For if the first and foremost thing in Consecration [to the Sacred Heart] is this, that the creature’s love should be given in return for the love of the Creator, another thing follows from this at once, namely that to the same uncreated Love, if so be it has been neglected by forgetfulness or violated by offense, some sort of compensation must be rendered for the injury, and this debt is commonly called by the name of reparation.[1]
– Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, “On the reparation owed to the Sacred Heart of Jesus”
(LifeSiteNews) — Dilexit Nos, the new Vatican document on the Sacred Heart, has received mixed responses. Some Catholics have responded positively to a text which, at first glance, seems to promote a traditional Catholic devotion. Others have approached the document with suspicion, due to the previous words and actions of Francis.
In this article I will argue that far from promoting the traditional devotion of the Sacred Heart, Dilexit Nos presents a completely new devotion. This new devotion lacks essential elements of the devotion to the Sacred Heart as revealed by Our Lord Jesus Christ to St. Margaret Mary and as approved and promoted by a succession of Roman Pontiffs.
The new devotion is however well adapted to the new morality of Amoris Laetitia and Fiducia Supplicans.
In Amoris Laetitia, Francis presents a deviant form of morality, which eliminates the concept of intrinsic evil and the distinction between the state of grace and the state of mortal sin. The document also contains the blasphemous doctrine that God sometimes wills sin, including the sacrilegious reception of Holy Communion. This new morality is reinforced in Fiducia Supplicans, which has permitted the blessing of those who present themselves to a priest as a same-sex couple.
The new morality of Francis is incompatible with the traditional devotions of the Catholic Church. This is particularly noticeable in the case of the traditional devotion to the Sacred Heart, which was instituted by Our Lord principally to make reparation for sacrileges and indifferences against the Blessed Sacrament. The devotion emphasises the evil of sin and the offence it causes to the Divine Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who suffered and died to redeem us from our sins.
Consequently, in Dilexit Nos, Francis provides a new form of devotion which aligns with the new morality of Amoris Laetitia and Fiducia Supplicans. He cloaks this new devotion in some traditional language, in order to deceive the unwary, but an objective analysis reveals that the two devotions bear little resemblance to each other.
We will be able to see the extent of this divergence more clearly if we first revisit the revelations made to St. Margaret Mary and the teaching on the Sacred Heart proposed to the Catholic Church by the Successors of St Peter, who approved and propagated this devotion.
The revelation of the Sacred Heart to St. Margaret Mary
Over the centuries, many saints and spiritual writers have spoken of the graces which flow from the heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is both human and divine. But the devotion to the Sacred Heart as we know it today originates in revelations made by Our Lord to St Margaret Mary between 1673 and 1675. The authenticity of these revelations was accepted by the Catholic Church, and a succession of popes have promoted the devotion.
The Feast of the Sacred Heart, requested by Our Lord in the revelations, was first celebrated in France, with the approval of local Ordinaries, in the 1670s. It was extended further by permission of Pope Clement XIII in 1765 and it was extended to the universal Church by Pope Pius IX in 1856.
On 17 March 1918, Pope Benedict XV approved the canonisation of St Margaret Mary. He decreed:
[T]he pious daughter of St. Francis of Sales received from Jesus Himself the mission of making known the riches of His Divine Heart that men might come to it as a fount of grace and model of virtue… the historian may say today her story is completed; the theologian and canonist have carried their researches and examinations to the full length; from the hands of even the most critical the arms have fallen . . . there can be no room for delay in recognizing the universal character of her apostolate.[2]
The popes have taught authoritatively about the meaning and character of this devotion in a number of encyclical letters, particularly Annum Sacrum of Pope Leo XIII, Miserentissimus Redemptor and Caritate Christi Compulsi of Pope Pius XI, and Haurietis Aquas of Pope Pius XII.
The ends of the devotion: the salvation and sanctification of souls
In the first revelation, made to St. Margaret Mary on 27 December 1673, Our Lord expressed His great love for mankind:
My Divine Heart is so passionately in love with men that it can no longer contain within itself the flames of its ardent charity. It must pour them out by thy means, and manifest itself to them to enrich them with its precious treasures, which contain all the graces of which they have need to be saved from perdition.[3]
Because He so loved mankind, he wished to establish a new form of devotion to His Sacred Heart, for the salvation and sanctification of mankind.
St. Margaret Mary wrote the following of the intention of the Sacred Heart:
It wishes only to establish its reign among us, in order to grant us more abundantly its precious graces of sanctification and salvation.[4]
For:
By this means He desires to restore life to many; and, by withdrawing them from the way of perdition, and destroying the empire of Satan in their heart, to establish in them that of His love.[5]
The origin of this devotion is the infinite love of God, and its purpose is that souls be saved from eternal suffering in Hell and instead be made holy and enter into everlasting bliss.
Pope Leo XIII taught that the Sacred Heart is “a symbol and a sensible image of the infinite love of Jesus Christ.[6] Pope Pius XII expanded on this, teaching that “His Heart, more than all the other members of His body, is the natural sign and symbol of His boundless love for the human race.”[7]
Pope Pius XI drew attention to the relationship between God’s infinite love for man, and the infinite horror of the sins by which man offends him. Christ’s Vicar taught:
And this indeed was the purpose of the merciful Jesus, when He showed His Heart to us bearing about it the symbols of the passion and displaying the flames of love, that from the one we might know the infinite malice of sin, and in the other we might admire the infinite charity of Our Redeemer, and so might have a more vehement hatred of sin, and make a more ardent return of love for His love.[8]
Pope Leo XIII presented the devotion to the Sacred Heart as a means of salvation and sanctification for the whole human race. Those in the state of grace, “in whose hearts are the knowledge and love of Jesus Christ” will “feel that faith and love increased,” while those in mortal sin “may still gain from His Sacred Heart the flame of charity.”[9] And for those outside the Church, the pope hopes that God, answering prayers made to the Sacred Heart, and “by giving them faith and holiness” will enable them to “win everlasting happiness in heaven.”[10]
Pope Pius XI reiterates the teaching of Leo XIII and emphasises the fruits of holiness that flow to those who practice the devotion of the Sacred Heart, particularly “a more vehement endeavor to expiate their own faults and those of others, to repair the honor of Christ, and to promote the eternal salvation of souls.”[11]
The practice of the devotion leads to the sanctification of those who practice it:
[I]f any one will lovingly dwell on those things of which we have been speaking, and will have them deeply fixed in his mind, it cannot be but he will shrink with horror from all sin as from the greatest evil, and more than this he will yield himself wholly to the will of God, and will strive to repair the injured honor of the Divine Majesty, as well by constantly praying, as by voluntary mortifications, by patiently bearing the afflictions that befall him, and lastly by spending his whole life in this exercise of expiation.[12]
And as a result of the devotion:
[T]he just shall be justified and shall be sanctified still (Cf. Apoc. xxii. 11) and they will devote themselves wholly and with new ardor to the service of their King, when they see Him condemned and attacked and assailed with so many and such great insults, but more than all will they burn with zeal for the eternal salvation of souls when they have pondered on the complaint of the Divine Victim.[13]
The Supreme Pontiff continues:
There is surely no reason for doubting, Venerable Brethren, that from this devotion piously established and commanded to the whole Church, many excellent benefits will flow forth not only to individual men but also to society, sacred, civil, and domestic, seeing that our Redeemer Himself promised to Margaret Mary that ‘all those who rendered this honor to His Heart would be endowed with an abundance of heavenly graces.'[14]
The devotion of the Sacred Heart, which flows from the infinite love of Jesus Christ, has as its end the salvation and sanctification of souls, as Pope Leo XIII expressed it so beautifully:
Now, today, behold another blessed and heavenly token is offered to our sight – the most Sacred Heart of Jesus, with a cross rising from it and shining forth with dazzling splendor amidst flames of love. In that Sacred Heart all our hopes should be placed, and from it the salvation of men is to be confidently besought.[15]
But in what kind of acts does this devotion primarily consist?
Our Lord suffers due to man’s ingratitude and sacrileges against the Blessed Sacrament
For many centuries Catholics have been moved to prayer, repentance, and reparation by these words of Our Lord to St. Margaret Mary:
Behold this Heart which has so loved men that it has spared nothing, even to exhausting and consuming itself, in order to testify its love. In return, I receive from the greater part only ingratitude, by their irreverence and sacrilege, and by the coldness and contempt they have for Me in this sacrament of love.[16]
God loves mankind so much that he has given us His own Body and Blood, in the “sacrament of love.” But mankind offends Him and wounds Him deeply by rejecting this gift through ingratitude, irreverence and, worst of all, sacrilege. The most common form of sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament is to receive Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin.
Our Lord told St. Margaret Mary:
This [sacrilege and indifference] is much more painful to Me than all I suffered in My Passion. If men rendered Me some return of love, I should esteem little all I have done for them, and should wish, if such could be, to suffer it over again; but they meet My eager love with coldness and rebuffs.[17]
Consequently, it is necessary for mankind to make reparation to God for the offences committed against His Sacred Heart, and especially those offences against the Blessed Sacrament, including unworthy Communions. By making this reparation, man atones for his own sins and those of others, and is made holy by God, who pours out his abundant love through the practice of this devotion.
It was to bring about the spirit of reparation that Our Lord asked that His Church to institute a specific feast in honor of His Sacred Heart:
It is for this reason I ask thee that the first Friday after the octave of the Blessed Sacrament be appropriated to a special feast, to honor My Heart by communicating on that day, and making reparation for the indignity that has received. And I promise that My Heart shall dilate to pour out abundantly the influences of its love on all that will render it this honor or procure its being rendered.[18]
In a further revelation, Our Lord made twelve promises to those who those would make reparation to His Sacred Heart on the First Friday of each month, and he made a specific promise to those who received Holy Communion on the First Friday of every month:
I promise you in the excessive mercy of My Heart that Its all-powerful love will grant to all those who receive Holy Communion on the nine first Fridays of the month, consecutively, the grace of final repentance; they will not die under My displeasure or without receiving their Sacraments, My Divine Heart making Itself their assured refuge at the last moment.
The need for reparation is repeated and expounded by the Roman Pontiffs in their encyclical letters. Indeed, the encyclical Miserentissimus Redemptor of Pope Pius XI was promulgated with the official subtitle “On the Reparation due to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.”
The Vicar of Christ begins, in the opening paragraph, by acknowledging “those complaints which the most loving Jesus made when He manifested Himself to Margaret Mary Alacoque” and thus, as Supreme Pontiff, he wishes to teach “concerning the duty of honorable satisfaction which we all owe to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.”[19]
This reparation is the core of the devotion to the Sacred Heart:
For if the first and foremost thing in Consecration [to the Sacred Heart] is this, that the creature’s love should be given in return for the love of the Creator, another thing follows from this at once, namely that to the same uncreated Love, if so be it has been neglected by forgetfulness or violated by offense, some sort of compensation must be rendered for the injury, and this debt is commonly called by the name of reparation.[20]
Pius XI teaches that “truly the spirit of expiation or reparation has always had the first and foremost place in the worship given to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus” and that “nothing is more in keeping with the origin, the character, the power, and the distinctive practices of this form of devotion, as appears from the record of history and custom, as well as from the sacred liturgy and the acts of the Sovereign Pontiffs.”[21]
The Supreme Pontiff then explained why this is so:
For when Christ manifested Himself to Margaret Mary, and declared to her the infinitude of His love, at the same time, in the manner of a mourner, He complained that so many and such great injuries were done to Him by ungrateful men — and we would that these words in which He made this complaint were fixed in the minds of the faithful, and were never blotted out by oblivion: “Behold this Heart” — He said — “which has loved men so much and has loaded them with all benefits, and for this boundless love has had no return but neglect, and contumely, and this often from those who were bound by a debt and duty of a more special love.”
Our Lord has provided us with means by which “these faults might be washed away”:
He then recommended several things to be done, and in particular the following as most pleasing to Himself, namely that men should approach the Altar with this purpose of expiating sin, making what is called a Communion of Reparation, – and that they should likewise make expiatory supplications and prayers, prolonged for a whole hour, – which is rightly called the ‘Holy Hour.’ These pious exercises have been approved by the Church and have also been enriched with copious indulgences.[22]
The pope taught that such reparation for sin is a duty:
[W]e are holden to the duty of reparation and expiation by a certain more valid title of justice and of love, of justice indeed, in order that the offense offered to God by our sins may be expiated and that the violated order may be repaired by penance: and of love too so that we may suffer together with Christ suffering and ‘filled with reproaches’ (Lam. iii, 30), and for all our poverty may offer Him some little solace. For since we are all sinners and laden with many faults, our God must be honored by us not only by that worship wherewith we adore His infinite Majesty with due homage, or acknowledge His supreme dominion by praying, or praise His boundless bounty by thanksgiving; but besides this we must need make satisfaction to God the just avenger, ‘for our numberless sins and offenses and negligences.’
To Consecration, therefore, whereby we are devoted to God and are called holy to God, by that holiness and stability which, as the Angelic Doctor teaches, is proper to consecration (2a. 2ae. qu. 81, a. 8. c.), there must be added expiation, whereby sins are wholly blotted out, lest the holiness of the supreme justice may punish our shameless unworthiness, and reject our offering as hateful rather than accept it as pleasing.
Moreover this duty of expiation is laid upon the whole race of men since, as we are taught by the Christian faith, after Adam’s miserable fall, infected by hereditary stain, subject to concupiscences and most wretchedly depraved, it would have been thrust down into eternal destruction. This indeed is denied by the wise men of this age of ours, who following the ancient error of Pelagius, ascribe to human nature a certain native virtue by which of its own force it can go onward to higher things; but the Apostle rejects these false opinions of human pride, admonishing us that we ‘were by nature children of wrath’ (Ephesians ii, 3). And indeed, even from the beginning, men in a manner acknowledged this common debt of expiation and, led by a certain natural instinct, they endeavored to appease God by public sacrifices.[23]
Through reparation we console Our Lord:
And so even now, in a wondrous yet true manner, we can and ought to console that Most Sacred Heart which is continually wounded by the sins of thankless men, since – as we also read in the sacred liturgy – Christ Himself, by the mouth of the Psalmist complains that He is forsaken by His friends: ‘My Heart hath expected reproach and misery, and I looked for one that would grieve together with me, but there was none: and for one that would comfort me, and I found none.'[24]
Pius XI draws a direct connection between consolation and reparation. This is important to note, because as we will see shortly, Francis explicitly separates them. Pius XI writes:
Now if, because of our sins also which were as yet in the future, but were foreseen, the soul of Christ became sorrowful unto death, it cannot be doubted that then, too, already He derived somewhat of solace from our reparation, which was likewise foreseen, when ‘there appeared to Him an angel from heaven’ (Luke xxii, 43), in order that His Heart, oppressed with weariness and anguish, might find consolation.[25]
This devotion of reparation is, teaches the Holy Father, of great necessity in our age:
Now, how great is the necessity of this expiation or reparation, more especially in this our age, will be manifest to every one who, as we said at the outset, will examine the world, ‘seated in wickedness’ (1 John v, 19), with his eyes and with his mind. For from all sides the cry of the peoples who are mourning comes up to us, and their princes or rulers have indeed stood up and met together in one against the Lord and against His Church (Cf. Psalm ii, 2).
Throughout those regions indeed, we see that all rights both human and Divine are confounded. Churches are thrown down and overturned, religious men and sacred virgins are torn from their homes and are afflicted with abuse, with barbarities, with hunger and imprisonment; bands of boys and girls are snatched from the bosom of their mother the Church, and are induced to renounce Christ, to blaspheme and to attempt the worst crimes of lust; the whole Christian people, sadly disheartened and disrupted, are continually in danger of falling away from the faith, or of suffering the most cruel death.
These things in truth are so sad that you might say that such events foreshadow and portend the ‘beginning of sorrows,’ that is to say of those that shall be brought by the man of sin, ‘who is lifted up above all that is called God or is worshipped’ (2 Thessalonians ii, 4).[26]
In Haurietis Aquas, Pope Pius XII reiterates that reparation to God for sins against his infinite majesty is the core practice of the devotion:
The Church, the teacher of men, has therefore always been convinced from the time she first published official documents concerning the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus that its essential elements, [are] namely, acts of love and reparation by which God’s infinite love for the human race is honored.[27]
And he teaches that:
[T]he real meaning of the devotion which had had such extensive developments to the great edification of the faithful should be established and be distinguished from other forms of Christian piety by the special qualities of love and reparation.[28]
I make no apologies for quoting so extensively from papal teaching. It is necessary to establish the authentic teaching of the popes on the devotion to the Sacred Heart, so that the novelty of the doctrine of Francis can be more clearly seen.
Summary of the revelations of the Sacred Heart and of papal teaching on this devotion
In the revelations of the Sacred Heart, two key elements can be discerned:
- The devotion of the Sacred Heart manifests the overflowing abundance of God’s infinite love for mankind, and has its end the salvation and sanctification of souls
- The Divine Heart of Jesus is wounded by ingratitude and sin, and especially sacrileges against the Holy Eucharist, and therefore the core practice of the devotion is to make reparation for these outrages.
The true devotion is grounded on the one hand, in the evil of sin and sacrilege and, on the other hand, the overflowing abundance of God’s love and mercy.
The devotion to the Sacred Heart brings together both elements, on the one hand it powerfully, and visually, manifests the extent of God’s love, and on the other, it moves souls to recognise the great evil of sin and be moved to repentance.
If any of these elements is removed, the character of the devotion will be radically changed. And as we will now see, in Dilexit Nos the evil of sin and of sacrilege is completely removed from consideration.
The new ‘Social Heart’ does not save, because there is nothing save mankind from
In Dilexit Nos, Francis, presents his new devotion as being rooted in the love of God, but here the similarity between the two devotions ends.
As we have seen, the traditional devotion presents the Sacred Heart of Jesus as burning with love for mankind and desiring to be united with men and women in a supernatural manner, in order to deliver them from eternal death and to make them holy.
In Dilexit Nos, the possibility of man’s eternal separation from God is entirely absent. The text is more than 31,000 words long, but there are no references to the possibility of eternal death, or hell, or eternal suffering, or any related concept.
Given that the devotion to the Sacred Heart was established by the Divine Savior expressly in order that men could be “saved from perdition,” this omission might seem extraordinary.
The explanation for it however seems to be quite clear. Francis publicly rejects the teaching of the Catholic Church on the eternity of punishment.
In a recent statement, Francis as said, “What I would say is not a dogma of faith, but my personal thought: I like to think hell is empty; I hope it is.”
This statement is clearly erroneous. It is a dogma of the faith that Satan and his rebel angels will be punished in hell eternally. And while all Catholics must desire that as few human beings as possible will go to hell, we know from the words of Our Lord in the inerrant scriptures that there are indeed many souls suffering eternal punishment, and that Judas is amongst them (Mt 7:13-14; 26:23-25, Acts 1:25).
In one of his official texts, Francis has gone even further. In Amoris Laetitia he wrote:
No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves.[29]
This statement in Amoris Laetitia is clearly heretical. It directly contradicts the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church on the eternity of punishment for those who die in the state of mortal or actual sin.
This statement echoes words attributed to Francis in 2015 by prominent Italian journalist and editor Eugenio Scalfari, who wrote that Francis told him in conversation that there was no eternal punishment, and that the souls of the damned were instead annihilated. Despite the heretical nature of this assertion, the Vatican press office refused to confirm that Francis adhered to Catholic teaching on the eternity of hell for those who die in mortal or actual sin.
The above statement from Amoris Laetitia, a year later, confirmed suspicions that Francis denies of the eternity of Hell. In light of his apparent acceptance of this false doctrine, in whatever form he actually holds it, it should be no surprise that he completely eliminates reference to eternal punishment from discussion of the devotion to the Sacred Heart. But in doing so, he completely changes the character of the devotion.
What does Dilexit Nos teach about sin?
Francis’s moral doctrine which he has been presented in Amoris Laetitia, has been comprehensively analysed elsewhere. (For an analysis of seven heresies present in the text, see here).
It is well known that Amoris Laetitia permits the reception of Holy Communion by those committing adultery who have no intention of amending their lives. That this interpretation of the document – which is plain enough from the text – is correct was confirmed officially by Francis in his letter to the bishops of Argentina.
Underlying this violation of the practice of the Church are the following errors: the elimination of the distinction between the state of grace and the state of mortal sin, the elimination of the concept of intrinsic evil, the denial that God gives sufficient grace so that man can always avoid sin, and the blasphemous assertion that God sometimes wills sin.
The moral doctrine presented in Amoris Laetitia is therefore incompatible with the traditional devotion to the Sacred Heart explored above, as we can see by comparing a few propositions:
Traditional devotion: Sin is an infinite offence against God
Teaching of Francis: God sometimes wills sin[30]
Traditional devotion: God is particularly offended by ingratitude, irreverence and sacrilege towards the Blessed Sacrament
Teaching of Francis: The reception of Holy Communion by souls in mortal sin is permitted
Traditional devotion: Man must make reparation to the Sacred Heart for these offences
Teaching of Francis: ?
It must be clear to everyone, that the traditional devotion to the Sacred Heart is not compatible with the moral doctrine of Amoris Laetitia. Under the new morality of Amoris Laetitia, Our Lord cannot be offended by sacrilege, because such sacrilege is permitted, promoted, and sometimes willed by God Himself. Therefore, Francis cannot propose the traditional devotion to the Sacred Heart. To do so would undermine his own program.
Therefore, we find that Francis presents a new form of reparation which replaces reparation for offenses against the Blessed Sacrament, with a form of reparation aimed at repairing injury to human social structures.
The separation of consolation and reparation
We saw above that Pope Pius XI taught that consolation of Our Lord for His sufferings borne on behalf of mankind, and reparation for sin are inseparably united:
Now if, because of our sins also which were as yet in the future, but were foreseen, the soul of Christ became sorrowful unto death, it cannot be doubted that then, too, already He derived somewhat of solace from our reparation, which was likewise foreseen, when ‘there appeared to Him an angel from heaven’ (Luke xxii, 43), in order that His Heart, oppressed with weariness and anguish, might find consolation.[31]
In other words, it is our reparation which gives consolation to the Sacred Heart.
But Francis deliberately separates them and treats of them in two different sections. He is quite explicit in his statement. In paragraph 152 he writes that:
It is fitting to recover one particular aspect of the spirituality that has accompanied devotion to the heart of Christ, namely, the interior desire to offer consolation to that heart. Here I will not discuss the practice of ‘reparation,’ which I deem better suited to the social dimension of this devotion to be discussed in the next chapter.[32]
The reason why reparation now needs to be treated as part of the “social dimension” should be clear by now: the traditional devotion of the Sacred Heart is completely incompatible with Francis’s moral doctrine as proposed in Amoris Laetitia.
Hence, in the new devotion man, not God, is wounded by our sins, and man is the principal object of reparation, not the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
Francis dedicates a whole section of the document to “the proper meaning of the ‘reparation’ to the heart of Christ that the Lord expects us.”[33] For Francis the “proper meaning” is found in the “social significance of reparation.” Building “a new civilization of love” is “what it means to make reparation as the heart of Christ would have us do.”[34]
In paragraphs 183 and 184 all sin is recast as “social sin” and a cause of “social alienation.”[35] The emphasis is on the need “to expose and resist these alienated social structures and to support efforts within society to restore and consolidate the common good.”[36] The reparation that is required is to “repair these structures.”[37] Our “evangelical reparation” possesses a “vital social dimension” and is no longer reparation to Christ, but service to humanity merely “inspired, motivated and empowered by Christ.”[38] And this must be so because the “external works” for society in which “Christian reparation” consists “need a ‘mystique,’ a soul, a meaning that grants them strength, drive and tireless creativity.”[39]
Paragraphs 185-190 focus on making reparation to each other, for the harm sins cause each other, rather than reparation to God. The end of this human social reparation is “fraternity and solidarity.”[40]
Paragraphs 190 to 199 consist of a set of paragraphs that seek to combine traditional concepts of self-sacrifice with the new form of social reparation. This leads to the following proposal in paragraph 200:
I propose that we develop this means of reparation, which is, in a word, to offer the heart of Christ a new possibility of spreading in this world the flames of his ardent and gracious love.[41]
Reparation then becomes about spreading the love of God in the world, which some readers will find appealing. But what in fact does Francis mean?
It soon becomes clear that this is not supernatural charity; this is not missionary activity motivated by the desire for the salvation and sanctification of souls. Rather, it is simply Francis’s tired naturalistic political agenda clothed in some traditional language.
Indeed, one doesn’t need to look too far to see Francis’s dismissive attitude towards the Catholic religion and its traditional practices. He dismisses missionary work in which time is “wasted discussing secondary questions or concentrating on truths and rules.” On the contrary he holds that for a true missionary “their greatest concern is to share what they have experienced.”[42] For missionary work “has nothing to do with proselytism,” it should not “disturb others” and it does “not make demands or oblige.”[43]
Francis also mocks those who, he alleges, regard the “Christian message” as “simply as a refuge for pious thoughts or an occasion for impressive ceremonies.”[44] He implies that those who “rest content with an individual relationship with him” are also those who “show no interest in relieving the sufferings of others or helping them to live a better life.”[45] The Church, Francis fears, is in danger from “outdated structures and concerns, excessive attachment to our own ideas and opinions, and fanaticism in any number of forms.”[46]
In his conclusion to the document Francis emphasizes the connection between the love of Christ with the “teaching of the social Encyclicals Laudato Si’ and Fratelli Tutti” and the goal of becoming “capable of forging bonds of fraternity, of recognizing the dignity of each human being, and of working together to care for our common home.”
Francis’ views of missionary work are diametrically opposed to the Great Commission given to the Church by its Divine Founder Jesus Christ:
And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Mt 28:18-20)
And
And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. (Mk 16: 15-16)
There is no reconciliation between the doctrine of the Catholic Church and the doctrine of Francis, they are utterly opposed to each other.
Is the Sacred Heart presented by Francis anything more than a symbol of humanity?
In paragraph 31 of Dilexit Nos we read:
In the end, that Sacred Heart is the unifying principle of all reality, since ‘Christ is the heart of the world, and the paschal mystery of his death and resurrection is the centre of history, which, because of him, is a history of salvation.’ All creatures ‘are moving forward with us and through us towards a common point of arrival, which is God, in that transcendent fullness where the risen Christ embraces and illumines all things.’
For those familiar with the theories of Teilhard de Chardin, the meaning of this passage will be abundantly clear.
Teilhard de Chardin regarded humanity as being in process of evolution towards what he called the “Omega Point,” which he identified with Christ. For De Chardin, Jesus Christ, as proposed to us by the Church, did not actually exist. He simply symbolized humanity and served as a symbol of the final stage of human evolution.
In Dilexit Nos Francis identifies the Sacred Heart as the “Omega Point” towards which humanity is moving. That Francis intends this paragraph to be understood in the light of de Chardin’s theories is made explicit by the second quotation, which is taken from paragraph 83 of Laudato Si, which references “the contribution of Fr Teilhard de Chardin” in footnote 53.
In the light of Francis’s association of the Sacred Heart with de Chardin’s “Omega Point,” we must ask whether Francis really believes in Jesus Christ at all, or whether for him the “Sacred Heart” is simply a symbol for the collective human heart, and the culmination of the progress of humanity through time.
The rest of paragraph 31 of Dilexit Nos reads:
In the presence of the heart of Christ, I once more ask the Lord to have mercy on this suffering world in which he chose to dwell as one of us. May he pour out the treasures of his light and love, so that our world, which presses forward despite wars, socio-economic disparities and uses of technology that threaten our humanity, may regain the most important and necessary thing of all: its heart.
Here we see a conflation of the heart of Christ with the human heart. The prayer is not that humanity may regain union with God but that it regains its purely human heart. Man is the beginning and end of Dilexit Nos. God is, at best, an instrument for achieving a purely natural human good.
These themes will be further addressed in a future article.
Christ must reign
What precisely Francis actually believes about the divine nature of Lord Jesus Christ cannot be resolved with certainty here. But we can establish beyond doubt that Dilexit Nos, with its subversion of the traditional doctrine of supernatural reparation, presents a new devotion of a new social reparation, which is not compatible with the revelations made to St. Margaret Mary or with the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church.
This true Church of Christ does not deal in ambiguities. St Margaret Mary wrote that the Sacred Heart wishes “to establish its reign among us” with the end of “destroying the empire of Satan.”[47]
Pope Leo XIII taught that the devotion of the Sacred Heart was a “solemn testimony of allegiance and piety” to “Jesus Christ, who is the Head and Supreme Lord of the race.”[48]
The “Empire of Jesus Christ,” he teaches, extends “not only over Catholic nations and those who, having been duly washed in the waters of holy baptism, belong of right to the Church, although erroneous opinions keep them astray, or dissent from her teaching cuts them off from her care; it comprises also all those who are deprived of the Christian faith, so that the whole human race is most truly under the power of Jesus Christ.”[49]
“All power has been given to Christ” and thus “it follows of necessity that His empire must be supreme, absolute and independent of the will of any other, so that none is either equal or like unto it: and since it has been given in heaven and on earth it ought to have heaven and earth obedient to it.”
This same Jesus Christ, Creator and King, suffered and died on the Cross for our sins. As Leo XIII reminds us in the words of St. Augustine:
‘You ask what price He paid? See what He gave and you will understand how much He paid. The price was the blood of Christ. What could cost so much but the whole world, and all its people? The great price He paid was paid for all.'[50]
The Sacred Heart is a symbol of the infinite and undying love of the God who poured out His blood for the salvation of mankind. Contemplation of this Sacred Heart also brings us to understand the horror of sin, and especially of the sacrilegious reception of the Blessed Sacrament, which Our Lord tells us wounds Him so deeply.
It is this very sacrilege which is promoted by Francis.
The Sacred Heart of Jesus, as proposed for our worship by the Catholic Church, is a source of salvation and sanctification for all mankind. It is a means of making reparation for our collective offences against his infinite love.
The “Social Heart of Francis” is a naturalistic “devotion,” which turns our attention away from God, and towards human political agendas. It provides a new devotion, for those who accept his new morality.
It is as impossible to find salvation in the “Social Heart of Francis” as it is to find holiness in the moral doctrine of Amoris Laetitia.
Many men and women will be deceived, many will continue to defend the indefensible, many will follow Francis as he leads them down the wide path that leads to eternal death, but be assured:
It will reign, this amiable Heart, in spite of Satan, his imps and his agents.[51]
References
↑1 | Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, No. 6. |
---|---|
↑2 | St Margaret Mary Alacoque, Autobiography of St Margaret Mary Alacoque, (English translation, 1930), Preface to the English Edition. |
↑3 | Mgr Bougaud, Revelation of the Sacred Heart to Blessed Margaret Mary and the History of her Life, (English translation, New York, 1890), p164. |
↑4, ↑5 | Autobiography, p267. |
↑6 | Pope Leo XIII, Annum Sacrum, No. 8. |
↑7 | Pope Pius XII, Haurietis Aquas, No. 22. |
↑8 | Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, No. 11. |
↑9 | Pope Leo XIII, Annum Sacrum, No. 3. |
↑10 | Pope Leo XIII, Annum Sacrum, No. 9. |
↑11 | Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, No. 3 |
↑12 | Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, No. 18. |
↑13, ↑14 | Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, No. 21. |
↑15 | Pope Leo XIII, Annum Sacrum, No. 12. |
↑16 | Revelation of the Sacred Heart, p76. |
↑17 | Revelation of the Sacred Heart, p169. |
↑18 | Revelation of the Sacred Heart, p76. |
↑19 | Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, No. 1. |
↑20 | Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, No. 6. |
↑21 | Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, No. 12. |
↑22 | Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, No. 12. |
↑23 | Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, No. 7 and 8. |
↑24 | Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, No. 13. |
↑25, ↑31 | Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, No. 13. |
↑26 | Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, No. 15. |
↑27 | Pope Pius XII, Haurietis Aquas, No. 101. |
↑28 | Pope Pius XII, Haurietis Aquas, No. 95. |
↑29 | Francis, Amoris Laetitia, No. 297. |
↑30 | See Amoris Laetitia, Nos 301, 303. |
↑32 | Francis, Dilexit Nos, No. 152. |
↑33 | Francis, Dilexit Nos, No. 181. |
↑34 | Francis, Dilexit Nos, No. 182. |
↑35, ↑36, ↑37 | Francis, Dilexit Nos, No. 183. |
↑38, ↑39 | Francis, Dilexit Nos, No. 184. |
↑40 | Francis, Dilexit Nos, No. 190. |
↑41 | Francis, Dilexit Nos, No. 200. |
↑42 | Francis, Dilexit Nos, No. 209. |
↑43 | Francis, Dilexit Nos, No. 210. |
↑44, ↑45 | Francis, Dilexit Nos, No. 205. |
↑46 | Francis, Dilexit Nos, No. 219. |
↑47, ↑51 | Autobiography of St Margaret Mary Alacoque, p267. |
↑48 | Pope Leo XIII, Annum Sacrum, No. 3. |
↑49 | Pope Leo XIII, Annum Sacrum, No. 3. |
↑50 | Pope Leo XIII, Annum Sacrum, No. 5. |