Rorate Caeli

Rest in peace, Latin American liberation theology

The Church has always been solidary towards the University, and towards its vocation of leading man to the highest levels of knowledge of truth and the reality of the world in all its aspects. It pleases me to recognize here, with the most lively ecclesial gratitude, the various religious congregations which have founded and maintain in your midst renowned universities, reminding them, however, that they are not a property of those who founded them or of those who go to them, but an expression of the Church and of her patrimony of faith.

In this sense, dear Brothers, it is worthy to recall that last August marked 25 years of the Instruction Libertatis nuntius of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on certain aspects of liberation theology, which underlined the danger that was included in the non-critical import, made by some theologians, of theses and methodologies originating from Marxism. Their more or less visible consequences, of rebellion, division, dissent, offense, anarchy are still being felt, creating amidst your diocesan communities great pain and a grave loss of living strength. I beg all those who feel in any way attracted, involved, or touched in their very selves by certain deceitful principles of liberation theology to once again read the aforementioned Instruction, receiving the benign light that the same offers with extended hands; to all I recall that "the supreme rule of [the Church's] faith derives from the unity which the Spirit has created between Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church in a reciprocity which means that none of the three can survive without the others" (John Paul II, Enc. Fides et ratio, 55). May the forgiveness offered and accepted in the name and for love of the Most Holy Trinity, whom we worship in our hearts, in your ecclesial communities and organizations, put an end to the tribulation of the dear Church that wanders though the Land of the Holy Cross [Brazil].
Benedict XVI
December 5, 2009

59 comments:

Anonymous said...

That instruction in the 1980s was not enough to purge the heretic Liberation Theology from the Church. Many priests and nuns embarked in anti-christian activities, like supporting armed struggle, that are inherently anti-christian. The Catholic Church is partially responsible for the bloodshed that befell Latin America in those years. That intruction dealt with the issue on an academic level, but it was not an academic problem, it was a pastoral problem. But this was also another product of the dissipation culture imposed on the Church since Paul VI.

Anonymous said...

Talk, talk, talk, that is all the Vatican ever seems to do. No action is ever taken.

Anonymous said...

...on certain aspects of liberation theology...

That's the crux of the matter. Liberation theology as a whole needs to be cursed.

thetimman said...

Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Benedicto...

Anonymous said...

Anon. 17:08, armed struggle is not inherently anti-Chrisitan.

Guilherme said...

Sadly, just this speech will do nothing here in Latin America.

Our Bishops and Priests just ignore the Pope.

Our church needs to be purged. We need excommunications, we need orthodox priests coming in our aid, filling the gap.

J.G. Rathkaj said...

As a resident in a typical south-american diocese where evil liberation theology and neo-marxist ideology is mere omnipresent I thank His Holiness of Rome for his words, but I agree with others here in the comboxes that a full and solemn condemnation of this perversion is the most expedient.

Jordanes said...

Liberation theology as a whole needs to be cursed.

No, the Church can only condemn error, not truth. Liberation theology has mixed in truth with it's pernicious errors.

Anonymous said...

"Anon. 17:08, armed struggle is not inherently anti-Chrisitan".

Yes, in the context of Latin America it was anti-christian to promote armed struggle, like those Satan-severs guerrilla priests.

When I talk about christianity I talk about the Gospel.

As for Guilherme, let me remind you that it was the pope, since Paul VI, who sowed the seeds of what latter became Liberation Theology, and even for JPII it took a long time to combat Liberation Theology at front. Only after it was evident that Liberation Theology was threatening the Church's internal coherense, JPII faced the most extreme forms of those Satan-servers liberation theology priests and theologians. But the roots that gave way to this abomination are still very much alive in the Church, and promoted by Satan servers. No wonder Benedict speaks of this theme like it was 30 years ago.
Moreover, the conciliar church is based on the communion of different factions and groups which are always quarreling for power. Long gone are the
Do you see the hypocresy?.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes, there is not a single shred of thruth in liberation theology. All of is bogus.

Jordanes said...

Yes, there is no thruth in liberation theology, but there is some truth in it, mixed in with a lot of error. That is why the CDF instructed theologians to avoid and abandon liberation theology's errors. Once you do that, you no longer have liberation theology.

Jordanes said...

even for JPII it took a long time to combat Liberation Theology at front.

Yeah, he waited a whole SIX YEARS after his election, when he should have condemned liberation theology even before he presented himself to the people after his election.

Moreover, the conciliar church is based on the communion of different factions and groups which are always quarreling for power.

Your "conciliar church" might be based on that, but the Catholic Church headed by Pope Benedict XVI and before him by Popes John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI, etc., is not.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes:

-your "conciliar church" might be based on that, but the Catholic Church headed by Pope Benedict XVI and before him by Popes John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI, etc., is not.

The conciliar church I am talking about is the one I personally know, not the one I have read about.

-Yes, there is no thruth in liberation theology, but there is some truth in it, mixed in with a lot of error.

This is a contradiction. Liberation theology, as understood in Latin America was the manipulation of the Gospel to promote, endorse and validate armed struggle to establish a so called "just society", which in fact was not, because they sought to establish more Cubas in Latin America, as if Cuba was the Kingdom of Heavens, which in fact is not: is a totalitarian regime.

In the strict use of the expression, as it was used in Latin America, there is no Liberation Theology compatible with the Gospel.

Much to the contrary to what Benedict XVI preached to the youth in Cologne, Jesus Christ is NOT a revolutionary, in any sense of the word. A revolutionary seeks to destroy a regime, via armed struggle. Benedict is wrong. (here is the essence of Liberation Theology).

Anonymous said...

I think that the most clear seeds of what later came as Liberation Theology can be found in the document of the 1971 Synod of Bishops: Ministerial Priesthood and Justice in the World.

This was a mistake. Full of marxist analysis.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, in the context of Latin America it was anti-christian to promote armed struggle, like those Satan-severs guerrilla priests."

The "armed struggle" in the context of Latin American guerilla priests is communist revolution.

I will say it again in a nowadays fashionable manner which allegedly emphasizes facts even more:
the "armed struggle" in the context of Latin American guerilla priests subsistit in communist revolution.

The Church condemns pacifism, but the kind of struggle you are referring to is godless, satanic, and represents unbelievable abomination of desolation.

But it's not only about struggle. Bishop Pedro Casaldáliga, putting hammer and sickle on his coat of arms. Cardinal Paulo Evaristo Arns and his infamous concelebration of Mass (?) with 33 bishops where they recited creed stating that they believe in pagan deity Tupa - much like a satanic black mass!!!

Abomination of desolation.

Guilherme said...

I agree with Jordanes.
porta inferi non prevalebunt.

There's no Conciliar Church, there is the Catholic Church and heretic/schismatic groups that struggle against CVII.


But this changes nothing in my previous comment, we need a more direct intervention. And we need foreign priests coming to help us, our own priests are in most part heretics. We need modern inquisitors.

Anonymous said...

The former Liberation theology was a marxist-christian nonsense mixture. But the present so-called Liberation theology has evolved into liberalism plain and simple.

Unfortunately, pope Benedict XVI will need more than a couple of nice words to have it "rest in peace". May I remind all readers that CELAM endorsed Liberation theology in a spectacular manner in 2006, openly bashing the pope ?
Don't you all remember this scandalous behavior of the leadership of Latin American bishops ?
Have you seen any serious change in the episcopal appointments in Latin America since 2006 ?
Oh I was forgetting who is the cardinal-prefect of the Congregation for Clergy ? Yes I remember, cardinal Hummes, a very well known supporter of ... Liberation theology in Brasil.

Like anon 17:26 wrote "talk, talk, talk ... no action is ever taken". Actions speak louder than words. Tell Bp Henry of Calgary about words by the CDW...

Alsaticus

Jordanes said...

"Yes, there is no thruth in liberation theology, but there is some truth in it, mixed in with a lot of error."

This is a contradiction.


Nah, I was just agreeing that liberation theology has no thruth in it. But then I don't know of anything that has any thruth in it.

However, every theological or doctrinal error has at least a little truth in it. That's what makes error so troublesome. If it were wholly erroneous it would be simpler to reject and to resist it. It's that dab of truth (not thruth) that gets you.

Anonymous said...

Guilherme:

Don't worry about it, most of our bishops and priests ignore the Pope too.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

why strain against gnats? liberation theology is dead. Deo gratias. and the Church is still here. Deo gratias. Benedict 16 is a very good Pope and just listen, he is a wonderful teacher, but like the Holy Bible, don't take him out of context.

Anonymous said...

"Yeah, he waited a whole SIX YEARS after his election, when he should have condemned liberation theology even before he presented himself to the people after his election."

I think that JPII just realized about the problem with Liberation Theology when he visited Central America in 1983, and particularly the way the Sandinistas treated him when he visited Nicaragua. There he was confronted with the evil nature of this ideology. Before this, liberation theology must have been for him just another academic discussion in the church.

Anonymous said...

Liberation theology needs to be anathematised root and branch and its books consigned to the pyre. What is also needed is a purging of all those associated with it, starting with a certain cardinal in Rome. As for the communists who are inextricably linked to it, there is a solution but I had to delete it to avoid be censored here.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"However, every theological or doctrinal error has at least a little truth in it. That's what makes error so troublesome."


In fact, the most dangerous errors depend on some admittance of truth: the devil mixes truth and error so that even the elect may be deceived. Communism and the liberation theology that oozes from it needs to be stamped out with extreme prejudice.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Someone wrote:

"as if Cuba was the Kingdom of Heavens, which in fact is not: is a totalitarian regime."

Cuba is a country in which some female physicians sell their bodies in bawdy houses because what they earn as healers wouldn't feed a dog.

As one Cuban businessman in Florida once said, "Before Castro, there were only two classes, the rich and the poor. After Castro, there is just one class, the poor."

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"No, the Church can only condemn error, not truth. Liberation theology has mixed in truth with it's pernicious errors."

The Church can condemn systems which combine truth and error. Truth may never be at the service of error. There is some truth in every wrong system, such as communism.

P.K.T.P.

Dan Hunter said...

"Yes, there is no thruth in liberation theology, but there is some truth in it, mixed in with a lot of error."

Jordanes,
What is "thruth".
It sounds like a contraction of "through" and "truth",
which seems to be the motto of liberation theology,
"through with truth".
But seriously, how can something have both no truth and some truth mixed in with it?
Sounds like "Dignitate Humanae"

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"Yes, in the context of Latin America it was anti-christian to promote armed struggle, like those Satan-severs guerrilla priests."

Communism is inherently evil and liberation theology needs to be condemned more firmly, and this condemnation must be backed up with firm action against dissenting clergy.

However, it should be kept in mind that liberation theology partly arose as a reaction to the extreme violence used by the various military dictatorships to stay in power in Latin America and the Philippines. Condemn the leftist heretics and apostates, but condemn also those whose lust and violence drove many people to the arms of the Left.

Take it from someone who has actually spoken to witnesses of state terror in the Catholic Third World.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"why strain against gnats? liberation theology is dead"

In what planet do you live, anonymous?

Anonymous said...

The Reverend Wright, Mr. Obama's minister in Chicago, has boasted about his adherence to Liberation Theology.

I say this only to note that LT is not just a S. American phenomena or a Catholic Church problem.

For example, some Catholic priests in that town also preach this ideology tainted theology.

Furthermore, such orders as Maryknoll, have numerous priests who advocate it too. It is everywhere.

A systematic condemnation of its major advocates and publications by the CDF and the Pope is warranted.

Anonymous said...

In 'Iota Unum' I read that Pope John 23 opened the doors to Marxist commies and liberation theology in the encyclical, "Pacem in Terris". It neatly divides a movement from its ideology in order to allow Catholics to join the movement while at the same time they may have reservation about the ideology.

The thesis is derived from the Church's constant teaching that one ought to distinguish between error and the man etc., etc., but obscures the logic between what the masses of a movement think and what they do. It overlooks the fact the thought precedes action and falsely suggests that ideology comes from movements and not from inspiration of their principles.

Further, it suggests the positive elements of the movements come from communism itself, when in fact they are primarily religious values. John 23 does not reclaim them for religion.

Secondly, doctrinal dissent within communism weakens the antithesis between communism and Christianity. The commies don't care what are the means to their end. "Communists who form alliances with social democrats and Christians do not cease to be revolutionaries..."(Lenin).

It was easy to get Christians to opt for a Marxism that contains a notion of class struggle culminating in revolution. Though incompatible they cooperate and in the wake are drawn in. This is what happened in the transition from Marxist politics to the generation of liberal theology.

Sometime ago the Obsservatore Romano went onto deny the difference between Christianity and Marxism in an article called 'Cultura, pluralismo e valori'. Prof. Amerio describes this as 'very odd, supported by a novel line of argument" and wonders if the author read relevant papal documents, such as Pius X1, that clearly state opposition does exist between the ideologies.

"So we see this departure from the logical integralism whereby the two views of life remain forever distinct".

I don't understand Pope BXV1 well enough to know his position but I have read where he claims the positive elements of the revolution for Christ and yet seems to follow a notion similar to Pacem Terris?
I wish Pope BXV1 would elaborate more on the points of departure between pre and post V2 writings so that we can see the root causes of things like liberation theology.

Jerry

Anonymous said...

Mr. Palad writes:

"Condemn the leftist heretics and apostates, but condemn also those whose lust and violence drove many people to the arms of the Left."

I'm not sure what is meant by this. The evil of dictatorship cannot drive anyone to the evil of communism. The idea that dictatorships are 'rightist' is mere semantics. There is no left and right, only right and wrong. Yes, we call communists and socialists 'leftists' but I'm not sure what 'the right' is.

In relatively capitalist societies (e.g. Singapore), one can see the excesses that are possible in a morally neutral economic system, which is what capitalism is. That is because such a system has a very limited effect in preventing cheats and frauds from amassing huge fortunes at the expense of good people. This cannot be denied. But the solution cannot be armed struggle against cheats and rotters. First, you have to transform the society to the Faith of Jesus Christ, and then you have to try to convince people to act well. If you are successful, most will but there will still be some cheats. So what? They will go to hell if they don't repent. What's a little gravy here next to endless perdition? As for suffering here, we offer it up and strive to do our best.

The communists recognised this argument. That's why they call religion the opiate of the people. But whatever they call it, it remains true. In the end, the communist can only hurl insults. He sure as hell can't make anything work--especially a business or an economy.

P.K.T.P.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

Mr. Perkins:

You are reading too much into what I wrote. "Leftist" is a common enough term for Marxists, Communists, radical Socialists and their accursed ilk and I used it in that sense.

I do not adhere to the dichotomy that divides ideologies into left and right, and which presupposes that opponents of "left-wing" ideologies are by definition capitalists or "rightists".

The military men who ruled many Catholic countries in the Global South were not "capitalists" or "rightists"; they were simply scoundrels and criminals who killed, stole, raped, sodomized and cheated as they liked; many were every bit as atheistic and anti-clerical as the Communists. Not a few were fervent Evangelicals who saw the Catholic Church as their greatest enemy.

And where did you get the idea that I'm justifying violent struggle? When I speak of people who were driven into the arms of the Left because they experienced oppression, I am not justifying armed struggle, much less MARXIST-inspired armed struggle. I am simply pointing out a historical fact: that many people -- including not a few priests -- in their desire to fight against obvious injustice, fell into the maws of Marxist ideology, in the gravely mistaken belief that it will help them establish justice in their countries.

New Catholic said...

I know very little of Filipino History. However, due to my deep interest in Latin American History, I can only say that it was always the Communists' fault. Always. The military dictatorships themselves were a consequence, not a cause, of Communist unrest. And when the Communists were bloody, the dictatorships that were caused by their actions were bloodier.

It is no coincidence, for example, that the chaotic situation created by Communists in Argentina in the 1960s and 1970s led to the two dictatoships which afflicted that nation, including a particularly brutal one.

And, all things considered, nothing that the anti-Communist regimes did ever reached anything close to the levels of brutality and persecution of the Anticlerical Mexican regime or particularly the Communist Cuban regime, still in place.

No one, it seems, was "pushed" by adverse circumstances or "injustice" to the Communist side. They all acted maliciously and they all knew exactly what they were doing. And the priests were particularly wicked, and perverted generations of Catholics.

May the memory of the martyrs of Communist persecution in Latin America, such as the great Thomist philosopher Carlos Alberto Sacheri, be preserved for ever and ever.

NC

Jordanes said...

What is "thruth".

As Our Lord didn't say, "I am the thway, the thruth, and the thlife. No man comth thoo the Fathther buth through Me."

But seriously, how can something have both no truth and some truth mixed in with it?

It can't.

Anonymous said...

"But this was also another product of the dissipation culture imposed on the Church since Paul VI."

One could go further, especially in light of the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI (1969) and speak of the dissipation of Catholic culture imposed on the Church BY Paul VI (and his clique of radicals).

Anonymous said...

"Talk, talk, talk, that is all the Vatican ever seems to do. No action is ever taken."

While this is largely true, in fairness it must be remembered that several high profile priests of the Liberation Theology movement were, over 20+ years ago either excommunicated, or disiplined. Some even left the priesthood. Whatever happened to the radical liberal liberation-thologian extraordinaire Leonardo Boff? He was severely disiplined, laicized, and I think he left the Church.
Two of the most radical liberation theologian cardinals (Aloysio Lordschieter is dead of course), but Pablo Evaristo Arns is over 90 and hasn't opened his mouth for years.
Most of the proponents of this, I believe, are into their late 70's by now....and there are not any more radical USA missionaries to send to Latin America anymore to stir up trouble.
If there's 100 USA missionaries in the field today, I'll be surprised! And if there are, they're in their 70's.

Anonymous said...

"There's no Conciliar Church, there is the Catholic Church and heretic/schismatic groups that struggle against CVII."

Yes there is. There is the modernist, dissenting radical Conciliar Church which is aging and dying along with the Conciliar Novus Ordo Missae....and then there is the Roman Catholic Church, which has been given fresh life and energy thanks to Pope Benedict XVI and his Motu Proprio of July 2007 regarding the Tridentine Latin Mass.
Everywhere around the world, the
"Conciliar Church"...which might as well be given the name of pseudo-Protestant, is dying out..whereas the Roman Catholic Church is re-emerging from the catacombs faithful to the Holy Mass, and the traditions of all times and the teachings of the Church.

By the way, those "heretic/schismatic groups that struggle against CVII.", meaning the SSPX are the TRUE ROMAN CATHOLICS.

Anonymous said...

"The military men who ruled many Catholic countries in the Global South were not "capitalists" or "rightists"; they were simply scoundrels and criminals who killed, stole, raped, sodomized and cheated as they liked; many were every bit as atheistic and anti-clerical as the Communists. Not a few were fervent Evangelicals who saw the Catholic Church as their greatest enemy."

Yes the injustice in latin america was never between capitalism and communism, it was between different degrees of dictatorships, been the left dictatorship 1,000,000 times worse than the so called capitalists regimes in Latin America. In fact if you know the story of the Sandinista revolution, you will find that many of the leaders of the revolution were members of the same oligarchic families that had control of the "capitalist" systems in the their countries. There were just different degress of domination, being the "leftist" domination a more evil one.

But what the Liberation Theolgy did was to provide an ideological framework, for the justification of armed struggle and the impossion of a moral brutal dictatorship than the previous.

Like one Jesuit priest in my high school told us, the Church does not promote "class struggle", it (the church) only must acknowledge the "existence" of class struggle.

As for Cuba, there exists two classes in Cuba, the poor (the people) and the ruling class (the Nomenklatura), from where the new cuban capitalists will arise.

Anonymous said...

"Liberation theology needs to be anathematised root and branch and its books consigned to the pyre. What is also needed is a purging of all those associated with it, starting with a certain cardinal in Rome. As for the communists who are inextricably linked to it, there is a solution but I had to delete it to avoid be censored here."

In order for the church to do this it will have to condemn the latitudinarian culture in the Church, and I bet that neither the pope nor any of the hierarchy want this.

Dymphna said...

liberation theology got a lot of people killed.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, there is no thruth in liberation theology, but there is some truth in it, mixed in with a lot of error.""

The mixing of some elements of thruth, in the realm of error, is what makes Liberation Theology more pernicious than the Communist Manifest. The Communist Manifest is very clear, but Liberation Theology wrapped the ideology of revolution with a christian language so that the masses would accept the impossion of a more brutal dictatorship.

In fact by quoting the Bible (quoting passages out of context), Liberation Theology tried to make us believe that there was no contradiction between Christianity and Revolution, when in fact there can be no reconciliation between christianity and revolution, they are mutually exclusive as they practice oppossing values.

That is why Liberation Theology is much worse than Communist ideology, because Liberation Theology exploits the people's ignorance (of knowledge and cultural), and manipulates their most dearing believes in order to make them believe that the only way out of poverty is by renouncing to their inaliable human freedom through revolution.

I think that part of the ease of Latinamerican clerics to endorse this evil ideology is because deep down the Latin America Catholic Church has a radical cutural problem with the concept of "democracy".

In fact, in many cases the greatest obstacle for the economic development of Latin America is the Catholic Church, and not because of its "official" moral doctrines, but because the Latin America Catholic Church has a real problem with democracy and with the free market system (correctly understood), even though one of the greastest beneficiaries of capitalism in Latin America are many clerics.

Anonymous said...

"liberation theology got a lot of people killed"

Yes Dymphna, indeed it did. It killed thousands of ignorant people who believed and followed those Satan servers.

These Satan servers filled the people's minds with hate.

Anonymous said...

CAP: "I am not justifying armed struggle"

What about the American Revolution? Do you think that America should have remained under the British rule?

Pablo said...

What about the American Revolution? Do you think that America should have remained under the British rule?...

The American Rebellion was against Monarchs and Popes. It had its diabolical origins in the Freemason Lodge and other satanic groups. Ever walk around Washington D.C. to see the huge amount of pro-Satan architecture and shrines? America is a country consecrated to Satan, by Satanists. By the way which one do you think the Holy Family is, Republicans or Democrats?

When I met some rebels from Chiapas in the Zocalo in Mexico City, they were not communists, they were Guadalupanos who had no support from those of us in the Church that should have given them aid and Charity. If the communists have been successful, it is because our leaders have sold us out, and we have only worked hard at being proper and not offending anyone. We are responsible for that fiasco; also, there are more Protestant Missionaries working hard at raping Holy Mother Church than there are Catholic Missionaries working to extend the Kingdom of Christ.

There are many casualties in Latin America; many have succumbed to Protestantism and the treachery of Freemasonry. Many souls have been lost because they chose to embrace heresy.

The Mother of Mercy holds us in the fold of her mantle (if we go to her), and will not let the Devil rule over Mexico or Latin America again. Deo gracias.

The catechism I was taught spoke of Protestants having Truth within what they believe, because what they believe came originally from Holy Mother Church, they just diluted it with schism and heresy. All things from Holy Mother Church have Truth in it, what goes wrong is when we add ourselves and our pompous opinions.

The best way to correct errant Priests is to take their cause to the Mother of Mercy, who forms Priests in the image of her Son.

May God our Lord in His infinite and supreme goodness be pleased to give us His abundant grace, that we may know His most holy will, and entirely fulfill it.

Santa María de Guadalupe Esperanza nuestra, salva nuestra patria y conserva nuestra Fe.

Trisha said...

Pablo:

Sadly . . . you are right.

Anonymous said...

Pablo asks:

"Do you think that America should have remained under the British rule?..."


Of course it should have. Having said that, keep in mind that (a) the Hanoverians are not the legitimate sovereigns but the Catholic Stuarts are and (b) there was as much Freemasonry on the British as on the American side, although it had less effect on the already-settled form of Government in the Empire.

I have argued elsewhere but WILL NOT argue here that the American Revolution was an unjust rebellion against a sovereign who was not a tyrant: he was compliant, not a tyrant. I'd essentially say that the taxes imposed by London were just, that London repealed them one by one (a mistake) to accommodate the colonials, and that the greatest of the 'Intolerant Act' on which the U.S.A. was founded was the Quebec Act of 1774. Why did the Americans find it to be so intolerable? It is because it allowed French Canadians to keep their Catholic Faith.

There is namore to say but ...

This issue is largely moot because America's independence was inevitable. Had is not been achieved by 1781, it would have been secured by the 1830s at the latest. So it's largely an academic issue. What is less theortical is whether or not America was founded on Freemsasonic principles and if this was inevitable.

Peter Karl T. Perkins
Member, Monarchist League of Canada

P.S. The Empire also beat the U.S.A. in the War of 1812 but that is another subject and nobody wants to talk about it (esp. Americans but also Canucks, who are afraid of irritating a sleeping giant). Vietnam was the second, not the first War that America lost. If you wish to test this, discover what the U.S. demands were in 1812 (records of Congress) and then look at the terms of the Treaty of Ghent in 1814: the Empire did not agree in 1814 to stop impressing U.S. sailors into the Royal Navy (although we stopped doing so in practice to be more friendly) and not one square inch of Canada was annexed to the U.S.A.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Palad:

First of all, I agree with your earlier paragraphs in essense. Your closing one is this:

"And where did you get the idea that I'm justifying violent struggle? When I speak of people who were driven into the arms of the Left because they experienced oppression, I am not justifying armed struggle, much less MARXIST-inspired armed struggle. I am simply pointing out a historical fact: that many people -- including not a few priests -- in their desire to fight against obvious injustice, fell into the maws of Marxist ideology, in the gravely mistaken belief that it will help them establish justice in their countries."


I'd counter that anyone who adopts Marxism adopts armed struggle as well because the first includes the second as a matter of both theory and policy. Marx taught clearly that the way to settle class warfare was *violent* struggle, so anyone who adopts Marxism is potentially (or actually) a violent person. Marxists believe in revolution, by which they mean armed struggle and not an exchange of insults. For Marxists, it can never be "Stop, or I'll say 'stop' again".

There is a general agreement, I think, that, by 'the Left', we refer to Marxism and the stage of Socialism which Marx theorised leads to it. But it seems to me that 'right' is a construct of Marxists to identify all those who do not agree with them. This is a classic example of trying to take control of a debate by casting one's opponents as those who struggle against your side. The idea is to recast political disagreement so that Marxism becomes its context. In response, those on the 'right' should refuse the term and describe themselves instead as what they are. For example, the more intelligent among them are royalists like me.

As a result, the struggle, say, between Dölfuss and the Nazis in Austria becomes meaningless to Marxists. To Marxists, both those forces are really allies having a power struggle over personal leadership or something. The truth is quite the opposite: A Nazi is a socialist (national socialist = Nazi) and the Nazis and Communists are two different versions of the same thing, not otherwise. Turn one inside out and you get the other.

The aristocrats were right in Austria. Most of them regarded Nazis as pompous and ridiculous little clowns in overstuffed shirts. How accurate. As for the Sparticists, they were, to them, the more obstreperous and presumptous among the factory masses. The Nazis should be seen as merely a middle-class parallel to the communists, coming from bakeries and government offices instead of from the floor of factories. No civilised man can be either a Nazi or a Communist. It is possible, however, to be completely civilised and yet poor and coming from the lower social classes. But this requires faith and above all, humility.

P.K.T.P.

Adeodatus said...

Some of the rightist regimes in Latin America were extremely wicked and anti-clerical in nature. I don't thinkt that the blame for that can be laid at the feet of the knavish ideology of 'Liberation Theology'. While it may have had some contribution to the evil crimes of the rightist regimes, in many ways it also gained its impetus from them. Out of concerns of raw power, to say nothing of the vile depths of sin, some rightist regimes of Latin America themselves stoked the fires of revolution by their misdeeds, and discredited Western Civilization and the Spanish cultural patrimony in the region.

It would be a mistake to imagine that the conflicts in Latin America were anything like those of the Spanish Civil War (in which the rightists crusaded against atheistic evil to preserve the Catholicism of Spain). It would be nice if things were so black and white (or red and blue), but they are not in this case.

Still, it is good to see that Liberation Theology continues to be condemned as the error it is. Perhaps we will see it fail as liberalism in the Church is failing in other places... failing to bear fruit and so being discarded as a false teaching.

Jordanes said...

"It is possible, however, to be completely civilised and yet poor and coming from the lower social classes. But this requires faith and above all, humility."

For that matter, it requires faith and humility to be completely civilised and yet wealthy and coming from the upper social classes . . .

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P.

I am someone who has a bit of interest in monarchism, and was wondering if you could recommend any books on the subject.

thanks

Anonymous said...

As for Leonardo Boff, he not only is still a Catholic but he's still also very popular among the Brazilian clergy. He still writes for widely read Catholic magazines and frequently gives interviews on religious matters on catholic TV channels.

Inside the Brazilian Church, anyone who dares to fight Liberation Theology is likely to be be excluded from the catholic mainstream as a viceous fascist.

That is still true today and is likely to be true for the foreseeable future.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P. said: "This issue is largely moot because America's independence was inevitable. Had is not been achieved by 1781, it would have been secured by the 1830s at the latest."

Remember that Satan did not use armed forces against God, and he is still an evil rebel.

Hitler's rebellion, when he seized total power in Germany, was non-violent (during the infamous Night of the Long Knives only his opponents inside the Nazi party were murdered, and he was already in power), he was democratically elected with a high percentage of votes.

But the problem is whether demanding independence (Canada, USA, Latin America in the colonial period) or change of the government (Latin America) is morally justified at all. It's a rebellion, no matter whether you use force like the Bolsheviks or persuade the masses by talking, like Hitler. In both cases you end up in a point where the authority cannot execute its power, like the Kaiser, Reichstag and president von Hindenburg in Hitler's Germany. It's a rebellion even if the authority has no other choice than to concede to your demands and agree to your terms, like the King in Mussolini's Italy.


Also if you take advantage of the situation where the central government ceases to exist. That you temporarily don't have a superior would mean that you can be "independent" from now on?

From that point of view the so-called "Constantine Church" is indeed a terrible mistake and injustice, and we should have stayed under the pagan rule - as Kiko Arguello from the Neocatechumenal Way and other postconciliar heretics advocating "freedom of religion" argue. Not to mention such /horrendum/ like the violent creation of the Holy Roman Empire by bl. Charlemagne - crowned by the Pope himself.

Anonymous said...

Why not say something similar to Argentina?

Pablo said...

Dear Miss Trish,

Salutations.

I enjoy this blog. Its discussions are at times very lively. The exchange of information is a very helpful tool in dealing with current situations. To walk through the forest and not see the trees is not good.

For every problem there is a solution. In Mexico, the land of my Fathers, we have decided to fall back and petition our mother through the Holy Rosary. Our point man is named Francisco. Please add him to your prayer intentions as he is suffering greatly for the Faith at the moment.

This liberation theology thing has to be replaced by something. Let us pray that our Divine Master grant us Holy Priests.

Wherever you are please join your prayers with ours.

The 9th of November is the Feast of Saint Juan Diego, the 12th Our Lady of Guadalupe.

God be with you.

*

Trisha said...

Thank you, Pablo,

For me also - this blog is one of the few I read regularly, and am learning a lot from the different points of view, all quite thoughtful and informative.

Yes, I will be praying for Francisco.

God bless you.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes retorts:

"For that matter, it requires faith and humility to be completely civilised and yet wealthy and coming from the upper social classes . . ."

Well, obviously, faith and humility are required by all. What I meant is that it requires a particular kind of trust in God for those in the poorer classes to know their place in the social order and accept it, for channing it, while not a bad thing, is not the prime reason for being here. In some ways, the poor have an advantage over the rich. They have fewer distractions from the common goal: salvation.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

No, I didn't retort.

Your follow-up clarification expounding on your prior comment is correct. But wouldn't you say the wording of your prior comment was somewhat unfelicitous?

Jordanes said...

Or should that be "infelicitous"?

Anonymous said...

"Rest in peace, Latin American liberation theology"
Huh, I already have heard that...