Encyclical Letter "Fratelli Tutti" of Francis

on Fraternity and Social Friendship


Annotated reproduction of the original

Part 1

It is a call to bring the world to a state of union, justice, peace and harmony by way of endowing the planned New World Order with a feeling of fraternity superior and more powerful than the faith of all religions, superior even to the Christian Faith that Francis claims to profess. In essence, a "mysticism of fraternity" to serve as the One World Religion above all Religions.

(a) God is the only true source of Love in any of its forms, including fraternal love.
(b) The permanent supernatural contact with God is the only thing that can maintain "fraternal love" in a live and healthy state.
(c) "Good will" of man, without appeal to God, is worthless because it depends on human weakness.
(d) Leaving God out of the central place that corresponds to Him is a sure guarantee for the failure of any human project.

(a) If man is not reconciled with God, who is Pure Love, it is impossible for man to be able to reconcile with other human beings.
(b) The only Gate and the only Way to true Reconciliation with God is Jesus Christ. Therefore, ...
(c) Justice and Peace cannot be achieved in this world except through Jesus Christ, the Only Way.

(a) Organized religion is expected to be a bridge between God and men. Therefore, if the Justice and Peace of God has not reached men, the main responsible for the failure is organized religion - with the Roman Catholic Hierarchy in a prominent place - and not the economic, political and social institutions of the world.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER

INTRODUCTION

Summary of the Introduction:

Francis tells us that his inspiration for the Encyclical was the fraternal love preached by St. Francis of Assisi. Focusing on interreligious dialogue, he refers to the visit of St. Francis of Assisi to the Sultan of Egypt, as well as to the meetings of Francis himself with an Orthodox patriarch and a great Muslim imam. Without at any time speaking of the Fatherhood of God, he relies on the image of St. Francis as "father of a fraternal society" and he himself proposes "the rebirth of a universal aspiration to fraternity" and the dream of "a single human family". With this in mind, the title could be summarized as: "Francis projects himself as the father of a world fraternity".

1.  “FRATELLI TUTTI”.[1] With these words, Saint Francis of Assisi addressed his brothers and sisters and proposed to them a way of life marked by the flavour of the Gospel. Of the counsels Francis offered, I would like to select the one in which he calls for a love that transcends the barriers of geography and distance, and declares blessed all those who love their brother “as much when he is far away from him as when he is with him”.[2] In his simple and direct way, Saint Francis expressed the essence of a fraternal openness that allows us to acknowledge, appreciate and love each person, regardless of physical proximity, regardless of where he or she was born or lives.

2.  This saint of fraternal love, simplicity and joy, who inspired me to write the Encyclical Laudato Si’, prompts me once more to devote this new Encyclical to fraternity and social friendship. Francis felt himself a brother to the sun, the sea and the wind, yet he knew that he was even closer to those of his own flesh. Wherever he went, he sowed seeds of peace and walked alongside the poor, the abandoned, the infirm and the outcast, the least of his brothers and sisters.

[Commentary]

3 . There is an episode in the life of Saint Francis that shows his openness of heart, which knew no bounds and transcended differences of origin, nationality, colour or religion. It was his visit to Sultan Malik-el-Kamil, in Egypt, which entailed considerable hardship, given Francis’ poverty, his scarce resources, the great distances to be traveled and their differences of language, culture and religion. That journey, undertaken at the time of the Crusades, further demonstrated the breadth and grandeur of his love, which sought to embrace everyone. Francis’ fidelity to his Lord was commensurate with his love for his brothers and sisters. Unconcerned for the hardships and dangers involved, Francis went to meet the Sultan with the same attitude that he instilled in his disciples: if they found themselves “among the Saracens and other nonbelievers”, without renouncing their own identity they were not to “engage in arguments or disputes, but to be subject to every human creature for God’s sake”.[3] In the context of the times, this was an extraordinary recommendation. We are impressed that some eight hundred years ago Saint Francis urged that all forms of hostility or conflict be avoided and that a humble and fraternal “subjection” be shown to those who did not share his faith.

4.  Francis did not wage a war of words aimed at imposing doctrines; he simply spread the love of God. He understood that “God is love and those who abide in love abide in God” (1 Jn 4:16). In this way, he [Saint Francis of Assisi] became a father to all and inspired the vision of a fraternal society. Indeed, “only the man who approaches others, not to draw them into his own life, but to help them become ever more fully themselves, can truly be called a father”.[4] In the world of that time, bristling with watchtowers and defensive walls, cities were a theatre of brutal wars between powerful families, even as poverty was spreading through the countryside. Yet there Francis was able to welcome true peace into his heart and free himself of the desire to wield power over others. He became one of the poor and sought to live in harmony with all. Francis has inspired these pages.

[Commentary]

5.  Issues of human fraternity and social friendship have always been a concern of mine. In recent years, I have spoken of them repeatedly and in different settings. In this Encyclical, I have sought to bring together many of those statements and to situate them in a broader context of reflection. In the preparation of Laudato Si’, I had a source of inspiration in my brother Bartholomew, the Orthodox Patriarch, who has spoken forcefully of our need to care for creation. In this case, I have felt particularly encouraged by the Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, with whom I met in Abu Dhabi, where we declared that “God has created all human beings equal in rights, duties and dignity, and has called them to live together as brothers and sisters”.[5] This was no mere diplomatic gesture, but a reflection born of dialogue and common commitment. The present Encyclical takes up and develops some of the great themes raised in the Document that we both signed. I have also incorporated, along with my own thoughts, a number of letters, documents and considerations that I have received from many individuals and groups throughout the world.

[Commentary]

6.  The following pages do not claim to offer a complete teaching on fraternal love, but rather to consider its universal scope, its openness to every man and woman. I offer this social Encyclical as a modest contribution to continued reflection, in the hope that in the face of present-day attempts to eliminate or ignore others, we may prove capable of responding with a new vision of fraternity and social friendship that will not remain at the level of words. Although I have written it from the Christian convictions that inspire and sustain me, I have sought to make this reflection an invitation to dialogue among all people of good will.

[Commentary]

7.  As I was writing this letter, the Covid-19 pandemic unexpectedly erupted, exposing our false securities. Aside from the different ways that various countries responded to the crisis, their inability to work together became quite evident. For all our hyper-connectivity, we witnessed a fragmentation that made it more difficult to resolve problems that affect us all. Anyone who thinks that the only lesson to be learned was the need to improve what we were already doing, or to refine existing systems and regulations, is denying reality.

8.  It is my desire that, in this our time, by acknowledging the dignity of each human person, we can contribute to the rebirth of a universal aspiration to fraternity. Fraternity between all men and women. “Here we have a splendid secret that shows us how to dream and to turn our life into a wonderful adventure. No one can face life in isolation… We need a community that supports and helps us, in which we can help one another to keep looking ahead. How important it is to dream together… By ourselves, we risk seeing mirages, things that are not there. Dreams, on the other hand, are built together”.[6] Let us dream, then, as a single human family, as fellow travelers sharing the same flesh, as children of the same earth which is our common home, each of us bringing the richness of his or her beliefs and convictions, each of us with his or her own voice, brothers and sisters all.

[Commentary]

Chapter One

DARK CLOUDS OVER A CLOSED WORLD

Summary of Chapter One:

Francis makes a tour of the injustices that plague the world today. According to his analysis, he is implying, by omission, that the problem does not have a spiritual root and that the Catholic Hierarchy (or the Church as a whole) bears no responsibility for such injustices, but that they are to be attributed to individualism and, mostly, to political and economic issues, including:


Although here he is making an analysis of the situation and not yet describing in detail the solution, he is already implying that the solution he has in mind is a "project of fraternity", with hardly any mention of recourse to God and the Christian Faith except anecdotally.

9.  Without claiming to carry out an exhaustive analysis or to study every aspect of our present-day experience, I intend simply to consider certain trends in our world that hinder the development of universal fraternity.

10.  For decades, it seemed that the world had learned a lesson from its many wars and disasters, and was slowly moving towards various forms of integration. For example, there was the dream of a united Europe, capable of acknowledging its shared roots and rejoicing in its rich diversity. We think of “the firm conviction of the founders of the European Union, who envisioned a future based on the capacity to work together in bridging divisions and in fostering peace and fellowship between all the peoples of this continent”.[7] There was also a growing desire for integration in Latin America, and several steps were taken in this direction. In some countries and regions, attempts at reconciliation and rapprochement proved fruitful, while others showed great promise.

[Commentary]

11.  Our own days, however, seem to be showing signs of a certain regression. Ancient conflicts thought long buried are breaking out anew, while instances of a myopic, extremist, resentful and aggressive nationalism are on the rise. In some countries, a concept of popular and national unity influenced by various ideologies is creating new forms of selfishness and a loss of the social sense under the guise of defending national interests. Once more we are being reminded that “each new generation must take up the struggles and attainments of past generations, while setting its sights even higher. This is the path. Goodness, together with love, justice and solidarity, are not achieved once and for all; they have to be realized each day. It is not possible to settle for what was achieved in the past and complacently enjoy it, as if we could somehow disregard the fact that many of our brothers and sisters still endure situations that cry out for our attention”.[8]

12.  “Opening up to the world” is an expression that has been co-opted by the economic and financial sector and is now used exclusively of openness to foreign interests or to the freedom of economic powers to invest without obstacles or complications in all countries. Local conflicts and disregard for the common good are exploited by the global economy in order to impose a single cultural model. This culture unifies the world, but divides persons and nations, for “as society becomes ever more globalized, it makes us neighbours, but does not make us brothers”.[9] We are more alone than ever in an increasingly massified world that promotes individual interests and weakens the communitarian dimension of life. Indeed, there are markets where individuals become mere consumers or bystanders. As a rule, the advance of this kind of globalism strengthens the identity of the more powerful, who can protect themselves, but it tends to diminish the identity of the weaker and poorer regions, making them more vulnerable and dependent. In this way, political life becomes increasingly fragile in the face of transnational economic powers that operate with the principle of “divide and conquer”.

[Commentary]

13.  As a result, there is a growing loss of the sense of history, which leads to even further breakup. A kind of “deconstructionism”, whereby human freedom claims to create everything starting from zero, is making headway in today’s culture. The one thing it leaves in its wake is the drive to limitless consumption and expressions of empty individualism. Concern about this led me to offer the young some advice. “If someone tells young people to ignore their history, to reject the experiences of their elders, to look down on the past and to look forward to a future that he himself holds out, doesn’t it then become easy to draw them along so that they only do what he tells them? He needs the young to be shallow, uprooted and distrustful, so that they can trust only in his promises and act according to his plans. That is how various ideologies operate: they destroy (or deconstruct) all differences so that they can reign unopposed. To do so, however, they need young people who have no use for history, who spurn the spiritual and human riches inherited from past generations, and are ignorant of everything that came before them”.[10]

14.  These are the new forms of cultural colonization. Let us not forget that “peoples that abandon their tradition and, either from a craze to mimic others or to foment violence, or from unpardonable negligence or apathy, allow others to rob their very soul, end up losing not only their spiritual identity but also their moral consistency and, in the end, their intellectual, economic and political independence”.[11] One effective way to weaken historical consciousness, critical thinking, the struggle for justice and the processes of integration is to empty great words of their meaning or to manipulate them. Nowadays, what do certain words like democracy, freedom, justice or unity really mean? They have been bent and shaped to serve as tools for domination, as meaningless tags that can be used to justify any action.

[Commentary]

15.  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 neighbours 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.

17.  To care for the world in which we live means to care for ourselves. Yet we need to think of ourselves more and more as a single family dwelling in a common home. Such care does not interest those economic powers that demand quick profits. Often the voices raised in defence of the environment are silenced or ridiculed, using apparently reasonable arguments that are merely a screen for special interests. In this shallow, short-sighted culture that we have created, bereft of a shared vision, “it is foreseeable that, once certain resources have been depleted, the scene will be set for new wars, albeit under the guise of noble claims”.[12]

[Commentary]

18.  Some parts of our human family, it appears, can be readily sacrificed for the sake of others considered worthy of a carefree existence. Ultimately, “persons are no longer seen as a paramount value to be cared for and respected, especially when they are poor and disabled, ‘not yet useful’ – like the unborn, or ‘no longer needed’ – like the elderly. We have grown indifferent to all kinds of wastefulness, starting with the waste of food, which is deplorable in the extreme”.[13]

19.  A decline in the birthrate, which leads to the aging of the population, together with the relegation of the elderly to a sad and lonely existence, is a subtle way of stating that it is all about us, that our individual concerns are the only thing that matters. In this way, “what is thrown away are not only food and dispensable objects, but often human beings themselves”.[14] We have seen what happened with the elderly in certain places in our world as a result of the coronavirus. They did not have to die that way. Yet something similar had long been occurring during heat waves and in other situations: older people found themselves cruelly abandoned. We fail to realize that, by isolating the elderly and leaving them in the care of others without the closeness and concern of family members, we disfigure and impoverish the family itself. We also end up depriving young people of a necessary connection to their roots and a wisdom that the young cannot achieve on their own.

20.  This way of discarding others can take a variety of forms, such as an obsession with reducing labour costs with no concern for its grave consequences, since the unemployment that it directly generates leads to the expansion of poverty.[15] In addition, a readiness to discard others finds expression in vicious attitudes that we thought long past, such as racism, which retreats underground only to keep reemerging. Instances of racism continue to shame us, for they show that our supposed social progress is not as real or definitive as we think.

21.  Some economic rules have proved effective for growth, but not for integral human development.[16] Wealth has increased, but together with inequality, with the result that “new forms of poverty are emerging”.[17] The claim that the modern world has reduced poverty is made by measuring poverty with criteria from the past that do not correspond to present-day realities. In other times, for example, lack of access to electric energy was not considered a sign of poverty, nor was it a source of hardship. Poverty must always be understood and gauged in the context of the actual opportunities available in each concrete historical period.

[Commentary]

22.  It frequently becomes clear that, in practice, human rights are not equal for all. Respect for those rights “is the preliminary condition for a country’s social and economic development. When the dignity of the human person is respected, and his or her rights recognized and guaranteed, creativity and interdependence thrive, and the creativity of the human personality is released through actions that further the common good”.[18] Yet, “by closely observing our contemporary societies, we see numerous contradictions that lead us to wonder whether the equal dignity of all human beings, solemnly proclaimed seventy years ago, is truly recognized, respected, protected and promoted in every situation. In today’s world, many forms of injustice persist, fed by reductive anthropological visions and by a profit-based economic model that does not hesitate to exploit, discard and even kill human beings. While one part of humanity lives in opulence, another part sees its own dignity denied, scorned or trampled upon, and its fundamental rights discarded or violated”.[19] What does this tell us about the equality of rights grounded in innate human dignity?

23.  Similarly, the organization of societies worldwide is still far from reflecting clearly that women possess the same dignity and identical rights as men. We say one thing with words, but our decisions and reality tell another story. Indeed, “doubly poor are those women who endure situations of exclusion, mistreatment and violence, since they are frequently less able to defend their rights”.[20]

24.  We should also recognize that “even though the international community has adopted numerous agreements aimed at ending slavery in all its forms, and has launched various strategies to combat this phenomenon, millions of people today – children, women and men of all ages – are deprived of freedom and forced to live in conditions akin to slavery… Today, as in the past, slavery is rooted in a notion of the human person that allows him or her to be treated as an object… Whether by coercion, or deception, or by physical or psychological duress, human persons created in the image and likeness of God are deprived of their freedom, sold and reduced to being the property of others. They are treated as means to an end… [Criminal networks] are skilled in using modern means of communication as a way of luring young men and women in various parts of the world”.[21] A perversion that exceeds all limits when it subjugates women and then forces them to abort. An abomination that goes to the length of kidnapping persons for the sake of selling their organs. Trafficking in persons and other contemporary forms of enslavement are a worldwide problem that needs to be taken seriously by humanity as a whole: “since criminal organizations employ global networks to achieve their goals, efforts to eliminate this phenomenon also demand a common and, indeed, a global effort on the part of various sectors of society”.[22]

[Commentary]

25.  War, terrorist attacks, racial or religious persecution, and many other affronts to human dignity are judged differently, depending on how convenient it proves for certain, primarily economic, interests. What is true as long as it is convenient for someone in power stops being true once it becomes inconvenient. These situations of violence, sad to say, “have become so common as to constitute a real ‘third world war’ fought piecemeal”.[23]

26.  This should not be surprising, if we realize that we no longer have common horizons that unite us; indeed, the first victim of every war is “the human family’s innate vocation to fraternity”. As a result, “every threatening situation breeds mistrust and leads people to withdraw into their own safety zone”.[24] Our world is trapped in a strange contradiction: we believe that we can “ensure stability and peace through a false sense of security sustained by a mentality of fear and mistrust”.[25]

27.  Paradoxically, we have certain ancestral fears that technological development has not succeeded in eliminating; indeed, those fears have been able to hide and spread behind new technologies. Today too, outside the ancient town walls lies the abyss, the territory of the unknown, the wilderness. Whatever comes from there cannot be trusted, for it is unknown, unfamiliar, not part of the village. It is the territory of the “barbarian”, from whom we must defend ourselves at all costs. As a result, new walls are erected for self-preservation, the outside world ceases to exist and leaves only “my” world, to the point that others, no longer considered human beings possessed of an inalienable dignity, become only “them”. Once more, we encounter “the temptation to build a culture of walls, to raise walls, walls in the heart, walls on the land, in order to prevent this encounter with other cultures, with other people. And those who raise walls will end up as slaves within the very walls they have built. They are left without horizons, for they lack this interchange with others”.[26]

28.  The loneliness, fear and insecurity experienced by those who feel abandoned by the system creates a fertile terrain for various “mafias”. These flourish because they claim to be defenders of the forgotten, often by providing various forms of assistance even as they pursue their criminal interests. There also exists a typically “mafioso” pedagogy that, by appealing to a false communitarian mystique, creates bonds of dependency and fealty from which it is very difficult to break free.

[Commentary]

29.  With the Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, we do not ignore the positive advances made in the areas of science, technology, medicine, industry and welfare, above all in developed countries. Nonetheless, “we wish to emphasize that, together with these historical advances, great and valued as they are, there exists a moral deterioration that influences international action and a weakening of spiritual values and responsibility. This contributes to a general feeling of frustration, isolation and desperation”. We see “outbreaks of tension and a buildup of arms and ammunition in a global context dominated by uncertainty, disillusionment, fear of the future, and controlled by narrow economic interests”. We can also point to “major political crises, situations of injustice and the lack of an equitable distribution of natural resources… In the face of such crises that result in the deaths of millions of children – emaciated from poverty and hunger – there is an unacceptable silence on the international level”.[27] This panorama, for all its undeniable advances, does not appear to lead to a more humane future.

[Commentary]

30.  In today’s world, the sense of belonging to a single human family is fading, and the dream of working together for justice and peace seems an outdated utopia. What reigns instead is a cool, comfortable and globalized indifference, born of deep disillusionment concealed behind a deceptive illusion: thinking that we are all-powerful, while failing to realize that we are all in the same boat. This illusion, unmindful of the great fraternal values, leads to “a sort of cynicism. For that is the temptation we face if we go down the road of disenchantment and disappointment… Isolation and withdrawal into one’s own interests are never the way to restore hope and bring about renewal. Rather, it is closeness; it is the culture of encounter. Isolation, no; closeness, yes. Culture clash, no; culture of encounter, yes”.[28]

31.  In this world that races ahead, yet lacks a shared roadmap, we increasingly sense that “the gap between concern for one’s personal well-being and the prosperity of the larger human family seems to be stretching to the point of complete division between individuals and human community… It is one thing to feel forced to live together, but something entirely different to value the richness and beauty of those seeds of common life that need to be sought out and cultivated”.[29] Technology is constantly advancing, yet “how wonderful it would be if the growth of scientific and technological innovation could come with more equality and social inclusion. How wonderful would it be, even as we discover faraway planets, to rediscover the needs of the brothers and sisters who orbit around us”.[30]

32.  True, a worldwide tragedy like the Covid-19 pandemic momentarily revived the sense that we are a global community, all in the same boat, where one person’s problems are the problems of all. Once more we realized that no one is saved alone; we can only be saved together. As I said in those days, “the storm has exposed our vulnerability and uncovered those false and superfluous certainties around which we constructed our daily schedules, our projects, our habits and priorities… Amid this storm, the façade of those stereotypes with which we camouflaged our egos, always worrying about appearances, has fallen away, revealing once more the ineluctable and blessed awareness that we are part of one another, that we are brothers and sisters of one another”.[31]

33.  The world was relentlessly moving towards an economy that, thanks to technological progress, sought to reduce “human costs”; there were those who would have had us believe that freedom of the market was sufficient to keep everything secure. Yet the brutal and unforeseen blow of this uncontrolled pandemic forced us to recover our concern for human beings, for everyone, rather than for the benefit of a few. Today we can recognize that “we fed ourselves on dreams of splendour and grandeur, and ended up consuming distraction, insularity and solitude. We gorged ourselves on networking, and lost the taste of fraternity. We looked for quick and safe results, only to find ourselves overwhelmed by impatience and anxiety. Prisoners of a virtual reality, we lost the taste and flavour of the truly real”.[32] The pain, uncertainty and fear, and the realization of our own limitations, brought on by the pandemic have only made it all the more urgent that we rethink our styles of life, our relationships, the organization of our societies and, above all, the meaning of our existence.

34.  If everything is connected, it is hard to imagine that this global disaster is unrelated to our way of approaching reality, our claim to be absolute masters of our own lives and of all that exists. I do not want to speak of divine retribution, nor would it be sufficient to say that the harm we do to nature is itself the punishment for our offences. The world is itself crying out in rebellion. We are reminded of the well-known verse of the poet Virgil that evokes the “tears of things”, the misfortunes of life and history.[33]

35.  All too quickly, however, we forget the lessons of history, “the teacher of life”.[34] Once this health crisis passes, our worst response would be to plunge even more deeply into feverish consumerism and new forms of egotistic self-preservation. God willing, after all this, we will think no longer in terms of “them” and “those”, but only “us”. If only this may prove not to be just another tragedy of history from which we learned nothing. If only we might keep in mind all those elderly persons who died for lack of respirators, partly as a result of the dismantling, year after year, of healthcare systems. If only this immense sorrow may not prove useless, but enable us to take a step forward towards a new style of life. If only we might rediscover once for all that we need one another, and that in this way our human family can experience a rebirth, with all its faces, all its hands and all its voices, beyond the walls that we have erected.

36.  Unless we recover the shared passion to create a community of belonging and solidarity worthy of our time, our energy and our resources, the global illusion that misled us will collapse and leave many in the grip of anguish and emptiness. Nor should we naively refuse to recognize that “obsession with a consumerist lifestyle, above all when few people are capable of maintaining it, can only lead to violence and mutual destruction”.[35] The notion of “every man for himself” will rapidly degenerate into a free-for-all that would prove worse than any pandemic.

[Commentary]

37.  Certain populist political regimes, as well as certain liberal economic approaches, maintain that an influx of migrants is to be prevented at all costs. Arguments are also made for the propriety of limiting aid to poor countries, so that they can hit rock bottom and find themselves forced to take austerity measures. One fails to realize that behind such statements, abstract and hard to support, great numbers of lives are at stake. Many migrants have fled from war, persecution and natural catastrophes. Others, rightly, “are seeking opportunities for themselves and their families. They dream of a better future and they want to create the conditions for achieving it”.[36]

38.  Sadly, some “are attracted by Western culture, sometimes with unrealistic expectations that expose them to grave disappointments. Unscrupulous traffickers, frequently linked to drug cartels or arms cartels, exploit the weakness of migrants, who too often experience violence, trafficking, psychological and physical abuse and untold sufferings on their journey”.[37] Those who emigrate “experience separation from their place of origin, and often a cultural and religious uprooting as well. Fragmentation is also felt by the communities they leave behind, which lose their most vigorous and enterprising elements, and by families, especially when one or both of the parents migrates, leaving the children in the country of origin”.[38] For this reason, “there is also a need to reaffirm the right not to emigrate, that is, to remain in one’s homeland”.[39]

39.  Then too, “in some host countries, migration causes fear and alarm, often fomented and exploited for political purposes. This can lead to a xenophobic mentality, as people close in on themselves, and it needs to be addressed decisively”.[40] Migrants are not seen as entitled like others to participate in the life of society, and it is forgotten that they possess the same intrinsic dignity as any person. Hence they ought to be “agents in their own redemption”.[41] No one will ever openly deny that they are human beings, yet in practice, by our decisions and the way we treat them, we can show that we consider them less worthy, less important, less human. For Christians, this way of thinking and acting is unacceptable, since it sets certain political preferences above deep convictions of our faith: the inalienable dignity of each human person regardless of origin, race or religion, and the supreme law of fraternal love.

40.  “Migrations, more than ever before, will play a pivotal role in the future of our world”.[42] At present, however, migration is affected by the “loss of that sense of responsibility for our brothers and sisters on which every civil society is based”.[43] Europe, for example, seriously risks taking this path. Nonetheless, “aided by its great cultural and religious heritage, it has the means to defend the centrality of the human person and to find the right balance between its twofold moral responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens and to assure assistance and acceptance to migrants”.[44]

41.  I realize that some people are hesitant and fearful with regard to migrants. I consider this part of our natural instinct of self-defence. Yet it is also true that an individual and a people are only fruitful and productive if they are able to develop a creative openness to others. I ask everyone to move beyond those primal reactions because “there is a problem when doubts and fears condition our way of thinking and acting to the point of making us intolerant, closed and perhaps even – without realizing it – racist. In this way, fear deprives us of the desire and the ability to encounter the other”.[45]

[Commentary]

42.  Oddly enough, while closed and intolerant attitudes towards others are on the rise, distances are otherwise shrinking or disappearing to the point that the right to privacy scarcely exists. Everything has become a kind of spectacle to be examined and inspected, and people’s lives are now under constant surveillance. Digital communication wants to bring everything out into the open; people’s lives are combed over, laid bare and bandied about, often anonymously. Respect for others disintegrates, and even as we dismiss, ignore or keep others distant, we can shamelessly peer into every detail of their lives.

43.  Digital campaigns of hatred and destruction, for their part, are not – as some would have us believe – a positive form of mutual support, but simply an association of individuals united against a perceived common enemy. “Digital media can also expose people to the risk of addiction, isolation and a gradual loss of contact with concrete reality, blocking the development of authentic interpersonal relationships”.[46] They lack the physical gestures, facial expressions, moments of silence, body language and even the smells, the trembling of hands, the blushes and perspiration that speak to us and are a part of human communication. Digital relationships, which do not demand the slow and gradual cultivation of friendships, stable interaction or the building of a consensus that matures over time, have the appearance of sociability. Yet they do not really build community; instead, they tend to disguise and expand the very individualism that finds expression in xenophobia and in contempt for the vulnerable. Digital connectivity is not enough to build bridges. It is not capable of uniting humanity.

[Commentary]

44.  Even as individuals maintain their comfortable consumerist isolation, they can choose a form of constant and febrile bonding that encourages remarkable hostility, insults, abuse, defamation and verbal violence destructive of others, and this with a lack of restraint that could not exist in physical contact without tearing us all apart. Social aggression has found unparalleled room for expansion through computers and mobile devices.

45.  This has now given free rein to ideologies. Things that until a few years ago could not be said by anyone without risking the loss of universal respect can now be said with impunity, and in the crudest of terms, even by some political figures. Nor should we forget that “there are huge economic interests operating in the digital world, capable of exercising forms of control as subtle as they are invasive, creating mechanisms for the manipulation of consciences and of the democratic process. The way many [digital] platforms work often ends up favouring encounter between persons who think alike, shielding them from debate. These closed circuits facilitate the spread of fake news and false information, fomenting prejudice and hate”.[47]

46.  We should also recognize that destructive forms of fanaticism are at times found among religious believers, including Christians; they too “can be caught up in networks of verbal violence through the internet and the various forums of digital communication. Even in Catholic media, limits can be overstepped, defamation and slander can become commonplace, and all ethical standards and respect for the good name of others can be abandoned”.[48] How can this contribute to the fraternity that our common Father asks of us?

[Commentary]

47.  True wisdom demands an encounter with reality. Today, however, everything can be created, disguised and altered. A direct encounter even with the fringes of reality can thus prove intolerable. A mechanism of selection then comes into play, whereby I can immediately separate likes from dislikes, what I consider attractive from what I deem distasteful. In the same way, we can choose the people with whom we wish to share our world. Persons or situations we find unpleasant or disagreeable are simply deleted in today’s virtual networks; a virtual circle is then created, isolating us from the real world in which we are living.

48.  The ability to sit down and listen to others, typical of interpersonal encounters, is paradigmatic of the welcoming attitude shown by those who transcend narcissism and accept others, caring for them and welcoming them into their lives. Yet “today’s world is largely a deaf world… At times, the frantic pace of the modern world prevents us from listening attentively to what another person is saying. Halfway through, we interrupt him and want to contradict what he has not even finished saying. We must not lose our ability to listen”. Saint Francis “heard the voice of God, he heard the voice of the poor, he heard the voice of the infirm and he heard the voice of nature. He made of them a way of life. My desire is that the seed that Saint Francis planted may grow in the hearts of many”.[49]

49.  As silence and careful listening disappear, replaced by a frenzy of texting, this basic structure of sage human communication is at risk. A new lifestyle is emerging, where we create only what we want and exclude all that we cannot control or know instantly and superficially. This process, by its intrinsic logic, blocks the kind of serene reflection that could lead us to a shared wisdom.

50.  Together, we can seek the truth in dialogue, in relaxed conversation or in passionate debate. To do so calls for perseverance; it entails moments of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently embrace the broader experience of individuals and peoples. The flood of information at our fingertips does not make for greater wisdom. Wisdom is not born of quick searches on the internet nor is it a mass of unverified data. That is not the way to mature in the encounter with truth. Conversations revolve only around the latest data; they become merely horizontal and cumulative. We fail to keep our attention focused, to penetrate to the heart of matters, and to recognize what is essential to give meaning to our lives. Freedom thus becomes an illusion that we are peddled, easily confused with the ability to navigate the internet. The process of building fraternity, be it local or universal, can only be undertaken by spirits that are free and open to authentic encounters.

[Commentary]

51.  Certain economically prosperous countries tend to be proposed as cultural models for less developed countries; instead, each of those countries should be helped to grow in its own distinct way and to develop its capacity for innovation while respecting the values of its proper culture. A shallow and pathetic desire to imitate others leads to copying and consuming in place of creating, and fosters low national self-esteem. In the affluent sectors of many poor countries, and at times in those who have recently emerged from poverty, there is a resistance to native ways of thinking and acting, and a tendency to look down on one’s own cultural identity, as if it were the sole cause of every ill.

52.  Destroying self-esteem is an easy way to dominate others. Behind these trends that tend to level our world, there flourish powerful interests that take advantage of such low self-esteem, while attempting, through the media and networks, to create a new culture in the service of the elite. This plays into the opportunism of financial speculators and raiders, and the poor always end up the losers. Then too, ignoring the culture of their people has led to the inability of many political leaders to devise an effective development plan that could be freely accepted and sustained over time.

53.  We forget that “there is no worse form of alienation than to feel uprooted, belonging to no one. A land will be fruitful, and its people bear fruit and give birth to the future, only to the extent that it can foster a sense of belonging among its members, create bonds of integration between generations and different communities, and avoid all that makes us insensitive to others and leads to further alienation”.[50]

[Commentary]

54.  Despite these dark clouds, which may not be ignored, I would like in the following pages to take up and discuss many new paths of hope. For God continues to sow abundant seeds of goodness in our human family. The recent pandemic enabled us to recognize and appreciate once more all those around us who, in the midst of fear, responded by putting their lives on the line. We began to realize that our lives are interwoven with and sustained by ordinary people valiantly shaping the decisive events of our shared history: doctors, nurses, pharmacists, storekeepers and supermarket workers, cleaning personnel, caretakers, transport workers, men and women working to provide essential services and public safety, volunteers, priests and religious… They understood that no one is saved alone.[51]

55.  I invite everyone to renewed hope, for hope “speaks to us of something deeply rooted in every human heart, independently of our circumstances and historical conditioning. Hope speaks to us of a thirst, an aspiration, a longing for a life of fulfillment, a desire to achieve great things, things that fill our heart and lift our spirit to lofty realities like truth, goodness and beauty, justice and love… Hope is bold; it can look beyond personal convenience, the petty securities and compensations which limit our horizon, and it can open us up to grand ideals that make life more beautiful and worthwhile”.[52] Let us continue, then, to advance along the paths of hope.

[Commentary]

COMMENTARIES (by The M+G+R Foundation)

Commentary on Paragraph 2.  This saint of fraternal love, simplicity and joy, who inspired me ...

What is the place of God in this fraternity? So far he has not explained it. God is absent in the important first words of the Encyclical.

Is a fraternity so "open" that it is disconnected from the Faith? That is what it seems to be suggesting. The rest of the Encyclical confirms it.

Back to paragraph

Commentary on Paragraph 4.  Francis did not wage a war of words aimed at imposing doctrines; he simply ...

So far, God has not appeared as Father - an unjustifiable omission because it is logical to expect "brothers" to have a common Father. Instead, some human beings appear as a father figure.

The quote from St. John - "God is love and those who abide in love abide in God" - goes in the right direction (God is the true source of Fraternal Love), but instead of embracing it as a key piece of the Encyclical, it remains an anecdotal quote.

Continuously, we are going to see how Francis consciously excludes God from the center of his discourse in order to make his message appealing even to atheists and agnostics, which makes us doubt Francis' own faith [see Matthew 5:14-16 and Luke 12:8-9].

Back to paragraph

Commentary on Paragraph 5.  Issues of human fraternity and social friendship have always been a concern of mine. ...

Commentary on Paragraph 6.  The following pages do not claim to offer a complete teaching on fraternal love, ...

He is confirming his concept of fraternity: disconnected from God and disconnected from the Faith.

Good will of man, without appealing to the guidance of the Holy Spirit of God, is sterile and doomed to failure, as the misery of human history continually demonstrates.

Back to paragraph

Commentary on Paragraph 8.  It is my desire that, in this our time, by acknowledging the dignity of each human person, ...

Here God does not appear as the inspirer of this "universal aspiration to fraternity". Then, what difference is there with those peoples who tried to build the mythical Tower of Babel? They too aspired to "one humanity".

Back to paragraph

Commentary on Paragraph 10.  For decades, it seemed that the world had learned a lesson from its many wars and disasters, ...

(Political) integration is not necessarily a good measure of progress. Ever since the European Union was born as an economic and political project, they have tried to endow it with "a common soul", but anyone who lives in the European Union knows that such a thing is a fiction that has never been achieved.

One thing that would be progress is, for example, for Christians to really appreciate the example of Don Bosco, who showed that, in the midst of a fragmented and anti-clerical Italy, one can work constructively for God and for society without depending on a political unit.

Back to paragraph

Commentary on Paragraph 12.  “Opening up to the world” is an expression that has been co-opted by the economic ...

By stating that we have to choose between a "bad" globalism ("the advance of this kind of globalism") and a "good" globalism (that "makes us brothers"), he is subtly saying that Globalism is necessary, that it has to be, that there cannot be a non-Globalism. It is a confirmed fact that Francis is an apostle of Globalism (also called New World Order). He simply wants his own version.

He is talking about politics. Was it Jesus' mission to tell the Roman Empire that it should remain united to "solve the injustices of the world"? Did Jesus plan to tell Caesar that he should endow the Empire with a "common soul"? No, it was the other way around: when the Empire began to decline, it was Emperor Constantine who wanted to appropriate Christianity as a "soul" to politically unite an Empire that was dismembering. Now Francis is attempting the same thing that Emperor Constantine attempted.

Back to paragraph

Commentary on Paragraph 14.  These are the new forms of cultural colonization. Let us not forget that ...

The good "historical conscience" would be to remember that the Christianity of the first three centuries was so morally sound and so successful in spreading to all corners of the world, in spite of suffering continuous and severe persecutions, that it proved that it did not need to be united to an Empire in order to prosper. From the moment the leaders of Christianity allied themselves with the Empire, Christianity began its moral decline.

Back to paragraph

Commentary on Paragraph 17.  To care for the world in which we live means to care for ourselves. ...

God has given us "a shared vision", but not a political project like that of Bergoglio and his allies. God's "project" is salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross as an opportunity for everyone who wants to embrace it. Welcoming in charity others who do not share the same Faith does not mean diluting our religion so much (as Bergoglio does) that others come to believe that our Faith is not important.

The "united world" of which Bergoglio speaks is a political plan, the project of Babel. The proof is that he does not place God at the center of the plan. The world cannot be truly united except through God. "Let us put God at the center of our lives" is what a Christian leader should be preaching, because only then, as a "side effect," will the world be in peace and harmony (which does not necessarily mean "politically united").

Back to paragraph

Commentary on Paragraph 21.   Some economic rules have proved effective for growth, but ...

While, throughout this chapter, he makes an analysis of the injustices of the world of our time and speaks of causes such as "economic rules", it would be good for Francis to recognize the great responsibility of the Hierarchy of the Church for having allowed us to arrive at this situation.

The powers Jesus gave to his Church are supernatural and excellent. If they had been used as God intended, we would not have arrived at the present situation. Where has the Hierarchy of the Church been for the last seventeen hundred years? Allied with the temporal powers of the world.

Francis' constant reference to "unfair politics" and "ineffective economic rules" means that, by omission, he is evading the responsibility that the Hierarchy of the Church has had (and has) in history, attributing responsibility primarily to the powers of the world.

Back to paragraph

Commentary on Paragraph 24.  We should also recognize that “even though the international community ...

He continues to describe the injustices of our time. Previous comment applies.

The "international community" (in reality, the rulers) has a responsibility but, where is the power of prayer of the Church so that God will grant the necessary spiritual guidance to the governments (no matter what sign they are) so that these misfortunes do not happen? Logically, it is more difficult for the people of the Church of Christ to pray properly if they are not well instructed by the Hierarchy of the Church.

Back to paragraph

Commentary on Paragraph 28.  The loneliness, fear and insecurity experienced by those who feel abandoned by the system ...

The biggest problem is not when people feel abandoned by "the system". The problem is when, because of the lack of correct Evangelization, they feel - wrongly - abandoned by God. A soul truly united to God can prevail in peace even when everything around it is destruction. That peace is the one that spreads outwards and is able to change the environment and society (i.e. "the system"). That Peace is what true evangelizers have to teach, not the peace that comes from politics

Back to paragraph

Commentary on Paragraph 29.  With the Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, we do not ignore the positive advances ...

For the first time, he makes ONE mention of the spiritual dimension of the situation ("a weakening of spiritual values"), which seems barely an anecdote in the midst of a speech full of references to political and economic causes, without any self-criticism to acknowledge the responsibility of organized religion. Interestingly, he points out the "weakening of responsibility" but does not realize that this applies to himself and to the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy over which he nominally presides.

His abundant references to economic and political causes such as "narrow economic interests" and "major political crises" confirm that his hope is for a solution that does not come through God, but through a supposed cleansing of the economic and political powers according to human parameters of "good will" and "solidarity".

Back to paragraph

Commentary on Paragraphs 32 to 36.  True, a worldwide tragedy like the Covid-19 pandemic momentarily revived ... Unless we recover the shared passion to create a community ...

What lesson is he teaching us here? Why does he talk so much and say so little? What the Coronavirus Crisis has taught us is not a lesson in solidarity, but a consolidation of the power of obedience to governments and official "experts" through the culture of fear - a very timely form of power to accelerate the fulfillment of the plans of a New World Order.

God is above all and rules the Universe. If He has allowed the disease and the Covid-19 Crisis it is not a punishment, because God does not punish, but He certainly must have a purpose (or more than one) in allowing it. Francis' way of expressing himself by leaving God on the sidelines - by saying "The world (in Spanish, he says 'The Reality') is itself crying out in rebellion" and by resorting as an explanatory aid to the poet Virgil rather than to God - reveals the extent to which Bergoglio separates God from reality.

Back to paragraph

Commentary on Paragraphs 37 to 41.  Certain populist political regimes, as well as ... I realize that some people are hesitant and fearful with regard to migrants. ...

The problem is not immigration. The problem is massive and disorderly immigration. To overlook that distinction, as Francis and others like him do, is totally counterproductive.

Massive and unconditionally supported (i.e., "anyway") immigration fosters hatred towards immigrants and leads to the political, economic and social destruction of the host countries, which then cannot care either for the immigrants or for their own citizens. Charity is necessary, but exercised within appropriate channels to be effective.

Back to paragraph

Commentary on Paragraphs 42 and 43.  Oddly enough, while closed and intolerant attitudes towards others are on the rise, ... Digital campaigns of hatred and destruction, for their part, ...

In this first chapter of the Encyclical, Francis wants to cover, with his long analysis, all social injustices and aspects of social degradation. In this case, the problems related to digital communication. That is all very well. The problem is that when it comes to providing a solution to all these problems, he does not approach it from the perspective of the Christian Faith he claims to profess, with God at the center of everything, but his solution for everything is "fraternity".

Back to paragraph

Commentary on Paragraphs 44 to 46.  Even as individuals maintain their comfortable consumerist isolation, ... We should also recognize that destructive forms of fanaticism ...

In short and without so many detours: the Internet is a space where immediacy and global communication makes destructive behaviors have a faster and more far-reaching effect. If society is spiritually and morally sick because of the failure of those responsible for Evangelization, this global space (Internet and the hyper-connected world through "smart" phones) makes the disease more visible and with wider and more immediate effects.

For the first time in the entire Encyclical, God appears as the "common Father" (but without being the center of the argument) - an omission we have already claimed since the Introduction. Bergoglio's strategy is evident: he wants to avoid as much as possible theological reasoning involving God and the Faith so as not to lose the audience of other religions or of agnostics and atheists (besides, he himself does not seem to trust God very much).

The problem is that he has so far removed God from his discourse that his listeners must be asking themselves: Why is it necessary to believe in God or in the Christian Faith if the Catholic leader himself proposes to solve the world's problems from a practically atheistic perspective?

Back to paragraph

Commentary on Paragraphs 47 to 50.  True wisdom demands an encounter with reality. ... Together, we can seek the truth in dialogue, ...

The overabundance of information and stimuli prevents people from cultivating and maintaining a healthy relationship with God. That is what Bergoglio should be saying in a nutshell instead of abounding with so many ramblings.

Maintaining a constant and healthy relationship with God is vital because God is the true source of Love. Fraternal love is inspired by God and, without His Guidance, any fraternity one wants to create will be like the Tower of Babel. Authentic fraternity cannot be understood without God, no matter how much Francis insists on keeping Him on the sidelines.

Back to paragraph

Commentary on Paragraphs 51 to 53.  Certain economically prosperous countries tend to be proposed ... We forget that “there is no worse form of alienation than to feel uprooted, ...

What does Francis want to teach us? This boring journey of his through the first chapter of the Encyclical, full of so many unnecessary words and digressions, is not enriching us with new knowledge about the injustices of today's world. These are things we already know. Nor is he providing us with a theological analysis that could enlighten us.

What he does want to sell us is his perspective on what he believes are the causes of injustice and what the solution is: essentially, he tells us that the causes are political, economic and cultural, not spiritual, not related to the failure of organized religion in its main function (which is to help us to be united to God) and he is ready to conclude that the solution to all these problems is his Universal Fraternity.

Back to paragraph

Commentary on Paragraphs 54 and 55.  Despite these dark clouds, which may not be ignored, ...  I invite everyone to renewed hope, for hope “speaks to us of something ...

Hope? Simply hope? Should not he say hope in God? Is this a Christian leader or an atheist speaking?

The question is very simple: Without God man is worse than an animal and is doomed to self-destruction. Without God there is no hope. The fraternity of the new Tower of Babel will not save us. God will save us.

Back to paragraph

Not yet available in English.
When they are available we will announce them on the Board of Updates from The M+G+R Foundation.

* Our summaries and commentaries (The M+G+R Foundation) are the ones highlighted in italics and blue color.

* Section headings are from the original.

* We have highlighted in bold the key words related to "fraternity", "brothers", "father", "united world", "globalism", "economy", "culture" and similar, as well as other key words that can serve as points of reference to be able to make a visual follow-up of the text.

* And in bold red the occurrences of the words "God", "Faith", "Jesus", "Gospel", "Bible", "Christian", "Catholic" and the like.

* Numbers in square brackets such as [35] are from the original and correspond to quotations that the reader can find at the foot of the original Vatican document.

Index of Documents about "Pope" Francis I / Jorge Bergoglio

The attempt to establish a New World Order

The attempt to establish a One World Religion

Confirmation of the totalitarian plan for a World Dictatorship

Confirmation of the plan for One World Religion

To search for information on our domain visit our Search Page

Index of Documents Listed by Title