"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest value one's own ego and one's own desires... The church needs to withstand the tides of trends and the latest novelties.... We must become mature in this adult faith, we must guide the flock of Christ to this faith"
Personally I agree.
The fun part is that anyone who disagrees is immediately a non-issue because their view is "relative"
2006-12-22 02:23:39 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Perhaps that last statement makes dialogue extremely difficult.
You have to then refer to some source as absolute, and because there is non-agreement on this, we have disasters like Iraq.
Democracy, while still flawed, allows not a dictatorship, but a community decision regarding morality that reflects the needs of a given culture and time. While this is relativistic, it is moderate, slow moving, and created in conversations rather than within our individual egos.
2006-12-22 02:30:33 · answer #1 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While I view everything as relative to a degree, I can definitely see the problem relativism presents. When there are no clear definitive set of rules and standards that are undeniable and unwavering, there will always be room for misinterpretation as to what is meant by Truth, Right vs. Wrong and Justice. This is a big threat to the morality of society, if nothing else.
2006-12-22 02:33:55 · answer #2 · answered by 11:11 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The opposite of relativism is absolutism. The problem with the Church's position is that it begs the question of whose "absolutes" ought to rule.
The Church's answer is "God's" or to appeal to "natural law". Ultimately this is a circular answer, because they are referring to their perception of god and their reading of "natural law".
I agree that relativism taken to extremes can be an absurd and morally bankrupt position. But you don't get around that simply by asserting your own supposed moral authority, as the Church is trying to do. The only way around the impasse is to go back to first principles shared with your opponent. Such almost universally shared principles do exist: the Golden Rule is an example.
2006-12-22 09:25:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not a big fan of this pope in particular (not that I'm a big fan of popes in general but you get the idea).
This pope is merely a puppet for the Bush "regime" and it's pretty sad to see such a thing from a figure that claims to be so holy. What a contradiction of terms. I think he says things because they sound good, not because he's serious about them. The church changes with each political situation and everyone knows that.
2006-12-22 02:34:58 · answer #4 · answered by aali_and_harith 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
For me relativism is ok. But of course, it's a personal opinion. I am not even sure of my opinion because i do not know the absolute truth. But for me, everything is a case to case basis. Do you know about Situation ethics? It is very similar to relativism. It talks about doing something out of Christian love. For example, when Jesus healed someone during Sabbath, he was criticized for it. Because the "law" forbids working during Sabbath. So, for me, it is really a case-to-case basis. Nothing should be definite. It is ok to break rules as long as it is for the good and does not harm anyone.
2006-12-22 02:33:09 · answer #5 · answered by Sirius 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I liked John Paul II more.
2006-12-22 02:31:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure it is, to the pyramid scheme he sits at the top of.
2006-12-22 02:49:50 · answer #7 · answered by corvis_9 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋