 |
|
|
|
Italian version
 Born
in Missaglia, Lecco province, in 1949, Don Franco Giulio Brambilla is a
priest in the diocese of Milano. He was ordained priest in 1975, got
admission into the Gregorian Pontifical University, Rome, obtaining the
Licentiate in 1977 and the Doctorate with a thesis on the Christology of
Schillebeeckx in 1985. He has taught Holy Scripture, spiritual
Theology and theological Anthropology in the Seminary of Seveso up to
1984. He has taught Christology also in the Parallel Section of the
Venegono inferior Seminary, Varese province, where he resides. At
present he teaches Theological Anthropology and is the Director of the
institutional Cycle of the theological faculty in the North of Italy.
Some of his
publications are: Risurrezione di Gesù e fede dei discepoli
(1998); Esercizi di Cristianesimo (2000); Alla ricerca di Gesù
(2001); Edward Schillebeeckx (2001); La redenzione nella morte
di Gesù. In dialogo con Franco Giulio Brambilla (2001);
Antropologia Teologica. Chi è l’uomo perché te ne curi? (2004),
Cinque dialoghi su patrimonio e famiglia (2006). Infine, ha
pubblicato numerosi saggi su
La Scuola
Cattolica
(di cui è Direttore), Teologia e Rivista del Clero Italiano,
Servizio della Parola and more magazines on Christology,
Anthropology and pastoral themes. We
have addressed some questions on strictly actual pastoral themes to Don
Brambilla, who is the principal of the theological faculty in Milan,
North of Italy.
“Only in collaboration with all, in dialogue, in common co-operation, in
faith as ‘cooperatores veritatis’ we can carry on our service together.
In his dialogue with the priests in the Albano diocese, Benedict XVI has
reminded us that to compose the mosaic of pastoral work we must work
together. Have the communities really assimilated this point? To you,
is this a priority of the pastoral work?
“We
can start from two data. Today, in Italy, we have a huge number of very
little parishes and, on the other hand, we have a decreasing number of
clergy with an increased number of middle-aged priests. Therefore,
working together becomes an impellent need , above all in the diagram
that goes on delineating after the two thousand. The important thing is
to establish common levels of collective work and other levels where the
priest, being the pastor of his community, cannot imagine of widening
his horizon, confusing, for instance his pastoral field with that of the
near by communities. In particular, we need to distinguish two levels of
common work: the first one, which we shall call “domestic”, where the
priest will continue to be a reference point with basic gestures for the
community of believers. He will have to integrate these gestures with
those of the near by communities.
The
second one is that of the pastoral action, answering the needs of
spiritual and material assistance, of work and culture, of sanitation,
of youth and family pastoral, on which the common work will represent
the challenge of the future.
If at
this level, linked with the expected answer on the exigencies of
personal life, also among the Christian communities a network does not
take off. It is clear that it is not possible to imagine a future with
the present strength of the clergy. At this point, it is good to to
insert the energies of the laity within this effort of common work. This
is the perspective, which proposes a renewed missionary conscience:
today, evangelisation can be only a choral and symphonised work
In a recent interview, at the eve of his apostolic
journey, the Holy Father said, “with their enthusiasm and strength
women will know how to create their space”. He rejoiced at the fact that
“the feminine element may obtain the convenient action place in the
Church”. How do you evaluate these statements? How do you read the
actual situation from a feminine viewpoint, both on the lay and
religious side, as well as on the related perspectives?
“I
think that the statement of the Pope is very wise. In fact, on one side
he evaluates the woman presence in the church, particularly in the
Catholic Church, where the presence is numerous. Often we forget this
datus. For instance, having held meetings at catechetical level in these
past months, I have seen personally that women carry on 90% of the
transmission of faith. We can say the same thing about the presence of
women religious. To me, it is important to keep on developing in terms
of capacity and strategic spaces, to say it in the words of the Pope, an
adequate space for the “feminine genius”, as John Paul II said in
Mulieris Dignitatem. As far as perspective is concerned, it is
unavoidable that different ways of presence will become stronger in due
time. We hope that the feminine genius, which the Church needs, may be
the typical feminine intuition, without simply reducing her figure to
the synthetic sensitivity and capacity of a loving glance on the
community and her dedication to service. The feminine presence of
religious character will introduce sensitivity towards the contemplative
moment of life. This is very important for today’s and tomorrow’s church
and that it may be missing in a church where the masculine component
often tends to prevail, which makes the church to worry about
efficiency, yet actually without progressing in good relations and
spirit of communion. According to me, this is the most interesting
contribution that the feminine genius can offer”.
According to what he reiterated in his meeting with
the Muslim exponents invited in Castel Gandolfo, Benedict XVI states the
priority of an open dialogue with exponents of religious beliefs. In a
context where courageous witnesses who pay with their life, like Sr.
Leonella Sgorbati, are not missing, which contribute can each of us
offer in our own milieu?
“I
think that the encounter among religions and religious cultures must not
take place by flattening it on a kind of common denominator, to which
then we add rites or specific institutions of religion. Each faith,
particularly the Christian faith in the awareness of Jesus’ singularity,
must keep its precise religious identity. The form of dialogue can be
the one that starts from an “open identity”, which does not need to
diminish its characteristics to the end of dialoguing with another
identity. Rather, we almost need to accentuate them, in the awareness
that one’s own peculiarities expose themselves before the other. This
is valid mainly for the Christian religion, whose message cannot be
offered but in a disarmed and disarming manner. In fact, we have the
cross of Jesus at the centre of the Christian message. This is the form
of God’s charity offered to all, also to the believer of other
religions, in a non-imposing modality, but also not in a vague proposal.
We can rather offer it in a fascinating way. I call this a way of
proposing an “open identity”, which has a form of a dialogue in which
there is a logos, a sense, a reason to transmit and communicate.
The concept of open identity puts together both the preservation of
one’s own cultural traditions as well as a frank and sincere dialogue”.
What are your expectations from the IV ecclesial Congress of Verona?
“I
believe that the fourth ecclesial congress of Verona is very important
as event itself, if it will be an event of listening to all the
ecclesial components represented in it. I think that this period of
Church History in Italy is a magic moment, since the parishes and
associations, with the various groups and movements, all the personal
and associated figures of the catholic lay presence, may find a
favourable moment to listen to and confront themselves with one another.
Perhaps, in previous congresses, they underlined mostly contrasts and
differentiations. Today, we live a season of advantage on this point.
However, I think that it is very important to listen to one another with
two underpinnings. The first one is that of hope, namely showing the
dimension of Christianity, which states the “other” and “the beyond”,
not yet present in the actual ways of living the Christian faith. The
Church must allow the origin, the source of Christian faith, the Risen
Lord to re-evangelise her. The second is that we can manifest this hope
in the peculiar form of testimony, namely the dimension that unifies the
Christians, before the one that distinguishes them in roles, in
contraposition among religious and laity, laypersons and priests.
Perhaps, we have emphasised too much the distinction of figures and
ecclesial roles. We may have paid less attention to the common Baptismal
roots and the testimony all of us must offer, starting from the unique
Gospel that generates us”.
We speak a
lot of vocations crisis, especially in Europe. Could we know the
situation as it is read in your privileged observatory, the seminary in
Milan?
“I
think that the crisis of vocations offers different signals. For
instance, in Milan we shall have a very low year from the ordinations
viewpoint, counterbalanced by an encouraging number of enrolment in the
first year of theology. Probably, next year we shall have a different
signal. Surely, the tendency is that of diminution of vocations, which
derives from two contingent factors: fall in the birth rate and an
increased attachment of the parents to their children. The parents find
in the vocations of special consecration, both religious and priestly, a
less ideal investment to project on their children. We witness also a
weakening of normal cultural and Christian conscience, of the value of
special consecration. Perhaps this is the important point on which we
must work. We must read this weakening of conscience within a wider
difficulty, that of living life as “vocation”, a difficulty touching all
the Christian vocations. Today, they live with fatigue also the
matrimonial vocation, in submission to the actual climate that hardly
lives the temporal duration. Perhaps, they feel a convinced vocation,
but they are unable to say how the vocation can remain faithful, at
which condition, with which instruments and helps it remains a fulfilled
choice. Today, the most serious difficulty is the problem of
faithfulness. Sure, this becomes soon visible in the vocations of
special consecration, therefore the number falls; in the other
vocations, since the number cannot fall, it is the quality that suffers.
For instance, let us think of the many difficulties of the vocations to
married life.
The Welby case has brought back the theme that does
not fail in inflaming the consciences: that of euthanasia. With this
regard, they know the Church as a cautioning voice, if not as a voice
which applies the brake. How can we stop this defensive position, with
the aim of speaking clearly on the theme of life to all men?
“I think that we must first of all follow the
teaching of the Pontiff. In particular, I remember a sentence pronounced
by Pope Benedict XVI on a similar theme. In an interview of the German
transmitters, they asked him the reason of his talk on marriage in
Valencia, on the occasion of the world congress on the families, not
centred on prohibitions but in a positive key, to which he answered, “I
had two twenty minutes times. The Christian must know the positive value
rather than saying some “no”. I think that this must be the indication
for all the other themes on moral life. We must be able, therefore, to
say the positive value, the practicable sense, illustrating a moral of
meanings before resting on a moral of cases (allowed or not allowed).
Let us take, for instance the theme proposed by the
question on euthanasia. It is urgent to create a problem for a
prevalently clinical treatment and, therefore, also at the terminal
moments of the disease. In the clinical treatment, the question is in
establishing the exact moment in which a person can no longer live in
satisfying conditions of life. However, the true problem is to know the
real conditions in which we can consider a life, perhaps in the vision
of unhappy result, worthy of being lived within relations of affections,
friendship and solidarity. This will give the patient also a
non-devastating image of his disease, as well as a re-assuring
self-image. We need to accompany the patient also in his terminal
moments: this must prevail on everything. In fact, we must announce the
positive value of certain situations. The patient is at the centre, not
the disease as “something” that does not challenge the freedom and the
spirit of the patient who requires proximity. Even in the last moments,
we must let the patient feel our proximity, which is an icon of charity,
saying that the patient is a value even when he is in his terminal
conditions. This supplies resources for the patient to live his
difficult moments with serenity, surrounded by a presence and a hope.
Not faith and violence, but Faith and culture walk together. This is the
assumption of the talk pronounced by the Pontiff in Ratisbona on his
latest pastoral visit in Baviera, his land of birth. Do you share the
opinion of those who have denounced the nearness and superficiality,
with which some Italian agencies have interpreted the words of the Pope,
triggering misunderstandings and misinterpretations? To you, can
everybody understand the language used by Ratzinger?
“I
think that the actual Pontiff –I listened to him also during his
catechesis on Wednesday- has the gift of saying deep things in few words
and in a simple language. Obviously, he addressed the theme in Ratisbona
to an academic senate and university students. Anyhow, that talk
asserted the value of relating faith with reason. It pointed at the fact
that we cannot attribute any violence to the deepest nucleus of faith.
Violence is the way by which we give value to our own conviction or
opinion of faith, without soliciting the free adhesion of the other, but
imposing it with violence. Even faith, which cannot but have a
reasonable component, presents itself in the conscience of the other and
demands the adhesion of freedom. In the classical theology of faith, the
elements of freedom, reasonableness and the gift of grace go together.
The misunderstanding has derives from the initial sentence, which was
only the occasion for introducing the substance of what I have just
spoken about. .
|