I have finished reading through "Deus Caritas Est," and right now, all I can say is wow. The language is so simple, but the message is so deep. I'm not really sure how much I can comment on this. Everything that I could possibly say would seem to be nothing more than broken and graceless ramblings compared to the elegance of Benedict's language. Let me give you an example:
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. 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).What can I say that would add anything meaningful to this? I think all I can do is shout "Bravo!" very loudly.
What about this:
8. We have thus come to an initial, albeit still somewhat generic response to the two questions raised earlier. Fundamentally, “love” is a single reality, but with different dimensions; at different times, one or other dimension may emerge more clearly. Yet when the two dimensions are totally cut off from one another, the result is a caricature or at least an impoverished form of love.I cannot add anything meaningful to this, and if I tried, it would lose some of it's elegance. I am not able to comment on the second half of the encyclical either. As I was reading it, I thought it had a JPII feel about it, and I have just read on the BBC, that parts of the encyclical were indeed written by JPII.
I think this paragraph is probably the best in the second part. It is the greatest denunciation of Marxism that I have ever read.
b) Christian charitable activity must be independent of parties and ideologies. It is not a means of changing the world ideologically, and it is not at the service of worldly stratagems, but it is a way of making present here and now the love which man always needs. The modern age, particularly from the nineteenth century on, has been dominated by various versions of a philosophy of progress whose most radical form is Marxism. Part of Marxist strategy is the theory of impoverishment: in a situation of unjust power, it is claimed, anyone who engages in charitable initiatives is actually serving that unjust system, making it appear at least to some extent tolerable. This in turn slows down a potential revolution and thus blocks the struggle for a better world. Seen in this way, charity is rejected and attacked as a means of preserving the status quo. What we have here, though, is really an inhuman philosophy. People of the present are sacrificed to the moloch of the future—a future whose effective realization is at best doubtful. One does not make the world more human by refusing to act humanely here and now. We contribute to a better world only by personally doing good now, with full commitment and wherever we have the opportunity, independently of partisan strategies and programmes. The Christian's programme —the programme of the Good Samaritan, the programme of Jesus—is “a heart which sees”. This heart sees where love is needed and acts accordingly. Obviously when charitable activity is carried out by the Church as a communitarian initiative, the spontaneity of individuals must be combined with planning, foresight and cooperation with other similar institutions.As I am not sure that I can adequately comment on any of this, I am going to restrict myself to commenting on other people's comments. In the next few weeks, I'm sure "Deus Caritas Est" will be attacked from both the left and the right. Chesterton wrote in "Orthodoxy," that:
It [Christianity] was attacked on all sides and for all contradictory reasons. No sooner had one rationalist demonstrated that it was too far to the east than another demonstrated with equal clearness that it was much too far to the west. I think this is what we will see in the next couple of weeks. Of course, being attacked from all sides is always a good indication that you have found the Truth.
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
/138_RatzSunGlasses.jpg)
