W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
I could comment, but the article is self-explanatory:
PF
- Status
F
fkpl
Guest
It’s certainly not self-expalanatory to me. I understand the concept of relativism but I don’t understand why this subjugates the concept of a personal relationship with God founded on grace. Any help with this will be greatly appreciated.
Ironically, I had a discussion with a fallen away Catholic just the other day. He professed a sort of primitive relativism ("all religions are valid, etc.). I was sort of lost for a way to respond in a way that did not seem, well, dogmatic and (as he would view it) harsh. Does anyone know of a good book that deals with how best to witness in such a situation? Perhaps it’s just by showing love and understanding but I think that only reinforces this kind of error.
Thanks.
Ironically, I had a discussion with a fallen away Catholic just the other day. He professed a sort of primitive relativism ("all religions are valid, etc.). I was sort of lost for a way to respond in a way that did not seem, well, dogmatic and (as he would view it) harsh. Does anyone know of a good book that deals with how best to witness in such a situation? Perhaps it’s just by showing love and understanding but I think that only reinforces this kind of error.
Thanks.
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
Consider this. Many Catholics are choosing to follow or not to follow the Churches teachings. The is relativism since they think they, not the Church, knows what is true.
PF
R
rwoehmke
Guest
In his book “Truth and Tolerance” then Cardinal Ratzinger states that we approach religion in one of three ways, mysticism, secularism/enlightenment, and monotheism. Secularism does not need or recognize God, mysticism is man seeking from God from below (man to unrevealed God)as in the eastern religions that are heavy on meditation, and monotheism where God reveals himself to man first and seeks a a response. The theologian quoted above is basically saying that society is saying none of these approaches are superior to the others because all can lead to salvation. Cardinal Ratzinger did not say that mysticism growing out of monotheism was a problem as it is different from the eastern variety in which man seeks to know or become one with an indifferent God. My understanding of the book is rather limited and this is the best I can offer as an explanation.
B
Brad
Guest
It’s not a Catholic book(nor is it anti-Catholic), but I would start with “A Case For Christ” by Lee Strobel. A first understanding is that Christ is the way to salvation. That refutes the notion that non-Christ-centered religions have equal weight.
Christ did what He did historically and he was clearly sane. He did miraculous things and He made the claim to be God. No other religous leader that was sane did the same.
From there you can work on books from Catholic.com that show the Catholic Church is the one true Church that this same Jesus Christ founded.
F
fkpl
Guest
Thank you, folks, for your answers to my question.
I think we can all agree on the pernicious effects of relativism. What a dark and brutal age has been spawned by the ironically-named Enlightenment.
I think we can all agree on the pernicious effects of relativism. What a dark and brutal age has been spawned by the ironically-named Enlightenment.
B
Brad
Guest
Exactly. And I would hardly call it “creeping in”. It has been entrenched in for quite some time.
O
oat_soda
Guest
i believe this is addressed by the declaration dominus iesus.
B
Brad
Guest
I wanted to add that if you can listen to anything by Patrick Madrid, he does excellent talks on relativism and combatting it. In fact, they are the best I have ever heard. He gave one at the Defending the Faith Conference 2 summers ago at Franciscan University.
You could contact the University for the tape or perhaps even Patrick’s website (surprisedbytruth.com/) His books aren’t half-bad either.
Also, Peter Kreeft gives good talks on relativism and the one Church (a bit more higher level). peterkreeft.com/
He has free talks on his site. How about A Refutation of Moral Relativism
A
AJC
Guest
I wouldn’t say they are creeping. My observation after 40 plus years is that Relativism is usually welcomed with open arms by some theologians and religious.
AJC
S
Strider
Guest
The radical feminist version of this is documented extremely well in a book called Ungodly Rage by Donna Steichen. I would recomend it to everybody here.
F
fkpl
Guest
Brad,
Thanks very much for the references. Dr. Kreeft’s name came up during “The Journey Home” last night on EWTN. I will follow up on your leads. Thanks again.
Thanks very much for the references. Dr. Kreeft’s name came up during “The Journey Home” last night on EWTN. I will follow up on your leads. Thanks again.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
“Relativism” is a relative term 
- so one has to ask, “Relative in what respect ?”; and, what do people want in place of it ? For insofar as it is a philosophical position, only an alternative philosophical position, one without the failings which are implied by denunciations of “relativism”, will be adequate to replace it. If sound philosophies don’t guide our thinking - unsound ones will; & a philosophy which is unsound in a different way, is no replacement.
It would help if so many “orthodox” Catholics were not Nominalists, or else eclectic ultra-realists. 
The moderate Realism of St. Thomas goes a very long way to guide the mind. Not that Sola Thomismo is a good idea. That’s been tried.This is good
There is ISTM a real danger that opposition to “relativism” will become be mistaken for adhering to a one-sided traditionalism which mistakes fidelity to the deposit of faith with rejecting all that is not familiar. The basic theological issue in the Lefebvre affaire, was, how fidelity was to be understood; and, what was compatible with each of the different understandings. Everything else - the differences about the Mass, the relation of Church to the state, the two documents of Vatican II, and the results of these differences - is a symptom or a result of those different understandings. That is where the differences between the different parties in the CC lie, ISTM - in how fidelity is to be understood.
I think understanding what is implied by fidelity to the deposit of faith is the real issue: the question is not, “Is fidelity required of us ?” - it is; this is common ground to “trads”, “conservatives”, “liberals”& “progressives” (with the exception of some feminists): the issue is whether fidelity requires rejection of all forms of religious activity which have not grown up within the CC.
“Relativism” can’t be confined to theology, because theology is not hermetically sealed off from all other forms of activity in the Church - it can’t be, because it would be an irrelevance to the Church at large, a useless display of pen-pushing, if it were sealed off. If it is present in theology, that is because it is already present elsewhere in the Church, or because it is likely to be present elsewhere. And the Church has no absolute guarantee against it, without cutting itself off from the human race.
“Relativism” is not even a thing as such - it’s a way of making sense of the universe one experiences. As such, it’s an abstraction: not a material reality - that is half the problem. ##
B
Brad
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:## “Relativism” is a relative term
It would help if so many “orthodox” Catholics were not Nominalists, or else eclectic ultra-realists.
This is good
There is ISTM a real danger that opposition to “relativism” will become be mistaken for adhering to a one-sided traditionalism which mistakes fidelity to the deposit of faith with rejecting all that is not familiar. The basic theological issue in the Lefebvre affaire, was, how fidelity was to be understood; and, what was compatible with each of the different understandings. Everything else - the differences about the Mass, the relation of Church to the state, the two documents of Vatican II, and the results of these differences - is a symptom or a result of those different understandings. That is where the differences between the different parties in the CC lie, ISTM - in how fidelity is to be understood.
I think understanding what is implied by fidelity to the deposit of faith is the real issue: the question is not, “Is fidelity required of us ?” - it is; this is common ground to “trads”, “conservatives”, “liberals”& “progressives” (with the exception of some feminists): the issue is whether fidelity requires rejection of all forms of religious activity which have not grown up within the CC.
“Relativism” can’t be confined to theology, because theology is not hermetically sealed off from all other forms of activity in the Church - it can’t be, because it would be an irrelevance to the Church at large, a useless display of pen-pushing, if it were sealed off. If it is present in theology, that is because it is already present elsewhere in the Church, or because it is likely to be present elsewhere. And the Church has no absolute guarantee against it, without cutting itself off from the human race.
“Relativism” is not even a thing as such - it’s a way of making sense of the universe one experiences. As such, it’s an abstraction: not a material reality - that is half the problem. ##
Actually, it is much less complicated that what you suggest.
Modern day relativism is the idea that there is no absolute truth in regards to moral teachings or interpretation of God’s revleation.
- Status