Deus Caritas Est: Still Catching Up On Love?
The “love” pundits are still roiling over B16’s first Encyclical. They cannot for the life of them, figure out how the Church can be positive about eros and still consider sex outside of marriage (between one man and one woman) sinful.
An op-ed in today’s, The Telegraph out of Calcutta India, frames the issue in the same tired ole way. The columnist is surprised that someone who was responsible for the orthodoxy of the Church (Cardinal Ratzinger) would, as Pope, come out with “love” as the subject of his first Encylical. I am unsure how someone who seems to be covering the Catholic Church, could have gone through over a quarter century of JPTG’s pontificate and not even got a whiff of the idea that love and truth are convertible (in the Thomist sense). Nevertheless, he, and the rest of the crowd, is genuinely surprised.
The author summarizes some of the Encyclical’s points on the relationship between eros and agape, highlighting the fact that one is not priviledged over the other. However, it is clear that he completely misses the point:
If the pope’s views on love and sex convey a sense of liberation, they should be set beside the Vatican’s recent instruction banning homosexuals from priesthood. While it is true that this instruction does not carry the weight of a papal encyclical, it is difficult to believe that the instruction does not have a papal endorsement. The message from the Vatican is confusing. It is reviewing its attitude towards the enjoyment of sex, but only sex between men and women in marriage seems to be winning its approval. Adultery leads straight to the confessional, and over homosexuality hangs the threat of excommunication. The Catholic church is waking up, but it must realize that it has a lot to catch up on if it is to make itself relevant to the contemporary world.
I suppose that the monist metaphysics of Hinduism makes it unlikely that this author would have the framework to understand the unity and difference of love in all of its different aspects, such that Trinitarian metaphysics makes clear. Neither is it likely that this significance will be made apparent to modernity when even many Catholic’s share The Telegraph author’s monist thinking.
Trinitarian love is ordered to the good of the other person through a total gift-of-self. Monism sees love as a zero sum game. Love is a commodity (usually of pleasures) in which two people have to compete to get their fair share. In this arrangement there is no sense that love is a process that moves from attraction, is purified by self-giving, and reaches its fulfillment in a fruitful, life-giving agape. To acknowledge this would be to acknowledge a structure to love and to the human person. Liberty would then have to be reassessed as a means to authentic love rather than as a means to mere pleasure or even an end in itself.
Sure, all members of the Church have catching up to do when it comes to living an authentic love. Perhaps the author is even correct in one respect with regard to the Church Herself; there is also much catching up to do with the “thought” of the “contemporary world.” However, it is not an issue of making Herself relevant, but of figuring out how to show that authentic love is relevant to modernity. Only authentic love will attenuate the death spiral we seem to have ourselves in. Until enough Catholics in the mainstream media understand their faith sufficiently to present the authentic gospel message, it will continue to be an up-hill battle.
.jpg)
Yet another comment on the Encyclical that consists merely of scoffing at other people’s comments. How patronizing can you get? What you call monism is simply the realization that love is one, and that beautiful words about charity do not make up for its absence in practice, whether toward theologians and priests (Jacques Dupuis, Franco Barbero), gays, or whole populations (the slaughtered of Nicaragua). Particularly noisome is the scoffing at Charles Curran by the very people responsible for the injustices heaped on his head. They now pour spittle on their, for the crime of welcoming the Encyclical (over-generously and over-forgivingly I would say) — Benedict is “their boy” so how dare Curran praise him!
How ironic that the ratzingerfanclub waited a week before commenting on the Encyclical — despite advance knowledge of when it would be issued and an inkling of its contents. Then when the comment came it was a round-up of other people’s comments with scoffing meta-commentary. Very clearly the first Encyclical has been a huge disappointment to the fans. (No smell of napalm there…)
Comment by Spirit of Vatican II — February 6, 2006 @ 2:04 am
spirit -
I apologize as it appears that my words exposing these errors in thinking have caused you hurt and anger. Nevertheless, there is a need for clarifying the confusion so many “spirit of VII” Catholics have in their thinking; especially since all too many are those who derive their authority from the Church and then abuse this authority to proclaim their own mistaken opinions as fact. Some examples of confusion needing clarification:
What you call monism is simply the realization that love is one,…
Sed contra, there is a monistic unity which knows of no distinctions because without Trinitarian metaphysics which allow for unity and difference without contradiction, one distinction gets conflated with the rest. This distictionlessness seems to be the unity you are describing and which I am trying to correct. It is a unity in which eros equates with agape and so where self-satisfaction is equated with love. It is not authentic love in which eros is only authentic when it is purified and fulfilled in agape. The structure of the human person is such that eros expressed genitally can only be purified between a man and woman within the irrevocable commitment of the marital covenant. Genitally satisfied eros outside of the marital structure leads to libinistic utilitarianism and damage to both persons, to the institution of marriage, the family, and society as a whole. The current morass we see in society is ample demonstration of this truth.
beautiful words about charity do not make up for its absence in practice, whether toward theologians and priests (Jacques Dupuis, Franco Barbero), gays, or whole populations (the slaughtered of Nicaragua).
By your definition of love, which seems to be equated with good feelings rather than good of the person (which always means truth and sometimes admonition when the truth is ignored or misunderstood), you are engaging in an expression of hate with your words. Only if you presuppose truth and that this sometimes takes precedence over good feelings about oneself could you engage in such rhetoric without hypocricy. Thus, your very words seems to belie their content. In other words, you demonstrate a lack of charity in presupposing ill will when you suggest that fraternal correction on the part of the Magisterium is in and of itself, unjust.
How ironic that the ratzingerfanclub waited a week before commenting on the Encyclical — despite advance knowledge of when it would be issued and an inkling of its contents.
It appears to me that you are imposing your prejudices upon Christopher’s actions. I see many good reasons that he did not post on DCE for a week. One: he was posting a summary of responses, which came out over a week’s time. There would not have been much to post if he did so the very day of its release. Two: his blog is a sideline; not everyone has the ability to drop everything and devote their entire attention to such an event. Three: the encyclical was not available to him before it came out so it would naturally take time to read and assimilate. It would be irresponsible to post opinions based solely upon “inlinkings.”
I agree that sometimes the rhetoric of B16 fans can become untoward, but I have not found this on Christopher’s blog. Like B16 himself, dissenters too often prejudge orthodox Catholics and pigeon-hole them into their preset caricature of those Catholics of whom they call “the right.” Perhaps, in the spirit of chariy, we can criticise the content of statements with which we disagree and not always assume ill will.
Comment by David — February 6, 2006 @ 10:40 am