A critical note on Aparecida and the future of the Catholic Church of Latin America

Abstract

The conclusions of the Fifth Conference of Bishops of Latin America meeting in Aparecida in 2007 are entitled ‘Disciples and Missionaries of Jesus Christ.’ When analyzed in the light of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the traditional doctrines of soteriology, the sacraments, ecclesiology, and authority in the Church are missing; they are also missing in the conclusions of the previous conferences of Latin American bishops and in the Second African Synod. The conference of Medellin of 1968 had inaugurated the see-judge-act methodology, but it is missing in Aparecida. Also missing is a strong emphasis on social justice and structural sin, which are central to liberation theology. However, missionary discipleship is not just an ideal in Latin America; it is practiced through the Holy Popular Mission of Brazil and small communities in Guatemala. Hence the Catholic Church of Latin America is heading in a new direction. In this way, it is an example of a Church-type structure with some features of the sect type.

The Latin American bishops meet about every 12 years in a general conference: in Rio de Janeiro in 1955, in Medellin in 1968, in Puebla in 1979, in Santo Domingo in 1992, and most recently in Aparecida in 2007. I will analyze the conclusions of the Fifth Latin American Conference, known as the document of Aparecida, and outline the direction which the Church of Latin America seems to be taking. To do so, I will first review some background information to be used in my analysis, namely, the see-judge-act methodology of Medellin, the liberation theology controversy, and the restoration theology of John Paul II. The purpose is to show the changes introduced by Aparecida in reference to the see-judge-act of Medellin, the liberation theology, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Medellin, liberation theology, the Catechism of the Catholic Church

The conference of Medellin set the Church of Latin America on a new path, as it squarely faced change, as indicated by its title, The Church in the Present-Day Transformation of Latin America in the light of the Council. A brief summary gives an idea of the changes introduced by this document. What comes first, in the Medellin document, are 50 pages of analysis of the social situation of Latin America (Justice, Peace, Family, Education, and Youth). Evangelization comes second, in 40 pages; it consists of four sections: the Pastoral Care of the Masses and the Pastoral Care of the Elites, followed by Catechism and the Liturgy; significantly people (the masses and the elites) come before catechism and liturgy. It is only in the third section that we come to the ‘Visible Church and its Structures.’ Here again the content is surprising: it begins with Lay Movements, followed by a section on Priests and the Religious, and ends with two sections on Joint Pastoral Planning and the Mass Media. The traditional image of the Church as hierarchy is put on its head and there is no mention of the Vatican II abstract image of the ‘people of God’ but a concrete description of the Latin American situation and its people.

What is new in Medellin is the methodology of see-judge-act: each section begins with the Facts, followed by Theological Reflections, and ends with suggestions for Pastoral Planning. Thus the very first paragraph of the document describes the misery of the masses: ‘That misery, as a collective fact, expresses itself as injustice which cries to the heavens’ (Medellin: 1). The suggestions for Pastoral Planning are Social Change (Medellin: 7–15) and Political Reform (Medellin: 16). This methodology has an empirical and even a sociological dimension as ‘the facts’ must be empirically correct and must come before any theological and pastoral reflections. We have now our first criterion of the analysis of Aparecida: How faithful is this document to the methodology of see-judge-act?

Out of Medellin came liberation theology. Gutierrez’s A Theology of Liberation, published three years after Medellin, is usually seen as the beginning of liberation theology, which spread among intellectuals as a theology of change, and in the masses in the form of ecclesial base communities. But liberation theology raised the suspicion of Rome. Cardinal Ratzinger, then prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, issued two refutations of liberation theology, the ‘Instruction on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberation”’ in 1984 (Ratzinger, 1984) and the ‘Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation’ in 1986 (Ratzinger, 1986). In the first, Ratzinger (1984: VII, 1), accuses ‘certain Christians, despairing of every other method, to turn to what they call “Marxist analysis”’ but the use of such a method ‘should be preceded by a careful epistemological critique. This preliminary critical study is missing from more than one “theology of liberation”’ (Ratzinger, 1984: VII, 4). Hence Ratzinger is implicitly accusing liberation theologians of having embraced Marxist principles.

In 1979 Pope John Paul II had already taken a strong position against liberation theology at the Latin American conference of Puebla. In his opening speech he declared: ‘This conception of Christ, as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive of Nazareth, does not tally with the Church’s catechisms’ (Eagleson and Scharper, 1979: 60). His argument was mainly polemical, rather than theological, as he presents a caricature of liberation theology, claiming that in some cases ‘people purport to depict Jesus as political activist, as a fighter against Roman domination and the authorities, and even as someone involved in class struggle’ (Eagleson and Scharper, 1979: 60). In the following years Church authorities dismantled the intellectual centers of liberation theology by removing seminary professors and transferring parish priests. We now have a second question for the analysis of Aparecida: how much is left of the liberation theology that originated with Medellin?

The long papacy of John Paul II was characterized by a restoration theology that is best summarized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It was promulgated with the pope’s strong endorsement in his Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, ‘By virtue of my Apostolic Authority … I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith … a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994: 5). We have now a third criterion for analyzing the Aparecida document: To what extent does it follow the basic doctrines of the Catechism?

The Aparecida conference was practically ignored by the secular press – except to comment on the pope’s visit to Brazil. America magazine, a major Jesuit publication in the U.S., had four short articles, mainly on the pope’s visit and speech, but none on the content of the conference, which was made available only later. Theologica Xaveriana, published by the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana of Bogota, Columbia, offered three general articles on social justice and the option for the poor that are only vaguely related to Aparecida. Gutiérrez published one article in Theological Studies, the most prestigious Catholic journal of theology in the United States; it is entitled ‘The Option for the Poor Arises from Faith in Christ’ (Gutierrez, 2009), which is only loosely related to Aparecida. Only one book of essays (Pelton, 2008) tried to fathom the probable impact of Aparecida. In it, Gustavo Gutierrez and José Marins mainly expressed the hope that Aparecida would be a return to social justice and the denunciation of ‘structural sin.’ Among the social scientists contributing to the book, Daniel Levine is more pessimistic, pointing to the erosion of the Church’s influence on culture and society. There were also short articles in a variety of publications like the National Catholic Reporter and the Sojourners Magazine, but there was practically no analysis of the text of Aparecida from a sociological, a pastoral, or a theological perspective.

I will first give a brief overview of Aparecida, next point to differences between Aparecida and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and finally analyze the see- judge-act methodology.

Overview of Aparecida

The title of the document of Aparecida, ‘Disciples and Missionaries of Jesus Christ,’ was something new because it pointed to a specific agenda, missionary discipleship. The previous episcopal conferences had been rather general, as indicated by the title of Medellin, The Church in the Present-Day Transformation of Latin America. Moreover, the document contains a strong commitment to a Continental Mission: ‘We commit ourselves to a continent-wide Great Mission that will require that we deepen and enrich all the reasons and motivations to make each believer a missionary disciple. We hope for a new Pentecost that will free us from fatigue, disillusionment, and conformity to the environment’ (Aparecida, 2007: 362). The conclusion of the document repeats this commitment in even stronger words:

This missionary awakening in the form of a Continental Mission, the fundamental lines of which have been examined by our Conference, will be considered even more concretely during the next CELAM Plenary Assembly in Havana. It will require the decided collaboration of the Bishops Conferences and of each diocese in particular. It will seek to place the Church permanently in a state of mission. (Aparecida, 2007: 551)

It is the bishops who have the mission of implementing evangelization through national conferences and in their dioceses and parishes before the next conference in Havana in about 2020; they can hardly arrive there empty handed.

The document of Aparecida is different from most official Church documents in that it speaks in images and metaphors rather than theological theses; its language is more biblical than academic. Let me give examples from the third section of the document entitled ‘The life of Jesus Christ for our peoples.’ Traditional documents are more likely to present dualisms like Jesus Christ in contrast to the faithful, or Jesus Christ in Church teaching as opposed to the faithful’s duty to listen. In Aparecida, ‘our peoples’ (plural) is broader than ‘the faithful’ (singular), and ‘full life’ broader than ‘Church teaching,’ as indicated by the title of chapter 7, ‘The Mission of the disciples at the service of full life.’ What is ‘full life?’ It is an image that is best understood negatively: fullness of life is negated by anything that limits it; it rejects all limitations. The first subtitle of this chapter is ‘To live and communicate the new life in Christ to our peoples’ (Aparecida, 2007: 7.1), which may resonate as biblical or at least as more biblical than mandatory church attendance or imposed beliefs. ‘The new life in Christ’ assumes active participation and transformation; the ‘submission of intellect and will’ of Vatican II (Lumen gentium 25a) is less likely to inspire ‘New life in Christ.’

The four sub-sub-titles of this sub-section are, ‘Jesus Christ at the service of life’ (Aparecida, 2007: no. 7.1.1), ‘The various dimensions of life in Christ’ (Aparecida, 2007: 7.1.2), ‘At the service of full life for all’ (Aparecida, 2007: 7.1.3), and ‘A mission to communicate life’ (Aparecida, 2007: 7.1.4). Each of these titles contains metaphors that are programs of transformation: Jesus Christ is at the service of life, not just the hierarchy, not just the faithful, not the institution, not even ‘religion’ (in Bonheoffer’s sense). ‘At the service of life’ is an image that will appeal to many, even to marginal or non-practicing Catholics. ‘The various dimensions of life in Christ’ connotes the pluralism normally found in any society but repressed in totalitarian regimes that prosper through uniformity. Finally, the mission ‘to communicate life’ is best understood in reference to its opposite, death and darkness. Christianity proclaims the victory of life over death for those who live in light rather than darkness. These images present a gospel message that resonates with many people, but no clear doctrine.

I have presented above only the first four pages of the first section of chapter 7. Hopefully this is sufficient to suggest a new direction for the Church, one that may not easily be translated into clear and simple propositions. This way of writing is quite different from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, to which I now turn.

Aparecida and the Catechism of the Catholic Church

What is striking in the Aparecida document is what is missing. Using a word search we can check the presence or absence of key words. I have searched four areas: (1) soteriology, (2) the sacraments, (3) ecclesiology, and (4) authority in the Church. After itemizing the individual words, I will summarize the missing doctrine of the Catechism.

In reference to salvation, there is no mention in Aparecida of original sin, Adam and Eve, Satan or the Devil. While Latin American piety strongly emphasizes the passion and suffering of Christ, the word ‘suffering’ is not found in the text. The word ransom (rescate), as in ‘ransom for our sins,’ is not found. Redemption (redención) is mentioned twice, liberation six times (twice as ‘integral liberation’ and twice as ‘authentic liberation’), and salvation 19 times, but the terms are not explained.

There is no mention that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. There is no mention of the Mass or Eucharist as being the ‘sacrifice of the cross.’ One major characteristic of traditional ecclesiology is the hierarchical nature of the Church, but in Aparecida the word ‘hierarchy’ is missing. Obedience in the Church is mentioned only once in reference to seminarians learning ‘obedience to the bishop’ (Aparecida, 2007: 324). Instead of inequality and obedience in the Church, Aparecida describes a Church of disciples ‘where all the members enjoy equal dignity and participate with various ministries and charisms’ (Aparecida, 2007: 184). Inequality is mentioned seven times, but only in reference to civil society, not the Church.

There is no mention of the authority of the Church, only one reference to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff (Aparecida, 2007: 186); hence there is no mention of the ‘teaching authority’ of the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the social doctrine of the Church are mentioned only as useful starting points for supplementary catechetical lessons (subsidios catequéticos) in the training of catechists (Aparecida, 2007: 299). Tradition is taken in the sociological sense of cultural, social, or religious traditions; ‘Tradition’ in the traditional Catholic sense is mentioned only twice, while references to the general meaning of ‘cultural tradition’ is found 27 times.

Further research reveals that some of these concepts are also missing from the other CELAM documents. They are also missing in the conclusions of the Second African Synod, which took place two years after Aparecida. So what is missing?

Soteriology. We read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) that the Adam and Eve story of Genesis ‘affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents’ (italics in the text, CCC: 390). The Catechism clearly points to ‘Adam as the source of sin’ (CCC, 1994: 388); hence the official teaching reaffirms the historical existence of Adam, the existence of a ‘fault freely committed,’ and that we are all descendants from this couple. The Catechism also reaffirms the doctrine of original sin and the concept of salvation as ‘redemption,’ that is, as ‘buying back’ from Satan. This general soteriology of ‘redemption’ due to original sin is being questioned by many Catholics, which may explain why it is missing from Aparecida, but the latter has nothing to replace it.

The sacraments. Thanks to the ‘merits’ of Jesus Christ, ‘Baptism … erases original sin and turns man back toward God’ (CCC, 1994: 405). Baptism also confers ‘sanctifying grace, the grace of justification’ (CCC, 1994: 1266). After baptism, one is in a ‘state of grace’ but the latter can be lost though any mortal sin. Catholics are supposed to be able to recognize mortal sins and go to confession to return to the state of grace. Are sacraments necessary for salvation? Traditional theology says so (CCC, 1994: 1129) because they ‘confer grace.’ Since this theology of grace has become meaningless for most Catholics, Aparecida understandably dropped it, but it has nothing to replace it.

Ecclesiology. According to Pius X: ‘The Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of persons, the Pastors and the flock …’ (Pius X, 1906: 8). The Baltimore Catechism similarly stated: ‘The members of the Church on earth may be divided into those who teach and those who are taught. Those who teach, the Pope, the bishops and priests, are called the Teaching Church or simply the Church’ (Ecclesiastical Authority, 1974: 97). In the Catechism we read that ‘The Second Vatican Council ‘teaches … that the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred by episcopal consecration’ (CCC, 1994: 1557), while priests are ordained as his ‘co-workers.’ Hence the Church is still defined by its hierarchy of powers, from fullness in the case of bishops to total absence in the case of the laity. Holy orders are defined by power rather than by responsibilities or leadership. Aparecida emphasizes the responsibility of all as a Church of missionary disciples, but canon law still defines bishops and priests by their power. So what will Latin American bishops do in the event of conflict?

Authority in the Church. The Catechism succinctly summarizes Lumen Gentium, which is based on traditional theology: ‘The Roman Pontiff … enjoys infallibility in virtue of his office …’. Moreover, infallibility ‘is also present in the body of bishops …’. Finally, the teachings of the supreme Magisterium in matters of faith and morals ‘must be adhered to with the obedience of faith’ (obsequium religiosum, CCC, 1994: 891). The obsequium religiosum of Lumen Gentium quoted by the Catechism is usually translated as ‘submission of intellect and will,’ but in concrete situations it often plainly means blind obedience. It is this blind obedience that is required on the issues of birth control and the exclusion of women from priestly ordination. Aparecida avoids appealing to the obedience of intellect and will on the part of the faithful, although in practice most dioceses and parishes still function on the basis of traditional authority. Here again the problem of authoritarianism is avoided in the text of Aparecida, but there are no suggestions for conflict resolution in case of dissent in everyday life.

The see-judge-act methodology

‘In continuity with the previous general conferences of Latin American Bishops, this document [of Aparecida] utilizes the see-judge-act method’ (Aparecida, 2007: 19). Here are some examples of ‘facts’ taken from ‘View of Reality by Missionary Disciples’ (chapter 2). The global change today which ‘affects the entire world … [is] the phenomenon of globalization.’ This is a very general fact. ‘Our cultural traditions are no longer handed on from one generation to the next with the same ease as in the past’ (Aparecida, 2007: 39). This is a somewhat stereotypical view, not a fact. ‘Only those who recognize God know reality and are able to respond to it adequately and in a truly human manner’ (Aparecida, 2007: 42). This is a questionable view and not a fact. ‘Individualism weakens community bonds and proposes a radical transformation of time and space, granting a primary role to imagination’ (Aparecida, 2007: 44). Individualism versus community is an easy stereotype; where are the facts? ‘In globalization, market forces easily absolutize efficacy and productivity as values regulating all human relations’ (Aparecida, 2007: 61). What are the facts? Other generalizations include, in summary fashion: the elimination of small and medium businesses (Aparecida, 2007: 63), millions of people living in poverty (Aparecida, 2007: 65), unemployment and underemployment (Aparecida, 2007: 71), corruption in society and government (Aparecida, 2007: 77), the increase of violence (Aparecida, 2007: 79), and finally 15 paragraphs on bio-diversity, ecology, the Amazon, Antarctica, and indigenous people (Aparecida, 2007: 83 to 97).

These generalities could be applied to nearly any country, to Africa and Oceania as well as Latin America. What happened to ‘see-judge-act?’ In the Medellin document, after each ‘fact’ there is a theological reflection followed by suggestions for pastoral planning. In Aparecida, there are no reflections and no pastoral plans after the so-called facts or generalities. Moreover, what pastoral plan can the Church propose about globalization, the non-transmission of culture, individualism, and market forces? What can the Church do – except complain – about bio-diversity, ecology, the Amazon, and Antarctica? In Latin America domestic violence, alcoholism, and drug abuse are major problems, but they are ignored by the bishops. In Guatemala, domestic violence is so high that the U.N. has sponsored a national campaign on television, radio, and billboards, but the local Catholic hierarchy has mainly been silent about that matter. It seems that the bishops prefer not to see the facts when they are inconvenient.

The ‘see-judge-act’ methodology is also applied to ‘our Church at this historic time of challenges’ (sub-title). Among the major problems of the Church are the following (Aparecida, 2007: 100). ‘The increase of the clergy … is falling behind population growth.’ There are ‘some reductionist interpretations and applications of the conciliar renewal.’ ‘We likewise find a relativistic mentality in the ethical and religious realm.’ ‘Many people are losing the transcendent sense of their lives and are giving up religious practices.’ ‘Evangelization, catechesis, and pastoral ministry as a whole, are still speaking languages that mean little to contemporary culture.’ There is an ‘insufficient number of priests and their inequitable distribution … [and a] relative scarcity of vocations to the ministry.’

There are no pastoral plans to correct these deficiencies and no theological and pastoral reflections. For instance, a reflection about the scarcity of priests would raise the question of celibacy which the bishops have orders from the Vatican to ignore. Why is there ‘a relativistic mentality?’ In part because ‘catechesis … mean[s] little to contemporary culture.’ Why is there an inequitable distribution of priests between dioceses? Probably because bishops do nothing about it. Why is it that ‘many people are losing the transcendent sense of their lives?’ In part because the Church does not offer much of a transcendent sense in its Sunday services. In sum, the ‘see-judge-act’ methodology has been emptied of its content. Of the three steps, ‘see’ has been reduced to complaining, and ‘judge’ and ‘act’ have been deleted. Because the bishops have only a blurred vision of reality, especially of the situation of the Church, they cannot make realistic pastoral plans; as a consequence the goal of missionary discipleship and the Continental Mission may well be jeopardized.

In his analysis of the Aparecida, Gutierrez mentions that the ‘see-judge-act’ method is an integral part of any liberationist program, besides the emphasis on social justice and denunciation of ‘structural sins.’ In Aparecida, the term justice/injustice is used 69 times, but usually in a very general sense such as: ‘In the light of Christ, suffering, injustice, and the cross challenge us to live according to the ideal of the Good Samaritan (cf. Lk10: 25–37)’ (Aparecida, 2007: 26). What is a Samaritan Church? There is no answer. We also learn that globalization ‘fosters many inequities and injustices … [but is] incapable of interpreting and reacting in response to objective values that transcend the market’ (Aparecida, 2007: 61), but the bishops offer no pastoral plan to ‘transcend the market’ in the context of globalization. As to the term ‘structural sin,’ it is not found in Aparecida; in its absence, we are left with individual sins as in traditional theology. In short, while Aparecida does not explicitly reject liberation theology, it has made inoperative the see-judge-act method by blurring facts and ideological generalities; it addresses inequality not in concrete terms but in an innocuously vague fashion. Finally, it ignores the notion of ‘structural sin,’ without which a religious program of liberation is meaningless.

Aparecida and the future of the Church of Latin America

There are many actors involved in the future of the Church of Latin America, and each has a decisive role to play. Let me review some of them.

CELAM is the only continental conference of bishops that has a program of action, the Continental Mission, on which it intends to report at the next CELAM meeting in Havana. In the next conference in Havana, Cuba, the bishops will have to make public what they have accomplished: each national conference of bishops will have to publish a report about its accomplishments. In the last 30 years the U.S. bishops published only two letters of importance, The Challenge of Peace in 1983, and Economic Justice for all in 1986. Since then, they have not published anything of national significance; moreover, these two pastoral letters were essentially a political program for American society, not pastoral plans for the Church itself.

The national conferences are assigned the job of implementing the Continental Mission. Here is an obvious problem: each conference can decide whatever it wants to do, even to do nothing. Guatemala consists of twelve dioceses, two vicariates and one prelature. At their national meeting, the Guatemalan bishops ‘did not manage to agree on what to do,’ I was told by a Church reporter. ‘The theory is that the whole country is in a state of continental mission, but in practise six have adopted a common plan [the Holy Popular Missions to be presented below]. Now every diocese is doing something different.’ The archbishop of Guatemala City has nominated a biblical scholar originally from Spain, Pedro Jaramillo, as ‘vicar’ for pastoral planning and the coordinator of the continental mission in the archdiocese. Fr. Jaramillo is a dynamic speaker; he has published a few pamphlets on the continental mission, and in January 2012 he organized a national meeting to discuss the continental mission. All the bishops of Guatemala attended, together with 2,000 lay delegates; they spent four days listening to speeches about the prophetic mission of the Church, the need for unity, and the necessity of evangelization, but there was no action, not even a proposal for action. In their subsequent meeting, the Guatemalan bishops expressed their gratitude for the meeting, and their expectation to learn more from the World Synod of Bishops, which were to spend two weeks discussing evangelization in October 2012. In summary, Guatemalan bishops seem to follow a common Catholic pattern: create a committee or nominate a person responsible and do little more. This committee then develops an abstract theological rationale but no plan of action, and often the program does not go much beyond abstract generalities; at all levels of the hierarchy, one expects those above to take the initiative, as the bishops expect the Synod of Bishops to tell them what to do.

The parish priests are the ones who must develop the continental mission; without their input very little will be achieved – besides speeches by the hierarchy. Unfortunately no specific role has been assigned to them in the Aparecida document. Moreover, the idea of a continental mission seems an afterthought introduced late in the bishops’ discussions; it is mentioned only twice in this 200-page document. If the idea of a continental mission had been of prime importance, it should have been integrated into the text from beginning to end, and the role of parishes discussed accordingly. The first step of the continental mission in the archdiocese of Guatemala City was ‘sensibilization,’ an introduction to make the faithful aware of it. In 2012, five years after the official call for a continental mission, the parishes are still at this introductory level; no one knows what comes next and no one wants to take initiatives. Such an attitude of expectation is typical of hierarchical societies based on obedience and submission.

In 2010 Benedict XVI created the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization and in his apostolic letter Ubicumque et semper outlined five specific tasks for this Council. Out of these five, three tend to go against the spirit of Aparecida. They are: (1) promote the Catechism of the Catholic Church; (2) promote the teachings of the papal Magisterium; (3) analyze the theological and pastoral meaning of the new evangelization. I have shown above that Aparecida ignored some of the traditional doctrines of the Catechism and of papal teachings; I have also suggested that Aparecida is theologically top-heavy, with endless theological reflections but little action or pastoral planning. To the extent that the new Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization will impose its views on Latin America, the continental mission is likely to be more talk than deeds.

Who inspired the idea of missionary discipleship of Aparecida?

What is not known is the influence of a group of theologians who were not part of the assembly, but acted as advisors to bishops. When something was discussed among bishops, a few may use their cell phone and call their theological advisors, asking them to prepare a document on the topic.

This is the opinion of a priest-journalist who attended Aparecida as an accredited reporter. Where does the Aparecida theology of discipleship come from? At the conference, the bishops mainly discussed the texts presented to them, and these texts seem to have been inspired by theologies and practices from Brazil and Mexico, namely the popular missions of Brazil and SINE of Mexico.

The Holy Popular Missions were conceived by Luis Mosconi in 1986 and put in practise in a parish in 1991. A Holy Popular Mission takes two years. The most important step seems to be the six months of preparation during which volunteer missionaries will attend four retreats of prayer, reflection, and training. The parish is divided into sectors of 500 to 1,500 people, each with about 40 missionaries. After these six months of preparation, the missionaries will apply what they have learned and organize missionary activities in their own sector. All sectors are independent yet animated by the same spirit. The method works best when a whole parish, and preferably a whole city or a whole diocese, gets involved in a single mission lasting two years. All activities are lay run. Although it seems nearly impossible to find 40 missionaries for each sector, the organizers say they have no problem because the Holy Missions are a spiritual awakening or new Pentecost. According to the priest-journalist quoted above, who worked in Brazil for six years, there are about 100 dioceses that have adopted the Holy Popular Missions, and these missions took place before Aparecida. When Luis Mosconi published Santas Misiones Populares, the president of Brazil’s episcopal commission for missions embraced it enthusiastically in his foreword (Mosconi, 2008). Hence Aparecida and the pastoral practices of Brazil seem to have influenced one another and continue to do so.

In Guatemala City I found quite a few parishes that practiced door-to-door evangelization long before Aparecida. In one of the most outstanding, there are about 130 small communities meeting in homes once a week, five or six Neocatechumate communities, several charismatic groups, and the various children organizations. If each of these groups has about ten followers, there are about 1500 active Church members eager to volunteer in Church activities and become missionaries. More specifically, during lent each of the 130 small communities will try to create one new community. The members they attract will meet once a week for faith-sharing, catechesis, and prayer; after about two months these members will go on a retreat and create new small communities by neighborhood and affinity. Thus by the end of Lent, there should be 20 to 40 new small communities. The whole missionary endeavor, from recruiting to teaching to leading the retreat, is done by lay leaders. There is no power structure in this parish as all leaders are elected for two years, renewable only once, thus allowing all to participate in leadership. This parish was in operation before Aparecida. It was inspired by SINE (sistema integral de nueva evangelización) from Mexico, which has been operating for around 20 years; SINE emphasizes missions, door-to-door evangelization, retreats, and the creation of small communities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, change is sorely needed in the Church of Latin America. There are no good statistics about sacraments and Church attendance, but it is recognized that they are usually low. In Guatemala there are few Catholic marriages, because as in France, civil marriages are mandatory. There are also few baptisms: with no religious marriage, a couple may not baptize their children and send them to catechism for confirmation or first communion. In Argentina, according to a non-published national survey of 2008, 95.3% of the interviewees said they were baptized, but 23.3% did not or will not get married in church; 70.7 % want their children to choose their own religion or beliefs, which means that many will fade away from their parents’ religion; 76.5% say they are Catholic and 9% are evangelical. In Brazil, Chile, and Central America, the proportion of Protestants and evangelicals is much higher and growing rapidly. Various sects have increased by 5–7% every year for the last 20 years, which means that they double every ten years or so.

I have visited 50 Sunday liturgies in Guatemala and 50 in the U.S.: in Guatemala, masses are either traditional, like pre-Vatican II masses, or more dynamic with strong lay participation. In Guatemala City, every parish supposedly has a charismatic prayer group. There are at least 1,000 part-time lay preachers and maybe 20–30 full-time lay preachers. The Holy Week processions are followed by up to a million faithful. In Latin America there is a centuries-old tradition of creating cofraternities outside the clergy’s conctrol; it is this tradition that allows both Protestants and Catholics to form prayer groups or small Christian communities without asking the parish priest. There are also a few centers where lay people can take courses to become pastoral agents – preachers or catechists – and these schools are quite independent of clergy control. In summary, Latin America seems the best place to foresee the future of the Catholic Church.

The Aparecida document signals a new direction for the Church of Latin America because it proposes a specific agenda for the bishops and the parishes. What is lacking is a pastoral plan for its implementation. Yet the practices of evangelization that are already taking place are grounds for cautious optimism. In a sociological perspective, this new direction can be seen as a ‘social movement.’ Since the 1960s, most change in the United States has taken place in the form of social movements, like the civil rights movement, the women’s liberation movement, the evangelical movement, and the charismatic movement. There have also been numerous ‘new religious movements’ in the U.S., in the form of new Christian and non-Christian sects.