AN EXPOSITION OF DIALECTICS OF SECULARIZATION
TOPIC:
AN EXPOSITION OF DIALECTICS OF SECULARIZATION
Outline
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 EMERGENCE OF THE DEBATE
2.1 The Principal Substance
2.2 The Profile of Joseph Cardinal
Ratzinger and Jurgen Habermas
3.0 JURGEN HABERMAS; PRE- POLITICAL
FOUNDATIONS OF THE DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONAL STATE?
3.1 The Justification Of The Secular
Constitutional State On The Basis Of The Source Of Practical Reason
3.2 How Is The Solidarity Of The Citizens
Of The State Reproduced?
3.3 When The Societal Bond Breaks
3.4
Excursus
3.5 Secularization As A Twofold And
Complementary Learning Process
3.6 How Should Believing And Unbelieving
Citizens Treat One Another?
4.0 JOSEPH RATZINGER- THAT WHICH HOLDS THE
WORLD TOGETHER
4.1 Power And Law
4.2 New Forms Of Power And New Questions
About How These Are To Be Measured
4.3 Presuppositions Of The Law;
Law-Nature-Reason
4.4 The Intercultural Dimension And Its
Consequences
5.0 EVALUATION
6.0 CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
Man, at the zenith of what seemed
like his most possible wonderment, the brilliant dawn of the age of reason, the
emancipating power of the enlightenment; made an unprecedented shift in the
state of affairs of virtually every domain of human endeavor. As a result, he
jilted religion, he absolutely relegated it to a contemptuous background, and
he mocked and scorned the faith and challenged it to the proverbial wrestling
contest. In other words, reason became the champion over religion and culture.
The sovereignty of the church and that of the prince was thwarted. Reason
became the definer of standard in the affairs of the state. The question this
may arouse within any thinking man is this: how can the common culture of
reason and organized freedom be attained in our ultra-luminous age? Is it the
case that the place of philosophy and its basic grounding in being and
anthropology has been destroyed? Does the enthronement of reason signal an
opportunity or a belligerent backlash on religion?[1]
Those are some of the pertinent questions
argued Jürgen Habermas and Joseph Ratzinger, the two great thinkers of our
time. It is obvious that these scholars who are authorities in their respective
specializations had clear views on the moral foundations of a free state. This
gave them the impetus to accept to speak on the controversial topic: “The
Pre-political Moral Foundations of a Free State.”
It
shall therefore by aim to examine clearly the debate between Habermas and
Ratzinger on the title “The Pre-political Moral Foundations of a Free State”.
We shall begin by giving a brief history about the emergence of the debate,
then discuss the opinions of the two great interlocutors, give an evaluation
and finally conclude.
EMERGENCE
OF THE DEBATE
How did this remarkable evening come
about? This debate, which has its title “The Pre-political Moral Foundations of
a Free State”, although staged in Germany, has a non-German influence. That is to say the history that led to it had
its origin outside of Germany. To begin with, in the 18th century,
during the dawn of the Enlightenment, Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758), exchanged
many letters (in form of a debate) with Voltaire, one of the key figures of the
Enlightenment and critic of the Church.
Again, because there have been an
increasing clarion call by believers and unbelievers in recent times for
philosophy and religion to bridge the ever growing gap between them, the
“immortals” of the Academie francaise has
been opening its doors for this much needed intimacy by welcoming into their
rank the then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in 1992; and three years later, the
Archbishop of Paris, Jean Marie Cardinal Lustiger was accorded the same
respect. In line with this development, a left-wing intellectual and political
periodical, Micro Mega, has in recent times shown much interest in matters of
philosophy and religion so much so that in the famous number 2/2000, it has the
following as its forward: “Philosophy is concerned more and more with religion
rather than with knowledge, and seeks to enter into a dialogue with religion.”[2]
Closely
following the above was the Peace prize acceptance speech of Habermas at
Frankfurt, three weeks after the September 11, 2001 event. He demanded that “
the secular society acquire a new understanding of religious convictions, which
is something more and something other than mere relics of a past with which we
are finished”[3];
thus, having a renewed interest in religion as an alternative supplier of
rationality.
Consequently,
have been properly schooled in the search for truth through the intellectual
and reflective exchange of arguments, the Catholic Academy of Bavaria grasped
the much needed opportunity by inviting these two great thinkers in their
respective field to talk to each other on the secular and religious
descriptions of realities using the topic; “The Pre-political Foundations a
Free State.”
The Principal Substance of the Debate.
While
Jurgen Habermas arrives from the sphere of the discipline of the ratio (reason) that is Philosophy,
Joseph Alois Ratzinger arrives from the horizon of the fides (faith), that is
religion to speak on the topic; “The Pre-political moral foundations of a free
state.”[4] By
way of extension, we mean to say that as interlocutors, the two men of intellectual
and scholastic repertoire argued about the “bases of a society worthy of men.”
Their argument agreed that state has its ethical foundation on a neutral
ground. This means that insofar as the existence of a state is concerned, it is
an offshoot of something; its moral foundations came from somewhere.[5]
THE
PROFILE OF JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER AND JURGEN HABERMAS
JOSEPH
CARDINAL RATZINGER
Ratzinger
was born at Marktl am Inn, Diocese of Passau (Germany) on April 16, 1927(Holy
Saturday) and was baptized that same day. His youthful years were marked with
harsh treatment from the Nazi regime, so much so that during the last months of
the war, he was enrolled in an auxiliary anti-craft corps.
From
1946-1952 he studied philosophy and Theology at the Higher School of Philosophy
and Theology of Freising and at the University of Munich. Ratzinger received
his Priestly ordination, and a year later began to teach at alma mater- Higher
School of Philosophy and Theology of Freising. In 1957, under the direction of
the renowned professor of foundational theology, Gottlieb Sohngem, he qualified
for university teaching with a dissertation on “The Theology of History in St.
Bonaventure”. From 1958 and 1959, he was professor of Dogmatic and fundamental
Theology at the Higher School of Freising; from 1959-1963, at Bonn; from
1963-1966, at Muster; from 1966-1969, at Turbingen; and at Regensburg from 1969
-1977 where he became the vice president of the University in 1976.
He made
a notable contribution from 1962- 1965 to Vatican II as “expert”, being present
as theological adviser of Joseph Cardinal Frings, Archbishop of Cologne. On
March 25, 1977, he was appointed Archbishop of Munich and Freising, and was
made a Cardinal on 27 June, 1977 by Pope Paul IV. Pope John Paul II named him
Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and President of the
Pontifical Biblical Commission and of the International Theological Commission
on 5th November, 1981.
HABERMAS
He was born in 1929 in Dusseldorf.
It is, known that numerous articles are always written on the day of his
birthday one of which reflected once more the consequences of that encounter
with Ratzinger on the debate about the foundations of our secular Western
society. Habermas is one of the most
influential philosophers of the modern age, he has held several debates with
persons who are also great thinkers such as: Gadamer and Putnam, Foucault and
Rawls, Derrida and Brandom.[6]
Habermas is also known for his conceptual foundations of Western modernity in
which hard questions emerged about the predominant modern understandings of
reason, subjectivity, nature, progress, and gender. He came of age in postwar
Germany with the Nuremberg Trials that exposed to him the depth of Germany’s
high moral and political decadence under National Socialism.
In 1947 the work of his fellow
scholars Teodor Adorno and Max Horkhemier on “Dialectic of Enlightenment”,
developing the claim that the systematic pursuit of enlightened reason and
freedom, had the Ironic long-term effect of engendering how forms of
irrationality and repression. In 1954 at the University of Bonn, Habermas
completed his dissertation writing on the conflict between the absolute and
history in schellings thought. His first public recognition in the world of the
academia was with his 1962 publication of Strukturwandel der Offentlichkeit
(Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere; English ed.., 1989).
Jurgen Habermas emerged as the
most prominent member of the Frankfurt School in the postwar decades. He tried
to open critical theory of developments in analytic philosophy and linguistic
analysis, Structuralism, and hermeneutics.[7]
To the
dialogue on the following subject: ‘the Pre-political Moral Foundations of a
Free State,’ He begins by claiming to be a political liberalist which is a
non-religious and post metaphysic[8]
justification of the normative bases of the democratic constitutional state,
that is, a theory that is in the tradition of rational law that renounces the
strong cosmological assumptions of the classical and religious theories of the
natural law.
Jurgen Habermas’ position was
organized in sections the first two of these were somewhat repetitive, in the
sense that they reiterated many of the philosopher’s older and well know
positions. Habermas declares himself a descendent of Kantian republicanism.[9] From the very beginning, Habermas admits the
legitimacy of the question as to whether the secularized and rights-founded
state is not nourished from normative premises that are alien to its own nature
and antedate it. This would raise some doubts as to the ability of the
constitutional democratic state to renew its existential foundations from its
own resources, rather than from philosophical and religious, or at least from a
general ethical communal prior undergirding.[10]
The Justification of the Secular
Constitutional State On The Basis Of the Sources Of Practical Reason.
On this point he states that the
constitution of the liberal state finds a self-satisfying legitimation out of
the cognitive funds of an argumentation budget that is independent of religious
and metaphysical traditions. Political liberalism understands itself as a
nonreligious and post-metaphysical justification of the normative bases of the
democratic constitutional state. This theory is in the tradition of a rational
law that renounces the strong cosmological or salvation-historical assumptions
of the classical and religious theories of the natural law.[11] Here the renouncing of natural law is the
renouncing of natural law of Aquinas that presupposes Divine Law. Habermas’
argument here is that constitutional self-government in a legal state can be
exclusively motivated by and founded on rational and consensual judgments of
freely participating citizens and voters, or at least upon those of majorities.
How is the Solidarity of the Citizens of
the State reproduced?
The obedience due to coercive laws
concerning people’s freedom is one thing; the motivations and attitudes
expected of citizens in their role as democratic legislators are something
else.[12] Citizens are expected to make active use of
their rights to communication and to participation,, not only in what they
rightly take to be their own interests, but also with an orientation to the
common good. This demands a more costly commitment and motivation, and these
cannot simply be imposed by law. In the light of this may religion be
consulted? For Habermas this does not mean that the liberal state is incapable
of reproducing its own motivational presuppositions on the basis of its own
secular elements. In fact, citizens are in motivated by ethical programs of
living and by cultural ways of life to take part in the political processes
whereby an opinion and a common will are formed.[13]
When the Societal bond breaks
Up to this point, our reflections
have shown that the secular nature of the democratic constitutional state
displays no internal weakness inherent in the political system as such that
would pose a cognitive or motivational threat to the process of
self-stabilization.[14]
That having considered how practical reasoning, unaccompanied by religion and
the solidarity of the citizens can constitute the emergence of a state and its
constitution, it is less liable to suffer division or political instability.
However still Habermas still sees a chance where instability and disorder can
creep into a constituted state of sola ratio. So he writes, ‘if modernization
of society as a whole went off the rails, it could well slacken the democratic
bond and exhaust the kind of solidarity that the democratic state needs but
cannot impose by law.’[15] This would lead to the transformation of the
citizens of prosperous and peaceful liberal societies into isolated monads
action on the basis of their own self-interest. Does the collapsing of
Habermas’ society this argument now recognize the influence of religion in a
constituted society? Still not for Habermas; for him, postmodern theories
understand these crises in a manner critical of reason that is not as the
consequence of a selective exhaustion of the rational potential that was born
in the west in the modern period, but as the logical outcome of the program of
a self-destructive intellectual and societal rationalization. He writes:
I do
not wish to speak of the phenomenon of the continued existence of religion in a
largely secularized environment simply as a societal fact; philosophy must take
this phenomenon seriously from within, so to speak, as a cognitive challenge.[16]
Secularization
as a twofold and complementary learning process
But we
don’t have the full picture yet of Habermas’s view. He advances what he calls a
dialogical approach to the relation between theology and philosophy, revelation
and reason. He distinguishes this approach from not only the Hegelian or Marxist
approach that intends to subsume the substantial truth of faith into philosophy
but also the rationalistic one denying “religion any rational content.
Post-metaphysical philosophy does not presume “to decide what is true or false
in religion,” but rather it “leaves the internal questions of the validity of
religion to disputes within rational apologetics. Habermas says, “Faith remains
opaque for [philosophical] knowledge in a way which may neither be denied nor
simply accepted. This reflects the inconclusive nature of the confrontation
between self-critical reason which is willing to learn and contemporary
religious convictions. This confrontation can sharpen post-secular society’s
awareness of the unexhausted force of religious traditions. Secularization
functions less as a filter separating out the contents of traditions than as a
transformer which redirects the flow of tradition.”28 So, Habermas holds that a
dialogical approach in philosophy to religious traditions is “open to learning
from them.” This approach aims “to salvage cognitive contents from religious
traditions. All semantic contents count as ‘cognitive’,” he adds, if they “can
be translated into a form of discourse decoupled from the ratcheting effect of
truth of revelation.
JOSEPH RATZINGER
That which holds the world Together-
Pre-Political Moral Foundations of a Free State
For Joseph Ratzinger, the twin
factors of inter-dependence of political, economic and cultural powers and the
development of the human capacity and possibilities of destruction and creation
due to the advancement in technology lies at the foundation of the rapid
developmental process of today. Since this interdependence poses the question
of ethical and legal control of power, he stresses the need for different cultures
to work at building a common structure that will help tame power and impose a
legally responsible order on its exercise. Also, the question of what the good
is and why one must do good especially when it entails harm continues
unanswered and while science has its many benefits in our world and lives, it
cannot bring about the kind of ‘world ethos’
which Hans Kung speaks of. Ratzinger therefore advocates that philosophy must
guide science since science can only show a fraction of our existence. [17]
Power and Law
According to Ratzinger, the
application of the criterion of the law to power to ensure that the strength of
the law always holds sway and to avoid violence which may be propelled by
lawless powers which opposes laws is the proper task of politics. He therefore
maintains that for any society to experience freedom in common and avoid
arbitrariness, it must overcome suspicions of its laws and regulations.
According to Aquinas, law is an
ordinance of reason,[18]
but what is the genesis of law and if it must be a vehicle of justice, what
must it entail? If Justice is the virtue which observes the rights of all,[19]
how can our laws be made to promote this rather than for the few in power. He
adds that though the democratic system of government at first sight seemed to
have resolved the problem of the law being an instrument of the powerful, since
all collaborate in the making of laws, it still falls short. This is because
total consensus is always hard to find and so it ultimately falls on delegated
people or the majority and since these can make laws to oppress the minority,
we still cannot be sure of justice on the basis of democracy.
Moreover, John Stuart Mill says
“that if all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more
justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be
justified in silencing mankind.”[20] A fundamental question then arises as to
whether there exists a primal thing antecedent to every majority decision which
must be respected by all other decisions,[21]
since obviously all quest for lasting answers to issues relating to right law
and justice which has also been attempted by many in the modern period even in
the religious spheres has proved futile; some even now ask whether ‘human
rights’ is a western invention and whether it must even be given this much
attention.
New
forms of Power and New Questions about how these are to be mastered
The phenomenon of power itself and
the challenges that has emerged from new forms of power especially in the last
fifty years was Ratzinger’s next point of discussion. Firstly, he mentions the
seemingly sudden realization that dawned on man with the start of the second
world that he could destroy himself and his planet. We then seek answers as to
whether there exists a proper political mechanism, how such can be discovered
and how effective such a mechanism will be to prevent such destructions?
However, the mutual limitation of power and fear for one’s life has to some
extent proved powerful enough to save the world.
Recent fear however is heightened
more by the presence of mass weapons which are used criminally for unleashing
chaos in the cosmos, activities which are independent of political structures.
With such happenings in which terror even offers moral legislation for its
actions, new questions arise; How can we succeed in eliminating from within
this new chaos brought by man? Osama Bin Laden and his activities is a
practical example of this. He portrayed terror as the only response that the
oppressed of our societies could offer to their mighty, arrogant and powerful
oppressors and for those oppressed under social and political situations, this
method seemed most persuasive and probably the only way. He adds that, “In part,
terrorists actions are portrayed as the defense of religious traditions against
the godlessness of western society.”[22] Religious fanatism then has become one of the
sources of terrorism and if so, can religion be a healing and saving force for
our world? Or is it an old and dangerous means which will ultimately leads to
intolerance. If the answer is the latter, then reason must certainly guide
religion. Moreover, the gradual abolishment of religion will be a true path to
freedom and tolerance. However, reason cannot be said to be the alternative way
out. Reason has turned man into his own products; he is able to make other
human beings in test tubes, and this he says an entire alteration of man’s
relation to his own self, also these deadly atomic bombs are the handiwork of
reason, a minute part of its destructive mechanisms.
Thomas Aquinas says “It is proper to
justice, as compared with the other virtues, to direct man in his relations
with other: because it denotes a kind of equality, as its very name implies.”[23] If this is to be achieved however, with true
respect for each person’s dignity and rights, Ratzinger suggest that the safer
path is for reason and religion to check each other to show each other’s
limits; this, he calls a positive path.
Presupposition of the law: law- nature- reason
Ancient
Greece philosophy began with wonder on cosmology and pure reasoning was the
ultimate means to arrive at a conclusion.
Thus whatever is reasoned out becomes a universal law. This period also
experience some enlightenment of which a divinely law becomes necessary. That
is the medieval era which tries to balance this secular application of sole
reason with faith; that is faith and reason.
Closer to our own times, we have the
first double rupture of the European consciousness that occurred at the
beginning of the modern period and made necessary a fundamental reflection on
both the content and the source of law.
The second rupture took place within Christianity itself through the
division of faith that led to disintegration of the on fellowship of Christians
into a number of distinct fellowships. It was necessary to elaborate a law at
least a legal law antecedent of dogma; the source of this law no longer lies in
faith but in natural law and human reason. This natural law has also remained
in the church the key issue of dialogue between the church and the secular
society. The idea of natural law presupposed a concept of nature and reason
overlap, since nature itself is rational. But the secular question is
interested, concerned on the specifically human tasks that the reason of man
has created and that cannot be resolved without reason. However, for Christian
this dialogue with the secular society is the rupture of the creator and the
creature.
The intercultural dimension and its
consequences.
The intercultural dimension seems to be
absolutely essential in our discussion. Such a discussion cannot be carried on
exclusively either within the Christian realm or within the western rational tradition
(secular society). Both entities regard themselves to be universal and they
perform the universal de facto. However they obliged to acknowledge they
accepted only in one part man-kind, that which is comprehensible only in
mankind
The most important point is that,
there no longer exists any uniformity within the individual cultural sphere;
that is there is tension between this two western sphere or power. The secular
society or culture is largely dominated by strict rationality. For, Jurgen
Hebermas, rationality as the element that binds people together. This tension
to this pole varies; sometimes they seem to agree to learn from each other’s,
other times they disagree. At present,
no rational, ethical or religious formula that would embrace and unite all
persons exist; a much reason why Ratzinger rejected Hans Kung’s world ethos as
an abstraction. But all hope is not lost, if the western cultures include the
other cultures to from a polyphonic relatedness, in which they are receptive to
the common unitary aspects of reason and faith, a universal process of
purification can then proceed so, that which holds the world together can renew
its effective force in man.
EVALUATION
The concept of secularization
continues to be used, often to explain the religion-and-society relationship.
Because it refers to such crucially important issues, some say that
secularization spells the slow death of religion. It is vital that constant
attention is paid to the development of the concept in the light of
contemporary social and philosophical transformations and current research. The
idea of secularization developed in the modern world as cultural critics and
social scientists attempted to analyze the complex changes which led to the
urban and industrial societies we know today.
Following the strong wave of
circularization in the contemporary times therefore, a lecture was organised
deliberate of this topic. In this paper, we focused on the Habermas and
Ratzinger debate in Munich, at the invitation of the Catholic Academy of
Bavaria, on January 19, 2004.[24] The then Joseph Ratzinger,
Cardinal-theologian, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith,
and now Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, and Jurgen Habermas, who for decades has
been a leading figure in German and Continental philosophy as a whole addressed
the question regarding the pre-political normative presuppositions of the
democratic constitutional state and whether or not it can justify those
presuppositions without appealing to religious or metaphysical foundations.
This debate came as a result of an increasing clarion call by believers and
unbelievers in recent times for philosophy and religion to bridge the ever
growing gap between these great disciplines. During the lecture, Joseph
Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, posed this provoking
question to his audience: Is religion “an archaic and dangerous force that
builds up false universalisms, thereby leading to intolerance and acts of
terrorism”?[25] The bulk of this debate geared towards the
relationship between faith and reason because that understanding shapes their
reflections on secularization and the role of religion and reason in a
post-secular society (post modernity or contemporary society), meaning thereby
a pluralist society.
Corresponding to the epistemological
distinction between faith and reason are the lines of demarcation between the
disciplines of theology and philosophy. Theology, which presupposes the truth
of the Christian faith, is the disciplined exploration of the content of
revelation; it is faith seeking understanding of that truth-content received
from revelation, with the aim of understanding the truths of revelation in
their inner coherence, intelligibility, and justification. Philosophical
knowledge, in contrast, remains within the bounds of unaided reason, that is,
independent of the truths of revelation, aiming at the kind of knowledge that
reason as such can gain by itself.[26] Furthermore, a question was raised by
Ratzinger thus: “Can philosophy and theology (and hence faith and reason) still
enter into any kind of mutual relationship at the level of methodology?”[27] The attempts made by Habermas in answering
the above question will be discussed below.
In his response on the topic of
religion, Habermas assumed a nuanced position that continues to develop. First,
he treated religion from a sociological point of view, as an archaic mode of
social integration. In considering the role of religion in politics and the
relationship between religious and philosophical modes of discourse, Habermas
writes: “indispensable potentials for meaning are preserved in religious
language” – potentials that, at least so far, have not been fully reduced to
philosophical and secular reason. He surprised the audience by daring to state
during the debate that Western philosophy owes much to its Christian heritage.
Habermas further demanded that “the secular society acquire a new understanding
of religious convictions, which are something more than mere relics of a past
with which we are finished”[28] thus, having a renewed interest in religion
as an alternative supplier of rationality.
It is important to conclude this
evaluation by acknowledging that while Habermas arrives at the debate from the
sphere of the discipline of ratio (reason) or philosophy, Ratzinger arrives
from the horizon of the fides (faith) or religion to speak on the topic “The
Pre-political moral foundations of a free state.”[29] The two men of intellectual and scholastic
repertoire argued about the bases of a society worthy of men.[30] Their argument reached a point of agreement
that no state has its ethical foundation on a neutral ground. This means that
the existence of a state is an offshoot of something; thus, its moral
foundation emanates from somewhere. For Habermas, he assumes that the practical
force behind this is “the practical reason of a post metaphysical, secular
thinking.[31]
Ratzinger on the other hand holds that every decision to be taken by a society
is based on a reality that exists prior to it; a reality which is by its nature
a Being qua Being. He concludes that since man who takes those decisions is a
creature, it then follows that he receives his life from a creator. This
creator thus becomes “That which holds the world together.[32]
CONCLUSION
What would have made these scholars
wished to meet and exchange ideas? What would have prompted them to accept to
speak on the chosen topic? These and similar questions would have been provoked
through the course of this presentation. However, no particular answer could be
given to such questions, worthy of note is that both speakers, prior to the
debate, had been interested in the chosen area of the debate (the subject
matter).
For Habermas, it is seemingly viewed as a
natural development in his renewed interest in religion; shown in the
reflection of his paper “Glauben and Wissen” (Faith and Reason) delivered in
Frankfurt in 2001. There, he explored the relationship between religion and
philosophy and their modes of discourse. At the end he came to the knowledge
that in religious language, indispensable potentials for meaning are ever and
forever preserved. Thus this debate was yet another ample avenue to advance
further his ever growing insights in the religious descriptions of realities,
in his “post-secular society”.[33]
On the part of Ratzinger, seeing the
importance of meeting with Habermas, given the topic that was to be discussed;
the relationship between faith and reason and the foundational values for
society. Thus, we can say that faith and reason are necessary necessities which
harmonize science, morality and art. This is the case because some issues of
faith needs the clarification of reason and for reason to attain its
perfection, faith is needed.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hent De Vries and Lawrence E. Sullivan.
Political Theologies, Public Religions in a Post-Secular World. New York:
Fordham University Press, 2006.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, “Faith, Philosophy
and Theology,” in The Nature and Mission of Theology, Translated by Adrian
Walker San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995.
Jurgen Habermas and Joseph Ratzinger, The
Dialectics of Secularization, On Reason and Religion. Translated by Brian
McNeil, C.R.V., Edited with a Foreword by Florian Schuller, San Francisco:
Ignatius Press, 2006.
Jurgen Habermas and Joseph Ratzinger,
Dialektik der Sakularisierung, Ignatius Press,San Francisco,2006.
Katholische Akademie. The Church and the
Secular Establishment. San Francisco, Igantiius Press. 2006.
Paul J. Glenn, A Tour of the Summa of St.
Thomas Aquinas, Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers Inc., 1978.
Samuel Enoch Stumpf, Philosophy, History
and Problems, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1971.
The Cambridge Companion to Habermas Ed,
by: Stephenk k. white, Cambridge University press, 1995.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae,
Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province Benziger Bros. edition,
1947.
Virgil Nemoianu. The Church and the
Secular Establishment; A philosophical dialog between Joseph Ratzinger and
Jurgen Habermas. Bayern, Katholishce Akademie, 2004.
http;//www.katholische-akademie-bayern.de/
zur dabatte
[1]Cf. Hent De Vries and
Lawrence E. Sullivan. Political
Theologies, Public Religions in a Post-Secular World. (New
York:
Fordham University Press, 2006).
[2]Cf. Jurgen Habermas and
Ratzinger Joseph, The Dialectics of
Secularization: On Reason and Religion (San Francisco: Ignatious Press,
2006), p. 9.
[3] Jurgen Habermas and
Ratzinger Joseph, The Dialectics of
Secularization: On Reason and Religion, p. 11.
[4] Jurgen Habermas and
Ratzinger Joseph, The Dialectics of
Secularization: On Reason and Religion, p. 15.
[5] Jurgen Habermas and
Ratzinger Joseph, The Dialectics of Secularization: On Reason and Religion, p.
15.
[6]Cf. Jurgen Habermas and
Joseph Ratzinger, Dialektik der Sakularisierung (Ignatius Press,San
Francisco,2006).pp. 717.
[7]Cf. The Cambridge
Companion to Habermas Ed, by: Stephenk k. white,( Cambridge University press,
1995).pp. 5-10
[8]Cf. The fundamental
insight of a post-metaphysical approach is that we start from ‘within.’ There
is no way to circumvent our own way of life or form of life.
[9]Cf. Virgil Nemoianu. The Church and the Secular Establishment;
A philosophical dialog between Joseph Ratzinger and Jurgen Habermas. Bayern,
Katholishce Akademie. 2004 pg 24
[10]Cf. http;//www.katholische-akademie-bayern.de/
zur dabatte
[11] Katholische Akademie. The Church and the Secular Establishment.
San Francisco, Igantiius Press. 2006. Pg 24
[12]Cf. Katholische
Akademie. The Church and the Secular
Establishment, P. 30
[13]Cf. Katholische
Akademie. The Church and the Secular
Establishment, P. 31
[14]Cf. Katholische
Akademie. The Church and the Secular
Establishment, P. 31
[15]Cf. Katholische
Akademie. The Church and the Secular
Establishment, p. 35
[16]Cf. Katholische Akademie. The Church and the Secular Establishment, P. 38
[17] Cf. Jurgen Habermas and
Joseph Ratzinger, The Dialectics of
Secularization: On Reason and Religion, p. 55-56
[18] Cf. Paul J. Glenn, A Tour of the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas, (Rockford: Tan Books and
Publishers Inc., 1978), p.166
[19] Cf. Paul J. Glenn, A Tour of the Summa Of St. Thomas Aquinas,p.222
[20] Samuel Enoch Stumpf,
Philosophy, History and Problems, (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1971), p. 834.
[21] Cf. Jurgen Habermas and
Joseph Ratzinger, The Dialectics of
Secularization: On Reason and Religion, p. 60.
[22]Cf. Jurgen Habermas and
Joseph Ratzinger, The Dialectics of
Secularization: On Reason and Religion, p. 64
[23]Cf. Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Translated
by Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Benziger Bros. edition, 1947),
II-II q. 57, a. 1
[24]Cf. Jurgen Habermas and
Joseph Ratzinger, The Dialectics of
Secularization, On Reason and Religion. Translated by Brian McNeil, C.R.V.,
Edited with a Foreword by Florian Schuller, San Francisco: Ignatius Press,
2006.
[25]Cf. Jurgen Habermas and
Joseph Ratzinger, The Dialectics of
Secularization, On Reason and Religion.
[26]Cf. Hent De Vries and Lawrence E. Sullivan. Political Theologies, Public Religions in a
Post-Secular World. (New York: Fordham University Press, 2006).
[27]Cf. Joseph Cardinal
Ratzinger, “Faith, Philosophy and
Theology,” in The Nature and Mission of Theology, Translated by Adrian
Walker (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995), 13-29.
[28]Cf. Jurgen Habermas and
Joseph Ratzinger. The Dialectics of
Secularization, On Reason and Religion, p. 11.
[29]Cf. Jurgen Habermas and
Joseph Ratzinger, The Dialectics of
Secularization, On Reason and Religion. p. 15.
[30]Cf. Jurgen Habermas and Joseph Ratzinger, The Dialectics of Secularization, On Reason
and Religion. p. 15.
[31]Cf. Jurgen Habermas and
Joseph Ratzinger, The Dialectics of
Secularization, On Reason and Religion. p. 15.
[32]Cf. The expression “That
which holds the World Together”, was the title given by Ratzinger to the paper
he presented during the debate with Habermas
[33] Cf. Jurgen Habermas and
Joseph Ratzinger, The Dialectics of
Secularization: On Reason and Religion, p. 47
Comments
Post a Comment