But his illness made it impossible for him to put himself forward as a candidate in the last conclave.”
For fifty years, Carlo Maria Martini and former Vatican minister Achille Silvestrini were two sides (the pastoral face and the diplomatic face) of the same coin: the Church of dialogue.
Was Martini an alternative to Joseph Ratzinger in the conclave?
“Not quite. Martini was well aware that after John Paul II’s long illness, the Church could not afford to have another ill Pope. In 2005 the effects of the Parkinson’s disease which Martini was suffering from became apparent; hence he could not really present himself as a candidate for the papacy. But even after he left his position as Archbishop of Milan, he continued his ministry, becoming a reference point for so many people, even outside the Catholic community. His meeting with Benedict XVI two months ago in Milan represented the utmost gesture of paternal sharing and support. Martini knew he was nearing his deathbed and the tribute they paid to each other was his spiritual will.”
Did the media portray him as the anti-Pope?
“This reading is completely false and contradicted by his relentless contributions to ecclesial communion. His wisdom and sense of proportion also stood out in theological and biblical culture. Like all men of faith he was not afraid to pronounce difficult but necessary words. We will miss him. Many were surprised when, at the start of his pontificate, John Paul II assigned the all-important Archdiocese of Milan to the Biblicist Martini.
Why were they not convinced?
“Martini was not yet a bishop and was known almost exclusively only by academics. His nomination as Archbishop of Milan proved to be a big gamble that was won by Wojtyla, who had the long-sightedness to assign the Diocese of Milan to a pastor of such solid faith, fuelled by the love taught by the Gospel. He lived through Italy’s Years of Lead and the Tangentopoli (Bribesville) years. He was a moral guide, a “defensor civitatis”during the various Seasons that really tested the social and ethical fabric of Milan and Italy as a whole. He knew how to see things with a depth and openness that were oriented towards the changing world.”
Why did he decide to withdraw to Jerusalem when he left Milan?
“Martini loved the holy city. He did not just see Jerusalem as a historic city and as the setting of Jesus’ life, but also as that celestial Jerusalem where he will now dwell permanently, in God. As Psalm 118 says, he saw the Word of God as a lamp unto his feet, a light unto his path. He kept this light turned on in the city where he was bishop, in the Catholic Church and in the inner world of so many souls searching for meaning. A pastor is expected above all to offer the Word of God and the Eucharist. He carried out his mission as a Council bishop, according to the Second Vatican Council, whose 50th anniversary the Church will be celebrating in a month’s time. The faith he proposed required honesty and a sense of justice, encouraging a conversion which above all involved honesty and fairness in people’s behaviour and human relations. It distinguished people for their seriousness and the depth of their goodness.”
Was he better loved by the elite or by the faithful?
“He was a true apostle of charity and evangelisation; he always addressed the entire “plebs Dei, all God’s people under his “Pastoral Rule”. Gregory the Great teaches that the word and language of a pastor must take into account the abilities of those they are listening to. Martini remained loyal to this teaching, aware that the spiritual tension in the minds of the faithful could be compared to the taut strings of a zither which vibrates at the magical and expert touch of the artist. He always plucked them differently so that the sound they let out would never be out of tune with his singing. And the chords gave a tuneful modulation because they were plucked with the same plectrum but not in the same way.”
What was his “charisma”?
“He was able to spot hidden treasures in people, the seeds deposited in each person’s life. He was able to treat them with gentleness, help them blossom and unleash their potential, so he could support them and foster their growth. His act was not one of conceit; he was simply testifying the word of God. His loyalty to Peter’s successor was never in question.”