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?