The Beauty of Belief

Cur Deus homo is a very controverted text. Anselm’s method is generally conceived – by Catholics, Protestants and non-Christians alike – as a kind of rationalism; and his conclusion is generally derided for its alleged depiction of God as a cruel tyrant willing to destroy his incarnate Son just to satisfy the debt incurred after his self-image – his “honor” – was wounded by sin. As J. Ratzinger put it in Introduction to Christianity, at least in “the vulgarized form” that has “to a great extent” shaped the West, Anselm’s theory of atonement “looks cruelly mechanical and less and less feasible.” 1

Setting aside vulgarized caricatures of Cur Deus homo, I’d like in this short introduction to offer a few keys to unlock its authentic method and conclusion. If we read this text carefully and with attention to its monastic character, I think we can discover in it a beautiful articulation of God’s love. Before making my case, I’d like to begin by recalling why Anselm wrote the work in the first place.

Why did Anselm write?

Anselm composed Cur Deus homo (1095-1098) to oblige those who asked him to put down in writing the beautiful intelligibility he saw in Christian redemption (I.1). Judging by his introduction, he obliged them for two reasons: first, to support their “delight in the understanding and contemplation” of what “they already believe” (I.1); and second, “so that they may be ‘always ready,’ to the best of their ability, ‘to give an answer to all who demand’ from them ‘the reason of the hope that is in’ us.” 2 (I.1; cf. 1 Peter 3:15)

In other words, Anselm is writing for those who see theology as a liberal art, as something delightful done for its own sake. Anselm is writing for those who see theology as a liberal art, as something delightful done for its own sake. Share on X But he also knows that the delight of theology involves understanding, and that this understanding should prepare us for evangelical encounters. As he sees it, theology is not about cracking puzzles or besting adversaries in debate. It is an effect of faith working itself out in love. An authentic experience of God leads to theology; in fact, “we would be derelict if we did not strive to understand what we believe” (I.1). 

What is his method?

Anselm was a rigorous thinker. Following his arguments requires us to make careful distinctions and pay close attention to language and logic. With his desire to penetrate and even organize Christian doctrine (manifest in his meticulous tables of contents and in the connections he notes to other works), he may well have served as a “father of scholasticism” – to quote the popular moniker given him at least since Martin Grabmann over a century ago (1909). But if we want to understand his method, I suggest we learn to see him also as a “son of monasticism” – to coin a moniker inspired by what seems to me to be a rising trend in Anselm scholarship. But what does that mean? 

For one thing, reading Anselm as a monk means we must appreciate how integral his method is: it is not narrowly analytical or cut off from the rest of his life and humanity. In his works, he employs different literary styles to lead his reader to a greater apprehension of truth. Sometimes he combines a rhetorical style with an analytical style in a single work, such as in Proslogion, where passages saturated with prayer set the crucial existential context within which his integrated argument for God (unum argumentum) can be understood. Other times, such as in Cur Deus homo, the rhetorically charged or existential style is mostly reserved for companion pieces, such as Meditation on Human Redemption, Prayer to Christ, Prayer Before Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, and Prayer to the Holy Cross. 

For Anselm, theology leads to prayer and is set within a comprehensive spiritual ambition – a desire for total conversion in thought and affection, and thus also a desire to share in the life and sacraments of the Church. If we want to appreciate his method, we must recognize that his effort to understand his faith (fides quaerens intellectum) reaches well beyond an abstract systematization of Christian doctrine and aspires to attain an integrated and life-altering apprehension of all truth – of God. His effort to understand his faith (fides quaerens intellectum) reaches well beyond an abstract systematization of Christian doctrine and aspires to attain an integrated and life-altering apprehension of all truth – of God. Share on X To follow his logic, we should cultivate the introspection and conversion he tried to inspire.

If we appreciate Anselm’s integrated method, we will avoid misunderstanding him as a reductive rationalist. He is rigorously rational, but he is not at all Cartesian. On the contrary, he identifies the rational with the beautiful, and therefore he suggests that any apparent “necessity” in theology should push us to search for an even greater intelligibility, since beauty attracts precisely by inviting the mind into something further, into some understanding not already possessed (I.1).

During his opening statements on method, Anselm, far from claiming the final word on the subject at hand, relativizes his arguments as a necessarily incomplete depiction of Christ’s beauty: “the subject matter is not merely precious but, just as it concerns one who is ‘beautiful’ in his appearance beyond the children of men,’ so too is it beautiful in its reasoning beyond the understanding of men.” (I.1; cf. Psalm 45:3) His interlocutor in the dialogue, Boso, replies in a way that reinforces the contingent character of his arguments: “For if anyone can speak better, you will allow him to do so; and if your language does not please someone, you will not prevent him from writing more beautifully.” (I.1) It should be clear that Anselm’s ambition is not to articulate exhaustively the nature of creation and salvation but rather to step into a tradition of ongoing contemplation (I.2). 

Thus, the vision of faith Anselm wants to display in Cur Deus homo does not have the ineluctability of mechanical analysis. It is open to development. It also rests upon premises, especially the transcendent greatness of God and the hope Christians have for human happiness. Christian faith is therefore an essential – but subtle – premise in the dialogue. To be sure, Anselm does not appeal to Christian authorities to make his case. In fact, he says explicitly in his preface to Pope Urban II that he will leave Christ “out of the picture” (remoto Christo) to be able to dialogue with the non-believer. But although he argues without appeal to Christian authority, he still assumes the most hopeful vision for human existence, namely, eternal life and freedom from all sin and suffering.

So, let’s suppose that God’s Incarnation and the things we say about that human being had never happened, and let’s agree that human beings were made for a happiness that cannot be possessed in this life, that no one can attain such happiness unless his sins are forgiven, and that no human being passes through this life without sin. (I.10)

Anselm’s evangelical or apologetic aim is very specific: to argue as best he can that “the love and generosity” God showed in Jesus is consistent with his greatness Share on X Anselm’s evangelical or apologetic aim is very specific: to argue as best he can that “the love and generosity” God showed in Jesus is consistent with his greatness (I.3). This means his non-believing interlocutor is not like the unbelievers of modern secularism; he is neither a militant nor an indifferent atheist, nor is he a nihilist despairing about human fulfillment. On the contrary, the non-believer in Cur Deus homo hopes for the highest happiness imaginable, and he devoutly believes in God and his greatness – and precisely for this reason refuses to accept Christianity. He is motivated by his piety, for he thinks Christians “insult God” by claiming that he was born a human being and that he suffered (I.3). 

Anselm therefore seeks to vindicate Christianity by showing how much “greater is the love and generosity” of God, if we know him through Jesus. His method in Cur Deus homo aligns therefore, with the method in Monologion and Proslogion: his reason is guided by the widest horizon imaginable, that is, by an apprehension of the transcendent greatness of God as the ground for the most comprehensive human happiness.

What is his conclusion?

An introduction like this can’t replace reading Cur Deus homo, but let me offer a few comments to help the reader arrive sympathetically to Anselm’s conclusion, which in its basic form is well known: the Incarnation was necessary because no mere man (or any creature or sum of creatures) could pay the debt incurred by sin; and yet only man could pay the debt because it was his debt to pay; thus, justice could be restored only if God himself became man. That is “why” (cur) “God” (Deus) became “man” (homo).

I think the conclusion is sound, but it can be misunderstood. Words like “justice” and “honor” can easily be twisted to render Anselm’s conclusion ugly beyond recognition, as he was already aware (cf. I.8; I.10).

The Meaning of Justice

The meaning of justice is essentially the rectitudo of God himself and what he wills for creation (I.13). Thus, when Anselm says justice must be satisfied, what he means is God must be satisfied and not any law beyond himself. And what God wills for human beings is greater than can be imagined, for we were “created in order to be happy in enjoying God” (I.9). Happiness or loving union with God is the “debt” we owe him; and happiness is inconsonant with injustice, since it “is a state of fullness in which nothing is lacking” (I.24). When God pushes for justice, he is not motivated by petty legalism. Rather, he is motivated by his unrelenting love to achieve the benevolent “purpose” he has in mind for human beings (I.4), and thus to accomplish “the beauty of the universe itself” (I.15; II.4-5).

The Meaning of Honor

The idea of honor challenges some interpreters. It is important to see that it is not a cold relic of master-slave relationships or medieval feudalism; to the contrary, it expresses what could be considered Anselm’s Christian personalism, or his conviction that our relationship with God is not fully articulated through impersonal laws but rather through intelligence and freedom. As he says, “the complete honor that we owe to God” is nothing other than “the justice or rectitude of will that makes people just or upright in heart” (I.11; cf. I.15). To honor God is to know and love him for who he is – as the summum bonum, or, as Anselm calls him in Monologion 2, “the most highly Good” (summe bonum) who holds everything lovable within himself. According to Anselm, reason exists to distinguish between what is great and greater, so that we might ascend in our spiritual faculties (i.e., our intellect and will) to what is transcendently great, and thus enact our intelligent and free preference for God above all things: the “rational nature was made for the purpose of loving and choosing the supreme Good above all other things, not for the sake of something else, but for its own sake” (II.1). To honor God is to unite with him in friendship, and thereby to contribute to the beauty of the universe. 3

Conclusion: The Nature of the Atonement

For Anselm, the atonement is not a mechanical process but a personal act. It is satisfying as a human expression of love from the Son of God to the Father. Sharing in the atoning and beatifying love of Christ is also a personal act. Thus, Anselm says in Cur Deus homo that Christ’s satisfying love can be shared by “all who put their trust in his help” (II.16). His conclusion aligns with the aim of his integrated theological method: sharing in the heart of Christ with “proper affection” (II.20) by imitation of him (II.18) and by living the life outlined in Scripture (II.19). This explains why Anselm – to judge by his prayers and meditations – wanted to contemplate the love of Christ in his monastic life. He also wanted to share in Christ’s heart sacramentally, so that, as he prayed before receiving the Eucharist, “by virtue of this sacrament I may deserve to be planted in the likeness of your death and resurrection”. 4

It is not enough for me to will piously to imitate Christ. My will is feeble and, on my own, my affection and spiritual striving do not match the greatness of what is offered (I.20). I need truly to be animated by Christ. As Anselm declares in prayer, Christ himself must “incorporate” me into his self-offering to the Father, that is, into his body, “‘which is the church’, so that I may be your member and you may be my head, and that I may remain in you and you in me. Then at the Resurrection you will refashion the body of my humiliation according to the body of your glory”. 5 In Meditation on Human Redemption, he synthesizes the contemplative and the sacramental means of sharing in the atonement. After summarizing Cur Deus homo, he writes “See, Christian soul, here is the strength of your salvation, here is the cause of your freedom, here is the price of your redemption. […] Chew this, bite it, suck it, let your heart swallow it, when your mouth receives the body and blood of your Redeemer. Make it in this life your daily bread, your food, your way-bread, for through this and not otherwise than through this, will you remain in Christ and Christ in you, and your joy will be full.” 6

---

Endnotes

1. J. Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (Ignatius Press, 2004), 231.

2. Citations of Cur Deus homo are from T. Williams, Anselm: Basic Writings (Hackett 2007), and citations of
Anselm’s prayers are from B. Ward, The Prayers and Meditations of Saint Anselm with his Proslogion (Penguin
Books, 1973).

 3. For more on freedom and friendship in the atonement, see J. Bayer, “The Beauty of Obedience in Cur Deus homo” in Saint Anselm Journal, Spring 2024, No. 2, 1-19.

4. Prayer Before Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ; Ward, 101.

5. Prayer Before Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ; Ward, 101.

6. Meditation on Human Redemption; Ward, 234-235.

---

Image Credit: Pablo Borowicz | Flickr