Synodalia: What is Love?

Anthony Fisher OP, Archbishop-Elect of my hometown, Sydney, has penned an article posted on the website of his new diocese. Its context is the Synod, and he addresses some very topical issues. But it is his opening lines that arrested this reader’s attention:

I think the biggest challenge to the family today is that people have forgotten how to love. That sounds odd, I know, but what I’m getting at is the cross-shaped Easter sort of loving rather than the heart-shaped Valentine’s sort of loving. We are less and less willing to commit, for the long haul, to another person or a small community of persons, come what may, even when the loving is hard. We are less and less willing to engage in the self-sacrifice that requires, the compromising of our willfulness, even unto death.

One of my homiletic preoccupations (obsessions?), as the boys at this morning’s Mass at Winchester College will attest, is to replace the concept of love that is rammed down our throats by amusing but vacuous romantic comedies, sitcoms, light literature and substance-less magazines – of emotional intoxication with another: “falling in love” – with the Christian concept of love. The Christian concept of love – Christian because perfectly modelled in the person of Jesus Christ – has less to do with transient emotions and more to do with selflessness and self-sacrifice. This is not love as a state of being or an emotional state; but love as a state of doing, a way of living.







This love is pithily and effectively summed up by Archbishop Fisher: it is Cross-shaped, not valentine-shaped. for when the emotional buzz of what is often mistakenly called love (instead of infatuation or even, sometimes, lust) has passed, what are we left with? All too often today the result is broken marriages, or broken relationships since so many do not make that permanent commitment which is the basis of marital love. When “love” is defined by what I feel rather than what I give, we are dealing with a chimera at best, a counterfeit at worst.

This is not to deny that love has an emotional element. Christ does not advocate a soul-less, robotic form of loving. Rather, it is that the emotional element – the “buzz”, the high, the pleasure, the sweetness, the joy – is meant to come after, or at least concurrently with, the doing of love, the self-giving, the self-sacrifice. Emotions come and go, so they can be no real test of love. Commitment, self-denial, self-sacrifice, self-giving: these are the marks of authentic love.

“Greater love has no one than to lay down one’s life for a friend; you are my friends if you do as I command you”. And what did Christ command: to love God and to love our neighbour. Christ laid down his life for us, and we prove ourselves at least partly worthy by doing as he did. “I have left you an example”. “If you would be my disciple, take up your cross, and follow me”. God’s love, Christ’s love, is cross-shaped.

It is this commitment to self-less self-giving that is the best, yea the only, human foundation of marital love. So if the Church’s, which is to say Christ’s, teaching on love – its duties and its limits and its measure – leaves some people feeling exposed or judged, the problem lies not with the teaching but with people’s faulty living, imperfect choices, unwise decisions. Shooting the messenger will help no one. Denying the message will do even worse damage. If Christ has taught us the truth about love, the love that brings us to life eternal, though vales of tears and dales of joy, then there is only one message the Church can teach, and only one choice we can legitimately make for our own good.

The Christian teaching of two millenia on love have the guarantee of Christ and the validation of experience in the lives of those who all too often do not make the news, the women’s magazine or the lad-mag, or popular music. But these do not reflect the reality of most people’s lives. Most people’s lives are too mundane to make for arresting music or literature or cinema. They set up an ideal impossible to attain; indeed it is no ideal at all. It is a snare, trapping the unwary in the vicious circle of self-obsession.

Perhaps the greatest need today in popular theology, and certainly in the homiletics of our parishes and chaplaincies, is to recover and promote the truth about love and expose the toxic sham that modern secular culture substitutes for it. Love is, as the archbishop said, cross-shaped not valentine-shaped, and our loving will be vain until we fully comprehend this.

4 thoughts on “Synodalia: What is Love?

  1. Spot on Father!!!
    …and I trust you are feeling better–eh?
    Once again we have the word “hard” at hand–as the Archbishop says–“…even when the loving is hard. . .”
    Real, true, committed love is indeed very hard (being married for 31 years I can attest to that–and I think that now, at 55, I understand a great deal more about what love is about, much more so then I did at 23— as it is a true wonder I / we made it as far and as long as we have—all but for Grace truly!!!)
    The cross is the best example of what hard love is truly all about and sadly our society really wishes to have none of that.
    I pray the Holy Spirit will bestow upon the hearts and minds of the prelates, as well as to Pope Francis, the importance of what true love is and of the work and effort it implores of its participants and of its absolute necessity in our world if we, as a civilized people, hope to continue.
    So much of what is wrong in our society (and who does’t have a laundry list of such) goes directly back to the demise of the traditional family and as to what that Holy unit, as designated by God, is composed of—so many children do not have any role models or examples as to what a real marriage is and of the real hard work it demands— and of its flip side. . .of the deep and dearly entrenched joy it exudes—how do we expect our young newly marrieds to sail blissfully off to happily ever after if they have no idea as to what will be asked of them?! So many children do not have the role models of what it is to have a father and / or a mother and of the hard, yes hard, roles each of those has to establish in order for a family to “work”—much easier to walk away, call it quits, redefine it to our liking, scrap the whole thing or simply reinvent it. . .
    Oh I’m rambling again Father—
    Again—thank you for sharing your insight–
    Hugs your way—Julie


    1. Hi Julie. Your comment that you know more now about love after 31 years of marriage struck a chord.

      We cannot expect young people to know all about love from the outset. No one does. Love is a commitment, yes, but its heights and depths must be experienced. They can be frightening, and we can want to run. That is why the permanent commitment is so important. It restrains us from running away just when we need to stick to it. The reward comes later, and the confirmation that fidelity works.

      Pax! **cough cough**


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.