The Church from Above and the Church from Below
Talk given by Fr. Hans Kung at Fifth Anniversary Celebration of Chicago Call to Action - Nov. 7, 1981 - McCormick Place.

 

My dear friends, my dear friends, I am most grateful to you for welcoming me here to Chicago as a Catholic theologian. You see, I survived and, I must say, with your help. And I see you survived too. And I am just happy that I am back here not only in Chicago but also at McCormick Place, where I spoke here the first time. As a matter of fact, it was my second lecture after Boston in the United States in 1963, in the happy days of John XXIII and Cardinal Meyer. Afterwards McCormick Place, as most of you know, burned down, but this was never a symbol for me. As a matter of fact we kept our hopes and I was encouraged to hear what went on and on here especially by the laity and perhaps the most active part of the clergy. And this was the reason why I accepted with great joy this invitation in order to mark the fifth anniversary of the Bicentennial Call to Action Conference held in Detroit in 1976. And I think it's an anniversary they seem not to celebrate in the Church from Above here in Chicago and elsewhere. When I spoke here for the first time, in the years of John XXIII, the time of the council, we did not have this kind of polarization. I think this only came up because of a lack of real leadership that we have in these times in Rome and in America and specifically in this great Archdiocese.

1. DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN "ABOVE" AND "BELOW"

Now, I think we have to be very sober when we are speaking about the Church from Above and the Church from Below. I would like to make some delimitations because I think it would be quite unjust to think that everyone who is, so to speak, " above" has also the spirit, the mentality, the consciousness of "above". And some of those who are "below" by education, culture, conformity, have quite often the "above" in head and heart. There are, of course, parallels in Protestant churches, but I think it is just to say that their leaders, controlled more by synods and also not claiming infallibility, are not exposed in the same way to the cult of personality; and they are generally more humane in carrying out their office especially in disciplinary processes and procedures. But I think the theological and practical guidelines to be developed here are in principle the same for all sense I theologian.

In our time the qualification "from below" has very rapidly become current in theology and church. But it needs to be considered critically because these images, "below" and "above", are metaphors. We do not have to insist so much on the metaphor as such. The matter we have to be concerned with is the reality, not so much with the words. Now the distinction here and the topic I have chosen is not aimed apriori at some confrontation with the Church from Above. I think nobody here is interested in noisy protests. This is the impression I got from so many I greeted and who were here when I was here in '63. 1 am impressed; I think every bishop would have to see that this is not just a group of people who like to go into confrontation, but I think most of the people here are very much involved in our church. Very many of us, not by our own will, feel something like the loyal opposition within the church -loyal opposition which, without illusions but with a readiness for dialogue, seeks to plead for more sincerity, frankness, pluralism and tolerance within the Catholic Church; which, against the increasing attempts of the upper institutional church to restore the old preconciliar system and impose discipline, seeks to keep alive the impulses of the Second Vatican Council, the United States bishops, and the Chicago Call to Action; and which regards a concrete socio-political commitment of Christians and Churches and the link of faith and justice outside and justice inside the church as necessary today.

We are not looking for another church but we are looking for a symbolic; charismatic design -- a grand design of alternative church model. As a matter of fact, this Call to Action is, I think, an excellent schema for all of that.

If an office holder, even a bishop or a pope does not exercise his office, so to speak, as a commander-in-chief, but while feeling, thinking, and acting wholly in solidarity with the people below, at the base -- if he does this, then obviously, whatever his official position, he belongs not to the Upper Church in this sense we are speaking about it, but to the Church from Below.

If a priest (and there are many like this in this very active diocese) if a priest in questions like birth control, mixed religion, admission of divorced people to the sacraments, recognition of Protestant ministries and eucharistic celebration, exercise of authority and acknowledgement of errors on the part of the church, if a priest does not simply conform to the actual system and defend the views of the church authorities, but if he thinks, feels and acts with the people of his parish, then I think he belongs to the Church from Below.

And if a bishop (and I think there are still some left in the United States), if a bishop is not simply a faithful party functionary oriented only to central authority far away in all these controversial issues, if he sometimes has the courage to say what he thinks and if he really is a good shepherd and not a hireling, if he identifies himself with the people of his diocese, then I think he belongs to the Church from Below.

And also if the pope (and I am thinking of John the XXIII), instead of being oriented to the requirements of the Roman system, is responsive to the requirements of the Gospel and the needs of the people today, if thus he commits himself not only in word but with deeds to the aggiornamento of the Church to the renewal, to the oikoumene of Christian churches not only by words but by deeds with the Jews, and takes up this responsibility for justice in society and the church, I think then also the Pope be long to the Church from Below. Then he does not pretend to be alone, the lord in the church, but then he is what, according to Gregory the Great, he ought to be as successor Of the humble and, according to scripture, attractively fallible Peter: servus servorum Dei, servant of the servants of God.

I think we must not be fixated on the question of authority (even if I insist all the time that this is of greatest importance, as everybody knows). No, we are not to be obsessed by what they are doing "above" or not doing in certain curial and chancery offices. We as individuals, we as Catholic families, we as Catholic communities, I think the first thing today is to survive as Christians. And we have to concentrate on the essential Christian matters. This was also the reason why I myself, after having written this book (which I think was really necessary) about the infallibility, I concentrate on being a Christian and the problem of God - because I think here is the heart of the matter. Here is the heart of Christianity.

And I think this we can do (and many of you proved it) with the hierarchy, but if it is necessary, also without. I think that ultimately we would have to cooperate again, would turn to each other again.

II. THE WHOLE CHURCH IS FROM "BELOW"

Now, after these distinctions, the second theological part of this talk. I think that church is in principle "below". The very fact that the church at its origin regarded itself as called from "above'.', that is, called by God himself through Jesus Christ in the Spirit, this means that it was as a whole essentially Church from Below. The Church is in principle "below". I propose to develop this idea in three dimensions: the first strictly theological, then pneumatological and finally Christological. I think we have to be quite well founded. And it is already clear that at the beginning, there was no Upper Church, there was no ecclesiastical apparatus, no machinery, no (even) hierarchy. We had ministries, we had services, we had parishes, but the word "hierarchy" was unknown. We need organization, we need institutions; nothing against that, but hierarchy means (wholly) domination. I think it is quite clear that this word was introduced some 500 years later by an unknown author whose work had a considerable influence only because it was wrongly attributed to a disciple of Paul, Dionysius the Aereopagite. On the other hand, as we learned from Paul himself, the church at the beginning supported the freedom of the Christian, which means in principle a fundamental equality before God and a fraternity and sorority with one another -- mutual relationship of service, not a relationship of domination -- and in this sense no hierarchy.

I ask therefore is it then a subversive, anti-clerical action if, for instance, some Catholics are willing to found a chapter of the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church? Is it subversive and anticlerical to speak out against the prepared code of Canon Law? Is it anti-bishop if we are asking and demanding certain things from our bishops? Do we then usurp power? No, I think we have to insist on our legitimate rights. Better, I think we have to appeal to the grace given to us.

A. ALL ARE THE PEOPLE OF GOD

And I would like to bring this out in three well known, basic themes in the New Testament. The first thing we have to tell ourselves again and again is that we are the People of God. And the' Church at its origin for all its weaknesses and defects regards itself essentially as God's community, God's people. The church therefore can never be merely a particular class or caste, or a clique within the community of believers. And we have to abolish this use of the word "church" just for some people in the church. The church can only be the whole People of God, the whole ecclesia, assembly, community of believers. According to the New Testament, all are called by God, all are justified by Christ, all are sanctified in the Spirit, we are all invited to faith and active love. Consequently we are all the chosen race, the royal priesthood, the holy people. And in this sense, in principle, we are all equal in the church. And this basic equality is infinitely more important than all differences which obviously exist and have existed'. There are a lot of differences but all of this must not be made a system of domination.

So I think it is illegitimate to separate church from laity -- although the attempt has always been made again and again. I think this is really a hierarchistic, clericalistic misunderstanding of the church. And we must just not follow this but we have to protest against this use of the word. As women have quite often protested against sexist language, I think we also have to protest against this hierarchistic language.

As a matter of fact the word "laicos" (lay person) is constantly avoided in the New Testament because there are no lay persons, so to speak, in the New Testament. If the word "laicos" is used, then it is always for the whole community. And so, whatever special commission anyone has in the church, what was decisive and what is decisive is what he or she is now in respect to God. There is no priority of blood, or race or sex, state, or office. What mattered in the last resort is not whether someone held an office in the church or what kind of office he or she has but that ultimately everybody will be touched. And so any cult of personalities, any buildup of an individual who alone is empowered to speak while all the others are condemned to hear and applaud, that is inconceivable according to the New Testament. That is the first point, the theological point. The church is essentially in principle "below".

B. ALL FORM A CHARISMATIC COMMUNITY

The second point is that we are a charismatic movement. And I think a meeting like this is precisely a charismatic happening. It is already clear that the charisms are not given only to certain office holders but are given to the whole people of God and often in a very ordinary way. According to Paul, the Spirit gives not only extraordinary charisms like speaking in tongues or the gift of healing. He says everybody has his or her charisms and gifts of the Spirit which we should discover and we should use. Everybody has a gift, as Paul says, maybe of consoling, of advising of helping, of administering and (coming very late in Paul's list of charisms) the gift of governing. You see, God's activity within the church has its effect not only on the people but also on the individual. And so the whole church is a pneumatic reality with a charismatic dimension.

And we are not to forget this when we only see the big machinery. I was happy to see how many here saw each other after a very long time and everybody knows how much he is comforted to see those others. As already Paul said, "I need to be strengthened by you." All this is an exchange of charisms and the strength which thrives in this charism.

So I think we have to insist that everybody who has a charism has, according to Paul, his or her own authority. And he or she has to be heard. Even if he or she has no official position, a charism gives authority. And we have to say that nobody in the church has any right to suppress charisms and nobody has the right to say that certain charisms may not come up. And nobody has to say, according to Paul, that he has all charisms. L'Eglise --c'est moi! That is impossible according to the New Testament.

I must insist here that all this also gives us an order -- that where the Spirit is working we have no disorder. And we do not speak here for a wild, undisciplined enthusiasm -the degenerating into anarchy, knowing no limits, with everybody doing what he or she wants. That is not the image of the church in the New Testament, and that is certainly not what we want here. But on the other side, it is not possible to have order manifested in conformism, where all have to do what one person wants. The Christian order must be an order in freedom. Because if it is only order and no freedom, it is not a Christian order. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom, says Paul, in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. And I think this is just the indication of whether we have the true order or a wrong order.

We are admitting that we have offices, ministries in the church. Nobody speaks against that. We are happy if we have priests, if we have bishops and if they are good priests and good bishops. Yet, everybody has something to say, everybody has to speak out, everybody has his or her own dignity. We all are a charismatic movement.

C. ALL CALLED TO FOLLOW CHRIST

And the third theological point: we all are committed to the following of Christ. I think it is already clear that the Church from Below is not merely an attempt to deal with a crisis at the time of increasing blindness to reality on the part of the institutional church and of increasing hierarchical arrogance. It is not merely an emergency operation. The Church from Below is also not merely the application of modern, enlightened understanding of democracy to the structures of the church. I have nothing against democracy, and, as a matter of fact, if anything would be nearer to the New Testament constitution of the churches then certainly it will be democracy, not monarchy. But that is not the main point. The main point is that the Church from Below is rooted in the New Testament origin of the church itself. It is a very primitive and Christian requirement. In as far as the Church is essentially God's people, charismatic community, fellowship of believers in Christ, it is essentially a Church from Below. The Church from Below therefore does not usurp power but exists on its legitimate right before the present rulers of the Church from Above.

We had so beautiful a liturgy before and a beautiful sermon also, I thought. It was, to a certain extent, superfluous that I come afterwards. I think the Eucharist proves that it was worthwhile to fight that we can have now such a liturgy. And such a sermon shows that we are not just griping for nothing. We have a great deal of what we wanted to have before the Council. Yet we have to fight to see that we do not lose even women who are allowed to preach. What I wanted to say here (I do not know whether you reflected on it when we sang this beautiful "Glory to God in the highest and peace to his people on earth") is that here you have already the right dimensions. God, He is above, and we are on the earth and there is no place between. It is quite clear and I am even surprised how precisely the liturgy explains this all the time. The place of all people, of all Christians is below and I think can not be better described than in the verse we sing from the psalm, "Out of the depths, I cried to you 0 Lord." That is why no one may exalt him or herself above others.

It is not without reason that this particular saying of Jesus has reached us in six different forms. "Let him who would be the highest become the lowest, the servant of all." I also note the defensible Marian veneration we see in the Magnificat (profoundly explained not least by Martin Luther) with its reference to a rather revolutionary reversal: "He has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed. He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree." So you see the Church from Below is justified not only pragmatically, not only sociologically, not only politically, but in principle theologically, penumatologically and even Christologically. As believers already saw it under the Old Covenant: above is God. (And this imagery is certainly somewhat easier to accept in the age of democracy than in the age of the authoritarian state.) Above is God, and above with God (and this is what is new in the New Testament) is the one raised up by God and exalted to God. Yes, truly all of us in the Church are from "below". As the Christ of John's gospel clearly says "You are from below. I am from above." But he, the exalted one, opens to all, and not only to a few privileged people, the way from "below" to
"above", a way which (as for Jesus himself) in this life is a way of the cross. But he says, "When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all humanity to myself."

Yes, Jesus alone is the Lord in the church, and no other human being can be called to be or to act as the Lord in the church on any level. At the end, but only at the end, at the end of our life, at the end of time, shall we also be exalted. And only at the end without end will the "below" be raised up into the "above" and the distinction between "above" and "below" be finally removed.

Above, where He is on the right hand of the Father as his representative, his Son, no one else can stand. And this is the critical point of Christology in regard to institution and office -- critique that we often overlook. It is therefore true to say: Woe to him, however devout, however high placed, who makes himself the representative of God, who -- even while invoking God -- exalts himself in faith and action above everyone and has human beings kneeling before him. No, only this one who humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross, only Him alone has God exalted and on him bestowed the name which is above every name.

III. THE SITUATION IN THE CHURCH "BELOW"

I think the biblical impulses I have just mentioned were behind the epoch-making turning point in teaching and practice of the Second Vatican Council. And now, against the background of the post-conciliar drama and the entrance on the scene of the present pope, you notice how much socio-political explosive force and criticism of institutions is still contained in the original biblical language. I think I did not add very much to what we have already at the beginning.

We do not have to apologize every time we insist in theory and practice on what Vatican II has to say because Vatican II has the New Testament, the Bible itself, behind it. I mean the church has to be understood not as a hierarchy but as the People of God. The church has to be interpreted not as a community of righteous people but as a sinful community continually in need of reform, ecclesia semper reformanda. The church has to be understood not as a kind of sacral world organization with a political role but as the church on the spot, local church, (a great term in Vatican II), local communities of believing, hoping and actively loving people. Office in the church has to be understood not as a sacred power but as a service to human beings. The Pope has to be understood not as a spiritual autocrat and object of personality cult but collegially incorporated into the college of bishops, as the servant of the servants of God. The church as a whole has to be a fraternal community, not triumphantly glorifying itself, but self-critically correcting its faults and concentrating on its great task in modern society in order to fight for more freedom, more justice and for peace in humanity.

I think we are suffering today from a discrepancy between conciliar promises and post-conciliar fulfillments. And you know quite well that a lot of things are now the result of a very clear organized Roman policy which is opposed to collegiality and renewal. The national bishops' conferences were assured of more power but at the same time, with the aid of modern means of communication, became even more dependent on Rome and seem to be again only repeating what they say in Rome. The Roman episcopal synod was set up but as a purely advisory body which was condemned from the very outset to ineffectiveness. The Curia and the Holy Office were internationalized but remained unchanged in their mentality. Also the episcopal office was revalued, but as a result of appointing everywhere to that office men conforming to the system, was brought back to its old subjection to the Curia.

I think it will be very important to publish sometime the questions which are asked here in this country of candidates for the episcopacy. I just heard from a person well informed about the four questions of orthodoxy that candidates for episcopacy are asked. And it is a long, long, long, long catalog -- but for an orthodoxy about not Christology nor even the Trinity. No, about birth control, celibacy, ordination of women and, curiously enough, openness on social issues.

I think that the ideal thing for Rome would be to have jovial and social bishops who are internally reactionaries. I think that is the problem we are faced with in all the synods we have in German speaking countries, of course, first to fall, was the rights conflict in Holland.

I think that is also the problem here with bishops' Call to Action. I think even if we were to solve the obstruction by the Curia, then the U.S. bishops would still-resist. There was no consultation on many important questions because it was forbidden, as many issues were forbidden in the council. Or if there was consultation, there were no decisions. Or if there were decisions in the body itself, then the decisions have never been ratified by episcopacies or popes. Demands by the synods or the Call to Action for the abolition of the matrimonial impediment of mixed religion, admission of divorced and remarried people to the sacrament, the ordination of married men or of women or optional celibacy - all this was simply turned down from "above" by petty officials without anyone even making a serious protest. I am surprised that practically nobody ever speaks about the implementation of what was promised by this Call to Action. Nobody any more speaks about it. No one protests. I am just happy that finally they came here to celebrate the 5th anniversary. We just have forgotten it. And I think here we have to see quite clearly that the Church from Above is representing only a minority. And the Church from Below has the overwhelming majority of Catholics on its side. And this is true even for Catholic countries as Italy, where the Church from Above has been overwhelmingly defeated by public vote on important issues like divorce, and abortion. I think the same thing is true for mixed countries like Germany.

What is the situation in the United States? I just got the most recent survey of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago and I think it would have to be a sign of alarm for our bishops to see the movement among the young people. This is a survey of t he populations' between the ages of 14 and 29 in both the United States and Canada. The greatest proportion of young Catholics accept the idea of life after death -- 64 per cent. But the greatest diversion from the church "above" occurs in the area of papal infallibility. Only 25 per cent of young American and Canadian Catholics agree that under certain conditions the Pope is infal-
lible, cannot be wrong when he speaks on matters of faith and morals. And in regard to moral and sexual issues, the great majority who want to remain Catholic (it is a very interesting result of this survey that they actually want to remain Catholic and remain in the local communities) accept the church's view on only two issues: the wrongfulness of homosexual relations and abortion on demand. By contrast, artificial birth control among the married is viewed by this younger generation as not wrong by 95 per cent of young Catholic adults. Remarriage after divorce receives the support of 89 per cent of the young Catholic population. And even in the area of abortion, 85 per cent of young Catholics refuse to take a negative stand when there is a chance of a serious defect in the baby. What I see here is the great, great danger that we will have not a division in our church but that we will have more and more fragmentation and that more and more people are just going on on their own. I myself am not at all for laxism in moral issues and not in sexuality, but I think if the Church would like to remain what it was but what it is not anymore -- a teaching authority-- then it would have to be convincing and credible. It seems to me that the young people hear everybody but not the bishops. So I think it is a very unhealthy situation which has to be changed. Here some people would say, well the majority in questions of faith and morals is not always right. I would only answer, neither is the minority. It is difficult to dismiss the opinions of
such proportions of the Catholic populations more or less everywhere. I know that also in Poland they have this problem if you think about the number of abortions and all these matters. It is not true that in certain countries there are no problems. It is just impossible to dismiss the opinions of such huge proportions of the Catholic populations as irrelevant -- especially as this younger population grows older and assumes more and more leadership in society and also in the church.

IV. WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

I come now to the fourth part which is about basic issues that Jesus himself asks of granters of freedom in the Church. And I repeat here what I had to say in my first public lecture in Rockefeller Chapel at the University of Chicago. We are Christians, we are Christ's followers. We have to. stand where Jesus Christ himself would stand and I think the best will. I cannot think that

He whom Christianity invokes, if He would come back as in Dostoyevsky's novel, The Brothers Karamazov in the famous Chapter on the Grand Inquisitor, I cannot think that He whom Christianity invokes would himself take the position that this Church from Above takes in controversial issues: That He who warned the Pharisees against imposing intolerable burdens on human persons would today declare all artificial contraception to be a mortal sin. That He who invited failures particularly to His Table would forbid all remarried, divorced people ever to approach that table. That He who was constantly accompanied by women providing for his and his disciples' keep, that He would today forbid ordination to all women. That He whose apostles with the exception of Paul were and :remained each and everyone married, that He would forbid ordination to all women, thus depriving parishes of pastors and parsons. That He who took the adulteress and other sinners under his protection would have passed such harsh verdicts in delicate questions.

The same is true of priests. I know there are several married priests in this hall. Not only in Chicago do we really need a few good priests. One of every six priests in this country is married, and we have in the whole country between 12,000 and 13,000 married priests, and we are just doing nothing at all. What would He say if He would come back? I wonder what He would say?

And I must say also for ecumenical relations, I can just not think that He, if He would come back in this present ecumenical climate, that he would agree that the difference of denominations should be maintained as an impediment for marriages and that we still have problems with the Christian education of children. I can't agree that He would agree that the validity of the ordination and the Eucharistic celebration of Protestant pastors should still be denied and that we should consider all Protestant pastors as laypeople with pious intentions.

We have only to remember the key words of Vatican II. They are still valid. We have to protest and fight against the new clericalism; we have to take the laity seriously as the People of God, the clergy as its servants. We have to protest and fight against the new juridicism. by coming up with a new Canon law, acknowledging the inevitable imperfections of church structures and the necessity of a continuing renewal. We have to protest and fight against the new triumphalism by resisting the personality cult on all levels and realizing,a primacy and episcopacy of service instead of domination. And we have to protest and fight against the new centralism by favoring decentralization and giving the local churches their rights. And we have to fight against the new dogmatism by fighting against the renewed growth of intolerance and fear in the churches and among the clergy, insisting on the pastoral character of church doctrine. And we have to fight and protest against the new confessionalism by overcoming the remaining differences ...( line missing, ed.)... denominations.

V. RADICAL CONSEQUENCES

I would come to a few practical consequences in the Fifth part. I do not want to interfere here with what was called by the spokesman for the Concerned Catholics of Chicago "The worst crisis in the history of American Catholicism." What is quite clear to me is that always there is a crisis in an authoritarian system where certain persons "above" want to be accountable to God and not at all to the whole Catholic community. I think that all of what was said in the Concerned Catholics' letter is beautifully expressed in the Detroit Call to Action document, even if it was only partly received by the bishops. But I think we have to come back to it and not just to dismiss everything that involved so long a process of consultation. How are you able to forget such a document? I just cannot understand it.

I think the best thing is just to read it again and to see what we can do, what everybody else, every man, woman can do in his own field. There are enormous questions mentioned there, practical, very practical things and I think we have just to insist on what was said there. I think that all the recommendations are so important that we have to come back to Detroit, and not just because of a certain frustration. And in this respect, I would also recommend wholeheartedly one of the sponsoring organizations here, the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church -- a National Catholic human rights organization working for democratic processes in the church. ARCC is committed to a more conciliatory constitution for the Catholic Church, due process, fair hiring and mediation practices, for academic freedom loyal dissent in the Catholic intellectual life. ARCC is a national organization that is preparing a Magna Charta Catholica, a charter of rights within the Church -- neglected in the seven books and 1,728 canons of the new nearly complete Canon Law.

So I think all of this needs support: the Call to Action, ARCC, and all that. And we have to go on. And I would have to say a word just to come finally to the conclusion in this present situation. I hope that every -body will go away here comforted knowing that we are basically right despite our own fallibility. Even I am (despite all rumors) not infallible. I think we are on the right way. We are on the Christian way, Jesus Christ, Himself is leading us.

Silence, lack of courage, or superficiality can involve guilt - just as much as the silence of many responsible people at the time of the Reformation. We must not be silent. And second, we must act ourselves. Too many Catholic complain and grumble about Rome, the archbishop, without doing anything themselves. If in a particular congregation today the liturgy is boring, pastoral care ineffective, theology sterile, awareness of the needs of poor people limited, ecumenical collaboration minimal, the blame cannot be simply shifted off to Pope and bishops. We must act ourselves.

And thirdly, we must advance together. One member of the parish who goes to the parish priest does not count. Five can be troublesome. Fifty can change the situation. One parish priest in a diocese does not count. Five are given attention. And 50, 1 believe, are invincible. We must act together and I think that is a good example here.

Fourth, we must seek provisional solutions. Discussions alone do not help. It is often necessary to show that we are serious. And I can understand that women today are not any more prepared just to wait and drink tea. Pressure on the ecclesial authority in the spirit of Christian fraternity can be legitimate when office holders fall short of their mandate. The mother tongue in the whole Catholic liturgy, changes in rules about marriage, the approval of tolerance, democracy, human rights and so many other things in the history of the Catholic Church have been achieved only as a result of continued pressure from "below" in the spirit of loyalty. We must seek provisional solutions.

And fifth, we must not give up. The greatest temptation or the convenient alibi in the renewal of the church is the excuse that there is no point, we can make no headway, and we had better get out of it. Leave all together or withdraw into ourselves. But if there is no hope there can be no action. Therefore, particularly in a phase of stagnation, the important things is to endure it and hold out in continued faith. Opposition can be expected but there is no renewal without a struggle. It is essential therefore not to lose sight of the goal, to act calmly and resolutely and continue to hope for a church which is more committed to the Christian message and which is more open, more kindly, more hospitable, more creditable --in other words, more Christian.

Why can we hope? Because the church's future has already begun, because the desire for renewal is not restricted to small groups, because the new polarization and lack of right leadership can be overcome, because many (even bishops and very, very many priests all over the world, superiors of religious orders) men and women, lay people from all sides approve and promote a profound and radical transformation.

We can hope because the church cannot hold up the development of the world and society. The history of the church goes on and changes rather rapidly, as we have seen. And we can hope finally (or better, first of all) because we believe that the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ constantly proves to be stronger than all human incapacities and superficiality. I think, my dear friends, it becomes quite clear that our goals in this Church which is essentially "below" are absolutely constructive. What we want basically is very, very simple and is really possible. What we want is to help our church, the Catholic Church, and all Christian churches, to preach the Gospel credibly and with understanding; to help faith in God to again be more convincing and attractive for modern human beings in this city, in the United States and all over the world; to help that following Jesus, God's Christ, Word and Son, may be not only a pious program but a living reality; to help that the church itself appear visible not as an ecclesiastical machinery but as an ecclesial, true community of believing, hoping, loving persons in the service of their fellow human beings.

I think we could agree on that sort of Church from Above and Church from Below. And I think that this was the meaning of this talk: to show a way to a more constructive future for all of us. Thank you.