The Evangelization Station |
Pray for Pope Francis Scroll down for topics
Apostolic Fathers of the Church Biographies & Writings of Notable Catholics Catholic News Commentary by Michael Voris, S.T.B.
(Death, Heaven, Purgatory, Hell) Links to Churches and Religions Links to Newspapers, Radio and Television Links to specialized Catholic News services General Instruction of the Roman Missal **** **** **** **** Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults
Visits to this site |
108. Man Called to Overcome Concupiscence
By Pope John Paul II
1. We said
previously that in the context of the present reflections on the structure of
marriage as a sacramental sign, we should bear in mind not only what Christ said
about its unity and indissolubility in reference to the beginning, but also (and
still more) what he said in the Sermon on the Mount when he referred to the
human heart. Referring to the commandment, "You shall not commit adultery,"
Christ spoke of adultery in the heart. "Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully
has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Mt 5:28). 2. Continuing
our present analysis we can observe that even though man, notwithstanding the
sacramental sign of marriage, notwithstanding conjugal consent and its
actuation, remains naturally the "man of concupiscence," he is at the same time
the man who has been "called." He is called through the mystery of the
redemption of the body, a divine mystery, which at the same time is—in Christ
and through Christ in every man—a human reality. That mystery, besides, implies
a determinate ethos which is essentially human, and which we have previously
called the ethos of the redemption. 4. In this
way, in the evangelical and Christian perspective of the problem, historical man
(after original sin), on the basis of the language of the body reread in truth,
is able—as male and female—to constitute the sacramental sign of love, of
conjugal fidelity and integrity, and this as an enduring sign: "To be
faithful to you always in joy and in sorrow, in sickness and in health, and to
love and honor you all the days of my life." This signifies that man, in a real
way, is the author of the meanings whereby, after having reread in truth the
language of the body, he is also capable of forming in truth that language in
the conjugal and family communion of the persons. He is capable of it also as
the man of concupiscence, being at the same time called by the reality of the
redemption of Christ (simul lapsus et redemptus). 5. By means
of the dimension of the sign proper to marriage as a sacrament there is
confirmed the specific theological anthropology, the specific hermeneutics of
man. In this case it could also be called the hermeneutics of the sacrament,
because it permits us to understand man on the basis of the analysis of the
sacramental sign. Man—male and female—as the minister of the sacrament, the
author (co-author) of the sacramental sign, is a conscious and capable subject
of self-determination. Only on this basis can he be the author of the language
of the body, the author (co-author) of marriage as a sign—a sign of the divine
creation and redemption of the body. The fact that man (male and female) is the
man of concupiscence does not prejudice his capacity to reread the language of
the body in truth. He is the man of concupiscence. But at the same time he is
capable of discerning truth from falsity in the language of the body. He can be
the author of the meanings of that language, whether true or false. 6. He is the
man of concupiscence, but he is not completely determined by libido (in the
sense in which this term is often used). Such a determination would imply that
the ensemble of man's behavior, even, for example, the choice of continence for
religious motives, would be explained only by means of the specific
transformations of this libido. In such a case—in the sphere of the language of
the body—man would, in a certain sense, be condemned to essential
falsifications. He would merely be one who expresses a specific determination on
the part of the libido, but he would not express the truth or falsity of spousal
love and of the communion of the persons, even though he might think to manifest
it. Consequently, he would then be condemned to suspect himself and others in
regard to the truth of the language of the body. Because of the concupiscence of
the flesh he could only be accused, but he could not be really called. Source: L'Osservatore Romano
109. Return to the Subject of Human Love in the Divine Plan - 5.23.1984 |
|
|