Deus Caritas Est
Thank you Kim for the early Father’s Day present. I know I am in the minority here (even among American Catholics) but the first Encyclical from Pope Benedict XVI shows why he is exactly the right man to lead the church at this time. The Roman Catholic Church stands against moral and historical relativism in the West. This man has the intellectual/philosophical acumen to continue the theological/theoretical work of his predecessor. Adapting the message in this work one gets the sense that Pope Benedict wants to show the faithful and the world how God’s love offers us an option besides the loveless and joyless quest for nothing that is at the bottom of modernity (the reason why some IslamISTS laugh and see that we can no longer believe in ourselves) and the hate that fuels political movements, movements disguised as religion – many things ending with “ist” – that are shaping history, borders and the occasional skyline.
The thing that struck me as brilliant is 19 pages into this work about God’s love – Pope Benedict directly addresses the debate that the SoS, PDawg and I had a few weeks back. I won’t present Pope Benedict’s response to the prevailing opinion that the RCC “distrusts the body” (the words of the critics mentioned above)…unless someone is interested.
The most wondrous part of this work (so far) is that it DOES NOT present the Roman Catholic Church as the answer to our ennui as modern men and women or the hate that may be spewed at us by our enemies…
Rather, Pope Benedict enjoins Catholics and anyone who is reading to see how the Gospels provide us with a way to see love as the way out of this dilemma. The argument shows that Christ gives us this notion of love and Pope Benedict matches this discussion with the different types of love considered by the Greeks. In considering “eros,” “philia,” and “agape” it is suggested that there is nothing in the Gospels or in the teaching of the church that forces us to ascend from and forget “eros.” Rather “eros” can been reduced to sex only, and then to a commodity – if you don’t believe Pope Benedict (and why should you?) read some of kaka’s (and her friends’) thoughtful discussions of pornography.
There is an understanding of love and the BODY that helps us include “eros” with the other two notions of love. From a certain perspective Pope Benedict’s Encyclical offers a more inclusive notion of love…
Does anybody pretend to think that the primacy of “eros” leads to “the love associated with friendship” (philia) and “agape” which includes seeing people as other “selfs”? Now I am not saying that we cannot be sexually attracted to someone and never develop friendship or other notions of love for that person. (was that just a triple negative?) I think that is possible and part of the miracle of love. All I’m suggesting is that if “eros” is first and foremost – it seems less likely that the other two notions of love develop out of it…where as if all three are in the mix – one gets a greater sense of the mystery of love – no Madonna/whore bullshit if you see your wife as your friend and another “self.” If she was an object of lust, then the mother of your children, then someone who was enjoying sex like you – there’s a recipe for some backward-assed confusion. If you share desires associated with the body along with friendship and you see each other as other selves – that’s a different fucking story isn’t it? How one (er two) get(s) there…that’s something else.
Christ reminds us that the greatest gift for human beings is love and it is possible. Consider:
“You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others?...”
Agape does not discriminate, there are no conditions/provisions on which it rests and it represents an intellectual decision. If we choose to follow this teaching we will separate ourselves from the way most people love their own. We will be the light of the world.
I am far from being an example of this type of love, but thank you Kim for giving me this book and having the faith that I can understand and embrace this teaching. Most of all, thank you for sharing your sweet love with me. It is through your love that I can begin to see these miracles as possible.
The thing that struck me as brilliant is 19 pages into this work about God’s love – Pope Benedict directly addresses the debate that the SoS, PDawg and I had a few weeks back. I won’t present Pope Benedict’s response to the prevailing opinion that the RCC “distrusts the body” (the words of the critics mentioned above)…unless someone is interested.
The most wondrous part of this work (so far) is that it DOES NOT present the Roman Catholic Church as the answer to our ennui as modern men and women or the hate that may be spewed at us by our enemies…
Rather, Pope Benedict enjoins Catholics and anyone who is reading to see how the Gospels provide us with a way to see love as the way out of this dilemma. The argument shows that Christ gives us this notion of love and Pope Benedict matches this discussion with the different types of love considered by the Greeks. In considering “eros,” “philia,” and “agape” it is suggested that there is nothing in the Gospels or in the teaching of the church that forces us to ascend from and forget “eros.” Rather “eros” can been reduced to sex only, and then to a commodity – if you don’t believe Pope Benedict (and why should you?) read some of kaka’s (and her friends’) thoughtful discussions of pornography.
There is an understanding of love and the BODY that helps us include “eros” with the other two notions of love. From a certain perspective Pope Benedict’s Encyclical offers a more inclusive notion of love…
Does anybody pretend to think that the primacy of “eros” leads to “the love associated with friendship” (philia) and “agape” which includes seeing people as other “selfs”? Now I am not saying that we cannot be sexually attracted to someone and never develop friendship or other notions of love for that person. (was that just a triple negative?) I think that is possible and part of the miracle of love. All I’m suggesting is that if “eros” is first and foremost – it seems less likely that the other two notions of love develop out of it…where as if all three are in the mix – one gets a greater sense of the mystery of love – no Madonna/whore bullshit if you see your wife as your friend and another “self.” If she was an object of lust, then the mother of your children, then someone who was enjoying sex like you – there’s a recipe for some backward-assed confusion. If you share desires associated with the body along with friendship and you see each other as other selves – that’s a different fucking story isn’t it? How one (er two) get(s) there…that’s something else.
Christ reminds us that the greatest gift for human beings is love and it is possible. Consider:
“You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others?...”
Agape does not discriminate, there are no conditions/provisions on which it rests and it represents an intellectual decision. If we choose to follow this teaching we will separate ourselves from the way most people love their own. We will be the light of the world.
I am far from being an example of this type of love, but thank you Kim for giving me this book and having the faith that I can understand and embrace this teaching. Most of all, thank you for sharing your sweet love with me. It is through your love that I can begin to see these miracles as possible.
posted by edP | 8:54 AM
18 Comments:
You have a great wife. Modern culture puts way too much emphasis on eros.
I tried reading an Encyclical once.
...and in putting all the emphasis on eros it seems that the thrill can be destroyed or become boring
I've just started this one.
OK, taking the turn the other cheek approach, wouldn't our enemies end up running the whole show and rendering our kind obsolete? This of course assumes you are concious that someone is about to do you harm. If we're talking random act of violence, I think most of us have the capacity to resist on some level, but still, if some motherfucker tries to hurt my peeps, sweet vengeance will rain down upon him........ So what are the parameters here? I also think you need to factor in the notion of competition as it relates to values (which is what I'll ascribe to all religious and lifestyle choices)---it's ingrained in our species to compete, and we do it every day on a million different levels (for material resources, international affairs, down to making sure your kids get more attention from the teacher). To me, the two go hand in hand. I'm gonna be contrarian and play the natural selection card here. Ultimately, we're just a bunch of evolutionary lottery winners, with our big brains and opposable thumbs. And finally, I totally agree with your assessment on the forms of love.
SOS, re this:
"To me, the two go hand in hand. I'm gonna be contrarian and play the natural selection card here. Ultimately, we're just a bunch of evolutionary lottery winners, with our big brains and opposable thumbs."
there is some recent work in both the studies of politics and the life sciences (evolutionary biology) that suggest that competition is part of the evolution of the brain - but also things like recipricol altruism...we survive because we can protect ourselves - but also because we have the capacity to work together. It might sound like a stretch but recip altruism can be seen as viewing people as pther "selfs"...also, think about "ordinary times" in human society -
Do we really spend more time competing or cooperating in human societies?
I think we can wonder about this from both sides without being sophists or shady dictionary dudes.
Oh, re: turn the other cheek - I think this is a teaching for ordinary Christians during ordinary times. I am also on record here defending some actions of governments who have to retaliate (within certain parameters) but at the same time saying - it may be impossible for those leaders to be truly Christian - they have to be Old Testament kings - and they have the powers and bloody tasks ascribed to them by God in First Samuel (I think?)
We cooperate in societies because we can enjoy better lives that way. Otherwise, we'd all move to Montana. But even in this cooperation, we're still competing against other societies whose values are different. Many levels. A cynic could reasonably argue that all interactions are weighed by cost/benefit.
Turn the other cheek: I just need to know if the church condones defending yourself and your posessions if you have forewarning of a misdeed.
Ok but re this:
"But even in this cooperation, we're still competing against other societies whose values are different."
This is the greater stretch from the point of view of evolutionary biology than seeing cooperation. My homely observation re evolutionary biology and society views the development of certain attributes within a given society. What your observation suggests is that societies somehow evolve with opposing values and these play out in international relations - and this somehow represents a large scale selection/survival.
I see how the argument can tend in this direction but I'm not sure I buy it.
I'm also not sure that there are the great differences between values in societies suggested by your remarks.
There is no doubt that some political leaders will express differences in values and say this is what separates "them" and "us."
This may sound like a heretical statement but I do not think the different values emphasized in our current misadventure are differences on which the survival of society rests.
By the way to olekobe or anyone else - this is not my way of saying that I believe in one world government or any such stuff...
My lack of belief in that also makes me a bad Catholic but that's another story...
Values associated with modern liberal democracy as portrayed by both conservative and liberal leaders and philosophers - - they are seen as the basis on which human society rests. I'm not sure I buy this. I'm not sure I see the end of the Cold War as a macro-evolutionary victory of modern liberal democracy.
I've said this somewhere before - the Soviets and us drank the same Kool Aid of modernity - they were just a more radical expression of some of those principles.
The "opponents" in the war of values in which we are currently engaged represent what? Is the current conflict really theocracy vs. modern liberal democracy? Perhaps there are leaders on both sides who emphasize these value differences for the sake of justifying policy pursuits.
If it was really a battle of values - or values difference determined who we would attack - wouldn't we try to smash the Saudi's, Syrians and especially the Iranians (whether or not they have big bombs) because they have large, solid institutions that represent values diametrically opposed to ours.
Ok now I'm dropwning in my own bullshit
But my original point may still be good
The evolutionary example seems to explain more about how we cooperate and compete at a local level - not how societies with competing values "evolved"
Regarding this SoS:
"Turn the other cheek: I just need to know if the church condones defending yourself and your posessions if you have forewarning of a misdeed."
I don't know. I don't know if this means allow your wife and children to be killed. I hope not.
Regarding a bully wanting to take your coat - I think the teaching indicates that rather than kick his ass (by the way most people who have known me over the years know that I love when bullies/drunks have tried to fuck with me because I used to always bite back)
but where did that get me? What did that do for anyone? Firing back at someone, calling them a piece of shit - punching them in the fucking face - what did that do for me, them or the world? Sowing someone that they can't fuck with me and I don't care if I am going to get my ass kicked you are going to take your lumps too...
Where did that get anyone? What does that accomplish. It's gotten me some black eyes, sore ribs and the occasional opponent rocks in his mouth.
Had I known then what I am learning now - the lives of those men and mine would've been better. I am sure of that.
I am not trying to dismiss your hypothetical example - I am just trying to demostrate how following the teaching of my church could have helped the realities of my life.
Maybe these teachings are for me because I have been such a miserable bastard in my life.
"Turn the other cheek" effectively reverses "an eye for an eye." In other words, it's one of the big reversals or dismissals of tradition that made Jesus so controversial and feared. But remember, again, "Render unto Caesar," which I always seem to say whenever you try to writ large on the political scene his teachings, which are generally meant for the individual (just as ed interprets the "cheek" saying).
You can possibly look at "turn the other cheek," which Christ embodied, not to mention what, in another kiss-off to tradition, he called the greatest commandment" as markers of just how difficult the path is to follow him.
If you are talking specifically about the teachings of the Church, or Christianity in general, as opposed to Christ, then who knows, I'm sure they have some fucking tract or another somewhere that can justify just about anything they want to justify.
Dudes, the Gospel is a suggestion for how to live your life right. I don't think there's anything in there that the church should be condoning or not. Ten commandments - that's direct and simply humanistic stuff. Those are the rules. Oh, there's the golden rule, too. Beyond that, Jesus was here to provide an example. A guideline, if you will. Stopping someone from thrashing you or your family is not wrong. Lashing out and exacting vengeance is. By this line of reasoning, I don't believe in the death penalty any longer.
P.S. - I chose the "turn the other cheek" passage for my confirmation.
Oh, and we're all sinners. We're not perfect. We all fuck up and the best case scenario is that we begin to see where we can improve and provide an example for others. I believe that that is the ultimate point.
My very small knowledge of the evolutionary biology/values thing is that a set of common values exist among humans everywhere, and that they are applied in somewhat different ways. These are the oposing us vs. them features. It's the common things that represent the ties that bind us all (and, I'm finding a new expression for in the good book by Arnhart) and offer further evidence that we are obligated by God to follow his will toward one another. That is, to love each other as we love God.
This notion of a common, inate tendency toward good in mankind is at the core of the rules surrounding "extraordinary babtism" in the RCC. While Catholics should always participate in the formal sacrament, and help others to, there is such a the substance of baptism being present throught the acts and desires of people who do not have opportunity to participate in the formal sacrament. This allows for even a person who has no knowledge of the the teachings of Christ (or even of the existence of Christ on this earth) to obtain babtism. It works like this: If a person living in the deepest forest, having never met a Christian, forms thoughts and desires to choose good over evil and does so (as is closely possible, given whatever human brain eating society they live in, or whatever), then that person can have obtained baptism, in an extraordinary sense and will live with God in eternity.
That's my 2 cents.
Chris B, the sentiment in your selection of passages is what makes you a gentleman. I'm also with you on the death penalty. It boggles my mind that people argue passionately against it soley on the grounds that along with the guilty, some of the not-guilty will be put to death. They are missing the point completely. However, war is different matter. It's not execution. Does that contradict my comment in the other post where I admire the execution of a big plan? 'Cause I'm using "execution" in a different sense.
I may be opening a big can of worms here, but I fail to see the distinction between death-penalty killing and war killing. Don't both of these actions make people dead? And isn't killing against the rules? Plenty of people seem to draw the line, as far as I can tell, based on whether the dead person can be viewed as an individual. Ted Bundy? Yeah, he's a guy with a life story. Little kid with a hand sticking up out of concrete next to Zarq? No life story - just collateral damage. Hardly a person at all, really.
I didn't mean to get all e-pissy; I just don't understand how making someone dead is not the same as making someone dead.
PDawg, you said this:
"If you are talking specifically about the teachings of the Church, or Christianity in general, as opposed to Christ, then who knows, I'm sure they have some fucking tract or another somewhere that can justify just about anything they want to justify."
I like this. This is what made the beginning of Pope Benedict's argument so attractive to me. It avoided the tradition (even in the RCC) and went right to the Gospels. We are all in a sort of trouble and the only way out is love - and love in the sense of combining all three of these elements. We'll see where the Holy Father goes with this - especially in Part II CARITAS The Practice of Love by the Church as a Community of Love
...the teaching could end up being less inclusive that I initially presented. We'll see. So far I've only read the title of Part II.
I liked the end of Mr B's response about what we do after we fuck up - I think this is the real message of Christ - right down to his return and telling Peter to feed his sheep
Not that you sick bastards!!!
No one let's Jesus down more than Peter (ok maybe Judas - but I think Jesus needs Judas to do what he did - and not in the bullshit conspiracy asss) - I digest...
But Peter denies him and upon Jesus' return the message is forgiveness and then (I know this is not a part of all our religious traditions but it is very important to mine)...leadership. St. Peter is my hero. I credited him on the breather liner notes to show how much of an idiot I am. Chris gets this 100% right at the end of his remarks - it's not how we fall, it's how we get back up - resist the urge to think of ourselves as dirty, bad and worthless because we've fallen - and move on...maybe even be a light to others.
This is my greatest goal.
And I'll get right on it after the kid and I watch DynoMutt
Jeanz - right on. It's especially hypocritical that a president who ran on an abhorrence (sp?) of abortion (the supposed taking of an innocent life) would condone and INITIATE a war where there would be LOTS of innocent lives lost. If he really believed what he spewed (re: the bible), he'd be providing a better example.
Please do not associate this president with Christianity - at least not here. I flushed that toilet
It muddies the already confusing waters hopelessly to tie the Chirstian conservative positions regarding the death penalty, abortion and war...
I had a difficult enough time trying to explain the complext Catholic position re: just war and the problems of modern warfare.
g bushy and the right to not get to represent Christianity here
Keep up the good work buspirone side effects sex Astra zenica nexium Telemarketing call center clifton Miata with lexus engine telemarketing call center harrogate voice over ip source java filetype java cellulitis behandling Digital cameras for sports action Concerta only lasts 5 hours Ticker tap messages in call centers Airmail stationery harry potter license plate frames dialogue group call centers Cd-crack tennis masters series 2003
Post a Comment
<< Home