Cover not available
Article published In:
Argumentation and the interpretation of religious texts
Edited by Fabrizio Macagno and Lucia Salvato
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 12:1] 2023
► pp. 77–115

The appeal to religious authority

A case-study

| Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore,
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 First Book of the Kings in the Old Testament (1 Kings 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.
Keywords: appeal to authority, argument from expert opinion, argumentative monologue, argumentative scheme, critical questions, Joseph Ratzinger
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.The appeal to authority
  • 2.The argumentation scheme
  • 3.Ratzinger’s argumentative steps
  • 4.First appeal to expert opinion: Saint Augustine
    • 4.1First argument based on example: German history
  • 5.Second appeal to expert opinion: Origen of Alexandria
    • 5.1Second argument based on example: German history
  • 6.Third appeal to expert opinion: Saint Paul
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Web sites
Published online: 9 May 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00018.sal
References (51)
References
Arnauld, Antoine. 1964. The Art of Thinking, trans. by James Dickoff, Patricia James, and Charles Hendel. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1968. Dostoevskij. Poetica e stilistica. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
1979. “Das Wort im Roman”. In Die Ästhetik des Wortes, hrsg. und eingel. Von Rainer Grübel, 154–300. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
1981. The Dialogic Imagination. Four Essays, ed. by Michael Holquist, trans. by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
1986. “The problem of Speech Genres”. In Bakhtin, Michail M., Speech Genres and other late essays, ed. by C. Emerson and M. Holquist, 60–102. University of Texas Press: Austin.Google Scholar
Billig, Michael. 1987. Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Black, Max. 1946. Critical Thinking. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo. 2005. “Debating with Myself and Debating with Others”. In Controversies and Subjectivity, ed. by P. Barrotta, and Marcelo Dascal, 33–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Driver, Rosalind, Paul Edward Newton, and Jonathan Osborne. 2000. “Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms”. Science Education 84(3): 287–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van. 2009. Examining Argumentation in Context. Fifteen Studies on Strategic Maneuvering. Amsterdam, Netherlands-Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Wu Peng. 2017. Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics. [Argumentation in Context, 12]. John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, John D. G. 1977. Aristotle’s Concept of Dialectic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fearnside, W. Ward, and William B. Holter. 1959. Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Fürst, Alfons. 2006. “Monotheismus und Monarchie. Zum Zusammenhang von Heil und Herrschaft in der Antike”. Theologie und Philosophie 811:321–338.Google Scholar
Johnson, Ralph, and J. Anthony Blair. 1983. Logical Self-Defence, 2d ed. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc. 1981. Questions and Attitudes. In Crossing the Boundaries in Linguistics. Studies Presented to Manfred Bierwish, ed. by W. Klein, and W. Levelt, 159–176. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishuing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Deanna. 2010. “Teaching and Learning Science as Argument”. Science Education 94(5): 810–824. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Chrysi Rapanta. 2016. “Argumentation methods in educational contexts: Introduction to the Special Issue”. International Journal of Educational Research. 791: 142–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas N. Walton. 2008. “Persuasive Definitions: Values, Meanings and Implicit Disagreements.” Informal Logic. 28(3): 203–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malone, Mary T. 2017. Four Women Doctors of the Church. Dublin: Veritas Publications.Google Scholar
Martini, Carlo Maria. 2002. Parola alla chiesa. Parola alla città. Bologna: Centro editoriale dehoniano.Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Pontificia Commissione Biblica. 2001. Il popolo ebraico e le sue sacre scritture nella Bibbia cristiana. Città del Vaticano: LEV. ([URL]).
Pontificio Consiglio della Giustizia e della Pace. 2004. Compendio della Dottrina Sociale della Chiesa. Città del Vaticano: LEV (Engl.: Compendium of the social doctrine of the church : ([URL]).
Pope John Paul II. 1988. Pastor bonus, Apostolic Constitution. [URL].Google Scholar
Purtill, Richard L. 1972. Logical thinking. New York etc.: Harper & Raw.Google Scholar
Ratzinger, Joseph. 1971. Die 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
Rigotti, Eddo. 2005. “Congruity Theory and Argumentation”. Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction. Studies in Communication Sciences, Special Issue, 75–96.Google Scholar
Rigotti, Eddo, and Andrea Rocci. 2005. “From Argument Analysis to Cultural Keywords (and Back Again)”. In Argumentation in Practice, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, and Peter Houtlosser, 135–142. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rocci, Andrea. 2005. “Connective Predicates in Monologic and Dialogic Argumentation”. Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction. Studies in Communication Sciences, Special Issue, 97–118.Google Scholar
Roulet, Eddy. 2001. “L’organisation énonciative et l’organisation polyphonique”. In Un modèle et un instrument d’analyse de l’organisation du discours, ed. by Eddy Roulet, Laurent Filliettaz, and Anne Grobet, 277–305. Peter Lang SA.Google Scholar
Salvato, Lucia. 2005. Polyphones Erzählen. Zum Phänomen der Erlebten Rede in deutschen Romanen der Jahrhundertwende. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2019. “The translator’s visibility. Translators’ critical argumentation on their translating effort.” In Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA), ed. by Bart Garssen, et al., 1022–1033. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Shannon, Claude E., and Warren Weaver. 1964. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
The New Oxford Dictionary of English. 1998. Ed. by Judy Pearsall. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik. 1984. An Introduction to Reasoning. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. 1934/1987. “Thinking and Speech”. In The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, ed. by R. W. Rieber, and A. S. Carton, Vol. 11: “Problems of General Psychology”, 37–285, transl. and with an Introduction by N. Minick. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas N. 1990. “What Is Reasoning? What Is an Argument?”. Journal of Philosophy 87 (8):399–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. Appeal to expert opinion. Arguments from Authority. University Park/Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
2006. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1989/2008. Informal Logic. A pragmatic approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Patrick. 1983. Second-Hand Knowledge: An Inquiry into Cognitive Authority. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Woods, John, and Douglas Walton. 1989. Fallacies: Selected Papers 1972’1982. (Series: “Studies of Argumentation in Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis”, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, and Rob Grootendorst.) Dordrecht-Holland/Providence, RI-USA: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zamorani, Pierpaolo. 1988. “La lex Publilia del 339 a.C. e l’auctoritas preventiva.” In Annali del Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza, Vol. II1, 3–18. Università di Ferrara: Nuova Serie.Google Scholar
Web sites
[URL] (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. IEP).
[URL] (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
[URL] (The British Museum).