No a la 'iglesia india', and Papal Damage Control on the First Evangelization

Taken from CNA:

Holy See reminds its opposition to an “indigenous church” and to married priesthood in Latin America.

Vatican City, Mar 9, 2006 / 12:00 am (CNA).- Through a letter sent to the Bishop of San Cristóbal de las Casas (México), Bishop. Felipe Arizmendi Esquivel, the Holy See decided to put an end to the so-called “Indigenous Church,” influent especially in southern parts of Mexico and throughout Latin America.

The letter is signed by Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Cult and the Discipline of Sacraments. He deplores the influence of the ideology of the "autoctonous church,” inherited by Bishop Arizmendi from his predecesor Bishop Samuel Ruiz Garcia and remarks that the new policy should supress the overreliance on the ordination of permanent deacons in this diocese.

Bishop Ruiz prevented many different movements and religious orders to be active in the diocese, and seriously discouraged religious vocations to celibate priesthood and above all, he promoted the massive ordination of permanent deacons, valuing that in little time the Church would end up accepting the practice of married priests, which according to him was better adapted to the vision of an "indigenous" or “autochthonous church.”

The eloquent letter written by Cardinal Arinze in the latest issue of the “Notitiae” the bulletin of the dicastery is addressed to Bishop Arizmendi, but its conclusions are extended to other regions such as Guatemala, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru, where the similar “Indian theology” has been spread.

The case and constant petitions coming from San Cristóbal de las Casas, has forced the creation of a interdicasterial committee in September 1993, and which finally came to a conclusion in October during the pontificate of Benedict XVI. The Committee rejects the creation of an “autochthonous church,” inspired by the “theology of liberation.”

The letters states as follows:

“We can’t ignore that, even after five years after the retirement of H.E Samuel Ruiz of San Cristóbal de las Casas, the ideology that promotes the implementation of the project of Autochthonous Church is still latent. In that sense, the Interdicasterial meeting has pronounced himself for a suspension of eventual ordinations of permanent deacons.”

“Therefore, we ask that a proper pastoral of vocations, in the perspective of celibate priesthood might be strengthened as in other parts of Mexico, and other countries in Latin America.”

In order to reorganize the ecclesial life, we asked from the beginning that the diocese may open itself to the proper realities of the universality of the Catholic Church, to help it overcome its ideological isolation.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Taken from CNA: En Español

Pope insists: Gospel did not destroy native cultures in America

Vatican City, May 23, 2007 / 12:42 pm (CNA).- During his weekly general audience, Pope Benedict reflected on his recent apostolic trip to Brazil and insisted that, despite the shadows in the process of announcing the Gospel in the new world, the Evangelization did not destroy but instead ennobled the native cultures.

Speaking before more than 25,000 people on a sunny day, the Pontiff said that his journey to Latin America, where he inaugurated the 5th General Conference of Latin American Bishops, "was primarily an act of praise to God for the 'wonders' worked among the people of Latin America, and for the faith that has animated their lives and culture over more than 500 years."

The Holy Father acknowledged that the "remembrance of a glorious past cannot ignore the shadows that accompanied the work of evangelization on the Latin American continent: ... the suffering and injustices inflicted by the colonizers on the indigenous peoples whose fundamental human rights were often trampled underfoot."

"But the obligatory mention of those unjustifiable crimes, condemned even at the time by missionaries like Bartolomeo de las Casas and theologians such as Francisco de Vitoria, must not prevent us from recognizing with gratitude the marvelous work achieved by divine grace among those peoples over the course of the centuries."

On the Latin American continent, the Holy Father continued, "the Gospel has become the mainstay of a dynamic synthesis that has different aspects in the different nations but everywhere expresses the identity of the Latin American people."

Finally, reflecting on the theme of the Conference, "Disciples and missionaries in Jesus Christ, that in Him our peoples may have life," Pope Benedict said that "the word 'disciple' suggests the idea of formation and of following [a master], the term 'missionary' expresses the fruit of discipleship, in other words bearing witness to and communicating a real experience: the truth known and assimilated."

"Joyfully renewing the will to be disciples of Jesus," he continued "is the fundamental condition for being His missionaries who 'start again from Christ,' to use the words of Pope John Paul II to the entire Church following the Jubilee 2000."

"With my apostolic trip," Pope Benedict concluded, "I wished to exhort people to continue along this path, presenting the unifying perspective of the Encyclical 'Deus caritas est,' a perspective that is inextricably social and theological and that can be summed up in this expression: 'it is love that gives life'."

The Pope in Latin America

Taken from BBC "The people of Latin America and the Caribbean have the right to ... conditions that are human, free from the threat of hunger and from every form of violence," the Pope said.

Taken from Catholic News Agency: "Both capitalism and Marxism promised to point out the path for the creation of just structures, and they declared that these, once established, would function by themselves."

"And this ideological promise,” he added, “has been proved false. The facts have clearly demonstrated it. The Marxist system, where it found its way into government, not only left a sad heritage of economic and ecological destruction, but also a painful destruction of the human spirit. And we can also see the same thing happening in the West, where the distance between rich and poor is growing constantly, and giving rise to a worrying degradation of personal dignity through drugs, alcohol and deceptive illusions of happiness."

"This political task is not the immediate competence of the Church," the Pontiff explained. "Respect for a healthy secularity — including the pluralism of political opinions — is essential in the authentic Christian tradition."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CELAM in Brasil excluded Liberation Theologians. They held their own event close to CELAM as a response. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9169

If the Pope is about pluralism, why is there censorship of Liberation Theologists via non-invites to CELAM? The likely Church response would be that there is no room for ideologies that fall outside of faith and can be harmful, such as those that try to create a 'utopia' on Earth. However, if the Church is truly upholding its values, for example, ensuring human dignity, then why did controversial bishops such as Opus Dei's Cipriani, who backed the autocrat Fujimori for some time and the Sodalicio's Eguren, who suppresses those who protest unjust conditions in the Tambogrande mines of Peru, attend CELAM? This sort of censorship makes little sense; it suppresses meaningful dialogue and brings further controversy and conflict within the Church. It also rewards some bishops with authority over others, whether 'meaningfully deserved' or not.


Another observation out of the CELAM visit: A martyred Liberation Theologian, murdered in a Church, is being discussed by the Pope as a man of faith first and an agent of social change second. If he were alive, he would be lumped in with other non-violent Liberation Theologists, such as Jon Sobrino and Gustavo Gutierrez, with the m-word introducing and following his name well into his likely natural and undramatic death. But, everyone loves a martyr.

Catholic News Agency: During his May 9 flight to Brazil the Pope also spoke about Archbishop Oscar Romero [see: Prominent Liberation Theologist], who was an outspoken voice for social change before he was gunned down by a right-wing "death squad" during a Mass at his cathedral in San Salvador. Commenting on a new book about the slain archbishop, the Pope said that the death of Archbishop Romero should not be seen simply as a political figure.

"He was killed during the consecration of the Eucharist," the Pope observed. "Therefore, his death is testimony of the faith.”

Jesus isn't a theo-con, nor a fascist

The Vatican has been making appointments of individuals from the 'new ecclesiastical communities' that have been promoted since the council of the Vatican II. These communities include the Sodalit Family and Opus Dei. At the same time, Pope Benedict (ex. Cardinal Ratzinger) has been promoting his own agenda to remove liberation theologists (or Marxist theology as said by the Sodalit-run Catholic News Agency). I have shown examples of this in Puno, Perú recently, and here is another example in El Salvador.

The second piece talks about how Jesus wasn't a hippy, nor a guru, nor a philosopher, nor a revolutionary, nor a socialist, etc., etc., but the Son of God.
I could agree with the things he was not, provided we also say that Jesus wasn't a neo-con/theo-con, nor a fascist, nor a market liberal either... and nor did he condemn people for disagreeing with human authority on Earth.

The author tries to explain the troubling nature of why Jesus is seen as a 'revolutionary' in Latin America. I think he should also ask why conquistadors and other colonialists are praised for 'bringing God to the Americas', since Jesus wasn't for genocide and oppression... if Jesus did support it, that would make him some sort of a fascist dictator, wouldn't it?

-------------------------------

Vatican Sanctions

Salvadoran archbishop confirms Vatican sanction of Jesuit theologian

Fr. Fernando Saenz Lacalle, S.J.

San Salvador, Mar 13, 2007 / 05:10 pm (CNA).- Archbishop Fernando Saenz Lacalle of San Salvador confirmed this week that on Thursday the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would issue a Canonical sanction against Jesuit liberation theologian Jon Sobrino.

Sobrino, a Basque Jesuit who has lived in El Salvador since the 1970’s, where he has been a professor of theology at the Jose Simeon Cañas Central American University, which he founded together with several other Jesuits.

Although the sanction will be official made public on Thursday, Archbishop Saenz said during a press conference that “the Holy See tells us that the conclusions of his theological studies are not in accord with the doctrine of the Church.”

The sanction also will prohibit Jon Sobrino from teaching classes at any Catholic institution and from publishing as a Catholic author.

“For some time his writings have been under study, and for years he has been warned,” Archbishop Lacalle said, explaining that Sobrino, like many of his fellow liberationists, emphasizes the human nature of Jesus to the point of putting his divinity in doubt.

Like other authors such as Gustavo Gutierrez, Juan Luis Segundo and Pablo Richard, Sabrino contributed to creating profound division in the Church in Latin America by promoting a Marxist interpretation of theology. He has refused to make any comments until the Vatican officially publishes the sanction.

Archbishop Lacalle has requested Sobrino refrain from further controversies surrounding the activity of liberation theology proponents, especially in view of the upcoming General Conference of the Latin American Bishops’ Council, and that he “conform to the teachings of the Church.”

“I pray to the Lord for Father Jon Sobrino, that he may be docile to the teachings of the Church and will review his conclusions,” the archbishop said.

------------------------------------------------------------

Bishops

Jesus was no socialist, guru, or hippie, but rather the Son of God, says Venezuelan bishop

Bishop Mario Moronta

Caracas, Mar 13, 2007 / 10:09 am (CNA).- In an article published this week Bishop Mario Moronta of San Cristobal warned against misinterpreting the person of Jesus as “a Socialist,” a “guru,” or “hippie” and encouraged the faithful to constantly recall that Jesus is Lord, the Son of God.

“The person of Jesus, with his actions and teachings, has always inspired amazement and admiration in many, as well as questioning and even rejection in others,” the bishop wrote in an article for the diocesan newspaper.

“In modern times as well,” Bishop Moronta said, “the question about Jesus remains. The answer given is in accord with those who do the asking: Some have claimed he is an alien who has come from who knows what planet or galaxy in order to carry out a mission. Some have claimed he is a kind of ‘guru’ who, after his death in Israel, supposedly traveled to the Far East to achieve complete wisdom. Some claim he is a great teacher of wisdom. There is even no lack of those who would say he is a myth or an invention of the first Christians,” the bishop wrote.

“In our Latin American continent, there have always been attempts to answer the troubling question about Him,” he continued. “He has been identified as a ‘revolutionary,’ a ‘guerrilla,’ to the point that he has been depicted in paintings crucified on a cross of rifles. In our own national debate, he has been presented as a ‘Socialist.’”

“In every age,” Bishop Moronta said, “to not see Jesus in his true dimension produces in many a reaction against the Church, who is Mother and Teacher.”

“Therefore,” he recommended, “more than confronting those who do not understand the Church’s reasons, what we must do is show where the source of our answers is: in the Gospel, which is the Word of God,” where we find Peter’s profession of faith: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

“Here is the authentic answer to the question about Jesus. It is the recognition of his divine mission, of his divinity, of his final objective—the salvation of humanity,” the bishop stressed.

When somebody claims something about the person of Jesus,” Bishop Moronta added, “the attitude of believers in Christ must be that which is inspired by the Gospel: a profession of faith, made without hesitation and without fear, not to condemn another, but to invite him to understand what the true meaning of the existence of the person and work of Jesus the Lord is.”

“Therefore, neither a revolutionary, nor a Socialist, nor a hippie, nor a philosopher, nor a Gnostic deity, nor an alien, nor a ghost, nor a myth: Jesus is Lord, the Son of the living God, the Savior, the Word incarnate who has made the mystery and plan of God known to us, the Beginning and the End, the faithful witness, the same today, yesterday and forever,” Bishop Moronta emphasized.

In Ayaviri (Puno), Peru

This is happening in real-time, which makes it all the more interesting.

The introduction of the Sodalits to Ayaviri, through SVC Schmalhausen, who was consecrated by Cipriani has caused a significant amount of conflict with the older pastoral groups in the region (see Liberation Theologists). It is no surprise that conservative groups Lumen Dei and Opus Dei joined Schmalhausen and the Sodalits on the second evangelization (or more softly worded, "new evangelization") of Ayaviri.

Aside, there is a strong propensity to deny the Sodalit's alignment with Opus Dei (you can see this in Caretas Letters to the Editor Re: Congressman Rafael Rey); this is in the face of documentation of such bonds for over two decades, and current documentation that they are still well-aligned with this movement.


There have been lots of interesting allegations, such as that the Sodalits and Opus Dei have been abusive in the reformation process (abusive of their powers?), the Opus Dei appointed bishop retired a parish member who was part of the South Andean Church (Iglesia del Sur Andino) for having a hump (or lump). There are some other interesting removals of pastoral workers that are conveniently part of the Iglesia del Sur Andino and in conflict with the Sodalits, including the transfer of a 68 year old pastoral worker to a very remote area in the Andes (one that, say, may require at least an hour of walking or to have a horse so that he could arrive to that location).


What this appears to be is the continued reform of the church to fully remove liberation theologists and, get rid of Ayamaran and Quechuan pride and the 'backwards culture' (see: non-western) that has been supported by 'those marxists' (see: Liberation Theologists) for the past 39 years.

Some links in Spanish:

La República has published a column on it (against the Sodalit's arrival)

Another agency that is keeping track of this ordeal

Here's a blog from someone in the area

Written at the time of the SVC movement to Ayaviri

Sodalicio News on the events

The Instituto de Pastoral Andina, which has been functioning in the region for many years

El Comercio has published a fairly short, but pro-Sodalit message, as they usually do.
(Other recent pro-sodalit examples here and here)

This Church reformation in the region appears with conservative sects taking the lead and yet again the people of Ayaviri are being put in the middle of this obviously political struggle within the Church (although it is denied by conservative members - SVC and Opus Dei - that following the Church Doctrine isn't political).

The only differences that I can note between the two sides is that the Sodalits have demonstrated disdain for Indigenous culture and have arrived in Ayaviri without showing any real interest to respect the culture of the region.

Because the Sodalit Family is very political as-is, it is hard to ignore the personal politics invested in the arguments made. It would be foolish to argue that my approach to this is objective; I most definitely have issues with an organization that is inherently racist and hides behind the veil of creating 'social justice' in resource-poor neighbourhoods. It has been incredibly difficult to find a reason to feel indifferent or favourable toward an organization of resource-wealthy Latinos, whose entire existence is political, whose past is rife with conflict and an absence of transparency, and whose messages are pro-colonial and lack true respect for people of mestizo and indigenous descent.

I recall being told about some of the beliefs by a member of this community of why indigenous people of Peru were poor; it was explained to be a 'cultural problem' as opposed to a 'social problem'. The cultural problem being that the Quechua speaker, although creative, has little capacity to understand complex thought processes, such as those attainable by a Spanish speaker. Secondly, their inability to understand complex economics due to their lack of education is the other 'cultural' issue. Hence, this is why they (rural migrants - Andean people) only participate in petty, simple economic activity. This is a good way of explaining why those 'savages' are poor; they apparently just don't know how to be rich because they belong to an inferior culture with an inferior language!

While again my ideas are political, I find it incredibly dangerous that these sorts of ideas are spread about indigenous/Andean people, considering that none of those who are spewed these versions of the Sodality/creole/conservative realities at any given moment are really in any situation to contact rural migrants from Andean/indigenous backgrounds in a meaningful way and in a neutral/safe atmosphere, although I doubt one can create such an atmosphere with 30 wealthy North Americans in a 'pueblo joven'.

The fact that people participating in 'Solidarity in Action', an organization within the Sodalit Family, are not given the opportunity to explore the reality of the people who they are 'acting in solidarity with' is startling and creating a very slippery slope where assumptions are easily made. These assumptions are then asserted by a Sodality member on the trip, who will explain the social realities of the rural migrants to the ignorant 'do-good' foreigners (from what is a fairly racist creole perspective). The notion that the kindness and the 'purity of the heart' of those who live in the 'pueblos jovenes' of Lima are then assumed to be partially caused by the solidarity between the organization 'there to help' and the 'grateful' and 'needy' community.


And we haven't even begun to speak about the ideas spread about liberation theologists and non-conservatives. Having read this article written by a sympathizer of the movement, who had only four days of experience with the Sodality movement, it is apparent that some of the same ideas spread by this organization are already being spewed from his mouth!

"My four days in Peru were spent as the guest of a remarkable religious community you may not have heard about, the "Sodality of Christian Life." Sodality means "promise" or "friendship," and in Peru, I encountered both."

On the other Catholic Institutions:
"San Pablo has already become the leading Catholic university in Peru and is now drawing students from adjacent countries. The older Catholic institutions, such as Catholic University of Lima, are centers of extreme left, radical feminist and pro-abortion ideology. Remnants of the liberation theology that thrived in Peru in the '70s and '80s still exist. (Remember the ex-nuns who assumed combat fatigues and protected terrorists in the name of the people?)"

This is incredibly humorous, as Luis Fernando Figari started in PUCP (Catholic University of Lima) and launched his attack from PUCP on the Liberation Theologist Catholic thinker, Gustavo Gutierrez, who worked in PUCP. The fact that Luis Fernando Figari's movement has contempt for this institution is strange, as radical right-winged movements also were created there. This is perhaps their way of 'othering' less right-wing institutions from their newly founded San Pablo University.

The idea of liberation theology as pro-Senderista [Sendero Luminoso - Shining Path] is also derived directly from the Sodalit Family. The fact that liberation theologists believed in political action does not mean that they supported terrorism or terrorist activities. In fact, liberation theologists spoke out against violent conflict, as it was not part of their theology (at least that derived from Gustavo Gutierrez). Secondly, the fact that in the Takillakkta songs translated and through the speeches of Luis Fernando Figari and his members, the outright support and graciousness for the arrival of the Spaniards, who murdered many indigenous people, is absolutely hypocritical considering that the Sodalites try and portray themselves as anti-conflict and anti-violent by their strong stance against terrorism. I suppose that if they could rationalize non-believers as inhuman, the murders of so many indigenous people during the conquest could be justified and allow them to conclude the Spaniards who came to the Americas were blessed by God and not murderers (remember, the conquest wasn't peaceful by any means).

A couple of interesting afterthoughts on the Sodalits: if they are so anti-terrorist and pretty much all of the victims of terrorism were mestizos or indigenous, why is it that there is no 'solidarity' between indigenous or mestizo organizations and the Sodalit Family? Secondly, why is it that the Sodalit Family doesn't acknowledge the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation, which strives to bring social justice to families affected by terrorism and is actually reported to be in conflict with them? [please refer to the source section, where there is an article about right-wing organizations attacking authors of the Truth and Reconciliation document] Any measure that acknowledges the grave injustices against indigenous people and seeks to ensure the poor treatment of indigenous and mestizo people doesn't happen again I would consider as social justice.

Anyhow, my purpose was not to prove the fallacies of that statement, although it is always important to be critical. The ability for this gentlemen who was in Peru for four days to gain that social commentary on Peru in four days is nearly impossible, at least without being manipulated or told what to think and what to say about certain issues by the people he was surrounded with.

I hope that this example given can help sympathizers of this organization understand that short stints with this organization produce biased 'truth-spewing' based on the words of Sodalits, whose questionable, manipulative tactics are already under scrutiny. By looking at this example, I hope people will think critically about what they have been told and where these ideas came from.