A Decade of Connection: Laudato Si’ and the Broader Vision of Pope Francis

Ten years ago, Pope Francis signed Laudato Si’ (henceforth LS), his first “solo” encyclical letter (most of Lumen Fidei had been composed by Pope Benedict XVI). The bulk of its public reception revolved around questions of whether his assessment of global economic systems and his proposals for resolving social inequality and environmental challenges were appropriate. For instance, the encyclical received harsh criticism for its perceived “deeply negative view of free markets” (Samuel Gregg, Acton Commentary) and condemnation of “the technological advances and political and market institutions that have made that wealth possible” (David Montgomery, The New Atlantis). Michael Grunwald (Politico) winced “at the preachiness of sixties-style enviros who see capitalism and consumerism as the root of the problem, as if Mother Earth would easily heal if we would just stop being such greedy, wasteful, self-absorbed litterbugs.”

What most people missed: LS contains a key to understand Pope Francis’ whole pontificate, what he most wanted to tell the world and had been unpacking ever since — equivalent to John Paul II’s Redemptor hominis. While Francis’ first apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (henceforth EG) laid out thematic lines (evangelizing the peripheries, conversion from self-referentiality to “going forth,” lived charity over doctrinal imposition, etc.), LS homes in on the deeper foundation on which true renewal in Church and world would need to be built.

This deeper message or principle is condensed in one phrase: “Everything is connected (or related).” That phrase is repeated in LS like a refrain nine times (16, 70, 91, 92, 117, 120, 138, 142, and 240), and terms from the semantic field including “connected,” “related,” “integral,” and “harmony” appear at least 160 times in the Spanish original. In his 2023 apostolic exhortation Laudate Deum (19, henceforth LD), Francis declares “everything is connected” to be a conviction on which he is insisting “hasta el cansancio” (which could be literally translated by “ad nauseam” but actually expresses that he is not getting tired of repeating it “over and over again, ” hence the official Vatican translation). If we can confirm that this idea is not limited to the discussion of ecology and climate crisis, as it might appear at first glance, but that it has a wider application and is indeed present in most of the pope’s major documents in one way or another, it seems justified to identify it as a guiding principle of his teaching.¹

To show this, I will first offer some reflections about the relevance of relatedness and its presence already in the thought of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. I will then review how the basic types of relationships in human life are addressed in major documents by Pope Francis and conclude highlighting the relevance of relationality and integrality for the pope’s vision for education and how it may explain also some controversial aspects of his pontificate.

Relatedness as a General Principle

Taken as an isolated statement, “everything is connected” might at first seem trite: on the one hand a truism, but on the other hand also exaggerated or oversimplified, since there are many different ways to speak of relation and relationships, what they mean and what they ought to bring about (for more on this, see, e.g., The Metaphysics of Relation). But even taken as a not very defined, “common sense” concept, we can discover that the pope has a point. By emphasizing relatedness as a pastor, the pope responds to a perceived need in society and in the Church, created by opposite trends such as fragmentation, division, and self-centered individualism which stem from broken or harmful relationships. With this diagnosis he is not alone. For example, Jonathan Haidt (The Atlantic) describes American society as a new Babel, “a fractured country,” deeply divided:

It’s a story about the fragmentation of everything. It’s about the shattering of all that had seemed solid, the scattering of people who had been a community. It’s a metaphor for what is happening not only between red and blue, but within the left and within the right, as well as within universities, companies, professional associations, museums, and even families.

Even if relatedness appears in politics and media where slogans and programs invoke “solidarity,” unity, or community, an attentive examination can detect their often-superficial character and hidden agendas with particular interests that then create a distorted and fragmentary view of reality. Ironically, the “social” media seem to have exacerbated division and stifled true dialogue in society by creating bubbles of likeminded (virtual) “friends” united in raging against their ideological enemies and selectively relying on information that reinforces preconceived opinions and stereotypes.

Part of these phenomena might be attributed to the Western tendency, markedly noticeably in academia, education, and elsewhere, to think in predominantly analytical, technocratic, precise but narrow ways, something that Iain McGilchrist, in two voluminous works (2019 and 2021, which I discuss in the Catholic Social Science Review), has associated with the domination of the left brain hemisphere over the right; the latter is instead responsible for a relational, integral-holistic, contextual and empathic approach to reality. The good news is that we can freely choose to invert such distorted ways of thinking. While Pope Francis has been criticized for occasional lack of precision or clarity, I would suggest that his strength was the right brain hemisphere as shown in his intuitive and inductive approaches, his call for compassion, and his alertness to overcome the fallout of an overly analytical and narrow mentality.²

To upend fragmentation and division, Pope Francis is not simplistically asking us to randomly relate more. While the above-mentioned Politico article does pick up that “the main theme of Laudato Si, repeated constantly, is that everything is connected” (emphasis in the original), Grunwald thinks that the pope’s point, “more or less, is that the thoughtless, profligate, me-me behavior we abhor in human relations is also ravaging the planet” and then gets hung up, in good left-brain manner, on Francis’ (arguably not very felicitous) example of the increased use of air conditioning.

The pope’s real point is not just to make us aware of the importance of connections, but also to reflect on how we need to relate to achieve a state that he often calls integrality or harmony. For Francis, the natural environment is not an end in itself (as it is for some environmentalists) but an integral part of the “common home,” a whole network of relations, most of them between persons and groups of persons. The care for this common home is the purpose of the entire encyclical, for which he provides the wider scope especially in chapter four titled “integral ecology.” All aspects of nature and culture, of natural and human life, including the relationship toward God, are directly or indirectly interrelated. Many times, people do not sufficiently consider how many other realities might be affected by their actions. The solutions to the ensuing problems must themselves be “integral,” the result of a dialogue that considers different perspectives instead of isolated analyses (cf. LS 60–61, 140; EG 242).

With his thought, Francis continues almost seamlessly a thematic thread initiated by Ratzinger as early as 1968 in his Introduction to Christianity where he called for conceiving the human person more in a relational way (discussed in my essay “Transcendental Relationality” in Communio: International Catholic Review), and developed more extensively, as Pope Benedict XVI, in his 2009 encyclical letter Caritas in Veritate (henceforth CV). Here Benedict demanded a “new trajectory of thinking,” especially “a deeper critical evaluation of the category of relation” (53, italics in the original). Francis has taken on this task with his extensive reflections on interrelatedness and his insistence on integrality. The importance of successful social relationships for happiness and health have been shown by longitudinal psychological studies (e.g. the “Harvard Second Generation Study,” presented in the Harvard Gazette).

Benedict’s encyclical was dedicated to “integral human development” (for which Francis instituted an entire dicastery). CV treated a wide range of sociopolitical topics and how they would need to be dealt with in love, which is “at the heart of the Church’s social doctrine,” but to be “understood, confirmed and practiced in the light of truth” (2), a truth that includes our relationship with God (cf. 55). Benedict also took up the term “human ecology” (51), coined by John Paul II. in his encyclical letter Centesimus Annus (38) and which Francis now expands within his framework of “integral ecology,”³ to restore in Christ that original harmony which humanity has lost due to sin (cf. LS 66, 79–88, 98, 225; Catechism of the Catholic Church 400).⁴

In his first Homily on Pentecost (2), Francis introduces the concept of “harmony” as a reality that includes differences, “diversity, plurality and multiplicity,” but in a way that avoids the extremes of either uniformity or division and instead leads to unity as a work of the Holy Spirit.⁵ For Francis, harmony does not mean “feeling good” but the proper integration of all components into a whole that is meaningful and conducive to the flourishing of all the parts. The last chapter of LS lays out how this new way of relating harmoniously can be acquired and taught. In a grand crescendo, Francis passes from general suggestions for a new lifestyle over the acquisition of principles⁶ and attitudes regarding nature, civic, and political life to the sacramental dimension, especially the Eucharist, culminating in the divine Trinity. The crowning paragraph (240) which summarizes his main idea and is marked with the last installment of his refrain phrase is worth quoting in its entirety:⁷

The divine Persons are subsistent relations, and the world, created according to the divine model, is a web of relationships. Creatures tend towards God, and in turn it is proper to every living being to tend towards other things, so that throughout the universe we can find any number of constant and secretly interwoven relationships.⁸ This leads us not only to marvel at the manifold connections existing among creatures, but also to discover a key to our own fulfilment. The human person grows more, matures more and is sanctified more to the extent that he or she enters into relationships, going out from themselves to live in communion with God, with others and with all creatures. In this way, they make their own that trinitarian dynamism which God imprinted in them when they were created. Everything is interconnected, and this invites us to develop a spirituality of that global solidarity which flows from the mystery of the Trinity.

How can our relations be transformed toward harmony? Francis’ answer consists in one word: through love, introduced already as the “heart of the Gospel” in EG 34–39 (cf. 178–179). Love can overcome the lack of harmony or integration (LS 149). Its foundation lies, as for harmony, in the love of the three divine persons (38) who created the universe as a “project of love” (76–77, cf. 84–85, 89, 220, 225, 234), which is true in a special way for the human being (65, 245). We are created to love (58, 83, 119): other human beings (91), beauty (215), our own land (179). Love leads to responsible actions (211), is trained in the family (213) and practiced in social life (228–232). As examples of this love, Francis presents St. Francis of Assisi (10), Jesus (100), and St. Joseph (242). God’s love is sacramentally expressed in a blessing hand (235) and in the Eucharist (236). The encyclical closes by invoking God’s love as the source for all efforts needed to realize what the pope has called for (245), since the Holy Spirit is the “bond of love” and God’s love unites all people and creatures (92, cf. 200).

According to his more intuitive-inductive manner of thinking, Francis does not provide here a succinct definition of love, and while he does not operate with Benedict’s pair of terms with veritas qualifying caritas, he clearly acknowledges the need for a proper understanding of reality and its relationships. We need to “apply our intelligence” (79), dialogue openly and respectfully to pursue the common good (201, cf. 140), which is equivalent to seeking justice (e.g., 49, 53, 70, 82). Thus, Francis affirms (92) that

We can hardly consider ourselves to be fully loving [in Spanish: grandes amantes] if we disregard any aspect of reality (. . .). Everything is related, and we human beings are united as brothers and sisters on a wonderful pilgrimage, woven together by the love God has for each of his creatures and which also unites us in fond affection with brother sun, sister moon, brother river and mother earth.

If God’s love is our point of reference, it integrates a reasoning that considers what is relevant for relating and acting in a way that facilitates the greatest possible good for all involved. Such reasoning requires “a humanism capable of bringing together the different fields of knowledge (. . .) in the service of a more integral and integrating vision” (141), for “the whole is greater than the sums of its parts” (EG 235). The fruitful integration of parts within the whole is what harmony is all about. Truth itself is not a conglomeration of isolated facts but forms a harmonious whole: “each truth is better understood when related to the harmonious totality of the Christian message; in this context all of the truths are important and illumine one another” (EG 39). This point has bearing on Francis’ vision for education (see below).

Relatedness and Harmony in the Magisterium of Pope Francis

It is worth noting that the commission that drafted the concluding document (henceforth A) of the Fifth Episcopal Conference of Latin America and the Caribbean, also known as the “Conference of Aparecida,” was headed by Jorge Bergoglio and is replete with language about relations and interconnectedness.⁹ For instance: “to disregard the mutual relationships and balance that God himself established among created realities is an offense against the Creator” (125). This document clearly foreshadowed and anticipated not only thematic lines but also the key principles of the later Pope Francis by emphasizing relationality and integrality. It rephrases a Vatican II description of culture (cf. Gaudium et Spes 53) in relational terms: “Culture, understood most broadly, represents the particular way in which human beings and peoples cultivate their relationship to nature and with their fellow humans, with themselves, and with God, so as to attain a fully human existence” (A 476).

For the remainder of his pontificate, Francis has been reiterating the principle of interrelatedness and expanding on specific areas in which relations need to be transformed through love and how this can be brought about. Here is not the place to provide a complete synopsis from all his written and spoken pronouncements. I will limit myself to a few relevant passages from his encyclicals and apostolic exhortations, thereby proceeding not chronologically but in an order that highlights the various types of relations and their interconnectedness. We can group the documents roughly according to the general type of relationship that each text addresses with more detail (some texts enter in several categories):¹⁰

• interpersonal (Amoris Laetitia, henceforth AL; Christus Vivit, henceforth ChV; C’est la Confiance, henceforth ClC);
• socio-political (LS, Gaudete et Exsultate, henceforth GE; Fratelli Tutti, henceforth FT);
• toward world/culture (EG; Querida Amazonia, henceforth QA);
• toward nature (LS, QA, LD);
• toward God (GE, ClC, Dilexit Nos);¹¹
• toward ourselves (AL, ChV, DN).

This distribution should not obscure the fact that Francis treats all these relationships as intertwined, each one affecting the others, which will be illustrated by the following examples.

In general, and throughout most documents, Francis keeps emphasizing the relational nature of our human existence and its theological grounding. Thus, he writes (GE 6): “We are never completely ourselves unless we belong to a people. That is why no one is saved alone, as an isolated individual.¹² Rather, God draws us to himself, taking into account the complex fabric of interpersonal relationships present in a human community.”

As already mentioned, the determining factor for proper human relating according to the Gospel is love: “No one can experience the true beauty of life without relating to others, without having real faces to love. This is part of the mystery of authentic human existence.” (FT 87, cf. 57–61). As regards direct interpersonal relationships, the most revealing document on love is AL. Although it deals above all with love between spouses and in the family, chapter four, with its extensive commentary on St. Paul’s hymn of love (1 Cor 13), is a masterful and eminently practical guide for shaping all sorts of human relationships according to Gospel charity.

In ChV, the pope teaches how young people can develop healthy relationships with others based on the example of Jesus Christ and how he relates to his heavenly Father, his earthly parents, and other people (cf. 26–33). Later (71–90), he discusses the difficulties young people face in relating to themselves and others, especially due to a generational divide and a digital environment which “can expose people to the risk of addiction, isolation and gradual loss of contact with concrete reality, blocking the development of authentic interpersonal relationships” (88). The answer, also here, is the love that comes from God who saves us, is alive (112–133), and in whom we can overcome the various forms of disconnect: “His love is so real, so true, so concrete, that it invites us to a relationship of openness and fruitful dialogue” (117).

Thus, “the love of God and our relationship with the living Christ (. . .) elevate(s) us, encourage(s) us and inspire(s) us to a better and more beautiful life” (138), by developing a personality with “relationships which acquire more and more consistency and balance” (137). The friendship with Christ teaches to engage in true human friendship, which “is no fleeting or temporary relationship, but one that is stable, firm and faithful, and matures with the passage of time” (152; cf. 158, 219–220, 268). Here belongs also developing meaningful intergenerational relationships (cf. 187–191). All these relationships are sustained above all by “the language of closeness, the language of generous, relational and existential love that touches the heart, impacts life, and awakens hope and desires” (211). The primordial place to learn this is the family (cf. 259–267; A 451–463; LS 213; AL 54–55; FT 23, 104).

A multiplicity of questions regarding socio-political relations are addressed in FT. In this context, Francis explores, based on Aquinas, the notion of love more precisely (FT 91–94) and concludes with the following description (94):

Love, then, is more than just a series of benevolent actions. Those actions have their source in a union increasingly directed towards others, considering them of value, worthy, pleasing and beautiful apart from their physical or moral appearances. Our love for others, for who they are, moves us to seek the best for their lives. 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.

As an aside, Catholic Social Doctrine with charity at its core has been criticized for being idealistic and not sustainable under competitive free market conditions. That it is possible and even economically advantageous to introduce love and Gospel values into a business environment, without the need for all employees be Catholics or even Christians, has been shown, for instance, by companies associated with His Way at Work where faith is integrated into corporative realities. By commenting on the Beatitudes (Mt 5:3–12) in GE (63–94), Francis spells out how love can become real and practical in daily life.

In EG, the pope had already connected the evangelizing and missionary activity of the Church with the task of bringing charity into social life and culture because of an “inseparable bond between our acceptance of the message of salvation and genuine fraternal love” (179, including reference to Mt 25:40). That this needs to happen not only on an individual but also larger level is signified by the Gospel term “kingdom.” In EG (180), he explains accordingly that our loving response to God should not

be seen simply as an accumulation of small personal gestures to individuals in need, a kind of “charity à la carte”, or a series of acts aimed solely at easing our conscience. The Gospel is about the kingdom of God (cf. Lk 4:43); it is about loving God who reigns in our world. To the extent that he reigns within us, the life of society will be a setting for universal fraternity, justice, peace and dignity.

Therefore, religion and religions cannot “be relegated to the inner sanctum of personal life, without influence on societal and national life, without concern for the soundness of civil institutions” (183). Neither is human life complete, healthy, or happy if social engagement is separate from a personal relationship with God, nor if seeking holiness or piety fails to translate into caring for one’s neighbor (e.g., GE 25, 100–108; DN 167–203). Francis poses this second point poignantly in his last encyclical (DN 205):

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?

The relationship between Church and culture becomes critical in various intersection points, not only in view of socio-political challenges but also when secular ideologies like Gnosticism or Pelagianism create mentalities contrary to Gospel values and especially charity (see GE 36–62). Nevertheless, the Church does promote dialogical and charitable relationships between cultures (cf. A 97; LS 143–146; EG 117; FT 133–136) and religions (cf. A 227–239; EG 250–254; FT 271–285).

Another such intersection is the relationship between the human being and nature on the one hand (cf. A 83–87, 470–475; LS passim) and between nature and God on the other. When reflecting on the “indigenous mysticism that sees the interconnection and interdependence of the whole of creation, the mysticism of gratuitousness that loves life as a gift, the mysticism of a sacred wonder before nature and all its forms of life” (QA 73) present in the people of the Amazonas area, Francis remarks that “we are called to turn this relationship with God present in the cosmos into an increasingly personal relationship with a ‘Thou’ who sustains our lives and wants to give them a meaning, a ‘Thou’ who knows us and loves us” (ibid.). This message is just as applicable to and relevant for so many people in Western societies who have reverted to a pantheistic or neopagan “spirituality” detached from the personal God who revealed himself in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Francis’ approach, however, is not one of outright rejection of a “markedly cosmic worldview” but its elevation, as becomes clear from his remark in the same document (74) about the relationship with Jesus Christ:

He is present in a glorious and mysterious way in the river, the trees, the fish and the wind, as the Lord who reigns in creation without ever losing his transfigured wounds, while in the Eucharist he takes up the elements of this world and confers on all things the meaning of the paschal gift.

For many modern city-dwellers, nature seems foreign, often hostile, at most to be visited like a museum; that this nature can actually be for people “a reality that integrates society and culture, and a prolongation of their bodies, personal, familial and communal” (QA 20), offers not only space for reflection but also for exploration. As much as Francis is concerned about the climatological and environmental crises and is calling for political and institutional responses (e.g., LD 69), his most original response might be his appeal to our individual attitude or, again, relationship, toward nature, the natural world, something we can learn again from the way how the Eternal Word incarnate in Jesus Christ looks at nature and how nature can be different for us:

In talking with his disciples, Jesus would invite them to recognize the paternal relationship God has with all his creatures. With moving tenderness he would remind them that each one of them is important in God’s eyes. (. . .) Jesus lived in full harmony with creation (. . .). One Person of the Trinity entered into the created cosmos, throwing in his lot with it, even to the cross. (. . .) The New Testament (. . .) also shows him risen and glorious, present throughout creation by his universal Lordship (. . .). Thus, the creatures of this world no longer appear to us under merely natural guise because the risen One is mysteriously holding them to himself and directing them towards fullness as their end. The very flowers of the field and the birds which his human eyes contemplated and admired are now imbued with his radiant presence (LS 96–100).

Francis does not idealize nature, as remains clear, for instance, from the COVID-19 pandemic, the fallout of which he addresses in FT (especially 32–36).¹³ In any case, one main point of LS is that our relationship with nature is interrelated with “human ecology,” the way we live in society (with its sociopolitical and cultural parameters), but also that human relations are interrelated with the way we are dealing with nature; deficiencies on one side affect the other sides (5–6, 137–142, and most of chapter four).

In his last encyclical (DN), Pope Francis goes literally to the “heart of the matter” (see my article in Church Life Journal on the notion of “heart” in that text). Our capacity to relate meaningfully to other people and to other realities in this world depends on what happens in our heart: our personal relationship with God in prayer and the contemplation of what is in Christ’s heart, the Sacred Heart. This begins by acknowledging, as the title of the encyclical says, that God has loved us first (1; cf. Rom 8:37; 1 John 4:10). Love happens prominently in the heart (21), but since Christian love consists in the unconditional self-giving of the whole person (28, cf. ClC 20, 31–36), Francis needs to clarify that “heart” does not refer only to emotions or affectivity; rather, it is the “profound core (. . .) of the entire person in his or her unique psychosomatic identity,” which then makes it “the dwelling-place of love in all its spiritual, psychic, and even physical dimensions” (DN 21). The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2563) describes the heart as “the place of encounter” (“encounter” is another favorite term of Pope Francis), “because as image of God we live in relation.” Once we understand the heart as the deep, integral center of the person where God speaks to our conscience and from which all human activity emerges, it becomes paramount that we learn to listen to God’s voice there in prayer (DN 57, 81) and form our heart according to Christ’s heart (32–46) so as to be able to shape all our relationships according to Christ’s love.

Finally, one cannot “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mt 22:39) if one does not love oneself, not in a selfish way but as knowing oneself loved by God and accepting oneself (AL 101, 107–108, 155). Especially young people are nowadays suffering from an “identity crisis” due to broken families and other cultural trends (ChV 262; cf. 81, 185, 268). According to Francis, our identity is shaped in the heart, and by discovering God’s love for us there, we can come to the realization “that our fulfilment as human beings is found in love. In loving, we sense that we come to know the purpose and goal of our existence in this world. Everything comes together in a state of coherence and harmony” (23, cf. 14, 18–21). Experiencing God’s love for us allows to develop a healthier relationship toward ourselves, our identity, and it will facilitate exterior relationships that are characterized by love as well.¹⁴ That relational and integral approach to human identity and dignity, based on love, has also informed Dignitas Infinita, issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (see esp. 11–12, 18, 25–28).

Relationality and Integrality in Formation and Education

All this teaching about the various relationships is necessary in the first place because our interior life and our ways of relating to the outside world have been severely compromised by sin. The first and most important remedy comes from God himself and his grace. “Christ redeemed the whole person, and he wishes to restore in each of us the capacity to enter into relationship with others.” (QA 22). Moreover, “God, in Christ, redeems not only the individual person, but also the social relations existing between men” (EG 178, citing the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church 52). But this redemption does not consist in an extrinsic act of healing; nor are human relationships automatically harmonious as a consequence of receiving the sacraments—as we all painfully experience every day. That is why we need to work on actively improving ourselves and others through formation and education, especially in virtue, for grace perfects and builds on nature.

Therefore, we now turn briefly to the question of what the pope’s focus on relationality and interrelatedness contributes to the area of formation and education. To begin, the classical approach of human perfection through virtue contains an important element of relationality in that all virtues are interrelated and require each other. In the words of Francis, there exists a “organic unity” among the virtues, which “means that no one of them can be excluded from the Christian ideal” (EG 39). The same applies to truth. “The integrity of the Gospel message must not be deformed. What is more, each truth is better understood when related to the harmonious totality of the Christian message; in this context all of the truths are important and illumine one another” (ibid.). Thus, teaching and applying the harmonious integrity of both practical and theoretical reason must form part of Catholic education.¹⁵

In 2023, The Review of Faith & International Affairs dedicated a whole issue to Pope Francis’ view on education and integral human development, drawing from a multiplicity of documents and messages. For our topic, we can glean six main dimensions which show how relationality and integrality are important in this field:

(1) forming the whole person by “creating harmony among the three personal forms of expression: that of the hands, that of the heart, and that of the mind”¹⁶; this dimension has also been called “integral formation,” especially in the context of the priestly formation (see The Gift of the Priestly Vocation);

(2) combating psychological disintegration and loss of identity within a technological age by teaching true relations between human beings and groups, toward nature and God;

(3) integrating faith and life in support of the Church’s primary mission, “to announce the Gospel in such a fashion as to assure the relationship between faith and life in the individual person and in the socio-cultural setting in which people live, act, and interrelate” (A 331);

(4) fostering an integral understanding of education not reduced to the classroom but including the whole “village”: family, school, government, society, etc., by conjugating forces;

(5) practicing interdisciplinarity, as a way of overcoming tendencies of departmentalization and fragmentation in scientific thought and institutions, a concept that Francis, in his Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium, further expanded by the notion of “cross-disciplinarity” to promote, “on the level of both content and method,” the “vital intellectual principle of the unity in difference of knowledge and respect for its multiple, correlated and convergent expressions (. . .), ensuring cohesion together with flexibility, and organicity together with dynamism.” (4c, cf. EG 134; Ad Theologiam Promovendam 5).¹⁷

(6) fostering an integral way of thinking and dealing with reality. All the way until his last apostolic exhortation (ClC), dedicated to St. Therese of Lisieux as one of his favorite saints, Francis remains concerned with widening horizons, and so he presents her as not only as an “expert in the scientia amoris” but also as a “doctor of synthesis” (49): “The specific contribution that Therese offers us as a saint and a Doctor of the Church is not analytical, along the lines, for example, of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Her contribution is more synthetic, for her genius consists in leading us to what is central, essential and indispensable.” And this center consists in “charity, as our response to the unconditional love of the Trinity” (48), thus concluding the circle about the “heart of the Gospel” that was first invoked in EG (34–39).

None of these points in and by themselves are totally new, but they gain greater weight and depth when seen through prism of integrality, and their implementation on the ground certainly faces many challenges and requires effort and intentionality.

Relationality in the Pontificate of Pope Francis

In a final step, it seems possible to find in the principle of harmonizing relations in love also a key to understand some of Francis’ decisions and actions during his pontificate which otherwise might be hard to appreciate. Activating the right brain hemisphere toward “integral thinking” helps to avoid isolating certain statements or actions and absolutizing them without sufficient attention to context.

Could it be that passing over traditional episcopal sees and appointing cardinals from the outskirts of the world was motivated by the conviction that the Church’s senate would not have an integral perspective without the contribution from a wide variety of places?

Could it be that his closeness and friendliness towards Church personalities considered “dissident” or at odds with some dogmatic or moral teachings was not meant to be an endorsement of their positions but motivated by the conviction that integration and unity will not be possible without first establishing a relationship of charity and listening?

Could it be that the synod on synodality was really not about innovations and (hidden) agendas but about learning to meaningfully relate to each other in the Church on the local, regional, and universal level, “to listen and understand” each other with “open hearts, hearts in dialogue” and, above all, to allow the Holy Spirit to create “harmony in diversity in us and among us” and “listen to the voice of God” (Homily at the Opening of the Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops)?¹⁸

Could it be that the desire of overcoming divisions and individual preferences within parishes and dioceses by bringing local Catholics to the same liturgical form was the sincere motivation for the limitations imposed on the Traditional Latin Mass, even if one may have wished for an equal effort to not only counteract abuses but promote reverence, devotion, and the use of the Latin language in the celebration of the Novus Ordo?

Could it be that greeting, blessing, and welcoming homosexuals, transgenders, or legally remarried while suspending a personal judgment about any individual’s moral integrity (only God knows what is in one’s heart) is more conducive to gradually reintegrating them into the Church than reiterating the (well known) moral condemnation of certain actions? After all, Francis’ attitude towards people at the “moral peripheries” never translated into actual change of discipline or doctrine as many liberal Catholics had hoped and traditional Catholics had feared; put succinctly in Bishop Robert Barron’s words: “Well, he delivered on precisely none of it” (First Things).

Not even Pope Francis would claim that his pontificate always corresponded to his own proclaimed goals of achieving harmony in love and charity; not without reason did he constantly ask the faithful to pray for him. Since he has passed, the point is mute: de mortuis nil nisi bene. But from the perspective of seeking relations and allowing the Holy Spirit to bring about harmony, at least Francis’ intentions in these and many other aspects of his government may be better understood.

Conclusion

Relationality and integrality are fundamental principles anchored nowhere less than in the Holy Trinity, in the unity of divine persons who are relation of love. Benedict XVI and Francis have both underlined this point, and the latter has made it a common thread of his whole pontificate. And it is not by accident that Francis’ last encyclical was on love and the heart. If we compare what he proposes with the way many people think and communicate, it is no exaggeration to say that he is spearheading a paradigm shift by showing the world how to heal our relations from the root: by allowing God’s love to transform our hearts as the integral center of each person; because if everything is connected, once God’s love is active in the heart, all other relations will be shaped by his love.

The multifaceted dynamics present in the Church and in the world that obstruct meaningful and harmonious relations out of true love as taught by Christ are rather increasing than relenting. Therefore, I am concluding this essay with the hope that Francis’ somewhat overlooked and yet so forcefully voiced key message will not only be part of his lasting legacy but receive increased attention in the educational and evangelizing efforts of the Church for the future.

Pope Leo XIV, with his commitment to promote unity in diversity, clearly adds his support when he says, with reference to Laudato Si’:

All creation exists solely in the form of coexistence, sometimes dangerous, yet always interconnected (. . .). And what we call “history” only takes place as coexistence, living together, however contentiously, but always together. (. . .) The Spirit of Jesus changes the world because he changes hearts. (. . .) An authentic spirituality thus commits us to integral human development, to making Jesus’ words a reality in our lives.¹⁹