Joseph Ratzinger - Pope emeritus Benedict XVI

[Bernard]

 

“Stand firm in the faith! Do not be confused! Often it seems as if science — on the one hand, the natural sciences; on the other, historical research (especially the exegesis of the Holy Scriptures) — has irrefutable insights to offer that are contrary to the Catholic faith. I have witnessed from times long past the changes in natural science and have seen how apparent certainties against the faith vanished, proving themselves not to be science but philosophical interpretations only apparently belonging to science — just as, moreover, it is in dialogue with the natural sciences that faith has learned to understand the limits of the scope of its affirmations and thus its own specificity. For 60 years now, I have accompanied the path of theology, especially biblical studies, and have seen seemingly unshakeable theses collapse with the changing generations, which turned out to be mere hypotheses: the liberal generation (Harnack, Jülicher, etc.), the existentialist generation (Bultmann, etc.), the Marxist generation. I have seen, and see, how, out of the tangle of hypotheses, the reasonableness of faith has emerged and is emerging anew. Jesus Christ is truly the Way, the Truth, and the Life —and the Church, in all her shortcomings, is truly His Body.”

“Finally,” Benedict concludes, “I humbly ask: pray for me, so that the Lord may admit me to the eternal dwellings, despite all my sins and shortcomings. For all those entrusted to me, my heartfelt prayer goes out day after day.”

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May his soul and all the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

[Bernard]

12. “For all of you who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ... there is neither male nor female”, writes Saint Paul to the Galatians (3:27-28). The Apostle Paul does not say that the distinction between man and woman, which in other places is referred to the plan of God, has been erased. He means rather that in Christ the rivalry, enmity and violence which disfigured the relationship between men and women can be overcome and have been overcome. In this sense, the distinction between man and woman is reaffirmed more than ever; indeed, it is present in biblical revelation up to the very end. In the final hour of present history, the Book of Revelation of Saint John, speaking of “a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev 21:1), presents the vision of a feminine Jerusalem “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Rev 21:2). Revelation concludes with the words of the Bride and the Spirit who beseech the coming of the Bridegroom, “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev22:20).

Male and female are thus revealed as belonging ontologically to creation and destined therefore to outlast the present time, evidently in a transfigured form. In this way, they characterize the “love that never ends” (1Cor 13:8), although the temporal and earthly expression of sexuality is transient and ordered to a phase of life marked by procreation and death. Celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom seeks to be the prophecy of this form of future existence of male and female. For those who live it, it is an anticipation of the reality of a life which, while remaining that of a man and a woman, will no longer be subject to the present limitations of the marriage relationship (cf. Mt22:30). For those in married life, celibacy becomes the reminder and prophecy of the completion which their own relationship will find in the face-to-face encounter with God.

From the first moment of their creation, man and woman are distinct, and will remain so for all eternity. Placed within Christ's Paschal mystery, they no longer see their difference as a source of discord to be overcome by denial or eradication, but rather as the possibility for collaboration, to be cultivated with mutual respect for their difference. From here, new perspectives open up for a deeper understanding of the dignity of women and their role in human society and in the Church.

 

 

CONCLUSION

17. In Jesus Christ all things have been made new (cf. Rev 21:5). Renewal in grace, however, cannot take place without conversion of heart. Gazing at Jesus and confessing him as Lord means recognizing the path of love, triumphant over sin, which he sets out for his disciples.

In this way, man's relationship with woman is transformed, and the three-fold concupiscence described in the First Letter of John (1 Jn 2:16) ceases to have the upper hand. The witness of women's lives must be received with respect and appreciation, as revealing those values without which humanity would be closed in self-sufficiency, dreams of power and the drama of violence. Women too, for their part, need to follow the path of conversion and recognize the unique values and great capacity for loving others which their femininity bears. In both cases, it is a question of humanity's conversion to God, so that both men and women may come to know God as their “helper”, as the Creator full of tenderness, as the Redeemer who “so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son” (Jn 3:16).

Such a conversion cannot take place without humble prayer to God for that penetrating gaze which is able to recognize one's own sin and also the grace which heals it. In a particular way, we need to ask this of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the woman in accord with the heart of God, she who is “blessed among women” (cf. Lk 1:42), chosen to reveal to men and women the way of love. Only in this way, can the “image of God”, the sacred likeness inscribed in every man and woman, emerge according to the specific grace received by each (cf. Gn 1:27). Only thus can the path of peace and wonderment be recovered, witnessed in the verses of the Song of Songs, where bodies and hearts celebrate the same jubilee.

The Church certainly knows the power of sin at work in individuals and in societies, which at times almost leads one to despair of the goodness of married couples. But through her faith in Jesus crucified and risen, the Church knows even more the power of forgiveness and self-giving in spite of any injury or injustice. The peace and wonderment which she trustfully proposes to men and women today are the peace and wonderment of the garden of the resurrection, which have enlightened our world and its history with the revelation that “God is love” (1 Jn 4:8,16).

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Letter, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 31, 2004, the Feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

+ Angelo Amato, SDB
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary

 

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the collaboration of men and women in the Church and in the World

WWW.VATICAN.VA

[Bernard]

Archbishop Gänswein celebrates Mass for Benedict XVI one month after pope’s death

                                   

 

In his homily, Gänswein said Benedict, “one of the greatest and most influential theologians of all time on the Chair of Peter, put himself under the protection of a saint for whom there was no theology, only adoration.”

 

According to the German archbishop, Benedict XVI’s spirituality echoes that of St. Benedict Joseph Labre.

Labre, and Benedict XVI, believed “one must have three hearts united in one: a heart for the love of God, a heart for zeal for one’s neighbor, and a heart that gives witness for the beauty of faith,” Gänswein said.

 

 

Archbishop Gänswein celebrates Mass for Benedict XVI one month after pope’s death | Catholic News Agency

WWW.CATHOLICNEWSAGENCY.COM

---

The pope emeritus’ longtime personal secretary offered the Mass in the Vatican crypt close to Benedict’s tomb in the presence of a small group of people.

 

[Bernard]

                                             

 

 

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

 

1. The issue of homosexuality and the moral evaluation of homosexual acts have increasingly become a matter of public debate, even in Catholic circles. Since this debate often advances arguments and makes assertions inconsistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church, it is quite rightly a cause for concern to all engaged in the pastoral ministry, and this Congregation has judged it to be of sufficiently grave and widespread importance to address to the Bishops of the Catholic Church this Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.

2. Naturally, an exhaustive treatment of this complex issue cannot be attempted here, but we will focus our reflection within the distinctive context of the Catholic moral perspective. It is a perspective which finds support in the more secure findings of the natural sciences, which have their own legitimate and proper methodology and field of inquiry.

However, the Catholic moral viewpoint is founded on human reason illumined by faith and is consciously motivated by the desire to do the will of God our Father. The Church is thus in a position to learn from scientific discovery but also to transcend the horizons of science and to be confident that her more global vision does greater justice to the rich reality of the human person in his spiritual and physical dimensions, created by God and heir, by grace, to eternal life.

It is within this context, then, that it can be clearly seen that the phenomenon of homosexuality, complex as it is, and with its many consequences for society and ecclesial life, is a proper focus for the Church's pastoral care. It thus requires of her ministers attentive study, active concern and honest, theologically well-balanced counsel.

3. Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation's "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being "intrinsically disordered", and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4).

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.

4. An essential dimension of authentic pastoral care is the identification of causes of confusion regarding the Church's teaching. One is a new exegesis of Sacred Scripture which claims variously that Scripture has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, or that it somehow tacitly approves of it, or that all of its moral injunctions are so culture-bound that they are no longer applicable to contemporary life. These views are gravely erroneous and call for particular attention here.

5. It is quite true that the Biblical literature owes to the different epochs in which it was written a good deal of its varied patterns of thought and expression (Dei Verbum 12). The Church today addresses the Gospel to a world which differs in many ways from ancient days. But the world in which the New Testament was written was already quite diverse from the situation in which the Sacred Scriptures of the Hebrew People had been written or compiled, for example.

What should be noticed is that, in the presence of such remarkable diversity, there is nevertheless a clear consistency within the Scriptures themselves on the moral issue of homosexual behaviour. The Church's doctrine regarding this issue is thus based, not on isolated phrases for facile theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant Biblical testimony. The community of faith today, in unbroken continuity with the Jewish and Christian communities within which the ancient Scriptures were written, continues to be nourished by those same Scriptures and by the Spirit of Truth whose Word they are. It is likewise essential to recognize that the Scriptures are not properly understood when they are interpreted in a way which contradicts the Church's living Tradition. To be correct, the interpretation of Scripture must be in substantial accord with that Tradition.

The Vatican Council II in Dei Verbum 10, put it this way: "It is clear, therefore, that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls". In that spirit we wish to outline briefly the Biblical teaching here.

6. Providing a basic plan for understanding this entire discussion of homosexuality is the theology of creation we find in Genesis. God, in his infinite wisdom and love, brings into existence all of reality as a reflection of his goodness. He fashions mankind, male and female, in his own image and likeness. Human beings, therefore, are nothing less than the work of God himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes, they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator. They do this in a striking way in their cooperation with him in the transmission of life by a mutual donation of the self to the other.

In Genesis 3, we find that this truth about persons being an image of God has been obscured by original sin. There inevitably follows a loss of awareness of the covenantal character of the union these persons had with God and with each other. The human body retains its "spousal significance" but this is now clouded by sin. Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion.

Against the background of this exposition of theocratic law, an eschatological perspective is developed by St. Paul when, in I Cor 6:9, he proposes the same doctrine and lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who shall not enter the Kingdom of God.

In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. Finally, 1 Tim. 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts.

7. The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.

To chose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

8. Thus, the Church's teaching today is in organic continuity with the Scriptural perspective and with her own constant Tradition. Though today's world is in many ways quite new, the Christian community senses the profound and lasting bonds which join us to those generations who have gone before us, "marked with the sign of faith".

Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.

9. The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.

There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.

The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.

10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace.

12. What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross. That Cross, for the believer, is a fruitful sacrifice since from that death come life and redemption. While any call to carry the cross or to understand a Christian's suffering in this way will predictably be met with bitter ridicule by some, it should be remembered that this is the way to eternal life for all who follow Christ.

It is, in effect, none other than the teaching of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians when he says that the Spirit produces in the lives of the faithful "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control" (5:22) and further (v. 24), "You cannot belong to Christ unless you crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires."

It is easily misunderstood, however, if it is merely seen as a pointless effort at self-denial. The Cross is a denial of self, but in service to the will of God himself who makes life come from death and empowers those who trust in him to practise virtue in place of vice.

To celebrate the Paschal Mystery, it is necessary to let that Mystery become imprinted in the fabric of daily life. To refuse to sacrifice one's own will in obedience to the will of the Lord is effectively to prevent salvation. Just as the Cross was central to the expression of God's redemptive love for us in Jesus, so the conformity of the self-denial of homosexual men and women with the sacrifice of the Lord will constitute for them a source of self-giving which will save them from a way of life which constantly threatens to destroy them.

Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life. As they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God's personal call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more faithfully and receive the Lord's grace so freely offered there in order to convert their lives more fully to his Way.

13. We recognize, of course, that in great measure the clear and successful communication of the Church's teaching to all the faithful, and to society at large, depends on the correct instruction and fidelity of her pastoral ministers. The Bishops have the particularly grave responsibility to see to it that their assistants in the ministry, above all the priests, are rightly informed and personally disposed to bring the teaching of the Church in its integrity to everyone.

The characteristic concern and good will exhibited by many clergy and religious in their pastoral care for homosexual persons is admirable, and, we hope, will not diminish. Such devoted ministers should have the confidence that they are faithfully following the will of the Lord by encouraging the homosexual person to lead a chaste life and by affirming that person's God-given dignity and worth.

14. With this in mind, this Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful. For example, they may present the teaching of the Magisterium, but only as if it were an optional source for the formation of one's conscience. Its specific authority is not recognized. Some of these groups will use the word "Catholic" to describe either the organization or its intended members, yet they do not defend and promote the teaching of the Magisterium; indeed, they even openly attack it. While their members may claim a desire to conform their lives to the teaching of Jesus, in fact they abandon the teaching of his Church. This contradictory action should not have the support of the Bishops in any way.

15. We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.

We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church's position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.

An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them.

16. From this multi-faceted approach there are numerous advantages to be gained, not the least of which is the realization that a homosexual person, as every human being, deeply needs to be nourished at many different levels simultaneously.

The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Everyone living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person solely as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.

17. In bringing this entire matter to the Bishops' attention, this Congregation wishes to support their efforts to assure that the teaching of the Lord and his Church on this important question be communicated fully to all the faithful.

In light of the points made above, they should decide for their own dioceses the extent to which an intervention on their part is indicated. In addition, should they consider it helpful, further coordinated action at the level of their National Bishops' Conference may be envisioned.

In a particular way, we would ask the Bishops to support, with the means at their disposal, the development of appropriate forms of pastoral care for homosexual persons. These would include the assistance of the psychological, sociological and medical sciences, in full accord with the teaching of the Church.

They are encouraged to call on the assistance of all Catholic theologians who, by teaching what the Church teaches, and by deepening their reflections on the true meaning of human sexuality and Christian marriage with the virtues it engenders, will make an important contribution in this particular area of pastoral care.

The Bishops are asked to exercise special care in the selection of pastoral ministers so that by their own high degree of spiritual and personal maturity and by their fidelity to the Magisterium, they may be of real service to homosexual persons, promoting their health and well-being in the fullest sense. Such ministers will reject theological opinions which dissent from the teaching of the Church and which, therefore, cannot be used as guidelines for pastoral care.

We encourage the Bishops to promote appropriate catechetical programmes based on the truth about human sexuality in its relationship to the family as taught by the Church. Such programmes should provide a good context within which to deal with the question of homosexuality.

This catechesis would also assist those families of homosexual persons to deal with this problem which affects them so deeply.

All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous.

In assessing proposed legislation, the Bishops should keep as their uppermost concern the responsibility to defend and promote family life.

18. The Lord Jesus promised, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" (Jn. 8:32). Scripture bids us speak the truth in love (cf. Eph. 4:15). The God who is at once truth and love calls the Church to minister to every man, woman and child with the pastoral solicitude of our compassionate Lord. It is in this spirit that we have addressed this Letter to the Bishops of the Church, with the hope that it will be of some help as they care for those whose suffering can only be intensified by error and lightened by truth.

(During an audience granted to the undersigned Prefect, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, approved this Letter, adopted in an ordinary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and ordered it to be published.)

Given at Rome, 1 October 1986.

JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER
Prefect

ALBERTO BOVONE
Titular Archbishop of Caesarea in Numidia
Secretary

               

 

 

 

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

WWW.VATICAN.VA

 

[Bernard]

[Bernard]

God, creation, and humanity: The ‘lost lectures’ of Benedict XVI collected in new book

                                       

 

The early Church and the Middle Ages “understood that the Bible is one whole and that we can only truly hear what it is saying if we hear it as coming from Christ,” Ratzinger explains.

“This means hearing it in the freedom that he has given us and from the depths where, through the screen of images, he reveals the true and enduring reality, the solid ground on which we can always stand,” he says.

Fessio told CNA that the Book of Genesis is written in “a very parabolic or even mythical way.” In Ratzinger’s commentary, the Old Testament must be read as a preparation for the New Testament. The Bible should be read as a whole.

“Its parts help to understand each other and [to understand] that Christ is the goal and therefore the key of interpretation,” Fessio said. He added that Ratzinger’s lectures show “how Creation was made for the worship of God, for the Sabbath, for the day of worship, and the day that God rested.”

“If God is the Creator, it means we are creatures,” Fessio added. “It means that we do not create ourselves, we depend for existence on God and on others.

“[Ratzinger] spends a lot of time on how man is relational. We come from parents, we live for others. We give ourselves to a project we can’t consider ourselves,” he said.

“We’re not just autonomous monads floating around each other,” Fessio said. “Rather, we’re connected to each other because we’re connected to God, who himself is relationship as the Trinity.”

Ratzinger considers the place of necessity and chance in creation and contemporary attitudes about the place of each person in the world. He notes that many object, saying, “No one ever asked me if I wanted to be born!”

To this, Ratzinger responds: “It is only when we know that there is One who did not cast lots blindly, when we know that our existence is not an accident, but is rather born of freedom and love, only then can we, whose existence is not necessary, be thankful for this freedom and know, with gratitude, that it is indeed a gift to be human.”

 

God, creation, and humanity: The ‘lost lectures’ of Benedict XVI collected in new book | Catholic News Agency

WWW.CATHOLICNEWSAGENCY.COM

---

Six lectures of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger were almost lost forever. But now, they have been collected in a new Ignatius Press book.

 

[Bernard]

Certainly the high road to truth and goodness is not a comfortable one. It challenges man. Nevertheless, retreat into self, however comfortable, does not redeem. The self withers away and becomes lost.

 

Epilogue: Conscience and Grace

At the end, there remains the question with which we began. Is not the truth, at least as the faith of the Church shows it to us, too lofty and difficult for man? Taking into consideration everything we have said, we can respond as follows.

Certainly the high road to truth and goodness is not a comfortable one. It challenges man. Nevertheless, retreat into self, however comfortable, does not redeem. The self withers away and becomes lost. But in ascending the heights of the good, man discovers more and more the beauty which lies in the arduousness of truth which constitutes redemption for him.

But not everything has yet been said. We would dissolve Christianity into moralism if no message which surpasses our own actions became discernible. Without many words an image from the Greek world can show this to us. In it we can observe simultaneously both how the anamnesis of the creator extends from within us outward toward the redeemer and how everyone may see him as redeemer, because he answers our own innermost expectations.

I am speaking of the story of the expiation of the sin of matricide of Orestes. He had committed the murder as an act of conscience. This is designated by the mythological language of obedience to the command of the god Apollo. But he now finds himself hounded by the Furies, or Erinyes, who are to be seen as mythological personifications of conscience which, from a deeper wellspring of recollection, reproach Orestes, declaring that his decision of conscience, his obedience to the “saying of the gods” was in reality guilt.

The whole tragedy of man comes to light in this dispute of the “gods,” that is to say, in this conflict of conscience. In the holy court, the white stone of Athena leads to Orestes’ acquittal, his sanctification in the power of which the Erinyes are transformed into emends, spirits of reconciliation. Atonement has transformed the world.

The myth, while representing the transition from a system of blood vengeance to the right order of community, signifies much more than just that. Hans Urs von Balthasar expressed this “more” as follows: “…Calming grace always assists in the establishing of justice, not the old graceless justice of the Erinyes period, but that which is full of grace…” This myth speaks to us of the human longing that conscience’s objectively just indictment and the attendant destructive, interior distress it causes in man, not be the last word. It thus speaks of an authority of grace, a power of expiation which allows the guilt to vanish and makes truth at last truly redemptive. It is the longing for a truth which doesn’t just make demands of us but also transforms us through expiation and pardon. Through these, as Aeschylus puts it, “guilt is washed away” and our being is transformed from within, beyond our own capability.

This is the real innovation of Christianity: The Logos, the truth in person, is also the atonement, the transforming forgiveness above and beyond our capability and incapability. Therein lies the real novelty upon which the larger Christian memory is founded and which indeed, at the same time, constitutes the deeper answer to what the anamnesis of the creator expects of us.

Where this center of the Christian anamnesis is not sufficiently expressed and appreciated, truth becomes a yoke which is too heavy for our shoulders and from which we must seek to free ourselves. But the freedom gained thereby is empty. It leads into the desolate land of nothingness and disintegrates of itself. Yet the yoke of truth in fact became “easy” (Mt 11:30) when the truth came, loved us, and consumed our guilt in the fire of his love. Only when we know and experience this from within, will we be free to hear the message of conscience with joy and without fear.

 

                                                            

[Ćiriličar]

Sta se desava sa vama Bernarde? Mislim sa KC...

 

Раскол у Католичкој цркви: Немачки бискупи "благословили" истополне заједнице

RT.RS

---

Овај потез је у директној супротности са Ватиканом, који је експлицитно изјавио да црква нема и не може имати моћ да благосиља заједнице особа истог пола

 

[Bernard]

 

Говор папе Бенедикта КСВИ у немачком Бундестагу 22.09.2011

Изговорена реч је валидна

Поштовани господине савезни председниче!
Господине председниче Бундестага!
Мадам Цханцеллор!
Господине председниче Савезног већа!
Даме и господо!

Част ми је и задовољство да говорим пред овим домом – пред парламентом моје немачке отаџбине, која се овде окупља као демократски изабрано представничко тело да ради за добро Савезне Републике Немачке. Желео бих да се захвалим председнику Бундестага што ме је позвао на овај говор и на пријатељским речима добродошлице и захвалности којима ме је примио. У овом часу обраћам се вама, даме и господо – свакако и као сународнику који зна да је његово порекло доживотно и са симпатијама прати судбину немачке домовине. Али позив на овај говор односи се на мене као папу, као бискупа Рима, који сноси највећу одговорност за католичко хришћанство. Признајете улогу који припада Светој столици као партнер у оквиру заједнице народа и држава. С обзиром на моју међународну одговорност, желео бих да вам изнесем неколико мисли о основама слободне уставне државе.

Дозволите ми да почнем своја размишљања о основама права са малом причом из Светих писама. У првој књизи Царевима се каже да је Бог удовољио молби младом краљу Соломону када је ступио на престо. Шта ће млади владар тражити у овом важном тренутку? Успех - богатство - дуг живот - уништење непријатеља? Он не тражи ове ствари. Он тражи: „Позајми слузи своме срце које чује, да управља твојим народом, познавајући добро од зла“ (1. Царевима 3:9). Овим наративом, Библија жели да нам каже шта на крају мора бити важно за политичара. Његово крајње мерило и разлог његовог политичарског рада не сме бити успех, а камоли материјална добит. Политика мора бити настојање да се постигне правда и тако створе основни услови за мир. Наравно, политичар ће тражити успех који му даје могућност да уопште обликује политику. Али успех је подређен стандарду правде, вољи да се чини правда и разумевању шта је исправно. Успех може бити и завођење и тако може отворити пут за фалсификовање правде, за рушење правде. „Одузмите закон – шта је онда држава него велика разбојничка дружина“, рекао је једном свети Августин. Ми Немци из сопственог искуства знамо да ове речи нису празна баук. Видели смо моћ одвојену од права, моћ супротстављену праву, погазио закон и да је држава постала инструмент деструкције закона – веома добро организована лоповска банда која би могла да угрози цео свет и отера га на ивицу провалије. Служење закону и одбрана од владавине неправде јесте и остаје основни задатак политичара. Овај задатак постаје посебно хитан у историјском часу када је човек стекао моћ која је раније била незамислива. Човек може да уништи свет. Он може да манипулише собом. Он може, да тако кажем, да прави људе и да искључи људе из тога да буду људи. Како знамо шта је исправно? Како можемо разликовати добро од лошег, између правог и лажног закона? Соломонов захтев остаје кључно питање са којим се данас суочавају политичари и политичари.

У великом делу ствари које треба регулисати законом, већина може бити довољан критеријум. Али очигледно је да принцип већине није довољан у основним питањима права, у којима је у питању достојанство човека и човечанства: свако одговорно лице мора да тражи критеријуме за своју оријентацију приликом формирања права. У 3. веку, велики теолог Ориген је објаснио хришћански отпор одређеним постојећим правним системима на следећи начин: „Ако би се неко нашао међу Скитима, који имају безбожне законе, и био приморан да живи са њима... онда би вероватно постао веома разуман поступи ако би склопио савезе са истомишљеницима у име закона истине, који је међу Скитима незаконит, чак и противно поретку који међу њима постоји...“

На основу овог уверења, борци отпора су деловали против нацистичког режима и против других тоталитарних режима, чинећи тако услугу закону и човечанству у целини. Овим људима је било неоспорно очигледно да је закон какав је био у ствари погрешан. Али у одлукама демократског политичара, питање шта одговара закону истине, шта је заиста исправно и може постати закон, није тако евидентно. Шта је исправно у вези са фундаменталним антрополошким питањима и шта може постати применљиво право, данас никако није јасно. Никада није било лако одговорити на питање како препознати шта је заиста исправно и тако задовољити правду у законодавству,

Како знаш шта је исправно? Током историје, правни системи су скоро увек били засновани на религији: оно што је законито међу људима одлучује се са становишта божанства. За разлику од других великих религија, хришћанство никада држави и друштву није дало право на откровење, правни поредак заснован на откровењу. Уместо тога, она се позивала на природу и разум као на истинске изворе права – на хармонију објективног и субјективног разума, што наравно претпоставља да су обе сфере утемељене у Божијем стваралачком разуму. Хришћански теолози су се тако придружили филозофском и правном покрету који се развија од 2. века пре нове ере. су се формирале. У првој половини 2 У 19. веку пре Христа дошло је до сусрета између друштвеног природног права који су развили стоички филозофи и одговорних учитеља римског права. Из овог додира је настала и западна правна култура, која је била и јесте од одлучујућег значаја за правну културу човечанства. Од овог претхришћанског споја права и филозофије, пут води кроз хришћански средњи век до правног развоја периода просветитељства до проглашења људских права и до нашег немачког Основног закона, којим се наш народ обавезао 1949. „неповредива и неотуђива људска права као основа сваког људског заједништва, мира и правде у свету“.

За развој права и за развој човечанства било је одлучујуће то што су хришћански теолози стали на страну филозофије у односу на верски закон који захтева вера у богове и признавали разум и природу у њиховом односу као важећи извор права за све. Павле је већ донео ову одлуку у свом писму Римљанима када је рекао: „Ако незнабошци, који немају закон (Израиљеву Тору), по природи раде оно што се тражи од закона, онда су они… закон сами себи . Они показују да су захтеви закона записани у њиховим срцима; њихова савест сведочи о томе...“ (Рим. 2,14ф). Овде се појављују два основна концепта природе и савести, при чему савест није ништа друго до Соломоново срце које слуша, разум отворено за језик бића. Ако се чинило да је питање основа законодавства разјашњено до времена просветитељства, проглашења људских права после Другог светског рата и у изради нашег Основног закона, ситуација се драматично променила у последњих пола века. . Идеја природног права се данас сматра посебном католичком доктрином о којој не би вредело расправљати ван католичке сфере, тако да се готово стиди да се ту реч уопште помиње. Желео бих укратко да назначим зашто је дошло до ове ситуације. Темељна је теза да постоји непремостив јаз између онога што јесте и онога што би требало да буде. Ништа не би требало да произилази из постојања, јер су ту две потпуно различите области укључене. Разлог за то је позитивистичко схватање природе и разума које је постало готово општеприхваћено. Заиста, ако се природа посматра као „агрегат чињеница које су међусобно повезане као узрок и последица“ – речима Х. Келсена – из ње не може произаћи никаква етичка директива било које врсте. Позитивистички концепт природе који природу разуме на чисто функционалан начин, како то наука објашњава, не може створити мост ка етосу и закону, већ може само изазвати функционалне одговоре. Али исто важи и за разум у позитивистичком схватању, који се широко сматра јединим научним. Према овоме, оно што се не може проверити или фалсификовати не спада у сферу разума у строгом смислу. Дакле, етос и религија морају бити приписани области субјективног и не спадају у домен разума у строгом смислу те речи. Тамо где позитивистички разум превладава – а то је углавном случај у нашој јавној свести – класични извори знања за етос и право су суспендовани. Ово је драматична ситуација која погађа све и која захтева јавну расправу, што је суштинска намера овог говора да се подстакне. овде су класични извори знања за етос и право поништени. Ово је драматична ситуација која погађа све и која захтева јавну расправу, што је суштинска намера овог говора да се подстакне. овде су класични извори знања за етос и право поништени. Ово је драматична ситуација која погађа све и која захтева јавну расправу, што је суштинска намера овог говора да се подстакне.

Позитивистички концепт природе и разума, позитивистички поглед на свет у целини, велики је део људске спознаје и људске вештине без које се не сме. Али она сама по себи, као целина, није култура која одговара и која је довољна за ширину човечанства. Тамо где позитивистички разум себе види као једину довољну културу и протерује све друге културне реалности у статус субкултуре, он омаловажава људе, чак угрожавајући њихову хуманост. Ово говорим управо за Европу, где велики кругови покушавају да признају само позитивизам као заједничку културу и као заједничку основу за формирање права, сви други увиди и вредности наше културе су потиснути у статус поткултуре, чиме се Европа гура у статус без културе у односу на друге културе света, а истовремено се доводе у питање екстремистичке и радикалне тенденције. Позитивистички разум који се даје искључиво, који не може да сагледа ништа мимо функционисања, је као бетонске зграде без прозора, у којима себи дајемо климу и светлост, од чега ни једно ни друго не желимо да добијемо из широког света Божијег. А ипак не можемо сакрити чињеницу да у овом самоствореном свету тајно црпимо из Божијих одредби, које претварамо у своје производе. Прозори се морају поново отворити, поново видети пространство света, неба и земље, и научити да све то правилно користимо.

Али како то функционише? Како да пронађемо простор, целину? Како разум може повратити своју величину, а да не склизне у ирационално? Како се природа може поново појавити у својој правој дубини, у својим захтевима и својим упутствима? Сећам се једног догађаја из новије политичке историје, у нади да нећу бити превише схваћен и да неће изазвати превише једностраних полемика. Рекао бих да појава еколошког покрета у немачкој политици од 1970-их вероватно није отворила прозоре, али је била и остала вапај за свежим ваздухом који се не сме занемарити и не може одгурнути јер се превише налази ирационално у њему. Млади су постали свесни да нешто није у реду у нашем опхођењу са природом. Та материја није само материјал за нашу израду, већ да сама земља носи своје достојанство и ми морамо следити њен правац. Сасвим је јасно да овде не правим пропаганду ни за једну политичку странку – ништа ми није даље од тога. Ако нешто није у реду у начину на који се носимо са стварношћу, онда сви морамо озбиљно да размислимо о целој ствари и сви смо упућени на питање самих основа наше културе. Молим вас дозволите ми да останем на овој тачки на тренутак. Важност екологије је сада неоспорна. Морамо слушати језик природе и одговарати у складу с тим. Међутим, желео бих да се наглашено позабавим једном тачком која се још увек у великој мери игнорише: постоји и екологија људи. И човек има природу коју мора да поштује и којом не може да манипулише по својој вољи. Човек није само слобода коју је створио. Човек не ствара себе, он је дух и воља, али је и природа, и његова воља је исправна када он ослушкује природу, поштује је и прихвата себе онаквим какав јесте и ко није створио себе. Управо на тај начин и само на тај начин се остварује права људска слобода.

Вратимо се основним појмовима природе и разума од којих смо пошли. Велики теоретичар правног позитивизма, Келсен, у 84. години - 1965. - напустио је дуализам јесте и треба. Рекао је да норме могу произаћи само из воље. Према томе, природа би могла да садржи норме само ако је воља ставила те норме у њу. Ово би заузврат претпостављало Бога Створитеља чија је воља ушла у природу. „Нема смисла расправљати о истинитости овог веровања“, примећује он. Стварно? - Желим да питам. Да ли је заиста бесмислено разматрати да ли објективни разум који се појављује у природи не претпоставља стваралачки разум, Цреатор Спиритус?

Овде би требало да нас спасе европско културно наслеђе. Идеја о људским правима, идеја једнакости свих људи пред законом, признавање неповредивости људског достојанства у сваком поједином човеку и сазнање одговорности људи за своје поступке развили су се из уверења Бога Творца. Ове спознаје разума формирају наше културно памћење. Игнорисати га или сматрати га обичном прошлошћу било би потпуно ампутирање наше културе и лишило би је целине. Култура Европе произашла је из сусрета Јерусалима, Атине и Рима – из сусрета Израеловог веровања у Бога, филозофског разума Грка и римског правног мишљења. Овај троструки сусрет формира унутрашњи идентитет Европе.

Младом краљу Соломону је одобрена молба у часу његовог ступања на дужност. Шта ако бисмо ми, данашњи законодавци, били слободни да то питамо? Шта бисмо питали? Мислим да чак и данас не бисмо могли пожелети ништа више од срца које слуша – способност да разликујемо добро од зла и тако стварамо прави закон, да служимо правди и миру. Хвала на пажњи!

 

 

 

Deutscher Bundestag - Rede Papst Benedikts XVI. im Deutschen Bundestag am 22. September...

WWW.BUNDESTAG.DE

---

Es gilt das gesprochene Wort Sehr geehrter Herr Bundespräsident!Herr Bundestagspräsident!Frau Bundeskanzlerin!Herr Bundesratspräsident!Meine Damen und Herren Abgeordnete! Es ist mir...

 

[Bernard]

Jesus Christ welcomes everyone, but does not welcome everything and this makes us understand how Catholics cannot, morally, collaborate with everyone.

 

Tavole di Assisi: Gesù Cristo accoglie Tutti, ma non accoglie tutto - Il Corriere Nazionale

WWW.CORRIERENAZIONALE.NET

---

I Cattolici di numerose organizzazioni riflettono, laici e religiosi, come servire la Comunità e la Politica nella società digitale. di Antonino Giannone^ Ho seguito ad Assisi i lavori del...

 

[Bernard]