Pope Francis’ chapter on love (chapter 4) treats love as a virtue to be formed. Name three practices that a person might take up to develop this virtue.

Part of Pope Francis’ analytical discussion of 1 Corinthians mentions the importance of remaining humble: “Love…is marked by humility; if we are to understand, forgive and serve others from the heart, our pride has to be healed and our humility must increase” (70). This explains how, in striving to lead a life of compassion and consideration for others, we may be healed from our selfish and sinful tendencies. This kind of lifestyle is the foundation of love as a virtue. Just as Jesus was patient, kind, and compassionate toward us in our time of wrongdoing/need for salvation, it is essential that we actively practice these virtues in our marital and family lives. With our spouses and children alike, we must display the willingness to put their needs before our own. Acting humbly, then, is an active demonstration and development of love.

Besides living humbly, a person may practice true endurance in order to develop love as a virtue to its fullest capacity. Pope Francis teaches us that “love does not yield to resentment, scorn for others or the desire to hurt or to gain some advantage” (81). Rather, living lovingly means to embrace every challenge openly, and with a positive attitude. In our confidence and willingness to encounter all obstacles, we prove that love is a virtue that never gives up and never fails. In family life, this kind of strength is a foundational necessity to set stability and examples for future generations. When parents live in strong love, they demonstrate to their children the kind of love that they should strive to find in their own future relationships – in this sense, strong, enduring love is developed throughout multiple generations, as Christians serve as proof that “love endures all things” (79).

Lastly, Pope Francis discusses that “dialogue is essential for experiencing, expressing, and fostering love in marriage and family life” (90). Open communication with one another – even the simplest expressions such as “‘please,’ ‘thank you,’ and ‘Sorry’” – protect and nurture the love that the family is founded upon (88). In honest and unfiltered conversation, family members learn from one another, and learn to appreciate each other as individuals essential to making the family what it is. Families form and grow in love, united, through humility, endurance, and communication.

John Paul II’s Theology of the Body recapitulates (summarizes) much of what we’ve already read about marriage. What are three dimensions of his thought where you recognize something we’ve already thought about. Where does he differ from a previous incarnation of these themes?

Pope John Paul II’s discussion of Ephesians in Theology of the Body deals with two distinct bodies – that of Christ (in unity with the Church), as well as the body of humans (male and female alike). We have seen this kind of dimension before in the sense that marital relationships take shape in the image of Christ’s marriage to the church. Both distinct bodies are necessary to acknowledge and understand in the sacrament of marriage, so that human spouses understand what their relationship means in the church/the world, as well as for themselves and their personal relationships to God. The distinction between these two bodies, though, somewhat challenges Scheeban’s teachings; Scheeban spoke of the natural love between spouses enhancing to become indistinguishably supernatural, intertwining with the love between Christ and the Church. In this sense, John Paul II’s is not necessarily incorrect, however, it does not acknowledge these two bodies as becoming one through the sacrament of marriage. It differentiates the two so that he does differ from Scheeban’s explanation of marriage’s reality in consecrating the insoluble bond in its oneness.

Furthermore, John Paul II touches on the idea of pietas, describing how subjection to one’s spouse must come out of mutual piety/reverence for Christ, which is what makes the communion between spouses possible. He writes, “…the conjugal relationship which unites husband and wife should help us to understand the love which unites Christ to the Church.” This relates to what we learned in class about Hugh of St. Victor – our discussion focused on how marriage serves as the original sign of Christ and the Church, so that the remedy/restoration of the sacrament is found in its allowance for us to understand that perfect union, and that we may be healed because of it.

Lastly, John Paul II introduces the idea of the moral unity of love. In this, he explains that the “Christian vocation…reflects the love which Christ the Bridegroom gives to the Church his Bride, and which the Church…attempts to return to Christ.” This proves how love unites and “allows [married peoples] to be mutually interpenetrated, spiritually belonging to one another…” Relating back to our lessons on Von Hildebrand, we are once again reminded that marriage is the closest as most intimate of all earthly unions, which involves a necessary willingness of entire self-gift to the spouse. In mutual desire for one another, as well as for a strong relationship with the church, married couples demonstrate how their relationship is founded in and embodies the relationship between Christ and his Bride, the Church.

Read the Jeweler’s Shop. Assess how Karol Wojtyla deals with the three dimensions of love (metaphysics, psychology, and ethics) throughout the play.

In Act II: The Bridegroom, there is one line that specifically touches on the metaphysical aspect of love. On page 58, this line reads: “[Men and women] get carried away by the thought that they have absorbed the whole secret of love, but in fact they have not yet even touched it”. I interpreted this sentence as discussing the superficiality of love that can exist when it is based solely on fondness, desire, or benevolence alone. According to Pope John Paul II’s Love and Responsibility, all three of these virtues are necessary essences to establish true mutual love. Entirely loving relationships are founded in the mutuality of commitment to acknowledging the beloved as a certain good (fondness), directing the objective need of being to another (desire), and willing the good of another as a friendship that transcends affections (benevolence). When only one or two of these are present in a relationship, the couple can easily get lost in “a kaleidoscope of waves and situations full of attraction” that cause their love to be selfish and merely impossible to reciprocate (58).

Andrew and Teresa’s relationship in Act I: The Signals further exemplifies the second dimension of love: psychology. Describing personal emotions from their wedding day, both Andrew and Teresa illustrate their internal discipline of love. They reflect on how their love has developed over time – from first impressions, to growing deeper emotional connections that evolved into experiencing each other for their full individualistic values. Teresa says “[they] concluded that [they] had been present in the mirror from the beginning…” meaning all along, the two had experiences together that were impressed in each other’s minds, and helped their relationship to evolve and mature (43). Andrew later comments that their “love has overcome anxiety,” and that “[their] future depends on love” (43). This touches on Love and Responsibility’s ideology that “love influences imagination and memory, and at the same time lives under their influence”. Andrew’s statements at the end of Act I prove the power love has in controlling other emotions and peoples’ perceptions of the world around them/the future.

Act III: The Children perfectly explains the third dimension of love – ethics – in demonstrating how Monica and Christopher’s relationship differs from that of their parents. The fundamental ethics of love calls for mutuality in the couple acknowledging one another’s will. The possibility of entire self-gift must be present in order for a love, and a marriage, to be successful. Monica’s fear of intimacy is a result of her parents’ failed marriage. On page 75, she admits to be “afraid of [herself], and also afraid for [Christopher],” that she may be capable of hurting him in the same way she saw her parents hurt one another. Christopher’s confidence that “a unity will emerge” between the two of them encourages Monica to also acknowledge that as a couple entering into marriage, “[she and Christopher] must go together from now on” (76-77). Both Monica and Christopher trust that self-gift is fully mutual in their relationship, which is what sets it apart from the others described in The Jeweler’s Shop. Each relationship described in this story, therefore, takes on a role to illustrate the worldliness (metaphysical), internal discipline (psychology), and virtues (ethics) of love.

Dietrich von Hildebrand is the first author we’ve read who seeks to understand love and marriage as linked to one another. How might his account of love and marriage serve as an antidote to the hook-up culture?

Unlike other philosophers and theologians we have read from, Dietrich von Hildebrand determines that while procreation is a certain end of marriage, it is not the sole meaning. Rather,  the true meaning of marriage is love. The conjugal romance that exists in the spiritual union between man and woman is the purest meaning behind the sacrament of holy matrimony. Von Hildebrand clarifies that marriage is the “closest and most intimate of all earthly unions”; this specifies that it requires a distinct, wholesome, and mutual love between spouses. The two must have the same intentions going forward in the marriage – these intentions are spelled out for us in the vows said during the matrimonial ceremony: to take one another, to hold and support forever, in good times and bad, in wealth and in poverty, until death. These vows symbolize the mutual consent and love the couple has for one another. In this mutuality, there is a permanence implied that the two truly intend to care for and love one another for the rest of their lives.

Von Hildebrand’s account of love and marriage, therefore, serves as an antidote to our modern world’s hook-up culture because hook-up culture actually avoids all the things Von Hildebrand identifies as essential aspects of marriage. In hook-up culture, people are entirely self-interested – looking for quick, easy, personally pleasurable experiences that don’t require much mental thought, emotional energy, or spiritual connection. In hook-up culture, sex is purely a physical act with no strings attached. Individuals acts based on subjective attractions and selfish attitudes. Often times, the people participating in this kind of lifestyle will only hook up once. Their intention is for a quick “relationship” to ensue; one to last only as long as they can find individualistic pleasure and benefits. As perviously mentioned, Von Hildebrand expounds love as a mutual connection; both parties involved in the relationship must objectively care for the other’s well-being, and be interested in pursuing their consecrated relationship for as long as they both shall live. With this, it is evident that the lack of commitment and prominent self-interest that defines hook-up culture is the complete antithesis of everything Von Hildebrand declares to be characteristics of a true, loving marital union.

What are three essential dimensions of Thomas Aquinas’ account of marriage in the Summa Theologica?

As a pivotal figure in scholastic theology, Thomas Aquinas explains to us, through the Summa Theologica, what makes holy matrimony a sacrament. He defines a sacrament as something that causes grace – God being the efficient cause of that grace, and humans being the instruments. This sacramental grace takes away the effects of past sins to perfect. in the soul a form of worship in the view of the Christian tradition of religion. Therefore, the sacramental grace results in a healing of the soul in a way so that individuals may practice a deeper kind of love in marriage.

Thomas Aquinas describes the three essential dimensions of marriage as the following: the sign (sacramentum tantum), the reality (res et sacramentum), and the reality’s interactions with the goods of marriage (res tantum). The consent of the marriage, given by both individuals at the beginning of the sacrament’s celebration, acts as the sign in matrimony. Introduced to us by Augustine, the unbreakable bond established between the couple, then, becomes to reality of the matrimony. In this sense, the sign, in addition with the reality, forms the sacrament (“Sign + Reality = Sacrament”). The reality, itself, interacts with the two natural and spiritual institutions that are the goods of marriage: fidelity and offspring. Augustine first introduced us to the idea that these were two goods of marriage, alongside the insoluble bond between spouses. Thomas Aquinas contrarily suggests that the sacrament in and of itself (the previously mentioned unbreakable bond between husband and wife) cannot be considered a good, as it, alone, embodies the entire purpose of marriage (hence it is considered to be the reality of this sacrament, according to Aquinas). However, he does expand on the idea of fidelity and offspring as goods being essential to the third dimension of the sacrament of marriage. These goods become spiritual when they are consecrated to a higher end; the unity between man and woman in marriage becomes the love between Christ and the Church through the sacrament of holy matrimony. This new dimension of love proves to be something that isn’t necessarily of the couple’s own power or doing – rather, it is a result of the sacrament creating and causing grace within a bond that is permanent and indivisible, in the likeness of Christ’s relationship and marriage to the Church.

Using two of the authors we’ve read dealing with the Song of Songs (Bernard of Clairvaux, Hildegard of Bingen, and Hugh of St. Victor) describe three ways that the nuptial mystery is essential to the spiritual life of both monk and married person alike.

Bernard of Clairvaux delved into different allegories in the Song of Songs to reveal to us the importance of redirecting our sexual desires. He taught us to interpret the Song of Songs, as well as other biblical passages, and understand them in a way that encourages us to take all the desire and temptations we have in our lives, and transform them to be directed toward God. In examples such as, “…He who eats me will hunger more,” we see how our faith can transform into a sort of yearning for more. The nuptial mystery, then, teaches us to take this yearning and give it completely to the Lord as an expression of our desire for a more active relationship with Him. As monks and married people alike fulfill these humanly desires spiritually, they are spared from the sin of attempting to fulfill them in some other way outside the church – perhaps sexually.

Hugh of St. Victor introduced us to the idea of reestablishing the original compact of love through the upholding and practicing of the sacraments. He explained that the sacraments were instituted on the following three accounts: humiliation; instruction; and exercise. As humans, we crave a sort of materiality in order to restore the original beauty of the nuptial mystery in our every day lives. Hugh of St. Victor tells us that the sacraments are our way of doing so. The sacraments point to something invisible that we must strive and learn to approach in patience (humiliation); they teach us what exactly we should love and praise in order to live happily (instruction); with that, they cultivate a knowledge and virtue within (exercise). Collectively, this forms in us the art of love in the nuptial image. Monks and married people are, therefore, both able to reestablish the original compact of love in the nuptial mystery by practicing the sacraments, since, as Hugh of St. Victor shows us, this depends more on our humanity than it does our particular religious vocation.

Overall, from all of the different authors and Song of Songs excerpts we have read and discussed in class, the main way that the nuptial mystery proves to be essential to the spiritual life of both monks and married peoples is that it provides for us a model for our lives and relationships with others, through the example of Christ’s unbreakable marriage to the Church. Every class we have seems to summarize the idea of Jesus being the bridegroom and the Church as the bride, exhibiting the ideal relationship of unfettered respect, boundless support, and eternal love. It is in this that the nuptial mystery truly takes shape. Monks must take after this example in their own spiritual lives so that they may live accordingly in relation to the Church. Married people, too, must model their spiritual lives after that of Jesus and the Church in order to appreciate and fully understand what a healthy, faithful, long-lasting marriage will look like.

Why is Christian marriage healing of human sinfulness for Augustine?

From our past readings, and even from our own life experience, we can be certain of one thing – humans are sinners. Especially when it comes to our sexual lives, we sin: in letting personal satisfaction drive our sexual encounters; in favoring sex to love; in committing adultery; we let our selfishness and sinfulness get in the way of our relationship with Christ.

Augustine delves into the idea that marriage can be a sort of “remedy” to us, healing our sinfulness of sensuality and lack of self-control. In modern times, specifically in the commonly-seen hook-up culture setting (as we’ve considered in past blog posts), we have become more accepting of others’ lack of self-control, as we witness, allow, and even support our friends in engaging in meaningless sexual encounters and “relationships.” Augustine tells us that this kind of fornication is, indeed, a sin, but that we can avoid this kind of sin by committing ourselves to one other person – just as God intended for the human race (demonstrated in the story of the Creation and Adam and Eve). As we learn to devote ourselves wholly to one other person, we learn that love is an act of self-giving, self-sacrifice, and cooperation. This touches on Augustine’s idea of fidelity and bonding as being 2 main goods and benefits of the sacrament of marriage. Augustine describes marriage as a social good, beginning on an account of friendship. This teaches us that, as we put another’s needs before our own, especially through the means of marriage (the ultimate “friendship” and closeness with another being), we learn to live in God’s image, for He sacrificed to us His only Son, who gave His whole life for the forgiveness of our sins. As we do the same, we are healed of our human sinfulness, and in return, brought closer to God.

In the ancient world, marriage truly did value love, kinship, and fidelity. The family, created from the marriage of two individuals, was the home – a place to grow (producing offspring – another good of marriage, according to Augustine) and thrive socially, emotionally, and spiritually. Augustine explores the truth of these marital values, explaining that, “For those who walk together, and look ahead together to where they are walking, do so at each other’s side.” In saying this, he proposes that only through the sacrament and unity of marriage are we able to move forward, be healed of our sins, and better ourselves for the future (including for Judgment Day – whenever that day may come).

How might a sacrament, based upon your reading of both Marion and Ratzinger, heal the pornification of love examined in our reading of Frietas’ text?

In Frietas’ book, she defines the pornification of love as being dependent on lack of communication. Hookup culture is primarily dependent on the nonexistence of emotional attachment – the less conversation, background knowledge, and even eye contact proceeding a hookup, the better for the participants. Sacraments, on the other hand, as explained by Marion and Ratzinger, make our lives meaningful through the celebration of human desire and spiritual fulfillment. Just as sacraments consist of signs (i.e. the Eucharist, holy oil, wedding rings, etc.) to represent invisible things (i.e. the Holy Spirit, forgiveness, love, etc.), so, too, should we seek out signs that represent meaning in our sexual/love lives. In our search for meaning, the pornification of love may be healed, and our generation may be one step closer to reaching true fulfillment. The problem with hookup culture is that it encourages, and even celebrates, a lack of meaning in our personal lives. Frietas somewhat glorifies the idea that young adults are able to be self-concerned, career-oriented, independent beings while still receiving sexual “fulfillment” from spontaneous, or perhaps serial hookups. But how fulfilling can this kind of lifestyle actually be? Frietas focuses too much on the idea of “good sex” as a thing of personal, individualistic satisfaction. True “good sex,” though, is spiritual, in the sense that it is an action of two beings giving of their whole selves to another: sharing, trusting, appreciating, and respecting each other. This kind of spiritual sex is achieved only through love, however. And true love, only achieved through means of communication – eye contact, conversation, faith. By fully acknowledging and attending to the particularity of another individual, we can truly know what it was like for God to give of himself to and for us to express His love. God loved us so much as to give His only Son; His Son loved us so much as to die a death on the cross – but before Jesus sacrificed Himself for our sake, he made a covenant of a certain nuptial mystery, devoting Himself to us and to the Church: “Take this, all of you, and drink from it, for this is the chalice of my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins…” Marriage vows take shape in the image of the divine covenant, proving commitment and devotion of oneself to another, just as Jesus did for us. If people seek out meaning through love and sacrament, they will know what it truly is to have fulfillment in life, and the selfishness (and pornification) of love will be a thing of the past.

What resonates with you about Donna Frietas’ The End of Sex? What do you find more problematic?

What resonates with me the most about Frietas’ The End of Sex is my personal ambivalence, and almost indifference to the way that she discusses and defines hook-up culture on college campuses. As Frietas moved onto the topic of theme parties, for example, including “CEOs and Business Hoes,” “Maids and Millionaires,” “Superheroes and Superhoes,” etc., I found myself not at all surprised by the content of her descriptions. I have heard of, seen, and even attended parties with such themes. With that, I found myself reading that particular section of the book with a sort of nonchalance, since those are common themes and happenings in my world. It took me a moment to step back, though, and literally think to myself, “It’s so sad that I read this and am so unfazed by it all, when I know my mom would be confused and absolutely appalled if she heard that such parties existed.” It’s this kind of realization that makes me consider just how significant of a generation gap has been created – and how prominent it is when it comes to societal norms such as hook-up culture. Reading this book and noticing my personal apathy toward the content actually bummed me out in a sense; I honestly dislike how casual my generation is about everything. If we don’t even consider something as personal, emotional, and connective as sex to be a “big deal,” then do we hold anything in our lives to be sacred and personal, only to be shared with special people? I think we’re a very hypocritical generation, too – the girls Frietas interviewed complained of not experiencing true romance, of being taken advantage of, of “guys” on college campuses not respecting them…yet on the weekends, they dress up as a “Superhoe” in order to keep up with social standards at their school (they actively participate in and encourage hook-up culture whether it be for their own pleasure, reputation, or a combination of both). The End of Sex really just proved to me how easily my generation is swayed to go with the status quo, participating in a culture that each individual openly acknowledges to being degrading, lonely, and not at all fun, purely because of peer pressure (from their peers who actually feel the same way they do about the culture, but just never vocalize it). While I enjoyed reading Frietas’ book, it left me feeling a little sad. I’m sad that I have grown up in a world where I am so numb to hearing of sexism, sex culture, and empty relationships that the majority of Freitas’ conversation pieces did not phase me. I’m sad that my generation is so stuck in its ways that no one dares to speak up against the status quo and open the dialogue for their peers to be honest about their feelings toward hook-up culture. I’m mostly sad, though, about the probable consequences my generation’s indifference toward personal acts, such as sex, will have on our future relationships, love lives, and perceptions of self.

Why are you interested in the themes of this class? What’s your own religious or theological background?

In the same way that I have dark brown hair, that I am 5’6″ tall, that I have hazel eyes – I am Catholic. My faith has always been a basic defining characteristic of who I am. I’ve always been very proud to say that I actively practice my religion. I’ve grown up in what some may call the “classic Notre Dame family” – very Irish, very Catholic, very family-oriented. To this day, I’ve only ever missed 4 weekends of mass (all due to illnesses preventing me from getting to church).

While I’ve always been happy to participate in masses, say nightly prayers, and receive sacraments, it was only this past year that I discovered my personal responsibility for my faith. When I got to Notre Dame as a first year student, I realized that I no longer “had” to go to church, confession, etc., since my parents weren’t there to necessarily “push” me there. Thankfully, though, this personal responsibility only brought me closer to the church. I joined the Folk Choir, and am fortunate enough to sing at the Basilica every Sunday morning and actively participate in the mass beside from sitting in the pews. I sought out different opportunities through campus ministry to learn more about my faith and meet people with similar perspectives and beliefs. I started a little tradition of going to the Grotto for a rosary once a week – if anything, to keep myself sane – but most importantly, to ensure that I always find time for Our Mother in gratitude.

Last year, I decided to take up an Economics minor, because (as an English major) I figured taking some business courses would be the “responsible” thing to do. After all, Mendoza has consistently been ranked the #1 business school in the country. Over the summer, I began thinking along the same lines, but this time about my faith – why would I go to the #1 Catholic University in the country (if not the world), and not take more than the 2 required theology courses? It seemed “irresponsible” to me to not take advantage of the faithful community I chose to be a part of in my academic life, in addition to my personal spiritual life. As of last week, I am now a double major with English and Theology (and, yes, am still pursuing the Economics minor). So far as this particular class goes, it was HIGHLY recommended to me from a student who took it last year, who claims “it changed the course of [his] life.” This is my first theology elective as part of my newly declared major, and I’m really looking forward to what I may learn through the readings, discussions, and lectures.