The Sad Persecution of Father Jon Sobrino
By Nick Gier, New West Unfiltered 3-18-07
By Nick Gier, Professor Emeritus, University of Idaho (ngier@uidaho.edu)
Most people believe that the Inquisition is now only an embarrassment in the Catholic Church’s dark past. Execution and torture, some of the same techniques now revived by the Bush administration, are no longer practiced, but the careers of sincere Catholic leaders are still being ruined, and the psychological effects will linger for the rest of their lives.
Father Jon Sobrino, a leading liberation theologian in El Salvador, has learned that he is being punished for “errors in his teaching and writings.” It is said the church fathers are especially concerned that Sobrino may not believe in Christ’s divinity.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict XVI, began investigating Sobrino back in 2001. Ratzinger was head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, which means, in plain English, that he was the Grand Inquisitor in charge of rooting out heretics.
Ratzinger has always been a staunch opponent to liberation theology, one that focuses on the economic problems of the poor, rather than correct doctrine, the enforcement of which has always been the Inquisitor’s job.
Fernando Saenz Lacalle, the Archbishop of San Salvador, was the one to announce the charges against Sobrino. A member of Opus Dei, the reactionary Catholic group made famous by "The Davinci Code," was once a head priest for the Salvadoran military, which has been implicated in the murder of nuns and priests, most notably Archbishop Oscar Romero, who was assassinated in 1980.
At that time the Reagan administration fully supported the Salvadoran military’s campaign against leftist insurgents. UN Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick claimed that the Catholic sisters who were tortured and killed were not really nuns, and Alexander Hague, Reagan's Secretary of State, branded them as leftist sympathizers who got what they deserved.
In the 1980s I was teaching a course on contemporary theology that included a unit on liberation theology. In addition to studying the works of Sobrino, we also read the Brazilian Leonardo Boff and the Columbian Gustavo Gutierrez.
All three of these thinkers were accused of being Marxists and of supporting violent revolution. But American conservative John Richard Neuhaus defended Gutierrez against this charge, and Boff, once banned from teaching, declared that he was an orthodox Christian, although he “thanked God for Marx's analysis of the mechanism of oppression.”
Looking back at the notes for that course, I am amazed at how little progress liberation theology has made in the intervening years. Conservative Christians still claim that the Bible supports free market economics, even though the early church practiced economic communism (Acts 2:44-45).
This was not just a temporary emergency policy because 200 years later the Christian theologian Tertullian explained "we hold everything in common except our wives."
Free market reforms in Latin America, following Chile’s model, have had limited success, and governments that have tried these policies have been turned out of office. The Chilean Socialist Party that the Nixon administration tried to crush is now back in power, and Michelle Bachelet, whose father was killed by the U.S. backed Pinochet dictatorship, is now the new Socialist Prime Minister.
Liberation theology is not just about economic oppression; it is also about equal rights for women, people of color, gays, and lesbians. It is also about the right to be free from militarism and violent living conditions, and the liberation of all life from pollution and the effects of global warming.
The need for progressive religious leaders and political action on their part is greater than ever. One good example is evangelical minister Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners/Call to Renewal, which just sponsored a rally against the war in Iraq in Washington, D. C. The National Association of Evangelicals has also just passed a policy that supports efforts to reduce global warming.
There are those who will say that neither liberals nor conservatives should mix religion and politics. But in a free society we simply cannot ban religious speech simply because it is part of a political campaign. Furthermore, people do not establish a state religion by simply expressing their religious views.
A liberal democracy allows open discussion and debate, and religious people do not have to check their values and beliefs at the door. All ideas are tested in the arena of public justification, where reasoned argument and judicial review are the norms.
Furthermore, anti-abortionists, for example, have every right to use the peaceful tactics of civil disobedience, which worked so well for Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
The reason why Gandhi and King were not criticized for injecting religion into politics is because their message was religiously and culturally inclusive.
The Religious Right usually divides and excludes, while Gandhi and King’s focus on basic human dignity and universal human rights are embraced by nearly everyone. That should not be surprising because they were or have become the basis for secular laws.
Finally, my research on the origins of religious violence has shown that those religions that focus on practice rather than doctrine are much less violent that those who insist on punishing people because of trivial disputes about doctrine.
Nick Gier taught religion and philosophy at the University of Idaho for 31 years. Read some of the chapters of his book on religious violence at www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/orv.htm. Read or hear his other columns at www.NickGier.com. [End of article]
Prefessor, I find your column shocking and disturbing. Not because of truths it contains, but the truths left out about humankind and religion, and how you have weaved those presented and missing truths to arrive at your jab at President Bush and Christianity. Remember the pictures of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl with their bloody heads held high and the people with the knives proclaiming "God is great?" The same thing happened with the terrorist attacks on 9/11. The latest is the Salt Lake shootings where the shooter is heard saying similar words. The common thread with these modern events with the midevil events of the Inquisition is those people believed that God blessed their barbarism. "God wills it." At least Christianity has evolved from those darkest of ages.
You focus on President Bush, Christiantity, and the Religious Right. The Papacy has been in sharp disagreement with President Bush. Without the context of "what else" is going on, the motivations for it, who is doing it, and how they are indoctrinated to believe it, in my opinion you have constructed a one-legged political stool that lacks serious intellectual analysis and context. Just my opinion.
Hummm..Quoting Tertullian ..hummm..Oscar Romero a bold Priest a man of Cloth..hummm
One thing you did touch me here Nick is what you said "All ideas are tested in the area of public justification and reasoned arguements hence judical reviews"
That alone is wisdom...of good and Evil existence..
You got to believe that the Almighty is preparing your spirit for something.. in this line..hummm
Let the Spiritual light in...:)
What Mr. Gier also leaves out is that the current archbishop of San Salvador, Bishop Fernando Saenz Lacalle, was the confessor and spiritual director of Archbishop Romero himself. This was attested to by Pope John Paul II in response to a challenging question on board his plane while headed to El Salvador. How could he, he was asked, appoint someone who had been a chaplain in the military to be the successor bishop to Romero? The popes reply was something I am paraphrasizing as I no longer have access to the nexus database: If he was good enough for Romero, after all he was his confessor, he is good enough for me.
Mr. Gier's attempts to discredit the Archbishop through such a one-sided inuendo are shameless. Thank goodness he is no longer actively teaching!
It seems to me, that Fr. Sobrino, and I am speaking in all due respect and admiration for his courage and dedication to his own ideals, needs to 'liberate' himself from the hierarchical oppression of his own church.
This pope is certainly against anyone who would wish to empower anyone other than himself.
I don’t know what to make of these comments, most of which are rather incoherent.
I thank Craig Moore for admitting that I write the truth, but I don’t know what the beheading of Daniel Pearl has to do with the topic at hand.
If you want me to condemn it, I certainly will, but I my point in this piece was to condemn a arrogant church that punishes, rather than rewards, an
ailing priest when he's down, one who has selflessly served the people of El Salvador for 50 years.
I’m grateful for the information about Lacalle being Romero’s confessor, but how is that relevant to Sobrino’s persecution? What is more to the point is that Romero almost suspended Lacalle because he would not read out Romero’s pastoral letters to the people. Why was Lacalle not punished for insubordination?
But most important I want to know why Lacalle, after being appointed archbishop in 1995, ignored evidence that linked the Salvadoran military to Romero’s assassination as well as the murder of 21 priests and nuns? In our country obstruction of justice is a crime.
When Lacalle was appointed in 1995, a U. S. missionary priest said to the "National Catholic Reporter" that "it was a stroke for the rich and the military.”
I also quote the following from the same article:
Jesuit Fr. Rodolfo Cardenal, the vice rector of San Salvador's Central American University and colleague of the six slain Jesuits, said the selection of Saenz Lacalle has caused upset- and dismay throughout the Salvadoran church.
"This appointment ruptures the tradition of an archdiocese and an archbishopric that has, for more than 50 years, been theologically and pastorally committed to the poor majorities, to illuminating reality through the light of the gospel and to prophetic denunciations," he said in a telephone interview.
Cardenal said Saenz Lacalle has been an "absent and silent" figure in the church, and "the archdiocese doesn't know him and he doesn't know the archdiocese."
None of my critics here has pointed out any errors in my column, nor have they proved that I slandered Archbishop Lasalle.
I agree with Rita that Sobrino should liberate himself from the Inquisition, just as many other Latin American priests and nuns have done. The Catholic hierarchy is shooting itself in the foot and making it easy for Evangelicals and Pentacostals to make many new converts. The problem here is that they also support the right-wing leaders who have made it worse for the peasants.
Finally, I resent the implication that I somehow deceived my students, the same stupid charge that Ratzinger has made against Sobrino. I'm proud of my 31 years of teaching over 6,000 students. I took special pride in finding that many of my students in my philosophy of religion class thought that I was a Christian. I took that as a sign that I was being "balanced and fair" in handling some very controversial material.
I'm also proud of the achievements of the Religious Studies program that I coordinated, with no budget, for 23 years. Today, hundreds of students are taking advantage of a core course that I designed called "The Sacred Journey."
Sorry professor, but I made no such admission as you suggest. Truths and the truth are not interchangeable terms. The Vatican and the Church are not interchangeable as well. This points to the issues I was trying to outline. Your propaganda fails to explore the interplay of basic human failings with institutional self-interest that transcends those people and institutions that you selectively criticize.
Professor, you wrote, "Finally, my research on the origins of religious violence has shown that those religions that focus on practice rather than doctrine are much less violent that those who insist on punishing people because of trivial disputes about doctrine."
Which religion is issuing fatwas for cleansing heretical beliefs? Which religion is calling for the death of cartoonists? Which religion justifies murder-suicide while the perpetrator shouts "God is great?" Which religion praises those holding the knife in one hand and a severed head in the other?
Professor, have you been following what has been going on with the Coptic Orthodox Church, Copt activists, and calls to remove the Sharia Law provision from the Egyptian constitution? http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/834/eg8.htm
Tensions have been rising. http://www.bosnewslife.com/middle-east/egypt/2854-us-sanctions-urged-after-egyptian-militants-k
Who do you support, the liberation theologists or the entrenched institutions? Who do you condemn as you so easily demonstrated above?
What side do you take
Thank you, Mr. Grier, for the acknowledgement.
As a psychotherapist, I can truthfully say that this hierarchical institution has done much to undermine people's trust in themselves. The critique of the 'church', is that 'Christ's Divinity' is somehow detatched from His 'Humanity', is what I see as the key problem and at the core of Christian doctrine.
It seems that these are seen as mutually exclusive perspectives, and the dichotomy is quite schizophrenic. If God expressed AS a Human Being, then perhaps it means that we are all expressions of the Divine. The 'soul in chemical clothes' if you will.
I see the 'church' as a planetarium. And it wants to tell people that they are 'seeing' the 'universe', the 'infinite'. However, it is a closed system. And closed systems, posing as open and infinite systems, are at the very nature of idolotry, are they not?
I feel the vatican makes a mockery of the Divine, by believing they can put it in such a limited framework.
An additional comment...
It seems to me that 'wisdom' is not a goal in this church.
Obedience to rules of law and dogma (again, written in stone - idolotry), does not allow for human evolution and maturity. It keeps people as children, who cannot think for themselves. How can global issues be solved by such concrete thinking?
Benedict XVI and Jon Sobrino
When did Christ ever wear red expensive shoes, don on ornate ceremonial albs, be surrounded and protected by a private army, be a political head of state, write in Ph.D books no one can understand except himself and by a few men, oppress those who work with and for the poor like Jon Sobrino? If Christ were to visit Rome today, what would he say about the worse sins of pedophile priests seething beneath the Vatican archives which are worse than the sins at the Temple of Solomon?
Would he recognize the Peter-the-Rock clones residing at the grand palace of the Vatican rivaling the palace of the Ceasars of Rome? Christ would gag at his ostentious "Vicar of Christ" when they meet for the first time, they'd be like the Prince and the Pauper, the Pope being (and dressed as) the Prince!
Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and he would do like what he did when he got very angry with the marketeers at the Temple and turned the tables upside down because they have "made God's temple a den of thieves" . But this time the Temple of the Vatican has become the Opus Dei (Ambrosiano Bank)den ... worst of all now the Vatican has become a "den of High Priests-pedophiles"! So Christ would repeat the curse of the Temple of Solomon that "not one stone will be left standing" about the Temple of the Vatican now owned and operated by the Octopus Dei.
We follow-up on the autocracy of Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei Archbishop of El Salvador and their Galileo-style persecution on Jon Sobrino
---- http://pope-ratz.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html