Eros to Agape and Caritas continued--Catholicism vs. Socialism, Part 4

I am going to skip some of this excellent encyclical and move to more modern considerations, as this is a mini-series on the answer to socialism. Many commentators would agree with the Pope that the influence of Marxism in the world has changed the argument and made it more difficult for the Church to deal with criticisms. However, the Holy Spirit is in the Church and the call to a just social order must be based on what is here and elsewhere called subsidiarity.

Here is the Pope on this: 

Since the nineteenth century, an objection has been raised to the Church's charitable activity, subsequently developed with particular insistence by Marxism: the poor, it is claimed, do not need charity but justice. Works of charity—almsgiving—are in effect a way for the rich to shirk their obligation to work for justice and a means of soothing their consciences, while preserving their own status and robbing the poor of their rights. Instead of contributing through individual works of charity to maintaining the status quo, we need to build a just social order in which all receive their share of the world's goods and no longer have to depend on charity. There is admittedly some truth to this argument, but also much that is mistaken. It is true that the pursuit of justice must be a fundamental norm of the State and that the aim of a just social order is to guarantee to each person, according to the principle of subsidiarity, his share of the community's goods. This has always been emphasized by Christian teaching on the State and by the Church's social doctrine. Historically, the issue of the just ordering of the collectivity had taken a new dimension with the industrialization of society in the nineteenth century. The rise of modern industry caused the old social structures to collapse, while the growth of a class of salaried workers provoked radical changes in the fabric of society. The relationship between capital and labour now became the decisive issue—an issue which in that form was previously unknown. Capital and the means of production were now the new source of power which, concentrated in the hands of a few, led to the suppression of the rights of the working classes, against which they had to rebel

With the background, the Church responded quickly to the challenge of Marx, with encyclicals coming out only one year after the publication of Das Capital in English. The Popes wasted no time, as the threat of atheism in Italy was growing with the rise of communism. The Pope thinks the overall view was late in coming, but the documents against Modernist heresies set the stage for the later encyclicals. Here is his comment:

It must be admitted that the Church's leadership was slow to realize that the issue of the just structuring of society needed to be approached in a new way. There were some pioneers, such as Bishop Ketteler of Mainz († 1877), and concrete needs were met by a growing number of groups, associations, leagues, federations and, in particular, by the new religious orders founded in the nineteenth century to combat poverty, disease and the need for better education. In 1891, the papal magisterium intervened with the Encyclical Rerum Novarum of Leo XIII. This was followed in 1931 by Pius XI's Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno. In 1961 Blessed John XXIII published the Encyclical Mater et Magistra, while Paul VI, in the Encyclical Populorum Progressio (1967) and in the Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens (1971), insistently addressed the social problem, which had meanwhile become especially acute in Latin America. My great predecessor John Paul II left us a trilogy of social Encyclicals: Laborem Exercens (1981), Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987) and finally Centesimus Annus (1991). Faced with new situations and issues, Catholic social teaching thus gradually developed, and has now found a comprehensive presentation in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church published in 2004 by the Pontifical Council Iustitia et Pax. Marxism had seen world revolution and its preliminaries as the panacea for the social problem: revolution and the subsequent collectivization of the means of production, so it was claimed, would immediately change things for the better. This illusion has vanished. In today's complex situation, not least because of the growth of a globalized economy, the Church's social doctrine has become a set of fundamental guidelines offering approaches that are valid even beyond the confines of the Church: in the face of ongoing development these guidelines need to be addressed in the context of dialogue with all those seriously concerned for humanity and for the world in which we live.


I have a kinder view, in that I believe that the great Popes Pius IX and X in their statements against the Italian encroachment of the Vatican States and the Concordats led to more intense political statements of the later popes. However, what is clear is that the Bride of Christ has strong views on the role of the individual and the State, and how government should uphold the dignity of every human being, while calling Christians to task to take care of their neighbours. The Pope refers to Justice, which flows from Love: justice is perhaps one of the most misunderstood virtues in our time.


The just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics. As Augustine once said, a State which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves: “Remota itaque iustitia quid sunt regna nisi magna latrocinia?”.[18] Fundamental to Christianity is the distinction between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God (cf. Mt 22:21), in other words, the distinction between Church and State, or, as the Second Vatican Council puts it, the autonomy of the temporal sphere.[19] The State may not impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony between the followers of different religions. For her part, the Church, as the social expression of Christian faith, has a proper independence and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community which the State must recognize. The two spheres are distinct, yet always interrelated.
Justice is both the aim and the intrinsic criterion of all politics. Politics is more than a mere mechanism for defining the rules of public life: its origin and its goal are found in justice, which by its very nature has to do with ethics. The State must inevitably face the question of how justice can be achieved here and now. But this presupposes an even more radical question: what is justice? The problem is one of practical reason; but if reason is to be exercised properly, it must undergo constant purification, since it can never be completely free of the danger of a certain ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power and special interests.
Now, finally, we get to the core. 


Here politics and faith meet. Faith by its specific nature is an encounter with the living God—an encounter opening up new horizons extending beyond the sphere of reason. But it is also a purifying force for reason itself. From God's standpoint, faith liberates reason from its blind spots and therefore helps it to be ever more fully itself. Faith enables reason to do its work more effectively and to see its proper object more clearly. This is where Catholic social doctrine has its place: it has no intention of giving the Church power over the State. Even less is it an attempt to impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to faith. Its aim is simply to help purify reason and to contribute, here and now, to the acknowledgment and attainment of what is just.
The Church's social teaching argues on the basis of reason and natural law, namely, on the basis of what is in accord with the nature of every human being. It recognizes that it is not the Church's responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest.

We have moved very quickly from eros to agape to caritas. But the movement of the heart should be the same. If one loves God and His People, politics is part of the result of living in a society which must be just. As the conscience for the State, the Church is necessary for the natural order of rule. Here is the last part of this discussion on justice before the Pope moves back to caritas and justice.


Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due, is an essential task which every generation must take up anew. As a political task, this cannot be the Church's immediate responsibility. Yet, since it is also a most important human responsibility, the Church is duty-bound to offer, through the purification of reason and through ethical formation, her own specific contribution towards understanding the requirements of justice and achieving them politically.
The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.

to be continued....

Notice of Pontifical Mass with H.E. Raymond Cardinal Burke

At the Brompton Oratory

Pontifical High Mass 

celebrated by 

H.E. Raymond Cardinal Burke

Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura

St Philip’sDay

26 May 2012

11am

Updates on France

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9246706/France-election-Nicolas-Sarkozy-hits-out-at-bias-media-as-Francois-Hollande-nears-victory.html

Good article from The Telegraph on France....and I updated earlier post with this http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/278412e6-9538-11e1-8faf-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fworld_uk%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct

As France goes, so goes Europe....prayers, please.

Pray for our sisters

For my sisters, for whom I post and pray....watch this video, please, and the others below it.

Freedom is not free, but takes hard work, involvement and prayer. Please, do not become complacent, or behave like none of this will effect you in the future. Freedom to be a Christian and witness to the Faith may pass away more quickly than you realize. 

Catholic Parish Life vs. Socialism continued...Part 3

The early Christian community stood out as a loving group of people who took care of each other in daily, temporal needs, as well as spiritual needs. In the encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, Pope Benedict, in Part II clarifies this difference. 



Love of neighbour, grounded in the love of God, is first and foremost a responsibility for each individual member of the faithful, but it is also a responsibility for the entire ecclesial community at every level: from the local community to the particular Church and to the Church universal in its entirety. As a community, the Church must practise love. Love thus needs to be organized if it is to be an ordered service to the community. The awareness of this responsibility has had a constitutive relevance in the Church from the beginning: “All who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need” (Acts 2:44-5). In these words, Saint Luke provides a kind of definition of the Church, whose constitutive elements include fidelity to the “teaching of the Apostles”, “communion” (koinonia), “the breaking of the bread” and “prayer” (cf. Acts 2:42). The element of “communion” (koinonia) is not initially defined, but appears concretely in the verses quoted above: it consists in the fact that believers hold all things in common and that among them, there is no longer any distinction between rich and poor (cf. also Acts 4:32-37). As the Church grew, this radical form of material communion could not in fact be preserved. But its essential core remained: within the community of believers there can never be room for a poverty that denies anyone what is needed for a dignified life.


What happened? How did the local Church move away from real community to relying on socialism and the State for carrying for each other needs? I am old enough to remember women in the neighborhood, Lutherans and Catholics, surrounding the woman who had six children and an ill husband. There were no programs for such, as yet, she was taken care of in the 1950s. Now, people assume the government will take care of people-this is socialism. 
. 
A dignified life is now the middle-class dream, and sadly, those who fall into poverty are judged according to Calvinism, to be unholy, or worse, under a curse, instead of an opportunity for charity. I personally know three women who have been homeless this past year. One had her house ruined in a flood. No one in her affluent town helped her with living space or moving. She is in her 70s and lived in a hotel for 20 months. That is a scandal, as many of her parishioners have very large houses with plenty of space. The second woman's flat burnt down and she could not get government housing. At this time, she is still, I think, in a hotel. These women are both active members of Catholic parishes and not one person made room for either. The third woman, a pensioner, was forced to look for cheaper rent in an area where governmental housing has a three year waiting list. The members of the parish wanted to charge her, and I am ashamed to say this, 100 dollars per day for rent, as she was living in a resort town and "that was the going rate". I cannot imagine a pagan saying now, "See how they love one another." None of these women have husbands or families to take care of them. The priest who was trying to help her find housing in the parish gave up and was ashamed of his people, but nothing happened and still has not happened. When I tried to get help for one of these ladies,  the response from all the people in the parish was. "Isn't there a government program for her?" We are living in great need of love in our Church, and it begins with a loving relationship with God.


Certain people avoid the poor as if they have leprosy, letting the State become the Big Mama.


Clearly, the Pope delineates other alternatives. 


A few references will suffice to demonstrate this. Justin Martyr († c. 155) in speaking of the Christians' celebration of Sunday, also mentions their charitable activity, linked with the Eucharist as such. Those who are able make offerings in accordance with their means, each as he or she wishes; the Bishop in turn makes use of these to support orphans, widows, the sick and those who for other reasons find themselves in need, such as prisoners and foreigners.[12] The great Christian writer Tertullian († after 220) relates how the pagans were struck by the Christians' concern for the needy of every sort.[13] And when Ignatius of Antioch († c. 117) described the Church of Rome as “presiding in charity (agape)”,[14] we may assume that with this definition he also intended in some sense to express her concrete charitable activity.


The modern society does not look at the Church and say "See how they love one another."


Now, the Church was more organized in earlier days, and in pioneer days in the States, then it is now regarding real love in action. The deacons had two roles, depending on their call-spiritual and physical. The permanent deaconate in the dioceses where I have lived in the States have been active to a certain extent-one, now retired, was at the food bank he helped to organize. However, this is not usually the case. He was a light in the darkness of selfishness.


Here is the Pope again:



Here it might be helpful to allude to the earliest legal structures associated with the service of charity in the Church. Towards the middle of the fourth century we see the development in Egypt of the “diaconia”: the institution within each monastery responsible for all works of relief, that is to say, for the service of charity. By the sixth century this institution had evolved into a corporation with full juridical standing, which the civil authorities themselves entrusted with part of the grain for public distribution. In Egypt not only each monastery, but each individual Diocese eventually had its owndiaconia; this institution then developed in both East and West. Pope Gregory the Great († 604) mentions the diaconia of Naples, while in Rome the diaconiae are documented from the seventh and eighth centuries. But charitable activity on behalf of the poor and suffering was naturally an essential part of the Church of Rome from the very beginning, based on the principles of Christian life given in the Acts of the Apostles. It found a vivid expression in the case of the deacon Lawrence († 258). The dramatic description of Lawrence's martyrdom was known to Saint Ambrose († 397) and it provides a fundamentally authentic picture of the saint. As the one responsible for the care of the poor in Rome, Lawrence had been given a period of time, after the capture of the Pope and of Lawrence's fellow deacons, to collect the treasures of the Church and hand them over to the civil authorities. He distributed to the poor whatever funds were available and then presented to the authorities the poor themselves as the real treasure of the Church.[15]Whatever historical reliability one attributes to these details, Lawrence has always remained present in the Church's memory as a great exponent of ecclesial charity.
24. A mention of the emperor Julian the Apostate († 363) can also show how essential the early Church considered the organized practice of charity. As a child of six years, Julian witnessed the assassination of his father, brother and other family members by the guards of the imperial palace; rightly or wrongly, he blamed this brutal act on the Emperor Constantius, who passed himself off as an outstanding Christian. The Christian faith was thus definitively discredited in his eyes. Upon becoming emperor, Julian decided to restore paganism, the ancient Roman religion, while reforming it in the hope of making it the driving force behind the empire. In this project he was amply inspired by Christianity. He established a hierarchy of metropolitans and priests who were to foster love of God and neighbour. In one of his letters,[16] he wrote that the sole aspect of Christianity which had impressed him was the Church's charitable activity. He thus considered it essential for his new pagan religion that, alongside the system of the Church's charity, an equivalent activity of its own be established. According to him, this was the reason for the popularity of the “Galileans”. They needed now to be imitated and outdone. In this way, then, the Emperor confirmed that charity was a decisive feature of the Christian community, the Church.


What happened? Socialism and the Communist Manifesto leaked into Church leadership and the labor unions, as well as certain political parties in Europe and in America. We were warned by the succession of Popes up to the present day. The answer to socialism lies in the radical living of the Gospel and the intense relationship with Christ every Catholic should have individually, that love relationship which spills out into the parish.


Are Catholics really listening or reading what this Pope and those before have to say about charity, which is from and in God, going out into the community? One person said to me that "God will take care of these people?" Yes, but through His Church, not through some magical means....



25. Thus far, two essential facts have emerged from our reflections:
a) The Church's deepest nature is expressed in her three-fold responsibility: of proclaiming the word of God (kerygma-martyria), celebrating the sacraments (leitourgia), and exercising the ministry of charity (diakonia). These duties presuppose each other and are inseparable. For the Church, charity is not a kind of welfare activity which could equally well be left to others, but is a part of her nature, an indispensable expression of her very being.[17]
b) The Church is God's family in the world. In this family no one ought to go without the necessities of life. Yet at the same time caritas- agape extends beyond the frontiers of the Church. The parable of the Good Samaritan remains as a standard which imposes universal love towards the needy whom we encounter “by chance” (cf. Lk 10:31), whoever they may be. Without in any way detracting from this commandment of universal love, the Church also has a specific responsibility: within the ecclesial family no member should suffer through being in need. The teaching of the Letter to the Galatians is emphatic: “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” (6:10).

This does not and is not happening, especially in socialist countries like Ireland and Great Britain, where the State is the "nanny" and the Catholics bow to this power which they cannot control. Look at the elections yesterday and pay attention to France tomorrow-as France goes, Europe goes...to be continued.

On Baptism Again......

I shall get back to Pope Benedict XVI's encyclical on love after this post. I must write about the terrible confusion in the Church regarding the sacrament of Baptism. Now, I have written about this before, but the confusion is so widespread among Catholics, that a repetition is needed. I hope other people in catechesis and RCIA help clarify the confusion. It is almost as if some Catholics no longer believe in Original Sin.

We are all born with Original Sin. Baptism takes away the sin, which has separated us from God and grace.

So, what does baptism do?

One: it makes one a child of God. We are not born as adopted children of God; only once, in our life and with His Life, which is sanctifying grace, are we made children of God.

Two: it makes us co-heirs with Christ in eternal life and in the life of God on earth, with is the life of grace. Without baptism, we do not inherit heaven, nor the life of God, the Kingdom of God within. We receive the Indwelling of the Holy Trinity in baptism, not in any other way. We are heirs of God and heirs of heaven. (These points could be divided into three).

Three: we are given the means to achieve perfection, that is, through sanctifying grace. We are given the virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity. We are given the gifts to grow and develop the other virtues, not natural virtues, but supernatural ones.

Four: we are given salvation, which means, eternal life, if we cooperate with the graces and virtues given.

Five: we are made pleasing to God and just in His Eyes, through the Death and Resurrection of Christ, through the waters of baptism.

Six: we are given the means to gain merit. Only souls in grace, not those in mortal sin, can gain merit.

Seven: we are united with God in an intimate union.

All these items may be found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in the documents of the Church regarding baptism, and in the Scriptures, particularly the Letters of Paul and the Letters of John and in other catechisms, as well as the writings of the saints.

To believe that all people have access to heaven and the above gifts, as well as the state of grace becoming children of God without baptism is to be a heretic. It is too bad, but many Catholics fall into heresy for the following reasons.

One: like myself, there are children in our families, such as nieces, nephews, etc. who are not baptised and some people cannot bear the suffering of facing the truth about their state. I, for example, have a niece who is not baptised. This is a painful situation, but as I am not her parents, I can only pray that God will inspire her to be baptised someday.

Two: many Catholics cannot face the real tragedy of abortion, which is that the souls of these little victims may not be taken up into the Beatific Vision as those who are baptised. Unbaptized babies, as Blessed John Paul II stated, are in the mercy of God. But, we cannot assume that their state is the same as that of a baptised baby. Otherwise, we are denying the efficacy of the sacrament.

Three: many Catholics simply do not believe in Original Sin, hell, or purgatory. In other words, some believe in the heresy of universal salvation, which I think is the most common heresy in the world today.

Four: relativism regarding religions demands that baptism makes no difference as all good people go to heaven--this is a common heresy as well.

Five: the misunderstanding of the baptism of desire, which only applies to those over the age of reason who cannot because of serious circumstances, such as persecution, be baptised. Another person other than one's self cannot desire baptism for a second party.

Six: some Catholics believe all children are in a state of innocence simply because they are children. This is a sentimental idea which used to be common and still lingers on in some circles.

Seven: the misunderstanding of the Nature of God makes some think that God would never punish or damn a child. Now, invincible ignorance is always a possibility, but as I wrote in an earlier posting, children can choose evil and if not baptised, the choosing of good is much harder.

This list is not exhaustive. Now, I am going back to the great encyclical on love.....see next post later tomorrow

Love and the Church Against Socialism--Part Two

Well, I am still in Part I of Deus Caritas Est.  


Here is a section which is found at the end of that part, and my comments.The Pope continues....


Earlier we spoke of the process of purification and maturation by which eros comes fully into its own, becomes love in the full meaning of the word. It is characteristic of mature love that it calls into play all man's potentialities; it engages the whole man, so to speak. Contact with the visible manifestations of God's love can awaken within us a feeling of joy born of the experience of being loved. But this encounter also engages our will and our intellect. Acknowledgment of the living God is one path towards love, and the “yes” of our will to his will unites our intellect, will and sentiments in the all- embracing act of love. But this process is always open-ended; love is never “finished” and complete; throughout life, it changes and matures, and thus remains faithful to itself. Idem velle atque idem nolle [9]—to want the same thing, and to reject the same thing—was recognized by antiquity as the authentic content of love: the one becomes similar to the other, and this leads to a community of will and thought. The love-story between God and man consists in the very fact that this communion of will increases in a communion of thought and sentiment, and thus our will and God's will increasingly coincide: God's will is no longer for me an alien will, something imposed on me from without by the commandments, but it is now my own will, based on the realization that God is in fact more deeply present to me than I am to myself.[10] Then self- abandonment to God increases and God becomes our joy (cf. Ps 73 [72]:23-28).
If I have no contact whatsoever with God in my life, then I cannot see in the other anything more than the other, and I am incapable of seeing in him the image of God. But if in my life I fail completely to heed others, solely out of a desire to be “devout” and to perform my “religious duties”, then my relationship with God will also grow arid. It becomes merely “proper”, but loveless. Only my readiness to encounter my neighbour and to show him love makes me sensitive to God as well. Only if I serve my neighbour can my eyes be opened to what God does for me and how much he loves me. The saints—consider the example of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta—constantly renewed their capacity for love of neighbour from their encounter with the Eucharistic Lord, and conversely this encounter acquired its real- ism and depth in their service to others. Love of God and love of neighbour are thus inseparable, they form a single commandment. But both live from the love of God who has loved us first. No longer is it a question, then, of a “commandment” imposed from without and calling for the impossible, but rather of a freely-bestowed experience of love from within, a love which by its very nature must then be shared with others. Love grows through love. Love is “divine” because it comes from God and unites us to God; through this unifying process it makes us a “we” which transcends our divisions and makes us one, until in the end God is “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28).


There are so many points here, I do not know where to begin. Firstly, our potentialities come out, as it were, in love. If and when we know we are loved, we have a great opening of the gifts which God has given us for ourselves, our close loved ones, and the entire community. The transcending and ascending love are the daily contacts in prayer and in the community. Secondly, this section points out the lukewarmness of just doing our duties in the Church. Yuck. Who wants that sort of love anyway? If we Live in Love, are immersed in Love, Who is God, this energy to love reaches out again and again. 


The Pope writes above, a freely-bestowed experience of love from within, a love which by its very nature must then be shared with others.


What does this mean? For the younger couples, it means having and rearing children; for the men, it means leadership in families and in the Church community; for women, it means care and concern for the vulnerable, as well as the special charisms; for sisters and nuns, it means their call and the rule of their orders which feed their charisms; for priests it means being totally in love with God and His People and becoming perfect. No more, no less.


This is not the description of a false utopianism. It means hard work, not only from the heart, but from the will united with the heart. Sometimes, as I know personally, love is unrequited, not returned, for many reasons known only to the heart. That love is unrequited does not stop the creativity, the persistence, and the joy of love. As the Pope states above,  Love grows through love. Love is “divine” because it comes from God and unites us to God; through this unifying process it makes us a “we” which transcends our divisions and makes us one, until in the end God is “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28).


The we is you and God, me and God, me and you and God. This is staggering. So, if there is a lack of love, either one has let it die within, it has died from lack of food--which are prayer and the sacraments; or it has never been there in the first place. We cannot love without being loved and accepting that love. 


Yesterday, a friend of mine apologized for a lack of patience in a meeting at her church. She was humble enough to do so. The response was "an apology is not enough." Wow, where is the love there, and this happened among the so-called "church ladies", who do all the flowers and stuff. No love there, I am afraid....No love, no acceptance. No love, no community. The jobs one does becomes mere dross and not gaining any merit. None.


No love, no merit.

One cannot do what is not in one's heart. We must follow our hearts, and if our hearts are one with God, and if the love is divine, as the Pope writes above, creation itself is transformed.


Can we not have a renewed vision of the Church from this wonderful encyclical, a vision which would destroy the godless, dangerous isms of the world? 

On Love and the Answer to Socialism--Part One

This is a follow-up on both my series on perfection, which is not finished, and my rants against socialism, especially those written yesterday-three-which I posted. Also, these meditations begin to reveal why socialist leaders hate the Church, the family and Christian marriage. The sources of love are the sources of real charity and selflessness, not any governmental policy or political ideology. This is not utopianism, but hard work.

I am re-reading and re-studying Pope Benedict XVI's first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, in order to build up a case for the restructuring of a society which cares for its young, old, sick, poor, which the socialists say they do and don't. The Catholic Church has always had a viable alternative to socialism, which those who are godless hate, and those who are greedy do not believe is worthy of attention. The Catholic Church's political or governmental or civic position on the organization of charity lies in the teachings of Christ and all His followers on the need for the Christian community. In Deus Caritas Est, the Pope, I think, radically re-defined, or at least clarified, the classical definition of eros, in order to bridge the gap between so-called sexual, or at least, married love, and the love of friends and brothers and sisters in Christ in the Church.


That the Church on the local levels of the parishes has failed in this regard, with people changing the definition of love to exclude agape, and in people placing their hopes on bloated governments instead of their own call to agape, is one of the tragedies of modern times.


In the encyclical, which is brilliant, of course, the Pope sets out the argument that eros has been misunderstood and too easily relegated to the sexual sphere. Here are some sections which are relevant to my discussion. These are from Part I. 

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.

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.

In other words, we do not love unless the body and the soul are engaged (no pun intended) in a movement of the heart and will to love. Eros brings us to God. I know this, personally, as do many other people, including some who read this blog. However, the message is lost in the world of selfishness and pleasure-seeking activities.

Again, the Pope,this time on the Hebrew definitions of love, found in Scripture:

First there is the word dodim, a plural form suggesting a love that is still insecure, indeterminate and searching. This comes to be replaced by the word ahabà, which the Greek version of the Old Testament translates with the similar-sounding agape, which, as we have seen, becomes the typical expression for the biblical notion of love. By contrast with an indeterminate, “searching” love, this word expresses the experience of a love which involves a real discovery of the other, moving beyond the selfish character that prevailed earlier. Love now becomes concern and care for the other. No longer is it self-seeking, a sinking in the intoxication of happiness; instead it seeks the good of the beloved: it becomes renunciation and it is ready, and even willing, for sacrifice.

This searching is sometimes unrequited love, which roams seeking the beloved, not being able to see or find him or her. The searching love is from God, as a spark, to find the fulfillment of love, either in the person sought and found, or in the community, as we shall see. This dodim is a gift, as is ahaba. All real love is a gift from God. The Pope is amazingly clear, as well as deep.

...love looks to the eternal. Love is indeed “ecstasy”, not in the sense of a moment of intoxication, but rather as a journey, an ongoing exodus out of the closed inward-looking self towards its liberation through self-giving, and thus towards authentic self-discovery and indeed the discovery of God: “Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it” (Lk 17:33), as Jesus says throughout the Gospels (cf. Mt 10:39; 16:25; Mk 8:35; Lk9:24; Jn 12:25). In these words, Jesus portrays his own path, which leads through the Cross to the Resurrection: the path of the grain of wheat that falls to the ground and dies, and in this way bears much fruit. Starting from the depths of his own sacrifice and of the love that reaches fulfilment therein, he also portrays in these words the essence of love and indeed of human life itself.

Now, some of you are shaking your heads and thinking, what does all this have to do with the Church's anti-socialist stand. Be patient. Already, we see a huge break in the invocation of the Passion of Christ and the idea of self-giving. It is not about ME, or the State, but about the other. I find the encyclical exciting. Here is more..

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).

Now, for those of you who have been following my ideas and those of the great spiritual writers I have been quoting on perfection, will begin to make the connections. The giving and the receiving, even in the mystical life, which I believe is absolutely necessary and wanted by God for all of us, leads to real charity, real agape. St. John of the Cross knew this, as did SS. Teresa the Great, and Therese the Little Flower.

The Pope states and this is a key sentence,  that biblical faith does not set up a parallel universe.

Love is real, tangible, as well as ecstasy, great emotion, and peace. The Bible gives us pictures of all these types of love, and the list of personages, including, of course, Our Lady, who exhibit real love, both physical and spiritual, centered on God and His People, are the crowd of witnesses.

I venture at this point that some do not experience God at the eros level because they limit their own experiences as either bad or good, puritanical, or zealous. St. Teresa of Avila and St. Therese the Little Flower understood and experienced no boundaries in love.

In fact, St. Francis said once, "My God never says 'Enough'."  That is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. and that is my God.

The encyclical continues:

The history of the love-relationship between God and Israel consists, at the deepest level, in the fact that he gives her the Torah, thereby opening Israel's eyes to man's true nature and showing her the path leading to true humanism. It consists in the fact that man, through a life of fidelity to the one God, comes to experience himself as loved by God, and discovers joy in truth and in righteousness—a joy in God which becomes his essential happiness: “Whom do I have in heaven but you? And there is nothing upon earth that I desire besides you ... for me it is good to be near God” (Ps 73 [72]:25, 28).

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 is so great that it turns God against himself, his love against his justice. Here Christians can see a dim prefigurement of the mystery of the Cross: so great is God's love for man that by becoming man he follows him even into death, and so reconciles justice and love.

Now, the people come into perspective. A people, a community of Faith, as my old pastor Father Rory used to say, reflect God's Love for them. But, but, but, only if those in that community do not run away from the eros of God, which is, as the Pope writes above, totally agape.

Simply put in the negative, the community agape fails, or does not even begin, if those in that community are not open to real Love, Who Is a Person. Unless one gives one's self over to Christ completely, one cannot accept God's eros which is totally agape. This is not only astounding, but the teaching of the Church from the earliest days. My boldface type...on my comment stresses this importance. No love accepted from God, no transcendent love, no ascending love. Without this, Christianity fails at the local level, as it has failed in the heart of each man and woman in that community.

The Pope continues: the Logos, primordial reason—is at the same time a lover with all the passion of a true love. Eros is thus supremely ennobled, yet at the same time it is so purified as to become one with agape. We can thus see how the reception of the Song of Songs in the canon of sacred Scripture was soon explained by the idea that these love songs ultimately describe God's relation to man and man's relation to God. Thus the Song of Songs became, both in Christian and Jewish literature, a source of mystical knowledge and experience, an expression of the essence of biblical faith: that man can indeed enter into union with God—his primordial aspiration. But this union is no mere fusion, a sinking in the nameless ocean of the Divine; it is a unity which creates love, a unity in which both God and man remain themselves and yet become fully one. As Saint Paul says: “He who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him” (1 Cor 6:17).

Priests, the Church, the community is your Bride. People, God is your Lover. How cool is this dynamic of love, faith, hope, energy, the gifts? How blessed are we to be asked into this Heart of Christ, into His Mystery with the passion of true love? The wow factor could not be greater and the transformation of our own souls means that the community will, or could be, transformed.

While the biblical narrative does not speak of punishment, the idea is certainly present that man is somehow incomplete, driven by nature to seek in another the part that can make him whole, the idea that only in communion with the opposite sex can he become “complete”. The biblical account thus concludes with a prophecy about Adam: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).
Two aspects of this are important. First, eros is somehow rooted in man's very nature; Adam is a seeker, who “abandons his mother and father” in order to find woman; only together do the two represent complete humanity and become “one flesh”. The second aspect is equally important. From the standpoint of creation, eros directs man towards marriage, to a bond which is unique and definitive; thus, and only thus, does it fulfil its deepest purpose. Corresponding to the image of a monotheistic God is monogamous marriage. Marriage based on exclusive and definitive love becomes the icon of the relationship between God and his people and vice versa. God's way of loving becomes the measure of human love. This close connection between eros and marriage in the Bible has practically no equivalent in His death on the Cross is the culmination of that turning of God against himself in which he gives himself in order to raise man up and save him. This is love in its most radical form. By contemplating the pierced side of Christ (cf. 19:37), we can understand the starting-point of this Encyclical Letter: “God is love” (1 Jn 4:8). It is there that this truth can be contemplated. It is from there that our definition of love must begin. In this contemplation the Christian discovers the path along which his life and love must move.

Can there be a clearer more dear call to holiness and perfection than that from Love Himself? And, the type of married love which grows to a maturity of complete selflessness, is what each Church community is called to live....I dedicate this to Anita and M., my siblings in Christ. More to come.......

Please pray for Chen

http://thehill.com/video/administration/225343-chen-tells-congress-by-phone-i-want-to-meet-hillary-clinton

And Hillary did not take this man, and his family, who are in danger of their lives, back to America. That would have won Obama the election. How cruel to turn this vulnerable freedom fighter back into the Chinese society. I am ashamed today to being an American. Here is a man who has openly come out against the Chinese one-child policy and forced sterilizations, etc. Pray for Chen.

Connections?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/3/russia-threatens-strike-nato-missile-defense-sites/

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-gets-fourth-dolphin-class-submarine-from-germany-1.428039

Connections?

Frustration at Blindness of Catholic Voters

I am in the throes of disbelief this morning at the British elections. First of all, only 32% of the population who could have voted did. The other 68% will use their democracy if this continues. Labour won seats in the local elections, even in supposedly Catholic areas. This is again the problem of Catholics supporting socialist doctrines and even anti-life positions. I do not know how to convert the hearts of hard-core unionists to Catholic social teaching. I do not know what to do to separate labor needs as perceived, as many are just resting in a gospel of greed, from socialism.

Weetabix and Chopsticks

http://www.climber.co.uk/categories/articleitem.asp?cate=5&topic=11&item=768

Wow, a six post day, as horrible news has been posted, that Weetabix has been bought out by a Chinese company. My son, who uses chopsticks almost daily, and who is not the man in the photo, may have to switch to porridge, which I eat daily. This all seems so weird.....

Sarkozy's one-liner, which I think won the debate...

"You want less rich, I want less poor."


However, Sarkozy has a problem in that Bayreau, the former centrist to the right, has come out in support of the socialist, Hollande. However, Sarkozy gave a brilliant talk today on the financial state of Europe. He seems more presidential than Hollande, and more responsible in economic matters than the idealistic socialist. Read this for the importance of this election, folks. And, read this article, which is like mine a few weeks ago.

UPDATE: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/278412e6-9538-11e1-8faf-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fworld_uk%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz1tzVEtROy

and watch video on this site....as France goes, so goes Europe.

Thanks to the Popes, Socialism is Condemned

May I add to this discussion on socialism and Catholicism, that all these ideas are found in the encyclicals of the great Popes for over one-hundred years. In addition, I think that many Catholics feel guilty about the poor and their own prosperity, and fall into socialism as a way of assuaging their own guilt. Charity is the call of the Catholic, not misplaced socialist feelings. I am very concerned, visiting friends in Malta, Ireland, France and England, that the socialist agenda has contaminated the Catholic psyche. Capitalism is practically a dirty word among some Catholics. I also discovered that some Irish in the republican movement are hard-line socialists and against the Catholic Church. If one studies the republican movement in Ireland, one sees this betrothal of socialism and republicanism early on, even by the middle of the 19th Century. I am grateful to these great popes for my lists. Popes Pius IX, X, XI, XII, Leo XIII, Benedict XV and XVI, John Paul II...Here is a great place to find little snippets from these wonderful, Godly men.

I did not look at this link for my list, but it is great and includes some of the same points, as we both get our information from the Teaching Magisterium of the Church.

I have written these posts for M., S., C., G., J.,  and others with whom I have had this discussion. Tomorrow, I shall move from criticisms to the concrete solution against socialism; the Catholic Church and the real community of Faith.

Socialism is not Catholicism; List Continued

Eleven: socialism destroys nationalism, cultural differences and the organic growth of a civilization, by imposing rules and ideals which deny religion and religious freedom. At first, socialism seems to be tolerant, but any group denying power to the State becomes a threat.

Twelve: socialism creates a bloated government, as all the projects and programs which should be in the hands of individuals or the Church, are taken over by government. Government then needs to suppress rights and privileges in order to protect and increase its own bureaucracy. Therefore, socialism is against grass-roots political movements and local government, which may contradict the socialist State.

Thirteen: socialism creates false dichotomies and false "wars" within society, by creating the language of class hatred and envy; such false hatred and wars as between haves and have nots, the rich and the poor, the educated and the uneducated, agricultural interests and those of the city, the workers and the academic elite, the blue collar and white collar workers, the Church and the State, etc. Then, the State claims that it is the only institution which can solve the problems creating by these false wars. Such heresies as Liberation Theology, Black Liberation Theology, etc. thrive in a socialist milieu.

Fourteen: socialism in denying initiative, Point Four, destroys creativity in the liberal arts, which are not utilitarian. Education becomes a way of creating good citizens and the dependent underclass instead of a way to teach people how to think. As religion is suppressed, so are the liberal arts which feed religion in a mutual encouraging of the studies of language, literature, history, the arts, philosophy, etc. Educational systems exist for the State and not for the individual.

Fifteen: socialism creates the cult of the leader or the cult of personality in leaders, on purpose, as those people are the only ones who supposedly can overcome the false wars created by the false dichotomies listed above. A cult of personality is needed in a socialist state which rewards mediocrity in leadership and undermines true, thinking leaders. There are many examples of this in various socialist and wannabee socialist states today.

Sixteen: socialism fears the Kingdom of God within, as it is a spiritual reality and also an institutional reality, as Christ instituted His Church on earth. Therefore the Church is the single-most enemy of the socialist State. The window of St. Joseph of Arimathea is above, a rich man who brought the Gospel to Britain. His knowledge of the Kingdom of God crossed the lines of empire, wealth, missionary activity, etc. all things a socialism government cannot but desires to control.

Seventeen: socialism, as utilitarian, uses other political, even religious movements to gain power and then discards those fair-weather friends once it is in power. For example, in the name of tolerance, a socialist party may appeal to immigrants, minorities, etc. especially against the hierarchy of the Church, as in the case of using the Islamic vote in France, while all the time not believing in the spiritual life or spiritual history at all and merely taking advantage of those in need, either perceived or real, in order to gain power. The irony is that as socialist really do not believe in the spiritual reality, but only the material, they sometimes underestimate the power and zeal of those they use.

Eighteen: socialism denies the need or pursuit of personal virtue, as all virtue resides in the State and the glorification of the State. The State becomes God, and therefore only those virtues which uphold the State are valuable.

Nineteen: progressivism, the heresy which believes that men and women are improving in body and mind, merely because of history and evolution, is a core belief of some socialists and part of the materialistic point of view. As there is no such thing as Creation by God, humans will change and improve under some type of utopian government, similar idea to Point One, but more sinister, and more pragmatic, as this leads to the Darwinian idea of the best of the species being preferred. Also, connected to Point Eight.

Twenty: socialism encourages conformity and tolerance of all things, including immoral and amoral behavior, such as homosexuality, and this tolerance becomes the rule, as religion is downgraded, As the philosophy of socialism is materialistic, denying a spiritual reality or the spiritual goal of the afterlife, by emphasizing the here and now, all behaviors are acceptable as being pleasurable. The State means the goal of all activity and therefore, personal morals and personal ethics are not important. The emphasis on pleasure also is connected to Point Nine, as those pursuing pleasure do not have time to work, and be creative.

I am adding one more, which is connected to several points above.

Twenty-one: socialism, as completely materialistic, denies the efficacy of suffering. Suffering is always bad and it is the duty of the State to control happiness and contentment, so that no one who is useful suffers.
Personal holiness through suffering is denied as a goal, as there is not spiritual life, only the material.

One Cannot be a True Socialist and a Catholic

OK, I know that Faith is a gift and that wanting to understand the teachings of the Church is also a grace. However, I am still trying to convince some acquaintances and friends as to the fact that one CANNOT be a true socialist and a Catholic. Those who are strong republicans, as in republic, not GOP, fall into these common logical fallacies regarding socialism. Here are a few bullets, which I hope help those who are either confused, or worse, working for socialist parties. This is not an exhaustive list. I have typed this list many times, and the Internet has gone down and destroyed my work several times. I am trying to rewrite these important points.There are twenty points. I shall write out ten and then another ten.

One: socialism is based on the false idea of a kingdom of man on earth, normally called utopianism. This false ideal denies Original Sin.

Two: socialism assumes that God does want all people to live in an equal status. We are not equal in property, money, assets, by God's Will.

Three: socialism teaches that property and assets belong to the State and that the State can appropriate private property. Not so, several Popes have stated that the Church supports private property.

Four: socialism destroys personal initiative. Obviously. Without personal goals, even material ones, people do not strive for excellence.

Five: socialism states that the individual person is only materialistic and that all goals of a government are for material welfare, denying the soul and the ultimate goal of eternal life.

Six: personal charity is the rule of the Church, not governmental charity. It is the duty of every Catholic to personally help those in whatever need and not assign charity to governmental projects, programs, etc.

Seven: socialism denies that the family is the center of social life. The State becomes the central focus of life and the family rights and privileges become subservient to the State. This leads to legislation regarding family planning, education, abortion and so on.

Eight: socialism is utilitarian (which is connected to the utopian ideal) and the weak and the vulnerable are no longer considered important if they cannot support the State. This may seem opposite to the ideal that the State wants to create a society of dependence, the next point, but the two are both held as ideals.

Nine: socialism creates an underclass of those completely dependent of the State, which is a type of slavery. As these people totally depend on the State for all their needs, they will not be critical of the State.

Ten: socialism creates its own elite, while hating and undermining other hierarchies, such as the Church, which it sees as a threat to its materialistic gospel.

To be continued.....

Another Courageous Bishop-Pray for Him and Others Like Him

Courageous Priest, a great website, has this Bishop highlighted this week. “If this goes through there is nothing to stop the government requiring faith communities to cover abortion in their insurance packages,” Oakland Bishop Salvatore Cordileone told Vatican Radio.

“This is, I think, a pivotal moment in the United States and in the life of the Catholic Church in the United States,” Bishop Cordileone said.

Thanks to Courageous Priest for this photo