Considering the difficulties that a catechism for young people could face –in particular, the one being taught by the Spanish bishops on the occasion of WYD— and in connection with the problem of a preaching deficiency in general, it may be useful to mention, as an example, the pastoral exhortation of an illustrious Prelate of the Spanish Hierarchy given only a few days before the writing of this editorial.

According to the Prelate, the love of God does not expect a response. It goes without saying that one must take into account, when considering the commentary we are going to make here, that the Pastor was not expounding a theological thesis and that, logically –since they are nearly impossible to avoid in any type of oral catechetic —, slip-ups are bound to occur.

Yet, it is not possible to set aside the importance and seriousness of the subject to which we are alluding. Also, we must add that the excellence of the preacher’s figure and the eminence of his office demand, in this case, special care in terms of word choice and respect for the proper meaning of concepts. After all, these rules must always be taken into consideration in any kind of oratory, be it sacred or no.

A fundamental law of the concept of love demands— when dealing with its nature and according to its own very essence— that one keep in mind, that love always expects a response; after all, love is the mutual and reciprocal self-giving of the two lovers. In this sense, one can rightly affirm that unilateral love does not exist. Even in the bosom of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit –nexus duorum, according the Fathers—is the response and loving self-giving which the Father and the Son reciprocally and mutually give and receive. If God were not more than one Person (although one in His Essence), He would not be Love either.

Someone may think of Platonic Love or even of the Courtly Love sung about by the troubadours of the Low-Middle-Ages. To be sure, in neither case did the lover expect to possess his lady. However, the certainty that it was impossible for him to achieve that possession did not diminish in any way his desire to attain it; indeed, the troubadours of Courtly Love would even sing about their feelings of despair on account of their misfortune. In addition to this, the studies made about this topic question the validity of these two forms of love; at least in reference to the general concept of authentic love.

In this regard, our Prelate in question spoke of erotic love as one of the forms of love. Perhaps he did not realize that eroticism cannot be classified as true love, unless it is considered within the context of purely pagan ideologies.

Love, by its very nature, implies the self-giving of the person who loves; which is impossible to accomplish if there is no corresponding acceptance on behalf of the loved person. And since both persons love each other, this process is mutual and reciprocal. Narcissism has always been considered, since pagan times, as an aberrant (and false) form of love.

But the problem remains unresolved. Because the concept of disinterested love has been a subject of quite a discussion, since Saint Augustine until our days, going through Jean Baruzi’ s studies regarding the mystique of Saint John of the Cross, or those of the Protestant Nygren; who, by the way, also supports the theory of disinterested love. However, from a Catholic point of view such idea is almost untenable.

It is evident that God neither needs nor wants anything outside Himself; but, in fact, because of His free will and infinite goodness, He wanted to commit Himself to man. He Himself even became Man and, out of love for men, gave His Only Begotten Son to the world to be put to death on a Cross: For God so loved the world as to give His Only Begotten Son: that whosoever believes in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting (Jn 3:16). To think that God, Who offered His Love to men to the extent of giving them His Only Begotten Son, and Who, in order to demonstrate that Love, went as far as death, even death on a Cross; to think, then, that God, after all this, does not expect any man’s corresponding answer to His Love is tantamount to thinking of squaring the circle.

Going back to the issue of preaching in general, one cannot stress enough how seriously important proclaiming the Word to the Christian People is; it is one of the heaviest burdens which God has entrusted to His disciples: For woe unto me if I preach not the gospel! (1 Cor 9:16). If one is preaching to the young people, then the task becomes even more complicated and demands special qualities –supposing, of course, that there were any kind of easy, non-complicated preaching.

We have recently seen with astonishment how the enemies of God have spread evil with great audacity, keen intelligence, and by taking full advantage of the resources available to them. They have even resorted to beauty –that seducing, enchanting, and amazing aspect of reality—as well as to all the modern technical resources, of course: the film Avatar is a clear example. We must admit that, in spite of its tremendous anti-Christian ideological content, the film uses beauty and fantasy in a marvelous way –the Devil also is able to disguise himself as an angel of light. Whereas the Church, on the contrary, seems to have renounced what is sublime and beautiful –in her liturgy as well as in her preaching; the Sunday homilies are witnesses to that fact: most of them are a monument to inanity, superficiality, and boredom; or the maximum exponent of self-evident mediocrity and deep emptiness. Jesus Christ Himself already told us so: For the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light (Lk 16:8).