Apparently, apart from this ‘skill’ to make people accept what one says to be the truth, there is no other way to convince someone that the truth does exist per se. It is of course a subjective way to say the truth or rather to convince people to accept my truth. We face today this power to manoeuvre words into a direction that suits the best interests of those speaking and so trying to affirm their own truth. We have plenty of these examples, i.e., words spoken that look like great discourses but in fact hide a pre-concept or even an ideology. However, either the truth exists for itself or it does not exist at all. No one can create it, unless he is able to discover it as the outcome of a serious and diligent investigation. To have an idea of what I’m talking about, let us look at the word “tolerance”. It means a permissive attitude towards those whose opinions are different from ours. Opinions, especially today, are various in relation to beliefs, sports, philosophy, etc. We are ordinarily very tolerant. Tolerance seems to be the ID for social life. If one is intolerant he is then considered an enemy of the community. But strangely, tolerance has a power, most of the time, to mean more permissiveness toward relativism (the idea that there is no truth and that everyone can hold to his own) than to be respectfully inclusive with those who reject it and think that the truth exists per se as something given and not as something imposed. Why, for instance, there is so little acceptance of those who sustain that life begins with the conception and that a baby has to be always respected and granted the natural right to live? But, on the other hand, tolerance is normally understood as being respectful of people pro-choice – those who instead do not acknowledge that a baby just conceived is that person they were, and that could not claim now any right if they were terminated too with abortion. Why such a discrimination in being tolerant? Does it mean that tolerance is a double-meaning word? Not at all. It just means that words can be bent to mean something that the majority likes, though it is not necessarily the truth. Truth in fact is not an opinion. What is imposed by the power of words is not the truth we need, rather the power of an ideology through the savoir-faire of significant words. More about this power of empty words came recently with the incredible story of toddler Alfie Evans, who has literally been condemned to death although he is alive and fully able to breath on. Mr Justice Hayden, the one dealing with the case of Alfie Evans, said during a final hearing on Tuesday 24th April 2018: this “represents… the final chapter in the case of this extraordinary little boy." Which meant: no possibility to transfer him to Italy for further medical treatments, neither to still have life support in order to continue to live, despite the fact that he survived its withdrawal starting to breath on. The “protocol” (another wordplay to euphemistically describe death) should be applied. Look at the perfidy of these words: “final chapter” (i.e. death and nothing else) of an “extraordinary little boy” (extraordinary for his strength to live and to resist death). The same Mr Justice Hayden was hoping that the child might be given back to the parents who could spend some precious time with him before his end, rather than investing any other time in a juridical fight. “The brain cannot regenerate itself and there is virtually nothing of his brain left”, he said in the same circumstance. No point to want him still to live. He must die, but joyfully because he is a wonderful little boy! The truth is that life does not depend on the brain. Life is more than a brain, and the dignity of Alfie, as of every other human being, is of the person as such, and not depending on the functionality of components of our body. On top of all this there has been another expression very striking for its hypocrisy: “best interests”. Repeatedly it was reported that according to Alder Hey Children’s Hospital continuing treatment was “not in Alfie’s best interests”. Even when Alfie is still resisting death and living on by breathing autonomously for a very long time, it is still in his best interest to practically die. When is death really in the best interest of man? But in this case, since it is all about promoting State euthanasia – the so called ‘sweet death’, but worse because now decided by a judge and not even by the person or by the parents – death is the best interest. Everyone can see the emptiness of these words engaging in a real battle: ideology against reality and truth. When the reason does not work anymore, our own understanding produces monsters of nonsense. Mortal nonsense, if we do not open our eyes and come back to the reality of truth. Truth again is not an opinion but the objectivity of reality.
Copyright© 2018 by St. Mary's Catholic Church Gosport