Стратегические операции люфтваффе. От Варшавы до Москвы. 1939-1941 - Дмитрий Дёгтев, Дмитрий Зубов - Google Книги http://books.google.ru/books?id=nXXiLWeUlrMC&pg=PT74&lpg=PT74&dq=%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82+%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8&source=bl&ots=hU4YNXXcLv&sig=A9YwshL_99Y53Nqri5QRqdehHFU&hl=ru&sa=X&ei=dQFaVL2RM82RaMTigrAE&ved=0CGAQ6AEwDQ#v=onepage&q=%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8&f=false 【from Next Browser】
Wednesday, 5 November 2014
Год сожженных детей
Год сожженных детей http://expert.ru/expert/2008/30/god_sozhzhennuh_detei/ 【from Next Browser】
Праздник
Диакон Андрей Кураев. Из истории праздников (версия для печати) / Православие.Ru
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/jurnal/print463.htm#1
【from Next Browser】
Thursday, 30 October 2014
RORATE CÆLI: SYNOD AND TRUTH: Understanding In Depth the Grave Errors of Cardinal Kasper - A Major Article by Roberto de Mattei
RORATE CÆLI: SYNOD AND TRUTH: Understanding In Depth the Grave Errors of Cardinal Kasper - A Major Article by Roberto de Mattei
SYNOD AND TRUTH:
Understanding In Depth the Grave Errors of Cardinal Kasper
- A Major Article by Roberto de Mattei
KASPER’S MESS
The origins of the errors
For them, Christianity is praxis, not justice
Roberto de Mattei
Il Foglio
October 1, 2014
The upcoming Synod of Bishops has been preceded by a rumpus
in the media which attaches to it a historical significance greater than its
ecclesiastical importance as merely a consultative assembly in the Church. Some
are complaining about the theological war the Synod promises to be, but the
history of all the Episcopal meetings in the Church (such is the etymological
significance of the term “synod” and its synonym “council”) has been made up of
theological conflicts and bitter debates on errors and divisions that have
threatened the Christian community since its beginnings.
in the media which attaches to it a historical significance greater than its
ecclesiastical importance as merely a consultative assembly in the Church. Some
are complaining about the theological war the Synod promises to be, but the
history of all the Episcopal meetings in the Church (such is the etymological
significance of the term “synod” and its synonym “council”) has been made up of
theological conflicts and bitter debates on errors and divisions that have
threatened the Christian community since its beginnings.
Today the
subject of communion for the divorced [and remarried] is only the vector of a
discussion that focuses on rather complex doctrinal concepts, such as human
nature and the natural law. This debate seems to translate, on the
anthropological level, the Trinitarian and Christological speculations which
shook up the Church from the Council of Nicaea (325) to the Council of Chalcedon
(451). At that time, discussions
were held to determine the nature of the Most Holy Trinity, Who is one
God in Three Persons and to define in Jesus Christ the Person of the Word, Who
subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human. The Council of Nicaea’s
adoption of the Greek term homoousios, which was translated in Latin to
consubstantialis and, after the Council of Chalcedon with the words “of the
same nature” of the Divine substance, to affirm the perfect equality of the
Word and the Father, marks a never-to be-forgotten date in the history of
Christianity and concludes an era of disorientation, confusion and drama of
consciences similar to the one we are [currently] immersed in.
subject of communion for the divorced [and remarried] is only the vector of a
discussion that focuses on rather complex doctrinal concepts, such as human
nature and the natural law. This debate seems to translate, on the
anthropological level, the Trinitarian and Christological speculations which
shook up the Church from the Council of Nicaea (325) to the Council of Chalcedon
(451). At that time, discussions
were held to determine the nature of the Most Holy Trinity, Who is one
God in Three Persons and to define in Jesus Christ the Person of the Word, Who
subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human. The Council of Nicaea’s
adoption of the Greek term homoousios, which was translated in Latin to
consubstantialis and, after the Council of Chalcedon with the words “of the
same nature” of the Divine substance, to affirm the perfect equality of the
Word and the Father, marks a never-to be-forgotten date in the history of
Christianity and concludes an era of disorientation, confusion and drama of
consciences similar to the one we are [currently] immersed in.
In those
years the Church was divided between the “right” of St. Athanasius and the
“left” of Arius’ followers, (the
definition is by the historian of the Councils, Karl Joseph von Hefele).
Between the two poles the third “party” of semi-Arians wavered, themselves divided
into various factions. The term homoiousios,
which means “of similar substance” was set against the Nicean homoousios, which
means “of the same substance”. This is not a question of nitpicking. In the seemingly minimal difference between
these two words, there lies an abyss: on the one hand, Identity with God, on the other a certain
analogy or resemblance which makes of Jesus Christ an ordinary man.
years the Church was divided between the “right” of St. Athanasius and the
“left” of Arius’ followers, (the
definition is by the historian of the Councils, Karl Joseph von Hefele).
Between the two poles the third “party” of semi-Arians wavered, themselves divided
into various factions. The term homoiousios,
which means “of similar substance” was set against the Nicean homoousios, which
means “of the same substance”. This is not a question of nitpicking. In the seemingly minimal difference between
these two words, there lies an abyss: on the one hand, Identity with God, on the other a certain
analogy or resemblance which makes of Jesus Christ an ordinary man.
The best historical reconstruction of this period is the one
by Cardinal John Henry Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century (tr.It. Jaca Book,
Milano, 1981) an in-depth study which brings to light the culpability of the
clergy and the courage of “the common people” in maintaining the orthodoxy of
the Faith. Athanasius, as a deacon and champion of orthodoxy, afterwards a
bishop, was forced as many as five times to leave his diocese, to walk the way
of exile.
by Cardinal John Henry Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century (tr.It. Jaca Book,
Milano, 1981) an in-depth study which brings to light the culpability of the
clergy and the courage of “the common people” in maintaining the orthodoxy of
the Faith. Athanasius, as a deacon and champion of orthodoxy, afterwards a
bishop, was forced as many as five times to leave his diocese, to walk the way
of exile.
In 357, Pope Liberius excommunicated him and two years after
the Councils of Rimini and Seleucia, which constituted a sort of great
Ecumenical Council, representative of the West and the East, abandoned the
Nicene term “consubstantial” and established an equivocal middle way, between
St. Athanasius and the Arians. It was at that time St. Jerome coined the
expression according to which "The
whole world groaned and was amazed to find itself Arian".
the Councils of Rimini and Seleucia, which constituted a sort of great
Ecumenical Council, representative of the West and the East, abandoned the
Nicene term “consubstantial” and established an equivocal middle way, between
St. Athanasius and the Arians. It was at that time St. Jerome coined the
expression according to which "The
whole world groaned and was amazed to find itself Arian".
Athanasius
and the defenders of the orthodox Faith were accused of being stuck obstinately
on words and of being quarrelsome and intolerant. These are the same accusations made today
against those, inside and outside the Synod Hall, who want to raise a voice of
uncompromising firmness in defense of the Church’s doctrine on Christian
Marriage, like the five Cardinals (Burke, Brandmuller, Caffarra, De Paolis and
Muller), who after having expressed themselves individually, gathered together
their statements in defense of the family in a book which by now has become a
manifesto: Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the
Catholic Church, just published by Cantagalli of Siena, Another fundamental text, Divorced “Remarried”,
also owes its publication to Cantagalli. The praxis of the primitive Church, by
the Jesuit Henri Couzel,
and the defenders of the orthodox Faith were accused of being stuck obstinately
on words and of being quarrelsome and intolerant. These are the same accusations made today
against those, inside and outside the Synod Hall, who want to raise a voice of
uncompromising firmness in defense of the Church’s doctrine on Christian
Marriage, like the five Cardinals (Burke, Brandmuller, Caffarra, De Paolis and
Muller), who after having expressed themselves individually, gathered together
their statements in defense of the family in a book which by now has become a
manifesto: Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the
Catholic Church, just published by Cantagalli of Siena, Another fundamental text, Divorced “Remarried”,
also owes its publication to Cantagalli. The praxis of the primitive Church, by
the Jesuit Henri Couzel,
The writers in the “Corriere della Sera” and “La Repubblica”
have been rending their garments at the “theological row” now in progress. On September 8, Pope Francis himself, urged
newly nominated Bishops “not to waste energy in contrasts and clashes”,
forgetting that he had personally assumed the responsibility of the clashes
when he entrusted the job of opening the Synod “dances” to Cardinal Walter
Kasper. As Sandro Magister noted, it was actually Kasper with his report on
February 20, 2014, (made available by “Il Foglio”), who started the hostility
that triggered off the doctrinal debate, thus becoming, far from his
intentions, the standard-bearer of a party. The oft-times reiterated formula by
the German Cardinal is: what has to change is not the doctrine of the
indissolubility of marriage, but pastoral [praxis] for the divorced and
remarried. This has in itself a devastating significance and is the expression
of a theological concept tainted at its roots.
have been rending their garments at the “theological row” now in progress. On September 8, Pope Francis himself, urged
newly nominated Bishops “not to waste energy in contrasts and clashes”,
forgetting that he had personally assumed the responsibility of the clashes
when he entrusted the job of opening the Synod “dances” to Cardinal Walter
Kasper. As Sandro Magister noted, it was actually Kasper with his report on
February 20, 2014, (made available by “Il Foglio”), who started the hostility
that triggered off the doctrinal debate, thus becoming, far from his
intentions, the standard-bearer of a party. The oft-times reiterated formula by
the German Cardinal is: what has to change is not the doctrine of the
indissolubility of marriage, but pastoral [praxis] for the divorced and
remarried. This has in itself a devastating significance and is the expression
of a theological concept tainted at its roots.
So as to
understand Kasper’s thought, we need to go back to one of his first works,
perhaps the main one, “The Absolute in History in the last Philosophy of
Schelling, published in 1965 and translated by Jaca Book in 1986. In fact,
Walter Kasper belongs to the school of Tubinga, which, as he writes in this
study, “started a renewal in theology and in all of German Catholicism with the
encounter of Schelling and Hegel” (p.53). The metaphysics are Schelling’s
(1775-1854), “a solitary giant” (p.90), whose Gnostic and pantheistic character
the German theologian tries in vain to free himself of. In his last work Philosophie der Offenbarung
(The Philosophy of Revelation), in 1854, Schelling opposes historical dogmatic
Christianity. “Schelling – Kasper comments – doesn’t envision the relationship
between the natural and the supernatural in a static, metaphysical and
extratemporal way, but rather in a dynamic and historical one. The essentiality
of Christian Revelation is really this, that it is history.” (p.206).
understand Kasper’s thought, we need to go back to one of his first works,
perhaps the main one, “The Absolute in History in the last Philosophy of
Schelling, published in 1965 and translated by Jaca Book in 1986. In fact,
Walter Kasper belongs to the school of Tubinga, which, as he writes in this
study, “started a renewal in theology and in all of German Catholicism with the
encounter of Schelling and Hegel” (p.53). The metaphysics are Schelling’s
(1775-1854), “a solitary giant” (p.90), whose Gnostic and pantheistic character
the German theologian tries in vain to free himself of. In his last work Philosophie der Offenbarung
(The Philosophy of Revelation), in 1854, Schelling opposes historical dogmatic
Christianity. “Schelling – Kasper comments – doesn’t envision the relationship
between the natural and the supernatural in a static, metaphysical and
extratemporal way, but rather in a dynamic and historical one. The essentiality
of Christian Revelation is really this, that it is history.” (p.206).
Also for Kasper Christianity, before being doctrine, is
history, or “praxis”. In his most famous work, Jesus The Christ, (Queriniana,
Brescia 1974), he develops his Christology in a historical key which is derived
from The Philosophy of Revelation by the German Idealist. The Trinitarian
concept by Schelling is the one of the Sabellian and Modalist heretics, the
forerunners of Arianism. The three
Divine Persons are reduced to three “modes of subsistence” of a one
person-nature (Modalism), while the essence of the Trinity is realised in the
manifesting of “Itself” to the world.
Christ is not the intermediary between God and man, but the historical
realization of the Divinity in the Trinitarian process.
history, or “praxis”. In his most famous work, Jesus The Christ, (Queriniana,
Brescia 1974), he develops his Christology in a historical key which is derived
from The Philosophy of Revelation by the German Idealist. The Trinitarian
concept by Schelling is the one of the Sabellian and Modalist heretics, the
forerunners of Arianism. The three
Divine Persons are reduced to three “modes of subsistence” of a one
person-nature (Modalism), while the essence of the Trinity is realised in the
manifesting of “Itself” to the world.
Christ is not the intermediary between God and man, but the historical
realization of the Divinity in the Trinitarian process.
Coherent with the Christology and ecclesiology of Kasper.
The Church is, first and foremost, “pneuma” “Sacrament of the Spirit”, a
definition for the German Cardinal that “corrects” the juridical one by Pius
XII in Mystici Corporis (The Church, Place of the Spirit, Queriniana, Brescia
1980, p. 91). The Holy Spirit’s field of
action does not coincide in fact, as Tradition wills, with the one of the Roman
Catholic Church, but extends to a vaster ecumenical reality, the “Church of
Christ” which the Catholic Church is part of.
The Church is, first and foremost, “pneuma” “Sacrament of the Spirit”, a
definition for the German Cardinal that “corrects” the juridical one by Pius
XII in Mystici Corporis (The Church, Place of the Spirit, Queriniana, Brescia
1980, p. 91). The Holy Spirit’s field of
action does not coincide in fact, as Tradition wills, with the one of the Roman
Catholic Church, but extends to a vaster ecumenical reality, the “Church of
Christ” which the Catholic Church is part of.
According
to Kasper, the Decree of Vatican II on Ecumenism presses for recognition that
the one Church of Christ is not limited to the Catholic Church, but is shared
with separate churches and ecclesial communities (ivi, p.94). The Catholic Church is “where there is no
selective Gospel”, but everything is expanded in an all-encompassing manner, in
time and space (The Catholic Church – Essence, Reality, Mission, Queriniana,
Brescia 2012, p. 289). The mission of the Church is to “ step out of
Herself” to regain a dimension that
renders her truly universal. Eugenio Scalfari, who is acting like a third
Pope,(i.e. after the Pope emeritus and the one reigning), even if ignorant in
theology, confers the same idea to Pope Francis, asserting, that for him, the
missionary Church is the one that “has to step out of Herself and go into the
world” by implementing Christianity in
history (“La Repubblica”, September 21, 2014).
to Kasper, the Decree of Vatican II on Ecumenism presses for recognition that
the one Church of Christ is not limited to the Catholic Church, but is shared
with separate churches and ecclesial communities (ivi, p.94). The Catholic Church is “where there is no
selective Gospel”, but everything is expanded in an all-encompassing manner, in
time and space (The Catholic Church – Essence, Reality, Mission, Queriniana,
Brescia 2012, p. 289). The mission of the Church is to “ step out of
Herself” to regain a dimension that
renders her truly universal. Eugenio Scalfari, who is acting like a third
Pope,(i.e. after the Pope emeritus and the one reigning), even if ignorant in
theology, confers the same idea to Pope Francis, asserting, that for him, the
missionary Church is the one that “has to step out of Herself and go into the
world” by implementing Christianity in
history (“La Repubblica”, September 21, 2014).
These theories are reflected in Kasper’s moral theology,
according to which, the experience of the encounter with Christ dissolves the
law, or better, the law is a hindrance which man must free himself of to
encounter the mercy of Christ. In his pantheistic philosophy, Schelling absorbs
evil into God. Kasper absorbs evil into the mystery of the Cross, in which he
sees the denial of traditional metaphysics and of the natural law which
proceeds from it. “For Schelling the passage of negative philosophy to positive
philosophy is at the same time[a]passage from the law to the Gospel” (The
Absolute in History, p.178), writes the
German Cardinal, who sees in turn the passage from the law to the Gospel in the
primacy of pastoral praxis over abstract doctrine.
according to which, the experience of the encounter with Christ dissolves the
law, or better, the law is a hindrance which man must free himself of to
encounter the mercy of Christ. In his pantheistic philosophy, Schelling absorbs
evil into God. Kasper absorbs evil into the mystery of the Cross, in which he
sees the denial of traditional metaphysics and of the natural law which
proceeds from it. “For Schelling the passage of negative philosophy to positive
philosophy is at the same time[a]passage from the law to the Gospel” (The
Absolute in History, p.178), writes the
German Cardinal, who sees in turn the passage from the law to the Gospel in the
primacy of pastoral praxis over abstract doctrine.
From this point of view, Cardinal Kasper’s moral doctrine is
at least implicitly, Antinomianist. Antinomianism is a term coined by Luther
against his opponent of the left, Johann Agricola (1494-1568), but dates back
to the antique and medieval heresies indicating the rejection of the Old
Testament and its laws, [which were]thought of as mere constriction and
restriction, in contrast to the New Testament, i.e. to the new economy of Grace
and freedom. More generally Antinomianism means the rejection of the natural
moral law which has its root in the rejection of the idea of nature. For the
Christian Antinomianists there is no law because there is no universal
objective human nature. The consequences are the vanishing of the sense of sin,
the denial of absolute morality, and the sexual Revolution inside the Church.
at least implicitly, Antinomianist. Antinomianism is a term coined by Luther
against his opponent of the left, Johann Agricola (1494-1568), but dates back
to the antique and medieval heresies indicating the rejection of the Old
Testament and its laws, [which were]thought of as mere constriction and
restriction, in contrast to the New Testament, i.e. to the new economy of Grace
and freedom. More generally Antinomianism means the rejection of the natural
moral law which has its root in the rejection of the idea of nature. For the
Christian Antinomianists there is no law because there is no universal
objective human nature. The consequences are the vanishing of the sense of sin,
the denial of absolute morality, and the sexual Revolution inside the Church.
Within this perspective it is understandable how Cardinal
Kasper in his recent book, which appeared in German in 2012 and was then
translated into Italian for the fellows at Queriniana in 2013, (Mercy. The
Fundamental Concept of the Gospel – The Key to life), proposes to break with the traditional
equilibrium between justice and mercy, making of the latter, (which goes
against tradition), the principal attribute of God. However, as Father Serafino
Lanzetta observed in an excellent analysis of his volume, published at
www.chiesa [English version published by Rorate Caeli here], “mercy perfects
and completes justice but does not annul it; it presupposes it, otherwise it
would not in itself have any reason to exist.”
The disappearance of justice and the law makes the concept of sin and
the mystery of evil incomprehensible, save for the reintegrating of them into a
theosophical and Gnostic standpoint.
Kasper in his recent book, which appeared in German in 2012 and was then
translated into Italian for the fellows at Queriniana in 2013, (Mercy. The
Fundamental Concept of the Gospel – The Key to life), proposes to break with the traditional
equilibrium between justice and mercy, making of the latter, (which goes
against tradition), the principal attribute of God. However, as Father Serafino
Lanzetta observed in an excellent analysis of his volume, published at
www.chiesa [English version published by Rorate Caeli here], “mercy perfects
and completes justice but does not annul it; it presupposes it, otherwise it
would not in itself have any reason to exist.”
The disappearance of justice and the law makes the concept of sin and
the mystery of evil incomprehensible, save for the reintegrating of them into a
theosophical and Gnostic standpoint.
We find this error again in the Lutheran postulate of “only
mercy”. The mediation of reason and of nature being abolished, for Luther the
only way to rise to God is in “trusting faith” which has its preamble not in
rational metaphysics, from which it must be totally freed, but in a sentiment
of profound desperation, which has in turn its typical object in the “mercy” of
God, instead of the truths revealed by Him.
This principal, as Silvana Seidel Menchi demonstrated in Erasmus in
Italy 1520-1580 (Bollati Boringhieri, Turin 1987), is developed in the
heretical literature of the 16th Century thanks also to the influence of Erasmus’
treatise, De immense Dei misercordia (1524), which opened up the gates of heaven to “men of good will”
(ivi, pp.143-167). In the sects originating from Erasmus and Luther which made
up the extreme left of the Protestant Reformation, the 4th century
anti-Trinitarian errors reappeared: Arianism, Modalism, Sabellianism, [all]
based on the rejection or distortion of the idea of nature.
mercy”. The mediation of reason and of nature being abolished, for Luther the
only way to rise to God is in “trusting faith” which has its preamble not in
rational metaphysics, from which it must be totally freed, but in a sentiment
of profound desperation, which has in turn its typical object in the “mercy” of
God, instead of the truths revealed by Him.
This principal, as Silvana Seidel Menchi demonstrated in Erasmus in
Italy 1520-1580 (Bollati Boringhieri, Turin 1987), is developed in the
heretical literature of the 16th Century thanks also to the influence of Erasmus’
treatise, De immense Dei misercordia (1524), which opened up the gates of heaven to “men of good will”
(ivi, pp.143-167). In the sects originating from Erasmus and Luther which made
up the extreme left of the Protestant Reformation, the 4th century
anti-Trinitarian errors reappeared: Arianism, Modalism, Sabellianism, [all]
based on the rejection or distortion of the idea of nature.
The only penitential path possible to experience the embrace
of Divine Mercy is the rejection of sin
in which we are immersed, and in the recognition of a Divine Law to respect and
love. This law is rooted in human nature and is engraved in the heart of every
man “by the finger of the Creator, Himself” (Rm 2, 14-15). It constitutes the
supreme judgment of every action and of human events in their totality, that
is, in history.
of Divine Mercy is the rejection of sin
in which we are immersed, and in the recognition of a Divine Law to respect and
love. This law is rooted in human nature and is engraved in the heart of every
man “by the finger of the Creator, Himself” (Rm 2, 14-15). It constitutes the
supreme judgment of every action and of human events in their totality, that
is, in history.
The term nature is not abstract. Human nature is the essence
of man, that is what he is before being a person. Man is a person, a holder of
inalienable rights, because he has a soul. And he has a soul given that, unlike
any other living being, he has a rational nature. Natural is not what
originates from the instincts and desires of man, but what corresponds to the
rules of reason, which must in turn, conform itself to an objective order and
immutable principles. The natural law is
rational and immutable,[thus]because it is immutable inasmuch as it is
spiritual, it is the nature of man. All individuals of the same nature act or should
act in the same manner, since the natural law is written in the nature not of
this or that man, but in human nature regarded in itself, in its permanence and
stability.
of man, that is what he is before being a person. Man is a person, a holder of
inalienable rights, because he has a soul. And he has a soul given that, unlike
any other living being, he has a rational nature. Natural is not what
originates from the instincts and desires of man, but what corresponds to the
rules of reason, which must in turn, conform itself to an objective order and
immutable principles. The natural law is
rational and immutable,[thus]because it is immutable inasmuch as it is
spiritual, it is the nature of man. All individuals of the same nature act or should
act in the same manner, since the natural law is written in the nature not of
this or that man, but in human nature regarded in itself, in its permanence and
stability.
Cardinal Kasper does not believe in a universal and absolute
natural law. In the instrumentum laboris, the official Vatican document which
prepares the ground for the Synod in October, this repudiation of the natural
law is clearly in evidence, even if presented in a sociological key more than a
theological one. “The concept of natural law today turns out to be, in
different cultural contexts, highly problematic, if not completely
incomprehensible. (n.21) – he says – also since “Today, in not only the West
but increasingly every part of the world, scientific research poses a serious
challenge to the concept of nature. Evolution, biology and neuroscience, when
confronted with the traditional idea of the natural law, conclude that it is
not “scientific.” According to Kasper’s program, the spirit of the Gospel whose
values need to be communicated “in a comprehensible way to the man of today”
contrasts the natural law. Which therefore renders necessary “that more
emphasis be placed on the role of the Word of God as a privileged instrument in
the conception of married life and the family, and recommend greater reference
to the Bible, its language and narratives. In this regard, respondents propose
bringing the issue to public discussion and developing the idea of biblical
inspiration and the “order in creation,” which could permit a re-reading of the
concept of the natural law in a more meaningful manner in today’s world. (…)The
recommendation was also made to engage young people directly in these matters.”
(n.30).
natural law. In the instrumentum laboris, the official Vatican document which
prepares the ground for the Synod in October, this repudiation of the natural
law is clearly in evidence, even if presented in a sociological key more than a
theological one. “The concept of natural law today turns out to be, in
different cultural contexts, highly problematic, if not completely
incomprehensible. (n.21) – he says – also since “Today, in not only the West
but increasingly every part of the world, scientific research poses a serious
challenge to the concept of nature. Evolution, biology and neuroscience, when
confronted with the traditional idea of the natural law, conclude that it is
not “scientific.” According to Kasper’s program, the spirit of the Gospel whose
values need to be communicated “in a comprehensible way to the man of today”
contrasts the natural law. Which therefore renders necessary “that more
emphasis be placed on the role of the Word of God as a privileged instrument in
the conception of married life and the family, and recommend greater reference
to the Bible, its language and narratives. In this regard, respondents propose
bringing the issue to public discussion and developing the idea of biblical
inspiration and the “order in creation,” which could permit a re-reading of the
concept of the natural law in a more meaningful manner in today’s world. (…)The
recommendation was also made to engage young people directly in these matters.”
(n.30).
The inevitable consequences of this new idea of morality
which the Synod Fathers will have to discuss, are outlined by Vito Mancuso, in
“La Repubblica” of the 18th September. The natural law “is far too heavy a burden to carry”; we need therefore
to focus on a deep journey of renewal in the matters of sexual ethics” which
should result in the “subsequent necessary openness: yes to contraception; yes
to premarital relations; yes to the recognition of homosexual couples.”
which the Synod Fathers will have to discuss, are outlined by Vito Mancuso, in
“La Repubblica” of the 18th September. The natural law “is far too heavy a burden to carry”; we need therefore
to focus on a deep journey of renewal in the matters of sexual ethics” which
should result in the “subsequent necessary openness: yes to contraception; yes
to premarital relations; yes to the recognition of homosexual couples.”
In the face of this catastrophic itinerary heading towards
immoralism, why be surprised that five Cardinals have published a book in
defense of traditional morality and that other cardinals, bishops and
theologians have supported them in this position? Against those who are calling for a new
doctrinal and pastoral discipline, Cardinal Pell wrote, “an insurmountable
barrier” is being raised, based on “the almost complete unanimity on this
matter which Catholic history has given the proof of for two thousand years.
(Preface, Juan Pérez-Soba, Stephen Kampowski, Oltre la proposta di
Kasper,(Beyond Kasper’s Proposal) Cantagalli, Siena 2014, p. 7).
immoralism, why be surprised that five Cardinals have published a book in
defense of traditional morality and that other cardinals, bishops and
theologians have supported them in this position? Against those who are calling for a new
doctrinal and pastoral discipline, Cardinal Pell wrote, “an insurmountable
barrier” is being raised, based on “the almost complete unanimity on this
matter which Catholic history has given the proof of for two thousand years.
(Preface, Juan Pérez-Soba, Stephen Kampowski, Oltre la proposta di
Kasper,(Beyond Kasper’s Proposal) Cantagalli, Siena 2014, p. 7).
It is to be hoped that it will be a free and open encounter,
without the imposition of rules from on high that falsify the stakes. The
stakes are not just a simple diversity in opinions, but the clarification of
the Church’s mission. It is to be hoped as well, that the faithful prelates of
Tradition will not be intimidated and
will be able to bear patiently with the mass-media’s violence, and even
the unjust and intense ecclesial censuring which they might have to endure.
without the imposition of rules from on high that falsify the stakes. The
stakes are not just a simple diversity in opinions, but the clarification of
the Church’s mission. It is to be hoped as well, that the faithful prelates of
Tradition will not be intimidated and
will be able to bear patiently with the mass-media’s violence, and even
the unjust and intense ecclesial censuring which they might have to endure.
“The best song is still ours” (p.8) writes Cardinal Pell,
and Athanasius is still a model for our times and for all of those who don’t
shrink back from the righteous battle in defense of the truth.
and Athanasius is still a model for our times and for all of those who don’t
shrink back from the righteous battle in defense of the truth.
[Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana]
Labels: Brandmüller, de Mattei, Kasper's Destruction of the
Indissolubility of Marriage, Müller, Newman, Pell, The Bergoglio Pontificate,
The Protestant syndrome, The Reformed Synod of Bishops
Indissolubility of Marriage, Müller, Newman, Pell, The Bergoglio Pontificate,
The Protestant syndrome, The Reformed Synod of Bishops
Posted by New Catholic at 10/01/2014 03:00:00 PM
Cardinal Kasper's Comments: CMTV Exclusive Interview
Cardinal Kasper's Comments: CMTV Exclusive Interview
Pope Francis' Address at Inauguration of Bronze Bust of Benedict XVI | ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome
Pope Francis' Address at Inauguration of Bronze Bust of Benedict XVI | ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome
Pope Francis' Address at Inauguration of Bronze Bust of Benedict XVI
"[Benedict XVI is] great for the strength and penetration of his intelligence; great for his important contribution to theology; great for his love in addressing the Church and human beings; great for his virtue and his religiosity."
Vatican City, October 27, 2014
At 9.30 this morning, Pope Francis inaugurated a bronze bust in honor of Pope Benedict XVI, at the Pius IV Casina in the Vatican Gardens.
Here is a translation of the Holy Father’s address to those present, in the course of the inaugural ceremony.
***
Lord Cardinals,
Dear Brothers in the Episcopate and Priesthood,
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen!
As the veil of the bust fell, which the Academicians wished to have in the headquarters of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, in sign of recognition and gratitude, a joyful emotion arose in my mind. This bust of Benedict XVI recalls to everyone's eyes the face of our beloved Pope Ratzinger. It also recalls his spirit: that of his teachings, of his examples, of his works, of his devotion to the Church, to his present “monastic” life. This spirit, far from crumbling with the passage of time, will appear from generation to generation, always greater and more powerful.
Benedict XVI: a great Pope. Great for the strength and penetration of his intelligence; great for his important contribution to theology; great for his love in addressing the Church and human beings; great for his virtue and his religiosity. As you well know, his love for the truth is not limited to theology and philosophy, but is open to the sciences. His love of science overflows in his concern for scientists, without distinction of race, nationality, civilization, or religion; his concern for the Academy with his presence and his word; moreover, he appointed many of its members, including the current President, Werner Arber.
Benedict XVI invited, for the first time, a president of this Academy to take part in the Synod on the New Evangelization, conscious of the importance of science in modern culture. It will certainly not be able to be said of him that study and science dried up his person and his love in his encounters with God and his neighbor but, on the contrary, science, wisdom and prayer dilated his heart and spirit. We thank God for the gift He made to the Church and the world with the existence and pontificate of Pope Benedict. I thank all those who, generously, made possible this work and this ceremony, in particular, the creator of the bust, sculptor Fernando Delia, the Tua Family, and all the Academicians. I wish to thank all of you who are present here to honor this great Pope.
At the conclusion of your Plenary Session, dear Academicians, I am happy to express my profound esteem and my warm encouragement to carry forward scientific progress and the improvement of the conditions of life of people, especially the poorest.
You are addressing the highly complex topic of the evolution of the concept of nature. I will not go into it all, you understand well the scientific complexity of this important and decisive question. I only wish to underline that God and Christ walk with us and are present also in nature, as the Apostle Paul affirmed in his address at the Areopagus: “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything. However, it was not like that. He created beings and left them to develop according to the internal laws that He gave each one, so that they would develop, and reach their fullness. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time that He assured them of his continual presence, giving being to every reality. And thus creation went forward for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia until it became what we know today, in fact because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities. The beginning of the world was not the work of chaos, which owes its origin to another, but it derives directly from a Supreme Principle who creates out of love. The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it. The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.
In regard to man, instead, there is a change and a novelty. When, on the sixth day of the Genesis account, we come to the creation of man, God gives the human being another autonomy, a different autonomy from that of nature, which is freedom. And He tells man to give a name to all things and to go forward in the course of history. He renders him responsible for creation, also so that he will dominate Creation, so that he will develop it and so forth until the end of time. Therefore, the attitude that corresponds to the scientist, especially to the Christian scientist is to question himself about the future of humanity and of the earth and, as a free and responsible being, to contribute to prepare it, to preserve it, and to eliminate the risks of the environment, be they natural or human. However, at the same time, the scientist must be moved by trust that hidden nature, in its evolving mechanisms, of potentialities that concern the intelligence and freedom, to discover and to act to arrive at development, which is in the plan of the Creator. Then, although limited, man’s action participates in the power of God and is able to build a world adapted to his twofold corporeal and spiritual life; to build a human world for all – for all human beings, and not for a group or a privileged class. This hope and trust in God, Author of nature, and in the capacity of the human spirit, are able to give the researcher new energy and profound serenity. However, it is also true that man’s action, when his liberty becomes autonomy, -- which is not liberty but autonomy -- destroys creation and man takes the place of the Creator. And this is the grave sin against God the Creator.
I encourage you to continue your works and to carry out that felicitous theoretical and practical initiatives in favor of human beings, which do them honor. I now joyfully consign the necklace that Monsignor Sanchez Sorondo will give the new Members. Thank you.
[Original text: Italian]
[Translation by ZENIT]
(October 27, 2014) © Innovative Media Inc.
Pope Francis' Address at Inauguration of Bronze Bust of Benedict XVI
"[Benedict XVI is] great for the strength and penetration of his intelligence; great for his important contribution to theology; great for his love in addressing the Church and human beings; great for his virtue and his religiosity."
Vatican City, October 27, 2014
At 9.30 this morning, Pope Francis inaugurated a bronze bust in honor of Pope Benedict XVI, at the Pius IV Casina in the Vatican Gardens.
Here is a translation of the Holy Father’s address to those present, in the course of the inaugural ceremony.
***
Lord Cardinals,
Dear Brothers in the Episcopate and Priesthood,
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen!
As the veil of the bust fell, which the Academicians wished to have in the headquarters of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, in sign of recognition and gratitude, a joyful emotion arose in my mind. This bust of Benedict XVI recalls to everyone's eyes the face of our beloved Pope Ratzinger. It also recalls his spirit: that of his teachings, of his examples, of his works, of his devotion to the Church, to his present “monastic” life. This spirit, far from crumbling with the passage of time, will appear from generation to generation, always greater and more powerful.
Benedict XVI: a great Pope. Great for the strength and penetration of his intelligence; great for his important contribution to theology; great for his love in addressing the Church and human beings; great for his virtue and his religiosity. As you well know, his love for the truth is not limited to theology and philosophy, but is open to the sciences. His love of science overflows in his concern for scientists, without distinction of race, nationality, civilization, or religion; his concern for the Academy with his presence and his word; moreover, he appointed many of its members, including the current President, Werner Arber.
Benedict XVI invited, for the first time, a president of this Academy to take part in the Synod on the New Evangelization, conscious of the importance of science in modern culture. It will certainly not be able to be said of him that study and science dried up his person and his love in his encounters with God and his neighbor but, on the contrary, science, wisdom and prayer dilated his heart and spirit. We thank God for the gift He made to the Church and the world with the existence and pontificate of Pope Benedict. I thank all those who, generously, made possible this work and this ceremony, in particular, the creator of the bust, sculptor Fernando Delia, the Tua Family, and all the Academicians. I wish to thank all of you who are present here to honor this great Pope.
At the conclusion of your Plenary Session, dear Academicians, I am happy to express my profound esteem and my warm encouragement to carry forward scientific progress and the improvement of the conditions of life of people, especially the poorest.
You are addressing the highly complex topic of the evolution of the concept of nature. I will not go into it all, you understand well the scientific complexity of this important and decisive question. I only wish to underline that God and Christ walk with us and are present also in nature, as the Apostle Paul affirmed in his address at the Areopagus: “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything. However, it was not like that. He created beings and left them to develop according to the internal laws that He gave each one, so that they would develop, and reach their fullness. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time that He assured them of his continual presence, giving being to every reality. And thus creation went forward for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia until it became what we know today, in fact because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities. The beginning of the world was not the work of chaos, which owes its origin to another, but it derives directly from a Supreme Principle who creates out of love. The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it. The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.
In regard to man, instead, there is a change and a novelty. When, on the sixth day of the Genesis account, we come to the creation of man, God gives the human being another autonomy, a different autonomy from that of nature, which is freedom. And He tells man to give a name to all things and to go forward in the course of history. He renders him responsible for creation, also so that he will dominate Creation, so that he will develop it and so forth until the end of time. Therefore, the attitude that corresponds to the scientist, especially to the Christian scientist is to question himself about the future of humanity and of the earth and, as a free and responsible being, to contribute to prepare it, to preserve it, and to eliminate the risks of the environment, be they natural or human. However, at the same time, the scientist must be moved by trust that hidden nature, in its evolving mechanisms, of potentialities that concern the intelligence and freedom, to discover and to act to arrive at development, which is in the plan of the Creator. Then, although limited, man’s action participates in the power of God and is able to build a world adapted to his twofold corporeal and spiritual life; to build a human world for all – for all human beings, and not for a group or a privileged class. This hope and trust in God, Author of nature, and in the capacity of the human spirit, are able to give the researcher new energy and profound serenity. However, it is also true that man’s action, when his liberty becomes autonomy, -- which is not liberty but autonomy -- destroys creation and man takes the place of the Creator. And this is the grave sin against God the Creator.
I encourage you to continue your works and to carry out that felicitous theoretical and practical initiatives in favor of human beings, which do them honor. I now joyfully consign the necklace that Monsignor Sanchez Sorondo will give the new Members. Thank you.
[Original text: Italian]
[Translation by ZENIT]
(October 27, 2014) © Innovative Media Inc.
Sunday, 26 October 2014
Henry Kissinger's World Order: The outer edge of what is possible - World Politics - World - The Independent
Henry Kissinger's World Order: The outer edge of what is possible - World Politics - World - The Independent
Henry Kissinger's World Order: The outer edge of what is possible
The epitome of globe-trotting statesmen talks to Rachel Halliburton about his new book, World Order
In July 1971, Henry Kissinger got into a small plane in Islamabad and briefly disappeared off the map. The official story for the next couple of days was that he was ill, but in fact President Nixon's right-hand man was on a secret journey to Beijing that would electrify the world. It was a period when the US was constantly redefining the possible. Just two years before it had put the first man on the moon. While the physical challenges of building diplomatic ties with Mao's China were not quite comparable, politically it felt like the equivalent of smashing through the stratosphere.
It says much about the dangerous tilt of the world that when we meet – 43 years later – we find ourselves talking about the possibility of war between the US and China. The subtle diplomatic architecture that Kissinger constructed in those historic visits looks increasingly under threat. In his new book, World Order, he cites a Harvard study that shows that in 10 out of 15 cases, when there's an established power and a rising power, war ensues. I ask him how likely he thinks conflict is, and what can be done to avoid it.
"Both President Obama and President Xi – President Xi particularly – have said they would like the relationship to demonstrate how tensions actually could be dispersed between a rising power and an existing power," he replies in his distinctive lugubrious gargle. "But having said that, they have not been able to give it a practical expression. And I think it is a huge problem."
Referring to the simmering tensions over the South China Sea Islands, he says, "Sooner or later one of them is going to lead to a confrontation. I don't want China and the US to be like Germany and Britain in 1914, but I don't think we can resist it primarily by military deployments along the Chinese border. So the question is: can we create a space between ourselves and China... with an American military presence being on the horizon but in which we can compete by some established rules?"
We meet on a clear blue September day in New York at the offices of Kissinger Associates, the international consulting firm that he runs with Brent Scowcroft, also a former US National Security Advisor. Though Kissinger is 91 and is recovering from a recent heart-valve operation, the overwhelming impression in his offices is of youth, as good-looking young men and women flit discreetly in and out of different doors. Kissinger once said of Mao: "He had the quality of being at the centre of wherever he stood". It was a trait he deeply admired, and he has cultivated it in himself. Despite the fact that he is the shortest person in his office and now uses a stick, the aura of power is unmistakable as he walks into reception and surveys me, blinking, a cross between Cardinal Richelieu and a European eagle-owl.
President Ford holding a meeting in 1975, when Kissinger (right) was Secretary of State President Ford holding a meeting in 1975, when Kissinger (right) was Secretary of State (Getty) Kissinger's enduring magnetism for world statesmen almost certainly dates from his success in gaining the US President an invitation to meet Mao. That meeting marked his rise from senior politician to international phenomenon, one of the most glitteringly divisive figures of his time. The statesman "must act at the outer edge of what is possible," he declares at one point in his book, "bridging the gap between his society's experiences and its aspirations."
Throughout his life, this has been the conceptual territory in which Kissinger has thrived. Whether in approaching China, achieving détente with Russia, or reversing hostilities between Egypt and Israel in 1973, his ability to balance complex personalities and weave together conflicting cultures has been conducted with the intuitive flair described in his native German as Fingerspitzengefühl.
His continuing potency on the political front-line is demonstrated not least by Hillary Clinton's somewhat extraordinary – but rightly enthusiastic – review of his book shortly before we meet. He in return has indicated, despite his Republicanism, that he believes she would make a good president. I ask what qualities she demonstrated as Secretary of State that makes him believe this?
He smiles. "She ran the state department as an institution better than I've ever seen it – including [under] myself. I'm not as precise as she is. She came into office at a complicated moment as a member of an administration that wanted to make a drastic change. Her own views were not as drastic as those of the incumbent President on these matters. She handled her relationships with enormous skill and I have never heard her say one critical world about the President. I will support the Republican candidate, because I think we need a change, and I've said that publicly, but I am very positive about her."
The elasticity of his statement is classic Kissinger. As well as containing a none too subtle sideswipe at Obama, it is both a declaration of support and not a declaration of support for Clinton that can be adapted according to whichever way the political wind is blowing. That chameleon aspect of his personality has often been remarked upon – who exactly Henry Kissinger is has preoccupied many people who have had close dealings with him.
At the most surprising end of the spectrum, he has been an unlikely sex symbol. He has been photographed with women including Elizabeth Taylor, Raquel Welch, Liza Minnelli, and much later Princess Diana – in recent years Carla Bruni has been among the glamorous women with whom he has been snapped. In 1972, the year Nixon himself went to China, Kissinger was even mocked up as a reclining nude in an edition of the Harvard Lampoon that went on to sell over 1.1m copies. When the then president of the USSR, Leonid Brezhnev, was shown a copy, he had it pinned up in his office.
Yet it has been Kissinger's more subtle incarnations that have most taunted both his allies and his detractors. His ability to work at the "outer edge of the possible" is connected to his tendency to see the world as a series of shifting realities. This has been argued as both the essence of his genius and a character flaw. The late international-relations expert Hans Morgenthau, a former teacher of Kissinger's, once described him as "an Odysseus-like polytropos, a many-sided character". Frank Shakespeare, who headed the US Information Agency under Nixon was blunter. "Kissinger can meet with six different people, smart as hell, learned, knowledgeable, experienced, of very different views, and persuade all six of them that the real Henry Kissinger is just where they are," he declared.
To understand how Kissinger views himself, it helps to look at the historical heroes he refers to in World Order. At one point he says to me, "the more you get to the outer edge of what is possible, the more you risk – you are out there alone". So who does Kissinger look to when he feels alone? Cardinal Richelieu, Louis XIII's right-hand man, Klemens von Metternich, the charismatic chancellor of the Austrian Habsburg Empire, and Otto von Bismarck, the legendary unifier of Germany. All derided for cunning and ambition, yet all able to make brilliant conceptual leaps that ultimately improved the security of the world.
Most revealing is his description of the French diplomat Talleyrand – viewed by some as the embodiment of Machiavellian duplicity. From the French Revolution onwards, he switched sides repeatedly to ensure he remained in the inner circles of power. "He started his career as Bishop of Autun," Kissinger relates, "left the church to support the revolution, abandoned the revolution to serve as Napoleon's foreign minister, abandoned Napoleon to negotiate the restoration of the French monarch, and appeared in Vienna as Louis XVIII's foreign minister. Many called Talleyrand an opportunist. Talleyrand would have argued that his goals were stability within France and peace in Europe and that he had > taken whatever opportunities were available to achieve these goals."
Certainly, as Putin goads the West with his lethal realpolitik, the Middle East and swathes of Africa witness rampant jihad, and China enters the sabre-rattling stage of its evolution, the West certainly needs someone with the ingenuity of a Talleyrand. And Kissinger, the 20th century's prime exponent of realpolitik is happy to oblige. World Order is a passionate statement of his lifelong belief that order and freedom are interdependent, and establishing long-term balance far outweighs the short-term benefits of making concessions that are popular with the electorate. He is utterly unapologetic about this – once, paraphrasing Goethe, he said, "If I had to choose between justice and disorder, on the one hand, and injustice and order, on the other, I would always choose the latter".
Certainly his views are informed by a breadth and depth of historical knowledge that rivals that of most major players in today's foreign-policy arena. Take his approach to Russia. From the 17th century to the mid-20th century, Russia proved crucial in maintaining the balance of world power – thwarting the expansionist dreams of Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon, and Hitler. This is key to Kissinger's verdict on how we should respond to Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
"I don't agree with Putin," he declares, "but why didn't somebody, somewhere along the road, propose a solution that would have addressed both sides' concerns within the context of an independent Ukraine? When Europe said Ukraine has to choose between Europe and Russia in a commercial negotiation, [maybe] saying the opposite, saying let's do it together, might have made great progress.
"It's easy to demonise Putin," he continues. "Of course he's not easy, but one has seen that type of Russian leader before – and he's not a Hitler. One shouldn't discuss it in terms of one Russian leader. The question is how does one visualise the long-term relationship of Russia to the West at a moment when Asia is transforming itself and Islam is in permanent upheaval?"
The first building blocks of world order were established at the Peace of Westphalia – a series of treaties signed in 1648 at the end of the Thirty Years' War. Crucially, Kissinger says, "The Westphalian peace reflected a practical accommodation to reality, not a unique moral insight". In this system, the state became a fundamental building block of global order – an independent entity that would not interfere in other states' domestic affairs, yet would be prepared to check their ambitions "through a general equilibrium of power".
Whole books have attacked Kissinger's willingness to negotiate with regimes and factions with dubious human-rights records to maintain his sense of global balance, but he makes it clear that he feels he has always chosen the lesser of two evils. "I am concerned by human rights because I lived under extreme violations of them [in Nazi Germany], but when I make comments about human rights I do so as a practising foreign-policy executor," he tells me. "As a general rule I would argue that you should establish an important enough relationship with a country for it to have a stake in it, and then use that relationship to mitigate human-rights violations."
Certainly the Arab Spring has raised questions about the best way to achieve fair governance, after sadistically oppressive leaders have been overthrown to much rejoicing, only for countries to be swallowed up by sectarian warfare. "Libya was a disaster," Kissinger says. "Almost certainly more lives have been lost as a result than would have under Gaddafi – it's a horrible outcome." I tell him that I travelled in Libya while Gaddafi was in power and was disconcerted to find that I felt safer out in Tripoli at night than I had in any city in the world. He looks at me directly and nods knowingly. "It sticks in your throat when you say that," he says gravely.
He spoke out forcefully on the need to attack Isis prior to President Obama's launch of bombing raids in Iraq and Syria, but is "quite confident that we can defeat the current manifestation. Iran is much more complicated". I put it to him that if the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini is replaced by a more moderate leader such as Hojatoleslam Rafsanjani, that might lessen the threat. He shakes his head. "If Iran develops nuclear weapons, or comes close to nuclear weapons, that fact alone will shift the balance in the region, no matter how moderate the government may in the end turn out to be. Because that means that Iran defied the Security Council and prevailed in a conflict of threats with the US."
I have been warned not to raise sensitive topics with Kissinger, but he is being both charming and expansive, so I ask whether he has any regrets about the prolonged conflict in Vietnam and the secret bombing of neutral Cambodia. He dips his head. "I'm going to learn a good answer to that one day," he rumbles. Looking up he declares, "[In Vietnam] we did the best we could in a war we inherited. People forget that. The one condition that we would not yield to was to replace the government that our predecessors had established with a communist-style government. The only thing I misjudged was the possibility of a negotiated compromise. But even if I judged it correctly, how could we have acted in any other way?"
On Cambodia, he asserts that within weeks of Nixon assuming office, "The Vietnamese communists started an offensive that killed four to six hundred Americans a week, so that after a month we had lost more people in the Vietnamese offensive than we were to lose in 10 years of war in Afghanistan. Many of these casualties came from four North Vietnamese divisions that had occupied a part of Cambodian territory. Nobody has ever shown that there were any casualties in that area. I've lived with that for so many decades. I really have no regrets.
"The only regret I have is that our domestic position did not allow us to sustain the agreement that we had negotiated. The saddest day of my governmental period was the day of the evacuation of Vietnam. I believe Richard Nixon acted heroically. He withdrew 150,000 Americans every year, he stopped ground combat in 1971, and he brought it to an agreement that we believed sincerely was historic... But then aid was cut dramatically, and the possibility of American reintervention on the scale that's now taking place in Iraq by air was prohibited by Congress by special legislation."
We have been talking for 90 minutes. Around us, the good-looking young people are swinging into action for Kissinger's descent to the next floor to meet The Independent's photographer. He disappears down a corridor to the men's room to freshen up. I wait in the reception area expecting him to re-emerge, unaware of the little piece of theatre that is about to play itself out.
Seeing me waiting, one of Kissinger's assistants shakes his head, saying, "He leaves the office by his own route". He ushers me through to the lift lobby, which looks like a scene out of Alice in Wonderland with four lift entrances on one side, and one door in each of the other walls. "We never know which door he's going to come out of," he laughs. "He likes to keep us guessing."
For a moment we wait for the world's most infamous statesman, unsure, as so many throughout his career have been, from which angle he will surprise us. Then, suddenly, the door to the right of the lifts flies open. Kissinger's distinctive silhouette is etched against its frame, and he smiles at the look on our faces. "Shall we go?" he asks.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/henry-kissingers-world-order-the-outer-edge-of-what-is-possible-9752563.html?origin=internalSearch
Henry Kissinger's World Order: The outer edge of what is possible
The epitome of globe-trotting statesmen talks to Rachel Halliburton about his new book, World Order
In July 1971, Henry Kissinger got into a small plane in Islamabad and briefly disappeared off the map. The official story for the next couple of days was that he was ill, but in fact President Nixon's right-hand man was on a secret journey to Beijing that would electrify the world. It was a period when the US was constantly redefining the possible. Just two years before it had put the first man on the moon. While the physical challenges of building diplomatic ties with Mao's China were not quite comparable, politically it felt like the equivalent of smashing through the stratosphere.
It says much about the dangerous tilt of the world that when we meet – 43 years later – we find ourselves talking about the possibility of war between the US and China. The subtle diplomatic architecture that Kissinger constructed in those historic visits looks increasingly under threat. In his new book, World Order, he cites a Harvard study that shows that in 10 out of 15 cases, when there's an established power and a rising power, war ensues. I ask him how likely he thinks conflict is, and what can be done to avoid it.
"Both President Obama and President Xi – President Xi particularly – have said they would like the relationship to demonstrate how tensions actually could be dispersed between a rising power and an existing power," he replies in his distinctive lugubrious gargle. "But having said that, they have not been able to give it a practical expression. And I think it is a huge problem."
Referring to the simmering tensions over the South China Sea Islands, he says, "Sooner or later one of them is going to lead to a confrontation. I don't want China and the US to be like Germany and Britain in 1914, but I don't think we can resist it primarily by military deployments along the Chinese border. So the question is: can we create a space between ourselves and China... with an American military presence being on the horizon but in which we can compete by some established rules?"
We meet on a clear blue September day in New York at the offices of Kissinger Associates, the international consulting firm that he runs with Brent Scowcroft, also a former US National Security Advisor. Though Kissinger is 91 and is recovering from a recent heart-valve operation, the overwhelming impression in his offices is of youth, as good-looking young men and women flit discreetly in and out of different doors. Kissinger once said of Mao: "He had the quality of being at the centre of wherever he stood". It was a trait he deeply admired, and he has cultivated it in himself. Despite the fact that he is the shortest person in his office and now uses a stick, the aura of power is unmistakable as he walks into reception and surveys me, blinking, a cross between Cardinal Richelieu and a European eagle-owl.
President Ford holding a meeting in 1975, when Kissinger (right) was Secretary of State President Ford holding a meeting in 1975, when Kissinger (right) was Secretary of State (Getty) Kissinger's enduring magnetism for world statesmen almost certainly dates from his success in gaining the US President an invitation to meet Mao. That meeting marked his rise from senior politician to international phenomenon, one of the most glitteringly divisive figures of his time. The statesman "must act at the outer edge of what is possible," he declares at one point in his book, "bridging the gap between his society's experiences and its aspirations."
Throughout his life, this has been the conceptual territory in which Kissinger has thrived. Whether in approaching China, achieving détente with Russia, or reversing hostilities between Egypt and Israel in 1973, his ability to balance complex personalities and weave together conflicting cultures has been conducted with the intuitive flair described in his native German as Fingerspitzengefühl.
His continuing potency on the political front-line is demonstrated not least by Hillary Clinton's somewhat extraordinary – but rightly enthusiastic – review of his book shortly before we meet. He in return has indicated, despite his Republicanism, that he believes she would make a good president. I ask what qualities she demonstrated as Secretary of State that makes him believe this?
He smiles. "She ran the state department as an institution better than I've ever seen it – including [under] myself. I'm not as precise as she is. She came into office at a complicated moment as a member of an administration that wanted to make a drastic change. Her own views were not as drastic as those of the incumbent President on these matters. She handled her relationships with enormous skill and I have never heard her say one critical world about the President. I will support the Republican candidate, because I think we need a change, and I've said that publicly, but I am very positive about her."
The elasticity of his statement is classic Kissinger. As well as containing a none too subtle sideswipe at Obama, it is both a declaration of support and not a declaration of support for Clinton that can be adapted according to whichever way the political wind is blowing. That chameleon aspect of his personality has often been remarked upon – who exactly Henry Kissinger is has preoccupied many people who have had close dealings with him.
At the most surprising end of the spectrum, he has been an unlikely sex symbol. He has been photographed with women including Elizabeth Taylor, Raquel Welch, Liza Minnelli, and much later Princess Diana – in recent years Carla Bruni has been among the glamorous women with whom he has been snapped. In 1972, the year Nixon himself went to China, Kissinger was even mocked up as a reclining nude in an edition of the Harvard Lampoon that went on to sell over 1.1m copies. When the then president of the USSR, Leonid Brezhnev, was shown a copy, he had it pinned up in his office.
Yet it has been Kissinger's more subtle incarnations that have most taunted both his allies and his detractors. His ability to work at the "outer edge of the possible" is connected to his tendency to see the world as a series of shifting realities. This has been argued as both the essence of his genius and a character flaw. The late international-relations expert Hans Morgenthau, a former teacher of Kissinger's, once described him as "an Odysseus-like polytropos, a many-sided character". Frank Shakespeare, who headed the US Information Agency under Nixon was blunter. "Kissinger can meet with six different people, smart as hell, learned, knowledgeable, experienced, of very different views, and persuade all six of them that the real Henry Kissinger is just where they are," he declared.
To understand how Kissinger views himself, it helps to look at the historical heroes he refers to in World Order. At one point he says to me, "the more you get to the outer edge of what is possible, the more you risk – you are out there alone". So who does Kissinger look to when he feels alone? Cardinal Richelieu, Louis XIII's right-hand man, Klemens von Metternich, the charismatic chancellor of the Austrian Habsburg Empire, and Otto von Bismarck, the legendary unifier of Germany. All derided for cunning and ambition, yet all able to make brilliant conceptual leaps that ultimately improved the security of the world.
Most revealing is his description of the French diplomat Talleyrand – viewed by some as the embodiment of Machiavellian duplicity. From the French Revolution onwards, he switched sides repeatedly to ensure he remained in the inner circles of power. "He started his career as Bishop of Autun," Kissinger relates, "left the church to support the revolution, abandoned the revolution to serve as Napoleon's foreign minister, abandoned Napoleon to negotiate the restoration of the French monarch, and appeared in Vienna as Louis XVIII's foreign minister. Many called Talleyrand an opportunist. Talleyrand would have argued that his goals were stability within France and peace in Europe and that he had > taken whatever opportunities were available to achieve these goals."
Certainly, as Putin goads the West with his lethal realpolitik, the Middle East and swathes of Africa witness rampant jihad, and China enters the sabre-rattling stage of its evolution, the West certainly needs someone with the ingenuity of a Talleyrand. And Kissinger, the 20th century's prime exponent of realpolitik is happy to oblige. World Order is a passionate statement of his lifelong belief that order and freedom are interdependent, and establishing long-term balance far outweighs the short-term benefits of making concessions that are popular with the electorate. He is utterly unapologetic about this – once, paraphrasing Goethe, he said, "If I had to choose between justice and disorder, on the one hand, and injustice and order, on the other, I would always choose the latter".
Certainly his views are informed by a breadth and depth of historical knowledge that rivals that of most major players in today's foreign-policy arena. Take his approach to Russia. From the 17th century to the mid-20th century, Russia proved crucial in maintaining the balance of world power – thwarting the expansionist dreams of Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon, and Hitler. This is key to Kissinger's verdict on how we should respond to Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
"I don't agree with Putin," he declares, "but why didn't somebody, somewhere along the road, propose a solution that would have addressed both sides' concerns within the context of an independent Ukraine? When Europe said Ukraine has to choose between Europe and Russia in a commercial negotiation, [maybe] saying the opposite, saying let's do it together, might have made great progress.
"It's easy to demonise Putin," he continues. "Of course he's not easy, but one has seen that type of Russian leader before – and he's not a Hitler. One shouldn't discuss it in terms of one Russian leader. The question is how does one visualise the long-term relationship of Russia to the West at a moment when Asia is transforming itself and Islam is in permanent upheaval?"
The first building blocks of world order were established at the Peace of Westphalia – a series of treaties signed in 1648 at the end of the Thirty Years' War. Crucially, Kissinger says, "The Westphalian peace reflected a practical accommodation to reality, not a unique moral insight". In this system, the state became a fundamental building block of global order – an independent entity that would not interfere in other states' domestic affairs, yet would be prepared to check their ambitions "through a general equilibrium of power".
Whole books have attacked Kissinger's willingness to negotiate with regimes and factions with dubious human-rights records to maintain his sense of global balance, but he makes it clear that he feels he has always chosen the lesser of two evils. "I am concerned by human rights because I lived under extreme violations of them [in Nazi Germany], but when I make comments about human rights I do so as a practising foreign-policy executor," he tells me. "As a general rule I would argue that you should establish an important enough relationship with a country for it to have a stake in it, and then use that relationship to mitigate human-rights violations."
Certainly the Arab Spring has raised questions about the best way to achieve fair governance, after sadistically oppressive leaders have been overthrown to much rejoicing, only for countries to be swallowed up by sectarian warfare. "Libya was a disaster," Kissinger says. "Almost certainly more lives have been lost as a result than would have under Gaddafi – it's a horrible outcome." I tell him that I travelled in Libya while Gaddafi was in power and was disconcerted to find that I felt safer out in Tripoli at night than I had in any city in the world. He looks at me directly and nods knowingly. "It sticks in your throat when you say that," he says gravely.
He spoke out forcefully on the need to attack Isis prior to President Obama's launch of bombing raids in Iraq and Syria, but is "quite confident that we can defeat the current manifestation. Iran is much more complicated". I put it to him that if the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini is replaced by a more moderate leader such as Hojatoleslam Rafsanjani, that might lessen the threat. He shakes his head. "If Iran develops nuclear weapons, or comes close to nuclear weapons, that fact alone will shift the balance in the region, no matter how moderate the government may in the end turn out to be. Because that means that Iran defied the Security Council and prevailed in a conflict of threats with the US."
I have been warned not to raise sensitive topics with Kissinger, but he is being both charming and expansive, so I ask whether he has any regrets about the prolonged conflict in Vietnam and the secret bombing of neutral Cambodia. He dips his head. "I'm going to learn a good answer to that one day," he rumbles. Looking up he declares, "[In Vietnam] we did the best we could in a war we inherited. People forget that. The one condition that we would not yield to was to replace the government that our predecessors had established with a communist-style government. The only thing I misjudged was the possibility of a negotiated compromise. But even if I judged it correctly, how could we have acted in any other way?"
On Cambodia, he asserts that within weeks of Nixon assuming office, "The Vietnamese communists started an offensive that killed four to six hundred Americans a week, so that after a month we had lost more people in the Vietnamese offensive than we were to lose in 10 years of war in Afghanistan. Many of these casualties came from four North Vietnamese divisions that had occupied a part of Cambodian territory. Nobody has ever shown that there were any casualties in that area. I've lived with that for so many decades. I really have no regrets.
"The only regret I have is that our domestic position did not allow us to sustain the agreement that we had negotiated. The saddest day of my governmental period was the day of the evacuation of Vietnam. I believe Richard Nixon acted heroically. He withdrew 150,000 Americans every year, he stopped ground combat in 1971, and he brought it to an agreement that we believed sincerely was historic... But then aid was cut dramatically, and the possibility of American reintervention on the scale that's now taking place in Iraq by air was prohibited by Congress by special legislation."
We have been talking for 90 minutes. Around us, the good-looking young people are swinging into action for Kissinger's descent to the next floor to meet The Independent's photographer. He disappears down a corridor to the men's room to freshen up. I wait in the reception area expecting him to re-emerge, unaware of the little piece of theatre that is about to play itself out.
Seeing me waiting, one of Kissinger's assistants shakes his head, saying, "He leaves the office by his own route". He ushers me through to the lift lobby, which looks like a scene out of Alice in Wonderland with four lift entrances on one side, and one door in each of the other walls. "We never know which door he's going to come out of," he laughs. "He likes to keep us guessing."
For a moment we wait for the world's most infamous statesman, unsure, as so many throughout his career have been, from which angle he will surprise us. Then, suddenly, the door to the right of the lifts flies open. Kissinger's distinctive silhouette is etched against its frame, and he smiles at the look on our faces. "Shall we go?" he asks.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/henry-kissingers-world-order-the-outer-edge-of-what-is-possible-9752563.html?origin=internalSearch
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)