This is a slightly edited transcript of a contribution I made to Pod Delusion 104.

Our pope just paid us a visit. Well, when I say our pope, it’s not for religious reasons. Statistically, only 30% of Germans are Roman-Catholics. Another 30% are Protestants, 35% are not affiliated with any denomination, and the remaining 5% are mostly muslims. And as always, the number of actual church-goers is much smaller still. On Easter and Christmas you may find about 5% of Germans in church, especially in the Catholic South and West of the country.

The reason for the pope’s wider popularity in Germany is rather because he is German. Benedict XVI is the first pope from German territory since Clement II and Victor II back in the 11th century. So it’s kind of a big thing. Like your national team winning the World Cup even if you personally are not really into football. Though I guess for the English listeners it’s probably the other way around.

Anyway, the pope just paid his fatherland a visit, with a predictable mix of events. He held mass services to call for the unity of the church. He met with members of the Jewish community, half-heartedly referring to the Church’s role during the holocaust. He met with representatives of the German Protestants, showing no real support for any cooperation. And he met with victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, but this meeting was not part of the formal agenda.

Leading up to the pope’s visit you had all the usual debates: On public endorsement of a religious figure, on taxpayers’ money spent on non-secular events, and on the churches’ backwards stance on topics like homosexuality, abortion, celibacy, female priesthood, and especially their management of the abuse cases.

But there was one particular agenda item that raised eyebrows, and that I want to talk about: The pope held a speech in German parliament.

For one thing this is curious, because it’s actually not so easy to speak in parliament if you are not an elected member of the German government. You have to be especially invited by the parliamentary council, and until now only about 30 foreign guests had this pleasure, mostly heads of state. This includes the American presidents Nixon, Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush; you notice the absence of Democratic presidents? None have spoken in German parliament so far. Others who have, are Nelson Mandela, Vaclav Havel, Michail Gorbatschow, Vladimir Putin, and Kofi Annan. Most of the remaining were Eastern European or Jewish statesmen or Nobel Peace Prize winners at occasions to commemorate the 2nd World War and the holocaust.

So, now the pope. He is in fact the first religious leader to speak in German parliament. The parliamentary council originally claimed that the pope was invited in his function as head of state of the Vatican, but both the President of Parliament in his welcome introduction and the pope himself in his speech made very clear that he was there as the head of the Catholic church. On one hand, I find this fundamentally wrong, on the other hand, I am hard pressed to think of any comparable religious figure to shove in the face of the parliamentary council to now invite for balance. One of the several leaders of the orthodox church or the islamic world simply wouldn’t cut it. Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church would be fun but off the point.

In any case, many German MPs thought this was wrong as well, and since attendance was voluntary, they didn’t turn up. From the Left party, only a third of MPs was present, and the ones who were wore Red Ribbons to protest the church’s stance on condoms. Otherwise, there was a quite interesting cross-party mix of attendees.

The pope’s actual speech was surprisingly brief at about 20 minutes and surprisingly philosophical. You can find it on the Vatican’s website if you are interested. In a nutshell, he appealed to politicians to not seek power and material gain, but to keep a “listening heart”, this is, in allusion to a biblical story about king Solomon, to keep the capacity to discern between good and evil, and thus to establish true law, to serve justice and peace. Fair enough, I don’t think anyone would disagree with that.

However, the pope being the pope, he inevitably had to make the point that true law ultimately has to originate in a divine creator. His speech is basically an argument against positivism. While he asserts that science (without ever mentioning the term) and objective reasoning can tell you what is, it can’t tell you what ought to be, that is, provide you with any ethical guidance.

He quotes former legal positivist Hans Kelsen that any norms originate from a will, so nature can only contain norms that some wilful entity has put there. Well, I think that science by now has taught us that there are norms in nature that no one has put there, or that many norms emerge from natural processes like evolution or unintentionally through social interactions.

Benedict goes on to argue that Europe’s fundamental understanding of what is truly lawful is founded on the trinity of the philosophical reasoning of the Greeks, the legal understanding of the Romans, and the monotheism of Israel. It may be true that the three fit somewhat together in hindsight, and that they have shaped modern Europe. However, I would dispute the pope’s thinking that therefore the monotheism of Israel resembles any divine source of ethics. On the contrary, the fact that the heathen Greeks and Romans came up with similar concepts of law and justice rather point to something more fundamental about human nature – something that does not require a god or even a specific one.

The pope makes the same mistake when quoting St Paul’s letter to the Romans: “When Gentiles who have not the Law [the Torah of Israel] do by nature what the law requires, they show that what the law requires is written on their hearts”. I would say this is an argument for human nature, while the pope uses it as an argument for a common divine origin of ethics.

The pope’s speech reeks of logical fallacies and straw men. Specifically, he asserts that while a positivist world view is “a most important dimension of human knowledge and capacity”, using it as sole common basis for law-making would leave Europe “in a state of culturelessness”, with extremist and radical movements emerging to fill the vacuum. Consequently, he appeals to the MPs to go beyond mere positivism in their work and to recognize the importance of the Christian foundations of Europe. He even goes so far as to use resistance against the nazis as an example where personal ethics trumped national (but wrongful) law. I wonder where the church was back then. And by quoting the 3rd century theologian Origen, he even justifies breaking national law when it clashes with your religious beliefs. Funny enough, he never talks about cases when your religious beliefs clash with simple human decency and natural ethics.

Overall, the pope’s speech sounds superficially intellectual and reasonable, while at its core, it actually asks politicians to do god’s will – or rather what they believe god wants them to do.

Like the radio journalist and podcaster Holger Klein pointed out: The pope has to say these things, it’s his job. He wouldn’t exactly meet his job description if he didn’t position Christianity and specifically Catholicism as the root of all good in Western society or even the world. He is the Holy Father, for god’s sake.

However, I am more concerned about all the politicians who hailed the pope’s speech as “very impressive and balanced”, as “serious food for thought” and “guiding principles for political work”. Excuse me? Can you please turn on your brains for a minute? You were elected to govern us. If history has told us anything, it’s that the worst is done by politicians who think that they are doing god’s will. Including Hitler, by the way.

I would be so happy if politicians would actually only do what a positivist worldview tells them – the world would be a better place already. Europe would do fine.

Dear politicians, let the little man with his funny hat do his proselytizing. But recognize it as what it is, and that he is not a head of state or a moral institution, but just the figurehead of a 2,000 year old belief system that is not exactly famous for its ethical norms or the ethical behavior of its officials. Don’t forget about Europe’s history and philosophical tradition when doing politics – but please consider both its good and its bad parts.

Picture: “The Visit of the Queen of Sheba to King Solomon” by Edward John Poynter (1890).

This is a slightly edited transcript of a contribution I made to Pod Delusion 104. Our pope just paid us a visit. Well, when I say our pope, it’s not for religious reasons. Statistically, only 30% of Germans are Roman-Catholics. Another 30% are Protestants, 35% are not affiliated with any denomination, and the remaining 5% are mostly muslims. And as always, the number of actual church-goers is much smaller still. On Easter and Christmas you may find about 5% of Germans in church, especially in the Catholic South and West of the country. The reason for the pope’s wider popularity in Germany is rather because he is German. Benedict XVI is the first pope from German territory since Clement II and Victor II back in the 11th century. So it’s kind of a big thing. Like your national team winning the World Cup even if you personally are not really into football. Though I guess for the English listeners it’s probably the other way around. Anyway, the pope just paid his fatherland a visit, with a predictable mix of events. He held mass services to call for the unity of the church. He met with members of the Jewish community, half-heartedly referring to the Church’s role during the holocaust. He met with representatives of the German Protestants, showing no real support for any cooperation. And he met with victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, but this meeting was not part of the formal agenda. Leading up to the pope’s visit you had all the usual debates: On public endorsement of a religious figure, on taxpayers’ money spent on non-secular events, and on the churches’ backwards stance on topics like homosexuality, abortion, celibacy, female priesthood, and especially their management of the abuse cases. But there was one particular agenda item that raised eyebrows, and that I want to talk about: The pope held a speech in German parliament. For one thing this is curious, because it’s actually not so easy to speak in parliament if you are not an elected member of the German government. You have to be especially invited by the parliamentary council, and until now only about 30 foreign guests had this pleasure, mostly heads of state. This includes the American presidents Nixon, Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush; you notice the absence of Democratic presidents? None have spoken in German parliament so far. Others who have, are Nelson Mandela, Vaclav Havel, Michail Gorbatschow, Vladimir Putin, and Kofi Annan. Most of the remaining were Eastern European or Jewish statesmen or Nobel Peace Prize winners at occasions to commemorate the 2nd World War and the holocaust. So, now the pope. He is in fact the first religious leader to speak in German parliament. The parliamentary council originally claimed that the pope was invited in his function as head of state of the Vatican, but both the President of Parliament in his welcome introduction and the pope himself in his speech made very clear that he was there as the head of the Catholic church. On one hand, I find this fundamentally wrong, on the other hand, I am hard pressed to think of any comparable religious figure to shove in the face of the parliamentary council to now invite for balance. One of the several leaders of the orthodox church or the islamic world simply wouldn’t cut it. Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church would be fun but off the point. In any case, many German MPs thought this was wrong as well, and since attendance was voluntary, they didn’t turn up. From the Left party, only a third of MPs was present, and the ones who were wore Red Ribbons to protest the church’s stance on condoms. Otherwise, there was a quite interesting cross-party mix of attendees. The pope’s actual speech was surprisingly brief at about 20 minutes and surprisingly philosophical. You can find it on the Vatican’s website if you are interested. In a nutshell, he appealed to politicians to not seek power and material gain, but to keep a "listening heart", this is, in allusion to a biblical story about king Solomon, to keep the capacity to discern between good and evil, and thus to establish true law, to serve justice and peace. Fair enough, I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. However, the pope being the pope, he inevitably had to make the point that true law ultimately has to originate in a divine creator. His speech is basically an argument against positivism. While he asserts that science (without ever mentioning the term) and objective reasoning can tell you what is, it can’t tell you what ought to be, that is, provide you with any ethical guidance. He quotes former legal positivist Hans Kelsen that any norms originate from a will, so nature can only contain norms that some wilful entity has put there. Well, I think that science by now has taught us that there are norms in nature that no one has put there, or that many norms emerge from natural processes like evolution or unintentionally through social interactions. Benedict goes on to argue that Europe’s fundamental understanding of what is truly lawful is founded on the trinity of the philosophical reasoning of the Greeks, the legal understanding of the Romans, and the monotheism of Israel. It may be true that the three fit somewhat together in hindsight, and that they have shaped modern Europe. However, I would dispute the pope’s thinking that therefore the monotheism of Israel resembles any divine source of ethics. On the contrary, the fact that the heathen Greeks and Romans came up with similar concepts of law and justice rather point to something more fundamental about human nature - something that does not require a god or even a specific one. The pope makes the same mistake when quoting St Paul’s letter to the Romans: "When Gentiles who have not the Law [the Torah of Israel] do by nature what the law requires, they show that what the law requires is written on their hearts". I would say this is an argument for human nature, while the pope uses it as an argument for a common divine origin of ethics. The pope’s speech reeks of logical fallacies and straw men. Specifically, he asserts that while a positivist world view is "a most important dimension of human knowledge and capacity", using it as sole common basis for law-making would leave Europe “in a state of culturelessness”, with extremist and radical movements emerging to fill the vacuum. Consequently, he appeals to the MPs to go beyond mere positivism in their work and to recognize the importance of the Christian foundations of Europe. He even goes so far as to use resistance against the nazis as an example where personal ethics trumped national (but wrongful) law. I wonder where the church was back then. And by quoting the 3rd century theologian Origen, he even justifies breaking national law when it clashes with your religious beliefs. Funny enough, he never talks about cases when your religious beliefs clash with simple human decency and natural ethics. Overall, the pope’s speech sounds superficially intellectual and reasonable, while at its core, it actually asks politicians to do god’s will - or rather what they believe god wants them to do. Like the radio journalist and podcaster Holger Klein pointed out: The pope has to say these things, it’s his job. He wouldn’t exactly meet his job description if he didn’t position Christianity and specifically Catholicism as the root of all good in Western society or even the world. He is the Holy Father, for god’s sake. However, I am more concerned about all the politicians who hailed the pope’s speech as “very impressive and balanced”, as “serious food for thought” and “guiding principles for political work”. Excuse me? Can you please turn on your brains for a minute? You were elected to govern us. If history has told us anything, it’s that the worst is done by politicians who think that they are doing god’s will. Including Hitler, by the way. I would be so happy if politicians would actually only do what a positivist worldview tells them - the world would be a better place already. Europe would do fine. Dear politicians, let the little man with his funny hat do his proselytizing. But recognize it as what it is, and that he is not a head of state or a moral institution, but just the figurehead of a 2,000 year old belief system that is not exactly famous for its ethical norms or the ethical behavior of its officials. Don’t forget about Europe’s history and philosophical tradition when doing politics - but please consider both its good and its bad parts. Picture: "The Visit of the Queen of Sheba to King Solomon" by Edward John Poynter (1890).