The theme of the Synod is the family in the context of evangelization. Not surprisingly, then, the document reflects on the majority of “irregular” situations in the context of the education given to children. But it notes that “irregular” are situations, not people (138). A person always deserves respect, and when he or she turns to the Church with a request for the spiritual well-being of children this is always an opportunity to establish a pastoral contact. Even more important is to emphasize that children – regardless of the family context in which they come into the world – should always be treated in the same way. They are not to be blamed for the life choices of their parents (149).

In the case of divorced and separated, the diversity of situations is emphasized. Of particular note are separated who remained loyal to the marriage vows. They are called “new poor” in a world dominated by a “culture of waste”. Their suffering and loneliness are a great Christian witness to the modern world (87, 97).

The document notes, however, that many Catholics do not see a direct connection between the divorce, the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Penance (91). Therefore, if they turn to the Church, even asking for access to the sacraments, it happens that – rather than a genuine reconciliation with God – they seek relief from suffering, they want to overcome the feeling of being mistreated and marginalized by the Church or seek effective recognition of another union (93, 95).

The working paper devotes much space to the necessity of opening to every human being and to the attitude to be adopted towards everyone, which must be a mother’s one, rather than a judge’s (103). This also applies to divorced people who live new unions. Many conferences recall that also in such situations it is possible to participate actively in the life of the Church, for example in prayer groups, in liturgical moments and charitable activities. There is also the opportunity to receive a personal blessing for those who cannot receive Holy Communion (104). In the case of such practices, however, caution is recommended, not to cause the impression that the Church introduces a “Catholic divorce” through the back door (99).

The Bishops’ Conferences indicate a gradual “privatization” of marriage and the family in Europe too. The state tends to equate marriage to other types of cohabitation, while on the other hand it does not recognize genuine public value to marriage. The lack of family policies (and sometimes anti-family policies) are one of the reasons that lead young people not to marry and not to have children: both marriage and the birth of a child in the world are associated with an economic loss (83). The underestimation by the State of the family as the creator of the social capital (to teach children love, education, ethical values​​, the capacity to enter into relations with other people, solidarity, etc…), as well as a place in which citizens enter the world, contributes to the demographic crisis experienced in Europe (33-34). “Policies leading to a decline in the birth rate are having an effect on the quality of marital relationships and relationships between generations” (130). The promotion of an ideology called gender theory ruin the foundations of social life (23). Instead, just laws should be promoted, such as those which ensure the right to life from the moment of conception and those which promote the social goodness of an authentic marriage between a man and a woman (34).

In conclusion, it is worth noting – as pointed out by Msgr. Bruno Forte during the presentation of the document – that, according to the will of Pope Francis, the Synod will have a pastoral nature. “The doctrine of the Church, reiterated several times in recent years by various ministerial interventions, is not in issue. The reflection required is on pastoral applications, on how to propose doctrine, how to accompany its reception and practice, how to show clearly the humanizing potential in the face of a widespread lack of knowledge or misunderstanding.” The family in crisis is particularly in need of care on the part of the Church (46). In addition to the bandage it is however necessary that the Church shows the beauty and attractiveness of family life (via pulchritudinis – the way of beauty – 59), marriage as a vocation, and parenting as a gift from God (49).

(3/end)

Il tema del Sinodo è la famiglia nel contesto dell’evangelizzazione. Non sorprende, quindi, che si rifletta sulla maggior parte delle situazioni “irregolari” nel contesto dell’educazione data ai bambini. Ma si osserva che “irregolari” sono le situazioni, non le persone (138). Una persona merita sempre rispetto, e quando si rivolge alla Chiesa con una richiesta per il benessere spirituale dei bambini è sempre l’occasione per stabilire un contatto pastorale. Ancora più importante è sottolineare che i bambini – a prescindere dal contesto familiare in cui sono venuti al mondo – devono essere sempre trattati in modo identico. Essi non sono colpevoli per le scelte di vita dei loro genitori (149).

Nel caso di divorziati e separati si sottolinea la diversità delle situazioni. Di particolare rilievo sono i separati rimasti fedeli al vincolo. Essi sono chiamati “nuovi poveri” in un mondo dominato da una “cultura dello scarto”. La loro sofferenza e la solitudine costituiscono una grande testimonianza cristiana per il mondo moderno (87;97).

Il Documento rileva, però, che molti cattolici non vedono il collegamento diretto tra il divorzio, l’Eucaristia e il sacramento della Penitenza (91). Quindi, se si rivolgono alla Chiesa, anche chiedendo l’accesso ai sacramenti, succede che – più che una vera e propria riconciliazione con Dio – cercano sollievo dalla sofferenza, vogliono superare la sensazione di essere maltrattati ed emarginati dalla Chiesa o cercano il riconoscimento effettivo di un’altra unione (93; 95).

Il Documento di lavoro dedica molto spazio alla necessità dell’apertura a ogni essere umano e all’atteggiamento da adottare verso ognuno, che dev’essere quello di una madre, più che di un giudice (103). Questo vale anche per le persone divorziate che vivono nuove unioni. Molte Conferenze ricordano che anche in tali situazioni è possibile partecipare attivamente alla vita della Chiesa, per esempio nei gruppi di preghiera, in momenti liturgici e attività caritative. C’è anche la possibilità di ricevere una benedizione personale per chi non può ricevere la Santa Comunione (104). Nel caso di tali pratiche, tuttavia, la prudenza consiglia di non causare l’impressione che la Chiesa attraverso la porta sul retro introduca un “divorzio cattolico” (99).

Gli episcopati indicano anche in Europa una progressiva “privatizzazione” del matrimonio e della famiglia. Lo Stato tende a equiparare al matrimonio altri tipi di convivenza, mentre d’altra parte non riconosce valore pubblico al matrimonio autentico. La mancanza di politiche familiari, e talvolta le politiche anti-famiglia, sono uno dei motivi che portano i giovani a non sposarsi e a non fare figli: sia il matrimonio sia la nascita di un bambino nel mondo vengono associati a una perdita economica (83). La sottovalutazione, dalla parte dello Stato, della famiglia come creatrice del capitale sociale (insegnare ai bambini l’amore, l’educazione ai valori etici, la capacità di entrare in relazione con altre persone, la solidarietà ecc.), così come luogo nel quale i cittadini vengono al mondo, contribuisce alla crisi demografica sperimentata in Europa (33-34). “Le politiche di denatalità cambiano la qualità del rapporto tra i coniugi e la relazione tra le generazioni” (130). La promozione di un’ideologia chiamata gender theory rovina i fondamenti della vita sociale (23). Invece, si dovrebbero promuovere leggi giuste, come quelle che garantiscono il diritto alla vita dal momento del concepimento e quelle che promuovono la bontà sociale del matrimonio autentico tra la donna e l’uomo (34).

In conclusione, vale la pena notare – come sottolineato da mons. Bruno Forte durante la presentazione del Documento – che, secondo la volontà di papa Francesco, il Sinodo avrà carattere pastorale. “Non è in discussione la dottrina della Chiesa, più volte ribadita anche negli ultimi anni da vari interventi ministeriali. La riflessione richiesta è sulle applicazioni pastorali, sul modo di proporre la dottrina, di accompagnare la recezione e la pratica, di mostrarne in maniera chiara le potenzialità umanizzanti a fronte di una diffusa non conoscenza o incomprensione”. La famiglia in crisi è particolarmente bisognosa di cure da parte della Chiesa (46). Oltre al bendaggio è necessario, tuttavia, che la Chiesa mostri la bellezza e l’attrattività della vita familiare (via pulchritudinis – 59), il matrimonio come una vocazione, e la genitorialità come un dono da Dio (49).

(3/fine)

Among the concerns expressed by the Bishops’ Conferences of Europe there is in the first place the diminished popularity of marriage, both religious and civil. Young people still want to cherish for a lifetime, but in fact the number of couples who live ad experimentum, with no registration, neither canonical nor civil, and without any obligation, is growing. This form of communal living is often not intended as only temporary, but the choice is permanent. A side effect of this practice of not marrying is the decline in the number of divorces (86). The reasons are several. On the one hand, marriage is seen as a loss of freedom (84) and the postposition of it as an extension of youth. On the other hand, as too difficult and beyond the strength of the common man (84). Sometimes it is a romantic vision of love (85), and, at times, fear and disbelief in their own strength. Living together is seen as a test of marriage, accompanied by the fear of children (81). What is new is the change in social perception, which in general does not see this situation as problematic (81, 83). As a result, the sacrament of marriage of the parents is often celebrated together with the sacrament of baptism of their children. As much as the lack of understanding of marriage is often a reason for estrangement  from the Church, so much the request of the sacrament of baptism or first communion for children is often the reason to approach it (146).

Among the res novae (the new things), the document sets out the growing number of singles, the delay of the age of marriage, the contraceptive mentality, consumerism, the culture of the provisional, the perception of children as a threat to the lifestyle of prospective parents, the desire for a child “at any cost” that leads to resort to artificial procreation, extended families in which children of the various partners grow together, families with only one parent (28, 65, 74). Other important issues relate to divorce and legal attempts to redefine the institution of marriage. To the themes identified as “difficult” is dedicated a chapter in the second part of the document (III). One of the direct consequences of these changes is the deprivation of the children’s contact with both parents – mom and dad – so important because of the difference of their role in the educational process (39). Particularly serious is the lack of experience of the father’s love (64), because children often remain under the care of their mother. Difficult for them to believe also in the duration of family ties, that the separation of the parents should not destroy (149). The absence of the mother or father is particularly perceived in the case of the adoption of children by persons in same-sex union, which is to be avoided – according to the responses received by the secretariat of the Synod – because it sees “a risk to the integral good of the child “(120).

(2 / to be continued)

Tra le preoccupazioni espresse dagli episcopati europei in primo luogo vi è la diminuita popolarità del matrimonio, sia religioso sia civile. I giovani desiderano ancora amare per tutta la vita, ma in realtà cresce il numero di coppie che vivono ad experimentum, senza alcuna registrazione, né canonica né civile, e senza alcun obbligo. Spesso questa forma di vita in comune non è intesa solo come temporanea, ma è scelta in modo permanente. Un effetto collaterale di questa pratica di non sposarsi è il calo del numero dei divorzi (86). Le ragioni sono diverse. Da un lato, il matrimonio è visto come una perdita di libertà (84) e la sua postposizione come prolungamento della giovinezza. Dall’altro, come troppo difficile e oltre la forza dell’uomo comune (84). A volte si tratta di una visione romantica dell’amore (85) e, a volte, della paura e incredulità nella propria forza. Vivere insieme è visto come una prova del matrimonio, accompagnata dal timore dei bambini (81). Fatto nuovo è il cambiamento della percezione sociale, che in generale non vede più tale situazione come problematica (81;83). Come risultato, il sacramento del matrimonio dei genitori è spesso celebrato insieme con il sacramento del battesimo dei bambini. Quanto la mancanza di comprensione del matrimonio è spesso motivo di allontanamento dalla Chiesa, tanto la richiesta del sacramento del battesimo o della prima comunione per i figli è spesso il motivo di avvicinamento a essa (146).

Tra le res novae, il documento enumera il numero crescente di single, il ritardare l’età del matrimonio, la mentalità contraccettiva, il consumismo, la cultura del provvisorio, la percezione dei bambini come una minaccia per lo stile di vita dei potenziali genitori, il desiderio di un figlio “a ogni costo” che porta a ricorrere alla procreazione artificiale, le famiglie allargate in cui i bambini dei vari partner crescono insieme, le famiglie con un solo genitore (28; 65; 74). Altre problematiche importanti riguardano i divorzi e i tentativi legali per ridefinire l’istituzione del matrimonio. Ai temi individuati come “difficili” è dedicato un capitolo nella seconda parte del documento (III). Una delle conseguenze dirette di questi cambiamenti è la privazione dei figli del contatto con entrambi i genitori – mamma e papà –, così importante a causa della differenza del loro ruolo nel processo educativo (39). Particolarmente grave è la mancanza dell’esperienza di amore paterno (64), perché i bambini spesso rimangono sotto la cura della madre. Difficile per loro credere anche nella durata dei legami familiari, che la separazione dei genitori non dovrebbe distruggere (149). L’assenza della madre o del padre è particolarmente avvertita nel caso dell’adozione di bambini da parte di persone in unione dello stesso sesso, che è da evitare – secondo le risposte pervenute alla segreteria del Sinodo – perché vede “a rischio il bene integrale del bambino” (120).

(2/segue)

The working paper “The pastoral challenges of the family in the context of evangelization” – Instrumentum laboris of the next Synod of Bishops – summarizes the results of the questionnaire sent last year to the local Churches. Many responses came from Europe, mentioned in the text more often than other continents. The document consists of three parts, which deal, respectively, of the evangelization of the family, of the pastoral care of families in the new cultural context, of openness to life and parental responsibility in upbringing their children.

Hope seems to be the most important message of this document: many families are today experiencing a crisis, so many marriages fall apart, and yet the Church feels called to preach especially the beauty of human love and faith in the fact that – with the help of the grace of Christ – a man and a woman are able to persevere in love and fidelity “to the end”. “Marriage based on exclusive and definitive love becomes the icon of the relationship between God and his people and vice versa. God’s way of loving becomes the measure of human love.” (Deus Caritas Est, 11). Christ is the one who has loved man “to the point of death – even death on a cross.” (Phil 2:8), and allows the husband and the wife to be witnesses of a love so great.

About the description of the different contexts in which Catholics live today, the authors divide the world into two parts: one in which we still have to deal with a rather traditional society, the other where the processes of secularization have worked a radical change in the social context. Europe (and North America) are almost always mentioned in this context, even if sometimes the internal differentiation of the Old Continent is underlined. Communism, which has only caused devastation in many fields in Central and Eastern Europe, has paradoxically strengthened the resistance of the Catholic community against the policy of forced atheism. It also delayed the process of secularization began in the West in the 60s and 70s. We therefore have on the one hand a Europe which rebels against itself, on the other a Europe which is always about to break free from residues of an opposed ideology. This difference can be seen, for example, in relation to the ideology of gender, which in Central and Eastern Europe is perceived – by analogy with Marxism – as an imposition by a foreign culture (111). The 60s and 70s of the last century – as indicated, for their part, by the bishops of the Western countries – have led to a sharp conflict between the generations, as a result of which parents today prefer to avoid controversy with their children, and often leave the responsibility of the education in the faith of their children to religious institutions. While the paradox of Eastern Europe is a reversal of direction in the transmission of faith: it is the children who communicate the faith to their parents (135, 137).

The Episcopal Conferences draw attention to the lack of knowledge of the Church’s teaching on marriage, family, premarital chastity and chastity in marriage. This is true both for many lay people, and for the clergy (11, 12, 26). Some priests who promote instead their own point of view and not the teaching of the Catholic Church cause confusion among the faithful (12). However, if the Church teaching is transmitted “in depth”, it is it is enthusiastically received (13). The resistance to the teachings of the Church often occurs in the absence of an in-depth faith (15), while the practical problems of living according to the principles of the Catholic faith come first, and only after “the couple’s crisis in marriage and the family gradually becomes a crisis in faith”(62).

(1 / to be continued)

Il Documento di lavoro “Le sfide pastorali sulla famiglia nel contesto dell’evangelizzazione” – Instrumentum laboris del prossimo Sinodo dei vescovi – sintetizza i risultati del questionario inviato l’anno scorso alle Chiese locali. Molte risposte sono giunte dall’Europa, menzionata nel testo più spesso di altri continenti. Il documento si compone di tre parti che si occupano, rispettivamente, di evangelizzazione della famiglia, di pastorale delle famiglie nel nuovo contesto culturale, di apertura alla vita e responsabilità dei genitori per l’educazione dei figli. Sembra che la speranza sia il messaggio più importante di questo documento: molte famiglie oggi stanno vivendo una crisi, tanti matrimoni cadono a pezzi, eppure la Chiesa si sente chiamata a predicare soprattutto la bellezza dell’amore umano e la fede nel fatto che – con l’aiuto della grazia di Cristo – un uomo e una donna sono in grado di perseverare nell’amore e nella fedeltà “fino alla fine”. “Il matrimonio basato su un amore esclusivo e definitivo diventa l’icona del rapporto di Dio con suo popolo e viceversa: il modo in amare di Dio diventa la misura dell’amore umano” (Deus Caritas est, 11). Cristo è colui che ha amato l’uomo “fino alla morte e alla morte di croce” (Fil 2,8), e che permette al marito e alla moglie di essere testimoni di un amore così grande.

Circa la descrizione dei diversi contesti in cui vivono oggi i cattolici, gli autori dividono il mondo in due parti: una nella quale abbiamo ancora a che fare con una società piuttosto tradizionale; l’altra, dove i processi di secolarizzazione hanno operato un cambiamento radicale del contesto sociale. Europa (e America del Nord) sono quasi sempre citate in quest’ultimo contesto, anche se a volte si evidenzia la differenziazione interna del Vecchio Continente. Il comunismo, che nell’Europa centrale e orientale in molti settori ha provocato solo devastazione, paradossalmente ha rafforzato la resistenza della comunità cattolica contro la politica dell’ateismo forzato. Ha anche ritardato il processo di secolarizzazione iniziato in Occidente negli anni Sessanta e Settanta. Abbiamo, dunque, da un lato un’Europa ribelle contro se stessa, dall’altro un’Europa sempre in procinto di liberarsi dai residui di un’ideologia aliena. Questa differenza può essere vista, per esempio, in rapporto all’ideologia del gender, che nell’Europa centrale e orientale è percepita – per analogia con il marxismo – come l’imposizione di una cultura straniera (111). Gli anni ’60 e ’70 del secolo scorso – come indicano, da parte loro, gli episcopati dei Paesi occidentali – hanno portato a un forte conflitto tra le generazioni, conseguentemente al quale i genitori di oggi preferiscono evitare polemiche con i loro figli, e spesso lasciano alle istituzioni religiose la responsabilità dell’educazione nella fede dei loro figli. Mentre il paradosso dell’Europa orientale è l’inversione della direzione nella trasmissione della fede: sono i ragazzi che educano nella fede i loro genitori (135; 137).

Le Conferenze episcopali richiamano l’attenzione sulla scarsa conoscenza della dottrina della Chiesa sul matrimonio, la famiglia, la castità prematrimoniale e nel matrimonio. Questo vale sia per molti laici, sia per il clero (11; 12; 26). Alcuni sacerdoti che promuovono invece il proprio punto di vista e non l’insegnamento della Chiesa cattolica provocano confusione tra i fedeli (12). Tuttavia, se l’insegnamento della Chiesa viene trasmesso “in profondità”, generalmente è accettato con entusiasmo (13). La resistenza agli insegnamenti della Chiesa molto spesso si ha in assenza di una fede approfondita (15), mentre i problemi pratici di vivere secondo i principi della fede cattolica vengono per primi, e solo dopo “la crisi nella coppia, nel matrimonio o nella famiglia si trasforma spesso e gradatamente in una crisi di fede” (62).

(1/continua)

For decades we have heard a moan in Europe about the democratic deficit. For reasons that can be understood in a historical perspective, European integration was from the outset a product of the political elite, which occasionally has called for a social legitimization of its decisions through the organization of a popular consultation (referendum). Even when the content of these consultations was the approval of a new treaty, their first meaning was the post factum legitimization of the results of integration. If citizens in a referendum had expressed their dissatisfaction, the elite always found an appropriate procedure “to enhance” democracy.

“One of Us”, made possible by the Lisbon Treaty is, in chronological order, the latest initiative in the process of democratization. The discussions coming along with the introduction of this tool were a mixture of fear and hope. Hope for democratization and fear of what ordinary citizens may ask to the elites. Hence the very strict conditions: one million signatures and exceeding the minimum number of signatures in at least seven countries. This, however, did not dispel the fears of bureaucrats vis-à-vis the will of citizens. “One of Us” has been deprived of this element, which is its primary meaning: a true civic legislative initiative. They turned it into a petition for the “kindness” of the planning bureaucrats closed in the Berlaymont Castle.

The essence of a civic initiative in democracy is giving citizens the same right to take a specific legislative initiative that in the European countries is attributed to the President, the Government and the Parliament. In other words, the citizens who resort to the referendum tool can somehow oppose the political elites without having to wait for the elections, thus making an effort to correct their plans. The Parliament, elected by the citizens, is expected to take into account a referendum’s outcome every time that citizens want to express their will directly, and not only through their representatives. Citizens are not a bunch of cheerleaders. This is the meaning of the famous words: we, the people.

Despite the weakness of the provisions of the European Treaty, we were convinced that the officials in Brussels, if not out of a sense of decency, but at least guided by common sense, would not place themselves above European citizens. They should give up the role of judges and just play the role of intermediaries between the citizens, the European Parliament, and the European Council. Unfortunately, the opposite happened. The first two initiatives of European citizens which met (with a surplus) the conditions required have been thrown in the trash basket. The voice of nearly two million European citizens who have signed the initiative “One of Us” has been completely ignored. In fact, the EU Commission has determined that its own decisions meet the “highest ethical standards” and therefore anyone who dared to challenge the decisions of the Commission place themselves at a lower level in their ethical reflection. The organizers of “One of Us” during a meeting which was held in Brussels in recent days, have decided to examine the opportunity of challenging the decision of the European Commission and submit it to the judgment of the European Court of Justice. They assume a possible violation of democracy by the Commission.

Regardless of how the dispute over European democracy will develop, we must say that “One of Us” as a social campaign, was a great success for European citizens and pro-life NGOs. For the first time there has been extensive cooperation among the pro-life movements from all over Europe. The European Federation of Pro-life Movements “One of Us” was founded. The introduction of the theme of the defence of life in the public debate in Europe has carried out a great educational task. The organizers of the initiative are determined not to surrender their weapons, but to continuously monitor the EU financial policy. Other ways are not passable, at least for now.

Od dziesiątków lat słyszymy w Europie o deficycie demokracji. Z powodów historycznie zrozumiałych integracja europejska była od początku dziełem elit politycznych, które od czasu do czasu oczekiwały społecznej legitymizacji swoich decyzji organizując referenda. Nawet jeśli ich treścią było zatwierdzenie nowego traktatu, chodziło w nich przede wszystkim o legitymizację post factum dotychczasowych osiągnięć integracji. Jeśli obywatele w referendum wyrazili swoje niezadowolenie, włączano procedurę „podrasowywania” demokracji. Bądź powtarzano referendum, bądź przyjmowano niemal niezmieniony w swej istocie traktat na drodze poza-referendalnej. W ramach demokratyzacji Wspólnoty pojawił się z czasem także Parlament Europejski, tyle, że w swych początkach niemal całkowicie pozbawiony kompetencji. Jednak nawet dzisiaj, gdy jego kompetencje znacznie wzrosły, jak orzekł Trybunał z Karlsruhe, wybory narodowych przedstawicieli trudno uznać za spełniające demokratyczne rygory. Najnowszym pomysłem w ramach demokratyzacji jest wprowadzona Traktatem Lizbońskim inicjatywa obywatelska. Jeśli pamiętamy dyskusje towarzyszące jej wprowadzaniu, to były one mieszaniną strachu i nadziei. Nadziei na demokratyzację i strachu przed tym, czego zwykli obywatele mogą zażądać od swoich elit. Stąd dość wyśrubowane warunki: milion obywateli i przekroczenie minimum podpisów w co najmniej siedmiu krajach. Nie rozproszyło to jednak obaw biurokratów przed konfrontacją z wolą obywateli. Inicjatywa pozbawiona została tego elementu, który stanowi jej sens: bycia rzeczywistą obywatelską inicjatywą ustawodawczą. Sprowadzono ją do roli petycji do miłościwie nam planujących biurokratów na zamku w Berlaymont. Istotą obywatelskiej inicjatywy w demokracji jest bowiem wyposarzenie obywateli w takie samo prawo do podjęcia konkretnej inicjatywy ustawodawczej, jakie przysługuje w państwach europejskich prezydentowi, rządowi czy parlamentowi. Inaczej mówiąc, obywatele sięgając po ten instrument mogą niejako „postawić się” elitom politycznym nie czekając na wybory i próbować skorygować ich plany wobec siebie. Parlament, wybrany przez obywateli zobowiązany jest do rozpatrywania jej treści zawsze, gdy obywatele zechcą wyrazić swoją wolę bezpośrednio, a nie jedynie ustami swoich reprezentantów. Obywatele bowiem nie są grupą klakierów. Taki jest sens sławnych słów: we, the people.

Pomimo słabości w europejskim prawie traktatowym wydawało się, że urzędnicy brukselscy, jeśli nie z racji poczucia przyzwoitości, to wiedzeni zdrowym rozsądkiem, nie będą wynosić się ponad europejskich obywateli. Zrezygnują zatem z roli sędziów we własnej sprawie i ograniczą się do roli pośredników między obywatelami a parlamentem i Radą Europejską. Stało się niestety inaczej. Dwie pierwsze europejskie inicjatywy obywatelskie, które spełniły (z nawiązką) wymagane prawem warunki, zostały przez Komisję wyrzucone do kosza. Głos prawie dwóch milionów europejskich obywateli, którzy podpisali się pod inicjatywą „Jeden z nas”, został całkowicie zlekceważony. Komisja orzekła bowiem, że jej decyzje spełniają „najwyższe standardy etyczne”, a zatem każdy, kto odważyłby się podważać decyzje Komisji, tym samym jest na niższym poziomie etycznej refleksji. Organizatorzy tej inicjatywy na spotkaniu, które odbyło się Brukseli w ubiegłym tygodniu, postanowili zatem rozważyć możliwość zaskarżenia decyzji Komisji Europejskiej do Europejskiego Trybunały Sprawiedliwości. Jak podkreślają, chodzi o możliwe naruszenie przez Komisję zasad demokracji.

Niezależnie jednak od tego jak się europejski spór o demokracje, trzeba powiedzieć, że „Jeden z nas” jako akcja społeczna było wielkim sukcesem europejskich obywateli i europejskich obrońców życia. Po raz pierwszy doszło do tak szerokiej współpracy między ruchami obrony życia z całej Europy. Powstała Europejska Federacja Ruchów Obrony Życia „Jeden z nas”. Wprowadzenie tematu obrony życia do publicznej dyskusji w Europie spełniło wielką rolę edukacyjną. Organizatorzy inicjatywy zdecydowani są nie składać broni, ale monitorować na bieżąco politykę finansową UE. Powrót do rzeczywistości sprzed startu inicjatywy chyba nie jest już możliwy.

Church has got two saints Popes. These personalities are similar to each other and very different at the same time. In his homily at the canonization Mass, Pope Francis stressed that both “were not afraid to look upon the wounds of Jesus, to touch his torn hands and his pierced side. They were not ashamed of the flesh of Christ, they were not scandalized by him, by his cross; they did not despise the flesh of their brother”. The wounds, being a stumbling block to the faith, do not disappear from the body of the Risen Lord, but remain as they are enduring signs of God’s love. They are essential for believing that God is love and mercy. The wounds outstretched to the disciples to touch them, are an invitation to give them a new meaning; to what was a sign of the curse, read as a sign of grace. “By his wounds you have been healed”.

Two holy popes. Each of them, Pope Francis gave a title which in a special way describes his mission. St. John XXIII was “the Pope of openness to the Holy Spirit”, St. John Paul II “Pope of the family”. The first is closely related to the convening of the Second Vatican Council. The second to the special importance attached by Pope John Paul II to family issues. There were personal reasons for doing so – early orphanhood and the understanding of the family value through the experience of “missing”. This shows how much for the promotion of the family can do all those who are actually experiencing family crises, any deficiencies in relation to the ideal of what a man carries in his heart. Other reasons is probably associated with the history of the nation, which for two centuries was deprived of independent state. Through these two centuries the Catholic faith and national identity were stored and transmitted in the family, “under the mother’s heart”. The Pope spoke of this in UNESCO: “I am the son of a Nation which has lived through the greatest vicissitudes of history, which its neighbours have condemned to death more than once, and yet which has survived and remained itself. It has kept its identity, and despite partition and foreign occupation, it has maintained its national sovereignty not by depending on the resources of physical force but solely by relying on its culture. In the case in point, that culture has proved more powerful than all other forces combined”. Finally, Saint. John Paul II was deeply aware that the family, the Ecclesia domestica and fundamental cell of the society, is experiencing a serious crisis today. Hence the papal catechesis on the theology of the body, Letter to Women, Letter to Families, and finally the establishment of the Pontifical Council for the Family. Hence the constant reminders that “man cannot fully find himself, except through a sincere gift of himself”, that man needs to live not just “next to” but “for” husband or wife, that children are a sign of God’s blessing, that spouses are called to be a visible sign to the world of faithful and irrevocable love of Christ to the Church.

It seems that the family in a special way connects to the contemplation of the five wounds of Christ. Man sometimes wants love that costs nothing. Abortion, euthanasia, divorce are different ways of escape from suffering, suffering which is a test of both faith and love. “In these two men, who looked upon the wounds of Christ and bore witness to his mercy, there dwelt a living hope and an indescribable and glorious joy”. The wounds outstretched to the spouses in crisis seem to exorcise fear, they seem to say: “Do not be afraid! My love won the world”. Love having the courage to watch the wounds of Jesus “bears everything, endures everything and never ceases”.

The Pope Francis, in a sense, has proclaimed Saint John Paul II patron of the Synod devoted to the family. It’s a very good sign and a reminder that the teaching of John Paul II on the family is no longer “just” the teaching of a pope of the recent past, but it is also the teaching of the saint.

Undoubtedly, today we do not need another, that is, a “second” Church. But we need the Church of Jesus Christ, which renews herself continuously, updating in keeping with her pristine features, in docility to the Holy Spirit. “Let us not forget that it is the saints who give direction and growth to the Church”.

Kościołowi przybyło dwóch świętych papieżu. To osobowości podobne do siebie i bardzo różne zarazem. W homilii na Mszy kanonizacyjnej papież Franciszek podkreślił, że obaj „mieli odwagę oglądania ran Jezusa, dotykania Jego zranionych rąk i Jego przebitego boku. Nie wstydzili się ciała Chrystusa, nie gorszyli się Nim, Jego krzyżem”. Rany, będące zgorszeniem dla wiary, nie znikają z ciała Zmartwychwstałego, lecz pozostają, gdyż są trwałym znakiem miłości Boga. Są niezbędne, by wierzyć, że Bóg jest miłością i miłosierdziem. Rany wyciągnięte ku uczniom, aby mogli ich dotknąć, są zaproszeniem, by nadać im nowy sens; by to, co było znakiem przekleństwa, odczytać jako znak łaski. „W Jego ranach jest nasze zbawienie”.

Dwóch świętych papież. Każdemu z nich papież Franciszek  „nadał” tytuł w sposób szczególny opisujący jego misję. Św. Jan XXIII był „papieżem posłuszeństwa Duchowi Świętemu”, św. Jan Paweł II – „papieżem rodziny”. Pierwsze wiąże się ściśle ze zwołaniem Soboru Watykańskiego II. Drugie – ze szczególną wagą przywiązywaną przez Jana Pawła II do kwestii rodziny. Istniały ku temu powody osobiste – wczesne osierocenie i odkrywanie wartości rodziny poprzez doświadczenie „braku”. Ukazuje to, jak wiele dla promocji rodziny mogą zrobić ci wszyscy, którzy właściwie przeżywają rodzinne kryzysy, wszelkie braki w stosunku do ideału, jaki człowiek nosi w sercu. Inne powody wiązały się chyba z historią narodu, który przez dwa wieki pozbawiony był własnej państwowości. Przez te dwa wieki wiara katolicka i narodowa tożsamość były przechowywane i przekazywane w rodzinach, „pod sercem matek”. Mówił o tym Papież w UNESCO: „Jestem synem Narodu, który przetrwał najstraszliwsze doświadczenia dziejów, który wielokrotnie sąsiedzi skazywali na śmierć – a on pozostał przy życiu i pozostał sobą. Zachował własną tożsamość i zachował pośród rozbiorów i okupacji własną suwerenność jako Naród – nie w oparciu o jakiekolwiek inne środki fizycznej potęgi, ale tylko w oparciu o własną kulturę, która okazała się w tym wypadku potęgą większą od tamtych potęg”. Wreszcie, św. Jan Paweł II był głęboko świadomy, że rodzina, Ecclesia domestica i podstawowa komórka społeczeństwa, przeżywa dzisiaj poważny kryzys. Stąd papieskie katechezy o teologii ciała, List do kobiet, List do rodzin, a wreszcie powołanie Papieskiej Rady do spraw Rodziny. Stąd ciągłe przypominanie, że „człowiek nie może siebie w pełni zrealizować inaczej, jak poprzez bezinteresowny dar z siebie”, o potrzebie życia nie tylko „obok”, ale „dla” męża czy żony, o tym, że dzieci są znakiem błogosławieństwa Bożego, że małżonkowie są powołani do tego, aby być dla świata widzialnym znakiem miłości wiernej i nieodwołanej Chrystusa do Kościoła.

Wydaje się, że temat rodziny w szczególny sposób łączy się z kontemplacją pięciu ran Chrystusa. Człowiek niekiedy pragnie miłości, która nic nie kosztuje. Aborcja, eutanazja, rozwody, to różne sposoby ucieczki od cierpienia, które jest sprawdzianem zarówno wiary, jak i miłości. „W tych dwóch ludziach kontemplujących rany Chrystusa i świadkach Jego miłosierdzia była „żywa nadzieja” wraz z „radością niewymowną i pełną chwały”. Rany wyciągnięte ku małżonkom przeżywającym kryzys zdają się egzorcyzmować strach, zdają się mówić: „Przestań się lękać! Moja miłość zwyciężyła świat”. Miłość mająca odwagę oglądania ran Jezusa „wszystko znosi, wszystko przetrzyma, nigdy nie ustaje”.

Papież Franciszek poniekąd ogłosił św. Jana Pawła II patronem synodu poświęconego rodzinie. To bardzo dobry znak i przypomnienie, że nauczanie Jana Pawła II na temat rodziny nie jest już „tylko” nauczaniem papieża z niedawnej przeszłości, ale jest także nauczaniem świętego.

Niewątpliwie, nie potrzebujemy dzisiaj innego, to znaczy jakiegoś „drugiego” Kościoła. Potrzebuje jednak Kościoła, który odnawia się nieustannie i odzyskuje swoją pierwotną fizjonomię w posłuszeństwie Duchowi Świętemu. „Nie zapominajmy, że to właśnie święci prowadzą Kościół naprzód i sprawiają, że się rozwija”.

The first “papal” text on Europe was released in the Vita e Pensiero in 1978 under the title “The border for Europe: where?”. The question of Europe’s borders will come back in the magisterium of the Pope “from a far country”. According to John Paul II, Europe is a continent of culture and its boundaries coincide with the boundaries of evangelization. “The European identity is incomprehensible without Christianity”, said in Santiago de Compostela. Other currents have co-created the European identity, but without them European culture would be poorer, without Christianity would never have been formed. In Prague, “City of a Hundred Spires”, the Pope said: “You young people, you have been for a long time witnessed the attempt to take away your culture, your life and your future, the spiritual and religious dimension. Well, if that attempt was unsuccessful, and you were become deaf and blind to values such as faith, the Bible, the Church, you would become foreigners in your own land. You would have lost the key to understanding many aspects of philosophy, literature, music, architecture, the visual arts and, in general, the various expressions of the spirit in your tradition and in the European one”.

The question of the borders of Europe at that time was also the question on the attitude of the Western world to the nations occupied by the Soviet Union. Pope demanded the right to participate in the structures of the Western world for every European nation. John Paul II used two metaphors: the two lungs (Eastern and Western Christianity) and Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. In both cases – it can be stressed – this includes countries such as Ukraine and Moldova.

“European culture gives the impression of ‘silent apostasy’ on the part of people who have all that they need and who live as if God does not exist – he wrote in Ecclesia in Europa – (…) many Europeans give the impression of living without spiritual roots and somewhat like heirs who have squandered a patrimony entrusted to them by history”. Forgetfulness of God is – in the opinion of the Pope – one of the main reasons for the lost of hope in Europe. This phenomenon resulted in, among other things, a drastic decrease in the number of births, the crisis of the concept of marriage and the family, or the loss of a sense of solidarity.

Concern for the future of Europe and this particular international organization such as the European Union, has meant that the Vatican has signalled its support for the constitutionalisation of the process of unification of the continent. The Pope stressed, however, that in accordance with the Catholic doctrine on the correct understanding of the Church – State sound separation, the Church, also in relation to the European Union, do not claim the right to opt for this or that institutional or constitutional solution. The area of competence proper to the Church is the sphere of values. The Pope has repeatedly pointed out the list of these values. They cover human dignity, the sanctity of human life, the centrality of the family founded on marriage between a man and a woman, the importance of education, legal protection of individuals and groups, the cooperation of all for the common good, the work considered as good, political power understood as a service, subject to the rules and reason, the right to religious freedom.

“Europe of the third millennium, ‘let not your hands grow weak!’; do not give in to discouragement, do not resign yourself to ways of thinking and living – wrote the Pope – that have no future because they are not based on the solid certainty of God’s Word! (…) Europe, as you stand at the beginning of the third millennium, ‘Open the doors to Christ! Be yourself. Rediscover your origins. Relive your roots’. Down the centuries you have received the treasure of Christian faith. (…) But this heritage does not belong just to the past; it is a project in the making, to be passed on to future generations, for it has indelibly marked the life of the individuals and peoples who together have forged the continent of Europe”.

John Paul II was very disappointed with the lack of reference to God in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in the Constitutional Treaty. The forgetfulness of God leads to forgetfulness of man and his dignity. But he pointed out that the Church should never be abused by anti-European populism. “For a united Europe there is no alternative” (1997).

Pierwszy „papieski” tekst o Europie ukazał się w Vita e pensiero w roku 1978. Artykuł był zatytułowany: La frontiera per l’Europa: dove? Pytanie o granice Europy będzie powracać w nauczaniu Papieża „z dalekiego kraju”. Zdaniem Jana Pawła II, Europa jest kontynentem kultury a jej granice pokrywają się z granicami ewangelizacji. „Tożsamości europejskiej nie można zrozumieć bez chrześcijaństwa” – mówił w Santiago de Compostela. Inne nurty współtworzyły europejską tożsamość i bez nich kultura europejska byłyby uboższa, bez chrześcijaństwa zaś nigdy by nie powstała. W czeskiej Pradze, „mieście o stu wieżach”, Papież mówił: „Gdyby udało się was uczynić głuchymi i ślepymi na te wartości, Chrystusa, Biblię, Kościół, stalibyście się cudzoziemcami w swojej własnej kulturze. Utracilibyście wrażliwość i klucz do zrozumienia tak wielu wartości filozofii, literatury, muzyki, architektury, sztuk plastycznych i wszystkich dziedzin ducha waszej własnej, narodowej, ale także całej europejskiej tradycji”.

Pytanie o granice Europy w tamtym czasie było także pytaniem o stosunek świata Zachodu do narodów okupowanych przez Związek Sowiecki. Papież upominał się o prawo do uczestniczenia w strukturach zachodniego świata dla wszystkich europejskich narodów. Jan Paweł II posługiwał się w tym kontekście dwoma metaforami: „dwóch płuc” (wschodniego i zachodniego chrześcijaństwa) oraz Europy „od Atlantyku aż po Ural”. W obydwu przypadkach – warto to podkreślić – obejmuje to państwa takie, jak Ukraina czy Mołdawia.

Aktualnie europejska kultura „sprawia wrażenie «milczącej apostazji» człowieka sytego, który żyje tak, jakby Bóg nie istniał”. Rzesze Europejczyków „żyją bez duchowego zaplecza, niczym spadkobiercy, którzy roztrwonili dziedzictwo pozostawione im przez historię”. Zapomnienie o Bogu jest – zdaniem Papieża – jedną z przyczyn gaśnięcia nadziei w Europie, objawiającego się, między innymi, dramatycznym spadkiem liczby urodzeń, kryzysem samej koncepcji małżeństwa i rodziny czy zanikiem poczucia solidarności.

Troska o przyszłość Europy i tej szczególnej organizacji międzynarodowej, jaką jest Unia Europejska, powodowały, że z Watykanu płynęły sygnały wspierające inicjatywy zmierzające do konstytucjonalizacji procesu zjednoczenia kontynentu. Papież podkreślał jednocześnie, że, zgodnie z nauką katolicką o zdrowej współpracy państwa i Kościoła, również w przypadku Unii Europejskiej, Kościół „nie ma tytułu do opowiedzenia się za takim czy innym rozwiązaniem instytucjonalnym czy konstytucyjnym”. Właściwym Kościołowi obszarem kompetencji jest sfera wartości. Lista tych wartości była wielokrotnie przypominana przez Papieża. Dotyczą one: godności człowieka, świętości, jaką stanowi ludzkie życie, centralnego miejsca rodziny opierającej się na małżeństwie, doniosłości kształcenia, ochrony prawnej jednostek oraz grup, współpracy wszystkich dla wspólnego dobra, pracy uważanej za dobro osobiste i społeczne, władzy politycznej rozumianej jako służba, podlegającej przepisom i rozumowi, a „ograniczanej” przez prawa ludzi i narodów, prawa do wolności religijnej.

„Europo trzeciego tysiąclecia, «niech nie słabną twe ręce!»; nie poddawaj się zniechęceniu, nie przyjmuj sposobów myślenia i działania, które pozbawione są przyszłości, ponieważ nie opierają się na niewzruszonym fundamencie słowa Bożego! (…) Europo, która jesteś na początku trzeciego tysiąclecia: «Bądź na powrót sobą! Bądź sama sobą! Odkryj na nowo swe źródła. Ożyw swoje korzenie». W ciągu wieków otrzymałaś skarb wiary chrześcijańskiej. (…) Jednak dziedzictwo to nie należy wyłącznie do przeszłości; jest ono programem na przyszłość, który należy przekazać nadchodzącym pokoleniom, gdyż jest źródłem życia ludzi i narodów, którzy wspólnie będą kształtowali kontynent europejski”.

Jan Paweł II był rozczarowany brakiem odwołania do Boga w Karcie Praw Podstawowych i Traktacie Konstytucyjnym. Zapomnienie o Bogu prowadzi do zapomnienia o człowieku i jego godności. Jednak podkreślał, że Kościół nie może pozwolić na nadużywanie go do anty-europejskiej demagogii. „Dla zjednoczonej Europy niema bowiem alternatywy” (23.03.1997).