Gleaning through Pope Francis' Encyclical 'Fratelli Tutti'
(1)Abandoned on the wayside
*
- Article 63 of Fratelli Tutti describes the space where the Gospel of Luke (
Luke 10：29-37）places the story of the Good Samaritan.
- It happened on the steep road that descends from the city of Jerusalem (which is built on the hill of Sion) to Jericho (a famous city at the foot of the hill).
- Jerusalem was both a very important religious centre and a very busy commercial meeting point.
- Evidently, besides ordinary people, daily commuters using this road were religious persons (like the priest and the Levite of the story and merchants, like the Good Samaritan).
- We must know that the Temple employed many priests and Levites for the maintenance of the Temple and the liturgical celebrations (day and night). There was a well-planned roster of priests and Levites. Many of them preferred having a house in Jericho where the rent was much cheaper and work in Jerusalem.
- In the Gospel of Luke it is Jesus himself who tells the story to a man of the law, a Pharisee, who had asked Jesus, ‘Who is my neighbour’.
‘Jesus tells the story of a Jewish man assaulted by thieves on this steep road, and lying injured on the wayside. Several persons passed him by, but failed to stop. These were people holding important social positions, yet lacking in real concern for the common good. They would not waste a couple of minutes caring for the injured man, or even in calling for help. Only one person stopped, approached the man and cared for him personally, even spending his own money to provide for his needs (63).’
Besides giving the injured man some money, what else did the Good Samaritan give?
(2) Make time for others as an act of gratuitousness *
Besides giving some money, what else did the Good Samaritan give to the injured man?
‘The Good Samaritan also gave the injured man something that in our frenetic world we cling so tightly: he gave him his time.
Certainly, he had his own plans for that day, his own needs, commitments and desires. Yet he was able to put all that aside when confronted with someone in need. Without even knowing the injured man, he saw him as deserving of his time and attention’ (63).
‘Let us admit that, for all the progress we have made, we are still “illiterate” when it comes to accompanying, caring for and supporting the most frail and vulnerable members of our developed societies’ (64).
‘By his actions, the Good Samaritan showed that “the existence of each and every individual is deeply tied to that of others: life is not simply time that passes; life is a time for interactions’ (66).
The Good Samaritan makes time for the injured man as an act of ‘gratuitousness’: the ability to do some things simply because they are good in themselves, without concern for personal gain or recompense. Gratuitousness makes it possible for us to welcome the stranger, even though this brings us no immediate tangible benefit. Some countries, though, presume to accept only scientists or investors’ (139).
(3)Is there fraternal love in today's 'small village'? *
In today’s era of the Media, the world is often called ‘the small village’. Like in a small village each human being no matter how distant they live, are able through the Media to know in real time whatever happens in other parts of the world. In appearance we are all ‘close neighbours’, however without ‘fraternal love and a willingness to make time for others’, even the person who lives next to my house can become a faraway stranger.
‘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’ (32).
We must be realistic, we cannot deny that there are deep rooted divisions and selfish interests among people and nations. There will always be conflicts.
However the time has come when more and more people of different cultures, religions and traditions are aware that if we work together we can create a new culture of fraternal love and kindness.
‘It is remarkable how the various characters in the story change, once confronted by the painful sight of the poor man on the roadside. The distinctions between Judean and Samaritan, priest and merchant, fade into insignificance. Now there are only two kinds of people: those who care for someone who is hurting and those who pass by; those who bend down to help and those who look the other way and hurry off. Here, all our distinctions, labels and masks fall away: it is the moment of truth. Will we bend down to touch and heal the wounds of others? Will we bend down and help another to get up? This is today’s challenge, and we should not be afraid to face it. In moments of crisis, decisions become urgent. It could be said that, here and now, anyone who is neither a robber nor a passer-by is either injured himself or bearing an injured person on his shoulders’ (70).
(4) The culture of encounter *
‘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’ (30).
We will hear these words very often in the encyclical. The opening words of the encyclical immerse us into the subject of universal fraternal love.
‘FRATELLI TUTTI’. ‘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’. 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’ (1).
(5)Fraternal love: a common dream *
Pope Francis reveals that ‘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’ (7).
The Pope continues saying that it is not his intention to offer a complete teaching on fraternal love, but rather ‘in this our time, by acknowledging the dignity of each human person, to contribute to the rebirth of a universal aspiration to fraternity’ (6, 8).
‘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. 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’ (8).
(6) Likes and Dislikes *
In today’s Media ‘a mechanism of selection 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’ (47).
‘A new lifestyle is emerging in our society, where we create only what we want and exclude all that we cannot control or know instantly and superficially’ (40).
‘The ability to sit down and listen to others, typical of interpersonal encounters, is being replaced by ‘the frantic pace of the modern world that 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’ (48). ‘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 process of building fraternity, be it local or universal, can only be undertaken by spirits that are free and open to authentic encounters’ (50).
(7)Who is my neighbour? *
The Pope clarifies, ‘Although this encyclical is addressed to all people of good will, regardless of their religious convictions, the parable of the Good Samaritan is one that any of us can relate to and find challenging.
“Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’ he said, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Jesus said to him, ‘What is written in the law? What do you read there?’ The lawyer answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.’ But wanting to justify himself, the lawyer asked Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbour?’ Jesus replied, ‘A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” The lawyer said, ‘The one who showed him mercy.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise.’” (
Luke 10：25-37﹚
This parable has one outstanding and very creative point that truly surpasses all others: in answer to the question ‘who is my neighbour’, it doesn’t simply offer a list of neighbours that each one of us has, like ‘parents’, ‘relatives’, ‘friends’, ‘countrymen’, ‘brothers and sisters of the same religion’, ‘the poor, etc. The parable shows us clearly that ‘my neighbour’ does not exist until I make myself ‘the neighbour of the person I come across, no matter who that person is, a family member or a complete stranger. At the end of the parable Jesus asks the lawyer, who had asked the question ‘who is my neighbor: ‘Which of these three (the priest, the Levite, the Samaritan), do you think, was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” The lawyer said, ‘The one who showed him mercy.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise.’ This conclusion of the parable is really wonderful. The Samaritan made himself the neighbour of the injured Jew by overcoming many barriers. The barrier of racial hatred was definitely the strongest. Since birth both the injured Jew and the Good Samaritan were brought up in this hatred. Seven hundred years earlier, the kingdom of Israel was split into two, the kingdom of the North (comprising ten tribes, whose capital was Samaria) and the kingdom of Juda (comprising the remaining tribes of Juda and Benjamin and whose capital was Jerusalem). There was already rivalry and hatred between Samaria and Jerusalem. The hatred reached its climax when the Assyrians in 721 B.C. destroyed Samaria and deported the majority of the ten tribes to Assyria as slaves. New Assyrian people were brought to Samaria. The children born from intermarriages with local Israelites were called Samaritans. The Jews hated these half-brothers as descendants of the Assyrians, the arch-enemies of the Jews.
The Good Samaritan had to overcome this inherited hatred. The injured Jew could refuse help from a Samaritan! Besides all the other barriers that we have already discussed, the ethnic or national hatred so common in our so called modern societies, is often the most difficult to overcome. The Good Samaritan, moved by mercy, through his actions created a path of dialogue and acceptance with an ‘inherited enemy’. He created a new culture, ‘the art of encounter’. Fratelli Tutti says: ‘Life, for all its confrontations, is the art of encounter’ (215). Encounter that becomes culture.
(8)The culture of encounter *
Reading about this particular topic in Fratelli Tutti, I suddenly recalled in my memory many past experiences that are deeply related with this topic. One memory in particular takes me back to my first visit to London. I was a young Italian student and during the summer holiday I had the opportunity of going to London to start learning English. In London I met a very nice English family who helped me a lot. They helped me to find a part-time summer job. I could work in the morning to cover my living expenses. In the afternoons I was free to learn English and British culture. One particular experience impressed me particularly. The elder son of the family together with his father and some friends were going to Victoria railway station for a special activity. They invited me to join them. I had no clue about the activity; but I joined them. What a joy! As soon as a new train was arriving, the youth would scatter on the platforms looking for people in difficulty with their luggage or small children. I felt that there was a mutual trust between youth and travelers. No tips were expected or given. There were the professional porters to take care of that. No complaints. Just joy and a sense of being welcomed. That activity that I joined until I had to leave London, makes me now better understand the encyclical’s words: ‘To speak of a ‘culture of encounter’ means that we, as a people, should be passionate about meeting others, seeking points of contact, building bridges, planning a project that includes everyone. This becomes an aspiration and a style of life. The subject of this culture is the people, not simply one part of society that would pacify the rest with the help of professional and media resources’ (216).
The encyclical borrowing very aptly from South American popular songs, uses the poetic expression: ‘Life is the art of encounter’ (215). That small group of youth willing to make themselves ‘neighbor’ to strangers coming to England, were ‘artists’ creating a new song, a new culture. The encyclical quotes a very early father of the Church, Saint Irenaeus (he died 140 years after the birth of Jesus), who would use the image of a melody to make the same point: ‘One who seeks the truth should not concentrate on the differences between one note and another, thinking as if each was created separately and apart from the others; instead, he should realize that one and the same person composed the entire melody’.
(9)A new culture needs nurturing *
The strongest experience I had regarding this topic was a few decades ago during my first visit to South Africa. It was the time of apartheid. Everything was segregated, from restaurants to public toilets, to schools. I was very confused where to take a bus and where to get off a bus, since all means of transportation had different stations for different races. One day I was visiting a Catholic Primary school, which was not segregated. I saw all the children, white, black and Chinese, happily playing together. I talked to the principal of the school. He told me: ‘Apartheid must be taught’! Very correct! If no one teaches children apartheid, they will never think of it! I like the way Pope Francis introduces the topic of how to teach the culture of encounter. First the Pope analyses the nature of culture. A people’s ‘culture’, the Pope says, is more than an abstract idea or a lofty ideal of a few intellectuals. ‘The word culture points to something deeply embedded within a people, its most cherished convictions and its way of life’ (216).
Culture must be taught at home, in schools and in society at large; and the Pope stresses the importance of teaching our new generation the culture of dialogue and encounter: ‘Let us arm our children with the weapons of dialogue! Let us teach them to fight the good fight of the culture of encounter!’ (217). In today’s society we all live, including our children and youth, in an ‘obsessive consumerist lifestyle, above all when few people are capable of maintaining it, which can only lead to violence and mutual destruction’. The notion of ‘every man for himself’ will rapidly degenerate into a free-for-all that would prove worse than any pandemic’ (36).
‘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’ (32).
However the encyclical invites us to continue meditating on the painful lesson that the pandemic is teaching us.
‘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’ (33).
The encyclical employs some very important new expressions to describe this new culture of encounter. It would be a marvelous thing for us adults to learn these new expressions by teaching them to our children and youth. The encyclical says: ‘Recognizing that all people are our brothers and sisters, and seeking “forms of social friendship” that include everyone, is not merely utopian. It demands a decisive commitment to devising effective means to this end. Any effort along these lines becomes a “noble exercise of charity”. For whereas individuals can help others in need, when they join together in “initiating social processes of fraternity and justice for all”, they enter the “field of charity at its most vast, namely political charity”. This entails working for a social and political order whose soul is “social charity”. Once more, I appeal for a renewed appreciation of “politics as a lofty vocation and one of the highest forms of charity, inasmuch as it seeks the common good” (180).
‘Only by cultivating this way of relating to one another will we make possible a social friendship that excludes no one and a fraternity that is open to all’ (94).
In the Gospel Jesus says: ‘I was a stranger and you welcomed me’ (
Matthew 25： 35).
Jesus could speak those words because he had an open heart, sensitive to the difficulties of others. Saint Paul urges us to rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep’ (
Romans 12：15）
When our hearts do this, they are capable of identifying with others without worrying about where they were born or come from. In the process, we come to experience others as our “own flesh” (
Isaiah 58：7）(84)
If you feel that everything we have said sounds fine and important, then where should we start building better human relationships? I would like to suggest a very practical exercise that the encyclical explains in three articles, 222, 223, 224 on ‘Recovering Kindness’. We can all do it easily.
‘Often nowadays we find neither the time nor the energy to stop and be kind to others, to say “excuse me”, “pardon me”, “thank you”. Yet every now and then, miraculously, a kind person appears and is willing to set everything else aside in order to show interest, to give the gift of a smile, to speak a word of encouragement, to listen amid general indifference. If we make a daily effort to do exactly this, we can create a healthy social atmosphere in which misunderstandings can be overcome and conflict forestalled. Kindness ought to be cultivated; it is no superficial bourgeois virtue. Precisely because it entails esteem and respect for others, once kindness becomes a culture within society it transforms lifestyles, relationships and the ways ideas are discussed and compared. Kindness facilitates the quest for consensus; it opens new paths where hostility and conflict would burn all bridges’ (224).
(10) Religions at the service of Fraternity in our world *
Pope Francis leaves the last chapter of the encyclical ‘Fratelli Tutti’ to deal with a very practical and fundamental issue: what the world would be, if all religions worked together to create a new culture in today’s society?
Speaking for the Catholic Church, the Pope reaffirms the traditional position of the Church: ‘The Church, while respecting the autonomy of political life, does not restrict her mission to the private sphere. On the contrary, she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the building of a better world, or fail to reawaken the spiritual energy that can contribute to the betterment of society’ (276).
‘It is true that religious ministers must not engage in the party politics that are the proper domain of the laity, but neither can they renounce the political dimension of life itself, which involves a constant attention to the common good and a concern for integral human development. The Church has a public role over and above her charitable and educational activities. She works for the advancement of humanity and of universal fraternity’ (276).
A second question strictly linked to the previous one is: should we leave this very delicate and complicated issue to a group of experts from various Churches and religions?
Only a few decades ago, ecumenism for the unity of the many divided Christian Churches, and dialogue among different religions were considered exclusive topics to be discussed by experts. The general public had little to offer.
Today, after Vatican II, the general public plays a primary role. It is primarily the staunch hope, the increased knowledge, the fervent prayers and deep desire of the community of believers, who want to practice what they believe and pray for, that has become the clear sign that the Holy Spirit is at work.
‘Dialogue between the followers of different religions does not take place simply for the sake of diplomacy, consideration or tolerance. In the words of the Bishops of India, ‘the goal of dialogue is to establish friendship, peace and harmony, and to share spiritual and moral values and experiences in a spirit of truth and love’ (271).
‘From our faith experience and from the wisdom accumulated over centuries, but also from lessons learned from our many weaknesses and failures, we, the believers of the different religions, know that our witness to God benefits our societies. The effort to seek God with a sincere heart, provided it is never sullied by ideological or self-serving aims, helps us recognize one another as travelling companions, truly brothers and sisters’ (274).
Let us stop for a while and ask ourselves, do we really and deeply believe that ‘we, the believers of different religions know that our witness to God benefits our societies?’ If we are truly aware that our belief in God is our first important contribution to the building of a new and more humane culture in today’s society, then we will agree with the following words, ‘we want to be a Church that serves, that leaves home and goes forth from its places of worship, goes forth from its sacristies, in order to accompany life, to sustain hope, to be the sign of unity… to build bridges, to break down walls, to sow seeds of reconciliation’ (276).
*
And we would easily agree with the encyclical’s statement, ‘It is wrong when the only voices to be heard in public debate are those of the powerful and ‘experts’. Room needs to be made for reflections born of religious traditions that are the repository of centuries of experience and wisdom. For religious classics can prove meaningful in every age; they have an enduring power to open new horizons, to stimulate thought, to expand the mind and the heart. Yet often they are viewed with disdain as a result of the myopia of a certain rationalism’ (275).
‘As believers, we are convinced that, without an openness to the Father of all, there will be no solid and stable reasons for an appeal to fraternity. We are certain that only with this awareness that we are not orphans, but children, can we live in peace with one another. For reason, by itself, is capable of grasping the equality between men and of giving stability to their civic coexistence, but it cannot establish fraternity’ (272).
I like to add here a very personal and very simple experience I had in Italy for a few years during the war. I must have been eight or nine years old. We did not have much to eat. I remember that I heard from farmers telling us that after they had collected the crop of wheat, grapes, nuts etc., we were allowed in to glean the leftovers. I didn’t know then and nobody told me that gleaning had anything to do with religion. But I found gleaning a wonderful tradition. When, years later, I started reading the Bible, I found out that gleaning together with other similar traditions have their origin in the Bible. Religion is at the service of mankind.
‘When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, do not glean what is left; it shall be for the sojourner, the orphan, and the widow. Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt” (
Deuteronomy 24：21-22）
Another Bible story linked to gleaning is the book of Ruth. Ruth was a foreign young girl, who happened one day to glean leftovers of wheat in the fields of a rich Jewish man. This man later married Ruth. What is amazing is that the name of this foreign gleaner appears in the genealogy of the Messiah. (
Matthew 1：5）。
Indeed we can say that gleaning is part of that popular culture of encounter and Fraternity.
All I have tried to share with you so far is just gleaning from the beautiful encyclical ‘Fratelli Tutti’. You may want to go directly to the encyclical and read it through in its entirety. Wonderful. However the most important thing is that we start or continue carrying out in our daily life whatever we have been able to learn in these few gleanings. The best surprise for us will be when we will encounter people of different belief or even of no particular belief, who in their daily life truly make themselves a brother or a sister to each person they come across in their journeying. Let us continue walking together with all brothers and sisters learning from one another.
