What is "Relativism"?

[Matt16_18]

norbert:

We all have the ability to develop a well-informed conscience, guided by the Holy Spirit, and I think this has to play some role - an important role - in our own moral decision-making in life.

How do we have the ability to develop well-informed consciences if we refuse to accept the infallible teachings of Christ’s Church?

Open your eyes and look at the state of moral confusion that reigns in Protestantism today. Every Protestant church over a hundred years old has flip-flopped on what they now teach about morality, with their mistaken teaching that artificial contraception is not a mortal sin being the most egregious example of Protestant error.

All Protestants think that the Holy Spirit is guiding them in matters of morality, and they are generally sincere in this belief. But anyone with eyes that can see, can know that there is something drastically wrong with this claim. The vast majority of Protestants now teach that artificial contraception and divorce are not sinful; there are Protestants teach that homosexuality is not a sin; many sects are preaching a false health and wealth “gospel” the is little more than excuse making for greedy behavior, etc., etc.

Confusion about what constitutes moral behavior reigns supreme in Protestantism and this can only be the work of the author of confusion. All Protestants have rejected the teaching authority of Christ’s church, and that is why Protestants walk about in moral confusion.

 

[Pete2]

Pete2

I believe there is a “truth”, and it is, and always will be, a complete mystery to everyone on earth except Jesus.

Jesus is the truth, and it is quite true that we will never completely understand the mystery of God either in this world, or the next. But it is quite another thing to assert that humans cannot know with certainty what is truly sinful. Jesus came to call sinners to repentance, and if we can never know for sure what is actually sinful, then Jesus failed in his mission on earth.“I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Luke 5:32

Jesus did not fail in his mission. He established his church on earth and promised that the Holy Spirit would guide his church in all things. Because we have Christ’s church on earth that cannot teach error on matters of morality, we also have the ability to know what is truly sinful. Jesus did not leave us adrift with only defective consciences to guide us in matters of morality.

For those with spiritual eyes that can see, the Catholic Church is a very great gift from God.

Jesus did succeed in establishing his Church, and Holy Spirit guides it. But I simply don’t agree that the Church can’t err on matters of morality and doctrine. Papal infallibility did not exist until 1870, when a Church council decided it was so. Jesus didn’t attend that council in 1870, as far as I’m aware. There is no biblical support for papal infallibility, and there are countless counterexamples of it-- popes that contradict each other over time on matters of doctrine, and Church-lead initiatives that counter the 10 commandments themselves. Crusades, Inquisition, indulgences, etc.

With respect to your final comment, I agree wholeheartedly, the Catholic Church is a very great gift from God.

Pete

 

[Sgt_Sweaters]

norbert:

How do you know that? I know my mind and conscience better than any person, I’d day. I pray plenty, and I know that I gain a lot of insight through the grace of God. My conscience tells me that using condoms in areas of Africa where HIV is endemic is not a gravely moral wrong, and I’m comfortable with that.

On the other hand, I know my mind and conscience better than any person too, and *I *pray plenty, as well. I think that I have gained insight from God. But my conscience tells me that using condoms to combat HIV is in fact a gravely moral wrong. I’m comfortable with that. So which of us is right?
That people have differing opinions on morals is often used as a justification of moral relativism. This is just silly; all disagreement means is that at least one party is wrong.

There’s been a lot said in this thread, and I just want to give a hearty “amen” to everything Matt16_18 has said. Saved me the time, and certainly presented the case much better than I could have.

 

[Pete2]

Matt16_18:

All Protestants think that the Holy Spirit is guiding them in matters of morality, and they are generally sincere in this belief. But anyone with eyes that can see, can know that there is something drastically wrong with this claim.

The Holy Spirit guides everyone; not just Catholics and not just Christians.

Pete

 

[Maranatha]

Pete2:

The Holy Spirit guides everyone; not just Catholics and not just Christians.

Pete

Why do they come to different sometime opposite interpretations?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

OhioBob:

I believe that the more accurate translation is “Thou shalt not murder”. That seems to be pretty absolute to me.

Absolute in what sense? Simple? If it is simple, what precisely does it mean? That any time a person dies as a direct result of your willful action you are guilty?

That sounds obvious, but it is not. How do you define murder? Do you count killing in self-defense? What if you realize later the person was not as great a threat, and you didn’t really have to kill them? What if you meant to kill them but they survived your attack?

The Catechism has 60 paragraphs about this commandment, plus a 13 paragraph “in brief” recap. If it were really all that simple and obvious, then why would the Catechism not simply state “you shall not murder” and let it go at that?

This is what I mean by “not absolute.” The commandment “thou shalt not kill” is neither simple nor self-explanatory, making it impossible for any human being to truly know the “absolute” dividing line in any given concrete situation. Then you have Jesus coming in and making it even more complicated by adding the part about being angry with one’s brother. That must mean that anger against your brother is the same, spiritually, as murder, in essence if not in magnitude.

Alan

 

[Maranatha]

Pete2:

There is no biblical support for papal infallibility,

Papal Infallibility

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

 

[Pete2]

Maranatha:

Why do they come to different sometime opposite interpretations?

Only God knows. But if you are trying to say that the Holy Spirit is a Catholics-only member of the trinity, then I can’t possibly agree. God loves everyone on earth, including the guy in 500 BC when there were no Catholics on earth, and the guy in the Zulu tribe in 2005 AD who never heard of Christ because of his life circumstances.

Pete

 

[Matt16_18]

Pete2:

… I simply don’t agree that the Church can’t err on matters of morality and doctrine.

If you don’t agree, you are at best, a Protestant. You certainly cannot be a Catholic and hold this opinion, since this mistaken opinion would automatically excommunicate you from the Catholic Church.

 

[Pete2]

Matt16_18:

If you don’t agree, you are at best, a Protestant. You certainly cannot be a Catholic and hold this opinion, since this mistaken opinion would automatically excommunicate you from the Catholic Church.

You are not correct in your statement that by disagreeing with a minor detail of the Catholic Church doctrine–this particular detail has been part of dogma for about 5% of the Church’s total existence to date-- results in automatic excommunication. If that’s the case, then real Catholics are a pretty small group of people in this world.

Pete

 

[Maranatha]

Pete2:

Only God knows. But if you are trying to say that the Holy Spirit is a Catholics-only member of the trinity, then I can’t possibly agree. God loves everyone on earth, including the guy in 500 BC when there were no Catholics on earth, and the guy in the Zulu tribe in 2005 AD who never heard of Christ because of his life circumstances.

Pete

Authority was exclusively given to the Catholic Church through Peter In Matthew 16:18 - 19:

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

[Maranatha]

Pete2:

You are not correct in your statement that by disagreeing with a minor detail of the Catholic Church doctrine–this particular detail has been part of dogma for about 5% of the Church’s total existence to date-- results in automatic excommunication. If that’s the case, then real Catholics are a pretty small group of people in this world.

Pete

Papal Infallibility

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

 

[Exporter]

Norbert,

You have a “young mind”. You asked WHERE IS THIS NATURAL LAW. Thats a good question. I cannot tell you just WHERE it is but I can saw Natural Law predated all other Law even the acient Law of Hamurabi. Keep on asking, you’ll get there.

 

[Pete2]

Papal Infallibility

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

The verses you’ve suggested don’t say that “the pope is infallible in matters of moral doctrine”. It never says anything like that. It tells you that Jesus founded the church on the strength of Peter’s faith, and that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church. The Catholic Church is Christ’s Church, I’m not disagreeing with that. But there’s a lot of assumptions that you have to make in order to get to the somewhat complex definition that the Church presents of papal infallibility.

Pete

 

[Matt16_18]

Pete2:

You are not correct in your statement that by disagreeing with a minor detail of the Catholic Church doctrine–this particular detail has been part of dogma for about 5% of the Church’s total existence to date-- results in automatic excommunication. If that’s the case, then real Catholics are a pretty small group of people in this world.

You are incorrect that rejecting the Church’s doctrines concerning infallibility does not result in automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church, but you may indeed be correct that only a minority of Catholics in Europe and the US are still faithful Catholics. Jesus said that when the end is near, many would fall away. Rampant heresy in the Church may be a sign of the times.

Jesus never promised that all members of the Catholic Church would persevere until the end, he only promised that there would be a remnant that will stay faithful. The important thing is to a member of the remnant flock, and not to let oneself be led astray by obstinate disbelievers.

 

[Maranatha]

Pete2:

The verses you’ve suggested don’t say that “the pope is infallible in matters of moral doctrine”. It never says anything like that. It tells you that Jesus founded the church on the strength of Peter’s faith, and that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church. The Catholic Church is Christ’s Church, I’m not disagreeing with that. But there’s a lot of assumptions that you have to make in order to get to the somewhat complex definition that the Church presents of papal infallibility.

Pete

II agree that infallibility is implicit but there are no assumptions that need to be made.

There are two ways the Catholic Church could cease to exist. The first is that everyone stops believing and leaves the Church. The second is that the Church starts to teach the wrong doctrine. Since Christ promised that wouldn’t happen then the Church can’t teach wrong doctrine.

 

[Pete2]

Matt16_18:

You are incorrect that rejecting the Church’s doctrines concerning infallibility does not result in automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church, but you may indeed be correct that only a minority of Catholics in Europe and the US are still faithful Catholics. Jesus said that when the end is near, many would fall away. Rampant heresy in the Church may be a sign of the times.

Jesus never promised that all members of the Catholic Church would persevere until the end, he only promised that there would be a remnant that will stay faithful. The important thing is to a member of the remnant flock, and not to let oneself be led astray by obstinate disbelievers.

My wife will be disappointed to find out that I’ve been excommunicated over the internet! Is the end near, too? Then this is a crappy day for me, for sure!

Pete

 

[Vimalakirti]

Both relativism and absolutism are dangerous extremes. But there is a middle ground, one particularly indigenous to the United States: it’s called pluralism. Pluralism doesn’t deny that there may be such things as absolutes or near absolutes but holds that human life is various and complex and that human languages and culture reflect that complexity. Unlike relativism, it doesn’t say that all truth statements are of equal value - that’s obviously self-refuting and meaningless. But it does say that human beings will express the same fundamental truths differently, or express a different part of the truth, or express legitimate alternatives, or simply express a truth in a style of language that a particular society doesn’t understand. Yes, that results in multiple points of view,which will sometimes come in conflict, but far more serious conflicts arise from the attempt to impose uniformity of thought than from allowing freedom of thought to flourish.

Let me give an example. Jesus states the absolute of Christian faith when he says, love the Lord thy God with all your heart, etc, and love your neighbor as yourself. Morally & spiritually speaking these may be as absolute as you can get. The subtext is the basic existential choice for human beings: choose love, which leads to God; or choose power (egoism) which leads to war. But notice a couple of things. First, that choosing love can be and has been expressed in many other terms at other times and other cultures. Second, that to choose love using these biblical terms does not necessarially entail that one must adhere to an entire dogmatic and doctrinal system deducutively built up from such passages, while conforming one’s life thereto in every detail.

The pluralist point here is that it’s not up to frail humans, or human institutions, even ones self-defined as divinely chosen, to ultimately sort out what the fullest expressions of truth will be - that’s for history & God - and that the most compassionate, most successful and most catholic institutions will be ones that allow for the widest variety of opinion and expression consistent with their fundamental truths.

 

[jimmytoes]

There are many good examples of relativism here, but let me try too:

In the Roe V Wade decision, the majority decision stated that since Congress had not defined when life began, then they would have to decide on the side of the right to privacy. They went on to say that if Congress did determine that life began at conception, they would of course have to decide on the side of the right to life. (paraphrased)

This is an example of relativism in action. How obsurd to think that Cangress needs to define when life begins! From the moment of conception, whether xygot, embryo, featus, child, etc, it (he or she) can only grow old and die. Life has begun. This is not conjecture, it is truth. It can be avoided, however, by denying the simple demonstrable truth and looking at it relative to the letter of the law.

 

[Matt16_18]

Pete2:

My wife will be disappointed to find out that I’ve been excommunicated over the internet! Is the end near, too? Then this is a crappy day for me, for sure!

Pete

You have not been excommunicated by me, you have been excommunicated by your own obstinate denial of a de fide definita dogma of the Catholic Church.**Catechism of the Catholic Church

2089**… "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same …

Can. 1364 §1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a *latae sententiae * excommunication …