CrossCurrents A Catholic Reflects on Faith in Our Times

CrossCurrents A Catholic Reflects on Faith in Our Times

Bernard F. Swain, Ph.D. www.CrossCurrents.us

Beware the New Relativism

In my work I meet a lot of confused Catholics. In fact much of my job these days seems to be about helping Catholics to clarify what their faith means in such difficult times. Unfortunately, many of the forces shaping public opinion make achieving such clarity more difficult than ever.

In particular, there seem to be many shapers of public opinion intent on muddying our values by promoting a kind of new relativism.

I’ve been hearing complaints about relativism since I was a college student in the ‘60s. People would complain that the youth culture believed that “everything is relative,” “nothing is sacred,” “there are no absolutes.” I often found such charges untrue or at least unfair, but these days I’m beginning to think that the same “anything goes” attitude toward values may be re-emerging in unexpected places. If I’m right, we Catholics need to be on guard.

The New Relativism takes a variety of forms, and comes from a variety of sources. But the common element is a desire to let personal preferences replace objectivity—while denying some things are objectively true and good. Here are the major examples:

1. Scientific relativism (“One theory is as good as another”): The battle over including “intelligent design” in school textbooks depends on the (usually unspoken) claim that, since a few scientists favor an alternative to the theory of evolution, that alternative should get equal time in the classroom. Similarly, some people will rationalize inaction about our climate crisis by arguing that global warming is “merely a theory”—as if a “theory” is the same thing as a merely “personal opinion.”

But major scientific discoveries often take the form of theories that explain known facts. When any such theory enjoys a consensus within the scientific community, it becomes the objective norm for dealing with the real world. So “evolution” is the consensus-approved theory for explaining the development of the human species. And “global warming” is the consensus-approved theory for explaining the disastrous facts in recent climatic trends around the world.

Other people are certainly free to offer other opinions –but they have no basis for claiming that those opinions deserve equal attention, or justify inaction. To make up alternative theories and pretend all theories just “opinions” of equal worth is a cop out: pure relativism.

2. Scriptural relativism (“One Gospel is as good as another”): The runaway success of The Da Vinci Code and the front-page media coverage of the Gospel of Judas both depended on the same idea: that newly recovered ancient texts about Jesus and early Christianity deserve equal rank alongside the established books of the New Testament like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Some people pretend that the scriptures we consider sacred were arbitrarily chosen, saying “history was written by the winners.” But there are objective reasons why the winners won! The accepted “canon” of New Testament scriptures passed tests others couldn’t. None of the other competing texts were as old, as consistent with the core of Christian belief, or as relevant to the universal practice and worship of the Christian community.

And what was true then remains true today. The existence of all of these “new” texts was well known before they were rediscovered, and the original reasons for rejecting them remain valid. As one scholar said, “they were junk then and they’re still junk now.”

This is probably over-stating the case, since some of these texts are extremely valuable, especially as archaeological finds. But to pretend they are “just as good” as the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament is pure relativism.

3. Military relativism (“One war is as good as another”): When citizens are exhorted to “support our troops,” that might simply refer to a humane concern about the well being of soldiers in the field. But too often the phrase is code camouflaging support for war policy itself. This is even more obvious when we’re told that war must continue “or those who died will have died in vain.” This intimidating psychic blackmail would have us believe that we dishonor those who have died by not believing in the war that got them killed—no matter what the circumstances of that war.

Once people accept this idea, the objective facts no longer matter. If the reasons for war were invented or mistaken, that does not matter. If the damage of war outweighs its benefit, that does not matter.

But in Catholic tradition, those things do matter. In our faith, there are objective moral standards for justifying the decision to go to war. And there are also objective moral standards for justifying the conduct of a war. Any war which, at any point in its history, fails to meet both sets of objective moral standards, is an unjust war. Soldiers who die in such a war not only die in vain, they die supporting an immoral course of action.

The objective truth is: a war where “anything goes” is never a just war. It is the war itself which dishonors the soldiers who die in it—not those who would rescue others from the same ignoble fate. To pretend otherwise is pure relativism.

4. Political relativism (“Democracy is whatever the people want”): We see this one all over: in people insisting that English must be the official U.S. language, in people promoting a flag-burning amendment, in people crying to deport illegal aliens, in people claiming the right to define marriage as they wish (whether they are for or against same-sex marriage). What all these people have in common is the belief that, in a democracy, “anything goes” as long as it reflects the will of the majority.

But both U.S. constitutional tradition and the Christian tradition have long since recognized a higher value. The U.S. Constitution enshrines civil rights above any mere legislation, and even a constitutional referendum is wrong if it violates a basic civil right. Catholic theology, meanwhile, has long recognized that unjust laws are not really lawful because they violate a higher moral and divine law. So, even illegal immigrants are exercising a human right to immigrate – a right which no government can morally violate. So some courts have determined civil marriage to be a civil right, and therefore entitled to anti-discrimination protection against the “tyranny of the majority.” These notions of civil rights, human rights, and a higher moral law all point to objective standards. In a true democracy, “the people” cannot have whatever they want without embracing pure relativism.

5. Humane relativism (“Different lives have different values”): This one is everywhere as well: in the insistence that a woman’s body is more important than her unborn child’s (or vice versa), in the attitude that 130,000 Iraqi dead are not as newsworthy as 2500 U.S. soldiers, in the general view that the mistreatment of detainees, or prisoners of war, or suspected terrorists, or ordinary convicted felons, or even gays, is less worrisome than the mistreatment of someone we know.

But Christian tradition (as well as the Declaration of Independence) is absolutely clear on this: every life is sacred and equal in the eyes of God. Respect for life can make no distinctions between mother and child, citizen and alien, friend and foe. Every life is precious, and every life lost is tragic. To pretend otherwise, to elevate some lives over others, is pure relativism.

All these examples beg the same questions: why do people promote such silliness? And why do others fall for it?

I can’t help but believe the answer is: self-deception. It is human nature (“fallen” human nature, anyway) to resist values that demand our sacrifice and suffering, to balk at standards of conduct that don’t appear to serve our selfish interests. So we make stuff up to rationalize our resistance, we live in denial of the truth, and we justify our views and behavior by pretending to ourselves that one opinion (namely, our own) is as good as another.

This may be a very convenient philosophy of life, but it is neither the Catholic way, nor the Christian Way. It’s only natural we would be tempted by it, but we should never be fooled by it. And when it is all around us, as it is today, our faith must be a vigilant faith. To paraphrase a great moral leader: You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool God anytime.

Send Your Comments and Questions to bfswain@juno.com

Dr. Swain’s opinions do not represent the views of this parish or any other official body.

Bernie Swain has devoted more than 30 years to adult spiritual formation in dioceses in the US, Canada, and France. Since 1991 he has maintained a private practice as trainer, teacher, and consultant to leaders in parishes and other religious organizations. He holds degrees in theology and political science from Holy Cross, Harvard, The University of Paris, and The University of Chicago.

His writings include Liberating Leadership (Harper & Row, 1986) and more than 200 articles in periodicals such as The National Catholic Reporter, Commonweal, The Miami Herald, The Catholic Free Press, The Pilot, Harvard Theological Review, and Liturgy.

A lifelong layperson, he lives in Boston with his wife and three children. Visit his website at:

http://www.CrossCurrents.us

CrossCurrents

Is a weekly subscription service for parish websites.

Individual Subscriptions are also available.

For Information, contact bfswain@juno or call 617-282-0183