Thought versus feeling in religion
By James Carroll | Monday, May 14, 2007 | The Boston Globe
” Pope Benedict’s skepticism (expressed during his recent visit to Brazil – bs) toward religious enthusiasm is not nearly as significant as his long-established opposition to Liberation Theology. By silencing and banishing its intellectual leaders, the pope has been undermining the crucial connection between thought and feeling that keeps religion humane. He has been shoring up the power and wealth of that tiny oligarchy that cannot stand a growing mass of believers who see God as aligned with the poor, their religion as a mode less of rapture than of justice.
This entry was posted on Monday, May 14th, 2007 at 4:00 AM and filed under Foreign Affairs, History, Religion, Youth. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Skip to the end and leave a response. Trackbacks are closed.
One Response to “Thought versus feeling in religion”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I am no supporter of the papacy or Roman Catholicism, but I cannot completely agree with the above comment, not least because it is not completely accurate.
What Benedict was pointing out was not that Christianity does not have a place for socio-political application, but that this is NOT its MAIN function. “This political task is not the immediate competence [i.e., primary reason for being] of the church. Respect for a healthy secularity – including the pluralism of political opinions – is essential in the authentic Christian tradition. [However], if the church were to start transforming herself into a directly political subject, she would do less, not more, for the poor and for justice.”
However, he added that “Just structures are an indispensable condition for a just society, but they neither rise nor function without a moral consensus in society on fundamental values.” But he also noted – correctly – that “Both capitalism and Marxism promised to point out the path for the creation of just structures, and they declared that these…would function by themselves. [But] this ideological promise has proven false. [Marxism left] a sad heritage of economic and ecological destruction. [Capitalism has failed to bridge the] distance between rich and poor…giving rise to a worrying degradation of personal dignity…”
Benedict certainly sees a socio-political role for Christianity. However, he rightly feels that, although Jesus certainly “spoke to” issues of poverty, etc., He was NOT first and foremost a socio-political figure, but a spiritual one. If anything, Benedict is trying to put the “feeling” – the true SPIRITUAL feeling – BACK into a theology that has become primarily socio-political in nature.
Peace.
Posted on 14-May-07 at 9:42 am | Permalink