I decided to trace the development of the “civilization of love” concept after reading Pope Leo’s encyclical. I was intrigued by its potential and surprised I was not aware of its long history.
As expected, the development is not always smooth. For instance, I’m not sure how to read the part played by Pope John Paul. Many think he built the concept by mentioning it in over 200 papal communications. However, after reading his main encyclicals, I wonder if this is actually the case.
He repeatedly suggests he’s only using the term because so many others see it as the latest way to describe catholic social doctrine. He then goes on to other terms he seems to prefer, such as culture of life or gospel of truth.
His goal seems to be correcting the impression that dialogue with the world inevitably means modifying or dismissing some traditional church doctrines. Almost all of his work counters that by demonstrating that the tradition is a treasure of truth God entrusts to the church.
The question is whether he does this in a way that defeats the intention of Gaudium et Spes and Pope Paul. Sharing conversation with other people of good will becomes teaching them what they need to hear. Respecting the dignity of every human person becomes reinforcement for teachings about abortion and euthanasia.
Nonetheless, he superbly describes how traditional teachings address modern social problems. He deepens Pope Paul’s critique of modern warfare with powerful statements such as “Areas of misery and hunger on our globe could have been made fertile in a short time, if the gigantic investments for armaments at the service of war and destruction had been changed into investments for food at the service of life.”
He tackles other critical social problems in Redemptor Hominis, written at the beginning of his papacy. Way back in 1979, he warns about pollution of the natural environment and uncontrolled development of technology.
In his 1991 Centesimus Annus, he fearlessly confronts economic issues. He warns the consumer civilization was fast becoming an “unbridled capitalism” in which a few had enormous wealth while many were dying of hunger. He opposes this by proclaiming God intends the “universal destination of the earth’s goods.”
His 1994 Gratissimam Sane might be the place where he most often directly uses the term “civilization of love.” He argues this civilization is built on the family, where individuals first learn self-giving love rather than selfish isolation. Family here is defined intrinsically as a man and a woman focused on parenting children.
In Evangelium Vitae (1995), he returns to the culture of life and the gospel of truth. He argues that love is the fulfillment of the law “Do not kill” and spends most of the encyclical reasoning that respect for every human being means opposing abortion and euthanasia. The assumption is that the fetus is a person. Just as the Church has spoken for the weak, poor, and needy who have no voice, now she must speak for the unborn and aged.
I am torn between admiration for Pope John Paul’s courage in defending tradition and worry that his argument crushes the creativity envisaged in a civilization of love. He certainly proves the church has something significant to say. At the same time, love is defined as defending the past rather than opening up the future.
Popes Francis and Leo readjust the development when they describe church teachings changing over time and differing by place. This enables real conversation in which participants share ideas for the common good. That is undoubtedly what the church and society need right now.
