In common parlance, to speak about the brimboriow is to speak about what one does not know. Nobody knows what that thing is, or what kind of an instrument it is –if it is truly an instrument—, or the reason for that outlandish name; nothing at all. Nevertheless, countless people speak about the brimboriow, for innumerable indeed are those who speak about what they do not know. Nowadays, almost everyone believes that he is competent to speak about anything: de omni re scibile (about all knowable things), as some scholastics used to say; even, as Voltaire ironically added, et de quibusdam allis (about other things as well).

            Which has been said has nothing to do with the interview granted by His Excellency the Bishop of Cáceres (Spain) to the web page of Infocatólica on November 28, 2009. Thanks to that interview we know, for instance, that this Prelate holds a doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Gregorian University in Rome; that he spent several years in the Eternal City, where he went back and forth in order to write his doctoral theses; etc.

            Indeed, it is very consoling to know that the Shepherds of the Church hold brilliant academic degrees in Theology; after all, they have been positioned by the Holy Spirit to govern the Church of God (Acts 20:28), a task which, as everyone knows, requires a deep knowledge about Him. Unfortunately, though, academic titles, as our illustrious Prelate knows well, are not always a safeguard for true theological knowledge. Theology is a science which demands sufficient interior life to get in touch with the light of the Holy Spirit, so that one is illuminated from on high (Jn 14:26) and is given sufficient courage (Acts 1:8) to later on teach the sheep and to take them away from dangers. I regret to admit that I know enough Doctors of Theology who do not have the remotest idea of what that Science is all about. And since I am in a lamenting mood, I must add here that there are many who, afflicted by that ignorance, also lack the strength to preach the Word –and, besides, what Word would they know how to preach?—to this godless world in which we live. But since that is not the case I am analyzing, let me concentrate on the issue at hand.

            Asked by the reporter about Liberation Theology, His Excellency answered that he was not only tempted but also captured by the authentic Liberation Theology; the one promoted and lived by the Mother Teresa of Calcutta (I am quoting from the page on the Internet). As a complement, His Excellency added that he thinks that the Gospel cannot be lived without making a clear and differentiated option for the poor. One must acknowledge that this statement, if not truly a very original one, is always unanimously well received everywhere. But let us go back, as I have said, to our issue here, for we have reached a point at which, unfortunately, we cannot but express our lack of parity (in nuances only) with the our Prelate’s statements.

            Granting that the good will in the words of our Prelate is beyond the shadow of a doubt, perhaps a greater precision in them could have been wanted; especially taking into account the danger of confusion which is presently everywhere around us.

            First of all, nobody ignores the fact that there is no authentic Liberation Theology; it is all false and evil, as we will soon explain. Apart from that, I greatly doubt that Mother Teresa (if she could speak now) would agree to be considered on any level with Liberation Theology. I did not have the pleasure of meeting Mother Teresa as His Excellency the Bishop of Cáceres did (for he informs us that he met her once); nevertheless, I do not think it is appropriate to include her among the poor. It is well understood that I am not referring here to her love for the poor, which I do not doubt at all; nor do I question her extraordinary humanitarian work. What I am simply and candidly saying is that Mother Teresa never lacked anything and that she always had what she wanted. Usually this goes unnoticed, as strange as it may seem; but it is a fait accompli which makes it extraordinarily difficult to include the Nun from Calcutta in the group of the poor.

            Apropos this, I consider that it is worth telling something that happened to me, many years ago, with one of my younger boys. Asked by this little boy why I did not throw my television set out the window, as it is told that Mother Teresa usually did at some of her convents, I simply answered:

            --Son, we cannot do that because we are not poor. If I threw the television set out the window, we would not have any television any longer, and that is the end of it.

            Once we have admitted the heroic and meritorious work of Mother Teresa for the poor, we cannot forget that Liberation Theology never gave a hoot about the poor. Its intentions are to make them really poor –we should rather say miserable— in order to turn them into docile instruments of the totalitarian and atheist ideology which Marxism is. Liberation Theology, through the exploitation of the poor and the oppressed, and by using them as an excuse, has de-Christianized the biggest part of South America and as much as it could of other continents. Indeed, it has been one of the most effective and powerful means used by Modern Paganism to destroy Christianity, as our Prelate well knows; hence my hesitation about Mother Teresa’s willingness to be included within that Movement.

            As for me, I do not belong to either group: I am neither a learned theologian nor a poor man. In this latter case, I must admit that I am closer to being a wretched man than a poor one; especially if we take into account what the Gospel understands as true poverty. And this offers us an opportunity to go on to analyze that mysterious instrument –or whatever it is—called brimboriow. But we must leave it for the next editorial.