Liberation Theology - Still A Good Thing

[trickster]

youtu.be/Jua3Mjavz6s

Many controversial and “heretical” theologies have good intent and we must embrace the intent…but we don’t have to accept the methods and analogies to support a view and solution to the intent taken upon by its author.

Liberation theology was good in the intent of its core interest in how we treat the poor, preferential treatment, etc., but to base that intent of liberation theology on marxism is the true fault of Gutierrez early works in liberaiton theology…he is now working at Gregorian University at the Vatican…

We, often don’t do our homework and dismiss what we think to be “taboo” studies just because the church has called it heretical…the church always finds the good and bad in assessing the values of theological proposals and for the most part, the church is quite diverse, open and loving in its discernment.

Would you agree?

Bruce Ferguson

 

[Mike30]

youtu.be/Jua3Mjavz6s

Many controversial and “heretical” theologies have good intent and we must embrace the intent…but we don’t have to accept the methods and analogies to support a view and solution to the intent taken upon by its author.

Liberation theology was good in the intent of its core interest in how we treat the poor, preferential treatment, etc., but to base that intent of liberation theology on marxism is the true fault of Gutierrez early works in liberaiton theology…he is now working at Gregorian University at the Vatican…

We, often don’t do our homework and dismiss what we think to be “taboo” studies just because the church has called it heretical…the church always finds the good and bad in assessing the values of theological proposals and for the most part, the church is quite diverse, open and loving in its discernment.

Would you agree?

Bruce Ferguson

I think you should do a bit more research about liberation theology and what it really says and teaches. It was opposed by no less a figure than Pope John Paul II, and if he opposed it you know there was something definitely wrong with it. It interprets the teachings of Jesus Christ in terms of a liberation from unjust economic, political, or social conditions, which isn’t. at least from everything I have learned consistent with Catholic teaching. A lot of what Liberation Theology taught was thinly disguised Marxism, which as you know at its core is anti Christian.

Liberation theology led to such bizarre scenarios as Jesuit Priests taking up guns in Marxist led revolutionary activities. It is also used in the formation of so called base communities each of which is semi autonomous. It seeks to lessen the power of Rome over the Church and to allow local governing of each community exclusively.

No whatever liberation theology may be it is not Catholic or even particularly Christian in it’s teaching, it’s orientation or in what it does or believes.

Sorry, but there is really nothing good about it. Never was and never will be.

Oh and if the Church teaches that something is heretical, it is because it is heretical.

 

[trickster]

I think you should do a bit more research about liberation theology and what it really says and teaches. It was opposed by no less a figure than Pope John Paul II, and if he opposed it you know there was something definitely wrong with it. It interprets the teachings of Jesus Christ in terms of a liberation from unjust economic, political, or social conditions, which isn’t. at least from everything I have learned consistent with Catholic teaching. A lot of what Liberation Theology taught was thinly disguised Marxism, which as you know at its core is anti Christian.

Liberation theology led to such bizarre scenarios as Jesuit Priests taking up guns in Marxist led revolutionary activities. It is also used in the formation of so called base communities each of which is semi autonomous. It seeks to lessen the power of Rome over the Church and to allow local governing of each community exclusively.

No whatever liberation theology may be it is not Catholic or even particularly Christian in it’s teaching, it’s orientation or in what it does or believes.

Sorry, but there is really nothing good about it. Never was and never will be.

Oh and if the Church teaches that something is heretical, it is because it is heretical.

You are absolutely correct in your intention Marxism as a basis for liberation theology is not good…but what is liberation? There is spiritual liberation…what about the right we have under human dignity to have economic justice and so forth… Next year in Brazil there is a global conference happening within the church to revisit Liberation theology and I don’t think that the Church in Latin America is heretical…so that indicates there are parts of the liberation theology message we gotta factor in…you can’t take a black and white stand on these things…I say salvage what is true in any academic model or framework…name the weaknesses and then restructure those weaknesses…

Do you think Gods preferential love for the poor is wrong? Yet it is a core piece of liberaiton theology…JP II also did not quite understand the differences between socialism and communism between Latin America and his own experience in Europe…this is just a fact…

So can there be a marxist free liberation theology? Ithink there can be…but it is not built upon the marxist anchor…and yeah…priests with guns was not what should of been envisioned

Bruce

 

[Melchior_1]

It was opposed by no less a figure than Pope John Paul II, and if he opposed it you know there was something definitely wrong with it.

Really, this is all that needs to be said at this point. If one of the biggest advocates of social justice the world (let alone the Church) has witnessed doesn’t like Liberation Theology, it’s probably not a good thing to get into.

 

[trickster]

Really, this is all that needs to be said at this point. If one of the biggest advocates of social justice the world (let alone the Church) has witnessed doesn’t like Liberation Theology, it’s probably not a good thing to get into.

Hi Melchoior…my point in posting this was to indicate that no theological framework is without its merits…I am ok with taking the intention of liberation theology (i.e. socio-economic justice) and taking out the Marxist base (which has been done in reworking the original 60’s formation of liberaiton theology) and calling it something else.

If it wasn’t for the articulation of liberation theology we may - as a church not have advanced so far - in the identificaiton and naming of social justic issues which the late JP II - you are right - so strongly supporte.d

As Catholics we need to understand that the church makes decisions on what is consistent with church teaching and what is not…NOT …to discredit the good elements in any proposal but to clarify and perhaps weed out the faulty logic or basis of the proposal’s conclusion…Catholics need to internalize the teachings of the church by coming to their own understanding of what the church teaches…not blindly to accept all that the church says…the church is a community …and there is a time and place for the teaching magisterium to exhibit itself…so we should not label “heretical” work all that quickly…we should try to understand what the church is trying to tell us…if that make any sense…

Bruce

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

You are absolutely correct in your intention Marxism as a basis for liberation theology is not good…but what is liberation? There is spiritual liberation…what about the right we have under human dignity to have economic justice and so forth… Next year in Brazil there is a global conference happening within the church to revisit Liberation theology and I don’t think that the Church in Latin America is heretical…so that indicates there are parts of the liberation theology message we gotta factor in…you can’t take a black and white stand on these things…I say salvage what is true in any academic model or framework…name the weaknesses and then restructure those weaknesses…

Do you think Gods preferential love for the poor is wrong? Yet it is a core piece of liberaiton theology…JP II also did not quite understand the differences between socialism and communism between Latin America and his own experience in Europe…this is just a fact…

So can there be a marxist free liberation theology? Ithink there can be…but it is not built upon the marxist anchor…and yeah…priests with guns was not what should of been envisioned

Bruce

"THEOLOGY OF LIBERATION"8. It is true that Marxist thought ever since its origins, and even more so lately, has become divided and has given birth to various currents which diverge significantly from each other. To the extent that they remain fully Marxist, these currents continue to be based on certain fundamental tenets which are not compatible with the Christian conception of humanity and society. In this context, certain formulas are not neutral, but keep the meaning they had in the original Marxist doctrine. This is the case with the “class-struggle.” This expression remains pregnant with the interpretation that Marx gave it, so it cannot be taken as the equivalent of “severe social conflict”, in an empirical sense. Those who use similar formulas, while claiming to keep only certain elements of the Marxist analysis and yet to reject the analysis taken as a whole, maintain at the very least a serious confusion in the minds of their readers.

1. Let us recall the fact that atheism and the denial of the human person, his liberty and rights, are at the core of the Marxist theory. This theory, then, contains errors which directly threaten the truths of the faith regarding the eternal destiny of individual persons. Moreover, to attempt to integrate into theology an analysis whose criterion of interpretation depends on this atheistic conception is to involve oneself in terrible contradictions. What is more, this misunderstanding of the spiritual nature of the person leads to a total subordination of the person to the collectivity, and thus to the denial of the principles of a social and political life which is in keeping with human dignity.

 

[Mike30]

Hi Melchoior…my point in posting this was to indicate that no theological framework is without its merits…I am ok with taking the intention of liberation theology (i.e. socio-economic justice) and taking out the Marxist base (which has been done in reworking the original 60’s formation of liberaiton theology) and calling it something else.

If it wasn’t for the articulation of liberation theology we may - as a church not have advanced so far - in the identificaiton and naming of social justic issues which the late JP II - you are right - so strongly supporte.d

As Catholics we need to understand that the church makes decisions on what is consistent with church teaching and what is not…NOT …to discredit the good elements in any proposal but to clarify and perhaps weed out the faulty logic or basis of the proposal’s conclusion…Catholics need to internalize the teachings of the church by coming to their own understanding of what the church teaches…not blindly to accept all that the church says…the church is a community …and there is a time and place for the teaching magisterium to exhibit itself…so we should not label “heretical” work all that quickly…we should try to understand what the church is trying to tell us…if that make any sense…

Bruce

Yes the late Holy father strongly supported social issues,yet he totally opposed Liberation Theology in all of its forms. Why do you suppose that was?

My theory is that the entire theological framework upon which liberation theology was built was flawed from its inception. The Holy Father gave his support to several movements which others in the Church as a rule did not, but he never gave any support to Liberation Theology at all.

I don’t think he would be in agreement with your statement that no theological framework is without its merits.

In closing I sense that what you are proposing is a more protestantized version of Catholicism in which each individual interprets as to his own values and if not in agreement with the Church then be free to reject that which he does not agree with.

That is not Catholicism.

 

[JReducation]

I think you should do a bit more research about liberation theology and what it really says and teaches. It was opposed by no less a figure than Pope John Paul II, and if he opposed it you know there was something definitely wrong with it. It interprets the teachings of Jesus Christ in terms of a liberation from unjust economic, political, or social conditions, which isn’t. at least from everything I have learned consistent with Catholic teaching. A lot of what Liberation Theology taught was thinly disguised Marxism, which as you know at its core is anti Christian.

Liberation theology led to such bizarre scenarios as Jesuit Priests taking up guns in Marxist led revolutionary activities. It is also used in the formation of so called base communities each of which is semi autonomous. It seeks to lessen the power of Rome over the Church and to allow local governing of each community exclusively.

No whatever liberation theology may be it is not Catholic or even particularly Christian in it’s teaching, it’s orientation or in what it does or believes.

Sorry, but there is really nothing good about it. Never was and never will be.

Oh and if the Church teaches that something is heretical, it is because it is heretical.

We have to be careful and not say what the Church never said. The Church never said that Liberation Theology was heretical. That label was never applied to it.

Bl. John Paul, who was one of the brightest philosophers of the 20th century, looked at it very closely and found that it’s major problem was its starting point, not its goals. There was nothing wrong with seeking justice for the poor and liberation for the oppressed. He worked for this his entire life.

The problem with liberation theology was that it started from Marxism. It used Marxist philosophy, methods and systems to apply the Gospel to the needs of the Church. Bl. John Paul was well aware that Marxist philosophy does not see all men as equal in dignity and it uses antagonism and intimidation to achieve human freedom.

The truth is that the Gospel does not need a political or economic system to make it work. The Gospel has always worked, especially for the poor. People like Benedict, Vincent de Paul, Francis of Assisi, John de Matha, John Baptist de La Salle, Louise de Marillac, Elizabeth Ann Seton, John Bosco, Bl. Mother Teresa and Bl. John Paul himself, just to name a few, preached the Gospel to the poor, convicted the dishonest and the abusive, protected human dignity, established all kinds of ministries to the poorest of the poor and never preached a word of hatred or anger. They were way ahead of Marx. They did not need his systems or his rhetoric to accomplish what Marx preached and Communism failed to deliver. Just check out Catholic Charities of Tulsa, OK. It is an incredible example of what can be done for the poor using the Gospel without Marxist props.

Marxist philosophy denies the dignity of the person and assigns dignity according to the utility of the individual so that man becomes a commodity. To look to this philosophy as an expression of evangelical justice is foolhardy.

That being said, many of these Liberation Theologians were good people. We have to see what they saw. They saw human beings living in deplorable condition and corruption all around them. They really believed that if the social content of the Gospel could be unleashed, it would make a change. What they did not count on was the weakness in Marxism. Marxism does not start from a Christian anthropology. It’s an atheist anthropology. Therefore, the core of the the social dimension of the Gospel, that all men are God’s children, rich or poor, is lost, because God is not in the Marxist equation. It calls the rich to accountability, but it fails to acknowledge the rights and duties of all men, because it does not see all men as equal in dignity and purpose.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Mike30]

We have to be careful and not say what the Church never said. The Church never said that Liberation Theology was heretical. That label was never applied to it.

Bl. John Paul, who was one of the brightest philosophers of the 20th century, looked at it very closely and found that it’s major problem was its starting point, not its goals. There was nothing wrong with seeking justice for the poor and liberation for the oppressed. He worked for this his entire life.

The problem with liberation theology was that it started from Marxism. It used Marxist philosophy, methods and systems to apply the Gospel to the needs of the Church. Bl. John Paul was well aware that Marxist philosophy does not see all men as equal in dignity and it uses antagonism and intimidation to achieve human freedom.

The truth is that the Gospel does not need a political or economic system to make it work. The Gospel has always worked, especially for the poor. People like Benedict, Vincent de Paul, Francis of Assisi, John de Matha, John Baptist de La Salle, Louise de Marillac, Elizabeth Ann Seton, John Bosco, Bl. Mother Teresa and Bl. John Paul himself, just to name a few, preached the Gospel to the poor, convicted the dishonest and the abusive, protected human dignity, established all kinds of ministries to the poorest of the poor and never preached a word of hatred or anger. They were way ahead of Marx. They did not need his systems or his rhetoric to accomplish what Marx preached and Communism failed to deliver. Just check out Catholic Charities of Tulsa, OK. It is an incredible example of what can be done for the poor using the Gospel without Marxist props.

Marxist philosophy denies the dignity of the person and assigns dignity according to the utility of the individual so that man becomes a commodity. To look to this philosophy as an expression of evangelical justice is foolhardy.

That being said, many of these Liberation Theologians were good people. We have to see what they saw. They saw human beings living in deplorable condition and corruption all around them. They really believed that if the social content of the Gospel could be unleashed, it would make a change. What they did not count on was the weakness in Marxism. Marxism does not start from a Christian anthropology. It’s an atheist anthropology. Therefore, the core of the the social dimension of the Gospel, that all men are God’s children, rich or poor, is lost, because God is not in the Marxist equation. It calls the rich to accountability, but it fails to acknowledge the rights and duties of all men, because it does not see all men as equal in dignity and purpose.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I never said it was heretical nor did I say the Church said it was. I was merely pointing out to the OP that if the Church does say something is heretical then that is what it is.

As far as some of the Theologians being good people, I don’t doubt it. Hopelessly naive perhaps and full of guilt for offenses against the poor, both real and imagined more than likely, but perhaps with good intentions. But we all know what they say about good intentions

I think it best to go with what the Holy Father himself said while still a Cardinal when he argued that liberation theology was not originally a “grass-roots” movement among the poor, but rather, a creation of Western intellectuals: “an attempt to test, in a concrete scenario, ideologies that have been invented in the laboratory by European theologians” and in a certain sense itself a form of “cultural imperialism”. The Holy Father saw this as a reaction to the virtual destruction of the “Marxist myth” in the West

I’ll go with that and let others like Leonardo Bof, you remember him, Tissa Balasuriya, and Gustavo Gutierrez, pat themselves on the back from their positions of privilege and speak of their unique knowledge of the poor and their struggles against the oppressiveness of the modern Church and the wicked regimes that it is a part of.

 

[JReducation]

I never said it was heretical nor did I say the Church said it was. I was merely pointing out to the OP that if the Church does say something is heretical then that is what it is.

As far as some of the Theologians being good people, I don’t doubt it. Hopelessly naive perhaps and full of guilt for offenses against the poor, both real and imagined more than likely, but perhaps with good intentions. But we all know what they say about good intentions

I think it best to go with what the Holy Father himself said while still a Cardinal when he argued that liberation theology was not originally a “grass-roots” movement among the poor, but rather, a creation of Western intellectuals: “an attempt to test, in a concrete scenario, ideologies that have been invented in the laboratory by European theologians” and in a certain sense itself a form of “cultural imperialism”. The Holy Father saw this as a reaction to the virtual destruction of the “Marxist myth” in the West

I’ll go with that and let others like Leonardo Bof, you remember him, Tissa Balasuriya, and Gustavo Gutierrez, pat themselves on the back from their positions of privilege and speak of their unique knowledge of the poor and their struggles against the oppressiveness of the modern Church and the wicked regimes that it is a part of.

I agree that Liberation Theology had many flaws. I was a missionary in the Amazon when Liberation Theology was fashionable. I saw those flaws first hand. I was also a student in Rome during what we call the Ratzinger-Wojtyła years. They were quite a team.

I’m simply trying to help posters understand what Liberation Theology was about and how it happened, from the perspective of someone who was actually there.

The abuses were not imagined. They were very real. People were suffering and still are. Corruption is rampant in Latin American politics and economic policies. Unfortunately, large American, Canadian and European corporations aggravate more than they help, because they are outside of their mother countries where they would be tightly regulated and penalized for the nonsense that they pool in these countries and for the company they keep. In fact, most Americans would be horrified to see their own people behave so unscrupulously. Most Americans, be they religious people or not, are really good people and have no desire to exploit anyone. They don’t know all the details that missionaries often see.

However, as I said above, Marxism is not the answer. As Bl. John Paul said, Jesus Christ is the answer.

In this particular area, I trust Bl. John Paul’s assessment even more than that of Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger. Pope Benedict is a theologian. One of the brightest minds that I have ever met. Pope John Paul was a philosopher, one of the brightest philosophers of the 20th century. He approached Liberation Theology by examining its core philosophy, a task for which he was probably one of the most qualified people in the Church, even better than Papa Ratzinger.

I served under both men and they each have strong gifts, but in different areas. Papa Ratzinger is an Augustinian-Franciscan Theologian. Bl. John Paul was a philosopher and Carmelite Theologian. I do’t think it was a coincidence that the Lord chose them to be popes in this order. We need both.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Mike30]

I agree that Liberation Theology had many flaws. I was a missionary in the Amazon when Liberation Theology was fashionable. I saw those flaws first hand. I was also a student in Rome during what we call the Ratzinger-Wojtyła years. They were quite a team.

I’m simply trying to help posters understand what Liberation Theology was about and how it happened, from the perspective of someone who was actually there.

The abuses were not imagined. They were very real. People were suffering and still are. Corruption is rampant in Latin American politics and economic policies. Unfortunately, large American, Canadian and European corporations aggravate more than they help, because they are outside of their mother countries where they would be tightly regulated and penalized for the nonsense that they pool in these countries and for the company they keep. In fact, most Americans would be horrified to see their own people behave so unscrupulously. Most Americans, be they religious people or not, are really good people and have no desire to exploit anyone. They don’t know all the details that missionaries often see.

However, as I said above, Marxism is not the answer. As Bl. John Paul said, Jesus Christ is the answer.

In this particular area, I trust Bl. John Paul’s assessment even more than that of Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger. Pope Benedict is a theologian. One of the brightest minds that I have ever met. Pope John Paul was a philosopher, one of the brightest philosophers of the 20th century. He approached Liberation Theology by examining its core philosophy, a task for which he was probably one of the most qualified people in the Church, even better than Papa Ratzinger.

I served under both men and they each have strong gifts, but in different areas. Papa Ratzinger is an Augustinian-Franciscan Theologian. Bl. John Paul was a philosopher and Carmelite Theologian. I do’t think it was a coincidence that the Lord chose them to be popes in this order. We need both.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

What concerns me Brother is the sheer naivete with which people look at movements such as this and how they can ignore statements made by the last two Popes we have had. I find that to be a matter of great concern.

And I don’t think it was a coincidence either. Not in the least.

 

[JReducation]

What concerns me Brother is the sheer naivete with which people look at movements such as this and how they can ignore statements made by the last two Popes we have had. I find that to be a matter of great concern.

And I don’t think it was a coincidence either. Not in the least.

Naivete is something that worries me less today than it did when I was younger. It can certainly be very dangerous, because you can innocently end up playing with fire, if you know what I mean, as did many of these young theologians who really wanted to find something to say about the situation that they were seeing and which made them feel so impotent.

On the other hand, having met Mother Teresa was the best thing that ever happened to me. I once asked her if the things that were happening in the Church did not frighten her. She looked at me and said, in her very matter of fact voice, “Do you live in this city?” We were in Washington, were she was opening a home for AIDS victims and another for disabled adults. I was going to be the director of pastoral care for the latter.

I was a little confused by her question. I remember babbling something about being in the city just a few short months or some such idiotic thing. Mother always made you feel like an idiot. She didn’t try to do so. She wasn’t even aware that she was doing so. You naturally felt like an idiot around her, because in her naivete, she was very wise.

She answered, “There is enough suffering and enough hunger for Christ’s love in this city to keep you busy and to give you enough to think and pray about.” She walked away.

She never told me if she even knew what was going on. I’m sure she did. She was not a dumb woman. She lived with a very healthy naivete.

There really is so much hunger for Christ’s love and Jesus is very lonely and often unwanted. So much so, that we don’t want to spend too much time thinking about things that are happening out there, while our attention and energy is needed right here.

If I were still in South America, I would pay more attention to that. But I’m here. This is where God wants me to focus. I have five centers that serve men who are about to abort their children. I have a hospital ministry to families of elderly and terminally ill people who are being told to euthanize them. I have 11 postulants in formation who need my attention. I have an online ministry. I have to prepare myself to die, because I’m terminally ill.

As naive as Mother may have sounded, her words were really very wise. God has so much that he wants us to do right here and he also wants us to trust that he will send the right person or people to deal with those problems that are over there. What the Holy Fathers have taught on this point will make its way to the right ears. God will send someone to help them understand. If they choose not to understand, then I can’t help them anyway. Those who hear, but still don’t understand, in good faith, maybe their time for clarity has not yet come.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[MartyrForJesus]

Why is this in the traditional Catholicism forum?

 

[trickster]

Why is this in the traditional Catholicism forum?

Thanks for asking this MartyrForJesus…I am interested in theology or general questions on post-Vatican II Catholicism…yet there is no place to post them…how can we create a place to talk about the relationship between Indigenous Spirituality and Post Vatican II Catholicism…I am with you there.

I would also point out that there was probably a pre-Vatican II form of liberation theology if one focused on our responsibilty to those less fortunate than ourselves…and so there is also a direct connection because liberation theology - by way of challenge - is also a conversation of ideas and how the traditional Catholic church and the post vatican II catholic church have interpreted age old teachings in a contemporary sense…so I think the arguement can be made that posting these kinds of things are appropriate when considering traditional catholicms because it situates traditional catholicism to be in conversation with contemporary concerns. I dont’ know any traditionalists who want to livein 1948 as an example…traditional catholicsm is a tool in our spirituality today.

However, I agree with the implication of your question…and perhaps you can help me find another place to post my interests as there is no home on Catholic Answers for my interest…

Fair enough?

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster (Aboriginal Concpet for Transformation).

 

[trickster]

Earnest_Bunbury:
Hi Earnest…can you give me the reference for that most excellent quote? Thanks.

Bruce Ferguson

 

[trickster]

We have to be careful and not say what the Church never said. The Church never said that Liberation Theology was heretical. That label was never applied to it.

Bl. John Paul, who was one of the brightest philosophers of the 20th century, looked at it very closely and found that it’s major problem was its starting point, not its goals. There was nothing wrong with seeking justice for the poor and liberation for the oppressed. He worked for this his entire life.

The problem with liberation theology was that it started from Marxism. It used Marxist philosophy, methods and systems to apply the Gospel to the needs of the Church. Bl. John Paul was well aware that Marxist philosophy does not see all men as equal in dignity and it uses antagonism and intimidation to achieve human freedom.

The truth is that the Gospel does not need a political or economic system to make it work. The Gospel has always worked, especially for the poor. People like Benedict, Vincent de Paul, Francis of Assisi, John de Matha, John Baptist de La Salle, Louise de Marillac, Elizabeth Ann Seton, John Bosco, Bl. Mother Teresa and Bl. John Paul himself, just to name a few, preached the Gospel to the poor, convicted the dishonest and the abusive, protected human dignity, established all kinds of ministries to the poorest of the poor and never preached a word of hatred or anger. They were way ahead of Marx. They did not need his systems or his rhetoric to accomplish what Marx preached and Communism failed to deliver. Just check out Catholic Charities of Tulsa, OK. It is an incredible example of what can be done for the poor using the Gospel without Marxist props.

Marxist philosophy denies the dignity of the person and assigns dignity according to the utility of the individual so that man becomes a commodity. To look to this philosophy as an expression of evangelical justice is foolhardy.

That being said, many of these Liberation Theologians were good people. We have to see what they saw. They saw human beings living in deplorable condition and corruption all around them. They really believed that if the social content of the Gospel could be unleashed, it would make a change. What they did not count on was the weakness in Marxism. Marxism does not start from a Christian anthropology. It’s an atheist anthropology. Therefore, the core of the the social dimension of the Gospel, that all men are God’s children, rich or poor, is lost, because God is not in the Marxist equation. It calls the rich to accountability, but it fails to acknowledge the rights and duties of all men, because it does not see all men as equal in dignity and purpose.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank yo Br. JR…that is more or less what I was trying to get at with my clumsy way of writing and talking…I like the idea of liberation theology calling us to a greater commitment to the worlds poor…there is nothing dramatic about that…it is a basic calling of Christianity…I agree that the intention or purpose of creating liberation theology is good however, basiing in Marxist is not good…we all agree on that…I guess my quesiton is - given that there will be a global conference on “Liberation Theology” by the Jesuits at a Catholic University in Brazil and the Vatican is not trying to shut it down…what does that say about “Liberation Theology”…I think it says that the church rejects the use of Marxism to explain a Christian doctrine…but that it equally sees the value in this discussion…we have many other theoretical starting points to look at this including contibutions from post-modern, feminist, eco-theological starting points and so forth to explore the ideas of which liberation theology originally took aim at…if any of that makes sense…look forward to your thoughts…

 

[trickster]

What concerns me Brother is the sheer naivete with which people look at movements such as this and how they can ignore statements made by the last two Popes we have had. I find that to be a matter of great concern.

And I don’t think it was a coincidence either. Not in the least.

Mike I think it was you that indicated that Liberation Theology was a construct of the middle class or privilege class of theologians in western europe…etc…I thank you for that statement…

I am an Aboriginal Catholic…living in relative poverty, in many of the addictive, violent and experience on a daily basis the physical, mental and spiritual poverty of our people…while at the same time…seeing emerging leaders in our community using aboriginal spirituality etc., to restore hopefulness.

I understand and support the conversations on Catholic Answers about which pope said what and what is the proper teaching of the church…but my heart is not in that place…my heart is on the question of reconciling our expereinces as native people and as catholics…too many times well meaning catholics minimize the experience of the North AMerican Indian and our spirituality…much work needs to be done.

As I said before, I want to explore a bridging theology that creates a conversation between aboriginal spirituality and catholic thinking…this calls sometimes for a departure from safe areas and invites us to the margins…because it is in the margins where tension or chaos in the Genesis context produces clarity…I agree and appreciate your concern about marxism in liberaiton theology…and I agree that Liberation Theology if it is solely base on Marxism is not helpful in our discussion as Catholics…BUT…there are things and issues that liberation theology has taken aim at that ARE beneficial for those of us living in those margins and those of usliving in poverty,e tc., who’s realities are being marginalized by western systems…etc.,…so that is why exploring how we can use theolgoical frameworks to promote social and economic justice is exciting to me, it restores hope to my soul and it - I believe - makes me feel much closer to JP II in many ways…

Hope that speaks to the heart of my postings ok …thank you so much for your passion on this Mike and I hope to hear more…same with you Brother JR…

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[trickster]

Hello Br. JR…I just read your last posting about Mother Theresa…and I just want to say thank you for your life, what you have done…what you are doing and what you are preparing to do…at the end of the day…all these arguements and ideas don’t amount to too much when we are faced with the reality of what our faith has always been about.

Very much humbled and honoured

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[JReducation]

Thank yo Br. JR…that is more or less what I was trying to get at with my clumsy way of writing and talking…I like the idea of liberation theology calling us to a greater commitment to the worlds poor…there is nothing dramatic about that…it is a basic calling of Christianity…I agree that the intention or purpose of creating liberation theology is good however, basiing in Marxist is not good…we all agree on that…I guess my quesiton is - given that there will be a global conference on “Liberation Theology” by the Jesuits at a Catholic University in Brazil and the Vatican is not trying to shut it down…what does that say about “Liberation Theology”…I think it says that the church rejects the use of Marxism to explain a Christian doctrine…but that it equally sees the value in this discussion…we have many other theoretical starting points to look at this including contibutions from post-modern, feminist, eco-theological starting points and so forth to explore the ideas of which liberation theology originally took aim at…if any of that makes sense…look forward to your thoughts…

We have to remember, the Church is a community of faith and a community of intellectuals. The days when the Church avoided discussions on anything that it disapproved or questionable are over. The Church has designated certain groups to lead in these discussion: Jesuits, Dominicans, Opus Dei, Congregation of the Holy Cross and different commissions and departments in the Vatican, as well as specific individuals. Their job is to tease out the truth, rattle the man in the pew, help students of theology and scholars to understand and give the Holy Father feedback.

During Vatican II, Bishop Wojtyla made a very passionate statement prepared with the help of Fathers Ratzinger and Rahner. The statement made a very important point. I can’t recall the quote. I’ve heard the recordings a number of times. A paraphrase would say that the Church can no longer be a prisoner, but she must understand the world, if she is to speak to the world. She cannot afford the luxury of ignoring what she does not approve. To do so is ignorant. She must be able to understand what she condemns in order to explain it to the faithful.

Such a gathering is part of the Church’s attempt to guide reason through faith. To do so, you have to discuss what men believe to be reasonable.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[trickster]

We have to remember, the Church is a community of faith and a community of intellectuals. The days when the Church avoided discussions on anything that it disapproved or questionable are over. The Church has designated certain groups to lead in these discussion: Jesuits, Dominicans, Opus Dei, Congregation of the Holy Cross and different commissions and departments in the Vatican, as well as specific individuals. Their job is to tease out the truth, rattle the man in the pew, help students of theology and scholars to understand and give the Holy Father feedback.

During Vatican II, Bishop Wojtyla made a very passionate statement prepared with the help of Fathers Ratzinger and Rahner. The statement made a very important point. I can’t recall the quote. I’ve heard the recordings a number of times. A paraphrase would say that the Church can no longer be a prisoner, but she must understand the world, if she is to speak to the world. She cannot afford the luxury of ignoring what she does not approve. To do so is ignorant. She must be able to understand what she condemns in order to explain it to the faithful.

Such a gathering is part of the Church’s attempt to guide reason through faith. To do so, you have to discuss what men believe to be reasonable.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well that works for me…thanks so much for your thinking on this…I’ll pay attention to your wisdom on this…

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster