A Working Definition of Love

[troubledgoodangel]

Love is the most abused word in the world. This said, I being a Catholic theologian, tend to associate in principle with the broad meaning of love, encapsulated in the Italian expression ti voglio bene, which for the Italians means "to love," but which in a more precise sense means "all that I have in mind for you is good." But even with this definition, propagated by the modern theologian Joseph Pieper, and largely endorsed by the Catholic Church, many cautions and qualifications are in place, and some areas still need to be worked out. First and foremost, ti voglio bene has a meaning much more simplified for the First Commandment to love God, than for the Second Commandment to love men. In this first instance, when we love God, we love Him with all our hearts, all our souls, and all our minds and strengths. That's simple, absolutely all, period. This Commandment, and this definition thus understood, comprises all our love for neighbor, as well. The Second Commandment, though, refers also to men who are sinful and as such, introduces into the equation a variation of ti voglio bene that may include a corrective suffering, which never applies to God! In other words, there are instances when we have to correct the person, if we really mean that all that we have in mind for them is good! As can be seen from this ad hoc analysis: love is both wisdom and art which we can only truly learn from God in the measure that we live in Christ, and build on Christ!

[jeanne]

troubledgoodangel said:

The Second Commandment, though, refers also to men who are sinful and as such, introduces into the equation a variation of ti voglio bene that may include a corrective suffering, which never applies to God! In other words, there are instances when we have to correct the person, if we really mean that all that we have in mind for them is good!

Agreed. Fraternal correction has always been a part of Christian doctrine and is pretty clearly spelled out in scripture; it is however, a difficult one for many to implement, probably out of a misguided belief that it is better not to offend someone rather than offer a correction for their own good.

Jeanne

[Jaga]

I also like a greek word Agape for love or charity.

I agree, that the word "love" is overabused especially in one meaning.

[zooba]

I hate to hear at concerts when an articsts shouts: I love you all!!!

In Polish this word is not so much overused, the same applies to the word "friend".

[Jaga]

zooba said:

I hate to hear at concerts when an articsts shouts: I love you all!!!

In Polish this word is not so much overused, the same applies to the word "friend".

Zooba,

I agree with you. I tried to listen to some of the Sopot concert performances and everywhere are the love songs. In the part artists had a broader agenda on their mind. They were fighting for freedom, now they sing only about love, kiss and "put your arm on my shoulder" types of songs.

[troubledgoodangel]

Agape is the most popular definition of love today in most Christian circles. The definition predates Christianity, and probably harks back to Socrates' agape with his young students (for this see Plato's Symposium on Alcibiades who is said to have discovered that "love Socrates had for him was selfless"), and most certainly to the Jewish Birkat-ha-mazon agape meals, which were later Christianized in Didache. The Greek term basically means a spontaneous altruistic love, the kind of love that was practiced by the Early Christians. In the words of Anders Nygren ( a Lutheran professor and Bishop at the University of Lund, Sweden), "it was an almost entirely unselfish love, a yielding rather than self-assertive love, the love that does not seek to win life but dares to lose it." Contrary to Catholicism, Luther, Barth, and Nygren, all draw a sharp distinction between eros and agape. Eros, they say, even in its most sublime form, is the most selfish love there is, and therefore in opposition to properly understood Christian love. Luther went thus far as to say: est enim diligere seipsum odisse (to love means to hate oneself). Can we find a synthesis? We cannot say that Luther, Barth, and Nygren are all wrong. St. John of the Cross would certainly agree with them that the soul is tested and tried in the beginning. Jesus Himself has said that :"do not worry if they persecute you, and slander you, and say all kinds of evil things for My sake." He also said that, "he who loses his life for Me, will gain it." This means that if we sacrifice in the name of love, we will have a reward later. We must follow in His footsteps, and try to love the way He loved! The jury is still out on the precise definition of love. I myself plan to dedicate to it a chapter in my dissertation ... on suffering. I tend to associate with St. Thomas' view that "by nature the creature endowed with reason wishes to be happy and therefore cannot wish not to be happy" (Summa contra Gentiles, 4.92). Eros has been created by God, and therefore it is good. Once purified by self-negation, and once totally given to God, the enfleshed soul experiences more and more eros and agape simultaneously. I see this as the normal Plan of the Creation. But the soul must continue to sacrifice in this life, for we must renounce our "happiness" for the sake of another if we want to remain Christlike! This is why Pope Benedict says that "la sofferenza e l'altra faccia dell'amore" (Dio e il Mondo, 14, "La Croce"). This notion implies that love, and therefore agape, requires suffering at times, and that Christ would not want it any other way. Agape, besides (according to Pieper and most Catholic theologians), is a "gift-love": each time we truly give of ourselves, we experience a sort of deprivation. At the same time, however, our ever closer union with God makes our whole being happier and happier, body and soul, nonetheless. This is consistent with the biblical teaching in the Song of Songs, and in the last stanza of St. John of the Cross's Spiritual Canticle, in both of which the eros multiplies at the end, as our union with Jesus grows. I therefore happen to accept the definition of Leibnitz, for whom love "means to be inclined to rejoice in the perfection, in the goodness or in the happiness of another" (Codex iuris gentium diplomaticus, in Opera Omnia, ed. L. Dutens, 4.3: 295). This definition, which in Latin reads: amare sive diligere est felicitare alterius delectari, means that we rejoice in God Who is our Beloved, and we rejoice when we have to suffer on His behalf to help others and to make His Kingdom succeed.

[troubledgoodangel]

In essence, what is painful is putting on Christ, first in us, and then (and only then) sharing Him with others. It make take many years before we discover the Waters of Baptism in us, with their fountains of Grace, the Amazons, the Amurs, and the Yangtzes. Until we are thirsty, we won't find them, and this thirst will mean suffering. But once we are in Christ, and once we have discovered the Holy Spirit in us, the Paraclete He sends will take over, and henceforth we will no longer fear the suffering nor the eros that will come our way in what remains of our lives, for we will then know that all is well, that we have died and that we now live for Him and with Him eternally! Until all this happens, the immense deserts in the depths of our souls will continue parched and yearning for Love, and our agape will neither be complete, nor sincere.