Understanding Benedict –12 JOSEPH RATZINGER
Life lessons I
do not feel competent to speak on
Newman’s figure or work, but perhaps it is meaningful if I tell a little about my own way to Newman, in which indeed
something is reflected of the presence of this great English theologian in the intellectual and spiritual struggle of our time. In January 1946, when I began my study of theology in the seminary in Freising, which had finally reopened after the confusion of the [Second World] war, an older student was assigned as prefect to our group, who had begun to work on a dissertation on Newman’s theology of conscience even before the beginning of the war. In all the years of his military service, he had not lost sight of this theme, which he now turned to with new enthusiasm and energy. We were soon bonded by a personal friend- ship, wholly centred on the great problems of philosophy and theology. Of course, Newman was always present. Alfred Läpple – the name of the above-mentioned prefect – published his dissertation in 1952 with the title: Der Einzelne in der Kirche (“The Individual in the Church”). For us at that time, Newman’s teaching on conscience became an important foundation for theological personalism, which was draw- ing us all in its sway. Our image of the human being as well as our image of the Church was permeated by this point of departure. We had experienced the claim of a totali- tarian party, which understood itself as the fulfilment of history and which negated the conscience of the individual. One of its leaders [Herman Göring] had said: “I have no con- science. My conscience is Adolf Hitler.” The appalling devastation of humanity that fol- lowed was before our eyes. So it was liberating and essential for us to know that the “we” of the Church does not rest on a cancellation of conscience, but that, exactly the opposite, it can only develop from conscience. Precisely because Newman inter- preted the existence of the human being from conscience, that is, from the relationship between God and the soul, was it clear that this personalism is not individualism, and that being bound by conscience does not mean being free to make random choices – the exact opposite is the case. It was from Newman that we learned to understand the primacy of the Pope. Freedom of conscience, Newman told us, is not identical
16 | THE TABLET | 18 September 2010
The beatification of John Henry Newman on Sunday will be one the highlights of the papal visit to Britain. Newman’s teaching, particularly on conscience, has long had a profound influence on the Pope’s thinking, as this presentation made on the first centenary of the cardinal’s death made clear
Thus, the whole duty and work of a Christian is made up of these two parts, Faith and Obedience; ‘looking unto Jesus’ (Hebrews 2: 9) … and acting according to His will ... I con- ceive that we are in danger, in this day, of insisting on neither of these as we ought; regarding all true and careful consideration of the Object of faith as barren orthodoxy, technical subtlety … and … making the test of our being religious to consist in our having what is called a spiritual state of heart …” In this context, some sentences from
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, pictured in the 1990s, before he became Pope. Photograph: CNS
with the right “to dispense with conscience, to ignore a Lawgiver and Judge, to be inde- pendent of unseen obligations”. Thus, conscience in its true sense is the bedrock of papal authority; its power comes from revelation that completes natural con- science, which is imperfectly enlightened, and “the championship of the Moral Law and of conscience is its raison d’être”. I certainly need not explicitly mention that this teaching on conscience has become ever more important for me in the continued devel- opment of the Church and the world. Ever more I see how it first opens in the context of the biography of the cardinal, which is only to be understood in connection with the drama of his century and so speaks to us. Newman had become a convert as a man of conscience; it was his conscience that led him out of the old ties and securities into the world of Catholicism, which was difficult and strange for him. But this way of conscience is everything except a way of self-sufficient subjectivity: it is a way of obedience to objec- tive truth. The second step in Newman’s lifelong jour-
ney of conversion was overcoming the subjective evangelical position in favour of an understanding of Christendom based on the objectivity of dogma. In this connection I find a formulation from one of his early ser- mons to be especially significant today: “True Christendom is shown … in obedience and not through a state of consciousness.
[Newman’s book first published in 1833] The Arians of the Fourth Century, which may sound rather astonishing at first, seem impor- tant to me: “… to detect and to approve the principle on which … peace is grounded in Scripture; to submit to the dictation of truth, as such, as a primary authority in matters of political and private conduct; to understand … zeal to be prior in the succession of Christian graces to benevolence.” For me it is always fascinating to see and consider how in just this way and only in this way, through commitment to the truth, to God, conscience receives its rank, dignity and strength. I would like in this context to add but one sentence from the Apologia [pro Vita Sua], which shows the realism in this idea of person and Church: “Living movements do not come of committees.” Very briefly I would like to return to the autobiographical thread. When I continued my studies in Munich in 1947, I found a well- read and enthusiastic follower of Newman in the fundamental theologian Gottlieb Söhngen, who was my true teacher in theology. He opened up [Newman’s] Grammar of Assent to us and, in doing so, the special man- ner and form of certainty in religious knowledge. Even deeper for me was the contribution which Heinrich Fries published in connection with the Jubilee of Chalcedon. Here I found access to Newman’s teaching on the devel- opment of doctrine, which I regard along with his doctrine on conscience as his decisive con- tribution to the renewal of theology. With this he had placed the key in our hand to build historical thought into theology, or much more, he taught us to think historically in theology and so to recognise the identity of faith in all developments. Here I have to refrain from deepening these ideas further. It seems to me that Newman’s
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48