The Reception of the Council Vatican II in Brazil and Latin America

We are celebrating 50 years since Vatican Council II (1962-1965). It reflected a break from the path the Roman Catholic Church had followed for centuries. It had been a Church that was like a beseiged fortress, defending herself against everything coming from the modern world; from science, technology and such civilizing forces as democracy, human rights and the separation of Church and State.

But a burst of fresh air came from an old pope from whom little had been expected: John XXIII (1881-1963). He opened the doors and the windows. He said: the Church cannot be just a respectable museum; it must be everyone’s home, filled with fresh air and a pleasant place to live.

Above all, the Council represented, in an expression coined by John XXIII himself, an aggionamento, this is, an actualization and reconstruction of the way of understanding itself and the form of its presence in the world.

Rather than enumerating the principal elements introduced by the Council, we are interested in seeing how that aggiornamento was received and practiced by the Latin American Church and Brazil. This process is called reception, and consists of a re-lecture and application of the council’s understandings in the Latin-American context, which is very different from that of Europe, where all the documents were created. We will only touch some essential points.

The first was, without doubt, a tremendous change in the ecclesiastic atmosphere: before the Council, a «great discipline», the Roman uniformity and the obsolete and somber air of ecclesiastic life, predominated. The Churches of Latin America, Africa and Asia were mirrors of the Roman Church. But suddenly, they began to feel the Church-source. They could shed old forms, and create new languages. Enthusiasm and willingness to create shone.

In second place, the social place of the Church in Latin America was redefined. Vatican II was a universal Council, but from the perspective of the major and wealthy countries. The Church in the modern world was defined there. But there existed an under-world of poverty and oppression that the Latin American Church understood. The Church had to move from the center of humanity, towards the sub-human periphery. If in the periphery there was oppression, her mission had to be one of liberation. The inspiration came from the words of Pope John XXIII himself: “the Church belongs to all but she strives to be principally the Church of the poor.”

This change was undertaken by the various Latin American episcopal conferences, from Medellin (1968), up to Aparecida (2007), as the preferential and solidarian option for the poor, against poverty. That option that became the trademark of the Latin American Church and of the Theology of Liberation.

In the third place, is the concretization of the Church as the People of God. Vatican II put this category ahead of the Hierarchy. People of God is not a metaphor to the Latin American Church; the great majority of the Latin American population is Christian and Roman Catholic, thus it is a People of God, suffering under oppression as occurred in ancient times in Egypt. From there is born the dimension of liberation that the Church has officially adopted in all her documents from Medellín (1968) to Aparecida (2007). This vision of Church-people-of-God allowed for the emergence of the Ecclesiastic Base Communities, and the social pastorals.

In the fourth place, the Council understood the Word of God contained in the Bible as the soul of ecclesiastical life. This brought about the popular reading of the Bible, and thousands on thousands of Bible circles. In those circles, Christians compare the living page of life with the page of the Bible and draw practical conclusions in an environment of communion, participation and liberation.

In the fifth place, the Council opened itself to human rights. In Latin America human rights were understood as beginning with the rights of the poor, and thus, in the first place, the right to life, to work, healthcare and education. From there, the other rights are understood, the right of mobility, among others.

In the sixth place, the Council embraced ecumenism among the Christian Churches. In Latin America ecumenism does not focus so much on doctrinal convergence as on the convergence of practices: all the Churches together struggle for the liberation of the oppressed. It is a mission-focused ecumenism.

Lastly, it established a dialogue with other religions, seeing in them the presence of the Spirit that arrives before the missioner, for which reason their values should be respected.

And finally, it must be recognized that Latin America was the continent where Vatican II was taken most seriously, and where major transformations occurred, portraying the Church of the poor as a challenge to the universal Church and to all humanitarian consciousness.

Hunger: An Ethical and Political Challenge

Due to the economic contraction caused by the present financial crisis, the number of hungry people has jumped, according to FAO, from 860 million to 1.2 billion. This perverse fact presents an ethical and political challenge. How can we attend the vital needs of these millions and millions of persons?

Historically, this has been a big challenge, because it has never been possible to fully satisfy the demand for food, be it for reasons of weather, soil fertility, or lack of social organization. Except for the first paleolithic era, when the population was small and the means of life were abundant, hunger has existed throughout all of history. Food distribution has almost always been unequal.

The curse of hunger is not actually a technical problem. Techniques exist to produce with extraordinary efficacy. Food production exceeds the growth of world population, but it is distributed badly. 20% of humanity uses 80% of the means of life: 80% of humanity must make do with only 20% of those means. This is where the injustice lies.

This perverse situation is caused by humanity’s lack of ethical sensitivity towards the other. It is as if we had totally forgotten our ancestral origins, and the initial cooperation that enabled us to become humans.

This deficit of humanity results from a type of society that favors the individual over society, that values private property more than solidarian co-participation, competition over cooperation: a society that gives more weight to values linked to masculinity (in men and women) such as rationality, power, and the use of force, than to the values linked to the feminine (also in both man and women), such as sensibility towards the processes of life, caring, and the inclination towards cooperation.

As it can be deduced, the current ethic is egotistical and excluding. It is not at the service of the lives of all, and their needed care, but at the service of certain individuals or groups, to the exclusion of others.

At the root of the curse of hunger lies a basic inhumanity. If we do not strengthen the ethic of solidarity, the caring by some for others, there will be no way of overcoming it.

It is important to consider that the human disaster of hunger is also a political one. Politics relates to the organization of society, the exercise of power, and the common good. For several centuries in the West, and now in a globalized manner, political power has been hostage to economic power, expressed in the capitalist form of production. Profits are not democratically shared to benefit everyone, but privatized by those who hold property, power, and knowledge; only secondarily for the benefit of others. That is why political power does not serve the common good, but creates inequalities that represent true social injustice, and now, on a worldwide basis. As a result, millions and millions of persons have only left-over crumbs that are not sufficient to fulfill vital necessities. Or they simply die from diseases related to hunger, mostly innocent children.

If these values are not inverted, if the economy is not ruled by politics, politics not guided by ethics, and ethics not inspired by basic solidarity, it will be impossible to solve world hunger and poor nutrition. The piercing cries of millions of hungry people continuously rise to heaven, with no efficacious reply from anywhere to silence those cries.

Finally, it must be recognized that hunger also results from the lack of understanding of the role of women in agriculture. According to an evaluation by FAO, women produce a large part of what is consumed in the world: from 80% – 98% in Sub-Saharan Africa; 50% – 80% in Asia, and 30% in East and Central Europe. There will be no food security without giving the women in agriculture more power to decide the destiny of life on the Earth. Women represent 60% of humanity. By their nature, women are more linked to life and its reproduction. It is absolutely unacceptable that due to the mere fact of being women, they are denied title to the land, access to credit, and to other cultural goods. Their reproductive rights are also not recognized, and they lack access to the technical knowledge necessary to improve food production.

Absent such measures, Gandhi’s critique still resonates: «hunger is an insult; it degrades, dehumanizes and destroys the body and the spirit… if not the very soul; it is the most lethal form of violence that exists».

From the solitude of a One to the communion of the Three

We previously wrote that God is mystery in Itself and to Itself. For Christians, it is about the mystery of communion, not solitude. It is the Most Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Orthodoxy affirms: there are three Persons and only one God. Is that possible? Would it not be absurd, 3=1? Here we touch on what Christians understand when they say “God.” It is different from the absolute Jewish and Moslem monotheism. Without abandoning monotheism, we should clarify this Trinity.

The Three is certainly a number. But not as a result of 1+1+1=3. If we think that way, mathematically, then God is not three but one and unique. The number three functions as a symbol. indicating that under the name God there is communion rather than solitude, distinctions that are not exclusive but inclusive, that are not opposed but are composed. The number three would be like the halo we symbolically place around the head of saintly persons. It is not that these persons go around with their halos, but that to us it is the symbol that indicates that we are before saintly figures. The same occurs with the number three.

By the number three, we indicate that in God there are distinctions. If there were no distinctions, the solitude of the one would reign. The word Trinity (three) stands for love, communion, and inter-retro-relations. Trinity means exactly this: distinctions in God that permit the inter-exchange and the mutual offering of Father, Son and Spirit.

In truth, as the genius of Saint Augustine understood, it should not be referred to as three persons. Each divine Person is unique and the uniques are not added up because unique is not a number. If I say one as a number, then there is no way to stop: two, thee, four and to infinity would follow. Immanuel Kant erroneously understood it that way and for that reason, he rejected the idea of the Trinity. Consequently, the number three has a symbolic value, rather than a mathematical one. What does three symbolize?

C. G. Jung comes to our help. He wrote an extensive essay about the archetypical-symbolic meaning of the Christian Trinity. The three expresses the intimate and infinite relationship among distinct Persons that unify themselves, this is, make themselves one, an only God.

But if they are three Uniques, would it not result in triteism, this to say, three Gods instead of one; monotheism? That would follow if mathematical logic controlled. If I add one coat + one coat + one coat, I have three coats. But it is not like that with the Trinity, because we are faced with a different logic, the logic of interpersonal relationships. According to this logic, relationships are not added; they are interwoven and inclusive, forming a unity. Thus, father, mother and children constitute a unique set of relationships, forming a unique family. The family results from the inclusive relationships among the members who comprise it. There is no father and mother without a child; neither there is a child without a father and mother. The three are unified, are one, a unique family. Three different beings but one single family, the human trinity.

When we speak of God-Trinity, it is the logic of inter-personal relationships that is in play, not the logic of numbers. In other words, the intimate nature of God is not solitude but communion.

If there were but one single God, absolute solitude truly would reign. If there were two, one facing the other, there would be distinction, and both separation and exclusion (the one is not the other), and mutual contemplation. Would that not be double egoism? With three, the one and the two turn towards the three, overcoming separation and finding each other in the three. A circular communion, and inclusion of the ones in the others, by the others and with the others; in a word: the Trinity.

What exists first is the simultaneous nature of the Unique three. None is before or after. They emerge together, always communicating in a reciprocal and endless manner. This is why we say that at the beginning there is communion. As a consequence of this infinite communion, there is the union and the unity in God. Thus: three Persons and only one God-communion.

Are not modern cosmologists telling us exactly that? The universe is made up of relationships, and nothing exists outside those relationships. The universe is the great metaphor of the Trinity, all is relation of all with all: a uni-verse. And we are part of it.

See my book Holy Trinity: perfect Community. Orbis Books, NY 2000.

God, that known unknown

On October 5th and 6th. in Assisi, Italy, there was another edition of «The Atrium of the Gentiles», an initiative of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council of Culture, devoted to the question of God. The President of Italy, Giorgio Napolitano, and cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Council and famed Biblical exegete, had a thought-provoking dialogue about «God, that unknown».

With «The Atrium of the Gentiles», an effort is being made to initiate dialogues between believers and non-believers. The Atrium was the space around the temple of Jerusalem that was accessible to the gentiles (pagans), who otherwise never could have entered the temple. Now there is an effort to erase all prohibitions, so that all may have access to the temple.

To this end, I engage in a reflection that has been with me my entire life as a theologian: thinking of God beyond the religious objectifications (metaphysics) and trying to interpret God as Mystery, always unknown and simultaneously, always known. Why this path? Einstein gives us a hint: «the one whose eyes are not open to Mystery will go through life seeing nothing».

In effect, wherever we direct our sight, towards the largest and the smallest, outwards and inwardly, to the high and the low, in every direction, we find the Mystery. Mystery is not the unknown; it is the known that fascinates us and impels us to know it more and more. And, at the same time, it causes estrangement and reverence in us. Because it is always there, it constantly offers itself to our knowledge, and when we attempt to know it, we realize that our thirst and hunger to know it is never satisfied. Just as we capture it, it escapes us and heads towards the unknown. We pursue it ceaselessly, and it nonetheless continues being a Mystery in all knowledge, creating in us an endless attraction, fear, and an undeniable reverence. Mystery is.

My basic thesis is this: In the beginning there was Mystery. The Mystery was God. God was the Mystery. God is Mystery for us, and for God.

It is Mystery for us to the extent that we never stop fathoming It, either through reason or intelligence. Each encounter leaves a void that leads us to another encounter. Each knowledge opens another window to a new knowledge. The Mystery of God is not the limit of knowledge, but unlimited knowledge. It is the love that knows no rest. Mystery does not fit into any scheme, nor is it captured by any doctrine. Mystery is always there to be known.

Mystery is an absent Presence. And also a present Absence. Mystery is manifested in our absolute dissatisfaction, that seeks satisfaction, tirelessly and in vain. The human being, tragic and happy, whole but unfinished, is realized in this transit from Presence to Absence.

God is mystery in Itself and to Itself. God is mystery in Itself because the Divine nature is Mystery. Therefore, God as Mystery knows Itself, and still, the Divine self knowledge never ends. God reveals Itself to Itself and retracts from Itself. The knowledge of Its nature as Mystery is ever more whole and plentiful, and, at the same time, always open to a new plenitude, remaining always Mystery, eternal and infinite to God Itself. If it were not so, it would not be what It is: Mystery. Thus, it is a boundless, absolute, Dynamism.

God is Mystery to Itself, this is, no matter how much God knows Itself, Its self knowledge is never exhausted. God is open to a future that is truly a future. Consequently, God is open to something that has not happened yet, but that could happen and be new to God Itself. With the incarnation, God began to be that which God was not before. Thus, there is in God a process of evolution, a self making.

But the Mystery, through an intrinsic dynamism, permanently reveals and self communicates. It goes out of Itself and knows and loves the new that is manifested through Itself. What will be revealed is not a reproduction, but is always different and new, also to God. Contrary to an enigma, that once known, disappears, the more Mystery is known, the more It appears as unknown, this is to say, as Mystery, that invites more knowledge and more love.

To say God-Mystery is to express a dynamism without residue, a life without entropy, an appearance without loss, an evolving without interruption, an eternal coming to be that is always being, and a beauty that is always new and different, and that never withers away. Mystery is Mystery, now and always, from all eternity to all eternity.

Words drown before Mystery, images weaken and references die. What behooves us is silence, reverence, adoration and contemplation. These are the appropriate attitudes before Mystery.

With that understanding, all walls will fall. There will no longer be an Atrium of the Gentiles, nor will there exist a temple, because God does not have a religion. God simply is the Mystery that links and re-links every thing, every person, and the entire universe. Mystery penetrates us and we are submerged in Mystery.