Question 3.41

3.41 In 1958, therefore, you were at the seminary when John XXIII was elected pope?

I was very young on the day when Angelo Roncalli ascended to the throne of Peter. Nevertheless, I noticed rather quickly the occasional difference between his style and that of his predecessor. I had loved the noble, thoughtful figure of Pius XII, and now I appreciated the almost naïve simplicity of John XXIII. Commentators everywhere said that he was kindly and close to the people, like the father of a family.

On the other hand, I still lacked the maturity needed to understand the scope of the council desired by that pope. I knew, however, that Archbishop Tchidimbo represented my country and that he traveled regularly to Rome for discussions with the bishops from the other countries of the world. Although he did not really speak to us about the content of the debates, I must nevertheless relate an event that impressed the Catholic faithful of Conakry.

The cathedral in Conakry had an elegant, ornate choir, with a beautiful replica of the Bernini baldachin, surrounded by very beautiful angels. At the time of the first discussions about liturgical reform, Archbishop Tchidimbo returned to Conakry and ordered the destruction of the baldachin and the main altar. We were angry, incredulous at this hasty decision. Rather violently, we passed without any preparation from one liturgy to another. I can attest to the fact that the botched preparation for the liturgical reform had devastating effects on the Catholic population, particularly on the simpler people, who scarcely understood the swiftness of these changes or even the reason for them.

No doubt it is regrettable that some priests allowed themselves to be so carried away by personal ideologies. They claimed to be democratizing the liturgy, and the people were the first victims of their actions. The liturgy is not a political object that we can make more egalitarian according to social demands. How could such a strange movement produce in the life of the Church anything but great confusion among the people?

Nevertheless, the idea of John XXIII was extraordinary. Calling the Council truly responded to the new needs of an era. At the major seminary, as we studied the various constitutions, we were awestruck by the work of the Council Fathers. Our emotion was understandable, because many conciliar documents are particularly edifying. I am convinced that Pope John wished that the faithful of the Church could experience great intimacy with God. He wanted believers to enter into a deeper spirituality. Indeed, the spiritual vision of man is the source of his program for reform. His concern about adapting to modern times never caused him to forget the transcendental necessity of evangelization work.

And so his denunciation of the “prophets of doom” is correct. A certain pessimism could prevail in the Church in those days. The fight against Soviet Communism and its expansion throughout the world was so difficult that it gave rise to a form of defeatism. Some circles perhaps did not believe sufficiently in the power of Christ, who has never abandoned his disciples. John XXIII appealed for realism, and two decades later God sent John Paul II, who saw the fall of the Berlin Wall. …

The Council wanted to emphasize what was beautiful and dignified in this world. We should not regret this manner in which the Council Fathers worked. The recognition of great accomplishments, when they exist, has never implied the renunciation of the truth. How could the Church fail to praise the technological and scientific advances of that era? However, he also noted the Petrine duty to continue the Church’s magisterial teaching. John XXIII, and later Paul VI, remained faithful to both aspects. A positive view of the world did not prevent John XXIII from noting with uneasiness the signs of God’s eclipse.