Caritas and Prophetic Language

 Monsignor Charles Pope on his blog Community in Mission has a couple of recent posts that relate to things I have been writing about recently.    

First, When Theology Must Fall Silent: 

In Scripture there is an “absolute” way of speaking that many of us moderns misconstrue. For example, Jesus says (quoting Hosea 6:6), For I desire mercy not sacrifice (Matt 9:13). To those untrained in Jewish and biblical idioms, the meaning would seem to be, “Skip all the sacrifice; God just wants you to be nice.” However, that misses the point of the idiom, which more accurately means this: “Practice mercy without neglecting sacrifice, for sacrifice is in service of mercy.” All of our rituals have the goal of drawing us to greater charity for God and neighbor. Caritas suprema lex (Charity is the highest law). Although charity is the highest law, that does not mean it is the only one. 

The basic Jewish and biblical idiom goes like this: “I desire A, not B.” This means that A is the goal, not B. However, B is not to be neglected because it is a means or a way to A (the goal).

This is important in refining the Both/And I mentioned a few posts ago.    Here what at first sight looks like an Either/Or is actually not.   In the Biblical idiom, it is a conjunction that asserts priority of one thing over the other, for the second thing is meant to serve the first thing.

Jesus states it very plainly when he says:  The Sabbath is made for Man, not man for the Sabbath."   And there are plenty of other examples of the dichotomy between mercy (or sometimes obedience) and sacrifice.   In Psalm 50, God actually says outright:  Do I need you to provide me with the flesh of bullocks?  When I was the one who made them, and you as well?   In other words, the thing itself (animal sacrifice) is not the crucial thing; it is meant for something else.   

Msr Pope goes on to talk about St Bonaventure and theology, and the post is well worth reading.     But I just wanted to bring out the kind of both/and that is phrased as an either/or, but without violating the principle of non-contradiction.  Rather, it is a hierarchy of truth and application.

Secondly, Msgr Pope talks about the Scriptural use of harsh, colorful language.  He says:

In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord warns of using uncivil and/or hateful words such as “Raqa” and “fool.” And yet the same Lord Jesus often used very strong language toward some of His opponents, sometimes calling them names such as vipers and hypocrites.

Msgr Pope's main point is that cultural standards vary and that the operating principle is balance in charity.   Just because Jesus and the apostles sometimes used denunciatory language doesn't mean that it's always OK to do it oneself.   At the same time, the rule of civility and courtesy doesn't always have to mean very circumspect, bland speech.    

This expresses something that bothered me a little about my post on St Ignatius:  All Suitable Means.      Though the basic principles apply -- truth and charity -- there is legitimate variation in how they operate in a given discourse.   

  Sometimes colorful, harsh language works very well; I especially appreciate it in the context of "punching up" -- when it's a way to startle the complacent and powerful and make your own (true) point more vivid.   That's how Jesus and the apostles often used it.  When it's a matter of bullying, with the people in charge berating those who will pay steep consequences for arguing back, then it's not so cool.  In fact, it's rather painful to read or hear.   

Maybe this is another way to say what Flannery O'Connor said about Southern writers.  

The Southern writer is forced from all sides to make his gaze extend beyond the surface, beyond mere problems, until it touches that realm which is the concern of prophets and poets. . . . For the kind of writer I have been describing, a literature which mirrors society would be no fit guide for it, and one which did manage, by sheer art, to do both these things would have to have recourse to more violent means than middlebrow subject matter and mere technical expertness.

She brings up the idea of prophecy, and prophets are another example of the use of harsh language.    Again, prophets are talking to rulers, to people that don't have to even counter-argue because they can just drop the prophet into a well or throw him in a furnace or into a lion's den.    But they are not just talking to the rulers themselves, but to the people.   And the people can see the power (and courage) discrepancy and judge accordingly.