Neoteronous
A Modern Man Standing in the Tradition of Catholic Platonism
A Modern Man Standing in the Tradition of Catholic Platonism
Friday, February 10, 2006
Thoughts about a topic that has sparked much wonder in my soul: According to St. Bonaventure "every knower produces distincly because he knows distinctly, and not the converse." God's knowledge of us is prior to His creation of us. He can therefore know that which does not exist, (although the priority here is not temporal, the conclusion still follows, as God knows even that which He will never create, such as a number greater than any that exists.) Although God's knowledge is prior to the existence of the thing known, it is not prior to all existence. God knows things other than Himself, and knows non-existence things, by means of the Divine Ideas or Eternal Reasons, which do exist. (St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas agree on this.) The Divine Ideas, however, are not really distinct from God. God knows us by means of Himself, by knowing Himself. His knowledge of Himself is the principle of His knowledge of us.
It is not only knowledge which is prior to production, but also love. God first loved us, then created us. Love for a thing is not always a response to finding it in existence, but can in fact be the cause of its existence. Just as the knowledge which preceedes existence, however, is founded on the knowledge of that which already exists, so too the love which preceedes existence is founded on the love of that which already exists. God's love for us flows from His love for Himself, the Love of Each Person of the Trinity for the Other Persons. It is obvious to me that there is a connection and move from love of one person, to love for and creation of another, but the connection is far from clear to me.
This connection is essential to love, and is reflected in the fact that sexual love naturally results in procreation. This fact is not merely biological, but concerns the wholeness of sexual love and engages the whole person, body, soul, mind, and will. The reproductive aspect of sexual love is there because procreation is part of the essence of love, as contained in the Holy Trinity. The married couple must be open to life and love their children, even before they exist, yet procreation is not the first principle of their love. A married couple do not need to expect to have children every time they perform the act of married love, and this need not be (and probably should not be) the purpose of performing the act. The act has to be an act of love for the spouse first and foremost, and the marriage must be for love of the other person first and foremost.
Procreation is the natural and necessary result of such love, and not just on a biological level. It is not just that the spouses love each other, and, because of some fact of biology which God wanted to build into nature, they happen to have children, whom they then love if they have any virtue in their soul. Just as the love of the Father for the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the reciprocal love of the Son and Holy Spirit, exists eternally and creates a love for us and thus our creation, so too the parents' love for their children and desire for their existence flows from their love for each other. Their love for their children preceedes their children's existence, but is not prior to, nor the motive or cause of, their love for each other, but rather it is a function of their love for each other. (If they tried to love each other without loving their as yet non-existent children, without being open to life, they would be rejecting the essence of love and so could not love each other.)
I see that perfect love for another person present to one always flows over into love for another who does not yet exist, and I love this fact, yet I do not understand it. Why be concerned about what does not exist? How can one care about non-being, wish its good? How can one love one's children when there are no children to love? How can God love us? But He does. Blessed be God.
comments()
Thoughts about a topic that has sparked much wonder in my soul: According to St. Bonaventure "every knower produces distincly because he knows distinctly, and not the converse." God's knowledge of us is prior to His creation of us. He can therefore know that which does not exist, (although the priority here is not temporal, the conclusion still follows, as God knows even that which He will never create, such as a number greater than any that exists.) Although God's knowledge is prior to the existence of the thing known, it is not prior to all existence. God knows things other than Himself, and knows non-existence things, by means of the Divine Ideas or Eternal Reasons, which do exist. (St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas agree on this.) The Divine Ideas, however, are not really distinct from God. God knows us by means of Himself, by knowing Himself. His knowledge of Himself is the principle of His knowledge of us.
It is not only knowledge which is prior to production, but also love. God first loved us, then created us. Love for a thing is not always a response to finding it in existence, but can in fact be the cause of its existence. Just as the knowledge which preceedes existence, however, is founded on the knowledge of that which already exists, so too the love which preceedes existence is founded on the love of that which already exists. God's love for us flows from His love for Himself, the Love of Each Person of the Trinity for the Other Persons. It is obvious to me that there is a connection and move from love of one person, to love for and creation of another, but the connection is far from clear to me.
This connection is essential to love, and is reflected in the fact that sexual love naturally results in procreation. This fact is not merely biological, but concerns the wholeness of sexual love and engages the whole person, body, soul, mind, and will. The reproductive aspect of sexual love is there because procreation is part of the essence of love, as contained in the Holy Trinity. The married couple must be open to life and love their children, even before they exist, yet procreation is not the first principle of their love. A married couple do not need to expect to have children every time they perform the act of married love, and this need not be (and probably should not be) the purpose of performing the act. The act has to be an act of love for the spouse first and foremost, and the marriage must be for love of the other person first and foremost.
Procreation is the natural and necessary result of such love, and not just on a biological level. It is not just that the spouses love each other, and, because of some fact of biology which God wanted to build into nature, they happen to have children, whom they then love if they have any virtue in their soul. Just as the love of the Father for the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the reciprocal love of the Son and Holy Spirit, exists eternally and creates a love for us and thus our creation, so too the parents' love for their children and desire for their existence flows from their love for each other. Their love for their children preceedes their children's existence, but is not prior to, nor the motive or cause of, their love for each other, but rather it is a function of their love for each other. (If they tried to love each other without loving their as yet non-existent children, without being open to life, they would be rejecting the essence of love and so could not love each other.)
I see that perfect love for another person present to one always flows over into love for another who does not yet exist, and I love this fact, yet I do not understand it. Why be concerned about what does not exist? How can one care about non-being, wish its good? How can one love one's children when there are no children to love? How can God love us? But He does. Blessed be God.
comments()
Comments:
There is a fascinating semiotic analogy here, which also rather neatly illuminates the justice of NFP; I'm not sure that semiosis -- with its 'aliquid aliquo pro aliquo' -- does not find a stronger analogy in the Trinity and Incarnation than Maritain, holding along with St. Thomas that the Incarnation would not have occurred had Adam not sinned, would have us believe. Note, with the fourteenth-century logicians, that something can have esse objectale formaliter acceptum, without having esse reale.
# posted by
: 8:30 PM
# posted by
: 8:30 PM
As to creating the beloved by loving her..recall Avicennan definition of truth ('adequatio rei et intellectus'), and its two possible directions: '[adequatio] intellectus ad rem', as in the case of the created intellect, and '[adequatio] rei ad intellectus', as in the case of the Uncreated Intellect: the ens-reale actuality (energeia) of the divinely-known comes from the Divine Intellect, while (normally, for created intellects) the actuality of the knowing-intellect comes from the thing-known. But this is true for love also, analogizing to the will; and yet also true conversely, as all things came into existence in order to love God, that is, on account of the infinite Divine Loveability (as Pseudo-Dionysius says). Thus simultaneously and in the same reality the bi-directional adequatio-model is preserved, and the necessary bi-directionality of love is illumined by analogy to understanding.
(Btw, by material inductive descensus, this is all quite perfectly true; and infinitely more beautifully than even in Bonaventure's words it sounds.)
# posted by : 8:37 PM
Post a Comment
(Btw, by material inductive descensus, this is all quite perfectly true; and infinitely more beautifully than even in Bonaventure's words it sounds.)
# posted by
: 8:37 PM
