Moral anarchy.

Benedict XVI was making an obtuse point and was tone deaf to the wider culture he was addressing. I would argue instead that what he calls "moral relativism" is simply a byproduct of deeper problems in the failure to address meaning or significance, ones which the Roman Catholic Church itself increasingly grapples with, as exemplified in the epistemology crises that happened with 19th century Manualism, where Rome itself bought into the logic of modernity.


The manualist tradition essentially said "Mother Church knows best. So just obey these rules or burn." It reduced the rich mystery of Christian moral reasoning into procedural frameworks while demanding institutional obedience. This flattened approach sidelined the Church's greatest asset: mystery itself. Voices like Tolkien and Chesterton, who could speak to genuine spiritual hunger, were treated as apologetic tools rather than serious theologians.


There's no compassion here for people in the modern world who find the Church to be hollow authoritarianism with pretty vestments, and whose turn toward the "subjective" is often a quest for depth, even if through a cracked lens. When you've already evacuated transcendent mystery into institutional procedures, you've made it much easier for people to see it as just another human construction.


Benedict spoke a lot about relativism, but rarely made the bolder claim of a risen Lord who calls all people into a life of meaning and purpose that can't be commodified. Instead of proclaiming the most radical, world-shattering reality Christianity offers, he got bogged down in cultural criticism.


Francis wisely backed away from that toxic rhetoric, understanding that leading with condemnation is pastorally counterproductive. His approach of accompaniment: walking with people and showing how the Gospel speaks to their search, returns to something much closer to early Christian evangelization, which was about encounter with the living Christ rather than submission to institutional authority.

Xeno.of.athens said:

You live in a culture increasingly shaped by moral relativism, where truth is no longer received from divine or natural law but constructed according to personal preference. From a Catholic standpoint, this is moral anarchy—a rejection of objective moral norms that undermines both spiritual integrity and social cohesion. The Catechism reminds you that “freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary” (CCC §1734), but this freedom must be ordered toward the good. Pope Benedict XVI warned against the “dictatorship of relativism,” which enthrones the self as the ultimate measure and corrodes the foundations of communion and justice.

Within the Church, you witness the corrosive effects of moral anarchy in doctrinal confusion, sacramental trivialisation, and ecclesial division. When moral teaching is treated as negotiable, the Church’s prophetic voice is muted. The sacraments, especially Confession and Eucharist, lose their transformative power if sin is redefined or denied. Factionalism arises when bishops, theologians, and laity interpret doctrine through ideological lenses rather than the deposit of faith. You are called to resist this fragmentation by reclaiming the moral clarity rooted in Scripture and Tradition.

In society, moral anarchy erodes the common good, destabilises law, and fractures the family. Without shared moral foundations, governance becomes arbitrary and justice unmoored. The family suffers when fidelity and parental authority are undermined. Cultural nihilism follows, breeding despair and violence. Your Catholic response must be evangelistic, not accommodating—proclaiming moral truth as liberation, not repression. As Fr Kevin Azubuike Iwuoha puts it, Christian ethics asks not “What can I do?” but “What ought I do?”—a question that presupposes objective truth and moral responsibility.

Click to expand...

This is a legitimate concern and Pope Benedict XVI was right to raise it. It is not charitable for the Church to change its moral theology based on current popular trends, but rather, for it to provide a constant lamp before our feet, guiding us on a path in life that the Fathers charted based on the experiences of Jews and Christians over many millenia, which avoids moral pitfalls and hazards which we can become entrapped by.

The Orthodox Church takes a non-forensic, medicinal approach to sin, viewing it as an infection that humanity suffers as a result of Eve allowing the serpent to take a bite out of her soul even as she bit the Apple, and who then spread the infection to Adam.

Christ our True God died on the Cross to repair the damage that resulted from the demonic exploitation of the innocents of Paradise, in which Adam and Eve were corrupted, but God’s love for them and for us did not cease - indeed in Christ we are raised to a state higher than Adam before the fall. The plan of the devil was defeated in the mind of God before the devil had even formed it, for our unoriginate Father together with His and uncreated Son begotten before all ages, and the life-giving uncreated Spirit who proceeds from Him in eternity, exist beyond time and are able to act in our best interests in all possible futures.

Thus as Christians we must believe, trust and obey God, for He did not give us this moral instruction in order to oppress us but in order to liberate us, just as our parents warn us not to touch a hot stove or run into traffic not to curtail our freedom but to preserve it, for it would be limited if we were burned or electrocuted or crushed by a moving vehicle. In the same manner, God has given us instructions through His Apostles and the Church they were placed in charge of, which we must do our best to follow, for our safety and the safety of others, even if these instructions clash with what contemporary society tells us is good or bad. Nor can we trust our instincts, because these too have been corrupted, and it is only through much ascetic labor that the Fathers of the early church were able to tame the passions and discern what is actually good from that which is superficially good but leads to bad outcomes.

God is love, and he desires not the death of a sinner, and insofar as we are unable to precisely follow his instructions, God the Holy Spirit, our Comforter and Paraclete, and our Guardian Angels under His command, will protect us as much as possible. And we benefit from the fact that our Judge, Christ Pantocrator, is also our Advocate, and is infinitely merciful. However following in the path of God will minimize our overall suffering even if it entails bearing a painful cross in the present.

Xeno.of.athens said:

You live in a culture increasingly shaped by moral relativism, where truth is no longer received from divine or natural law but constructed according to personal preference. From a Catholic standpoint, this is moral anarchy—a rejection of objective moral norms that undermines both spiritual integrity and social cohesion. The Catechism reminds you that “freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary” (CCC §1734), but this freedom must be ordered toward the good. Pope Benedict XVI warned against the “dictatorship of relativism,” which enthrones the self as the ultimate measure and corrodes the foundations of communion and justice.

Click to expand...

It does seem that a relativistic viewpoint is necessary to some degree in order to make a judgement that some people exercise their freedom responsibly and others do not. This is because an absolutist point of view would uphold without compromise the command to be perfect (Matt 5:48), the instruction that breaking one commandment makes one guilty of all (Jas 2:10), and the conclusion that no one will be justified on the basis of his works (Ga 3:11).