Talk:Deus caritas est

Name of the encyclical
Why "caritas" and not "amor"? "caritas" means love, of course, but it does also mean "charity", like in "faith, hope, and charity". If anyone knows why he chose "caritas" instead of "amor" please add it to the article. The name is important. Mushroom 12:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but see the text of the encyclical in Latin and English: the words "DEUS CARITAS EST" are transalated as "God is love". It is a quote from the First Letter of St John, as the article says. End of story. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, now I understand it. Thank you very much. Mushroom 12:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Caritas is not only 'love' but also includes 'brotherly love', as in 'Love God, and love they neighbour as thyself.' Stijn Calle 13:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the title is a direct citation of 1 Jn 4:8c in the Latin Vulgate translation. That is why "caritas" and not "amor". Cf. also 1 Jn 4:16b.


 * Leonard Maluf

I added the footnote, to clear up the confusion. --Thorsen 15:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The Mac OS X dictionary-widget states: promulgate - promote or make widely known (an idea or cause). This should probably be added to the page somehow. Would anybody like to have a shot at it? Nappilainen 16:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Taejo, who is currently blocked because of an open proxy, says: The English cognate (q.v.) of "Caritas" is "Charity". He asked me to add it to this talk page. Mushroom 09:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright
Should it be noted that this is the first papal document to be released under copyright? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 20:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

All papal rightings are technically under copyright.DaveTroy 11:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Caritas
An aside: caritas in Latin is the abstract noun formed from the adjective carus, "dear, expensive,valuable, special, loveable" whether in cash price or sentiment (Cf. French cher, Greek Kharis, English whore). So another way to translate Deus caritas est is "God is the quality of being... special. Loving and lovable." --Fulminouscherub 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

See also: caritas (Latin), which corresponds to the Greek  agape. The latin amor corresponds to the Greek  eros. Austrian 22:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I fixed an error whereby "caritas" was referred to as the cognate of English "charity." "Charity" is BORROWED from the Latin (through French), not a cognate. As Fulminouscherub points out, the English COGNATE to Latin "carus" is (strangely!) whore, descended by regular sound change from ka-ro (with long "a").
 * (But Greek "kharis" is not cognate to these. Greek "kh" comes from "gh", not "k".)--Gheuf 04:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)jpb

Bible translation
Is there any evidence to support the claim that the NAB was used to translate the title? Every modern translation I've ever heard of translates ἀγάπη as "love". Why specify the NAB? Vilcxjo 20:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agape, yes, but that is Greek. The "original text" of the encyclical was Latin (despite it being drafted in German), and the question is how to translate caritas (see above). -- ALoan (Talk) 20:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that doesn't answer my question. The assertion is that "the Holy See used the New American Bible for the translation of the quotation." They would have got exactly the same result if they'd used RSV, NRSV, REB, GNB, NIV, you name it - in fact more or less anything dating from the last sixty years or so. What grounds are there for stating that "the NAB was used for the translation"? Vilcxjo 20:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, the implication that the Holy See needed to "use a translation" in order to produce the English title is preposterous. Whether working from the Greek or the Latin, the words are so simple and the phrase so familiar that anyone in a position to be working on the English-language version of the encyclical would automatically write "God is love" - they wouldn't say "Well, let's see what the NAB (or anything else) makes of this phrase" - if their language skills were that poor they wouldn't be on the job in the first place. Vilcxjo 20:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the source used is the RSV.
 * Deus Caritas Est:
 * “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him”
 * NAB:
 * "God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him."
 * RSV:
 * "God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him."
 * --Sephiroth9611 20:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Great - thanks for the links. Added as references. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Another possible reason for the NAB is that translation is used in US liturgies. The copy right issues, therefore, are probably already negotiated.DaveTroy 15:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Contests section filler
''Deus Caritas Est, like the encyclicals of many previous popes, uses the Royal we in the Latin text. The English has been rendered in the singular.'' --While this point is interesting, is it really relevant? After all, the Pope is a monarch and monarchs usually use the first person plural. Is this also noted in the Magna Carta article for instance? --Sephiroth9611 01:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

note about lanuage and promulation
I noticed (and changed) a language note in the article. Technically, the ORIGINAL and OFFICIAL text is Latin and in the Acta Apostolica Sedis. The translations are merely for the ease of reading, as a result, I re worded the article. Once I have a new copy of the AAS, I will add in the official referece to DCE.DaveTroy 11:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good start to the article - I have added the stuff on Barth and Tillich. Could do with explaining a bit about the differences of agape and eros in the classical tradition, Also some academic references. stuartg238
 * I changed stuartg238's text a bit. The differences between eros and agape are usually more prominent in the Protestant tradition.   Benedict was just restating the traditional Catholic view here. --Marcusscotus1 15:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Marcusscotus - made some changes - mainly Augustine due to his importance for platonism in catholicism and Bonaventure re- pope's theology. also to make clear that catholic theologians have differing viewpoints on the caritas tradition. Hope that is ok with you. stuartg238

Key passages
I deleted a list of the contents of the encyclical the other day, on the grounds that the encyclical is freely available and a list of its section does not add very much to this article. I am bit less sure whether to delete the key passages that have recently been added: again, the full text of the encyclical is freely available, so we could just refer to the relevant paragrpahs without quoting them in extenso... I would be more comfortable if there was a reference explaining why these are the "key" passages, more so than any others, otherwise it looks to me a bit like original research and/or copyvio. -- ALoan (Talk) 03:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A couple of the comments on FAC question the need for quotation of these passages. I'd be grateful if someone would please consider whether how they could be shortened to put across the message more concisely before I'm forced to wade in with my size 9s. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment on this section: Is "Some key passages" formal enough? Wouldn't "Key passages" be more formal, or would it possibly be too POV (claiming they are the only key passages?) Just a thought. -- LV (Dark Mark)  18:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

John Paul II?
Where says that the second half part of the Encyclical is take out of incomplete texts of John Paul II? Excuse me my very bad English. Cesarhvr


 * Yes - see the references. It is apparently based on uncompleted writings left by John Paul II based on a report by a pontifical council, as mentioned later. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Contemporary English translations"
...translate "God is love"; the article says that Douay-Rheims translates "charity"; but it neglects to mention that the 1611 King James Bible translates "agape" as "love" in I John iv. 16 ("And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.")


 * Um, isn't the KJV an Anglican bible? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * the translation was done by a group that included Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anglicans; the latter group also translated the Deuterocanonical books, which is found in some editions of the KJV --Marcusscotus1 15:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it viewed by Catholics? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There are numerous prominent English-speaking Catholics who like the KJV, or its derivatives, because they consider it to have both beautiful, dignified language, and because it follows the original texts closely, instead of resorting to paraphrases. It's understood that some passages are not translated in quite the same way as a Catholic would do it.


 * The Douay-Rheims-Challoner version, which originally predated the KJV and has been updated over the centuries, was used as the English translation in the Mass until the 1960s: it has a similar language and translation methodology as the KJV.  This version is popular among traditional Catholics.  The names of many of the books, however, are different than what is used in other English translations, since they are taken from the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament.


 * In all 'literal' translations such as these, good footnotes are recommended to interpret awkward phrases or figures of speech. --Marcusscotus1 01:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your interesting (and clearly knowledgeable) reply. I was interested to find out whether the KJV has any particular currency in the Catholic church, and thus whether we should add a reference to its text. DO you have any views? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't it somewhat incongruous that the King James Version is used in the Summary section where it mentions the prologue of John's Gospel? This is an article about a papal encyclical after all ... 203.221.152.57 08:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy
Some conservative Catholics (incl. myself) criticize this encyclical for Modernism (Roman Catholicism).--Railsmart 20:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reference to some published criticism? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Photograph
Who is the man standing next to the Pope in the photo? Thanks, Cam 13:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Archbishop Leandro Sandri of Argentina ClaudeMuncey 14:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Looks like his name is spelled Leonardo Sandri. Judging by our article on the Secretariat of State, he is in charge of papal documents, so it makes sense. --Cam 16:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Started an article for him: Leonardo Sandri. --Cam 17:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Number of pages
I removed the reference to the number of pages, as it is rather arbitrary. I have the English PDF, which is only 25 pages. Carl.bunderson 18:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The term "christian love"
"Deus Caritas Est (Latin for "God is Love") is the first encyclical written by Pope Benedict XVI, on the subject of Christian love, as expressed by its subtitle De Christiano Amore."

Is there any explanation why he speaks of "christian" love?
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.64.22 (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Uncreated love
The term Uncreated love is commonly used by theologians, only that the term is highly metaphysical and would deserve better explaining. ADM (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Theology of the body
I removed the "main article" link to the "theology of the body" wiki. The encyclical (as an encyclical) is not a generic subset of the doctrinal the theme "Catholic theology of the body". Although theological anthropology from a Roman Catholic perspective is indeed part of the encyclical, that doctrinal theme is a subset of Roman Catholic teaching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMug123 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No word "philia" in the prologue of the Gospel of John. The word is "logos"
The first paragraph of "Summary" says :

Philia is often translated into English as "word", but can also mean thought, speech, reason, principle, standard, or logic, among other things. For example, the prologue of the Gospel of John calls Jesus the philia: the opening verse in the New American Bible (and other translations) reads: "In the beginning was the Word [philia], and the Word [philia] was with God, and the Word [philia] was God."

The correct word  in John 1:1 is not "philia" but "logos"

In the beginning was the Word [logos], and the Word [logos] was with God and the Word [logos] was God"

Reference : Greek Bible: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh1.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisca HT (talk • contribs) 12:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thanks for catching that. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 14:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see this fixed. The text is about "philia" (friendship, brotherly love) but still confuses this word throughout with "logos" (word, reason). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.113.129.220 (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Deus caritas est. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0507411.htm
 * Added tag to https://w2.www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_lt.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211214257/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211214257/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deus caritas est. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0600463.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060425192452/http://212.77.1.245/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/index_en.htm to http://212.77.1.245/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/index_en.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002183044/http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=83272 to http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=83272

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Joseph Ratzinger.jpg

essay-like tag
What specific features of this article make it essay-like? Since an encyclical is itself an essay, is the description of an encyclical inherently essay-like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.51.224 (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)