Friday, September 28, 2012

Archangel Raphael 'Medicine of God' to Tobit (Father of Tobias/Job)

 
 

Taken from: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kathyschiffer/2012/09/st-raphael-an-angel-with-many-hats/

....

St. Raphael: An Angel with Many Hats?

September 25, 2012 By 8 Comments
 


On September 29, the Catholic Church celebrates the Feast of the three Archangels who have been venerated throughout the history of the Church:
  • Michael (from the Hebrew Who Is Like God?), who defends the friends of God against Satan and all his evil angels;
  • Gabriel (the Power of God), chosen by the Creator to announce to Mary the mystery of the Incarnation; and
  • Raphael (the Medicine of God or God Heals), the archangel who, in the book of Tobit, takes care of Tobias on his journey.
These archangels, all of whom play cameo roles in the Scriptures, have been venerated since the early days of the Church–but it’s Raphael I want to talk about today. Raphael has been called the Patron of Healing. Raphael is also the patron of the blind, of happy meetings, of nurses, of physicians, and of travelers.

ST. RAPHAEL IN THE SCRIPTURES

The Old Testament book of Tobit tells the story of how Tobit, a devout Jew in exile in Assyria, and his son Tobias (sometimes called Tobiah) were rewarded for their piety and good deeds.
Two fervent prayers for help
Against the orders of the evil king Sennaherib, Tobit—who respected the Jewish burial customs—buried the bodies of Jews who had been executed by Sennaherib in Nineveh. Because of this, the king ordered Tobit to be captured and killed. Tobit fled and hid among his kinsmen. One day, Tobit was looking toward the sky when some bird droppings landed in his eyes and blinded him. No longer able to work because of his blindness, Tobit did not curse God, but instead prayed for God to end his life.
As Tobit was praying for release from this life, a young widow named Sarah also prayed to God to end her misery. Sarah had had seven husbands, but each of them had been killed by a demon on their wedding night. Sarah feared that she was cursed and could never have a husband and family of her own.
In answer to these prayers, God sent the Archangel Raphael to Earth to help them.
Tobias embarks on his mission
Tobit, unable to work because of his blindness, sent his son to the town of Media to request repayment on a loan. Tobit instructed Tobias to hire a guide to accompany him on the journey; so Tobias enlisted the assistance of Azariah, who was really the archangel Raphael in disguise.
But why is he portrayed with a fish?
When the two companions reached the Tigris River, Tobias stopped to wash. As he knelt on the bank, a great fish leapt out of the water and frightened him. Raphael instructed Tobias to seize the fish by the fins, kill it, and remove its heart, liver and gallbladder. He revealed to Tobias that burning the heart and liver would drive away evil spirits, and that the gallbladder could cure blindness. So Tobias salted the organs to preserve them, and wrapped them safely for their journey.
Azariah (Raphael) and Tobias then traveled together toward Media. Along the way, Raphael told Tobias about Sarah and encouraged him to take her as his bride, since he was her only eligible kinsman. Tobias was afraid to marry her, fearing that he would die like Sarah’s seven other husbands; but Raphael assured him that the fish’s heart and liver would protect him.
Tobias agreed, and he and Sarah were married. After the ceremony Sarah’s father—saddened because he believed Tobias would suffer the same fate as Sarah’s seven other husbands—dug a new grave beside their house, beside the seven other graves. But when Tobias and his new wife Sarah went to their bedroom that night, Tobias unwrapped the fish’s heart and liver and laid them upon the hot coals in the fireplace. The evil spirit appeared, as he had seven times before; but Tobias fanned the bitter smoke toward him and the spirit ran shrieking from the room.
The next morning, the newly married couple emerged whole and smiling from their room. Sarah’s parents, filled with joy, celebrated with them for fourteen days. Sarah’s father gave the newlyweds half of his property, with a promise that they would inherit the other half upon his death. Then the couple started home toward Nineveh.
A joyful homecoming
As they approached Tobit’s house, Tobias saw his blind old father stumbling toward them in the road. Tobias ran forward and anointed his father’s eyes with the fish’s gall, and Tobit regained his sight. He embraced his son and his new bride and welcomed them joyously into his home.
When Tobias told his father how Azariah (Raphael) had helped him on his journey and had cured Tobit’s blindness, Tobit sent for the guide to reward him. But when Raphael stood before Tobit, Raphael revealed to them who he really was and then suddenly vanished from sight.
Prayer to St. Raphael, the Archangel
Blessed Saint Raphael, Archangel,
we beseech you to help us in all our needs and trials of this life,
as you, through the power of God, restored Tobit’s sight
and gave guidance to young Tobiah.
We humbly seek your aid and intercession,
that our souls may be healed,
our bodies protected from all ills,
and that through divine grace we may become fit to dwell
in the eternal Glory of God in Heaven.
Amen.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Bible Critics Can Overstate Idea Of ‘Enlightened Pagan’


 

by

Damien F. Mackey



“Salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22)


“I will arouse your sons, O Zion, against your sons, O Greece” (Zechariah 9:13)



PART ONE


Here it will be argued that - contrary to what is often believed about the following biblical characters - none of these can really accurately be designated as an‘enlightened pagan’:


1.MELCHIZEDEK

2.RAHAB (in genealogy of David and Jesus)

3.RUTH

4.ACHIOR (in my Catholic Bible, Book of Judith)

5.JOB

6.(Probably also) the Magi.


Let us consider why.


1.MELCHIZEDEK was not an enlightened Canaanite priest-king. Melchizedek was the great Shem, son of Noah. This is apparently a Jewish tradition and I have long accepted it. Now, this is all explained very well in a recent article that I have posted at: http://amaic-abraham.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/melchizedek-was-shem-son-of-noah.html



Regarding 2, 3 and 4, for Rahab (as specified above), Ruth and Achior to have been former Gentile pagans, Canaanite in the first case (2.) and Moabites in the other two instances (3. and 4.), then this would have meant a serious flouting of Mosaic law and prohibitions: Deuteronomy 7 in the case of Rahab (see article posted at: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/the-genealogical-rachab-was-not.html), and Deuteronomy 23:3 for the presumed Moabites (see article posted at: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/ruth-was-israelite.html).



2.RAHAB. The Canaanite harlot, Rahab, whose ‘faith’both Paul (Hebrews 11:31) and James (2:25) praised incidentally (like Jesus with the Roman centurion, Luke 7:1-10), was not she who became the ancestress of David and Jesus, despite what is universally taught. The true situation, as well explained in the above-mentioned “Rachab” article, is that Rahab the harlot is to be distinguished from the Israelite woman, Rachab (note different spelling), whose name is to be found in the Davidic genealogical list.


3.RUTH. I have long believed, too, that Ruth of the Judges era could not plausibly have been a Moabitess for reasons already explained (Deuteronomy 23:3), but considered especially in my extensive research on the identity of Achior, presumably a Moabite, in the Book of Judith (see 4. next). I discussed Achior at length in Volume Two of my university thesis, A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background (accessible at: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973). Whilst Ruth, a woman, apparently gets away with it, Achior, a male, does not (see 4. next). Then necessity of Ruth’s being an Israelite is well argued in the above-mentioned “Ruth” article.


4.ACHIOR. I argued at length in the above-mentioned university thesis that Achior was not a Moabite at all but a Naphtalian Israelite. He was Ahikar (var. Achior, Vulgate), the nephew of Tobit (Book of Tobit 1:22). The mistaken notion that Achior was a Moabite leader is perhaps the primary reason why the Jews have not accepted the Book of Judith as part of the scriptural canon. I live in the hope that this can one day be rectified.


5.JOB I have firmly identified as Tobit’s very son, Tobias. See our site, “Holy Job Was An Israelite”, http://bookofjob-amaic.blogspot.com.au/ Thus the righteous Job was, not an enlightened Edomite (and not an Arabian sheikh), but a sage of Israel.


6.THE MAGI. There is some tradition that has them descending from the family of Job. I would suspect that the “east” in which the Magi dwelt was, not Persia by any means, but the same approximate “east”wherein Job dwelt, in the land of Uz, in Transjordanian Bashan. See our Jobian articles at site, “Holy Job Was An Israelite”.


PART TWO


Our {AMAIC} appreciation of the cultural, sapiential and spiritual supremacy of the holy people of Israel (the sincere Yahwists) has led to further important Israelitic identifications of certain famous historical characters (even dynasties), such as:


-the gifted Senenmut (Senmut) of 18th dynasty Egyptian history, consort of Hatshepsut, with King Solomon. See our site: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/ Hatshepsut herself rightly being identified by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos, I) with the biblical Queen [of] Sheba. See our site: http://hatshepsut-amaic.blogspot.com.au/

-King Hammurabi the Lawgiver as King Solomon again, this time in his guise as ruler of Babylon. See our site: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/


And, selectively following Dr. E. Metzler, “Conflict of Laws in the Israelite Dynasty of Egypt” (http://moziani.tripod.com/dynasty/ammm_2_1.htm), I have accepted his identification of Egypt’s 18th dynasty as Israelite, with the mighty Thutmoside pharaohs as Davidide.

The El Amarna dynasty was, I believe, a Baalistic Israelite resurgence under King Ahab (Akhnaton) and his wicked Phoenician wife, Queen Nefertiti (Jezebel). See e.g. our: http://queennefertiti-amaic.blogspot.com.au/

General Jehu is the ambiguous Horemheb, making the 19th dynasty that he (Horemheb) initiated, as Syro-(Israelite?).

And I further suspect that Egypt’s 20th dynasty was Judaean again, with pharaoh Ramses III as the mighty King Amaziah of Judah. See our: http://ramsesiii-amaic.blogspot.com.au/



To conclude


Whilst there are indeed to be found in the Scriptures some highly ‘enlightened pagans’or Gentiles of ‘faith’, such as Rahab the harlot and the Roman centurion, the Old Testament ones at least would not have been allowed into the Yahwistic fold according to the very strict Laws of Moses.


Thursday, September 20, 2012

Did Jair, Samson and Jephthah Judge Together?



Yes, according to http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-route-date-chronology-of-judges.htm

....
  1. Samson and Jephthah were two judges that arose in different parts of the country at the same time. We can place Jephthah at 1100 BC (Judges 11:26) but we are unsure exactly where to place Samson.
  2. Judges 10:6-8 is a transitional text in the book of Judges that acts as an introduction to the next two Judges: Jephthah who defeated the Ammonites, and Samson who defeated the Philistines: "The anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and He sold them into the hands of the Philistines and into the hands of the sons of Ammon." Judges 10:7. This also proves that Jephthah and Samson judged at the same time because God sold them into the hands of two nations during a single period of his anger. Nothing could be clearer than this.
  3. Remember that Samson did not stop the 40 year oppression of the Philistines until the day he died. This means we include his 20 year judgeship inside the 40 years of Philistine oppression. The oppression and judgeship ended at the same time. Samson judged for 20 years, but the Philistine oppression of 40 years ran concurrently with his judgeship, because the Philistines were not routed until Samson died! This means that adding 20 years of judgeship time to 40 years of oppression time for a total time span of 60 is wrong. In fact from Samson, we can see that there were 20 years of oppression before Samson started judging. Then Samson judged 20 years during the final 20 years of Philistine oppression. Most make the mistake of viewing a period of 40 years of oppression that ended when Samson started judging and that the land had peace for the next 20 years.
  4. Also take note that Saul and David fought the Philistine Goliath in 1021 BC. So the battles with the Philistines was an ongoing matter.
  5. Since we are told that Jephthah lived in 1100 BC, we will use "Indivisible unit 3": Jephthah - Abdon (48 years), from 1100 BC forward and basically ignore Samson. Samson should be placed directly on top of the Jephthah - Abdon chronology, although we cannot be sure exactly what dates are involved.
  6. We need to also remember that when Jephthah said it had been 300 years, this was after the Ammonites had already crushed Israel for 18 years from 1118 - 1100 BC. (10:8). So we know that the "300 years" dates from the first year he was judge and the last year of the Ammonite oppression when he defeated them. This also means that Jair judged during the entire time of the Ammonite oppression and died in the fourth year that Jephthah was judge in 1096 BC.
  7. It is clear that the oppression of the Ammonites was isolated to the transjordan region of Gilead alone. Samson's judgeship centered around the Philistines at the modern Gaza strip area in the far south west. So Jair was judge in the central and northern sections of Canaan. These three distinct geographic areas make it clear how Jair, Samson and Jephthah could be judges at the same time.

....

Did Deborah and Gideon Judge Together?


 
 
 
....

We can prove that Deborah and Gideon judged at the same time. After each Judge the narrative tells us there were two periods of 40 years where the land had rest. Most view these as two different sets of 40 years which they add up to 80 chronological years. However, these two periods of 40 years of rest are in fact the same period and amount to a total of only 40 chronological years. Therefore we match the 40 years of rest of Gideon (8:28) with the 40 years of rest of Deborah (5:31) and it creates a close harmony with the 300 years of Jephthah in Judges 11:26.

By lining up the two 40 years of peace, we very nicely splice the end of "indivisible unit 1", with the beginning of "indivisible unit 2".

This shows us that Israel was being oppressed in the north by the Canaanites at the same time the Midianites were crossing the Jordan and raiding the crops of central Israel, then returning transjordan.

Deborah's battle was at Mt. Tabor and involved 10,000 men from the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun: "the God of Israel, has commanded, 'Go and march to Mount Tabor, and take with you ten thousand men from the sons of Naphtali and from the sons of Zebulun." Judges 4:6.

Gideon's battle started in the valley of Jezreel, then moved transjordan far east of the Jordan and involved a specialized army of 300 from Manasseh, Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali: "the Midianites and Amalekites and the sons of the east ... camped in the valley of Jezreel. ... Gideon ... called together to follow him: Manasseh, Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali, and they came up to meet them." Judges 6:33-35.

The critical link between Deborah and Gideon is in the tribes who fought and the tribes who refused to fight. Deborah started judging 13 years before Gideon and chastised the region of Gilead, and the tribes of Dan and Asher because they would not join in the battle: "Gilead remained across the Jordan; And why did Dan stay in ships? Asher sat at the seashore, And remained by its landings." Judges 5:17. She praises Zebulun and Naphtali for joining the battle: ""Zebulun was a people who despised their lives even to death, And Naphtali also, on the high places of the field." Judges 5:18

When Gideon (from the tribe of Manasseh) started judging 13 years later, the same tribes fight and the same tribes refused! Gideon comes to two towns in Gilead (‍Succoth and Penuel) and asks the leaders for food to feed his army of 300 and they both refuse. (8:5-8) Gilead had previously refused Deborah's request for help at Mt. Tabor: "Gilead remained across the Jordan" Judges 5:17. So this was the second time Gilead had refused to fight for their brethren. After Gideon destroys Midian, he returns and destroys the town leaders of Gilead (‍Succoth and Penuel). A kind of "two strikes and you're out" policy with God. Later Gilead would redeem themselves under Jephthah, who himself was a Gileadite who saved themselves from the Ammonite oppression. Perhaps still not that noble, since they were merely defending their own home turf from the invasion of the king of Ammon. Good thing the Gileadites had no French genes in them, or else they would have just surrounded to the Ammonites and expected the other tribes to liberate an fight for them!

So we can prove that Deborah and Gideon Judged at the same time because they same two tribes (Zebulun and Naphtali) willingly supplied valiant warriors and the Gilead refused both of them to fight. This is an enormous key to unlocking the chronology of Judges!

Since Deborah and Gideon judged at the same time, then the 40 years of peace that followed both are identical and should be laid upon one another in chronological terms.

....

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Ecclesiastes. A Testament of King Solomon's Repentance

 
 
Taken from: http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=ec&chapter=009

....


ECCLESIASTES 9

This chapter actually concludes the part of Ecclesiastes which is the most difficult to understand and interpret. Up to this point Solomon has written a lot of things which, to a Christian, do not make any sense at all. What is the explanation of this? Scholars vary in their explanations; but the conclusion must be; (1) that Solomon is rehearsing the allegations of materialistic unbelievers with a view to refuting them in his conclusion (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14), (2) that he was writing of what he saw `under the sun,' and not of what he believed, or (3) that, "Solomon, for the time being, had abandoned his faith in God, altogether,"F1 and that his words throughout Ecclesiastes thus far indicate that, "Man would not know that there was any fundamental difference between a man and a beast."F2 This writer has been unable to find a convincing answer as to which of these explanations should be adopted.
Part of the reason for this uncertainty lies in the enigma of Solomon's life. He was a man greatly loved by the Lord, endowed with great wisdom, who prayed a magnificent prayer at the dedication of the Temple, and who was the most honored and glorified person (from the human standpoint) in the whole history of Israel. In spite of this, however, any careful student of God's Word must conclude that the magnitude of Solomon's wickedness was immeasurable. It is this fact that suggests the possibility that Ecclesiastes is generally a statement of Solomon's unbelief; but if that is true, it would mean that the conclusion in Eccl. 12 was later added by an inspired writer, as some scholars affirm (although without any proof whatever). Another explanation of the magnificent "conclusion of the whole matter" (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14) is that Solomon finally came to his senses and returned to the love and service of God. This is the interpretation that seems most logical to this writer.
"The Jews generally, and also St. Jerome, hold the book to have been written by Solomon following his repentance and restoration from the idolatry into which he had fallen through the influence of the heathen women he had married."F3
We find it impossible to believe that "all is vanity," a declaration that occurs dozens of times in the book. Nor can it be true that men and animals have the same fate. Who can believe that, "Eat, drink, and be joyful," is, in any sense whatever, the ultimate meaning and employment of life? It is impossible to believe that the "dead know nothing," except in a limited sense. Moses and Elijah stood on the mountain of transfiguration and carried on a conversation with Jesus Christ. Of course, Solomon lived before the magnificent revelation of life and immortality that were brought to mankind in the life and teachings of the Christ; but Solomon's father David certainly would never have said a lot of things that one finds in Ecclesiastes.
Also, the idea of the hopelessness and futility of life, stressed throughout Ecclesiastes, was by no means accepted by the patriarchs. They most certainly believed in the possibility, if not the certainty, of life after death. Abraham was willing to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice, because, "He believed that God was able to raise Isaac from the dead" (Hebrews 11:19).
From all these considerations, this writer favors the view that Solomon indeed repented (even as did Manasseh), and that after his return to God, he was inspired to write this book, and that many of the things written in Ecclesiastes represent views which Solomon once had erroneously received, and which, when he wrote Ecclesiastes, he would reject and outlaw altogether in his conclusion (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).
We have previously mentioned Paul's description of his life under the Mosaic Law (Rom. 7), which is analogous to what was probably Solomon's life (and beliefs) prior to his repentance. In all of Ecclesiastes, we should never forget that it was written long ages before the glorious revelation of the New Testament was delivered to mankind, certified and sealed by the death, burial and resurrection of the Son of God.

ALL IS IN THE HAND OF GOD
Verse 1
For all this I laid to my heart, even to explore all this: that the righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God; whether it be love or hatred, man knoweth it not; all is before them. The grand truth stated here is that God is in control. Everything that occurs, in the final analysis, happens under the permissive will of God. The meaning of the latter part of this verse is that, "We are unable to discern from that which we may observe taking place in life, which men are living under God's displeasure, and which ones are those whom he loves."F4

THE SAME FATE COMES TO ALL
Verses 2-6
All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth and to him that sacrificeth not; as is the good, so is the sinner; [and] he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath. This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea also, the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that [they go] to the dead. For to him that is joined with all the living there is hope; for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. As well their love, as their hatred and their envy, is perished long ago; neither have they any more a portion for ever in anything that is done under the sun. We should preface this paragraph with imaginary words from Solomon: "This is the way I viewed things while in rebellion against God." If this should not be considered a valid understanding of the paragraph, then we should limit what is said here as a declaration of the way things appear when they are viewed purely from an earthly and materialistic viewpoint, as characteristic of what is done "under the sun." All things come alike to all(Ecclesiastes 9:2). There is no way that this can be strictly true. True, the event of death comes to all; but this says, all things come alike to all men! They go to the dead(Ecclesiastes 9:3). This, as it stands in the passage, is cited as the end of everything. And, in the earthly sense, of course it is. This is an obstinate fact; but God has placed in man's heart some equally obstinate intuitions that contradict it. He has set eternity in their heart (Ecclesiastes 3:11). And this pushes us toward an answer that lies beyond the pages of Ecclesiastes; and that is, The prospect (even the certainty) of reward and punishment in the world to come.F5 Loader interpreted what is written here as saying that, "Religious and moral qualities of man do not have the weight of a feather in affecting his fate."F6 This might not be the correct understanding of what is written here; but the passage surely allows that as one understanding of it. One thing is sure, "If that is what the text says, it is a lie," and must be understood as the false teaching Ecclesiastes was designed to refute and deny. For the living know that they shall die(Ecclesiastes 9:5). This knowledge on the part of the living is here cited as the one and only reason given in the text that living is any better than being dead. This cannot be true, because the living may still turn to God, obey the holy gospel and attain unto eternal life, whereas that opportunity does not belong to the dead. The incredible pessimism of this passage staggers one's imagination. "Such an alleged `advantage' of living as compared with death only serves to strengthen the emphatic finality of death."F7 But death is not final! "It is appointed unto man once to die, and after this cometh judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). Solomon's conclusion (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14) refutes what is written here. The dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward(Ecclesiastes 9:5). The Seventh Day Adventists have taken this verse as the proof of their false doctrine that, Resurrection is a restoration to life of the non-existent dead. No soul is conscious after death.F8 But is not this in the Word of God? Certainly, just like the word of Satan is found in the Word of God (Genesis 3:4). It is not written that God said, The dead do not know anything, but that Solomon, one of the wickedest men who ever lived, said it. Even if Solomon believed it, which is questionable, because he might have been recounting his religious philosophy during the times of his apostasy, -- but even if he believed it, it could not possibly be true. The glorious one who is Greater than Solomon gave us the story of the rich man and Lazarus; and the rich man is represented as being, not merely conscious after death, but in terrible pain and anxiety regarding his brethren who had not yet died, but who were living wickedly as he had lived. (See Luke 16:19-31). Oh yes, this is a parable, but it is not a fable; and one of the characteristics of a parable is that it is based upon an event which either happened or could have happened. Jesus never used parables to teach lies to his followers. Also, in Revelation we have this, "I saw underneath the altar the souls of them that had been slain for the Word of God, and for the testimony which they held; and they cried with a great voice, saying, How long, O Master, the holy and true, dost not thou judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth"?F9 In the light of what the Christ has said, one may safely set aside what the wicked Solomon is here reported in God's Word to have said. The Seventh Day Adventist notion that the resurrection is the creation of the non-existent dead is also an outright contradiction of Christ's declaration that "God is the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, and that he is the God of the living, not of the dead." (Matthew 22:32). This clearly states that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living (even in the state of death) and that they are not non-existent.

EAT, DRINK, ETC, FOR TOMORROW YOU DIE
Verses 7-10
Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God hath already accepted thy works. Let thy garments be always white; and let not thy head lack oil. Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of thy life of vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all thy days of vanity: for that is thy portion in life, and in thy labor wherein thou laborest under the sun. Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do [it] with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in Sheol, whither thou goest. This, of course, is Epicureanism. "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." This philosophy is absolutely worthless, unless death is the end of everything. As Paul stated it, "If the dead are not raised up, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" (1 Corinthians 15:32). Solomon has repeatedly advocated this doctrine, not only here, but in Eccl. 1:9; 1:15; 3:1-9; and in Eccl. 3:14-15. This was evidently the position that he accepted during the days of his apostasy. One question that arises from this interpretation is that of whether or not Solomon ever repented and turned to God as the Jews allege that he did. We find no Biblical support of that idea anywhere. Nevertheless, that is a necessary corollary of our interpretation of Ecclesiastes. God hath already accepted thy works(Ecclesiastes 9:7) ... Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest. which he (God) hath given thee (Ecclesiastes 9:9). Here we have a glimpse of the penitent and restored Solomon honoring God for his marvelous gifts and praising him for the blessings given to the sons of men, even while he is still relating the stubborn and rebellious things that he had once believed. Note that he referred twice in these few verses to life as vanity. There is also here a favorable mention of marriage and the loving of one wife all the days of thy vanity (Ecclesiastes 9:9), which is surprising enough from an author like Solomon. The great value of Ecclesiastes is that it elaborates fully the absolute worthlessness and vanity of life on earth by any man who lives without the fear of God and submission to the divine authority of our Creator.

THE RACE IS NOT TO THE SWIFT, NOR THE BATTLE TO THE STRONG
Verses 11, 12
I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare, even so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them. This passage, one of the most famous in Ecclesiastes, should be understood as dealing with unexpected exceptions to what may be generally expected. The swift usually win the race, and the battle usually goes to the strong, but not always! It was an untimely rain that defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, and a purposeless bow-shot that slew Ahab. All kinds of happenings may intervene to make:
The best laid schemes of mice and men
Gang aft a-gley!
An' lea'e us naught but grief and pain
For promised joy.F10
In the recent Olympic races, the swiftest runner, unanimously favored to win, suffered a fall; and another took the prize.
In his rebellious days, Solomon looked upon all such disappointments as more proof that, "all is vanity." Incidentally, we have often cited Eccl. 9:11 here as another reason why the righteous sometimes suffer, whereas the wicked sometimes prosper and are honored. This is only one among half a dozen other reasons. Time and chance happeneth to them all(Ecclesiastes 9:11). All kinds of unpredictable and uncontrollable events may, and frequently do, change good fortune into bad fortune, or vice versa. Kidner thought that there was a bare possibility that Paul had this verse in mind when he wrote, So it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy (Romans 9:16); but he pointed out that, Paul's concept is far different from that here. Paul noted that God has mercy upon all mankind, but there is not a trace of any thought of God's compassion here.F11

THE POOR WISE MAN WHO DELIVERED A CITY
Verses 13-15
I have also seen wisdom under the sun on this wise, and it seemed great unto me: There was a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it. Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man. This incident was evidently included in the book here as another example of the `vanity' which the author found in everything that he saw `under the sun.' Indeed, there is something distressing in this. Look at the monuments men have built all over the world. Whom do they honor? Generally, they honor those who butchered their thousands and tens of thousands on bloody battlefields, but not the wise statesmen who negotiated peace. "How warped are our human value systems! Jesus said, `Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God'" (Matthew 5:9)."F12 The sad fact of this little city's true benefactor having been forgotten is only one of a million other similar situations in which there have been gross miscarriages of human justice and even intelligence. Why? The status of our human race is the only explanation that is needed. Our race, which is in rebellion against God, is divinely condemned to death. "Thou shalt surely die" (Genesis 2:17). If one leaves God and his merciful provision for man's redemption out of consideration, our wretched race, wallowing in the miseries, disease and violence which are the fruit of its own wickedness, is indeed `vanity of vanities.' Solomon's analysis of what he saw `under the sun' was profoundly correct, if the observer leaves God out of his analysis, as Solomon was obviously doing in this part of Ecclesiastes.
....
 
 
See also the excellent PDF article:

Did Solomon write Ecclesiastes in repentance?



Wednesday, September 12, 2012

True Culture and Civilisation of Man




THE CHRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY OF JOHN PAUL II: AN OVERVIEW [1]



by Fr Thomas McGovern



Over the past twenty years of his pontificate, John Paul II has deepened our understanding of the Gospel message in many ways. Yet it is perhaps in his discussion of Christian anthropology that the former Archbishop of Krakow has made his most original contribution to theological discourse. [2]



The Church in the twentieth century has responded with greater sensitivity to the anthropological dimension of theology. This has not happened by accident. Particular philosophers and theologians made valuable contributions to this enterprise which found expression in the documents of Vatican II, especially in the pastoral constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, and the decree on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae. [3]



Vatican II was the first council of the Church to affirm a detailed Christian anthropology. The need to do so arose as a response to the materialistic conception of man which has dominated much of the twentieth century. This climate of materialism was fueled by three main currents. In the first place there was the materialism of modern science. The experimental method tended to the view that, since only what can be measured is real, only material reality exists. At the human level, advances in biology, influenced by the theory of evolution, had led to a depreciation of the spiritual dimension of man. Secondly, the influences of the Marxist philosophy of materialism, in a tyranny without precedent in human history, brought misery and death to countless millions. Finally, a more subtle materialism which has drugged the spirit of man, and which is expanding rapidly, is the practical materialism of the West. This is the fruit of the rapid development of technology, creating a wealthy society driven by consumerism. This society measures progress solely in terms of material wealth, and effectively reduces the practice of politics to the maintenance of favorable economic conditions. The driving principles of this rapidly expanding practical materialism are the primacy given to individual subjective rights, and the dominance of a liberal capitalistic outlook indifferent to social responsibilities at a global level.



It was these negative influences that inspired attempts to construct a more adequate Christian anthropology. Here it is only possible to mention a few of the major contributors to this project. In Crossing the Threshold of Hope John Paul II refers to the contributions of two Jewish thinkers, Martin Buber (1878-1965) and Emmanuel Lévinas (1906-95), who had drawn on the personalist tradition of the Old Testament and had influenced his own thinking. [4] In Buber’s perspective, man is a being made for relationships at three levels – with his fellow man, with the world, and with God. [5] Other philosophers such as Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973), Jacques Maritain (1882-1973), and Emmanuel Mounier (1905-50) made their own individual contributions to this personalist philosophy. Indeed it has been pointed out that the distinction which Marcel made between ‘being’ and ‘having’ had a profound influence on the anthropology of Vatican II as well as on the thinking of John Paul II. [6] Other valuable insights were added by the Gottingen Circle of Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), Max Scheler (1874-1928), and Dietrich von Hildebrand (1889-1977).



These personalist philosophies did not constitute a complete system, but rather expanded the framework of traditional Christian philosophy with a more profound exploration of the reaches of the human spirit. As John Paul II himself explains:



One cannot think adequately about man without reference, which for man is constitutive, to God. Saint Thomas defined this as actus essendi (essential act), in the language of the philosophy of existence. The philosophy of religion expresses this with the categories of anthropological experience. The philosophers of dialogue, such as Martin Buber and the aforementioned Lévinas, have contributed greatly to this experience. And we find ourselves by now very close to Saint Thomas, but the path passes not so much through being and existence as through people and their meeting with each other, through the “I” and the “Thou”. This is a fundamental dimension of man’s existence, which is always a coexistence. [7]



These insights of personalist philosophy are based on the light of Revelation – on the doctrine of man made to the image and likeness of God and on the Trinitarian theology of relationships. These were some of the insights and strands of thinking which, added to traditional philosophy, gave impetus to the articulation of a Christian anthropology in Vatican II and subsequently in the magisterium of John Paul II.



The Anthropology of Vatican II



The first part of Gaudium et Spes, the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, gives a brief but complete statement of the Christian doctrine about man. The early drafts contained three chapter headings as follows: ‘The Dignity of the Human Person’ (nos.12-22), ‘The Community of Mankind’ (nos.23-32), ‘Man’s Activity in the Universe’ (nos. 33-39). It is of interest to note, however, that at the insistence of one Cardinal Wojtyla, a fourth chapter was added on ‘The Role of the Church in the Modern World’ (nos. 40-45), which is a summary of the first three chapters. Indeed, according to Cardinal Garrone, who had overall responsibility for putting the document together, this fourth chapter was drafted by the Archbishop of Krakow himself. [8]



Chapter I is a very evocative reflection on the dignity of the human person in the light of his creation in the image and likeness of God. It is also a rich discourse on the vocation of man, the significance of human freedom and the nature of conscience. The christological conclusion at the end of this chapter (no.22), which has been repeated so often in the magisterium of John Paul II, is perhaps the best known passage of the whole document:



In reality, it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear ... Christ the new Adam, in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his most high calling ... Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in him, has been raised in us also to a dignity beyond compare. For, by his incarnation, he, the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man. [9]



This positive affirmation is, of course, qualified by a description of the darker side of man’s history – the damage which sin has done to his very nature, and the consequences of this for his relationship with God and his fellow men. [10] Without the revelation of Christ it is not possible to understand man fully. Rather this very revelation is the deepest source of wisdom about man, his nature, and his destiny.



The second chapter tells us one of the most important truths about ourselves: ‘If man is the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake, man can fully discover his true self only in a sincere giving of himself’[11] (no.24). This capacity for a relationship with God and with others is a reflection of the inner relational life of God himself which is the Trinitarian communion of the divine Persons. It is of particular importance for understanding the personal vocation to holiness of every man and the evangelizing mission of the Church.



Anthropology of Karol Wojtyla



Most people are already familiar with the significant stages and events in the life of the Holy Father as student, seminarian, priest, university professor, bishop and cardinal. His pastoral concern and philosophical interests led him to write Love and Responsibility – the work which reveals his distinctive anthropological perspective. This was first published in 1960, two years after he had been appointed auxiliary Bishop of Krakow. It is a profound meditation on human sexuality, love and marriage. Here his philosophical and theological convictions combine with his pastoral concern for the formation of young people in chastity and their preparation for marriage. It is here too that he articulates most clearly the ‘personalist norm’ which is fundamental to his anthropology, and which is a constantly recurring theme of his papal magisterium. [12]



Around this time also, in preparation of for Vatican II, he proposed that it would be opportune for the Council, in light of the aggressive advance of the varieties of materialism, to emphasize the transcendent spiritual order and the uniqueness of human personal existence in the created world. In other words, he concluded, ‘it is appropriate to delineate the question of Christian personalism’. [13] His experience of the brutality of the Nazi occupation as a student and seminarian, and, later, of the tyranny of Communist oppression, gave him a unique perspective on the fundamental truths about man that needed to be proclaimed and defended by the Church. In his own words:



The two totalitarian systems which tragically marked our century - Nazism on the one hand, marked by the horrors of war and the concentration camps, and communism on the other, with its regime of oppression and terror – I came to know, so to speak, from within. And so it is easy to understand my deep concern for the dignity of each human person and the need to respect human rights, beginning with the right to life. This concern was shaped in the first years of my priesthood and has grown stronger with time’. [14]



The Acta of the Council record that he made five contributions to the document on religious freedom (Dignitatis Humanae), and students of the history of this document affirm that it was deeply influenced by the Christian personalism of the Archbishop of Krakow. [15] At the third session of the Council, in September 1964, quoting St John’s text, ‘The truth will set you free’ (8:32), he requested that the relationship between truth and freedom should be emphasized more strongly, even to the point of affirming that there can be no freedom without truth. [16] How often would we hear him repeat the same thesis, especially in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor! [17] In his intervention on 22 October 1965, at the final session of the Council, he requested that the text of Dignitatis Humanae should underline a basic theme of Christian personalism – man’s responsibility in relation to the truth. If freedom and responsibility are not situated in the context of their truth, there is a danger of favoring religious indifferentism. [18]



Wojtyla’s role in the emergence of Gaudium et Spes was even more significant. [19] His longest and most important contribution was on 24 September 1964, when he addressed the question of the manner of communication and dialogue with modern culture.



It is appropriate that the Council speak in such a way that the world see we teach not only in an authoritative way, but that we seek together with it a just and balanced solution to the difficult problems of human life. The question is not whether we already know the truth well, but rather how to enable the world to find the truth and make it its own. [20]



The influence of his contributions was such that, as we have already noted, he was asked to draft the fourth chapter of the first part of Gaudium et Spes on ‘The Role of the Church in the Modern World’. In Crossing the Threshold of Hope he refers to his participation in the Council debates ‘as a unique occasion for listening to others, but also for creative thinking’. [21] He also records his debt of gratitude to Yves Congar and Henri de Lubac for the encouragement they gave him to pursue his particular line of thought. [22]



Cardinal Wojtyla also contributed to the 1969, 1971, and 1974 Synods of Bishops – and most incisively to the latter which was concerned with evangelization. As Cardinal Koenig, the emeritus Archbishop of Vienna, commented: ‘Everybody knows that, by an express decision of Pope Paul VI, Wojtyla was the real author of Evangelii Nuntiandi, which obviously was revised and touched up by the Holy Father as was his custom.’ [23]



Consequently, when he was elected to the papacy in 1978 he carried with him the experience of varied intellectual influences; but his own reflection was invariably focused on anthropological issues. This derived from his immersion in Thomistic philosophy, his use of the phenomenological method to capture and describe the richness of spiritual experiences, his personalist perspective on human flourishing, and his primary theological focus on the Incarnation as the key to the nature and destiny of man. [24]



One of the great themes of the papacy of John Paul II is the articulation of the true nature of the human person as a being made to the image and likeness of God. Again and again he returns to this theme in his magisterial writings, especially in his encyclicals Centesimus Annus (1991), Veritatis Splendor (1993), and Evangelium Vitae(1995). It is clear, too, that he is willing to draw on the resources of the phenomenological method to manifest in all its splendor the depths of the human spirit, and to clarify such fundamental topics as conscience, moral judgment, the mystery of freedom and responsibility, and the possibility of obtaining access through these manifestations of the human spirit to the very core of the person. His Love and Responsibility is a brilliant example of this approach, leading to profound insights into the nature of human sexuality, love and marriage. [25]



Like all students of his time, he was well formed in the philosophical principles of Thomist theology, accepting fully St Thomas’ definition of the person as a subject of intellectual and volitional actions. His philosophical approach, however, enabled him to study a dimension of the person not developed in Thomist ontology – the creative aspect of human action and interpersonal relations. Descriptive analysis of human experience through the phenomenological method allowed him deepen his understanding of the person as a being who entrusts himself to God.[26]



Anthropology of John Paul II



From the beginning of his pontificate John Paul II has taught that the truth about man is to be found in Christ. In his homily at his installation as pope, he encouraged the world not to be afraid of Christ, since Christ alone knows what is in every man. ‘I ask you … I implore you’, he said, ‘allow Christ to speak to man.’[27] Little by little an expansion of themes from Gaudium et Spes became a regular feature of his magisterium. In his very first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), the conciliar document is referred on at least seventeen occasions. Indeed we could say that the phrase from Gaudium et Spes, ‘Christ fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his most high calling’ has become the theme of his pontificate. [28]



Later he would himself point out that, in the encyclicals Redemptor Hominis and Dives in Misericordia (1980), he was trying to explicate the content of this idea from Gaudium et Spes, taking account of the anxieties and expectations of his contemporaries. Writing about this encyclical fifteen years later, he says that



The Council proposed, especially in Gaudium et Spes, that the mystery of redemption should be seen in light of the great renewal of man and of all that is human. The encyclical aims to be a great hymn of joy for the fact that man has been redeemed through Christ – redeemed in spirit and body. [29]



The central idea is that the Redemption, the task of salvation which the Church carries out in the world, consists in helping man to discover the full truth about his being and this truth is to be found only in Christ.



Man and Creation



Christian anthropology has two basic points of reference, each of which is a divine initiative. The first is the mystery of creation in which man is made ‘to the image of God’. The other is the mystery of Christ who, as we have seen, reveals man fully to himself. This is the anthropology of the Incarnation and the Redemption. The Christian definition of man has thus a point of departure and a point of arrival. Between these points the mystery of sin intervenes with the Fall and its consequences for man’s personal response to God.



After John Paul II had completed Redemptor Hominis, in preparation for the upcoming Synod of Bishops on the topic of the Christian family in October 1980, he devoted the traditional Wednesday catechesis to the exposition of his thinking on human sexuality and marriage. Over a period of five years, from September 1979, he would provide a profound theological reflection on the themes of chastity, marriage and celibacy in the context of the ‘nuptial meaning of the body’. [30] Here he drew on the creation accounts in Genesis, Christ’s teaching on marriage and celibacy, and the Pauline corpus covering the same areas. In his exegesis of the relevant scriptural passages, he brings to bear not only the findings of traditional Christian hermeneutics, but also the anthropological insights of Vatican II and the personalist philosophy he had already elaborated in Love and Responsibility.



Traditional theology tells us that man is made to the image of God because he possesses the faculties of intellect and will. In his analysis of the creation accounts, John Paul II insists that a capacity for relationship with God is of the very essence of man. God’s invitation to a shared life is a gratuitous, unmerited gift to man who from the beginning was made capax Dei. In these reflections, John Paul II offers many insights about the nature of human identity, the manner in which man is distinguished from the rest of creation by the reality of human work, and the relational mode of his personal being which manifests itself on three levels – with God, with the world, and with others through a communion of love and self-giving.



These are some of the basic principles of ‘the truth about man’ to which John Paul II frequently refers. But the implementation of this truth cannot be achieved without the moral energy that comes from God through participation in the divine life of grace. Only in the Church can one find this wisdom about man, and, at the same time, the gift of divine grace which renders possible a life in accord with this vision.



Human Work and Temporal Realities



By God’s will, knowledge of the world and the progressive dominion of its resources is achieved only through human work. Faith guides and stimulates this effort, but it cannot substitute it. This is a consequence of the Church’s recognition of the legitimate autonomy of temporal things. Human affairs have their own proper laws which God did not reveal to us with the principles of the faith. The discovery of these laws is essentially the role of the laity. As Gaudium et Spes points out:



Let them be proud of the opportunity to carry out their earthly activity in such a way as to integrate human, domestic, professional, scientific and technical enterprises with religious values, under whose supreme direction all things are directed to the glory of God...it is their task to cultivate a properly informed conscience and to impress the divine law on the earthly city. [31]



Man needs the society of others not just to live and nourish himself but, above all, to develop as a person. ‘Creating the human race in his own image and continually keeping it in being, God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion. Love’, as John Paul II reminds us, ‘is therefore the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being.’ [32] But man is called to love in his unified totality, in soul and body. Christian revelation recognizes two specific ways of realizing this vocation of the human person to love – either through marriage or through the specific commitment to celibacy. Both vocations, John Paul II affirms, are expressions of the full truth about man as created to the image of God. [33]



Nevertheless, love is not just an inclination of spontaneous affection towards others. It is to will the good of others, and to give oneself to them in an unselfish way because the perfecting of love requires self-giving. John Paul II has repeatedly recalled those words of Gaudium et Spes: ‘If man is the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake, man can fully discover his true self only in a sincere giving of himself.’ [34] And he highlights these ideas again in his Letter to Youth and in his document on the Christian family. [35]



Marriage and the Family



Throughout his papacy, John Paul II has given particular attention to the question of marriage and the family. The concerns of Love and Responsibility are repeatedly echoed through his pontificate, starting with his extensive catechesis on ‘the nuptial meaning of the body’, through Familiaris Consortio, his Letter to Families [36], his many addresses on the topic to interest groups, and, always, during his pastoral visits. He sees the family as the nucleus of the ‘communion of persons’, as the place where this communion can be realized naturally in its most committed way. It is here that each one is first welcomed and appreciated for what he or she truly is – a unique person, and not in view of their social or economic function.



It is love which creates this community of persons. In Redemptor Hominis John Paul II wrote that



Man cannot live without love. He remains a being that is incomprehensible for himself, his life is senseless, if love is not revealed to him, if he does not encounter love, if he does not experience it and make it his own, if he does not participate intimately in it. [37]



He repeats this refrain in Familiaris Consortio, insisting that it applies primarily and especially within the family. [38] This is surely one of the Holy Father’s deepest and most important anthropological convictions, expressing succinctly a whole program for family formation at both the philosophical and theological levels. For John Paul II, the future of the Church and society hinge on the stability of the family. It is not surprising, then, that he has invested so much of his immense intellectual and spiritual energy in the promotion and the defense of the family unit. For him the family is the first and most important school of life and of love; and this uniquely stabilizing influence is the principal service that it offers to society and the Church.



It is the first and irreplaceable school of social life, an example and stimulus for the broader community relationships marked by respect, justice, dialogue and love.



The family is thus … the place of origin and the most effective means for humanizing and personalizing society: it makes an original contribution in depth to building up the world, by making possible a life that is properly speaking human, in particular by guarding and transmitting virtues and ‘values’.



Consequently, faced with a society that is running the risk of becoming more and more depersonalized and standardized and therefore inhuman and dehumanizing, with the negative results of many forms of escapism – such as alcoholism, drugs and even terrorism – the family possess and continues still to release formidable energies capable of taking man out of his anonymity, keeping him conscious of his personal dignity, enriching him with deep humanity and actively placing him, in his uniqueness and unrepeatability, within the fabric of society. [39]



This a powerful statement of the indispensable role of well-adjusted families for building up a healthy and stable society, in which divine and human rights are respected.



Human Development



The Christian anthropology of John Paul II has very practical implications for human development on the religious, social and cultural planes. For him the Christian faith is a source of truth and of life, and thus theological reflection can therefore offer a great service in the configuration of cultural, social and political life.



Man is endowed with a creative capacity which enables him to from a culture or a human environment which is the result of human work, and which has both a spiritual and a material component. According to John Paul II, it is culture which humanizes man; culture is the medium through which the person becomes more fully what he is called to be. Indeed part of man’s vocation ‘to dominate the earth’ is the economic and cultural development of society. [40]



Nevertheless, experience indicates that human intervention does not always yield positive results. Many cultural and social developments of the present century, rather than fostering genuine human development, have had a dehumanizing effect on man because of the particular moral and economic climate created by the guiding institutions of society – social inequalities, ethical problems created by the misapplication of technology, especially in the areas of human sexuality, and the enormous economic imbalances between nations.



Authentic human development has to be judged from the standpoint of whether it leads to conditions which facilitate human flourishing at its deepest levels. John Paul II bases his analysis of such development on the accumulated wisdom of the Church’s social teaching. But a key element in his theological and moral assessment of human development is the ‘being’ and ‘having’ binomial first articulated by Gabriel Marcel. [41]



Human Work and Social Priorities



Through work, human culture is formed and grows. In Laborem Exercens, John Paul II distinguishes between the objective and subjective dimensions of work .The objective aspect is the product that is created by work. The subjective dimension is the imprint that work leaves on man. Man realizes and perfects himself when he works well – he grows as a person when he applies order, attention, creativity and ambition to his work. [42] He also becomes more human because he provides a service to others through his work:



Work is a good thing for man – a good thing for his humanity – because through work man not only transforms nature, adapting it to his own needs, but he also achieves fulfillment as a human being and indeed, in a sense, becomes ‘more a human being’. [43]



Thus the value of each kind of work ‘is judged above all by the measure of the dignity of the subject of work, that is to say the person, the individual who carries it out.’ [44]



Because the correct criteria are often not applied in the evaluation of work, this can have negative consequences for the social economy. John Paul II does not offer a particular social theory, much less a utopian solution, for the social economy. However, from his analysis he offers a few fundamental principles in Laborem Exercens: a) the priority of work over capital (nos.12, 13): b) the primacy of men over things (nos. 12,13); and c) the primacy of the subjective value of work over its objective value (no.6). In addition, in Redemptor Hominis, he had already affirmed the following principles: d) the priority of ethics over technology; e) the primacy of persons over things; and f) the superiority of spirit over matter. [45] This is the order of priorities which, according to John Paul II, derives from a Christian anthropology and is therefore fundamental for building up a social environment worthy of man. [46]



Ethical Aspects of Development



In Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, looking at the prevailing social conditions of the world in 1987, the Pope had no doubt that from the point of view of the principles enunciated above, the global impression of human development presented a negative picture. In this encyclical he speaks about the disequilibrium between North and South, inequalities within countries, illiteracy, hunger, the appearance of a ‘fourth world’ on the margin of developed societies, and concludes that conditions have become significantly aggravated. [47] After analyzing the causes of this situation, he goes on to give a detailed presentation of what constitutes authentic human development in Chapter IV. He points out that one of the greatest injustices of the contemporary world is the contrast between a wealthy minority and the majority who possess so little. [48] The evil, he says, lies not so much in the possession of so much material wealth as in the cult of ‘having’, which leads to an inversion of the human and social priorities already outlined. [49]



Speaking about the evangelization of culture to an audience of university people in Chile in 1987, he developed this point more fully:



A process of reflection is necessary, which leads to a renewed diffusion and defense of the fundamental values of man as man, and in relation to other persons and to the natural surroundings in which he lives. Therefore I earnestly encourage you to present a correct image of a culture of being and behaving. ‘All man’s “having” is important for culture, is a factor creative of culture, but only to the extent which man, through his “having”, can at the same time “be” more fully a man in all the dimensions of his existence in everything that characterizes his humanity’ (Address to UNESCO, 2 June 1980, no. 7). A culture of being does not exclude having: it considers it as a means to seek a true integral humanization, in such a way that ‘having’ is put at the service of ‘being’ and ‘behaving’. [50]



The inherent contradictions in processes of development which focus only on the economic dimension are more clearly apparent today. [51] John Paul II offers a much more demanding criterion of development.



Development, he tells us, cannot consist only in the use, dominion over and indiscriminate possession of created things and the products of human industry, but rather in subordinating their possession, dominion and use to man’s divine likeness and to his vocation to immortality. This is the transcendent reality of the human being. [52]



From this perspective, development must have an ethical and not merely a technical dimension – it has a clear moral character. [53]



In Reconciliatio et Poenitentia John Paul II had already pointed out how sin caused a rupture in man’s relationship with God, his fellow men, and the created world. The consequences of personal sin for society reflect the interior disorder in man. This is why, he says, we can speak of personal sin and social sin, the latter being the accumulation and concentration of many personal sins ‘of those who are in a position to avoid, eliminate or at least limit certain social evils but who fail to do so out of laziness, fear or the conspiracy of silence, through secret complicity or indifference’. [54] Man’s vocation expresses itself in the fulfillment of responsibilities to neighbor. When these responsibilities are overlooked, offense is given to God and there are negative consequences which extend beyond the brief life span of the individual. [55]



Human Solidarity



After adverting to the fact that the obstacles opposed to the integral development of man are not properly economic or material ones, but rather moral considerations, he concludes that these difficulties can only be overcome by decisions which are essentially moral. [56] People have to root out of their lives the ‘all-consuming desire for profit’ and ‘the thirst for power with the intention of imposing one’s will on others’. For Christians this calls for a real conversion of heart, and the substitution, with the help of divine grace, of an attitude of self-giving to others. Thus human solidarity ‘is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good’ in relations between individuals and nations; [57] it ‘is the path to peace and at the same time to development’. [58] For John Paul II, ‘solidarity is undoubtedly a Christian virtue ... In the light of faith it seeks to go beyond itself, to take on the specifically Christian dimensions of total gratuity, forgiveness and reconciliation.’ [59]Then one sees one’s neighbor, not only as a human being with his or her own rights, but as a child of God, even if he or she is an enemy:



Awareness of the common fatherhood of God, of the brotherhood of all in Christ, and of the presence and life-giving action of the Holy Spirit will bring to our vision of the world a new criterion for interpreting it. Beyond human and natural bonds, there is discerned in the light of faith a new model of the unity of the human race, which must ultimately inspire our solidarity. This supreme model of unity, which is a reflection of the intimate life of God, one God in three Persons, is what we Christians mean by the word ‘communion’. [60]



Christian solidarity has, then, for John Paul II, an important part to play in the realization of the divine plan for the individual and for society, both at national and international levels.



Man the ‘way of the Church’



The mission of the Church is one which is both human and divine, converting men into children of God and teaching them how to live as brothers in the same family. Consequently, the way the Church can and ought to intervene in the world is through offering the wisdom she has drawn about men from divine revelation. Guided by Christ she brings the mystery of God to men and in the process reveals man to himself; she enables him to understand the meaning of his existence and opens up to him the entire truth about his destiny. [61]



The anthropology of John Paul II is essentially a program of evangelization. This is because the Church is in possession of the truth about man, the evangelized man, the converted man who has put on Jesus Christ, and who receives from the Holy Spirit the charity to enable him love his own kind. It is not a human anthropology, but a vision of man as God wants him to be. The human and the divine are united in Christ and each one is called to imitate Christ. For this reason ‘the Church’s social teaching is itself a valid instrument of evangelization. As such, it proclaims God and his mystery of salvation in Christ to every human being and, for that very reason, reveals man to himself.’ [62]



Thus, from the above considerations, we see that there is a profound connection between evangelization and true human development. Because of this, evangelization has always been accompanied by human social initiatives which are an external witness of the preaching of salvation. Thus missionary efforts have invariably been accompanied by the setting up of educational and medical facilities. This demonstrates that salvation is not only spiritual, but that it also has to bring about a Christian configuration in the social and political dimensions of existence. [63]



Conclusion



Christian anthropology is grounded on fundamental guiding principles about man, his history, and his destiny. In response to the dechristianization of the West through different forms of materialism, the Church wishes to propose and activate a new evangelizing dynamic. Recent philosophical and theological reflection has provided the Church with new insights and ideas which have facilitated a novel and vibrant restatement of the principles of Christian anthropology, especially as presented by Vatican II and in the magisterium of John Paul II. These principles can be summarized as follows: First, man is the image of God; this is the fundamental truth about the human person and the point of departure for all subsequent reflection on him. Second, Christ revealed man to man; he is the way and the truth for every human person. Third, the communion of love of persons is a reflection of the inner life of the Blessed Trinity. This is the point of departure for understanding the nature of the nuclear Christian family which is a microcosm and model of an authentic human society. Finally, man attains self-fulfillment in the giving of himself to others; this is the Christian conception of man’s calling and the basis to organize a better society which can only be achieved through charity.



These are the basic principles of ‘the truth about man’ so often articulated by John Paul II. But the implementation of this truth cannot be achieved without the moral energy that comes from God – the divine life of grace. Only in the Church can one find this wisdom about man and, at the same time, the power of the grace to live up to this vision.







FOOTNOTES





[1] I am very grateful to Dr Gerald Hanratty of the Department of Philosophy, University College, Dublin, who read through a previous draft of this paper.







[2] There have been several commentaries on the anthropology of John Paul II, which include the following: Rocco Buttiglione, Karol Wojtyla: The Thought of the Man who became John Paul II, New York, 1997; K.L. Schmitz, At the Center of the Human Drama, Washington, 1993; Andre Frossard, Be Not Afraid!: Interviews with John Paul II, London, 1984; Ronald Lawlor, The Christian Personalism of John Paul II, Chicago, 1982; George W. Williams, The Mind of John Paul II: Origins of his Thought and Action, New York, 1981; Juan Luis Lorda, Antropología del Concilio Vaticano II a Juan Pablo II, Madrid, 1996 (I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to this source for several insights). A reading of Karol Wojtyla’s Love and Responsibility, London, 1981, however, and his long series of catechesis on ‘the nuptial meaning of the body’ as John Paul II, is essential to get a feel for his anthropology, both in terms of content and methodology. The catechetical series has been published in four volumes by St Paul Editions, Boston, as follows: Original Unity of Man and Woman: Catechesis on the Book of Genesis (1981); Blessed are the Pure of Heart: Catechesis on the Sermon on the Mount and the Writings of St Paul (1983); Reflections on Humanae Vitae: Conjugal Morality and Spirituality (1984); The Theology of Marriage and Celibacy: Catechesis on Marriage and Celibacy in the Light of the Resurrection of the Body (1986). Essential reading would also include encyclicals such as Redemptor Hominis (1979), Laborem Exercens (1981), Solicitudo Rei Socialis (1987) and Centesimus Annus (1991); the Apostolic Exhortations Familiaris Consortio (1981) and Christifideles Laici (1988).



[3] Vatican Council II, Gaudium et Spes (GS) (The Church in the Modern World, 1965) and Dignitatis Humanae (Decree on Religious Freedom, 1965).



[4] John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, London, 1994, pp 35, 36, 210.



[5] Cf. P. A. Schilpp, The Philosophy of Martin Buber, La Salle, Illinois, 1967, p. 341.



[6] Cf. Lorda, p. 45.



[7] John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, pp 35-36 (italics in the original).



[8] Cf. 30 Giorni, March 1985, p. 18.



[9] GS 22.



[10] ‘For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end; and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures’ (GS 13).



[11] GS 24.



[12] Cf. John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold, p. 200.



[13] Karol Wojtyla in Acta et documenta Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II Apparando, I: 2, pp 741-742.



[14] John Paul II, Gift and Mystery: On the Fiftieth Anniversary of my Priestly Ordination, London, 1996, pp 66-67 (italics in original).



[15] Cf. Lorda, p. 105.



[16] K. Wojtyla in Acta Synodalia, III: 2, pp 530-532.



[17] John Paul II, Veritatis Splendour (VS), 6 August 1993.



[18] K. Wojtyla in Acta Synodalia, IV: 2, pp 292-293.



[19] The Acta Synodalia indicate that he made six contributions to the discussion of this document : III/5, pp 298-300; pp 680-3; III/7, pp 380-2; IV/2, pp 660-3; IV/3, pp 242-3; IV/3, pp 349-50.



[20] K. Wojtyla in Acta Synodalia, III: 5, pp 298-300.



[21] Cf. ibid., p. 158.



[22] Cf. ibid., p. 159.



[23] F. Koenig, Iglesia, ¿a donde vas? Sal Terrae, Santander (Spain), 1986, pp 54-55.



[24] Cf. Lorda, p. 112.



[25] It has been commented that Paul VI’s reading of Love and Responsibility had a significant influence on his encyclical, Humanae Vitae, in 1968. Cf. Janet E. Smith, ‘John Paul II and Humanae Vitae’ in Why Humanae Vitae was Right: A Reader, San Francisco, 1993, pp 229-33; Paul Johnson, Pope John Paul II and the Catholic Restoration, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1981, pp 32-33.



[26] Cf. Lorda, pp 112-23.



[27] John Paul II, “The Inauguration Homily,” Origins 8:20 (November 2, 1978): 308.



[28] GS 22. In his most recent encyclical, Fides et Ratio, John Paul II says this specific text from Gaudium et Spes ‘is profoundly significant for philosophy’, and that it ‘serves as one of the constant reference-points of my teaching’ (Fides et Ratio, 60, 14 September 1998).



[29] John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, pp 48-49.



[30] For details of the published volumes of this catechesis, see note 1.



[31] GS 43.



[32] Familiaris Consortio (FC), 11.



[33] Cf. FC 11.



[34] GS 24.



[35] Cf. John Paul II, Letter to Youth (31 March 1985) 14, and FC 11.



[36] John Paul II, Letter to Families, 2 February 1994.



[37] Redemptor Hominis, 10.



[38] Cf. FC 18.



[39] FC 43.



[40] Cf. Lorda, p. 175.



[41] Cf. Lorda, p. 176.



[42] Cf. Laborem Exercens (LE) 5-7.



[43] LE 9.



[44] LE 6 (italics in original).



[45] RH 16.



[46] Cf. Lorda, p. 180.



[47] Cf. Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (SRS) 16.



[48] Cf. SRS 28.



[49] Cf. SRS 28.



[50] John Paul II, ‘The Task of the World Culture of Today is to promote the Civilization of Love’ (3 April 1987) no. 4, in English language weekly edition of L’Osservatore Romano (4 May 1987): 5.



[51] Cf. John Paul II, ‘Task of the World’, 33.



[52] John Paul II, ‘Task of the World’, 29



[53] Cf. John Paul II, ‘Task of the World’, 33.



[54] Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia (2 December 1984), 15.



[55] Cf. John Paul II, ‘Divine Providence and the Growth of the Kingdom of God’ ( 25 June 1986) in L’Osservatore Romano (English) 30 June 1986: 1, 4..



[56] Cf. SRS 35.



[57] Cf. SRS 38



[58] Cf. SRS 39.



[59] SRS 40.



[60] SRS 40.



[61] Cf. Christifideles Laici, 36.



[62] Centesimus Annus, 54.



[63] Cf. Centesimus Annus 51.



First published in Josephinum Journal of Theology, 8 (2001) 1, pp 132-47.



Section Contents Copyright ©; Fr. Thomas McGovern 1997-2002


....