be noted that the confessor is not “an applicator of the norm,” but “a pastor and a father personally involved in the good of the penitent and in his Christian journey.” And that “today the attitude indicated by Amoris Laetitia demands that the confessor assume greater personal responsibility in evaluating the good of the penitent and the people involved, and to act with a merciful heart and with therapeutic intent. His role is certainly much more challenging.

16.P.-H. Kolvenbach, “Pedagogia Ignaziana: un approccio pratico” in Appunti di spiritualità 36, Naples, CIS, 1994. 17.We recall that the exhortation is addressed to bishops, priests, deacons and consecrated people, to spouses and to all the lay faithful. PIETRO M. SCHIAVONE, SJ

But you have to say that it also becomes more meaningful, richer, and more fully ministerial.”18 For the faithful and the spouses, consider that St. John Paul II had already written that the Church “does not accomplish this discernment only through its pastors … but also through the laity,” and that, “Christian spouses and parents can and should offer their unique and irreplaceable contribution to the elaboration of an authentic evangelical discernment in the various situations and cultures in which men and women live their marriage and their family life.” (FC 5) The author of the Letter to the Hebrews wrote: “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic elements of the words of God. You 62 need milk, not solid food” (Heb 5:12). Notice then that “anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is unskilled in the word of righteousness.” And he concludes with an affirmation that should urge all (the priests in particular) to proceed to a personal examination of conscience: “solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.” (Heb 5:13-14) We remember with Josep Rovira Belloso19 that “prudent discernment appears to be an inalienable activity of a conscious and free person, capable of lucidly coping with all the elements that are part of a specific, real situation.” This means surpassing the “stage of pure instincts” and having good motivations to understand that “discerning is a reflection that is an activity of one’s own human spirit,” that “everyone is called to be responsible in the face of problems affecting them and the world” and that “in proportion to this responsibility, each person must discern the most appropriate response to their own personal problems and their own universe, respecting truth, justice, and love.” Also take into account the principle given by the Italian Bishops Conference in their Catechism for Adults: “Everyone’s personal responsibility is proportionate to their real ability to

18.B. Petra, “Amoris Laetitia: Un passo avanti nella Tradizione”, in il Regno no. 8, 2016, 251. 19.See J. Rovira Belloso, “Chi è capace di discernere?”, in Concilium 14 (1978) 1606-1619. AMORIS LAETITIA, DISCERNMENT, AND CHRISTIAN MATURITY appreciate and to desire the good in a situation characterized by multiple psychological, cultural and social conditions. Attending to the fullness of Christian life does not mean doing what is abstractly more perfect, but what is concretely possible. It is not about lowering the mountain, but walking toward the summit at your own pace” (n. 919) but always in full respect for “the conscience of the persons” (AL 303). That is why it is necessary “to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience, formed and guided by the responsible and serious discernment of one’s pastor, and to encourage an ever greater trust in God’s grace,” not least because discernment is “dynamic and must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions that can enable the ideal to be more fully realized” (AL 303). Finally, it is worth recalling another of the pope’s teachings: 63 “Jesus never imposes, Jesus is humble, Jesus invites. If you want to, come. The humility of Jesus is like this: he is always inviting but never imposing. All of this gives us food for thought. It tells us, for example, of the importance which the conscience had for Jesus too: listening in his heart to the Father’s voice and following it.”20 The pope then reiterated that “Jesus wants us free,” and asked: “And where is this freedom created?” The response: “It is created in dialogue with God in the person’s own conscience. If a Christian is unable to speak with God, if he cannot hear God in his own conscience, he is not free.” Hence the duty to “learn to listen better to our conscience,” especially because “conscience is the interior space in which we can listen to and hear the truth, the good, the voice of God. It is the inner place of our relationship with Him, who speaks to our heart and helps us to discern, to understand the path we ought to take, and once the decision is made, to move forward, to remain faithful.”21

* * *

20.Francis, Angelus, June 30, 2013. 21.Romano Guardini had spoken of the conscience as the ‘intent with God’: “ The understanding of the man who is ever vigilant and ready with divine will, which is continually present in the passing instant.” (R. Guardini, La coscienza, Brescia, Morcelliana, 1977, 42). PIETRO M. SCHIAVONE, SJ

A thought from Blessed John Henry Newman22 comes to mind: “Certainly, if I were obliged to bring religion into after- dinner toasts, […] I would drink to the pope, if you please; but to conscience first, and then to the pope afterward.” No less interesting and appropriate is another passage from the same letter: “Conscience is a law of the mind; yet it is something more, it gives orders, indicates notion of responsibility and duty, fear and hope … It is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and guides us. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.”23 Keep in mind also the words of Archbishop Bruno Forte, special secretary of the synod: “the Church did not have a synod to give or not give Communion to the divorced and remarried.” 64 The Archbishop of Chieti-Vasto wrote, “thinking like that is reductive” and he stated that its purpose was to be able to grow in the capacity to be a mother church that accompanies and integrates, helping each person find his or her place in the will of God.”24 Finally, our attention is drawn to the pope’s request for confessors “to be welcoming to all, witnesses of fatherly tenderness whatever the gravity of the sin, attentive in helping penitents to reflect on the wrong they have done, clear in presenting moral principles, willing to walk patiently beside the faithful on their penitential journey, far-sighted in discerning each individual case, 25 and generous in dispensing God’s forgiveness.”

22.J. H. Newman, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk on Conscience and Freedom. 23.The passage appears in CCC 1778. 24.B. Forte, “Il ‘vangelo della famiglia’ secondo Francesco” in Credere 15 (2016) 14. 25.Francis, Apostolic Letter Misericordia et Misera, 10. See also nos. 11 and 13. Surrogacy

Francesco Occhetta, SJ

Surrogate maternity refers to the act of procreation where a woman agrees to carry to term a pregnancy and then subsequently give the newborn infant to the commissioning couple. Surrogacy is one of the most delicate and pressing issues 65 in public debate, complicated further by the different ways it is defined; for example, “third-party reproduction,” “donor-assisted reproduction,” or “womb for rent.” The anthropological and ethical questions that this practice raises go to the root of the meaning of life, the body, the mother-child relationship, dignity and memory, but also of gift and reciprocity. It seems that in political debate, the categories of humanism have been substituted for those of post- humanism, and that public reflection merely accepts passively the achievements of science. The Church’s magisterium, on the other hand, invites us to integrate new biological and technical discoveries so as to place them in an anthropological horizon focused on the meaning of human life and dignity. From here we will highlight certain discernment criteria to fully understand the practice of surrogate maternity.

Surrogate motherhood: definition and comparison There are several different types of surrogate maternity: in its narrowest form, an embryo is obtained from the male gametes of the couple and the female gametes of the surrogate mother. In this case, the woman who provides the uterus is the same who provides the ovum. There is also what is referred to as total surrogate maternity, in which the sperm belongs to a male donor, while the mother who gives birth to the baby provides her uterus, but not the ovum. This is the case, for example, where FRANCESCO OCCHETTA, SJ

pregnancy is carried to term of an already fertilized egg, formed by the union of reproductive cells of the commissioning couple. In those countries where surrogate maternity is permitted, the biological mother, who provides the ovum, is not the one who gives, or rents her uterus to carry to full-term the gestation. It is this technical distinction that permits those cultural positions in favor of surrogate procreation to justify a legal figure, who instead of being a genetic mother, is a form of incubator. In medical terms, distinguishing these functions and procreative tasks makes the gestation somehow “neutral” and there is no biological bond with the commissioning couple. In 2013 the European Union published a study comparing Member States’ legislation on surrogate maternity.1 The findings 66 of the study reveal a complex situation. Italy, France, Germany, Spain and Finland prohibit surrogate maternity. In Austria and Norway it is tolerated if the oocyte belongs to the woman who makes her uterus available for the surrogacy. In Greece, surrogacy is only allowed through reimbursement, and not remuneration. Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark limit it to adoption, which establishes a later filiation. Sweden, which had permitted surrogate maternity, is gradually becoming prohibitionist because of the social backlash raised by the practice, while in the United Kingdom a former Undersecretary of Health, Nicola Blackwood announced the formation of a commission to extend permission to singles and homosexual couples.2 The countries where surrogate maternity is permitted without restriction are Russia, Ukraine, Nepal and some U.S. states. In 2013 India narrowed its legislation, though as is commonly known, Indian women tend to be prone to surrogacy, not through personal choice but as a consequence of their poverty, and in many cases fall victim to exploitation. The financial interests in surrogate

1.See “A Comparative Study on the Regime of Surrogacy in the EU Member States”, in www.europarl.europa.eu 2.In many countries – such as , Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Japan, The Netherlands, Venezuela and some U.S. states - surrogate maternity is prohibited if it is intended as a commercial exchange, but is permitted if it is voluntary and limited to reimbursement of expenses incurred by the women during pregnancy. SURROGACY maternity have been calculated to be over 3 billion euros, and involve approximately 3,000 Indian clinics. Approximately 1,500 births through surrogate maternity are estimated to take place annually, one third of which are on behalf of foreigners. Ukraine is the most sought-after destination in Europe: the law there provides that only the names of the commissioning couple appear as parents on the child’s birth certificate. The U.S. ruled on the matter about 30 years ago, but in each state there can be very different legal frameworks.3 In California for example, as in Canada, surrogate maternity is regulated by meticulous contracts managed by private agencies that set “market” prices for the surrogate mother which range from around $20,000. The total cost of the service offered is approximately $150,000. Contracts are drawn up and contain 67 clauses that regulate the transaction down to the smallest of details. There are catalogues where the somatic and genetic features of the future child may be chosen and clauses to prohibit the surrogate mother from revoking her decision and choosing to keep the baby. The health conditions of the mother and baby are also covered, as well as the possibility to refuse to accept the child if it is born with disabilities; the woman’s diet during the pregnancy; the general lifestyle during the nine month gestation; and even include the mode of detachment following birth that forbids the surrogate mother from breastfeeding the baby but nonetheless obliges her to provide milk. In these countries it is required that the surrogate mother has had children previously and does not find her herself in financial

3.In the USA, the first discussed case dates back to 1986, when Mary Beth Whitehead decided to keep the child whom she had given birth to, violating the contractual agreement. “From that case onwards, surrogate maternity in which the woman is also a biological mother was gradually abandoned in favor of gestational maternity, where the embryo is produced in the lab, or with ovum and sperm of the contracting couple, or with those of the donor, and implanted in the surrogate mother, who will therefore have no biological bond with the child. In 2014, around 2,000 children from surrogate mothers were born in the United States; in recent decades, there have been 81 cases where parents have changed their mind during pregnancy. There have been 35 cases in which the surrogate mother has changed her mind; and in 24 instances the surrogate mothers were also the biological mothers” (“Che cos’e la maternita surrogata”, in The Post [www.ilpost.it], December 7, 2015). FRANCESCO OCCHETTA, SJ

difficulties so as to ensure that the baby does not experience any psychological, physical, or economic stresses. On the birth certificate, the name of both receiving parents can be written without initiating a post-birth adoption procedure. As many countries do not publish surrogate maternity statistics, it is difficult to calculate the number of births. In Italy the practice of medically assisted procreation is prohibited by law no. 40/2004 that provides for a sentence of imprisonment ranging from three months to two years and a fine of 600,000 to one million euros for “anyone who realizes, organizes or advertises in any form ... surrogate maternity” (Article 12, paragraph 6). At the core of the norm we find certain principles of such as 68 “mater semper certa” (always certain mother), and the personalist values of the Constitution, which protects the dignity of the person, whence derives the prohibition of any contracting of the body to generate a life. On the other hand, circumventing prohibitions is far too easy. Those seeking a child need just go to a country where it is allowed. Indeed, a genetic bond with either of the commissioning couple is sufficient, and the baby can then be brought to Italy and considered naturally their own.

The reverse step of jurisprudence A change in international law regarding cases of surrogate maternity cannot be underestimated. The precedent, to which reference is made, is the Paradiso and Campanelli v Italy case, January 27, 2015. Here, the commissioning woman who sought this route to motherhood stated that she had used the gametes of the husband and the ovum of a Russian surrogate mother. According to the birth certificate issued in Moscow, which the couple had asked be transcribed into Italy, the child was the lawful son of the couple. However, after the transference of the file from the Italian consulate in Moscow to the General Prosecutor’s Office in Campobasso and then to the juvenile court, a sentence was reached ruling a state of abandonment and adoptability of the child. The court in fact believed that the Russian birth certificate contained false information of the SURROGACY true identity of the child’s parents, because the DNA test had shown that there was no biological bond between father and child. The European Court of Human Rights, on the other hand, overturned the unlawful interference of Italian judges for having arbitrarily denied the transcription.4 On January 24, 2017, an appeal at the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) resulted in a judgement overturning that decision. It considered as unfounded any claim to a right by a married couple for the recognition of a child as their own in the absence of a biological bond with the two aspiring parents.5 Therefore, the European Court in Strasbourg recognized the position of the Italian State Court as being well founded and denied the possibility of recognizing the child born in Russia by a surrogate mother as their own. 69 This ruling established that the right to a family does not envisage the “mere desire to start a family,” because the concept of family presupposes the presence of close ties of affection and is not a means of artificially creating others (paragraph 141 of the judgment). In reviewing all of the possible types of union, the Court found that only six months of cohabitation between the child and the applicants does not give rise to a family (paragraph 158). It is on this model that the Court doubted the identity of the second aspiring parent (the one that has no connection, not even genetic, with the child), saying: “There was no family life between the applicants and the child.” The judges in Strasbourg also referred to some personalist foundations of the family in the Italian constitution, as a “factual

4.The European Court of Human Rights, Sect. II, January 27, 2015, request no. 25358/12. The sentence states that it is a violation of Art. 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life) the decision of the authorities of a Member State to distance the child born abroad using surrogate maternity from the couple who used that technique for conception even when the minor has no genetic connection with his commissioning father and mother. European judges also assessed the balance between the interests pursued by the State and the interests of the minor involved (74-79), stating that remedying an unlawful situation is not sufficient to justify the adoption, because the state has to prioritize the child’s interest. 5.The judgment defines the applicants with the term “aspirant parents.” FRANCESCO OCCHETTA, SJ

society” pre-existing in the law, so denying the individualistic thesis of the family understood as a subjective right that meets one’s own need.6

Surrogate maternity in public debate Here we ask: in a democratic political system, can an individual’s freedom and the legitimacy of a desire become a right, if in doing so it denies the dignity of others? The debate has divided the feminine-feminist front between those who always oppose it and those who distinguish commercial gains, which are unacceptable, and a positive expression of feminine freedom because it is done as a gift. There is a latent cultural position that could be summarized as follows: “As a woman I 70 would never do it, I would not even want my daughter to do it, but I have no right to forbid an adult woman from helping another woman who does not have a uterus or a sterile couple.” The objection was taken into consideration at an international meeting held at Montecitorio, March 23, on “Maternity at the Crossroads: from free choice to surrogacy, a global challenge.” At the Conference – to which the president of the Chamber of Deputies did not grant patronage unfortunately – members from all political factions, several ministers, and representatives of the international movement against surrogate maternity signed a motion to submit to the UN that states “surrogate maternity is detrimental to the human rights of women and children.”7 First and foremost, what has emerged is a new cultural current insinuating itself into the minds of women: “The ‘surrogate mother’ – affirmed jurist Silvia Niccolai – is the way to propose to a woman a new feminine “ideal,” a woman separated from her own experience, who knows how to break

6.In order to widen the legal framework and the principal international and national sentences, see C. Andreuccioli - E. Battisti (eds), “Surrogacy of maternity between European and Italian jurisprudence: recent ruling on Paradiso and Campanelli vs Italy case”, Short note n. 147 of the Senate of the Italian Republic, www.senato.it 7.The Note issued by the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Laura Boldrini, states: “The institution does not authorize initiatives supporting one side over another”, even though this “side” was reunited to defend a law. The conference was promoted by the movement “Se non ora quando – Libere”. SURROGACY away from the baby after childbirth, who knows how to be rational, who is generous, who knows that her child is not her own and even that the pregnancy itself is not hers. It cultivates a kind of pedagogy that teaches women that the experience that their body has gone through is not theirs, so that they do not feel affection for the child, their womb is untouched.”8 Are we facing a pedagogy of the responsibility of being for the other, or a new subjection? In fact, the basis of maternity is considered to be the result of a gift that loses value if it becomes an exchange. Italian Senator, Emma Fattorini, Professor of Contemporary History at “La Sapienza” University, emphasized the creation of the bond – defined as “bonding” in technical language – that begins in the pre-natal period, consolidates at birth and achieves a balance during the child’s early years: “The mind-body 71 relationship, the basis of the mother-child relationship, is denied. The breaking down of maternity into so many segments, different pieces, ovum, oocytes, and uterus reduces maternity to a purely biological process. As if pregnancy could be reduced to a purely biological fact, according to the nineteenth-century biologism that had not yet captured the relatedness of intrauterine life. As if one could break the unity between mind and body that was one of the greatest discoveries of twentieth-century subjectivity. The stress that is passed on, or the effects of the music that is listened to, or the infinite correlations between the mother and child – of which the female experience is aware – leave epigenetic-type effects, as recent neuroscience research shows.”9 In other words, it is the experience of “getting to know oneself anew and re-finding oneself outside the uterus and building a sense of mutual belonging.”10 Writer Susanna Tamaro looked at the meaning of love and the motivations that drive a couple to want a child by surrogate

8.L. Bellaspiga, “Maternità surrogata, ora tocca all’Italia”, in Avvenire, April 5, 2017, 15. 9.From the speech delivered at the Conference, “Maternita al bivio: dalla libera scelta alla surrogata, una sfida mondiale”, Rome, Montecitorio, March 23, 2017. 10.Lorenzo Giacchetti in E. Perucchietti, Utero in affitto. La fabbricazione di bambini, la nuova forma di schiavismo. I retroscena della maternita surrogata, dalle derive dell’eugenetica agli interessi delle lobby, Marene (Cn), Revoluzione Editions, 2016, 137. FRANCESCO OCCHETTA, SJ

maternity: “A love that claims to have rights; what kind of love is that? The concept of love and the concept of law are absolutely incompatible. There is no right to love, just as there is no duty to love. Even the Decalogue – I dare say the ethological code of humanity – requires us to honor our father and mother, not to love them. Love, to be really such, does not require a law to be obeyed, but rather an idea of what is good, and the idea of that good is what is at the foundation of reciprocity. What form of reciprocity can there be in a commissioned life relationship? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is the principle that has maintained society. In order to exercise our right, therefore, we consciously force a person to come into the world by depriving the child of what actually makes a person, that is, 72 genealogy, placing on that life a great lien of unhappiness.”11 The central point is reiterated by Francesca Izzo, when she defines maternity as a relational process and denies that it can be broken down into technical stages: “If we allow, as surrogate maternity does, the inclusion of cases motivated by solidarity, the breaking up of the unity of the process, fragmenting it into oocytes, pregnancy, and the newborn, removing from pregnancy every physical, emotional, relational and symbolic meaning, making it a mechanical, natural process, the very bases of self-determination are strained. Paradoxically, in the name of freedom women are expropriated from what determines and establishes them. It is therefore in the name of women’s freedom that surrogate maternity is unacceptable.”12 Biologistic segmentation – supported for example by the thought of Umberto Veronesi – leads to the deletion of the mother, denied by contracts of surrogacy. Additionally, subordinating maternity to a “contract” denigrates a woman’s dignity and the freedom of the unborn child; it means returning to the mercenary wet nursing salary or to the servants who gave birth on behalf of their masters. The argument applies even when a fertile woman gives birth to a child for a sterile woman thanks to the affective bond connecting them (being sisters, friends or mothers of the aspirant

11.S. Tamaro, “Non in mio nome”, in Avvenire, March 24, 2017, 3. 12.From the introduction to the Conference “Maternita al bivio...”, op. cit. SURROGACY

mother). Even in this type of surrogacy, defined as “solidarity,” there is a fracture between generation and sexuality: the father is not involved in the process of parenting. “That procreation takes place outside of sexuality means the bond between a man and a woman is no longer the form of originating intersubjectivity. It loses its symbolic force, which is the most powerful of forces. . . The child does not come from a bond or the word of love between a man and a woman, who receives the grace of becoming flesh.”13 Likewise, even the experience of being a mother is “dissected”: the receiving mother is the object of affection, the gestational mother is the one who makes her body available. The culture in favor of surrogate maternity forbids the latter to love. There are touching cases where “a factory fault” causes the child to be rejected by the commissioning clients. In the Czech 73 Republic some years ago, a malformation was diagnosed in the fetus during the twenty-third week. The pregnant woman refused to abort and the clients gave up on the baby. Then, a few months after giving birth, even the surrogate mother refused the child and entrusted her to an orphanage. We also remember the story of Baby Manji, born in 2008 in India on the commission of a Japanese couple. One month before the birth, the couple divorced. None of the three “potential” mothers – the surrogate, the ex-wife, the donor of the egg – recognized the child.14 The father obtained a Japanese identity certificate for the child after a long legal battle.

Moral elements to discern The silence of the European press on this issue is also significant. Far from the attention of the press, the Paris Charter, signed February 2, 2016, proposing the abolition of surrogate maternity, was recently discussed in the Parliaments of the Member States. Promoted by exponents such as socialist writer Sylviane Agacinski and representatives of human rights, families, the European political and cultural world, one of its most significant passages

13.S. Zanardo, “La maternita surrogata e’ una forma di ospitalita?”, in Aggiornamenti Sociali 68 (2017) 313. 14.See G. Mazza, “Utero in affitto, ecco quanto costa”, in Avvenire (www. avvenire.it), March 1, 2016. FRANCESCO OCCHETTA, SJ

reads: “Far from being an individual gesture, this social practice is made possible by businesses dealing with human reproduction, in an organizational production system with clinics, doctors, lawyers, agencies, and so on. This system needs women as a means of production so that pregnancy and childbirth become functional procedures, with a value in use and a value of exchange, and is part of the globalization of markets that deal in the human body.”15 The ethical evaluation of surrogate maternity, based on the elements that emerge, cannot be confined to establishing a kind of embankment at the limit of artificial procreation techniques.16 It is not even a question of setting parameters – what would be right or where it would be too much – to understand where to establish a technical instrument that in itself should be neutral. 74 Indeed, as we are speaking of a person and their dignity as the object of a technical intervention, one must remember the imperative that Immanuel Kant identified as the key point of human behavior: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always as an end.”17 The ethical evaluation of this practice is placed at the very foundation of humanity, that of the meaning of life. Considering an ethical approach to surrogate maternity means bringing a moral demand to the heart of the technique to look at how this can serve humanity without using people. Transforming procreation into a production reveals a distortion in the perception of what it means to be human, and the appearance of post-humanism in which the person is emptied of the unity of an anthropological significance and remains malleable and pliable to the desire of the strongest and the richest.18 If our perspective on surrogate maternity were not to cover the question of the human meaning of this practice, we would

15.“Charter for the Universal Abolition of Surrogacy”, in www.abolition- gpa.org See also “Utero in affitto” dossier in www.libreriadelledonne.it, March 26, 2016. 16.See L. Grion (ed.), Cose o persone? Sull’esser figli al tempo dell’eterologa, Trieste, Meudon, 2016. 17.I. Kant, Fondazione della metafisica dei costumi, Milan, Bompiani, 2003, 143. 18.See F. Occhetta - P. Benanti, “La politica di fronte alle sfide del postumano”, in Civ. Catt. 2015 I 572-584. SURROGACY

deny that human dignity. Instead, doing so allows us to find answers to the issues raised here in this article.19 The history of the 20th century, with its bloody pages, shows how the crimes that humanity has suffered have in fact shown themselves most bloodthirsty by eliminating the foundation of dignity from human coexistence.

* * *

Through the magisterium, the Church tirelessly affirms: “The dignity of a person, [...] must be recognized in every human being from conception to natural death. This fundamental principlel expresses a great ‘yes’ to human life and must be at the center of ethical reflection on biomedical research, which is of 75 increasing importance in today’s world.”20 Pope Francis recently recalled this in Amoris Laetitia, no. 54. Thus from a juridical point of view even before being a moral consideration, it becomes difficult to consider surrogate maternity as a heterologous reproductive technique in the case of infertility. This would entail undervaluing the relationship formed between the mother and child in the nine months of gestation. Surrogate maternity cannot even be reduced, as some bioethicists believe, to the simple donation of an organ because the uterus, unlike a kidney or a lung, exists to contain another life and has no other function than that. A public consultation throughout Europe would be sufficient to demonstrate that the majority of European citizens are against the practice of surrogate maternity. The unborn child is the weakest component, who “must be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception, and therefore from that moment on, the rights of the person

19.“In fact, human dignity is the level beyond which the coexistence of men can no longer regress not even in a postmodern age, because it is that experiential essential core, of a political-ethical nature, that is the foundation, and which morally legitimizes democratic societies and acts as a discrimination against totalitarian forms of state.” (P. Benanti, Ti esti? Prima lezione di bioetica, Assisi, Cittadella, 2016, 93). 20.Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction, “Dignitas Personae” on some issues of bioethics, September 8, 2008, in www.vatican.va FRANCESCO OCCHETTA, SJ

must be recognized, among which is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.”21 In this regard, among other things, questions must be asked about the approximately 170 million abandoned children in the world. Taking care of these children through adoption or custody, supporting them through a political culture, would satisfy the desire to become parents and raise children. So, to what extent does the idea of the fluidbond at the basis of surrogate maternity influence the deepest questions and appeals of moral conscience? Do we really want to teach young people that everything can be available, subject to market price and controlled by the interests of biotechnological industries? If we culturally affirm that not even the existence of an unborn 76 child is indispensable, on what will the younger generations base their freedom when they grow up? And what kind of rejection will they have for the generation that made them available?22 These are the questions to answer as a civilization. Freedom is always “for someone” it is never “from something”; it is not realized in the infinite space of the multiplication of desires, but it is built onthe acceptance of the limit of the relationship with each other.

21.Ibid. See also the opinion of the Italian National Committee for Bioethics of 18 March 2016 that reaffirms the provisions of art. 21 of the Oviedo Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (1997): “The human body and its parts must not be, as such, a source of profit”. This, together with art. 3 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (2000), is one of the EU’s ethical principles. 22.See S. Zanardo, “La maternita surrogata e una forma di ospitalita?”, op. cit., 316. The principle was clarified in Roman law. See P. Catalano, “Osservazioni sulla “persona” dei nascituri alla luce del diritto romano”, in Rassegna di diritto civile, 1/1988, Naples, Esi, 45-65. God’s Sense of Humor

GianPaolo Salvini, SJ

The subject of humor in religious literature is certainly not something new, even in our journal.1 We believe, however, that a brief note may help our readers keep alive a fundamental dimension of human existence that seems to us in danger of being lost in our 77 western society where daily conflicts and tensions always run the risk of becoming radicalized and exasperating. As a consequence we lose sight of the moderation offered by humor. One might say the same thing about a nearly equivalent term, irony.2 We hope the subject is a pleasant one for we all need humor, even those who cultivate the lay sciences such as economics. Indeed, the prestigious English journal has written that the work of economists is dedicated to the study of why its predictions never come to pass. In the title, reference is made to God’s sense of humor. In reality, in order to speak of God we always begin from our human experience where the action of God is reflected. Humor is without a doubt a regal instrument for establishing ourselves in a serene state. This constitutes a part of wisdom that is a gift

1.Cf., just to give some examples, “Umorismo e vita cristiana” (editorial), in Civ. Catt. 1986 III 3–14; L. Larivera, “Natura e necessita dell’umorismo”, ibid 2004 III 130–142; H. Zollner, “Considerazioni psicologiche sull’umorismo e il riso”, ib. 2010 II 533–545; G. Cucci, “Umorismo e qualita della vita”, ib. 2013 I 246– 257; Id., “Umorismo e vita spirituale”, ib. 2013 I 463–474; F. Castelli, All’uscita del tunnel. Panoramiche religiose dell’odierna letteratura, Vatican City, Libr. Ed. Vaticana, 2009, from which we take some concepts and expressions. 2.The occasion for these notes was the talk given by the author (here largely reproduced) on the occasion of his being named Emeritus Academician of the Pontifical Academy of Theology along with professors Romano Penna, biblicist, and Ysabel de Andia, patrologist, at a ceremony held May 8, 2017, at the Pontifical Lateran University. GIANPAOLO SALVINI, SJ

of the Holy Spirit; indeed, it is the salt of life – and especially the life of believers – that preserves them from every trouble. The history of many heresies is largely the history of the loss of the sense of humor. One could also add that the loss of many vocations involves a story of the loss of a sense of humor. Those who lack it take everything seriously and so make everything very dramatic; or if they do not enter into the drama, they at least complicate life. In addition to the field of religious experiences, a psychologist recounts how two colleagues without a sense of humor met on the street and bid farewell to one another after an embarrassing silence. For the rest of the day they both asked themselves in anguish: “What did he want to say to me?”

78 Some elements of humor Obviously there are many types of humor flowering in every field. We may say that the proper elements of humor – or of the sense of humor – are the capacity to pick up on the absurd and contradictory sides of life, laughing about them in good-humored understanding; a higher perspective that allows you to see better and beyond; a new intelligence that relativizes and changes the dimensions of whatever might be taken absolutely and as lofty. At the basis of the mechanism of humor there constantly appears to be an interaction between the background and the foreground that is suddenly turned upside down. One has then a different way of seeing the same reality. That which was secondary becomes visible and an unsaid fact is highlighted, defying logic and constituting an element of surprise, even if in a veiled way. Many examples of this can be found in the Gospel of Luke, typically in the reversal of situations where the expects a parable to end in a certain way but Jesus concludes in a surprisingly different way. Much also depends evidently upon the state of soul one lives with, which is not always in accord with the Gospel. The two disciples of Emmaus are an example of this. Discouraged by the failure of their dreams, in meeting the unknown wayfarer who seems ignorant of the recent events that have taken place in the city, they cite precisely the kerygma, the message of salvation. But they do it with involuntary humor to show that everything has gone wrong, not to attain consolation from it. GOD’S SENSE OF HUMOR

This capacity of seeing something that others do not see reveals another quality that has something of the divine: the quality of the artist. For this reason humor has a strong link with creativity, art and genius: in a few jokes a crumb of wisdom can be elaborated. Coming to the more spiritual aspect, we say that humor hides an implicit judgment that is founded on a conception of the person and human existence.3 Kierkegaard considers humor the extreme approximation of the human to what is properly religious or Christian. Even if the contrary is apparently true: how is it possible to reconcile God’s absolute status with the sense of humor? Hugo Rahner, taking an idea from the famous Dutch historian Johan Huizinga, wants to demonstrate that the perfection of human ethics is a mysterious reproduction of that 79 eternal Wisdom which plays from the beginning in the sight of God. To the question: “Is God a humorist?” the response comes above all from the mystery of the Incarnation: God eternal and infinite, whose face no one can see and live (cf. Ex 33:20), who assumed human nature and becomes like us and suffers hunger and thirst, cold and heat, and undergoes the passion and death. All of this boggles the mind. But if humanity is lost, God “amuses himself” with an amusement that is the expression of infinite love which evades all understanding. Behind the scandal of the Incarnation, there is the inexplicable abyss of the richness of the love and of the wisdom with which God has set out the secret plot of the deeds into which human history is woven. If the basis of humor is sought in the law of the contrast and juxtaposition of contraries, it must be concluded that God is an unbeatable master with regard to humor. “That which is foolish for the world, God chose it to confound the wise; that which is weak for the world, God chose it to confound the strong” (1 Cor 1:27). The whole history of the Church is a sequence of choices – of persons, events, instruments – that God works with an unchanged sense of humor and confers upon them an undeniable flavor of optimism and joyous surprise.

3.Cf. Dictionnaire de Spiritualite, VII/1, Paris, Beauchesne, 1969, 1189. GIANPAOLO SALVINI, SJ

It is true that in the Gospel Jesus never laughs openly, even if the Gospel is full of benevolent smiles. This is probably not because – as an excellent professor of religion maintained perhaps after reading the thoughts of St. Francis of Sales on the subject – what counts in a joke are the surprise and the punchline that turn the situation upside down. Jesus was not able to laugh at them as he already knew how they would end.

Christian humor Now deceased, former Hungarian Jesuit, Ladislaus Boros, was a lecturer at the University of Innsbruck. He wrote that the intimate nucleus of Christian humor resides in the force of the religious. Humor sees the earthly and the human in 80 their inadequacy before God; it sees how all that is earthly is imperfect. However, this resignation in its turn is elevated by the certainty that all that is finite is surrounded by the grace of God. Those who have a sense of humor love the world despite its imperfection, or rather they love it precisely in its imperfection, as God does.4 They know to be grateful to God because they live in this imperfect world. Among the most important effects of Christian humor is the demystification of ourselves and of others. There are moments we are tempted to see ourselves in heroic perspectives; we feel ourselves the masters of the universe, capable of challenging and conquering all weaknesses. The impact of reality on our wretchedness could then be dramatic and the security valve is precisely humor, which does not hide our weaknesses but allows them to be seen from the perspective of the Lord. In general, to do this he makes use of creatures or of others, as happens with the cock crowing for St. Peter. Humility and trust grow out of these collapsed heroic ambitions. As St. John XXIII said, humility reminds the elderly that the world does not end with them and the young that it did not begin with them. Trust projects us ahead and puts us back in our place in the little piece of history that we have to run, wrapping us in a tender and indulgent caress.

4.Cf. L. Boros, Sperimentare Dio nella vita, Brescia, Queriniana, 1980, 34. GOD’S SENSE OF HUMOR

Cardinal mentioned the counsel of an anonymous cenobite who said: “If your soul is disturbed, go to church, prostrate yourself and pray. If your soul remains still disturbed, go to your spiritual father, sit at his feet and open your heart to him. And if your soul is still disturbed, then retire to your cell, lay down on your mat and sleep.” We may recall what the second Psalm says: “The one enthroned in heaven laughs” (v. 4), but as Karl Rahner notes God laughs calmly as if all this did not touch him, and in laughing he affirms that even a simple, pure smile that breaks out from a just heart reflects an image and a ray of God over any idiocy whatsoever of this world. God’s smile stands to show that all is good and all is grace. If healthy humor can be defined as the capacity to laugh at things that are loved (including ourselves and what affects us), 81 the path of humor in the spiritual life goes hand in hand with the humble love for the cross and the Crucifix, and in particular in the dialogue of the believer with the self and with God. Conversion is a fruit of biblical humor and is an act of remembering in the heart that humans are not the teachers of God. It is from the opposite presumption that trouble and problems are born. Humor constitutes a precious element of a healthy and balanced life even from the spiritual point of view because it has a lot to do with gratuity, creativity and intelligence, all indispensable elements of the relationship with God. It is not for nothing that the Bible has many links with humor. It is enough to think about the wisdom literature, the many stories, proverbs, and the curiosity to know that reveal a way of observing the world with an amused orientation. The capacity of being at one and the same time detached from one’s own representations of reality and fully and passionately involved in the things of God is not only the expression of a profound and healthy Christian humor, but is a sense of the relativeness of all that is not God. In the saints – who are the lovers of God – one notes that this profound liberty of spirit is coupled with an equally profound sense of humor. It is not simply a question of good character, of human sympathy and of facility with the spirited joke, but is also conformity to the experience of how much everything is GIANPAOLO SALVINI, SJ

tremendously relative outside of the One who is ineffable and before whom all remain small and limited.

Humor as an antidote to fear Finally, humor is also a powerful antidote to fear. It must be asked if one of our fundamental tasks in life is not that of conquering the sometimes uncontrollable fears that attack us. Humor is a way of exorcizing evil. It is enough to recall all the sacred representations that from the 12th century on – a Middle Ages marred by calamity, plagues, wars, and diseases – ridiculed the devil and what he represented. His suggested temptation disappeared when a person of God smiled at him. This was a way of exorcizing fear. 82 Many saints exorcized death by humor, giving it back its human meaning in the light of God. Our contemporary world is not capable of doing so except in a deformed way lacking humanity, pretending that death does not exist. Some tell the story of two Thebaid hermits getting old together as neighbors in two nearby grottoes. One said to the other: “Dear brother, we are getting old. When one of us dies, I shall return to the city.” But even faced with the mysterium fascinans et tremendum of God that can be present in our lives, humor may be helpful, even for clerics. Without going back to ancient times, I remember a bishop of a great city of northern Italy replying to a journalist’s question about miracles or apparitions of Our Lady in our era. He said: “Certainly God can open a page of the supernatural even in a secularized world like ours, for example working miracles or sending the Madonna to bring a message of hope and joy to people or to a particular Church. But, please, not in my diocese. I have enough trouble as it is.” If this happened to us we would want to remind ourselves of the pages of the Gospel where the eruption of God frightens, as in the case of Mary in the Annunciation, or of the shepherds on the night of Christmas, but in which the angel always says to the protagonists, and we hope also to us: “Do not fear: behold, I announce to you a great joy” (Lk 2:10). I, Daniel Blake: A Film by Ken Loach

Virgilio Fantuzzi, SJ

Sharp as a razor, the film “I, Daniel Blake” was the deserved winner of the Palme d’Or at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival. It was another crowning achievement in British film director Ken Loach’s 50 years in the industry. Nicknamed “Red Ken,” he depicts social realism in his movies and he maintains that 83 indignant stance, that anger at the injustice and the lack of respect with which those living on the margins of society in the United Kingdom are treated.

Dignity Destroyed The film is about Daniel Blake (Dave Johns), who simply calls himself Dan. He is a 52-year-old carpenter from Newcastle. For the first time in his life he needs to collect welfare after suffering a heart attack on a construction site. Dan sees a doctor who forbids him to return to work. The state grants Dan a pension permitting him to continue his relatively quiet and lonely life. Since the death of his beloved wife with whom he had no children, Dan has not been mentally stable. Unaware of the new financial constraints placed on public services, he is summoned by an interim agency to reduce the supposedly unnecessary payments he collects. In response to questions about his general health, Dan answers openly and wants to get to the point. He wants to talk about his heart, but is only asked about his sphincter, which works just fine. But the agency is not being funny and the case worker makes a flawed assessment. Dan realizes this only when he receives a letter informing him that he will no longer receive his pension. So he contacts the call center and waits two hours for an explanation. VIRGILIO FANTUZZI, SJ

Dan is unaware of what he is falling into. Maltreated and humiliated, he feels caught in a bureaucratic trap of Kafkaesque proportions, having to register for unemployment benefits and look for work, while waiting for his request to be rejected so that he can appeal it. The delivery of public aid has been outsourced to private companies that make their profit by not granting subsidies.

19th-Century Logic In the meantime, Dan starts to defend Katie (Hayley Squires), a single mother with two young children, Daisy (Briana Shann) and Dylan (Dylan McKiernan), no less humiliated and abused than he is. For Katie, the only chance to escape life in the unhealthy room of a London hostel is to accept an apartment in 84 a city she does not know, a long way from her London. In the tortuous path taken by Dan, a practically insurmountable obstacle is found in the form of Information Technology. Symbolically, the computer is portrayed as a mass deterrence tool used by the powerful to shield themselves from the ignorant proletarians who are unable to navigate their way through digital technology. For Dan, who does not know his way around the web or how to use a mouse, filling out an application is difficult. The film shows this in scenes soaked in bitter humor that reminds the viewer, albeit at a distance, of the Chaplin 1936 masterpiece “Modern Times.” But while indulging occasionally in a touch of irony, “I, Daniel Blake” is not a comedy. It does not just expose a welfare system that is absurd and sometimes beyond absurdity, it also unleashes a lingering cry of pain in the air, an impatient, pent- up anger that would explode were it not for the spread of helplessness-generating indifference. Marvelously played by a little-known actor, Dan embodies a typical example of the British proletariat complete with his uncompromising good-heartedness. A fair and disinterested man, ready to defend his rights to better protect those of others who share his fate, he clashes with anyone who treats him with the aseptic tone of an automated answering machine. Katie and her children, who find in Dan an ideal grandfather, bring a Dickensian component into the film. Loach does not use I, DANIEL BLAKE: A FILM BY KEN LOACH this to squeeze some tears out of the eyes of the most sensitive viewers, but to denounce, with rigor and energy, the return of a 19th-century logic that hunger can be used to control even the most ferocious animals. Fighting injustice as long as injustice exists is what 81-year- old Ken Loach is all about. He does not think the time has come yet to hang up his camera. Always standing up for the weak, in this film he defends those deprived of primary needs: food, heating, home. Katie, who is willing to do anything to feed her children, literally goes hungry herself. She is accompanied by Dan to a so- called “food bank,” which is a kind of supermarket managed by volunteers where food and other indispensables are distributed to the needy. In a particularly moving and intense scene, Dan is 85 suddenly overcome with shame after opening a can of tomatoes and putting his hand inside. He bursts into despairing sobs.

They Call It Welfare Dan struggles against those who want to deprive him of his dignity, the last thing that he has. “Unfortunately,” says Loach, “European states do not care about people’s interest but that of big capital, always making workers increasingly vulnerable. Have you lost your job? Your fault. The truth is that unemployment has soared and temporary work is now the norm: an advantage for business, but a disaster for the working class.” “Dan and Katie,” the director continues, “are the synthesis of the many people I met with the film’s screenwriter, my friend Paul Laverty: the new poor, the unemployed, the people who can no longer afford to live in a city like London, the temporary workers who are plummeting into a social and economic abyss.” In telling of the genesis of this film, Laverty says: “The most immediate source of inspiration for this story was Ken calling me and asking me to go with him to visit Nuneaton, the place he grew up. Ken is in close contact with a homeless organization there and we met really great social workers, who introduced some of the young people they work with. “During our journey, from one contact to another, we heard many stories. The food banks became a valuable source of VIRGILIO FANTUZZI, SJ

information. As new stories emerged, we understood that many people today have to choose between food and heating. “To refute the usual stereotypes, we also found that many of the users of food banks were not unemployed, but people with a job, who couldn’t make ends meet. Zero hours contracts have disturbed the existence of so many, preventing them from having lifelong projects with a semblance of certainty, leaving them at the mercy of illegal work and the complexity of the welfare system. “The characters of Dan and Katie are not based on any of the people we met. You cannot copy and paste the stories of food banks or the lines in the job center directly onto a script. The two characters are inspired by the hundreds of men and 86 women with their dignity and their children who have shared their most intimate stories with us. “The faces of intelligent and capable people come to mind. Frightened people. Older people, tormented by the complexity of the system and the new technologies. Many social workers told us that they would like to give more help to these people, but their leaders prevented them as they want to reduce the number of visitors to the offices as much as possible. “Then there were the young who had lost all hope too soon. Some I remember were trembling, as they tried to summarize their story, doing everything possible to safeguard their dignity, trapped by the something that is mistakenly called welfare, which instead has all the features of Purgatory. “Of course, there were also those addicted to drugs and alcohol, living a chaotic life with strange tattoos. This I say for those know-it-alls and opportunists who produce senseless television programs that disseminate hatred and promote ignorance.”