This week Matt and I read some more mail from listeners. This week we get some constructive criticism! We’re going to be talking about charity and suffering…
We will spend the remaining episodes of Book III, we will be looking at the theological virtues. Today we begin with Christian love, also known as “charity”…
The natural loves are not self-sufficient. Something else…must come to the help of the mere feeling if the feeling is to be kept sweet… It is no disparagement to a garden to say that it will not fence and weed itself, nor prune its own fruit trees, nor roll and cut its own lawns.
Natural loves as rivals to God
There were two reasons for my delay… [The] older theologians were always saying very loudly that (natural) love is likely to be a great deal too much. The danger of loving our fellow creatures too little was less present to their minds than that of loving them idolatrously. In every wife, mother, child and friend they saw a possible rival to God. So of course does Our Lord
…For most of us the true rivalry lies between the self and the human Other, not yet between the human Other and God. It is dangerous to press upon a man the duty of getting beyond earthly love when his real difficulty lies in getting so far.
But to have stressed the rivalry earlier in this book would have been premature in another way also… The loves prove that they are unworthy to take the place of God by the fact that they cannot even remain themselves and do what they promise to do without God’s help… Even for their own sakes the loves must submit to be second things if they are to remain the things they want to be.
Disagreeing with St. Augustine
…[For the] older theologians… the danger of loving our fellow creatures too little was less present to their minds than that of loving them idolatrously. In every wife, mother, child and friend they saw a possible rival to God. So of course does Our Lord.
In words which can still bring tears to the eyes, St. Augustine describes the desolation in which the death of his friend Nebridius plunged him. Then he draws a moral. This is what comes, he says, of giving one’s heart to anything but God. All human beings pass away. Do not let your happiness depend on something you may lose…. Of course this is excellent sense… [However,] if I am sure of anything I am sure that [Jesus’] teaching was never meant to confirm my congenital preference for safe investments and limited liabilities… Would you choose a wife or a Friend – if it comes to that, would you choose a dog in this spirit? One must be outside the world of love, of all loves, before one thus calculates
We follow One who wept over Jerusalem and at the grave of Lazarus, and, loving all, yet had one disciple whom, in a special sense, he “loved”… Even if it were granted that insurances against heartbreak were our highest wisdom, does God Himself offer them? Apparently not. Christ comes at last to say “Why hast thou forsaken me?” Read more
Picking back up my notes for C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity”…
Notes & Quotes
1. “Charity” has a broader meaning than its current usage.
“‘Charity’ now means simply what used to be called ‘alms’ – that is, giving to the poor. Originally it had a much wider meaning… Charity means “Love, in the Christian sense.” But love, in the Christian sense, does not mean an emotion. It is a state not of the feelings but of the will; that state of the will which we have naturally about ourselves, and must learn to have about other people”
2. Charity is distinct from affection
“I pointed out in the chapter on Forgiveness that our love for ourselves does not mean that we like ourselves. It means that we wish our own good. In the same way Christian Love (or Charity) for our neighbours is quite a different thing from liking or affection”
(a) Affection can aid charity
“Natural liking or affection for people makes it easier to be “charitable” towards them. It is, therefore, normally a duty to encourage our affections – to “like” people as much as we can (just as it is often our duty to encourage our liking for exercise or wholesome food) – not because this liking is itself the virtue of charity, but because it is a help to it”
(b) However, affection can be an obstacle to charity
“…it is also necessary to keep a very sharp look-out for fear our liking for some one person makes us uncharitable, or even unfair, to someone else. There are even cases where our liking conflicts with our charity towards the person we like. For example, a doting mother may be tempted by natural affection to ‘spoil’ her child; that is, to gratify her own affectionate impulses at the expense of the child’s real happiness later on”
3. Feelings and actions are separate, but related
(a) Acts of charity nurture affection
“The rule for all of us is perfectly simple. Do not waste time bothering whether you ‘love’ your neighbour; act as if you did… When you are behaving as if you loved someone, you will presently come to love him”
Our motivation will affect the result:
(i) Expecting Gratitude
“If you do him a good turn, not to please God and obey the law of charity, but to show him what a fine forgiving chap you are, and to put him in your debt, and then sit down to wait for his ‘gratitude,’ you will probably be disappointed….”
(ii) Loving another “self”
“But whenever we do good to another self, just because it is a self, made (like us) by God, and desiring its own happiness as we desire ours, we shall have learned to love it a little more or, at least, to dislike it less”
(b) Acts of hate nurture hate
“This same spiritual law works terribly in the opposite direction. The Germans, perhaps, at first ill-treated the Jews because they hated them: afterwards they hated them much more because they had ill-treated them. The more cruel you are, the more you will hate; and the more you hate, the more cruel you will become-and so on in a vicious circle for ever”
3. Acts of love and hate have compound interest
“Good and evil both increase at compound interest. That is why the little decisions you and I make every day are of such infinite importance. The smallest good act today is the capture of a strategic point from which, a few months later, you may be able to go on to victories you never dreamed of. An apparently trivial indulgence in lust or anger today is the loss of a ridge or railway line or bridgehead from which the enemy may launch an attack otherwise impossible”
4. What should we do if we don’t love God?
(a) Do it anyway
“[People] are told they ought to love God. They cannot find any such feeling in themselves. What are they to do? The answer is the same as before. Act as if you did. Do not sit trying to manufacture feelings. Ask yourself, ‘If I were sure that I loved God, what would I do?’ When you have found the answer, go and do it”
(b) God does not mainly care about feelings, but our will
“Nobody can always have devout feelings: and even if we could, feelings are not what God principally cares about. Christian Love, either towards God or towards man, is an affair of the will. If we are trying to do His will we are obeying the commandment, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.” He will give us feelings of love if He pleases. We cannot create them for ourselves, and we must not demand them as a right. But the great thing to remember is that, though our feelings come and go, His love for us does not. It is not wearied by our sins, or our indifference; and, therefore, it is quite relentless in its determination that we shall be cured of those sins, at whatever cost to us, at whatever cost to Him”
Discussion Questions
1. What is “charity”?
2. How is charity related to and distinct from affection?
3. Why does Jack say that love and hate have “compound interest”?
4. What should we do if we don’t have feelings of love towards God? Why?
Earlier this week I posted an article Critics of Matthew Kelly? where I discussed some of the criticisms of Matthew Kelly I’ve seen recently on the Internet. If you recall, there has been some complaints about a passage in Matthew Kelly’s latest book, “Rediscover Jesus”:
Was this some sort of vision, perhaps prompted by the apostles’ grief over their leader’s execution? This wouldn’t explain the dramatic conversion of Saul, an opponent of Christians, or James, the once-skeptical half-brother of Jesus. – Rediscover Jesus (Page 99)
There was one article in particular that caught my eye which I thought deserved a short post of its own. It was written by a chap called Jeff from Traditional Roman Catholic Thoughts. Jeff’s criticism of the passage from the book was as follows:
“It implies one of two things; either Mary was not a virgin throughout the rest of her life or Joseph had other children…. Mary’s virginity is not even up for debate as the Church declared her perpetual virginity as Dogma. The issue with Joseph having other children is that Catholic tradition holds that he too was a virgin.” – Traditional Roman Catholic Thoughts
I’m not really sure how confidently we can say that “Catholic tradition holds that [Joseph]…was a virgin”. It is true that certain Fathers did assert that St. Joseph was a virgin, beginning, I think, with St. Jerome in the late 4th Century. However, mid-Second Century traditions point to St. Joseph’s having children from an earlier marriage. The earliest surviving account of this is the Protoevangelium of James.
The narrative that St. Joseph was a widower is one which is vigorously upheld in the East, among both Catholic and Orthodox Christians. In fact, you’ll notice that in icons of “The Flight Into Egypt” there are often four people depicted: Christ, the Theotokos, St. Joseph and also St. Joseph’s son, St. James.
I was recently involved in a Facebook discussion where someone attributed the following quotation to St. Augustine:
“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and, in all things, charity”
I have previously heard these attributed to St. Augustine, but I had always been extremely doubtful of its origin. After commenting to this effect, someone else on the thread said he thought it was John Wesley, which sounded a bit more like it. However, after some digging, I found a post which confirmed that it definitely wasn’t Wesley.
After further research, I found that many people attributed these words to a relatively obscure German Lutheran theologian from the seventeenth century named Rupertus Meldenius, also known as Peter Meiderlin), who wrote a tract on Christian Unity (1627). However, after further digging, it appears that the earliest usage of the phrase is in 1617 by Marco Antonio de Dominis, Archbishop of Split, in his anti-Papal work “De Republica Ecclesiastica”.
