Friday, July 16, 2010


Today I was listening to Glenn Beck's show and he used the following quote from Pope Benedict XVI:

"Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic."

This quote comes from the book "Truth and Tolerance" written by the Pope years before he was elevated to his current position.

Beck has been spending a lot of time lately talking about collective salvation and liberation theology. At least somebody is doing it. I believe, based on his membership in Jeremiah Wright's church for over twenty years and so many of the statements he's made, that this is the animating force behind the beliefs of our President. Liberation theology is a distortion of the truth with Marxist roots that echo all the way back to the early heresy of

The Pope's words are worth reading regarding this demonic lie that is being used by the government and the leaders of many churches, including the Catholic Church, to justify an all powerful state and the subjugation of the individual. I've posted a sizable excerpt from the Pope's writings below but I would recommend that you go to the site where I found this and read the whole thing.

The excerpts below come from "The Ratzinger Report" which I found at

"...An analysis of the phenomenon of liberation theology reveals that it constitutes a fundamental threat to the faith of the Church. At the same time it must be borne in mind that no error could persist unless it contained a grain of truth. Indeed, an error is all the more dangerous, the greater that grain of truth is, for then the temptation it exerts is all the greater.

Furthermore, the error concerned would not have been able to wrench that piece of the truth to its own use if that truth had been adequately lived and witnessed to in its proper place (in the faith of the Church). So, in denouncing error and pointing to dangers in liberation theology, we must always be ready to ask what truth is latent in the error and how it can be given its rightful place, how it can be released from error's monopoly.

...A theologian who has learned his theology in the classical tradition and has accepted its spiritual challenge will find it hard to realize that an attempt is being made, in all seriousness, to recast the whole Christian reality in the categories of politico-social liberation praxis. This is all the more difficult because many liberation theologians continue to use a great deal of the Church's classical ascetical and dogmatic language while changing its signification. As a result, the reader or listener who is operating from a different background can gain the impression that everything is the same as before, apart from the addition of a few somewhat unpalatable statements, which, given so much spirituality, can scarcely be all that dangerous.

...At this point we come to the second element of our situation to which we have already referred: the new philosophical climate of the late sixties. In the meantime the marxist analysis of history and society was largely accepted as the only "scientific" one. This means that the world must be interpreted in terms of the class struggle and that the only choice is between capitalism and marxism. It also means that all reality is political and has to justify itself politically. The biblical concept of the 'poor" provides a starting point for fusing the Bible's view of history with marxist dialectic; it is interpreted by the idea of the proletariat in the marxist sense and thus justifies marxism as the legitimate hermeneutics for understanding the Bible.

Since, according to this view, there are, and can only be, two options, any objection to this interpretation of the Bible is an expression of the ruling class's determination to hold on to its power. A well-known liberation theologian asserts: "The class struggle is a fact; neutrality on this point is simply impossible."

This approach also takes the (g)round from under the feet of the Church's teaching office: if she were to intervene and proceed against such an interpretation of Christianity, she would only prove that she is on the side of the rich and the rulers and against the poor and suffering, i.e., against Jesus himself: she would show that she had taken the negative side in the dialectic of history.

This decision, apparently unavoidable in "scientific" and "historical" terms, automatically determines how Christianity shall be interpreted in the future, as regards both the activities of this interpretation and its content.

As far as the arbiters are concerned, the crucial concepts are people, community, experience and history. Previously it was the Church, namely, the Catholic Church in her totality — a totality which spanned time and space and embraced laity (sensus fidei) and hierarchy (Magisterium) — that constituted the hermeneutical criterion; now it is the "community". The experience of the "community" determines the understanding and the interpretation of Scripture.

...Hope is interpreted as "confidence in the.future" and as working for the future and thus is subordinated once more to the history of class conflict.

Love consists in the "option for the poor"; i.e., it coincides with opting for the class struggle. In opposition to "false universalism"'; the liberation theologians emphasize very strongly the partiality and partisan nature of the Christian option; in their view, taking sides is the fundamental presupposition for a correct hermeneutics of the biblical testimony. Here, I think, one can see very clearly that amalgam of a basic truth of Christianity and an un-Christian fundamental option which makes the whole thing so seductive: The Sermon on the Mount is indeed God taking sides with the poor. But to interpret the "poor" in the sense of the marxist dialectic of history, and "taking sides with them" in the sense of the class struggle, is a wanton attempt to portray as identical things that are contrary.

...In trying to arrive at an overall evaluation it must be said that, if one accepts the fundamental assumptions which underlie liberation theology, it cannot be denied that the whole edifice has an almost irresistible logic. By adopting the position of biblical criticism and of a hermeneutics that grows through experience, on the one hand, and of the marxist analysis of history, on the other, liberation theologians have succeeded in creating a total picture of the Christian reality, and this total view seems to respond fully both to the claims of science and to the moral challenges of our time, urging people to make Christianity an instrument of concrete world transformation; it seems to have united Christianity, in this way, with all the "progressive forces" of our era."

Bookmark and Share


  1. you watch Beck too? Our household comes to a grinding halt at 5:00. What i took note of especially from your blog is this,"The Pope's words are worth reading regarding this demonic lie that is being used by the government and the leaders of many churches, including the Catholic Church, to justify an all powerful state and the subjugation of the individual."
    Noted also on Beck was Pelosi speaking to the leaders of the Church here.How could this happen?
    Another point about Beck is how brilliant he is which begs the question how on earth he got tied up with LDS?

  2. I don't know why he's involved with LDS except that his best friend Pat Gray is a Mormon. Being an alcoholic he may have been most influenced or helped by Gray and other Mormons at his low point which brought him into the LDS.

    It seems to me that our Church has a real problem connecting to those that are emotional as a starting point. We don't have the revival thing like the fundamentalists and we aren't real good at what the rest of the Protestants call "fellowshipping", a term which I despise, for no logical reason.

    Because of this I can see how someone that has been divorced from religion could be attracted by the first one that reaches out and seems to care, especially at a moment of extreme weakness.

    I'm sure God has a plan and if Beck is listening as intently as he claims then he's in good hands.

    Pelosi is speaking to the leadership of the Church here in America because a goodly part of the leadership, particularly at the USCCB, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Progressive wing of the Democrat Party.