Since anything put out by the Vatican isn’t light reading, I’ve decided to post in parts. This represents Part I. It represents both summary and commentary. The document can be found here.
——
I think the key to understanding the new encyclical is in the introduction where the Holy Father states his intentions: "…I wish my new encyclical to speak of the love which God lavishes upon us and which we in turn must share with others." Thus, Pope Benedict is writing about the very basis of Christian ethics: love of God and love of others. However, like in sports, where sometimes it’s vitally important to remind the team of the fundamentals, Benedict’s newest encyclical encourages the faithful to examine and embrace the fundamentals of our Catholic life.
One major reason we need to return to the "fundamentals" as a Church, is because society at large has seriously lost track of them. I think it’s safe to say that from a Christian standpoint, secular culture has no clue about what love is. Benedict sets up this discussion by first addressing the differences among the Greek words for love: eros, philos, and agape. (note: I’m not going to discuss the linguistic merit of this, but prefer like Benedict to stick with the philosophical issues behind the words). Basically the first is erotic love, the second is a love of friendship, and the third is a sacrificial, unselfish love.
Benedict notes that the Church has been accused of being against erotic love. This is a justification that isn’t totally without merit. However, Benedict looks at eros in a typically Catholic way. Eros as practiced in fertility cults, that is as an overpowering of the reason by "divine madness" in order to experience supreme happiness, is naturally to be rejected. The Pope rightly points out that this way of "loving" is in reality exploitation and a degradation of man (and I would add God). However, should we reject eros? According to Benedict, the answer is a resounding "no." Essentially, we need to discipline and purify it. And then, in a Catholic context, eros can be legitimately described as "a certain foretaste of the pinnacle of our existence, of that beatitude for which our whole being yearns." So, what does this Catholic eros look like?
Eros rightly implies a relationship between love and God, since love promises eternity. However, this can’t be merely giving in to instinctual urges. Rather it requires growth in maturity, purification and renunciation. Simply giving in to bodily urges denies the truth that humans are both body and soul. Neither the spirit nor the body can alone love. Since man is one, both dimensions must be truly united in love for him to truly attain "his full stature." It is only in this context of unity that eros is able to "attain its authentic grandeur."
Sadly, our culture at large sees eros only in sexual terms, exalting and isolating the body apart from the soul. Benedict notes that this has turned sex and people into commodities to be exploited. Our bodies and sexual acts are no longer a "vital expression of our whole being" but are seen as purely biological. Benedict sees eros as something that can lead us to closer union with God, but only in "a path of ascent, renunciation, purification, and healing." Many will ask, "what does this look like?" Fortunately, the Holy Father fills us in.
In the biblical book The Song of Songs, the Hebrew word for love first used is dodim which implies an insecure, searching love. It is then replaced by the word ahaba which reflects an unselfish love. The same is true of the Christian life, where love may start as selfish, but must yield to a love that "seeks the good of the beloved" and "is ready, and even willing, for sacrifice." As love grows and is purified, it becomes, both exclusive (to one particular person) and eternal (forever). In this way, the Pope provides us with one of the most beautiful quotes of the whole encyclical:
love is indeed ecstasy, not in the sense of a moment of intoxication, but rather as a journey, an ongoing exodus out of the closed inward-looking self towards its liberation through self-giving and thus towards authentic self-discovery and indeed the discovery of God. (emphasis mine)
This very path was first blazed by our Lord in his Cross and Resurrection.
Benedict next discusses how some have made a sharp distinction between the Christian agape as descending, oblative love and the worldly eros as ascending covetous love. However, he argues that we cannot separate the two loves or we’d risk detaching ourselves from the authentic human existence. Even while eros is still selfishly oriented, it still nonetheless gradually grows and leads to an unselfish love. A Christian can never seek one love or the other because we cannot always simply give, but also must be able to receive love (as a gift).
So, love is essentially a united reality with different dimensions. Although some dimensions may be more evident at different times, to separate them creates an impoverished way of loving. We can’t remove eros because it is a part of human existence. To suppress it completely would be to the detriment of "the whole man." This continues Benedict’s theme of the unity of man and of love.
Love is perfectly shown through God who loves with a personal and elective love. God chose Israel and loves her, but for the eventual healing of all peoples. God’s love is eros and agape. God uses metaphors for erotic love to describe his relationship with his people and yet condemns pagan sexual practices as well. Eros is thus descriptive of God’s love, but only in the purified sense spoken of earlier. God’s eros for humans is also completely agape, something we should no doubt strive towards as humans. It is also an essentially forgiving love, one that culminates in the Incarnation and the Cross. In addition, the Logos, apart from metaphysical images, is a lover with all the passion of true love. However, this eros love is perfectly purified to be one with agape. Our relationship with God is one of love, not by entering into some formless ecstasy, but by entering into a unity with God where we become fully one with God, but remain human and God remains God.
As humans we also feel a need to become one with others, specifically the need for a man and a woman to enter into communion with each other to become complete. Eros as the desire for man to become complete by marriage is inherent in his nature. This love is exclusive and definitive and becomes the "icon of the relationship between God and his people and vice versa."
Benedict asserts that God’s love is best shown through Jesus Christ. The divine eros goes in search of God’s lost sheep. This is a part of God’s very being: his seeking out of his people in love. Only from the pierced side of Jesus Christ who sought his sheep with a total love can the truth of love be contemplated. This is the path our life and love must take. Jesus also gives of himself in the Eucharist. It’s not merely standing in God’s presence, but a complete union with God through the Body and Blood of Jesus. We now can speak of a mysticism grounded in God’s love by coming down to us.
Love of God always leads, however, to love of others. We cannot be unified with Jesus Christ and not seek union with all those receiving his Body and Blood. Communion implies going outside of ourselves. We cannot separate issues of morality and love from the Eucharist. As the Pope so ably puts it, "Worship itself, Eucharistic communion, includes the reality both of being loved and of loving others in turn." We are called to love our neighbor and our neighbor is now defined as everyone! Love of God is so connected to love of others that Jesus identifies himself with those in need. "In the least of the brethren we find Jesus himself, and in Jesus we find God." As Benedict has been expressing all along, love is unified.
Love of God is not merely abstract, but is experienced, especially in his people, the Sacraments, and in a special way, the Eucharist. In this way, love is most certainly NOT a sentiment. Benedict correctly notes that "sentiments come and go." Love is not temporary, but a process that is never finished, one that engages the whole man, including our will and intellect. Love is not something we merely should do to be obedient, but one that comes from our own will, based on the present love of God. In fact, we cannot fully love our neighbor without first encountering God intimately. This allows us to see others from the perspective, not of ourselves, but of Jesus. This love goes beyond a pious love because we should love, but should become a real love of others grounded in a real love for God. And this love needs the encounter with the Eucharistic Lord to truly branch out to love of neighbor.
I will comment on the rest later, but want to make a few points. Benedict has started his papacy on a strong note with this encyclical. I have no doubt that most who read it will find it to be edifying in many ways. The Catholic Church is often accused by many people of simply telling the faithful what not to do. While the Church certainly needs to emphasize right and wrong in a negative sense, I think this encyclical goes a long way in explaining the Catholic Church’s positive theology of love, morality, and justice. This encyclical reaffirms Catholic teaching that all love, whether of God, spouse, or neighbor is unified and grounded in the "always seeking" love of God.
Crossposted to Per Christum
Heather mentioned pacman which got me thinking about the 80s in general. Thanks Heather…I think, lol. After my theological analysis of Benedict’s encyclical, I, like Aristophanes of old, needed to lighten things up a bit. Here goes…
