|
|
Address to the II World Congress |
The Work of Welcoming the Stranger
Address to the II
World Congress, October 17, 1985
My Lord Cardinal, dear brother and sisters,
As you know, as part of my responsibility, I am very anxious to ensure that everyone should fit wholly into the unity of the church which is respectful of diversity. I am happy therefore to offer you my encouragement and to touch on certain aspects which could throw additional light on the complexity of your labors. In itself, such an emigration often constitutes a drama; it is a trial, one culd even say, under certain aspects, an evil, a necessary evil. This is true for the person who emigrates and for his family which generally goes through a difficult phase, with all the risk of uprooting; it is true for his own country deprive of a subject who enriches its life, its culture, its drive. In itself, one would be tempted to which that migrants might be able to return freely to their won fatherland. Even more so, if it is a matter of refugees who have had to undergo displacement to flee from fear, from war, from injustice or from ideological oppression, the best solution – as I have already had occasion to say – is, over and above the praiseworthy and necessary efforts for integration, repatriation with the guarantee of security (cf. discourse at Yaoude, 12 August 1984, no. 12; cf. also the address to the Diplomatic Corps, 15 January 1985, n. 6). Therefore one cannot, a priori, consider all emigration as a positive fact, to be sought or promoted. Another remark of a general character is that, in this field as in other, one cannot speak of "rights" for the migrant or for the receiving country without speaking of "duties," of reciprocal duties. And if the receiving country should assume its duty of helping migrants to live – above all when it is a matter of granting them the right of asylum which is a strict right – it can appeal to the solidarity of other countries, so as not to be alone in having to carry the cost which would be beyond its own resources and would imperil the common good of its own subjects which is its first duty. But these considerations having been ventilated in order to keep the argument at a responsible level, it remain true that emigration, especially for reasons of work, is an ever more extensive phenomenon in our modern societies, a phenomenon destined without doubt to increase since the search for work of better living conditions involve the need to move form one place to another. At the same time one is witnessing the permanent nature of the migration situation: most of them, and above all those of the second generation, want to remain in the country where they have finally found security in a fuller life than in their country of origin. This implies that they should be able to fit into their new place, to integrate the best way possible. And this has been the object of your deliberations. Yet again, some good can be extracted from the trial of emigration: the advance towards a society that is culturally more rich in its diversity and, let us hope, more open in its fraternal religions. It seems in effect that, in the technically advanced countries, there is a movement towards pluri-ethnic and multicultural societies. In this sense, migration can even be an opportunity for progress. But under what conditions? Just as it is necessary to avoid the possibility of migrants living totally alongside other people, forming a world apart, neither must they let themselves be "assimilated," absorbed, to the point of being dissolved into the surrounding society, renounce their original riches, their identity. Everything must be done so that they may participate, with their won heritage, ij the common cultural, spiritual and human good of the national community which they have joined. This presupposes openness, mutual respect, dialogue, exchange and participation among all the partners. Those who welcome them should be attentive not only to the needs but also to the personality of the migrants; they must understand the demands of sharing and respect, banishing all spirit of self-sufficiency, pride and egoism, reminding themselves that all goods have a universal destiny, that all workers and their families have the right to the same guarantees offer5ed by the law. This spirit of equity, is all the more necessary when the rejection of the stranger is a strong temptation at a time when the industrialized country is experiencing a major economic crisis, involving unemployment, especially if a racist ideology seeks to justify the instinctive protective action. Those who arrive in a new country have, for their part, to overcome innumerable handicaps among which are frequently those of language, cultural uprooting, precarious living conditions and administrative measures. Neither must they give in to the temptation of closing in on themselves in a "ghetto" kind of life in a kind of isolation of inferiority complex. At the same time, they should demonstrate, peacefully, their fidelity to their origins, and especially their fidelity to their faith. May pastors work to this end. May they constantly appeal for and educate to dialogue, fighting against the weight of mentalities and habits that re contrary to this law of welcoming the "brother stranger." Certainly, the Church has foreseen the stages and links in the process of this ecclesial integration: personal parishes, chaplaincies, missio cum cura animarum. These stages are often necessary; however, the risk must be avoided of closing them in on themselves and thus damaging the indispensable exchanges. But also one must not, in the name of unity, one must not precipitate certain legitimate evolutions which need time; this would be to deprive oneself of the patrimonies which should enrich a common way of existing, the art fo "living together."
|