1. St. Paul
writes in the Letter to the Galatians: "For you were called to
freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an
opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one
another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, 'You shall
love your neighbor as yourself'" (Gal 5:13-14). We have already
dwelled on this enunciation. However, we are taking it up again
today, in connection with the main argument of our reflections.
Although the
passage quoted refers above all to the subject of justification,
here, however, the Apostle aims explicitly at driving home the
ethical dimension of the "body-Spirit" opposition, that is, the
opposition between life according to the flesh and life
according to the Spirit. Here he touches the essential point,
revealing the anthropological roots of the Gospel ethos. If the
whole law (the moral law of the Old Testament) is fulfilled in
the commandment of charity, the dimension of the new Gospel
ethos is nothing but an appeal to human freedom. It is an appeal
to its fuller implementation and, in a way, to fuller
"utilization" of the potential of the human spirit.
Freedom
linked with command to love
2. It might
seem that Paul was only contrasting freedom with the law and the
law with freedom. However, a deeper analysis of the text shows
that in Galatians St. Paul emphasizes above all the ethical
subordination of freedom to that element in which the whole law
is fulfilled, that is, to love, which is the content of the
greatest commandment of the Gospel. "Christ set us free in order
that we might remain free," precisely in the sense that he
manifested to us the ethical (and theological) subordination of
freedom to charity, and that he linked freedom with the
commandment of love. To understand the vocation to freedom in
this way ("You were called to freedom, brethren": Gal 5:13),
means giving a form to the ethos in which life "according to the
Spirit" is realized. The danger of wrongly understanding freedom
also exists. Paul clearly points this out, writing in the same
context: "Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the
flesh, but through love be servants of one another" (ibid.).
Bad use of
freedom
3. In other
words: Paul warns us of the possibility of making a bad use of
freedom. Such a use is in opposition to the liberation of the
human spirit carried out by Christ and contradicts that freedom
with which "Christ set us free." Christ realized and manifested
the freedom that finds its fullness in charity, the freedom
thanks to which we are servants of one another. In other words,
that freedom becomes a source of new works and life according to
the Spirit. The antithesis and, in a way, the negation of this
use of freedom takes place when it becomes a pretext to live
according to the flesh. Freedom then becomes a source of works
and of life according to the flesh. It stops being the true
freedom for which "Christ set us free," and becomes "an
opportunity for the flesh," a source (or instrument) of a
specific yoke on the part of pride of life, the lust of the
eyes, and the lust of the flesh. Anyone who lives in this way
according to the flesh, that is, submits—although in a way that
is not quite conscious, but nevertheless actual—to the three
forms of lust, especially to the lust of the flesh, ceases to be
capable of that freedom for which "Christ set us free." He also
ceases to be suitable for the real gift of himself, which is the
fruit and expression of this freedom. Moreover, he ceases to be
capable of that gift which is organically connected with the
nuptial meaning of the human body, with which we dealt in the
preceding analyses of Genesis (cf. Gn 2:23-25).
The law
fulfilled
4. In this way, the Pauline doctrine on purity, a doctrine in
which we find the faithful and true echo of the Sermon on the
Mount, permits us to see evangelical and Christian purity of
heart in a wider perspective, and above all permits us to link
it with the charity in which the law is fulfilled. Paul, in a
way similar to Christ, knows a double meaning of purity (and of
impurity): a generic meaning and a specific meaning. In the
first case, everything that is morally good is pure, and on the
contrary, everything that is morally bad is impure. Christ's
words according to Matthew 15:18-20, quoted previously, clearly
affirm this. In Paul's enunciations about the works of the
flesh, which he contrasts with the fruit of the Spirit, we find
the basis for a similar way of understanding this problem. Among
the works of the flesh Paul puts what is morally bad, while
every moral good is linked with life according to the Spirit. In
this way, one of the manifestations of life according to the
Spirit is behavior in conformity with that virtue which Paul in
the Letter to the Galatians seems to define rather indirectly,
but which he speaks directly of in the First Letter to the
Thessalonians.
Virtue of
self-control
5. In the
passages of the Letter to the Galatians, which we have
previously already submitted to detailed analysis, the Apostle
lists in the first place among the works of the flesh:
fornication, impurity and licentiousness. Subsequently, however,
when he contrasts these works with the fruit of the Spirit, he
does not speak directly of purity, but names only self-control,
enkrateia. This control can be recognized as a virtue which
concerns continence in the area of all the desires of the
senses, especially in the sexual sphere. It is in opposition to
fornication, impurity and licentiousness, and also to
drunkenness and carousing. It could be admitted that Pauline
self-control contains what is expressed in the term "continence"
or "temperance," which corresponds to the Latin term temperantia.
In this case, we would find ourselves in the presence of the
well-known system of virtues which later theology, especially
Scholasticism, will borrow from the ethics of Aristotle.
However, Paul certainly does not use this system in his text.
Since purity must be understood as the correct way of treating
the sexual sphere according to one's personal state (and not
necessarily absolute abstention from sexual life), then
undoubtedly this purity is included in the Pauline concept of
self-control or enkrateia. Therefore, within the Pauline text we
find only a generic and indirect mention of purity. Now and
again the author contrasts these works of the flesh, such as
fornication, impurity and licentiousness, with the fruit of the
Spirit—that is, new works, in which life according to the Spirit
is manifested. It can be deduced that one of these new works is
precisely purity, that is the one that is opposed to impurity
and also to fornication and licentiousness.
Called to
holiness
6. But
already in First Thessalonians, Paul writes on this subject in
an explicit and unambiguous way. We read: "For this is the will
of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from unchastity;
that each one of you know how to control his own body(1) in
holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like heathens who
do not know God" (1 Th 4:3-5). Then: "God has not called us for
uncleanness, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this,
disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you" (1
Th 4:7-8). In this text we also have before us the generic
meaning of purity, identified in this case with holiness (since
uncleanness is named as the antithesis of holiness).
Nevertheless, the whole context indicates clearly what purity or
impurity it is a question of, that is, the content of what Paul
calls here uncleanness, and in what way purity contributes to
the holiness of man.
And
therefore, in the following reflections, it will be useful to
take up again the text of the First Letter to the Thessalonians,
which has just been quoted.
Note
1) Without
going into the detailed discussions of the exegetes, it should,
however, be pointed out that the Greek expression to heautou
skeuos can refer also to the wife (cf. 1 Pt 3:7).
Taken from:
L'Osservatore Romano Weekly Edition in English 19 January 1981,
page 19
Return to the Theology of the Body Main
Page...