Joe does a deep dive into Pope Leo’s first apostolic exhortation, Dilexi Te.

Transcript:

Joe:

Welcome back to Shameless Popery, I’m Joe Heschmeyer and I want to share with you some of the things that struck me about Pope Leo’s new apostolic exportation, dilexi te. Now, I want to say a couple of things at the outset. First, a little bit about what the document is. Second, a little bit about what this is going to be. The first thing to know is that dilexi te is an apostolic exhortation. In other words, it’s not laying out church doctrine per se, the way a papal encyclical does.

Rather it’s taking things we already know or should know and exhorting us, encouraging us. And so that’s the nature of what an apostolic exploitation is. So sometimes people have read this document and said, we already know this stuff, come on, but it’s like, yeah, but go do it. That’s the nature of it. A lot of this is stuff that we know or should know already. I found there were a lot of points where I’d never heard a particular quote before or there was a way of phrasing things that I thought was really striking or really challenging in a good way. But it’s not going to be something where you say, oh, I didn’t realize I was supposed to care for the poor as a Christian. Hopefully, hopefully a lot of this feels familiar, but it is nevertheless a good thing to be challenged about. Second, it is sort of a companion document and Pope Leo makes it very clear that he’s taking a draft that was already worked on by Pope Francis and then adding his own kind of commentary on it.

In fact, I think we should view this as sort of a companion document to something Pope Francis wrote or issued last year called Deluxe No, which was on the sacred heart Deluxe no means he loved us. It’s coming from St. Paul’s description of Christ in Romans eight. Deluxe te means I have loved you and significantly here it’s from Revelation chapter three about how the poor are beloved by Christ and those who are powerless in the world are beloved by Christ. And Pope Leo then connects this with the magnifico, which if you pray the liturgy of the hours we pray every evening at Vespers, and which Mary talks about how God has cast on the mighty from their thrones and lifted up the lowly, how he’s filled the hungry with good things and the rich he has sent away empty. Now those words are very challenging and putting them in this context I think is really important that we don’t just care for the poor because we have something and they don’t or because we see someone in need.

All of those are good reasons, but also because if we don’t, we will be cast down, we will be judged, we will be damned. And this is something that maybe we don’t talk about as Christians. I’ve heard a lot of homilies kind of excusing wealth in a very wealthy country saying, oh, well it’s not being wealthy, it’s a problem, it’s just being greedy. But there is in fact this sense in which Jesus can say, woe to you rich, and if we’ve lost some of that edge in the gospel proclamation, this is a good reminder. We need to be exhorted to reclaim it. So as I say, Pope Leo is very clear that this is something Pope Francis had been preparing in the last months of his life and it’s a companion to, as I say, deluxe no, and Leo is now making the document his own.

So he is taking the draft, Francis began and then adding his own kind of reflections in his own words, and I think you can since that pretty clearly in the document, there are parts where I think it’s fair to speculate, oh, that reads like Pope Francis. This has a very familiar kind of voice and tone. So if you’re looking for what is a leonine encyclical or apostolic exploitation look like, this one’s a little bit, it’s too soon to say we saw the same thing when Pope Francis became Pope and he continued the draft of something become by Benedict the 16th. And this is actually a fairly common occurrence. If one pope has begun some magisterial work and another and then he dies and the next Pope sees something in there that’s really good, they might take it and then maybe take it in a slightly different direction, but it can be really beneficial.

But if you’re waiting to hear what Leo sounds like, I’m not sure this is that. It is nevertheless really good and really important and Leo says as much that he continues this project because he considers it essential to insist on this path to holiness. Now, I like that framing. He’s not just saying we should care for the poor out of social justice or economic equality or something like that, but because we actually want to strive for holiness. So as I say, I’m going to share with you the things that struck me. I’m not going to do line by line paragraph by paragraph. I’m not even going to go entirely in order. I’ve got a few places where I’m going to diverge from the order. Instead, I’m really just going to share things that I found striking and things that you might find striking as well, beginning with this absolute deluge of patristic citations, and I mean that in a good way.

I know it can sound like, oh, there are a bunch of citations. There are, but with this very clear point of saying this is the mission of the church for 2000 years to proclaim the gospel, including preaching the good news to the poor and actually doing something to help the condition of those who are poor and downtrodden. And we get into why that’s the case, but let’s start with the fact that it is the case. Let’s start with the fact this is not some new preoccupation of the church. This is not some 21st century social justice-y kind of political thing. This is the perennial teaching and practice of the church. So Pope Leo goes all the way back to people like Saint Ignatius of Antioch and his letter to the Serian and warns about those who have a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come to us, how opposed they’re to the will of God and to show that they’re opposed to the will of God.

He says they have no regard for love, no care for the widow or the orphan or the oppressed of the bound or of the free of the hungry or of the thirsty like a person who behaves in that way who’s indifferent to the downtrodden Ignatius points to that as just obvious proof that they don’t understand the grace of God and that they’re opposed to the will of God. That’s striking. Similarly, St. Paul Carpo Smyrna, the bishop of the church Ignatius had been writing to in that prior letter and talks about the need for presbyters elders, priests to be compassionate and merciful to all bringing back those that wander, visiting all the sick and not neglecting the widow, the orphan or the poor, but always providing for that which is becoming in the sight of God and man. So there is this special duty of course for clergy to have this real love for the poor and downtrodden and a lot of times this is connected in things that the church fathers would write about the Eucharist, which is a fascinating connection that is referenced a few times in the document and frankly I wish it was spelled out maybe a little more there is a liturgical connection.

I don’t know if you’ve ever thought about this and I actually have been thinking about doing an episode covering this. I’ll just throw this idea out there and maybe cover it in greater depth later. The offertory, you bring forward the bread and the wine and the water which are going to become the Eucharist, but you’ll also bring forward the money to give to the poor and this is also part of the sacrifice of the church and the mass and say just martyr in describing what happens in Sunday. Worship talks about this at one point, paragraph 67. He says, then all rise together and pray and this is after the readings and the gospel and the homily and when our prayers ended, bread and wine and water are brought and the president it means presider and like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings according to his ability and the people as sent saying amen.

And there’s a distribution to each and a participation of that over which things have been given. In other words, the Eucharist, if you look at the Greek, the Eucharist, bread and wine and those who are absent, a portion is sent by the deacons. Okay? That’s about the Eucharistic practice and then the very next line he says in they who are well to do and willing give, what each thinks fit and what is collected is deposited with the president. Again, the presider who suckers the orphans and widows and those who through sickness or any other cow are in want and those who are in bonds and the stranger to sojourning among us and in a word takes care of all who are in need. So you see this coupling in Justin Marty. You see this coupling actually frequently in the fathers between the spiritual needs being met in the Eucharist and the physical needs being met with the tithe offering, which I think is really fascinating and as I say, I’d love to see more kind of exploring of this dimension, the kind of bringing together of the resources of the church to care for the rest of the body.

This is one interesting part of what it means for us to be truly in communion with one another is that we take care of one another. And so having a communion brought about through the Eucharist, but that doesn’t translate into caring for the poor and downtrodden within our communion is an incomplete communion to say the least. Okay? There’s a couple figures that are especially highlighted in the patristic overview here. St. John Chris System St Augustine, and although he doesn’t have his own section title, St Ambrose of Milan gets some excellent shout outs as well. Let’s start with St. John Chris system.

If you’ve ever read St. John Chris system, he’s got really challenging stuff on the care for the poor and he has really strong words for the rich and comfortable and it’s good to know this is in the spiritual tradition of the church. It is good to know this is part of our spiritual patrimony because if I just said these things, you might think, oh, that person is very presumptuous, or Hey, he’s got a bone to pick with rich people or something like that. But hearing it built on the gospel by the church fathers is I think challenging in a way that’s harder to escape from. In particular, he has in view those of us who might have a love for liturgical finery without having a love for the poor, and I say those of us because I see myself in some of his words of critique that if I’m not careful I can slide into this where I want to see the upbuilding of beautiful churches and beautiful liturgy and beautiful vestments and beautiful vessels and everything else, but do I want to see the broken body of Christ taken care of in the beggar outside the church?

If I don’t woe to me or in St. John Chris system’s words, he says, let no Judas then approach this table. No Simon nay for both these perish through covetousness. Let us flee then from this gulf. Neither let us account it enough for our salvation. If after we have stripped widows and orphans, we offer for this table a golden jeweled cup. So if you defraud the poor and then spend that money on liturgical finery, that’s not going to be good for your salvation. Now you might say, well, I’m not defrauding the poor. I’m just very wealthy and he’s going to say, well then you’re defrauding the poor and we’ll get into that in a second, but he goes on to say no. If you desire to honor the sacrifice, the eucharistic sacrifice all for your soul for which also it was slain caused that to become golden, but if that remained worse than lead or potter’s clay, while the vessel is of gold, what’s the profit?

If you’ve got a impure soul, having pure vessels isn’t going to do anything. Let not this be our, not this therefore be our aim to offer golden vessels only but to do so from honest earnings. Likewise. Now notice there, I think this is a passage that is sometimes misused by people. Saint John Christ is not saying, don’t have nice liturgical elements, don’t have nice liturgical vestments and vessels and churches and so on. You will find people who take him in that way. That’s not what he’s saying here because he’s saying just don’t only do that and he’s actually going to stress this so he doesn’t have a problem with the golden vessels. He has a problem with the golden vessels when the poor are lying neglected and he says, would you do honor to Christ’s body neglect him? Not when naked do not while here you honor him with silicon garments, neglect him perishing without of cold and nakedness like to say, we need the golden patent and the chalice jewels because this is the body and blood of Christ good, but don’t then turn to see Christ’s broken body in the poor and say, yeah, cardboard and rags is good enough that rather this love we show to the body of Christ should carry over to how we greet the body of Christ in the poor in the least of these for he that said, this is my body and by his word confirm the fact this same said you saw me and hungered and fed me not and in as much as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me for this indeed needs not coverings but a pure soul, but that requires much attention.

In other words, Christ’s eucharistic body isn’t actually going to be harmed if you don’t get the most expensive golden patent. Now again, don’t mishear him. He’s not saying put Christ on cardboard plates, but he is saying, don’t let our love of liturgical finery keep us from the concrete spiritual needs of the least of these who we’re told we’re going to be judged for how we treat or ignore, right? If you just say, I’m not going to do anything, that’s not my call, I’m not going to do that. Then when you hear him say, you didn’t do this for me when you didn’t do for the least of these, just know you made that choice consciously. That’s criticism’s point. He says, let us learn therefore to be strict in life and to honor Christ as he himself desires for to him who is honored that honor is most pleasing, which it is his own will to have, not that which we account best.

In other words, if you want to worship God, worship him the way he wants to be worshiped, honor him the way he wants to be honored. It doesn’t do any good to say you’re going to honor him by doing the opposite of what he tells you to do. And he gives the example of St. Peter telling Jesus, oh, don’t wash my feet. Peter thought he was doing a favor to Jesus by showing his honor form, by resisting the thing Jesus had said and he had to be set straight. His intention was good. He wasn’t trying to be rude to Christ. He wasn’t trying to say like, oh gross, don’t touch me. No, he was saying, I’m not worthy to have you wash my feet. And yet it was a higher honoring of Christ to do the thing Jesus told him to do, which in this case was to have his feet wash. Well, similarly he says, even so do thou honor him with dishonor, which he ordained spending your wealth on poor people since God has no need at all of golden vessels but of golden souls, but this is a more pressing need.

But then again, he stresses these things I say not forbidding such offerings to be provided. In other words, he just said God doesn’t need golden vessels and in a literal sense that’s quite true. Jesus isn’t going to be harmed if you don’t use a golden patent. That’s not going to happen or golden saum or whatever, but he’s very clear to say that very next line, I’m not telling you not to do that. I’m just telling you that you’re required together with them and before them to give alms for God accepts indeed the former but much more the latter for if the one, excuse me for in the one the offer alone is profited, but in the other the receiver also, so this is an interesting point that when we have good liturgy, when we have the gold and everything else, this is to honor God, but God isn’t improved by it.

We are because we are having right relationship with him in terms of external trappings, but when you serve the poor, both you and the person you’re serving are improved by it. So you can’t actually improve Christ’s lot in the Eucharist. He’s the perfect sufficient sacrifice, but you can improve Christ’s lot in the poor by caring for him in the least of these that in the same way that when St. Paul is persecuting the church, Jesus can say, why do you persecute me? Christ is suffering in the poor in a way he’s not suffering in the Eucharist. I hope that’s a clear distinction. And so Saint John Christ warns that if you just do the liturgical thing, the act seems to be a ground even of ostentation, but there all is merciful and love to man, so it’s spiritually safer in a certain way to focus on caring for the poor.

It says for what is the prophet when his table indeed is full of golden cups, but he with hunger first fill him being hungered and then abundantly deck out his table. Also, do you make him a cup of gold while you give him not a cup of cold water? I love that line that if you won’t give the beggar on the street a cup of water, but then you want to give Christ a chalice, then you failed to recognize Christ when he met you in the beggar on the street because otherwise you would see the absurdity of trying to offer him a golden chalice and then refusing him the cup of cold water and what is the prophet do you furnish his table’s claws but spangled with gold while to himself he afford not even the necessary covering and when good comes of it for tell me should you see one at a loss for necessary food and Amit appeasing his hunger while you first overlaid his table with silver, would he indeed thank you and not rather be indignant?

Imagine you see someone hungry and you say, I’m not going to feed you, but I’m going to give you this incredibly elaborate table covering. It’s going to be beautiful, but you’re going to go hungry at it. Same on Christ is saying this is effectively what we’re doing to Christ because we are decking out the church’s beautifully, but we’re not caring for the poor. What again, if C one wrapped in rags and stiff with cold, you should neglect giving him a garment and build golden column saying that you were doing him in honor. Would he not say that you were mocking and accounted an insult and the most extreme insult? So I think that’s again, it’s a powerful thing. I remember the first time I discovered all of this in St. John Chris system being like, wow, this is very challenging. I didn’t realize the church fathers spoke this adamantly and provocatively on our care for the poor, but he’s not alone in this.

I want to share a few other things that Leo shares. I’ve actually taken the citations Leo gives and I’m given a little more of the context here just to spend a little more time with these quotes, but I’d love that he’s mentioning this and bringing this treasure house of wisdom to bear on the question because it is something that’s easy to overlook or forget, but he says, let this then be your thought with regard to Christ. Also, when he is going about as a wanderer and a stranger needing a roof to cover him and now neglecting to receive him dickus out a pavement and walls and capitals of columns and hangs up the silver chains by means of lamps but himself found in prison, you will not even look upon. That’s something that we need to be very cautious. Are we doing that? Are we imagining we’re giving our best to God because our churches look nice and we’re willing to support that or our worship looks nice or whatever the case is, but we’re not honoring Christ in the poor of the downtrodden, the prisoner, the stranger and so on.

Leo commenting on this says consequently, charity is not optional. Rather it is a requirement of true worship. Chris system vehemently denounced excessive wealth connected with indifference for the poor. The attention due to them rather than a mere social requirement is a condition for salvation which gives unjust wealth, a condemnatory weight when people are starving to death and you are hoarding wealth, you are incurring damnation. That is what he’s warning you and there’s good patristic support for this good biblical support for this Chris is Tim goes on to say, when you see a poor man, do not hurry by but immediately reflect what you would’ve been had you been he, what would you not have wished that all should do for you? And this is really what, this is a golden rule, but it is a good reminder. It’s very easy if your life has gone well to look at somebody who’s in a rough spot and just look at them with an air of condemnation or sort of a disgust, a desire to just avoid the distressing disguise of the poor as Mother Teresa put it that we can forget that there, but for the grace of God go I and how would I want to be treated in that context?

Christ goes on to say, reflect that he’s a free man like yourself for freedom. Christ set is free and he shares the same noble birth with you and possesses all things in common with you, and yet oftentimes he’s not on a level even with your dogs. On the contrary, while they are satiated, he often lies sleeps hungry and the free man has become less honorable than your slaves. The poor have been redeemed by Christ in this radical way and yet we treat them beneath how we would treat a slave or a dog.

But then he says something really fascinating, which we’re going to get into later about treating the poor not simply as objects of mercy but recognizing in them subjects of mercy, people who are also capable of sharing the gospel in Christ’s words, but they the poor perform needful services for you. What are these? Do they serve you? Well, suppose that I show this, the poor man two performs needful services for you far greater than they do, for he will stand by you in the day of judgment, meaning far greater than the dog or the slave for he’ll stand by you in the day of judgment and we’ll deliver you from the fire.

I quite like that, that we are bringing monetary wealth to the poor and the poor are bringing salvation to those of us who are comfortable. And how amazing oftentimes you adorned with vestments, innumerable of varied colors and rot with gold, a dead body and sensible, no longer perceiving the honor I believe here He’s talking about putting beautiful vestments and adorning the bodies of the saints in terms of relics and everything else. And he says, while that which is in pain, the body that is in pain and lamenting and tormented interacts by hunger and frost, you neglect give us more to VA glory than to the fear of God. So yes, by all means serve the bodies of the saints, honor them, but also honor the body of Christ and the poor. The frost is hard and the poor man is cast out in rags, nearly dead with his teeth, chattering both by his looks and his air fitted to move you and you pass by warm and full of drink.

And how do you expect that God should deliver you when in misfortune? That’s what I mean when I say he presents this with this condemnatory weight. If you don’t do this, if you ignore Christ in the poor, what do you think is going to happen when you need something from God after you have spurned and rejected him? If you’re unrepentant of that, if your heart is closed to the poor, what are you expecting to happen him that has done you no wrong? You are able to deliver him, you neglect. How shall he God forgive you, who’s sitting against him is not this deserving of hell? When we pray, forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us and we ask that the measure by which we measure it out to others is measured out to us. We often think about this just in that literal level of if someone sends against me, do I say I forgive you.

But the deeper point there is how we treat others is going to be the guide by which we a... Read more on Catholic.com