From Vatican Radio archives: a personal chat with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

(Vatican Radio) Vatican Radio’s Antonella Palermo had the opportunity to speak with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger prior to his election to the papacy. At the time, Cardinal Ratzinger was head of the Vatican office for the Doctrine of the Faith. In the following interview from our archives, we see a more personal side to the man who, when named pontiff in 2005, was widely portrayed as austere and inflexible on matters of the Church.

Palermo spoke to the then-Cardinal Ratzinger shortly after the release in Italy of the book “God and the World” , an in-depth conversation between the Cardinal and German journalist Peter Seewald – published two days after the September 11^th attacks on the United States in 2001.

At the time Cardinal Ratzinger spoke to Palermo, the U.S. led war against terrorism in Afghanistan had entered its second month. The interview gives some insight into the new Pope’s ideas on Just War theory – when a nation or an individual not only has the right but the duty to defend human life and human rights.

Listen to this program produced by Tracey McClure:

Q: Your book came out in Italy two days after the terrorist attacks in the USA. If it had come out a little bit later, what would you have added in hindsight?

A. I would probably say that abusing the name of God would have been the problem, because these attacks were carried out in the name of God. Religion here is being abused for other ends; it has been politicized and made a factor of power. On the other hand, perhaps I would have spoken more about the need to know God’s human face. If we see Christ’s face, our Lord who suffers for us and showed how much He loved us in dying for us, we have a vision of God that excludes all forms of violence. And so it is Christ’s face that seems to me to be the perfect answer to the abuse of a God who is turned into an instrument of our power.

Q. Is there any such thing as a “Just War”?

A. This is a major issue of concern. In the preparation of the Catechism, there were two problems: the death penalty and Just War theory were the most debated. The debate has taken on new urgency given the response of the Americans. Or, another example: Poland which defended itself against Hitler. I’d say that we cannot ignore, in the great Christian tradition and in a world marked by sin, any evil aggression that threatens to destroy not only many values, many people, but the image of humanity itself . In this case, defending oneself and others is a duty. Let’s say for example that a father who sees his family attacked is duty-bound to defend them in every way possible – even if that means using proportional violence. Thus, the Just War problem is defined according to these parameters: 1. Everything must be conscientiously considered, and every alternative explored if there is even just one possibility to save human life and values; 2. Only the most necessary means of defence should be used and human rights must always be respected; in such a war the enemy must be respected as a human being and all fundamental rights must be respected. I think that the Christian tradition on this point has provided answers that must be updated on the basis of new methods of destruction and of new dangers. For example, there may be no way for a population to defend itself from an atomic bomb. So, these must be updated. But I’d say that we cannot totally exclude the need, the moral need, to suitably defend people and values against unjust aggressors.


In the interview, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger also shows his more personal side, and reveals some of his thoughts on what he sees as a tendency in the world to shut out the Church , and to put God into our own mold.

In view of his remarks “be not afraid” shortly after his election as Pope Benedict, Palermo’s first question to the-then Cardinal is in itself revealing….


Q. As a Christian in the new millennium, Are you ever afraid of God?

A. I am not afraid of God because God is good. Naturally I recognize my weaknesses, my sins and know these can wound the Lord who cares for us so deeply. I suppose that in this sense I’m afraid of how my actions will affect God – something quite different from the traditional understanding of fear. In this sense, I am not afraid of God; I revere the Lord and so I wouldn’t want to do anything that would harm Him.

Q. An expression that is sadly used today is “God yes, Church no” In this book you respond to that with a note of concern. Can you clarify this?

A. Yes, because by saying “God yes, or perhaps even Christ yes, Church no” I create a God, based on what I want Him to be, based on my own ideas and desires. The true God, the real judge of my being and the true light of my life, lives in me. God is not changeable according to my ideas or desires. If I can change this God according to my needs and wishes, it means I don’t take Him seriously and I find this artificial.

Q. You speak in the book also about a tendency to agree with the expression “God no, religion yes”.

A. This is another aspect of the problem today: we look for something religious, something religious that gives us a certain degree of satisfaction. Humanity wants to understand the infinite, to have the answers about that other dimension, that “other side” that exudes the sweetness and hope that material things cannot give. I really think this is a big trend today: separating yourself from the need of faith, from a concrete “yes” to God that is full of meaning. People are looking more for immediate satisfaction without the need to truly commit themselves. While it can be very nice to enter into this mystical dimension - without any commitment, you end up merely satisfying immediate wants and you are imprisoned in your sense of self.


Q: And what would Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger say about himself if he had to paint a self portrait?

R: A self portrait would be impossible; it’s difficult to judge oneself. I can only say that I come from a very simple, very humble family and therefore I don’t really feel like a Cardinal. I feel I am simply a man. In Germany I live in a small town with people who work in agriculture, handicrafts and there I feel I am at home. At the same time I try to be that way in my work/office/post. If I succeed, I am not one to say. I always remember with great affection the profound goodness of my father and mother and naturally for me goodness implies also the ability to say “no” – because any goodness that lets anything go cannot be good for another. Sometimes goodness can also mean saying “no” and therefore one risks sounding contradictory (?). But even this must be truly nourished not by a sense of power, of vindication, but it must come from the ultimate goodness: from the desire to do good to others. These are my criteria, this is my background – others must add to it what they wish.