1. Along the way > Likes and Comments

1. Use this thread for general comments while you read "along the way" or to discuss topics not covered by other threads.

In Dilexit Nos, pope Francis says that philosophers focus on reason, will or freedom, but not on the heart (1-10), and later in 1-25, that where the philosopher’s thoughts end, the faithful heart loves and adores.

Both instances made me think of Pascal, of whom we just read in Nagai’s book, who said that the heart has its reasons which reason does not know.

101. As Saint John Paul II pointed out, “the essential elements of devotion [to the Sacred Heart] belong in a permanent fashion to the spirituality of the Church throughout her history; for since the beginning, the Church has looked to the heart of Christ pierced on the Cross”.

83. We should be mindful that, as Pius XII pointed out, this devotion cannot be said “to owe its origin to private revelations”

I have finished Encyclical Letter, Dilexit Nos - He Loved Us: On the Human and Divine Love of the Heart of Jesus Christ. I've liked it a lot. It's a very good analysis of the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

I have only one problem with this encyclical letter: Pope Francis misinterpretation of the meaning fo the word "proselytism." Both in English and in Spanish, the word means just "zeal to make converts." I can't see the difference with "preach the Gospel." What should we preach for, except to make converts, i.e. to proselytize?

Yes, I know that the word is used sometimes with the pejorative connotation of aggressive or persistent persuasion. But here I agree with C.S. Lewis that reducing the meaning of a word to its pejorative use is the same as "killing" the word.

In paragraphs 210 and 211, this can be seen clearly.

Manuel wrote: "I have finished Encyclical Letter, Dilexit Nos - He Loved Us: On the Human and Divine Love of the Heart of Jesus Christ. I've liked it a lot. It's a very good analysis of the devot..."

As usual, others have taken the word "proselytize"and have spinned a new/different meaning to it. Perhaps Pope Francis followed this path: " This dynamism of love has nothing to do with proselytism; the words of a lover do not disturb others, they do not make demands or oblige, they only lead others to marvel at such love."

We, as Catholics, know that we must propose the beauty of our faith; we never impose it. Our duty is to let others know about the good news of Jesus, to preach the Gospel.

Marie wrote: "We, as Catholics, know that we must propose the beauty of our faith; we never impose it. Our duty is to let others know about the good news of Jesus, to preach the Gospel."

Right! What I object is the use of the word "proselytize," whose original meaning does not carry the "impose" connotation.

C.S. Lewis essay "The death of words" (included in Of This and Other Worlds) deals with this evolution of the meaning of words.

Anyway, I know this is a hopeless struggle.

Manuel wrote: "Marie wrote: "We, as Catholics, know that we must propose the beauty of our faith; we never impose it. Our duty is to let others know about the good news of Jesus, to preach the Gospel."

Right! Wh..."

Exactly!! How many other words in society have been engineered to signify something other than their original meaning? "The Art of Verbal Engineering " by Ruth Marker explains this in detail (https://dsc.duq.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c...)

Pope Francis has unwittingly been conditioned, like most people, to go along with the "new" meanings of words.

Marie wrote: "As usual, others have taken the word "proselytize"and have spinned a new/different meaning to it. Perhaps Pope Francis followed this path: " This dynamism of love has nothing to do with proselytism; the words of a lover do not disturb others, they do not make demands or oblige, they only lead others to marvel at such love.""

Truth, even spoken in all sincerity and love, will very much disturb those who prefer living a lie. The Catholic faith very much "demands" that one repent and abandon sin if one wishes for salvation.

It seems pointless to insist on the original meaning of a word when it has such a pejorative connotation in general usage. Why not talk about evangelical zeal?

As a "fallen-away" evangelical Protestant, I tend to have problems with Catholics' emphasis on "body parts," e.g. first-class relics, Jesus' heart, wounds... I find more moving Francis' discussion of Jesus' loving gaze, face-to-face, eye-to-eye and, yes, heart-to-heart!

Similarly, I'm not sure I understand why you'd call the heart the "coordinating center" of the person. Why not the brain? (3)

Jill wrote: "Similarly, I'm not sure I understand why you'd call the heart the "coordinating center" of the person. Why not the brain? (3)"

In paragraphs 2-31 of Encyclical Letter, Dilexit Nos - He Loved Us: On the Human and Divine Love of the Heart of Jesus Christ Pope Francis explains extensively what is meant by the word "heart" in this context. It does not refer to the bodily organ, but to something more profound.

This is not new, it has been so during the history of the Church. C.S. Lewis mentions it in The Screwtape Letters, where Screwtape, in letter VI, refers to what the Enemy calls the Heart, in exactly the same meaning as used by Pope Francis.

Even in other faiths you can find the same distinction. In Hinduism, they speak about the "false ego," meaning "the brain," and the "deep ego" (or the Supersoul) which they interpret as God's incarnation in every person. From the Christian point of view, the "deep ego" would be "the heart," and although we do not equate it to God, we do think that's where God (the Holy Spirit) can meet "our deepest self."

Jill wrote: "It seems pointless to insist on the original meaning of a word when it has such a pejorative connotation in general usage. Why not talk about evangelical zeal?"

In his essay titled "The death of words" C.S. Lewis objects to the evolution of the meaning of words that originally had their own clear meaning, but after this evolution just become new unnecessary synonyms of "good" and "bad," thus weakening the expressiveness of languages. In the case of "proselytism" I was objecting to the same.

Perhaps objecting to such trend is pointless. But at least I have stated my opposition, which can be quoted, as I have quoted Lewis's ;-)

In 16, he makes the interesting observation that philosophy starts not with an idea but with a "shock" or emotion. I'm not sure that matches my experience... I studied philosophy because the prof who taught my intro class helped us see how amazing were the questions the Greeks thought to ask, e.g. What is the whole universe made of? His enthusiasm was contagious, but more the ideas.

I don't see much about love or the heart in Jesus' early preaching as recorded in the Gospels. Repent, believe good news, be healed, the kingdom is on the way...

65 I don't understand this terse summary of the Lord's "threefold" love.

85 Why Thursday?

135 How is God's burning love Therese's purgatory?

152 How can I "console" Jesus, except by comforting others who suffer?

190 Do the sins of others make me angry or sorry?

194 I like the idea that "reparation" isn't something we do [for God] but simply removing obstacles so others can experience God's love.

Almost all the papal documents I've read end by invoking Mary's intercession. Refreshing that this one doesn't!

Jill wrote: "85 Why Thursday?"

Because on a Thursday (Holy Thursday) Christ instituted the Eucharist. At least, that's how we remember it now.

I've finished my second reading of Dilexi Te: Apostolic Exhortation on Love for the Poor. This is my review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

In Dilexi Te, 5, I love the juxtaposition of Jesus' two "always" statements: "The poor you have always with you" and "I am with you always", so "contact with those who are lowly and powerless is a fundamental way of encountering the Lord of history."

16 is a good explanation of the preferential option for the poor.

His explanation that taking up a collection in church is for the express purpose of succoring the poor. I've talked to more than one unbeliever who sees churches as primarily out to get your money to line their own pockets.

He talks about alms as restorative justice rather than paternalism.

I like the assertion that poverty for Francis was relational.

If we are attentive and appreciative, the values and culture of the poor have much to teach us.

Jill wrote: "His explanation that taking up a collection in church is for the express purpose of succoring the poor. I've talked to more than one unbeliever who sees churches as primarily out to get your money ..."

The Catholic Church has dedicated lots of money to create schools, hospitals, orphanages, and many other ways of caring for the poor. Part of the money also goes to support the priests, following Christ's words: "the laborer deserves his keep." (Mt.10:10)

I've heard this comment more in reference to Protestant churches or televangelists. There are even some where, instead of passing a basket, everyone is expected to process forward and put in your offering. Talk about peer pressure!