The dictatorship of relativism
This was a term I hadn’t seen before: “The dictatorship of relativism.” In his Jan. 2 opinion piece, Mark Thiessen bemoans the passing of Pope Benedict and the papacy of Pope Francis.
It turns out the late Pope Benedict was famous for this passage. Thiessen, in his article, contrasts Benedict’s adherence to dogma and tradition versus Francis’s “sowing of confusion over clarity,” a “dictatorship of relativism,” as Pope Benedict put it. As I read it and pondered my spiritual journey, I found myself in disagreement with someone considered one of the 20th century’s greatest theologians, Pope Benedict, and Mark Thiessen, with whom I disagree often.
To be clear, philosophy and religion are not my best subjects. As Edie Brickell puts it in her popular song “What I Am,” “I’m not aware of too many things, I know what I know, if you know what I mean.” Benedict spent his life in study; I, not so much. So who am I to refute this much-researched thesis, the “dictatorship of relativism,” as stated by the former head of the Catholic Church?
Having grown up Catholic, I was inculcated in Catholic creeds, ritual and dogma dating back centuries. In addition to a religious strictness unappealing to me as an Italian immigrant’s child in America, the Church carried the sins of centuries of un-Christlike geopolitical interventions. By my high school years, I had rejected this religion. In my young adult years, I embraced a born-again type of teaching, only to find it had its share of dogma and hypocrisy. Perhaps I became the posterchild for Benedict’s “dictatorship of relativism” as I came to believe my relationship with God was personal, not one driven by any creed or scriptural dogma.
Benedict (and Thiessen) suggest today’s ills are borne from this relativism and they may be right. Lacking this historical and moral structure, society seems to be reeling into an unknown, frightening place. In a world where “everything is OK,” everything is not OK.
It’s plausible today’s chaos could in part be due to this “dictatorship of relativism.” What is right and what is wrong seems fuzzier now than before. Certainly, for my generation, the rapid changes in our world and what seems like society’s permissiveness are unsettling. But what is the alternative? A return to dogma — the authoritarianism of thought, spirit and ideas? Does the Church, any church, or any book for that matter, get to dictate what to believe and how to think?
When I turned away from religion, I didn’t turn away from God. Rather, I felt I was simplifying, much like Jesus did: When asked by the Pharisees which is the greatest commandment, Jesus replied: “Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
To me, that was liberating. I could live a life free from the dogma guided by a spirit and these simple commandments. As we all know, that’s a challenge in itself and by no means do I claim success. No matter our intentions, we fail. This is not the fault of relativism, but of our innate weakness.
The Oxford dictionary defines relativism as the “doctrine that knowledge, truth and morality exist in relation to culture, society or historical context, and are not absolute.” For Benedict to call relativism a “dictatorship,” Benedict has to twist our understanding of dictatorship. Relativism allows each person to make their own decisions and all of us will make those in the context of our “culture, society or historical context.” We are all relativists, to some degree, even Benedict. Wasn’t he a product of the “culture, society or historical context” of the Holy Roman Empire?
While each person can choose their own faith, society does have a responsibility to teach values and construct boundaries. We make laws, driven by our concepts of right and wrong. We are not just relativists who can think or do whatever we want. We (generally) follow these laws. We have institutions to enforce these laws. You can’t just do whatever you want.
One could argue the world would be a better place if we had absolute truths, more rigid societal norms, and benign dictatorships of government and religion that create stability. No matter how we spin this, these “dictatorships,” these absolute truths, are according to someone, which is still relativism.
Brickell continues: “Philosophy is a walk on the slippery rocks. Religion is a light in the fog.” Over the years, I’ve mellowed. Time has shown me Catholicism and many other religions are good faith attempts by those with sincerely held beliefs to help people find a spiritual home in an ever-chaotic world. I applaud their efforts. But if democracy is what allows us our precious freedoms, then relativism is the democraticization of religion that allows each of us to decide what to believe.
Edie finishes: “Chuck me into shallow waters before I get too deep.” Perhaps I should have heeded her words. Take this for what it’s worth. I get my “verses” from Edie Brickell and Benedict poured over Scripture and thousands of years of other scholars’ work, but “I know what I know, if you know what I mean.”