Veritatis Splendor

Pope John Paul II left Catholicism with a dangerous legacy.  No, it wasn't just AIDS, though he is partially responsible for that epidemic, too.  It was a holy writ, or encyclical called Veritatus Splendor.

I would not be writing about it in such hostile terms if not for his successor, one Joseph Ratzinger, or Pope Benedict XVI.  Here's what the German-born inquisitor has to say:


"Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of education is the massive presence in our society and culture of that relativism  which, recognising nothing as definitive, leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self with its desires. And under the semblance of freedom it becomes a prison for each one, for it separates people from one another, locking each person into his or her own ego." (original source http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/june/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050606_convegno-famiglia_en.html).

This sounds rather innocuous so far.  I mean, moral relativism = wrong, selfishness = wrong.  It would be easy to dismiss moral relativism as a bogeyman or straw man and just nod about the selfishness part.  But he goes on:

"The various forms of the dissolution of matrimony today, like free unions, trial marriages and going up to pseudo-matrimonies by people of the same sex, are rather expressions of an anarchic freedom that wrongly passes for true freedom of man...from here it becomes all the more clear how contrary it is to human love, to the profound vocation of man and woman, to systematically close their union to the gift of life, and even worse to suppress or tamper with the life that is born." (http://www1.wsvn.com/news/articles/world/DBB1185/)

In other words, he uses the moral relativism argument to push an agenda: namely, the agenda of Catholicism and spiritual monopoly.  In The Grand Inquisitor Manual, Jonathan Kirsch shows how the fundamentals of Catholicism have not changed.

The argument of moral relativism vs. the concept of Natural Law or universal human law is a very old debate.

Is there such a thing as universal human law, or Natural Law?  Are our morals entirely subjective?  Are morals only relevant within a specific cultural context?  What is ethical behavior?

In the next few posts, I will explore a few of these points.  As you can see, I differ greatly from Mr. Ratzinger.  If there is anything that is dangerous and contrary to the human condition, it is a monopoly of ideas.  Beware of anyone who comes to you and says, "the only way is like this."