Three encyclicals already with Caritas in their title. It looks like the Pope is bidding fair to become “the Pope of Caritapolis,” who sees the whole world—in all its cultural, political, and cultural dimensions—as to be best grasped within the long history of “The City of God”—the City of God’s Caritas in this world.
By caritas, the Pope means a distinctive form of the love that humans experience—not eros, nor amor, nor affection, nor commitment in choice (dilectio), nor friendship, nor all those other forms of love that humans know and cherish, each in its own way. Caritas is the love proper only to God, among the Persons of the Divine Communion for One Another, All one in perfect Communion.
The Trinitarian Creator made us to share in this inner life and caritas of God, a love beyond our capacities. Our love is to give the ancient world of “eternal cycles of return” a fresh and real history of responsibility, of daring, of potential progress and of threatening degradation. It is a love that obliges us to take responsibility for its fate, under a kind Providence.
This is the drama of human history, the story of Caritapolis, as the Catholic people see it. We do not often display the whole story out in public, preferring a story sparser and less romantic to match the flatness of our own times. But cherish it deep in our hearts, we do.
Now our most learned among popes has published the fullest and most theological account of Catholic Social Thought, from its starting place right in the bosom of the Communion of Persons that furnishes us our experience of God—and also of our own nature.
The most holy, the noblest, the best, the most godlike things about us is our human capacity to learn personhood in responsible self-government (taking up personal responsibility for our own eternal fate) and to share in communion with other persons, and most of all with the unseen God.
It is as if Benedict is bringing back into play the long-neglected lessons of St. Augustine to Catholic Social Thought—re-presenting, as it were, The City of God—that is, the City of that caritas which the Divine Persons gratuitously pour into the human heart, that it might cast the burning desire for human unity into the kindling of hundreds of millions of parched hearts.
Without eternal perspectives and without the sense of our individual immortal value—the great Tocqueville reminded us—the sheer materialism and dreck of democracy and capitalism would wear us down to mean and petty creatures. Materialism radically undercuts our human rights. Simply to survive—let alone flourish—democracy and capitalism need soul.
For Catholics, all social energy flows from the inner life of the Trinity. Everything is gift. We signal our gratitude by developing our own talents to the fullness, by becoming free, responsible, initiative-showing, creative agents of a better world, and by aspiring to that full communion of all human beings whose vocation is written into the structure of human history.
And we say “thank you.” What most distinguishes the Jewish and Christian believer from the secular materialist is the frequency and the authenticity in which the believer responds to everyday events with deeply felt gratitude. Everything we look upon is gift.
Thus, it is no surprise when empirical research shows that people who are believers give more of their time and resources to the needy than do unbelievers, and people who cherish limited government (conservatives) give more than welfare-state liberals.
The truth is, though, that both liberals and conservatives belong, in their quarreling fashions, to one same national community and one same human community.
What Benedict XVI has not spelled out yet is another forgotten lesson from St. Augustine: the ever-corrupting role of sin in the City of Man. Augustine points out how difficult it is even for the wisest and most detached humans to discover the truth among lies—and how even husbands and wives in the closest of human bonds misunderstand each other so often. The Father of Lies seems to own so much of the real world.
What are the most practical ways of defeating him? The Catholic tradition—even the wise Pope Benedict—still seems to put too much stress upon caritas, virtue, justice, and good intentions, and not nearly enough on methods for defeating human sin in all its devious and persistent forms.
Even the Pope’s understandable nostalgia for the European welfare-state too much scants the self-interests, self-deceptions, and false presuppositions that are bringing that system to a crisis of its own making. This was a crisis John Paul II saw rather more clearly in paragraph 48 of Centesimus Annus.
July 7th, 2009 | 1:48 pm
“The Catholic tradition—even the wise Pope Benedict—still seems to put too much stress upon caritas, virtue, justice, and good intentions, and not nearly enough on methods for defeating human sin in all its devious and persistent forms.”
I eagerly await for Novak’s account of how sin may be defeated other than through charity.
July 7th, 2009 | 2:37 pm
As usual, the neo-conservatives such as Novak love the Magisterium when it coincides with their own ideas, and patronize and dissent when it doesn’t. What happened to the humble faithful Catholic, who allows their heart and mind to be guided by the Magisterium, not as an opportunity to debate with the living Vicar of Christ?
July 7th, 2009 | 3:36 pm
[...] * * Update: Michael Novak reviews Benedict, concluding with a dose of Niebuhrian realism: What Benedict XVI has not spelled out yet is another [...]
July 7th, 2009 | 3:54 pm
I’ve subscribed to First Things for over five years. I’m a conservative and registered Republican and, though young, have voted only for Republican candidates in every election I’ve participated in. I’m a free market capitalist by sympathy. I’m a traditionally-minded Roman Catholic.
And I am seriously considering canceling my subscription to First Things. First, you have Messrs. Bottum & Novak preemptively downplaying the significance of Charity in Truth. Fair enough, except no reason was given, other than the unstated fear that they wouldn’t like what Charity in Truth would have to say. Later, after the release of Charity in Truth, Novak now haphazardly critiques Charity in Truth for, inter alia, placing too much emphasis on charity.
(At least Mr. Novak has not resorted to George Weigel’s recommended hermeneutic to understanding Charity in Truth, which as far as I can tell amounts to attributing to Pope Benedict everything in the encyclical that George Weigel agrees with and attributing the balance (which turns out to be an awful lot) to the pernicious Pontifical Commission of Justice & Peace.)
The problem, of course, is that Novak et al. are going to have a tough time explaining this encyclical away. This isn’t some minor Vatican press release or article in L’Osservatore Romano. Moreover, I just don’t buy the argument that Pope Benedict hasn’t clearly reflected on the contents of Charity in Truth, or worse, that they don’t reflect the Pope’s true beliefs (as Mr. Weigel would have us belief) or an authentic development of the Church’s social teaching. (If anything, it is Centesimus Annus (or at least the Novakian interpretation thereof) that is the outlier among the great social encyclicals.) I’m inclined to take Pope Benedict at his word when he writes that Populorum Progressio–not Centesimus Annus!–is the Rerum Novarum of the modern era. Similarly, I believe the Pope means what he says when he suggests that developed nations curtail the consumption of fossil and that corporate directors & officers should be guided more by concern for the corporation’s stakeholders rather than shareholders.
I’m not asking First Things, Novak, Bottum or Weigel to always and every be defenders of the Vatican-line. I am asking that they take a less obviously partisan approach to interpreting or commenting on Church documents. I say this as a person who emphatically agrees with First Things editorial line.
I too personally have a hard time swallowing what’s in Charity in Truth. But I pray that my first reaction, as a Catholic, is to reflect on what that initial, personal uncomfortableness says about my sinfulness or ignorance rather than what it says about the machinations of the Vatican curia or the lapses in judgment of the Pope.
July 7th, 2009 | 4:34 pm
[...] The brand new encyclical by Pope Benedict XVI is out and there are a smattering of responses about the blogosphere. Whatever we may want to say about the merits or liabilities of Benedict’s claims in the encyclical, no one could do worse than Michael Novak in his pathetic response over on the First Things blog: [...]
July 7th, 2009 | 6:03 pm
“The old man longs to hear His voice, to hear Him reply; better
words of bitterness and scorn than His silence. Suddenly He
rises; slowly and silently approaching the Inquisitor, He bends
towards him and softly kisses the bloodless, four-score and-ten-
year-old lips. That is all the answer. The Grand Inquisitor
shudders. There is a convulsive twitch at the corner of his
mouth. He goes to the door, opens it, and addressing Him, ‘Go,’
he says, ‘go, and return no more… do not come again… never,
never!’ and–lets Him out into the dark night. The prisoner
vanishes.”
“And the old man?”
“The kiss burns his heart, but the old man remains firm in his
own ideas and unbelief.”
July 7th, 2009 | 6:10 pm
“Even the Pope’s understandable nostalgia for the European welfare-state too much scants the self-interests, self-deceptions, and false presuppositions that are bringing that system to a crisis of its own making.”
Herein seems to be the problem. Novak makes the mistake of thinking that the Pope must be arguing on behalf of the competitor system to his own (which, not mentioned nor implied, is also facing a crisis of its own making born from self-deception and error). Why is it so difficult to conceive the idea that the Church does not see and judge the world by its own terms?
July 7th, 2009 | 6:41 pm
[...] Michael Novak: The Pope of Caritopolis [...]
July 7th, 2009 | 10:46 pm
“…the wise Pope Benedict—still seems to put too much stress upon caritas, virtue, justice, and good intentions, and not nearly enough on methods for defeating human sin in all its devious and persistent forms.”
I’m just wondering if the Pope’s experience as a young man in a country carpet-bombed into ruble and repentance for his nation’s unsuccessful ‘method to defeat the human sins’ of socialism (medi-care and social security), collectivization (shared prosperity and progressive taxation), degenerate art (Michael Jackson and gay-day at Disneyland) lack of family values (subsidized day care and women’s equality) and cultural dissolution (Mexican day laborers or Jews etc.) could have contributed to his ‘liberal’ privileging of ‘caritas’ in the battle against evil? Of course the Pope has never been married so he may not understand how “even husbands and wives in the closest of human bonds misunderstand each other so often.” Perhaps instead of the (chaste and faithful) pres. Obama visiting the Vatican next week a contingent of Conservative Republicans (which must include foot-loose Larry Craig, Newt and his 3 wives, and Mark Sanford with his Argentine vixen) to enlighten the Pope on ‘how much of this world The Father of Lies seems to own.’ Obliged, Daniel
July 7th, 2009 | 11:57 pm
[...] the story, it’s just that there are so many more important subjects to report on; and Michael Novak reflects on the Pope’s use of Caritas: It is as if Benedict is bringing back into play the long-neglected lessons of St. Augustine to [...]
July 8th, 2009 | 12:12 am
“Three encyclicals already with Caritas in their title.”
The first and third encyclicals have “Caritas” in their title. However, the second encyclical is titled “Spe Salvi.”
July 8th, 2009 | 10:52 am
Katerina,
I’m glad you brought that up. A man who proposes to undertake a “scholarly” critique of the Holy Father’s encyclicals would do well to actually know their names.
July 8th, 2009 | 11:07 am
[...] to share something which I found very relevant. I qoute from the blog http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/07/07/the-pope-of-caritapolis/ For Catholics, all social energy flows from the inner life of the Trinity. Everything is gift. We [...]
July 8th, 2009 | 12:32 pm
Novak: “What Benedict XVI has not spelled out yet is another forgotten lesson from St. Augustine: the ever-corrupting role of sin in the City of Man.”
Excuse me???
BXVI: I am aware of the ways in which charity has been and continues to be misconstrued and emptied of meaning, with the consequent risk of being misinterpreted, detached from ethical living and, in any event, undervalued… it is easily dismissed as irrelevant for interpreting and giving direction to moral responsibility. Hence the need to link charity with truth…
Truth needs to be sought, found and expressed within the “economy” of charity, but charity in its turn needs to be understood, confirmed and practised in the light of truth… This is a matter of no small account today, in a social and cultural context which relativizes truth, often paying little heed to it and showing increasing reluctance to acknowledge its existence…
Only in truth does charity shine forth, only in truth can charity be authentically lived. Truth is the light that gives meaning and value to charity… Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way. In a culture without truth, this is the fatal risk facing love. It falls prey to contingent subjective emotions and opinions, the word “love” is abused and distorted, to the point where it comes to mean the opposite. Truth frees charity from the constraints of an emotionalism that deprives it of relational and social content, and of a fideism that deprives it of human and universal breathing-space…
July 8th, 2009 | 12:40 pm
I think Novak’s piece was quite good – until the very end. I must second the remark of the first commentor as to his observation that “The Catholic tradition… still seems to put too much stress upon caritas, virtue, justice, and good intentions, and not nearly enough on methods for defeating human sin…”
How does Mr. Novak imagine that sin is expelled from human hearts except by the loving grace of God and the tireless practice, assisted by this grace, of charity and the virtues???
July 9th, 2009 | 7:07 am
Given how many people don’t believe in sin’s existence, it’s obvious that will take an encyclical in itself. Taking a largely “positive” road, and noting the “negatives” in language that doesn’t use language that will be easily rejected by many as obsolete or howwibly mean… that’s a clever way of getting around people’s defenses.
July 9th, 2009 | 8:30 am
As a conservative catholic, who depended on First Things for intellectual succor while living in Canada, it is clear that it has lost its intellectual way and gravitas. It is an embarrassment how Novak, Weigel, et al are tripping over themselves to reject the Pope’s teachings. They are clearly blinded by ideology and not allowing themselves to be formed by the truth of the Church’s teachings. And please, let’s read the encyclical, meditate on it, pray over it, think about it, before commenting on it. How about a period of two weeks, let’s say, to digest what the encyclical says before reflecting our foolishness for public display? Come Holy Spirit.
July 9th, 2009 | 3:51 pm
Defeating human sin? Have we even clearly named the sin in this case? If the encyclical does not address the sin of USURY then it misses the mark. Would Novak and Weigel go to the mat, so to speak, to call attention to the role that usury has played in the global meltdown? Probably not. Why the Pope has not addressed the root cause of the current economic problems is one question. Where is Novak going with this argument is another.
July 9th, 2009 | 6:22 pm
This is not a good week for the veteran pundits of First Things. Insta-sniping at the pontiff does not reflect well on you.
July 9th, 2009 | 7:52 pm
[...] Michael Novak: It is as if Benedict is bringing back into play the long-neglected lessons of St. Augustine to Catholic Social Thought—re-presenting, as it were, The City of God—that is, the City of that caritas which the Divine Persons gratuitously pour into the human heart, that it might cast the burning desire for human unity into the kindling of hundreds of millions of parched hearts. [...]
July 9th, 2009 | 10:19 pm
Mr. Novak’s transparent attempt to justify his rejection of the Pope’s teaching for the sake of political ideology is very disappointing. I am a longtime reader and admirer of First Things, although I had to give up my subscription when I returned to the status of impoverished grad student. Lately it reads as if it were published by the Institute on Religion and Republican Life.
July 10th, 2009 | 7:21 pm
I was just thinking of that reputation that Ratzinger carried for the past quarter century. Panzer-Cardinal, the Grand Inquisitor, and all that. To be sure, it was often unfair and silly.
But WHO would have thought, who would EVER have believed, that in the summer of 2009, the criticism leveled at him, with straight face, would be that he is focusing too much on love, virtue, and goodness, and not enough on rooting out sin.
Peter Hebblethwaite is chuckling from his place in the Great Beyond today.
July 11th, 2009 | 2:13 pm
I don’t want to be uncharitable to Mr Novak in my defense of the Pope’s position on charity! To be sure, however, I’m convinced Novak is dead wrong – by that I mean wrong in a deadly way. Deadly not only for himself, but for all his readers.
In reading Novak’s remarks, I couldn’t help but think of Peter ushering Jesus aside to rebuke him: ‘Not so, Lord!’ (Mt 16). Novak, I believe, has done precisely that! And all in the name of _____? Not the Gospel, to be sure. Not the Catholic church – remember, Novak criticizes not only Benedict but the entire ‘Catholic tradition’. No, he rebukes in the name of a worldly system to which he has given himself as an apostle. Quite explicitly, he is thinking of salvation in merely human terms – pragmatically and ‘realistically’ – and this is nothing other than demonic: ‘Get behind me, Satan, for you have in mind the things of men, and not the things of God’.
It seems clear to me that Novak is (unwittingly no doubt) in league with the rulers of this age who find love, truth, and justice too weak to do what is required: maintain the (un)natural order of things, and, in effect, stave off the Eschaton as long as possible. The way of love, truth, and justice, the way of the cross, is scandalously naive. We should be brandishing swords rather than bearing crosses.
July 11th, 2009 | 5:00 pm
As a fellow Stonehill graduate and Catholic, I think Mr. Novak should cut to the chase: The only positive thing that can be said about this most recent encyclical is that it was not issued “ex cathedra” and is therefore not binding on the faithful.
It is a textbook case of poor scholarship, claiming that it continues a Catholic social tradition (while repealing it) and offers no evidence for the same. Most of the footnotes come from post-Vatican II documents. Did Catholic social teaching begin in 1965?
The encyclical is unalloyed statism from start to finish, and ignores property rights entirely (especially the two of the 10 commandments upon which they are based).
Literarily, the encyclical is a rambling wreck. It is self-contradictory, with throw-away lines about subsidiarity to palliate tradtitionalists, but which contradict the main, and unoriginal thesis of the encyclical.
The encyclical is an embarrassment to all thoughtful Catholics.
Thank you God, for not making this awful mess binding upon the faithful.
July 13th, 2009 | 3:47 pm
[...] encyclical of the 21st century. Last week, the Catholic neo-conversative Michael Novak offered a response at First Things. To put it bluntly, Novak’s position stunned me. You should read it in its [...]
July 15th, 2009 | 2:51 pm
Charity, while in its fullness it is relised by no one but God, is nonetheless something that is given as a gift to every Christian who remains in a state of grace. It is a love that actualy encompasis all the other forms of love (rightly ordered).
It is not only meant to direct our individual lives, but the social structures (whether political, economic or what have you) of human culture (as after all the human community is an “imago trinitatis”).
LOVE is indeed the ONLY METHOD of overcoming human sin as all human virtues, are meant to be nothing more than a species of charity. Jesus said of the commandments to love God & neighbor “this is the law and the prophets,” Paul said “love is the fullfilment of the law,” and James “love covers a multitude of sins.
July 16th, 2009 | 11:53 am
What are the most practical ways of defeating him? The Catholic tradition—even the wise Pope Benedict—still seems to put too much stress upon caritas, virtue, justice, and good intentions, and not nearly enough on methods for defeating human sin in all its devious and persistent forms.
Sin IS defeated, in the embodiment, example, sacrifice, and resurrection of Christ. Plain and simple. That sin exists is part of the human condition, we alone can do nothing to “defeat” it. Yet we are assured that Christ is already victorious over it and that we should cling to Him who gave for us, to protect us from it’s attempts, through human condition, to reassert itself.
If we cling instead to the notion that we as humans can defeat sin, we are on the wrong page. But if we turn our eyes to Christ, and live to the commnadments that He proclaimed as greatest, love the Lord Your god, and love your neighbor and the necessary results of living in that way, compassion, justice, charity, then sin has no room to enter. Yet learned people, scholars of theology even, still cling to the notion that we must defeat that which has already been defeated. By those notions, we give sin a legitimacy that Christ came to destroy.
July 16th, 2009 | 1:04 pm
[...] social thought Leave a Comment Halden already, and awhile back, said a bit about Novak’s response to Caritas in veritate but I have my own [...]
August 16th, 2009 | 4:44 pm
[...] Michael Novak, afirmă într-un articol din revista First Things intitulat, ironic, ”The Pope of [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact