This week we decided to interview Prof. Fulvio de Giorgi, professor of History of Pedagogy at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia and author of several books:Paul VI. The Pope of the Modern (Morcelliana, 2015), The Gray Republic. Catholics, citizenship, education for democracy (La scuola, 2016) and Mons Montini. Catholic Church and civilizations in the twentieth century (il Mulino, 2012).
If, with a secular gaze, we ask ourselves which was the Italian that, in the twentieth century, had the most positive influence on world history, we must conclude that it was Giovanni Battista Montini (1897-1978). This is to give an approximate idea of the 'scale dimension' on which we move when talking about him:a great protagonist of contemporary world history (at the level of Gandhi, Luther King, Mandela).
He was trained in Lombardy that is in the most 'modern' and dynamic part, at that time, in Italy. More specifically, his youth training took place in the Brescia Catholic environment (in which his father was a leading figure) which then had two fundamental characteristics:on the one hand, attachment to the papacy (with the 'myth' of Leo XIII and the Rerum Novarum) and, therefore, belonging to the organizations of intransigentism (the Opera dei Congressi, with a marked proximity to Toniolo); on the other, an open and 'conciliatory' attitude towards modern society and culture, the constitutional state, a united Italy. So strategic intransigentism and tactical conciliatoryism. This passed, in some way, to the young Montini. His position, throughout his life, was:uncompromising radicalism of the faith and conciliatory dialogue of apologetics.
Through, then, the Philippine Fathers of Peace of Brescia (in particular Bevilacqua) and figures of lay people, family friends , Montini reconnected to the deep vein of Italian spirituality:S. Filippo Neri, Rosmini, Manzoni.
Father Giorgio who, as I said, was the leader of the Brescia Catholic laity was, together with Sturzo, among the founders of the PPI and then was elected, from the popular ranks, to the Chamber. If the mother influenced John the Baptist for the spiritual aspect, the father was decisive for the civil and political aspect (and both for the ethical-social and charitable attitude). From his father he inherited anti-fascism and also a true understanding for politics. He was also close to De Gasperi in the dark years of the fascist dictatorship, when many ex-popular people avoided him and De Gasperi was harassed and persecuted by fascism.
Montini was decisive in the formation of young Catholic intellectuals (first of Fuci, and then of Catholic Graduates) in the primacy of the spiritual, of conscience, of intellectual charity:against the fascist 'political religion' and the statolatry of Gentile. The position was apolitical (also, later, on the basis of the 1929 Concordat) and therefore afascist:but in a totalitarian regime, which required total adhesion to the regime, afascism corresponded to antifascism.
During the Second World War Montini he became the apical figure of the Catholic Church, right arm of Pius XII. He was instrumental in the organizational and ideal recovery (cf. Camaldoli Code) of Catholics. He was also instrumental in choosing the political unity of Catholics in a democratic party with an advanced program of social justice. The alternative choice was that of several Catholic parties:right and left. But, after twenty years of fascism and clerical-fascism, this would have meant a large, almost neo-fascist, right-wing clerical party and small left-wing parties (Catholic-Democratic or Catto-Communist). Montini's (and Pius XII's) line in support of De Gasperi was therefore decisive in anchoring most Catholics to democracy, with an advanced social program. Suffice it to consider the fundamental contribution of the DC constituents, many linked to Montini, in the drafting of the Constitution of the Republic.
As long as it was a question of getting out of fascism and rebuilding democracy, Montini's position in the Vatican was hegemonic:it was a line that looked with sympathy above all at the advanced intellectual and social experiences of French Catholics (Maritain, Mounier, France Country of Mission, priests workers) and the Franco-Swiss (Journet, Zundel). But in the Vatican there was an opposite line:Roman-Spanish (which had Franco's Spain as a model and an ecclesiology of Roman-papal centralism from a totalitarian Church). For the Montinian-French line, the main challenge to Christianity came from 'practical materialism' (above all bourgeois, but also Marxist); for the Roman-Spaniards, on the other hand, from world communism (and therefore it was necessary to unite all anti-communists, including neo-fascists, in a common front). When the world climate became gloomy and the Cold War started (I would say from 1949 and gradually more and more), the Roman-Spanish line prevailed and convinced the old and sick Pius XII to 'exile' Montini (seen as too democratic and not anticommunist enough and, on the ecclesial level, almost 'neomodernist') in Milan, without elevating him to the cardinalate, so as to prevent his participation in the subsequent conclave. I point out that if in the conclave of 1958 the young Siri had been elected instead of the elderly Roncalli, we would never have had Paul VI.
Here the speech would be very long and I cannot summarize it in a few lines. I'm just saying that the results of the Second Vatican Council are closely linked to the commitment of Paul VI. In essence, the historical judgment on the pontificate of Paul VI is totally and univocally linked to the historical judgment that is given of the Council:if Vatican II was negative, so was the pontificate of Paul VI; but if Vatican II is judged to be historically important (I would say a world turning point), then the pontificate of Paul VI was historically important. I am, as it is understood, for the second position, and I judge, as a historian, Paul VI as the greatest contemporary pope.
In the last months of his pontificate he had to suffer the loss of a figure to which he was particularly attached:Aldo Moro. How did he try to get his deliverance from him? In your opinion, could the paths taken by Paul VI lead to the liberation of Moro? Not all sources are still available to historians:the judgment is necessarily circumstantial and provisional. Moro, a prisoner of the BR, did not know all the action that, confidentially, Paul VI carried out, so he judged that Montini had done "little" for him. In reality this was not the case. The pope hoped to be able to establish a useful contact for the release of Moro. We do not know, however, if a misdirection was at work - by 'external' services - towards this work of the Vatican. Montini had confidence. Also for this reason the news of the killing (unexpected in some respects:the release was expected in those moments) was a terrible blow for him, who died only a few months later.
Here too the speech would be too long. On the ecclesial level, from 1978 to 2013, a gap gradually arose between those who interpreted the Council as an absolute revolutionary rift (and exalted John XXIII, considering Paul VI almost as a restorer if not a 'traitor') and those who, on the contrary, said that the The Council had not changed much in ecclesial continuity (criticizing, more or less implicitly, all Montinian openings, especially 'freedom of speech', and extolling the undisputed and indisputable certainties of the Polish papacy of John Paul II). Among other things, both John XXIII and John Paul II had been very popular (and 'pierced' the video), unlike the shy and reserved Montini who did not want papal intrusiveness on the rest of the Church, bishops and laity included. thus progressively produced a harmful gap between the hermeneutics of the fracture and the hermeneutics of continuity. Furthermore, between the myth of John XXIII, the 'good' pope, and the myth of John Paul II, a saint 'immediately', Paul VI appeared - in a totally false and unjust way - like a winter between two springs. more serene judgment and a non-preconceived look at historical reality were possible. This led to the beatification of Montini and, above all, the figure of him was studied in more correct terms. But it's not just about historiography. It is also about ecclesial life and pastoral relevance:there is no doubt that Bergoglio is a neo-Montinian.