Turn Out the Lights of Europe When You Leave, Pope!
So long, you relativistic suckers!
I write this hesitantly because it’s way outside my areas of expertise (action movies and things that explode in the microwave). Plus I’m not even Catholic. But I think Joseph Ratzinger — aka Pope Benedict XVI — is one of the greatest men of the age — possibly the only great man of the age — and almost certainly the last great man Europe will produce. As far as I’m concerned, he should turn the continent’s lights out as he steps down at the end of the month.
B-16′s greatness doesn’t lie in his papacy. Or that is, if it does, I wouldn’t know. It’s his writing, his theology, his thought that elevate him in my mind. When I was but a youngish dude, pounding my way through the great works, it seemed to me that the wisdom of many of the great German thinkers of the 18th and 19th centuries had been thrown aside for no good reason. Kant and Hegel had philosophically rescued the essence of Christianity for the scientific age, and had been ultimately left behind by mainstream thinkers not because they were wrong, but because they were just sort of out of keeping with the atheistic spirit of the day.
As Nietzsche understood, that God-is-dead zeitgeist would perforce lead to moral relativism. And so it has. But Ratzinger, shrugging off the zeitgeist like the cheap suit it is, humbly went on tilling the Kantian and Hegelian fields, making his way back not just to the essentials of Christianity but to the sacred person of Christ himself.
This is a great act — an intellectual feat that shows the idols of the age — men like Derrida and Lacan and Foucault — to be the mental pygmies that they are. When they are forgotten (which will be around Thursday at 4PM), the writings of Ratzinger will be remembered and read and discussed for their radical divergence away from the wisdom of the age and toward the truth. Or make that Truth.
Anyway, I know the news media will be trying anything they can to make it sound as if B-16 was somehow responsible for the execrable child-molesting business. (As far as I can tell, he had no culpability there and even helped clean up the mess.) And I know they will be focusing their energies on trying to pressure the Vatican into electing a black lesbian midget next or whatever.
But I’d like to see someone more expert than I am in these matters talk about B-16′s role as a philosopher in the great German tradition. It was that tradition that gave us Kant and Hegel and Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. And I think Ratzinger was like one of those.
I bet you would love Father Robert Barron. True intellectual Christianity is something to behold, indeed!
It is part of a Pope’s job description to think about how to express to the people of the era in which the Pope lives, the relationship between God and humanity in the pope’s writings,and actions. It’s a tradition. Pope B-XVI excelled at it.
Not only are the left blaming the child molestation on him, they’re dredging up the old “Hitler Youth” card again, as well.
That’s really funny. Before I had even read your article my response was: “All will be well when a fat, black, Lesbian, Hispanic Pope is elected.”
Europe, like America, will become a bloated gov’t bureaucracy that greases the cheap immigrant industry that keeps business rolling with entitlements and pays for it by taxing the people who patronize that very business.
At some point, classless exceptionalism dies and an aristocracy of financial cleverness sits on top with Third World people at the bottom and what created it all smashed and smothered in between.
It’s a slash and burn mentality really, dedicated to quick fixes, and eventually you run out of fields to grow minds in, and destroy a culture.
Identity doesn’t build spaceships, the people who build them do, whoever that is. An obvious point too subtle for a liberal, because they want the “right” people building those spaceships. Fat, black, Mexican, Lesbians.
We are essentially relocating NASA to El Salvador. Don’t be surprised by cardboard spaceships with tin roofs to keep off the radiation.
Though not Catholic (wife is), I have grown rather fond of Cardinal Timothy Dolan. I don’t know if he’s akin to John Paul, but the few times I’ve heard Dolan, he certainly sounded solid.
Conservative in theology with a great sense of humor and not afraid to take a public stand. What’s not to like?
I do wish, however, that the Pope had said that he was stepping down “to spend more time with his family.”
Bong! Bong! Bong!….Bingo!
The retiring Pope DOES have a family beyond the church. His older brother is still alive. I thought I heard mention of a living sister as well.
He could have also said he was going to pursue “other interests.” Oh, wait, that IS what he said!
F.A. Hayak. Let us not forget that German philosopher.
Austrian as in Austrian school of economics.
Herr Hayak sprach Deutsch. Er war Deutsch.
You must be talking about Salma Hayek. Learn Austrian first, Trottel.
That is spelled Hayek, right?
Andrew, well said! Thank you.
I’m a Catholic convert from the rapidly disintegrating Anglican Church: see what happens when the Zeitgeist is one’s muse. (And wasn’t Jesus supposed to be . . .?)
Checking out the coverage for B16 today, I’ve often found myself in tears at the sight of this humble and holy man. That he’s a GENIUS is just icing on the cake. I’m no philosopher: in fact, in that department, I’m a complete dud. But, after reading some of B16’s meditations, I’ve felt touched by light, love, and transparency, like drinking pure, clear water.
That most of the fallen world deeply deplores this beautiful human being, for me, only accentuates his love, his wisdom, and his goodness. I actually feel sorry for the moral pygmies: they look at light and life and see only darkness and death. “Turn back, O man . . .” And Kyrie eleison.
All will be well: with Father Joseph having more time to meditate and pray, all of us will continue be held in the strong heart and hands that God has given him.
May God bless you, Andrew, and may He bless His faithful and humble servant, Joseph Ratzinger.
Amen! to that lookout. Very well said.
“This is a great act — an intellectual feat that shows the idols of the age — men like Derrida and Lacan and Foucault — to be the mental pygmies that they are.”
Well said, Mr. Klavan! Well indeed!
Besides being the leader of the Catholic Church, Benedict was also a great writer. His book on the Holy Week (I can’t remember the exact title), greatly deepened my faith. I’ll certainly seek out more books by B16.
I’m not Catholic so I wouldn’t know how to tell a good Pope from a bad one. But most of the pronouncements I’ve heard from this Pope are high five’n right on the money.
Re: this oh, so pretentious phrase…”moral relativism”…..
Pasted here right smack out of Major Google:
“Not all descriptive relativists adopt meta-ethical relativism, and moreover, not all meta-ethical relativists adopt normative relativism. Richard Rorty, for example, argued that relativist philosophers believe “that the grounds for choosing between such opinions is less algorithmic than had been thought,” but not that any belief is equally as valid as any other.[1]”
Ponder that, Dear Readers…..excellent thesis material.
Dan Brown, call your Office!
Charlie, was this a homework assignment? Meta-ethical relativists and Normative relativism. Gosh, Charlie, the Jesuits never taught me this at Fordham in the fifties.
aka: Charlie Griffith [I'm going under new cover...]
No, friend Don…..I’m having a bit of fun at this tossing about so glibly of such terms as “moral relativism”, whatever that’s supposed to mean….so I went on safari with our friend Captain Google and ran across the absolutely preposterous, pontificatingly delicious paste. [alliteration alert!]
Re: “moral relativism” – Talk about PRETENTIOUS!
From that SAME, shallow (Wikipedia) entry you quote,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
… some proximate definitions are given:
“Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.”
SO BOTH “META-ETHICAL” IMMORAL RELATIVISM, AND THE “NORMATIVE” VERSION OF SAME, HOLD THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH.
“DESCRIPTIVE” MORAL RELATIVISM IS A MISNOMER, AS WELL, BECAUSE IT DOESN’T ACTUALLY DESCRIBE NOR EVEN ATTEMPT TO DEFINE “MORALITY” NOR TO THEN DIFFERENTIATE IT FROM “ETHICS,” EITHER!
So let me be the first to do so here:
“Morality” isn’t some vague, subjective “spiritual” nor idolatrously “numinous” quality, no magical “property” which can be imparted to objects, no context-free, abstracted generalization; it is in stead, always a sequential, cause-and-effect based situational prerogative, and has been most simply defined in the original version of the Golden Rule of Law, which defines morality as “Do Not Atack First!”
This applies for all levels of human interactions, from the basic individual to the familial, clan, tribal, national and state levels, and in all conceivable situations.
It has been used as the basis for the accepted version of the doctor’s Hippocratic Oath (“First, Do No Harm!”) as the most basic part of the UN’s founding charter, (which defines the # 1 War-Crime as “to be the aggressor in war,”) and even all small children instinctively know it as the “But Mom! THEY STARTED IT! Rule.” Even liberal social engineers admit to it in their “Precautionary Principle” Doctrine.
The only real Law is the Golden Rule of Law, which, by defining morality as “Do Not Attack First!” enables trust, progress, and civilization.
(See all Western countries)!
i.e: THE BEST OFFENSE IS A GOOD DEFENSE, AND THE BEST REVENGE IS TO LIVE WELL. LIVE AND LET LIVE!
The only real right we have, is to not be attacked first, and our only responsibility is to not attack others first. Bear in mind that threats ARE (psychological) attacks, too.
After all, when you choose to attack others first, your choice defines you as the predatory criminal aggressor, and they as your innocent victims; there’s no two ways about it!
Similarly, attacking second (or counter-attacking) in defense is not only a requirement for deterrance and justice, it’s also pretty-much mandatory; to refuse to stop crime is to be a willing accessory to it, and to enable it; at ‘best,’ it’s delinquent, criminal negligence!
Revenge IS justice!
It’s opposite is the creed attributed to Satan by John Milton in his Paradise Lost (“Who Dares, Wins!”); i.e: “ALWAYS ATTACK FIRST! THE BEST DEFENSE IS A GOOD OFFENSE!”
This is the creed of islam: They obey the brazen rule of chaos, which embodies immorality as: “Our god says we always have to attack all ‘The Others’ first!” and so inflicts distrust, stagnation, and Barbarism.
(See all ‘moslem’ countries)!
“ETHICS” are merely the symptoms which develop when one chooses to break that first One, Golden Rule of Law and Morality, and attack first (Ethics are for people without Morality!); i.e: When Hitler decided to (immorally) break the Golden Rule of Law and kill all the Jews, he also then and there decided to do it “ethically” by “painlessly” gassing them to death!
Capisce?
Maybe Pope Benedict 16 has plans for stepping down before frailty and death take him- perhaps he’ll influence the Cardinals away from selecting a politially-correct liberal for his successor, and guide them toward a wise and strong follower of Jesus.
That would be cool. We need a champion.
…..pause for effect……
…”less algorithmic”,…indeed.
Haha, I see what you did there.
Well, Saint Malachy’s prophesy comes into play…with a black cardinal by the name of Peter Turkson leading the pack…
Turkson isn’t black, he’s African…as a lot of American progressives will discover to their horror if he ascends to the Chair of St. Peter (the same may be said of Francis Arinze).
Peter Turkson ISN’T black?
Oookay.
If you say so.
You can believe whatever ya wanna believe, if that makes it easier for ya to sleep at night, I reckon..
No, he’s African. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are black (or at least pretend to be). See the difference?
Ahhhh … to have Cardinal Arinze for pope … I hoped he would be elected when it turned out to be Papa Bene … I think Arinze’s too old, but ahhhhh to contemplate the possibility …
and according to prophecy, isn’t the next one to step up, the last??
You are correct sir…Pope Benedict was the second to the last, and “Peter” –the only pope St Malachy names by name, rather than by code, is to be the very last pope at the End of Time.
Kinda interesting that the Cardinal from Ghana’s first name is “Peter”, isn’t it?
Alexander the Great
This is getting scary.
Heh Heh heh….
…..I love this……
I gave up dispensationalist premillennialism when I was 16 or so.
I’m beginning to think I was premature.
“Peter the Roman” indeed.
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus,
nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.
Let me propose that Ratzinger thinks and writes well not because but in spite of, his philosophical ethnicity.
All German philosophy starting with Kant could go down the pan any moment, no harm done. Theology, a different thing altogether.
I think Kant’s categorical imperative would be a nice reference point for those who think there is a different set of rules for themselves than there is for the little people.
Well said, Mr. Klavan! Well said indeed! Bless you for your kind words. I am Catholic. And I also think Joseph Ratzinger — aka Pope Benedict XVI — is one of the greatest men of the age — possibly the only great man of the age — and almost certainly the last great man Europe will produce. I actually cried this morning when I heard the news and realized what a loss for the Roman Catholic Church.
Excellent job, Mr. Klaven.
Pope Benedict’s letter to artists is beautiful and guides with a gentle hand. He is a gracious writer.
Thank you for this homage.
The biggest question is whether the new Pope will be really conservative, as in early Church conservative, and undo the prohibition against priests marrying. St. Peter was married and so ends the theological debate for me (didn’t bother Jesus; shouldn’t bother me). As a practical matter, the Church needs married priests within a very few years. This could be accomplished with minimal disruption to modern traditions (oxymoron that they are). Priests belonging to the communal orders, eg. the Jesuits, Franciscans, etc.) would not marry, while regular diocesan priests could and would. At first, married men with grown children and years of service to their parishes would be asked to consider the calling to the priesthood, and provided their wives consent, they would be considered as candidates pursuing second careers, just as the fishermen called by Jesus himself were asked.
I may be dreaming, but I see this change taking place no later than 2025 and the sooner the better.
@vox
So glad there is someone of your brilliance to tell the Magisterium what to do.
Well, why not tell them? If they are getting it wrong, then they are getting it wrong. Yours is just an argument to authority, and so, is invalid.
The prohibition against marriage by priests is an artifice. The prohibition against marriage was put in, because there was only so much wealth to skim. The church was a place younger sons of nobles could go and live in the manner to which they had become accustomed. Can’t have all these younger sons having sons, too, now can we?
keep beating it
Mr. Klaven–Andy, if I may be so bold,
You mention Hegel, Kant, and Nietzsche in the same breath. I suggest you take a look at N’s Antikrist to understand what he thought of Kant–you hint at a harmony of thought between them. I’m not sure what Hegel brings to the table, but Kant brings the CI which N absolutely despised–you ought to read what Ayn Rand had to say about Kant. Do you consider indiscriminate altruism to be a hallmark of Christianity? Like you, I think, I’m in awe of almost three centuries of brilliant German intellects. Heed N’s admonition–beware the theologians!
What Hegel brought to the table was (putting it very simply) the development of the awareness (see The Phenomenology of Spirit, especially the chapter on religion) that the Christian religion presents its certainties in form of stories and symbols, what he called “picture thinking.” While these, when taken literally, are subject to the dialectical effects of The Enlightenment (and its modern scion, the brood of mordant nihilists), at its core stands a philosophical truth: seeming opposites entail each other, as do the subject and the object of cognition. Reflection on this as truth, even a pious devotion rising entirely from feeling and intuitive conviction, has the practical merit of promoting mutual confession and forgiveness of sins among the members of the religious community. Our trespasses are forgiven to the extent that we forgive each others’.
The observer and the observed interact through the process of observation,
and what the observer sees depends on his point of view.
With apologies to Heisenberg and Bohr. >:)
“Holy Mary, Mother of God,
you have given the world its true light,
Jesus, your Son, the Son of God.
You have abandoned yourself completely to God’s call
and this became a wellspring
of the goodness which flows forth from Him.
Show us Jesus. Lead us to him.
Teach us to know and love him,
so that we too can become capable of true love
and be fountains of living water
in the midst of a thirsting world. ”
Pope Benidict 16th
With all due respect to Pope Benedict, I do not believe that he is the last great man that Europe has produced, or will ever produce.
Just for starters, there’s Vaclav Klaus and Geert Wilders. There’s also Fjordman, a/k/a Peder Jensen and Tommy Robinson.
nor do I, though the men that you quoted as counter exemples are vulgar politicians
….there she is again…..trolling…..
and though you appear to rather play this part yourself
Agreed. Secular men, though, will not be much noticed by the extremely religious. Every point of view is thus relativist in a way. Nonetheless, this Pope will be missed.
not being the literary god you are Klavan (and I mean this sincerely — I love your stuff) I wikipedia-ed up Foucalt. They had several entries for this surname. One with the first name of Michel…. well, sorry to tell you this, but Wikipedia has a picture of him and he looks most amazaingly I liike you. (Sorry.)
LOL. You’re banned from this site forever. (joking). You can always tell the difference between me and Foucault because he was a sado-masochistic gay guy who sometimes wore a safety pin through his breast for gratification and me — not so much… although sometimes my wife safety pins my address to my jacket so I remember how to get home.
No silly….
Its so OTHER nice people will see it, take pity on you, and get you home.
(sigh!)
Let me state upfront I am not Catholic, nor do I intend to be. I am 53 years old so I have seen a few Popes come and go. I guess none of them struck me one way or another. The truth be told to me, they just seemed as if they were bureaucratic functionaries, not men of God. That changed with John Paul II, even an non-Catholic like me, could see this was a man of faith. Upon his death, the church named a new man that is also of faith to replace John Paul II. My fear is with Pope Benedict stepping down, that the Catholic church will turn once more to those functionary types.
they also breed banksters
Beautifully written Mr Klaven. Respect and humor. A lovely combination, a moving tribute.
I wonder what motivates Pope Benedict XVI to be to step down as he is the first Pope in hundreds of years to do so? It is more traditional to continue to serve through their entire life, isn’t it?
Others have queried as to what authority/position the retired Pope will have in the Church hierarchy.
Logically he will revert to Cardinal.
In such a position, as a member of the conclave, he will have great influence on the selection of his successor. This may forestall the “fat, black lesbian” or some other outrage.
Continuity….against the forces of relativism….
The bottom line is that the world simply has NO clue about Christianity. They hate us & do not understand us.naturally, the Bible is quite clear about this situation.
B16 was a wonderful Christian w/ a deep love for God as well as a terrific philosopher. His writings will FAR out live any of the worthless scribblings of secular philosophers. And…he will have the last laugh not only now, but when he is with Our Lord.
If the Roman Catholic Church goes the way of the Episcopalians, western civilization —already in decline — is over, done, caput.
God Bless Pope Benedict XVI.
I agree that you would like Fr. Robert Barron, and it would be fascinating and instructive for you to watch “The Journey Home” on EWTN also, which is where I learn a lot about the Christian (Protestant) theological variations. But not about Kant and Hegel. As I overheard my husband saying on the phone once, “I don’t agree with Kant anyway so I don’t need Hegel to refute him.” But I’m a rather late convert who found myself surprised even to still be Christian; the more I learn, the more I wonder how I could be anything but Catholic. As Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
Apparently, these monsters can never quit, can they?
Let’s get deep in history shall we? Let’s start with the creation of an organizational structure that inserts a hierarchy of celibate men between every human being and G-d. Then let’s get really deep in history and talk about the Inquisition and torture. Or the annulment of marriages (see “one flesh”. Finally, we need not get all that deep in history to talk about the recruitment club for pedophiles these folk have been running.
Deep in history. Right. Not.
People who live in glass houses…Protestantism is not without sin. Then again Protestant Churches and the Catholic Church have something in common, they are administrated and attended by human beings. Human beings who are flawed and often misrepresent their desires as the will of God.
Even if you do not agree with another’s faith you can respect it. Don’t forget the “Golden Rule”.
Truth about the sex scandals:
Catholic Priests, 1.7% of ‘em had affairs, abused youth etc
Protestant Ministers 10% had affairs, abused youth etc
Secular Teachers 10% sex w/ students, etc
And where do these alleged facts purport to come from? The annual survey of “Who’s Been Buggering Little Boys”? Or is it more like the census and done every 10 years?
Your husband is a smart man.
(That made me laugh.)
The Pope may have written some good stuff but he has been the leader of an organization that has done tremendous damage to the spirituality of humanity since the organization’s very beginnings.
The pedophilia scandal was bad enough but the very nature of the church is an offense. See Martin Luther, 99 theses and all that.
Matthew 16:18
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
What a great miracle we are witnesses of which has taken place for almost 2000 years
Jonah 2: 6
“To the roots of the Mountain I sank down , the earth beneath me barred me in forever. But you brought my life up from the pit O Lord God”
Thanks for this – from a Catholic, a reader and great admirer of Benedict XVI. What is truly refreshing in your post is your humility – a trait you share with that great man.
I won’t bother with the commentariat (here and elsewhere) who haven’t read a single work of Ratzinger/Benedict, let alone the enormous body of his work, but still feel qualified/compelled to offer their own opinions.
You forgot to list Jean-Paul “I am therefore I am” Sartre in the pygmie list.
Kant was a libtard, who said, in essence, “We kan’t ever really know anything! Whee!” Hegel’s dialectics have been mocked by Conservatives for inspiring Marx.
Yet you laud them all, in your astounding ignorance. For shame, Klavan!
Ratzi’s own brother was in charge of ‘inquiries” covering up the molesters.
Ratzi apologized to the moslems for that Manuel Paleologus quote, and then set up a lot of inter-faith dialogues; he Submitted to the islamic lie, and became a dhimmi … and all this despite his being an acclaimed “islamic scholar!”
And: You haven’t personally, actually read him, yet you assume he was a mental giant, whom future generations will read?! Can I have some of what you were obviously just smoking there, Dude?! It must be awesome, to reduce such an usually erudite intellectual such as yourself to such unexpected incoherency!
“Hegel’s dialectics have been mocked by Conservatives for inspiring Marx.”
And here the mockers have got it wrong. Shame on them. They should read what Hegel actually wrote (not an easy task, but I am sure that conservatives are not afraid of a little work), not what somebody else whose own understanding of Hegel may be defective and/or subject to partisan spleen has to say. It’s rather of a stretch to suggest that the materialist Marx was inspired by a dialectic that led to the awareness of Spirit. The mockers seem not to want to remember that Marx boasted of “standing Hegel on his head.”
A good place to start a rewarding effort would be with Stephen Houlgate’s Introduction to Hegel. If nothing else, an open mind will discover that Houlgate argues strongly for a Christian reading of Hegel.
Hegel simply re-stated the basic tenets of Greek Logic, then re-labeled the process and pretended to have invented it (where one posits a theosis, or “thesis,” attacks it with everything including the kitchen sink, in the anti-theosis, and whatever survies, aka the syntheosis, is the entirety of one’s theosis). Whatever Marx then did with it, was probably unspeakably evasive group-rights-worshipping idolatry.
On a purely pedestrian–”administrative”–note to the PJMedia editors: are you sure you want to promote these Elsewhere on the Web links? Some of the are pretty sinister, uh, Lefty. The New Civil War leads to a Salon article that conflates a number of progressive tropes, the mingling of criticism of homosexuality with defense of the Second Amendment and strong religious faith.
I don’t think people come to PJ looking for the latest progressive cause de jour.
know your enemy
While I like what you say here, Andrew, in its sentiment and moral direction, I confess I found reading Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche quite like wading through glue.
Ayn Rand’s essays on the four of them takes them apart nicely.
Being a survivor, I’ve looked into the abuse scandals a little more than most people not named John Allen. I think it’s important just how much Joseph Ratzinger’s view changed once he began working at the CDF. He did a good job with the power he had, and once he became pope he acted with blazing speed (measured in Vatican time) to act against Marcial Maciel, with very harsh words (as much as Italian will allow, I’m told by those who know the language). He has enemies, who don’t like that he’s one of the good guys (I hear the weather in Kazakhstan is lovely this time of year
) so he hasn’t been able to do as much as some would like, and he’s human so his steps haven’t been perfect. But he has a great love for Christ, and I’m not sure I could have stayed Catholic had a lesser man been Pope.
He also cleaned up the canonization process a bit (looks to me like the Opus Dei folks got JPII to lower the standards so that Escriva could get in), made the muzzies mad with his truth at Regensburg- if you don’t have powerful, evil enemies, you aren’t trying hard enough-and did a MUCH better job at picking bishops than his predecessor. Yeah, I like Dolan too.
Don’t let others tell you what he wrote. His stuff is very readable, and not all of it is a whole book.
Andrew, non-Catholics like you have every right to rate the pope: remember, he considers it to be his job to guide you to Truth.
Thank you for your most kind and generous words regarding Pope Benedict XVI. Yes, I believe he is an exceptional man; one who will be remembered for his profound humility, love of God and his fellow human beings. He will be missed very much. When you read what he has written, you will know the man.
Pope Benedict is an extraordinary man. He has breath-taking depth and range of knowledge: he is deeply versed in theology, philosophy, exegesis, history and art (he knows the history of Western philosophy like the back of his hand and his aesthetic sensibilities are such that, had he chosen to do so, could have been a world class art critic). But it is not just that he is brilliant and erudite. He is brilliant and erudite and holy and loving, the latter two qualities having come from his deep internalization of scripture.
Anyone who knows Pope Benedict only through the press does not know him at all. His books, speeches and homilies are what reveal him and are the lens through which to understand his renunciation of the Petrine ministry.