Ecumenical Dialogue or Compromising on the Truth?

Published by Published on

"Then Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, 'Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you...." (Acts of the Apostles 17:22-23).[1]

"Truth Himself speaks truly, or there is nothing true" (Thomas Aquinas, Godhead Hear in Hiding)

When discussing matters of truth, particularly on divisive issues, is it ever permissible to engage with another person's perspective to test its validity? Among some individuals often labeled as "rigid"—those perceived as unwilling to entertain any view contrary to their own—the answer often appears to be a firm "no." This stance, however, presents significant problems. It renders genuine evangelization nearly impossible and can hinder personal growth in conformity to truth. While this doesn’t mean adopting the other person's concept of truth wholesale, it does mean refining one’s own understanding to better align with the universal truth of God. This approach is distinct from relativism, where one abandons the pursuit of truth altogether, elevating personal opinion as the sole arbiter of belief. Yet, on reflection, both extremes—the one who clings so rigidly to their perspective that they refuse dialogue and the one who sacrifices truth for an overly "welcoming" posture—commit a similar logical fallacy.[2] The former may disguise their error better, but both fail to engage with reality as it is. The challenge, then, is finding balance: holding fast to the truth without being so entrenched that new facts and insights are dismissed outright, while also resisting the temptation to adopt every appealing new philosophy without discernment. How can we adhere to the fullness of reality without being prematurely "dug in" before the evidence is clear, and yet remain firm enough not to waver with every passing trend? The answer would seem to be being a philosopher. Let us consider that authentic ecumenism is an open discussion of ideas that does not rest in a single perspective and does not compromise on the truth, but rather considers its aspects and draws one's interlocutors into a shared mindset at its end, not only conformed to the truth but also with increased understanding of the relevant/practical aspects of a subject.

Be critical of perspectives not in a negative "straw man fallacy" way but in a carefully discerning way. It is often the case that an additional perspective on an issue provides some (of course not all) additional truth about it, which is why it can be dangerous to limit oneself to a particular perspective in a way that denies other truths.[3] As a matter of evangelization, ignorant stubbornness more often makes one appear foolish than educated, making the position of that person seem not worth the time and energy of genuine consideration. Contrary to this move is the one that does accept philosophies at large but acknowledges some part of what they emphasize as bearing the truth based on allegedly more important factors. Between these two extremes is listening to other perspectives and while not accepting any as absolute, practical truth one compares them, finds what is compatible between them, then what is dissonant but not quite contrary, and then what is contrary.[4] As a case example, we will consider stoicism.[5] If one is "listening" enough. they will notice a resonance between the Catholic understanding of the world and relationship with God and Stoicism's emphasis on detachment. However, this consideration is not an assent, nor does it forsake what is true. The detriment would happen when either a difference is perceived and it is not considered or a truth is perceived, and all other truth is abandoned in favor of this newfound philosophy. Either taking on Stoicism wholeheartedly and abandoning Christianity or trying to make both dwell together is to not consider there are tenants of stoicism that contradict faith in Christ and in those situations, one must choose one over the other. The key difference between the two is the call to love, if one is so detached from things and people such that doing what willing the good of others requires is not desirable, damage has been done. If you get a sinking feeling in your stomach for those last two sentences, you realize something is at stake there. This engagement with truth is called "analogy", epistemologically speaking man is severely limited in what he can be certain per se of. Rather seeing aspects of this as bearing likeness to others and knowing reality to be so intelligible as to do that we are able to consider a subject through other subjects and so multiply our efforts in knowledge. (There will be more to come on this subject in later posts)

In conclusion, there can exist a divide between the practical and the theoretical, and the nature of belief to action. To be ecumenical is not to abandon truth, and to hold something of the truth is to not have it totally anyway. New ideas, technologies, other perspectives, etc. are worth considering in themselves but are not fully true since no one has a monopoly on truth. Stoicism's concept of detachment can help immensely with living the Christian life, and especially, fortitude. It ought to help the Christian life and take priority over what the other system of thought proposes. Take the truth and carry on. One will find themselves quite enriched in contemplating the nooks of reality with Christ through dialogue. Moreover, if you wish to be heard about one's perspective concerning what you find to be true and assist others in seeing that, one needs to be able to listen to other perspectives even the ones that make you clench up. Heresies are a very real thing, but not every thought that bears contrariety to orthodoxy deserves the same treatment as Arianism and those not to the same degree opposed to the one truth. Let us know when we, ourselves, may be in error, that we may be corrected or enhanced, not "digging in before the all the facts are in". For more on the subject click here.

Written by Carter Carruthers

FN:

  1. Bishop Barron, "Bishop Barron on St. Paul’s Masterclass in Evangelization" (19 August 2019).
  2. Carter Carruthers, "Objectivism, the opposite extreme of Relativism", Vivat Agnus Dei, March 3, 2024.
  3. Carter Carruthers, "Forming our Perspective", Vivat Agnus Dei, October 16, 2022.
  4. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Relation of the CHurch to Non-Christian Religions _Nostra aetate_ (28 October 1965), §2.
  5. Avery Starr, "A Useful but Incomplete Theodicy", Vivat Agnus Dei, December 24, 2023.

I am a created entity, not a person.

Most Viewed Posts

Divorce: Rupture of the Highest Human Communion

Published by Published on
Image
Building from  Commandments Toward Communion , and the Series on Love. Undoubtedly, in a culture where individualism is so esteemed, it is no wonder divorce rates soar and discussion of its immoral nature is avoided.[1] Whether we are discussing an indissoluble marriage or a friendship, division is not the will of God, because the closer the relationship the greater damage a rupture of communion brings. Divorce, producing preeminently negative effects, is a rupture of the foundational communion essential for society and the formation of children in love/holiness, severing the highest and most complete communion material man is capable of, and undermining the dignity of man, which rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion. First, divorce is a rupture of the foundational communion essential for society, severing the highest, most complete communion amid material man. Marriage (between a man and woman) is the most profound union that human beings can achieve, because ...
Click Here to Continue Reading This Post

Irascible Love and Its Necessity

Published by Published on
Image
You may look at the first word in the title and think, "Now I know he isn't speaking English". I would say that isn't entirely false, because I have only seen Aquinas use it, but he had a way of naming/applying terms well. The irascible power is a power of the soul that deals with overcoming obstacles and difficulties, fortitude is the habit of appropriately using this power. This power is the other side of the coin of the concupiscible power, which is oriented towards seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, the irascible power is concerned with resisting and overcoming challenges that impede the pursuit of good. It includes passions such as hope, daring, fear, despair, and anger, which are directed towards arduous or difficult (accomplishing/obtaining) goods and (avoiding) evils. What is irascible love then? Irascible love is the kind of love we need to truly love well because the full gift of self (in ways not-directly/inherently-biological) is found nowhere else than i...
Click Here to Continue Reading This Post

Where Psychology and Sociology Get It Wrong

Published by Published on
Image
If you have ever been through difficulty of the mind whether trauma, mental illness, and/or great struggle in one's life, then you have experienced something of what psychology and sociology have to offer. This has been a great help for many, yet something is missing. Accuracy is calculated by the following formula ((Observed value - target/actual value) divided by the target/actual value). Psychology/Sociology can find a regression or trend line of the human data points. This makes these sciences a "science of the norm" instead of a "science of law". Neither sociology nor psychology understands its object in its true context, and still more, do they evaluate humanity by objective criteria. "In the beginning" man was created aright. Man and Woman understood themselves, God, and each other. However, there was a force that hated him which was stronger than them, faster than them, and smarter than them. Man did not know the thoughts of God, but yet he kne...
Click Here to Continue Reading This Post