http://thepope.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/the-man-and-his-messages/#more-14
Peter Steinfels, in the NYTimes in a piece that generally says he still thinks, after all these years, that the thoughts expressed, or rather, the way they were expressed, in Ratzinger Report were "intellectually deplorable."
Imagine that: an interview where the interviewee neglected to provide footnotes!
I have repeatedly found myself deeply moved, brought to a dead halt, sensed a window suddenly opening on reality and my life, sent spinning into a few moments of meditation or prayer. Even where his arguments left me partially or ultimately unconvinced, I recognized important truth in them and felt grateful for the challenge they presented.
Besides agreeing that this quote mirrors my own experience, may I suggest that for all their bluntness and failure to observe the niceties of academic rigor, the words in RR may have, as usual, done precisely what their speaker intended them to do? opened exactly the discussion he wanted opened? provoked exactly the conversation he knew they would?
Universalis, your very own breviary in pixels...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment