So much of relativism is simply the result of pride in one's own intellect as opposed to 2,000 years of teaching by the Church and more than double that for the entire Judeo-Christian tradition.
Pride is such a dangerous vice but ultimately such a puny one. But it deludes those which it possesses into thinking that they have such wonderfully unique thoughts, when, in fact, they are nickel-a-dozen opinions. When we review what Sullivan, Curran, McBrien, Greeley, Drinan, Chittister, ad absurdum, have so say, it's like a chorus of brightly plumed parrots in an humid aviary.
Yes, indeed. "Pride is a dangerous vice." And it ravages even those who aspire to stand four square with truth!
Who would disagree with the universal judgment that, upon self- examination, every man can expect to find themselves tainted with pride? And tainted in primary colors! It's not just Sullivan, Curran, McBrien, Greeley, Drinan, and Chittister who are guity. It is everyman. No man is exempt. Each person is enveloped in unique ways by pride. Mercy is required by all.
Thus it would seem that the most proper form of dialogue would refuse the temptation to make glib remarks about others. Casting aspersions on those with whom we disagree seems hollow, even if truth is at stake. And it is.
It seems increasingly in Catholic circles that N. Hawthone's "The Scarlet Letter" has become resurrected as a debating technique. Brand someone with the letter "A" (Apostate) and the argument against them is gleefully won. Such is the aspersion "cafeteria Catholic."
Yet, to succumb to this tendency is in itself an act of pride, is it not?
Wouldn't a more appropriate course be to comprehend and engage differences at a deeper intellectual level (the Why question comes to mind!). In adopting this approach, we may even discover our own intellectual shortcomings. And that would be a great gain, I would think!
Intellectual reconciliation and moral reconciliation are two different moments in the life of an individual. Both require love.
It's impressive that the Pope himself reminds all the world that he is merely a servant of the Truth, who cannot change anything (see his amazingly beautiful sermon in the Lateran Basilica yesterday), yet these "dissenters" claim to be the masters of "truths" -- and we should all accept their distortions out of some romantic idea of "love", Jerry?
What is "love" without Truth?... It's certainly not the virtue of Charity!
When someone calling himself a civil rights leader dares to challenge the status quo, people from all the corners except the one he advocates pillory him. Surely when someone claiming loyalty to the Church refuses to print solidly Catholic work, which is of infinitely greater value than mere civil rights, this man should be pilloried from all honest corners.
In the vocabulary of America, we all know what an "Uncle Tom" is, or an "Oreo" -- and a prolife Democrat is assured not to be given a speaking post in prime time. Why then, is it so surprising that the Church should require of those claiming to publish in her name actually publish what she teaches?
Let the reform of the reformers continue.
Chris
New Catholic,
Your response is appreciated. From what I can discern, we are in agreement on your major point. The Pope is stellar in his defense of Truth. I, like you, hope he continues his efforts. And I hope to continue following his lead, and those Popes before him, as I have done to the best of my ability, both personally and professionally these too many years. Between us, there is no issue here.
Going further, it is my preference not to focus on the thoughts of minor "dissenters." No matter how significant they may appear to be, they are really small morsels in a seething caldron.
The issue confronting the Church, and Benedict XVI, is much, much larger than a "dissenter" here and a "dissenter" there, no matter his or her stature or the extent of his or her affiliations. Of greater significance are the forces of nominalism, voluntarism, Protestantism, empiricism, rationalism, scientific rationalism -- and the list goes on.
All these 'isms' are at bottom anti-intellectual. They share one thing in common. They deny the capacity of the intellect to know truth, and they deny the existence of the proper object of the intellect, namely, universals embedded in extra-mental reality.
Given this intellectual ethos, truth does not and cannot exist precisely because the intellect has no capacity to know truth and because, even if it did, it has no proper object.
It is this ethos -- an ethos that has shaped civilizations, cultures, national identities, national policies, and personal lives for centuries -- that constitutes the central battleground in the struggle against the 'dictatorship of relativism'. And it is at this level that the challenge must be engaged. Otherwise we fail.
What I'm looking for in the ensuing dialogue is the development of a language and leadership among us that can address the central issue of truth in a manner that is intellectually compelling. An Either/Or juxtiposition of Truth and romantic love -- and claims about the moral superiority of truth over 'romantic love' -- cannot be an adequate response in today's world. Why? Because the world has already declared that truth does not exist. And second, because spiritual alienation runs deep and only love can heal spiritual alienation.
And so, one must be aware that a deeper level, the issue is even more profound than the claim that truth is relative. The issue is that truth does not exist at all.
Given this anti-intellectual climate, love tends to be more persuasive to the majority of individuals than truth. Why? It is the only antidote to spiritual alienation.
Finally, you ask: "What is "love" without Truth?... It's certainly not the virtue of Charity!"
The answer: You are correct. There is no love without truth, or some semblance, just as there is no truth without love, or beauty, or goodness. Love is the highest form of Truth, just as Beauty is the radiance of Love. And it goes on. But
(Continued from above)
But today, truth is missing in action and people will turn to some form of love, whether romantic, sexual, or otherwise. And this is joined with the impulse to power, wealth, and reputation which are further salves for spiritual alienation.
Dear Philip Blossser,
Though eternally grateful to you for the inspired advice you gave me in 1983, I am sad to see you so entirely uncritical of my former teacher the present Holy Father. His vision of Catholicism is simply too tight and too narrow. Unfortunately, this narrowness is not just a defect such as we often meet in debating clubs from Catholics of the Bellow-Waugh stamp. It is both theologically more powerful and more disinterested and humanly more destructive.
Anyway, best wishes,
Joe
Joseph O'Leary,
What a wonderful surprise to hear from you! The "advice" I rendered you, as I recally, was in a Japanese restaurant in Pittsburgh where I told you how one could make about $75/hour teaching English in Japan. I was surprised indeed when, about a month letter, I got a card from you in Tokyo. I think I learned that you were also doing some teaching at Sophia U, where I graduated long ago. I trust you're doing more than making money hand over fist anyway.
You say you're sad to see me uncritical of the other Joseph, not O'Leary but Ratzinger. Such judgments, of course, are always a measure of one's perspective. I felt the copies of your articles you gave me at Duquesne were too uncritical of the assumptions of existential theology emanating from the influence of the Heideggerian critique of "onto-theological traditions" of the kind critiqued by Roger Johnson in The Origins of Demythologizing.
I'm sure we could have a stimulating conversation over a cup of coffee sometime when I'm in Tokyo. In the meantime, how about purchasing one of my son's coffee mugs from his Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club website, like the one that says "Putting the smackdown on heresy since 1981," or one of the mugs from his Pope Benedict XVI Fan Club website, like the one that says "The cafeteria is closed"?
Dear Philip -- well, I've surely become more critical of the Heideggerian project, though still interrogating the patristic synthesis of Bible and metaphysics critically. And thanks for remembering those days.
Joe
A friend of mine shares your military humor:
http://ressourcement.blogspot.co...ect-of-
cdf.html
http://www.nationalcatholicrepor...e/
ud051305b.htm
America is a too conservative mag for my tastes and its title is idolatrous, but the following articles suggest that once again the church, misled by nervous nellies of the catholic right, has shot itself in the foot.
All contributors to this blog take note: "America is a too conservative mag for my tastes".
Explain, please, how any Catholic who loves the Church can possibly utter such drivel. No doubt Joe condemns the abuse of children by priests (as rightly he should, as should all rightminded people) but is a card carrying member of NAMBlA -- the National Association of Man/Boy Love of America.
cdd6dd 709cc45651
Commenting by HaloScan
