Talk:Eugen Drewermann
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
[edit] Neutrality?
"Disillusioned by the Vatican's lack of willingness to engage in genuine dialogue with those wishing to reform the church from within, Drewermann believes that the Catholic Church will continue, at the expense of the human person, its single-minded focus on preserving institutional power."
"Gifted with the memory and oratory skills of a genius" - isin't this a bit too much an opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.149.230.16 (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tendentious entry
The user Polentario posted the following incorrect information about Eugen Drewermann which gives the false impression that Drewermann is an antisemite and an unqualified backward scholar. Nothing could be further from the truth. The first part of the entry read:
"Henryk Broder denounces Drewermann as de:Gutmensch and hidden antisemite: He (Drewermann) seems to be of opinion that the attacks of New York and Washington wasn't only Wake-up-calls for Americans, but called us all to accept mass murder as a prove of scorned love. Broders asks how much love the Nazis had towards the Jews, how much have they urged to sit at the shabbat table till they have been send away and had to take to so crazy means.
Comment by mabim2002: Polenterio is warming up a discussion which had already been settled in the German page on Drewermann: namecalling Drewermann an antisemite is just that: namecalling. But it is not based on Drewermann's own work. The discussion can be foundhere. Drewermann is critical of all uses of religious texts that support violence, whether it is the Christian Scriptures, the Hebrew Scriptures, Hindu Scriptures, etc. The absurd claim that Drewermann supposedly "called us all to accept mass murder" again has no support whatsoever in Drewermann's own words. What Drewermann actually said was that the Nazis projected their own self-hatred out onto 'the Jews' and other scapegoated groups, which is a common psychoanalytic theory (cf. Erich Fromm) about Nazism.
The second part of the entry relies on Klaus Berger whose actual substantive critique of Drewermann has to do with a methodological question: Berger disagrees with Drewermann on the value of depth psychology for Biblical interpretation:
"According Klaus Berger,Drewermanns thinking were based on an outdated and antijudaistic popular theology. He refers about one of Drewermanns books as refering to an alleged gnostic origin of the evangelist John, a backward and outdated interpretation of the biblic law term, several elements of ancient C. G. Jung elements, a tendency of "anticatholic roundbashing" and oversensitivity as expression of all in all a 1941 state of research including a if not genuin antisemitic at least plain misunderstanding of the jewish faith. [1]."
Comment by mabim2002: Whoever posted this entry obviously is not familiar at all with Drewermann's own work, which cites up-to-date literature in all fields, including biblical studies. Again, the accusation of antisemitism is used by Polenterio apparently only to discredit Drewermann. Nowhere does Polenterio actually give any evidence directly from Drewermann's work as something antisemitic. This accusation is too serious to be not supported by direct evidence. Evidence against this accusation can be found throughout Drewermann's more than 80 books as well as in his recognition for fighting the causes of war and antisemitism for which he received the 2007 Erich Fromm Award. Matthias Beier's book's A Violent God-Image: An Introduction to the Work of Eugen Drewermann, (2004), p. 167, addresses the charge of anti-semitism and shows that it is unfounded. Drewermann criticizes the use of the Bible to justify violence in the name of God. This does not make him an anti-semite. Drewermann himself has answered the charges of Klaus Berger in the following article: “Vom Ärgernis Jesu und seiner Notwendigkeit—Eugen Drewermann antwortet Klaus Berger: Das christliche Abendland stellt keine exklusive Form des Menschseins dar” (The Scandal of Jesus and Its Necessity — Eugen Drewermann Replies to Klaus Berger: The Christian West Does Not Represent an Exclusive Form of Being Human). Weltwoche, 19 December 1996, no. 51. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabim2002 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed the above. I don't know anything about this person, but the article seems a little POV. I've toned down some of the writing, and also added some headers. SlimVirgin talk|edits 22:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
