Chmielewski from Rome: A fresh Encyclical of Francis. This time – unique – is about Christ

On Thursday a fresh encyclical of Francis was presented in the Vatican, "Dilexit Nose" – "He loved us". Unlike in erstwhile encyclicals of this Pope – this time Christ is at the center.

‘Key to the pontificate’

"Dilexit nose" is formally the fourth, and in fact the 3rd encyclical of Francis. The first encyclical for his pontificate, “Lumen fidei” from July 2013, was mostly written by Benedict XVI. Therefore, the first author's encyclical of Pope Bergoglia was a social encyclical about the ecology of “Laudato si” from 2015, and the second – a social encyclical about the universal brotherhood of “Fratelli tutti” from 2020.

While the erstwhile papers were addressed to people around the world, "Dilexit nose" is clearly addressed to believers Catholics. Its center is Jesus Christ, and specifically His Sacred Heart. Pope Francis wrote the encyclical due to the 350th anniversary of the first apparitions of St. Margaret Maria Alacoque, which gave emergence to the cult of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

At a press conference in the Vatican, the encyclical was primarily presented by Archbishop Bruno Forte, a man who played a fundamental function during the synods about the household and to a large degree shaped the apostolic adhortation "Amoris laetitia". But the reader can breathe: this time there was nothing about inclusion, LGBT or divorcees in fresh relationships.

However, Archbishop Bruno Forte left no uncertainty that the "Dilexit nos" encyclical was not the first better document. As he stated, the text constitutes the "key to the pontificate" of Francis, in which all his teaching should be read. He emphasized that the Pope deliberately chose the form of an encyclical for the subject of the Heart of Jesus to give his considerations a advanced and decisive rank. Archbishop Forte recalled that as early as December Pope Francis would open the Jubilee Year 2025; “Dilexit nose” should be the text accompanying the endurance of this year. The Encyclical would besides aid to decently integrate the implementation of the synodal process.

Illusions and Authority

The paper does not bring revolutionary content in the sense that in any simple and direct way progressives can capture it, arguing with "Dilexit nose" for their visions. On the contrary, German encyclical readers will undoubtedly read paragraph 88 (accident?) with their teeth clamped, with a sharp criticism “concerning communities and shepherds focused solely on external activities, structural reforms lacking the Gospel, obsessive organizations, global projects, secularized reflections and various proposals presented as requirements that sometimes search to impose on everyone.” Francis writes that specified an approach is Christianity crooked, and in fact, as it is expressed, "a deceptive deluded transcendentism". possibly this Germanic reader, however, will endure this blow, remembering that the pope had done any clear bows to him before – and almost at the very beginning of the encyclicals. Well, any of the first authorities appearing in the text are crucial to the German culture of Fyodor Dostoevsky, as well as Karl Rahner and Martin Heidegger himself. This litany of names may be a consternation, but it must be admitted that only a fewer of their insignificant thoughts do not produce much; they are not in any way constitutional authors for encyclical content.

Francis cites authentic authority much more often. “Dilexit nose” is full of Fathers and Doctors of the Church and Saints of all times. Unlike most of the Pope's documents, there are besides rather many references to St John Paul II, including – through Pope Wojtyla – to St Faustyna Kowalska. The authentic main character of the text, however, is Jesus Christ, who is present widely throughout the text – both in his own person, by quoting his words and deeds, as well as in terms of the various saints quoted, with St. Margaret Alacoque at the head.

Man and his “heart”, or what?

Archbishop Bruno Forte was asked at a press conference, which is actually a novelty of "Dilexit nose", as the subject of the Sacred Heart of Jesus was already in the papers of the Church repeatedly taken, including by a number of popes. The Italian archbishop stated that the novelty is to emphasize clearly that without an emotional and somatic dimension it is impossible to grasp the fullness of humanity. In another words, man is not only rational, but besides what we call the heart. Indeed, this subject is constantly reflected in Francis' encyclical, usually in a very poetic, sometimes even somewhat sentimental approach. However, it is rather risky to focus on the concept of a "heart" and to specify it as an essential identity of a person, since "heart" is simply a word that is not precise. Francis, trying to specify what he means by this, even reaches back to Homer's "Iliady", which, as a classical philologist, I appreciate, even if I cannot full agree with his translation of the word "cardia" by Poet; it is simply a marginality. So what about the heart? Francis defines them descriptively and poeticly, referring to the memories of each of us from childhood, to the relation with our loved ones, to an intimate sphere in which 1 feels clearly his own humanity, especially in the context of love between a parent and a kid or a grandma and a child. This is, of course, charming and helpful in any way, but it would seem that a more precise definition would be useful in the text, which is to be the “key” to the full pontificate. In this context, I am amazed by the large absence of the full encyclical: St. Thomas of Aquinas. Dr. Anielski is the author of thorough treaties on human psychology and the usage of his reflection is imposed by himself in the case of encyclicals, which is mostly intellectual and anthropological. However, the author of “Suma” Francis quotes only once, and this is entirely marginal. He clearly wants to persuade the reader to consider the question of the Heart of Jesus in more "intuitive" categories than philosophical reflection.

In defence of folk piety

For many Catholics in the planet – besides in Poland – it will be crucial to defend the Pope's worship of the Sacred Heart. The Holy Father pays attention to the images of the Heart of Jesus, the devotions, various practices, including the comforting of His Heart. Convinces – this controversial thesis – that theology, coming from Greek speculative philosophy, tended to ignore the somatic and emotivative dimension of man, focusing on the rational and volitional dimension. According to Francis, it was folk devotion, including the devotion to the Sacred Heart, that managed to fill the gap left by theology. These remarks can be helpful in that we frequently face attempts to pious people as foolish and non-intellectual, and hence as childish and regrettable. They aim for this community of liberal Catholics. Well, sentences after reading "Dilexit nos" will most likely not change, but in discussions it is possible to draw attention to – or authoritarian – Francis' teaching on the importance of folk piety.

Two grits

However, I would not be myself if I did not point to even any problems. Firstly, it is apparent that all Christian fact is true, but given in the context of the full teaching of the Church. erstwhile it is isolated and considered in itself, in isolation from another elements of the Church's teaching, it can be rapidly warped and origin any error, even serious. In the meantime, I imagine specified readers of the "Dilexit Nose" who will announce: here Francis is simply a prophet of love, but he has nothing; sin does not matter, morality does not matter, due to the fact that only love is important! Well, specified reading “Dilexit nose” could impose on someone, especially on those who are struggling with their own severe condition, specified as unnatural erotic tendencies; or on those who run around their heads in interreligious dialog and want to ignore all doctrine, calling only for loving people to God. It is only appropriate to remind specified raiders that the encyclical tells rather a lot about the sinful condition of man, about individual sins, repentance, the necessity to reward Jesus for his sins and so on. any weakness of the paper may be that in those widely spread by the text of fatherly arms Christ's dimension of the Savior is lost somewhere, and yet he is besides a judge.

Finally, he tells us to lift the eyebrow—in a suspicious look—one of the last paragraphs, where we read that the Church needs to rediscover Christ's love, in order to "not replace the outdated structures, obsessions from another times, the worship of her own mentality, fanaticisms of all kinds." Of course, these words can be interpreted as average in the past of the Church as a call to put God in the first place, not an institution; but I know that there will be no shortage of those who pass through the "Dilexit nose" as a storm only to discover at the end of this 1 paragraph and sigh with relief that – yes – it is yet a synodical-progressive-democratic reform.

Read – or not read?

Well, not the structural reform, however, is in this document; but our love for Christ, and above all--His love for mankind. Does this mean that the encyclical Dilexit nose can be read safely and with any spiritual benefit? In the case of a text that has more than 150 000 characters and is woven with frequently rather vague concepts relating to the emotivated sphere, it would be neckless to keep specified judgments at this phase of the text's reception. Everyone knows that sometimes 1 or 2 incorrect sentences can spoil the full text, specified as in the case of ‘Amoris laetitia’; so you request to give yourself a small more time to read the paper and let for a thorough analysis, including theological one. This is not a political or sociological text, hence it cannot be subject to specified easy and fast assessments as even the 2 erstwhile encyclicals of this Pope. This time, however, it is not a defect, but an advantage. shortly we will see something even clearer.

Paweł Chmielewski