Heresy of Relativism, or How Evil Became Good, and Good Was Evil

For the 4th episode of the PCh24.pl series about “modern heresies” are invited by Fr.

Click HERE and see all published in this chat series

"There is no discrimination between fact and error, between what is right and what is wrong; it all depends on someone's point of view," Archbishop Fulton Sheen defined in his book War and Revolution the heresy of Relativism. Heresy, which is constantly gaining strength and worse – heresy, possibly unconsciously, but nevertheless, is supported by any priests and even hierarchs. Why has this heresy (unfortunately) been so successful?

The request for differentiation is the basis of wisdom, since, according to ancient maxim, a wise man is able to organize (sapientis est ordinare). The multiplicity of viewpoints and subjective feelings do not mean that you cannot point to the truth, but attest to the effort to integrate and confront. Unfortunately, today's culture is governed by "emotivism", which has become the regulation of assessing everything and thus leads to relativism. There are different ways to experience certain truths, but you gotta agree on the fact itself. It's a bit like with the "keys" in music, which make the same note play differently, you can do it in many ways, but you gotta agree on the notes themselves. Therefore, the crisis of fact lies at the root of this heresy, as if the first conviction of the Gospel were denied, "You will know the fact and the fact will set you free" (Jn 8:32). I feel that present this conviction has been deliberately reversed and freedom has become the basis for establishing the truth. The fact about class struggle, about gender...and the aversion to an institution specified as the Catholic Church – an aversion that is born from the demands of enlightenment and so comes from the belief that 1 must be liberated from the templates and conventional visions, in the spirit of Kantowska the principle: "Tear to be wise" (Bombere aude!So halt listening to tradition, you gotta think alone due to the fact that institutions are bad, they have their interests, etc. Since then, however, it has appeared that there is no ‘pure’ entity, allegedly free from external influence, and the fundamental question is whether the entity is aware of this influence. The perfect of freedom must not be linked to simple release from others, casting dependence, but reaching the truth.

The heresy of relativism has been successful, that is to say, due to good "packaging", and we frequently buy through this prism, it is frequently said that we "buy with sight" and based on impressions, which means that combining relativism with respect for another points of view is an crucial motive for its acceptance. But if you think about it any longer, respect for others is not a deficiency of consequence erstwhile individual closes up in an information bubble or loses his orientation in the field. Telling Him in specified confusion, e.g. in the forest, that all directions are good, and where he wants to admit that it is north, that it is impossible to find it, this is surely not the aid of specified a man.

And it is worth noting that relativism is comfortable, being thrown out of action, due to the fact that if there is no fact or sin, then there is no request to react.

Are there any values or anti-values that have always been, are and will be good or bad? erstwhile specified value was marriage, but present on the 1 hand we read about partnerships, on the another hand about LGBT “marriage” and on the another hand about polygamy... The same applies to anti-value. Until recently, the anti-value was sodomy, and present it is for many "normal" and "basic human right"...

The language of “value” suggests a certain subjectivity, although it became fashionable in the 20th century, as it utilized to be a more nonsubjective category of “good”, specified as Thomas of Aquinas. Good is unchanging, even if only partially recognized or not recognized. In the case of value/value, it is about judgment, hence the temptation to treat everything according to “own measure”, subjectively and relatively.

Hence, the close way is to manipulate or revalue existing values, so to indicate what is, what is no longer, and what should be the alleged "value" ... after all, this was the proposal of Frederick Nietzsche from more than 100 years ago, to redefine all existing values in European culture. And specified an operation is actually a change of ‘grammatics’ in spoken language: let's effort this experiment... You can see from the outset that you cannot bet on relativism in this respect due to the fact that it will make false and incomprehensible sentences appear. It is simply a dangerous process, due to the fact that it is taking over discourse and establishing a fresh morality, and it is seen, for example, in companies that specify circumstantial moral codes for workers erstwhile applying for work. Many of specified companies, unfortunately, do tests or employees believe that the "Christmas Day" is coming or will usage the enigmatic phrase "winter holidays", thus controlling the value of how we turn to corporate correspondence.

When was it born to believe that what is right and right and what is incorrect and wicked was decided by the majority? After all, it was “most” who sentenced Jesus to death...

... and at the same time, in Christianity, from the beginning there was respect for the voice of all in the Church, resulting from the convictions of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, who leads the Church as a community (not only a part of this community, for example, only shepherds of the Church) on the way to the heavenly homeland. This has been confirmed in the belief that there is simply a certain "mind of the religion of God's people," a sense of what is the fact of religion and what is the imitation of which to lead Christian life in order to accomplish the goal of holiness. specified a look gave emergence to celebrated sayings like vox populi, vox Dei, the voice of the people with the voice of God.

However, this rule was not understood sociologically, but theologically. Hence, in a time erstwhile many Christians followed the heresy of arianism, which claimed that Christ was not the natural boy of God, but a man who was adapted to be the boy of God, this seemed in harmony with ancient culture, not to give emergence to tensions and strife. religion in the case of arianism entered – like a cake mould – into existing intellectual schemes, they began to dictate religion in what they could and could not claim, alternatively of forming fresh intellectual categories. Then St. Atanasia, possibly in the sociological minority, was an expression of the religion of the Church, due to the fact that he kept faithfully the Gospel and did not want to sale it at the price of compromises with the arianism, who claimed that the boy of God did, but not true, but adopted; alternatively of God of God, the arians preferred: God of man, not so much begotten as the Catholic religion claims what created in the arian opinion. To this day, this anti-Aryan dimension sounds in credo.

He who is faithful to the Gospel and surrenders his head to Christ, and not vice versa (Christ would give judgement to the measurement of his mind), he has the most to say, he has "most"--for Christ tilts the statistic in his favour and wins all vote, He has a majority in the Church...

Unfortunately, the sociologistic perception of religion was born in a modern context, where the model of the state began to be linked to the fact that interior clashes in society did not occur, people did not kill each other, the state was expected to keep order among citizens, and then the arithmetic majority began to play an increasingly crucial role. The belief that we are listening not to who is right, and who is shouting louder and having more supporters comes from my feeling of this new, far from the medieval imagination of the political community. Then the convictions about the necessity of imposing solutions on others “for the sake of the general good”, the dominance of any over others (the perfect of discipline itself began to be linked to the regulation of nature, the effective usage of it, and not the cognition of fact itself). Tolerance resulting from fear of fragile state balance will be the ideal.

How does the Catholic Church realize tolerance?

It's interesting that the deadline tolerare In general, it concerns putting up with, for example, another people, and thus the endurance of a certain pressure, so it is simply a attitude akin to patience in experiencing any evil or adversity. In turn, over the years or decades, he began to mean something else, again mainly from modern times – as a consequence to conflicts that were suffered by states in the 17th and 18th centuries. It ceases to be a negative concept—to endure opposites—to the positive, i.e. affirmation of the views of others, forced consent to the acceptance of the views of another people.

Today, as a result, many believe that tolerance should accept one's views, e.g. regarding sex or the moral assessment of certain phenomena (e.g. abortion), to argue this is an expression of intolerance and thus aggression. Meanwhile, Christendom distinguishes itself from a fundamental matter: respect for a person, but not unconditional acceptance of his views. Views can or should be assessed, cannot be ‘tolerated’. Paradoxically, in the age of disinformation we see clearly that tolerating fakenews brings much harm. We must return to the medieval rule of argument – as we have in St. Thomas' Summ of Theology, which is based on the necessity of justification. religion cannot be proved, but 1 can justify why we believe. It was a truly crucial culture of argument that characterized the mediate Ages.

Can it be argued that false tolerance is present the main weapon of relativism? The liberal planet proclaims that we are to tolerate everything, including errors, distortions, heresies, etc. If we don't do this, we're full of hatred homophons, racists, xenophobics, anti-Semites, etc.

This is simply a strategy based on expanding the concept of freedom, which is well associated, but in subsequent stages it goes beyond what is related to freedom. After all, freedom is in the service of something more, it is simply a freedom “for something”, it has a purpose, so it is shaped by values. It's not a blind force, freedom doesn't mean to want anything you want... It's not about freedom, it's about choice, it's about good choice. If choice were the essence of freedom, then free would be those who choose evil, e.g. with addictions, their freedom, and it would be absurd for freedom to lead to non-freedom. So freedom to specify itself needs good, to trust on what is right and true.

The paradox of liberalism with its slogan that everything must be tolerated is besides that it is always a unilateral declaration: we are to tolerate everything, but not those who cannot tolerate tolerance...

Can a Catholic “tolerate” sin, or, for example, not reproving a sinner, claiming that it is not his business that everyone has his own head and is liable for himself, etc.?

These are delicate issues, due to the fact that the question is not whether, but "how" – that is, how to act, not to exacerbate evil, but to extract infirmity from the enchanted circle. Catholicism is about “truth in love”, not obsession with revealing... The fact can be said in many ways, the question of whether I want it good or my deepest motivation.

Therefore, the Christian tradition of reproving—especially in the case of public sin—was clear, intended to "get a brother" (cf. Mt 18:15) and put it in an appropriate form: otherwise he reproves his husband's wife, parent of a daughter, or friend, or superior. It varied in the case of manifest sin and personal, not in the case of exhibitionism, but in the case of restoring good and knowing that we are like vessels connected, it matters what the another does. Today, so much is said about the alleged freezing effect, or mostly how the action of an individual can affect others, e.g. their fear of action. We see how “approval” in advance, acceptance of behavior, affects others. So the question is: who sets these dogmas of modernity? For example, erstwhile it comes to Christianity, he cannot be allowed to make moral judgments – The Church has no right to reprove anyone in liberal society – but another institutions, foundations can, imposing certain assessments separated from nonsubjective truth.

The argument that everyone has their own head is selective again, due to the fact that it clearly does not work in education, in professional work, where 1 focuses on, for example, tutoring, support by another, listening to "his mind", that is the regulation of enquiry into something meaningful, to master fresh competences.

So this argument is unreasonably working, “everyone has his own mind,” just as it is said on the 1 hand that the kid should decide on his religion erstwhile he is an adult, so any parents will not baptize him ... but on the another hand, in the case of education, we do not think so anymore, we decide for the kid by sending him to school or conducting home education. In 1 subject, yes, in the other. Why? It seems to me that sometimes behind the claims that everyone has their own head stands to go easy, throw responsibility... and make ideological choices.

How, therefore, are we to separate the rightness of our Catholic origin from the rightness of our enemies, for example, the enemies of the Church and Christ the Lord? If right and incorrect are dependent on the individual ‘seeing’, is that even possible?

Of course, it is possible, otherwise it would not be possible to talk of ethics in which since antiquity it is referred to as "the right" action, and the ability to separate is crucial. The virus or heresy of relativism is simply a disarming before the enemy's attack, a superb enemy movement that doesn't even gotta attack due to the fact that it won a cognitive struggle, on perception, put in a series of lies.

So the problem is absolutization, putting 1 aspect at the expense of the other, due to the fact that delight note that in ethical discernment we have 2 principles: conscience and moral law, and the problem is that either it is said that conscience is to find (subjective option), or only the letter of moral law (objective option), alternatively of combining both aspects. Many absolutize, for example, liturgy, morality, or dogmatics, making them "lonely islands", while liturgy, life, dogmatics are blood circulation, it must drive each other, not be taken out in context and treated in isolation from others. How I live comes from what I believe!

There are many ways to check the rightness, for example, Christ spoke about the logic of the fruit, and so you gotta look at whether there are any sacrifices... if any ideology is considered right, and does not lead to raising the moral level, if it introduces into confusion, people do not know who they are, there is more and more despair, depression, that is, something is not working. Meanwhile, our civilization refuses to admit it and hides it from the looks of others.

Another standard of fairness is the fidelity of tradition – delight note the disregard for the past we are dealing with today. It is referred to as "resets", undermines the drawing up of historical contexts, counts the balance of profits and losses on "today". unusual supporters of relativism are afraid of history, due to the fact that it shows that claims akin to those that have raised long ago led to disaster. Sailors who will say they have the right navigator saying that the north is there and the another one, that the another way, and that each 1 is right, will not scope the port.

‘Our journalists, educational staff, our cinemas, mass books, our courts and even any churches – all these environments have been cutting off from moral law for years, excluding its application first in the sphere of politics and economy, then families, and then individuals. They were ridiculed and mocked at those who inactive held on to moral laws, calling them reactionary, backward, labeling purity and honesty with the aid of Marx's terminology as bourgeois virtues. Now the same people tell us that all we gotta do about evil is forget about it, and religion and morality can be driven back to civilization, as you bring the goods to the drugstore," writes Archbishop Fulton Sheen. What more can I say? I guess it's just that after 80 years of making this diagnosis, it's the same, just more, right?

Exactly, due to the fact that the fruits of rejecting moral law are not immediately felt, it is like a slow erosion that destroys the dam and in a minute water will pour out with large destructive force. But... this dam strengthens, not protects in the face of challenges. In the meantime, questioning ethics as specified due to the relativistic approach is weakening this "tama". Although it would be better to usage the image of the riverbed that allows the river to flow, not to focus on ethics as stopping or holding back, due to the fact that ethics is given to make man happy, not to hinder his life, to impose bans for bans. Happiness requires certain decisions, resignations, but besides a happy responsibilities. Let us not let ourselves be disgusted by the notion of morality, due to the fact that it is simply a immense problem: everything is done to make being morally good associated with following the prohibitions themselves.

Unpredictiveness in this regard, in the belief that 1 click can reconstruct lost values, for example, is simply a dream. It rebuilds generations. Therefore, it is crucial to strategy – somewhat guerrilla – to hold back the way of hostile forces towards civilization. If it is impossible to convince that the heresy of relativism is simply a tragedy, then let us weaken its strength. Showing the fruits of relativism and the request to reconstruct the concept of “truth”.

Archbishop Sheen quoted in the above message “some churches”. I think this is the key to defining the current confusion. If you'll excuse me, I'd like to rise a few... controversial issues that occurred during the pontificate of Pope Francis. First, the issue of Holy Communion for Divorcers. It was on the occasion of this case and the endorsement of the “Amoris laetitia” that the word “recognition” did a large deal. What is discernment if not an incentive to moral relativism?

Indeed, there are different kinds of discernment, due to the fact that any may be an incentive for moral relativism, and others may be an incentive not to throw in a single bag situations of different and conscious choice of the way of good. An nonsubjective moral standard – expressed in a negative version, e.g. don't kill, don't bargain – is not subject to suspension, although there are situations, e.g. defence of the homeland, where a soldier defends borders and deprives the enemy. However, he is the 1 who takes his own life by attacking another country, not a defender.

And on the second point: There are many forms of communion with the Church, this Eucharistic 1 expresses nonsubjective fact and is an crucial sign, besides for those who cannot join it for nonsubjective reasons. Christians have always pointed to the “difficult” path, which raises the bar, as indicated by St.John Paul II, and I think that the rations presented by him are convincing and clearly illustrate why it is not worth diluting Christianity's consent to break the cohesion of religion expressed in Eucharistic communion. Discrimination, which would be de facto specified dilution, yet brings spiritual harm. It forks the spiritual orientation of people who request information about where the “north” is, so that they can then set different directions.

Discernment is, however, widely present in the lives of Christians, it is worth noting, e.g. in holy confession, we admit spiritual inspirations, whether they come from God or Satan, but besides on the occasion of moral dilemmas, so this art is needed, due to the fact that we effort to say all step, that everything matters due to the fact that it is the same.

How should a Catholic discern? I get the impression that you are trying to smuggle into our religion Protestant elements – no substance what you do; it is crucial that you have a calm conscience and that no remorse bites you. If they don't bite, you didn't do anything wrong...

Catholicism is characterized by something else, namely “and one” (consumation) “and the other” (objectual moral law). This "and" is crucial due to the fact that there is no "or", either conscience or moral law. Integrating these 2 principles is our Catholic way of life. It's not easy, it's true, but no remorse is not enough. St. Paul said that even erstwhile conscience does not throw anything away, it is not enough... We have a lot in common with Protestant theology, but there are besides many differences and it is worth not letting our Catholic identity blur.

The next issue is alleged ecumenism. There have been many – in my opinion – dangerous voices from the clergy in fresh months, specified as the message that God wants diversity of religions. How do specified declarations, for example, relate to six truths of faith? Isn't this all going besides far??

Ecumenism is simply a way of building unity among Christians, that is, the central road, not the centrifugal road. We know that being Catholic is expressed in many ways, e.g. we have Catholic east churches, with a different liturgy than the Western one. This is clearly seen in the liturgy, where we have Ambrosian, Spanish, Roman engravings in both forms. Unity does not mean uniformity, flattening, simplification to 1 acceptable model.

But what is different is to say that the multitude of religions is wanted by God. This is not part of the Catholic teaching that God wants unity of faith. Christ is not 1 of many, but individual irreplaceable. And the Church is not “one of many options”, but the way God wants to reconcile the planet with himself. another religions must in any way be in relation to the Church – the sacrament of salvation, that is, the “tools” through which God does so.

The last issue is the blessing of LGBT couples. The Vatican has stated that this is not about blessing relationships, but about people who are sinful. On the 1 hand, unfortunately, there were priests all over Europe, including priests in Poland who, contrary to the Holy See, blessed “pairs” or “LGBT unions”. On the another hand, you can get the impression that the blessing should be – I apologize for the expression – “as the dog flies.” Those who preach this bring back a passage of the Gospel about the gathering of the Lord Jesus with the public sinner. They remind us that the Symm of God did not condemn her, but at the same time they forget what he said to her, or "Go and sin no more."

So it is worth reading the decrees of the Holy See, not the commentators of these orders – we must make in ourselves, from the lessons of religion in schools, specified a basic ability to think critically, which is given by religion (because it is not credulity) and care to trust on sources alternatively than opinions.

On the another hand, we must remind what a blessing is: to bless it is to multiply good. Then there must be any good first. That is why evil cannot be blessed, and that is the continuation of LGBT union. According to the Catholic faith, couples must not be blessed in specified relationships, for they are blessed with their way out of sin, not to stay in it; they are blessed with attempts to regain freedom, not to lose it. If a individual (and not his relationship) is blessed, then the thought is that we want to find a “good thing,” as it were, to cling to it and to ask God that on the canopy of this man's goodship there should be, through His grace, to strengthen the good, his greater fruitfulness. The grace, erstwhile it appears, stimulates human life, supports nature and is capable of activities that exceed it. So erstwhile God blesses his creation – and so we frequently wish: God bless you! – this multiplys, multiplies good. possibly this relation of grace and goodness resembles a bit of a modern electrical bike: pedaling is like any bike, but you drive faster than pedaling... But I repeat, at the point of departure is "good". The blessing of evil is blasphemy.

Jesus ’ conduct toward sinners is indeed a fine example: Christ did not bless Zacchaeus for his fraud as a taxation collector, but for conversion... For a brave decision to abandon what he did before. The blessing was not a covering, a confirmation, but a direction of life in the right direction.

How can you defend yourself against relativism erstwhile the hierarch in Vienna says something different than the hierarch in Berlin and the hierarch in Paris something different than the hierarch in Milan? How should a Catholic know which 1 is telling the truth?

In the Church, it is not that it is repeated as in the political parties established top-down "the handover of the day", but each of the local Churches lives in a different context, culture, has a different experience of apostolic faith, as in the antiquity, erstwhile Spain, Italy or the mediate East, while confessing the same Gospel, put another accents, presented the same religion from different perspectives, frequently in different philosophical terminology, which was then agreed. These arrangements were a sign of communion of the Churches, but the basis was the same, 1 Gospel.

With different forms of Gospel message is somewhat like polyphonic music, written into voices and various instruments, which are harmonized with each another and you will rapidly catch a false sound that does not fit a given symphony, is in it a abroad body, added against the rule, here, in the context of the subject of our conversation, with the regulation of faith.

So what should we do in specified cases? As the word “Catholic” implies, the fact must be applied to the full teaching of the Church from the Gospel, not compared only to tiny parts or ranges of teaching. We request to ask for consistency, for what about fresh theories that contradict moral truths and distort the lives of Christians?

When we hear specified a "nowatory" teaching of any people in the Church, which undermines the teaching of the past, but not in the sense of developing it, but erstwhile we see contradictions – it is essential to mention to the religion of the Church, to teaching, and yet present we almost click. I am reasoning of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which presents the teaching of the Church in an accessible way. This requires us all, not only theologians, to make a habit of reaching out to specified sources, listening to rations, to arguments. If the Church had followed the way of "party messages", it would not have developed faith: it would have been repeated in accordance with the formulas taught, but it would have been understood differently, there would have been no grasping of this truth, and in the Christian religion this is the case.

The apostles preached 1 Gospel, but in different ways, any went to the Gentiles, others to the Jews... They preached the same thing, but in different ways. And so they appeared in the first communes of the party, 1 considered to belong to the Apollos group, another St. Paul...

Is the heresy of relativism, like the heresy of Scientism, going to be proud? Or possibly this is simply a reflection of Pilate's attitude, who asked Jesus "What is Truth?", after which, without waiting for an answer, he took and went?

In the case of this heresy, I would put not so much pride, which leads to an excess of optimism, as seen in Scientism, but in my sense relativism is simply a hue of despair, a deficiency of trust in the truth. It is simply a deficiency of religion that 1 day I will come to a clear cognition of the situation and that knowing the fact is good for me... due to the fact that although mountains may be covered with clouds, nevertheless 1 day the wind will pursuit them distant and I will see these mountains before me again. Just due to the fact that you can't see them at a given moment, or that the fact about them is hard to access, doesn't mean they're not there.

As bad as individual with specified a defect as despair will do a " virtue" and a commendable attitude as an alleged model to follow. How many times a man can't cope with something he says he can't, and he does it just due to the fact that he has a hard time not wanting to go on, not looking... Relativism is to accept despair... alternatively of fighting not to give up.

And “last but not least”, although possibly that's where I should have started. The Lord Jesus said, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and cannot kill the soul; but alternatively be afraid of him who besides loves the soul and can destruct all in hell” (Mt 10:28). Were these words of the Savior a informing against relativism?

This is simply a informing against spiritual poisoning, which focuses not on what is most important, but distracts from the key issues.

St. Peter under Caesarea tried to “relativize” the prophecy about the Messiah, saying to Jesus, “It will not happen to you, etc.” It's not precisely like that. Christ responds decisively: “Get out of my sight, Satan.” It is worth remembering that in Paradise, as we read in Genesis, there was besides a “You / You will not encounter it,” as Satan in the form of a serpent tries to tell the first people, encouraging them to scope for fruit from the tree of Paradise. To any degree the consequences of relativizing the tree of life... It won't happen to you, says the snake, and yet it has. Peter speaks akin words to Christ, and that is why this recognition is so powerful. But it is simply a informing not to relativize the truth, the words of the Gospel, but to accept them with all radicalism.

God bless the conversation.

Tomasz D. Kolanek