What is "Relativism"?

[john_doran]

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

the grisez-boyle-finnis ethical system is not an “invention” - it’s what those professors believe to be the central insight of aquinas himself.

and the church’s stance on contraception is not searching for a new justification - it’s looking for a correct understanding. juyst like everything we believe.

 

[john_doran]

slinky1882:

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.

the (so far) three volume set of books entitled “The Way of the Lord Jesus” is the most thoroughgoing statetment of grisez’s theory, and is well, well worth a read.

other than that, grisez, boyle, and finnis have set out and defended their theory in a number of philosophical publications, like the American Journal of Jurisprudence.

i’m not sure i possess the skill that a clear, concise summary of their thought would require…

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Please forgive me for hit-and-miss replies. It’s been hard to get to working web access the last few days, so if I let anything go you really want me to answer, feel free to pm me.

Matt16_18:

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.

I’m curious why you would say the judgment of the state of a man’s soul is subjective? By this do you mean that we humans cannot know it for certain, or that there is inherently no such objective judgment?

I don’t believe one can “judge” behavior, although one can “classify” behavior. For example, we can classify a man killing another man as a “killing.” We cannot therefore judge anything about whether that killing was sinful; we can only indict based on surface views.

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.

So you’re saying the shoe fits, and maybe I should wear it? Or are you talking hypothetical and not really to little ol’ me? :getholy:

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.)

I admire your ability to distinguish between characterizing behavior and judging character. I think we are in agreement on that part of it.

I guess what I’m saying is that yes, by the rules, I am probably a heretic and I am no doubt worthy of having all sorts of Latin phrases applied to me.

You know what that tells me? That tells me about what the rules are worth that apply to objective behavior observations. Not just the concept of rules, but the rules themselves, for that matter. Obstinately doubting gets me auto-kicked out, but it got Thomas an invitation to receive the exact proof he needed. I wonder if we went by today’s Church rules, if maybe Jesus would have said, “Thomas, you have doubted when others have believed. Just because the others were saying something you thought was impossible, you should have bought whatever they said. You are no longer one of us in spirit, and have separated yourself from Me. Therefore you have no life within you. How d’ya like them apples?” maybe Thomas would have had the same reaction.

Alan

 

[buffalo]

AlanFromWichita:

Please forgive me for hit-and-miss replies. It’s been hard to get to working web access the last few days, so if I let anything go you really want me to answer, feel free to pm me.

I’m curious why you would say the judgment of the state of a man’s soul is subjective? By this do you mean that we humans cannot know it for certain, or that there is inherently no such objective judgment?

I don’t believe one can “judge” behavior, although one can “classify” behavior. For example, we can classify a man killing another man as a “killing.” We cannot therefore judge anything about whether that killing was sinful; we can only indict based on surface views.

So you’re saying the shoe fits, and maybe I should wear it? Or are you talking hypothetical and not really to little ol’ me? :getholy:

I admire your ability to distinguish between characterizing behavior and judging character. I think we are in agreement on that part of it.

I guess what I’m saying is that yes, by the rules, I am probably a heretic and I am no doubt worthy of having all sorts of Latin phrases applied to me.

You know what that tells me? That tells me about what the rules are worth that apply to objective behavior observations. Not just the concept of rules, but the rules themselves, for that matter. Obstinately doubting gets me auto-kicked out, but it got Thomas an invitation to receive the exact proof he needed. I wonder if we went by today’s Church rules, if maybe Jesus would have said, “Thomas, you have doubted when others have believed. Just because the others were saying something you thought was impossible, you should have bought whatever they said. You are no longer one of us in spirit, and have separated yourself from Me. Therefore you have no life within you. How d’ya like them apples?” maybe Thomas would have had the same reaction.

Alan

Thomas’ doubting was very shortly after the Resurrection. Put it in context. There is now 2000 years of Church history to help relieve any doubts you may have, the proof Thomas needed was in the Body of Christ. That same Body of Christ is present now.

Upon examining Catholic teachings can you really say they are disordered in any way or can you see the light of truth in them?

 

[Maurelian]

Originally Posted by buffalo
Read this - LIBERALISM IS A SIN

norbert:

Sorry, but I can’t read anything with such a stupid title.

Ever heard the phrase “Don’t judge a book by it’s cover?”

I’ve always enjoyed the irony that the most narrow minded people I know call themselves liberals.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

buffalo:

Thomas’ doubting was very shortly after the Resurrection. Put it in context. There is now 2000 years of Church history to help relieve any doubts you may have, the proof Thomas needed was in the Body of Christ. That same Body of Christ is present now.

The fact that many people believe something after 2000 years doesn’t do anything for me. Specific people for whom I have respect for their intelligence, such as Albert Einstein, and such as Charlie Rogers, a brilliant but insanely boring EE professor I had at Rose-Hulman, helped give me reason not to abandon it all as hogwash.

Upon examining Catholic teachings can you really say they are disordered in any way or can you see the light of truth in them?

Yes, in many of them. Especially since I began learning more about the spiritual journey and contemplative prayer, more things have made more sense. I can see the way to peace, and the light of truth in them. Problem is, after 2000 years too many people who praise Christ with their words and rituals, seem to have failed to get the part of His message where He said not to judge, not to judge based on surface behavior, loving one another including one’s enemies, and all that.

Regarding the business of relativism v absolutism, though, I don’t know that we’re talking about Catholic teachings here. We’re talking about word games. People who bind us to a historical written policy governing behavior, on penalty of sin, are abusing the “absolute” concept. It’s like we say God is absolute, therefore absolute is good, therefore the rules and their very careful dissection will lead us to good behavior and then we can earn our way into heaven. (OK, that last statement was a bit baiting )

Alan

 

[Ghosty]

Obstinately doubting gets me auto-kicked out, but it got Thomas an invitation to receive the exact proof he needed.

Ahh, you may be misunderstanding what obstinate means. Obstinate doubt is doubt that persists after being answered. For example, doubting Transubstantiation after the Church has declared it true. Thomas’ doubt was not obstinate because it was answered, and he accepted the answer. His doubt was more persistant than the others’, but it was not obstinate because he subjected it to correction by Jesus. Likewise, one may have doubts about a teaching, but one crosses the line of heretical thought when one doubts after receiving correction and explaination from the Church.

Hope that helps!

 

[buffalo]

AlanFromWichita:

Yes, in many of them. Especially since I began learning more about the spiritual journey and contemplative prayer, more things have made more sense. I can see the way to peace, and the light of truth in them. Problem is, after 2000 years too many people who praise Christ with their words and rituals, seem to have failed to get the part of His message where He said not to judge, not to judge based on surface behavior, loving one another including one’s enemies, and all that.

The failure of men does not invalidate any teachings. We cannot judge a person’s soul and whether it will gain entrance to heaven. What we can and should do is judge a persons actions and use fraternal correction with love, which is true Catholic charity.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Ghosty:

Ahh, you may be misunderstanding what obstinate means. Obstinate doubt is doubt that persists after being answered. For example, doubting Transubstantiation after the Church has declared it true. Thomas’ doubt was not obstinate because it was answered, and he accepted the answer. His doubt was more persistant than the others’, but it was not obstinate because he subjected it to correction by Jesus. Likewise, one may have doubts about a teaching, but one crosses the line of heretical thought when one doubts after receiving correction and explaination from the Church.

Hope that helps!

I appreciate that information. Actually my own doubts are probably not really “obstinate” because I categorically subject any doubts on any topic whether spiritual or mathematical, or even convictions for that matter, to correction. To obstinately cling to beliefs regardless of new evidence would be mental and/or spiritual death, as far as I’m concerned.

Maybe I’m straying off topic, though. I guess the reason my doubts came up was from an example in which obstinate doubting was seen as an objective issue for which I have excommunicated myself. On that score, I’m not sure there is really any way to “observe” obstinate doubting from the outset. Some people are ostensibly open-minded, but their previous biases get in the way of understanding something new. In those cases, obstinate doubting and failure to understand could certainly be mistaken for each other.

Alan

 

[buffalo]

AlanFromWichita:

I appreciate that information. Actually my own doubts are probably not really “obstinate” because I categorically subject any doubts on any topic whether spiritual or mathematical, or even convictions for that matter, to correction. To obstinately cling to beliefs regardless of new evidence would be mental and/or spiritual death, as far as I’m concerned.

Maybe I’m straying off topic, though. I guess the reason my doubts came up was from an example in which obstinate doubting was seen as an objective issue for which I have excommunicated myself. On that score, I’m not sure there is really any way to “observe” obstinate doubting from the outset. Some people are ostensibly open-minded, but their previous biases get in the way of understanding something new. In those cases, obstinate doubting and failure to understand could certainly be mistaken for each other.

Alan

Alan,

We often hear others speak about their conscience. Many are advised that if its OK with your conscience then its OK. The problem is that a fully formed conscience is one of open mindedness to the truth wherever it takes them. This does not include a conscience of convenience.

Fromm the Catechism:

**1783 **Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

buffalo:

We often hear others speak about their conscience. Many are advised that if its OK with your conscience then its OK. The problem is that a fully formed conscience is one of open mindedness to the truth wherever it takes them. This does not include a conscience of convenience.

The way I figure, I have worked very hard to internalize the teachings of Christ so that my heart is pure of malice, hate, judgment, and the like as much as possible. When it comes to observable outward behavior, nobody knows what’s in my heart.

That said, if I know that what I do offends others, I should be careful about not letting them see me do it so that my liberty does not become a stumbling block to the weak.

After all, why should my freedom be determined by someone else’s conscience? If I partake thankfully, why am I reviled for that over which I give thanks? Whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God.

Alan

 

[buffalo]

AlanFromWichita:

That said, if I know that what I do offends others, I should be careful about not letting them see me do it so that my liberty does not become a stumbling block to the weak.

But what if what you do offends others unknowingly?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

buffalo:

But what if what you do offends others unknowingly?

That’s a good question.

I suppose it behooves me to learn about the culture where I am, so that I can become like them. Sometimes people are offended for reasons that pertain to them personally, and that I have no way of knowing. These things are unfortunate, but as long as I am sensitive to the body language of the person I’m talking to, I hope I can do a pretty good job of detecting it and doing what I can to cover the slight.

Of course, there are no-win scenarios where it is a choice of whom to offend, such as if one person would be offended by your attendance at an event and another by your absence. In those cases, I say drop back and punt! (As in, surrender in advance but make your best attempt.)

Alan

 

[Matt16_18]

I’m curious why you would say the judgment of the state of a man’s soul is subjective?

The judgement of the state of a man’s soul is the exclusive providence of God. God takes subjective criteria into consideration when judging a soul - such as whether certain actions were made in a state of invincible ignorance, whether a person was mentally ill when doing something that is objectively wrong, if an action was made under duress, etc. etc.

For example, it is an unchangeable moral teaching of the Church that committing suicide is grave matter. But if a person commits suicide, do we automatically know that this person is condemned to Hell? No, we don’t, because the person may have been mentally ill when they committed suicide, and we can’t know if God does not hold them culpable for the sin of suicide because they were not in their right mind (perhaps they were suffering from schizophrenia, perhaps the medication that they were taking for depression has side effects that we don’t understand … ).

• I don’t believe one can “judge” behavior, although one can “classify” behavior.*

We judge behavior all the time, because we must do this to navigate our way through life. Jury duty obliges us to judge the behavior of others. If a man running for the office of sheriff or President was a known liar and a racist, would not our judgment of that behavior affect the way we vote? Would a prudent parent hire as a babysitter a person that was a recently paroled sex offender?

 

[gnosys]

Are there moral absolutes? Christians, most theists of any kind and a fair number of non-theists would answer in the affirmative. Moreover, even those who deny the existence of moral absolutes as a matter of philosophical opinion are often – perhaps usually – unable to escape the inner certainty that certain acts are utterly, incontrovertibly wrong. There may be a host of matters, from homosexuality to preventive war, whose morality or immorality such people view as relative – personally or culturally determined. But if confronted with the Holocaust or brutal murders perpetrated by a serial killer or the systematic amputation of children’s arms (as has occurred in a current West African civil war), these people’s philosophical views are commonly trumped by an inescapable, unqualified outrage and condemnation (of the acts themselves, at least, if not of their perpetrators). Indeed, they may feel the same way about less gut-wrenchingly horrific matters such as political repression and injustice. In these contexts, any distinction between absolute and relative moral values occurs only on the level of abstract intellectual argument.

On the other side, however, many people who steadfastly believe in the existence of an absolute morality stemming from God might also subscribe to the tenet that human understanding – of God’s will or anything else – is essentially imperfect. The Bible may be unerring, but it is by no means unambiguous. Christians are apt to remember that it was long taught in many Christian churches that the Bible’s references to slavery were not merely an acknowledgement of slavery’s existence but indeed a positive endorsement of the institution. Even more humbling is the recollection of Christianity’s long history of – sometimes institutionalized – persecution of the Jews and other non-believers (not to mention the persecution of fellow Christians, often for the most trifling differences of doctrine). In short, the certainty that there exist an absolute Right and Wrong does not necessarily translate into a certainty as to exactly what that absolute Right and Wrong consist of.

Moreover, Christians labor under Christ’s precept “Judge not lest ye be judged,” which acts as a prophylactic against self-righteousness and intolerance.

My point is simply that moral relativism is a philosophical position which does not normally translate either into what moral absolutists would term “immoral” behavior or into an utterly permissive, laissez-faire attitude toward the behavior of others; nor does moral absolutism usually translate into the unquestioning zealotry of a Muslim extremist. By the same token, atheism is not necessarily a recipe for hedonistic abandon and anarchy, and religious conviction does not inevitably lead to jihad.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

I can tell you what relativism is because I found I was engaged in it while not comprehending it. I too was puzzled when I saw the headlines “Dictatorship of Relativism” and it gnawed at me for a while until I looked it up and I started with the simplest of definitions as found in the dictionary.

A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

It took some digging deep within to find out what this meant and I can tell you what it is with an analogy.

True North cannot be found by bending the compass needle in the direction we wish to go. North is North and we cannot head in any other direction and call it North.

I have found within my ownself that when I really wanted to engage in something that I sensed wasn’t proper according to Catholic teaching, I would look for any source to give me an “out” or an excuse to do what I wanted. This could have been some dissident Catholic or clergy, listening to “cafeteria Catholics” rather than digging deep for Truth. Digging deep may begin by reading what the Church says, then reflecting and most importantly, asking God to help us to understand the doctrine or tradition, especially if we disagree.

We cannot escape the responsibility that comes with calling ourselves Catholic. We cannot assume that our short time on this earth makes us wiser than the 2000 years of refined comprehension that the church has had on many issues. We cannot assume that the Holy Spirit ignores the Papacy and Magisterium and entrusts us individually with the keys of the kingdom.

When relativism flourishes, you could potentiall having a Catholic Church that attemps to bend in multiple directions at once while the faithful try to figure out which way is the right way. However, because it is a relativistic society, it wouldn’t matter to the people which way is right because those who subscribe to it feel that all should follow their conscience.

Sorry - this does not work. There cannot be 10 captains sailing a single ship and a single ship cannot head in 10 different directions. This is why Christ gave us the gift of the Papacy and the Magisterium and we are responsible for understanding it in its simplest terms.

With relativism comes complexity. “False” truth is dynamic and ever changing, where as Truth itself is static and always remaining in the same place. This is the gift that Jesus has given us and it is up to us to “ask and recieve” understanding. Some things he will give us deep understanding and ability to explain. Other things we will have to accept without understanding. This is the ultimate trust in the Holy Spirit.

I’ve corrected my course and I’m headed North, thanks to Pope Benedict and his loving admonition delivered that day. I did not know much of this man before he became pope, but he successfully won me over to be a “co-worker of Truth”.

There’s no greater enemy of relativism than one who has converted away from it!

Pax et Bonam!



Diane