Dostoevsky famously said, “Beauty will save the world.” What does this mean? How can beauty, an aesthetic sense, save the world? Contrary to popular opinion, while there is indeed a relative appreciation for beauty that allows one person to see something as beautiful and another not, beauty is more than mere aesthetics. Beauty is the spice of life which motivates us, moves us, enriches us; beauty, by its nature, attracts and encourages love as a response. We may or may not agree with Burke in calling this love a passion (cf. Edmund Burke, On the Sublime and Beautiful, Part III-1), but we can agree that beauty generates a strong response within us, one which causes loyalty and devotion in the one who beholds it. And it is this response which brings us out of ourselves, out of our individual prisons, and into the world, causing us to act on behalf of that love. This is why beauty is what saves, because beauty is what opens up the individual from their self-imposed sinful world, and shows them there is something different, important, desirable outside of themselves and that it is worthy of all respect and devotion Even if it requires us to sacrifice our own life, we will do so willingly, joyfully, out of the love generated within.
The Christian is one who has seen the beauty of Jesus Christ. They are so enraptured by the resultant love that they find within that they are changed forever. They realize that the commands of Christ are not just any commands, but the dictates of love. “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15, NRSV). We follow them because we do so out of love. The commandments are not to be seen as unwieldy, legalistic rules; they are merely representations of what one does when one has made their life a life united with love.
Through the incarnation, Christ united himself to every man and woman in creation, not only by sharing their one human nature in common, but also by becoming the new Adam in whose type we are to follow. By this union with all of humanity, all of us share in Christ, all of us partake of Christ, and we are called to see Christ in everyone. Admittedly, this is not an easy task, but the more one is filled with love for and of Christ, the more this will be done. In the final judgment, Jesus tells us that it is how we act out on this love that we will be judged:
Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.”Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?”And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me” (Matthew 25:34 – 40, NRSV).
The real consequences of this is properly understood by Dumitru Staniloae: “If the Christian must see Christ in every man and hear Christ’s cry for help in every human cry, then he cannot accept with patience the fact that his brother exists in a condition inferior to his own. It is of the nature of love, moreover, that it cannot tolerate inequality, for inequality creates distance. One who loves does not consider himself superior to the beloved. Instead love prompts us to strive for achievement of equality and justice among men” Dumitru Staniloae, Theology and the Church. trans. Robert Barringer (Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980),209.
Love is the center of Christian existence; love is the true motivator for Christian action in the world. Acts of charity, following the dictates of Social Doctrine, is not some secondary option for Christians. Rather, it is in their heartfelt union with Christ that Christians understand the message of love and the messenger, Jesus, are one and the same, and the only proper faithful response to Jesus is the act of love. “So we have known and believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them. Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the day of judgment, because as he is, so are we in this world” (1John 4:16-17, NRSV).
In his monumental work, Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Mankind, Henri de Lubac noted the slow inclusion of an individualism into the Catholic Church, and the devastating effects this has had on Catholicism. From the time he was writing (1940s), he “noticed that the modern theology of the Church has reflected Protestant individualism which it sought to correct in too extrinsic a fashion” Henri de Lubac, Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Mankind. trans. Lancelot C. Sheppard and Sister Elizabeth Englund (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), 314. This was, in part, the mistake of apologists who unwittingly took on many of the thoughts and concepts of their opponents. “In his struggle against heresy he always sees the question, more or less, willingly or unwillingly, from the heretic’s point of view. He often accepts questions in the form in which the heretic propounds them, so that without sharing the error he may make implicit concessions to his opponent, which are the more serious the more explicit are his refutations” (ibid, 312-3). While in Europe, and in the majority of modern theological treatises, it is correct to say, “The narrow-minded individualistic Christianity against which he strove is hardly our problem today” (Cardinal Ratzinger in the Foreword to the Ignatius Edition of Catholicism,12), those living within a society founded upon this individualism, such as the United States, still suffer the effects of this individualism. How else can we come to understand why many Catholics believe that an authentic Christian life is purely the exposition of correct doctrinal statements, rather than the life these statements intend to provide? How else can we explain the fact that many Catholics think the height of orthodoxy is to prove the deity of Christ, but fail to appreciate what Christ called us to do in the world? How can we explain the fact that the content of these doctrines are known but does not penetrate their hearts?
Where this happens, is it not in reality a continuation of the old debate of faith versus works, with a purely belief-oriented response finding itself a place in many Catholics hearts? It would be one thing if they took this stand properly, and followed through and believed everything that the Catholic Church and her leaders teaches; but do they really do that? No, they exercise their own prudential judgment, thinking it is of the same authority and kind of their leader, and believe that the only things which we must believe are specific kinds of teachings – teachings which place no real requirements on their activity. Christ’s deity, the Trinity, the ever-virginity of the Virgin Mary, and other such teaching, all perfectly true, are considered by many as the kind of teaching which is necessary for us to believe. If they believe, go to the sacraments (a minor intrusion in their life), and do no horrendous sin like abortion, they will be saved and that’s it; faith preserves them.
But what kind of faith is this? Is it true fidelity to Christ? He came, certainly teaching about his own person, but also about the responses expected out of us if we truly love him. You say you believe. Good. “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe–and shudder” (James 2:19). Belief is easy, but fidelity, true faithfulness, requires one to do more than believe, it requires an active response. Am I faithful to Christ if I believe in him but do not love him?
Certainly, it is often difficult for us to know what love would require of us in difficult situations; Catholic Social Doctrine (and that’s right, it’s doctrine!) gives us answers. As with all doctrinal statements, the Magisterium has the authority not only to declare a specific teaching, but to interpret it as well. Imagine how it would have been like around the time of Chalcedon if Eutyches had responded to Pope Leo’s Tome, “Well, that’s your prudential judgment; I disagree.” Most would tell him, “The Pope was speaking authoritatively on doctrine, listen to him.” Again, Catholic Social Doctrine is doctrine, and it falls under the category of “morals.” The Pope’s authority is found not only in issues concerning Christ’s person, but also in pronouncements concerning the good. Moreover, while it is true that there are various levels of authority that a Pope (or a Bishop) possesses, this does not mean that we can ignore the Pope or a Bishop when they are addressing moral questions. The Tome of St Leo to Flavian was not pronounced under the highest dictates of St Leo’s authority. It was written to address specific concerns of Flavian. While it was later taken up by the Council of Chalcedon, at the time of its writing, was it not just a “prudential judgment” of the Pope in dealing with a doctrinal question? What is the difference between prudential judgments on doctrinal questions such as the person of Christ or the Trinity with doctrinal questions about morality?
Indeed, the two must not be seen as separate from one another. Does not the teaching of the Trinity show to us the perfect society? Does it not show that a communion of persons in mutual respect and love is the way we are to be as Christians? “Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one” (John 17:11b). In the Trinity we find unity in diversity, each person equal and yet with a relative difference from every other person; is this not the oneness Christ wants us to have? To not understand this is to misunderstand the doctrine of the Trinity. It’s not just a fact, it is a reality and a reality which has consequences in our own lives. The same is true with all doctrinal teachings of the Church: they are professed, not just to be recited as facts, but to motivate the heart of the faithful Christian.
Thus, we must do more than believe, but we must act out our faith, even if it challenges us, even if it requires us to sacrifice ourselves in the process. This challenge is for all of us; I am acutely aware of my deficiencies here. With all my training in academic, systematic theology, it is very easy for me to be caught up in particulars without applying what I’ve learned to my relationships with others. The first step for all of us is to recognize our failings so that we can humbly work in overcoming them. What is it which puts us away from the fullness of Christ’s love? Is it family? Friends? One’s nation? One’s job? Surely these are all possible answers, but is not the truth something far more daring, and far more frightening? Is it not true that the real answer is that we are still captivated with ourselves, filled with so much self-love, that when we fail, it is because we think only in terms of ourselves and what we want? And is that not why Christ said if we are to live, we my first die to the self?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In