|
|
 |
|
|
Italian version
 Last
September, Pope Benedict XVI broached several times a topic particularly
dear to him: the institution of the family based on the indissoluble
union between a man and a woman. Actions in defence of marriage and the
family culminated in a letter written in anticipation of the next World
Meeting of Families in the programme of Milan, June 2012. The document
has touched off a lively debate. We have been able to obtain an
insider’s view into the matter by interviewing Mariateresa Zattoni
Gilberto and Gillin, consultants and trainers at the John Paul II
Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family and authors
of several works on this subject.
In the letter addressed to Cardinal Ennio Antonelli in view of the
Seventh World Meeting of Families, Benedict XVI calls for the
reconciliation of work with the family and the recovery of the true
meaning of the feast, especially on Sunday. Do you agree with the
Pope’s affirmation and, in your opinion, is it possible to do so without
embarrassing compromises?
"We welcome the theme
proposed by Benedict XVI for the Seventh World Meeting of Families.
However, one should first relish this theme before bringing it down to
our level by means of a one-sided reading and such apprehensions as: is
it really possible to combine these two themes? Are not our families
already in a strain over working conditions for us to add precepts
regarding holidays and feasts that will wreck the family even more?
Would it not be better to expose and denounce what is still wrong in
order to make families feel closer to their real problems?
Rather, we must first of all look at the beauty of the theme itself, in
order not to risk "embarrassing compromises." The theme, in fact, is not
primarily a subject for sociologists, economists, anthropology, and much
less for politicians. In the first place – like every human element that
has to do with life – it is a topic for ... contemplatives. What does
the theme sound like? It is first of all a subject of "secular" interest
that unites all the families of the earth, and not only Catholic
families. We read: "The Family: work and celebration." The two points
that constitute the subject are formidable, that is to say, work and
feasts are related to the family structure. Let us try to replace "the
family, the place of work and feast days," "the family on work and on
feast days," "the family, and the meaning of work and celebration."
Furthermore, in the wording of the theme there is
also an equally formidable factor, expressed by a conjunction which sets
up a connection between work and feast: these two "voices" of the family
imply one another. Putting it somewhat deeper, you could say that within
the family work is not an end in itself, but leads to the feast. Work is
not a matter of sheer survival or an effort to produce or an
accumulation of security efforts. A work that would be an end in itself
would choke family life itself, but if it opens up to the feast and to
enjoying oneself together, then it has a meaning that imparts
orientation and gives a purpose.
On the other hand, the feast considered on its own
and not "earned" by working would be tantamount to a "pure escape from
reality," "pure hedonism," "pure debauchery" and, where possible, "pure
consumption as an end in itself", and, even worse, "a reduction to the
slavery of satisfying one’s needs". It would, indeed, be degraded to
"the feast of the individual", the exact opposite of what a true family
feast should be like. As we know, a theme is announced by means of its
title, which, seen in its depth, is really capable of opening new
horizons. We have already said that these two terms are "secular" and in
our opinion it is better to keep them in the context of the vast
openings they promise; only afterwards can these two terms be explored -
and be related to one another – in a Catholic key, and that is the
aspect of the work as "missionary" work (also that of the payroll!) and
the feast as the "weekly Easter", an encounter with the Risen Spouse,
true centre and organizer of the feast".
The Pope criticizes today's "organization of labour,
designed and implemented according to market competition so as to
maximize profit, and the feast is meant as an opportunity to escape from
it all and consume." All this "contributes to the break-up of the family
and the community and so disseminate an individualistic lifestyle." How
may one reverse the trend and what can the believer and male and female
religious do to foster a Christian life-style?
"Now listen to the – legitimate – complaint! It is
quite true that the current organization of work and the very idea of
the feast as ‘an opportunity to escape and consume’ help break up the
family and enslave it. To return to our analysis of the title, we have
so to speak deleted the two points and reduced them to a simple "and",
which sounds: to try and put together family, work and rest is simply
impossible! If each element depends on the other two, bend over
backwards as we might to get down to brass tacks, increase the
kindergarten or free time, already worn down to private use and
consumption, we shall not get anywhere. If the family is seen in terms
of work, that is in terms of production and its untouchable laws of the
market, and the feast, then we shall not be able to "save" the family as
a stable and free communion of several generations, but all we can offer
will be patchwork, just to get by.
Not only can the faithful and religious, male and
female do much, they are simply indispensable. If we want to restore to
the family its "sacred" character of work and celebration, the community
of faith is needed; otherwise we run the risk, as usual, to throw other
"excessive" duties on the shoulders of a single family. Families
should not be left alone! From several quarters arise those
spontaneous aggregations whose aim is to somehow protect the families.
One example among myriads is the GAS, which groups families to come
together to find safe products and fair-trade; such associations are
truly exceptional and they do lend a hand. Another example is that of
associations with a physically or mentally handicapped family member,
but we know that that is not enough. The faith community must wake up,
not just to help the family to protect itself, but also to regain
confidence; priests and religious are needed who "believe" in the
creative potential of the family and can thus help it to recognize this,
to have faith in the divine project that willed it: today, like
yesterday and not unlike tomorrow.
The family as the union of man and woman open to
children as the men and women of tomorrow goes through its history –
however many the ways to clone and replace it – is a good for the Church
and for society. But it needs mirrors to help it to recognize itself;
these precious mirrors can be consecrated virgins who help not to get
entrapped in the "already" and not to stop dreaming about the "not yet",
as Tonino Bello put it. Again, these mirrors which point to the beyond
are not simply aids to "facilitate a dimension of Christian life"; they
are much more: they are the mirror that helps the family to see what it
is by "becoming what it is," in the words of John Paul II. Work and
feast are therefore an integral part of this "transformation".
In concrete terms, do you consider these global gatherings devoted to
the family useful or is a broader plan to develop several initiatives
needed?
"Confronted
with such a question one is tempted to show one’s annoyance and say: we
all know that these global gatherings can play the drum and cause much
ado about nothing – just to say that we exist, and, if all goes well,
there will remain a snapshot for remembrance.
But no! Debates of such ample scope that roll on
almost by themselves by sheer dint of uttering them cannot but leave a
mark. ‘Areas of ideas’ are in this way cleared that gradually become –
or can become – common knowledge, even when they are reduced to slogans
such as "Family, do not let either work or feast be snatched from you!"
One feels like smiling bitterly in front of that father with no fixed
work who says: "Of course I shall not let anyone snatch work from me –
if I find it!" But also this same father (and innumerable young people)
ought to be reminded that we are not to accept just any working
condition, which is tantamount to exploitation (now it is called
"self-exploitation", since it is the individual who accepts impossible
hours of work and impossible demands); and, since it is not a matter of
himself or herself alone, one must denounce any inhumane conditions, and
this also for the sake of the dignity and the future of children. "
|