Ratzinger the theologian

[PazzoGrande]

Before he became Pope, and before he was even made a bishop, Joseph Ratzinger was a renowned theologian… but that’s all that ordinary people seem to know.

What made Ratzinger’s brand of theology prominent? Why was he the world’s foremost theologian? Why was he not a run-of-the-mill theologian?

I was reading his latest book, and there are a lot of interesting insights in them, but he tends to defer credit to those ideas to other people. It’s a testament to the man’s humility how he *never *says, “See that? This is my idea.”

 

[Mintaka]

1. The guy has so broad a focus that you can’t really point to this or that as “Ratzingerism.” But he brings new insight to everything he writes about.
2. He’s very good at analysis, because he’s a very clearsighted sort of reader. But he’s even better at synthesis, often from unlikely sources combined with things you already think you know well. He’s the kind of guy who could wring deep insights into the Virgin Mary out of the history of springerli cookies, St. Perpetua, and Jewish kosher laws. (Although as far as I know, he’s never actually written an article on this topic.)
3. As a synthesist, he draws together ideas from everybody and everything. He does seem to take a particular delight in drawing ideas from people who disagree with him a lot, or who aren’t Christian, and showing how their ideas buttress traditional Catholic theology. But it’s a nice delight, not an unholy teasing delight. (Like I’d have, if I did it. Which is why it impresses me that he doesn’t do it that way.) He doesn’t seem to do the “in your face!” argument focused on defeating academic opponents; he just argues his points.
4. He also has a generous drive to teach people and discuss things, which is why he was a super professor and also started and ran an important theology journal.

 

[PazzoGrande]

He doesn’t seem to do the “in your face!” argument focused on defeating academic opponents; he just argues his points.

Yeah it’s funny, people would have had the presumption before he was elected that he was that type, or a dictator sort. Not so.

I was reading things that Archbishop Weakland wrote, and he had a ton of harsh criticism for John Paul II, but wrote that Cardinal Ratzinger just did his job and didn’t like having to come down hard on people. John Allen also wrote that Ratzinger was willing to take the brunt of criticism of the College’s decisions in 2005 even though he really had no responsibility for them.

 

[maltmom]

I know someone on the forum who studied under him. I’m going to send a link to this thread to him and see if he wants to join in on the discussion.