My assumption is that anyone who checks in on this blog probably has already checked in on Pope Benedict's new encyclical on hope.
I totally dig that Benedict continues to outright deconstruct Marxism in a clear and straightforward way...but that he is also more than willing to pick up remnants of the philosophy that are still salvageable. Consider his repeated claims that we can not sin in isolation, that there is an interconnectedness in our action that guide us towards an understanding of shared responsibility for sin and salvation. That's the kind of stuff that gets a Marxist philosopher all giddy inside, but Benedict can use it like a serpent handler without getting infected by its poison. (The idea of interconnectedness obviously is much older than Marx.) That is, the fault of Marxism is not the desire to improve the lot of fellow human beings or to suggest that we inherent our knowledge through social institutions rather than divine revelation (even St. Augustine makes this point in On Christian Doctrine). The problem with Marxism, or just about any -ism, is that it places all the hope and trust in man alone. As Benedict has shown me, the core flaw with Marxism in particular is that it believes that just because all human knowledge is transferred through humans, all knowledge must be generated and created by humans.
Obviously, this isn't really news if you've read the encyclical.
Another highlight for me was the way in which Benedict observed how the image of Christ as shepherd was not merely a useful political/ecclesiastical metaphor for early pagan converts...it was also deeply tied into the literary pastoral movement in ancient poetry. Benedict points out the classic satirists who were fond of praising the simple pastoral life over the chaos of Roman urban environments. It was one of those moments where several pieces of information that I already had in my head suddenly were joined together by a much wiser teacher.
6. As in the representation of the philosopher, so too through the figure of the shepherd the early Church could identify with existing models of Roman art. There the shepherd was generally an expression of the dream of a tranquil and simple life, for which the people, amid the confusion of the big cities, felt a certain longing.
I also was intrigued by the conjectures on Purgatory that he allows towards the end. (I was a little disturbed when he mentioned how mainstream Catholicism no longer "offers things up" anymore, but that we should consider reinvigorating the practice...it made me feel like I'm on the fringe.) More to the point, he considers how Purgatory might not necessarily be so much an organized Dantean structure as it might be an extreme sensation of shame in the moment when Christ first looks at us at our judgment.
46. In the concrete choices of life, however, it is covered over by ever new compromises with evil—much filth covers purity, but the thirst for purity remains and it still constantly re-emerges from all that is base and remains present in the soul. What happens to such individuals when they appear before the Judge? Will all the impurity they have amassed through life suddenly cease to matter? What else might occur...
47. Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves.
Comments