Encyclical Letter

The inspiration for our next Member Monday session comes from an email sent by a fellow member under the subject heading "I can't stop reading this stuff." "This stuff" is nothing other than Pope Francis' just-released encyclical letter. By using this encyclical format, Francis is announcing he has something important to say and he wants people to pay attention. 

Indeed we might. What's astounding about the letter is its sheer readability. There are no "Thou shalts," no images depicting Dante's "Circles of Hell," no abstract doctrinaire mumbo-jumbo; rather, regard this as a message from a spiritual leader, both very much in and of the world, delivering a heartfelt meditation on fraternity and social friendship as he speaks with, not at, people of all faiths (Fratelli tutti (3 October 2020) | Francis). The messages are universal in that they could be  applied to a broad range of theistic traditions or even, for that matter, ascribed to Humanism (see, MM 1/6/20 Humanism).

It's almost as if this spiritual leader has taken the highest ideals of the Highland Institute and "reduced" them to a mere 287 paragraphs of 45,000 words. Be not afraid, though, as it's meant to be taken in small meditative bites rather than a single reading. The range of subjects covers every topic we have addressed or are likely to address -- maybe view his message and parables as a supplement to or background for future MM discussions.  

This communication might eventually be known as the COVID-19 encyclical as the message, published just weeks ago, was written after the pandemic outbreak and reflects the pain, uncertainty, and fear of the times and the urgency with which we need to rethink our styles of life, our relationships, the organization of our societies, and, above all, the meaning of our existence. Even as it readily acknowledges the "dark cloud" of our current affairs, the underlying theme is one of action and hope as "difficulties that seem overwhelming are opportunities for growth, not excuses for a glum resignation that can lead only to acquiescence." 

From such a perch he takes on the biggies: climate change; immigration; wealth disparity; populist politics (Brexit!); racism; declining birthrate; the disintegration of communities and social and intergenerational relationships; and the perversity of the individualistic mindset.     

As an initial discussion focus, we might take on one example he cites as a societal denial: the "local narcissism" that characterizes a polarized and self-centered culture, as set forth in the following four paragraphs (which might just as well have served as the introduction to one of our past session i.e. MM 9/16/19 Power Of Listening):  

199. Some people attempt to flee from reality, taking refuge in their own little world; others react to it with destructive violence. Yet “between selfish indifference and violent protest there is always another possible option: that of dialogue. Dialogue between generations; dialogue among our people, for we are that people; readiness to give and receive, while remaining open to the truth. A country flourishes when constructive dialogue occurs between its many rich cultural components: popular culture, university culture, youth culture, artistic culture, technological culture, economic culture, family culture and media culture”.[196] 

200. Dialogue is often confused with something quite different: the feverish exchange of opinions on social networks, frequently based on media information that is not always reliable. These exchanges are merely parallel monologues. They may attract some attention by their sharp and aggressive tone.But monologues engage no one, and their content is frequently self-serving and contradictory. 

201. Indeed, the media’s noisy potpourri of facts and opinions is often an obstacle to dialogue, since it lets everyone cling stubbornly to his or her own ideas, interests and choices, with the excuse that everyone else is wrong. It becomes easier to discredit and insult opponents from the outset than to open a respectful dialogue aimed at achieving agreement on a deeper level. Worse, this kind of language, usually drawn from media coverage of political campaigns, has become so widespread as to be part of daily conversation. Discussion is often manipulated by powerful special interests that seek to tilt public opinion unfairly in their favour. This kind of manipulation can be exercised not only by governments, but also in economics, politics, communications, religion and in other spheres. Attempts can be made to justify or excuse it when it tends to serve one’s own economic or ideological interests, but sooner or later it turns against those very interests.

202. Lack of dialogue means that in these individual sectors people are concerned not for the common good, but for the benefits of power or, at best, for ways to impose their own ideas. Round tables thus become mere negotiating sessions, in which individuals attempt to seize every possible advantage, rather than cooperating in the pursuit of the common good. The heroes of the future will be those who can break with this unhealthy mindset and determine respectfully to promote truthfulness, aside from personal interest. God willing, such heroes are quietly emerging, even now, in the midst of our society. 

(To access previous Member Monday introductions, click TOC)