'Martyred for the Faith' just because he defended the poor and oppressed

‘Martyred for the Faith’ just because he defended the poor and oppressed

John Zmirak responds to the recent revelations by a powerful KGB defector that Liberation Theology, so emulated and resurrected by the Franciscan Pontificate yet suppressed until now, was formulated in Soviet Russia.  After recapping the story and some well-known responses, including John Allen’s accusation that the United States exported forms Protestantism south, he writes:

Whatever problems one might have with Pentecostalism, it is genuinely Christian, which Liberation Theology isn’t. It’s scarcely theology. And it doesn’t liberate. In Latin America, it served or serves as the pious fig-leaf for nasty dictatorships like the Sandinistas’ in Nicaragua, and the Chavistas’ in Venezuela. Its watered-down American version — popular among leftists who still claim to be Catholic — offers political cover for pro-abortion, anti-marriage lawmakers, who hope they can buy back their souls by dispensing some extra food stamps and reducing their carbon footprints.

Much worse than Liberation Theology’s worldly effects are the spiritual poisons it trades in: toxic envy, gut-gnawing resentment, a craving for the chance to mete out violence, a scorn for thrift and honest work and an acid cynicism that reduces every human relationship to a swap of money or power. All this in the name of Jesus.

These old lessons should be well-remembered in our time.

It doesn’t seem that Communism or Liberation Theology have waned today.  Instead they have quickly become so pervasive in the world and in the Church that a free faithful alternative no longer exists with which to compare them.  The Faith is so rare and the propaganda machine is so vast, we are now almost entirely immersed in calculated lies.

Put briefly and starkly, Liberation Theology treats Jesus as a proto-revolutionary who came to save the poor from social injustice. The Kingdom of God is the earthly paradise which we will construct from the ruins of Satanic capitalism. The church serves the role of the Party, as the vanguard of the sacred class chosen by History (oops, I meant to say “Jesus”) to overturn the wicked “structures of sin,” and put the Sermon on the Mount into action at the point of a bayonet. The meek shall inherit the earth, once we’ve rounded up all the non-meek into gulags and confiscated their land. You know, the way the Soviets saved Ukraine from greedy farmers in the 1930s.

It sounds like thinly veiled Marxist theory, and that’s exactly what it is. As Norman Cohn and Eric Voegelin showed, Marx himself seized the Christian vision of a New Jerusalem after the Second Coming, dragged it into politics, and dressed it up in a white lab coat as a “scientific” prediction of a this-worldly utopia. Instead of the Second Coming, he inserted “the Revolution,” and in place of the Christian church he plugged in the proletariat and the Party. For decades, idealists around the world were willing to conspire, betray their country, go to prison, die — and wherever they came to power, to kill their fellow men by the tens of millions, and imprison millions more, to force Marx’s kingdom to come.

Leftism is always relentless, not because it works, but because it’s evil. They never learn or give up.  There is no reason to stop trying and hating when you have an eternity before you.

The sordid failure of materialist Marxism to fulfill any — even one — of its messianic promises posed a problem for people who were still, for their own reasons, drawn to revolutionary fantasies that entailed gaining power, confiscating other people’s property and silencing them by force. History, it is perfectly clear, is not inexorably driven to produce a dictatorship of the proletariat. It took Soviet tanks to remind the workers of Hungary and Poland of what was good for them. It demanded concrete walls and barbed wire to stop the common people from fleeing “people’s” regimes by the millions, to live instead in wicked capitalist lands where they would be exploited. What to do, if you still find reality intolerable, and crave a revolution?

You turn to magic. You create a “god from a machine.” You twist people’s faith in Christ into the self-confidence of a conquering social class. You drag down their hope for heaven, and rope it to wishes for cheaper gas and more cassavas. You teach them that real love, tough love, amounts to a cold-blooded calculation about maximizing utility: To make that liberating omelet, Jesus wants you to crack some heads. Perversely, as Marxism by natural means began to collapse all around the world, liberation theologians tried to revive it by calling it Christian.

Look for this in the Pope’s goals, in his allies, and in his rhetoric.  You won’t have to look hard.

 

 

 

Cardinal Dolan meditates on another Bush presidency

Cardinal Dolan meditates on another Bush presidency

I get the impression that Jeb Bush is so far removed from any consciousness of GOP voters that he’s become a completely technical politician.  Every phrase out of his mouth is some kind of arrow shot at a target.

NRO’s Kathryn Lopez phoned GOP Presidential heir-designate Jeb Bush recently, and right away they’re talking about Francis, their mutual pope, and his ‘way with words’.

I’m so jealous.  If only I knew how to say those ‘simple things’ that draw people toward me.

What does Jeb Bush think of Pope Francis? The pope must be “the envy of a lot of people in public life,” Bush says. He has a “remarkable” way of “saying the simplest things that draws people towards his beliefs.”It slipped my mind in my new busy-ness but I forgot those fond memories of my becoming Catholic.

Twenty years ago this Easter, at a vigil Mass in 1995, Bush was received into the Catholic Church. We talked by phone briefly on Easter Monday afternoon about the anniversary of his conversion to Catholicism — which had actually slipped his mind. In the busy-ness of my “new work,” he says, “I had totally forgotten it was the 20th anniversary last Saturday. It brought back fond memories.

”When the subject turns to the new FrancisChurch we get a hyper-canned version of the frozen Catholic right:

Asked if he’s experienced change in the Church in the 20 years since his conversion, he points to the stability of Catholicism, but then immediately notes the “obvious” change in the Church the “tone and emphasis” of Pope Francis has brought.

He notes that the media may be missing the whole story when the pope gets into “specifics.” Bush predicts that there might “turn out to be a real disappointment” for people, especially non-Catholics, “who think this guy is really cool” and expect “big changes” in terms of doctrine.

How could they possibly be disappointed when they’ve already been thrilled?

Does Bush imagine we should expect ‘small’ changes in doctrine, or that we should be pleased when they don’t turn out to be big?  What does the Governor think is Catholic?

We talk a little bit about the pope’s upcoming visit to the United States this fall. The mere fact that Philadelphia could be expecting in the range of 2 million people, he says, is “a powerful statement in and of itself — that this many people would want to come and hear the pope and participate in communion with him.”

Are there any statistics on the Pope’s appearances today that aren’t inflated?  With whom does Jeb Bush think people ‘participate in communion’?  Is he talking about Holy Communion or communion with Francis?  This phrasing is odd, isn’t it? It reminds me of when Obama praises “His Holiness’s pronouncements.”  These politicians seem to think we’re all Children of the Corn.

Can an attitude like Pope Francis’s help Catholics in public life, especially in situations like last week’s unpleasant upheaval over religious-freedom laws? “Absolutely,” says Governor Bush.

“I do think he can help change the conversation. Because right now, it’s just full of landmines.”

A minefield.  That’s America to Jeb.  A more elitist characterization could not be made, or a more frightened one.

On the topic of Indiana and related controversies, he adds: “It’s hard to imagine a country with our tradition of tolerance where now it’s ‘either/or.’ . . . A country as big and noble as our country doesn’t have space to be able to allow people of conscience to act on their faith and people not be discriminated against? I think we can figure this out.”

This is the Bishops’ position, those conservative lions.  Keep trying!  There must be a way to force bakers to bake gay wedding cakes and still call it freedom.  Endeavor to persevere!

Making clear he’s not mistaking himself for pope or pastor, Bush suggests that “in politics, we really need to focus on language that cuts through that gets beyond them vs. us, the divide that always seems to prevail.”

He readily admits he doesn’t get it right all the time. “I think about . . . how I can improve how I express my views,” he says. People’s beliefs on a lot of hot-button issues like religious liberty, life, among others, may be “informed by faith, your life’s journey, the thousands of interactions you have with people,” and are matters “way beyond politics,” he says. At the same time, discussing them is not only unavoidable, but necessary. So how to do so compellingly, convincingly, in such a way as to invite collaboration and even conversion (of the political sort)?

Well, it seems following that Pope Francis model is the key here.  It’s about finding that special language which unites.

Pope Francis’s lesson may just be, Bush suggests, “Where you say it, how you say, it is important.”

“You’ve got to figure out a way that gets beyond being pushed into a position where you sound like you’re intolerant of people who may not agree,” he says. “But you have to say what you believe as well,” surmising that in the case of Francis the media, in search of sound bites, may have glossed over some of the pope’s more inconvenient underlying beliefs.

Despite the fact Pope Francis is a liberal, he is not a Bush.  His position is more akin to Obama because he represents the dissident Left within the Church.  From Bush’s disinterested American perspective, Francis looks like a smooth talker skillfully manning a faithful conservative post, but that’s only catholic media spin.  Francis isn’t protecting faithful positions.  They are his targets.

Saying things well is not the Pope’s priority.  He demonstrates daily that it doesn’t matter what he says, he can get away with it.  The media will always support Pope Francis so long as he keeps doing their work in Rome, but they won’t treat Jeb Bush that way if he takes the primaries.  In that case, just like a bishop, it will be his job to pretend, capitulate, and lose – but there won’t be anybody praising his words while he does it.

If I were the governor I’d reconsider my humble and gushing esteem for Pope Francis and his ‘tone’.  They both don’t play for the same team and the Pope plays to win.  It’s not like Jeb would get his vote.

 

 

The Boston Globe’s, Austen Ivereigh is calling the friendship between the late, Protestant ‘bishop’ Tony Palmer and Pope Francis a, “catalyst of an extraordinary historic breakthrough in relations between the Catholic Church and the evangelical world.”

Palmer was a member of an Anglican offshoot based in Florida. Ivereigh writes,

Its leaders see themselves as part of a “convergence” movement, seeking to combine evangelical Christianity with the liturgy and sacraments typical of Catholicism. That convergence, Palmer told me, “is a precursor to full unity between the Protestant and Catholic Churches.”

Cardinal Bergoglio and Palmer met in 2006 and worked together closely finding ways to build unity between their faiths. Astoundingly,

At one point, when Palmer was tired of living on the frontier and wanted to become Catholic, Bergoglio advised him against conversion for the sake of the mission.

“We need to have bridge-builders”, the cardinal told him.

Plans, Strategies, and Big, Big Ideas

Plans, Strategies, and Big, Big Ideas