Interview with Luca Negro, secretary for communications of the CEC
A month has gone by since the European Ecumenical Assembly in Sibiu which brought together some 2,500 delegates of all the Churches of Europe in the Romanian city from 4 to 9 September. We asked Pastor Luca Negro, secretary for communications of the CEC/KEK (Conference of European Churches), to review the meeting and reflect on the prospects it opens for dialogue between the Churches, in the light of the difficulties that arose during the Assembly in Sibiu. In retrospect, how would you sum up EEA3? “Despite the tensions in the ecumenical field, it went well, in the sense that it was a great meeting of the people of God characterized by great frankness. Let’s not forget that frankness is an evangelical value. Perhaps the comparison is exaggerated, but the meeting at Sibiu resembled a bit the Council of Jerusalem during the early days of the Church, in which there were tensions and these tensions were discussed with all honesty. Clearly we have not yet managed to solve the problems that divide us, especially on ecclesiology and on ethical questions, but we have begun to speak of them and that seems to me a positive fact. The meeting with Orthodoxy also seems to me positive: an Orthodoxy we saw express itself with very different nuances and with a wide range of views on the ecumenical movement. A great discovery was the meeting with Romanian Orthodoxy and with the Romanian Orthodox community. I think the election last week of Metropolitan Daniel of Moldavia and Bucovina as Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church is significant. The Metropolitan is a great ecumenical leader and member of the CEC central committee. Another positive feature of EEA3 was the participation of youth. Though limited in number (only 150), their presence was felt, also through a message that was greatly appreciated by the Assembly because it gave us new stimuli in just a few words”. What were the aspects of the Assembly that you would criticise? “The question of participation. In the latter days of EEA3, the delegates stressed that it was unthinkable to convene an assembly without giving the participants sufficient scope and opportunity to discuss and exchange their experiences. This happened in some of the forums but not in all. In general I think the assembly suffered from a style excessively focused on the interventions of the guest speakers. And the discussion and debates suffered from this. I also think the assembly unduly emphasized the need to devote a lot of work not only to strictly theological questions, but also to ethical issues on which the Churches – as we have seen – have different positions. The question of ethics is one on which nothing should be taken for granted because on many issues the Churches are divided not only between each other but also within their own ranks”. Cardinal Kasper said that the time of “cuddling” is over… “And together with Kasper one could also cite the motto of the Evangelical Bishop Huber, according to whom we need an ecumenism of profiles. It’s a quotation rather similar to Kasper’s because when one says ‘ecumenism of profiles’ one means an ecumenism in which the confessional identity of each is not denied but enhanced. It’s very difficult right now to say how this can be realized in practice. For sure we need to create opportunities so that this debate, predicated on frankness, can develop. It’s a reflection especially incumbent on the CEC-CCEE joint committee”. The Churches are finding it difficult to speak with one voice just at a time when Europe is awaiting strong messages. How damaging is such a situation? “It’s a great contradiction that demands a great effort in our time: how can we, in spite of our existing differences, send out strong messages to this Europe that has a need to hear meaningful words from the Churches? This contradiction – that emerged right from the first stage in Rome of the process of preparation for EEA3 – was painfully manifest at Sibiu. With frankness we acknowledged that there are still many things that divide us. With frankness, however, we decided to work with greater commitment not only on what are our long-standing theological conflicts, but also on the new differences that are emerging on ethical questions and on the style to give to our witness in Europe. For this reason I think we can’t be satisfied by saying that the ecumenism of cuddling is over. In an ecumenical context like the present one, a little cuddling, after all, is something we all need”.
