Tags
That one little word in English, what problems its flatness in our language causes! when the young man says it to the young woman, we think of eros – we think that embedded in it is a passion and a lust which, properly channelled through the marriage bed can become the source of new life; but it can, we hope, through the mutual self-giving in marriage, provide not only a secure place in which to bring up children, but also an arena of self-sacrificial self-giving in which, by acknowledging the needs of the other, we can grow in generosity and grace – the give and take of everyday life can, by this, be transformed into a school in which we learn what it means to be truly human, not by accumulating things to ourselves, but by sharing them with the other.
The love of the body can, we hope, lead also to the love of the soul – that which the Greeks called phileos, but this love is one which does not require marriage. We saw it in Gareth Thomas’ wonderful series on St Clare and Agnes of Prague; the spiritual bond between them was deep – so deep it developed into that highest form of love – agape – that love which God has for us, which places at its centre the needs of the other and not our own. That requires much from fallen human beings, but it is the supreme example Christ shows us on the Cross on Calvary.
We live in a world which confuses love and lust, and which is pervaded with sexualised images of the body. We have, we are told, the right to love whom we will, and the implication is always that without it being sexualised, we are missing out on something. Christians seem as liable to this mistake as secularists, and one but seldom hears the story of those Christians with same-sex attraction of who do not act on eros – even though they are there. It is easy to see why – orthodox Christians often feel distrustful of the very idea of same-sex attraction, and those in the LGBTI community who make a cause if it, are puzzled by those who will not act on it. But it is perfectly possible to have very deep friendships with those of one’s own gender without leaping into bed with them – indeed, it is perfectly possible to share a bed with a friend of the same gender without it having any sexual content – I did so last week end with a friend on a visit to London!
Love takes on many forms, but it is always at its best when it fashions itself on the pattern God shows us of his love for us – selfless, directed at others and not ourself. Parental love at its best is a good example to us all, and those of us who had a parent, or parents who modelled this for us when we were children, gave us a gift of inestimable value. Friendship, too, is a great gift which offers us chances for self-sacrifice, and one of things our society is in danger of losing is that valuable dimension to the human condition.
From Our Lady’s loving submission to the will of God, through to the self-sacrificial paternal love of St Joseph, and onwards, we are presented in Scripture with many examples of love. It was God’s love which led to the Incarnation, Mary’s love which realised it, and Christ’s love which led him to Calvary. He loved us though we were far off – and that calls forth from us love for Him – and, at its best, as we saw in the letters of St Clare and Agnes of Prague – love for each other. In love we are redeemed – and without Christian love, there is no wholeness.
I’ve been reading Brideshead Revisited, I am near the end and should finish it today on during my prep period. It’s interesting how it confronts this problem of love in many ways. Of course, Waugh may have been writing about his own experience with divorce; however, modern readers have wanted to focus on the relationship of Charles Ryder and Sebastian Flyte. Charles often says after he strikes up a romantic relationship with Julia (Sebastian’s sister) some years after that Sebastian was “the forerunner.” What does Charles, or Waugh for that matter, mean?
Some modern readers interpret Charles and Sebastian’s relationship as a romantic one, I have heard this is how it’s portrayed in the latest movie interpretation of the book. The friendship is a deep one, which when Cordelia (Sebastian’s other sister) is discussing seeing her brother a decade and some after Charles has seen him, Charles describes how he still sees Sebastian in Julia–whom with he now has a romantic relationship. Of course, Sebastian and Charles relationship could just be a deep relationship, Sebastian reminds me of a childhood friend, who has grown up and heterosexual. So I am not entirely convinced that Waugh is trying to portray a homosexual relationship between the two.
However, there’s something deep on the surface. Sebastian was the forerunner. It reminds me of people who I had to meet or even have had deep relationships with to have met my wife.
Overall the book is a fascinating read, I would suggest it to all. I take the book to be a work that indicates the presence of absolutism over relativism. Something that is rooted in the foundation of all of the Flyte family that cannot escape.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I would feel sure Waugh is not trying to portray such a relationship, but is rather trying to describe that greater love. That there is, in it, an element of eros, is, given our fallen state, inevitable – but the question is does it rest in eros and explore all that offers, or does it raise us on wings to a higher form of love? The world is redeemed by love and in love, after all 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
I would agree with you about the relationship. As the book progressed, I certainly thought folks who’ve interpreted such a relationship either want to read that into the text or have never had a friend such as Sebastian.
I don’t believe have had a friendship like Charles and Sebastian. My two longest friendships I view as brothers, even closer than my actually brother. However, there’s no element of Charles’ and Sebastian’s friendship. Of course, it could be because of my American roots as opposed to British. The book does stress the idea of such love to have cultural ties as I remember comments from Lord Marchmain’s mistress Cara.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Waugh is self-consciously writing a Catholic novel, I think. I don’t know about the US, but over here, boarding schools, which used to be all, and still often are, single sex, create a hot-house atmosphere on which ‘close friendships’ are formed, and in which, adolescents being what they are, there is often a sexual element, even if it is generally repressed – although the phrase ‘the usual thing’, signifying suspension for sexual expressions of friendship, shows how common the latter was. As a long-term inhabitant of a girls’ boarding school myself, I was no more immune to it than the next girl – indeed my first ever kiss was with the next girl! But for most of us it is a phase, and what really mattered for most of us was not the odd kiss or ‘pash’, but the intensity of the devotion we could feel for the other person. Absent any sexual element, as usually happened, and that ‘pash’ turned into something purer, something self-abnegatory, and taught many of us something about the value of friendship. But I think the suppressed homoerotic element is very British public school – but maybe you have to have ‘done time’ in one to see it? I don’t know, but I do know that two of my best friends stem back that far, and whilst they long ago transferred their romantic longings to men (just about the moment they were let anywhere near them), we have retained something special from having those feeling back then. I have no idea if that makes any sense, or just makes me sound like a teen-age pervert!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for the explanation. It’s something not innate to the region of America–maybe the East coast?–that I am from and certainly not one I can relate to in my life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suspected not – it’s a very upper middle class English thing – more pronounced in Waugh’s day, but not gone – says she who teaches in a girls’ boarding school!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have to leave soon, Jess and overall it is a good bit of thinking on the types of love . . . but deficient in another; narcissism.
You use the alphabet soup designation for all of the sexually dysfunctional narcissists of this world which they have foisted upon us these past decades and which are rather misleading. It lends credulity where it doesn’t belong and negates the common sense that most folks have and our good and sensitive nature to feel empathy for others and to entertain a condition from another’s point of view (something they lack, by the way). We have been manipulated to do so precisely by these peoples who see in our docility a weakness to be exploited and conditioned to think that they are normal and that the rest of us were crazy to ever think that they weren’t normal.
It is classic NPD behavior and we have fallen for it and we now have been conditioned into their culture as though their way of life is only an alternative and not based on a moral lack of conscience and a will to cajole us into feeling either pity (which they love to employ) or adulation which feeds them to even greater conquests. And although these types of people are not always of the sexually dysfunctional types (being quite prevalent in our societies these days) are typical of this unrepentant, manipulative behavior. Society as a whole has fallen for it because most people are people of good will who are highly suggestive. It might be time for us to start learning more about this disorder and recognizing these people since they teach our children, run our countires, write the books on psychology and sociology and more. We’ve been duped . . . and there is a recourse to this. We can learn who and what they are and the tactics which they employ to control us and gain our sympathies. Ann Barnhardt got me interested in this from a number of her recent articles (though she has renamed it Diabolic Narcissim) and I have been reading a bit of this lately. The shoe seems to fit a great variety of people who have made our reality upside down from what it used to be. She may be on to something more pervasive than we care to imagine.
Sorry for taking the post in another direction, dear friend. Just thinking out loud, I guess. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave, you are clearly not going to make many friends with the DN community. Well done. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suspect I never did . . . just didn’t have a category to put them in other than the all-encompassing modernist label. 🙂
LikeLike
I sent the collection of our Lent articles in a compilation article to the Colettines today, as they invited earlier, so the enclosed sisters can circulate them in printed form. The Word document has been added to my last article. It contains all eight pieces: yours and mine, Jess.
https://jessicahof.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/aatw-saint-clare-articles-lent-2016.doc
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you so much Gareth – it’s an honour to be in the same place as your insightful pieces 🙂 xx
LikeLike
Sorry I just saw I misspelt your surname in the compilation article. Aaaargh! That will teach me to try and rush blogging in between teaching Year 9 and Year 7 in a free period on a Tuesday…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not to worry, I think it has been spelt that way before – my one is an oddity!
LikeLiked by 1 person
All modes of love have a place in strengthening one’s love of God. We see this in Scripture, liturgy, and just ordinary, everyday piety. Of course, some “love” lacks a moral base, and, consequently, perturbs the process of theosis.
LikeLiked by 2 people