All you need is love
Yesterday Pope Benedict XVI published the encyclical letter Deus Caritas Est, the first one of his pontificate. The letter focused on Christian love - its essence in the first part, and its working in charity through human institutions in the second part. In the past I've come to appreciate then Cardinal Ratzinger's works, and some of them are among my favorite books on Theology. I am pleased to find the same level of well thought-out arguments and crisp style in his encyclical as well. Even the part that press has dubbed "lyrical" are based on Biblical passages and the early Church Fathers, and the narrative never slips into mare sentimentalism.
As previously mentioned, the second part of the encyclical deals with charity, its place in Church's overall mission, and its role in a civil society. Here the proper relation between the Church and State is touched upon, and the argument is both subtle and forceful. For me one particular paragraph sticks out:
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.
It is inevitable that the encyclical of such intellectual depth will not make for an easy summary, even less so for a catchy headline. Overall the press coverage so far seems even-headed, although there are plenty of headlines of the Pope's First Encyclical Warns Against Casual Sex type. Here a recent quote by Richard John Neuhaus could come in handy: I have been led to embrace something like an Occam’s razor with respect to journalistic distortions: Do not multiply explanations when ignorance will suffice.
Comments
mmmmm, I haven't read it, I am afraid. My big concern is that these letters are written in such vague terms that it can be miscontrued to justify eclesiastical inference in politics. Example: education. Education is an state attribution, but should the church try to force a teaching of religion as a way to promote good christian values and therefore produce a "promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good"? This has been a controversial issue in Spain for a while.
Posted by: Hector dude | January 26, 2006 03:41 PM
In general, Vatican documents can be vague, but that is partly due to desire to leave concrete implementation to local Bishops. When they try to be more hands-on, then they get labeled authoritarian. You can't please everyone I guess.
As far as the education is concerned, I don't know what the situation in Spain is like, but in Croatia we have Religious Ed. as a part of curriculum, and students who don't belong to any faith tradition can take Ethics instead. I personally see no problem with that.
Posted by: Bojan | January 26, 2006 04:12 PM