"Liberation Theology" and the Orthodox Church

[visitor]

I don't know if the Orthodox Church has officially condemned "Liberation Theology." I see the Church, and most especially Church members actively suppressing resistance to "Liberation Theology"...

So here's a little something that I cherish. It's a quote.

'And the "Free World" is clearly and horribly decaying… And the stench of that decay is no less foul than the stench of Communism!'

--The New Confessor, Saint Philaret, Metropolitan of New York (Synod of Russian Bishops in Exile),
'Letter from St. Philaret to Fr. George Grabbe, 12/25 July AD 1975/7483'

 

[katherineofdixie]

I see the Church, and most especially Church members actively suppressing resistance to "Liberation Theology"...

Seriously? Most of the Orthodox I know wouldn't know "Liberation Theology" if it bit them on the...er, leg. Or care, either.
Who are these people who are actively going around suppressing things.

 

[visitor]

I see the Church, and most especially Church members actively suppressing resistance to "Liberation Theology"...

Seriously? Most of the Orthodox I know wouldn't know "Liberation Theology" if it bit them on the...er, leg. Or care, either.
Who are these people who are actively going around suppressing things.

You're asking me to accuse certain people of certain things? What about Met. St. Philaret's statement?

Myself, I find that many Orthodox are steeped to the gills in Christian justifications of liberation. Maybe our experiences differ, you and me.

 

[Shanghaiski]

Well, while it is good and commendable to know what is going on in the world, if had to catalog every lie and heresy and explicitly condemn it, it may become an impossible task.

Just a note, while I venerate Metropolitan Philaret of Thrice Blessed Memory, he has not yet been officially glorified by a canonical Orthodox body. The groups that have so far glorified him have separated themselves for various reasons and often use Met. Philaret as a sort of symbol of their position, which I personally think, if they read all he wrote, the would find is not the case.

 

[Shanghaiski]

To me, it seems that liberation theology comes out of a context quite different from Orthodoxy and has not (yet, at least) caused disturbance in the Church. If and when it does, it could be condemned officially, just like ecumenism and the Gregorian calendar, but hopefully with more effective results.

 

[rakovsky]

I see the Church, and most especially Church members actively suppressing resistance to "Liberation Theology"...

Seriously? Most of the Orthodox I know wouldn't know "Liberation Theology" if it bit them on the...er, leg. Or care, either.
Who are these people who are actively going around suppressing things.

You're asking me to accuse certain people of certain things? What about Met. St. Philaret's statement?

Myself, I find that many Orthodox are steeped to the gills in Christian justifications of liberation. Maybe our experiences differ, you and me.

Visitor,

I think the Orthodox church has various trends in it. From use of nonracist slave labor in Tsarist times to the [somewhat protestant] Renovationists of the 1920's. I suspect that the diaspora of aristocrats (ROCOR) in the 1920's and the USSR's acceptance of the Moscow Patriarchate in WWII, rejecting Renovationism, "solved" both these problems to some extent. Not sure how to say better what I mean.

Those two things were at least bloodless purges, unlike the killings of the 1930's, regardless of affiliation.

I think that helps. Further though I reject that what is usually referred to as liberation theology (peace movements, Christian human rights movements, emphasis on human rights and civil rights moral duties from a Christian perspective) can be a "Liberation Theology" As such, I believe in the movement, but it's a misnomer that probably developed in Western Christianity, where theological leanings are taken to be separate theologies.

For example, eastern Catholics sometimes say that they have "Eastern Theology", while in fact their theology is the same as Rome's. The same thing goes with Liberation Theology, where Catholics have the same faith, their faith just inspires them to push for human rights more than those like the reactionary anti-Vatican II SSPI groups, which I assume might think they also have a separate "theology."

Regards.

 

[CRCulver]

I don't think liberation theology would catch on in the Orthodox Church unless the Church's trinitarian belief and soteriology were undermined first. Having read a great deal of liberation theology literature before entering the Orthodox Church, it's clear that many writers don't believe in Christ as the Son of God who took on flesh in the sense we do, but rather see him only as a very inspirational man. Liberation theology happened because Roman Catholic theology had become so watered down in the 1950s and 1960s -- without less of an emphasis on a sacramental, ascetic life, people could start pushing more secular social justice.

It's late here and I'm having a hard time putting my thoughts into words, but my impression is that while liberation theology uses Christian symbolism, many of its adherents don't believe in much of it and may well be Deists.

 

[visitor]

Well, while it is good and commendable to know what is going on in the world, if had to catalog every lie and heresy and explicitly condemn it, it may become an impossible task.

Just a note, while I venerate Metropolitan Philaret of Thrice Blessed Memory, he has not yet been officially glorified by a canonical Orthodox body. The groups that have so far glorified him have separated themselves for various reasons and often use Met. Philaret as a sort of symbol of their position, which I personally think, if they read all he wrote, the would find is not the case.

I guess I really should qualify my veneration of Met. Philaret. I personally regard him as a Saint--his true suffering for sake of the Universal Church is clear enough to me that I don't really need more "evidence" as it were. But no, I don't belong to one of those "other" bodies, even though I have no problem with them either as long as they aren't too shrill or hysterical, talking about Freemasons all the time or whatever.

But I am sensitive to Marxism, and I am familiar with the subversion tactics that actually took up the lion's share of KGB resources. I didn't learn it from conspiracy theorists either--well they really are conspiracy theorists, kind of--I learned it from real Marxists. Some were samizdat writers, former Communist party members, former KGB etc., "Marxist humanists" under Soviet authority, but most are currently real life practicing Marxist revolutionaries, some with PhDs. Everyone seems to think that the left is the only political side that has no myth or religion behind it. They're wrong.

Marxist subversion in the west is real. More real now in the west than in the east actually (not the far east though, lol). In fact, Marxist subversion of eastern Europe is now coming most heavily from the west in the form of diplomatic policy! Which is not what one might expect.

But I think that the world believed that subversion had pretty much been put to bed when the Berlin wall came down... And it is that fantasy which disables people the most seriously. They believe that as long as they don't decide it deliberately, it isn't happening at all. You could have told someone 50 years ago that his car and the plant where his electricity come from were going to destroy the earth and concentrate power into the hands of a very few collective entities that would together drive the world into endless war in the very name of "equality"... But he would never have believed you. And yet that is exactly what has happened.

At this point, it appears that there really is no real communication anymore. I can only hope to wake somebody up out there, but I don't expect to. People can't be reached. And the Church has utterly failed to address the most pervasive threats to the human soul that have occurred since the industrial revolution, outside of agreeing with the Marxists anyway.

So there you have it. My thesis. My ...manifesto. lol.

 

[rakovsky]

Well, while it is good and commendable to know what is going on in the world, if had to catalog every lie and heresy and explicitly condemn it, it may become an impossible task.

Just a note, while I venerate Metropolitan Philaret of Thrice Blessed Memory, he has not yet been officially glorified by a canonical Orthodox body. The groups that have so far glorified him have separated themselves for various reasons and often use Met. Philaret as a sort of symbol of their position, which I personally think, if they read all he wrote, the would find is not the case.

I guess I really should qualify my veneration of Met. Philaret. I personally regard him as a Saint--his true suffering for sake of the Universal Church is clear enough to me that I don't really need more "evidence" as it were. But no, I don't belong to one of those "other" bodies, even though I have no problem with them either as long as they aren't too shrill or hysterical, talking about Freemasons all the time or whatever.

But I am sensitive to Marxism, and I am familiar with the subversion tactics that actually took up the lion's share of KGB resources. I didn't learn it from conspiracy theorists either--well they really are conspiracy theorists, kind of--I learned it from real Marxists. Some were samizdat writers, former Communist party members, former KGB etc., "Marxist humanists" under Soviet authority, but most are currently real life practicing Marxist revolutionaries, some with PhDs. Everyone seems to think that the left is the only political side that has no myth or religion behind it. They're wrong.

The topic is liberation theology and the Orthodox Church. The Bolsheviks tried to encourage Renovationsism in the church in the 1920's and failed. After WWII, the KGB, the spooks, and everybody else avoided messing with the church's theology. The church's theology is intact without possible heresies about Tollhouses or Renovationism or other things.

Regards.

 

[visitor]

Well, while it is good and commendable to know what is going on in the world, if had to catalog every lie and heresy and explicitly condemn it, it may become an impossible task.

Just a note, while I venerate Metropolitan Philaret of Thrice Blessed Memory, he has not yet been officially glorified by a canonical Orthodox body. The groups that have so far glorified him have separated themselves for various reasons and often use Met. Philaret as a sort of symbol of their position, which I personally think, if they read all he wrote, the would find is not the case.

I guess I really should qualify my veneration of Met. Philaret. I personally regard him as a Saint--his true suffering for sake of the Universal Church is clear enough to me that I don't really need more "evidence" as it were. But no, I don't belong to one of those "other" bodies, even though I have no problem with them either as long as they aren't too shrill or hysterical, talking about Freemasons all the time or whatever.

But I am sensitive to Marxism, and I am familiar with the subversion tactics that actually took up the lion's share of KGB resources. I didn't learn it from conspiracy theorists either--well they really are conspiracy theorists, kind of--I learned it from real Marxists. Some were samizdat writers, former Communist party members, former KGB etc., "Marxist humanists" under Soviet authority, but most are currently real life practicing Marxist revolutionaries, some with PhDs. Everyone seems to think that the left is the only political side that has no myth or religion behind it. They're wrong.

The topic is liberation theology and the Orthodox Church. The Bolsheviks tried to encourage Renovationsism in the church in the 1920's and failed. After WWII, the KGB, the spooks, and everybody else avoided messing with the church's theology. The church's theology is intact without possible heresies about Tollhouses or Renovationism or other things.

Regards.

I agree. So account for Marxist currents in American Orthodoxy.

There's an OCA mission statement that is patent. It has everything the Neo-Marxist espouses.

Last time I checked that was called Liberation Theology.

 

[Lenexa]

All that I know of Liberation Theology is what I've heard and read from Conservative "Novus Ordo" RCs and Traditionalist RCs (SSPX, CMRI, Sede-vacantists and Sede-privationists, etc.) Needless to say that I've never heard anything positive from them. One man whose blog, Traditio in Radice, I read every week for several years, he now posts on a blog called Durendal after the famous sword, has written that he started out as a convinced student of Liberation Theology until making a journey that lead him to the SSPX. His criticism of Liberation Theology is based on his seeing the influence of Marxist ideology. But again I just haven't read anything myself.
What I just wanted to add from my reading is that I think Orthodox should look to the Encyclical Rerum Novarum of Pope Leo XIII which shows a different way which is not Capitalism but also is not Socialism. I don't know if visitor is confusing Orthodox leaders who want to realize the same kind of goals of Rerum Novarum with those who want to realize a kind of hybrid religion utilizing Christianity but based on Marxism.

 

[rakovsky]

Well, while it is good and commendable to know what is going on in the world, if had to catalog every lie and heresy and explicitly condemn it, it may become an impossible task.

Just a note, while I venerate Metropolitan Philaret of Thrice Blessed Memory, he has not yet been officially glorified by a canonical Orthodox body. The groups that have so far glorified him have separated themselves for various reasons and often use Met. Philaret as a sort of symbol of their position, which I personally think, if they read all he wrote, the would find is not the case.

I guess I really should qualify my veneration of Met. Philaret. I personally regard him as a Saint--his true suffering for sake of the Universal Church is clear enough to me that I don't really need more "evidence" as it were. But no, I don't belong to one of those "other" bodies, even though I have no problem with them either as long as they aren't too shrill or hysterical, talking about Freemasons all the time or whatever.

But I am sensitive to Marxism, and I am familiar with the subversion tactics that actually took up the lion's share of KGB resources. I didn't learn it from conspiracy theorists either--well they really are conspiracy theorists, kind of--I learned it from real Marxists. Some were samizdat writers, former Communist party members, former KGB etc., "Marxist humanists" under Soviet authority, but most are currently real life practicing Marxist revolutionaries, some with PhDs. Everyone seems to think that the left is the only political side that has no myth or religion behind it. They're wrong.

The topic is liberation theology and the Orthodox Church. The Bolsheviks tried to encourage Renovationsism in the church in the 1920's and failed. After WWII, the KGB, the spooks, and everybody else avoided messing with the church's theology. The church's theology is intact without possible heresies about Tollhouses or Renovationism or other things.

Regards.

I agree. So account for Marxist currents in American Orthodoxy.

It's either exagerated by ROCOR adherents or it doesn't affect the theology. Marxism is an economic school.

What you are really asking me to do is explain currents in Orthodoxy that take more "liberal," pragmatic, skeptical, "scientific" attitudes.

The real reason for this, my friend is assimilation into a protestant culture. We here are a minority and alot of Orthodox like going to church on Sunday, but they also want to fit in with their protestant friends.

The counter-currents you fear are the same ones that have developed in Western Christianity for the last 500 years- Lutheran's rationalism, the US founding fathers' enlightenment, etc.

How long have descendants of western protestant immigrants to Russia kept their protestant religion? I think that people of foreign blood in Russia after centuries have assimilated. I am afraid the same thing will happen in the US.

I am quite aware of a wealthy, "conservative" parish in a workingclass metropolis that stands out from its other more traditional parishes in the area. This conservative parish has an evangelical feel to it that other priests have commented about to me. At the young people's Bible study, it reminded me of an evangelical bible study in its style. The kids had conservative ideas, and the sermon was more like holy roller feel, urging us to vote a certain way. Some people also had Halloween decorations in the service.

This was the most nontraditional parish I've seen, really, and it was thoroughly un-marxist.

To ask why is this happening- the wealthy church with many upstanding citizens wants to find its place in US society.

This has happened to US Catholicism too, where the churches now are more modern, aka plain and protestant looking.

 

[visitor]

Well, while it is good and commendable to know what is going on in the world, if had to catalog every lie and heresy and explicitly condemn it, it may become an impossible task.

Just a note, while I venerate Metropolitan Philaret of Thrice Blessed Memory, he has not yet been officially glorified by a canonical Orthodox body. The groups that have so far glorified him have separated themselves for various reasons and often use Met. Philaret as a sort of symbol of their position, which I personally think, if they read all he wrote, the would find is not the case.

I guess I really should qualify my veneration of Met. Philaret. I personally regard him as a Saint--his true suffering for sake of the Universal Church is clear enough to me that I don't really need more "evidence" as it were. But no, I don't belong to one of those "other" bodies, even though I have no problem with them either as long as they aren't too shrill or hysterical, talking about Freemasons all the time or whatever.

But I am sensitive to Marxism, and I am familiar with the subversion tactics that actually took up the lion's share of KGB resources. I didn't learn it from conspiracy theorists either--well they really are conspiracy theorists, kind of--I learned it from real Marxists. Some were samizdat writers, former Communist party members, former KGB etc., "Marxist humanists" under Soviet authority, but most are currently real life practicing Marxist revolutionaries, some with PhDs. Everyone seems to think that the left is the only political side that has no myth or religion behind it. They're wrong.

The topic is liberation theology and the Orthodox Church. The Bolsheviks tried to encourage Renovationsism in the church in the 1920's and failed. After WWII, the KGB, the spooks, and everybody else avoided messing with the church's theology. The church's theology is intact without possible heresies about Tollhouses or Renovationism or other things.

Regards.

I agree. So account for Marxist currents in American Orthodoxy.

It's either exagerated by ROCOR adherents or it doesn't affect the theology. Marxism is an economic school.

What you are really asking me to do is explain currents in Orthodoxy that take more "liberal," pragmatic, skeptical, "scientific" attitudes.

The real reason for this, my friend is assimilation into a protestant culture. We here are a minority and alot of Orthodox like going to church on Sunday, but they also want to fit in with their protestant friends.

The counter-currents you fear are the same ones that have developed in Western Christianity for the last 500 years- Lutheran's rationalism, the US founding fathers' enlightenment, etc.

How long have descendants of western protestant immigrants to Russia kept their protestant religion? I think that people of foreign blood in Russia after centuries have assimilated. I am afraid the same thing will happen in the US.

I am quite aware of a wealthy, "conservative" parish in a workingclass metropolis that stands out from its other more traditional parishes in the area. This conservative parish has an evangelical feel to it that other priests have commented about to me. At the young people's Bible study, it reminded me of an evangelical bible study in its style. The kids had conservative ideas, and the sermon was more like holy roller feel, urging us to vote a certain way. Some people also had Halloween decorations in the service.

This was the most nontraditional parish I've seen, really, and it was thoroughly un-marxist.

To ask why is this happening- the wealthy church with many upstanding citizens wants to find its place in US society.

This has happened to US Catholicism too, where the churches now are more modern, aka plain and protestant looking.

Again, I think you are having a hard time with the fact that it is a style of moral ethic. The OCA, for example, claims to be "non-colonial." Are you familiar with postcolonialism? It's a highly specialized critical discourse that shapes legislation... I'm not really talking about Protestant Bible studies.

And Marxism is not purely "economic" anymore. It's primarily ethical and sociological, out of which interests economics proceeds. There really is a lot more to this than you think.

 

[rakovsky]

Again, I think you are having a hard time with the fact that it is a style of moral ethic. The OCA, for example, claims to be "non-colonial." Are you familiar with postcolonialism? It's a highly specialized critical discourse that shapes legislation...

You lost me. Except that I am anti-colonial, so I will have to disagree with my hierarchs about non-colonialism. (joke)

Fortunately, colonialism and anti-colonialism are not matters of faith.

And Marxism is not purely "economic" anymore. It's primarily ethical and sociological, out of which interests economics proceeds. There really is a lot more to this than you think.

There was a guy named Saint Iaint who used to post here. For him, the main secret enemy was the Jews.

I won't pick on you though. For ROCOR, we OCA have probably been "Communists" ever since we began. Yet fortunately we are once again in communion with eachother.

For me, political debates should be outside of theology. It is somewhat comforting that church and state are separate institutions, and I don't just mean for the sake of the state!



To recap: The real danger is not Jews, Marxists, Obama, Masons (well, maybe LOL), ecumenism, it is assimilationism. We must face the fact that we live in a protestant society. Many parishioners do not know the differences between Protestant Theology and Orthodox Theology, or why icons are important.

We already see how our parishes are slowly getting smaller.

After another 200 years of assimilationism, what will be left? Alaska and New York City, with a few spots here and there?

 

[visitor]

Again, I think you are having a hard time with the fact that it is a style of moral ethic. The OCA, for example, claims to be "non-colonial." Are you familiar with postcolonialism? It's a highly specialized critical discourse that shapes legislation...

You lost me. Except that I am anti-colonial, so I will have to disagree with my hierarchs about non-colonialism. (joke)

Fortunately, colonialism and anti-colonialism are not matters of faith.

And Marxism is not purely "economic" anymore. It's primarily ethical and sociological, out of which interests economics proceeds. There really is a lot more to this than you think.

There was a guy named Saint Iaint who used to post here. For him, the main secret enemy was the Jews.

I won't pick on you though. For ROCOR, we OCA have probably been "Communists" ever since we began. Yet fortunately we are once again in communion with eachother.

For me, political debates should be outside of theology. It is somewhat comforting that church and state are separate institutions, and I don't just mean for the sake of the state!

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. And there is no secret enemy. This enemy is right out in the open and always has been. Just because you don't know what it is or how it works doesn't mean that it doesn't exist! Good grief. I'm glad that I'm not trying to introduce the microscope!

I'll tell you what. Maybe you should tell a Marxist that he doesn't exist--I can direct you to several humanities departments at research universities for a chat with one if you don't run into any in your daily circuit... Or better yet, maybe you should tell Marxian legislation that it doesn't exist, that it's nothing but a conspiracy theory. I mean, it's just too fair to be Marxist. Really.

I am not blaming people at all here. The only people to blame really, are dead. I am pointing out a tendency in cognition and moral ethics, two things that others have mastered over Christians that Christians themselves have not been taught to understand. Which is why people will work revolutionary dialectics, as it were, for Christ. I have seen it time and time again.

I'm probably about to get banned (and that's fine--yeah, hello, technocracy!), but there really is a reason why the intelligentsia regard Christians as generally unintelligent, and it has a lot to do with this culture of know-nothingism that's so pervasive among a social class that's famous for having no modern understanding its own mistakes, much less the successes of others.

Signing off.
visitor

 

[deusveritasest]

I am not very familiar with liberation theology; could someone explain to me what the basic tenets of it are and why it is unorthodox?

 

[rakovsky]

Again, I think you are having a hard time with the fact that it is a style of moral ethic. The OCA, for example, claims to be "non-colonial." Are you familiar with postcolonialism? It's a highly specialized critical discourse that shapes legislation...

You lost me. Except that I am anti-colonial, so I will have to disagree with my hierarchs about non-colonialism. (joke)

Fortunately, colonialism and anti-colonialism are not matters of faith.

And Marxism is not purely "economic" anymore. It's primarily ethical and sociological, out of which interests economics proceeds. There really is a lot more to this than you think.

There was a guy named Saint Iaint who used to post here. For him, the main secret enemy was the Jews.

I won't pick on you though. For ROCOR, we OCA have probably been "Communists" ever since we began. Yet fortunately we are once again in communion with eachother.

For me, political debates should be outside of theology. It is somewhat comforting that church and state are separate institutions, and I don't just mean for the sake of the state!

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. And there is no secret enemy. This enemy is right out in the open and always has been. Just because you don't know what it is or how it works doesn't mean that it doesn't exist! Good grief. I'm glad that I'm not trying to introduce the microscope!

I'll tell you what. Maybe you should tell a Marxist that he doesn't exist--I can direct you to several humanities departments at research universities for a chat with one if you don't run into any in your daily circuit... Or better yet, maybe you should tell Marxian legislation that it doesn't exist, that it's nothing but a conspiracy theory. I mean, it's just too fair to be Marxist. Really.

I am not blaming people at all here. The only people to blame really, are dead. I am pointing out a tendency in cognition and moral ethics, two things that others have mastered over Christians that Christians themselves have not been taught to understand. Which is why people will work revolutionary dialectics, as it were, for Christ. I have seen it time and time again.

I'm probably about to get banned (and that's fine--yeah, hello, technocracy!), but there really is a reason why the intelligentsia regard Christians as generally unintelligent, and it has a lot to do with this culture of know-nothingism that's so pervasive among a social class that's famous for having no modern understanding its own mistakes, much less the successes of others.

Signing off.
visitor

I am not sure how to say it better, my friend. On one hand, there is a long term development in Western Christianity over the last 500 years with the Reformation, Protestantism, the enlightenment, the Founding Fathers' secularism.

On the other hand, ideas about "communism" are very ancient going back to the apostles. Marxism traces its theoretical roots to "Utopian Socialism" and Thomas More. A distant relative of mine visited the 19th century Tsarist Russian empire and commented that its state orphanage system was of the "ultra-socialist" variety. The Russian empire also owned major industries. The point here is that economic Marxism and socialism are not real threats to Christianity. I accept these economic ideas of Karl Marx. Basically big business capitalism is exploitive, and the immigrants that came here from the Old Country and worked in our mills and mines would agree. I am an economic Marxist. That's my economic understanding of how the world works.

I'm personally very grateful that in the life of the church we don't have to accept some political or economic system, communism, capitalism, tsarism, democracy, or otherwise.

In your language, the threat to Orthodoxy is the longterm trend of what the "intellgentsia" call "rationalism," "science," and "the enlightenment", and the idea that "religions are all the same." This is a longterm development in Western society for the last 500 years, that is really the Protestantism of the deist Founding Fathers.

No Science does not disprove God, He cannot be rationalized away, and all religions are not the same. The Scientific establishment at Yale has its own hocus pocus with electro-shock therapy and other stupid things. The attitude that all religions are the same has some origin in the "Invisible Church theology".

The point is that the danger to Orthodoxy in the US is not really politics. It's assimilationism into a Western culture that has been on a certain protestant trajectory for the last 500 years. Their strong faith notwithstanding, America's large evangelical movement is more Protestant than Luther and the Anglicans ever were.

Regards.

 

[rakovsky]

I am not very familiar with liberation theology; could someone explain to me what the basic tenets of it are and why it is unorthodox?

It's a wrongly named social justice movement in Catholicism. As such, it's not a theology. The criticism of it made earlier on this thread was that its adherents might not actually believe the basic Catholic theology that the movement's writings accept.

The fault of Liberation Theology" is deciding they have a separate "theology," that they are separate from the rest of the church, and then SSPI groups can make baseless accusations about them that they are somehow less Catholic. The Ukrainian Catholics make the same mistake when they talk about their "eastern Theology" that just happens to be the same as Rome's.

It's not serious.

 

[AntoniousNikolas]

I am not very familiar with liberation theology; could someone explain to me what the basic tenets of it are and why it is unorthodox?

Liberation Theology refers to a specific movement originating in the Roman Catholic Church of Latin America during the 1950s and 1960s which invoked the Gospel as a means of “liberation from unjust economic, political, or social conditions. It has been described by its proponents as an interpretation of Christian faith through the poor's suffering, their struggle and hope, and a critique of society and the Catholic faith and Christianity through the eyes of the poor, and by detractors as Christianity perverted by Marxism and Communism”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

I think, perhaps, the problem might be that some try to affix labels of Marxism and Liberation Theology where they don’t belong.

There’s not a Marxist behind every bush, and every time there’s a convergence of a thoroughly Christianized population, who see no distinction between their social, ethnic, and religious existence, and some sort of historical or sociological uprising or change, it doesn’t constitute crypto-Marxism or Liberation Theology.

For example, when the Serbs rose up in arms against the Ottoman Empire, they issued a document called The Proclamation.  It declared:

"Therefore, dear Serb brothers...now when it's only up to us, take an example from those peoples who foster unity and order, for they have become mighty and prosperous; offer advises to each other, as the priests do, when they teach their flock: teach them the words of Christ, the ones which say: As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. Not so much by words, but by your deeds...by doing so, the end of our quest will bring out the old glory of Serbia to show, that we indeed are: the children of our glorious and brave ancestors" Karadjordje Petrovic in Belgrade, 1809 - The Proclamation

Were they engaged in Liberation Theology (when such a thing would not even appear for more than a century) simply because they were engaged in an uprising against an oppressive force and invoked the Gospel and the Name of Christ?  Were the Orthodox clergy who wrote and spoke in favor of the Greek Revolution against the Turks engaged in Liberation Theology when they utilized the Scriptures to support their cause and even blessed the Orthodox freedom fighters as they went off to war?  Georgiadis–Arnakis, in his book The Greek Church of Constantinople, argues that the Phanar conducted "a magnificent work of national conservation, and contributed to the national liberation of all the subject nationalities of the Balkan peninsula."

The same could be said of virtually any Orthodox Church and people who rose up against the Porte, and felt that their battle was not simply a socio-political one, but one of Faith.  In fact, the impetus for the general uprisings against the Turks in the 1850s were due at least in part to the fact that the Turks decided in favor of the Frankish Catholics over the indigenous Orthodox in the dispute over the possession of the Church of the Nativity in Jerusalem.  The clergy protested vigorously, and the Orthodox Faithful were motivated as much by their religious convictions as by a general desire to throw off the yoke of those who consigned them to dhimmitude and regarded themselves as their “divinely ordained betters”.

I think that it is inaccurate and anachronistic to refer to such struggles, and others with religious as well as sociological components, such as those of the abolitionists and Christian slaves in the Americas, as “Liberation Theology” or has having anything to do with Karl Marx.

 

[rakovsky]

I am not very familiar with liberation theology; could someone explain to me what the basic tenets of it are and why it is unorthodox?

Liberation Theology refers to a specific movement originating in the Roman Catholic Church of Latin America during the 1950s and 1960s which invoked the Gospel as a means of “liberation from unjust economic, political, or social conditions. It has been described by its proponents as "an interpretation of Christian faith through the poor's suffering, their struggle and hope, and a critique of society and the Catholic faith and Christianity through the eyes of the poor, and by detractors as Christianity perverted by Marxism and Communism”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

I think, perhaps, the problem might be that some try to affix labels of Marxism and Liberation Theology where they don’t belong.

There’s not a Marxist behind every bush, and every time there’s a convergence of a thoroughly Christianized population, who see no distinction between their social, ethnic, and religious existence, and some sort of historical or sociological uprising or change, it doesn’t constitute crypto-Marxism or Liberation Theology.

For example, when the Serbs rose up in arms against the Ottoman Empire, they issued a document called The Proclamation.  It declared:

"Therefore, dear Serb brothers...now when it's only up to us, take an example from those peoples who foster unity and order, for they have become mighty and prosperous; offer advises to each other, as the priests do, when they teach their flock: teach them the words of Christ, the ones which say: As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. Not so much by words, but by your deeds...by doing so, the end of our quest will bring out the old glory of Serbia to show, that we indeed are: the children of our glorious and brave ancestors" Karadjordje Petrovic in Belgrade, 1809 - The Proclamation

Were they engaged in Liberation Theology (when such a thing would not even appear for more than a century) simply because they were engaged in an uprising against an oppressive force and invoked the Gospel and the Name of Christ?  Were the Orthodox clergy who wrote and spoke in favor of the Greek Revolution against the Turks engaged in Liberation Theology when they utilized the Scriptures to support their cause and even blessed the Orthodox freedom fighters as they went off to war?  Georgiadis–Arnakis, in his book The Greek Church of Constantinople, argues that the Phanar conducted "a magnificent work of national conservation", and contributed to the national liberation of all the subject nationalities of the Balkan peninsula."

The same could be said of virtually any Balkan population who rose up against the Porte, and felt that their battle was not simply a socio-political one, but one of Faith.  In fact, the impetus for the general uprisings against the Turks in the 1850s were due at least in part to the fact that the Turks decided in favor of the Frankish Catholics over the indigenous Orthodox in the dispute over the possession of the Church of the Nativity in Jerusalem.  The clergy protested vigorously, and the Orthodox Faithful were motivated as much by their religious convictions as by a general desire to through off those who regarded them as their “divinely ordained betters”.

I think that it is inaccurate and anachronistic to refer to such struggles, and others with religious as well as sociological components, such as those of the abolitionists and Christian slaves in the Americas, as “Liberation Theology” or has having anything to do with Marxism.

Good point.

 

[deusveritasest]

I am not very familiar with liberation theology; could someone explain to me what the basic tenets of it are and why it is unorthodox?

I don't know that my question was really answered, because neither of you two seem to see "liberation theology" as anything inherently contrary to orthodox theology. Not to say that you're wrong about that; I was just primarily curious about the others earlier in the thread who appeared to be treating it as if it was obviously and inherently heretical.

 

[AntoniousNikolas]

I am not very familiar with liberation theology; could someone explain to me what the basic tenets of it are and why it is unorthodox?

I don't know that my question was really answered, because neither of you two seem to see "liberation theology" as anything inherently contrary to orthodox theology. Not to say that you're wrong about that; I was just primarily curious about the others earlier in the thread who appeared to be treating it as if it was obviously and inherently heretical.

I think that's perhaps because it's chiefly a Roman Catholic phenomenon and doesn't have much at all to do with Orthodoxy.  That said, you're a smart and well read fellow.  Why not take a quick look at the wikipedia article I've linked to and tell us if you detect anything heretical therein.

To be honest, I think the genesis of this thread can be found in these two conversations:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28813.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29103.0.html

 

[Fabio Leite]

and by detractors as Christianity perverted by Marxism and Communism”

It is not "by detractors" but by the very heads and "fathers" of the movement. See this article from the Brazilian RC site "Montfort":

The ex-friar Boff gave the following declaration in an article for the newspaper Jornal do Brasil, April 6th, 1980:

"What we propose is not theology inside Marxism, but Marxism (historical materialism) inside theology".

And more: "The method of the Liberation Theology...is the dialectic method." (Leonardo e Clodovis Boff, Teologia da Libertação no Debate Atual, Vozes, Petrópolis, p. 22).

"Liberation theology starts up from this kind of interpretation of reality: social, radical and dialectic criticism, structuralist." (L. e Clodovis Boff, Da Libertação, Vozes, Petrópolis, 4a edição , p,17).

Boff explains the consequences of all this: "In Liberation Theory, the fundamental issue is not theology, but   liberation" (L. Boff e Clodovis Boff , Teologia da Libertação no Debate Atual, Vozes, Petrópolis, 1985, p.17).

This pseudotheology proposes liberation from what?

"When I speak of liberation I positevely understand this: to end the system of injustice that is capitalism. It is to liberate oneself from capitalism to create in its place a new society, let's say, a socialist society." (Leonardo e Clodovis Boff, Da Libertação, Vozes, Petrópolis, 4a edição , p, 70).

And more: "It is necessary to say clearly and boldly: liberation is the emancipation of the socially oppressed. It is positevely for us to overcome the capitalist system in direction of a new society of the socialist kind" (L e C. Boff, Da Libertação, p. 113).

"If I so express myself it is because, for us, today, the Kingdom of God is positively socialism" (L. Boff e Cl. Boff. Da Libertação, p. 96).

"The therapy presented by this radical critical conscience is not the reform of the (capitalist) system; this would be to treat the symptom without noticing the source producing the disease; we propose a new way of organizing all society over new different fundaments; no more over having capital on the hands of few, but from the work of all, with the participation of all in the means of production and in the means of power; we speak of liberation" (L e Cl. Boff, Da Libertação, pp.16-17.)"

http://www.montfort.org.br/index.php?secao=cartas&subsecao=politica&artigo=20040729135508&lang=bra

So no, that Liberation Theology is the attempt to innoculate Marxism in Christianity is not a theory of detractors, but the declared aim of its authors.

 

[Fabio Leite]

And lest you say he is a radical dissident voice, here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article presenting Leonardo Boff:

"He became one of the best known (along with Gustavo Gutiérrez) of the early Liberation theologians. He was present in the first reflections that sought to articulate indignation against misery and marginalization with promissory discourse of the faith, leading to Liberation theology. "

He is one of he very founders of the movement.

 

[AntoniousNikolas]

and by detractors as Christianity perverted by Marxism and Communism”

It is not "by detractors" but by the very heads and "fathers" of the movement. See this article from the Brazilian RC site "Montfort":

The ex-friar Boff gave the following declaration in an article for the newspaper Jornal do Brasil, April 6th, 1980:

"What we propose is not theology inside Marxism, but Marxism (historical materialism) inside theology".

And more: "The method of the Liberation Theology...is the dialectic method." (Leonardo e Clodovis Boff, Teologia da Libertação no Debate Atual, Vozes, Petrópolis, p. 22).

"Liberation theology starts up from this kind of interpretation of reality: social, radical and dialectic criticism, structuralist." (L. e Clodovis Boff, Da Libertação, Vozes, Petrópolis, 4a edição , p,17).

Boff explains the consequences of all this: "In Liberation Theory, the fundamental issue is not theology, but   liberation" (L. Boff e Clodovis Boff , Teologia da Libertação no Debate Atual, Vozes, Petrópolis, 1985, p.17).

This pseudotheology proposes liberation from what?

"When I speak of liberation I positevely understand this: to end the system of injustice that is capitalism. It is to liberate oneself from capitalism to create in its place a new society, let's say, a socialist society." (Leonardo e Clodovis Boff, Da Libertação, Vozes, Petrópolis, 4a edição , p, 70).

And more: "It is necessary to say clearly and boldly: liberation is the emancipation of the socially oppressed. It is positevely for us to overcome the capitalist system in direction of a new society of the socialist kind" (L e C. Boff, Da Libertação, p. 113).

"If I so express myself it is because, for us, today, the Kingdom of God is positively socialism" (L. Boff e Cl. Boff. Da Libertação, p. 96).

"The therapy presented by this radical critical conscience is not the reform of the (capitalist) system; this would be to treat the symptom without noticing the source producing the disease; we propose a new way of organizing all society over new different fundaments; no more over having capital on the hands of few, but from the work of all, with the participation of all in the means of production and in the means of power; we speak of liberation" (L e Cl. Boff, Da Libertação, pp.16-17.)"

http://www.montfort.org.br/index.php?secao=cartas&subsecao=politica&artigo=20040729135508&lang=bra

So no, that Liberation Theology is the attempt to innoculate Marxism in Christianity is not a theory of detractors, but the declared aim of its authors.

Hi Fabio,

You're not arguing with me, but with the wikipedia article.  I don't have a dog in the Liberation Theology fight either way.  If you notice, the bit you quoted from me about "detractors" was itself in quotes.  It comes directly from the article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

Since wikipedia is user edited, you may change this line if you feel it is inaccurate.

My question is, as I've stated, is it accurate to affix this label to all struggles which invoke the Gospel in the name of revolution against an oppressive system, as in the case of the Orthodox populations of the Balkans rising up against the Turks?  I contend that the answer is no.

 

[sainthieu]

I am an Orthodox Christian, and I condemn unequivocally so-called 'Liberation' Theology.

"I am not very familiar with liberation theology; could someone explain to me what the basic tenets of it are and why it is unorthodox?"

'Liberation' Theology is the marriage of Marxism and Christianity--a mixture demonstrating an understanding of neither. It is the ugly marxist concept of 'social justice' grafted like an un-needed, Frankenstein limb on to the perfect body of the church. Everything marxism addresses has already been addressed by the church--with greater perfection and love. Marxism's tenets stand in direct contradiction to those of the church.

Marxism is utilitarian; Christianity is transcendant. Marxism declares its historical inevitability--it is humanity's fate and we will, inevitably, succumb to it (over 100 million people have been murdered in the 20th century in an attempt to achieve this result); Christianity declares that God has created us in His own image to be as free as He is--free even to disbelieve in Him if we wish. Marxism is founded on envy, greed and covetousness--all sins in the Christian ethic; Christianity is founded on humility, self-sacrifice, forgiveness, and love. Marxism is an essentially a nihilisitic and pessimistic philosophy. Christianity is essentially an optimistic philosophy, filled with hope and spiritual victory.

Liberation Theology, with its perversion of ostensibly 'Christian' values into totalitarian and utilitarian channels,  demonstrates the devastation marxism has wrought on the Catholic church.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[LBK]

The more strident forms of "liberation theology" characterise Christ as a revolutionary hero, liberating the poor oppressed masses from their oppressors, be they slave-owners, right-wing dictatorships, wealthy land barons, and the like.

A certain non-Orthodox artist notorious for his "iconography" has painted several images on the theme of this "theology". His Cesar Romero and "black dude" Jesus are but two of them. 

 

[rakovsky]

Marxism's tenets stand in direct contradiction to those of the church.

Marxism is utilitarian; Christianity is transcendant. Marxism declares its historical inevitability--it is humanity's fate and we will, inevitably, succumb to it (over 100 million people have been murdered in the 20th century in an attempt to achieve this result); Christianity declares that God has created us in His own image to be as free as He is--free even to disbelieve in Him if we wish. Marxism is founded on envy, greed and covetousness--all sins in the Christian ethic; Christianity is founded on humility, self-sacrifice, forgiveness, and love. Marxism is an essentially a nihilisitic and pessimistic philosophy. Christianity is essentially an optimistic philosophy, filled with hope and spiritual victory.

You are completely wrong about Marxism, but you are completely right about Christianity. For the church, that's enough.

You are wrong about Marxism- it seeks to overcome current exploitation, it abhors bloody totalitarianism like the Inquisition and Stalinism, it is based on sharing and generosity, all Christian virtues, and it's optimistic about a better future society. Assuming representative Democracy and economic Marxism are right, though, should we teach them in seminary? Are they part of our faith? How about Tsarist monarchy and capitalism?

I feel that you are right- Christianity is transcendant.

Regards.

 

[elijahmaria]

I am an Orthodox Christian, and I condemn unequivocally so-called 'Liberation' Theology.

"I am not very familiar with liberation theology; could someone explain to me what the basic tenets of it are and why it is unorthodox?"

'Liberation' Theology is the marriage of Marxism and Christianity--a mixture demonstrating an understanding of neither. It is the ugly marxist concept of 'social justice' grafted like an un-needed, Frankenstein limb on to the perfect body of the church. Everything marxism addresses has already been addressed by the church--with greater perfection and love. Marxism's tenets stand in direct contradiction to those of the church.

Marxism is utilitarian; Christianity is transcendant. Marxism declares its historical inevitability--it is humanity's fate and we will, inevitably, succumb to it (over 100 million people have been murdered in the 20th century in an attempt to achieve this result); Christianity declares that God has created us in His own image to be as free as He is--free even to disbelieve in Him if we wish. Marxism is founded on envy, greed and covetousness--all sins in the Christian ethic; Christianity is founded on humility, self-sacrifice, forgiveness, and love. Marxism is an essentially a nihilisitic and pessimistic philosophy. Christianity is essentially an optimistic philosophy, filled with hope and spiritual victory.

Liberation Theology, with its perversion of ostensibly 'Christian' values into totalitarian and utilitarian channels,  demonstrates the devastation marxism has wrought on the Catholic church.

I'll leave it at that.

I would not say that the Catholic Church is a hotbed of Marxist-Leninists, and Liberation Theology has been roundly condemned by the Catholic Church. 

By the same token, though the poor will always be with us, that is no excuse for allowing their bodies to rot while still living and their hearts to turn to stone for lack of human compassion.

Mary

 

[rakovsky]

With all due respect, you(Saint Thieu) and Fabio make the same mistake Boff does. There is no such thing as "liberation theology" or "Eastern Catholic theology." It is impossible. God is eternal without change.

At best, you can try to understand the development of Christian society with Marxism. This is not "theology."

Try reading the Ukrainian Catholic books sometimes. They talk about how they have a "mystical", "Orthodox" approach to "theology" that just happens to lead them to the same conclusions as Rome. They call this "eastern theology." This is not "theology."

Regards.

 

[CRCulver]

I would not say that the Catholic Church is a hotbed of Marxist-Leninists, and Liberation Theology has been roundly condemned by the Catholic Church.  

Perhaps not roundly enough. I finished up my undergraduate studies at a Jesuit institution, and the students and clergy within the extremely heterodox campus ministry found enough wiggle room in Roman Catholic pronouncements that Gustavo Gutiérrez's thought was presented as a completely permissible, even vital part of Roman Catholic life.

(Of course, the same people claimed that in spite of all the pronouncements to the contrary, the final word hasn't been spoken on female ordination, so the RCs will surely have women priests any day now -- best start studying for the priesthood now, ladies!)

 

[visitor]

With all due respect, you(Saint Thieu) and Fabio make the same mistake Boff does. There is no such thing as "liberation theology" or "Eastern Catholic theology." It is impossible. God is eternal without change.

At best, you can try to "understand" the development of Christian society with Marxism. This is not "theology."

Try reading the Ukrainian Catholic books sometimes. They talk about how they have a "mystical", "Orthodox" approach to "theology" that just happens to lead them to the same conclusions as Rome. They call this "eastern theology." This is not "theology."

Regards.

No, there's never a contradiction between "justice" and "what's right" and "theology" and Christ and St. Paul and Moses and Marx.

So you admitted that you are an "economic" Marxist. But your morality is Marxist too... which is probably the foundation of your economic position. It's like I said, the economic side is a posteriori to the cognition, moral theory, and sociology. You see, Marxist theory doesn't hinge upon science anymore, and hasn't for a long time---I really don't know why people's ideas about what Marxism means stop at about 1899. The theory has been developing every year like clockwork. Capital itself has become a power category only more or less peripherally associated with economics.

And you are propagandizing for it! Covering it up while simultaneously defending it and historicizing it again and again. You must be joking when you say that you are worried about the future of Orthodoxy.

It always starts out about "justice" and "equality." But in the end the Church is suppressed. And if you think that it isn't suppressed in the everlovin' United States, you've got another political activism coming.

..Worried about the future of Orthodoxy indeed. No, no. You're right. We really should forget politics altogether and start working tirelessly to save ourselves against the Protestants. That will fix everything right up.  

 

[AntoniousNikolas]

A certain non-Orthodox artist notorious for his "iconography" has painted several images on the theme of this "theology". His Cesar Romero and "black dude" Jesus are but two of them.  

I know the "artist" you're referring to (Robert Lentz) and his bizarre, sometimes offensive, pseudo-icons, and I agree that his "black dude" depiction of Jesus is just as laughable and inaccurate as the blonde, Nordic, "white dude" depictions of Jesus we see all the time in European artwork.  I can't help but chuckle whenever I see one of those.  ;D

I much prefer the traditional, conservative black Jesus depicted on these Ethiopian Orthodox icons.

And I love this one from Rome, AD 530.

As to the topic at hand, modern Catholic theology and Latin America are not areas I've studied extensively, but based on what others have said in this thread, and what the wikipedia article says, it occurs to me that some of the ideas this form of Catholicism seems to oppose, greed, institutionalized oppression, et cetera, are hardly Christian virtues and are certainly not something Our Savior would want for us.  That is, unless one subscribes to theories about God ordaining certain populations to rule others, no matter how harshly, which is just a bizarre and antithetical to Christianity as anything Liberation Theology seems to espouse.

 

[sainthieu]

"You are wrong about Marxism- it seeks to overcome current exploitation, it abhors bloody totalitarianism like the Inquisition and Stalinism, it is based on sharing and generosity, all Christian virtues, and it's optimistic about a better future society."

If anything, I should think it exemplified bloody totalitarianism. Er, you want to give me an example of this in the real world--I mean the world outside the fantasies in your mind? Marxists always claim that marxism is a great philosophy that isn't being practiced correctly, but it's about results, not aspirations, and the result of marxist societies have always been hell on earth because it sows anger and envy among people.

With all due respect, I believe you are seriously misguided. At one time, Marxism did address current realities, but it no longer does. The last hundred years should have provided enough evidence of this. You are being misled by marxism's apparent resemblance to certain Christian ideals. But the means are substantially different, and so are the ends. It is nothing other than vicious nonsense.

 

[AntoniousNikolas]

Again, I’m not terribly familiar with this subject, but after browsing through the article, it seems to me that the most troubling aspect of Liberation Theology is not its opposition to racism, exploitation of the poor, or anything along those lines (what Christian would condone those things?) but rather this:

One of the most radical aspects of liberation theology was the social organization, or re-organization, of church practice through the model of Christian base communities (CEBs).

Liberation theology strove to be a bottom-up movement in practice, with Biblical interpretation and liturgical practice designed by lay practitioners themselves, rather than by the orthodox Church hierarchy. This type of church community resembles the Independent type of Protestantism. In fact, liberation theologians often work in Protestant schools, often working directly with the poor. In this context, sacred text interpretation is understood as "praxis".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology#Liberation_theology_in_practice

Ideas like this could no more thrive in Orthodoxy than Eusebius Stephanou's attempt at an "Orthodox Charismatic Movement".  Orthodoxy holds the answer to all of the above-mentioned social ills without resorting to this sort of “praxis”.  I suppose that’s why so many of the African Independent Churches, which rejected their former Catholic and Protestant confessions after those churches endeavored to uphold the colonial governments of the European powers, eventually came home to either the Greek or Coptic Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria.

 

[Fabio Leite]

Antonious,

I'm sorry if I came through too personal. I was arguing against the idea.

I always feel surprised that people insist that liberation theology is not marxist propaganda in Catholicism, despite very clear declarations of their founders that it is. It is an attempt to instrumentalize Christianity in general and the Roman Catholic church in particular to become a "fellow traveller" of the socialist revolution.

To put it simple, more or less state intervention, more or less openess of the market will depend on the social, political and economical environment of each period, which can change in a year or in a decade. To insist that only one of these strategies has miracle solutions to every situation is simply obsession.

Said that, state and religion separation in what concerns the "oikonomia" of the state. The Church can exist both with strong government intervention or in a free market society. Here I speak of economical intervention. Obviously, intervention of the persucutory kind may, if not destroy the local Christian community at least throw it to social irrelevance, just like to much government support may turn the community into just one more ethnic identity.

 

[rakovsky]

Visitor,

Stalin persecuted us Orthodox along with other Marxists. Khrushchev later wrote that he doubted that this person was really Marxist. I doubt it too.

Christianity is all the stronger for worshiping someone who was crucified. It makes it much easier to survive persecution.

Meanwhile, Marxism and representative Democracy, are just economic schools of thought. How would we act if we lived in medieval times and saw that democracy was a preferable system?

No, there's never a contradiction between "justice" and "what's right" and "theology" and Christ and St. Paul and Moses and Marx.

Marx, Thomas Jefferson, and the US founding fathers did not believe Christ was God's son. The founding fathers were Masons. I, as someone who accepts political democracy and economic Marxism, have no compulsion to accept their religious beliefs.

So you admitted that you are an "economic" Marxist. But your morality is Marxist too... which is probably the foundation of your economic position. It's like I said, the economic side is a posteriori to the cognition, moral theory, and sociology.

Maybe. Like Elijah Maria described, I feel bad when I see people suffering and being exploited and this morality may persuade me more about economic Marxism.

One thing democracy and economic Marxism lack, though, is a moral code. This is something Christianity has. Perhaps Christian principles led me like Thomas More to this conclusion

You see, Marxist theory doesn't hinge upon science anymore, and hasn't for a long time---I really don't know why people's ideas about what Marxism means stop at about 1899. The theory has been developing every year like clockwork. Capital itself has become a power category only more or less peripherally associated with economics.

You're losing me here.

And you are propagandizing for it! Covering it up while simultaneously defending it and historicizing it again and again.

I'm not sure how to respond. The topic is Liberation theology, you made some statements about Marxism, so I can explain some things about economic Marxism too.

It's funny- in the Cold War, many accusations were made about Communists, so they were scared and didn't talk about their beliefs publicly. Then the accusation became that they were "secret", that they don't talk about Communism publicly.

So here you talk about the secret Marxist conspiracy, but if someone responds that economic Marxism has good ideas, then the accusation becomes that I'm propagandizing for it.

Finally, I will conclude by pointing out that the Greece's Prime Minister George Papandreou is the president of the Socialist International.

While Muslim Turkey is embroiled in a dispute with Israel over Palestine, Greece's president has offered to help with the peace process.

I am glad that the Church provides us a means of fellowship and unity that transcends politics.

Regards.

 

[rakovsky]

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
Acts 4:32

 

[AntoniousNikolas]

No worries, Fabio!

I just thought you might have thought it was my idea, since you said, "And lest you say he is a radical dissident voice...", and I wasn't saying anything at that point.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me whether or not the Orthodox nations of the Balkans rising against their Turkish overlords, and invoking the Gospel as their justification all the while, were engaged in Liberation Theology.

I hope not.  And I hope that no one is suggesting that God wants certain populations to remain the slaves of others.  

May the Light of Orthodoxy spread in Brazil, and may God bless your efforts in the mission.

 

[rakovsky]

If anything, I should think it exemplified bloody totalitarianism. Er, you want to give me an example of this in the real world--I mean the world outside the fantasies in your mind?

I think we can talk about Sweden, Gorbachev's Russia, post-war Yugoslavia, to show that a society seeking Marxism can be humanitarian.

Nonetheless... St. Thomas More's "Utopia" meant "a Good Place" and "No Place". I am happy dreaming about communal societies as a magical future, like ancient greek ideas about democracy, or my hopes for future resurrection- if not mine, then yours.

Kind Regards.