Guest
Karlo Broussard is a staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and he travels the country and the world giving talks on apologetics, biblical studies, theology, and philosophy. He is the author of The New Relativism: Unmasking the Philosophy of Today’s Woke Moralists.
Links
- The New Relativism: Unmasking the Philosophy of Today’s Woke Moralists (book)
- Catholic Answers
- Sunday Catholic Word (podcast)
Transcript
Eric Sammons:
Years ago, Pope Benedict warned against a dictatorship of relativism. But it seems today that the problem is with woke moralists, who appear to be absolutist in their wokeism. But when we look deeper, we actually will see that they are the dictorial relativists that Pope Benedict warned us about. That’s what we’re going to talk about today on Crisis Point. Hello, I’m Eric Sammons, your host, Editor-in-Chief of Crisis Magazine. And before we get started, I just want to encourage people to like this video, subscribe to the channel, let other people know about it. We really do appreciate when you do that.
So our guest today is Karlo Broussard. He is a staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers. He travels the country and the world giving talks on apologetics, biblical studies, theology and philosophy. And he is most recently the author of The New Relativism: Unmasking the Philosophy of Today’s Woke Moralists, which I have right here. It’s a very good book, out of Catholic Answers Press.
As I told you this before we got on, but you’re here because of my son. My son’s a student at Franciscan University. He saw you speak on this topic a few months ago, I think it was, and he texted me, he’s like, “Dad, you got to get this guy on your podcast.” I was like, “Okay, let me look into it.” And of course I knew who you were, but it was interesting. He was very excited by it. So clearly, at least with some of the young people, it’s a topic that they’re very interested in. But welcome to the program, Karlo.
Karlo Broussard:
Eric, thanks for having me. And I must say, a shout-out to your son, and thanks. I’m very grateful to him for initiating this interview and getting the opportunity to come on and chat with you, Eric. I’m really grateful, man.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah. Thanks. So why don’t you, for people who don’t know much about your background, why don’t you tell us a little bit about yourself? Are you a convert, cradle Catholic? How’d you get started into apologetics and all that?
Karlo Broussard:
Sure. Yeah. I am not a convert, so I’m a boring old cradle Catholic.
Eric Sammons:
I always say, the funny thing is, I’m a convert. People say, oh, “Converts are the best.” No, I think cradle Catholics are, because they have that whole base. They have a family base.
Karlo Broussard:
Right. Right.
Eric Sammons:
So don’t feel bad.
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. Yeah. I grew up in southern Louisiana. I come from a music background. I was pursuing a musical career from the time I was 13 all the way to 20, playing the Cajun accordion in a Cajun band. And if you don’t know what that is, you can look it up online. If you Google my name, you’ll see me with some curly hair, back when I was 17, 18 years old. And actually I have some videos online of me playing when I was 18 with my band at a festival.
So I was pursuing that career, but around 18 years old, Eric, I heard the conversion story of Tim Staples, now my colleague and good friend. And for the first time I was introduced to apologetics, the science of defending our Catholic faith. I’m sure your viewers know all about it. And there was a fire that lit within me, and I was attracted to this practice of apologetics, which was interesting, because I was not an intellectual kid. Education, intellect, big questions about life, that was not on my radar. That wasn’t going on in my mind. But by God’s grace, apologetics attracted me, and I felt a desire to pursue it and to study it.
So I started getting a hold of all of Tim Staples’, at the time, tape sets, and Scott Hahn’s tape sets and stuff, and doing sort of an informal study. And the desire grew so strong that I discovered that I wanted to do apologetics for a living, very much like a lot of people have that desire. I get people all the time saying, “Hey, I want to do apologetics for a living. What can I do?”
So I started my formal training in theology in Corpus Christi, Texas. The Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity had an undergraduate college at the time, so I went there to study theology. That’s where I met my wife. And then I just have been pursuing my formal theological studies and philosophical studies from that time on.
And Tim Staples and I became friends, and Tim was always sort of dragging me along the rope, and keeping me connected. And because of Tim Staples, I was able to get on at Catholic Answers seven and a half years ago, and sort of fulfilled the dream, and live the dream, as I am right now, of being a Catholic apologist. Started so many years ago with Tim Staples, when I was 18. So here I am. That’s the short story.
Eric Sammons:
Oh, that’s great. I mean, that’s great. It’s always amazing how … I know what you mean by a lot of people, they want to get in apologetics, and for a living. So you’re doing good work.
Now, I know you’ve written a number of books, but this one, The New Relativism, I want to take a step back, because I will say that I was a little confused when my son told me about the book. I looked into it. I was a little bit confused about what your argument was trying to make. And so I want to take a step back for everybody to 2005, I think it was, when Pope Benedict talked about the dictatorship of relativism. It was what he talked about right when he became Pope, right before he became Pope. I can’t remember.
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah.
Eric Sammons:
I think, wasn’t it the homily or something, at-
Karlo Broussard:
Yes. It was.
Eric Sammons:
Okay. At the Pope’s, at Pope John Paul’s funeral. And I remember that very clearly, and I thought, “Yes, absolutely,” because I remember very much at that time, there was this rise of relativism. So why don’t you just, first, let’s talk about, what do we mean by relativism, and what do we mean … What did Pope Benedict mean in 2005 by the dictatorship of relativism?
Karlo Broussard:
Right. Well, relativism, generally speaking, is the philosophical worldview that there is no absolute truth. Philosophers call that global or total relativism. No matter what area we’re talking about, what area of reality we’re talking about, science, religion, morality, whatever, history, “There is no absolute truth.” That’s relativism on the global scale. Eliminating or precluding absolute truth whatsoever. “There is no truth independent of what you or I happen to think.” As opposed to what philosophers call local or partial relativism, which carves out a specific space and says, “There is no absolute truth there,” while acknowledging there might be absolute truth in other areas.
So for example, somebody might say, “I believe there’s absolute truth when it comes to math. Two plus two is four, and that’s absolute. And even science. But when it comes to morality, and right and wrong, human behavior, there’s no absolute truth.” Right? So it’s going to be relative to what the individual judges to be good, and that’s what’s good for them, but it might not be good for somebody else. So that’s called moral relativism, or some people might localize it and say, “There’s no absolute religious truth, when it comes to religious claims,” while acknowledging absolute truth in other areas. So that’s sort of a brief synopsis of relativism, and the different shapes and sizes that it comes in.
Now, getting back to Pope Benedict the 16th, back in 2005, when he spoke of the dictatorship of relativism, he was making the claim that relativism is controlling the modern mental framework. It was the engine that was driving modernity and modern thinking. And he was right in that. And he saw within the mental framework of relativism, and the principles that are involved within relativism, to lead to a dictatorship, which, as we’ll talk about in a moment, we’re experiencing in our culture today. This sort of tyranny and absolute authoritarianism, because there’s this void. There is no truth by which we can govern our lives. And so it’s just simply will against will, rather than persuasion of the mind. But we’ll talk about that in a moment.
But Pope Benedict the 16th was picking up on that, and the principles involved within relativism, and how it in principle, not just a slippery slope, but in principle leads to, “Might makes right.” And so it’s going to be a dictatorship.
Now, Eric, what’s interesting is about in 2005, the quote-unquote “old relativism,” it was in your face, and it was blatant, and everyone was touting it, right? Everyone was claiming it. “You have your truth. I have mine.” That was the catchphrase. That was the mantra of the culture back then. So it was blatant, in your face. That’s what I call the old relativism, in contrast to the new relativism, which is hidden. It’s lurking behind these modern woke moral absolutes that would seem to be absolute morality, a new moral absolutism in verbiage. But when you pull back the mask, and you pull back the veil, what you discover in very many cases immediately is just outright good old-fashioned relativism, whether in the total kind, and-or in the moral kind, you see?
And so that’s the thesis of the book, in response to a claim that is made both in Christian and non-Christian circles that relativism is dead. So when I started writing this book, Eric, my target was just relativism, but then I started discovering this claim. I came across this claim, and I source it in the book both in Christian camps and non-Christian camps, that relativism was dead. It was passe. It was old news. Even some of my colleagues was like, “Karlo, are you really going to have a targeted audience for this? This is 2005 apologetics, man.”
Eric Sammons:
Yeah. I mean, I’ll admit, before I even heard of the book or looked at it, if you had asked me about relativism, I’d be like, “Yeah, that might have been true in 2005, but that’s not what we’re competing against.” Because in 2005, I remember very clearly, the challenge for Catholic apologists was that if you said something, people would just be like, “Well, that’s your truth.”
Karlo Broussard:
Right.
Eric Sammons:
“My truth is different.” And so that’s very difficult to argue with, because they’re just going to keep saying that.
Karlo Broussard:
Sure.
Eric Sammons:
But now people are going to say, “No, this is the truth, and you better accept it.” That a man can become a woman, for example, or whatever the case may be.
Karlo Broussard:
Right. Right.
Eric Sammons:
And you need to bend your knee to it. And so-
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right.
Eric Sammons:
… I would have definitely been one of the people a month or so ago saying that.
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah.
Eric Sammons:
So yeah, take us through how that is still relativism today, because I don’t think that’s clear to most people. It’s clear to me now that I’ve read your book, but it’s not clear to most people how that’s relativism.
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. So as I was saying, exactly that. “How can you be a relativist in a shame culture?” Given the shame culture that we’re in, which would seem to be this new moral absolutism, it doesn’t seem that one could be a relativist, right? And so how is it that relativism is embedded within these woke moral commands? Well, as I point out in the book, Eric, I go through 10 of them, and some are clearer than others. I’ll admit that. There are some of the 10 that you have to dig a little bit deeper, and if it’s not outright relativism, it’s at least a practical relativism. That is to say, truth might as well not exist, right? Because practically, people are living as if truth doesn’t exist. So at least there’s a practical relativism that’s lurking behind some of these woke moral absolutes. But some of them are outright relativism.
So for example, let’s just take chapter one there, Eric. “Thou shall not be a white supremacist.” You would think there is no possible way that relativism could be present here, because within critical race theory, it is claimed, “Thou shall not be a white supremacist.” Now, on the surface, Eric, how we would understand that, we say, “Absolutely.” We can get on board with that. And I would argue that probably 95% of the people walking on the street, if they were asked a question, “Should you be a white supremacist?” They would say, “Oh, no. Absolutely not. That’s bad stuff. We don’t want to get on with that.”
However, when you unspin the modern spin, you discover outright relativism. How so? Well, an essential claim of critical race theory is that objectivity is the ideologue of racism. Objectivity is a toxic characteristic of white supremacy. The implication being that there is no single truth, and to affirm that there is objective truth, you’re guilty of white supremacy.
So first of all, there’s this cognitive dissonance going on here, right? This intellectual coherence saying, “There is no objectivity, but yet you’re wrong for being a white supremacist.” How can you be wrong for being a white supremacist if there is no objectivity? You follow that, right?
Eric Sammons:
Right. Right.
Karlo Broussard:
I mean, so right off the bat, there’s intellectual coherence here. But secondly, it’s self-refuting in that in making the claim that objectivity is a toxic characteristic of white supremacy, that claim in and of itself is an objective claim.
Eric Sammons:
Right.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s a proposition that’s applied to all peoples, at all times, in all places, so they will say. But if it’s objective, well, then it would be guilty of the same white supremacy that they’re claiming us absolutists to be guilty of. So notice how right off the bat, I should say, when you pull back that veil of this modern woke moral absolute, total relativism manifests itself immediately in saying that, “There is no objectivity. There is no objective truth.” That’s just outright total relativism. So it’s good old-fashioned relativism right there in front of your face, once you pull back that veil of the modern absolute.
Eric Sammons:
Now, how do you think … Well, when and how do you think this relativism kind of transferred from old to new? Because we both, let’s say, in like 2005, we know the way it was presenting itself, and we know in 2023, we know how it’s presenting itself. How did that transformation happen and why?
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. Well, with regard to the how and the when, it seems to me, Eric, that it started coming to the fore whenever we were dealing and battling within our culture, quote-unquote “same-sex marriage,” and the cultural acceptance, approval, and celebration of sodomy, of same-sex sexual activity. And it seems to me that it was then when this new relativism began to manifest itself, where you have relativism lurking behind these modern absolutes. Because the modern absolute was, “You must accept somebody’s,” quote, “sexual orientation towards a member of the same sex.” “You must accept that as equal and valid.” “You must accept the lifestyle choice of same-sex sexual activity as equal and valid to other lifestyle choices between a man and a woman, and that sort of sexual activity.” And notice the absolute there. “You must accept these lifestyle choices.”
But here’s where the moral relativism lurks in, comes in, Eric. “You must accept it as equal and valid.” In other words, you must, quote-unquote, “tolerate it.” And this gets to one of the chapters in my book, in the section of moral relativism. The modern cultural understanding of tolerance is to accept everyone’s lifestyle choice and-or beliefs as equal and valid.
Now, on the surface, Eric, that sounds like an absolute moral command. How can there be any relativism there? But think about it. If all lifestyle choices are equal and valid, well then it logically follows that no lifestyle choice is right, and no lifestyle choice is wrong. There can be no one that is better than the other, since they’re all equal and valid. There would only be a difference, not one being right and the other being wrong. That’s just moral relativism in its essence. And so it seems to me that that’s when that shift started taking place.
As to the why, I think what happens, Eric, is that for so long, we were dealing with relativism. It creates that void, right? That void of no truth. Everybody’s minds become dormant. The intellect is weakened. And in order to fill that void of truth, only the will comes into play now. And so you have these absolute, “Thy shall not misinform.” Silencing people of any opposing view. You have this cancel culture. You have the shutting down of anything and everything that opposes the common cultural narrative constructed by the powers that be. Because the mind is no longer in the driver’s seat. The mind is off the table. And so persuasion of mind is no longer a viable option. All that remains is will. And so if there’s any opposition, it’s an opposing will that’s directed at my will. And so now we only have a conflict of wills, because the mind’s no longer in the driver’s seat.
And I would attribute that to this cultural experiment, I guess, of relativism, of working with relativism so long, to where the persuasion of the mind … Because in relativism, Eric, persuasion of the mind is not an option. If there is no objective truth or reality for the mind to conform to, well, then you can’t persuade the mind to the truth. And I think we’re experiencing the wicked offspring of relativism in our culture today with these modern woke moral commands.
Eric Sammons:
One of the things that you bring up in the book is the accusation of being anti-science. And that seems to me … Science is at least supposed to be very objective, in that you do experiments, you look at reality, you say, “Okay, whether I like it or not, this is just what happened in my experiments.” We repeat them, and so on and so forth. And yet that is the thing that’s thrown out at anybody who … I mean, most classic example is Fauci, saying he is the science, basically.
Karlo Broussard:
Yes. Yeah.
Eric Sammons:
Any challenge of his beliefs, his dictates, is anti-science. But just you see it all the time, though. Anything where you challenge any kind of truth that the media at least is pushing, as being anti-science. And that seems to me very objective. So how is that also relativistic, to be accused of being anti-science?
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. Well, here’s the key, Eric. And there’s no scientific or medical truth independent of the consensus of a particular group of experts, right? And to go against such a consensus is to be labeled as anti-science, or as Fauci insinuated, to be anti-truth. In some of his interviews, he equated truth with science, and him saying, “I represent science, therefore I represent truth, and to disagree with me is to disagree with truth, is to be anti-truth.”
And so if you look closely at, what was the reason why people were charged with being anti-science by Fauci and others? The answer is because they were simply looking to another group of scientific medical experts who had opposing views against the particular group of experts, who in the words of Fauci, have “an air of authority.” Those medical experts who were in positions of authority, who had a position, and have constructed a narrative about these COVID-19 issues. And when people consulted other scientific experts, and looked to other groups of scientific experts who had opposing views, they were labeled as anti-science.
And so notice here, Eric, what’s manifest here is a cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is relativism that says, “There is no absolute truth independent of a particular group of individuals,” as opposed to saying, “There’s no absolute truth independent of what I say.” Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, in their book, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, they label cultural relativism as society says. No absolute truth independent of what society, or culture, or group of individuals say. And this is cultural relativism manifest here. Fauci saying, “Hey, there is no scientific truth.” In other words, basically he’s saying, “There is no scientific medical truth independent of this particular group of medical experts.” And that is a manifestation of cultural relativism.
So what I do in that chapter, Eric, is I expose that cultural relativism that’s lurking behind this modern absolute, “Thou shall not be anti-science,” and then offer a few strategies as to how to respond to it, in order to try and refute it.
Eric Sammons:
Okay. So I want to review, because you’ve mentioned all three of these types of relativism, can you break down again, distinguish between total relativism, moral relativism, and cultural relativism? Because in your book, those are your three main sections, and that’s something that I had not really thought about, the distinctions between them, because how a Catholic responds to them is going to be different. So break down the three differences, and why don’t you just go ahead and say also, what is the Catholic response to them?
Karlo Broussard:
Okay. So there’s going to be a little bit of overlap in a couple of them. So let’s just take the two clear, distinct categories of total relativism and moral relativism, right?
Total relativism, again, is that general view of saying, “There is no absolute truth whatsoever.” As opposed to a more localized form of relativism that would say, “There is no absolute truth when it comes to religion.” We might call that religious relativism. “There is no absolute truth when it comes to morality.” We’ll call that moral relativism. So in my book, I chose to go with moral relativism, because that’s sort of what we’re experiencing within this woke culture.
So in response to total relativism, “There is no absolute truth.” The classic response is, “Well, is that absolutely true?” If the relativist says, “No, it’s not absolutely true,” then they falsify their claim. And so if it’s not true, well then I guess we don’t have to accept it, right? We shouldn’t accept it. But if they say, “Yes, it is absolutely true,” well then that would be manifesting an inherent contradiction. They would be saying, “There’s at least one absolute truth, namely that there is no absolute truth.” So they would be saying there is no absolute truth, and absolute truth at the same time, in the same respect. That’s a contradiction. We can’t accept that. And then also, too, they would be falsifying their view by saying there’s at least one absolute truth. Namely, the proposition, “There is no absolute truth.” So that’s the common, classic response of showing how total relativism, when applied to itself, it refutes itself. It’s self-referentially incoherent.
Now, moral relativism, Eric, as I point out in the book, is not self-referentially incoherent like total relativism. It requires a little bit more thought in order to see its incoherence. It’s not blatantly self-contradictory. Because think about it. It’s logically coherent to say, “There’s some absolute truth in these areas over here, but no absolute truth when it comes to this particular area.” We say that about ice cream, right? There’s no absolute truth whether vanilla or chocolate ice cream tastes better. That’s relative to our taste buds, right? So there’s nothing logically incoherent with moral relativism, and saying, “Some absolute truth in math and science, no absolute truth in morality.”
But the moral relativist is not out of the woods, Eric, because whenever they begin to suggest that we ought to live in accord with moral relativism, therein lies the incoherence. So I could ask the moral relativist, “Okay, you say there is no absolute truth when it comes to morality, right?” “Yes.” “Here’s the question. Ought I to live in accord with moral relativism? You say that’s the way the world is, I need to live in accord with reality, and so should I live in accord with reality, namely moral relativism?”
If the moral relativist says, “No, you shouldn’t live in accord with moral relativism, as if it were true,” well then that would be advocating insanity, living contrary to reality. I don’t think somebody’s going to want to do that, right? And also, why would you even propose moral relativism if you don’t expect me to live in accord with it? Now, if the moral relativist says, “Yes, Eric, you should live in accord with moral relativism. You need to live as if it’s true.” Well, then there’s at least one absolute moral truth there. Namely, “Live as if moral relativism were true.” In which case, moral relativism is falsified.
So you can see how, although moral relativism is not logically incoherent off the bat, it becomes logically coherent whenever it’s advocated that we should live as if moral relativism were true. And that would manifest itself if I began to criticize your lifestyle choice, and you say, “Hey, well, there is no absolute moral truth.” Then my question would be, “Well, I thought you wanted me to live as if moral relativism …” No. If I criticize your lifestyle choice, and the moral relativist says, “Hey, get your mind off of my lifestyle choice. Don’t impose your beliefs on me,” well, that would manifest the desire that I should live as if moral relativism were true. Because if moral relativism was true, I couldn’t be criticizing your lifestyle choice. And so there would be a logical incoherence there.
Finally, cultural relativism. Cultural relativism can apply to either total relativism or moral relativism, because cultural relativism is just saying, “There’s no absolute truth independent of a particular group of individuals.” Now, that could be no truth whatsoever independent of the group of individuals, or it could be there is no absolute moral truth independent of a particular group of individuals, or a society, or a culture. So it kind of all depends upon whether somebody’s willing to go as far as total relativism, or localize it to morality. But cultural relativism is basically saying there’s no independent truth, whether total or moral. No absolute truth, whether total or moral, independent of a particular group of individuals.
Eric Sammons:
Okay. So I want to get a little practical here as well. I recently did a podcast where I was talking about the difficulties of Catholic apologetics today. I personally think that because of society, I think Catholic apologetics is much more difficult than it was maybe 30 years ago, when I first became Catholic.
Karlo Broussard:
Absolutely.
Eric Sammons:
And I think there’s a number of reasons for that. I mean, some of them are just the weakened witness of the church. That obviously hurts us. But I also think, okay, so what you’re saying is all true. I mean, your argument, it’s great. It’s very good. And people who listen to it should be like, “Yeah, okay. That makes sense.” But you just know that the woke activism is just going to say, “You’re a white supremacist for saying that. You’re a bigot.”
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah.
Eric Sammons:
And that’s the argument, is that, because you kind of brought it up before, “Objective truth is white supremacy.” So practically speaking, I mean, when you deal with somebody like that, do you just have to wipe the dust off your sandals, and you’re just looking for open-hearted people? But there’s so many people now where it’s like, they’re just going to say you’re a bigot, or you’re a white supremacist, or you’re a … Whatever the insult is against people who don’t agree with trans, whatever.
Karlo Broussard:
Sure.
Eric Sammons:
How do you deal with that practically as an apologist, or just as a regular Catholic who’s trying to share the faith with people?
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. Eric, it’s a great question. And it not only applies to these issues, but it just applies to evangelization generally speaking, brother. I mean, all I can say is I’m going to look to our Lord. And what did our Lord tell the apostles? “Go into the town. Preach the gospel. If they receive you, great. If they don’t receive you, shake the dust off your sandals and move on.” There are some people who will be so hard-hearted, like in the case with our Lord, where you can perform the greatest miracles, and they still kill you. So there are some people who are so hard-hearted, and the mind is so darkened, that it is simply going to be a conflict of wills, and persuasion of the mind is practically not a possibility, except by a divine invasion of grace.
I recognize that those people exist, and there’s quite a few of them out there. And even if we were talking about something else, we probably would not be able to persuade their mind. And so for those people, that’s God’s problem, man. I mean, I can’t work on the heart except being the witness of holiness and love, and being Christ to them. And whether God gives them that grace to soften the heart, which will then lead to an opening of the mind, that’s his problem. And so I’ll leave that to him.
I’ll attempt and try to appeal to the mind, and tug on the heart a little bit emotionally if I can, in some ways, and discerning in that personal conversation of where they’re itching, so I can scratch it, right? But sometimes you’ve got to recognize they’re not willing to play the game. They’re not willing to play the game of reason. They’re not willing to play the human game and live the art of being human. And if that is the case, I do think all we can do is pray, and just, “How’s the weather?” Or talk about sports. And so we do have to practically recognize those limitations.
But Eric, I’m a bit more optimistic with regard to the man on the street, and the millennial who’s working in the barista, and rubbing shoulders with these individuals in the coffee shop, who is being persuaded towards the woke agenda, woke ideas, LGBTQ+ ideas, but haven’t really thought through them. And I do think there’s enough people out there, Eric, that in conversation, if we can fan the flame of reason a bit, that reason can be awakened for them to see the absurdities that are embedded within these modern woke commands, and then reject them. And so that’s only going to come about by engaging in the conversation, and exposing the incoherencies, and seeing where their reason is at.
And some people are going to just be a bigot by saying, “You’re a bigot,” by having this negative emotional response that’s not based upon reason. And then again, you recognize that wall there, that closed door, and you have to move on. But we look to our Lord. We extend the invitation to come back to sanity. But if they do not accept it, what can we do but leave it to the Lord, and pray and fast? That’s what our Lord says.
Eric Sammons:
Right.
Karlo Broussard:
So I think that’s just the bottom line, is just we look to our Lord, and what happened to him and the apostles. Some people are going to accept it. 3,000 people converted on Pentecost, right? But yet many others didn’t, and they killed him for it.
Eric Sammons:
Right.
Karlo Broussard:
So that’s just the landscape we’re in.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah. I think it does make it difficult, but I think that’s something that we have to remember, is … I think it’s something particularly difficult when it’s a loved one who is like that.
Karlo Broussard:
Yes. Yes.
Eric Sammons:
A friend, a family member, somebody you care about, when they cloud their reason. And it’s very difficult to step away, kind of wipe the dust off your feet, when it’s maybe your sister or something like that.
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. And one thought that comes to mind there, particularly with regard to family members and friends, I think, and I point this out in the book, it’s extremely important in conversation to say, “Hey, look.” Just to be honest with them in the conversation and say, “You’re asking me to go against what I think is true. You’re asking me to affirm something that I think is not good for you. And so what you’re asking me to do, if you’re asking me to affirm your transgender lifestyle choice, or your homosexual lifestyle choice, if you’re asking me to affirm you in that, what you’re asking me to do is to not love you, because in my mind, I’m judging these things to be immoral. I’ve judged these things to not be good for you. And by you asking me to do this, you’re asking me to not love you. I love you. I support you. I want what’s best for you, but this, in my mind, is not best for you. And so I would hope that you could understand that by me not affirming your lifestyle choice, I’m actually trying to love you, because I’m wanting what’s best for you. And this stuff, this lifestyle choice is not what’s good for you. It’s not what’s best for you.”
And so maybe in that tone and with that sort of idea, hopefully that loved one could come to at least respect where you’re coming from, and see that the opposition to the lifestyle choice is not hatred. It’s not a manifestation of ill will towards the person. It’s just simply a recognition, a judgment that this behavior is not good, and I need to live in accord with that.
Eric Sammons:
Okay. Now, I don’t know if you have kids or not, but I know that … How do parents equip their kids, especially as they get older, high school, to recognize this new relativism? Because like I said, I didn’t even really recognize it myself until I picked your book, and it does make sense now. But how can we guard our kids as they get older, so that when they go out into the world, they’re able to see these things more clearly, that they don’t get sucked into them? Because obviously it would be great if they’re out there doing apologetics and evangelization themselves, but I think most parents are more worried the kids are going to go off to college and they’re going to get sucked into that. And so how do we keep that from happening?
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. Great question. Two thoughts come to mind. First of all, I think we have to engage in conversations with them to show them the absurdities. Expose to our children, whose minds are developing, the absurdities of these modern woke moral commands, to show them, “Hey, listen, we agree we shouldn’t be a white supremacist. But what woke agenda means by white supremacy is not what we mean.”
Eric Sammons:
Right.
Karlo Broussard:
And expose to them. They’re saying a single truth is white supremacy. Show them the logical incoherence. And sitting around a dinner table, I bet the 18, 19-year-old’s going to say, “Yeah, that’s absurd.” Right? Show them how critical race theory is, in its very essence, racist towards white people, and an injustice towards even the non-white people. To say that with regard to racial equity, to say that a non-white person cannot get a position because of their color, that’s an injustice towards them. Point that out to children, and hopefully they’ll be able to see how absurd it is. That’s my first thought. Walk through the strategies with them that I articulate in the book and appeal to their mind.
And then the second thought that came to mind is, I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit, Eric, explain to them that just because a particular lifestyle choice is immoral, whether it be the lifestyle choices relative to the LGBTQ+ community, or it’s any other lifestyle choice, that does not mean, it does not mean that they’re wicked, or gross, or mean people. Because I think what often happens, Eric, is young adults, college-aged students, they grew up in a Catholic home, hearing that these lifestyle choices are immoral, and they equate immoral lifestyle choices with mean, wicked, yucky people. And then they go off to college, and they discover these people who have made these lifestyle choices, and they’re super nice, man. They’re really compassionate, and affectionate, and nice, and tender-hearted. And so the kid’s like, “Wait a minute. My parents have been telling me this stuff is bad and icky, and they’re bad people all my life, but this is a pretty good guy. This is a pretty good gal.” And so they begin to say, “Well, there must not be anything really wrong with that lifestyle choice.”
And so I think that’s at least one thing we can do to help our children, to explain to them that just because it’s immoral, that doesn’t mean they’re mean people.
Eric Sammons:
Right. I think that’s probably the biggest challenge for young people today, is the alphabet crowd, with transgender and homosexuality, is like, it’s just a matter of, “You’re being mean to these people. We’re being nice. We’re not being like that.” And like you said, when they meet people, I think one, personally, I think one of the best things to do also, is if you’ve talked to people, there’s a movie, a documentary came a number of years ago called Desire of the Everlasting Hills, and it interviewed some men and women who had lived a homosexual lifestyle, had left it, and they talked about the pain and the suffering that they endured in that lifestyle. I think that helps realize that the reason we oppose these things isn’t just a, “God said so,” type of thing.
Karlo Broussard:
Right.
Eric Sammons:
But because it actually is harmful for these people. It actually hurts them. And so if we’re loving, we’re going to do something to help them to get out of that. So it’s a big challenge, but I think that’s part of it too.
And I think one of the things I liked about your book here, The New Relativism, is that it does have some very … Kind of you expect this from a Catholic Answers book, but it has some very practical sections of exactly, “Okay, what do you do in this … You hear this, what do you say?” Stuff like that. So I think that’s a great part of that.
Is there anything else? We’re going to wrap it here in a minute, but is there anything else about the book, or just the new relativism that we haven’t covered, that you kind of want to make sure that people know about?
Karlo Broussard:
Well, I think one of the things that I point out in the book is another aspect of the new relativism, not only that it’s hidden, but one other aspect of the new relativism is that it’s more militant than it was before. Nice relativism is passe. In the past, it had that tone of niceness to it, like, “Let’s agree to disagree. You have your truth, I’ll have mine.” There was a sense of niceness. And I think in large part, that’s why a lot of people adopted relativism, thinking that it was the nice way to go. Because the assumption was to disagree or to have a conflict of ideas would lead to conflict and violence. And I actually deal with that in the very … I think it’s the first chapter of the book, “Thou shall not impose.” And what modern culture means by that is, “Thy shall not persuade others.” One of the reasons is because people think that persuasion of the mind is going to lead to violence, and conflict, and broken relationships.
So I’d respond to that, so there was a tone of niceness with the old relativism, but the new relativism, it’s more militant. And that is rather than, “You have your truth. I have mine. Let’s just go our merry way,” it’s more like, “You can’t have your truth,” as you stated at the outset of the interview. “You can’t have your truth. You must conform to mine.” And I think that’s the wicked offspring of relativism itself, because within the mental framework of relativism, there is no objective truth. So it’s only my truth. So it’s going to lead … Persuasion of the mind is off the table, and it only leads to that conflict of wills. And so whenever there is a conflict, the will with the most power is going to win the day. And so this is what we see in our modern culture, where those who are have in positions of power, whenever there’s opposition to their view, there’s simply the dictatorship. There is, “You must conform, otherwise you’re going to pay some severe consequences. Some severe prices, and have some severe consequences.”
Eric Sammons:
Yeah. And it’s getting scary, because there are some consequences. People losing jobs, and-
Karlo Broussard:
Absolutely. Man, every time I give presentations on this material, without fail, I have someone coming up to me after the presentation saying, “Karlo, I got called to the CEO’s office and they’re demanding that I use the appropriate pronouns, the desired pronouns, lest I get fired.” And so we’re beginning to experience now, Eric, what the early Christians experienced, man, and other Christians throughout the world are currently experiencing, to where our lives are not on the line right now for standing up for truth, not just supernatural truth, but natural truth, right?
Eric Sammons:
Right.
Karlo Broussard:
Our lives aren’t quite on the line yet, but our livelihoods are, and our physical wellbeing is. So we’re in some ways getting back to the first century there, where our faith not only in our Lord, but even our commitment to natural truth, and then through that commitment to natural truth, our faith in the Lord is being tested.
Eric Sammons:
Right. Yeah. And you saw that recently in Major League Baseball, where there was that player for the Toronto Blue Jays, who I think he had an Instagram post where he just said, “We should boycott Target,” and boy, and after he had to make an apology, and he ended getting cut by the team anyway, and all because he had a-
Karlo Broussard:
Differing opinion.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah. Gave an opinion about boycotting Target. That’s all it was. It wasn’t even like he said anything that detailed about why or anything like that. Yeah. So we really do have to step up and obviously know the arguments against it. But as you know, and as you were saying earlier, it’s not just a matter of the intellect, but the will, because we have to know these things, but we also have to stand up for them and be willing to make some … We might have to sacrifice for the truth, which ultimately is Jesus Christ. But like you said, we’re just talking about natural truths here. Like, “Oh yeah, man is a man.” I mean, this isn’t supernatural knowledge or anything.
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. And what we’re experiencing, we’ve come to a point in our culture where, and I understand it, but it’s important to think about it, that our relationships and keeping the peace in our relationships has trumped our commitment to truth. And that is something we need to think about. Even for us as Catholics, that truth, fidelity to the truth, and fidelity to our Lord has to come first. That has to be the primary target. And know that if we stand up for the truth, the division that would be caused from that with family members and friends is not because of the truth, and our standing up for the truth, but because of those who choose to not conform to the truth. And that’s important to remember, because so many people don’t want to cause that division. They think that they’re being a bad person for standing up for the truth, and the daughter not talking to the mom anymore or something, right?
Eric Sammons:
Right.
Karlo Broussard:
But we have to understand that it’s not the truth that’s causing the division. It’s the failure and the choice by some to not conform to that truth.
Eric Sammons:
Right. Absolutely. Okay. So I’m going to put a link in the description to the book, The New Relativism. It’s from Catholic Answers Press. Highly recommended. How can people find out about other stuff that you’re up to these days?
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. So they can go to shop.catholic.com. That’s the Catholic Answers online store, where they can get that book, and my four other books that I’ve written. They can just go to catholic.com to follow the work that I do for Catholic Answers, and the videos, and the articles that I write, and the podcasting that I do. I would also like to recommend to your viewers to check out my weekly podcast that I do entitled Sunday Catholic Word. They can go to sundaycatholicword.com to subscribe. And basically what I do there, Eric, is I take the upcoming Sunday mass readings, and I highlight the details that are relevant for doing apologetics.
Eric Sammons:
Oh, okay.
Karlo Broussard:
So it’s looking at the liturgy of the word, but from a Catholic Answers perspective, right? Kind of, what’s the apologist’s mind latching onto in the Sunday mass readings that are relevant for doing apologetics? And so I highlight those details and show how it fits within apologetical conversations. And so it’s a lot of fun, and people are liking it.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah. I hadn’t heard of that podcast, so I’m glad you mentioned. I’ll definitely link to it here so people can find it easily. It’s a little different, because you have different people, Scott Hahn and others, who reflect on the readings, which is great, and that’s always good.
Karlo Broussard:
Yes. They do a superb job. Yeah.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah. This is a little different, though.
Karlo Broussard:
Yup.
Eric Sammons:
This actually gives a little bit of a different look at it.
Karlo Broussard:
It is. It is a bit of a twist. I had to find some spot for my voice in the midst of the Hahn and Dr. Bergsma voices.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah. Yeah. You’re not going up against Hahn and Bergsma directly. That that’s a losing battle right there.
Karlo Broussard:
Yes. Exactly. Brant Petri and all those guys. Yeah.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah. Great. Okay. Well, that’s great. Thank you very much. Again, people, The New Relativism, recommend it. Check out these other places that we link to. And, hey, thanks so much, Karlo, for coming on the program.
Karlo Broussard:
Thank you, Eric. I appreciate it, buddy.
Eric Sammons:
Okay. Until next time, everybody. God love you.