What is "Relativism"?

[john_doran]

Pete2:

And during Vatican I, in their conference to discuss what to do about liberalism, the Church voted to prounounce that the pope is infallible, and if you don’t believe it, you are automatically excommunicated by the Church.

i’m not sure what your point is here. i mean, this always the way dogmas and doctrines are defined by the church: in reaction to the burgeoning popularization of opinions to the contrary.

the historical context of the promulgation of the dogma of papal infallibility was that people were beginning to doubt it in a way that they never had in the past. so - just as the church did in the time of arius with the dogmatic proclamation of the divinity of christ - the church declared definitively that the pope was infallible in certain specific circumstances.

why should this give you pause?

after all, how can the church of the living god be the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1Tim3:15) if these minimal conditions of infallibility don’t obtain?

 

[infoguy]

…

Some recommended books by me on the topic of relativism:

A Refutation of Moral Relativism by Peter Kreeft (orthodox Catholic - highly recommended )

"True for You, but Not For Me": Deflating the Slogans That Leave Christians Speechless by Paul Copan (a nice, easy read)

"That’s Just Your Interpretation": Responding to Skeptics Who Challenge Your Faith by Paul Copan

Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air by Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl

…

Helpful?

…

 

[Pete2]

john doran:

i’m not sure what your point is here. i mean, this always the way dogmas and doctrines are defined by the church: in reaction to the burgeoning popularization of opinions to the contrary.

the historical context of the promulgation of the dogma of papal infallibility was that people were beginning to doubt it in a way that they never had in the past. so - just as the church did in the time of arius with the dogmatic proclamation of the divinity of christ - the church declared definitively that the pope was infallible in certain specific circumstances.

why should this give you pause?

after all, how can the church of the living god be the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1Tim3:15) if these minimal conditions of infallibility don’t obtain?

I’m saying that the pronouncements of Vatican I were the Church’s last ditch effort to hold onto the power that was slipping through their fingers. It was a political move that went beyond the bounds of the rights of the Church.

I’ve got a little different view on Church history, I guess. I see it as part of world history, and I see that our popes and bishops are human beings who are tempted just like we are, they all have free will, and in every aspect of life they have the capacity to sin including in what they say on matters of anything. I don’t automatically assume that every single little thing that the Catholic Church does and says is good or even motivated by good. You don’t have to look very deeply into the history books to come to this conclusion.

Pete

 

[john_doran]

Pete2:

I’ve got a little different view on Church history, I guess. I see it as part of world history, and I see that our popes and bishops are human beings who are tempted just like we are, they all have free will, and in every aspect of life they have the capacity to sin including in what they say on matters of anything. I don’t automatically assume that every single little thing that the Catholic Church does and says is good or even motivated by good. You don’t have to look very deeply into the history books to come to this conclusion.

well, i agree with pretty much everything you say here, but still don’t understand what it has to do with the infallibility of the church’s teaching charism.

sure, the church isn’t good in everything little thing that it says or does. but how does it follow that the church isn’t infallible when it definitively teaches truths concerning faith and morals?

sure, popes, bishops, priests, religious, and laity are imperfect and are often profoundly corrupt. ok. what’s that got to do with the infallibility and indefectibility of the church?

it comes down to this, as i said before: how can the church of the living god be the pillar and bulwark of the truth if it’s ***not ***infallible?

Pete2:

It was a political move that went beyond the bounds of the rights of the Church.

how so? why doesn’t the church have a right to proclaim doctrine concerning the nature of its own ability to teach? what are the rights of the church in your opinion?

do you think that the church’s proclamations concerning things like the trinity and the divinity of christ and the resurrection and so on, are just suggestions for belief? are they just approximations of the truth, proposed to the faithful to be accepted or not as they see fit? is there anything that catholics are bound to believe? and if so, why? how do you differentiate between the doctrines that are infallible and those that aren’t?

 

[norbert]

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.

Very good post.

 

[Pete2]

john doran:

well, i agree with pretty much everything you say here, but still don’t understand what it has to do with the infallibility of the church’s teaching charism.

sure, the church isn’t good in everything little thing that it says or does. but how does it follow that the church isn’t infallible when it definitively teaches truths concerning faith and morals?

sure, popes, bishops, priests, religious, and laity are imperfect and are often profoundly corrupt. ok. what’s that got to do with the infallibility and indefectibility of the church?

it comes down to this, as i said before: how can the church of the living god be the pillar and bulwark of the truth if it’s ***not ***infallible?

how so? why doesn’t the church have a right to proclaim doctrine concerning the nature of its own ability to teach? what are the rights of the church in your opinion?

do you think that the church’s proclamations concerning things like the trinity and the divinity of christ and the resurrection and so on, are just suggestions for belief? are they just approximations of the truth, proposed to the faithful to be accepted or not as they see fit? is there anything that catholics are bound to believe? and if so, why? how do you differentiate between the doctrines that are infallible and those that aren’t?

It’s beyond me at this point, John. I appreciate your challenging my statements, which is why I’m on this website. I need to pray on it.

The struggle I have is that I just can’t get by the fact, as you say:
john doran:

sure, popes, bishops, priests, religious, and laity are imperfect and are often profoundly corrupt…

If that’s true, as most would agree, then how can there be “guaranteed perfection” in a specifically defined instance? As any parent knows, teaching comes through both actions and words. In fact, the actions of the Church are what people see more than anything, not it’s publications. As St. Francis said, “…when necessary, use words.”

And besides, we either have free will or we don’t. Are we to believe that the Holy Spirit suspends freewill momentarily whenever the pope needs to officially teach something about faith and morals? That’s what it is, isn’t it? A suspension of freewill. Because no matter what the pope says in these instances, it will be true to God’s will, because of papal infallibility.

Pete

 

[Mickey]

Pete2:

Are we to believe that the Holy Spirit suspends freewill momentarily whenever the pope needs to officially teach something about faith and morals?

If that is truly what happens when the pope speaks ex-cathedra, (and we really don’t know because it is a mystery), do you think the Holy Spirit is incapable of such intervention?

 

[Genesis315]

Pete2:

And besides, we either have free will or we don’t. Are we to believe that the Holy Spirit suspends freewill momentarily whenever the pope needs to officially teach something about faith and morals? That’s what it is, isn’t it? A suspension of freewill. Because no matter what the pope says in these instances, it will be true to God’s will, because of papal infallibility.

Pete

The same applies to ecumenical councils as well, the much more common source of infallible statements.

 

[Matt16_18]

–I know I’m going to regret this, but would you add the following to your list … Do any of these events make God angry?

Of course they do, they are all sins caused by greed and the idolatry of money.

 

[Matt16_18]

AlanfromWichita:

You believe infallibility as an article of faith.

Of course I do, I am a Catholic! If anyone rejects this fundamental article of faith, they are not a Catholic; they are a Protestant (at best). Every Protestant rejects the Catholic Church’s claims of infallibility – that rejection is what makes a Protestant a Protestant - they are protesting the Catholic Church’s authority and her doctrines of infalliblity.

Unreserved acceptance of the Catholic Church’s doctrines concerning infallibility is absolutely essential to being a Catholic. Rejection or obstinate doubt about the Catholic Church’s doctrines concerning infallibility brings about the loss of membership in the Catholic Church by * latae sententiae* excommunication.

I’m looking at morals as the codification of what outward behavior is acceptable and unacceptable.

That is a very poor way to look at what it means to be moral. Evil people are often outwardly “moral” but inwardly corrupt. That is why Jesus accused certain Pharisees and hypocrites as being white washed tombs."Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.
Matt. 23:7To be truly pleasing to God one MUST live a moral life. But the life of heroic charity that Jesus calls us to live is far beyond what we are capable of apart from grace. That is why I said morality is all about who we are in Christ.

 

[Matt16_18]

AlanfromWichita:

As humans, (St. Pio excepted maybe) we cannot read into the heart, and therefore cannot judge a person’s soul by a formula of behavioral observation, no matter how complicated and intricate.

Yes, Padre Pio (and other holy confessors) could read hearts. But basically, I will not disagree with what you are saying. We are forbidden by Jesus to engage in subjective judgement, that is, we are not allowed to judge the state of another man’s soul. But we are not forbidden to make objective judgments about a person’s behavior. Quite the contrary, we are commanded by Christ to make these objective judgments. "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Matt. 18:15-17 Jesus commanded that his church excommunicate the unrepentant sinner that refuses to listen to “even the church”. How can we possibly be faithful to this commandment unless we have objective standards of behavior that spell out what constitutes sinful behavior? “If a brother sins against you” – who gets to decide what is sinful? Is Jesus saying that each brother should rely on his own personal opinion about what constitutes sin? Absolutely not, because that would result in the chaos of moral relativism. Brother X could claim that brother Y is sinning against him, and brother Y could claim that, in his own personal opinion, what he is doing is not a sin. It is clear that this commandment of Jesus is total nonsense unless one accepts that there are objective standards of Christian behavior that both brother X and brother Y have to meet. And neither brother X nor brother Y may actually know what the objective standards really are, which is why “the church”, i.e. the bishops, have the final say in the matter.

Even if one buys that Jesus actually said to Peter in essence, “the part of your Church that puts faith and moral teachings into writing and formal policy is infallible and will never err even in the slightest detail” then we still infallibly cannot know in any specific instance if we have accurately read the heart of the alleged sinner because of our imperfect means of observation and interpretation.

This is a straw man argument. Objective judgment is about the judgment of behavior, not the subjective judgement of the state of a man’s soul. Objectively, you obstinately doubt the Church’s doctrines concerning infallibility, and that is why you have excommunicated yourself from the Church. Whether or not you are doing this because of invincible ignorance is something that I cannot possibly know – only God knows the state of your soul, and it would be a sin for me to speculate on what state it is in. Nevertheless, your behaviour can be objectively judged, because it is an objective belief of the Catholic Church that she cannot officially teach error in matters of faith and morals, and you publically reject that claim. Thus, objectively, your behaviour is that of a heretic that has incurred the penalty of * latae sententiae* excommunication. Whether you are acting out of invincible ignorance in your rejection of de fide definita dogma of the Catholic Church, is a subjective judgement that I am unable to make (and prohibited from making.)

 

[Matt16_18]

Ghosty:

Belief in infallibility, as defined by the Church, is absolutely necessary in order to call oneself Catholic. When you cease to believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium, you cease to be Catholic; it’s really that simple. …

The Church doesn’t have to go around declaring excommunications; people excommunicate themselves when they abandon the core fundamentals of the Catholic faith.

Amen!

 

[Matt16_18]

Pete2:

The struggle I have is that I just can’t get by the fact, as you say: “sure, popes, bishops, priests, religious, and laity are imperfect and are often profoundly corrupt…”. If that’s true, as most would agree, then how can there be “guaranteed perfection” in a specifically defined instance?

For sure, to be a Catholic, one does not have to stick his head in the sand and deny that there have been corrupt popes. But you are missing the point that the Catholic Church’s claims to infallibility are based upon a supernatural claim, and that is why we can’t judge the Catholic Church as we do other institutions founded by men.

If we look at other human institutions, we see that some also make claims of infallibility (e.g. the Communist Party under Stalin), but because of the corruption of the leaders, we give no credence these bogus claims of infallibility. That is a sensible way to judge the claims of human institutions. But the Catholic Church is NOT an institution founded by men, she is a divinely established institution, and she has been given the guarantee from Jesus that the Holy Spirit would guide her in all things.

The Catholic Church’s claims to infallibility are based upon a supernatural claim, and one must accept by faith that God has the ability to prevent his church from officially teaching error in matters concerning faith and morals. If God does not prevent his church from teaching error on matters of faith and morals, then his church could become an instrument of Satan that leads men into darkness. Jesus promised that the powers of Hell would not prevail against his church, thus it is impossible for the Catholic Church to ever become an instrument of satanic deception.

John Doran: “is there anything that catholics are bound to believe? and if so, why? how do you differentiate between the doctrines that are infallible and those that aren’t?”

It’s beyond me at this point, John. I appreciate your challenging my statements, which is why I’m on this website. I need to pray on it.

Excellent attitude. Ask God for an increase in faith, and God will grant you that increase. If you want, I would be glad to pray for you too.“I believe; help my unbelief!”
Mark 9:24

"Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.”
Mark 7: 7-8

 

[Strider]

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.

First, choosing this love in any way is consistent with Natural Law, which is knowledge with which every human being is born. It encompasses things such as, “You don’t hit the girl,” and, “You don’t steal what isn’t yours.”
Of course, we can choose to ignore the Natural Law, millions have, but that doesn’t exclude its existence.
It’s your second point that’s problematic. If one chooses love using these Biblical terms but does not adhere to the entire dogmaticv and doctrinal system “deductively” built up from such passages, then one is being relativistic to one’s detriment. Catholics who do this are called “cafeteria Catholics,” and aren’t really Catholics at all.
“I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the
Father except through me.” Jn 14:6
That statement is neither relativistic nor pluralistic. It is an absolute statement made by God.
Pluralism falls a easily as relativism because it denies absolutes. For my part, I’d rather fly in the airplane repaired by the mechanic who read the manual in an absolute way.

 

[Pete2]

Matt16_18:

If you want, I would be glad to pray for you too.

I could never turn down that offer, please do pray for me. I’m a miserable sinner and not above being wrong or changing my views. Of course, I’m stubborn too, so if I ever do, it will probably take me longer than most.

Pete

 

[Vimalakirti]

Matt16_18:

Of course they do, they are all sins caused by greed and the idolatry of money.

–Then we are in full agreement on this point. Let’s spread the word on the true culture of life, each as best he can. Peace.

 

[Ghosty]

Thank you for your concern, but that is not correct, according to everything I’ve learned on this forum including two AAA replies on the subject. Once baptized Catholic, or accepted into the church after a valid baptism elsewhere, I am always a Catholic – even if excommunicated. I’m just a “bad” Catholic as opposed, I suppose, to the “good” Catholics who don’t admit to questioning anything.

You are not Catholic in the sense that you are not a part of the Catholic Communion. You have the indelible mark of a Catholic baptism, but you are not to Commune (partake of the Eucharist) with Catholics until you Confess and come back into communion with the Church. This is what ex (out of) communication means.

Clearly defined and easy to read? Please guide me to this information as I have read dozens of lengthy threads on this exact issue in the past several months on this forum, and I have yet to hear of anybody who can give me any guide as to precisely what teachings are to be held as “infallible.”

Teachings from the Ordinary Magisterium that have been held from all time regarding faith and morals (ordaination of women, Jesus being the Messiah). Pronouncements from Ecumenical Councils regarding the same (Papal Infallibility, Nicene Creed). Ex Cathedra statements regarding the same (Assumption of Mary). It’s really not difficult to know what the rules are, but finding a compiled list of infallible teachings is another question. There are books that deal with this.

OK, so here’s where I’ll probably be struck down by lightning, but if a “core fundamental” is so ill-defined that not even scholarly members of the group can say “this is” and “that is not” a part of their teachings, then really what good is it?

They can, and do say “this is” and “that is not”, and when they are in doubt the Magisterium answers the question, as it did on the Ordination of Women under JPII. It’s not rocket science.

By ill-defined, I mean, first we talk about ex cathedra.That doesn’t wash, because there are too many rules not covered by them.

It does wash, because that’s exactly how many Ex Cathedra statements have been made. We have the other two areas of infallibility I listed, however, to go on.

So then we get other letters from popes that theologians pore over to dissect the wording to determine whether they are infallible.

They pour over them to determine whether they’re discussing an issue that’s already been decided on the grounds of the other infallible rules, so as to determine how binding the Pope’s guidelines on the matter are (is it friendly advice, or guidance on an infallible issue?)

On any given behavioral issue such as condom use, I have yet to see a convincing statement about whether Church teaching on that is “infallible” or not, despite many posters asking.

That’s because certain uses of condoms are absolutely infallibly defined, while others aren’t. Intended contraception is absolutely immoral, according to the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium. The debate centers around whether they can be used when contraception is not the intended result, such as to prevent transmission of disease. That is an area of debate that is still somewhat open (infallibly speaking), but with heavy leanings towards “no” as a prudential judgement. Again, it’s a pretty clear distinction.

I think your difficulty may be in understanding the complete nature of infallibility apart from the simple, and infrequently used, Papal Infallibility.

 

[chunkymaster]

Against natural law, that’s what I call God’s law. Because God is the source of everything, and our existence, his law is natural and just. Through creation, God has shown us ways in which he wished us to live. He wished us to join together as man and wife, as a heterosexual union for example.

and now we have Pope Benedict XVI! He talked about relativism, he’s orthodox, and understand what it is. I bet he will publish some encyclicals on this issue, be sure to check those out.

 

[amarischuk]

The arguments against contraception from a Natural Law perspective have failed according to both Jacques Maritain and Germain Grisez. Contraception is not against natural law in the Thomistic sense and thus we currently see all the novel theological inventions like ‘theology of the body’ or the Grisez-Finnis ethical system in an attempt to defend the current magisterial teaching. But in truth, the current prohibition on contraception is a doctrinal teaching which lost its theological backing and is now floating around searching for a new justification.

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_10_128/ai_75445694

ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/GRISEZ.TXT

 

[slinky1882]

amarischuk:

The arguments against contraception from a Natural Law perspective have failed according to both Jacques Maritain and Germain Grisez. Contraception is not against natural law in the Thomistic sense and thus we currently see all the novel theological inventions like ‘theology of the body’ or the Grisez-Finnis ethical system in an attempt to defend the current magisterial teaching. But in truth, the current prohibition on contraception is a doctrinal teaching which lost its theological backing and is now floating around searching for a new justification.

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_10_128/ai_75445694

ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/GRISEZ.TXT

Hey could you expand on the"novel theological inventions like ‘Theology of the Body’ or the Grisez-Finnis ethical system"??? One other question, do you believe the teaching on Contraception is Infalliable Doctrine or discipline??? Thanks and God Bless.