In a relativistic culture like our own, the Catholic Church is often depicted as the “bad guy.” As one of the strongest voices of traditional morality left in the public sphere, the Church stands as a major obstacle to those who believe that there is no moral truth. As a result, whenever the Church speaks out on moral issues, especially in the area of sexuality and human life, it is quickly labeled judgmental and intolerant.
But recent months have revealed how the relativistic worldview actually promotes intolerance in the opposite direction. When in the hands of those in power, relativism can be used to marginalize Christian perspectives in the public sphere and even impose certain agendas on the Church.
Case in point is the Obama administration’s announcement on January 20, 2012, of a mandate that would require all Catholic health-care agencies and other Catholic institutions to provide insurance policies that cover abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception to all its employees. The mandate (at least in its form at the time this article was written) violates the free exercise of religion protected in the First Amendment and forces faithful Catholics to act against their consciences in important matters regarding human life and sexual ethics.
The road for this aggressively anti- Catholic move, however, was paved in a speech given by President Obama during his first year in office—a speech ironically delivered at a Catholic institution, the University of Notre Dame.
Not Value Neutral
One of the presumed benefits of moral relativism is that it promotes tolerance. In a pluralistic world of competing claims to moral truth, relativists often portray themselves as holding a neutral position. Since they believe that there is no objective moral truth, relativists claim to be humbly “tolerant,” “nonjudgmental” and “accepting” toward diverse points of view. No one has moral values that are better than another’s. Therefore, we should all just get along and “coexist,” as the popular bumper sticker exhorts us, letting others live however they want.
At first glance, this might seem like a good way to promote tolerance of diverse views. But we must understand very clearly that relativism is not value neutral. It is itself a certain perspective that is being imposed on others in society. The view that there is no moral truth is itself a point of view. And those who do not agree with this relativistic perspective are being forced to submit to it, while being labeled judgmental or fundamentalist if they dare to uphold traditional moral views.
Thus, relativism’s call to tolerance often becomes a weapon used to whip into line those who stand outside the mainstream of the relativistic culture and hold to moral truth. As Pope Benedict has observed, “the more relativism becomes the generally accepted way of thinking, the more it tends toward intolerance, thereby becoming a new dogmatism . . . . It prescribes itself as the only way to think and speak—if, that is, one wishes to stay in fashion. Being faithful to traditional values and to the knowledge that upholds them is labeled intolerance, and relativism becomes the required norm [1].”
A Speech at Notre Dame
President Obama’s 2009 commencement address at Notre Dame exemplifies why Pope Benedict is right to be concerned about the rising tyranny of tolerance. In this address, the president subtly uses relativism’s call to tolerance in an effort to marginalize Christians who have moral and religious convictions and force them to play by the rules of a secular, relativistic worldview.
For example, after discussing the need “to live together as one human family” and find “common ground,” President Obama notes how various camps with irreconcilable differences on morality should try to work together on common projects:
The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son’s or daughter’s hardships can be relieved.
He then asks, “How do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort?” Here, President Obama’s words nobly call on people of differences to work on common projects for the good of society. But notice how the relativistic perspective lurks in the background. There is no discussion of which position is right or wrong in these debates. The president completely avoids addressing whether homosexual acts are harmful for society or whether destroying human embryos, even if carried out with the intention to help others, is morally permissible. The president’s message to the competing groups is basically: “We may never know if there is moral right or wrong on these matters, but the one thing we can do is get along and be respectful of each other—and if you happen to work together on a common project, all the better.”
But which side benefits more from this non-committal, relativistic message? Certainly not those who are pro-life and pro-marriage. They do not merely seek more respectful dialogue. They seek the healing of our culture that has been deeply wounded by the sexual revolution and various crimes against human life. It’s the homosexual activist and pro-stem cell research advocate who would applaud the president’s relativistic “just get along” message, for they can go on living as they have been and their positions are protected now by the shield of tolerance lauded by the president. In this way, traditional moral values on sexuality and human life lose ground, while homosexual acts and human embryo research are encouraged to continue.
Abortion
The president makes a similar move when discussing abortion. First, he refers to pro-life people as “those who disagree with abortion.” The language is significant. He says prolifers disagree with abortion as if viewing the killing of babies in the womb as evil is just a subjective, personal opinion. Pro-lifers do not merely “disagree” with abortion any more than the average American merely “disagrees” with child abuse, rape, or genocide. They are convinced abortion is morally wrong because it involves the killing of unborn babies just as they are convinced that 2+2=4, that terrorist attacks are immoral, and that Adolf Hitler did some very evil things. Yet, President Obama here reduces the pro-life position to the level of mere personal opinion.
Second, the president does not even ask the moral question of whether abortion involves the killing of innocent human life and whether such an act should be deemed immoral. It is assumed such questions cannot be answered since, in a relativistic worldview, there is no moral right or wrong. That’s perhaps why the president seems to portray himself as humbly standing behind the neutral sidelines on the abortion debate. He simply says each side will continue to make its case, but they should do so kindly with what he calls “Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.”
That sounds gentle and compassionate, but in reality, his message supports the pro-choice position! Pro-life people are looking for much more than “fair-minded words.” They seek an end to abortion in our country. However, the “just get along” message of “continue the debate but do so nicely,” supports the pro-choice status quo in which abortion is legally protected and each woman can decide for herself whether it is morally acceptable to have an abortion. The president’s message also warns pro-life Americans not to be so judgmental in calling abortion a moral evil.
Imposing Relativism on Us
For all the tolerance talk about “Open minds. Open hearts. Fair-minded words” in 2009, the Obama Administration’s HHS Mandate announced at the start of 2012 reveals more clearly what can happen when tolerance is not grounded in a wider moral framework of truth, virtue, and human dignity. When rival claims and agendas compete in a society no longer grounded in moral truth, which views and lifestyles will be protected by tolerance? The answer to that question will be left to the arbitrary will of those in power. Some views will be tolerated while others will be pushed aside. In the 2009 commencement speech, tolerance talk was used to subtly marginalize those holding traditional moral values and to promote the relativistic climate that supports homosexuality, human embryo research, and abortion. In the 2012 Mandate, that subtlety has completely disappeared.
The promotion of the sexual revolution under the banner of women’s rights or the right to birth control or the right to abortion-inducing drugs now trumps the religious consciences of Catholics and no tolerance is shown to Catholic positions even within their own institutions. As George Weigel recently noted, the sexual revolution’s agenda to reduce sex to “a recreational activity of no moral consequence” cannot tolerate a Church that stands in opposition to its sexual libertinism. “What began as a movement to liberate sexuality from the constraints of moral reason, custom, and law has become a movement determined to use the instruments of law to impose its deconstruction of human sexuality and its moral relativism on all of society [2].”
Pope Benedict challenges Christians to push back against the imposition of moral relativism we are witnessing in the Western world today. “I think it is vital that we oppose this imposition of a new pseudo-enlightenment, which threatens freedom of thought as well as freedom of religion.” He then describes relativism as “a kind of new ‘denomination’ that places restrictions on religious convictions and seeks to subordinate all religions to the super-dogma of relativism [3].” Given what is currently unfolding in our own country, Pope Benedict’s words should be heeded now more than ever.
[1] Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Without Roots (New York: Basic Books, 2007), p. 128. [2] George Weigel, “The Libertine Police State” National Review Online (February 13, 2012).[3] Ratzinger, p. 128.
Edward Sri is provost and a professor of theology and Scripture at the Augustine Institute in Denver, Colorado (www.augustineinstitute.org). He is the author of or contributor to several Emmaus Road books, including Queen Mother, which is based on his doctoral dissertation. He resides with his wife, Elizabeth, and their six children in Littleton, Colorado. Sri’s books may be ordered at www.emmausroad.org or by calling (800) 398-5470.
The post The Art of Living: The Tyranny of Tolerance appeared first on Catholics United for the Faith - Catholics United for the Faith is an international lay apostolate founded to help the faithful learn what the Catholic Church teaches..