was the Council of the Fathers – the true Council – but there was also
the Council of the media. It was almost a Council in and of itself, and
the world perceived the Council through them, through the media. So the
immediately efficiently Council that got thorough to the people, was
that of the media, not that of the Fathers. And while the Council of the
Fathers evolved within the faith, it was a Council of the faith that
sought the intellect, that sought to understand and try to understand
the signs of God at that moment, that tried to meet the challenge of God
in this time to find the words for today and tomorrow. So while the
whole council – as I said – moved within the faith, as fides quaerens
intellectum, the Council of journalists did not, naturally, take place
within the world of faith but within the categories of the media of
today, that is outside of the faith, with different hermeneutics. It was
a hermeneutic of politics.
The media saw the Council as a
political struggle, a struggle for power between different currents
within the Church. It was obvious that the media would take the side of
whatever faction best suited their world. There were those who sought a
decentralization of the Church, power for the bishops and then, through
the Word for the “people of God”, the power of the people, the laity.
There was this triple issue: the power of the Pope, then transferred to
the power of the bishops and then the power of all … popular
sovereignty. Naturally they saw this as the part to be approved, to
promulgate, to help.
This was the case for the liturgy: there
was no interest in the liturgy as an act of faith, but as a something to
be made understandable, similar to a community activity, something
profane. And we know that there was a trend, which was also historically
based, that said: “Sacredness is a pagan thing, possibly even from the
Old Testament. In the New Testament the only important thing is that
Christ died outside: that is, outside the gates, that is, in the secular
world”. Sacredness ended up as profanity even in worship: worship is
not worship but an act that brings people together, communal
participation and thus participation as activity. And these
translations, trivializing the idea of the Council, were virulent in the
practice of implementing the liturgical reform, born in a vision of the
Council outside of its own key vision of faith. And it was so, also in
the matter of Scripture: Scripture is a book, historical, to treat
historically and nothing else, and so on.
And we know that this
Council of the media was accessible to all. So, dominant, more
efficient, this Council created many calamities, so many problems, so
much misery, in reality: seminaries closed, convents closed, the liturgy
was trivialized … and the true Council has struggled to materialize, to
be realized: the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council.
But the real strength of the Council was present and slowly it has
emerged and is becoming the real power which is also true reform, true
renewal of the Church.
It seems to me that 50 years after the
Council, we see how this Virtual Council is breaking down, getting lost
and the true Council is emerging with all its spiritual strength. And it
is our task, in this Year of Faith, starting from this Year of Faith,
to work so that the true Council with the power of the Holy Spirit is
realized and Church is really renewed. We hope that the Lord will help
I, retired in prayer, will always be with you, and
together we will move ahead with the Lord in certainty. The Lord is
victorious! Thank you."