Pope Francis on Love

Pope Francis’ chapter on love (chapter 4) treats love as a virtue to be formed. Name three practices that a person might take up to develop this virtue.

Amoris Laetitia is a beautiful piece that I believe very fruitfully captures the evidence of love; the actions and characteristics that are present in someone who is truly in love. It was beautiful to read and creates within me a desire to bring the same love into my own life, not only as a wife but as a friend and a sister and a daughter. I will most definitely read chapter four often to recommit myself to this idea of love and how to practice it, even when I am married.

Following the analysis from the excerpt from Corinthians, the first practice one can implement in one’s daily lives is the virtue of Patience. This is a very nebulous thing to say, to “practice patience,” but it is encapsulated in practicing deliberating, curbing impulses and thinking through the effect of one’s actions. When we desire to respond emotionally to a situation, it is extremely important to every day think critically about the consequences of an emotional, spiteful, or bitter reaction and even how we ourselves take part in creating this anger. A strong way to prevent such a reaction form the beginning is to check our expectations. Pope Francis says:

We encounter problems whenever we think that relationships or people ought to be perfect, or when we put ourselves at the center and expect things to turn out our way (p. 63).

To be realistic is to not categorize or set expectations on something we do not know. As Dietrich von Hildebrand said, bitterness is the sour taste of unmet expectations. What patience leads to, according to Pope Francis, is a love with deep compassion that accepts other people as a person fully apart and participant in this world, acting and living independent of how we want them to exist (p. 63).

A second practice that can prepare one for loving and marriage is to be “ever ready to be of assistance” (p. 64). Love is not convenient and does not operate on our timetable, and it does not ask for repayment nor record debts paid and owed. In practice, this means staying up with a struggling friend, sacrificing an extra dinner swipe to eat with a friend who wants to talk or even catch up, take an extra hour to hear someone out, take care of a friend even though you miss something you were anticipating, etc.. There is a plethora of big and small ways to sacrifice one’s time for the good of another, and this habit of giving lends itself to the joy of gift and opening of love in the relationship.

A third practice I have gleaned from this reading pertains to love as not boastful or rude. Be humble – “think not less of yourself but of yourself less” – let someone else take the spot light, cater to what they need. Be curious and attentive to their life, remember what they tell you and react to how they are doing. I think this is a very interesting point Pope Francis makes, but unmentioned is an interesting thought I have juggled around my brain for awhile. It is good for not only us but the other to listen and not “take center stage” – but the same goes for the other, to listen and not “take center stage.” This implies a mutuality to vulnerability and sharing, and I think one cannot love completely if they truly take the backseat. A part of loving is allowing someone to be there for you too, because that ultimately is their good as well. It is delicate and interesting balance.

What I found hard to swallow about this reading was the bit on page 69 that references St. Thomas Aquinas: “it is more proper to charity to desire to love than to desire to be loved.” I at first struggled with this phrase, but I am realizing that it does not mean the desire to be loved is bad – simply ordinally lower than the desire to love others. For me, however it is confusing to rank these desires, as they seem extremely codependent on each other, both good, and beautiful.

Karol Wojtyła: The Jeweler’s Shop

Read the Jeweler’s Shop. Assess how Karol Wojtyla deals with the three dimensions of love (metaphysics, psychology, and ethics) throughout the play.

In Love & Responsibility, Karol Wojtyła defines the Metaphysics of love as concerning what love objectively is, which (broadly) is the reordering of desire so one gives oneself over to the will love for the good of another. This process begins with a cognizant (yet perhaps not incredibly evident) appreciation of another and buildup of affection, which is what Wojtyła calls fondness. This gradual recognition is most evident in the relationship between Teresa and Andrew. On page 24, Andrew says,

“I went quite a long way before reaching Teresa, I did not find her at once. I do not even remember what “love at first sight” means. After a time I realized she had come into the focus of my attention, I mean, I had to be interested in her, and at the same time I accepted the fact that I had to…There must have been something in Teresa that suited my personality.”

Eventually, Andrew’s fondness and affection builds up to the orientation of one’s good and will towards the good of Teresa. In this process, Andrew’s thoughts reflect the psychology of love, or the lived experience of love and how it affects the interior life:

“And that is why I could not grasp the basis of that strange persistence of Teresa in me, the cause of her presence, the assurance of her place in my “ego,” or what creates around her that strange resonance, that feeling “you ought to”” (26).

Andrew gradually grows to love Teresa and his feelings and reactions are affected, or symbols of sort of the great interior change in disposition he is undergoing. Later, Andrew meditates on how he has changed:

“How close she passed by me then; she almost hemmed me in with her imagination and that discreet suffering, which at the time I did not want to know, and today am willing to regard as our common good…Teresa…no longer a prism of superficial rays, but a being of true light” (30).

 

Andrew eventually sees his own good as intimately tied with Teresa’s, a mutual love and bond that links the two. He sees her with a singular focus and recognizes her as Person, completely autonomous, beautiful, and beloved. After this part, Andrew and Teresa develop a natural habit of goodness towards each other and it is not the individual personhood of the other they love, but the Person itself and in this way they are self-gifting each other. They fulfill John Paul II’s most important part of love, the ethics of love, or the virtue of love.

In the relationship between Anna and Stefan, one sees the absence of an ethics of love:

“he could not heal the would that had opened in my soul. It did not hurt him, he did not feel it” (48).

The couple does not have the good of the other shaping their wills, and eventually their relationship deteriorates as their lack of unity permeates their relationship with hurt and distance.

On a personal note, what mystifies and terrifies me is:

“Andrew did not die in me, did not die on any front, he did not even have to come back, for somehow he is” (72).

Mystifies because it is a beautiful encapsulation of the relationship of love, how one lives in the other by a mutual bonding of the wills and how that love never dies, even if the host might. It is a strong, deep interpersonal relationship that is comforting and intense and beautiful. Terrifying, because I do not want to imagine what it would be like to lose the beloved, the Person, even if the love remains.

Dietrich von Hildebrand on Love and Marriage

Dietrich von Hildebrand is the first author we’ve read who seeks to understand love and marriage as linked to one another. How might his account of love and marriage serve as an antidote to the hook-up culture?

Wound throughout Dietrich von Hildebrand’s account of love and marriage is the central theme that the purpose of marriage is to love and procreation is a particular end of this love. As a break from past authors, this definition emphasizes the relation between the married couple as opposed to a union strictly for procreation. In this relational aspect there is the potential for mutual growth, sacrifice, and healing.

Regarding conjugal love, von Hildebrand emphasizes how love reveals the whole being of the beloved to one another. Not only does each person see the characteristics and traits, but ” the particular charm of his individuality as a whole” (12). In this way, their consciousness of each other allow the couple to “spiritually immerse” (9) themselves in one another which goes beyond physical, conscious perception. This deeper loving, opposed to the physical self-gratification of the hook-up culture, is a radical form of transcendence.

Von Hildebrand also emphasizes how conjugal love is not sensual desire, or the objectification of the beloved. Love overcomes self-centered heaviness and indolence and promotes respect, chivalry, and humility, “even when this love is a superficial one and only based on the external qualities of the beloved” (17). The movements of love in the heart itself heal the hookup culture.

Dietrich von Hildebrand claims love is elevated by the institution of marriage. Sacramental marriage in particular, opens and concentrates particular graces for the married couple which allows them to elevate their love. While not every marriage contains couples in love, it creates an objective bond, which, “once established, is withdrawn from the sphere of arbitrary decision of the persons concerned” (23). Von Hildebrand’s wife explains the significance of the permanence of marriage in the Introduction: “he chooses to remain faithful to what he has seen, even though his vision may later become blurred” (x).

Personally, what resonated with me from this text was also said by Alice von Hildebrand: “marriage teaches spouses humility and makes them realize that the human person is a very poor lover” (xi). This book more than the other readings was clear and beautiful. It was explicit that humanity is not perfect, we have faults but we are made to grow and to love and be loved. Marriage especially is a huge lesson in sacrifice, humility, patience, and much more. Marriage is not easy and not something to be taken lightly, and especially the Christian perspective emphasizes that marriage and love is a transcendental encounter with another, which seems simultaneously exciting and terrifying.

St. Thomas Aquinas

What are three essential dimensions of Thomas Aquinas’ account of marriage in the Summa Theologica? 

In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas focuses on three essential dimensions of christian marriage: sacramentum tantum (the sign itself), res et sacramentum (sign in reality), and res tantum (reality itself).

First, the sacramentum tantum refers to the material consent that signifies the spiritual marriage. Because in marriage there is a spiritual joining, it is represented by the oral consent to give power over one’s body to their spouse. Crucially, Aquinas clarifies that consent “derives [its] efficacy from Divine Institution” (p. 2713) and is thus empowered to cause matrimony. Overall this represents the physical, perceivable aspect of marriage. As every sacrament needs form & substance, the consent represents the form of the sacrament as the sanctifying sign of grace.

Second, this sign effects some reality, res et sacramentum, which is the bond that is formed between a man and wife in marriage. Aquinas states, “[m]atrimony is … the union of persons directed to one purpose … and this union is the effect of the consent” (p. 2713). Immaterial and imperceptible to the eye, the newly married couple has an irrevocable spiritual union caused by their consent.

Third, this union is imbedded with grace as an example of the union of Christ and the Church, the res tantum. In this sense, the reality itself too is a sign that points towards the ver more real bond and love between Christ and the Church. In the third article of question 42 (p. 2704 – 2705), Aquinas explains that the sacrament does cause grace for healing, has efficacy in healing concupiscence, enables the creation of children, and transforms the love of the couple.

In essence, the sacrament of marriage is visibly represented in consent that effects the invisible union between the couple which begets healing grace through its reflection of the union of Christ and the Church. Personally, interacting with this text was positive because I believe it describes how ideal marriage functions. There is complete consent and knowledge of what each individual is entering into, the bond is deeper than physical, it effects positive change and growth, and it provides an objective standard to hold oneself to. What troubles me is what marriage outside of the Christian standard means and how the real problem of the development of unhealthy relationships. Permanence is problematic when we are prone to make ill-advised or ill-informed decisions, or if we struggle accepting Christian dogma.

Bernard of Clairvaux & Hugh of St. Victor

Using two of the authors we’ve read dealing with the Song of Songs (Bernard of Clairvaux, Hildegard of Bingen, and Hugh of St. Victor) describe three ways that the nuptial mystery is essential to the spiritual life of both monk and married person alike. 

In the work Song of Songs I, Bernard of Clairvaux uses nuptial imagery of the married person to enlighten the duties of the monk. He analyzes this phrase: “Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth,” she said. For interpretation “she” is not gendered, but one of the two parts of the bride-groom complex wherein a particular love exists. “She” is the bride, and if this particular love is present “it is not unfitting to call the soul that loves God the bride” (p. 39), which is the monk. Interpreted in this sense, Bernard emphasizes how direct the bride is and how this reveals how both the monk is called to be open and communicative in desiring God, the groom “he.”

Further in sermon nine, he uses the nuptial imagery of nursing breasts (of the married person) filled with milk as a parallel to the fruits of the contemplative life (for the monk); just as milk fills the breast from within as sustenance for a child so too does dutiful prayer fill them with an “overflowing love” to “feed the faithful” (9.V.7, p.58). 

Another philosopher, Hugh of St. Victor, emphasizes the particular sacramental healing aspect of marriage more so than his predecessors. He begins addressing marriage by pointing out how it was the only institution before the fall that was used as an office for procreation and as a sign of Christ’s love with the Church (p. 324 & 325). After the fall, marriage served the purpose of healing that “what belonged to weakness and evil in the mingling of the flesh might be excused” (p. 325). This is done by “by sanctification some invisible and spiritual grace” (p. 155). Thus, the sacramental aspect of healing that takes place in marriage restores the soul to its original state of grace and goodness, it heals and prepares for a true bridal union.

Lastly, Hildegard of Bingen uses nuptial imagery to express the desire for Christ in the Eucharist by way of kiss. In Song of Songs 8:1, Hildegard draws a parallel of the kiss and the reception of the body of Christ through the Eucharist, so “I may kiss You, for You were incarnate for my salvation.” Importantly, this occurs through interaction with the church, who is the church which Christ fills with grace and love as the breasts of mother fill to feed her children.(35, p. 259).

These three expressions (spiritual live as filling, eucharist as a kiss, and the sanctification and healing of the soul through the marriage) are all crucial to the understanding of the nuptial mystery.

Marriage and Augustine

Why is Christian marriage healing of human sinfulness for Augustine?

Augustine emphasizes three aspects of Christian marriage that brings good and in each their own ways heals the human condition of sinfulness. The three goods are first and foremost to create offspring (proles), mutual fidelity (fides), and the unbreakable sacramental bond (sacramentum).

According to Augustine, the best form of physical intimacy between two individuals is that between married individuals to create new life as a reflection of the unity and sociality that God intended between human beings. As an extension of the love and connection experienced by the man and woman in this moment, new life and creation comes into being (as always through the grace of God). What is most important in this is the concentration of love in this interaction that creates new life and fills the hearts of the parents.

The aspect of mutual fidelity of a marriage heals because it entails an ever increasing cache of trust, love, and devotion, emotions which bring the two closer in relationship and heal the rupture of community and love that occurs as a result of sin. While he mostly gives examples of what mutual fidelity isn’t, one can ascertain that this trust and social security that is experienced in a christian marriage helps each individual grow in security of who they are as children of God.

The third important good that is experienced according to Augustine is that of experiencing the sacrament itself. The sacrament, while administered by the couple itself, is only possible through God actually providing grace. Marriage is a way to bring grace and blessings into the world, creating a bond that heals each individual and those they interact with. The aspect of an indissoluble bond of a sacrament is likewise important for Augustine. The sacrament of marriage, by virtue of being a sacrament, fundamentally changes the pair involved. From that day forward their very inner substance is transformed in reflection of their commitment towards one another, the good which brings grace into our lives and thereby conforms us more to the image and plan of God. In essence what is done by God cannot be undone.

What personally resonates with me about Augustine’s philosophies is the importance of mutual fidelity and the good that it brings to each respective member. I think one of the beautiful aspects of marriage is the commitment to know your significant other deeply but in a manner that is exclusive to the two. I by no means believe that they are barred from having deep relationships with others, however it is the romantic relationship that is singular. While learning about each other, mutual fidelity is important for the trust and confidence it builds. It heals our need to be truly seen and accepted.

Healing the Pornification of Love & The Nature of a Sacrament

How might a sacrament, based upon your reading of both Marion and Ratzinger, heal the pornification of love examined in our reading of Frietas’ text?

The most probable way that a sacrament is intended to heal the pornification of love examined by Frietas is by its focus on not the individual but the relationship and ‘the other.’ At the heart of a hookup culture there seems to be an extreme form of self-love: gratification is pleasure of the action in the moment. Reading Marion’s conception of love and Ratzinger’s, love is an acknowledgement and appreciation of the singularity of the other and the sacrament of marriage is meant to secure this, specifically as a representation of Christ and the church. In other words, It is the exact opposite of a quick, hyper-sexualized meeting.

As Marion might put it, we enjoy the sensation the actions of the other give us, but we often do not acknowledge the consciousness of the other (the gaze does not occur), and thus the awkwardness many feel when seeing their counterpart from the night before. Love shifts its focus from sexual gratification to a deep appreciation and admiration for the peculiar inner being of the other. Love is transcendent and necessitates that the person who loves steps outside of himself.

Marriage sanctifies this commitment. It is a physical manifestation of an inner state of being, a ceremony/description/ring that expresses the commitment of each to the other. Additionally, according to Ratzinger, Christian marriage is a state that promulgates grace and ‘divine life,’ and mirrors the love and commitment of christ to the church. This love and acceptance of grace is what brings the betrothed closer to each other and the eternal truth that is Christ/God/Love/Holy Spirit.

What resonated with me personally was the reasoning behind institutionalized marriage. While I am still searching for the answer to if Christianity is truth, I can appreciate how the Christian marriage ceremony is universal and designed to fill a universal human need for intimacy and companionship in a long-lasting way. It is designed to heal an objective human condition. One I have decided that does define reality, despite my subjective interpretations. I see absolute moral relativism to be a dangerous and individualistic trend that ignores a solid definition of good and evil that exists (although good and evil tend to be mixed in a confusing mess – which is just dandy for us debaters who try to define either side. For example! Is Satanism good or bad? I would tend to say yea it is literal evil worship, but others have argued it is a different form of worshiping a higher power, one that is often misconstrued and sensationalized into something that its not: have you actually read about them or spoken to a Satanist? Do you know their story and motivations as to why they do what they do? Does Satanism as I understand it truly exist?) 

My point is: I find it attractive that Christian marriage is for a good higher purpose and for the community just as it is for the couple itself. In this way it is more selfless and giving, and, to me, more beautiful.

The Pornification of Love

What resonates with you about Donna Frietas’ The End of Sex? What do you find more problematic? 

While I quite honestly find the structure of Frietas’ arguments in The End of Sex aggravating, I do believe she hits accurate points about the hookup culture in the United States. Of her many views, what interested me the most was the enormous role that alcohol plays as an extreme form of “social lubrication.”

I do not believe alcohol should be demonized and I believe the Catholic perspective likewise finds no problem with alcohol in moderation, however the incontrovertible fact is that college has a relatively recent and widespread culture of frequent excess regarding alcohol. Thinking back on their college partying, my parents would admit to occasionally having a few too many drinks, but going out for them normally was having a few beers. Now, this “back then” comparison does not mean our “right now” culture is bad, but (and here is where my thoughts are resting for now) binge drinking almost creates different persons of us. We want different things; in our drunk state we do things our “cold,” more rational self would never do, or want to. We go too far, we hookup.

I by no means am trying to make the statement that all hookups are unintentional nor that our parents’ generation never had similar experiences or that drunkenness is necessary to hookup. No, I simply want to emphasize how alcohol has a strong part to play in stimulating hookups. What I would add is alcohol has a particularly marked effect on those on the margin who are unsure if they want sexual intimacy or those who weakly decide not to. Typically, a good many drinks in and their “hotter” emotional state has decided: these inhibitions are gone. What is tragic about that indecisive group is they most likely will be those who regret it the most. “I did not mean to do that” or “I did not want that” is added to whatever other emotions they might process the experience with.

And, of course, all of this is my particular perspective, a micro example within the cosmo of experience. Here is where I find Freitas problematic. While she admittedly interviewed 100 more people than I did, I still felt her narrative was fit to her preexisting values and perspectives and the purpose of her interviews was to substantiate her already-formed answer, not to create it. Often after citing an interview, she would say something along the lines of “and his word choice obviously expressed his discomfort with his actions.” With what measure? Many of her observations were subjectivity portrayed as objectivity, and this was hard to swallow throughout.

 

Theological Biography

Why are you interested in the themes of this class? What’s your own religious or theological background?

Simply put, marriage and love are important to me. I hope to be married some day and I hope to do it “right” – whatever that means. At Notre Dame, I have discerned that Where I Am Going is extremely important, yet the Who I Am Going With is likewise paramount. I know relationships give me the most joy in my life; not only the deep relationships with my friends and family but also the stranger I met in the line for books or the random conversation I had with my TA the other day.

I anticipate love and marriage to be one of the most rewarding yet incredibly challenging decisions of my life, and I do not believe there is some magical switch that will make this commitment easy. From the wonderful philosophies of Erich Fromm, love is an art and like all art it needs to be mastered in theory and practice. I hope this class will help me tackle the theoretical side of love and marriage – to know what is required, what are good practices, how it works, and whatever more there is to know.

As for my religious background, I was officially born and raised Catholic. My family stopped actively practicing early, but I went to a Catholic summer camp for a week or more every summer from 5th grade to 12th. The summer before 10th grade, I had an experience I will never be able to explain, and have faithfully attended mass (alone) since. The summer before college I worked at this summer camp.

Recently, however, I have entered a period of questioning. Through experience, thought, discussion, and faith I have come to believe that there is a God and he very much loves us and desires our good and is in fact our good. I believe in some way he manifested on Earth and helped direct us and give us principles. I struggle, however, accepting that Catholicism has all the answers and all other religions speak only half-truths. What is more important about my philosophies and experiences than that of a devout Buddhist?

I understand that some do not accept Catholicism because questions of God do not interest them, but for those who truly care and faithfully pursue answers and come to the conclusion that Catholicism is not truth – how do I ignore their preference in favor of my own? Especially when my preference is supposed to speak to a universal truth. Why is this universal truth hidden to some and obvious to others? I have always been surrounded with positive examples of the Catholic experience – to what extent has that influenced my perception of objective truth?

While I am no expert, there do seem to be fundamental cores to many religions – and that is that the best way to be fulfilled is to be true and good and to do good. I think loving is perhaps the best way to do good – I like what it does to the heart.