CC challenging heresy of Relativism?

[wisdomseeker]

We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as for certain and has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires as the final measure (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, pre-conclave homily).

Truth and tolerance, can they exist together? or should we say Truth or tolerance?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as for certain and has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires as the final measure (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, pre-conclave homily).

Truth and tolerance, can they exist together? or should we say Truth or tolerance?

**What is the precise context of that quotation from the Cardinal ? **​

Three points:

• **Define “relativism”, please **
• Tolerance of what or whom ? (Tolerance is always tolerance of something or someone - it is not absolute, but is always exercised in relation to someone or something: it is relational - to call it relative, though accurate, would cause confusion.)
• **Why can there not be both truth & tolerance ? Again, one must ask: “truth about what ?”, “tolerance of what ?” If we ask questions with confused meanings, we condemn ourselves to confused answers. **
  FWIW, it’s possible to be so enamoured of truth, as to make an idol of it - which can lead to wroning one’s neighbour. Some people are so concerned with “truth”, that they cannot see the people before them as people, but only as “enemies of truth” to be suppressed or rejected in other ways.

**Nothing is exempt from becoming a false god but God - everything else, without exception, is capable of being treated as God & thus of becoming a false god: including truth, of every kind. That is one of the reasons why tolerance, is needed: another, is the innate feebleness of human nature; another, is our lack of complete insight into the things of God; a fourth is the tendency in man to clothe hs worst passions with a cloak of zeal for God; fifth, tolerance is entirely compatible with love of truth; sixth, it is necessary in any society in which there are unreconciled differences which is not also totalitarian. **

**Stalin did not have to tolerate Crimean Cossacks or Jews or Lithuanian Catholics: he could do anything w he wanted to them, technology & man-power permitting. And on the whole, he succeeeded - his contribution to the human race is routinely set higher than that of Hitler: even though Hitler’s hecatombs of slain appear to be significantly smaller. Since the CC does not now profess to have the moral or doctrinal liberty to burn or torture or exile Protestants (which it both professed to have & acted on in years gone by), it is not now able to emulate Paul IV or Pius V in their treatment of Protestants: it is forced to tolerate what once it would not & did not & could not. To act in the “totalitarian” fashion those Popes could, it would have to risk appearing Stalinist. **

**The question of toleration is difficult, complex & not new (Plato discusses aspects of it in the “Laws”). It therefore needs to be precisely discussed, & the proper distinctions need to be made: for instance, some freedoms would not be allowed in some circumstances that might well be championed in others: the most ardent champion of freedom of speech would be unlikely to favour publishing military plans that likely to help an enemy snatch victory from the jaws of defeat; & no parent would be criticised for being intolerant of medical carelessness that killed a child. **

**Hope that post & yours help towards a stimulating discussion **

 

[wisdomseeker]

Relativism, Pluralism, and the Question of Truth

By Anthony E. Clark
"For some who identify themselves as Catholics, the lure of Eastern relativism and religious pluralism has been embraced. Influenced by such ideas, Boston College theology professor Fr. Michael Himes envisions a Catholic faith removed from the certainty of doctrine, enmeshed pluralistically with other religions. In his article “Catholicism as Integrated Humanism: Christian Participation in Pluralistic Moral Education,” Himes argues that “no perspective or doctrine can be enshrined as the final and complete formulation of truth.” Such contentions as this are condemned as “dogmatic relativism” in Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis, which states that “divinely revealed truth . . . gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church.” In other words, truth is revealed by Christ to his bride, the Church. Himes’s dogmatic relativism leads him to state that the Church’s “intrinsic pluralism . . . should free it from creedal absoluteness.” He appears to reject that the creeds of the Church were formulated to make Christian belief more absolute. Also, the denial of “creedal absoluteness” is itself another form “creedal absoluteness,” which resonates with the old question “Is it in fact true that there is no truth?”

“In order to enter into a dialogue regarding the truth of the Catholic faith, both sides must first agree on the existence of objective and absolute truth. Second, both must agree that relativism and pluralism are necessarily linked and that to herald religious pluralism is to exclaim the ideals of relativism, which undermine the authority of Christian faith. Yes, Christians may admit that there is one moon and many reflections, but it is precisely the claim of Christianity to see the moon directly. And finally, it is not intolerant to believe in absolute truth but rather intolerant of truth to deny it.”