Kevin asked that John review the Rat’s most recent encyclical (open letter to The Faithful), Spe Salvi. I had previously thought that I’d like to do a bit of a review of Deus Caritas Est, the prior encyclical but am having difficulty slogging through it. I still hope to get to it.
An encyclical is roughly like a presidential signing statement. It’s an opportunity for the Pope to clarify matters of faith in a philosophical manner (in the sense that its intent is philosophical discourse). Again, it’s helpful to use the presidential metaphor, as the Pope is seeking dialogue only in a broad sense of the term: he is not speaking ex cathedra, but he’s still the Pope.
*ahem* I should warn against reading the following and advise beforehand that I am still a recovering Catholic who grew up in a household that uses the terms I use herein for the current Pope as terms of endearment, that my parents have met him and felt that the former Pope was simply too nice. There is a large dose of vitriol in the following and I thought hard about re-writing it (sometimes you just need to vent, neh?), but I don’t think it’s undeserved. I understand that some people believe the things I’m about to mock & I’ve heard most of the arguments telling me just how wrong I am and how much I will suffer. Most of them came from my close family. Yes, it is clear that I did not grasp the full meaning of the encyclical, to do so, I would have to swallow the tripe it is feeding me. Yes, I’m going to hell, but not just for this, don’t worry.
Spe Salvi, then, is B-16’s philosophical discussion of the role of (”Christian”) hope in the everyday lives of his people. Given that the first was on love, we can look forward to a third encyclical regarding faith any time now. The concept of “Christian” hope is rooted, obviously, in the torture & execution of Jesus. I say “Christian” because, as head of the Catholic or “universal” Church, the Pope uses “Christian” to mean “Catholic” with perhaps an occasional side note that other “Christians” might understand the true meaning of “Christian” if they started worshipping bread & Mary, too.
The hope that comes from believing that bloody torture is good is that you don’t have to undergo it. Jesus died for the past & future sins of every believer because His Father was made of Love. This causes Hope because now believers who confess don’t have to spend time being tortured in Hell. And that, my friends, is Christian Hope.
As near as I can tell, belief in an actual Hell is the source of some of the more bizarre practices and beliefs across the religious board. I believe that when I die, I’m dead. But, were I to have Christian Hope, I would believe that when I die, I’ll get judged by a guy in the sky with a clipboard and a list of my actions. I will then be shunted into Hell, Purgatory, or Heaven.
Spe Salvi goes into great detail about how hopeless are the lives of polytheists and atheists. Belief in Hell, of course, comes with a complementary belief in Eternal Life If You Manage Not To Get Sent To Hell. This, one presumes, is where the real hope is.
Personally, I expected no less from the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He was often referred to as Pope John Paul II’s “doberman” (get it? ’cause he’s German). It was essentially his job to say “sinners are cosmically fucked” which freed JP2 to go around saying “God loveth all his children”. From my standpoint, it’s entertaining to watch his handlers scramble to turn “fucked” into “loveth” (see: Brazil), since he’s just so used to being on the attack. And maybe that is what the Catholic Church needs: some steel in its spine to throw out the whores seeking to turn it into some pansy inclusive religion. Wait. Isn’t “universal” a synonym for “inclusive”…? Maybe I just don’t get this Catholic thing.
I’m sure this does absolutely nothing to answer Kevin’s original question, but as for being angry when you read it, I think that’s the actual intent. If you’re not the select few (and why aren’t you?), then you’re obviously devoid of hope in the world. I suppose the most charitable thing I can say about it is that it encourages environmentalism (if you can make it that far). The concept of hope based upon a theology of fear is a poor sort of hope, in my mind.
17 responses so far ↓
1 Elaine // Dec 2, 2007 at 10:41 am
“Belief in Hell, of course, comes with a complementary belief in Eternal Life If You Manage Not To Get Sent To Hell. This, one presumes, is where the real hope is.”
I was always under the impression that the Really Bad Thing about Hell is that the people who were sent there lived eternally as well, only under really unpleasant (/understatement) conditions.
That being said, I never have understood the idea that belief in God = having hope, especially when you take into consideration the God of the Old Testament, who wasn’t into the unconditional love thing at all and seemed to take a lot of pleasure in seeing whole populations killed in horrible ways just because they wouldn’t bow their knee to him.
Anyway, I haven’t ever seen anything particularly attractive in sitting on a cloud and gazing at God in adoration for ever and ever and ever, which is how the general Christian concept of heaven has always appeared to me. Actually sounds kind of boring, if you ask me.
Of course I’m not Catholic and never have been, so it is entirely possible that I don’t get all the implications of all of this. Still, it sounds kind of “my way or the highway” to me, and I just don’t believe that any real God, if one were to exist, would be into that very human sort of ego-stroking.
2 Kevin // Dec 2, 2007 at 11:24 am
Hi xJane! Thanks for your post.
I can’t say that I read the “Spe Salvi”, what I did read were just a couple of news posts about it. I know I shouldn’t judge something without even having read it but some of the quotes these news agencies pulled (I think) speak independently/regardless of the whole.
The one that made me grit my teeth is: “atheism was responsible for some of the ‘greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice” in history’” (Reuters quoting the Pope). The example he uses is Marxism… Whether or not the Pope has any of his facts correct isn’t my main concern. What bothers me is that non-believers really don’t need Christians thinking that they are spooky, godless people who, if they had any form of power, would use it to cause suffering (because their reasoning is based on an “intrinsic falsity” (again Reuters)).
The article suggests that the Pope is trying to combat “the fresh interest in atheism”… His tactic in this combat is to demonize non-believers by repeatedly associating them with evil. This man holds too much influence to be so irresponsible. I don’t pay much attention to the latest happenings in the Catholic (or, for that matter, religious) world so maybe that is why I found this so surprising/disappointing.
I liked your post on hope - but where hope is concerned I gladly stand with Camus in saying (Myth of Sisyphus) - we don’t need it.
3 Rich // Dec 2, 2007 at 12:09 pm
I like to think that life goes on, but my view of the afterlife and eternal justice and all that is a bit unorthodox.
What if we all end up in a celestial cul-de-sac, living next door to souls that are just like we are?
If we are slovenly, filthy, selfish, boorish, hateful, back-biting, yard-full-of-junk-cars pigs, guess what lives next door?
Likewise, if we are caring, thoughtful, curious, friendly, garden-full-of-flowers sorts, that’s what the neighborhood is like too!
Anyway, it lets God off the whole judgment hook, and we only have ourselves to “blame” for the local scenery. Heaven or Hell are just metaphors for what we’ve actually become.
So, I dunno, works for me…
4 xJane // Dec 2, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Elaine: you’re totally right, belief in eternal life believes that wherever you end up, you’re stuck there forever. It just doesn’t sound like a hopeful thought if you end up stuck in Hell :-p And I agree, praising God all day was never my idea of a good time, either.
I like Rich’s view of Heaven: what you deserve. I’ve always felt that ones own intrinsic sense of guilt would be worse than what God might dream up (maybe just my sense of guilt…).
Kevin: demonization of non-believers is nothing new for the Catholic Church. Hell, it’s worked thus far…see: any pagan or atheist group plus most of the Christian groups. And I really think his lack of subtlety stems from his time spent as Defender of The Faith. I hope he gets soft in his dotage, as JP2 was alleged to have, but I don’t find it very likely.
5 Brian // Dec 4, 2007 at 1:51 am
I hope you don’t mind an opposing comment or two. (I’m a Catholic, in case that doesn’t become clear.) I’ll try and refrain from commenting on the self admitted vitriol and get down to the substance.
I also must admit that I have not finished Spe Salvi, though I’m about 3/4 done. In gleaning your impression from news reports, I think you may have missed a great deal of what the Pope intends to say. You are correct in identifying that the Pope mainly focuses the idea of Christian hope on the afterlife. As he puts it: “it is not that they know the details of what awaits them, but they know in general terms that their life will not end in emptiness.” Now, as you said, to some, eternity may seem (whether in heaven or hell) not so spiffy, and non-existence possibly preferable. He addresses this as well, saying “To continue living for ever —endlessly—appears more like a curse than a gift.” He then goes on to quote several saints who talk about death entering the world because of sin, as a kind of safeguard against unending misery in life. (I think both theists and non-theists could agree that, all things being equal, the major cause of human misery is humans; specifically human misdeeds, what a Christian would call sin.) His answer to this horrifying view of the afterlife is to describe our intended goal as follows: “It would be like plunging into the ocean of infinite love, a moment in which time—the before and after—no longer exists.” An ocean of infinite love sounds pretty awesome to me, having participated in only finite human love. It is THIS that is the substance of Christian Hope, which the Pope describes as performative, pulling this hoped for future into the present, allowing the believer to infuse Earth with Heaven.
The Pope’s comments on atheism are much as you reported, with a crucial absence: He says it makes sense. To the atheist, he says: “A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering, and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God.” But while he accepts that the cruelties of the world can lead many to doubt a just and loving God, he says that, from the Christian standpoint, an attempt to expect from humans what only God can give is bound to end in failure. Though we are in the image of God, we are not God. Though we have a moral law written on our hearts, we are not the Lawgiver. It would be like building an airplane without accounting for the force of gravity. The design might be elegant, and it may get off the ground, but we will find ourselves suddenly surprised by the force pulling us back down.
In the end, I think it is important to remember that when the Pope is speaking of Hope, it is a supernatural Hope, a Hope which comes from and leads to God. Thus, when he characterizes others as being without hope, he isn’t saying that their lives are poor pits of despair, and the poor fools are too blind to see it. There are many kinds and levels of hope, and indeed God gives hope to all those who seek it, the same God “who makes it to rain on the just and the unjust”, but that this particular kind of hope comes only and especially from Him.
Pax vobiscum.
6 John // Dec 4, 2007 at 7:22 am
Hey xJane, do you have a link to the full text of the encyclical?
7 Brian // Dec 4, 2007 at 8:10 am
Here it is in English:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html
8 xJane // Dec 4, 2007 at 8:54 am
Sorry, I thought I had: Spe Salvi, B15’s other encyclicals, JP2’s encyclicals.
Brian: thank you for bringing a different voice/tone to the discussion. It’s very difficult for me to reconcile “atheism makes sense” with “but they’re going to hell” especially since Catholicism doesn’t make sense (I’ve a post in the works on the Proofs of Aquinas, et al.) And as beautiful as it is to believe in “an ocean of infinite love”, the corresponding belief in a “lake of fire” for those who miss the ocean is less than hopeful.
Brian is correct that the intended audience of the encyclicals is the Faithful: there is no attempt to convert or belief that reading it will convert anyone. The Hope which is the subject is a hope that is (theoretically) open to anyone but ultimately belongs only to the Faithful. So to a large extent, any argument I bring will be tarnished by the fact that I’m not working from the same set of logic, and I fully admit that. I’m also sure that there are much better, much more substantive reviews written by believers (or, at least, not violent opposers). If anyone has links they would like to share, please feel free to do so.
9 Brian // Dec 4, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I won’t say much, as I refuse to hijack the combox from the subject of your post, except to clarify that neither the encyclical nor the Church would say that atheists are destined for Hell. It seems pretty clear to me from Lumen Gentium that the Church affirms the possibility of salvation for ALL, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. This is expressed in the Catechism in a fairly straightforward manner, from around 840-850.
At the risk of going off topic, I will state the obvious, that I believe Catholicism does make sense (or to use a less fuzzy term, Catholicism is reasonable), but I won’t go any further. As a postscript, I look forward to reading your analysis of Aquinas.
10 Vittorio Emmanuel // Dec 14, 2007 at 9:19 am
Commenting on what the host-blogger have stated regarding Spe Salvi, I think it comes erroneous on two things: first, Catholics DO NOT worship a mere “bread.” It is the body and blood of Christ. Also, Mary is not being worshiped but rather deeply respected as an example of what it is to become a follower of Christ. Second, the concept of hope based upon the theology of fear is definitely NOT a poor concept of hope since fear is to be understood as “fear of the Lord,” one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit from the Book of the Prophet Isaiah 11, 2 ff. “Through the fear of the Lord, we rise to piety, from piety then to knowledge, from knowledge we derive strength, from strength counsel, with counsel we move towards understanding, and with intelligence towards wisdom and thus, by the sevenfold grace of the Spirit, there opens to us at the end of the ascent the entrance to the life of Heaven” (Homiliae in Hiezechihelem Prophetam, II 7,7). Therefore, fear (of the Lord) is a necessary act of love to keep our faith burning as we continue to hope for our salvation.
11 Elaine // Dec 14, 2007 at 12:27 pm
I don’t know.
Certainly, fear is an effective motivator. “If you don’t behave (and believe, in the case not only of Catholicism but of other forms of Christianity, not to mention some other religious traditions), you will be punished. Eternally.” works on a lot of people.
However, I’ve always considered it a lazy motivator that gives people much less credit than they deserve. Yeah, there are people who won’t do the right thing unless they scared spitless that they are going to suffer if they don’t. But there are a lot of people who do the right thing almost all the time simply because it is the right thing. Maybe that makes me too much of an optimist, or hopelessly naive.
I’ve always believed that if there is a God, he/she/it wants to be loved because people proffer that love freely, not because it is coerced through threats of punishment. To demand that love sounds to me way too much like an abusive relationship.
12 Bill // Dec 24, 2007 at 5:27 am
What I find remarkable about this encyclical is its unitive character. Christ gave us on cross the perfect synthesis of all virtues Theological and cardinal: Faith, Hope, Love…..courage, fortitude, patience, etc.
The image of the cross and his outstretched limbs intersecting at his own Sacred Heart seems the perfect way of understanding Spe Salvi.
There is a tendency on many blogs to analyze and pick apart arguments and concepts….wholly necessary…but the real work of integration remains, and often no one steps up to the plate to do the “hard stuff”. The Pope has, as with Deus Caritas Est, done this work for his flock.
Hope, Redemption, Salvation, Love (Charity), all spring from Christ….
The pope’s point that hope is not an individualistic thing..and not mere emotion as many Protestants seem to claim…I found this aspect also stimulating and again integrating.
13 xJane // Dec 28, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Vittorio: While I agree with you that Catholics do not believe that they are worshiping bread or Mary, most non-Catholics would find your explanations of those acts to be splitting hairs.
Bill: the image of Christ on the cross conjures to mind many things to many people, and I’m glad for you that it embodies the Pope’s most recent encyclical (or rather, that the encyclical brings to mind the image of Christ) but I find that for myself, it calls to mind little more than filicide and torture.
14 Bill // Dec 28, 2007 at 10:02 pm
xJane,
Natural as those images might be, Christ showed us what real love is. It can be horrendously painful. But that’s a good part of the message throughout the 4 Gospels.
Too many people today want to think of love as emotion, love as a reciprical relationship, love as lust.
In fact the devil wants us cloudy about what real love is.
This is one reason why Catholics continue to retain the Cruxifix, vs. the empty cross.
If you want to know what God thinks love really is, look at the Crufix. If you want to know how much we’re supposed to forgive others, look at the painful Crucifix.
Maybe I am dim-witted, but the Cruxifix helps me keep the standard for holy love firmly in mind.
God Bless.
15 Jay P. // Jan 8, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Thanks Bill, I think you gave some key to understand better a number of things.
Just let me add something about the Crucifix: in front of it, you have to think of the feeling — if you have ever had it — of being ready to do absolutely ANYTHING in order to be forgiven, because you have really put your foot into it and you wish it had never happened (namely, repentance for your sins): but whatever you do adds up to nothing. The only one who could do enough on behalf of all humans was our “Number 1″. He didn’t need to do it but He wanted to: it’s up to us to benefit from it or not…
Sorry for being so trivial (or maybe not).
16 Bill // Jan 9, 2008 at 3:47 am
Jay, good points and I agree completely. It’ll never add up. Yet, “accepting” Jesus is not done, is not a completed act in a single, fixed moment in time, but instead is done with our lives. One long YYYEESS with our lives. An
“imperfect” (in the verb tense (not yet completed) and in the literal sense) act of submission.
17 Love & Suffering | Mind on Fire. // Jan 10, 2008 at 10:49 pm
[…] Spe Salvi (17) […]
Leave a Comment