WITHOUT ROOTS

TIte Wst, Relahbtim,

Cltnxianifu,Islam
JOSEPH RATZINGER
NoW popn BENEDTCT xvl
MARCELLO PERA

Foreword by GeorgeWeigel
Tianslated by Michael F. Moore

B A SI C

BMKS

A Mmberof tlu PeneufiqotsGnup

NewYork '

200 6
)

Letter to MarcelloPera
FROM JOSEPHRATZINGER

Mr. President:
First I wish to thank you for your remarkablelecture on relativism,which provides such a preciseand
thorough analysisof the basicproblem of the WestIn this context I
ern world and its consequences.
would like to leave asidethe issueof my possible
judgment of PresidentBush'spoliciesand the war in
Iraq, which would require a concrete assessmentof
the facts and thereforego beyond the scopeof the
problems that I, as a theologian,can and wish to addresspublicly. Nor do I wish to dwell on the problem ofjust war. The CatecJnsm
of the Catltoh:cChurch
backed by the authority of the Church's Magisterium, has alreadysaid everything there is to be said
about this issuein terms of the Christian faith (numbers 2307-2317,and 2327 ff). You and I are of a
ro7

WITHOUT ROOTS

LETTER TO MARCELLO PERA

singlemind in rejectinga pacifismthat doesnot recognize that some values are worthy of being deGndedand that assignsthe samevalueto everything.
To be in favor ofpeaceon sucha basiswould signify
andrchy,which is blind to the foundationsof freedom. Becauseif everyoneis rigtit, no one istight.
This is not a subject on which I wish'to write.
What regardsme directly and demandsa responseis
rather your'idea of a non-denominationalChristian
religion. Once againI must begin with a few words
of thanks.It was with great satisfactionthat I read
your letter of responseto my lectureon Europe.I
share your diagnosisas well as the orientation of
your response.In my capacityas a theologianI feel
obliged to clarify the cnceptof civil religion.I will
therefordfocuson the relationshipbetweencivil religion-which subsumes
differencesbetweenthe single
denominations-andfaith in the CatholicChurch.
Your vision of a Christian civil religion reminds me
of Alexisde Tocqueville'sworl<.Democraty
rn Amenca.
During his study of the United States,the French
scholarhad noticed,to put it briefly,that the unstable
and fragmentarysystemof rules on which, to outward appearances,
this democracyis founded,functigned becairseof the thriving ProtestantChristianinspiredcombinationof religiousahd moral convic-

tions in Americansociety.No one had prescribedor

defined these convictions, but everyone assumed
them asthe obviousspirirualfoundation.
The recognition of this basic religiousand moral orientation,
which went beyond the single denominationsand
definedthe societyfrorn within, reinforcedthe cor*
pus of the law.It de{nedthe limits on individalfree'conditions
doms from within, thereby creatingthe
for a shared,commonfreedom.
In this regard,I would like ro quotea significant
phrasefrom de Tocqueville:"Despotismmay govern
without faith, but liberty cannot" (Chapter9). In the
letterthat you ddressedto me,you quotean expression from John Adams that conveys a similar
thought, namely, that the American Constitution
"wasmadeonly for a moral and religiouspeoplel' In
the United States,too, seculaiizationis proceedinga't
an accelerated
pace,and the confluenceof many di{:
GrentculruresdiSrupts
thebasicChristianconsensus.
However,there is a much clearerand more implicit
sensein America than in Europe that the religious
and moral foundationbequeathedby Christianity is
greaterthan that of any singledenomination.F)urope,unlikeAmerica,is on a collisioncourscwith its
own history.Often it voicesan almostvisccralclenial
of any possiblepublicdimensionfor Christiurrvaltres.

ro8

r09

1'"''lfffflltflTiF.trF | | lllllllfllffi"

WITHOUi

ROOTS

Why is this sol Why is Europe,which hassuchan

ancientChristiantradition, unableto acknowledgea
consensus
of this type?A consen.u.that, irrespective
of mernbershipin a specific faith cornmunity, accords a su3tainingpublic value to the fundamental
conceptsof Christianity?Sincethe historic basesfor
this differenceare well known, I will be brief in my
description.
Arnerican societywas built for the most part by
groups that had fled from the system of tte
churchesthat reigned in Europe, and they found
their religiousbearingsin freefaith communitiesoutside of the statechurch.The foundationof American society were thus laid by the free churches,
which by the tenets of their creed and their very
structureare not a statechurch but rather a Iiee assemblyof individuals.In this senseyo could say
'of
that American societyis built on a separation
church and statethat is determinedand indeeddemandedby religion (a separationwhose motivation
could not be more differentfiom
and configr.rration
'
the conflictual separationof church and state imposedby the FrenchRevolutionand the systemsthat
followedit). In Americathe stateis little rnorethan a
lree spacefor'differentreligiouscommunitiesto congregate;it is in its nature to recognizeand permit
IIO

li

LETTER TO MARCELLO PERA

thesecommunitiesto existin their particularityand

their non-membershipin the state.This is a separation that is conceivedpositively,sinceit is meant.to
allow religionto be itsel{ a religionthat respectsand
protectsits own living spacedistinctlyfrom the state
and its ordinances.
This separationhas createda specialrelationship
between the state and the private spheresthat is
completely different from Europe.The private sphere
has an absolutelypublic character.This is why what
doesnot pertain to the stateis not excludedin any
way, style,or form from the public dimensionof so_
cial life. Most of America'scultural institutions are
non-governmental,such as the universitiesor arts
organizations.The legal and tax system favors and
enablesthis type of non-governmentalculture, by
contrastto Europe,where,for example,private uni_
versitiesarea recentandonly marginalphenomenon.
It is safe to say that the {iee churches also came to
seethemselvesas somewhat relative, but they knew
that they were neverthelessunited by a common reason aboveand beyondinstitutionsthat was the basis
for everything.
This context is not without dangersof its own.
Some publications today seem to be rgviving the
WASP ideology, which holds that the true American
III

il

r
],
i

WITHOUT ROOTS

is white, of Anglo-Saxonorigin, and Protestant.This

ideology was born when the arrival of immigrant
groups of Catholicfaith-especiallythe Irish, Italians,
Poles,and peopleof color-was perceivedas a threat
to the consolidatedidentity of America.Theseideas
held sway until the twentieth century, in the sense
that anyonewho aspiredto an important position in
American public life had to be a WASP. In reality,
however,the Catholic communitywas soon w.ellintegratedinto the Americanidentity.
Amerian Catholicsalso recognizedthe positive
character of the separation between church and
state,for both religiousreasonsand for the religious
freedom that it guaranteedthem. It is alsothanksto
the significant contribution of Catholics that American society has maintained a Christian consciousness.Their contributionis more important than ever,
at a time of profound,radicaltransformationsin the
Protestant world. Since the traditional Protestant
communities are continuouslyadapting to secularized society,they are losing their internal cohesion
and theit ability to persuade.The evangelicals,who
used to be the most relentlessenemiesof Catholicism, are,not only gainingground on the traditional
communities, but they are also discovering a new
commonalitywith Catholicism.They have come to
ll2,

LETTER TO MARCELLO PERA

seeCatholicismas a deGnderagainstthe pressures

of secularization
and an upholderofthe sameethical
valuesthat they themselvesproGss:valuesthat they
feel havebeenbetrayedby their Protestantbrothers.
On the basisof thb structure of Christianity in the
United States,the AmericanCatholicbishopsmade a
unique contribution to the SecondVaticanCouncil
through their instrumentalrole in drafting the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae on Religious Freedom
(1965).They broughtto the issueand to the Catholic
tradition the experienceof the non-state church
(which had proven to be a condition for protecting
the public valueof fundamentalChristianprinciples)
as a Christian form that emergedfrom the very nature ofthe Church. Today American society-because
of massiveimmigration from Latin America and the
growing pressuresof secularization-isforced to addressseriousnew challenges.One could say, however-at leastin my opinion-that in the United States
there is still a civil Christianreligion, although it is
besiegedand its contentshavebecomeuncertain.
Why doesall of this matier so little to Euiope?
Why, in Catholic countries,is there such sharp opposition betweenCatholicsand seculristsiWhy in
the variedpanoramaof secularismis there a prominent fringethat resolutelydeniesthe right ofa public
I13

WITHOUT ROOTS

presenceto the Christianfaith and its valueslHere,

too, the only answerwe can deriveis Iiom thepages
of history.
Ever sincethe Reformation,Europe has been divided into two spiritualcamps:the Catholic part of
the continent, which correspondslargely but not
wholly to the Latin countries,as well as the nations
that formerly belongedto the Hapsburg Empire and
Polandand Lithuania;and ProtestantEurope,which
insteadoincidesmainly,but not wholly, wit the
nationsof Germanicorigin. The Reformedchurches
were establishedin Europeas statechurches,in part
because,for examplein England and Scandinavia,
the Reformationwas introducedby monarchs,and
in part becausethe princes-for example in Germany-anointedthemselvesas managers,guarantors,
and beneficiariesof the Reformation. As we saw, the
state church principle later provoked the counteroffensiveof the free churchesthat gave rise to the
United States.
The Catholicprincipleis in contrastwith the state
church systembecauseit emBhasizesthe universal
natureof the Church, a Church that doesnot coincide with any one nation or any onq statecommu'Church
nity. This
lives in all nations. It createsa
community-aboveand beyond loyalty to one'sown
rt+

LETTER TO MARCELLO PERA

country-that spreadsbeyondnationalborders.Tirke
the exampleof the Gregorian reform. After many efforts,the Church succeeded
in obtainingthe distinc-'
tion between sacerdohumand impenum, thereby
creating the basis for a separatinbetween the two
spheres.In fact,from the startofthe modernera,European Catholicism was also able to asserta state
ihurch systemthat made the faith, in practice, an aF
fair ofstate.
The Enlightenment,however,was receivedin two
compltely di{Ierent ways by Protestantism and
Catholicism,preciselybecauseof the particular na_
ture of each.While the Enlightenmentproclaimed
the autonomy of reasonand its emancipationfrom
traditional faith, the Catholic Church remained
strongly attached to its heritage of faith,
-thereby
lockingthe two in endlessconflict.Despitethe many
upheavalsof the sixteenth century, the Catholic
countries did not experienceany major religious
schismsuntil the eighteenth century, when the new
"denomination"of lan (secularpeople),.wasborn.1
Since then, the separationbetween Catholics and
laia'hasbecomecharacteristic
ofthe Latin corhtries,
while the German-speaking
Protestantcountries
have no such usageas the word lain, a term that it
finds completelyincomprehensible.
In the broadest

WITHOUT ROOTS

LETTER TO MARCELLO PERA

senseofthe word, the term lalco denotes spiritual

From the beginning protestantism has seen itself

- as a movement
of emancipation, liberation, and ou_

membership in the Enlightenment. In the tqro. centuries that have gone by since then, no bridge has

rificarion.When I went to Ceneva for the first time,

everywhere I looked I saw inscriptions such as pasl

been built between the Protestant and the Catholic

faiths; the two worlds seem to have become mutu-

tenebras/zr, illustrating the close relationshio be_

tween the Reformalion and the basic tendenciesof

ally impenetrable.
Since "secularity" also means free thinking and

the Enlightenment. In this sense,despite a certain

dogmatism that quickly emerged in the protestant
churches,one can still speak of a kinship between
the Enlightenment and protestantism_which be_
came very clear in the eighteenth century. This rela_
tionship combined an intensfication of the genuinely
confessionalnature with a broader intertwinins of
Protestanrismand Enlightenmentthought.

freedom from religious constrictions, it also involves

the exclusion of Christian contents and values from
public life. This exclusion leads to the tendenc'y on
the part ofthe modern conscienceto treat the entire
realm of faith and morals as "subjective."Thank
goodness that the demarcation lines have subsequently been softened and the secular panorama become more varied. On the Catholic side, Vatican II

Friedrich Schleiermacher,who established a new

approach to theology-at the turn of the nineteenth
century, expelled religion frorr the sphgre of reason
and gave it what he believed to be a new and secure
position within the realm of the sentiments.In this
way religion could supposedly survive, although its

incorporated the collective efforts oftheologians nd

philosophers from the previous two hundred years
to open the gates that had divided the faith?om the
learningof the Enlightenmentand embark on a lertile exchangebetween the two. Thus, while the split
between Catholics and secularpeople would seem to

confessionalcontents had been redgced mostly to

the symbolic sphere.

nexcludea form of civil religion, openings have appeared that people have wisely utilized.

In the nineteenth century, there were strong reac_

tionary movements that gave new life to the various

Before continuing along these lines, we should

also examine the European Protestant world and its

creeds,although there continued to be a widesoread

identificationof the dominant spiritualrnovements

relationship to secularism.
r r6

--

WITHOUT ROOTS

In this senseGerman
with the Protestantconscience.
for one,was broadlytransformedinto
Protestantism,
a reltgtbcivih.sin the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries.After the first world war, however, this
civil religion appearedto be compromisedby its profound comminglingwith the Prussiannational conscience.In the period betweenthe two world wars,
there was consequentlya major "reconGssionalization" of German Protestntismas well as.a.new
'Catholic
openness toward ecumenism and the
Church.
Today'spanoramais,quiie varied.To do it justice
we would haveto go well beyond the.scopeof this
short statement.Despite the apparent diversity of
the phenomenaof state churches,evangelicalmovements.secularization.
and the searchfor a ieriewalof
the faith, Protestantismasa whole seemsto be char-.
of its profound interacterizedby a consciousness
twining with modern culture. This. is both its
strengthand its wealness,sincethe fatal tendencyto
conform to the times-which led Protestantismto
the brink of dissolutionduring the Enlightenment-is
alive and well today, as the traditional Protestant
churchesin the United Statesdemonstrate.Protestantism has thus become,for the most part, a cultural fact: it is somehow still called Protestant,
rr8

LETTER TO MARCELLO PERA

altholrgh it is no longer connected to any particular

denomination.
In this regard,the words of the former Prime Minister of France,Lionel Jospin,are telling. He called
himself an atheistic Protestant.He characterized his
atheismin terms of his Protestantcultural origins. I
say this becauseProtestantism-givenits openness
toward the modem culture, which it helped to mold
to a remarkableextent-couldappearto be the ideal
representative
ofa civil religion.Yet its current crisis
and the deeptransformations
it hasundergonedemonstratethat "de-confessionalization"
doesnot automaticallyproducesomethingthat resemblesa broad
Christianityencompassing
other denominations.
Today, in the old confession_al
churchesof Protestantism,there is a steady,discotcertingloss of vitality. Freechurchesofan evangelicalmodel are being
formed that their enemiescall "fundamentalist,"but
that arenonetheless
ableto attractthousandsofpeople in searchofa solid foundation.for their lives.
Statisticstell us that the more chrrr"ts adapt themselvesto the standardsof secularization,the more
followersthey lose.They becomeat{ractive,instead,
when they indicatea solid point of referenceand a
clear orientation. An ambiguouslight is thus cast,
upon the concept of civil religion: if it is nci more
II9

WITHOUT ROOTS

than a reflectionof the majority'sconvictions,then it

meanslittle or nothing. If instead it is a source of
spiritual strength,then we have to ask what feeds
this source.
So how can Europe attain a Christian civil religion
that overcomesthe boundariesbetweerld-enomina.tions and givesvoice to valuesthat sustainsociety
rattler than consolethe individuali Such a religion
can obviouslynot be built by experts,sinceno committee or council,whoeverits members,can possibly
generatea global ethos.Somethingliving cannot be
born exceptfrom another living thing. Here is where
I seethe importanceof creativeminorities.From a
numericalpoint of view, Christiansare still clearly
the majority in much of Europe, although the number of the baptizedhasgonedown in somecontries,
especiallyin EasternEurope and northern Germany.
In the part of Germany that was f<irmerly nder
Communistrule,for example,baptizedChristiansare
no longer the majority.Even the existingmajorities,
however,havegrown weary and disenchanted.
This is why it is so important to have convinced
minoritiesin the Church,for the Church,and above
all beyondthe Church and for society:'humanbeings
who in their encounterswith Christ havediscovered
the precious pearl that gives value to all life

LETTER TO MARCELLO PERA

(Matthew 13:45ff), assuringthat the Christian imperativesare no longer ballastthat immobilizeshumanity,but ratherwingsthat carry it upward.Such
minorities are formed when a cohvincingmodel of
life also becomesan opening toward a knowledge
that cannotemergeamid the drearinessof everyday
life. Sucha life choice,over time, affirmsits rationale
to a growing extent,opening and healing a reason
that hasbecomelazy andtired.There is nothing sectarian about such creativeminorities.Through their
persuasive
capacityand their joy, ihey reachother
people and offer them a different way of seeing
things.
'.Thereforemy first thesisis that a civil religion that
truly hasthe moral forceto sustainall peoplepresupposesthe existenceofconvincedminoritiesthat have
"discoveredthe pearl" and live it in a mannerthat is
also convincingto others.Without such motivating
forces,nothing can be built.
My second thesis is that we all need forms of
belongingor of referenceto thesecommuiities, or
simply of contactwith them. They are createdautomaticallywhen their persuasiveability is suflicicntly
great.The Lord comparedthe Kingdom of'(iod to a
tree on whose branchesvariousbirds nrakc thcir
nests (Matthew 13:32).Perhapsthe (lhirrt'h lras
I2I

WITHOUT ROOTS

forgotten that the. tree' of the, Kingdom of God

reachbsbeyond the branchesof the visible Church,,
but that this is preciselywhy it must be a hospitable
placein whosebranchesmany guestsfind solace.
In the times ofJesus,theJewishdiasporawas filled .
with "God-fearers"who reported in varying degrees
to the synago'gue
and who, in different ways, lived
the spiritualtreasureof the faith oflsrael. Only a few
of them wishedto enter fully into the.commun-ity
bf
Israel,through circumcision,but for them it was,a
referencepoint that indicatedthe way'to life. Primitire Christianityar6seinihis environment,giving vital new energy to a dying antiquity. The medieval
monasticcommunitiesknew lorms of belongingor
ofreferenceto the nlonasticfamily that enabledtheil
energiesto renewthe Church and socie;yasa ryhole.
Meeting places that become "yeast" ([.(atthew ,
13:33)-apersuasive
force that actsbyond the morer
closed sphereuntil it reacheseverybody-should
thereforebe formed around the minoritiesthat hav
beentouchedby faith.
As a third thesis,I would say that these creative
minoritiescan clearlyneither standnor live on their
own. They live naturally from the fact that the
Church as a whole remainsand that it lives in and
standsby the faith in its divine origins.It did not ini22

LETTER TO MARCELLO PERA

vent theseorigins but it recogrrizesthem asa gift that

it is duty-bound to transmit. The minorities renew
the vitality.of this greatcommunityat the sametime
as they draw on its hidden life force,which forever
generatesnew life.
As the fourth thesis,I would say that both secular
people and Catholics,seekersand believers,in the
densethicket of branchesfilled with many birds,
must move toward ea-chother with a new openness.
Believersmust neverstop seeking,while'seekersare
touchedby the truth and thus cannotbe classifiedas
peple without faith and Christian-inspiredmoral
principles.There are ways of partakingof the truth
by. which seekersand believersgive to and learn
from eachother.This is why the distinctionbetween
Catholicsand secularistsis relative.Secularpeople
arenot a rigid block They do not constitutea set deThey
nomination,or worse,an "anti-denomination.'l
are peoplewho do not yet feel able to tak the stp
'
faith with everythingthat such a slep
of ecclesiastical
involves.Very often they are people who passionately seekthe truth, who are painedby the lack of
truth in humankind.Consequentlythey return to the
essentialcontentsof culture and faith, and through
their commitment often make these contents even
more luminoubthan an unquestionedfaith, accepted
r23

\ryITHOUT ROOTS

LETTER

TO MARCELLO

PERA

more but of habit than oui of the su{Ieringsof the

conscience.
There can be a positivemeningto thesevarious
degreesof belonging.Betweenthe interna.l.and the
external, as I have already said, there is a mutual
giving and receiving.In the 1950s,Hans (Jrs von
Balthasarspokeof "breakingdown the barriers,"by
which he meantthis new mutual openness.
By going
beyond borders, beyond rigid classifications,one.
could, God willing, form a Christian civil religion
that would not be an artificialconstructionof-something that everybody supposedlyfinds reasonable,
but rathera living partakingofthe greatspiritualtra:
dition of Christianity,in which thesevaluesare actualizedand revitalized.
To thesegeneralreflectionson the questionof a
non-denominationalChristian religion, .a'{ow me,.
Mr. President,
to add three furtherobservations
to
completeand expandmy previousremarks.
The questionof why the Christian faith today is
strugglingto convey its great messageto people in
Europe inevitably regards the believing Christian
and, above.all,the pastor of the Church. I see two
mainreasons
for its difliculties:
a) The first reasonwas articulatedby Nietzsche
when he wrote, "Christianity has thus '.far always

beenattackedin the wrong way.As long asone does

not perceiveChristianmorality as a capital crime
againstlife, its defenderswill always have an easy
game.The questionof the truth of Christianity. . . is
somethingentirelysecondaryaslong asthe quesiion
of the valueof Christianmorality is not addressedl'
Here what we areactuallyaddressing,
in my opinion, is the decisivereasonfor the abandonmentof
Christianity:its model for life is apparentlyunconvincing.It seemsto placetoo many restraintson humankind that stifle its joie de otore, that limit its
preciousfreedom,and that do not lead it to open
pastures-in the languageof the Psalms-but rather
into want, into deprivation.Somethingsimilar happened in antiquity,when the representatives
of the
powerfulRomanstateappealedto Christiansby saying: Returnto our religion,our religion isjoyous, we
have feasts, drunken revels, and entertainments,'
while you believein One who wascrucified.
The Christianswere able to demonstratepersuasivelyhow empty and basewere the entertainments
of paganism,and how sublimethe gift of faith in the
God who sufferswith us and leadsus to the road of
true greatness.Today it is a matter of the greatest
urgencyto show a Christianmodel of life that offers
a livable alternative to the increasingly vacuous

r24

t?5

LETTER

WITHOUT ROOTS

f'

TO MARCELI,O

I'I.IRA

lost in debatesover details, and thcy lluvr nr)t t,r

vested enough effort in asking thc burir. rlrcrthurr

entertainmentsof leisure-time society, a society

forcedto makeincreasingrecourseto drugsbecause
it is satedby the usual shabbypleasures.Living on
the greatvaluesofthe Christiantradition is naturally
much harderthan a liG rendereddull by the increasingly costly habitsof our time. The Christianmodel
of life must be manifestedas a life in all its fullness
and freedom, p ,life that does not experiencethe
bonds of love as dependenceand limitatign but
rather as an opening to the greatnessof life. Here,
too, I referto the idea of the creativeminorifiesthat
enrich this model of life, presentit in a convincing
way, and canthus instill the courageneededto live it.
b) The secondreasonfor the crumbling of Christianity lies,in my opinion,in the fact that it seernsto
have been surpassed
by "science"and to be out-of
stepwith the rationalismof the modern qra.This is
especiallytrue from two perspectives.
Historicalcriticismhasdistortedthe Bible,underininingthe credibility of its divine origin. Scienceand the modern
imageof the world jt has createdseemto exclude
from reality the basic vision of the Christian faith,
relegatingit to the realm of myth. So how can people still be Christiansl
The Church and its theology have wasted too
much time on small back-guardskirmi,shes,
getting

I would now like to say a ficw worrlt ,rlr''ut t r,l,l

tivism.As I saidat the outset,I anr nrort r:r.rtr.lrrl
lrrr

rz6

r27

ffitffi,*flrffi

What is Revelation?How does l{cv<,lutionrr),lrr}tl

from God link with the developrncntol lrurrrrurlur
tory? On the long road of history, so linrrrrl wrtlr
troubles,how is the guidanceof'thc ()thcr ltrorrr
fested-the Other who acts on and rcncwr lurt.)rl r;r
a way beyond the capability of hunr:ur ur.aronl
To engagescientistsand engagcirr rlinhrgur.n rrlr
philosophersof the modern era, w(, nluir rr.ttrl1rrrI
the basic questionof what makcs tlrc worl,l rrrlrr.r,.
Does matter create reason?Docs ptrrc t.ltlrr, r' ;,r,,
duce meaning?Or do the intellcct,krg,rr,,rn,l r,.,r",,rr
come first, so that reason,frecdont, ;rrrtl tlrr. qr r'rl
are alreadypart ofthe principles tll;ll (.onitru( t rr.,rl
ity? A valid civil religion will not t.olx r.rr'r..| ( i',l .rr
a mythical entity but rather as u gxrsrrlrrlrtr
,,1 rr.,r
son-just as Reasonitself precedcs:utrl (.n,llrl(.',,,ur
reason to seek to.recognize it. I bclrr.rr.tlr,rt rlrr.
struggleto regain an image of tltt. rvor l,,r.r.,l ,,rr
spirit and sense,and to countertlrt'tlt.r.onrtrur
trlrr
ist trends that you outlined in your lct.trrrr..r\ ,r t:rr.,rr
challengesharedby Catholicsrtrrtlv.r'rrl.l l,r.r,lrlr.
alike.

.. 1
WITHOUT ROOTS

all that you explainedso carefully in your lecture,

and I agreewith you completd on everything.
In recentyearsI find myselfnoting how the more
relativism becomesthe generally acceptedway of
thinking, the more it tends toward intolerance,
thereby becoming a new dogmatism.Political correctness,whose constantpressuresyou have illuminated,seeksto establlshthe domain of a singleway
of thinking and speaking.Its relativismcreatesthe illusion that it has reachedgreatet heights than tlre
ofthe pasf.It p1eloftiestphilosophicalachievements
scribesitself as the only way to think and speak-i{
that is, one wishesto stayin fashion.Beingfaithfulto
traditional valuesand to the knowledge that upholds
them is labeledintolerance,and relativismbecomes
the requirednorm. I think it is vital that we oppose
this imposition of a new pseudo-enlightenment,
which threatensfreedomof thought as well as freedom ofreligion. In Sweden,a preachervho had presented the Biblical teachings on the question of
homosexualityreceived a prison sentence.This is
just one signofthe gainsthat havebeenmadeby relativismas a kind of new "denomination"that places
religiousconvictionsand seeksto
restrictions.on
subordinateall religions to the super-dogmaof
relativism.
rzB

LETTER TO MARCELLO PERA

FinallyI wish to add a few words aboutdifftrences

over bioethicalissues,which you addressin the last
pagesofyour letter.Theseissuesareso complicated
that they can only be addressed
through an in-depth
treatmentthat is not possiblein the form of a letter. I
will thus limit myselfto a Gw brief remarks.
I appreciatethat you-unlike many other secular
people-speakof the "person from the moment of
conception,"and that you underlinethe deepethical
differencebetweenthe relationshipwith personsand
.the relationshipwith things. I can well understand
your observationson therapeutic abortion and on
homologousartificial insemination.
The Church'sMagisteriumdealswith the question
of how far the Church shouldgo in pressingits demands on lawmakers.The Congregation for the
Doctrin of the Faith prepareda document on thei
responsibilitiesof Catholic politicians that makes a
cleardistinctionbetweenthe two levelsat stake.The
Catholic will not and should not, through the making of laws, impose a hierarchy of valuesthat can
only be recognized.andenactedwithin the faith. He
or she can only reclaim that which belongsto the
human foundationsaccessibleto reasonand therefore essentialto the constructionofa soundlegal order. Yet at this point a spontaneousquestionarises:
r29

WITHOUT ROOTS

LETTER TO tO*"r""o
"t^o

What is this moral minimum accessibleto reason

that all human beingsshare?Is it that wliich all human beingsunderstand?Is it possibleto conduct a
statisticalanalysisof theserationalcommon basesfor
an authenticlegalcode?
Here the dilemma of human life emergesfully. If
we had to placeon the samelevelrationalityand the
averageconscience,
very little "reason"would be left
in the end.The Christianis convincedthat his or her
faith opensup new dimensionsof understaning
and aboveall that it helpsreasonto be itself Tkere is
the true heritageof the faith (the tinity, the divinity
of ,Christ,the sacraments,
and so on), but there is
also the knowledge for which faith provides evi,.dence,knowledgethat is later recognizedas rational
, and pertainingto reasonas such,and thus also implying a responsibilitytoward others.The personof
ELith,who has receivedhelp in reason,mustlork in
favor ofreason and ofthat which is rational:this, in
the face of dormant or diseasedreason,is a duty he
or she rnust perform toward the entire human
community.
Naturallythe personof faith knows that he or she
must respectthe freedom of others and that ultimately the o.tly *u"po.t is the qoundnessof the argumentsset forth in the political arena.and in'the
a
r30

struggle_
to shapepublic opinion.This is why it is so
crucial to developa philosophicalethicsthat, while
being in harmony with the ethic of faith, must however have its own spaceand its own logical rigor.
The rationality of the argumentsshould close the
gap betweensecularethicsand religiousethics and
found an ethics of reason that goes beyond such
distinctions.
' Having said this, I
wish to addressbriefly two
questionsof content.The first problem is that ofbeing a "personfrom the moment of conception.,'The
InstructionDonuntpltaeof February22, .1987,under
Part I, article 1, recallshow, accordingto the.kr{owledgeof moderngenetics,"From the first instant,the
programis fixed asto what this living beingwill be: a
man, this individual-manwith his characteristiCaspects alreadywell determinedl'In other words, ,.In
the zygote resultingfrom feltilization the biological
identity of a new human individual is already
constituted."
Here we shift from the empiricalto the philosophical. The Instruction afrmsthat no experimentaldatum will evCrbe sufficient proof of the existenceof a
spiritualsoul.The documentformulatesthe connection betweenthe empiricaland philosophiballevels
in the form ofa question.It recallsyet againthat one
13I

t
l
i
il
i
iI

WITHOUT ROOTS

LETTER TO MARCELLO PERA

can verify empirically that there is a new individual:

"Igdiyldual" is an empirical term since it refers to an
organismthat, while being completely dependenton
the mother, is neverthelessa new organism with its
own genetic program. Hence the question, "How
can a human individual not be a human person?"
From this derivesthe ethical deduction, "The human
being must be respcted-as person-from the very
first instant of his existencei'
Here the Church's Magisteriumis not proposipg
its own philosophical theology, nor is it mking.a
theologicalargument;it is posing a questionat the
meeting.pointof the empiricaland philosophical
(anthropological)levelsthat, in my opinion, has clear
for reason.From this derives,
ethical consequences
on the other harid, a deductionfor the legislatcir:if
this is the way things are, then the authrization to
kill the embryo meansthat "The state is dnying the
equality of all before the law" (Part III). Fbr us the
questionofthe right oflife for all thosewho are human beingsis not a questionof the ethicsof faith,but
rather of the ethics of reason.It is at this level that
the debateshouldtakeplace.
To addressthe issuesraisedby anificial fertility I
would neediar more space.I would, however,like to
at least mention the fact that Donum oitae, whle re-

jecting artificialinsemination,both homologousand

by donor-on the basisofan ethicsthat is arguedanthropologically-does not demand from lawmakers a
ban on extra-corporealhomologous artificial insernination,but would preferto seea legalprohibition on
donor artificialinsemination,in order to protect the
legally sanctionedvalue of marriage.Not to do so, in
other words, would amount to rejecting a fundamental institution of societiesbasedon Christian culture.
Such an a{front to the foundationsof our social structure is essentiallya self-contradictionby the lawrnaker.The fact that it is no longer perceivedas apch
demonstrates
clearlyhow far the processof,dismantling the institution of marriagehas progressed.On
the basisof my faith and my moral reason,I seehere
a very serioussignalofalarm for our societies.
The last remainingquestion.iswhether it is politicalJyrealisticto arguewith a reasonorientedtoward
faith in creation,an argumentthat strugglesto be understoodby the avbrageprsontoday.The Chrch's
most recent documentsare fully cognizant of this
context. Their starting point is that in the conscience'ssearchfor the truth, acceptanceand success
cannotbe decisivecriteria.However,they also realize that in politics it is a questionof what is feasible
and of gettingas closeas possibleto that which the

r'12

r33

11
WITHOUT ROOTS

LETTER TO MARCELLO PERA

conscienceand reasonhave recognizedastt"retrue

good for the individualand society.Politicsis the art
of the compromise.How far can the Christianpolitician push, through compromises,in favor of a law
that is morally groundedwithout enteringinto contradictionwith his or her conscience?
Article 73 of the encyclicalEz:angelium
utae (1995)
draftsa first basicrule whosepurport arid limits still
need to be definedin the theologicaldisqussion.
Both Eztangeltum
aitae and Donun ztitaeacknowledge
that.on the basisofreasonssubjectto disagieement
doesnot edst to pass
today,the necessary
consensus
laws on ethicsof life questionsthat fully correspond
Both thesesthereforein
to the Christianconscience.
sistthat the legislator,on the basisofand within the
realm of the principlecommonly recognizedas freedom ofcorrscience,shouldconcedethe right to conscientiousobjection.The Church does not wish to
impose on others that which they do .not understand,but it expectsthat others will at leastrespect
the consciencesof those who allow their reasonto
be guidedby the Christianfaith.
Where spaceis not granted to this freedom,the
Christian should-according to the Donum oltaeclaim the right to passiveiesistanceand therebyoffer
a testimonyof consciencethat could somehowmake

people reflect and lead to the formation of a new

conscience.This road will become less necessarythe
more we succeedin developing a civil Cfrristian religion that can shape our conscienceas Europeans
and-bridging the separation between secularistsand
Catholics-manifest the reasonableand binding value
of the great principles that' have edified Europe and
can and must rebuild it.

r34

r35

*J-il