One of the positive things about being a Catholic blogger is that I feel a push to read Church documents as soon as they come out. This is good thing for me considering that I have a have a tendency towards procrastination even for things that I want to do. As a result I read the first part of Deus Caritas Est during lunch and the second half later on. First off can anybody read a good sized encyclical right off the Vatican’s page. I mean black text on a mottled brown background is not the most eye pleasing contrast. First thing I did was to copy the text into a text editor and to also convert it to an mp3 with speech-to-text software to be able to go through it a second time later.
Update: I see Jimmy Akin did the same thing and has made it available as an MP3.
Additionally Maureen has also provides a human read version here.
It is a sad indictment and a testimony to disorder that Pope Benedict’s first encyclical is getting much less attention than the document on the admittance of homosexual’s in the seminary. The majority of news arguments give more attention to it being his first encyclical than to the contents. Of course this time they have no convenient hook to a hot button issue to be able to exploit. No media meat for "Pope attacks .." or "Pope slams" lead ins. Though some try have come up with some very creative interpretations to create an issue. For example in a overall good Time online article.
At Wednesday’s presentation of the encyclical, veteran Vatican correspondent Marco Tosatti asked Archbishop William Levada whether a reference to the Eucharist was a sign that Benedict was reconsidering Church policy that denies communion to divorced and remarried Catholics. Levada, who has Ratzinger’s old job as the Vatican’s top doctrinal official, politely told Tosatti he was reaching. "I hadn’t even considered it before your question," he said.
Well let us see what the Holy Father had to say in Deus Caritas Est on the Eucharist and marriage.
13. Jesus gave this act of oblation an enduring presence through his institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. He anticipated his death and resurrection by giving his disciples, in the bread and wine, his very self, his body and blood as the new manna (cf. Jn 6:31-33). The ancient world had dimly perceived that man’s real food—what truly nourishes him as man—is ultimately the Logos, eternal wisdom: this same Logos now truly becomes food for us—as love. The Eucharist draws us into Jesus’ act of self-oblation. More than just statically receiving the incarnate Logos, we enter into the very dynamic of his self-giving. The imagery of marriage between God and Israel is now realized in a way previously inconceivable: it had meant standing in God’s presence, but now it becomes union with God through sharing in Jesus’ self-gift, sharing in his body and blood. The sacramental “mysticism”, grounded in God’s condescension towards us, operates at a radically different level and lifts us to far greater heights than anything that any human mystical elevation could ever accomplish.
Yes you can easily see how reference to the Eucharist and of it’s sacramental union with God of course means that now divorced Catholics can receive Communion. Surely anybody can see that.
Though there does seem to be some general surprise by some in the media such as this one by Ruth Gledhill.
Every sentence, stop and comma speaks of orthodoxy. It is steeped in the tradition of the ancient Church. The Pope was former head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the body once known as the Inquisition. But this encyclical is not the work of an inquisitor. It is the work of a lover — a true lover of God.
Again they expected Torquemada, but what they got instead was the "sweet Christ on earth." Holy switcheroo Batman! Leave aside the inquisitor dig and the fact that the CDF whose lineage traces back to the Holy Office has a different mandate – she at least ends with words of absolute truth.
Legitimate criticism will come from some feminist circles. Although it is biblical, some women will not be happy at being referred to as rib-made helpmeets. His analysis of the role of the Church in bringing God’s love to fruition is also likely to be provoke accusations of implicit replacement theology.
Proof that ideological filters can easily distort any reading. Though it does make me laugh to think of the Pope as calling women "rib-made helpmeets." I mean I can hardly wait to the Pope doing a followup letter to the one JPII wrote in 1995 now called "Letter to rib-made helpmeets." I would also like to see a group Catholic women’s blog called "rib-made helpmeets." Now as to the Pope implying replacement theology – that is really a stretch. I can only guess that she though that replacement theology was the Church replacing the state – something that is antithetical to what the Pope is actually calling for. Those on a theocracy watch can stand down since the Pope called for the Church to help to form consciences in political life and to "help purify reason."
Now as to my own reading of the encyclical I will not give any commentary since it is being done better by others. What I can say is that not only should it be read, but meditated on – especially the first section. I do know that my first reading will not be my last.
Here is one very good summary from AsiaNews.
Get your Encyclical merchandise right here
Update: Carl Olson fisks a NYT piece on the encylical.
Michael Dubruiel gives the rest of the story concening Hans Kung "praising" the encyclical.
21 comments
Heh thanks Jeff 😉
Well, the reception has been very positive, and, as you said, too, surprised. Even HANS KUENG is pleased. Now that really lets me sleep at night!
Here is my initial reaction, while still reading it:
The new Encyclical looks very much like an olive branch. The first quote is from Nietzsche, the anti-Christian thinker who has implanted himself most insidiously in Christian consciousness. The Pope gently chides his notorious compatriot, called “the German philosopher”. This is a gesture of reconciliation, of recognition, and shows a willingness to take on board what is true in the Nietschean critique.
Some expected the Pope to confine Eros to heterosexuals, leaving homosexuals to specialize in Agape. But Ratzinger knows his classics, and knows that the philosophical theory of Eros was fashioned by Socrates and Plato in response to the sublimity of male beauty. The Pope cited the “Phaedrus” on this point in a 2002 message to Communione e Liberazione.
How can he send gay-friendly messages at the same time as he issues dismal documents branding homosexual orientation as objectively disordered? Well, Plato’s “Laws” seems to contradict his “Phaedrus” in much the same way. I think we can understand it as follows: Consider one of Rudolf Nureyev’s heart-stopping leaps — the feeling of admiration that this icon of male beauty arouses could be intense, passionate, yet have no connection with an inclination to sexual activity — indeed the admiration of beauty is an antidote to lust and stills sensual passion. So Ratzinger may be saying that eros is holy, opens us to God, and has nothing to do with impure passion.
I note that the second quotation in the letter comes from Virgil’s “Eclogues”, another gay classic (from which Andre Gide drew the title of his once-scandalous apologia “Corydon”). The literary and esthetic heritage of the Roman Church is in safe hands! Also, did any Pope ever speak so kindly of Julian the Apostate?
Obviously, the Pope wants us to love one another, and not to turn the Church into an ideological battlefield (as “Whispers in the Loggia” points out). He is writing now from the upper reaches of orthodoxy, no longer obsessing about the fine print.
He sounded very modern when he talked about the Church “blowing the whistle” on our sexual lives. But the German and the other translations speak rather of hanging up tablets of interdictions.
Some, like Paddy Agnew in The Irish Times, wonder if he is preaching only to the elderly among the converted — what he says about Marx seems to hark back three decades (though if present world inequality brings a revival of Marxism, that might change).
I’m a fantastic “rib-made help me[a]t,” especially with barbeque sauce! LOL!
Anyone reading this encyclical (or the Bible) without man-hating colored glasses should discover illumination, not offense.
Rib-made helpmeets? There’s a probablem when journalists who apparently have never done exegesis try to write on these topics. The word used in Genesis (helper) is used several other times in the OT —- RFERRING TO GOD!!! In other words, it is not a word that means servile, menial, slave-like, etc.
Well then, I guess the modern syllogism of love is wrong, eh?
“If God is love, and love is sex, then Sex is god.”
Go figure.
As a decidedly non-Orthodox Christian I look forward to reading the letter more than once. I would hope that the message of love comes through loud and clear to all those who worship God through Christ. It is the one thing that can and does unite the entire body of Christ, and if worked out with patience, will heal the centuries of rifts between us all. Thanks again for linking the article.
Fr. O’Leary (Spirit of Vatican II),
You certainly proved my point about “ideological filters can easily distort any reading.” You could probably read “Mary had a little lamb” and think it refers to bestiality.
Jeff,
Have you seen the article from the NYTimes? Here’s their leadoff:
Benedict’s First Encyclical Shuns Strictures of Orthodoxy
By IAN FISHER
Pope Benedict XVI presented Catholicism’s potential for good rather than imposing potentially divisive rules for orthodoxy.
The rest (no subscription as far as I can see) is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/26/international/europe/26pope.html?emc=eta1
They are all surprised that it has to do with the basic tenent of Christianity, that God = Love, and the most perfect Love that we all strive to reach and attain! But filters and all… you know.
Another person who wanted to hear the encyclical read! This is great!
I started yesterday at lunch with recording it, and I put the podcast up on archive.org last night. The rest of Part I of the encyclical should be up later today, and Part II tomorrow. So if you want to hear a real human instead of text-to-voice, come on over to marialectrix.blogspot.com!
Was listening to the radio last night when NPR did a segment on the encyclical. When they got to their interview with a reporter from National Catholic Reporter I thought “Oh, no, here comes some heresy.” But, lo, to my surprise, the guy actually said something quite profound. He said that too often the Church is characterized as Dr. No when it comes to issues of sexuality but that instead what Pope Benedict has done with this encyclical is to point out that when the Church does say ‘no’ She is doing so in support of the greater “yes” of divine love. At least, I think that’s what he said/meant. Did anyone else hear this?
Gretchen: I did not hear that particular interview, but the reporter sounds like John Allen. He is a reporter for NCReporter, and, so far as I can tell, he typically does a fair and good job. He has been writing a lot of good articles about current events in the Vatican lately, and I have heard him interviewed on the radio a lot in the past few months. He is also the author of a recent book on Opus Dei that Opus Dei people had good things to say about.
Jeff-
I’ve found the words ‘replacement theology’ used by those who do not like the fact that the Church teaches that she is ‘the New Israel’. They believe that saying that the Church replaces Israel is anti-Semitic. Thus they would not like the image of Christ/Church as groom/bride, because they see it as usurping the place of God/Israel as groom/bride. (These folks seem to put in the word ‘replace’ where the word ‘fulfill” should be used… )
This encyclical was really just more of the Love Love Love that one gets when they go to mass today. Forget about sin and heaven and hell, just Love and all go to heaven.
Are we not human and born with original sin? Is eros that important that the Popes encyclical “The Bulldog for the faith” as so many have called him, has to do with Love, and with obvious homosexual and liberal undertones. Father Ratzinger was a well known liberal, and how he got reinvented into some sort of “conservative” or traditional is almost as good as some of the spin doctors that work behind the scenes for politicians.
When the NY Times, Hans Kung and the rest of those left leaning hate filled “Spirit of vatican II” worshippers applaud this, you know it is bad for the church.
Will the church ever once again stand up for orthodoxy? Not in our lifetime for sure
MSNBC and their comments as well, chiding just how much of a “hardliner” B16 really is, appointing a liberal San Francisco Bishop as the so called czar of the faith, no curbs at all on the abuses that are rampant, and now an encyclical on Love, like we really needed to know more about that from the Pope
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11020619/
Mmmmm… ribs…
That gives me a great idea for a church fundraiser – a Mother’s Day bbq! Our wives and pastor have a great sense of humor.
Too bad the feminists will overlook the entire conclusion section that talks about a woman, “Mary, Mother of the Lord and mirror of all holiness…” I will never understand the feminist criticism of Catholicism. Is there any other religion in the world that holds women in such high regard?
A Pope who warmly and prominently quotes the Eclogues and the Phaedrus knows precisely what he is doing — sending a coded message of assurance to potentially alienated gay members of his flock. This was picked up over at Dreadnought’s blog.
Sorry, a shameless plug…
To gain some more information about Pope Benedict XVI, and support one of the few worthy efforts of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, plan on attending a lecture hosted by Archbishop Timothy Dolan and given by His Eminence, Francis Cardinal George. The Cardinal will speak about the new Holy Father and, I am sure, the new encyclical.
Tuesday, January 31st, 2006
Archbishop Cousins Catholic Center
3501 S. Lake Drive
St. Francis, WI 53235
Vespers at 6:30pm
Greeting by Archbishop Dolan at 7:00pm
followed by lecture, Q & A, and a reception.
It looks to be fascinating. For more info see: http://www.archmil.org/news/ShowNews.asp?ID=2448
Thanks.
Check out my blog:
http://movingcatholic.blogspot.com/
Mike
So he has supposedly drafted a document that is to limit homosexuality, far weaker than the 1961 document that was ignored for the past 40 years that prohibited homosexuality whatsover, and now that priest and priest is coming out of the closet, he is reaching out to them as a homosexual sympathizer pope. Has not homosexuality been addressed in scripture both in new and OT as being depraved, and the Catholic church could care less once again what the church, the Bible, or Our Lord when he instituted the sacrament of marriage between Man and WOman.
I guess the Vatican II church will just retranslate the Bible for the 5th time or so as they have done since Vatican II to make it fit their agenda and this time omit anything that is offensive to Gays, as they have the past 40 years deleted anything that was offensive to Jews and also woman
Wow what a great church and leadership, changing the Bible and teachings to be part of the 21st century
Anyone know where I can find a good traditional church that is in the New York Area?
Wow, some people sure know how to be negative. What I’ve seen so far is a great effort to return love to it’s proper place, where God intended it to be. It’s quite clear that B16 is not saying homosexuality is okay, and I think that you really need to be stretching for that.
Also, as far as heterodox theologians praising the work, I have two thoughts. First, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. Second, they are stretching mightily in many cases to find what they want in it (just as those of you are trying to find heresy in an encyclical). I am not done yet, but I don’t necessarily see what some of the more liberal folks are saying. That one priest in the NYT seemed to be able to make the encyclical about himself (he is a dissident and made it clear that he sees this encyclical saying that we should love EVERYONE, not just those who tow the line for Rome).
I imagine everyone has a filter through which they experience life, but once in a while, perhaps we should take things at face value instead of working ourselves into a frenzy reading between the lines. What I’ve read so far is straight-forward and doesn’t seem to have any kind of hidden message. Try reading it without looking for hidden clues, folks!
It is clear that our poo-pooers have either not read past the encyclical’s title or barely skimmed it and, not finding any parts about slash-and-burn, dismiss it. I’ve only carefully read to about point 7 of the first part, but already I’ve seen sound repudiations of modernist errors regarding love and sex. I only skimmed the second part or it, but what I did read seemed to scream “knock-off the social engineering!”.
I really worry about these naysayers. I afraid they are only a few steps from putting the pages of the encylical on a corkboard and running strings of yarn from one part to another like that guy in A Beautiful Mind.
Just a couple thoughts regarding the Pope’s encyclical:
I found myself feeling somewhat disconcerted, not necessarily by the overall content of the document, but by the Pope’s choice of approach. His emphasis on love as a noun – a “feeling” (DCE 16)that cannot be commanded – he seems to fly in the face of Christ’s saying, “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another.” (Jn. 13:34) In fact, the whole Last Supper discourse in John is informed with the relationship between love and obedience. Of course, this would seem to be very difficult for love, the noun. However, it is perfectly plausible for love, the verb. This can be illustrated by contrasting the document’s assertion that, “amid this multiplicity of meanings (of love), 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.” (DCE 2) with Jesus’ statement that “no one has greater love than this, that someone would lay down his life for his friends.” (Jn 15:13).
So, I get a sense that the document is only looking at half of the coin. This may be due to a desire to address the “warped” understanding of eros in our current culture. It is perhaps more urgent to inform our understanding of (eros) love with the divine, self-giving aspects of agape than vice versa, though the Pope clearly illustrates that God’s love is nothing short of passionate. He also rightly notes that a self-giving love based solely on obedience runs the risk of growing “arid” (DCE 18), and points out the opportunity for growth and a richer faith for those whose faith may be based more in reason than on an “emotional” experience. That said, the document’s approach is a bit dismissive of those who have come to to faith in this way. And how many have come to their Catholicism by virtue of their parents teaching them to “love Jesus”? How many saints have endured the “dark night of the soul”, wherein one receives little in the way of emotional consolation but yet perseveres simply by virtue of faith?
In the end, we arrive at the same place – to have our lives (actions) informed by a desire that is simultaneously passionate, filling the soul and compelling beyond reason, yet self-giving and steadfast. Certainly, the path taken by the Pope’s encyclical – to identify the “intoxication” of the heart (eros) as a divine gift and give it direction through the redemptive self-giving of the will (agape) – is the richer, for God is truly about relationship, which can only go so deep without a form of passion. It is also the easier path, as sacrifice or obedience is always less of a burden when given to someone for whom one has emotional allegiance. I do wonder, however, given the number of Catholics whose faith description would not include the word “zeal” or who, like me, have come to faith through the path of Reason, whether it might not have been helpful to come at it from the other direction, starting with the willed agape and exploring how “eros” might be harnessed to it to give it wings.
Comments are closed.