90 bishops, friends of the Focolare, pray for the Pope
A solemn Eucharistic concelebration to pray for the Pope’s complete recovery was said by 90 bishops coming from 47 different countries, gathered at Castelgandolfo for their annual meeting. The news of the Pope’s unexpected additional confinement reached them just before the conclusion of their meeting which began on February 19. Before leaving for their respective dioceses, they sent the Pope a message of gratitude, assuring him of their prayers for his prompt recovery: “United with the whole Church, we ask for extraordinary graces for you.” The bishops expressed their deep gratitude to the Pope “for your luminous example of faith and love in facing this new trial and for your ministry which is wholly a gift!” Indeed, the outstanding characteristic of those days was the exchange of messages with the Pope. An unexpected letter from the Pope, addressed to Cardinal Miloslav Vlk, arrived right before the Congress started. In reply, the bishops wrote: “Holy Father, truly you are the one who ‘loves most’ and ‘confirms his brothers’.”
John Paul II in his message made special mention of Chiara Lubich, expressing his “gratitude for the evangelical witness which the Movement gives in many parts of the world.” With reference to the theme of the meeting he encouraged the bishops “to give witness in today’s society to the presence of the Risen Christ, the center of the Church” and “vital principle” which cannot but give rise to a “renewed apostolic vitality” and “missionary audacity” responsive to the challenges of our times. He therefore invited the participants to be “eloquent signs” of the love of the crucified and risen Lord, present in the Eucharist and “artifices of his peace everywhere.”
Chiara Lubich, in her message read by Natalia Dallapiccola, one of her first companions, underscored that “The Risen Jesus is not a static presence;” but he is a “‘unifying principle,’ and is therefore active: love.” She went on to say, “This, however, requires the response of the human being.” “Every division in the community … alters the profound identity of the Church… This is why, at times, the Church is not loved.” “It is reciprocity, communion, which renders the Lord ‘visible’.” A number of bishops from different countries shared moving experiences of fruitful initiatives in the area of evangelization, of establishing peace between different ethnic groups and among politicians in nations suffering from conflict, such as Burundi, or in regions of Central America. There were also experiences of bishops, priests and lay people on “renewed apostolic vitality,” fruit of the presence of the Risen Jesus, in ecumenical and interreligious dialogue as well as in political and social fields.
Solemn concelebration for the Pope
Surprise and trepidation was the reaction of the Bishops, friends of the Focolare Movement, at the news of the Pope’s additional confinement in the hospital. They received the news just before the conclusion of their meeting held from Feb. 19-25, 2005 at the Mariapolis Center of Castelgandolfo (Rome). Before leaving for their respective dioceses, they sent the Pope this message: “Dearest Holy Father, before leaving Castelgandolfo, we are sending you our warmest greetings together with our heartfelt wishes for your prompt recovery. United with the whole Church in unceasing prayer, together with Mary Most Holy, we ask for extraordinary graces and comfort from the Holy Spirit, the Consoler, for you. Thank you, Holy Father, for your luminous example of faith and love in facing this new trial. Thank you for your ministry which is wholly a gift!” Indeed, the outstanding characteristic of those days was the exchange of messages with the Pope. A letter from the Pope to Cardinal Miloslav Vlk, promoter of the meeting – a completely unexpected gift during these days of the Pope’s infirmity – gave a powerful and incisive tone to the days together. In reply, the bishops wrote: “Holy Father, truly you are the one who ‘loves most’ and ‘confirms his brothers’.” John Paul II in his message made special mention of Chiara Lubich, expressing his “gratitude for the evangelical witness which the Movement gives in many parts of the world.” With reference to the theme of the meeting – “The presence of the Risen Jesus in the midst of his people: a vital principle for the Church of the 3rd millenium” – the Pope encouraged the bishops “to give witness in today’s society to the presence of the Risen Christ, the center of the Church.” He also said that a “renewed apostolic vitality and missionary audacity,” responsive to the challenges of our times cannot but spring forth from a gathering based on this “vital principle.” He therefore invited the participants to be “eloquent signs” of the love of the crucified and risen Lord, present in the Eucharist, and “artifices of his peace everywhere.” The presentations offered throughout those days marked by the warmth of brotherhood among all, reiterated the Pope’s appeal, as they presented the numerous sufferings of humanity: wars, hunger, sickness, precarious political and economic situations. At the same time, they transmitted an even greater faith in God’s intervention, inspiring firm and enlightened action. For example, Bishop Simon Ntamwana of Burundi spoke of the efforts done by his country’s episcopate to create a culture of peace and reconciliation after these difficult recent years. A bishop from Central America related how, strengthened by the experience he had made in last year’s meeting, to his surprise, he was able to act as a peacemaker among politicians. Bishop Desiderius Rwoma of Tanzania spoke of the spreading of the spreading of the Gospel as a result of constituting small spiritually formed Christian communities which are now attracting even a large number of non-Christians. Chiara Lubich, in her message read by Natalia Dallapiccola, one of her first companions, dealt in depth on Jesus’ promise to be present there “where two or more are united” in his name (see Mt 18,20). She underlined that “The Risen Jesus is not a static presence; rather he is a ‘unifying principle,’ and is therefore active: love.” She went on to say, “This, however, requires the response of the human being.” “Every division in the community, therefore, is against nature,” rather, “it creates an alteration in the profound identity of the community, which is Christ present there… This is why, at times, the Church is not loved.” It is, therefore, necessary to lead the believers’ interrelationships ever more closely towards “reciprocity, towards communion, which renders the Lord ‘visible’.” Conscious of the current world situation, the bishops manifested a deep sensitivity to these concepts, which were elaborated on in the succeeding days through a series of cultural reflections. These were offered by philosopher, Giuseppe Maria Zanghì, who spoke on the turnabout of this epoch and on the developments of academic dialogue with the Hindus and the Buddhists; by Hubertus Blaumeiser and Brendan Leahy – two theologians – who dealt on how the comprehension of the presence of the Risen Jesus and giving him the central place can affect various aspects of the life of the Church; Brazilian sociologist, Vera Araujo, who spoke on the human person in the context of a global society. These reflections were reinforced by the experiences shared by bishops, priests and lay people on the “renewed apostolic vitality” that comes from the presence of the Risen Jesus. The ecumenical aspect was presented through experiences on the dialogue of life, offered by bishops of different Churches. They also spoke of the growth in communion among movements and communities, made manifest in the great meeting at Stuttgart last May, entitled “Together for Europe”. Evangelical Pastor Friedrich Ashoff elaborated on this meeting. The political dimension was illustrated by Lucia Crepaz, president of the “Political Movement for Unity”. Tracing the ten-year experience of this Movement, she explained the characteristics of a political action that aims at being service to society, whose method is dialogue, and is therefore able to create “a network made up of different elements.” The planned “Familyfest” of April 16, 2005, announced by Annamaria and Danilo Zanzucchi, directors of the New Families Movement of the Focolare, drew the special interest of the bishops. At a time when the family as an institution is undergoing a serious crisis, the event hopes to put into light the family according to God’s plan in the context of today’s challenges. A large number of bishops expressed their desire to cooperate in making the Familyfest a reality in their respective countries. There are in fact 120 spots all over the world, which will be linked with Rome on live by television. “Here I experienced the freshness of the Gospel,” remarked Bishop Jean Ntagwarara from Burundi, one of the 20 bishops from Africa present. Expressing the conviction shared by many of his co-bishops, he said: “The spirituality put into practice is the remedy that can heal the many wounds of our people.” Bishop Giovanni Dettori from Sardinia (Italy), had this to say: “Unity gives me strength: one can feel that we are all one heart and one soul.” The most frequent observation of the participants was, in fact, that of having experienced “the living Jesus” throughout the time together, Jesus who today continues to touch the hearts of people and to move minds and arms to act in accordance with his Gospel and to express the gift of his love among people. In the context of this year dedicated to the Eucharist, particularly meaningful was the concelebration presided over by Bishops grouped according to different continents, who used elements typical of their respective cultures.
The therapeutic community of Mario Giostra
For almost twenty years I have been working as a social worker in the area of drug addiction. At the moment I am working with clients with double diagnoses and I am also collaborating on a research project to establish criteria for the empirical revision of results for therapeutic communities. My involvement in this profession happened almost by chance, since I had been majoring in mathematics. The fact is that I was working as a volunteer, and tried to apply in a very simple way some of the intuitions that Chiara Lubich had on the way to love one’s neighbor. In doing so, I was able to establish a profound relationship with these young people and I was amazed to experience that their therapeutic and educational development was enriched by this approach. A few years ago, the results produced by this approach were beginning to merit attention and I gradually became convinced that this was not just an isolated experience of my own. Rather there had to be a precise relationship of cause and effect that brought about those results. I had the impression that I had hit on something new which would have significant potential in this field. Therefore, I felt the need to study what was happening and try to express it in a theory, in a model with a certain structure, and then to formulate appropriate strategies of intervention. Over these years I have reflected a lot on these ideas, but perhaps the sociological concept that has been most useful in this research is that of empathy. The sociologist Achille Ardigo’, for example, describes empathy as the capacity of a person who intentionally puts himself in front of another human being with the purpose of creating a relationship, a rapport. Therefore, this person has to become deeply aware of what the other person is living, not comparing it on his or her own experience and not reducing it to one’s own frame of reference, but rather recognizing it from the other’s point of view. Empathy, therefore, is not seen as a mental act, but rather as an experience through which a social being goes beyond his or her own daily experience and opens up to other experiences, including the relationship with other people. Carl Rogers is the person who has contributed the most to the understanding of this term. He describes empathy as “the capacity of living the life of the other person at the moment.” In 1959 he states that this means “to perceive the inner frame of reference of the other person with accuracy, and with the emotional components and meanings which pertain thereto, as if one were the other person.” It’s almost impossible not to see the evident similarities between empathy, as described here, and what Chiara Lubich expresses in her spiritual expression, “make yourself one,” which is a fundamental idea in the relationship of reciprocity that she has understood. It is an expression that is already present in several authors, especially those of the school of phenomenology and yet, in this context, it is enriched by new significance. Among the many talks in which Chiara Lubich explains this concept and the technique for living it effectively, I have chosen a few quotes: “To love the other person ‘as yourself.’ The other person is me. And so I love the other as myself. The other is hungry, I am hungry. The other is thirsty, I am the one who is thirsty. The other needs advice, I am the one that needs advice.” Another quote: “You need to stop and feel with your neighbor: to become one with him or her until you take on their painful burden or experience together the joyful event… This making yourself one demands a continual death of ourselves.” And another: “To make yourself one with every person that we meet: to share their feelings, to carry their burdens; to feel in us his or her problems and resolve them as if it were our own, made one out of love…” “To make yourself one it’s necessary to be totally detached from yourself, for the whole time you are with the other. In fact, we know that there are those who don’t listen right to the end, because they are attached to themselves or to something else. This person does not die totally in the neighbor and instead wants to give answers as soon as they come into their head… In this way, it is easier to explain what Carl Rogers and his school of thought call the “techniques of empathic understanding,” which to date are still very widely used in counseling and applied by many social workers. It would take a great deal of time to describe them adequately, and so I will only underline some of the essential characteristics. Empathic understanding is based on three fundamental suppositions, which are empathy, congruence (the therapist is congruent in the relationship) and positive regard toward the other. These assumptions are not only very present, but even indispensable for whoever wants to make themselves one with another person. The approach of Rogers also considers a whole range of nonverbal attitudes that serve to put the other person at ease, to make him or her feel relaxed, to make them “feel important.” These gestures include one’s posture, one’s facial expressions, and even the interior silence that makes room for the other. These nonverbal expressions, as we said, are indispensable, and are especially evident in someone who is “making themselves one” with another. We could go on at length about this…. However, we need to emphasize a fundamental and profound difference [between Rogers and Lubich] and that is the need for the “death of one’s ego” which Chiara repeats every time, describing it as a necessary, obligatory passage. In this way she develops a vision that we can call “other-centered,” a vision for which it is not enough to merely put oneself in the shoes of the other, but requires instead a revolutionary operation of self-annulment. I believe that this is the first time that the relationship with the other is based on removing one’s ego from the first and primary place. Many modern approaches to social work insist on the idea of reciprocity, which can run the risk of being a bit inflated. However, I dare say that none of them come close to the purity and profundity of Chiara’s concept of reciprocity. However, in my opinion, we cannot fall into the error of considering these reflections solely from the speculative point of view, since these ideas can be applied in numerous ways in daily life, and even more so, therefore, in the professional activity of a social worker. In my case, for example, these ideas made me change totally my way of carrying out an interview with a client, helping me to develop techniques that are very effective and easy to apply. I experienced many times that the very act of removing my ego, as we just described, allows the individual in front of me to give of him or herself, because they find an emptiness in a person who is open to them, an emptiness waiting to be filled. In this way, the person who needs help loses, so to say, the feeling of being in an inferior position, with respect to the person who is helping them. He or she feels they are the protagonist of their life, and this can help them set aside their reticence and defense mechanisms and open themselves spontaneously and with greater depth. Very often, when people who are defensive and closed in on themselves meet with someone who is empty out of love, they seem to “melt” and manage to open up. I think it’s important to add that this process does not in any way diminish the role of the therapist as someone who supports the other, but actually, through this type of communicating that is so effective, the role is reinforced, since annulling one’s ego out of love is not a way to disappear, but rather a deep expression of “being.” Besides, I have experienced that it’s possible to draw a relationship between these methods, or to use a term that’s not quite exact, to “fuse” this new approach that we are describing with theories or techniques that already exist, and thus reach very interesting results with great value for the sociologist and the therapist. In this case, we cannot speak of one way being superior to the other, but rather of a fusion of two paradigms that gives rise to a “third way” so to speak, which includes both, enriching both with new beauty and new meaning… In our case, for example, “making yourself one” can enrich and facilitate the application of the techniques of empathic listening, which on the other hand, can offer very effective instruments to the act of “making yourself one.” Another aspect to be underlined, one at the basis of all we’ve said, is that these techniques and approaches, which before were the exclusive patrimony of a few experts can now be transformed, with due caution, into effective instruments in the hands of many. To explain myself better, I’ll tell you something that happened to me a couple of months ago. It had to do with the grandson of one of my friends, who had lost his father at an early age and had started to show signs of being a troubled child. He had left school, seemed totally indifferent to his future, was completely closed in on himself and was demonstrating the first symptoms of the use of “light” drugs. When the mother’s relatives, worried about how quickly the situation was deteriorating, tried to open her eyes to what was happening, the woman, as often happens in these cases, reacted violently against them, rejecting what they said. She accused them of passing false judgment on a situation they didn’t understand and of ordering her around. She insisted that the boy was just going through a normal crisis of adolescence and didn’t need anyone’s help. She accused them of being spiteful, devious, etc. More or less this is the picture I got of the situation. It seemed obvious that any intervention on my part or of any other social worker would run the risk of an even bigger explosion. What could I do at this point? My experience led me to think that probably the best way to reassure the woman would be to use the method that is often used in these cases, which would be to express one’s point of view not through an objective truth, which could sound like an accusation, (using phrases like “you son has a problem”), but rather from a very personal point of view (through expressions that are undoubtedly true but are subjective, like “you know, I’m worried and this worry is making me sick”). Having said this, I would still need to explain this technique to a person who normally doesn’t engage in this kind of counseling. And therefore, I thought it could be important to start by advising him about how to “make himself one” with his sister, and in this I was helped by the fact that he already knew what I was talking about when I said “make yourself one.” In doing so, he could say he was sorry for what had happened, have his heart open to receive her pain, and listen to her right to the end, without giving any advice. Only after doing all this could he eventually bring up the problem of the son, but presenting it as something that worried him, and not as an objective situation. Here, too, the fundamental passage had to be the act of “stripping oneself” of one’s ego so as to lose completely any attitude of a “wise and brave person” in order to present himself to her with great humility and give her the possibility of expressing herself freely. The result was amazing, because in front of this unexpected attitude of interior emptiness, his sister felt the impulse to fill this void with her own love and as a consequence she opened up, pouring out all her worries and her desperation as a mother, seeing the situation of her son slipping out of her control. I think that in this case what happened is exactly that dynamic that I spoke of a moment ago. The empathic approach was understood and effectively applied because the person who used it started off with the attitude of “making himself one.” At the same time, however, the person who wanted to make himself one right to the end was able to due so in the best way by applying intelligently the technique that was explained to him. The result was a new technique, which included the strengths of both approaches, and resolved the problem. One important element to emphasize is that this was the experience of a person who had no previous experience in helping other people in this kind of relationship. However, since he was an “expert” so to say, in the art of “making himself one” with others he was able to use this spiritual resource, and also (and in this case, above all) his educational background that helped him to understand a methodology which he was not familiar with, successfully applying it and creating a rapport of reciprocity, based on empathy. Encouraged by the first results, I decided to keep going along this way. The next step was to form groups, which would urge the participants to aim at an experience of sharing and mutual help, based on the success of what I just described. This project began with young people who have often lived for years in a state of total isolation, closed in on themselves, filtering every relationship with others through those forms of self -gratification that are typical of drug addiction. The literature and the various experiences that already exist in this area came to my help, furnishing me with particularly valid instruments. I am referring in particular to several groups that utilize interactive games proposed by the school of bio-energetics, and other groups that use the approach of Rogers, or those who follow what is commonly known as the socio-emotive approach. My idea was basically very simple: to choose several of these instruments and put them together in a socio-therapeutic course to propose to the youth I was following. However, the fundamental idea would be that of sharing, based on that particular interpersonal relationship of the empathic type we just described. Here, too, several of the ideas of Chiara Lubich helped me to enrich these methodologies with new content. I am referring in particular to some “passages” that she advises and that are particularly effective to help small groups of individuals who want to bring ahead a way of sharing and growth, towards a reciprocal relationship of brotherly love. The first phase of this course was to make a “pact,” which can be described as a “pact of solidarity and mutual aid.” This requires a fundamental passage, which has the purpose of helping the individuals who are involved in the process to cement interpersonal relationships with one another and to remove any egocentric attitudes, in order to be actively interested in the others. In this phase, which might take more than one meeting, it might be opportune to insert moments in which there is the use of classic instruments, such as sociograms or other interrelational activities, which are adapted and formulated into interactive games that help the participants get to know one another better and enter into more profound relationships. Enriched by the spirit of reciprocity and mutual sharing, these activities acquire new life and new significance. To give an example, one idea that might appear very simplistic but which, however, has very interesting results is a “game” in which each one draws the name of someone else in the group and during the week tries to give special attention to this person, getting to know them better, being close to them and sustaining them in moments of difficulty… In this way, each one is transformed into a “tutor” so to say, a supervisor of the life of the other (or as a child would say, to be the “guardian angel” of the person). He or she is urged to go outside of his or her own world to leave space to the other. Besides, the name of the person is kept secret and so that contributes to creating a stimulating atmosphere of curiosity. It would be too long to describe in detail all the results obtained, but the amazement and enthusiasm often demonstrated by the participants, not to mention the way in which they managed to concretely help one another, to my mind merits great attention. One aspect to underline is that, no matter what techniques we decide to use, if the “pact” we talked about happens to become “shaky,” or for any other reason the will to help one another diminishes, these groups, and also subsequent meetings, will be almost totally emptied of significance and lose all its effectiveness. Proceeding in this way, it was then possible to structure other meetings, based on a very intense exchange of feelings and experiences of life. Here, too, the goal is to help these young people emerge from the prison made up of their egocentric attitudes and to urge them to share their interior world with others. This can be done in a variety of ways, on the condition that the exchange of experiences is not an end in itself, but rather a mutual gift between those who speak and those who listen. Here, too, I will limit myself to just one example. It is a technique that, among the many, has proven to be very effective. It consists in asking each member of the group to give as a gift to the others a “postcard on his or her life,” recounting an event that was emotionally significant. This creates an atmosphere of empathy that allows the others to re-live that experience together with the person. Normally these groups deal with strongly emotional topics. Sometimes, however, it can happen that the empathic atmosphere does not “take off.” In these cases, when we asked why, it was almost always because of unresolved conflicts among the youth themselves. This is just another confirmation of the therapeutic importance of having everyone in the group adhere fully and sincerely to the “pact” mentioned before… Finally, in the moment in which, through this process, the relationship among the people involved has matured sufficiently, it was possible to take a further step ahead, using more demanding techniques. I am referring in particular to a new type of group meeting in which the participants, urged by the will to help one another (which is obligatory), choose a person and under the guidance of a moderator, tell that person with respect, but very clearly, which are the person’s defects and those areas that need to be improved for the person to grow and progress, and then which are his or her good qualities and strong points. It is a moment (which we could call a “moment of truth”) to be done with great attention and care, since it is so delicate and because of the possible fragility of the people involved. Similar methodologies are present, with some differences, in various classical approaches, but what makes it different in this case, is exactly this effort to go out of oneself to concentrate on the characteristics and the problems of the other. I have to admit that I am often moved by the results of these groups. I could never have imagined developments of this type. These youth, who are hardened and corrupted by life circumstances, distrustful of others and reluctant to establish relationships with others, began to soften, creating this empathic atmosphere, which is so difficult to describe. The amazement and enthusiasm they showed facilitated communication with me and among themselves, in a way I have never experienced before, and was too obvious to be merely a random happening. I repeated this process various times, with different types of participants to be sure that the results do not depend on a particular component of persons, and yet the results were more or less identical. It’s clear that an experience repeated so many times with the same results cannot be the fruit of accidental circumstances. We are certainly considering a topic that needs further development, since we are dealing with instruments in the embryonic state. However, in my opinion, these first timid results show forcefully the effectiveness, and the revolutionary aspect, of the socio-cultural patrimony that comes from the experience of universal brotherhood proposed by Chiara Lubich.