Could this also be a virtue?

 Many a contemporary would otherwise hardly doubt the objective validity of what is said here about virtues. Be that as it may, the discussion on this subject is not new. The first historically known to have taken place (according to the record) as early as the fourth century before the Christ-if, of course, one does or does not take away from the rich biblical literary production on the subject. Plato’s Socrates encounters a certain Euthyphro at the King’s Stoa and they engage in a debate about piety. Socrates, in his usual way, gives rise to an interesting conversation. It doesn’t end like other times with a definition in which one learns the nature of the subject under discussion but makes only factual assumptions about it. Who knows why? Perhaps because of the quite special nature of the subject in question, which involves both human and divine. He did, however, outline something that was an immediate preparation for the definition: piety is “that part of the just which relates to the care given to the gods; while the part relating to the care of men is the remaining part of justice” (Plato, Dialogues, 328 E), and at the same time “is the knowledge of what we have of the gods to ask and what we are to give them” (ibid., 331 D).

It is interesting to note what an exact parallel there is between this and the Hebrew-Biblical view of piety, which sees in it the realization of the very comprehensive notion of righteousness. When a biblical author wanted to express the moral excellence of some great personality “before God and all people” (e.g. Joseph, Mary’s husband), he wrote that he was a “righteous” man – although he often associates another adjective – “God-fearing”. For the contemporary, however, the discussion of piety is largely only a quaint affair, a debate about something that belongs to the past.  If someone starts a conversation on the subject with the attitude that he has raised something topical, he is likely to be laughed at. Especially if he were to present it as a virtue. For us, however, the likelihood that a statistical majority otherwise is not even indicative in this regard. Therefore, let us formulate the question as follows: What is piety? In the broadest sense, it is a deep, existential interest in something, or rather in someone, that transcends one’s self and from which one can personal virtues everything depends. It is not always a matter of some precise idea, but almost always a kind of premonition of the divine, often coupled with a desire to reach it, to know it, accompanied by a feeling of awe or reverence. It is probably in this sense that he speaks.

Goethe speaks of the “Religion of awe – Religion der Ehrfurcht”. If we reach beyond ethnology, we shall see that this feeling and these feelings are not a matter of this or that man or tribe, nor a matter of giftedness or the structural construction of the psyche (e.g. “religious
type” in E. Spranger), but simply belong to the essence of man as a creature endowed with reason and freedom. The endowment for this sphere may be repressed or clogged by the various experiential junk of banal everyday life, but somehow it is always there – is one sublimation or compensation or another. The view of God or the gods appears immediately from the conversation between Euthyphro and Socrates – and in general throughout Greek as well as Asia Minor, Egyptian as well as Indian mythology -, and represents a very advanced degree of religious decadence compared with Christianity. Yet these people cannot be denied piety, which, moreover, pervades their whole life, their relationship to nature, to people, and organized society or the state.

But a sense of a higher being and expressions of reverence for it is not enough. This fact is too fascinating to be content with. That is why, from the beginning of historical times, we have encountered attempts to penetrate the mystery of the divine rationally and to justify expressions of piety. Among the ancient Greeks (Anaximander, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) a rational discussion of these questions is one of the high points of philosophical thought about God in general. But even this peak did not satisfy the spirit and heart of man. He felt, that all such piety was unworthy of God. According to the Christian faith, the fullness of the knowledge of God is opened to man only when God himself reveals something of himself and the interrelationships between himself and man or mankind – and when he makes it clear what form of piety is for him correct and acceptable. And this began with the coming of Christ and will culminate in by his visible glorification before the whole world. In him, the pure nature of nature was enriched by the super-nature. In it, man receives his hunches about God, and God Himself reveals Himself to him, how a man can honor him most sublimely.

Under the influence of the Renaissance and later Romanticism, the cosmic, or nature-relationship, piety took hold again, most Piety, especially among scholars and poets (Goethe, Rilke). Over time, however, this relationship with nature faded into piety, and the romantic man remained alone with the admired nature. And so, slowly, he began to give birth to and develop a new relationship with nature, which can be described as conquering: a man approaches it as a sovereign master. He explores its nature and the possibilities of its technical use, literally its abuse for his benefit,..which is often, in the end, rather a disservice. Had the Franciscan love of “divine nature” with its contemporary evaluation of creation as work and evidence of the Creator’s love, there would probably not have been a “flight” into nature religiosity or a modern “deification” or even “deification of nature” among many ecologists. Love of the world or nature is not for the Christian who believes in God.

The creator is something ungodly. However, a change of attitude towards it has come too late, when secularization, or rejection of the Creator, had already reached a high point and had long since paved the way for a comeback. Unsecular or anti-secular piety always results in an ungodly, even an ungodly world. As can be observed, there are several types of piety in a transverse as well as a longitudinal cut through history – according to what is emphasized: eucharistic, liturgical, Marian, etc. But there is also piety that is tied to the nations: Germanic, Roman, Slavic, and Hispano-American. And all can be tuned individually, collectively, contemplatively, missionary, etc.
With the advent of the Enlightenment, the notion of piety narrowed. In philosophical writing as well as fiction, the term “pious” refers to the purely cultic sphere, which, especially in Kant, caused a such
strong reaction that he radically opposed religion, whose content was anything other than the pursuit of moral life. According to him, the best worship is the observance of the Creator’s commands. Later, when even religion became the subject of “philosophizing,” there was no lack of authors (Schleiermacher) who saw religion as exclusives ly one of the expressions of human affectivity.

The Catholic Church, in the name of its claim to universality, saw piety is the total of all the spiritual aspects of man and according to led people to it. Yet in this century, especially under the influence of literature and the press in general – but also as a result of the bigotry of a large part of the faithful – identical sections of the population have harvested the importance of Personal virtues once piety its original good sound and has discredited itself to such an extent that people, especially the young, became ashamed to be described as “pious”. It became almost fashionable to identify piety with something wistful that lurks somewhere in the semi-shelter of old churches and dark chapels. It has become much closer to 20t-century to the noncommittal and romantic adoration of nature and the cosmos. This situation has persisted to our day, and after the entry of the theosophical ideas, but especially the epidemic spread of the New Age wave, it has escalated even further. In vogue is the absurd cosmic religion with its pretended mysticism. Absurd because New Age is incapable of even hinting at the object of religiosity, much less somehow characterizing the being to whom one orients oneself in the “performance” of one’s piety – if New Age at all speaks of a “being.” But even those not yet caught up in this or similar religious viruses, are very quick and bold to pronounce judgments about religion and
piety. When there is talk of religion and politics, everyone feels himself to be an expert. Harsh judgments are often the remedy for the wounds that a bad conscience inflicts on human feelings. Stating false piety is a healing plaster for wounds, a convenient excuse for neglecting God.

In parallel, however, the voices of the Pharisees are also heard. They strain through gnats, the faults of others, to digest their heavy moral falls, and whether to swallow a camel (Mt 23:24). Even Jesus was strict against false piety, and many, especially those who have almost no part in his life, have been zealous in severity towards him in this respect – but only in this follow. Criticism of religion from non-religious circles emphasizes above all the necessity of doing everything in moderation. Such a thing is possible only with state religions, where everything is enshrined in the protocol. For Christianity, however, this is sheer formalism, for it emphasizes the mindset, the interior. It is not so much exclusively concerned with some emotional experience or feeling as much as it is primarily about a sincere relationship with God with his moral implications. When this is lost, piety becomes an end in itself, and its culmination is only the mystical or pseudo-mystical emotional excitement. Piety needs to be restored to its original meaning and content and to begin as a virtue. In this sense, it is necessary, already in the first years of childhood. For Christians – both children and adults – there is naturally a very spontaneous is spontaneously connected with the supernatural, because one presupposes the other. Last but not least, religion thrives best where the cradle of children, in the family. The symbolic link between earthly fatherhood and the fatherhood of God plays a particularly important role in this. The awakening of piety or the opening of the child’s soul to God can begin earlier than many parents do. Children have a role to play in this special antennae for this kind of outreach. The effect is all the more profound and lasting for this,# the more children feel loved. Over time, at different developmental stages, religious education must adapt to the needs and sensitivities of children and young people, as well as their character.