posted
I noticed this was published today, and I figured I'd take a look. This one is about the nature of love and the Church's role in acting in love. The first part, about the nature and purpose of love I found really interesting. Two quote especially stood out to me:
quote: This is due first and foremost to the fact that man is a being made up of body and soul. Man is truly himself when his body and soul are intimately united; the challenge of eros can be said to be truly overcome when this unification is achieved. Should he aspire to be pure spirit and to reject the flesh as pertaining to his animal nature alone, then spirit and body would both lose their dignity. On the other hand, should he deny the spirit and consider matter, the body, as the only reality, he would likewise lose his greatness. The epicure Gassendi used to offer Descartes the humorous greeting: “O Soul!” And Descartes would reply: “O Flesh!”.[3] Yet it is neither the spirit alone nor the body alone that loves: it is man, the person, a unified creature composed of body and soul, who loves. Only when both dimensions are truly united, does man attain his full stature. Only thus is love —eros—able to mature and attain its authentic grandeur. (5b)
(For those who do not believe in a "spirit" in this sense, substitute "heart" or whatever you chose to call that part that loves in such a manner.)
quote:Yet eros and agape—ascending love and descending love—can never be completely separated. The more the two, in their different aspects, find a proper unity in the one reality of love, the more the true nature of love in general is realized. Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to “be there for” the other. The element of agape thus enters into this love, for otherwise eros is impoverished and even loses its own nature. On the other hand, man cannot live by oblative, descending love alone. He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift.
posted
Sounds like the vague ramblings of Pluto, talking about mystic shapes that represent us in some kind of Crazy 5 dimensional space.
But seriously though, this seems like I've heard it before, and not in the kind of "Its so familiar to my soul, I feel it has always been a part of me" way, but in the sort of "duh, this sounds like the psuedo spiritual drivel I'm forced to listen to at graduate poetry readings. (Well not FORCED, I leave sometimes)
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. On first reading it has some good points. I think that reclaiming eros as an integral part of Christian love is well past due.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sounds like the vague ramblings of Pluto, talking about mystic shapes that represent us in some kind of Crazy 5 dimensional space. But seriously though, this seems like I've heard it before, and not in the kind of "Its so familiar to my soul, I feel it has always been a part of me" way, but in the sort of "duh, this sounds like the psuedo spiritual drivel I'm forced to listen to at graduate poetry readings. (Well not FORCED, I leave sometimes)
Vague? It's pretty darn specific.
I suppose it's easier to just call another's thoughts names than to clearly express where one disagrees with them.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've only read the first half and for the most part, I'm impressed. He's reaffirming the post Vatican II unification of body and spirit against the conservative idea that the body and sex is somehow bad or at least degraded. It could have been more specific, but you've got to expect philosophical language in an encyclical.
I have to admit, having argued against the opinions of many here, including some Catholics, that the commandment to love God and to love your neighbor are really one and the same, it is gratifying to see this as one of the central points of the encyclical.
I don't agree with his historical perspective on eros. It seems very incomplete, but I guess it wasn't really a full point, so I don't now that a more complete version would have been beneficial. Also, the description of temple prostitution and such is...heavily slanted.
All in all, the emphasis on the union of love, both in the eros and agape sense and of God and of neighbor, is a idea that I've been hoping would find champions in the Christian communities. I was somewhat suprised by well pleased that Benedict chose this as the subject of his first encyclical.
I have to wonder again if the bad example set by some of the Protestant groups isn't nudging Catholicism down a better path. I'm getting the feeling that some of them are realizing that their jubilation over Benedict's papalization was a bit premature, even as hopefully, some people are realizing that he is not the authoritarian monster they were dreading.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ascending and descending terminology was a little strange to me too. I'm more used to agape being described as expansive and eros as limiting or focusing. I wonder if someone could explain what is meant by the up/down thing.
edit: Oh, and I found it a little strange that there was an emphasis placed in multiple places on monotheism. I didn't get how this worked into the general message or the wider social context.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The ascending and descending terminology was a little strange to me too. I'm more used to agape being described as expansive and eros as limiting or focusing. I wonder if someone could explain what is meant by the up/down thing.
I'm more used to expansive/focusing as well, but I have encountered the ascending/descending before. I'm not sure if it's a translation issue or simply using a different metaphor.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: don't agree with his historical perspective on eros. It seems very incomplete, but I guess it wasn't really a full point, so I don't now that a more complete version would have been beneficial. Also, the description of temple prostitution and such is...heavily slanted.
I agree. I would have liked to see him take more responsibility for the Church's role in creating (or exacerbating)the separation. Still, this is the first time I have felt hopeful about this Pope.
quote: I have to admit, having argued against the opinions of many here, including some Catholics, that the commandment to love God and to love your neighbor are really one and the same, it is gratifying to see this as one of the central points of the encyclical.
You'll get no argument from me, brother.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, it's not something I'm really competent to explain. Eros/agape have been distinguished as selfish/selfless, natural/supernatural, specific/universal, sexual/charitable and a host of others. I think none of these distinctions are complete, and each have some validity except the use of the word "selfish."
Most Catholic writing says "agape" is superior; some is clear that both are great goods and important, but some is not. This encyclical is aimed, at least in part, at making it clear that both are essential goods.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Along those lines, here's a "definition" of Church by Jack Shea that we talked about at RCIA on Tuesday:
quote: Schillebeeckx opens Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord with, “It began with an encounter.” Our insistence is that what began as an encounter continues as an encounter. The original event of Jesus Christ was an interpersonal meeting of Jesus of Nazareth with other people. This encounter penetrated to their core person, their relationship to ultimate reality, and reconstructed it salvifically. Through his human love, divine love entered and transformed the lives of people. In this experience people recognized the presence of God; and the named the experience Spirit. Although this Jesus of Nazareth now lives in the far reaches of God as the Risen Lord, the salvific experience that he made possible continues. When this experience happens, we acknowledge that its ultimate author is his Spirit and that we are functioning as his Body. We are in relationship to one another like the revelatory relationship he had with some of his contemporaries. Through our human love for one another, inspired and supported by the Spirit of Jesus, we initiate each other into a relationship with that Ultimate Love which Jesus revealed. When this happens, the event of Jesus Christ occurs, not in the original way, but in a way dependent upon yet different from those long ago encounters. Therefore, access to the event of Jesus Christ is through our Spirit-suffused love for another which transforms us into the Body of Christ.
quote:I have to admit, having argued against the opinions of many here, including some Catholics, that the commandment to love God and to love your neighbor are really one and the same, it is gratifying to see this as one of the central points of the encyclical.
It's explicit that they are separate commandments. But it's also clear they never contradict each other and that both are central to Christianity.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, eros and agape are two very important concepts in Greeak philosophy and Christian theology. I don't know that I could do them justice. I'll give a brief description a shot though.
Eros is primarily (not suprisingly) concerned with erotic (edit: and romantic) love. It's means infatuation, etc. but also something deeper. The passion that a 50 year old married couple feel for each other is also eros.
The Church has traditionally tended towards a dim view of eros, a fact Benedict notes here. However, especially since Vatican II, there has been a realization of the tremendously important role that it bears in joining two people together, so much so that the pleasurable/emotionally binding aspects of sex have been elevated from their previous position of subordinate to the procreative aspects to one of equal importance.
agape is an even trickier concept. It's a full, open, sort of universal love. It's an acceptance and cherishing of the totality of something - in this context, another person. Agape has been described as the condition in which you genuinely put the other person's needs on the same level or even possibly above your own. In this way, it is an expansive love.
Or perhaps it's more expansive than that. Some thought has claimed that agape, is, by it's nature, a universal thing. That is to say, much like how you can't love God without loving your neighbor and vice-versa, true agape carries with it not just love for the primary object but a more generalized attitude of love for pretty much everything.
posted
I am deeply involved in the study of some gnostic-influenced theological texts this year, so I've been giving the concept of body-spirit dichotomy a lot of thought. Pretty much I have come to the conclusion that the texts are wrong and what is said in this encyclical is right.
As I was reading through, I noticed in myself that while eros certainly applies in a specific way to my romantic relationships, it can be applied in some ways to other relationships, for xample with my sister-like girlfriends. Philia doesn't seem to adequately describe the depths and nature of those relationships. And the same applies to my relationships at l'Arche, although Philia is much closer there. But at l'Arche there is such emphasis on the body, and the body as an integral part of the person, that it's hard to escape.
I can't imagine eros as being solely romantic love, though in some cases this is most certainly true.
Either way, I really enjoyed the first half of this encyclical and was delighted by the subject matter. Now I just need to read the second half, since I got my homework done last night despite distractions. Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's explicit that they are separate commandments.
I don't agree. Neither, it appears, does Benedict.
quote:Jesus united into a single precept this commandment of love for God and the commandment of love for neighbour found in the Book of Leviticus
quote:Union with Christ is also union with all those to whom he gives himself. I cannot possess Christ just for myself; I can belong to him only in union with all those who have become, or who will become, his own. Communion draws me out of myself towards him, and thus also towards unity with all Christians. We become “one body”, completely joined in a single existence. Love of God and love of neighbour are now truly united
quote:The transition which he makes from the Law and the Prophets to the twofold commandment of love of God and of neighbour
quote:Scripture seems to reinforce the first objection when it states: “If anyone says, ‘I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1 Jn 4:20). But this text hardly excludes the love of God as something impossible. On the contrary, the whole context of the passage quoted from the First Letter of John shows that such love is explicitly demanded. The unbreakable bond between love of God and love of neighbour is emphasized. One is so closely connected to the other that to say that we love God becomes a lie if we are closed to our neighbour or hate him altogether.
It is a two-fold commandment (formed from uniting separate commandments into a single precept) he speaks of, not two related commandments. The actions are each impossible without the other. And, as is pointed out, love of God essentially is love of neighbor.
I find the unitive emphasis to be a good direction to move in. Jewish theology is centered around the idea of separation, the sacred from the profane, the chosen from the unchosen. This lends itself to a legalistic, rules as the primary focus approach. This approach infuses many of the Protestant sects as well - witness for example the schisms they have over things like "I'm a millienialist." "Well, I'm an amillienailist."
The Catholic Church, by it's name among other things, promises to be a more universal Church and things like this suggest that it might be moving towards it. Love of God and of neighbor aren't just related. In practice, they are the same thing. So too with eros and agape. When done correctly, they are not opposed, but are, instead partial aspects of a more complete Love. Religious precepts aren't just externally imposed lass that you are to follow, but rather aspects or descriptors of reality. I think these ideas are fantastic.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Rather, I've disagreed with tampering with something that IS explicit (the commandments are given as separate commandments) in order to make the point above.
quote:Jesus united into a single precept this commandment of love for God and the commandment of love for neighbour found in the Book of Leviticus
The unification of two separate things is common throughout Catholic teaching. Such unification does not mean two things are the same, but that they are unified. Spirit is not flesh, yet both are unified in man.
Love of God is not love of man, but both are unified in their blessings and necessity to each other.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So too with eros and agape. When done correctly, they are not opposed, but are, instead partial aspects of a more complete Love.
Exactly - each is partial aspect. Therefore each is different. The commandment to love God and the commandment to love each other are partial aspects of a unifying precept. They are different.
The insistence that recognition of differences requires neglect of one or the other is harmful to unification. True unification recognizes that different things are part of a greater whole, but doesn't deny that the different things are different.
The language is used this way over and over. We are unified in Christ, but we are still separate beings. One of the reasons some theologers think the incarnation was necessary was because it allowed use to be unified in Christ without losing our separate identity - to maintain a separate identity that is totally and voluntarily part of the will of God.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jesus united into a single precept this commandment of love for God and the commandment of love for neighbour found in the Book of Leviticus
Note the emphasis. Also, two-fold commandment (note the lack of pluralization).
Note "two-fold." Also note:
quote:He said to him, " 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
posted
I don't agree with that interpretation, but okay. A related and more to the point question is, are the love of God and love of neighbor equal in importance, or, as has been argued againt me, is love of neighbor of lesser importance?
Also, do you believe in the second type of the expansiveness of agape that I gave, which is it's universal nature? In your opinion, can someone agape one without in a real way agaping all?
---
edit: There's a different and much stronger translation that says that the second is like unto the first, which is to say, the same. The union through sameness of these concepts is spoken of by Jesus in other places as well.
And I don't actually have a problem with saying that they appear to be different things but are actually part of a greater whole. The unification of the concepts and commandment is thus aimed towards acquisition of this greater whole, which is a single thing. The commandment would then be something like "Love" which could be broken down into love of God and love of neighbor, but when fully understood is "Love".
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:A related and more to the point question is, are the love of God and love of neighbor equal in importance, or, as has been argued againt me, is love of neighbor of lesser importance?
I believe one can only accomplish either by accomplishing the other, and performing either helps one perform the other.
They are both commands, direct from Christ, and they never conflict.
So while I have to take Christ at his word that one is "greater" than the other, it doesn't make any practical difference. Both are direct commands. Both are to be sought with all our hearts, minds, souls, and bodies.
quote:Also, do you believe in the second type of the expansiveness of agape that I gave, which is it's universal nature? In your opinion, can someone agape one without in a real way agape all?
I think one isn't fulfilling the command of agape without making it universal, but that our imperfect forms of it aimed at smaller groups are still steps along the way, and can still be considered an attempt to follow the agape command.
quote:There's a different and much stronger translation that says that the second is like unto the first, which is to say, the same. The union through sameness of these concepts is spoken of by Jesus in other places as well.
But still a "second." Like does not necessarily mean sameness as in identity, especially when it is explictly described as being a separate entity.
One is like the other in that, together, all other commandments are derived from them. Both are about loving another. But it's still explicitly identified as a "second" commandment.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ehh...I disagree. I think the Bible is clear on this point. I also think it's clear that Benedict disagrees. However, I'm obviously not going to change your mind.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I don't actually have a problem with saying that they appear to be different things but are actually part of a greater whole. The unification of the concepts and commandment is thus aimed towards acquisition of this greater whole, which is a single thing. The commandment would then be something like "Love" which could be broken down into love of God and love of neighbor, but when fully understood is "Love".
I have no problem with that description. Perhaps the positivist bent of both my professions makes me view things more "bottom up."
In object oriented terminology, Love of God and Love of Man are both subclasses of Love. But both being subclasses indicates different implementations of specific methods, some of which will share behavior or even invoke methods of the other subclass.
In law terminology, I might say that Love of God and Love of Man are both elements of the duty of Christian Love.
(I wouldn't really say either of these - they are at best metaphors meant to examplify the non-verbal way I think about these things.)
quote:ehh...I disagree. I think the Bible is clear on this point. I also think it's clear that Benedict disagrees.
I don't either is at all clear. For example, "Man is truly himself when his body and soul are intimately united" does not mean that the body and soul are the same. Union of differences.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As, for me, (when I'm at my best) God is present in my neighbor, so I (at my best) don't see any way to separate it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see any way to do one without the other. In that sense, I don't see them as separate. But they are still different concepts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The element of agape thus enters into this love, for otherwise eros is impoverished and even loses its own nature. On the other hand, man cannot live by oblative, descending love alone. He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift.
This was the part that sticks with me the most. And it, I believe, is wonderfully true wisdom. But, I have to ask, could this be the start of allowing the Catholic clergy to drop the celibate requirements?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to wonder, Sopwith. I've always been told that priests (and nuns) were "married" to God, so I suppose the theory is that eros is to be directed towards God.
On the other hand, this encyclical seems to be pointing to the notion that Spirit alone isn't enough and that Body is also important. I have always had trouble seeking solace and comfort in things only of the Spirirt, becuase it feels incomplete. I'm wondering if maybe the Vatican is moving towards this type of view as well, that despite a committed relationship with God, it still is not good for man to be alone.
It's an interesting question, to be sure.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The second part is more concrete, since it treats the ecclesial exercise of the commandment of love of neighbour.
Here he clearly treats the commandment of love of neighbor as its own entity.
Later, in the part referenced by the quote above, he states (my comments in italics):
quote:The unbreakable bond between love of God and love of neighbour is emphasized. There cannot be a bond between two things that are the same entity. One is so closely connected to the other that to say that we love God becomes a lie if we are closed to our neighbour or hate him altogether. They are so closely connected (note they are being referenced as separate entities) that one is not possible without the other. Saint John's words should rather be interpreted to mean that love of neighbour is a path that leads to the encounter with God, and that closing our eyes to our neighbour also blinds us to God. Again, love of neighbor is a path to God - a distinct thing from loving God.
What I really want to emphasize is that this view does not diminish love thy neighbor one whit.
quote:Love of God and love of neighbour are thus inseparable, they form a single commandment. But both live from the love of God who has loved us first.
This is the strongest language supporting your view. And, even here, "they" are "inseperable" and "they" form a single commandment. Things, referred to together, have formed a new unity. But the two do not cease to exist by doing so.
And again, specifically acknowledged as single entities while emphasizing their inter-repatedness:
quote:Love of neighbour, grounded in the love of God, is first and foremost a responsibility for each individual member of the faithful, but it is also a responsibility for the entire ecclesial community at every level: from the local community to the particular Church and to the Church universal in its entirety
quote: He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift. Certainly, as the Lord tells us, one can become a source from which rivers of living water flow (cf. Jn 7:37-38). Yet to become such a source, one must constantly drink anew from the original source, which is Jesus Christ, from whose pierced heart flows the love of God (cf. Jn 19:34).
quote: He also points to the example of Moses, who entered the tabernacle time and again, remaining in dialogue with God, so that when he emerged he could be at the service of his people. “Within [the tent] he is borne aloft through contemplation, while without he is completely engaged in helping those who suffer: intus in contemplationem rapitur, foris infirmantium negotiis urgetur.”[5]
I wouldn't hold your breath Those two passages make me think Priests are a source who get their living water from the original source through prayer and contemplation.
Posts: 944 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found it to be a fascinating read, and it has given me something to think about. Thanks for pointing this out, EL!
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
