Building the new ethical sense through the rediscovery of values

1. We come in our analysis to the third part of Christ's statement in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:27-28). The first part was: "You have heard that it was said: you shall not commit adultery. The second: "But I say to you, whoever looks at a woman to lust after her", is grammatically connected to the third: "he has already committed adultery with her in his heart".

The method applied here, which is to divide, to "break" Christ's utterance into three parts, which follow one another, may seem artificial. However, when we are looking for the ethical sense of the whole utterance, in its entirety, the division of the text we use can be useful, provided it is not applied disjunctively but subjunctively. And this is what we intend to do. Each of the distinct parts has its own content and connotations that are specific to it, and this is precisely what we wish to emphasise by dividing the text; but at the same time it should be pointed out that each of the parts is explained in direct relation to the others. This refers in the first place to the main semantic elements by which the utterance constitutes a whole. Here are these elements: committing adultery, desiring, committing adultery in the body, committing adultery in the heart. It would be particularly difficult to establish the ethical meaning of 'desiring' without the element indicated here last, namely 'adultery in the heart'. The preceding analysis has already taken this element into account to a certain degree; however a fuller understanding of the component: "committing adultery in the heart" is only possible after a special analysis.

2.

As we already mentioned at the beginning, it is a question here of establishing the ethical sense. Christ's statement in Matthew 5: 27-28 begins with the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery", to show how it is to be understood and put into practice, so that the "righteousness" that God Yahweh as Lawgiver willed abounds in it: so that it abounds to a greater extent than the interpretation and casuistry of the Old Testament doctors. If Christ's words in this sense tend to build the new ethos (and on the basis of the commandment itself), the way to this is through the rediscovery of values, which - in the general anti-Constitution understanding and application of this commandment - have been lost.

3.

From this point of view, the wording of Matthew 5: 27-28 is also significant. The commandment 'thou shalt not commit adultery' is formulated as an interdiction that categorically excludes a certain moral evil. It is well known that the Law itself (Decalogue), besides the prohibition "thou shalt not commit adultery" also includes the prohibition "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" ( Ex 20:14 . 17 ; Deut 5:18 . 21 ). Christ does not nullify one prohibition over the other. Although it speaks of "desire", it tends towards a deeper clarification of "adultery". It is significant that after he mentions the prohibition "not to commit adultery", as known to his listeners, he later changes his style and logical structure from normative to narrative-affirmative. When it says: "Whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart", it describes an inner fact, the reality of which can be easily understood by the hearers. At the same time, through the fact thus described and qualified, he indicates how the commandment "thou shalt not commit adultery" is to be understood and put into practice, so that it leads to the "righteousness" desired by the Lawgiver.

4.

Thus we come to the expression 'he committed adultery in his heart', a key expression, as it seems, to understand its proper ethical meaning. This expression is at the same time the main source for revealing the essential values of the new ethos: of the ethos of the Sermon on the Mount. As is often the case in the Gospel, here too we encounter a certain paradox. How, in fact, can "adultery" take place without "committing adultery", that is, without the outward act, which enables the act prohibited by the Law to be identified? We have seen how committed the casuistry of the "doctors of the Law" was to specifying this problem. But even irrespective of the casuistry, it seems evident that adultery can only be detected "in the flesh" (cf. Gen 2:24 ), i.e. when the two: man and woman, who are joined together so as to become one flesh, are not legal spouses: husband and wife. What meaning, then, can "adultery committed in the heart" have? Is this not a merely metaphorical expression, used by the Master to highlight the sinfulness of concupiscence?

5.If we were to admit such a semantic reading of Christ's statement ( Mt 5:27-28 ), we would have to reflect deeply on the ethical consequences that would follow, i.e. the conclusions regarding the ethical regularity of the behaviour. Adultery occurs when the two: man and woman, who are joined together so as to become one flesh (cf. Gen 2:24 ), i.e. in the proper manner of spouses, are not legal spouses. The identification of adultery as a sin committed 'in the body' is strictly and exclusively linked to the 'outward' act, to marital cohabitation, which also refers to the status of the acting persons, recognised by society. In the case in question, this state is improper and does not authorise such an act (hence the name: "adultery").

6.

Moving on to the second part of Christ's utterance (i.e. the part in which the new ethos begins to take shape), one would have to understand the expression: "whoever looks at a woman to lust", in the exclusive reference to persons according to their marital status, i.e. recognised by society, whether or not they are married. Here the questions begin to multiply. Since there can be no doubt that Christ indicates the sinfulness of the inward act of concupiscence expressed through the gaze directed at any woman who is not the wife of the man who looks at her in this way, we can and even must ask ourselves whether by the same expression Christ admits and substantiates such a gaze, such an inward act of concupiscence, directed at the woman who is the wife of the man who looks at her in this way. In favour of an affirmative answer to this question seems to be the following logical premise: (in the present case) only the man who is the potential subject of 'adultery in the flesh' can commit 'adultery in the heart'. Since this person cannot be the man-husband with regard to his lawful wife, therefore the 'adultery in the heart' cannot refer to him, but can be blamed on any other man. If a husband, he may not commit it with regard to his wife. He alone has the exclusive right to 'desire', to 'look with concupiscence' at the woman who is his wife, and it can never be said that because of such an interior act he deserves to be accused of 'adultery committed in the heart'. If by virtue of marriage he has the right to "unite himself with his wife", so that "the two shall be one flesh", this act can never be called "adultery"; similarly, the inner act of "lust" referred to in the Sermon on the Mount cannot be called "adultery committed in the heart".

7.

This interpretation of Christ's words in Matthew 5: 27-28, seems to correspond to the logic of the Decalogue, in which, in addition to the commandment "thou shalt not commit adultery" (VI), there is also the commandment "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" (IX). Moreover, the reasoning that has been made in its support has all the characteristics of objective correctness and accuracy. Nevertheless, it remains open to question whether this reasoning takes into account all the aspects of revelation as well as the theology of the body that must be considered, especially when we want to understand Christ's words. We have already seen above what is the "specific weight" of this locution, how rich are the anthropological and theological implications of the only phrase in which Christ returns "to the origin" (cf. Mt 19:8 ). The anthropological and theological implications of the utterance of the Sermon on the Mount, in which Christ appeals to the human heart, also give the utterance a "specific weight" of its own, and at the same time determine its coherence with the whole of the Gospel teaching. And so we must admit that the interpretation presented above, with all its objective correctness and logical precision, requires some broadening and, above all, deepening. We must remember that the appeal to the human heart, expressed perhaps paradoxically (cf. Mt 5:27-28 ), comes from the One who "knew what is in every man" ( Jn 2:25 ). And if His words confirm the commandments of the Decalogue (not only the sixth, but also the ninth), at the same time they express that science about man, which - as we have noted elsewhere - enables us to unite the awareness of human sinfulness with the prospect of the "redemption of the body" (cf. Rom 8:23 ). Precisely such "science lies at the foundation of the new ethos" that emerges from the words of the Sermon on the Mount.Taking all this into consideration, we conclude that, just as in understanding "adultery in the flesh" Christ subjects to criticism the erroneous and one-sided interpretation of adultery that results from the non-observance of monogamy (i.e. marriage understood as the indefectible covenant of persons), so too in understanding "adultery in the heart" Christ takes into consideration not only the actual legal status of the man and woman in question. Christ makes the moral evaluation of 'desire' depend above all on the personal dignity of the man and woman themselves; and this has its importance both when they are unmarried and - perhaps even more so - when they are married, wife and husband. From this point of view, we should complete our analysis of the words of the Sermon on the Mount, and we will do so next time.

[Pope John Paul II, General Audience 1 October 1980]

Psychological and theological interpretation of the concept of concupiscence

1. Today I would like to complete the analysis of the words uttered by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount about "adultery" and "concupiscence", and in particular the last component of the utterance, in which "concupiscence of the eye" is specifically defined as "adultery committed in the heart".

We have already noted above that the above words are usually understood as the desire for another's wife (i.e. according to the spirit of the 9th commandment of the Decalogue). It seems, however, that this - more restrictive - interpretation can and should be broadened in the light of the global context. It seems that the moral evaluation of concupiscence (of "looking in order to lust"), which Christ calls "adultery committed in the heart", depends above all on the personal dignity of the man and woman themselves; this applies both to those who are not joined in marriage, and - and perhaps even more so - to those who are husband and wife.

2.

The analysis we have made so far of the statement in Matthew 5:27-28: "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery; but I say to you, whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart'", indicates the need to broaden and especially to deepen the interpretation presented above, regarding the ethical meaning that this statement contains. Let us dwell on the situation described by the Master, a situation in which the one who "commits adultery in his heart", by means of an inner act of concupiscence (expressed by looking), is the man. It is significant that Christ, when speaking of the object of such an act, does not emphasise that it is "someone else's wife", or the woman who is not one's own wife, but says generically: the woman. Adultery committed 'in the heart' is not circumscribed within the limits of the interpersonal relationship. It is not these limits that decide exclusively and essentially the adultery committed "in the heart", but the very nature of concupiscence, expressed in this case through the gaze, that is, through the fact that that man - of whom, by way of example, Christ speaks - "looks to lust". Adultery 'in his heart' is committed not only because the man 'looks' in this way at the woman who is not his wife, but precisely because he looks at a woman in this way. Even if he were to look in this way at the woman who is his wife, he would commit the same adultery "in the heart".

3.

This interpretation seems to take into account, in a broader way, what has been said in the present analysis on concupiscence, and in the first place on the concupiscence of the flesh, as a permanent element of man's sinfulness (status naturae lapsae). The concupiscence that, as an interior act, arises from this basis (as we have tried to indicate in the previous analysis), changes the very intentionality of the woman's existence "for" the man, reducing the richness of the perennial call to communion of persons, the richness of the profound attraction of masculinity and femininity, to the mere gratification of the sexual "need" of the body (to which the concept of "instinct" seems to be more closely connected). Such a reduction means that the person (in this case, the woman) becomes for the other person (for the man) above all the object of the potential fulfilment of his own sexual 'need'. This deforms the reciprocal 'for', which loses its character of communion of persons in favour of the utilitarian function. The man who 'looks' in this way, as Matthew 5:27-28 writes, 'makes use' of the woman, of her femininity, to satisfy his own 'instinct'. Although he does not do so by an outward act, he has already assumed this attitude in his innermost being, inwardly so deciding with respect to a particular woman. This is precisely what adultery 'committed in the heart' consists of. Such adultery 'in the heart' can also be committed by the man with regard to his wife, if he treats her merely as an object of gratification of instinct.

4.

It is not possible to arrive at the second interpretation of the words of Matthew 5: 27-28, if we limit ourselves to the purely psychological interpretation of concupiscence, without taking into account what constitutes its specific theological character, namely the organic relationship between concupiscence (as an act) and the concupiscence of the flesh, as, so to speak, a permanent disposition that derives from man's sinfulness. It seems that the purely psychological (i.e. 'sexual') interpretation of 'concupiscence' is not a sufficient basis for understanding the relevant text of the Sermon on the Mount. If, on the other hand, we refer to the theological interpretation, - without underestimating what in the first interpretation (the psychological one) remains unchangeable - it, that is, the second interpretation (the theological one) appears to us as more complete. Thanks to it, the ethical significance of the key statement of the Sermon on the Mount, to which we owe the proper dimension of the ethos of the Gospel, also becomes clearer.

5.

In delineating this dimension, Christ remains faithful to the Law: "Think not that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I came not to abolish, but to fulfil" ( Mt 5:17 ). Consequently, it shows how much we need to go deeper, how much we need to thoroughly unveil the darkness of the human heart, so that this heart can become a place of 'fulfilment' of the Law. The statement of Matthew 5: 27-28, which makes manifest the inner perspective of adultery committed "in the heart" - and in this perspective points out the right ways to fulfil the commandment: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" - is a singular argument. This utterance ( Mt 5,27-28 ) in fact refers to the sphere in which "purity of heart" (cf. Mt 5,8 ) (an expression which in the Bible - as is well known - has a wide meaning) is particularly dealt with. We shall also have occasion elsewhere to consider how the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" - which, in terms of the way it is expressed and its content, is an unequivocal and severe prohibition (like the commandment "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife") ( Ex 20:17 ) - is fulfilled precisely through "purity of heart". The severity and strength of the prohibition is indirectly testified to by the subsequent words of the text of the Sermon on the Mount, in which Christ speaks figuratively of "plucking out the eye" and "cutting off the hand", when these members were the cause of sin (cf. Mt 5:29-30 ). We noted earlier that the Old Testament legislation, while abounding in severe punishments, nevertheless did not contribute "to the fulfilment of the Law", because its casuistry was marked by multiple compromises with the concupiscence of the flesh. Christ, on the other hand, teaches that the commandment is fulfilled through "purity of heart", which is not imparted to man except at the price of firmness towards everything that originates from the concupiscence of the flesh. He acquires "purity of heart" who knows how to consistently demand it from his "heart" and from his "body".

6.

The commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" finds its justification in the indissolubility of marriage, in which man and woman, by virtue of the Creator's original design, are united so that "the two become one flesh" (cf. Gen 2:24 ). Adultery, by its very essence, contrasts with this unity, in the sense that this unity corresponds to the dignity of persons. Christ not only confirms this essential ethical meaning of the commandment, but tends to consolidate it in the very depths of the human person. The new dimension of the ethos is always connected with the revelation of that depth, which is called "heart" and with the liberation of it from "concupiscence", so that in that heart man can shine forth more fully: male and female in all the inner truth of their mutual "for". Freed from the constraint and impairment of the spirit that brings with it the concupiscence of the flesh, the human being: male and female, find themselves reciprocally in the freedom of the gift that is the condition of all cohabitation in truth, and, in particular, in the freedom of mutual self-giving, since both, as husband and wife, must form the sacramental unity willed, as Genesis 2,24 says, by the Creator himself.

7.

As is evident, the demand, which Christ poses in the Sermon on the Mount to all his current and potential listeners, belongs to the inner space in which man - the very one who listens to him - must see again the lost fullness of his humanity, and want to regain it. That fullness in the reciprocal relationship of persons: of man and woman, the Master vindicates in Matthew 5:27-28, having in mind above all the indissolubility of marriage, but also every other form of cohabitation of men and women, of that cohabitation which constitutes the pure and simple fabric of existence. Human life, by its very nature, is 'co-educative', and its dignity, its balance depend, at every moment in history and at every point of longitude and geographical latitude, on 'who' she will be to him, and he to her.

The words spoken by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount undoubtedly have such universal and at the same time profound significance. Only in this way can they be understood in the mouth of the One, who to the very depths "knew what is in every man" ( Jn 2:25 ), and who, at the same time, carried within himself the mystery of the "redemption of the body" as St. Paul would express it. Should we fear the severity of these words, or rather trust in their salvific content, in their power?In any case, the accomplished analysis of the words pronounced by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount opens the way to further reflections that are indispensable to be fully aware of 'historical' man, and especially of contemporary man: of his conscience and his 'heart'.

[Pope John Paul II, General Audience 8 October 1980]