Photo from asianews.it, via Google
The Holy Father has a new document out, which looks great but which I have yet to plunge into. But while we're gearing up to read Fratelli tutti, I'd like to play one of Francis's old hits here. This passage is from Gaudete et exsultate, his 2018 apostolic exhortation on the call to holiness in today's world. Francis has written so much that is important and provocative that this document doesn't always ping in my radar. But it's pretty good.
This particular passage was highlighted in a letter from my boss, Cardinal Cupich, to the clergy of our diocese. This is Francis on how a person who wishes to lead a holy life should think about ideologies:
Ideologies striking at the heart of the Gospel
100. I regret that ideologies lead us at times to two harmful errors. On the one hand, there is the error of those Christians who separate these Gospel demands from their personal relationship with the Lord, from their interior union with him, from openness to his grace. Christianity thus becomes a sort of NGO stripped of the luminous mysticism so evident in the lives of Saint Francis of Assisi, Saint Vincent de Paul, Saint Teresa of Calcutta, and many others. For these great saints, mental prayer, the love of God and the reading of the Gospel in no way detracted from their passionate and effective commitment to their neighbours; quite the opposite.
101. The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection.[84] We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.
102. We often hear it said that, with respect to relativism and the flaws of our present world, the situation of migrants, for example, is a lesser issue. Some Catholics consider it a secondary issue compared to the “grave” bioethical questions. That a politician looking for votes might say such a thing is understandable, but not a Christian, for whom the only proper attitude is to stand in the shoes of those brothers and sisters of ours who risk their lives to offer a future to their children. Can we not realize that this is exactly what Jesus demands of us, when he tells us that in welcoming the stranger we welcome him (cf. Mt 25:35)? Saint Benedict did so readily, and though it might have “complicated” the life of his monks, he ordered that all guests who knocked at the monastery door be welcomed “like Christ”,[85] with a gesture of veneration;[86] the poor and pilgrims were to be met with “the greatest care and solicitude”.[87]
103. A similar approach is found in the Old Testament: “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you yourselves were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Ex 22:21). “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress him. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Lev 19:33-34). This is not a notion invented by some Pope, or a momentary fad. In today’s world too, we are called to follow the path of spiritual wisdom proposed by the prophet Isaiah to show what is pleasing to God. “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own kin? Then your light shall break forth like the dawn” (58:7-8).
Francis is calling for a holistic approach here, but in the US, our politics is bifurcated. So we are to stand up for the human rights both of the pre-born and the born, but does either of our parties do both? Should we therefore be politically homeless, or at least party-less? Or does this mean that, if we choose to associate with a party, we're obligated to advocate for things which our parties, or at least large sectors of our parties, would find to be contrary to the party's core values? Can either of our parties expand the size of its tent to welcome people who are pursuing Francis's vision of holiness?
Thanks for sharing that excerpt, Jim. I regret to say I haven't read Gaudete et Exsultate. Should be helpful to people who are agonizing that their vote for either candidate is a mortal sin.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that means we can't be part of a political party, and try to influence it where it is deficient in advocating for human rights. But speaking personally I am politically homeless right now.
It puts me in mind of Thomas a Kempis' quote which he borrowed from Hebrews 13:14. "We have here no abiding city, wherever we are come we are but strangers and pilgrims."
Here is a bit from Fatelli tutti bearing on the issue:
ReplyDelete15. The best way to dominate and gain control over people is to spread despair and discouragement, even under the guise of defending certain values. Today, in many countries, hyperbole, extremism and polarization have become political tools. Employing a strategy of ridicule, suspicion and relentless criticism, in a variety of ways one denies the right of others to exist or to have an opinion. Their share of the truth and their values are rejected and, as a result, the life of society is impoverished and subjected to the hubris of the powerful. Political life no longer has to do with healthy debates about long-term plans to improve people’s lives and to advance the common good, but only with slick marketing techniques primarily aimed at discrediting others. In this craven exchange of charges and counter-charges, debate degenerates into a permanent state of disagreement and confrontation.
16. Amid the fray of conflicting interests, where victory consists in eliminating one’s opponents, how is it possible to raise our sights to recognize our neighbors or to help those who have fallen along the way? A plan that would set great goals for the development of our entire human family nowadays sounds like madness. We are growing ever more distant from one another, while the slow and demanding march towards an increasingly united and just world is suffering a new and dramatic setback.
Parties can change. Ronald Reagan was pro-immigrant an spoke glowing words about e pluribus unum. And look at that party now.
ReplyDeleteThe question is, can either of these two respective disasters change into something good? Yet we have to support what's good in what we get after we choose between the evils of two lessers.