 |
|
|
|
After the
degree in philosophy from the University of Palermo in 1968, and the
diploma of moral philosophy efficiency in 1974, Celtina Militello
obtained the degree in theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University
of Rome, in 1979. Her research embraces Ecclesiology, Mariology,
Ecumenism, the feminine question, the relation among Archaeology,
Ecclesiology and Liturgy. From 1990 has been teaching in Rome as an
"invited" lecturer:: Ecclesiology and Mariology in the Pontifical
Theology Faculty of Marianum.; Anthropology and Eschatology, in the
Pontifical Theology Faculty of Teresianum; Ecclesiology and Liturgy in
the Pontifical Athenaeum of St. Anselm; theology of religious life in
the Claretianum of the Pontifical Lateran University. From 2002-2003,
she is teaching Eschatology as an "invited" lecturer in the Theological
Faculty of Central Italy; she is the Principal of the P.T.F. of the
Marianum, in the chair of "Woman and Christianity".
At
present she is the president of the Italian Society for the Theology
Research (SIRT), the directress of the Institute Costanza Scelfo for
the problems of the laity and the women in the Church, Division of the
SIRT, an ordinary associate of several theological associations (AMI,
APL, ATI, Afert); a member of the directive Pontifical Mariological
International Academy (PAMI) and of the mixed theological group of SAE.
We gave
addressed some questions to her on the Symposium dedicated to the
Council Document Perfectae Caritatis forty years after its
promulgation.
"To be witnesses of the transfiguring presence of God",
if we use as the mariner's compasses the Council Document Perfectae
Caritatis, does it imply, today, a constantly updated formation in
order to answer the signals of the evolving society?
In the Church, we need to take into consideration always
the "Aggiornamento", as Pope John called it. This is even more
obligatory for the Religious Life. In this sense the indication of PC
remains as actual as ever. Pehaps this is the real problem of the
religious life. Taken up between the prophecy of the charism and the
necessary normal reality of the passage to institutional forms, the
"aggiornamento" (updating) is rarely assigned and put under discussion,
above its formation courses. It is taken for granted that what was fine
in the ME is no longer valid in the post-modern. age. Forgive me if I
refer to the habit. It is true that in the context of weak identities
the habit becomes a considerable support, but what is the sense of
dressing oneself like the widows in the middle age, what relation is
there between our inhabiting the city and the Church with uniforms which
have lost their meaning and functional need, also the original
sign-posting? What is the sense of the cloister, when we can be
connected with anything in the world thanks to Internet … an so on and
so forth?
Thus, is there a difference between the 40 years old
document and today's situation?
I would surely say that there is. It suffices to look
around us to understand how, how much and how fast we have changed.
There has been an authentic revolution also in the Church. Our
Ecclesiology is very much different from what it was before the Council
and we can't say that we are standing still, for instance, before the
literal dictation of the LG or of SG, though for many aspects the
question of the "receptio" is still open. The same thing can be said of
PC. How much water has been passing under the bridges. Our sensitivity
keeps on growing. How much the understanding of Religious Life is
changed and, I think, it has improved, in spite of difficulties.
The council Text Perfectae Caritatis has repeated that
"the renewal depends on formation". Do you share this affirmation? Is it
the unique aspect to be kept in mind, from the viewpoint of the
challenges, which the religious life has to face today?
The question of formation deserves priority, but we need
to adequate the formation course to the cultures, which characterise us.
Today some issues are deprived of their sense. I think of asceticism, of
suffering as habitat of one's own conformation to Christ. I think that a
formative course, today must locate the choice in an ecclesial and
anthropological picture marked by joy, optimism, relation and gift. We
could speak long on this. In other words, the religious life is not to
be a place of censorship, of seclusion, of renunciation, but on the
contrary it should be a place of optimism and announcement of the values
of the kingdom, sharing, joy, compassion, peace.
According to Monsignor Graab "Consecrated Life in Europe
lives today a particularly delicate, committed moment of its history".
According to your experience, does the Italian situation mirror this
statement of the president of the Council of the Episcopal Conference in
Europe?
We are undoubtedly at a delicate junction, yet the
question penetrates the wider crisis of Christianity, which
characterises Europe most of all. I also think that it is not so much
the religious life that is in crisis, as some of its forms. Allow me to
say respectfully, that some -those between 800 and 900-. were truly
somehow inflated. There has been an indiscriminate multiplying of
religious forms, above all the feminine ones, but in searching the
characteristics, the specific charism, we remain deluded. Undoubtedly,
this multiplying of forms meant a certain emancipation within the
Church. There have been also answers to the needs, but after the Council
they have fallen into the trap of omologation, but just because of
poverty and of ephemeral charisms which, though useful in a specific
moment, not for this can last eternally.
The religious life is not in crisis in itself, as its new
forms prove. But, to me, the real deviating knot is that of referring
and placing it in the universal sphere, neglecting the local one, The
Eastern tradition is enlightening in this regard. I think that we should
return to be attentive to our local church, to its needs, without
unnecessary pressure on expansion of experiences, which, after all,
could also be ephemeral. This not because they are deprived of value,
but because the speed which characterises our time, easily reveals that
the concrete forms are overcome. We don't mean the deep issues,
logically!
I think that the Italian situation, as far as I know, is
not different from that of Europe in general. We have many new
experiences. some really promising, and viceversa we notice the
stagnation of venerable old forms, which, to me, need reformation. The
problem is always that of distinguishing the super-position of issues
which have gone on crystallising in the original charism, which its
historical forms cannot always bring to evidence.
What is the role of the vocation pastoral, in this
context? Is it to be re-thought?
I think that there has been a good reason for the
vocational journey, an inclusive journey, such as to restore to its
vocational sense the religious life not less than matrimony. However, I
think that we need specific courses and spaces. I would suggest, but it
is already done, to increase the hospitality, namely to offer the
possibility to share in time a given charism, a given model. If we do
not open ourselves - and we manifest to be convinced of the goodness of
the offered model- there will surely not be vocations or, if there will
be, they will privilege the new forms. I think that one falls in love of
a community, of a charism. It must seduce to such an extent as to urge
the effort of giving up one's life. My thesis is that matrimony implies
a dual charism, the religious life a "collective" charism, or a shared
charism.
Has the religious life a future, according to you?
Surely. It is an anthropologic constant. We find it
within every religious experience. The human being will always be
seduced by God and will always invest his life giving up itself wholly
to Him. Sure, not everybody perceive the encounter with God like this.
For some it passes to the concrete flesh of the other, but the
consecration to God, the absolute search of Him will always be there. I
cannot succeed in thinking that He stops arousing in the hearts of men
and women the desire of following Him in a radical and absolute way,
ante-posing nothing to Him.
How to live God's call in an ever increasing multifaceted
society?
I have already given an answer to it. We need to assume
cordially our own culture and dialogue with it, transferring its issues
in the life of a given charism. This is what our founders have done,
nothing else. They assumed the questions, the needs, the deep
expectations of their contemporary persons, in the sense of faith
deepening, as in the sense of radical testimony and in the sense of
shouldering the needs of others.
According to your experience, what is the type of
collaboration to exist between the laity and the religious for a better
awareness and participation in the life of the Church?
First of all, we should start an active co-operation, not
for the carrying on of works. First of all we should open to the
participation in the spirituality and in the charism. Just the
recognition of the vocational character of every form of life should
allow the laity to share the spirituality and the journey of formation
and testimony. I don't see any other future for the great traditions in
crisis. Moreover, all the great forms of religious life have foreseen
from the very beginning the presence of the laity at our side. Now, it
is a matter of giving it anther sense. I think also that the laity is
supposed to be in solidarity with the religious regaining for them also
the theological formation. I have already spoken of a human formation,
but the religious, not differently from the laity, must be supported in
the demand for the word of God and of a critical deepening of faith.
They, too, are asked to give the reason of their hope. This not
generically, but competently.
|
