Tra vecchio e nuovo pontificato: una sostanziale continuità?

For the ecumenical movement, the Second Vatican Council was a turning point that fundamentally changed the conditions for relationships between the churches. Since the council, the Roman Catholic Church has become an active partner in the ecumenical movement, while until the middle of the 20th century it had deliberately rejected any recognition of the ecumenical movement as a new reality in the life of the churches. The change has particularly affected the World Council of Churches (WCC), and the jubilee of the Second Vatican Council (2nd VC) is an appropriate moment to assess the developments in ecumenical relations during these fifty years. Of course, the significance of the 2nd VC goes far beyond its impact for ecumenical relations. Mention could and should be made of its new understanding of the place of the church in the modern world, of its affirmations of human rights and religious liberty, as well as of its initiatives preparing the way for inter-religious encounter and dialogue. The following reflections, however, will be limited to the development of ecumenical relations in the fifty years since the council. The generation of those in the leadership of the WCC who witnessed the 2nd VC and who participated in its successive sessions as observers on behalf of the WCC and of some of its member churches has passed away. This is true in particular for the first general secretary of the WCC, Dr W.A. Visser't Hooft; for the principal observer on behalf of the WCC, Dr Lukas Vischer; and for the two Orthodox observers, Dr Nikos Nissiotis and Fr Vitalij Borovoij. Their accounts still provide a vivid testimony for the groundbreaking significance of the council. The present attempt to assess the development in ecumenical relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC is written from the perspective of someone who since 1971 has been involved in shaping these relationships, who was co-secretary of the Joint Working Group between the Vatican and the WCC, and general secretary of the WCC from 1993-2003. The foundation for the new phase in ecumenical relationships was laid decisively by the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, which was approved by the council in November 1994. With its affirmation that those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are brought into certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (N. 3), the decree formulated the ecumenical consequences of the new articulation of the ecclesiological self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium). Thus, the relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the other Christian churches were placed on a new basis. Soon after the council, this became evident in the development of an impressive network of bilateral dialogues between the major church families, which have led to important results. An assessment of these dialogues, which have been documented in several volumes under the title “Growth in Agreement,” is beyond the scope of these reflections. In the immediate period following the announcement of the forthcoming Vatican Council, the WCC became the privileged ecumenical partner for the Roman Catholic Church. Even before the official establishment of the Vatican Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, a first secret encounter took place at Milano in 1960 between Cardinal Bea, the future president of the secretariat, and Dr Visser't Hooft, the general secretary of the WCC. Subsequently, the WCC served as a facilitator for the invitations of ecumenical observers at the council and was itself represented by two observers. The position papers and commentaries of the ecumenical observers were taken seriously at the council. For example, the preface to the Decree on Ecumenism, which refers positively to the ecumenical movement, has been influenced by a memorandum from the WCC. A second encounter between Cardinal Bea und Dr Visser't Hooft took place in April of 1964, even before the promulgation of the Decree on Ecumenism. It prepared the way for the establishment of a Joint Working Group (JWG) between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC with the initial mandate to clarify the basis for future relationships. During its first mandate period between 1965 and 1967, the JWG developed a very productive activity. With the publication of a basic working document on the understanding and the methodologies of “ecumenical dialogue” it had fulfilled its initial task. As a consequence, a number of common initiatives were launched for direct collaboration between the Vatican and the WCC. Mention should be made in particular of the joint Committee on Society, Development and Peace (SODEPAX), which began its work with a joint secretariat in 1968. High hopes were placed in this endeavour and SODEPAX quickly became a symbol for the new quality of relationships. However, the increasingly independent dynamics of its activities led the two parent bodies to reduce and refocus the mandate, and eventually this form of structured cooperation was concluded in 1980. The Joint Advisory Group on Social Thought and Action that was created in its place proved to be ineffective and was terminated after a few years. The same fate caught up with two other early initiatives, that is, the Women's Ecumenical Liaison Group and a structure for cooperation in the field of the laity, both of which ceased operation after only a few years. What remained from this initial hopeful period were official cooperative relationships in the fields of theological study, especially in the framework of the Commission on Faith and Order; of mission and evangelism, facilitated especially by Catholic missionary orders; of ecumenical diakonia; and of inter-religious dialogue. The most long-lasting cooperative endeavour has been the joint preparation of the Week of Prayer for Christian unity. At the 4th Assembly of the WCC in Uppsala (1968), Fr Roberto Tucci SJ in a public address mentioned the possibility that the Roman Catholic Church might join the WCC as a full member. At the same time, the Vatican approved the inclusion of Roman Catholic theologians as official members of the WCC Commission on Faith and Order. Since then all decisive theological study processes in the WCC have benefited from full Roman Catholic participation. One year later, in June 1969, Pope Paul VI visited the WCC secretariat in Geneva. This was a gesture of high symbolic significance, even though the Pope left no doubt about the difficulties that still needed to be resolved on the ecumenical way. In the same year, the JWG formed a small working group to study the conditions and implications of a possible Roman Catholic membership of the WCC. The report under the title “Pattern of Relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches” (1972) came to the conclusion that there were no fundamental obstacles preventing possible membership. However, serious consultations on the highest levels in the Roman Curia led to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church would not further pursue this option in the near future. These conditions have not changed in the forty years since then, even though the Roman Catholic Church has joined national ecumenical structures in more than fifty countries as a full member. The focus of ecumenical activities on the part of the Vatican shifted more and more towards bilateral dialogues with the major Christian church families and structured cooperation with the WCC was reduced. despite all divisions which have occurred in the course of the centuries there is a real though imperfect communion which continues to exist between those who believe in Christ and are baptized in his name . . . Through the development of the ecumenical movement that communion has been experienced anew. This is not to claim that it has been created anew. Since it is beyond human power and initiative, it precedes all ecumenical efforts for the restoration of the unity of all Christians.1 The report also referred to the failure of the efforts to give visible and structured expression to the relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC. While there was no doubt that the Roman Catholic Church could accept the basis of the WCC, the report indicates that the Roman Catholic Church understood its constitution “as a universal fellowship with a universal mission and structure as an essential element of its identity.” It sees further difficulties in “the way in which authority is considered in the Roman Catholic Church and the processes through which it is exercised.”2 In this way the report for the first time points to the fundamental differences in the understanding of ecclesial fellowship, and thus it concludes this assessment with the question: “How can the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, without forming one structured fellowship, intensify their joint activities and thereby strengthen the unity, the common witness and the renewal of the churches?”3 In any case, the question how “the real, though imperfect communion” can gain visible shape has remained open since then and it has become clear that the Decree on Ecumenism of the 2nd VC did not offer a conclusive answer. In the following years, until the 5th Assembly of the WCC at Vancouver (1983), cooperation with the Roman Catholic Church concentrated more and more on the work of the Commission on Faith and Order. During this period the commission concluded its work on the convergence documents on “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” (BEM), which were approved at the meeting of the commission in Lima (1982). In appropriating the results of bilateral dialogues and with full participation of the Roman Catholic members of the commission these convergence texts manifested a large measure of agreement on central issues of doctrine and church order. No other result of ecumenical theological work has been discussed on a similarly broad level in the churches. In 1987 an official response from the Roman Catholic Church to the convergence texts stated that “BEM is perhaps the most significant result of the [Faith and Order] movement.” The response underlines that baptism is the decisive basis for the communion which “already exists between divided Christians.” It is somewhat more reserved regarding the text on the eucharist, but it considers that a reception by all churches of the theological understanding and description of the celebration of the eucharist as expressed in the Lima document would be an important development in the direction of affirming a “common faith.” Critical questions were addressed in particular to the document on the ministry. But even here the response comes to the conclusion that the acceptance of the proposals of the Lima document on the ministry would represent a “major step towards Christian unity.”4 In order to avoid misunderstandings the response however underlines once again the self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church and its unity by quoting explicitly the affirmation in the Decree on Ecumenism (No. 4) that the “unity of the one and only Church which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning . . . subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.”5 It links this with the expectation “that the study of ecclesiology must come more and more into the centre of the ecumenical dialogue.”6 When in 1984 Pope John Paul II visited the ecumenical centre in Geneva he emphasized his office as Bishop of Rome, which had served as the visible point of reference and as the guarantee of unity in faithfulness to the apostolic tradition. Ten years later, after the Commission on Faith and Order at its 5th World Conference in Santiago de Compostela also recommended a common study of the question of a universal office of unity, the Pope came back to this question in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint “on commitment to ecumenism” (1995) and invited church leaders and theologians “to engage in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject” in order “to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation” (No. 95f). This dialogue has begun, but so far no solution has been found. The WCC assembly at Vancouver (1983) gave the impulse for a “conciliar process for justice, peace and the integrity of creation,” which became a crystallization point for ecumenical cooperation in the period until 1990. The Roman Catholic Church was invited to co-sponsor this process. While it accepted this invitation on national and regional levels, its participation on the global level remained restricted, especially because of questions regarding the ecclesiological foundations of the conciliar process. This fact served to underline the need to give more focused attention to the issues of ecclesiology, as had been urged already in the Roman Catholic response to the BEM document. On the basis of a proposal by the Faith and Order Commission, the 6th Assembly of the WCC at Canberra (1991) in its declaration on “The Unity of the Church as Koinonia: Gift and Calling” re-affirmed the importance of the concept of koinonia in searching for a common ecumenical understanding on ecclesiology. Since its 5th World Conference at Santiago de Compostela (1993) the Commission on Faith and Order had concentrated its attention on working out a convergence statement on the church. Several preliminary statements were published and circulated among the churches for reaction. After successive revisions, a final text has been accepted by the Commission in 2012 under the title, The Church: Towards a Common Vision. In November 2013 it was received by the 10th Assembly of the WCC at Busan and it is now before the churches for serious study and appropriate reception. It will now have to be seen whether and how the Roman Catholic Church will respond to this concerted ecumenical effort to address the core issues of ecclesiology that have been at the centre of ecumenical dialogues during these past decades. This question is of particular interest since, with the document “Dominus Jesus” (2000) and the subsequent Decree with “Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the Doctrine On the Church” (2007), the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith strongly affirmed the uniqueness and exclusivity of the Roman Catholic Church and defended a rather restrictive interpretation of the teachings of Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the 2nd VC. This is a matter of concern particularly for the churches of the Reformation. The council had referred to them as “ecclesial communities,” but this has now been sharpened in the sense that they cannot “according to Catholic doctrine be called Churches in the proper sense,” since, due to “the absence of the sacramental priesthood they have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the eucharistic mystery.”7 These statements were issued by the Vatican under the responsibility of Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope Benedict XVI. Whether new ecumenical signals will come from Pope Francis still has to be seen. At this stage it appears that there are still profound differences in the understanding of the church and of ecclesial communion. On the one hand we discern a universal ecclesiology oriented towards communion with the Bishop of Rome and the recognition of his primacy which stands over against an ecclesiology that recognizes the plurality of local churches and is oriented toward a communion in which “all churches are able to recognize in one another the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church in its fullness.”8 This brief retrospective of developments during these fifty years leaves a mixed impression. The 2nd VC and particularly the Decree on Ecumenism have irrevocably brought the Roman Catholic Church into the ecumenical movement and its ecumenical commitment has been re-affirmed in very solemn terms by successive popes. In many ways the Roman Catholic Church has even begun to claim leadership responsibility regarding the development of ecumenical relationships that would have been unthinkable in the period before the 2nd VC. The numerous bilateral doctrinal dialogues have reached important clarifications regarding basic issues of faith and order and have concluded many of the doctrinal controversies between the churches. One of the most significant results is the “Common Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” between the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran churches that was solemnly signed in 1999. Ecumenical collaboration between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC has so far been based on the conviction that there is only “one ecumenical movement” that embraces all Christian churches and traditions. This is reflected also in the Decree on Ecumenism, which in the headline of its first chapter speaks of “Catholic Principles of Ecumenism,” instead of “Principles of Catholic Ecumenism” as was initially proposed. However, after fifty years there are increasing doubts whether we are still dealing with one and the same ecumenical movement, or whether competitive understandings of ecumenism and its ultimate goal have emerged in the meantime. The ecclesiological self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church as articulated in the official interpretation of the teachings of the 2nd VC places the Roman Catholic Church with its universal structure and its hierarchical understanding of authority and its exercise into the centre of the search for Christian unity. This cannot easily be reconciled with the understanding of ecclesial unity in conciliar fellowship that has developed in the course of serious dialogue within the fellowship of churches in the WCC. The fact that it has not been possible so far to give visible and structured expression to the “real though imperfect” communion based on the common baptism indicates that there are still differences of rather basic character. The recent Vatican statements referred to above strengthen this impression, precisely where they interpret the teachings of the council. It is evident that the declarations of the 2nd VC, including the Decree on Ecumenism, were the result of controversial discussions among the council fathers trying to hold together widely divergent positions and convictions. Thus, they allow for different interpretations and show signs of internal tension or even contradictions. It should therefore not come as a surprise that the process of renewal that was initiated by the council has not yet reached its full clarity. However, that raises the question whether the changes in ecumenical relationships that were initiated by the council, and particularly by the Decree on Ecumenism, can be regarded as an open process in the sense that the ecumenical reception and discussion of the teachings of the council can make a contribution to clarifying the remaining questions and tensions, or whether the Decree on Ecumenism has to be regarded as the final word of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the challenges of the ecumenical movement. While the papal encyclical Ut Unum Sint has in many respects been received as a source of encouragement, there was disappointment among many ecumenical partners that Pope John Paul II did not go beyond repeating and re-affirming the teachings of the Decree on Ecumenism and did not appear to adequately recognize and honour the insights and clarifications that have been reached in the course of fifty years of intensive ecumenical dialogue, not least in the context of bilateral conversations. The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are ‘numerous elements of sanctification and of truth’ which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.9 In a lecture 2004, on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the Decree on Ecumenism, Cardinal Kasper as President of the Pontifical Council on Promoting Christian Unity already dealt extensively with this same issue and stated that the formulation “subsists in” “contains in nuce the whole ecumenical problem.”10 The Cardinal felt that thanks to this formulation, which replaced the simple “is,” the council was able to take a decisive step forward. “It wished to do justice to the fact that there are found outside of the Catholic Church not only individual Christians but also ‘elements of the church’, indeed churches and ecclesial communities which, although not in full communion, rightly belong to the one church and possess salvatory significance for their members.” The concept “subsistit in”, according to the intention of the Theological Commission of the Council, means: the church of Christ Jesus has its concrete location in the Catholic Church… It is not a purely Platonic entity or a prospective future reality, it exists in a concrete historical form, it is located in the Catholic Church. Understood in this sense “subsistit in” encompasses the essential thrust of the “est.” But it no longer formulates the self-concept [self-image] of the Catholic Church in “splendid isolation”, but also takes account of churches and ecclesial communities in which the one church of Jesus Christ is effectively present, but which are not in full communion with it. In formulating its own identity, the Catholic Church at the same time establishes a relationship of dialogue with these churches and ecclesial communities. Accordingly it is a misunderstanding of “subsistit in” to make it the basis of an ecclesiological pluralism or relativism which implies that the one church of Christ Jesus subsists in many and thus the Catholic Church is one among many other churches . . . The Catholic Church continues to as it to be the true church of Christ in which the of the of are present, but it now sees itself in a context of dialogue with the other churches and ecclesial communities. It does not any new doctrine but establishes a new and formulates its self-concept in a concrete one could even The Council is that the church is on a through towards a concrete historical of what its most profound This interpretation is but it is not clear how this position can as a basis of further ecumenical dialogues on ecclesiology. the theological dialogue will But the reception of their results difficulties in all because the new and common that has been developed through these dialogues cannot easily be reconciled with the doctrinal of the churches. a towards the affirmation of a communion” will not be possible without a of the ecclesiological by the teachings of the council. The papal encyclical Ut Unum Sint also has not been able to open a way forward. An of a new ecumenical might be in the response from the Vatican to the of the WCC document Towards a Common and a Common of the WCC This response the “common or basis of ecumenism” by repeating the conviction that is a true and real, even imperfect, koinonia between the Catholic Church and other Churches and But it then “It is a real sacramental koinonia the churches a true baptism by which one is into the of explicitly the of the which already exists between the churches by of their common this statement recognizes the ecclesiological quality of these ecumenical relationships. It once again that this “real but imperfect communion” is to any to form of it even is to that understanding the WCC has ecclesiological believe that a further development of the of a as in these statements could the ecumenical dialogue about the understanding of the church and its unity from the present, and open future It is that the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC has a study on the and Ecumenical of a Common was the general secretary of the World Council of Churches, from through

SOMMARIO: 1. Riforma del Terzo settore e servizio della carità nella Chiesa - 2. La riforma del Terzo settore e le nuove sfide per gli enti ecclesiastici - 3. Il Motu proprio “Intima Ecclesiae natura” e l’evoluzione dell’ordinamento canonico - 4. Il Codice del Terzo settore e la sua applicazione agli enti ecclesiastici - 5. Implicazioni per gli enti della Chiesa: l’esigenza di trasparenza - 6. Il principio della trasparenza nella dottrina canonistica - 7. Il “patrimonio destinato”: implicazioni nell’ordinamento canonico - 8. Attività diverse e controlli canonici: la sfida della governance e della gestione in un contesto concordatario - 9. Osservazioni conclusive. Catholic Church entities and the reform of the Third sector in Italian legislation. Canonical implications ABSTRACT: This paper deals with the canonical implications of Italy’s recent Third sector reform in Italian legislation (d. lgs n. 117/2017) for Catholic Church entities and/or agencies for charitable purposes. It starts with some preliminary remarks on the recent evolution of Canon Law concerning the discipline of charitable organizations and agencies that followed the Motu proprio Intima Ecclesiae natura, issued by Pope Benedict XVI in December 2012. It then examines the general framework of the new regulation of non profit organizations in Italian law, emphasizing the pros and cons (opportunities and risks) of its application to religious entities, particularly those connected to the Catholic Church, which in Italy traditionally enjoy a special discipline safeguarding their canonical structure and purposes. The paper then focuses on the impact of the new civil regulation that allows a wide range of charitable initiatives on behalf of religious organizations, on the governance of Catholic Church entities, which are submitted to the directives and authorizations of ecclesiastical authorities. Finally, it draws some conclusive remarks on the need to update and reform some administrative rules and praxis concerning the administration and finance of charitable institutions in Canon Law.

For centuries the dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox churches has been marked by disputes and conflicts. It was impossible, and still remains troublesome, to clearly identify the reasons for this. Some tend to blame the Vatican for its excessively ‘obtrusive’ intention to establish its hierarchy in the East. Others tend to claim that it is the Russian Orthodox Church that has triggered conflicts in its pursuit to unify the Orthodox churches and ‘dethrone’ the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic and Orthodox denominations have mainly been clashing in Central and Eastern Europe, where new factors generating conflicts are constantly emerging, whether religious or – more frequently – political (e.g. the historical conflict between Catholic Poland and Lithuania and Orthodox Russia; or the establishment of Catholic dioceses in the Russian Federation, which the Moscow Patriarchate considers to be the canonical territory of the Eastern Church). Sometimes it may even seem that the dissenting denominations do not even try to communicate. The pontificate of John Paul II was ecumenical, but it did not produce the results the Vatican would consider desirable with respect to the Orthodox Church. At present we can observe slow changes in the behavior of religious leaders – Benedict XVI and the Patriarchs of Moscow (Alexii II, followed by Cyril I). The authors of the paper present selected issues in Catholic-Orthodox dialogue during the pontificate of John Paul II and the present Pope – Benedict XVI, and they attempt to answer the question of what changes have recently taken place in the mutual relations of the two denominations, and whether the steps taken stand a chance of resulting in a permanent conciliation.

The research, scholarly synthesis, and teaching conducted in a Catholic university are crucial to the dialogue the Church conducts with the cultures of our time, which is essential to the future of the Church and of the world. Their fruitful pursuit depends on unconditional commitment to the truth, both on the immediate subject of study and at the deeper levels of human existence in which freedom, justice, and human dignity are grounded. A significant consequence of the worldwide Second Vatican Council for Catholic colleges and universities was a new understanding of the Christian calling of the laity, in light of diminishing numbers in the vowed religious congregations. To the extent that the Catholicity of the colleges had largely been seen as the charge of the sponsoring religious community, there was a widening gap between the profession of faith and available human resources. Further, a move from ownership of colleges and universities by religious congregations to the installation of lay boards of trustees—without requiring any special introduction of lay trustees to the church-related history and commitment intrinsic to the colleges—was at first not appreciated. Consequently, due to these and other factors, Catholic colleges and universities found that they could no longer take for granted the religious character of their institutions. They could no longer assume that the values and goals professed by the institutional mission were spontaneously implemented in practice. In response to these growing concerns, Pope John Paul II promulgated the Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae. This document identified the common characteristics of all Catholic colleges and universities. In the introduction to Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Pope John Paul II reflects personally on his own experience as a university professor of philosophy. He portrays the Catholic university as a place where the encounter of faith and reason is taken seriously and pursued into the great complexity of contemporary science, philosophy, social sciences, and so forth. He acknowledges that this involves creativity. Hence, there is bound to be some experimentation, some trial and error, some wrestling with the ways in which secular knowledge is incorporated into the way Catholics see everything by the light of faith.

The Roman Catholic Church’s approach to child safeguarding reveals a complex and diverse landscape across the globe. While universal requirements and structural conditions exist, regional concepts, policies, and cultures vary significantly. This paper examines the Church’s response to clerical child abuse, highlighting key developments such as Pope John Paul II’s condemnation of abuse and subsequent directives from Pope Benedict XVI and Holy See offices. It also discusses the reforms initiated by Pope Francis, including measures to hold bishops accountable and the abolition of pontifical secrecy in abuse cases. Despite these efforts, the Church faces challenges in implementation and varying levels of commitment across different regions. The paper further explores case studies from 15 countries, illustrating the diversity in responses and the ongoing struggle to ensure child protection within the Church.

Joseph Ratzinger – now Pope Benedict XVI – has a rich body of political writings that has gone largely unnoticed by political scientists. A renowned theologian, even outside the Catholic Church, he has sensitively explored the impact of secularism and religion on liberal democracy. In public and in print, he even debated the philosopher Jürgen Habermas on these topics. This article explores his novel contribution to the study of the liberal state: a secularised, religious foundation for the state will balance autonomy for the citizens with a needed moral orientation for the political realm.

Метою статті є характеристика державно-церковних відносин в Угорській Народній Республіці у період правління Яноша Кадара (1956 – 1989 рр.). На основі аналізу угорської історіографії прагнемо показати, що підґрунтям успішної політики угорської влади після революційних подій 1956 р. було покращення життєвого рівня населення, досягнення суспільної злагоди та велика терпимість і гнучкість в релігійній сфері. Саме у цей час в країні були врегульовані відносини з «історичними» церквами – католицькою та протестантськими (реформатська і лютеранська). Наголошується, що впродовж 50-х років ХХ ст. владі вдалося перетворити частину кліру в слухняне знаряддя здійснення своєї внутрішньої та зовнішньої політики. Нескореним залишався примас угорської католицької церкви Й. Міндсенті (József Mindszenty), який виступав проти чинного політичного режиму в країні. У статті відзначено, що представники різних конфесій не брали надто активної участі у революційних подіях 1956 р., однак підтримали своїх співвітчизників. На основі аналізу наукової літератури встановлено, що успішною була церковна політика Угорщини у 1960-х роках, оскільки католицька та протестантські церкви, примирившись з умовами релігійної свободи, наданої Угорською соціалістичною робітничою партією, допомагали державі проводити політику народного фронту в боротьбі за соціалізм. Відзначено, що на окрему увагу заслуговують відносини угорської влади з Ватиканом, які завершилися підписанням угод у 60–70-х роках ХХ ст. та візитом Яноша Кадара до папи Павла VІ у 1977 р. Янош Кадар став першим комуністичним лідером, який перетнув поріг Ватикану. У 1980-х роках вплив держави на церковне життя послабився, а в результаті суспільно-політичних змін наприкінці 80-х років церква в Угорщині здобула повну свободу.

Résumé Questionner Jésus de Nazareth , l’œuvre pour le moment bipartite de Benoît XVI-Joseph Ratzinger, c’est aussi chercher à identifier le genre littéraire de cet objet théologique dont l’auteur doit assumer à la fois le théologien qu’il reste, toujours sujet et objet de critique, et le pape qu’il est devenu, en charge du magistère doctrinal dans l’Église catholique. S’il y a bien une différence entre les deux, que Benoît XVI affirme savoir distinguer, il y a également une unité profonde de l’auteur, qui est aussi celle du Jésus qu’il veut présenter. Le narrateur se met sur le chemin de Celui dont il veut déployer toute la puissance d’être et, ce faisant, avoue ce qu’il doit au Seigneur de Guardini. Le genre littéraire du Jésus de Nazareth de Benoît XVI se présente alors comme une apologie évangélique narrative, raisonnée, de Jésus de Nazareth, Christ et Seigneur. En filigrane, l’auteur raconte aussi son histoire, celle d’une relation profonde au Christ qui l’a fait devenir le prêtre et le théologien Ratzinger, puis Benoît XVI, le pape.

Attention to Pope’s lifelong concern with the parts–whole problem sheds much-needed light on his religious thinking. A strong sense emerges, in fact, of the Incarnational pattern in his thinking, a complement to his fundamentally “catholic” sensibility

A look at developments in the relationship between the Catholic Church and Judaism/the state of Israel inevitably directs attention to the burden of the past, which Emmanuel Levinas presented vividly in his metaphor of a 'tumor in the memory'. After the Shoa, approaches to Christian-Jewish talks only developed gradually. With the Second Vatican Council of October 28, 1965 and its declaration of 'Nostra Aetate', outlining the attitude of the church towards non-Christian religions, the Catholic Church took a turn for the better. 'Nostra Aetate' also had an effect on the churches of the Reformation. Its reception was significantly promoted by Pope John Paul II. (1978-2005), thus leaving a substantial legacy to his successor, Benedict XVI. A long-standing Jewish demand was met when on December 31, 1993 the Diplomatic Agreement was signed by Israel and the Vatican in Jerusalem. In its wake an exchange of ambassador and nuncio occurred. Despite current disturbances in the relationship between Israel and the Vatican, the Jewish-Catholic relationship is generally making major progress. The centuries-old animosity has been replaced by an attitude of respect towards the Jewish people and Judaism, an attitude which certainly will have to stand the test over and over again.

BOOK REVIEWS Principles for Peace. Selections from Papal Documents, Leo XIII to Pius XII. Edited for the Bishops’ Committee on the Pope’s Peace Points by the Reverend Harry C. Koenig, S. T. D. (Washington, D. C.: National Catholic Welfare Conference, 1943; distributed by Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, Wis. Pp. xxv+894. $7.50.) Principles for Peace is a felicitous compilation of the papal pronounce­ ments on peace by the Pontiffs Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, and some similar pronouncements by their Cardinal Secretaries of State. Archbishop Stritch of Chicago prefaces the book with appropriate and discerning remarks, while the editor contributes a lengthy introductory explanation. The body of the text contains 47 pronouncements by Leo XIII, 12 by Pius X, 152 by Benedict XV, 102 by Pius XI, 137 by Pius XII. Each section is preceded by a short sketch on the life of the respective Pontiff. Although most of the texts have been taken from previous transla­ tions, of unequal value, almost one-third of them have been translated spe­ cifically for this book from most of the languages of Europe. In his preface Archbishop Stritch summarizes the plan of the book as follows: "Pope Pius XII on Christmas Eve offered to the nations his FivePoint Peace Plan. This plan delineates in broad outline a good peace.. . . It calls back to the many Statements of the Popes on peace for a proper inter­ pretation___ When the Pope’s Peace Plan is read and studied in the light of these Statements, it is dear that it offers to statesmen a safe guide in formulating the peace in justice and charity which we are demanding as the fruits of our victory.” The editor declares that the aim of the book is, "to harvest the accumu­ lated wisdom of these past sixty-five years during which each of the five popes was deeply concerned with the problem of peace; to make the riches of that wisdom available to the English-speaking world; to reveal to all men the incalculable help thepopes can offer in the making of a lasting peace.” He also remarks that "most of the documents are given only in part, since the complete text would require a book of unmanageable pro­ portions.” There can be no doubt that this compilation of papal pronouncements is timely and that it answers a need of all students of the peace problem. It might become a source of invaluable information for all statesmen concerned with the formation of peace plans. Therefore we must be grateful to the episcopal committee that conceived the idea of having these documents published. We owe thanks to the editor, who has given us such a thorough selection of papal peace pronouncements. He has performed a prodigious task. His elaborate index of sixty-seven pages makes reference to the texts compara­ tively easy — an important matter because the texts will be consulted as needed. The selection of texts is his own and may meet with some criticism, but the present reviewer feels that he has done complete justice to the task set. Franciscans will be pleased to find passages referring to St. Francis and his Third Order. Some might be inclined to demand even more, but they 102 BOOK REVIEWS 103 will agree with the impartiality and good judgment generally shown by the editor. This compilation can be highly recommended to all who are genuinely interested in a lasting peace, for "the reader who tempts to draw the plan of a good peace without consideration of the moral realities which are treated in this volume, has not a right understanding of the nature and sub­ stance of a good peace.” The book again proves that the Roman Pontiffs are faithful representatives of the Prince of Peace. T h eo d o re R o e m e r , O. F. M. Ca p. St. Lawrence College, Mount Calvary, Wis. The True Life, Sociology of the Supernatural. By Luigi Sturzo. (Washington, D. G : The Catholic University of America Press; Paterson, N. J.: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1943. Pp. 312. $3 00.) Don Sturzo’s latest work will not generally be accepted as of sociological...

In an effort to assess the latest thinking in the Roman Catholic Church on economic matters, this communications note briefly highlights the recent publication of a new encyclical by Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth). Core ethical values, consistent with previous examples of Catholic Social Teaching (CST), are retained. However, some important nuances are added to previous treatments and certain points of emphasis are shifted to account for recent global developments. Key areas that relate to abiding marketing issues are spelled out and some brief commentary on matters of importance to macromarketing is offered.

Church leaders often express views on political issues and there is no objection to them doing so. However, when they direct members of Parliament on how they should vote on particular issues and intervene in litigation between private individuals, they contravene the long accepted principle of separation between church and state. That principle was formally acknowledged by Pope Benedict XVI in his most recent Encyclical Letter. The author will give examples of cases in which she believes the Roman Catholic Church has overstepped the mark in intervening in the business of the state.

This article discusses the lay movement in the Catholic Church in the 20th century, looking for instances of change and permanence in the official proposals of this institution. It assumes that these pastoral proposals were in agreement with the church’s official policies in the face of the social and political context of that period. Thus, one can observe the coexistence of two strong currents in 20th century Catholicism, particularly in Latin America, viz. the “neo-Christendom” and Liberation Theology. The article analyzes the constitution and interaction of the proposals of these two currents over against official Catholic documents such as papal encyclicals, the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the Puebla Conference and the Medellin Conference. Additionally, it focuses on the gender-related social roles, i.e., the roles ascribed to women and men in those movements. Key words: gender, Catholic Church, lay apostolate, 20th century.

Christianity, and specifically Roman Catholicism, is experiencing a period of global growth at the same time as declining affiliation and practice of the Christian faith is evident in many developed nations (Hackett, Stonawski, Potancokova, Grim, & Skirbekk, 2015b). This decline is evident in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2017b). The Roman Catholic Church has responded to the decline in affiliation and practice through an initiative called the New Evangelisation (Pope John Paul II, 1991). The emphasis on the New Evangelisation by the Catholic Church has contributed to the decision by Australian ecclesial and educational leaders to incorporate the New Evangelisation explicitly into the mission of Catholic schools (Catholic Bishops of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, 2007). Moreover, programs have been introduced into schools to engage school communities as Centres of the New Evangelisation (Catholic Bishops of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, 2007). Consequently, teachers in Catholic schools are expected to be the primary conduits for New Evangelisation initiatives (Pope John Paul II, 2001b, No. 33). The research problem underpinning this study concerns teachers’ understanding of and engagement with the New Evangelisation in Catholic secondary schools. The purpose of this research is to explore how teachers in Catholic secondary schools experience the New Evangelisation. The major research question is: How do teachers in Catholic secondary schools experience the New Evangelisation? The following specific research questions focus the conduct of the research: 1. How do teachers in Catholic secondary schools experience the contemporary expression of Catholicism? 2. How do teachers understand the New Evangelisation? 3. How do teachers respond to the New Evangelisation in Catholic secondary schools? This study is of significance because it may assist in preparing school leaders and teachers appropriately to implement the New Evangelisation by addressing the paucity of research regarding teachers understanding and implementation of the New Evangelisation in Catholic schools. Given the purpose of this study, the research paradigm of interpretivism is adopted. The epistemological framework of constructionism is appropriate as the study explores teachers’ experiences of the New Evangelisation. Symbolic interactionism is the theoretical perspective for this research using case study methodology. Participants are selected purposively from among teachers in a bounded context and data are gathered through the use of documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews. The limitations of this study include the case study limitations together with the responsiveness of the participants. A delimitation of the research is the purposive selection of participants. It is the researcher’s intention to ensure a reliable, voluntary and stress-free environment for all participants during the research. Processes to ensure participant confidentiality as well as the reliability and truthfulness of the research are established. This research generates eight conclusions relating to new knowledge, policy and practice. First, teacher participants distinguish between the experience of contemporary Catholicism within the Catholic secondary school and the experience of Catholicism in parishes and the institutional Catholic Church. Second, Catholic schools ensure appropriate expressions of Catholic practice for staff and students and that for many Catholics, the Catholic school is the only community in which they worship. Third, the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (ARCIRCSA) has exacerbated the disinterest in, if not rejection of Catholicism by many Catholic students, families and staff. Further, the study concludes that the ARCIRCSA has exacerbated the challenges which teachers experience concerning evangelising in a secular context. Fourth, the concept of the New Evangelisation is problematic for some teachers who are charged with its implementation. Fifth, teacher participants exhibit multiple, contestable and contrasting understandings of the concept of the New Evangelisation. Sixth, the study concludes that there are five distinct issues which mitigate against Australian Catholic secondary schools’ implementation of the New Evangelisation. Seventh, teacher participants implement the New Evangelisation according to their individual understandings of what constitutes the New Evangelisation. Since teachers do not share an agreed purpose for the New Evangelisation, they have multiple and at times conflicting responses to it. Finally, this study concludes that a relatively small number of teachers are responsible for the implementation of the New Evangelisation in Australian Catholic secondary schools.