**Third of Three United Postings –**From The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger with Vitterio Messori, Ignatius Press, 1985.
In response to his interviewer, Vittorio Messori, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said, “If Providence will someday free me of my obligations, I should like to devote myself precisely to the theme of ‘original sin’ and to the necessity of a rediscovery of its authentic reality. In fact, if it is no longer understood that man is in a state of alienation (that is not only economic and social, and, consequently, one that is not resolvable by his efforts alone), one no longer understands the necessity of Christ the Redeemer. The whole structure of the faith is threatened by this. The inability to understand ‘original sin’ and to make it understandable is really one of the most difficult problems of present-day theology and pastoral ministry.
“But perhaps it is necessary, I interject, to reflect on the linguistic level also: is the old expression ‘original sin’, which is of patristic origin, still adequate today?
“It is always very dangerous to change religious language. Continuity here is of great important. I hold that the central concepts of the faith, which derive from the great utterances of Scripture, cannot be altered: as, for example, ‘Son of God’, ‘Holy Spirit’, Mary’s ‘virginity’ and ‘divine motherhood’. I grant, however, that expressions such as ‘original sin’, which in their content are also directly biblical in origin but which already manifest in expression the stage of theological reflection, are modifiable. At all events, one must proceed with great care: the words are not unimportant. ; rather they are closely bound to the meaning. I believe, nevertheless, that the theological and pastoral difficulties in the face of ‘original sin’ are currently not only of a semantic but also of a deeper nature.”
Interviewer asks, “What does that mean in particular?” Cardinal Ratzinger continues.
“In an evolutionist hypothesis of the word (which corresponds to a certain ‘Teilhardism’ in theology), there is obviously no place for an ‘original sin’. This, at most, is merely a symbolical, mythical expression to designate the natural deficiencies of a creature like man, who, from most imperfect origins, moves toward perfection, toward his complete realization. Acceptance of this view signifies, however, turning the structure of Christianity on its head: Christ is displaced from the past to the future as the necessary development to the better. Man is but a product who has not yet been fully perfected by time. There has never been a ‘redemption’ because there was no sin on account of which man would need to be healed, but only, I repeat, a natural deficiency. Yet these difficulties of more or less ‘scientific’ origin are not yet the root of the present-day crisis of ‘original sin’. This crisis is only a symptom of our profound difficulty in perceiving the reality of our own selves, of the world, and of God. Discussions with the natural sciences, with for example paleontology, certainly do not suffice, even though this kind of confrontation is necessary. We must be aware that we, too, are in the presence of prior understandings and prior decisions of a philosophic character.”
“This Christian truth is, on the one hand, a mystery; but on the other, it is also, in a way, evident. What is evident: a lucid, realistic view of man and of history cannot but stumble upon their alienation and discover that there is a rupture in relationships: in man’s relationship to himself, to others, to God. Now since man is preeminently a being-in-relationship, such a rupture reaches to the very roots and affects all else. The mystery: if we are able to penetrate to the depths the reality and the consequences of original sin, it is precisely because it exists, because the derangement is ontological, because it unbalances, confuses in us the logic of nature, this preventing us from understanding how a fault at the origin of history can draw in its wake a situation of common sin.”
Interviewer asks, “Adam, Eve, Eden, the apple, the serpent … What should we think of them?”
Cardinal Ratzinger responds, “”The biblical narrative of the origins does not relate events in the sense of modern historiography, but rather, it speaks through images. It is narrative that reveals and hides at the same time. But the underpinning elements are reasonable, and the reality of the dogma must at all events be safeguarded. The Christian would be remiss toward his brethren if he did not proclaim the Christ who first and foremost brings redemption from sin; if he did not proclaim the reality of the alienation (the “Fall”) and, at the same time, the reality of the grace that redeems us, that liberates us; if he did not proclaim that, in order to effect a restoration of our original nature, a help from outside is necessary; if he did not proclaim that the insistence of self-realization, upon self-salvation does not lead to redemption but to destruction; finally, if he did not proclaim that, in order to be saved, it is necessary to abandon oneself to Love.”
////////////////////////////////////////
Brothers and Sisters in Christ – That’s what I have to share. I Bless you. Please Bless me.
JohnJFarren (
Trinity5635@aol.com)
You may be telepathic! was made redundant many years ago and tried my hand at writing, not cookies but articles about corruption, disasters and other types of evil. Some were published but not paid well enough to support a family.
