This is a very good book, that deserves to be read carefully, weighing every word and paragraph. As a catholic, I listen to everything the Pope has to say with the utmost respect, and I trust his full genuinity. This, however, doesn't mean that I take every single word he says as if I was prohibited from formulating an opinion about it, whether in accordance with it or not.

The main point of this book is the moral crisis in which our western world finds itself in today. "The growth of our technical possibilities is not matched by an equal development of our moral energy". Moral strength, argues the Pope, has actually diminshed, because the technological mentality confines morality to the subjective sphere.

I particularly liked the part where Benedict XVI summarizes the issue of the European Union having rejected any mention of God or Christianity from the European Treaty (Lisbon Treaty). A move that I myself found moronic and purely driven by an ideological war among a limited group of "elite" European academics, scholars and politicians. Benedict XVI outlines very clearly his reasons, and it's not even a great effort to do so, as anyone with a pinch of common sense can see that he is 100 per cent right. In particular, denying that Europe rests on Christian foundations means spitting in the face of centuries of history. Benedict hits the nail on the head when he states: "The failure to mention Christian roots is not the expression of a superior tolerance that respects all cultures in the same way and chooses not to accord priviledges to any one of them. Rather, i expresses the absolutization of a way of thinking that is radically opposed to all the other historical cultures of humanity. This is the expression of a consciousness that would like to see God shut up in the subjective sphere of cultural residue from the past. In this way, relativism becomes a dogmatism that believes itself in possession of the definitive knowledge of human reason".

In other words, human dignity in our culture is very much tied to God and to our roots. And I wholeheartedly agree with this.

The following chapters, probably different sermons or parts of them, proceed to make the argument in defense of Christianity and God even stronger, against the relativistic view that is pushed by the "Enlightment" movement.

Here is where I liked the book a bit less. Despite the topics are very wide and touch everyone of us, I see this arguing and bickering as a very academic / scholarly exercise, very much confined to 10 or 20 big names in the European philosophy / theology world, and therefore completely out of touch with reality. What I mean is, the discussion becomes more and more rarefied, theoretical, and in my opinion it loses the traction that I felt at the beginning of the book. It becomes, in short, an airy philosophical treaty.

Some points deserve to be mentioned, because they screamed out at me: "Very soon, it will no longer be possible to affirm that homosexuality - as the Catholic Church teaches - constitutes an objective disordering in the structure of human existence". Please! Please! I truly hope that day comes very soon. And I hope that even the Church will update their view on homosexuality. Considering homosexuality a disorder and not accepting any sexual relationship between gay people is a position that goes against the preaching of Jesus and that needs (and will) be overcome. Hopefully soon.

The chapter "Why we must not give up the fight" is another perfect example of this attitude of taking a topic and making a big emotional war of ideologies about it, completely forgetting the practicalities involved. The Church is definitely too rigid on this subject. What about that poor woman for example, who died recently in Ireland because the doctors wouldn't perform an abortion on her? I wish the Church were able to demonstrate more common sense, practical intelligence and flexibility on some matters.

Another point that I found completely off the rail is the following: "If we come to experience a clash of cultures, this will not be due to a conflict between the great religions, which of course have always been at odds but, nevertheless, have ultimately always understood how to cohexist with one another"... WHAT?? They cohexisted only because they didn't succeed in exterminating one another!!! .... "The coming clash will be between this radical emancipation of man and the great historical cultures (and religions)". What does that mean, exactly? What will the "clash of cultures" be in practice? A civil war? People hating each other and calling each other names? Or just, once again, a couple of big wigs bitching and arguing from their academic publications that no one reads? (erm.... except for me and for people who have to).

I really liked the chapter on "Faith and everyday life", on how having faith is compatible with being a modern adult person.

On the other hand, I found the argument against agnosticism really weak: "When faced with the question of God, man cannot permit himself to remain neutral. All he can say is Yes or No". WHY? Why in the world can someone not say "maybe", or "probably not, unless you can prove it to me"? To have faith or not is a matter of choice, that comes from your heart and soul. Full stop. There is no way you can prove agnosticism wrong, not even with this sophisticated philosophical arguments, and there is no way you can actually prove a Christian right. So, give it a rest, Benedict!

Towards the end, I found an excellent description of human nature in the following paragraph: "On the one side, there is the interior opening up of the human soul to God; but on the other side, there is the stronger attraction of our needs and our immediate experiences. Man is the battlefield where these two contend with each other". Amen to that.

Finally, Joseph Ratzinger writes "the relationship with God is, before all else, a relationship with men; it is based on a communion among men". This is a great truth, and even perhaps an inconvenient one for the Church, that has never admitted openly that God can be interpreted, from a purely scientifical/biological point of view, as a collective illusion. The most important point though is that this doesn't make Him less real, or less important, or less existent. Just like our sense of "self", that is a construct, an "illusion", but nevertheless we feel we do exist as persons, as individuals, as real personalities.

Overall, enjoyable reading, even though open to a lot of arguments and discussions. Definitely great thought- provoking material ( )