True Ratzinger along with John Paul II was responsible for smothering the Liberation theology movement in Latin America, which speaks to the power struggle between the Vatican and its far flung constituents. One wonders if the Anglican Communion doesn’t have a better model.

Interestingly in India, Liberation theology has found expression among Dalit communities in different parts of the country. In Kerala, Dalit responses to the missionary wave of the ninteenth century was usually marginalized due to their development of what was mispercieved as unconventional theology. What Liberation theology contributed thereafter to these Dalit movements was the ability to express themselves in a more mainstream language and engage the larger Catholic/Christian community in conversation.

I think most people who have been commenting on this entry have at least some admiration for the Catholic church.

Sure why not. I have admiration for Liberation Theology and think its principles should be examined and appropriated by grassroots Hindu movements. Leaders like Narayana Guru (from Kerala) and the Swadhyaya movement certainly coupled social uplift with spirituality, but they have not been (yet anyway) national or international movements. A Hindu resurgence premised on breaking down recalcitrant barriers of economic and social injustice is immensely preferable to unreconstructed Marxism and its Indian offspring–Naxalism.

Of course Ratzinger silenced Boff and Gutierez (seminal Lib Theologians) too; he also enigmatically claimed the Lib Theology had its antecedents in German theology and not in Latin America. To him it is nothing more than crypto-Marxism

Constructive Theology also is of some interest to the syncretic Hindu.

Catholic thinkers have certainly borrowed from Hinduism–Teilard de Chardin, for example, and Pannikar, who we mentioned in passing.

I don’t condone deceit or fraud in missionary efforts. however, the source Shourie is quoting is obscure and I don’t have access to it to confirm his conclusions, which he is known to often stretch.

De Nobili was a crook and charlatan who was trying to dupe Hindus from within. His aim was not understanding or making a syncretic version of Catholicism, but destruction of Hinduism using artifice. Here’s Arun Shourie about De Nobili

Hallmark of SM? Disrespecting the Pontiff is a distinguishing characteristic of this blog? No. The banners, excessive punnery or M.I.A.-obsession could be considered “hallmarks”, but not that.

Mutineers don’t condemn infidels to hell, nor do they say words like this:

Hinduism, he said, offers ‘false hope’; it guarantees ‘purification’ based on a ‘morally cruel’ concept of reincarnation resembling ‘a continuous circle of hell’…

If Christian readers get to comment when their religion is being discussed unfairly, shouldn’t Hindus get to respond in kind to charges like a central process of their faith involving a neverending HELL?

this is a complicated issue, and as you know, i’m an atheist, so i feel strange here arguing against syncretism in roman catholicism because i think most of religion is consists of cognitive parlor tricks. nevertheless

1) yes, a lot of the aspects of roman catholic liturgy, tradition and custom exhibit syncretism. but, and this is a big but, elements like the mass, trinitarianism (which isaac newton believed was a pagan interjection into christian monotheism), etc. which can be substantively shown to have extra-religious origins are now fundamentally ‘christian’ because of the weight of church history. similarly, even though jews imported in the matrilineal descent from their time within the roman empire, they have back-projected it via made up ‘oral tradition’ to the mosaic period.

2) but, the age of miracles is over from what i can tell. on a fundamental level if we are to talk about something we need to make an operational concession to an essentialist idealized type.

3) so yeah, i agree that roman catholicism is syncretistic, but, i am trying to suggest that to roman catholics (or at least the ‘orthodox’ hierarchy) some syncretism isn’t that at all, but part of christian tradition. the ‘new syncretism’ though is just pagan ballshit.

4) in relation to mass popularity, yes, it some extent local syncretism is now roman catholicism spread. for example, gregory the great told st. augustine of kent to sanctify pagan temples and transform them into churches and make temporary accomidations to local custom. but once christianity was established and secure there was often a ‘romanization’ of practice and norms. additionally, in areas of central american where syncretism in a very explicit form is the dominant form of roman catholicism (maya) evangelical protestant christianity is ascendent and becoming the majority faith.

5) by and large, my understanding is that the southern hierarchies of the transnational christian churches are more, not less, traditionally orthodox. there are some modifications, for instance, acceptance of polygamy amongst some african groups, but this isn’t syncretism as much as a purging of roman cultural norms laid on top of jewish christianity with the gentile conversions.

to cut it short, my main points are

1) syncretic religion is not virile 2) the south is not fundamentally going to be more syncretic, rather, they are going to be focusing on the parts of the bible which resonate with them. e.g., the magical elements in the acts of the apostles really appeal to the more rustic populations which are just a few years past shamanism (i know that sounds patronizing, i mean to be). i think india is a special case because hinduism is an elite non-abrahamic religion which needs to be addressed in a way that non-abrahamic religion in africa or latin america need not be because they have no elite proponents (until recently in togo, where the majority of the population adhere to a form of vodun, only christianity and islam were recognized by the state).

I think most people who have been commenting on this entry have at least some admiration for the Catholic church. The criticisms are offered not as flippant jabs but as genuine concern for the common areas of desi culture and the Catholic tradition. No disrespect is intended.

Razib – I disagree. Religious syncretism is everywhere in the Catholic tradition – in the Mass, in the Church Calendar, in the art and architecture. This is not a fact that is often drawn attention to (esp. within the Church) but nevertheless, it is something that tells us about how religions evolve and gain mass popularity.

Cut to the global south – both in Latin America and Africa there are in fact widespread practices and beliefs within the Catholic Church that draw from local cultures. It is precisely because syncretism could pose such a challenge to Vatican authority if it begins to influence the theology of local clerics (as it has in India), that the hierarchy is taking such a strong line against it. Yes, I do believe that inasmuch as syncretism allows for continuity, it can pose a strong challenge to the sudden break-with-tradition of “muscular abrahamism”.

ps Hans Kung lost his license to teach theology at Catholic institutions, but I think he is still an ordained priest.

i think what you note is direspect for the institution and beliefs (of exclusivity and non-reciprocity) that the pope represents, not to him as a person. you are free to feel offended by disrespect for the pope, just as you would if you arrived at my house and i had a doormat with the pope’s visage upon it. but, those who are non-christian should feel free to feel disrespected when their beliefs are regularly shat on as “dark,” “pagan” or “idolatrous.”

you shall reap as you sow.