EPISTLES

By: Fr. Lance Patrick C. Enad

I had the privilege of visiting my professor in Moral Philosophy, and Ancient Philosophy and Medieval Philosophy in his home in Malolos, Bulacan. The visit was a bit brief and yet we were able to converse on several topics ranging from moral philosophy and theology, Sacred Scripture, Dogmatic Theology,the Modernist Heresy, and Liberation Theology.

Digressing from the topic of Sacred Scripture, the professor pointed out how a certain group of theologians (DAKATEO) in the Philippines have been so influenced by the Theology of Liberation, which John Paul II and Benedict XVI have rejected as a marxist reading of catholic theology -whose ancestor, Americanism, was condemned by Leo XIII as heretical.

For the sake of brevity, Marxism frames all historical reality on the basis of a class struggle or a power struggle. Or to put it in another way, history is interpreted with the hermeneutics of power struggle such that everything must be explained by such.

Now, applying this Marxist Liberation Theology lens to the historical event of the Incarnation, Public Ministry, Suffering, Death and Resurrection of Christ, notable members of DAKATEO contend that the suffering and death of Jesus Christ on the cross is mainly a consequence of his struggle with Jewish and Roman authority. This has several pernicious implications. First, it means that the death of Christ on the cross is NOT AN EXPIATORY SACRIFICE but is only a consequence of power struggle. Secondly, because the death of Christ is not an expiatory sacrifice, the main mission of Jesus is therefore NOT TO OFFER HIMSELF UP ON THE CROSS TO REDEEM MANKIND but TO BUILD A KINGDOM OF JUSTICE. Third, the idea of expiatory sacrifice must therefore be discarded.

Now it goes without saying that this is in direct contradiction with Sacred Tradition and with Catholic Doctrine as the Fathers of the Church, the privileged witnesses of Sacred Tradition, all consistently interpret the the death of Jesus as an expiatory sacrifice. Moreover, Sacred Scripture is clear about identifying Christ as the lamb to be sacrificed in atonement for sin.

However, this has an even more poisonous implication in the Theology of the Priesthood. The Fathers, especially St. John Chrysostom, several doctors of the Church, and even the magisterium of the Church identified and tied the priesthood with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass such that the when one speaks of the priesthood, one cannot not speak about sacrifice because the priesthood is sacrifice. Thus, the priesthood gives an ontological character in the man ordained to act in persona Christi capitis to primariy offer the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross which is the Mass and to administer the sacraments, the means of sanctifying grace, in the person of Christ.

Liberation Theologians reject this notion of the priesthood. They reject that the priesthood gives an ontological character to the soul if the one ordained because to posit a distinctive character on the priest creates, in the words of a Dakateo member, “a medieval two tiered Church” in which there is a power struggle between the ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood.

However, the crux of the matter lies in the Christology of Liberation Theology. If Christ did not offer an expiatory sacrifice by his death on the cross in which he himself is Priest, Altar, and Victim and that this is not the main objective of his incarnation, then the ministerial priesthood is also does not have the offering of the Sacrifice and the administration of the Sacraments as its telos. Now if the death of Christ was only a consequence of class struggle and that his central mission is the building of a Kingdom of Justice, then the priest’s main objective is also to build a community of Justice.

Thus, one can see how this all fits together. For the Catholic Church, for the Fathers of the Church, the priesthood is for sacrifice because Christ offered himself as an expiatory sacrifice. For the Liberation Theology, the priesthood is for the promotion of Social Justice because the mission of Christ is to build a Kingdom of Justice.

This is reminiscent of a certain phrase uttered by the 18th superior general of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost Fathers and the first Archbishop of Dakar: “A New Priesthood.”

It all makes sense now.

The Catholic Priesthood logically follows through Catholic Christology and the Catholic Theology of Christ’s expiatory sacrifice.

The New Priesthood of the Liberation Theology logically follows the Christology of Liberation Theology and the rejection of Christ’s expiatory sacrifice.

For the Catholic Church, the priest is a man who acts in persona Christi capitis to offer the Sacrifice and to administer the sacraments. For the Liberation theology, the priest is an exalted social justice warrior.

For the Catholic Church, because Christ is the priest, victim, and altar par excellence, the priesthood is for the offering of sacrifice.

For the New Religion of Liberation Theology, since Christ is the social worker who builds the kingdom of justice par excellence, the priest is a social worker or activist.
The New Priesthood of this New Religion is a priesthood without the Cross. A priesthood without Christ Crucified.

It all makes sense: Catholic Priesthood follows the Catholic Religion. This New Priesthood follows a New Religion.

Recently we heard of news in which an important priest is no longer celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass daily. Just today, that certain priest expressed sentiments against making the Liturgy the center -or as the Second Vatican Council calls it, the Culmen et Fons.

Now whether or not the news are true, we can piece together, with the help of his recent statement, that he does not really have a theology of the priesthood that is intrinsically united to the concept of Expiatory Sacrifice. He does not seem to believe in the Catholic Priesthood but rather in the New Priesthood of the New Religion.