Benedict, Absolutely

This commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.

How many winds of doctrine have we known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of the thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves - flung from one extreme to another: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism and so forth. Every day new sects spring up, and what St. Paul says about human deception and the trickery that strives to entice people into error (cf. Eph 4: 14) comes true. Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be "tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine", seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires.

Less than 24 hours after delivering these words to the conclave, Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI. We can assume the cardinals liked what they heard.

And "dictatorship of relativism" surely will be the intellectual sound bite of the year.

Already, it has become the rhetorical emblem of the new Pope's alleged authoritarianism. In his homily "he all but declared a war on modernity, liberalism (meaning modern liberal democracy of all stripes) and freedom of thought and conscience," according to the conservative, Catholic and gay writer, Andrew Sullivan (that kind of combo platter seems to be what Ratzinger is against when he speaks of "syncretism"). "What this says to American Catholics is quite striking; it's not just a disagreement, it's a full-scale assault."

As a non-Catholic (a Jew, for the record), much of this is none of my business. But I can't resist the perhaps mischievous urge to come to Ratzinger's defense to some degree on the big points (not that he's asked…). But clearly one need not be a Neanderthal to be worried about moral relativism. And one need not be a fear-monger or an anachronism to be still worried about the great "ism's" of the 20th century – "Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism…" -- not to mention Islamist radicalism.

Figuring out how to end arguments, how to have clear canons of ethics and judgment when shared moral absolutes still exist for very, very few people remains one of the great projects for philosophers, novelists and, yes, preachers. Philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, in his influential book on modern moral cacophony, "After Virtue," wrote simply, "There seems to be no rational way of securing moral agreement in our culture."

We see this with stunning clarity in today's American political culture. Different sides are calcified in belief that the other sides are biased – that is, relative. There seems to be no way to adjudicate conflicts on issues such as stem cell research, gun control and abortion because the values and moral systems of the combatants are simply incommensurable.

Another sad aspect of modern relativism comes out in a defense of Ratzinger by the prominent religious writer Michael Novak: "No great, inspiring culture of the future can be built upon the moral principle of relativism. For at its bottom such a culture holds that nothing is better than anything else, and that all things are in themselves equally meaningless. Except for the fragments of faith (in progress, in compassion, in conscience, in hope) to which it still clings, illegitimately, such a culture teaches every one of its children that life is a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing."

Interestingly, MacIntyre ended his 1981 book with these words: "What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages which are already upon us…. We are waiting not for a Godot, but for another – doubtless very different – St. Benedict." (Note: Catholic scholar George Weigel used this same quote in a Wall Street Journal editorial.)

Well, Pope Benedict XVI is neither St. Benedict nor a moral savior for the age. But his homily did honestly address the central moral question of modernism, and he did offer a solution for those who want it – the strict Catholic community. All of this is a continuation of John Paul's philosophy and language.

In his summa paragraph, the soon-to-be Pope also reminded the world of something comfort and peace makes people forget, the "human deception and the trickery that strives to entice people into error" – errors of faith, zeal, righteousness, dogma and desperation. In the 20th century deception and trickery came in especially lethal forms – Nazism, Stalinism, apartheid, nationalism. John Paul is so respected by non-Catholics because of his stand against communism in Eastern Europe. It is impossible to take such stands relatively.

This is the kind of thing America thought a lot about after 9/11. Western culture – whatever that might be – or maybe just America, seemed to be in mortal conflict with a newly recognized enemy, a new "ism" – Islamist terrorism. The urgency of that conflict has passed for most. Ratzinger's homily warned that such urgency should really never pass. That's complacency.

There is also such a thing as religious relativism. If you truly believe in your God in the way of your religion, how can you think other religions are equally good and legitimate? You really can't. Yet we moderns have learned tolerance and even a kind of wondrous respect for the varieties of religious experience. Cardinal Ratzinger, however, was often criticized for being harsh and intolerant of other faiths, especially of Christian evangelicals.

But in his first extended public remarks as Pope, Benedict went far in the other direction: "I address myself to everyone, even to those who follow other religions or who are simply seeking an answer to the fundamental questions of life and have not yet found it. I address everyone with simplicity and affection, to assure them that the Church wants to continue to build an open and sincere dialogue with them, in a search for the true good of mankind and of society."

I've no idea whether Pope Benedict will be different than the Cardinal Ratzinger. But I do suspect that Pope Benedict may be primed to commit philosophy on a world stage. Maybe I'm over-indoctrinated as a parent to look for "teaching moments," but I like this possibility. Absolutely.

E-mail questions, comments, complaints, arguments and ideas to
Against the Grain. We will publish some of the interesting (and civil) ones, sometimes in edited form.

By Dick Meyer