Articles by Fr. Gilfredo Marengo
Towards the Synod on the Family 2014
Nov 21, 2013 / 00:00 amThe will to scrutinize the first acts of government of a new Pope is a comprehensible common mark of every beginning of a pontificate. It is difficult to avoid this behavior; however, in order not to fall into the trap of unbalanced interpretations, it must encompass two exigencies: there is no doubt that some initial choices always express a somewhat programmatic accent and can give a glimpse of some strong profiles of a way still to discover. At the same time, the complexity of a pontificate can be appreciated only a posteriori, so that it is useful to argue about these topics always with great caution, so as to avoid that the observer may substitute the desire to see the new distinctive guidelines to the claim of imagining a pontificate, as he would like it to be. Looking to remain in the space traced by these considerations, it seems reasonable to give a special attention to one of the decisions accomplished by Pope Francis in these first months that can be read as a strong guideline of the incipient physiognomy of his pontificate. We refer to the choice of calling the extraordinary general Assembly of the Synod of bishops, that will take place from Oct. 5 to 19 of the next year and that will have as theme, “The pastoral challenges of the family in the context of the evangelization.”It is interesting to remember that the first Synod of the pontificate of John Paul II (1980) had the same object. Historical documentation on this point shows that a meaningful inclination to the choice of the family as theme for the Synod of bishops, surfaced already in the preparatory consultations that took place in the last period of the pontificate of Paul VI. It was Cardinal Karol Wojtyla precisely the one to present this indication to the Pope in quality of President of the Consilium of the Synod in the audience of May 19, 1978. The proposal was received and then reconfirmed during the brief pontificate of John Paul I; at last, a month after his election John Paul II established definitively the theme of the synodal assembly according to this formula: De muneribus familiae christianae in mundo hodierno. (On the gifts of the Christian family in the modern world).It has to be noticed in this indication the intention to assign to the work of the Synod a particular profile. In fact, the emphasis on the munera (gifts) of the family, concretizing the more generic theme proposed by the preparatory bodies (De familia christiana in mundo hodierno or 'on the Christian family in the modern world'), betrays the intention to privilege a better connection with the previous synods dedicated to the evangelization and the catechesis.The Pope’s intervention at that time regarding the formulation of the title is significant and echoes in the choice taken by the present Pontiff which strongly underlines the pastoral profile of the Church’s concern regarding the family. An expression, used by Pope Francis during his trip to Brazil, stimulates the reflection. He indicated, while – speaking to the CELAM on July 28, 2013– the way of a “pastoral conversion.” It appears a pastoral approach that not only it is delivered from the functional horizon of a taken for granted cura animarum, but it seems to reconnect with the more original profile of Vatican II, placing at the center “the behaviors and a reform of life.” The very same Pontiff intended to put in guard against those temptations that can stop a path of pastoral conversion, indicating them in the ideologization of the gospel message, in the functionalism and clericalism. On the other hand – always in Pope’s Francis words – “concerning pastoral conversion, I would like to recall that ‘pastoral care’ is nothing other than the exercise of the Church’s motherhood. She gives birth, suckles, gives growth, corrects, nourishes and leads by the hand … So we need a Church capable of rediscovering the maternal womb of mercy. Without mercy we have little chance nowadays of becoming part of a world of ‘wounded’ persons in need of understanding, forgiveness, love.” (Meeting with the Bishops of Brazil, July 27, 2013)In the open space between the pole of the temptations and the maternal figure of the pastorality, it seems to appear the possibility of a renewed and fertile interest for the family. The attention to the threefold temptation may allow to isolate at least some of the reasons by which, even though the Church possesses an impressive patrimony of teaching about marriage and family, nonetheless it has not been always developed rightly all its potentiality in a fruitful way; while the reference to the “maternal entrails of mercy” demand to abandon whatever deprecatory form in front of the grave wounds that family life undergoes in our times, almost going back to the famous words of John XXIII: “we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty. We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand […] Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations.” (Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, October 11th, 1962)It is undoubtedly early to imagine the forms and the contents of the eventual synodal deliberations. Certainly we cannot avoid a feeling of eager expectation and trustful hope. One of the most interesting marks of the Vatican II is exactly this: every time that the Church bows down to deepen a segment of her life and of her pastoral action, required at times dramatically by the here and now of the present history, it is always accompanied to regenerate – without any solutions of continuity – the awareness of the proper identity and of her constitutive missionary vocation.
Body and love
Oct 1, 2013 / 00:00 amThe reflections on human love are central in the magisterium of John Paul II. These reflections, well known from his more frequently quoted works, have now become the common patrimony of the life of the Church, and as such they are mentioned in a number of key texts. Starting from Familiaris Consortio, going on to Mulieris dignitatem and up to the Letter to the Families, together with the catechetical cycles dedicated to human love, certain categories are punctually recognized and have become more generally familiar.From a certain point of view one can affirm that everything moves in the direction of arriving to “understanding the reason and the consequences of the decision of the Creator that the human being exists always and only as female and as male.” (MD, 6) If one asks which the constitutive elements are leading to this line of thought and teaching, one can imagine that the answer lies in the recognition of the self-evidence of the body and of love in the experience of man. The body and love are immediately given to everyone and, as such, are endowed with a logos whereby every man, starting from his body and from his desire for love, discovers himself and is revealed to himself. Very typical of the anthropological reflection of John Paul II is the solitude-body-subjectivity phrase, according to which human behavior and the consciousness of his own body allow man to form a conscious awareness of himself. In finding himself “alone,” man is manifested to himself as man. Here we see a first “self-definition” of man as one in his relationship with what surrounds him (the visible world): such unity is the real revelation of man to himself. This is why the Pope can affirm that there is continuity between man’s solitude and his subjectivity. The intimate connection between self-definition and relationship with the world suggests a great unity between the subjective and the objective dimensions of knowledge: “by this knowledge which makes him come out, so to speak, of his own being, at the same time man reveals himself to himself in the whole peculiarity of his being.” (Catechesis 5, 6)Later on, in the articulation of solitude-body-subjectivity, the dictatum of the catechesis identifies the “central problem of anthropology” to be examined by maintaining man’s acting and his own body awareness as the elements allowing him to begin to have a reflected self-awareness.Therefore, through a specific intuition on his own body, man perceives his own uniqueness amongst all the living beings through his habits and/or his behavior. It is worth remembering that the body, though able to assimilate man to all other living beings, at the same time becomes that constituent element which manifests his uniqueness (his objective difference from the other creatures) and therefore, becomes the reason for his solitude.The journey, started with man’s discovery of himself through his own body, seems to find its fulfillment in the renewing work of Christ’s grace, by keeping a unique continuity which illumines the whole novelty of the Son of God’s redeeming action, once again filtered by the human body. “Through Redemption, every man has received himself and his own body almost anew from God. Christ has inscribed into the human body – in the body of every man and of every woman – a new dignity, since in himself the human body has been admitted, together with the soul, to the union with the Person of the Son-Word.” (Catechesis 46, 4)This first level of self-discovery through his own body opens man to the second original element indicated by the category of unity. Solitude, in fact, presents itself as the element leading man to discover not only the “proper transcendence of the person” but also the original call to experiencing that fundamental communio personarum which represents the raison d’être of the sexual difference between man and woman. It is important to note how the Pope insists on the point that there is no solution of continuity between the discovery of the one’s own personal subjectivity through the experience of the body in one’s solitude and the awareness of the reciprocity man-woman, since “All that constituted the foundation of the solitude of each of them was indispensable for this reciprocity. Self-knowledge and self-determination, that is, subjectivity and consciousness of the meaning of one's own body, was also indispensable.” (Catechesis, 6, 1)The glance of Adam on Eve is not successive to his glance upon himself (and vice-versa), but the unity of the two glances recalls the centrality of self-definition and relation of oneself with another. Once again, the Pope is concerned with pinpointing that the discovery of oneself is inseparably and simultaneously subjective and objective: to look at oneself and to look at another.The first man and the first woman see themselves and each other naked without experiencing any shame: the first event of this communio personarum is illustrated by the experience of exchanging glances. It is important to note that the text invites us to consider the simultaneity between the glance on oneself and that on the other. Between the two glances there is no solution of continuity. On the other hand, this is the perspective contained, somehow, in the awareness that the man has of the woman, created from his rib as “a helpmate that is suitable to him.” In fact, the Pope John Paul II observes that, in his original solitude, man acquires personal awareness in the process of distinguishing himself from all other living beings (animalia); at the same time, in this solitude, he opens himself towards a being similar to him, which Genesis defines “a suitable helpmate.” (Gen 2, 18. 20) This openness tells much of the man-person about his distinction from others. The solitude of man in the creation narrative is presented not only as the first discovery of the person’s transcendence; it is also the discovery of an adequate relation “to” the person, and thus an opening towards, and expectation of, a “communion of persons.”This gaze, then, seems to reflect man’s surprise in discovering himself and the woman and, reciprocally, woman’s surprise in discovering herself and the man. At the same time, this highlights the given and perceived possibility of the fullness of a reciprocal relationship, defined by the absence of shame in the actual nakedness. This leads to the interesting consideration that within such gazes, by which man and woman participate in the absolute positivity of created reality in God’s eyes, they can look at each other the way God himself looks at them: they can surprise themselves in the very heart of the mystery of Creation.The role assigned to the experience of the body by the man and the woman in their nakedness without shame is also significant. It is to do with shedding light, as in the case of the reciprocal glances. In the light of the fullness of intimacy given them, the bodily experience now testifies as a unique reciprocity and becomes the epiphany of the “spousal” significance of the same body and thus of a unique human subjectivity.Up to now we have quoted the words of John Paul II, especially those from his famous reflections on the texts of the first chapters of Genesis, which objectively represent the background to the various magisterial interventions of the Polish Pope. They clearly imply that man is able to recognize the truth about himself by discovering how much is revealed to him through his body: not only his irreducible subjectivity, but also his constitutive vocation to love. For these reasons, it seems important to underline the anthropological value of that which we have called the “self-evidence” of the body and of love.The elements collected so far allow us to recognize the value and originality of John Paul II: they are invaluable for a better understanding of human love, marriage and the family. At the same time, we must point out that in his body of his writings are contained some concepts which, if deriving from the specific situations they are dedicated to, nevertheless assume a value that exceeds the level of a sectorial contribution to an area of theology. In fact, through a reflection on human love and matrimony, these concepts follow the path, as John Paul II so often said, towards a convincing “adequate anthropology.” This adequate anthropology starts with some elements from the first few chapters of Genesis (solitude, unity, nakedness); together with these elements a method is suggested, “adequate” in that it is able to satisfy man’s need to understand and interpret himself.
To learn to love
Jul 31, 2013 / 00:00 amReflecting on John Paul II’s heritage and linking it to his unique focus on themes of human love, marriage and the family is both obvious and necessary in order to highlight at least one of the issues that was at the very heart of his testimony and magisterium. While avoiding any undue absolutism, such an exercise is undoubtedly legitimate and invites us to critically develop the sense of, and understand the reasons for, the uniqueness of the Polish Pope.It is a known fact that the special interest shown by John Paul II to the theme of human love had its roots in the life-story of Karol Wojtyla. It was there in his philosophical-theological reflections, as well as his great pastoral work as a priest and a bishop.It is no wonder that having become pontiff, (without ever omitting his peculiar humanity in his Petrine ministry) his Polish roots – adapting from within the whole life experience of this particular man into the universality of the role of the Successor of Peter – called into play his whole fascination for the experience of human love.Could this be regarded as a satisfactory to our question? Certainly not, if we keep in mind that John Paul II has on more than one occasion indicated, within the various themes pertaining to human love, a space to deal with what is historically going on in the present and which he liked to call “the dispute on the humanum”. In the choice of the Polish Pope there was, therefore, a happy synthesis between a unique personal sensibility and a judgement on what can be called signs of the times; even better, that sensibility has perhaps allowed him to capture in an original way that sign of the times.In this way we may free the development of the topic of human love in the recent magisterium of the Church from the risk of its simplistic reduction to a biography of Wojty?a, and try to grasp from the very depth the knowledge of the central meaning to the question posed by the here and now of the history of man to the life and intelligence of the Christian believer.What precedes the acts of the pontifical magisterium may be useful in clarifying the intentions, sensibility and philosophical foundations on which they are rooted. In this sense, the historical background to Wojtyla’s pontificate does not confine the magisterial acts within the scope of his earlier ecclesial experience and theological/philosophical knowledge (this would be unduly confusing and lead to reducing their own specific weight); conversely, such background can (and must) be used in order to shed light on the same magisterial acts. If, in fact, they should be placed within the broader context of Church and tradition (tradition being fundamental to interpreting the magisterium of the Church), in the same way these magisterial acts cannot be abstractly separated from the existential context of the subject who poses them.Human love presents itself just as immediately “interesting” – as always eluding the clutches of interpretation. The fact remains, however, that man cannot remain uninterested in love, because he is well aware that it is part of his very existence, of the possibility of an adequate fulfillment of his desire for happiness.Therefore, if it is impossible not to recognize such interest, which road should one follow to gain a satisfactory knowledge of the experience of human love? A simple narration of man’s love life does not appear adequate because it is not complete: when this narration reaches its own level of artistic expression in all its forms the philosopher and the theologian have much to learn. At the same time, however, just as many doubts can be raised before the possibility of a complete “theory” of human love. Plato already warned us about this when he concluded his Lysis in an abrupt and almost provocative manner: “how ridiculous that we […] should imagine ourselves to be friend – this is what the bystanders will go away and say – and as yet we have not been able to discover what a friend is!” (Lysis, 223b). The awareness of the unique statute of the amorous experience and how this is just so involving as it is difficult to explain, echoes the words of Bernard of Clairvaux: “Love is enough to itself: it pleases in itself and by itself. Love is its own merit and reward. I love because I love; I love for love's own sake” (On Song of Songs, 83, 4).Within the same perspective we may place John Paul II’s affirmation by from his autobiography: “Love is not something which you learn, and yet there is nothing which is so necessary to learn. As a young priest I learnt to love human love” (Crossing the Threshold of Hope).In the face of the dichotomy between the impossibility to learn to love and the pressing necessity of this learning, the Polish Pope observes that, instead, it is possible “to learn to love love.” Such a statement appears to suggest, on the one hand, the awareness of the impossibility of reducing love to something about which one can elaborate a theory easy to be transmitted and applied. On the other hand, the conclusion overcomes the minimalist alternative stating that love is a fact escaping all possibilities of critical knowledge and therefore transmittable (that is, suitable to somehow be taught and therefore learnt).Certainly, love cannot be learnt, but one can learn to love love. Saying so opens the way to knowing the unique “irreducibility” of love that finds the elements of its grammar and of syntax in itself, in such a way that it can be known and learnt only through loving.It is not exaggerated to say that the large part of the intensive work of K. Wojtyla the philosopher, poet, theologian, just like huge sections of his magisterium, were dedicated to support this affirmation, investigated above all for its anthropological foundations.Even if one were only to look at the words of the first encyclical of John Paul II, one would find two texts that, in a certain way, trace the coordinates that his teaching and his reflective commitment have always retained, albeit expressing them in a great variety of forms. The recognition of the primacy of love in human existence is very clear: “Man cannot live without love. He remains a being that is incomprehensible to himself, his life is senseless, if love is not revealed to him, if he does not encounter love, if he does not experience it and make it his own, if he does not participate intimately in it” (RH 10). In line with this, to look at the Redeemer as the One who immediately poses Himself as the interlocutor of the love experience, without whom man cannot live, not only exalts His unique redemptive claim but manifests the historical and theological place where such claim can be recognized and embraced by man. Such a place can only be the act of human freedom, without which love is not conceivable, through which freedom can accept the call, address Christ and be determined by Him.At the same time, however, the encyclical also indicates the methodological perspective enabling us to acquire this primacy; but above all points to the appropriate anthropological approach to justify its pertinence and impelling reasons. It is useful to refer directly to the text:“Man in the full truth of his existence, of his personal being and also of his community and social being – in the sphere of his own family, in the sphere of society and very diverse contexts, in the sphere of his own nation or people (perhaps still only that of his clan or tribe), and in the sphere of the whole of mankind – this man is the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission: he is the primary and fundamental way for the Church, the way traced out by Christ himself, the way that leads invariably through the mystery of the Incarnation and Redemption” (RH 14).The metaphor presented in Redemptor Hominis by the notion of “way” applied to both Christ and man, according to the same viewpoint (Christ, as well as man, is the Church’s way), invites the conclusion that according to John Paul II to say Christ, in His uniqueness of being the Son of God, Incarnate and Redeemer, leads first of all to say man; at the same time, to look at man according to the totality of the factors constituting his existence leads to Christ just as immediately, as Christ is the only fact in which the human event is completely understood and enhanced. When man is designated as the “primary and fundamental way of the Church”, it seems this is something more than the simple reaffirmation that he is the destinée of the Church’s mission. There is, perhaps, in this expression a deeper suggestion to be considered than just a movement towards man: in taking care of his complete existence, the Church must bear in mind that man is not only the “object” of the ecclesial action, but that he is also the “method” which has to lead to such action. It is, in fact, characteristic of the anthropological sensibility of John Paul II to highlight the fact that a man’s exclusive experience of his own self represents the point of departure of every attempt to understand and interpret the self. It is known that this represents a peculiar fact and the methodological path of all the philosophical works of K. Wojtyla, which he has above all explored and justified in his speculative and demanding work Person and Act, where he underlines several times the irreducibility of the experience which every man makes of himself, and how all experiences with others pass through it.In particular, it is worth underlining the dense articulation of the primacy of experience, the centrality of the acting person and the clear recognition of the auto-teleological dynamism of the human person. These last three elements are constantly discussed in the light of the conviction that experience, taken in its totality, has its own intrinsic logos, since “every human experience is therefore also a kind of understanding of that which I am experiencing […] We hold, that is, that the act is a particular moment of the vision – or rather of the experience – of the human person.”We can thus affirm that the teaching of John Paul II stresses the fact that there is no possible anthropological reflection except that which moves from the self-reflection, particularly because undoubtedly this is much more than a simple question of meaning. In fact, this reflection is the act designating the ultimate level without which man does not exist, and which allows him – equally – to acquire knowledge of the transcendence of his own subjectivity. Having clarified, in fact, the role played by human subjectivity in view of an adequate anthropology “which seeks to understand and interpret man in that which is essentially human”, it is understood, in such a context, that the reflection on himself does not simply represent the initial input of a journey which from the early stages should lead man to find the answer which can completely fulfill his proper subjectivity in something outside himself. If this were the case, it would follow that man would only be capable to express a question, which in its insurmountable formality should leave aside any relevant anthropological contents. On the contrary, such a reflection is that factor without which – in its actuality – man cannot find himself and cannot become aware of the dynamism of his own self-transcendence.In the light of this re-reading of the primacy of man in the mission of the Church, strongly characterized in a methodological sense, the text of the encyclical immediately leads us to a Christocentric perspective (“a way undertaken by Christ Himself, which invariably passes through the incarnation and redemption”), putting into action the other great constitutive aspect of the Wojtylian reflection. This, in fact, is always found in taking into consideration the centrality of the mystery of Christ to the condition of man in history: the constant recalling of the words of Christ which indicate the “beginning”, almost a leitmotiv in the texts where he reflects on love and marriage. It seems always necessary to look at man from a historical perspective that includes the work of Him who in history has placed Himself as the only Lord and Redeemer. The words of Redemptor Hominis suggest the need to look and talk not about an “abstract”, but a real man, a “concrete”, “historical” man (Redemptor Hominis, 13). Such actuality has a precise content: each man is objectively included in the one “historical” event of the Redemption and, because of it, he really is the way his Father has wanted him. Accordingly, the problem of finding a middle term establishing a convincing relationship between man and Christ needs reconsidering. In fact, by the primacy granted to the historical form of man’s existence and the event of Christ, these can only relate to each other through their primary historicity, that is, through their freedom. In this way, the Church-world question is taken back to that of the relationship between Christ and each historical human being.The Pope takes it upon himself to show the actual anthropological relevance of the origin by showing its “exemplary” aspect; that is, by showing how, if the anthropological elements present in the origin belong to a life condition that no longer is fully attainable (the original state), they are, nevertheless, still decisive for the elaboration of an “adequate anthropology”. The whole proposal contained in the Catechesis on human love (1979-1984) must be verified: without a convincing explanation of the reasons why the origin is an indispensable instance of man in the here and now of his historical existence, the contents and outlook on human existence conveyed by the catechesis would inevitably lose their unique interest.
Vatican II, the Council on Faith: reflecting on Lumen Fidei
Jul 11, 2013 / 00:00 amIn his first encyclical, Pope Francis does not fail to offer a quick, but no less interesting, reference to Vatican II.Two fundamental elements: the definition of Council on faith and the dialogical profile which underlines contemporary man, the concreteness of his life experience: “The Year of Faith was inaugurated on the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council. This is itself a clear indication that Vatican II was a Council on faith, inasmuch as it asked us to restore the primacy of God in Christ to the center of our lives, both as a Church and as individuals. The Church never takes faith for granted, but knows that this gift of God needs to be nourished and reinforced so that it can continue to guide her pilgrim way. The Second Vatican Council enabled the light of faith to illumine our human experience from within, accompanying the men and women of our time on their journey. It clearly showed how faith enriches life in all its dimensions.” (Lumen Fidei, 6)Leaving aside the excess and a little cloying to search phrases written by Benedict XVI and those by the current Pontiff, it is worth it to put these statements of Lumen Fidei in their natural context: the path of the reception of the Council, especially in the speeches of the Papal Magisterium.In fact, the text of the Encyclical calls an intervention of Paul VI (General audience, March 8, 1967) that anticipates the possibility of using the foundation of faith as synthetic key to reading the whole conciliar Magisterium.Certainly it is a theme that Benedict XVI has felt especially close to his sensitivity and on which he repeatedly intervened, known as horizon needed to take a drive around the Conciliar teaching: “The Second Vatican Council did not wish to deal with the theme of faith in one specific document. It was, however, animated by a desire, as it were, to immerse itself anew in the Christian mystery so as to re-propose it fruitfully to contemporary man.” (Homily, Oct. 11, 2012)The recall, favored by the context of the beginning of the Year of the Faith, offers to the Pope the opportunity to introduce in some special accents. On the one hand, it faces a strong insistence on the primacy of God in life and act believer as it stresses the heart of conciliar experience described as “an emotional tension as we faced the common task of making the truth and beauty of the faith shine out in our time, without sacrificing it to the demands of the present or leaving it tied to the past: the eternal presence of God resounds in the faith, transcending time, yet it can only be welcomed by us in our own unrepeatable today. Therefore I believe that the most important thing, especially on such a significant occasion as this, is to revive in the whole Church that positive tension, that yearning to announce Christ again to contemporary man.” (Ibid.)From here comes the recovery of particular physiognomy of Vatican II, all marked by the intention of a renewed approach to the contemporary world, the “real expecta of the Council.” In this wide arc that goes from the primacy of God, principal interlocutor of man’s faith and the pastoral perspective of Vatican II, Benedict XVI has proposed earlier in this Year of Faith an intense and fruitful comparison with the event of the Council.One of the most stimulating is the meditation proposed to members of the Synod of Bishops Assembly on the first day of their work, Oct. 8, 2012. In the context of a strong insistence on the primacy of action of God in history – “only God can begin, we can only cooperate, but the beginning must come from God. So it is not a mere formality if we start our sessions each day with prayer: this corresponds to reality itself. Only God’s precedence makes our journey possible, our cooperation, which is always cooperation, and not entirely our own decision” – Pope Benedict introduces a clear indication of a methodological character: “we cannot make the Church, we can only announce what she has done. The Church does not begin with our ‘making’, but with the ‘making’and ‘speaking’ of God. In the same way, the Apostles did not say, after a few meetings: now we want to make a Church, and that by means of a constituent assembly they were going to draft a constitution. No, they prayed and in prayer they waited, because they knew that only God himself can create his Church, that God is the first agent: if God does not act, our things are only ours and are insufficient; only God can testify that it is he who speaks and has spoken.”It is an interesting suggestion to keep in mind that, in that event sparked and guided by the Holy Spirit, the Council cannot come to a full reception if it relies solely on the human idea that it is “ours to make.” Here is a concern with respect to an approach to the problems of the reception of the Council which may be depleted while you need threads of historical, theological and pastoral care: they can take the risk of putting parentheses around its first architect, the Holy Spirit, thus reducing the reception on the horizon of human capacity to understand and draw operational outcomes. The Pope's reflection continues with the logic of the confessio and the caritas as verification of the Act of Christian, intending to follow the primacy of Divine Initiative. This choice contributes to highlight a specific aspect of the presence of the Church in the world and underlines the profile “martyrological”: “it is in the martyrological aspect of the word ‘confessio’ that the truth appears: it comes into being only for a reality for which it is worth suffering, which is stronger than even death, and it demonstrates that I hold the truth in my hand, that I am more than certain that I am ‘bearing’ my life because I find life in this confession.”The impetus that comes (caritas) establishes the form with which the Christian testimony manifests and communicates effectively: the image of the “flame of love”, by which the Pope refers to this reality, you grant directly to the event of Pentecost, underlining again the primacy of Divine Initiative, since “The fire of God is transforming fire, a fire of passion — of course — that also destroys much in us, that leads to God, but fire, above all, that transforms, renews and creates a new man, who becomes light in God.”The choice to look at Vatican II as a Council “on faith” helps to better understand the meaning of his pastoral dimension: it seeks to hold together the concern to renew awareness of Christians of the novelty of the advent of Jesus Christ, the only Savior and to regenerate the impetus to witness and present Him in the world of our time.It is not difficult to discover a strong consonance with the way that John Paul II, already during the years in which he led his diocese of Krakow to assimilate the new Council, proposed an original reading of the pastoral Council. In fact, he concentrated his attention on the notion of enrichment of the faith, focusing on the fact that the Council “preserving the character of pastoral focus – indeed, precisely because of its pastoral end – has developed widely the doctrine of the faith and as a result has created the foundations of its enrichment [...] the pastors of the Church is aimed not so much and not only to give an answer to the question: in what we believe, which is the genuine sense of this or that truth of faith, or the like, but rather sought to answer the more complex question: what does it mean to be a believer, be Catholic, be a member of the Church?” (Sources of Renewal: TheImplementation of Vatican II).In trying to focus on the precise meaning of the pastoral Council pitch, the Archbishop of Krakow introduces an important element of a method that belongs to his most intimate strings: pastoral as voltage say enriching faith means, in fact, to put the spotlight on the consciousness that the believer has of his faith in the sense “subjective, existential human”, enough to support that “the ‘pastoral’ Council has opened a new chapter in the Church's pastoral, pastoral, understood in its broadest sense.” (Ibid.)Here is an item of great importance, which belongs to how Wojtyla lives the work of Council and shall endeavor to implement it. Speak to the question of what does it mean to be a believer, to reach an enrichment of the faith in the human sense subjective, existential, and puts man in the foreground, in the concreteness of his living, as a first and essential interlocutor of teaching and Church action.It is well known that John Paul II has lived his entire pontificate in the light of Vatican II, especially enhancing the novelty it was pastoral, even according to the vision expressed in his Polish years. Despite the rapidity of these calls to any text of recent popes, we think it can be said that recognition of the Second Vatican Council as “Council on faith”, is a new provocation to rediscover its novelty, its specific pastoral profile and its willingness to revive the life of Christians on the adventure of missionary witness in the world.