Ein Rundumschlag von A. Spadaro und Marcelo Figueroa gegen die USA, die amerikanische Regierung, amerikanische Evangelikale,web-sites und Einzelpersonen

rorate caeli hat den antiamerikanischen Artikel von Antonio Spadaro und  Pastor Marcelo Figueroa in "La Civiltà Cattolica" übersetzt und veröffentlicht, u.a. auch, weil die website der Papstzeitung nach massiven Protesten zunächst offline ging.
Hier geht´s zum Original: klicken

FÜR DIE AKTEN: "DER ANTI-AMERIKANISCHE PAPST- ZWEI VON FRANZISKUS´ ENGSTEN VERTRAUTEN- GREIFEN IN DER ZEITUNG DES PAPSTES DIE USA UND DIE AMERIKANISCHEN KONSERVATIVEN AN."

Der Artikel wurde in Civiltá Cattolica, der Zeitung die als offizielle Stimme des Vaticans und seiner diplomatischen Abteilung (Staatssekretariat) gilt, geschrieben und von zwei der engsten Vertrauten des Papstes autorisiert- Pater Antonio Spadaro SJ (Herausgeber) und dem argentinischen presbyterianischen Pastor Marcelo Fugueroa (schockierenderweise der Herausgeber der spanisch-sprachigen Ausgabe der Zeitung).

Wegen seines präzedenzlosen Charakters und des direkten Angriffs auf die USA, ihre aktuelle Administration (einschließlich Präsident Trump und Steve Bannon, einen der höchstrangigen Berater des Präsidenten), amerikanische Evangelikale, konservative Katholiken in den USA (und Europa und Afrika, die sich um die Ausbreitung des Islamismus sorgen) und sogar auf spezielle web-sites und Personen (Church Militant und Michael Voris) ist die Überreichweite des Artikels nichts anderes als atemberaubend.

Die website von La Civiltá ist im Augenblick geschlossen und bevor irgendetwas verändert wird, hier die erste veröffentlichte Fassung:





"EVANGELIKALER FUNDAMENTALISMUS UND KATHOLISCHER INTEGRALISMUS IN DEN USA: EIN ÜBERRASCHENDER ÖKUMENISMUS"
Antonio Spadaro, SJ, Chefredkteur der Civiltà Cattolica und Marcelo Figueroa, Presb. Pastor, Chefredakteur der Argentinischen Ausgabe des Osservatore Romano

 "In God we trust" Dieser Satz ist auf die Banknoten der USA gedruckt und das aktuelle National-Motto. Es erschien zuerst 1864 auf einer Münze, wurde aber nicht offiziell  bis der Konress 1956 einen Beschluss faßte. Ein Motto ist für eine Nation wichtig, deren Wurzeln religiöse Motive hatte.

Für viele ist es einfach eine Glaubenserklärung. Für andere ist es die Synthese einer problematischen Fusion von Religion und Staat, Glaube und Politik, relgiösen Werten und Wirtschaft.

Religion, politischer Manichäismus und ein Kult der Apokalypse

In den letzten Jahrzehnten hatte die Religion eine entscheidendere Rolle bei der Wahl und bei Regierungsentscheidungen -besonders bei einigen US-Regierungen. Das bietet eine moralische Rolle, um zu identifizieren was gut und böse ist.

Manchmal hat diese Vermischung von Politik, Moral und Religion eine manichäische Sprache angenommen, die die Realität zwischen absolut Gutem und absolut Bösen teilt. Tatsächlich hat Präsident George W. Bush zu seiner Zeit als er die "Achse des Bösen" herausforderte festgestellt, daß es die Pflicht der USA sei, nach den Ereignissen vom 11. September 2001 "die Welt vom Bösen zu befreien".

Heute steuert Präsident Trump den Kamof gegen eine größere, allgemeinere kollektive Entität des Bösen oder sogar sehr Bösen. Manchmal nehmen die Töne, die seine Anhänger in manchen Kampagnen annehmen Bedeutungen an, die wir als monumental definieren könnten.

Diese Standpunkte basieren auf Christlich-Evangelikalen fundamentalistischen Prinzipien, die vom Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts stammen und schrittweise radiklisiert worden sind. Die haben sich von einer Zurückweisung  alles Weltlichen- wie Politik betrachtet wurde- dazu einen starken, entschieden religiös-moralischen Einfluss auf demokratische Prozesse und ihre Ergebnisse auszuüben.

Der Begrifff "evangelikal-fundamentalistisch kann heute mit "evangelikal rechts" gleichgesetzt werden oder "theokonservativ"  und hat seinen Ursprung in den Jahrn 1910- 1915.

In dieser Periode hat der Südkalifornische Millionär Lyman Stewart das 12-bändige Werk "Die Fundamentalen." Der Autor wollte auf die Drohung zeitgenössischer modernistischer Ideen antworten. Er faßte das Denken von Autoren, deren doktrinale Unterstützung er schätzte, zusammen.

Er veranschaulichte die moralischen, sozialen, kollektiven und individuellen Aspekte des evangelikalen Glaubens. Zu seinen Bewunderern  gehören viele Politiker ind sogar zwei der Präsidenten der jüngeren Zeit : Ronald Reagan und George W. Bush.

Die sozial-religiösen Gruppen die von solchen Autoren wie Stewart betrachten die USA als eine von Gott gesegnete Nation. Und sie zögern nicht, das ökonomische Wachstum des Landes auf ein wörtliches Festhalten an der Bibel zu basieren. In den letzten Jahren ist dieser aktuelle Gedanke durch die Stigmatisierung von Feinden vertärtk worden, die oft dämonisiert werden.

Das Panorama der Drohungen gegen ihr Verständnis des Amreiecan way of life, schließt den Geist des Modernismus, die Schwarze Civil- Rights-Bewegung, die Hippie-Bewegung, Kommunismus, Feminismus etc. ein. Und jetzt, in unseren Tagen sind es die Migranten und Muslime.

Um bei der offiziellen Ebene zu bleiben, ihre Bibelauslegung haben sich in  Richtung der Dekontextualisierung der Texte des Alten Testaments über die Eroberung und Verteidigung des "versprochenen Landes" bewegt, anstatt durch einen eingehenden, liebevollen Blick auf den Jesus der Evangelien.

Innerhalb dieses Narrativs ist nichts, was den Konflikt voranbringt, off limits. Das bezieht den Bund zwischen Kapital, Profit und Waffenverkäufen nicht mit ein. Ganz im Gegenteil - oft wird Krieg selbst mit der heldenhaften Eroberung des "Herrn der Herrn"  Gideons und Davids gleichgesetzt. In diese manichäischen Sichtweise kann Angriffslust eine theologische Rechtfertigung bekommen und es gibt Pastoren, die eine biblische Grundlage suchen, indem sie die Schrifttexte aus dem Zusammenhang reißen.

Ein anderer interessanter Aspekt ist die Beziehung  der Gründung dieser rleligiösen Gruppe, die hauptsächlich aus Weißen aus dem tiefen Amerikanischen Süden stammen. Da gibt es es eine Art "Anästheticum" im Hinblick aud ökologiche Katastrophen und durch den Klimawandel hervorgerufene Katastrophen. Sie bekennen "Dominionismus" und betrachten Umweltktivisten als leute, die gegen den christlichen Glauben sind.

Sie sehen ihre eigenen Wurzeln in einem wörtlichn Verständnis der Schöpfungsgeschichte aus dem Buch Genesis, das die Menschheit über die Schöpfung stellt, während die Schöpfung dem menschlichen Willen biblisch unterworfen bleibt.

In dieser theologischen Sicht werden natürliche Katastrophen, dramatische Klimawechsel und eine globale ökologische Krise nicht nur als Alarm der dazu führen sollte, daß sie ihre Dogmen überdenken würden, sondern sie werden als das komplette Gegenteil angesehen: als Zeichen,  die ihr nicht-allegorisches Verständnis der Figuren der Apokalypse und ihre apokalyptische Hoffnung auf einen "neuen  Himmel und eine neue Erde"

Wir bitten unsere Leser , den Rest des Artikels in der englischen Fassung zu lesen:

 "Theirs is a prophetic formula: fight the threats to American Christian values and prepare for the imminent justice of an Armageddon, a final showdown between Good and Evil, between God and Satan. In this sense, every process (be it of peace, dialogue, etc.) collapses before the needs of the end, the final battle against the enemy. And the community of believers (faith) becomes a community of combatants (fight). Such a unidirectional reading of the biblical texts can anesthetize consciences or actively support the most atrocious and dramatic portrayals of a world that is living beyond the frontiers of its own “promised land.”

Pastor Rousas John Rushdoony (1916-2001) is the father of so-called “Christian reconstructionism” (or “dominionist theology”) that had a great influence on the theopolitical vision of Christian fundamentalism. This is the doctrine that feeds political organizations and networks such as the Council for National Policy and the thoughts of their exponents such as Steve Bannon, currently chief strategist at the White House and supporter of an apocalyptic geopolitics.[1]

“The first thing we have to do is give a voice to our Churches,” some say. The real meaning of this type of expression is the desire for some influence in the political and parliamentary sphere and in the juridical and educational areas so that public norms can be subjected to religious morals.

Rushdoony’s doctrine maintains a theocratic necessity: submit the state to the Bible with a logic that is no different from the one that inspires Islamic fundamentalism. At heart, the narrative of terror shapes the world-views of jihadists and the new crusaders and is imbibed from wells that are not too far apart. We must not forget that the theopolitics spread by Isis is based on the same cult of an apocalypse that needs to be brought about as soon as possible. So, it is not just accidental that George W. Bush was seen as a “great crusader” by Osama bin Laden.

Theology of prosperity and the rhetoric of religious liberty

Together with political Manichaeism, another relevant phenomenon is the passage from original puritan pietism, as expressed in Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, to the “Theology of Prosperity” that is mainly proposed in the media and by millionaire pastors and missionary organizations with strong religious, social and political influence. They proclaim a “Prosperity Gospel” for they believe God desires his followers to be physically healthy, materially rich and personally happy.

It is easy to note how some messages of the electoral campaign and their semiotics are full of references to evangelical fundamentalism. For example, we see political leaders appearing triumphant with a Bible in their hands.

Pastor Norman Vincent Peale (1898-1993) is an important figure who inspired US Presidents such as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. He officiated at the first wedding of the current president and the funeral of his parents. He was a successful preacher. He sold millions of copies of his book The Power of Positive Thinking (1952) that is full of phrases such as “If you believe in something, you get it”, “Nothing will stop you if you keep repeating: God is with me, who is against me” or “Keep in mind your vision of success and success will come” and so on. Many prosperity prosperous televangelists mix marketing, strategic direction and preaching, concentrating more on personal success than on salvation or eternal life.

A third element, together with Manichaeism and the prosperity gospel, is a particular form of proclamation of the defense of “religious liberty.” The erosion of religious liberty is clearly a grave threat within a spreading secularism. But we must avoid its defense coming in the fundamentalist terms of a “religion in total freedom,” perceived as a direct virtual challenge to the secularity of the state.

Fundamentalist ecumenism

Appealing to the values of fundamentalism, a strange form of surprising ecumenism is developing between Evangelical fundamentalists and Catholic Integralists brought together by the same desire for religious influence in the political sphere.

Some who profess themselves to be Catholic express themselves in ways that until recently were unknown in their tradition and using tones much closer to Evangelicals. They are defined as value voters as far as attracting electoral mass support is concerned. There is a well-defined world of ecumenical convergence between sectors that are paradoxically competitors when it comes to confessional belonging. This meeting over shared objectives happens around such themes as abortion, same-sex marriage, religious education in schools and other matters generally considered moral or tied to values. Both Evangelical and Catholic Integralists condemn traditional ecumenism and yet promote an ecumenism of conflict that unites them in the nostalgic dream of a theocratic type of state.

However, the most dangerous prospect for this strange ecumenism is attributable to its xenophobic and Islamophobic vision that wants walls and purifying deportations. The word “ecumenism” transforms into a paradox, into an “ecumenism of hate.” Intolerance is a celestial mark of purism. Reductionism is the exegetical methodology. Ultra-literalism is its hermeneutical key.

Clearly there is an enormous difference between these concepts and the ecumenism employed by Pope Francis with various Christian bodies and other religious confessions. His is an ecumenism that moves under the urge of inclusion, peace, encounter and bridges. This presence of opposing ecumenisms – and their contrasting perceptions of the faith and visions of the world where religions have irreconcilable roles – is perhaps the least known and most dramatic aspect of the spread of Integralist fundamentalism. Here we can understand why the pontiff is so committed to working against “walls” and any kind of “war of religion.”

The temptation of “spiritual war”

The religious element should never be confused with the political one. Confusing spiritual power with temporal power means subjecting one to the other. An evident aspect of Pope Francis’ geopolitics rests in not giving theological room to the power to impose oneself or to find an internal or external enemy to fight. There is a need to flee the temptation to project divinity on political power that then uses it for its own ends. Francis empties from within the narrative of sectarian millenarianism and dominionism that is preparing the apocalypse and the “final clash.”[2] Underlining mercy as a fundamental attribute of God expresses this radically Christian need.

Francis wants to break the organic link between culture, politics, institution and Church. Spirituality cannot tie itself to governments or military pacts for it is at the service of all men and women. Religions cannot consider some people as sworn enemies nor others as eternal friends. Religion should not become the guarantor of the dominant classes. Yet it is this very dynamic with a spurious theological flavor that tries to impose its own law and logic in the political sphere.

There is a shocking rhetoric used, for example, by the writers of Church Militant, a successful US-based digital platform that is openly in favor of a political ultraconservatism and uses Christian symbols to impose itself. This abuse is called “authentic Christianity.” And to show its own preferences, it has created a close analogy between Donald Trump and Emperor Constantine, and between Hilary Clinton and Diocletian. The American elections in this perspective were seen as a “spiritual war.”[3]

This warlike and militant approach seems most attractive and evocative to a certain public, especially given that the victory of Constantine – it was presumed impossible for him to beat Maxentius and the Roman establishment – had to be attributed to a divine intervention: in hoc signo vinces.

Church Militant asks if Trump’s victory can be attributed to the prayers of Americans. The response suggested is affirmative. The indirect missioning for President Trump is clear: he has to follow through on the consequences. This is a very direct message that then wants to condition the presidency by framing it as a divine election. In hoc signo vinces. Indeed.

Today, more than ever, power needs to be removed from its faded confessional dress, from its armor, its rusty breastplate. The fundamentalist theopolitical plan is to set up a kingdom of the divinity here and now. And that divinity is obviously the projection of the power that has been built. This vision generates the ideology of conquest.

The theopolitical plan that is truly Christian would be eschatological, that is it applies to the future and orients current history toward the Kingdom of God, a kingdom of justice and peace. This vision generates a process of integration that unfolds with a diplomacy that crowns no one as a “man of Providence.”

And this is why the diplomacy of the Holy See wants to establish direct and fluid relations with the superpowers, without entering into pre-constituted networks of alliances and influence. In this sphere, the pope does not want to say who is right or who is wrong for he knows that at the root of conflicts there is always a fight for power. So, there is no need to imagine a taking of sides for moral reasons, much worse for spiritual ones.

Francis radically rejects the idea of activating a Kingdom of God on earth as was at the basis of the Holy Roman Empire and similar political and institutional forms, including at the level of a “party.” Understood this way, the “elected people” would enter a complicated political and religious web that would make them forget they are at the service of the world, placing them in opposition to those who are different, those who do not belong, that is the “enemy.”

So, then the Christian roots of a people are never to be understood in an ethnic way. The notions of roots and identity do not have the same content for a Catholic as for a neo-Pagan. Triumphalist, arrogant and vindictive ethnicism is actually the opposite of Christianity. The pope on May 9 in an interview with the French dailyLa Croix, said: “Yes Europe has Christian roots. Christianity has the duty of watering them, but in a spirit of service as in the washing of feet. The duty of Christianity for Europe is that of service.” And again: “The contribution of Christianity to a culture is that of Christ washing the feet, or the service and the gift of life. There is no room for colonialism.”

Against fear

Which feeling underlies the persuasive temptation for a spurious alliance between politics and religious fundamentalism? It is fear of the breakup of a constructed order and the fear of chaos. Indeed, it functions that way thanks to the chaos perceived. The political strategy for success becomes that of raising the tones of the conflictual, exaggerating disorder, agitating the souls of the people by painting worrying scenarios beyond any realism.

Religion at this point becomes a guarantor of order and a political part would incarnate its needs. The appeal to the apocalypse justifies the power desired by a god or colluded in with a god. And fundamentalism thereby shows itself not to be the product of a religious experience but a poor and abusive perversion of it.

This is why Francis is carrying forward a systematic counter-narration with respect to the narrative of fear. There is a need to fight against the manipulation of this season of anxiety and insecurity. Again, Francis is courageous here and gives no theological-political legitimacy to terrorists, avoiding any reduction of Islam to Islamic terrorism. Nor does he give it to those who postulate and want a “holy war” or to build barrier-fences crowned with barbed wire. The only crown that counts for the Christian is the one with thorns that Christ wore on high.[