My understanding of LT is as follows (more inside) -- Fordham Rams Basketball Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Tue April 19, 2005 22:47:29
Author: DamnRam
Subject: My understanding of LT is as follows (more inside)
In reply to: bfg 's message, "I agree that the Church is a very important vehicle for social change and Benedict XVI and JPII are on the same page. However, the Latin American liberation theologians explain LT in terms of violence and many of them, including Friar Boff, claimed that Christ's disciples fabricated the idea that Jesus' death had a transcendent, salvific significance. He and other LT'ers were silenced b/c they were engaging in heresy and there's no other way to look at it. This is against the most basic theology of the Church." on Tue April 19, 2005 21:40:41

I'd need to see the sources you're referring to about LT being basic heresy. It's always been my understanding that LT is about championing progress for the poor and turning back oppression as the ultimate expression of Jesus' will. But even if you accept that the Church leadership is obviously the authority in determining what is heretical, such a declaration doesn't mean that position is factually or morally wrong.

One could even say that the Church's blessing of the horrendous practices committed in the Crusades, Inquisition, and the conquest of the New World are also heretical (as in not keeping with what Jesus would have actually wanted). My rule has always been to look past the messenger and even the message and to focus on the intent and the act.

For example, Gandhi's message was not rooted in Christianity but in the end it was a good one. That doesn't mean it was immoral or ammoral for not being Christ-centered. I would think that Jesus would have understood and agreed with Gandhi's cause regardless of its theological underpinnings or lack thereof.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

my sources were both Gustavo Gutierrez and Leonardo Boff. As for the practices that you cited, you're probably right but that's irrelevant to the issue of the heretical nature of Boff's writings. It runs completely counter to the most basic teachings of the Church. It's not an issue of driving out the unbelievers. It's a question of the nature of Christ. Why don't we just deny the Trinity while we're at it? (NT) -- bfg, Tue April 19, 2005 23:35:56
- I don't think it was a question of driving out unbelievers but rather of staying in good graces with the right-wing governments in Latin America. I think if the Church wanted to it could have found another theological underpinning or even a formal endorsement from the pope for the LT movement but apparently chose not to. (NT) -- DamnRam, Wed April 20, 2005 08:29:19
  - I was referring to your previous post of the Crusades, etc. (NT) -- bfg, Wed April 20, 2005 08:34:48
    - I heard (but haven't been able to confirm) that Ratzinger said he would be quite comfortable with a smaller, purer Church. If he really thinks that then it suggests to me he is intent on driving out those who don't conform to his views on things. (NT) -- DamnRam, Thu April 21, 2005 12:21:04
      - That doesn't mean he's going to drive out. it means he's going let those institutions that have already drifted away and lost their identity to go their separate way. (NT) -- bfg, Thu April 21, 2005 12:35:14
        "Drifted away"? I would say still in the fold and still caring enough to be involved. The ones who have drifted away are now called Protestants or secularists. "Lost their identity"? I would say that organizations and persons which don't agree with every tenet of the Church can still be Catholic and have an identity as such. The Church has been wrong before, they will continue to make mistakes, and refusal to go along with those mistakes shouldn't mean that you are no longer a member of the institution. (NT) -- DamnRam, Thu April 21, 2005 15:50:14
        Very interesting article in today's NY Times about Catholic university at Louvain. Many of the issues/complaints cited by the students apply to the Church in the US. At the end of the article, Times cites a poll of students at that school from a few years ago -- only 16 percent said they believed in the resurrection of Christ, 12 percent in the Holy Trinity and 11 percent in the virginity of Mary. That's "drifted away". These are core beliefs of the Church and the new Pope will try to appeal to people to those who believe (or don't believe) like the poll respondents, but this is what the Pope was referring to. (NT) -- bfg, Sat April 23, 2005 12:30:23

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.