from Mattia Spanò
I read the interesting letter from La Peruta on CL and the Rule of the Fraternity, and I try to answer as one of the “critical voices” he mentioned. With a premise: what I do not mention I agree, and where I draw conclusions they are personal considerations, not of the author of the letter.
It is true that the Meeting is bigger than the four shopkeeper controversies that take place outside the Meeting, especially those of rancorous friendly fire.
But let’s think for a second. This being “greater than” this and that (the criticisms and their bearers, in the case), may seem a way of dodging the blows and reaffirming the plenary indulgence towards the anthropic monobloc ciellino that I have heard about, but I have not never seen: the mystical unity – the distributed charism, if you will – would always be superior to the truth as it manifests itself in the experience and judgment of the individual, defective precisely because of their singularity. Dance this supernatural yes, in my opinion.
Should we think that we have inherited particles of the charisma and not the whole, or that the stew of charisma protects us from various intentional errors and filth?
Since Don Carròn has appropriated the charism, when do I receive mine in its uncontaminated form by ugly personalisms: at the time of enrolling in the Fraternity? For frequenting other members? Why do I adapt to the “surprises” of that nice joker of the Holy Spirit, who today says and tomorrow squaderna? If I move away from him or join other charisms, will he be taken away from me?
In parentheses. There is no doubt that Don Carròn guided the movement according to his own sensitivity, intelligence and culture. Although I disagree with him on many points (essential for me, probably marginal for him), instead of him I would have done the same. And if he had the honesty to publicly declare the error (the age et c’est moi), perhaps not as honest or naive it would have been me and many others in his place while practicing the same mistake, only in a more subtle way. Closed parenthesis.
It would therefore be prudent to abandon the abuse of the adjective “great” and the superlative “greater” by declaring what one is: miserable sinners, small and unworthy people, with few contemplative exceptions. As the priest Massillon said at the funeral of Louis XIV: God alone is great, brothers.
I wonder then if it follows it, if this belonging to a people in the form of self-abjuration in the name of a self-inflicted greatness, as it seems to me that many people do (perhaps myself, that in terms of erroneous lifestyles I deprive myself of almost nothing ), does not hide an invincible laziness that weighs down and unbalances everything until it derails.
It is a common and certainly pleasant vice (what vice would it be, otherwise?) To declare oneself sinners in the abstract and to defend oneself from punctual charges because “I am greater than my limit” – to quote a phrase that I have heard repeated many times, where “limit” it is used as a sugary synonym for “sin”, when it is anything but.
The experience of no one understands the charisma in its vastness: whoever places the accent on this one, who on that other, makes it clear that everyone’s experience cannot be liquidated because it is vitiated by sin and by limitations or otherwise taken for gold. cast, because CL or the Meeting are “bigger” than him. What, I repeat, all to be established, assuming it is worth doing. This applies to La Peruta, to Prosperi, to Don Carròn, myself, anyone. Even outside the friendly walls of the movement.
The idea that certain manifestations within the Meeting “are not an expression of CL” seems insidious to me, because CL would not be “a reality of the world”. It does not work like this. Fortunately, I add: we only lack a Catholic form of Khomeinism and we have bingo.
Ergo the ovation to Draghi and the moved tribute to vaccines and vaccinators Wouldn’t they be an expression of CL, while the exhibition on the centenary of Fr Giussani’s birth yes? And when did this misfortune happen? Do we invoke unity of judgment and practice discernment and division according to the pic?
The expedient is identical to that on the size: we talk about something else. One tells you that your dog has torn his son to pieces, and you answer: “Yes, but look at the beautiful sun!”. I force hyperbole not with derogatory intent, but for descriptive purposes.
One cannot invoke reality and the other as ways to Christ and then in fact deny both in the name of a spirited greatness and ultramundane descent, which are believed to protect from harassing, or even unjust criticism. It is not a good defense of the indisputable good that is communicated. I am quite sure this is not the “naive boldness” to which Fr. Giussani referred.
With other streams of reasoning: fragmenting the relevance of the visible, public part of the movement is equivalent to subtly denying its very existence, and at the same time its consistency.
One cannot invoke an industrious Christianity – not whoever says Lord, Lord … – and in the face of failure (may God always bless him: at least it sweeps away the illusion of deserving salvation) holing up in “we are greater than”, or “We are not of this world”.
This is not Christianity, but a faded copy of it. Handy, which brings consent, but copy. It is okay that today a Christian is who is vaccinated against Covid-19, it seems to understand, but every limitation has its patience.
The Meeting – the whole Meeting, not the part that pleases and convinces – is the moment in which the experience of the movement is summarized and becomes public: in the end both appreciation and criticism are collected, and both one and the other can be spoiled and ungenerous (or too generous in the case of praise). If not, or if you are sorry, make it clear before you step into the arena of confrontation.
If this were the case, we would have to sip the distinctions and reprimands, like assuming that the critics of marginal trappings such as the second descent of the Dragons at the Meeting have not understood a stump of the Communion and Liberation movement. Inoffensive but risky conjecture: if I pinned others on what I understand about the Eternal Father, CL or Greek coffee and sadly I had a shred of power, I think we would still be stoning mammoths.
I suspect, but I’m mischievous, Draghi is invited not to let him visit the exhibition on Don Gius, but to make him feel firsthand how reptilian we are, forcing the applauders to exhibit a QrCode to enter the fair like a liter of milk at the supermarket checkout, in accordance with the new bankruptcy religion established by the bankrupt (he subscribed authorizing both the acquisition of Antonveneta and the Nomura and Alexandria operations, intercom MPS for the continuation of the affair): the guarantee of being among non-contagious people. How it ended up in this case too is well known.
Coming to the crucial part of La Peruta’s letter, that is, the one concerning the nature of CL and how it is expressed in the experience of the individual within the perimeter of the Catholic Church.
The discourse runs perfectly in principle, and after all the principles are recognizable precisely because they are detached from the particular context.
In fact, I find it difficult to follow him. A CL leader declares himself a “dragonian”, in the name of him and who knows how many others, in the frame of the Meeting. He has every right to do so, mind you, but you cannot invoke immunity from consequences because he belongs to the other world. Or to think that the reckless obedience to the Best is the fruit of the divine passion that like a dart Eros threw against him.
Second example, less light: there is one letter written by a cardinal prefect with the approval of the pope in which the Church says new things, very different from those correctly mentioned by La Peruta.
Black on white, that Don Carròn has a strong odor of heresy, and the members of CL – with no apparent distinction between these and those – would be schismatic. This, if Italian makes sense, is written.
For what it’s worth, I reject this judgment of the Church against an entire movement and even its leaders, who do not even skimp on sharp criticisms – rightly they don’t care. I think it is false, crude and disrespectful. More or less, what I think of endorsement by Vittadini, which, however, compared to Farrell’s letter are fresh water.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the current Church (the Church of Francis, according to an adage incomprehensible to me) thinks very differently from La Peruta about the “being of another world” of CL. Let’s say that the accusation is precisely that of being worldly to the core, and as such to cleanse.
How should objective unscrupulousness not veil – other than “boldness”, I return to say – in the agora, or rather in the Roman forum, which is partly the cause and justification of the measures in progress (partly no: I am convinced that the the real target is the charisma of Fr Giussani, and the miseries of some followers may be the pretext for burying him), so we cannot endlessly discuss what CL really is, what we have not understood about CL, how CL works and so on.
Things that are of interest to a few, very few (even among the members), and none would be better. Otherwise there is something to worry about, because it would mean that people are not really interested in Christ and his Church, but in an aggregative form like any other – Greenpeace, the Tripe al Sauce Brigade or similar.
La Peruta tells the truth, and she says it all, on a fundamental point, when she writes that the Fraternity is lived in Christ. This developed affirmation does not erase the differences of opinion between him and me but overcomes them, testifying that the Christian life – Christianity is above all a life, Fr. these alone: in the eventuality, ubi minus, maior termination
The slightest point that perhaps divides us in the judgment – it may be that La Peruta has not simply approached it in his letter – is to feel the need to separate the wheat from the chaff before the harvest, which precisely belongs to the Lord. Let’s let the reptilians, the carronians, the bergoglians grow alongside the Christians, and see what happens.
Support Sabino Paciolla’s Blog