The article by Prof. Fidalgo AG, published in the blog of the Alphonsian Academy
The series on the keywords of the Jubilee 2025 continues with this post, conceived in a dialogic form: a first intervention by a professor of the Alphonsian Academy is followed by a second contribution written by a student. Fourth keyword: Mercy – Post 1/2.
From our Christian faith and in the light of history, without a doubt, emphasizing the value of mercy is important and significant, since it is, as Kasper says, a «fundamental concept of the Gospel and key to Christian life» [1]. In a very complex and varied reality, re-proposing mercy as a principle and as a practice of life will be a challenge. As Kasper himself recognizes, mercy is suspected of being considered “ideological,” from being an alienating opium to being a chronic indifferent and superficial alienation. However, it may not be so out of place to insist on the fact that what will continue to give meaning to humanity are not only the answers, so urgent and necessary, but the spirit and clarity with which these answers are sought and given. And here the perspective of Christian mercy should come in.
If a knot is enough as proof, there is a knot to show because it is difficult to fasten, because it reveals a humanity that is not such. The attitude that in general many people and some current political systems or strategies are adopting towards the “migration phenomenon,” generally forced for multiple reasons, in many cases loaded with opportunism and mafia interests on the one hand. In all this, on the one hand, there is a great systemic complicity that hides and masks itself. On the other hand, the solutions sin not only of being largely anti-Christian, but also of being against humanity itself. We must not forget that the world belongs to all human beings, and even when there is private property to be respected, there is always a social mortgage on it (cf. LS, n. 93; LE, nn. 14-15,19; SRS, nn. 33, 41; CA, nn. 30-31). It is scandalous to continue to witness this theater of deaths, expulsions, dehumanizing detention centers and systemic marginalization to which these human beings are deliberately exposed. We can no longer remain indifferent; it is precisely the “principle of mercy” that demands, with all its sapiential and prophetic force, visibility and operation through love and justice.
Starting from these first expressions, by way of premises, we would now like to explain better, from the hand of Jon Sobrino, what we mean by the “principle of mercy” [2].
What truly wakes us up from the dream of inhumanity, of continuing to look the other way, seeking indefinite progress at all costs, is to turn our gaze, our attention, to the reality of the poorest and most abandoned, the victims of this supposed history of progress. Liberation Theology has called it with the most traditional concept: sin, unmasking its lies, personal, structural, and systemic, which is why it speaks of a reality “empecatada” (infested by sin). It was the blind force of sin that killed Jesus Christ and continues to kill countless human beings today. In addition, it has been discovered that even when speeches and projects are made for the poorest, deep down, as real people, they do not interest anyone, they are considered waste materials, as Pope Francis emphasizes so many times. Therefore, Sobrino calls this reality a world of crucified people, who need to be seen, recognized and helped. Theology seeks to help give them visibility and guide alternative practices of dignifying.
This reality requires transformation, it questions what is cursed and encourages what is blessed. These two realities “are fundamentally unified in the reaction of mercy towards the crucified people” [3]. Sobrino clarifies that, above all, mercy is not reduced to an action of mere “works of mercy” but has as its “fundamental structure the reaction towards the victims of this world”. This “consists in the fact that the suffering of others is internalized in one, and that the internalized suffering leads to a re-action (action, therefore) and without adding other reasons than the simple fact of the wounded on the road” (cf. the Good Samaritan). On the other hand, he says that we must “emphasize that mercy is not only a fundamental attitude that is (or is not) at the beginning of every human process, but is a principle that configures the entire subsequent process”. Therefore, Sobrino states, «by “principle of mercy” we understand here a specific love that is at the origin of a process, that remains present and active throughout the process, gives it a specific direction and configures different elements within the process» [4].
This essentially theological/Christological principle immediately becomes a central key for ecclesiology. According to Sobrino, “this principle of mercy is what must act in the Church of Jesus; and the pathos of mercy is what must inform and shape it”, because if this Church “is not, first of all, a good Samaritan, all other things will be irrelevant and even dangerous if they are passed off as one of its fundamental principles”[5].
Therefore, ultimately, for Sobrino, all theology should be « intellectus » (theory) « misericordiae » (praxis). These two dimensions are not only not two parallel or extraneous realities; on the contrary, one depends on the other for their understanding, and can only be known within a relational reciprocity, in the modality of a configurational circularity. Well, one starts from a reaction of practice, one feels and experiences mercy in the face of the unjust suffering of the victims, one reflects on it, to then return to strengthen and better direct a practice of transformation with the same impulse of mercy that gave rise to it. In this sense, mercy is «principle», since it is doubly at the origin of the experience and, in turn, generates action during the process that follows that experience. Consequently, Theology is nothing other than «an intelligence of the realization of historical love for the poor of this world and of the love that makes us similar to the reality of the revealed God, which consists, in short, in showing love to human beings» [6].
Therefore, either Christian truth makes explicit mercy and its liberating potential, which unmasks all lies and injustices, or it is simply not such. Mercy is the true pathos of truth that makes us free. For this reason, merciful love must be historicized as justice and dignifying, on a personal, structural, and systemic level. This is what we have learned according to the Samaritan model or paradigm of mercy [7]. A paradigm, this last one, which, as can be observed, emphasizes the priority of praxis, is mercy in action which later leads to presenting mercy as the principle of every action that claims to be a manifestation of God’s action in history. It is from here, from where we can find what today is usually called the “culture of mercy”. Yesterday as today, we cannot continue to keep up the reflection on mercy and its evangelical centrality, if then, at the same time and with the same strength, concrete applications and actions are not supported where such mercy is more than evident [8]. It could be said that mercy is therefore placed as a primary instance to verify the evangelical authenticity of any Christian and human moral proposal: a task of theology because it is a task of the ecclesial being, as we have said. It is known, as we have already pointed out, that the current Pope Francis has made mercy a central, stimulating and programmatic reality [9]. His proposal of an “outgoing Church” (cf. EG, n. 20-24) has its fundamental motivation in the “inexhaustible desire to offer mercy, the fruit of having experienced the infinite mercy of the Father and his diffusive power” (EG, n. 24). This is because the Pope is convinced that “the salvation that God offers us is the work of his mercy. There is no human action, however good it may be, that makes us deserve such a great gift. God, by pure grace, draws us to unite us to Himself. He sends His Spirit into our hearts to make us His children, to transform us and to enable us to respond with our lives to His love” (EG, n. 112). From here, and with the impulse of “synodality” and of this “Jubilee Year” rooted in the exercise of “hope”, we hope to be able to develop a synodal and merciful ethic, an ethic of walking together, with humility and courage (cf. EG, nn. 40-45), oriented by and for the practice of a love that has no borders.
—–
[1] W. Kasper, Mercy. Fundamental concept of the Gospel – Key to Christian life, Queriniana, Brescia 20132. For this part we consider this work in a special way, here in particular its first chapter: «Mercy. A current but forgotten theme», 7-36. Cf. AG Fidalgo, «El rostro de la misericordia. Principio y proceso de credibilidad», in Moralia 39 (2016) 123-160.
[2] Cf. J. Sobrino, El principio-misericordia. Taking Down the Crucified Peoples from the Cross, Sal Terrae, Santander 1992.
[3] J. Sobrino, El principio-mercia , 25-27 [Our translation].
[4] J. Sobrino, El principio-misericordia , 32, cf. 32-38. Sobrino, underlines, several times, that this principle «informs all the dimensions of the human being: that of knowledge, that of hope, that of celebration and, obviously, that of praxis. Each of them has its own autonomy, but all can and must be configured and guided by a fundamental principle. In Jesus, as in his God, we think that this principle is that of mercy», 38.
[5] J. Sobrino, El principio-misericordia, 38-45; qui 38.
[6] J. Sobrino, El principio-misericordia, 70-75; 70-71.
[7] Cf. J. Sobrino, El principio-misericordia, 256-263.
[8] Cf. J. Sobrino, El principio-misericordia, 211-248; W. Kasper, Mercy …, 247-257; 268-303.
[9] For example, in his programmatic Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium (24.11.2013), the concept mercy appears a significant number of times (30) distributed throughout all the chapters, then the adjective merciful also returns 3 times and once merciful. Exemplary for its clarity, for the number of times this concept is used (10) and for its provocative nature, is n. 193 where he tries to synthetically reread «some teachings of the Word of God on mercy»; in AAS 105/12 (2013) 1019-1137.
