Saturday, April 30, 2005

Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) Selected Quotable Quotes

Could you imagine sitting in on a conversation between George W. Bush and Pope Benedict XVI? And they say us academic theory-heads are difficult to understand!

(courtesy of Nate Hinerman, San Francisco philosopher and Gold Cane regular)

Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) Selected Quotable Quotes:

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. "Magisterium of the Church, Faith, Morality." In Curran and McCormick. Readings in Moral Theology, No. 2., p.186.

In the process of assimilating what is really rational and rejecting what only seems to be rational, the whole Church has to play a part. This process cannot be carried out in every detail by an isolated Magisterium, with oracular infallibility. The life and suffering of Christians who profess their faith in the midst of their times has just as important a part to play as the thinking and questioning of the learned, which would have a very hollow ring without the backing of Christian existence, which learns to discern spirits in the travail of everyday life.


Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. THE RATZINGER REPORT: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church. 1985. p. 134.

The Eucharist presupposes the other sacraments and points towards them. But Eucharist also presupposes personal prayer, prayer in the family and extra-liturgical prayer in community. ... two of the deepest and most fruitful prayers of Christendom; which are always leading us anew into the mighty river of the Eucharist: the Stations of the Cross and the Rosary. If nowadays we are so dangerously exposed to the attractions of Asiatic religious practices; it is surely in part because we have forgotten these prayers.


Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Moral Theology Today: Certitudes and Doubts, 1984, p. 340, listing all the probable causes for theological dissent :

He [the dissenter] may not have understood the [magisterial] statement. He may have misunderstood another statement which affects his understanding of this one. The causes of dissent in a person can even be of an entirely sentimental kind. He may, after all, not like his bishop!

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Ibid., p. 339.

... dissent is a free act of the person which involves him in the taking of an intellectual stand, with no claimable support from the enlightening Spirit of truth, but which nevertheless puts distance between the one who dissent s and the ones who do not. Dissent is not a parlor game, it is serious business and should be recognized as such, not only by the Church, but also by the person who decides to take the dissenting position. Isolation of anyone in a community is a problem.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

you will burn in eternal hell for putting those quotes in my brain...bad enough we had to listen to Bush BS and his slight slurring and incoherencve, now this? You are evil incarnate!!

Thivai Abhor said...

:) Your welcome! Don't forget to thank Nate as well!

johnharkeygibbs said...

I don't want to be a dufus here, but your smug mockery (sorry if I'm misreading you) does seem to be a bit disingenuous. The problem with the vast majority of people on the right end of the spectrum these days is that they really are not only obtuse but they are utterly contemptuous of anyone who disagrees with them. And yet what you present here is some prose that lays out what seems to be a truly sublime understanding of the function of dissent (and an understanding that puts most of my fellow lefties to shame IMHO), and you fault it for being convoluted (or whatever). Are your aware of what a double bind you are setting up (i.e., finally we have a worthy adversary, and we make fun of him for being smart)? I'm disappointed in your seeming dismissal of the possibility that there is anything worth seriously examining here. Are you not at all interested in exploring whether there is something going on besides the work of a truly complex thinker? Approaching it like it's Saturday Night Live material doesn't seem to set that up too well.

Anonymous said...

"two of the deepest and most fruitful prayers of Christendom; which are always leading us anew into the mighty river of the Eucharist: the Stations of the Cross and the Rosary. If nowadays we are so dangerously exposed to the attractions of Asiatic religious practices; it is surely in part because we have forgotten these prayers."
"... dissent is a free act of the person which involves him in the taking of an intellectual stand, with no claimable support from the enlightening Spirit of truth, but which nevertheless puts distance between the one who dissent s and the ones who do not. Dissent is not a parlor game, it is serious business and should be recognized as such, not only by the Church, but also by the person who decides to take the dissenting position. Isolation of anyone in a community is a problem."

These quotes, unless I am misreading them, are the two that di it for me. The former basicakky says that we need to stop the rise of Asian religions, just guessung here but I believe he is speaking of Muslim or Hindu. The latter says that the dissent against church policy is great, but that because there is "... dissent is a free act of the person which involves him in the taking of an intellectual stand, with no claimable support from the enlightening Spirit of truth,..." basically says " hey dude it is OK for you to disagree but I am more holy than thou so STFU and follow my infallible reasoning". So we have bigotted quotes against certain religions, we have a I am right because the Holy Spirit works through me not you, and we need more religion, i.e. community prayer to survive. This type of religious zealotry deserves to be mocked and made known to the public.

Abby

Thivai Abhor said...

John,

Lighten up, sometimes I have people gving me a hard time for being too serious, now I have people giving me a hard time for a bit of frivolity...

I find Bennie's theorization to be aggressive, patronizing and couched in a history of blood (the knife behind the back while encouraging dissent). It is also obtuse and shows little attempt to reach out past fellow insiders--poor communication skills or a lack of concern for input beyond the inner circle.

If you think that load of bullshit by Benedict I posted is leftist then you are obviously operating in a fantasy land--maybe you traveled so far left you ended up on the right--anyways these dualisms are ridiculous... Bennie is contemptous of those that dissent and he clearly outlines this in his statements quoted in the post.

I don't view the pope as an adversary--do you? Why? I have bigger, more dangerous, fish to fry (see the articles on American evangelicals in may's Harper's). I'm not making fun of him for being smart, I'm making fun of him fo being purposely misleading and obtuse--there is a big difference. I don't make fun of Dubya for being dumb (I don't believe he is dumb) I make fun of him for his dangerous fantasies (likewise the Pope, who truly believes he is generous in regards to dissent, but would stamp it out if it appeared--the equivalent of our presidential "compassionate conservative"--plain, old-fashioned, manipulative deception, or delusional fantasies--you pick!)

I just visited your website about grassroot politics and while you have some interesting "monologues" going on, its strange that you theorize about the possibility of grassroots politics in this context-free, ahistorical, generalized manner--where are the examples... check out this site I designed for some grassroot activists for an example of outlining some specifics: http://grandparentcoalition.blogspot.com

Thivai Abhor said...

Abby, I agree completely!

Peace!

Rickenharp said...

imho not only Bennie's theorization could be called "aggressive, patronizing and couched in a history of blood": before mutating into Bennie Ratzinger was leader of the Congregation (which is the direct legal successor of the Inquisition). in this position he was responsible for the continued condemnation of contraception as well as homosexuals by the catholic church under the papcy of Johannes Paul II, the latest catechism was composed under his control, too (to name only some of his remarkable merrits).
how generous he is or will be in regards to dissent could be imagined
by tracing his former handling of those latin-american churches that dared to combine the catholic doctrine with marxist notions.
anyway, since journalists and media (especially in Germany and England) focus on Ratzinger's previous career as if his membership in the Hitler's Youth when he was 14 was the only relevant question, or had any significance for his papacy, to show what kind of thinking propers under the tiara and to make it known to the public - by mockery or not - seems to me a basic necessity.

johnharkeygibbs said...

thivai,

So my apology in advance for being a dufus was aparently not light enough for you. Sorry. Yet I take it from your response that your answer to my question "Are you not at all interested in exploring whether there is something going on besides the work of a truly complex thinker?" is "yes." I too am deeply concerned by Benedict's whole agenda. My primary intent was to add little different slant of light to that whole area because I think there is a need for that that is rarely adequately addressed by secular leftists. I am mostly a secular leftist myself, but I have a theological education. BTW, Thanks for the feedback on my blog. It is a work in progress. You are welcome to leave a comment there if you think it is too monological.

Thivai Abhor said...

John,

You asked, I responded, that is the spirit of this collective venture!

Once this hell week is over and I have graded my last paper, I'll trip on over to your site and engage your postings--I'm very interested in the subject.

Thivai Abhor said...

Rickenharp,

Thanks for the insights--on this side of the Atlantic the only spectre that the media raised was also the Hitler youth membership, which, to me, was most likely something many kids did simply because it was expected. We could forgive Ratzinger for this as he was a child, whereas we could condemn Martin Heidegger for his choices because he was an adult intellectual who should have known better (or did and now covers it up--too bad as Heidegger's thought I do admire and this causes me much discomfort). The (mainstream) media, intentionally or unintentionally, once again dropped the ball and failed to inform the public about the past/present roles/acts of their new pope.