어제 교황님의 이슬람 발언으로 이슬람권이 교황님의 발언에 강하게 비판하는 뉴스를 봤다.
가톨릭 신자라서 더 더욱 그 발언에 관심을 가지고 있었다.
그런데 연설의 전문은 공개되지 않고 '교황님이 "이슬람은 악이다"라고 발언했다'는 그런 호기심 끌기 좋을만한 제목과 내용만 신문기자들이 추출하여 많은 사람들로 하여금 베네딕도16세 교황님이 중세시대 십자군 원정때의 교황을 생각하게끔 만드는 것 같다는 느낌이 들었다.
마치 TV방송국에서 시청률에 민감하듯 신문기자들도 그러한 자극적인 제목과 내용으로 자신과 자신이 속한 신문사를 사람들의 기억 속에 깊이 각인시키기 위한 것이 아닐까 하는 생각도 든다.
만약 교황이 아무런 배경 설명없이 프레시안 이OO기자의 기사대로 무조건 "이슬람은 악이다"라고 했다면 가톨릭 신자들도 비판을 할 것이다. 만약 그런 내용이었다면 나도 교황님이 이슬람을 향해서 공개적인 사과를 해야 마땅하다고 생각한다.
그러나 연설의 내용 전문을 보면 그러한 요지가 아니라는 것을 초등학생이라도 알 수 있을 것이다.
연설의 주요 핵심 내용은 "사랑과 평화를 지향하는 종교를 세속적 목적 달성을 위해 테러, 전쟁 등 폭력적 수단을 사용하는데 이용해서는 안된다는 것"이다.
이번 논란을 대하는 회교권들과 논란을 바라보는 일부 신문기자들은 마치 성경근본주의자들이 성경을 문자 그대로 해석하는 것이나 자신에게 필요한 부분만을 발췌하여 타종교를 공격하고 비난하는 일부 종교인들과 같은 행위로 느껴진다.
연설 내용 (가톨릭 굿뉴스 박여향님 글에서 발췌)
“하느님은 지극히 합리적인 분이시다. 따라서 폭력 등 모든 비합리적인 것을 거부하시는 합리 자체이신 분, “창조적 이성(Creative Reason)"이시며 요한 복음 첫장에서 말하듯이 Logos 이시다.
이러한 이성적 하느님을 기반으로 한 기독교 신앙은 지극히 합리적인 믿음으로서, 지,정,의등 모든 인간 정신 활동, 더나아가 이보다 한 차원 위의 영적 활동의 표현들인 과학, 예술, 윤리, 철학, 종교를 근거지어주는 포괄적 이성주의를 그 특색으로하고 있다.
따라서 순수 논리적 이성만을 내세우며 종교를 도외시하는 과학 지상주의는 인간과 세계 모두, 즉 실재 전반의 이해를 위한 사상이라 할 수 없으며, 종교성이 본질적으로 내제되어있는 여러 다양한 문화를 이해하고 대화를 나누기 위해서는 과학 역시 종교가 말하는 진리를 포용하고 이해해야한다.
종교에 있어 폭력적 요소가 문제되는데, 종교를 전파함에 있어 폭력으로 상대를 강제로 믿게한다든지 자기 종교로 개종하게 하려한다든지 하는 것은 참다운 믿음 행위라 할 수 없다. 특히 `지하드'(성전)라 하여 무력으로 자기 종교를 전파하려 하는 것은 참다운 믿음 행위가 젼혀 아니다."
이상이 교황 베네딕토 16세가 9월 12일 독일 레겐스부르크 대학에서 “신앙과 이성이란” 제목아래 과학자들을 향해 한 강연 내용 핵심이다.
강연 중 종교에 폭력이 개입되면 나쁘다는 점을 이해시키기 위해 지엽적으로 인용하신 지하드 (성전) 관련 서적 문구를 놓고 회교권으로부터 설왕 설래가 많은데 이는 교황님 강연 내용의 본질을 오해하는데서 비롯되지 않나 생각된다.
교황님이 방문하셨던 당사국인 독일 총리 안젤라 메르켈 역시 "교황님 강연의 핵심들 중 하나는 종교의 이름으로 행해지는 어떠한 종류의 폭력도 단호히 거부한다는 점이었다" 말하며 교황 말씀에 대한 오해 불식을 촉구했다.
교황께선 쎄오돌 코리(Theodore Khoury)란 사람의 책에 나오는 14세기 비잔틴 황제인 마누엘 팔레올로고스와 페르시아 지식인 간에 기독교와 이슬람의 진리를 놓고 나눈 대화 내용 중 황제가 회교 지식인에게 말한 “회교 전파를 위해 칼을 사용할 수 있다는 코란에 나와있는 구절은 잘못됐다. 사악하고 비인간적인 가르침이다”를 인용, 종교 전파에 있어 폭력을 사용해서는 안됨을, 더 나아가 기독교의 하느님은 폭력의 하느님이 아님을 강조하셨었다. (황제는 그 회교 지식인에게 `모하메드가 가져온 새로운 게 무엇인지를 나에게 보여달라. 당신은 모하메드로 부터 자신의 신념을 칼로써 전파하도록 명령을 내리는 등 사악하고 비인간적인 것들만을 발견하게 될 것이다'고 말했다.)
이 같은 교황님의 발언이 전해지자, 이슬람권은 즉각적인 사죄를 요구하며 강력히 비난하고 나섰다.
이집트 `무슬림 형제'의 지도자인 모하메드 마디 아케프는 성명을 통해 "그런 언급은 이슬람에 대한 정확한 이해를 드러내지 못하고 있으며, 단지 서방에서 되풀이 되는 잘못되고 왜곡된 신념일 뿐"이라고 비판하고 "서방 여론에 영향력을 지닌 가톨릭 교회의 수장으로부터 그런 언급이 나온 것은 충격적"이라고 말했다고 AP통신은 전했다.
사우디아라비아 지다에 본부를 둔 57개국으로 구성된 이슬람회의기구(OIC)도 깊은 유감을 표시하면서 "OIC는 이런 갑작스러운 캠페인이 이슬람 종교에 대한 바티칸 정책의 새로운 흐름을 반영하는 게 아니기를 바란다"며 "바티칸측은 이슬람을 정말 어떻게 바라보고 있는 지 밝히기를 기대한다"고 촉구했다.
파문이 이처럼 확산되자, 바티칸 당국은 교황님이 이슬람의 성전을 거론한 것은 그리스도교 신앙은 폭력과는 거리가 멀다는 점을 확실히 하기 위해 지엽적으로 옛날 책에 나오는 구절을 인용하셨을 뿐이며, 이슬람인들의 정서를 자극하기 위한 의도가 전혀 아니셨다고 말했다.
바티칸 대변인인 페데리코 롬바르디 신부님은 이날 교황님이 로마로 귀국하신 직후 발표한 성명을 통해 "지하드 및 지하드에 관한 이슬람인들의 생각을 깊숙이 파헤치려는 게 교황님의 의도가 아니었다"며 "더 더욱 이슬람 신자들의 감정을 건드릴 생각은 전혀 없으셨다"고 말했다.
이어 그는 교황님은 " 우리가 이슬람을 포함해 다른 종교들과 타 문화들을 향해 존경과 대화의 자세를 기르기를" 바라신다며, "교황님께서 자신의 마음속에 종교적 동기에 폭력이 개입되는 것에 대한 분명하고도 근본적인 거부가 자리잡고 있으신 점을 드러내신 것은 시의적절하다"고 덧붙였다.
강연 본문 중 오해를 일으킨 부분:
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by professor Theodore Khoury (Muenster) of part of the dialogue carried on -- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.
It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Koran, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship of the "three Laws": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran.
In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself -- which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason," I found interesting and which can serve as the starting point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation ("diálesis" -- controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war.
Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
강연 내용 핵심(Central points of Pope's lecture):
In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions.
A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based.
Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought -- to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding.
The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur -- this is the program with which a theology grounded in biblical faith enters into the debates of our time.
"Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God," said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.
--------------------------------
BERLIN-German Chancellor Angela Merkel defended Pope Benedict XVI on Friday against allegations that he had attacked Islam, saying critics had misunderstood comments the Pope made this week during a visit to his native Germany.
"Whoever criticises the Pope misunderstood the aim of his speech. It was an invitation to dialogue between religions and the Pope expressedly spoke in favour of this dialogue, which issomething I also support and consider urgent and necessary," Merkel was quoted as saying by German newspaper Bild.
"What Benedict XVI emphasised was a decisive and uncompromising renunciation of all forms of violence in the name of religion," Merkel was quoted as saying in an article to appear on Saturday (Reuters).
관련내용 보기
"Three Stages in the Program of De-Hellenization"
REGENSBURG, Germany, SEPT. 12, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a Vatican translation of the address Benedict XVI delivered to scientists at the University of Regensburg, where he was a professor and vice rector from 1969 to 1971.
This is the version the Pope read, adding some allusions of the moment, which he hopes to publish in the future, complete with footnotes. Hence, the present text must be considered provisional.
* * *
Faith, Reason and the University
Memories and Reflections
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a moving experience for me to stand and give a lecture at this university podium once again. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn. This was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors. The various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompense there was much direct contact with students and in particular among the professors themselves. We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teaching staff. There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties.
Once a semester there was a "dies academicus," when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of "universitas": The reality that despite our specializations which at times make it difficult to communicate with each other, we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibility for the right use of reason -- this reality became a lived experience.
The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the "universitas scientiarum," even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: It had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical skepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: This, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by professor Theodore Khoury (Muenster) of part of the dialogue carried on -- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.
It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Koran, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship of the "three Laws": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran.
In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself -- which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason," I found interesting and which can serve as the starting point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation ("diálesis" -- controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war.
Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("syn logo") is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...."
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.
As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?
I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the 'logos.'"
This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts with logos. Logos means both reason and word -- a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance.
The vision of St. Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) -- this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between biblical faith and Greek inquiry.
In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and declares simply that he is, already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates' attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy. Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: "I am."
This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Psalm 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature.
Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria -- the Septuagint -- is more than a simple (and in that sense perhaps less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: It is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of Revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God's nature.
In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which ultimately led to the claim that we can only know God's "voluntas ordinata." Beyond this is the realm of God's freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done.
This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God's transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions.
As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language (cf. Lateran IV).
God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Ephesians 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is logos. Consequently, Christian worship is "logic latreía" -- worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Romans 12:1).
This inner rapprochement between biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history -- it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: This convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.
The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a de-Hellenization of Christianity -- a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the program of de-Hellenization: Although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives.
De-Hellenization first emerges in connection with the fundamental postulates of the Reformation in the 16th century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system.
The principle of "sola scriptura," on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this program forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.
The liberal theology of the 19th and 20th centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of de-Hellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this program was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal's distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue. I will not repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second stage of de-Hellenization. Harnack's central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of Hellenization: This simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favor of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message.
The fundamental goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ's divinity and the triune God. In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament restored to theology its place within the university: Theology, for Harnack, is something essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific. What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful place within the university.
Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant's "Critiques," but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences. This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology.
On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: This basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature's capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield ultimate certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J. Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.
This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity.
A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.
We shall return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology's claim to be "scientific" would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: It is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by "science" and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective.
The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective "conscience" becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.
Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of de-Hellenization, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was a preliminary inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures.
The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed.
True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.
And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: We are all grateful for the marvelous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which reflects one of the basic tenets of Christianity.
The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them.
We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.
Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions.
A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based.
Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought -- to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding.
Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being -- but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss."
The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur -- this is the program with which a theology grounded in biblical faith enters into the debates of our time.
"Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God," said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.
[Translation of German original issued by the Holy See; adapted]
사소한 오해가 서로간에 깊은 상처를 남기기도 하죠. 제가 읽어봐도 언론들이 약간 맛이 간 것 같네요. 그렇게 다룰 만한 것이 아닌데, 자극적인 기사들을 쓰느라 그런거 같아요. 솔직히 우리나라에서 저 기사 쓴 언론들 원문 제대로 읽어보기나 했겠습니까.
이젠 언론마저도 믿을게 없으니 잘 아는 분들 블로그나 타고 돌아다니는게 언론을 대신하네요. 씁쓸합니다.
사소한 오해가 서로간에 깊은 상처를 남기기도 하죠. 제가 읽어봐도 언론들이 약간 맛이 간 것 같네요. 그렇게 다룰 만한 것이 아닌데, 자극적인 기사들을 쓰느라 그런거 같아요. 솔직히 우리나라에서 저 기사 쓴 언론들 원문 제대로 읽어보기나 했겠습니까.
이젠 언론마저도 믿을게 없으니 잘 아는 분들 블로그나 타고 돌아다니는게 언론을 대신하네요. 씁쓸합니다.
오해를 불러 일으킬 수 있는 문구를 인용한 교황님이 좀 더 신중했었더라면 하는 아쉬움은 있습니다.
그러나 이 문제를 보는 기자들의 낚시성 글은 정말 문제가 많다는 생각을 했습니다.
저는 언론들이 맛이 간 것이 아니라 교황이 분명 잘못 했다고 봅니다.
"회교 전파를 위해 칼을 사용할 수 있다는 코란에 나와있는 구절"
코란에 저런 구절이 어디 나와있지요?
교황이야말로 뭔가 잘못 '추출'해서 잘못 '인용'하신 것이 아닌지.
조금 오해가 있으신 듯 해요.
지엽적으로 인용하신 지하드(성전) 관련 서적 문구라고 했습니다.
코란을 인용한 것이 아니라 관련 서적 문구를 인용했다는 것을 밝혔다고 알고 있습니다.
오해 없으셨으면 해요.