So, in honor of Pope Benedict’s retirement, I thought I’d
give him a retirement gift by buying and re-reading An Introduction to Christianity. Well,
not really re-reading, but more like
finishing it this time – I started reading it some time ago in a print version but became
distracted from it for one unimportant thing or another.
This time, I am reading the newer Kindle edition (2nd
ed., 2004 in print (in English), and 2010 for Kindle). And I am stunned by Benedict's introduction to this edition (subtitled “Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow”), which describes the the rise of liberation theology in Latin America following the historical
milestone year of 1968. The stunning part is
its spot-on description of how religious faith is currently considered by the Obama
Regime (I’m thinking about the perversion of the free exercise right into merely
“freedom of worship”, the repeated Obama speeches about shared responsibility and being our brothers’ keepers, the HHS mandate enforcement, etc., not to mention O's connection to '60s radicals and to Black Liberation Theology). Let me share a few passages:
Anyone who makes Marx the philosopher of theology adopts the primacy of
politics and economics, which now become the real powers that can bring about
salvation (and, if misused, can wreak havoc).
The redemption of mankind, to this way of thinking, occurs through
politics and economics, in which the form of the future is determined.
That sounds familiar relative to the past four years. Benedict goes on to describe the role of
religion in this context:
From this perspective, speaking about God belongs neither to the realm
of the practical nor to that of reality. . . What remained was the figure of
Jesus, who of course appeared now, no longer as the Christ, but rather as the
embodiment of all the suffering and oppressed and as their spokesman, who calls
us to rise up, to change society. . . .
Man is, indeed, as Aristotle says, a “political being”, but he cannot
be reduced to politics and economics. I
see the real and most profound problem with the liberation theologies in their
effective omission of the idea of God, which, of course, also changed the
figure of Christ fundamentally (as we have indicated). Not as though God had been denied – not on
your life! He simply was not needed in
regard to the “reality” that mankind had to deal with. God had nothing to do. . . .
Has not Christian consciousness acquiesced to a great extent – without
being aware of it – in the attitude that faith in God is something subjective,
which belongs in the private realm and not in the common activities of public
life where, in order to be able to get along, we all have to behave now etsi
Deus non daretur (as if there were no God).
Was it not necessary to find a way that would be valid in case it turned
out that God did not exist? And so
actually it happened automatically, when the faith stepped out of the inner
sanctum of ecclesiastical matters into the general public, that it had nothing
for God to do and left him where he was:
in the private realm, in the intimate sphere that does not concern
anyone else.
Funny how Popes seem to have a knack for understanding
human nature, isn’t it? Wonder where
they get that? ;-)
I look forward to this reading project.
Thanks, Pikkumatti. The man can write, can he not?
ReplyDeleteThat God "simply was not needed in regard to the 'reality' that mankind had to deal with" is a penetrating criticism of Liberation Theology. I'll just share my informal, inexpert impression that He nevertheless functioned for some as an approver: He approves of the actions of liberationists, He disapproves of the actions of anti-liberationists (and, presumably, would make that approval really count in the next life, if that's your bag).
ReplyDeleteIn that sense, God does have something to do, although it is not necessary. And of course, "in case it turned out that God did not exist," the liberationists would still function as their own approvers.
Having said that, there's nothing about living etsi Deus non dare to contradict us that's unique to liberation theology.
Tom, good point. Liberation Theology packages the EDND into a viral philosophy, though, with Catholic images and practice acting as host cells.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the problem (from the standpoint of Liberation Theology) is when the Church doesn't offer its approval when it is invited out into "the common activities of public life". Then the Church must be painted as a patriarchy of old white European hypocrites, and sent back into its Sunday-morning-only hole for bitter clingers.
ReplyDeleteBut now there is hope! Maybe the Church will appoint a Pope that is "more open" to modern ideas on ordination of women, contraception, abortion, etc., as newspaper editorial columns are currently calling for. Then maybe it can be trusted out in the world more often to offer approval, in the manner that Tom suggests.
The battle continues.
...and will continue.
ReplyDeleteToday's helpful suggestion from the media of how the Church can "open itself up".
ReplyDeleteIf the church is saying exactly the same things as the world, why bother going to church?
ReplyDeleteA bit surprising to hear an MSNBC panelist say the Church needs to open itself up to Latin.
ReplyDelete