Religion & Law

I have been following with special interest the robust debate these past couple of days on the issue of relativism which my friends have been presenting here at the Mirror of Justice. Two items that help me think through the question of what is relativism and what does it mean to us who inhabit and participate in the res publicae are well presented in the following excerpts.

Upon the death of Pope John Paul II, the then Dean of the College of Cardinals, Joseph Ratzinger, said this in his homily prior to the opening of the papal conclave:

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. We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An ?adult? faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceit from truth. We must develop this adult faith; we must guide the flock of Christ to this faith. And it is this faith?only faith?that creates unity and is fulfilled in love.

In contrast there is the opinion of Justices O?Connor, Kennedy, and Souter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey wherein they asserted:

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one?s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. These considerations begin our analysis of the woman?s interest in terminating her pregnancy but cannot end it, for this reason: though the abortion decision may originate within the zone of conscience and belief, it is more than a philosophic exercise. Abortion is a unique act. It is an act fraught with consequences for others: for the woman who must live with the implications of her decision; for the persons who perform and assist in the procedure; for the spouse, family, and society which must confront the knowledge that these procedures exist, procedures some deem nothing short of an act of violence against innocent human life; and, depending on one?s beliefs, for the life or potential life that is aborted. Though abortion is conduct, it does not follow that the State is entitled to proscribe it in all instances. That is because the liberty of the woman is at stake in a sense unique to the human condition and so unique to the law.

It is clear that the choices we have regarding our individual lives and our lives in common in the res publicae are identified by these two passages from distinctive schools of thought. Justices O?Connor, Kennedy, and Souter give us the choice of relativism by proclaiming that the truth of the individual is what matters. But, in contrast, Cardinal Ratzinger gives some of us the better option.

RJA sj