| Balthasar on Eros Raymond Gawronski, SJ |
|
The following is
a brief extract from Fr Gawronski, Word and Silence: Hans Urs von
Balthasar and the Spiritual Encounter Between East and West (T&T
Clark, 1995). The book as a
whole examines the contribution of Balthasar’s theology to the dialogue of
world religions. This extract
is taken from a section which examines Balthasar’s (highly controversial)
theology of gender. Balthasar sees Christianity taking three great themes
over from antiquity: 1. the egress and regress of the creature out of God;
2. "eros as the basic drive of the transcending limited creature to God as
the primordial One, primordial Beauty"; and 3. "the theme of
soulish-spiritual beauty ... as reflection and sensual image of a deeper,
indestructible beauty."[i] In the linking of agape and eros
which occurred in Christian theology he sees the linking of the pagan
doctrine of the beauty of virtue in the soul with the Christian doctrine
of the justification of the soul.
All will hinge for him on the concept of transfiguration
(Verklärung): The Biblical
eros-motif, interpreted in terms of Christ and the Bride
(Church-Mary-Soul) led at the same time into the heart of the uniquely
Christian mysteries ... and to the profoundest justification of the
'spoliatio Aegyptiorum', (or by extension) 'Platonicorum'. Put differently: the glowing
innermost part of the mystery of Christ is pure beauty, if it is true that
all revelation, all faith, all suffering and death issues forth and
takes place for the sake of the Marriage of the Lamb, where
creaturely and Christian truth and goodness are transfigured
into eschatological beauty (Herrlichkeit).[ii] Thus, all the riches of the "Egyptians," all the
treasure of earthly wisdom and beauty can be taken over into the Christian
view if "transfigured." This
is seen perhaps most clearly in Augustine, who was led to "the highest
beauty, God" by an enthusiasm that was Platonic as well as Christian.[iii] Whereas the philosophers are left
to pine in their unsatisfied eros, the Christian has an agape at the end
of His journey, and this promised love of God is "the organ note that
sounds steadily under the whole dizzying music of world time."[iv] We note that it is not an organ
note that obliterates the rest of the music, but a perfection that
sounds under (or over) all.
Rather than seeking to separate eros and agape, Balthasar seems to
rejoice in their marriage, though, we hasten to recall, without being
ignorant of the dangers of eros.
He sees this throughout the writers of the Catholic tradition,
where the ascent and the descent tend to meet harmoniously. Gregory the Great, along with Augustine, speaks of the
"seeking in finding" of the Bride for the Bridegroom which "remains characteristic of
the blessedness for men and angels."[v] For the Victorines, "amor"
represents "the vital-subjective side of the world harmony grounded in
God"[vi] (Balthasar's
organ note will be here recalled).
For Bernard, as well as for the Victorines, "enthusiasm and
inspiration flow into each other" and so they "used the language of eros
for agape ...."[vii] In Dionysius, the "ecstasy of
creaturely eros is itself an emulation of the ecstatic divine eros, which
because of love stepped out of itself into the multiplicity of the
world...."[viii] Moreover, if one strikes out the
Neo-Platonic parts, one finds in Dionysius a substance that is "truly
Biblical, a true Old and New Testament theology of covenant, in which the
eager and consuming love of the divine bridegroom does his work in the
bride, to lift her into the same answering love."[ix]
In St. John of the Cross, the human eros which allows
itself to be overcome by the divine eros is itself already the "response"
to "God's work of grace."[x] Furthermore, in the Carmelite
mystic, the Holy Spirit between Bride and Bridegroom is the secret of the
"common spirit of the Father and Son" and represents the "awakening of
Christ in the middle of the soul," where the Bridegroom is addressed as
"Word-Bridegroom" (Wort-Bräutigam).[xi] Hence the divine Word itself in
the middle of the human soul represents the lifting of human eros into the
divine eros, something which would clearly be blasphemous for Nygren. Recalling Nygren's harsh criticism of Ficino for
equating eros and agape in a Platonic friendship in which eros would
overcome and destroy agape, Balthasar observes that "it was already
obvious to Plato and Plotinus that eros in its highest development was
seen as selfless, for it loved the good for the sake of the good"[xii] and he
portrays Ficino as teaching that "all true love means essentially to
die oneself (sich selber sterben), in order to live only in the
Beloved."[xiii] Poles apart from Nygren, Soloviev
maintains that eros and agape are not essentially different, for
"Christian love is the stage of fulfillment of natural eros."[xiv] Eros cooperates with agape, for it
draws the man to the woman: under the power of eros, one glimpses the
divine in the other, one sees "the beloved as God sees him" and can work
for the realization of this vision.[xv] Concluding our brief survey, the poet Claudel anticipates what we shall see shortly in Dante: his glory it is to have presented "the painful transformation of eros into pure agape" where, as in Dante, it is a woman who "drags an unwillingly following man to the final blessed humiliations."[xvi] In Claudel the transforming dynamic is seen in his play Der seidene Schuh in which the hero "is purified by night by a guardian angel in a burning purgatory from longing eros to an abnegating agape that wants nothing other than what God wills."[xvii] MarriageAs always it is the love of man and woman that remains
focal for Balthasar. In light
of our concern for "uniqueness", he finds that the exclusiveness of human
relations - this man, this woman -"incarnationally represents the eternal
uniqueness (je-Einmaligkeit) of personal encounter."[xviii] The interpersonal, which as we
have seen is at the heart of his theology, comes from the "dialogical
a priori" within man himself: it is best described in erotic terms,
although it is superior to physical eros, even as the human comes out of
but transcends the animal.[xix] He goes so far as to maintain that
sexual union is perhaps the only image of the intimacy of divine truth,
"the act of the union of two persons into one flesh and the result of this
union: the child" - though of course one must view this transcending the
duration of time.[xx] It is marriage that supplies form to this union in a way
which resists the tendencies of the individuals to break away, which
"resolutely confronts the tendencies of existence towards
dissolution" and it is the forge that forces the persons "to grow
above and out of themselves into real love."[xxi] In the world of sexuality,
there is always present the possibility of what Balthasar calls the "bad
infinity": it is a compulsive drive common to both sexes which is this
"moment of bad infinity."[xxii] In the Christian world, the form
of marriage, the discipline of it, is seen as the contribution of the
laity in making eros/sex translucent for agape. Of course, this is only possible
in light of the Incarnation and the redemption of all flesh on the
Cross.[xxiii] However elevated its goal,
marriage, for Balthasar, is nothing special: rather, it is legitimate as
the normal will of God for humanity.[xxiv] Aquinas writes of marital love as "maxima
amicitia." He writes of the
high value the Church places on marriage as a sacrament in which the Holy
Spirit "can transform the natural eros into an agape that comes from God,"
an agape that is the "primary sacrament of love between Christ and His
Church."[xxv] Although there is a "spiritual
fruitfulness" of those who renounce marriage and serve the "spiritual
body" of the Lord in virginity, and although the Church in the Council of
Trent spoke of the "superiority" of virginity to marriage, still
the Church "takes marriage under its wing" by "insisting on its
sacramentality" as over against the Reformers (i.e. Luther) for whom
marriage was a "'worldly thing.'"[xxvi] Marriage as a sacrament redeems
eros from the melancholy to which it is condemned outside of
Christianity (in a pre-, non- or post-Christian world)[xxvii] and shows
that "as the entire man, so also his eros is capable of salvation," that
the very "covenant of God with man in Christ (and in the Church) bears an
erotic form, that the Platonic-Plotinian longing for God as the eternal
beautiful must and indeed can be justified in a Christian scheme."[xxviii] After this intoxicating view of eros harmoniously
cooperating with agape, we enter now into the needed reflection on the
difference between eros and agape.
There was always the danger, Balthasar concedes, that "metaphysical
eros" would remain dominant in any of the syntheses of the Catholic
tradition and that "the distinguishing caritas of Christ will be
robbed of its power and its salt."[xxix] Indeed, he sees this as the
ongoing danger in the history of Christian spirituality. Eros and the CrossAs we have seen, Claudel and Dante insist that Christian
eros must pass through a death "in order to become an agape than can stand
before the judgment of the eternal light."[xxx] This purification means the
Cross. Even Goethe recognized
that "to love means to suffer." [xxxi] Balthasar puts the right balance
this way: all eros is love this side of what is revealed on the Cross,
which is agape, and which is the measure of all other loves.[xxxii] Because this is so, eros must be
"totally transformed through agape."[xxxiii] Man is by no means limited to
eros: there is also a capacity for agape in man implanted by the Holy
Spirit as response to the descending agape of God.[xxxiv] Yet eros is not something evil,
something hostile to God.
Balthasar observes that with Luther, the whole world falls into
Dante's hell except those for whom Christ died on the Cross: for
Protestantism and Jansenism, "the sinful world as a whole moves back out
of the light of the divine eros and falls into general damnation ...."[xxxv] It is not a question of eros or
agape: but of a correct, harmonious relation of the two. It is on the Cross that eros and agape are seen in their
right relation: Thus the
mysteries of the Song of Songs here shimmer through the mysteries of the
humiliation and the servitude unto the Cross, and the mysteries of
the divine eros shimmer through the mysteries of the divine agape. The metamorphosis of Jesus before
His disciples on the Mountain is the unveiling of the Bridegrom, as He is,
before the eyes of the Church .... yet the Bridegroom reveals Himself
physically naked only in the form of misery (Elendsgestalt) on the Cross
.... And only a glance like
that of the virginal John would be capable here of contemplating the two
unveilings as one: the unveiling of the Song of Songs, the physically
becoming visible in the glow of eros - and the unveiling of the equally
physically suffering love of the triune God.[xxxvi] It is not the case that eros is only earthly and agape
is only divine: what Balthasar is here saying is that the divine eros -
that love between the persons of the Blessed Trinity - in pouring itself out to
the human eros for God takes the form of what humanity calls agape. Put differently, for the human
eros (ascending) to correspond to, and to encounter the divine eros
(descending), what is needed is the love of God which as
self-emptying is called kenosis, as selfless is called agape. This love of God is a fire which purifies human
eros. He questions the facile
presumption of Christians that earthly relations/ friendships will just
continue on the other side.
Using the image of the "purifying fire" he notes that what is
"wood, hay and straw must be burned (1 Cor. 3, 12) and what man can
maintain with confidence that his love is 'gold, silver and precious
stones?"[xxxvii] It is worthy of note that in
heaven the form of male and female remain even as sexual relations will
not - there will be fruitfulness, and this is a form of
"interpersonal fruitfulness" but it is virginity that is the true
anticipatory form of the "supersexual bridalness." What remains in heaven of earthly
love "is that of heaven which has incarnated itself in it."[xxxviii] If the soul is bound for an
eschatological marriage, then the purifying fire is the narrow
passage of virginity, mediating the earthly sacrament of marriage and
purifying it, transforming it.
It will be recalled that Balthasar holds that the important
discernment for the Christian is not between the good and evil spirits, as
the natural man can do this; the Christian must discern between what is of
God and what is of man: the key, and sign, to this discernment between
eros and agape is virginity, "virginity, which means the exclusive fixing
of all the human powers of love to the love of God becoming man."[xxxix] We turn to the poet Dante to see
how Balthasar evaluated the efforts of this Christian bard of "the human
powers of love."
Dante: Classical Eros Baptized
Balthasar's
treatment of Dante is rich, and includes points of great admiration as
well as some considerable criticism.
Here, we want to touch some main points as Dante figures so
considerably in the subject we are addressing. At his best, Dante took the Platonic-Scholastic world
view and in the middle of it placed the love of man and woman, the eros
which, purified by agape, will lead through all the depths of hell to the
throne of God.[xl] For him, eros is the "divine
kernel" in man, implanted by God.
The "love that moves the sun and the other stars" is hardly a
matter of "principles of being" but rather of "an existing being."[xli] In his setting the "concrete,
personal existant over the Scholastic essentialist world-contemplation"
Dante led the way in establishing the primacy of the ethical over the
metaphysical.[xlii] His eros is in harmony with
ethics: "no ethics without eros and so without beauty, but so much the
less a beauty without ethics."[xliii] The personal finds its center in Beatrice who initiates
Dante into the Christian.
Tempted to treat her as an idea, Dante overcomes this for the
contemplation of divine beauty is "in the nobility of the form, in the
eye, the mouth and speech, that reveal the 'cor gentile.'"[xliv] His relation to Beatrice is hardly
one of "aesthetic libertinism": the ethical is so much to the fore that
Balthasar calls the Comedia a
"penitential sermon" (Bußpredigt).[xlv] Dante's Beatrice overcomes the classical Neo-Platonic
divisions of positive, negative and eminent theology. Noting "as Charles Williams has
rightly seen," the principle here appears "that the Christian does not
have to give up a limited love for the sake of unlimited love, much rather
he can positively introduce the limited love in the unlimited."[xlvi] It is this principle we have seen
all along, where Balthasar refuses an emptiness which is mere void,
refuses to sacrifice the individual for the sake of the Absolute. Here, the limited love of man and
woman is introduced into the divine love, which fills the cosmos. For Dante, the "radiating Good is
love in all without the all having to be denied for the sake of the
One."[xlvii] Through Beatrice, the whole comedy is about the
overcoming of the limits of Dante's earthly personality, his narrow "I' in
order to be open to the "Thous" and to the "Other."[xlviii] Beatrice has a "purifying and
saving power," "only she leads from eros to agape, or else it is that eros
that purifies itself into agape."[xlix] She is that "'anima
ecclesiastica', that soul, whose experience and feelings, thought and will
have been taken up into the universality of the Bride of Christ, the Bride
of the Lamb, of the Heavenly Jerusalem, the community of all the loving
and the saints."[l] In the end, Balthasar is critical of Dante. First of all, he feels that
Dante's apatheia in his
treatment of the souls in hell goes even beyond that of Buddhists who have
a compassion which cannot bear to see any creature suffering and being
finally lost.[li] This can be related to the other
main criticism, that is, that Dante has an underdeveloped Christology and
Trinitarian understanding. Simply put, Dante baptized classical eros, but
in spite of his developed inter-personal sense, through Beatrice, he did
not attain to what Balthasar understands as Trinitarian love. Both eros
and agape are, in the end, subsumed under eros: all reality is indeed
flooded with a divine eros, but in the end, all he offers is "the eros of
antiquity vastly intensified in a Christian way."[lii] It is perhaps the whole issue of
selflessness which suggests itself as that which is missing here. If Dante encountered that other
self who revealed to him his own self, and so was saved, he did not attain
to that vision of selflessness which is at the heart of the Trinity and
which, in Christ, poured itself out in abandonment on the Cross and
descended into the depths of hell, leaving no door unopened in His loving
search for the lost other.
Conclusion
In selflessness, the divine original and the human image
meet. In God, selflessness is
not a negation of the person but a part of "the order of the processions"
that "constitutes the essence of God as absolute Love."[liii] It is selflessness that is at
issue in the dialogue of East and West today, as we have noticed before:
selflessness in order to be rid of being an ego or selflessness in order
to love.[liv] Selflessness, for the Christian,
is a love through death and resurrection in that mission that creates him
as a person: selflessness is that dying and rising with the self-emptying
God with whom one is in loving - obedient - union.[lv]
Everything about man is invited into this
transfiguration. That
includes the erotic which is lifted up in Christ, taken into His
incarnation, where it is purified.
To be "one flesh with the Lord" does not mean "virginity as
contrasted with Christian marriage, but the expropriation and impressing
into service of the body with all its powers - even eros - in the context
of selfless Christian love."[lvi] [i] HRMA, pp. 289-90. [ii] Ibid., p. 290. [iii] HFSK, p. 97. [iv] GIMF, p. 36. [v] HRMA, p. 307. [vi] Ibid., p. 320. [vii] Ibid., p. 324. [viii] HFSK, p. 208. [ix] HSG, p. 115. [x] HFSL, p. 489. [xi] Ibid., p. 502. [xii] HRMN, pp. 598-9. [xiii] Ibid., p. 601. [xiv] HFSL, p. 710. [xv] Ibid., pp. 712-3. [xvi] UA, p. 37. [xvii] HRMN, p. 628. [xviii] S4, p. 210. [xix] Ibid., p. 207. [xx] BG, p. 69. [xxi] HSG, p. 24. [xxii] S4, p. 341. [xxiii] CS, p. 286. [xxiv] Ibid., p. 343. [xxv] TLGW, pp. 317-8. [xxvi] Ibid., p. 318. [xxvii] HRMN, pp. 612-3. [xxviii] Ibid., pp. 612-3. [xxix] HRMA, p. 26. [xxx] TDHA, p. 105. [xxxi] HRMN, p. 704. [xxxii] S3, p. 157. [xxxiii] TDES, p. 461. [xxxiv] S5, p. 28. [xxxv] HFSL, p. 449. [xxxvi] HSG, p. 648. [xxxvii] TDHA, p. 105. [xxxviii] TDES, pp. 462-3. [xxxix] S3, p. 164. [xl] HFSK, p. 16. [xli] HFSL, p. 389. [xlii] Ibid., p. 390. [xliii] Ibid., p. 461. [xliv] Ibid., p. 398. [xlv] Ibid., p. 461. [xlvi] Ibid., p. 387. [xlvii] Ibid., p. 425. [xlviii] Ibid., p. 440. [xlix] Ibid., p. 392. [l] Ibid., p. 409. [li] Ibid., p. 447. [lii] Ibid., p. 459. [liii] S5, p. 101. [liv] CUDW, p. 3. [lv] S5, p. 107. [lvi] S4, p. 212. |