It has become apparent that the question of conscience leads in fact to the core of the moral problem and thus to the question of man's existence itself. I would now like to pursue this question not in the form of a strictly conceptual and therefore unavoidably abstract presentation, but by way of narrative, as one might say today, by relating, to begin with, the story of my own encounter with this problem. I first became aware of the question with all its urgency in the beginning of my academic teaching. In the course of a dispute, a senior colleague, who was keenly aware of the plight to being Christian in our times, expressed the opinion that one should actually be grateful to God that He allows there to be so many unbelievers in good conscience. For if their eyes were opened and they became believers, they would not be capable, in this world of ours, of bearing the burden of faith with all its moral obligations. But as it is, since they can go another way in good conscience, they can reach salvation. What shocked me about this assertion was not in the first place the idea of an erroneous conscience given by God Himself in order to save men by means of such artfulness - the idea, so to speak, of a blindness sent by God for the salvation of those in question. What disturbed me was the notion that it harbored, that faith is a burden which can hardly be borne and which no doubt was intended only for stronger natures - faith almost as a kind of punishment, in any case, an imposition not easily coped with. According to this view, faith would not make salvation easier but harder. Being happy would mean not being burdened with having to believe or having to submit to the moral yoke of the faith of the Catholic church. The erroneous conscience, which makes life easier and marks a more human course, would then be a real grace, the normal way to salvation. Untruth, keeping truth at bay, would be better for man than truth. It would not be the truth that would set him free, but rather he would have to be freed from the truth. Man would be more at home in the dark than in the light. Faith would not be the good gift of the good God but instead an affliction. If this were the state of affairs, how could faith give rise to joy? Who would have the courage to pass faith on to others? Would it not be better to spare them the truth or even keep them from it? In the last few decades, notions of this sort have discernibly crippled the disposition to evangelize. The one who sees the faith as a heavy burden or as a moral imposition is unable to invite others to believe. Rather he lets them be, in the putative freedom of their good consciences.

I have a question for the FORUM that this post raises. Is it correct to label a lecture by Cardinal Ratzinger as a lecture by Benedict XVI? I have noticed that publishers seem to be struggling with this question even as we are on the forum.

I have a question for the FORUM that this post raises. Is it correct to label a lecture by Cardinal Ratzinger as a lecture by Benedict XVI? I have noticed that publishers seem to be struggling with this question even as we are on the forum.

I think it is a great witness of humility by the Holy Father that he published his new book on Jesus as simply a theologian, rather than in his office of Pope. It is published under the name Benedict XVI, but not from his role as Pope.

We debate often the role of the Petrine ministry here on the Byzantine forum; one thing not debatable is that we have had two great popes in a row! Actually, most of the Popes in the 20th -21st Century have been great Christians and teachers.

We might start a book club for the book here in Minneapolis.

Lance,

I greatly admire Pope Benedict XVI and John Paul II. I confess that I am even more partial to Pope Benedict because he is a "theologian's theologian" I think and a tremendous scholar. Both men are tremendous thinkers, however. Another modern Pope who often gets overlooked, but who was a profound thinker, was Pope Leo XIII.

Joe