One comment on my Rappler article is: I, for one, agree with a lot of the points that the Professor has made with his article. One wonders though, how exactly he envisions addressing the imbalance in the ownership of the countrys wealth? What mechanism does he suggest we use to determine who deserves to keep what they (or their forebears) earned? How do we redistribute the wealth? Who, ultimately decides? One has to wonder. Lets face it, the Church has no ideology or political and economic solutions to social, much less, global problems. The Church teaches that Christians, pastors, and Bishops should reflect on the signs of the times using the available tools of the social sciences. As to what theory or paradigm one has to use, the Church is neutral. But the Church has always distanced herself from Marxist analysis. Why? Pope John Paul II and former Cardinal Ratzinger believed, if one embraces Marxist theory, one ends up being an atheist! I dont think so! Many liberation theologians employed Marxist analysis to analyze Latin American economic backwardness -Boff, Assman, Sugundo, Ellacuria, Bonino, Gutierrez, Comblin, etc.-- and they did not become atheists. Other than Marxist analysis, what do critics propose? Weberian analysis? Durkheim? Neoliberal political economy? Using them will turn you real atheists.
Posted on: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 02:53:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015