On the "Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum"

'Summorum Pontificum' also indicates for the whole Church some theological and disciplinary principles necessary for its renewal as intended by Vatican-II

Interview with Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacramental Discipline.

VATICAN CITY (Fides News Agency) - With the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI has enabled the celebration of the traditional Mass without necessarily requesting the permission of the local bishop.

After Vatican-II and in particular, with the consequent liturgical reform of 1970 promoted by Pope Paul VI, the old Missal was replaced by the Novus Ordo, and even if the old rite was never abolished, those who wished to use it had to get the local bishop's express permission. And were often denied.

But such a permission was sanctioned by another Motu Proprio - Ecclesia Dei afflicta issued by John Paul II on July 2, 1988. With Pope Benedict's Motu Proprio, such permission is no longer necessary and any 'stable group' can freely ask their parish priest for the celebration of the traditional Mass on a regular basis.

Fides agency directed some questions about the Motu Proprio to Mons. Ranjith.

Your Excellency, what do you think is the deepest significance of Summorum Pontificum?

I see in this not only the Holy Father's concern to open the way for a return to full communion with the Church of the followers of Mons. Lefebvre, but an idnication to the whole Church of some theological and disciplinary principles that must be preserved in order to carry out the profound renewal of the Church which was the great intention of Vatican-II.

I think the Pope strongly desires to correct the temptations evident in some circles who see the Council as a rupture with the past and as a completely new beginning. We should not forget his speech on December 22, 2005 to the Roman Curia.

Moreover, not even the fathers of Vatican-II themselves thought in terms of rupture. Whether it had to do with doctrinal or liturgical choices, or juridical and pastoral decisions, the Council was a time for profound examination and an updating, aggiornamento, of the rich theological and spiritual legacy of the Church from its bimillennial history.

With the Motu Proprio, the Pope wished to affirm clearly that any temptation to deprecate the Church's venerable traditions is out of line. The message is clear: progress, yes, but not at the expense of, or doing without, the Church's previous history. So, even liturgical reform should be faithful to what took place in the life of the Church from the beginning to the present, without excluding anything.

On the other hand, we must never forget that for the Catholic Church, divine Revelation does not only come from Scriptures but also from the living Tradition of the Church. This distinguishes us cldearly from other manifestations of Christian faith.

For us, truth is what emerges, so to speak, from both poles of Scripture and Tradition (capital "T"). I think this position is much richer than any other because it respects the Lord's freedom to guide us toward a more adequate understanding of truth that can be revealed even through what could happen in the future.

Of course, the process of discerning just what emerges is realized through the Magisterium of the Church. But what we must grasp is the importance attributed by the church to Tradition. Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution Dei verbum states this clearly (DV 10).

Moreover, the Church is a reality that goes beyond the level of mere human invention. It is the mystical Body of Christ, the heavenly Jerusalem, the people elected by God. Therefore, it goes beyond earthly frontiers and every limitation of time. It is a reality that transcends by far her earthly and hierarchical manifestations.

That is why, within the Church, whatever has been received must be transmitted faithfully. We are neither inventors of the truth nor its masters. We are only those who receive it and have the task to safeguard it and pass it on to others.

As St. Paul said, speaking of the Eucharist, "In fact, I have received from the Lord what, in my turn, I am passing on to you" (1 Cor 11,23).

Respect for Tradition is not our free choice in searching for the truth - it is the basis for it, and we must accept it as such. Therefore, faithfulness to Tradition is an essential attitude of the Church itself.

And the Motu Proprio, in my opinion, should also be understood in this sense. It is a possible stimulus for a necessary course correction. Because, in some choices made for the liturgical reform carried out after the Council, orientations were adopted that obfuscated soem aspects of liturgy which were better reflected in the traditional rite - all because those who were responsible interpreted liturgical renewal as something to be done from scratch, ex novo.

But we know very well that was not the intention expressed in Sacrosanctum concilium, which states that "new forms must draw organically from those that already exist" (SC 23).

One characteristic of Benedict XVI's Pontificate appears to be an insistence on the correct intepretation (hermeneutic) of Vatican-II. Do you see Summorum Pontificum as a step in that direction? And in what way?

Already as a cardinal, the Pope in his writings rejected a certain 'exuberance' found in some theological circles who were motivated by a so-called 'spirit of Vatican-II'. which for him was actually an 'anti-spirit', what he called a Konzils-Ungeist (Chapter 2, The Ratzinger Report).

He wrote then: "One must decisively oppose this scheme of a 'before' and 'after' in the history of the Church, which is totally unjustified by the documents of Vatican-II, which do nothing but to reaffirm the continuity of Catholicism".

However, such an erroneous interpretation of the Council and the historical-theological path of the Church has influenced all sectors of the Church, including the liturgy. This attitude of facilely rejecting eccclesiastical, theological and liturgical developments of the past millennium, on the one hand, and a naive idolization of what they presume to be the thinking (mens) of the early Christians, on the other, has had an influence of not little relevance to the liturgical-theological changes of the post-conciliar era.

The categorical rejection of the pre-Conciliar Mass, as a 'relic' of an era that has definitely been 'overcome', is a result of that mentality. So many in the Church took up that attitude, but thank God, not everyone.

Sacrosanctum concilium, the Council Constitution on the Liturgy, does not offer any justification for such an attitude. Whether in its general principles or in the standards it proposes, the document is moderate and faithful to what the liturgical life of the Church should be. Just read the Paragraph 23 of that Constitution!

Some liturgical reforms abandoned important elements of liturgy and their related theological considerations. Now it is necessary and important to recover these elements.

The Pope, who considers the Mass of Pius V revised by John XXIII as a way to recover those elements obfusdcated by the 1970 reform, surely thought a lot about his decision. We know that he consulted different sectors of the Church about this first, and then, despite some objections, he decided nevertheless that free access to the traditional rite should be allowed.

It is not, as some have said, a return to the past, as much as a way to restore balance in an integral way between the eternal, transcendent and heavenly aspects of the liturgy and its earthly and communitarian aspects. This will help eventually to establish an equilibrium between the sense of the sacred and of mystery, on the one hand, and the external gestures, attitudes and socio-cultural aspects deriving from liturgy.

When he was still a cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger insisted a lot on the need to read Vatican-II starting with its first document, which was Sacrosanctum concilium. Why do you think the Council Fathers decided to make liturgy their first objective?

Surely, it must have been primarily their awareness of the vital importance of liturgy to the life of the Church. The liturgy is, so to speak, the nucleus, because what one celebrates is what one believes and what one lives - the famous axiom of Lex orandi, lex credendi. That is why every true reform of the Church passes through liturgy. The Council Fathers were very aware of this importance.

Moreover, liturgical reform was already under way even before the Council, starting with the Motu Proprio Tra le Sollecitudini of St. Pius X, and the Mediator Dei of Pius XII. It was Pius X who attributed to liturgy the expression that it is the 'primary spring' of authentic Christian spirit.

So perhaps, the existence of structures and the experience of those who had been studying the possible introduction of liturgical reforms led the Council Fathers to choose it as the subject for their first sessions.

Pope Paul VI reflected on the thinking of the Council Fathers about this when he said, "Let us review together our scale of values and duties: God in the first place; prayer as our first obligation; the liturgy as the first source of divine life communicated to us, the first school for our spiritual life, the first gift which we can make to the Christian people"(Paul VI, Address at the closing session of the second period of Vatican-II, Dec. 4, 1963).

Many see the publication of Summorum Pontificum as the Pope's attempt to bring back the Lefebvrians into the Church. Is that right?

Yes, but that was not the only reason. The Holy Father, in explaining his decision, listed all his reasons, both in the Motu Proprio and in his explanatory letter.

Of course, he took into account the growing requests from various groups and above all, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX, formal name of the Lefebvrian movement) and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, as well as various lay associations, to liberalize the traditional Mass.

To achieve the total reintegration of Lefebvrians into the Church is important because, in the past, errors of judgment were made which caused unnecessary divisions within the Church, divisions which cannot perhaps be easily overcome now. And the Pope describes this risk in his explanatory letter to the bishops.

What do you think are the most urgent problems that must be dealt with for proper celebration of the liturgy? What would be the priorities?

I think that in the growing demand for the liberalization of the traditional Mass, the Pope saw signs of a certain spiritual void caused in part by how the Mass has come to be celebrated.

These less than desirable practices have been the result of post- Conciliar litugical reforms which tend to reduce, or perhaps, better said, to misunderstand certain essential elements of the faith, as well as an attitude of adventure and innovation that is not itself faithful to the discipline imposed by the liturgical reform - and that is something we see everywhere.

I think that one of the causes why some important elements from the traditional Mass were abandoned in the post-Conciliar reform by some liturgical sectors was ignoring or under-estimating what took place in the liturgy during the second millennium of Christianity. Some liturgists have considered the developments of that period only as negative.

It is an erroneous attitude, because when one speaks of the living Tradition of the Church, we cannot pick and choose only those which agree with our own preconceived ideas.

Tradition, considered in a general sense even in the fields of science, philosophy and theology, is always something living which continues to evolve and progress through the high and low points of history.

As I said earlier, living Tradition is, for the Church, one of the sources of divine Revelation and is the fruit of a continuous evolution. That is true even in liturgical tradition with a small 't'.

The liturgical developments in the second millennnium have their value. Sacrosanctum concilium does not talk of a new rite, or of a rupture, but of a reform that can emerge organically from what exists already.

That is why the Pope said: "In the history of liturgy, there is growth and progress but no rupture. What was sacred in preceding generations remains sacred and great even for us, and cannot suddenly be completely prohibited or even judged dangerous" (Letter to bishops, July 7, 2007).

To idolize and idealize the liturgy of the first millennium at the expense of the second is hardly a scientific or modern attitude. The Fathers of Vatican-II did not show such an attitude.

But the second great problem is a crisis of obedience to the Holy Father that is evident in some circles. The attidue of autonomy which some ecclesiastics have displayed, even in the highest ranks of the Church, certainly does not help the mission that Christ has entrusted to his Vicar on Earth.

One has seen that in some countries and dioceses, bishops have issued rules that practically annul or deform the intentions of the Pope [in Summorum Pontificum]. Such behavior is not in consonance with the dignity and nobility of the vocation of a Pastor of the Church.

I'm not saying this of everyone. Majority of the bishops and ecclesiastics have accepted the wishes of the Pope with due reverence and obedience, and that is very laudable. It is just unfortunate that there are these voices of protest.

At the same time, it cannot be ignored that the Pope's decision was necessary because as he said, the Holy Mass "in some places has not been celebrated in a way that follows the prescriptions of the new Missal, but instead, the new Missal was taken to be an authorization, or even an obligation, to be 'creative' which has often led to deformations of the liturgy to the limits of what is supportable."

"I speak from experience," he contiinued, "because I, too, lived through that period with all its expectations and confusions, and I saw how the arbitrary deformations of the liturgy profoundly hurt many persons who are totally rooted in the faith of the Church" (Letter to Bishops).

So the result of these abuses was a growing spirit of nostalgia for the traditional Mass.

The situation has been aggravated by a sense of general disinterest in reading and following normative documents from the Holy See or even the Instructions and Premises of the liturgical books.

Liturgy still does not count enough to be a priority in the courses for continuing education of churchmen.

Let me be clear. The post-Conciliar reforms to the liturgy were certainly not all negative. There are many positive things that have been achieved. But there have also been abusive changes introduced and that continue to be practised despite their harmful effects on faith itself and the liturgical life of the Church.

I would cite, for example, a change which was never proposed by the Council Fathers nor in Sacrosanctum concilium, which is to receive Communion in one's hands. This alone has resulted in a certain diminution of faith in the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Such a practice, and doing away with communion rails, and kneelers for the pews, the introduction of practices which oblige the faithful to be seasted or standing at the elevation of the Blessed Sacrament - diminish the genuine significance of the Eucharist and the sense of profound reverence with which the Church, its faithful, should address the Lord, God's only-begotten Son.

Then, there is the fact that the Church, God's dwelling, becomes nothing more than an assembly hall for meetings, concerts or inter-religious rites.

In some Churches, the Blessed Sacrament is almost hidden away or abandoned in some inconsequential side chapel that is not even properly set up.

All these laxities tend to dim and diminish the faith that is central to the Church, namely the real Presence of Christ. For us, Catholics, the physical Church is properly the dweelling of the eternal.

Another serious error is to confuse the specific roles of the clergy and the laity in the liturgy, so that the presbytery, the space around the altar, becomes a place of too much movement - certainly not a place from which the Christian can catch a sense of wonder and splendor in the presence and saving grace of the Lord.

Then there's the use of dancing, musical instruments and songs that have little to do with liturgy and are not at all appropriate to the sacred environment of the Church and of the sacramental nature of liturgy. I would also add some homilies with a political-social character which are often extemporaneous. All this denatures the celebration of Holy Mass, making it a choreography and a theater event, but not a manifestation of faith.

There are other aspects which are hardly consistent with the beauty and the wonder of what is being celebrated on the altar.

Still, not everything has gone wrong with the Novus Ordo, but much has to be put into order so as to avoid further damage to the life of the Church.

I think that our atttiude to the Pope, his decisions, and the expression of his concern for the good of the Church, should be what St. Paul advised the Corinthians - "Everything should be done for building up" (1 Cor 14,26).

Europe

Europe: Its Spiritual Foundation -
Yesterday, Today and in the Future
By Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

Exactly what is Europe? Very much this same question was posed anew quite explicitly by Jozef Cardinal Glemp during the work of one of the language groups at the Episcopal Synod on Europe: Where does Europe begin? Where does it end? Why, for example, isn't Siberia part of Europe, even though it is also inhabited by Europeans whose way of thinking and living is European? Where do the borders of Europe end in the southernmost reaches of the community of Russian peoples? Where is the border in the Atlantic? Which islands are European and which aren't?

Why aren't they European?

In encounters such as this one, it becomes perfectly clear that only in a completely secondary manner is Europe a geographical concept.

Europe is a cultural and historical concept, not a continent clearly definable in geographical terms.

THE RISE OF EUROPE

This becomes rather evident when we make an effort to return to the origins of Europe, which ordinarily means evoking Herodotus (484-425 BC). This historian was certainly the first person to look upon Europe as a geographical concept and he defined it in the following terms: "The Persians consider Asia and the barbarians who live there as their property, while they look upon Europe and the Greek world as a separate country."

The confines of Europe had not been adopted as such, but it is clear that the lands now constituting the core of Europe lay completely outside the visual field of this ancient historian. In fact, the formation of the Hellenic states and the Roman empire led to the formation of a continent that became the basis for later Europe, but which had completely different borders. These borders encompassed all the lands around the Mediterranean, which, as a result of factors such as cultural bonds, sea traffic, trade and a common political system, together made up a continent in the true sense of the word.

Only the triumphal advance of Islam in the 600s and the beginning of the 700s traced a border through the Mediterranean, thereby cutting it into two. As a result, everything which until then had been a single continent was now subdivided into three: Asia, Africa and Europe.

The transformation of the ancient world took place in the East at a slower pace than in the West. With Constantinople as its focal point, the Roman Empire resisted there — albeit pushed to the outskirts more and more — until the 1400s. While, by the year 700, the southern part of the Mediterranean had fallen completely outside what up to then had been considered a cultural continent, a more decisive expansion northward was underway at the same time. The limes, or what up to then had been a continental confine, disappeared, and the way was opened towards a new historical space that now embraced Gaul, Germany and Britannia as core territories, along with an increasing propensity to reach out in the direction of Scandinavia.

In the course of this process of shifting confines, the ideal continuity with the previous Mediterranean continent — geographically gauged in different terms — was guaranteed by the construction of a theology of history: in line with the book of Daniel, the Roman Empire as renewed and transformed by the Christian faith was considered the ultimate and permanent kingdom of the history of the world in general. Therefore, the peoples and states in the process of coming into existence were defined as the Sacrum Imperium Romanum (Holy Roman Empire).

The process involving this new historical and cultural identification took place as an intentional pursuit under the reign of Charlemagne. Likewise, emerging once again was the ancient name "Europe," but with a change in meaning: this title was now used to define the kingdom of Charlemagne, while at the same time expressing an awareness of the continuity and newness with which this new set of states was projecting itself as a force projecting itself into the future. Projecting itself into the future, precisely because it saw itself as the continuation of what had thus far been the history of the world and therefore anchored in what perseveres forever. Likewise expressed in this emerging self comprehension was an awareness of definitiveness, together with an awareness of a mission to be accomplished.

It is true that the concept of "Europe" practically disappeared once again after the demise of the Carolingian reign, while the word itself retained a certain pride of place only in the language of learned persons. In ordinary language, however, it then resurfaced at the beginning of the modem age, as a form of self identification in relation to the threat represented by the Turks, while its widespread and general use brings us all the way up to the 18th century. Independently from this history of the actual word "Europe." the consolidation of the kingdom of the Franks as the never-faded and now reborn Roman Empire, marked the decisive step towards what we now mean when we speak of Europe.

At the same time, however, we certainly must not overlook the fact that there was also a second root of Europe, a non-Western Europe. As mentioned earlier, the Roman Empire resisted in Byzantium against tempests in the forms of the migration of peoples and the Islamic invasion. Moreover, Byzantium considered itself to be the true Rome because this was where the empire had never passed away. As a result. the "east" continued to advance claims against the other half of the empire. the western half. Now, this eastern Roman empire also expanded northward into the heartland of the Slavic world and created its own world, a Greek-Roman world distinct from the Latin Europe of the West because of a different liturgy, a different ecclesiastical constitution, a different culture and the abandonment of Latin as the common language learned by all.

Certainly the elements that could have made these two worlds a single one, a single and common continent, were more than sufficient. First, there was the common heritage of the Bible and the early Church, which, in both worlds, related beyond itself to an origin now outside Europe, in Palestine. Then there was the common idea of "Empire," the common and basic comprehension of the Church, and hence a sharing of the fundamental ideas of rule of law and juridical instruments. Lastly among these elements, I would venture to mention monasticism, which, even in the throes of the major upheavals of history, basically remained the bearer not only of cultural continuity but, above all, of fundamental religious and moral values, ultimate orientations of man. As a pre-political and supra political force, monasticism became the wellspring of ever new and necessary rebirths.

Despite this sharing of an essential ecclesiastical heritage, there was still a profound difference between these two Europes and the importance thereof has been highlighted especially by Endre von Ivanka. In Byzantium, empire and Church were practically identified one with the other. The emperor was also the head of the Church and considered himself the representative of Christ. Much like Melchisedek, who was both king and priest (Gn 14:18), as of the 6th century, the emperor bore the official title of "king and priest."

In the Western empire, however, the departure of the emperors from Rome &3151 begun by Constantine — enabled the autonomous position of bishop of Rome to develop as the successor of Peter and supreme pastor of the Church, in what had been the original capital of the empire. There was, therefore, a dualism of authority, taught already at the outset of the era of Constantine: in effect, Emperor and Pope had separate powers, and neither one of them exercised total authority. Pope Gelasius I (492-496) set forth the vision of the West in his famous letter to Emperor Anastasius and even more explicitly in his fourth treatise, where, in contrast to the Byzantine typology of Melchisedek, he stressed that the unity of authority was to be found exclusively in Christ: "Due to human weakness (pride!), He has separated the two ministries for times to come so no one may become arrogant" (c. 11).

For matters regarding eternal life, the Christian emperors needed Popes (pontifices), who, in their turn, abided by imperial orders regarding temporal affairs. In worldly matters, the Popes had to comply with the laws of the emperor enthroned by divine order, while the latter had to bow to Popes regarding divine affairs. A separation or distinction of powers was thereby introduced, which became of utmost importance for the later development of Europe. We could even say that it laid the foundations for what is specifically typical of the Western world.

Since rebellion against such delimitation was ever vivid on both sides, along with an impulse to concentrate powers and a yearning to impose power over the other side or party, this principle of separation has also become the source of infinite suffering. How this principle should be lived correctly and rendered concrete in both political and religious terms remains a fundamental issue for the Europe of both today and tomorrow.

THE TURNING POINT TOWARDS THE MODERN AGE

While on the basis of what has been presented thus far we may consider, on the one hand, the rise of the Carolingian empire and, on the other, the continuation of the Roman empire in Byzantium with its mission towards the Slavic peoples, as the true birth of the continent Europe, the onset of the modem age meant a turning point for both Europes, a radical change affecting both the essence of this continent and its geographical contours.

Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453 and O. Hiltbrunner commented upon this event in the following laconic terms: "the last... learned men emigrated towards Italy and to the humanists of the Renaissance handed on the knowledge of the original Greek texts; but the East collapsed in the absence of culture."

Such an affirmation may strike us as being somewhat uncouth, because the reign of the Ottoman dynasty had its culture as well. It is true, however, that this event marked the end of the Greek-Christian, European culture of Byzantium. Therefore, one of Europe's two wings ran the risk of disappearing, but the Byzantine heritage was not dead. Moscow declared itself as the third Rome, founded its own patriarchate on the grounds of the idea of a second translatio imperii, and therefore projected itself as a new metamorphosis of the Sacrum Imperium — a form of Europe in its own right which nonetheless remained united with the West, moving closer and closer — to such an extent that Peter the Great tried to turn Russia into a western nation.

This northward shift of Byzantine Europe also meant that the continent's confines started moving broadly eastwards. The setting of the Urals as the frontier was an extremely arbitrary decision, but the world east of that mountain range was becoming more and more like a sort of substructure of Europe, neither Asia nor Europe; basically forged by Europe as the prime subject, without any possibility of exercising its own rights as a subject and therefore a mere object bereft of any chance to be the bearer of its own history. For all intents and purposes, perhaps that defines the essence of a colonial state.

At one and the same time we witness a dual process of substantial historical significance in the West as well.

First, a large part of the Germanic world separated itself from Rome and a new, enlightened form of Christianity saw the light of day. Therefore, then running through the West was a line of separation which clearly formed a cultural limes, a border between two different ways of thinking and entertaining relations. Within the Protestant world there was also a cleavage; firstly between Lutherans and Reformed believers, who were joined by Methodists and Presbyterians, while the Anglicans tried to assume a middle of the road stance between Catholics and Evangelicals. Then there was the difference between Christianity lived under the form of a state Church, which became the characteristic in Europe, and Christianity lived in the free churches that found refuge in North America. We will return to this at a later point.

Let's take a close look at the second event, the discovery of America, which shaped the situation during the modern age of Latin Europe. Corresponding to the eastward extension of Europe, as Russia moved closer and closer to Asia, was Europe's radical egress from its geographical confines towards America, towards that world on the other side of the ocean. The subdivision of Europe into a Latin Catholic half and a Germanic Protestant half also crossed those waters and had an impact in that part of the planet colonized by Europe. Initially, America was also a colony, a part of an expanded Europe, but, with the upheaval of Europe brought about by the French Revolution, America took on its own stature as an independent subject. Even though marked so deeply by its European birth, from the 19th century onwards America began to assume a position of equality with Europe.

In an effort to learn more about Europe's profound and innermost identity by looking back over its history, we have considered two fundamental turning points in that history. First, the dissolution of the old Mediterranean continent caused by the creation of the Sacrum Imperium located farther north, where, beginning with the Carolingian epoch, Europe began to be formed as a Latin-western world. Together with this there was the continuation of the old Rome at Byzantium with its expansion towards the Slavic world. As a second step in this process, we looked at the downfall of Byzantium and the subsequent shift of a part of Europe northwards and eastwards, as well as the internal division of Europe into a Germanic-Protestant world and a Latin-Catholic world. This was then followed by the leap towards America, which also felt the impact of that internal division, but ended up assuming a position as an independent subject vis-a-vis Europe.

At this point we must focus our attention on a third turning point, whose readily visible beacon was the French Revolution. It is true to say that the Sacrum Imperium was already considered close to its natural demise as a political entity, beginning with the late Middle Ages. It had become increasingly fragile also as a sound and unchallenged interpretation of history. Only now was this spiritual framework formally crumbling into pieces, however; the spiritual framework without which Europe would never have become a reality.

This was a process of considerable magnitude in terms of both politics and ideals. From the viewpoint of ideals it meant that the sacred foundation of history and the existence of a state was rejected.

History was no longer to be gauged on the basis of an idea of God which preceded it and gave it form. Statehood was looked upon in purely secular terms, based on rationality and the will of citizens.

Witnessed for absolutely the first time in history was the emergence of a completely secular or non-denominational state, which abandoned and set aside the divine warranty and divine regulation of the political element, considering such elements as belonging to a mythical vision of the world. In addition, such a state declared God Himself to be a private matter, belonging to neither the sphere of public life nor the common formation of civic volition. The latter was considered to be solely a matter of reason, with respect to which God did not appear clearly knowable.

In other words, religion and faith in God belonged to the sphere of feelings and not that of reason. God and His will ceased to have any relevance in public life.

Towards the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century this gave rise to a new type of schism, whose seriousness we see only now in clearer terms. There is no real name for it in German, because it spread among German-speaking peoples at a slower pace, but in the neo-Latin languages it was identified as a division between clergy and laity or laypersons. During the last two centuries this laceration penetrated into the "Latin" nations like a deep wound, while Protestant Christianity initially had an easier time in granting freedom of expression to liberal and enlightenment ideas cropping up around it, without causing any destruction to the framework of broad Christian consensus. The realistic political aspect inherent in the dissolution of the old idea of empire can be described in the following terms: the nations or states which had become identifiable as such, following the formation of unified linguistic areas, appeared as the only true bearers of history, thereby obtaining a status unheard of or impossible in the past. The explosive and dramatic gravity of what had now become an historical subject in the plural may be seen in the fact that the major European nations knew they were the stewards of a universal mission. This mission had, of necessity, to lead to conflicts among them and we were the ones who suffered the mortal impact thereof in the century which recently ended.

THE UNIVERSALIZATION OF THE EUROPEAN CULTURE AND ITS CRISIS

We must now consider a further process which ushered the history of recent centuries into a new world. Prior to the modem age, the old Europe with its two halves basically knew only one "next door neighbor," with whom it had to deal in matters regarding both life and death; in other words, the world of Islam.

Then there was the turning point of the modem age with the expansion of Europe towards America and parts of Asia essentially bereft of major cultural subjects. Now coming into the picture was a movement towards two continents thus far on the outskirts of Europe's focus of interest: Africa and Asia. Here as well, efforts were made to transform them into branches of Europe, into colonies. To a certain degree this was a successful endeavor, since both Asia and Africa now pursue the ideal of a world forged by technology and its ensuing prosperity. As a result, ancient religious traditions struggle in the throes of crisis there as well, and expressions of purely secular thinking are becoming increasingly dominant in the public arena.

Equally evident, however, is an effect to the contrary. The rebirth of Islam is connected not only with the new material wealth of the Islamic countries, but is nourished by Islam's ability to offer sound spiritual grounds for the life of peoples, grounds which seem to have slipped out of Europe's steady hand. Therefore, despite its lasting political and economic might, Europe is increasingly looked upon as condemned to decline and downfall.

In addition, the major religious traditions of Asia, above all its mystical component expressed in Buddhism, are emerging as spiritual powers against a Europe in the process of denying its religious and moral foundations. The optimism regarding the victory of the European factor which Arnold Toynbee was still able to sustain at the beginning of the 1960s now seems strangely outdated: "Out of 28 cultures we have been able to identify ... 18 have died and 9 of the remaining 10 — actually all of them except ours — reveal that they have already suffered a death blow."

Who would dare to repeat such words today? And, perhaps in more general terms, what is our culture? What is there left of it? Is European culture that civilization of technology and trade so victoriously widespread through the world? Or didn't that civilization come into being in a post European world following the end of the early European cultures? What I see here is a paradoxical synchrony: with things like the victory of the technical-secular/post-European world and the globalization of its model of life and way of thinking, people all over the world, especially in the non-European worlds of Asia and Africa, have the distinct impression that the values, culture and faith of Europe — the very bases of its identity — have reached their end and exited life's stage, while now the center stage is being taken by the value systems of other worlds, such as pre-Colombian America, Islam and Asian mysticism.

At this time, when Europe seems to have reached the pinnacle of success, it seems like it has become empty within, paralyzed by a crisis of its circulatory system, paralyzed by a crisis threatening its very survival, which is entrusted to transplants that cannot help but alter its identity.

Corresponding to this interior sapping of its constituent spiritual forces is the fact that Europe seems to be taking its leave in ethnic terms. In Europe, there is a strange shortage of future-oriented willingness. Offspring represent the future, but children are looked upon as a threat for the here and now. They take something away from our life, people say and think. Children are considered a limitation on the present and not a source of hope for the future. Necessary here is a comparison with the fading Roman empire: it continued to work as a huge historical framework, but was actually living off those who were to dissolve it, because it had no life-giving energy at all.

This brings us to current problems and issues. Regarding Europe's possible future there were two opposing diagnoses. On one hand there was the thesis propounded by Oswald Spengler, who believed he could set a sort of natural law for the major expressions of culture: there were the moments of birth and gradual growth of a culture, its moment of full bloom, followed by its slow corpulence, ageing and death. Spengler enriched this thesis of his in a most impressive manner, using documentation drawn from the history of cultures which depicted this law of natural destiny.

His thesis sustained that the West had reached its final epoch, and was hastening towards its demise, despite all the efforts to avert it. Quite naturally, Europe could hand on its gifts to a new and emerging culture, as had already transpired in previous declines of a culture, but its life span as a subject had come to an end.

Branded as "biological," this thesis met with numerous and impassioned opponents during the period between the two world wars, especially in Catholic circles. The most impressive opponent of all was Arnold Toynbee, even though he used postulates which wouldn't find much of an audience today. Toynbee highlighted material-technical progress on the one hand, and, on the other, real progress which he defined as "spiritualization." He admitted the fact that the West — the western world — was in crisis and saw as the cause of that crisis the lapse from religion to the worship of technology, nationhood, military might, etc. In the final analysis, he considered the crisis to be "secularism."

Having ascertained the cause of the crisis, he felt it was possible to suggest the cure, which meant once again introducing the religious factor.
In his mind this entailed the religious heritage of all cultures, but especially "what there is left of western Christianity."

Opposed here to the biological vision is a voluntaristic one counting on the force of creative minorities and outstanding individual personalities.

Here comes the question: is this diagnosis correct? And if it is, do we have the power and means to once again introduce the religious moment,
in a synthesis of residual Christianity and the religious heritage of humankind? Basically speaking, the issue at stake between Spengler and Toynbee remains an open one, because we are unable to see into the future.

Besides that, however, it is our task to ask ourselves what may guarantee the future, what is able to continue nourishing the interior identity of Europe through all its historical metamorphoses. Or, in much simpler terms, what promises, today and tomorrow, to bestow human dignity and life
in conformity with that dignity.

In order to find an answer to such queries we must once again look within our present and, at the same time, keep ever in mind its historical roots. Earlier on we had reached the point of the French Revolution and the 19th century. That was the time characterized especially by the development of two European models. Adopted in the Latin nations was the secular model, where the state was clearly distinct from religious entities, which were attributed to the private sphere. The state itself rejected any religious foundation and considered itself based solely on reason and its insights.

In the face of the frailty of reason, these systems turned out to be fragile and easily fell the victim of dictatorships. Where they did survive, it was because parts of the old moral conscience continued to persevere even without the previous foundations, thereby making basic moral consensus possible. In the Germanic world, on the other hand, there were various expressions of models of liberal Protestant state churches, in which an enlightened Christian religion — essentially considered as moral life, but with forms of worship guaranteed by the public authorities — guaranteed a moral consensus and a broad-based religious foundation, to which the individual, non-state religions had to adapt. In Great Britain, the Scandinavian countries and, initially also, in Prussian-dominated Germany, this model guaranteed national and social unity for a long time. In Germany, however, the decline of Prussian state Christianity created a vacuum which became an open space that was soon occupied by a dictatorship. Nowadays, state churches have fallen the victim of sheer wear and tear everywhere. Religious entities which are derivations of the state are no longer generating any thing akin to moral force. Then again, the state itself cannot create moral force, but must presuppose it and then construct upon it.

Between these two models we have the United States of America. Formed on the basis of free churches, it began nationhood with a rigid dogma of separation between church and state. Then again, above and beyond single religious denominations, it was molded by an underlying Protestant-Christian consensus not forged in confessional terms, which was linked to a particular awareness of a religious-type mission towards the rest of the world. This bestowed special public weight upon the religious factor, which, insofar as a pre-political and supra-political force, could be a determining element for public life. Certainly, it is quite evident that in the United States, as well, the dissolution of the Christian heritage continues inexorably, while at the same time the rapid increase of the Hispanic element and the presence of religious traditions from all over the world changes the general picture.

Perhaps we should also remark that the United States is actively promoting the spread of Protestantism in Latin America, and consequently the decline of the Catholic Church as a result of inroads made by free churches. This endeavor is based on the conviction that the Catholic Church could not guarantee a stable political and economic system, thereby failing in its duty as an educator of nations. Conversely, what people expect is that the model of free churches would pave the way for a moral consensus and a democratic formation of public volition similar to those in the United States. In order to complicate the picture even more, we must admit that the Catholic Church now forms the largest religious community in the United States and is resolutely on the side of Catholic identity in its life of faith. Regarding the relationship between church and state, however, American Catholics have embraced the traditions of the free churches, in the sense that a church clearly separate from the state constitutes a better guarantee for the moral foundations of everything.

Therefore, the democratic ideal appears as a moral duty in profound alignment with the faith. There are ample grounds for interpreting such a position as an updated continuation of the aforementioned model sustained by Pope Gelasius.

Let's return to Europe. The two models illustrated earlier were joined by a third one in the 19th century; that is to say, socialism, soon subdivided into totalitarian socialism and democratic socialism. Beginning from its point of departure, democratic socialism was able to enter the mainstream of the two existent models as a healthy counterweight to radical liberal positions, both enriching and correcting them. Here, as well, it turned out to be something above and beyond confessions: in England it was the political party of Catholics, who didn't feel comfortable in either the Protestant-conservative camp or the liberal party. In Wilhelm's Germany the Catholic "center" felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly conservative Prussian and Protestant forces. In many ways, democratic socialism was, and is, close to the social doctrine of the Catholic Church and, in any case, did contribute quite a bit to the formation of a social conscience.

The totalitarian model of socialism, however, went hand in hand with a rigidly materialistic and atheistic philosophy of history. History, in this model, is understood deterministically as a process of progress passing through the religious phase to the liberal one, in order to reach the absolute and definitive society, where religion is transcended as a relic of the past and the correct interplay of material conditions can guarantee the happiness of all. The apparent scientific basis of this approach, however, conceals an intolerant dogmatism: spirit is produced by matter; morals are produced by circumstances and are to be both defined and practiced in keeping with the aims of society; everything which helps to foster the advent of the final and felicitous state is moral. The overturning of the values which had constructed Europe is complete here. Moreover, here is a complete rupture with respect to the overall moral tradition of humankind. No longer are there such things as values independent from the pursuits of progress. At a given moment in time, everything can be permitted and even necessary, can be "moral" in the new sense of the word. Man, as well, can become an instrument. The individual counts for nothing at all and the future becomes the one and only terrible divinity deciding every thing for everyone.

In the meantime, the Communist systems had run aground and sunk on the reefs of their false economic dogmatism. However, people all-too-readily overlook the fact that they sank, even more deeply, due to their scorn for human rights, for their subordination of morals to the requirements of the system and its promises of a glorious future. The real catastrophes they left in their wake are not economic in nature, but rather the drying up of the soul, the destruction of moral conscience. In this I see an essential problem for Europe and the world at large.

Old line Communists admit the extent of their economic failures and that's why they've all become economic liberals. And yet the moral and religious issue that constitutes the very core of the problem is almost completely swept aside. Therefore, the problem left behind by Marxism is still with us in the dissolution of man's primordial certainties about God, himself and the universe. The dissolution of the awareness of intangible moral values is once again our problem right now and could lead to the self-destruction of the European conscience. Apart from Spengler's vision of cultural decline, we have to begin looking upon this as a real danger.

WHERE DO WE STAND TODAY?

This brings us face to face with the following question: how must things forge ahead? In the violent upheavals of our time is there an identity of Europe with hopes of a future? An identity for which we can commit ourselves, heart and soul? I am not prepared to delve into a detailed discussion on the future Constitution of Europe. I would just like to indicate the constituent moral elements which, in my opinion, should be included.

A first element is the "unconditional manner" in which human dignity and human rights must be presented as values preceding any and all forms or expressions of state jurisdiction. These fundamental rights are not created by lawmakers, not are they conferred by citizens, "but rather exist by proper law, are always to be respected by lawmakers and are given to them beforehand as values of a superior order." This validity of human dignity prior to any political deed and any political decision ultimately evokes the Creator. Only He can establish values based on the intangible essence of man. The fact that there are values which may not be manipulated by anyone is the real and true guarantee of our freedom and of human greatness. The Christian faith sees in this the mystery of the Creator, and the condition of the image and likeness of God which He has conferred upon man.

Nowadays, practically no one would directly contest the precedence of human dignity and fundamental human rights with respect to any political decision; all too recent are the horrors of Nazism and its racial policy. In the concrete area of the so-called progress of medicine, however, there subsist very real threats for these values: when we think of things such as cloning, or the conservation of human fetuses for purposes of research and organ donation, or the vast field of genetic manipulation, the slow consumption threatening human dignity cannot be disregarded by anyone at all. Added to this, in ever-increasing magnitude, is the trafficking of human beings, the new forms of slavery, the trafficking of human organs for transplants. Ever trumpeted are "good ends" in an effort to justify what can in no way be justified.

Regarding sectors such as these, the Charter of Fundamental Rights does enshrine a series of firm points which deserve applause. Regarding important points, however, the draft of the Constitution is still all too vague, while hanging in the balance there is the principle at stake and its seriousness.

In summary, inscribing the value, dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity of man in the basic affirmations of democracy and rule of law implies an image of man, a moral option and an idea of law, all of which are by no means obvious, but which are fundamental factors in the identity of Europe; an identity which should be guaranteed likewise in the concrete consequences of those factors and which can be defended only if there is a corresponding moral conscience formed, over and over again.

A second important point revealing the identity of Europe concerns marriage and the family. Monogamist marriage as the fundamental structure between man and women, as well as the basic cell in the foiniation of the state community, was forged on the basis of the Biblical faith. This is what bestowed upon both Western and Eastern Europe its particular countenance and humanness, also and precisely because the form of fidelity and sacrifice projected therein always had to be gained anew with great hardship and suffering. Europe would not be Europe if that basic cell of its social edifice were to disappear or be altered in any essential way. The Charter of Fundamental Rights stipulates the right to marriage, but fails to express any juridical and moral protection for it and doesn't even define it in more precise terms. And we all know, the extent to which marriage and the family are threatened — on the one hand by the emptiness inflicted upon their indissolubility through increasingly easier forms of divorce and, on the other, by an increasingly widespread form of behavior involving domestic partnerships between men and women without any legal form of marriage.

In glaring contrast with all that is the request for the life communion of homosexuals, who, rather paradoxically, are now asking for a legal form which should be tantamount to marriage. Such a trend or propensity takes us completely outside the confines of the moral history of humankind, which, despite all kinds of juridical forms of matrimony, always knew that marriage in its essence is the special communion of man and woman open to offspring and hence to the family. It is not a matter of discrimination here, but rather the question of what is the human person insofar as man and woman. as well as how the "being together" of man and woman may receive a juridical form. If, on the one hand. their being together draws farther and farther away from juridical foi ns and, on the other, a homosexual union is increasingly considered as being of the same status as marriage, then we are face to face with a dissolution of the very image of man, whose consequences cannot but be extremely grave.

My final point has to do with the religious issue. I wouldn't want to get involved in the complex debates so recurrent over the past few years, but rather highlight just one aspect fundamental for all cultures: respect for what is sacred for someone else: most especially, respect for sacredness in the loftiest sense, respect for God. If this respect fails to be observed, something essential in society is lost. In society at present, thanks be to God, whoever dishonors the faith of Israel, its image of God and its great personages is liable to punishment in the form of a fine. The same applies to anyone who publicly insults the Koran and the fundamental tenets of Islam. When it is a matter of Christ and what is sacred for Christians, however, freedom of opinion emerges as the supreme good and any limitation thereof is said to threaten or even destroy tolerance and freedom in general. And yet this is exactly where we see the limit of freedom of speech: it may not destroy the honor and dignity of anyone else. Freedom of speech is not the freedom to voice falsehoods or destroy human rights.

Here in the West there is a strange form of self-hate we can only consider pathological. Yes, in a rather praiseworthy manner, the West does strive to be open in full to the comprehension of external values, but it no longer loves itself. All it sees in its own history is what is disgraceful and destructive, while it no longer seems able to perceive what is great and pure. In order to survive, Europe needs a new, critical and humble acceptance of itself; but only if it really wishes to survive. The multi-culturalism now being encouraged and fostered with such passion comes across at times as mostly an abandonment and denial of what is one's own, a sort of flight from self.

Multi-culturalism, however, cannot subsist without shared constants. without points of reference based on one's own values. Part thereof involves reaching out with respect to elements sacred for others, but we may do this only if the Sacred One, God, is not extraneous to us.

We obviously can and must learn from what is sacred in the eyes of others, but before others and for others it is our duty to nurture respect within ourselves for what is sacred and reveals the face of God which has been revealed to us: the face of the God who has mercy on the poor and the weak, widows and orphans, foreigners; the face of the God who is so human that He Himself became man, a man who by virtue of His own suffering bestowed dignity upon distress and filled it with hope.

We would be denying the identity of Europe if we do not do this, but we would also fail to accomplish a service to others, which they have a right to receive from us. In the eyes of the cultures of the world, the absolute profanity gradually assuming form in the West is something profoundly alien. These cultures are convinced that a Godless world has no future. Therefore, multi-culturalism itself summons us to return within ourselves.

We have no idea how things will evolve in Europe. The Charter of Fundamental Rights may be a first step, a sign Europe is once again consciously seeking its soul. In this sense we have to agree with Toynbee that the destiny of a society always depends on creative minorities. Believing Christians should look upon themselves as such a creative minority and help Europe espouse once again the best of its heritage, thereby being at the service of humankind at large.

Copyright (c) 2006 First Things (January 2006).

Why I Am A Catholic by Joseph Ratzinger

We can think of the Catholic Church by comparing it to the moon, not only for the relationship between moon and woman (as mother), but also because the moon does not have its own light. It receives light from the sun, without which it would be in total darkness. The moon shines, but its light is not its own. Lunar probes and astronauts have seen that the moon is nothing but a rocky and desert-like wasteland. They saw rock and sand, the reality quite different from the image we held about it from antiquity. The moon is by and of itself nothing but rock and sand, but it does reflect light.

Is this not an exact image of the Church? Whoever explores it and digs into it with a probe will discover, as in the moon, nothing but desert, sand and rock – the weaknesses of mankind seen as dust, stones, waste. But the decisive fact is that even if she is nothing but sand and stones, she is also Light, by virtue of the Lord.

I am a Catholic because I believe that now as in the past, and independent of us, the Lord stands behind the Church, and we cannot be near Him without staying within His Church. I belong to the Catholic Church because despite everything, I believe that it is His Church, not “ours.”

It is the Church which, despite all the human weaknesses present in her, brings us to Jesus Christ. Only through the Church can I receive Him as a living and powerful reality, here and now. Without the Church, the image of Christ would evaporate, it would crumble, it would disappear. And what would become of mankind deprived of Christ?

I am in the Church for the same reasons that I am a Christian. Because one cannot believe, in isolation. Faith is possible in communion with other believers. Faith by its very nature is a force that binds. And this faith must be ecclesial, or it is not faith at all. And just as one does not believe, in isolation, but only in communion with others, neither can one have faith out of one’s own initiative or invention.

I remain in the Church because I believe that faith, realizable only in the Church and not against her, is a true necessity for the human being and for the world.

I remain in the Church because only the faith the Church professes can save man. The great ideal of our generation is a society free of tyranny, suffering and injustice. In this world, suffering does not come only from inequalities in material wealth and power. There are those who would have us believe that we can realize our humanity without mastery of self, without the patience of surrender and the effort to overcome difficulties; that it is not necessary to make any sacrifice to keep compromises which we accept, nor to bear with patience the constant tension between what should be and what actually is.

In reality, man can only be saved through the Cross and the acceptance of one’s own suffering as well as those of the world, which find their resolution in the Passion of the Lord. Only thus can man become free. All the other “offers at a better price” can only end in failure.

Love is not simply aesthetic and uncritical. The only possibility to change man in a positive sense is to love him truly by transforming him gradually from who he is to who he can be. That is what the Church can do.

Interview With Peter Seewald

VIENNA, September 5, 2005 (www.kath.net) - "One could say that the German Pope has stepped up to sort out, clean up, get things to work - and wipe out what is false and the defunct [in the Church]", says German publicist and Papal expert Peter Seewald in an interview with KATHNET.

He analyzes for us the significance of Benedict's visit, for Austria and for Catholicism. Here is a transcript of the interview conducted by Maria Cavagno.

When did you last see Benedict XVI? And how did it go?

Our last meeting was in February 2006. He was attentive, amiable and simple, like always. But something was different. I find that he no longer hunches his shoulders forward like a protective shield as he once thought he had to.

My impression was that this was someone who is wholly with God and therefore has completely come into his own. And that's the way it is. Benedict has not only been imprinted by Christ but has allowed himself to be transformed. He has become a mystical adept, whose existence is virtually prophetic.

How would you characterize the Pope's relations with Austria?

Very personal and intimate. He is a neighbor by origin and by mentality, and speaks the same language. It also has to do with his family history. His father is from Lower Bavaria but his ancestors came from Upper Austria, and his grandmother and mother are from the South Tyrol.

The Pope himself, as everyone knows, grew up in the Bavarian-Austrian border area, under the influence of the the episcopal city of Salzburg. His bond to Austria is evident from the many holidays that he has spent there as professor, bishop and prefect of the CDF. I would say, that was not just out of love, but that (for him), it is a part of his homeland.

It appears that Benedict has a great affection for Mariazell. How did this come about?

As great as his intellectual abilities are, so is his heart towards the piety of simple folk. His mystical endowment has so far been fully undervalued. Ratzinger likes pilgrimages, especially to the classic Marian shrines. With their special flair, their moving humanity, their mystical aura, and lastly, the power of the saints which unites great and small.

He has been to Mariazell only once before, in 2004, as a cardinal, when he was invited by the European union of notaries to celebrate the Eucharist [during their pilgrimage], but he immediately loved the place. So he took the opportunity when the Austrian bishops invited him [for the 850th anniversary celebrations].

He publicly stated that he 'could not say No' to the invitation, which he considered providential. It is noteworthy that he has visited the important Marian shrines in all of his foreign trips so far: Altoetting, Czetochowa, Aparecida, and now Mariazell. [Seewald forgot to include Ephesus.] One might say, the shepherd brings his sheep together - and does it under the cloak of the Madonna.

What points do you expect the Pope to emphasize in his discourses for Austria?

The Pope is coming to strengthen Christians in their faith. The liturgical calendar gives him the opportunity to preach about the Incarnation of Christ. The Letter to the Colossians which will be read on Friday, the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, says: "Christ is the image of the invisible God....everything is created through him and in him."

The following day, the Church celebrates, in the feast of Mary's nativity, the beginning of salvation which came to the world through the Incarnation.

On the whole, the emphasis in Austria will be similar to the Pope's Bavarian visit. It has to do with overcoming a deafness to God everywhere, to get a better look at the Creator and his world, at what really matters in life. Ratzinger is showing that faith is not opposed to reason, rather that it is basically an expression of reason.

And that it is worthwhile to recognize anew the total relevance of the Gospel. That it must no longer be treated with suspicion, but as Revelation which provides us with answers for life. Faith is not a system of theories, but a personal relationship with God. This question has become central again today - after decades of erroneous 'development' among some clergy, theologians and even the laity.

After the Brazilian visit, the Austrian trip is the second and last foreign trip this year. What differences and resemblances do you see?

The difference lies in the occasion and the magnitude. In South America, the Pope opened the 5th General Conference of Latin American and Caribbean Bishops, a historic church assembly representing 40 percent of the world's Catholic population.

It dealt with answers for challenges like the new sects, but most of all, the social and economic problems of the Latin American nations. An observer judged later that "the Pope had taken the marginalized peoples into his arms". At the end of the conference, no less than a 'continental mission' was decided. 'Mission' is also a task in the western hemisphere, but naturally with a different emphasis.

In Europe, we are experiencing two parallel currents. First, there is a considerable decrease in Christian consciousness, not just in public life but even among families.

Add to this that the in the next 10 years, the Catholic Church will experience an unparallelled quantitative collapse. In that time, something like one-third of believers, priests and religious now alive will die without being replaced.

At the same time, however, we are beginning to see a powerful renaissance of tested values and forms, which many scientists think may well surpass the medieval Renaissance.

And it is being unleashed by fear of the cultural and moral decline of civilization as we know it, as well as terror over possible catastrophes of apocalyptic proportions. All systems are breaking down at the same time. And so the question is: How have we come to this, that mankind with all its enormous economic and technological progress, feels so profoundly threatened?

And what does that mean for the Church?

A lot. This Renaissance also makes itself felt through a new interest in Christianity. There is a tremendous longing for wholeness, for salvation. Those who have kept away are ready once again to look into what their own ancestral religion has to offer.

They realize that amidst the storms of globalization and 'turbo-capitalism', the Catholic Church has shown itself to be the only firm shelter and safe harbor. And that is a fact not to be under-estimated in turbulent times.

Within the Catholic church itself, we are experiencing with Benedict the start of a historic hour, a change in paradigms. The old paradigm was: If we do not accommodate ourselves to secularized society, then we will lose the flock. The result was self-secularization, a demystification, and ultimately, a desanctification.

The new paradigm is: It is not the world that has oriented itself towards the Church through this 'ingratiation', but the Church towards the world. But when the Church gives up what is most holy in it, then she gives herself up. The holy disappears, certainties dissolve, and its blessings dwindle.

This analysis, heretofore the thinking only of a minority, now becomes applicable worldwide, with an intellectual and theological genius like Joseph Ratzinger at the helm in Rome. This is extremely important. Because until now, there seemed to be resignation over the critical condition of the church. Now, that is no longer simply accepted.

There will be appropriate corrections, a pruning back towards simplicity, especially in Church institutions, so that they can flourish again. That is why a battle against false gods has also started within the Church. And Benedict has achieved this feat without unleashing further fragmentation and polarization, as many had feared.

In summary?

One could say that the German Pope has stepped up to sort out, clean up, get things to work - and wipe out what is false and defunct. That also goes for ecumenism.

Anyone who goes along with the Pope must join him now, not on 'Saint Never'! A great part of Protestantism has obviously become unreachable. Anti-Catholicity now seems to have become an indispensable element of their self-definition.

On the contrary, the reunification process with Orthodoxy is quantitatively very promising and qualitatively near at hand.

"We have almost everything in common," the Pope rejoiced recently. "Above all, we share the earnest hope for unity. From the bottom of my heart, I pray that this dream can soon be realized."

How do you think Austrian Catholics will receive Joseph Ratzinger in their homeland?

Majority will sincerely rejoice, others will dismiss him, as they have done till now. But doubtless there will be something of a Benedict effect. The Pope's encyclical reached more than a million in print, his Jesus book is sold around the world, and in Rome he is breaking records for audiences.

With Ratzinger, one must not see a single meaning in everything, because even non-believers see this special ambassador of Jesus more and more as an inspiring mediator of sense, a bearer of hope, who talks about the prospects for a new future. And so the question will not be how many listen to him, but how many are ready to follow him.

Not least within the Church, where there is an extremely persistent attitude of rejection among diehards, for whom things must always be as they are, who will uncritically hold on to their behavior patterns even if these have led them astray in the past.

How can Benedict XVI build a bridge to those who look at this visit with skepticism?

By inviting them to come to him with the same openness with which they have always challenged the Church. Because this Pope is able to address circles which were previously unreachable. His style - of humility and dialog, but also of clear words - his intellectual brilliance and his reaching out to his interlocutors will find a sympathetic reception.

The Church has become a topic for public discussion, and the Christian faith has been newly discovered as a subject and a possibility. Church dropouts have decreased, and attendance at seminaries indicates a changed trend. And the very fact that the head of the Catholic Church could displace Harry Potter from the top of the bestseller lists is a spectacular sign.

John Paul II paved the way for this movement. He was himself Mr. Bombastic. Specifically, it was his attitude rather than what he preached that people accepted. Now, one can say that, in the ways in which Wojtyla and Ratzinger differ, they complement each other perfectly.

Benedict is an unlikely 'personality', often somewhat like a doll. But the more his 'personality' recedes, the more what he says comes to the foreground.

What would you ask the Pope first if you could interview him now?

We see that life on this planet has reached a certain cusp. We no longer have all options available. It has come down to either-or. A few days ago, Benedict formulated some thoughts about the ecological - but above all the spiritual - climate catastrophe during the youth meeting in Loreto, and made a dramatic appeal for a change in lifestyle.

He said: "Go against the current! Do not heed the self-serving and insinuating voices, the voices of the mass media, who tout a lifestyle of arrogance and violence", a lifestyle of 'success at any price', which is all about 'appearance and possession', not about 'being'."

That was also a powerful criticism of the media, that nobody else would have dared. The protection of creation, he continued, has become a burning task. One must 're-forge a firm bond between man and the earth' - 'before it is too late', he added.

Perhaps it's a dumb question but I would like to know how much time we have left.

Are you going to follow the Pope's Austrian visit yourself?

Bavarian TV has invited me to work with them in their broadcasts from Mariazell and Vienna. So I will be on site, and I look forward to the associated impressions and stimuli. But a consolidation, such as this Pope is carrying out, is not a state spectacle. The real activity takes place in silence, unseen.

Still it is a thrilling and, above all, worthwhile process that is undreamt of. I think that Benedict XVI heard God's words a long time ago, similar to what St. Benedict and before him, Francis of Assisi, had heard:"Go, rebuild my house that, as you can see, is threatened with ruin."

Photograph: © Alessandra Benedetti/Corbis April 21, 2005