Essay One - Chapter One: Christianity and the Crisis of Culture

Essay One: The Crisis of Culture

Chapter One: Reflections on Cultures That Are in Conflict Today

As stated in the opening posts to my reflections on this excellent book, "Christianity and the Crisis of Culture," Cardinal Ratzinger is writing these essays to enable Christians to live intelligently in the world. This first chapter in the essay "The Crisis of Culture" immediately draws a stark comparison between living life in the knowledge of objective truth and relativism (that truth is subjective/relative to each person.)

The opening of this chapter focuses on the question "Who is man?" Ratzinger points out that from the beginning of the world, man has been given dominion over creation (Genesis 1:26.) This responsibility provides man with great opportunities, but can also be a danger to man. For man finds that he can build and advance on his own. In this way man becomes the product of his own activity. When a man is defined by his productivity he becomes nothing more than an image of man, instead of an image of God. A second danger in man having dominion over the earth is that the growth of possibilities is not matched by the development of morality. So technological advancements are made solely for the sake of advancing, without any reflection on the moral implications. No one's asking the question, does this advancement also advance the dignity of man?

We must reflect on man's freedom in tandem with his dignity. Where there is no morality, the power of man turns to destruction. Since man cannot be delivered from technology as advancement can be to the benefit of man, we must ensure that advancements come from the moral strength of man. In our times we see that there is a new moralism, one that is vague and seen as a claim addressed to others as opposed to a personal duty.

Ratzinger then turns to history, looking at the effects of the Enlightenment on European culture. I know I've heard from some people that "this is about Europe, what does that have to do with us in the US?" I found a lot of parallels between the intellectual path of the Enlightenment and that of the United States' relativistic society. Ratzinger highlights the Christian roots of Europe, and then moves into how the Enlightenment redefined the culture of Europe, actively ignoring and turning away from those roots. Under the guise of protecting others from ideas they may find offensive they created a community that excludes God. Thus forming a culture that is defined by choice, freedom of the expression of opinion, the ordering of the state to protect the rights of man, and rounding out with the prohibition of discrimination. All of which are good in themselves, but without a moral certitude these values crumble into subjective relativism. These defining goals transformed European culture into a culture led by a confused ideology. The Enlightenment claims that only the norms and substance of the Enlightenment can determine he identity of Europe. The question is whether this culture is founded on a reason common to all men? Without a society in search of the three transindentals, those of truth, beauty and goodness, its culture becomes weak, as it cannot stand on values defined by subjective choices.

In conclusion, the ever increasing technological advancement of the world is not growing in tandem with moral awareness. Since some form of morality is necessary to guide these advances, it has been diminished to universal yet abstract moral rights. These are what the Enlightenment is founded on. Even though this culture was founded in a place historically rich in Christianity, the Enlightenment chooses to hold to the mantra of a self-sustaining ideology in no need of its historical roots. So what do its concepts of choice, expression, democracy, human rights, freedom and prohibition of discrimination stand on? The vagaries of this premise automatically lend it to contradictions within its own standards of moral obligations, which leads to ta confused ideology. Turning an entire society into sheep without a shepherd. The fundamental question we must ask ourselves is: Is this culture formed on a reason that is common to all man?