N
NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
Guest
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Norman Finkelstein and the Catholic Church
Via NY Transfer News Collective All the News that Doesn't Fit
CounterPunch - Jul 3, 2007
http://www.counterpunch.org/brayer07032007.html
DePaul and the Vatican's Long Leash
Norman Finkelstein and the Catholic Church
By LYNDA BRAYER
The most recent scandal in American academia is the firing of Dr.
Norman Finkelstein by De Paul University, despite the recommendations
of his colleagues and peers, students, and his publishing record, all
of which would normally assure academic tenure to someone in his
position. It seems therefore, that Dr. Norman Finkelstein application
failed not because of any professional or personal failings, but rather
because of considerations external to his person, none of which have
been explained.
To date, the only apparent reason for this outcome is the unremitting
public, and no doubt, private, campaign against Dr. Finkelstein's
competence by Alan Dershowitz, a professor of law at Harvard, and one
of the leading apologists for Zionism, which, appeared to be motivated
by personal pique after Dr. Finkelstein's painstaking analysis revealed
the legal invalidity of Dershowitz' arguments which support Israeli
violations of international law. One would suspect that because De Paul
is a Catholic university, continuing charges of anti-Semitism together
with the Holocaust culpability accusations, were not left out of this
offensive. Those who find Dr. Finkelstein's firing shocking have
attributed weakness of character to the officials at the University for
yielding to these pressures.
Before I adduce what I think are other unmentioned, if not hidden,
seminal factors contributing to this dismissal, I think it might be
worth while to elaborate for purposes of a better understanding of the
issues involved, on the work of Dr. Finkelstein and the position of the
leadership of the Roman Catholic Church in the world today. Dr.
Finkelstein has made significant contributions in the fields of Zionism
and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and established, almost
single-handedly, the field of critical Holocaust studies, work which
required considerable courage as it is contrary to the political
position of the United States and the Israeli/Zionist lobby. It might
seem a truism to remark that had Finkelstein confined himself to arcane
research minutiae in these fields, publishing only in academic
journals, the university might well have been able to continue to
employ him. However, it was precisely the critical public light that
Finkelstein threw upon issues upon which the United States, and other
Western countries have used in pursuit of their interests, that seems
to have sounded his academic death knell at De Paul University.
His critique connected anti-Semitism and the Holocaust to Zionist
protectionism with respect to Palestinians. For decades Israel and its
apologists have insisted that a critique of Israeli policies and
practices is always a cover-up for a deeply-seated and incorrigible
anti-Semitism, the very same poison that led to the Holocaust. Thus
anyone criticizing Israel, the Jewish state, is ipso facto an
anti-Semite who wishes to bring about second Holocaust upon the Jewish
people. The Roman Catholic Church has been in the Jewish firing line
for decades, continuing to be charged with both a historical and an
enduring anti-Semitism. That there was both collaboration between the
Church and some Nazis, and the official Church afforded protection to
Nazis both during and after the war continues to serve Jews as a
continuing paradigm. Of course it is also true that the Church and many
of its members were persecuted by the Nazis, is not politically
advantageous to the Zionists and is therefore relegated out of the
public purview. In response to the charges, the official position of
the Church now insists that Christianity is a "daughter" religion of
Judaism and not a "fulfillment" thereof and has removed all language
deemed offensive to Jews from its prayers. More importantly from a
Zionist point of view, the Holy See has established diplomatic ties
with Israel and promotes cultural and religious dialogues, qua Church
and qua individual Catholics, with Israel and leading Israeli-Jewish
scholars, despite serious outstanding disagreements between them such
as and the continuing tax and visa pressures the Jewish state exerts
against Catholic institutions.
There are however, another three factors connected to this scandal
which bear mentioning as they might indicate what might develop from
the Church, which could have enormous bearing on the political
environment of both Europe and the US. Two are intra-Catholic issues:
the issue of Catholic university autonomy and the issue and status of
liberation theology. The third issue concerns the Church leadership and
political Islam. The former may explain how the firing took place, as
well as indicate future positions that will be taken in Catholic
universities, while the latter two provide two reasons for it.
A point to be emphasized is that De Paul Catholic University is not an
independent institution of higher learning. In the Catholic world,
there are two types of universities: a pontifical university which
falls under direct control of Rome and a Catholic university. Until
1991, a Catholic university enjoyed full autonomy as an independent
institution. The scope of the term "Catholic" was fairly fluid, often
just meaning that it was founded by Catholics and administered by them.
It did not necessarily mean that it explicitly advocated, or acted,
with the approval of Rome.
However, this is no longer the case. In 1991, Pope John Paul II issued
his Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Universities, known by its
introductory latin phrase, Ex Corde Ecclesiae--from the heart of the
Church. This has proven to be a telling phrase, as the Constitution
subjugates a Catholic university to Rome no doubt the heart of the
Church-- concerning faith and morals, i.e. doctrine, thus undermining,
if not removing entirely, that exercise of freedom necessary for a
university to retain its integrity qua university. And it is precisely
in those fields which are controversial that controversy is likely to
be stifled. This constitution was received with much trepidation in the
United States as it was understood as an attempt to extend Rome's
control where it previously had been absent. Pontifical universities or
pontifical faculties in secular universities, such as in Germany, had
seen their staff fired by Rome for holding opinions or positions that
either questioned or contested those of the Magisterium, the teaching
office of the Church. Two examples stand out, although there are many
more. During the reign of Pope John Paul II, Prof. Fr. Hans Kng, at
Tbingen University in Germany had his faculties as a Catholic
theologian removed by Rome for daring to question the issue of papal
infallibility, while Prof. Fr. Charles Curran, teaching about
homosexuality in a questioning and opening manner that did not
contradict any infallible statements made by the Pope, was dismissed
from the pontifical Catholic university in Washington DC.
The Finkelstein affaire seems to justify the deep felt fear of those
who were originally against Ex Corde Ecclesiae and in a manner possibly
more insidious than originally suspected or foreseen. I shall argue
that Rome's reach into the universities is no longer confined to arcane
doctrinal issues, as in the cases mentioned above, but to issues of the
wider political arena, which the Church hierarchy will either promote
or defeat, depending on how it assesses its interests, within Catholic
institutions.
It is my contention that the dismissal of Dr. Finkelstein, concerns the
fundamental question of how the Church leadership is positioning itself
in this changing world. Dr. Finkelstein's work, both academic and
political, relates indirectly to the doctrinal issue of liberation
theology, a subject which was deemed almost dead until very recently.
Rome had both condemned its focus, its approach and methods and some of
its leading exponents. However, it has recently begun to raise its head
once again, undoubtedly because the state of affairs that it originally
addressed not only has not disappeared, but has worsened exponentially
in the more than two decades since it was first censured. Furthermore,
it has now been explicitly referred to in the political arena of the
new governments, elected by the masses of the poor and underprivileged
in South America, and whose programs are threatening the status quo
determined by the US.
What was and is Roman Catholic liberation theology? And how does it
affect Dr. Finkelstein? Historically the Roman Catholic Church, as a
state church, or church of the empire, has been aligned with the rich
and the powerful, or what is called at times "law and order". With
respect to the poor, the underprivileged and the oppressed, it
developed the giving of alms or charity in order to relieve their
suffering. With the development of sociology in the nineteenth century
by Marx, and the modern phenomenon of an urban proletariat in the
industrializing cities, a social phenomenon dependent upon capitalism,
a new understanding of what it meant to be poor came about. The
official Church never chose to understand the poor either as a class,
or as a level of society that was the outcome of particular political
and social powers, institutions and structures. While Popes have
condemned capitalism and communism verbally, they have completely shied
away from taking any positions that would either undermine, or at least
confront, the human misery that results from particular institutions in
the capitalist West, although they did vociferously condemn the atheism
of the Soviet bloc countries. For the upper hierarchy, the poor have
always just been poor people or individuals. Furthermore, the upper
reaches of its hierarchy are completely out of touch with the suffering
of hundreds of millions of people in the world. As an institution, it
is not democratic, does not hold itself accountable to the masses of
Catholics, has a celibate priesthood that functions not unlike a closed
and secretive brotherhood which swears loyalty to the Church, and not
the Truth. In the West, the vast majority of this class has its
material needs and wants satisfied without experiencing any of the
agonies of either holding on to, or losing a job, and the need to
support a family. Thus its experience differs radically from that of
the ordinary person. Furthermore, the Church also exists, and
functions, as a political entity, the Vatican State, having diplomatic
relations and interests which it seeks to protect and promote, while
adopting political alignments it considers beneficial. The theology of
this church is sacramental, notional other worldly, with salvation
dispensed by the priestly class to the laity.
In contrast to this detached stance, liberation theology began to
flourish after Vatican II, which seemed to signal the Church's
confident entry into modern life breaking with its traditional,
conservative, pre-modern, pre-industrial and pre-urban past. It also
seemed to be a break with the feudal exercise of hierarchical power and
authority over its adherents, and gave indications that the laity would
take a much greater part in Church life, rather than being the mere
recipients of Church favors. It does not seem accidental that Vatican
II took place both in the wake of, and during the time which the
liberation movements in Africa and Asia brought about the dismantlement
of the old empires, followed by the creation of new nation states, in
which surged visions of freedom and development for the newly
enfranchised populations which had previously experienced oppression,
deprivation and dispossession under the yoke of colonialism.
Liberation theology, the tools of which were developed in Europe,
received its huge impetus from Spanish-speaking theologians of Central
and South America, many, if not most of whom, were originally trained
in Europe. As a theology, it went far beyond traditional metaphysical
doctrines in its search of liberation of the individual. It recognized
that if poverty, deprivation and oppression were the material
conditions of a person's life, then such a life could never be free,
and it set as its goal to analyze the society in which such lives were
lived. Liberation theology, by exposing and critiquing the
concentration and control of wealth and power in the hands of the few
at the top of the political, economic and social pyramid, showed how
the structures and institutions of capitalist society resulted in both
a dispossessed, impoverished, oppressed and powerless rural peasantry
and the creation of an impoverished urban proletariat. Using Marxist
tools of analysis, these studies revealed that these social conditions
of poverty were the deliberate and predictable results of the
structures and institutions of capitalist society, and not mere
accidents. That is to say, that human destruction and suffering
produced in these economies was was both intentional and unavoidable,
and not merely an undesirable by- product of their functioning.
It was this analysis which brought about a new attitude towards and
understanding of the class of the poor, seeing them not as backward,
incompetent lazy people, who brought their fate upon themselves, but
rather as victims of institutional violence. This understanding led to
new focus in theology called a "preferential option for the poor" which
developed the social doctrine of serving "the poor and the oppressed."
It was both the exposure to the suffering of the poor and the findings
of this theology which moved priests to side with the people. The focus
of salvation swung from the priest and his administration of the
sacraments to consciousness-raising of the poor, to the creation of
base communities of support and co-operation in which the poor began to
be empowered by running their own lives. They began to read the bible
for its message of liberation, and began to understand themselves as
actors, to subjects, becoming co-workers with Christ towards their own
human salvation within life-giving communities of support. Liberation
theology led to an empowerment of the poor, and thus had the potential
of confronting the rich and powerful to demand a change in the
institutional structures. Given that South America's economies were
dominated by a capitalist United States, working in cohorts with local
powerful wealthy ruling groups and manipulating political power in
their favor, it is not surprising that such socio-economic critiques of
Central and South America would cause more than one confrontation: with
the local ruling powers, with the upper hierarchy of the Church, and
not far behind, the United States government, which represented big
business interests.
Two historical events occurred in the Church to bring to a halt the
spread of liberation theology and its political concomitants: the
election of Pope John Paul II in 1978, and his appointment, in 1981, of
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, as Prefect of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly referred to as the
Holy Inquisition. Both men were intractably anti-Communist and
identified Marxism with the communism of the Soviet Union: the Pope
from his experience living in Communist Poland, and Cardinal Ratzinger
as a result of the student uprising in Tbingen University in 1968, an
experience which indelibly affected his approach to life, placing him
firmly on the right in the conservative camp. Here the term
"conservative" means the conservation of those structures of power that
already exist for the sake of order.
In the late 1970's, first under Carter, and then under Reagan, the
United States began covert persecutions of political liberation
movements, informed by liberation theology, in Central and South
America, in particular Nicaragua and then El Salvador. The collapse of
the Somoza regime in Nicaragua as a result of the exposure of its huge
corruption with respect to the funds that had poured into the country
to aid in the reconstruction, following an earthquake that devastated
the capital Managua and the failure of a rightist, repressive, pro-US
government to take power, occasioned the persecutions. The Sandinistas,
with Catholic priests in leadership positions, espoused a political
program to benefit the poor through government programs for literacy,
medical care, housing, etc. and aided by Cuba, led the struggle for
power in Nicaragua and won. In El Salvador, the violence of the
right-wing, repressive government was being exposed by the leading
church figure, Archbishop Oscar Romero, who had originally been a
pro-government conservative bishop. However, the horror of the violence
brought about his political conversion, and adopting a liberation
theology stance, he used his church forum in the struggle against the
government's violence. He was subsequently assassinated by government
soldiers.
Against the background of these struggles to be rid of these oppressive
regimes, a fateful convergence took place in the early 1980's. The
Reagan government saw the liberation movements as being against the
interests of the US, which, of course, they were, and he labeled them
both "communist" and "terrorist", the slogans used to categorize the
"enemies" of the United States. Not long thereafter, Rome began to
seriously question liberation theology. And it is important to remember
that at this time, the non-Communist trade union in Poland, led by Lech
Walesa, was being supported openly by the Pope, support that was later
said to have contributed to the collapse of Communism in Poland. Those
who were writing with this focus were aggressively examined, questioned
and warned, putting them on the defensive. This assault led, in 1984,
to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under Ratzinger,
issuing its first Instruction against liberation theology. It was a
strong censure against its tools of analysis, particular in its
repudiation of Marxist analysis, while accusing it of neglecting the
divine Jesus. This first official damper was subsequently followed by a
second Instruction in 1986, which put it on the defensive. The effect
of these two instructions was to maintain the status quo of the Church
which continued therefore to serve the interests of the rich and the
powerful, almost by definition. The poor were to continue to receive
charity, or handouts. What the Church did not, and would not, conceive,
or maybe just not concede, is that the interests of the rich conflict,
even unto death, with the interests of the poor, and because the
socio-economic political framework permits and protects this
arrangement, this becomes a theological issue because it goes to the
heart of the question as to what it means to be human. And it is at
this point precisely that liberation theology picks up the challenge,
and focusing on the problem of humanity uses the template of Jesus'
humanity to explicate more fully the basics of our humanity.
But the official church chose to forego this option, and through its
Instructions, which are in essence condemnations, de-legitimized
liberation theology. Although it has remained the most vital and
meaningful understanding of God for the poor, providing them hope and
inspiration, it was relegated to the margins of theological discussion
by those in power. This intellectual marginalization however was not
accompanied by an inactivity on the part of the Magisterium, the
Inquision. It sent out warnings that those theologians who insisted on
continuing in this field that could be up for censure. Over the years
many theologians were persecuted by the church, resulting, in one
spectacular case, in the defection from the order of Franciscan Friars
and the priesthood, Leonardo Boff, one of the leading Brazilian
liberation theologians, after he was silenced more than once by the
Church.
Until very recently liberation theology seemed to have been in the
doldrums, but a recent condemnation has broken the silence. It appears
that liberation theology has come back to haunt the official Church,
and this time, not by theologians, but by politicians. But what the
latest event reveals is the continuing rejection of by the present Pope
and his Magisterium, or teaching body, reminding those who might have
forgotten, that the Roman Catholic Church remains one of the main
players on the world stage, which can still, and will, bring its weight
to bear where it so desires. Ignorance of its power and interests
creates a vacuum in both political analysis and then political
programs, which affects profoundly those whose views and visions are in
opposition to it, without their even being aware of the source of this
counter-point power.
The most recent theologian to be condemned is Fr. Jon Sobrino, sj, (a
Jesuit) one of older and more prominent liberation theologians who did
not stop his work despite being warned repeatedly by Rome. In December,
2006, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under its new
prefect, the American, William Joseph Cardinal Levada, appointed by
Pope Benedict XVI as his replacement, issued a Notification against Fr.
Sobrino concerning arcane theological formulations about Jesus' divine
nature, as opposed to His human nature, formulations that have no
bearing on the life of an ordinary Catholic, let alone on the lives of
those who not only continue to be "poor and oppressed" but to all those
who have joined their ranks as a result of the unchecked, rapacious,
capitalist imperialist policies of the US, Europe and their client
states, such as Israel.
Why was Sobrino censured at the end of December 2006 for some ideas he
had originally published in 1992 and 1999 especially since these books
are in circulation even now? What served as the provocation at this
time? When the Holy See issues such Notifications, it does not explain
itself beyond the actual text that it publicizes. The same principle
worked when De Paul University gave no explanation for the dismissal of
Dr. Finkelstein. I however, would like to surmise, believing that the
Church does not act, at least with regard to the Pope, without a
policy, even if that policy and vision is not spelled out.
The immediate effect of this censure on Sobrino is that his bishop
removed his teaching faculty as a Catholic theologian, but given the
historical context, there is a much broader thrust to this
Notification. Fr. Sobrino is a Basque theologian who has been teaching
in the Jesuit University of Central America in San Salvador, El
Salvador, where four Jesuits, with whom he was living, were killed by
an assassination squad in 1989, as part of the US supported murderous
political repression of indigenous political liberation movements in
Central and South America. Sobrino escaped that particular horrific
event because only because he was out of the country at the time.
However, Sobrino continued his work in liberation theology, remaining
on the side of the poor, a focus which is reflected in these new
regimes in South America.
Therefore the timing of the censure is not accidental. It comes at a
period when indigenous governments are actually standing up the United
States in the interests of their own populations and whose economic
policies do not serve US interests. First and foremost of these leaders
is Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who has already been overthrown once by
pro-US forces, but who was voted back into power. He has been followed
in other countries by Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Evo Morales in
Bolivia. Although Luis da Silva in Brazil and Michelle Bachelet in
Chile were elected on similar tickets, they have not been as
confrontational as Chavez. However, none of these governments represent
the interests of the rich and powerful, although some might be too weak
at this time to stand up to these forces. In all of these countries the
vast majority of the population is Catholic, and Chavez has not
hesitated to call upon the Jesus of liberation theology in support of
his socio-political goals. That this can have a domino effect upon the
people can already be seen. To use a phrase coined by Chomsky, these
governments are providing the "threat of a good example" that is, an
example for the poor of the world to attempt to wrest their fate out of
the rapacious grip of US capitalism. The stakes are enormous and
therefore the counter-force that these examples will inevitably produce
will be extremely dangerous.
This is what happened with Saddam Hussein who had both modernized and
strengthened Iraq such that he anticipated being a regional power, and
thereby influencing the surrounding countries. But this is precisely
what the US could not permit, and the outcome is well known. Therefore
we have to understand that the confrontation of power that is lining up
in South America is not for amateurs as it involves the very highest
stakes which have served as the motivation for Western imperialism--the
control of resource and markets.
Given the attitude of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, it is reasonable to
assess that the intention of Sobrino's censure is to condemn these new
leftist leaders in Central and South America, while aligning the Church
and its considerable sphere of influence with the US.
What, it may be asked now, is the connection between Dr. Finkelstein, a
Jew, and liberation theology? Well, the problem for Dr. Finkelstein is
that in the context of Palestine/Israel, he has addressed the same
questions that liberation theology addresses, and has also taken the
side of the "poor and the oppressed." It needs only a small amount of
imagination to draw the same damning assessment of Israel's treatment
of the Palestinians and its ally, the US, as liberation theology draws
about the oppressive regimes of Central and South America and their
ties with the US.
Here, surprisingly, there appears to be a lacuna in global comparative
political analysis. It has not been remarked that there is an almost
virtual identity of the repressive and violent Central and South
American governments and the repressive and violent Israeli government.
These governments have not confined their persecution within their own
borders, or even the borders of militarily occupied territory, but have
not hesitated to conduct attacks in neighboring countries to either
undermine or to uphold governments, depending on the particular
situations.
At the same time, it would not be unreasonable to expect progressive
Arab and Palestinian movements to begin to make common cause with
forces with the progressive governments of South America, although one
can well imagine that everything will be done to prevent this from
occurring by the establishments of the US, Europe and the official
Roman Catholic Church.
This nexus continues to maintain that Zionism is not colonialism, is
not an integral part of the capitalist-imperialist hegemonic outreach
in the Middle East, nor is it a loyal client for other capitalist
ventures, eg Iran-Contra affair. In order to maintain the bluff of a
legitimate Jewish state in Palestine, the Zionist/Holocaust narrative
is promoted with full force against those who challenge its veracity,
both historically and politically. The fact that the Holocaust cannot
be challenged in Europe, on pain of imprisonment, seems to prove this
point. After all, pace Galileo, why should it be a crime if I say that
the world is flat?
Norman Finkelstein has challenged these positions. He has also
challenged one of its supreme spokesmen, Alan Dershowitz. But that he
has done this now, at this critical juncture in world politics, is what
caused De Paul University, and the Catholic Church, to either go along
with Dershowitz or hide behind the proverbial petticoat, achieving, in
either case, its desired outcome. Had Finkelstein come up for tenure
five years ago, De Paul might not have fired him. Yet timing is all.
The third factor which plays into his firing is one that has not been
mentioned at all, and yet, taking the overall position of the Church,
it certainly makes sense. It is by now, a well-known fact that "Islamic
fundamentalists" were invented originally by the US, in order to
discredit and prevent the spread of Arab democratic secularism, which
spearheaded Arab liberation movements. They naturally posed a threat to
the capitalist, imperialist ambitions, particularly in the oil-rich
Middle East, just in the same manner as the South American
liberationist governments are doing at this time, because liberation
movements demand that the resources and their benefits of these
resources of a country remain in that country. However, it turns out
that the Islamic liberationist movements are no less anti-US than the
secular democratic ones were and therefore have been attacked with
virulence by spokespeople and governments of Europe and the US, and
Israel. This anti-Islamic stance, exacerbated after September 11, 2001,
carries with connotations of an anti-arabism perforce because the Arabs
have so much of the oil, has found a very deep resonance in the
pronouncements of Pope Benedict XVI. He called Islam a "violent"
religion, contrasting it, no doubt, with a peaceful Christianity.
Furthermore, this Pope has stated on more than one occasion that Europe
is a "Christian" continent, and therefore there it is most
inappropriate for Turkey, a Muslim country, to join the European Union.
This is a political position of the right which is echoed in the
profound anti-Muslim feelings that have erupted in France, with a
former President of France, Giscard D'Estaing expressing exactly the
same view.
It should be no surprise that this condemnation of Islam finds a
resonance in attitudes towards Palestine, where the democratically
elected Islamic Hamas government has been attacked and mortally
undermined by Israel, the US and Europe. What has not been re-iterated
is that Hamas was elected because of the corruption of the pro-Western
Fatah leadership. Furthermore, Hamas seems to function in Palestine
pretty much as liberation theology functions in South America, serving
society at its most basic level, providing material and communal
services, while condemning the US-backed Israeli onslaught.
Furthermore, I was personally informed by Christians that many of them
voted for Hamas because they are not corrupt and have been serving the
people who they say they represent.
Thus we have several interests converging in the demise of Dr.
Finkelstein: the loss of autonomy of Catholic universities, the
anti-liberationist position of the Church and its lining up with
Western capitalist global interests and an anti-Islamic stance which
harks back to a xenophobia one would have wished had disappeared from
the world. Is it any wonder, then, that Dr. Finkelstein was booted from
De Paul Catholic University?
[Lynda Brayer is an Israeli human rights lawyer who represented
Palestinians in the Israeli High Court of Justice for twelve years. She
can be reached at lyndabrayer@yahoo.com ]
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
Search Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/htdig/search.html
Support this work, visit our sponsor http://www.blythe-systems.com
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFGiys/iz2i76ou9wQRAgeVAJ9Kd3stF61m6AGyiCvvq8D+pB4e5gCeMxZL
QDQArbKaugeMZIaHAPLgGPY=
=PWNv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
Norman Finkelstein and the Catholic Church
Via NY Transfer News Collective All the News that Doesn't Fit
CounterPunch - Jul 3, 2007
http://www.counterpunch.org/brayer07032007.html
DePaul and the Vatican's Long Leash
Norman Finkelstein and the Catholic Church
By LYNDA BRAYER
The most recent scandal in American academia is the firing of Dr.
Norman Finkelstein by De Paul University, despite the recommendations
of his colleagues and peers, students, and his publishing record, all
of which would normally assure academic tenure to someone in his
position. It seems therefore, that Dr. Norman Finkelstein application
failed not because of any professional or personal failings, but rather
because of considerations external to his person, none of which have
been explained.
To date, the only apparent reason for this outcome is the unremitting
public, and no doubt, private, campaign against Dr. Finkelstein's
competence by Alan Dershowitz, a professor of law at Harvard, and one
of the leading apologists for Zionism, which, appeared to be motivated
by personal pique after Dr. Finkelstein's painstaking analysis revealed
the legal invalidity of Dershowitz' arguments which support Israeli
violations of international law. One would suspect that because De Paul
is a Catholic university, continuing charges of anti-Semitism together
with the Holocaust culpability accusations, were not left out of this
offensive. Those who find Dr. Finkelstein's firing shocking have
attributed weakness of character to the officials at the University for
yielding to these pressures.
Before I adduce what I think are other unmentioned, if not hidden,
seminal factors contributing to this dismissal, I think it might be
worth while to elaborate for purposes of a better understanding of the
issues involved, on the work of Dr. Finkelstein and the position of the
leadership of the Roman Catholic Church in the world today. Dr.
Finkelstein has made significant contributions in the fields of Zionism
and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and established, almost
single-handedly, the field of critical Holocaust studies, work which
required considerable courage as it is contrary to the political
position of the United States and the Israeli/Zionist lobby. It might
seem a truism to remark that had Finkelstein confined himself to arcane
research minutiae in these fields, publishing only in academic
journals, the university might well have been able to continue to
employ him. However, it was precisely the critical public light that
Finkelstein threw upon issues upon which the United States, and other
Western countries have used in pursuit of their interests, that seems
to have sounded his academic death knell at De Paul University.
His critique connected anti-Semitism and the Holocaust to Zionist
protectionism with respect to Palestinians. For decades Israel and its
apologists have insisted that a critique of Israeli policies and
practices is always a cover-up for a deeply-seated and incorrigible
anti-Semitism, the very same poison that led to the Holocaust. Thus
anyone criticizing Israel, the Jewish state, is ipso facto an
anti-Semite who wishes to bring about second Holocaust upon the Jewish
people. The Roman Catholic Church has been in the Jewish firing line
for decades, continuing to be charged with both a historical and an
enduring anti-Semitism. That there was both collaboration between the
Church and some Nazis, and the official Church afforded protection to
Nazis both during and after the war continues to serve Jews as a
continuing paradigm. Of course it is also true that the Church and many
of its members were persecuted by the Nazis, is not politically
advantageous to the Zionists and is therefore relegated out of the
public purview. In response to the charges, the official position of
the Church now insists that Christianity is a "daughter" religion of
Judaism and not a "fulfillment" thereof and has removed all language
deemed offensive to Jews from its prayers. More importantly from a
Zionist point of view, the Holy See has established diplomatic ties
with Israel and promotes cultural and religious dialogues, qua Church
and qua individual Catholics, with Israel and leading Israeli-Jewish
scholars, despite serious outstanding disagreements between them such
as and the continuing tax and visa pressures the Jewish state exerts
against Catholic institutions.
There are however, another three factors connected to this scandal
which bear mentioning as they might indicate what might develop from
the Church, which could have enormous bearing on the political
environment of both Europe and the US. Two are intra-Catholic issues:
the issue of Catholic university autonomy and the issue and status of
liberation theology. The third issue concerns the Church leadership and
political Islam. The former may explain how the firing took place, as
well as indicate future positions that will be taken in Catholic
universities, while the latter two provide two reasons for it.
A point to be emphasized is that De Paul Catholic University is not an
independent institution of higher learning. In the Catholic world,
there are two types of universities: a pontifical university which
falls under direct control of Rome and a Catholic university. Until
1991, a Catholic university enjoyed full autonomy as an independent
institution. The scope of the term "Catholic" was fairly fluid, often
just meaning that it was founded by Catholics and administered by them.
It did not necessarily mean that it explicitly advocated, or acted,
with the approval of Rome.
However, this is no longer the case. In 1991, Pope John Paul II issued
his Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Universities, known by its
introductory latin phrase, Ex Corde Ecclesiae--from the heart of the
Church. This has proven to be a telling phrase, as the Constitution
subjugates a Catholic university to Rome no doubt the heart of the
Church-- concerning faith and morals, i.e. doctrine, thus undermining,
if not removing entirely, that exercise of freedom necessary for a
university to retain its integrity qua university. And it is precisely
in those fields which are controversial that controversy is likely to
be stifled. This constitution was received with much trepidation in the
United States as it was understood as an attempt to extend Rome's
control where it previously had been absent. Pontifical universities or
pontifical faculties in secular universities, such as in Germany, had
seen their staff fired by Rome for holding opinions or positions that
either questioned or contested those of the Magisterium, the teaching
office of the Church. Two examples stand out, although there are many
more. During the reign of Pope John Paul II, Prof. Fr. Hans Kng, at
Tbingen University in Germany had his faculties as a Catholic
theologian removed by Rome for daring to question the issue of papal
infallibility, while Prof. Fr. Charles Curran, teaching about
homosexuality in a questioning and opening manner that did not
contradict any infallible statements made by the Pope, was dismissed
from the pontifical Catholic university in Washington DC.
The Finkelstein affaire seems to justify the deep felt fear of those
who were originally against Ex Corde Ecclesiae and in a manner possibly
more insidious than originally suspected or foreseen. I shall argue
that Rome's reach into the universities is no longer confined to arcane
doctrinal issues, as in the cases mentioned above, but to issues of the
wider political arena, which the Church hierarchy will either promote
or defeat, depending on how it assesses its interests, within Catholic
institutions.
It is my contention that the dismissal of Dr. Finkelstein, concerns the
fundamental question of how the Church leadership is positioning itself
in this changing world. Dr. Finkelstein's work, both academic and
political, relates indirectly to the doctrinal issue of liberation
theology, a subject which was deemed almost dead until very recently.
Rome had both condemned its focus, its approach and methods and some of
its leading exponents. However, it has recently begun to raise its head
once again, undoubtedly because the state of affairs that it originally
addressed not only has not disappeared, but has worsened exponentially
in the more than two decades since it was first censured. Furthermore,
it has now been explicitly referred to in the political arena of the
new governments, elected by the masses of the poor and underprivileged
in South America, and whose programs are threatening the status quo
determined by the US.
What was and is Roman Catholic liberation theology? And how does it
affect Dr. Finkelstein? Historically the Roman Catholic Church, as a
state church, or church of the empire, has been aligned with the rich
and the powerful, or what is called at times "law and order". With
respect to the poor, the underprivileged and the oppressed, it
developed the giving of alms or charity in order to relieve their
suffering. With the development of sociology in the nineteenth century
by Marx, and the modern phenomenon of an urban proletariat in the
industrializing cities, a social phenomenon dependent upon capitalism,
a new understanding of what it meant to be poor came about. The
official Church never chose to understand the poor either as a class,
or as a level of society that was the outcome of particular political
and social powers, institutions and structures. While Popes have
condemned capitalism and communism verbally, they have completely shied
away from taking any positions that would either undermine, or at least
confront, the human misery that results from particular institutions in
the capitalist West, although they did vociferously condemn the atheism
of the Soviet bloc countries. For the upper hierarchy, the poor have
always just been poor people or individuals. Furthermore, the upper
reaches of its hierarchy are completely out of touch with the suffering
of hundreds of millions of people in the world. As an institution, it
is not democratic, does not hold itself accountable to the masses of
Catholics, has a celibate priesthood that functions not unlike a closed
and secretive brotherhood which swears loyalty to the Church, and not
the Truth. In the West, the vast majority of this class has its
material needs and wants satisfied without experiencing any of the
agonies of either holding on to, or losing a job, and the need to
support a family. Thus its experience differs radically from that of
the ordinary person. Furthermore, the Church also exists, and
functions, as a political entity, the Vatican State, having diplomatic
relations and interests which it seeks to protect and promote, while
adopting political alignments it considers beneficial. The theology of
this church is sacramental, notional other worldly, with salvation
dispensed by the priestly class to the laity.
In contrast to this detached stance, liberation theology began to
flourish after Vatican II, which seemed to signal the Church's
confident entry into modern life breaking with its traditional,
conservative, pre-modern, pre-industrial and pre-urban past. It also
seemed to be a break with the feudal exercise of hierarchical power and
authority over its adherents, and gave indications that the laity would
take a much greater part in Church life, rather than being the mere
recipients of Church favors. It does not seem accidental that Vatican
II took place both in the wake of, and during the time which the
liberation movements in Africa and Asia brought about the dismantlement
of the old empires, followed by the creation of new nation states, in
which surged visions of freedom and development for the newly
enfranchised populations which had previously experienced oppression,
deprivation and dispossession under the yoke of colonialism.
Liberation theology, the tools of which were developed in Europe,
received its huge impetus from Spanish-speaking theologians of Central
and South America, many, if not most of whom, were originally trained
in Europe. As a theology, it went far beyond traditional metaphysical
doctrines in its search of liberation of the individual. It recognized
that if poverty, deprivation and oppression were the material
conditions of a person's life, then such a life could never be free,
and it set as its goal to analyze the society in which such lives were
lived. Liberation theology, by exposing and critiquing the
concentration and control of wealth and power in the hands of the few
at the top of the political, economic and social pyramid, showed how
the structures and institutions of capitalist society resulted in both
a dispossessed, impoverished, oppressed and powerless rural peasantry
and the creation of an impoverished urban proletariat. Using Marxist
tools of analysis, these studies revealed that these social conditions
of poverty were the deliberate and predictable results of the
structures and institutions of capitalist society, and not mere
accidents. That is to say, that human destruction and suffering
produced in these economies was was both intentional and unavoidable,
and not merely an undesirable by- product of their functioning.
It was this analysis which brought about a new attitude towards and
understanding of the class of the poor, seeing them not as backward,
incompetent lazy people, who brought their fate upon themselves, but
rather as victims of institutional violence. This understanding led to
new focus in theology called a "preferential option for the poor" which
developed the social doctrine of serving "the poor and the oppressed."
It was both the exposure to the suffering of the poor and the findings
of this theology which moved priests to side with the people. The focus
of salvation swung from the priest and his administration of the
sacraments to consciousness-raising of the poor, to the creation of
base communities of support and co-operation in which the poor began to
be empowered by running their own lives. They began to read the bible
for its message of liberation, and began to understand themselves as
actors, to subjects, becoming co-workers with Christ towards their own
human salvation within life-giving communities of support. Liberation
theology led to an empowerment of the poor, and thus had the potential
of confronting the rich and powerful to demand a change in the
institutional structures. Given that South America's economies were
dominated by a capitalist United States, working in cohorts with local
powerful wealthy ruling groups and manipulating political power in
their favor, it is not surprising that such socio-economic critiques of
Central and South America would cause more than one confrontation: with
the local ruling powers, with the upper hierarchy of the Church, and
not far behind, the United States government, which represented big
business interests.
Two historical events occurred in the Church to bring to a halt the
spread of liberation theology and its political concomitants: the
election of Pope John Paul II in 1978, and his appointment, in 1981, of
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, as Prefect of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly referred to as the
Holy Inquisition. Both men were intractably anti-Communist and
identified Marxism with the communism of the Soviet Union: the Pope
from his experience living in Communist Poland, and Cardinal Ratzinger
as a result of the student uprising in Tbingen University in 1968, an
experience which indelibly affected his approach to life, placing him
firmly on the right in the conservative camp. Here the term
"conservative" means the conservation of those structures of power that
already exist for the sake of order.
In the late 1970's, first under Carter, and then under Reagan, the
United States began covert persecutions of political liberation
movements, informed by liberation theology, in Central and South
America, in particular Nicaragua and then El Salvador. The collapse of
the Somoza regime in Nicaragua as a result of the exposure of its huge
corruption with respect to the funds that had poured into the country
to aid in the reconstruction, following an earthquake that devastated
the capital Managua and the failure of a rightist, repressive, pro-US
government to take power, occasioned the persecutions. The Sandinistas,
with Catholic priests in leadership positions, espoused a political
program to benefit the poor through government programs for literacy,
medical care, housing, etc. and aided by Cuba, led the struggle for
power in Nicaragua and won. In El Salvador, the violence of the
right-wing, repressive government was being exposed by the leading
church figure, Archbishop Oscar Romero, who had originally been a
pro-government conservative bishop. However, the horror of the violence
brought about his political conversion, and adopting a liberation
theology stance, he used his church forum in the struggle against the
government's violence. He was subsequently assassinated by government
soldiers.
Against the background of these struggles to be rid of these oppressive
regimes, a fateful convergence took place in the early 1980's. The
Reagan government saw the liberation movements as being against the
interests of the US, which, of course, they were, and he labeled them
both "communist" and "terrorist", the slogans used to categorize the
"enemies" of the United States. Not long thereafter, Rome began to
seriously question liberation theology. And it is important to remember
that at this time, the non-Communist trade union in Poland, led by Lech
Walesa, was being supported openly by the Pope, support that was later
said to have contributed to the collapse of Communism in Poland. Those
who were writing with this focus were aggressively examined, questioned
and warned, putting them on the defensive. This assault led, in 1984,
to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under Ratzinger,
issuing its first Instruction against liberation theology. It was a
strong censure against its tools of analysis, particular in its
repudiation of Marxist analysis, while accusing it of neglecting the
divine Jesus. This first official damper was subsequently followed by a
second Instruction in 1986, which put it on the defensive. The effect
of these two instructions was to maintain the status quo of the Church
which continued therefore to serve the interests of the rich and the
powerful, almost by definition. The poor were to continue to receive
charity, or handouts. What the Church did not, and would not, conceive,
or maybe just not concede, is that the interests of the rich conflict,
even unto death, with the interests of the poor, and because the
socio-economic political framework permits and protects this
arrangement, this becomes a theological issue because it goes to the
heart of the question as to what it means to be human. And it is at
this point precisely that liberation theology picks up the challenge,
and focusing on the problem of humanity uses the template of Jesus'
humanity to explicate more fully the basics of our humanity.
But the official church chose to forego this option, and through its
Instructions, which are in essence condemnations, de-legitimized
liberation theology. Although it has remained the most vital and
meaningful understanding of God for the poor, providing them hope and
inspiration, it was relegated to the margins of theological discussion
by those in power. This intellectual marginalization however was not
accompanied by an inactivity on the part of the Magisterium, the
Inquision. It sent out warnings that those theologians who insisted on
continuing in this field that could be up for censure. Over the years
many theologians were persecuted by the church, resulting, in one
spectacular case, in the defection from the order of Franciscan Friars
and the priesthood, Leonardo Boff, one of the leading Brazilian
liberation theologians, after he was silenced more than once by the
Church.
Until very recently liberation theology seemed to have been in the
doldrums, but a recent condemnation has broken the silence. It appears
that liberation theology has come back to haunt the official Church,
and this time, not by theologians, but by politicians. But what the
latest event reveals is the continuing rejection of by the present Pope
and his Magisterium, or teaching body, reminding those who might have
forgotten, that the Roman Catholic Church remains one of the main
players on the world stage, which can still, and will, bring its weight
to bear where it so desires. Ignorance of its power and interests
creates a vacuum in both political analysis and then political
programs, which affects profoundly those whose views and visions are in
opposition to it, without their even being aware of the source of this
counter-point power.
The most recent theologian to be condemned is Fr. Jon Sobrino, sj, (a
Jesuit) one of older and more prominent liberation theologians who did
not stop his work despite being warned repeatedly by Rome. In December,
2006, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under its new
prefect, the American, William Joseph Cardinal Levada, appointed by
Pope Benedict XVI as his replacement, issued a Notification against Fr.
Sobrino concerning arcane theological formulations about Jesus' divine
nature, as opposed to His human nature, formulations that have no
bearing on the life of an ordinary Catholic, let alone on the lives of
those who not only continue to be "poor and oppressed" but to all those
who have joined their ranks as a result of the unchecked, rapacious,
capitalist imperialist policies of the US, Europe and their client
states, such as Israel.
Why was Sobrino censured at the end of December 2006 for some ideas he
had originally published in 1992 and 1999 especially since these books
are in circulation even now? What served as the provocation at this
time? When the Holy See issues such Notifications, it does not explain
itself beyond the actual text that it publicizes. The same principle
worked when De Paul University gave no explanation for the dismissal of
Dr. Finkelstein. I however, would like to surmise, believing that the
Church does not act, at least with regard to the Pope, without a
policy, even if that policy and vision is not spelled out.
The immediate effect of this censure on Sobrino is that his bishop
removed his teaching faculty as a Catholic theologian, but given the
historical context, there is a much broader thrust to this
Notification. Fr. Sobrino is a Basque theologian who has been teaching
in the Jesuit University of Central America in San Salvador, El
Salvador, where four Jesuits, with whom he was living, were killed by
an assassination squad in 1989, as part of the US supported murderous
political repression of indigenous political liberation movements in
Central and South America. Sobrino escaped that particular horrific
event because only because he was out of the country at the time.
However, Sobrino continued his work in liberation theology, remaining
on the side of the poor, a focus which is reflected in these new
regimes in South America.
Therefore the timing of the censure is not accidental. It comes at a
period when indigenous governments are actually standing up the United
States in the interests of their own populations and whose economic
policies do not serve US interests. First and foremost of these leaders
is Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who has already been overthrown once by
pro-US forces, but who was voted back into power. He has been followed
in other countries by Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Evo Morales in
Bolivia. Although Luis da Silva in Brazil and Michelle Bachelet in
Chile were elected on similar tickets, they have not been as
confrontational as Chavez. However, none of these governments represent
the interests of the rich and powerful, although some might be too weak
at this time to stand up to these forces. In all of these countries the
vast majority of the population is Catholic, and Chavez has not
hesitated to call upon the Jesus of liberation theology in support of
his socio-political goals. That this can have a domino effect upon the
people can already be seen. To use a phrase coined by Chomsky, these
governments are providing the "threat of a good example" that is, an
example for the poor of the world to attempt to wrest their fate out of
the rapacious grip of US capitalism. The stakes are enormous and
therefore the counter-force that these examples will inevitably produce
will be extremely dangerous.
This is what happened with Saddam Hussein who had both modernized and
strengthened Iraq such that he anticipated being a regional power, and
thereby influencing the surrounding countries. But this is precisely
what the US could not permit, and the outcome is well known. Therefore
we have to understand that the confrontation of power that is lining up
in South America is not for amateurs as it involves the very highest
stakes which have served as the motivation for Western imperialism--the
control of resource and markets.
Given the attitude of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, it is reasonable to
assess that the intention of Sobrino's censure is to condemn these new
leftist leaders in Central and South America, while aligning the Church
and its considerable sphere of influence with the US.
What, it may be asked now, is the connection between Dr. Finkelstein, a
Jew, and liberation theology? Well, the problem for Dr. Finkelstein is
that in the context of Palestine/Israel, he has addressed the same
questions that liberation theology addresses, and has also taken the
side of the "poor and the oppressed." It needs only a small amount of
imagination to draw the same damning assessment of Israel's treatment
of the Palestinians and its ally, the US, as liberation theology draws
about the oppressive regimes of Central and South America and their
ties with the US.
Here, surprisingly, there appears to be a lacuna in global comparative
political analysis. It has not been remarked that there is an almost
virtual identity of the repressive and violent Central and South
American governments and the repressive and violent Israeli government.
These governments have not confined their persecution within their own
borders, or even the borders of militarily occupied territory, but have
not hesitated to conduct attacks in neighboring countries to either
undermine or to uphold governments, depending on the particular
situations.
At the same time, it would not be unreasonable to expect progressive
Arab and Palestinian movements to begin to make common cause with
forces with the progressive governments of South America, although one
can well imagine that everything will be done to prevent this from
occurring by the establishments of the US, Europe and the official
Roman Catholic Church.
This nexus continues to maintain that Zionism is not colonialism, is
not an integral part of the capitalist-imperialist hegemonic outreach
in the Middle East, nor is it a loyal client for other capitalist
ventures, eg Iran-Contra affair. In order to maintain the bluff of a
legitimate Jewish state in Palestine, the Zionist/Holocaust narrative
is promoted with full force against those who challenge its veracity,
both historically and politically. The fact that the Holocaust cannot
be challenged in Europe, on pain of imprisonment, seems to prove this
point. After all, pace Galileo, why should it be a crime if I say that
the world is flat?
Norman Finkelstein has challenged these positions. He has also
challenged one of its supreme spokesmen, Alan Dershowitz. But that he
has done this now, at this critical juncture in world politics, is what
caused De Paul University, and the Catholic Church, to either go along
with Dershowitz or hide behind the proverbial petticoat, achieving, in
either case, its desired outcome. Had Finkelstein come up for tenure
five years ago, De Paul might not have fired him. Yet timing is all.
The third factor which plays into his firing is one that has not been
mentioned at all, and yet, taking the overall position of the Church,
it certainly makes sense. It is by now, a well-known fact that "Islamic
fundamentalists" were invented originally by the US, in order to
discredit and prevent the spread of Arab democratic secularism, which
spearheaded Arab liberation movements. They naturally posed a threat to
the capitalist, imperialist ambitions, particularly in the oil-rich
Middle East, just in the same manner as the South American
liberationist governments are doing at this time, because liberation
movements demand that the resources and their benefits of these
resources of a country remain in that country. However, it turns out
that the Islamic liberationist movements are no less anti-US than the
secular democratic ones were and therefore have been attacked with
virulence by spokespeople and governments of Europe and the US, and
Israel. This anti-Islamic stance, exacerbated after September 11, 2001,
carries with connotations of an anti-arabism perforce because the Arabs
have so much of the oil, has found a very deep resonance in the
pronouncements of Pope Benedict XVI. He called Islam a "violent"
religion, contrasting it, no doubt, with a peaceful Christianity.
Furthermore, this Pope has stated on more than one occasion that Europe
is a "Christian" continent, and therefore there it is most
inappropriate for Turkey, a Muslim country, to join the European Union.
This is a political position of the right which is echoed in the
profound anti-Muslim feelings that have erupted in France, with a
former President of France, Giscard D'Estaing expressing exactly the
same view.
It should be no surprise that this condemnation of Islam finds a
resonance in attitudes towards Palestine, where the democratically
elected Islamic Hamas government has been attacked and mortally
undermined by Israel, the US and Europe. What has not been re-iterated
is that Hamas was elected because of the corruption of the pro-Western
Fatah leadership. Furthermore, Hamas seems to function in Palestine
pretty much as liberation theology functions in South America, serving
society at its most basic level, providing material and communal
services, while condemning the US-backed Israeli onslaught.
Furthermore, I was personally informed by Christians that many of them
voted for Hamas because they are not corrupt and have been serving the
people who they say they represent.
Thus we have several interests converging in the demise of Dr.
Finkelstein: the loss of autonomy of Catholic universities, the
anti-liberationist position of the Church and its lining up with
Western capitalist global interests and an anti-Islamic stance which
harks back to a xenophobia one would have wished had disappeared from
the world. Is it any wonder, then, that Dr. Finkelstein was booted from
De Paul Catholic University?
[Lynda Brayer is an Israeli human rights lawyer who represented
Palestinians in the Israeli High Court of Justice for twelve years. She
can be reached at lyndabrayer@yahoo.com ]
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
Search Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/htdig/search.html
Support this work, visit our sponsor http://www.blythe-systems.com
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFGiys/iz2i76ou9wQRAgeVAJ9Kd3stF61m6AGyiCvvq8D+pB4e5gCeMxZL
QDQArbKaugeMZIaHAPLgGPY=
=PWNv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----