Dilexit Nos: Dangerous silence and other concerns with Pope Francis’ latest encyclical

Modernists like Pope Francis cannot allow us to pursue a path of reparation and holiness, so what does he do?

As a traditional orthodox Catholic, I sometimes feel like the boy with the abusive, alcoholic, emotionally absent father who so badly wants to brag along when the other boys sing the praises of their fathers, but never have anything to boast about.

Every so often, in a moment of sobriety or guilt, the father might do something that is vaguely commendable in the boy's eyes, but his praise of his father has hardly passed his lips, and his father disappoints him again.

Ok, as usual, my analogy might be limping but allow me to explain.

As a convert to the Faith, who was received into the Church during Pope Francis’ pontificate, I very quickly started feeling cheated. The Catholicism I found on my entry into Mother Church, versus the Catholicism of the great works that I read on my journey into the Faith, were two vastly different things. Yet, I was so profoundly convinced of the Truth I found in Catholicism that I was willing to settle for the meager scrapes that passed as Catholicism in the Novus Ordo parishes I attended.

As my knowledge of the Faith grew, so did my disappointment with Pope Francis. I so badly wanted to have warm fuzzy feelings about him. I wanted him to be my pope. I wanted him to be a hero of the faith, a saint in the making, and a defender of orthodoxy.

I hardly have to state the obvious at this point.

Like the little boy, who so badly wants to believe in his father’s goodness and wants to raise him on a pedestal, I guess I secretly harbor similar impossible hopes and dreams about Pope Francis. I am always looking for a sliver of hope in his writings, homilies, interviews, and the like. I am sadly always disappointed. And lately, as everyone surely knows by now, it seems like the Holy Father’s descent into heterodoxy (and possibly heresy), has become so glaringly obvious that it is hard not to be tempted by sedevacantism.

The other highly frustrating characteristic of Pope Francis’ pontificate is his (purposeful?) ambiguity, which is a trademark of relativism and Modernism and has often marred the little coming from him that is Catholic, orthodox, and traditional.

But, hope against hope, I was faintly excited when at least two trusted news outlets that I follow (both very orthodox and traditional) didn’t have anything outright negative to say about Pope Francis’ latest encyclical Dilexit Nos (“He loved us”) and decided to immediately read it.

The new encyclical, dedicated to “the human and divine love of the Heart of Jesus Christ,” is a document weaved around the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which Jesus gave during apparitions to French nun Margaret Mary Alacoque between December 1673 and June 1675.

I must be honest. On first reading the lengthy document (around 30,000 words) I was impressed by its often poetic yet simple language, but more so with what seemed at first glance like straightforward orthodoxy. A lot of the paragraphs can serve as standalone pieces for meditations, and I did find a lot of the Christology touching.

What was initially especially encouraging was Pope Francis’ references to previous Magisterial texts by Leo XIII, Pius XI, Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI and saints such as St Therese of the Child Jesus and St Francis de Sales. That was until I took a closer look.

Some of the 220 paragraphs, to mention but a few, that resonated with me included:

 “19. The heart is also capable of unifying and harmonizing our personal history, which may seem hopelessly fragmented, yet is the place where everything can make sense. The Gospel tells us this in speaking of Our Lady, who saw things with the heart. She was able to dialogue with the things she experienced by pondering them in her heart, treasuring their memory and viewing them in a greater perspective... what Mary “kept” was not only her memory of what she had seen and heard, but also those aspects of it that she did not yet understand; these nonetheless remained present and alive in her memory, waiting to be “put together” in her heart”,

 and

 “25. Where the thinking of the philosopher halts, there the heart of the believer presses on in love and adoration, in pleading for forgiveness and in willingness to serve in whatever place the Lord allows us to choose, in order to follow in his footsteps. At that point, we realize that in God’s eyes we are a “Thou”, and for that very reason we can be an “I”. Indeed, only the Lord offers to treat each one of us as a “Thou”, always and forever. Accepting his friendship is a matter of the heart; it is what constitutes us as persons in the fullest sense of that word”,

and

“46. At first glance, all this may smack of pious sentimentalism. Yet it is supremely serious and of decisive importance, and finds its most sublime expression in Christ crucified. The cross is Jesus’ most eloquent word of love. A word that is not shallow, sentimental or merely edifying. It is love, sheer love. That is why Saint Paul, struggling to find the right words to describe his relationship with Christ, could speak of “the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me” (Gal 2:20). This was Paul’s deepest conviction: the knowledge that he was loved. Christ’s self-offering on the cross became the driving force in Paul’s life, yet it only made sense to him because he knew that something even greater lay behind it: the fact that “He loved me”. At a time when many were seeking salvation, prosperity or security elsewhere, Paul, moved by the Spirit, was able to see farther and to marvel at the greatest and most essential thing of all: “Christ loved me””.

There are many more nuggets like these that I could cite here, but I would encourage the reader to explore the encyclical for themselves. The problem with the encyclical is not only with some of what Pope Francis says but often with what he fails to say.

It was only when I delved a bit deeper and consulted more commentary on the encyclical, that some disturbing concerns started to arise. (My criticism here is heavily informed by, but not limited to, the critique of The Catholic Esquire in his video “Dismantling the Sacred Heart: 3 Major Problems with Dilexit Nos”.)

The three problems The Catholic Esquire (henceforth referred to as CE) points out are as follows:

1.       Demythologising the initial apparition of Christ to St Margaret Mary Alacoque.

2.       The encyclical’s avoidance of the Social Kingship of Christ, which is closely connected to the devotion as seen in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Annum scarum. According to Pope Leo XIII the Sacred Heart devotion was going to be a powerful weapon in the fight to win back a society which has rejected God.

3.       The way Dilexit Nos undermines the purpose of devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus which is repentance, reparation, and making expiation for sin. The encyclical does this, especially in the way it redefines and waters down reparation and downplays the importance of the instructions of Jesus to the French nun. The encyclical also completely fails to even mention the 12 promises made to those who follow the devotion in the prescribed (read traditional) way.

Here are some examples from the encyclical that are problematic.

In paragraphs 84 and 85  respectively, Pope Francis says ”The promotion of Eucharistic communion on the first Friday of each month, for example, sent a powerful message at a time when many people had stopped receiving communion because they were no longer confident of God’s mercy and forgiveness and regarded communion as a kind of reward for the perfect” and “While no one should feel obliged to spend an hour in adoration each Thursday, the practice ought surely to be recommended”, which are great notions but then he shockingly fails to mention the 12 promises made to those who faithfully follow the devotion.

It is impossible that this is merely a mistake or an oversight. Surely if you are going to write an encyclical dealing with the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus you are going to include these and the criteria that Jesus demanded be met to obtain the promises (which concerns salvation of souls).

Let’s quickly look at the criteria and promises again.

To receive the 12 promises associated with the Sacred Heart devotion, one must foster a deep devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, typically through the following practices:

First Friday Devotions

One of the key practices is observing the Nine First Fridays devotion. This involves receiving Holy Communion on the first Friday of each month for nine consecutive months.

Additionally, on these Fridays, one should offer prayers and reflect on the Sacred Heart of Jesus, ideally spending time in Eucharistic Adoration or meditation.

Frequent Reception of the Sacraments

The promises are closely tied to a life centered around the sacraments, especially the Eucharist and Reconciliation (Confession). Regular participation in these sacraments is essential to deepen one's relationship with Jesus and remain in a state of grace.

Consecration to the Sacred Heart

Many who practice this devotion formally consecrate themselves, their families, and sometimes their homes to the Sacred Heart. This act of consecration is a personal and communal pledge to live in accordance with Jesus’ love and teachings.

Daily Prayer and Acts of Reparation

The devotion encourages daily prayer, often through the Sacred Heart of Jesus prayer, and making acts of reparation for sins committed against His love and mercy. These acts reflect a desire to console Jesus for human indifference, ingratitude, and rejection.

Living a Life of Charity and Humility

The devotion to the Sacred Heart inspires followers to live with humility, compassion, and love toward others. These virtues help to embody Christ's love and mercy in one's daily life.

Looking at these criteria, it becomes clear why they are conveniently left out in Dilexit Nos – they are a clarion call to holiness. And the same goes for the promises:

Jesus told St Margaret Mary Alacoque ...

1.       I will give them all the graces necessary in their state of life

2.        I will establish peace in their homes.

3.       I will comfort them in all their afflictions.

4.       I will be their secure refuge during life, and above all, in death.

5.       I will bestow abundant blessings upon all their undertakings.

6.       Sinners will find in My Heart the source and infinite ocean of mercy.

7.       Lukewarm souls shall become fervent.

8.       Fervent souls shall quickly mount to high perfection.

9.       I will bless every place in which an image of My Heart is exposed
and honored.

10.  I will give to priests the gift of touching the most hardened hearts.

11.  Those who shall promote this devotion shall have their names
written in My Heart.

12.  I promise you in the excessive mercy of My Heart that My all-powerful love will grant to all those who receive Holy Communionon the First Fridays in nine consecutive months the grace of final perseverance; they shall not die in My disgrace, nor without receiving their sacraments. My divine Heart shall be their safe refuge in this last moment.

Again, the promises pertain to the salvation of souls and as we all know, that has not been very high on the list of the Vatican’s priorities in recent times.

The Holy Father then continues in paragraph 87, to compare those who follow these devotions too rigorously, to Jansenists. He says “I must warn that within the Church too, a baneful Jansenist dualism has re-emerged in new forms. This has gained renewed strength in recent decades, but it is a recrudescence of that Gnosticism which proved so great a spiritual threat in the early centuries of Christianity because it refused to acknowledge the reality of “the salvation of the flesh”.  

Jansenism, a movement condemned as heretical by the Church, emphasized predestination, human sinfulness, and austere rigorous moral discipline. In other words, this is a subtle and cunning way to say that if you follow the devotion the traditional way (as per Jesus’ instructions mind you!) then you are of the same heretical ilk as the Jansenists.

In paragraph 121 the Pontiff tells us we don’t really have to believe the details of the Saint's visions when he says “This powerful realization of the love of Jesus Christ bequeathed to us by Saint Margaret Mary can spur us to greater union with him. We need not feel obliged to accept or appropriate every detail of her spiritual experience, in which, as often happens, God’s intervention combines with human elements related to the individual’s own desires, concerns, and interior images. Such experiences must always be interpreted in the light of the Gospel and the rich spiritual tradition of the Church, even as we acknowledge the good they accomplish in many of our brothers and sisters”.  

Yes, no believer is under the pain of sin to believe any vision or apparition recognised by the Church, but Pope Francis sows doubt here and reduces this great treasure of the Faith to the “personal experience” of the saint. The notion of faith, spirituality, and religion as nothing more than the individual’s own relativistic personal experience, is of course one of the hallmarks of Modernism.

Another concern CE raises is that Pope Francis quotes St Therese of Lisieux out of context and twists her words to make it seem like we don’t really need to do penance and make reparation and that we only need to love God and sing Kumbaya and all will be fine. One example of this is in paragraph 139 where he writes “In many of her writings, Therese speaks of her struggle with forms of spirituality overly focused on human effort, on individual merit, on offering sacrifices and carrying out certain acts in order to “win heaven”. For her, “merit does not consist in doing or in giving much, but rather in receiving”.

In paragraph 155 things start to get messy in a very dangerous way. Here the Vicar of Christ (yes, I know he rejected the title) writes “Pope Pius XI makes this clear: “How can these acts of reparation offer solace now, when Christ is already reigning in the beatitude of heaven? To this question, we may answer in the words of Saint Augustine, which are very apposite here – ‘Give me the one who loves, and he will understand what I say’”.

In a very dishonest way, the Pope makes it sound as if Pope Pius XI is saying that acts of reparation are null and void when the exact opposite is true.

In  Miserentissimus redemptor , an encyclical “on reparation to the Sacred Heart”, Pope Pius XI wrote in paragraph 12 “And 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 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. 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”.

Pope Pius XI “got it”, Pope Francis doesn’t want to “get it”, and neither does he want you to “get it”. Modernists like Pope Francis cannot allow us to pursue a path of reparation and holiness, so what does he do?

He pulls another tried and tested diabolical rabbit out of the hat when he makes it clear in paragraph 181 that he is going to redefine the concept of reparation [albeit to suit the Modernist agenda]: “All that has been said thus far enables us to understand in the light of God’s word the proper meaning of the “reparation” to the heart of Christ that the Lord expects us, with the help of his grace, to “offer”. The question has been much discussed, but Saint John Paul II has given us a clear response that can guide Christians today towards a spirit of reparation more closely attuned to the Gospels”.

With the phrase “towards a spirit of reparation more closely attuned to the Gospels” Pope Francis is saying that up to this moment in time, the traditional and true way of understanding reparation has not been as close to the Gospel meaning of the concept as it should have been. So how exactly does the Holy Father want us to understand the concept of reparation?

The answer lies in paragraph 200, where he writes “Sisters and brothers, 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. While it remains true that reparation entails the desire to “render compensation for the injuries inflicted on uncreated Love, whether by negligence or grave offense”, the most fitting way to do this is for our love to offer the Lord a possibility of spreading, in amends for all those occasions when his love has been rejected or refused. This involves more than simply the “consolation” of Christ of which we spoke in the previous chapter; it finds expression in acts of fraternal love by which we heal the wounds of the Church and of the world. In this way, we offer the healing power of the heart of Christ new ways of expressing itself”.

This has nothing to do with real reparation to the mournful and offended Heart of Christ and is merely more New-Agey-lets-love-each-other-as we-speed-towards-hell nonsense veiled in limp-wristed Christianese.

And everyone, including myself (at least initially), thirstily gulps down the Kool-Aid!

But there is more that is concerning.

In paragraph 205 we read “The Christian message is attractive when experienced and expressed in its totality: not simply as a refuge for pious thoughts or an occasion for impressive ceremonies. What kind of worship would we give to Christ if we were to rest content with an individual relationship with him and show no interest in relieving the sufferings of others or helping them to live a better life? Would it please the heart that so loved us, if we were to bask in a private religious experience while ignoring its implications for the society in which we live?”

In this paragraph we not only see a stab at traditionalist Catholics in the words “not simply as a refuge for pious thoughts or an occasion for impressive ceremonies” but also an emphasis on the temporal needs of people over the salvation of their souls. Note that this dig at traditional orthodox Catholics is not the only one. In his conclusion, in paragraph 219, he also writes “The Church also needs that love, lest the love of Christ be replaced with outdated structures and concerns, excessive attachment to our own ideas and opinions, and fanaticism in any number of forms, which end up taking the place of the gratuitous love of God that liberates, enlivens, brings joy to the heart and builds communities”.  

So, forget about the fullness of the faith that Christ has given us through His Church over the past 2000 years and the pursuit of holiness, there is a new thing in town and it is love, love, love to the exclusion of all else!

I think you get the idea. The devil’s oldest trick in the book is at work here - take some beauty and truth and mix it up with lies and most won’t even notice.

This document essentially waters down and undermines devotion to the Sacred Heart, once again distracting people from the crucial need to repent and make reparation for their sins and do all of this while “sounding Catholic”. At least to the masses that are fast asleep in the pews.

Again, are there beautiful passages in the encyclical? Yes.

Are there parts that are highly dangerous and cunning? Yes.

Read it at your peril and decide for yourself.

MUST READ: Stunning results of largest-ever survey of lay Catholics released

Pope Francis’ Singapore statements and the verse that does not exist

Radical Roundup: Hooray for this Bishop, but not for these Cardinals

Are these the two letters most hated by traditional Catholics?

Why I am not convinced by my mentor’s defense of Pope Francis’ statements

Tell me you are destroying the Catholic Church, without telling me you are destroying the Catholic Church…