Frank Words in Friendship
Pope Benedict visited with the Archbishop of Canterbury at his residence, Lambeth Palace. He said in part:
The context in which dialogue takes place between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church has evolved in dramatic ways since the private meeting between Pope John XXIII and Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher in 1960. On the one hand, the surrounding culture is growing ever more distant from its Christian roots, despite a deep and widespread hunger for spiritual nourishment. On the other hand, the increasingly multicultural dimension of society, particularly marked in this country, brings with it the opportunity to encounter other religions. For us Christians this opens up the possibility of exploring, together with members of other religious traditions, ways of bearing witness to the transcendent dimension of the human person and the universal call to holiness, leading to the practice of virtue in our personal and social lives. Ecumenical cooperation in this task remains essential, and will surely bear fruit in promoting peace and harmony in a world that so often seems at risk of fragmentation.
At the same time, we Christians must never hesitate to proclaim our faith in the uniqueness of the salvation won for us by Christ, and to explore together a deeper understanding of the means he has placed at our disposal for attaining that salvation. God “wants all to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4), and that truth is nothing other than Jesus Christ, eternal Son of the Father, who has reconciled all things in himself by the power of his Cross. In fidelity to the Lord’s will, as expressed in that passage from Saint Paul’s First Letter to Timothy, we recognize that the Church is called to be inclusive, yet never at the expense of Christian truth. Herein lies the dilemma facing all who are genuinely committed to the ecumenical journey.
In the figure of John Henry Newman, who is to be beatified on Sunday, we celebrate a churchman whose ecclesial vision was nurtured by his Anglican background and matured during his many years of ordained ministry in the Church of England. He can teach us the virtues that ecumenism demands: on the one hand, he was moved to follow his conscience, even at great personal cost; and on the other hand, the warmth of his continued friendship with his former colleagues, led him to explore with them, in a truly eirenical spirit, the questions on which they differed, driven by a deep longing for unity in faith. Your Grace, in that same spirit of friendship, let us renew our determination to pursue the goal of unity in faith, hope, and love, in accordance with the will of our one Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
The rest is here.
Pope Benedict says that the “surrounding culture is growing ever more distant from its Christian roots.”
Why?
Here’s theory discussed in a book review brought to our attention in a post by Rick Garnett on Mirror of Justice:
Why, then, the high level of religiosity in the United States?
If increased secularity is correlated with increased “existential security,” what is to be done to reverse the trend toward secularity? The answer would seem not to be to try to decrease “existential security.”
The US is more “poverty ridden”?
Yeah, right.
I have lived in and worked in some of these “leading countries” and while there is greater “equality” it comes at a price. The typical lower middle and lower class family in the US lives about as well as the typical middle class family in Europe. I have seen it first hand.
This doesn’t mean there isn’t poverty in the US, it’s just that we seem to measure ourselves by a different standard.
Existential insecurity – horse hockey.
Translation of that post in everyday language:
“Together with Moslems, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus, we Christians should show that humans have a transcendent dimension, and it will lead us to behave virtuously. Let us Christians cooperate in that effort, and it will lead to more peace. That cooperation is ecumenism.
But we Christians are different from other religions: we believe that Christ has saved us. That’s pretty unique. What does it mean? The Church must be inclusive of all because God wants all to be saved, but at the same time we have to stick to the truth, which is Jesus. It’s a dilemma, and, exploring it together, that’s ecumenism too.
Newman learned about Christianity from being Anglican for many years. His being moved to go from Anglicanism to Catholicism while still keeping his Anglican friends and continuing to explore the differences together with them, that’s ecumenism too. Let’s pray for unity.”
Yeah, right. . . . Existential insecurity – horse hockey.
Sean,
You are so predictably derisive lately that I am on the verge of just ignoring your messages.
All of the Pope’s speeches to date on this trip are available at the Vatican website, including the speech quoted by Fr. Imbelli, and his speeches later in the day to UK politicians at Westminster Hall and at the ecumenical service in Westminster Abbey. IMO, all three of the speeches I’ve mentioned are tightly reasoned and eloquent in their succintness and turns of phrase. And in the Westminster Hall speech, it was a gutsy move to mention St. Thomas More and to then comment on More’s integrity and courage as standards for all politicians to emulate.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/travels/2010/index_regno-unito_en.htm
Sean, I take offense, since when did the great game of hockey become a substitute for a four letter word beginning with s…
Horse hockey indeed….with the NFL rekindled why didn’t you just call it Horse Yankee Football or something equally stupid.
As for the visibility of poverty in Europe vs. the USA or Canada. When I travel the rural areas of Europe vs. the rural areas of Canada and the US, I simple do not see the kind of visible poverty that exists in such settings in North America. Even a Roma encampment doesn’t present the disheveled nature of some sites in North America.
Call that a “slap shot” to use a hockey term.
Gentle persons,
Is there a referee in hockey? If so may I gently toot the whistle and ask that we focus on the the post. Thank you/Merci.
“Existential security” is too squishy a touchstone for me. It may include some objective components, but I don’t think it would capture, for example, the anomie or pyschological dislocation that afflicts significant numbers of the affluent who wonder if their material security is all that there is in life.
Sorry, Fr. Imbelli, don’t put me in the penalty box. My last post crossed with yours.
If you’re so inclined, I’ll hope you’ll also comment on the Pope’s comments during the ecumenical service at Westminster Abbey. They tie in seamlessly with the subject matter of your post. Thx.
Austen Ivereigh continues his fine, on the spot coverage of the Pope’s visit and speeches on the “America” blog. Here is his reflection on the speech to political and civic leaders: http://americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3304
Two of his points are worth noting:
“The event itself turned out to in many ways more important than what the Pope said — not because it wasn’t, as promised, a powerful address, but because it was at times hard to hear …”
But then he adds that the address is “one of the most cogent arguments ever made in such a short speech in favour of politics and religion remaining intertwined.”
From Ivereigh’s report:
“In determining the ethical framework for political choices, the role of religion is to “purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles”. Religion is distorted when “insufficient attention is given to the purifying and structuring role of reason within religion”. In other words, they need each other.”
This notion that religion purifies human reason is a bell that the Holy Father has sounded before. Upon reflection, I agree that this is the case; but I don’t think it’s intuitive for many/most modern people – we’re taught to think of reason as a native, human ability, and religion as a sort of external imposition – from the culture or, ultimately, from some sort of divine inspiration.
I’d welcome a deeper explanation of the way that religion purifies reason. It just seems to me that adherents and non-adherents of Christianity (or any religion) have different views of that religion’s credibility; and most of us, I’d think, are reluctant to submit the products of our reason to principles whose authority we don’t trust or accept.
In other words: to accept that the Christian religion purifies reason, does one first need to be a Christian?
Jim
I think you also need to ask how Benedict understands “religion”. Does he accept Hinduism, or Buddhism as religions?
Rowan Williams quoted an Anglican bishop friend of Newman’s, when he converted. He said: “It is unholiness on both sides which keeps us apart.”
Hockey will never be a gentle sport. Unfortunately, Hindus and Buddhists will never make the team.
Per Iverleigh: ” the role of religion is to “purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles”
What does “reason” mean to Benedict? Surely not logic — logic needs clarification less than any sort of knowledge know to man. So what is the pontiff talking here?
Also per Iverleigh: ” Religion is distorted when “insufficient attention is given to the purifying and structuring role of reason within religion”
Since Benedict is talking about “purifying” religion, one must assume that he is talking about critical thinking about religion. Hmm. That’s a new theme from him, I think, if he has Roma Catholicism in mind.
Benedict’s entire magisterium, and Cardinal Ratzinger’s pursuit of theology before becoming Pope, has consistently involved “critical thinking about religion,” including logic, recognizing that Jesus is “Logos,” as is clear from even a cursory review of his writings and addresses.
Reason, logic, and critical thinking are pervasive in his thinking for the last several decades.
If the purpose of dialogue with other religious traditions is to “bear witness to the transcendent dimension of the human person and the universal call to holiness, leading to the practice of virtue in our personal and social lives“, then Buddhists are definitely part of that, and presumably Hindus as well. From a purely pragmatic perspective, they can certainly help “promote peace and harmony“, regardless of whether or not they may be called a religion proper. Plus, Pope Benedict didn’t say “religion” but “religious tradition” — maybe there is a subtle distinction that would in principle allow him thus to dialogue with buddhists and others without have to pronounce whether or not they can be called a “religion”.
Claire ==
The Hindu tradition is millenia long and there are sacred texts and sacred texts. While the early ones early ones describe the world as illusion and the absolute a one, with all souls being identified with it, later texts are somewhat different. Zaehner maintains that the very important Bhagavad Gita, a later Hindu work is based on mystical experience of a loving God. Vishnu was held to be a manifestation of this God. He even says directly to the hero of the tale, “Do you not know that I love you?”
Buddhism is very different. The absolute is not held to be a god at all, nor is there anything constant about human beings which would be called a soul in other religions and which might be held to be immortal. But, again, the tradition is extremely long, and different works are taken as basic and different interpretations of them are given;
to accept that the Christian religion purifies reason, does one first need to be a Christian?
Jim, I thought JP2′s encyclical on Faith and Reason might provide some insight, and found the following:
On the basis of this deeper form of knowledge, the Chosen People understood that, if reason were to be fully true to itself, then it must respect certain basic rules. The first of these is that reason must realize that human knowledge is a journey which allows no rest; the second stems from the awareness that such a path is not for the proud who think that everything is the fruit of personal conquest; a third rule is grounded in the “fear of God” whose transcendent sovereignty and provident love in the governance of the world reason must recognize.
These seem to me like pleas for humility, so perhaps that is the key to the purification of reason. I do not think it would be impossible for a non-religious person to accept that religion COULD teach a humility that is needed for knowledge.
I emphasize “could” because I think religion can play the opposite role as well. There are many religious persons who think they have reached the end of the journey, and have the answers that others must accept. They take the Gospel mandate as a reason to conquer, and sometimes do this without much imitation of God’s love for the conquered. These people stand because they are not humble, while those who are humble tend not to be seen, so the example of humility is easily obscured.
Jim McK, thanks for that passage and your reflections. It takes the topic into a different dimension than I had expected. (I had been approaching it from the point of view that religion provides moral “input”, or perhaps serves as a moral constraint, to unfettered reason).
Jim P. –
What is “unfettered” reason? What is your meaning of “reason”?
Hi, Ann, I’m using “unfettered” in the normal sense of the word.
It wasn’t the most apt word, admittedly, because morality needn’t act as a constraint on reason – perhaps they interact in some other way. E.g. Jim McK is suggesting that a religious orientation gives the reasoner a certain praiseworthy humility.
The mental image I get is that Benedict sees religion as a sort of filter through which reason passes, and emerges more pure than it was before.
Religion might do this, for example, by giving the reasoner a grounding in truth – for example, that there is a God; that he loves us; that he has given us laws and commandments which we are bound to follow – that might not be apprensible by reason alone. (That is what I meant by “unfettered” – in the sense of ‘reason operating on its own’)
You are the philosopher – it is your part to give us a definition of reason :-)
1) “E.g. Jim McK is suggesting that a religious orientation gives the reasoner a certain praiseworthy humility.
2) The mental image I get is that Benedict sees religion as a sort of filter through which reason passes, and emerges more pure than it was before.”
Jim P. –
My problem with 1) above is that it is not *reason* which is proud, but the *reasoner*. The difference really needs to be kept clear.
2) implies that reason itself can be purified, when it’s the reasoner who needs purification. And this, I think, shows that he has a real *fear* of reason itself, not just of proud or otherwise morally imperfect reasoners.
I think that he, and others in the Vatican theological culture, have highly ambivalent feelings about reason. They both respect it and fear it. This is very unfortunate for theologians who point out that there are logical problems/tensions/contradictions in some Church teachings. Instead of viewing these opinions as worthy of investigation, the Vaticcn just says “shut up”.
Here’s a funny you might enjoy. The other night Jimmy Fallon, the talk show host who follows Jay Leno on NBC, said that there was good news for the Vatican this week. After three years of being refurbished, the Vatican libraries are being opened again. “That,” said Fallon, “gives the Vatican another opportunity to say its favorite word — Shhh.”
” And this, I think, shows that he has a real *fear* of reason itself, ”
By “he” I meant Pope Benedict, not Jim.
Ann: note the context in which the Holy Father joined reason to religion (as reported by Ivereigh):
“In determining the ethical framework for political choices, the role of religion is to “purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles””.
So it’s important to note two qualifiers: (1) he’s talking, not in generalities, but very specifically about *the ethical framework for political choices*, and (2) he’s talking specifically about how to go about discovering “objective moral principles”, presumably in the public sphere.
In this specific context, I do think he’s talking about religion acting as a brake on reason that is unyoked from communal wisdom and tradition.
Jim P. –
If he were talking about the use o faulty logic this would make sense to me. But if that’s not what he’s talking about, then how can he object to the use of reason? If he’s talking about using false premises, then than is not a misuse of reason, it is simply a use of false premises. That might be what he is hinting at by his reference to ‘communal wisdom and tradition’. But that is a problem of *evidence*, not of reason.
Jim P. ==
My last several sentences were clear as mud. I’ll try again:
He refers to “religion acting as a brake on reason that is unyoked from communal wisdom and tradition”, This sounds as if he means to reject *reason* as somehow being at fault when it is applied to premises which are not true. (In this case, the false premises are those which contradict the true statements of wisdom and tradition).
But the correctness of reasoning and the falsity of premises (what we might call “false evidence”) are two different things. His disparagement is misplaced — it should be aimed at the false premises, not against reasoning. The problem is not reason but falsity.
Hi, Ann, just to clarify for anyone still reading this: the phrase “religion acting as a brake on reason that is unyoked from communal wisdom and tradition” is mine, not the Holy Father’s; and it’s an interpretation that may or may not be sound – it’s me speculating on what he may have meant in the bit that Ivereigh reported.
I’m not sure that he’s critiquing reason itself – clearly, he sees it as essential for discovering the truth, and for maintaining the Catholic intellectual tradition, with far-reaching implications for contemporary societies – as the product – the outcome – of reason. As you say, inadequate outcomes of the reasoning process (e.g. ‘there is no good reason that two men or twom women shouldn’t be allowed to marry one another’) may be based on false premises; or it may be because certain premises are excluded (‘revelation is not authoritative for the purposes of what we considering’).
I don’t see that religion has any impact on the reasoning process itself; and in that, I think we are in agreement.
“. . . inadequate outcomes of the reasoning process. . . may be based on false premises; or it may be because certain premises are excluded (’revelation is not authoritative for the purposes of what we considering’).”
JIm P. ==
Sorry to be so persistent, but the general subject (how we reach truth apart from observation and reasoning) is, I think, a very important one for the Catholic Church today, especially considering how fuzzy the Pope’s thinking on the subject is. Needless to say, if he gets confused by the topic, so, a fortiori, will the rest of us.
There is, of course, a means of reaching certain truths apart from reasoning — by intuition of possible explanations which fit best with truths already established. But it too is never totally secure, though sometimes such intuitions have great pragmatic value. I think, religious beliefs fall into this category of ‘best explanations’. (If they can’t be proven, how do we know they are best?)
I dont’ want to eliminate “heart” (whatever it is that is real, if it is real) as a means to truth. (Yes, I would say there is such a thing. It convinces me that torture is wrong.) But the problem is *if*, *when* and *how* to admit it to decision=making processes.
Or do you have something else in mind when you talk of the certain premises not included in reasoning processes? Or what?
My big problem with Pope Benedict — and Newman who influenced him so greatly — is their notion(s?) of “heart” as a means to truth. Too easily it can become an excuse for lazy thinking, and, worse, wishful thinking. Worst of all, it can supply an ethical norm detached from truth such that when push comes to shove, it allows us to appeal to a purported higher standard of behavior by allowing us to tell ourselves, “My heart tells me, this is the way things ought to be …”,or very worst of all “OUR hearts tell us this is how things should be”.
I guess I should go and read the whole of “The Grammar of Assent”. Sigh.
Hi, Ann, yes, I’m thinking specifically of revelation (which can, in turn, be divided into several categories, such as scripture, other Tradition, conscience (which may be a part of “heart” as you describe above), and the created world we observe), as another type of premise which feeds into the reasoning process.
I’d think that the authority of revelation is not accepted by non-believers (or open to question by skeptics). If revelation isn’t thought to reveal anything worth considering, then it wouldn’t figure in any reasoning, and does not influence whatever reason concludes.
For example: you may have heard that some artists are proposing a loopy idea (loopy to me, anyway) of draping six miles of the Arkansas River in Colorado with fabric. Apparently, the project is being funded by private donations ($50 million worth!) and the Bureau of Land Management is cooperating. Needless to say, many folks are protesting this plan.
http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/35543/opposition-mounts-for-christo-and-jeanne-claude-river-project/
Revelation could contribute to the debate. Revelation tells us that God created the world, and we deduce from that revelation (through reasoning, of course :-)) that all of creation, including the Arkansas River, ultimately belongs to God, not the Bureau of Land Management, and our role, also put forth in revelation, is to be God’s faithful steward of his creation. The truth of God’s creation, revealed to us in scripture, may present a compelling reason (that word sneaked into the conversation :-)) for denying the artists permission to execute their bizarre idea.
Jim P. –
It seems the confusion isn’t so much about whether or not to use reason, but what the force is of various types of evidence, or purported evidence. Hmmm.
As to Cristo, when I first read about one of his projects many years ago, I thought What nonsense! But then I saw some pictures and kind of changed my mind. That river project does seem like an awful amount of money to spend on something temporary. So how do you decide? Beauty needs no argument. Does faith need no argument either?