"Once considered revolutionary, the notion of empathy and advocacy for the poor is now a central tenet of Roman Catholic social teaching.... Father Gutiérrez’s theology was not without its detractors. It was criticized by scholars living in capitalist countries for its use of Marxist social analysis to expose unjust political systems in the third world, many of them supported by first world powers.... More recently, his theology found favor with Pope Francis.... [T]he pope declared that liberation theology can no longer 'remain in the shadows to which it has been relegated for some years, at least in Europe.'... [Father Gutiérrez wrote:] 'Latin American misery and injustice go too deep to be responsive to palliatives.... Hence we speak of social revolution, not reform; of liberation, not development; of socialism, not the modernization of the prevailing system. "Realists" call these statements romantic and utopian. And they should, for the rationality of these statements is of a kind quite unfamiliar to them.'"
From "Gustavo Gutiérrez, Father of Liberation Theology, Dies at 96/Once considered revolutionary, his notion of empathy and advocacy for the poor has become a central tenet of Catholic social teaching" (NYT).
October 25, 2024
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
68 comments:
This could use an "Is the Pope Catholic?" tag.
Liberation Theology isn't Christian, it's Marxism with the trappings of Christian symbolism. Catholics have ministered to the poor for 2,000 years.
Principles and teaching of Christ demoted at NYT, and history revised with JournoListic flourish.
That and the battle against shiny shoes.
So this 'priest' sided with Communist... i.e. Godless... in his quest for 'empathy and advocacy of the poor.' He sided with armed rebellion and assassination to help the poor. Wow that is some priest... Father Gutiérrez sided with the devil.
Catholics are also Pro-Life.
NYT is wrong. Empathy for the poor has always been a hallmark of Catholic social teaching. Further, the church continues to reject Marxist liberation theology as a central tenet of helping the poor.
Marxism is the umbrella philosophy of a loose knit tapestry of class-disordered ideologies that deny individual dignity, life, liberty in a some, select lives matter religious revival.
I guess nobody Catholic -- or even Christian -- works at the New York Times.
He never spoke about what we should do with priests who rape children.
That is quite telling.
Allah won't allow it.
Yeah, what South America's poor really need is . . . more socialism.
There are a lot of clergymen I respect and admire for their humanity, empathy and spirit. Not one of them ever impressed me with an understanding of economics.
Brethren, do you not know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions? Stay in your lane.
I had to click through on the article to see who wrote this piece of misinformation. I was unsurprised by his background.
"Catholics have ministered to the poor for 2,000 years."
Yeah, that's my problem with the "notion". Since Houston was mentioned earlier, one of the first hospitals in Houston was St. Joseph's "founded in 1887 by a Catholic order known as the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word" (per wikipedia). Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word began in Galveston in 1866, where they founded St. Mary's hospital, which was eventually sold to University of Texas and is now UTMB Galveston.
What Pope Francis is doing now is revolutionary, "Hence we speak of social revolution, not reform". It isn't empathy or advocacy for the poor.
Christianity started out appealing to the poor and outcast. Then women with money and homes to stay in.
Blessed be the poor.
"Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink?
38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’
40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
Being "poor" is a relative term. That you dont have a car or a TV doesn't mean you're Poor in the biblical sense. Jesus didn't command us to give everyone a BMW.
"Realists" call these statements romantic and utopian. And they should, for the rationality of these statements is of a kind quite unfamiliar to them.
He seems to be confusing "rationality" with "rationalization."
Popes have been attacking usary and unbriddled capitalism since the 19th century. So, what is so "Revolutionary" about this guy. I suppose its the marxism.
It was considered revolutionary in 0 AD, but I'm has been the consistent opinion of Roman Catholic social teaching for the intervening several millenia. What a ridiculous thing to ascribe to Gutierrez.
Perhaps, except for the Pope.
The Catholic Church likes to strap on the sheepskin to hide the wolf, from time to time. One needs only to look at the history of the Middle Ages, when fiefdoms were the preferred societal structure. A serf would give 5 days of work to the nobility, and one day to the church. The final day was theirs to use, tending their subsistence crops. Taxation was similarly onerous, and included a percentage of their subsistence crop. It was literally starvation wages for most.
The church has not changed. A communal structure has been implicitly sanctioned and promoted for years, and the 'enemy within' has been the modus operandi, cloaked by claims of piety.
An Exposé of the Catholic NGOs' that presently facilitate the wholesale, unfettered migration of illegals across our border, from South America, - including human sexual trafficking of minors - would shock Americans - if it were published and made public.
I think Christianity has always had a special interest in the welfare of the poor— but within the existing social and political order, not in revolutionary opposition to it, or based on revenge. Even the American Civil War I think would fit that definition.
People who read this story in the New York Times are now more ignorant than if they had read nothing at all, but attended Mass once in their lives.
NYT explains the empathetic joy redistributed in Mrs. Harris mocking Catholics.
No. "Empathy and advocacy for the poor" has been a central tenet of Christianity from the beginning. "Liberation Theology" is still a radical (marxist socialism) notion, whether the current pope buys into it or not.
I would love to see the following social experiment performed:
All the journalists in New York City relocate to a commune in, say, Bolivia, where they are joined by an equal number of poor Bolivians. They are given farming implements, seed, fertilizer, an irrigation system, breeding pairs of livestock, a copy of Das Kapital and Mao's Little Red book, and all the texts ever written about Liberation Theology. They stay there, cut off from the outside world for, say, a decade.
Then the rest of us get a look inside. What would we see?
"And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need." - from the Apology of Justin Martyr circa 155-157 AD, describing the offerings of the Mass to the Roman Emperor.
Al Capone fed more people in Chicago than the church.
I'm pretty sure the messege of Christ was not to let the Church do it, but that YOU do it.
Not much, they would all be dead.
"Once considered revolutionary, the notion of empathy and advocacy for the poor"
It's a sentence so stupid that only a Leftist could write it
The Roman Catholic Church has ALWAYS supported "empathy and advocacy for the poor". What it rightly didn't support was Marxist BS that always, always, makes life worse for everyone, most certainly including the poor
[Father Gutiérrez wrote:] 'Latin American misery and injustice go too deep to be responsive to palliatives.... Hence we speak of social revolution, not reform; of liberation, not development; of socialism, not the modernization of the prevailing system.
Now do Cuba.
Liberation Theology needs an Iowahawk tag:
1. Identify a respected institution,
2. kill it,
3. gut it,
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.#lefties
Agree, rrsafety. The Corporal Works of Mercy - taught in grammar school:
To feed the hungry. To give water to the thirsty. To clothe the naked. To shelter the homeless. To visit the sick. To visit the imprisoned, or ransom the captive. To bury the dead.
"They're like 27 and they literally know nothing," said Ben Rhoades. Even Obama's team spoke the ugly truth about journalists at one time. Of course it was within the context of bragging about how he had manipulated them...
I spent 12 years in Catholic School. Very early on we were taught the "Corporal Works of Mercy" as part of a very old tradition and an official teaching of the Church.
Feed the hungry
Give drink to the thirsty
Clothe the naked
Shelter the homeless
Visit the sick
Visit the imprisoned
Bury the dead
They do NOT include
Confiscate all property for redistribution by Government Bigshots
Try to micromanage every transaction by giant unaccountable bureaucracies
Place the class enemies in concentration camps, then shoot them
Mire the whole society in hopeless poverty. (The lights just went out in Cuba, by the way)
Provide unimaginable luxury for the "leadership". (The lights are still on in Cuba in the compounds of the bigshots)
Father Gutierrez was misguided. Pope Francis is a fool. He's not the first, won't be the last.
Doesn't sound like anyone here actually has read his works. A lot of liberation theology moved too far into Marxism, but Gutierrez really has a thoughtful balance. It isn't a new emphasis of course as much 9f a reminder that the church isn't supposed to perpetuate oppressing and poverty. Sadly liberation theologies got distracted by politics and the poor continued to suffer and then were told they need to leave altogether. But Gutierrez wrote good and potent stuff, well worth reading directly.
I don't remember a time when I did not speak Spanish. My grandfather came from Argentina when I was 1 yo, and I could read in Spanish at least a year earlier than in English. An Agronomist and farmer by profession, I worked in family-scale ag development for many years throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.
It is not unfair or inaccurate to state that the Roman Catholic church is now largely irrelevant outside the urban areas of hispanophone America. Never been to Brazil, so no opinion on the Portuguese area.
What I've encountered repeatedly is an inspiring collaboration between assorted evangelical missionary efforts. As one vignette, but a fairly common one, the Seventh Day Adventists and the Nazarenes [a distant side branch rooted in Anglicanism] build a single church building, where one group worships on Saturday and the other on Sunday. They don't try to poach each other's members but work closely on local social challenges from a free-market perspective as families build businesses.
In many villages they've also built an adjacent school -- in the church for older students -- and a basic health clinic. They fully share a staff, which may choose to be housed there if they're single.
What I've seen, consistently, is the emergence of a stable middle class. Meanwhile, every two or three years an RC priest shows up, berates the people for abandoning their church, marries a few couples and baptises their children ... then tells them how oppressed they are, and in need of "liberation".
Japan has almost no homeless people. It’s not a Christian country. Self-righteous stupidity doesn’t alleviate poverty.
I used to use "Is the Pope Catholic?" for an "obvious yes". Now it's more of an "obvious no" :-(
Marxism is a Christian heresy.
The socialist dream will never die, so long as human beings are stupid, lazy, and selfish.
Yes because Marxism is the anti-faith religion, which is a strange move for an alleged Church leader.
I don't know of any prohibition of organizations doing it, but yes the individual is responsible for acting in a charitable way. Very often an individual's contribution is both, like when volunteering to serve food in a Feed the Children or Southern Baptist Disaster Response team. Many church members would rather donate cash or goods and leave the "boots on the ground" to others, which tends to be about 5-10% of every congregation I've ever worshipped with and served with in the field.
Very interesting vignette, Bart. I ran a business supplying tools to vineyard and ag workers on the west coast and most Mexican immigrants I met had joined evangelical, pentecostal or other Christian non-Catholic churches.
Notions of empathy and advocacy for the poor are fine, but communism isn't. Capitalism is the best means to help these people out of their circumstances, but Marxists aren't that bright so they fall for shortcuts that disregard basic economics and create additional poor people with whom the Marxists can empathize.
We also used to have far fewer homeless for a similar reason: it was culturally unacceptable. Government shoved religious organizations aside and subsidized homelessness through NGOs and policy changes. States with more of the "progressive" government have more homelessness. Private charities were far more efficient when they were mission focused instead of what they have become: government-funded NGO makework programs. The same cancerous "partnership" that has infested the "migrant" industry.
""Once considered revolutionary, the notion of empathy and advocacy for the poor is now a central tenet of Roman Catholic social teaching."
I'm not Catholic, but I'm pretty sure that the notion of empathy and advocacy for the poor has always been a central part of Roman Catholic theology. The question is how is this empathy and advocacy to be accomplished. Liberation theology is just straight out Marxism with a little theology mixed in.
I live in the US Southeast and there are a lot of Evangelical churches with Spanish language signs.
"Once considered revolutionary, the notion of empathy and advocacy for the poor is now a central tenet of Roman Catholic social teaching."
As a lifelong Catholic, I can say that this is complete B.S. Empathy and advocacy has always been a core tenet of the Roman Catholic Church. Or were Mother Theresa and the Little Sisters of the Poor not real people?
What changed in the Catholic church was an embrace of Marxism. Marxism actually discourages private individuals and organizations from helping the poor because they believe that is the state's job through wealth redistribution.
That is correct. Which is why Marxists are best handled by burning at the stake or beheading.
You don't see any poverty in Japan, because of japan's rise to riches in the 20th century, and their nationalism and patriotism. They are a homogeneous society that has never believed in the "free market" and "every man for himself". T
They've also been smart enough (at least till now) to not import the 3rd world and an endles supply of poor people. Unlike the USA.
Well said. Anne Applebaum has said many foolish things but in her excellent book The Crushing of Eastern Europe she describes the way in which communism in the late 1940s came to pervade Eastern European societies by taking over all voluntary associations for doing social good and turning them into (ineffective) arms of the state.
“Empathy and advocacy for the poor” are hallmarks of the left. Of course, neither requires actually helping the poor — and not helping the poor (or middle class, for that matter) is another hallmark of the left.
S
Catholics outreach to the poor goes back 2000 years. Giving money to monasteries to care for the poor led to rich monasteries, and Liberation theology leads to the idea that only communists could help the poor.
Ironically, here in the Philippines (and South America) it is the Protestant/Pentecostal sects teaching the poor to live a moral life, which results in many of the lifting themselves out of poverty with hard work. The western press rarely notices this religious revolution. Fukuyama's book Trust notes this, and Philip Jenkins book on the new Christianity gives details of this sea change in Christian culture.
What rubbish. Empathy and advocacy for the poor have always been part of Catholic moral teaching and are not and never have been dependent on liberation theology, let alone its Marxist roots. Beyond stupid.
100% correct.
Exactly right. Typical NYT rubbish
@Rusty. Risible rubbish.
Seems to be the case.
Marxism is incompatible with Christianity, but it is not a heresy.
A free market is not every man for himself, just every man judges for himself. He can be as selfish or as generous as he wishes. It does not require Randian objectivism.
Yes, it was indeed a stupid assertion. You are 100% correct.
When the NYT wants to write about a controversial topic in Catholicism, naturally it trots out...a Nashville-based music critic? https://www.nytimes.com/by/bill-friskics-warren
"Religion is the opiate of the masses" is the false slogan of the Marxists.
It doesn't seem to get in the way of their using it to push their poison.
Cf. The Iowahawk observation.
Post a Comment