Loved for his holiness, not his hipster agenda

Loved for his holiness not his hipster agenda

At Crisis Samuel Gregg counters the accumulated image of a saccharine St. Francis who gave his life to the poor.  People are hijacking St. Francis, using his name for their own less-than-Christlike agendas.

Such ideas about Saint Francis don’t fit well with some portrayals of the medieval hermit and friar that have emerged in recent decades. Many of these have been developed, as illustrated by the doyen of Italian historians of Francis and the Franciscan movement, Grado G. Merlo, to exploit Francis for numerous contemporary religious and political agendas, ranging from pacifism to radical environmentalism. Franco Zefferelli’s well-known 1972 film Brother Sun, Sister Moon presented the saint, for example, as a type of winsome eccentric who was all about shattering conventionality. In his 1982 book Francis of Assisi: A Model of Human Liberation, the liberation theologian Leonardo Boff portrayed Francis as one who, conceptually speaking, would help us move away from a world dominated by “the bourgeois class that has directed our history for the past five hundred years.”

Leo Boff is one of the many rehabilitated Marxist pseudo-Catholic thinkers in the Pope FrancisEra.

So what are some aspects of Saint Francis’s life detailed in Thompson’s book that will surprise many? One is that although he sought radical detachment from the world, Francis believed that he and his followers should engage in manual labor in order to procure necessities like food. Begging was always a secondary alternative (29). Another is that Francis thought that the Church’s sacramental life required careful preparation, use of the finest sacred vessels (32), and proper vestments (62). This is consistent with Francis’s conviction that one’s most direct contact with God was in the Mass, “not in nature or even in service to the poor” (61). While Francis is rightly called a peacemaker and one who loved the poor, Thompson stresses the saint’s “absolute lack of any program of legal or social reforms” (37). The word “poverty” itself appears rarely in Francis’s own writing (246). It seems Francis also thought that it was absolute rather than relative poverty which “always had a claim on compassion” (40).

When it came to Catholic dogma and doctrine, Francis was no proto-dissenter. He was, as Thompson puts it, “fiercely orthodox” (41), even insisting in later life that friars guilty of liturgical abuses or dogmatic deviations should be remanded to higher church authorities (135-136). Hence it shouldn’t surprise us that Francis’s famous conversation in Egypt in 1219 with Sultan al-Kamil and his advisors wasn’t an exercise in interfaith pleasantries. While Francis certainly did not mock Islam, the saint politely told his Muslim interlocutors that he was there to explicate the truth of the Christian faith and save the sultan’s soul (66-70). Nothing more, nothing less.

Francis is of course especially remembered by Christians and others for his love of nature, so much so that another saint, John Paul II, proclaimed him the patron saint of “those who promote ecology” in his 1979 Bula Inter sanctos. Francis’s deep affinity with nature and animals was underscored by those who knew him. The killing of animals or seeing them suffer upset him deeply (56). In this regard and many others, Francis didn’t see the natural world and animals as things to be feared or treated solely as resources for use (57).

Unlike many other medieval religious reformers, however, Francis rejected abstinence from meat and wasn’t a vegetarian. Nor was there a trace of pantheism in Francis’s conception of nature (56). Francis’s references and allusions to nature in his writings, preaching, and instruction were overwhelmingly drawn from the scriptures rather than the environment itself (55). More generally, Francis saw the beauty in nature and the animal world as something that should lead to worship and praise of God (58)—not things to be invested with god-like qualities. G.K. Chesterton’s 1923 popular biography of Francis makes a similar point: though he loved nature, Francis never worshipped nature itself. Francis’s relationship to nature, Thompson observes, shouldn’t be romanticized. The saint even viewed vermin and mice, for example, as “agents of the devil” (225).

Francis is a saint because he was faithful.  He lived the Gospel so closely that Our Lord granted him countless miracles including imprinting him with His own stigmata.  He was poor as a discipline, as a sacrifice, and example.

Francis’s goal was souls.  His was the work of God.  His mission was to rebuild the Church, not tear it down or make it into something profane.

He was no liberation theologist, trying to take over the world by demonizing the wealthy, overturning the social order, and flouting the natural laws in the name of the poor.  He threw all that materialism aside when he was quite young and picked up the cross of Christ.

 

 

Created by Priests Who Put the Poor at the Center of the Gospel

Created by Priests Who Put the Poor at the Center of the Gospel

At CruxMag, John Allen is amazingly candid about the blatant socialist politicization of Catholicism in our new FrancisChurch.  If it’s a done deal, why hide it?  Celebrate!

BOGOTÁ, Colombia – If you’ve ever wondered what happens while being held prisoner for three days by one of the world’s last remaining Marxist guerrilla movements, Bishop Héctor Julio López Hurtado of Colombia has a somewhat surprising answer: A remarkable amount of time can be devoted to dinner.

López, now 73, was kidnapped at gunpoint in 1997 by a band of teenage soldiers belonging to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known by its Spanish acronym FARC. The guerrillas had imposed a travel ban in zones under their control to protest a pro-peace referendum, and grabbed López and 11 companions as he was making pastoral visits.

“They never mistreated us, and we were never afraid for our lives,” López recalled in a Monday interview at the Bogotá headquarters of his Salesian religious order. “The main frustration at first was boredom, because we had nothing to do.”

That problem was solved on day two, he explained, because the family home where his group was being held ran out of food. Two of the FARC guerrillas took a couple of their prisoners and went in search of something to eat, returning with a cow they claimed had been presented to them as a gift by a local peasant.

“I told them, you can’t seriously think that was a gift,” López said. “If you come up to somebody with machine guns and ask them for their cow, who’s going to say no?”

Much of the rest of the day, López said, was devoted to slaughtering the cow and cooking it, preparing half of the meat for transport up into the mountains to feed other members of the FARC forces. At the end, the group had what amounted to a cookout in the garden of the house.

So, did López at least get a good meal out of the experience?

“I didn’t actually eat any of the meat,” he said, “because I couldn’t bring myself to benefit from something I knew had been stolen.”

Although López survived his brush with danger no worse for the wear and tear, many of his fellow clergy haven’t been so lucky. According to the Colombian bishops’ conference, 85 priests, two bishops, eight religious men and women, and two seminarians have been killed in the country since 1984.

Those deaths mostly came as part of one of the longest-running civil wars in the world, which has been underway in this Latin American nation of 48 million for more than 50 years and has claimed an estimated 220,000 lives.

So if this bishop was kidnapped by guerillas, did he represent the right-wing government?  On the other hand if he was on the Right, why did he and his captors all seem like such nice friends? Either way, if a war is 50 years long it’s not a war.  It’s a way of life.

For the most part, the conflict pits the Colombian government against two main rebel forces: FARC and its rival ELN, the National Liberation Army.

(ELN was founded in the 1960s, with its most famous early proponent being a progressive Catholic priest-turned-guerrilla named Camilo Torres. Over the years it was led by a series of other priests who upheld the liberation theology movement, which seeks to place the Church on the side of the poor.)

Is the Church something you can ‘place’ somewhere? Does the Church take a ‘side’ in a class dispute?  Can the Church be used for something?

It’s amazing to me that the writer admits these groups were founded by Liberation Theology priests.  In fact, that’s exactly what Liberation Theology was created to do, found radical movements which would usher Communism into Latin America.

Today, many critics say both the FARC and ELN maintain a veneer of Marxist conviction, but in reality often operate like criminal gangs, with deep ties to Colombia’s drug trade.

Has it ever been different?  Marxism has always been a veneer.

At the moment, representatives of the government and the rebel forces are meeting in Havana in peace talks, though hopes for a breakthrough dimmed in April when the FARC ruptured a cease-fire by killing 11 soldiers in the national army, leading the army to retaliate with attacks that left 26 FARC rebels dead.

López expressed skepticism that the talks will produce much, based in part on his personal experience of serving for almost 14 years in a FARC-dominated zone in the western part of the country.

“I don’t have much faith, to be honest,” he said. “The guerrillas don’t keep their word. Basically, peace talks usually amount to a period of time to re-arm and to get stronger.”

He also predicted the violence will get worse in the short term, as FARC fighters leave their hideouts in Colombia’s vast forests and launch additional attacks in an effort to boost their bargaining position.

López said his kidnapping reinforced his bleak view of the prospects for a quick end to the conflict.

When he was first detained, he said, he explained to FARC’s teenage gunmen that because he was a bishop, taking him prisoner would produce bad press. It turns out he was wasting his breath, because these teenagers had no idea what a bishop was.

“They were born without God and without law, and they’ve never had any contact with the Church,” he said.

López said he tried to engage the young fighters in dialogue, but found them “terse” and “indoctrinated,” wanting to talk mostly about their struggle to defend Colombia against imperialism.

Not even a trace of Catholic culture remains in these poor boys.  How did this happen?  What was Columbia like before priests became simply thuggish Marxists ‘on the side of the poor?’

Allen closes with a wave of ghoulish excitement for the new FrancisChurch ‘martyr.’

When the late Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador was beatified last Saturday, many experts said the deep significance of the act was a redefinition of the Church’s concept of martyrdom. It’s no longer necessary to be killed in explicit hatred of the faith to be recognized as a martyr – it’s enough to give one’s life in defense of the poor, human rights, and basic human welfare.

If that’s the standard, Colombia during its long civil war has been a factory for producing such martyrs.

Archbishop Isaías Duarte Cancino of Cali, for instance, was assassinated in 2002 for denouncing atrocities committed by both the FARC and the ELN. López said that in his former diocese of Granada alone, he personally knew four or five teachers in Catholic schools killed for trying to persuade their students not to take up guns, either with the guerrillas or various right-wing paramilitary groups formed to combat them.

Pope Francis has taken every opportunity to capitalize off blood and murder in his quest to wipe Catholicism free of its doctrine.  No, the Devil does not know that beheaded protestants and Catholics are united in Faith!  There is no such thing as an ‘ecumenism of blood.’  There is only unity in truth.  A martyr is someone who dies for the Faith, not for human rights, whatever that means.

Allen’s got one thing right though.  It looks like Columbia is a factory for FrancisMartyrs.  But that doesn’t make any of them saints, or even Catholic.

 

 

 

Paragon of FrancisChurch Theology

Paragon of FrancisChurch Theology

The HuffPo has an brief interesting study about now beatified Archbishop Oscar Romero and his importance to FrancisChurch.  It’s notable because it’s fairly honest and it has some actual information about these much cloaked and propagandized subjects.

A golden thread links Pope Francis to Oscar Romero, the murdered archbishop whose beatification the Pope ordered to take place last weekend, to the rapturous acclaim of the people of El Salvador and the wider world.

The thread is that of liberation theology, the movement that swept through Latin America, and then other parts of the world, 40 years ago. It maintains that the Gospel contains a preference for poor people — and insists that the Church has a duty to work for political and economic as well as spiritual change.

That’s exactly true.  Liberation Theology maintains the blatant lie that the Gospel contains a preference for poor people.  It doesn’t.  The Gospel proclaims and exemplifies the discipline of poverty and the virtue of charity.  A preference for poor people would be a cruel bigotry on God’s part.

The second lie of Liberation Theology is this worldly agenda for ‘political change’ which is beneath the Gospel and more akin to the Theology of Judas.

Conservatives in the Catholic Church do not like this. They have taken to asserting that Romero was not a liberation theologian. There is an irony in that, for they had spent the previous three decades blocking Romero’s path to sainthood by arguing the opposite. Then they said that to canonize the murdered cleric would effectively endorse liberation theology too.

It is ironic but it’s not conservative.  Any writers who’ve read Romero’s actual words know he had some affinity with the Liberation Theologists, but professional catholics often pretend otherwise.  The popes in our generation were wise and correct to suppress the Romero cause.  Pope Francis has not been so.

Conservatives saw this radical pro-poor movement, at the height of the Cold War, as a Marxist Trojan horse that would allow communism into South America through the back door. Its followers saw it as the words of Jesus in action.

Which was right?  It’s not just a matter of who holds the papacy.

In the years that followed, the mainstream Catholic Church took on board many of the insights of liberation theology. But conservatives in the Vatican and in the Latin American hierarchy worked behind the scenes to counter its influence — and block any attempts to move Romero along the path to becoming a saint.

There is an effective answer to these machinations and manoeuvrings. It is the one given by the man who is indisputably one of the founding fathers of liberation theology, Leonardo Boff, a former Franciscan friar who left the priesthood after the Vatican ordered him to a period of “obsequious silence” under the conservative papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

When asked if Pope Francis was a liberation theologian, Boff gave an answer that would apply as aptly to Romero. “The important thing is not whether he is for liberation theology but [whether he is] for the liberation of the oppressed, the poor and the victims of injustice. And that he is without question. Pope Francis has lived liberation theology.”

Oscar Romero lived it too. He was not a theoretical theologian. He stood unflinchingly by the poor — and died for it.

Standing for the poor is not Catholicism.  It’s love.  Dying for the poor, if such a thing were to happen, is not martyrdom.  It’s getting murdered.  Dying for the robbed or the oppressed is even better, but it’s not necessarily dying for the poor.  But most importantly, living and dying for Liberation Theology does nothing but hurt the poor and endanger their souls as well with a ruthless and materialist heresy.

If that, as Leo Boff asserts, is what both Romero and Pope Francis lived out in their words and deeds, then he’s right.  It doesn’t really matter.