Encyclical Letter DEUS CARITAS EST Of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI To the Bishops Priests and Deacons Men and Women Religious and All the Lay Faithful ON CHRISTIAN LOVE

Benedicti PP. XVI Summi Pontificis  Litterae Encyclicae DEUS CARITAS EST Episcopis Presbyteris et Diaconis Viris et Mulieribus Consecratis Omnibusque Christifidelibus Laicis  De Christiano Amore

INTRODUCTION

PROOEMIUM

1. “GOD IS LOVE, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 Jn 4:16). These words from the First Letter of John express with remarkable clarity the heart of the Christian faith: the Christian image of God and the resulting image of mankind and its destiny. In the same verse, Saint John also offers a kind of summary of the Christian life: “We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us”.

1. « DEUS CARITAS EST, et, qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo manet » (1 Io 4, 16). Haec Primae Epistulae Ioannis voces singulari quidem perspicuitate veluti fidei christianae centrum aperiunt: christianam Dei imaginem atque etiam congruentem hominis imaginem eiusque itineris. Praeterea eodem hoc in versiculo nobis concedit Ioannes compendiariam, ut ita dicamus, christianae vitae formulam: « Et nos cognovimus et credidimus caritati quam habet Deus in nobis ».

The pious Jew prayed daily the words of the Book of Deuteronomy which expressed the heart of his existence: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your might” (6:4-5). Jesus united into a single precept this commandment of love for God and the commandment of love for neighbour found in the Book of Leviticus: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (19:18; cf. Mk 12:29-31). Since God has first loved us (cf. 1 Jn 4:10),

Credens enim Israelita cotidie vocibus precatur Libri Deuteronomii, ubi includi is novit suae vitae nucleum: « Audi, Israel: Dominus Deus noster, Deus unus est. Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo, ex tota anima tua, et ex tota fortitudine tua » (6, 4-5). In unicum aliquod praescriptum coniunxit Iesus amoris Dei mandatum cum amoris proximi praecepto, quod quidem continetur in Libro Levitico: « Diliges proximum tuum sicut te ipsum » (19, 18; cfr Mc 12, 29-31). Quoniam prior nos Deus dilexit (cfr 1 Io 4, 10),

love is now no longer a mere “command”;

it is the response to the gift of love with which God draws near to us.

nunc non est iam tantum « praeceptum » amor,

verum est responsio erga amoris donum, quo Deus nobis occurrit.

In a world where the name of God is sometimes associated with vengeance or even a duty of hatred and violence, this message is both timely and significant. For this reason, I wish in my first Encyclical to speak of the love which God lavishes upon us and which we in turn must share with others. That, in essence, is what the two main parts of this Letter are about, and they are profoundly interconnected. The first part [1-18] is more speculative, since I wanted here—at the beginning of my Pontificate—to clarify some essential facts concerning the love which God mysteriously and gratuitously offers to man, together with the intrinsic link between that Love and the reality of human love. The second part [19-42] is more concrete, since it treats the ecclesial exercise of the commandment of love of neighbour. The argument has vast implications, but a lengthy treatment would go beyond the scope of the present Encyclical. I wish to emphasize some basic elements, so as to call forth in the world renewed energy and commitment in the human response to God’s love.

In orbe, ubi cum Dei nomine nonnumquam etiam vindicta quin immo officium odii et violentiae coniunguntur, hic nuntius magnum habet in praesentia pondus atque certam quandam significationem. Hac de causa in his Nostris primis Encyclicis Litteris de amore cupimus loqui quo Deus nos replet quique a nobis cum aliis communicari debet. Sic harum Encyclicarum Litterarum duae magnae demonstrantur partes, quae inter se arte nectuntur. Earum prima pars prae se magis indolem speculativam fert, quandoquidem in ea — Nostri Pontificatus initio — quaedam de Dei amore praecipua extollere volumus, quem ipse arcana gratuitaque ratione homini praebet, una cum intrinseco vinculo illius Amoris cum humani amoris natura. Altera pars certiorem habet speciem, quoniam amoris in proximum mandati ecclesiale exercitium tractat. Argumentum peramplum exhibetur; attamen longior quaedam tractatio propositum excedit harum Litterarum Encyclicarum. Nostra est voluntas in quibusdam praecipuis elementis perstare, sic ut in mundo renovata quaedam operositatis vis excitetur uti amori Dei humanum responsum.

 1 The Unity of Love

PART I: THE UNITY OF LOVE in CREATION and in SALVATION HISTORY

PARS PRIMA: AMORIS UNITAS
IN CREATIONE ET SALUTIS HISTORIA

A problem of language

Loquelae quaestio

2. God’s love for us is fundamental for our lives, and it raises important questions about who God is and who we are. In considering this, we immediately find ourselves hampered by a problem of language. Today, the term “love” has become one of the most frequently used and misused of words, a word to which we attach quite different meanings. Even though this Encyclical will deal primarily with the understanding and practice of love in sacred Scripture and in the Church’s Tradition, we cannot simply prescind from the meaning of the word in the different cultures and in present-day usage.

2. Dei amor nobis quaestio est de vita principalis atque interrogationes fert decretorias quid sit Deus quidque simus nos. Hac de re nos ante omnia vocabulorum impedit difficultas. Verbum enim « amoris » nostra aetate factum est unum ex maxime adhibitis vocabulis et etiam pessime tractatis, cui videlicet interpretationes addimus prorsus inter se adversantes. Etiamsi harum Litterarum Encyclicarum argumentum in ipsam intelligentiam atque usum amoris dirigitur apud Sacras Litteras et Ecclesiae Traditionem, non possumus tamen simpliciter recedere a significatione quam idem verbum varias apud culturas et in hodierno sermone obtinet.

Let us first of all bring to mind the vast semantic range of the word “love”: we speak of love of country, love of one’s profession, love between friends, love of work, love between parents and children, love between family members, love of neighbour and love of God. Amid this multiplicity of meanings, however, one in particular stands out: love between man and woman, where body and soul are inseparably joined and human beings glimpse an apparently irresistible promise of happiness. This would seem to be the very epitome of love; all other kinds of love immediately seem to fade in comparison. So we need to ask: are all these forms of love basically one, so that love, in its many and varied manifestations, is ultimately a single reality, or are we merely using the same word to designate totally different realities?

In primis meminimus Nos latissimae verborum provinciae quam occupat vox « amoris »: de amore patriae agitur, sicut et de amore in proprium vitae munus, de amore inter amicos, de amore erga proprium opus, de amore inter parentes filiosque, inter fratres ac familiares, de amore in proximum deque amore in Deum. Hac profecto in significationum multitudine tamen excellit amor inter virum ac mulierem, ubi corpus animaque inseparabiles concurrunt et ubi etiam promissio felicitatis hominibus recluditur quae recusari videtur non posse, perinde ac amoris per excellentiam imago perfecta, ad quam primo intuitu cetera universa amoris genera deflorescunt. Hinc oritur quaesitum: omnesne amoris hae formae tandem consociantur et amor ille, etiam ipsa in varietate propriarum demonstrationum, denique unicus et solus est, an contra eodem uno vocabulo utimur ad res prorsus diversas significandas?

“Eros” and “Agape” – difference and unity

« Eros » et « agape » – diversitas et unitas

3. That love between man and woman which is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings, was called eros by the ancient Greeks. Let us note straight away that the Greek Old Testament uses the word eros only twice, while the New Testament does not use it at all: of the three Greek words for love, eros, philia (the love of friendship) and agape, New Testament writers prefer the last, which occurs rather infrequently in Greek usage. As for the term philia, the love of friendship, it is used with added depth of meaning in Saint John’s Gospel in order to express the relationship between Jesus and his disciples. The tendency to avoid the word eros, together with the new vision of love expressed through the word agape, clearly point to something new and distinct about the Christian understanding of love. In the critique of Christianity which began with the Enlightenment and grew progressively more radical, this new element was seen as something thoroughly negative. According to Friedrich Nietzsche, Christianity had poisoned eros, which for its part, while not completely succumbing, gradually degenerated into vice. [Cf. Jenseits von Gut und Böse, IV, 168.].  Here the German philosopher was expressing a widely-held perception: doesn’t the Church, with all her commandments and prohibitions, turn to bitterness the most precious thing in life? Doesn’t she blow the whistle just when the joy which is the Creator’s gift offers us a happiness which is itself a certain foretaste of the Divine?

3. Amori inter virum ac mulierem, qui non ex cogitatione nascitur neque ex sola voluntate verum certo quodam modo homini imponitur, Graecia antiqua nomen tribuit eros. Iam in antecessum fatemur Vetus Testamentum Graecum bis tantum, Novum contra Testamentum numquam vocabulum eros adhibere: tribus enim ex vocibus Graecis ad amorem spectantibus — eros, philia (amicitiae amor) et agape — Novi Testamenti scripta concedunt quoddam fere privilegium extremo nomini, quod in Graeca lingua potius ad marginem remittebatur. Quod amicitiae ad amorem (philia) attinet, is repetitur et in Ioannis Evangelio altiorem accipit significationem, quatenus necessitudinem inter Iesum eiusque discipulos declarat. Haec exclusio verbi eros atque simul novus amoris prospectus qui per vocem exprimitur agape eo usque quasi exclusam sine dubitatione in christianae vitae novitate aliquid necessarium omnino ad amorem comprehendendum designat. In censura christiani nominis quae ad ab illuminismi tempore profecta processit maiore usque vehementia, haec novitas modo plane negativo est aestimata. Ad mentem Friderici Nietzsche christiana religio dicitur venenum bibendum dedisse ipsi eros, qui licet non inde moreretur, impulsum accepit ut in vitium corrumperetur.  Ita philosophus Germanicus communem late diffusam sententiam testabatur: nonne suis mandatis atque vetitis Ecclesia rem vitae pulcherrimam fortasse reddit nobis amaram? Nonne fortasse nuntios prohibitionis attollit Ecclesia ibi omnino ubi laetitia nobis a Creatore praeparata felicitatem nobis praebet quae praegustare nos etiam sinit aliquid de Divina natura?

4. But is this the case? Did Christianity really destroy eros? Let us take a look at the pre- Christian world. The Greeks—not unlike other cultures—considered eros principally as a kind of intoxication, the overpowering of reason by a “divine madness” which tears man away from his finite existence and enables him, in the very process of being overwhelmed by divine power, to experience supreme happiness. All other powers in heaven and on earth thus appear secondary: “Omnia vincit amor” says Virgil in the Bucolics—love conquers all—and he adds: “et nos cedamus amori”—let us, too, yield to love.  [X, 69.] In the religions, this attitude found expression in fertility cults, part of which was the “sacred” prostitution which flourished in many temples. Eros was thus celebrated as divine power, as fellowship with the Divine.

4. Num ita revera sese res habent? Delevit revera christiana religio amorem — eros? Respiciamus mundum ante aetatem christianam. Certissime congruentes cum aliis culturis, viderunt Graeci in illo eros ante omnia aliquam ebrietatem, nempe rationis ipsius oppressionem per « divinum furorem » qui hominem ad ipsius vitae limitem abripit et, quod sic potestate quadam divina percutitur, quam maximam beatitudinem facit ut ipse experiatur. Reliquae omnes inter caelum terramque potestates sic videntur minoris cuiusdam momenti: « Omnia vincit amor », ait in Bucolicis Vergilius atque addit: « et nos cedamus amori ».  In religionibus habitus hic in fertilitatis cultus inductus est, ad quos etiam « sacra » pertinebat prostitutio quae florebat multis in templis. Sic celebrabatur eros veluti divina quaedam vis, tamquam communio cum divina natura.

The Old Testament firmly opposed this form of religion, which represents a powerful temptation against monotheistic faith, combating it as a perversion of religiosity. But it in no way rejected eros as such; rather, it declared war on a warped and destructive form of it, because this counterfeit divinization of eros actually strips it of its dignity and dehumanizes it. Indeed, the prostitutes in the temple, who had to bestow this divine intoxication, were not treated as human beings and persons, but simply used as a means of arousing “divine madness”: far from being goddesses, they were human persons being exploited. An intoxicated and undisciplined eros, then, is not an ascent in “ecstasy” towards the Divine, but a fall, a degradation of man. Evidently, eros needs to be disciplined and purified if it is to provide not just fleeting pleasure, but a certain foretaste of the pinnacle of our existence, of that beatitude for which our whole being yearns.

Huic religionis formae, quae uti validissima invitatio dissidet a fide in unicum Deum, Vetus Testamentum firmissime est adversatum, quam tamquam religionis perversitatem oppugnavit. Hinc vero minime eros repudiavit in se, sed quasi bellum indixit eius eversioni deletoriae, quoniam falsa divinizatio eros, quae hic contingit, destituit eum dignitate, eripit ei humanitatem. Nam in templo meretrices, quae ebrietatem Divini concedere debent, non tractantur uti homines ac personae, sed adsunt tantummodo uti instrumenta ad « furorem divinum » excitandum: non sunt ipsae revera deae, verum humanae personae, quibus alii abutuntur. Hanc ob rem eros ebrius et immoderatus non est ascensio, « exstasis » adversus naturam Divinam, sed prolapsus hominisque dignitatis imminutio. Sic manifestum evadit eros indigere disciplina et purificatione ut homini concedat non alicuius momenti voluptatem, sed quandam culminis vitae praegustationem, illius nempe beatitudinis quam tota nostra natura appetit.

5. Two things emerge clearly from this rapid overview of the concept of eros past and present. First, there is a certain relationship between love and the Divine: love promises infinity, eternity—a reality far greater and totally other than our everyday existence. Yet we have also seen that the way to attain this goal is not simply by submitting to instinct. Purification and growth in maturity are called for; and these also pass through the path of renunciation. Far from rejecting or “poisoning” eros, they heal it and restore its true grandeur.

5. Duae quidem res manifesto oriuntur in hac celeri contemplatione ipsius imaginis eros in historia atque hoc praesenti tempore. Ante omnia inter amorem et Divinum existit quaedam quasi necessitudo: infinitatem enim aeternitatemque promittit amor — rem scilicet maiorem et aliam omnino atque cotidianam vitae nostrae condicionem. Eodem autem tempore perspectum est viam hunc ad finem in eo simpliciter non consistere quod quis se sinat instinctu vinci. Necessariae purificationes sunt et maturationes quae per abdicationis quoque tramitem progrediuntur. Hoc non est repudiatio ipsius eros neque eius « venenatio », sed sanatio propter veram illius magnitudinem.

This is due first and foremost to the fact that man is a being made up of body and soul. Man is truly himself when his body and soul are intimately united; the challenge of eros can be said to be truly overcome when this unification is achieved. Should he aspire to be pure spirit and to reject the flesh as pertaining to his animal nature alone, then spirit and body would both lose their dignity. On the other hand, should he deny the spirit and consider matter, the body, as the only reality, he would likewise lose his greatness. The epicure Gassendi used to offer Descartes the humorous greeting: “O Soul!” And Descartes would reply: “O Flesh!”.  [Cf. R. Descartes, Œuvres, ed. V. Cousin, vol. 12, Paris 1824, pp. 95ff.] Yet it is neither the spirit alone nor the body alone that loves: it is man, the person, a unified creature composed of body and soul, who loves. Only when both dimensions are truly united, does man attain his full stature. Only thus is love —eros—able to mature and attain its authentic grandeur.

Hoc pendet in primis ab ipsa hominis constitutione qui corpore constat atque anima. Homo revera sui ipsius proprius evadit, quotiens corpus et anima penitus coniunguntur; haec eros concertatio revera evincitur, cum haec efficitur coniunctio. Si vero solus spiritus homo esse studet cupitque carnem reicere veluti hereditatem ut ita dicamus tantum animalis propriam, tunc dignitatem suam tam spiritus quam corpus amittunt. At si altera ex parte ille spiritum repudiat iudicatque materiam, nempe corpus, tamquam unicam veritatem, aequabiliter suam perdit magnitudinem. Per iocum Epicureus Gassendi salutatione illa Cartesium appellavit: « O Anima! ». Cui Cartesius respondit: « O Caro! ».  Verumtamen neque solus spiritus neque corpus solum amat: homo enim est, persona videlicet, quae uti creatura composita amat, ad quam pertinent corpus et anima. Tunc tantum, cum in unum quiddam ambo revera coalescunt, plene sui ipsius fit homo. Uno hoc modo amor — eros — veram ad suam maturescere valet magnitudinem.

Nowadays Christianity of the past is often criticized as having been opposed to the body; and it is quite true that tendencies of this sort have always existed. Yet the contemporary way of exalting the body is deceptive. Eros, reduced to pure “sex”, has become a commodity, a mere “thing” to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity. This is hardly man’s great “yes” to the body. On the contrary, he now considers his body and his sexuality as the purely material part of himself, to be used and exploited at will. Nor does he see it as an arena for the exercise of his freedom, but as a mere object that he attempts, as he pleases, to make both enjoyable and harmless. Here we are actually dealing with a debasement of the human body: no longer is it integrated into our overall existential freedom; no longer is it a vital expression of our whole being, but it is more or less relegated to the purely biological sphere. The apparent exaltation of the body can quickly turn into a hatred of bodiliness. Christian faith, on the other hand, has always considered man a unity in duality, a reality in which spirit and matter compenetrate, and in which each is brought to a new nobility. True, eros tends to rise “in ecstasy” towards the Divine, to lead us beyond ourselves; yet for this very reason it calls for a path of ascent, renunciation, purification and healing.

Non raro hodie christianis praeteritis obicitur quod corporeae veritatis fuerint adversarii; reapse in hanc partem proclivitates semper fuerunt. Verumtamen corporis extollendi via, cuius hodie sumus ipsi testes, prorsus decipit. Deiectus enim eros merum ad « sexum » merx aliqua evadit, « res » nuda quam emi licet vendique, homo immo vero ipse fit mercimonia. Re vera non est haec omnino magna illa hominis affirmatio proprio de corpore. Ille contra nunc corpus aestimat atque sexum tamquam materiam dumtaxat sui ipsius quam iudicio quodam adhibet et penitus lucratur. Haec tamen pars est quae ei non sicut provincia libertatis videtur, sed aliquid potius quod suo modo reddere ille simul conatur iucundum et innocens. Reapse consistimus hic ante corporis humani depravationem quod non amplius totum ingreditur vitae nostrae libertatem, quod non iam viva demonstratio est totius summae vitae nostrae, at in regionem abicitur dumtaxat biologicam. Quae videtur corporis esse honoratio cito transire potest in odium naturae corporalis. Ex contrario hominem semper iudicavit christiana fides tamquam ens unum et duplex, in quo spiritus et materies mutuo miscentur, dum ita profecto alterutrum novam experitur nobilitatem. Sic est: studet eros attollere nos « in exstasi » versus divinum, extra nos perducere nos ipsos; verum hanc ob rem poscit ascensionis cursum et abnegationum, purgationum ac sanationum.

6. Concretely, what does this path of ascent and purification entail? How might love be experienced so that it can fully realize its human and divine promise? Here we can find a first, important indication in the Song of Songs, an Old Testament book well known to the mystics. According to the interpretation generally held today, the poems contained in this book were originally love-songs, perhaps intended for a Jewish wedding feast and meant to exalt conjugal love. In this context it is highly instructive to note that in the course of the book two different Hebrew words are used to indicate “love”. First there is the word dodim, a plural form suggesting a love that is still insecure, indeterminate and searching. This comes to be replaced by the word ahabà, which the Greek version of the Old Testament translates with the similar-sounding agape, which, as we have seen, becomes the typical expression for the biblical notion of love. By contrast with an indeterminate, “searching” love, this word expresses the experience of a love which involves a real discovery of the other, moving beyond the selfish character that prevailed earlier.

6. Quomodo fingere nobis in re possumus hoc ascensionis et purificationis iter? Quo pacto amor vivi valet, ut eius humana divinaque promissio plane compleatur? Primam magni ponderis indicationem reperire possumus in Cantico Canticorum, videlicet uno Veteris Testamenti librorum, bene cognito a mysticis. Secundum hodie vigentem interpretationem carmina hunc in Librum inclusa primitus fuerunt cantus amoris, fortasse principio dedicati Hebraeorum nuptiarum celebritati, ubi coniugalis efferendus erat amor. His in adiunctis plurimum id ipsum docet quod per eundem librum duae diversae voces « amorem » indicantes deteguntur. Ante omnia vocabulum habemus « dodim » — pluralis forma qua amor adhuc incertus profertur, nempe in condicione generalis cuiusdam inquisitionis. Huic autem vocabulo deinceps sufficitur verbum « ahabà », quod in Veteris Testamenti interpretatione Graeca vox similis sonitus « agape » substituit, quae, prout iam vidimus, indicium proprium amoris est facta pro biblica rerum conceptione. Contra amorem indefinitum et adhuc inquirentem, hoc verbum experimentum exprimit amoris qui nunc vere fit alterius hominis inventio, excedendo indolem personalem, ad proprium commodum proclivem, quae antea manifesto dominabatur.

It is part of love’s growth towards higher levels and inward purification that it now seeks to become definitive, and it does so in a twofold sense: both in the sense of exclusivity (this particular person alone) and in the sense of being “for ever”. Love embraces the whole of existence in each of its dimensions, including the dimension of time. It could hardly be otherwise, since its promise looks towards its definitive goal: love looks to the eternal. Love is indeed “ecstasy”, not in the sense of a moment of intoxication, but rather as a journey, an ongoing exodus out of the closed inward-looking self towards its liberation through self-giving, and thus towards authentic self-discovery and indeed the discovery of God: “Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it” (Lk 17:33), as Jesus says throughout the Gospels (cf. Mt 10:39; 16:25; Mk 8:35; Lk 9:24; Jn 12:25). In these words, Jesus portrays his own path, which leads through the Cross to the Resurrection: the path of the grain of wheat that falls to the ground and dies, and in this way bears much fruit. Starting from the depths of his own sacrifice and of the love that reaches fulfilment therein, he also portrays in these words the essence of love and indeed of human life itself.

Partem amoris efficit progredientis ad altiora stadia, ad suas extremas purificationes, ut manentem statum inquirat et quidem duplici intellectu: sensu exsclusionis — « sola praesto est unica haec persona » — atque sensu « sempiternae condicionis ». Summam enim vitae complectitur amor omni quidem in ipsius aspectu, etiam temporis. Non aliter se res habere potest, quoniam promissum eius spectat ad rem definitam: prospicit in aeternitatem amor. Ita, amor est « exstasis », attamen non aliqua exstasis veluti tempore ebrietatis, sed exstasis uti iter, tamquam stabilis exodus de persona in se ipsa clausa adversus propriam liberationem in dono sui ipsius, atque omnino sic versus novam sui detectionem, quin immo versus Dei inventionem: « Quicumque quaesierit animam suam salvam facere, perdet illam; et, quicumque perdiderit illam, vivificabit eam » (Lc 17, 33), ait Iesus — cuius afirmatio apud Evangelia reperitur pluribus in variationibus (cfr Mt 10, 39; 16, 25; Mc 8, 35; Lc 9, 24; Io 12, 25). Sic iter proprium suum describit Iesus quod per crucem ad resurrectionem illum perducit: est iter grani frumenti quod decidit in terram ac perit et sic multum profert fructum. Ab sui personalis sacrificii ipso principio atque amoris qui in illo suam attingit perfectionem proficiscens, his verbis ipse describit etiam amoris essentiam et hominum in universum vitae.

7. By their own inner logic, these initial, somewhat philosophical reflections on the essence of love have now brought us to the threshold of biblical faith. We began by asking whether the different, or even opposed, meanings of the word “love” point to some profound underlying unity, or whether on the contrary they must remain unconnected, one alongside the other. More significantly, though, we questioned whether the message of love proclaimed to us by the Bible and the Church’s Tradition has some points of contact with the common human experience of love, or whether it is opposed to that experience. This in turn led us to consider two fundamental words: eros, as a term to indicate “worldly” love and agape, referring to love grounded in and shaped by faith. The two notions are often contrasted as “ascending” love and “descending” love. There are other, similar classifications, such as the distinction between possessive love and oblative love (amor concupiscentiae – amor benevolentiae), to which is sometimes also added love that seeks its own advantage.

7. Deliberationes nostrae, initio potius philosophicae, de amoris essentia per interiorem vim ad fidem usque biblicam nos nunc perduxerunt. Principio enim quaestio est posita utrum variae, immo contrariae, vocabuli amoris significationes subaudiant quandam altiorem unitatem an contra manere debeant solutae, una iuxta aliam. Ante omnia tamen quaestio emersit habeatne nuntius amoris nobis a Sacris Bibliis adlatus nec non ab Ecclesiae Traditione aliquid commune cum universali hominum amoris experientia an fortasse illi potius opponatur. Huius rei causa incidimus duas in principales voces quae sunt: eros uti titulus amoris « mundani » significandi atque agape tamquam amoris declaratio qui fide nititur eaque conformatur. Hi duo conceptus crebro inter se opponuntur ut « ascendens » amor et amor « descendens ». Aliae quoque praesto sunt similes definitiones, verbi gratia distinctio inter amorem possesivum atque amorem oblativum (amorem concupiscentiae — amorem benevolentiae), cui interdum etiam amor subiungitur qui ad propriam spectat utilitatem.

In philosophical and theological debate, these distinctions have often been radicalized to the point of establishing a clear antithesis between them: descending, oblative love—agape—would be typically Christian, while on the other hand ascending, possessive or covetous love —eros—would be typical of non-Christian, and particularly Greek culture. Were this antithesis to be taken to extremes, the essence of Christianity would be detached from the vital relations fundamental to human existence, and would become a world apart, admirable perhaps, but decisively cut off from the complex fabric of human life. Yet eros and agape—ascending love and descending love—can never be completely separated. The more the two, in their different aspects, find a proper unity in the one reality of love, the more the true nature of love in general is realized. Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to “be there for” the other. The element of agape thus enters into this love, for otherwise eros is impoverished and even loses its own nature. On the other hand, man cannot live by oblative, descending love alone. He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift. Certainly, as the Lord tells us, one can become a source from which rivers of living water flow (cf. Jn 7:37-38). Yet to become such a source, one must constantly drink anew from the original source, which is Jesus Christ, from whose pierced heart flows the love of God (cf. Jn 19:34).

In philosophica atque theologica disceptatione haec discrimina saepius ad extremum deducebantur, usquedum inter se opponebantur: amor proprie christianus esse dicebatur descendens, oblativus, id est agape; cultura autem non christiana, praesertim Graeca, amore signabatur ascendente, cupido et possessivo, qui nempe est eros. Si quis autem voluerit hanc oppositionem ad ultima producere, christianae rei essentia separabitur a principalibus vitae rationibus ipsorum hominum atque in se iam alium orbem constituit, qui fortasse mirabilis erit, at penitus ab ipsa summa vitae humanae segregatus. Re quidem vera eros et agape — amor ascendens atque amor descendens — non se sinunt umquam inter se seiungi. Quo enim plus etiam aliis modis rectam unitatem reperiunt in una amoris veritate, eo sane plus vera amoris natura in universum completur. Etiamsi principio ipse eros in primis est studiosus, ascendens — quod fascinum ex magna felicitatis pollicitatione procedit — appropinquans deinde alteri, minus usque interrogabit de se atque beatitatem alterius plus usque inquiret, magis semper de illo sollicitabitur, sese donabit atque cupiet « pro altero se esse ». Sic tempus agape in eum inseritur; alioquin eros decidit perditque suam ipsius naturam. Aliunde vero homo non potest vivere tantummodo de amore oblativo, descendente. Non valet semper solum donare, etiam recipere debet. Quicumque amorem donare vult, illum tamquam donum ipse recipiat oportet. Quemadmodum ipse ait Dominus — profecto fieri potest homo fons et origo unde aquae vivae flumina erumpunt (cfr Io 7, 37-38). At ut talis fiat ipse fons, ipse usque denuo bibat oportet ex primigeno illo et primo fonte qui est Iesus Christus, cuius ex transfixo corde amor Dei scaturit (cfr Io 19, 34).

ascending and descending love,

between eros which seeks God

and agape which passes on the gift received,

 symbolized in various ways. In that biblical passage we read how the Patriarch Jacob saw in a dream, above the stone which was his pillow, a ladder reaching up to heaven, on which the angels of God were ascending and descending (cf. Gen 28:12; Jn 1:51). A particularly striking interpretation of this vision is presented by Pope Gregory the Great in his Pastoral Rule. He tells us that the good pastor must be rooted in contemplation. Only in this way will he be able to take upon himself the needs of others and make them his own: “per pietatis viscera in se infirmitatem caeterorum transferat”.  [II, 5: SCh 381, 196.] Saint Gregory speaks in this context of Saint Paul, who was borne aloft to the most exalted mysteries of God, and hence, having descended once more, he was able to become all things to all men (cf. 2 Cor 12:2-4; 1 Cor 9:22). He also points to the example of Moses, who entered the tabernacle time and again, remaining in dialogue with God, so that when he emerged he could be at the service of his people. “Within [the tent] he is borne aloft through contemplation, while without he is completely engaged in helping those who suffer: intus in contemplationem rapitur, foris infirmantium negotiis urgetur.” [II, 5: SCh 381, 198.] 

Viderunt Patres Ecclesiae variis modis figuratam, in Iacob scalae narratione, hanc coniunctionem inseparabilem inter ascensionem et descensionem, inter eros qui Deum conquirit et agape qui receptum transmittit donum. In illo biblico scripto narratur patriarcha Iacob in somno vidisse supra petram, quae illi fuit uti pulvinus, scalam quae ad caelum usque pertingebat, per quam ascendebant descendebantque Dei angeli (cfr Gn 28, 12; Io 1, 51). Percellit maxime animum interpretatio quam Pontifex Gregorius Magnus sua in Regula Pastorali huius facit visionis. Dicit enim ille: in contemplatione radices agere debet pastor bonus. Hoc dumtaxat modo valebit ipse aliorum intra se suscipere necessitates, ita ut ipsius propriae evadant: « Per pietatis viscera in se infirmitatem caeterorum transferat ».  Hoc loco se refert sanctus Gregorius ad sanctum Paulum qui sublime abripitur summa in Dei arcana sicque descendens omnia omnibus fieri potest (cfr 2 Cor 12, 2-4; 1 Cor 9, 22). Exemplum praeterea Moysis indicat qui in sacrum tabernaculum denuo semper ingreditur cum Deo colloquens ut sic, a Deo recedens, utilis suo populo esse possit. « Intus in contemplationem rapitur, foris infirmantium negotiis urgetur ».

8. We have thus come to an initial, albeit still somewhat generic response to the two questions raised earlier. Fundamentally, “love” is a single reality, but with different dimensions; at different times, one or other dimension may emerge more clearly. Yet when the two dimensions are totally cut off from one another, the result is a caricature or at least an impoverished form of love. And we have also seen, synthetically, that biblical faith does not set up a parallel universe, or one opposed to that primordial human phenomenon which is love, but rather accepts the whole man; it intervenes in his search for love in order to purify it and to reveal new dimensions of it. This newness of biblical faith is shown chiefly in two elements which deserve to be highlighted: the image of God and the image of man.

8. Primam ita repperimus responsionem, adhuc potius universalem, duabus superius positis quaestionibus: « amor » denique unica res est, variis quamvis cum aspectibus; unus interdum vel alius aspectus magis emergere potest. Ubi vero duo eius aspectus penitus inter se seiunguntur, nascitur ridicula quaedam imago vel utcumque est forma reductiva amoris. Et in summa vidimus etiam biblicam fidem non efficere quendam mundum parallelum vel mundum illi primigenio eventui humano contrarium qui amor est, sed totum suscipere hominem eiusque adiuvare amoris inquisitionem ut is purificetur eodemque tempore novi aspectus ei aperiantur. Haec biblicae fidei novitas duobus ante omnia commonstratur in locis, qui digni sunt ut extollantur: videlicet in Dei imagine et imagine hominis.

The newness of biblical faith

De biblicae fidei novitate

9. First, the world of the Bible presents us with a new image of God. In surrounding cultures, the image of God and of the gods ultimately remained unclear and contradictory. In the development of biblical faith, however, the content of the prayer fundamental to Israel, the Shema, became increasingly clear and unequivocal: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord” (Dt 6:4). There is only one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, who is thus the God of all. Two facts are significant about this statement: all other gods are not God, and the universe in which we live has its source in God and was created by him. Certainly, the notion of creation is found elsewhere, yet only here does it become absolutely clear that it is not one god among many, but the one true God himself who is the source of all that exists; the whole world comes into existence by the power of his creative Word. Consequently, his creation is dear to him, for it was willed by him and “made” by him. The second important element now emerges: this God loves man. The divine power that Aristotle at the height of Greek philosophy sought to grasp through reflection, is indeed for every being an object of desire and of love —and as the object of love this divinity moves the world  [Cf. Metaphysics, XII, 7.]—but in itself it lacks nothing and does not love: it is solely the object of love. The one God in whom Israel believes, on the other hand, loves with a personal love. His love, moreover, is an elective love: among all the nations he chooses Israel and loves her—but he does so precisely with a view to healing the whole human race. God loves, and his love may certainly be called eros, yet it is also totally agape.  [Cf. Ps.-Dionysius the Areopagite, who in his treatise The Divine Names, IV, 12-14: PG 3, 709-713 calls God both eros and agape.]

9. De nova imagine Dei in primis agitur. In culturis quae circa Sacra Biblia versantur, dei deorumque imagines, usque ad finem, parum perspicuae et inter se perstant discrepantes. Biblica autem progrediente fide, magis usque id fit manifestum univocumque, quod praecipua Israel precatio, Sh^ema scilicet, his verbis summatim prestringit: « Audi Israel: Dominus Deus noster Dominus unus est » (Dt 6, 4). Unus est Deus, qui caelum terramque creavit ideoque omnium hominum quoque est Deus. Duo in hac disceptatione sunt singularia, omnes ceteros deos non esse Deum et omnes item res, in quibus vivimus, a Deo manare, ab Eo esse creatas. Creandi certe notio etiam alibi reperitur, sed hic tantummodo prorsus patet non quemlibet deum, at unum verum Deum, ipsum omnium rerum esse factorem; quae ex eius creandi Verbi potentia oriuntur. Id significat eius creaturam ei esse caram, quandoquidem eam ipse voluit, eam ipse « fecit ». Magni momenti sic altera exstat pars: Deus hic hominem amat. Divina potentia, quam Aristoteles, Graeca philosophia attingente fastigium, meditando intellegere studuit, certe omnium hominum est quiddam desiderandum et amandum — quia amatur, haec deitas mundum movet   —, sed nulla re indiget ipsa et non diligit, solummodo diligitur. Enimvero unus Deus, in quo Israel credit, personaliter amat. Eius amor praeterea electivus est amor: inter omnes gentes ipse Israel eligit eumque amat — ut hoc vero ipso modo humanitas universa sanetur. Ipse amat, et amor hic eius sine dubio veluti eros designari potest, qui tamen est etiam et prorsus agape.

The Prophets, particularly Hosea and Ezekiel, described God’s passion for his people using boldly erotic images. God’s relationship with Israel is described using the metaphors of betrothal and marriage; idolatry is thus adultery and prostitution. Here we find a specific reference—as we have seen—to the fertility cults and their abuse of eros, but also a description of the relationship of fidelity between Israel and her God. The history of the love-relationship between God and Israel consists, at the deepest level, in the fact that he gives her the Torah, thereby opening Israel’s eyes to man’s true nature and showing her the path leading to true humanism. It consists in the fact that man, through a life of fidelity to the one God, comes to experience himself as loved by God, and discovers joy in truth and in righteousness—a joy in God which becomes his essential happiness: “Whom do I have in heaven but you? And there is nothing upon earth that I desire besides you ... for me it is good to be near God” (Ps 73 [72]:25, 28).

Osee potissimum et Ezechiel prophetae per audaces amatorias imagines hanc Dei in eius populum cupiditatem significarunt. Dei cum Israel necessitudo sponsalium coniugiique imaginibus collustratur; quapropter idolatria adulterium est et prostitutio. Quod cum ita sit — quemadmodum significavimus — re cultus attinguntur fertilitatis et eros abusus, sed eodem tempore inter Israel et Deum fidelitatis vinculum describitur. Dei Israelisque amoris narratio in eo penitus sistit quod ipse Torah ei tradit, Israel scilicet germanam hominis naturam recludit atque veri humanismi iter demonstrat. Historia haec in eo nititur quod homo, in Deo uno fidem servando, experitur se esse a Deo ipsum amatum et in veritate laetitiam, in iustitia detegere — quae in Deo laetitia eius fit essentialis felicitas: « Quis enim mihi est in caelo? Et tecum nihil volui super terram ... Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est » (Ps 73 [72], 25.28).

10. We have seen that God’s eros for man is also totally agape. This is not only because it is bestowed in a completely gratuitous manner, without any previous merit, but also because it is love which forgives. Hosea above all shows us that this agape dimension of God’s love for man goes far beyond the aspect of gratuity. Israel has committed “adultery” and has broken the covenant; God should judge and repudiate her. It is precisely at this point that God is revealed to be God and not man: “How can I give you up, O Ephraim! How can I hand you over, O Israel! ... My heart recoils within me, my compassion grows warm and tender. I will not execute my fierce anger, I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst” (Hos 11:8-9). God’s passionate love for his people—for humanity—is at the same time a forgiving love. It is so great that it turns God against himself, his love against his justice. Here Christians can see a dim prefigurement of the mystery of the Cross: so great is God’s love for man that by becoming man he follows him even into death, and so reconciles justice and love.

10. Dei in hominem eros — quemadmodum diximus — eadem opera est prorsus agape. Non modo quia gratuito omnibus ex partibus donabitur, nullo antecedente merito, sed etiam quia amor est qui ignoscit. Osee potissimum agape modum nobis ostendit in Dei erga hominem amore, qui multum adspectui gratuitatis antecellit. Israel « adulterium » patravit, Foedus fregit; debet eum iudicare Deus et repudiare. Hoc autem ipso loco demonstratur Deum esse Deum, non hominem: « Quomodo dabo te, Ephraim, tradam te, Israel? ... Convertitur in me cor meum, simul exardescit miseratio mea. Non faciam furorem irae meae, non convertar, ut disperdam Ephraim, quoniam Deus ego et non homo, in medio tui Sanctus » (Os 11, 8-9). Flagrans Dei amor in populum suum — in hominem — ignoscens est simul amor. Sic est is magnus ut contra se ipsum vertat Deum, eius amorem contra eius iustitiam. Christianus, in hoc, Crucis mysterium per speciem adumbrari intellegit: sic Deus hominem diligit, ut, se ipsum efficiens hominem, usque ad mortem eum sequatur atque hoc modo iustitiam et amorem conciliat.

The philosophical dimension to be noted in this biblical vision, and its importance from the standpoint of the history of religions, lies in the fact that on the one hand we find ourselves before a strictly metaphysical image of God: God is the absolute and ultimate source of all being; but this universal principle of creation—the Logos, primordial reason—is at the same time a lover with all the passion of a true love. Eros is thus supremely ennobled, yet at the same time it is so purified as to become one with agape. We can thus see how the reception of the Song of Songs in the canon of sacred Scripture was soon explained by the idea that these love songs ultimately describe God’s relation to man and man’s relation to God. Thus the Song of Songs became, both in Christian and Jewish literature, a source of mystical knowledge and experience, an expression of the essence of biblical faith: that man can indeed enter into union with God—his primordial aspiration. But this union is no mere fusion, a sinking in the nameless ocean of the Divine; it is a unity which creates love, a unity in which both God and man remain themselves and yet become fully one. As Saint Paul says: “He who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him” (1 Cor 6:17).

Philosophicus adspectus itemque historicus-religiosus in hac Sacrorum Bibliorum ratione revelandus in eo nititur quod ex una parte nos ante imaginem ponimur Dei, stricte quidem metaphisicam: absolute est Deus omnium rerum primigenius fons; sed hoc omnium rerum creandarum principium — Logos, primordialis ratio — est eadem opera amans quiddam, veri amoris impetu praeditum. Hoc modo eros summe extollitur, sed eodem tempore ita purificatur ut cum agape misceatur. Quocirca intellegere possumus Canticum Canticorum in Sacrae Scripturae canonem receptum, esse explicatum ex eo quod canticis his amoris demum Dei necessitudo significatur cum homine vicissimque hominis cum Deo. Hac ratione Canticum Canticorum factum est, tam in Christianis quam in Iudaicis litteris, cognitionis ac mysticae experientiae scaturigo, in qua biblicae fidei essentia manifestatur: ita sane, est hominis cum Deo consociatio — somnium scilicet hominis primigenium —, at haec consociatio non debet una simul fundi, in oceano videlicet Divini sine nomine mergi; est coniunctio quaedam quae amorem gignit, in quo ambo — Deus et homo — sui ipsorum manent atque tamen plene unum fiunt: « Qui adhaeret Domino, unus Spiritus est » cum eo (1 Cor 6, 17), ait sanctus Paulus.

11. The first novelty of biblical faith consists, as we have seen, in its image of God. The second, essentially connected to this, is found in the image of man. The biblical account of creation speaks of the solitude of Adam, the first man, and God’s decision to give him a helper. Of all other creatures, not one is capable of being the helper that man needs, even though he has assigned a name to all the wild beasts and birds and thus made them fully a part of his life. So God forms woman from the rib of man. Now Adam finds the helper that he needed: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23). Here one might detect hints of ideas that are also found, for example, in the myth mentioned by Plato, according to which man was originally spherical, because he was complete in himself and self-sufficient. But as a punishment for pride, he was split in two by Zeus, so that now he longs for his other half, striving with all his being to possess it and thus regain his integrity.  [Plato, Symposium, XIV-XV, 189c-192d.] While the biblical narrative does not speak of punishment, the idea is certainly present that man is somehow incomplete, driven by nature to seek in another the part that can make him whole, the idea that only in communion with the opposite sex can he become “complete”. The biblical account thus concludes with a prophecy about Adam: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

11. Biblicae fidei prima res nova, sicut perspeximus, Dei est imago; altera, cum ea essentialiter coniuncta, in hominis imagine reperitur. Biblica creationis narratio de primi hominis solitudine disserit, scilicet Adami, cui adiumentum Deus addere vult. Nihil autem ex rebus creatis auxilium illud homini afferre potest, quo ipse indiget, licet omnibus bestiis agri cunctisque volatilibus nomen dederit, in suae vitae ambitum ea ingerens. Tunc ex hominis costa mulierem fingit Deus. Nunc Adamus, cuius indiget, auxilium reperit: « Haec nunc os ex ossibus meis et caro de carne mea! » (Gn 2, 23). Ex his rebus narratis opinationes quaedam intellegi possunt, quae exempli gratia etiam in fabula exstant, quam Plato refert, ubi primigenius homo globosus erat, eo quod completus in se suisque rebus sufficienter praeditus ipse erat. Sed suam propter superbiam a Iove bipertitus est, sic nunc alteram dimidiam partem desiderat et ad eam decurrit, ut suam integritatem reperiat.  In Sacrarum Scripturarum narratione de poena non fit mentio; at quod homo quodammodo est imperfectus, ex constitutione itineratur, alteram suae integritatis complentem partem inventurus, cogitatio scilicet procul dubio adest illa, ad quam ipse solummodo cum altero sexu per communionem potest esse « perfectus ». Sic biblica narratio de Adamo prophetia concluditur: « Quam ob rem relinquet vir patrem suum et matrem et adhaerebit uxori suae; et erunt in carnem unam » (Gn 2, 24).

Two aspects of this are important. First, eros is somehow rooted in man’s very nature; Adam is a seeker, who “abandons his mother and father” in order to find woman; only together do the two represent complete humanity and become “one flesh”. The second aspect is equally important. From the standpoint of creation, eros directs man towards marriage, to a bond which is unique and definitive; thus, and only thus, does it fulfil its deepest purpose. Corresponding to the image of a monotheistic God is monogamous marriage. Marriage based on exclusive and definitive love becomes the icon of the relationship between God and his people and vice versa. God’s way of loving becomes the measure of human love. This close connection between eros and marriage in the Bible has practically no equivalent in extra-biblical literature.

Duae hic reperiuntur maioris momenti notiones: eros in ipsius natura hominis est quasi defixus; Adamus aliquid exquirit atque « relinquet patrem suum et matrem » mulierem inquisiturus. Sua in unitate tantum humanitatis integritatem fingunt, « una caro » fiunt. Non minus praestat altera notio: in cursu quodam, qui in creatione nititur, ad matrimonium committit eros hominem, ad vinculum scilicet quoddam, singulariter definiteque signatum. Sic et sic tantum suus intimus finis ad effectum adducitur. Ad unius Dei imaginem monogamicum coniugium respondet. Matrimonium, quod in amore unico ac definito fundatur, imaginem efficit Dei necessitudinis cum eius populo ac vicissim: ratio qua Deus amat mensura fit humani amoris. Artum hoc inter eros et coniugium in Bibliis Sacris vinculum fere in litteris extra ea similitudinem non reperit.

Jesus Christ – the incarnate love of God

Christus Iesus – Dei incarnatus amor

12. Though up to now we have been speaking mainly of the Old Testament, nevertheless the profound compenetration of the two Testaments as the one Scripture of the Christian faith has already become evident. The real novelty of the New Testament lies not so much in new ideas as in the figure of Christ himself, who gives flesh and blood to those concepts—an unprecedented realism. In the Old Testament, the novelty of the Bible did not consist merely in abstract notions but in God’s unpredictable and in some sense unprecedented activity. This divine activity now takes on dramatic form when, in Jesus Christ, it is God himself who goes in search of the “stray sheep”, a suffering and lost humanity. When Jesus speaks in his parables of the shepherd who goes after the lost sheep, of the woman who looks for the lost coin, of the father who goes to meet and embrace his prodigal son, these are no mere words: they constitute an explanation of his very being and activity. His death on the Cross is the culmination of that turning of God against himself in which he gives himself in order to raise man up and save him. This is love in its most radical form. By contemplating the pierced side of Christ (cf. 19:37), we can understand the starting-point of this Encyclical Letter: “God is love” (1 Jn 4:8). It is there that this truth can be contemplated. It is from there that our definition of love must begin. In this contemplation the Christian discovers the path along which his life and love must move.

12. Etiamsi adhuc usque Vetus Testamentum plerumque tractavimus, intima tamen duorum Foederum coagmentatio veluti una christianae fidei Scriptura est patefacta. Vera Novi Testamenti novitas haud in novis opinationibus sistit, sed in ipsa Christi effigie, qui cogitationibus praebet carnem et sanguinem — inauditum realismum. In Vetere iam Testamento biblica novitas non tantum exsistit ex abstractis notionibus, sed ex Dei inopinata opera et quodammodo inaudita oritur. Ratio haec agendi Dei dramatis formam nunc acquirit, eo quod in Iesu Christo ipse Deus « ovem amissam » persequitur, humanitatem videlicet dolentem atque deperditam. Cum Iesus suis in similitudinibus de pastore disserit, qui ad amissam ovem vadit, de muliere drachmam quaerente, de patre qui prodigo filio occurrit eumque amplexatur, id non in verba tantum recidit, sed eius essentiae et actionis rationem explanat. Eius per crucem in morte illud completur per quod contra se vertit Deus, in quo ipse se tradit, hominem sublevaturus eumque servaturus — amor hic in forma sua extrema adest. Visus in Christi latus perfossum conversus, de quo apud Ioannem fit mentio (cfr 19, 37), illud comprehendit ex quo hae Litterae Encyclicae initium sumpserunt: « Deus caritas est » (1 Io 4, 8). Ibi nempe veritas haec spectari potest. A quo initio capto, definiatur oportet quid sit amor. Ex hoc visu sumens initium, videndi amandique semitam reperit christianus.

13. Jesus gave this act of oblation an enduring presence through his institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. He anticipated his death and resurrection by giving his disciples, in the bread and wine, his very self, his body and blood as the new manna (cf. Jn 6:31-33). The ancient world had dimly perceived that man’s real food—what truly nourishes him as man—is ultimately the Logos, eternal wisdom: this same Logos now truly becomes food for us—as love. The Eucharist draws us into Jesus’ act of self-oblation. More than just statically receiving the incarnate Logos, we enter into the very dynamic of his self-giving. The imagery of marriage between God and Israel is now realized in a way previously inconceivable: it had meant standing in God’s presence, but now it becomes union with God through sharing in Jesus’ self-gift, sharing in his body and blood. The sacramental “mysticism”, grounded in God’s condescension towards us, operates at a radically different level and lifts us to far greater heights than anything that any human mystical elevation could ever accomplish.

13. Iesus huic oblationis actui perpetuam per constitutam in Novissima Cena Eucharistiam tribuit praesentiam. Antecapit ipse suam mortem resurrectionemque, iam illa hora suis discipulis in pane et vino se ipsum tradens, suum corpus suumque sanguinem tamquam novum manna (cfr Io 6, 31-33). Si vero antiqui somniaverunt, ad extremum verum hominis cibum — id quo homo vivit — esse Logos, aeternam sapientiam, nunc hic Logos nobis vere factus est alimentum — veluti amor. Eucharistia in actu oblationis Iesu nos trahit. Non recipimus nos solummodo immobiliter Logos incarnatum, sed in eius oblationis motum involvimur. Coniugii imago inter Deum et Israel illa efficitur ratione, quae antea concipi non potuit: quod antea fuit pro Deo stare, fit nunc, per Iesu donationem communicatam, eius corporis et sanguinis participatio, fit coniunctio. Sacramenti « mystica » indoles quae in Dei erga nos demissione nititur alia prorsus est res et sublimius perducit quam quaevis mystica hominis elevatio efficere possit.

14. Here we need to consider yet another aspect: this sacramental “mysticism” is social in character, for in sacramental communion I become one with the Lord, like all the other communicants. As Saint Paul says, “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor 10:17). Union with Christ is also union with all those to whom he gives himself. I cannot possess Christ just for myself; I can belong to him only in union with all those who have become, or who will become, his own. Communion draws me out of myself towards him, and thus also towards unity with all Christians. We become “one body”, completely joined in a single existence. Love of God and love of neighbour are now truly united: God incarnate draws us all to himself. We can thus understand how agape also became a term for the Eucharist: there God’s own agape comes to us bodily, in order to continue his work in us and through us. Only by keeping in mind this Christological and sacramental basis can we correctly understand Jesus’ teaching on love. The transition which he makes from the Law and the Prophets to the twofold commandment of love of God and of neighbour, and his grounding the whole life of faith on this central precept, is not simply a matter of morality—something that could exist apart from and alongside faith in Christ and its sacramental re-actualization. Faith, worship and ethos are interwoven as a single reality which takes shape in our encounter with God’s agape. Here the usual contraposition between worship and ethics simply falls apart. “Worship” itself, Eucharistic communion, includes the reality both of being loved and of loving others in turn. A Eucharist which does not pass over into the concrete practice of love is intrinsically fragmented. Conversely, as we shall have to consider in greater detail below, the “commandment” of love is only possible because it is more than a requirement. Love can be “commanded” because it has first been given.

14. Nunc autem alia pars est consideranda: Sacramenti « mystica » natura socialem rationem secum fert, quandoquidem in sacramentali communione ego cum Domino una simul cum ceteris communicantibus coniungor: « Quoniam unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus, omnes enim de uno pane participamur », effatur sanctus Paulus (1 Cor 10, 17). Cum Christo coniunctio est eadem opera cum ceteris omnibus consociatio, quibus ipse se tradit. Christum pro me uno habere non possum; ad eum pertinere possum solummodo cum iis omnibus coniunctus, qui ipsius facti sunt fientve. A memet ipso extrahit me communio ad eum, et sic etiam ad unitatem cum omnibus christianis ducit. « Unum corpus » efficimur, in exsistentiam unam fusi. Amor in Deum et in proximum amor nunc vere coniunguntur: incarnatus Deus omnes ad se nos trahit. Ex hoc intellegitur quo pacto agape Eucharistiae facta sit etiam nomen: in ea Dei agape ad nos corporaliter accedit ut in nobis ac per nos suam operam producat. Ex hoc tantum fundamento christologico-sacramentali sumpto initio, recte doctrina Iesu de amore intellegi potest. Transitus, quem ipse efficit, a Lege Prophetisque ad duplex amoris mandatum erga Deum ac proximum, fidei scilicet omnis exsistentia, quae deinde ex hoc mandato, medium locum occupante, oritur, non est simpliciter res moralis quae exinde sui iuris prope fidem in Christum eamque per ritum in Sacramento expressam esse possit: fides, cultus et ethos, veluti res unica inter se miscentur, quae Dei agape convenienda significatur. Sueta cultus ethicaeque oppositio simpliciter hic procidit. In « cultu » ipso, in eucharistica communione amari vicissimque reliquos amare continentur. Eucharistia, quae in amorem re effectum non transfertur, in se ipsa in particulas est redacta. Vicissim — sicut subtilius erit considerandum — amoris « mandatum » effici potest solummodo quia postulatio non est tantum: amor « mandari » potest quoniam antea donatur.

15. This principle is the starting-point for understanding the great parables of Jesus. The rich man (cf. Lk 16:19-31) begs from his place of torment that his brothers be informed about what happens to those who simply ignore the poor man in need. Jesus takes up this cry for help as a warning to help us return to the right path. The parable of the Good Samaritan (cf. Lk 10:25-37) offers two particularly important clarifications. Until that time, the concept of “neighbour” was understood as referring essentially to one’s countrymen and to foreigners who had settled in the land of Israel; in other words, to the closely-knit community of a single country or people. This limit is now abolished. Anyone who needs me, and whom I can help, is my neighbour. The concept of “neighbour” is now universalized, yet it remains concrete. Despite being extended to all mankind, it is not reduced to a generic, abstract and undemanding expression of love, but calls for my own practical commitment here and now. The Church has the duty to interpret ever anew this relationship between near and far with regard to the actual daily life of her members. Lastly, we should especially mention the great parable of the Last Judgement (cf. Mt 25:31-46), in which love becomes the criterion for the definitive decision about a human life’s worth or lack thereof. Jesus identifies himself with those in need, with the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and those in prison. “As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40). Love of God and love of neighbour have become one: in the least of the brethren we find Jesus himself, and in Jesus we find God.

15. Ex hoc posito principio praecipuae Iesu parabolae sunt intellegendae. Epulo ille dives (cfr Lc 16, 19-31) ex supplicii loco implorat ut sui fratres certiores de illa re fiant, quae ei eveniat, qui impudenter pauperem ignoraverit in necessitate versantem. Iesus, ut ita dicamus, talem auxilii clamorem excipit, quem refert ut nos cauti simus, ut ad rectam semitam nos reducat. Boni Samaritani parabola (cfr Lc 10, 25-37) duas magni ponderis explanat res. Dum vero « proximi » notio iam tum ad populares alienigenasque in solo Israelitico commorantes ideoque ad participem alicuius regionis populique communitatem praecipue referebatur, nunc fines hi tolluntur. Quicumque me indiget et ego eum iuvare possum, mihi est proximus. Proximi notio universa complectitur, attamen concreta manet. Quamvis ad omnes homines pertineat, ad significationem non contrahitur incerti et indefiniti cuiusdam amoris, qui parum officii secum fert, sed meam postulat operam, re hic et nunc praestandam. Usque est Ecclesiae munus inter propinquitatem et longinquitatem interpretari rursus hoc vinculum, quae suorum membrorum re exigendam vitam habeat ob oculos. Memoretur tandem hic peculiarem in modum oportet novissimi Iudicii insignis parabola (cfr Mt 25, 31-46), in qua amor de humanae vitae bono vel non bono definitivae deliberationis fit norma. Personam induit Iesus indigentium: videlicet esurientium, sitientium, alienigenarum, nudorum, aegrotorum, in vinculis detentorum. « Quamdiu fecistis uni de his fratibus meis minimis, mihi fecistis » (Mt 25, 40). Amor Dei itemque amor proximi inter se commiscentur: in minimis ipsum Iesum et in Iesu Deum invenimus.

Love of God and love of neighbour

Amor Dei proximique amor

16. Having reflected on the nature of love and its meaning in biblical faith, we are left with two questions concerning our own attitude: can we love God without seeing him? And can love be commanded? Against the double commandment of love these questions raise a double objection. No one has ever seen God, so how could we love him? Moreover, love cannot be commanded; it is ultimately a feeling that is either there or not, nor can it be produced by the will. Scripture seems to reinforce the first objection when it states: “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1 Jn 4:20). But this text hardly excludes the love of God as something impossible. On the contrary, the whole context of the passage quoted from the First Letter of John shows that such love is explicitly demanded. The unbreakable bond between love of God and love of neighbour is emphasized. One is so closely connected to the other that to say that we love God becomes a lie if we are closed to our neighbour or hate him altogether. Saint John’s words should rather be interpreted to mean that love of neighbour is a path that leads to the encounter with God, and that closing our eyes to our neighbour also blinds us to God.

16. Omnibus his de amoris essentia eiusque in biblica fide significatione considerationibus absolutis, duplex superest interrogatio de nostra agendi ratione: amarine potest Deus, quamvis is non videatur? Rursus: amorine imperari potest? Adversus duplex amoris mandatum duplicia contra dicuntur, quae in his interrogationibus insunt. Nemo Deum umquam vidit — quomodo eum amare possumus? Atque porro: amori imperari non potest; est tandem quaedam animi affectio, quae adesse aut non adesse potest, sed ex voluntate gigni non potest. Sacra Scriptura primam hanc obiectionem roborare videtur, cum dicit: « Si quis dixerit: « Diligo Deum », et fratrem suum oderit, mendax est; qui enim non diligit fratrem suum, quem videt, Deum, quem non videt non potest diligere » (1 Io 4, 20). Sed sententia haec minime autumat Dei amorem quiddam esse impossibile; contra, in toto modo memoratae Primae Epistulae Ioannis contextu, talis amor manifeste requiritur. Inter Dei amorem ac amorem proximi artum vinculum confirmatur. Alter ad alterum sic se stricte refert ut Dei amoris affirmatio fiat mendacium, si homo a proximo se subducat, vel etiam eum oderit. Ioannis sententia hoc sensu potius intellegi debet: in proximum amor iter est ad Deum quoque inveniendum atque qui ab oculis proximum amovet, coram Deo etiam fit caecus.

17. True, no one has ever seen God as he is. And yet God is not totally invisible to us; he does not remain completely inaccessible. God loved us first, says the Letter of John quoted above (cf. 4:10), and this love of God has appeared in our midst. He has become visible in as much as he “has sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him” (1 Jn 4:9). God has made himself visible: in Jesus we are able to see the Father (cf. Jn 14:9). Indeed, God is visible in a number of ways. In the love-story recounted by the Bible, he comes towards us, he seeks to win our hearts, all the way to the Last Supper, to the piercing of his heart on the Cross, to his appearances after the Resurrection and to the great deeds by which, through the activity of the Apostles, he guided the nascent Church along its path. Nor has the Lord been absent from subsequent Church history: he encounters us ever anew, in the men and women who reflect his presence, in his word, in the sacraments, and especially in the Eucharist. In the Church’s Liturgy, in her prayer, in the living community of believers, we experience the love of God, we perceive his presence and we thus learn to recognize that presence in our daily lives. He has loved us first and he continues to do so; we too, then, can respond with love. God does not demand of us a feeling which we ourselves are incapable of producing. He loves us, he makes us see and experience his love, and since he has “loved us first”, love can also blossom as a response within us.

17. Reapse, nemo umquam Deum vidit sicut ipse est. Attamen Deus nobis haud est prorsus invisibilis, non est nobis simpliciter inaccessibilis. Deus primus nos dilexit, sic asseverat memorata Ioannis Epistula (cfr 4, 10) atque amor hic Dei nobis apparuit, visibilis factus est eo quod « Filium suum unigenitum misit Deus in mundum, ut vivamus per eum » (1 Io 4, 9). Visibilis factus est Deus: in Iesu Patrem nos videre possumus (cfr Io 14, 9). Multifarie revera videri potest Deus. In amoris historia, quae in Sacris Bibliis narratur, ipse nobis obviam venit, nos acquirere studet — usque ad Novissimam Cenam, usque ad Cor in cruce perforatum, usque ad Resuscitati visus magnaque opera, quibus ipse per actus Apostolorum Ecclesiae nascentis iter direxit. Etiam in Ecclesiae subsequentibus annalibus haud absens Dominus deprehenditur: usque denuo nobis occurrit — per homines in quibus ipse conspicitur; suum per Verbum, Sacramenta, potissimum Eucharistiam. In Ecclesiae liturgia, in eius precatione, in viva credentium communitate, Dei amorem experimur nos, eius praesentiam percipimus atque hoc modo in cotidiano vitae cursu eam etiam agnoscere discimus. Primus ipse nos dilexit ac primus nos diligere pergit; idcirco per amorem nos respondere possumus. Non imperat nobis animi affectum Deus, quem in nobis excitare non possumus. Ipse nos diligit idemque efficit ut suum amorem perspiciamus experiamurque, atque ex hoc « primum » Dei tamquam responsio etiam in nobis oriri potest amor.

In the gradual unfolding of this encounter, it is clearly revealed that love is not merely a sentiment. Sentiments come and go. A sentiment can be a marvellous first spark, but it is not the fullness of love. Earlier we spoke of the process of purification and maturation by which eros comes fully into its own, becomes love in the full meaning of the word. It is characteristic of mature love that it calls into play all man’s potentialities; it engages the whole man, so to speak. Contact with the visible manifestations of God’s love can awaken within us a feeling of joy born of the experience of being loved. But this encounter also engages our will and our intellect. Acknowledgment of the living God is one path towards love, and the “yes” of our will to his will unites our intellect, will and sentiments in the all- embracing act of love. But this process is always open-ended; love is never “finished” and complete; throughout life, it changes and matures, and thus remains faithful to itself. Idem velle atque idem nolle   [Sallust, De coniuratione Catilinae, XX, 4.]—to want the same thing, and to reject the same thing—was recognized by antiquity as the authentic content of love: the one becomes similar to the other, and this leads to a community of will and thought. The love-story between God and man consists in the very fact that this communion of will increases in a communion of thought and sentiment, and thus our will and God’s will increasingly coincide: God’s will is no longer for me an alien will, something imposed on me from without by the commandments, but it is now my own will, based on the realization that God is in fact more deeply present to me than I am to myself.  [Cf. Saint Augustine, Confessions, III, 6, 11: CCL 27, 32.] Then self- abandonment to God increases and God becomes our joy (cf. Ps 73 [72]:23-28).

Hoc in conveniendi processu non esse tantum animi affectum amorem palam demonstratur. Animi affectiones accedunt eaeque recedunt. Affectio mira potest esse initialis scintilla, sed non totum amorem complectitur. In principio de purificationum maturationumque processu disseruimus, quarum ope eros plane efficitur sui ipsius, amor fit plene significante verbo. Ad amoris maturitatem pertinet omnes hominis virtutes complecti et includere, ut ita dicamus, hominem tota in eius integritate. Cum Dei amoris visibiles significationes conveniuntur, laetitiae sensus in nobis excitari potest, quae ex eo oritur quod amamur. Sed hic occursus nostram etiam voluntatem intellectumque involvit. Vivens Deus agnitus via est qua ad amorem pervenitur, atque assensus nostrae voluntatis eius voluntati coniungit intellectum, voluntatem et affectionem in amoris actu, omnia complectente. Processus autem hic continenter progreditur: amor numquam « finitur » et completur; in vitae decursu mutatur, maturescit ideoque sibi ipse fidelis manet. Idem velle atque idem nolle,  quibus verbis antiqui germanum amoris sensum definiebant: cum alter alteri assimulatur, id volendi cogitandique perducit ad communitatem. Inter Deum hominemque amoris historia in eo nempe stat quod haec voluntatis communio in cogitationis affectionisque communione adolescit, atque sic nostra et Dei voluntas magis ac magis idem expetit: Dei voluntas mihi iam non est extraria voluntas, quam mihi extrinsecus mandata praecipiunt, sed mea eadem est voluntas, eo quod ex experientia Deus re vera « interior intimo meo »   est quam ego. In Deo tum crescit deditio et Deus nostrum fit gaudium (cfr Ps 73 [72], 23-28).

18. Love of neighbour is thus shown to be possible in the way proclaimed by the Bible, by Jesus. It consists in the very fact that, in God and with God, I love even the person whom I do not like or even know. This can only take place on the basis of an intimate encounter with God, an encounter which has become a communion of will, even affecting my feelings. Then I learn to look on this other person not simply with my eyes and my feelings, but from the perspective of Jesus Christ. His friend is my friend. Going beyond exterior appearances, I perceive in others an interior desire for a sign of love, of concern. This I can offer them not only through the organizations intended for such purposes, accepting it perhaps as a political necessity. Seeing with the eyes of Christ, I can give to others much more than their outward necessities; I can give them the look of love which they crave. Here we see the necessary interplay between love of God and love of neighbour which the First Letter of John speaks of with such insistence. If I have no contact whatsoever with God in my life, then I cannot see in the other anything more than the other, and I am incapable of seeing in him the image of God. But if in my life I fail completely to heed others, solely out of a desire to be “devout” and to perform my “religious duties”, then my relationship with God will also grow arid. It becomes merely “proper”, but loveless. Only my readiness to encounter my neighbour and to show him love makes me sensitive to God as well. Only if I serve my neighbour can my eyes be opened to what God does for me and how much he loves me. The saints—consider the example of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta—constantly renewed their capacity for love of neighbour from their encounter with the Eucharistic Lord, and conversely this encounter acquired its real- ism and depth in their service to others. Love of God and love of neighbour are thus inseparable, they form a single commandment. But both live from the love of God who has loved us first. No longer is it a question, then, of a “commandment” imposed from without and calling for the impossible, but rather of a freely-bestowed experience of love from within, a love which by its very nature must then be shared with others. Love grows through love. Love is “divine” because it comes from God and unites us to God; through this unifying process it makes us a “we” which transcends our divisions and makes us one, until in the end God is “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28).

18. Exstare sic potest proximi amor, quem Sacra Scriptura, Iesus enuntiarunt. Is quidem sibi vult me in Deo et cum Deo amare etiam personam quae mihi non probatur vel quam non novi. Id effici solummodo potest intime Deo conveniendo, ubi haec congressio facta est voluntatis communio atque usque ad animi affectionem pervenit. Tunc non modo meis oculis meisque affectionibus, sed ad Iesu Christi mensuram alteram personam respicere disco. Eius amicus meus est amicus. Praeter externam alterius speciem eius interiorem exspectationem amoris actus, observantiae, conspicio, quae non solum quaedam per instituta ad illud propositum destinata ei ostendo ac ministro, eundem accipiens, necessitate aliqua politica coactus. Christi oculis inspicio ac alteri plus quam extrinsecus necessaria tribuere possum: tribuere ei possum amoris contuitum, quo ille indiget. Hic reciproca ac necessaria actio inter Dei amorem ac amorem proximi manifestatur, cuius apud Primam Ioannis Epistulam instanter fit mentio. Si quidem cum Deo consuetudo mea in vita omnino deest, in altero semper alterum solummodo cerno, sed in eo divinam imaginem agnoscere nequeo. Sin autem mea in vita omnibus ex partibus alterum observandum non curo, cum « pius » tantum esse et « religiosa officia » complere velim, tum vero cum Deo etiam necessitudo arescit. Tum autem haec consuetudo tantummodo « recta » est, sed absque amore. Mea solum proximi conveniendi promptitudo, ut ei amor significetur, coram Deo quoque me sensibilem reddit. Tantum proximi famulatus id patefacit mihi quod Deus pro me efficit et significat quo pacto me ipse amet. Sancti — verbi gratia beatam Matrem Teresiam Calcuttensem cogitemus — ex Domino eucharistico convento suam proximi usque de integro amandi vim hauserunt, atque vicissim hic occursus suam realem virtutem altitudinemque ex eorum famulatu pro aliis obtinuit. Amor Dei proximique amor seiungi non possunt; unum est mandatum. At uterque amore fruitur, qui ex Deo manat, qui primus nos dilexit. De « mandato » sic non agitur externo, quod iubet quae fieri non possunt, sed de amoris experientia, intrinsecus data, atque amor hic, sua ex natura, cum aliis ultro est communicandus. Amor per amorem adolescit. Amor « divinus » est, quoniam ex Deo procedit isque nos cum Deo coniungit et hoc in unitatis processu in quiddam veluti « Nos » convertit, quod nostras partitiones praetergreditur et efficit ut unum fiamus, ita ut postremo Deus sit « omnia in omnibus » (1 Cor 15, 28).

PART II CARITAS - THE PRACTICE of LOVE by the CHURCH as a “COMMUNITY of LOVE”

PART II
CARITAS - THE PRACTICE of LOVE by the CHURCH as a “COMMUNITY of LOVE”

PARS SECUNDA
CARITAS – EXERCITATIO AMORIS
IN ECCLESIA VELUTI
« COMMUNITATE AMORIS »

The Church’s charitable activity as a manifestation of Trinitarian love

Ecclesiae caritas tamquam amoris trinitarii patefactio

19. “If you see charity, you see the Trinity”, wrote Saint Augustine.  [De Trinitate, VIII, 8, 12: CCL 50, 287.] In the foregoing reflections, we have been able to focus our attention on the Pierced one (cf. Jn 19:37, Zech 12:10), recognizing the plan of the Father who, moved by love (cf. Jn 3:16), sent his only-begotten Son into the world to redeem man. By dying on the Cross—as Saint John tells us—Jesus “gave up his Spirit” (Jn 19:30), anticipating the gift of the Holy Spirit that he would make after his Resurrection (cf. Jn 20:22). This was to fulfil the promise of “rivers of living water” that would flow out of the hearts of believers, through the outpouring of the Spirit (cf. Jn 7:38-39). The Spirit, in fact, is that interior power which harmonizes their hearts with Christ’s heart and moves them to love their brethren as Christ loved them, when he bent down to wash the feet of the disciples (cf. Jn 13:1-13) and above all when he gave his life for us (cf. Jn 13:1, 15:13).

19. « Immo vero vides Trinitatem, si caritatem vides », scripsit sanctus Augustinus.  In cogitationibus quae praecesserunt, oculos nostros defigere potuimus in Crucifixo (cfr Io 19, 37; Zach 12, 10), agnoscentes Patris consilium qui, amore permotus (cfr Io 3, 16), in mundum misit unigenitum Filium hominem ut redimeret. In cruce emoriens Iesus — quemadmodum evangelista refert — « emisit spiritum » (cfr Io 19, 30), praenuntium illius Spiritus Sancti doni quod post resurrectionem ipse erat tributurus (cfr Io 20, 22). Sic futurum erat ut promissio « aquae vivae fluminum » compleretur, quae propter effusum Spiritum fluctura erant ex credentium cordibus (cfr Io 7, 38-39). Est enim Spiritus interior illa potestas quae eorum corda cum Christi corde conciliat eosque permovet ut fratres et illi ament, sicut ipse eos amavit cum pedes discipulorum abluturus (cfr Io 13, 1-13) sese inclinavisset et in primis cum suam vitam pro omnibus donasset (cfr 13, 1; 15, 13).

The Spirit is also the energy which transforms the heart of the ecclesial community, so that it becomes a witness before the world to the love of the Father, who wishes to make humanity a single family in his Son. The entire activity of the Church is an expression of a love that seeks the integral good of man: it seeks his evangelization through Word and Sacrament, an undertaking that is often heroic in the way it is acted out in history; and it seeks to promote man in the various arenas of life and human activity. Love is therefore the service that the Church carries out in order to attend constantly to man’s sufferings and his needs, including material needs. And this is the aspect, this service of charity, on which I want to focus in the second part of the Encyclical.

Vis etiam Spiritus est quae ecclesialis Communitatis cor immutat, ut per orbem testis sit Patris amoris, qui hominum genus suo in Filio unicam familiam efficere cupit. Omnis Ecclesiae opera amoris est declaratio qui totum hominis bonum conquirit: eius nempe evangelizationem quaerit per Verbum ac Sacramenta, quod opus totiens suis in actibus historicis fuit revera heroicum; progressionem eius inquirit variis etiam in vitae industriaeque humanae condicionibus. Quapropter ministerium amor est quod Ecclesia exsequitur ut perpetuo doloribus ac necessitatibus, etiam corporeis, hominum occurrat. Et in hac ratione, in caritatis ministerio, immorari cupimus per alteram hanc Encyclicarum Litterarum partem.

Charity as a responsibility of the Church

Caritas Ecclesiae officium

20. Love of neighbour, grounded in the love of God, is first and foremost a responsibility for each individual member of the faithful, but it is also a responsibility for the entire ecclesial community at every level: from the local community to the particular Church and to the Church universal in its entirety. As a community, the Church must practise love. Love thus needs to be organized if it is to be an ordered service to the community. The awareness of this responsibility has had a constitutive relevance in the Church from the beginning: “All who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need” (Acts 2:44-5). In these words, Saint Luke provides a kind of definition of the Church, whose constitutive elements include fidelity to the “teaching of the Apostles”, “communion” (koinonia), “the breaking of the bread” and “prayer” (cf. Acts 2:42). The element of “communion” (koinonia) is not initially defined, but appears concretely in the verses quoted above: it consists in the fact that believers hold all things in common and that among them, there is no longer any distinction between rich and poor (cf. also Acts 4:32-37). As the Church grew, this radical form of material communion could not in fact be preserved. But its essential core remained: within the community of believers there can never be room for a poverty that denies anyone what is needed for a dignified life.

20. Amor proximi in amore Dei insitus officium est praesertim cuiusque fidelis, at est etiam officium totius communitatis ecclesialis, et hoc quibuscumque in eius gradibus: a communitate locali ad Ecclesiam particularem, immo ad Ecclesiam universalem in eius integritate. Ecclesia quoque tamquam communitas amorem exsequi debet. Ex quo sequitur amorem egere etiam ordinatione uti praeparatione ad ministerium commune intenta. Talis officii conscientia habuit momentum decretorium in Ecclesia ab eius primordiis: « Omnes autem, qui crediderant, erant pariter et habebant omnia communia, et possessiones et substantias vendebant et dividebant illas omnibus, prout cuique opus erat » (Act 2, 44-45). Lucas hoc nobis narrat referens quandam speciem notionis Ecclesiae, cuius suprema inter elementa ipse recenset perseverantiam in « doctrina apostolorum », « communicatione » (koinonia), « fractione panis » et « orationibus » (cfr Act 2, 42). Elementum « communicationis » (koinonia), initio hic non declaratur, ad rem perducitur versiculis supra memoratis: ipsa nempe consistit in eo quod credentes omnia habent communia et inter eos discrimen iam non est inter divites et pauperes (cfr etiam Act 4, 32-37). Adolescente Ecclesia, haec absoluta forma communionis materialis re vera servari non poterat. Essentia tamen eius intima mansit: intra credentium communitatem nullum esse debet paupertatis genus eo quod bona ad dignam vitam agendam necessaria cuidam negantur.

21. A decisive step in the difficult search for ways of putting this fundamental ecclesial principle into practice is illustrated in the choice of the seven, which marked the origin of the diaconal office (cf. Acts 6:5-6). In the early Church, in fact, with regard to the daily distribution to widows, a disparity had arisen between Hebrew speakers and Greek speakers. The Apostles, who had been entrusted primarily with “prayer” (the Eucharist and the liturgy) and the “ministry of the word”, felt over-burdened by “serving tables”, so they decided to reserve to themselves the principal duty and to designate for the other task, also necessary in the Church, a group of seven persons. Nor was this group to carry out a purely mechanical work of distribution: they were to be men “full of the Spirit and of wisdom” (cf. Acts 6:1-6). In other words, the social service which they were meant to provide was absolutely concrete, yet at the same time it was also a spiritual service; theirs was a truly spiritual office which carried out an essential responsibility of the Church, namely a well-ordered love of neighbour. With the formation of this group of seven, “diaconia”—the ministry of charity exercised in a communitarian, orderly way—became part of the fundamental structure of the Church.

21. Necessarius gressus in difficili investigatione solutionum ad fundamentale hoc principium ecclesiale exsequendum manifestus fit in electione illa septem virorum, quae diaconalis muneris initium fuit (cfr Act 6, 5-6). Reapse in Ecclesia prisca, cum res quotidie viduis dividerentur, orta est inaequalitas inter coetus tam Hebraicae quam linguae Graecae. Apostoli, quibus ante omnia commissa erant « orationes » (Eucharistia et Liturgia) et « ministerium Verbi », nimis gravatos se senserunt « ministerio mensarum »; ipsimet igitur decreverunt servare sibi praecipuum opus, et ad alterum munus, pariter necessarium in Ecclesia, coetum septem virorum constituere. Attamen hic coetus non debebat tantummodo technicum ministerium distributionis implere: debebant esse viri « pleni Spiritu et sapientia » (cfr Act 6, 1-6). Hoc significat ministerium sociale, quod ipsos explere oportebat, fuisse omnino concretum, sed eodem tempore illud sine dubio spiritale exstitisse quoque ministerium; eorum officium erat igitur officium vere spiritale, quod essentiale munus Ecclesiae perficiebat, nempe officium amoris in proximum rite ordinatum. Per constitutionem huius coetus Septem, « diaconia » — ministerium scilicet amoris proximi communiter et ordinate peractum — iam instaurata erat in fundamentali ipsius Ecclesiae structura.

22. As the years went by and the Church spread further afield, the exercise of charity became established as one of her essential activities, along with the administration of the sacraments and the proclamation of the word: love for widows and orphans, prisoners, and the sick and needy of every kind, is as essential to her as the ministry of the sacraments and preaching of the Gospel. The Church cannot neglect the service of charity any more than she can neglect the Sacraments and the Word. A few references will suffice to demonstrate this. Justin Martyr († c. 155) in speaking of the Christians’ celebration of Sunday, also mentions their charitable activity, linked with the Eucharist as such. Those who are able make offerings in accordance with their means, each as he or she wishes; the Bishop in turn makes use of these to support orphans, widows, the sick and those who for other reasons find themselves in need, such as prisoners and foreigners.  [Cf. I Apologia, 67: PG 6, 429.] The great Christian writer Tertullian († after 220) relates how the pagans were struck by the Christians’ concern for the needy of every sort.  [Cf. Apologeticum, 39, 7: PL 1, 468.] And when Ignatius of Antioch († c. 117) described the Church of Rome as “presiding in charity (agape)”,  [Ep. ad Rom., Inscr: PG 5, 801.] we may assume that with this definition he also intended in some sense to express her concrete charitable activity.

22. Annorum decursu ac progrediente Ecclesiae diffusione, caritatis est exercitatio confirmata uti una ex eius provinciis essentialibus, una cum Sacramentorum administratione et praedicatione Verbi: exercere caritatem erga viduas et pupillos, captivos, aegrotos et omne genus indigentes pertinet ad eius essentiam sicut ipsum Sacramentorum ministerium et Evangelii praedicatio. Ecclesia neglegere non potest caritatis exercitium sicut Sacramenta et Verbum derelinquere nequit. Exempla quaedam sufficiant ad hoc demonstrandum. Iustinus martyr († c. 155) describit, in contextu dominicalis christianorum celebrationis, etiam eorum navitatem caritatis, coniunctam cum ipsa Eucharistia uti tali. Divites stipes suas pro viribus offerunt, quas quisque iudicat; iis ipse Episcopus pupillos et viduas deinde sustentat eosque qui, morbo aliisque causis afflicti, in necessitate versantur, sicut captivos quoque et peregrinos.  Tertullianus, praeclarus scriptor christianus († post 220), narravit quomodo admirationem gentilium suscitaret sollicitudo christianorum erga omne genus indigentes.  Cum Ignatius Antiochenus († c. 107) Ecclesiam Romanam definit illam esse quae « praesidet in caritate (agape) »,  hac definitione existimari ille potest quodammodo etiam veram caritatis navitatem suam significare statuisse.

23. Here it might be helpful to allude to the earliest legal structures associated with the service of charity in the Church. Towards the middle of the fourth century we see the development in Egypt of the “diaconia”: the institution within each monastery responsible for all works of relief, that is to say, for the service of charity. By the sixth century this institution had evolved into a corporation with full juridical standing, which the civil authorities themselves entrusted with part of the grain for public distribution. In Egypt not only each monastery, but each individual Diocese eventually had its own diaconia; this institution then developed in both East and West. Pope Gregory the Great († 604) mentions the diaconia of Naples, while in Rome the diaconiae are documented from the seventh and eighth centuries. But charitable activity on behalf of the poor and suffering was naturally an essential part of the Church of Rome from the very beginning, based on the principles of Christian life given in the Acts of the Apostles. It found a vivid expression in the case of the deacon Lawrence († 258). The dramatic description of Lawrence’s martyrdom was known to Saint Ambrose († 397) and it provides a fundamentally authentic picture of the saint. As the one responsible for the care of the poor in Rome, Lawrence had been given a period of time, after the capture of the Pope and of Lawrence’s fellow deacons, to collect the treasures of the Church and hand them over to the civil authorities. He distributed to the poor whatever funds were available and then presented to the authorities the poor themselves as the real treasure of the Church.  [Cf. Saint Ambrose, De officiis ministrorum, II, 28, 140: PL 16, 141.] Whatever historical reliability one attributes to these details, Lawrence has always remained present in the Church’s memory as a great exponent of ecclesial charity.

23. Hoc in rerum contextu utile forsitan est agere de primigenis structuris iuridicis respicientibus caritatis Ecclesiae actionem. Medio IV saeculo in Aegypto oritur « diaconia » uti vocant; singulis in monasteriis ipsa est institutio responsalis pro universo opere assistentiae, nempe pro caritatis ministerio. Ab his primordiis evolvitur in Aegypto usque ad VI saeculum societas quaedam omnimodo iuris potestate praedita, cui civiles auctoritates concredunt etiam partem frumenti pro publica distributione. In Aegypto non solum quodque monasterium, sed etiam omnis dioecesis habuit denique suam diaconiam — institutionem quae exinde evolvitur sive in oriente sive in occidente. Papa Gregorius Magnus († 604) memorat diaconiam Neapolitanam. Ad Romam quod attinet, diaconiae documentis confirmantur solum ab VII et VIII saeculo; antea tamen, et quidem a primordiis, ministerium subveniendi pauperibus et patientibus, secundum principia vitae christianae de quibus in Actibus Apostolorum, erat necessaria pars Romanae Ecclesiae. Hoc munus pervivide explevit ipse diaconus Laurentius († 258). Luctuosa eius martyrii descriptio sancto Ambrosio († 397) iam nota erat et in suo nucleo certe nobis ostendit authenticam Sancti imaginem. Ipsi, cui commissa erat cura pauperum Romae, concessum est aliquid temporis, post comprehensionem Summi Pontificis eiusque confratrum, ut thesauros Ecclesiae colligeret eosque civilibus auctoritatibus traderet. Laurentius distribuit liberam pecuniam pauperibus eosque deinde magistratibus exhibuit tamquam verum Ecclesiae thesaurum.  Quomodocumque historica iudicetur probabilitas huius singularis eventus, Laurentius in memoria Ecclesiae praesens tenetur uti magnus fautor ecclesialis caritatis.

24. A mention of the emperor Julian the Apostate († 363) can also show how essential the early Church considered the organized practice of charity. As a child of six years, Julian witnessed the assassination of his father, brother and other family members by the guards of the imperial palace; rightly or wrongly, he blamed this brutal act on the Emperor Constantius, who passed himself off as an outstanding Christian. The Christian faith was thus definitively discredited in his eyes. Upon becoming emperor, Julian decided to restore paganism, the ancient Roman religion, while reforming it in the hope of making it the driving force behind the empire. In this project he was amply inspired by Christianity. He established a hierarchy of metropolitans and priests who were to foster love of God and neighbour. In one of his letters,  [Cf. Ep. 83: J. Bidez, L’Empereur Julien. Œuvres complètes, Paris 19602, v. I, 2a, p. 145.] he wrote that the sole aspect of Christianity which had impressed him was the Church’s charitable activity. He thus considered it essential for his new pagan religion that, alongside the system of the Church’s charity, an equivalent activity of its own be established. According to him, this was the reason for the popularity of the “Galileans”. They needed now to be imitated and outdone. In this way, then, the Emperor confirmed that charity was a decisive feature of the Christian community, the Church.

24. Ex recordatione Iuliani Apostatae imperatoris († 363) iterum erui potest quam essentialis fuerit apud primorum saeculorum Ecclesiam caritas ordinate exercita. Puer sex annos natus, Iulianus interfuit homicidio patris sui, fratris aliorumque familiarum a custodibus palatii imperialis patrato; hanc barbariem ipse imputavit — iure an iniuria — Constantio imperatori, qui se fingebat magnum esse christianum. Qua de re ipse christianam fidem semper detractam habuit. Imperator factus, decrevit cultum paganum restaurare, antiquam Romanam religionem, sed simul eam reformare ita ut reapse fieri posset vis trahens imperii. Hoc sub prospectu largiter se inspiravit christiana religione. Hierarchiam metropolitarum instauravit et sacerdotum. Sacerdotes amorem erga Deum et proximum curare tenebantur. In quadam sua epistula   scripsit hoc unum christianae religionis, quod eius permovit animum, exercitium fuisse caritatis in Ecclesia. Fuit ergo significans aspectus erga novum eius paganum cultum quo actioni caritatis Ecclesiae parem admovit operam suae religionis. « Galilaei » — ita ipse asserebat — hoc modo suam popularem consecuti erant auram. Illi itaque non tantum imitandi, immo etiam superandi erant. Hoc igitur pacto confessus imperator est caritatem veluti decretoriam notam christianae communitatis Ecclesiae esse.

25. Thus far, two essential facts have emerged from our reflections:

25. Ex nostris deliberationibus hoc loco colliguntur duo essentialia argumenta:

a) The Church’s deepest nature is expressed in her three-fold responsibility: of proclaiming the word of God (kerygma-martyria), celebrating the sacraments (leitourgia), and exercising the ministry of charity (diakonia). These duties presuppose each other and are inseparable. For the Church, charity is not a kind of welfare activity which could equally well be left to others, but is a part of her nature, an indispensable expression of her very being.  [Cf. Congregation for Bishops, Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum Successores (22 February 2004), 194, Vatican City 2004, p. 213.]

a) Intima Ecclesiae natura triplici exprimitur munere: praedicatione Verbi Dei (kerygma-martyria), celebratione Sacramentorum (leiturgia), ministerio caritatis (diakonia). Munia sunt quae vicissim se praesupponunt et invicem seiungi nequeunt. Caritas non est pro Ecclesia veluti species operis assistentiae socialis quae aliis etiam relinqui posset, sed pertinet ad eius naturam, est irrenuntiabilis expressio propriae ipsius essentiae.

b) The Church is God’s family in the world. In this family no one ought to go without the necessities of life. Yet at the same time caritas- agape extends beyond the frontiers of the Church. The parable of the Good Samaritan remains as a standard which imposes universal love towards the needy whom we encounter “by chance” (cf. Lk 10:31), whoever they may be. Without in any way detracting from this commandment of universal love, the Church also has a specific responsibility: within the ecclesial family no member should suffer through being in need. The teaching of the Letter to the Galatians is emphatic: “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” (6:10).

b) Ecclesia est familia Dei in mundo. In hac familia nemo debet esse qui patitur ob egestatem. Eodem tamen tempore caritas – agape transcendit limites Ecclesiae; parabola boni Samaritani manet veluti ratio mensurae, imponit amorem universalem qui prolabitur ad indigentem « fortuito » inventum (cfr Lc 10, 31), quisquis est. Firma manente hac praecepti amoris universalitate, adest tamen exigentia specifice ecclesialis — ea nempe quod in ipsa Ecclesia uti familia nullum membrum ob egestatem patiatur. Hoc sensu viget declaratio Epistulae ad Galatas: « Ergo dum tempus habemus, operemur bonum ad omnes, maxime autem ad domesticos fidei » (6, 10).

Justice and Charity

Iustitia et caritas

26. Since the nineteenth century, an objection has been raised to the Church’s charitable activity, subsequently developed with particular insistence by Marxism: the poor, it is claimed, do not need charity but justice. Works of charity—almsgiving—are in effect a way for the rich to shirk their obligation to work for justice and a means of soothing their consciences, while preserving their own status and robbing the poor of their rights. Instead of contributing through individual works of charity to maintaining the status quo, we need to build a just social order in which all receive their share of the world’s goods and no longer have to depend on charity. There is admittedly some truth to this argument, but also much that is mistaken. It is true that the pursuit of justice must be a fundamental norm of the State and that the aim of a just social order is to guarantee to each person, according to the principle of subsidiarity, his share of the community’s goods. This has always been emphasized by Christian teaching on the State and by the Church’s social doctrine. Historically, the issue of the just ordering of the collectivity had taken a new dimension with the industrialization of society in the nineteenth century. The rise of modern industry caused the old social structures to collapse, while the growth of a class of salaried workers provoked radical changes in the fabric of society. The relationship between capital and labour now became the decisive issue—an issue which in that form was previously unknown. Capital and the means of production were now the new source of power which, concentrated in the hands of a few, led to the suppression of the rights of the working classes, against which they had to rebel.

26. A saeculo XIX adversus caritatis Ecclesiae opera obiectio efferbuit, quae insistenter dein evoluta est praesertim praeceptis marxistis innixa. Pauperes dicebantur operibus caritatis non egere, sed contra iustitia. Opera caritatis — eleemosynae — reapse esse pro divitibus modus quo se subtraherent a restauranda iustitia et suae consulerent conscientiae, contendentes suas sententias et pauperum iura laedentes. Potius quam hodiernae vitae conditiones per singula caritatis opera sustentarentur, necesse putabatur instituere ordinem iustum, in quo quisque suam reciperet partem ex bonis mundi ita ut caritatis operibus non amplius egeret. Huius argumenti quiddam verum est, fateri oportet, quiddam autem erroneum. Verum illud est quod fundamentalis norma Civitatis esse debet iustitiae persecutio et quod finis iusti ordinis socialis est unicuique bonorum communium partem spondere, principio subsidiarietatis. Hoc semper aperte quoque proposuit christiana doctrina de Civitate atque doctrina socialis Ecclesiae. Quaestio iusti ordinis communitatis sub aspectu historico ingressa est novam in condicionem post constitutam industrialem societatem saeculi XIX. Ortus industriae modernae delevit veteras structuras sociales et prae multitudine operariorum radicitus evocavit mutatam compositionem societatis, intra quam relatio inter pecuniam et opus navatum decretoria facta est quaestio — quaestio quae sub hac forma antea erat ignorata. Structurae productionis et pecunia novam potestatem constituebant, quae, paucorum manibus commissa, agminibus operariorum afferebat iurium privationem, cui obsistere conveniebat.

27. It must be admitted that the Church’s leadership was slow to realize that the issue of the just structuring of society needed to be approached in a new way. There were some pioneers, such as Bishop Ketteler of Mainz († 1877), and concrete needs were met by a growing number of groups, associations, leagues, federations and, in particular, by the new religious orders founded in the nineteenth century to combat poverty, disease and the need for better education. In 1891, the papal magisterium intervened with the Encyclical Rerum Novarum of Leo XIII. This was followed in 1931 by Pius XI’s Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno. In 1961 Blessed John XXIII published the Encyclical Mater et Magistra, while Paul VI, in the Encyclical Populorum Progressio (1967) and in the Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens (1971), insistently addressed the social problem, which had meanwhile become especially acute in Latin America. My great predecessor John Paul II left us a trilogy of social Encyclicals: Laborem Exercens (1981), Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987) and finally Centesimus Annus (1991). Faced with new situations and issues, Catholic social teaching thus gradually developed, and has now found a comprehensive presentation in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church published in 2004 by the Pontifical Council Iustitia et Pax. Marxism had seen world revolution and its preliminaries as the panacea for the social problem: revolution and the subsequent collectivization of the means of production, so it was claimed, would immediately change things for the better. This illusion has vanished. In today’s complex situation, not least because of the growth of a globalized economy, the Church’s social doctrine has become a set of fundamental guidelines offering approaches that are valid even beyond the confines of the Church: in the face of ongoing development these guidelines need to be addressed in the context of dialogue with all those seriously concerned for humanity and for the world in which we live.

27. Iustum est agnoscere Ecclesiae curatores solummodo lente percepisse quaestionem novae societatis structurae novo proponi modo. Attamen non defuerunt praecursores: quos inter, exempli gratia, recensetur Episcopus Moguntinus Ketteler († 1877). Veluti responsio specificis necessitatibus orti sunt circuli, associationes, sodalicia, foederationes ac praesertim novae Congregationes religiosae, quae saeculo XIX aggressae sunt opus ad confligendam paupertatem, morbos et deficientes condiciones in provincia educationis. Anno MDCCCXCI apparuit magisterium pontificium exhibens Litteras Encyclicas Rerum novarum Leonis XIII. Quas secutae sunt, anno MCMXXXI, Litterae Encyclicae Pii XI Quadragesimo anno. Beatus Pontifex Ioannes XXIII, anno MCMLXI, edidit Encyclicas Litteras Mater et Magistra; deinde Paulus VI in Litteris Encyclicis Populorum progressio (anno MCMLXVII) atque in Epistula apostolica Octogesima adveniens (anno MCMLXXI) firmiter aggressus est quaestionem socialem, quae interea exardescebat maxime in America Latina. Insignis Decessor Noster Ioannes Paulus II reliquit nobis trilogiam Litterarum Encyclicarum de re sociali: Laborem exercens (MCMLXXXI), Sollicitudo rei socialis (MCMLXXXVII) ac denique Centesimus annus (MCMXCI). Ita conferens condiciones et quaestiones semper novas catholica doctrina socialis constanter evolvebatur, quae anno MMIV congruenti modo exposita est in Compendio socialis Ecclesiae doctrinae a Pontificio Consilio pro Iustitia et Pace apparato. Marxismus tam in revolutione mundiali quam in eius praeparatione indicaverat solutionem quaestionis socialis: per revolutionem et sequentem bonorum aequationem — ita tali asseverabatur in doctrina — omnia repente in diversam et meliorem rationem verti debebant. Somnium hoc evanuit. Difficili in condicione in qua hodie versamur quoque ob oeconomiae globalizationem, Ecclesiae doctrina socialis facta est fundamentale signum, quod valida proponit lineamenta ultra eam: quae quidem — prae rerum progressione — in dialogo agitanda sunt cum omnibus qui de homine eiusque mundo veram adhibent curam.

28. In order to define more accurately the relationship between the necessary commitment to justice and the ministry of charity, two fundamental situations need to be considered:

28. Ad accuratius definiendam congruentiam inter necessarium studium pro iustitia et ministerium caritatis, ratio habeatur oportet de duabus praecipuis in re condicionibus:

a) The just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics. As Augustine once said, a State which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves: “Remota itaque iustitia quid sunt regna nisi magna latrocinia?”.  [De Civitate Dei, IV, 4: CCL 47, 102.] Fundamental to Christianity is the distinction between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God (cf. Mt 22:21), in other words, the distinction between Church and State, or, as the Second Vatican Council puts it, the autonomy of the temporal sphere.  [Cf. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 36.] The State may not impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony between the followers of different religions. For her part, the Church, as the social expression of Christian faith, has a proper independence and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community which the State must recognize. The two spheres are distinct, yet always interrelated.

a) Iustus societatis et Civitatis ordo fundamentale munus est rei politicae. Civitas quae non regitur iustitia, in magnam latronum manum redigitur, sicut dixit quondam Augustinus: « Remota itaque iustitia quid sunt regna nisi magna latrocinia ».  Ad substantialem structuram christianismi distinctio pertinet inter ea quae sunt Caesaris et ea quae sunt Dei (cfr Mt 22, 21), distinctio scilicet inter Civitatem et Ecclesiam vel, ut tenet Concilium Vaticanum II, rerum temporalium autonomia.  Civitas non debet religionem imponere, sed protegere eius libertatem nec non pacem inter variarum religionum asseclas; Ecclesia, sua ex parte, veluti sociale testimonium christianae fidei, sui iuris est et fide innixa vivit suam rationem communitariam, quam Civitas observare tenetur. Duae provinciae sunt distinctae, attamen mutuo se semper sociant.

Justice is both the aim and the intrinsic criterion of all politics. Politics is more than a mere mechanism for defining the rules of public life: its origin and its goal are found in justice, which by its very nature has to do with ethics. The State must inevitably face the question of how justice can be achieved here and now. But this presupposes an even more radical question: what is justice? The problem is one of practical reason; but if reason is to be exercised properly, it must undergo constant purification, since it can never be completely free of the danger of a certain ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power and special interests.

Iustitia est finis et ideo etiam intrinseca cuiusque politicae mensura. Politica est plus quam simplex ars technica qua publicae ordinationes definiuntur: fons eius et finis reperiuntur nempe in iustitia, quae est ethicae indolis. Ita Civitas reapse facere non potest quin se interroget: quomodo hic et nunc iustitia est exsequenda? Sed haec interrogatio aliam secumfert maioris ponderis: quid est iustitia? Quaestio haec rationem practicam respicit; sed ut recte operari possit, ratio magis in dies est purificanda, quoniam eius obcaecatio ethica, proficiscens ex dominio lucri et potentiae, quae eam offuscat, periculum est quod numquam omnino profligari potest.

Here politics and faith meet. Faith by its specific nature is an encounter with the living God—an encounter opening up new horizons extending beyond the sphere of reason. But it is also a purifying force for reason itself. From God’s standpoint, faith liberates reason from its blind spots and therefore helps it to be ever more fully itself. Faith enables reason to do its work more effectively and to see its proper object more clearly. This is where Catholic social doctrine has its place: it has no intention of giving the Church power over the State. Even less is it an attempt to impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to faith. Its aim is simply to help purify reason and to contribute, here and now, to the acknowledgment and attainment of what is just.

Hoc sub aspectu, res politica et fides conectuntur. Fides haud dubie propriam suam habet naturam, tamquam occursum cum Deo viventi — occursum qui aditum nobis dat ad novos prospectus extra proprium rationis ambitum. Sed simul ea est vis purificans eandem rationem. Procedens ex Dei consideratione, liberat eam ab eius obcaecationibus ideoque adiuvat eam ad meliorem sese reddendam. Fides rationi tribuit ut melius compleat munus suum meliusque hoc quod proprium est sibi intueatur. Hic reponitur catholica doctrina socialis: quae non vult Ecclesiae potestatem inferre in Civitatem. Neque iis qui fidem non participant imponere cupit prospectus et se gerendi modos huius proprios. Simpliciter prodesse cupit ad rationem purificandam suumque adiumentum afferre ita ut quod iustum habetur, hic et nunc agnosci ac postea ad rem perduci possit.

The Church’s social teaching argues on the basis of reason and natural law, namely, on the basis of what is in accord with the nature of every human being. It recognizes that it is not the Church’s responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest. Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due, is an essential task which every generation must take up anew. As a political task, this cannot be the Church’s immediate responsibility. Yet, since it is also a most important human responsibility, the Church is duty-bound to offer, through the purification of reason and through ethical formation, her own specific contribution towards understanding the requirements of justice and achieving them politically.

Doctrina Ecclesiae socialis argumentatur initium sumens a ratione et a naturali iure, id est ab eo quod congruit naturae cuiusque personae humanae. Novitque bene non esse munus Ecclesiae ut ipsamet huic doctrinae politico modo vigorem tribuat: consulere intendit formationi conscientiae in re politica et contendere ut augescant sive perceptio verorum iustitiae postulatorum, sive simul dispositio ad hoc modo agendum, etiam cum hoc contrarium est singulorum lucri. Hoc quidem significat aedificationem iustae ordinationis socialis et civilis, qua unicuique dabitur id quod ad ipsum pertinet, maximum esse munus quod singulae generationes oppetere debent. Cum agatur de munere politico, hoc nequit esse immediatum Ecclesiae negotium. At cum simul primarium hominis sit munus, Ecclesia, per mentis purificationem et ethicam institutionem, officium habet suam conferendi specificam industriam, ut iustitiae postulata intellegi et in ambitu politico perfici possint.

The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.

Ecclesia non potest nec debet sibi assumere politicam contentionem ut societatem quam iustissimam efficiat. Non potest nec debet locum Civitatis proprium occupare. Sed non potest nec debet quoque discedere a studio iustitiam reperiendi. Ingredi debet, per viam rationabilis argumentationis, atque spiritales suscitare vires, sine quibus iustitia, quae semper quoque renuntiationes expetit, nec sese extollere nec progredi valet. Iusta societas non potest esse opus Ecclesiae, sed a politicis illud procurari oportet. Attamen illius magnopere interest pro iustitia operari ut et mens aperiatur et voluntas boni postulationibus.

b) Love—caritas—will always prove necessary, even in the most just society. There is no ordering of the State so just that it can eliminate the need for a service of love. Whoever wants to eliminate love is preparing to eliminate man as such. There will always be suffering which cries out for consolation and help. There will always be loneliness. There will always be situations of material need where help in the form of concrete love of neighbour is indispensable.  [Cf. Congregation for Bishops, Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum Successores (22 February 2004), 197, Vatican City 2004, p. 217.] The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. The Church is one of those living forces: she is alive with the love enkindled by the Spirit of Christ. This love does not simply offer people material help, but refreshment and care for their souls, something which often is even more necessary than material support. In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live “by bread alone” (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3)—a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.

b) Amor — caritas — semper necessarius erit, in societate etiam admodum iusta. Nulla habetur iusta ordinatio civilis quae superfluum reddere possit ministerium amoris. Si quis de amore vult se subtrahere, prolabitur ad se ab homine velut homine eximendum. Semper dolor aderit in eo qui solacio indiget et auxilio. Semper aderit solitudo. Semper aderunt quoque condiciones materialis necessitatis, in quibus opus erit auxilium ferre intuitu veri erga proximum amoris.  Civitas quae omnibus providere vult, quae omnia in se amplectitur, efficitur denique burocratica instantia quae praestare nequit necessarium illud quo homo patiens — omnis homo — indiget: nempe benevola personali deditione. Non agitur de Civitate quae omnia constituat ac dominetur, sed potius de Civitate quae liberaliter agnoscat et foveat secundum subsidiarietatis principium incepta quae oriuntur ex variis socialibus viribus et in quibus coniunguntur libera voluntas et proximitas hominibus auxilio indigentibus. Ecclesia una est ex his viventibus virtutibus: in ipsa palpitat amoris vis a Christi Spiritu suscitata. Amor hic hominibus non solum materiale praebet adiumentum, sed etiam refectionem et curam animae, auxilium saepe magis necessarium quam fulcimen materiale. Affirmatio, secundum quam iustae structurae opera caritatis superflua reddunt, revera abscondit materiale hominis conceptum: praesumptam scilicet opinionem secundum quam homo vivere potest « in pane solo » (Mt 4, 4; cfr Dt 8, 3) — persuasionem quae hominem humiliat et reapse id ignorat quod est specifice humanum.

29. We can now determine more precisely, in the life of the Church, the relationship between commitment to the just ordering of the State and society on the one hand, and organized charitable activity on the other. We have seen that the formation of just structures is not directly the duty of the Church, but belongs to the world of politics, the sphere of the autonomous use of reason. The Church has an indirect duty here, in that she is called to contribute to the purification of reason and to the reawakening of those moral forces without which just structures are neither established nor prove effective in the long run.

29. Hoc modo aptius nunc determinare possumus, in vita Ecclesiae, nexum inter officium de honesta Civitatis societatisque institutione, una ex parte, et navitatem caritativam ordinatam, altera ex parte. Demonstratum est formationem iustarum structurarum non statim Ecclesiae esse officium, sed ad ordinem politicum pertinere, ad ambitum scilicet rationis sui ipsius consciae. Ecclesiae in hoc est officium intermedium, quatenus ad rationis purificationem tribuere debet adque virium moralium instaurationem, sine quibus nec iustae suscitantur structurae, neque istae diu operari possunt.

The direct duty to work for a just ordering of society, on the other hand, is proper to the lay faithful. As citizens of the State, they are called to take part in public life in a personal capacity. So they cannot relinquish their participation “in the many different economic, social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to promote organically and institutionally the common good.”   [John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici (30 December 1988), 42: AAS 81 (1989), 472.] The mission of the lay faithful is therefore to configure social life correctly, respecting its legitimate autonomy and cooperating with other citizens according to their respective competences and fulfilling their own responsibility.  [Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life (24 November 2002), 1: L’Osservatore Romano, English edition, 22 January 2003, p. 5.] Even if the specific expressions of ecclesial charity can never be confused with the activity of the State, it still remains true that charity must animate the entire lives of the lay faithful and therefore also their political activity, lived as “social charity”.  [Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1939.]

Proximum operandi officium pro iusto in societate ordine pertinet tamen laicos ad fideles. Tamquam Civitatis participes vocantur ut in primis vitam publicam communicent. Propterea renuntiare eis non licet « multiplici et diversae actuositati oeconomicae, sociali, legislativae, administrativae et culturali ad bonum commune organice et ex instituto promovendum ».  Laici fideles hanc ob rem opus est socialem rite ut conforment vitam, eius legitimam observantes autonomiam atque ceteris cum civibus communiter operantes propria secundum officia et sua ex conscientia.  Tametsi propria ecclesialis caritatis incepta numquam cum Civitatis industria misceri possunt, certum nihilominus manet debere caritatem totam fidelium laicorum pervadere vitam ac proinde politicam similiter eorum operam quae tamquam « socialis caritas »   impletur.

The Church’s charitable organizations, on the other hand, constitute an opus proprium, a task agreeable to her, in which she does not cooperate collaterally, but acts as a subject with direct responsibility, doing what corresponds to her nature.

Caritas institutiones Ecclesiae suum tamen opus proprium constituunt, munus ei omnino consentaneum, quo ipsa non veluti in latere cooperatur, sed uti subiectum recta via responsale agit, id efficiens quod eius respondet naturae.

The Church can never be exempted from practising charity as an organized activity of believers, and on the other hand, there will never be a situation where the charity of each individual Christian is unnecessary, because in addition to justice man needs, and will always need, love.

Numquam Ecclesia a caritatis exercitatione liberari potest tamquam navitatis credentium communiter ordinatae et, altera ex parte, numquam condicio accidet in qua necessaria non sit caritas uniuscuiusque christiani, quandoquidem, praeter iustitiam ipsam, indiget et indigebit semper homo amore.

The multiple structures of charitable service in the social context of the present day

Ministerii caritatis hodiernis in socialibus adiunctis structurae multiplices

30. Before attempting to define the specific profile of the Church’s activities in the service of man, I now wish to consider the overall situation of the struggle for justice and love in the world of today.

30. Antequam peculiarem definiamus indolem navitatis caritativae Ecclesiae in hominis commodum, velimus nunc oculos in generalem conicere condicionem illius certaminis pro iustitia et amore in huius temporis mundo.

a) Today the means of mass communication have made our planet smaller, rapidly narrowing the distance between different peoples and cultures. This “togetherness” at times gives rise to misunderstandings and tensions, yet our ability to know almost instantly about the needs of others challenges us to share their situation and their difficulties.

a) Instrumenta communicationis universalis hodie nostram terram minorem reddiderunt, coniungendo velociter et sensibiliter homines et culturas prorsus diversas. Si istud « simul stamus » nonnumquam etiam gignit dissensiones atque contentiones, nihilominus quod nunc multo propius hominum necessitates cognoscimus, ante omnia secum incitationem adfert ut eorum condicionum participes simus atque difficultatum.

On the other hand—and here we see one of the challenging yet also positive sides of the process of globalization—we now have at our disposal numerous means for offering humanitarian assistance to our brothers and sisters in need, not least modern systems of distributing food and clothing, and of providing housing and care. Concern for our neighbour transcends the confines of national communities and has increasingly broadened its horizon to the whole world. The Second Vatican Council rightly observed that “among the signs of our times, one particularly worthy of note is a growing, inescapable sense of solidarity between all peoples.”  [Ibid., 14.] State agencies and humanitarian associations work to promote this, the former mainly through subsidies or tax relief, the latter by making available considerable resources. The solidarity shown by civil society thus significantly surpasses that shown by individuals.

Altera ex parte — quod est elementum provocatorium eodemque tempore adhortationis plenum ipsius processus globalizationis — praesens tempus ad nostrum usum innumerabilia ministrat instrumenta ad adiumentum praestandum fratribus egentibus humanitarium, et inter ea nostrae aetatis rationes ad cibum et vestimenta distribuenda, veluti etiam ad offerendam habitationem et hospitalitatem. Superatis communitatum nationalium finibus, sollicitudo de proximo hoc modo ad suos prospectus amplificandos tendit usque in mundum universum. Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum II merito animadvertit: « Inter signa nostri temporis speciali notatu dignus est crebrescens ille et ineluctabilis sensus solidarietatis omnium populorum ».  Civitatis instituta et associationes humanitariae inceptis ad hoc propositum directis aliis favent per subsidia vel deminutiones tributorum, aliis reddendo disponibiles ingentes copias. Hoc modo solidarietas a societate civili expressa significanter actionem superat singulorum.

b) This situation has led to the birth and the growth of many forms of cooperation between State and Church agencies, which have borne fruit. Church agencies, with their transparent operation and their faithfulness to the duty of witnessing to love, are able to give a Christian quality to the civil agencies too, favouring a mutual coordination that can only redound to the effectiveness of charitable service.  [Cf. Congregation for Bishops, Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum Successores (22 February 2004), 195, Vatican City 2004, pp. 214-216.] Numerous organizations for charitable or philanthropic purposes have also been established and these are committed to achieving adequate humanitarian solutions to the social and political problems of the day. Significantly, our time has also seen the growth and spread of different kinds of volunteer work, which assume responsibility for providing a variety of services.  [Cf. John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici (30 December 1988), 41: AAS 81 (1989), 470-472.] I wish here to offer a special word of gratitude and appreciation to all those who take part in these activities in whatever way. For young people, this widespread involvement constitutes a school of life which offers them a formation in solidarity and in readiness to offer others not simply material aid but their very selves. The anti-culture of death, which finds expression for example in drug use, is thus countered by an unselfish love which shows itself to be a culture of life by the very willingness to “lose itself” (cf. Lk 17:33 et passim) for others.

b) Hac in condicione ortae sunt ac creverunt, inter instituta civilia et ecclesiastica, numerosae novae formae operae consociatae quae fructuosae comparuerunt. Ecclesiae actiones, manifestae quidem suo in opere atque fidelitate ipsi officio amoris testificandi, christiano modo etiam animare poterunt civiles actiones, dum communem mutuam ordinationem fovebunt quae non poterit ministerii caritatis non adiuvare efficaciam.  Pariter formatae sunt, hoc in rerum contextu, multiplices consociationes cum propositis caritatis et humanitatis, quae operam dant ut coram quaestionibus socialibus et politicis praesentibus solutiones congruas attingant sub humanitatis ratione. Magni momenti nostro tempore sunt ortus et diffusio variarum formarum voluntariatus, quae in se ministeriorum multiplicitatem suscipiunt.  Velimus hic peculiarem vocem aestimationis gratique animi dirigere ad eos omnes qui, diversa sub forma, illam participant navitatem. Eiusmodi iam diffusum opus iuvenibus constituit scholam quandam vitae quae ad solidarietatem educat, ad promptitudinem non simpliciter aliquid offerendi, sed se ipsos. Adversae culturae mortis, quae exempli gratia in medicamentis stupefactivis exprimitur, amor sic opponitur qui se ipsum non quaerit, sed omnino in disponibilitate ad « se ipsum amittendum » (cfr Lc 17, 33 et par.) pro proximo tamquam cultura vitae se patefacit.

In the Catholic Church, and also in the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities, new forms of charitable activity have arisen, while other, older ones have taken on new life and energy. In these new forms, it is often possible to establish a fruitful link between evangelization and works of charity. Here I would clearly reaffirm what my great predecessor John Paul II wrote in his Encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis   [Cf. No. 32: AAS 80 (1988), 556.] when he asserted the readiness of the Catholic Church to cooperate with the charitable agencies of these Churches and Communities, since we all have the same fundamental motivation and look towards the same goal: a true humanism, which acknowledges that man is made in the image of God and wants to help him to live in a way consonant with that dignity. His Encyclical Ut Unum Sint emphasized that the building of a better world requires Christians to speak with a united voice in working to inculcate “respect for the rights and needs of everyone, especially the poor, the lowly and the defenceless.”   [No. 43: AAS 87 (1995), 946.] Here I would like to express my satisfaction that this appeal has found a wide resonance in numerous initiatives throughout the world.

Etiam in Ecclesia catholica et in aliis Ecclesiis atque Communitatibus ecclesialibus novae sunt ortae actuositatis caritativae formae, et antiquae formulae renovato cum impetu iterum apparuerunt. Formae nempe sunt ubi fieri potest ut felix nexus inter evangelizationem et caritatis opera instituatur. Cupimus hic confirmare apertis verbis quod magnus Decessor Noster Ioannes Paulus II in Litteris Encyclicis Sollicitudo rei socialis protulit,  paratam scilicet mentem et catholicae Ecclesiae voluntatem cum declararet ad consilia communia cum Consociationibus caritativis istarum Ecclesiarum et Communitatum, quia nos omnes movemur secundum eiusdem praecipuae rationis causam et ante oculos idem habemus propositum: verum humanismum, qui in homine imaginem Dei agnoscit et adiuvare eum vult ad vitam conformem illi dignitati ducendam. Litterae Encyclicae deinde Ut unum sint hoc iterum extulerunt quod, ad mundi in melius progressionem, necessaria est vox communis christianorum, eorum officium pro « iurium ac necessitatum omnium, praesertim pauperum, iacentium, inermium, observantia ».  Cupimus hic gaudium Nostrum significare quia hoc desiderium amplam vocem resilientem toto in mundo in multis inceptis invenit.

The distinctiveness of the Church’s charitable activity

Forma caritativae actuositatis Ecclesiae propria

31. The increase in diversified organizations engaged in meeting various human needs is ultimately due to the fact that the command of love of neighbour is inscribed by the Creator in man’s very nature. It is also a result of the presence of Christianity in the world, since Christianity constantly revives and acts out this imperative, so often profoundly obscured in the course of time. The reform of paganism attempted by the emperor Julian the Apostate is only an initial example of this effect; here we see how the power of Christianity spread well beyond the frontiers of the Christian faith. For this reason, it is very important that the Church’s charitable activity maintains all of its splendour and does not become just another form of social assistance. So what are the essential elements of Christian and ecclesial charity?

31. Variarum consociationum augmentum, quae opus suscipiunt pro homine in variis ipsius necessitatibus, denique explanatur inde quod imperativus amor proximi a Creatore in ipsa hominis natura est inscriptus. Eiusmodi incrementum, tamen, consectarium est etiam praesentiae religionis christianae in mundo, quae semper hoc imperatum ex novo excitat et capax reddit, saepe alte in historiae cursu obscuratum. Restauratio paganesimi, ab imperatore Iuliano Apostata temptata, solum exemplum quoddam ad initium est similis efficacitatis. Hac in notione vis christianesimi ultra fines expanditur fidei christianae. Magni igitur momenti est ut navitas caritativa Ecclesiae totum suum conservet splendorem, et ne in communi consociatione adiumentorum dissolvatur uti aliqua eorum forma fiat. Sed quae sunt nunc elementa constitutiva quae essentiam caritatis christianae et ecclesialis efficiunt?

a) Following the example given in the parable of the Good Samaritan, Christian charity is first of all the simple response to immediate needs and specific situations: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for and healing the sick, visiting those in prison, etc. The Church’s charitable organizations, beginning with those of Caritas (at diocesan, national and international levels), ought to do everything in their power to provide the resources and above all the personnel needed for this work. Individuals who care for those in need must first be professionally competent: they should be properly trained in what to do and how to do it, and committed to continuing care. Yet, while professional competence is a primary, fundamental requirement, it is not of itself sufficient. We are dealing with human beings, and human beings always need something more than technically proper care. They need humanity. They need heartfelt concern. Those who work for the Church’s charitable organizations must be distinguished by the fact that they do not merely meet the needs of the moment, but they dedicate themselves to others with heartfelt concern, enabling them to experience the richness of their humanity. Consequently, in addition to their necessary professional training, these charity workers need a “formation of the heart”: they need to be led to that encounter with God in Christ which awakens their love and opens their spirits to others. As a result, love of neighbour will no longer be for them a commandment imposed, so to speak, from without, but a consequence deriving from their faith, a faith which becomes active through love (cf. Gal 5:6).

a) Secundum exemplar in parabola boni Samaritani exhibitum, caritas christiana praesertim simpliciter responsio est ad id quod, determinata in condicione, necessitatem constituit directam: esurientes satiandi sunt, nudi vestiendi, infirmi in sanationis spe curandi, in carcere custoditi sunt visitandi, etc. Oportet associationes caritativae Ecclesiae, iam ab illis quae sunt Caritatis (dioecesanae, nationalis, internationalis) quod fieri potest faciant, ut prompta sint respondentia instrumenta et praesertim viri et mulieres qui eiusmodi munus suscipiant. Quod ad ministerium erga dolentes exercitatum spectat, necessaria est ante omnia praeparatio professionalis: opus est ut auxiliatores formati sint ita ut rem iustam adimplendam modo iusto exsequantur, suscipientes deinde missionem curationis prosequendae. Facultas professionalis prima est fundamentalis necessitas, sed sola non sufficit. Agitur, revera, de personis humanis et illae personae humanae semper pluribus rebus egent quam cura simpliciter technice apta. Egent humanitate. Egent cordis attentione. Quotquot in caritatis Ecclesiae Institutionibus elaborant, oportet ne emineant tantummodo recta exercitatione rei convenientis hoc momento, sed se proximo cum cordis instigationibus dedant, ita ut iste eorum humanitatis abundantiam experiatur. Hanc ob rem eiusmodi operatoribus, praeter praeparationem professionalem, necessaria est, et ante omnia, « cordis formatio »: ii conducendi sunt ad illum cum Deo in Christo occursum qui suscitet in ipsis amorem et eorum aperiat cor erga alios, ita ut pro iis amor non praeceptum sit, ut dicitur, externum, sed consectarium profluens de fide quae in caritate operatur (cfr Gal 5, 6).

b) Christian charitable activity must be independent of parties and ideologies. It is not a means of changing the world ideologically, and it is not at the service of worldly stratagems, but it is a way of making present here and now the love which man always needs. The modern age, particularly from the nineteenth century on, has been dominated by various versions of a philosophy of progress whose most radical form is Marxism. Part of Marxist strategy is the theory of impoverishment: in a situation of unjust power, it is claimed, anyone who engages in charitable initiatives is actually serving that unjust system, making it appear at least to some extent tolerable. This in turn slows down a potential revolution and thus blocks the struggle for a better world. Seen in this way, charity is rejected and attacked as a means of preserving the status quo. What we have here, though, is really an inhuman philosophy. People of the present are sacrificed to the moloch of the future—a future whose effective realization is at best doubtful. One does not make the world more human by refusing to act humanely here and now. We contribute to a better world only by personally doing good now, with full commitment and wherever we have the opportunity, independently of partisan strategies and programmes. The Christian’s programme —the programme of the Good Samaritan, the programme of Jesus—is “a heart which sees”. This heart sees where love is needed and acts accordingly. Obviously when charitable activity is carried out by the Church as a communitarian initiative, the spontaneity of individuals must be combined with planning, foresight and cooperation with other similar institutions.

b) Christiana navitas caritativa a factionibus et doctrinis seiuncta esse debet. Non est instrumentum ad mundum mutandum secundum quandam doctrinam neque adstat in ministerio mundanorum consiliorum, sed est effectio hic et nunc amoris quo homo semper indiget. Tempus recens, praesertim a saeculo duodevicesimo, diversis modis philosophiae progressionis regitur, cuius forma maxime radicalis est marxismus. Pars actionis marxistarum est teoria de divitiarum deminutione: qui in condicione potestatis iniustae — ita asseverat — hominem adiuvat operibus caritatis, se ipsum de facto exponit servitio erga illam rationem iniustitiae, quam reddit primo aspectu, saltem ad certum gradum, tolerabilem. Hoc modo potentia revolutionalis cohibetur, ideoque cursus in meliorem mundum intermittitur. Quocirca caritati resistitur eaque immo impeditur veluti ratio servandi ipsius status quo res sunt. Revera, haec est philosophia quaedam hominibus adversa. Homo qui nunc vivit, Moloch destinatur futuri temporis — quod futurum tempus an re accidere possit saltem dubium est. Reapse, humana conversio mundi promoveri non potest recusando, ad tempus, ne uti homines nos geramus. Meliori mundo aliquid tribuitur tantummodo si facimus nos bonum nunc atque in prima persona, toto cum animi impetu et ubicumque possumus, rationibus propositisque factionum neglectis. Christiani propositum — id est propositum boni Samaritani, propositum Iesu — « cor est quod videt ». Hoc cor videt ubi opus sit amoris et congruo agit modo. Ut apparet, promptae voluntati cuiusque hominis addenda sunt, quoties actuositas caritatis ab Ecclesia tamquam communis suscipitur actio, rerum ordinatio ac providentia et cooperatio cum similibus institutionibus.

c) Charity, furthermore, cannot be used as a means of engaging in what is nowadays considered proselytism. Love is free; it is not practised as a way of achieving other ends.  [Cf. Congregation for Bishops, Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum Successores (22 February 2004), 196, Vatican City 2004, p. 216.] But this does not mean that charitable activity must somehow leave God and Christ aside. For it is always concerned with the whole man. Often the deepest cause of suffering is the very absence of God. Those who practise charity in the Church’s name will never seek to impose the Church’s faith upon others. They realize that a pure and generous love is the best witness to the God in whom we believe and by whom we are driven to love. A Christian knows when it is time to speak of God and when it is better to say nothing and to let love alone speak. He knows that God is love (cf. 1 Jn 4:8) and that God’s presence is felt at the very time when the only thing we do is to love. He knows—to return to the questions raised earlier—that disdain for love is disdain for God and man alike; it is an attempt to do without God. Consequently, the best defence of God and man consists precisely in love. It is the responsibility of the Church’s charitable organizations to reinforce this awareness in their members, so that by their activity—as well as their words, their silence, their example—they may be credible witnesses to Christ.

c) Caritas, praeterea, non debet esse instrumentum quoddam in via alicuius rei quae hodie proselytismus nominatur. Gratuitus est amor; non exercetur ad proposita consequenda aliena.  Sed hoc non significat actuositatem caritativam debere, ut ita dicamus, Deum et Christum seorsum relinquere. Agitur semper de toto homine. Saepe Dei absentia causa est altissima doloris. Qui in nomine Ecclesiae caritatem exercitat, numquam conabitur aliis fidem Ecclesiae iniungere. Ille novit amorem sua in purititate gratuitateque optimam esse Dei testificationem in quem credimus et a quo ad amorem sucitamur. Christianus novit quando tempus sit de Deo loquendi et quando iustum sit de ipso tacere atque permittere ut amor ipse loquatur. Ille novit Deum esse caritatem (cfr 1 Io 4, 8) et adesse quibusdam momentis quibus nulla alia res accidit praeter amorem. Ille novit — ut ad quaestiones revertamur praecedentes — contemptionem amoris contemptionem esse Dei hominisque atque conatum agendi sine Deo. Quapropter optima defensio Dei hominisque in amore omnino consistit. Officium est Consociationum caritativarum Ecclesiae istam conscientiam propriis in sociis confirmare, ut per eorum actionem — sicut per eorum vocem, silentium eorumque exemplar — illi testes fiant credibiles Christi.

Those responsible for the Church’s charitable activity

Actionis caritativae Ecclesiae curatores

32. Finally, we must turn our attention once again to those who are responsible for carrying out the Church’s charitable activity. As our preceding reflections have made clear, the true subject of the various Catholic organizations that carry out a ministry of charity is the Church herself—at all levels, from the parishes, through the particular Churches, to the universal Church. For this reason it was most opportune that my venerable predecessor Paul VI established the Pontifical Council Cor Unum as the agency of the Holy See responsible for orienting and coordinating the organizations and charitable activities promoted by the Catholic Church. In conformity with the episcopal structure of the Church, the Bishops, as successors of the Apostles, are charged with primary responsibility for carrying out in the particular Churches the programme set forth in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. 2:42-44): today as in the past, the Church as God’s family must be a place where help is given and received, and at the same time, a place where people are also prepared to serve those outside her confines who are in need of help. In the rite of episcopal ordination, prior to the act of consecration itself, the candidate must respond to several questions which express the essential elements of his office and recall the duties of his future ministry. He promises expressly to be, in the Lord’s name, welcoming and merciful to the poor and to all those in need of consolation and assistance.  [Cf. Pontificale Romanum, De ordinatione episcopi, 43.] The Code of Canon Law, in the canons on the ministry of the Bishop, does not expressly mention charity as a specific sector of episcopal activity, but speaks in general terms of the Bishop’s responsibility for coordinating the different works of the apostolate with due regard for their proper character.  [Cf. can. 394; Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, can. 203.] Recently, however, the Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops explored more specifically the duty of charity as a responsibility incumbent upon the whole Church and upon each Bishop in his Diocese,  [Cf. Nos. 193-198: pp. 212-219.] and it emphasized that the exercise of charity is an action of the Church as such, and that, like the ministry of Word and Sacrament, it too has been an essential part of her mission from the very beginning.  [Cf. Nos. 194: pp. 213-214.]

32. Postremo mentem Nostram adhuc convertere debemus ad iam significatos actuositatis caritativae Ecclesiae curatores. In praeteritis cogitationibus clare ostendimus verum subiectum diversarum Institutionum catholicarum, quae caritatis explent ministerium, ipsam esse Ecclesiam — et omnibus quidem in gradibus, initio ab paroeciis sumpto, per Ecclesias particulares, usque ad Ecclesiam universalem. Quam ob rem iustum omnino erat et necessarium ut Noster Venerabilis Decessor Paulus VI Pontificium Consilium Cor unum conderet veluti institutum Apostolicae Sedis unde dirigerentur et disponerentur institutiones actionesque caritatis ab Ecclesia catholica provectae. Structurae deinde episcopali Ecclesiae refertur factum quod in Ecclesiis particularibus Episcopi prout Apostolorum successores primam auctoritatem exsecutionis prae se ferant, etiam praesenti tempore, ilius consilii in Actibus Apostolorum (cfr 2, 42-44) significati: Ecclesia, utpote familia Dei, hodie quoque perinde ac heri fieri debet locus mutui auxilii et, eodem tempore, locus promptitudinis serviendi erga eos etiam qui extra illam auxilio indigent. In ritu Ordinationis episcopalis, verus et proprius consecrationis actus quibusdam praeparatur ad candidatum quaestionibus, in quibus praecipua significantur elementa ipsius officii eique commemorantur munera eius futuri ministerii. Hoc in rerum contextu ordinandus claris promittit verbis se benevolum et misericordem erga pauperes fore, in nomine Domini, omnesque consolatione indigentes et adiumento.  Codex Iuris Canonici in canonibus ad ministerium episcopale spectantibus, expressis verbis de caritate veluti peculiari regione actuositatis episcopalis non agit, sed tantummodo in universum de munere Episcopi loquitur, cuius est omnia apostolatus opera, servata uniuscuiusque propria indole, suo moderamine coordinare.  Verumtamen Directorium pastoralis Episcoporum ministerii recens investigavit altius et subtilius officium caritatis tamquam intrinsecum totius Ecclesiae opus et Episcopi propria in dioecesi   et inculcavit caritatis exercitationem actum esse Ecclesiae ut talis atque, prout ministerium Verbi Sacramentorumque, participem esse essentiae primitivorum eius operum.

33. With regard to the personnel who carry out the Church’s charitable activity on the practical level, the essential has already been said: they must not be inspired by ideologies aimed at improving the world, but should rather be guided by the faith which works through love (cf. Gal 5:6). Consequently, more than anything, they must be persons moved by Christ’s love, persons whose hearts Christ has conquered with his love, awakening within them a love of neighbour. The criterion inspiring their activity should be Saint Paul’s statement in the Second Letter to the Corinthians: “the love of Christ urges us on” (5:14). The consciousness that, in Christ, God has given himself for us, even unto death, must inspire us to live no longer for ourselves but for him, and, with him, for others. Whoever loves Christ loves the Church, and desires the Church to be increasingly the image and instrument of the love which flows from Christ. The personnel of every Catholic charitable organization want to work with the Church and therefore with the Bishop, so that the love of God can spread throughout the world. By their sharing in the Church’s practice of love, they wish to be witnesses of God and of Christ, and they wish for this very reason freely to do good to all.

33. Quod attinet ad curatores qui in gradu exsecutionis operam caritatis in Ecclesia factitant, essentia iam dicta est: illi se movere non debent secundum doctrinas de meliore reddendo mundo, sed fide se dirigi sinunt quae per caritatem operatur (cfr Gal 5, 6). Oportet ante omnia personae sint caritate Christi permotae, personae quarum cor Christus sua caritate cepit, suscitans in ipsis erga proximum caritatem. Norma inspirans eorum agendi modum affirmatio debet esse vigens in Epistula Secunda ad Corinthios: « Caritas Christi urget nos » (5, 14). Conscientia in ipso Deum se pro nobis usque ad mortem dedisse, nos ducere debet ne pro nobis ipsis vivamus, sed pro ipso et cum ipso pro aliis. Qui Christum diligit, Ecclesiam diligit et vult ut semper magis sit signum et instrumentum caritatis quae ab eo emanat. Cooperator cuiuslibet caritativae Institutionis catholicae cum Ecclesia vult operari et inde cum Episcopo, ut caritas Dei in mundum diffundatur. Ille per suam participationem exercitationis caritatis Ecclesiae, testis esse vult Dei et Christi et, hanc ob rem, bonum gratuito facere cupit hominibus.

34. Interior openness to the Catholic dimension of the Church cannot fail to dispose charity workers to work in harmony with other organizations in serving various forms of need, but in a way that respects what is distinctive about the service which Christ requested of his disciples. Saint Paul, in his hymn to charity (cf. 1 Cor 13), teaches us that it is always more than activity alone: “If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, I gain nothing” (v. 3). This hymn must be the Magna Carta of all ecclesial service; it sums up all the reflections on love which I have offered throughout this Encyclical Letter. Practical activity will always be insufficient, unless it visibly expresses a love for man, a love nourished by an encounter with Christ. My deep personal sharing in the needs and sufferings of others becomes a sharing of my very self with them: if my gift is not to prove a source of humiliation, I must give to others not only something that is my own, but my very self; I must be personally present in my gift.

34. Interior patefactio ad catholicam Ecclesiae rationem necessario disponere debet cooperatorem ut cum aliis Institutis ipse consentiat inserviens videlicet variis necessitatis formis; id tamen evenire debet in observantia ipsius formae propriae illius ministerii quod suis poposcit Christus a discipulis. Sanctus Paulus suo in hymno ad caritatem (cfr 1 Cor 13) nos docet caritatem semper maiorem esse simplici navitate: « Et si distribuero in cibos omnes facultates meas et si tradidero corpus meum, ut glorier, caritatem autem non habuero, nihil mihi prodest » (v. 3). Hic hymnus esse debet Magna Carta totius ministerii ecclesialis; in illo cunctae resumuntur cogitationes quas, in his Litteris Encyclicis, de caritate sumus prosecuti. Actuositas exsecutiva non sufficit si in ipsa amor in hominem non redditur comprehensibilis, amor qui occursu cum Christo alitur. Intima personalis participatio necessitatum et dolorum proximi hoc modo fit ut ego me cum eo participem: ne donum proximum humiliet, ei dandum est non tantummodo aliquid mei, sed ipsemet ego, adstare debeo in dono veluti persona.

35. This proper way of serving others also leads to humility. The one who serves does not consider himself superior to the one served, however miserable his situation at the moment may be. Christ took the lowest place in the world—the Cross—and by this radical humility he redeemed us and constantly comes to our aid. Those who are in a position to help others will realize that in doing so they themselves receive help; being able to help others is no merit or achievement of their own. This duty is a grace. The more we do for others, the more we understand and can appropriate the words of Christ: “We are useless servants” (Lk 17:10). We recognize that we are not acting on the basis of any superiority or greater personal efficiency, but because the Lord has graciously enabled us to do so. There are times when the burden of need and our own limitations might tempt us to become discouraged. But precisely then we are helped by the knowledge that, in the end, we are only instruments in the Lord’s hands; and this knowledge frees us from the presumption of thinking that we alone are personally responsible for building a better world. In all humility we will do what we can, and in all humility we will entrust the rest to the Lord. It is God who governs the world, not we. We offer him our service only to the extent that we can, and for as long as he grants us the strength. To do all we can with what strength we have, however, is the task which keeps the good servant of Jesus Christ always at work: “The love of Christ urges us on” (2 Cor 5:14).

35. Haec recta serviendi ratio humilem efficit actorem. Prae ceteris ipse haud se effert, licet tunc misera sit eius condicio. Novissimum locum in mundo — scilicet crucem — occupavit Christus, atque extrema hac humilitate nos tum redemit tum continenter adiuvat. Qui iuvare valet, se quoque hoc ipso modo iuvari agnoscit; non ad eius meritum neque ad gloriationis causam adscribitur eo quod iuvare is potest. Munus hoc gratia est. Quo magis quispiam aliis operam dat, eo melius Christi verbum intellegit idque in se recipit: « Servi inutiles sumus » (Lc 17, 10). Agnoscit enim is se non suam propter praestantiam vel maiorem suam efficacitatem, sed quia id tamquam donum ei concedit Dominus. Nonnumquam nimia necessitas et angustiae item operandi ad animi demissionis temptationem obicere eum possunt. At tum vero id eum iuvare potest, quod tandem nempe novit Domini manibus solummodo se esse instrumentum; immodicam sic sui amittet fiduciam per se unum efficiendi mundi necessariam progressionem. Demisso animo quod facere potest facit atque reliqua humiliter Domino committit. Deus mundum regit, non nos. Ei nos, quod possumus, inservimus, usque dum vigorem nobis ministrat. Agere tamen quantum in nobis est situm ex viribus quae nobis praesto sunt: hoc est officium quod bonus Iesu Christi famulus servat, qui semper se actuosum exhibet: « Caritas enim Christi urget nos » (2 Cor 5, 14).

36. When we consider the immensity of others’ needs, we can, on the one hand, be driven towards an ideology that would aim at doing what God’s governance of the world apparently cannot: fully resolving every problem. Or we can be tempted to give in to inertia, since it would seem that in any event nothing can be accomplished. At such times, a living relationship with Christ is decisive if we are to keep on the right path, without falling into an arrogant contempt for man, something not only unconstructive but actually destructive, or surrendering to a resignation which would prevent us from being guided by love in the service of others. Prayer, as a means of drawing ever new strength from Christ, is concretely and urgently needed. People who pray are not wasting their time, even though the situation appears desperate and seems to call for action alone. Piety does not undermine the struggle against the poverty of our neighbours, however extreme. In the example of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta we have a clear illustration of the fact that time devoted to God in prayer not only does not detract from effective and loving service to our neighbour but is in fact the inexhaustible source of that service. In her letter for Lent 1996, Blessed Teresa wrote to her lay co-workers: “We need this deep connection with God in our daily life. How can we obtain it? By prayer”.

36. Experti necessitatum magnitudinem, una ex parte, hinc ad ideologiam nos compelli possumus, quae nunc id efficere praesumit, quod orbis regimen ex parte Dei, ut videtur, non consequitur: ad omnes scilicet quaestiones expediendas. Illinc inertiae sollicitatio fieri potest, cum cogitetur nihil utique effici posse. His in rerum adiunctis, viva cum Christo coniunctio decretorium rectam semitam tenendi praebet adiumentum: non in superbiam incidere, quae hominem spernit ac nihil reapse aedificat, sed potius destruit, neque animi dimissioni concedere necesse est, quae impedit quominus dirigat nos amor et ita homini inserviamus. Precatio veluti instrumentum unde a Christo usque rursus vis hauritur, omnino certa hic fit necessitas. Qui orat suum tempus non amittit, etiamsi condicio quaedam in discrimine versatur atque ad agendum tantum compellere videtur. Adversus paupertatem vel etiam contra proximi indigentiam contentionem non extenuat pietas. Beata Teresia Calcuttentis clarissimum exhibet exemplum, quod tempus Deo in precatione dicatum non modo ipsi amoris in proximum actioni non officit neque eius efficientiae, sed contra inexhausta eius est scaturigo. Sua in epistula Quadragesimalis temporis, anno MCMXCVI, Beata sic suis laicis sociis scripsit: « Intima nos hac cum Deo coniunctione in cotidiana nostra vita indigemus. Quomodo eam adipisci possumus? Per precationem ».

37. It is time to reaffirm the importance of prayer in the face of the activism and the growing secularism of many Christians engaged in charitable work. Clearly, the Christian who prays does not claim to be able to change God’s plans or correct what he has foreseen. Rather, he seeks an encounter with the Father of Jesus Christ, asking God to be present with the consolation of the Spirit to him and his work. A personal relationship with God and an abandonment to his will can prevent man from being demeaned and save him from falling prey to the teaching of fanaticism and terrorism. An authentically religious attitude prevents man from presuming to judge God, accusing him of allowing poverty and failing to have compassion for his creatures. When people claim to build a case against God in defence of man, on whom can they depend when human activity proves powerless?

37. Tempus venit confirmandi precationis momentum coram nimia industria instantique saecularismo multorum christianorum qui caritatis in opera incumbunt. Ut patet, qui precatur christianus Dei consilia immutare vel quae Deus praevidit emendare non praesumit. Ipse potius studet, Iesu Christi Patrem convenire ab eoque petere ut per sui Spiritus solacium in illo eiusque opera adsit. Cum Deo personali conversatio eiusque voluntati deditio tantummodo impediunt quominus prolabatur homo et eum a fanatici furoris terrorumque opinationibus avertunt. Vere religiosa mens vitat ne Dei iudicem se praebeat homo, eundem insimulans egestatem permittere, suis creaturis haud parcentem. At quicumque audet adversus Deum contendere hominum extollendis commoditatibus, in quo ipse niti potest cum humana actio irrita evadit?

38. Certainly Job could complain before God about the presence of incomprehensible and apparently unjustified suffering in the world. In his pain he cried out: “Oh, that I knew where I might find him, that I might come even to his seat! ... I would learn what he would answer me, and understand what he would say to me. Would he contend with me in the greatness of his power? ... Therefore I am terrified at his presence; when I consider, I am in dread of him. God has made my heart faint; the Almighty has terrified me” (23:3, 5-6, 15-16). Often we cannot understand why God refrains from intervening. Yet he does not prevent us from crying out, like Jesus on the Cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mt 27:46). We should continue asking this question in prayerful dialogue before his face: “Lord, holy and true, how long will it be?” (Rev 6:10). It is Saint Augustine who gives us faith’s answer to our sufferings: “Si comprehendis, non est Deus”—”if you understand him, he is not God.”   [Sermo 52, 16: PL 38, 360.] Our protest is not meant to challenge God, or to suggest that error, weakness or indifference can be found in him. For the believer, it is impossible to imagine that God is powerless or that “perhaps he is asleep” (cf. 1 Kg 18:27). Instead, our crying out is, as it was for Jesus on the Cross, the deepest and most radical way of affirming our faith in his sovereign power. Even in their bewilderment and failure to understand the world around them, Christians continue to believe in the “goodness and loving kindness of God” (Tit 3:4). Immersed like everyone else in the dramatic complexity of historical events, they remain unshakably certain that God is our Father and loves us, even when his silence remains incomprehensible.

38. Procul dubio de Deo propter dolores in mundo praesentes, conqueri potest Iob, qui intellegi probarique, ut videtur, nequeunt. Sic ille suo de dolore effatur: « Quis mihi tribuat, ut cognoscam et inveniam illum et veniam usque ad solium eius? [...] Ut sciam verba, quae mihi respondeat, et intellegam quid loquatur mihi. Num multa fortitudine contendet mecum? [...] Et idcirco a facie eius turbatus sum et considerans eum timore sollicitor. Deus mollivit cor meum et Omnipotens conturbavit me » (23, 3.5-6.15-16). Non datur saepe nobis copia rationem cognoscendi, qua suum brachium inhibit Deus potius quam agat. Ceterum ne ipse quidem obstat quominus nos, sicut Iesus in cruce, clamemus: « Deus meus, Deus meus, ut quid dereliquisti me? » (Mt 27, 46). Consistere nos oporteat hac cum interrogatione eius ante vultum et orantes colloqui: « Usquequo, Domine, sanctus et verus » (Apc 6, 10) cunctaris? Sanctus Augustinus ipse nostro huic dolori responsionem fidei praebet: « Si comprehendis, non est Deus ».  Nos interpellantes, Deum lacessere nolumus, neque in eo errorem, debilitatem vel neglegentiam inesse innuere. Credens ipse eum esse impotentem vel dormire (cfr 1 Reg 18, 27) cogitare non potest. Immo verum est clamorem etiam nostrum, sicut in Iesu cruci affixi ore, esse extremum et modum perquam altum ut fidem nostram de eius absoluta potestate confirmemus. Christiani namque, quamvis prorsus non comprehendant et confundantur in mundo circumiacente, de Dei bonitate eiusque in homines amore (cfr Tit 3, 4) credere pergunt. Ii, licet, quemadmodum ceteri homines, gravissimis et orbis circumiacentis vicissitudinibus implicatis teneantur, in illa certitudine firmi manent, Deum esse patrem eumque nos amare, etsi eius silentium nos intellegere nequeamus.

39. Faith, hope and charity go together. Hope is practised through the virtue of patience, which continues to do good even in the face of apparent failure, and through the virtue of humility, which accepts God’s mystery and trusts him even at times of darkness. Faith tells us that God has given his Son for our sakes and gives us the victorious certainty that it is really true: God is love! It thus transforms our impatience and our doubts into the sure hope that God holds the world in his hands and that, as the dramatic imagery of the end of the Book of Revelation points out, in spite of all darkness he ultimately triumphs in glory. Faith, which sees the love of God revealed in the pierced heart of Jesus on the Cross, gives rise to love. Love is the light—and in the end, the only light—that can always illuminate a world grown dim and give us the courage needed to keep living and working. Love is possible, and we are able to practise it because we are created in the image of God. To experience love and in this way to cause the light of God to enter into the world—this is the invitation I would like to extend with the present Encyclical.

39. Fides, spes et caritas coniunguntur. Patientiae virtute re explicatur spes, quae in bono non deficit, ne ficte quidem exstante infelici rerum exitu, atque in humilitatis virtute, quae Dei mysterium suscipit et ei etiam in obscuritate confidit. Deum nobis ostendit fides, qui suum Filium tradidit pro nobis atque in nobis victricem certitudinem concitat illud omnino esse verum: Deus caritas est! Hac nimirum ratione ipsa nostram impatientiam nostraque dubia in certam spem convertit, Deum mundum suis manibus tenere et eum praeter cunctas obscuritates vincere, sicut per moventes imagines denique mirabilem in modum Apocalypsis demonstrat. Fides, quae Dei amoris sibi fit conscia revelati usque ad Iesu cor in cruce perfossum, amorem vicissim concitat. Lux est — unica tandem — quae renovato usque modo obscurum orbem illuminat animumque ad vivendum et operandum addit. Amor esse potest nosque eum colere possumus, quandoquidem Dei sumus ad imaginem creati. Amorem experiri sibi vult efficere ut Dei lux in mundum ingrediatur, ecce ad illud has per Litteras Encyclicas invitare velimus.

CONCLUSION

CONCLUSIO

40. Finally, let us consider the saints, who exercised charity in an exemplary way. Our thoughts turn especially to Martin of Tours († 397), the soldier who became a monk and a bishop: he is almost like an icon, illustrating the irreplaceable value of the individual testimony to charity. At the gates of Amiens, Martin gave half of his cloak to a poor man: Jesus himself, that night, appeared to him in a dream wearing that cloak, confirming the permanent validity of the Gospel saying: “I was naked and you clothed me ... as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt 25:36, 40).  [Cf. Sulpicius Severus, Vita Sancti Martini, 3, 1-3: SCh 133, 256-258.] Yet in the history of the Church, how many other testimonies to charity could be quoted! In particular, the entire monastic movement, from its origins with Saint Anthony the Abbot († 356), expresses an immense service of charity towards neighbour. In his encounter “face to face” with the God who is Love, the monk senses the impelling need to transform his whole life into service of neighbour, in addition to service of God. This explains the great emphasis on hospitality, refuge and care of the infirm in the vicinity of the monasteries. It also explains the immense initiatives of human welfare and Christian formation, aimed above all at the very poor, who became the object of care firstly for the monastic and mendicant orders, and later for the various male and female religious institutes all through the history of the Church. The figures of saints such as Francis of Assisi, Ignatius of Loyola, John of God, Camillus of Lellis, Vincent de Paul, Louise de Marillac, Giuseppe B. Cottolengo, John Bosco, Luigi Orione, Teresa of Calcutta to name but a few—stand out as lasting models of social charity for all people of good will. The saints are the true bearers of light within history, for they are men and women of faith, hope and love.

40. Ad caelites denique convertimur ad omnesque a quibus caritas in exemplum est exercitata. Tendit cogitatio nominatim ad Martinum Turonensem († 397), prius militem, deinde monachum atque episcopum: tamquam simulacrum demonstrat ille necessarium momentum testificationis singularis caritatis. Ad urbis enim Ambianensis ianuas dimidiam pallii sui Martinus partem cum paupere homine dividit: noctu vero Iesus ipse in somnis eodem pallio vestitus ei comparet ut perpetuam efficacitatem verbi evangelici confirmet: « Eram... nudus et operuistis me... Quamdiu fecistis uni de his fratribus meis minimis, mihi fecistis » (Mt 25, 36.40).  Attamen in Ecclesiae annalibus quod alia caritatis testimonia adferri possunt! Praesertim vero totus motus monasticus, iam inde suis a primis initiis cum sancto Antonio abbate († 356) immensum declarat caritatis ministerium erga proximum. In ipso congressu « facie ad faciem » illo cum Deo qui Amor est, necessitatem animadvertit monachus instantem ut totam suam vitam in adiumentum proximi praeter Deum ipsum transformet. Sic enim magnae hospitalitatis structurae explicantur nec non refugii et curae quae iuxta coenobia sunt ortae. Ita etiam permagna incepta defenduntur promotionis humanae formationisque christianae, quae pauperrimis ante omnes destinabantur, quorum participes esse voluerunt in primis monastici et mendicantes Ordines ac deinde variae virorum ac feminarum institutiones religiosae totam per Ecclesiae historiam. Personae Sanctorum quales sunt: Franciscus Assisiensis, Ignatius de Loyola, Ioannes a Deo, Camillus de Lellis, Vincentius de Paul, Ludovica de Marillac, Iosephus B. Cottolengo, Ioannes Bosco, Aloisius Orione, Teresia Calcuttensis — ut quorundam dumtaxat memorentur nomina — exemplaria caritatis socialis permanent illustria omnibus bonae voluntatis hominibus. Intra historiam adsunt sancti veri lucis portatores, quandoquidem viri ac feminae fidei sunt, spei et caritatis.

41. Outstanding among the saints is Mary, Mother of the Lord and mirror of all holiness. In the Gospel of Luke we find her engaged in a service of charity to her cousin Elizabeth, with whom she remained for “about three months” (1:56) so as to assist her in the final phase of her pregnancy. “Magnificat anima mea Dominum”, she says on the occasion of that visit, “My soul magnifies the Lord” (Lk 1:46). In these words she expresses her whole programme of life: not setting herself at the centre, but leaving space for God, who is encountered both in prayer and in service of neighbour—only then does goodness enter the world. Mary’s greatness consists in the fact that she wants to magnify God, not herself. She is lowly: her only desire is to be the handmaid of the Lord (cf. Lk 1:38, 48). She knows that she will only contribute to the salvation of the world if, rather than carrying out her own projects, she places herself completely at the disposal of God’s initiatives. Mary is a woman of hope: only because she believes in God’s promises and awaits the salvation of Israel, can the angel visit her and call her to the decisive service of these promises. Mary is a woman of faith: “Blessed are you who believed”, Elizabeth says to her (cf. Lk 1:45). The Magnificat—a portrait, so to speak, of her soul—is entirely woven from threads of Holy Scripture, threads drawn from the Word of God. Here we see how completely at home Mary is with the Word of God, with ease she moves in and out of it. She speaks and thinks with the Word of God; the Word of God becomes her word, and her word issues from the Word of God. Here we see how her thoughts are attuned to the thoughts of God, how her will is one with the will of God. Since Mary is completely imbued with the Word of God, she is able to become the Mother of the Word Incarnate. Finally, Mary is a woman who loves. How could it be otherwise? As a believer who in faith thinks with God’s thoughts and wills with God’s will, she cannot fail to be a woman who loves. We sense this in her quiet gestures, as recounted by the infancy narratives in the Gospel. We see it in the delicacy with which she recognizes the need of the spouses at Cana and makes it known to Jesus. We see it in the humility with which she recedes into the background during Jesus’ public life, knowing that the Son must establish a new family and that the Mother’s hour will come only with the Cross, which will be Jesus’ true hour (cf. Jn 2:4; 13:1). When the disciples flee, Mary will remain beneath the Cross (cf. Jn 19:25-27); later, at the hour of Pentecost, it will be they who gather around her as they wait for the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 1:14).

41. Inter sanctos eminet Maria, Domini Mater, omnisque sanctimoniae speculum. In Lucae Evangelio eam deprehendimus in ministerium caritatis incumbentem pro consobrina Elisabeth, apud quam « quasi mensibus tribus » (1, 56) morabatur ut extremo gravitatis tempore ei adsisteret. « Magnificat anima mea Dominum » (Lc 1, 46) dicit huius visitationis tempore, iisque vocibus totae vitae suae propositum explicat: ne videlicet sese in medio collocet, sed Deo locum cedat quem in precatione convenit sicut etiam in proximi ministerio — tunc solummodo mundus bonus fit. Maria prorsus antecellit eo quod se non vult magnam facere, sed Deum. Humilis est eaque nihil aliud esse vult quam ancilla Domini (cfr Lc 1, 38.48). Novit ipsa, solummodo non suam operam gerendo, at se agenti Deo prorsus dicando, mundi salutem se iuvare. Spei est mulier: tantummodo quia Israel salutem praestolatur, quia Dei promissionibus credit, accedere ad eam angelus potest eamque huius promissionis decretorium ad famulatum vocaturus. Fidei ipsa est mulier: « Beata, quae credidit » (Lc 1, 45), ei dicit Elisabeth. Magnificat illud — ut ita dicamus, eius animae quasi effigies — Sacrae Scripturae filis plane contexitur, filis scilicet Verbi Dei. Sic manifestatur, in Dei Verbo eam vere esse sua in domo, inde sponte exeuntem et illuc redeuntem. Per Dei Verbum loquitur et cogitat; Dei Verbum eius fit verbum, atque eius verbum ex Dei Verbo oritur. Ostenditur praeterea eius cogitationes Dei cogitationibus assimulari, eius voluntatem una esse cum Dei voluntate. Cum Dei Verbo penitus imbuatur, Verbi incarnati Mater fieri potest. Maria demum est mulier quae amat. Quomodo aliter fieri posset? Quippe quae credat atque in fide Dei cogitationibus cogitet ac Dei voluntate velit, nihil aliud potest esse ipsa quam mulier quae amat. Id nos percipimus in silentibus actibus, quos infantiae narrationes evangelicae memorant. Id nos perspicimus eius in lenitate, qua in Cana coniugum percipit necessitatem eamque Iesu exhibet. Id intellegimus in humilitae, qua ipsa patitur se in vita Iesu publica neglegi, cum sciat nunc novam familiam Filio esse instituendam suamque Matris horam tantum crucis tempore venturam, quae vera Iesu est hora (cfr Io 2, 4; 13, 1). Tunc, digressis discipulis, ipsa iuxta crucem stat (cfr Io 19, 25-27); quemadmodum postmodum Pentecostes tempore circa eam apostoli sese conglogabunt Spiritum Sanctum exspectantes (cfr Act 1, 14).

42. The lives of the saints are not limited to their earthly biographies but also include their being and working in God after death. In the saints one thing becomes clear: those who draw near to God do not withdraw from men, but rather become truly close to them. In no one do we see this more clearly than in Mary. The words addressed by the crucified Lord to his disciple—to John and through him to all disciples of Jesus: “Behold, your mother!” (Jn 19:27)—are fulfilled anew in every generation. Mary has truly become the Mother of all believers. Men and women of every time and place have recourse to her motherly kindness and her virginal purity and grace, in all their needs and aspirations, their joys and sorrows, their moments of loneliness and their common endeavours. They constantly experience the gift of her goodness and the unfailing love which she pours out from the depths of her heart. The testimonials of gratitude, offered to her from every continent and culture, are a recognition of that pure love which is not self- seeking but simply benevolent. At the same time, the devotion of the faithful shows an infallible intuition of how such love is possible: it becomes so as a result of the most intimate union with God, through which the soul is totally pervaded by him—a condition which enables those who have drunk from the fountain of God’s love to become in their turn a fountain from which “flow rivers of living water” (Jn 7:38). Mary, Virgin and Mother, shows us what love is and whence it draws its origin and its constantly renewed power. To her we entrust the Church and her mission in the service of love:

42. Sanctorum ad vitam non modo attinent terrestris vitae narrationes, sed eorum etiam vivere et in Deo post mortem operari. In Sanctis omnino patet: qui se ad Deum dirigit ab hominibus non separatur, sed eis vere fit proximus. In nemine id percipimus clarius quam in Maria. Crucifixi verbum ad discipulum — ad Ioannem scilicet et per eum ad omnes Iesu discipulos: « Ecce mater tua » (Io 19, 27) — generationum decursu usque de integro verum evadit. Maria facta est re omnium credentium Mater. Ad bonitatem eius maternam itemque puritatem virgineamque pulchritudinem se omnium temporum omniumque orbis locorum in necessitatibus ac exspectationibus, laetitiis ac doloribus, solitudinibus et communicata societate dirigunt homines. Atque eius bonitatis experiuntur donum, inexhaustum amorem experiuntur, quem imo ex corde ipsa effundit. Quod grati animi apud omnes continentes cunctasque culturas reperiuntur testificationes, hoc quasi amor ille purus agnoscitur, qui se ipse non requirit, sed simpliciter bonum vult. Demonstrat fidelium pietas eodem tempore certam perceptionem quo pacto talis amor fieri possit: longe intimam cum Deo per coniunctionem, per eius pervasionem — quod sinit ut is, qui Dei amoris ex fonte bibit, scaturigo ipse fiat ex quo « flumina ... fluent aquae vivae » (Io 7, 38). Maria, Virgo, Mater, nobis ostendit quid amor sit undeque oriatur, unde usque renovatam vim depromat. Ipsi Ecclesiam eiusque missionem, amori servientem, committimus:

Holy Mary, Mother of God,
you have given the world its true light,
Jesus, your Son – the Son of God.
You abandoned yourself completely
to God’s call
and thus became a wellspring
of the goodness which flows forth from him.
Show us Jesus. Lead us to him.
Teach us to know and love him,
so that we too can become
capable of true love
and be fountains of living water
in the midst of a thirsting world.

« Sancta Maria, Mater Dei,
veram mundo dedisti lucem,
Iesum, Filium tuum – Dei Filium.
Penitus te Deo vocanti tradidisti
atque ita scaturigo facta es
bonitatis, quae ex eo manat.
Iesum nobis monstra. Ad eum nos dirige.
Doce nos eum cognoscere eumque amare,
ut nos pariter
evadere veri amoris possimus capaces
atque sitienti coram mundo
aquae vitae reperiamur fontes.

Given in Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on 25 December, the Solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord, in the year 2005, the first of my Pontificate.

Datum Romae, apud Sanctum Petrum, die XXV mensis Decembris, in sollemnitate Natalis Domini, anno MMV, Pontificatus Nostri primo.

Pope Benedict XVI

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI