"The encyclical does not say that the Church must take the path of modernity - it says that the Church must follow the steps that Christ traced."
The minute the Pope says something like "man is the primary way the Church must follow", he is speaking gobbledegook. In fact, it is God who shows the way. But he doesn't say this or seem to mean it. He doesn't say Jesus is the way. He says just the opposite, that Jesus himself followed OUR way. He is saying it is our own humanity in its diverse relationships that must PRIMARILY show us the way. But this is nonsense. Such a course would mean that the blind would be leading the blind.
Think about it for a minute. Here's what he says: "this man is the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission: he is the primary and fundamental way for the Church." So it's us, not God; WE'RE supposed to lead the Church--this is the literal sense of the passage.
But JPII doesn't speak literally, he speaks in circumlocutions at best. What he really seems to be suggesting is a variation of Gaudium et Spes, that human institutions and rational systems of thought must guide the Church. Fine. It's done so in the past. But this way requires being clear about where we ourselves have been and where we are going. We have to know who we are as a Church and be rooted in our own Tradition. I don't see that with this Pope. I see him launching out into new territories--without any indication he knows where he's going.
So this is, in many ways, a matter of taste.
So it's us, not God; WE'RE supposed to lead the Church--this is the literal sense of the passage.
No it isn't.
when I read it I see the words "route" and "path" not "lead" or "leader".
Christ went to the poor, the sick, the lame, those who were in their sins.
He followed the path of fallen man, healing them, succouring them, calling them to repentance.
If the Church is to emulate Christ's deeds then it emphatically means searching out the route of suffering humanity, not withdrawal from man and the world.