The opening words of Pope Benedict XVI’s final encyclical, Caritas in veritate, are just as true and applicable today as they were when he wrote them in 2009. He writes, “Charity in truth, to which Jesus Christ bore witness by his earthly life and especially by his death and resurrection, is the principal and driving force behind authentic development of every person and of all humanity” (CV 1). In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex unions as “marriages,” we realize that the state of our culture necessitates these words. Indeed, within the first paragraphs of his encyclical, Benedict lays out the sickness infecting our culture but also its cure.
For Benedict, both charity and truth are essential components in the relationships we have with each other. Just as the justice and mercy of God are not opposed, so too with charity and truth: both are two sides of the same coin. As Benedict writes, “Truth needs to be sought, found and expressed within the ‘economy’ of charity, but charity in its turn needs to be understood, confirmed and practiced in the light of truth” (CV 2). Thus, when showing charity to another, we also need to express the truth, for that is actually willing another’s good; likewise, when revealing the truth to another, we also need charity, for otherwise, mere truth can become strict justice. Moreover, truth and charity can never be in contradiction with each other, because both ultimately point to the common good for man and society (CV 7). Achieving the common good will ultimately fail if either one is absent.
Photo Credit: Catholic Match
Therefore, Benedict warns that we cannot separate truth and charity: “Only in truth does charity shine forth, only in truth can charity be authentically lived” (CV 3, emphasis in original). In other words, if an individual does not have a clear idea of the truth—what is good and evil, right and wrong—then he or she cannot show proper charity to others. It hardly needs to be said that truth is not a friend to our modern world; in fact, it would almost appear to be an enemy. Many individuals seek to build their own truth, based upon what they desire and believe to be right or wrong. Truths that were once objective have quickly become subjective: it is my right to take the life of my child, it is my right to change my body as I like (under the pretense of “owning my body”)—even, that it is my right to marry whomever I like. Benedict foresaw the path that the modern culture was following on the eve of his election to the chair of St. Peter: “We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.” Thus, truth based on the individual, not objective truth that relies upon the morality of a thing despite particular circumstances, is supreme.
What happens when truth does not guide charity? Benedict continues: “Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way. In a culture without truth, this is the fatal risk facing love” (CV 3, emphasis added). If a culture should reject truth, charity turns into a sentimental love, which becomes “contingent subjective emotions and opinions,” such that “the word ‘love’ is abused and distorted, to the point where it comes to mean the opposite” (CV 3). We can see the reality of and the events leading up to the Supreme Court’s decision present in those words. We know that the desires of individuals have become more important than the objective truth that marriage is between one man and one woman. In his encyclical, Benedict saw the reality of the modern situation clearly. He saw that the world was continuing to succumb to the dictatorship of relativism, and with the fall of truth also came the fall of a true definition of love. Therefore, it is of no surprise—regardless of any arguments against the legitimacy of the decision—that the Court should favor the reigning feeling of love over the objective definition of marriage. Love has become “an empty shell,” as Benedict says, filled by a false love that can be between any individuals: women and men, men and men, women and women.
How then will we regain the true definition of marriage, especially since it could be considered a hate crime to profess it publically? As many have already said, Christians cannot be afraid of proclaiming the truth in public, regardless of the Court’s decision. But Benedict goes further as he considers the relativistic mindset of the world: “Practicing charity in truth helps people to understand that adhering to the values of Christianity is not merely useful but essential for building a good society and for true integral human development” (CV 4). In other words, to be public witnesses of morality, Christians ought not to cease acting in charity and truth. To be such witnesses, however, Christians must realize that the culture is not fully prepared for a defense of the truth about marriage. If we wish to follow in Benedict’s thought, we must be willing to dig deeper and explain the reality of objective truth. We must explain the truth about truth. With the basic understanding that objective truth does exist, individuals will more readily agree that the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman. Thus, with an understanding of charity resting in objective truth and not a mere counterfeit, we will be able to build, in the words of Benedict, “the universal city of God, which is the goal of the history of the human family” (CV 9, emphasis in original). Building up the city of God, not the city of man, is what is at stake in this fateful decision of the Court: as Christians, we must therefore stand firm in charity and truth.