A Pope for Peace and Reason
by
Carlo Stagnaro
and Alberto Mingardi
by
Carlo Stagnaro and Alberto Mingardi
What
a marvel Rome was yesterday. "Habemus Papam": these solemn
words jumped all over the world in a whisper of the digital age.
Text messages and e-mails were written and sent around to friends
at light speed. TV coverage has brought St. Peter’s square into
the house of millions of Catholics all over the world. "Habemus
Papam." At the fourth ballot Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, former
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, has been
elected as successor of John Paul II. His most short inaugural address
tells much about the guidelines of the new papacy.
Said
Benedict XVI:
"Dear
brothers and sisters, after our great pope, John Paul II, the cardinals
have elected me, a simple, humble worker in God's vineyard.
I
am consoled by the fact that the Lord knows how to work and how
to act, even with insufficient tools, and I especially trust in
your prayers.
In
the joy of the resurrected Lord, trustful of his permanent help,
we go ahead, sure that God will help, and Mary, his most beloved
mother, stands on our side.
Thank
you."
The
first thing that Ratzinger, however implicitly, tells is that John
Paul II is "the Great" – a title that few Popes have been
given. This suggests that the Holy Father wants to follow the footsteps
of his illustrious predecessor, he aims to pursue continuity not
only on theological grounds (which is obvious), but also as far
as the leading themes of the papacy are concerned.
Surely,
Cardinal Ratzinger was extremely closed to Karol Wojtyla – especially
in his defense of the role of reason and the struggle against any
form of gnosis. To Ratzinger, the very essence of Christianity is
a Truth does exist which is objective – and may be investigated
by man through an appropriate use of reason.
The
point was very clear even in his last public sermon as a simple
Cardinal – the
one he made at the Mass for the Election of a Supreme Pontiff a
few days ago.
The
central theme of the speech was the dangers of relativism, which
is after all the opposite of the idea of Truth. What is relativism
if not the belief that no truth exists that is superior to mere
opinion? In the relativist mind, thinking itself is useless – since
there’s no truth to investigate.
"How
many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many
ideological currents, how many ways of thinking.... The small boat
of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these
waves thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism,
even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism;
from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to
syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what
St. Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which
tries to draw those into error (cf Ephesians 4:14). Having a clear
faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today
as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself
be tossed and "swept along by every wind of teaching," looks like
the only attitude (acceptable) to today's standards. We are moving
towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything
as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and
one's own desires."
A
point which is made so strongly can’t be ignored. Michael
Novak has rightly recognized that the very emergence of relativism
means that "Power trumps."
"The
new way [to relativism] – writes Novak – is not toward objectivity,
but toward subjectivism; not toward truth as its criterion, but
toward power. This, Ratzinger fears, is a move back toward the justification
of murder in the name of "tolerance" and subjective choice."
Yet
Novak does not go as far as to recognize, given such a context,
the dangers entailed in the "divinization" of democratic
rule so typical of the contemporary word. Democracy goes far beyond
being a merely procedural rule, and is raised to the status of the
main ideological ethos of our time. Legitimacy comes to be
tested not in the light of independent criteria of good and evil but rather via the mere ratification of a particular act
by a parliamentary majority.
In
a way, the very idea of the possibility of voting on whatever issue ranging from killing infants (abortions) and adults (war) to the
denial of private property (taxation) and wealth redistribution
(subsidies and regulation) – is in essence a form, if not the
form, of relativism.
On
the other hand, it should be remembered that Truth isn’t enemy to
freedom. As Alejandro Chafuen points out, "Cardinal Ratzinger
focused on teaching the importance of convictions, rather than force.
On November 6, 1992, at the ceremony where Ratzinger was inducted
into the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences of the Institute
of France, he explained that a free society can only subsist where
people share basic moral convictions and high moral standards. He
further argued that these convictions need not be ‘imposed or even
arbitrarily defined by external coercion’."
Not
by chance Ratzinger was, so to speak, the theological killer of
the "liberation theology," an attempt to merge Christian
tradition with Marxist ideology.
In
a private document that preceded the official Introduction
of 1984, he
wrote:
"The
crucial result of this exegesis was to shatter the historical credibility
of the Gospels: the Christ of the Church's tradition and the Jesus
of history put forward by science evidently belong to two different
worlds. Science, regarded as the final arbiter, had torn the figure
of Jesus from its anchorage in tradition; on the one hand, consequently,
tradition hangs in a vacuum, deprived of reality, while on the other
hand, a new interpretation and significance must be sought for the
figure of Jesus... The biblical concept of the ‘poor’ provides a
starting point for fusing the Bible’s view of history with Marxist
dialectic; it is interpreted by the idea of the proletariat in the
Marxist sense and thus justifies Marxism as the legitimate hermeneutics
for understanding the Bible."
In
the 1985 interview-book, Rapporto sulla fede, that Vittorio
Messori (later to interview John Paul II in Crossing
the Threshold of Hope) authored with the Cardinal, he sharply
defined Marxism "not the hope, but the shame of our time."
Indeed
very significant is the name that Cardinal Ratzinger chose for himself.
The
last Benedict was Benedict
XV, who was a strong critic of World War I, which he defined
as a "useless massacre" that was leading to the "suicide
of Europe." Benedict XV was a Pontiff for peace. He made very
clear that the path that Europe was climbing would end in the death
of the West. Benedict XVI has the same vision, although today the
threat to Europe is much more ideological than before: the smoking
gun is not a real gun, as it was the case in 191418, but relativism.
Asked
by an interviewer to comment on John Paul II’s opposition to the
Iraqi war, the then Cardinal Ratzinger explained that he found the
Holy Father’s judgment "reasonable also from a rational point
of view: there were no sufficient reason to wage war against Iraq."
But, far more important, he added that "we should start asking
ourselves, if the existence of the very notion of a just war makes
sense today, with new guns that make destruction possible to an
unprecedented extent, far beyond combating groups."
With
the help of God, Benedict XVI will help the Old Continent, the place
from which civilization stems and the homeland of Christianity,
to recover.
April
20, 2005
Alberto
Mingardi [send him mail]
and Carlo Stagnaro [send
him mail] are the Directors of Istituto
Bruno Leoni, Italy’s free market think tank.
Copyright
© 2005 LewRockwell.com
Carlo
Stagnaro Archives
|