1

BISHOPS’ INSTITUTE FOR

SOCIAL ACTION II

(BISA II)

“THE SOCIAL

DIMENSION OF THE

GOSPEL”

TOKYO, JAPAN

APRIL 7 – 19, 1975

2

CONTENTS

I - SUMMARY, FINAL REFLECTIONS AND LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

II - PROGRAM

ORIENTATION TALK – Bp. Jullio X. Labayen, OCD

BISA II – Fr. J. Bulatao, SJ

III - MINUTES

April 7, 8, 9

April 10 - National Group Discussion Reports: Japan, Korea, Taiwan-

China, Hongkong and Macao

April 11 - Theological Reflections

April 12 - National Group Discussion Reports on “Political Situation”:

Taiwan, Japan, Hongkong, Korea

- Panel Discussion

April 15 - Common Topic Group Discussion Reports

Korea: Religious Contacts and Dialogue with Communism

Hongkong and Macao: Religious Contacts in Divided

Countries

Japan

April 16 - Summary and Analysis

April 17 - Korea – Japan Report

Foreign Minorities

The Church and Politics

Workers

Hongkong-Macao: Population and Family Planning

: Social Dimension of the Gospel and Pastoral Activities

Planning

April 19 - Planning: Taiwan, Japan, Hongkong, Macao

3

IV - THEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS:

Bishop JULIO XAVIER LABAYEN

“On the Third Dimension of Human Existence”

Father P. NEMESHEGYI, SJ

“Immenance and Transcendence” “Christianity and Marxism”

“About the Korean-Japanese Group Discussion on April 16, 1975”

Father A. NICOLAS, SJ “On the COMMON TOPICS held on the 16th and 17th session”

“A Few Hints and Reference in Search of Light on the Topics of the Church, Faith and Politics

“On ‘THEOLOGY OF LIBERATION’”

Religious Contact in Divided Countries: Taiwan – China

Report of Refugee Situation in Vietnam

V - HANDOUTS:

Workers in Japan

Social Teaching of the Church in the Vatican II Council

Population Issues

OHD – FABC

Salutation from South Vietnam by Fr. Mouysset, MEP

VI - APPENDICES

A – Martial Law Has General Approval of the People

B – Church and State Under Martial Law: A Viased View

Bp. F. F. Claver, SJ

C – Statement of the CBCP on Referendum of February 27, 1975

VII - PICTURES

4

BISHOPS’ INSTITUTE FOR

SOCIAL ACTION II

(BISA II)

THEOLOGICAL

REFLECTIONS

5

ON THE THIRD DIMENSION

OF HUMAN EXISTENCE

Bishop Julio Xavier Labayen, OCD

1. INTRODUCTION

I do not pretend to be a theologian by profession. It is my FAITH in the living God in whose presence I live that spurs me to make this theological reflection with you.

Not being theologian by profession I shall be forced to pose some questions to our

theologians here present in order to get some answers. It is my hope that these same

questions will draw cut some of your insights from your own life of Faith. Our

theological reflection will then become an expression of a lived Faith. After all is

theology not meant to be so?

2. OCCASION

This theological reflection has been occasioned by the talks yesterday of Father

Ohara and Bishop Hamao.

Father Ohara stated that the root problem the young workers are facing goes beyond

the personal values and individual morality of the managers and supervisors. These managers and supervisors are caught in a system to which they are slaves.

Bishop Hamao also stated that the principal cause of the “shirako” mentality the

attitude of apathy and indifference – is found in the system of education and communications media.

3. PRESENTATION

I shall limit myself in this theological reflections to the system.

The reflection will be in two parts. The first part is sociological; and second part is

theological.

4. SOCIOLOGICAL REFLECTION

I. THE THIRD DIMENSION

A. What is the system? Father Ohara refers to it as the way to industry is organized. Bishop Hamao refers to it as the way society is organized.

The element that is common to both is organization. This organization is the

set-up, the structure, the institution. The processes that go into putting up the structure are what we call social processes.

B. Is the system impersonal since it goes beyond the personal?

6

What we may consider personal can be classified into:

1. Intra-personal (within the person): the process by which we develop

this dimension is referred to (in our traditional term) as self-

sanctification.

2. Inter-personal (between two persons): “Love your neighbor” best describes the process that develops this dimension.

The system, on the other hand, seems to escape the personal dimension. It

appears to be a machinery that has its own identity outside the person and functions on its own steam. It conditions and determines the way persons

within the system should act. Hence, Father Ohara’s statement: ‘beyond the personal values and individual morality”.

I would, therefore, call this third dimension of human existence the meta-

personal (beyond the personal).

II. Total human development

Integral human development must consider man in the totality of his existence.

It is in this total dimension of his existence where he is formed or deformed,

humanized or dehumanized. Integral human development must, therefore, take

into consideration the meta-personal (the societal, structural, institutional)

dimension.

5. THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION

I. SOCIAL DIMENSION OF THE GOSPEL

The Gospel is a message of man’s salvation which is addressed to man himself. It proclaims the salvation of the whole man. In proclaiming the

integral salvation of man the Gospel must, therefore, address itself to man situated in the total dimension of his existence, to include the meta-personal

dimension.

The Gospel is a message of salvation that addresses itself not only to the

personal dimension of man, but also to his societal dimension. The Gospel is

public message of salvation addressed to society.

II. GRACE – SIN

The process of salvation is a process that dramatizes the struggle between

grace (the element of salvation) and sin (the element of damnation) towards

the possession of the trophy: man..

The story of Christ’s redemptive work is the portrayal of the eventual triumph of light over darkness, of truth over falsehood, of life over death. “Where sin

increased, grace has abounded all the more.” (Rom. 5:20)

7

Grace and sin are two correlative elements in the drama of human salvation.

A. EMBODIMENT OF SIN IN THE THIRD DIMENSION

Thanks to the theology of liberation we have enough theological reflection

on the embodiment of sin in structures and institutions of society. We have

an eloquent example of this embodiment in the oppressive and dehumanizing structures that Father Ohara and Bishop Hamao spoke

about. Theologians refer to this phenomenon as societal sin (structural sin). Such sin seems to suggest the reality that Scriptures write of “principalities

and powers”.

B. EMBODIMENT OF GRACE IN THE THIRD DIMENSION?

Enough reflection has been made on the reality of grace in the intra-

personal dimension of human existence. This reflection had been

occasioned particularly by Belagius who argued to the “externality” of

grace.

Some reflection (perhaps not enough) has been made on the existence of

grace in the inter-personal dimension of human relationship. The classic

example is the loving mutual self-expression of husband and wife, which

is a graced relationship.

Hardly enough reflection has been made on grace in the societal dimension

of human existence. If sin embodies itself in this dimension should grace,

its correlative, be deprived the right to embody itself in it, unto the integral salvation of man?

III. THEOLOGY OF SYMBOL

The theology of symbol has integrated both the theology of grace and the

theology of revelation.

All reality – human and divine – is self-imaging. Grace and revelation are two

aspects of the ONE reality: God as self-giving (grace) of both is JESUS

CHRIST, the God who became man. “God so loved the world that He gave

His only-begotten Son.”

Father Nicholas has stated the basic principle: God’s style is incarnational.

God’s loving action (self-giving in grace) among men is a continuing

incarnation in men and their history, in human processes, structures and

institutions. “I shall be with you all days till the end of time.”

How is God present (incarnated) in the third dimension of human existence? Is

there such thing as societal grace? Does grace embody itself in human

processes, structures and institutions? How?

8

What is the role of people like Mr. Nagadome and Ms. F. Furukawa (both

Buddhists) in their work of bringing men together to form communities and of

promoting structures that are humanizing?

Does the Church as a society incarnate in her structures and institutions the sin

of man or the grace of God? Is she the sacrament that she is meant to be to the

society of men?

9

IMMANENCE AND TRANSCENDENCE

P. Nemeshegyi

During these two weeks we heard many talks on many things, and have been urged to direct our attention to many problems and try to accomplish many task. It might be

therefore interesting to note, that Professor Masutani, the well-known Japanese Buddhist scholar once said in a conference that in Christianity he has been most impressed by the

saying uttered by Jesus to Martha: “Just o n e thing is needed!” (LK 10.42). When Christians (and their Bishops!) are overwhelmed by the variety of tasks it is good to recall

these words of Christ: Do not be “worried and troubled over so many things”, but seek the “one which is needed.” What is then, this “one which is needed”?

It is, of course, an unfathomable , divine mystery, which can not be neatly defined

and which is expressed in many different ways and by many different symbols. The

description which I shall try to give, shall be, thereforce, just one possible description

among many. I choose it because it provides, I think, some guidelines for Christian social

and political action. I shall take as my point of departure an expression used in Buddhist

for designating the relation between the absolute, ultimate, eternal reality and the

contingent, immediate, temporal being: NEITHER ARE THEY TWO NOR ARE THEY

ONE.

I think that this formula can help us to grasp the “one thing needed”. The mystery

of Christianity is this: the unfathomable mystery of the absolutely transcendant, personal,

living, eternal God has become immanent in the world, in humanity: the Lord Allmighty has become a “God with us and for us.” God and the world are not one: He remains

always the “Pater immensae maiestatis”, but neither are they two: because Christ, the Emmanuel, is God and man, because Christ and we are one and because the one Spirit of

God is poured out in our hearts. Two as one: this is the mystery of Love. The “one thing needed” it to believe, to think, to express, to realize and to live this mystery.

Defects and corruptions arise in Christianity when one or the other part of this truth is

denied or forgotten.

1. There existed (and still exists) a strong trend in Christianity, which forgets that

God and his creatures are not “two”. In this case an opposition is set up between

God and his creation: love God and despise all creatures! Enjoy God and use all

creatures as tools for reaching God! Glorify God by diminishing man! Praise the

almightiness of diving grace by affirming the powerlessness and passivity of man!

Be a “Son of Heaven”, do not be a “Son of the earth”! Such a mentality fosters

acquiescence, passivity, submission to the givenness and a wirhdrawal from

secular tasks.

Such an outlook is mistaken. God wants to love men with my heart; we have to love

others not so much “on account of the love for God”, but rather “with the love of God”.

Thus Christians become mirrors of the love of God. Love towards God (as the transcendental horizon) and unconditional and universal love towards the neighbour (as

our catergorial partner) are one and the same love ( unica virtus caritatis): love for God is only real if it taken the categorical form of love to wards the neighbour, and love towards

10

the neighbour will be unselfish, lasting, iniversal and self-sacrificing only if it is based on

the total self-surrender to God and on the compenetration of man with God’s Spirit.

Such a fundamental outlook produces an open Church, an integrated assimilated the

“being-for-others” (Fur-Existenz) of Jesus.

2. But as it is wrong to forger the “not two”- principle, so it is equally wrong to forget the “not-one”-principle. In fact, during the history of Christianity also this

second principle has been (and is still) often forgotten. When so, the transcendent God is practically identified with some limited reality which is thus absolutized.

According to the various forms of this limited absolutized reality there are various forms of this deviation:

(1) Sometimes God is practically identified with certain holy places, rules or

ceremonies, which constitute the religious dimension of reality where the right

relations with God are assured, while other dimensions of reality are treated as

profane and heardly touched by the attitude of faith. (From such an attitude derives

that “religiosity”, which- according to Prof. Eto- is not interested in social justice.)

The strongest protest of Jesus has been directed precisely against this kind of

attitude. Man is more important than the Sabbath; mercy is more important than

sacrifices; reconciliation is more important than offerings; love for God and the

neighbour are more important than holocausts. In Christianity not things, but men are

“hagioi” (holy): the life of service in the Spirit is the sacrifice, acceptable to God.

(Prayer and sacraments make such a sacrificed life possible.)

(2) Sometimes God is identified with a definite ideology, vg. Monarchy, bourgeois

capitalism or – recently – socialism. People use shortcuts from Christianity to very concrete ideologico- political options. Sich unwarranted identifications of God’s will

with a very definite ideologico- political option are promoted by the vague use of “good” and “bad” words, which are attached to concrete social movements and

groups. Without any sufficient analysis of the situation and with very partial foundation in reality. In this general deterioration of respect for the truth, the Church’s

eminent function is to keep the four “transcendental precepts” (Bernald Lenergan): 1. be attentive (i.c. open to the whole reality, to all the data, without voluntary

blindness and one- sidedness);

2. be intelligent (have insights and not prejudices)

3. be reasonable (judge according to evidence and not according to feeling and

interests)

4. be responsible (choose the real good- values -, and not the apparent good-

satisfactions).

Only then will the Church and Christians have sufficient freedom for following these

precepts, when they “have fallen in love with God” (Lonergan), and have received his

peace. Then they will be able to criticize the absolutistic, totalitarian postulates of

ideologies, relativize them, utilize ideogical elements in their proper place (as means)

and connect in esteem, tolerance, reverence and love men belonging to opposed

groups and trends.

(3) Sometimes God is identified with a certain group of man and considered as a God

fighting with us against other men. Thus certain nations, political parties, religious groups are expropriating God for themselves and “diabolize” other men. This attitude

11

has caused terrible sufferings to mankind and has been the greatest shame of

Christianity (religious wars, fanatisation of armies, burning of heretics, etc.).

Ideologies can never e greater than themselves, but the Church must be greater

than she is: she must recognize that Christ died for all men and that the Holy Spirit

gives to all men the possibility to be united with Christ’s paschal mystery (GS 22).

Mao could say that opponents of his edeology do not have human nature, but

Christians never can say that opponents of their tenets are not in the grace of God (if they are in “good faith”): God alone is judge, and he commands us to extend our love

until the very limits of the earth, if we wish to love Christ.

(4) Sometimes God is identified with certain contingent customs, rules and power-structures (both ecclesiastical and secular) and, by an appeal to divine authority, these

customs and structures are declared to be untouchable and uncriticable. But in reality only the basic intentional, operational structure of man’s spirit

(experiencing, understanding, judging and willing)is the unchanging essence of

human nature, and only the basic principles of Christian faith-existence and the most

general framework of Church-organization have been laid down permanently by

Christ. Both man’s self-understanding and the Church’s God-understanding and self-

realization are open towards the future. In history every end is also a beginning. This

enables the Church to have social imagination, to experiment with new forms of

community, to confront new problems with new solutions, to be always young,

“because the Holy Spirit, contained in the Church as in a vessel, is young and always

rejuvenates the Church” (reneus).

(5) Finally sometimes God is identified with an intra-worldly future. Present

structures are then rejected as devilish and an earthly paradise is envisaged with either

no structure at all, or with communistic structures, which are believed to produce the final perfection and happiness of man.

This attitude forgets the “eschatological reservation” (Metz), which is essential to the Christian world-view. Sinful man will never be perfect and will never build a

perfect society. This false dream of a perfect future causes us to ferget the “to-day of God” (Roger Schutz): eternity touches each present moment, and in each moment by

love eternity is built. We must always strive for “greater justice” Knowing at the same time that the Kingdom of god will never be perfectly realized in this world.

Sacralization of future societies, fanatical hopes which necessarily end in disillusion

do not befit the Christian. What befits him is hope that the Lord will come, a hope

which encourages him to keep his light burning and thus make this world a brighter

place to live in.

12

“Christianity and Marxism”

Father P. Nemeshegyi, S.J. The problem of the relationship between Marxist Communism and Christianity is the most

important problem facing the Church today; it has, of course, a quite special relevance in the

divided countries of Asia.

Today the Marxist camp does not form a monolithic block any more (the Sino-Soviet rift; a greater

independence of the Communist parties in the "free world”; the activity of "unorthodox" marxist scholars, etc.) Thus, numerous Christians are taking a new attitude towards Communism. Pius XI

affirmed that "a catholic cannot be a socialist" and this affirmation has still been quoted by John XXIII in “Mater et Magistra”; but today many Catholics join socialism, and some theologians and

Christian activists maintain that today a Catholic not only can but also must be a socialist.

On this question Paul VI has made an authoritative statement in "0ctogesima Adveniens” (1971). The Pope says:

The Christian who wishes to live his faith in a political activity that he thinks of as service cannot

without contradicting himself adhere to ideological systems that radically or substantially go

against his faith and his concept of man. He cannot adhere to the Marxist ideology, to its atheistic

materialism, to its dialectic of violence and to the way it absorbs individual freedom in the

collectivity, at the same time denying all transcendence to man and his personal and collective

history; nor can he adhere to the liberal ideology that believes it exalts individual freedom by

withdrawing it from every limitation, by stimulating it through exclusive seeking of interest and

power, and by considering social solidarities as more or less automatic consequences of individual

initiatives, not as an aim and a major criterion of the value of social organization" (26). "Some

Christians are today attracted by socialist currents and their various developments. They try to

recognize therein a certain number of aspirations that they carry within themselves in the name of

their faith. They feel that they are part of that historical current and wish to play a part within it. Now this historical current takes on, under the same name, different forms according to different

continents and cultures, even if it drew its inspiration, and still does in many cases, from ideologies incompatible with faith. Careful judgment is called for. Too often Christians who are attracted by

socialism tend to idealize it in terms that, apart from anything else, are very general: a will for justice, solidarity, and equality. They refuse to recognize the limitations of the historical socialist

movements, which remain conditioned by the ideologies from which they originated. Distinctions must be made to guide concrete choices between the various levels of expression of socialism: a

generous aspiration and a seeking for a more just society, historical movements with a political

organization and aim, and an ideology that claims to give a complete and self-sufficient picture of

man. Nevertheless, these distinctions must not lead one to consider such levels as completely

separate and independent. The concrete link that, according to circumstances, exists between them

must be clearly marked out. This insight will enable Christians to see the degree of commitment

possible along these lines, while safeguarding the values, especially those of liberty, responsibility

and openness to the spiritual, which guarantee the integral development of man" (31). “While,

through the concrete existing forms of Marxism, one can distinguish various aspects . . ., it would

be illusory and dangerous to reach a point of forgetting the intimate link that radically binds them

together, to accept the elements of Marxist analysis without recognizing their relationships with

ideology, and to enter into the practice of class struggle and its Marxist interpretations, while failing

to note the kind of totalitarian and violent society to which this process leads" (34).

13

Following these indications of the Pope, I would like

1) to analyze the reasons of the great attraction exercised on people by Marxism;

2) to point out the negative elements of the Marxist ideology’

3) to indicate the task of Christians in the face of this movement.

1. The attraction of Marxism is due to the following facts:

1) Marxism presents a humanistic ethic: man should never be treated as a means for

production or power-interests, but as an end; the forces of nature and of the economy are to be put at the service of man.

2) Marxism insists on the basic equality of men, an equality which is not only theoretical, but practical, realized also in the field of economics. Capital and hereditary privileges are tools

for social discrimination and should be abolished 3) Marxism proclaims that the present unjust situation in which man is alienated can be

changed and should be changed. It offers also a practical strategy and tactics for the

realization of this change through a well-disciplined common actiobn.

4) Marxism creates strongly united communities, bound together by a common goal and by

service. They are practicing self-criticism and offer the possibility of repentance and pardon

to the “erring brother”.

5) Marxism proposes the hope of a future this-worldly paradise, a future of un-believable

beauty and brightness”, “the great harmony”(Mao), when men will be reconciled with

nature and with one another.

These elements of Mar ism are the cause of its paradoxical relation to Christianity: 1) on the one

side many of these elements are derived not from a materialistic world view, but from a prophetic

Judeo-Christian view of history (the value of man as an end; the basic equality of all men’ the

relation of the individual towards the future happiness,, etc.); 2) on the other side Marxists vehemently reject Christianity (and all religion), saying that religion alienates man and blunts his

energies by promising an unreal, other wordly bliss and by consecrating and justifying the present “status quo”. It is a great tragedy of the modern world, that XIX century Christianism (and often

even today’s Christianism) could appear to people as a force of anti-humanitarian and anti-progressive obscurantism.

We cannot deny that the above-mentioned elements of Marxism contain great positive values –

these values, and not its bleak and mythical materialism, are the cause of the attraction of Marxism.

But in the concrete form that Marxism has taken from the very beginning, these elements become

twisted on account of a totalitarian ideology: Marx and the Marxists are persuaded that they

coincide with the all-embracing one Absolute (i.e. with the dialectically and necessarily self-

evolving matter and society) and that their party – through its highest organs – possesses an

infallible insight into the workings of this Absolute. From this ideological totalitarianism many

elements of the Marxist movement logically follow elements which are radically evil. The most

important ones are the following:

1) As the future communist society is considered to be the unique absolute, it constitutes for

Marxists the unique norm of morality: everything helping its realization is good, permitted, and

even obligatory; everything hindering its realization is wrong. The other usual norms of

morality, e.g. to tell the truth, to keep agreements, not to kill innocent people, etc. are evacuated. This makes dialogue and contact with orthodox Marxists very difficult.

14

2) Objective truth is not regarded as a value in itself: all communication takes the form of

propaganda (brainwashing, slandering, “name-calling”, attaching sublime names as

“liberation”, “peace-movement”, etc.) to partisan activities, etc.

3) Hatred and violence are fostered as a necessary motive and form of action. )”Universal love is

impossible”, “there is no common human nature, but only class-nature”, wars fought for victory

of communism are “most just wars” – Mao).

4) An immediate connection between human individuals and an Absolute (God), different from the party-interpreted absolute of dialectics, is frowned upon and gradually eliminated.

5) The Marxist conception of the future is intrinsically contradictory (if dialectics are the very essence of being, there cannot exist a last, perfect, uncontradictory stage) and unsatisfactory

(being finite and excluding transcendence, it leaves the human heart deeply dissatisfied).

These five elements appear everywhere, where a Marxist society has been built, and they are keenly felt by people living under communist rule. It is most astonishing that so many people in the West

seem not to notice them .

What should be the Christian attitude in the face of this Marxism:

1) Regarding our relationship with the communist:

a) We, as disciples of Christ, have to follow the words of Jesus: “Love your enemies, do good

to those who hate you, bless those who curse you and pray for those who mistreat you” (Lk

6, 27-28). Never should we fall into the deadly circle of hatred and vengeance.

b) We should keep our lucidity while treating with them: on the one hand we know that,

notwithstanding all ideological indoctrination, the voice of conscience can never be

completely stifled, and the workings of grace can never be completely silenced, - so we can

hope that even Marxists will change and overcome the negative and deadly elements of their system; but on the other hand we must know what the real tenets and principles of the

communist ideology are, and must not be duped by them (the sad fate which befell the “third forces” in the process of communist takeovers should be a warning).

2) Regarding our general attitude:

a) We must realize the coincidence of being, knowledge and love in God: all creatures exists because God knows and loves them; God’s glory is the living man; he committed to man

the work of evolving creation; he gives himself to us, so that he himself loves men through

our heart; he wants us to be both sons of heaven and sons of the earth, who – renewed by

the Spirit – love his creatures; he is the “dues simper maior”, who is not sacralizing given

situations, but drawing at each moment men and society to a “greater justice”.

b) We must always remember that there is an immediate connection between each man and

the absolute God: this Absolute meets us in the “naked face” of our unprotected neighbor:

in him and through him, we will be judged.

c) We must work efficaciously for a society built on the four columns of truth, justice, love,

and freedom, against all lies, injustices, indifference, hatred and oppression; a society of

solidarity, of basical practical equality and participation. We have to do this not because

such an effort will be appreciated by communists or because it will keep communists away,

but because if we do not do it, we are not Christ’s disciples (GS 1)

d) We must learn from the Communists (1) that man’s concrete situation in society influences very strongly his thoughts, and

therefore Christians will think in terms of justice if they will share by their life in the situation of those who are deprived of justice,

15

(2) that declarations and sermons are futile, if concrete steps are not taken to build a more

human and Christian world, and if the concrete way to be a disciple of Jesus today is

not shown.

(3) that Christians should be stimulated by the charity of Christ at least to an energetic and

self-sacrificing life, at least as much as the Communists are stimulated in their activities

by their ideology.

(4) that man cannot live without hope, and that Christians should be therefore the apostles of the one, real, eternal hope which never fails: “in te Domine speravi, non confundar

in aeternum.”

16

THEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS

Fr. Adolfo Nicolas, SJ

We keep as a living idea of these two weeks what Bishop Labayen said of the role of the Church which is the same as Christ’s role. But before getting into it I would like to say a couple of words

about the meaning of these theological reflections. In the first place I am not going to present a system of thought. It will be very easy to come up with theories but it would not help us much

now. Second I want to make it clear that I am not going to try to say everything. I do not want to worry about changing everything at once. I will try to talk about the concrete problems that are

coming up in the discussions. Third, I do not pretend to have a 100% objective and absolute theology. There are no such theologies. As Mr. Maejima said every theology is situated and is under

the influence of ideologies, concrete questions, concrete experiences and cultures. He used Galilee

and Jerusalem as tow symbolic expressions of this situation of theological reflection. Every society

and every man is ruled by a concrete set of symbols and I hope that being aware of it and

acknowledging it might be a way of overcoming it. We always interpret what we experience and

from this concrete interpretation we challenge others. Like that theology can fulfill its role of

making others think. And first we do not intend to teach anybody anything. We are learning from

life, faith and history and if we are allowed to quote Mao, theoreticians are supposed to give back to

the people in another way what they are saying without order. That is why theology here is made by

all of you with the data you bring, your life, questions, even your applause or your criticisms. The

important thing is to listen to the Spirit who is living in the midst of men and action and try to be

obedient to him. So that is why I am going to given you back the lessons I learned form you.

First Lesson

Theology begins where people are. We cannot come from the clouds with thunder and big words. God communicates Himself to me right there where men are living and suffering. That was the way

of the prophets and the way Christ gave us the message of God’s love. We are not going to be asked whether we like or not, or whether we agree or not with the situation in which people find

themselves. Our question is what is God telling those people and what does God want to tell them through ourselves. Yesterday there was a talk about farmers, their union, work, their becoming

human and the question came up whether this is enough. Can men be happy with material

improvement? The answer is no. People are asking themselves again and again about the quality of

life and about the meaning of their existence. Every achievement produces a new question and this

is the process of theology. That is what happened to the Apostles in their progressive understanding

of the mystery of Christ, on the way from Galilee to Jerusalem and from Jerusalem to the end of the

world. Or if we take a look from Jerusalem to Emmaus and back to Jerusalem and to the end of the

world.

Second Lesson

If we can say that God’s ways are very concrete we have to add that His style is Incarnation.

“Hebrews I, 1, Matthew’s Emmanuel, John III”, God loved the world so much that He sent His only

begotten Son… to the fields, to work or labor, to the slums. Our question then should be whom do we love like God loved us. Bishop Labayen said yesterday that the poor, the weak and the

oppressed are the place of encounter with God. Now how can we know their questions, their problems and their sufferings? We were told yesterday that this can be done only through personal

contact, dialogue, through nearness in any form. Incarnation tells us something very important that

17

modern anthropology and psychology are rediscovering, but which was very old in the Orient: that

is that we cannot reduce men’s understanding to the senses of the intellect but that we understand

reality through the body: “Embodied vision.” We look at the world from the place we are in, from

our circumstances, from our environment, historical and cultural. Even Christ we understand from

our own little limited bodies. In a sense we could say that Christian theology is a theology of the

body: Incarnation – Resurrection of the body – the Eucharist – the Church which is the Body of

Christ – the last Judgment in Matthew XXV as a question about what we did for people who were suffering in their bodies.

Third Lesson

The concrete people with whom we live in Asia are a people looking for justice. There is plenty of

oppression: the oppression of ignorance, materialism, political manipulation, production, poverty, injustice, etc. There is a cry that makes people suffer; a cry that has moved many of those present

here to answer them and dedicate themselves to them. And this pattern of cry and response is a

pattern we find in the Prophets of the Old Testament. To know Yahweh is to respond to this cry:

Jeremiah XXII, 16; Josea II 21-32; Chap. IC 1, 2; Chap. VI 4-6; Chap. XIV 4; Isaiah I, XI 1-9;

Habacuc II 14, etc. To know Yahweh is to do justice and righteous to the poor and the indigent; so

much so that if there is no justice there can be no cult because if there is no justice Yahweh is not

there but we are relating to an idol made of our own convenience. We will have to face always the

challenge of the living God. In that sense we can take a sentence we have from Mr. Maejima. He

said that oppressed minorities in Japan can teach the Japanese who they are. We could continue

saying that oppressed people in Southeast Asia can teach the Japanese not only who they are but

who God is.

Fourth Lesson

We have to refer at the end to the sapiential depth of the faith of the Church. The process always

starts with the signs of the times: from the Old Testament to the New up to the present. Christ spoke about hargvest, autumn, and changes in the weather. Yesterday we were told about storks, fishes,

and deterioration of life. We should recall again the words of Christ “When you see those things, understand that” … human life is getting worse. The signs of the times teach us about sin and about

grace. But sometimes we do not know where to look and what to see; not even the farmers themselves or the workers know what they want and what they should aspire to.

In those times we have to search in the depths of our faith, in the Scripture, in the living word of

God for new inspiration that will bring new hope where we thought we had non. We need the

challenge of Scripture to take us from despair and alienation. Where our calculations cannot reach,

there we have the newness of the life of God coming to us in history in the way of justice.

Fifth Lesson

Before finishing, one word about the question of ideologies that came up this morning in the

discussion. We have to face three problems. A) What is the Gospel? B) What is ideology? C) How

do they relate?

B) Ideology: There are many definitions. Bishop Labayen proposed “rationalization of a given system.” In that definition a negative aspect comes to the fore. There are other definitions that

try to stress positive aspects. For instance, “rational explanation of reality”, which becomes very soon a total rational explanation of reality which in the dynamics of ideology becomes

18

again a closed total rational explanation of reality. The key point in this is its origin. It comes up

as a hypothesis which becomes soon generalized to become a total explanation under which

everything is included. That happens with Capitalism, Communism and every other ism.

A) On the other hand, the Gospel is a history: the history of Israel, the history of Christ, the history

of the Church. It is a history that is being interpreted and experienced as history of salvation, the

history of a God who acts in it in favor of all, especially the weak and poor ones. The work that

interprets this history is a provoking work, a provocation to all men: (All those who can listen to it). The Gospel is not an explanation but a challenge. It is not a system but a call to see

(inside) and convert and live. It is not a description of the world but a question about its ultimate meaning. It is not terminology or futurology but eschatology. It is strong point is this

eschatological aspect: the novelty of a God who acts already in history and brings it to an unexpected salvation.

B) The relationship between the Gospel and ideology will be therefore one of tension. The Gospel can never become an ideology and at the same time the Church is never going to be absolutely

free from ideologies. In a sense it is a tension between what has been called the Church of

Caesar and the Church of the Saints. (Castelli) The Church of Caesar is a Church that likes

systems, order, (in order to keep order, power), explanations (ideologies), orthodoxy (even to

persecution of heretics), security, meditation (thinking). On the other hand, the Church of the

Saints is a Church of hope, openness, freedom, commitment, incarnation, poverty and

insecurity, searching for the mystery of God and prayer. We have to realize that it is only one

Church, that the Saints themselves built the Church of Caesar, but they kept their evangelical

freedom to criticize their own creature. The relationship therefore is one of tension.

Meditations are necessary and we will always have sacraments and order, but in a critical

tension with the insecurity and liberty of the Gospel. We will deal longer on that when we come

to the political situations in a couple of days.

19

MESSAGE

AND

PROVOCATION

The Church, Faith and Politics. An Outline

LEVEL A

The ULTIMATE human experience as SOCIAL.

Man as socio-political (community) --- people of God. INSIGHT Universal brotherhood --- Children of God.

Man’s social dimension --- eschatologicaly fulfilled Human life in the world --- as transcendent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

LEVEL B

V A L U E S

H U M A N R I G H T S

Respect, freedom ….. --- Agape

Sharing, equality …. --- diakonia

Work, peace ….. --- forgiveness,

reconciliation

Rational explanations --- Theologies I D E O L O G I E S --- (schools)

(necessary, unavoidable, useful ....)

Hypothesis of life MEDIATION for our access to concrete realities

There is no decision or silences that is not loaded politically-ideologically

(Demythologization)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----

LEVEL C

Pluralism in action

PRAXIS --- Strategies, programs….

Tensions, problems, policies…

(Francis from Assisi)

Doctrine of the Church.

SAPIENTAL

function of

the Church

Reading

and

Discernment

Zone

of

prob-

lems

SIGNS

OF

THE

TIMES

CRITICISM

AND

RELATI-

VIZATION

CONCRETE

ACTION AND

SYMBOLIC

EXISTENCE

20

A FEW HINTS AND REFERENCES IN SEARCH OF

LIGHT ON THE TOPIC OF THE CHURCH,

FAITH AND POLITICS (N.B. I take for granted whatever is said in the very rich and thought-provoking papers of

Fr. J. Bulatao (Church Involvement in Politics), Mr. K. Mushakoji (Christian Political Action in the Post-Modern World) and Fr. B. Sorge (The Participation of Christians in

Political Life). I will add only a few hints which might be relevant to the topic. I

apologize from the start for the lack of system and for the poor English of these pages.

April 10, 1975, A. Nicolas)

1. I accept fundamentally Fr. Sorge’s systematization of the problem.

It might be worth noting, though, that his approach is ‘from above’, i.e. from

‘Evangelization’ to ‘politics’; from Faith to Political life. Maybe it can be fruitful to

complement it with a reflection that would go from below upwards, i.e. from the very

human and earthly reality of politics to faith and the total dimension of man’s

salvation. This is not just an academic remark but has theological implications. As Fr.

Francois Biot put it, the line: Faith --- Politics insinuates a God located in the past and

directing our action from there; while the line: Politics --- Faith relates to a God of the future calling us forward in the midst of a changing reality. Naturally only a synthesis

of both lines gives the full message. Society – it is true – is something beyond the reach of the individual (a meta-personal fact), but at the same time, the individual

has ‘interiorized’ society in such a way that he cannot exist without it. ‘A man without country (or culture) is a detestable being… either he is far above human beings (a

god) or well below (some kind of a brute)… We reach humanity only through the city of men. Our Body (Incarnation again) makes us citizens and only then members of the

human race’ (P. Ricoeur).

2. We have to pass very lightly over the main presuppositions of any reflection on

Politics and Faith. We can just list some of them.

- The essentially socio-political nature of man.

- The symbolic depth and possibilities of earthly realities and specially the reality of

politics as human and societal (Cfr. The reflections of Bishop Labayen on April

the 10th)

- The socio-political dimension of Sin and Grace (Cfr. Bp. Labayen)

- The meaning of Christ for the whole of history and human life, in all its aspects

and dimensions.

- The Christian theology of History and its Eschatological Tension (Cfr. Fr. Nemeshegyi’s remarks on the ‘Already’ and ‘Not Yet’ of salvation).

- The new awareness in our modern world and the Christian communities. There has been a switch from ‘repeating the right word’ (orthodoxy) to ‘acting it’

(orthopraxis), from the social to the political… and even a visible transit from the convent to the political prisons (a phenomenon which, by the way, is not new in

the history of the Church). -

3. Christian political action has a history.

21

There are many opinions about Christ’s political commitment (Cfr. Cullmann Laurentin,

Biot, etc). He appears clearly aloof from small party politics. But it would be very hard to

deny the political relevance of is life, message, actions and death. Was it because he was

well above ‘politics’?, or was it because he touched the very core of what politics is all

about?. I would be inclined to take the second choice (some remarks will appear below

when we hint at the political meaning of Apocalyptic). He never took sides for or against

limited choices on irrelevant issues: it was all too superficial, after all. But He took sides for men, the little ones, justice and sharing, liberation from sin and also from the

oppression of the religious and political rulers of the time…; and against the causes of it all: He wasn’t indifferent towards riches, hardness of heart, foolish piling up of riches,

abusive use of power… So much so that He had to die in order that the whole people would be saved: from his freedom and his menace to the establishment.

The history of the Church is well known. There has been no period in history when the

Church was not involved politically. It could not be otherwise. Because it could never

cease to be social, communitarian, committed… and that means ‘political’.

4. It might help to transcribe here J. Guichard’s analysis of political and religious

practice and their inter-relation in a summary way:

CLASS SITUATION POLITICAL PRAXIS RELIGIOUS PRAXIS

Reactionary

Political action is

reactionary and fascist

Religious integrism or

instrumentalization of religion.

Active rejection of any reform

or change inside the Church.

They go even against the

Hierarchy if they consider it

‘reformist’.

Conservative

Acceptance of present

social structures.

Total apolitism or political

action of the ‘right’.

Religious conformism

Formalistic practices that secure

moral stability and eternal life.

---------- Piety is interior and reaches

predominantly the inner domain of private life.

Reformist

Here too acceptance of

existing social

structures

Apolitism or centrist.

Social action very militant

but framed by the existing

social structures

Piety is still interior as above

--------

Religious reformism with such

respect for institutional

structures and dogmatic

framework: modernization of the liturgy, lay participation.

etc….

Revolutionary Social activity of Religious reformism… as

22

In contradiction with

existing social

structures

disconformity

Political revolutionary

action

above. (some groups, people…)

--------

Non-conformism inside the

Church (other groups…);

challenge to traditional

institutions, the functions of the

ecclesiastic set up, and to the

ideological framework in which is faith actually expressed.

Search for new communities that embody this vision.

---------

At the extreme, radical rejection and at times atheism…

5. It will be good here to recall the outline we gave out three days.

The Church (Hierarchy, communities, individual members ….) finds itself faced with

very concrete situations on the one hand, and a very challenging and demanding ‘Word’ on the other. There is a call to Total Salvation in a context of concrete partial, painful

‘damnations’, (the hell of war, the ‘Examination hell of Japanese students’, the hell of inhuman working conditions…). Her problem is what to do here and now. The point we

want to make in this respect is that there is no direct way from the insight of Faith or Christian charity to the concrete action or strategies to be taken in a given situation. We

are forced to proceed through MEDIATIONS. There is a tension between the p resent and the future; the present we have inherited and the future we want to create; the power and

freedom we are given and the power and freedom we consider necessary for a fully

human life (because as somebody said ‘power and freedom are not there as a given object

but must be created).

The point is therefore that we cannot move on to act without an INTERPRETATION of

the present moment. And that requires a very careful and technical socio-political analysis of the situation. We need the mediation of scientific analysis to know how things are and

what are the concrete possibilities for a creative new political commitment. It will always be a danger for the Church to jump all too quickly from a theological insight into

irresponsible action without due account of the complex intricacies of the present

moment. Or equally irresponsibly into a meaningless silence void of hope and light.

The wrong process would then be: (a) The insight of faith, freedom, total salvation; (b)

the pressure of a non-illuminated ‘GOOD WILL’; (c) concrete action: improvised and

irresponsible. Not seldom Christian groups have been manipulated by ideological groups

because of this.

The right process could go like that: (a) Insight; (b) a critical analysis of the present

reality (with good will as the general attitude, of course); this analysis will of necessity be

mediated by ideological elements (a vision of the world, of society, of human life; values

and principles.. preferences in respect to democratic, socialistic or totalitarian

23

organization of the State… etc). Absolutely objective analysis is so impossible as it is to

pretend to change society without a vision of the future.

This analysis is the challenge of politics to faith. We cannot avoid it because right there

we are supposed to find the SIGNS OF THE TIMES. This is just what the Prophets did.

And they appear more realistic politically than we might expect. There is an EXODUS

pattern applied to the socio-political action of the present Church. Moses, Egypt, the Red Sea… the breaking of slavery and oppression… This pattern is very Biblical and central

in the whole message of Scripture up to the Paschal Mystery. But at the same time, we have another pattern: the EXILE. Jeremiah (29, 1-9) encourages his people not to revolt

but to cooperate(!), not to guerrilla warfare but to construction and settlement: Make yourselves good houses because you are going to be here for a long while… And this

pattern is in line with Joseph, Daniel and Mardocheus. Should we call it ‘collaboration with the oppressors’ or rather ‘realistic respect for the gift of God that is LIFE’? What to

do then? This is a call to enlightened reading of the signs of the times.

6. From all the above hints and the other documents we could take as a reasonable point

of agreement that the Christian and the Church are political beings and have to take a

political stand. Or in other words, have to be aware that they are politically meaningful,

whatever action they take or attitude they try to develop. The Christian is supposed to

take a political commitment. Faith does not tell him which concrete commitment, but he

has to take one. Unless he wants to give up his vocation to be a man among man and for

them. Reconciliation is not realized through ignoring the conflicts but only overcoming

them. We might dislike the words and the realities, but as long as this is the world we

have our negligent ignorance cannot be but unchristian.

7. Since most of the problems are very concrete and often we are asked to act, speak or take political responsibilities, it might be useful to present here in a summary way what

different Authors have to say about the concrete action of the Church in the realm of politics (at least the points considered more reasonable):

a) Still at the level of theory, we have to respect the autonomy proper to the political

realities. Technical analysis and the complexities Prof. Mushakoji mentions in his paper are of primary importance. What Fr. Sorge calls: The specificity of politics.

Against Confusionism.

b) At the same time we have to keep human life integrated. Politics and faith are not

unrelated dimensions of man. Integration against dualism or, in Fr. Sorge’s words:

continuity.

c) The Christian has to go to the depths of politics and not just stop at the first,

superficial level of visibility, change of structures, and the like. The Christian

revolution reaches beyond the visibility of secondary reforms. Bloch’s principle:

“What is cannot be true” can give us a pointer. The eschatological dimension of

Christian hope can offer a constant challenge to the political process. ‘Permanent

disinstallation’ as a program. The Church has to look at politics with a

SAPIENTAL onlook. The Wisdom that is critical, pedagogical, illuminating… An

inner look, different from the ‘Deus ex machina’; the light that is found inside the

very essence of politics where God acts. And at the same time, the wisdom that educates HUMOR in the midst of tension.

d) Christian politics (if such expression has any meaning) is eschatological: some kind of critic utopia; the challenge of the Promises always there as the future we

24

search for but never dominate because is total and comes from God’s liberating

salvation. This keeps every Christian somehow restless (like the Prophets of old),

critical of his own present. “The Christian that does not protest seems to be happy

with a world of evil and injustice… which is contrary to the Gospel” (Braaten).

This eschatological dimension can be outlined in what C. Braaten calls ‘The

politics of Apocalyptic’ and which he claims was Jesus’ politics. He summarizes it as “Creative negativity” and develops along the following lines:

� A concept of ‘total change’. Breaking with the present ‘order’.

� A concept of ‘the demonism or politics’ and the need to exorcise it critically. � Alertness towards the Signs of the Times.

� The urgency of total (in every dimension) conversion. � Absolute commitment to ‘total love’ (Cfr. Fr. Nemeshegyi’s remarks).

� A proletarian principle of the Gospel: the poor and humble.

� A change of fortunes: the last will be the first.

� The pain of giving birth to a new future.

e) We have to move in the direction of politics of Humanity, of the whole world, of

the cosmos: man and his environment. It is a question of ‘open loyalties’ beyond

our group, our Nation, our churches…(Ward)

f) The Christian way is the ‘politics of messianism’, but understanding Messianism

the way Christ did, as the service of the little ones, the last ones, the weak, sinners,

marginated, despised… It is not the conquest of ‘Power OVER’ others, but the use

of ‘power FOR’ other, the power of weakness, of ‘suffering with’, of sharing…

of the CROSS. This is the only political way that can breed UNIVERSALISM.

g) Finally, the Church has to discern strategies. Love is action and very concrete at that (Nemeshegyi). But it has to be discerned. Good will is not enough. Principles

are not enough. Discernment will come loaded with risks and dangers. Only love, illuminated and responsible, can take so many risks with the hope of the God of

the promises and the Resurrection. h) The Church has to explore also the hidden but extremely powerful possibilities of

her life and self-expression as SYMBOLIC. It is through symbols that the life of the Church develops as a believing community and it is through symbols that the

Church is politically relevant in a given Society. There are times when symbolic

action is much more powerful than imposing but anodine institutions or incensed

public utterances. Maybe one could even say that the political relevance of Christ

came through this embodied manifestation (symbolic) of that ‘something

different’ that dismantled all the institutional absolutes. Symbols testify to

MacLuhan’s principle that ‘the Medium is the message’; at least in highly human

situations. Let’s develop it more.

8. We take here symbols as realities (words, gestures, actions, systems, styles, etc…)

which of themselves refer to a hidden meaning beyond its actual visibility. Exile can

symbolize alienation from God and sin. A deep bow before a person can symbolize

allegiance or respect. A smile, friendship. A big building, power. A military summary

trial, the need to sacrifice the most important human rights for the security of the Country under the menace of impending danger… etc….

25

Sociologists stress the fact that a society “arises in, continues to exist through the

communication of significant symbols” (Duncan). Revolutionaries know that the success

of their revolutions depends in great part of the control of Mass Media – the transmitters

of symbols to the population. Even Mao tells his people that the success of revolution

depends on the control of symbols. Symbols accompany us all through our lives:

affection, protection, punishment, order, fear, humor, joy, community, patriotism, etc…

They educate us, indoctrinate us, brain wash us, punish us… and when Mass Media are at the service of consumerism or any ideology, symbols manipulate us too.

Politics too has to grow and live on symbols: democrats shake hands, dictators offer

military parades, technocrats promise growth, color TV sets, cars and unlimited happiness…

How these symbols are not random, they are connected; they are connected in such a way

that the whole of society is harmoniously integrated in a wide net of related symbols:

happiness and punishment, family and State, education and success, values and economic

growth… They exist in what has been called ‘Symbolic universe’ (a term applied to the

different religions).

Now the Jewish society of the first century had also its symbolic universe. Christ

challenged it in such a radical way that he had to die. We too live in a world ruled by

different symbolic systems and with a network of communications selling out at an

unprecedented speedy rhythm a vast amount of useless trivial symbols which are

trivializing human life. Our Christian life, our message, our services, etc. have to become

a biggest menace to this symbolic alienation of men. Our symbols are political in the

richest sense of the word. To forget it or ignore it can be a tremendous loss for the Gospel

and for the multitudes.

And at the same time it can also give us a cue for times of emergency. There are times when the Church cannot speak, when Bishops have to be silent and words might mean

people’s lives. We still have powerful symbols to keep the message alive and faith active. Christ spoke before the crowds and before religious authorities; He also shut up before

Herod and Pilate and this silence is most significant. There are times when the responsible symbolic, meaningful silence; the kind of silences that make the day heavy

and the night seems never to come to an end.

9. One more point as a reference. It is something being considered by a few theologians

and has close connections with what was just said. It has to do with the Eucharist. People

ask whether the Eucharist itself has any political relevance, or on the contrary is a-

political. The answer has to be carefully elucidated through the study of symbols –

sacraments – its mystery – its eschatological dimension – the practice of the early Church

as presented in 1 Corinthians, etc… (We cannot deal with it here).

26

A FEW SUMMARY REMARKS ON THE SO

CALLED “THEOLOGY OF LIBERATION”. For the sake of fairness.

Fr. A. Nicolas, S.J.

Introductory Note: We can admit from the start the ambiguity of the word ‘Liberation’ and of the expression: ‘Theology of’. At the same time we should not forget that one of

the most abused words in history is LOVE, one of the most obscure is SALVATION and one of the most misunderstood is GOD. We have to use words and by necessity they will

be either abstract (and therefore disincarnated) words or concrete, incarnated (and

consequently ambiguous: like ‘substance’, ‘person’, diakonia, etc)

In the following lines I’ll present the points that I consider valid and meaningful for our

reflection. I do not take responsibility for whatever is said under the cover of

‘Liberation”. I take the responsibility of the following considerations.

It is wroth noting there that ‘Theology of Liberation’ is not ‘Theology of Revolution’, is

not to be confused with outright violence, political theology, or whatever comes under

non-conformist labels.

1. METHODOLOGY

Theology, besides being ‘Sapiential knowledge’ or ‘Rational knowledge’ should be a

critical reflection on the Christian praxis. It is not pure speculation; it is not a ‘one way’ process. It lives between two poles that refer to each other: The Word of God

challenging and creating history – and creating history – and the socio-analytical contents of the social and human sciences that challenge and criticize our way of reading the

Word of God. This dialogue is done in the midst of Christian life as the concrete praxis of charity. Charity comes first; theology later as a critical reflection – because we are

‘socially and ideologically’ situated, even in the exercise of live.

Important to distinguish three levels in liberation: The political level: concrete

aspirations of oppressed peoples. The philosophico-anthropological level: the process of

history towards human liberation. The theological level was the total liberation in Christ;

the eradication of the last roots of injustice, sin, alienation… Now, these three levels

interact. It is impossible to find a pure theology. Nothing really human is outside man’s

total liberation. It is important here to integrate the social and political aspects of human

life, sin and grace. The distinction is proposed as a help to clarity but not as a division of

man.

The actual process in conflictive situations will include – under the all embracing

fundamental insights of Christianity (Christ, grace, etc):

- A socio-economic-political analysis: rational reading of reality. - A certain option for concrete political options (silent or explicit). Here there is an

ethical plus: human rights, justice, universality, etc… - Concrete strategic steps to be taken.

27

Accepted pluralism and self-criticism will prevent this process from becoming again an

‘Imperialistic theology of the left’. New Constantinisim.

2. COMMON BIBLICAL REFERENCES

GOD. A God without images. A Name that speaks to the hearts and calls for a new life, new people, justice and freedom.

This God is known in the cries of the poor and the weak. (Hos. Is. Hab).

Without justice there is no cult. In this He differs from the Baalim.

HISTORY. – The EXODUS from Egypt.

The COVENANT as the meaning of the Exodus. A new free people.

The PROMISES opening always a new history.

God’s ACTION for justice: reward and punishment in this context.

The PROPHETS as witnesses of this all.

The END as the realization of Justice for all.

JUSTIFICATION in St. Paul. Sin and salvation as supra-individual (meta-personal)

realities. ‘Powers and dominations…’. ‘This generation, this aeon, this world…

RESURRECTION as a universal salvation. All encompassing and cosmic.

3. GENERAL THEOLOGICAL THEMES. (Assmann, Gutierrez, Segundo…)

SALVATION: Sin as a total reality and salvation as God’s total plan in history. There is

only one history. Creation is the first act of salvation. The history of Israel is a continuous work of salvation – liberation with recurring political overtones: Liberation from Egypt,

from war and defeat, from the Exile, from oppression, … Christ is announced as the messianic Saviour. The horizons of salvation are now narrowed to one aspect of human

life (be it spiritual) but widened to the fullness of Salvation.

HISTORY as the place of encounter with God. There is a process: the mountains where

God is met – the temples where he dwells – men where he lives. From a place, a people, a

building… to the whole world of men.

God’s justice in men and Christ’s life in men. Mat. 25. Love of God in the love of one’s

neighbour: The Good Samaritan. A Spirituality of liberation like toe one in Mary’s

Magnificat.

CHRISTOLOGY (L. Boff). Christ preached the Kingdom as total structural change in

the life and minds of people. God is already at work. Miracles, exorcisms, parables,

sermons… all point to a new way of living. He overcame the temptation to

compartmentalize the Kingdom: either to mere wellbeing or to sheer political power, or to

his own glory. He tries to liberate people form the oppression of the law, of social conventionalisms, of individual and social egotism.. He promises the coming liberation

from poverty, tears, persecution.. He liberates for the whole exercise of his commandment

28

of love. A total revolution in the world of the person: the Kingdom lives in the exercise of

Charity, forgiveness, healing, etc…

Jesus brought theology to the streets: He made it easier, ordinary, liberating. His Death

has to be understood in the historical process in which it took place. Theological

considerations should not disguise the socio-political implications it had. The powerful

men of his time could not take so much freedom and love, he was politically meaningful and challenging.

It is worth considering the fact that Matthew and Luke present Jesus as the new Moses,

the new Liberator. It should not therefore be a problem for us the fact that in today’s world this aspect is more emphasized than in previous ages. This does not take anything

out of the depth of Christ’s mystery.

HOPE AND ESCHATOLOGY. (Gutierrez, Alves…). Judeo-christian hope is a hope

that begins and expresses itself in history. It comes out most clearly when man experience

alienation and oppression. It is not theoretical or a purely after-life supplement to a well

ordered world. It is something that changes the world itself as we experience it now, in

injustice and alienation. It promises a new world, which is a new creation, a new future, a

new people. There is a tension: ALREADY --- NOT YET. BUT at the same time this

hope is different from the hope of political humanism. We do not begin with man and his

limited powers, but with God’s transcending power that creates and gives life to dead

bones. We do not rely on statistics and human success but go beyond it to the freedom

that is being offered even when everything else collapses. Christians hope rejects equally

the romantic irrealism of a hope without historical reality (analysis, etc), and the cynical

realism of a history without hope. Which means that only in history can we talk about

hope (inmanence) and only in God’s future can we find the fullness of our history (transcendence).

There is therefore a political dimension to Christian hope. To ignore it could make

Christian hope irrelevant, if only because it puts Christianity outside the walls of history. Suffering – both ours and God’s – is very concrete and so is the hope to overcome it.

Finally Christ’s liberation in hope (Death and Resurrection) is a liberation for our present: the beginnings of a new life, the possibility of celebrating the anticipated future… etc.

And a liberation for the future because it takes the fear of death and thus makes it possible

for man to risk everything in the building of a new future for all men.

4. The Church and Liberation. (Gutierrez, Asmann, Segundo, Dussel, Mons. Pironio,

Mons. Proano…)

The Church as Sacrament of Salvation in History is already a common topic in present

day theology. She is supposed to be a living message, a sign (a symbol), sacrament of the

new liberated, loving, universal community of reconciled men and women. Her

sacramental transparency would then demand that she commits herself to the liberation of

others, besides her own members.

The Eucharist is the sacrament of Christ’s Body, of human fraternity. The celebration has in itself a great power to announce the coming reconciliation and at the same time to

‘denounce’ the present injustice and alienation. Without love there is no Eucharist. Also

29

without Justice there is no reconciliation and the sign can become a sacrilege. Something

of this sort happened at the community of Corynth.

The Church has the double function of living God’s grace in history on the one hand and

realizing the sanctification of men (answer to God’s grace) on the other. This is one single

reality which has too social implications. The critical function of unmasking sin in all its

forms and the positive function of inspiring prophetically a new humanity: social grace.

POVERTY should be her style. Not to be reduced to purely material poverty nor to purely spiritual considerations or detachment. Poverty is a very concrete reality in our

world. Poverty can be alienating, dehumanizing … and a scandal. The poverty of the Church has to be centered in Christ and take the form of solidarity and protest.

Solidarity with the poor in order to help them, or better, together with them come out of poverty.

5. Concrete strategic problems. (same Authors)

In this point the problem of method is most important. We have to be aware of the

mediations: analysis and ideologies. It will come up to a problem of ‘faith and

discernment’. We can be equally naïve towards the manipulations of others as to the

influence of our own uncritical presuppositions (like for instance: an individualistic view

of sin or grace, oversimplification of our understanding of love, the negative emotional

weight of words like liberation, politics, criticism, resistance, etc….).

It might be interesting in this respect to suggest a very careful study and analysis of the

issues before labeling or rashly condemning any statement related to issues like: Violence

– Class struggle – Christians for Socialism… and similar issues….

One last problem at this level is the concrete pastoral direction of the Church, which at this moment might take the line of the so called ‘Conscientization’. Education, pastoral

directives, etc. can be the place where the Christian awareness of coming generations and present growing communities can be guided towards an integral understanding of

Christian life in the world.

6. Can we all profit from this ‘Theology’?

Evidently.

At the level of our own Christian social awareness.

At the level of our international responsibility as citizens of this world.

At the level of our educational institutions.

At the pastoral level: directives, programs, celebrations…

In order to develop our critical function in Society.

In order to criticize ourselves and our social biases.

In order to keep always open the whole dimension of Christian conversion, etc…

The final note: it is clear that when stressing these aspects the Theologians of Liberation do not intend to reduce the Christian message or leave aside the important elements of our

Christian Mystery. ‘Not saying’ does not mean ignoring or denying.

30

APPENDIX: The Decalogue of the ‘Theology of Liberation’. (Glz. Faus).

1. History is the privileged place of encounter with God.

2. Inside history the only true face of God is found in the poor.

3. Theological reflection cannot exclude the dimension of historical praxis, but this

constitutes the proper place of that very theological reflection.

4. Hope as the dynamism of liberating action does not come out of the mere analysis of the possibilities of the present but springs from faith in the liberating will of God.

5. From all this follows that the human and historical activity of man – specially of Christians – cannot be an activity oriented towards ‘having more’ but to the goal

that all men can be more. Over and above development and technology we have to give due value to the fact that man be the subject of his own destinies and the

creator of is own history. In that sense rejecting Capitalism becomes a theological axiom.

6. Liberation is authentically such only when it is freely accepted by those whose

liberation is desired. It cannot be by any means passively received from any kind of

saviour nor given ‘messsianically’.

7. The previous thesis distinguishes this theology of liberation from its European

relative: the theology of revolution, which seems to point our only to radical change,

more than to the object of this change. In this sense in the Latin American works the

final Marxist stage of the suppression of the State (together with the New Testament

polemic on the Law) is more salient than the intermediary stage of the dictatorship

of the proletariat.

8. If in this context there is a tendency to identify liberation with social justice, this

does not mean an impoverishment of the concept of liberation (always related to

the new man). It rather implies the discovery that freedom is a communitarian value

and justice a personal one. With this in mind they reject a freedom that only a few have against others and a justice that is only the perpetuation of an imposed system.

9. Understood like that, liberation can now be put in relation with the Kingdom of God. But only if we keep faithfully the idea of process (as a constant opening to the

future and a permanent disinstallation) which is the only way to speak historically of the Kingdom. From this perspective liberation could be defined as humanitarian in

process. 10. Theology of liberation is a modern chapter of spiritual theology. In it the conversion

of man is not something unrelated to the change of structures, nor simply a

consequence of them. It is rather something indispensable in order to change them

in the right way.

N.B. This Decalogue, made by Fr. Glz Fauz – Professor of Theology – is not an

evaluation, but a try to present in a concise way the main points. It should not be

taken as the last word, but as an approximate balance.

31

RELIGIOUS CONTACT IN DIVIDED COUNTRIES Taiwan, China

For years the status of the Church of all religions in Mainland China, Buddhism included,

has not been a happy one. First of all religions were taken under government tutelage. Many leaders of all religions were arrested or sent to forced labour. Ultimately the

Catholic Church was organized into a government-run patriotic Church Association, established in 1957. the red guards in August-September 19656 made a clean sweep and

got rid of all visible traces of religious life. After that no Buddhist temple or Christian church remained open.

1) There is no direct contact between Taiwan and the Mainland Catholics, except

through radio broadcasting from Taiwan to the Mainland China. The Asian Bishops’

Conference in Taipei last April proposed broadcasting by “Radio Veritas” from

Manila.

2) Reports from visitors to Mainland China: (Quoted from the Sunday Examiner)

“Robert Guilain, the well-known liberal French journalist who has visited Mainland

China several times, has written:

Since 1953 there are no more ordinations of priests in China. There are nor more

seminaries. No child is baptized; baptism is forbidden before the age of 18, which

means in effect, a complete driving up, given the regime’s control of the youth, and

the danger of braving the anti-religious directives. Catholicism is taught nowhere.

There is no more preaching. The old Catholic community of three million Chinese has been dismantled, dispersed, and deprived of its old pastors. Most of the bishops and

priests formed under the old order have become workers or peasants in the factories or the countryside. The younger ones are almost all in labour camps.”

In December 1971, Federico Allessandrini, the Vatican press officer, in an article

published in “L’Osservatore della Domenica”, the Vatican weekly magazine, said that although the Vatican is always ready to open a dialogue with Communist China, yet

so far the Holy See has received no indication that the Peking authorities wish to

participate.

Allessandrini said that an offer by Pope Paul VI five years ago to re-open contacts

with Mainland China has brought no response.

3) From the refugees now and then we hear something about the Catholics in Mainland

China. Some of them remain faithful to their parish priests by protecting and

supporting them. Some priests act as herbalists visiting Catholics from family to

family.

4) Recently a refugee came to Hong Kong with some earth from the tomb of a priest

who was killed by the Communists. It is said that the priest worked many miracles.

People come to his tomb to pray and ask for favours. They venerate him as a martyr. 5) So we can see in Mainland China, Catholics are deprived completely of religious

freedom. The situation is very sad. On behalf of our Bishops’ Conference and all Catholics in Taiwan, may we ask for your kind prayers that God would grant them the

freedom of religion, so that they may join us in worshipping our Heavenly Father.

32

REPORT OF REFUGEE SITUATION IN VIETNAM

By Fr. Mouysset, MEP

Father Mouysset has been a missionary in Cambodia for 25 years, taking

care of the Vietnamese in Cambodia. Four years ago, when the Vietnamese had to leave Cambodia, he left with them from Cambodia to

Vietnam where he is working now in the Catholic Press.

*********** Here are a few ideas about the refugees in Vietnam. Let us say that there were three

successive waves of refugees.

The first one was in 1954, after the Geneva agreement. They numbered about one million.

The exodus was well organized; they found good land; for most of them it was successful.

The second wave, at the time of the attack of Easter 1972, was a dreadful one, from

Quang Tri Province towards Hue, along route 1. They called that portion of road “Terror

Boulevard.”

The third wave is the present one, starting March 1975. They speak of one million

refugees, coming from North to South (all Vietnamese) and from West to East (what they

call the montagnards. They are different ethnics, alone for years living in the mountains).

Out of these three big waves, we may mention several other moves, for instance, in 1970

all the Vietnamese leaving Cambodia, the refugees of Phuoc Long, those of Tay Ninh and so on.

To say more, about the present exodus, most of the one million refugees are stopped on

their way towards Saigon by the rapid attack of the Viet Cong and had to turn back to their homes under Viet Cong control. For instance, 50,000 are already back from Danang

to Hue. Boats to take them up could not approach the seashore. As far as Saigon City is

concerned, the refugees were forbidden to enter the city.

Even the G.R.P. (Provisional Revolutionary Government, i.e., supposed government of

the rebels against the Saigon regime, fighting for the so-called Liberation of South

Vietnam) did not expect such a move and asked for help.

Let us take an example: The refugees camp of Bihn-Tuy. They are the 50,000 refugees of

Quang Tri in 1972 (the second wave). They were picked up for one year and a half in the

former U.S. Army camp of Danang. Fr. Etcharren looked out for a suitable place for them

and finally discovered a fitting spot. They were taken up by buses and trucks and started

what we may call a model camp: many wells for water, primary and secondary schools,

churches and new houses. But it did not last more than one year and a half until recent events. Instead of falling under communist control, they were forced to abandon

everything once more and flee to the South. Twenty thousand of them are in Bung Tau, living in awful conditions.

33

A letter from the priest who is in charge of the camp says that at the same time 100,000

refugees arrived from other areas to the camp!

(By the way, this example shows how big in the real influence and how

effective is the power of the priests in South Vietnam. People who have

visited Vietnam recently – Archbishop Shirayanagi and Fr. Milcent for

instance – were startled to see how strong is the witness of priests there.) ….Bp. Dupont

Among the refugee camps, the most miserable ones are the camps of montagnards. As

they are not Vietnamese, the Saigon government does not take enough care of them. These refugees do not even know their rights, for instance, rice during six months, and

slates to cover their shelters. Archbishop Shirayanagi of Tokyo has visited, I think one of these camps.

Eleven hundred montagnards have recently fled to Nhatrang. It would probably have

been better if they had remained in their forests in the mountains.

Even if the refugees were free to move again, where could they go, and what could the

South Vietnam government do for them! Saigon is crowded! The Mekong Delta is

crowded! Even the island of Phu-Quoc, in the Gulf of Siam, is not suitable, on account of

the lack of water! There does not remain any place to go! No more promised land!

Believe me, when you have seen these huge camps, even the best of them, the well

organized among them – and that is rare – you cannot but deplore this endless war that

brings out again and again, more and more miserable refugees. They say that in

Cambodia, half of the total population moved! For Vietnam I have no figures, but they number in millions, on account of that dreadful war that has lasted 30 years.

We do keep hope! We hope an end will come to cure the wounds and rebuild again this

poor country of Vietnam.

Questions and Answers

Bishop Chang: I was very impressed with your report. Why do you think so many

people escape from their homes, leaving their possessions? How do you explain this

phenomenon?

Answer: There are several reasons. First of all the army started to flee, so the population

itself became afraid. A deeper reason is that they fear communism, many having fled

from it in the North. According to propaganda, bombs from South Vietnam in the

liberated zones were so great that people had to escape, but I think this is only

propaganda.

Bishop Youn: Recently, I talked with some young Vietnamese and according to them

they only desire peace. To them, it is not a question of ideology. What do you think?

Answer: Of course, most people are fed up with the war and desire peace. But if you talk

to Vietnamese outside of their own country they must be the rich ones, because the poor

34

cannot escape. Many feel their leaders only want money and are not interested in helping

their people.

Bishop Tou: Do you think that most people there feel that peace can only come when

the Viet Cong take over?

Answer: I really do not know what to answer. I do not think the people fully agree with that position.

Fr.Andres: Many groups want to help the refugees. There are several possibilities open,

so what is the best way? Through Caritas, the Nunciature or COREV? Also, is it better to wait or to send aid immediately?

Answer: You may not know that a few years ago the Nunciature organized a system so

that all aid funds are channeled to one place. So if you send it to one of the organization

mentioned, they will all come to the same place. I think it is better to send it to a Catholic

organization, like Caritas or COREV because if you send it to the Red Cross, which is

government run, you do not know what happens to the money. It is better to send money

than goods, since they know what is needed there. It is better to send money now and not

wait.

Bishop Kim: You mentioned the refugee problem, but what about those who remain.

Are some showing dissatisfaction with the present government or is it because they

cannot leave? Why don’t they escape? What is their condition?

Answer: There are several reasons why some do not leave but remain under the

communist rule. Some are so poor that they cannot leave. If people have nothing to lose, they will not escape. Some may have compromised themselves with the G.R.P. and must

stay. Foreign journalists are not admitted into G.R.P. territory so we have no way of knowing what the actual condition is there.

Fr. Ri: As you see it, do you feel it is necessary to help the present South Vietnam

government? What will happen to the Church after “Liberation”?

Answer: The situation in Vietnam is so bad now that there remain little hope that the

South Vietnamese government can continue to hold the country. There is a saying there

that those who hold the mountains, hold the country. The G.R.P. have the mountains,

so…

The situation in Vietnam is different than China. Even if the government falls the Church

will continue, as it has in North Vietnam. Catholics are 10% of the population so even if

the country falls into the hands of the communists the Church’s position will not be too

bad. There are 1,000,000 Catholics in the North and 2,000,000 in the South.

Fr. Ri: If we agree with what you say then isn’t it better for the Church to help the

G.R.P. than the South Vietnam? What is your opinion on this --- outside of the refugee

problem?

Answer: Of course in the “liberated” zones there are many more refugees so humanly speaking more aid is needed there. However, if you send money to the North you cannot

35

be sure of what they will do with it, but if you send it to COREV then you can be sure

that it will be used for the refugees.

Fr. Ruiz: We have helped thousands of refugees escaping from China in Macau. We

often hear that those who escape have been involved in crimes, have been spies, or are

the rich. I do not necessarily agree with this. In South Vietnam are many of the refugees

guilty of crimes or rich and that is why they are afraid of the G.R.P.?

Answer: Some people may have committed crimes and some are rich, but the majority of the refugees are poor people, running away from the communists because they are

afraid.

Fr. Ruiz: Why are they afraid? Because of South Vietnamese propaganda or because they have experienced what it is to live under communist rule?

Answer: That the South Vietnamese have used propaganda is a fact, but many have had

real experience living under communism in the North and they are afraid.

************

Fr. Mouysset closed with saying that he agreed with everything that was written in

Bishop Thuan’s letter. He is very happy with the appeal the delegates have decided to

send. He thanked them for their concern and prayers for Vietnam.