Summer in the Winter
기사 확대 기사 축소
Is Liberation Theology a hurt, or incitement on Korean Catholic Church?
Yim Kwang-kyu Benedict (Parish, Shinkwandong)
 It was during 1975 that news about Protestant ministers of Industrial Mission leading young workers’ struggle against The Korea Control Data Company, Wonpoong Wool Textile Company and other companies, and news about activities of Jeunesse Ouvriere Chretienne against Tongil Textile Company and other companies, spread throughout the country.
 Some younger priests seemed to become enthusiastic in discussing spirituality of liberation theology, around that time.
 
 One priest who was the professor of a seminary made a speech at a symposium on liberation theology in 1976, mentioning a hearsay that the dead face of Che Guevara had seemed that of Jesus.
 
 One day in 1976, I had an occasion for laying my book review on liberation theology by a priest named G. Gutierrez and problems with regard to Industrial Mission, before a group of Catholic lawyers, named Lawyers Ultreya. I was finding questionable logics with liberation theology from an economic and legal standpoint, not from theological one. A lawyer who had been Justice of Supreme Court questioned whether a layman like me without any back ground of theological study could criticize liberation theology. The counselor priest of that group did also dissuade anymore arguments at that place. Liberation theology was finding favor with considerable number of young priests, in those days.
 
 I remember one of the translated books of G. Gutierrez’s liberation theology around 1776, which was recommended and signed by a bishop to be read for some priests of his diocese.
 The translator was Mr. Sung, now the Korean ambassador to Holy See, appointed by President Roh.
 
 In December 2005, Reverend Song of Busan Diocese was appointed by President Roh to the Chairman of Readjustment Committee on Past History with regard to investigations of past insurrections or suppressions etc. He accepted that political position which will certainly exercise the power of state.
 He seems not to mind that he may be disobeying the prohibition of Article 285 paragraph 3, Codex Iuris Canonici, and Bishop of the Diocese seems not to exert the ecclesiastical authority over the infringement of a priest if not approved in advance.
 Such a situation might be something to do with the influence of liberation theology.
 Reverend Song has made a criticism at late Pope John Paul II during the interview with Joong-ang Monthly Magazine on April, 22. 2005, saying; “He also had natural merits and faults according to the standpoints of people. In stead of responding actually to agonies of democratic people and the mass who were struggling against South American states including dictatorships, he was rather reciting the slogan named ‘Peace’ again and again. He has led the Catholic (Church) to the conservative church, and has made the spirit of the 2nd Vatican Council, which was intended to change the Catholic (Church) on the line of realities, fade away. That is the crux of criticism.” Reverend Song might have implied the necessity for certain no-peace, i.e. certain violence, at times, for social justice and said some of his dissatisfaction with Pope John Paul II, apostle of peace, i.e. love.
 Reverend Song has remarked in the same interview that “It is surprising to know that people of the ruling interest class continue their interest by means of detaining the mass. The ruling upper class continues, thereby, its interest by generation after generation forever.” He looks at the world from the standpoint of the class logic that the ruling interest class detains (oppresses) the other class.
 These ways of thinking are considered to be the very result from the influence of liberation theology.
 
 There were such expressions in the statement of a bishop on the Seoul Archdiocese Sunday Bulletin of December 2005, as “phases of every one who reacts extremely to survive under grim realities of capitalism which increasingly aggravate economic and emotional inequalities between the classes,” or as “in front of personal and structural injustice standing in our way toward our endowed goodness.”
 The bishop may well not be scrupulous about meanings of the expressions, in doing review of its draft, maybe, written by a staff.
 The expressions are questionable, if they seem to suggest capitalism is less suitable system of society compared to another more suitable one, with regard to grim realities of capitalism increasingly aggravating inequalities between the classes. What was meant by the extreme reaction to survive is not clear for the ordinary faithful to understand.
 Structural injustice is a phrase, being very frequently used by liberation theologians. They mean existing social structure is too unjust to live in.
 
 To understand what liberation theology is in the economic, social and legal context would be first step for this discussion.
 
 Since liberation is a positive and well meaning term, like liberation of human spirit or liberation from poverty, theology could be studied from such an approach. Some theologians are said to be explaining themselves of such an approach. This discussion is not about such a broader sense.
 This discussion is about the logic being alleged and interpreted in “liberation theology” first written in 1972 by Reverend G. Gutierrez, and about the ideas of holding high esteem for Reverend C. Torres who had fought the revolutionary war for liberation of the poor as a guerrilla and had been killed by Colombian government forces in 1966.
 
 Liberation theology says ‘yes,’ tolerably, to the class struggle and the violence of revolution.
 
 Liberation theology interprets the Christianity and Bible by Marxist way of analysis, though the core of the Catholic creed is to love the Lord our God with all our heart and to love our neighbor as ourselves.
 Liberation theologians are considered to defend their logic with theological shields against social scientists, while they are asserting their scientific understanding of realities in arguments with orthodox theologians.
 But such a dual side of logic would not be able to hold out anymore.
 
 Liberation theologians set, first of all, the haves, the class of vested interest or the ruling class at one side, against the have-nots, the class of deprived or the oppressed at another side, in elucidation of existing societies, and reason that the poverty and misery of the have-nots are imputed to exploitation of the haves, the class of vested interest or the ruling class. They argue that economic activities of the haves are being operated within the social framework of structural injustices while the have-nots are living in God’s grace.
 Why not overthrow, then, existing ones by force?
 
 But liberation theology is another one of logics reducing the poor into a quagmire of poverty.
 
 It is logical for them not to appreciate the process of accumulating wealth and money being paid for supplying goods or services, which could not be manufactured or delivered satisfactorily for consumers, without hardship of toil, diligence of work and risk of failure. They are ignorant of economic history which has given repeated lessons that only the societies of people competing for the better, who are applauding and compensating better performers, have led to prosperous societies. Liberation theologians point the finger at people who satisfy consumers, i.e. better performers, as ones who take advantage of structural injustices, and therefore as objects of the revolution. They do instead praise even those poor, who are presumed not to be able to get out of poverty because of laziness, or of lack of frugality, as main body of future revolution, for the poor are already victims of the structural injustice and are not responsible for their poverty.
 They use, at times, some different terminologies from Marxists but borrow the method of analysis mainly from Marxism as it is.
 If your society would live on the line of such a logic and nevertheless would not fall into the economic poverty, that would be considered as a miracle.
 There was no need anew to witness the demise of Union of Socialist Soviet Republics in order to understand the logic of poverty. The logic of poverty can be understood even by beginner’s wisdom of life that anyone with basic insight into the economic course of matters can see through.
 
 Why are people, nevertheless, being fascinated by such a leftist logic, like liberation theology or Marxism?
 
 Considerable popularity of liberation theology has rather simple reason and does not need to be explained in a complicated way.
 Is there any better gospel, for the lazy, the not-so-frugal or the less helpful workers, than castigating capitalism, as structural injustice, that returns inexorably the result of poverty to the lazy, to the lack of frugality or the less helpful for co-workers’ operation, just like saying it is up to you?
 Is not humankind the descendants of Cain, who are easily blinded by the philosophy of jealousy?
 
 Love or care for the poor and the weak in ability are wholly different from hatred or destruction against the rich and the better performers, in any context of biblical, psychological, legal, sociological or economic approach.
 
 As a system, socialism or revolutionary solutions have been resulted in total failure in sharp contrast to free or market-oriented solutions, i.e. capitalism.
 The historical trend could not be refuted that protection level against the injustices of landlords or employers are progressively heightened under the rule of law in free economic solutions.
 
 It is quite a different dimension from the class struggle for us to act in compassion and charity, i.e. to love our neighbor who can not get food, clothes or housing for himself now, with no regard to whether he or she has a past of his or her fault, or whether an infant is liable to have a bleak future because of his or her parent.
 
 How many people who have made some fortune on their own merits through a life of toil and risk do voluntarily forsake the comfort of the fortune to help the poor and disabled? How many people are eager to store their treasures in heaven?
 
 According to the leftist logic including liberation theology, poor countries can not but remain peripheral as they are inextricably dependent on the center or the core of advanced countries like United States.
 
 It is called teoria dependentista. Here comes the logic, antithetical to free trade and American system. After all, peripheral countries are alleged to become poor due to America, and the rich are alleged to make their neighbor poor.
 That was the logic of dependentista with which the young priests presumed to be finding favor with liberation theology, persuaded, during the latter half of 1970s, the convents to invite self-styled economists to lecture nuns about the inevitable down-fall of Korean economy, just during the period of its high economic growth.
 It was no accident of chance for some of Korean nuns to join the virulent candle-light demonstration in downtown Seoul at a night of autumn, 2002, that are alleged to mourn two girls killed by a traffic accident of American armored vehicle.
 
 Liberation theology is not intended to remain only as a theory of mere explanation. It emphasizes that the haves, the class of vested interest or the ruling class who are oppressing and exploiting the poor can’t be tolerated anymore and that the society has to be revolutionized for the poor.
 
 That’s why Pope’s emphatic messages of love and peace could be unsatisfactory for some priests.
 The dialectics of Marxism show a prophesy of final days in the future of humankind when the exploitation of the ruling class disappears and all the poor, i.e. the proletariat can get food, clothes and house according to their need.
 Materialistic interpretation of history that put a sign board of the scientific socialism up front on its head is most unlikely to be called scientific, and is, on the contrary, a pseudo-religion of secularism indeed. But it has a nicety of agitation and propaganda.
 Marxism is not intended to remain as a prophecy anyway. Revolutionaries, i.e. the vanguard of the proletariat are forced and agitated to fight for the mission to advance the revolution ahead to a nearer future.
 
 Revolution in modern history means overthrowing the existing system of a society by violence, and also holding the society captive by violence.
 
 It means Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Castro. If you do revolution, it leads unavoidably to a society under such a leader.
 Revolution means depriving, at the beginning, the haves or the rich of their properties by force without rule of law, and depriving them of their physical freedom or even their life, as a branded counter-revolutionary, if they disobey or oppose the robbery of revolution. It means making progress with prohibiting the religion, the press, the education, the choice of occupation, the move, the travel or the gathering, imagined to be a hindrance to the concept of supreme revolutionary leader. It means putting all the people including the poor, under police surveillance with network of neighbor-spies. It means rationing food, drinks and clothes mostly through the distribution center. Anyone who fails to give timely and verbal support for any of these prohibitions could be classified as a counter-revolutionary and could risk his own natural life because of job placement hard for his health, or of malnutrition.
 
 
 How otherwise, on earth, could you make the people follow the road to revolution, who have so many matters, affairs, circumstances and considerations for themselves?
 It is no accident of chance that almost all the priests and the faithful in favor of liberation theology do seldom criticize the North Korean revolutionaries and do insist, with their version of freedom and human rights, on abolition of National Security Act which punishes ones who have plotted the revolution of Republic of Korea into system like Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea).
 
 Let us turn to the questions around theological issue being raised by liberation theologians.
 
 Not a problem of academic studies. It seems rather much late for us to inquire about what the logic of liberation theology is and whether it contradicts the Catholic creed with regard to the faith in God and the love for neighbor
 
 Let’s see a brief history on liberation theology.
 
 At its inception, liberation theology was predominantly found in the Roman Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council; It is often cited as a form of Christian socialism and has had particularly widespread influence in Latin America.
 
 Created in 1955 in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), the CELAM (Consejo Episcopal Latino Americano - Latin American Episcopal Conference) pushed the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) toward a more progressive stance. During the next four years, CELAM prepared 1968 Medellin Conference, in Colombia, officially supporting “ecclesial base communities” (CEBs). CELAM supported also officially the liberation theology founded by Gustavo Gutierrez in his 1972 essay.
 CELAM support for liberation theology was frowned on by the Vatican, with Paul VI trying to slow the movement after the 1962-1965 Council.
 However, in August 1975, a theological congress in Mexico on the theme of “liberation and captivity” gathered more than 700 persons. At the 1979 CELAM's Conference of Puebla, the progressive part of the clergy defined the concept of a “preferential option for the poor.”
 Sebastian Kappen, an Indian theologian, published Jesus and Freedom in 1977. In 1980 the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith asked the General of the Society of Jesus (of which Kappen was a member) to censor this book.
 
 Liberation theology has been rejected by the Vatican because of the Marxist concepts that tend towards materialism; this aspect of liberation theology is the most objectionable to orthodox Catholic critics who regard it as “incitement to hate and violence and the exaltation of class struggle.”
 
 Pope John Paul II largely put an end to official support for liberation theology among the Catholic Church's hierarchy by his statement in January 1979, on a visit to Mexico, that “this conception of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive of Nazareth, does not tally with the Church’s teachings.”
 
 John Paul II charged former Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, to systematically oppose Liberation theology. Through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led by Ratzinger, the Vatican condemned Liberation theology twice (in 1984 and 1986) accusing it of Marxist tendencies. Leonardo Boff, for example, was suspended, while others were reduced to silence
 In March 1983, Cardinal Ratzinger made “ten observations” on Gutiérrez's theology, including accusing Gutiérrez of politically interpreting the Bible and of supporting a temporal messianism.
 Finally, this document states that these conceptions necessarily uphold a similar class conflict inside the Church, which logically leads to a rejection of hierarchy. During the 1980-90s, Ratzinger continued his doctrinal condemnation of liberation theology, prohibiting some priests to teach, or going as far as excommunicating Tissa Balasuriya in Sri Lanka. Under his influence, theological formation schools were prohibited from teaching liberation theology.
 In his travel in Managua, Nicaragua, Pope John Paull II harshly condemned what he dubbed the “popular Church” (i.e. “ecclesial base communities” (CEBs) supported by the CELAM) and, against Nicaraguan clergy tendencies to support the Sandinista, and insisted on the Vatican's sole and only authority over the Church. (Quoted from Wikipedia encyclopedia)
 
 When you see the favorite passages from the Bible being quoted by supporters of liberation theology, you can understand their tendencies.
 
 He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed. (Luke 4:18)
 
 And Mary said ... "He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts, he has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away". (Luke 1:51-53)
 And if your brother becomes poor, and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall maintain him; as a stranger and a sojourner he shall live with you. Take no interest from him or increase, but fear your God; that your brother may live beside you. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit. I am the Lord your God, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God. (Leviticus 25:35-38)
 
 The community of believers was of one heart and one mind. None of them ever claimed anything as his own; rather, everything was held in common. With power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great respect was paid to them all; there was no one needy among them, for all who owned property or houses sold them and lay them at the feet of the apostles to be distributed to everyone according to his need. (Acts 4:32-35)
 The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners; to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God (Isaiah 61:1-2)
 
 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.. (James 5:1-6)
 The errors mixed with these passages could rather be more dangerous.
 Former Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) have cautioned in his Preliminary Notes of 1984 that “it must be borne in mind that no error could persist unless it contained a grain of truth. Indeed, an error is all the more dangerous, the greater that grain of truth is, for then the temptation it exerts is all the greater. So, in denouncing error and pointing to dangers in liberation theology, we must always be ready to ask what truth is latent in the error and how it can be given its rightful place, how it can be released from error's monopoly.”
 
 “First of all, it must be emphasized that the Church has really intended to struggle against injustices.”
 Instruction on Certain Aspects of the Theology of Liberation by Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on August 6, 1984 made clear that “More than ever, the Church intends to condemn abuses, injustices, and attacks against freedom, wherever they occur and whoever commits them. She intends to struggle, by her own means, for the defense and advancement of the rights of mankind, especially of the poor.”
 
 Cardinal Ratzinger’s(now Pope Benedict XVI) analyses in Preliminary Notes are clear and to the point, to comprehend liberation theology, so they are best thought to be quoted here.
 “What is liberation theology?
 It explains Christianity as a praxis of liberation and sees itself as the guide to this praxis. However, since in its view all reality is political, liberation is also a political concept and the guide to liberation must be a guide to political action:
 A theology that is not ‘practical’; i.e., not essentially political, is regarded as ‘idealistic’ and thus as lacking in reality, or else it is condemned as a vehicle for the oppressors' maintenance of power.
 
 Many liberation theologians continue to use a great deal of the Church's classical ascetical and dogmatic language while changing its signification. As a result, the reader or listener who is operating from a different background can gain the impression that everything is the same as before, apart from the addition of a few somewhat unpalatable statements, which, given so much spirituality, can scarcely be all that dangerous.
 The very radicality of liberation theology means that its seriousness is often underestimated, since it does not fit into any of the accepted categories of heresy.
 The view arose that the existing theological tradition was largely no longer adequate, and that, as a result, an entirely new theological and spiritual orientation needed to be sought directly from Scripture and from the signs of the times.
 
 The idea of a turning to the world, of responsibility for the world, frequently deteriorated into a naive belief in science which accepted the human sciences as a new gospel without wanting to see their limitations and endemic problems. Psychology, sociology and the Marxist interpretation of history seemed to be scientifically established and hence to become unquestionable arbiters of Christian thought.
 This answer takes very different shapes, depending on the particular form of liberation theology, theology of revolution, political theology, etc. No overall description can be given, therefore. Yet there are certain basic concepts that recur in various modifications and express fundamental intentions held in common.”
 
 Many liberation theologians are asserting their scientific verdicts.
 “The exegesis of Bultmann and his school now came to be read as the verdict of ‘science’ on Jesus, a verdict that simply had to be accepted as valid. ... It follows that the biblical texts can be treated more loosely, for historical criticism has loosed Scripture from the traditional interpretation, which now appears to be unscientific. Tradition itself is treated with the greatest possible scientific strictness along the lines of Bultmann. But as for the historically transmitted content of the Bible, it cannot be exclusively binding. Ultimately, what is normative for interpretation is not historical research but the hermeneutic of history experienced in the community or the political group.”
 Liberation theology accepts the Marxist analysis.
 
 “In the meantime the Marxist analysis of history and society was largely accepted as the only ‘scientific’ one. This means that the world must be interpreted in terms of the class struggle and that the only choice is between capitalism and Marxism. It also means that all reality is political and has to justify itself politically. The biblical concept of the 'poor" provides a starting point for fusing the Bible's view of history with Marxist dialectic; it is interpreted by the idea of the proletariat in the Marxist sense and thus justifies Marxism as the legitimate hermeneutics for understanding the Bible. …
 The view …facilitates the fusing of the biblical horizon with the marxist idea of history, which progresses in a dialectical manner and is the real bringer of salvation. History is accordingly a process of progressive liberation; history is the real revelation and hence the real interpreter of the Bible.
 
 We can say that the concept of history swallows up the concepts of God and of Revelation. The ‘historicality’ of the Bible must justify its absolute dominance and thus legitimize the transition to materialist-marxist philosophy, in which history has taken over the role of God.”
 The class struggle sided with the poor is the message of Bible according to liberation theology.
 
 “Any objection to this interpretation of the Bible is an expression of the ruling class's determination to hold on to its power. A well-known liberation theologian asserts: ‘The class struggle is a fact; neutrality on this point is simply impossible.’
 If the Church were to intervene and proceed against such an interpretation of Christianity, she would only prove that she is on the side of the rich and the rulers and against the poor and suffering, i.e., against Jesus himself: she would show that she had taken the negative side in the dialectic of history.”
 The crucial determinant of elucidation of Bible is People according to liberation theologians.
 
 “The main methodological innovation of liberation theology is to do theology from the viewpoint of the economically poor and oppressed of the human community. The poor are a privileged channel of God’s grace. Liberation theology is an interpretation of Christian faith through the poor’s suffering, their struggle and hope, and a critique of society and the Catholic faith and Christianity through the eyes of the poor.”
 
 “As far as the arbiters are concerned, the crucial concepts are people, community, experience and history. Previously it was the Church, namely, the Catholic Church in her totality — a totality which spanned time and space and embraced laity (sensus fidei) and hierarchy (Magisterium) — that constituted the hermeneutical criterion; now it is the ‘community.’ The experience of the ‘community’ determines the understanding and the interpretation of Scripture. …”
 
 “The community ‘interprets’ the events on the basis of its ‘experience’ and thus discovers what its ‘praxis’ should be. … The conciliar emphasis on the ‘People of God’ is transformed into a Marxist myth. The experiences of the 'people’ elucidate Scripture. Here ‘people’ is the antithesis of the hierarchy, the antithesis of all institutions, which are seen as oppressive power. Ultimately anyone who participates in the class struggle is a member of the ‘people’ and the ‘Church of the people’ becomes the antagonist of the hierarchical Church.”
 
 Liberation theology tries to change meanings of faith, hope and love.
 “Concerning faith, one South American theologian says, for instance, that Jesus' experience of God is radically historical. ‘His faith is transformed into fidelity.’ Thus faith is fundamentally replaced by ‘fidelity to history.’ …
 
 Hope is interpreted as ‘confidence in the future’ and as working for the future and thus is subordinated once more to the history of class conflict. …
 
 Love consists in the ‘option for the poor’; i.e., it coincides with opting for the class struggle. In opposition to ‘false universalism’; the liberation theologians emphasize very strongly the partiality and partisan nature of the Christian option; in their view, taking sides is the fundamental presupposition for a correct hermeneutics of the biblical testimony. …
 
 The Sermon on the Mount is indeed God taking sides with the poor. But to interpret the ‘poor’ in the sense of the Marxist dialectic of history, and ‘taking sides with them’ in the sense of the class struggle, is a wanton attempt to portray as identical things that are contrary.
 According to one of these theologians, the Kingdom must not be understood in a spiritualist or universalist manner, not in the sense of an abstract eschatological eventuality. It must be understood in partisan terms and with a view to praxis.”
 The poor are subject to a crucifixion of the structural injustice according to a leading liberation theologian.
 
 “One of the leading liberation theologians … once again opposes ‘universalist’ conceptions by asserting that resurrection is in the first place a hope for those who are crucified, who make up the majority of men: all the millions who are subjected to a slow crucifixion by structural injustice. But faith also participates in Jesus' lordship over history by setting up the Kingdom, that is, by fighting for justice and integral liberation, by transforming unjust structures into more human ones. This lordship over history is exercised by repeating in history the gesture by which God raised Jesus, i.e., by giving life to those who are crucified in history. Man has taken over God’s gesture — this manifests the whole transformation of the biblical message in an almost tragic way, when one thinks how this attempted imitation of God has worked out in practice and continues to do so.
 Liberation theology focuses on Jesus as a liberator instead of as Redeemer.
 
 “Liberation theology focuses on Jesus as a liberator. Emphasis is placed on those parts of the Bible where Jesus’ mission is described in terms of liberation, and as a bringer of justice. This is interpreted as a call to arms to carry out this mission of justice -- literally by some. A number of liberation theologians add Marxist concepts such as the doctrine of perpetual class struggle.”
 “As to other reinterpretations of biblical concepts: The Exodus becomes the central image of salvation history; the paschal mystery is understood as a revolutionary symbol, and consequently the Eucharist is interpreted as a celebration of liberation in the sense of politico-messianic hope and praxis. The word redemption is largely replaced by liberation, which is seen, against the background of history and the class struggle, as a process of progressive liberation. Absolutely fundamental, finally, is the stress on praxis: truth must not be understood metaphysically, for that would be ‘idealism’. Truth is realized in history and its praxis. Action is truth.”
 
 The mature faithful are required to support the Church with regard to the challenge of liberation theology.
 “In trying to arrive at an overall evaluation it must be said that, if one accepts the fundamental assumptions which underlie liberation theology, it cannot be denied that the whole edifice has an almost irresistible logic.”
 
 “It seems to have united Christianity, in this way, with all the "progressive forces" of our era. One can understand, therefore, that this new interpretation of Christianity should have exercised an increasing fascination over theologians, priests and religious, particularly against the background of Third World problems. To say ‘no’ to it must seem to them to be a flight from reality as well as a denial of reason and morality. On the other hand, if one considers how radical this reinterpretation of Christianity is, it is all the more pressing to find the right answer to the challenge which it presents. We shall only survive this crisis if we succeed in making the logic of faith visible in an equally compelling manner and in presenting it as a logic of reality, i.e., manifesting the concrete force of a better answer attested in lived experience. Since it is so, since thought and experience, interpretation and realization, are equally called for, it is a task for the whole Church. Theology alone is insufficient, Church authority alone is insufficient.”
 
 (Quotations are from Preliminary Notes of Cardinal Ratzinger-now Pope Benedict XVI, except subtitles)
 Mr. Yim is a member of www.aware.co.kr editorial meeting, a graduate of Law College Seoul National University, was prosecutor at Seoul District Prosecution Office, was president of Korea Filler Chemical Co. Ltd, is now Attorney-at-Law.
 
Data : 2006-03-21 (15:30), Hit : 1884
 My Opinion
 * Name * Password
 * Contents
 

  

중국 전교여행을 회상하며
No dat.a
중국 전교여행을 회상하며