- Read Part I first, if you have not already done so.
- If you read Frank's comment (or if you are Frank!), do not fear! I am writing an answer to his question... It will come at the end of Part III.
The necessity of vulnerability does not mean we must be completely open and vulnerable
with everyone we encounter to be fully human.
Prudence allows us to respond to human sin. Our relationships with other require a
balance of prudence with openness, always guided by caritas. It does mean that vulnerability is bad, is
not something to be avoided. It is a
beautiful expression of our humanity.
And, because of the inherent risk, it requires a certain courage, a
certain strength to live it out.
Now, you may have noticed an implication in this discussion
of vulnerability, which leads to the next lesson I taught my feminism.
If self-gift is essential to humanity, then no human being
can truly exist in isolation. We can
only fully realize our selves as persons if we do so in relation to other
persons. What a blow to my ideal of
self-sufficiency! I like to imagine
myself capable of complete independence.
Alas, JPII tells me otherwise. And it gets worse. The ultimate self-gift – the opening of self
and reception of other – happens in marital love. Not only do I as a person not make sense
except in relation to another person, but I as a woman do not makes sense
except in relation to man.
No comments:
Post a Comment