Soviets created liberation theology?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loud-living-dogma
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hadn’t heard that, but it makes sense. The Soviets and their allies in the West long pushed for de-colonization long before the local populations were ready for self-governance, and funded rebel groups in European colonies to destabilize them. For example, the Chinese and Soviet backed communists in Rhodesia, Angola, etc.

FARC, the Sandinista’s, etc. pushed communism in South America. The social liberation ideology of communism gained some ground among Christian’s due to the appeal of helping the poor by redistributing wealth. Makes sense they’d try and corrupt the gospel to back this up.
 
Lenin did say in his book - ““destroy the churches and electrify the cities, let them know the light comes from the Party””. The religion in itself they had a problem with but religious feelings re-channeled to the party’s agenda were not a problem. Now it makes sense why Stalin had a period when he stopped destroying churches and protected them. Some still hope he was feeling remorse or experienced some scare or revelation from God but considering this article too it was most likely far less spiritual than this, Just part of the agenda.
 
Loud-living-dogma said:
Has anyone read this article? I’m fascinated…
Click to expand...
Did you look at the dateline on that CNA news item? It’s nearly three years old. If you look back at the old files, you’ll see it’s been analyzed to death already on these forums.
 
BartholomewB said:
40.png
Loud-living-dogma:
Has anyone read this article? I’m fascinated…
Click to expand...
Did you look at the dateline on that CNA news item? It’s nearly three years old. If you look back at the old files, you’ll see it’s been analyzed to death already on these forums.
Click to expand...
Do you control the forums, Bartholomew? I didn’t see anything after 2015 specifically referring to this article. Why am I not allowed to discuss it, Bartholomew? Call me crazy, but I think this has a lot of relevance to the political work of the USCCB.
 
Last edited:
Loud-living-dogma said:
I didn’t see anything after 2015 specifically referring to this article.
Click to expand...
You didn’t see it? Maybe you weren’t looking in the right place. Let me help you.
40.png
Former Soviet spy: We created Liberation Theology [CNA] World News
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/i...ourtesy_of_Ion_Mihai_Pacepa_CNA.jpgWashington D.C., May 1, 2015 / 03:34 pm (CNA).- Espionage deep in the heart of Europe. Secrets in the KGB. Defection from a communist nation. Ion Mihai Pacepa has seen his share of excitement, serving as general for Communist Romania’s secret police before defecting to the United States in the late 1970s. The highest-ranking defector from communism in th…
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Mary888 said:
Now it makes sense why Stalin had a period when he stopped destroying churches and protected them. Some still hope he was feeling remorse or experienced some scare or revelation from God but considering this article too it was most likely far less spiritual than this, Just part of the agenda.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so.

He did this during the Great Patriotic War (WWII) in an effort to save his own skin.
 
What exactly is the USCCB involved in which is not rooted in the Gospel and Church teaching?

Just because the USCCB aren’t pushing a right wing GOP agenda doesn’t mean they are teaching contrary to the Church.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for helping me!
I love it when people just dismiss the KGB claims with “surely that’s overblown”! 😂
 
“Preferential option for the poor”.
The central tenet of liberation theology. Ever heard any US bishop utter that phrase?
 
This is not exactly “KGB claims”, but the words of a Rumanian former secret police officer, who defected to the USA and later worked for the CIA. So, the situation is more complicated, in relation to what and for which purpose he reveals or “reveals”. In general, it is rather pointless to discuss any conspiracy theory, since it always seems to be very plausible, aside its starting point that is arbitrary and unproved. If Ion Mihai Pacepa provided any actual documentation of his sayings the thing would be different – but he does not.
 
Well, I just got my paws on his book, so I will see how he backs up his claims. There are citations in the CNA article, I notice.
 
I thought this was an interesting explanation from National Catholic Reporter on liberation theology:
http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/060200/060200i.htm

Some highlights:
  1. "The preferential option for the poor. For the liberation theologians, this means that the church must align itself with poor people as they demand justice. Such insistence has led to charges that liberation theology advocates class struggle. …
    The point, say the liberationists, is not to involve the church in class struggle, which is a given of the Latin American situation. Their goal is to shift the church’s loyalties.
  2. Institutional violence. Liberationists see a hidden violence in social arrangements that create hunger and poverty. Thus when critics accused theologians of advocating revolutionary violence (which most did not), they often responded: “But the church has always tolerated violence.” They meant that by endorsing the status quo, church leaders were acquiescing in a system that did violence to millions of people.
3.Structural sin. Liberation theologians argued that there is a social dimension that is more than the sum of individual acts. Examples frequently cited include neocolonialism and the feudal nature of the relationship between the Latin American oligarchy and the peasants. By extension, the redemption from sin won by Christ must be more than the redemption of individual souls. It must redeem, transform the social realities of human life.
  1. Orthopraxis. This term was coined by the liberation theologians as a counterpoint to insistence on orthodoxy, meaning correct belief. Liberation theologians argue that what is most fundamental is correct action – that is, effort leading to human liberation. Most liberation theologians say the accent on orthopraxis is a matter of balance. They wanted to remedy a centuries-long Christian inclination to overemphasize belief at the expense of action.
 
I’m far from liberal, but I will recognize that’s kind of the basis of Christian charity
 
To help the poor, yes. For the government to redistribute wealth? Hmm. Show me that in the Gospel?
 
You didn’t bring up government redistribution of wealth in the comment I replied to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top