På www.chiesa leser vi videre i erkebiskop Bruguès’ svært interessante foredrag, om en måte å forklare spenningene som fins i presteskapet (og blant de troende) mellom de som har et positivt og optimistisk syn på vår sekulariserte verden, og de som heller vil holde en tydelig avstand til denne. Den eldre generasjonen (som er mest optimistiske i forhold til verden) mister stadig støtte (og liker dette lite), men de har fortsatt for det meste maktposisjonene i Kirken:
There now exists within the European Churches, and perhaps within the American Church as well, a line of division, sometimes of fracture, between a current of «composition» and a current of «contestation.»
The first leads us to observe that secularization includes values with a strong Christian influence, like equality, freedom, solidarity, responsibility, and that it should be possible to come to terms with this current and identify areas of cooperation.
The second current, on the contrary, calls for keeping distance. It maintains that the differences or points of opposition, above all in the field of ethics, will become increasingly pronounced. It therefore proposes an alternative to the dominant model, and accepts the minority opposition role.
The first current emerged mainly during the period following the council; it provided the ideological framework for the interpretations of Vatican II that were imposed at the end of the 1960’s and in the following decade.
Things were reversed beginning in the 1980’s, above all – but not exclusively – under the influence of John Paul II. The current of «composition» has aged, but its proponents still hold key positions in the Church. The current of the alternative model has become much stronger, but it has not yet become dominant. This would explain the tensions at the moment in many of the Churches on our continent.
It would not be difficult for me to provide examples illustrating the contrast I have just described.
Today the Catholic universities fall along this dividing line. Some of them play the card of adaptation and cooperation with secularized society, at the cost of finding themselves forced to take a critical distance from this or that aspect of Catholic doctrine or morality. Others, of more recent inspiration, emphasize the confession of the faith and active participation in evangelization. The same applies to the Catholic schools.
And the same could be said, to return to the topic of this meeting, in regard to the typical profile of those who knock on the doors of our seminaries or religious houses.
Candidates of the first tendency have become increasingly rare, to the great displeasure of the priests of the older generations. The candidates of the second tendency have now become more numerous than the others, but they hesitate to cross the threshold of our seminaries, because often they do not find what they are looking for there.
They are concerned about identity (and are sometimes mockingly described as «identitarians»): the Christian identity – how should we distinguish ourselves from those who do not share our faith? – and the identity of the priest, while the identity of the monk and the religious is easier to perceive.
How can harmony be fostered between educators, who often belong to the first current, and the young people who identify with the second? Will the educators continue to cling to criteria of admission and selection that date back to their own time, but no longer correspond to the aspirations of the young? I was told the story of a French seminary in which adoration of the Most Holy Sacrament had been banned for a good twenty years or so, because it was seen as too devotional: the new seminarians had to struggle for a number of years to have it reinstated, while some of the professors preferred to resign in the face of something that they judged as a «return to the past»; by giving in to the requests of the younger men, they had the impression that they were renouncing what they had fought for their entire lives.
In the dioceses in which I have been bishop, I have experienced similar difficulties when older priests – or even whole parish communities – have had great difficulty in responding to the aspirations of the young priests who were sent to them.
I understand the difficulties that you encounter in your ministry as seminary rectors. More than the passage from one generation to another, you must ensure a smooth transition from one interpretation of Vatican Council II to another, and possibly from one ecclesial model to another. Your position is delicate, but it is absolutely essential for the Church.