What Is Required For The Sacred?

The Host. The Menorah. Two different religions. Two different holy objects. Are both holy? Is this a situation where the relativist is correct? Is the Host sacred to Catholics, and the Menorah sacred to Jews? I’m inclined to say yes, but there is more to say. Sometimes actions are regarded as sacred: like prayer, or the rite of Confession. But are religions infallible in selecting that which is sacred for them? Is there anything off limits?

Again, I think I am forced to say yes, and my counterexample is human sacrifice which was practiced by the Aztecs of Central America, the Thuggees of India, and many more. Personally, I wouldn’t want to worship a deity that condoned human sacrifice in His name. Anyway, as sacredness does not seem to be an empirically-verifiable property (as far as we know), how do we make headway? What is it that makes an object or action sacred?

At first blush, it seems to be piety; that is, the piety of the individual contemplating or regarding the sacred object or action. In other words, it is a subjective emotional state. But again, there seems to be more involved because, otherwise, we would be left with relativism and there would be no distinction between the piety of the Aztec priest performing a human sacrifice and the piety of a Catholic priest hearing a confession; and maybe, as far as the piety in itself is concerned, that is actually the case. Both are separate acts with very little in common other than that piety, but one involves the death of an innocent human being, the other, not. In my view, the death of an innocent human being should nullify whatever benefit the piety of the Aztec priest provides. In other words, there is a moral concern outside of mere piety alone. Since the sacredness of a thing requires the piety of its participants and nothing else, the ritual human sacrifice, although piously performed, is extraneous to sacredness and piety in itself. In other words, the death of an innocent human being adds nothing to one’s piety in that situation. If the sacred requires piety and nothing more, the human life is wasted without justifiable cause. And that is a serious concern for morality (as opposed to the sacred).

But is that the whole story? It may be objected that the degree of piety is affected by its object. The dearer a thing is, the greater the piety. And what can be dearer than a human life? To be honest, I’ll have to think about that objection. I have no intention of concluding that human sacrifice is just fine and dandy—at the very least, I will object that morality encompasses more than the sacred, and where something might be permissible in light of the sacred, it may be impermissible in light of the moral; hence, no human sacrifice. But in the end, what is sacred and what is not, is not up to me.

The Importance of the Confessional

I have a friend with whom I was discussing the Catholic Confessional the other day. A former Catholic, she was saying that one of the things she didn’t like about Catholicism was the Sacrament of Confession because when you go to Confession you have to reveal all these embarrassing things you’ve done, i.e. “I pulled my sister’s hair,” etc….

True. But that’s kind of the point.

Confession is supposed to help you reflect on your wrongdoing in life. Nobody’s perfect. Everyone has done something wrong at one point or another; indeed, they likely do something wrong on a regular basis. Confession can help an individual accept this fact and resolve to do something about it. The very act of Confession requires a certain degree of humility which (I’ve learned the hard way) is beneficial to the soul.

Some Protestant sects, I believe, take issue with the Catholic Confessional because of the presence of a priest. They believe God doesn’t need the priest to be there to forgive the sinner. That is most probably true, but it misses a subtle point. I think it is more beneficial for the sinner for the priest to be there than it is for him not to be. The Confessional isn’t concerned with God’s well-being, but the sinner’s. I can talk to God anytime I want on my own; it doesn’t require much in the way of courage, if for no other reason than that He already knows what I’m thinking, what I’ve done, and maybe even what I will do. But it requires more courage and more humility to admit your flaws and mistakes to another human being. It requires the individual to actually “talk” to someone who is physically there. The release from guilt and shame will be that much more cathartic when the ritual is complete. And the forgiveness offered is all the more concrete because of that.

Anyway, that’s my thoughts on the subject.

Relativism Simplified

I used to utterly despise moral relativism (and to a certain extent, I still do). However, time and experience has blunted my fury on the subject. At a certain level, a relativistic (this has nothing to do with Einstein) viewpoint is useful and worth considering, if only briefly. Let me explain.

I recently watched a movie called Ip Man 2. It was a martial arts movie set in, and filmed (I believe) in China or Hong Kong. The hero of the movie was a martial arts master named Ip Man. In the end, he has a match with a Western Boxer who was white and from England, and basically the epitome of an arrogant jerk. Indeed, the way the westerners were portrayed in the film might warrant charges of racist bias against Caucasians perpetuated by the Chinese producers. I’ve noticed that kind of trend in a number of Chinese films. Anyway, I don’t want to get sidetracked. The thing to remember is that it was a Chinese movie and it portrayed the white antagonist as almost a caricature of an arrogant jerk.

Compare this to Rocky IV  (an old movie) where Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone) fights Ivan Draggo (Dolf Lungren). Rocky is, of course, portrayed as the noble hero. Ivan Draggo is portrayed as almost a caricature of the “Russian bad guy.” Same phenomenon as in Ip Man 2, except in this case, we (the U.S.) are the ones guilty. So, if you look at this relativistically, both countries portray their foreign adversaries similarly … as evil bad guys, basically. So, on first blush, it appears that evil, at least, is relative; it depends on the perception of the sufferer, or perhaps, better yet, the perceptual position of the sufferer.

But that’s only on first blush. As a whole, it is a lackluster moral theory. If I punch you in the nose, that might feel good for me, but painful for you. How does such an analysis help? What’s missing is an analysis of the itty-bitty details … the facts, if you will. Relativism is only really helpful at a purely emotional level.

Another example. I read somewhere that the Japanese still think the United States was the aggressor in WWII. Basically, in a war between country A and country B, country A will likely regard country B as evil, and vice versa. But as I said, then there are the details. Take Isis, for example. They seem to be willing to plumb depths of evil we balk at: crucifixion, drowning, burning alive men, women, and even children. In such a situation, Relativism only tells us that Isis hates us, and we hate them. Not particularly profound.

So, what is to be done with this insight?

Emotions don’t occur in a vacuum. They are based on information … facts if you will. The true relativist will permit different facts to influence different sides in a conflict. In such a situation, the relativist will say the facts used by country A are true for it, and the facts of country B are true for it. There is no objective truth in the situation. Although it is true that both sides will behave as if that is the case, that does not mean that that is really the case. Some of the facts on either side may be wrong. Others may be shared by both sides. Others may be partially true. What is important, is that “truth” determines the value of the facts and is a separate concept. What is relativized is the information or knowledge of the facts, not the truth of them. The truth stands alone, objectively. Either country A invaded country B three days before or it didn’t. While country A and country B have the right to claim their own knowledge of a conflict, they don’t have the right to claim their own truth of it.