Searching
for truth in a new era
By Sister Kathleen Dolphin, PBVM
Prior
to December 2004, the word “tsunami” would not have been
familiar to most people. Curiously, now one hears it used in ordinary
conversation as a metaphor to describe a variety of life situations
involving sudden shifts at deep levels that cause chaos on the surface
of daily lived experience.
Indeed, the beginning of the third millennium has witnessed a number
of shifts at very deep levels, not only in our own American culture(s),
but also worldwide. What we thought were certainties in life are now
being questioned. The ground beneath our feet does not feel so firm
anymore—in Church or world.
It should come as no surprise that, in a time of turmoil and uncertainty
such as ours, reasonable people will look for branches to hang onto
as the flood surges toward them. And what, exactly, is the nature of
the most threatening wave?
Some would say it is a wave of relativism—sheer, reckless, wanton
dismissal of traditional norms—moral norms, intellectual norms,
artistic norms—all in danger of being swept away. Such relativism
can manifest itself in three troubling ways:
Replacing objective norms with individualistic interpretations of moral
situations. This is the “you-do-your-thing,-I’ll-do-mine-and-let’s-not-bother-each-other-in-the-process”
approach to private and public life.
Resistance to the notion of absolute truth. In other words, not only
is there resistance to universal moral norms, there is resistance to
the very notion that there could be any foundational truth upon which
universal norms are based.
Naïve acceptance of other cultures and societal institutions (even
of our own), regardless of abuse of human rights therein. For example,
some downplay the seriousness of the human rights abuse problems that
have recently come to light regarding female genital mutilation in some
cultures. Reason? “Because that’s the way they do things
and who are we to judge other cultures?” This misguided desire
to be “non-judgmental” may play a part in current arguments
over whether we can define human rights in the first place. Some say
our worldview has been influenced by the post-modern insistence that
radical plurality, not unity of purpose, is the basic feature of existence.
The concern regarding relativism is valid. This is the concern that
Pope Benedict XVI addressed in his pre-conclave homily. Recognizing
that Latin documents from the Vatican often suffer from poor translations
into other languages and, in general, can sometimes lose readers/ listeners
in a kind of “vaticanese,” I suggest that we explore the
problem that Cardinal Ratzinger addressed in that homily, given a few
days before he was elected pope. Some analysts suggest that that homily
turned the tide toward his election.
The central argument of the homily is that relativism is a huge problem
in our world today and the only way to combat it is to adhere to Christ
as the truth. Referring to Ephesians 4:14, the cardinal cautioned his
brother bishops not to be “tossed by waves and swept along by
every wind of teaching.”
In the aftermath of the papal election, commentators picked up on this
and began referring to the new pope’s emphasis on absolute truth
in the face of relativism. But this translation is problematic not only
for some philosophers and theologians, but also for some people of faith
and common sense. I say this because it seems to me that the opposite
of relativism is not absolute truth. The opposite of relativism is absolutism.
And full-blown absolutism is just as dangerous as full-blown relativism.
Before
going further, a point of clarification: Christians believe that God
is absolute truth (as well as absolute goodness, absolute beauty, absolute
love, etc.). As believers, we strive to approach truth, but on this
side of heaven we can never reach it in its fullness. Nor can we do
so even in the afterlife for that matter, because God will always be
God and we will always be not-God. The Catholic belief is that the afterlife
will be an eternally joyful, fulfilling process of approaching God.
The corollary is that all the theologizing humans do on this side of
heaven — all the exegesis of Scripture, all the philosophizing,
all the pronouncements by Church officials, all the formulation of doctrine
and regulations regarding Church life — are interpretations of
our experience of God and God’s relation to the world. Such interpreting
involves the integration of human reason and faith.
When one interpretation is held up as the absolutely only way to think
about God and God’s relation to the world, now and for always,
with no regard for how particular interpretations are profoundly influenced
by historical and cultural conditions, absolutism rears its ugly head.
Absolutism, as the opposite of relativism, manifests particular traits.
Scholars have noted that all the major religions of the world, particularly
in times of great social stress, have shown absolutist tendencies. Examples
include demanding unquestioning obedience and threatening severe repercussions
for dissent. Or interpreting the tradition’s texts literally.
Or claiming that all official beliefs and/or moral norms are written
in stone and are of equal import. (For example, policies regarding ordination
rank right up there with the dogma of the Trinity.) Unfortunately, even
if well intentioned, this can move a particular religious tradition
in the direction of welcoming only the “pure” believers.
A helpful way to approach this question of knowing absolute truth (God)
is to consider that between the two extremes of relativism and absolutism,
we have a whole spectrum of interpretations. Historically, not all interpretations
have been adequate. Some have been downright mistaken. And not all issues
are of equal import. But, in general, the “community of interpreters,”
that is, the Church, “got it right.” (For further reflection,
see Francis Sullivan’s book, Magisterium.)
Some people fear that when we talk like this we become “cafeteria
Catholics.” After the papal election, pundits announced that now
the “cafeteria will be taken out of Catholicism” and we
will all know exactly what the Church teaches and, consequently, we
will know who is in and who is out.
This is not a very Catholic way to go about things and here’s
why: it flies in the face of the tradition at its best, which, for the
most part, has stumbled through the blunder zones of history without
morphing into some kind of fundamentalist cult. Simultaneously the tradition
has insisted that there are, after all, some non-negotiable Catholic
beliefs: the existence of God as triune, the incarnation, redemption,
Christ’s resurrection and ours, the significance of the sacramental
life here on earth, the goodness of creation, the mandate to love one
another—to name some.
In terms of finding balance in these matters, allow me to make three
suggestions:
1) That we do everything possible to encourage a deep faith in the Catholic
tradition at its best, taking responsibility to learn what that means;
2) That, as adults, we recognize legitimate authority in the Church
while also recognizing the complexities of life;
3) That, as adults, we know that sometimes human institutions “get
it wrong,” but they also can get it right and when they do get
it right, it’s probably because the community of believers stuck
together, trusting in the providence of God.
Hanging on to each other becomes as important as hanging on to some
imaginary branch of absolute certainty in the face of the wave.
Sister Kathleen Dolphin, PBVM, is a lecturer
in the Religious Studies Department and is director of the Center for
Spirituality.
