« Deus Caritas Est | Main | A post »
January 26, 2006
Food for Thought
Deus Caritas Est is clearly of two parts: the second part, which deals with the nature of Christian charity from a theological, spiritual and practical standpoint, the seeds of which were planted during the previous pontificate; and the first part, which frames the subject by defining and exploring "love."
(Has anyone seen Quiz Show? That previous paragraph reminded me of it - Charles van Doren saying, "I'll take the third part first, Jack..." Anyway.)
It works. There are some points, particularly in the first section, that seem rather rushed and imply much more possible elucidation, which I understand, from comments on another blog, I think, makes sense because there's much of this that Benedict elucidated in The Yes of Jesus Christ. But taken as a whole, it's a thought-provoking read in which we benefit, once again, from this marvelous theologian who's also gifted with the ability to teach.
As has been widely reported, Benedict's first task is to rescue eros, to help us look at it clearly and understand the ultimate direction of its energy and yearning, and to see how it becomes destructive when left undirected. This, he points out, is the gift of Biblical faith, beginning in the Old Testament and culminating in Christ, showing how eros and agape are two dimensions of love, fulfill each other and become skewed without each other.
I found the treatment of Jesus simple and striking. In him, the hints and signs present in human experience, in the revelation of divine and human nature through the experience of Israel, merges and finds perfect, dramatic, compelling expression. In him, divine love shows his face, and eros and agape are embodied - the passionate love of God is poured out on the cross - Benedict points to the "pierced side" of Christ as the beginning of contemplation of God's love - and, so importantly, is shared with us in the Eucharist.
In the Eucharist, we are joined, not just to God, but to others as well, and in this Communion, immersed in the love of God, we see the world with his eyes, the eyes of love.
From there, Benedict moves on to charity, making some rather clear statements about the distinction between seeking just social structures, which is the task of politics, and sharing the love of Jesus with those in need, which is the proper task of the Church. He writes that faith has a role to play in working to a just society, as people of faith are engaged in the process and lend the clarifying gaze of faith to it, but he is firm that there is nothing to apologize for in prioritizing charity as the function of the Body of Christ and its institutions - it is what Jesus calls us to do and be, and where love calls us to be - in person-to-person contact with those whose bodies and souls are suffering.
To me, the most interesting point of this section was what will doubtlessly be referenced as Benedict's Augustinian pessimism - he says outright that those who carry out the Church's charitable activity "must not be inspired by ideologies aimed at improving the world..." (33), and should be wary of at trying to do "what God's governance of the world apparently cannot: fully resolve every problem." (36) It gives those of us reared in the "we're helping build the Kingdom" mentality something to think about, that's certain.
It's pretty bracing and clarifying, and I'm placing bets that this will be the most contentious part of the document. Benedict say, additionally, that professional competence is fine, but is not the standard by which charity operates - person-to-person compassionate love is. He says quite directly that the "growing secularism of many Christians engaged in charitable work" is a problem.
What does this mean? Does this mean don't try to change things? To just hand out water and be done with it? Far from it. The great saints he mentions at the end of his encyclical almost all were responsible for starting movements and institutions that changed things - that changed the way children were educated, that changed the way the poor were treated and thought of, that changed the way that the impoverished ill and dying were treated.
No, that's not it. It's that, as Benedict begins this section by saying, there is massive suffering in our world today, it's suffering that we have no right to ignore because we know about it instantly, and it's suffering that we have no excuse to neglect because we have better means to help alleviate many points of suffering than we ever have.
However, when "justice" is emphasized as the prime way in which a Christian can help, and "justice" in particular as understood to be political action ...the suffering still suffer because if we are satisfied with writing letters or hoping for change, we are, bluntly, failing to do what Jesus told us to do. (Mt. 25)
(The argument can be made that there are, for example, many ways to feed the hungry, some of which involved necessary structural changes. But, Benedict says, while the Church may advise and discuss and shed light on the problems, and Christians must be involved politically to bring greater justice, that is simply not the Church's primary mandate, as Church. The risk is that in focusing on what it is not equipped to do, it begins to neglect what it is equipped, mandated, and nourished by the love of Jesus to do.)
It is persons that are at the center here. From the very beginning of the document, as Benedict explains what faith is, in very CL kind of lingo, I believe:
We have come to believe in God's love: in these words the Christian can express the fundamental decision of his life. Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.
And it ends with a person - you and me as part of the Body of Christ, having encountered the total love of God in Jesus, being graced over and over again as we meet him in Eucharist, being joined every more intimately to our brothers and sisters through that same Eucharist, and not only able, but moved by the Spirit to live in that reality in which eros and agape merge, nourish each other, and it becomes simply who we are, because we are in Christ.
Argue with me - that's good! Cite your favorite passages from this encyclical, those that jostled you, that jarred your conscience, that you (gasp) disagreed with, that you'll print out and tape over your computer screen.
And I'll have more to say about the context, the big picture, tomorrow.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8345b6a3069e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Food for Thought:
» More on Deus Caritas Est from CatholicSphere
The same thought occurred to me as it did to Fr. Neuhaus on the First Things blog ...
The style is ... precise, almost crisp, and relentlessly Christocentric.
...
In striking distinction from John Paul’s fourteen encyclicals, there are fe... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 26, 2006 1:23:04 PM
» It was Inevitable from Ecce Homo
Amy Welborn analizes Deus Caritas Est. [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 26, 2006 1:47:11 PM
» Pope Benedict XVI - Deus Caritas Est - Reactions & from Against The Grain
There is simply no excuse for not reading the encyclical in full. I quickly realized (reading it over a Saturday afternoon) that it's one of those texts where, if I went after it with a highlighter, I'd quickly run out of ink. =) So if you haven't re... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 30, 2006 9:03:30 AM
» Pope Benedict XVI - Deus Caritas Est - Reactions & from Against The Grain
There is simply no excuse for not reading the encyclical in full. I quickly realized (reading it over a Saturday afternoon) that it's one of those texts where, if I went after it with a highlighter, I'd quickly run out of ink. =) So if you haven't re... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 30, 2006 9:09:26 AM
Comments
Here is my initial reaction, while still reading it:
The new Encyclical looks very much like an olive branch. The first quote is from Nietzsche, the anti-Christian thinker who has implanted himself most insidiously in Christian consciousness. The Pope gently chides his notorious compatriot, called "the German philosopher". This is a gesture of reconciliation, of recognition, and shows a willingness to take on board what is true in the Nietschean critique.
Some expected the Pope to confine Eros to heterosexuals, leaving homosexuals to specialize in Agape. But Ratzinger knows his classics, and knows that the philosophical theory of Eros was fashioned by Socrates and Plato in response to the sublimity of male beauty. The Pope cited the "Phaedrus" on this point in a 2002 message to Communione e Liberazione.
How can he send gay-friendly messages at the same time as he issues dismal documents branding homosexual orientation as objectively disordered? Well, Plato's "Laws" seems to contradict his "Phaedrus" in much the same way. I think we can understand it as follows: Consider one of Rudolf Nureyev's heart-stopping leaps -- the feeling of admiration that this icon of male beauty arouses could be intense, passionate, yet have no connection with an inclination to sexual activity -- indeed the admiration of beauty is an antidote to lust and stills sensual passion. So Ratzinger may be saying that eros is holy, opens us to God, and has nothing to do with impure passion.
I note that the second quotation in the letter comes from Virgil's "Eclogues", another gay classic (from which Andre Gide drew the title of his once-scandalous apologia "Corydon"). The literary and esthetic heritage of the Roman Church is in safe hands! Also, did any Pope ever speak so kindly of Julian the Apostate?
Obviously, the Pope wants us to love one another, and not to turn the Church into an ideological battlefield (as "Whispers in the Loggia" points out). He is writing now from the upper reaches of orthodoxy, no longer obsessing about the fine print.
He sounded very modern when he talked about the Church "blowing the whistle" on our sexual lives. But the German and the other translations speak rather of hanging up tablets of interdictions.
Some, like Paddy Agnew in The Irish Times, wonder if he is preaching only to the elderly among the converted -- what he says about Marx seems to hark back three decades (though if present world inequality brings a revival of Marxism, that might change).
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II at Jan 26, 2006 1:16:56 AM
What a load of crap the above is! The "Eclogues" a "gay classic"? News to those who saw the Eclogues as prophetic about the birth of Christ.
Sheesh.
At any rate, back to Amy's point :"he says outright that those who carry out the Church's charitable activity "must not be inspired by ideologies aimed at improving the world..." (33), and should be wary of at trying to do "what God's governance of the world apparently cannot: fully resolve every problem.""
Very timely in the week of the Campaign for Human Development.
As many of us are getting homilies about the "disease" of poverty, inspired by these modern architectonic assaults on human nature to "solve" poverty, much of this part of the encyclical is a reminder that "the poor you will always have with you."
Posted by: al at Jan 26, 2006 6:23:45 AM
Favorite passage: "The State may not impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony between the followers of different religions. For her part, the Church, as the social expression of Christian faith, has a proper independence and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community which the State must recognize."
Res ipsa loquitur. Listen up, folks in Washington.
Posted by: Jim at Jan 26, 2006 7:33:30 AM
I have only read the first part so far. But towards the end of that part are words that could have very well been addressed directly to me:
If I have no contact whatsoever with God in my life, then I cannot see in the other anything more than the other, and I am incapable of seeing in him the image of God. But if in my life I fail completely to heed others, solely out of a desire to be “devout” and to perform my “religious duties”, then my relationship with God will also grow arid. It becomes merely “proper”, but loveless. Only my readiness to encounter my neighbour and to show him love makes me sensitive to God as well.
I have focused so much lately on myself and how I need to be purified of my sins, that I have neglected the reason Christ poured his life and love into me in the first place: to share it with my neighbor. And consequently, my relationship with Christ has suffered. Prophetic...
Posted by: John Henry at Jan 26, 2006 7:42:15 AM
The entire program of catching up eros into agape is all in Dante - it's one of the main themes of the Divine Comedy. Over and over, pagan themes, images, even entire phrases are re-visioned, re-imagined, and captured for Christ. Eros was a form of madness (see especially Aeneas and Dido in the Aeneid, among many, many example), but Dante showed how eros could be rightly ordered and find its place in agape --- much as C.S.Lewis said that it was not true that when the real God came, the half-gods had to leave; rather, it was only when the real God came that that half-gods could "stay" or be truly understood. (Or something to that effect - I don't have the quote in front of me).
The Divine Comedy, coupled with Dante's "New Life," is an amazing tour-de-force and would make great companion reading with the encyclical. In fact, I am teaching on the subject soon!
Mary - http://www.celestialnavigation.net/dante.html
Posted by: Mary at Jan 26, 2006 8:00:59 AM
I'm pretty sure he is taking aim at liberation theology. Interesting parallel: his vigil homily at Cologne: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050820_vigil-wyd_en.html
Posted by: Kathy at Jan 26, 2006 8:40:59 AM
I have the growing impression that perceptive recipients of the NGO-type, "building the kingdom"-type, aid, are begging donors not to add to corruption by well-meaning foreign aid, for instance.
Please, if receptive social-justice-formed Catholics could let this encyclical shift their perspective just a degree more deeply into real eros (and philea) in offering and effectuating charity.
One distinction I have read elsewhere is "serving the good" vs. "effecting the good," the latter being God's sphere. Tending directly to the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the sick, the imprisoned, with efficient faithful organization. Not trying to make others do it, or even pay for it, or other state-social engineering. The temptation to leverage the state betrays the otherwise deeply-blessed giver, IMO.
In addition, honest reflection on the motives of much social justice might reveal hatred and superiority toward "the rich," "those who oppose us," etc. Even when triumphing temporally, a kingdom of this world, unirenic and divisive.
The joy of giving vs. spiritual ambition and "justice" as an internecine weapon.
The cautionary, clarifying notes in the encyclical could yield rich fruit; deeply honoring them could magnetize good will, cooperation, and enthusiasm by legions more of us out here, and thoroughly distinguish charity from swagger.
Amy's tone of "hmmmmm..." suggests this is a Big Opportunity.
Posted by: dilys at Jan 26, 2006 8:55:32 AM
As with his books and articles written before he became Pope, this encyclical is written very clearly, combines well-known facts to create new insights, and invites much chewing over.
The idea that all love, even agape, is a two-way street, for instance. (Maybe Ayn Rand wouldn't hate this encyclical, after all.) The thing about Aristotle's prime mover not actually loving (man, that's sad!). The cute Plato story about Man originally being sphere-shaped (had you ever heard that before?). Darn it, it's all just so interesting!
But I'm still not done reading, 'cause I've been reading the whole thing out loud for archive.org. (As I threatened.) This has actuallly been good for me, because it makes me slow down and think. (Mostly, "geez, I guess I've got to go do something charitable".) But it does impair me in argument.
But if anybody's interested, pop over to marialectrix.blogspot.com and you can listen to the Introduction and the first part of Part I. The rest of Part I should be up later today, and Part II tomorrow (I hope).
Posted by: Maureen O'Brien at Jan 26, 2006 9:06:50 AM
Greetings!
I read the letter in its entireity, but only once, and without taking notes (though I did have a highlighter). I'm not going to quote the text so much as summarize my impressions.
It seems to me that if we were to try to simplify what our Holy Father is saying, he is saying that it is OK to be fully human - to expereince whatever passions and feelings you experience. Presumably, this would include gay infatuation if that is what is how eros comes to you.
Next, the Holy Father is inviting us to an encounter with a personal God,..., a God who is not just an abstract idea of the eternal ground of being who is all knowing and all powerful but incomprehensible.
No. This is a God who in some mysterious shares in the experience of eros in a perfect way that becomes transformed into agape. This is a God who is not only all knowing, but all feeling. This is a passionate God!
And we who experience eros are made in this God's image.
When we encounter this God, our own experience of eros can become transformed like his to agape. In eros,..., in the initial stages of falling head over heals in love or infatuation, we recognize the human longing to be swept off our feet and lifted into ecstacy where we seem to lose our minds - lose our very selves.
In agape, we are lost to ourselves in the other. What eros sought is achieved in agape.
To Amy's point about changing structures and chaging the world, these can be part of a life of one who has lost him or herself in agape, but the movement of love from eros to agape is always and everywhere person to person. It is never person to idea.
Even in the encounter with God, it is not that we intellectually comprehend the idea of God that perfects the Christian. Rather, it is that we become lost in love with the person of Christ. This loss of self in union with Christ leads us love those whom he loves.
Little Christian children know that Jesus loves everyone. We are called to do the same.
We are called to the same not vy getting the right idea or even the right actions, but the right feelings.
To all who say "Love is not a feeling", Benedict is saying, "That's not quite right".
Love is more than a passing feeling, but it is not devoid of feeling. It always begins with eros. The spark of infatuation and the accompanying desire to lose one's very self in the other is the clue to what we should feel towards every human person we encounter.
It is frequently said that love is not a feeling, but a decision. Benedict is saying it is a choice to feel, or at least open one's self to feeling for the other.
Who is the other?
Benedict's response is that the other is always and everywhere the very one in front of your face. Love that one. Don't just think it. Don't just strive for it as an abstract principle. Don't just do the right things. Instead, open yourself up to feeling it!
This does not mean that we will walk around wanting to have physical sex with every person we encounter, and much of what Benedict is saying about the purification of eros is telling us that. As we lose ourselves in agape with Christ in prayer and in the persons we encounter day to day, gradually, we come too recognize that eros, raw passionate desire, is not aimed at mere sex.
This is a process, and the letter states that. Without explicitly saying it, the Holy Father is admitting the possibility of some mistakes along the way. Even the one who makes no mistake will not fully understand what agape is or how it transforms eros until he or she has done it over and over for a period of time. Maybe the process continues till death, and even into the state known as purgatory.
Yesterday, Amy wrote that she was delayed in commenting on the letter by a sick child.
The love a parent has for a child is eros and agape in the singular motion that the Holy Father is referring to in this letter, though he doesn't use this specific example extensively.
A good parent does not love a child disspassionately. A good parent does not solely treat a child well without feeling, or simply avoid doing harm, or apply abstract principles to how to treat the child.
The parent feels first, and actions such treating the child well, avoiding harm, or learning good parenting principles follow.
And any parent honest with him or herself will admit some selfish desire gets mixed with the love of a child. Our parenting is a reflection of our very selves. Pride can distort parenting when it becomes more focused on the self than the child. We all know this. Yet, the Pope is reminding us that the selfish aspect of parenting is natural and good. Eros leads to agape, and is really one motion of love!
The child molesting parent confuses eros so that it misses its ultimate agapaic mark so obviously that most of us are repulsed by it. Yet, the problem is not eros per se, so much as the misdirection of eros.
The letter doesn't give us too much clear direction on how to know when eros is being misdirected. Instead, the Holy Father simply urges us to encounter the One in whom eros perfectly becomes agape. In that encoutner, the rest will gradually fall into place.
While affirming social justice teaching and traditional acts of charity such as the corporal and spiritual works of mercy, or the need to spend time in prayer, and so forth, and using some obvious examples of misdirected eros such as temple prostitution in the ancient near east, this letter is not really about morality or even ideas.
It is about passion, and in that sense, it is extreemly refreshing. We've lost sight of this in so much of the Church.
Christianity is not primarily a philosophy, or even a theology, or a political program, or a non-profit charitable organization, or a set of pious practices to be carried out legalistically.
As valuable as philosophy, theology, politics, charitable activity, and prayer are, they are all expressions of a feeling - and the ultimate test of Christianity is not orthodoxy, or orthopraxis, but love for the person in front of our face.
Opening ourselves to erotic love that moves into agape for another human person is love for Christ and love for the God in whose image the human person is made. Genuine heartfelt love for a human person is the ultimate act of worship. This is what makes marriage a sacrament and a fortaste of our union with God.
Realistically, we may not feel this love for all the people around us today. So, we turn again to the encounter, praying not to follow a pious observence, but to drink from the well of love so that we might become open to love once again - genuine passionate concern for every person we encounter.
This passionate love is like all human erotic love. It is not a program to proseletize or change the other. It is a love that seeks ecstatic transcendence in losing one's very self to the other. It is the desire to let the other sweep you off your feet.
I'm starting to babble, so I'll stop.
Peace!
Posted by: jcecil3 at Jan 26, 2006 9:10:00 AM
I've been mulling over some points of the encyclical that are not setting easy with me. I hesitate to say I disagree, but there are some things I need to ponder more. Here, for example, is one: (end of article 26) "Historically, the issue of the just ordering of the collectivity had taken a new dimension with the industrialization of society in the nineteenth century. The rise of modern industry caused the old social structures to collapse, while the growth of a class of salaried workers provoked radical changes in the fabric of society. The relationship between capital and labour now became the decisive issue—an issue which in that form was previously unknown. Capital and the means of production were now the new source of power which, concentrated in the hands of a few, led to the suppression of the rights of the working classes, against which they had to rebel."
Despite his criticism of Marxism, he seems to embrace a Marxist view of history - that the Industrial Revolution caused the class conflict that led to the political rebellions and revolutions that followed or went alongside it. Painting the European revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries as class struggle was the predominant view of things in history departments in the recent past, but my understanding is that, along with the belief that feudalism actually existed on a grand scale, such a simplistic view of things is passe. And topping off my discomfort, his statement that the "working classes" "had to rebel" seems to imply that power has to be in the hands of all the people. Certainly an acceptable view in a democracy, but is the Church going from viewing democracy as opposed to the faith (19th c.), to one possible system compatible with the faith (20th c.), to an essential political structure (21st c.)? Maybe I'm just more comfortable with saying that the Church doesn't endorse any particular political system as long as it's not antithetical to the Gospel.
And yes, I realize, this little paragraph isn't the point of Benedict's encyclical, but it's often these minor points that end up meaning a great deal later on.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Jan 26, 2006 9:17:26 AM
What has stuck with me 24 hours after reading? That I am complimented as a married woman. A recognition and honoring of the eros and agape love I experience and live every day in my marriage.
[Tim F. - Seems to me Benedict is "taking on" elements of capitalism as well as marxism as have previous popes. Nothing new here, really. Do you believe a pope really has little to say to the world about economic issues?]
Posted by: Brigid at Jan 26, 2006 9:43:57 AM
funniest quote:
"The epicure Gassendi used to offer Descartes the humorous greeting: 'O, Soul!' And Descartes would reply: 'O, Flesh!'
Like the first commenter, I think it's an olive branch. I,too, did a double take at the apparent nod of charity toward Julian the Apostate. But isn't this a victory, that even Julian the Apostate was forced to recognize the truth, the requirement that we love one another? Isn't this a ray of hope piercing through in the darkest of times?
I love BXVI's emphasis on love being an act of intellect and will, not a "feeling." This is Catholic to the core, and something that needs to be grasped better today.
Also, I agree with Amy's comment about his treatment of justice. BXVI invokes St. Thomas' definition of justice as each person receiving what is due to them, which is FAR more radical than the modern "liberal" idea of justice, which has been reduced to trite bumper sticker slogans with marxist overtones.
Posted by: JEFF at Jan 26, 2006 9:58:04 AM
Oh yeah, extra credit for referring to the Catholic principle of Subsidiarity. Yay!
Chesterton/Belloc lovers will know what I mean.
Posted by: JEFF at Jan 26, 2006 10:00:51 AM
I have only read it once and would like to read it more closely this weekend, but it struck me as a wonderfully concise exxplanation of what it means to be Christian. There are two quotes that did stick out for me. He writes, The increase in diversified organizations engaged in meeting various human needs is ultimately due to the fact that the command of love of neighbour is inscribed by the Creator in man's very nature.
As someone who has been exploring Scottish moral sense philosophy in working on my dissertation, this seemed quite important. This statement means that God has implanted in every man the necessary desrire to do good.
Just above that, he wrote to praise the charitable works performed by young people, and he wrote: For young people, this widespread involvement constitutes a school of life which offers them a formation in solidarity and in readiness to offer others not simply material aid but their very selves. The anti-culture of death, which finds expression for example in drug use, is thus countered by an unselfish love which shows itself to be a culture of life by the very willingness to “lose itself” (cf. Lk 17:33 et passim) for others.
The word play between culture of death and culture of life is familiar to most of us, but it still was a very stark reminder of that. And again, the sense that we are to "lose ourself for others" is one of the central themes of the encyclical and our faith. Say what you will about the Jesuits, but the the motto of my Jesuit high school - "Men for others" - never seemed as pertinent as it does now.
Posted by: paul at Jan 26, 2006 10:06:20 AM
I haven't yet tackled the encyclical, but one question to those who have:
Amy says that "Benedict's first task is to rescue eros."
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but:
Does eros really need rescuing?
I mean, it's not there's been a grand resurgence of the Shaker movement.
I thought the Church settled this whole thing long ago:
The body is not intrisically bad, sex is not intrinsically bad, sex is in fact (as an expression of married love) great, etc.
Does the "rescuing" part have to do with the perception that eros, while a good and valid form of love, is still inferior to agape?
If so: Does the encyclical say that eros is not always inferior to agape?
And also if so: Is such a misunderstanding really a huge problem for Christians? I mean, it sounds like it's just a quibbling over terms. I don't think, in a practical sense, many people stop to analyse to what degree their romantic love is eros versus agape.
Posted by: Shaun G at Jan 26, 2006 10:26:54 AM
Shaun,
The Church may have settled the whole thing for itself, but the world has not yet grasped it, and by world I do mean us Christians.
This encyclical is built precisely on the foundations of JPII's Theology of the Body, which desperately needs further dissemination throughout Christendom (and beyond). I think it's a brilliant way for a new pope to begin his discourse with his flock - to define terms, to remind us of the basics, to plead for sanity in the simplest of Gospel truths.
Posted by: Shy One at Jan 26, 2006 10:41:45 AM
Shaun, IMHO the "rescuing" means reuniting eros and agape and putting them in proper relationship. Neither is dispensable. In today's world they are often divided (we're surrounded, eg, by runaway eros) or, when they're united, it's not done quite right.
Posted by: Kathy at Jan 26, 2006 10:44:13 AM
I agree Ellen, and I certainly think the pope has, and should have much to say on economic issues, especially in the demands for justice, what I'm talking about is not economics but politics - not so much capitalism but democracy. I think the popes have definitely had some solid criticism of capitalism.
What intrigues me (to say it concerns me or bothers me is probably an overstatement) is that the pope seems to be endorsing democracy - the notion that "power" rightly is in the hands of all the people. I'm not opposed to that notion, to be sure, but I don't know if it's the only political system that's consonant with the Gospel.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Jan 26, 2006 10:53:48 AM
In enjoyed the Encyclical greatly. However, to me it really had the feel of being greatly truncated, with several abrupt jumps to conclusions that I don't think were clearly elucidated in the preceding text. I'm thinking about paragraphs 5, 7, 8 for example.
Given his past writing, the relatively abbreviated format of an Encyclical may be a challenge for Pope Benedict. He does say that he's just "emphasizing some basic elements", but I look forward to hearing more from him on this topic.
My only other criticism (if I would call it that) is that I think the shots at Marxism are a bit of a strawman argument. Maybe my view is too West-centric, but I'm not hearing the sorts of arguments that Benedict rightly refutes.
Posted by: ajb at Jan 26, 2006 11:13:55 AM
I've often thought that the penchant for turning all the traditional works of charity, especially the corporal ones, into works of justice has been a sly attack on women. Men still run the world, the structures of injustice are historically more man-made than woman -made, and men have much more power to do works of justice and to change the unjust social structures than women do. What women did since the time of Christ was to excel in the works of charity. I don't mean that men didn't do them too, but they were par excellence the role of women, maybe the only role of women for most women. Then we came to our time and we were taught that feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, the works of mercy as we learned them were still good but "merely" charity, just band-aids while only social justice through changing social structures really, really mattered. Even our so- called charity was a parody because the poor had a right in justice to be fed, to be, clothed, etc. etc. And of course women could do social justice and many do but in this unjust world men, not women, were still best positioned to significantly advance social justice. What women were really good at for centuries had become second rate.
Posted by: Caroline Gissler at Jan 26, 2006 11:31:29 AM
Some of the exchanges above misconstrue what is meant by "eros" and "agape" and charity. Its not accurate to simply subtract one or the other from Love, generically spoken, and say the remainder is x. Rather, these are all participations, to a greater or lesser extent.
Eros, Philia, Agape all presuppose and participate in Caritas, considered simply, as God's Love of Himself, which cannot be distinguished from his essence, hence Deus est Caritas. But participation must be full instantiations of what the participate in, and so if "eros" in not relatable to Caritas, then it's something else, or its a privation (ie. evil.) This seems to be the sense of "rehabilitation" that is going on.
Posted by: al at Jan 26, 2006 11:34:34 AM
Could much of what the Pope wrote in his encyclical be directed at married couples? After all, the Church teaches that erotic love expressed by spouses represents the that love Christ has for his Church. The self giving of spouses to eachother and to thier children transforms eros into agape love.
For the non married, the giving of the self to Christ bears the same fruit as the married; as one gives himself to Christ, the virtues of charity and mercy come forth.
Erotic love and Agape love point to Christ and his Church. IMHO, both forms of love are inferior to Whom we ultimatly must place our affections and desires.
Placing too much emphasis on whether the Pope has a Nietzschean view of Eros (ie Greek), or accepts the Marxists view of History misses the point. If anything the Holy Father points to the classical ideal of erotic sublimation.
Posted by: JP at Jan 26, 2006 11:55:10 AM
ajb, I don't hear those arguments either, but I'm not in Latin America. I think there, and in some justice-oriented Catholic thinktanks, versions of the Marxist problem the Holy Father points to are very much in the mix. To the extent that, as the HF says, people will think it is morally wrong to assist the person in front of you out of charity, because that will prop up unjust structures. The encyclical is reminding us that when we're motivated by God's love we don't sacrifice today's innocents for tomorrow's utopia.
Which is, incidentally, not far from a very influential argument for abortion: overpopulation.
Posted by: Kathy at Jan 26, 2006 1:44:05 PM
Does this eros-agape talk remind anyone of Theology of the Body?
Posted by: lisa at Jan 26, 2006 2:32:44 PM
was particularly overjoyed to read the following excerpt: "Significantly, our time has also seen the growth and spread of different kinds of volunteer work, which assume responsibility for providing a variety of services. I wish here to offer a special word of gratitude and appreciation to all those who take part in these activities in whatever way. For young people, this widespread involvement constitutes a school of life which offers them a formation in solidarity and in readiness to offer others not simply material aid but their very selves. The anti-culture of Death, which finds expression for example in drug use, is thus countered by an unselfish love which shows itself to be a culture of life by the very willingness to 'lose itself' (cf. Lk 17:33 et passim) for others."
It's as though His Holiness has given me and my fellow volunteers a Gold Star for our work here at Gould Farm, an insight I've eagerly shared with each of them. Considering we are at this very moment engaged in a problem-solving discussion with the guests about drug/alcohol abuse which has recently surfaced among the guest community, the Pope lends a clear directive of what a Christian response of the staff and volunteers looks like. We are to offer our very selves as the antidote through generous support, not retribution. This is challenging stuff: we can name the injustices acutely felt, yet-- who among us is without sin? The response is unending Love.
Posted by: SWP at Jan 26, 2006 2:46:34 PM
