ENRIQUE KRAUZE
215
LK:
Well, in ideological thinking facts cannot damage faith.
It
is
like the millenarian movements. They calculate on which day the
Last Judgment will take place, or when there will be a Second
Coming.
If
the day comes and the prophecy does not materialize,
they bitterly admit that they made some miscalculation in their
predictions, that there was something wrong in the calculations,
but their faith is not shaken. Soon they make another "foolproof'
calculation. The same happens with Marxism. Once you have
this ideological certainty nothing can shatter it: all right,
everybody will recognize some errors were committed - they
might have massacred fifty million people - but the
principle
is
sound and good. Once you believe that, nothing can shatter your
faith. This, I think, is a normal attitude of true believers.
EK:
In Central America you can find a blend of three kinds of
beliefs: nationalism; a vague sort of creole Marxism; and a
theology of liberation, Christ for the poor, the real Christ. Aside
from this blend, there is also a certain cult of violence stemming
from a deep social and historical resentment. Is there some
historical precedent for this zealous marriage of force and faith?
LK:
It is an old story. The so-called theology of liberation has
antecedents in history. Many popular heresies in the Middle Ages
and in the sixteenth century tried to use the Gospels and the
teachings ofJesus Christ as a blueprint for a social gospel and for
a perfect equality on earth. Nevertheless, many of these sects were
reluctant to use violence. The revolutionary anabaptists of the
early sixteenth century were perhaps the paradigmatic case of this
kind of "theology of liberation," that preaches violence as a
legitimate means to implement Jesus Christ's teaching. This led to
a kind of short-lived grotesque pseudo-Christian tyranny in
Munster in the sixteenth century. I am convinced that it is a fun–
damental distortion of the teaching of Jesus Christ. In various
passages he condemned tyrants and rich people. But he never
preached a specific kind of social order. He condemned some peo–
ple for moral reasons as individuals, he condemned those who are
indifferent to the misery of their neighbors, the wicked, but he
never suggested he had a blueprint for a perfect society. In fact,
the opposite is the case. The entire teaching ofJesus Christ can be
understood only within his belief in the imminent Parusia; it was
developed in the shadow of the apocalypse. All the earthly values
become meaningless in the face of this coming event. And indeed,
Christianity is not recognizably itself any longer if this side of
