The God of Brazil is Moloch, who devours his children

28/01/2017 Leonardo Boff1 comentário

t is said that God is Brazilian. It is not the God of tenderness or the humble, but the Moloch of the Canaanite and Phoenicians, who devours his children. We are one of the most unequal, unjust and violent countries in the world. Theologically, we live in a situation of social and structural sin, contrary to God’s design. It is enough to consider what happened in the jails of Manaus, Rondonia and Roraima. Is pure barbarity: the fury beheads, pierces the eyes and destroys the heart.
There is not just violence in Brazil. We are grounded in violent socio-historic structures, based on the genocide of the Indigenous, humiliating colonialism and inhumane slavery. And these structures cannot be overcome without first overcoming this dreadful tradition.

How to do that? It is a challenge that demands a colossal transformation of our social relationships. Is this still possible or are we condemned to be a pariah country? I see it as possible, on condition of following, among other things, these two paths developed by the base: the creation of a people, beginning with the social movements, and the installation of a social-democracy, grounded in the people.

The creation of a people: those who colonized us did not come to create a nation, but to found a commercial enterprise, become wealthy fast, make themselves hidalgos (children of something…), return to Portugal and enjoy themselves with their accumulated wealth.

They first conquered the Native peoples and then they brought Black slaves from Africa to do the labor. A human mass was created, dominated, humiliated, and despised by the elites, even in our times.

Apart from some earlier revolts, there was a historic change beginning in the 1930s. Unions and the most varied social movements emerged. At the heart of the movements were conscious social actors, critics, with a will to modify the social reality and of create the seeds of a more participatory and democratic society.

The development of these associations generated the Brazilian popular movement. It is turning the mass into an organized people, one that did not exist before as a people, but that now is being born. It forces the political society to listen, and negotiate, and in this way to diminish the levels of structural violence.

The creation of a social-democracy with a popular base: we have a representative democracy, but one of very low intensity, filled with political vices and corruption, where the representatives are generally elected by the large enterprises, whose interests they represent.

But as a counterweight, due to popular organizing, there already have been created popular political parties and segments of progressive parties, including the liberal-bourgeois, or, traditionally from the left, parties that promote profound reforms in society and seek to conquer State power, be it municipal, state or federal.

This participatory democracy is fundamentally seated on these four legs, like a table:

– participation, the broadest possible, of everybody, upwards from the base, in such a way that everyone may consider himself or herself an active citizen;

– equality, resulting from the degree of participation. Equality gives the citizens greater opportunities to live better. In the face of the existing inequalities, social solidarity must be strengthened;

– respect for differences of every type; that is why a democratic society must be pluralist, multi-ethnic, respectful of all religions and with various forms of communal resources.

– the valuing of human subjectivity; the human being is not only a social actor, the human being is a person, with his/her own world vision, who cultivates values of cooperation and solidarity that humanize institutions and social structures.

Moreover, this table is on a base, without which it can not stand: a new relationship with Nature and with the Earth, our Common Home, as Pope Francis emphasizes in his ecological encyclical letter. In other words, this democracy must incorporate the ecological moment, based on different paradigm. The current paradigm, centered on power and domination, in function of unlimited accumulation, has encountered an insuperable barrier: the limits of the Earth and of her renewable and non renewable goods and services. A limited Earth cannot support unlimited growth. By surpassing these limits, we are now witnessing global warming and the extreme events experienced in this year of 2017, with snow falling in almost all of Europe: which has not happened for one hundred years.

The ever increasing consciousness of these limits, forces us to think of a new paradigm of production, consumption, and sharing of the scarce resources among humans and also with the community of life (the flora and fauna that are also created by the Earth and need their nutrients). Here is where the values enter of caring, co-responsibility and solidarity of all with all, without which the project will never prosper.

From these premises we can hope to overcome our violent social structures.

The alternative is to toy with change, so that nothing actually changes.

Leonardo Boff Theologian-Philosopher and of Earthcharter Commission

Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

The Nativity in the time of Herod

26/12/2016 Leonardo BoffDeixe um comentário

The Nativity this year will be different from other Nativities. Generally, it is the holiday of familial fraternizing. For Christians, it is the celebration of the Divine Child who came to assume our humanity and make it better.

However, in truth, in its place there appeared the horrible figure of Herod the Great, (73 BC– 4 BC), linked to the killing of the innocents. Jealous of his power, he heard that a baby king was born in his kingdom, Judah. And he ordered the killing of all little boys under two years. Then were heard some of the saddest words in the Bible: “In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.” (Mt 2,18).

This story of the killing of the innocents continues, in another form. The ultra capitalist policies imposed by the present Brazilian government, revoking rights, reducing salaries, cutting social benefits such as health care, education, social security, pensions and freezing for 20 years the possibilities of development have as a consequence the perverse and slow killing of the innocent, of whom great majority are the poor of our country, Brazil.

The lethal consequences flowing from the decision to consider the market more important than persons are not unknown to the legislators. Within a few years we will have a class of super-rich (there are now 1,440, according to the IPEA, about 0.05% of the population of Brazil), a middle class afraid of losing its status and millions of Brazilian poor and the excluded, who fell from poverty into misery. This implies hungry children who die from malnourishment and totally preventable diseases, adults who can find neither medicines nor access to public health, condemned to die prematurely. This slaughter has an author: a large part of the current legislators from the so-called “The PEC of death” cannot be exempted from the guilt of being the present day Herod of the Brazilian people.

The monied elites and the privileged managed to return. Supported by corrupt parliamentarians, with their backs to the people and deaf to the clamor in the streets, through a coalition of forces consisting of constables, the Public Ministry, the Military Police and parts of the Judiciary and the corporative and reactionary mass media, and not without the backing of the imperial power interested in Brazilian wealth, forced the marginalization of President Dilma Rousseff. The real motor of the coup is the financial capital, banks and lenders (who are not affected by the policies of fiscal adjustments).

The political scientist Jesse Souza denounces with reason: Brazil is the stage of a dispute between two projects: the dream of the majorities of a great and strong country and the reality of a rapacious elite that wants to usurp the work of everyone and sack the wealth of the country to line the pockets of half a dozen. The monied elite rules, by the simple fact of being able to “buy” all other elites (FSP 16/4/2016).

It is sad to show that this process of pillaging is a consequence of the old politics of conciliation between those with money, among themselves and with the governments, that comes from the times of the Colony and Independence. Presidents Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff did not accomplish or did not know how to overcome the sagacious art of this ruling minority that, with the pretext of governability, seeks conciliation among themselves and with the government, ceding some benefits to the people at the price of maintaining untouched the nature of their process of accumulating wealth at the highest levels.

Historian Jose Honorio Rodrigues, who studied in depth class conciliation, always on the backs of the people, rightly says: the national leadership, in their successive generations, was always reformist, elitist and individualistic … The art of thievery is well-known and ancient, practiced by those minorities and not by the people. The people does not steal. The people is stolen … The people is cordial, the oligarchy is cruel and pitiless…; the great success of Brazilian history is the Brazilian people, and the great deception are the Brazilian leaders (Conciliação e Reforma no Brasil, 1965. pp. 114-119).

We are living in Brazil a repetition of this malefic tradition, from which we will never liberate ourselves without strengthening an anti-power, coming from below, capable of defeating this perverse elite and of creating a different type of State, with a different type of republican politics, where the common good prevails over individual and corporative good.

The Nativity this year is a Nativity under the sign of Herod. Still, we believe that the divine Child is the liberating Messiah and the Star will generously show us better paths.

Leonardo Boff Theologian-Philosopher and of theEarthcharter Commission

Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

Cardinal Paulo Evaristo Arns: teacher, refined intellectual, friend of the poor

18/12/2016 Leonardo BoffDeixe um comentário

I have lost a teacher, a Maecenas, a protector and an intimate friend. Important statements will be proclaimed and written about Cardinal Paulo Evaristo Arns, who died today, December 14, 2016. I will not do so. I will only offer my personal testimony.

I met Cardinal Arns in the late 1950s, when I was a seminarian in the city of Agudos, São Paulo. He was just back from Paris with the prestige of a Doctorate from the Sorbonne. In the seminary, with about 300 students, he introduced new teaching methods. He made us study Greek and Latin literature, languages he knew as well as we know our mother tongue. He made us read the tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides in Greek. We learned Greek so well that we even presented Antigone in that language several times, and everyone understood it.

I encountered him again in Petropolis/Rio as a professor of Patristics and of Christian history of the first two centuries. He had us read the classics in their original language: Saint Jerome, his favorite, in Latin, and Saint John Chrysostom, in Greek.

When I visited him in the convent of nuns in the outskirts of Sao Paulo, two years ago, I found him reading sermons by Saint John Chrysostom, in Greek.

He was our head teacher throughout our theology studies in Petropolis, from 1961 to 1965. With interest he followed each of us in our searches, with a profound look in his eyes that seemed to reach deep into our souls. He always sought perfection. Even among us students, we challenged each other to see if anyone could find any defect in his life or activities. He sang the Gregorian Chant marvelously, in the Solesmes style, more delicate than the strict style of Beuron, that had predominated until his arrival.

For four years I accompanied him in the pastoral of the peripheries. Thursday and Saturday evenings and all day Sundays, I went with him to the chapel of the neighborhood of Itamaraty, in Petropolis/Rio. He would visit all the houses, especially the Portuguese families who cultivated flowers and other horticulture. Wherever he went, he would immediately found a school. He encouraged the work of local poets and writers. After the 10 o’clock Mass, he would gather with them to listen to the poems and short stories they had written during the week. He would intellectually stimulate everyone to read, to write and to narrate for everyone the stories they had read.

Cardinal Arns was a refined intellectual, well versed in French literature. He wrote 49 books. He urged us to follow Paul Claudel’s example, who used to write at least a page every day. I followed his advice, and now I have written more than 100 books.

What always impressed me most about Cardinal Arns was his Franciscan love and affection for the poor. When he was made Auxiliary Bishop of São Paulo, he immediately went to work in the peripheries of the city, encouraging the ecclesiastic base communities and personally committing himself to Paulo Freire. Since this was the period of the Brazilian dictatorship, which was especially fierce in São Paulo, he immediately undertook the cause of the refugees who had fled the horrors of the dictatorships of Argentina, Uruguay and Chile. His special mission was to visit prisons, see the wounds of torture, courageously denounce them and defend the human rights that were so savagely violated. He risked his life, in the face of threats and attempts on his life. But as a Franciscan, he always maintained serenity as one who is in the palm of the hand of God rather than the claws of police repression.

Perhaps his greatest accomplishment was the Brazil Project: Never again, which he developed with Rabbi Henry Sobel, the Presbyterian pastor Jaime Wright, and a team of researchers. It collected reports consisting of more than 1,000,000 pages, from the 707 processes of the Superior Military Tribunal. The book, Brazil Never Again, published by Editora Vozes, played a key role in the identification and unmasking of the torturers of the military regimen, and helped accelerate the fall of the dictatorship.

Personally, I am deeply grateful to Cardinal Arns for having stood by me in the doctrinal process carried out against me by the former Sacred Office, (the Inquisition), in Rome, in 1982, under the presidency of then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. In the dialogue that followed my examination, between Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Lorscheider and Cardinal Arns, in which I also took part, Cardinal Arns courageously made clear to Cardinal Ratzinger: «That document you published a week ago about the Theology of Liberation, does not correspond with the facts, facts that we know very well; this theology is beneficial for the faithful and for the communities; you have accepted the version of the enemies of this theology, namely, the Latin American military and the conservative groups of the episcopate, who are unsatisfied with the changes in the pastoral and the modes of living the faith that this type of theology implies». And he added: «I await from you a new, positive, document, that recognizes this form of theology, starting from the suffering of the poor and in function of their liberation». And that happened, three years later.

All this is already the past. There remains the memory of a Cardinal who was always on the side of the poor and never let the cry of the oppressed for the violation of their rights be ignored. Cardinal Paulo Evaristo Arns is an everlasting reference to the Good Shepherd who gives his life for the smallest and those who suffer most in this world.

Leonardo Boff Theologian-Philosopher and of the Earthcharter Commission

Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

Leonardo Boff | Francis of Rome; Francis of Assisi

15/12/2016 Leonardo BoffDeixe um comentário

Book Reviews , Uncategorized
December 8, 2016

Interview with Leonardo Boff
Author of Francis of Rome, Francis of Assisi:
A New Springtime for the Church (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2014).
Interview by Jonathan J. Armstrong
Interview received on: September 12, 2016

Translation from Spanish into English by Jonathan Salas, Catherine Christian, and Haley O’Neal.

To download a PDF version of this interview, please click here.

Jonathan J. Armstrong: In the chapter titled “Can We Save the Catholic Church?”, you allude to the many sexual and financial scandals that have plagued the institutional Roman Catholic Church in the past decades. You conclude this chapter: “But the church can be saved as long as it is inspired by the tradition of Jesus, returns to drink from the well of the gospel, sets out to serve the world rather than itself, and puts the poor at the center in a quest for liberation and social justice. Then it is good not only for Christians but for the whole world. It is a force for humanization and peace among peoples” (p. 25). When you express hope that the church can be saved, you seem to be writing about the institutional church. But, isn’t institution necessarily resistant to the “tradition of Jesus”? Is it reasonable to ask an institution to “set out to serve the world rather than itself?”

Leonardo Boff: We have to make a distinction between the church as a community of faith―the people of God―and a group of leaders who are the ecclesiastical authority. In the organization of the church, the authority is concentrated in the hands of a few. The church is commonly talked about as a hierarchal body. However, this common understanding is not true. The hierarchal body, which is part of the institution of the church, has the responsibility to lead the community, or the people of God, in the faith. The body of leaders, however, are disconnected from the community of faith, which is a big problem. I believe that this is not the way Jesus would act. Jesus wanted hierodulia, sacred service, instead of hierarchy, which is sacred authority. Unfortunately, the hierarchy is not practicing love and mercy; they are rude, legalistic, and arrogant, and because of this they are distanced from the community of faith. This type of organization has always created conflicts throughout history between the body of people and the hierarchal leaders.

The problem is that the hierarchal leaders exclude and condemn the people. This current type of organization serves themselves before serving the people of God and the world. I don’t see how we can save the church as an entity. The church has to go back to the practice of humility like Jesus and the apostles, where the priority is to first serve the community of faith and then the body of leaders. It is in this way that Vatican Council II, in Lumen Gentium, is serving the community of faith before the hierarchal leaders. For example, in his first public appearance, Pope Francis cared more about the approval and blessing of the people of God rather than that of the hierarchal leaders.

Jonathan J. Armstrong: You write of the pope’s humility and simplicity: “It would not be surprising if one day, as John Paul II wanted, the pope should decide to abandon the Vatican and go off and live in a modest lodging, with plenty of outside space to receive visits from the faithful. The times are ripe for this type of revolution in papal customs” (p. 49). You also write: “It is not unthinkable that representatives of the people of God, from cardinals to women, should be invited to elect a pope for the whole Christian world. It is urgent to reform the curia so that it becomes decentralized. Surely Pope Francis will do this” (p. 52). It is now the third year that Pope Francis I has held office; do you see from Pope Francis I the kind of radical action that had you hoped for when you first published this book?

Leonardo Boff: I suggested to Don Helder Camara, the bishop prophet of Brazil and very close friend of Pope Paul VI, that the pope should leave the Pontifical Palace and live away in the outskirts of Rome, in the “borgattas” near the poor. There he could receive the faithful in Christ and not refuse anyone. The Pope was sad and said that he would want that but the Curia and all of the apparatus of the Vatican opposed it strongly. The popes before Pope Francis had a way of living which looked more like Caesar’s lavish palace rather than the humble scene of the nativity. But Francis has made the first step. He actually left the Pontifical Palace and went to live in Santa Marta, a hotel attached to the Vatican. There he lives like the others do. He eats together with the others, and even gets in line to get his plate of food. He comments with humor: “Here is very difficult to have me poisoned.”

I think that the church needs to change several things: it should not follow Western church practices, pagan practices, and should get rid of the symbols that have been influenced by the Roman emperors.

Pope Francis acted symbolically. He took the mozetta, a cloak worn over the shoulders which demonstrates the authority of the Roman emperor, and handed it over to the secretary. He said that this symbol of power was not necessary. He wanted to lead the church not with power of the law but with the gentle power of love. As a result, he preferred to be called the bishop of Rome, and only after that he would accept to be the pope of the universal church, which is collegially directed along with a few cardinals. These are some of the changes in the way that the pope’s ministry is being understood. Pope Francis also proposed a reform of the curia so that it would be decentralized. He wanted to put individuals in the curia positions who would represent the whole church, such as woman and notable laity. He has promised this. However, we know that one finds terrible oppositions within the body of the curia because of the habits and privileges they have had for more than a thousand years. In this case, one does not do what one wants to do but one does what one is allowed to do. I desire that Pope Francis will take on this difficult work of reforming the management structures of the Universal Church. For now, though, he focuses on the central issue at hand, which is the basis of all the other projects: to ensure a future for humanity and the earth, which is being seriously threatened. For the systematic crisis right now is the ecological crisis. He wrote the encyclical letter, On Care of Our Common Home.

Jonathan J. Armstrong: Please expand on your chapter “What Has Pope Francis Brought Us That Is New?” (pp. 87–89). If you were writing this chapter today, are there additional accomplishments that you would mention?

Leonardo Boff: What is new about Pope Francis compared to the popes prior to him? His practices and acts are revolutionary. First, he doesn’t think of himself as a doctor of faith but as a pastor who encourages the Christian community to produce an attractive message. His focus is on encountering the Lord and meeting with all people despite their backgrounds. In light of this, he receives everyone: Muslims, refugees, atheists, and everyone else who comes to him. He insists that pastors, bishops, and priests must have a revolution of tender compassion and mercy.

He says what many theologians have been thinking: the message of condemnation will not last forever. We should stop using the message of the fear of hell to win people. Rather, we should encourage them by using the beautiful message of love, compassion and mercy, which is a more attractive message than one of hellfire and damnation. Maybe the difference between Francis and the other popes is that he does not simply speak about the poor, but he embraces them and defends their rights. Francis is the only pope that has directly condemned the system of anti-life. He is impartial, one-sided, and on the side of the poor. Never in the history of the papacy has a pope ever insisted on social programs that analyze the causes of exploitation and denounce the factors responsible for the misery in the world. He has done the same while visiting Santa Cruz, Bolivia in Latin America, the city where representatives of the social movements in all Latin America were gathered. The pope has become a worldwide example of humility and courage through ethical and humanitarian movements. Everyone listens to the pope because he has a message for humankind and not only for Christians. The pope represents the movement of a church that practices humility, fellowship, sympathy, compassion, a culture of peace, and dialogue.

Jonathan J. Armstrong: You write: “The church, as we have it today, will never be like the poor, but it can be for and with the poor” (p. 75). Please explain in detail.

Leonardo Boff: The church has had a history of taking care of the poor, following the practical example of Jesus and the apostles. The church used the strategy of assisting the poor like a father would. While they helped the poor, they never explained the reason for poverty, nor how to overcome it. The church in Latin America, in their documents of Medellin and Puebla, assumed a different position. This position is to work and live with the poor, thus participating in their way of life, culture, and ways to pray to God. This act of sympathy acknowledges that although they lack material things, they possess much else. They have a culture, they have faith, and they have knowledge on know how to survive in the midst of poverty.

Jonathan J. Armstrong: Throughout your book, you use the phrase the “tradition of Jesus,” dedicating a chapter to the exposition of this principle (“The Tradition of Jesus and the Christian Religion,” pp. 114–117). There, you describe the “tradition of Jesus” as composed of certain values, such as unconditional love for others and the use of power in the service of the community. In your view, does the tradition of Jesus have a doctrinal content? If so, what are the precise bounds of this doctrinal content?

Leonardo Boff: The expression “tradition of Jesus” is a recent issue of the new Christology that is being established in Spain with Pagola and Castillo and in Latin America with various authorities like Jose Comblin, Carlos Mesters, and others. This expression presupposes all of the meticulous work of contemporary and ecumenical exegesis.

It gives insight that what we know about Jesus is from sources written 40–50 years after the crucifixion. Jesus left nothing written. Many people of the ancient world, including people among the Jews, were illiterate.

During the time of silence between the death of Jesus and the New Testament writings―beginning with Apostle Paul and the rest of the Gospels―the information was gathered from different Christian communities. Each of the writers elaborated about his vision of Jesus. Thus arose the four gospels. But before all is the practice of Jesus, his way of relating with God as his Father, his perception of being Son of the Father, his conflicts with the religious traditions of the time and his resistance to the imperial power of Rome. Jesus said that the kingdom of God is greater than the kingdom of Caesar, something that would be a crime against the majesty.

The book of Acts speaks of “the way of Jesus”, that is to say, to live according to the standards of the Kingdom of God, of unconditional love even of enemies, of love for the poor, of compassion with those that suffer, humility, and service to others. Jesus did not create a new religion just because there were many at that time. Jesus taught us to live the values of the Kingdom, live in love, in unity and committed to the Father.

Jesus’ teachings are more than doctrines but are a way of life. They obviously imply a vision of things, but the important thing is to follow the way and manner of the life of Jesus. This is the tradition of Jesus, an original and primitive element that precedes the Gospels and where these writers take their theological elaborations. The Gospels are more than history; they are theology, an attempt to understand what happened to Jesus after being crucified; God raised him. They gave him a thousand titles. At the end they stated: Jesus is God, he is not simply human. They started to call him the son of God and finally God incarnate in our misery.

Jonathan J. Armstrong: Do you believe that Pope Francis I will call an ecumenical council? If such a council were to be convened, what do you see as the most pressing matters requiring resolution?

Leonardo Boff: I don’t think that the Pope is going to convene a council. I personally talked with the Pope and suggested having a council with all the churches. His response to me was that a council is a Catholic thing. It is necessary to have an assembly of all the churches, religions, and spiritual people in order to help humanity find a resolution to the systemic crisis we live in, and find another way to live together. The primary problem does not revolve around the future of the Catholic church and Christianity, or western culture. Rather, it is about the future of humankind, and how the churches and religions should help guarantee a better future with hope. This is the primary question to be asked. We are not sure that doing what we are doing right now will answer this question. For this reason, the pope does not emphasize the role of the church but rather the condition and suffering of the poor. According to my judgment, this is the vision that the pope has. He confessed that nobody knows where we are going, not even the Dalai Lama or the pope. All together, we must find a common way that will save us all. This time Noah’s ark is not there to save us from death. We have two options, either we will die together or we will be saved together. The papal encyclical calls for a collective responsibility, for a great hope because, “God is the sovereign lover of life” (Wisdom 11:24, quoted three times by the Pope), and he will not permit a tragic end of life like the time of Noah.