An accusation that we see thrown around a lot, especially around election time, is the charge that Father So-and-So is “being too political,” and that he should “stay out of politics.” The charge is made from either side of the aisle, sometimes directed toward priests who speak out strongly against war, or sometimes against priests and bishops who refuse communion to “pro-choice” politicians. The latest target of this charge, of course, is Fr. Michael Pfleger, whose ministry has been criticized for being “too political” for a variety of reasons, from his specific comments about the current presidential campaign to his supposed “hatred” for America and his fiery comments about racial privilege.
The Pfleger incidents — and the uproar that accompanies it — give Catholics a good opportunity to pause and to clear up some sloppy thinking on the whole notion of priests “being too political.” Frankly, Catholics usually accuse priests of “being too political” simply when they disagree with the priest’s politics. And in giving voice to this disagreement they typically insist that the Catholic position “transcends” politics.
But we know this is cannot really be the case. Among the many things liberation theologians have taught us, they have shown us that there is no “neutral” or “transcendent” position with regard to faith and politics. We all take sides because an incarnate faith must take sides. “Staying neutral” (as priests are supposedly supposed to do) is in fact taking a side: the side of the status quo. And if we stop long enough to reflect on our own tendencies, we know this is true on an immediate level: as much as we say that priests should “stay out of politics,” we all end up praising priests who take our side on a political issue, whether he is joining us in protesting at an abortion clinic or at the School of the Americas; whether he implies in a homily that we must vote Republican or whether he implies that it’s okay to vote Democrat as long as we are not doing so because we agree with a candidate’s “pro-choice” stance. As much as we object in theory, in practice we want our priests to “be political” because we know as Catholics that we cannot be Christian without being political, i.e. without being intimately concerned with the way in which we organize our lives together.
Of course, the idea that Christians, and in particular priests, should “transcend” politics delights the powers. The flip-side of the invention of the modern nation-state is the invention of religion as a realm of private spiritual preferences having no impact on the “real world.” The powers are delighted to hear Catholics demand that their priests “transcend” politics and “stay neutral” because this inevitably results in the reinforcement of private religion and the disintegration of the Body of Christ as “a public in its own right,” in the words of Catholic theologian Reinhard Hütter. The state demands that the Church’s authority be relegated to some private realm: the Church can have the Christian’s soul while the state retains control of the Christian’s body. These dynamics struck me as I read a comment posted regarding the Pfleger incident:
You know what… there is something very interesting about this incident in the sense that people are appalled that it is a CATHOLIC priest that is doing this… I’ve heard morning shows talking about it not being able to believe it. In a sense, there is so much that is expected from the clergy even by those who are not Catholics or do not consider themselves as believers.
I actually look at this in a completely different way. Talk show hosts are appalled that a Catholic priest is doing this because Catholics have been so good at accommodating themselves to the American project, emphasizing an artificial separation between politics and faith, a separation that our non-Catholic friends have been, amazingly, breaking down for a while now albeit often in dangerous ways. The secular media, and the modern nation state, expect Catholics to stay in their place with their otherworldly faith. They are pleased that the only kind of politics we seem to engage in is passing out abortion voting record fliers in the church parking lot after Mass. They are pleased that we are talking incessantly of turning our altars around, away from the world and toward a god that is, thankfully in their view, seemingly somewhere else.
Obviously, Pfleger’s comments on the presidential campaign were inappropriate. But they were not inappropriate because they represented a “dabbling” in politics. Priests must be political, as all Christians must be political. And as ministers of the Word, priests have a special role of being truth-tellers, and this often means “being political,” but not reducing politics to American electoral mudslinging as Pfleger did.
Of course, the kind of “politics” to which priests (and all Christians) are called will mean scandal for some and will appear divisive, precisely because they are called, as preachers of the Word, to “name the plague” directly, as Canadian Catholic theologian Gregory Baum says:
Preachers and teachers know very well that they do not make enemies when they lament the suffering in the world and demand greater justice in general. People want to be seen as favoring justice. It is only when preachers and teachers name the plague that people get angry. In North America and Europe, academic theology tended to shy away from such outright political judgments because they transcend the discipline. Instead, it advocated love, justice, and peace in general terms, sometimes so general that they could be used by speech writers for the government intent on defending its policies. Calls for justice and peace cannot be used in this ideological way when they name the social evil. If Archbishop Oscar Romero had not named the plague, if he had only demanded greater peace and justice in general, he would not have been shot” [1].
When church leaders “name the plague” as Romero did they will, predictably, be called “divisive” and they will be reminded that their role is to “transcend” politics in order to foster “unity.” But there is a difference between being divisive and shining a light on where our communities are already divided. And our communities are divided even though we focus our Catholic ecclesial rhetoric on images of “communion” and “unity.” Such rhetoric, while it has its place, often masks the divisions that already exist, making them invisible. Even the Eucharist, which we sometimes idealize as that liturgical space in which “all are one” around the altar in a foretaste of the Kingdom, is ambiguous insofar as it expresses — and must express, I think — both unity and division. Take, for example, William Cavanaugh’s recounting of Archbishop Romero’s decision, after the assassination of Fr. Rutilio Grande at the hands of Salvadoran death squads, to make Grande’s funeral the only Mass celebrated in the archdiocese of San Salvador that Sunday, forcing the oppressors and the oppressed of that divided local Church to come together at Eucharist:
The oligarchy reacted with alarm. The day after Romero announced the single mass, representatives of ANEP, the national businessmen’s association, met with Romero and demanded that the idea be dropped. The church, they said, was stirring up conflict. Besides, the wealthy Catholics of the plantations were complaining that they would be deprived of the opportunity to receive the eucharist and fulfill their Sunday obligation…. But that, of course, was the whole point. Romero intended the one eucharist to be an anticipation of the kingdom, of the day when rich and poor would feast together, of the day when the body of Christ would not be wounded by divisions…. [T]he single mass also served to illumine and to judge the ongoing divisions between rich and poor. The single mass, just like the martyrs, did not create conflict, but rather shone a light on it and revealed the truth about it [2].
Cardinal George’s statement on the Pfleger case is perfect in that he clearly implies that priests must “name the plague,” speaking to political issues, including the “divisive” topic of race, but that they must be non-partisan in the sense of not reducing politics to politics “American style”: endorsing candidates, slinging mud, etc. But they must also be “partisan” in that they must speak on behalf of the poor and the marginalized, shining a light on injustice and division where it exists. Cardinal George seems to be able to see these important distinctions that escape so many of us when we demand that our politicians “stay out of politics.”
Michael Pfleger was not in the wrong because he shined a light on the problem America has with racial privilege. In that sense, he was prophetic, fulfilling his role as a Catholic pastor. Pfleger was in the wrong because he participated in politics “American style,” endorsing a candidate and speaking violently and personally against another candidate. So let us not demand that priests like Pfleger “stay out of politics” — most especially by asking them to stay silent on the issue of race in America — lest we participate in our own marginalization as members of the Body of Christ. Priests are called by the Body to speak the Word, shining a light on injustice and division in a radical way that should make people in the pews uncomfortable. This is the kind of radical politics in which our clerics should be engaged, no matter now much FOX News and ABC’s Jake Tapper want the Church to stay in its place. The modern liberal nation-state wants priests to stay out of politics because, ultimately, it wants the Church, as a Body, to stay out of politics. We need priests who are more, not less, political, but they need to be political in the right way, as pastors of the Body of Christ whose allegiance is to Christ — to the his radical and uncomfortable truth of his Gospel of peace and justice and to his Church whose task is to continue proclaiming that radical Gospel in a hostile world — instead of partisan concerns.
______________________________
[1] Gregory Baum, “The Creed That Liberates,” Horizons 13, No. 1 (Spring 1986).
[2] William T. Cavanaugh, “Dying for the Eucharist or Being Killed by It?: Romero’s Challenge to First-World Christians,” Theology Today 58, no. 2 (July 2001): 185–6.5–6. [read the article here]
May 31, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Catholics usually accuse priests of “being too political” simply when they disagree with the priest’s politics.
Yep.
May 31, 2008 at 6:57 pm
For those who criticize Pfelger for medding in partisan politics, what do they think of people like Fr. Frank Pavone?
May 31, 2008 at 7:06 pm
we know as Catholics that we cannot be Christian without being political, i.e. without being intimately concerned with the way in which we organize our lives together.
Well, the obvious problem with that notion is that Christ himself was anything but political. He was serenely uninterested in the then-current politics, except to say that you should give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. He certainly wasn’t any sort of liberationist, as some people at the time no doubt wanted him to be.
May 31, 2008 at 7:12 pm
MM: That was EXACTLY my question that I had. And CA, outstanding essay! Thank you!
May 31, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Well, the obvious problem with that notion is that Christ himself was anything but political. He was serenely uninterested in the then-current politics, except to say that you should give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. He certainly wasn’t any sort of liberationist, as some people at the time no doubt wanted him to be.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
The church certainly things Jesus was a liberationist, in an integral sense. Check the second CDF document on liberation theology.
Jesus WAS political but he was not political on the world’s terms. He embodied a radically different politics. See John Howard Yoder’s The Politics of Jesus. And no, Yoder was not a liberation theologian.
May 31, 2008 at 8:53 pm
“For those who criticize Pfelger for medding in partisan politics, what do they think of people like Fr. Frank Pavone?”
Uh, one is in opposition to Church teaching, a pathetic wannabe with a penchant for doing a repulsive Al Jolson type of burlesque sans black face, the other is in accord with Church teaching on abortion and euthanasia and apparently comfortable in his own skin.
May 31, 2008 at 8:54 pm
“I Feel that the combined efforts of theology in the United States and Europe should also be directed toward helping the Latin American theology of liberation, which often becomes self-seeking and confused. I mean helping to clarify it with a sympathetic understanding of its genuine claims. Teilhard de Chardin (the French Jesuit philosopher) saw the future of theology as supranational, global, but he did not recognize the concerns of liberation theology. We must include them in our theological thinking, but in doing so, we must show greater discernment than our South American brothers do. Usually, their analysis of social situations is based impulsively on Marxist categories of “exploiting” and “exploited” countries… The tragic situation is more complex and we must show them that.
The exponents of this third (liberation) direction must learn – with all due regard to their justified claims – that the Kingdom of God cannot be coerced into existence by any amount of social or political effort. It remains the gift of God and of the returning Lord to a world that cannot perfect itself by its own efforts.”
- Hans Urs von Balthasar, “Current Trends in Catholic Theology”, Communio(Sprint, 1978) pp. 84-85.
via Zach
http://civicsgeeks.blogspot.com
May 31, 2008 at 9:12 pm
I agree with SB:
” the obvious problem with that notion is that Christ himself was anything but political. He was serenely uninterested in the then-current politics, except to say that you should give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. He certainly wasn’t any sort of liberationist, as some people at the time no doubt wanted him to be.”
Our Lord Jesus Christ spoke out very clearly. He was not then, and still not today, into politics of any sort. Nobody can judge if in Imperial Rome, or today’s Latin America, there was/is more or less unfairness. Let’s not mix Our Lord with temporary politics, because that is always tainted with human ambition, hate and misunderstanding. the Church ought to focus in people’s souls and conversion, not politics. “Jerusalem, convertite” said the propehts. Not: “Jerusalem, change your government or king.
May 31, 2008 at 9:20 pm
And, dear Michael Iafrate, let me add this: the only liberation that matters, is the liberation from Sin, i.e., Conversion. Conversion. Conversion. The rest, as long as involves politics of any sort or colour, is tainted with more or less hidden interests that are not crystal clear and definitely not according to the Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ, whose soon return we all hope for, maranatha! No ideology or theology will replace His divine message. If the person has converted and is truly sorry for his/her sins, the rest doesn’t matter at all.
May 31, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Michael —
I’m just talking about the Gospels. Name me one thing that Jesus ever did in the Gospels that was political in the modern sense (that is, not “political” in this sense of “anything relating to how people live together,” but “political” in the sense of having anything whatsoever to do with the government).
May 31, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Michael,
Thought provoking read, but I find it hard to pin down what you are criticizing.
Am I right to read you as saying that Priests should point to Christ, and Christ and His teachings matter for our politics?
I think it is fair to say everyone here would agree with that.
So what’s the point of framing your argument with all the extra baggage? I can’t help but think it can only be to demonize America. For all your disdain for partisanship, you are certainly an “American-style” (as you would put it) anti-American partisan. It’s woven into the fabric of almost every argument you make.
I for one think the main argument would be much more persuasive if you acknowledged that partisan politics is not something America invented, and as a consequence you cut Her some slack.
May 31, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Maybe this priest should get out of politics and join the mob as a hitman:
“”I want the NRA [National Rifle Association] to understand – you have a lot of money, but money can’t buy moral authority and it can’t buy justice or freedom, and we will fight you, NRA,” he says.
“We will fight you on every angle [sic], no matter how much money you’ve got, we will embarrass you, and we will embarrass every legislator that takes money from you. We will call them out by name, by district. We will expose you, legislators.”
“He’s the owner of Chuck’s. John Riggio. R-i-g-g-i-o. We’re going to find you and snuff you out … you know you’re going to hide like a rat. You’re going to hide but like a rat we’re going to catch you and pull you out. We are not going to allow you to continue to hide when we’re here …”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277037,00.html
May 31, 2008 at 11:20 pm
jj2
Thank you for the von Balthasar quote!
May 31, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Well, the obvious problem with that notion is that Christ himself was anything but political. He was serenely uninterested in the then-current politics, except to say that you should give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.
Our Lord Jesus Christ spoke out very clearly. He was not then, and still not today, into politics of any sort.
This is historically false. First, you use a verse that has been terribly misinterpreted throughout history. Christ said “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” when he was asked whether or not it was licit to pay the temple tax to Rome. Christ made no reference beyond the temple tax. And yet, we have so many Christians citing this position in a general way to suggest that Christ was not political. Second, the Pharisees and Saducees were not only the priestly leaders in Palestine, but also exercised a political, governing role under Herod. Christ constantly engaged them theologically and in terms of their governance of the Jews. Third, by virtue of the Incarnation, the eternal Son of God unites Himself to human nature in all its powers, faculties and organization. To suggest the Christ is “not in to politics” is ridiculous, and actually reduces the scope of Christology. Politics, as Aristotle reminds, is a natural function of humanity…to suggest that Christ is not political is to suggest that the perfect human nature of the Incarnation does not penetrate to all realms of human nature.
June 1, 2008 at 12:26 am
To suggest the Christ is “not in to politics” is ridiculous, and actually reduces the scope of Christology. Politics, as Aristotle reminds, is a natural function of humanity…to suggest that Christ is not political is to suggest that the perfect human nature of the Incarnation does not penetrate to all realms of human nature.
I understand what Michael (both of them) are saying; what Michael Joseph says above reminds me of Dr. Schindler’s Heart of the World) — and of course, the Corporal Works of Mercy are/should be part and parcel of the Christian life. But there’s also a sense in which
some make the error of reducing Christianity to a political-economic program, prioritizing social concerns to the neglect of the soul.
Pope Benedict returns to this theme time and time again in his writings. To illustrate from a few passages from Jesus of Nazareth about the “confusion of the Kingdoms”:
Likewise, Balthasar also makes this point in his Primer for Unsettled Laymen:
I agree w/ the chief point of Michael’s post, howbeit also with Zach, that he needn’t reduce his nemesis to a distinctly American phenomenon. It’s a temptation that is present the world over and throughout history.
June 1, 2008 at 12:47 am
“Uh, one is in opposition to Church teaching, a pathetic wannabe with a penchant for doing a repulsive Al Jolson type of burlesque sans black face, the other is in accord with Church teaching on abortion and euthanasia and apparently comfortable in his own skin.”
Please don’t transfer your own personal views on Church teaching (with somne prejudice thrown in for good measure). I could say equally mean things about Pavone and his pathetic shilling for Rick Santorum– a man who is certainly not fully aligned with Catholic teaching. And please enlighten me on exactly what core doctrines that Pfleger dissents from.
June 1, 2008 at 1:02 am
“Don’t transfer your own personal views on Church teaching,” yet an active Catholic – and a man who certainly seems to me and many others to take his faith very seriously – with whom you disagree politically is “certainly not fully aligned with Church teaching.” This is only true if your vision and personal policy prescriptions were synonymous with Church teaching, but they are not, and neither are mine.
This is the whole point here – how wide the definition of politics? If very wide – all actions are in some way political, ect. – then I think it becomes too easy, and too demeaning to the radically humanist, Christ-centric mission of the Church, to import our views on matters of disagreement particular to our own place and time, distracting from command Christ has given to all of us: the Golden Rule.
June 1, 2008 at 1:34 am
Michael,
Outstanding essay! I have a post coming soon regarding the Mexican American Catholic community here in Houston and how the Church slowly but surely started realizing that taking a political stance was inevitable. That political stance was not a partisan one but a stance for protecting the poor and the oppressed Mexican Americans and Mexican immigrants in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement. The Church in Houston and I’m sure all across the country suddenly realized in the 60s and 70s that any homilies preached or any ministries done for the Mexican Americans were fruitless if they did not address beforehand the hardships that these people were going through. “How were these people were going to pray with an empty stomach?” was the bottom line that made the Church hierarchy realize its vital role in the lives of its flock.
Actually, I stand by my comment you quoted in your post, because our bishops taking a brave stance against the crimes committed against illegal immigrants (which is a very political position) are not getting too much of a media coverage… at least not as near as what this priest is getting. People (Catholics or non-Catholics) are not taken back by the bishops’ stance on immigration, just to state one of those stances, and saying “wow, the clergy is actually involved in politics somehow”. No. What I referred to in my comment was not that people are apalled at the fact that a Catholic priest is in fact taking a political stance at all but rather the delivery, which was poor, unacceptable and more useless than anything else in the case of this Chicago priest. This is what anchors and commentators are referring to when they say “well, I never saw this kind of vocabulary at Mass ever before, etc” People are not used to this at Catholic churches and I REALLY hope we don’t hit that low of a point anytime soon. The heart of this priest may be in the right place given the wonderful ministries he has done for those who are so hard to reach, but his delivery is counterproductive and, sadly, pretty divisive.
June 1, 2008 at 8:47 am
This whole Wright/Flegmer thing has gone past enlightening. It’s an epiphany. I can see how 90% of blacks cling to bitterness and hatred (radical gospel, right?) of whitey.
Where can I buy a copy of the Radical Gospel? And, which of the evangelists wrote it? Which chapter/verse commandeth to organize the peasants and take from the evil white man? St. Paul warned of preachers of lies like this. As in, preaching fabrications that violent people and collectivists need to hear to square their totalitarianism with some imaginary, subverted version of Christ’s teachings.
Faith, Hope and Charity. Fortitude, justice, prudence, temperance. Organizing the peasants is not one of the corporal or spiritual works of mercy; nor is voting for the abortion, race-baiting candidate.
PS: I gave to the freshman son a WSJ table on average starting salaries for college grads, April 2008: The highest was engineering ($49,707). The lowest was philosophy (overpaid at $28,234). It wasn’t listed, but I imagine drunken payboys earn more largely because they are more productive.
PS: The black community’s main problems are dysfunctional families; all the seven deadly sins, e.g. wrath; and public schools. Being stuck on hating whitey does not solve any problem.
Repeat after me. “I must not believe everything I think.” At least, qualify whatever you think with “it depends.”
Speaking of collective, deficient IQ, what do you call the planet you live on?
June 1, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Policraticus – Yes, denying that Christ was “political” is reductionistic, and in short, Christological heresy because it denies the Incarnation. Nothing but pure Docetism in the comments above.
jonathan – Care to make a point instead of simply quoting Balthasar? It is no great insight to point out that he represents another theological method and has a completely different mindset. Tragically, in this quote we see an obviously paternalistic and, dare I say, imperialistic strain in Balthasar’s view of liberation theology that, frankly, speaks for itself.
Let’s not mix Our Lord with temporary politics, because that is always tainted with human ambition, hate and misunderstanding. the Church ought to focus in people’s souls and conversion, not politics.
What I tried to do in the above post is precisely to make a distinction between Gospel-centered politics and politics-as-usual i.e., what I called “politics American-style,” or what you, more broadly, are calling “temporary politics.” Looks like you missed that aspect of my post, or I was not clear enough.
I strongly oppose your dualistic view that the Church should focus only on “souls and conversion” and that this does not have anything to do with how societies are organized. I think I made a strong argument against that liberal view, as it is precisely how the Church is marginalized. You can go on believing such things, but such ideas are devastating to the Body of Christ and are rooted in secular liberalism, not Christianity.
the only liberation that matters, is the liberation from Sin, i.e., Conversion. Conversion. Conversion.
The liberationists would agree with you but they would add that sin manifests itself both in individuals and collectively. Not only individuals but collectivities and structures need conversion. Indeed, the salvation of each of us is bound to the salvation of others, as Henri de Lubac has shown us (see his Catholicism). Your individualistic understanding of the faith is tragic and I am arguing that this is something we need to reject and move beyond, or rather, that we need to get back to the vision of the scriptures, the early Church, and the Church fathers.
To those that continue to believe the myth that the Vatican rejected liberation theology outright, here is JPII on the matter. I can multiply examples:
Purificata dagli elementi che potrebbero alterarla, con gravi conseguenze per la fede, questa teologia della liberazione, è non solo ortodossa ma necessaria.
Purified from the elements that could alter it, with serious consequences for the faith, this theology of liberation, it is not only orthodox but necessary.
Pope John Paul II, To the Bishops of the Brazilian Episcopal Conference (March 13, 1986)
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1986/march/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19860313_conferenza-episc-brasile_it.html
I can’t help but think it can only be to demonize America. For all your disdain for partisanship, you are certainly an “American-style” (as you would put it) anti-American partisan. It’s woven into the fabric of almost every argument you make.
I for one think the main argument would be much more persuasive if you acknowledged that partisan politics is not something America invented, and as a consequence you cut Her some slack.
Zach – I am astounded that you would find “anti-Americanism” in this post. Of course I dealt with “politics American-style” because that is the immediate context of the incidents in question. I think I also dealt above with a distinction between two types of “partisanship.” Re-read it please. It’s toward the end. I am not against partisanship in every sense. There is a type that I think is faithful to the Gospel.
Christopher, you bring up the oft-repeated remark that liberation theology is “reductionistic.” It’s often repeated by folks like David Schindler and Pope Benedict who seem to offer caricatures of liberation theology. Schindler cites NOT ONE liberation theologian in his book. Ratzinger very rarely, if ever, cites a particular theologian or book when he is dismissing liberation theology. Anyone who has read Sobrino or Gutierrez for example knows beyond doubt that they are not “reductionistic.” We can go on and on repeating this caricature, or we can actually READ some liberation theology and, if we see particular problems, to CITE them in specific texts. Otherwise, such remarks about “reductionistic” liberation theology are meaningless.
Katerina – Thanks for the clarification. I agree.
T. Shaw, as usual, is not worth a response.
June 1, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Yes, if you are going by the Aristotelian sense of “politics” in which it just means “how we all live together,” then of course Christ was political. But it’s the fallacy of equivocation to conclude that Christ was “political” in any sense that modern conservatives, liberals, socialists, or faux anarchists would find relevant.
No matter how hard one wishes, there just aren’t any examples of Christ urging people to find “liberation” from the Roman Empire. Christ didn’t criticize Caesar for failing to provide enough health care or for his immigration policies (whatever those were). Christ didn’t even criticize the government for failing to do enough about abortion. He just didn’t participate in any of the governmental or policy debates that we now love to have (and in which we love to pretend that Christ favors our own side).
June 1, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Yes, if you are going by the Aristotelian sense of “politics” in which it just means “how we all live together,” then of course Christ was political. But it’s the fallacy of equivocation to conclude that Christ was “political” in any sense that modern conservatives, liberals, socialists, or faux anarchists would find relevant.
No matter how hard one wishes, there just aren’t any examples of Christ urging people to find “liberation” from the Roman Empire. Christ didn’t criticize Caesar for failing to provide enough health care or for his immigration policies (whatever those were). Christ didn’t even criticize the government for failing to do enough about abortion. He just didn’t participate in any of the governmental or policy debates that we now love to have (and in which we love to pretend that Christ favors our side).
June 1, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Michael Joseph and Christopher: spot on.
Pax Christi,
June 1, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Whoever removes the Cross and its interpretation by the New Testament from the center, in order to replace it, for example, with the social commitment of Jesus to the oppressed as a new center, no longer stands in continuity with the apostolic faith. He does not see that God’s commitment to the world is most absolute precisely at this point across a chasm. – Balthasar
This is a bizarre quote too, to anyone who has read liberation theology. The social commitment of Jesus is not a “replacement” for the centrality of the cross. They must be seen together. Indeed, for Sobrino, the cross is central.
SB seems to miss some of the obvious points of my post.
June 1, 2008 at 5:20 pm
JP, you said:
Let’s not mix Our Lord with temporary politics, because that is always tainted with human ambition, hate and misunderstanding. the Church ought to focus in people’s souls and conversion, not politics.
from this i gather that you dont think very highly of the teachings of jesus christ. at least admit that you dont think they have anything to do with how we should live in this world?
so, in your mind, jesus would have nothing to say to torture and those who torture? war and those who make it? greed and those who ignore the poor?
your jesus does not divide the sheep and the goats in matthew 25? and he could not be the one represented in mary’s song?
how is your idea of christ “immanuel”? god with us?
where? how?
June 1, 2008 at 5:21 pm
good job michael.
June 1, 2008 at 5:26 pm
SB said: No matter how hard one wishes, there just aren’t any examples of Christ urging people to find “liberation” from the Roman Empire.
then why was jesus killed?
lets not forget that the religious played a role as well. jesus had given a sense of community to the people who had none from the empire or the temple.
that was a threat to their system. if they discovered that the kingdom was among them, rather than in the temple or in the “divine” Caesar, then what could they not do?
tyrants worry when people begin to take care of themselves.
June 1, 2008 at 5:50 pm
then why was jesus killed?
Exactly.
Thanks for the insights, j.
June 1, 2008 at 6:25 pm
no problem.
it always amazes me that people think jesus just loved people and acted like a nice guy and then people who prefer to be grumpy decided “enough of this goodness” and they crucified him.
he was a prophet in the truest sense. and we all know how babylon (the empire, the beast, the machine, etc.) responds to prophets.
June 1, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Michael,
I’m not sure why you are astounded, because you bemoan the American experiment almost every other sentence. But hey, we tend to see things a bit differently.
Let me try to show you the reason I used the term “anti-American”.
In one place, you write so and so is “accommodating themselves to the American project.” and I read you as implicitly saying that the American experiment in government is somehow fundamentally at odds with the Catholic faith. I do not think this is an unfair inference to make.
You also say things like, “The state demands that the Church’s authority be relegated to some private realm”, which is obviously a bad thing that you think America does.
In yet another place, you write “they must be non-partisan in the sense of not reducing politics to politics “American style”: endorsing candidates, slinging mud, etc.” It is clear that you mean to say that American politics is nothing but throwing insults around, and I’m sure you think this is something endemic to “the system”.
I could come up with more examples just from this piece, but I think these pretty clearly prove my point.
June 1, 2008 at 7:54 pm
It’s not terribly clear that Jesus was actually killed because his kerygma was perceived as a threat to the worldly power of the Empire. It is true that the term “gospel” was used as a declaration, a “good news” about the ascension of a new emperor to the throne in the Roman empire; and thus at least in Paul’s preaching, the gospel of Christ implies perceiving Christ as the new and true ruler over Caesar. But at the same time, in Jesus’ immediate circumstances, the Roman occupying presence was almost nowhere to be found in Galilee, and what presence there was in Jerusalem (under Pilate) was more concerned with avoiding riots than anything else. Thus it is entirely conceivable that the only concern Pilate had in agreeing to see Jesus crucified was to keep the Jews who were outraged by him concerning Jewish matters from rioting.
I think this discussion might be based on a false dichotomy. All can agree that the gospel message has political consequences, for as beings living in community, so many of our moral actions have a “political” character whether we think so or not. In this sense, the idea of “staying out of politics” would render the gospel largely unintelligible. As I understand it, its never really been a question of getting into or staying out of politics, but rather what kind of politics is being advocated. Ratzinger’s criticisms of liberation theology is not because they are uppity Catholics who have meddled in “what is Caesars;” I always thought it was because of the danger of too strong an influence of Marxism (i.e. a critique of the character of that political engagement). Now whether or not that’s a legitimate critique (as Michael I. would seem to argue not) is a question that can only be answered when both the theologians in question and the Holy Fathers’ writings are analyzed; not by simply proof-texting the New Testament in bits and pieces.
There is no real evidence that Christ’s message called for a direct engagement in restructuring the political atmosphere of 1st century Palestine, as the alternative that he offers to the political/social structure is the Kingdom, and that is a reality that no human hands can directly usher in. On the other hand, the call to follow Christ obviously has consequences for how one relates to others and to one’s community (and other communities), so in that sense Christ’s message does have a political character.
The “getting into politics” that should be avoided is in, as many here have pointed out, moving from critiquing politicians in light of Catholic teaching to supporting or barring support for a particular candidate.
Pax Christi,
June 1, 2008 at 8:22 pm
X-Cathedra,
Thanks for your usual incisiveness, clarity, and respectfulness. It is a breath of fresh air.
June 1, 2008 at 8:29 pm
But at the same time, in Jesus’ immediate circumstances, the Roman occupying presence was almost nowhere to be found in Galilee…
What is your source for this claim?
All can agree that the gospel message has political consequences…
I certainly hope so. I also hope that we can agree that to a large extent the Gospel also has a clear political content: “Blessed are the poor.” “I have come to set the captives free.” “Jesus is Lord.” Etc.
There is no real evidence that Christ’s message called for a direct engagement in restructuring the political atmosphere of 1st century Palestine…
Yes and no. My own view is that Jesus was encouraging the Galilean community to non-cooperation with various aspects of the Roman empire. Not in the sense of violent revolution, but of peasant resistance. Non-cooperation, while in some ways appearing “non-political,” is indeed a political stance. It also also not reductionistic, as Jesus was acting and speaking as an extension of the trajectory of the Hebrew prophets. So you are right; he had no desire to challenge or overthrow “the empire” as a whole, but to encourage Jews to be faithful in their resistance to the empire, as was the tradition of the prophets.
…as the alternative that he offers to the political/social structure is the Kingdom, and that is a reality that no human hands can directly usher in.
I think we can directly “usher in” the Kingdom, however incompletely. I take the view that the Kingdom is both a gift and a task. Of course its fullness will be beyond our efforts but something of the Kingdom can very well be contained in our efforts as well.
June 1, 2008 at 8:30 pm
<i.SB said: No matter how hard one wishes, there just aren’t any examples of Christ urging people to find “liberation” from the Roman Empire.
then why was jesus killed?
Well, given that neither you nor anyone else can cite any instance where Jesus called for “liberation” from worldly authorities or governmental structures (I’m not mocking your lack of knowledge here, but just stating as fact that Jesus never said any such thing), it obviously cannot be for that reason.
June 1, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Those first two paragraphs were a quotation.
June 1, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I also hope that we can agree that to a large extent the Gospel also has a clear political content: “Blessed are the poor.” “I have come to set the captives free.” “Jesus is Lord.” Etc.
Those statements are not “political” in the sense that is implied here, as if Jesus had said one iota about how much Caesar was doing to create welfare systems to provide for the poor. They are “political” only in the sense that they tell us as individuals how to live in our own personal lives. Anything else that you impute to Jesus is your own invention (or the invention of someone else living hundreds of years after Christ).
June 1, 2008 at 8:44 pm
[Michael Iafrate]: Christopher, you bring up the oft-repeated remark that liberation theology is “reductionistic.” It’s often repeated by folks like David Schindler and Pope Benedict who seem to offer caricatures of liberation theology. Schindler cites NOT ONE liberation theologian in his book. Ratzinger very rarely, if ever, cites a particular theologian or book when he is dismissing liberation theology.
Funny, I wasn’t aware that I was criticizing “liberation theology” in particular. But given your knee-jerk bristling, perhaps the shoe fits … ;-)
1) My mention of Dr. Schindler was in agreement with Michael Joseph’s comment that the Incarnation penetrates into all realms of human nature, including the political, as explicated in Heart of the World. Read the book, you might appreciate it.
2) Likewise, Ratzinger’s writing in Jesus of Nazareth was not singling out liberation theology per se, but I can think of some figures who fit his profile. John Paul II’s criticism of Ernesto Cardinal comes to mind, also the lapsed-priest-turned-dictator Jean-Bertrand Aristide. But that’s another discussion altogether.
If you’ll go back and re-read my comment, you’ll see that I was citing Balthasar / Ratzinger to illustrate why some would be legitimately concerned about the interaction of Christianity with politics to excess — to the point where the gospel and the salvation of souls is subordinated to the pursuit of a political-economic program .
This could apply to some (but not all) forms of “liberation theology”; it could also apply to the Christian anarchism of Leo Tolstoy (perhaps also Thomas Jefferson’s purging of the bible of all supernatural elements); it might apply to those who believe the only legitimately-Christian economic system is “distributism” — and as Ratzinger mentions, it applies to those who throughout history attempted to use Christian faith to cement political unity in a temporal, earthly empire.
(One would suspect the latter illustration would appeal to your anarchist sentiments).
June 1, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Those statements are not “political” in the sense that is implied here, as if Jesus had said one iota about how much Caesar was doing to create welfare systems to provide for the poor.
Yes, exactly. As I believe I said in my post.
They are “political” only in the sense that they tell us as individuals how to live in our own personal lives.
No. If that were the case, they would not be “political” at all. “Jesus is Lord” is not a personal/individual statement.
Funny, I wasn’t aware that I was criticizing “liberation theology” in particular. But given your knee-jerk bristling…
I’m not sure you could characterize my response as “knee-jerk” when you said this: “I understand what Michael (both of them) are saying… But there’s also a sense in which some make the error of reducing Christianity to a political-economic program, prioritizing social concerns to the neglect of the soul.”
Read the book, you might appreciate it.
I read half of it. There was some that I could appreciate (his critique of liberalism) while other parts I found bizarre (his Balthasarian sexual theology). As I said above I was most frustrated by his broad stroke caricature of liberation theology without referring to a single actual author or text. That’s bad scholarship.
Likewise, Ratzinger’s writing in Jesus of Nazareth was not singling out liberation theology per se, but I can think of some figures who fit his profile.
Ratzinger’s critiques in Jesus of Nazareth, as I recall, seem to be directed more toward North American and European liberal theology’s concerns rather than liberationist ones. Theologians of the North and of the South have different concerns, ask different questions. This is one of the fundamental points that most theologians of the North miss in their critiques of liberation theology.
If you’ll go back and re-read my comment, you’ll see that I was citing Balthasar / Ratzinger to illustrate why some would be legitimately concerned about the interaction of Christianity with politics to excess — to the point where the gospel and the salvation of souls is subordinated to the pursuit of a political-economic program .
And I could respect that “legitimate concern” a whole lot more if these people (yourself included) could cite a liberation theologian who truly subordinates the Gospel to the pursuit of a particular political program. Indeed, liberationists are critical of the traditional idea of the “salvation of souls,” but in a way that draws on de Lubac.
June 1, 2008 at 9:16 pm
*yawn* — Whatever. You referred to “liberation theology”, not me.
June 1, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Michael I.,
1)”What is your source for this claim?”
See E.P. Sanders, _The Historical Figure of Jesus_, chap.3. Sanders draws a majority of his knowledge of the political climate in 1st century Palestine from Josephus. Galilee was governed by Herod Antipas as a semi-autonomous tetrarch who generally kept the Galilean Jews happy by not openly flouting Jewish Law; and maintained the backing of Rome by paying tribute, defending his borders, and most importantly by not allowing civil unrest. In general, the Jews only threatened serious revolt in instances when the Jewish Law was blatantly disregarded. So the Romans learned rather quickly to, as it were, let Jews be Jews. Consequently, Sanders writes:
“There is no indication in any of the sources that he [Antipas] tried to impose Graeco-Roman customs and organizations on the Jewish populace. The institutions in the towns and villages in Galilee were thoroughly Jewish…Schools were Jewish, and Jewish magistrates judged cases according to Jewish law” (p.20-21)
Rome was generally satisfied with Antipas’ rule, and thus saw no need to interfere more directly. In Judea, it was only after the failure of Archelaus to rule adequately that civil unrest grew and Rome sent Pilate, essentially a low-level aristocrat, to rule more directly. But he was the only Gentile of any rank in Jerusalem when he (rarely) traveled there from Caesarea, and he had only a small garrison with him (which was only increased for crowd control during the Jewish festivals). Thus, Sanders opposes the common image that Jews in both Galillee and Judea lived in the constant shadow of Roman troops patroling the street corners and saturating them with oppressive pagan influences. There was no official Roman presence in Galilee and an extremely limited Roman presence in Judaea. They even tried to stay away from Jerusalem because offenses to the Temple were the real powder keg. Day-to-day rule was the concern of local aristocrats, prominent and respected priests and laymen, and Jewish magistrates appointed by other Jews.
Long story short: in Galilee, the Roman rule didn’t even interfere with Jewish life and Jewish custom. There was, for all practical purposes, no real “oppression” felt on a day-to-day basis. As Sanders puts it: “Galileans in Jesus’ lifetime did not feel that the things most dear to them were seriously threatened: their religion, their national traditions, and their livelihoods” (p.21). Jesus restricted his ministry almost exclusively to the coastal towns and villages (not large cities) of Galilee, and only seems to have gone to Judea when traveling to Jerusalem. This is why I’ve said there is a “non-political” character to Jesus’ teaching, because it simply wasn’t on the radar as much as we generally think it was. It wasn’t much of an issue for His audience.
So I would ask: in what ways was Jesus attempting to inspire peasant resistance and non-cooperation to the imperial rule, and how would you explain it in a context where the Roman presence had almost no effect on the lives of those peasants? What specific aspects of Roman rule was he opposing in your reading? What does resistance to Roman rule mean as opposed to attempting to overthrow it? And how is this resistance exhibited in the prophets. I think one could argue for the “overthrow” position for the Jews by using the prophets as well (not that I am or Jesus did).
2)”I also hope that we can agree that to a large extent the Gospel also has a clear political content: ‘Blessed are the poor.’ ‘I have come to set the captives free.’ ‘Jesus is Lord.’ Etc.”
Very true. These are precisely the teachings I’m pointing to when I say there are irreducibly political dimensions to the gospel. The difference is that “Blessed are the poor” does not directly translate into any priests’ vehement opposition to the NRA, or a Catholic’s assertion that the faith is intrinsically “anti-American.” These may be legitimate positions, but mediated through a number of prudential judgments which the gospel cannot do for us. We require these prudential judgments to fill-in the gospel’s political content in the here-and-now, and that is why taking issue with a priest’s prudential judgments doesn’t translate into nationalism or the claim that he shouldnt be meddling in politics.
3) “I think we can directly ‘usher in’ the Kingdom, however incompletely. I take the view that the Kingdom is both a gift and a task. Of course its fullness will be beyond our efforts but something of the Kingdom can very well be contained in our efforts as well.”
I agree. There is obviously a dual dimension to the Kingdom, stemming from Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom in the future and already begun in His Incarnation (”the Kingdom is among you”). We can and should, in our actions, work to bring about the Kingdom even though we know that it can, as Jesus seems to have held, only be truly brought to earth by God’s action. And thus we see his difference from the “zealous” Pharisees (of the Kind Paul describes himself to be) who thought they had a duty to “speed up” God’s Providence.
But this may be the very grounds for a critique of liberation theologies (note: I say may). You must admit that this is a unique possibility for political theologies, to tread to closely toward the immanence of the kingdom and our ability to affect it and to discount our passivity with regard to it. Now whether a particular theologian is guilty of this, it seems likely to me that too much Marxism could lead to this negative outcome, and that there may be grounds for critiquing it. Though I am a bit too unlearned in the liberationist stuff to adequately judge.
Pax Christi,
June 1, 2008 at 11:02 pm
A quick note on Jesus’ crucifixion. I still say its highly unlikely that the Romans agreed to crucify Him because of the political dimension of His message. As Michael Joseph mentioned, the only passage that directly references Caesar involves only the payment of the Temple tax, which Jesus (rather miraculously) agrees to do. And the fact that Jesus would have only had to pay this tax in the gospels once (synoptics) or at most three times (John) when he traveled to Jerusalem helps to point out even more just what little effect the Roman rule seemed to have on His life and message.
Rome seemed to replace rulers in Palestine when civil unrest appeared immanent. When Archelaus botched things up (mostly because of his fathers late rule), the population got uppity and Rome brought in Pilate. Pilate himself, after Jesus’ death, apparently botched things on at least two occasions by marching the Roman standard through Jerusalem (graven image?) and using some of the sacred money for an aqueduct. This created serious tension, and may have, in his eyes, put him on the list for replacement. Thus, when a stir rose up about Jesus’ actions in Jerusalem, most likely centered around the “destroy this Temple…” incident, it seems to me more likely that Herod would agree to the execution in order to maintain civil order and keep himself in power, satisfying the major concern of Rome.
It seems to me unlikely that Pilate even knew much of anything about Jesus’ teachings, seeing as His ministry was centered around Galilee.
Pax Christi,
Pax Christi,
June 1, 2008 at 11:08 pm
“Herod” —> “Pilate”
Pax Christi,
June 2, 2008 at 12:43 am
SB:
how do you read the beattitudes?
what kind of “kingdom” is this where the last is first, where the meek and peacemakers are blessed?
or even the language of kingdom spoken to an occupied people who are fed up with the imposing empire.
context is everything. once again the jews are an occupied people. exiled in their own land and jesus dismisses the powers by (1) as iafrate’s essay says, not playing the empire’s games and (2) telling stories of another kingdom that now exists and is to come, in us, in the poor…not of the rich and powerful and violent.
what kind of example do you need other than the gospels themselves? mary’s song, the sermon on the mount, the sheep and the goats, “kingdom” language….how about satan offering jesus all the kingdoms of the earth? if that isn’t an indictment against empire i am not sure what is.
June 2, 2008 at 3:52 am
Simply tearing up the temple was a highly political act inside of a theological act. Its beyond me that Christians attempt to understand Jesus as apolitical — upending or reversing the established structures is a political act, especially if understood as coming from a different framework.
June 2, 2008 at 11:53 am
Simply tearing up the temple was a highly political act inside of a theological act.
Yes. For first century Jews, there was no separation between religion and politics. These are modern ideas.
June 2, 2008 at 12:46 pm
X-Cathedra — Sanders’ claims, assuming you have them right and I am assuming so, would be disputed by “Third Quest” historical Jesus scholars, particularly those who use social-science criticism. I’m thinking of the work of N.T. Wright, Richard Horsely, E. & W. Stegmann, etc etc.
June 2, 2008 at 1:36 pm
how do you read the beattitudes? what kind of “kingdom” is this where the last is first, where the meek and peacemakers are blessed?
This is interesting . . . you keep asking rhetorical questions as if they should stump me, but the answers are both painfully obvious and contrary to any notion that Jesus himself was interested in politics. What kind of kingdom, you say? The kingdom of God, not any kingdom that ever could be established by trying to reform human governments.
June 2, 2008 at 1:36 pm
how do you read the beattitudes? what kind of “kingdom” is this where the last is first, where the meek and peacemakers are blessed?
This is interesting . . . you keep asking rhetorical questions as if expecting to stump me, but the answers are both painfully obvious and contrary to any notion that Jesus himself was interested in politics. What kind of kingdom, you say? The kingdom of God, not any kingdom that ever could be established by trying to reform human governments.
June 3, 2008 at 11:57 am
SB:
i have no interest in reforming human governments. i dont even have an interest in voting. human governments ignore the poor and favor violence, like they did when they killed the christ.
i am interested in my church and the process of discipleship that goes on there and i am interested in taking care of the teen drug addicts i work with. they live in a part of the country that is known for wealth and technology and professional sports and they are largely forgotten. this is the kingdom to me, shining a light for people left in the dark.
the only thing “painfully obvious” is that you are a bit arrogant. stop that and re-join this wonderful conversation.
June 3, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Oh my. I was disgusted by the diatribe of Fr. Fleger.(Sp) It is exactly the racial bias speech espoused by him and by Jeremiah Wright that continues to create racial division. Many young people in this age look at others simply by personality, and not by the color of their skin or the neighborhood in which they live. I don’t care what color anyone is. Jerks come in all colors and creeds, as do bullies. As to whether or not Christ was political; yes, he absolutely was. We need to look at all of scripture, not just verses taken out of context, and at history of the time period from other sources. Many comments taken at face value in our time had very different meanings in Christ’s “time.”(Of course, He is timeless, so this “time” is for context only) Politics go beyond government to almost every aspect of daily life. We can find basic politics even within our own homes.
Be blessed.
June 3, 2008 at 1:04 pm
[...] me in complete agreement with Michael J. Iafrate at Vox Nova in the recent dust up over the controversy of Father Pfleger. the idea that Christians, and in [...]
June 3, 2008 at 4:25 pm
It is exactly the racial bias speech espoused by him and by Jeremiah Wright that continues to create racial division.
Pfleger and Wright are the ones “creating” racial division!? You have GOT to be kidding!
June 3, 2008 at 4:43 pm
the only thing “painfully obvious” is that you are a bit arrogant. stop that and re-join this wonderful conversation.
Huh? All I’m saying is that Jesus never gave any sign of interest in governmental policies or politics (not from anything you’ll find in the Gospels anyway). If you agree with me on that narrow point, then I’m puzzled as to why you keep asking rhetorical questions that are aimed at arguing with me. If you disagree with me, then you should try to cite anything that Jesus said or did that was directly aimed at governmental policies (i.e., did he say anything about Roman occupation? Did he condemn Roman centurions when he came across them? Did he condemn Caesar for not providing enough health care or welfare? Etc., etc.)
June 3, 2008 at 7:17 pm
he condemned the temple system. he told that the rich that it was practically impossible for them to enter the kingdom. he condemned the jews’ hatred of samaritans. he pointed out that caesar was not God when asked about paying taxes.
some analyze the Matt 5:39-42 as jesus encouraging his followers to make their unfair treatment publicly known when people sue them to excess or when centurions force them to carry their gear a mile. the mile was the maximum that a centurion could make a person carry anything.
i was in a bible study a few weeks ago where the leader read this “extra mile” as jesus telling his followers to be nice people and i just about came out of my seat in frustration. nobody was ever put to death for telling people to be nice.
you still have not answered my question: why was jesus killed?
August 19, 2008 at 7:41 am
when one is a political activist in anti racism. one cant remain silent at the way European governments treat people.
when we look at the amount of financial money been thrown into the American elections it is obscene.
are we suppose to remain dumb at the war crimes of George Bush, Rumsfield, Blair Aznar.
the question we should be asking why arent these guys begore the war crime tribunal in the Hague
one should read Jon Sobrino. liberation theologian, El Salvador. book where is God about the earth quake in El Salvador
war and political injustices are maintained. because there are many who refuse to speak out.
again we can look at Israel war crimes against Palestinians, ask ourselves what side are we on.