REASON, FAITH, AND SECULARIZATION: JURGEN HABERMAS MEETS JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER

Gerhold K. Becker Assumption University

<U I

Uflfl~tltl

fll'i'11Tn::tl'u'i'::11-.iv19i111nu'i'::iil11l11fl::Vifl1flnqlla1l'l1fllfu11::fl1mn11nm

,,ti~fll'Vltinfl l~fl1tllJ'i'lflJ1'U'Vll~ff'11i'i''i'1JU'1::f'i1ff'Ul,,ti~i'JtilWl~m~~ 1iJu11Jl'i't1~~11u "' ~ "' .. i ,1"'11' ' ~ ,, .. ~ ~ ' ,, .d • fl'Ufl'U'tf'i'tlll'lfll~W ~Wl'l1~N'1 ~ l~fltl L'l11fl'1f1111Jff'U !ll l'l1ty'l1'11~,,11Jl'l'i'1JU'1'U'lf~Um1Wfl ,, i! m n 11n m ti ti fl 111 fl i! m.J i' 'lfty iv ff 'i':: lJ'VI fl 111J ii II ti~ fl l'i' ffl'i' 11111l11 n n i-:i l.l 'i':: ~ f'il ff 91 { ,, ,, . ,,n -:i11n111n ::ii u 11:: 'i':: 'IJ,,ti rn ,,91 min'l ,,n-:i fl 111Jff ti" flt\' ti -:i,,n-:i ~nfi1h ifln-:i un-:i fin u~11::

91 n11 un11 f1111JU91 fl~1-:i11i-:in ti1-:i~ri1ti'ty fl11 i-:iif nrn d n -:i1J1111fl fll'i' 1ifo fll'l'i':: m1~i! 11 QI Cit. d'?i d QI jJ I ,f . ,/ Q

'i' 91Clf'Ilfltl'i'1111.J ff1JI '111l'l'i'::ff'l.J91::l.l1l.1111a::ll1fl,, fl lJ 'I 'lfll 1 fll'l 'i' ::'l.J 11J,, fl 'll'l 'l':: fl 'I fl fl l'l' 111'VI::

iil-:ifld111 Arie '1 H'1ffliihl'flri1ti'tyt1u L '111J 1 '1fl '1 M'm11Jri1fl'tyi1-:i1~~ml1J~1l~ ~1de-:iti111i'um'i' ,, ' ,,

1u1u, 1rn:: f1111J1'1i'1 '111n ti1-:iiifl'H-:i'l'::1111-:ifl~ff 9ltY1uu ~mt111flu~iiu 1 '111~i""11lthu-:it1-:i

Abstract

The debate between the two leading representatives of critical theory and Catholic theology on the moral and (presumably) religi.ous foundations of the secular state that can neither be vindicated nor ignored by secular reason has drawn great attention far across the borders that tend to separate theologians from liberal philosophers. The paper seeks to explore the historical context of the debate and to identify major areas of agreement between the two discussants before it examines some of the more important remaining differences. With the subsequent election of Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope and the

18 Prajna Vi.hara, Volume 7, Number 1, January-June, 2006, 18-43 © 2000 by Assumption University Press

programmatic implications of his Papal name the debate has taken on a 'new sign.ificance by highlighting the continuous need for dialogue and deeper understanding between the Church and all people of good will regardless of intellectual background or ideological affiliations.

I. Cross-Border Explorations

On Monday, 19 January 2004, the Catholic Academy in Munich hosted adebate between two of the most distinguished German intellectuals with international acclaim far beyond their~tive disciplines. The debate took place between Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Professor Emeritus Jiirgen Habermas.

In many quarters the encounter at first stirred up disbelief and utter surprise. It was thought nearly impossible that two personalities representing positions diametrically opposed to each other would engage in an open-ended debate and could even find a common language for it. For many in Germany, Ratzinger as one of the most powerful prelates of the Roman Church and for over two decades the prefect of the Congregation of Paith, was above all a conservative theologian whose doctrinal views would jeopardize any meaningful dialogue and at best present another dogmatic statement of the Roman point of view. Habermas' left-wing friends and followers were taken aback by his willingness to engage in a dialogue with the head of the congregation that directly succeeded the infamous Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition established in 1542 by Pope Paul III to fight heretics and to suppress free thought

It is therefore one of the great surprises of this in many ways remarkable encounter that it not only took place at all, but also that friend and foe acknowledged the great sincerity and respect with which the two antagonists debated their issue at the highest intellectual level. And even more significant was that they succeeded in bringing religion and its contribution to modernity again into focus of a debate whose tremendous implications far exceed Catholicism and Christianity and extend to non­believers and unbelievers alike. Both discussants, albeit from different angles, found commonalities in their claim of a role for religion within

Gerhold K. Becker 19