Jesús Morán’s new book: ‘Dynamic Fidelity’
An interview with the author on his latest literary work – a book designed to give hope, to keep faith in the charism of unity. Some questions to the co-president of the Focolare Movement on his latest book, published by Citta Nuova, entitled ‘Dynamic Fidelity’. Jesús, let’s start with the title ‘Dynamic Fidelity’. I wanted to use the expression that Pope Francis used when he addressed participants at the Focolare Assembly in 2021. There he spoke of dynamic fidelity. In my opinion it is a very close thought to the concept of creative fidelity, with the advantage that ‘dynamic’ refers to the Greek concept dynamis, which means ‘force of movement’. Therefore, dynamic fidelity is fidelity in motion, which is not static, and this is very dear to Pope Francis. When he spoke to us on other occasions he emphasised that movements must be precisely ‘movement’. So it seemed to me that this title was closer to the reality that we are living today…. The book is divided into chapters. The first is ‘Taking the pulse of the times’. What perspectives does Chiara Lubich’s charism of unity have for today? How can we update the identity and history of the charism? 
It seems to me that Chiara Lubich’s charism of unity is always topical. Regarding synodality, Pope Francis is insisting that we rediscover how we are the people of God on a journey, where we all play a lead role. Synod means ‘walking together’. He wants a Church where everyone gives their best as an integral part of the people of God, the body of Christ. Here, I think Chiara Lubich’s charism of unity can bring a lot in this sense, with her spirituality of communion, the spirituality of unity. On the other hand, today there are so many conflicts, wars, massive polarisation everywhere – in the political, moral, social spheres – and perhaps like never before we are witnessing almost irreconcilable contrasts. I believe that here too the charism of unity can contribute a great deal with the dialogue it weaves. So today the charism of unity must be modernised, rediscover its true identity, going back to the essentials, to the founding core of the charism. This modernisation requires implementing two moments, not in a chronological sense, but in a profound sense. On the one hand is listening to the signs of the times, the questions of the world, of contemporary society. On the other, going deep, fishing out all those resources that the charism has, some of which have not even been expressed. I really like this concept of expressing the unexpressed that is within us. This is how identity is updated in a dynamic fidelity. Together with the process of purifying our memory that we are going through in this post-foundational phase, I think we are ready to take this step. Modernising a charism is achieved with everyone’s contribution and a change of mentality and mindset. Besides invoking the help of the Holy Spirit, what can we do to implement this? Without a doubt, the help of the Holy Spirit is fundamental because we are in the context of a work of God. But to modernise the charism requires intelligence – not in the academic sense, but more in the sense of wisdom. It takes talent and skill to listen to the cry of humanity. What is said in the document of the General Assembly of 2021 is important: today the demands of humanity that we must listen to are the cries of Jesus Forsaken. So in addition to the Holy Spirit, we need the intelligence of the charism and the wisdom that comes from life. This is not a desk exercise, an academic exercise. One can grasp the cry of the forsaken Jesus when one is in contact with the suffering of our contemporaries. What is the ‘theology of the ideal of unity’? Why is it important for fidelity to the charism? Chiara Lubich herself said that theology would be important for the future of the Focolare Movement and the charism. This means deepening the charism of unity in the light of revelation, from where it sprang, and of theological research. It is an exercise in the intelligence of the charism that is fundamental, otherwise it is not incarnated and above all it is not universalised. Without a theology of the ideal, the charism remains within the Movement. With a theology of the ideal of unity, the charism can also go outside, as well as finding a solid foundation. The theology of the Ideal of unity helps to understand it well so that it can be passed on to future generations. Life and witness always go first, but this work is also decisive. The theology of the ideal of unity prevents possible deviations. The original kerygma, encapsulated in the Gospels, needed the arduous work of the Church Fathers, great theologians, to be saved in its integrity. Doesn’t modernisation risk causing the charism to lose its identity? Quite the contrary. It is precisely not modernising that makes the charism lose its identity, because the identity of a charism is always dynamic and creative. It is always about being the same without ever being the same. This is what I have tried to express. Being static makes a charism lose its identity because it makes it lose its connection with reality. For me this is very clear: constant updating is needed for the charism to maintain its identity. And Chiara did this throughout her life. The second chapter, ‘The house of self-knowledge’, takes its cue from a letter by Catherine of Siena. Here we discover our limitations, failures, self-consciousness, the face of Jesus Forsaken. What can we do to pass the ‘test of self-knowledge’? The second chapter is fundamental in this phase we are living through, in which we have had to come to terms with our faults, our errors in incarnating the charism. What can we do to pass the test? We must live it to the full, because it is a matter of recognising that we are not up to the charism. None of us are up to the charism. This does not give rise to a sense of dismay, but rather a new trust in God, in the Holy Spirit, the author of the charism. So the test of self-knowledge is overcome by accepting the humiliation of not being up to it and placing all our trust in God. The third chapter is ‘Discernment in the light of the charism of unity’. The pope asks us to become artisans of community discernment. How should we proceed? And above all, is Chiara Lubich’s charism of unity a charism in discernment? For Pope Francis, discernment and synodality go hand in hand, both individual and communal. It is a very delicate process, because it requires intelligence, but above all listening to the Holy Spirit. Discernment asks everything of us and everything of God. And this is not simple; it is not an exercise in consensus. It is going deep in seeking God’s will at all times. I believe that the typical dynamism of the charism of unity, which we call Jesus in the midst, that is to merit the presence of Jesus among us, is an exercise in discernment. Chiara Lubich explained it quite well: to merit this presence it takes complete detachment from ourselves, listening to the Holy Spirit. It takes mutual love. Chiara herself developed the idea of trinitarian relationships, which transform community discernment into ‘trinitarian discernment’. When we aim to have Jesus in our midst, we have a trinitarian experience, with all the weaknesses, the frailties of our humanity, physicality, psychology. But we do it, and that is where discernment happens. We can read this practice of trinitarian relationships in the light of Pope Francis’ great idea of discernment and synodality. In the book you talk about two deviations: ‘the seizure of the One’ and ‘the dissolution of the One’. What are they and how can we avoid them? These temptations are really two deviations from the spirituality of unity. In the first it happens that someone takes over the mission of the community and even the mission of each person. There is someone who centralises everything, who without realising it takes the place of the Holy Spirit in the dynamic of unity. In this case the ‘we’ is seized, which is necessary for each one to flourish and make their contribution. This is where abuses of authority, abuses of conscience, and spiritual abuses occur, and it is therefore a strong risk. In the dissolution of the One the opposite happens; the spirit of communion is lost. An exaggerated individualism prevails. If someone takes over the ‘we’ beforehand, it disappears and everyone’s individualism takes over. Community life becomes an organisation where everyone seeks their own space, their own personal fulfilment. Here too the Holy Spirit, who is the dynamism of Christian life, disappears. How to avoid these? We need a moment of self-awareness: understand the mistakes made. At the same time, we need to return to living the Gospel and an authentic life of unity. Above all, I think with humility, the ability to decentralise, love for each other, and continually thinking that the person is an absolute that cannot be annulled in any way. So I think the solution is more love, truth, transparency and concrete giving of ourselves in the life of unity, the life of communion. Unity is a gift of the spirit – no one can seize it with their power or dissolve it with their individualism. Unity is an experience of God that takes all of us. Let us realise this. Finally, what can we do to ensure that all these topics in the book do not remain the best of intentions? I think it would be useful to talk about it in the community, have moments when we read certain passages, retreats, and examine our lives in the light of these suggestions. The book is meant to give hope, to keep faith intact in the charism of unity, and if it has been lost, to recover it. I hope that by sharing experiences we can restore authentic life there where it no longer exists, because in so many places life flourishes, it generates, and there are so many beautiful things.
Lorenzo Russo
In his initial greeting to the participants, Card. Mario Grech, Secretary General of the Synod, highlighted how the synodal journey is entering a new phase: it is called to become a generative dynamic and not simply one of many events. We cannot listen to the Holy Spirit without listening to the holy people of God in that “reciprocity” that constitutes it as the “Body of Christ”. In this communal bond, the particular methodology of conversation in the Spirit, well described on the occasion of the presentation of the Instrumentum laboris, takes shape. Hence the need, referred to several times by Card. Grech, to better articulate the principle of restitution. In other words, this means that the unity of the synodal process is guaranteed by the fact that it returns to where it started, to the local Churches, and this is an important moment of the “recognition” of what has matured in listening to what the Spirit is saying to the Church today. The synodal journey seems to stand, therefore, as a significant moment in ecclesial life, capable of stimulating and activating the creative impetus and evangelical proclamation that comes from the rediscovery of the relationship with God that innervates the relationship between believers, and also as a sign for a cultural context in which it houses a silent cry of fraternity in the search for the common good. If in Prof. Severino Dianich’s report “The problems of synodality between ecclesiology and canon law” the recovery of the Pauline ecclesiology of the being-body of Christ and the enhancement of the dynamic co-essentiality of hierarchical and charismatic gifts emerged, for Prof. Alphonse Borras, this turning point requires a canonical clarification, which outlines a flexible procedural practice, capable of accompanying decision-making and participation processes through the various bodies already envisaged (episcopal council, presbytery, diocesan and parish pastoral programmes …). Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, former president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, seemed to agree with this line in his speech, “Ecclesial Synodality: is a rapid transition from the consultative to the deliberative conceivable?”. In his opinion it is possible to find in canon law a clear definition of synodality, understood as “communion of clergy and faithful in carrying out the activity of recognizing what is the good of the Church and in the ability to decide how to implement such an identified good”. At the end of the seminar, many participants expressed the wish to see the speeches of the seminar published. The CEG is working to do this by September as a further contribution to the upcoming Synod. 
The Seelisberg Prize is awarded annually (since 2022) by the International Council of Christians and Jews (ICCJ) which originated from the Seelisberg conference, and the Centre for Intercultural Theology and Religions at the University of Salzburg. It honours individuals who have played important roles through their scholarship and teaching in promoting rapprochement between Jews and Christians. Prof. Dr. Joseph Sievers (Seelisberg Prize 2023) was born and raised in Germany and began his studies at the University of Vienna and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He holds a PhD in Ancient History from Columbia University (1981) and a Lic. Theol. from the Pontifical Gregorian University (1997). He has taught at CUNY, Seton Hall Univ., Fordham Univ. and other institutions in the US, Italy and Israel. From 1991 until 2023, he taught Jewish history and literature of the Hellenistic period at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, where he was a full professor. In addition, from 2003 to 2009 he was Director of the Cardinal Bea Centre for Jewish Studies at the Pontifical Gregorian University. Since 1965 he has been a member of the Focolare Movement, with whose Centre for Interreligious Dialogue he has collaborated since 1996. He has published several books and numerous articles, primarily in the areas of Second Temple history (in particular Flavius Josephus) and Christian-Jewish relations. With Amy-Jill Levine, he edited The Pharisees (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2021; Italian translation Milan, San Paolo, 2021; German translation planned for 2024). Professor Sievers, what does it mean to you to receive this award? It was a great surprise and when I was asked to say something about my experience, I felt a great gratitude looking back, thinking about all the moments, all the people I met, the situations in which I was able to be there and sometimes be of help. A great gratitude and, at the same time, a responsibility for the present and the future. In his speech at the award ceremony you said: “Difficulties can help us understand one another better. Difficulties can unite us”. In your long experience of this dialogue, what have been the most difficult and also the most surprising moments where you were still able to say “Anything’s possible”? 
There have been various difficult moments, but one that I particularly remember is when we had to organise a meeting for dialogue in Jerusalem in 2009. It took place a few weeks after a conflict which had left many people dead or wounded. At the same time there was the situation of Bishop (Richard Nelson) Williamson denying the holocaust. There were difficulties on all sides that made open dialogue very difficult. However, we still managed to hold the meeting. We went ahead and they were very strong, spiritual moments of communion, beyond all the problems. And then you also ask me the things that were possible, despite the difficulties? It certainly was not easy to organise a conference on the Pharisees and then publish a book. There were several points where I felt the way was barred, either for financial reasons or because someone did not agree with what we wanted to do, or because it seemed impossible to have an audience with the Pope, for a conference of this type… Instead, by collaborating – and it really was a collaboration, especially with a Jewish colleague, but also with others – it was possible to solve these problems and give something that was based on serious studies but also addressed to concrete situations in churches and parishes. Certainly there was success that did not have an immediate effect everywhere, but for example one bishop wrote to me saying “now we need to change all our teaching on the Pharisees and Judaism in the seminaries”. That is already something. How has your membership of the Focolare Movement affected this experience? Without the Focolare Movement I probably would not have entered this field. The Movement gave me the impetus to study the languages of the Bible and everything else followed from that. I entered the focolare on 28 October 1965. It was a Thursday. I arrived in the focolare in Cologne (Germany) with my bicycle that I’d brought by train with my two suitcases on the same evening that the Council in Rome was approving Nostra Aetate (Declaration on the Relations of the Church with Non-Christian Religions). This has always meant a lot to me, linking commitment to the Movement with commitment to dialogue. You were also called to officially collaborate in the Catholic Church’s dialogue with the Jews… Yes. Since 2008 I have been a Consultant of the Commission for Religious Relations with Judaism, a commission of the Holy See. And I have participated in various meetings of the 
authority, which is strongly affirmed in the current legislation, and the principle of participation”. Pope Francis assures us “not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium” (Amoris Laetizia, no. 3). It is therefore crucial to listen to the sensus fidelium of the entire People of God (clergy and faithful) with all its variety of cultures. In this way, the dialogue between theology and law is motivated by a sincere process of inculturation without which there is a real risk of laying the foundations for a practical non-observance of the general principles enunciated by the Church. Prof. Vincenzo Di Pilato, academic coordinator of the CEG commented, “The point is precisely this: how to make the active participation of all the faithful within our synodal assemblies effective? Will it just be advisory? Or will it also be deliberative? Will this mean reaching a negotiation for a juridical “concession” or “recognizing” the decision-making capacity of the collective subject of ecclesial action as it emerges from the ecclesiology of Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium? And therefore, will it be necessary to update the Code of Canon Law?” In his initial greeting to the participants, Card. Mario Grech, Secretary General of the Synod, highlighted how the synodal journey is entering a new phase: it is called to become a generative dynamic and not simply one of many events. We cannot listen to the Holy Spirit without listening to the holy people of God in that “reciprocity” that constitutes it as the “Body of Christ”. In this communal bond, the particular methodology of conversation in the Spirit, well described on the occasion of the presentation of 
The second flood, the one from which we had to escape, came in the evening. Around 8.30 pm, the river bank just above our house collapsed. Until that moment, since we obtained a pump for inside the house, we hadn’t gone outside convinced that we could control the flow with the pumps and keep the water level down also with the help of sandbags. But within 20 minutes the water had reached the first floor, up to 3 metres in a very short time and suddenly we found ourselves trapped. We called the rescuers who immediately responded saying that they would arrive, but in the meantime, that afternoon, the Savio River in Cesena had also flooded, so the civil protection workers and the firefighters, who until the day before were all in Faenza, were already spread out in the various areas. Moreover, in my street the current was so strong that the motor vehicles only managed to get in at 04:00 at night and we would not have been able to resist until then. The firemen told us to go to the rooftops, but we don’t have a skylight, so it meant going outside, floating. The situation was really dangerous. (In the photo, the arrow indicates the level reached by the water). At one point a cousin of my husband, who saw on social media that the river had broken through the embankment beside our house, called him and asked him if we were already out. Just from our voices he could tell that we were in danger and since he is an athlete, as a boy he was a surfer, he put on his wetsuit, took his surfboard and threw himself into the current. He swam to our house and pushing the surf board, one at a time, he loaded us on it and took us to safety, to the city walls, 500 meters from our house. What did you see outside? Immersed in the current, the whole perspective changed. The water had already surpassed the street signs, so you no longer knew if you were on the street or in the garden of a house. We passed over gates, over garages and we were so high that at one point he asked me to cling to what looked like a bush, but in reality, now that I can see it, it was a tree. I was the last one to be saved. We were welcomed into the house of a lady who knows us. We were soaking wet. She gave us clean clothes. That night was very cold, terrible conditions and it was raining. We warmed up and then we were able to go the 6 kms from the city where my mother-in-law lives. We were really lucky because we were among the first to get out. We did not experience what many told us afterwards was a night of real terror in the city. Were the children aware of the danger? Yes. I have three children aged 10, 8 and 6. At one point, the youngest kept running down the stairs because we could see the water rising step by step and he said to me: “I can only see 5 steps, 4 four steps. Let’s go to the terrace, we have to run away” and we said “we need to stay here at the window, because it’s raining outside. The police are coming.” They realized and slowly had to process what was happening, especially the oldest. We feared that in just an hour we wouldn’t make it. When we arrived at grandma’s they were calmer even though when they got there they began to realize that we had lost everything. They were saying, “Mum, we don’t have schoolbags anymore, we don’t have books, now what?” I explained to them that many would help us. And so it was. How were those first days? Where did you find shelter? 
We stayed with my mother-in-law for a few days because we couldn’t move around town. Then, later, we were welcomed by an aunt of a friend of my son who lives abroad and who lent us her house in the centre for a month. It was 10 minutes’ walk from where we lived so we were able to go to our house and start clearing it. It was a tight fit, but it really was a great gift which I realized even more later, when I started hearing other people’s stories. Volunteers also began to arrive throughout the city. Because of the Focolare Movement and my husband’s contacts, we always had help. People came from Parma, from Piacenza, from Veneto even including people who themselves have been through the earthquake in Emilia some years ago. There was a beautiful atmosphere of concrete help, and it was in this climate that, slowly, I began to throw everything away but I was really serene. Shovelling mud is an all-encompassing thing at the beginning, you try to do your best, with all your strength and then you realize that it’s not the things, the objects that make up your life, but everything else. Your husband has a restaurant… Yes. He could see from the cameras that fortunately the water didn’t get in but he wanted to see in person. One day he left at six in the morning thinking of taking the motorway but even that was closed. We came up with an idea: “let’s call the deputy mayor, and let’s tell him that if the civil protection can bring you to the restaurant, you could start cooking for everyone in need.” The idea was willingly accepted because there were already many displaced people., Luckily they had been able to bring many disabled and elderly people to a hotel which is very close to my husband’s restaurant, but which does not have working kitchens. So my husband and two employees stayed the whole day at the restaurant and made 700 meals between lunch and dinner. There were 100 displaced people and then firefighters, civil protection personnel and since the restaurant is located right on Via Emilia, an access point, many of the people who had been stuck in the street, who had slept in the car without eating, came to the restaurant asking for help. The whole area of Cesena and Forlì was paralyzed. What are you going to do now? At the moment we have left that small house that we were using. We will move into a house that we have by the sea for a while and then we have rented an apartment for 18 months while we are waiting to fix up our house. The idea is to return to it in September 2024. But there are many questions, first of all to understand if there will be companies that can renovate all these houses, because there are so many of us. We’re talking about 12,000 people who are out of their houses. There are 6,000 families in our city alone and some houses, the oldest, have been declared uninhabitable. Now the houses have to dry out. We’ve already destroyed everything. We had parquet floors which we had to remove. The false ceilings on the ground floor came down on their own when the water came in. We had help to disconnect the toilets. Now every morning we go to open the windows and in the evening we go to close them and to turn on the dehumidifier. Luckily it’s summer, if this had happened in the autumn, it would have been an even greater disaster. Is help still coming?