This paper takes up an ambivalence in Rawls’thought concerning the propriety of religious reason in public discourse.After a general introduction,the second paragraph gives a basic description of the two sides of thi...This paper takes up an ambivalence in Rawls’thought concerning the propriety of religious reason in public discourse.After a general introduction,the second paragraph gives a basic description of the two sides of this ambivalence.In the third paragraph,Joseph Ratzinger is introduced as a potential dialogue partner with Rawls,in as much as one side of Rawls’thought can be interpreted to be congenial to religious reasons that occur with his requirement for public reason.The aim of this paper is,eventually,to open the path towards a possible reconciliation between Rawls’positions and those of the Catholic tradition,as suggested by Joseph Ratzinger.Although some dialectical tensions remain,engaging the Ratzingerian idea of a“mutual correction”might result into a fruitful encounter of different views.展开更多
文摘This paper takes up an ambivalence in Rawls’thought concerning the propriety of religious reason in public discourse.After a general introduction,the second paragraph gives a basic description of the two sides of this ambivalence.In the third paragraph,Joseph Ratzinger is introduced as a potential dialogue partner with Rawls,in as much as one side of Rawls’thought can be interpreted to be congenial to religious reasons that occur with his requirement for public reason.The aim of this paper is,eventually,to open the path towards a possible reconciliation between Rawls’positions and those of the Catholic tradition,as suggested by Joseph Ratzinger.Although some dialectical tensions remain,engaging the Ratzingerian idea of a“mutual correction”might result into a fruitful encounter of different views.
