FRANCISCUS’ FIRST ENCYCLICAL

(Portents for the Future)

From the time of his election about 4 months ago, I have been an unabashed fan of Pope Francis. He has just published his first encyclical “Lumen Fidei” (The Light of Faith) on 29^th June, the feast of Sts Peter & Paul. Through the good offices of a friend I was privileged to get a soft copy within a week of its release. Reading a soft copy on a computer screen is far more difficult than reading a printed text; especially for one who intends to study the text and make notes.

That being so, my first impression after reading the 80 pages, was one of disappointment. It seemed a typical theological treatise, devoid of any pastoral content. It came across as a traditional journey of faith from Abraham to Mary, the apostles, saints and martyrs. To do justice to the encyclical, I read it again, more carefully. I now share some of the insights or trends that I picked up.

Lumen Fidei is divided into 4 chapters, with 60 clauses. An important thread running through the encyclical is the constant references to scripture. Franciscus goes further to give the etymological meaning of certain words rooted in the Hebrew language. He comes across as a scholar, not just the simpleton. He also uses copious quotes from modern writers and even poets like T.S. Elliot.

Franciscus (that is how he has signed the encyclical, devoid of any titles) begins by saying that faith is not something illusory (2). Soon enough he refers to Vatican II “as a council of faith … which clearly showed how faith enriches life in all its dimensions” (6). I see this as echoing the opening lines of Gaudium et Spes (GS) which says that the church shares the joys and sorrows of the modern world (cf GS No 1). I also see this statement as an affirmation of his commitment to Vat II ecclesiology, something that was missing in his predecessor. It is also not a coincidence that his encyclical begins with the word Lumen, the same Latin word with which the most important document of Vat II, “Lumen Gentium”, begins.

After dwelling on the faith of Abraham and the encounter of Moses with Yahweh, the personal God (8 – 12) he refers to idolatry as being the opposite of faith (13). If this is in the context of the golden calf and the living God, it is fine. But there is some ambiguity here, with which I am not comfortable. He states that idols exist “as a pretext for setting ourselves at the centre of reality and worshipping the work of our hands” (13). Is he referring to self-centeredness, aggrandizement, treasure or pleasure? If so I would subscribe to his views that such things are not an end in themselves, but only a means to an end, with higher aspirations.  

However, Franciscus’ next statement really disturbs me. He says that idolatry “is always polytheism, an aimless passing from one lord to another” (13). It “does not offer a journey but rather a plethora of paths leading nowhere and forming a vast labyrinth” (ibid). Notice the choice of words – polytheism and lord; and not words like ideology, Marxism or existentialism. He does not seem to be targeting futile existence al la Jean Paul Sartre, or new age gurus with pseudo spiritual fundas and solutions. Who then does he have in mind? Had he been acquainted with India his remarks would have been construed as a jibe against Hinduism, with its pantheon of deities and the endless cycle of rebirth. As far as we know Franciscus has not been exposed to Hindu philosophy. So who is he targeting? The answer seems to elude us for now.

At another level Franciscus does try to portray divine truths in a very human way. Talking of faith he says that “in many areas in our times we trust others who know more than we do” (18), like architects, pharmacists and lawyers. Jesus spoke in parables, and then gave the explanation. Likewise Franciscus explains that “We also need someone trustworthy and knowledgeable where God is concerned. Jesus, the Son of God, is the one who makes God known to us” (18). This is like our guru-shishya relationship.

The Pope then talks of the evangelical aspect of faith. I really like that. He says that “faith is not a private matter, a completely individualistic notion or a personal opinion: it comes from hearing, and it is meant to find expression in words and to be proclaimed” (22). This is a timely reminder that proclamation is integral to our faith. Like love, it must be shared, lest it grow stale and redundant.

He then tells us that faith is not an achievement or accomplishment, but an ongoing process. He advocates adding knowledge to our faith (an enlightened faith, not a blind one). He says, “Faith without truth does not save, it does not provide a sure footing” (24).

From objective truth he switches to subjective experience, saying that “Believing can be compared to the experience of falling in love; it is something subjective” (27). Can anybody give a reason for falling in love? Franciscus comes across as very human here. He strikes a fine balance by stating “If love needs truth, truth also needs love. Love and truth are inseparable … without love truth becomes cold, impersonal and oppressive” (Ibid). Strong words. Would that our Sunday preachers and catechism teachers hear what Franciscus has to say!

He now balances his strong words against idolatry with very accommodating ones about “non-believers”. Of them he says, “To the extent that they are sincerely open to love and set out with whatever light they can find, they are already, even without knowing it, on the path leading to faith” (35). Here again the encyclical is wholly compatible with Vat II ecclesiology, as expressed in Lumen Gentium.

St Francis of Assisi, in the 13^th century, is better remembered for his asceticism. It is only recently that Assisi was recognized as the fountainhead of inter-religious dialogue. While the popes and the rest of Christendom were leading crusades to liberate the Holy Land from the Muslims, Francis had entered into dialogue with the Saracens (Muslims). Franciscus reflects this dialoging spirit with reconciliation and conflict resolution. He says, “Unity is superior to conflict; rather than avoiding conflict we need to confront it in an effort to resolve and move beyond it” (55). Can we then expect this pope to not shy away from conflict situations, be they moral or social? Will he bite the bullet? This encyclical points in that direction.

The pope also does not see faith as a mere set of beliefs. He sees faith expressed in love and concern for others. It invites one to involvement. He says that it does not “make us forget the sufferings of the world … so it was with St Francis of Assisi and the leper, or with Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta and her poor … To those who suffer, God does not provide arguments which explain everything; rather, his response is that of an accompanying presence, a history of goodness which touches every suffering and opens up a ray of light” (57). So do we expect to see an action oriented leader, rather than one engaged in theological hair-splitting?

Towards the end of his encyclical Franciscus touches on another Franciscan virtue – joy. He refers to the annunciation and resultant incarnation as not just an act of faith (magnificat), but also one of joy (58). Catholics would do well to rush back to their libraries and knock the dust of their books on St Francis of Assisi, whether written by G.K. Chesterton or anybody else; for Franciscus’ papacy is going to have a distinctive Franciscan flavour.

When Franciscus, a Jesuit, with the gift of Ignatian discernment, is welded to the primary gospel values of Franciscan living, it makes for a combination more powerful than the total of its individual parts. As one who has experienced both, this writer continues to be very excited about Pope Franciscus. He will be for Catholics, and for the entire world a “Lumen Fidei”, for he has a firm grip on the “sensus fidei”, the pulse of the people.

  JULY 2013