Pope Benedict and the Crisis of Truth

In an especially moving passage from his recent speech in Vienna that kicked-off his three-day visit to Austria, Pope Benedict XVI said, "It should be everyone's concern to ensure that the day will never come when only its stones speak of Christianity." That was then followed with the statement, "An Austria without a vibrant Christian faith would no longer be Austria."

By now this has become the consistent refrain from Benedict -- namely, that the secularization of Western society stands as its greatest threat. By secularization, of course, the pope is referring to an increasingly autonomous population that is willing to question the authority of the church. Even more fundamentally, he has in mind the way by which secularization (which, mind you, one could just as easily and more positively term as pluralization) contributes to the relativization of truth. As Benedict stated in his speech the following day, "This attitude of resignation with regard to truth lies at the heart of the crisis in the West, the crisis of Europe."

In certain respects, I am inclined to agree with Benedict in affirming the positive role religion has played in shaping our cultural heritage. Indeed, as unlikely and as exaggerated as the scenario is, it would be a great shame if all that remained of Western civilization's Christian heritage were empty cathedrals standing as ancient relics of a forgotten and distant past.

But the problem is that Benedict's concerns are misplaced betraying an almost blinding insecurity. For instance, when he asserts that an Austria without a vibrant Christian faith would no longer be Austria, that same assertion might easily be turned back on Benedict and the religious institution that he represents in the form of a question: Would a church that allowed the ordination of women as priests and for its priests to marry still be the Church? Might Benedict's own recalcitrance on this subject be at least partly to blame for the crisis of authority that his church faces in such places as Austria? And with many Austrian Catholics angry over two prominent sex scandals involving the clergy, to what extent is this responsible for the crisis of credibility that Benedict and his church face when they seek to assert their own moral authority?

So while the Pope expresses concern that Europe may extinguish itself by being forgetful of how Christianity "profoundly shaped the continent," apparently he needs to remind himself of his own history. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, and I don't mean to be flippant, but the Roman Catholic Church no longer has a religious monopoly on truth. That ended almost five centuries prior whenever Martin Luther posted his famous 95 Theses on the Wittenberg church door and thus unleashed the forces of individualism that have become the hallmark of the modern Christian West -- which is to say nothing of the cultural contributions and enduring presence of other faith traditions. This too has profoundly shaped the continent. Rather than bemoan this fate and hearken back to a past age of supposed religious unity and unquestioned religious authority, we might discern some truth in this history.

Or, put more dogmatically, that which is true needs no defense because its truth is realized in and by the history we are now living. It is true that the West no longer (as if it ever did!) speak with one voice. But this does not mean, as Benedict suggests, that we need the church to reassert its truth as absolute and universal. Perhaps instead it means that Benedict and his church need to better come to terms with the truth of our history.

Comments

[drasko]

"By secularization, of course, the pope is referring to an increasingly autonomous population that is willing to question the authority of the church."

How can you be so sure that this is what he means? I suspect he probably means the deletion of God from public discourse and cultural life generally, and the profound malaise of spirit through loss of meaning and hope that characterizes Western culture at present.

"I hate to be the bearer of bad news, and I don't mean to be flippant, but the Roman Catholic Church no longer has a religious monopoly on truth."

I'll take your word for it that you don't mean to be, but you are; and more than just flippant, unjust: you demonstrate the kind of "tolerance" that hides its disdain behind the veneer of "critique" while indulging in the kind of distortion of an opponent we used to call "a straw man argument" -- you fill your opponent's effigy with nothing very substantial so you can knock him down without having to worry about him fighting back. But since you are far from being alone, no one is likely to notice, or at lest object, except a few "cranks" like me.

By all means, go after the RCC and call it to account; but do so intelligently, honestly and rationally; and go for its strongest points, not its Achilles' heal, much less buy into this kind of distorted (but widely believed) lie that it claims to "have a monopoly on the truth". That just isn't true. It's a cheap jibe -- and that's not acceptable from an intelligent man like you.

[GenericBlogger]

Can you provide a convincing case to those molested by Catholic priests that they should look at the RCC's strongest points and put aside their unfortunate circumstances?

Can you provide a similar case to Native Canadians who were abused as children in religious schools sanctioned by the Canadian government decades ago?

You are right about the impact of a strawman argument but looking at the strongest points only is also misleading. It's better for people to know the overall picture, i.e., both good and bad before forming their own conclusions.

[jgiddyup]

"it would be a great shame if all that remained of Western civilization's Christian heritage were empty cathedrals standing as ancient relics of a forgotten and distant past."

It will be a triumph for all the churches regardless of faith to be empty if it means people have of their own free will decided that Santa Claus (God) doesn't exist or doesn't exist in the sick pious ways that most major religions espouse.

[GenericBlogger]

What you said has merit but new religions would be developed because our collective knowledge of ourselves and the universe is not sufficient to explain why we are here, what our purpose is. Many don't want to believe we are simply part of a large food chain or a bio-eco system.

[olivine]

I attended catholic schools from first grade through college, and I observed the " truth " changing quite frequently.Let's see, we had to raise money to baptize the little pagan babies in other countries so that they could enter heaven and not be floating around in Limbo for eternity, we were told that if we even ENTERED a non-catholic church our souls would be in mortal danger, we had to eat shriveled-up fish sticks on Fridays( GOD I hated Fridays!),females had to cover their heads with kleenex if they did not have chapel veils for Mass, (why couldn't we just not have gone, instead? didn't work).AND, why did priests get to have all the fun (then, I didn't even know HOW much fun!)dressing fairly normally most of the time, getting to play golf and go to parties, while the nuns were basically covered in a burka, had to live with each other like children, with a "mother" and of course, a "Father"to keep them under control.Back then, all non-catholics definately did NOT go to heaven and there is a book huge beyond belief of catholic dogma with a whole bunch of other stuff we are supposed to know and adhere too.We were taught that you can not instinctively know what is right-there are specific rules, rituals,sa­crements,w­orkshops..­.alot of work involved ,to be right with God, and to be right with THE RIGHT God!Thank you D. H. Lawrence (among many other writers and poets that I found to be more resonant with my soul than The Bible,) for this,"...we can go wrong in our minds. But what our blood feels and believes and says, is always true.The intellect is only a bit and a bridle".













"writers and poets that I found to be more resonant with my soul than The Bible,

[GenericBlogger]

Robbins said "I hate to be the bearer of bad news, and I don't mean to be flippant, but the Roman Catholic Church no longer has a religious monopoly on truth."

I don't think even Benedict is sufficiently audacious to claim the RCC has such a monopoly. The RCC and other churches have been humbled in a matter of speaking as more people learned to read, write, obtain an education, and scientific, medical and philosophical advances have been made.

In balance the RCC has been a significant benefit to humanity but it rarely if ever, had a monopoly on truth.

Religion has been and is beneficial to many but it also disadvantaged others. One of the ways the RCC shaped Europe was by silencing, intimidating, imprisoning intellectuals, scientists, philosophers who disagreed with its teachings and understandings. They harassed Galileo, placed him under house arrests in part because he insisted the sun is the center of the solar system. Galileo was proven right decades after his death but the RCC didn't apologize till almost 4 centuries later.

Another way the RCC has been shaping the West is by staying out of tune with the needs of the modern world, such as divorce. A Catholic annulment is more like a religious loop hole. Recently the RCC did away with purgatory but didn't explain what happened to the souls waiting for their final destination. Were they given a 30 day eviction notice?

Benedict needs to finish cleaning up the Vatican and exterminate and excommunicate pedophilic priests.

The message between Pope Benedict's lines is far more subtle but parallel to the fundamental Muslims' attempts to impose Shia law and eliminate secularism. Remove secularism from the West and we revert to Biblical law, societies run by churches, priests, pastors, ministers, bishops, cardinals, popes. Include the likes of Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, etc. and we regress to the Middle Ages.

Secularism tolerates religion but not visa versa. The golden age of religion was in the past and must remain there. We need to hold on to secularism.

[jeskiley]

Just wanted to add that the church has reasons for not allowing women to be priests and for priests to only be married to the church. Doctrines on birth control have been changed slightly, and the stance on homosexuality is categorized as something that is "not understood at this time", but accepted there.

Just because it conflicts with modern conventions of what women "ought to be able to do", or that a man should be allowed to juggle both "work" and family...doesn't mean the Catholic church should change its tenets. I'm glad other branches of the faith make exceptions, but I'm a purist when it comes to the Catholic church.

[GenericBlogger]

One of the reasons is to sustain a priest in the image of Jesus. However, a Catholic priest cannot adequately counsel a married couple or a spouse when he has no direct experience with a marriage or raising children.

Other religions allow their pastors, ministers and other church leaders to marry and they have fewer scandals.

[maddog5150]

I'm not sure of the actual reasons for not allowing women to be priest, although I suspect it's along the same lines that imams use. Women have never been respected by the RCC. Even in early times the Virgin Mary was dissed by the Church in subtle ways. Women were largely excluded from education and, according to Augustine, sex (read women) was intrinsically evil.

In the twelfth century the Church was quite wealthy largely as a result of what was essentially the pillaging of society during the dark ages and laws regarding taxes and tithings. Priests were often chosen for their wealth and they were forbidden to marry to prevent their money and property from going to families and thereby away from the Church.

[squawk]

"it would be a great shame if all that remained of Western civilization's Christian heritage were empty cathedrals standing as ancient relics of a forgotten and distant past."

Why?

[jeskiley]

Wow, that really scares me,

"Or, put more dogmatically, that which is true needs no defense because its truth is realized in and by the history we are now living."

Truth needs to be defended with all our might. This fragment of time you describe, where we are living the truth, is not a permanent state of awareness. It is a choice, which has blood and noble sacrifice as its backbone, its pillars are not unbreakable.

I was raised to be secular, and I am grateful for that. But Christianity has both historical and supernatural truth, and the "authority" of the Pope behind it, however you decide to respect that office.

I've come to realize it's our social responsibity to pass it forward. With 5 children in tow, I can't leave the ideas of truth to the whims of change, based on the zeitgeist. It must have authority, heritage, and community dedicated to keeping it alive.

I choose the church.

[marvc]

As a former Catholic, the Church long since ceased to represent me and the modern views our society holds. Women are no longer second class citizens to be kept out of the priesthood; gays are born gay, so they must be so by God's design, so why treat them so badly; abortion is not a choice I would make, but it is also not an issue I will confront EVER in my own personal life, so that must be left to the decision and conscience of the woman who must make that choice; these and so many other reasons suggest the Church remains locked in the Middle Ages, and like the Islamic fundamentalists, would like to see the rest of the world return there. Ain't gonna happen, Benedict!

[ebbtide]

Somehow, this all seems irrelevant to me. But if there are true believers, then let them be true believers if it helps them navigate their lives. As long as they do not try to force their beliefs upon me, politically.

[Republicnotademocracy]

I agree with you. I admire Pope Benedict and his intent to revitalize (Catholic) Christianity in the West. Indeed, our history is inextricably bound with the doctrines of the Church.

But to suggest that Austria wouldn't be Austria without Catholicism is profoundly inaccurate. The recognizable cultures of Europe have existed for at least 5000 years. Europeans have inhabited the continent for maybe 50,000+ years at least. In the big picture Christianity has really been a recent blip on the screen. Long after the cathedrals have become curious relics of stone, we will enjoy visiting and studying them, just as we do the megalithic monuments, Celtic relics and the grandeur that was Rome.
I'm sure the Druids thought they were the end-all, too.

[mommadona]

"As Benedict stated in his speech the following day, "This attitude of resignation with regard to truth lies at the heart of the crisis in the West, the crisis of Europe.":

A traditional witch's take on this:

"SEE THE FACTS. DON'T REACT, BUT BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL BE WHAT I SAY THEY ARE BY BELIEVING ONLY IN WHAT I SAY AS ANOTHER HUMAN BEING WHO REALLY,REA­LLY,REALLY HAS FAITH THAT THEIR IS A GUY FLOATING IN THE SKY...SOMEWHERE."

If he was secure in his faith, he wouldn't need to say a word to the 'flock'.

[jeskiley]

I respect and honor the cycles of the earth, too. "If he was secure in his faith, he wouldn't need to say a word to the 'flock". Do you mean, truth should be divinely revealed to everyone, without a need for it to be preached? And the pope should have faith that his message will be delivered, without him "raising himself up" as a conduit.

I used to feel the same, mainly because I needed the space to find my own faith without being encroached upon. Now, that I've completed my journey, I appreciate the history of the Pope's office, and I've learned to honor the mission of the church.

[dadw5boys]

As a non Cathloic I have always wondered why the Cathloic Church keeps scores of Historical HUMAN produced document stored away from the people.
What did they think they are hiding that mankind will not eventually rediscover in time. So many parts of history are missing since the libaries of Peter the Great were destroyed. I had read of Monks and Preist smuggling scores of documents into church stores to keep that information away from the people.
Put all those things in a Museum where the people can see them and learn from the past.
Why? Does knowledge scare the church?