Skip to comments.Why the Holy Father chose the name "Benedict"...?
Posted on 04/19/2005 11:56:55 AM PDT by MadIvan
Cardinal Ratzinger on the Banishment of God From Public Life
Receives St. Benedict Award for Promotion of Life and Family
SUBIACO, Italy, APRIL 12, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger says that believers are faced with the tendency to banish God from public life and confine him to the "subjective realm of past residual cultures."
On April 1, when receiving the St. Benedict Award for the Promotion of Life and the Family in Europe, conferred by the Subiaco Foundation for Life and the Family, the dean of the College of Cardinals delivered an address on the present crisis of culture and identity, especially in the Old World.
After stating that "moral force has not grown apace with the development of science but, on the contrary, has diminished," Cardinal Ratzinger explained that "the most serious danger at this time is precisely the imbalance between technical possibilities and moral energy."
He gave two examples: the threat of terrorism and the possibility to manipulate the origin of human life.
The then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faithalmost all heads of Vatican dicasteries lost their posts when John Paul II died pointed out that "Europe has developed a culture that, in a way previously unknown to humanity, excludes God from the public consciousness, either by denying him altogether or by judging that his existence cannot be demonstrated, is uncertain and, therefore, somewhat irrelevant to public life."
An attempt is being made "to build the human community absolutely without God," the cardinal stressed.
"The rejection of reference to God is not an expression of tolerance which wishes to protect non-theist religions and the dignity of atheists and agnostics, but rather an expression of the desire to see God banished definitively from humanity's public life, and driven into the subjective realm of residual cultures of the past," he warned.
For the cardinal, the starting point of this view is "relativism," which has become "a dogmatism that believes it is in possession of the definitive knowledge of reason, and with the right to regard all the rest as a stage of humanity, which has basically been surpassed, and which can be suitably relativized."
At this rate, Cardinal Ratzinger added, we will no longer "be able to affirm that homosexuality, as the Catholic Church teaches, is an objective disorder of the structure of human existence."
"The fact that the Church is convinced of not having the right to confer priestly ordination on women, is now considered by some as irreconcilable with the European Constitution," he added.
In the final part of his address, Cardinal Ratzinger explained that "we need roots to survive and we must not lose them from sight if we do not want human dignity to disappear."
"Only creative reason, which has been manifested in the crucified God as love, can really show us the way," he said. "We need men who will keep their sight on God, learning there" what "true humanity" is, as "only through men touched by God, can God again be close to men." ZE05041102
Only an RC could invent volumes of tradition around an invention called Pope and ascribe it all to that little verse, which is about Peter's profession, as everyone ELSE knows.
Speak German or Russian? If not just says thanks
Montenegro? You got that backwards. The Montenegrin monarchy disappeared as a result of WWI. The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes was not really a "new monarchy" but rather an extension of Serbia which was allowed to grab territory that had belonged to Austria-Hungary, as well as the formerly independent Kingdom of Montenegro.
Thanks in part to Wilson's inconsistently applied and hypocritical concept of "self-determination," seven new republics were created out of what had been monarchical territory: Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. (And Hungary remained a monarchy in name only, with Karl betrayed and excluded by the "Regent" Horthy.) The inherent instability of some of these new artificial states, with their large discontented German majorities, would be a major catalyst for World War II.
Wilson's purported desire for peace was dishonest; he consistently backed the Allies behind the facade of neutrality. As far back as 1915, Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan resigned because he could see that the Wilson administration was bent on war. Wilson's double standards led him to condemn German attacks on "neutral" ships while ignoring the British naval blockade of Germany which was a violation of international law and deliberately designed to starve the German population. Doesn't sound like the actions of a great humanitarian to me. Read Thomas Woods's Politically Incorrect Guide to U.S. History, whose excellent chapter on World War I devastates Wilson and his unjustified intervention from a traditional American conservative point of view, without the author being a monarchist.
He was one of the Hitler youth.
"Speak German or Russian? If not just says thanks."
No, but I am in danger of speaking a rather adulterated version of English called American.
Bloody well !!
Or, putting it another way, he served Hitler for 2 years.
"Perhaps you'd prefer that the U.S. simply left you to your own devices.
But tell me, how precisely would that have worked out for you circa 1944?"
Hmmm .... I had the impression Russia did most of the work ... and got most of the rewards, including Poland. But US commercial interests did alright too, as usual.
FReepmail me to get on of off this list
Did you misunderstand the question?! I said:
Perhaps you'd prefer that the U.S. simply left you to your own devices. But tell me, how precisely would that have worked out for *you* circa 1944?"
Pope Arnold sounds too "Jewish?"
Read Keegan's The History of the World War I (title from memory). Austria had to respond to the assassination of the Archduke, just like we had to respond to 9/11. In retrospect, it would have been better if Austria attacked Serbia singlehandedly after Serbia (egged on by the Russians) rejected the ultimatum. But Austria made the mistake of consulting with her allies, which triggered mobilization orders in Russia and Germany, and in turn, in France and England.
Austria is the least blameworthy in the summer of 1914. Its one mistake was hesitance to act singlehandedly, which it was perfectly justified to do.
Serbia agreed to all points of Austria's ultimatum. Austria's Emperor Franz Joseph invaded anyway.
Ultimatum to Serbia
Having received the wholehearted support from Germany, Austria sent an ultimatum to Serbia on July 23, 1914. The ultimatum was to be answered within 48 hours. It included the following demands:
(i) Serbia was to suppress all anti-Austrian (and Pan-Slav) publications, societies and propaganda.
(ii) Serbia was to dismiss all anti-Austrian officials objected by Austria.
(iii) Austrian police and officials were to enter Serbia and to take part in the Serbian police force in order to carry out the suppression of anti-Austrian activities and investigations concerning the Sarajevo murders.
These demands infringed Serbian sovereignty. Austria expected that Serbia would reject, thus giving her the excuse to declare war. Instead, Serbia accepted the first two demands and suggested the third be submitted for arbitration by the Hague Tribunal. William II was satisfied with the Serbian reply and did not feel the need to punish Serbia with a war. He declared, "a brilliant diplomatic triumph, no excuse for war."
2. Outbreak of War - July 1914
Austria was still determined to destroy Serbia. After declaring the Serbian reply unsatisfactory, the Austrian government simply declared war anyway on July 28. The bombardment of Belgrade began on July 29.
Serbia mobilized before answering the ultimatum and rejected the key demand. At that time Russia issued a pre-mobilization order.
That month before the start of the war was a time of great confusion in Austrian, German, and Russian governments, -- which all lacked adequate crisis management mechanisms. It is possible to find a quote from the Keiser, for example, supporting several contradictory positions, -- depends which minister he spoke to just before that.
I will refer to the Keegan's book and give a more substantive response later.
Serbia accepted Austria's first two demands and *suggested* that Austria's third demand be submitted for arbitration.
Austria didn't even reply, save to say that Serbia's response was inadequate, and Austria certainly didn't attempt to negotitiate. Austria simply invaded anyway, revealing their ultimatum to be a ploy in the first place.
Serbia's acceptance of Austria's demands was so well done that Austria's chief ally Germany, in the form of Kaiser William II, said that there was now "no excuse for war."
Austria invaded Serbia anyway.
That's not a causi belli. Sovereign nations can mobilize at their whim.
Mobilization, at the state of the art then, meant war. Each side had elaborate and rigid war plans. Once mobilization started, the movement of troops was calculated with mathematical precision. It was a war by timetable. So while the diplomats and the Keiser hoped for diplomacy to work, -- and issued praises for this or that diplomatic demarche,-- the generals computed distances and throughput of roads and said things like:
-- The enemy mobilized yesterday. If we mobilize today, we lose 10 miles inside our territory. If we mobilize tomorrow, we lose 20 miles. If we mobilize the day after tomorrow the enemy has access to our railroad grid and we lose the war. Your Majesty, you have to mobilize.And His Majesty wrung his hands and listened.
The military doctrine of the time -- dictated by the military technology of the time -- made mobilization an effective act of war.
When membership was mandatory.
Great way to put that -- pithy post of the day.