I have spent the last two years of my life blaspheming the trinitarian god of postmodernism — diversity, tolerance, and academic freedom. It is in that spirit that this is written.
It seems that the high priests of dogmatic leftism, judging by their recent public pronouncements, are back to work.
We learn from one of the aforementioned purveyors of postmodernism that "according to many theologians, God is on the side of the poor and oppressed ... It makes sense that if God is love, then God would not stand for the injustices of our world" (The Observer, 9/7/99).
It used to be that leftists were honest about their ideology: they despised righteousness, and their system of thought was set in opposition to tradition, order and sanctity. Yet, realizing that such a bold, but honest statement of principle would be detrimental, making them look extreme in the eyes of the average person, they decided to change. Now, leftists are claiming the mantle of righteousness when expressing their ideology. Abandoning the morose rhetoric of atheistic leftism, they now speak as though their philosophy emanated from the very mouth of God himself.
For example, take this scriptural principle that tells us that "God is love." Every Christian agrees that this is the case. But let the liberals analyze that statement, and its spirit, letter and intent becomes mangled beyond recognition. In their minds, since God is love, his love will allow man to do anything that he wants to do. Subjectivity reigns, and objectivity becomes a relic of a long-forgotten age. While it is true that God is love, this love bears no relation to a postmodernist's definition of love. A postmodernist's idea of love involves a condom and a prenuptial agreement; God's love is timeless, infinite and perfect.
But let us not dismiss completely this new systematic theology of postmodernism. Yes, it is silly. Yes, it is laughable. But it is also insidious. It represents the attempt of the modern day left to forge a curious and logically untenable linkage between its ideology, which is, at its heart, a rejection of Jesus Christ, and Catholic Theology. It is a way to confuse, to introduce disorder and to propound wickedness.
Consider the second part of the statement related above, "… It makes sense that if God is love, then God would not stand for the injustices of the world." In order to analyze this statement, let us ask the following question: In the eyes of the modern day leftist, what is injustice? Well, abortion is not injustice, in their eyes, since they support the legalized murder of children as "freedom of choice." So scratch child killing from the cacophony of injustices. Pornographic images that demean women and children don't count, I suppose. Leftists support the production and dissemination of vile pornography, justifying it as "freedom of expression."
What might qualify as injustice, however, would be economic disparity among different societies. It is true that there is economic hardship in the world, contributing to hunger, famine and disease. The leftist solution to this problem would be the introduction of socialism. Since they believe that God is against injustice (a true belief), naturally, in their minds, he would support remedies to those injustices. Therefore, since hunger is an injustice, and God is against injustice, and socialism is the solution to hunger, then God is in favor of socialism.
Aside from the logical and syntactical gymnastics of the previous statement, it is not hard to see that some Catholics, even devout ones, might be captivated by such argumentation. It is precisely for this reason that I implore the Catholic community to engage this insidious theology of postmodernism, and to eradicate it.
Sean Vinck is a junior PLS major. His column appears every other Tuesday.
The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
All Viewpoint Stories for Tuesday, September 14, 1999