Reason’s Pope

The intellectual legacy of Benedict XVI will long outlive him.

By
44
Pope Benedict XVI celebrating the Midnight Holy Mass at Saint Peter's Basilica. Vatican City, 2008. (Photo by Grzegorz GalazkaArchivio Grzegorz GalazkaMondadori via Getty Images)

Of all the men to sit in the Chair of St. Peter, Benedict XVI surely ranks as one of the intellectual giants. Even before becoming pope in 2005, he had a formidable reputation as a thinker. Whether the subject was Europe’s future or the relationship between ethics and economics, Joseph Ratzinger certainly had written something insightful on the topic.

That erudition wasn’t confined to the academy. I long ago lost count of the number of people I have met from all walks of life who have told me that, through reading one or more of his 86 books and 471 articles, they had come to a better understanding of Christianity and a deeper knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth. In many cases, the end result was conversion to Catholicism.

For Benedict, Christianity wasn’t a collection of ideas. It was ultimately about the truth of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and how this revealed God’s deep love for humanity. Nonetheless, ideas were deeply important to Ratzinger as it was through words that this truth was conveyed and explained.

Benedict also witnessed throughout his life the power of ideas—for better and for worse. Growing up under the National Socialist dictatorship in Germany, he saw first-hand how much evil can flow from seriously wrong ideas. After World War II, he witnessed how Marxist ideas legitimated Communist tyrannies across Central and Eastern Europe and eventually drove the madness which swept through Western universities and culture in 1968, the price for which we are still paying.

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
44
By
Comments (44)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    This is a fantastic piece. I’m sorry I missed it when it came out. Glad I read the archives!

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Bono Vox

    To wit, May Joseph Ratzinger Rest In Peace. In spite of all his praiseworthy accomplishments and intellectual fortitude, it would have been nice to know what the world would look like now and how The Church leaders could have dug themselves out of its own grave they are burying themselves in if just one pontiff had had the balls and the brains to call for a certain Bishop to be summarily defrocked in public in Boston and all his conspirators turn themselves in to the local authorities, plus condemn and call for the immediate imprisonment of a certain Bishop in Phoenix that clipped a pedestrian with his car and drove away in the dark of the night (thank god for a bystander that made the no good holy man’s car to the police in the dark of the night). Plus, most importantly, he should have condemned the soul of his successor for, speaking of murder, lying, grand theft, merely shaking hands with a literal DEVIL Fidel Castro. Thanks for taking my rant Samuel. You don’t deserve it, but I am glad my old man did not have to bear witness to the demise of his beloved church run by complete fing cowards and fools. Peace be with you

    Collapse
  3. Joe1776

    "Yet empirical rationality could not and cannot determine what are good and evil uses of technology. That required other forms of reasoning: those which provide us with insight into what is good, and how we might make free choices for the good and never choose evil."

    Science can help us live longer but it can't tell us what to do with the extra time.

    "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth..."
    JPII wrote that in Fides et Ratio, but I think it fits Pope Benedict at least as well.

    Collapse
  4. thejemily

    Wonderful piece. Thank you for writing.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Cthocas

    Thanks for the thoughtful write-up—though from an editorial perspective, I would have preferred a narrower focus on Benedict’s thinking with a greater emphasis on direct citations (i.e., let his voluminous work speak for itself, as well as give readers an indication to which of these many books they might specifically turn).

    Collapse
  6. DavidG3276

    When is someone going to admit that Benedict's failures involving sex abuse by clergy vitiates anything else that he did as a religious leader. As someone who tries to explain and defend Christianity to skeptics and outsiders, I cannot overemphasize how much these ongoing moral failures on the part of prominent religious leaders and groups which claim to be Christian cause the name of God to be blasphemed.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Carl Sidor

      When are your going to acknowledge that the sex abuse among the ordained occurs less often than that occurring among the non ordained? You seem to think that sex abuse is somehow more evil when done by a man who has a Roman collar around his neck. It isn’t. Sex abuse is wrong no matter where it occurs and to bring it up in a discussion of the Church is dishonest. Allegations of child sex abuse can destroy a man’s reputation beyond repair if the accusations are not borne out. That is why investigations take so long. They wish to have proof beyond reasonable doubt, just like a criminal case. His holiness’ actions with respect to the sexual abuse cases does not invalidate what other good things he has done, even if he is wrong on all of them. The suggestion is silly. Not to mention laughable.

      Collapse
      1. CJ

        Sex abuse is always wrong. Sex abuse is MORE wrong when perpetuated by clerics who have the honor and resposibility of acting as unique representatives of Christ.

        Beyond that though, the real issue is the ongoing, repeated, multi-decade, STILL re-occuring coverup which demonstrates church leaders see preventing institutional "scandal" as more important than protecting and caring for victims. Yes, school teachers, et al also abuse. Yes, lots of good changes have occured in the past 2 decades.

        None of that negates the horror of an American church that still to this day deals with abuse via lawyers, NDA's, hush money payments, "trust the church", threats of scandal, etc.

        I'm not informed enough to speak of Benedicts role and how that should reflect on him. But to downplay the evil of abuse in the church and it's leadership response is profoundly misleading.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Carl Sidor

          No, sex crimes are not more wrong when committed by religious folks. That is a a lie on the same level as saying that murder is more heinous if the murderer hated the victim. That is 100 proof nonsense. You are attempting to conflate trust in authority with seriousness of a crime. That is not the case. It is a betrayal of trust when religious figures behave badly, but the crime, itself, doesn’t change. As far as the Church goes, they must use lawyers because the cases are legal matters. It is not a matter of choice. No one is “covering up” anything about the sexual abuse scandal. In fact, the Church has instituted a number of programs that enhance lay oversight of the ordained. It has put in place new rules that pertain to the investigation of sexual abuse reports. It requires background investigations of all people being considered for positions that require contact with children. The Church is trying to fix things, as much as it can. But folks like you continue to believe the worst about them because that is who you are. You are far more comfortable thinking the worst about religious people. Like most things in life, it is a status issue. You seek to lower the status of the religious and thus raise your own status. It is as common as dirt and just as welcome.

          Collapse
          1. CJ

            Hey Carl. Seems like a few different commenters have tried to engage you on this topic and gotten nowhere.

            Just an observation. It seems your first instinct is to attack the character and ascribe motives to those trying to engage with you. I’ve seen a lot of “you…” statements when interacting with strangers you don’t actually know.

            Maybe something worth considering how to engage with the ideas being presented without assuming the worst. And consider that someone can be critical without false motives.

            I’ll just say. I know the Church very well. At times in the past I’ve loved her. I’m reading this article because Pope Benedict was influential to me. I spent years in seminary and have close friends who are priests. They are good men.

            With all of that in mind. I am still critical of the institution, how it’s structured, how it wields spiritual power, and how much harm it (via its leaders) has caused to the faithful. Encouragement to shut my eyes and pretend everything is ok has not been an effective means of helping my disillusionment.

            Collapse
      2. Joe

        Ratzinger himself was overwhelmed with the number of reports coming in from the US. The rot in the US Catholic church is much deeper than sexual abuse of minors. Seminaries and Dioceses were reportedly so overwhelmed by *actively* gay men that they made up the majority. The gays in my diocese whose cases made the news were gays who committed crimes (other than accusations from minors, one priest was moved to another parish after allegedly trying to rape another priest).

        It could be that the trial that is to come (as the morally blind will either lead us to or be led to evil, and this is already happening) couldn't come unless the Church delegitimized itself. There's no better way to destroy an institution than from within.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Carl Sidor

          Joe, you are lying. Or you are repeating the lies of others. Same outcome. The number of homosexuals in the Roman Catholic priesthood is about the same as in the general population. Most priests are not gay. The following is informative: “The 1961 document entitled ‘Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders’ stated that homosexual men should not be ordained. However, this was left to bishops to enforce and most did not, holding homosexuals to the same standards of celibate chastity as heterosexual seminarians.” The Church is not some hotbed of homosexuality. That is a slur promoted by the enemies of the Church. Moving a priest to another locale was thought to be helpful at the time. It was not done to hide anything, but to spare a potentially good man from being irrevocably stained by accusations that might just be exaggerated. It has happened many times before. Just ask some guys about accusations of rape after a date became a sexual encounter that the woman regretted. Your assertion about the best way to destroy an institution is from within is not true. The best way to destroy an institution is to lose faith in it. The Church is fixing things as well as it can. But it is also finding lies and those who wish to pile on for financial gain. Who is to challenge a tearful recollection of a childhood incident if the person recounting the event embellishes some parts of it and neglects to mention other exculpatory evidence. Humans are wonderful liars when it suits them. Witness “Mattress Girl”.

          Collapse
          1. Joe

            I'm not lying. There's all sorts of writeups on this. You can look to the testimony of seminarians or the HIV statistics. There should have been next to no HIV cases among priests in the 1980s, yet it happened. The prevalence of HIV among priests was higher than it was in the general population. This is among a bunch that's supposed to be celibate (and not taking drugs). I'm not the one who claimed that people who aren't active homosexuals were the minority in some Catholic seminaries and dioceses. Seminarians made that accusation!

            In my diocese they moved pervert priests around every time there was an accusation. There was a predatory priest at MY parish and I remember his face. He was not the head pastor. This was back in the day when the parishes would have 3 or 4 pastors plus deacons, rather than today when one pastor is "yoked" to 2 or 3 dying churches. The pervert was moved from a school in a different diocese to a diocesean school here. Then after he was accused of improper behavior with students he was moved to my parish. Later on he was moved to another diocese where he was eventually forced into retirement. He was never defrocked and died in some retirement home for priests.

            Think about this. In a time when being homosexual was not accepted at all they had this way to not have to bother to put on a show by dating and getting married. They vowed to be celibate! It's the perfect cover.

            I understand that evil forces went after right wing institutions (first the church, then others like the Boy Scouts) but they hanged the church, the Scouts, and all the rest with their own ropes and by holding them by their own moral standards.

            Collapse
      3. DavidG3276

        Given all the evidence that prominent religious leaders and religious organizations have not only failed to protect children from abuse but went so far as to actively cover it up for decades, I am appalled by your response. Paul wrote that it was our job to judge and remove those who engaged in immoral conduct while claiming to be Christians. He didn't try to minimize it as you have. And if you think that Benedict's missteps on this issue doesn't vitiate much of the good he did, then we'll have to agree to disagree. However, Benedict's main task as a shepherd was to protect the sheep from the wolves and in that he failed. We ought not to be judging ourselves by comparison to the world but instead to Jesus' own words. Jesus said that if someone caused a little one to stumble that it would be better for that person to be tossed into the sea with a millstone around their neck. He didn't say that we should cover it up or buy their silence or transfer offenders so that they could do the same thing to other kids.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Carl Sidor

          “I am appalled by your response”. Theatrically appalled, no doubt. Benedict 16 did not cover up the sexual abuse scandal in the Church. You are at least repeating lies told by others, if not actively lying yourself for effect. In fact, Benedict pushed through revolutionary changes to Church law that made it easier to defrock priests credibly accused of sexual misconduct. He also dismissed hundreds of priests credibly accused of sexual abuses. He was the first Pope to meet with victims of sexual abuse. He also moved against a favorite of Saint Pope John Paul 2’s inner circle who was a serial pedophile. You repeat popular press accounts without checking first to ensure they are accurate. Critical thinking is essential. In case it escaped your notice, transfer of a pedophile to a position where he had little to no contact with children was seen as a first step in treating the person. The emphasis at the time was treatment instead of destruction. You should be familiar with the concept, considering it is now being put forth as a more compassionate way of dealing with drug abusers. Funny how you probably endorse treating drug abusers with kid gloves and treating those with sexual mental health problems by destroying them. Your moral compass needs some serious calibration. How Benedict 16 handled the sexual abuse scandal does absolutely nothing to dismiss his scholarship much like how his owning slaves does nothing to diminish the work Thomas Jefferson did with the Declaration of Independence.

          Collapse
          1. DavidG3276

            Considering what I've done to help abused kids, you should be ASHAMED to call my response theatrical. Yes, Benedict did some good things after the clergy sex scandal exploded and it couldn't be swept under the carpet any longer but even Benedict admitted his failures. He even lied to the authorities during an investigation in Germany involving child sex abuse. And, we're talking about transferring priests to positions where they still had contact with kids. Why didn't Benedict reveal the full picture of child sexual abuse by the clergy earlier before he was Pope but had responsibility for handling it? Paul said we should expose the works of darkness to the light. It took Francis to finally abolish the secrecy policy in sexual abuse cases. If you don't understand yet why someone's life can tarnish their works then we'll have to agree to disagree. Jefferson's actions do color today not only how we view his life but also his works.

            Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    LarryO

    Side note: it'd be nice if someone could fix the Share button.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Sten

    B16 had an outsized role in shaping and drafting the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992). It is not solely his writing, but it is the definitive summary of the Catholic Faith written for the turn of the third millennium. Fr Mike Schmitz just launched the Catechism in a Year podcast, making it easy to digest in bite-sized prices. Highly recommend!

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    DougCLE

    A fine tribute to a great man. Thank you.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Dusty

    This was most excellent. As a Lutheran I’ve long been envious (a sin, I know) of Catholicism’s intellectual tradition. You don’t have to go back ages, as even today I find the likes of Robert George or Ryan Anderson (or even someone I disagree with like a Patrick Deneen) to have few peers in the Protestant world. This I attribute mainly to the Catholic Church’s belief in Natural Law - a belief that my own Lutheranism holds by doesn’t emphasize.

    I’ve long read *about* Benedict and his intellect, but I haven’t read Benedict. Where would one recommend a lay Protestant begin with his 86 books and 471 articles?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      LarryO

      I'm also a Protestant and agree with you fully. I also admire the Pope as a standard bearer... and very thankful for the 3 that have existed in my life.

      Collapse
    2. True Northerner

      Try "The Essential Pope Benedict XVI His Central Writings and Speeches Edited by John F. Thornton and Susan "

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Sten

      I would recommend starting with B16’s encyclicals: Deus Caritas Est, Spe Salvi, Caritas in Veritate, and Lumen Fidei (published under Francis but written almost entirely by Benedict before his resignation). They are brief and highly topical, making them a good introduction to his writing style and intellectual approach to Love, Hope, Truth, and Faith, respectively.

      If you happen to be from a more liturgical branch of Lutheranism, you may find also The Spirit of the Liturgy particularly insightful and highlight how some of the theological differences between Catholics and Lutherans emerge in the praxis of liturgical worship.

      Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Jaclynangelo

      I try to read "Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives" during Advent before Christmas. The other two meditations on Jesus, "Jesus of Nazareth" and "Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week" are also good.

      Collapse
    5. Avatar photo
      Francesca

      You might try Introduction to Christianity. There are short essays in Behold the Pierced One. My Protestant students liked On the Way to Jesus Christ

      Collapse
Load More