The title is not mine; The Pope Francis said in his encyclical letter Dilexit of us for us “Rafaelita” October 24, 2024. The point is that “missing heart” and proof of that, and it is the thought of San Juan Paul II, is that In a society like ours, “runs the risk of losing their center, the center of itself” and that this same man “is often upset, divided, almost deprived of an internal principle that generates unity and harmony in their be and in his work »because he lacks a heart. It seems that for this same contemporary ours, lacking from the heart, the merely technological or instinctive is tremendously exasperating. Francisco is quite clear: it is clearly an “anti -orazón society” that is dominated by “narcissism and self -reference.” The slope tilted down and the absence of brakes can be such that “the other disappears from the horizon and we lock ourselves in our sameness without healthy relationships” (Byung-Chul Han, the agony of eros). It may be appropriate to remember that without heart there is no authentic link, “because a relationship that is not built with the heart is unable to overcome the fragmentation of individualism.” All the most we would get “two monads that come together but that do not really connect” (Dilexit us 17; hereinafter dn).
Now, is missing a believing heart? It is difficult and may be daring to issue an estimated judgment. Although, certain indications are not lacking and, as usually happens, they mainly have two soup.
One of the origin would be what we could call “self -sufficient moralism” (DN 27) or “a religiosity of mere fulfillment” (DN 114). The remedy, this was postulated by San Francisco de Sales himself, would be in “the full confidence in the mysterious action of his grace” whose source lies in the heart of Christ. It would be, in short, those “forms of spirituality too focused on human effort, on their own merit, in the offer of sacrifices, in certain compliance to ‘win the sky’.” Santa Teresa de Lisieux always had it clear: “Merit does not consist of doing much or giving much, but rather re receiving” (letter to Celina). “
The other of the origin would be in the vain attempt to develop a “spirituality without flesh” (DN 87). It seems that there are few “forms of religiosity without reference to a personal relationship with a God of love.” It is what throughout history has been relisting from different costumes such as “Jansenist dualism”, an inveterate “gnosticism” characterized by ignoring “the truth of ‘the salvation of the flesh” (dn 87) or a “misleading transcendentalism, equally disenchanted ». From this syndrome we are not exempt either communities or pastors – that Francisco refers to – when it seems that the only concern would be in “external activities”, “empty structural reforms of gospel”, “obsessive organizations”, “mundane projects” and “secularized reflections ». For these vericuetos the by -product would be rather «a Christianity that has forgotten the tenderness of faith, the joy of surrender to service, the fervor of the person person to person, the captivating beauty of Christ, the shuddering gratitude for the friendship that He offers and for the ultimate sense that gives to life itself ”(Dn 88). In short, the drama and the risk of a mission in “that many things are said and done but does not manage to cause the happy encounter with that love of Christ that embraces and saves” (Dn 208). In this – and so I conclude – there are more than policy questions: “Can you please the heart of Christ who loved us so much that we stay in an intimate religious experience, without fraternal and social consequences?” (DN 205).
