1. At the
center of our reflections, at the Wednesday meetings, there has
been for a long time now the following enunciation of Christ in
the Sermon on the Mount: "You have heard that it was said, 'You
shall not commit adultery'. But I say to you that everyone who
looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with
her (towards her) in his heart" (Mt 5:27-28). These words have
an essential meaning for the whole theology of the body
contained in Christ's teaching. Therefore, we rightly attribute
great importance to their correct understanding and
interpretation. In our preceding reflection we noted that the
Manichean doctrine, both in its primitive and in its later
expressions, contradicts these words.
It is not
possible, in fact, to see in the sentence of the Sermon on the
Mount, analyzed here, a "condemnation" or an accusation of the
body. If anything, one could catch a glimpse of a condemnation
of the human heart. However, the reflections we have made so far
show that, if the words of Matthew 5:27-28 contain an
accusation, it is directed above all at the man of lust. With
those words the heart is not so much accused as subjected to a
judgment. Or better, it is called to a critical, in fact a
self-critical, examination: whether or not it succumbs to the
lust of the flesh. Penetrating into the deep meaning of Matthew
5:27-28, we must note, however, that the judgment it contains
about desire, as an act of lust of the flesh, brings with it not
the negation, but rather the affirmation, of the body as an
element which, together with the spirit, determines man's
ontological subjectivity and shares in his dignity as a person.
In this way, the judgment on the lust of the flesh has a meaning
essentially different from the one which the Manichaean ontology
presupposes and which necessarily springs from it.
Body
manifests the spirit
2. In its
masculinity and femininity, the body is called "from the
beginning" to become the manifestation of the spirit. It does so
also by means of the conjugal union of man and woman, when they
unite in such a way as to form one flesh. Elsewhere (cf. Mt
19:5-6) Christ defended the inviolable rights of this unity, by
means of which the body, in its masculinity and femininity,
assumes the value of a sign—in a way, a sacramental sign.
Furthermore, by warning against the lust of the flesh, he
expressed the same truth about the ontological dimension of the
body and confirmed its ethical meaning, consistent with his
teaching as a whole. This ethical meaning has nothing in common
with the Manichaean condemnation. On the contrary, it is deeply
penetrated by the mystery of the redemption of the body, which
St. Paul will write of in Romans (cf. Rom 8:23). The redemption
of the body does not indicate, however, ontological evil as a
constituent attribute of the human body. It only points out
man's sinfulness, as a result of which he has, among other
things, lost the clear sense of the nuptial meaning of the body,
in which interior mastery and the freedom of the spirit is
expressed. As we have already pointed out, it is a question here
of a partial, potential loss, where the sense of the nuptial
meaning of the body is confused, in a way, with lust, and easily
lets itself be absorbed by it.
Transformation of conscience and attitudes
3. The
appropriate interpretation of Christ's words according to
Matthew 5:27-28, as well as the praxis in which the authentic
ethos of the Sermon on the Mount will be subsequently expressed,
must be absolutely free of Manichaean elements in thought and in
attitude. A Manichaean attitude would lead to an "annihilation"
of the body—if not real, at least intentional—to negation of the
value of human sex, of the masculinity and femininity of the
human person, or at least to their mere toleration in the limits
of the need delimited by the necessity of procreation. On the
basis of Christ's words in the Sermon on the Mount, Christian
ethos is characterized by a transformation of the conscience and
attitudes of the human person, both man and woman. This is such
as to express and realize the value of the body and of sex,
according to the Creator's original plan, placed as they are in
the service of the communion of persons, which is the deepest
substratum of human ethics and culture. For the Manichaean
mentality, the body and sexuality constitute an "anti-value."
For Christianity, on the contrary, they always remain a value
not sufficiently appreciated, as I will explain better further
on. The second attitude indicates the form of ethos in which the
mystery of the redemption of the body takes root in the
historical soil of human sinfulness. That is expressed by the
theological formula, which defines the state of historical man
as status naturae lapsae simul ac redemptae (the state of
fallen, but at the same time redeemed, nature).
Question
of detachment
4. Christ's
words in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Mt 5:27-28) must be
interpreted in the light of this complex truth about man. If
they contain a certain "accusation" leveled at the human heart,
all the more so they appeal to it. The accusation of the moral
evil which desire, born of intemperate lust of the flesh,
conceals within itself, is at the same time a call to overcome
this evil. If victory over evil consists in detachment from it
(hence the severe words in the context of Matthew 5:27-28), it
is only a question of detaching oneself from the evil of the act
(in the case in question, the interior act of lust), and never
of transferring the negative character of this act to its
object. Such a transfer would mean a certain acceptance—perhaps
not fully conscious—of the Manichaean "anti-value." It would not
constitute a real and deep victory over the evil of the act,
which is evil by its moral essence, and so evil of a spiritual
nature. On the contrary, it would conceal the great danger of
justifying the act to the detriment of the object (the essential
error of Manichaean ethos consists in this). It is clear that in
Matthew 5:27-28, Christ demanded detachment from the evil of
lust (or of the look of disorderly desire). But his enunciation
does not let it be supposed in any way that the object of that
desire, that is, the woman who is looked at lustfully, is an
evil. (This clarification seems to be lacking sometimes in some
Wisdom texts.)
Knowing
the difference
5. We must,
therefore, specify the difference between the accusation and the
appeal. The accusation leveled at the evil of lust is at the
same time an appeal to overcome it. Consequently, this victory
must be united with an effort to discover the true values of the
object, in order that the Manichaean "anti-value" may not take
root in man, in his conscience, and in his will. As a result of
the evil of lust, that is, of the act of which Christ spoke in
Matthew 5:27-28, the object to which it is addressed constitutes
for the human subject a value not sufficiently appreciated. In
the words of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:27-28) which have
been analyzed, the human heart is accused of lust (or is warned
against that lust). At the same time, by means of the words
themselves, it is called to discover the full sense of what, in
the act of lust, constitutes for him a value that is not
sufficiently appreciated. As we know, Christ said: "Everyone who
looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with
her in his heart." Adultery committed in the heart can and must
be understood as "devaluation," or as the impoverishment of an
authentic value. It is an intentional deprivation of that
dignity to which the complete value of her femininity
corresponds in the person in question. Matthew 5:27-28 contains
a call to discover this value and this dignity, and to reassert
them. It seems that only when the semantic significance of
Matthew's words is respected they are understood in this way.
To conclude
these concise considerations, it is necessary to note once more
that the Manichaean way of understanding and evaluating man's
body and sexuality is essentially alien to the Gospel. It is not
in conformity with the exact meaning of the words Christ spoke
in the Sermon on the Mount. The appeal to master the lust of the
flesh springs precisely from the affirmation of the personal
dignity of the body and of sex, and serves only this dignity.
Anyone who wants to see in these words a Manichaean perspective
would be committing an essential error.
Taken from:
L'Osservatore Romano Weekly Edition in English 27 October
1980,page7