This is the first commentary I have seen so far to the Holy Fahter's reference to liberation theology last week, in addressing bishops of southern Brazil who were visiting ad limina. Thanks to Lella and her blog
for leading me to it.
For those who have forgotten
what Communism was in practice:
The Pope recalls the 25th anniversary of
CDF Instruction on 'liberation theology'
by Massimo Introvigne
Translated from
The reigning Pontiff pays special attention to anniversaries, which he uses continually as an occasion for a pedagogy that is most mindful of the continuity of the Church and its Magisterium in history.
On December 5, Benedict XVI recalled the 25th anniversary this year of the Instruction
Libertatis nuntius signed by him in 1984 as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, condemning aspects of liberation theology and the '
acritical assumption by some theologians of theses and methodologies derived from Marxism".
He told the bishops of southern Brazil last week that "Its consequences are still more or less felt today in terms of "rebellion, division, dissent, offensiveness, and anarchy... causing great suffering..."
It was also significant that he spoke of this to bishops of Brazil, the country in which liberation theology had done the most damage.
The Pope added: "I beg of those who feel in some way attracted to, involved in, or touched in their own heart by some deceptive principles of liberation theology, to take a look once again at this Instruction, and accept the benign light that it holds out. I wish to remind everyone that 'the supreme rule of our faith... comes from the unity that the Spirit has imposed among Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church, in a reciprocity within which none of them can subsist independently'" [quoting from John Paul II's encyclical
Fides et ratio).
The Church - as Pius XI (1922-1939) recalls in the 1937 encyclical
Divini Redemptoris (n. 4) – had condemned Communism even before the Communist Manifesto was published in 1846, the same year as the encyclical
Qui pluribus of Blessed Pius IX (1846-1878).
Pius XI's encyclical - published just five days after the one against National Socialism,
Mit brennenden Sorge, to avoid the propaganda use of the papal condemnations by partisans of one or the other of the two ideologies - was the most detailed analysis by the Church till then of the Communist phenomenon.
Since then, similar analyses of Communism and Marxism by the Church number literally in the hundreds, but the Instruction
Libertatis nuntius is particularly important.
This document helps to answer the fundamental question: Why did the Church condemn Communiom? The answers "Because it taught and disseminated atheism" pr "because it persecuted the Church" are not wrong in themselves, but are inadequate and incomplete.
Four points emerge from the Instruction on liberation theology - if it is read, as it should be, in the context of the entire Church Magisterium on Communism - that deserve to be recalled and reflected upon.
(1)
Communism is an intrinsically perverse system because of its anti-religious and anti-human nature.
It is certainly still fashionable to find in communism - in the face of the vulgarization of the political debate, it must be said - a certain internal consistency and elegance, even in the opinion of many Catholics and men of the Church.
Such an acknowledgment is not all wrong. But it risks forgetting the essential: that Communism is intrinsically perverse (Divini Redemptoris, n. 58), and it is not so by chance, by historical circumstances, or because of personal malice.
The atrocities of Communism are not "a transient phenomenon that usually accompanies any great revolution, nor isolated excesses of provocation common to every war - no, they are natural results of the system" (ibid., n. 21).
Two closely linked elements, "atheism and the negation of the human being, his freedom and his rights, are central to the Marxist concept" (Libertatis nuntius, n. 9).
"Failure to acknowledge the spiritual nature of man leads to subordinating him totally to the collective, and thus to deny him the principles of a social and political life conforming to human dignity" (ibid.).
It will be objected that there exist different kinds of Marxism, that the Marxism of this or that thinker is different because more 'moderate'.
"It is true that Marxist thought from its beginnings - much more marked in recent years - diversified into various currents that differ considerably in one or more aspects. But to the degree that they remain Marxist, these currents continue to converge on a certain number of fundamental theses that are incompatible with the Christian concept of man and society" (ibid., No. 8 ).
(2)
Communism is a monolith: historical materialism cannot be separated from dialectical materialism.
Although one of the founders of 'liberation theology', Fr. Clodovis Boff, OSM, [brother of Leonardo] in a self-critical article in 2007 that attracted much comment («Teologia da Libertação e volta ao fundamento» [Liberation theology and a return to fundamentals], Revista Eclesiástica Brasileira, vol. 67, n. 268, ottobre 2007, pp. 1001-1022), maintained that this theology had slowly but inexorably led its most important advocates towards atheism, the majority of Catholic sympathizers of Marxism do not consider themselves atheist.
They claim to reject dialectical materialism - namely, its atheist philosophy, and to accept historical materialism - namely, its economic and social analyses.
They maintain not only that such analysis is useful, but that once it is separated from dialectical materialism, it could bear positive results and avoid the negative consequences manifested in Communist regimes - consequences which they say are based on the philosophical elements of Marxism and not on its social and economic analyses.
In fact, as Pope Paul VI (1897-1978) points out in his 1987 Apostolic Letter
Octogesima adveniens (n. 34), it is not possible to separate the two, analysis from ideology: "It would be illusory and dangerous to forget the intimate link between these radically united aspects - to accept the elements of Marxist analysis without seeing their relationship to the ideology".
Libertatis nuntius, explains this in the rigorous philosophical language of Cardinal Ratzinger:
The thought of Marx is such a global vision of reality that all data received form observation and analysis are brought together in a philosophical and ideological structure, which predetermines the significance and importance to be attached to them.
The ideological principles come prior to the study of the social reality and are presupposed in it. Thus no separation of the parts of this epistemologically unique complex is possible.
If one tries to take only one part, say, the analysis, one ends up having to accept the entire ideology. That is why it is not uncommon for the ideological aspects to be predominant among the things which the 'theologians of liberation' borrow from Marxist authors (No. VI)
(3)
Even historical materialism, hypothetically separate from dialectical materialism, is intrinsically perverse - it is a prescription not for justice but for oppression and shame.
The answer then is NO to the question, "Is it possible to separate historical materialism from dialectical materialism?". But let us imagine for a moment a parallel reality in which such a separation were possible. Would the judgment of the Magisterium be positive about historical materialism - if it comes with a non-atheistic philosophy, eventually favoring religion or even openly Christian?
Not at all. The Church does not only defend religion against atheism. It also teaches a social doctrine that is integral to her Magisterium, according to which
Communism, even if it could be examined independent of its atheism, is, in its social and economic aspects, a prescription for oppression and poverty.
What happened in the Communist countries was not - Benedict XVI says in his 2007 encyclical
Spe salvi - the result of wrongly interpreting Marx. On the contrary, it revealed "the fundamental error of Marx",
(who) simply presumed that with the expropriation of the ruling class, with the fall of political power and the socialization of means of production, the new Jerusalem would be realized. Then, indeed, all contradictions would be resolved, man and the world would finally sort themselves out.
Then everything would be able to proceed by itself along the right path, because everything would belong to everyone and all would desire the best for one another. Thus, having accomplished the revolution, Lenin must have realized that the writings of the master gave no indication as to how to proceed.
True, Marx had spoken of the interim phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a necessity which in time would automatically become redundant. This “intermediate phase” we know all too well, and we also know how it then developed, not ushering in a perfect world, but leaving behind a trail of appalling destruction. (No. 21)
Thus, destruction, and shame.
Libertatis nuntius further says
[it came out in 1984 when Communism still had the Soviet Union and all of Eastern Europe in thrall]:
Millions of our contemporaries aspire legitimately to recover their fundamental freedoms of which they have been deprived by some of the totalitarian and atheist regimes who came to power through revolutionary and often violent means, in the name of liberating the people.
We cannot ignore this shame of our times: precisely with the pretext of bringing freedom to them, Communism maintains entire nations in a state of slavery that is unworthy of man. Those who, perhaps out of thoughtlessness, make themselves complicit to similar subjugation, betray the poor whom they claim to serve" (Libertatis nuntius, n. 10).
(4)
Communism does not arise out of a noble battle against injustice but from a moral and ideological vice.
It has often been said that communism has something positive, at the very least, in that it had its 'moment of exigency' to fight for justice in the face of poverty and exploitation.
But as we have seen, the Magisterium points out that historically, Communism has not been able to solve the problem of poverty, only to aggravate it. The 'moment of exigency' certainly exists for some ingenuous militants and sympathizers. But it is not at the roots of the ideology which arises from a vice of moral nature: the premises of Marxism call into question the very nature of ethics.
Indeed, the concept of the class struggle "implicitly negates the transcendent character of the distinction between good and evil, which is the principle of morality" (ibid, No. 9). And where morality counts less, then vice installs itself.
And this vice does not arise from the real problems of the poor - it exploits them. This was correctly expressed by the Communist historian, who became an ex-Communist, Arthur Rosenberg (1889-1943): "Marx did not base his doctrine on the proletariat, on their needs and their sufferings, on the need to liberate them, to make them find Revolution as their only salvation. It was the exact opposite: In looking for the possiblity of revolution, Marx discovered the proletariat" (Storia del Bolscevismo, trad. it., Sansoni, Firenze 1969, p. 3).
Thus, the Catholic theologians of liberation - who continue to wreak damage today, as the Pope noted last week - start from totally erroneous ideas about communism. The consequences of their actions in the Church have been and are "rebellion, division, dissent, offensiveness, anarchy", as the Pope said.
Between the lines, one can read a criticism of so many Latin American bishops (but not just them) who are guilty, to say the least, of lack of vigilance.
The Pope concludes with an impressive 'appeal' to those who may still be caught up in the 'deceptive principles' of liberation theology, to look at it again [in the light of the Instruction], stop proposing ideas that had and will have destructive consequences for the Church and for society, and come back to accept the Magisterium obediently and faithfully,
Recent history unfortunately leads us to doubt that the supporters of liberation theology will respond to the hand held out by the Pope to them.
However, Christian hope is stronger than the 'shame of our time'.
An excellent read on the Church's objections to liberation theology are the Preliminary Notes by Cardinal Ratzinger
freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discussione.aspx?idd=354533&p=2
released before the CDF Instruction which is here
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation...[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 10/12/2009 05:28]