¿Un Concilio de toda la cristiandad?

Hemos celebrado los 50 años de la muerte del Papa Juan XXIII (1881-1963), seguramente el Papa más importante del siglo XX. A él se debe la renovación de la Iglesia católica que intentó definir su lugar dentro del mundo moderno. El 25 de enero de 1959, sin avisar a nadie, declaró ante los cardenales estupefactos reunidos en la abadía benedictina de San Pablo Extramuros que iba a convocar un concilio ecuménico. Había hecho por su cuenta un juicio crítico sobre la situación del mundo y de la Iglesia y había percibido que estábamos ante una nueva fase histórica: la del mundo moderno, con su ciencia, su técnica, sus libertades y derechos. La Iglesia tenía que ubicarse positivamente dentro de esta realidad que surgía. La actitud que había hasta entonces era de desconfianza y condena. El Papa entendía que este comportamiento llevaba a la Iglesia al aislamiento y a un estancamiento que le hacía daño.

Repitió el viejo dicho: vox temporis vox Dei (“la voz del tiempo es la voz de Dios”). Esto no significa, dijo, “que todo en el mundo tal como está sea la voz de Dios. Significa que todo porta un mensaje de Dios, bueno para que lo sigamos, malo para que lo cambiemos”.

En efecto, el Concilio Vaticano II se realizó en Roma (1962-1965), el Papa lo abrió, pero murió antes de su finalización (1963). Su espíritu, sin embargo, marcó todo el evento, con consecuencias hasta nuestros días.

Dos fueron sus lemas principales: aggiornamento y concilio pastoral. Aggiornamento es decir sí a lo nuevo, sí a la actualización de la Iglesia en su lenguaje, en su estructura y en su forma de presentarse al mundo. Concilio pastoral quería expresar una relación de apertura con la gente y con el mundo, de diálogo, de aceptación y de fraternidad. Así que nada de condena al modernismo y a la “Nouvelle Théologie” como se había hecho furiosamente antes. En lugar de doctrinas, diálogo, aprendizaje mutuo e intercambio.

Tal vez esta afirmación de Juan XXIII resuma todo su espíritu: “La vida del cristiano no es una colección de antigüedades. No se trata de visitar un museo o una academia del pasado. Esto, sin duda puede ser útil —como lo es la visita a los monumentos antiguos— pero no es suficiente. Se vive para progresar, si bien sacando provecho de las prácticas y de las experiencias del pasado, para ir siempre más lejos en el camino que Nuestro Señor nos va mostrando”.

De hecho, el Concilio puso a la Iglesia en el mundo moderno, participando de sus avatares y sus logros. La Iglesia en América Latina pronto se dio cuenta de que no solo existía el mundo moderno, sino el submundo del cual poco se había hablado en el Concilio. En Medellín (1969) y en Puebla (1979) se vio que la misión de la Iglesia en este submundo hecho de pobreza y opresión debía ser de promoción de la justicia social y de liberación.

Han pasado ya 50 años desde el Concilio. El mundo y el submundo cambiaron mucho. Han surgido nuevos desafíos: la globalización económico-financiera y la consecuente conciencia planetaria, la disolución del imperio soviético, las nuevas formas de comunicación social (internet, redes sociales y otras) que han unificado el mundo, la erosión de la biodiversidad, la percepción de los límites de la Tierra y la posibilidad de exterminio de la especie humana y con ella del proyecto planetario humano.

Con las categorías del Concilio Vaticano II no podemos atender esta nueva realidad amenazante. Todo apunta a la necesidad de un nuevo Concilio ecuménico. Ahora no se trata de convocar solamente a los obispos de la Iglesia Católica. Ante los peligros que tenemos que enfrentar, todo el Cristianismo, con sus Iglesias, está siendo desafiado. Precisamos tomar en serio la alianza que el gran biólogo E. Wilson proponía entre las Iglesias y las religiones y la tecnociencia, si es que queremos salvar la vida del planeta. (cf. La creación, Salvemos la vida en la Tierra, 2006). ¿Cómo pueden contribuir estas fuerzas religiosas a que todavía tengamos futuro? La supervivencia de la vida en la Tierra es el supuesto de todo. Sin ella, se desvanecen todos los proyectos y todo pierde sentido. Los cristianos deberán olvidar sus diferencias y polémicas y unirse para esta misión salvadora.

El Papa Francisco tiene la capacidad de convocar a la totalidad de las expresiones cristianas, a los hombres y a las mujeres, asesorados por personas de reconocido saber, incluso no religiosas, para identificar el tipo de colaboración que podemos ofrecer en la línea de una nueva conciencia de respeto, de veneración, de cuidado de todos los ecosistemas, de compasión, de solidaridad, de sobriedad compartida y de responsabilidad sin restricciones, pues todos somos interdependientes.

Con su forma de ser y de pensar el Papa Francisco despierta en todos nosotros la razón cordial, sensible y espiritual. Unida a la razón intellectual, protegeremos y cuidaremos, cuidaremos y amaremos esta única Casa Común que el universo y Dios nos han legado. Sólo así garantizaremos nuestra continuidad sobre la Tierra.

Leonardo Boff escrebió: Eclesiogenesis: la reinvención de la Iglesia, Sal Terrae 2003.

Traducción de María Jose Gavito Milano

A Council of All of Christendom?

We have celebrated the 50th anniversay of the death of Pope John XXIII (1881-1963), surely the most important Pope of the XX Century.  To him is owed the renewal of the Catholic Church, which attempted to define her place in the modern world. On January 25, 1959, without telling anyone, he declared to the astonished Cardinals gathered in the Benedictine Abby of Saint Paul, outside the city, that he was going to call an Ecumenical Council. On his own he had undertaken a critical analysis of the situation of the world and of the Church, and had realized that we were in a new historical phase: in the modern world, with its science, technical advances, liberties and rights. The Church had to position herself positively within this emerging reality. The attitude that existed then was one of distrust and condemnation. The Pope understood that this behavior was leading the Church towards isolation, and a destructive stagnation.

He repeated the old saying: vox temporis vox Dei (“the voice of the time is God’s voice”). This does not mean, he said, “that all in the world as it is now is the word of God. It means that everything carries a message of God, if it is good, we should follow it, if it is bad, we should change it”.

Thus Vatican Council II took place in Rome (1962-1965).  The Pope opened it, but he died before it ended, (1963). His spirit, however, marked the whole event , with repercussions that are felt to the present.

There were two principal themes: aggiornamento and pastoral council. Aggiornamento means saying yes to the new, yes to bringing the Church up-to-date, in terms of her language, her structure and her form of presenting herself to the world. Pastoral Council was intended to express an open relationship with the people and with the world, one of dialogue, of acceptance and fraternity. Consequently there was nothing about condemning modernity and the “Nouvelle Théologie” as previously had been stridently done. Instead of doctrines, there was dialogue, mutual learning and interchange.

Perhaps this statement by John XXIII summarizes his spirit: “The life of the Christian is not a collection of antiquities. It is not about visiting a museum or an academy of the past. That, without doubt, can be useful —as is a visit to an old monument— but it is not enough. To live is to progress, drawing the best from the practices and experiences of the past, to always go forward on the path Our Lord is showing us”.

In fact, the Council brought the Church into the modern world, participating in its avatars and its accomplishments. The Church in Latin America soon realized that the modern world not only exists, but that there also exists an underworld of which little had been spoken in the Council. In Medellín (1969) and in Puebla (1979) it was recognized that the mission of the Church in this underworld of poverty and oppression had to be promoting social justice and liberation.

50 years have now passed since the Council. The world and underworld have changed a lot. New challenges have appeared: economic-financial globalization and the consequent planetary consciousness, the dissolution of the Soviet Empire, new forms of social communication (Internet, social networks and others) that have unified the world, the erosion of bio-diversity, an awareness of the limits of the Earth and the possibility of the extermination of the human species, and with it, the extinction of the human planetary project.

We cannot address this new and threatening reality within the categories of Vatican Council  II. Everything points to the need for a new Ecumenical Council. Now it is not about calling in only the bishops of the Catholic Church. With the dangers we will have to face, all of Christendom, with its Churches, is threatened.  If we want to save the life of the planet, we need to take seriously the alliance between the Churches, religions, and techno-science, proposed by the great biologist E. Wilson. (cf. The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth, [La creación, Salvemos la vida en la Tierra, 2006]). How can the religious forces contribute so that we may still have a future? Everything is premised on the survival of life on Earth.  Otherwise, everything disappears and nothing makes sense. Christians must forget their differences and their polemics, and unite for this life-saving mission.

Pope Francis has the capacity to bring together all Christian expressions, men and women, backed by learned persons of renown, including the non-religious, to identify the type of collaboration we can offer, in line with the new consciousness of respect, veneration, of caring for all eco-systems, compassion, solidarity, shared sobriety and responsibility without restrictions, because we all are inter-dependent.

With his way of being and thinking, Pope Francis awakens in all of us the cordial, sensible and spiritual reason. Together with the intellectual reason, we will protect and care, care for and love this unique Common House that the universe and God have bestowed on us. Only in this way will we guarantee our continued presence on the Eart

Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar,
done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

A extrema arrogâcia do Império: a espionagem universal

O sequestro do Presidente da Bolívia Evo Morales, impedindo que seu avião sobrevoasse o espaço europeu e  a revelação da espionagem universal por parte dos órgãos de informação e controle do governo norteamericano (NSA) nos levam a refletir sobre um tema cultural de graves consequências: a arrogância. Os fatos referidos mostram a que nível chegou a arrogância dos europeus forçadamente alinhados aos EUA. Somente foi superada pela arrogância pessoal de Hitler e do nazismo. A arrogância é um tema central da reflexão grega de onde viemos. Modernamente foi estudada com profundidade por um pensador italiano com formação em economia, sociologia e psicologia analítica, Luigi Zoja, cujo livro foi lançado no Brasil:”História da Arrogância”(Axis Mundi, São Paulo, 2000).

Neste livro denso, se faz a história da arrogância, nas culturas mundiais, especialmente na cultura ocidental. Os pensadores gregos (filósofos e dramaturgos) notaram que a racionalidade que se libertava do mito vinha habitada por um demônio que a levaria a conhecer e a desejar ilimitadamente, num processo sem fim. Esse energia tende a  romper todos os limites e terminar na arrogância, no excesso e na desmedida, o verdadeiro pecado que os deuses castigavam impidosamente. Foi chamada  de hybris: o excesso em qualquer campo da vida humana e de Nemesis o princípio divino que pune a arrogância.

O imperativo da Grécia antiga era méden ágan: “nada de excesso”. Tucídides fará Péricles, o genial político de Atenas, dizer: “amamos o belo mas com frugalidade; usamos a riqueza para empreendimentos ativos, sem ostentações inúteis; para ninguém a pobreza é vergonhosa, mas é vergonhoso não fazer o possível para superá-la”. Em tudo buscavam a justa medida e autocontenção.

A  ética oriental, budista e hindu, pregava a imposição de limites ao desejo. O Tao Te King já sentenciava:”não há desgraça maior do que não saber se contentar”(cap.46); “teria sido melhor ter parado antes que o copo transbordasse”(cap.9).

A hybris-excesso-arrogância é o vício maior do poder, seja pessoal, seja de um grupo, de  uma ideologia ou de um Império. Hoje essa arrogância ganha corpo no Império nortemericano que a todos submete e no ideal do crescimento ilimitado que subjaz à nossa cultura e  à economia política.

Esse excesso-arrogância chegou nos dias atuais a uma culminância em duas frentes: na vigilância ilimitada que consiste na capacidade de um poder imperial controlar, por sofisticada tecnologia cibernética, todas pessoas, violar os direitos de soberania de um país e o direito inalienável à privacidade pessoal. É um sinal de fraqueza e de medo, pois o Império não consegue mais convencer com argumentos e atrair por seus ideais. Então precisa usar a violência direta, a mentira, o desrespeito aos direitos e aos estatutos consagrados internacionalmente. Ou então as desulpas pífias e nada convincentes do Secretarário de Estado norteamericano quando visitou, há dias, o Brasil. Segundo os grandes historiadores das culturas, Toynbee e Burckhard, estes são os sinais inequívocos da decadência irrefreável dos Impérios. Nada do que se funda sobre a injustiça, a mentira e a violação de direitos se sustenta. Chega o dia de sua verdade e de sua ruína. Mas ao afundarem causam estragos inimagináveis.

A segunda frente da hybris-excesso reside no sonho do crescimento ilimitado pela exploração desapiedada dos bens e serviços naturais. O Ocidente criou e  exportou para todo mundo este tipo de crescimento, medido pela quantidade de bens materiais (PIB). Ele rompe com a lógica da natureza que sempre se autoregula mantendo a interdependência de todos com todos e a preservação da teia da vida. Assim uma ávore não cresce ilimitadamente até o céu; da mesma forma o ser humano conhece seus limites físicos e psíquicos. Mas esse projeto fez com que o ser humano impusesse à natureza a sua regulação arrogante que não quer recohecer limites: assim consome até adoecer e, ao mesmo tempo procura a saúde total e a imortalidade biológica. Agora que os limites da Terra se fizeram sentir, pois se trata de um planeta pequeno e doente, força-o com novas tecnologias a produzir mais. A Terra se defende criando o aquecimento global com seus eventos extremos.

Com propriedade diz Soja:”o crescimento sem fim nada mais é que uma ingênua metáfora da imortalidade”(p.11). Samuel P. Huntington em seu discutido livro O choque de Civilizações (Objetiva 1997) afirmava que a arrogância ocidental constitui “a mais perigosa fonte de instabilidade e de um possível conflito global num mundo multicivilizacional” (p.397).

Esta ultrapassagem de todos os limites é agravada pela ausência da razão sensível e cordial. Por ela  lemos emotivamente os  dados, escutamos atentamente as mensagens da natureza e percebemos o humano da história humana, dramática e esperançadora. A aceitação dos limites nos torna humildes e conectados a todos os seres. O Império norteamericano, por uma lógica própria da arrogância dominadora, se distancia de todos, cria desconfianças mas jamais amizade e admiração.

Termino com um conto de Leon Tostoi no estilo de João Cabral de Mello Neto: De quanta terra precisa um homem?  Um homem fez um pacto com o diabo: receberia toda a terra que conseguisse percorrer a pé. Começou a caminhar dia e noite, sem parar, de vale em vale, de monte em monte. Até que extenuado caiu morto. Comenta Tostoi: se ele conhecesse seu limite, entenderia que apenas uns metros lhe bastariam; mais do que isso não precisaria para ser sepultado.

Para serem  admirados os EUA não precisariam mais do que seu próprio território e seu próprio povo. Não precisariam desconfiar de todos e bisbilhiotar  a vida de todo mundo.

The Pope of freedom of spirit and cordial reason

One of the principle conquests of humanity in its process of individualization is the freedom of the spirit.  Spiritual freedom is the capacity of being doubly free: free from the impositions, rules, norms and protocols that were invented by society and its institutions to foster uniform behavior and mold personalities according to their rules. And fundamentally it means being free to be authentic, to think for one’s self and to act according to an inner norm, nurtured throughout life, in resistance to and tension with such impositions.

And it is a titanic struggle. Because we all are born into certain circumstances that do not depend on our own will, be it in the family, the school, the group of friends, religion and the culture that our habits are molded. All these instances function as super-egos, that can be limiting, and in some cases, even debilitating. Logically, these limits perform an important regulatory function. Thanks to their borders and limits the river can be guided to the sea. But those limits can also repress the proper flow of the waters. Then the waters overflow their banks, and become floods.

The surprising attitudes and behavior of the present “bishop of Rome”, as he likes to introduce himself, commonly called Pope Francis, elicit in us this category that so determines the freedom of spirit.

Normally the cardinal named Pope instantly assumes the classic, sacral and hieratic style of the Popes, in his vestments and his gestures, through the symbols of the supreme sacred power, and his manner of speaking. Francis, endowed with an immense freedom of spirit, has done the opposite: he has adapted the figure of the Pope to his own personal style, to his habits and his convictions. We all know the changes he has wrought without much ceremony.  He has left aside all the symbols of power, especially the crucifix of gold and precious stones, and the mozetta, filled with brocades and preciosities, symbols of the pagan Roman emperors of yesteryear; smiling, he told the secretary who was about to put it on his shoulders: “put it away because the carnival is over”. He dresses with great sobriety, in white, with his usual black shoes and, underneath, his trousers are also black. He has put aside all the comforts attributed to the Supreme Pastor of the Church, including the pontifical palace, substituting for it an ecclesiastic guest room, where he eats together with the other fellow guests.

He thinks more of the poor Peter, who was a rustic fisherman, or of Jesus, who, according to poet Fernando Pessoa, “understood nothing of accounting, nor is known to have own a library”, because He was a “fac-totum” and a simple Mediterranean peasant. Francis considers himself the successor of the first and a representative of the second. He does not want to be called “Your Holiness”, because he feels like a “brother among brothers.”  Nor does he want to preside over the Church with the rigors of canon law, but with loving charity .

In his trip to Brazil he showed without compunction his freedom of spirit: he requested a popular car for transportation, a covered jeep to be able to move amidst the people, to embrace the children, to drink a little cimarron, even to trade the “white papal skullcap”  from his own head for another, well-used one, that was offered by one of faithful. In the official welcoming ceremony by the Government, that follows a rigorous protocol, after the speech, he walked up to President Dilma Rousseff and gave her a kiss, to the horror of the master of ceremonies.  And there are many other examples.

This freedom of spirit gives him an undeniable radiance, a mixture of tenderness and vigor, the personal characteristics of Saint Francis of Assisi. It is about a man of great integrity. Such serene and strong attitudes show a man of great compassion, who realized a meaningful personal synthesis between his profound I and his conscious I. He simultaneously elicits lightness and security.  That is what we hope for in a leader, especially a religious leader.

This freedom of spirit is elevated by the splendid resurgence it brings to cordial reason. The majority of Christians are weary of doctrines, and skeptical of campaigns against the real or imaginary enemies of the faith. We are tired to the bone of intellectual, functional, analytic and efficient reason. Now comes someone who always speaks from the heart, as he did in his talk in the Varginha community (favela), or on the island of Lampedusa.  It is in the heart where the profound feelings towards the other and towards God reside. Without the heart, doctrines are cold and elicit no passion.  To the survivors brought from Africa, he confesses: ”we are a society that has forgotten the experience of crying, of ‘suffering with’: the globalization of indifference has stolen from us the ability to cry”. He speaks with wisdom: “The greatness of a society is measured by the way it treats the most needy”.  According to this measure, this world’s society is stunted, anemic and cruel.

The cordial reason is more effective for presenting the dream of Jesus than any erudite doctrine, and will make its principal herald, Francis of Rome, a fascinating figure who touches the deepest heart of Christians and others.

Free translation from the Spanish by
Servicios Koinonia, http://www.servicioskoinonia.org.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.