Evan Sayet, former liberal, makes a nice connection between relativism and the liberal narrative:
"if nothing is better than anything else,He opines that the basic conservative/liberal difference is that conservatives accept the difference between good and evil. Liberals only consider evil those who accept the difference between good and evil. And racists. White racists.
then that which failed must have been victimized."
I had a friend who was a passionate uber-liberal. He was in seminary with me. He became obsessed with discovering the theoretical foundations of Church authority, the power to determine what the Church believed and who belonged to the Church. Being Catholic, all that seemed pretty obvious to me, but not to him.
Of course, he decided that no one had that power, especially the people who said they did. And as for criteria of Church membership, he came to hold quite vehemently that the Church was meant to be an inclusive community and that the only ground for exclusion was that you excluded someone else. As you can see, his relativism was driven by his moralism, a hatred of authority (although he later became a devoted supporter of his liberal bishop) and rage over the fate of the excluded.
As theology, Catholic theology, it is, well, kinda silly. But very popular among the Vatican II types (of which I used to be one, full disclosure and all), especially "feminist theologians".
Anyway, I digress. But once you become a relativist, you are a liberal.
"if nothing is better than anything else,
then that which failed must have been victimized."
___________
No comments:
Post a Comment