Five years ago today (one day after 9/11’s fifth anniversary), a soft-spoken, 79-year-old former professor visiting his old university in Germany delivered a speech to a group of academics. In 30 minutes, it was all over. forty-eight hours later, the world exploded.
To say that Benedict XVI’s Regensburg lecture was one of this century’s pivotal speeches is probably an understatement. It’s not every day a half-hour lecture generates mass protests and is subject to hundreds of learned (and not-so-learned) analyses for weeks on end.
In retrospect, however, we can see Regensburg taught us many things. Leaving aside the response of parts of the Middle East, reactions elsewhere underscored most Western intellectuals’ sheer ineptness when writing about religion. One well-known American Jesuit, for instance, opined that Regensburg illustrated how Benedict hadn’t yet transitioned from being a theologian to pope — as if popes should only deliver the type of banal poll-tested addresses we expect from most politicians.
More seriously, Regensburg shattered the inconsequential niceties that had hitherto typified most Catholic-Muslim discussions. Instead of producing more happy-talk, Benedict indicated that such conversations could no longer avoid more substantial, more difficult questions: most notably, how Christianity and Islam understand God’s nature. Regensburg reminded us that it matters whether God is essentially Logos (Divine Reason) or Voluntas (Pure Will). The first understanding facilitates civilizational development, true freedom, and a complete understanding of reason. The second sows the seeds of decline, oppression, and unreason.
But perhaps above all, Regensburg asked the West to look itself in the mirror and consider whether some of its inner demons reflected the fact that it, like the Islamic world, was undergoing an inner crisis: one which was reducing Christian faith to subjective opinion, natural reason to the merely measurable, and love to sentimental humanitarianism. The West, Benedict suggested, was in the process of a closing of its own mind.
For, in Benedict’s view, it’s precisely the Christian understanding of God as Logos that opens our minds to their full potential. And this theme was powerfully developed by Benedict exactly two years after Regensburg in a lecture that completely escaped the commentariat’s notice. Apparently it’s only when you quote fourteenth-century Byzantine emperors that you get their attention.
Seated this time before France’s cultural elites in Paris, the Pope argued that quaerere Deum (the search for God) — and not just any god, but the God who incarnates Reason itself — was the indispensible element that allowed European culture to attain its heights of learning. The same God who gave man hope of eternal life was understood to be a thoroughly rational deity rather than a willful, capricious divinity. Thus astrology began giving way to astronomy, as humans accelerated their quest for truth, confident that humanity’s existence was not the work of mere chance or a master clock-maker, but rather was freely willed by a God who was simultaneously Veritas and Caritas.
Acceptance that there is truth beyond the quantifiable as well as the freedom to search for that truth must, Benedict then insisted, go hand-in-hand. Because once they’re separated, you end up with “on the one hand, subjective arbitrariness, and on the other, fundamentalist fanaticism.” Expounding the point before his Paris audience, Benedict explained:
Quaerere Deum — to seek God and to let oneself be found by him, that is today no less necessary than in former times. A purely positivistic culture which tried to drive the question concerning God into the subjective realm, as being unscientific, would be the capitulation of reason, the renunciation of its highest possibilities, and hence a disaster for humanity, with very grave consequences.
Some years ago, another theologian made a similar point, albeit more bluntly: “You cannot assume a rationality and then argue that there is no foundation to that rationality. Either God and rationality go or God and rationality stay. Either Nietzsche or Aquinas, that is our choice.”
And that, perhaps, will be Regensburg’s lasting significance. The lecture that infuriated so many highlighted the ultimate stakes involved in trying to make God disappear, or to regard God as one who regards us as base slaves and demands we do that which is contrary to reason.
No Logos, no rationality. Five years later, it’s still that simple — and challenging — for all of us.
— Samuel Gregg is research director at the Acton Institute. He has authored several books including On Ordered Liberty, The Commercial Society, Wilhelm Röpke’s Political Economy, and the forthcoming Becoming Europe: Economic Decline, Culture, and America’s Future.
"To say that Benedict XVI’s Regensburg lecture was one of this century’s pivotal speeches is probably an understatement."
To say that strikes me as probably an overstatement.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour response infers both a lack of comprehension, and a personal agenda.
To say this strikes me as probably an understatement.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMore probably a lack of interest.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne more reason that, even as a protestant, I love the Catholic Church. Benedict's understanding of the real impact of theology is mostly absent in the protestant church today. Many of our 'theologians' are too busy trying to be 'relevant' to realize that the truth is always relevant and that we truly stand on the shoulders of giants.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are protestants and there are conservative Christians.
An understanding of Conservative theology is important to those of us who maintain that God exists, and is not just a myth or a metaphor for humanistic rules of conduct.
"Relevance" is important to those occupying seats at the liberal seminaries, or using "religion" as a springboard for their personal agenda (think Sharpton or Jackson.) These people have no concept of a God, to whom we are all accountable.
Unfortunately, "protestantism" has pretty much evolved into the latter group.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgreed on all counts. May I suggest the work of Dr. Wayne Grudem. He is a serious, rigorous theologian.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have noticed a certain ineptness of late at NRO when it comes to writing about religion. Thanks for a very informed, intelligent, and spiritually sensitive treatment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt sounds to me like Benedict's lecture(s) were an answer to the "God of the spaces" argument.
Some materialists say, "Sure, you can keep God in those spaces between what is known through an empirical approach, but those spaces are getting smaller and smaller, and soon there will be no more room for God." Positivists, of course, deny there are any spaces at all because what is not understood through reason doesn't exist.
Benedict seems to be saying, "God is in the spaces, and also in what is known because God is Logos. And by the way, what is known is like a pinprick in the night sky compared to the immensity of what we don't know (the spaces). And God wants us to keep looking too, expanding that pinprick."
Clumsily said, and perhaps clumsily understood. But that's how I see it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo see the contrast between the Christian understanding of "Logos", and the mainstream Islamic understanding of "Voluntas" you cannot do much better than to read Robert Reilly's "The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis". I heartily recommend it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Gregg: Sometime after the Regensberg speech, I recall reading something about how the Vatican had been approached by a group of Muslim scholars and clerics to continue the conversation Benedict proposed.
But I've not seen anything more about that.
Do you have any information?
Because such a conversation, around the issues you highlighted from the Pope's speech, certainly would warrant describing it as one of the century's most pivotal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, the meetings did form. I think you can search NCRegister.com or perhaps Catholic News Service or Zenit for more.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Either God and rationality go or God and rationality stay. Either Nietzsche or Aquinas, that is our choice."
If that is really our choice - then we are in big trouble. I would hope there is an alternative to nihilism or a return to the middle ages. Ratzinger would certainly not accept this horrible dichotomy - and it is certainly a good thing to have a non-Thomist Pope.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom what I've heard, Benedict does not look first to Aquinas to guide his theologizing, but if you can produce anything from him that displays a simple-minded dismissal of the angelic doctor as "medieval", I'll pay you a thousand dollars. He, after all, is partial to Augustine, who I guess by your lights is even more benighted for being even more "outdated." And don't get me started on the Bible!
Thank God we here in America are up with the times! New and improved!
And yes, affirming the harmony of God and rationality - what a cramped, repressive view!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have nothing against Thomism per se - but suggesting Nietzsche or Aquinas as our only alternatives is just silly. Whatever the benefits of Thomistic metaphysics - it is not the only way of looking at the world (nor is it the only philosophical system that is complementary to a religious worldview.) It is not a question of being 'outdated' or not - the question oversimplifies. What about Bonaventure, Duns Scotus or Kierkegaard? Why is Aquinas the only option?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI also find it unnecessary to paint Nietzsche as the bad guy. As with all important thinkers - there is always something of value.
2 points:
1. Your 1st post decried going back to the middle ages. However you may have intended this, such talk is all too frequently just cant dismissal of anything before c 1500. You really should know this, and any such statement requires qualification, or else merits the objections it elicited.
2. If the question is "it matters whether God is essentially Logos (Divine Reason) or Voluntas (Pure Will). The first understanding facilitates civilizational development, true freedom, and a complete understanding of reason. The second sows the seeds of decline, oppression, and unreason", then there is a very good reason why Nietzsche is the "bad guy". He was, as fundamentally as anyone who ever wrote, a man who exalted the primacy of will over intellect. To a lesser degree, that does also apply to Kierkegaard and Duns Scotus.
If the question is the triumph of the will or of the intellect, then it does definitely matter very much whether we prefer St Thomas or Nietzsche.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"1. Your 1st post decried going back to the middle ages. However you may have intended this, such talk is all too frequently just cant dismissal of anything before c 1500. You really should know this, and any such statement requires qualification, or else merits the objections it elicited."
It is not Aquinas or Thomism I object to - but the idea that his philosophy represents the only alternative to a question we are confronted with today. (or that any one philosopher represents this answer) This is exactly what Ian Markham (the author that Gregg quotes) is implying. I am not even sure what it would mean to choose Aquinas over Nietzsche. The men philosophized in different times and were responding to the philosophical questions of their times. Nietzsche had the benefit of having read Kant, Descartes, etc. Aquinas obviously did not. I don't think you can consider either of these men outside of the whole tradition. That is why it doesn't make sense to choose either one of them - their work only has meaning within the context of the whole tradition."
"2. If the question is "it matters whether God is essentially Logos (Divine Reason) or Voluntas (Pure Will). The first understanding facilitates civilizational development, true freedom, and a complete understanding of reason. The second sows the seeds of decline, oppression, and unreason"
I don't see the benefit of establishing the primacy of one of what Aquinas considered the two fundamental faculties of our soul. Aquinas whole philosophy is about the development of the will - which he sees as fallen to a greater extent than the intellect. But does he see one to be a more essential attribute of God than the other? I am not sure - you may know better than me.
"then there is a very good reason why Nietzsche is the "bad guy". He was, as fundamentally as anyone who ever wrote, a man who exalted the primacy of will over intellect. To a lesser degree, that does also apply to Kierkegaard and Duns Scotus. "
I don't agree - the nice thing about philosophy is that you don't have to become a disciple of a thinker to see value in their work. Furthermore, the fantastic errors that philosophers make are often precisely what makes them so illuminating. Who else but Nietzsche would have gone to the extremes he went to in his writings on the will. You and I benefit from these writings - it even colors your understanding of previous philosophers like Aquinas. You don't have to choose him or follow him to see value in his philosophy. And there is MUCH of value in Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, etc.
"If the question is the triumph of the will or of the intellect, then it does definitely matter very much whether we prefer St Thomas or Nietzsche."
I don't like setting up the will against the intellect. It is like comparing the importance of having vision or having legs - they're both pretty vital. More importantly - I don't like the idea that we have to choose certain philosophers in exclusion to others.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is an overstatemnt in a world and a news media that totally ignores any kind of serious philosophical discussion, and considers the question of God and human to be a closed subject.
This is an excellent post by Mr. Gregg.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a wonderful post. Thank you so much for reminding us of the wise words of the Pope, and the profound connection between our understanding of reason and of religion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd like to echo some posters here and say thank you to Mr. Gregg and to NRO for this item. I hope that NRO will present many more such articles with intellectual depth in the near future.
Many years ago, National Review was rightly respected for its intellectual rigor. But that is a quality which has been sorely lacking in the last few years, and I hope Mr. Gregg's article signals the end of that trend.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...another theologian made a similar point..."
Come on, don't make me Google it! I found another site attributing the "Nietzsche or Aquinas" choice to Ian Markham. Why not cite him by name?
Great post overall though.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse