The real point at issue: God will not be known except by experience, and that experience is personal holiness.
Whittaker Chambers
["Witness" (Regnery 1952 449-450)]
["Witness" (Regnery 1952 449-450)]
Whittaker Chambers wrote: “I committed the characteristic crimes of my century (the 20th), which is unique in the history of men for two reasons. It is the first century since life began when a decisive part of the most articulate section of mankind has not merely ceased to believe in God, but has deliberately rejected God. And it is the century in which this religious rejection has taken a specifically political form, so that the characteristic experience of the mind in this age is a political experience… The most conspicuously menacing form of that rejection is Communism. But there are other forms of the same rejection, which in any case, communism did not originate, but merely adopted and adapted….
“Until 1937, I had been, in this respect a typical modern man, living without God except for tremors of intuition. In 1938, there seemed no possibility that I would not continue to live out my life as such a man. Habit and self-interest both presumed it. I had been for thirteen years a Communist; and in Communism could be read, more clearly with each passing year, the future of mankind, as, with each passing year, the free world shrank in power and faith, including faith in itself, and sank deeper into intellectual and moral chaos. Yet, in 1938, I have a different ending to that life...."
“Can a Cultured Man, a European of Our Day, believe, really believe, in the divinity of the Son of God, Jesus Christ?[1]
Benedict XVI
As he assumed the mantle of office, the young King Solomon was invited to make a request. How would it be if we, the law-makers of today, were invited to make a request? What would we ask for? I think that, even today, there is ultimately nothing else we could wish for but a listening heart – the capacity to discern between good and evil, and thus to establish true law, to serve justice and peace. I thank you for your attention!
“The
great proponent of legal positivism, Kelsen, at the age of 84 – in 1965 –
abandoned the dualism of “is” and “ought”. (I find it comforting that rational thought
is evidently still possible at the age of 84!) Previously he had said that
norms can only come from the will. Nature therefore could only contain norms,
he adds, if a will had put them there. But this, he says, would presuppose a
Creator God, whose will had entered into nature. “Any attempt to discuss the
truth of this belief is utterly futile”, he observed.[4] Is it really? – I find myself asking.
Is it really pointless to wonder whether the objective reason that manifests
itself in nature does not presuppose a creative reason, a Creator Spiritus?
Let me repeat Kelsen’s remark: “Any attempt to discuss the truth of this
belief is utterly futile,” to which Benedict retorted: “Is it really?” “Is it
really pointless to wonder whether the objective reason that manifests itself
in nature does not presuppose a creative reason, a Creator Spirit?
And he points to the cultural and scientific reality that Europe has been: “At this point
“As he
assumed the mantle of office, the young King Solomon was invited to make a
request. How would it be if we, the law-makers of today, were invited to make a
request? What would we ask for? I think that, even today, there is ultimately
nothing else we could wish for but a listening heart – the capacity to discern
between good and evil, and thus to establish true law, to serve justice and
peace. I thank you for your attention!”
Prior to this, Benedict
XVI had remarked in an exchange with Marcelo Pera, professor of the philosophy
of science at the University of Pisa and president of the Italian Senate, that “The
essential problem of our times, for Europe and for the world, is that although
the fallacy of the communist economy has been recognized – so much so that
former communists have unhesitatingly become economic liberals – the moral and
religious question that it used to address has been almost totally repressed.
The unresolved issue of Marxism lives on: the crumbling of man’s original
uncertainties about God, himself, and the universe. The decline of a moral conscience
grounded in absolute values is till our problem today. Left untreated, it could
lead to the self-destruction of the European conscience, which we must begin to
consider as a real danger – above and beyond the decline predicted by Spengler.”[2]
5. In some respects, my venerable predecessor saw this Year as a “consequence and a necessity of the postconciliar period”,[8] fully conscious of the grave difficulties of the time, especially with regard to the profession of the true faith and its correct interpretation. It seemed to me that timing the launch of the Year of Faith to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council would provide a good opportunity to help people understand that the texts bequeathed by the Council Fathers, in the words of Blessed John Paul II, “have lost nothing of their value or brilliance. They need to be read correctly, to be widely known and taken to heart as important and normative texts of the Magisterium, within the Church's Tradition ... I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.”[9] I would also like to emphasize strongly what I had occasion to say concerning the Council a few months after my election as Successor of Peter: “if we interpret and implement it guided by a right hermeneutic, it can be and can become increasingly powerful for the ever necessary renewal of the Church.”[10]
My comment: It is a known fact that the year of faith was not intensely lived in 1967, and what was, and continues to be, at stake is the comprehension of Vatican II, and its first historical spin off, Humanae Vitae. Only now, it is exacerbated into a wholesale loss of the consciousness and experience of God. In consider the views of Rick Santorum – which are those of the Catholic Church in all things sexual – Andrea Peyser of the Post on Monday, February 27, 2012 commented: “In Santorum’s World, sex is for making children and abortion is murder. No exceptions. This cartoon version of the world won’t fly in 2012
I would respond with Benedict XVI in Germany: “Is it really?” “Is it really pointless to wonder whether the objective reason that manifests itself in nature does not presuppose a creative reason, a Creator Spirit?"
No comments:
Post a Comment