THE MODERN DAY ATTACK
ON THE OBJECTIVE MORAL LAW
http://www.amazon.com/The-Lords-Lampposts-ebook/dp/B00AY8JELO/ref=pd_rhf_dp_p_imgnr_2
The following is the link to the full interview both Francis and his atheistic interviewer had a few weeks ago.
http://www.repubblica.it/cultura/2013/10/01/news/pope_s_conversation_with_scalfari_english-67643118/
Here's another very telling quote by Francis in that interview:
Your Holiness, is there is a single vision of the Good? And who decides what it is?"
Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good."
Your Holiness, you wrote that in your letter to me. The conscience is autonomous, you said, and everyone must obey his conscience. I think that's one of the most courageous steps taken by a Pope."
And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place."
let us recall the Vatican was struck at 5:55 pm on the day Pope Benedict resigned. 555 is also another number the Masons use in their signs and symbols. The Washington Monument Oblisk is 555 ft tall. Perhaps this was a sign from God the Masons had finally reached the Chair of St. Peter through the coming Francis.
NOW AN EXCERPT FROM MY BOOK, THE LORD'S LAMPPOSTS. IN THIS EXCERPT I WILL QUOTE FROM BOTH C.S. LEWIS AND THE GREAT GK CHESTERTON. WHAT IS SO IRONIC IS THAT IN THE BOOK, I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD BE USING THESE ARGUMENTS TO REBUT A POPE!
IN THE BOOK I REBUT PEOPLE LIKE STEVEN HAWKINS AND OTHER MODERN DAY RELATIVISTIC SECULARISTS.
IN ALL OF POPE BENEDICT'S TENURE, NEVER DID I FIND IT NECESSARY TO REBUT OR QUESTION HIS TEACHINGS OR QUOTES.
BUT WITH FRANCIS, IT SEEMS EVERY WEEK HE IS EITHER SAYING SOMETHING CONTRARY TO NOT ONLY CATHOLIC TEACHING, BUT ALSO CONTRARY TO OBJECTIVE MORAL THEOLOGY.
C.S. LEWIS REBUTTAL IN HIS TIME TO THOSE WHO DENIED AN OBJECTIVE MORAL LAW FOR A RELATIVISTIC ONE. ONE THAT AS FRANCIS STATES, "WE HAVE TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO MOVE TO ONE THAT THEY THINK IS GOOD."
THE PROBLEM WITH WHAT FRANCIS STATES IS WHAT IF THEY THINK NAZISM IS THE GOOD? OR WHAT IF, LIKE GK CHESTERTON STATES, "
It is rather ridiculous to ask a man just about to be boiled in a pot and eaten, at a purely religious feast, why be does not regard all, religions as equally friendly and fraternal.”
IF THE CANNIBAL, AS FRANCIS WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE, THINKS THAT IT IS HIS IDEA OF GOODNESS, TO ROAST AND BOIL A MAN, THEN WHY WOULD WE ENCOURAGE HIM TO WHAT HE THINKS IS RIGHT OR GOOD WITHOUT PROPER FORMATION TO AN OBJECTIVE NORM???
ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH FRANCIS' STATEMENT IS, IF EVERYONE FOLLOWS THEIR OWN SUBJECTIVE, NON FORMALLY FORMED PERCEPTIONS ON WHAT IS GOOD OR BAD, RIGHT OR WRONG TO THEIR OWN END WITHOUT ADHERANCE TO AN OBJECTIVE MORAL STANDARD, THEN WHY STAND UP TO ABORTIONISTS? THEY ARE DOING WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT OR GOOD. THEIR PERCEIVED EVIL ARE THOSE THAT ARE PRO LIFE AND THEIR VIEWS.
THERE ARE CURRENTLY A LOT OF APOLOGISTS OUT THERE THAT ARE CONSTANTLY RE INTERPRETING WHAT FRANCIS SAYS, AS TO WHAT HE "REALLY MEANT TO SAY." OR PERHAPS IS THAT HE COMES FROM DIFFERENT BACKGROUND, OR CULTURE, OR IT GETS LOST IN THE TRANSLATION APOLOGISTS.
IF FRANCIS, LIKE OBAMA'S PRESS SECRETARY LYING RAT JAY CARNEY, NEEDS SOMEONE TO CONSTANTLY BE INTERPRETING OR DECIPHERING WHAT HE REALLY MEANT TO SAY, WITHOUT HIS CLARIFICATION, THEN THERE'S SOMETHING VERY WRONG.
NOT ONLY ARE HIS WORDS TELLING, BUT SO ARE HIS ACTIONS. HE HAS BEGUN TO DEMOTE OR RE ASSIGN CATHOLIC ORTHODOX/TRADITIONALISTS IN THE VATICAN, AND REPLACE THEM WITH MORE SECULARISTS SOUNDING ONES THAT WILL ONLY FURTHER OPEN THE DOORS TO MORE PEOPLE, AND IDEAS THAT WILL CONTINUE TO STRIP THE CHURCH'S AUTHORITY.
EXCERPT: PAGE 380 THE LORDS LAMPPOSTS.
THE MODERNS OBJECTIONS TO A MORAL LAW
“Isn’t
what you call the moral law simply our herd instinct and hasn’t it been
developed just like all our other instincts? Isn’t what you call the moral law
just a social convention, something that is put into us by education?” Mere
Christianity 19, C.S. LEWIS
Primal or natural human instincts, like the animals that
surround us throughout, can be divided into what today is commonly known as the
hierarchy of needs. Whether they are needs for food, drink, shelter, fight or
flight and sexual reproduction, these are all common instincts that we share
with the animal kingdom. Nothing up to this point differentiates us. Have you
ever seen a mother bird, cow, bear, whatever animal it may be defend its young?
These maternal instincts are also common in humans, although today, with
millions of abortions happening worldwide, it would seem that human mothers
have lost or are ignoring this particular instinct.
Yet in
human beings, during times of great stress or danger, we experience two contrasting
desires: one to flee in hopes of self-preservation, and the other to help
regardless of the danger to ourselves. But among both of these desires, we also
hear from what appears to be a third source. I say voice, because it is a
voice. It’s that inner voice that is not part of either initial desires, but
separate. Let us say that the situation called for going into a burning
building to save someone trapped inside, the inner voice would distinguish
between the two opposing instincts, and in the end tell us what we OUGHT to do.
The ought usually goes against reason, and against our natural instincts.
This
independent voice that judges is usually a voice that we hear more loudly and
clearly if we are used to listening to it on a regular basis. It is like a
coach, inside of us, that is usually prompting and motivating us to do what is
right not only for ourselves, but for the good of others as well. Any good
coach knows that a player under his command is only as good and obedient as he
listens to his instruction. The more he follows and obeys the coaching, the
better a player he will be. The less obedient and more rebellious he is, the
more likely it will be that he will not be a good, or trustworthy player on the
field, or the court. Self-discipline is a major component of any players
ability to be obedient to his skill or sport, and his coach.
The
voice is only as strong, and our will only as obedient as we are faithful to
our practices. As any good coach will tell you, ‘practice makes perfect,’ and remember
Jesus’ words in Matthew5:48, “Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect.”
But the opposite is true as well. The less we listen to and ignore that inner
voice, the less likely we will be obedient and responsive to it. This is why if
you study the lives of each and every one of these naturalist, materialist,
skeptic, and determinist philosophers, you will notice that they lived lives in
which they not only completely did away with this inner voice, but through
their philosophies prompted others to do the same. Misery always loves company
and hell is one place where this saying is completely true.
“Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that
decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might
as well say that the sheet music which tells you, at any given moment, to play
one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the
keyboard. The moral law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are
merely the keys.” pg 20
Other
people perhaps say that the moral law is just a social convention, something
that is taught and engrained in people through education or environment. While
this argument sounds convincing, people are confusing two things. On the one
hand, you could say that our parents or our teachers do teach us things from
the time we are very young. Things such sitting a certain way at the dinner
table, knowing when to speak, or not to speak in certain company or in a
certain place, civil laws governing local and state governments, these are
clearly all human conventions/inventions. But there are other things that are
not human inventions and are clearly things we humans come across when we enter
into this physical plane of time and space. The entire natural and material
world and all of the laws that govern it are not human invention, but are
discovered and then relayed to others usually through some form of education.
The laws of mathematics, gravity, thermodynamics, and conservation of mass are
clearly laws that pre-date human existence, are sustained, and humanity has
discovered, just as they discovered everything else in the material universe.
So
where does the moral law fit in? Is it as some say just a social
convention/invention, or does it belong in the same class as the eternal laws
that govern the material world, gravity and energy?
If you
think about it like this, you will see just how this law fits into the second
class of eternal maxims.
“There
are two reasons for saying it belongs to the same class as mathematics. The first
is, as I said in the first chapter, that though there are differences between
the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, the differences
are not really very great.—not nearly so great as most people imagine—and you
can recognize the same law running through them all: whereas mere conventions,
like the rule of the road or the same kind of clothes people wear, may differ
to any extent. The other reason is this. When you think about these differences
between the morality of one people and another, do you think that the morality
of one people is ever better or worse than that of another? Have any of the
changes been improvements? If not, then there could never be any moral
progress. If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there
would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or
Christian morality, to Nazi morality. In fact we do believe that some
moralities are better than others.” pg. 22 Mere Christianity
The
following quote is from G.K. Chesterton who also has an interesting quote
relating to the subject at hand: “The modern missionary, with his palm-leaf hat
and his umbrella has become rather a figure of fun. He is chaffed among men of
the world for the ease with which he can be eaten by cannibals and the narrow
bigotry which makes him regard the cannibal culture as lower than his own.
Perhaps the best part of the joke is that the men of the world do not see that
the joke is against themselves. It is rather ridiculous to ask a man just about
to be boiled in a pot and eaten, at a purely religious feast, why be does not
regard all, religions as equally friendly and fraternal.” Chapter 5 The
Everlasting Man G.K. Chesterton
The
first quote by C.S. Lewis makes a very good point, in what he describes as the
appearance of similar moral ideas and attitudes that transcend time throughout,
with very little differentiating them. Whether the humans were early humans
10,000 years ago, or your so called modern human from downtown Chicago, there
appears to be very little difference in the moral ideas and thoughts between
them both. Perhaps they are different in many other ways, such as what they
ate, how they survive (d), how they dressed, and how many women they marry. But
the one thing that has always remained consistent in human beings is that inner
voice that told that to kill another human being was wrong, hence the reason
why some of the earliest civilizations of humankind have always seen this as
wrong. That voice that told them that to steal something that does not belong
to you was not right, and if you did steal, then you had to flee for the
community would pass some form of judgment and eventual consequence. That voice
that said to them that to sleep with another’s woman or wife was to be done in
secrecy, for fear that they be killed or stoned. That inner voice that is heard
inside when one sees some form of injustice occurring, and it prompts you to
defend the defenseless, or protect the weak. That voice that tells one that
every and any whim or pleasure seeking desire is not meant to be carried out
when one feels it, but rather to suppress those urges that might get one into
trouble for.
Pure
human invention and convention might instruct us as to the rules of the road,
the rules of social courtesy, and the rules of grammar, but the moral law is
just as the laws that govern the material universe in that it is always there,
we simply come across it and it is the thing that instructs us, not the other
way around. For this law, just as the other laws, is always right, even when we
are wrong. Just as 7+7=14 is right on its own right, even if after working it
out we got 12 as an answer. The math law is the one that is correct, and we are
incorrect. The laws of gravity are always right as well, even if we try to
disprove them by jumping off a 50 story building. The law will always win, even
when we try to prove how it is wrong.
The
same thing occurs with the moral law. The moral law is perfect in all its
stipulations regarding that which relates to human behavior. The only way the
moral law differs from the other absolute laws, is the fact that the moral law
gives/allows us free will, and the other laws do not supply this to its
adherents. That is the beauty of the moral law, and the creator of that law. It
is choice to either obey it, or break it. This is precisely why for thousands
of years, those that have broken it are never treated as heroes, nor are they
let off the hook, but there has always been consequences to their immoral
actions.
It is
also interesting to note Lewis’ statement regarding the differences between
different moralities. Chesterton’s statement also alludes to this in the fact
that, even back in both of these men’s time, the modern philosopher was already
promoting this idea of pluralism. The ideas they spread were those that either
ignored a moral law and the religion that upheld them, or they attacked the law
and the Church that has always promoted it, just as today.
Just as
the both note, in order for one man to make the claim that a morality or a
religion that does not eat their neighbors is far better than one that
practices it daily, there clearly has to be an objective and true morality and
a religion that upholds and defends it. Otherwise how could the man arguing
that barbequing his neighbor is his religious moral right, be any more right
than one who condemns such an act? The objective law has to exist, independent
of our own say, in order for one to be wrong and the other right. Just as if I
claimed that 2+2=4 and my neighbor claimed it equaled 7, the objective,
transcendental law of mathematics has to exist on its own in order to
objectively show clearly who is wrong and who is right!
The
second quote I cited was from Chesterton. His quote also cites the ridiculous
stance of the same type of modern philosophers that even in his day were making
the same claims as the ones from today. The quote is one that seems to
accurately summarize the idea of religious plurality, or the idea that all
religions are the same, and that no one has a better or worse morality.
But as
we have clearly seen from both Lewis and Chesterton, this idea is to say the
least, very inaccurate. Not only is it inaccurate, but if it is to be believed
and adhered to faithfully by its proponents and its adherents, then it is one
that not only turns out to be dangerous, but increasingly becomes the great
tool used by the devil himself to sterilize authentic moral truth.
As we
have clearly seen, this philosophy had its proponents arguing for its validity
into the mainstream culture, back in the early and mid-1900’s. What began as a revolutionary movement to
turn not only religious thought on teaching and moral absolutes on its head,
has today grown into a full blown garden of weeds and thorns. The good and
valuable crops that any good garden of society has to foster in order to have
the moral authority as the basis and foundation to govern its people, has today
been turned into a garden of bitter, harmful and thorny weeds.
C.S.
Lewis and G.K. Chesterton knew exactly where this false doctrine would lead to,
and in fact that is where we are today in 2012. The Illuminati forces, through
their various means and tools they employ in society, have turned moral
absolutes in moral relativism. Where no moral code, regardless of religious
affiliation is more true or more false than another.
Yet,
they make sure that Christian morality is constantly being battered and its
truths constantly undermined. All other forms are to be exalted and praised,
but they reason to themselves, ‘let us make sure to keep the Christian Faith in
the closet, for fear that people one day realize that it truly leads to moral
Truth.’ Where they are constantly questioning how and why people would do such
evil and wicked things, yet completely overlook the fact that they have taken
the very lynchpins that not only hold a person’s morality in place, but
society’s as well. Just as Lewis stated, ‘They do away with the humanity, while
remaining humans themselves.’
But as
we have already demonstrated, these modern day false philosophies and their
creators do not fully adhere to their own charters and articles stipulating
their created subjective moral doctrines. Just as we saw earlier with C.S.
Lewis’ example regarding how these men and women are constantly breaking the
law of non-contradiction. Where-as some perhaps have a tendency of wanting to
do away with all morality and religion, such as the materialists/determinists,
there is another group today that in the last 50 years has gone in a different
direction, yet with the same aims of undermining moral truth and Christian
Catholic teaching; the secularists.
It is
the people from this second camp that openly claim they embrace all religious
view points and moral doctrines, yet all the while dismantling the one that has
held the west together for 2,000 years. They are much more clever than the
atheistic, determinists/materialists. For they have learned that in order to
completely subvert and replace the old world order of Christian thought and
moral teaching, as they refer to it, they had to approach the argument of faith
and morality on different grounds in order to make inroads into people’s minds.
They don’t claim as the deterministic materialists do, that there is no moral
law, or moral law giver, they just simply claim that it’s all relative, and
that it’s OK to believe whatever you want to believe.
As you
can see, this approach is much more powerful than the other philosophies. It is
more insidious and therefore makes it harder for the average Joe to pin point
their vulnerabilities and expose this fallacy of a philosophy.
Even
though it is a bit harder, it is still fairly simple. Because in the end, they
do the same thing the other philosophies do; they make the statement that all
moral teachings are subjectively relative to the eye of the beholder, and make
the claim that they do not promote any over another. But as we have been taught
by our Lord, ‘You shall know them by the fruits.’
They do
not send out subjective secular moral philosophers to teach or lecture in front
of big audiences per se, but they do this in a more hidden and veiled way.
Every time you walk into a movie theater, chances are very high that you are
going to be subjected to a movie that is aimed at molding your mind into their
philosophical form of subjective morality. Every time you play certain video
games, or view certain movies on TV. Cable TV shows on Discovery, National
Geographic, History Channel, there are constant programs that aim to undermine
your knowledge in objective moral truths, and replace it with their subjective
moral programming. They use any and all media to constantly bombard your mind
into ignoring that objective voice we all have, and replacing it with a voice
that stays eerily quiet while the world around us falls into moral decay and
decadence. While these secular voices praise all religions and moral codes from
without, they clearly have a very direct interest in elevating their philosophy
to the top of the list. Their philosophy and philosophers are hidden in plain
sight, and most people do not even realize it, but their thoughts are clearly
influenced by the fact that so many today not only uphold their subjective
relativistic secular thoughts, but they promote them as well by their
lifestyles.
So as
we can clearly see, the argument that the objective and true moral law is part
of our instinct, or part of our social convention/invention is not true at all.
We might be made to think in such ways, either directly or as we has seen
indirectly by what the culture bombards us with, but it does not change the
fact that there is a true and objective moral law. Of course, if this moral law
exist on its own, just as the laws that govern the natural universe do, then
clearly this points to a being who is the creator on this law, and the other
natural laws as well.
“I
conclude then, that though the difference between people’s ideas of Decent
Behavior often make you suspect that there is no real natural Law of Behavior
at all, yet the things we are bound to think about these differences really
prove just the opposite. But one word before I end. I have met people who
exaggerate the differences, because they have not distinguished between
differences of morality and differences of belief about facts. For example, one
man said to me, ‘Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches
to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?’
But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there
are such things. If we did—if we really thought that there were people going
about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers
from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbors or drive
them mad or bring bad weather—surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved
the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did. There is no difference in
moral principle here, the only difference is simply about matter of fact. It
may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches; there is no
moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You
would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because
he believed there were no mice in the house.” Mere Christianity pg 23
This
point by C.S. Lewis is a perfect one for today’s so called modern world. A
world that has taken all philosophies on morality and religion and stirred them
up so that the colors all run into a mess of gray: The secular gray that is
affecting, and infecting modern thought today. Just has he pointed out in the
above statement regarding the differences between people’s perceptions and
beliefs on morality and facts. The objective, transcendent and absolute moral
law has not changed, but rather people’s beliefs in what is factual and what is
true. Their beliefs in what should be tolerated and not tolerated have all been
turned on their head.
C.S.
Lewis and G.K. Chesterton would be shocked by some the programming on
television today. They would be horrified by how so many different laws have
been created or changed to allow that which has always been seen as evil, or
completely wicked and contradictory to the Moral Law. All under the clever
guise of universal tolerance for that which is different, has the devil entered
into societies, families and individuals. Just as C.S. Lewis stated, ‘You would
not call a man humane for not setting mousetraps, if he believed there were no
mice in his house,’ because it is obvious the opposite would be true. If he
truly believed there were, then he would set them to kill the mice in the
house.
Using
this very good example by Lewis, we as a global community live in a house that
is not only full of mice, but infested with roaches, scorpions, spiders of all
types, mites, centipedes and any other dangerous pests or insects that you can
think of. We do so willingly and with our minds at ease not because reality has
changed these dangerous pests into something good, but merely because our
beliefs have been changed by the societal and cultural conditioning that they
will do us no harm. We are told to live with them, and tolerate them crawling
all over our food, our beds, in our water, in our clothing, because they should
all be allowed to live in harmony with us. We should be tolerant and accepting
of these dangerous and harmful pests. To those whose minds cannot and do not
accept this new and tolerant philosophy, then we must signal them out and have
the community force them into accepting this new, so called progressive
philosophy.
You
see, just as C.S. Lewis noted, it is not the natural and objective facts that
have changed. The scorpions still sting with venom. The spiders still bite with
venom too. The mites and fleas still suck blood from their hosts. The roaches
and mice still spread diseases through their droppings and urine. The natural
laws have not changed, it is only the people’s perceptions.
The
same is true when dealing with the moral law. Throughout the world, the moral
law and its absolutes and its tenets have not changed, any more than the law of
gravity. Both are still exerting their forces. Except that the law of gravity
can exert it on its subjects with no say on behalf of his subjects.
The
Moral Law cannot exert it by force. Just as the law of mathematics. Its tenets
will always be true when one deals with figures and numbers, but it cannot
exert any influence over those that work in numbers. It cannot make a person
always arrive at the correct sum, or difference. It cannot force a person who
robs his worker by paying him twenty five dollars a day, instead of the
initially agreed upon sum of eighty dollars. It can only stand objectively
silent and hold itself as a mathematical standard. It cannot speak to its
numbers and persuade them to arrange themselves in correct form for whoever
uses them.
This
is the reason why I call the subjective secularists attack on Faith, morality
and reason, a far greater threat than all the other philosophies combined.
Because it is one in which is being fed to a captive audience throughout
society without even the subject’s awareness. Today programming throughout
introduces children at a very young age topics that deal with the occult,
spiritualism, and other dark subject matter. The indoctrination into this
philosophy attempts to condition the masses into wanting to live a house full
I WROTE THIS NEVER THINKING I WOULD USE IT TO REBUT A POPE, BUT TIMES HAVE CHANGED AND NOT FOR THE BETTER.
NOW LET'S SEE WHAT POPE BENEDICT AND POPE JOHN PAUL SAID ABOUT MORAL RELATIVISM, AND SEE HOW IT CONTRADICTS WHAT FRANCIS PROMOTES AS EACH PERSON'S IDEA OF RIGHT AND WRONG.
http://thenewevangelist.com/sites/default/files/users/user41/3%20-%20Reasons%20to%20Believe%20in%20Moral%20Absolutes.pdf
Dictatorship of Relativism
Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of a “dictatorship of relativism” in a homily in 2005 just before being elected
Pope Benedict XVI.
1) In a misguided quest for personal freedom, people become imprisoned by Relativism
“Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of education is the massive presence in our
society and culture of that relativism which, recognizing nothing as definitive, leaves as the
ultimate criterion only the self with its desires. [HERE IS WHERE FRANCIS SAYS THAT WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO WHAT THEY THINK IS THE GOOD.]
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’.” (Pope Benedict XVI, Address to Educators, June 6, 2005)
2) People get “swept along by every wind of teaching” (Eph 4:14)
“How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents,
how many ways of thinking… The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed
about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: 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 are created and what
Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error
(cf. Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a
fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every
wind of teaching”, looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards.
“We are building a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as definitive and
whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.”
(Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Homily for Mass for the Election of a New Pope, 18 Apr 2005,
http://www.vatican.va/gpII/documents/homily-pro-eligendo-pontifice_20050418_en.html)
3) Relativism and its fruits become the dominant influence in society
“A democracy without values, in fact, turns into a tyranny of relativism with the loss of its own
identity, and in the long run can degenerate into open or insidious totalitarianism, as history has
frequently shown.” (Pope Benedict XVI, Address to Ambassador of Andorra to the Holy See, 1 Dec 2005)
And once relativism is embraced by a large portion of society, relativism is then imposed by the state
through force of law.
4
4) Laws of the State declare absolute what is relative
Pope Benedict points out that the totalitarian regimes of Communism and Naziism “assumed total
responsibility for the cause of the world in order to change it…” They took a particular ideology
and imposed it on everyone through force. “Absolutizing what is not absolute but relative is called
totalitarianism. It does not liberate man, but takes away his dignity and enslaves him. It is not
ideologies that save the world, but only a return to the living God, our Creator, the guarantor of our
freedom, the guarantor of what is really good and true.” (Pope Benedict XVI, Address at the Youth Vigil,
World Youth Day, 20 Aug 2005,
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050820_vigilwyd_
en.html)
5) Laws of the State declare relative what is absolute [THIS IS WHAT FRANCIS IS HELPING TO DO RIGHT NOW!!!]
“The original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary
vote or the will of one part of the people-even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a
relativism which reigns unopposed: the ‘right’ ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly
founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. [THIS IS WHERE FRANCIS STATES THAT EVERY PERSON HAS THERE IDEA OF WHAT'S RIGHT OR WRONG, AND WE SHOULD "ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT." BUT HOW DO WE GET TO WHAT'S RIGHT WHEN WE EVERYONE ACCORDING TO FRANCIS HAS THERE OWN IDEAS ON WHAT'S RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT WE SHOULD STILL ENCOURAGE THEM REGARDLESS!!!]
In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of
totalitarianism. The State is no longer the ‘common home’ where all can live together on the basis
of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to
itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the unborn
child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one
part.” (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae – The Gospel of Life, italics added)
