P. Benvin Sebastian Madassery SVD:
6. The nature of tolerance
6.5 The limits of tolerance
In the light of the above it is clear that Christian tolerance is not at all dictated by the pathos of enlightenment, that it is not built on rejecting the difference between good and bad. Christian faith does not serve the good or bad knowledge of the current consensus or a domineering elite, on the contrary, it is widely aware of the divine law, the revelation, the reality of sin and grace, the categories of morale and the necessity of understanding.
Furthermore, the biblical and theological understanding of tolerance does not question the absolute need for truth of Christianity, but categori-cally declares that it is only possible by assimilating to God’s only begotten Son, the only Saviour, Lord Jesus Christ. The tolerance of Christian people is connected to the act of redemption, which professes the hour of mercy before the day of justice. “For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost.” (Lk 19,10).
So tolerance should by no means be identifi ed with the lack of views.
Firm belief in the truth, without goodwill and clean conscience tolerance
67 Simon Gábor: Mi a vallásszabadság? http://www.katolikus-honlap.hu/0804/vallassz.htm (L.d.: 16.06.2015.)
cannot really be practised. Genuine tolerance safeguards bravery to counter falsehood, to lovingly remind people to seek the benefi t of others, to encour-age goodness, and to teach the faith even if it necessarily evokes confl icts.
Because its aim is not to preserve a false mock-peace, built on a kind of complicity instead of the truth, but to achieve a more complete community with others in Christ, so eventually to serve reconciliation with God.
Genuine tolerance cannot stop at accepting “otherness”, cannot drown in the neutralism of “it’s all the same”, but it bears, tolerates the other because he looks at the other as an equal companion – sinner and needing redemption – on the road of life, whom he must direct to the right way with great understanding and tact, but to the best of his power and knowledge.
Tolerance is fulfi lled by respecting the personal freedom and conscience of your neighbour, but this cannot be for its own sake. Neither free will nor conscience can be idolized so it cannot be treated as a fi nal point of refer-ence. They are important for us, because through them we can recognise and follow the truth. Mere reference to free will and conscience cannot cover false, mistaken judgements and decisions and will to harm. So personal freedom and conscience can be tolerated as long as it remains within the frames of the revealed truth. As soon as they clash that is, an objectively recognisable serious breaching of the law happens, we must exercise control.
As a result of the original sin sense has become blurred, the will weak-ened, the human nature prone to bad, which concerns us all, and this is the only reason that we must be patient with abuse of freedom and mistaken conscience because combatting these is only possible through faith and grace.
Furthermore tolerance cannot mean pragmatical manoeuvring either.
We should never be tolerant in order to serve any kind of personal interest.
With this we would take advantage of the fallibility of others, we would abuse their trust, and would lead them astray from the right path, because we would replace trust with our own interest, although it is trust we must all seek and follow.
Tolerance is not cowardice but a safe foundation to be ready to wait for the others with trust and if the right moment comes bravely advise, encourage and teach them even if it is unpleasant and trying for us. The resistance of tolerance is understanding and easy to conciliate, so it is gentle and always ready to extend a hand.
At the same time this tolerance protects us too: resistance is compul-sory when we must protect the freedom of our own conscience. We cannot
become an object in our neighbour’s hands. Tolerance cannot impair faith, belief and self-esteem. Nobody can claim that we should give up our faith, our belief and our identity in the name of tolerance.
Respecting conscience and personal development, and helping to reach goodness is mutual, so it obliges the other party too. We should recognise with humility that we ourselves also need the mercy, the teaching words, advice and good example of God and our fellows. Tolerance between neighbours is mutual and bidirectional.
7. “What is truth?” (Jn 18,38)
In Saint John Passion Jesus Christ admits of himself during his hearing:
“For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear wit-ness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.” In answer to this Pilate asks: Ti esztin alétheia – “What is truth?” (Jn 18,38)68
First we must make it clear that it has been proven both philosophi-cally and theologiphilosophi-cally that human intellect is able to know the truth.69 The dogmatic faith of the Church and every manifestation and act of the Magisterium is based on this conviction. The Magisterium comprising the Pope and the body of bishops fi rmly stand by the ability of the intellect, that it is able to recognise the truth. Truth precedes denial both ontologically and logically. We would never try to fi nd the truth, if we did not know that it exists. Truth itself provides the possibility and the guidance to ask for it.
We would never ask for something we do not know anything about.
Secondly, we can note that when asking for the truth, man faces his own paradox: although he himself is fi nite (contingent, historical, methodical limits), still he desires infi nity, entirety. While asking for the truth man has to realise that deep down in himself he is destined for the entire truth, therefore asking for the truth leads man to God. Constant asking is the sign that man has been destined to an answer which is greater than himself, to Entirety that is God himself.70 According to theology history is a road to the inscrutable Secret.71
68 Nestle–Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece – The scholarly edition of the Greek New Testament. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012.
69 Pope John Paul II : Fides et Ratio 13. p.
70 Papp Miklós: Az Igazság az örökmécsnél van. Az erkölcsi igazság komplexitása. in:
Az Igazságról, Sapientia Füzetek 19, Vigilia Kiadó, Budapest 2011, 144. p.
71 Pope John Paul II : Fides et Ratio 11. p.
However, man is not only a “questioning” being but through the divine revelation – and ontologically this is primary – he is “one who is called, who is addressed” also. Seeking and following the truth is the most important obligation of conscience. This is what freedom of conscience is directing at. As Saint John Paul II teaches72: “Although each individual has a right to be respected in his own journey in search of the truth, there exists a prior moral obligation, and a grave one at that, to seek the truth and to adhere to it once it is known”.73 Cardinal Blessed John Henry Newman, who was a noted representative of the rights of conscience stated in this sense very fi rmly: “Conscience has rights because it has responsibilities.”74
So man is a spiritual being in the metaphysical sense, whose dignity can only be understood if it is approached from its nature of a created person turning towards the infi nite absoluutum (God!).
The absolute nature of human existence, of respect and of dignity can-not be regarded autonomous and cancan-not be deduced from its own basis.
Man is an ephemeral and fragile being so he cannot deduce his essence regarding the absoluutum from his own immanency, he can only found it in transcendence, towards which the spirit is reaching. Absolute dignity can only be assumed in connection with an absolute God. So if we are consis-tent in understanding, we will necessarily discover the religious nature of man seeking the truth.
7.1 Culture is the communal expression of recognised truth