Josef Pieper\u2019s biographical entry is as brief as his bibliography is extensive. He was born on May 4, 1904, in Elte, a village in Westphalia, and completed degrees in philosophy, law, and sociology at the universities of Berlin and M\u00fcnster. He is currently a full professor\u2014or, in German terminology, a \u201cprofessor ordentlich\u201d\u2014of Philosophical Anthropology at the University of M\u00fcnster and at the Essen University of Education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Many of his works have been translated into Spanish\u2014specifically in Spain\u2014and this reference is limited to their titles, since it is intended for Spanish-speaking readers. These works are: *The Relevance of Thomism* (1952), *The Christian Catechism* (which corresponds to the German title *Christenfibel*, equivalent to the expression \u201cChristian Primer,\u201d and which he wrote in collaboration with Heinrich Raskop; it was translated in Spain in 1954), *On the End of Time* (1955), and *Leisure and Intellectual Life* (the latest, expanded Spanish edition from 1962), on the one hand. On the other hand, in addition to the works cited, there is a series of works that are very characteristic of Pieper and that address basic Christian and human virtues, set against the backdrop of modern man\u2019s anguish: On Hope (1953), Prudence (1957), and Faith (1966).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the second half of last year, two new books along the same lines were added to the list of works cited, published by Ediciones Rialp in Madrid and S\u00edgueme in Salamanca, respectively: *Justice and Fortitude* and *Hope and History*. For all the works mentioned, the date of the first Spanish edition has been provided, even though some of them are now in their third edition. It should be noted that, at this time, Pieper has sold more than half a million copies of his books in the most important nations and linguistic regions, despite writing primarily for minority audiences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pieper began his theological work in 1934 with his study on fortitude, from which he moved on, the following year, to his study on hope. His work has consisted, from his clear stance as a layperson and philosopher, of adapting theology to modern thought in its conceptual and literary expression\u2014but always with exquisite care not to alter the essential content of classical theological formulations. Existentialism and Hiroshima were not, for him, abstruse issues arising from another planet; rather, they were reasons to use the humanism studied in anthropology to lead the restless man of our time to an encounter with himself through God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the following conversation\u2014held at his home in M\u00fcnster\u2014Pieper, who has so skillfully defended the existential roots of Thomism, by framing his anthropology through Thomistic ethics, discusses current issues of debate, concepts such as secularization and spiritualization, the synthesis of the human and the divine in the Christian as a human being, the relationship between traditional and modern culture, and even about that last bastion of the revolution against technology\u2014against the absence of humanism\u2014which is and represents the student rebellion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013I do not view Christianity as a monolithic entity. The Christian\u2014every Christian\u2014is first and foremost a human being, and must achieve that synthesis within himself: at the very least, he must try to do so. Precisely, what is non-Western is an anti-secular religion such as might be found, for example, in the Russian or Greek Orthodox churches, which are devoted solely to contemplation and liturgy, without any engagement with the world. However, there is also another danger at the other extreme, and that is secularization. Both poles are equally dangerous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013I believe that the ancient culture of the West has always been\u2014and continues to be\u2014in a process of constant transformation, through which it interprets itself at every moment, which\u2014as we know\u2014involves the ongoing resolution of tensions or polar conflicts. Something else, something quite different, occurs, for example, in India, where traditional culture and modern culture are separate. But in the West, this duality does not exist; as I have said, it can instead be observed in the religious culture of the Hindu people, on the one hand, and, on the other, at the modern University of Calcutta. In this framework characteristic of India, the transition to modern culture entails abandoning tradition, because there is no such effort made there toward continuous interpretation or new interpretation. This clearly distinguishes the East from the West\u2014from Western culture, which is, incidentally, based on the Bible, on the Word of God that shapes humanity. Here in the West, traditional culture is not spelled out by repeating its body of knowledge word for word each time, but rather is synthesized into conceptual phrases through the interpretation of theologians, who contrast it, for example, with evolutionism and paleontology, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This Western way of understanding history constantly gives rise to new, apparent conflicts; but it is precisely because it is prepared to confront them that it preserves the essence of Western culture. I believe that if this difference between Eastern and Western culture were to disappear one day, we would be witnessing the end of Western culture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And for that reason, I would also say that today even student protests are part of Western culture, although the possibility of the conflicts I have referred to\u2014which stem from broader and more comprehensive social dynamics\u2014arising should not be limited to the student world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In any case, if one day there were only a secular culture\u2014that is, one divorced from religious foundations\u2014in the West, it would no longer be part of the Western spirit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013I would say that in Catholic theology, and consequently within the Church, there is a group or movement that advocates such secularization, but since this is not my view, I cannot support it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a book, translated in his homeland, he warned that there is an obstacle to be overcome\u2014one that poses a significant challenge precisely for the people of our time. This is not something for which the people of our time are \u00abto blame\u00bb; that is, it is not a difficulty they have arrogantly brought upon themselves. Rather, it is something that is inevitably linked to the change in our understanding of the natural world and its scope\u2014a change that simply means our knowledge of created reality has been significantly corrected and enriched compared to ancient and medieval conceptions. Vox facta est de caelo\u2014\u201cA voice was heard from heaven\u201d\u2014: for Dante and his contemporaries, this was something intuitively conceivable, an act that could be carried out without question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Such unquestionability is no longer available to Einstein\u2019s contemporaries, now that even the material reality of the world has become increasingly less intuitive. \u00abWe cannot sense God\u2019s presence in our world with the same naivety as previous generations did,\u00bb Rahner said. On the other hand, we must admit\u2014whether we like it or not\u2014that contemporary theology has provided few conceptual tools to overcome this difficulty, which has arisen legitimately. But I do not view the desacralization of life as legitimate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013Undoubtedly, that relative autonomy is part of the great tradition represented by St. Thomas. But that relative autonomy is one thing, and the autonomy sought by so-called secularization is quite another; the latter consists in severing the polar tension by conflating it with a separation between the Christian and the human, which is impossible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013The layperson is a baptized Christian who is not separated from the Church, but rather situated within that healthy polar tension. It is not easy to find a formula for this, but neither can we speak of a separation. If the layperson, who is a Christian, aligns with secularization, he or she thereby ceases to be a Christian. On the other hand, however, the layperson must confront this responsible relative autonomy, and this tension will never end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Years ago, I wrote that what characterizes a Christian is Christian faith and the Christian life. Both faith and life are intertwined, just as knowledge and action are. Christian faith is the foundation of the Christian life, and the Christian life is the fruit and full realization of that faith. Christian life cannot exist without Christian faith, and Christian faith without Christian life is fruitless. Certainly, today it seems that Christian life can exist without Christian faith; it seems that one can have a Christian orientation in life without a living faith in Christ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But, in reality, Christians who live this Christian life only in an external way are doing nothing more than enjoying and consuming the heritage bequeathed to them by their forebears: the living faith upon which they built their lives and shaped the customs and traditions of society. But this heritage is in danger of being completely nullified if it is not renewed by a faith that has been revitalized. Therefore, being a Christian in this day and age and among our people means returning to live the Christian life from its very foundation, guided and driven by a living and personal faith. The Christian \u00ablives by faith.\u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013Speaking of intellectual pursuits, I have written: \u00abIf one says that someone is Christian in their philosophy, this cannot simply mean that their worldview coincides with Christianity as a doctrine. For Christianity is essentially reality, not mere doctrine!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The problem with a Christian philosophy does not lie solely in the fact that these must be linked, and how they should be linked, theoretically, between natural knowledge of the world and supernatural faith; rather, it is a matter of transforming philosophical inquiry into Christian philosophical inquiry by grounding the philosopher in Christian reality and understanding how that transformation is achieved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Christian philosophy is thus enriched in its content of worldly knowledge, precisely because it is linked to the prior counterpoint of Christ\u2019s truth. Provided, of course, that not only its Christian character but also its philosophical character is strong and true (this must be repeated constantly, for it is so far from obvious!).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A famous book on the history of medieval philosophy, by Maurice de Wulf, concludes with these words: \u00abScholasticism declined not for lack of ideas, but for lack of minds.\u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I believe that, first and foremost, there are intellectuals, and among them there are those who are Catholic. Aside from that, I am strongly opposed to the concept of a \u00abCatholic intellectual.\u00bb I think an intellectual is someone who participates politically and through the media in society, whereas a Catholic is someone who thinks globally about everything. In reality, the term \u00abCatholic intellectual\u00bb was coined by politics and for a specific political direction\u2014that of a political party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013In reality, there is much to be said about that student movement, as it is difficult to analyze its causes. That said, I see its ultimate origin, here in Germany, in the fact that the German university is no longer truly a university, but rather a collection of technical institutes, with the sole and simple purpose of training professionals. In any case, this fact constitutes at least one of the causes that have given rise to the movement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What I understand as a university necessarily includes a theological and philosophical dimension, operating within society. This is how the university came into being in the Middle Ages. In the early days of the university, the discussion of contested issues was a reality. This very intellectual controversy is at the heart of the universality that defined the university itself and gave it its origin. Thanks to that contribution, students at that time were able to maintain a universal perspective\u2014that is, they did not lose sight of the university\u2019s point of view. Today, when that possibility for discussion and debate on universal topics no longer exists within the university, the resulting harm affects not only the student but also the professor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Incidentally, one of the newest universities in Germany, the University of Bochum, recently opened its doors. And it has chosen to do so by responding to what I have called \u00aboffenheit f\u00fcr das Ganze\u00bb\u2014a sense of openness to the whole. At that university, this universal sensibility\u2014which goes beyond the technical\u2014is even institutionalized as an academic element. Regarding that experience, I wrote: \u00abThe academic debate that extends across faculties and disciplines is embedded in the university\u2019s organization. However, there are many difficulties; for example, the lack of a common language among the faculties; and also the fact that professors are afraid to express their personal opinions, since these cannot be scientific in the strict sense.\u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The university should be open to everything. It must be an institution dedicated to free thought\u2014a free space within society, a sanctuary of intellectual freedom. In other words, in that place that is\u2014or should be\u2014the university, direct attitudes and concrete stances must be set aside, left in abeyance. And it is in this sense that academic freedom is rooted in its very origin. Such freedom no longer exists in German universities, and even less so in American ones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013In my opinion, students don\u2019t rebel just for that reason. I insist that their rebellion stems from a very complex set of motivations. One of the causes lies in their reaction to what students here call \u00abthose idiot specialists\u00bb\u2014that is, professors who solely cultivate and promote their own technical specialty. I\u2019d already said that, because that\u2019s what I thought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I pointed out that the university cannot be divorced from the general philosophical idea that constitutes its essence. On the other hand, however, when students\u2014who represent the working world as a whole\u2014devote themselves to what they call the \u201cpoliticization of the university,\u201d they undermine that free intellectual space that constitutes the true essence of the university.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013In my opinion, students should not get involved in politics, whether theoretical or practical. It\u2019s another matter entirely for them to discuss politics at the university, but only in a theoretical sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In short, students should not reject this theoretical discussion, as do those student groups that seek to introduce partisan politics into the university. It is one thing for students to discuss the arguments put forward by political parties at the university; it is quite another to turn the university into a arena for politics and partisan politics.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Josef Pieper tiene una ficha biogr\u00e1fica tan reducida como amplia es su ficha bibliogr\u00e1fica. Naci\u00f3 el 4 de mayo de 1904 en Elte, una aldea de Westfalia, y estudi\u00f3, completas, las carreras de Filosof\u00eda, Derecho y Sociolog\u00eda, en las Universidades de Berl\u00edn y M\u00fcnster. En la actualidad es catedr\u00e1tico \u2014en la terminolog\u00eda alemana, profesor ordinario\u2014 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2425,"featured_media":62826,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_members_access_role":[],"_members_access_error":""},"categories":[549,548],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62817","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-evangelizacion","category-foco"],"yoast_head":"\n