In his homily to the 2005 conclave that would soon choose him as the successor of Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger warned those attending, “We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.”
This is a warning that Pope Benedict has not tired of repeating during his pontificate.
Relativism is a poison. It attacks our most human capacity, the capacity to seek and know the truth, including the moral truth. A dictatorship of relativism imposes by real cultural force (and even by political force) a no-standard standard, a command that all must imbibe this poison.
At first blush, it would seem contradictory to have relativism united to dictatorship. Isn’t relativism just a healthy dose of humility, a way to cool the intellectual or religious hot-head who insists, “I, only I, have the truth”?
The proof of the pudding of relativism is in the eating. How has it fared?
“In recent years I find myself noting,” Cardinal Ratzinger said in his Without Roots, “how the more relativism becomes the generally accepted way of thinking, the more it tends toward intolerance. Political correctness … seeks to establish the domain of a single way of thinking and speaking. Its relativism creates the illusion that it has reached greater heights than the loftiest philosophical achievements of the past. It presents itself as the only way to think and speak — if, that is, one wishes to stay in fashion. … I think it is vital that we oppose this imposition of a new pseudo-enlightenment, which threatens freedom of thought as well as freedom of religion.”
That last point is key. While appearing to be the very essence of neutrality and equity — “all views are equal and equally valid” — it actually undermines both the freedom of thought and the freedom of religion. As to the latter, it does so (ironically) as a new religion itself, “a new ‘denomination’ that places restrictions on religious convictions and seeks to subordinate all religions to the super-dogma of relativism.”
As Cardinal Ratzinger noted in his Truth and Tolerance, “relativism … in certain respects has become the real religion of modern man.” It has become, especially in Europe, but now increasingly in America, the religion that stands at the heart of modern secular civilization in the way that Christianity defined the heart of Christendom.
It is the religion, Pope Benedict insists, which the Church must combat in the third millennium for the sake of civilization itself. A civilization built upon dogmatic relativism is one that ensures its own destruction. It is also a civilization in which Christianity — challenging dogmatic relativism with the proclamation that Jesus Christ himself is the Way, the Truth and the Life — must be persecuted.
What is the ultimate source of this dogmatic relativism? I’ll explore Pope Benedict’s thoughts in my next blog post.
Part one of Ben Wiker’s series on the pontificate of Benedict XVI can be found here.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thank you. This is, I think, Benedict’s greatest insight.
Cultural and aesthetic relativism is understandable and can lead to more openness and tolerance. But moral relativism undermines itself - although those who promote tend not to see this.
I remember one conversation when I was rebuked by being told that nothing was objectively morally wrong but that telling others that they were morally wrong was morally wrong. I tried to point out this self-contradiction, but seemed not to be understood.
One way of challenging moral relativism is to identify that person’s sacred cows and ask if they think eg genocide, slavery, sex/race discrimination is at least generally wrong - and why they think so. Is our revulsion against certain crimes of the same category as aesthetic outrages like mismatched ties and shirts or (in my case) eating pickled beetroot?
Democratic values and human rights cannot have any foundation beyond “I prefer apples to pears” unless one accepts some objective foundation for them outside of inter-subjective convention.
When intolerant, but objectivist, ideologies attack democratic values and human rights - often with the threat of violence; relativists do not have any shield - especially if they have dismantled the basic shield of broad Judeao-Christian objective values (which are really basic human values).
Certain types of talk and reality shows also tend to confuse the sin and the sinner. “If you love me you must approve of what I do”.
Relativism has also spread to science where those who do not have a scientific leg to stand on want “to teach the controversy” about eg evolution or climate change, when there is no real controversy amongst the scientists in that specialism.
Great article! Very interesting. I am grateful that you are putting an emphasis on this threat to civilization. Too many are completely unaware of the darkness rolling down upon us. Thank you!
Dogmatic relativism states that there can be no “absolute truth” or “right way” and so any of us Christians, Moslems, rationalists, etc. who come to believe there is absolute truth must be silenced, shamed, shouted down in the public square,or otherwise silenced. Let us pray for God’s wisdom on how and when the speak the truth that some things are absolutely true and to violate this truth will cause us and our societies harm in the end.
When Benedict XVI spoke about morals and ethics he frequently expressed them in ABSOLUTE terms particularly as it affected homosexuality, abortion, birth control, reproduction, women and their role in the church, as well as the Roman Catholic Church in relation to Protestant churches. During his reign his autocratic rule tended to divide rather than bring people and competing religions together. At no time did we witness any attempts to bring opposing sides together,(except perhaps SSPX) as surely Jesus did on numerous accasions. During Benedict’s time the Bible and the Catechism were often used as instruments of the Law instead of Love.
Remember the religious leaders during the time of Jesus upheld the Law to the letter. Yet Jesus said “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill”. Or, in other words Jesus reminds us that our focus should not be on the letter of the law, but on the heart of the law.
Relativism as expressed by Pope Benedict XVI should remind Christians of the relative world in which a woman was about to be stoned for committing adultery. The teachers of the Law and the Pharisees brought in a woman who had been caught committing adultery, and the made her stand before all. “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. In our Law Moses commanded adultery. In our Law Moses commanded that such a woman must be stoned to death. Now, what do you say?” They said this to trap Jesus, so that they could accuse him. But he bent over and wrote on the ground with his finder. As they stood there asking him questions, he straightened up and said to them and said to them, “whichever one of you has committed no sin may throw the first stone at her.” The he bent over again and wrote on the ground. When they heard this, they all left, one by one, the older ones first. Jesus was left alone, with the woman still standing there. He straightened up and said to her, “Where are they? Is there no one left to condemn you?” “No one, sir”, she answered. “Well, then”, Jesus said, “I do not condemn you either, Go, but do not sin again.”
Excellent as usual Dr. Wiker! Wasn’t it C.S. Lewis who said, “Relativism will certainly end our species and damn our souls.” ... I couldn’t agree more with this article. Also, NCR I am trying to click on the “Get the RSS Feed” button and it doesn’t work…how can we subscribe to these posts?
Well done, Mr. Wiker! I have to read those two books by His Holiness.
I’ve long seen relativism as a neo-religion. The relativist are non-religious, at best. The unquestioned Political Correctness may be what fills the void left behind.
Unfortunately, this neo-religion is not only allowed in the public schools, it defines them.
The relativists are not simply interested in tolerance for all. They have their own goals for society. They are bullies who smear and intimidate to get their way. They are anti-religious people who want a society without religion. They call us dogmatic, intolerant, hateful, fundamentalist, judgmental, etc., when this is mere projection on their part. They pat themselves on the back for their supposed open-mindedness without ever questioning their own positions.
Trebert - oh, I think Jesus was plenty divisive.
“This is a hard saying”
enness,
agreed, but only in the sense that Jesus was divisive when it came to challenging the religious leaders of his time, sharing meals with the marginal of society such as taxpayers, prostitutes, money changers at the temple, etc. etc. and today by challenging us, in this global village of 7 billion, containing a multi faceted and mixed variety of religions to become as One. This is something we haven’t been able to achieve within the Roman Catholic community.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.