Charity Begins at Home
An actual (not virtual) friend recently asked my opinion on this quotation:
“Christians know very well that it is only by affirming the infinite dignity of all that our own identity as persons and as communities reaches its maturity. Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups. In other words: the human person is not a mere individual, relatively expansive, with some philanthropic feelings! The human person is a subject with dignity who, through the constitutive relationship with all, especially with the poorest, can gradually mature in his identity and vocation. The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the “Good Samaritan” (cf.Lk10:25-37), that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.”
Not knowing who could have written such nonsense, I responded:
I don’t know who sent this farrago of nonsense but it means nothing. Imagine one should ask a two or three year old, “Whom do you love?” When the kid answers “I love mommy and Daddy (but no so much) and my brother ( a little, anyway), ” you’d have to rebuke him by saying you must love everyone all the time to the same extent.
The notion of concentric circles of moral responsibility goes back to an eclectic Stoic and the Stoic doctrine of oikeoisis. That which is oikeios is both domestic and one’s own and our process of ethical maturation means we grow in this capacity to embrace wider and wider circles without necessarily retaining a primary attachment to family.
I believe the Japanese have the term amai, which the psychiatrist Takeo Doi explains in two marvelous books, as the feeling experienced by the baby at his mother’s breast. This feeling gradually expands to include other family members, friends, neighbors, the Japanese people, and even to fellow-humans.
The worst ethical mistake made by Enlightenment "intellectuals" was their embrace of the abstraction of global citizenship. We big-brained apes are slow learners, and it takes most of us a long time to acknowledge the humanity of strangers. We learn this sense of charity not by reciting platitudes but by experience and practice. And, if we start out loving other people's children as much as we do our own, it means we do not actually love our own children. For more on this point, you might read The Morality of Everyday Life or The Reign of Love.
Like most Leftist "Christians" today, the writer clearly does not understand anything about either the context or significance of The Good Samaritan parable. The man learned in the Jewish law asks Jesus what is the greatest commandment, and our Lord recites the two great commandments, first to love God and then to love our neighbor. "Who is our neighbor?" asks the lawman.
This is an excellent question. The word neighbor in translations of the Scriptures is used for two different terms, expressed by separate words in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. One word refers to people who live near you, but the other designates those to whom you have a moral responsibility. The point is not that we should travel the world on a campaign of do-gooding but that religious officials--at that time the Jewish hierarchy of priests and Levites and today the Christian clergy and hierarchy--are not always willing to fulfill their duty.
Confronted with human misery, the priest and Levite go their way, but the heretical Samaritan, viewed as worse than a gentile, shows his capacity for charity. The parable is a small part of Jesus' effective demonstration that official Judaism has failed the Jewish nation and not a commandment to treat all strangers as members of your own family. It is easy for princes of the Church to tell working class families to welcome anarchic invaders who threaten their security and raise their taxes. Just try moving into the Vatican without filling out paperwork and see where that gets you!
Not surprisingly the paragraph is attributed to a Pope who has long past the time when he was able to think through any serious question. Fortunately, Popes spend much of their time making obiter dicta remarks that do not affect the sacred tradition.
You gave nailed it, Good Doctor.
Please forgive the typo! You have nailed it.
Phil Gramm, retired conservative Texas Congressman, and all time grump, was questioned by a media member about his charitable sense. The media guy stated that he, the media member, loved Gramm’s kids as much as he loved his own. Gramm asked “Sure, what are my kids’ names” Crickets.
I am happy to learn one good thing about Phil Gramm. When he was running for the presidential nomination, I attended a fund-raiser he appeared at. Even before AI, Republicans sounded like artificial stupidity.
The irony is that the last two of the cited verses imply concentricity of “neighbor”. I don’t think it is cynical to say so, since Our Lord Himself phrased the question to assume exclusion: the priest and the Levite are *not* the fallen man’s neighbors.
So love of our actual neighbors, families, and country is supposed to be second-rate & suspect, by order of the Pope. I guess some people just can’t help themselves.
1) “it is only by affirming the infinite dignity of all that our own identity as persons and as communities reaches its maturity.”
2) . Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups.
3) In other words: the human person is not a mere individual, relatively expansive, with some philanthropic feelings!
I think this kind of language comes from Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, or “Tucho“ as they call him in Rome. It’s a kind of philosophical gibberish indeed but can be found everywhere these days and was especially prevalent among South American leftists forty years ago.
Kind of pathetic actually but passes the litmus test for “ walking together” and “Listening Church of Today”
I thought Toms initial reaction: “ I don’t know who sent this farrago of nonsense but it means nothing. ” was spot on! Nothing! Nothing at all.
I’m looking forward to the day when it’s declared Anathema to use the phrase “infinite dignity” in relation to Man.
On the bright side, we can reason that we do not diminish a man’s infinite dignity by sending him to live in his own country.