See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313345528

The Christian Universalism, Globalization and Tolerance in the Thought of

Joseph Ratzinger - Benedict XVI

Conference Paper · January 2017

DOI: 10.2991/icelaic-16.2017.165

CITATION READS

1 354

1 author:

Pavol Dancák
University of Presov in Presov
22 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Pavol Dancák on 24 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 40
3rd International Conference on Education, Language, Art and Inter-cultural Communication (ICELAIC 2016)

The Christian Universalism, Globalization and

Tolerance in the Thought of Joseph Ratzinger -
Benedict XVI

Pavol Dancak
Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies
Greek-Catholic Theological Faculty
University of Presov
St. bishop Gojdic 2
Presov, Slovak Republic 08001
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract—The principle of tolerance confers a right to one's culture were inspired by transcendence towards the divine.
own opinion, own faith and own system of values, but also the Despite that, Europe has witnessed a process of
right to their manifestation. Tolerance, however, includes an secularisation which started in the mid-last century and
appeal towards constant verification of our own opinions and which has been working towards pushing God and
towards looking for limits of tolerance. The problem of Christianity out of all areas of human life in all ways
intolerance emerges. J. Ratzinger in contemplation on faith possible. This process strived for atheistic secularism which
and religion in present-day world gets to the issue of tolerance, is complete and utter exclusion of God and natural moral
freedom, dialogue, truth and reason.
order from all areas of human life. Christian religion has
Key words—man; tolerance; faith; religion been over and over again and with even greater vigour and
subtlety restricted to private lives of individuals. Such
tendencies can be seen in the Charter of Fundamental Human
I. INTRODUCTION Rights of the European Union whose creators, contrary to
The principle of tolerance confers a right to one´s own historical reality, avoided any reference to God and religion.
opinion, own faith and own system of values, but also the The tolerance issue has been discussed throughout the
right to their manifestation. Tolerance, however, includes an history of philosophy, originally in connection with religious
appeal towards constant verification of our own opinions and tolerance [1; P. 183]. Then it could seem that the ties
towards looking for limits of tolerance. The problem of between the secular and religious worlds were definitely
intolerance emerges. J. Ratzinger in contemplation on faith severed. However, the religious context of tolerance has once
and religion in present-day world gets to the issue of again become apparent in today’s post-secular society.
tolerance, freedom, dialogue, truth and reason.
Religion proved to be one of the most powerful forces II. ATTEMPT TO DEMARCATE TOLERANCE
that have ever dominated the human history, although often
paradoxically. Religion has unified tribes and races into The term tolerance, from the Latin word tolerare – to put
nations, but it has also broken that integrity. Religion has up with, endure, countenance, forbear, etc., deserves a
built and destroyed empires. Religion has started wars, but it special attention since the term itself is ambiguous, having
could also compel to peace. Religion has given birth to rich multiple meanings ranging between acceptance and rejection,
cultures and has built a spiritual barrier against the “Yes” and “No”. Therefore, it is very difficult to define the
totalitarian claims of matter. It has aroused dramatic struggle tolerance and intolerance. J. Sivák says that “the value of
in souls, but it has been a source of peace and restlessness, tolerance depends on tolerated things contrary to love, when
too. Religion has made a poor man happy. Religion has also object of love does not play such a critical role: Enemy could
also be loved. In this sense tolerance is not always a value.
shown the hedonists that they are the paupers. Religion has
enriched the poverty of the humble and it has revealed the What to tolerate then? Shall we tolerate a murderer of
poverty in the hearts of the rich. And whenever any nation children, an opinion or philosophy of another person or a lie
exterminated the religious spirit, it felled, at the same time, of another person? Circumstances play a crucial role here. It
the roots of its own culture and life. is not only about what to tolerate but also under what
circumstances and to what extent to tolerate” [2; P. 338].
It is quite impossible to imagine Europe without According to R. Forst, a concept of tolerance is paradoxical.
Christianity, churches, Christian crosses lining the roads, Tolerance is composed of both rejection and acceptance
without hospitals, human rights, solidarity and care for the based on which the tolerated beliefs or practices are
weakest among us. It is evident that the civilization and condemned as wrong or evil, but not insomuch that they

Copyright © 2017, the Authors. Published by Atlantis Press.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). 678
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 40

could not be tolerated on the grounds of other positive Provided that there is nobody denying other gods and
reasons [3; P. 312-325]. Tolerance can be perceived as the worship ceremonies, conditions for tolerance of opinions and
most intrinsic action of man and as one of the requirements peaceful coexistence could be created. Ratzinger rejects this
to preserve human life. As such, tolerance is an expression or proposal, claiming that wars between people are an image of
a product of a particular culture and a part of a particular wars portrayed in a mythical world of struggling gods and
value system [4; P. 18]. Such understanding of tolerance drawing attention to the human sacrifice, cast system, slavery,
points to its meaning and limits, where the meaning can be etc. [8; P. 174]. In this regard, St. Athanasius said that
inferred from these limits. Tolerance, in fact, is a Christianity brought peace to the nations in so far as it had
demarcation of limits, seeking a point where something is never been heard of [9; P. 62]. Ratzinger then refers to “the
still acceptable. When speaking of tolerance being a part of Mosaic distinction” as being identical with “Socratic
the value system, we can derive its meaning only “with distinction” [10; P. 177]. With respect to Assmann,
respect to persons and their autonomy and not the fact Ratzinger claims that rejection of monotheism in the name of
whether it is favourable or utilitarian” [5; P. 6]. multicultural tolerance leads to irrationality. Referring to
Patristic thinkers, however, it is evident that “the deity, to
A primordial image demarcating limits of tolerance is whom reason is the closest, is identical with God known
described in the Book of Genesis in a story of Abram and
from Revelation” [10; P. 178].
Lot. Their herdsmen quarrelled because the land did not
suffice both tribes. Abram then said to Lot: “Let there be no A difficult term “Yahweh” derives from a Hebrew root
strife between you and me, and between your herdsmen and word Haja - being. This designation of God is supplemented
my herdsmen, for we are kinsmen. Is not the whole land by an explanation that the God in question is the God
before you? Separate yourself from me. If you take the left worshiped by the forefathers of Israel by the name of El and
hand, then I will go to the right, or if you take the right hand, Elohim. Using this name the patriarchs of Israel were thus
I will go to the left! ... Thus, they separated from each other. able connect to El-religion of the surrounding peoples. Their
Abram settled in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled God has the attributes of being personal God (Numen
among the cities of the Jordan valley and moved his tents as Personale) and not local God (Numen Locale) [11; P. 63-78].
far as Sodom” [6]. God is a person and not general mathematics of the universe.
God is not stranded somewhere in the world as his own ghost.
Work and activities of Joseph Ratzinger – Benedikt XVI He is not some vague harmony of nature or unnameable
is filled with a whole array of incentives to ponder the «infinity». He is a Creator of nature, an initiator of harmony.
content of tolerance. Ratzinger as a theologian, the Pope and
He lives, he is the Lord [11; P. 80-81]. Ratzinger criticises
a representative of a community creating values, has always the way God – Logos is being speculated on in German
been taking a stand on what other people, both Catholics and idealism, especially by George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
the people whose values more or less differ from those of the
(1770 – 1831) and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling
Catholics, do and think. Thought–provoking were his various (1775 – 1854). From the Christian perspective, it is a false
ecumenical activities and demonstrations of tolerance concept of God, Ratzinger objects, because they no longer
towards people with different views, oftentimes from a non-
distinguish this process of the historical self-revelation of
Christian environment. God from a God quietly resting in himself, beyond history;
history is a development of God and thus Logos is identified
III. SYNTHESIS OF REASON AND FAITH as a historical process. For Ratzinger, a philosophical
Universalism of Christianity with its claims to the truth purpose to fully comprehend the logic of the Logos leads us
and morality is closely connected to the conviction that back to mythology of history, to the myth of God who brings
Christianity is a synthesis of reason and faith. The truth himself to birth historically. The attempt at total logic ends in
claim is on the very ground of Christian missionary service illogicality, in the self-dissolution of logic into myth and is
addressed to all people. At the same time, it is seen as a completed in realization of various inhumane utopias [11; P.
source of hostility and accusation of intolerance coming from 158].
the non-Christian world as if the Decalogue was a hindrance The religious experience of people in holy places does
to tolerance [7; P. 26]. Contemplating this objection, not mean that God is bound to one place only, for He is a
Ratzinger turns to his colleague Jan Assmann, a German God of the people: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This God is
Egyptologist, who claimed that the monotheism of Moses not bound to any place, he is present everywhere. Here we
entering into the polytheistic world started a distinction see God from the perspective I and You and not from the
between true and false in religious faith and hence opened a perspective of space. This fundamental attribute of God – El
question of idolatry and a question of worshiping the right remained as a principal pillar in a faith of the New Testament.
deity [8; P. 174]. Until that very moment, Assmann The forefathers did not just chose any power, but they chose
maintains, religion distinguished only between the pure and the one being above everything. The highest God is the
impure, and between the sacrum and profanum so there was highest Power. This God is the Promised God. He is not a
no place for false gods that people were not allowed to natural force in which the power of nature is exposed. This
worship. Gods in polytheistic religions had their roles and God gives final meaning and purpose. He is a God of hope
could complement each other. Assmann proposes that the for the future; He shows direction [11; P. 63-78]. The fact
religion thinking should “return back to Egypt” where that faith failed to make people better in their principles of
religion played a role of a mediator between cultures. The thinking about nothing else but their efforts to please God
gods would be international and of a cosmic character.

679
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 40

and strive for perfection, shows that faith is exposed to a threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a
very fragile freedom. It is in fact a God’s risk that is, indeed, strong arm or weapons of any kind, or any other means of
very hard to comprehend. threatening a person with death…” [13].
The biblical concept of God distinguishes two elements. The foundation for this argument against violent
On one hand, it is an element of something personal, conversations is this: not to act in accordance with reason, is
something intimate that one can worship. It was that element contrary to God’s nature. This argumentation was natural for
to which the fathers turned to when choosing and deciding an emperor raised in tune with Greek philosophy. Benedict
their faith. On the other hand, one should not forget the fact XVI stresses that “essential decisions concerning the relation
that this closeness and accessibility is a free gift of the One between faith and reason are part of the faith itself. They are
who is beyond the space and time. Although He is not bound a part of development keeping with the nature of the faith”
by anything, he bounds everything in Him. [13]. For Muslim doctrine, God is absolutely transcendent
and that is why some of the Muslim thinkers go as far as to
The element of time extending beyond power is a
state that God is not bound with rationality, God is not bound
recognition sign of this God. Israel utilised the second even by his own word and that nothing would oblige him to
element in their efforts to convey to the other nations what reveal the truth to us.
was peculiar and different in their faith. Israel placed God of
heaven against the particular gods and showed that their God Human perception of God and the application of such
is not a national God of Israel but God of all. A fusion of perception to a religious practice raise a following question:
these two elements is a paradox of Biblical faith in God [11; could the belief that to act contrary to reason, contradicts the
P. 70-78]. nature of God be applied generally, or is it just the idea
applicable to ancient Greece? Here we can see a profound
Christian ideas appealed to more and more people and agreement between the Greek thinking and faith in God on
spread to new territories. The surrounding world, however,
Biblical basis. Evangelist and Apostle John started the
was crowded with many gods and so it was necessary to Prologue to the Gospel with the opening line “In the
explain yet again who is that God worshiped by Christians. beginning was logos”, which means reason and a word.
The early Christians were asked about the God they Reason expresses itself in its own rational framework. J.
worshipped, but the early Church puts aside the ancient
Ratzinger – Benedict XVI draws from the historical and
religions as deception and craze because their gods did not cultural reality of one concrete religion having its own
equal to the Highest being that was not worshipped by the doctrine and an official interpretation. He considers Christian
ancient world, but of whom ancient philosophers spoke. The
faith and Western rationality to be two partners in quest to
early Church justified their faith: “When speaking of God we answer questions emerging from the transcendence of man.
do not worship and think of any of the gods, but we think of Having said that, to satisfy one’s needs does not suffice man,
the being itself that philosophers refer to as an essence of all
since he desires something that is far greater. It requires the
being, as God above all powers – this is our God” [11; P. 79- correlation of religion and reason, as the supervisory
80]. This declaration meant a decision for Logos, to choose authority of critical reason is summoned to reveal the
the right path against all myths. Man chooses right when he
pathology of faith (religious fundamentalism), and faith, on
accepts God as God and lives his life honouring God. But he the other hand, is supposed to help Christians in their
is led astray towards the perversity of his own being when prophetic mission to convict the restricted reason of being
worshiping something that is not God; when man creates his irrational, for instance looking at absolute categories, such as
own gods it results in worshiping only himself. In such a
the right to life, through the lens of utilitarian profit. Reason
combination it is possible to dramatically unveil and confront and truth are summoned to the dialogue in order to get
various aspects of the human world [12; P. 180]. cleansed and revived.
In his memorable lecture in Regensburg on 12 September
2006, Benedict XVI mentioned a 14-century dialogue IV. TOLERANCE AND INTOLERANCE
between a Christian emperor and a Muslim scholar. The
Christian – Islamic dialogue was carried on in 1391 in the Ratzinger is aware of the significance attributed to the
winter barracks near Ankara during the war between the clash of religions and cultures. What should be considered
Byzantine Empire and the Turks. In such conditions, Manuel here is the tolerance with respect to the peace in the world as
II Paleologus and the Muslim scholar discussed topics such well as the identity of a Christian who cannot abandon
as “Who is God?”, whether it is God’s desire to wage wars knowledge and proclamation of God’s Word. It is also
and forcibly convert infidels, or whether violence and actions evident, that the manner in which cultural and value
conflicting reason conflict the God’s nature, too. The phenomena are exported cannot be imperial since it evokes
emperor explicitly asks to show him just what Mohamed the feeling of having one’s own identity threatened [14; P.
brought that was new and then elaborates further saying that 67]. Ratzinger maintains that the authentic dialogue defining
all you will find are evil and inhuman things, using an tolerance can only be carried out by a Christian who retains
example of spreading the faith by the sword. “God does not his own identity believing in Jesus Christ as the only Saviour.
take pleasure in blood and not acting reasonably (syn logo) is But it also means having respect for the belief of another
contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the person; with respect to the mystery of God we all strive to
body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability know. We should also be courageous enough to accept a
to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and criticism attacking our own belief [15; P. 180]. It follows that
tolerance is then a normatively dependent concept. This

680
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 40

means that by itself it cannot provide the substantive reasons representatives of secularism that excludes faith and religion
for objections, acceptance or rejection. It needs further, from the public space. He perceives faith as a phenomenon
independent normative sources providing a certain substance, which cannot be simply accepted, nor can it be denied. In his
content and limits in order to be regarded as something good lecture, he firmly rejected an opinion seeing a development
in itself. Therefore, tolerance can only be a value if backed of modernity as an advancement of secularization and
by the right normative reasons. withdrawal of religion.
In the era of globalization, the issue of tolerance and He claims that “the religious communities can naturally
intolerance of religious beliefs becomes existentially demand their position in life of modern society. They can
important yet again. The advancements and possibilities of influence the formation of a public opinion and will, and
science portray man as a being capable of everything he hence come up with suitable, convincing, as well as
desires. Cardinal Ratzinger uses an allegory of S. disputable initiatives…“ [16]. Habermas here expresses an
Kierkegaard’s clown. In the story, a circus director sends a idea similar to the thinking of Benedict XVI: “Listening to
clown, already dressed in the costume, to inform the visitors the great experience and findings of religious tradition of
about the fire and about the dangers of the fire being spread. mankind, especially the Christian faith, is for philosophy and
also for theology, in its own way, a source of knowledge. It
The clown tried in vain to get people out of the circus,
would be an unacceptable restriction to our listening and
but nobody believed him. People were laughing and the fire responding if we ignored it.” [13]. Benedict XVI also
spread from the circus to the village and caused great maintains: “In its very nature, the secular, “lay” character of
damage. Cardinal Ratzinger goes on to say that the
the state comprises a balance of reason and religion that I
theologians are in the similar position in today’s world [11; P. had tried to illustrate before. However, it takes a stand
12-14]. On one hand, man does not settle for what he sees, against secularism as an ideology wishing to build a state of
touches or hears and that is why he seeks a different way of
pure reason…” [17; P. 112]. Professor Habermas, who
accessing reality. On the other hand, however, he settles for himself is an unbeliever, recognizes importance of faith and
his own interpretation and rejects a dialogue as a path to creates a space for a rational dialogue which he regards as “a
knowledge. path, an ideal and a choice for individuals seeking
In January 2008, Benedict XVI was confronted with an sensibleness and trying to free themselves from the power
incomprehensible display of intolerance and rejection of structures and interests (…) “Everybody who desire free and
dialogue. He was invited by the rector of the La Sapienza open public discussion support Habermas’ call for a “free
University in Rome Renato Guarini, as well as by the dialogue” [18; P. 194].
members of the Academic Senate to deliver a speech –
Lectio Magistralis at the start of the academic year. In the V. CONCLUSION
end, the Pope cancelled his scheduled speech. Professor
emeritus Marcello Cini wrote an open letter addressed to the Free rational dialogue offers a space where one can reach
rector Guarini. 67 out of 4500 academics and further 700 out universally acceptable synthesis of reason and faith. The
of 150 thousand students sided with professor Cini [16]. Pope does not impose his opinion on everybody, he respects
western secular rationality, but at the same time he requests a
Despite many people showing their disapproval of this space for a free dialogue between such rationality and
initiative, the Pope decided not to attend the opening Christian faith [19; P. 62]. As a professor of Theology, he is
ceremony. Let us present two of the statements supporting aware of the fact that to believe means to trust in the
the Pope: “I expect the Pope to deliver a principal and strong invisible, something that we encounter in the very core of
message and I am certain that he will still be welcome at the our existence. That invisible is essential for our existence and
university,” said a professor of Genetics, Bruno Dallapiccola yet it is invisible [11; P. 16]. However, in the relativistic
for Vatican Radio. A Jewish professor of Mathematics circles, his principled conviction that the politics and science
Giorgio Israel also took a side of the Pope saying: “It is are inferior to moral criteria is perceived as an opinion being
surprising that those who chose Voltaire’s proposition “I referred to as politically incorrect fundamentalism.
disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death
your right to say it” as their motto, were against the Pope J. Ratzinger – Benedict XVI perceives tolerance as a
delivering his speech at the Rome university.“ It was the space for sincere, rational, free and pure demarcation of a
secularists urging the Pope and Christianity to be tolerant boundary of what is acceptable. This demarcation must be
(professors demanded cancellation of the Pope’s visit “in the hand in hand with love towards an opinion-holder whom we
name of secularity of science and culture and on the grounds cannot agree with. That boundary does not mean it is
of respect for our university which is open to teachers and hermetically sealed or separated. It should rather be
students of any faith and ideology…”) who behaved understood as an appeal to openness and cooperation with
intolerably and demanded absolute acceptance of secularism those behind the boundary of toleration that we set for
[16]. ourselves.

Jürgen Habermas, being some kind of personification of

the dialogue between the secular rationality and Christian REFERENCES
faith, took a diametrically different stand. In his lecture in
Rome, he strictly distinguished between the laicism and [1] Czarnecki, P.: Historia filozofii. – Warszawa: Difin, 2011.
secularism and he rejected tendencies of the secularists as

681
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 40

[2] Sivák, J.: O tolerantnosti vo svetle rozpravy o cnostiach. Filozofia

Vol. 65, 2010, No. 4, p. 336 – 342.
[3] Forst, R.: The Limits of Toleration”, Constellations 11:3, 2004, p.
312–325.
[4] Dupkala, R.: Idea tolerancie – jej pôvod, význam a limity
(Filozofické reflexie). In: Dupkala, R., Dudinská, I., Halčin, P. (eds.):
Idea tolerancie I. – Prešov: FF PU 2013, p. 11 – 25.
[5] Mendus, S.: Toleration and the Limits of Liberalism. – London:
Macmillan, 1989.
[6] Genesis, 13:1-18
[7] Stolárik, S.: Duch, sila a nádej kresťanstva. Humanum No. 5 (2) 2010,
p. 17 – 36.
[8] Assmann, J.: Moses der Ä gypter: Entzifferung einer Gedächtnisspur.
– München-Wien 1998.
[9] Athanasius of Alexandria: On The Incarnation. – Grand Rapids:
CCEL 2013.
[10] Ratzinger, J.: Wiara, prawda, tolerancja. Chrześcijaństwo a religie
świata. – Kielce: Jedność, 2004.
[11] Ratzinger, J.: Úvod do kresťanstva. – Brno: Petrov, 1991
[12] Králik, R. and Valc ̌ ová, K.: The contribution of Søren Kierkegaard
for the present times, in In search of meaning: current topics in
philosophy and religion, KUD Apokalipsa a CERI-SK, – Ljubljana,
2014, p. 61-74.
[13] Benedikt XVI.: Lecture at the University of Regensburg. http:
//tkkbs.sk/view.php?cisloclanku=20060912024 [Accessed 12. 10.
2016].
[14] Dudinská, I.: Tolerancia, intolerancia, etnocentrizmus. In: Dupkala,
R., Dudinská, I., Halčin, P. (eds.): Idea tolerancie I. – Prešov: FF PU
2013, p. 64 – 70.
[15] Ratzinger, J.: Granice dialogu. – Kraków 1999.
[16] Gazda, I.: Profesori kontra pápež: diktatúra okliešteného rozumu,
2008. http://www.impulzrevue.sk/article.php?277 [Accessed
12.10.2016].
[17] Ratzinger, J.: Európa. Jej základy v súčasnosti a v budúcnosti. –
Trnava: SSV, 2005.
[18] Matlary, J. H.: Ľudské práva ohrozené mocou a relativizmom. –
Prešov: VMV, 2007.
[19] Rembierz, M.: Rozum a wiara – postulaty nowego dialogu i nowe
kontrowersje. In: Rozum i wiara – intelektualne i duchowe
dziedzictwo Jana Kantego. – Kęty: Wydawnictwo naukowe,
Beskidski instytut nauk o człowieku“, 2010, p. 61 – 80.

682
View publication stats