conscience – eyebeleave

Synod18: on the road to self-giving holiness

Francis synod18

5635 words, 28 min read

Saturday saw the conclusion of a month-long synod of the Catholic Church on the topic of “young people, faith and vocational discernment” and the publication of its final document that presents an array of statements on a vast variety of topics including the environment, the economy, marginalisation and exclusion, discrimination and abuse, education, accompaniment, freedom, conscience, men and women, sex, homosexuality, conscience, faith, Jesus and holiness. It is the result of 268 Synod fathers (mostly cardinals and bishops), a handful of young people from around the world, a select group of experts and a small number of “fraternal delegates” from other Churches (including Rev. Martina Kopecká, a female priest from the Czechoslovak Hussite Church) having undergone a shared journey (synod) with and under (cum et sub) Pope Francis. What I would like to offer you below is a quick translation of a selection of passages from the final document that, to my mind, speak to some of the synod’s key themes (each paragraph showing how many voted for and against it in square brackets), preceded by Pope Francis’ summary of the synod from yesterday’s Angelus.

I believe that a key here is to look for the forest when viewing the trees – the forest being that the Church welcomes all, reaffirms God’s love for all and strives to accompany all towards their own fulfilment, which she proposes is to be found in relationships with others and with God. The Church shows herself as being on a journey and as working for the good of her members and of all humanity. She shows herself as a loving mother even while her children fail, and some even fail in unspeakably evil and scandalous ways. Yet she persists and calls all to be saints in their many and varied walks of life.

The words of Pope Francis before today’s Angelus prayer, summarising the experience of Synod2018:

“[The Synod] was a time of consolation and of hope. It was, first of all, a moment of listening: to listen, in fact, requires time, attention, an open mind, and heart. However, every day this commitment was transformed into consolation, especially because we had in our midst the lively and stimulating presence of young people, with their stories and their contributions. Through the testimonies of the Synodal Fathers, the multi-form reality of the new generations entered the Synod, so to speak, from everywhere: from every Continent and from many different human and social situations.

With this fundamental attitude of listening, we sought to read the reality, to gather the signs of these our times. Communal discernment, made in the light of the Word of God and of the Holy Spirit. This is one of the most beautiful gifts that the Lord gives to the Catholic Church, namely, that of bringing together the voices and faces of the most varied realities and thus being able to attempt an interpretation that takes into account the richness and complexity of the phenomena, always in the light of the Gospel. So, in these days, we were faced with having to know how to walk together through so many challenges, such as the digital world, the phenomenon of migrations, the meaning of the body and sexuality, the tragedy of wars and violence. The fruits of this work are now “fermenting,” as the juice of the grapes does in the casks after the harvest. The Synod of Young People was a good harvest, and it promises good wine. However, I would like to say that the first fruit of this Synodal Assembly should be in fact in the example of a method that one tried to follow, from the preparatory phase; a Synodal style that doesn’t have, as its main objective, the drawing up of a document, which is also precious and useful. More important than the document, however, it’s important to spread a way of being and of working together, young people and elderly, in listening and in discernment, to arrive at pastoral choices that respond to the reality.

Therefore, we invoke the intercession of the Virgin Mary. To Her, who is Mother of the Church, we confide our gratitude to God for the gift of this Synodal Assembly. And may She help us now to take forward, without fear, what we experienced, in the ordinary life of communities. May the Holy Spirit, with His wise imagination, make the fruits of our work grow, to continue to walk together with the young people of the whole world.”

The following then are excerpts from the final document of the Synod of Bishops addressed to Pope Francis on 27th October 2018:¹

“We have recognized, in the episode of the disciples of Emmaus (see Lk 24: 13-35), a paradigmatic text for understanding the ecclesial mission with regard to younger generations. This episode expresses well what we have experienced at the Synod and what we would like every one of our particular Churches to live in relation to young people. Jesus walks with the two disciples who have not understood the meaning of recent events and are moving away from Jerusalem and from the community. To stay in their company, to travel the road with them, he listens to their version of the facts to help them recognize what they are living. Then, with affection and energy, he announces the Word to them, leading them to interpret the events they have lived in the light of the Scriptures. He accepts their invitation to stay with them at nightfall: he enters their night. While listening, their heart warms and their mind is illuminated, with the breaking of the bread their eyes open. They themselves choose to resume the journey in the opposite direction without delay, to return to the community, sharing the experience of the encounter with the Risen One. [235-2]” (§4)

“Listening is an encounter of freedom, which requires humility, patience, willingness to understand, a commitment to elaborate answers in a new way. Listening transforms the heart of those who live it, above all when one places oneself in an interior attitude of harmony and docility to the Spirit. It is therefore not just a collection of information, nor a strategy to achieve a goal, but it is the form in which God himself relates to his people. In fact, God sees the misery of his people and listens to their lamentations, allows himself to be touched in his innermost being and descends to free them (see Exodus 3:7-8). The Church then, through listening, enters the movement of God who, in the Son, comes to meet every human being. [238-2]” (§6)

“We cannot forget the difference between men and women with their particular gifts, the specific sensibilities and experiences of the world. This difference can be an area in which forms of domination, exclusion and discrimination arise from which all societies and the Church itself need to free themselves. The Bible presents man and woman as equal partners before God (see Gn 5:2): all domination and discrimination based on sex offends human dignity. It also presents the difference between the sexes as a mystery as constitutive of human being as it is irreducible to stereotypes. The relationship between man and woman is then understood in terms of a vocation to live together in reciprocity and in dialogue, in communion and in fruitfulness (see Gn 1:27-29; 2:21-25) in all areas of human experience: the life of couples, work, education and more. God has entrusted the earth to their covenant. [221-18]” (§13)

“The digital environment characterizes the contemporary world. Large sections of humanity are immersed in it in an ordinary and continuous manner. It is no longer just about “using” means of communication, but to live in a widely digitalized culture that has a very profound impact on the notion of time and space, on the perception of oneself, of others and of the world, on the way of communicating, learning, informing, entering into a relationship with others. An approach to reality that tends to favor the image over listening and reading influences the way of learning and the development of critical thinking. It is now clear that “the digital environment is not a parallel or purely virtual world, but it is part of the daily reality of many people, especially the younger ones” (BENEDICT XVI, Message for the XLVII World Day of Social Communications). [235-3]

The Web and social networks are a place where young people spend a lot of time and meet easily, even if not all of them have equal access, particularly in some regions of the world. However, they constitute an extraordinary opportunity for dialogue, encounter and exchange between people, as well as access to information and knowledge. Moreover, the digital one is a context of socio-political participation and active citizenship, and it can facilitate the circulation of independent information capable of effectively protecting the most vulnerable people by revealing violations of their rights. In many countries, the web and social networks are now an indispensable place to reach and involve young people, even in pastoral initiatives and activities. [231-3]” (§21-22)

“The different kinds of abuse perpetrated by some bishops, priests, religious and laity provoke in those who are victims, among them many young people, sufferings that can last a lifetime and for which no repentance can be a remedy. This phenomenon is widespread in society, it also affects the Church and represents a serious obstacle to its mission. The Synod reaffirms its firm commitment to the adoption of rigorous preventive measures that impede its repetition, starting from the selection and training of those who will be entrusted with responsibilities and educational tasks. [208-30]

There are different types of abuse: power, economic, conscience, sexual. It is evident that this is a matter of of eradicating those forms of the exercise of authority onto which they are grafted and of countering the lack of accountability and transparency with which many cases have been handled. The desire for domination, the lack of dialogue and transparency, various forms of double lives, the spiritual emptiness, as well as psychological fragility are the terrain on which corruption flourishes. Clericalism, in particular, “arises from an elitist and excluding view of vocation, which interprets a ministry that has been received as a power to be exercised rather than as a free and generous service to offer; and this leads us to believe that we belong to a group that has all the answers and no longer needs to listen and learn anything, or that pretends to listen.” (Francis, Address to the General Congregation of the XV General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, 3 October 2018). [204-31]” (§29-30)

“[C]hristian families and ecclesial communities try to help young people discover sexuality as a great gift that is inhabited by Mystery, so that they may live relationships according to the logic of the Gospel. However, they are not always able to translate this desire into an adequate affective and sexual education, which is not limited to sporadic and occasional events. Where such education has been really proposed and accepted as a choice, positive results are noted that help young people to grasp the relationship between their adherence to faith in Jesus Christ and the way of living affectivity and interpersonal relationships. These results invite and encourage greater investment of ecclesial energy in this field. [214-25]

The Church has a rich tradition on which to build and from which to propose its own teaching on this subject: for example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the theology of the body developed by St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI’s Encyclical Deus caritas est, Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia. But young people, even those who know and live this teaching, express the desire to receive a clear, human and empathetic word from the Church. In fact, sexual morality often causes misunderstanding and estrangement from the Church, as it is perceived as a space of judgment and condemnation. Faced with social changes and ways of experiencing affectivity and the multiplicity of ethical perspectives, young people are sensitive to the value of authenticity and dedication, but are often disoriented. They express more particularly an explicit desire for facing issues related to the difference between male and female identities, to the reciprocity between men and women, to homosexuality. [195-43]” (§38-39)

“Many […] recognize [Jesus] as the Savior and the Son of God and often feel close to him through Mary, his mother and commit themselves to a journey of faith. Others do not have a personal relationship with him, but regard him as a good man and an ethical reference. Others still meet him through a strong experience of the Spirit. For others he is a figure of the past without any existential relevance or very distant from human experience. If for many young people God, religion and the Church appear empty words, they are sensitive to the figure of Jesus, when presented in an attractive and effective way. In many ways even today’s young people tell us: “We want to see Jesus” (Jn 12.21), thus manifesting that healthy restlessness that characterizes the heart of every human being: “The restlessness of a spiritual search, the restlessness of meeting with God, the restlessness of love “(Francis, Mass for the beginning of the General Chapter of the Order of St. Augustine, 28 August 2013). [238-1]” (§50)

“There emerges also a demand among young people for a greater recognition and valuing of women in society and in the Church. Many women play an irreplaceable role in Christian communities, but in many places it is difficult to give them space in the decision-making processes, even when these do not require specific ministerial responsibilities. The absence of the female voice and gaze impoverishes the Church’s debate and the path, removing a precious contribution from discernment. The Synod recommends making everyone more aware of the urgency of an unavoidable change, also starting from an anthropological and theological reflection on the reciprocity between men and women. [209-30]” (§55)

“Freedom is an essential condition for every authentic choice in life. However, it risks being misunderstood, also because it is not always adequately presented. The Church itself ends up appearing to many young people as an institution that imposes rules, prohibitions and obligations. Christ, on the other hand, “freed us for freedom” (Gal 5:1), making us pass from the regime of the Law to that of the Spirit. In the light of the Gospel, it is appropriate today to recognize with greater clarity that freedom is constitutively relational and show that passions and emotions are relevant insofar as they direct towards an authentic encounter with others. Such a perspective clearly attests that true freedom is understandable and only possible in relation to the truth (see Jn 8:31-32) and above all to charity (see 1Cor 13:1-13, Gal 5:13): freedom is being oneself in the heart of another. [226-4]

Through lived fraternity and solidarity, especially with the least ones, young people discover that authentic freedom arises from feeling welcomed and grows in making space for another. They have a similar experience when they are committed to cultivating moderation or respect for the environment. The experience of mutual recognition and shared commitment leads them to discover that their hearts are inhabited by a silent appeal to the love that comes from God. It thus becomes easier to recognize the transcendent dimension that freedom originally bears in itself and which, in contact with the most intense experiences of life – birth and death, friendship and love, guilt and forgiveness – is most clearly awakened. It is precisely these experiences that help to recognize that the nature of freedom is radically responsive. [239-1]

More than 50 years ago, St. Paul VI introduced the expression “dialogue of salvation” and interpreted the mission of the Son in the world as the expression of a “formidable question of love”. He added, however, that we are “free to correspond with it or reject it” (see Ecclesiam suam, No. 77). From this perspective, the act of personal faith appears as free and liberating: it will be the starting point for a gradual internalising of the contents of the faith. Faith therefore does not constitute an element that is added almost from the outside to freedom, but fulfils the yearning of conscience for truth, goodness and beauty, finding them fully in Jesus. The testimony of many young martyrs of the past and the present, that resounded strongly to the Synod, is the most convincing proof that faith sets free against the powers of the world, its injustices and even in the face of death. [235-0]

Human freedom is marked by the wounds of personal sin and concupiscence. But when, thanks to forgiveness and mercy, a person becomes aware of the obstacles that imprison them, they grow in maturity and can engage more clearly in the definitive choices of life. From an educational perspective, it is important to help young people not to be discouraged by mistakes and failures, though they may be humiliating, because they are an integral part of the journey towards a more mature freedom, aware of its own greatness and weakness. But evil does not have the last word: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son” (Jn 3:16). He loved us to the end and thus redeemed our freedom. Dying for us on the cross he poured out the Spirit, and “where there is the Spirit of the Lord there is freedom” (2 Cor 3:17): a new, Paschal freedom, which is accomplished in the daily gift of self. [238-0]” (§73-76)

“Discernment calls attention to what happens in the heart of every man and woman. In biblical texts the term “heart” is used to indicate the central point of the interiority of the person, where listening to the Word that God constantly addressed to them becomes a criterion for evaluating life and choices (see Ps 139). The Bible considers the personal dimension, but at the same time emphasizes the community dimension. Even the “new heart” promised by the prophets is not an individual gift, but concerns all of Israel, in whose tradition and salvific history the believer is inserted (see Ez 36:26-27). The Gospels continue along the same lines: Jesus insists on the importance of interiority and places the center of moral life in the heart (see Mt 15:18-20). [223-20]

The apostle Paul enriches what the biblical tradition has elaborated regarding the heart by relating it to the term “conscience”, which he takes from the culture of his time. It is in our conscience that we gather the fruit of the encounter and of communion with Christ: a saving transformation and the reception of a new freedom. The Christian tradition insists on conscience as a privileged place of special intimacy with God and of encounter with Him, in which His voice becomes present: “Conscience is the most secret nucleus and man’s sanctuary, where he is alone. with God, whose voice resounds in intimacy” (Gaudium et spes, n.16). This conscience does not coincide with immediate and superficial feelings, nor with a “self-awareness”: it attests to a transcendent presence, which each one finds in their own interiority, but which they does not possess. [219-23]

Forming one’s conscience is a path for one’s whole life, where one learns to nourish the same feelings as Jesus Christ by assuming the criteria of his choices and the intentions of his actions (see Phil 2:5). In order to reach the deepest dimension of conscience, according to a Christian vision, it is important to care for one’s interior, which includes times of silence, prayerful contemplation and listening to the Word, the support of sacramental practice and the teaching of the Church. Furthermore, a habitual practice of the good, verified in the examination of conscience, is necessary: an exercise that is not only a matter of identifying sins, but also of recognizing the work of God in one’s daily experience, in the events of history and of the cultures in which one is inserted, in the witness of many other men and women who have come before us or accompany us with their wisdom. All this helps to grow in the virtue of prudence, articulating a global direction of existence with concrete choices, in the serene awareness of one’s own gifts and limits. The young Solomon asked for this gift more than anything else (see 1 Kings 3:9). [205-36]

The conscience of every believer in their most personal dimension is always in relation with the ecclesial conscience. It is only through the mediation of the Church and her tradition of faith that we can access the authentic face of God revealed in Jesus Christ. Spiritual discernment thus presents itself as the sincere work of conscience, in its commitment to know the possible good on which to decide responsibly in the correct exercise of practical reason, within and by the light of a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus. [205-34]” (§106-109)

“In this Synod we have experienced that co-responsibility lived with young Christians is a source of profound joy also for bishops. We recognize in this experience a fruit of the Spirit that continually renews the Church and calls it to practice synodality as a way of being and acting, promoting the participation of all the baptized and people of good will, each according to their age, state of life and vocation. In this Synod, we have experienced that the collegiality that unites the bishops cum Petro et sub Petro in care for the People of God is called to articulate and enrich itself through the practice of synodality at all levels. [206-34]

[…]

This lived experience made the Synod participants aware of the importance of a synodal form of the Church for the proclamation and transmission of the faith. The participation of young people has helped to “awaken” synodality, which is a “constitutive dimension of the Church. […] As St. John Chrysostom says, “the Church and Synod are synonymous” – because the Church is nothing other than the “walking together” of the Flock of God on the paths of history meeting Christ the Lord” (Francis, Speech for the Commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Synod of Bishops, 17 October 2015). Synodality characterizes both the life and the mission of the Church, who is the People of God formed by young and old, men and women of every culture and reach, and the Body of Christ, in which we are members of each other, starting from those who are marginalized and downtrodden. During the exchanges and through the testimonies, the Synod brought out some fundamental features of a synodal style, towards which we are called to convert. [191-51!]

It is in relationships – with Christ, with others, in the community – that faith is transmitted. Also in view of her mission, the Church is called to assume a relational face that focuses on listening, welcoming, dialogue, common discernment in a process that transforms the lives of those who participate in it. “A Synodal Church is a Church of listening, in the awareness that listening “is more than feeling”. It is a mutual listening in which everyone has something to learn. Faithful people, Episcopal College, Bishop of Rome: one listening to others; and all listening to the Holy Spirit, the “Spirit of truth” (Jn 14:17), to know what he “says to the Churches” (Revelation 2:7)” (Francis, Speech for the Commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the institution of the Synod of Bishops, 17 October 2015). In this way the Church presents herself as the “tent of meeting” in which the Ark of the Covenant is preserved (see Ex 25): a dynamic and moving Church, which accompanies while walking, strengthened by many charisms and ministries. Thus God makes himself present in this world. [199-43]

[…]

The experience of “walking together” as a People of God helps us to better understand the meaning of authority in terms of service. Pastors are required to increase collaboration in witness and mission, and accompany processes of community discernment to interpret the signs of the times in the light of faith and under the guidance of the Spirit, with the contribution of all the members of the community, starting from those who find themselves at the margins. Ecclesial leaders with these capacities need specific training in synodality. From this point of view, it seems promising to structure common training courses among young lay people, young religious and seminarians, in particular as regards issues such as the exercise of authority or team work. [208-33]” (§119, 121-122, 124)

“Many migrants are young. The universal spread of the Church offers her the great opportunity to make the communities from which they depart and those in which they arrive dialogue, contributing to overcoming fears and mistrust, and reinforcing the links that migrations are likely to break. “Welcoming, protecting, promoting and integrating”, the four verbs with which Pope Francis summarizes the lines of action in favor of migrants, are synodal verbs. Implementing them requires the action of the Church at all levels and involves all members of Christian communities. For their part, migrants, opportunely accompanied, will be able to offer spiritual, pastoral and missionary resources to the communities that receive them. Of particular importance is the cultural and political commitment, to be continued also through appropriate structures, to fight against the spread of xenophobia, racism and the turning away of migrants. The resources of the Catholic Church are a vital element in the fight against the trafficking of human beings, as is clear in the work of many religious women. The role of the Santa Marta Group, which unites religious and law enforcement officials, is crucial and is a good practice by which to be inspired. Do not forget the commitment to guarantee the right to remain in your country for people who do not want to migrate but are forced to do so and support for the Christian communities that migration threatens to empty. [228-12]

A Church that seeks to live a synodal style can not but reflect on the condition and role of women within it, and consequently also in society. Young men and women ask for it with great force. The reflections developed need to be implemented through a work of courageous cultural conversion and change in daily pastoral practice. An area of particular importance in this regard is that of the presence of women in the ecclesial bodies at all levels, also in functions of responsibility, and of female participation in ecclesial decision-making processes while respecting the role of ordained ministry. It is a duty owed to justice, which finds inspiration both in the way in which Jesus related to men and women of his time, and in the importance of the role of some female figures in the Bible, in the history of salvation and in the life of the Church. [201-38]

In the current cultural context, the Church struggles to convey the beauty of the Christian vision of corporeity and sexuality, as emerges from the Holy Scriptures, Tradition and the Magisterium of recent Popes. Therefore, a search for more adequate methods is urgently needed, which translates concretely into the elaboration of renewed training approaches. It is necessary to propose to young people an anthropology of affectivity and sexuality capable of giving the right value to chastity, showing pedagogically the most authentic meaning for the growth of the person, in all the states of life. It is a matter of focusing on empathetic listening, accompaniment and discernment, along the line indicated by the recent Magisterium. For this reason it is necessary to take care of the formation of pastoral workers that are credible, starting from a maturing of their own affective and sexual dimension. [214-26]

There are questions concerning the body, affectivity and sexuality that need a more in-depth anthropological, theological and pastoral elaboration, to be carried out in the most appropriate modalities and levels, from local to universal. Among these emerge in particular those related to the difference and harmony between male and female identities and sexual inclinations. In this regard, the Synod reaffirms that God loves every person and so does the Church, renewing its commitment against any discrimination and violence on a sexual basis. Equally it reaffirms the determining anthropological relevance of the difference and reciprocity between man and woman and considers it reductive to define the identity of people starting only from their “sexual orientation” (CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter to the Catholic Church Bishops on pastoral care of homosexual persons, October 1, 1986, No. 16). In many Christian communities there are already paths to accompanying homosexual persons in the faith: the Synod recommends encouraging these paths. There people are helped to read their own story; to adhere freely and responsibly to their baptismal call; to recognize the desire to belong and contribute to the life of the community; to discern the best ways for making it happen. In this way we help every young person, no one excluded, to increasingly integrate the sexual dimension into their personality, growing in the quality of relationships and walking towards the gift of self. [178-65!]

The Church is committed to promoting social, economic and political life in the name of justice, solidarity and peace, just as young people strongly demand. This requires the courage to be the voice of those who have no voice among world leaders, denouncing corruption, wars, the arms trade, drug trafficking and exploitation of natural resources and inviting those who are responsible for their conversion. From an integral perspective, this can not be separated from the commitment to the inclusion of the most fragile, building paths that allow them not only to find their own needs, but also to contribute to the construction of society. [230-7]

Aware that “work is a fundamental dimension of man’s existence on earth” (St. John Paul II, Laborem exercens, n.4) and that its lack is humiliating for many young people, the Synod recommends that local Churches favor and accompany the integration of young people in this world, including through the support of youth entrepreneurship initiatives. Experiences in this sense are widespread in many local Churches and must be supported and strengthened. [236-1]

The promotion of justice also challenges the management of Church property. Young people feel at home in a Church where economics and finance are lived in transparency and consistency. Courageous choices from the perspective of sustainability, as indicated by the encyclical Laudato si’, are necessary, since the lack of respect for the environment generates new poverty, of which the young are the first victims. Systems also change, showing that a different way of living the economic and financial dimension is possible. Young people encourage the Church to be prophetic in this field, with words but above all through choices that show that an economy that is friendly to the person and to the environment is possible. Together with them we can do it. [233-6]” (§147-153)

“All vocational diversity are gathered in the one and universal call to holiness, which in the end can only be the fulfillment of the appeal to the joy of love that resounds in the heart of every young person. Effectively it is only by starting from the one vocation to holiness that different forms of life can be articulated, knowing that God “wants us to be saints and does not expect us to be content with a mediocre, watered down, inconsistent existence” (Francis, Gaudete et exsultate, No. 1). Holiness finds its inexhaustible source in the Father, who through his Spirit sends us Jesus, “the holy one of God” (Mk 1:24) come among us to make us saints through friendship with Him, which brings joy and peace in our life. Recovering the living contact with the joyful existence of Jesus throughout the ordinary pastoral care of the Church is the fundamental condition for every renewal. [234-2]

We must be saints to be able to invite young people to become them. Young people have clamored for an authentic, luminous, transparent, joyful Church: only a Church of the saints can live up to these requests! Many of them have left it because they have not found sanctity, but mediocrity, presumption, division and corruption. Unfortunately, the world is outraged by the abuses of some people of the Church rather than revived by the holiness of its members: this is why the Church as a whole must make a decisive, immediate and radical change of perspective! Young people need saints who form other saints, thus showing that “holiness is the most beautiful face of the Church” (Francis, Gaudete et exsultate, n.9). There is a language that all men and women of all times, places and cultures can understand, because it is immediate and luminous: it is the language of sanctity. [216-8]

It has been clear from the beginning of the Synodal journey that young people are an integral part of the Church. So is therefore also their holiness, which in recent decades has produced a multifaceted flowering in all parts of the world: contemplating and meditating during the Synod the courage of so many young people who have renounced their lives to remain faithful to the Gospel has been moving for us; listening to the testimonies of the young people present at the Synod who in the middle of persecutions have chosen to share the passion of the Lord Jesus has been regenerating. Through the holiness of the young the Church can renew her spiritual ardor and her apostolic vigor. The balm of holiness generated by the good life of many young people can heal the wounds of the Church and the world, bringing us back to that fullness of love to which we have always been called: the young saints urge us to return to our first love (cf. Ap 2,4). [239-2]” (§165-167)

¹ Apologies in advance for mistakes in the translation here – they are all mine.

Conscientious objection

1611 words, 8 min read

The supremacy of conscience in determining the actions of an individual is a key principle of the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, which, in no uncertain terms, presents it as the ultimate criterion: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.” (CCC, §1790). Regardless of whether it is “right” or not – and it can certainly also be wrong! – “[i]n all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience.” (Dignitatis Humanae, §3).

This is, indeed, not only the teaching of the Catholic Church, but also enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ articles 1 and 18:

“Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

In practice, the picture is far from clear though, in that external forces – but internal ones too – often push in directions opposed to a person’s conscience and going against them can come with significant risks, to the point of putting one’s own life on the line. The United Nations themselves recognize this clearly and in their guidance about conscientious objection with regard to military service, give the following example of probably the earliest recorded conscientious objector:

“In the year 295, on reaching the age of 21, Maximilianus, as the son of a Roman army veteran, was called up to the legions. However, he reportedly told the Proconsul in Numidia that because of his religious convictions he could not serve as a soldier. He persisted in his refusal and was executed. He was subsequently canonized as Saint Maximilian.”

It may not always be a matter of life and death though, at least for the person whose conscience can come in conflict with external forces, such as a state’s laws, and the qualifier “certain” used in the Catechism as well as the knowledge that one’s own conscience may be erroneous can both put a question mark over one’s conscience. The principle of following it can therefore be less than unambiguous in practice and arguments for its bending and dulling can easily creep in. This may, in part be what has resulted in the, to my mind, disgraceful positions taken by some politicians and representatives of the Catholic Church in Central Europe with regard to the refugee crisis (and the opposite of what has thankfully lead many citizens as well as clergy and lay persons to do the right thing).

Against the above background, I would here like to translate parts of an interview that Cardinal Walter Kasper gave yesterday, in which he addressed the question of conscience in the context of the refugee crisis and with reference to the laws of individual states. Here Kasper starts his argument from the position of mercy:

“To welcome someone is a work of mercy and justice that goes beyond state laws. The Holy Year of Mercy reminds us about what the Old and New Testament teach: we must welcome as brothers and sisters those who arrive to us from oppressions and persecutions. And even before we understand whether or not they are to be considered refugees, we must remember that they are human beings and as such have the right to live in a healthy and free environment. It is clear that immigrants must respect the rules of the society that welcomes them, but we must be open because that is what Christian mercy asks of us.”

Next, he goes on to directly address how mercy and the laws of states relate:

“State laws are to be observed, but they are not the ultimate criterion of being a Christian. Mercy goes further. The state cannot give orders to mercy. In this sense, the laws stipulate a minimum level for the rules of coexistence, while mercy goes beyond. And it is only mercy that gives a certain warmth to our society, without it and without compassion we would live in a very cold society. […] There is a question of conscience. One has to wonder if a man who has no documents can be returned to a country where he was persecuted. It is clear that a state has the right to ask for the documents of immigrants, but there is always room for individual conscience.”

In fact, Pope Francis took this same argument even beyond the confines of the Church, by emphasizing the inviolability of a person’s conscience also in the case of non-believers (in one of his first acts as Pope – the letter to the atheist Eugenio Scalfari):

“[T]he mercy of God is limitless for those who turn to him with a sincere and contrite heart, the issue for the unbeliever lies in obeying his or her conscience. There is sin, even for those who have no faith, when conscience is not followed. Listening to and obeying conscience means deciding in the face of what is understood to be good or evil. It is on the basis of this choice that the goodness or evil of our actions is determined.”

And, some months earlier, in his remarks before the Angelus prayer, he explained what he means by conscience, in clearly Christian terms:

“[T]he importance, even for Jesus, of conscience [was this]: listening in his heart to the Father’s voice, and following it. Jesus, in his earthly life, was not, so to speak, “remote-controlled”: He was the Word made flesh, the Son of God made man, and at one point he made a firm decision to go up to Jerusalem for the last time – a decision taken in His conscience, but not on His own: with the Father, in full union with Him! He decided in obedience to the Father, in profound intimate attunement to the Father’s will. For this reason, then, the decision was steadfast: because it was taken together with the Father. In the Father, then, Jesus found the strength and the light for His journey. Jesus was free. His decision was a free one. Jesus wants us Christians to be free as he is: with that liberty, which comes from this dialogue with the Father, this dialogue with God. Jesus wants neither selfish Christians, who follow their egos and do not speak with God, nor weak Christians, without will: “remote-controlled” Christians, incapable of creativity, who seek ever to connect with the will of another, and are not free. Jesus wants us free, and this freedom – where is it found? It is to be found in the inner dialogue with God in conscience. If a Christian does not know how to talk with God, does not know how to listen to God, in his own conscience, then he is not free – he is not free.

So we also must learn to listen more to our conscience. Be careful, however: this does not mean we ought to follow our ego, do whatever interests us, whatever suits us, whatever pleases us. That is not conscience. Conscience is the interior space in which we can listen to and hear the truth, the good, the voice of God. It is the inner place of our relationship with Him, who speaks to our heart and helps us to discern, to understand the path we ought to take, and once the decision is made, to move forward, to remain faithful.”

During the press conference after his visit to the USA, Francis also explicitly applied this same principle to the scenario of a conflict between individual conscience and state law:

“[C]onscientious objection is a right, and enters into every human right. It is a right, and if a person does now allow for conscientious objection, he or she is denying a right. Every legal system should provide for conscientious objection because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise, we would end up selecting between rights: “this right is good, this one less so”. It is a human right. I am always moved when I read, and I have read it many times, when I read the “Chanson de Roland”, when there were all these Moors lined up before the baptismal font, and they had to choose between baptism and the sword. They had to choose. They weren’t permitted conscientious objection. It’s a right and if we want to have peace, we have to respect all rights.”

While its prominence has recently been heightened, conscience has been given great respect throughout the history of Christianity, which can also be seen in the following guidance given by St. Francis of Assisi to the leaders of his own order:

“If a superior give any order to one who is under him which is against that man’s conscience, although he do not obey it yet he shall not be dismissed.”

At a time when obedience to hierarchy was unquestionable, Francis underlined the importance of placing conscience above obedience even in a context where authority may be exercised with the best of motives and by the best and most holy of people.

Romero: disobey false absolutes

Romero

After a tumultuous process following his martyrdom, Oscar Romero is finally due to be beatified on 23rd May in San Salvador, where he served as archbishop and where he was assassinated by a member of a death squad on 24th March 1980. Instead of writing about his life,¹ I would like to share some of his own words with you, from his pastoral letters, homilies and diaries.

Starting from his pastoral letters, there is a strong sense of the social dimension of Christianity, which grows from and is interconnected with individual choices:

“Throughout the centuries the Church has, quite rightly, denounced sin. Certainly she has denounced personal sins, and she has also denounced the sin that perverts relationships between persons, especially at the family level. But she has begun to recall now something that, at the Church’s beginning, was fundamental: social sin – the crystalization, in other words, of individuals’ sins into permanent structures that keep sin in being, and make its force to be felt by the majority of the people.” (2nd pastoral letter, 1977)

In the same pastoral letter, Romero’s response to the “crystalization” of personal sin into “structures of sin” is a call to an authentic, present-day, up-to-date Christianity that understands tradition like Vatican II does – as being alive:

“To remain anchored in a non-evolving traditionalism, whether out of ignorance or selfishness, is to close one’s eyes to what is meant by authentic Christian tradition. For the tradition that Christ entrusted to his Church is not a museum of souvenirs to be protected. It is true that tradition comes out of the past, and that it ought to be loved and faithfully preserved. But it has always a view to the future. It is a tradition that makes the Church new, up to date, effective in every historical epoch. It is a tradition that nourishes the Church’s hope and faith so that she may go on preaching, so that she may invite all men and women to the new heaven and new earth that God has promised (Revelation 21:1; Isaiah 65:17).”

Next, Romero moves on to emphasizing the non-legal, non-rule-based nature of faith and instead presents a model of participation in the person of Christ, as St. Paul did:

“The Church’s foundation is not to be thought of in a legal or juridical sense, as if Christ gathered some persons together, entrusted them with a teaching, gave them a kind of constitution, but then himself remained apart from them. It is not like that. The Church’s origin is something much more profound. Christ founded the Church so that he himself could go on being present in the history of humanity precisely through the group of Christians who make up his Church. The Church is the flesh in which Christ makes present down the ages his own life and his personal mission.”

This is an idea that he returned to in a meditation later that year, which also foreshadows Pope Benedict XVI’s introduction to the 2012-13 Year of Faith:

“How I would like to engrave this great idea
on each one’s heart:
Christianity is not a collection of truths to be believed,
of laws to be obeyed,
of prohibitions.
 That makes it very distasteful.
Christianity is a person,
one who loved us so much,
one who calls for our love.
Christianity is Christ.” (November 6, 1977)

Romero continues in his second pastoral letter with making the link between the Church’s authenticity and her being the Body of Christ:

“That is how changes in the Church are to be understood. They are needed if the Church is to be faithful to her divine mission of being the Body of Christ in history. The Church can be Church only so long as she goes on being the Body of Christ. Her mission will be authentic only so long as it is the mission of Jesus in the new situations, the new circumstances, of history. The criterion that will guide the Church will be neither the approval of, nor the fear of, men and women, no matter how powerful or threatening they may be. It is the Church’s duty in history to lend her voice to Christ so that he may speak, her feet so that he may walk today’s world, her hands to build the kingdom, and to enable all its members to make up all that has still to be undergone by Christ (Colossians 1:24).”

And again it is a theme he picks up in a mediation around a year later, which is also an examination of conscience:

“Christ became a man of his people and of his time:
He lived as a Jew,
he worked as a laborer of Nazareth,
and since then he continues to become incarnate in everyone.
 If many have distanced themselves from the church,
it is precisely because the church
has somewhat estranged itself from humanity.
But a church that can feel as its own all that is human
and wants to incarnate
the pain,
 the hope,
 the affliction
of all who suffer and feel joy,
such a church will be Christ loved and awaited,
Christ present.
And that depends on us.” (December 3, 1978)

What does a Church that has not become estranged from humanity and that lends “her feet so that he may walk today’s world” look like? Romero here points to the Matthean questions and updates them to his own time and place:

“There is one rule
by which to judge if God is near us
or is far away –
the rule that God’s word is giving us today:
everyone concerned for the hungry,
the naked,
the poor,
for those who have vanished in police custody,
for the tortured,
for prisoners,
for all flesh that suffers,
has God close at hand.” (February 5, 1978)

Returning to his second pastoral letter, Romero also underlines the non-negotiability of Jesus’ command – even in the face of aggression directed against the Church – to love one another has He has loved us and for that “another” to include our enemies:

“The Church has never incited to hatred or revenge, not even at those saddest of moments when priests have been murdered and faithful Christians have been killed or have disappeared. The Church has continued to preach Jesus’ command love one another (John 15:12). This is a command that the Church cannot renounce, nor has she renounced it, not even in recent months. On the contrary, she has recalled that other command, pray for those who persecute you (Matthew 5:44).”

Such conduct is anything but plain sailing though and is both a thorn in the side of those who seek wealth and power for themselves and a pretext for accusations being leveled against the Church (still from Romero’s second pastoral letter):

“The Church is not dedicated to any particular ideology as such. She must be prepared to speak out against turning any ideology into an absolute. As several of the Latin American hierarchies have said time and again in recent years, worldly interests try to make the Church’s position seem Marxist when it is in fact insisting on fundamental human rights and when it is placing the whole weight of its institutional and prophetic authority at the service of the dispossessed and weak.”

What struck me in the above was also Romero’s denunciation of the absolutization of ideologies, where it is not hard to see examples of this happening also today, and I was glad to see him return to this point and expand on it in his fourth (and final) pastoral letter as the Archbishop of San Salvador. There, his point of departure is an acclamation of transcendence, which he – interestingly – links to critical thinking and which he puts in opposition against the absolutization of human (limited) values:

“As well as offending God, every absolutization disorients, and ultimately destroys, human beings. It is the vocation of human beings to raise themselves to the dignity of the children of God and to participate in God’s divine life. This transcendence of human beings is not an escape from problems here on earth, still less is it an opium that distracts them from their obligations in history. On the contrary, by virtue of this transcendent destiny people have the capacity to always remain critical vis-a-vis the events of history. It gives them a powerful inspiration to reach out to ever higher goals. Social forces should hearken to the saving voice of Christ and of true Christians, cease their questioning, and open themselves to the values of the one and only Absolute. When a human value is turned into an absolute and endowed, whether in theory or in practice, with a divine character, human beings are deprived of their highest calling and inspiration. The spirit of the people is pushed in the direction of a real idolatry, which will only deform and repress it.”

Next, he applies the analysis of absolutization to two contexts, the first of which is wealth:

“The absolutization of wealth holds out to persons the ideal of having more and to that extent reduces interest in being more, whereas the latter should be the ideal for true progress, both for the people as such and for every individual. The absolute desire of having more encourages the selfishness that destroys communal bonds among the children of God. It does so because the idolatry of riches prevents the majority from sharing the goods that the Creator has made for all, and in the all-possessing minority it produces an exaggerated pleasure in these goods.”

Second, he looks at national security with the same optics – a topic of acute relevance also in today’s world:

“By virtue of [the absolutization of national security], the individual is placed at the total service of the state. His or her political participation is suppressed, and this leads to an unequal participation in the results of development. Peoples are put into the hands of military elites, and are subjected to policies that oppress and repress all who oppose them, in the name of what is alleged to be total war. The armed forces are put in charge of social and economic structures under the pretext of the interests of national security. Everyone not at one with the state is declared a national enemy, and the requirements of national security are used to justify assassinations, disappearances, arbitrary imprisonment, acts of terrorism, kidnappings, acts of torture … [all] indicate a complete lack of respect for the dignity of the human person (Puebla #1262).”

It is not hard to see from all of the above why Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the postulator of Oscar Romero’s cause for beatification, characterized him by saying: “Romero is truly a martyr of the Church of Vatican II, a Church, as Pope John used to say, who is mother of all, but in particular of the poor.” Everything I have read by him was steeped in the Gospel and in its reading today through the eyes of Vatican II. It is also for this reason that Paglia referred to Romero as the “proto-martyr” of contemporary martyrs.

No account of a martyr’s thought would be complete without including the words pertaining to his own martyrdom, which is a culmination of a life of imitating Christ. Here, Romero was acutely aware of the risk to his own life, which can be readily seen from an interview he gave just days before being shot at long range while celebrating mass:

“You can tell the people that if they succeed in killing me, that I forgive and bless those who do it. Hopefully, they will realize they are wasting their time. A bishop will die, but the church of God, which is the people, will never perish.”

In spite of the severe threats to his life, even on the day before his death, Romero spoke out against the “structures of sin” that he had been fighting for many years, addressing a group of soldiers:

“Brothers, you came from our own people. You are killing your own brothers. Any human order to kill must be subordinate to the law of God, which says, ‘Thou shalt not kill’. No soldier is obliged to obey an order contrary to the law of God. No one has to obey an immoral law. It is high time you obeyed your consciences rather than sinful orders. The church cannot remain silent before such an abomination … In the name of God, in the name of this suffering people whose cry rises to heaven more loudly each day, I implore you, I beg you, I order you: stop the repression!”

¹ For a brief biography of Archbishop Romero, see the one provided by the UN on the website about the “International Day for the Right to the Truth Concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of Victims,” dedicated to him and held on the anniversary of his martyrdom, the 24th March.

The tyranny of absolutism

Walking home this evening I felt like Douglas Hofstadter may have felt when coming up with the central idea of his spectacular Gödel, Escher, Bach book. Unlike his realization about a “golden braid” linking the thoughts of Kurt Gödel, M. C. Escher and Johann Sebastian Bach, which all shed light on infinity, I felt like I saw a way to connect the seemingly opposed words of Popes Benedict XVI and Francis with regard to relativism.

Benedict XVI famously attacked relativism in his sermon during the opening mass of the conclave that elected him, saying:

“To have a clear faith, according to the creed of the Church, is often labeled as fundamentalism. While relativism, that is, allowing oneself to be carried about with every wind of “doctrine,” seems to be the only attitude that is fashionable. A dictatorship of relativism is being constituted that recognizes nothing as absolute and which only leaves the “I” and its whims as the ultimate measure.”

The message here is very clear – the arbiter of truth and falsehood as well as good and evil has become the individual, with no intrinsic meaning left for these concepts beyond what each person chooses to invest them with for themselves. It is not only a relativity of meaning but also a solitude – I have my truth and you yours and that is the end of the story. In his book-length interview with Benedict XVI (“Light Of The World”), Peter Seewald, gets Benedict to elaborate on the above idea, when he says:

“It is obvious that the concept of truth has become suspect. Of course it is correct that it has been much abused. Intolerance and cruelty have occurred in the name of truth. To that extent people are afraid when someone says, “This is the truth”, or even “I have the truth.” We never have it; at best it has us. No one will dispute that one must be careful and cautious in claiming the truth. But simply to dismiss it as unattainable is really destructive.

A large proportion of contemporary philosophies, in fact, consist of saying that man is not capable of truth. But viewed in that way, man would not be capable of ethical values, either. Then he would have no standards. Then he would only have to consider how he arranged things reasonably for himself, and then at any rate the opinion of the majority would be the only criterion that counted. History, however, has sufficiently demonstrated how destructive majorities can be, for instance, in systems such as Nazism and Marxism, all of which also stood against truth in particular.

[…] That is why we must have the courage to dare to say: Yes, man must seek the truth; he is capable of truth. It goes without saying that truth requires criteria for verification and falsification. It must always be accompanied by tolerance, also. But then truth also points out to us those constant values which have made mankind great. That is why the humility to recognize the truth and to accept it as a standard has to be relearned and practiced again.”

Essentially, Benedict says that just because we cannot possess the truth, it does not mean that “the” truth does not exist. Our access to it is imperfect and tolerance and caution are called for, but denying its existence (just because of our epistemological constraints) is a dangerous path to follow. The picture from the above is very clear – relativism (making one’s “I” the ultimate arbiter of truth) is a tyranny and a reliance of one’s self is dangerous.

Fast-forward to this morning’s interview¹ with Pope Francis talking to Eugenio Scalfari and take a look at what he has to say on the subject:

“Scalfari: Your Holiness, is there is a single vision of the Good? And who determines it?

Francis: Each of us has their own vision of Good and also of Evil. We have to encourage him to proceed towards that which he thinks is Good.

Scalfari: Your Holiness, you have already written it in the letter you addressed to me. Conscience is autonomous, you said, and everyone must obey their own conscience. I think that’s one of the most courageous passages spoken by a Pope.

Francis: And I repeat it here. Each one has their own idea of Good and of Evil and must choose to follow Good and fight Evil as they understand them. This would suffice to make the world a better place.”

“Each one has their own idea of Good and Evil […] as they understand them.” But, this sounds precisely like the relativism (the “I” being arbiter of truth) that Benedict denounced and declared a destructive danger. Are Francis and Benedict disagreeing here? Is Francis changing Church teaching?

I don’t think so. Instead, I believe, that their apparent opposition flows from the different perspectives from which they speak about truth and good and evil. Benedict describes what you’d see from God’s perspective: truth is absolute and denying its existence and substituting one’s whims for it, just because humans can’t access it, is a mistake. Francis, instead looks at the picture from the perspective of the individual: trust your conscience’s discernment between good and evil and choose good. Each human has a conscience by means of which they can discern (to varying degrees of faithfulness – “At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror” as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:12) a reflection of the absolute truth. It is the same landscape, but Benedict looks down from the mountaintop while Francis looks up from the valley.

Applying this to myself, I can simultaneously believe in absolute truth and goodness, while being aware of my own inability to grasp them fully (or even with a known level of (in)accuracy). This epistemic constraint in no way undoes the meaningfulness of pursuing goodness and truth and instead makes tolerance and dialogue necessary. It also means that – as Francis said in the same interview – “Proselytism is pompous foolishness that has no sense. We must get to know each other and listen to each other and grow our understanding of the world around us.” I believe we are all accessing fragments of the one Truth,² which makes me want to know what you have understood as much as deepening my understanding of my own faith.

¹ The English translation sadly has some serious issues at the time of this post’s writing (the tile itself being seriously mistranslated), as a result of which I started from it but made adjustments based on reading the Italian original.
² This is consonant with Francis saying, still in this same interview that “I believe in God. Not a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God.”

Pope Francis’ letter to non-believers

That Pope Francis cares deeply for non-believers¹ is nothing new, with his previous declaration that Jesus has redeemed atheists too having lead both to very positive responses and to a great media muddle. In today’s issue of the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, Francis continues in this dialogue with non-believers by responding to questions sent to him by the atheist journalist Eugenio Scalfari regarding Francis’ encyclical Lumen Fidei, and I would like to share my favorite parts of his letter with you here.²

Francis starts out by arguing that dialogue between the followers of Jesus and non-believers is “necessary and valuable” today for two reasons: First, the paradox that “Christian faith, whose novelty and impact on human life have since the beginning been expressed through the symbol of light, has become branded as the darkness of superstition that is opposed to the light of reason,” resulting in an absence of communication between Christian and Enlightenment-based contemporary culture. Second, for those who seek “to follow Jesus in the light of faith, […] this dialogue is not a secondary accessory[, but …] an intimate and indispensable expression of faith instead.” This, Francis argues, is expressed by §34 of Lumen Fidei, from which he proceeds to quote:

“Clearly, then, faith is not intransigent, but grows in respectful coexistence with others. One who believes may not be presumptuous; on the contrary, truth leads to humility, since believers know that, rather than ourselves possessing truth, it is truth which embraces and possesses us. Far from making us inflexible, the security of faith sets us on a journey; it enables witness and dialogue with all.”

After a beautiful exposition of how Francis himself came to believe in God and how the Christian faith has Jesus’ incarnation and resurrection at its heart, through which all of humanity is shown God’s love and connectedness to each other – to every single human being,³ he proceeds to answering the three questions Scalfari put to him.

The first of Scalfari’s questions regards whether “the God of Christians forgives those who don’t believe and don’t seek faith.” Here Francis’s response, which I particularly like, is the following:

“Given that – and this is the fundamental point – the mercy of God has no limits if one turns to Him with a sincere and contrite heart, the question for those who don’t believe in God is about obeying one’s own conscience. Sin, also for those who don’t have faith, occurs when one goes against conscience. Listening and obeying to it means, in fact, taking decisions in the face of what becomes understood as good or as bad. And it is on the basis of this decision that the goodness or evil of our actions plays out.”

Wow! While this is in some sense nothing more than what the Catechism has been saying explicitly since Vatican II, having it presented in the above universal way is great. I have often argued in exactly these terms and have faced quizzical looks from other Catholics, who wouldn’t quite believe it. It also confirms me in the answer I have given to several of my best, atheist or agnostic friends when they have asked me whether they should want to believe in God, which was “no,” with the caveat of seeking to be honest in front of their consciences.

Scalfari’s second question asks whether “thinking that there is no absolute and therefore no absolute truth either, but only a series of relative and subjective truths, is a mistake or a sin.” Great question! 🙂 To this Francis responds by saying:

“To begin with, I wouldn’t talk, not even to those who believe, about “absolute” truth, in the sense that the absolute is that which is disconnected, which is devoid of any relation. Now, the truth, according to Christian faith, is the love of God for us in Jesus Christ. Therefore, the truth is a relationship! It is also true that each one of us takes it, the truth, and expresses it by departing from oneself: from one’s history and culture, the circumstances in which one lives, etc. This does not mean though that the truth is variable and subjective. Instead, it means that it gives itself to us always and only as a journey and a life. Didn’t maybe Jesus say the same: “I am the way and the truth and the life.”?⁴ In other words, truth, being ultimately all one with love, requires humility and openness when sought, accepted and expressed. Therefore, it is necessary to understand each other’s terminology better, and, maybe, to avoid the constraints of an opposition that is … absolute, deepen the framing of the question. I believe that this is absolutely necessary today, so that a serene and constructive dialogue can take place.”

Another fantastic answer! Anyone who has tried to pigeonhole Francis as a populist, as opposed to the thinker that Benedict XVI undoubtedly is, can proceed to eat their own words …

The third, and final of Scalfari’s questions asks whether “the disappearance of humans from Earth would also mean a disappearance of thought that is capable of thinking God.” Here, Francis’ answer, which I won’t translate in full, revolves around arguing that, in his experience and those of many others, God is not an idea, but a “reality with a capital ‘R’.” Instead of going into more detail here, I’d instead like to translate Francis’ closing thoughts, before which he expresses his hope that his reflections would be “received as a tentative and provisional response, but one that is sincere and faithful to the invitation of walking along a stretch of road together.”:

“The Church, believe me, in spite of all the slowness, the unfaithfulness, the mistakes and sins that it may have committed and may yet commit in those who compose it, has no other meaning and end than that of living and giving testimony to Jesus: Him who has been sent by the Father “to bring glad tidings to the poor, to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord” (Luke 4:18-19).”

I have to say I am delighted by these words of Pope Francis – both the emphasis on conscience that I have held dear for a long time and the insights about truth as relationship and love – and I would be keen to hear from my atheist, agnostic, humanist (and even Christian 🙂 friends what they made of them.

UPDATE (12 Sept. 2013): This morning Vatican Radio broadcast a short interview with Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi on the topic of Pope Francis’ letter discussed above (which is now available in an official English translation here). Ravasi, who leads the Pontifical Council for Culture and in its context the “Courtyard of the Gentiles” initiative, whose aim is dialogue with non-believers, naturally welcomed Francis’ letter with great positivity, including it among the initiatives foundational documents. He then also proceeds to elaborate on the, to my mind key, point Francis made about the truth being a relationship:

“Already Plato affirmed [that the truth is a relationship] when he said that the chariot of the soul runs along the plane of truth, which means that the truth is not a cold reality like a precious stone that you can put in your pocket. Instead, it is an immense plane, a horizon – or, to use another image by a writer from the last century⁵ – we can say that the truth is a sea that one enters and navigates. So, in this light, I believe that the concept of truth not as absolute, but personal, interpersonal, will be very fruitful for dialogue, without losing the dimension of objectivity, of identity in itself, typical of the truth.”

¹ Picking what term to use to refer to those who do not believe in God is tricky and I am going with the term Francis is using himself, not necessarily because I believe it is the most appropriate one, but because my aim here is to share his message with you today. I am mindful though of Prof. Cox’s point about the undesirability of negative labels, but since the positive alternatives (e.g., humanist) may not be self-applied by all whom the Pope intends to address here, I am sticking with his terminology. If you belong to his target audience (and to some extent everyone does – including me, a Catholic) and have a suggestion for what term to use, please, let me know.
² Since I haven’t found an English translation of this article yet, the following quotes are my own crude translations, for which I apologize in advance.
³ I’d like to return to this great synthesis of Christianity in a future post and, if you understand Italian, I’d wholeheartedly recommend reading the full letter to you straight-away.
⁴ John 14:6.
⁵ Ravasi refers to this quote in an earlier talk, where he attributes it to Musil’s The Man Without Qualities, although I couldn’t find it there.