Rector
political and civil authorities,
Distinguished faculty and administrative staff,
dear young students!
It gives me great joy to meet the community of "La Sapienza - University of Rome" at the inauguration of the academic year. For centuries now this university marks the journey and the life of the city of Rome, by earning the best intellectual energies in every field of knowledge. Is the time when, after the foundation set by Pope Boniface VIII, the institution was directly under the ecclesiastical authority, and later when the Studium Urbis has developed as an institution of the Italian state, your academic community has maintained a great scientific and cultural level, which places it among the most prestigious universities in the world. The Church of Rome has always looked with affection and admiration at this university center, recognizing the commitment, sometimes difficult and demanding, research and training of new generations. There were significant moments in recent years of collaboration and dialogue. I recall in particular the World Meeting of Rectors for the Jubilee of Universities, which saw your community take over not only the welcome and the organization, but most of the complex and prophetic proposal for the design of a "new humanism for the third millennium. "
I am pleased on this occasion to express my gratitude for the invitation that I was asked to come to your university to keep you a lesson. In this perspective I first put the question: What can and must say a pope on an occasion like this? In my lecture at Regensburg I spoke, yes, the Pope, but also as I mentioned in my former professor of the university, trying to connect memories and current events. University "Sapienza", the ancient university of Rome, however, are called just as Bishop of Rome, and therefore I must speak as such. Sure, "Sapienza" was once the university of the Pope, but today is a secular university with that autonomy which, according to its own foundational concept, has always been part of the nature of universities, which must be tied exclusively to the authority of truth. In its freedom from political and ecclesiastical authorities the university finds its particular function, just for the modern society, which needs institutions of this kind.
Back to my initial question: What can and must say the Pope's meeting with the university in your city? Reflecting on this question, it seemed that it includes two other, the clarification of which should by itself lead to the answer. For we must ask: What is the nature and mission of the Papacy? And again: What is the nature and mission of the university? I do not want you here and keep me in long disquisitions on the nature of the Papacy. Suffice it briefly. The Pope is first and foremost the Bishop of Rome and as such, by virtue of succession to the Apostle Peter, has an episcopal responsibility in regard to the entire Catholic Church. The word "bishop" - episkopos , which in its immediate meaning refers to "guard", since the New Testament was fused together with the biblical concept of shepherd: he is the one that, from an elevated vantage point, look at 'together, taking care of the right path and the cohesion of the whole. In this sense, the designation of the task oriented look first to the inside of the believing community. The bishop - the shepherd - is the man who takes care of this community, one who keeps holding it together on the path to God, according to the Christian faith given by Jesus - and not just mentioned: he himself is the way for us. But this community that the bishop cares - big or small - live in the world, its conditions, its journey, its example and its word inevitably influence the rest of the human community as a whole. The larger it is, the more its good condition or its possible degradation will impact on all humanity. Today we see very clearly, as the conditions of religions and how the situation of the Church - its crises and its replacement - act on all of humanity. Thus the Pope, as pastor of his community, has become increasingly the voice of reason, ethics of humanity.
Here, however, is clear from the complaint that the Pope, in fact, does not really speak on the basis of ethical reasoning, but would his judgments from the faith and therefore could not claim their validity for those not share this faith. We will still return to this subject, because it places the issue here is absolutely fundamental: What is the reason? How can an assertion - especially a moral norm - to prove "reasonable"? At this point I would like for the time being only briefly to note that John Rawls, while denying a religious doctrines including the nature of reason "public", however, sees in their right "not published" at least one reason that could not, in the name of a secularist rationality hard, simply be dismissed by those who support it. He sees a criterion of this reasonableness among other things, the fact that similar doctrines derive from a tradition of responsible and motivated, in which over long time arguments have been developed sufficiently good in support of its doctrine. In this statement seems to me important to recognize that experience and demonstration over generations, the historical background of human wisdom, are also a sign of its reasonableness and its continuing significance. Faced with an a-historical reason which tries to build itself only in a-historical rationality, the wisdom of humanity as such - the wisdom of the great religious traditions - is to be valued as a reality that can not be cast with impunity into the dustbin of history of ideas.
return to the initial question. The Pope speaks as the representative of a believing community, in which during the centuries of its existence has gained a certain wisdom of life, speaks as the representative of a community that holds within itself a treasury of ethical knowledge and experience, which is important for all humanity: in this sense, he speaks as a representative of a ethical reasoning.
But now we must ask ourselves: what is the university? What is your role? It is a huge question to which, once again, I can only try to answer in almost telegraphic style with a few comments. I guess you could say that the true, intimate origin of the university lies in the thirst for knowledge that is peculiar to man. He wants knowing what it is everything that surrounds it. He wants truth. In this sense we can see the questioning of Socrates as the impulse that gave birth to the Western university. I think, for example - to mention only one text - of the dispute with Euthyphro, that before Socrates defends mythical religion and his devotion. To this Socrates opposed the question: "Do you believe that the gods actually exist a terrible war and mutual enmity and fighting ... We must, Euthyphro, actually say that this is real?" (6 b - c). This question apparently devoted little - which, however, in Socrates came from a more religious deeper and more pure, the search for a truly divine God - the Christians of the first centuries recognized themselves and their journey. They have received their faith not in a positivist manner, or way out of unfulfilled desires, they understood as the dissolution of the fog of mythological religion to make way for the discovery of the God who is creative Reason and at the same time Reason -Love. Therefore, the question of reason on God's greatest as well as to the true nature and true sense of the human form was not a problem for their lack of religiosity, but was part of the essence of their way of being religious. They did not need, therefore, to dissolve Socratic questioning or set aside, but they could, indeed, had to accept and recognize as part of their identity laborious search of the right to attain knowledge of the whole truth. He could, indeed should it, as part of the Christian faith in the Christian world, the birth of the university.
You must go one step further. Man wants to know - he wants truth. Truth is above all a thing of seeing, understanding of theoria , as the Greek tradition calls. But the truth is never merely theoretical. Augustine, when asking a correlation between the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount and the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in Isaiah 11, said a reciprocity between "scientia " and " tristitia " simply know, he says, saddened. And actually - who only see and learn everything that happens in the world, ends up being sad. But truth means more than knowledge: the knowledge of truth has as its object the knowledge of good. This is also the meaning of Socrates: What is the good that makes us true? The truth makes us good and goodness is true: this is the optimism that lives in the Christian faith because it has been granted the vision of the Logos of Creative reason that, in the incarnation of God, revealed itself as the Good, as Goodness itself.
In medieval theology there was a thorough debate on the relationship between theory and practice, on the proper relationship between knowledge and action - an argument that we should not develop here. In fact, the medieval university, with its four faculties this correlation. Let's start with the Faculty, according to the understanding of the time, was the fourth, that of medicine. Although it was considered more as "art" than a science, however, its inclusion in the Cosmos' s universitas clearly meant that it was placed in the context of rationality, that the art of healing was under the guidance of reason and was removed from the realm of magic. Healing is a task that requires more than just reason, but for this it needs the connection between knowledge and power, it needs to belong to the sphere of ratio. Inevitably the question of the relationship between practice and theory, between knowledge and action in the Faculty of Law. This is the right form to human freedom is always freedom in reciprocal communion: the right is the precondition of freedom, not its antagonist. But here the question immediately arises: How s'individuano criteria justice that makes possible a freedom lived together and are good human being? At this point imposes a leap into the present: it is the question of how legal rules can be found to serve as a sort of freedom, human dignity and human rights. It is the question that occupies us today in the democratic processes of opinion formation and at the same time there as a matter of anxiety for the future of humanity. Jürgen Habermas expresses, in my opinion, a consensus of current thinking, when he says that the legitimacy of a constitution as a requirement of law, derives from two sources: from participation egalitarian policy of all citizens and reasonable manner in which political disagreements are resolved. Regarding this "reasonable manner", he notes that it can not be merely a struggle for arithmetical majorities, but must be characterized as a "process of argumentation sensitive to the truth" (wahrheitssensibles Argumentationsverfahren). This is well said, but it is very difficult to turn into a political practice. The representatives of that public "process of argumentation" are - we know - mostly as the parties responsible for the formation of political will. In fact, they will invariably aim above the attainment of majority and what will take care almost inevitably lead to interest that promise to meet, but those interests are often particular and do not really need the whole. The sensitivity to the truth again and again is overwhelmed by the sensitivity to interest. I find it significant that Habermas speaks of sensitivity to the truth as a necessary element in the process of political argument, and reinserting it the concept of truth in philosophical and political debate.
But then it becomes inevitable question of Pilate: What is truth? And how do you recognize? If so, please refer to "public reason" as Rawls does, yet necessarily follow the question: What is reasonable? As a reason it shows real reason? In any case, it is clear that based on what, in search of the right of liberty, truth must be heard just coexistence of different instances with respect to political parties and interest groups, which does not mean in any way challenge their importance. We return to the structure of the medieval university. Alongside that of jurisprudence were the faculties of philosophy and theology, which was entrusted with the research about being a man in his totality and thus the task of keeping alive the awareness of the truth. You could even say that this is the way to permanent true of both faculties: sensibility to be guardians of the truth, do not allow the man to be deterred from seeking the truth. But how can they correspond to this task? This is a question for which we again and again and fatigue that never post and finally resolved. So, at this point, I can not really offer an answer, but rather an invitation to stay on the road with this question - on the road with large and throughout history have struggled and searched, with their answers and their restlessness for the truth, which continually refers beyond any single answer.
theology and philosophy form this sounds like a peculiar pair of twins in which neither can be totally separated from, and yet each must maintain its role and identity. It is the historical merit of St. Thomas Aquinas - in front of the different responses of the fathers because of their historical context - that we have emphasized the autonomy of philosophy and with it the right and the responsibility of reason that is uncertain in according to his strength. Differentiating itself from neo-Platonic philosophy, in which religion and philosophy were inseparably intertwined, the Fathers had presented the Christian faith as the true philosophy, stressing that this faith is to demands of reason in search of truth, that faith is the "yes" to the truth than the mythical religions that had become mere routine. But then, at the time of the birth of the university in the West were no more those religions, but Christianity, and so it was necessary to stress again the responsibilities of reason, which is not absorbed by faith. Thomas was found to act in a privileged moment for the first time, the philosophical writings of Aristotle were accessible in their entirety, were Jewish and Arab philosophies, such as specific appropriations and continuations of Greek philosophy. So Christianity in a new dialogue with the reasoning of others, who were meeting, he had to fight for their reasonableness. The Faculty of Philosophy, as so-called "School of artists," until that moment had been only a preparation for theology, now became a faculty of its own, an autonomous partner of theology and faith in this reflection. We can not dwell here sull'avvincente confrontation that ensued. I would say that the idea of \u200b\u200bSt. Thomas about the relationship between philosophy and theology could be expressed in the formula found by the Council of Chalcedon Christology: philosophy and theology must relate to each other "without confusion and without separation." "Without confusion" means that each of the two must keep their identity. Philosophy must truly be a reason in their quest for freedom and their responsibility to see its limits and so is his own greatness and vastness. Theology must continue to draw upon a wealth of knowledge that did not invent itself, which always exceeds and, never being totally exhaustible through reflection, just to start this again and again the thought. Along with the "no confusion" also applies the "no separation" philosophy does not start from zero every time the subject's thinking in isolation, but is in great dialogue of historical wisdom, it critically and with more and meekly accepts and develops; but he should not quit in front of what religions, and especially the Christian faith received and given to humanity as an indication of the path. Various things said by theologians throughout history, or even translated into practice by ecclesiastical authorities, were proven false by history and today we are confused. But at the same time it is true that the history of saints, the history of humanism grew based on the Christian faith demonstrates the truth of this faith in its essential core, thereby making it also an instance of public reason. Certainly much of what they say theology and faith can only be appropriated within the faith and therefore can not occur as a requirement for those to whom this faith remains inaccessible. It is true, but at the same time that the message of the Christian faith is never merely a " comprehensive religious doctrine" in Rawls' sense, but also a purifying force for reason itself, which can be more herself. The Christian message, based on its origin, should always be an encouragement to the truth and thus a force against the pressure of power and interests.
Well, so far I have only spoken of the medieval university, trying, however, reveal the enduring nature of the university and its mission. In modern times have opened up new dimensions of knowledge, which are valued in the university especially in two main areas: first, in the natural sciences, which have developed on the basis of the connection and testing of supposed rationality of matter, and secondly, in the historical sciences and humanities, in which man, looking the mirror of history and clarifying the dimensions of his nature, seeks to understand himself better. This development has opened to mankind not only an immense knowledge and power, have also increased awareness and recognition of the rights and dignity of man, and this can only be grateful. But man's journey can never is complete and the danger of falling into inhumanity is never just warded off: as we see in the panorama of history for today! The danger of the Western world - to speak only of this - is that man today, precisely because of the greatness of his knowledge and power, surrenders before the question of truth. And that means at the same time that the reason eventually bow to the pressure of interest and the attractiveness of utility is forced to recognize it as the ultimate criterion. Told from the point of view of the structure of the university: there is a danger that philosophy, feeling more capable of its true task, to degrade in positivism, that theology with its message addressed to reason, be confined to the private sphere of a group more or less. However, if the reason - calls its presumed purity - it becomes deaf to the great message that comes from the Christian faith and wisdom, it withers like a tree whose roots no longer reach the waters that give life. He loses his courage for the truth and so do not get bigger, but smaller. Applied to our European culture this means: If it only wants to build itself on the basis of the circle of their arguments, and what convinced her at the time, and - preoccupied with its secularity - stands out from the roots of which lives, then it becomes more reasonable and more pure, but will fall apart and shatters.
I return to the starting point. What did he do or say the Pope in the university? Surely he must not seek to impose on others their faith in an authoritarian manner, which can only be given in freedom. Beyond his ministry as Pastor in the Church and according to the intrinsic nature of this ministry is his task to keep alive the awareness of the truth, always invite reason to back out in search of truth, goodness, and God , on its way to discern the lights that have emerged throughout the history of Christian faith and thus to recognize Jesus Christ as the Light that illuminates history and helps us find the way forward.
From the Vatican, January 17, 2008
BENEDICTUS PP. XVI
0 comments:
Post a Comment