Esau have I hated

Romans 9:11-15

For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil, (that the purpose of God according to election might stand). Not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: That the elder shall serve the younger, as it is written: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy: and I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy.

What follows are a few brief quotations from the Fathers and Catholic theologians concerning the statement in Romans that God "hated" Esau before his birth or having done any evil work. This is typically used to support the incorrect conceptions of predestination promulgated by the Reformers; therefore, it is hoped that here the Catholic understanding can be at least outlined in brief (though imperfect) terms.

Challoner:

Not yet born, etc... By this example of these twins, and the preference of the younger to the elder, the drift of the apostle is to show that God, in his election, mercy and grace, is not tied to any particular nation, as the Jews imagined; nor to any prerogative of birth, or any forgoing merits. For as, antecedently to his grace, he sees no merits in any, but finds all involved in sin, in the common mass of condemnation; and all children of wrath: there is no one whom he might not justly leave in that mass; so that whomsoever he delivers from it, he delivers in his mercy: and whomsoever he leaves in it, he leaves in his justice. As when, of two equally criminal, the king is pleased out of pure mercy to pardon one, whilst he suffers justice to take place in the execution of the other.
(Commentary on the Douay Rheims)

Challoner (a highly respected Catholic bishop in England who actually converted from Calvinism), makes it clear that the basic concept of Predestination (that God does not choose who to save based on works or birth) is entirely Catholic.

St. John Chrysostom:

And indeed to despise one another is in effect to despise God, Who commanded us to show all regard to one another. And this may be otherwise manifested by an example. Cain despised his brother, and so, immediately after, he despised God. How despised Him? Mark his insolent answer to God: "Am I my brother's keeper?" (Genesis 4:9) Again, Esau despised his brother, and he too despised God. Wherefore God said, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." (Romans 9:13; Malachi 1:2-3) Hence Paul says, Lest there be any fornicator or profane person as Esau. (Hebrews 12:16)
(Homily 7 on Second Timothy)

St. John Chrysostom strongly implies a relationship between the 'hatred' (cf Luke 14:26) of Esau and his sinful nature (manifested by his uncharitableness and lust). Although, of course, St. John's purpose is not to address the issue of Predestination directly, he does clearly associate God's Chosen with holiness and the reprobate with sinfulness. This contrasts very strongly with Luther's infamous "Be a sinner and sin boldly" (letter to Melancthon) and plays directly into the Catholic teaching, as described later.

St. Irenaeus:

The history of Isaac, too, is not without a symbolic character. For in the Epistle to the Romans, the apostle declares: "Moreover, when Rebecca had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac, she received answer from the Word, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calls, it was said unto her, Two nations are in your womb, and two manner of people are in your body; and the one people shall overcome the other, and the elder shall serve the younger." (Romans 9:10-13; Genesis 25:23) From which it is evident, that not only [were there] prophecies of the patriarchs, but also that the children brought forth by Rebecca were a prediction of the two nations; and that the one should be indeed the greater, but the other the less; that the one also should be under bondage, but the other free; but [that both should be] of one and the same father. Our God, one and the same, is also their God, who knows hidden things, who knows all things before they can come to pass; and for this reason has He said, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (Romans 9:13; Malachi 1:2)
(Against Heresies [Book IV, Chapter 21])

Although, like St. Chrysostom, St. Irenaeus is not dealing with Predestination directly in this passage, he does make several relevant points concerning it. First, his understanding of Romans is highly allegorical and lays much greater stress on the peoples than on the individuals. Secondly, he states that God's knowledge was the cause of His decision to reject Esau. This could be taken as a rejection of Predestination, but not necessarily. Taking both the allegorical/symbolical nature of the passage and the full spectrum of patristic/theological tradition into accont, it would be more appropriate to say that Irenaeus is teaching the fact that God's Predestination is ultimately based upon His hidden knowledge. This awareness of the hidden nature of God's knowledge is crucial to the Catholic understanding of Predestination.

St. Augustine:

Then he turns to God in prayer against the enemies of that city. "Remember, O Lord, the children of Edom" (Psalm 136:7). Edom is the same who is also called Esau: for you heard just now the words of the Apostle read, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." (Romans 9:13) ...Esau then signifies all the carnal, Jacob all the spiritual... All carnal persons are enemies to spiritual persons, for all such, desiring present things, persecute those whom they see to long for things eternal.
(Exposition on Psalm 137)

St. Augustine goes much further than St. Irenaeus into the realm of the allegorical, for one could go so far as to say that Augustine has completely abstracted Romans 9:13 into the very simple and uncontroversial statement that carnal and spiritual things are opposed and God loves the latter and hates the former. Nevertheless, Augustine does clearly: 1. avoid taking Romans 9:13 as a personal matter between individuals and 2. associate the love/predestination of God with sanctity and His 'hatred' with carnality. This, of course, is immediately reminiscent of both Irenaeus and Chrysostom, and it leaves us with the firm conviction that Predestination and holiness of life are directly connected such that, although all are condemned under Adam, those who attain salvation always evince a greater concern for it than those who do not.

This leads us to the question: what is the definitive answer on Predestination?

Catholic Encyclopedia:

The notion of predestination comprises two essential elements: God's infallible foreknowledge (præscientia), and His immutable decree (decretum) of eternal happiness. The theologian who, following in the footsteps of the Pelagians, would limit the Divine activity to the eternal foreknowledge and exclude the Divine will, would at once fall into Deism, which asserts that God, having created all things, leaves man and the universe to their fate and refrains from all active interference... In order to emphasize how mysterious and unapproachable is Divine election, the Council of Trent calls predestination "hidden mystery". That predestination is indeed a sublime mystery appears not only from the fact that the depths of the eternal counsel cannot be fathomed, it is even externally visible in the inequality of the Divine choice... To all these and similar questions the only reasonable reply is the word of St. Augustine (loc. cit., 21): "Inscrutabilia sunt judicia Dei" (the judgments of God are inscrutable)...

It was Calvin who elaborated the repulsive doctrine that an absolute Divine decree from all eternity positively predestined part of mankind to hell and, in order to obtain this end effectually, also to sin... Consequently, if we consider that God's sanctity will never allow Him to will sin positively even though He foresees it in His permissive decree with infallible certainty, and that His justice can foreordain, and in time actually inflict, hell as a punishment only by reason of the sin foreseen, we understand the definition of eternal reprobation given by Peter Lombard (I. Sent., dist. 40): "Est præscientia iniquitatis quorundam et præparatio damnationis eorundem" (it is the foreknowledge of the wickedness of some men and the foreordaining of their damnation).
(Predestination)

Thus, we see how the Catholic understanding of Predestination incorporates all of the above-quoted Fathers. With regard to the reprobate, we see great emphasis on their sinfulness while with regard to the Chosen, we see great emphasis on the inscrutable nature of the Choice. What the Church definitely objects to are the ideas that truly iniquitous people are saved (as in Luther) and that God positively ordains sin (as in Calvin).

Many (or even most Protestants) would deny that Calvin and Luther taught these things, for instance, Dr. R.C. Sproul emphatically denies the idea that Reformed theology teaches God to be the instigator of sin in man:

This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine... In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives.
(Double Predestination, avail: http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html)

It is important to note the use of the words "Reformed view" since when we read the words of Calvin himself, he appears very closely to resemble this "gross and inexcusable caricature":

With regard to secret movements, what Solomon says of the heart of a king, that it is turned hither and thither, as God sees meet (Prov. 21:1), certainly applies to the whole human race... Even these expressions many would confine to permissions as if, by deserting the reprobate, he allowed them to be blinded by Satan. But since the Holy Spirit distinctly says, that the blindness and infatuation are inflicted by the just judgement of God (Rom. 1:20-24), the solution is altogether inadmissible... not that he intends to teach wicked and obstinate man to obey spontaneously, but because he bends them to execute his judgements, just as if they carried their orders engraven on their minds. And hence it appears that they are impelled by the sure appointment of God. I admit, indeed, that God often acts in the reprobate by interposing the agency of Satan; but in such a manner, that Satan himself performs his part, just as he is impelled, and succeeds only in so far as he is permitted... The sum of the whole is this, - since the will of God is said to be the cause of all things, all the counsels and actions of men must be held to be governed by his providence; so that he not only exerts his power in the elect, who are guided by the Holy Spirit, but also forces the reprobate to do him service.
(Institutes, Book I, Chatper 18, avail: http://www.reformed.org/books/institutes/books/book1/bk1ch18.html)

Thus, Dr. Sproul is not inaccurate in his statement that this does not reflect the "Reformed view" of the issue, and he is seconded by the Encyclopedia which explains more clearly: "The 'Institutes of the Christian Religion,' in which Calvin depicted his own mind, were never superseded by creed or formulary... The Reformed confessions will not allow that God is the author of sin — and Calvin shows deep indignation when charged with 'this disgraceful falsehood,'" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Calvinism, avail: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03198a.htm)

In the end it would appear that both Luther and Calvin were largely left behind by the later developments in the churches which still bear their names. It is fortunate that these developments included the rejection of the more blatantly heretical for which these men were condemned by Trent, but it is not fortunate that these developments did not lead to reunion with the parent root from which these severed branches sprang. We can only hope that by the grace of God, and a deeper, more widely-spread understanding of the Reformers and the Reformation (as it originally was), the Protestants will find their way back to the true faith in its fullness.