Relatively recent developments . . .

Reviewing the life story of Pope Benedict XVI, a couple of things stand out. First, there are his views on relativism and dictatorship:

As cardinal dean, Benedict was the principal celebrant and homilist at both John Paul’s funeral and at the special Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica on the opening day of the conclave.
It was at the latter that he warned his brother cardinals against the “dictatorship of relativism” and urged them to “resist the trends and novelties” sweeping the increasingly secularized West.
His choice of the word dictatorship is revealing: As a young man growing up in Nazi Germany, he has said he was profoundly repelled by Hitler’s ruinous corruptions of truth and morality.
According to his autobiography, Milestone: Memoirs: 1927-1977, he served in the Hitler Youth, a paramilitary organization of the Nazi Party, during World War II when membership was compulsory. But he was never a member of the Nazi Party and his family opposed Adolf Hitler’s regime, biographers have said.
“Neither Ratzinger nor any member of his family was a National Socialist,” John Allen, a Vatican expert, wrote in the biography Cardinal Ratzinger: The Vatican’s Enforcer of the Faith.
In his autobiography, Ratzinger described the Nazis as “fanatical ideologues who tyrannized us without respite.” He came to view the Catholic Church as the institution uniquely equipped to counter what he saw as forces that mocked or distorted traditional morals.
“Having seen fascism in action, Ratzinger today believes the best antidote to political totalitarianism is ecclesial totalitarianism,” Allen has written.

Does Pope Benedict really think that “the best antidote to political totalitarianism is ecclesial totalitarianism?” We have the word of a biographer of unknown origin, but I’d rather wait and see. Many of the Pope’s opponents are advocates of that odd mix of Catholicism and Marxism called “liberation theology” (which appears more Marxist than Catholic), and I for one enjoyed seeing Pope John Paul II scolding liberation theologists. But what I’d really like to see is more libertarian theology. Why is that such a rare species? This wonderful book on the subject makes an excellent case for Jesus as libertarian (“render unto Caesar” borders on being advocacy of separation of church and state), but they’re few and far between.
As to relativism, it’s one of those words like “liberal” and “conservative” which obfuscate more than they illuminate. It’s difficult to debate with someone who calls you a “relativist” when the very definition of the term is impossible without resort to, well, relativism! The way some people use it, it’s hurled as a borderline ad hominem label indicating the futility of debate. Like being called “Satanistic”, “Paganistic”, or “nihilistic.” These and other such words cut off rather than invite debate, because, in the absence of specific arguments, they substitute ad hominem labels for logic. It’s one thing to point out the fact that someone is a Republican or a Democrat (or a “Bush supporter” or “Kerry supporter”), but how is it helpful in assessing the validity of an argument for government health care?
What is a relativist? What is relativism? According to dictionaries (at least, this dictionary history), these are modern, philosophical terms:

The word relativism is defined as “any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments” (2). It is thought that this philosophy officially entered American dictionaries and/or texts around 1860-65(2). Indeed, Noah Webster’s first American Dictionary of the English language, published in 1828, provided a definition only for “relative” and did not contain a definition for relativity or relativism (3). However, more recent versions of Webster’s dictionary define both relative and relativity.
Interestingly enough, although the words “relative”, “relativity” and “relativism” are nearly identical, they have entirely different meanings with no perceivable relationship to each other. “Relative” is defined as “related to, referring to, having connection with; relevant, pertinent,” and “resulting from, dependent on, existing in relation to, connection with something else; proportionate, comparative; not absolute” (4). It is intriguing to note that the definitions of relativity and relativism ignore the precise context of the definition of “relative” and focus only on the “not absolute” component of the definition. In philosophy, relativity is defined as “the doctrine that knowledge is not absolute or positive, but depends on the relations in which things stand to each other, that it can be concerned only with such relations, and is limited by the changing conditions in of our perceptual faculties” (4). Relativism is defined as the “doctrine of those who maintain the relativity of knowledge”

That sounds like a mess. To think it started over a word having to do with “related.”
Here’s one organization’s view:

‘Relativism’ is a philosophical theory asserting that there is no absolute truth, only truth relative to the individual, or to a particular time or culture, or both. To put it another way, relativism may be defined as the radical denial of objectivity.

OK, I disagree with radical denial of objectivity. I believe to a moral certainty that there is such a thing as objective truth. (E.g. it is not raining outside right now.) Does this mean I am not a relativist? Not so fast. Relativism as the word is commonly used in politics (and religion) refers not to scientific relativism (such as Einsteinian Relativity), but moral relativism. But even there, there are problems. For it is not moral relativism to observe that, say, under Catholicism polygamy is forbidden as sinful, while under Islam it is permissible. Nor is it relativism to remark the obvious fact that these are moral judgments about the propriety of polygamy.
Philosophically, the confusion is not over the existence of the moral judgments, but over the appropriateness of judging the moral judgments. What’s most frequently referred to as “moral relativism” is the approach of saying, “Well polygamy is fine for Muslims, but not for Catholics.”
The fact is, that’s not an emotionally satisfying result for many people. They want answers, damn it. And who can blame them? What the hell is wrong with saying it’s wrong to have more than one wife? Why should that be impermissible? (And who gets to be permitted to be the tyrants of what is considered to be permissible and impermissible? The relativists?) Might that mindset be the “dictatorship” of which the new Pope complains? Well, I have no problem with saying and believing polygamy is wrong. There is an absolute right to hold and maintain one’s beliefs, and I think there’s something weak and wimpy about not doing so. What I do have a problem with (and where I draw the line) is resorting to force to impose that view on others who have done nothing to harm me. Does that make me a moral relativist? I don’t see how, but others do.
Tough to debate these things. I have touched on the subject earlier in my discussion of whether being conservative morally makes one a “moral conservative,” and concluded that it often does not!

Amazingly, one can be very conservative morally (even a total prude), yet not be considered a moral conservative. By today’s standards, “moral conservatism” has little to do with personal morality. Unless one wishes the government to dictate moral standards (including, if necessary, by the use of force), it is unlikely that the dominant moral conservative ideologists will allow one to make a claim of being a “moral conservative.” (You can be, for example, personally opposed to pornography, and even hate it, but unless you believe that the government should imprison people for it, you’ll be called “pro-pornography” and a “moral relativist.” On the other hand, you can be a drug-taking hedonist, and as long as you insist that these activities be criminalized, you’re a moral conservative. You’re judged not by what you do, but by what you’d force others to do.)

I’m afraid I’m with Thomas Jefferson on this one. If it doesn’t break my leg or pick my pocket, I’ll hold my nose and tolerate it even if I don’t like it. It remains to be seen what Pope Benedict will be willing to tolerate, although I hardly think he’s forcing anyone to join his church.
More remarkably, according to the Inquirer, the new pope has a fascinating history of “heresy”.

In 1951, Ratzinger and his brother Georg were ordained priests, and in 1953 he earned his doctorate in theology from the University of Munich.
In 1959, he became a full professor of theology at the University of Bonn. He served from 1962 to 1965 as the chief theological adviser to Cologne Cardinal Josef Frings at the Second Vatican Council, where he was regarded as one of the council’s more progressive thinkers.
In 1966, he was hired at the University of Tubingen at the encouragement of the liberal Hans Kung – whose theology he would later attack from his Vatican post.
Ratzinger’s turn to conservatism was fueled in large part by the violent student protests that swept much of Europe, including Germany, in 1968. He later left Tubingen, became a theological adviser to the German bishops’ conference, and in 1972 founded the magazine Communio, which offered a more traditional interpretation of the Second Vatican Council.
He was made archbishop of Munich by Pope Paul VI in 1977, and was elevated to cardinal the same year.

This past liberalism, I think, will earn him more enemies than his present conservatism. If there’s one thing worse than a conservative, it’s a conservative who used to be a liberal.
And if this New York Times analysis is correct, Ratzinger’s about-face was precipitated by his horror over what he considered a “neo-Marxist power grab.” As someone who was also horrified by Marxist tactics, I can’t help feeling some sympathy here. But the doctrinal differences still beg the question of what is relativism.
If Ratzinger can change his mind so dramatically, all is not absolute — even within the Catholic Church. His old mentor Hans Kung (whose History of the Catholic Church I highly recommend) was never excommunicated as he would have been in the old days…. To this day there remains substantial disagreement over his legacy within the Church heirarchy.
Relativism is relative, I suppose. . .
DEFINITIONAL NOTE: My Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second Edition (1957), which I consider the Rolls Royce of dictionaries, is not terribly helpful in defining relativism:

relativism n. a doctrine of relationism or of relativity, esp. relativity of knowledge. Cf. RELATIVITY OF KNOWLEDGE.

“Relativity of knowledge” is defined thusly:

The doctrine that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the condition of knowing and hence not true to the nature of independent reality. The doctrine has three forms which distinguish the schools of philosophy which accept it: (1) absolutely true knowledge is impossible because of the limitation and variability of sense perceptions; (2) reality as it is cannot be known by mind whose modes of thinking is and perception are essentially subjective; (3) thinking and perception seize relations (of one thing to another) only, and not the intrinsic nature of an object, and hence, are merely symbolic.

This is the sort of stuff with which Socrates and others spent lifetimes grappling and debating. I don’t see how one could form a dictatorship around any of it — at least not in the formal sense of the word “dictatorship.”
Now unless “dictatorship” is relative….. (I think that’s a good place to end this relatively useless debate with my relatively irrelevant self.)


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

7 responses to “Relatively recent developments . . .”

  1. Raging Bee Avatar

    “Relativism” is a code-word for “We deny the validity and even the very existence of any belief, moral code, or value system different from our own.” This has been a standard tactic of evangelists of all faiths: their only defense of their faith as the “one true faith” is to say there’s no other choice – except Satanism of course.

  2. retrofuturistic Avatar

    Speaking as a Catholic who is positively giddy over the elevation of Cardinal Ratzinger to Pope Benedict XVI, I want to comment on two of the thousands of points in your post:
    1. Jesus was NOT a libertarian. However, his comment “render unto Caesar” does not “border” on arguing for separation of church and state; it is stong unequivocal advocacy in favor of it. Christ was battling the pharisees. He was warning us that combining church and state was corrupting to both. There’s no “border” to it; he’s well behind enemy lines making this observation.
    2. I strongly disagree with your proposition (insinuation?) that Pope Benedict being a true neo-conservative (in its proper definition, one who started his adult life as a liberal and evolved into a conservative) is symptomatic of inherent relativism: i.e., there are no absolute truths because even he, the Pope, changed HIS mind, too. It’s not “changing your mind,” it’s growth. I once used to lay in a crib and scream if I didn’t have a bottle and pacifier. I don’t do that anymore. Did I change my mind about the virtues of screaming for a bottle and pacifier? Or did I simply … mature? I like to think it’s the latter. As we sing in the traditional hymn “Amazing Grace,” “was blind, but now I see.”
    Relativism is the idea that there are no absolute truths. What Pope Benedict, in his Cardinal Ratzinger incarnation, stated was that there are absolute truths. The fact that these absolute truths are revealed to us over time, and not all at once, is not the same thing as these truths never existing.

  3. retrofuturistic Avatar

    I’d trackback to you on my (even) more detailed thoughts on the above, but I don’t have a clue how that darn trackback works. So, instead, you can get to my thoughts by clicking on my name here.

  4. Eric Scheie Avatar

    Thanks for the thoughtful comment. (BTW, your comment feature didn’t work for that post; a problem I had at blogger.com too.)
    Considering the definition of relativism above

    any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments….

    Time is a relative thing, not only in the Einsteinian sense, but in the political sense. This led Churchill and others to opine famously,

    Any man who is under 30 and is not a Liberal has no heart; and any man who is over 30 and not a Conservative has no brains.

    While such temporal changes are not moral relativism in the sense that many people use the term (because we must assume that individuals grow with wisdom as they age), this is still relativism in the classical sense.
    In pointing this out, I did not intend to label Pope Benedict a “moral relativist.” Only to highlight the difficulty of dealing with loaded terminology. Your disagreement confirms the difficulty. But I still maintain that relativism is a relative term.
    🙂

  5. retrofuturistic Avatar

    And I must hold firm in my belief that the term “relativism” can be defined in absolute terms, otherwise … I have succumbed to the temptations of relativism itself. 😉

  6. Persnickety Avatar

    sure, one can define relativism in an absolute fashion, but people will relate to your definition in relative terms.
    la la la . . .
    Not sure where this goes in the general scheme of things, but as a matter of fact there are absolutes to all cultures.
    No murder
    no theft
    no incest
    religion
    music
    art
    Some cultures let you murder or rob outside the tribe, and incest definitions vary by -er- relative definitions (as in who’s your cousin). So your relatives are relative to your culture . .
    aw screw it, there’s beer in the fridge, let’s order a pizza!

  7. Bob Kunz Avatar
    Bob Kunz

    Check out the nominalism v. absolutes conflict, whose poster child seems to be a priest name of William of Ockham (c. 1280-1349), he of Razor fame.
    He’s credited with running point for the denial of absolutes, so essential to this relativism that has gained primacy over the zeitgeist (I include myself).
    Fascinating how long it takes for these things to work themselves out full-fruit to those of us on the street.
    Of course, now it’s on to the denial of philosophy altogether–as if by denying, we can avoid subjugation to our own personal (non-) philosophies. What a hoot.