What, Why, Who, When?
Published on December 6, 2008 By lulapilgrim In Religion

I must start by thanking a dear JU resident for giving me the title of this blog and idea to post this.

On another blog, he asked the following series of probing questions:

Which brings us to the issue at hand, TC says Christianity is love, as do Lula and KFC. OK. What does this mean? Let's explore love. Could you reverse the phrase and say love is Christianity? Hmmm. What is love and does it include or exclude? If we say God is love, what does this really mean?

Can only Christians love? Is love not universal?

Is love the same as compassion? Pity? What are the root sources of compassion or pity within us? What blocks them from being fully expressed?
I replied that Pope Benedict wrote an encyclical entitled, "God is Love".  "Deus Caritas Est" was the first encyclical of his pontiff given on December 25, 2005, the Solemnity of the Nativity of our Lord. 
It's a rather long read but well worth it because the Pope takes on these questions and, in my opinion, gives answers so basic to understanding what love is and what love means for us living in the world.
And before you go, oh yawn, boorrinng, tooooo Catholic, or something like that......stop that thought.....for a good read on LOVE, the most natural, primordial element of human life......is for everyone.  I agree with all of it, ha, ha (bet that doesn't surprise any of you who know me!) however, you may not and that's when the discussion begins.
The encyclical is written in a series of parts with sub paragraphs....which will make it easier to divide for purposes of posting, reading and discussing. Below is the Introduction, Part I and the first 6 paragraphs.

INTRODUCTION

1. “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 Jn 4:16). These words from the First Letter of John express with remarkable clarity the heart of the Christian faith: the Christian image of God and the resulting image of mankind and its destiny. In the same verse, Saint John also offers a kind of summary of the Christian life: “We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us”.

We have come to believe in God's love: in these words the Christian can express the fundamental decision of his life. Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction. Saint John's Gospel describes that event in these words: “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should ... have eternal life” (3:16). In acknowledging the centrality of love, Christian faith has retained the core of Israel's faith, while at the same time giving it new depth and breadth. The pious Jew prayed daily the words of the Book of Deuteronomy which expressed the heart of his existence: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your might” (6:4-5). 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: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (19:18; cf. Mk 12:29-31). Since God has first loved us (cf. 1 Jn 4:10), love is now no longer a mere “command”; it is the response to the gift of love with which God draws near to us.

In a world where the name of God is sometimes associated with vengeance or even a duty of hatred and violence, this message is both timely and significant. For this reason, I wish in my first Encyclical to speak of the love which God lavishes upon us and which we in turn must share with others. That, in essence, is what the two main parts of this Letter are about, and they are profoundly interconnected. The first part is more speculative, since I wanted here—at the beginning of my Pontificate—to clarify some essential facts concerning the love which God mysteriously and gratuitously offers to man, together with the intrinsic link between that Love and the reality of human love. The second part is more concrete, since it treats the ecclesial exercise of the commandment of love of neighbour. The argument has vast implications, but a lengthy treatment would go beyond the scope of the present Encyclical. I wish to emphasize some basic elements, so as to call forth in the world renewed energy and commitment in the human response to God's love.

PART I

THE UNITY OF LOVE
IN CREATION
AND IN SALVATION HISTORY

A problem of language

2. God's love for us is fundamental for our lives, and it raises important questions about who God is and who we are. In considering this, we immediately find ourselves hampered by a problem of language. Today, the term “love” has become one of the most frequently used and misused of words, a word to which we attach quite different meanings. Even though this Encyclical will deal primarily with the understanding and practice of love in sacred Scripture and in the Church's Tradition, we cannot simply prescind from the meaning of the word in the different cultures and in present-day usage.

Let us first of all bring to mind the vast semantic range of the word “love”: we speak of love of country, love of one's profession, love between friends, love of work, love between parents and children, love between family members, love of neighbour and love of God. Amid this multiplicity of meanings, however, one in particular stands out: love between man and woman, where body and soul are inseparably joined and human beings glimpse an apparently irresistible promise of happiness. This would seem to be the very epitome of love; all other kinds of love immediately seem to fade in comparison. So we need to ask: are all these forms of love basically one, so that love, in its many and varied manifestations, is ultimately a single reality, or are we merely using the same word to designate totally different realities?

“Eros” and “Agape” – difference and unity

3. That love between man and woman which is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings, was called eros by the ancient Greeks. Let us note straight away that the Greek Old Testament uses the word eros only twice, while the New Testament does not use it at all: of the three Greek words for love, eros, philia (the love of friendship) and agape, New Testament writers prefer the last, which occurs rather infrequently in Greek usage. As for the term philia, the love of friendship, it is used with added depth of meaning in Saint John's Gospel in order to express the relationship between Jesus and his disciples. The tendency to avoid the word eros, together with the new vision of love expressed through the word agape, clearly point to something new and distinct about the Christian understanding of love. In the critique of Christianity which began with the Enlightenment and grew progressively more radical, this new element was seen as something thoroughly negative. According to Friedrich Nietzsche, Christianity had poisoned eros, which for its part, while not completely succumbing, gradually degenerated into vice.[1] Here the German philosopher was expressing a widely-held perception: doesn't the Church, with all her commandments and prohibitions, turn to bitterness the most precious thing in life? Doesn't she blow the whistle just when the joy which is the Creator's gift offers us a happiness which is itself a certain foretaste of the Divine?

4. But is this the case? Did Christianity really destroy eros? Let us take a look at the pre- Christian world. The Greeks—not unlike other cultures—considered eros principally as a kind of intoxication, the overpowering of reason by a “divine madness” which tears man away from his finite existence and enables him, in the very process of being overwhelmed by divine power, to experience supreme happiness. All other powers in heaven and on earth thus appear secondary: “Omnia vincit amor” says Virgil in the Bucolics—love conquers all—and he adds: “et nos cedamus amori”—let us, too, yield to love.[2] In the religions, this attitude found expression in fertility cults, part of which was the “sacred” prostitution which flourished in many temples. Eros was thus celebrated as divine power, as fellowship with the Divine.

The Old Testament firmly opposed this form of religion, which represents a powerful temptation against monotheistic faith, combating it as a perversion of religiosity. But it in no way rejected eros as such; rather, it declared war on a warped and destructive form of it, because this counterfeit divinization of eros actually strips it of its dignity and dehumanizes it. Indeed, the prostitutes in the temple, who had to bestow this divine intoxication, were not treated as human beings and persons, but simply used as a means of arousing “divine madness”: far from being goddesses, they were human persons being exploited. An intoxicated and undisciplined eros, then, is not an ascent in “ecstasy” towards the Divine, but a fall, a degradation of man. Evidently, eros needs to be disciplined and purified if it is to provide not just fleeting pleasure, but a certain foretaste of the pinnacle of our existence, of that beatitude for which our whole being yearns.

5. Two things emerge clearly from this rapid overview of the concept of eros past and present. First, there is a certain relationship between love and the Divine: love promises infinity, eternity—a reality far greater and totally other than our everyday existence. Yet we have also seen that the way to attain this goal is not simply by submitting to instinct. Purification and growth in maturity are called for; and these also pass through the path of renunciation. Far from rejecting or “poisoning” eros, they heal it and restore its true grandeur.

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.

Nowadays Christianity of the past is often criticized as having been opposed to the body; and it is quite true that tendencies of this sort have always existed. Yet the contemporary way of exalting the body is deceptive. Eros, reduced to pure “sex”, has become a commodity, a mere “thing” to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity. This is hardly man's great “yes” to the body. On the contrary, he now considers his body and his sexuality as the purely material part of himself, to be used and exploited at will. Nor does he see it as an arena for the exercise of his freedom, but as a mere object that he attempts, as he pleases, to make both enjoyable and harmless. Here we are actually dealing with a debasement of the human body: no longer is it integrated into our overall existential freedom; no longer is it a vital expression of our whole being, but it is more or less relegated to the purely biological sphere. The apparent exaltation of the body can quickly turn into a hatred of bodiliness. Christian faith, on the other hand, has always considered man a unity in duality, a reality in which spirit and matter compenetrate, and in which each is brought to a new nobility. True, eros tends to rise “in ecstasy” towards the Divine, to lead us beyond ourselves; yet for this very reason it calls for a path of ascent, renunciation, purification and healing.

 

Comments
on Dec 06, 2008

I don't have a clue why it came up in this format! But it's easy enough to read and so I'll keep it.

on Dec 06, 2008

“We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us”.

God's love for us is clearly not a mere encounter with us and it is based on a choice, by God, and it is based on a lofty idea, i.e. the idea of a "creation" that has free will and accepts accountability.

Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.

This, however, contradicts God's lofty idea of choice and accountability

That love between man and woman which is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings, was called eros by the ancient Greeks. Let us note straight away that the Greek Old Testament uses the word eros only twice, while the New Testament does not use it at all: of the three Greek words for love, eros, philia (the love of friendship) and agape, New Testament writers prefer the last, which occurs rather infrequently in Greek usage

He, the Pope, then goes back and admits that the NT does not look at it as he did earlier. Christianity, as per NT, is not "eros", it is not something imposed or not planned but is based on a lofty idea and ethical choice. which contradicts his earlier difinition of it.

The Greeks—not unlike other cultures—considered eros principally as a kind of intoxication, the overpowering of reason by a “divine madness” which tears man away from his finite existence and enables him, in the very process of being overwhelmed by divine power, to experience supreme happiness.

That definition is how the pope defined Christianity above.

Yet we have also seen that the way to attain this goal is not simply by submitting to instinct. Purification and growth in maturity are called for; and these also pass through the path of renunciation. Far from rejecting or “poisoning” eros, they heal it and restore its true grandeur.

Christian faith, on the other hand, has always considered man a unity in duality, a reality in which spirit and matter compenetrate, and in which each is brought to a new nobility. True, eros tends to rise “in ecstasy” towards the Divine, to lead us beyond ourselves; yet for this very reason it calls for a path of ascent, renunciation, purification and healing.

again he, the pope, confirms that christianity is not what he defined it originally. ascent, renunciation and purification and healing are the result of an an ethical choice based on a lofty idea.

How do you explain him contradicting himself like that??????!!!!

on Dec 10, 2008

Dear Lula, I just now discovered this post.  Thank you.  I really do appreciate the Pontiff's words.  I agree for the most part with what he says, but it still doesn't really address the questions I posed.  I frankly could see any Hasidic rabbi writing a very similar piece on love and God. And Jesus did not invent the love your neighbor line: its pure Hebrew scripture (see Lev 19:18). May I refer you to a Christian source article here of interest: Link

Did you know that loving-kindness (chesed) is one of the divine attributes and is mentioned a 245 times in the Torah and most of these references are in relationship to God's character and actions. God is most often understood as a loving and compassionate God.  But the question remains, how to manifest this love?

I do not see the pontiff addressing this.

 

In Judaism, as well as Zen, this love is manifest through our behavior.  Its not about feeling, but rather, its about action. 

 

I would like to see your suggestions as regards a Christian'e enactment of love.

 

Be well.

on Dec 11, 2008

How do you explain him contradicting himself like that??????!!!!

ThinkAloud,

I really don't know what to make of your comments. As I see it, there are no contradictions for me to explain.  Please read it again and try to understand what he's saying by going with the flow of his writing.

He starts by quoting the Scriptural passage,  "God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” saying this clearly expresse the heart of the Christian faith and also offers a kind of summary of the Christian life: “We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us”. 

God's love of mankind is a main theme of Christian theology......that God's supernatural Love is linked with the reality of human love.

Being Christian how do we come to believe in God's supernatural love for us and apply that love in our human relationships? He says it's not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.

St.John describes that event or person is the Christ event from whom all love and life comes and flows.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on Dec 11, 2008

Dear Lula, I just now discovered this post. Thank you.

You are most welcome! Thank YOU!

I really do appreciate the Pontiff's words. I agree for the most part with what he says, but it still doesn't really address the questions I posed.

Since love is universal, I knew you'd connect to what he says even though he's teaching NT Scripture and concerns the Christian faith.

I think if you read the entire encyclical you'll find he does address your questions.

I plan to post the next section soon.  

on Dec 11, 2008

I frankly could see any Hasidic rabbi writing a very similar piece on love and God. And Jesus did not invent the love your neighbor line: its pure Hebrew scripture (see Lev 19:18).

Agree...a nd Pope B. gives all due credit to the OT....in his introduction, he wrote:

In acknowledging the centrality of love, Christian faith has retained the core of Israel's faith, while at the same time giving it new depth and breadth. The pious Jew prayed daily the words of the Book of Deuteronomy which expressed the heart of his existence: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your might” (6:4-5). 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: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (19:18; cf. Mk 12:29-31).

Did you know that loving-kindness (chesed) is one of the divine attributes and is mentioned a 245 times in the Torah and most of these references are in relationship to God's character and actions. God is most often understood as a loving and compassionate God. But the question remains, how to manifest this love?

I do not see the pontiff addressing this.

While not the specific number, I know that Torah speaks often of God's love and compassion for us. In Genesis, He showed His great love, forgiveness, kindness and mercy in the Garden of Paradise.

Again, I'll post the next section, "Let's Explore Love" II, What does the unity and difference of eros and agape love entail for us?"  and you'll see Pope B.'s take on it....quite interesting...all the way through!

In Judaism, as well as Zen, this love is manifest through our behavior. Its not about feeling, but rather, its about action.

Read #5 middle paragraph again and tell me what you think...a lot of meat there.

For love to be it's fullest, we have to consider that we are body and soul....material and spirit....here both dimensions of love , eros and agape combined is what truly works.....one without the other never does...and I'd say that's why we have failed relationships!  

on Dec 11, 2008

Lula,

 

I agree there is much in paragraph five.  I wonder about the use of agape.  I see it as part of the Hellenization process. And an appeal to pagans on the part of the Church.  Which to me, takes us away from the God of the Hebrews.  I think agape is a neat way of avoiding or taking the humanity out of eros. I agree with the pontiff that eros has been hijacked or denigrated to nothing but sex, yet sex is a part of it.  Early civilizations were fairly typically willing to separate earth from air.  Earthy gods were seen as less "pure" than "sky" gods. Its the Apollonian v. Dionysius conflict which has a long history under many different names.

 

I look forward to part two.