Religion & Law

I am late weighing in to the discussion about then-Cardinal Ratzinger's use of the term "dictatorship of relativism".  It seemed to me then, and still seems to me now, that the term is helpful and insightful.  To be sure, as Michael P. and Bob have noted, one wants to distinguish "relativism" from "not embracing the moral truth as I understand it."  But surely we should hesitate before thinking that Ratzinger -- a very, very learned and intelligent man -- is not sensitive to this distinction.  (It seems a safe, even if rebuttable, rule of thumb -- one that owes nothing to piety or clericalism -- to operate on the basis of the assumption that people as smart as Ratzinger do not make obvious mistakes in his thinking.)

I know that Michael said, a few days ago, and maybe he hasn't, but I certainly have.  That is, I have met many people who at least claim to believe that "morality is subjective" or that "right and wrong depend entirely on one's own not-evaluable-by-outsiders assessment of costs and benefits in a particular situation."  Is there anything wrong with calling the content of such beliefs "relativism"?  I don't think so.

And so, what is the "dictatorship of relativism"?  It refers -- helpfully, I think -- to the present-day phenomenon of deploying such beliefs -- and, in particular, of public officials' deployment of such beliefs -- in order to avoid engaging with, to marginalize, and even to silence, those who believe that there are, in fact, moral truths that have a claim on our assent because they are true, and not merely because we like their implications.