Thursday, April 14, 2005

And Introducing...

...my brother Mark, who will occcasionally grace this blog with his presence. Mark writes:

TIME's April 11, 2005 commemorative issue dedicated to John Paul II features a 1996 full-spread super-wide-angle photo by Gianni Giansanti taken from behind the Pope as he addresses a crowd gathered at night in the shadow of the Colosseum. Or, to be more accurate, a crowd gathered under huge floodlights that bathe both the crowd and the massive ruin in brilliance, throwing into shadowy relief the intricate textures of multitude and architectural wonder. At the bottom of the photo, the tiny figure of the Pope stands on a stage, overlooking the crowd spread out below him. Toward the top of the photo, framed by the ruins, the full moon—an image of Mother Mary beaming down on her beloved son. And in the center, filling almost the entire frame, stands the Colosseum, that ancient theater of riotous, murderous debauchery, now empty, barren, mute.

And then there is the caption.

“The Gladiator: Never cowed by controversy, the Pope at the Colosseum in Rome in 1996, defended traditional views on abortion, sexuality and contraception.”

The insensitivity is total. Not insensitivity to the feelings of the Catholic readership—for who among the faithful would be sad to hear their Pope described as an undaunted crusader for the truth?—but insensitivity to the meaning, to the dramatic irony, of the image: The lions are dead. The empire is dead. The Church lives. Moreover, the Church, embodied in this tiny figure dwarfed by that giant pagan edifice, is triumphant—and not merely because it has perdured while its oppressor has not. For almost directly above the Pope’s head can be seen inscribed on the face of the Colosseum the Cross, imprinted at the head of a great stone tablet which pays tribute to the Christian martyrs.

And so here is the uber-irony: The Pope was not a gladiator—he did not “conquer” by besting his enemies in combat, intellectual or otherwise. He triumphed as the Holy Martyrs triumphed—by becoming a victim, a victim for love. He conquered the hearts of men and women everywhere by offering himself to them, by giving to the last drop, by going to the ends of his strength and beyond, in order to be with his flock all over the world, that they might be encouraged—that they might hear the Gospel—that they might hear the truth that sets hearts free.

27 Comments:

Anonymous Ernesto Pinamonti said...

So now we have two Lickonas to deal with...

Actually, it's a pleasure to know that good thinking and good writing run in the family. That said, I will quibble with Mark's point, "The Pope was not a gladiator—he did not “conquer” by besting his enemies in combat, intellectual or otherwise. He triumphed as the Holy Martyrs triumphed—by becoming a victim, a victim for love. "

At the end of his life, he was a victim offereing his corporeal suffering for the Chruch. But when JP II went to Poland shortly after becoming Pope, that was the act of a warrior. He walked right into a stronghold of his chief enemy (communism) and preached freedom and the rights of the individual. That was a gauntlet thrown in an intellectual war (i.e. war of ideas) that he eventually won.

The word victim connotes passivity. I see JP II as supremely active. Like a general who leaves the safety of HQ to rally the troops all along the front lines, he left the Vatican often and traveled to nearly every country on earth, encouraging the faithful and renewing flagging courage.

--E.P

5:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Matt:

Thanks for the introduction, and the chance to post.

Ernesto:

Victimhood begins with choice to become a victim, to make a sacrifical offering of one's self--and it requires many, many choices of this sort over the course of an entire life. Death to self, death to self, over and over and over. (It reminds me of this community's abstinence discussion.) And any choice, of course, is an action.

I don't know how well the military metaphors apply to JPII. You don't win with truth. He didn't. You win--he won (or rather, won over)--with love (because of which charity you witness to the truth in the first place--out of love of Christ, first of all, and out of love for neighbor--and in which charity your witness becomes an act of love for the other, born as it is of your desire for their freedom, their happiness, rather than a desire to dispel or defeat error wherever it may be, on paper, in human hearts, whatever).

And again, what is love? It is a giving-up, a giving-over, a sacrifice of self. And that is victimhood for the sake of love (to borrow Therese's phrase).

Thanks for your kind words about my writing.

Mark

6:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And of course, there are three Lickonas to deal with...Matt, me, and the old man.

And then there's my wife, Lisa. She's far more the expert on JPII, and far better a writer.

Mark

7:55 PM  
Anonymous AnotherCoward said...

...I'm guessing that was Mark... Hi, Mark!

Personally, I think you guys are both right...

I think ed's point was that our cultural context of a victim is someone who cannot help to prevent what has happened and/or is happening to himself. And JPII was not that at all - before the enemy, he showed no fear but only love and bravely followed love's lead, bringing along his flock as he went, suffering those things God gave him over to suffer.

Mark is saying that JPII didn't care what happened to himself deliberately. So, he is a victim in that he suffers abuse (and/or the opportunity of abuse) without seeking recompense just as our Lord suffered His cross when He easily could have not.

We send our warriors off to war with tears in our eyes and heavy hearts. They are victims as much as they are warriors. Some will not return. Some will be forever changed - too many for the worse. JPII is a model of the truest warrior and victim, our Lord, because he fought the enemy, killed no man, and yet saved many in the face of oppression, affliction, and suffering.

8:24 AM  
Anonymous Ernesto Pinamonti said...

Anothercoward, excellent posting. I believe you reconciled the Mark's and my points very well.

Still, for the sake of argument I'll quibble with another one of Mark's points (even though I'm starting to feel gravely overmatched here.)

Mark said: "You don't win with truth. He didn't. You win--he won (or rather, won over)--with love (because of which charity you witness to the truth in the first place."

I would say you don't win without truth, even when you have love. We've seen what love without truth can do in the church, haven't we? We've had 30 years of sermons playing up love and playing down the truth of Catholic teaching -- e.g. "Don't worry about the church's teaching on contraception, divorce and remarriage, the Real Presence. The important thing is that you love one another." (They could have saved their breath and popped in a tape of that old [Beatles?] song, "All You Need is Love" every Sunday. It would have been more entertaining.) Kidding aside, the result of this down-with-truth-up-with-love campaign has been less love and less truth. The guardians of this philosophy thoguht they were setting the faithful free, forgetting the words of Christ, "The truth shall make you free."

Now, I'll grant you that truth needs to be allied with love in order to spread throughout mankind. The Inquistion, for example, was an attempt to preserve truth through intimidation. But it didn't spread the truth or love of God, it spread fear. But it's the truth that sets you free.

Re: the word victim, it could be that the word has been so badly used of late -- AIDS victim, victim of poverty, etc -- that I've developed an aversion to it. You're using it in a better sense; that of the "O Salutaris Hostia - O Saving Victim."

Waiting to hear from Lisa and The Patriarch.

--Ernesto Pinamonti

11:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I too am glad for anothercoward's post, esp. for that last paragraph. Yes, insofar as JPII preached the truth "against error," he was a "warrior," but as anothercoward has indicated, to put one's self before those who hate you because they hate the truth is to offer one's self as sacrifice, as victim, for love of those to whom you preach--which is what JPII did.

But...was he truly "fighting," seeking to "defeat," those he preached to? Or was he proposing the Gospel (his phrase), respecting the freedom of his hearers, precisely out of this same love for all those to whom he spoke? Of course the latter. You can't preach the truth without love, because the truth is love (love, of God and of man, is our calling; sin is the rejection of that calling). So in the end, there really isn't anything but love. That's what God Himself is.

mark

1:56 PM  
Anonymous AnotherCoward said...

You two are silly. Truth, Love: they both flow from the same source - our Creator. Each is empty without the other.

If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. -- 1 Cor. 13:2
Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart. -- 1 Peter 1:22

(ah crap... I quoted Scripture... this must really not be a Catholic blog)

I like the point that Mark is driving at though - it certainly stirred my noodle a bit. You can read about it here.

(I don't wanna take up a huge amount of room on Matt's blog ;)

8:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hm...I don't think it's silly to point out that truth and love don't really stand "side by side"--that is, I don't think it's silly to point out that "the truth" is love: God is Love, we are made in and called to love, sin is the rejection of the call to love (it is "anti-love").

actually, the quotes you cite show the pre-eminence of love (which pre-eminence should not surprise us, since "the truth" is love). The first shows that love is the sine qua non for the disciple of Christ; the second shows that the truth is for the sake of love, that the disciples might love. But what truth prepares the disciple to love? The truth that we have first been loved by God, Who so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him might have eternal life. (Even a Catholic could give you chapter and verse for that...)

mark

7:30 AM  
Anonymous AnotherCoward said...

Before I converted, I can remember reeling in shock when I met a Catholic who could quote chapter and verse. What I said previously was meant tongue in cheek - should have thrown in a ;)

But man mark... you've got me thinking. Another blog entry: Love and Truth

9:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AC: I'm glad I've got you thinking. Now try this thought experiment: If you had the opportunity to answer Pilate's question "What is truth?"...what would your answer be?

mark

11:33 AM  
Anonymous AnotherCoward said...

My definition of truth would be that which shares a consistency with what is.

12:45 PM  
Blogger Matthew Lickona said...

I think it's been referred to as
"Being as it is known."

1:03 PM  
Anonymous AnotherCoward said...

I like that much better. Thanks Matt!

2:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, yes, conformity of the intellect to being, of the proposition to the res...but that's a merely formal definition. What I'm after is...what is being? (Hint: What is God? cf. 1 John 4:8...yeah, I had to look it up; cf. also the Catechism, par. 221.)

mark

8:47 AM  
Anonymous AnotherCoward said...

God is love, sure.

God is truth as well

11:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, God is Truth, but analogously. God is not Being "as it is known," i.e., being in a qualified sense--He is Being itself. Put another way, our intellectual apprehension of a thing, our intellect's conformity to that thing, is not that thing itself--but for God to "know" a thing is for that thing to be. You might say that, for God, "knowing" is in truth (!) being, i.e., "being that thing"--it is "He Who is" giving existence to "she who is not" (to borrow from the locution to St. Catherine of Siena) according to the eidos or Idea of that thing in the divine Logos.

(We should be clear that God does not merely bring everything into being; He also, by His continuous action on that thing, holds it in existence, such that if he were to withdraw His action from any given thing, it would be annihilated. This is St. Thomas.)

But God is Love unqualifiedly. He simply IS, as the Catechism says, the exchange of love between Father, Son and Spirit.

Look at in a biblical way: What is "the truth that sets us free"? It is the truth that God so loved the world, etc. Or from "moral truth": What is it that makes an act good or evil? The way it either embodies or contradicts love--the way it makes the agent either a lover or an anti-lover. (This is Veritatis Splendor.) Etc.

mark

12:27 PM  
Anonymous AnotherCoward said...

God is Truth, but analogously?

I thought He is "I am that I am". That He is as He knows Himself to be. He is His own cause and in that, Truth.

I don't disagree with God is Love... but I don't think God's Love preempts or trumps as God being Truth. I think they permeate each other, neither lesser than the other.

...but I do see God putting Truth seemingly on the back-burner out of Love when Jesus got up on the cross and would not come down... heralding in a greater Truth ...or perhaps it's the real Truth that we had never been able to see before.

Either way, I'd say that's where "God is Love" is truly made known to man if it were ever in question before.

Did you read my Love and Truth post?

1:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes I did. You've recapitulated the heart of that post here, it seems. But truth and love can't "permeate each other" if the truth (if Being itself, if God Himself) is love.

Yes, God is truth analogously. In knowing (in the primary, not the analogous, sense of the term) there are two terms, the knower and the known. So in truth (in the primary, not the analogous, sense of the term), there are two terms, the res and the intellect (or the proposition) which is in conformity with that res (again, St. Thomas). But we cannot say that God (simply, unqualifiedly, univocally and not analogously) is Truth when, in His case, there are not "two terms" but one--for there is no difference between the thing that exists and His knowledge of that thing! His knowledge of that thing is its existence!

And how does a thing exist? It exists in and through love--through the creative will of the Father (who creates out of love) according to the Word (Logos), Who is begotten out of love and Who returns all to the Father in love, through the "movement" of that love over the "face of the void"--that is, through the Holy Spirit. Love, love, and love! Being is Love, baby!!! And if Being is love--how can "truth" (which, strictly speaking, is Being as we know it) be anything other?

8:01 AM  
Anonymous Ernesto Pinamonti said...

Holy Crap, I leave the blog for a few days and things get out of hand.

Mark, re: the scripture which AnotherCoward (let's call him AC as he's proven to be anything but cowardly) quoted from Peter: "Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart." -- 1 Peter 1:22

How could you say that love takes primacy here? In chronological terms the recipents of Peters letter (1) purified themselves by obeying the truth so that they (2) have love for their brothers. The truth here is not only primary (chronologically) to love, it's a sine qua non when it comes to love. In other words, Peter's saying that love for their brothers is only possible now that they've built a foundation of truth.

AC is right to point out God's words to Moses. "I am that am." That's is the purest of truths. It's not "I am love", or even "I love." It's "I AM."

--Ernesto Pinamonti

1:10 PM  
Anonymous Ernesto Pinamonti said...

Holy Crap, I leave the blog for a few days and things get out of hand.

Mark, re: the scripture which AnotherCoward (let's call him AC as he's proven to be anything but cowardly) quoted from Peter: "Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart." -- 1 Peter 1:22

How could you say that love takes primacy here? In chronological terms the recipents of Peters letter (1) purified themselves by obeying the truth so that they (2) have love for their brothers. The truth here is not only primary (chronologically) to love, it's a sine qua non when it comes to love. In other words, Peter's saying that love for their brothers is only possible now that they've built a foundation of truth.

AC is right to point out God's words to Moses. "I am that am." That's is the purest of truths. It's not "I am love", or even "I love." It's "I AM."

--Ernesto Pinamonti

1:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ernesto:

Moses got "I AM." Jesus gave us the Trinity--which doesn't negate "I AM" of course--but rather reveals that the unity, the one-ness of God is the union of LOVE between three divine Persons. To put it another way, I AM indicates (as St. Thomas observed) that God is Being Itself. The revelation of Christ is that God, Being itself, is Father, Son and Spirit--that Being itself is LOVE.

Moses.
Jesus.
Who ya gonna call?

1:49 PM  
Anonymous AnotherCoward said...

I kinda like C.S. Lewis's approach.

If we were to try and identify the Godhead, what would we see?

We see God the Father - the perfect and only self-caused Being - the great I AM. From Him is begotten the Son - the Word, the Truth, the expression and knowledge of all that is. And in Their perfected Persons a kind of perfect relationship grows into the Person of the Holy Spirit, the perfect Love they find in each other and in this new Person.

Of course, God is eternal... so there's no two ways of cutting which comes first really... but that's one way of looking at it. It seems to hold well to the creeds - We believe in the Holy Spirit ... who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

I don't see anything Scriptural to suggest definitively that God is Love any more than God is Truth. I do see, however, that in our relationship with God, He chooses to love us even when He didn't have to and so in our relationship, Love is preemninent - not to trump Truth, but to reveal the Truth that God's Love is in fact Merciful just as His Truth is Just and His Being is Perfect and Righteous.

God is Love. God is Truth. God is not any more of either. To say so means that God can Love outside of Truth or beyond Truth. And if that is so, we will never know (because knowledge is truth statements) and does no good to affirm it.

7:34 PM  
Anonymous mark said...

There's no "explaining" the Trinity as "Father=Being/I AM; Son=Word/Truth; Spirit=Love." (Was that really what Lewis said? Well...maybe that's because he didn't go to Catholic school.) The Spirit is Love only because the Father (Who is not a "Being," is not "Being itself," but is the First Person of the Blessed Trinity) eternally begets the Son in love and the Son eternally returns the Father's love, and all in the Person of the Spirit (God, after all, is Spirit--that's in Scripture somewhere, said the Catholic). In short, it's all love, bro. If it weren't, the three Persons wouldn't be One. It's because of Their perfect love for one another that They are perfectly united, perfectly and utterly One.

In other words, it is the whole Godhead that speaks "I AM"--it is the Word of the Father Moses hears, a Word which only reaches Moses by the Holy Spirit. The burning bush is an image of that Fire which descended upon the Apostles. It's Love that says "I AM"--it's Love that's Being Itself.

God is not merely Love in respect to his relation to us/our relation to Him. God, the exchange of love that is the Blessed Trinity (see par. 221) is Love Itself, from all eternity. There's plenty of Scripture that indicates that.

If Truth--if Being--is Love, as I have been pointing out, then there of course there is no danger of "loving outside of truth."

Another thought-experiment: Why are acts that we call good "good" and acts we call evil "evil"? (Hint: Does morality make any sense if it's not understood in terms of love?)

Is all of this really worthwhile?

10:34 AM  
Anonymous AnotherCoward said...

I think it's worth it... I'm trying to see your point of view... but I keep getting sucked back into my own.

If Truth--if Being--is Love, as I have been pointing out, then there of course there is no danger of "loving outside of truth."

...isn't this what I have been saying all along? How is that any different from God is Truth; God is Love?

I'll save the thought experiment when I feel a little more coherent.

10:50 PM  
Anonymous mark said...

It's the difference between saying "God is Truth and Love" and "God is Love."

What I've been trying to explain (and my lack of success is so wildly apparent that perhaps I really don't understand the point myself) is that "God is Truth" and "God is Love" are not the same sort of statement. God is the exchange, the communio, of divine Persons; He is not, in truth (!), "Being as it is known," not the "relationship of correspondence between" the knower and the known--for there is no existential difference between God's knowledge of a thing and that thing (rather, God's "knowledge" of that thing is the effectuation of that thing's existence).

So we really have to say God is Truth "minus" the existential difference between the knower and the known (a difference that can certainly be found in our knowledge, in our truthful apprehensions). But God is Love, period--because love is the exchange between, the communio of, the union of, persons, whether these persons be human or divine.

8:57 PM  
Anonymous AnotherCoward said...

So we really have to say God is Truth "minus" the existential difference between the knower and the known (a difference that can certainly be found in our knowledge, in our truthful apprehensions).

I guess this is my hang-up. Doesn't God's self-awareness make Him the knower and the known? I thought that was what made Truth - not that God mindlessly is, but that He is fully aware of Himself - that He is His own knower.

7:38 AM  
Anonymous mark said...

I thought that was what made [God] Truth- not that God mindlessly is, but that He is fully aware of Himself - that He is His own knower.

If I understand you, I think that that would make any self-aware knower "Truth." My understanding is that what makes God "Truth" is that God Himself "is" the "perfect correspondence" between intellect and what is. But again, strictly speaking, for there to be "correspondence between" two things means that these two things must be (existentially) different. But there is no existential difference between God's knowledge, God's intellectual apprehension, of a thing and the thing itself. God's knowledge of a thing "is" that thing--i.e., in "knowing" it, God is causing it to be, is giving it existence. So (once again) that is why God is only analogously "truth"; the concept of truth, strictly speaking, requires a difference between the knowledge of the knower and the reality he knows.

And hey, as long as we've (accidentally?) brought up the subject of the difference between the objects of God's knowledge and God Himself...the truth (!) is that, strictly speaking, while there is an essential difference between God and what He knows (the object is not God), there is in truth (!) no existential difference, no difference of being (esse) between God and the object He knows (God, Who Is "is-ness," is that object--since, as Being itself, He "puts the 'is'" in "This is a tree/house/what-ever").

10:10 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home