Posted on 03/08/2003 7:04:29 AM PST by Lessismore
Suddenly, religion is back, just as “progressive“ people were rejoicing that heads of government could be sworn into office without any reference to God, and just as some Europeans presented a first draft for a European Union constitution in the belief that no allusions to “Christian roots“ or “religious values“ were needed. But now European politicians and people around the world are confronted with a U.S. president who starts his cabinet meetings with a Bible reading and prayer; one who believes he knows what the Christian God is demanding and what is good and evil. At the same time, a frightening Islamic fundamentalism is emerging to challenge the rich, technologically superior “kingdom of Satan.“ Are we about to witness an unprecedented apocalypse of religious origin?
After centuries of painful experience, the “old“ Europe has banned religion from its laws and constitutions. The separation of church and state is complete. So why do others not follow this teaching? Some believe the Islamic states and people only need a little bit more time. After all, they say, Islam is six centuries younger than Christianity and has not yet undergone an Enlightenment. Just as modernity forced churches and confessions in Western societies to agree to reforms, Islam, too, will realize that religion must not be a reason for war. And now this - a return to the Middle Ages.
In fact, the Middle Ages left Europeans with the precious heritage of two golden rules: One holds that worldly and spiritual power have to be separated; the other demands that we unite reason and faith.
Europe has fared well with these rules, and it would have fared even better if it had followed this advice more closely. Much has gone awry in Europe since pure reason concluded it could do without the power of faith, could even deride it, and then created an all-powerful state.
The Enlightenment eliminated all flawed expressions of faith and excesses of the church so comprehensively that it also threw out its positive elements - such as the conscience - with the bathwater. The impact of the godless ideologies of the 19th centuries was far worse than that of religion, which was replaced by the worshipping of the state, a race, an economic class or a nation. The resulting catastrophes have taught us that man is not all reason.
The “old“ Europeans can become young again if we manage to rediscover a balance of reason and faith - if we counter the exuberance of Christian zealots in the New World with the wise insight of their history, and if we fight the inhuman excesses of Islamic extremism rather than showing cowardly tolerance.
But anyone who wants to talk religion with religious people has to have a religion. Mar. 7
In the reply above I try to show that a more fundamental motive lurks behind the suggested oppostion between faith and reason. This motive is a religious freedom ideal. It seems that in the history of ethics, the term happiness appears to be replaced by the term freedom.
Like Aristotle said, it is generally agreed that what fulfills the human purpose is called happiness. He also said there are several candidates for that fulfillment, but however conceived, it is called a state of happiness (eudaimonia). In Latin it became beatitude after Augustine.
But now in the West the label appears to be freedom. It is no coincidence that in the West the conception of human happiness is conceived of in terms of freedom.
Asking the same ethical question that arises in Aristotle, --What is the motive behind human action? -- To obey reason or to be free? To be free and reasonable? These were some of the questions Kant took up. In his answer he conceived the happy harmony of reason and freedom by making them one and the same. Which is not freedom, for it means nothing but the enslavement of oneself to reason-imposed duty. This is often nicely called self-actualization. What was left of God was not his existence but a mere a postulate for the possibility of freedom. That was in Germany. For self-actualization in France there was Rousseau. Man is everywhere in chains. He preferred to give natural development its free course. In both cases, freedom was the final term that would make their answers credible.
If this is even a near-legitimate sketch, the opposition suggested by the labels of faith and reason in this context are not at all what humanae vitae has in mind. For faith and reason in the context above are oppositions based on a freedom ideal where now either reason is ascendant or nature is ascendant. The reiteration of the opposition obscures the particular religious motive of freedom that frames the debate.
If the Middle Ages had left the Europeans anything, it was the fulfillment of human happiness in another world. If the Renaissance had left the Europeans anything, it was happiness in this world. There is no way to conceive of a happiness that has one living in both worlds at once.
And yet here is the suggestion that we could grow one leg on faith and another leg on reason.
The opposition of faith and reason is a direct result from the sidelining of happiness conceived a-historically. A close reading of Kant's ethics will make clear how the shift begins to take place: God no longer exists, he is the deduced postulate for the possibility of human freedom. His Kingdom of Ends is but a leftover from the old world. We don't know where it is because Kant has abandoned history for the nature-science ideal.
I apologize for giving this answer without citations. I think that citations would make this clearer.
Hear hear.
Thanks for the flag, Cornelis.
Beautiful.
Tradition and faith are those essential bits of "Empirical Evidence" that the Modern "scientific" sort always overlooks.
The europeans achieved their seperation by killing off the religious aspect. As a result, they are rudderless. They can not distinguish between good and evil because they have no way to measure it. They're left with accepting both good and evil as equals.....the result is the French.
It's a shame because europe has a rich tradition of religions, magnificent churches, priceless religous artwork and they can't appreciate it because it has no meaning to them.
They think we're all a bunch of hayseeds because we believe in God, go to church, try to live by God's rules. Yet WE are the ones who came up with the seperation of church and state and for years we did it successfully. We'd still be doing it totally successfully if we could get the ACLU and the leftists to shut up and leave us alone.
I remember the liturgy -- or service, rather -- from last year. Ugh.
Who is this?
I find it really odd, given Klores's devotion to Mary in particular, that there is no Legion of Mary at St. Pat's. While that was going to be another niche I was going to carve out for myself, I think you are the far better candidate for serving as director of the Patricians.
I've been meeting with just such a group down here. The director (you) runs the meetings and certainly is available to help with the papers presented by the membership.
At the meetings, the presentation of the paper lasts no longer than 20 minutes. (This appears to be an optimum length for covering a topic with enough depth to spark conversation but without any flagging of intereset by the listeners).
A discussion ensues where EVERYONE gets a chance to talk and ask questions EXCEPT the Director (you =) and the Spiritual Director. This last no longer than 30 or 40 minutes (I'd have to check the Legionnaire handbook to be certain) and is followed by the Spiritual Director's peroration.
Folks then break for refreshments and such, conversation of course continues. There is the passing of the bag (anonymous and purely private donations by the membership for the Legion's support) and then closing comments, call for papers and particulars re: the next meeting, special events and such by the Director.
I think it sounds like a plan. I see no reason the priests, between them, couldn't commit to one night a month to serve as spiritual directors for the group.
Check it out. I'll be happy to scan and post the particulars for you. St. Pat's needs a Legion presence. Back when I was going to daily Mass, I was sorely tempted to ask for permission to lead a Rosary after the 12 Mass. Even the Baronne Street Church does that much.
Anyway, give it some thought. Frankly, I like that idea better than "Bible Study". Both Catechism and the Patricians end up at Scripture anyway. Why not have more form -- yet freedom -- to educate ourselves in our faith and tradition, our saints and rubrics as well?
Besides, I was hopeful we could get Kevin to teach us Latin ... something the Bag of the Patricians might help float if we end up successful.
You and I see many of the same facts but give somewhat different accounts of the enlightenment, freedom, reason, and faith. Hopefully tomorrow I'll have time to give you an outline of my account.
Thanks again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.