Habermas and Ratzinger
See here — Logos, the journal of the Catholic Studies program at St. Thomas University in St. Paul – for an English-language summary and analysis of the January 2004 discussion held between then Cardinal Ratzinger and the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas. Habermas’s status in Germany as *the* public intellectual meant his declaration that “Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization” caused a stir in European intellectual circles. (The author of this piece, Virgil Nemoianu, notes that the Canadian Catholic philosopher Charles Taylor has made more nuanced but similar remarks, but Habermas’s resolute secularity makes the words more startling when he utters them.) Also striking is Ratzinger’s assertion, made in a connected First Things essay, that “democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.”
on July 18th, 2006 at 11:58 am
I don’t know why positive comments by Benedict about democratic socialism surprises anyone. Merely having read some of his works, like Turning Point Europe?, instead of all the inflammatory clap-trap about him would render this unsurprising.
I think that Nemoianu reveals a deeper insight when he writes on page 34:
“Catholic Christianity was treated, even by Ratzinger, in its sociohistorical dimension rather than from the point of view of its metaphysical or transcendent claims . . . [this] indicates a certain respect from the secular side by the very abstention of an intervention in the internal ecclesiological economy of the Church. It would be somewhat awkward and ultimately unacceptable to have religious matters submitted to the tribunal of rationalistic materialism ” He continues, “nobody denied that religion is endowed with an incarnational and thus sociohistiorical dimension . . .Thus it appears that Joseph Ratzinger was wise to accept a sociohistorical level of reference, rather than withdraw haughtily into the domain of dogmatic theology.”
on July 18th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
I am neither philosopher nor theologian so I can offer only a basic observation here, one that may or may not have any relevance:
If the present pope appreciates the sociohistorical and incarnational aspects of the Church, then why did he seemingly walk in the opposite direction by trying to preserve the imperial style of worship, continued use of Latin, and harsh treatment of theologians with whom he disagreed.
On a thread elsewhere on this site, I mentioned the Incarnation as perhaps the most significant “profane” event in the history of humankind. Maybe I should have used the birth of Jesus, instead. My point being: If God deigned to have his Son enter human history with all its shortcomings, then how does continued use of imperial Church “trappings” remind us of such an important profane event as Our Lord’s willingness to walk among us? During the papacy of JPII, I saw a “haughtiness” from Rome. I continue to see it, “Deus caritas est,” notwithstanding. And, of course, I continue to see/hear/read it from Catholic hierarchs and laity who wish for a return to the supposed “good old times.”
on July 18th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
The query on liturgy is irrelevant to the discussion between Ratzinger & Habermas. But to attempt an answer in the context of Nemoianu’s quote above. Ratzinger treated Christianity solely in it sociohistorical dimension in order to engage in that dialogue and others like it. However, the situation is different as regards the Church’s “internal ecclesiological economy.” In which metaphysical and transcendent claims constitute its existence,.
on July 18th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
It certainly is progress when B16 focuses on the sociohistorical dimension of Christianity instead of the dogmatic, apriori approach. Exactly what does it mean that metaphysical and transcendent claims constitute the existence of the church?
Does that mean that the rejection of the sociohistorical is only a matter of time?
I think its absolutely true that Christianity has brought on freedom, democracy and social justice. Yet it is seen more in Paul and those who imitated him rather than in the voice of the hierarchs.
I am startled by the profuse use of praise of philosphers in this piece. Does that mean that philosphers are relevant again? Didn’t we get into enough trouble with Plato?
Is there a valid justification for philosphy today or do philosophers remain merely to stir our imaginations. They certainly have given up on solving problems. CFR the data on the problem of evil.
Just think without philosophers we never would have heard the word “transubstantiation” and our immersion in the Eucharist would be so much fuller and less complicated.
I sure am dumbfounded when people parrot the words “fully present in soul and divinity.”
No one has any idea what it means but we will hear it ad nauseaum.
Notice I am mainly critcizing philosophers and the hierarchs who screwed up that social history. Not B16. He is doing a lot of things right and we should not get excited by isolated incidents.
He should, though, stay away from imposing fines for those who insult Jesus. It is not self hatred. It is the confidence that this Jesus showed us the way and mere name calling will not dilute one iota of that.
on July 19th, 2006 at 8:36 am
“Exactly what does it mean that metaphysical and transcendent claims constitute the existence of the church?”
God’s covenant (ordinance really) with Israel, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Sacraments, etc. are foundational to the Church and her raison d’etre.
on July 19th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
“the God who is so human that he himself became man” So Benedict. Does this strike anyone else as odd? Is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith listening?
on July 20th, 2006 at 11:24 am
It does strike me as odd and likely a translation error. In God and the World Ratzinger speaks of the God who is so small that he became human, or words that effect, marvelling at God’s willingness to become small, to not view equality with God something to be grasped at
on July 20th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
>>It certainly is progress when B16 focuses on the sociohistorical dimension of Christianity instead of the dogmatic, apriori approach. Exactly what does it mean that metaphysical and transcendent claims constitute the existence of the church?< <
Has any approach been so destructive of intellectual and liturgical life of the church than this one?
>>The God who is so human that he himself became man<<
I don’t know the full context of this, but perhaps he is using “human” in the sense of “humane”–as in, God has the qualities of humanitas, which is a deeply traditional phrasing.
on July 20th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
mlj:
Do you have some texts to illustrate this tradition? That human beings in their humanity at its best have a likeness to God is certainly traditional. But I would have supposed that one should not, comversely, compare God to man as B seems to when he not only attributes humanity to God but seems to suggest that the result of God’s supposed humanity is the incarnation. The context is readily available in the First Things piece cited above.
on July 21st, 2006 at 10:47 am
It occurred to me that the ordinary translation of the Greek philanthropia into Latin is “humanitas”. For instance in Acts 28:2. The more exact rendering would be “caritas generis humani” as in Cicero De fin. 5.23.65, but he ususall uses simply “humanitas”. If this equivalence was in the author’s mind, “the God who is so human [i.e., so great a lover of mankind] that he himself became man” makes perfect sense, and I suppose”Deus qui adeo humanus est ut ipse homo sit factus” would pass among Latinists, but the English seems odd to me still. Perhaps there is a point about the dangers making English so Latinate that only a Latinist can understand it.
on July 21st, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Joe-
That’s what I was thinking, though you’ve expressed it much more intelligently than I could ever hope to.
I vaguely remember Pius XII using this locution; I think it was even in the title of an encyclical?
It would be a real stretch given the other things he’s said about him, but there is the off-chance that Ratzinger has in mind Karl Barth’s understanding of “the humanity of God.”