Cardinal Ratzinger On Europe's Crisis of Culture (Part 2)

SUBIACO, Italy, JULY 27, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the lecture given in Italian by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XIV, in the convent of Saint Scholastica in Subiaco, Italy, the day before Pope John Paul II died.

This lecture took place April 1, when he received the St. Benedict Award for the promotion of life and the family in Europe.

Part 3 of this lecture will appear Thursday.

***

Let us take a closer look at this opposition between the two cultures that have characterized Europe. In the debate on the Preamble of the European Constitution, this opposition was seen in two controversial points: the question of the reference to God in the Constitution and the mention of the Christian roots of Europe. Given that in article 52 of the Constitution the institutional rights of Churches are guaranteed, we can be at peace, it is said.

But this means that in the life of Europe, the Churches find a place in the realm of the political commitment, while, in the realm of the foundations of Europe, the imprint of their content has no place. The reasons that are given in the public debate for this clear "no" are superficial, and it is obvious that more than indicating the real motivation, they conceal it. The affirmation that the mention of the Christian roots of Europe injures the sentiments of many non-Christians who are in Europe, is not very convincing, given that it relates, first of all, to an historical fact that no one can seriously deny.

Naturally, this historical mention has a reference to the present. To mention the roots implies indicating as well the residual sources of moral orientation, which is a factor of Europe's identity. Who would be offended? Whose identity is threatened?

The Muslims, who in this respect are often and willingly brought in, do not feel threatened by our Christian moral foundations, but by the cynicism of a secularized culture that denies its own foundations. Neither are our Jewish fellow citizens offended by the reference to the Christian roots of Europe, in as much as these roots go back to Mount Sinai: They bear the sign of the voice that made itself heard on the mountain of God and unite with us in the great fundamental orientations that the Decalogue has given humanity. The same is true for the reference to God: It is not the mention of God that offends those who belong to other religions, but rather the attempt to build the human community absolutely without God.

The motivations of this twofold "no" are more profound than one would think from the reasons offered. They presuppose the idea that only the radical Enlightenment culture, which has reached its full development in our time, could be constitutive for European identity. Next to this culture, then, different religious cultures can coexist with their respective rights, on the condition and to the degree in which they respect the criteria of the Enlightenment culture, and are subordinated to it.

Culture of rights

This Enlightenment culture is essentially defined by the rights of freedom; it stems from freedom as a fundamental value that measures everything: the freedom of religious choice, which includes the religious neutrality of the state; freedom to express one's own opinion, as long as it does not cast doubt specifically on this canon; the democratic ordering of the state, that is, parliamentary control on state organisms; the free formation of parties; the independence of the judiciary; and, finally, the safeguarding of the rights of man and the prohibition of discriminations. Here the canon is still in the process of formation, given that there are also rights of man that are in opposition, as for example, in the case of the conflict between a woman's desire for freedom and the right of the unborn to live.

The concept of discrimination is ever more extended, and so the prohibition of discrimination can be increasingly transformed into a limitation of the freedom of opinion and religious liberty. Very soon it will not be possible to state that homosexuality, as the Catholic Church teaches, is an objective disorder in the structuring of human existence. And the fact that the Church is convinced of not having the right to confer priestly ordination on women is considered by some up to now as something irreconcilable with the spirit of the European Constitution.

It is evident that this canon of the Enlightenment culture, less than definitive, contains important values which we, precisely as Christians, do not want and cannot renounce; however, it is also obvious that the ill-defined or undefined concept of freedom, which is at the base of this culture, inevitably entails contradictions; and it is obvious that precisely because of its use (a use that seems radical) it has implied limitations of freedom that a generation ago we could not even imagine. A confused ideology of freedom leads to dogmatism, which is showing itself increasingly hostile to freedom.

We must, without a doubt, focus again on the question of the internal contradictions of the present form of the Enlightenment culture. But we must first finish describing it. It is part of its nature, in so far as culture of a reason that, finally, has complete awareness of itself, to boast a universal pretense and conceive itself as complete in itself, not in need of some completion through other cultural factors.

Both these characteristics are clearly seen when the question is posed about who can become a member of the European community and, above all, in the debate about Turkey's entry into this community. It is a question of a state, or perhaps better, of a cultural realm, which does not have Christian roots, but which was influenced by the Islamic culture. Then, Ataturk tried to transform Turkey into a secular state, attempting to implant in Muslim terrain the secularism that had matured in the Christian world of Europe.

Universal culture?

We can ask ourselves if that is possible. According to the thesis of the Enlightenment and secular culture of Europe, only the norms and contents of the Enlightenment culture will be able to determine Europe's identity and, consequently, every state that makes these criteria its own, will be able to belong to Europe. It does not matter, in the end, on what plot of roots this culture of freedom and democracy is implanted.

And, precisely because of this, it is affirmed, that the roots cannot enter into the definition of the foundations of Europe, it being a question of dead roots that are not part of the present identity. As a consequence, this new identity, determined exclusively by the Enlightenment culture, also implies that God does not come in at all into public life and the foundations of the state.

Thus everything becomes logical and also, in some sense, plausible. In fact, what could we desire as being more beautiful than knowing that everywhere democracy and human rights are respected? Nevertheless, the question must be asked, if this secular Enlightenment culture is really the culture, finally proposed as universal, that can give a common cause to all men; a culture that should have access from everywhere, even though it is on a humus that is historically and culturally differentiated. And we also ask ourselves if it is really complete in itself, to the degree that it has no need of a root outside itself.

To those of you who I refer to as the Novus Ordo. After reading Part I and now having read Part II, can you not see how the changes to the Holy Roman Catholic Church brought about by Vatican II have watered down the strength faith of the Catholic Religion. By making Religion Universal, One size fits all, the Catholic is not unique.

I can only assume that none of you have been to a Traditional Tridentine Latin Mass or have not been a Catholic long enough to experience it's practice.

When JPII passed away and the majesty of the Latin music and the Mass moved many people onto the pews of the Traditional Catholic Church. The exodus had begun before that sad event, but after it nearly became a flood.

Pope Benedict will soon instruct that the Tridentine Latin Mass to be the standard and the Mass in the vernacular will be allowed upon request. This was the original intent of Vatican II, I was 14 or 15 years old and distinctly remember this being discussed.

We all thought it was a good idea to try, we certainly never expected for it to become what it was in the radical 70's, in fact it has improved in a sense since then.

The Missal is usually in Latin and English. I have attended an Eastern Orthodox Church that has the Missal in Latin, English and Slovak. Latin provided not only Uniqueness to the Catholic Church but also a Universiality, in the fact that the Latin Mass in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA was the same in Hamburg, Germany or where ever it was you were at and it was in Latin.

Please attend a Latin Tridentine Mass you may not want to leave. Also, the Cathechism Of Trent will more than likely be the cathechism used. The NEW interpretations or attempts to change or reengineer the word of God to fit the New Enlightened Principles will not be allowed by this Pope.

God Bless you all.

If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

..........................................

Link to part 1 in post 1

..........................................

Over the last decades we have amply seen in our streets and squares how pacifism can deviate toward a destructive anarchism and terrorism. The political moralism of the 70s, the roots of which are anything but dead, was a moralism that succeeded in attracting even young people full of ideals. But it was a moralism with a mistaken direction, in as much as it was deprived of serene rationality and because, in the last analysis, it placed the political utopia above the dignity of the individual man, showing itself even capable of arriving at contempt for man in the name of great objectives.

The motivations of this twofold "no" are more profound than one would think from the reasons offered. They presuppose the idea that only the radical Enlightenment culture, which has reached its full development in our time, could be constitutive for European identity. Next to this culture, then, different religious cultures can coexist with their respective rights, on the condition and to the degree in which they respect the criteria of the Enlightenment culture, and are subordinated to it.

The concept of discrimination is ever more extended, and so the prohibition of discrimination can be increasingly transformed into a limitation of the freedom of opinion and religious liberty. Very soon it will not be possible to state that homosexuality, as the Catholic Church teaches, is an objective disorder in the structuring of human existence. And the fact that the Church is convinced of not having the right to confer priestly ordination on women is considered by some up to now as something irreconcilable with the spirit of the European Constitution.

Thus everything becomes logical and also, in some sense, plausible. In fact, what could we desire as being more beautiful than knowing that everywhere democracy and human rights are respected? Nevertheless, the question must be asked, if this secular Enlightenment culture is really the culture, finally proposed as universal, that can give a common cause to all men; a culture that should have access from everywhere, even though it is on a humus that is historically and culturally differentiated. And we also ask ourselves if it is really complete in itself, to the degree that it has no need of a root outside itself.

Great article, thanks. I like this Pope.

"It is evident that this canon of the Enlightenment culture, less than definitive, contains important values which we, precisely as Christians, do not want and cannot renounce; however, it is also obvious that the ill-defined or undefined concept of freedom, which is at the base of this culture, inevitably entails contradictions; and it is obvious that precisely because of its use (a use that seems radical) it has implied limitations of freedom that a generation ago we could not even imagine. A confused ideology of freedom leads to dogmatism, which is showing itself increasingly hostile to freedom."

Worth repeating.

can you not see how the changes to the Holy Roman Catholic Church brought about by Vatican II have watered down the strength faith of the Catholic Religion. By making Religion Universal, One size fits all, the Catholic is not unique.

I'm old enough to say that I lived through it. These "changes" were NEVER envisioned as a whole. These were 'suggestions' on how countries outside the US and Canada could incorporate indigenous cultural expressions of faith into the catholic church. The terrible tragedy is that some bishops in the US, used these clauses as a means of introducing illicit practices under the guise of 'multiculturalism'. There were enough loopholes in VCII documentation, for them to apply these optional norms.

The terrible tragedy is that some bishops in the US, used these clauses as a means of introducing illicit practices under the guise of 'multiculturalism'. There were enough loopholes in VCII documentation, for them to apply these optional norms.

_______________________________________
Thank You!

Some Bishops used these clauses as a means of introducing illicit prcatices under the guise of 'multiculturalism'. There were enough loopholes in VCII documentation, for them to apply these optional norms.
_________________________________

For many years I was LOST if you will. I became Sede Vacante' (The Seat is Empty)because since then the church or for th emost part the US Catholic church has been under the direction the the Cathoilc Bishops Conference and NOT the POPE!! SO if the Pope or say the President issues an order for the church to invoke a rule or precedural correction. The President would expect his orders to be followed. The Popes, since Vatican II, have issued rule and procedural corrections also, the Bishops conference comes together and discusses wether they will accept this order and carry it out. So is the Pope in charge?? or is the Seat Empty?

What is your take on this? Please!

I don't think the Seat is EMPTY now! I think that Pope Benedict XVI is moving his chess pieces into place and slowly or perhaps even faster we will be making "corrections" in the Catholic church. Pope B,XVI was at Vatican II and he KNOWS what happened and who made it happen, and why.

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.