I’m still working through Deus Caritas and writing my editorial for the February issue of Catholic World Report about it, so I still can’t speak with too much depth about it. If you want some good reporting and analysis, check out Catholic World News: “Understanding the Pope’s ‘surprising” encyclical” and “Papal encyclical explores divine, human love”. Both are very handy initial guides to the document.
As with all of Pope Benedict’s books, I’m impressed by its accessibility. For all his brilliance and intellect, the Holy Father can still write in a way that mere mortals can grasp. Yes, there are big words and philosophical/theological concepts, but if you have any experience with theology you can read it just fine. The first section, which talks about human and divine love, eros and agape, is sublime when considered next to what John Paul wrote on the subject of human love. Of course, all the secular media will go ga-ga over the fact that the Pope mentions eros, when in fact they are simply proving what he says. Eros is not simply carnal attraction and sex, a sensuality rejected by the purity of Christianity and the Church.
The Holy Father tells us that eros and agape are indissoluble and reach their highest human form within the marital union. Eros is a kind of “ascending” love. If at first it is mainly covetous, seeking its own end, it is this desire that draws it near to the other—whether that other is a spouse or God—and “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.” (Yes, the encyclical actually says “be there for.”) So an element of the self-sacrifical love of agape enters into eros, which is necessary to prevent eros from becoming impoverished.
Likewise, agape needs eros. The two cannot exist apart from one another. As the Pope says, “Man cannot live by oblative, descending love alone.” “He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must receive love as a gift.”
I’m only cherry-picking from certain sections here, but there is so much more here, so many good nuggets it’s hard to pick just a few.
Later on, I’ll have more to say about Christ’s self-sacrifical love and on the second section on the encyclical on acts of charity.
Technorati Tags: agape, Catholic, encyclical, eros, love, marriage, pope, Pope Benedict, Vatican
When you say “when considered next to what John Paul wrote on the subject of human love,” do you mean “in light of what John Paul wrote” or “considered against”?
Just trying to understand what you’re saying there.
The Associated Press article said it ran to 71 pages. The English version on the Vatican website prints out to 25 pages. Also, the Zenit article from 1/23 indicated Dante and the “Divine Comedy” figured prominently in the encyclical. He’s not there. Dante is not mentioned. Did he get lost somewhere in the other 46 missing pages?
The Holy Father first emphasized the themes of the first part of the encyclical in a retreat he gave to Communion e Liberazione in 1986, which was subsequently published (and recently re-issued under the name Pope Benedict XVI). The retreat concerned the theological virtues of faith, hope, and love. If you read the pertinent sections in the book (on love), you’ll find many of themes of the enyclical fully elaborated.
The title of the book is “The Yes of Jesus Christ.”
I read the entire Encyclical this morning and afternoon, but I’m still a bit . . . confused over a couple of things.
1) What exactly is eros?
2) What exactly is philos?
3) What exactly is agape?
4) How exactly is God’s love erotic? How is it that God is Eros (and at the same time Agape and Philos)?
ANyone have any short, concise answers?
Stephen: alongside, along with; not in opposition
Carrie: Of course, what does it mean by 71 pages? Perhaps the booklet distributed in Rome will be of a different length than what your computer prints out. My computer printed out 23 pages. It depends on your computer, your printer, the fonts you use, etc.
As for Zenit, they obviously hadn’t seen the encyclical yet so they were speculating.
Eric,
First don’t confuse the English word “erotic” with the Greek word “eros.” Despite similarities and an obvious lineage, they don’t mean the same thing.
Eros, as I said, is romantic love. If you want to see God as eros, read Song of Songs. I think the Holy Father quite handily and clearly explicates how agape and eros are united in love.
Don’t think of them as four different kinds of love, but as four different aspects of one love.
So to answer your questions briefly:
1. Eros is romantic love, the kind of love that wants to revel in the other, the kind that is heightened by being loved.
2. Agape is selfless or self-sacrificial love, the kind that loves when the other is not so lovable or when the love is not returned.
3. Philios is brotherly love. It is the love you give to your friends, brothers in arms, your community and neighbors.
Agape is the highest form of love and we should exhibit it at all times, but the specific complementary form of love, eros or philios, depends on the relationship we have to the other we’re loving.
Perhaps the booklet distributed in Rome will be of a different length than what your computer prints out. My computer printed out 23 pages.
Good point. I guess I still think in terms of book pages which are standard.
As for Zenit, if memory serves correctly, Zenit wasn’t the only source that indicated Dante was going to be in there.
My guess is they were all working from the same bad rumor.
An interesting letter. Did anyone else feel a little let down though? I’m afraid to say anything bad about it, because lets face it, the Pope is the Pope. And he’s great.
But still, it didn’t feel like he said a whole lot. Maybe he was just trying to hammer the basics, which he did, but I think the Catechism does a pretty good job of that already.
I guess it is hard to say “God is Love, God wants us to Love” a hundred different ways without sounding a little boring.
It did feel like he was almost addressing the pagan world as much as the Christian world. Like he was saying – “This is what it means to be a Christian. Come and experience the Love that is God, and in turn, you will begin to share that Love with yourself and others, and find the true joy that God made man to discover.”
A great message, but I was hoping for something more concrete.
I think this part answers how God’s “eros” is totally agape; eros being an energy, passion, of love towards the object loved or attracted to which cannot stand alone without a certain purification provided by agape. In God’s case it is purified with complete agape:
We have seen that God’s eros for man is also totally agape. This is not only because it is bestowed in a completely gratuitous manner, without any previous merit, but also because it is love which forgives. Hosea above all shows us that this agape dimension of God’s love for man goes far beyond the aspect of gratuity. Israel has committed “adultery” and has broken the covenant; God should judge and repudiate her. It is precisely at this point that God is revealed to be God and not man: “How can I give you up, O Ephraim! How can I hand you over, O Israel! … My heart recoils within me, my compassion grows warm and tender. I will not execute my fierce anger, I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst” (Hos 11:8-9). God’s passionate love for his people—for humanity—is at the same time a forgiving love.
It did feel like he was almost addressing the pagan world as much as the Christian world. Like he was saying – “This is what it means to be a Christian.
Bingo! He was specifically addressing the gnostic worldview, and by doing so he was also addressing the sexual abuse crisis within the Church. But I don’t think he was saying so much “This is what it means to be a Christian” as he was saying it is even more basic than being Christian. I think he was saying, “This is what it means to be fully human.”
Also, I think that eros must be seen as both passionate and creative in a sexual sense. The Song of Songs can be read as God’s relationship with the Church, but it also can be read as a husband’s relationship with his wife. The symbols are intimately linked in the book and in our theology. There is a reason that in the pagan world there are temple prostitutes and sex magick. Since the sexual act is generative, man instinctively knows that God is wrapped up in it. God’s love for us also is eros in the sense that we were created by Him and He loves us in that same intimate sense in which we love the children of our sexual union. It is by way of the very nature of this relationship with God and His with us that we are able to love each other. We proceed through our relationship with God to our relationship with our fellow man, and we love our fellow man because we recognize that the God we worship loves him as much as He loves us, and so we want to do the same.
What’s more, in eros we are vulnerable to a greater extent to the deception that appeals to our sensuality which is a part of our fallen nature, and he was trying to draw humanity away from that debasement of eros which is so much a part of Western civ, and growing more so all the time.
I thought this aspect of the encyclical was very acutely on target, and very timely. In fact I can’t think of a topic which is more pertinent to the world and the Church at this particular time in history than this clarification of the nature of love. I think it could be said that all of the other problems in the Church stem from the confusion in this area.
I am about half-way thru the encyclical [I think it’s lovely] …
I believe the confusion about Dante might be that Zenit published in its daily dispatch [1/23/06] an article about an address given by the Holy Father to a Cor Unum – sponsored group on the 23rd, explaining about the theme of the encyclical and in that he talks a good bit about Dante’s influence.
ZE06012306 http://www.zenit.org
Unfortunately I am not savvy about putting on links but that is the article number and the website.
That Zenit article certainly would lead a person to believe that Dante will be mentioned in the encyclical. But in reading through it now, I realize it doesn’t actually say that Dante is mentioned by name, which we now know he isn’t.
Query: Considering the crisis in the Church with so much dissent, heresy,and moral corruption, is this the encyclical the Church needs in this hour however beautiful and profound it may be? There are three charisms flowing from Holy Orders: teach, govern, and sanctify. We have the teaching and we have the power of the sacraments but what we have sorely been lacking, in my opinion, since the pontificate of Pius XII is government. This has been disastrous for the Church because heresy, liturgical abuses, moral corruption have gone largely unchecked because there is a lack of will to enforce what’s being taught. Consider the recent Instruction on homosexuality and the priesthood. It’s been issued but it is being undermined by contradictory spin on the part of some bishops, elements of the Catholic press, clergy and laity.If this contradictory spin is not contradicted by the Holy Father, the document will have minimal effect because it will be yet another document that has been floated by the Holy See which it has no intention of enforcing. Hence my query.
Don’t confuse the problems of the United States with the state of the Church worldwide. A problem we often make here in the US is assuming that our priorities are shared by everyone. I doubt Catholics in South America or Africa or Asia would share you sense of priority.
What’s most important is holiness and that is what is lacking. If you read the document, you’ll see that the prescription for long-term change in the Church is that holiness, which can be found by re-capturing the true understanding of love. After all, the root of the sex abuse is certainly a distortion of the understanding of love as both eros and agape.
But you should also not be mistaken in thinking that this everything the Pope has to say on the matters facing our Church. This is the long-term program. Short-term solutions may indeed be forthcoming.
The Church is about more than just the problems of governance right now. She is 2,000 years old and may be here for thousands more. We must keep that in mind always. Benedict isn’t just speaking to us, but to future generations as well.
I appreciate your comments but I think the situation that I described applies to significant sectors of the Church. Governance is one of the charisms of Orders and too many wolves have been left in place who continue to ravage the flock. Wouldn’t you agree that this charism of governance has been missing since Bl John XXIII who talked about the medicine of mercy. Sometimes the charitable anathema as Dietrich von Hildebrand called it is the medicine of mercy. For example the rot setting in the Society of Jesus was noted by Pius XII in 1958 and he called them on it but he died soon after. Fr. John Hardon SJ RIP noted it in Jesuits returning from Rome in the 50’s as well. Nothing was done about that all subsequent Popes refused to confront it ultimately. We are paying the price now in many ways.
Benedict has been pope for less than a year. I’m willing to wait for step two. There’s still a lot of significant stuff waiting in the wings: The reform of the Curia, the document from the Eucharistic Synod, appointment of new cardinals (and new bishops on a continuing basis). It’s a dangerous game to try to divine the direction of an entire papacy from a single move.
True enough and I hope you are right. I want to be wrong. I want to see a reform of the Curia etc. But consider that the synodal document will be yet another document on the Eucharist. How many do we have now? We have the documents. We need enforcement of the documents. In my diocese a new book on parish liturgy came out written by one of the local clergy. It’s seriously flawed and it gives detailed questions and answers on the Eucharist without once mentioning Redemptionis Sacramentum which is supposed to be the disciplinary document for the whole Church on the subject. In one question the Eucharist is called simply “the bread” and the answer does not correct the questioner that it is not “the bread.” Instead there’s a lot of verbiage about the custom of the “fermentum.”
I liked this missive better.
http://www.boston-catholic-journal.com/
“Sex, God, and Lies: The Struggle to be Chaste”
Statements like this just make my eyes roll back in my head:
“10. We have seen that God’s eros for man is also totally agape.”
In section 3 agape is never defined, yet eros and philia are.
I think the definition of agape is the title of the encyclical: God is agape.
“I think the definition of agape is the title of the encyclical: God is agape.”
That still does not define it.
Sure it does. The definition of agape is the Lord God: infinite love, desiring the good for every human being.
Actually Scripture makes God’s love eros. cf. Song of Songs.
Read the encyclical!
In it, Pope Benedict says that God’s love is both eros and agape and philia. All of those things are love and God is love in all its magnificent forms.
Really if you’re going to discuss it, maybe you should read it first.
Really, Dom, I have read it, and reread parts of it. We have been told that God’s love is agape (charitable) for years. That’s nothing new. And while the idea that it is “brotherly” is a bit of a novelty, the fact that Benedict devoted the whole first part to eros, something a pope has not done before, is what makes this encyclical worth discussing. It’s also what makes it so timely.
Getting back to Thomas Coolberth’s citation from the encyclical: “10. We have seen that God’s eros for man is also totally agape.” Carrie is right that the development of the notion of eros and its relation to agape is the important insight especially in our era where eros has come to mean in many circles porn and porn-like behavior. However I raise the question again is this type of theological reflection what the Church needs in this hour of crisis from the Chief Pastor? Compare this encyclical with Quas Primas of Pius XI which does address the crisis of that era, intense persecution of the Church, the undermining of society, the rights of Christ vis vis the all-powerful State. The crisis is recognized; it’s met head on; the encyclical loaded with teaching easily grasped. There’s a much more serious crisis going on now in great portions of the Church. It is internal and it is corrosive. I don’t see this encyclical acknowledging this. The danger here is that this encyclical is the latest in a flood of documents that emanate from the Holy See and forgive me but there’s the feeling well ho hum another document. Because there has been no will to govern, it can easily be ignored because Church authority has been allowed to erode.
Novak, on the one hand you say that this document doesn’t say enough, but on the other hand you say there are already too many documents and what we need is governance.
Why can’t there be both governance and preaching?
We don’t need another Quas Primas. We all know what the problems are and what needs to be done. Do we need the pope to spell them out again? You have said that everyone’s ignoring this flood of documents already.
I am grateful this Pope continues to preach and teach. I also believe that he will govern as well. The problems of the Church did not arise over night and they won’t be fixed overnight. He hasn’t even been in office one year. The first step is reform of the curia. It’s coming. Other steps will follow.
I didn’t say the document didn’t say enough. I simply said it does not address our crisis. Us knowing the problems is not the same as having the authority to deal with them that the Chief Pastor has. The orthodox and obedient will preach the doctrine and the disobedient and heterodox will feel free to ignore it while they remain ostensibley Catholics in good standing. I think you know what I mean. The Pope prior to the conclave addressed the crisis directly:Stations of the Cross meditations; Conclave addresses and homilies. Would to God we did have another Quas Primas because it was accompanied with the will to govern. It was an encylical’s encylical. Do you remember when a papal encyclical was issued in the past it would immediately be disseminated throughout the Church as authoritative teaching? Do you think that this is going on now? It’s certainly been made public and is easily available but will Catholic schools and colleges RCIA groups immediately start teaching its doctrine? I remember the study editions of the encylicals used in Catholic schools so that all would know and understand papal teaching. This does not happen now. It does not happen because governance has been allowed to erode. People feel free to ignore it. I have been told the same thing by others: it’s not even a year. Wait for the curial appointments. I truly hope you are right.
Could we back up for a moment? Back up to the time when Pope Leo XIII issued the prayer to St. Michael, and the event that prompted him to do it. The event is recounted briefly here. That prayer at the end of Mass was dropped at Vatican II.
Pope Paul VI spoke of the smoke of satan invading the Church, which would follow along with Pope Leo’s vision.
If they were correct—if the twentieth century was satan’s century—it may take some time to recover. It may have been that John Paul II was powerless to govern. It may be that Benedict is not yet free to govern.
There are conflicting stories coming out of Rome. They could be evidence of two powers or factions at war in the Vatican.
If God is love, and we believe that He is, what more direct target could the powers of evil choose to oppose Him than to distort and undermine the concept of love? If that is in fact what has happened, Benedict could not choose a better place to begin addressing our diffulties than to address the distortion in the very nature of who God is.
From learning what occultism teaches, it appears to me that eros—or erotica—is a prime area of focus. Occultists practice sex magick, or tantra, as rituals that will generate power for the practitioner. It is that magick that is used to accomplish the practitioners’ will. Upper degree rites in some of these organizations are homosexual.
We have a homosexual crisis in the Church. We have hints—quickly hushed up—of satanism being practiced. An example is the murder of the Ohio nun in Toledo. Another example is Fr. Kuntz. There is William Kennedy’s book LUCIFER’S LODGE which makes the claim of satanism in the Church. There is the “faction” of Malachi Martin.
I remember the prayer to St. Michael being used at Mass. I remember the anticipation of the revelation of the Third Secret prior to 1960. You can dismiss all of this as the notions of unenlightened people, and me with them; but if I am right, it would explain a great deal.
Even if you dismiss all of this mystical stuff as just fluff and nonsense, the very culture that we endure has distorted the meaning and value of the sexual act.
It is for these reasons that I find the encyclical to be timely, pertinent to our present difficulties, and courageous specifically in that Benedict appears to be attempting to take back eros from those who have distorted its meaning.
Carrie, I take it back. You’re not a Protestant.
I agree completely with what your wrote about love being the place to start.
We say the Leonine prayers at my parish for which I am very thankful. I certainly agree that the Satanic is in play. In those final memoirs Rise Let Us Be On Our Way, Pope JP II considers whether he should have been more forceful with dissent etc., but then sort of dismisses the question. It could be part of the larger plan. What is exasperating from the human point of view is that Paul VI could have done something early on about the wounds we suffering from today but hesitated, was not decisive, even after his great moment with Humanae Vitae and the Credo of the People of God.
Thanks. It’s good to be reinstated.