To the Bishops of France (1 June 1980)

On Sunday, 1 June 1980, the Holy Father addressed the Bishops of France, to whom he spoke of two contrary tendencies following the Second Vatican Council. One is “progressivism,” which seeks to go beyond even the content of the Faith, and the other is “fundamentalism,” which seems stuck in a preferred period of time.

1. Praise be to God for giving us the time to meet for a bit at length during this brief visit! I attach great importance to this meeting. For reasons of “collegiality”. We know that collegiality has a double character: it is “effective”, but it is also “affective”. And this is profoundly in keeping with her origin, which she found around Christ in the communion of the “Twelve”.
 

We are therefore experiencing an important moment in our episcopal communion, the Bishops of France around the Bishop of Rome who, this time, is their guest, whereas he has received them other times on various occasions, for example during “ad limina” visits, especially in 1977 when Paul VI took stock with you of a large number of questions, in a way that remains very valid today. We must give thanks to God that Vatican II has undertaken, confirmed and renewed the doctrine on the collegiality of the episcopate, as the living and authentic expression of the college which, through the institution of Christ, the Apostles constituted with Peter at their head. And we also give thanks to God for being able, on this road, to better accomplish our mission.: bear witness to the Gospel, and serve the Church and also the contemporary world, to which we have been sent with the whole Church.

I sincerely thank you for having invited me, for having finalized, with great care, the details of this pastoral care, for having implemented so many preparations, for having sensitized the Christian people to the meaning of my coming , for having demonstrated the eagerness and openness which are so important attitudes for our mission as pastors and doctors of the faith. I pay special homage to Cardinal Marty who receives us in the seminary of his province; to Cardinal Etchegaray, President of the Episcopal Conference, to Cardinal Renard, Primate of the Gauls, to Cardinal Gouyon and to Cardinal Guyot; but I would have to appoint each bishop, and that is not possible. I have had the honor of meeting a number of you and collaborating with them in the past: first in the Council sessions, of course, but also in the various Synods, at the Council of European Episcopal Conferences, or on other occasions, of which I have happy memories. This allows us to work on the same level together, even if I now come with a particular responsibility.

2. The mission of the Church, which is continually realized in an eschatological perspective , is at the same time fully historical . This relates to the duty to read the "signs of the times", which was so deeply taken into account by Vatican II. With great insight, the Council also defined what is the mission of the Church in the current stage of history. Our common task therefore remains the acceptance and realization of Vatican II, according to its authentic content.

In doing so, we are guided by faith: it is our main and fundamental reason for acting.

We believe that Christ, through the Holy Spirit, was with the Council Fathers, that the Council contains in its magisterium what the Spirit " says to the Church ", and that he says it at the same time in a full harmony with Tradition and according to the requirements posed by the “signs of the times”. This faith is based on the promise of Christ: “I am with you always until the end of the age”[ 1 ]; on this faith is also based our conviction that we must “ realize the Council” as it is , and not as some would like to see it and understand it.

It is not surprising that, in this “post-conciliar” stage, certain interpretations of Vatican II which do not correspond to its authentic magisterium have also developed, with quite great intensity. These are two well-known tendencies: “progressivism” and “fundamentalism”. Some are always impatient to adapt even the content of the faith, Christian ethics, the liturgy, the ecclesial organization to changes in mentalities, to the demands of the "world", without sufficiently taking into account, not only the common sense of faithful, who are confused, but of the essentials of the faith, already defined, of the roots of the Church, of her secular experience, of the norms necessary for her fidelity, her unity, her universality.

They are obsessed with “moving forward”, but towards what “progress” in the end? The others - revaluing such abuses which we are obviously the first to condemn and correct - become hardened by locking themselves into a given period of the Church, at a given stage of theological formulation or liturgical expression of which they make an absolute, without sufficiently penetrating the profound meaning, without considering the totality of history and its legitimate development, by fearing new questions, without finally admitting that the Spirit of God is at work today in the Church, with its Pastors united to the Successor of Peter.

These facts are not surprising. if we think of analogous phenomena in the history of the Church.

But it is all the more necessary to concentrate all forces on the correct, that is to say authentic , interpretation of the conciliar magisterium, as the indispensable foundation for the subsequent self-realization of the Church, for which this magisterium is the source of the right inspirations and orientations. The two extreme tendencies that I mentioned maintain not only an opposition, but an unfortunate and prejudicial division, as if they were mutually fueling each other to the point of creating discomfort for all, even a scandal, and of spending in this reciprocal suspicion and criticism. so many energies that would be so useful for a real renewal.

It is to be hoped that both of them, who are not lacking in generosity or faith, will humbly learn, with their Pastors, to overcome this opposition between brothers, in order to accept the authentic interpretation of the Council - because that is the question of substance - and to face together the mission of the Church, in the diversity of their pastoral sensibility.

Certainly the great majority of Christians in your country are ready to show their fidelity and their availability to follow the Church; they do not share these extreme and abusive positions, but a certain number float between the two or are disturbed by them; and the problem is also that they risk becoming indifferent and falling away from the faith. The hour imposes on you more than ever to be the architects of unity, watching both for the basic questions which are at stake and for the psychological difficulties which prevent the ecclesial life in truth and in charity.

3. I now come to another fundamental question: why, in the present stage of the Church's mission, is a particular concentration on man necessary ? I developed this in the encyclical “Redemptor Hominis”, trying to highlight the fact that this anthropological emphasis has a deep and strong Christological root.

The causes are various. There are visible and perceptible causes, according to the multiple variations which depend for example on the environment, the country, the nation, the history, the culture. So there is certainly a specific set of causes which are characteristic of the “French” reality of the Church in the world of that time. You are in the best position to know and understand them. If I allow myself to broach this subject, I do so with the conviction that the problem - given the current state of civilization on the one hand, and the threats hanging over humanity on the other - has a both fundamental and universal. In this universal and at the same time local dimension, the Church must therefore confront the common problem of man as an integral part of her evangelical mission.

Not only is the Gospel message addressed to man, but it is a great messianic message about man: it is the revelation to man of the total truth about himself and about his vocation in Christ[ 2 ].

By announcing this message, we are at the center of the realization of Vatican II. And the implementation of this message is also imposed on us by the whole of the situation of man in the contemporary world. I would not like to repeat what has already been said in “ Gaudium et Spes ” and in “ Redemptor Hominis ”, to which we must always refer. However, it is perhaps no exaggeration to say, in this place and in this setting, that we are living through a stage of special temptation for man .

We know different stages of this temptation, beginning with the first, in chapter three of Genesis, up to the very significant temptations to which Christ himself was subjected: they are like a synthesis of all the temptations born of the triple concupiscence. The current temptation, however, goes further (one could almost say it is a “meta-temptation”); it goes “beyond” everything that, in the course of history, has constituted the theme of man's temptation, and it manifests at the same time, one might say, the very basis of all temptation. Contemporary man is subject to the temptation of refusing God in the name of his own humanity .

This is a particularly deep and particularly threatening temptation from the anthropological point of view, if one considers that man himself has meaning only as the image and likeness of God.

4. As pastors of the Church sent to the man of our time, we must be well aware of this temptation, in its many aspects, not to “judge the man”, but to love this man even more . : “loving” always means first of all “understanding”.

At the same time as this attitude which we could call passive, we must have, in an even more profound way, a positive attitude, I mean to be aware of the fact that historical man is very deeply inscribed in the mystery of Christ, to be aware of the anthropological capacity of this mystery, of “breadth, length, height and depth”, according to the expression of Saint Paul[ 3 ] .

We must then be particularly disposed to dialogue. But first of all it is necessary to define its main meaning and its fundamental conditions.

According to the thought of Paul VI, and we can also say of the Council, “dialogue” certainly means openness, the ability to understand another down to the very roots: his story, the path he has traveled, the inspirations who drive it. It means neither indifferentism nor in any way “the art of confusing essential concepts”; unfortunately, this art is very often recognized as equivalent to the attitude of “dialogue”. Nor does it mean “veiling” the truth of one's convictions, of one's “credo”.

Certainly, the Council requires of the Church in our time that she have a faith open to dialogue, in the various circles of interlocutors of which Paul VI spoke; it also requires that his faith be able to recognize all the seeds of truth wherever they are. But, for this very reason, it requires of the Church a very mature faith , a faith very conscious of its own truth, and at the same time very deeply animated by love.

All of this is important because of our mission as pastors of the Church and preachers of the Gospel.

It must be taken into account that these modern forms of the temptation of man taking man as absolute also reach the community of the Church, also become forms of its temptation, and thus seek to turn it away from self. - realization to which it was called by the Spirit of Truth precisely by the Council of our century.

On the one hand, we find ourselves faced with the threat of “systematic” and in a certain sense “forced” atheization in the name of human progress; but on the other hand there is here another threat, internal to the Church: it consists in wanting, in many ways, “to conform to the world” in its current “evolved” aspect.

We know how radically this desire differs from what Christ taught; it suffices to recall the Gospel comparison of leaven and that of the salt of the earth, to put the Apostles on guard against resemblance to the world.

However, there is no lack of pioneers or “prophets” of this orientation of “progress” in the Church.

5. This shows the extent of the task of pastors in terms of “discernment”, between what constitutes a true “renewal” and what, under the cloak, shelters the tendencies of contemporary “secularization” and “secularization”, or even the tendency to “compromise” with a system of which we may not know all the premises.

It is also to say how great is the task of pastors to “preserve the deposit”, to remain faithful to the mystery of Christ inscribed in the whole of human history and also to remain faithful to this marvelous “supernatural meaning of the faith” of the whole people of God, which in general is not the object of publicity in the mass media, and which nevertheless expresses itself in the depth of hearts and consciences with the authentic language of Mind. Our doctrinal and pastoral ministry must above all remain at the service of this sensus fidelium, as the Constitution “ Lumen Gentium ”[ 4 ] reminds us .

At a time when there is so much talk of the “prophetic charism” - not always using this concept in accordance with its exact meaning - we must deeply renew and rebuild the awareness of the prophetic charism linked to the episcopal ministry of the teachers of the faith. and “leaders of the flock”, who embody in life, according to an adequate analogy, the words of Christ on the “Good Shepherd”.

The Good Shepherd cares about the pasture, the food for the sheep. Here, I am thinking particularly of theological publications, which spread very quickly and far and wide, and in many circles, and the essentials of which are popularized in journals: they are the ones which, according to their qualities, their depth, their sense of Church, educate and deepen the faith, or on the contrary shake it or dissolve it by their partiality or their methods. French publications have often had, and still have, an international reach, even among young Churches. Your prophetic charism makes it your duty to pay particular attention to their doctrinal fidelity, to their ecclesial quality.

6. The fundamental question that we, bishops, on whom weighs a particular responsibility with regard to the truth of the Gospel and the mission of the Church, must ask ourselves is that of the credibility of this mission and of our service . In this area, we are sometimes questioned and judged severely: did not one of you write: “Our time will have been hard on the bishops”? And on the other hand we are ready to judge ourselves harshly, and to judge harshly the religious situation of the country and the results of our pastoral work. The Church in France has not been exempt from such judgements: it suffices to recall the famous book by Abbé Godin: “France, pays de mission?”, or the well-known affirmation: “L’Eglise lost the working class”.

These judgments, however, require discerning moderation . We also have to think long term , because it is essential for our mission. Maison cannot deny that the Church in France has undertaken, and is undertaking, great efforts to “reach those who are far away”, especially in working-class and dechristianized rural areas.

These efforts must fully retain an evangelical, apostolic and pastoral character. It is not possible to succumb to the “challenges of politics”. Nor can we accept many resolutions that claim to be only “just”. We cannot allow ourselves to be locked into overall visions which are in reality one-sided . It is true that the social mechanisms, and also their political and economic characteristics, seem to confirm these overall visions and certain painful facts: “mission country”, “loss of the working class”. It seems, however, that we must be prepared not only for self-criticism , but also for "criticism" of the mechanisms themselves.. The Church must be ready to defend the rights of men at work, in every economic and political system.

Above all, we cannot forget the very great contribution of the Church and of French Catholicism in the missionary field of the Church, for example, or in the field of Christian culture . We cannot allow these chapters to be closed! Moreover, we cannot accept that, in these areas, the Church in France changes the quality of its contribution and the orientation it had taken and which deserves total credibility.

It would obviously be necessary to consider here a whole series of elementary tasks within the Church , in France itself, for example catechesis, pastoral care of the family, the work of vocations, the seminaries, Catholic education, the theology. All this in a grand synthesis of that “credibility” which is so necessary for the Church in France, as everywhere else, and for the common good of the universal Church.

7. Your responsibility extends indeed - as in the other episcopates, but in a different way - beyond “your” Church, beyond France. This you must accept, and you cannot free yourself from it. Here again, a truly universal vision of the Church and of the world is needed, and particularly precise, I would say “without error”.

You cannot act solely on the basis of the circumstances which once presented themselves to you and which are still available to you. You must have a precise and exact “solidarity plan” for those who have a special right to count on your solidarity and to expect it from you. You must have your eyes wide open to the West and to the East, to the North and to the South. You must give witness to your solidarity with those who suffer from hunger and injustice, because of the legacy of colonialism or the defective distribution of material goods. But you must also be very sensitive to all the damage that is done to the human spirit : to conscience, to religious convictions, etc.

Do not forget that the future of the Gospel and of the Church is perhaps elaborated in a particular way where men sometimes undergo, for their faith and for the consequences of faith, sacrifices worthy of the first Christians. . You cannot remain silent on this in front of your society and your Church. In this area, a particular solidarity of witness and common prayer is needed !

There is a sure way to strengthen the credibility of the Church in your country, and it must not be neglected. You are indeed inserted in a system of communicating vessels, even if, in this system, you are undoubtedly a particularly venerable, particularly important and influential component. This creates a lot of homework! The way to the future of the Church in France - the way to this great conversion, perhaps, of which bishops, priests and faithful feel the need - passes through the acceptance of these duties !

But in the face of the negations which are the work of many, in the face of the despair which, following the many historical vicissitudes, seems to form the spiritual face of contemporary society, do you not always have the same powerful framework of Gospel and holiness , which constitutes a particular heritage of the Church in France?

Doesn't Christianity belong immanently to the “genius of your nation”?

Isn't France still “the eldest daughter of the Church”?

 [ 1 ] Matt . 28, 20.

 [ 2 ] Cfr. Gaudium et Spes .

 [ 3 ] Eph . 3, 18.

 [ 4 ] Cfr. Lumen Gentium , 12.

© Copyright 1980 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana

 Copyright © Dicastero per la Comunicazione - Libreria Editrice Vaticana