12-5-06
Companion
to Encyclical
of Pope
Benedict XVI
on
“God
is Love”
By
Fr. Tissa Balasuriya OMI
Introduction
The
much awaited first encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI has been welcomed as
manifesting his personality as more affable than when he functioned as the
supervising Cardinal of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The encyclical has two parts
I)
“the unity of love in
creation and in salvation history” (nos 2 – 18)
II)
“Caritas the Practice of Love
by the Church as a “Community of Love” (nos 19 – 42).
Its
language is both well written and
philosophical. He writes in a
personal style that is deeply grounded in the Western classical cultural and
philosophical background and the Biblical
studies, with numerous references from these sources.
It presents an attractive teaching that “God is love, and he who
abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.”
To
a certain extent the encyclical has been positively received, especially as
the Pope does not pontificate here on the disputed issues of sexual morality
on which Christians are divided, and he shows a personal understanding of the
value and meaning of love in its different but inter connected dimensions as
eros, philia and agape : of love including physical and sexual expression, of
love as friendship and love as other centered in care and service of the other.
He links all these to God’s love for persons and humanity, revealed
and expressed in Christ. In a spirit of compromise and understanding he tries
to reconcile issues which seemed to be exclusive of each other.
Part
I has to some extent received the attention and goodwill of those concerned
with issues of inter-personal morality. He
stresses that excesses of modern life have to be purified and ennobled by
Christian and rational values. Part II is very much centered on love as social
charity.
The encyclical would be reflected from many different points of view. The Pope’s writing shows he is very much influenced by the Western culture in which he has been nurtured. The different trends of Christian theology today would comment on it from their points of view. Thus the feminist theologians would find many shortcomings, beginning with the sexist language and going on to many debatable issues relating to persons’ reproductive rights. Liberation theologians as of Latin America would note the absence of any consideration to their unique contribution to the development of Christian theology during the past few decades with an accent on the social and structural dimensions of love. Asian and African contextual theologies of liberation have much to say about their experience of “Christian love” during and after the time of Western colonialism. The searchers in inter-religious dialogue would bring in the perspective of the traditional Christian interpretation of “God is love” as impacting them over the centuries. Those concerned with inter-racial justice, global ethics and Nature would comment on the way Christian theology and spirituality have been seen by them.
Love and Sexual Ethics
Love
as eros and agape are said to be part of God’s plan for human relationships.
In modern times the Church has had to face many issues concerning family life
and inter-personal sexual morality. One
of the most debated issues has been concerning the regulation of procreation.
The climax in this connection was the decision of Pope Paul VI in July 1968
condemning the use of artificial contraceptive methods of birth prevention.
The Pope decided on his own an issue that his predecessor Pope John
XXIII assigned to a commission of specialists for advice.
Pope Paul’s argument was that natural law indicated a necessary link
between the marital act and procreation.
Observance of the natural law was necessary for salvation. The Pope
claimed the power of interpreting the natural law as the natural law is willed
by God (no.4).
“the
Churches Magisterium is competent to interpret
the natural law.”
“This
kind of question requires from the teaching authority of the Church a new and
deeper reflection on the principles of the moral teaching on marriage — a
teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by
divine Revelation.
No
member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her
Magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as
Our predecessors have many times declared,
that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and
the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments,
constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the
whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the
natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its
faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation. (Humanae Vitae
no.40)
This
claim of Pope Paul VI goes far beyond teachings of Jesus in the New Testament.
How can the Church claim to be the authentic interpreter of the natural
law, which is itself not clearly known to humanity and even scholars. Much
less can the Pope claim that the observance of the natural law is necessary
for men’s (sic) eternal salvation. In this decision and instruction the Pope
is making a theological judgment based on a debated philosophical argument
regarding the object of sexuality and the marital act. His argumentation is
that the primary object of sexuality is procreation and the possibility of
children should never be excluded artificially by a couple in the sexual act.
That nature provides for infertile periods is God’s Providence, but
it is argued that the human reason and free will have no right to interfere
with the natural and normal consequences of sexual relations.
The
decision of Pope Paul VI was very much debated at the time even among members
of the Catholic hierarchy. Conscientious faithful were divided in their
loyalty to the Church. Throughout the world, many Catholic families
disregarded the Papal instructions. They
made their decisions on their own. This led to their doubting the wisdom and
right of the hierarchy to decide such issues. Almost everywhere the average
size of the family became smaller, Catholic families not necessarily being
bigger.
The
combination of Church teachings and practices on moral issues, including the
refusal of the Eucharist to divorced and remarried persons and couples led to
more and more Catholics finding the Church position irksome and unacceptable.
It is even being questioned whether the practical common sense of the majority
of humanity is not a better indicator of the natural law than the theoretical
decision of the teaching hierarchy.
During
the past 40 years there has been a large-scale alienation of
Christians from the Catholic Church.
The participation in the sacraments has decreased.
The vocations to the clergy are decreasing drastically. Seminaries and
churches are being closed down mainly in the Western countries.
The teaching of the Catholic Church concerning artificial birth control
(and divorce) is one of the main reasons for this reduction in the practice of
the sacraments including Baptism of children, Penance, Eucharist and Church
marriage. Or it may be said that the ongoing de-churching of Christians
coincides with the period after 1968. Many
Asian families who cannot or do not observe the papal instructions
concerning the use of contraceptives tend to abstain form Penance and the
Eucharist. The official Church
has become so conscious of this situation that the instructions to confessors
advice them not to press this issue with penitents, even if they intend to
continue the practice of artificial birth control in the future. Many couples
in the West and elsewhere are ignorant of or ignore this papal teaching. Very
recently Cardinal Martini who was a candidate for the Papacy at the April 2005
Conclave called for a revision of this teaching.
The
present Pope has indicated in his first encyclical a greater sensitivity
towards the matters of human sexuality, relating love as self centered eros,
to love as other centered agape, with God as the ultimate source of both.
Given the situation that the vast majority of humanity including
Catholics and many of the Church hierarchy no longer hold such a doctrine
concerning birth control, can it be expected that he would re-examine the
teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the use of artificial
contraceptives. The situation is
more important since simple faithful exposed to the risk of HIV/AIDS may be in
a difficult moral dilemma in this regard. Perhaps the Pope may appoint a
competent commission to advise him in this regard. There seems to be some
rethinking at the Vatican too concerning this as recently, two weeks ago the
Vatican said that married couples where one person has AIDS is
allowed to use condoms.
Having
opened a somewhat understanding window to the world of
human sexuality, the Pope may be encouraged to try to heal this wound
that is largely responsible for the huge drift away of many persons of good
will from the Catholic Church. It would be worthwhile for the Church
leadership to reflect how it has been often obliged to learn concerning
morality from the experience of common humanity as in the case of slavery,
evolution, democracy, the rights of the working class, women’s rights and
inter-religious relations. The Church can claim adherence of faith of the
Catholics in matters that are clearly of divine revelation.
But issues argued on the basis of reason and natural law can hardly
demand the obligatory acceptance of the faithful. Issues that persons may want
to settle freely on their own
need at least to be further reconsidered, for example the remarriage of
divorced persons and their participation in the Eucharist.
Some such issues are matters of division of opinion among the Catholic
hierarchy also.
In this regard would it not be part of pastoral prudence to re-examine some of the teachings and practices of the Church which may be challenged in relation to the growing consciousness of human freedom, and of women’s rights, while remembering the need to prevent excesses of human selfishness which the Pope refers to.
“God is love” in a Religiously Pluralist World
The
Church is presented as the manifestation of the love of God through Jesus
Christ. It develops the theme of the linkage of human love in its different
dimensions to the love of God. What is unduly selfish in human love has to be
purified to be the other centered love taught and manifested by Jesus Christ.
A
question arises as to why the Catholic Church with it numerous saints of
charity mentioned in the encyclical, has throughout most of the 2000 years of
its history taught the exclusion of the majority of humanity from eternal
salvation due to Original Sin, till the coming of Jesus Christ as unique and
universal saviour of all humankind. In this there is a combination of the anthropology
of the fall of all humanity in Original Sin beginning with the first
parents Adam and Eve, and the traditional soteriology that salvation is
only through Jesus Christ and membership of the Christian Church.
For
over 1500 years since the time of the St. Augustine, Councils of Carthage in
418, and Chalcedon 451, the Catholic Church has claimed to be the unique means
of eternal salvation. The Church taught that it was necessary to belong to the
Church for a person to be saved. Baptism
was said to be the unique means of eternal salvation.
The
encyclical speaks of the love of God for all humankind but does not deal with
the contradiction between such a
universal love and the implication of the traditional Christian doctrine that
most of humanity would be damned – before Jesus Christ and even after him as
they did not belong to the Church and were not baptized. This may not be said
now, but this was the position even till the mid twentieth century, with some
room left for the baptism of desire.
Throughout
its history the Christian Church has had a doctrine of its uniqueness and
superiority that it excluded openness to other faiths as possible paths to the
good life on earth and salvation thereafter.
Thus Catholics were forbidden to participate in the religious worship
of other faiths. These were
considered false and superstitious and even the work of the Devil.
Christian mission had no dimension of honest, frank, respectful
dialogue with other religions. On
the contrary mission was linked to the Western invaders who thought they had
the God given call to denounce these other false religions.
That is how “God is love” was interpreted in relations to the
peoples who were not Christians, i.e. mainly non-Westerners. The encyclical is
rather simplistic in ignoring the long centennial history of Christian
spiritual arrogance. The rest of the world has not forgotten this past.
The Christian God’s preferential love of Israel is another aspect of
the Biblical presentation of the God of love that is not intelligible to
others. The encyclical would seem
to echo this exclusive love which is also said to be a means of healing
others.
“The
one God in whom Israel believes, on the other hand loves with a personal love.
His love moreover is an elective love: among all the nations he chooses Israel
and loves her but he does so precisely with a view to healing the whole human
race. God loves, and his love may certainly be called eros, yet it is also
totally agape. (no. 9)
Such
interpretations may be accepted in a Western Christian milieu and culture, but
would fail to communicate that “God is love” to many others peoples,
including the Arabs. It shows how
chauvinistic is such Christian presentation of the divine that is the object
of meditation and spiritual encounter in so many other world and folk
religions. It is also a cause of
inter-religious conflicts over the centuries including the Crusades and
perhaps even the of the militancy of the present day Christian Right in the
USA and the predicted clash of civilizations.
In
the last four decades since Vatican II (1962-1965) Catholic teaching has been
developed to include the possibility of salvation of all human beings even
outside the Church. Yet some Church documents still claim for the Catholic
Church the privileged path to salvation – as in the Declaration “Dominus
Jesus” of 2000. The World
Council of Churches is now debating and studying how to reconcile evangelism
and mission, with dialogue and inter religious relations. The Christian
churches are discussing how they can come together in Eucharistic fellowship
after centuries of estrangement.
God’s Love and Justice in Salvation History
Traditional
Christian Trinitarian theology presents God the Father as sending the Son as a
human being on earth to redeem humanity. In this perspective, God the Father
is said to provide for the death of his only son Jesus. The love of God for
humanity is such that the Father is prepared to sacrifice his only son by his
death on the cross.
“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” (D C E. no. 10).
We
may ask what type of a father is God that the son has to die to appease the
anger of the Father. This seems to be a strange interpretation of the God of
love or of the love within the Trinity. In what sense is Christ a saviour of
humanity? A questionable issue is why is the whole of humanity condemned of
original sin and offending God – even before the birth of subsequent
generations? The story of Adam
and Eve, though mythical, is not understood merely as such.
It is taken as a foundation of Christian anthropology and of subsequent
theology, including soteriology and ecclesiology. The traditional
theology of salvation, and the “history of salvation” is founded on this
presumption of original sin. This is different from humans being in an
environment of sin or a human tendency to be self-seeking as against caring
for others and for God. How can God’s justice condemn the whole of humanity
for the sin of the first parents? Is not the underlying hypothesis of
monogenism itself questioned in the face of scientific evidence?
As
the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” published by the
The
situation is made more debatable, or unacceptable, when this love of God is
interpreted as benefiting only Christians – that is those who belong to the
Christian (Catholic) Church. Some
world religions like Buddhism would find it difficult to understand how a God
of love could condemn some human beings to an eternal hell (fire).
It is understandable that such a combination of mythical
anthropology, exclusive soteriology, and dominant ecclesiology is not
attractive or acceptable, even now, to 95% of Asians i.e. about half the human
race. Does not the God of love and the love of God deserve a better
theological presentation to contemporary humanity? Does this situation not
show how much traditional Christian theology has been (and is?) linked to
European mythology and the partial interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures,
and even of the New Testament within the subsequent framework of Western
power?
In
number 7 Benedict XVI implies that Christian love is typically Agape
“In
philosophical and theological debate, these distinctions have often been
radicalized to the point of establishing a clear antithesis between them:
descending oblative love – agape – would be typically Christian, while on
the other hand ascending, possessive or covetous love – would be typical of
non-Christian, and particularly Greek culture.”
This
characterization of love in non-Christian cultures as “ascending, possessive
and covetous” seems somewhat improper, if not arrogant, on the part of
Christians, not to say, the Pope. Would
it not be correct to say that both types of love are present in all cultures
and need purification when undesirable. Looking
at the way the religions and cultures have behaved in the past 2000 years, it
would be difficult to agree that Christian or Western culture has been more
generous and other centered than
non Christian cultures.
While
the Pope explains his view of the source of the unselfish love of agape he
refers to Christ as the source of such love:
“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).
This
would seem to be a privilege claimed for Christians in view of the earlier
statement about non-Christian cultures. Such
a position can be an obstacle to inter-religious dialogue that has to be
critically respectful of others, humble and willing to learn from others.
Once again this would be a perspective in which the God of the
Christians is interpreted as favoring them with the gift of love.
It
is not clear how John’s reference to the piercing of the heart of Jesus is
to an original source of divine, oblative love for all humanity. In any case
the interpretation of the Gospel message by the Church throughout most of
history has not been as a universal saving, liberating revelation, but on the
contrary as a self interested teaching that makes membership of the Church
essential for salvation.
This
is so different from the proclamation of Jesus in the Synagogue at Nazareth:
“He
has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives …to set free the oppressed…”(Luke
4:18).
The
Pope quotes Luke recalling the parables of the rich man and poor Lazarus and
of the prodigal son and Matt. 25: 25 – 46 which can be interpreted in terms
of charity as social service, but not this proclamation of the liberative
mission of Jesus.
Why
is it that there not been a serious questioning of the presuppositions on
which an intolerant Christian practice has been built up and defended over the
centuries? Is not the liturgical preaching concerning the death of Jesus and
the festivities of Easter still recalling the attributed original sin of
humanity and the consequent salvation of all by the sacrificial death of
Jesus?
How
has such a theological interpretation of the Trinity led to a Christianity
that is exclusivist and disposed to be intolerant to other faiths? The
exclusivist interpretation of salvation led to the intolerance of Christians
and even to persecution of others when Christians were in power. Mission was
for the conversion of others to the Church. The theology of the day implicitly
and even explicitly justified the use of force for conquering peoples and
bringing them to the faith, which could be called proselytism.
Much
of this may now be bypassed or changed, but the basic presuppositions of
original sin have not been given up. They
are repeated in the liturgy of Easter.
Since
human languages and cultures are different and human mind has limitations in
comprehending or interpreting the divine mystery, there is a likelihood of a
multiplicity of interpretations or paths to the Divine. Christianity, teaching
monotheism, claimed to know the nature of the Divine and of the actions of God
in history. The God of love is
interpreted as partial in favoring the people of Israel.
The European peoples took advantage of such an interpretation of
Christian mission to go out to conquer the rest of the world and build the
present unjust world order.
God is Love and God is Just - in Church History
Part
II of the Encyclical
deals with charity as a responsibility of the Church and a manifestation of
Trinitarian love. In this part
the Pope emphasizes the need and obligation of charity that is social service
especially to the needy rendered in a loving manner.
While appreciating this perspective, our comments are on the sidelining
of love as requiring justice among persons and in local and global communities.
The
Pope mentions the social teaching of the Church historically as charity, and
in recent times as demanding social justice.
He confesses that while
“historically,
the issue of the just ordering of the collectivity had taken a new dimension
with the industrialization of society in the nineteenth century…”. “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.”
Part
II also deals with the speculative theory of the practice, rather than with
the actual historical practice of the theory. The God of theology may be the
God of generous forgiving love, but is not the God of Christian history
generally presented as de facto siding with the Christians who were often
arrogant, violent dominators of others. Several critical comments that can be
made of this part of the encyclical. His reflections are in the context of
modern European history.
The Early Church
The
Pope begins this part with a reflection on the Acts of the Apostles, with the
well known story of charity in the early Church:
“Charity
as a responsibility of the Church. … 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; they sold their
possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. (Acts
2:44-5). In these words, St Luke provides a kind of definition of the Church,
whose constitutive elements include fidelity to the ‘teaching of the
apostles’, ‘communion’ koinonia, ‘breaking of the bread’ and
‘prayer’…”
The
pope comments that even as the church grew its
“essential
core remained: within the community of believers there can never be room for a
poverty that denies anyone what is need for
dignified life. (no 20).
This
is a beautiful story, but the history of the Church is far from bearing
witness to the communion, the sharing of prayer and the impact of prayer. The
continuation of the story in the Acts is significant.
It related how Barnabas
“sold
a field he owned, brought the money, and handed it over to the apostles”.
Ananias
and Sapphira
The
Acts continues with story of Ananias and Sapphira who sold some
property of theirs and kept part of the money thus obtained, thereby deceiving
the apostles and the Spirit. (Acts 5 : 1-10) There underwent an instantaneous
miraculous punishment of death. This shows that the early Church too had
persons and families who lied to the community and did not share as they
professed to do. It may be asked
whether this is a precursor of what was to happen historically in regard to
the Christian profession of charity and communion, of sharing and fidelity to
the teaching of the apostles. In
modern times it may resemble the proclamation of development aid by the rich
(Christian) countries while continuing to exploit the poor peoples.
Aren’t
there many Ananiases and Sapphiras today, with even transnational
combinations, that take away the wealth of the poor peoples and classes? Are
not the working of the system of international investment and trade today with
the neo-liberal capitalistic pressures of
the IMF, World Bank, and WTO, dominated by (Christian) USA and Europe, worse
than the behaviour of Ananias and Sapphira, though they may profess to be good
believers like the honest Barnabas. Perhaps further reflections of the early
Church may induce the Pope to comment on these two stories also as prototypes
of human weakness even in the community of believers.
The
whole story or tragedy of the Crusades, slavery, the torture of witches,
the Inquisition, and colonization since the early modern period seem to
be neglected or bypassed. An
assumption seems to be that Christian charity was sufficient for those
periods, especially as he refers to
“the
monastic and mendicant orders, and later for the various male and female
religious institutes all through the history of the Church
The figures of saints such as Francis of Assisi, Ignatius of Loyola,
John of God, Camillus of Lellis, Vincent de Paul, Louise de Marillac, Guiseppe
B. Cotolengo, John Bosco, Luigi Orine, Teresa of Calcutta to name but a few
- stand out as lasting models of social charity for all people of good
will. The saints are the true bearers of light within history, for they are
men and women of faith, hope and love.” (no.40)
These
saints, almost all male celibates, are great personalities with their
different charisms. It can
however be questioned how far their social charity dealt with issues of social
global justice, or even with issues of inter-personal relations.
I was fortunate to meet Mother Theresa on three occasions, including
once at her convent in Calcutta. On
another occasion at a Catholic students meeting in India, she was asked why
she did not work for a fair distribution of the surplus food stocked in India.
She replied that is not my mission, I leave it to others.
It
is not possible to realize, through more charity, a world in which the
abundant food available is so distributed that there is no one in need.
This requires political decisions. The preaching of the Word, the
Eucharist and Christian service must participate in this task, especially when
it is the rich and powerful Christian peoples who cause and benefit form such
inequality.
In
the early Church itself the apostles also had to face the problem of
mal-distribution of the resources.
“Some
time later, as the number of disciples kept growing, there was a quarrel
between the Greek speaking Jews and the native Jews. The Greek-speaking Jews
claimed that their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of
funds. So the twelve apostles called the whole group of believers together …
. (Acts 6: 1-6)
Thus
the seven helpers were chosen to handle finances. Even in the exercise of
charity there were problems of justice to be resoled by recourse to authority
and the community.
Love
requires that all be cared for and no one is in need of the essentials for the
good life. To realize this in a situation of great inequality at the local and
global levels, a coordinated strategic struggle against inequality is required,
often based on long-term robbery and injustice. The present world order is
based on centennial exploitation by powers that claimed to be Christian and
favourably linked to the mission and history of salvation.
Church and State
“The
just ordering of society and of 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 justitia quid sunt
regna nisi magna latrocinia?” ( no.28 a)
It
may be asked : did not Christians co-exist with and even legitimize the
enormously unjust regimes that have existed throughout many centuries
of colonial rule by
European powers? From the point of view of the colonized peoples would they
not a bunch of robbers?
“Fundamental
to Christianity is the distinction between what belongs to Caesar and what
belongs to God” (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…The two spheres are distinct, yet always interrelated.
(no.28 a)
This
reply of Jesus to the lawyers who wanted to trap him concerning payment of tax
to the Roman rulers did not mean separation of Church and State.
His response to the crafty
questioners seems to be : since you accept the Roman rule you pay the tax to
them. This is not to say that the State is not under God, or not amenable to
action by the civil society or the religious groups.
There is no teaching by Jesus concerning the Church in this context, or
elsewhere. In Christian thinking
both the Church and the State are under God.
Why
was Jesus Killed?
It
would be a useful exercise to ask what were the real causes of the death of
Jesus. Did he choose to die? Did he die in obedience to the Father – as
a sacrificial lamb? Or was he killed by a combination of the high priests and
Pharisees and the representatives of the Roman imperial power? Was he not
killed as a presumed traitor to Rome, and an opponent of the official
interpretation of religion as a burden on the mass of the poor afflicted
people. The Gospels seem to bear witness to such a view. Cf. Matt. 23: 13-27
“teachers of the Law and Pharisees! You hypocrites…”
Jesus
was killed because he was accused of being a threat to the Roman Empire.
“Above his head they put the written notice of the accusation against him:
‘This is Jesus, king of the Jews’.” (Matt. 27: 37).
Mark says ‘ He (Pilate) knew very well that the chief priests had
handed Jesus over to him because they were jealous’ (Mark 15: 10 ). ‘If
you set him free, that means you are not the emperor’s friend! Anyone who
claims to be a king is a rebel against the Emperor.’
Jn 19:12) The Gospels reveal that Jesus himself was involved in issues
of justice and politics, and the chief priests used these to accuse him in
front of Pilate. His
ministry was much more than one of mere social activity.
His witness to the God of love included teachings and actions that lead
to his crucifixion.
Jesus
died not because of the justice of God, but because of the injustice of the
dominant system and of the rulers and high priests of the time.
The
Pope writes of the distinction of
the roles of the Church and of the State.
“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.”(no 28: a)
Papal
States
The
encyclical speaks in a tone of the Church, especially the clergy, not
being involved in the affairs of the State, especially in ideological
strategies. The encyclical seems
to forget that for over a thousand years till the mid 19th century
(1870) the Popes were the political rulers of the Papal States covering
much of Italy with an army and
even engaging in wars for political power. It was with reluctance that the
Pope Pius IX acquiesced in the freedom and independence of Italy in 1870.
He became a self-proclaimed prisoner in the Vatican.
The popes continued this protest from 1870 -1929 as prisoners in the
Vatican, till the Lateran Treaty with Mussolini
acknowledged the Vatican as an independent sovereign state in 1929.
Interestingly the Vatican is about the smallest State in the world.
It is also the only state in the world in which a woman cannot be head
of state. The papal envoys or
ambassadors are members
of the political diplomatic corps in many nations.
A
characteristic of the teaching and life of the Church has been that while the
Church preached that God is love, and exercised a mission and ministry of
social service and charitable love of neighbour, the Church not only tolerated
the unjust structures of society, but even benefited from them and fostered
them as with the spread of colonialism.
Justice in the World
The
encyclical does not give the ministry of justice the essential role it should
have in the mission of the Church. The
1971 Synod of Bishops presents justice as an essential constituent of the
mission of the Church.
Action
on behalf of justice and participation in the transformation of the world
fully appear to us as a constitutive dimension of the preaching of the Gospel,
or, in other words, of the Church’s mission for the redemption of the human
race and its liberation from every oppressive situation.
Unless
combated and overcome by social and political action, the influence of the new
industrial and technological order favors the concentration of wealth, power
and decision-making in the hands of a small public or private controlling
group. Economic injustice and lack of social
participation keep people from attaining their basic human and civil rights.
30.
In the Old Testament God reveals himself to us as the liberator of the
oppressed and the defender of the poor, demanding from people faith in him and
justice towards one’s neighbor. It is only in the observance of the duties
of justice that God is truly recognized as the liberator of the oppressed.
34.
According to the Christian message, therefore, our relationship to our
neighbor is bound up with our relationship to God; our response to the love of
God, saving us through Christ, is shown to be effective in his love and
service of people. Christian love of neighbor and justice cannot be separated.
For love implies an absolute demand for justice, namely a recognition of the
dignity and rights of one’s neighbor. Justice attains its inner fullness
only in love. Because every person is truly a visible image of the invisible
God and a sibling of Christ, the Christian finds in every person God himself
and God’s absolute demand for justice and love.
36.
The Church has received from Christ the mission of preaching the Gospel
message, which contains a call to people to turn away from sin to the love of
the Father, universal kinship and a consequent demand for justice in the
world. This is the reason why the Church has the right, indeed the duty, to
proclaim justice on the social, national and international level, and to
denounce instances of injustice, when the fundamental rights of people and
their very salvation demand it.
(Synod
of Bishops 1971: Justice in the World)
What
is even more questionable in the history of the Church is whether Christians
and the Church have de facto being manifesting other centered oblative love.
Is the evidence of history not the contrary? While saintly Christians
and missionaries have been witnessing to charitable service, the Church has
been structurally allied to the dominant, exploiting rulers, invaders,
colonial rulers and affluent rich. Pope John Paul II apologized over 99 times
for such abuses.
Benedict
XVI refers to the documents of Catholic Social teaching from the 1891 Rerum
Novarum of Leo XIII to Centesimus Annus of 1991.
One of their deficiencies is the lack structural analysis in terms of
global social justice. They were all written mainly from a European dominated
worldview. There has been no critical moral evaluation of European colonialism
by the Central Church authority throughout the 450 years since 1492. Much less
has there been a demand for compensation by the exploiters, who were by and
large Christian powers.
The
writers of the encyclicals were influenced by the dominant ideology and
surrounding culture of their times. The
same can be said of the late Pope John Paul II who wrote disparagingly
concerning Buddhism as negative, and of the present Pope in the Vatican
Congregation for the Defense of the Faith (CDF) Document “Dominus Jesus”.
They both lack close live contact with the other religions in an
ongoing manner. They have lived
their lives almost entirely in the world dominated by white racism, whether
under Capitalism or Communism. They have had no live-in experience (yet) of
other peoples dominated by the West. It
may be recalled that even Soviet Communism continued the white Russian
colonial domination over Asian peoples of East Asia.
Both Popes implicitly accept not only the world of neo-liberal
domination but also the global world system of land distribution in which the
European peoples have taken over the main habitable areas of the world in the
Americas and Oceania. (cf. Tissa
Balasuriya, Planetary Theology, Orbis NY 1984, chapter 2 The World System)
Structural
Lovelessness
The
encyclical does not refer to the structured lovelessness that prevails
in the world system especially since 1492.
The accent on charity and social work does not take the Pope to the
analysis of the social structures that regulate the social order. It is such
structures such as the distribution of wealth and incomes that prevent so many
peoples from having their daily bread in a world of plenty and waste.
Hence it does not deal with the root causes of poverty and injustice.
The opposition to structured injustice in the society of his day led Jesus to
his clashes with then political and social power elites and eventually to his
death. Unfortunately the preaching and liturgy of the churches do not bring
this aspect to the fore, while emphasizing charity.
It
is legitimate to ask : can Benedict XVI claim that the Catholic Church
witnesses to the God of genuine authentic love, when historically the Church
by and large has not been on the side of reforming and transforming social
action for justice, except indirectly by her education and other social
service activities. The claims in
the encyclical in favour of the Church’s social action are hardly credible
in our Asian context where there is presently much critical academic
and social evaluation of the position of the Church during the past five
centuries.
On
the contrary – have not the other religions been at the receiving end of
Christian downgrading an even violence? This was linked to the Church’s
traditional interpretation of God’s love as benefiting exclusively
Christians. While being well
versed in Western classical literature, European philosophy and the biblical
tradition, the authors of the encyclical do not seem to have close and
respectful acquaintance with
culture, religious perspectives and millennial search for the divine by other
peoples. It may also be asked
whether the encyclical takes adequate note to the thinking of feminist
scholars, activists and movements in relation to issues in both Part I and
Part II. This is a major lacuna
in the approach of the teaching hierarchical church that is systematically
male dominated.
The
Encyclical distinguishes functions in the Church and in a way separates the
hierarchy from the laity. The charitable service by the Church is to be
organized as an essential activity of the Church, whereas action for justice
is said to belong to the political field and is to be undertaken by the laity.
The church (clergy) is given the responsibility of inspiring a rational
approach to issues of justice, but it would seem, not of participating in its
being practically actualized. It is understandable that the clergy of the
Church should not be involved in the running of the State.
But the Church should not be identified with the clergy. The laity are
also Church, and will be more so in a Church in which the clergy is decreasing
in numbers and ageing. Yet the clergy still exercise a major controlling
influence in Church life. To exempt them from participation in political
issues often results in the laity lacking an effective leadership at critical
moments in a country’s evolution. Thus
the bishops in countries like the Philippines and some countries of Africa and
Latin America have contributed courageously to the removing of oppressive
dictatorial regimes in recent times.
In
Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan, the priest and the levite saw the man
robbed, stripped, and beaten and left half dead, they walked by on the other
side. Evidently they were
lacking in the required love of the neighbor.
This could be a message to the Christian clergy today, even if those
two passing by were not Christian priests.
Jesus pinpoints the spirituality involved in the concern for the
neighbour fallen among robbers.
Several
times the Pope refers to the need for the Church not to be linked to political
ideologies.
“Christian
charitable activity must be independent of parties and ideologies. It is not a
means of changing the world ideologically, and it is not at the service of
worldly stratagems, but it is a way of making present here and now the love
which man always needs.” (No. 31 b)
However,
whether we like it or not, a certain dominant
ideology prevails in social relations and situations.
Thus in a time of slavery, the given social order was taken for granted
and de facto supported as it was not opposed. St. Paul while wanting slaves to
be well treated teaches slaves to be obedient to their masters. “Obey your
human masters in all things… for Christ is the real Master you serve.”
Coll: 3: 22-24. Likewise the
colonial enterprise was not actively opposed, but was accepted and even
supported by Christians and the Church. An explanation of this position could
be that hitherto the author/s of the papal encyclicals may not have been
adequately sensitive to the impact of the prevailing global social order on
the oppressed peoples other than on the working classes of Europe after the
industrial revolution.
Marxism
The
Pope refers several times to Marxism and explains its social thinking
that considers social service as preventing social revolution.
“Part
of Marxist strategy is the theory of impoverishment : in a situation of unjust
power, it is claimed, anyone who engages in charitable initiatives
is actually serving that unjust system, making it appear at least to
some extent tolerable. This in turn slows down the potential revolution and
thus blocks the struggle for a better world.” no 31. b)
)
It
is significant that while the Pope criticizes the Marxist theory and system as
“really
an inhuman philosophy. People of
the present are sacrificed to the moloch of the future”,
the
encyclical does not criticize the prevailing capitalist system and specially
the dominant neo-liberalism directly or in such language.
Is
not the Pope himself taking an ideological position implicitly in favour of
the capitalist system and colonialism that dominated the world for centuries
and still continues.
In
a sense Marx, a Jew, was perhaps inspired by the values of the Bible also, and
his social analysis contributed to the modern Christians being reminded of the
demands of social justice. But
both Marx and the papal encyclicals overlooked the injustices of European
colonialism. By asking the Church (clergy) to abstain from ideological
struggles the Pope virtually favors the status quo as mere charitable social
action would not change the unjust global system.
The hierarchical leadership should be encouraged to participate in the
peoples’ movements for justice. It may even be asked whether the Churches
have shared in the present day struggle for peace in the world – specially
in the face of the blatant violation of human rights in invading Iraq in March
2003. How different would have
been the situation if the Christians in USA, UK and Australia had been led by
their hierarchies to actively oppose this war non-violently. This would of
course require the willingness of the faithful to follow or join a hierarchy
that would have won their confidence by credible witness on other contemporary
issues also.
The
thinking in Part II of the encyclical is reminiscent of the strictures on
Liberation Theology that emanated from the Congregation for the Defense of the
Faith (CDF) when Cardinal Ratzinger was its head.
It is noteworthy that the Pope does not speak of the mass movements for
human liberation and structural changes in favour of justice in which the
Churches of the world have been participating in recent decades.
Neither does he mention great champions of social justice as
Archbishops Oscar Romero and Helder Camara, whom the whole world honors as
active contemporary friends of the poor and brave Christian leaders of their
peoples.
The
encyclical emphasizes the service of charity as an essential mission of the
Church:
“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 it is part of her nature, an indispensable
expression of her very being.”( 25 a)
The
link between the celebration of the sacraments and the ministry and action for
justice is not noted in the encyclical. On
the contrary it speaks of centuries of Christian liturgical celebration, of
service of charity and saints in the mission of charity but almost totally
forgets the centuries of alliance of the Church and Christians with an
exploitative social order such as slavery, and colonialism not to mention
feudalism. How were the ministries of the word, of liturgy and diakonia or
charity exercised over these centuries, and with what impact on the exploited
and needy? How was Mt. 25:
31- 44 “I was hungry and you fed me…” implemented by a Church that
stressed such views of mission without emphasis on justice? From
our part of the world, one is inclined to ask for whom is the
encyclical written, and by whom? Should
not the God of “Deus Caritas Est” necessarily imply that God is also the
God of justice? Does not the
story of the good Samaritan imply need of getting rid of the robbers who
waylay defenseless travelers?
Further
Dimensions of “God is Love”
The
love of God for humanity can be revealed, understood and interpreted in many
senses. Common to all Christians is the view that God is love and God’s one
commandment is that a person loves others as one loves oneself.
Personal
and collective service as charity to those in need is emphasized in the 2nd part
of the Encyclical “God is Love”. The Encyclical develops this teaching and
relevant example of Jesus in his life to persons in all manner of need.
Continuing
the analysis of love, and God is love, proposed in this encyclical, we can
refer to love in the gospel of Jesus in several senses:
i) Love as charity of
social service. This is beyond
the basic love of desire termed eros, and is other centered as philia of
friendship and agape of self-giving communion.
ii) Justice that is
demanded by love. Justice require
that what is due is given to each one, in distributive and social justice.
The encyclical refers to this, somewhat in passing and does not engage
itself in the local and global struggle for justice.
iii) Love as
understood in the Beatitudes as in the Sermon on the Mount.
This is a deeper level of self-giving that goes beyond the service of
charity and the norms of justice. This is a spirituality that is distinctive
in the teaching of Jesus and some of the deeper levels of the world religions.
It is a spiritual culture and way of life that has a rare power of
transforming persons and communities. It is the
development of a soul force that does not impose harm on others but
tries to overcome evil and anger by love. It bears the burden of inter
personal relations by suffering in oneself rather than by harming others. It
is a message of supreme endurance that bears up suffering imposed by others
without harming others.
Jesus
on the cross bears witness to this message of love unto ultimate self-giving
in bearing witness to one’s convictions and message. Unfortunately the
significance of this message has been lost or distorted by the interpretation
that Jesus suffered his death to pay for the sins of humanity to appease an
offended God the Father.
The
Sermon on the Mount
A
significant omission in the Encyclical in relation to the teachings and life
of Jesus is the Sermon on the Mount – as in
Mt. 5:1-12 and Luke 6:20-41.
The
Beatitudes present a dimension of Jesus Christ that goes beyond the charity of
social service and the mere legality or correctness of loving one’s friends,
and the boundaries of strict obligations of justice. Jesus teaches that human
happiness and the coming of the Kingdom of God is in the goodness of
self-giving for the others. From this disposition many conclusions can be
drawn for personal and social life.
The
teaching of Jesus and of the world religions is summarized in the golden rule
“do unto others as you would that they do unto you.” (Luke 6:31) Jesus
says:
“the
measure you use for others is the one that God will use for you”.
“Love
your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and
pray for those who ill-treat you. If anyone hits you on one cheek, let him hit
the other one too, if someone takes your coat, let him have your shirt as well.
(Luke 6: 27-30).
“Happy
are those who are humble;
They
will receive what God has promised.” Matt.
5: 5
Have
Christians as a community been humble? What has been the relationship of the
Church towards other faiths, people of other religions and of non-Western
cultures? Has it been one of
humility and respect for them? Could
the Church say that it has followed the teaching of Jesus:
“If
one of you wants to be great, he must be the servant of the rest; and if one
of you wants to be first, he must be the slave of all. For even the Son of Man
did not come to be served; he came to serve and to give his life to redeem
many people.” Mark
10:45
On
the other hand has not the historical record of the Church been one of
thinking of itself as having the unique truth concerning God and a monopoly of
the path and means to salvation. Others
faiths and religions were considered wrong, and therefore without rights. They
could not only be opposed but also defeated and if possible exterminated as
works of the Devil. The interpretation of Christian revelation combined with
political and military power gave the European peoples a thinking that they
were superior human beings, especially loved and privileged by God.
The
attitude of the Catholic clergy towards women is that men were/are considered
more in the image of the Man-God Jesus Christ and hence superior to women.
Women are still not considered worthy of priestly ordination and of the
exercise of higher teaching and administrative functions in the Church.
The exclusion of women in some places from university and seminary
theological studies till Vatican II (1962-65) ensured that the point of view
of women had little chance of influencing the teaching and life of the Church.
This is a long history of male domination that continues even today.
The
Sermon on the Mount teaches
“if
you lend only to those from you hope to get it back, why should you receive a
blessing? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.
No, Love your enemies and do good to them. Lend and expect nothing
back. You will then have a great
reward, and you will be sons of the Most High God.
For
he is good to the ungrateful and the wicked.
Be
merciful just as your Father is merciful.
Forgive
others and God will forgive you.” (Luke 6: 34-37).
His
prayer includes “forgive us our sins as we forgive others”.
The
world system is very
far from this reign of God presented by Jesus. The norms in the dominant world
system are so different from these ideals. The foreign debt of poor countries
is an unbearable burden that further impoverishes poor indebted countries that
have being long exploited by the former colonial rulers. The IMF and the World
Bank impose Structural Adjustment Policies that compel poor indebted countries
to open their economies to foreign subsidized imports that destroy local
production, and to privatize their public enterprises such as supply of water,
fuel, common services as health, education, communications and transportation.
Mary’s Magnificat
The
encyclical ends with a reflection on and prayer to Mary the mother of
Jesus. She is presented as a model of social service. Her humility and kind
services as at Cana are underlined in the encyclical. But it does not connect
the virtues of Mary with the active public life of Jesus.
Jesus took strong positions concerning true spirituality in religion
and strongly castigated religious leaders who placed unnecessary burdens on
the simple people. The whole of Matt.23 is a very strong public criticism that
was bound to get Jesus into grave trouble with them.
“They
tie on the people’s back loads that are hard and heavy to carry, yet they
aren’t willing to lift a finger to help them carry those loads. They do
everything so that people may see them.” (Matt 23: 4-5).
Mary
knew that Jesus was being targeted by the high priests, scribes and Pharisees.
She was with him in his mission unto the death on the cross, and
thereafter with the early Church.
The
Pope comments on the Magnificat, the hymn attributed to Mary
when she visited Elizabeth her cousin.
The Pope praises her humble sentiments and the glory of God, but makes
no mention of its important radical social message.
He
does not comment on the revolutionary consequences that would follow from a
serious meditation on the socially demanding pronouncements of the “Magnificat”.
“He
has stretched out his mighty arm and scattered the proud with all their plans.
He
has brought down the mighty kings from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly,
He
has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich with empty hands,
(Luke 1: 51-53)
These
radical teachings are in line with the more revolutionary messages of the
prophets of the Old Testament, which are also bypassed in this encyclical.
Our
Self-Examination
“Why
do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but pay no attention to the
log in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘please, brother, let
me take the speck out of your eye’, yet cannot even see the log in your own
eye? You hypocrite! First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will
be able to see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” (Luke
6:41-42)
On
reflecting on the history of Christianity there is much cause to regret that
as a faith community Christians have thought of themselves as superior to
others, since they claimed to be the privileged of God.
Christians, when in power, were intolerant of others.
Among different Christian groups there were the wars of religion, that
decided the fate of Catholicism and Protestantism in Europe on the basis of
political power and the axiom “cujus regio ejus religio” (whose is the
regime, his is the religion).
The
long centuries of Christian intolerance require an examination of conscience
by Christians, to see where and in what way the Church went wrong. In the past,
prior to Vatican II, the Catholic Church was not accustomed to accept that it
could be wrong in condemning others and even persecuting them. There has been
a significant change in the attitudes of Pope John XXIII who convoked the
Council Vatican II to update the Church (aggiornamento), and Paul VI who
somewhat hesitatingly continued the conciliar process.
Pope
John Paul II’s Apologies
The
Polish Pope John Paul II was quite clear in apologizing throughout his long
pontificate for the wrongs and mistakes of the Catholic Church.
He did so in the name of the Pope especially during his numerous
travels. He asked pardon for the wrongs of anti-Semitism, of slavery, of the
Crusades, the Inquisition, of the divisions among the Churches and the wars of
religions, from Islam, Hus, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Galileo, the native
peoples of the Americas, for the compromises with dictatorships and different
forms of injustice, for the mistakes in the centennial confrontation of
science and the faith, for the responsibility of the men of the Church in the
discrimination against women, for the forced conversions that accompanied the
brutal conquest of the peoples of the other continents, for not resisting the
temptation of “integrism”, claims of exclusive righteousness.
Pope John Paul II asked pardon courageously and persistently, often
alone in his position.
As
the millennium was coming to a close he persistently called the Church to an
examination of conscience concerning the previous millennia, to begin a new
stage in the history of Christianity with the grace of the Millennium 2000. He
called it the “purification of memory”, as against the tendency to forget
or overlook the past mistakes and wrongs of the Church, which claimed papal
infallibility. Thus the ageing pilgrim Pope helped open the path to dialogue
among the religions, among Christians, among conflicting peoples, and
generations, as in the inter-religious days of prayer at Assisi, and the World
Days of Youth, attended by millions. He asked journalist Jas Gawronski, “at
the end of the second millennium: where are we? Where has Christ led us, or
where have we deviated from the Gospel? (cf. Luigi Accattoli: Quand le Pape
Demande Pardon, Albin Michael, Paris 1997, p. 18 et alibi)
Peace
and Non-Violence
“Blessed
are the peace-makers, God will call them his children.”( Mt. 5: 9)
This
has great relevance in the history of the Church and now in the 21st Century.
It includes options for peace as well as methodologies of action for peace
such as active non-violence, and civil disobedience.
Mahatma
Gandhi was drawn
towards Jesus due to the deep humanity of the Sermon on the Mount. It reveals
Jesus as giving a divine message beyond the limited considerations of charity,
and even of justice. From Jesus teaching on love of enemies and forgiveness of
those who offended him, Mahatma Gandhi developed the philosophy and theory and
practice of non-violence in all spheres of life – including the political
struggle for the liberation of India from British Imperial rule, and of the
Black and Coloured peoples from white racist domination in South Africa at the
beginning of the 20th Century.
The
Mahatma (Great Soul) was inspired in his theory and practice of non-violence
from the meditation on the Sermon on the Mount, also, in the background of the
Indian peoples’ struggle for the freedom from the largest empire in the 19th and
early 20th century.
He developed the methodology of active non-violence as a very powerful weapon
of the peaceful people to impact even the most powerful regimes and ruling
peoples. He promoted peoples’ power – soul force and the strategy of civil
disobedience in which the leaders court imprisonment rather than take to
violence. In a period in which there is much resort to violence and terrorist
attacks to achieve one’s objectives – Mahatma Gandhi was a pioneer in
evolving the teaching and practice of civil disobedience.
He
trained the poor Indian masses to be disciplined in eschewing violence. He did
so by public education such as calling off a campaign of non-violence when
some groups of his followers resorted to violence. His moral courage and
spiritual influence on the masses was so great that it became impossible of
the British to continue their rule in India with Mahatma Gandhi and the
Congress leadership in British jails. He led by being in the front ranks of
the resistance – being the first to go to prison on 9th August
1942 in support of the Congress resolution demanding the British to “Quit
India”.
He
was followed by Martin Luther King in the struggle of the Black people
for their rights in the USA in the 1950s and 1960s. King was a Christian
Minister who mobilized the people of good will in the USA to protest
non-violently against racial discrimination. He was a disciple of Mahatma
Gandhi and a teacher of active non-violence out in the field - till his
assassination.
Nelson
Mandela of South
Africa influenced by Gandhi and King also showed the world a magnificent
example of forgiveness at the point of victory in calling on the people of
Africa to forget past grievances and live together in peace as South Africans
of all races – after having been 28 years in an apartheid prison.
Although
there were Christians, including religious, who offered themselves as ransom
for prisoners, it would seem that it is Mahatma Gandhi who first
brought out this dimension of spirituality as soul force in the public and
political sphere. It is a hope
and belief in the ultimate triumph of love that inspires peace and
non-violence, as self-sacrificial love can teach a lesson to the offending
parties and powers. It is not to
be a position of mere passive acceptance of injustice, but a strong active
resistance to evil and injustice, that does not bow the knee before insolent
might (as Tagore calls it) but holds the head up high asserting justice and
practices supreme love even unto death. These
inspiring examples of some of the greatest personalities of the world in the
20th century
can be invoked as very meaningful lessons for humanity in the 21st century.
They give principles, methods and sacrificial fidelity to the God of love and
love of one another.
In
a sense this was the message of the martyrs
of the early Church during the period of persecution of Christians.
It got submerged in theology and spirituality when the Christian Church
joined the ruling state powers in persecuting dissenters from proclaimed
orthodoxy as after Nicene in 325. Tradition, thought of as a source of divine
revelation, perpetuated this omission or distortion from generation to
generation up to recent decades. It
is opportune that the Churches return to the teaching of Jesus.
This would be one dimension of the re-evangelization of Christians that
is said to be necessary today.
21st Century
– Violence and Christianity
The
21st century
has been born in violence, with the “terrorist” air attack on New York on
11th September
2001 and the invasion of Iraq by USA, UK and Australia on 18th March
2003. It is now well known that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not motivated
by fear of a nuclear attack by Saddam Hussain or due to the desire of the
invading forces to install democracy in Iraq. It was a step in the effort of
the USA and its allies to exercise superpower domination especially over the
Middle East largely due to its oil riches. This war has now gone on for over
three years without an end in sight. There is even the possibility of it
spreading to other countries such as Iran.
One
of the greatest challenges for Christians in the 21st Century
is that it is mainly they who control world power after the end of the cold
war with the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the end of the Communist
Empire in Eastern Europe.
In
the encyclical “Deus Caritas Est” there is no significant reference to
this war of the 21st century,
and to the worldwide movement for peace. This war is causing the death of
several thousands of innocent men, women and children.
The
super-power world of the 21st century
has been built up by force and invasion during the five centuries since 1492
when the Christian Churches were partners with Europe in global conquest.
These crimes call for reparation. The Church has been far from being an
effective witness to the God of love during the building of this unjust racist
world (dis)order. Most of the saints mentioned by the Pope as icons of social
charity were far from being champions of the rights of the oppressed and
conquered peoples of the Americas, of Africa and Asia. Global social justice
was hardly their concern during the times when the exploitative world system
was being built up. They were inspired by a theology and spirituality that
presented the message of Jesus in a manner that legitimized the Western
colonial adventure.
How
and Why did this happen ? How has
it been possible that despite innumerable saintly persons in the Church, and
millions of periods of prayer and meditation by thousands of millions of good
Catholics throughout a millennium and more, the basic message of the
Beatitudes did not become the way of life of the Christians and of the Church?
They did not inform the spirituality and moral theology of the teaching
Church to become their guiding principles, and the core inspiration of
Christian culture and civilization.
Need
of Purification
It
can be asked how and why did the Church go so wrong for nearly 1500 years of
its 2000 year history concerning such significant issues such as the salvation
of those not of the Christian faith? Was there not a mistaken emphasis in the
three major functions of the Church.
-
in preaching the Word in an exclusivist and dominant sense, regarding
Jesus Christ as the unique and universal saviour of all
humanity
-
the celebration of the Eucharist being performed alongside the grave
injustices of slavery, feudalism, colonial invasions and present day growing
global injustice and inequality
-
thirdly the ministry of charity being concerned as social service and
not requiring reforming social action from the Church leadership.
We
cannot help seeing an inadequacy in this interpretation of God and of the
mission of the Church as service of charity.
The world injustice of 20% of the population having 80% of the wealth
and millions going hungry each day is too well known to require repetition.
Background
Thinking
i) Its anthropology is
based on the mythical presupposition of original sin placing the whole of
humanity in sin as offenders against God.
ii) Human redemption is
explained as due to the death of Jesus on the cross, paying the required price
to God the Father,
iii) This gives an
understanding of the life of Jesus that does not emphasize the positions he
took for justice in the society of his day.
This dilutes his strong critical message concerning the injustices of
the prevailing social order and the faults of the religious and civil leaders.
iv) This gives an
explanation of his death as due to need to make amends to the Father for
original sin, rather than due to his strong critical stance against the
social-religious injustice and struggle for the liberation of the oppressed of
his day.
This divine activity now takes on dramatic form when, in Jesus
Christ, it is God himself who goes in search of the “stray sheep”, a
suffering and lost humanity. When Jesus speaks in his parables of the shepherd
who goes after the lost sheep, of the woman who looks for the lost coin, of
the father who goes to meet and embrace his prodigal son, these are no mere
words: they constitute an explanation of his very being and activity. 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. (no.
12)
The Pope speaks of a lost humanity. His definition of divine love
“God is love” begins with the hypothesis of a lost humanity to be saved by
a divine act of reconciliation.
v) Consequently an other
worldly interpretation is given to spiritual discipleship of Jesus, to the
meaning of prayer, and to the understanding of salvation and Christian
mission. Christian holiness is
understood mainly as leading to charitable activity and not so related to
action for justice and peace that transforms social structures.
There is no practical application of the demands of God is love for
peace with justice in the world of the 21st century.
The sacramental life goes on side by side with the killings of wars, an
economy of grave exploitation and pollution of nature.
‘A Eucharist which does not passover into the concrete practice of
love is intrinsically fragmented.’ (no. 14)
vi) The sacrament of
baptism was given an effect of automatic redemption of infants.
The sacraments of penance and Eucharist were not closely related to the
need of justice and peace in society as oppressors, slave drivers and
colonizers could receive the sacraments without meaningful remorse for their
social evils. They could be at
peace with the Church with a good conscience, especially if they did
charitable works.
vii) Correspondingly for a
long time there was a downgrading of other faiths, and opposition to
friendly inter-religious relations.
viii) The kingdom of God
preached by Jesus is seen as being realized in the next world, rather than on
this earth. Hence a neglect of
the care for nature, God’s gift for all humanity to be safeguarded for
succeeding generations and shared equitably among all peoples.
If
the Church leadership does not undertake a critical social analysis of a given
situation it cannot and would not be able to influence the laity and church
organizations to take political action to bring about justice.
Without a clear option for justice, especially to the poor, the Church
could not fulfill the responsibility, which the Pope entrusts to it :
“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.” (no 28 : a )
A
Mission for the Pope
May
we suggest that in a subsequent encyclical he develops the radical demands of
the Christian gospel of Jesus. The Pope could propose very effective remedies
to this unjust situation in a relevant meditation on the Sermon on the Mount.
If the Pope listens to the present cries of humanity expressed by the global
protests and peace movements, he would discern the potential that the Church
has for bringing the war to a halt. The
Christian leadership can inspire active non-violent protests, including civil
disobedience such as by refusing to pay taxes for the war and the armaments
industry that supports and profits from war.
This would be at least as meaningful as the encouragement to charitable
social service within the grossly unjust world order of violence and
international lawlessness.
The
Pope can lead the Christian churches and peoples to develop methodologies of
non-violent protest that are far more feasible now with the present rapid
global communications. If the Pope and the Christian leadership of North
America, Europe and Oceania are firmly determined to stand up courageously for
a just peace in a coordinated manner, the Iraq war can be brought to an early
halt. The price would be the
severing of the unholy alliance between the Church and the dominant Western
colonizers, an option not effectively made since the time of Constantine.
Reflecting
on the wider implications of the message of Jesus, that God is love, the
Christian churches in the world can rethink the core of their teaching in the
present world situation of war and grave injustice.
The catechesis can highlight the different dimension of the demands of
love that could lead to the transformation of persons, relationships and
structures. We need to develop our thinking and methodology of peace with
justice to be achieved by non-violent methods.
Otherwise the alternative at the world level is vast unimaginable
destruction, given the divisions in the world and the accumulated powers of
self-destruction available to many.
In
a subsequent encyclical or instruction the Pope can give the leadership that
the world needs. The world
religions have the common core message of peace and strategies to save
humanity from the impending tragedy to humans and nature itself. Throughout
the world there are numerous persons, groups and movements that yearn for
peace with justice, beyond the limits of the dominant neo-liberal capitalism.
The gospel of Jesus gives inspiration for another possible world that
can give a better chance for most humans to live a full and meaningful human
life. The World Social Forum
meeting in Poto Allegre in Brazil and elsewhere expresses the hopes of
humanity for such a peaceful transformation.
This present situation is a great challenge for all of us to bear
witness to the God of love revealed by Jesus. We hope Pope Benedict XVI would
help us all to face this challenge wisely, courageously and peacefully.
“Blessed
are the peacemakers for they will be called the children of God”.
If,
as the Pope writes in the introduction the encyclical is meant to be a
guideline indicating his thinking, it needs careful reflection on its
intents and, limits.
“since
I wanted here - at the beginning of my Pontificate – to clarify some
essential facts concerning the love which God mysteriously and gratuitously
offers to man (sic), together
with the intrinsic link between Love and the reality of human love.”
If
part II intends only to direct and support the organized Church social action
as “Caritas”, then the sidelining here of the mission and action for
justice and peace can be understood. We would then await another encyclical on
the justice and peace of God that would deal with all such issues directly and
give the required leadership to the whole church.
Tissa
Balasuriya OMI
The
encyclical “Deus Caritas Est” can be taken by study groups for
small group reflection. This
“Companion” many come in handy for it. Since
the Pope indicated, at his inauguration, that his
desire and role is also to listen to others, the results of
such groups studies may be sent to the Pope through the
Apostolic Nuncios in the different countries.
This may help him to prepare his next encyclical. We will be
happy to hear from you in this regard.