What is "Relativism"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter norbert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
norbert:
That doesn’t make sense. My dog blindly obeys. I, a human being with an active and functional mind, think. I can’t help it that I think; it’s just something my silly brain does. My “conscience” arises from my brain/mind (or soul?). My conscience is certainly informed by what I have learned from the Church, but it also derives from experience and reason, and from the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Conscience is the ultimate moral compass. It is adaptable and sensitive to nuance and unique situations. Why would God give us minds and consciences if he didn’t want us to use them?
God gave us free will. He wants us to use them the right way, but we are free to use them to go off and damn ourselves.

Would you say Hitler’s conscience was the ultimate moral compass? What about Timothy McVay (sp?)
 
40.png
norbert:
Sorry, but I can’t read anything with such a stupid title.
Then you are ignorant of its meaning in this book. C’mon just try for a minute till you understand the term. I’ll help -

From Liberalism is a Sin

Liberalism is the root of heresy, the tree of evil in whose branches all the harpies of infidelity find ample shelter; it is today the evil of all evils. (Ch. 4). “The theater, literature, public and private morals are all saturated with obscenity and impurity. The result is inevitable; a corrupt generation necessarily begets a revolutionary generation. Liberalism is the program of naturalism. Free-thought begets free morals, or immorality. Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. Whoever thinks what he pleases will do what he pleases. Liberalism in the intellectual order is license in the moral order. Disorder in the intellect begets disorder in the heart, and vice-versa. Thus does Liberalism propagate immorality, and immorality Liberalism.” (Ch. 26).

Liberalism “is, therefore, the radical and universal denial of all divine truth and Christian dogma, the primal type of all heresy, and the supreme rebellion against the authority of God and His Church. As with Lucifer, its maxim is, ‘I will not serve.’” (Ch. 3).

“Liberalism, whether in the doctrinal or practical order, is a sin. In the doctrinal order, it is heresy, and consequently a mortal sin against faith. In the practical order, it is a sin against the commandments of God and of the Church, for it virtually transgresses all commandments. To be more precise: in the doctrinal order, Liberalism strikes at the very foundations of faith; it is heresy radical and universal, because within it are comprehended all heresies. In the practical order it is a radical and universal infraction of the divine law, since it sanctions and authorizes all infractions of that law.” (Ch. 3).

Alas - Relativism.
 
The moral absolute vs. relativism arument is a ridiculous, hypocritical fantasy where “people of god” somehow have a claim/insight into what the world is really about and why the world is bad. It’s ludicrous…and offensive.

First off (like someone pointed out) the lord said REPLENISH the earth…I would make an educated guess that there is not one person on this forum living off the grid? I bet half of us drive around in SUV’s…polluting our atmosphere, and depleting natural resources. Replenish? We walk around in clothes made from the sweat, and blood of childrens hands whos “monetary” compensation wouldn’t buy your lunch today. You deride contraception…but have no problem with the selling of Viagra (which happens to have no restrictions on how it is used)…Its a $ex drug…natural law? Your telling me that someone who’s plumbing has went the way of the ghost is in line with natural law with the use of viagra?..you cry and cry about Abortion…but you have no problems with the state sanctioned murder that we call the death penalty…what about in-vitro? I could go on, and on, and on…THERE IS NO FLIPPING MORAL ABSOLUTE PEOPLE…even if the “concept” exist…it’s not like any of us are following it?? You probably live in a protestant nation that was founded on the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people (probably one of the few civilizations that had a just and moral society… and they didn’t have any concept of a christian god belief.)…every single one of us is a sinner…which basically means that we are ALL living in the web of relativism…moral absolute my ear…give me a break.
 
40.png
Pete2:
Relativism has been well defined in the thread.

The problem that the Pope has with it is that because of relativism, the CCC is not recognized world-wide as the “truth”. Because of relativism, there is no pressure on anyone to embrace “the truth”, which to the Pope and many others, is the CCC. The only people who accept the CCC as “the truth” are the subset of Catholics who believe it is true. There are many (probably the majority) who call themselves Catholics who don’t believe 100% that the CCC represents the truth. Every Catholic I know has a disagreement with the Church on at least something in the CCC, and chooses not to believe it.

And of course, the Muslims have their own version of the truth which is not the CCC, and so do Hindus, and Buddhists, etc. And then there are people who don’t fully align with any of those groups who have their own personal version of the truth, which they follow.

Complaining about relativism is similar to complaining that there are people who don’t agree with you. It’s completely pointless. No matter how strong statements are made in 28 point bold type on the Catholic Answers Forum that “the CCC is the only truth”, or “Liberalism is a sin”, the fact of the matter is that those who disagree with that statement, couldn’t care any less. There is no way the world will ever agree on “one truth”, no matter what it is. I personally believe that “relavitism” (which is a bad word here) is what makes mankind so wonderful. God loves us all, he gave us Christ, and the Catholic Church, and is doing work through all kinds of people in all different kinds of ways that we will never understand. It’s a mystery of God, and is not up for me to question. In fact, the CCC itself let’s people off the hook who don’t know the CCC to be the truth. So I’m not sure why relativism is called a horrible “dictatorship”.

Pete
By the way most of your posts mention the Catechism of the Catholic Church in a negative light, I take it that you do not believe in the teaching authority of the Church.

I disagree with the definition of relativism as given in this thread. I think relativism says that “There is no absolute truth.”

We know that is a false statement, and therefore, relativism should be avoided.
 
40.png
Strength:
The moral absolute vs. relativism arument is a ridiculous, hypocritical fantasy where “people of god” somehow have a claim/insight into what the world is really about and why the world is bad. It’s ludicrous…and offensive.

First off (like someone pointed out) the lord said REPLENISH the earth…I would make an educated guess that there is not one person on this forum living off the grid? I bet half of us drive around in SUV’s…polluting our atmosphere, and depleting natural resources. Replenish? We walk around in clothes made from the sweat, and blood of childrens hands whos “monetary” compensation wouldn’t buy your lunch today. You deride contraception…but have no problem with the selling of Viagra (which happens to have no restrictions on how it is used)…Its a $ex drug…natural law? Your telling me that someone who’s plumbing has went the way of the ghost is in line with natural law with the use of viagra?..you cry and cry about Abortion…but you have no problems with the state sanctioned murder that we call the death penalty…what about in-vitro? I could go on, and on, and on…THERE IS NO FLIPPING MORAL ABSOLUTE PEOPLE…even if the “concept” exist…it’s not like any of us are following it?? You probably live in a protestant nation that was founded on the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people (probably one of the few civilizations that had a just and moral society… and they didn’t have any concept of a christian god belief.)…every single one of us is a sinner…which basically means that we are ALL living in the web of relativism…moral absolute my ear…give me a break.
We do not claim the insight. We claim God has revealed it to us. The failure to adhere to the moral absolutes is called sin. It is a failure of men for the things you cite.
 
40.png
norbert:
That doesn’t make sense. My dog blindly obeys. I, a human being with an active and functional mind, think. I can’t help it that I think; it’s just something my silly brain does. My “conscience” arises from my brain/mind (or soul?). My conscience is certainly informed by what I have learned from the Church, but it also derives from experience and reason, and from the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Conscience is the ultimate moral compass. It is adaptable and sensitive to nuance and unique situations. Why would God give us minds and consciences if he didn’t want us to use them?
Obedience to the Church does not mean blind, robotic, non-thinking, slavery. Obedience to the Church is liberating. We are talking here about 2000 years of proper scriptural interpretation, an infallible teaching magisterium, church fathers and saints. The Church does not lie in areas of faith and morals! If we follow the teachings correctly, we are able to develop a properly formed conscience. We are free to worship God and follow Christ in loving charity as he set forth when he founded the Church. Are you saying that your conscience tells you something contadictory to Church teaching? Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is telling you that certain doctrine and teachings are in error? Are you saying that you know better than the bride of Christ? If so, then you are immersed in relativism.
 
40.png
Strength:
The moral absolute vs. relativism arument is a ridiculous, hypocritical fantasy where “people of god” somehow have a claim/insight into what the world is really about and why the world is bad. It’s ludicrous…and offensive.

First off (like someone pointed out) the lord said REPLENISH the earth…I would make an educated guess that there is not one person on this forum living off the grid? I bet half of us drive around in SUV’s…polluting our atmosphere, and depleting natural resources. Replenish? We walk around in clothes made from the sweat, and blood of childrens hands whos “monetary” compensation wouldn’t buy your lunch today. You deride contraception…but have no problem with the selling of Viagra (which happens to have no restrictions on how it is used)…Its a $ex drug…natural law? Your telling me that someone who’s plumbing has went the way of the ghost is in line with natural law with the use of viagra?..you cry and cry about Abortion…but you have no problems with the state sanctioned murder that we call the death penalty…what about in-vitro? I could go on, and on, and on…THERE IS NO FLIPPING MORAL ABSOLUTE PEOPLE…even if the “concept” exist…it’s not like any of us are following it?? You probably live in a protestant nation that was founded on the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people (probably one of the few civilizations that had a just and moral society… and they didn’t have any concept of a christian god belief.)…every single one of us is a sinner…which basically means that we are ALL living in the web of relativism…moral absolute my ear…give me a break.
I agree that there is no group of people that is perfect. That is why we have reconcilation. There is a moral code that is perfect and it was taught by Christ. You can check how to you stack up on the culture of life issues?
 
40.png
Strength:
The moral absolute vs. relativism arument is a ridiculous, hypocritical fantasy where “people of god” somehow have a claim/insight into what the world is really about and why the world is bad. It’s ludicrous…and offensive.

First off (like someone pointed out) the lord said REPLENISH the earth…I would make an educated guess that there is not one person on this forum living off the grid? I bet half of us drive around in SUV’s…polluting our atmosphere, and depleting natural resources. Replenish? We walk around in clothes made from the sweat, and blood of childrens hands whos “monetary” compensation wouldn’t buy your lunch today. You deride contraception…but have no problem with the selling of Viagra (which happens to have no restrictions on how it is used)…Its a $ex drug…natural law? Your telling me that someone who’s plumbing has went the way of the ghost is in line with natural law with the use of viagra?..you cry and cry about Abortion…but you have no problems with the state sanctioned murder that we call the death penalty…what about in-vitro? I could go on, and on, and on…THERE IS NO FLIPPING MORAL ABSOLUTE PEOPLE…even if the “concept” exist…it’s not like any of us are following it?? You probably live in a protestant nation that was founded on the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people (probably one of the few civilizations that had a just and moral society… and they didn’t have any concept of a christian god belief.)…every single one of us is a sinner…which basically means that we are ALL living in the web of relativism…moral absolute my ear…give me a break.
You make a lot of assumptions in your response. Do you have evidence to back any of it up? Dont generalize the entire population of this board as you have so boldly done.

Everyday we are on the earth, some people work for good, others for evil. That doesn’t mean that there is no absolute truth.

Viagra is perfectly acceptable** if** it is used in the context of marriage. Outside the marriage, it would be sinful.

The Death Penalty as practiced by the US goes against Catholic teaching. Life in prison without the possibilty of parole, makes it possible to detain criminals who commit the most heinous crimes. The Church does concede that there may be an instance somewhere in the world that a person is so violent, so dangerous to the community that it would be permitted to execute them, but in this day and age, especially considering the prison system in the USA, that would be a very tiny, if at all existant, fragment of the criminal poulation.

In-vitro is not the natural means of pro-creating, therefore it is not permitted.

You claim that there is no moral absolute, therefore you cannot believe in God.
 
40.png
norbert:
Where is this natural law? Where is it specifically written in nature that it’s wrong to use condoms, for instance? It isn’t written anywhere.
I don’t believe you understand what philosophers and theologians mean when they use the term “natural law”. The natural law does NOT refer to the physical laws that govern nature, i.e., the laws of physics, or the law of the jungle. Natural Law is the Law of Right and Wrong, a knowledge of which human beings innately possess because they have a human nature.… this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong use to be called the Law of Nature **. Nowadays, when we talk of the “laws of nature” we usually mean things like gravitation or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong “the Law of Nature,” they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law – with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.

C.S. Lewis, Mere ChristianityThe natural law points to a divine spiritual reality that is above and beyond the physical laws that govern the created universe. C. S. Lewis points out that man, because he possesses human nature, is actually aware of two realities in his life:The Moral Law, or the Law of Human Nature, is not simply a fact about human behaviour in the same way as the Law of Gravitation is, or may be, simply a fact about how heavy objects behave. On the other hand it is not a mere fancy, for we cannot get rid of the idea, and most of the things we say and think about men would be reduced to nonsense if we did. And it is not simply a statement about how we should like men to behave for our own convenience; for the behaviour we call bad or unfair is not exactly the same as the behaviour we find inconvenient, and may even be the opposite. Consequently, the Rule of Right and Wrong, or the Law of Human Nature, or whatever you call it, must somehow or other be a real thing – a thing that really is there, not made up by ourselves. And yet it is not a fact in the ordinary sense, in the same way as our actual behaviour is a fact. It begins to look as if we shall have to admit that there is more than one kind of reality; that in this particular case, there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men’s behaviour, and yet quite definitely real – a real law, which none of us made, but which we find pressing on us.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
God gave me a conscience which for me exists as my most reliable moral compass.
God did indeed give you a conscience that convicts you when you disobey the natural law. But one cannot be a Catholic and assert that personal conscience is the “most reliable moral compass” that exists. Such a belief is the assertion of the “autonomy of conscience”, a belief that the Catholic Church calls mistaken. Protestantism is founded on this mistaken belief, and that is why all Protestants are heretics.**Catechism of the Catholic Church

ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1792** Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.The Catholic Church teaches that we are all born with defective consciences that are in need of formation. The most reliable moral compass that you have access to are the infallible moral teachings of the Catholic Church. What you feel is right and wrong is not the be all and end all of what determines what is actually right and wrong. If your conscience does not agree with what the Catholic Church teaches about morality, then that means one thing, and one thing only. It means that your conscience is defective and in need of formation. It does not mean that you are right, and the Catholic Church is wrong.

Of course, Protestants refuse to accept this as being true, and that is why Protestants live in a sea of confusion about what constitutes moral behavior.
 
40.png
chadwilliams:
By the way most of your posts mention the Catechism of the Catholic Church in a negative light, I take it that you do not believe in the teaching authority of the Church.

I disagree with the definition of relativism as given in this thread. I think relativism says that “There is no absolute truth.”

We know that is a false statement, and therefore, relativism should be avoided.
In terms of consequences for actions, there are absolutes, although they are not known. In terms of a judgment call over whether something is intrinsically good or evil, there are very few absolutes, if any. The Church, then, being the standard bearer, becomes the place where “absolutes” are agreed upon, even though they may come into fuller understandings over time and therefore cause shifts in practices. By “agreed upon” I say that we agree the Pope has ultimate say so, etc. It is really not relevant to effectiveness of the Church in her mission in this world, whether God actually gave Peter the keys; what matters is that we believe in her and continue to agree that she makes the rules.

My point was about people who claim that relativism in general is bad, and that there are no “gray areas.” I bet those people couldn’t reasonably defend “Thou shalt not kill” as an absolute statement. Sure, it’s an absolute statement once you add a bunch of disclaimers about what or whom you shalt not kill, and under what circumstances, but those very disclaimers make the original statement relative. In this example, “much too vague” can also masquerade as relativistic. The end result is that what is written down is not sufficient to be an infallible moral compass.

Are there absolutes? Yes, I will grant those for now, at least for sake of discussion.

Are there gray areas? Yes, because there are always circumstances that change things, except I suppose on whatever we agree upon as “non-negotiable.” The Ten Commandments? Loaded with gray areas. It takes centuries of theology to figure this stuff out and our knowledge is always increasing. That means at some time in the future the Church will, unless she has just now reached a plateau of some sort, come to a “fuller understanding” of things that are now disputed and/or argued about. Therefore, only a fool would maintain that any moral arguments are not subject to modification, or clarification, in such a way that Catholics in good conscience must or may change their practices.

Gosh, look at how many people think Communion in the hand is a travesty, and saying the Mass in the vernacular. These are the types of attitudes that I conjure in my mind whenever I hear someone reeling about absolutism is better than relativism. They say the Church is the absolute standard, and then they make up their own rules apart from the Church’s official teachings at any given moment.

Alan
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
I don’t believe you understand what philosophers and theologians mean when they use the term “natural law”. The natural law does NOT refer to the physical laws that govern nature, i.e., the laws of physics, or the law of the jungle. Natural Law is the Law of Right and Wrong, a knowledge of which human beings innately possess because they have a human nature.… this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong use to be called the Law of Nature **. Nowadays, when we talk of the “laws of nature” we usually mean things like gravitation or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong “the Law of Nature,” they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law – with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
The natural law points to a divine spiritual reality that is above and beyond the physical laws that govern the created universe. C. S. Lewis points out that man, because he possesses human nature, is actually aware of two realities in his life:The Moral Law, or the Law of Human Nature, is not simply a fact about human behaviour in the same way as the Law of Gravitation is, or may be, simply a fact about how heavy objects behave. On the other hand it is not a mere fancy, for we cannot get rid of the idea, and most of the things we say and think about men would be reduced to nonsense if we did. And it is not simply a statement about how we should like men to behave for our own convenience; for the behaviour we call bad or unfair is not exactly the same as the behaviour we find inconvenient, and may even be the opposite. Consequently, the Rule of Right and Wrong, or the Law of Human Nature, or whatever you call it, must somehow or other be a real thing – a thing that really is there, not made up by ourselves. And yet it is not a fact in the ordinary sense, in the same way as our actual behaviour is a fact. It begins to look as if we shall have to admit that there is more than one kind of reality; that in this particular case, there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men’s behaviour, and yet quite definitely real – a real law, which none of us made, but which we find pressing on us.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

God did indeed give you a conscience that convicts you when you disobey the natural law. But one cannot be a Catholic and assert that personal conscience is the “most reliable moral compass” that exists. Such a belief is the assertion of the “autonomy of conscience”, a belief that the Catholic Church calls mistaken. Protestantism is founded on this mistaken belief, and that is why all Protestants are heretics.Catechism of the Catholic Church

ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1792
Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
The Catholic Church teaches that we are all born with defective consciences that are in need of formation. The most reliable moral compass that you have access to are the infallible moral teachings of the Catholic Church. What you feel is right and wrong is not the be all and end all of what determines what is actually right and wrong. If your conscience does not agree with what the Catholic Church teaches about morality, then that means one thing, and one thing only. It means that your conscience is defective and in need of formation. It does not mean that you are right, and the Catholic Church is wrong.

Of course, Protestants refuse to accept this as being true, and that is why Protestants live in a sea of confusion about what constitutes moral behavior.

Thanks, Matt, I was just about to pull out C.S. Lewis, but you beat me to it. I just finished reading Mere Christianity and was stunned at the profound simpleness of his explanations.
 
Relativism is to claim that the only universal truth is that there is no universal truth at all. It disproves itself.
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
Therefore we quit worrying about the rules because we no longer desire anything unlawful. This is how He fulfilled the rules, not by demanding strict adherence to a static, written code.
Jesus founded a church and gave men the promise that the Holy Spirit would guide his church in all things. Jesus did not come to preach moral relativism, and he most certainly did not do away with the moral laws that were known to the Jews that are written down in the OT scriptures. Jesus did not start a church where the Ten Commandments and the two great commandments of love that are written in the Torah are no longer in effect.

The Holy Spirit prevents the Magisterium of Christ’s church from teaching error on matters of faith and morals. To be a Catholic means accepting in faith the infallible moral teachings of the Catholic Church. To obstinately reject even one infallible moral teaching of the Catholic Church is to become a Protestant heretic.**Catechism of the Catholic Church

891** “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. …
 
40.png
Dredgemate:
Thanks, Matt, I was just about to pull out C.S. Lewis, but you beat me to it. I just finished reading Mere Christianity and was stunned at the profound simpleness of his explanations.
👍

IMO, Mere Christianity is a great book, one that every Christian should read if they are struggling with understanding the natural law and its relationship to Christiantiy. I heartily agree that Lewis presents profound arguments in a language that ordinary men and women can understand.
 
40.png
chadwilliams:
By the way most of your posts mention the Catechism of the Catholic Church in a negative light, I take it that you do not believe in the teaching authority of the Church.

I disagree with the definition of relativism as given in this thread. I think relativism says that “There is no absolute truth.”

We know that is a false statement, and therefore, relativism should be avoided.
What do you mean when you say “teaching authority”?

In fact, we should probably define “truth” before we discuss it.

I believe there is a “truth”, and it is, and always will be, a complete mystery to everyone on earth except Jesus. The Catholic Church leads me to the truth as I can understand it through my severely limited perspective of eternity, and the CCC is a guide for me, along with the bible and what the Church teaches through it’s various means. The CCC does not define the entire “truth”, and how could it? It’s just a book written by men, trying to explain the massive topic of life and God, for the purposes of teaching. It is absolutely impossible to write a book, or even a library full of books, that explains the meaning of life and encompasses what you should do in every situation you are faced with.

The Church is made up of men, and men make mistakes. St. Peter made mistake after mistake, but he was willing to follow Jesus, which is why I think Jesus loved him and built His church on him. Peter was the only one to step out of the boat, and because of that, the only one to walk on water. But in the end, he denied even knowing Jesus.

So while we’re all trying to follow Christ, and the Church is leading the charge, we’re all only just trying. Including our Pope. In fact, God knew that just our trying is not enough, which is why He sent His Son to die for our sins. The pope sins a lot less than me, but he still sins. How can there possibly be such a thing as “infallibility” on this earth today? I don’t believe in papal infallibility. The pope is blessed, and is a good authority on moral subjects, but there is no infallibility.

Meanwhile, what about the rest of the world? God is active in every single human being’s life on this earth. The Catholic Church is His main tool–if it wasn’t, then how could it go from 0 members, to 1 billion members in 2000 years. Add to that another 1 billion Christians. That’s a pretty amazing statistic. But what about the other 5 billion people on earth today? What about all the people who lived before Christ existed on earth? There is much more to life than the Catholic Church can ever touch, or comment on, given the entire span of human existence and eternity which owns it. So how can the Catholic Church, and it’s Magisterium, and it’s CCC, be “the truth”? Why would God only expose the “truth” to such a small subset of people?

By the way, if you are right in your definition of relativism, then I agree with you. There is one “truth”. But it’s not just the Catholic Church. And mankind will never be able to define it.

Pete
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
…My point was about people who claim that relativism in general is bad, and that there are no “gray areas.” I bet those people couldn’t reasonably defend “Thou shalt not kill” as an absolute statement…
I believe that the more accurate translation is “Thou shalt not murder”. That seems to be pretty absolute to me.
 
40.png
Pete2:
By the way, if you are right in your definition of relativism, then I agree with you. There is one “truth”. But it’s not just the Catholic Church. And mankind will never be able to define it.

Pete
Pete,

Catholicism alone possessef the “fullness” of Truth, revealed and reasoned… Men through reason can find truth. Many religions have some truths and share them with Catholicism. Mankind does define it - we know this Truth as God.
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
My point was about people who claim that relativism in general is bad, and that there are no “gray areas.” I bet those people couldn’t reasonably defend “Thou shalt not kill” as an absolute statement.
As OhioBob has pointed out, the fifth commandment would be better translated as “Thou shalt not murder.” It is a moral absolute that one can NEVER justify the taking the life of the innocent. That is why the Catholic Church absolutely prohibits abortion under every circumstance, and that is why the Catholic Church condemns both the Democratic Party’s position on abortion (abortion allowable under nearly any circumstance) AND the Republican Party’s position on abortion (abortion allowable in the cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in “danger”.)
Are there absolutes? Yes, I will grant those for now, at least for sake of discussion.
If you are a Catholic, you must accept that there exist moral absolutes. Heck, if you are a Protestant * Christian* you must accept that there are moral absolutes.
Are there gray areas?
There are no moral gray areas for God. God is light, and in him is no darkness. Humans, however, see gray where there is reality only black and white, and this is not a good thing. Our inability to see black and white in matters of morality is because we have defective consciences as a consequence of the Fall, and we do not possess omniscience. Since humans do indeed live in a gray fog of moral confusion, God had to establish a church that would infallibly teach moral truth so we could know with certainty what is sinful. God didn’t just start the process of revealing moral truths with the founding of the Catholic Church either, for God literally wrote in stone the moral commandments that he demands that all humans obey thousands of years before he ever became incarnate.

If we cooperate with grace, we will grow in holiness, and the gray fog of moral confusion will begin to lift from our minds. What is sinful will become increasingly black and white. If we do not grow in holiness, we will continue to live in darkness. And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed. But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God.
John 3:19-21

We begin our conversion to Christian perfection in faith, and we will continue to act in faith for our whole lives. But it is also true that as one progresses in the life of holiness that the moral truths that the Catholic Church infallibly teaches become more obvious, because God gives the faithful the grace of infused knowledge as we progress in the spiritual life.
Gosh, look at how many people think Communion in the hand is a travesty, and saying the Mass in the vernacular. These are the types of attitudes that I conjure in my mind whenever I hear someone reeling about absolutism is better than relativism.
Some Catholics think that a change in church discipline means that the Catholic Church has changed her infallible teachings on matters of faith and morals. These Catholic are in need of instruction about the difference between church discipline and church doctrine.
 
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.
 
40.png
Pete2:
What do you mean when you say “teaching authority”?
I mean that the Church has the Authority to tell us that certain things that aren’t spelled out in the bible are wrong. Cloning of human beings for instance.
The pope sins a lot less than me, but he still sins. How can there possibly be such a thing as “infallibility” on this earth today? I don’t believe in papal infallibility. The pope is blessed, and is a good authority on moral subjects, but there is no infallibility.
The Pope is infallible in all matters pertaining to faith and morals. That doesn’t mean that he can’t make a mistake on a math test. That says that if he is proclaiming a matter on faith or morals, like “Abortion is a mortal sin” (that deals with morals) he cannot make an error. The Holy Spirit protects him from that.
Meanwhile, what about the rest of the world? God is active in every single human being’s life on this earth. The Catholic Church is His main tool–if it wasn’t, then how could it go from 0 members, to 1 billion members in 2000 years. Add to that another 1 billion Christians. That’s a pretty amazing statistic. But what about the other 5 billion people on earth today? What about all the people who lived before Christ existed on earth? There is much more to life than the Catholic Church can ever touch, or comment on, given the entire span of human existence and eternity which owns it. So how can the Catholic Church, and it’s Magisterium, and it’s CCC, be “the truth”? Why would God only expose the “truth” to such a small subset of people?
Because without an authoritative Church, the “truth” would be lost, which is what we witness today. So many are infected with “Moral Relativism” that it is affecting every Christian church. That is why we need a visible, teaching Church on Earth, and that is precisely what Jesus gave us in Matt 16:18

By the way, if you are right in your definition of relativism, then I agree with you. There is one “truth”. But it’s not just the Catholic Church. And mankind will never be able to define it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top