Pope on divine love vs. erotic love

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 01/04/2006 | CATHLEEN FALSANI

[klossg]

Pope Benedict XVI may try to "save eros," in the first encyclical of his papacy, Chicago's Cardinal Francis George told the Chicago Sun-Times.

George expects the new pope will try to explain that erotic love, eros, and unconditional love, agape, are both inherently good in God's eyes in his encyclical titled "Deus, Caritas Est," Latin for "God is Love." An encyclical is a pope's most authoritative document, a pastoral letter circulated to the universal church.

Letter talks about Christ

The cardinal has not yet seen Benedict XVI's encyclical, which is expected to be released by the Vatican within days, but said he has "seen comments" about it. The pope has asked George to deliver an address about the major themes of the encyclical to a gathering of the pontifical charity organization Cor Unum in Rome at the end of the month, according to Colleen Dolan, the cardinal's spokeswoman.

Benedict XVI's first encyclical will likely "talk about Christ, which is a good thing for a pope to talk about in his first encyclical. John Paul II did that," George said. "And he is going to talk about the relationship between love and truth, between agape and eros."

Agape (pronounced "ah-gah-pay") is a Greek word, referring to unconditional love, the kind Catholic doctrine teaches God has for humankind. Eros was the Greek god of love, and his name has come to refer to sexual love or desire.

In the mid-1900s, Anders Nygren, a Lutheran bishop from Sweden, published a book called Eros and Agape, in which he concluded that agape is the only truly Christian kind of love.

"In a kind of Lutheran fashion, he distinguished between agape, the love of God in us, which is good; and eros, which is our own erotic life and desire, which turns us away from God," George said. "He said that in English 'love' is ambiguous and you have to distinguish between these two. And you do.

"What the pope is going to do is to try to save eros. That is to say that our own human love, our desires, are good in themselves. . . . The distinction between agape and eros is not a clean one. In fact, one influences the other and therefore both should be considered good. But we are sinful creatures, so they can be misused."

A pope's first encyclical is seen as setting the tone for the rest of his papacy. Pope John Paul II, who died in April, published 14 encyclicals during his 27-year pontificate.

What will it mean if Benedict XVI tackles the issue of erotic love versus divine love?

"It might be part of his overall program of trying to not let things become purely secularized and devoid of religious connection," the Rev. Donald Senior, president of Chicago's Catholic Theological Union, said by phone from Rome on Monday night.

'Purifying the church'

Senior is there for a meeting of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, which was led by Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany, before he became pope in April.

"He has spoken about, in a couple of his statements already, a 'soulless materialism,' so trying to integrate human experience with the divine is really fundamental to him," Senior said.

"It may be that he's worried about a picture of human love or sexuality that is devoid of any connection to the divine. And in a strange way, it may be part of his response . . . to the clergy abuse crisis.

"He talked about 'purifying the church.' Maybe this is part of his way of doing it," Senior speculated.

The pope, who is said to have begun work on his first encyclical last summer, is a scholar of St. Augustine, who famously had a hard time reconciling erotic and divine love.

"Maybe he's going to try to repair Augustine a bit," Senior said, adding that he has not seen the encyclical and had expected it to be solely about Christology, or the study of Christ.

The pontiff's "focus is so much more dogmatic. Nevertheless, he does have a very emotional way of speaking. In his homilies and stuff, people have been noting that they're all very rich in imagery and much more affective than cerebral," Senior said. "Bavarians are very sentimental and romantic."

[Coleus]

God's Loving Design

8. Married love particularly reveals its true nature and nobility when we realize that it takes its origin from God, who "is love," (6) the Father "from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named." (7)

Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.

The marriage of those who have been baptized is, in addition, invested with the dignity of a sacramental sign of grace, for it represents the union of Christ and His Church.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Sex is not evil, it's good, very good. It becomes bad when it's committed out of the context of marriage and when contraception is used.

The secular, neo-pagan humanists understanding of human nature sees the body only as the instrument of enjoyment and to be used and manipulated for one's means rather than a spirtiual whole person--the soul with the body.

Tobit
6:16. Then the angel Raphael said to him: Hear me, and I will show thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail.

6:17. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think that Catholics would tend to see Eucharistic Communion as having something--- by way of analogy --- in common with Marital Commmunion.

In other words, it is a love that can express itself in a certain way only after a certain, solemn and joyful and formal, commitment. Upon being received into the Catholic Church, you are "in communion" with the whole Communion of Saints, past, present, and I daresay future, in the Church assembled in glorious order, gathered around bishops and in ranks of confessors, virgins, and martyrs.

In a paradoxical way, this is "exclusive" membership in the most far-flung marriage feast in or out of this world. Didn't James Joyce say, Catholic means "here comes everybody"?

By Jesus' words, though, you've got to do one thing: ypu've got to put on your wedding garment. And what is that? It is the grace of doing the proper thing to enter the wedding feast, the Church. The joyful and formal and full commitment I mentioned above.

Just this: be a Catholic, and you will be in Communion, and you can receive Communion, and receive the Body of Christ, His body, blood, soul, and divinity, and receive everyone who is in Christ as well.

It seems to me that non-Catholic Christians possess a "memorial" communion as a sign; but Catholics (no credit to us, sinners that we are) possess Him in Substance.

God forgive us our casual infidelities: yet we have Him, Himself, His own self, the Lord.

[dangus]

>> Orange marmalade. Monkeys. Trapezes. Sears Wet-N-Dry vaccuums. <<

What the hell are you going to do with those monkeys? Any good Catholic knows that Orange Marmalade requires Chimps. Get some good Apple Butter if you want to use monkeys.

Sicko.

[civis]

I raise a glass to hypocrites! God bless us!

[redgolum]

C.S. Lewis also covered the subject in his book, the "Four Loves." This would be a useful commentary on the issue.

Lewis expresses much better than early Augustine. He did have a few things from his days with the Manichees and as one who was living in sin with a mistress, but even in City of God, he was trying to work through them. Augustine expressed in City of God that it would be better to separate lust from procreation, so that it would be solely an act of will and not desire, but that was because such desire is so often wrongly expressed.

There is nothing wrong with me desiring my wife and having an active love life. There is a lot wrong with me doing that with every person and thing I meet. In todays culture, it is seen as "repressive" to not screw any and all comers. That isn't healthy, any more than if I ate every piece of food that I could lay hands on.

[klossg]

I agree with you on the Augustine and his Manichean issues. And really like your comparison to food. Augustine's City of God is such a great read, it should be required before one can spout off like we do. His concept of God has helped me understand the Our Father better.

You said: There is nothing wrong with me desiring my wife and having an active love life.

Like all good things we can go astray. We can use our wife for our own pleasure and though we are not committing adultery, we can reduce our wife to an object. We can use her for our own gratification. And no human should be used! Not even the one we love the most and would die for. Or should I say especially not the one we love the most. So, I disagree with you in that we can sin if we use our wife. And I think this is very common, especially today with contraception. And it should be noted that the use can go two ways. It just may be that wives may use their husbands desire for sex to gain companionship and comfort.

I truly believe that this is a major reasons there is so much divorce today. We use each other as objects, even in marriage. Even when we give it our best efforts.

I think sex is so beautiful and glorious that it also holds much power and sway in our lives. The world has it right that sex is important ... we just don't understand what a huge impact it has on us and where it belongs and how we should reverence it as much as we enjoy it.

I mean, the drive to achieve ecstasy can and does make us blind to others, even our true love. Our bodies and our desires do not always match the purity of true love that we promised to our wife/husband the day we vowed to love them forever.

[redgolum]

LOL! I didn't mean that it was ok to use your wife. Although I didn't state what I meant clearly enough.

What I meant is having an enjoyable sex life with ones spouse is not in and of it self a sin. Using your spouse is. We both want kids (soon), and don't use each other for physical gratification.

You are right though, that much of the problem with divorce in this world stem from selfishness. One or both partners came into the relation ship only thinking of themselves, and not of the other person. Marriage is, as my very blunt friend loves to put it, a death pact. You are stating before God and everyone that this person will be your spouse till death. That is the only way out of it. Today it is often till something better wanders in.