Pope Benedict XVI may try to "save eros," in the first encyclical of his papacy, Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George told the Chicago Sun-Times.
George expects the new pope will try to explain that erotic love, eros, and unconditional love, agape, are both inherently good in God’s eyes in his encyclical titled "Deus, Caritas Est," Latin for "God is Love." An encyclical is a pope’s most authoritative document, a pastoral letter circulated to the universal church.
The cardinal has not yet seen Benedict XVI’s encyclical, which is expected to be released by the Vatican within days, but said he has "seen comments" about it. The pope has asked George to deliver an address about the major themes of the encyclical to a gathering of the pontifical charity organization Cor Unum in Rome at the end of the month, according to Colleen Dolan, the cardinal’s spokeswoman.
Benedict XVI’s first encyclical will likely "talk about Christ, which is a good thing for a pope to talk about in his first encyclical. John Paul II did that," George said. "And he is going to talk about the relationship between love and truth, between agape and eros."
I thought it was rather strange for a "Religion Reporter" to keep referring to Cardinal George as just George. I guess they are on a last name basis. Interesting that even though Cardinal George will be giving a talk on the encyclical at the end of the month for the Pope, that even he hasn’t got an advance copy.
I really wish though that they would publish the release date so that we could have a countdown. I know that I can hardly wait.
12 comments
This kind of goes along with those priests who continually introduce themselves as “Remi” (no Father attached), and sign official letters, etc., to the parish the same way. Pretty soon, I’m impatiently reminding the (usually orthodox) deacon’s wife to use his title, too! *grumble, grumble*
Um, it also might be useful to point out that encyclicals are NOT the most authoritative documents a pope can put out. That would be a Papal Bull. Thanks, MSM, for doing your jobs.
WEll, consider the source – it is the Sun Times – but I don’t know if any harm was intended (though I would not put it past them). A peeve of mine is that U.S. media (and often many in U.S. including Catholics) have transferred the “cardinal” to the front of one’s name (ala “Father” or “Mister” etc) The “title” Cardinal is more appropriate as a bridge between the baptismal name and the surname as in, “Francis Cardinal George” or “Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger”
The dropping of the proper title in reference to clerics seems very telling of the approach to ministry of many clerics of the last generation (sixties, hippies, etc). Instead of an emphasis on the priesthood (the title), there was a stress on the person (the name). Instead of focusing on bringing the sacraments to people, these guys focused on bringing their personality to people. We also see some of this in ‘turning’ the altar around.
I am always rankled by those presumptuous enough to call priests by their first name – especially when they haven’t been invited to show such familiarity. (I work in a rectory so I see the gamut of respect and disrespect. Disgruntled feminists of a certain age are particularly fond of calling priests by their first names. Blech. Makes me want to slap them upside the head and yell, “Their own mothers call them “Father” when they phone, so you could show a little respect.)
We also have a bit of confusion since our former pastor, whom we called “Fr. George” went downtown to work for the Cardinal. When people just say George I sometimes have to ask to whom are they referring. And I always wonder if there should be a comma after the Cardinal’s first name…without the comma it looks like Cardinal is Francis George’s middle name.
Bravo Cue! You are right on about this. The Mass and the whole ministry of a priest becomes a cult of personality. I think these priests were well-meaning inasmuch as they saw the formality as a barrier rather than a help to ministry, but the results speak for themselves. Rather than being brought closer to Christ, we were brought closer to Bob or Fred or whomever, which certainly created an awkward situation (which I am sure) prompted many Catholics to simply stop going to Mass (and dissociate themselves from the Church altogether) I was thinking about this very thing on the Feast of the Most Holy Name of Jesus. Yes, we call Jesus by name, and it is because we desire a close personal relationship with Him. Father, by celebrating Mass and exercising his ministry should be a conduit to that relationship developing but when he ceases to be “father” and becomes “Bob” then he renders himself ineffective in his ministry as a conduit.
Much can be said about the ad orientem (“priest with his back to the people” is a red herring) posture of the priest at Mass. We know that the Sacrifice of Christ is being offered, we know that the priest is acting in persona Christi capitas and we don’t get entangled into the subjectivity of who the priest is – other than Christ. With Versus populum, the priest has a face – “Bob’s face” and some priests, trained during a certain window of time, feel inclined to use that face to “entertain” after all, they find themselves standing up (“on a stage”) in front of so many people, it is then easy to forget who is the true center of attention.
Absolutely unacceptable!
I can’t even bring myself to call a nonCatholic pastor by his/her first name. So very disrespectful given their chosen vocation. To do so to a Catholic priest is to spit in Christ’s eye. May He rebuke anyone who does, including the priest who encourages it.
Of course for Francis Cardinal George his first name is not George but Francis.
Fr. Totton point taken – I will start using the traditional way of referring to Cardinals on my blog.
It’s actually rather common for writers, particularly news writers to refer to a person by their full name the first time then just the last name for subsequent references. Dr. John Smith is referred to as “Smith,” Prime Minister Jack Johnson is referred to as “Johnson,” etc.
It sounds weird because his last name sounds like a first name, but the same thing has been done with Ratzinger, Schonborn, and others without comment. I don’t think any disrespect was intended at all.
Um, it also might be useful to point out that encyclicals are NOT the most authoritative documents a pope can put out. That would be a Papal Bull.
Pope’s don’t write documents called Bulls anymore (I don’t know why, but doubt that it’s because it doesn’t sound that impressive to American ears). The most authoratative document now is the Apostolic Constitution (the Assumption of Mary was dogmatically defined via an Apostolic Constitution).
Actually in AP Style, Titles are not to be used in anything but first reference. You afterward referr to people on a last name basis. I think it just sticks out more because George is also a common first name and we’re not used to seeing that in papers.
I’m relived that it wasn’t this “just George” who was asked to discuss the themes of the encyclical, in which case we might end up hearing something like this. Alas, though, this George’s public ministry has come to a conclusion.