Yesterday Pope Francis published his encyclical letter Laudate Deum, which is a follow-on to Laudato Si’ from 8 years ago. In fact, news first broke about it on 21 August when he said to a group of lawyers visiting him: “I am writing a second part to Laudato Si’ to update it on current problems.” Updating an encyclical by its original author is a rather unusual move and I wonder whether there is precedent for it at all. It will be interesting to see what he felt needed updating or adding. As usual, the following will be just a selection of my favorite parts and I recommend reading this short, 7K word letter in full.
“[W]ith the passage of time, I have realized that our responses have not been adequate, while the world in which we live is collapsing and may be nearing the breaking point. In addition to this possibility, it is indubitable that the impact of climate change will increasingly prejudice the lives and families of many persons. We will feel its effects in the areas of healthcare, sources of employment, access to resources, housing, forced migrations, etc.” §2
“Despite all attempts to deny, conceal, gloss over or relativize the issue, the signs of climate change are here and increasingly evident. No one can ignore the fact that in recent years we have witnessed extreme weather phenomena, frequent periods of unusual heat, drought and other cries of protest on the part of the earth that are only a few palpable expressions of a silent disease that affects everyone. … [W]e know that every time the global temperature increases by 0.5° C, the intensity and frequency of great rains and floods increase in some areas and severe droughts in others, extreme heat waves in some places and heavy snowfall in others. … If it should rise above 2 degrees, the icecaps of Greenland and a large part of Antarcticawill melt completely, with immensely grave consequences for everyone.” §5
“In recent years, some have chosen to deride these facts. They bring up allegedly solid scientific data, like the fact that the planet has always had, and will have, periods of cooling and warming. They forget to mention another relevant datum: that what we are presently experiencing is an unusual acceleration of warming, at such a speed that it will take only one generation – not centuries or millennia – in order to verify it. The rise in the sea level and the melting of glaciers can be easily perceived by an individual in his or her lifetime, and probably in a few years many populations will have to move their homes because of these facts.” §6
“ In an attempt to simplify reality, there are those who would place responsibility on the poor, since they have many children, and even attempt to resolve the problem by mutilating women in less developed countries. As usual, it would seem that everything is the fault of the poor. Yet the reality is that a low, richer percentage of the planet contaminates more than the poorest 50% of the total world population, and that per capita emissions of the richer countries are much greater than those of the poorer ones. How can we forget that Africa, home to more than half of the world’s poorest people, is responsible for a minimal portion of historic emissions?” §9
“It is no longer possible to doubt the human – “anthropic” – origin of climate change. Let us see why. The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which causes global warming, was stable until the nineteenth century, below 300 parts per million in volume. But in the middle of that century, in conjunction with industrial development, emissions began to increase. In the past fifty years, this increase has accelerated significantly, as the Mauna Loa observatory, which has taken daily measurements of carbon dioxide since 1958, has confirmed. While I was writing Laudato si’, they hit a historic high – 400 parts per million – until arriving at 423 parts per million in June 2023. More than 42% of total net emissions since the year 1850 were produced after 1990.”
“I feel obliged to make these clarifications, which may appear obvious, because of certain dismissive and scarcely reasonable opinions that I encounter, even within the Catholic Church. Yet we can no longer doubt that the reason for the unusual rapidity of these dangerous changes is a fact that cannot be concealed: the enormous novelties that have to do with unchecked human intervention on nature in the past two centuries. Events of natural origin that usually cause warming, such as volcanic eruptions and others, are insufficient to explain the proportion and speed of the changes of recent decades. The change in average surface temperatures cannot be explained except as the result of the increase of greenhouse gases.” §14
“[T]he latest technological innovations start with the notion of a human being with no limits, whose abilities and possibilities can be infinitely expanded thanks to technology. In this way, the technocratic paradigm monstrously feeds upon itself.” §21
“Not every increase in power represents progress for humanity. We need only think of the “admirable” technologies that were employed to decimate populations, drop atomic bombs and annihilate ethnic groups. There were historical moments where our admiration at progress blinded us to the horror of its consequences.” §24
“Contrary to this technocratic paradigm, we say that the world that surrounds us is not an object of exploitation, unbridled use and unlimited ambition. Nor can we claim that nature is a mere “setting” in which we develop our lives and our projects. For “we are part of nature, included in it and thus in constant interaction with it”,[18] and thus “we [do] not look at the world from without but from within”.” §25
“This itself excludes the idea that the human being is extraneous, a foreign element capable only of harming the environment. Human beings must be recognized as a part of nature. Human life, intelligence and freedom are elements of the nature that enriches our planet, part of its internal workings and its equilibrium.” §26
“We need to rethink among other things the question of human power, its meaning and its limits. For our power has frenetically increased in a few decades. We have made impressive and awesome technological advances, and we have not realized that at the same time we have turned into highly dangerous beings, capable of threatening the lives of many beings and our own survival. Today it is worth repeating the ironic comment of Solovyov about an “age which was so advanced as to be actually the last one”. We need lucidity and honesty in order to recognize in time that our power and the progress we are producing are turning against us.” §28
“The ethical decadence of real power is disguised thanks to marketing and false information, useful tools in the hands of those with greater resources to employ them to shape public opinion. With the help of these means, whenever plans are made to undertake a project involving significant changes in the environment or high levels of contamination, one raises the hopes of the people of that area by speaking of the local progress that it will be able to generate or of the potential for economic growth, employment and human promotion that it would mean for their children. Yet in reality there does not seem to be any true interest in the future of these people, since they are not clearly told that the project will result in the clearing of their lands, a decline in the quality of their lives, a desolate and less habitable landscape lacking in life, the joy of community and hope for the future; in addition to the global damage that eventually compromises many other people as well.” §29
“One need but think of the momentary excitement raised by the money received in exchange for the deposit of nuclear waste in a certain place. The house that one could have bought with that money has turned into a grave due to the diseases that were then unleashed. And I am not saying this, moved by a overflowing imagination, but on the basis of something we have seen. It could be said that this is an extreme example, but in these cases there is no room for speaking of “lesser” damages, for it is precisely the amassing of damages considered tolerable that has brought us to the situation in which we now find ourselves.” §30
“Mistaken notions also develop about the concept of “meritocracy”, which becomes seen as a “merited” human power to which everything must be submitted, under the rule of those born with greater possibilities and advantages. A healthy approach to the value of hard work, the development of one’s native abilities and a praiseworthy spirit of initiative is one thing, but if one does not seek a genuine equality of opportunity, “meritocracy” can easily become a screen that further consolidates the privileges of a few with great power. In this perverse logic, why should they care about the damage done to our common home, if they feel securely shielded by the financial resources that they have earned by their abilities and effort?” §32
“Our world has become so multipolar and at the same time so complex that a different framework for effective cooperation is required. It is not enough to think only of balances of power but also of the need to provide a response to new problems and to react with global mechanisms to the environmental, public health, cultural and social challenges, especially in order to consolidate respect for the most elementary human rights, social rights and the protection of our common home. It is a matter of establishing global and effective rules that can permit “providing for” this global safeguarding.” §42
“All this presupposes the development of a new procedure for decision-making and legitimizing those decisions, since the one put in place several decades ago is not sufficient nor does it appear effective. In this framework, there would necessarily be required spaces for conversation, consultation, arbitration, conflict resolution and supervision, and, in the end, a sort of increased “democratization” in the global context, so that the various situations can be expressed and included. It is no longer helpful for us to support institutions in order to preserve the rights of the more powerful without caring for those of all.” §43
“I consider it essential to insist that “to seek only a technical remedy to each environmental problem which comes up is to separate what is in reality interconnected and to mask the true and deepest problems of the global system”. It is true that efforts at adaptation are needed in the face of evils that are irreversible in the short term. Also some interventions and technological advances that make it possible to absorb or capture gas emissions have proved promising. Nonetheless, we risk remaining trapped in the mindset of pasting and papering over cracks, while beneath the surface there is a continuing deterioration to which we continue to contribute. To suppose that all problems in the future will be able to be solved by new technical interventions is a form of homicidal pragmatism, like pushing a snowball down a hill.” §57
“Once and for all, let us put an end to the irresponsible derision that would present this issue as something purely ecological, “green”, romantic, frequently subject to ridicule by economic interests. Let us finally admit that it is a human and social problem on any number of levels. For this reason, it calls for involvement on the part of all. In Conferences on the climate, the actions of groups negatively portrayed as “radicalized” tend to attract attention. But in reality they are filling a space left empty by society as a whole, which ought to exercise a healthy “pressure”, since every family ought to realize that the future of their children is at stake.” §58
“The Judaeo-Christian vision of the cosmos defends the unique and central value of the human being amid the marvellous concert of all God’s creatures, but today we see ourselves forced to realize that it is only possible to sustain a “situated anthropocentrism”. To recognize, in other words, that human life is incomprehensible and unsustainable without other creatures. For “as part of the universe… all of us are linked by unseen bonds and together form a kind of universal family, a sublime communion which fills us with a sacred, affectionate and humble respect”.” §67
“If we consider that emissions per individual in the United States are about two times greater than those of individuals living in China, and about seven times greater than the average of the poorest countries, we can state that a broad change in the irresponsible lifestyle connected with the Western model would have a significant long-term impact. As a result, along with indispensable political decisions, we would be making progress along the way to genuine care for one another.” §72
““Praise God” is the title of this letter. For when human beings claim to take God’s place, they become their own worst enemies.” §73
5053 words, 27 minute read. [First published: 11 September 2023, last updated: 3 October 2023]
I was asked yesterday what the Church teaches about homosexuality and, after answering with a question to clarify what was behind it, I understood that it was about what Pope Francis has said on the subject. Once I answered off the top of my head as best as I could remember on the spot, I thought it would be useful to compile his actual words on this subject. While good resources already exist that chronicle what Pope Francis has said, I would here like to focus on giving his statements more space to breathe by quoting broader contexts and by not being too worried about comprehensiveness. In other words, I will be more extensive about the statements I consider key and I will omit others that just reinforce previous statements. The following will be offered without commentary, to provide space for the reader to form their own views of the pope’s teaching.
Ilze Scamparini: “[… H]ow does Your Holiness intend to confront the whole question of the gay lobby?”
Pope Francis: “So much is written about the gay lobby. I still haven’t found anyone with an identity card in the Vatican with “gay” on it. They say there are some there. I believe that when you are dealing with such a person, you must distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. This one is not good. If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in a beautiful way, saying … wait a moment, how does it say it … it says: “no one should marginalize these people for this, they must be integrated into society”. The problem is not having this tendency, no, we must be brothers and sisters to one another, and there is this one and there is that one. The problem is in making a lobby of this tendency: a lobby of misers, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of masons, so many lobbies. For me, this is the greater problem. Thank you so much for asking this question. Many thanks.”
“We need to proclaim the Gospel on every street corner, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing, even with our preaching, every kind of disease and wound. In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.
A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person. Here we enter into the mystery of the human being. In life, God accompanies persons, and we must accompany them, starting from their situation. It is necessary to accompany them with mercy. When that happens, the Holy Spirit inspires the priest to say the right thing.
This is also the great benefit of confession as a sacrament: evaluating case by case and discerning what is the best thing to do for a person who seeks God and grace. The confessional is not a torture chamber, but the place in which the Lord’s mercy motivates us to do better.”
“In these days, as you reflect on the complementarity between man and woman, I urge you to emphasize yet another truth about marriage: that the permanent commitment to solidarity, fidelity and fruitful love responds to the deepest longings of the human heart. Let us think especially of the young people who represent our future: it is important that they should not let the harmful mentality of the temporary affect them, but rather that they be revolutionaries with the courage to seek strong and lasting love, in other words, to go against the current: this must be done. I would like to say one thing about this: we must not fall into the trap of being limited by ideological concepts. The family is an anthropological fact, and consequently a social, cultural fact, etc. We cannot qualify it with ideological concepts which are compelling at only one moment in history, and then decline. Today there can be no talk of the conservative family or the progressive family: family is family! Do not allow yourselves to be qualified by this, or by other ideological concepts. The family has a force of its own.”
“Nobody mentioned homosexual marriage at the synod; it did not cross our minds. What we did talk about was of how a family with a homosexual child, whether a son or a daughter, goes about educating that child, how the family bears up, how to help that family to deal with that somewhat unusual situation. That is to say, the synod addressed the family and the homosexual persons in relation to their families, because we come across this reality all the time in the confessional: a father and a mother whose son or daughter is in that situation. This happened to me several times in Buenos Aires. We have to find a way to help that father or that mother to stand by (accompanar) their son or daughter.”
“155. Human ecology also implies another profound reality: the relationship between human life and the moral law, which is inscribed in our nature and is necessary for the creation of a more dignified environment. Pope Benedict XVI spoke of an “ecology of man”, based on the fact that “man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will”. It is enough to recognize that our body itself establishes us in a direct relationship with the environment and with other living beings. The acceptance of our bodies as God’s gift is vital for welcoming and accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home, whereas thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation. Learning to accept our body, to care for it and to respect its fullest meaning, is an essential element of any genuine human ecology. Also, valuing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity is necessary if I am going to be able to recognize myself in an encounter with someone who is different. In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment. It is not a healthy attitude which would seek “to cancel out sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it”.”
Cindy Wooden: “[…] In the last few days, Cardinal Marx from Germany spoke to an important conference in Dublin on the Church in the modern world, and said that the Catholic Church should apologize to the gay community for having marginalized these persons. In the days following the Orlando killings, many people have said that the Christian community has something to do with this hatred towards these persons. What do you think?”
Pope Francis: “I will repeat what I said during my first trip, and I also repeat what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, namely that they should not be discriminated against, that they should be shown respect and given pastoral assistance. We can disapprove of some ways of acting that are a little too offensive to other people, not for ideological reasons but in terms, we might say, of political propriety.
But none of this has to do with the problem: if the problem is that a person is so inclined, and with good will seeks God, who are we to judge him or her? We should be helpful to them, in accordance with the teaching of the Catechism. The Catechism is clear!
There are traditions in some countries, in some cultures with a different approach to the problem. I think that the Church should apologize – as that “Marxist” Cardinal said [Cardinal Reinhold Marx] – not only to this person who is gay and has been offended, but also to the poor, to women and to children exploited in the workplace, and for having blessed so many weapons. The Church should apologize for all the times she has not acted… – and when I say “the Church”, I mean Christians; the Church is holy, we are sinners! Christians should apologize for not having helped with so many decisions, helped so many families… I remember from my childhood the culture of Buenos Aires, the insular Catholic culture which I come from. You could not enter the home of a divorced couple! I am talking about eighty years ago. The culture has changed, thank God. As Christians we should apologize over and over again, and not just for this.”
Joshua McElwee: “[… Y]esterday in Georgia, you spoke as in many other countries about gender theory, saying that it is the great enemy, a threat against marriage. But I would like to ask, what would you say to a person who has suffer for years for his or her sexuality, and who feels that there is truly a biological problem, that his or her physical appearance does not correspond to what he or she considers to be the true sexual identity?”
Pope Francis: “Firstly, during my life as a priest and as a bishop I have accompanied people with homosexual tendencies or practices. I have accompanied them and brought them closer to the Lord. Some cannot, but I have accompanied them and never abandoned anyone. This must be done. People must be accompanied as Jesus accompanied them. When a person in this condition presents him or herself before Jesus, He does not say, “Go away, you are homosexual!”. No. What I referred to is the wickedness that today results from indoctrination in gender theory. I heard from a French father who was speaking with his children at the table … and asked his ten year-old son, “What do you want to be when you grow up?”. “A girl!”. .. The father realised that the schoolbooks taught gender theory, and this goes against nature. It is one thing that a person has this tendency, this option; and even those who change sex. It is another thing to teach along this line in schools, to change the mentality. This I would call “ideological colonisation”. Last year I received a letter from a Spanish man who told me his history as a child and as a youth. He was a girl, and suffered greatly, because he felt he was a boy but physically he was a girl. … He underwent the operation. … The bishop accompanied him greatly. … Then he got married, he changed his identity, and he wrote me the letter to say that for him it would be a consolation to come with his wife. … And so I received them, and they were very happy. … Life is life, and things must be taken as they come. Sin is sin. Tendencies or hormonal imbalances cause many problems and this doesn’t mean to say, “Oh well, it’s all the same” … no, no it isn’t. But it is necessary to welcome each case, to accompany, to discern, and to integrate. This is what Jesus would do today. … I wish to be clear. It is a moral question. It is a problem. It is a human problem. And it must be resolved as is possible, always with God’s mercy, with the truth, as we have said in the case of marriage”.”
“First and foremost, I would love it if this meeting could help to remind us that we all need each other, none of us is an island, an autonomous and independent “I,” separated from the other, and we can only build the future by standing together, including everyone. We don’t think about it often, but everything is connected, and we need to restore our connections to a healthy state. Even the harsh judgment I hold in my heart against my brother or my sister, the open wound that was never cured, the offense that was never forgiven, the rancor that is only going to hurt me, are all instances of a fight that I carry within me, a flare deep in my heart that needs to be extinguished before it goes up in flames, leaving only ashes behind.”
“Marriage between people of the same sex? ‘Marriage’ is a historical word. Always in humanity, and not only within the Church, it’s between a man and a woman… we cannot change that. This is the nature of things. This is how they are. Let’s call them ‘civil unions.’ Lets not play with the truth. It’s true that behind it there is a gender ideology. In books also, children are learning that they can choose their own sex. Why is sex, being a woman or a man, a choice and not a fact of nature? This favors this mistake. But let’s say things as they are: Marriage is between a man and a woman. This is the precise term. Lets call unions between the same sex ‘civil unions’.”
“Juan Carlos, that you are gay does not matter. God made you like this and loves you like this and I don’t care. The pope loves you like this. You have to be happy with who you are.”
Stephen K. Amos: “So me coming on this pilgrimage, being non-religious, I was looking for answers and faith. But as a gay man, I don’t feel accepted.”
Pope Francis: “Giving more importance to the adjective rather than the noun, this is not good. We are all human beings and have dignity. It does not matter who you are or how you live your life, you do not lose your dignity. There are people that prefer to select or discard people because of the adjective – these people don’t have a human heart.”
“The throwaway culture, combined with other widespread psycho-social phenomena in societies that are well off, is manifesting a serious tendency of degenerating into a culture of hatred. There are episodes, which are unfortunately not isolated and are certainly in need of a detailed analysis, in which the social hardships of both young people and adults find an outlet. It is no coincidence that actions that are sometimes emblematic and typical of Nazism are reappearing. I admit that when I hear some speeches, by someone in charge of those who keep order in society or of the government, I am reminded of Hitler’s speeches in 1934 and 1936. Today they are actions typical of Nazism which, with its persecution of Jews, gypsies, persons with a homosexual orientation, represents the negative model par excellence of the throwaway culture and the culture of hatred. This is what was done at that time and today these things are being done again. It is necessary to be vigilant, both in the civil and ecclesial spheres, in order to avoid any possible compromise – that is presumed to be involuntary – with these degenerations.”
Pope Francis sent [a] note to the sister encouraging her not to be defeated by the hostility of those who oppose her work. “God, who didn’t attend seminary and didn’t study theology, will reward you generously. I pray for you and your daughters.”
One of those present recalls that the pope often speaks of diabolical ideological colonizations. He refers, among others, to that of “gender.”
“Ideology always has a diabolical appeal, as you say, because it is not embodied. Right now we live in a civilization of ideologies, that’s true. We need to expose them at their roots. The “gender” ideology of which you speak is dangerous, yes. As I understand it, it is so because it is abstract with respect to the concrete life of a person, as if a person could decide abstractly at will if and when to be a man or a woman. Abstraction is always a problem for me. This has nothing to do with the homosexual issue, though. If there is a homosexual couple, we can do pastoral work with them, move forward in our encounter with Christ. When I talk about ideology, I’m talking about the idea, the abstraction in which everything is possible, not about the concrete life of people and their real situation.”
Stefano Maria Paci: “And the question is about the family, you spoke about it with the Hungarian authorities, you spoke about it again yesterday in the meeting with young people. And just yesterday the news arrived from Strasbourg of a resolution from the European Parliament inviting member states to recognize homosexual marriages and related parental relationships. Holy Father, what are your thoughts on the matter?”
Pope Francis: “I have spoken clearly about this. Marriage is a sacrament. Marriage is a sacrament. The Church does not have the power to change the sacraments as the Lord instituted them. These are laws that try to help the situation of many people of different sexual orientations. And this is important, that we help people. But without imposing things that, by their nature, are not acceptable in the Church. But if they want to share a life together, a homosexual couple, the States have the possibility of civilly supporting them, of giving them security of inheritance, of health,… The French have a law for this, not only for homosexuals, for all people who want to be together. But marriage is marriage. This is not to condemn people who are like that, no, please, they are our brothers and sisters. We have to accompany them. But marriage as a sacrament is clear, it is clear. For there to be civil laws that… Three widows, for example, who want to join together legally to have the health care, to then have inheritance among them, but these things are done. This is the French Pacs, but it has nothing to do with homosexual couples; homosexual couples can use it, they can use it, but marriage as a sacrament is man-woman. Sometimes there is confusion about what I was saying. Yes, we must, all being equal, respect everyone; the Lord is good and he will save everyone. Don’t say this aloud [laughs], but the Lord wants everyone’s salvation. But please don’t make the Church deny her truth. Many, many people of homosexual orientation approach the sacrament of penance and approach priests to ask for advice, and the Church helps them to move forward in their lives, but the sacrament of marriage does not apply. Thank you.”
Outreach: “What would you say is the most important thing for LGBT people to know about God?”
Pope Francis: “God is Father and he does not disown any of his children. And “the style” of God is “closeness, mercy and tenderness.” Along this path you will find God.”
Outreach: “What would you like LGBT people to know about the church?”
Pope Francis: “I would like for them to read the book of the Acts of the Apostles. There they will find the image of the living church.”
Outreach: “What do you say to an LGBT Catholic who has experienced rejection from the church?”
Pope Francis: “I would have them recognize it not as “the rejection of the church,” but instead of “people in the church.” The church is a mother and calls together all her children. Take for example the parable of those invited to the feast: “the just, the sinners, the rich and the poor, etc.” [Matthew 22:1-15; Luke 14:15-24]. A “selective” church, one of “pure blood,” is not Holy Mother Church, but rather a sect.”
Outreach asked the Holy Father three questions, in Spanish, and received a written response from him. We framed these questions as an interview, in order that he knew that his responses would be made public. Our three questions were:
Holy Father, thank you for your strong call to decriminalize homosexuality. Why did you decide to say this at this time?
There seems to have been some confusion about your comment, “Being gay is a sin,” which, of course, is not part of church teaching. My feeling was that you were simply repeating what others might say hypothetically. So, do you think that simply being gay is a sin?
What would you say to Catholic bishops who still support the criminalization of homosexuality?
Pope Francis’ response:
“It is not the first time that I speak of homosexuality and of homosexual persons.
And I wanted to clarify that it is not a crime, in order to stress that criminalization is neither good nor just.
When I said it is a sin, I was simply referring to Catholic moral teaching, which says that every sexual act outside of marriage is a sin. Of course, one must also consider the circumstances, which may decrease or eliminate fault. As you can see, I was repeating something in general. I should have said “It is a sin, as is any sexual act outside of marriage.” This is to speak of “the matter” of sin, but we know well that Catholic morality not only takes into consideration the matter, but also evaluates freedom and intention; and this, for every kind of sin.
And I would tell whoever wants to criminalize homosexuality that they are wrong.”
Bruce De Galzain: “This week in Kinshasa I met five homosexuals, each of whom had been rejected and even expelled from their families. They explained to me that their rejection comes from their parents’ religious upbringing – some of them are taken to exorcist priests because their families believe they are possessed by unclean spirits. My question, Holy Father, is: what do you say to the families in Congo and South Sudan who still reject their children, and what do you say to the priests, to the bishops?”
Pope Francis: “I have spoken on this issue on two Journeys; the first time [upon my return] from Brazil: ‘If a person with homosexual tendencies is a believer and seeks God, who am I to judge him?’ I said this on that trip. Secondly, coming back from Ireland, it was a bit of a problematic trip because that day a letter had just been published from that young man… in that case I said clearly to parents: ‘Children with this orientation have a right to stay at home; you cannot kick them out of the house.’ And then recently I said something, I don’t really remember my exact words, in the interview with the Associated Press. The criminalization of homosexuality is an issue that must not be allowed to pass by. It is estimated that, more or less, fifty countries, in one way or another, promote this kind of criminalization – they tell me more, but let’s say at least fifty – and some of these – I think it’s ten, even foresee the death penalty [for homosexual persons]. This is not right, people with homosexual tendencies are children of God, God loves them, God accompanies them. It is true that some are in this state because of various unwanted situations, but to condemn such people is a sin; to criminalize people with homosexual tendencies is an injustice. I am not talking about groups, but about people. Some say: they join in groups that generate noise. I am talking about people; lobbies are something different. I am talking about people. And I believe the Catechism of the Catholic Church says they should not be marginalized. This point, I believe, is clear.”
Giona: “I am a trans, homosexual and disabled guy. I have had the good fortune to have received baptism and I see the sacrament of baptism like a plot of land that someone prepares for you and in which they plant the first seed which, if and when you can, you can make grow. To make faith grow, a faith that I’d feel truly my own in which I can play a part, no matter how small, of His plan, wholly and in detail thought out by Him, has helped me to accept in my disabled, atypical body, that I am never alone even in difficulties, knowing that He who knows me from the beginning would never entrust me with a task to heavy for my shoulders. But, when I realised that I am a trans person, I would have very much preferred to not believe and that plan, that marvellous, perfect body – perfect in so far as being His work, made me feel pulled in different directions by the dichotomy between faith and transgender identity – both arms of the one body, mine. The people I confided in then tried to dissuade me, predicting a dark journey for me. I felt guilty. Someone has even pointed me to Psalm 139 – one of my all-time favorites: “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. You have made me wonderfully.” This desperate attempt was in fact the answer I was looking for. I am Giona [Jonah], like that prophet who was afraid, who tried to get away from what he was called to, but who has not gotten away far enough to escape you. I know now what I am call to be – to be trans and a believer. At the crossroads I have chosen love.
Pope Francis: “I have listened to your story and your journey and you already know what I will tell you now. The Lord always walks with us. Always. The Lord is not disgusted by any of us. Even if we were sinners, he draws close to us to help us. The Lord is not disgusted by our realities. He loves us as we are. And this is God’s crazy love. And we are, as you say, like that prophet there – a bit stubborn and don’t want to believe in the love of God. And that stubbornness closes us. God loves us as we are. God always caresses us. God is father, mother, everything for us.And to understand this is difficult, but he loves us as we are. So, go on ahead.”
Anita Hirschbeck: “Holy Father, in Lisbon you told us that in the Church there is room for everyone, everyone, everyone. The Church is open to everyone, but at the same time not everyone has the same rights, opportunities, in the sense that, for example, women, homosexuals cannot receive all the sacraments. Holy Father how do you explain this inconsistency between an open Church and a Church not equal for all? Thank you.”
Pope Francis: “You ask me a question that concerns two different points of view: the Church is open for everyone, then there is legislation that regulates life inside the Church. He who is inside follows the legislation. What you say is a simplification: “They cannot participate in the sacraments.” This does not mean that the Church is closed. Everyone meets God on their own way inside the Church, and the Church is mother and guides everyone on their own path. That’s why I don’t like to say: everyone comes, but you, this one, but the other one… Everyone, everyone in prayer, in inner dialogue, in pastoral dialogue, looks for the way forward.
That’s why I ask the question: Why not homosexuals? Everybody! And the Lord is clear: the sick, the healthy, old and young, ugly and beautiful… the good and the bad!
There is a kind of gaze that doesn’t understand this insertion of the Church as mother and thinks of it as a kind of “corporation” that you have to do this, or do it in this way and not another way, in order to get in to.
The ministeriality of the Church is another thing. [It is] the manner of carrying forward the flock. And in ministeriality, one of the important things is patience: accompanying people step by step on their way to maturity. Each one of us has this experience: that Mother Church has accompanied us and accompanies us in our own path of maturation.
I don’t like reduction. This is not ecclesial; it is gnostic. It is like a Gnostic heresy that is somewhat fashionable today. A certain Gnosticism that reduces ecclesial reality, and that doesn’t help. The Church is “mother” receiving everyone, and everyone makes their own way within the Church, without publicity, and this is very important. Thank you for the courage of asking this question. Thank you.”
Cardinals: “2 Dubium about the claim that the widespread practice of the blessing of same-sex unions would be in accord with Revelation and the Magisterium (CCC 2357).
According to the Divine Revelation, attested in Sacred Scripture, which the Church teaches, “listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit” (Dei Verbum, 10), “In the beginning,” God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them, and blessed them to be fruitful (cf. Genesis 1:27-28) and hence, the Apostle Paul teaches that denying sexual difference is the consequence of denying the Creator (Romans 1:24-32). We ask: can the Church deviate from this “principle,” considering it, in contrast to what was taught in Veritatis splendor, 103, as a mere ideal, and accept as a “possible good” objectively sinful situations, such as unions with persons of the same sex, without departing from the revealed doctrine?”
Pope Francis: “a) The Church has a very clear understanding of marriage: an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to procreation. Only this union can be called “marriage.” Other forms of union realize it only in “a partial and analogous way” (Amoris Laetitia 292), so they cannot be strictly called “marriage.”
b) It is not just a matter of names, but the reality we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that requires an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal.”
c) For this reason, the Church avoids any type of rite or sacramental that might contradict this conviction and suggest that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.
d) However, in our relationships with people, we must not lose the pastoral charity, which should permeate all our decisions and attitudes. The defence of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity; it also includes kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot be judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.
e) Therefore, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not convey a mistaken concept of marriage. For when a blessing is requested, it is expressing a plea to God for help, a supplication to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us live better.
f) On the other hand, although there are situations that are not morally acceptable from an objective point of view, the same pastoral charity requires us not to simply treat as “sinners” other people whose guilt or responsibility may be mitigated by various factors affecting subjective accountability (Cf. St. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et paenitentia, 17).
g) Decisions that may be part of pastoral prudence in certain circumstances should not necessarily become a norm. That is, it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops’ Conference, or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially enable procedures or rituals for all kinds of matters, because not everything that “is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances can be elevated to the level of a rule” as this “would lead to an intolerable casuistry” (Amoris laetitia, 304). Canon law should not and cannot cover everything, nor should Episcopal Conferences with their varied documents and protocols claim to do so, as the life of the Church flows through many channels other than normative ones.”
Is it possible to dialogue with someone whose views are incompatible with my own? Am I to put the truth that I already possess at risk? Am I to waste my time by engaging with ideas I know to be false? What, for example, could I possibly gain from a flat-earther? Could I sincerely dialogue with someone like that or would it just be an exercise in politeness but without openness to the risk of an authentic, potentially belief-altering exchange of ideas? Can there be dialogue with someone whose position I firmly believe to be false? Could I dialogue with anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, white supremacists or Young Earth creationists?
Questions like these imply certain ideas about what the truth is, how we relate to it and what the subjects of dialogue are. One such view that could underlie questions like these is a conception of the truth as being ownable, possessable by a person and of dialogue being an exchange, confrontation or competition among ideas. In other words, a dynamic where ideas are the protagonists and where what is at stake is ownership of the truth.
I would like to suggest a different framing.
Starting from myself, I believe – with Plato – that the truth is not something I can possess but that it is like a landscape I traverse. The truth is to be approached, understood, gotten closer to, inhabited, but it remains beyond me and contains me. I also believe – with St. Paul – that for now we see the truth through a glass, darkly. This is neither a relativist position (I believe there to be one landscape) nor one that obviates efforts to heighten one’s understanding of the truth (not all ideas about the one landscape are equally good representations).
Going beyond myself, I believe the subjects of dialogue to be persons and its aim to be reciprocal love. A person who holds views opposed to my own and a person whose views coincide with mine are to be loved equally. I believe – with Jesus – that we are all called to be one. This makes dialogue with everyone an imperative. And what about that white supremacist? Also with them. But, importantly, it is dialogue with a person who, among other things, holds white supremacist views and not dialogue with the idea of white supremacy.
What does it mean for me to dialogue with such a person? First there needs to be the desire for dialogue, for greater mutual understanding, in both of us. If that is missing, dialogue is very unlikely and I need to accept that pain and seek to love them in other ways. It also means that I need to keep taking the risk of attempts at dialogue failing, I need to keep initiating dialogue even when chances for it are slim.
If, however, that desire for dialogue is there, then I first need to empty myself of my own ideas and receive the other’s as a gift to me. Having received them into my own emptiness, I then also need to share my understanding with them and do it such that it becomes a gift for them. I believe – with Zanghì – that this mutual welcoming the other’s ideas into oneself and giving one’s ideas (that now contain the other’s too) as a gift to the other is what constitutes true dialogue.
Does that mean that I need to agree with the other person, to subscribe to their ideas? No. Sharing an opposing view can be as much a gift as declaring agreement, just like both can be done for false motives. Dialogue is not oriented at agreement, but at mutual love, which heightens mutual understanding. Assuming that we inhabit the same, one landscape, and given that we are part of that landscape too, I believe – with Leibniz (and notwithstanding Black’s ingenious counterexample) – that we are necessarily seeing that landscape from different perspectives. Sharing these with each other sincerely and with the desire of mutual self-giving and other-receiving has to be enriching no matter how distorted our individual perspectives may be.
And what about the truth? It’s unicity is what allows for freedom to fuel that mutual self-giving and other-receiving. I believe – with Benedict XVI – that truth is to be pursued without fear of it threatening one’s identity. I can open myself to the other in pursuit of truth without fear of loosing the relationship I already have with it.
I often wonder to what extent I can know the person next to me, whether they be a stranger or someone I have “known” for years of even decades.
If I approach this question from the center, so to speak, I arrive at impossibility. How can I hope to know what goes on at the innermost self of another, where no word leaves or enters and where pure being reigns supreme? I cannot even access that which they verbalise in their minds but choose not to utter to anyone else, never mind to me. Come to think of it, how can I know my own innermost self? Knowing oneself has, for millennia, been recognised as an ultimate goal and challenge. With that unresolved, how can I hope to know another?
If, however, I look at this question from the periphery, from as far from the “center” as possible, I come to the answer of “pretty much completely.” Don’t we both inhabit the same universe? Aren’t we both subject to the same laws of nature? Does the sun not shine on both of us and the rain make both of us scramble for a forgotten umbrella? Do we not both feel esteemed by some and treated with indifference or even disdain by others? Don’t we both seek approval, closeness, tenderness, success, happiness? Don’t we both bleed the same blood, cry the same tears, feel our hearts burn in the presence of love? How insignificant our differences are against this vast shared substrate!
So, which one is it? Are you (who is reading this and whom I may or may not know) and I (whom you may or may not have ever met) impenetrable mysteries to each other or are we both like two peas in a pod? Unsurprisingly, I think: both. The impossibility of full knowledge of another (and oneself) is coextensive with a near–total coincidence of what it is to be human.
And dialogue? I believe it is about those differences that are in an epsilon-neighbourhood of nothing being treasures of immeasurable worth. Treasures that each one of us has as much for themselves as for others. My infinitesimal uniqueness is constitutive of who I am and is prime material for being turned into a gift for you. And, vice versa, receiving some of your infinitesimal uniqueness as a gift enriches me in ways that only you are capable of.
The Synod on Synodality that Pope Francis launched in October 2021 has now concluded its first two phases – the first, diocesan one, and the second one at the level of local bishops’ conferences. The working document is a synthesis of the syntheses of inputs from millions of people around the world, prepared by “112 out of 114 Episcopal Conferences and from all the 15 Oriental Catholic Churches, plus reflections from 17 out of 23 dicasteries of the Roman Curia besides those from religious superiors (USG/UISG), from institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life, and from associations and lay movements of the faithful.” (§5). The resulting “Document for the Continental Stage (DCS)” was published today here. What I would like to do in this post is just share passages from it that I found key, and, as always, to encourage you to read its 16K words is full.
“The DCS will be understandable and useful only if it is read with the eyes of the disciple, who recognizes it as a testimony to the path of conversion toward a synodal Church. This means a Church that learns from listening how to renew its evangelizing mission in the light of the signs of the times, to continue offering humanity a way of being and living in which all can feel included as protagonists. Along this path, the lamp to our steps is the Word of God, which offers the light with which to reread, interpret and express the experience that has been lived.” (§13)
““Largely, what emerges from the fruits, seeds and weeds of synodality are voices that have great love for the Church, voices that dream of a Church of credible witnesses, a Church that is inclusive, open and welcoming Family of God” (EC Zimbabwe)” (§16)
“An obstacle of particular relevance on the path of walking together is the scandal of abuse by members of the clergy or by people holding ecclesial office: first and foremost, abuse of minors and vulnerable persons, but also abuse of other kinds (spiritual, sexual, economic, of authority, of conscience). This is an open wound that continues to inflict pain on victims and survivors, on their families, and on their communities” (§20)
“A synodal process is incomplete without meeting brothers and sisters from other confessions, sharing and dialogue with them, and engaging in common actions. The reports express a desire for deeper ecumenical encounter, and the need for formation to support this work.” (§22)
“This is how many reports envision the Church: an expansive, but not homogeneous dwelling, capable of sheltering all, but open, letting in and out (cf. Jn. 10:9), and moving toward embracing the Father and all of humanity.” (§27)
“Enlarging the tent requires welcoming others into it, making room for their diversity. It thus entails a willingness to die to self out of love, finding oneself again in and through relationship with Christ and one’s neighbor: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit” (Jn. 12:24). The fruitfulness of the Church depends on accepting this death, which is not, however, an annihilation, but an experience of emptying oneself in order to be filled by Christ through the Holy Spirit, and thus a process by which we receive richer relationships, deeper ties to God and each other. This is the place of grace, and of transfiguration. For this reason, the apostle Paul recommends, “Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness” (Phil. 2:5-7). It is under this condition that the members of the Church, each and all together, will be able to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in fulfilling the mission assigned by Jesus Christ to his Church: it is a liturgical, Eucharistic act.” (§28)
“The vision of a Church capable of radical inclusion, shared belonging, and deep hospitality according to the teachings of Jesus is at the heart of the synodal process: “Instead of behaving like gatekeepers trying to exclude others from the table, we need to do more to make sure that people know that everyone can find a place and a home here” (remark by a parish group from the USA). We are called to go to every place, especially outside the more familiar territories, “leaving the comfortable position of those who give hospitality to allow ourselves to be welcomed into the existence of those who are our companions on the journey of humanity” (EC Germany).” (§31)
“Listening requires that we recognize others as subjects of their own journey. When we do this, others feel welcomed, not judged, free to share their own spiritual journey. This has been experienced in many contexts, and for some this has been the most transformative aspect of the whole process. The synodal experience can be read as a path of recognition for those who do not feel sufficiently recognised in the Church.” (§32)
“There is universal concern regarding the meagre presence of the voice of young people in the synod process, as well as increasingly in the life of the Church. A renewed focus on young people, their formation and accompaniment is an urgent need” (§35)
“Numerous reports point to the lack of appropriate structures and ways of accompanying persons with disabilities, and call for new ways of welcoming their contribution and promoting their participation: in spite of its own teachings, the Church is in danger of imitating the way society casts them aside.” (§36)
“Among those who ask for a more meaningful dialogue and a more welcoming space we also find those who, for various reasons, feel a tension between belonging to the Church and their own loving relationships, such as: remarried divorcees, single parents, people living in a polygamous marriage, LGBTQ people, etc.” (§39)
“Despite the cultural differences, there are remarkable similarities between the various continents regarding those who are perceived as excluded, in society and also in the Christian community. In many cases their voice has been absent from the synod process, and they appear in reports only because others speak about them, lamenting their exclusion: “As the Bolivian Church, we are saddened that we have not been able to effectively reach out to the poor on the peripheries and in the most remote places” (EC Bolivia). Among the most frequently mentioned excluded groups are: the poorest, the lonely elderly, indigenous peoples, migrants without any affiliation and who lead a precarious existence, street children, alcoholics and drug addicts, those who have fallen into the plots of criminality and those for whom prostitution seems their only chance of survival, victims of trafficking, survivors of abuse (in the Church and beyond), prisoners, groups who suffer discrimination and violence because of race, ethnicity, gender, culture and sexuality. In the reports, all of them appear as people with faces and names, calling for solidarity, dialogue, accompaniment and welcome.” (§40)
“Contained in the reports is the dream of such a Church: one deeply involved with the world’s challenges, and capable of responding to these through concrete transformations. “The world needs a ‘Church that goes forth’, that rejects the division between believers and non-believers, that looks at humanity and offers it more than a doctrine or a strategy, an experience of salvation, a ‘coup of gift’ that responds to the cry of humanity and nature” (EC Portugal).” (§42)
“A further theme common to many reports is the weakness of deep ecumenical engagement and the desire to learn how to breathe new life into the ecumenical journey, starting with concrete, daily collaboration on common concerns for social and environmental justice. A more united witness among Christians and between faith communities is expressed as an ardent desire.” (§47)
“In a good number of reports, there is a call to better recognize, engage, integrate, and respond to the richness of local cultures, many of which have worldviews and styles of action that are synodal. People express a desire to promote (and in some cases recover and deepen) local culture, to integrate it with faith, and to incorporate it into the liturgy.” (§55)
“The Church faces two related challenges: women remain the majority of those who attend liturgy and participate in activities, men a minority; yet most decision-making and governance roles are held by men. It is clear that the Church must find ways to attract men to a more active membership in the Church and to enable women to participate more fully at all levels of Church life.” (§61)
“[M]any reports ask that the Church continue its discernment in relation to a range of specific questions: the active role of women in the governing structures of Church bodies, the possibility for women with adequate training to preach in parish settings, and a female diaconate.” (§64)
“The synodal journey has brought out a number of tensions, made explicit in the preceding paragraphs. We should not be afraid of them, but articulate them in a process of constant communal discernment, so as to harness them as a source of energy without them becoming destructive: only in this way will it be possible to continue walking together, rather than each going their own way. This is why the Church also needs to give a synodal form and way of proceeding to its own institutions and structures, particularly with regard to governance. Canon law will need to accompany this process of structural renewal creating the necessary changes to the arrangements currently in place.” (§71)
“[A] synodal spirituality can only be one that welcomes differences and promotes harmony, and draws from the tensions the energies to continue on the journey. To achieve this, it will have to move from accentuating the individual dimension to the collective dimension: a spirituality of “we,” which can enhance the contributions of each person.” (§85)
“Many reports strongly encourage the implementation of a synodal style of liturgical celebration that allows for the active participation of all the faithful in welcoming all differences, valuing all ministries, and recognising all charisms. The synodal listening of the Churches records many issues to be addressed in this direction: from rethinking a liturgy too concentrated on the celebrant, to the modalities of active participation of the laity, to the access of women to ministerial roles. “While being faithful to the tradition, its originality, antiquity, and uniformity, let us try to make the liturgical celebration more alive and participatory of all the community of believers; priests, laity, youth and children, reading the signs of the time with sound discernment. The young people are trying to have a space in the liturgy with songs and it is positive” (EC Ethiopia).” (§91)
“The Eucharist, sacrament of unity in love in Christ, cannot become a reason for confrontation, ideology, rift or division. Moreover, with direct impact on the life of many Churches, there are elements of tension specific to the ecumenical sphere, such as the sharing of the Eucharist. Finally, there are problems related to the modalities of faith inculturation and interreligious dialogue, which also affect the forms of celebration and prayer.” (§92)
“A particular source of suffering are those situations in which access to the Eucharist and to the other Sacraments is hindered or prevented by a variety of causes: there is a strong demand to find solutions to these forms of sacramental deprivation. For example, communities living in very remote areas are cited, or the use of charging fees for access to celebrations, which discriminates against the poorest.” (§94)
“In the journey of conversion and reform, we are supported by the gifts we have received during the first year of the synodal journey, beginning with what Jesus shows us in the Gospels. The free and gratuitous attention to the other, which is the basis of listening, is not a limited resource to be jealously guarded, but an overflowing source that does not run out, but grows the more we draw from it. Listening and dialogue are the way to access the gifts that the Spirit offers us through the multifaceted variety of the one Church: of charisms, of vocations, of talents, of skills, of languages and cultures, of spiritual and theological traditions, of different forms of celebrating and giving thanks. The reports do not call for uniformity, but ask that we learn to grow in a sincere harmony that helps the baptised fulfil their mission in the world by creating the bonds necessary to walk together joyfully.” (§102)
“The message of our synodal way is simple: we are learning to walk together, and sit together to break the one bread, in such a way that each is able to find their place. Everyone is called to take part in this journey, no one is excluded. To this we feel called so that we can credibly proclaim the Gospel of Jesus to all people. This is the path we seek to continue on in our next Continental Stage.” (§103)
But wanting to justify himself, [the lawyer] asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.” (Luke 10:29-37)
21st Century Slovak Edition
But wanting to justify himself, [the canon lawyer] asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “Two young gay men were drinking lemonade outside a gay bar in Bratislava, and were attacked by a domestic terrorist, who murdered them and went away. Now the next day the chair of the Conference of Slovak Bishops issued a statement: “I express my condolences after the death of two innocent people who died after a shooting in Bratislava. I invite you to pray for them and their families. Let even the slightest manifestation of racial, religious or other intolerance be foreign to us.” Slovakia’s main Christian party responded to the murder with silence. But the country’s president, a divorced woman living with another man, heard of them and was moved with compassion. She went to the place of the attack, and embraced and consoled its survivors. The next day she addressed the crowds that came to remember the victims, and said, ‘Forgive us for not protecting your loved ones. I apologize that some of you cannot feel safe in Slovakia. I am sorry that as people from the LGBTI community you still feel unwelcome in Slovakia. You belong here, you are precious to our society.’ Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the young gay men who were murdered by the terrorist?” He said, “The one who showed them mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
Once upon a time in the Erehwy Reve Ocean there lived a large pack of blackfish. They roamed its squid-rich waters and longed for the occasional seal or seagull to spice up their diets. The voluminous seas had plenty for each blackfish family, and more.
But life in Erehwy Reve was anything but idyllic. Blackfish returning from hunting expeditions received barely enough squid to feed themselves, let alone their calves. Sick and elderly blackfish lived in squalor and had to rely on the kindness of strangers. The mountainous ocean ridges were being irreversibly destroyed by brutal fishing practices. And all this in spite of the Orcinites, who had been in power for many generations, promising an imminent move to mackrel-laden deep–sea trenches.
Elections were looming, but the Orcinites carried on as usual, lining their pockets while the blackfish population groaned under the increasing hopelessness of survival. The Orcinites got richer and richer, while the average blackfish barely scraped by. How was that possible, you ask? Why didn’t the blackfish population rebel or simply vote them out? Surely they could see that they were being exploited by their “fellow” rulers.
It wasn’t quite that simple. Yes, the Orcinites were getting richer, fatter and more brazen, running the place into the ground with their greed and bottomless incompetence, but they were also masters at lies and subterfuge!
Every time a scandal broke about how this minister got rich from a squid farm closing down, or that minister ate seal steaks while hard-working blackfish were starving, the Orcinites pointed to the distant, dark waters and spoke the magic words: “killer whale”. They will come and tear us to pieces, feast on our calves; or: they will come and take the few good hunting jobs we have; or, and worst of all: they will come here and marry our mares, dirtying the pure blackfish blood of our ancestors!
No amount of appealing to universal fishness, the biological identity of blackfish and killer whales, or detailed plans about how there would be plenty for everyone if corruption were stamped out, made the slightest bit of difference. Surely, killer whales were not like the peace-loving blackfish who vote for Orcinites? Surely, if we let them in, they would be the end of us. And who can protect us from them? Only the Orcinites – that’s who!
It didn’t matter that the opposition Delphinite party had plans for improving the living standards and wellbeing of all Erehwy Reve inhabitants, that they had clear ideas for a peaceful coexistence with killer whales, instead of greasing the wheels of interminable wars, that they were working towards providing young blackfish with better opportunities in life. All of that mattered little, because they had a dark blemish, which meant that no god-loving blackfish could ever vote for them.
The Delphinites allowed blackfish families to abandon their sick calves.
How could any blackfish with a conscience vote for a party that condones, even promotes, piscinfanticide? Look at us, the Orcinites would say, we stand firm against such unspeakable barbarity! Vote for us and we will protect the life of every single blackfish calf.
What they did not say – and herein lies the tragedy of blackfish and the virtuoso subterfuge of Orcinites – is why blackfish families even contemplated abandoning their sick offspring. It was the impossibility of caring for them, without first destroying themselves, that drove them to not dismissing the thought out of hand. It was the offensively low pay of parents, the lack of support for their calves’ care and education, the absence of healthcare for the sick that even put them in from of such an inpiscine choice.
And this issue blinded them. With the desire of doing the right thing, of supporting the good represented by a sick calf’s life, they turned a blind eye to the murderous machinery with which Orcinites oppressed them and cast their fellow blackfish, the killer whales as mortal enemies.
In the hope of saving the innocent, they supported the systematic destruction of all. And they were deceived ever after.
Two days ago, Pope Francis published his Apostolic Letter entitled Desiderio desideravi, which gets its title from a verse in St. Luke’s gospel: “Desiderio desideravihoc Pascha manducare vobiscum, antequam patiar” – i.e., “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.” (Lk 22:15). Its subject is the liturgy and he addresses points about its nature, about its role in the life of the Church, about the art of practising it, about the formation it calls for and about various distortions that it is being subjected to. I would very much recommend reading its 11K words in full, but if you would prefer to go only with a selection, the following are the passages that most spoke to me.
You will see that I am including almost the entirety of the first 9 paragraphs, which struck me by their beauty and intimacy and which give such a vivid sense of Jesus’ desire for us – for each and every one of us!
“I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.” (Lk 22:15) These words of Jesus, with which the account of the Last Supper opens, are the crevice through which we are given the surprising possibility of intuiting the depth of the love of the persons of the Most Holy Trinity for us. (2)
Peter and John were sent to make preparations to eat that Passover, but in actual fact, all of creation, all of history — which at last was on the verge of revealing itself as the history of salvation — was a huge preparation for that Supper. Peter and the others are present at that table, unaware and yet necessary. Necessary because every gift, to be gift, must have someone disposed to receive it. In this case, the disproportion between the immensity of the gift and the smallness of the one who receives it is infinite, and it cannot fail to surprise us. Nonetheless, through the mercy of the Lord, the gift is entrusted to the Apostles so that it might be carried to every man and woman. (3)
No one had earned a place at that Supper. All had been invited. Or better said: all had been drawn there by the burning desire that Jesus had to eat that Passover with them. (4)
I want […] that all can be seated at the Supper of the sacrifice of the Lamb and live from Him. (5)
Before our response to his invitation — well before! — there is his desire for us. We may not even be aware of it, but every time we go to Mass, the first reason is that we are drawn there by his desire for us. For our part, the possible response — which is also the most demanding asceticism — is, as always, that surrender to this love, that letting ourselves be drawn by him. Indeed, every reception of communion of the Body and Blood of Christ was already desired by him in the Last Supper. (6)
The content of the bread broken is the cross of Jesus, his sacrifice of obedience out of love for the Father. If we had not had the Last Supper, that is to say, if we had not had the ritual anticipation of his death, we would have never been able to grasp how the carrying out of his being condemned to death could have been in fact the act of perfect worship, pleasing to the Father, the only true act of worship, the only true liturgy. Only a few hours after the Supper, the apostles could have seen in the cross of Jesus, if they could have borne the weight of it, what it meant for Jesus to say, “body offered,” “blood poured out.” It is this of which we make memorial in every Eucharist. When the Risen One returns from the dead to break the bread for the disciples at Emmaus, and for his disciples who had gone back to fishing for fish and not for people on the Sea of Galilee, that gesture of breaking the bread opens their eyes. It heals them from the blindness inflicted by the horror of the cross, and it renders them capable of “seeing” the Risen One, of believing in the Resurrection. (7)
From the very beginning the Church was aware that this was not a question of a representation, however sacred it be, of the Supper of the Lord. It would have made no sense, and no one would have been able to think of “staging” — especially before the eyes of Mary, the Mother of the Lord — that highest moment of the life of the Master. From the very beginning the Church had grasped, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, that that which was visible in Jesus, that which could be seen with the eyes and touched with the hands, his words and his gestures, the concreteness of the incarnate Word — everything of Him had passed into the celebration of the sacraments. (9)
Christian faith is either an encounter with Him alive, or it does not exist. (10)
The salvific power of the sacrifice of Jesus, his every word, his every gesture, glance, and feeling reaches us through the celebration of the sacraments. I am Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman at the well, the man possessed by demons at Capernaum, the paralytic in the house of Peter, the sinful woman pardoned, the woman afflicted by haemorrhages, the daughter of Jairus, the blind man of Jericho, Zacchaeus, Lazarus, the thief and Peter both pardoned. […] It is the way in which he satisfies his own thirst for us that he had declared from the cross. (Jn 19:28) (11)
Participating in the Eucharistic sacrifice is not our own achievement, as if because of it we could boast before God or before our brothers and sisters. The beginning of every celebration reminds me who I am, asking me to confess my sin and inviting me to implore the Blessed Mary ever virgin, the angels and saints and all my brothers and sisters to pray for me to the Lord our God. Certainly, we are not worthy to enter his house; we need a word of his to be saved. (cf. Ma 8:8) We have no other boast but the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. (cf. Gal 6:14) The Liturgy has nothing to do with an ascetical moralism. It is the gift of the Paschal Mysteryof the Lord which, received with docility, makes our life new. The cenacle is not entered except through the power of attraction of his desire to eat the Passover with us: Desiderio desideravi hoc Pascha manducare vobiscum, antequam patiar (Lk 22:15). (20)
The continual rediscovery of the beauty of the Liturgy is not the search for a ritual aesthetic which is content by only a careful exterior observance of a rite or is satisfied by a scrupulous observance of the rubrics. Obviously, what I am saying here does not wish in any way to approve the opposite attitude, which confuses simplicity with a careless banality, or what is essential with an ignorant superficiality, or the concreteness of ritual action with an exasperating practical functionalism. (22)
Let us be clear here: every aspect of the celebration must be carefully tended to (space, time, gestures, words, objects, vestments, song, music…) and every rubric must be observed. Such attention would be enough to prevent robbing from the assembly what is owed to it; namely, the paschal mystery celebrated according to the ritual that the Church sets down. But even if the quality and the proper action of the celebration were guaranteed, that would not be enough to make our participation full. (23)
If there were lacking our astonishment at the fact that the paschal mystery is rendered present in the concreteness of sacramental signs, we would truly risk being impermeable to the ocean of grace that floods every celebration. Efforts to favour a greater quality to the celebration, even if praiseworthy, are not enough; nor is the call for a greater interiority. Interiority can run the risk of reducing itself to an empty subjectivity if it has not taken on board the revelation of the Christian mystery. The encounter with God is not the fruit of an individual interior searching for Him, but it is an event given. We can encounter God through the new fact of the Incarnation that reaches in the Last Supper the extreme point of his desiring to be eaten by us. How can the misfortune of distancing ourselves from the allure of the beauty of this gift happen to us? (24)
When I speak of astonishment at the paschal mystery, I do not at all intend to refer to what at times seems to me to be meant by the vague expression “sense of mystery.” Sometimes this is among the presumed chief accusations against the liturgical reform. It is said that the sense of mystery has been removed from the celebration. The astonishment or wonder of which I speak is not some sort of being overcome in the face of an obscure reality or a mysterious rite. It is, on the contrary, marvelling at the fact that the salvific plan of God has been revealed in the paschal deed of Jesus (cf. Eph 1:3-14), and the power of this paschal deed continues to reach us in the celebration of the “mysteries,” of the sacraments. It is still true that the fullness of revelation has, in respect to our human finitude, an abundance that transcends us and will find its fulfilment at the end of time when the Lord will return. But if the astonishment is of the right kind, then there is no risk that the otherness of God’s presence will not be perceived, even within the closeness that the Incarnation intends. If the reform has eliminated that vague “sense of mystery,” then more than a cause for accusations, it is to its credit. Beauty, just like truth, always engenders wonder, and when these are referred to the mystery of God, they lead to adoration. (25)
Wonder is an essential part of the liturgical act because it is the way that those who know they are engaged in the particularity of symbolic gestures look at things. It is the marvelling of those who experience the power of symbol, which does not consist in referring to some abstract concept but rather in containing and expressing in its very concreteness what it signifies. (26)
Liturgy is about praise, about rendering thanks for the Passover of the Son whose power reaches our lives. The celebration concerns the reality of our being docile to the action of the Spirit who operates through it until Christ be formed in us. (Cf. Gal 4:19) The full extent of our formation is our conformation to Christ. I repeat: it does not have to do with an abstract mental process, but with becoming Him. This is the purpose for which the Spirit is given, whose action is always and only to confect the Body of Christ. It is that way with the Eucharistic bread, and with every one of the baptized called to become always more and more that which was received as a gift in Baptism; namely, being a member of the Body of Christ. Leo the Great writes, “Our participation in the Body and Blood of Christ has no other end than to make us become that which we eat.” (41)
The Liturgy is done with things that are the exact opposite of spiritual abstractions: bread, wine, oil, water, fragrances, fire, ashes, rock, fabrics, colours, body, words, sounds, silences, gestures, space, movement, action, order, time, light. The whole of creation is a manifestation of the love of God, and from when that same love was manifested in its fullness in the cross of Jesus, all of creation was drawn toward it. It is the whole of creation that is assumed in order to be placed at the service of encounter with the Word: incarnate, crucified, dead, risen, ascended to the Father. It is as the prayer over the water at the baptismal font sings, but also the prayer over the oil for sacred chrism and the words for the presentation of the bread and wine — all fruit of the earth and work of human hands. (42)
The Liturgy gives glory to God not because we can add something to the beauty of the inaccessible light within which God dwells (cf. 1Ti 6:16). Nor can we add to the perfection of the angelic song which resounds eternally through the heavenly places. The Liturgy gives glory to God because it allows us — here, on earth — to see God in the celebration of the mysteries, and in seeing Him to draw life from his Passover. We, who were dead through our sins and have been made be alive again with Christ — we are the glory of God. By grace we have been saved (Eph 2:5). Irenaeus, the doctor unitatis, reminds us of this: “The glory of God is man alive, and the life of man consists in seeing God: if the revelation of God through the creation already gives life to all living beings on earth, how much more then is the manifestation of the Father through the Word the cause of life for those who see God.” (43)
Above all we must reacquire confidence about creation. I mean to say that things — the sacraments “are made” of things — come from God. To Him they are oriented, and by Him they have been assumed, and assumed in a particular way in the Incarnation, so that they can become instruments of salvation, vehicles of the Spirit, channels of grace. In this it is clear how vast is the distance between this vision and either a materialistic or spiritualistic vision. If created things are such a fundamental, essential part of the sacramental action that brings about our salvation, then we must arrange ourselves in their presence with a fresh, non-superficial regard, respectful and grateful. From the very beginning, created things contain the seed of the sanctifying grace of the sacraments. (46)
Among the ritual acts that belong to the whole assembly, silence occupies a place of absolute importance. Many times it is expressly prescribed in the rubrics. The entire Eucharistic celebration is immersed in the silence which precedes its beginning and which marks every moment of its ritual unfolding. In fact, it is present in the penitential act, after the invitation “Let us pray,” in the Liturgy of the Word (before the readings, between the readings and after the homily), in the Eucharistic prayer, after communion. [16] Such silence is not an inner haven in which to hide oneself in some sort of intimate isolation, as if leaving the ritual form behind as a distraction. That kind of silence would contradict the essence itself of the celebration. Liturgical silence is something much more grand: it is a symbol of the presence and action of the Holy Spirit who animates the entire action of the celebration. For this reason it constitutes a point of arrival within a liturgical sequence. Precisely because it is a symbol of the Spirit, it has the power to express the Spirit’s multifaceted action. In this way, going over again the moments I just mentioned, silence moves to sorrow for sin and the desire for conversion. It awakens a readiness to hear the Word and awakens prayer. It disposes us to adore the Body and Blood of Christ. It suggests to each one, in the intimacy of communion, what the Spirit would effect in our lives to conform us to the Bread broken. For all these reasons we are called to enact with extreme care the symbolic gesture of silence. Through it the Spirit gives us shape, gives us form. (52)
Every gesture and every word contains a precise action that is always new because it meets with an always new moment in our own lives. I will explain what I mean with a simple example. We kneel to ask pardon, to bend our pride, to hand over to God our tears, to beg his intervention, to thank Him for a gift received. It is always the same gesture which in essence declares our own being small in the presence of God. Nevertheless, done in different moments of our lives, it moulds our inner depths and then thereafter shows itself externally in our relation with God and with our brothers and sisters. Also kneeling should be done with art, that is to say, with a full awareness of its symbolic sense and the need that we have of this gesture to express our way of being in the presence of the Lord. And if all this is true for this simple gesture, how much more will it be for the celebration of the Word? Ah, what art are we summoned to learn for the proclamation of the Word, for the hearing of it, for letting it inspire our prayer, for making it become our very life? All of this is worthy of utmost attention — not formal or merely exterior, but living and interior — so that every gesture and every word of the celebration, expressed with “art,” forms the Christian personality of each individual and of the community (53)
Our life is not a random chaotic series of events, one following the other. It is rather a precise itinerary which, from one annual celebration of the His Death and Resurrection to the next, conforms us to Him, as we await the blessed hope and the coming of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. (64)
Let us abandon our polemics to listen together to what the Spirit is saying to the Church. Let us safeguard our communion. Let us continue to be astonished at the beauty of the Liturgy. The Paschal Mystery has been given to us. Let us allow ourselves to be embraced by the desire that the Lord continues to have to eat His Passover with us. All this under the gaze of Mary, Mother of the Church. (65)
It is Christmas. The feast of the greater-than-אω–infinite, (self–)transcendent God’s second syncatabasis. The God who previously lowered himself to speak the universe – a finite immanence – into being, now goes even further. He becomes a mere human. An infinitesimal spec within the infinitesimal spec that is his creation. He empties himself into his son, who then spends his earthly life showing us how to reciprocate that self-emptying gift, to the point of accepting even abandonment and death on the cross. So great is God’s love for me that he is willing to lose his very self for the sake of spelling out the totality and unconditionality of his love, for the sake of being at my side even when I am alone in pain.
No one, nowhere, at no time is from then on ever alone. No matter what is happening to them or what they are doing. The self-sacrificing, self-emptying, self-giving transcendent is with them, is in them – and they are in him. He is at our side, ready to welcome us into the infinite, ever-increasing, ever-self-transcending cycle of Trinitarian love.
But, what does this mean for me? What tangible consequences does God’s incarnation in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, born of his mother Mary, have for me, who desires to follow him?
I believe the consequences to be twofold.
First, the incarnation is an invitation to perfection. An invitation to total self-emptying self-giving. Following Jesus means to give myself to others, to make the good of others my priority, which – paradoxically – also implies striving to make myself the best that I can be, so that my self-giving may be a true gift for its recipients. In other words, it is an invitation to the perfection of the incarnate God. An invitation not to making my finite, limited, feeble self perfect, but to participation in God’s perfection. He does the heavy lifting; all he asks of me is to say yes to his call to follow him. He meets me where I am, he comes to me in my own backwater of a Bethlehem and stretches out his hand towards me. He has already overcome the greatest chasm: the infinite making himself also finite, the transcendent becoming also immanent. No flaws of mine, versus his perfection, can compare to what he has already lowered himself to.
Second, the incarnation is an invitation to imperfection. An invitation to not shirk from it, to not let it get in the way of following him who broke bread with tax collectors and prostitutes. Why? Because each one of us is him. Suffering for our distance from him, rejoicing in our closeness to him, called to being one with him. Jesus looks at the tax collector, the prostitute, and sees himself. He looks at us and envelops us in his love. He first accepts us as we are, no matter who and how we are. And only then does he invite us to perfection. He loves us regardless of whether we accept it or not. He loves us even if we are the ones crucifying him.
He calls me to love him in every person I meet and not to get hung up about their choices, regardless of how I judge them. No matter how good I think they may be, or how wrong their choices may be in my eyes, or how incomprehensible they may be to me, he calls me not to judge them, but to love them.
Who am I to not love the racist, the conspiracy theorist, the woman who has had an abortion, the Catholic who, out of a distorted sense of tradition, is fixated on rules, the hater, the envier, the ill-wisher, the embezzler, the egoist, the ideologist, the dogmatist, the relativist, the flat-earther, the trickle-down capitalist, the science fiction fan, the avid gardener, the transgender person, the gay couple, or my own, sinful self? How presumptuous of me to think that these are more different from me than infinity is from the finite, than transcendence is from the immanent! How un-Christian of me to think that any of these could constitute legitimate grounds for distance, for the withdrawal of Christ-imitating, self-giving love!
Jesus left us clear instructions: that we all may be one, like the father is in him and he is in the father, so that we all may be in them. All called to perfection by participation in divine love, convinced by the incarnation that no distance, no differences, no imperfections can get in the way.
The bedrock of authentic, profound relationships is a paradoxical interplay of being and nothingness. For me to welcome you, I need to make space for you in me. I need to lose myself to receive you. And for such reception to be perfect, my self-annihilation too needs to be total. Only then can I welcome you as you are, and not only as the parts of my self that I hold on to leave room for. Unless I become nothing, I cannot receive you wholly.
But you mustn’t do the same! You mustn’t self-annihilate. If you did, there would be nothing for me to receive from you and we would both perish in vain. You must become the best you that you can be, so that you may have a gift worthy of filling the void I made of myself for you.
And when you give yourself to me, do it wholly. Hold nothing back. Empty yourself to the point of becoming the residual nothing of self-giving. And I, what will I do? Having received your perfect gift of self that fills the void I made by giving myself to you, I cannot but reciprocate by giving myself wholly to you. I make myself the best I that I can be, an I that has received a perfect gift from you. I now give my self, that you have enriched in me with your own self, to you. You receive me, a me that contains you, and can accept it wholly, having made yourself nothing.
To receive you, I must be nothing. To give myself to you, I must be everything. Everything for you. I am the best I that I can be when I give my self to you. A self that is nothing, so as to welcome you perfectly. A self that is everything, so as to be a perfect gift for you.
I am the best I that I can be when I give my self to you, and you reciprocate my free gift with your own. I become nothing for you. You become everything for me. I become everything for you. You become nothing for me. And our relationship becomes the place where we, self-annihilated and fulfilled in mutual self-giving, truly are.
eyebeleave 