Come exiled brother, let us embrace. Wherever you are, whatever your name, whatever you do, you are my brother. What does it matter to me if nature and social conventions try to separate you from me, with names, conditions, restrictions or laws?
The heart cannot be restrained, the will knows no limits and by making an effort to love we can overcome all these divisions and reunite as a family.
Don’t you recognise me? Nature placed you elsewhere, made you different, within other borders, you may be German, Romanian, Chinese, Indian… You may be yellow, olive-skinned, black, bronze, copper-toned… but what does it matter?
What does it matter that you are from a different country? When this small, still-glowing globe consolidated, no one could have imagined that for such accidental outgrowths, people would kill each other for ages.
And even today, in the face of our political systems, do you think that nature ever asks our permission to express itself through volcanoes, earthquakes or floods? And do you think it cares about our disparities, appearances or hierarchies?
Unknown brother, love your land, your fragment of the shared crust that supports us, but do not hate mine. Under all the trappings, under the all the social classifications, no matter how codified, you are a soul that God created as a sister to mine, to that of every other person (there is only one Father) and you are like every other person who suffers and perhaps you cause suffering, who needs more than he possesses, who falters, who gets tired, hungry, thirsty, sleepy, like me, like everyone else.
“Unknown brother, love your land, your fragment of the shared crust that supports us, but do not hate mine. (…) In you I recognize the Lord. Free yourself and even now, brothers that we are, let’s embrace. “
You are a poor pilgrim following a mirage. You believe yourself to be the centre of the universe and yet you are nothing more than an atom of this humanity that from millennia to millennia struggles more through sorrow than through joys.
You are a speck, brother, so let’s join forces instead of fighting. Do not be proud, do not isolate yourself, do not accentuate the marks of differentiation devised by man.
Didn’t you cry when you were born, as I did? Will you not groan when you die, as I will? Whatever its earthly shell, the soul will return to be naked, equal. So come. From beyond all seas, climates, all laws, from beyond every social, political or intellectual compartment, from beyond all boundaries (man knows only how to circumscribe, divide and isolate) come, brother.
In you I recognize the Lord. Free yourself and even now, brothers that we are, let’s embrace.
I couldn’t understand how anyone could give life to a young person, have him worn out by studies and sacrifices, in order to prepare him for an operation, in which he would have to kill strangers, unknown, innocent people and in turn, he would be killed by others to whom he had done no harm. I saw the absurdity, the stupidity and above all the sin of war: a sin made more acute by the excuses used to justify it and by the futility with which it was decided.
The Gospel, long meditated upon, taught me that to do good, not to kill was a fundamental duty; to forgive, not to take revenge. And reason itself gave me a sense of how absurd it was to engage in a conflict where victory did not go to the just, but to those with more cannons; not to justice, but to violence.
In the “radiant May” of 1915, I was called to arms. […]
So many bugles, speeches and flags! All this only deepened within me the sense of revulsion for those clashes, in which governments, entrusted with the public good, carried out their task by slaughtering the children of the people, hundreds of thousands and by destroying or allowing the destruction of the assets of the nation: the common good. How stupid it all seemed to me! And I suffered for the millions of people, who were forced to believe in the sanctity of those murders, a sanctity also attested by clerics who blessed the cannons destined to offend God in His masterpiece of creation, to kill God in His image, to carry out fratricide among baptized brothers.
“I saw the absurdity, the stupidity
and above all the sin of war…”
As a recruit I was sent to Modena, where there was a kind of university for the training of warriors and commanders. Coming from the world of Virgil and Dante, the study of certain manuals that taught how to deceive the enemy in order to kill him, had such an effect on me that, in an act of reckless defiance, I wrote in one of them: “Here we are learning the science of imbecility”. I had a very different concept of love of country. I understood it as love and love means service, the pursuit of good, the promotion of well-being, to provide a happier coexistence: for the growth and not for the destruction of life.
But I was young, and I did not understand the reasoning of the older generation, who didn’t really want to understand. They distracted themselves with parades and shouted slogans to numb their senses.
[…]
After a few weeks, having completed my training in Modena, I returned home briefly before departing for the front. I hugged my mother and father, my brothers and sisters (we rarely embraced in my family) and boarded the train. From the train I saw the sea for the first time, much wider than the Aniene River, it felt as though I had fulfilled one of life’s duties. After three days, I reached the trenches along the Isonzo and joined the 111th Infantry Regiment.
The trench. In it, from school I entered life, between the arms of death and cannon fire. […]
If I fired five or six shots, into the air, I did so out of necessity: I never aimed my rifle towards the enemy trenches, for fear of killing a child of God. […]
If all those days spent, in the bottom of the trenches, watching reeds and tufts of brambles and bored clouds and shining blue sky, had been spent working, we would have produced enough wealth to meet all the demands for which the war was being fought. Clearly: but that was reason and war is the opposite of reason.
Igino Giordani Memorie di un cristiano ingenuo, Città Nuova 1994, pp.47-53
War is a mass murder, clothed in a kind of sacred cult, as was the sacrifice of firstborns to the god Baal: and this because of the terror it instils, the rhetoric with which it dresses up and the interests it serves. When humanity has progressed spiritually, war will be classified alongside the bloody rites, the superstitions of witchcraft and other barbaric practices.
It relates to humanity as sickness does to health, as sin to the soul: it is destruction and devastation, striking both soul and body, individuals and the community.
[…]
According to St. Thomas, “All things seek peace”. In fact, they all seek life. Only the insane and the incurable may desire death. And war is death. It is not wanted by the people; it is wanted by minorities to whom physical violence serves to secure economic advantages or, worse, to satisfy base emotions. Especially today, with its cost, its deaths and its ruins, war reveals itself as a “useless slaughter”. A slaughter which is moreover useless. A victory over life which is becoming humanity’s suicide.
According to St. Thomas, “All things seek peace”. In fact, they all seek life. Only the insane and the incurable may desire death. And war is death.
[…] Saying that war is a “useless slaughter “, Benedict XV gave the most precise definition. Cardinal Schuster called it, “a slaughterhouse of men.” It means whole regions destroyed, thousands and thousands of poor people without homes or possessions, forced to wander in the desolate countryside, until death cuts them down from hunger or cold.
[…] The material gains from a victorious war can never compensate for the damage it causes; so much so, that it takes several successive generations to painstakingly rebuild the full sum of spiritual and moral values that were destroyed during an excess of war frenzies[1]. ” […]
[…]
2uman ingenuity, destined for far nobler purposes, has today devised and introduced instruments of war of such power as to arouse horror in the soul of any honest person, above all because they do not only affect armies, but often still overwhelm private citizens, children, women, the old and the sick, as well as sacred buildings and major monuments of art! Who is not horrified at the thought that new cemeteries will be added to the countless ones of the recent conflict and new smoking ruins of towns and cities will pile up more mournful wreckage?» [2]. […] […]
After the publication of the first part of Don Foresi’s biography dedicated to the initial period of his life, the second part entitled: “The rule and the excess” (published by Città Nuova), of the three planned, which deals with the years from 1954 to 1962, was also published. What do you think emerges in this volume as a characteristic note of this period of Foresi’s life?
A note that deeply characterizes the life and experience of Pasquale Foresi in the years indicated, can be expressed in this way: he was a free spirit, a person driven by a creative tension between charism and culture, moved by the need to spiritually and practically translate Chiara Lubich’s inspiration (the charism of unity) and the need, in a certain way, to give it theological, philosophical and institutional depth, in an ecclesial context that was still largely pre-conciliar. The book describes him very well as constantly engaged, together with Lubich, to “embody” the charism in forms understandable to the Church of the time and to the cultural and secular world in general. In this sense, we might define him, not only as a co-founder, but also as an ecclesial interpreter of the charism, someone who sought to make it “explainable” in the language of the Church and who tried to be the bridge builder between the mystical dimension of Lubich and classical theology, making it accessible to many without watering it down.
At the same time Foresi was an atypical intellectual and an original thinker. Although he did not leave any major systematic works (he did not see this as his particular task), he had a strong impact on the development of the Work of Mary (Focolare Movement), during the period of time described in the volume. This second book documents a dynamic existence, marked by a sense of urgency, as if the words of the Gospel proper to the development of the Focolare Movement had to be incarnated “immediately”, without delay.
“Don Foresi, a free spirit, a person driven by a creative tension between charism and culture”.
Our interviewee, Prof. Marco Luppi, researcher in Contemporary History at Sophia University Institute in Loppiano, Italy
The 600 plus pages of the text deal not only with the events that concern the life of Foresi in the period under review, but also outline the life and history of Chiara Lubich and the Focolare Movement of those years, also focusing on stories and episodes in which Foresi was not present, as the author himself states. Why do you think the author made this editorial choice?
Zanzucchi includes events and developments not directly experienced by Foresi because his story is inseparable from the history of the Focolare Movement. Telling the context, the protagonists and the collective dynamics allows us to grasp the meaning of Foresi’s contribution, placing it within the living fabric of a communal experience. As he clearly states in his introduction, Zanzucchi views Foresi not only as a key player, but as a co-founder, that is, an essential and foundational element of the Focolare Movement. Consequently, Foresi’s biography is inseparable from the biography of the Movement. In other words, the author adopts an approach that we could define as an “immersive biography”: not a simple individual reconstruction, but a relational and contextual narrative, where the meaning of Foresi’s role emerges through a living dialogue with others (Chiara Lubich, Igino Giordani, ecclesial personalities, etc.) and with the collective history of the Movement.
Don Foresi with Chiara Lubich at a congress (1967)With young people (1976)
This work of Michele Zanzucchi is the first biography of Foresi. What aspects of Foresi’s life do you think deserve further study and historical investigation?
Zanzucchi often likes to say that he is not a pure historian, but rather a careful and conscientious storyteller and communicator and that therefore at times he has allowed himself some interpretative freedom, in order to clarify some passages that are less explicit. However, this is certainly a very important work and a first effort to give us a full view of the personality and experience of Foresi. It is one perspective and others will surely follow, all animated by that same critical spirit, open to multiple interpretations, which must inform the reconstruction of the history of the entire Focolare Movement and its key figures. I can mention three of the many insights that could be explored in future research on Foresi. First, his theological and philosophical thought. Zanzucchi points out that Foresi was not an academic theologian, but a “cultural visionary”, whose output is scattered in articles, speeches and notes. There is no single systematic presentation of his thought on key subjects such as the Church, the sacraments, the faith-reason relationship, etc. In addition, the originality of his ecclesiological thought should be studied, which anticipated some insights which later emerged in Vatican II. A second topic could be on the “political” role of Foresi and his relationships with the Roman ecclesiastical world. The author repeatedly mentions Foresi’s connections with the Vatican curia and with some ecclesiastical personalities. However, it is still not clear how much influence Foresi had in post-war political or ecclesial mediations, so this too would merit further exploration, especially during moments of tension with the hierarchy. Finally, a third, compelling front could be the editorial period and the “cultural laboratory” of Città Nuova. Zanzucchi underlines Foresi’s role as founder, director and inspirational force behind the “Città Nuova” magazine. What kind of “culture” did Foresi endeavour to promote? How did it position itself compared to other Catholic newspapers (Civiltà Cattolica, L’Osservatore Romano, Il Regno)? One day, a full monograph on Foresi’s work as a publisher and journalist in the context of 20th-century Catholic media will be needed.
I’m Anibelka Gómez, a volunteer of the Focolare Movement in Santiago de los Caballeros (Dominican Republic), a teacher and current the principal of a public school.
Education is not just a right but a powerful tool to transform our communities. As educators, we have the power to influence the building of a more just and fraternal society. At a certain point, I felt a deep concern: how can I help build the “dream” of unity for which Jesus asked the Father? What concrete actions can I take to ensure that education becomes a driving force for peace in our communities?
So last year we thought of doing something that went beyond the walls of our school. We had limited resources but believing in the power of Jesus who promised to be present among those who love one another, we organized an international congress entitled: “Promoting an Education of Peace” in Santiago de los Caballeros. We decided that the basis of this congress would be the mutual love between the organizers, members of the Focolare Movement of the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. It was attended by 140 teachers, psychologists, principals and education professionals, representing 55 educational centres, including the Café con Leche School in Santo Domingo, a school which is committed to living the “art of loving” proposed by Chiara Lubich.
Pictured: International Congress “Fostering Peace Pedagogy” (Photo: Anibelka Gómez)
God’s providence was evident through the help, support, and collaboration of Director Rafael Liriano and Councillor Ysmailin Collado of the 08-04 Educational District, the National Association of Principals (ASONADEDI), some local entrepreneurs and the community of Santiago, which supported us with the practical arrangements.
The congress sparked renewed interest in learning more about the Focolare Movement’s educational initiatives, such as the Cube of Peace and the 6×1 Methodology (six steps for one goal). This led to a follow-up seminar entitled “A Culture of Peace and the 6×1 Methodology”, with principals and teachers from 20 schools participating. The goal was to share the approach with other schools and educators.
Left: Workshop on FormaT, right: Workshop on the Peace Nut and Methodology “6 x 1”(Photo: Anibelka Gómez)
This workshop highlighted the urgency of introducing the Cube of Peace and the 6×1 Methodology into schools. Several principals and teachers affirmed that implementing these programs would help children promote a culture of peace for the good of society. To continue this initiative, a new training course called FormaT was offered, an online course for those who accompany children, adolescents and youth in educational settings. Its aim is to share experiences, skills and tools for education and accompaniment. The course is offered online from Colombia and involves teachers from 14 educational centres. It runs monthly from September, with 9 modules, and leads to a certificate for participants.
The impact has been significant. The participating schools have formed strong bonds. During Lent, we held a retreat with FormaT participants, followed by a weekend gathering for the participating principals. It amazes us to see how Jesus multiplies our efforts, touches hearts and brings about fruits beyond what we can imagine, giving life to real experiences of unity.
Europe continues to be the talk of the town, at the centre of international tensions and heated debates, the outcome of which affects the lives of its citizens: almost half a billion of them are citizens of the European Union. Peace versus defence, war or commercial peace, choices on energy, development policies and social justice, identity and diversity, openness and borders: the issues on the agenda are numerous and, in the face of changes in the internal and external scenario – first and foremost the war in Ukraine -, the re-reading and updating of the prophecy of Robert Schuman and the founding fathers is not only topical, but necessary.
Seventy-five years have passed since the then French Foreign Minister delivered his revolutionary speech in Paris on 9 May 1950, laying the foundations for the European integrationprocess. On 15 May 2025 , in the European Parliament building in Brussels, a panel of experts, representatives of various Christian Movements and young activists gave voice to the vision of European unity as an instrument of peace.
Different Churches and Movements from various countries in Europe
The event took place on the initiative of Together for Europe (TfE) together with a number of MEPs, at the invitation of Slovakian MEP Miriam Lexmann – who was absent for family reasons – and brought together on the morning of 15 May, some 100 people from Belgium, Italy, Germany, Holland, Slovakia, Austria, France, Greece and Romania. In attendance were Catholic, Orthodox and Reform Church Christians; representatives of the Immanuel Community, YMCA, Focolare, Schoenstatt, Sant’Egidio, Quinta Dimensione, Pope John XXIII Community: the typical variety of the TfE network. The moderator of Together, Gerhard Pross, witnessed the beginnings: ‘For us it is important to express the power of faith in shaping society. However, we are not interested in power or domination, but in bringing the hope, love and strength of reconciliation and togetherness inherent in the Gospel’.
High school and university students experience European dialogue, institutions and spirituality
Among the audience – and among the speakers – a strong youth component stands out: 20 from the Spojená škola Svätá rodina high school in Bratislava. They study active citizenship and European law. They are in Brussels with their professors, for an experience that may mark their professional and life path. Among them, Maria Kovaleva: ‘I come from Russia and for me Europe means being able to be here, regardless of where I come from or the political situation in my country or in Slovakia, and to speak freely – right here, in the heart of Europe. For me, Europe has always been a place where it doesn’t matter what religion or nationality you have. Everyone has the right to speak, and to speak without censorship. This is the kind of Europe that Robert Schuman dreamed of’.
Peter, 16, says he is genuinely amazed, finding himself for the first time in an institutional location where important decisions are made. He is the student representative and what he experienced in Brussels is for him an inspiration for the future, in which through management or engagement in politics he can play a leadership role.
Samuel is 17 years old. He calls these days ‘an extraordinary experience to find out more about the rest of Europe, how politics works, how Parliament works; I think I can speak for the whole class: it was extraordinary!’.
Another student representation came from Italy. They are 10 students of political science and international relations from LUMSA, in Rome. Daniele, a first year political science student, is particularly impressed by the moment in the afternoon: the ecumenical prayer in the ‘Chapel for Europe’. ‘I like Chiara Lubich’s work, building bridges to bring everyone together, and you could see the commitment in everyone present. It is not a meeting between dreamers, but a concrete search that leads to something solid’. For Diego, it is a moment in which memory is renewed and leads to continuity. He is inspired by the globality that one breathes in Brussels, ‘a starting point for future developments’ and particularly appreciated the interventions of the MEPs.
Photo: H. Brehm / K. Brand / M. Bacher
The appeal of MEPs to young people and Movements
Present in the morning were Antonella Sberna (European Conservatives and Reformists), Vice-President of the European Parliament and responsible for the implementation of Article 17 TFEU, Leoluca Orlando and Cristina Guarda (Greens). ‘You are the example of what the EU can do for our peoples and civilisations,’ says the vice-president, addressing Together for Europe. And she invited the young people present to ‘be critical, but passionate’, to ‘study Europe well’, to be ‘together in the service of correcting what we do not like and guaranteeing peace within our borders, as an example of the union of peoples while respecting sovereignty’.
Leoluca Orlando invites to ‘grasp the project of the future that lay in Schumann’s action, cultivating a restless memory’ and recalls the principle of fraternity, which overcomes the historical polarisation between right and left on freedom and equality. And as an example of fraternity he reports ‘the prophetic experience of unity between Catholics and Lutherans, thanks to Chiara Lubich’s intuition, in Ottmaring, Bavaria, a place in the heart of the Thirty Years’ War’.
For Cristina Guarda, peace is the key word: ‘As Christian Movements I ask you to be part of this discussion, and to demand our consistency in the search for peace. And therefore make right choices and vote correctly, to respect peace’.
Accompanying Europe to realise its vocation
And it is precisely to a project of peace that Schuman’s Declaration aspires: Jeff Fountain, of the Schuman Centre, offers an interpretation of the spiritual foundations of the Declaration, of his ‘courageous three-minute speech’: ‘his project was not just political or economic. Read at a deeper level, the Schuman Declaration reveals that the project is deeply moral, spiritual, rooted in the values of the heart’. ‘The institutions he helped inspire – however imperfect – are a defence against a return to the politics of domination and exclusion, of fear and hatred’.
But who should give Europe a soul?Alberto Lo Presti invites us to reflect. ‘We should not expect such a soul to be produced by European political institutions and passed on to its citizens. I would not want to live in a society in which the institution inculcates a worldview in my brain. This is usually done by the totalitarian political organisations that we have also known well here in Europe: for example, Nazi-fascism and communism. The soul of the European Union will be seen when that soul is visible in the daily choices of its citizens. As Together for Europe we want to accompany Europe to the realisation of its vocation’.
