The words of German psychologist and philosopher Karl Jaspers were prophetic when he
said, “If I suppress something that I
consider absolute, automatically, another absolute takes its place” (Jaspers, K., Filosofía, I,
p. 385, English translation mine).
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger warned us,
in a homily that he delivered on the eve of the conclave that elected him Pope
Benedict XVI in 2005, against the “dictatorship of relativism” that
characterizes our age.
I don’t want to sound like a prophet of doom but I simply
wish to call our attention on this dangerous phenomenon because “to be
forewarned is to be forearmed”.
But when you hear news like these: “US Supreme Court rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional”; “Pro-family leaders: Expect ‘persecution
from the government’ over gay ‘marriage’; and “Traditional marriage supporters in short supply at US Supreme Court”,
you will surely begin to understand Jaspers and Card. Ratzinger.
Once you suppress the absolute moral truths on marriage (as the sacramental union
between man and woman), on life (as a
gift from God that we should protect from womb to tomb), and on human sexuality (as designed by the
Creator as naturally to be male and female, hence, are not within the arbitrary
choice of any human person), another treacherous “absolute” will take its
place: the “absolute dictatorship of relativism”.
Curiously, relativism, whether moral (that what is good or
evil depends on one’s opinion or personal situation) or epistemological (that
truth is relative), is self-destructive; hence, it is difficult to sustain. For
instance, if you say that we have to respect everybody’s opinion on the
morality of same-sex marriage for the sake of moral pluralism and peaceful
coexistence, naturally we may have peace. But we don’t have truth because
everybody’s subjective but different opinions – including the contradicting
ones – will be all true.
As the motto of DCHerald
says, “In truth, peace”. Peace
without truth is superficial and momentary. Within a pluralistic and
relativistic society, anyone who would affirm the existence of absolute moral
truth would be suppressed and would be considered a threat to this fickle peaceful
situation. Intolerance would be the name of the game. Relativism becomes its
rule. Those who would defend the absolute moral truth would face persecution
from those who claim that “moral truth is relative”.
Here’s the twist: Those who claim that “truth is relative”
must admit that this claim is absolute. Otherwise, it would not be true. For if
“moral truth is relative” is a subjective affirmation, then, the claim is not
true to everybody. However, if the claim “moral truth is relative” is a true
absolute assertion, then, truth is not
relative but absolute. Thus, we see that relativism is self-contradictory
and is impossible to defend.
But a relativist person is like an alcoholic: she is not
aware of it, nor admits it. Here lies the danger of relativism: she may not
know it, a relativist person has already done havoc to the moral fiber of the
society.
Oftentimes, the cure to this ill comes with rigorous
awareness of one’s relativist mentality. In order to help our young people
avoid this danger, sound doctrinal formation is a must. Parent and educators
may begin by explaining to young minds the absurdity and the danger of the
“dictatorship of relativism”.
No comments:
Post a Comment