Editorial Note from LOOP Editor Emeritus and CatholicVote Vice President of Advocacy Joshua Mercer:
CatholicVote recently came across the text of a profound address delivered by the late Cardinal Giacomo Biffi in 2000. The then-archbishop of Bologna was renowned for his insights and his unflinching advocacy for the interests of Christ and His Church during times of great upheaval in the West. As Catholics in America now face renewed debate over the moral questions surrounding border security and immigration, CatholicVote has decided to publish a translation of this important address, in which Cardinal Biffi offers guidance to Italy that I believe many will find strikingly pertinent to the United States today.
Address by the Archbishop of Bologna to the Migrantes Foundation Seminar — September 30, 2000
NOTE: Cardinal Biffi (1928-2015), was a learned theologian and respected Catholic author who served as archbishop of Bologna in Northern Italy between 1984 and 2003. The Migrantes Foundation is the official department for immigrants and refugees of the Italian Bishops’ Conference.
Preface
It should be clear to all how significant the question of immigration is in Italy today. Equally undeniable, however, is the inadequate pastoral attention and lack of realism with which it has so far been evaluated and addressed. The phenomenon appears vast and serious; and the resulting problems—as much for civil society as for the Christian community—are in many ways new, marked by unprecedented complications, and with profound implications for the life of our people.
General alarmism undoubtedly does not help, but neither do anxious trivializations or hopeful minimizations. Nor can we sensibly expect the emergency to end quickly: it is unlikely that everything will be resolved almost autonomously, without deliberate intervention, and that tensions are on the verge of dissipating like a summer storm—which is usually short-lived and of no lasting concern.
A historical challenge of this magnitude requires a response – as in the face of all unforeseen and inevitable events of the human experience – without panic and without superficiality. Its causes must be studied; the complex nature of the fact must be meticulously investigated. But we cannot linger too long in research and analyses without ever arriving at some concrete and, as much as is possible, efficacious measures, because the disruptions and hardships generated by immigration are already in motion.
A phenomenon that caught the State off guard
We must acknowledge that—and it may be a mitigating factor—we have all been caught by surprise.
The State, which still gives the impression of being disoriented, has been caught by surprise. It seems not yet to have regained the capacity to govern the situation rationally, bringing it back within the essential rules and proper framework of orderly civic coexistence. The measures which are being rolled out little by little are heterogeneous, and often contradictory; they reveal the absence of planning, and furthermore deeply show the absence of a correct and realistic interpretation of what is occurring. We do not see a sufficiently penetrating “reading” of events, which may be capable of suggesting, developing, and sustaining a coherent and intelligent course of action.
It also surprised the ecclesial community
Christian communities too were taken by surprise. In many cases they have acted admirably in addressing hardship and suffering. Yet they still lack a concrete, non-abstract, non-partisan, sufficiently shared vision—one capable of inspiring evaluations and initiatives that take into account the full implications of the events and all aspects of the issue. The general exaltation of solidarity and of the primacy of evangelical charity—which in themselves and in principle are legitimate and even necessary—show themselves to be more generous than useful when they fail to reckon with the complexity of the problem and the harshness of reality.
Even in our explicit pastoral consciousness, one does not always sense that the immigration of the last fifteen years—during which it has grown and intensified—has been sufficiently perceived in proportion to its real gravity.
We have had two lengthy ecclesial documents on the subject: the 1990 note of the Ecclesial Commission “Justice and Peace,” titled, People of Different Cultures: From Conflict to Solidarity; and the 1993 Pastoral Guidelines of the Episcopal Commission for Migration, titled, I Was a Stranger and You Welcomed Me. Both documents—very extensive and analytical—are above all (and rightly) aimed at building and spreading a “culture of welcome” in Christianity. The studies, though, lack a bit of realism regarding the difficulties and problems involved; and, above all, they appear to insufficiently highlight the Church’s mission of evangelizing all peoples, therefore also those arriving to live among us.
A Pastor’s Hopes
I would like to give substance to my cordial greeting to the participants in this seminar, expressing simply some hopes. They arise from the reflection and heart of a bishop. They reveal above all his apostolic concerns and they are formulated with respect for those who are called out–academics, social workers, public authorities–by the necessity of providing prompt and adequate responses to this emergency that engages our interest here.
To the political, economic, anthropological, and cultural considerations offered by experts, it would be useful to add—and giving to them their due attention—the perspective of those who, being Italian citizens in full standing and having the original presumption of being able to share also as such their own viewpoint, feel responsible for the present and the future of Christ’s flock entrusted to them. And, also, we cannot forget that haunting question left unanswered by the Lord Jesus: “When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” (Lk 18:8)
The hopes for the State and civil society
Our essential hope for the State and for civil society is that certain fundamental convictions be clarified and widely accepted, so that we may approach immigration with a coherent and commonly shared outlook.
It is indisputable, for example, that every people must be guaranteed the space, means, and conditions necessary not only to survive but to live and flourish according to what is requested by human dignity. International agencies must undertake initiatives toward this end; they cannot lose sight of this ideal of general distributive justice. And the same principle applies —proportionately and according to the real possibilities—to individual States.
But from this it cannot be deduced—if we wish to be truly “secular,” free of all ideological imperatives—that a nation does not have the right to regulate the influx of those who wish at any cost to enter. Still less can it be concluded that it has a duty to open its borders indiscriminately.
It must be said, rather, that every hoped-for project of peaceful integration presupposes and demands that access be monitored and regulated. Everyone can see that arbitrary entry—when it becomes known to be easily attainable enough—gives rise to the uncontrolled spread of poverty and desperation (and sometimes to violent reactions of intolerance and outright rejection), while simultaneously fostering a criminal industry of exploitation that aspires to cross borders in a clandestine manner.
Realistic and comprehensive planning
What we hope for our State and for Italian society is that they soon gain control of the situation, so that the massive influx of foreigners into our country may be regulated and guided by concrete, realistic plans of integration—aimed at the true good of all, newcomers and our populations alike.
These plans must include real access to regularly paid employment and to dignified, not free housing. By this path, we can arrive at a secure grafting within our social organism, without privilege and without discrimination.
Those arriving among us must know from the outset what will be asked of them as a necessary counterpart to hospitality: respect for all the norms that govern our coexistence—including fiscal obligations. Otherwise, such situations will inevitably provoke pernicious crises of rejection, blind attitudes of xenophobia, and the insurgence of deplorable racial intolerances.
Criteria for implementation
The practical implementation of these projects will necessarily obey measures that will also be economic in nature; Italy requires labor it no longer sufficiently finds among its own population.
In this regard, we ought finally to recognize the folly of the line pursued over the last forty years—with obsessive anti-demographic cultural terrorism and the absence of corrective legislative and political measures that would remedy the egotistical and foolish low birth rate, for a long time among the least in the world statistics. All of this despite the contrary example of more prudent, more far-sighted, more civil European nations which did not hesitate to act realistically and intelligently in this field.
Safeguarding national identity
Yet the criteria we are speaking of cannot only be economic or related to social security.
A consistent influx of foreigners onto our peninsula is acceptable and may even be beneficial, provided there is a serious effort to safeguard the distinctive identity of the nation. Italy is not a deserted or semi-uninhabited land, without history, without living and vital traditions, without a recognizable cultural and spiritual identity, to be populated indiscriminately as though there were no heritage of humanism and civilization that must not be lost.
In this perspective, a genuinely “secular” State—which is concerned not with the triumph of some ideology but with the true good of the men and women over which it exercises its activity of administration and governance and shrewdly wishes to prepare a desirable future for them—must have among its primary concerns that of promoting the peaceful integration of peoples (as has already been historically verified in the encounter between Latin and later Germanic populations) or at the very least a non-conflictual coexistence; a co-presence and a coexistence that do not lead to the loss of our wealth of ideals or the denaturing of our specific identity.
Thus, we must concretely ensure that those intending to settle permanently among us undergo an “inculturation” into the spiritual, moral, and juridical reality of our country, and are placed in the condition of knowing the literary, aesthetic, and religious patrimony of the particular humanity that they have come to be a part of.
To that end, immigrants do not all arrive with equally favorable conditions for integration, and public authorities must not neglect this part of the issue.
In a realistic perspective, preference would go to (all other things being equal—especially regarding moral conduct and seriousness of purpose) Catholic or at least broadly Christian populations, whose integration is easier (for example, Latin Americans, Filipinos, Eritreans, many Eastern Europeans, etc); then, Asian populations (such as Chinese and Koreans), who have shown noteworthy capacity to integrate with facility while preserving the distinctive elements of their own culture. This line of conduct–being “secularly” motivated–shouldn’t allow itself to be conditioned or discouraged even by possible criticisms that arise from the ecclesiastical area or by Catholic organizations.
As you can see, what is proposed here is simply the “criteria for easiest and least costly integration,” a totally and explicitly “secular” criteria, about which evoking the specters of racism, xenophobia, religious discrimination, clerical interference, or even constitutional violation would be a truly astonishing and singular misunderstanding, which if it were to occur, would insinuate some doubt as to the perspicacity of the opinionmakers and Italian politicians.
The case of Muslims
If one does not wish to avoid or censor such a realistic attention, it’s evident that the case of the Muslims must be treated on its own. And it is hoped that those responsible for public matters will not fear confronting it with their eyes open and without illusions.
Muslims—in their great majority and with some exceptions—arrive among us intending to remain, individually and collectively, extraneous to our “humanity” in what is most essential, most precious, most “secularly” indispensable: more or less explicitly, they come to us well decided to remain substantially “different,” in the expectation of making all of us substantially like them.
They have a form of different food (and up to here not bad), a different day off, a right to a family incompatible with ours, a conception of the woman very distant from ours (to the point of practicing polygamy). Above all, they have a rigorously integralist vision of public life, as the perfect identification between religion and politics as part of their indubitable and undeniable faith, even though they wait prudently before showing it to be preponderant. It is not then the men of the Church, but the modern Western States that must come to terms with this.
Something more must be said: if our State seriously believes in the importance of civil liberties (among them religious liberty) and in democratic principles, it must work so that they are ever more widespread, welcomed, and practiced in all latitudes. A minimal instrument to reach this objective is that of the request that a “reciprocity” be given, not just verbally, from the nations of origin of the immigrants.
A 1993 note from the Italian Bishops’ Conference reads: ‘In different Muslim countries it is almost impossible to adhere to and freely practice Christianity. Places of worship don’t exist, religious manifestations apart from Islam are not allowed, nor are ecclesial organizations as small as they may be. This is the difficult problem of reciprocity. This is a problem that doesn’t just interest the Church, but also civil and political society, the world of culture, and international relations. For his part, the Pope is tireless in asking all to respect the fundamental right of religious liberty’ (n. 34). But–we say–asking has done little, even if the Pope can do no more.
As much as it may seem outside of our mentality and even paradoxical, the only efficacious and realistic way of promoting the “principle of reciprocity” on behalf of a truly “secular” State truly interested in the spreading of human liberties, would be to allow for Muslims in Italy, in terms of institutions to be authorized, only what Muslim countries effectively allow others.
Catholicism as the “historical national religion”
Regarding relations with different religions which are present among us as a consequence of immigration, it would be good that no one ignore nor forget that Catholicism—which inarguably is no longer the “official state religion”—remains nonetheless the “historical religion” of the Italian nation, the particular source of its identity, the determinant inspiration of our greatest achievements.
Therefore, it is completely improper to compare it socially to other religious or cultural expressions, which must be ensured full and authentic freedom to exist and operate, but not, however, at the cost of an unnatural leveling or even an annihilation of the highest values of our civilization.
It should also be said that it is a singular view of democracy to make respect for individuals and minorities coincide with the lack of respect for the majority and the elimination of that which is acquired and traditional in a human community. We must here point out, unfortunately, ever more numerous cases of this, which is a “substantial” intolerance—for example when Catholic symbols and gestures are abolished in schools because of the presence of some people of other faiths.
To ecclesial communities
What will we say that is illuminating and practical to Christian communities, which in these times truly are afflicted by little clarity of ideas and by many behavioral uncertainties?
In the first place, it should be evident to all that it is not per se the Church’s task as such to resolve every social problem that history presents us from time to time. Our communities of the faithful, thus, must not nourish guilt complexes for emergencies that exceed what ecclesial communities can address. It would be an implicit, but still intolerable and grave “fundamentalism” to believe that the ecclesial aggregations and Catholics could be responsible for everything.
At times the misunderstandings are involuntarily propitiated by public authorities, which, when they don’t know which fish to grab, call out to us as substitutes and eventually involve us (giving in this way an implicit recognition that ecclesial organizations are among those that are still able to function in Italy).
The Proclamation of the Gospel and the observance of charity
The primary and inarguable duty of the Church is to proclaim the Gospel and live the commandment of love. Faced with a person in difficulty—regardless of race, culture, religion, or legal status—disciples of Jesus have the duty to love concretely and help them in the measure of their possibilities.
The Lord will ask us for an account of the authenticity and breadth of our charity and will ask if we have done everything possible. About this, though, it is good that none forget: we are held not to respond to others, but to the Lord.
Non-surrogability of evangelization
The statutory duty of the Catholic Church and the task of every baptized person is to make Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God who died for us and was resurrected, who lives today, is the Lord of the Universe, and the only Savior of all, explicitly known.
Such a mission can be assisted but cannot be replaced by social aid that we are able to offer our brothers. It assumes our attitude towards sincere dialogue, open and respectful of all, but it cannot be resolved only in dialogue. It is favored by the objective awareness of the positions of others, but made true only in knowing Christ, whom we are able to bring to our brothers who unfortunately have not yet been graced to know him.
Additionally, evangelizing action is by its nature universal and does not tolerate deliberate exclusions of those it is destined for. The Lord did not say, “Except Muslims, or Jews, or the Dalai Lama.” Whoever undermines the legitimacy or the opportunity of this limitless and non-negotiable proclamation commits the sin of intolerance against us: it would prohibit us from being what we are, that is, “Christians,” obedient to the clear and explicit will of Christ.
It’s very important that all Catholics realize this irrefutable responsibility of theirs. To be good evangelizers, persuaded within themselves and persuasive towards others, they must grow ever more in the intelligence and joyful admiration of the immense treasures of truth, wisdom, and consoling hope that they have the fortune of possessing. It is a superhuman, or rather divinizing effusion of light, absolutely incomparable with the glimmers, although precious, offered by the various religions and by Islam. And we are called to propose it passionately and tirelessly to all of the children of Adam.
A differentiated pastoral approach
The Christian communities–in function of a wise and realistic approach to the phenomenon of immigration–cannot not evaluate individuals and groups, in such a way as to assume then the most pertinent and opportune attitudes.
To Catholic immigrants—whatever their language or skin color—we must make them feel in the most efficacious way that within the Church there are no “foreigners.” They fully enter into being part of our family of believers and they must be welcomed with an open spirit of fraternity.
When they are present in large numbers and in consistent, homogenous aggregations, they should be encouraged to preserve their own typical Catholic traditions, which will be the object of affectionate attention by all. The co-presence of these diverse “forms” of ecclesial life and genuine worship will doubtlessly constitute a spiritual enrichment for all of Christianity.
To the Christians of the ancient Eastern Churches which are not yet in full communion with the See of Peter, we will express sympathy and respect. And, in conformity with the eventual general agreements and according to opportunities, we will be able to also favor their use of some of our churches for their celebrations.
The faithful of other, non-Christian religions must be loved and, as far as is possible, helped in their needs. From some of them–particularly from Muslims–we can all learn fidelity to their ritual exercises and to their moments of prayer, but it is not our task to offer positive collaborations for their religious practice.
To this effect, it is useful to recall what was proposed in the aforementioned 1993 Note from the CEI (Italian Bishops Conference): “The Christian communities, in order to avoid unuseful misunderstandings and dangerous confusion, must not offer for religious encounters of non-Christian faiths churches, chapels, and spaces reserved for Catholic worship, as also areas destined for parochial activities” (n. 34).
As can be understood by the complexity of this problem, it is not admissible that it be completely addressed by “Caritas Italiana,” which has a well delineated field of assessment and interest. On the themes of evangelization, the Christian identity of our nation, the concrete pastoral difficulties–and therefore also on the issue of global immigration–there should not be delegations to any particular ecclesial organization.
Conclusion
In an interview around ten years ago I was asked with great candor and enviable optimism, “Do you also believe that Europe will either be Christian or it will not be?” It seems that my response from then can serve well as a conclusion to my address today.
I think, I said, that Europe will either become Christian again, or it will become Muslim. What appears to me without a future is the “culture of nothingness,” of liberty without limits and without content, of skepticism celebrated as intellectual conquest—which seems to be the largely dominant attitude in the European nations, more or less all wealthy in means and poor in truth. This “culture of nothingess” (supported by hedonism and by libertarian insatiability) will not be able to stand up to the ideological assault of Islam, which will not be lacking. Only the rediscovery of the Christian event as the sole salvation of man– and so only a decisive resurrection of the ancient soul of Europe–will be able to offer a different outcome to this inevitable confrontation.
Sadly, neither secularists nor Catholics appear to have yet grasped that the drama is unfolding. Secularists hold the Church hostage in all ways without realizing that they are fighting the strongest inspirer and most valid defender of Western civilization and its values of rationalism and freedom. They might realize it too late. “Catholics,” letting the knowledge of the truth they possess fade and substituting apostolic anxiety with the pure and simple dialogue at all costs, unconsciously prepare themselves (humanly speaking) for their own extinction. The hope is that the gravity of the situation might at a certain moment lead to an efficacious reawakening of both reason and the ancient faith.
This is our hope, our task, our prayer.
10-27-2000
Readers can find the above address in its original Italian here.
The post Cardinal Giacomo Biffi: On Immigration appeared first on CatholicVote org.