Message of His Holiness Pope Francis on the occasion of the Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences

7-9 October 2020

To the Distinguished Members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Meeting in Plenary Session

I offer you cordial greetings and I express my gratitude to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for devoting this year’s Plenary Session to placing basic scientific research at the service of the health of our planet and its inhabitants, especially the poorest and most disadvantaged. I likewise greet the invited experts and leaders, all of whom have weighty international responsibilities, and I look forward to their contribution.

Before all else, I express my support for the work of the Academy, actively promoted by its President, Professor Joachim von Braun, and the Council. In these days, my interest in your work is even keener, because you have devoted this Plenary Session to what is rightly a topic of profound concern for all humanity. You are focusing on the notion of science at the service of people for the survival of humanity in light of the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic and other global issues.

In effect, the pandemic brought to light not only our false securities, but also the inability of the world’s countries to work together. For all our hyper-connectivity, we witnessed a fragmentation that made it more difficult to resolve problems that affect us all (cf. Fratelli Tutti, 7). It is significant, then, that this virtual Plenary Session of the Academy brings together a number of different scientific disciplines; in this sense, it offers an example of how the challenges of the COVID-19 crisis should be addressed through coordinated efforts in the service of the entire human family.

Your efforts are largely concentrated on the study of new immunological and immunochemical pathways to activate the body’s own defence mechanisms or stop the proliferation of infected cells. You are also studying other specific treatments, including vaccines now being tested in clinical trials. As we know, the virus, in affecting people’s health, has also affected the entire social, economic and spiritual fabric of society, paralyzing human relationships, work, manufacturing, trade and even many spiritual activities. It has an enormous impact on education. In many parts of the world, great numbers of children are unable to return to school, and this situation runs the risk of an increase in child labour, exploitation, abuse and malnutrition. In short, being unable to see a person’s face and considering other people as potential carriers of the virus is a terrible metaphor of a global social crisis that must be of concern to all who have the future of humanity at heart.

In this regard, none of us can fail to be concerned for the impact of the crisis on the world’s poor. For many of them, the question is indeed one of survival itself. Together with the contribution of the sciences, the needs of the poorer members of our human family cry out for equitable solutions on the part of governments and all decision makers. Healthcare systems, for example, need to become much more inclusive and accessible to the disadvantaged and those living in low-income countries. If anyone should be given preference, let it be the neediest and most vulnerable among us. Similarly, when vaccines become available, equitable access to them must be ensured regardless of income, always starting with the least. The global problems we face demand cooperative and multilateral responses. International organizations such as the UN, WHO, FAO and others, which were established to foster global cooperation and coordination, should be respected and supported so that they can achieve their goals for the sake of the universal common good.

The eruption of the pandemic, within the broader context of global warming, the ecological crisis and the dramatic loss of biodiversity, represents a summons to our human family to rethink its course, to repent and to undertake an ecological conversion (cf. Laudato Si’, 216-221). A conversion that draws on all our God-given gifts and talents in order to promote a “human ecology” worthy of our innate dignity and common destiny. This is the hope I expressed in my recent Encyclical Fratelli Tutti on fraternity and social friendship. “How wonderful it would be if the growth of scientific and technological innovation could come along with more equality and social inclusion. How wonderful would it be, even as we discover faraway planets, to rediscover the needs of the brothers and sisters who orbit around us!” (No. 31).

The reflections of your Plenary Session on the sciences and the survival of humanity also raise the issue of similar scenarios that could originate in the most advanced laboratories of the physical and biological sciences. May we remain quiet in the face of such prospects? As great as the responsibility of politicians may be, it does not exempt scientists from acknowledging their own ethical responsibilities in the effort to halt not only the manufacture, possession and use of nuclear weapons, but also the development of biological weapons, with their potential to devastate innocent civilians and indeed, entire peoples.

Dear friends, once again, I thank you for your research and your efforts to confront these grave issues in a spirit of cooperation and shared responsibility for the future of our societies. In these months, the entire world has depended on you and your colleagues to provide information, to instil hope and, in the case of countless medical professionals, to care for the sick and the suffering, often at the risk of their own lives. In renewing my own gratitude and offering my prayerful good wishes for the deliberations of your Plenary Session, I invoke upon you, your families and your associates God’s blessings of wisdom, strength and peace. And I ask you, please, to remember me in your prayers.

Rome, from Saint John Lateran, 7 October 2020

Een visie vanuit Rooms-katholiek perspectief

Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidszorg en Ethiek, jaargang 30, nr 3, 2020

Er is veel discussie over vaccinatie in Nederland en andere Europese landen nu de vaccinatiegraad jaar in jaar uit verder is gedaald. In sommige landen is er al een vaccinatieplicht ingevoerd, de Nederlandse regering is ten aanzien van deze maatregel terughoudend. In dit artikel wordt een overzicht gegeven van de visie van de Rooms-katholieke Kerk op vaccinatie in het algemeen, de verhouding hiervan tot visies waarin vaccinatie geheel afgewezen wordt en een eventuele vaccinatieplicht.

In dit artikel bespreken van Ittersum en Hendriks de visie van de R.K. Kerk op vaccinatie in het algemeen. Het artikel is geshcreven vóór de COVID-19 pandemie en gaat dus niet in op nieuwere vaccins. In TGE van begin 2021 zal een addendum op dit artikel over vaccins tegen het SARS-CoV-2 virus gepubliceerd worden. Ook schreven beide auteurs over vaccins tegen SARS-CoV-2 op deze website.

It is entitled “Humana Communitas in the Age of Pandemic: untimely meditations on Life’s Rebirth” and it is the second document – the first one is from 30 March 2020 – that the Pontifical Academy for Life dedicates to the consequences of the world health crisis and its interpretation.

«In the suffering and death of so many, we have learned the lesson of fragility», stresses the text.

The document underlines the importance of a change of pace: global efforts and a determined international cooperation are needed to face the challenge of a fairer and more just future, whose keywords are better health care for all and vaccination.

«We have not payed sufficient attention, especially at the global level, to human interdependence and common vulnerability. While the virus does not recognize borders, countries have sealed their frontiers. In contrast to other disasters, the pandemic does not impact all countries at the same time. Although this might offer the opportunity to learn from experiences and policies of other countries, learning processes at the global level were minimal. In fact, some countries have sometimes engaged in a cynical game of reciprocal blame».

Moreover, «The phenomenon of Covid-19 is not just the result of natural occurrences. What happens in nature is already the result of a complex intermediation with the human world of economical choices and models of development, themselves “infected” with a different “virus” of our own creation: it is the result, more than the cause, of financial greed, the self-indulgence of life styles defined by consumption indulgence and excess. We have built for ourselves an ethos of prevarication and disregard for what is given to us, in the elemental promise of creation. This is why we are called to reconsider our relation to the natural habitat. To recognize that we dwell on this earth as stewards, not as masters and lords». Then « When compared to the predicament of poor countries, especially in the so called Global South, the plight of the “developed” world looks more like a luxury: only in rich countries people can afford the requirements of safety. In those not so fortunate, on the other hand, “physical distancing” is just an impossibility due to necessity and the weight of dire circumstances: crowded settings and the lack of affordable distancing confront entire populations as an insurmountable fact. The contrast between the two situations throws into relief a strident paradox, recounting, once more, the tale of disproportion in wealth between poor and rich countries».

The crisis has shown the possibilities and limitations of those models focused on hospital care: «For sure, in all countries the common good of public health needs to be balanced against economic interests» and the nursing homes and the elderly have been hit hard. To this must then be added that «Ethical discussions of resource allocation were primarily based on utilitarian considerations, without paying attention to people experiencing higher risk and greater vulnerabilities. In most countries, the role of general practitioners was ignored, while for many people they are the first contact in the care system. The result has been an increase in deaths and disabilities from causes other than Covid-19».

The response that must be given to the Covid-19 pandemic cannot be reduced to an organizational-operational level. Re-interpreting the crisis we went through, the text highlights how much we can learn on a deeper level. The fragility, finitude and vulnerability in which all human beings have found themselves united urge us to a conversion that includes and elaborates existentially and socially the experience of loss, as a constitutive part of human condition. Only starting from this awareness will it be possible to involve our conscience in a conversion that will allow us to feel responsibly supportive in a global fraternity (cf. Francis, Humana communitas, 6 January 2019).

On the level of ethics and public health globally, this entails: 1. An equal risktaking and the distribution of those risks that cannot be eliminated in the conduct of human life, including as regards access to healthcare resources, among which vaccination has a strategic role; 2. A responsible attitude towards scientific research, which protects its autonomy and independence, overcoming forms of subordination to particular economic or political interests, which distort its achievements and its communication; 3. Coordination and cooperation at international and global level to put into effect the universal right to the highest levels of health care, as an expression of protection of the inalienable dignity of the human person.

«We are called to an attitude of hope, beyond the paralyzing effect of two opposite temptations: on the one hand, the resignation that passively undergoes events; on the other, the nostalgia for a return to the past, only longing for what was there before. Instead, it is time to imagine and implement a project of human coexistence that allows a better future for each and every one. The dream recently envisaged for the Amazon region might become a universal dream, a dream for the whole planet to “integrate and promote all its inhabitants, enabling them to enjoy ‘good living’” (Querida Amazonia, 8)».

Inter alia, prof. Henk ten Have, Academician of the Pontifical Academy for Life and one of the leading experts in Global Bioethics (Professor emeritus at the Center for Healthcare Ethics at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, USA) and prof. Roberto Dell’Oro, professor at Loyola Marymount University (California, USA) contributed to the drafting of the text. Professor ten Have points out that «The Covid-19 pandemic as a global phenomenon demonstrates that we are nowadays intrinsically interconnected. What affects human beings across the world is a concern for everyone. We all share the same vulnerability because we inhabit the same common home. This experience makes us aware that our individual well-being is dependent on the human community. As articulated in Nota 2 of the Pontifical Academy for Life, a global ethical perspective should therefore be applied which articulates the moral importance of solidarity, cooperation, social responsibility, the common good, and ecological integrity».

For his part, prof. Dell’Oro underlines how «this Nota 2, building on the premises on the first document on COVID, offers a meditation on the human family in the time of the pandemic. The tone is meditative, rather than normative. The intention of the document is not to give cheap recipes, but to recognize that together, as a human family (humana communitas), we have to go back to the lessons we have learned. It is life itself who teaches us, but we have to be mindful and attentive, in addition to foster action. In that sense, we need to change together, to dispose ourselves to a different attitude toward life as a whole. The church calls us to interrogate our most profound experiences, without being preachy, but with realism: our finitude, the limits of our freedom, the shared vulnerability that opens our eyes to those who suffers greatly, especially in the Global South. The document also calls for global efforts and international cooperation and for an ethics of solidarity. I personally hope for people of good will, believers and non-believers, to see this document as a call to conversion, which is first of all, a change in our own way of looking at reality, and to build our efforts on a renewed mindfulness».

Pontifical Academy for Life
Vatican City, July 22th 2020

Een verzameling interventies van Paus Franciscus, waarin hij ons zijn visie geeft op de wereld die opkomt na de pandemie en die we moeten vergezellen.

Lees de volledige tekst van Paus Franciscus

Pontifical Academy for Life

All humanity is being put to the test. The Covid-19 pandemic puts us in a situation of unprecedented, dramatic and global difficulty whose power to destabilize the plans we have for our lives is growing day by day. The pervasiveness of this threat calls into question aspects of our way of life that we have been taking for granted. We are living painfully a paradox that we would have never imagined: to survive the disease we must isolate ourselves from each other, but if we were ever to learn to live isolated from one another, we would quickly realize how essential for our lives is life with others.

In the very middle of our technological and managerial euphoria, we have found ourselves socially and technically unprepared for the spread of this contagion: it has been difficult for us to recognize and admit its impact. And now, we are rushing to limit its spread. But if we consider the existential destabilization that it is causing, we see similar unpreparedness—not to say a certain resistance—with respect to the recognition of our physical, cultural and political vulnerability in the face of the phenomenon. This destabilization is beyond the reach of science and of the technology of therapeutic devices. It would be unfair—and a mistake—to attribute the responsibility for this situation to scientists and technicians. At the same time, it is certainly true that greater depth of vision and the input that comes from more responsible reflection about the meaning and values of humanism has the same urgency as research on pharmaceuticals and vaccines. And not only that. Realizing this profundity and responsibility creates a context of cohesion and unity, of alliance and brotherhood, by reason of our shared humanity which, far from suppressing the contributions of men and women of science and government, greatly supports them and reaffirms their roles. Their dedication—to which is already owing the deserved and heartfelt gratitude of all—will certainly come through this time strengthened and appreciated.

In this context, the Pontifical Academy for Life, which by its institutional mandate promotes and supports the alliance between science and ethics in a search for the best possible humanism, wishes to contribute its own reflections. Its intent is to locate certain elements of this situation within a renewed spirit that must nourish social relations and care for the person. The exceptional situation that today challenges the brotherhood of the humana communitas must finally transform itself into an occasion for this spirit of humanism to influence institutional culture at a regular pace: within individual peoples, and in the harmonious bonds between peoples.

Solidarity in vulnerability and in limitations.

First, the pandemic highlights with unexpected harshness the precariousness that radically characterizes our human condition. In some regions of the world, this precariousness in individual and community existence is a daily experience due to poverty that does not allow everyone access to care, even if it is available, or to food in sufficient quantities, even if not lacking worldwide. In other parts of the world, the number of areas of uncertainty has been progressively reduced through advances in science and technology, to the point where we deceive ourselves by thinking that we are invulnerable or that we can find a technical solution for everything. Yet, however much effort we make, it has not been possible to control the pandemic that is underway, even in the most economically and technologically developed societies, where it has overwhelmed the capabilities of laboratories and health care facilities. Our optimistic projections about our scientific and technological capabilities have perhaps allowed us to imagine that we would be able to prevent the spread of a global epidemic of this magnitude, so much so that its possibility seemed increasingly remote. We have to recognize that this is not the case. And today we are even encouraged to think that, together with the extraordinary resources of protection and care that our progress produces, there are also side effects that show the weakness of our systems and we have not been vigilant enough with respect to them.

In any case, it is painfully obvious that we are not masters of our own fate. And science as well is showing its limitations. We already knew this: the conclusions of science are always partial, whether because it focuses—for convenience or for substantive reasons—on certain aspects of reality and leaves out others, or by reason of the nature of scientific theories, which are temporary in any case and subject to revision. But in the uncertainty that we have experienced in dealing with the Covid-19 virus, we have perceived with new clarity the gradualness and complexity that are part of scientific knowledge, which has its special requirements with respect to methodology and validation. Precariousness and the limits of our understanding also appear as global, real and shared; there are no real arguments that allow some civilizations or entities to consider themselves sovereign, better than others and able to isolate themselves when convenient. Now, we are close enough to “touch” our interconnectedness. Indeed, we are more interconnected by our exposure to vulnerability than by the efficiency of our tools. Contagion spreads very quickly from one country to another; what happens to one person becomes decisive for everyone. This situation makes more immediately evident what we knew but did not adequately internalize: for better or worse, the consequences of our actions always fall on others as well as on ourselves. There are no individual acts without social consequences. This applies to each individual, and to each community, society and population center. Reckless or foolish behavior, which seemingly affects only ourselves, becomes a threat to all who are exposed to the risk of contagion, perhaps without even affecting the actor. In this way we learn how everyone’s safety depends on everyone else’s.

The outbreak of epidemics is certainly a constant in human history. But we cannot hide the characteristics of today’s threat, which shows that it can adapt its pervasiveness to our current way of life very well and can circumvent protective measures. With our efficient and wide-ranging transportation and delivery network, we must be aware of the effects of our development models, which exploit hitherto inviolate forest areas where microorganisms unknown to the human immune system are found. We will probably find a solution to what is attacking us now. We will have to do so, however, with the knowledge that this type of threat is gathering long-term systemic potential.

Secondly, it will be better to address the problem with the best scientific and organizational resources that we have, avoiding ideological emphasis on the model of a society that equates salvation with health. Rather than being considered a defeat for science and technology—which must surely always excite us because of its progress, but at the same time it must make us humbly live with its limits—disease and death are a deep wound to our dearest and deepest affections, but it cannot however impose on us the abandonment of the rightness of those affections and the breakdown of affective bonds. Not even when we have to accept our inability to fulfill the love those affections and bonds contain within themselves. Even though our life is always mortal, we have the hope that such is not the case with the mystery of love in which life resides.

From de facto interconnection to chosen solidarity

Never have we been called on to become aware of the reciprocity that is at the basis of our life as much as we have during this terrible emergency. Realizing that every life is a life in common, together we make up life, and life comes from “the other.” The resources of a community that refuses to consider human life as only a biological fact are a precious commodity which also accompanies, responsibly, all the other activities necessary for care. Perhaps we have thoughtlessly wasted this patrimony, whose value makes a difference in times like these, and have seriously undervalued the relational goods that it is able to share and distribute when emotional bonds and community spirit are sorely tried, precisely by our need for the very necessities that protect biological life.

Two rather crude ways of thinking that nevertheless have apparently become commonplace and reference points when we speak of freedom and rights tend to be brought up in discussions today. The first is, “My freedom ends where the other’s begins.” This formula, already dangerously ambiguous, is inadequate to the real understanding of experience, and not by accident is it affirmed by those who are in fact in a position of strength: our freedoms are always intertwined and overlapped, for better or for worse. Rather, we must learn to render our freedoms collaborative for the common good, to overcome the tendencies, which an epidemic can nourish, to see in the other an “infectious” threat from which to distance ourselves, an enemy from which to protect oneself. The second is, “My life depends solely on me.”—No, it doesn’t. We are part of humanity and humanity is part of us. We must accept this dependency and appreciate the responsibility that makes us participants and protagonists in it. There is no right that does not have a resultant corresponding duty: the coexistence of those who are free and equal is an exquisitely ethical question, not a technical one.

We are therefore called to recognize, with new and deep emotion, that we are entrusted to each other. Never as much as today has the caring relationship presented itself as the fundamental paradigm for human coexistence. The change from de facto interdependence to chosen solidarity is not an automatic transformation. But already we have various signs of a shift toward responsible actions and fraternal behavior. We see this with particular clarity in the commitment of health care personnel who generously devote all their energy, sometimes even at the risk of their own life or health, to alleviating the suffering of the sick. Their professionalism extends well beyond the confines of contractual obligations, thus testifying that work is above all an area of expression, of meaning and of values, not just “transactions” or “merchandise” to be exchanged for a price. But the same goes for researchers and scientists who put their skills at the service of others. Commitment to the sharing of forces and information has made possible the rapid establishment of cooperation among research center networks on experimental protocols to establish the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals.

As well, we must not forget all those other women and men who every day choose positively and courageously to guard and nourish brotherhood. It is the mothers and fathers of families, the elderly and the youth; it is the persons who, even in objectively difficult situations, continue to do their work honestly and conscientiously; it is the thousands of volunteers who have not stopped serving; it is the leaders of religious communities who continue to serve those entrusted to their care, even at the cost of their lives, as has been revealed by the stories of so many priests who have died of Covid-19.

Politically, the current situation urges us to take a broad view. In international relations (and in the relations among the Members of the European Union) it is a short-sighted and illusory logic that seeks to give answers in terms of “national interests.” Without effective cooperation and effective coordination, which addresses the inevitable political, commercial, ideological and relational resistances firmly, viruses do not stop. Of course, these are very serious and burdensome decisions: we need an open vision and choices that do not always satisfy the immediate desires of individual populations. But given the markedly global current dynamic, our responses, to be effective, cannot be limited to what happens within one’s own borders.

Science, medicine and politics: the social link is put to the test

Political decisions will certainly have to take scientific data into account, but they cannot not be limited to those factors. Allowing human phenomena to be interpreted solely on the basis of the categories of empirical sciences would mean producing answers on only a technical level. That would end in a logic that considers biological processes as the determinants of political choices, according to that dangerous path that bio-politics has taught us about. Nor is it respectful of the differences among cultures to understand them in a single technical-scientific way: the different connotations ascribed to health, disease, death and health care systems can constitute richness for all.

Instead, we need an alliance between science and humanism, which must be integrated and not separated from, or worse, set against each other. An emergency like that of Covid-19 is overcome with, above all, the antibodies of solidarity. Technical and clinical means of containment must be integrated into a broad and deep search for the common good, which will have to resist a tendency to direct benefits toward privileged persons and a neglect of vulnerable persons according to citizenship, income, politics or age.

This applies as well to all the choices made pursuant to a “care policy,” including those more closely connected with clinical practice. The emergency conditions in which many countries are finding themselves can lead to forcing doctors into dramatic and painful decisions, with respect to rationing limited resources not available to everyone at the same time. In such cases, after having done at an organization level everything possible to avoid rationing, it should always be borne in mind that decisions cannot be based on differences in the value of a human life and the dignity of every person, which are always equal and priceless. The decision concerns rather the use of treatments in the best possible way on the basis of the needs of the patient, that is, the severity of his or her disease and need for care, and the evaluation of the clinical benefits that treatment can produce, based on his or her prognosis. Age cannot be considered the only, and automatic, criterion governing choice. Doing so could lead to a discriminatory attitude toward the elderly and the very weak. In any case, it is necessary to formulate criteria, agreed upon as much as possible and based on solid arguments, to avoid arbitrariness or improvisation in emergency situations, as disaster medicine has taught us. Of course, it bears repeating: rationing must be the last option. The search for treatments that are equivalent to the extent possible, the sharing of resources, and the transfer of patients, are alternatives that must be carefully considered, within a framework of justice. Under adverse conditions, creativity has also furnished solutions to specific needs, such as the use of the same ventilator for multiple patients. In any case, we must never abandon the sick person, even when there are no more treatments available: palliative care, pain management and personal accompaniment are never to be omitted.

Even in terms of public health, the experience we are going through presents us with a serious test, even if it is one that can only be carried out in the future, in less troubled times. In question is the balance between a preventive approach and a therapeutic approach, between treatment of an individual and the collective dimension (given the close correlation between health and personal rights, and public health). These are questions based on a deeper concern about the goals that medicine can set for itself, considering overall the role of health in social life with all its dimensions, such as education and care for the environment. One can glimpse the fruitfulness of a global bioethical perspective, which takes into account the multiplicity of interests at stake and the global scope of problems that is greater than an individualistic and reductive view of the issues of human life, health and care.

The risk of a global epidemic requires, in the context of responsibility, the introduction of global coordination in health care systems. Be aware that the strength of the process is determined by its weakest link, in terms of speed of diagnosis, rapidity of reaction and proportionate containment measures, adequate structures, systems for record keeping and ability to share information and data. It is necessary that the authorities who can deal with emergencies comprehensively, make decisions, and orchestrate communications, can also be relied upon as reference points to avoid the communication storms that have broken out (“infodemia”), with their inexact data and the fragmentary reports.

The obligation to protect the weak: Gospel faith put to the test

In this scenario, particular attention should be paid to those who are most fragile, and we are thinking especially of the elderly and people with special needs. All other things being equal, the lethality of an epidemic varies in relation to the situation of the affected countries—and within each country—in terms of available resources, the quality and organization of the health care system, living conditions of the population, the ability to know and understand the characteristics of the phenomenon and to interpret information. There will be more deaths where already in everyday life people are not guaranteed simple basic health care.

This last consideration, too, on the greater negativity faced by the most fragile, urges us to pay a great deal of attention to how we talk about God’s action in this historical crisis. We cannot interpret the sufferings that humanity is going through according to the crude scheme that establishes a correspondence between “lèse-majesté” against the divine and a “sacred reprisal” undertaken by God. The mere fact that in such a scenario the weakest would suffer, precisely those whom He cares for the most and with whom He identifies (Mt 25:40-45) forestalls this possibility. Listening to Scripture and the fulfillment of the promise that Jesus accomplishes shows that being on the side of life, just as God commands us, is made real through gestures of humanity for “the other.” Gestures that, as we have seen, are not lacking in these days.

Every form of solicitude, every expression of benevolence is a victory of the Resurrected Jesus. Witness to this is the responsibility of Christians. Always and for everyone. At this juncture, for example, we cannot forget the other calamities that affect the most fragile, such as refugees and immigrants, or those peoples who continue to be plagued by conflict, war and hunger.

Intercessory prayer

Where evangelical closeness meets a physical limit or hostile opposition, intercession— founded in the Crucifix—retains its unstoppable and decisive power, even should people seem not to live up to God’s blessing (Es 32: 9-13). This cry of intercession from the people of believers is the place where we can come to terms with the tragic mystery of death, fear of which is part of all our stories today. In the cross of Christ, it becomes possible to think of human existence as a great passage: the shell of our existence is like a chrysalis waiting for the liberation of the butterfly. The whole of creation, says St. Paul, is living “the pains of childbirth.”

It is in this light that we must understand the meaning of prayer. As an intercession for everyone and for all those who are in suffering—and Jesus has brought them as well into solidarity with us—and as a moment in which to learn from Him the way to live suffering as an expression of trust in the Father. It is this dialogue with God that becomes a font that enables us to trust men as well. From here we gain the inner strength to exercise all our responsibility and make ourselves open to conversion, according to what reality makes us understand about how a more human coexistence is possible in our world. We remember the words of the Bishop of Bergamo, one of the most affected cities in Italy, Bishop Francesco Beschi: “Our prayers are not magic formulas. Faith in God does not magically solve our problems, rather it gives us an inner strength to exercise that commitment that one and all, in different ways, are called to live, especially those who are called to contain and overcome this evil.”

Even someone who does not share the profession of this faith can in any case draw from the witness of this universal brotherhood insights that point toward the best part of the human condition. Humanity that, for the sake of life as an unwaveringly common good, does not abandon the field in which human beings love and toil together earns the gratitude of all and the respect of God.

Portaal van de Sint Pieter

Evangelielezing: Marcus 4, 35-41:

Op diezelfde dag tegen het vallen van de avond sprak Jezus tot hen: “Laten we oversteken.” Zij stuurden het volk weg en namen Hem mee zoals Hij daar in de boot zat; andere boten begeleidden Hem. Er stak een hevige storm op en de golven sloegen over de boot, zodat hij al vol liep. Intussen lag Hij aan de achtersteven op het kussen te slapen. Ze maakten Hem wakker en zeiden Hem: “Meester, raakt het U niet dat wij vergaan?” Hij stond op, richtte zich met een dwingend woord tot de wind en sprak tot het water: “Zwijg, stil!” De wind ging liggen en het werd volmaakt stil. Hij sprak tot hen: “Waarom zijn ge zo bang? Hoe is het mogelijk dat ge nog geen geloof bezit?” Zij werden door een grote vrees bevangen en vroegen elkaar: “Wie is Hij toch, dat zelfs wind en water Hem gehoorzamen?”

De Paus geeft zijn meditatie:

“Tegen het vallen van de avond” (Mc. 4, 35). Zo begint de passage uit het Evangelie dat we zojuist hebben gehoord. Het lijkt nu al wekenlang of de avond is gevallen. Het duister is neergedaald over onze pleinen, onze straten en onze steden; het heeft zich meester gemaakt van ons leven. Het vult alles met een oorverdovende stilte en een troosteloze leegte, die alles op haar weg verlamt. Je voelt het in de lucht, je ziet het aan de gebaren, je ziet het aan hoe mensen kijken. We zijn bang en verward. Zoals de discipelen in het evangelie zijn wij ineens gegrepen door een onverwacht opgekomen razende storm. We merken dat we allemaal in hetzelfde schuitje zitten. We zijn kwetsbaar en we zijn de weg kwijt, en toch zijn we allemaal heel belangrijk en nodig. We moeten allemaal samen roeien en elkaar troost bieden. In die boot zitten wij met z’n allen. Net zoals die discipelen, die met één stem spreken en angstig zeggen: “We vergaan” (Mc. 4, 38). Zo merken ook wij dat we niet ieder voor zich verder kunnen, maar alleen gezamenlijk.

Het is gemakkelijk om ons in dit verhaal te herkennen. Wat moeilijk is, is de houding van Jezus te begrijpen. Terwijl de leerlingen van nature verontrust en wanhopig zijn, blijft Hij gewoon op de achtersteven, in het deel van de boot dat als eerste onder zal gaan. En wat doet Hij? Ondanks de commotie slaapt Hij vredig, vertrouwend op de Vader – het is de enige keer in het Evangelie dat we Jezus zien slapen. Wanneer Hij wordt gewekt, brengt Hij de wind en het water tot bedaren, en dan wendt Hij zich tot de leerlingen op een verwijtende toon: “Waarom zijn jullie bang? Heb je nog geen geloof? (Mc. 4, 40).

Laten we proberen het te begrijpen. Wat is het gebrek aan geloof van de leerlingen, dat tegengesteld is aan het vertrouwen van Jezus? Ze hadden niet opgehouden in Hem te geloven, in feite roepen ze Hem aan. Maar laten we eens kijken hoe ze Hem aanroepen: “Meester, kan het u niet schelen dat we verloren gaan?” (Mc. 4, 38). Kan het u niet schelen: ze denken dat Jezus niet geïnteresseerd is in hen, dat Hij zich niet om hen bekommert. Onder ons, in onze families, is een van de dingen die het meest pijn doen als we onszelf horen zeggen: “Geef je niet om mij?” Het is een zin die pijn doet en stormen in ons hart ontketent. Het moet Jezus ook wakker geschud hebben. Omdat niemand meer om ons geeft dan Hij. In feite redt Hij, als Hij eenmaal is aangeroepen, zijn twijfelende leerlingen.

De storm ontmaskert onze kwetsbaarheid en laat die valse en onnodige zekerheden achter waarmee we onze agenda’s, onze plannen, onze gewoontes en prioriteiten hebben opgebouwd. Het laat ons zien hoe we in slaap zijn gevallen en hebben achtergelaten wat ons leven en onze gemeenschap voedt, onderhoudt en kracht geeft. De storm brengt alle intenties aan het licht van het “inpakken” en het vergeten van wat de zielen van onze volkeren heeft gevoed; al die pogingen om te verdoven met schijnbaar “reddende” gewoontes, niet in staat om een beroep te doen op onze wortels en de herinnering aan onze voorouders op te roepen, waardoor we de immuniteit die nodig is om tegenspoed het hoofd te bieden, niet meer onder ogen kunnen zien.

Met de storm is de truc vervallen van die stereotypen waarmee we onze “ego’s”, die zich altijd zorgen maken over ons eigen imago, gecamoufleerd hebben, en opnieuw is ontdekt dat we niet los kunnen van het (gezegende) gemeenschappelijk bezit: het bestaan als broeders en zusters.

“Waarom ben je bang? Heb je nog geen vertrouwen?”. Heer, uw Woord vanavond slaat op ons en gaat ons allemaal aan. In deze wereld van ons, waar U meer van houdt dan wij, zijn we op volle snelheid doorgeschoten, voelen we ons sterk en tot alles in staat. Geleidelijk aan hebben we ons laten meeslepen door de dingen en ons laten verdoven door de haast. We zijn niet gestopt bij uw oproepen, we zijn niet ontwaakt door oorlogen en mondiale onrechtvaardigheden, we hebben niet geluisterd naar de kreet van de armen, en van onze ernstig zieke planeet. We gingen onverschrokken verder, met de gedachte dat we wel altijd gezond zouden blijven in een zieke wereld. Nu, terwijl we op zee in beroering zijn, smeken we U, “Word wakker, Heer!”

“Waarom ben je bang? Heb je nog geen geloof?” Heer, Gij doet een beroep op ons, een beroep op ons geloof. Dat het niet zozeer gaat om te geloven dat U bestaat, maar om naar U toe te komen en U te vertrouwen. In deze Vastentijd klinkt uw dringende oproep: “Bekeer je,” “keer met heel je hart naar Mij terug” (Joel 2, 12). U roept ons op om deze tijd van de beproeving aan te grijpen als een tijd van keuze. Het is niet de tijd van uw oordeel, maar van ons oordeel: de tijd om te kiezen voor wat belangrijk is en wat voorbij gaat, om te onderscheiden wat nodig is en wat niet. Het is de tijd om de koers van het leven naar U, Heer, en naar de anderen te resetten. En we kunnen kijken naar zoveel voorbeeldige metgezellen die, in angst, hebben gereageerd door hun leven te geven. Het is de werkkracht van de Geest die wordt uitgestort en gegoten in moedige en edelmoedige toewijding. Het is het leven van de Geest dat in staat is om te verlossen, te waarderen en te laten zien hoe ons leven geweven en in stand gehouden wordt door gewone mensen – meestal vergeten – die niet verschijnen in de krantenkoppen en tijdschriften of op de grote catwalks van de laatste show, maar vandaag de dag zonder twijfel de beslissende gebeurtenissen van onze geschiedenis schrijven: artsen, verpleegkundigen en verplegers, supermarktmedewerkers, schoonmakers, verzorgers, vervoerders, wetshandhavers, vrijwilligers, priesters, religieuzen en vele, vele anderen die hebben begrepen dat niemand zich kan redden. Tegenover het lijden, waaraan de ware ontwikkeling van onze volkeren wordt afgemeten, ontdekken en ervaren we het hogepriesterlijk gebed van Jezus: “opdat allen één zijn” (Joh. 17, 21). Hoeveel mensen oefenen geduld uit en geven elke dag hoop, waarbij ze ervoor zorgen dat ze niet in paniek raken maar medeverantwoordelijk zijn. Hoeveel vaders, moeders, grootouders en grootmoeders, leerkrachten laten onze kinderen met kleine en dagelijkse gebaren zien hoe ze een crisis onder ogen moeten zien en hoe ze die moeten doorstaan door hun gewoontes aan te passen, hun ogen te verheffen en het gebed te stimuleren. Hoeveel mensen bidden, offeren en bemiddelen voor het welzijn van iedereen. Gebed en stille dienst: dat zijn onze wapens om te overwinnen.

“Waarom ben je bang? Heb je nog geen vertrouwen?” Het begin van het geloof is dat we weten dat we redding nodig hebben. We zijn niet zelfvoorzienend, eenlingen; op onszelf zullen we zinken: we hebben de Heer nodig zoals de oude zeelieden de sterren. We nodigen Jezus uit in de boten van ons leven. Laten we Hem onze angsten geven, zodat hij ze kan overwinnen. Net als de leerlingen zullen we ervaren dat we met Hem aan boord geen schipbreuk zullen lijden. Want dit is Gods kracht: alles wat ons overkomt, zelfs slechte dingen, ten goede te keren. Hij brengt gemoedsrust in onze stormen, want bij God sterft het leven nooit.

De Heer daagt ons uit en nodigt ons uit om, te midden van onze storm, solidariteit en hoop te wekken en te activeren die in staat zijn om stevigheid, steun en betekenis te geven aan deze uren waarin alles schipbreuk lijkt te hebben geleden. De Heer ontwaakt om ons Paasgeloof te wekken en te doen herleven. We hebben een anker: in Zijn kruis zijn we gered. We hebben een roerganger: in Zijn kruis zijn we verlost. We hebben hoop: in Zijn kruis zijn we genezen en omarmd, zodat niets en niemand ons kan scheiden van Zijn verlossende liefde. Te midden van het isolement waarin we lijden onder het gebrek aan genegenheid en ontmoetingen, waarbij we het gebrek aan veel dingen ervaren, luisteren we opnieuw naar de aankondiging die ons redt: Hij is opgestaan en leeft naast ons. De Heer roept ons vanaf Zijn kruis op om het leven dat ons te wachten staat te herontdekken, om te kijken naar hen die ons claimen, om de genade die ons bewoont te versterken, te erkennen en te bemoedigen. Laten we de kwijnende vlam niet doven. , die nooit ziek wordt, en laten we de hoop weer aanwakkeren.

Zijn kruis omarmen betekent de moed vinden om alle tegenslagen van de huidige tijd te omarmen en even afstand te doen van ons verlangen naar almacht en bezittingen om ruimte te geven aan de creativiteit die alleen de Geest kan wekken. Het betekent de moed vinden om ruimtes te openen waar iedereen zich geroepen voelt en nieuwe vormen van gastvrijheid, broederschap en solidariteit toe te laten. In Zijn kruis zijn we gered om de hoop te verwelkomen en het te laten zijn om alle mogelijke maatregelen en manieren die ons kunnen helpen om onszelf te behouden en te bewaken, te versterken en te ondersteunen. De Heer omarmen om de hoop te omarmen: dat is de kracht van het geloof, die ons bevrijdt van angst en ons hoop geeft.

“Waarom ben je bang? Heb je nog geen vertrouwen?” Beste broeders en zusters, vanuit deze plaats, die het rotsachtige geloof van Petrus verhaalt, wil ik jullie vanavond allemaal aan de Heer toevertrouwen, op voorspraak van Onze Lieve Vrouw, heil van Gods volk, ster van de stormachtige zee. Vanaf deze colonnade die Rome en de wereld omarmt, daalt Gods zegen op u neer als een troostende omhelzing. Heer, zegen de wereld, geef gezondheid aan het lichaam en troost aan het hart. U vraagt ons niet bang te zijn. Maar ons geloof is zwak en we zijn bang. Maar U, Heer, laat ons niet aan de greep van de storm over. En nogmaals: “Wees niet bang” (Mt 28, 5). En wij, samen met Petrus, “werpen al onze zorgen op U, want Gij hebt zorg voor ons”.

Vertaling met toestemming overgenomen van R.K. Documenten.nl