We have met the confused, the indifferent, and ...

... the poorly catechized, and they are us. Here is the opening of a Christian Science Monitor article, "Why some Americans mix Christianity, Eastern religions":

Chicago — Because she attends Catholic mass every Sunday and observes all the religious holidays of her faith, Angela Bowman may well exemplify the Latin root of the word “religion,” which is “to bind.”

But the Chicagoan also meditates several times each day and practices yoga every other week. She knows Catholicism, Hinduism, and Buddhism have contradictory elements but is unfazed by her multiple observances because, to her, “it’s all pretty much the same thing.”

“The biggest part of praying is opening yourself up to a connection with God, and I perceive clearing your mind in meditation as another form of receptivity,” says the 30-something textbook editor. Although she is a devoted Roman Catholic, she says she doesn’t “believe it’s the one true path and anything else is flirting with the devil.”

How, exactly, are the following "pretty much the same thing"?

• Belief in a personal God who is One in nature, God in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
• Belief that the question of whether or not there is a God or gods is irrelevant.
• Belief in multiple gods (polytheism).
• Belief that everything is God (pantheism).

I suspect that if Ms. Bowman were asked how she might reconcile the four specific beliefs above, she would likely say, "Well, those are just different ways to get at the same thing." What, then, is this "same thing"? If there is no "one true path," what is the goal, the point, the reason for meditation, prayer, and chasing "a connection" with "God"?

Yet the primary and pressing issue here is not about a particular understanding of God, but about a particular approach to truth. The 1996 document, "Christianity and the World Religions," produced by the International Theological Commission, put it is this way: "The problem of the truth of religions underlies this whole discussion. Today one can see a tendency to relegate it to a secondary level, separating it from reflection on the salvific value of religions. The question of truth gives rise to to serious problems of a theoretical and practical order, since in the past it had negative consequences in interreligious encounters. Hence the tendency to ease or privatize this problem with the assertion that criteria of truth are only valid for each individual religion."

One of the finest books in recent years on this matter of truth and religious relativism is Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions (Ignatius Press, 2004). Ratzinger is well aware of the approach taken by Bowman and so many others—"most people," he says:

The dominant impression of most people today is that all religions, with a varied multiplicity of forms and manifestations, in the end are and mean one and the same thing; which is something everyone can see, except for them. The man of today will for the most part scarcely respond with an abrupt No to a particular religion’s claim to be true; he will simply relativize that claim by saying "There are many religions." And behind his response will probably be the opinion, in some form or other, that beneath varying forms they are in essence all the same; each person has his own.

And:

To lay claim to truth for one's religion's particular expression of faith appears today, not merely presumptuous, but an indication of insufficient enlightenment. ... Culture is set against truth. This relativism, which is nowadays to found, as a basic attitude of enlightened people, penetrating far into the realm of theology, is the most profound difficulty of our age. This is also the reason why practice is now substituted for truth and why the whole axis of religions is thereby displaced: we do not know what is true, but we do know what we should do: raise up and introduce a better society, the "kingdom", as people like to say, using a term taken from the Bible and applied to the profane and utopian sphere.

There is much, much more from Ratzinger, but the point that interests me here is captured in the statement: "we do not know what is true, but we do know what we should do..." Bowman, for example, doesn't believe there is one true path, but she is apparently convinced of the necessity of prayer and meditation. Again, why? Based on what, exactly? How is saying, "There is not a single, true path," any less of an objective claim to truth than saying," There is a single, true path"? Both require the same amount of certainty and confidence, do they not?

Ratzinger points out that one problem is that "in the consciousness of mankind today, freedom is largely regarded as the greatest good there is, after which all other good things have to take their place. ... In the scale of values with which man is concerned, to live a life worthy of humanity, freedom seems to be the truly fundamental value to be the really basic human right of them all. The concept of truth, on the other hand, we greet rather with some suspicion: we recall how many opinions and systems have already laid claim to the concept of truth; how often the claim to truth in that way has been the means of limiting freedom."

The religious relativist inhabits a most uneasy land; in fact, he stands in metaphysical quicksand. To his credit, he might well reject the claustrophobic fatalism of scientism, which asserts—once you cut to the cold chase—that man is a material accident driven by complex but impersonal, evolutionary forces. So he fights for freedom and free will: "I will meditate; I will pray; I will try to seek transcendence!" But, having admitted, at least implicitly, his desire for the Other, he refuses to accept that the Other—whatever he, she, or it might be—can really be known or distinguished or defined to any real degree. Why? Because, as Ratzinger suggests, as soon as you acknowledge or accept specific characteristics of God—He is Creator; He is personal; He is omnipotent; He is holy—you begin to realize that freedom has a source and a goal beyond yourself. The hip spirituality of our day is loath to get into specifics; they are anathema to the "open minded" seeker. But, said Chesterton, "An open mind is really a mark of foolishness, like an open mouth. Mouths and minds were made to shut; they were made to open only in order to shut."

Which means, taken further, that freedom, which is a great good and gift, is oriented toward an ultimate Good. Freedom cannot exist for its own sake; by its very nature it testifies to a greater good. "Freedom without truth," Ratzinger states, "is no freedom." And yet so many people, including many Catholics, continue to believe that freedom is the goal, and freedom can only be found by rejecting—either openly or otherwise—the existence of truth.

• Cardinal Ratzinger Considers Whether Truth, Faith, and Tolerance Are Compatible | Ignatius Insight
• The Better We Reason, the Nearer We Come to Truth | The Introduction to Reason to Believe: Why Faith Makes Sense | Richard Purtill
• Relativism 101: A Brief, Objective Guide | Carl E. Olson

Comments

[Joe]

Carl, I don't quite get the gist here, since most people I know who believe like this still seek God and try to be good. They do not use the pluralism idea as license. They say, "I love God and try to do what's right. But I can't believe any one religion has all the answers. If I hear Him outside the Church, then it is proof they Church is not exclusively right. We all know it is the product of mixed up if well-meaning men."

Thoughts.

[LJ]

There is a great incidental irony here that people that think this way tend to sell their political and religious freedom in the name of "tolerance" and are blithely unaware until it is gone.

There is more than a shortage of catechesis at work, there is also a lack of history and basic philosophy. Such people not only do not know God, they don't know humanity either. If they truly understood humanity they would go looking for the truth about God.

Even so, the words of Jesus you would think would disturb such a person, such as when he promised to bring a sword. The point is, they are not thinking at all. Thinking implies a search for truth, and that is not what they are about.

If they are not thinking, all that is left is to say that such people are poseurs. They are taking a stance, posing for a portrait in life, practicing a lifestyle. Culturally the Catholic faith feels good to them, quite understandably, so they see no need to leave, even while practicing other things that feel good to them.

This was always the core problem with ALPHA. If you looked at the program closely, it was designed to present a "Christian lifestyle." This inevitably led to the experiential as a way to make it meaningful, and so it became in many instances an open-ended "charismatic" experience un-focused, unbounded and a wide open door to the spirit world, much like such grotesque phenomena as the "Toronto Blessing." (The two have a common pedigree)

We can sympathize with those who in desperation leave the Church for fundamentalist churches who preach the gospel (although truncated) without apology. God bless those Bishops and priests who preach with clarity and make the "lifestyle" Catholics uncomfortable.

[Magister Christianus]

From the CSM article cited above comes this. "Although she is a devoted Roman Catholic, she says she doesn’t 'believe it’s the one true path and anything else is flirting with the devil.'" LJ above comments that "there is also a lack of history and basic philosophy." Exactly. Put the language of faith and religion aside for a moment. We are thrust back upon Aristotle's basic law of non-contradiction, that there cannot be both A and not-A. If a person claims to be a devoted Roman Catholic, then, given the teaching of Roman Catholicism, it is impossible to believe that there are other true paths to God. If a person claims to believe this, then he either does not fully understand the terms of what he thinks he believes, or is being willfully perverse by irrationally maintaining what he knows he cannot rationally maintain.

Make no mistake, such a person can be a very nice person, quite delightful, in fact. But maintaining contradictions is illogical, and therefore false.

For more on Aristotle's law of non-contradiction, see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/.

[No Man]

Plus, blame it also on deficiency of prayer/meditation.

Fr. Powell 12/22/2009: "Pantheism (All-is-God) is a cheap dorm room spirituality deeply pondered by sophomore philosophers after one too many hits on the bong. Quoting scientism's prima donna, Richard Dawkins, 'pantheism is a sexed-up atheism.' As Douthat notes, for R.D., this is a compliment."

IMHO: one is not Christian if one gives credence to any other "belief systems" - that is pantheism or polytheism, I don't know and don't care which. It's wrong.

[Brian J. Schuettler]

One Truth being taught by One Church in obedience to the Holy Spirit, preaching Jesus as Saviour and Redeemer and Him crucified. The Truth is that simple...everything else is, as they say, commentary. Freedom without Christ is slavery.

[Steve Cianca]

Joe,

In response to your query, I think part of the problem is that many such Catholics misunderstand the nature of the Church's claim to truth. In their minds, the position that the Church represents the one true faith means that there is no truth to be found anywhere else. This of course is absurd. The Church has always recognized that God has revealed Himself in other ways, through, for example, natural law or His creation. We as Catholics have always subscribed to the truth of the Old Testament--God's revelation to the Jews. What the Church's claim really means is that the fullness of God's revelation is to be found in the Church--the Body of Christ, Who is the Word Made Flesh.

Another part of the problem is that many "syncretist" Catholics are intellectually--if not lazy, then out of shape. Most of what they believe is based on feelings or habits, not on "faith seeking understanding." For them, as long as they are sincere, it doesn't really matter what they believe. One doesn't critique other faith traditions because that would be "judgmental," a cultural no-no.

Finally, such Catholics as you describe feel free to mix and match elements of various religions because for them, the point is to be able to keep all your options open in perpetuity. As Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out, for such people, freedom always trumps truth, and the commitment and decision-making that taking truth seriously entails.

[LJ]

Magister Christianus,

Exactly. Your mention of the law of non-contradiction brings to mind the soliloquy of John Galt in Atlas Shrugged. He spoke of the "blank-out". While I don't agree with Rand's atheistic conclusion, the premise of reason as distinctly human is the right one.

It would seem that syncretists and any other type of relativists, theoretical or practical, like the person cited, have suffered at least a "brown-out" of reason. We know they have it, because they can still communicate, and we know that all language depends upon logic and order to be anything other than a series of unintelligible grunts and whistles. But such people have stopped asking the question "why?"

Proper catechesis, in my opinion, must start with the question "why?", must encourage the question "why?" and must proceed to answer the question "why?", ultimately coming to the final conclusion that Jesus Christ is the answer to that question, incarnate.

But it seems to me that it is far better to be dissatisfied with the answer than to stop asking the question.

[TeaPot562]

A very interesting article, Carl. It provides some understanding of the viewpoint of a relative who does some of this "syncretist" exploration. One needs to pray for others who may be in error, while remembering that possession of the truth can be sabotaged by pride or lack of charity.
TeaPot562

[MTQ]

I find some of your comments very disturbing since I have people in my own family that have strayed from their Catholic Faith and worship in other Christian church denominations. I am so grateful that they and some others still believe in Jesus that, taking care not to compromise my own Catholic beliefs, I treat them very gently and continue to pray for their conversion. I have come to believe that Jesus is still with them and that eventually the Grace of the Holy Spirit will guide them back home. As for myself and many parents and families, this has been a most painful time for me, but the only way I can deal with it is to continue to model my own Faith and pray for them. If there is a better way, I would like to hear about it.

[Term Paper]

The Church has always recognized that God has revealed Himself in other ways, through, for example, natural law or His creation.

[Term Paper]

I am so grateful that they and some others still believe in Jesus that, taking care not to compromise my own Catholic beliefs, I treat them very gently and continue to pray for their conversion.