Note to non_Catholics: You won’t like this blog!   Apparently there are followers and the majority of the MSM that believe Obama is the best example of Liberation Theology since Jesus walked on the the Earth. The youthful “minds of mush” that cheer at every word uttered by this “man of change” illustrate a messianic fervor not unlike a new convert to Liberation Theology. A relatively new form of Christianity. The promises he makes are very much like those espoused by the New Liberation theology. It is not unrecognizable that young people would gravitate toward a man who espouses a change. These young voters are at the period of their life where they are of a mind to reject all that their parents and established organizations, including government and the Church, stand for. It is the rebellious nature of youth expressing itself,and it is the mantra of most college and university professors that teach them. But why so many adults?
What does this man have to offer other than platitudes of change. A man who attends a church in Chicago that has as it’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright ,Jr., an avowed Black racist who has a masters degree in Theology with emphasis on Islam. Has traveled extensively in the Middle East with Louis Farrakhan, and had this to say about his race: “We are an African people, and we remain true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.” Not we are African Americans who are first Americans and then Blacks who are proud of our heritage! Unfortunately this sounds strangely similar to the slogans of La Raza and many illegals parading through our streets to demonstrate their solidarity against our rule of law. It is axiomatic that a lust for “Change” is a common feature of revolutionaries. Maybe that is why you will find a Cuban flag and poster of Che Guerra in Obama’s campaign headquarters in Houston, Texas.
But I digress! Over and over again, Obama invokes his double mantra: “It’s time for change!” and “Yes, we can!” This sounds very scary to me. Change for change sake is not a good thing, and an advocate for change without naming the specific changes he/she will make is very frightening. We have had in the last seventy five years too many tyrants who preached change for the common good. Pol pot, Hitler, Chairman Moa, Lenin, Stalin and Marx are but a few that came to power or prominence by proclaiming the need to change. They changed the lives of those they ruled in ways that only the anti-Christ would be proud. Never the less the one thing he will not change is the unfettered continual aborting of unborn and partially born babies. He is and always will be for abortion rights!
Perhaps Obama has good intentions, but you cannot decide if his intentions and the way he will change our lives, by anything he has said or done in the past. The man is an enigma, a “preacher” type who wants to rule the free world from the oval office with promises of a repeal of tax cuts, and if need be, increased taxation to accomplish his socialist programs like universal health care.
In the minds of his “followers”, hope is interpreted as “confidence in the.future” and as working for the future and thus is subordinated once more to the history of class conflict. Pope Benedict XVI had this to say about those who promise that government will provide for people that for which is reserved to God. “The liberation theologians emphasize very strongly the partiality and partisan nature of the Christian option; in their view, taking sides is the fundamental presupposition for a correct hermeneutics of the biblical testimony. Here, I think, one can see very clearly that amalgam of a basic truth of Christianity and an un-Christian fundamental option which makes the whole thing so seductive: The Sermon on the Mount is indeed God taking sides with the poor. But to interpret the “poor” in the sense of the Marxist dialectic of history, and “taking sides with them” in the sense of the class struggle, is a wanton attempt to portray as identical things that are contrary. The fundamental concept of the preaching of Jesus is the “Kingdom of God”. This concept is also at the center of the liberation theologies, but read against the background of Marxist hermeneutics. According to one of these theologians, the Kingdom must not be understood in a spiritualist or universalist manner, not in the sense of an abstract eschatological eventuality. It must be understood in partisan terms and with a view to praxis. The meaning of the Kingdom can only be defined by reference to the praxis of Jesus, not theoretically: it means working at the historical reality that surrounds us in order to transform it into the Kingdom. “Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.” Pope Benedict XVI
And just for those Catholics whom have already forgotten the words of Pope John Paul II, about those who espouse the philosophy that man can do for his fellow man what he believes is reserved to God alone. He said this: ” I also believe a person that talks like a communist, acts like a communist, associates with communist, praises everything communist, might just be a communist, independently of whether he/she uses a uniform or a robe, and even if he/she would throw in 10% or so of biblical related terms in their speeches.” The Pope(john Paul) believed that the Church should operate primarily in a spiritual dimension and that social change and public attitudes would be a consequence of the growth of that spirituality. From what I have heard in the political speeches made by Obama. He is offering a Marxist change that is diametrically opposed to the frame work and meaning of our Constitution. He is nothing less than a “preacher of Socialism