Essay Two - Chapter Three: Christianity and the Crisis of Culture

Essay Two: The Right to Life

Chapter Three: "We Must use Our Eyes"

If you don't read any other part of this book, read this chapter. This chapter changed my life! So here's a summary of its goodness, which is not nearly rich enough.

The decision of abortion begins with the choice not to look at the baby. Hence the world hides its existence with words like fetus of zygote. They choose not to see the other because if they were to look at him, the unique and  unrepeatable life would make demands on their liberty.

In their suffering they turn away from humanity. When it is in our suffering that we may truly answer the question "Who am I?" For example it was after Christ had been scourged that pilot cried "Ecce Homo" or "Behold the man." (John 19:5) As discovered in metaphysics: man is, the baby is (exists), necessarily his dignity also exists. (Metaphysics: the philosophical study that is concerned with the basic causes and nature of things)

 

Affirming this dignity begins when we affirm our own dignity. In the security of this knowledge we can truly look at the other in a way that affirms them and allows them to be free. When I see man as a thing, I forget my dignity and his.

The context for this respect for life comes from faith in creation. That each man is created in the image of God. In this way Christianity is a remembrance of that look of love from the Father upon humanity. Therefore the task of announcing the dignity of man falls on those who see man in his dignity. The Christian is among the world the life which animates it, as the soul with the body. In affirming the dignity of others, while at the same time loving those who hate you and rising above the flesh, the Christian can purify the world and its dignity.

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

Essay Two: The Right to Life

Chapter Two: The Law of the Jungle, the Rule of the Law

Without the ability to come to a basic moral understanding, the foundations of a healthy society cannot stand. The current mode, which society bases its political and social decisions puts the freedom of expression above the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

Through this gaze the right to an abortion is invoked through the liberty of the woman, man and society. The woman has her right to her professional work, the safeguarding of her reputation and a standard of life. The man has the right to his lifestyle, pursuit of his career and the enjoyment of the fruits of his labor. And for society, it has the right to control numerical population, guarantee the prosperity of its citizens and the management of resources. 

Nevertheless exercising these rights leads to the detriment of a life. The rights of some are affirmed at the cost of the rights of another. This leads to the proof that to exercise the right to an abortion is in support of the mindset that laws are related to power and that laws protect the most powerful. This implication poses a threat to authentic democracy. 

So in saying abortion is a right negates that all men are created equal and that it is a profound iniquity when the rights of some prevail over the rights of others. In fact, it negates that human rights belong to man by nature: fundamentally, the right to life. 

"A state that claims the prerogative of defining who is and who is not the subject of rights consequently accepts that some persons have the right to violate the fundamental right to life of other persons, which contradicts the democratic ideal. When it accepts that the rights of the weakest may be violated, it also accepts that the law of the jungle prevails over the rule of the law." (p64) 

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

Essay Two: The Right to Life

Chapter One: Why we must not Give up the Fight

"What is man that you should be mindful of him? Mortal man, that you keep him in mind?" (Psalm 8:4)

The question of the right to life for life that has been conceived and not yet born is a decisive question. To present all the seemingly logical reasons why the problem of abortion ought not be taken so seriously, or even fought over is to neglect the fundamental element that builds our societies: man. If you are not beginning an argument by first going to its source, then all philosophies and ideals founded on that argument are vain-glory. 

There are those who despair of a solution and remain on a superficial level. Siting responses such as:

• The legal approval of abortion has not changed much of our private lives or the life of society. 
• Each can act in accordance with his conscience. 
• A woman who doesn't want an abortion isn't compelled to have one. 
• Women who have abortions would have had them even if it were illegal, and this way they at least have medical attention.

Man's very existence is a gift. So if a man exists he ought to be mindful of his own frail mortality. To have a society ordered by justice would begin with this concrete truth. Man is mortal. So to deal deathly blows upon those conceived in the womb, is not only filled with the basest form of injustice, but is the weapon by which "man loses his own identity." (p60) 

There are many passages where God stakes his claim on man as made in His image. Giving each man his worth and dignity. This inalienable dignity of man made in the image of God sets us apart from the rest of creation. The attack on the right to life is also an attack on the dignity of man.

All Things New

And he who sat upon the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new."

Revelation 21:5

 

It isn't a coincidence that the Second Reding this Sunday, from Revelation, ended with these words.

 

Personally, I would rather write up another chapter from "Christianity and the Crisis of Culture" right now than try to reflect on the merits of change. As it is, this is all I have to offer at the moment.

 

I moved into a new apartment this weekend. I find that moving is a humbling experience no matter how prepared you are for it in advance. I find that I'm always  a little more susceptible to home sickness when I move. Signing the lease is what triggers it, I think. I am literally signing up to be away from home and family for another year. My melancholic side eats that up, and assuring myself that it is for the best does not make much difference.

 

There are several things that make this move different, and better all at once. I am moving into the biggest apartment I've had since moving to Peoria for one. I set up my bedroom this weekend and realized that the square feet of my bedroom alone probably equalled the suare footage of my first place in its entirety. That's a great change! There is a dishwasher and garbage disposal with the sink! Perhaps the best material improvement though is that there is a washer and dryer inside the unit! No more quarters for clean clothes!

 

The true cause for joy is that I will have a roommate in this new place. One of my best friends, Shirley! Shirley's friendship is one that has blessed me since I moved to Peoria. She and I went to college together, but our friendship didn't really form until I moved here and I am so grateful for it! I know that with Shirls around I will have the accountability that I need at this point in my life to live for Christ.

 

Yesterday she and I did a little Lectio Divina when our paths crossed and the above verse changed my life! We had both just been commiserating about how we need each other for spiritual accountability and then we came to this glorious verse. Christ makes all things new by the Cross, his suffereing and death provides new life to his people. So it is not without suffering that we find that God is able to make all things new. I pray that my future in this new apartment might be blessed with many more insights like this little morsel.

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

Essay One: The Crisis of Culture

Chapter Three: Permanent Significance of the Christian Faith

Cardinal Ratzinger began this look on Christianity and Culture with the question of Rationalism. This crux of the crisis of culture lies in whether or not man can acknowledge and search the truth. In that line, he first examined the moral norms of our society. Then on a the heels of highlighting how our culture's advances in science and technology are not growing in tandem with its morality, he examines whether rationalism is a universally valid and logical mind-set. As the views and philosophy of rationalism is strictly anti-metaphysical, rather it doesn't affirm the dignity of man. 

In this chapter, Ratzinger examines Christianity as an intelligent religion, or a religion of logos (logic.) The philosophy of the enlightenment cleared the road toward higher truth. It reignited an appreciation for the good, true and beautiful. The roots of the enlightenment were searching for God, which is why in his treatise on the rationalistic world-view Ratzinger encourages it to return to its roots. In religion the search for the true, good and beautiful leads you to God as the ultimate source. Therefore, the gaze of the Christian brings harmony to the philosophies of the enlightenment.

God is the ultimate answer to the definition of man. As created in the image of God they are equal in dignity, regardless of their place in the social order. The bridge between Christianity and rationalism is openness to self-reflection. Self-reflection gives a person a readiness to accept correction, and continue to grow. This in turn allows him to return to the source, the Creator, from whom every real thing comes.

The question the world is asking is whether the world comes from a rational source or an irrational source. If the world comes from an irrational source then reason is merely a a bi-product of the world's development. In that lame line, if the world comes from an irrational source, then its reason would itself be irrational. However if the world comes from reason, then the world's end is reason, as it returns to the source. As such reason that proceeds from reason is open to all that is truly rational. 

The enlightenment set out to define morality as if God did not exist, trying to keep it essentials in order to guarantee the basis of life in society. In the beginning, this worked as society already had fundamental Christian convictions. Immanuel Kant, a philosopher of the late 1700's, put God outside of reason. He saw no coherent possibility of acting in light of morality, for what are morals without God? Any way you look at it, shaping human affairs without God leads to the annihilation of man. Even if man doesn't find the path to God's existence, he ought to live as if God existed. This doesn't limit freedom, rather it supports all our human affairs.

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

Essay One: The Crisis of Culture

Chapter Two: Significance and Limits of Today's Rationalistic Culture

When entering into a study of culture, having first come to the understanding that today's advancements are not growing in tandem with morality, we must look at two questions. The first is whether rationalism is a universally valid and completely scientific philosophy? This would mean that it was strictly rational and that the reason guiding it was common to all men. The second question, then, is whether rationalism is complete in itself? This would mean that it has no use for its own history, nor would it have any use for God.

Rationalism is guided by a set of generally valid moral values. That religion cannot be imposed by the state, that freedom must be protected, and the separation of power and control of power. This is an endeavor to respect the fundamental human rights of man. Historically, religious neutrality of state is an illusion. Only technological advancement matters, and it is what drives their philosophy.

Upon this hinge, you may see that rationalism is strictly anti-metaphysical. (Metaphysics is the philosophical study of man as being, of living life awake to the unchanging being of man, even as his physicality and surroundings change. This does not mean that he cannot improve himself, rather he exists. In fact, it is a philosophy that enables man to be most fully himself and most fully alive.) In rationalism, man is the product of himself. These general moral guidelines produce men who do not accept moral authority, where only his own calculations under given proof provide the framework for life. He defines his own morality. Therefore a philosophy, which aims to respect the rights of man, diminishes them by engendering the mutilation of man.

The rationalistic view on liberty, in turn, also leads to the self-destruction of liberty based on their self-limitation of reason. (They only believe what they can personally rationalize.) Under the lens of the rationalistic vision of man and liberty one can say that it cannot be universally valid. This philosophy is incomplete as it has divided itself from its historical roots, and by that same token has taken itself away from its source. For example, if one were to ask where this philosophy came from, and what it's founded on, the answer would be that it comes from that which man could reason. But reason without orientation to a moral norm or standard becomes a power for destruction.

This detachment from its historical roots has caused it to dispense with man entirely. Spokesmen of the natural sciences even say that man has no liberty, which contradicts one of the generally valid moral values that rationalism is founded on. It is said that man is no different from any living being and ought not be treated differently, which makes it easier for men to be more interested in protecting endangered species of wild animals, rather than concerning themselves with the rights of men.

Overall, through these points one can see that rationalism is neither strictly rational or universally valid. To move forward as a philosophy it must reestablish its contact with its roots to be complete. They must see that the failure to draw from their Christian roots (of the enlightenment) is not true tolerance. This opposition engenders antagonism between the emancipation of man from God and the religious cultures of the world. The great religions have coexisted for centuries, yet rationalism is creating a culture where nothing can coexist. Cardinal Ratzinger phrases it like this, "Relativism becomes a dogmatism that believes itself in possession of the definitive knowledge of human reason with the right to consider all else as merely a stage of human history that is obsolete." (Christianity of the Crisis of Culture, Ratzinger, Cardinal Joseph, page 45.) Man is in need of his roots if he is to survive, when you lose sight for your reason for being you lose sight of your dignity.

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?