Catholic Exchange

Love Your Enemies: “This is a difficult saying; who can accept it?”

First, for all of the Bible geeks out there, I know these two Scriptures aren’t actually together, but I’m being super-geeky and using a rabbinic method known as “hekesh,” or “banging” two verses together to produce a stronger meaning. In this case, I’m less comparing and more emphasizing, but still awesome, right?

Anyhow, we like and understand a lot of what Jesus teaches in the Gospels, but the command in Matthew 5:33-34 is one we’d rather just pretend we never heard. What about Jesus’ words here make them so much harder to hear than the consoling tones of the Beatitudes? The short answer is, they require something from us, something we don’t know how to do. Our Lord points out that it’s easy to love those who are dear to us, even those who are kind to us, but to love those who hurt us, say awful things to and about us, or who even abandon us- well, that’s just crazy, right? Not so crazy when you consider what it means to love.

What is love?

When we ask children what “love” is, they usually giggle, likely thinking of people kissing, and talk about how they feel about their mom and dad. Some older children will talk about being nice to people, taking care of them, a number of responses. They’re not entirely wrong, but for we Catholics, there is something more that’s required of us. Love isn’t some emotion, affection is. Love, on the other hand, is a choice. Great, you say, our society loves choice, so people should be all about loving everyone, even the neighbor who turns you into the HOA for one too many yard decorations, or who gossips about you at the classroom Halloween party. Of course, we know that we are generally not interested in tolerating, let alone loving those people. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, it’s absolutely necessary to define our terms, of this train is going nowhere.

What is love? It does depend some on who you ask. Aristotle reserved two definitions for love, one, philia, which reflects the common understanding of friendship (at his time, but still mostly true today), including the desire for that person’s well-being, which is mutual between the two individuals. Second is the term eunous, or what Aristotle termed as being “well-disposed” or “bearing goodwill.” This is the desire for another’s well-being, but without the the implied reciprocation of the same intention. This latter term is love for love’s sake, not for any person gain or for a common sharing of affection.

St. Thomas Aquinas, who was heavily influenced by Aristotle, maintains the definition of philia as “friendship,” but his discussion of what Aristotle termed eunous is far more extensive, referring to it as “charity.” At this point, I’m going to proudly assume that your eyes just lit up because you’re starting to see a connection. If I’m wrong, it’s okay because I can’t see you, so there’s really no disappointment here. Using the Philosopher’s (Aquinas’ term for Aristotle) definitions, Aquinas makes clear that friendship is related to charity because friendship loves, by affection, the other and all that belongs to him (ST, II-II, q. 23, a. 1). Because each person, made in the image and likeness of God, belongs to and is loved by God, and charity’s ultimate subject is God, then, for us to be in friendship with God, in complete charity, we must also love all that is His. That is why our friendship of charity must be extended to every man, regardless of their will of good or evil toward us, “You have heard that it as said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy,’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in Heaven, for He makes His sun rise on the evil, and on the good, and sends rain on just and on the unjust” (Matt 5:43-45). The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) makes this painfully clear in Paragraph 1825, when it quotes Romans 5:10 in order to point out that Jesus offered us a share in His life, an opportunity for relationship, even “while we were enemies” (emphasis mine). If we truly love God, then we will also choose to love His people…all of them.

Desiring the Good

True “love” then, requires that we first know what is the good for another person, regardless of our affections for them, and upon knowing, in deference to our love toward God, requires our willing of that good. That sounds simple enough, to will that other people, even our enemies would receive the good intended for them by God. If only that were the end of the story, it might be so easy, but simply willing what is good is not enough. Our will must be animated to act because we are only conformed to the image of Christ if we choose to do, and not to do just anything, but to give our lives so that the other may have life “to the full” (Jhn 10:10).

Yikes, I know. How much trouble am I in? I definitely feel like my reaction to the driver who just cut me off in some smart Austrian status symbol is not as much loving as it is noting that “truth in engineering” appears to also mean “truth in advertising,” considering how the people in those commercials drive. Epic moral fail.

Look to the Son

Don’t despair- there’s hope. As I said, love is a choice, not an emotion, so frustration and even righteous anger about those who hurt and demean or even kill is not a deal-breaker. We aren’t expected to like everyone on the planet, but we are expected to desire their ultimate good, and I’m sure God would appreciate if that desire for other’s good would make it back around, so that we would experience that selfless love, leading some day to a sense of solidarity as members of the human family. Now, I don’t profess to speak for God, but knowing what I do of His will, I think He’d probably be okay with that. In fact, here’s what the Catechism says, quoting St. Basil, “If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages,… we resemble mercenaries. Finally, if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands… we are in the position of children” (CCC 1828).

Ultimately, loving your enemies isn’t easy- but what in the Christian life is? If we expect any better treatment or an easier road than our Lord, we are seriously deluding ourselves, “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you”(Jhn 15:18). If you’re still in doubt, I assure you, Jesus is really pushing this whole “love” agenda because He just keeps talking about it, “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you” (Jhn 15:12). When we love our enemies as the Father has loved us, sinners though we are, we have become a little more like Him, moved just a little closer to Him, and If you know anything about the image of the Father, you know it is Jesus, and becoming better conformed to His Son means becoming sons and daughters of the Father as well.

Editor’s note: This article first appeared on The Snarky Theologianthe author’s personal blog, and is reprinted here with kind permission. 

Comments

11 responses to “Love Your Enemies: “This is a difficult saying; who can accept it?””

  1. SnowCherryBlossoms Avatar
    SnowCherryBlossoms

    Whatever it is God asks of us, He also gives the Grace to accomplish it- if we just ask. With God all things are possible.

  2. Ms Charlie Hackett Avatar

    ASKING Catholic Exchange to look further into this author, Amand Hupka. While I enjoyed this article, her blog is filled with political, judgemental rhetoric. Sounded more like a rally at Republican headquarters. We are taught not to judge. Our own Pope has praised Barack Obama. I felt duped by reading this which was bait to fish readers over to an ulterior motives site. The sad results of those who hijack religions for advancement of their political beliefs is what fundamentalists and worse do. I love Catholic Exchange. I am excited to find this for our study group! I was very offended by Amanda’s blog site. It is ironic she used the topic of love to bring people over to read articles that are based in politicas and judgements against our President! There was no love in her writing there. Could someone please take a look? Thank you!

  3. wb Avatar
    wb

    Talk about being judgmental.. remove the beam…

  4. roger s. Avatar
    roger s.

    Really, Ms Charlie, if you had any depth in what you write about Prez Obama, that would be one thing. But you seem to have none. Are you aware of the sinister machinations that are emanating from just about EVERYTHING this President does? And WHY there are such emanations? Are you aware, for instance, of the long mystical rant by Cdl. James Francis Stafford on the internet around 2007-2008, concerning this person Barack Hussein Obama? Now, many aspects of what he posted are a little confusing and disjointed, to be sure. But his description of Obama ,in particular that part that said Obama was APOCALYPTIC (my emphasis) and DIVISIVE (ditto), not to mention “aggressively hostile” (my logical deduction of something the good Cdl. wrote) to basic Judeo-Christian morality would certainly seem to be something to make our Catholic antennae rise, and rightfully so. Do you agree? You’re not marinating in false compassion just because Obama’s the first African-American President are you? In another regard, are you aware of Obama’s seemingly ENDLESS ‘aggressively hostile ‘attitude towards unborn human life, and how that played out in his vote, while State Senator in Illinois, AGAINST a “born alive” act then pending, which stipulated that any unborn baby that survived an abortion attempt was TO BE SAVED? Imagine! A helpless unborn child lives through a vicious attempt to kill it, and he, Obama, would like to see the poor creature KILLED ANYWAY! That left me speechless when I first read of it. Check it out on the internet if you don’t believe that this happened. Now,above, in part you write………”to read articles that are based in politicas and judgements against our President! There was no love in her writing there.” Really? How about the TRUTH about this man, Obama. Does that matter to you, Ms Charlie? Good grief, in Christian charity, I ask you to WAKE UP, LADY. This deeply deceitful maniac Obama may bring about the end of this nation if he’s allowed to continue on his delusional and spiteful way. IMPEACHMENT’S the answer, lady. Just saying. And God Bless you.

  5. kirk Avatar
    kirk

    Ho-Hummmmm! Another rant from the far right! If you look for the sinister machinations” you will find them and then disseminate more irrelevant junk for drawing in the gullible. But this political machination has no bearing on this column, “Love Your Enemies” unless you consider Obama to be one of your enemies, and if he is, then reconsider him to be one you should love anyway. If for nothing else, he certainly beats the “Green Eggs and Ham” rant that cost the taxpayers so much money while allowing our elected officials over 24 hours to relax and enjoy the unexpected holiday. I could go on, but what’s the point? I don’t think some people get it.
    So, let’s not cloud the message in this column! We should re-read it and ask ourselves exactly what Jesus meant when he said, “Love your enemies.”

  6. roger s. Avatar
    roger s.

    Hey, kirk, are you Ms. Charlie’s designated spokesperson in trolldom? Your supreme arrogance is only outdone by your smugness; TRUTH doesn’t matter to some people when they’re on their agenda rant-path. Kind of describes your riposte to what I posted, eh? Have you NO ANSWER but “irrelevat junk” to the comments I referred to by Cdl. James Francis Stafford? He of the American University in Rome? You’re so intellectually lazy in what you responded to that I’m compelled to conclude that your agenda in either muddying the waters, or just having some kind of mindless “fun” with what I wrote in response to Ms. Charlie. How sad. BTW, who said I don’t LUV Obama? My luv for him is of the “TOUGH LOVE” variety. But NOTHING in your response invalidates what I wrote of “the one.” Just boredom and smugness, once again, and ennui, but no opposite information to the menace that Obama represents to this nation. Pathetic. God Bless anyway.

  7. kirk Avatar
    kirk

    If you knew me, Roger, you would know I am neither arrogant nor smug, perhaps that’s your own heart engaging in transference. However, I find it rather amusing that you take such offense to those who dare to differ with your every belief. I also detect a one-issue mindset in your rant#2 above. No, i’m sorry to say, I haven’t read Cdl James Francis Stafford – but I do read many things. Alas, there are only 24 hours in a day, so much to read, so little time left over from daily responsibilities. But, if Cdl JFS validates your energetic venom I’m not sure I want to read what he has to say, and I probably would take issue with him, as I did with you.
    So, I leave you with your thoughts, my friend, and I with mine. May God bless us both and have mercy on our world of suffering.

  8. SnowCherryBlossoms Avatar
    SnowCherryBlossoms

    I agree with you. We can certainly disagree with the President, especially when he spreads falsehood concerning the Catholic Church and Catholic History.Not to mention, he isn’t even a catholic. One wonderful thing that can come from this is people may actually go and learn real history. Wouldn’t that be amazing :)!

  9. SnowCherryBlossoms Avatar
    SnowCherryBlossoms

    To love an enemy one must pray for their conversion to Jesus Christ, to forgiveness to mercy to Truth and life. Pray for God’s will to be done with those who persecute and malign us. God’s will is always to bring all of us to Himself to His Kingdom.

  10. SnowCherryBlossoms Avatar
    SnowCherryBlossoms

    Reading the comments I just want to say I wish Catholics would stop using politcal-speak as in liberal/conservative, right or left wing etc.. with Catholics. It doesn’t fit and it takes away from what being Catholic is. It brings Catholicism down to the worldly political level and being Catholic is so much more than this. Just my opinion 🙂

  11. kirk Avatar
    kirk

    Thanks Amanda. That explains the irrelevancy there. I’ve not read your blog – so much to read, so little time. I do find that a certain percentage of CE responders have taken issue using political diatribes against anything that threatens their particular leaning. Sometimes responses border on warfare of words, intimating that a person’s voting preferences could determine an individual’s eternal destination – heaven or hell. I take issue with those extremes, on both sides. .

Leave a Reply