Volume 12 Number 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper analyzes a particular type of support that religious authorities use in their argumentative monologues on moral and theological matters. In particular, the argumentative monologue given by Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI during his 2011 visit to the federal parliament in the Reichstag in Berlin will be used as a case study. In his speech, Ratzinger offers his reflections on the foundations of law starting from his interpretation of a brief story from the in the Old Testament ( 3:5–10). The entire interpretation assumes the form of an argumentative text, in which he appeals to an authoritative voice of German-language jurisprudence (Hans Kelsen) and three Christian religious authorities (St Augustine, Origen of Alexandria, and St Paul). The aim of the study is to assess the pragmatic strength of Ratzinger’s argumentation and thus verify the authoritative contribution of religious experts in his argumentation, in which religion and ethics are linked together.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Arnauld, Antoine
    1964The Art of Thinking, trans. byJames Dickoff, Patricia James, and Charles Hendel. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
    1968Dostoevskij. Poetica e stilistica. Torino: Einaudi.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 1979 “Das Wort im Roman”. InDie Ästhetik des Wortes, hrsg. und eingel.Von Rainer Grübel, 154–300. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 1981The Dialogic Imagination. Four Essays, ed. byMichael Holquist, trans. byCaryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 1986 “The problem of Speech Genres”. InBakhtin, Michail M., Speech Genres and other late essays, ed. byC. Emerson and M. Holquist, 60–102. University of Texas Press: Austin.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Billig, Michael
    1987Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Black, Max
    1946Critical Thinking. New York: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dascal, Marcelo
    2005 “Debating with Myself and Debating with Others”. InControversies and Subjectivity, ed. byP. Barrotta, and Marcelo Dascal, 33–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cvs.1.04das
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.1.04das [Google Scholar]
  9. Driver, Rosalind, Paul Edward Newton, and Jonathan Osborne
    2000 “Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms”. Science Education84(3): 287–312. 10.1002/(SICI)1098‑237X(200005)84:3<287::AID‑SCE1>3.0.CO;2‑A
    https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A [Google Scholar]
  10. Eemeren, Frans H. van
    2009Examining Argumentation in Context. Fifteen Studies on Strategic Maneuvering. Amsterdam, Netherlands-Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.1 [Google Scholar]
  11. Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Wu Peng
    2017Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics. [Argumentation in Context, 12]. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.12
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.12 [Google Scholar]
  12. Evans, John D. G.
    1977Aristotle’s Concept of Dialectic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fearnside, W. Ward, and William B. Holter
    1959Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fürst, Alfons
    2006 “Monotheismus und Monarchie. Zum Zusammenhang von Heil und Herrschaft in der Antike”. Theologie und Philosophie811:321–338.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Johnson, Ralph, and J. Anthony Blair
    1983Logical Self-Defence, 2d ed. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kiefer, Ferenc
    1981Questions and Attitudes. InCrossing the Boundaries in Linguistics. Studies Presented to Manfred Bierwish, ed. byW. Klein, and W. Levelt, 159–176. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishuing Company. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑8453‑0_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8453-0_7 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kuhn, Deanna
    2010 “Teaching and Learning Science as Argument”. Science Education94(5): 810–824. 10.1002/sce.20395
    https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20395 [Google Scholar]
  18. Macagno, Fabrizio, and Chrysi Rapanta
    2016 “Argumentation methods in educational contexts: Introduction to the Special Issue”. International Journal of Educational Research. 791: 142–149. 10.1016/j.ijer.2016.03.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.03.006 [Google Scholar]
  19. Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas N. Walton
    2008 “Persuasive Definitions: Values, Meanings and Implicit Disagreements.” Informal Logic. 28(3): 203–228. 10.22329/il.v28i3.594
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v28i3.594 [Google Scholar]
  20. Malone, Mary T.
    2017Four Women Doctors of the Church. Dublin: Veritas Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Martini, Carlo Maria
    2002Parola alla chiesa. Parola alla città. Bologna: Centro editoriale dehoniano.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    1969The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Pontificia Commissione Biblica
    Pontificia Commissione Biblica 2001Il popolo ebraico e le sue sacre scritture nella Bibbia cristiana. Città del Vaticano: LEV. (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_doc_index.htm).
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Pontificio Consiglio della Giustizia e della Pace
    Pontificio Consiglio della Giustizia e della Pace 2004Compendio della Dottrina Sociale della Chiesa. Città del Vaticano: LEV (Engl.: Compendium of the social doctrine of the church: (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html).
  25. Pope John Paul II [Google Scholar]
  26. Purtill, Richard L.
    1972Logical thinking. New York etc.: Harper & Raw.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ratzinger, Joseph
    1971Die Einheit der Nationen. Eine Vision der Kirchenväter, Salzburg – München (Engl.: The Unity of the Nations: A Vision of the Church Fathers 2015 Catholic Univ of Amer Pr.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Rigotti, Eddo
    2005 “Congruity Theory and Argumentation”. Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction. Studies in Communication Sciences, Special Issue, 75–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Rigotti, Eddo, and Andrea Rocci
    2005 “From Argument Analysis to Cultural Keywords (and Back Again)”. InArgumentation in Practice, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren, and Peter Houtlosser, 135–142. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cvs.2.11rig
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.2.11rig [Google Scholar]
  30. Rocci, Andrea
    2005 “Connective Predicates in Monologic and Dialogic Argumentation”. Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction. Studies in Communication Sciences, Special Issue, 97–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Roulet, Eddy
    2001 “L’organisation énonciative et l’organisation polyphonique”. InUn modèle et un instrument d’analyse de l’organisation du discours, ed. byEddy Roulet, Laurent Filliettaz, and Anne Grobet, 277–305. Peter Lang SA.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Salvato, Lucia
    2005Polyphones Erzählen. Zum Phänomen der Erlebten Rede in deutschen Romanen der Jahrhundertwende. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2019 “The translator’s visibility. Translators’ critical argumentation on their translating effort.” InProceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA), ed. byBart Garssen, , 1022–1033. Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Shannon, Claude E., and Warren Weaver
    1964The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. The New Oxford Dictionary of English
    The New Oxford Dictionary of English 1998 Ed. byJudy Pearsall. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  36. Toulmin, Stephen
    1958The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Toulmin, Stephen, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik
    1984An Introduction to Reasoning. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Vygotsky, L.
    1934/1987 “Thinking and Speech”. InThe collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, ed. byR. W. Rieber, and A. S. Carton, Vol.11: “Problems of General Psychology”, 37–285, transl. and with an Introduction byN. Minick. New York: Plenum Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Walton, Douglas N.
    1990 “What Is Reasoning? What Is an Argument?”. Journal of Philosophy87 (8):399–419. 10.2307/2026735
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2026735 [Google Scholar]
  40. 1997Appeal to expert opinion. Arguments from Authority. University Park/Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2006Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 1989/2008Informal Logic. A pragmatic approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno
    2008Argumentation Schemes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511802034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034 [Google Scholar]
  44. Wilson, Patrick
    1983Second-Hand Knowledge: An Inquiry into Cognitive Authority. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Woods, John, and Douglas Walton
    1989Fallacies: Selected Papers 1972’1982. (Series: “Studies of Argumentation in Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis”, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren, and Rob Grootendorst.) Dordrecht-Holland/Providence, RI-USA: Foris. 10.1515/9783110816082
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110816082 [Google Scholar]
  46. Zamorani, Pierpaolo
    1988 “La lex Publilia del 339 a.C. e l’auctoritas preventiva.” InAnnali del Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza, Vol.II1, 3–18. Università di Ferrara: Nuova Serie.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. www.vatican.va
  48. www.fondazioneratzinger.va
  49. https://iep.utm.edu
    https://iep.utm.edu (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. IEP).
  50. https://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html
    https://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
  51. https://www.blog.britishmuseum.org

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error