← The Word on Fire Show - Catholic Faith and Culture
The Word on Fire Show - Catholic Faith and Culture
WOF 480: Are We Required to Love Everyone Equally?
00:30:29
Are Christians required to love everyone equally? This question has recently become a matter of public and even political debate. So how should we answer? It seems necessary to ask what “loving thy neighbor” means in practice; for example is the...
Loading summary
Transcript51 lines
- [00:00]
A
Welcome back to the Word on Fire Show. I'm Matthew Patrucyk, senior director of the Word on Fire Institute and the host of the Word on Fire Show. Thank you for joining us. Are Christians required to love everyone equally? Surprisingly, this question, once reserved for intra Christian discussion, has recently become a matter of public and even political debate. So how should we answer? On the one hand, the reply seems to be a resounding yes, of course, Christians must love all people, especially in light of Jesus Christ's command to love our neighbor as ourselves. On the other hand, it seems necessary to ask what loving the neighbor means in practice. For example, is the love between friends, the love between spouses, the love within a family, the love among compatriots, and even the love of an enemy all the same kind of love? Do these relationships all entail the same kind of moral responsibilities? Might it be reasonable to say, for example, that we have a greater obligation to care for our own children over others children, our own friends over strangers, and our own country over other countries? If so, however, how can Christians coherently claim that we love all people equally? Here to help us disentangle these issues and to offer a comprehensive account of Christian love is Bishop Robert Barron. Welcome back to the studio, Bishop.
- [01:32]
B
Always good to be with you, man.
- [01:33]
A
So today we're looking at the question which has been raging online of whether Christians are required to love everyone equally and if so, how that could possibly work out. Before we get into that, what have you been up to recently?
- [01:46]
B
Well, just recently returned from London, my second trip in a couple years, because we have wonderful guy Brendan Thompson, who's our of representative for Word on Fire over in London, and I gave a series of talks, one talk at Parliament. We had a great conference on the Bible. So it was a wonderful experience. I love London and I love going this time of year, actually. So that was a joy.
- [02:09]
A
All right, let's now turn to the topic. So again, we're looking at the question of whether Christians are required to love all people equally. And a good place to start are some definitions, and let's look directly at the the two great commandments in scripture. So as you well know, Bishop, our Lord says in Matthew 22, you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. The second is like it, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. So we'll turn in a moment to looking at what neighbor could possibly mean in that context. But let's start with love. So, Bishop, what in A general sense is the operative understanding of love we should have within the context of the commandment.
- [02:49]
B
Love is to will the good of the other. That's Thomas Aquinas definition in the case of loving God. Not as though God needs some good that we can give him, but it means that we've ordered our will to the supreme good that he is. We will his own beauty and goodness and truth. And then, see, the love of neighbor is correlate to that. Because if we love God with our whole heart and whole soul, we also love. Maybe we sense this only inchoately, but we love everything that God loves. Well, God loves whatever else exists. So God loves all creatures. And therefore I love my neighbor as myself. The two are connected. They're intertwined. And it's very important that teaching of Jesus is not an accident that the two are connected. It's because the way God relates to the world, the world isn't sort of out there independent of God. And let me see if God loves that world or not, or whether I should love it or not. No, if you love God, you have to love what God loves, what God is continually creating. So that's why the two are so tightly intertwined.
- [03:51]
A
And how do we relate that conception of love still in sort of a general sense to say, love in a friendship or love within a marriage or love of children?
- [03:59]
B
Well, then we have to get a little more specific. So let's follow Aquinas in making distinctions. Right. So if love means to will the good of the other. Yes. And that's. Any kind of love is like that. But we don't love always with the same intensity. We don't love in the same way. Precisely. Now, here's an interesting thing, Matt, that we should think about, because Cardinal George said this years ago, and it caused a little bit of a controversy, but he was right out of Thomas Aquinas. He said, well, God doesn't love everybody equally. And people thought, what are you talking about? He said, well, Aquinas says God loves all creatures in the measure that he wills them some good. So if things exist, they've been willed a good by God. A. A bug exists and has all kinds of qualities that God has willed. And so God loves the bug walking around this table. But he's willed me a greater good. I'm at a higher level of being. He's willed more good to me now, lest I get puffed up. He loves an angel more than me. Right. He gave an angel, he gave a seraph, far greater ontological quality than he gave to me. So in that sense, we say, well, yeah, yeah, God loves the angel more than he loves me. He loves me more than he loves the cockroach. Okay. It's not denigrating us or God. It's just observing that you can will the good in different ways and at different levels of intensity.
- [05:22]
A
I know some of our viewers and listeners are thinking, well, that makes sense. Making that sort of, let's say, ontological distinction among different forms of being. How about within humanity itself?
- [05:32]
B
What?
- [05:32]
A
Would it be fair to say that God loves all human beings equally?
- [05:35]
B
No, because he wills them different goods. I'll quote Cardinal George again in the midst of this argument. He said, look, let's face it. God loved the Blessed Mother more than he loved Francis George.
- [05:47]
A
Fair enough.
- [05:48]
B
And his point was? Well, yeah, the Blessed Mother was given all kinds of goods that Francis George wasn't given. She was conceived without original sin. That's a gift that we weren't given. She's the Queen of heaven. So, I mean, God in that sense loved the Blessed Mother more than he loves Prince George or loves me or you. Again, it's not denigrating God. It's just observing that he gives goods at different levels of intensity.
- [06:14]
A
Another question that comes up in this context, because it's directly within the great Commandments, is the love of self. On the surface, that can sound like just a form of egotism. So how is it different from that?
- [06:25]
B
Well, it's willing your own good.
- [06:26]
A
Right.
- [06:27]
B
So, I mean, in that sense, you can kind of pose yourself as other, if you want to put it that way. And you're willing your own good. Sure, to some degree. When I am crossing the street and I look both ways, I'm loving myself, I'm protecting myself. When I go to the doctor to get a checkup, I'm loving myself. Right. Nothing wrong with that. You're willing your own good as other, if you want to put it that way. So then love your neighbor as you love yourself. So as protective as you are when you cross the street, be that protective of others.
- [06:59]
A
And how about love of enemy? This is a challenging one.
- [07:03]
B
Yeah, well, to love means to will the good of the other. And so an enemy is someone that is not going to reciprocate, likely. So if you're kind to your enemy, he's likely not going to be kind to you back. Well, good. That's a great test of love, therefore, because it means you're not loving the other for the sake of yourself. That's a subtle trick. That's a. A Devil's trick, if you want, is, well, I'll be kind to you. I'll be kind to Matrusick, because what can I get out of Matrusick? What can he give me? So I'll be kind to him. You're thinking, I don't know what, very little. No, no. But I'll be kind to you, so, oh, maybe then he'll be kind to me in return. So when you love your enemy, there's something beautiful about that because he's not gonna repay you. That's why, you know, in the sermon, Jesus says precisely that. Like, don't give a party to those who can then return the favor. Don't loan to those who can then pay you back. Loan to those who can't pay you back. Be kind to those who won't be kind to you in return. So that's, I think, where love of enemy is really a powerful idea.
- [08:04]
A
And how do we compare this conception of Christian love that you've just laid out to the more secular understanding of love, which is oftentimes equated with, to love someone is to do what they want.
- [08:15]
B
Yeah, right. And that's a really good distinction because that might not be what's good for them, you know, so that. Right. Often the conversation today is like, no. To love someone means welcome them on their own terms, affirm them in whatever choice they've made. Well, I mean, what parent would ever do that with a child? I'm just here to affirm whatever stupid choice you've made. Kids make bad choices all the time, and parents get in the way of those. So there's an exaggerated case. But no to love your neighbor is sometimes to say no. It's to get in their way. It's to critique them. Someone's crossing the street without looking both ways, and you see it and you grab them to stop, stop them. That's an act of love. Right? So. Right. That's a hugely important distinction. But we've sentimentalized it where it's affirming someone's feelings. That's not love.
- [09:08]
A
And finally, on the question of love, how do we relate all these different kinds of love as you've described them, in relation to love of God? Should we love God in a categorically different way, or is it just this kind of love intensified?
- [09:19]
B
No, it would be something that's qualitatively different because you love God first and above all things. That's why. You know, it's interesting, Matt, in the scriptures, when Jesus has very harsh things to say about, hey, can I at least go bury my father. No, no, no. Let the dead bury their dead. You've set your hand to the plow. The love of God is unique, just as God's manner of being is unique. God's not one being among many. So I love you. I love someone else a little bit more. I love God the most. That's not quite it. God isn't the highest creature to love. God's the creator of all things. So the love I have for God has to be distinct, unique, absolute. Now, once I grasp the way God exists, I understand my love for God has implications for my love for all of the rest of creation. But no, the love for God is qualitatively different. And the Bible, See, go back to the story of Abraham and Isaac and the sacrifice. The Bible constantly brings us to that point to compel us. All right, if push comes to shove, whom do you love more? See, that's why we should never read that Abraham, Isaac's story is cruel or it's some kind of manipulation on God's part. It's the Bible's way of making this point that the person in the world you love the most, this beloved son, Isaac, the son of the promise, the longed for son of your old age, that Isaac, you have to love God more. And that story brings you to that point of decision. You know, please, God, we never come to that moment. It's like Thomas More on the scaffold, you know, I die His Majesty's good servant. But God's first and more tried to avoid that moment as much as he could until he said, I can't avoid it and I have to make a decision. That's basic in the Bible.
- [11:18]
A
Let's now turn to the other main component of the two great commandments. And that's the neighbor. So starting off at a general level, who is the neighbor? What defines the neighbor as neighbor in relationship to love within the Great Commandment?
- [11:30]
B
Well, you know, of course, it's the parable of the Good Samaritan that's meant to answer that question. It's the man that asked Jesus, well, who is my neighbor? And I think one way to construe it, Matt, is, you know, you could say, just broadly, everyone's my neighbor. So every single person that lives in the world is my neighbor? Yes, in one sense. But I think what the parable is hinting at is your neighbor in that morally relevant sense is someone who's in need, whom you can help. So yes, in a sense, everyone's my neighbor and I should love Everyone in the world. But is there someone who's in my sort of scope of influence and whom I can help, who's in need? I think that's the neighbor Jesus is talking about.
- [12:11]
A
Is the neighbor a helpful category for thinking about, for example, our own family members? Because there's kind of a generic quality to neighbors. So do we think of, like, you know, for those who are married, our spouses, do we think of our children? Do we think of our actual beloved neighbors who live next to us as this. In this kind of generic sense as well?
- [12:26]
B
I think you can. As I say, it can be this sort of blandly inclusive term, you know, but now we're getting closer to this famous question of the order of love, you know, so whom do you love first and with what kind of intensity? And I think, following the great tradition, there are distinctions to be made there. If we render the word love just completely, blandly universal, then we're gonna miss a lot of the texture of how we should actually love. So I think that is kind of opening that question.
- [12:57]
A
Well, let's turn to that right now, then. We were talking before the show started. Who would have thought at some point we would be discussing the ordo amoris, the order of love, as something that has great political and cultural significance. But it does. So we have some time. Please lay out for us, Bishop, sort of the grand vision of the order of love and the great theological tradition. How is it built? What's its significance? And how do we understand the parts in relationship to each other?
- [13:24]
B
Yeah, the roots would be back in Augustine. And Aquinas picks it up, as he often does from Augustine, and gives a great, know, clarity to it. But a point I want to make, Matt, first is that connection to the way God loves, because I think there's an analogy there. As I said, God doesn't love all things and all people equally. God wills good to varying degrees and varying types of intensity. Let's face it, he loves the seraphim more than he loves me. Right? So in that objective sense of love, in a way, there's an analogy, I think, and that's what the ordo amoris is talking about. There's an order of love. Can I love? Should I love with the same level of intensity absolutely everybody in the world? Well, I think, obviously, no, it's first of all, like, physically and psychologically impossible. I'm a finite agent. How can I possibly will the good of every single person to the same degree of intensity? Which is why Augustine and Aquinas, following him, will talk About a certain order of love. And they use the language even of proximity. What they mean is not just physical proximity, but sort of proximity of obligation. Are there certain people for whom I have an obligation to love most intensely? Well, sure. You're the father of a family, right? You have your wife and your kids. Yeah. In the order of love, you love them first. Let's say your whole neighborhood. Let's say we lived in la, you know, your whole neighborhood's burning down. What's your first obligation? Well, it's to protect your family, obviously. Is everybody in danger? Yeah, sure. But your first obligation is to your family. Let's say your family's fine, But a house 10 doors down, a neighbor that you know, their house is on fire. Do you have an obligation maybe for that time to leave your family and help them? Sure, of course you do. But in the ordo amoris, the order of love, I think you first have the obligation to your family, and then, you know, they see it as going out from there to different levels of love and different intensities of love. I think there's just something psychologically realistic about the order of love language within.
- [15:45]
A
The sort of the question of what justifies the distinction. You've already touched on this. But just to sort of draw the implications of it out more clearly, Is the order of love arguing that we have these distinct obligations to those closest to us because they are closest to us, or is there also sort of a moral dimension as well? It's not just sort of accidental geographic proximity. It's also the kind of relationship.
- [16:08]
B
No, Right. It's a moral obligation. I don't think that's entirely appropriate, let's say. I wouldn't. Later I'll be going into the chancery office right here in Winona Rochester. I'm the bishop. I wear this ring, which is like a wedding ring, and this is my coat of arms as bishop of this diocese. It's a wedding ring. So I'm wedded to this diocese. Suppose I went in and I said to my secretary, you know, let's call off the meeting, say, because there's, you know, lacrosse diocese has got some issues. I want to really help my brother bishop there. And so I'm going to do that. Well, she might look at me kind of puzzled, like, well, all right, I guess. But how about the next day I come back and say, you know what? Call off all the confirmations in my diocese, because I just have got to spend more time, you know, with the lacrosse diocese. Or then how about the third day I Would come in and say, yeah, I know I'm supposed to go to these different parishes, but call that off. Because a brother bishop from South Sudan has called me and there's a real crisis. There's a famine going on and people are dying. So I'm going to do all I can to help that bishop. Are the people of La Crosse wonderful people? Are they subjects of infinite dignity? Of course. Are the people in South Sudan of infinite dignity? Yes, of course. But in the ordo amoris, I mean, my first responsibility is to the diocese of Winona, Rochester. I'd be irresponsible morally if I were to eschew that responsibility and care for people further away. People, frankly, whom I can't help that directly anyway. I think, to me, that's the commonsensical intuition behind the ordo amoris idea within this discourse.
- [17:56]
A
And this is something that previous rector of a seminary. These are academic debates that are sometimes had making a distinction between having equal moral regard for all people, which is sort of universal and undifferentiated, versus equal treatment. Do you find that a helpful distinction here? That just because we have equal regard doesn't mean we have equal treatment?
- [18:16]
B
No. Right. Because, of course, everyone in the world is a subject of infinite dignity. Everyone in the world is a beloved child of God. Everyone in the world is someone whom I should love absolutely. But then we have to ask these sort of prudential questions of, well, what's the order of my love? What am I capable of doing? How can I help the people in question? Who's closest to me, not in the geographical sense, but in that sort of moral sense? I think those are all perfectly relevant. Here's something else Matt from Aquinas I find interesting. So as he lays out this ordo amoris idea, which indeed he does, he'll say, okay, you know, family first and community and country and so on. But then he does say, and this is where the Good Samaritan comes in. If there is someone even whom you don't know, but who presents himself to you in immediate and great need, do you suspend the ordinal Morris to help that person? And the answer is yes. So that's where the good Samaritan comes in. I think a problem might be if we universalize the Good Samaritan and say, well, no, I must have equal concern for everybody all the time. In the same way. No, it's when someone in acute need presents himself to us. Then let's say you're with your family one evening and you're by the Fireplace, you're watching TV and everyone's fine in your family. And to the door, desperately knocking, comes someone who's being pursued and is in great danger. You don't know that person, do you say, sorry, this is not the Ordo Amoris, I'm sorry, I'm going to lock the. No, no, you of course bring that person in. You care for that person. That's the moment when, because of immediate need, the ordo is suspended. But that exception shouldn't become the rule as though now that applies to everyone all over the world, because it's just psychologically and spiritually unrealistic. But that's an important distinction because we can lock ourselves into the Ordo Moris idea in such a way that we become callous, we become indifferent to the sufferings of others. No, no. When they present themselves as the suffering man by the road did the Good Samaritan goes by and sees this man. He doesn't know him, he's an alien to him, but he's in immediate need. Okay, I'm going to act. So I think that's the right distinction.
- [20:37]
A
So this gets a little bit more into the weeds. But since we'll look a bit more at the Good Samaritan in just a moment. But when we're looking at the possibility of encountering someone who's in need, and you're saying in that case we should suspend the order amoris, you preface it by saying, let's say my family is fine, but what in cases in which, is it ever morally justified to actually sacrifice, say, a good of someone in your family in order to help someone in need? I know that gets more complex, but I think that's a play in this debate here as well.
- [21:10]
B
I mean, we have to look at cases probably, and that's a matter of prudence, I would say. Generally speaking. No, I'm thinking of, you know, you're in again. It's the neighborhood on fire or the plane has crashed and everyone's in danger. But your first obligation is to care for your family, to get them out when it comes to love of God. And again, I go back to Thomas Moore here. I just watched man for All Seasons with the students at St. Mary's University a few weeks ago. Does more, in a way, abandon his family. Yeah, but out of love for God, you know, so when his daughter and son in law and his wife were suffering immensely because of the choices he made, okay, in a way he is sacrificing his love for them. But that was for the sake of God or Go back to Maxwell and Kolbe. Remember in the famous scene when they. They call the man out to be killed and he falls to his knees saying, I'm a husband, I'm a father. And Kolbe was able to say, I'm a Catholic priest. Take me. And part of what he meant was, I don't have a family. I don't have a wife and kids. Take me. I'll go in his place. But probably we have to look at individual cases there, huh?
- [22:22]
A
So, as you know, the Good Samaritan is being used now in online debates and even in political debates as a counterpoint to the order of Morassein. And given the nature of that story and that Jesus tells it, that shows that there should not be a hierarchical conception. No, it's just, why is that wrong?
- [22:40]
B
Right? It's the great Catholic both and not the either or. I would not pose that as an either or because Aquinas doesn't and Augustine doesn't. It's the moment where sometimes the ordo amoris is suspended for the sake of immediate need. Now, does it apply to individuals and to nations? So that's the great debate about immigration and so on. Sure. Sure it does. You know, if someone is coming to our borders who is really in that kind of immediate and desperate need, well, yeah, there's a moral demand there. And the ordo amoris could be suspended in those. In those more radical cases. So I think that's the right way to do it. And it's right in the heart. It's in the segunda. Segundae question. I want to say 31. He treats of this, and it's right in that respondio when he lays out the ordo, but then makes this not objection, but it's the acknowledgement of a suspension of the ordo in certain more radical cases.
- [23:43]
A
Another passage in scripture that's being used, or perhaps I can even say weaponized against the ordo Amorus is one you actually already referred to in Luke, where a man comes up to Jesus and says, I want to follow you, but first let me bury my father. And he says, no, let the dead bury the dead. And so that's being used to say, well, look, Jesus says, there's no distinction, even family members.
- [24:04]
B
No, because that's love of God versus love of even the highest good in the world, your family. Jesus is saying, no, but the love of God has to be higher than that. So, no, I think that's the wrong way to use that story. That's like the Abraham Isaac story. It's Another example of how radical the love for God has to be. No, see, I think there's room, I think in this debate, in some ways the right distinctions aren't being made. And so then we fall into this kind of two camps, either or. And Aquinas is so subtle as he typically is, and it helps us to avoid some of these problems. Here's another one from Aquinas, I think, which is relevant here in political philosophy. So Thomas talks about the right to private ownership. The Church has followed him. The Church affirms private ownership. Private property is a legitimate thing. The Church has been consistently, from Leo XIII through Francis, opposed to socialist schemes that would say there's no private property, or the government should own the means of production, all that. The Church is against that it's for private property. At the same time, Aquinas will say, when it comes to the use of our private property, the primary obligation should be to the common good. Extraordinary balance. So it's not just a matter of like, oh, yeah, private property. So I can get anything I want, take anything I want, it all belongs to me. No, no, now that you have this private property, you have to be hyper concerned about, well, what's the common good? How can I use my private property for the sake of the common good? Something Francis has done, I think very well is to take, extrapolate from that principle to the national scene. So are there wealthier nations and they have a right to their wealth and all that? We're not talking about socialist or communist ideas, but in the use of what they have, is there a moral obligation to care for less prosperous countries? Yeah, sure there is. Is there a sense of a universal good, politically speaking? Yeah, sure. So that's why we avoid a sort of jingoistic or xenophobic or, you know, it just all belongs to me. That's not Catholic social teaching. Catholic social teaching is the subtle balancing of private ownership with use for the sake of the common good. That's a very important distinction. And it's like this one that we've been talking about between the ordo amoris, which is. Is valid, but can be suspended in cases of emergency need. And again, just think of, make it concrete, someone coming to your door and saying, I need help right now. Well, I don't know you. And I'm in bed with. I'm at home with my family. Well, look, the guy's in immediate need. You have to respond. That's Catholic social teaching.
- [26:54]
A
And before we turn to our listener question, help us understand how this robust but nuanced conception of love as you've comprehensively laid out, what kind of evangelical impact can it have? How can we present it to the culture in a way to really make a difference?
- [27:08]
B
Yeah, no, I think it does have evangelical power. And how these Christians love one another. That's what Tertullian remarked, is what brought people to the church, was how they love one another. The more you show love, and in its proper ordering, I think the ordo amoris obtains across the board. But show it. Show it vibrantly. Show it at all these different levels, and that will draw people to you. They'll say, well, boy, where's that coming from? And then the answer is, well, it comes from Christ. It comes from the love of God. So I think that's right. It has enormous evangelical power.
- [27:50]
A
Now turn to our listener question. Today we have Tony from Canada asking how to forgive and let go of bitterness. Hi, Bishop Barron. My name is Tony. I am calling in from Canada. My question is about forgiveness. How do we actually forgive? I know I'm not asking about forgetting, but how do we let go of the bitterness and the hurt?
- [28:22]
B
Yeah, thank you for that. And it's a question that, you know, gosh, a lot of us deal because we've all been hurt in different ways. And the temptation is always then to lash out and answer evil with evil. Think of it as bearing the burden of the other. So, you know, there's been a rupture in a relationship, and in justice, you do this, and the other person would do that. And in a way, let's say you've done what you could, but the person hasn't moved. You have to bear their extra burden. You make the extra effort yourself to overcome the split. It's a form of loving your enemy. Right. If someone is unwilling to forgive you, but you bear their burden anyway. So I would try to instantiate it through certain actions, not try to change my emotional sensibility, because that's almost impossible to do, but it's an action. It's a reaching out in love. It's the phone call, or it's the email or it's the personal contact. Do something. I would say to bear the burden of the other. I think that's how you forgive.
- [29:32]
A
Well, thank you, Tony, so much for your question. If you would like to ask Bishop Barron a question for a future Word on Fire show episode, please visit askbishopbarron.com that's askbishopbarron.com as always, we love to hear from you, Bishop. Excellent conversation as usual.
- [29:50]
B
It's an important one, too.
- [29:51]
A
I think this very important, especially right now.
- [29:53]
B
Yeah.
- [29:54]
A
We'll see you again soon.
- [29:54]
B
God bless you.
- [29:56]
A
That does it for us today. Thanks for joining us on the Word on Fire show. If you're interested in learning more about how Word on Fire can help you grow closer to Christ, become a better evangelist with and for others, and work for the common good, consider joining the Word on Fire Institute. Check us out at institute.WordPress.org that's institute.WordPress.org we'll see you next time.