All Comments (105)

the funny part about all of this is , the little poor woman who Jesus saw and was so touched by her tiny offering is mentioned in the bible for our benefit, and the ungodly Pharissees are given as the opposite example, funny thing being , this still happens in our day. Thank goodness our loving God reads our hearts and not our pocket books.

Rebel Girl -- I don't think the Vatican ´silenced´Jon Sobrino. They just asked him to clarify certain texts in one of his works, while praising his concern for the poor. I had always felt great respect and admiration for Jon Sobrino and identified fully with his reflections. Yet I had not even noticed said texts until the Vatican pointed them out, and they indeed surprised me. So I believe it is good that they requested a clarification. Initially, given the asasination of his 6 jesuit friends in the hosuehold he shared with them, and also of Archbishop Romero; and the previous acrimony between liberation theologians and then Cardenal Ratzinger, the warning hit utterly hard. Yet I believe Jon Sobrino is a Catholic and we all participate in the one and only, most holy and venerable body of Christ.

Thank you, Anonymous. I actually had an earlier version of "Bajar de la cruz a los pobres: Cristología de la liberación" and it did not include Fr. Sobrino's Epilogue. So that is a relatively recent addition. I will need to look at it. For others who are reading these exchanges and are interested in liberation theology and read Spanish (most of the current book is in Spanish although an all-English edition is being planned)you can download this collection of essays by some of the top theologians free from Servicios Koinonia -- Libros Digitales (http://www.servicioskoinonia.org). This collection was put together in record time in response to the notification of Fr. Sobrino as a sign of solidarity and using a medium that the Vatican cannot "silence."

Ariel asks: "...what is the goal of Jesus, then, for everyone to be poor, or everyone to be middle class, or everyone to cast off all belongings? Social justice is great, but to what extent?"

That's indeed a fundamental question you are asking. For example, if everyone had all their basic material needs met, would that be enough? Would everyone then be happy? I don't think so.

So while insuring that everyone's, and I mean everyone's, basic material needs are met (starting with life sustaining needs such as food, water, shelter...) Jesus offers much more and much deeper satisfaction. For look at all the people who actually have those needs met and yet so many of them seem to live deeply painful, senseless and selfish lives.

Knowing Jesus Christ changes all of that. He is the source of life itself. Knowing Jesus one foretastes heaven.

I haven't noticed this argument on the board yet, so I thought I'd throw my two cents in.

I remember reading somewhere or watching some History Channel documentary that described how Jesus' early followers literally believed he was returning within their lifetimes: that the "second coming" that was espoused would happen soon. I'm not sure if this was something put forth by the man himself - not being Christian, I haven't read as much of the NT as I should (being a literature scholar). However, in this case, wouldn't the idea of the lack of wealth - as well as proclamations against sex, etc. - be much in the vein that none of these earthly things mattered, because everyone would be ascending to heaven soon anyway?

I'm all for democratic socialism, and I think that Liberation Theory is an interesting and much more honorable facet of the Church instead of hoarding wealth. Reminds me a bit too much of old-school missionary work, though: bringing food, shelter, etc. to the masses while sneaking in the religion and destroying local culture. It's different if the local people are already Christian, of course.

Oh, and one more thing - what is the goal of Jesus, then, for everyone to be poor, or everyone to be middle class, or everyone to cast off all belongings? Social justice is great, but to what extent?

Rebel Girl --That was December 2006. In May 2007, Jon Sobrino wrote the epilogue to am anthology entitled «Getting the Poor Down From the Cross: Christology of Liberation».http://www.servicioskoinonia.org/LibrosDigitales/index.php

In said epilogue he remains firm on his denunciation on behalf of the poor and criticizes the Vatican's position, citing Matthew 25 or 26.

Yet he also expresses readiness to correct errors in his theology. In addition, he notes that while they share a common concern for the poor, there are also inevitable differences between Liberation Theologians.

Today Benedict XVI denounced both marxism and capitalism (in extreme forms). Sobrino, I believe rightfully, denounces capitalism in all of its forms.

I do not know that Jon Sobrino defends the position of a 'relatively' divine Jesus Christ, and neither does Benedict XVI. The warning from Benedict arose because it appears to the Vatican that in Jon Sobrino's texts Christ's humanity is emphasized over his divinity, so they requested clarification. I believe that with this epilogue Jon Sobrino has expressed an interest in further clarifying his position, and he should. So there's a dialogue going on and that is good. We are united in Christ.

To Anonymous: "Jon Sobrino and the Vatican have begun an important dialogue."??? Que gracioso! In December 2006, Fr. Sobrino, knowing that the notification from the Vatican was coming down, wrote a letter to the Jesuit superior Fr. Peter-Hans Kolvenbach so that Fr. Kolvenbach would be clear about why Fr. Sobrino had no intention of signing off on this "notification." The full text of this letter in Spanish can be found here: http://alainet.org/active/16346 among many other places on the Web.

In this letter, Fr. Sobrino defends his theology, including his writings about the relative divinity/humanity of Jesus which are perfectly within the framework of the Church's doctrine but with a different emphasis than the Vatican would prefer. Pope Benedict articulated his theological preference for a more transcendental Jesus in his remarks to the Brazilian bishops this week.

In the letter -- which is his last published statement on the subject to the best of my knowledge -- Fr. Sobrino also details the 30-year Vatican persecution campaign against himself and other liberation theologians and even concludes that these attempts to ruin his reputation are not necessarily personal but part of a campaign against liberation theology in general.

For dialogue to happen, there has to be respect and the Catholic hierarchy has not historically treated Fr. Sobrino or many of the other great liberation theologians with respect. They do not want to "dialogue" with them; they want them to shut up and go away. Unfortunately, the world looks a little different when you have worked in a poor barrio in Lima or San Salvador than when you have enjoyed all the trappings of ecclesial wealth and power for years and years. Your theological outlook changes a whole lot.

Manuel -- Who missed what point?

You missed the whole point:

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

E-Favorite --I'm sure Mary Cunningham can speak for herself but I believe her reference to the 'enlightenment´ experiment is an objection to the presumably 'enlightened advance' of reducing all possible 'knowing' to rational knowing. There is knowledge that may be revealed, not discovered through human rationality, but that does not contradict reason.

Mary Cunningham --I assume you are a Catholic like me. In essence I agree with your criticism of Marxism but not with that of liberation theology. I don't think one can so easily dismiss liberation theology and yet remain quiet on capitalism, and on the participation of catholics in a capitalist system.

Mary Cunningham - does the "Enlightenment experiment" that you think is reaching its finish include the development of science and technology?

If so, I hope you're ready to turn in your computer.

In this article Rev. Thistlewaithe espouses the Liberal view that the Church—arguably the greatest charitable institution of the last two thousand years—does not care for the poor.

But John Paul’s argument was with the Marxism and its interpretation of history. Marxism--one of the 19th and 20th century’s political faiths—after reducing all human affairs to a struggle between capital and labour, had borrowed from Hegel the idea of ‘progress’ (towards a worker state, of course). It went on to develop the idea of the selective application of force to the historical process. The actions of the Communists, at least from a 1970’s perspective, seemed to validate this approach. (It certainly appealed to liberals like the Rev. Thisthewaithe decades later.)

It was a bankrupt code and John Paul would have none of it. His philosophy was both Catholic and consistent. He opposed removing an unacceptable government by force and installing another more ‘appropriate’ one—also by force. He thus immediately called a halt to liberation theology in Latin America. Twenty years later he would just as instinctively oppose another “worthy” enterprise of removing an unacceptable government and installing a ‘better’ one—again by force. This time in Iraq.

The greatest challenge to the Church in Brazil does not come from its abandonment of “liberation theology” which anyway appealed more to liberals of the rich developed world (like Rev. Thisthewaithe et al) than the LatAm poor. It comes from the Pentacostalist movement, which emphasizes the individual’s relationship with Jesus.

All I can say is thank God JP put a stop to the Marxist-tinged liberation movement. Of course he would earn the animosity of rich women like Rev. Thisthewaithe but their religion is waning in any event as impetus behind the Enlightenment experiment finally reaches its finish.

Some here express a very limited understanding of Liberation Theology. Indeed there are several, not one, liberation theologies. Some, not all, liberation theologians have adopted positions that exist in other theological and philosophical currents, and this has complicated matters for these with the church, and injured their laudable condemnation of the systematic killing of the poor through starvation, etc.

Rebel Girl --The Vatican did not send a warning to Jon Sobrino because of his defense of the poor. Indeed, they praised him for this, and wrote that the warning should not encourage any who dismniss the Catholic Church's commitment to the poor.

The Vatican did ask for clarification on jesuit father Sobrino's teachings about the divinity and humanity of Jesus. They quoted certain texts where they believed Father Sobrino had over emphasized the humanity and under emphasized Jesus' divinity.

Thus, Jon Sobrino and the Vatican have begun an important dialogue.

Wonderful discourse on money and Christianity. I'm reminded of the old joke, "If you want to know how God feels about money, just look at who he gave it to."

I believe Rev. Thistlewaithe is a member of the Unitarian Church, which used to be--prior to the atheist revival--the ideal Christian church for those who didn't believe in Christ.

Today such liberal Protestants substitute politics for theology, but--guess what?--politicians do better politics than priests. Which is why--thank God!--John Paul II got Latin American Catholics *out* of the political arena. Marxism and Communism had probably killed more Catholics in the 20th century than in the previous 19 combined--Mexico and Poland are the prime example. If the Rev. Thistlewaithe's precious Gutierrez had continued unchecked the Church in LatAm would have dwindled to the level of, well, Unitarians today!

The funny thing--OK,maybe I should write posh and say ironic--is that there is no one so anti-materialist and anti-consumerist as a Catholic prelate. After Pope John Paul II visited Cuba in 1998, Castro gave an interview. He was asked why he allowed the Pope to visit "after all the things he has said about Communism." "You should read what he's said about capitalism," replied Castro. "It's a lot worse."

A Hebrew New Testament explaination of Eye of a Needle

http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm

Norrie,

Thanks for the tip!

Go to www.choosejesusrightnow.com & click on BUMPER STICKERS.

Att: John Kolar, et al;

".... eloquent testimony for "Liberation Theology" than his was an indictment of it.." WOW!

Reverend Thistlethwaite, I now see that Weigel's article occurred after yours, so yours was not a "response"; perhaps his was a response to yours. In any event, your article is a far more eloquent testimony for Liberation Theology than his was an indictment of it.

The drunken Moses Story's is as sobering as the Drunken Noah story's!?

I used have a "Palamino" Horse named "B E C K"!

After Becks Beer that is.

When Jesus was around, besides the three wise Zoroastrians who went to Philistine to see Jesus in his crib, that it was the "PAGAN ARABS" [Abrahamic Islam never existed even though the "KABA" in Mecca was the center of Paganism] WAS mostly PAGAN WORSHIPERS at that TIME.

Note: MOSES Father-in-Law "JETHRO" was a high priest of the Pagan Temples 3,500 Years ago!

WAKE-UP!

Please, Broithers & Sisters, IT was the "PAGAN ARABS" (via their "Arabian Nights" & Lawrence of Arabia days of Lore mentality's & sleeping with nine year olds) that were the MERCHANTS (of death) in JERUSALEM at the time of "Yawah" JESUS [Arabs if combined will be richest people on Earth, not Muslum] who paid and got Jesus killed because of his fliping their wears [they rolled dice on his fate] Business Mans Tables at the Market place!

Only Eclatari-on's know who those Arabs were that had Jesus systematically Poof-TIMED! Ya Ya <?: ( '

Thank you, Reverend Thistlethwaite. I wrote a blog response to Weigel's piece, but it was very uneloquent and not focused. Your response is the way Jesus would do it -- with a "counter" parable, or parables. Your essay is beautiful!!

Norrie - Priceless: "Beliefs are another matter. The Vatican offers only table d'hote prix fixe, no choices or substitutions, not available in the cafeteria."

Thanks for the good laugh

"This widow was not donating her last coin to the poor. She was paying the temple tax. Anyone who came to worship at the temple was required to pay this tax, which is what paid for the lavish lifestyle of the high priests, who incidentally were appointed by the Romans."

This is not accurate.

The temple tax was payable only by men and, by the terms of the Talmud, was one half-shekel for each adult male payable only in the silver coins of the Phoenician city of Tyre. The "moneychangers" were essentially foreign exchange brokers who could convert other currencies into Tyrian shekels for a fee of 8%. The "widow's mites" of Mark 12 were lepta (singular: lepton), an extremely tiny copper coin worth almost nothing at the time. They would not have been acceptable in payment of the Temple Tax. However, at the digs at Qumran, a small lamp full of lepta was found secreted in a wall -- the number inside was precisely equal to a half-shekel of Tyre plus 8%! Thus, it was meant to equate the payment of the Temple Tax, probably as a good luck offering in the walls of the home.

Another interesting note: the money boxes at the temple are said to have resembled trumpets and have been made of brass, thus, a large heavy coin (like a shekel or something of similar size) would make quite a racket as it fell in, while a mite would be almost silent. Jesus would not have had to have watched closely. Anyone listening would have known the relative size of the donation.

Mark 12, for a numismatist, is one of the most interesting chapters in the Gospels.

of course jihadist thinks its a good idea - for an islamic murder is the way to go and he gets to pretend its the christian way.
liberation theology is neither.

why do we need the bible to tell us what we already know?

Viva Liberation Theologists! For the people, people and people's well-being above all - from poverty alleviation to family planning to social equity and justice. I'm with you on this.

I don't meant to romaticize the relationship poor people have to Christ, but I have experienced something transcendent when talking with some of the members of my church who are homeless. I believe that God does not intend homelessness for them, and we should work hard until we have overcome this. But they are quite literally in constant contact with God, and with each other. When you have a lot of money and stuff (as I do), it's not particularly easy to swing this level of faith.

My understanding is that liberation theology is not only about wealth redistribution but also about learning from the unique grace-filled relationship poor people have with God, and surrendering the trappings and ego-driven activities of this life until we can really honestly say that we are in that constant community with each other and with him.

I think we in the northern hemisphere still have some tough questions to answer about whether the unique situation that we've enjoyed here can really apply in the same way to South America, where the wealth distribution, opportunity and education system is so disproportionately slanted toward a very small upper class. I don't think nationalizing the oil repositories is the answer, but too often the solutions offered by financial institutions (including the World Bank) have focused on building wealth in the economies in a way that only serves to increase wealth disparities. As Christians I think we're called to see the abundance of God's grace and to imagine new, different solutions to the way things have always been done.

To Whom It May Concern: Dear World God is real and a lot of people know His Name but not many people seem to know very much about Him at all. First off God is a Trinity like a lot of people seem to believe, Second the second Person of the Trinity did empty Himself and become a human being like a lot of people say. Third the Holy Spirit was sent to us to guide us into all Truth like some people seem to believe. God is Pure Love not the hate-filled, egotistical, revengeful piece of garbage that a lot of people that call themselves Christians think that He is. Jesus is the Saviour of the entire human race not the second rate prophet of the prince of this world. The True Living Triune Triumphant God is a searcher of people's hearts and minds and I would recommend that if you say that you are a Christian then be one. Truth is Truth whether you believe it or not and God does look at what you do but He is not the big authoritative cop in the sky like so many people want to scare you into believing. God has a Plan and it is unfolding before our very eyes and He has had this Plan before He created anything whether on the spiritual or material plane. I write He even though God is not male or female but you have to use some kind of pronoun to speak about Him, God incarnate though became a man but as you might have heard He asked permission from a Lady to become a human being. Judaism is not a religion but a covenential relationship between God and a people and Christianity is not a religion either but a covenential relationship between God and a person.

My Kingdom is not of this world isn't this also what Jesus taught us or at least tried to teach us. If all we look at is this life then we miss what Jesus was all about, yes it is about our like on earth but it is about so much more than that and it is also for all of God's children.Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum

Being a third of the trinity, Jesus didn't have to sit there and watch the money to know where it was going and who it was coming from. I believe he already knew all of that. I think the point he is making is not that the widow gave more, but that she gave more with the faith that God would take care of her needs in the absence of money. People who are afraid to part with their money are thinking, but what if xyz happens tomorrow? The point is to trust in God. Therefore, if you are a millionaire and your give, it's not because you can afford to do so, but because you know if you lose every penny, you will still be looked after by God.

this was one of the problem i had, finding balance in christianity- while the apostles were commanded to take only their sandalals and bowls, and spread the good news- in a societal sense this is irresponsible behavior, what if everybody took up their bowls? who would be left to grow the food to feed them with?
and while the widow , who gave all that she had, was compared to the rich man who gave only of his excess- who fed the widow that evening when she went home/ or the next day?
i know, do not be anxious saying what shall we eat or wear (always one of my favorites) but this can easily be taken to an extreme-
getting to the point of hunger where you are really hungry, its true- all you think about is food-for awhile- but after a certain point, like 3 days- the thought of food actually becomes repellant- it physically repulses you! and then what? after a while you start the hallucinations- and if its all a spiritual trip to begin with, youre thinking god is talking to you- is this a GOOD thing? what happens when this is repeated over time? yur health and mind falter, your gums wear out- you need doctors and dentists to put you back together again- good thing they were busy chasing the things of the world-or youd be in serious trouble.
is it noble to be a bum? or a drain on working society? its nioe to spend your life in contemplation of god, but you need a patron to be able to do that- like the church for instance- and who benefits from your contemplation? mostly you. is that the selfess service message that jesus(ata) gave?
and if youre separated with the luxury of cntemplation, how can you be tested if all temptations and trials are removedform your path?
if for some reason you get tossed out into the cold hard world, youd be completely without the wisdom and discernment to function.
and what about those souls who are laboring to fill the coffers with their tithing? are their labors any less spiritual worthy?
if everyone everywhere agreed to such a life- well, no one would work and thered be alotof hungry people out there - also no new babies would be made so its all moot anyway.

thre was no true communism because people have a wide variety of behaviors, and not everyon agreed that all men truly were equal, some were more equal than others according to the state.

and the same holds true with mother church.
if one wants to live truly in the imitation of christ, well, as long as theres an infrastructure of drones to support you, it will work.
but if everyone decided to do that (as they actually are compelled by jesus(ata) it being the best path and all) there would be no way to build a sustainable society.
also, while people SAY there is nobility in poverty, in reality it brings out somtimes the best in people, but ususally the worst, the worst being placated in the rich by the comfort of full tummies. i doubt the message of jesus(ata) was to judge and regard the rich with suspicion and some degree of envy, but that is how it plays out in real life.
our bodies have rights over us even, we cant love any other person, let alone an abstract like god- if we dont even love ourselves in the most basic of ways (like providing our own sustenance through work).

there are good rich, there are good poor- and bad in both like anything.

well, just a few thoughts- (btw, im pretty hungry right now, and that always makes me fiercer- just a fact.)

OH JESUS MOTHER MARIA YOU ARE SO RIGHT RELIGIONS ARE ALL ABOUT$$$$.
THEY ARE RUN BY HOMOPHOBIC MONEYGRABBING PREACHERS ! HOW CAN ANYONE FALL FOR THESE HOKUS POKUS SCAMS?
BE SMART GIVE YOUR MONEY TO THE HOMELESS, HERE IN LOS ANGELES WE HAVE 50000 PEOPLE LIVING ON THE STREETS, AMONG THEM MANY OF OUR VETERANS. OH WHAT A GREAT COUNTRY WE (COULD) HAVE!

Brandi wrote:

"If I am correct my bible says that we are to be the LENDER NOT THE BORROWER."

Brandi--

Are you sure you're not confusing the Bible with Shakespeare? Polonius, a character in Hamlet, gives the advice "neither a borrower nor a lender be." However, since Polonius is a somewhat suspect character, his advice is probably suspect as well.

The only references to borrowers and lenders I could find in the NRSV translation of the Bible (using Oremus' bible browser, at bible.oremus.org), were Proverbs 22:7 and Isaiah 24:2 (see below). Proverbs -- which tends toward practical advice based on the world as it actually is -- does seem to suggest that there are certain advantages to being rich over being poor and to being the lender rather than the borrower. Isaiah -- in one of his predictions of doom -- suggests that wealth, status, and the like ultimately will be no protection. Neither seems to be an instruction to be a lender rather than a borrower.

Proverbs 22.7:

The rich rules over the poor,
and the borrower is the slave of the lender.

Isaiah 24.1-3:

24Now the Lord is about to lay waste the earth and make it desolate,
and he will twist its surface and scatter its inhabitants.
2And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest;
as with the slave, so with his master;
as with the maid, so with her mistress;
as with the buyer, so with the seller;
as with the lender, so with the borrower;
as with the creditor, so with the debtor.
3The earth shall be utterly laid waste and utterly despoiled;
for the Lord has spoken this word.

Thank you so much for this article, Rev. Susan! And, yes, Gustavo Gutierrez is still talking about Jesus watching the money. I provided a little anonymous assistance in transcribing a talk he gave at Loyola on the "widow's mite" passage. For those who do not believe that Pope Benedict XVI/Cardinal Ratzinger was, and is, persecuting liberation theologians, I have two words for you: Jon Sobrino. He's leaving the dirty work of actually silencing Fr. Sobrino for the Archbishop of San Salvador to do but the CDF's "notification" could pave the way. In other words, Jesus' message about poverty and justice still does not sit well with the religious establishment.

Danny B.,

"Definition: ex cathedra
Search dictionary for:

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Cathedra \Cath"e*dra\, n. [L., fr. Gr. ? seat. See Chair.]
The official chair or throne of a bishop, or of any person in
high authority.

Ex cathedra [L., from the chair], in the exercise of one's
office; with authority.

The Vatican Council declares that the Pope, is
infallible ``when he speaks ex cathedra.'' --Addis &
Arnold's Cath.
Dict."

My recollection is that the 1870 proclamation of infallibility was a fascinating episode tied in with the impending loss of all or most of the Pope's temporal power.

It's a great story and fun to read about.

Professor Thistlethwaite?

From what theological seminary/college? University of Phoenix Online, maybe?

Jesus didn't "watched" the old lady and the rich person give money. He was telling the story as a parable.

Big, wealthy corporations have done the research and development necessary to create antibiotics, AIDS drugs, heart defibrillators, and many other life-saving inventions. If every person gave all of their resources directly to the poor, then none of these corporations would ever have been created. We would still be farming with horses and mules, and dying of diseases that are easily treatable today.

Read the parable of the talents.

It is a human limitation to reduce everything either to the temporal or to the eternal. Jesus Christ addressed both.

Not few first world christians, including catholics, with full stomachs, would rather not confront how the system they support guarantees the misery unto death of others. Yet, not few first, second, or third world socialists
suppress the fundamental questions of our existence because they cannot answer them, anymore than capitalists can.

Benedict XVI's views are actually not as distant from those of liberation theologians as the media caricatures, and indeed, they more often than not converge.

The problem is that liberation theology and socialism have similarities. Those socialists who are also atheists have sought to appropriate liberation theology as their own, and reduced liberation to merely temporal liberation, just as some Catholics have self-servingly reduced it to the hereafter.

Injustice will not end without radically changing the system's infrastructure. Changing it however, while ignoring that love is the fundamental purpose of life, and that in its pure form is only available through Jesus Christ, will only deliver the most vulnerable unto the hands of another monster.

Speed1234 - Basing theology on the stomach (ie material conditions) - give me a break. Christianity is about rising above the material not adjusting the policy to the material or co-opting Christ for socialist revolution.

That may be, but when you are really hungry, all you can think about is food.

I do not believe that this is not that hard people. The issue is greed and what you do with your money. If all you can do is covet more and dismiss those around you who are not blessed with your "entrepreneurial spirit", then, perhaps, Jesus would not agree with your perspective. If you are blessed with an "entrepreneurial spirit" or otherwise blessed with inherited wealth and genuinely try to help others and live by the golden rule, then I doubt Jesus would hold your wealth against you. The singer, Bono, seems to be a relativelv mainstream example of someone who is genuinely trying to do good.

The problem arises because we truly should not judge people who believe that they are generous souls because they, as millionaires can afford to give more while the widow in the story simply gave all she could. We have to leave the judgemental stuff to Jesus though we can think the deluded millionaire is a jerk.

The reasons for the relative failure of communism and it's relative, socialism have more to do with concentrated power and greed than the merits of these ideologies themselves.

Mr. Mulgrew,
It's unfair of you to expect Dr. Thistlethwaite to footnote each statement of fact in such a short article, but if you care to look her facts are not difficult to check. Spend around 10-15 minutes googling each fact that you doubt to convince yourself. I do not sense hate in her words as you seem to project. As for careers in the U.S. military, the words of marine Major General Smedley Butler come to mind in his book "War is a Racket" regarding the aims of many US wars, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler).
With love for humanity,

It is interesting that Professor Thistlethwaite uses Mark 12: 42-44 in her commentary about Jesus and money. As per Professor JD Crossan, another On Faith panelist, Mark 12: 42-44 was not of the historical Jesus but a later addition probably made to embellish Jesus' image. http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/264_Widows_Mite

Another view of Jesus and money:

Early Christian economics 101:

The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking". The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree.

Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters for a fee and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big
buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!!

Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free".

The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies.

An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."
In conclusion, money is a major foundation of Christianity to include Mormonism. Ditto for Islam.

The martyred apostles ran afoul of Roman political and religious authorities because they preached, healed, and baptized for the conversion (and profit) to a non-Roman way of life. This support of an anti-Roman cult resulted in the typical murder/crucifixion of the cult leaders. The apostles' conversions also caused a dramatic drop in Roman/Jewish temple appearances and contributions and just like Jesus' Jewish temple outburst, it resulted in added punishment to include crucifixion.

If the "current Pope benedict XVI" was a true continuation of the very "first" Pope of the Church his trip to Brazil would not be necessary.

Gustavo Gutierrez wants to take the catholic church back to a time when the church was temporal, and the pope was a king and the bishops were of high rank in governments all over the world.

i prefer a catholic church that keeps out of control of politics and limits itself.
the church can cajole but it should not have any direct power except in its own internal affairs.

Ken:

"Neither wealth nor poverty, in and of themselves, speak of blessing or curse. Attitudes toward them speak volumes about our hearts and minds."

You hit the nail on the head. I'm with you!

Dear Susan,
I feel saddened that someone who has taught theology for so many years has such devious thoughts of other respected theologians.
Gutierrez a prime target of persecution by Cardinal Ratzinger? How? When?
Powerful and rich people just hate that( the teaching of Jesus and his commitment to the poor)
and will do their best to get you crucified or suppressed or even labeled as a communist.
Who is puting labels on innocent people and formenting hatred of those who have succeeded in this life if it isn't you.
My parents were both immigrants from Ireland, one Catholic , one Protestant.They had twelve children.We were taught that money was not everything but to work hard and study and God would be guiding you.
Of the twelve children they had- Three Catholic nuns, two managers of shops, one Justice Department agent, two teachers, one self employed,
a Union President of a Phila. Local and all of us happily married (except the nun's).
We men all served when our country called, one Marine. two in the Navy and two in the Army.
None of us hated the rich or successful as you seemingly do.
Why?

Liberation theology is more dependent on Marxist economics than sound hermeneutics. Ask those who suffered under Communist regimes just how "liberated" they were.

Can someone point out to me where Jesus said, "Sell all you have and give it to Caesar?"
Wealth redistribution schemes that rely on force violate the commandment against stealing.

I have never known an evangelical church, from a store front missionary planting to a suburban megachurch, that wasn't actively, even sacrificially, invovled in benevolence giving. They're too busy performing concrete acts of mercy to be swept up in utopian and economically illiterate socialist panaceas or trendy intellectual "isms and ologies" that don't match the contours of the real world.

The eye of the needle saying is simple hyperbole. There was never any such gate or practice of slipping through on kneeling camels.

Neither wealth nor poverty, in and of themselves, speak of blessing or curse. Attitudes toward them speak volumes about our hearts and minds.

Jesus made a distinction between "God and Mammon". "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's."

Jesus focused on psychology, on what it takes to be happy, to be "alive".

Money is just a tool.

Don't get me wrong. I think great wealth is an abomination. It's hoarding. It's inherently unfair.

"With great wealth comes great responsibility."

I agree with Susan that "watching the money" is the key to finding out where a person's heart lies.

danny - im going to have to watch it then.

It makes no real difference anyhow. Jesus was stating that is very dificult, yet not impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. It is a warning that is clearly ignored in my own small community. To me it has always seemed that it was more akin to pointing out danger than it was a prohibition against acquiring wealth. A rich man looks through different eyes and it is easy to delude himself into thinking that he is a better man than he really is. Wealthy people are, in totally general terms, simply not confronted with their weaknesses and shortcomings to the same degree that the poor are. Without that confrontation and reminder, it is dificult to realize that you need to change for the better. It is the same thing the Buddhists say in that it is a terrible burden to be born rich, since the temptations and comforts of wealth make it extremely dificult to obtain true wisdom.

I wanted to point out that the Bible is very clear on the superiority of acquiring wealth through ones own labor as opposed to inheriting it or coming by it through nefarious means. I don't think it is judging the wealth itself, but the effect that acquiring wealth in those manners have on ones character and willingness to strive to live as God intended.

Frank,

YOU finally said something that I can agree with!

"WHAT YOU THINK DOES NOT COUNT!"

JP,

It's been a long time since Catholic school, but I have never (at least as a thinking adult individual)thought of it as assuming a God-like quality. I always think of it as a final authority on the subject, or the Earthly "end of the line". And again, only on matters of Catholic faith.

Anonymous,

That's the funniest thing you EVER said! So you can authenticate Wikipedia, as well as determine what one needs to do to be credible?

You don't even have a NAME!

I'd just love to have your lack of awareness!

HA!!

Anonymous:

"gaby - if you want to be taken seriously you cant site Wikipedia for anything of substance. at least they got that one right, but there are other more credible sources."

Well, Anon, it was convenient and I knew it was correct.

"From that day to this, the rich and the powerful who have full stomachs do theology differently from those who have empty stomachs. No wonder the Catholic Church (and many Protestants too!) feel threatened by Gutierrez and all the Latin American liberation theologians who follow the teaching of Jesus and his simple commitment to the poor. Powerful and rich people just hate that and will do their best to get you crucified or suppressed or even labeled a “communist.”"

Many powerful and rich people are philanthropists who donate freely and plenty to humanitarian causes. You make it seem as if every rich person is a hog who should give all their wealth to the poor. Why don't you make a start!

I am far from rich, but I am neither poor. I give as much as I can without taking away from my own family. And that is all that anyone can ask for, including Jesus!

What if Jesus had not been born in a stable but rather a mansion, would he still have been the man he was? Somewhat I doubt it. But then again, I also doubt he was the son of God.

It is true that earning wealth by one's own hard work or the stewardship of wealth over generations should be rewarded and that private wealth should be respected by the state. However, the wealthy seem to have largely forgotten that without the prerequisite benefits that society has given them (i.e., a stable political system, law and order, public infrastructure, supply of labor, etc.) no accumulation of wealth would be possible. For example, you wouldn't be able to use the phone for private dealmaking, if no one had invested in the publi