I would like to build upon the topic of my colleague Joe’s most recent article, “The Monopoly on Truth,” specifically, by addressing the uneasiness that most Catholics seem to have with the assertion that the Faith contains the fullness of truth. While it is certainly reasonable to be uneasy about making such a claim, I would like to discuss the question of what the logical alternatives are, and why they are not viable. Then from there, I will contend with what is likely the most widespread apparent counterexample to this claim on the fullness of truth, relativism.
First, a look at the alternatives: one could claim to have none of the truth, or that each individual has their own truth, or maybe just a part of the truth. If you claim to possess none of the truth, or at least none that is relevant to morality, human nature, life after death, etc., then you have a logically consistent but unlivable viewpoint, for there is no end to which your actions can be directed or ordered. The same difficulty arises with the position that each person has their own truth; it is a viewpoint that cannot be lived out in reality. So, any philosophy, or system of beliefs more generally, which is to be the grounds for one’s actions simply must claim to possess some or all truth that is relevant to how one ought to act.
To examine belief systems which outwardly claim to have only part of the truth, I want to use the example of scientism, which claims to have truth about the natural world, but does not concern itself with the supernatural. This necessitates the existence of open questions (e.g., does immaterial reality exist?) which cannot readily be answered by the extension of that system’s established principles. I believe scientism (and any such system which claims only a part of the truth) must make the claim, in order to maintain adherents, that the solutions to these external open questions are not pertinent to morality, salvation, etc., thus implying that their professedly partial account is actually sufficient in the relevant sense. In the example of scientism, in order for it to become the basis for action, it must rule out the existence of anything it cannot explain, i.e., the immaterial, which could threaten its position of strict amorality. And so, its claim on the merely material part of the truth quickly gives way to a broader claim that material scientific truth is actually the whole of truth, and this pattern seems to be logically unavoidable for other such belief systems.
Now, it is the vast acceptance of relativism, in my opinion, that is responsible for the sheepishness of Catholics regarding the Church’s claim to have the fullness of truth. And in this matter, I believe the relativists fall into two camps, 1) those who say that there is no right and wrong and that various belief systems, religious or otherwise, are all mistaken; and 2) those of the persuasion that these religions and philosophical approaches to life are really all aimed at the same thing, just take different paths to get there, and nobody can say which of these paths is best. The first type does not form the basis for action, and almost inevitably adopts a principle of “do whatever you want” to provide that basis. The second camp is of more interest. It is often expressed in the familiar new age language of “I’m not religious; I’m spiritual.” And as is often the case with relativism, it has the apparent appeal of not burning any bridges or making any enemies.
This kind of relativism, intentionally or otherwise, backs itself into the bold claim that it has the fullness of truth by virtue of this unique and general insight into the religions and philosophies which become as mere accessories to it. But it is actually an even stronger claim than a simple assertion of possessing the fullness of truth; this species of relativist has the audacity to claim that while virtually everyone else on earth is plodding along one path or another, and all in apparently different directions, he alone has achieved the birds-eye view necessary to see that they are all, in fact, going to the same ultimate destination. To even begin to substantiate this claim to us humble plod-alongs, there would have to be a definition, or at the very least some articulation of what that ultimate destination is, and, even more challengingly, how in fact each path ventures there. The end to which we are supposedly all going in this account must be something that encompasses the mindfulness and Zen of Eastern religions, the selflessness of the Christian martyrs, and everything in between. I, for one, am skeptical.
To return to the Catholic claim of its monopoly on truth, and to reiterate Joe’s point, the Church claims to be in sole possession of the person of Christ as her spouse, and He is Truth. It is clear that any system of beliefs which is to form the basis for judgement of human action must make a claim on the fullness of truth, and it is quite a modern liberal tendency that we Catholics seem to have adopted when we shy away from taking our own side in this matter. The claim is not that everyone else is simply wrong; in fact, they can often be right about basically all of the relevant facts that are a part of Truth. But the Truth that is the person of Christ belongs to His bride, the Church. And if the relativists can make a claim as audacious as theirs and as brazenly as they so often do, despite less capability to back it up, how much more so should we proclaim His glory and that of His Church?