Human sacrifice to appease the gods is as old as the hills, and no wonder, considering how terrifying it all is. Oh, Lord, how large is thy ocean, and how small my boat. Even to this day, beheading and self-flagellation are huge amongst the more primitive remnants of our Islamicist brothers (above left), not to mention -- 'wish we didn't have to -- our Gorist brothers and sisters who want us to believe that sacrificing our economic hegemony will save the earth (above right, an energy-depleting dimming of the Eiffel Tower's light).
"Man approaches God through the Word, not through fasting and wearing a crown of thorns," writes Alexander Smoltczyk in a totally fascinating take on Papa Ratzi in "Sexy for the intellectuals: A Pope for the Melancholy Modern Age" at Spiegel Online:
Ratzinger has mulled all his life over these unequal siblings, faith and reason, which explains the leniency and interest with which German cultural critics have received this pope. He is one of us. He refuses to be defined in terms of the laical trinity, i.e. the triple threat of condoms, women priests and abortion [cute, huh?] . . . Man encounters the self at the level of thought. That is why believers can communicate with non-believers.
Egad. It sounds like at least some German intellectuals are finally getting what Italian free thinker Oriana Fallaci got years ago -- often blogged here -- that "if an atheist and a pope think the same things, there must be something true." More soundbites -- so many tasty ones that it's hard to choose -- from Spiegel Online:
Or could it just be that times have changed? German feature journalism, in particular, has undergone a seismic shift. Columnists are yearning blithely for the good old Latin liturgy and meeting with approval. The editor-in-chief of a new intellectual magazine has composed a "creed": "Why the return of religion is a good thing." Highbrow newspapers like Die Zeit and Frankfurter Allgemeine carefully analyze every utterance from the Apostolic Palace. All the German pundits worth their snuff are hanging on the pontiff's every word . . .
Pope John Paul was into images; Benedict is a man of words. He sympathizes with the nonbelievers. He does not say, as his predecessor did: Kneel down and say the rosary. He says: Enlightenment must be enlightened. He is an intellectual who does not replace reason with mysticism, but instead deploys it in the service of God.
Good God. Atheistic Catholic that we are, we are in a swoon. More from Spiegel Online:
Benedict is the right pope for an age in which people have strayed from the path of faith but still yearn to arrive at a destination -- even if that destination is ultimately faith. He is the right pope for a melancholy, modern age. Benedict's surprising charisma is due in part to the differentiated attitude this German has brought to the papacy in particular and Roman Catholicism in general . . .
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." [See also our own transcendent Mayflower and shining city upon a hill.]
"Having a clear faith" was being perceived as fundamentalism, he proclaimed. As hopelessly passé under a "dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as certain and which has, as its highest goal, one's own ego and one's own desires." That sounded like a parting shot, but it backfired. The popemakers in Italy elected the German professor -- despite his advanced age. They believed he alone was capable of lending the truth-seeking Church an audible voice in a Europe cacophonized by transcendental illiteracy.
Neo-neocon's "Outdated political definitions: conservatives and liberals unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains" comes to mind. She asks her readers today in a most thoughtful post "So what do you think," and here's what we offered in her comments:
Friedrich A. von Hayek's individualism vs. collectivism says it all:
Today's "liberals," our friends on the left side of the aisle, are the totalitarianist collectivists -- the Hillary Clintons who know better than you what is good for you -- while "conservatives" and others on the right are for the most part the champions of individual freedom.
How sad that the powers that be in charge of the edification of the younger generation of this land of the free and home of the brave don't take the teaching of history, geography, science, math and all the grand old Aristotelean philosophies of the ages seriously. More mind food from that Spiegel Online article:
The library is the Holiest of Holies. The professor pope pens page after page: letters, sermons, speeches, epistles, books. Several hundred theological works already make him the most published pontiff in church history.
Ratzinger's appointment as head of the church has not really interrupted his lifelong mission. He toils away at his basic conflict, pitting "truth" against the "relativism" of the modern age: The focus must be on the human being as God's creature, not as a substitute for God.
Worldly promises of salvation have always led people to their doom, be they the promises of the Nazis at home in Traunstein and elsewhere - or those of the Marxists and their disciples with their liberation theology. There is no freedom in this life.
Notwithstanding the smiles, the imputed Prada shoes and his new collection of headgear, Ratzinger has not backed away an inch from his rigid stance on socio-political issues. Marriage is forever; abortion is a crime; women are not entitled to follow the Apostles. Modern society must abide by God's word. Period.
Uh, oh. For us, as a woman who started out as a girl in the Fifties yearning to breathe free, we've always been horrified over men's need to put down their helpmeets. When men start trying to hobble women, we feel wicked sorry for men's insecurity and even sorrier for our sisters' sorrows that result. That shall remain a sticking point with our beloved Papa Ratzi, but Sharia law's take on women is so far beyond the pale that Papa Ratzi's putdown of women pales by comparison. Pale and paler. Not to mention the adored Mary, Mother of God, a personage we never learned much about in our well-intended but bloodless Unitarian upbringing. Nothing like that in Islam. The only woman we're aware of in the Muslim narrative is a preteen bride of Mohammed.
The world needs men and women of honor. Papa Ratzi seems to fit the criterion. From the agnostic view if it is true tha man made God in his image of what he wished he himself were, then it is easy to see why women who in those days were too busy keeping the home and chldren together to join in the development of philosophies were not thought of as the same as men. They were honored as was Mother Mary but they were not thought of as leaders. Hopefuly, today's world will understand that while men and women are not duplicates of each other, they are equal in intellect. Let us hope humans of honor and understanding of the weakness of the human condition can be heard and lead us to a "shining city upon a hill".
Posted by: goomp | February 02, 2007 at 12:58 PM
A few months back, Lee Harris had a fascinating article on Benedict the Pope and Ratzinger the Philosopher in the Weekly Standard.
What has always struck me (especially brought home when I moved to Boston and finding myself moving in certain academic circles) is the narrowness of the modern definition of the word reason.
Am also struck by the lack of willingness to cooperate among a lot of 'rationalists' and 'people of faith' nowadays. As Harris points out, good faith and the ability to work together towards some pretty radical new ideals were major factors in the success of a lot of Enlightenment Era ventures. My hopeful self really wants to believe we're still capable of this, though the tired side wonders if our Golden Age is on the wane.
****
Am a lapsed Catholic who is re-looking-into the faith she was baptised into, largely due to the current pope.
One of the major beefs I had was with treatment of women (right down to considering the virgin birth thing as psychological warfare against women - how could we ever achieve this?). This very politically-incorrect appreciation of differences shed a whole new light on things.
Posted by: be | February 02, 2007 at 02:29 PM