In the previous blog post, we explored Pope Benedict’s account of the roots of relativism — roots which ultimately blossomed into full-scale secularism in the West. Again, Benedict sees the problem in reason itself, or what has been done to reason.
To review, while secularists claim to champion reason, they actually put forth a constricted form of reason — so constricted that it mutilates both our reason and our humanity. Reason, secularism asserts, must be restricted only to what is material and measurable. The mutilation occurs because secularism then assumes that what is not material and measurable is not real, or at best, merely a subjective fancy.
Secularism thereby embraces materialism. Materialism not only denies the existence of God and the human soul but also reduces human beings to mere physical, pleasure-seeking, pain-avoiding animals, whose reason is solely an instrument of their passions. Thus, secularized rationality breeds an ultimate embrace of irrationality. The heady ambitions of the 18th-century Enlightenment end in the elevation of irrationality and the will to power in Nietzsche at the end of the 19th century — an “end” that the secular West has not really been able to move beyond.
It is no historical accident, then, that the end of the 19th century signaled what came to be called “the decline of the West” (a theme, Benedict notes in his Without Roots, explored by Oswald Spengler), and that the 20th century was marked by the greatest and most destructive totalitarian regimes in human history. Irrationality in philosophy led to irrationality in politics.
“The totalitarian model … was associated with a rigidly materialist, atheistic philosophy of history,” Benedict explains in Without Roots, “it saw history deterministically, as a road of progress that passes first through a religious and then through a liberal phase to arrive at an absolute, ultimate society in which religion is surpassed as a relic of the past and collective happiness is guaranteed by the workings of material conditions.”
But it was precisely in embracing materialism as rational, and hence as scientific, that totalitarianism brushed aside all moral restrictions as naïve and historically passé, relics of our infantile religious phase.
That “scientific” brushing aside can be quite blunt and brutal.
“This scientific façade hides a dogmatic intolerance,” notes Benedict, “that views the spirit as produced by matter, and morals as produced by circumstances.” In other words — and quite ironically — to be scientific means to embrace the notion that there is no truth, that our ideas are merely reflections of material causes and circumstances. And that means to reject the notion that there is moral truth as well. Morality, too, is purely relative, an artifact of circumstances.
This “scientific” view will not tolerate anyone who believes that human beings have a soul capable of knowing the truth. It will not therefore tolerate anyone who believes that we can know and follow the moral truth. But these are precisely the claims that Christianity makes with the greatest vigor, and so the secular “scientific” view is dogmatically intolerant of Christianity in particular.
In declaring truth, especially moral truth, to be relative, the secular scientific view demands that we abandon the historical moral formation given to us through Christianity, and replace it by a purely utilitarian view. As Benedict makes clear in Without Roots, “According to its dictates, morals should be defined and practiced on the basis of society’s purposes, and everything is deemed moral that helps to usher in the final state of happiness.”
Totalitarianism is the result, because no truths, no moral “Thou shall nots” stand in the way of what those in power might find useful. “Depending on circumstance, anything can become legitimate and even necessary; anything can become moral in the new sense of the term,” Benedict says. “Even humankind itself can be treated as an instrument, since the individual does not matter, only the future, the cruel deity adjudicating over one and all.”
The cruel deity of “progress,” as we found out in the 20th century, is a Saturn devouring its children by the tens of millions. That is the price of the secular demand that we live in a world without God, without the soul, without truth, and without a moral order written into our nature. As the spread of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia in 21st century liberal democracies attests, the secular Saturn is still hard at work.
Christians find themselves in the rather interesting position of having to evangelize reason, to come to the aid of truth. Secularized reason cannot lift us out of our difficulties. As Benedict, indulging in a bit of understatement in Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures, states “A reason that has its origin in the irrational and is itself ultimately irrational does not offer a solution to our problem.”
In contrast to the Enlightenment barbs against the faith, Christianity did not reject reason. Because of its doctrine of Christ as logos, and of human beings made in the image of God, it embraced and transformed reason by faith. That is why, Benedict argues in Truth and Tolerance, Christianity in its first centuries took what was best in Greek philosophy and transformed it, and left behind Greek skepticism, materialism, hedonism and relativism.
How ironic that once again, Christianity must come to the rescue of reason at the beginning of the third millennium. But that is one of the great tasks of the New Evangelization.
“The person of faith … must work in favor of reason and of that which is rational: this, in the face of dormant or diseased reason [reigning today], is a duty he or she must perform toward the entire human community” (Without Roots).
This is the fourth of a seven-part series, “Pope Benedict vs. Secularism.” Read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.
Comments
Post a Comment
We need a pope who is strong-willed, outspoken, and not afraid to reprimand those Catholics who don’t adhere to the Church’s teachings. Cardinal O’Malley is one who does not reprimand Catholics, especially the Kennedy’s are don’t adhere to church teachings. Any public official who is a Catholic and pro-choice should not be able to rec. communion.
The pope, when he was a Cardinal said that it would be better to have a smaller church with members who agree with its teaching.
I am seriously just spit-balling here (not trolling):
I go back and forth on the issue of pro-choice politicians and the like receiving communion.
Lately, I’ve wondered: would Christ have denied himself to the most wretched sinners? He made himself available to all - it was the individual’s choice as to whether or not they would receive him.
In other words, if a priest were to deny the Eucharist to a sinner, I would see that as akin to one of the apostles telling a prostitute: “Don’t bother our Lord. Stay away from him - you aren’t worthy…”
@danh
It is also clear from Scripture that it is at least possible to receive the Eucharist “unworthily”. The exact conditions are hard to pin down. A thousand years ago, people rarely received the Eucharist—once or twice a year at most, often only once or twice a lifetime. Primarily it was seldom because it was such an awesome thing. Regular people simply did not dare to physically touch the LORD (for the most part, they really believed in the Real Presence then). But also because in addition to Confession and Penance, there was a preparatory period of abstinence and fasting that had to be observed first.
The short version is there have been extremes on both ends: it used to be rare and difficult, now it is free and easy.
I’m not sure if one can pick exactly one “right” amount of preparation to fit all circumstances. However, if someone could easily go to Confession and chooses not to, I can see how that might fall under “unworthily.”
It is in the catechism about not giving Catholic public figures communion if they deny the teachings of the church.
ThomasL,
I agree that someone could be receiving the sacrament unworthily. (As if my agreement really means anything in the cosmic scheme of things!) Likewise, I also agree that that “unworthiness” is very difficult to pin down.
.
The only justification that I can think of for denying a person the Eucharist is if the priest does so out of love for that person - out of a deep concern for their soul.
.
I don’t know how these priests really ought to go about shepherding these people who, broken or otherwise, are still seeking Christ. Fortunately, I suppose that it’s not really my job to figure all of that out. All I need to know is that I’m broken and, despite my brokenness, my God wants me. Because of my brokenness, he can work through me. I will seek to do the best penance that I can as regularly as possible, keep coming up for Eucharist, and let my Father figure out the details!
Totalitarianism is a system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life whenever necessary.
.
This defines the current US government. From what you say, to who you hire, what you eat and how much you save for retirement, medical savings or spending, borrowing or loaning money, who you talk to, what web sites you visit. The govt holds authority. Try to buy un-pasturized milk, or build on your property without a permit. Try to employ people in a mutual contract without the govts approval.
.
Our govt officials are supposed to run the govt not the country. They are supposed to control the govt budget, not our budgets. They are supposed to be our employees, not our masters.
.
What is most amazing to me is that people elect totalitarians to govt. It would appear that they do not desire freedom, but rather desire a keeper, an overlord, a group of busy-bodies to tell them how to live.
.
Whether you call it a noose or a collar, Americans do not have the courage to trust in themselves, they would rather be a slave or a pet.
.
What is crazier, the person who believe’s that they can trust in a loving Creator, or the person that believe’s that they can trust in a politician/megalomaniac?
I doubt the politicians in question are seeking Christ when they attempt to receive unworthily as much as they’re seeking voters. It’s likely to put on a good show.
It would appear that they do not desire freedom, but rather desire a keeper, an overlord, a group of busy-bodies to tell them how to live.”
.
And how is this different from the Church? Catholics are told what to believe, who to marry, which sexual behavior is acceptable and which is “sinful.” The Church invades the bedroom, the doctor’s office and the deathbed. You follow a priest’s “advice” because you can’t make decisions for yourselves. You even believe it’s acceptable to let a woman die instead of hastening the inevitable miscarriage of an embryo.
.
Another example of moral relativism. You love the totalitarianism of the Church in your lives, and you give it your money. Yet you have contempt for a government program that provides food and shelter for impoverished families.
All faiths are told what to believe. Christians live by the bible. Homosexuality is considered an abomination in the bible.The Catholic church is living by that. The bible says, I knew you before you were born, ergo, the church is against abortion. The bible says, do not drop you seed anywhere, ergo, the church abides against birth control. These are the teachings in the bible. Jesus only chose men for his apostles, ergo, men are only priest in the Catholic church. The Catholic church didn’t initiate these teachings. They only follow them.
In reply to Wendy’s comment about the Church and the government telling people what to do:
.
.
Lately, our U.S. government has been ordering our men and women serving in the military to mistreat captured prisoners, and even indiscriminately to bomb neighborhoods containing civilian residential areas.
.
.
The Catholic Church opposes these actions, and would advise Catholic servicemen and women to respectfully decline to their superior officer to follow orders to commit such atrocities.
.
.
Many secularists believe that there is no such thing as an “objective” atrocity or “crime against humanity.” Their view is that if the “good guys” do a thing, that makes it OK.
.
.
This is where the Catholic Church is different. Just because I decide that doing a thing is necessary to advance my agenda, it doesn’t automatically follow that that step is lawful in the eyes of God. No, some things, such as willful murder, oppressing the poor, the widow or the orphan, mistreating those who cannot fight back - these are always sins, no matter who commits them.
.
.
Satan has his own agenda, and always has had. Satan wants to make us believe as he tried to make Eve believe, “think for yourself! Don’t you see that this is a good thing?” But it wasn’t a good thing, not then, not now. The only good is the one God directs us to. When we turn from the good that God calls us to, and do our own will, we will always choose what Satan wants for us.
.
.
Don’t do that! We do think for ourselves, and we do that by using our reason to identify and to reject the lies of Satan, and to embrace and to follow the will of God in our lives.
Marion wrote,
“Lately, our U.S. government has been ordering our men and women serving in the military to mistreat captured prisoners, and even indiscriminately to bomb neighborhoods containing civilian residential areas.”
Actually the U.S. government does no such thing. On the contrary it mandates that all members follow the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC), refuse unlawful orders, and report LOAC violations up the chain of command.
I am a Catholic and no fan of the current administration, but this charge is a lie and an insult to those of us serving the country.
Wendy wrote,
“You love the totalitarianism of the Church in your lives, and you give it your money. Yet you have contempt for a government program that provides food and shelter for impoverished families.”
The Church does not coerce anyone and we are free to obey, to leave, or whatever. The Church only guides in the way of truth so we can avoid sin and hell. The government, on the other hand, uses coercive force to impose its will. It must forcibly take from earners to redistribute to the poor. The Church helps the impoverished far more without coercion but rather with true charity. Thanks for playing.
Are we supposed to support a “dictatorship of objectivism” to counter the “dictatorship of relativism”? I’ve never understood what the OPPOSITE of a “dictatorship of relativism” is? Is it what the Church had it in is alliances with monarchies in the Middle Ages and during the late Roman Empire, when no heresy or dissent was tolerated by either the Church or the State?
When this author writes about the evils of “totalitarianism,” it seems to me that he is really always writing against BOTH the former Soviet Union AND against Social Democracy enacted by FDR’s New Deal and embodied especially in the Social Democracies of today’s northern Europe (Finland, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Denmark). Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) said over and over again that the Social Democracies of northern Europe were the closest thing to the realization of Catholic Social Doctrine. Also, this author seems to have no awareness of how Free Market Capitalism can and does result in a form of totalitarianism for the poorer classes of a society. Economists and sociologists have been documenting this phenomenon for years and years now, in many nations. Yet this author seems to have no awareness of any of this scholarship. So, in sum, I find this author’s work to be of limited value. I wish he would take Catholic Social Teaching seriously. I wish he’d take a broader view of information and seek out information and knowledge beyond that standard right-wing Fox News perspective. Fox News is not a Catholic apostolate. There’s a reason Saint Francis is never quoted on the Fox News channel, but Mises von Ludwig is.
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.