|
Reflecting on “Deus Caritas
Est”
[As Vineyard readers know, Pope Benedict XVI released two weeks
ago his first papal encyclical “Deus Caritas Est” (God is love).
VOTF members and Vineyard readers contributed the following excerpts from
their
own reading of the full text, available
at the USCCB web site. Also, see the VOTF
statement .]
From Paula:
“…
The pope's categories and language enable him to hold a vision of God as
Love, and yet protect an abusive institution, subjugate women, reject homosexuals,
patronize the poor while sitting on enormous wealth, hold his own religious
constructions as absolute, etc.
Maybe we could discuss together the kind of letter we would want from the
pope….First of all, his letter seems to be to the whole of Christendom.
If late modernity has taught us anything it is that our cultural embedding
makes us different from one another, certainly globally and even within nations….
What if he were to write a letter directly to the US Church? We depend on
empirical knowledge. Collectively, we know quite a bit about human development,
about how individuals and cultures develop in stages. We know that intellectual
development sometimes outpaces emotional and moral development. We know that
it is entirely possible to have an intellectual and aesthetic appreciation
of the pope's argument about eros and agape and still not be morally sensitive.
So he has to talk to us from a developmental perspective about integrating
all human capacities. He shows some consciousness of this in Part I, section
6 for couples. We know quite a bit about organizational dynamics and management.
He could talk to the US hierarchy about how to manage the institution. Another
modern characteristic of our thinking is that we are critical. We are conscious
of an historical progression and we identify ourselves against a past and
we look to a future. Can we theorize about love in the abstract without notice
of the misery around us? I bet not one of us can read the pope's words on
love without asking how his words square with his using the word "man" when
he is talking about our species. He either does not know how we will react
to that or he wants to teach us our place.
How do his words square with the church's teaching on homosexuality? Probably
the greatest contribution of modernity is the idea that all humans are equal
and that the authority to govern is in the people themselves. I think to
talk to us he has to appreciate our commitment to freedom and equality and
self governance through reason. The pope is still a monarch with all the
authority to govern the Church and even to say what human nature is. I am
willing to be corrected in my view of the encyclical as a letter from another
universe, the more painful because I believe that God is love.”
From Gaile:
“
I, too, was taken aback by the use of the word ‘man’ and ‘men’ in
the encyclical. I went to the original German and found that the Pope had
used the word ‘menschen.’ which translates more accurately as ‘humanity’ in
English and ‘homo’ in Latin (as opposed to ‘vir.’)
As to the definition of what a human being is if we go back to the old Baltimore
Catechism the definition there is half philosophical and half theological.
The philosophical part is ‘man [sic] is a creature composed of body
and soul’; the theological part is ‘and made in the image and
likeness of God.’ Well that last part is what Benedict is affirming
and I would stretch it a bit further. God, as triune, is defined by relationships
of love. I think we, too, must be and are defined by relationships of love.
I found the ‘official’ Latin translation here.”
Another thought from Paula:
“
Believing that relational love is what we are all about, does the pope
recommend ways to increase communication among our various cultures within
the church? We know that a renewal of energy and commitment comes through
empowerment, trust in free people. Do you know of any diocese empowering
people to grow together?”
From Ed:
“
I found part II very clear, but I loved Part I. I agree on a point made about
eros and 'that man cannot live alone' but Benedict has at least 'rescued
' eros by affirming its innate goodness.... which as he points out seemed poisoned in the earlier Church; but he has a point that eros is individually
directed [at a person] and agape and philia should be directed and experienced
in community. I have been stunned, doing marriage preparation by how many
of our so-called educated young adults have no language to make distinctions
about 'love'.”
From the Tablet
[If you visit the Tablet, check out the Tablet’s fascinating
history.]
“…
The second part of the encyclical, which is said to owe something to an unfinished
project of the previous Pope, ties up a loose end in Catholic social teaching
by addressing the question how, in a world seeking social justice, there
is still room for charity. The answer is a compelling one.… his warning
that it is not for the Church to take upon herself the political battle to
bring about the most just society possible. ‘She cannot and must not
replace the State,’ he insists. Yet at the same time she must not
remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. Thus is a careful line
drawn with
regard to efforts by Catholic prelates, most notably in the United States
in the last presidential election, to
tell politicians which laws they may or may not pass.”
From Bob:
“
After reading the entire encyclical, I am not as enthralled as others….
Nevertheless there is some cause for hope that Benedict might realize the
need for a new theology of sexuality. The official Church teaching evolved
from ‘sex is always sinful’ (Augustine) to ‘sex not intending
procreation is always sinful,’ to ‘sex is primarily for procreation’ (“Casti
Conubii”), to the disastrous ‘sexual intercourse must be open
to procreation’ (‘Humanae Vitae’). To at least recognize
the natural progression of eros as realized by most married couples may be
a real step forward, as opposed to the usual official posture which has traditionally been militantly, morbidly and pathologically anti-sex.
While I doubt that the hierarchy will suddenly turn to us married folk for
guidance, perhaps in another generation or two they will discover what sex
in a marriage is for (grace).”
From Betty:
“
Unless and until any member of the clergy or hierarchy, including the pope,
does everything humanly possible to right the wrong that has been done to
the hundreds of thousands of victims of the Church's own evil and immorality,
they have no moral, intellectual, or spiritual authority to say anything
that I am interested in hearing or reading.”
From Cindy:
“…
I cannot actually reject its message but I do stand back and muse how impossible
it is for a celibate to understand erotic love. That is, of course, if the
person is truly celibate and follows, to the letter of the law, all the Church's
prohibitions on sexual expression of any kind. It would be as if a married
person sat down and wrote a treatise on the beauty and value and wonder of
celibate love, which would be all theory and no practice.
My other thought is that erotic love through the eyes and body of a woman
is a different experience. Now we need an encyclical written by a woman on
LOVE.”
More from Gaile:
“…
His principle thesis that love of neighbor is grounded in love of God is
compellingly and rigorously laid out. I am sorry that he did not include
just as rigorous an argument to show that love of God is grounded in love
of neighbor. The encyclical is quite linear.
The encyclical also seems to be individualistic in that his emphasis on
love of neighbor is more of individuals loving and having responsibility
for other individuals. I saw very little mention of communities having such
responsibility.”
From B.N.:
“
For those of us involved in social justice causes, there is much to welcome
in the encyclical. The direct involvement in political ideology, supported
by some who described themselves as ‘real Catholics’ in the last
election, seems precluded. But there are other parts of the encyclical that
seem to be lacking: The Pope says he wrote this because of all the violence
in the world, yet that issue is hardly touched; also somewhat glossed over
is the complex issue of human sexuality and the process of growth for individuals.
It is … the perception that the marital state is perceived as ‘less
than’ the celibate state by our Church. This issue is hardly resolved
here.”
|
