Another "Saint" Who Ain't

 

To My Readers: This week we have a wonderful and insightful post thanks to my guest poster, Lee. As always, feel free to comment. If anyone has a specific comment or question for me, I will answer as always, but it may take me longer to respond this week.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo. 

Another "Saint" Who Ain't

By Lee

"In the Father’s house we shall meet Buddhists and Jews, Muslims and Protestants—even a few Catholics too, I dare say … We should be more humble about people who, even if they have never heard of the name of Jesus Christ, may well be more Christian than we are."

These aren't the words of Jorge Bergoglio (A.K.A. "Pope" Francis I). Rather, these are the words of a man who was declared "Servant of God" (Venerable) in 2015 when the case for his canonization was opened in that same year, sixteen years after his death. His name; Dom Helder Camara.

First Things First

Who was Dom Helder Camara? Born February 7 1909 – Died August 27 1999, Camara was ordained a priest in 1931 in Brazil at a young age. He was later appointed auxiliary bishop of Rio de Janeiro in 1952. During his younger years as a cleric, he was heavily involved in a political organization known as Brazilian Integralism, which generally speaking, held to the viewpoint that every race should be united under one flag with Christian values. Much like today, there were conservative and liberal camps that had their own beliefs in this system, but Camara later drifted away from being active in it because his mind and heart was set more on Liberation Theology and the Rights of Man.

He attended all four sessions of the Second Vatican Council and had a significant role in the formation of Gaudium et Spes. This set him up to be appointed Archbishop of Olinda e Recife by Paul VI on March 12th 1964, a metropolitan diocese in northeast Brazil. When the Council was coming to a close he along with 42 other liberal bishops signed a document called The Pact of the Catacombs which, in 13 points, challenged all their brother bishops to renounce wealth and live under poor conditions such as the common people in their dioceses. Five hundred (500) bishops ended up signing it in the following months, and while it sounds like a noble practice, the purpose of it was to call for openness "to all, no matter what their beliefs" in the "spirit of Vatican II."

He was an author of many books throughout the 70's, promoting socialism and ecumenism. Morally speaking he was considered really liberal for his time by advocating for the idea that spouses who were abandoned should be allowed to remarry (in other words, commit adultery). He said that by not allowing artificial contraception to spouses, it was a form of torture. He was also known for being sympathetic to Marxism when he said he disagreed with his (Marx) conclusions but agreed with his analysis of the capitalist society.

The fact that he is now declared a "Servant of God" in the new religion means he is known for his heroic virtue and impeccable orthodoxy of faith. Other than what has already been said, we shall see if Liberation Theology, which was his primary goal in propagating, was orthodoxy in faith.

Liberation Theology

Liberation Theology was from the fruits of those like Camara who were present at the Second Vatican Council. It was not just found in Latin American countries in the late 60's and 70's where Camara was from, but among prominent religious orders throughout the world, especially the Jesuits and Maryknolls. First mentioned in 1968 in a conference by Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez (born June 8, 1928) and written about by him in 1971 (called A Theology of Liberation), Liberation Theology had nothing to do with theology except abandoning it. In fact, members of the hierarchy who were strong proponents of it cared neither for Thomistic theology or philosophy, nor any of the theological greats such as Bellarmine, Cajetan, Suaraez etc. 

The liberation theologian saw these theological giants as no use in a modern world because for them the mission was about the "People of God." The people were seen as the source of revelation and religious authority. All that mattered was how "the people" were able to solve the here and now in the social, political, and economic difficulties of an ever evolving world. Old concepts of dogmas and rules based on Thomism were a burden, and needed to be thrown out. Indeed, there was no rest for those wicked Modernists. Liberation Theology was an attempt to blend Marxist and Socialist beliefs in the most artificial way possible and dare proclaim itself as "the religion of the future."

Liberation Theology openly proclaims itself to be Marxist socialism. Father Gutierrez was more precise when he said it was "the concrete historical march forward in the direction of socialism." Now what does "a society of the socialist type" mean? It meant in the eyes of the liberation theologian a freeing from political oppression, economic want, and misery on earth. More specifically, a freeing from the influence of capitalism in the U.S. For those like Camara, Latin America's strong arm leaders were the result of its oppression. As the Primer encueiztro por une Iglesia solidaria says: "Christians must be committed both personally and collectively to the building of a new society. This new society must be a classless society in which there is collective ownership of the means of production." They thought ownership of private property lead to oppression and hence to class warfare. The only way to eliminate oppression and to resolve class struggle was to eliminate private property.

The aim was the creation of a "new society" or “a new humanity.” It was to be a transformation that was hinted at by the likes of  heretic Teilhard de Chardin, whose theory was that Man is setting out himself to evolve to what he called the Omega Point by achieving hominization---thereby passing over into the "Ultra Man." Gutierrez's idea of the "creation of a new Man" was, as he wrote, a "new universalistic consciousness... a new way for men and women to be more human... a human being that grows progressively free of all servitude preventing it from being the agent of its own lot in history."

How was this to be brought about? The battle of which Liberation Theology told its die hard supporters they must fight and win was not for Christ's Church and the salvation of souls, but rather for the worldwide class of men and women against the toils and traps of capitalism. Liberation theologians saw themselves as champs for a good cause if they fought against the oppression of the poor. The next step was for Christians to engage in class struggle. "Class struggle," says Gutierrez, "is a fact, and neutrality in this matter is impossible... We must avoid getting bogged down in doctrinal analysis, that is, in an attempt to treat the problem outside the framework of the class struggle." 

The only way one can be a committed Christian (as they saw it) was to engage in the class struggle, because only this process is how one is to "encounter and love God." Sin is no longer separation from God, but separation from one's oppressed brothers. Liberation was the beginning battle against established order. They believed there was only one way to encounter Christ, and that was in the poor (sound familiar?). Grace was the solidarity of the people, and sin consisted in the failure to cooperate with solidarity. The purpose of class solidarity lived out within this conflict was the sole means of realizing the Christian imperative. If this resulted in violence, such is inevitable, for the "rich" will never give up their power willingly. Father Jose Miranda (another liberation theologian) tells us, “Jesus was a hardened revolutionary” and “explicitly approved of and defended the use of violence” when he was in the temple. We find liberation theologians committed to a Marxist analysis of the historical process, and Gutierrez openly admits Marxism as the common denominator of all the theologies of liberation.

Salvation and liberation is for all who “enlist sincerely and effectively in the struggle,” and as Gutierrez would to say, "God will judge us by our capacity to create brotherly conditions of life.” This, of course, meant revolutionary socialism. “Only by loving mankind as he exists in the concrete historical situation can man know and love God.” Christians (mainly Catholics), unlike Marxists, were failing to do this. The logical conclusion of his position was that Marxists were to be included in the plan of salvation because they were to be considered "Christian." 

The liberation theologian also believed in evolution of dogma which was condemned by Pope St. Pius X. As Gutierrez says, ‘various political events have profoundly modified history. The rapid development of science and the consequent mastery of nature; the use of new instrumentation, for the understanding of social reality... have hastened the maturation of political consciousness... history demonstrates that the achievements of man are cumulative and allow for even greater achievements in the generations yet to come... there is only a single process of human development definitely and irreversibly assumed by Christ.”  As a result of progress, Man is also changing. “The scope of our radical challenge to the prevailing social order would escape us, were we unaware of the change that has taken place in human self-understanding, the change that has occurred in the approach to truth... God reveals Himself only in history and salvation is a historical process. There is only one single history adding up to the evolution of the species, and in that process, the genesis of humanity is the central axis, a genesis realized through the energy of conflict in the struggle for liberation, class against class. This truth is the primary object of faith." 

The culmination of this process will be the acceptance by Man of the socialist "truth"-- the break with a social order of oppression and the erection of a classless society. Gutierrez goes on to say that this society "affirms a utopia on the way to becoming a historical reality." This was the end game of liberation. A manifestation of salvation and history. It's as if Paul VI, shortly after the Council, was speaking when he said, "If the world changes should not religion change?"

Indeed Pope St. Pius X knew them by their fruits when he said:

Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they express absolute truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sentiment in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sentiment. But the object of the religious sentiment, since it embraces that absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner, he who believes may pass through different phases. Consequently, the formulae too, which we call dogmas, must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. An immense collection of sophisms this, that ruins and destroys all religion. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and as clearly flows from their principles. For amongst the chief points of their teaching is this which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence; that religious formulas, to be really religious and not merely theological speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sentiment. 

This is not to be understood in the sense that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be made for the religious sentiment; it has no more to do with their origin than with number or quality; what is necessary is that the religious sentiment, with some modification when necessary, should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which spring the secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly must be changed. And since the character and lot of dogmatic formulas is so precarious, there is no room for surprise that Modernists regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect.

 And so they audaciously charge the Church both with taking the wrong road from inability to distinguish the religious and moral sense of formulas from their surface meaning, and with clinging tenaciously and vainly to meaningless formulas whilst religion is allowed to go to ruin. Blind that they are, and leaders of the blind, inflated with a boastful science, they have reached that pitch of folly where they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true nature of the religious sentiment; with that new system of theirs they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, condemned by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can rest and maintain truth itself. (See Pascendi Dominici Gregis #13). 

What about its theology aspect? According to Gutierrez this science comes from "the people" or from society. The Church became "the People of God." It wasn't about the hierarchy in Rome. Sin was not primarily personal but social, and based on the "injustices and oppressions" from capitalism. For them, the Blessed Virgin Mary was the mother of a revolutionary Jesus. The idea of the priesthood was either the service given by an individual (the priest himself) who builds up socialism or it is the "People of God" as they worship as they like. Thomist theology reflected medieval outdated ideas, while liberal theology reflected the ideas of the French Revolution. Indeed as John XXIII put it when they were opening up the Council "to let in some fresh air."  Gutierrez continues: "a different analysis of reality" and "a new way to do theology based on practice." 

Through this practice is to come the "theology of the future... our approach is to reflect critically on the practice of liberation and not to limp after reality." In other words, he's saying the practice of liberation creates a reality and we are obliged to derive our theology from it. The whole notion of "People of God" that we see over and over again in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church and other sources of the "New Evangelization" springs from this idea. Ironically, John Paul II was suppose to be against this theology. Like a great many Republicans in the United States, Modernists pretend they are for conservative values when they slip in the very heretical phrases that are pro-liberal.

To sum it up, Liberation Theology is a form of Modernism mixed in with condemned social issues of the Church. It is a system which focuses on the here and now and not on things to come (eternity). It's the opposite of why Man is really on Earth. Just as it was gaining popularity in religious Orders in the 60's and 70's, so too has it permeated itself in current life. We see it's influence in groups like Antifa and BLM. We see its influence in public schools and colleges. We see it in certain colleagues at places of work. Its theology, to those who adhere to its core beliefs, are centered on Man and those things which better him in this life. The idea of liberation brainwashes an individual to think they are perpetually a victim. Unfortunately, weak-minded people fall for it, and weak-willed men throughout the world kowtow to it, because of political correctness and fear of hurting somebody's feelings. In essence it's the "Gospel of Man."

List of Popes condemning Socialism and Communism

Pope Pius IX:

“You are aware indeed, that the goal of this most iniquitous plot is to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism, by confusing them with perverted teachings.” (Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, December 8, 1849).

Pope Leo XIII:

"There is need for a union of brave minds with all the resources they can command. The harvest of misery is before our eyes, and the dreadful projects of the most disastrous national upheavals are threatening us from the growing power of the socialistic movement. They have insidiously worked their way into the very heart of the community, and in the darkness of their secret gatherings, and in the open light of day, in their writings and their harangues, they are urging the masses onward to sedition; they fling aside religious discipline; they scorn duties; they clamor only for rights; they are working incessantly on the multitudes of the needy which daily grow greater, and which, because of their poverty are easily deluded and led into error. It is equally the concern of the State and of religion, and all good men should deem it a sacred duty to preserve and guard both in the honor which is their due.” (Encyclical Graves de Communi Re, January 18, 1901, n. 21).

Pope St. Pius X:

“But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, ‘the reign of love and justice’ … What are they going to produce? … A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.” (Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique [“Our Apostolic Mandate”] to the French Bishops, August 25, 1910, condemning the movement Le Sillon).

Pope Benedict XV:

“It is not our intention here to repeat the arguments which clearly expose the errors of Socialism and of similar doctrines. Our predecessor, Leo XIII, most wisely did so in truly memorable Encyclicals; and you, Venerable Brethren, will take the greatest care that those grave precepts are never forgotten, but that whenever circumstances call for it, they should be clearly expounded and inculcated in Catholic associations and congresses, in sermons and in the Catholic press.” (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914, n. 13).

Pope Pius XI:

“That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.” (Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, n 117).

"This all too imminent danger, Venerable Brethren, as you have already surmised, is bolshevistic and atheistic Communism, which aims at upsetting the social order and at undermining the very foundations of Christian civilization.

In the face of such a threat, the Catholic Church could not and does not remain silent. This Apostolic See, above all, has not refrained from raising its voice, for it knows that its proper and social mission is to defend truth, justice and all those eternal values which Communism ignores or attacks. Ever since the days when groups of "intellectuals" were formed in an arrogant attempt to free civilization from the bonds of morality and religion, Our Predecessors overtly and explicitly drew the attention of the world to the consequences of the de-christianization of human society.

 With reference to Communism, Our Venerable Predecessor, Pius IX, of holy memory, as early as 1846 pronounced a solemn condemnation, which he confirmed in the words of the Syllabus directed against "that infamous doctrine of so-called Communism which is absolutely contrary to the natural law itself, and if once adopted would utterly destroy the rights, property and possessions of all men, and even society itself." Later on, another of Our predecessors, the immortal Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, defined Communism as "the fatal plague which insinuates itself into the very marrow of human society only to bring about its ruin." With clear intuition he pointed out that the atheistic movements existing among the masses of the Machine Age had their origin in that school of philosophy which for centuries had sought to divorce science from the life of the Faith and of the Church." (Encyclical Divini Redemptoris # 3 and #4 March 19, 1937).

​Conclusion

If Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis I) does end up canonizing Camara, it would come as no surprise because he has said similar sentiments as Camara. He recently said, I always ask myself, where does this labeling come from? For example, when we were returning from Ireland on the plane, a letter from an American prelate erupted that said all kinds of things about me. I try to follow the Gospel. I am much enlightened by the Beatitudes, but above all by the standard by which we will be judged: Matthew 25. “I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was in prison, and you visited me. I was sick and you cared for me.” Is Jesus a communist, then? The problem that is behind this, that you have rightly touched on, is the socio-political reduction of the Gospel message. If I see the Gospel in a sociological way only, yes, I am a communist, and so too is Jesus. Behind these Beatitudes and Matthew 25 there is a message that is Jesus’ own. And that is to be Christian. The communists stole some of our Christian values. [Laughter.] Some others, they made a disaster out of them in an interview from "Fr." Mat Malone.

To say that such a man as Dom Helder Camara is "orthodox in faith" and worthy of sainthood with all the rest of the saints in Heaven, is another example of absurdity. Hence, the reason it cannot be the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church cannot infallibly canonize a man who throughout his whole life worked tirelessly in his promotion of condemned doctrines from real popes. At best we can hope that he repented at the end of his life and was spared from eternal ruin.