"Lumen Fidei", Pope Francis' First Encyclical

Pope Francis' first encyclical, "Lumen Fidei", which incorporates a draft of the document Benedict was preparing for the "Year of Faith", will be released on Friday: http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2013/07/francis-lights-up-popes-first.ht...

Christmas in July! Papal encyclicals are gifts for Catholics: always anticipated and cherished - maybe not on the first reading, but after a few or a dozen re-readings they seem to get better with age. I look forward to this one, and to rereading Deus caritas est and Spe Salvi again to see how the parts fit the whole.

We are well into this Year of Faith, and Porta Fidei is also worth a second (or third...) look:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi...

from it:
Only through believing, then, does faith grow and become stronger; there is no other possibility for possessing certitude with regard to one’s life apart from self-abandonment, in a continuous crescendo, into the hands of a love that seems to grow constantly because it has its origin in God.

I admire the writing of John Paul II, I love the writing of Benedict XVI, and I look forward to that of Francis.

And, here it is - in time for reading at lunch-hour:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco...

Do you know what language this was drafted in? The Eliot sounds slightly off, but I don't have it here to check.

#4: Goodness, MMcM have you already finished it? That was just a joke about cramming it over lunch!

I do not know the answer to your question about the original language draft, but I do think the Eliot is a faithful rendition:

Do you need to be told that even such modest attainments

As you can boast in the way of polite society

Will hardly survive the Faith to which they owe their significance?

(Choruses from the Rock: The Collected Poems and Plays 1909 - 1950, p. 109)

> 5 The text at #3 says, "those modest attainments."

Good catch. Your precision is always impressive.

And here is the rest of the stanza:

Men! polish your teeth on rising and retiring;

Women! polish your fingernails:

You polish the tooth of the dog and the talon of the cat.

Why should men love the Church? Why should they love her

laws?

She tells them of Life and Death, and of all that they would forget.

She is tender where they would be hard, and hard where they

like to be soft.

She tells them of Evil and Sin, and other unpleasant facts.

They constantly try to escape

From the darkness outside and within

By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be

good.

But the man that is will shadow

The man that pretends to be.

And the Son of Man was not crucified once for all.

The blood of the martyrs not shed once for all,

The lives of the Saints not given once for all:

But the Son of Man is crucified always

And there shall be Martyrs and Saints.

And if blood of Martyrs is to flow on the steps

We must first build the steps;

And if the Temple is to be cast down

We must first build the Temple.

Not comprehensive, but a few thoughts that came to me as I read it for the first time.

I was struck by the honesty in paras 2 and 3 about "An illusory light?" I doubt whether it will be enough to satisfy some of the more extreme posters on LT's "Let's Talk About Religion" group, but then probably nothing will do that.

Off topic, I was also struck by the Archbishop of Canterbury's honesty in his General Synod address where, speaking of criticism of the Church in the field of sexual morality, he says, "I am not proposing new policy but what I felt then and what I feel now is that some of what was said was uncomfortably close to the bone."

Both Pontiff and Primate are recognising that we need to address what society thinks of us, not necessarily by changing doctrine, but by accepting that some of the criticism is sincere and has a degree of justification to it. What is needed is a critical self examination, not a fortress mentality.

Back to Lumen Fidei and I love the personal tone in para 7.

I also like the way Chapter 1 sets everything in the context of our story, our narrative, our guiding myth. We are not just a bunch of individuals in the here and now, we are a community with roots and tradition.

The reflection on faith and truth and faith and reason in Chapter 2 seems to mirror some of the discussions in "Let's Talk About Religion", although once again it would not satisfy those who don't have faith. I find the comparison with hearing very interesting, not least because of my own field, where Mennonite scholar John Paul Lederach has recently written a book entitled When Blood and Bones Cry Out in which he explores the imagery of sound in peacebuilding. Para 35 is a call to dialogue with other religions and again makes nonsense of some of the atheist claims about Christianity's attitude towards others.

Chapter 3, para 37: "Those who have opened their hearts to God’s love, heard his voice and received his light, cannot keep this gift to themselves." While there's no doubt that our attempts at evangelisation have at times been heavy handed (even brutal and bloody), to me this sums up the best reason for evangelisation. We've found something pretty good; we want to offer it as a gift to others. Para 38: "faith is born of an encounter", not a set of intellectual or doctrinal assertions. The "unbroken chain of witnesses" is complemented by the fact that "Persons always live in relationship. We come from others, we belong to others, and our lives are enlarged by our encounter with others. Even our own knowledge and self-awareness are relational; they are linked to others who have gone before us". Or, as we might say in Africa, ubuntu. Para 39: "It is impossible to believe on our own. Faith is not simply an individual decision which takes place in the depths of the believer’s heart, nor a completely private relationship between the "I" of the believer and the divine "Thou", between an autonomous subject and God. By its very nature, faith is open to the "We" of the Church; it always takes place within her communion"; and here we differ from some of the evangelical protestant denominations. Para 40: "The Church, like every family, passes on to her children the whole store of her memories", linking back to my earlier comments on the story, narrative, guiding myth, but also refuting the contention by some atheists on LT that the passing on of the "memories" is a form of indoctrination, whereas in fact it is something that every family does, whether those memories be cultural, linguistic, national, ethnic, political, social, geographical, family or, yes, religious. Para 49: "the Lord gave his Church the gift of apostolic succession. Through this means, the continuity of the Church’s memory is ensured.... The assurance of continuity with the origins is thus given by living persons"; back to memory, persons and relations. Another reason why Catholics are not bible literalists; we are part of a living tradition.

It's good to see Chapter 4 focusing on some key elements of Catholic Social Teaching: the common good, justice, law, peace, relationships in society, God's "concrete concern for every person" (human dignity), our duty to alleviate "the sufferings of this world".

“Take and Read”

Finally, an afternoon free for reading, and I just re-read John's post, which is a great survey of points, very helpful. My own sense of the work is that it is mostly Benedict's writing and great themes (faith and reason, rootedness and communion, and cathechismal guidance for intellectul inquiry) and I have a sense of his purposeful ordering of the encyclicals by virtue: love as source of our belief, hope as means, faith as path. (Johnthefireman: Chapter four and the Marian appeal at its end, however, seem entirely Franciscian!)

The introduction of the illusory nature I think is important because the use of the metaphor of light, of illumination is a culmative experience, as the example of St. Augustine shows – a gradual replacement of his Manichaeistic dualism with the unifying illumination of Christian belief. I also appreciate the warning against idoltry – that which steals, blocks or shines with a false light – and it reminds me that I want to read Elizabeth Scalia's new book, Strange Gods: Unmasking the idoltry in every day life – man, what a good plug for her, eh?

There is so much happening in Chapter Two that it is difficult to winnow, but certainly it conveys the transformative power of faith – with the Church (of our Fathers, Mothers, Communion of Saints, ...you all know the drill) as the transmission of faith as John pointed out in his post – Christian faith (as is language) is a living faith, that only exists in communion between subjects. That point was beautifully made, and also the extenuattion that if you have no experience of this faith, you will not understand (the reference to Isaiah 7:9).

Personally, the point made in para 25, on the bond between faith and truth as often obstructed – particularly in the modern era – by technology. This recalls for me the work of Jacques Ellul, particulary his critique on the betrayal of technology in The Technological Society. I think, more importantly than talking with atheists (do we really have to?) is the demand for Catholics and other Christians to effectively counter dead-ended utilitarian moral reasoning. (I've also just read Michael Sandel's What Money Can't Buy: the moral limits of markets so this idea is very fresh with me. )

Truth as memory recalls the Joseph Ratzinger of Without Roots: the West, Relativism, Christianity and Islam, so that covered some familiar and important ground, as did the internal logic of Christian love, per St. Gregory: amor ipse notitia est. All Benedictian (as in XVI) themes – not his alone, I understand, but his great passions. The explanation of the importance of theological understanding and pursuit, and thus the church (and here I don't think even a Pope can improve on the Eliot stanzas).

In all, it reads to me like an orientation guide, a Pilgrim's guide – an instrument for those of us on the path towards God, those of us who take up our part in the “unbroken chain of witnesses” as Catholics. Most welcome, and appreciated.

#8: I doubt whether it will be enough to satisfy some of the more extreme posters on LT's "Let's Talk About Religion" group, but then probably nothing will do that.

There is a passage in Lumen Fidei that addresses this, but not better than today's gospel reading (MT 10: 7-15) from which:

Whatever town or village you enter, look for a worthy person in it,
and stay there until you leave.
As you enter a house, wish it peace.
If the house is worthy,
let your peace come upon it;
if not, let your peace return to you.
Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—
go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet.

Like many I keep a casual eye on that group discussion but am not often compelled to participate because the discussions almost always dissolve into exchanges of vitriol. I am often amazed at the perseverance and patience of you, Johnthefireman, and Nathaniel and a few others - but might it not be time to shake the dust from your feet?

Often, I think, the problem of the missed communication stems from orientation - most people who rail against the Church in particular and religion in general are moribund egoists. Big "I" people who - they'll love this- live a disordered life in which they themselves, as individuals are the center of and reason for existence. This is a very different – an entirely foreign – orientation from the “We” of the faithful, people who orient themselves towards God and others, and do so through the apostolic tradition of the Church.

The passage in Lumen Fidei which I am thinking of is is from Chapter Three, para 39:

It is impossible to believe on our own. Faith is not simply an individual decision which takes place in the depths of a believer's heart, nor a completely private relationship between the “I” of the believer and the divine “Thou”, between an autonomous subject and God. By its very nature, faith is open to the “We” of the Church; it always takes place within her communion.”

and later, end of the same paragraph, it continues

No one baptizes himself, just as no one comes into the world by himself. Baptism is something we receive. .

Earlier in Chapter One, para 19 Lumen Fidei addresses the nature of this gift of faith as a “filial existence” in the manner of Saint Paul's question to the Corinthians which is quoted “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor 4:7) and continues with St. Augustine's admonishment “Do not turn away from the one who made you, even to turn to yourself. “ De Continentia, 4, 11: PL 40, 356) .

So, I understand the impetus behind wanting to “talk about religion” with people who scorn it, as you wrote – we received this gift, and we want to share it in all its goodness – but at what point should we come to the conclusion that if they do not receive us or listen to our words (let alone refrain from invective), that we're better off finding a more worthy house?

>10 enevada: might it not be time to shake the dust from your feet?

I have found that in the past few months I have put an increasing number of posters on "ignore", which may be the modern equivalent of shaking off the dust. It's something I resisted doing for several years, because I always felt it was worth continuing the dialogue. However it eventually became clear that there was no dialogue, just (as you say) vitriol and invective. I now continue the conversations with a smaller number of people with whom I disagree but who generally maintain a sincere and courteous dialogue, the likes of southernbooklady, Bob, Jesse and a few others.

#11: Good trick! (the "ignore" feature) - it is just funny (odd) that people who voluntarily participate in dialogue (the Let's talk about...crowd) don't really seem to want dialogue. They're just looking for another place to impose themselves, to bang their shoe. I wonder - sincerely - if they've ever been persuaded on any point (religious or otherwise) that they didn't think originated with themselves? But, anyway, I am more interested on the others here who have read or are reading Lumen Fidei. Or TS Eliot, or St. Augustine, or William of Saint-Thierry...there is enough here to keep us busy for a bit!

Seamless synthesis (Tablet)

#13: Thanks for the link. That was my reading, altogether, even the conclusion that it is slightly open to the criticism that it is too European, even too German, in its intellectual scope. In an age and culture turned indifferent to faith, it answers the question “Why does faith matter?” Benedict told, Francis will show.

Not to carry the metaphor too far, but I think of this encyclical as the passing of a lighted torch: the light dims in the West, in Europe in particular, but it burns brightly in South America, Africa, Asia. (The light in US is a noisy neon. If W. Europe has become a staid and beautiful cultural museum, the US remains a garish theme park).

See how useful LT can be? I'm currently facilitating our bishops' end of year meeting and drafting the pastoral message for them, and now, during the meeting, they have just decided that they want some quotes from Lumen Fidei. Before starting to plough through the document again I suddenly remembered that we had already summarised it and noted some of the key quotes here on LT, which I am now making use of.

If you don't mind, though, I don't think we'll mention LT in the pastoral message...