Pope to name liberation theology ally to key Vatican post, report says
Print Friendly VersionBy JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
New York
Pope Benedict XVI is set to name a Brazilian cardinal known as a longtime supporter of the liberation theology movement to a senior Vatican post, according to an Italian news report today.
Writing in the Italian daily La Stampa, veteran Vatican writer Marco Tosatti reported that Cardinal Cláudio Hummes, 72, of SĂŁo Paulo, Brazil, will become the new prefect of the Congregation for Clergy, replacing Cardinal DarĂo CastrillĂłn Hoyos, a 77-year-old Colombian.
If confirmed, the report would mean that Benedict has tapped a theological moderate and a man long identified as one of liberation theology’s friends in the Latin American hierarchy. Hummes is a close personal friend and longtime supporter of Brazil’s leftist president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
The irony would not be lost on the Latin American church, where then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, while still Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was known as the author of a 1984 Vatican document highly critical of liberation theology – judged to be excessively politicized, and to shade off at times into Marxist-inspired terrorism.
Since CastrillĂłn is also President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which is responsible for relations with Catholic traditionalists attached to the pre-Vatican II Mass, the nomination of Hummes could mean that a cardinal not known to be as friendly as CastrillĂłn to the traditionalists will now be handling their affairs. What implications that might have for a document rumored to be forthcoming on wider use of the pre-Vatican II Mass remains to be seen.
The appointment would also remedy what has long been perceived as a slight to the Brazilian church, the largest Catholic community in the world at 144 million. At present, no Brazilian occupies a senior Vatican position.
The Vatican has had no immediate comment on the La Stampa report.
If Hummes does land a senior Vatican position, the nomination would be taken in church circles as confirmation of two points about this pontificate: First, that Benedict XVI wants to govern from the center rather than from an ideologically driven position; and second, as a sign of respect for the developing world. The latter point is reinforced by Benedict’s recent appointment of Cardinal Ivan Dias of Bombay as Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples.
Hummes is a member of the Franciscan order, like the legendary Cardinal Paulo Evaristo Arns whom he replaced in Sao Paolo. In a typical Franciscan touch, Hummes’ episcopal motto is “We Are All Brothers”.
Like Arns, Hummes was born in southern Brazil from German immigrant parents. As a young bishop, he had a reputation as a progressive, opposing Brazil’s military regime and backing workers strikes. Hummes also Lula, now Brazil’s president, to make political speeches during Masses.
Under John Paul II, Hummes moved to the center, adopting a more traditional theological stance and distancing himself from direct political action. In July 2000, when a Brazilian priest suggested that condoms could be justified to fight AIDS, Hummes threatened disciplinary action. Hummes is well-respected in Rome, and was invited to preach the 2002 Lenten Retreat for the papal household.
Yet he defends the Movimento dos Sem Terra (landless movement), arguing that people should be encouraged to organize themselves to defend their rights. He reminds government leaders that the Church defends private property, but “with social responsibility.”
Frei Betto, the famous Brazilian Dominican and liberation theologian, told NCR in 2002 that Hummes would be a “great pope.” His lone flaw, according to Betto: “He works too much.”
At last year’s Synod on the Eucharist, took up the issue of the impact of the Protestant “sects” in the developing world, noting that 83 percent of Brazilians called themselves Catholic in 1991, while today the number is 67 percent. Roughly one percent of Brazilian Catholics a year, Hummes said, are leaving the Catholic church, many to enter charismatic and Pentecostal groups.
“How long will Latin America be a Catholic continent?” Hummes asked.
In response, he called for a new level of missionary energy in the Catholic church, fueled by deep Eucharistic faith.
In a March 2005 Rome conference on the 40th anniversary of Gaudium et Spes, Hummes outlined a vision of the church based on that document’s inspiration that many took as a statement of Hummes’ own theological platform.
Hummes noted that the document expressed an optimistic reading of the world, and affirmed “the autonomy of earthly affairs.” Hummes called that recognition “a great step of the Council, and one that synthesized it with modernity.”
Hummes praised Gaudium et Spes for embracing the human rights tradition of modernity, including “liberty/autonomy, equality, fraternity, dignity and the inviolable authority of the intimacy of the moral conscience.”
Hummes then turned to the call of Gaudium et Spes for the church to be “inserted in the world.”
“Gaudium et Spes, inspired by all the reflection of the council, emphasizes that the church is at the service of the human person and all human beings … and does not seek to dominate humanity. In this, it follows the example of Christ, who presented himself as a servant,” Hummes said.
That observation led Hummes to reflect on the church’s engagement with other social forces.
“In this context, the church supports and favors every effort today to seek the full development of the personality of all human beings, and to promote their fundamental rights, their dignity and liberty,” he said.
Yet Hummes emphasized that passion for social justice does not have to come at the expense of Christian identity. Concern for development, he said, must not neglect efforts “to help people to encounter the full truth about human beings and their vocation in this world,” meaning “Jesus Christ, in whom this full truth is met.”
Hummes returned repeatedly to the idea of the church as servant.
“A servant church must have as its priority solidarity with the poor,” he said. “The faith must express itself in charity and in solidarity, which is the civil form of charity,” Hummes said.
“Today more than ever, the church faces this challenge. In fact, effective solidarity with the poor, both individual persons and entire nations, is indispensable for the construction of peace. Solidarity corrects injustices, reestablishes the fundamental rights of persons and of nations, overcomes poverty and even resists the revolt that injustice provokes, eliminating the violence that is born with revolt and constructing peace.”
Hummes then asked a rhetorical question arising from these reflections.
“Does not today's terrorism,” Hummes asked, “have as one of its ingredients a revolt against an imposed poverty, experienced as practically irreversible in the short and medium term?”
Hummes emphasized that in its social engagement, the church does not seek to impose solutions but to engage in dialogue.
“The church, inserted and active in human society and in history, does not exist in order to exercise political power or to govern the society,” he said, but to “organize and promote the common good.”
“The church must constantly promote dialogue,” Hummes said. “Perhaps it is among the most important methods today for positive and constructive relations with society.”
Hummes said this must be “a dialogue with courage -- open, frank, sensible and humble. A dialogue with the contemporary person, with the human race, science, the advances in biotechnology, with philosophy and the cultures, with politics and economics, with everything that has to do with social justice, with human rights, and with solidarity with the poor.”
“A dialogue with the religions,” Hummes added. “A constant dialogue, systematic, with professionalism, constructive. A dialogue that knows how to listen, to debate, to discern and to assimilate whatever is good and true, just and consistent with human dignity, proposed by the interlocutor. A dialogue that at the same time knows how to proclaim the truth of which the church is the depository, and to which it must remain permanently faithful. However, it must always remain a dialogue, and never an imposition of the church's own convictions and methods. Propose, not impose. To serve, and not to dominate.
“A church of dialogue in the contemporary world … a church, taking on the mission of Jesus, which is in the world not to judge humanity, but to love it and to save it.”
Tosatti reported that Hummes’ nomination would be announced by the Vatican early this week, perhaps on Tuesday, Oct. 31, in tandem with other curial appointments.
I ask GregY why liberation
I ask GregY why liberation theology necesarily means politicising the church any more than his point of view
....If we look at the root meaning of "politics", it refers to "the people", and so if the church becomes politicised through advocating for the poor masses, then so be it.
And is there really a division between feeding the body and feeding the spirit? Are they really two separate things? It may be fine to refer to concentrating on "feeding the spirit" when we have no fear about where our next meal will come from. Do you live in fear of not being able to feed your family?
For the desperately poor, someones having a spiritual life in Jesus means "being alive". It is a deeply profound experince of total reliance on God's providence that someone living a comfortable life can never expect to experience.
SO in our First World comfort zone, how can we put people in contact with Jesus when we refuse to "feed his sheep"?
Doing nothing by merely concentrating on the so-called spiritual life is just as politicised as helping people to find physical bread.
The sacraments are a physical sign of the way we live our lives...If we live in a protected bubble and fail to feed our starving brothers, then the Word and Sacrament we listen to and receive is in vain.
John, As Augustine notes,
John,
As Augustine notes, there IS a distinction between liberation theology and simply advocating for the poor and social justice.
As for the importance of "feeding the body", by no means was my intent to diminish the importance of corporal works of mercy. On the contrary I accept our Holy Father's statement in "Deus Caritas Est" that works of charity are of equal importance to the Church as the Word and the sacraments.
That being said, there has been a tendency on the part of some to ignore the explicit teaching of the Faith, which even those who do not know where their next meal is coming from have need of, as the following example illustrates:
"One priest I know went down to Latin America, eager to help the poor. He had great enthusiasm. He had the material means to alleviate the poverty and hunger of the people there.
When he got to Latin America, he began to build clinics and schools. After ten years, he noticed that many of his parishioners were going to a mission established by some evangelicals.
One day he complained to one of the old men, a very faithful old man who was always around the church and helping the priest. The old man looked at him with tears in his eyes and said, 'Father, I don't want to hurt you, but I have to tell you. You brought us a lot of godo things. You have worked very hard, but you didn't bring us Jesus and we need Jesus.'
...the priest said [of his first ten years], 'Sister, I had lost my faith. I had become angry when I saw thepoor exploited; I couldn't see anything else.' That priest went back to Latin America a changed man. He had encountered the living Jesus. He began to see tha tht efirst thing he must do is preach thet gospel.'"
(from "Miracles Do Happen" by Briege McKenna, 78,79)
John, What you said about
John,
What you said about politics is right, but generally the Church falls into the trap of clericalism. Such matters are better left to the prudential judgment of the lay faithful.
But that's not what LT is about. Its fundamental premise is that the Kingdom of God is realized on Earth as the Socialist state. And instead of using Christian hermeneutics, it relies on Marxism-Leninism theories, in particular of class struggle, to look at the mystery of Salvation. It couldn't be worse than that...
HTH
Dom Claudio confirmed me in
Dom Claudio confirmed me in my youth and, although I lived in one of the focal points of LT, the bishop never quite struck me as one of its strong supporters.
Granted, under his watch the Ecclesiastic Base Communities (CEB) came into being, which were openly Marxist and hardly Catholic enclaves in some parishes, but, after the CDF letter, he slowly shut them down.
And although he's known Lula since he was an union leader, he hasn't openly supported him or his socialist party politically, especially since he became president of Brazil.
He definitely isn't like his predecessor Dom Paulo, who was and is shamelessly a leftist, even to the detriment of the Church. After all, if one can pin-point when the faithful started declining in numbers it was during his watch, due to the politicization of homilies and disregard for the sacraments.
Yet, given the sharply declining Mass attendance in Sao Paulo and the rising defection of the faithful to Protestantism under Dom Claudio's watch, he doesn't seem to be the right man for this job in Rome...
Do you think shutting down
Do you think shutting down the CEB's has had something to do with the exodus to fundamentalism, which is more community cenetered and less centrist?
Colkoch, In my opinion the
Colkoch,
In my opinion the exodus was mostly because of the dryness and political speech that the faithful saw in the pulpit. This are at least the reasons that relatives of mine gave to convert to Protestantism. :-( And they converted years before the CEBs were shut down.
Granted, my sample is far from universal, but a sample nevertheless.
God bless.
"In my opinion the exodus
"In my opinion the exodus was mostly because of the dryness and political speech that the faithful saw in the pulpit."
Thanks for your insight Augustine. I think I can understand this sentiment because I'm beginning to feel exactly the same.
"Yet, given the sharply
"Yet, given the sharply declining Mass attendance in Sao Paulo and the rising defection of the faithful to Protestantism under Dom Claudio's watch, he doesn't seem to be the right man for this job in Rome..."
>> Unless, of course, the Holy Father has determined that His Excellency will perhaps be more amenable to direction in Rome than in Sao Paulo.....perhaps we might call it the "Levada Gambit" :-)
I(n addition, for those who imagined that the resignation of the previous prefect might signal a pulling back from the Holy Father's intention to issue the moto proprio which has the French episcopacy seeing Halloween ghosts:
From today's Il Giornale, on the latest Vatican moves:
"In the past few weeks, several French bishops have sent to Rome their lamentations of protest against the "Motu proprio" which would liberalize the pre-Conciliar Mass, but, as it seems, Benedict XVI is decided to move forward, even if with due caution, to heal the mini-schism of archbishop Lefebvre and to assure to the Traditionalist faithful, with an act of liberality, the use of the old missal."
The restoration of the Tridentine Mass will, in my humble opinion, begin the recovery of the Catholic Church from this awful forty years in the desert.
“A servant church must
“A servant church must have as its priority solidarity with the poor,”
What happens when we try to apply this quote to Catholic Schools and Colleges in the USA? Don't they have a preferential option for those who can pay the bills? Namely: the middle class and rich!
Wait a minute. Doesn't
Wait a minute. Doesn't Georgetown still have its wonderful program that it had for years, where it brings high school students from the center of D.C. and other poor areas into the college for tutoring so that they can become eligible for scholarships to the University? This was an outstanding program! Has this been discontinued? Can anyone help me out with this? And what about the other schools? What ARE they doing?
As wwob notes, NCR has been
As wwob notes, NCR has been giving coverage to this issue. But William, it is a topic that I would have given a passing glance to if I had not been seeing your persistent "testimony" on this idea.
I think this is a unique blessing of this bb; we are all impacted by the intensive focus of other posters.
Thanks for bringing this idea into my consciousness.
Guess you've missed the
Guess you've missed the several articles in NCR documenting the many Catholic schools that do model a perferential option for the poor and those suburban parishes that partner with inner city parishes to make those schools possible. Perhaps, in the interest of honesty, you might divulge how you got that burr under your saddle since it doesn't seem to have much basis in fact.
So Cardinal Hummes
So Cardinal Hummes threatened to discipline a priest for suggesting that condoms could be used legitimately to prevent the spread of AIDS? Ah,yes. It profit a man nothing if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul...but for ROME...!
Seems to me one of those
Seems to me one of those situations where one might "throw the baby out with the bath water" or "can't see the forest for the trees". Like the so called "pro life" people do, your statement picks at one instance with which you disagree with Hummes and is content to ignore the good he does in behalf of the poor and the marginalized. Or, is this just your week to trash anything that might suggest some good coming out of Rome?
Okay in this hand I have all
Okay in this hand I have all the good he does. In the other I have 40 million dead so far. Good? Genocide? Good? Genocide. Somehow for me it's not much of a choice. And when he gets to the gates and looks intro the eyes of the dead and the orphans as they stand behind Peter, he can dedcide for himself where he belongs.
I am not able to understand
I am not able to understand why this guy takes all your blame for all the genocide, murder, injustice everywhere in the world. I suspect he disciplined that ONE priest because he was making a public issue that drew Rome's attention to the local area. I suspect he chose to overlook the advice the other priests under his control were giving. Certainly it's no secret that privately they were advising the use of rubbers. It may be dishonest but that's the way the bureaucracy works. Most of us probably lack the courage to buck the bureaucracy because we have kids to feed and bills to pay. For the same reason, I suspect most priests are unwilling to make a public scene out of their disagreement with the bureaucracy for fear of losing their job, their livelihood, and the very real fear many of them have that they don't have any skills that would enable them to make a living elsewhere. Did I say it's right? No. I said that's the way it works, for now.
"How sharply will our
"How sharply will our children be ashamed...
Remembering how in so strange a time
Common integrity could look like courage."
--Yevgeny Yevtushenko
The only thing necessary for
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke
Msgr. Mackiepenny: Now, we
Msgr. Mackiepenny: Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.
Connor: [as the brothers exit the church] I do believe the monsignor's finally got the point.
Murphy: Aye.
Sorry, random movie quote that no one else probably has seen.
And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, My Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. We shall flow a river forth to thee, and teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritui Sancti.
Good old Edmund Burke,
Good old Edmund Burke, father of American Conservatism.
Cool Catholic blogs:
American Papist
The Cafeteria is Closed
Shrine of the Holy Whapping
Thanks for the support!
Thanks for the support!
Then the steward said within
Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.
Luk 16:4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.
Luk 16:5 So he called every one of his lord's debtors [unto him], and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord?
Luk 16:6 And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.
Luk 16:7 Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore.
Luk 16:8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
'nuf said.
"I am resolved what to do,
"I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses." There's the kicker. e.g. read (again) Here Today's diatribes against sisters getting paid too much and guess how long Hummes could stay at their house.
I notice that for every solution someone proposes there is always an action that is dependant on someone else.
I don't understand. I
I don't understand. I confess I have been cowardly. I confess that I have made decisions based on what I perceived to be best for me. But there is as I see it a deep and reprehensible duplicity in Hummes action. I agree with you. He probnably knows what's right. And he's probably ignoring those who are quietly and courageously doing right. But publicly he's making choices that take lives and feathering his Roman nest in the process. Maybe I'm quicker to forgive myself than to forgive him. But he doesn't need to be taken in by the sisters. There's a room with his name on it at the Vatican.
I can see that you don't
I can see that you don't understand. I made reference to the steward (any bishop or priest or layperson who bucks the system and the welcome they'd receive from someone who thinks sisters don't deserve or earn equal pay for equal work). I think there is an element of duplicity in your response to his inaction, too. In that he may have never held himself up as any braver than you or I would be. For me the question becomes: what would I really do if I were in his place. I know what the answer is for me. I'd do what was required of me as bishop. And, I'd work behind the scenes to change the system. But, I'd stay on the job to continue to make the contribution of which I am capable to the common good. I understand that's not good enough for someone who is so angry with the system that understanding is not possible.
Thanks for the help. I may
Thanks for the help. I may be blinded by anger and pain. But it seems to me the difference between the good shepherd and the hireling is that the good shepherd does what's best for the sheep and the hireling is worried about his employer. All your kind correction has not changed my mind on which he is.
And I can't believe that Jesus would stay in a malignant system and work quietly for the common good. In fact, I think it was His refusal to do that that got Him killed. I keep thinking of the nurse on the Tuskegee project who stayed so she could care for her patients. I hope in her place I would have blown the whistle.
Why is it either/or? That
Why is it either/or? That nurse who stayed and cared for her patients was doing a good thing according to her limits and her capability. If you were there, and IF you became the whistle blower, you would also be doing a good thing. Is one better than the other? I don't think so. Is one more commendable than the other? I don't think so. Because each is working for the common good according to each one's limits and capabilities. I think Jesus would approve.
I know Jesus would approve
I know Jesus would approve of a good conscience. But I can't believe..I mean this truly--from the depths of my being, not rhetorically...I can't believe that you don't see the difference. I do not aim these words at you, but at the idea: to me it is so loathesome, so abhorrent that one could countenance what was done to those men. If it were done by an enemy nation, it would be a war crime. Yes, it would have been more commendable to save those lives. You really don't see that. You also can't see me shudder.
I see the difference. I
I see the difference. I know the difference. All I'm saying is it's both/and not either/or and I'm willing to give the weaker person credit for what she believed she was able to do. I'm sorry that some of us are weakear than you want us to be. I'm glad some of you are stronger than we believe we are able to be. Both/and. There's room, and need, for both of us.
By the way, Happy Feast Day.
Thank you, but I'm still
Thank you, but I'm still working toward my sainthood in fear and trembling. And maybe you're right. Maybe I am intolerant of human weakness. But I think that when the chips are down, most of us can find more courage or more strength or more common decency than we ever expected we could muster. If not, what is Jesus for?
You are already a saint.
You are already a saint. You have already been redeemed. Working toward the goal is what saints do. And, if your relatives have a lot of money and political pull, maybe they can get you canonized.
Tomorrow, November 2, is a strong reminder that we're all in this together because we're all a part of the Communion of Saints. Our friends, relatives, and benefactors who have died pray for us just like we pray for them. The priest reminded me again of that when he asked me if I prayed to my dad to ask him to help me find the strength and courage to do what I needed to do. Since God is not liminted by time and everything is NOW to God I pray the same prayer we pray as the body leaves the Church - May choirs of angels escort you into paradise: And at your arrival may the martyrs receive and welcome you;
May they bring you home into the holy city, Jerusalem.
May the holy angels welcome you, and with Lazarus, who lived in poverty, may you have everlasting rest.
Saints of God, come to his aid! Come to meet him, angels of the Lord!
May Christ who called you, take you to himself; May angels lead you to Abraham’s side.
Give him eternal rest, O Lord, and may your light shine on him forever. Receive his soul and present him to God, to God the Most High.
For me one of the main reasons I put up with all the BS is knowing The Church will be accompanying me on that final journey that all of us make.
PS: You cannot know how much
PS: You cannot know how much that prayer means to me on this day. The Lord sends his angels. Today he sent you with that prayer.
re: para 1--fat
re: para 1--fat chance!
re:para 2-- I'm on board.
Jesus works through you and
Jesus works through you and me. It's up to you to empower persons who do not share your strength and courage to locate that source of power within themselves. So, in a sense, her failure is your failure to be Jesus to and for her.
Luckily I'm used to blame.
Luckily I'm used to blame. Please let me be Jesus to and for you.
Anytime. That will be a
Anytime. That will be a challenge because I find it difficult to be vulnerable, to be open, to accept gifts. But, since it's you, OK.
And thank you, since it's
And thank you, since it's you. for being Jesus to and for me.
Looks like you and Here
Looks like you and Here Today are using the same counting technique.
I was using World Health
I was using World Health numbers.
no, we just use the CDC and
no, we just use the CDC and Alan Guttmacher Institute's counting methods. (I would use CDC's numbers if they actually reported on the whole country, but in recent years they have failed to do just that.)
The Holy Father is very much
The Holy Father is very much on board with Liberation Theology, having endorsed the term as legitimate in his 1984 "Instruction on certain aspects of the Theology of Liberation" :-
In itself, the expression "theology of liberation" is a thoroughly valid term: it designates a theological reflection centered on the biblical theme of liberation and freedom, and on the urgency of its practical realization.
In his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, Bendict has this to say i:-
The rise of modern industry caused the old social structures to collapse, while the growth of a class of salaried workers provoked radical changes in the fabric of society. The relationship between capital and labour now became the decisive issue—an issue which in that form was previously unknown. Capital and the means of production were now the new source of power which, concentrated in the hands of a few, led to the suppression of the rights of the working classes, against which they had to rebel.
That last phrase, "against which they had to rebel", is very much Liberation Theology.
God Bless
What a fantastic
What a fantastic appointment this would be. I hope that Cardinal Hummes can infuse his views into todays clergy throughout the world.
I would agree with Augustine
I would agree with Augustine that describing Hummes as a "friend of liberation theology" is questionable at best. My understanding is that Hummes has maintained the distinction between working for social justice and helping the poor, which flows naturally from one's faith (and is especially urgent in Brazil), and turning the Church into an overly-politicized institution as liberation theologians advocate.
For instance, on one occasion he said, "The fundamental mission of the Church is to spread the Gospel and bring people in closer contact with Jesus Christ ... And it is through this contact that we can start correcting social injustices." He has also spoken forcefully about the need to renew the Church's focus on the basics of the Faith in the face of massive defection to Pentecostal and Evangelical communities. You can do all the good social work in the world, but if you don't also feed the people's spirit with the Bread of Life in Word and Sacrament, then they will leave, since one does not live by bread alone.
Therefore, I think it's inaccurate and a disservice to Cardinal Hummes to label him simply as a "liberation theology ally."