« Guilty Pleasures | Main | Curial Matters »
April 30, 2005
The Pope without a country
Interesting, sort of scattered piece by a German in the NYTimes
Pope Benedict XVI may be convinced that democratic institutions have as little right to interfere in the structure of the church as all the many emperors and kings who tried to do as much in past centuries. This stance has made him unpopular among his fellow German clergymen, who are intimidated by contemporary culture, but it also fascinates intellectuals who are far removed from the church, and who aren't swayed by any superficial rhetoric of reconciliation. In Benedict, they see the authentic representative of a religion that they don't know whether to view as still dangerous or possibly as the only remaining counter to a secular society.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
I think those intellectuals, though, may find Benedict's diagnosis and prescription for the the ills of democratic institutions and secular society as unpalatable as they did his predecessors: "Nevertheless, I would like to speak very briefly about two current risks to law, which, between them, have a theological component and, therefore, do not only refer to jurists but also to theologians. The "end of metaphysics," which in broad sectors of modern philosophy is superimposed as an irreversible fact, has led to juridical positivism which today, especially, has taken on the form of the theory of consensus: if reason is no longer able to find the way to metaphysics as the source of law, the State can only refer to the common convictions of its citizens' values, convictions that are reflected in the democratic consensus. . . .There is also a second threat to law, which today seems to be less present than it was ten years ago, but it can re-emerge at any moment and find a link with the theory of consensus. I am referring to the dissolution of law through the spirit of utopia, just as it assumed a systematic and practical form in Marxist thought. The point of departure was the conviction that the present world is evil -- a world of oppression and lack of liberty; which must be substituted by a better way of planning and working. In this case, the real and ultimate source of law becomes the idea of the new society: which is moral, of juridical importance and useful to the advent of the future world. Based on this criteria, terrorism was articulated as a totally moral plan: killings and violence appeared like moral actions, because they were at the service of the great revolution, of the destruction of the present evil world and of the great ideal of the new society. Even here, the end of metaphysics is a given, whose place is taken in this case not by the consensus of contemporaries, but by the ideal model of the future world. . . .The denigration of law is never in any way at the service of liberty, but is always an instrument of dictatorship. To eliminate law is to despise man; where there is no law there is no liberty.
At this point an answer can be given to the basic question I have been addressing in these reflections, but perhaps only in summary form. What can faith and theology do in this situation for the defense of law? I would like to attempt an answer to this question, in a summary and certainly very insufficient way, by proposing the following two theses:
1. The elaboration and structure of law is not immediately a theological problem, but a problem of "recta ratio," of right reason. Beyond opinions and currents of thought, this right reason must try to discern what is just -- the essence of law, and is in keeping with the internal need of the human being everywhere, distinguishing from that which is destructive of man. It is the duty of the Church and faith to contribute to the sanity of "ratio" and through the just education of man to preserve in his reason the capacity to see and perceive. If this right is to be called natural right or something else, is a secondary problem. But wherever this interior demand of the human being, which is directed to law, or the need that goes beyond changing currents, can no longer be perceived and therefore spells the total "end of metaphysics," the human being is undermined in his dignity and in his essence."
The return to Metaphysics, heralded by John Paul II in Fides et Ratio, will not be a welcome sentiment for these "intellectuals", or indeed for many other intellectuals also superficially well disposed to Benedict's sensibilities.
Posted by: al at Apr 30, 2005 10:34:07 AM
Thanks, Al. As Butch Cassidy said (in the movie version) about the trackers following them, "who *are* those guys?" They are relentless. A friend told me yesterday that she has a Rottweiler, and that Rottwielers are good with children.
Posted by: Joseph R. Wilson at Apr 30, 2005 11:09:39 AM
Nothing THAT new when one compares Ratzinger/Benedict's views with JPII's. See JPII's discussion of moral and civil law toward the end of chap. III of Evangelium Vitae.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Apr 30, 2005 11:57:31 AM
"Nothing THAT new"--precisely; and thank goodness.
Posted by: Joseph R. Wilson at Apr 30, 2005 12:09:02 PM
I have been dipping into B16's writings - available on-line via EWTN and the fan club website. I am impressed with how readable they are. He just might have an incredible effect on the zeitgeitz now that he has this great platform. And, yes, his courtliness in argument while still forcefully presenting his own position is really heartening. It's rational argument without a mean spirit that has the possibility of changing opinions and hearts. He seems to have the knack of using non-scholarly language to counter-act the knee-jerk slogans and shibboleths of today's relativism.
People are curious about him right now, and I think he's grasped that he needs to use that current attention right away in getting his thoughts across.
I heard that Charlie Rose wants to do an interview with him. Wouldn't that be cool? I hope he does it.
Posted by: Julia at Apr 30, 2005 2:09:36 PM
But all of this presupposes that the new Pope can get a serious airing of his positions. THAT is the problem. Nobody ever genuinely disproved what St. Thomas Aquinas had to say, the modern man has simply relegated him into irrelevance.
The Church has the answer for what ails modern, and especially post-modern man, but nobody pays it heed. Modern man banished the Church and theology from their philosophy departments over a century ago, AND NOBODY is eager to see them readmited, because they've ensconced themselves in a mental labrynth, and don't know how to get themselves out. The summit of philosophical discourse now proposes aporia, deconstructionism. Whereas the ancient Greeks wrestled with the radicality of being, his modern counterpart is locked within an iron safe, bound by sophistry, and believing that even communication itself is impossible, let alone a serious discussion of truth.
Ratzinger is a mental force, BUT WILL HE BE MENTALLY ENGAGED, or will the Left dismiss him before he gets a chance to speak the truth. We all know the answer.
The first thing that Ratzinger needs to do is impose a philosophical schemata in all Catholic colleges. FIRST EDUCATE HIS OWN, THEN start upon the wider world. I am really disappointed too, with how John Paul II allowed the Left to continue to control Catholic colleges. He had the authority, and he failed to use it. Start graduating Catholics capable of debating and annihlating deconstructionism. Ratzinger should impose a rigorous philosophical and religious core requirement upon ALL Catholic colleges. And should provide the blueprint for the courses themselves, leave nothing to the Left to screw up, nor to the actual administrations of the schools.
What the whole world desperately needs once more, is a Catholic Church, proud, and mentally aggressive. Eager for intellectual combat, confident in the truth, and disdainful of the errors currently prevailent.
There are other "abuses" in the Church, and one of them is the woeful state of philosophical and theological education. Start educating Catholics, as they were educated a century ago, and THEN we might start seeing some headway made in the culture wars.
Posted by: Dan M at May 1, 2005 12:23:12 AM
But all of this presupposes that the new Pope can get a serious airing of his positions. THAT is the problem. Nobody ever genuinely disproved what St. Thomas Aquinas had to say, the modern man has simply relegated him into irrelevance.
The Church has the answer for what ails modern, and especially post-modern man, but nobody pays it heed. Modern man banished the Church and theology from their philosophy departments over a century ago, AND NOBODY is eager to see them readmited, because they've ensconced themselves in a mental labrynth, and don't know how to get themselves out. The summit of philosophical discourse now proposes aporia, deconstructionism. Whereas the ancient Greeks wrestled with the radicality of being, his modern counterpart is locked within an iron safe, bound by sophistry, and believing that even communication itself is impossible, let alone a serious discussion of truth.
Ratzinger is a mental force, BUT WILL HE BE MENTALLY ENGAGED, or will the Left dismiss him before he gets a chance to speak the truth. We all know the answer.
The first thing that Ratzinger needs to do is impose a philosophical schemata in all Catholic colleges. FIRST EDUCATE HIS OWN, THEN start upon the wider world. I am really disappointed too, with how John Paul II allowed the Left to continue to control Catholic colleges. He had the authority, and he failed to use it. Start graduating Catholics capable of debating and annihlating deconstructionism. Ratzinger should impose a rigorous philosophical and religious core requirement upon ALL Catholic colleges. And should provide the blueprint for the courses themselves, leave nothing to the Left to screw up, nor to the actual administrations of the schools.
What the whole world desperately needs once more, is a Catholic Church, proud, and mentally aggressive. Eager for intellectual combat, confident in the truth, and disdainful of the errors currently prevailent.
There are other "abuses" in the Church, and one of them is the woeful state of philosophical and theological education. Start educating Catholics, as they were educated a century ago, and THEN we might start seeing some headway made in the culture wars.
Posted by: Dan M at May 1, 2005 12:23:12 AM
Charlie Rose? Why not Larry King?
Posted by: peter wilson at May 1, 2005 2:17:20 AM
If the Pope ever does a TV interview, I hope it's with someone capable of asking intelligent and knowledgable questions, not shallow intellectual lightweights like King and Rose.
My choice for Papal interviewer would be William F. Buckley in a one episode revival of Firing Line!
Posted by: dennis at May 2, 2005 12:10:56 PM
