Liberation Theology is pretty much nothing but a license for
red revolution passed out by the Catholic clergy.
Its teachings differ from the traditional teachings of the
church as to political economy not by being progressive – the traditional
teachings are already that, to the permanent distress of America’s showily
Catholic conservatives – but by being sympathetic to revolutionary socialism
and, in particular, Marxist-Leninism, which the church otherwise and elsewhere vigorously
condemns.
Fellow-traveling liberals, themselves to this day front-men
for the reds of foreign lands, including retrospectively as in the cases of
Allende vs. Pinochet or the Sandinistas vs. Reagan, don’t mind that, and even
welcome it.
Like John Amato, who uses “progressive” the way the reds did
throughout the 20th Century and still do, today, to cover over both
differences among democratic and anti-revolutionary leftists and the
differences between them all and the reds.
The definition of liberation theology Amato publishes is a
mendacious and tendentious self-definition, a piece of pure propaganda, much as
though the Catholic Church were to offer as a definition of “Catholic,” “a
member of the one true Christian Church, within which alone salvation can be
found.”
If the church drops celibacy it will lose many people to
more attractive Protestant sects and subject itself to greater pressure for
ordination of women.
Down that road is the extinction of Christianity.
I who write this am an atheist.
And a progressive, though not a liberal and in no degree a
fellow-traveler.
What do you suppose JA thought of the film, JFK, loved by
fellow-travelers, radicals, and reds but loathed by any who were none of those
things?
(The same people really loved Reds.)
(The same people really loved Reds.)
No comments:
Post a Comment