Benedict XVI on Europe's Future
Aug 10, 2011
George Weigel
World Youth Day 2011, to be held in Madrid from August 16-21, will be an important moment in Pope Benedict XVI’s campaign to remind Europe of its Christian roots and to call Europe to a nobler understanding of democracy. As the Holy Father demonstrated in an address in Zagreb, Croatia, in early June, the two parts of that campaign—the recovery of Christian roots and the deepening of 21st-century Europe’s idea of democracy—go together.
In remarks to Croatia’s religious, political, business, and cultural leaders in Zagreb’s National Theater, the Pope refined into six digestible propositions the case he has been making about religion-and-society ever since his election to the papacy in 2005:
1. Religious conviction is not something outside society; it is part of society’s inner core: “Religion is not a separate area marked off from society . . . [but] a natural element within society, constantly recalling the vertical dimension: attentive listening to God as the condition for seeking the common good, for seeking justice and reconciliation in the truth.”
2. The human element in religion is imperfect and flawed; there is no shame in admitting this, for reason can help refine religious passion: “Religions need always to be purified according to their true essence in order to correspond to their true mission.”
3. Ancient religions should welcome the political achievements of modernity while calling modernity to open its windows and doors to a world of transcendent truth and love: “. . . the great achievements of the modern age—the recognition and guarantee of freedom of conscience, of human rights, of the freedom of science and hence of a free society—should be confirmed and developed while keeping reason and freedom open to their transcendent foundation, so as to ensure that these achievements are not undone. . . . The quality of social and civil life and the quality of democracy depend in large measure on this critical point—conscience, on the way it is understood and the way it is informed.”
4. “Conscience” is not a matter of determining what I want to do and then doing it; “conscience” is my search for truths that can be known to be true and then binding myself to those truths, which stand in judgment on me and on society: “If, in keeping with the prevailing modern idea, conscience is reduced to the subjective field to which religion and morality have been banished, then the crisis of the West has no remedy and Europe is destined to collapse upon itself. If, on the other hand, conscience is rediscovered as the place in which to listen to truth and good, the place of responsibility before God and before fellow human beings—in other words, the bulwark against all forms of tyranny—then there is hope for the future.”
5. Europe detached from its Christian roots will wither and die, for, in the name of a dessicated secularism, it will have cut itself off from one of the sources of its cultural vitality: “I am grateful to [those who remind us] of the Christian roots of many of the cultural and academic institutions of this country, as indeed all over the European continent. We need to be reminded of these origins, not least for the sake of historical truth, and it is important that we understand these roots properly, so that they can feed the present day, too.”
6. The Church does not seek a direct role in politics; the Church forms the people who can shape the culture that makes democratic self-governance work: “It is by forming consciences that the Church makes her most specific and valuable contribution to society. It is a contribution that begins in the family and is strongly reinforced in the parish, where . . . [we] learn to deepen [our] knowledge of the sacred Scriptures, the ‘great codex’ of European culture . . .”
These six points, while obviously contested, are also considered, well, obvious by many, many Americans. That’s not the case in Europe, where Benedict XVI’s social doctrine is regarded as wildly counter-cultural—even as it offers Europe what may be its last chance. I hope someone is listening.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
8.10.2011 | 3:15am
Byron Gaist says:
Reading these points from Benedict XVI as an Orthodox Christian in Europe, I also find them "obvious", and lament the possibility they may not be so apparent to all Europeans. The fact that the Roman pontiff is making these very good points in Croatia, stating "I am grateful to [those who remind us] of the Christian roots of many of the cultural and academic institutions of this country" has a certain poignancy for me however, given Croatia's record of behaviour towards its neighbours, the Orthodox Serbs - a record Croats can probably respond to point-for-point, I'm sure. Nevertheless, that is not what is at issue here; I do not wish to undermine our Christian sense of brotherhood and the importance of love between countries. In fact, history is precisely Europe's biggest problem, and perhaps it is a certain freedom from this history which allows Americans to more readily see the "obvious". The Pope's points are absolutely correct, and it is my prayer, among all Christians I believe, that the tired European continent will listen receptively.
8.10.2011 | 3:56am
Michael PS says:
In 2007, President Sarkozy told the Holy Father
"It is in the interests of the Republic that there exist also a moral reflection inspired by religious convictions. First because secular morality ["morale laïque"] always runs the risk of wearing itself out or changing into fanaticism when it isn't backed up by hope that aspires to the infinite. And then because morality stripped of any ties to transcendence is more exposed to historic contingencies and eventually to facileness."
Now, Sarkozy is a politician who is very good at capturing the mood of his supporters and many on the Right have welcomed this affirmation of traditional European Christian Democrat principles.
"It is in the interests of the Republic that there exist also a moral reflection inspired by religious convictions. First because secular morality ["morale laïque"] always runs the risk of wearing itself out or changing into fanaticism when it isn't backed up by hope that aspires to the infinite. And then because morality stripped of any ties to transcendence is more exposed to historic contingencies and eventually to facileness."
Now, Sarkozy is a politician who is very good at capturing the mood of his supporters and many on the Right have welcomed this affirmation of traditional European Christian Democrat principles.
8.10.2011 | 8:56am
Ayodele says:
I am in full agreement with this six propositions, with the exception of the the 5th, which I feel should be in the past tense. Europe was detached gradually from its Christian roots by the waves of socialism that swept through it over the last six to seven decades, and as we speak, is already withered and dead, though maybe not buried.
Any discerning believer who watched the hordes of rampaging looters stealing and burning their way through the UK over the last few days instinctively realizes that these "protests" were of a different order entirely from the sort of mass demonstrations that historically proceed from deep social or economic divisions. Most of the people participating in the riots not only did not know why they were there, but also evidently lacked any form of social responsibility of any sort, and clearly felt justified in destroying the private properties of innocent fellow citizens for no cause. To the extent that some even felt compelled to boast of their exploits and display their loot in pictures posted online.
I know that many will object to making the leap from lawless looting to heralding the end of a culture that has endured for many centuries, and point to other historical parallels. They will say that there is no evidence of a connection between thousands of pillaging young bandits and hundreds of shuttered churches, or between broken homes and an entire generation lacking in empathy for their fellow men. But they will be wrong, dead wrong in fact.
If the majority of the younger generation of people in Europe share the same cultural characteristics of lawlessness and lack of restraint displayed by the rampaging crowds in the riots, or at least are in sympathy with them, then the game is over. Its no longer a question of whether Europe is dead. The proper question, as put to Ezekiel, and which the church must now ask is, "Son of man, can these bones live?"
Any discerning believer who watched the hordes of rampaging looters stealing and burning their way through the UK over the last few days instinctively realizes that these "protests" were of a different order entirely from the sort of mass demonstrations that historically proceed from deep social or economic divisions. Most of the people participating in the riots not only did not know why they were there, but also evidently lacked any form of social responsibility of any sort, and clearly felt justified in destroying the private properties of innocent fellow citizens for no cause. To the extent that some even felt compelled to boast of their exploits and display their loot in pictures posted online.
I know that many will object to making the leap from lawless looting to heralding the end of a culture that has endured for many centuries, and point to other historical parallels. They will say that there is no evidence of a connection between thousands of pillaging young bandits and hundreds of shuttered churches, or between broken homes and an entire generation lacking in empathy for their fellow men. But they will be wrong, dead wrong in fact.
If the majority of the younger generation of people in Europe share the same cultural characteristics of lawlessness and lack of restraint displayed by the rampaging crowds in the riots, or at least are in sympathy with them, then the game is over. Its no longer a question of whether Europe is dead. The proper question, as put to Ezekiel, and which the church must now ask is, "Son of man, can these bones live?"
8.10.2011 | 9:46am
A.M. says:
Let us hope that the The Church that can organise the World Youth Day can move enough hearts and minds , to harness and move enough young people , to help to make their lives meanigful and that meaning could come in the most immediate and palpable way , in the famine stricken places of Africa .
Three or four billion dollars collected from world over , to send young people to help these people , to make it a continuation of WYD - would not that help to shatter their hardness of hearts from the deception that living for sex and fun is going to bring meaning to life and do away with the anger of loosing one's dignity and identity in the process !
There are reports that the riots in London are race related .
While there can be all sorts of excuses for that anger , the foundational causes are outlined in the article and may be it is these very youth who need to get recharged by the experience of being able to help those in need .
Pres.Obama could use his African roots , to be a voice to arouse support for the cause and also learn that any acts that undermine the basic God given dignity of human life would lead to anger and discontent that can erupt without seeming provocation , to become the black holes of destruction that these persons carry inside !
There is One who can reach in , to bring depth and meaning to life's discontents , by letting us reach out to Him and to others !
May there be many who would want to welcome His visitations amidst us !
Three or four billion dollars collected from world over , to send young people to help these people , to make it a continuation of WYD - would not that help to shatter their hardness of hearts from the deception that living for sex and fun is going to bring meaning to life and do away with the anger of loosing one's dignity and identity in the process !
There are reports that the riots in London are race related .
While there can be all sorts of excuses for that anger , the foundational causes are outlined in the article and may be it is these very youth who need to get recharged by the experience of being able to help those in need .
Pres.Obama could use his African roots , to be a voice to arouse support for the cause and also learn that any acts that undermine the basic God given dignity of human life would lead to anger and discontent that can erupt without seeming provocation , to become the black holes of destruction that these persons carry inside !
There is One who can reach in , to bring depth and meaning to life's discontents , by letting us reach out to Him and to others !
May there be many who would want to welcome His visitations amidst us !
8.10.2011 | 9:51am
bill bannon says:
Benedict's number six is de facto false..that the Church does not seek a direct role in politics. Benedict included this concept and disavowal in his 2007 letter to the Chinese Catholics and then he and the Vatican wondered why China's government did not respond with commentary. Duh... Maybe....just maybe the Chinese communist noticed worldwide Catholic press flattery of John Paul II overthrowing communism in Poland. In the Phillipines in the Marcos affair, a Cardinal took to the radio to rally the people (and a lot of nuns) to protect General Enrile as he tried to overthrow the Marcoes who were spirited out of the Phillipines with US help. George Weigel in "Witness to Hope" has the Cardinal say he always had the backing of the Pope as to his involvement despite Vatican dept. of state figures wanting him to be silent.
So Benedict is telling the Chinese that the Church does not seek to change governmental structures and the Catholic writers have been boasting for decades that John Paul II threw communism out of Poland and dictators out of the Phillipines....just off China's coast. The Chinese did not respond because they saw Benedict as using a salesman's fibs.
Here is Benedict in the letter to China:
" Likewise, therefore, the Catholic Church which is in China does not have a mission to change the structure or administration of the State; rather, her mission is to proclaim Christ to men and women, as the Saviour of the world, basing herself – in carrying out her proper apostolate – on the power of God. As I recalled in my Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, "The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible....."
Errr......but our writers said that John Paul overthrew governments in Poland and the Phillipines. Popes do not have enough St. Paul's around them...rebuking them....so they get to the point of thinking that if they say something, it's true despite recent history contradicting them. That does not work with Beijing. I know because my wife is Chinese....and from Beijing.
So Benedict is telling the Chinese that the Church does not seek to change governmental structures and the Catholic writers have been boasting for decades that John Paul II threw communism out of Poland and dictators out of the Phillipines....just off China's coast. The Chinese did not respond because they saw Benedict as using a salesman's fibs.
Here is Benedict in the letter to China:
" Likewise, therefore, the Catholic Church which is in China does not have a mission to change the structure or administration of the State; rather, her mission is to proclaim Christ to men and women, as the Saviour of the world, basing herself – in carrying out her proper apostolate – on the power of God. As I recalled in my Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, "The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible....."
Errr......but our writers said that John Paul overthrew governments in Poland and the Phillipines. Popes do not have enough St. Paul's around them...rebuking them....so they get to the point of thinking that if they say something, it's true despite recent history contradicting them. That does not work with Beijing. I know because my wife is Chinese....and from Beijing.
8.10.2011 | 9:57am
Daniel says:
Europe will crumble and come under the Sharia law of Islam or embrace an atheistic nationalism to repel Islam.
Europe is secular for the duration of it's questionable existence.
I doubt a modern Moses or Jeremiah could save it.
Europe is secular for the duration of it's questionable existence.
I doubt a modern Moses or Jeremiah could save it.
8.10.2011 | 11:37am
Brian English says:
"Europe was detached gradually from its Christian roots by the waves of socialism that swept through it over the last six to seven decades, and as we speak, is already withered and dead, though maybe not buried."
Europe ceased to be Christian well before that. It really started in 1789, and was in full swing on the Continent in the 1860s through 1880s. In England, Church attendance was very low as early as the 1850s. Michael Burleigh's book, Earthly Powers, deals extensively with this issue.
Europe ceased to be Christian well before that. It really started in 1789, and was in full swing on the Continent in the 1860s through 1880s. In England, Church attendance was very low as early as the 1850s. Michael Burleigh's book, Earthly Powers, deals extensively with this issue.
8.10.2011 | 5:43pm
Treasa says:
@Bill the Pope said "Direct" i.e. no priest or bishop can be a politician or mayor etc but that does not mean that they cannot speak out in public.
8.10.2011 | 5:55pm
Peter Leavitt says:
Bill Bannon, Benedict's point -six is right that the Church doesn't take a direct role in the politics of democratic governments. The Church since Vatican II, John Paul II and Benedict fully accepts the best of modern democratic government, science, and technology, though it rejects any project that isn't open to transcendental truth.
When it come to states like the former Soviet Union and contemporary China, the Church wisely stands up to them, as they glorify the state and reject proper church freedom and moral authority. While it's true that John Paul II was the major influence in bringing down the Soviet Union, he had zero interest in any sort of return to some sort of combination of Christian/state direct rule.
When it come to states like the former Soviet Union and contemporary China, the Church wisely stands up to them, as they glorify the state and reject proper church freedom and moral authority. While it's true that John Paul II was the major influence in bringing down the Soviet Union, he had zero interest in any sort of return to some sort of combination of Christian/state direct rule.
8.10.2011 | 7:31pm
bill bannon says:
Treasa and Peter
I think a Cardinal getting on public radio and marshalling Catholics to protect the general who is trying to over throw the President is about as direct as political action can get. George Weigel later wrote that the Cardinal stated that the Pope supported him all along.
Pope Leo XIII wrote an apostolic letter to Catholic scholars that they should write truthfully and objectively...not like a constant flatterer of the Church. I always surmised that he got so much flack for the letter probably one of his writers wrote for him to the Bishops of Brazil on slavery that he became aware of how much of Catholic history was propaganda, not history at all. It had averred that Catholicism led against slavery when it fact it was the Quakers. The Popes who wrote against slavery...in practice....allowed the exceptions for slavery that in every century were extant in Catholic theologians...actually til 1960 and the 5th printing of Iorio's
Theologia Moralis. Avoid flattery in history; it permeates our milieu....and Pope Leo XIII urges you to avoid it from the 19th century. Where do you think the cover up mentality came from in the sex abuse crisis....it came from decades of flattery as history.
I think a Cardinal getting on public radio and marshalling Catholics to protect the general who is trying to over throw the President is about as direct as political action can get. George Weigel later wrote that the Cardinal stated that the Pope supported him all along.
Pope Leo XIII wrote an apostolic letter to Catholic scholars that they should write truthfully and objectively...not like a constant flatterer of the Church. I always surmised that he got so much flack for the letter probably one of his writers wrote for him to the Bishops of Brazil on slavery that he became aware of how much of Catholic history was propaganda, not history at all. It had averred that Catholicism led against slavery when it fact it was the Quakers. The Popes who wrote against slavery...in practice....allowed the exceptions for slavery that in every century were extant in Catholic theologians...actually til 1960 and the 5th printing of Iorio's
Theologia Moralis. Avoid flattery in history; it permeates our milieu....and Pope Leo XIII urges you to avoid it from the 19th century. Where do you think the cover up mentality came from in the sex abuse crisis....it came from decades of flattery as history.
8.10.2011 | 8:29pm
Peter Leavitt says:
Bill Bannon, first the Catholic church, well before the Quakers, over time defeated slavery in Europe. The Spanish and Portuguese revival of slavery in the Canary Islands and elsewhere in the modern period doesn't obviate this.
Second, you haven't answered the point that Vatican II, John Paul II, and Benedict have made clear that the Church is not slightly interested in a return to government jointly by the Church and state.
Second, you haven't answered the point that Vatican II, John Paul II, and Benedict have made clear that the Church is not slightly interested in a return to government jointly by the Church and state.
8.10.2011 | 9:32pm
bill bannon says:
Peter
I didn't address the rule jointly idea because it is solely yours. You introduced the Church-State rule jointly idea. Neither Benedict (above in Weigel's number 6) nor I (in recounting the China letter) was talking about it. Benedict in the China letter talks only of the Church not seeking to change state structures or administration....but the Church did one in Poland and the second in the Phillipines.
I will not address it because it is solely your idea and it's assumed long ago by everyone....ever since the Papacy lost most of its land to Italy.....no one thinks of it co-ruling any country least of all China.
On slavery you are very under-read. The Quakers alone left no exceptions for their condemnation of slavery. Catholicism had several exceptions taught in Catholic Universities to permit slavery despite the papal bulls...including "captured in a just war"... and "born to a slave mother." Religious orders and Bishops had slaves up into the 19th century for such exceptions. The Jesuits in the US had many and no Pope shut them down over it while one Pope shut them down for other reasons just prior to the 19th century.
Bishop England in the US wrote in defense of slavery in his diocesan paper in the 19th century and he knew a Pope who wrote an anti slavery bull. John Noonan, a Federal Judge but great Catholic historian, wrote a great history of the whole dilemna and showed the Vatican during the 19th century responding to dubia from the world over on questions that implied slavery's existence in Catholic culture....questions like whether a slave could marry a free woman etc.
The Portuguese were the last Euro nation out of slavery during the 19th century and saw themselves as merely using blacks caught in just wars within central Africa. They also had a perpetual papal license for slavery in Romanus Pontifex by Pope Nicholas V from 1453 which allowed them to "perpetually enslave" anyone who resisted the gospel and which bull stated that it could not be voided in the future. You can see it online and go to the middle of the 4th large paragraph.
Your Canary Island case was centuries prior and was really about not enslaving baptized natives not unbaptized natives.
The Catholic Church is the true Church but her history is not pristine. I fully believe in her while...while...not needing to cover up a thing. My faith does not depend on papal or laity behaviour....at all.
I didn't address the rule jointly idea because it is solely yours. You introduced the Church-State rule jointly idea. Neither Benedict (above in Weigel's number 6) nor I (in recounting the China letter) was talking about it. Benedict in the China letter talks only of the Church not seeking to change state structures or administration....but the Church did one in Poland and the second in the Phillipines.
I will not address it because it is solely your idea and it's assumed long ago by everyone....ever since the Papacy lost most of its land to Italy.....no one thinks of it co-ruling any country least of all China.
On slavery you are very under-read. The Quakers alone left no exceptions for their condemnation of slavery. Catholicism had several exceptions taught in Catholic Universities to permit slavery despite the papal bulls...including "captured in a just war"... and "born to a slave mother." Religious orders and Bishops had slaves up into the 19th century for such exceptions. The Jesuits in the US had many and no Pope shut them down over it while one Pope shut them down for other reasons just prior to the 19th century.
Bishop England in the US wrote in defense of slavery in his diocesan paper in the 19th century and he knew a Pope who wrote an anti slavery bull. John Noonan, a Federal Judge but great Catholic historian, wrote a great history of the whole dilemna and showed the Vatican during the 19th century responding to dubia from the world over on questions that implied slavery's existence in Catholic culture....questions like whether a slave could marry a free woman etc.
The Portuguese were the last Euro nation out of slavery during the 19th century and saw themselves as merely using blacks caught in just wars within central Africa. They also had a perpetual papal license for slavery in Romanus Pontifex by Pope Nicholas V from 1453 which allowed them to "perpetually enslave" anyone who resisted the gospel and which bull stated that it could not be voided in the future. You can see it online and go to the middle of the 4th large paragraph.
Your Canary Island case was centuries prior and was really about not enslaving baptized natives not unbaptized natives.
The Catholic Church is the true Church but her history is not pristine. I fully believe in her while...while...not needing to cover up a thing. My faith does not depend on papal or laity behaviour....at all.
8.10.2011 | 9:42pm
Mark VA says:
If there is anything Europa needs, especially those parts that like to call themselves "great", it is a return to humility, and an honest admission of having gone astray. Like the prodigal son, she too needs to return to the Father's house, His law, and the Father's religion that established, formed, and once civilized her. She needs to cure herself of the prejudice toward Judeo-Christianity.
God's grace makes all things new - it can certainly make this now well past her prime coquette honest and beautiful again.
God's grace makes all things new - it can certainly make this now well past her prime coquette honest and beautiful again.
8.10.2011 | 10:14pm
bill bannon says:
Peter
I do not address your joint rule idea because it is not an issue in Benedict's writing either translated by Weigel or in the China letter.
Read Noonan on slavery. Religious orders and Bishops in the US had slaves in the 19th century and a Vatican discastery answered dubia on slave questions in mid 19th century. The Quakers condemned all slavery. Catholic Universities under papal power generally allowed several exceptions including "born to a slave mother".... here's Aquinas talking about that exception from the supplement to the ST, on marriage of a slave and giving the relevant canons:
"I answer that.....children follow the mother in freedom and bondage; whereas in matters pertaining to dignity as proceeding from a thing's form, they follow the father, for instance in honors, franchise, inheritance and so forth. The canons are in agreement with this (cap. Liberi, 32, qu. iv, in gloss.: cap. Inducens, De natis ex libero ventre) as also the law of Moses (Exodus 21)."
I do not address your joint rule idea because it is not an issue in Benedict's writing either translated by Weigel or in the China letter.
Read Noonan on slavery. Religious orders and Bishops in the US had slaves in the 19th century and a Vatican discastery answered dubia on slave questions in mid 19th century. The Quakers condemned all slavery. Catholic Universities under papal power generally allowed several exceptions including "born to a slave mother".... here's Aquinas talking about that exception from the supplement to the ST, on marriage of a slave and giving the relevant canons:
"I answer that.....children follow the mother in freedom and bondage; whereas in matters pertaining to dignity as proceeding from a thing's form, they follow the father, for instance in honors, franchise, inheritance and so forth. The canons are in agreement with this (cap. Liberi, 32, qu. iv, in gloss.: cap. Inducens, De natis ex libero ventre) as also the law of Moses (Exodus 21)."
8.12.2011 | 9:27pm
Richard says:
" The Catholic Church is the true Church but her history is not pristine. I fully believe in her while...while...not needing to cover up a thing. My faith does not depend on papal or laity behaviour....at all."
I strongly concur with this principle of Bill Bannon's. Like him, though not nearly as thoroughly, I did a little digging in the history of the Church on slavery, and found it mortifying, frankly. Slavery seems to me to be everywhere and always wrong.
What makes the Church holy is God and his purposes at work in this very imperfect congregation of sinners. Saints and good people there are aplenty, of course, but Judas was only the beginning of a long line of people called by the Master only to betray him. God I love for his own sake. People I love for God's sake, and sometimes for their own, but only God can be trusted never ever to let you down.
Best,
Richard
I strongly concur with this principle of Bill Bannon's. Like him, though not nearly as thoroughly, I did a little digging in the history of the Church on slavery, and found it mortifying, frankly. Slavery seems to me to be everywhere and always wrong.
What makes the Church holy is God and his purposes at work in this very imperfect congregation of sinners. Saints and good people there are aplenty, of course, but Judas was only the beginning of a long line of people called by the Master only to betray him. God I love for his own sake. People I love for God's sake, and sometimes for their own, but only God can be trusted never ever to let you down.
Best,
Richard
8.13.2011 | 4:06pm
Gil Costello says:
"It is by forming consciences that the Church makes her most specific and valuable contribution to society."
One of the most tragic elements of modern societies is the lack of empathy, and I recall how the school my daughter attended 15 years ago had arranged a massive effort at teaching empathy to counteract this terrible trend. Of course they refused to acknowledge the root of their destined failure: empathy cannot be taught: it is a side-effect, an outgrowth, of a consistent moral education throughout childhood.
During the last 25 years after my return to the Church, what I have been hearing emphasized from the pulpit and catechesis is that we must not be judgmental, i.e., we must not indulge moral reasoning, but instead find ways of accepting behavior that is often hazardous to the commonwealth. I know of one pastor who violated the moral instructions given to him by his superiors in handling priests accused of molesting children. He truly believed that we shouldn't judge these men but find ways of being more loving, which included allowing them to roam freely in neighborhoods outside the facilities of his Order.
I am certain that the root cause of our dilemma is that we are still more than ever trying to be morally superior to God, and the best way to achieve that is to be amoral, i.e., above morality.
One of the most tragic elements of modern societies is the lack of empathy, and I recall how the school my daughter attended 15 years ago had arranged a massive effort at teaching empathy to counteract this terrible trend. Of course they refused to acknowledge the root of their destined failure: empathy cannot be taught: it is a side-effect, an outgrowth, of a consistent moral education throughout childhood.
During the last 25 years after my return to the Church, what I have been hearing emphasized from the pulpit and catechesis is that we must not be judgmental, i.e., we must not indulge moral reasoning, but instead find ways of accepting behavior that is often hazardous to the commonwealth. I know of one pastor who violated the moral instructions given to him by his superiors in handling priests accused of molesting children. He truly believed that we shouldn't judge these men but find ways of being more loving, which included allowing them to roam freely in neighborhoods outside the facilities of his Order.
I am certain that the root cause of our dilemma is that we are still more than ever trying to be morally superior to God, and the best way to achieve that is to be amoral, i.e., above morality.
9.10.2011 | 7:38pm
Drewel Jewell says:
Errr......but our writers said that John Paul overthrew governments in Poland and the Phillipines. Popes do not have enough St. Paul's around them...rebuking them....so they get to the point of thinking that if they say something, it's true despite recent history contradicting them. That does not work with Beijing. I know because my wife is Chinese....and from Beijing. One of the most tragic elements of modern societies is the lack of empathy, and I recall how the school my daughter attended 15 years ago had arranged a massive effort at teaching empathy to counteract this terrible trend. Of course they refused to acknowledge the root of their destined failure: empathy cannot be taught: it is a side-effect, an outgrowth, of a consistent moral education throughout childhood.
9.20.2011 | 4:39am
Linsenmayer Oneida says:
"It is in the interests of the Republic that there exist also a moral reflection inspired by religious convictions. First because secular morality ["morale laque"] always runs the risk of wearing itself out or changing into fanaticism when it isn't backed up by hope that aspires to the infinite. And then because morality stripped of any ties to transcendence is more exposed to historic contingencies and eventually to facileness." Errr......but our writers said that John Paul overthrew governments in Poland and the Phillipines. Popes do not have enough St. Paul's around them...rebuking them....so they get to the point of thinking that if they say something, it's true despite recent history contradicting them. That does not work with Beijing. I know because my wife is Chinese....and from Beijing. One of the most tragic elements of modern societies is the lack of empathy, and I recall how the school my daughter attended 15 years ago had arranged a massive effort at teaching empathy to counteract this terrible trend. Of course they refused to acknowledge the root of their destined failure: empathy cannot be taught: it is a side-effect, an outgrowth, of a consistent moral education throughout childhood.
