Relativism

[PJM]

=mullenpm;6286764]I hope I am in the proper forum for this topic; if not, you have my permission to move.

Help me to understand exactly “what is relativism.” I have heard several homilies on EWTN wherein relativism is beginning to be mentioned.

***It has been described as “sechular humanism.” It is a widely held, widely taught philosophy of life that makes all decessions personal in an extreme way.

It is part of New Age Philosophy [some say “religion” but it has no devine godhead] that has existed for at least 200 years.

It’s basic premis’ make it very easy to accept.

“Its ONLY wrong [or right] if you say it is.” NO ABSOLUTES

“Don’t JUDGE ME and I woun’t judge you”

“Your opinion of everything is as valid as anyone elses opinion!”

“We are god’s unto ourselves,” THERE ARE NO OTHERS.***

“Noone has a right to judge others”

This has been taught in our public school system for at least the past 50 years. Its also in many “catholic” schools no longer taught by informed, obedint religious.

It is the root of Catholic desent, desertion from the Church, ignoring Church leadership, and sadly is practiced, accepted n taugh by many in positions of authority within the hireachy of the CC, especially and particullarly here in America.

Its why we have the Novus Ordo Mass, ORDINARY eucharistic ministers, only 23% of self professed Catholics attending Sunday and Holyday Mass as mandated, and ONLY 10% of Catholics going to Confession [even once a year], BUT 23% still receiving Communion

We must therefore know, love, live and share our faith. Teach by example, be lamps “on the hillside of life.”

KEEP WATCHING AN SUPORTING EWTN… THANK GOD FOR THEM DAILY!

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[kage_ar]

Its why we have the Novus Ordo Mass, ORDINARY eucharistic ministers, only 23% of self professed Catholics attending Sunday and Holyday Mass as mandated, and ONLY 10% of Catholics going to Confession [even once a year], BUT 23% still receiving Communion

Guess it depends on your Catholics. Where I live, 70% attend Mass weekly.

 

[Major_Tom]

***It has been described as “sechular humanism.” It is a widely held, widely taught philosophy of life that makes all decessions personal in an extreme way.

“Its ONLY wrong [or right] if you say it is.” NO ABSOLUTES

“Don’t JUDGE ME and I woun’t judge you”

“Your opinion of everything is as valid as anyone elses opinion!”

“Noone has a right to judge others”

---

I think people err by assuming that ALL moral acts are absolute, or ALL moral acts are relative.

Example: you are in the military, and are given orders that appear questionable. You think that civilians may be unnecessarily at risk. Do you act on your orders? Or not act on them? Each act may be defensbile to different people. You won’t find the answer in the Bible, or from your parish priest. I suggest this scenario is relative, morally speaking.

 

[fix]

Example: you are in the military, and are given orders that appear questionable. You think that civilians may be unnecessarily at risk. Do you act on your orders? Or not act on them? Each act may be defensbile to different people. You won’t find the answer in the Bible, or from your parish priest. I suggest this scenario is relative, morally speaking.

You cerrtainly will get help from the priest. This type of issue has a long history within Catholic moral theology. It is based on Scripture, Tradition, and magisterial teaching.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Rence
Don’t you think it depends on which Catholic you ask? You’re asking a pretty broad question about Catholic point of view. We’re not a collective brain

But what is true, is moral, is right are singular, based on God’s law. The question may be broad, the correct answer is not.

If a Catholic is very conservative or very traditional, in my experiences (even on this forum), I’ve been told by these Cathlolics that there is only ONE brand of Truth: Theirs. And that relativism is a sin and heresy and blasphemy, yadda yadda. And that other people who don’t share their faith and morals are simply wrong.

I suspect your crediting the wrong person. It’s not the idividual Catholic to simply determine for themselves, right or worng, moral good or ervil. Such decisions must always confom to God’s teaching and what the CC, as is Her grave duty determines as right or wrong. There are no “new sins.” just remakes. What is right moraly fo one is right morally for all, and the same with wrongs. What is wrong moraly for one applies to all [in idential conditions and circumstances.]

But I don’t believe that’s a “Catholic viewpoint”. That is the viewpoint of some Catholics. Likewise, other Catholics do believe that relativism is a product of different things and that all people’s beliefs and values should be respected as long as they don’t violate other people’s rights.

"Catholic viewpoint" ought to confom ONLY to God’s law and Church teaching. God does not allow personal opinions NOT in conformity to His Will. Because “One can” has never been authority for one to do what is wrong, immoral and not it conformity with God’s Will. Can and SHOULD are not the same.

Of course, the Catholic Church teaches that it’s views are the only right views. Every religion and culture believes that theirs the only right way, and relativity doesn’t apply./]QUOTE]

And why does the CC feel that way? Because Christ gives Himself as evidence of the truth of His CC. [John 17: 14-17] and has sent the Holy Spirit as enforcer of Her truth. No one else, and no other church can make such a claim in truth.

***John 14: 16 *** And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.

Friend, your post explains well precisely what many of us have struggled to articulate.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Major_Tom]

You cerrtainly will get help from the priest. This type of issue has a long history within Catholic moral theology. It is based on Scripture, Tradition, and magisterial teaching.

And if he doesn’t have time to consult a priest…?

Perhaps I didn’t explain it well enough… the Cathecism does not… can not… address every nuanced condition that faces a person. And a priest, in this instance, should not tell someone what to do. He coould offer ‘the Church teaches this’, ‘the Church encourages that’, but there is no matrix that he consults. I’m trying to sketch a scenario where the individual has to decide how they are going to act.

I don’t think scenarios like this are common, but they do occur. A small point, but it bothers me a scooch when people suggest everything is black and white.

 

[PJM]

=Major Tom;6302602]And if he doesn’t have time to consult a priest…?

Perhaps I didn’t explain it well enough… the Cathecism does not… can not… address every nuanced condition that faces a person. And a priest, in this instance, should not tell someone what to do. He coould offer ‘the Church teaches this’, ‘the Church encourages that’, but there is no matrix that he consults. I’m trying to sketch a scenario where the individual has to decide how they are going to act.

I don’t think scenarios like this are common, but they do occur. A small point, but it bothers me a scooch when people suggest everything is black and white.

In the case of not having [not time] rather an opportunity to get with a priest, “perfect Contrition” [there still remains the issue of the contrition being “perfect and acceptable as such” in God’s understanding ] does fulfill the necessary requiremts of forgiveness of sins. Even in this case there must be a desire to Confess at the earliest opportunity. Confession should be desired but if an opportunity truly is NOT be possible, “perfect contrition” alone does surfice.

There remains but a single truth for evey issue, which seems to me is very black and white?

 

[Rence]

But what is true, is moral, is right are singular, based on God’s law. The question may be broad, the correct answer is not.

Based on God’s law based on Catholic interpretation? For the Catholics, yes, and even that’s debatable among Catholics themselves. Based on Jewish interpretation? Yes, for the Jewish. Based on Lutheran interpretation? Yes, for the Lutherans. Based on Jehovah’s teachings? Yes, for a JW. The correct answer for an individual person, will be based on their beliefs and values. For each of these examples, some of the answers will be the same, for other examples, some of the answers will be different.

I suspect your crediting the wrong person. It’s not the idividual Catholic to simply determine for themselves, right or worng, moral good or ervil. Such decisions must always confom to God’s teaching and what the CC, as is Her grave duty determines as right or wrong. There are no “new sins.” just remakes. What is right moraly fo one is right morally for all, and the same with wrongs. What is wrong moraly for one applies to all [in idential conditions and circumstances.]

Individual people must determine for themselves, right or wrong, moral good or evil and will conform to God’s teaching according to that individual’s beliefs and what their religion teaches. Muslims feel the same way you do about the muslim faith (that it’s the right, moral and absolute), only they teach that ‘infidels’ should be killed. Jewish people feel the same way you do about the Jewish faith (that it’s right, moral and absolute). And if people don’t have any religion, all these are based again on their beliefs and morals, but not with any particular religion in mind. What is wrong morally applies to each person in their situation.

"Catholic viewpoint" ought to confom ONLY to God’s law and Church teaching. God does not allow personal opinions NOT in conformity to His Will. Because “One can” has never been authority for one to do what is wrong, immoral and not it conformity with God’s Will. Can and SHOULD are not the same.

Again, depending on your upbringing or religion, ‘His Will’ will be different, and no one else’s religious teachings regarding ‘His Will’ will be correct or acceptable.

Of course, the Catholic Church teaches that it’s views are the only right views. Every religion and culture believes that theirs the only right way, and relativity doesn’t apply.
*And why does the CC feel that way? *

Simply because they are Catholic, no other reason. Jewish people teach the Jewish view is the only right view - because they are Jewish and based on the evidence that they have in their vault. The same goes for every religion of the world. They have evidence for their beliefs as well. The fact that they are not in alignment with the CC is irrelevent to all but Catholics. Church’s can make whatever claims they believe to be true and their accepting followers will accept them. The fact that there are who-knows-how-many religions besides Catholics proves that there are a whole lot of people out there that don’t accept the teachings of the CC or what evidence they present to rationalize those teachings.

What I have found in my experiences with talking to non-Catholics who practice their particular faith, is that no matter what I present to them as “proof” they will interpret it differently and consider the CC interpretation as incorrect and theirs as correct. Yes, Cathlics can stand on their heads until they turn purple in defense of the CC interpretations and ‘correct’ teachings, but so can other people who are not CC about their interpretations and teachings.

 

[PJM]

=mnealon1;6296900]Having read down through the threads on relativism I am toltally confused, which I admit in all humility is not hard for me!!
I completely acknowledge the beliefs of all religions, but am speaking as a Romam Catholic. My understanding of relativism is when one adapts a belief or beliefs to suite and live out ideas which are comfortable for you to accept and live by, which may not be the total and complete teachings of the Church. These ideas become relative to YOU and live out these ideas, thus pushing God aside to pander to your conclusions. You then begin to live in the " I " or " ME" instead of complete union of the teachings of Jesus.
While philosophy is great, you can talk your self in and out of anything until the cap fits your own ideas.
I have heard the most outrageous things said in the name of relativism and the Church and think it is one of the biggest dangers to the Church of our present times.
For me who struggles every day, you either believe completly or you dont, and it can be hard. Relativism for me is a means to distort the truth, for your own ends.

Peace and God Bless

Your’s is an articulate and correct understanding.

 

[Rence]

Having read down through the threads on relativism I am toltally confused, which I admit in all humility is not hard for me!!
I completely acknowledge the beliefs of all religions, but am speaking as a Romam Catholic. My understanding of relativism is when one adapts a belief or beliefs to suite and live out ideas which are comfortable for you to accept and live by, which may not be the total and complete teachings of the Church. These ideas become relative to YOU and live out these ideas, thus pushing God aside to pander to your conclusions. You then begin to live in the " I " or " ME" instead of complete union of the teachings of Jesus.
While philosophy is great, you can talk your self in and out of anything until the cap fits your own ideas.
I have heard the most outrageous things said in the name of relativism and the Church and think it is one of the biggest dangers to the Church of our present times.
For me who struggles every day, you either believe completly or you dont, and it can be hard. Relativism for me is a means to distort the truth, for your own ends.

Peace and God Bless

I think that speaking as a Roman Catholic (for a RC) while acknowledging the beliefs of all religions is what I’ve been trying to say, you just said it in a different way. You acknowledge the beliefs of other religions, and then described what you believe as a Catholic. Isn’t that the same for everyone, no matter what their faith (or lack thereof) is?

 

[Spirithound]

If you want the skinny on relativism, Pope JPII has an excellent discussion in one of his encyclicals…name escapes me for the moment…somebody help me out here, is it fides et ratio?

Fides et Ratio is more about how faith and reason complement and aid each other. Relativism is only mentioned in passing, in telling about one possibility of what happens when you divorce faith and reason.

Guess it depends on your Catholics. Where I live, 70% attend Mass weekly.

Persecution is good for the soul!

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by PJM
But what is true, is moral, is right are singular, based on God’s law. The question may be broad, the correct answer is not.

Based on God’s law based on Catholic interpretation? For the Catholics, yes, and even that’s debatable among Catholics themselves. Based on Jewish interpretation? Yes, for the Jewish. Based on Lutheran interpretation? Yes, for the Lutherans. Based on Jehovah’s teachings? Yes, for a JW. The correct answer for an individual person, will be based on their beliefs and values. For each of these examples, some of the answers will be the same, for other examples, some of the answers will be different.

I suspect your crediting the wrong person. It’s not the idividual Catholic to simply determine for themselves, right or worng, moral good or ervil. Such decisions must always confom to God’s teaching and what the CC, as is Her grave duty determines as right or wrong. There are no “new sins.” just remakes. What is right moraly fo one is right morally for all, and the same with wrongs. What is wrong moraly for one applies to all [in idential conditions and circumstances.]

Individual people must determine for themselves, right or wrong, moral good or evil and will conform to God’s teaching according to that individual’s beliefs and what their religion teaches. Muslims feel the same way you do about the muslim faith (that it’s the right, moral and absolute), only they teach that ‘infidels’ should be killed. Jewish people feel the same way you do about the Jewish faith (that it’s right, moral and absolute). And if people don’t have any religion, all these are based again on their beliefs and morals, but not with any particular religion in mind. What is wrong morally applies to each person in their situation.

“Catholic viewpoint” ought to confom ONLY to God’s law and Church teaching. God does not allow personal opinions NOT in conformity to His Will. Because “One can” has never been authority for one to do what is wrong, immoral and not it conformity with God’s Will. Can and SHOULD are not the same.

Again, depending on your upbringing or religion, ‘His Will’ will be different, and no one else’s religious teachings regarding ‘His Will’ will be correct or acceptable.

Job.23:13 “But he is unchangeable and who can turn him? What he desires, that he does.”

Heb.6: 17 “So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he interposed with an oath,”

***Your understaning is at best incomplete, and therefore COMPLETELY FALSE./*I]

Simply because they are Catholic, no other reason. Jewish people teach the Jewish view is the only right view - because they are Jewish and based on the evidence that they have in their vault. The same goes for every religion of the world. They have evidence for their beliefs as well. The fact that they are not in alignment with the CC is irrelevent to all but Catholics

. Church’s can make whatever claims they believe to be true and their accepting followers will accept them. The fact that there are who-knows-how-many religions besides Catholics proves that there are a whole lot of people out there that don’t accept the teachings of the CC or what evidence they present to rationalize those teachings.

Consider these facts:

“There cannot be your truth and my truth or there would be no truth.” Pope Benedict XVI statement on being name “Pope.”

The distance between personal understanding and actual truth is often the difference in Heaven and hell. What is… always is and remains the truth.

**Rom. 10: v. 17 **“So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.”

Keep in mind this was expresed when there was ONLY Christ Catholic Church, so it applies today .

What I have found in my experiences with talking to non-Catholics who practice their particular faith, is that no matter what I present to them as “proof” they will interpret it differently and consider the CC interpretation as incorrect and theirs as correct. Yes, Cathlics can stand on their heads until they turn purple in defense of the CC interpretations and ‘correct’ teachings, but so can other people who are not CC about their interpretations and teachings.

**Eph.2 Verses 19 to 21 **“So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [SINGULAR]
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure [SINGULAR] is joined together and grows into a holy temple [SINGULAR] in the Lord;”

***Nevertheless God’s Judgement will be ***on what He has Providentially Provided as the OPPORTUNITY to know; not on what chooses to accept or practice.

One can and often does ignore what the Bible clearly says, and YES Faith is a Gift of God. But it MUST BE ACCEPTED when God offers it ON GOD’s TERMS:thumbsup:

Te very fact that one has ben lead by the Holy Spirit to this VERY CATHOLIC Forum gives evidence of God’s entent tothe non believing skeptics post here. They are NO LONGER excused in blissful ignorance.**

 

[Spirithound]

I think people err by assuming that ALL moral acts are absolute, or ALL moral acts are relative.

Example: you are in the military, and are given orders that appear questionable. You think that civilians may be unnecessarily at risk. Do you act on your orders? Or not act on them? Each act may be defensbile to different people. You won’t find the answer in the Bible, or from your parish priest. I suggest this scenario is relative, morally speaking.

What about the Nuremberg Principle? That relies heavily on a soldier’s ability to assess the morality of the situation, and to be correct in his judgement. This requires the existence of an absolute morality.

Are you trying to flesh out the Principle of Double Effect? Or that certain people should not do certain things beyond their skills?

And if he doesn’t have time to consult a priest…?

Perhaps I didn’t explain it well enough… the Cathecism does not… can not… address every nuanced condition that faces a person. And a priest, in this instance, should not tell someone what to do. He coould offer ‘the Church teaches this’, ‘the Church encourages that’, but there is no matrix that he consults. I’m trying to sketch a scenario where the individual has to decide how they are going to act.

Why should the priest not tell someone what to do? You are begging the question by saying that. That directive assumes that there is no absolute morality for the priest to direct the soldier to. Of course there are situations where the individual has to decide how to act, but they can only make a meaningful decision by using an absolute morality.

 

[fix]

And if he doesn’t have time to consult a priest…?

Perhaps I didn’t explain it well enough… the Cathecism does not… can not… address every nuanced condition that faces a person. And a priest, in this instance, should not tell someone what to do. He coould offer ‘the Church teaches this’, ‘the Church encourages that’, but there is no matrix that he consults. I’m trying to sketch a scenario where the individual has to decide how they are going to act.

I don’t think scenarios like this are common, but they do occur. A small point, but it bothers me a scooch when people suggest everything is black and white.

But, the truth is “black and white”. My point is the person is obligated to continually form their conscience with this eternal truth. A person may act erroneously for many reasons, but that does not mean there is no correct way to act.

 

[Rence]

Originally Posted by PJM
I suspect your crediting the wrong person. It’s not the idividual Catholic to simply determine for themselves, right or worng, moral good or ervil.

**Yes it is. **

“Catholic viewpoint” ought to confom ONLY to God’s law and Church teaching. God does not allow personal opinions NOT in conformity to His Will. Because “One can” has never been authority for one to do what is wrong, immoral and not it conformity with God’s Will. Can and SHOULD are not the same.

**
If one doesn’t believe in God then it doesn’t matter, does it? And yes, God does allow personal opinions, otherwise we wouldn’t have free will. **

Keep in mind this was expresed when there was ONLY Christ Catholic Church, so it applies today .

Of course it was, that makes complete sense. However, today we have all sorts of people, each with their own beliefs and values, and to them they are very real. People’s own beliefs and values apply today, not only what comes from one religion.

Te very fact that one has ben lead by the Holy Spirit to this VERY CATHOLIC Forum gives evidence of God’s entent tothe non believing skeptics post here. They are NO LONGER excused in blissful ignorance.

Actually, some people came here to find answers, yes, but I would hardly say that everyone believes the answers or accepts them. It’s one thing to say you know what a religion’s teachings are, but it’s another thing to actually agree or believe it. After all, though I have answers to questions regarding the muslim faith, and as a result, they can say that I’m no longer excused in blissful ignorance. But I don’t believe their teachings to be the truth. So they say the same thing you do, just in another language.

 

[PJM]

If one doesn’t believe in God then it doesn’t matter, does it? And yes, God does allow personal opinions, otherwise we wouldn’t have free will.

Friend in the same vein, God ALLOWS anyone to commit Mortal sin. “Allow” and permit are not synomous terms. One can be as far apart as Heaven and Hell

Keep in mind this was expresed when there was ONLY Christ Catholic Church, so it applies today .

Of course it was, that makes complete sense. However, today we have all sorts of people, each with their own beliefs and values, and to them they are very real. People’s own beliefs and values apply today, not only what comes from one religion.

See the above comments. “permit, allows” are NOT “truth, right, and acceptable by God.”
Be careful that you don’t try to mix “can” and “SHOULD!” We can do ANYTHING, but “should” one, for example have an Abortion, or have an “affair”. NO!

The very fact that one has been lead by the Holy Spirit to this VERY CATHOLIC Forum gives evidence of God’s entent to the non believing skeptics that post here. They are NO LONGER excused in blissful ignorance.

Actually, some people came here to find answers, yes, but I would hardly say that everyone believes the answers or accepts them. It’s one thing to say you know what a religion’s teachings are, but it’s another thing to actually agree or believe it. After all, though I have answers to questions regarding the muslim faith, and as a result, they can say that I’m no longer excused in blissful ignorance. But I don’t believe their teachings to be the truth. So they say the same thing you do, just in another language.

Remember that factually every issue has ONLY ONE TRUTH. Others can say what they wish, believe what they wish, NEITHER alter the truth. PERIOD.

Every [without any exceptions] thing is ordained by God. Good He causes, evil He permits. Nothing happens by “luck,” “accident,” or “coincedience.” So if one is here on the Forum it is God’s Will, God’s plan for that person. And God, BEING GOD, must Judge opportunity to know truth exactly the same as knowing truth and chosing to ignore it.

That too is true, and that truth is FACT!

 

[Rence]

Remember that factually every issue has ONLY ONE TRUTH. Others can say what they wish, believe what they wish, NEITHER alter the truth. PERIOD.
Every [without any exceptions] thing is ordained by God. Good He causes, evil He permits. Nothing happens by “luck,” “accident,” or “coincedience.” So if one is here on the Forum it is God’s Will, God’s plan for that person. And God, BEING GOD, must Judge opportunity to know truth exactly the same as knowing truth and chosing to ignore it.
That too is true, and that truth is FACT!

Well, yes, that’s a very catholic view of truth.

 

[Spirithound]

Well, yes, that’s a very catholic view of truth.

And are you Catholic?

 

[djeter]

I hope I am in the proper forum for this topic; if not, you have my permission to move.

Help me to understand exactly “what is relativism.” I have heard several homilies on EWTN wherein relativism is beginning to be mentioned.

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/kreeft-book.jpg?w=312&h=475
From the review:

This easy non-academic read is a useful guide for those engaged in dinner-table debates on this most crucial of issues. Obviously born from years of experience as an embattled Absolutist in American adademia, this Kreeft work is a delight to read as it sets out the arguments for and against.

As everyone who’s ever debated this subject knows, it’s very hard to avoid ad hominems and other flesh-cutting retreats from reason, and they’re here just as in real life. Another step towards the Restoration of Metaphysics. This is the book you’ll want your Relativist friends to read (but which they’ll probably ignore because refutation has too many implications for their personal lives). Get it.”

You’re relativist friends won’t go anywhere near it, but highlight some of the selections below and email them. If you spend anytime on the Internet, as I do, arguing for your faith against the diabolists, learning this stuff becomes highly instructional because you see the how the august liberal mind works. Many just bloviate their talking points so it is possible to engage them and talk the air out of them. For that Professor Kreeft should have our profound thanks."

Several reading selections from the book, for example:

Submission of the Heart to Truth And The Relativistic Churchgoer
"A religious believer who knows the true and the good in his head but who doesn’t love it in his heart and his life — he won’t submit to it, he wants to make it relative to his desires, relative to what his heart really loves and wants and seeks — he’ll lose even the truth and goodness he already has by making it relative to himself, his heart, his will, his desires, his demands. He won’t submit is heart to truth.

That’s the essence of all true religion: submission of the heart to truth, to God, to what God is: truth and moral goodness. That’s why I say that the honest and moral atheist is a religious man and the realistic churchgoer is not. The atheist really wants to submit to the truth; he just doesn’t know what he truth is. The relativistic churchgoer has had the truth given to him, and he doesn’t like it, he doesn’t want to submit to it, he won’t convert his heart and his life to it. So he chooses to change it instead of letting it change him. He wants to sing “My Way”. …It’s the first things principle: put first things first and second things will follow; refuse to put first things first and you lose the second things too.

Hope this helps

dj

 

[Kay_Cee]

Also by Peter Kreeft:

peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism.htm