Liberation Theology - Still A Good Thing

  • Thread starter Thread starter trickster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
👍

IOW, the only authentic liberation theology is how Jesus defined liberation, the context in which he put it:

Truth = Freedom
Union with Him = Union with His Father = Freedom
Torah = the path to Freedom

John Chapter 8 elucidates this.

One of the central principles of Torah is to relieve poverty and to come to the aid of those unjustly oppressed. However, that is very different from saying that Christianity has a political mandate to overthrow governments. (i.e., Christianity = Political Revolution)
I agree…a redefinition of :“liberation theology” … perhaps liberation theology became articulated because we did not follow the original proposal of Jesus and the Hebrew Bible on this (including the Jubilee Year forgiveness of debt)…so you have a point and that is to look at how Jesus and his context proposed the addressing of global poverty and injustice…that is true liberaiton theology…not to mention liberation from sin, self-defeat,etc.
 
The only liberation theology is that of the Church Jesus founded before His death on the cross to save our souls from eternal suffering.

“Liberation Theology” is nothing but a fancy term for Communism. If you frost a turd, it doesn’t turn into a cake.
A bit descriptive and it addresses the marxist foundation upon which liberation theology is built upon…but you don’t address what liberation theology has become in its current state of understanding including “liberationist” theological framework informed from gthe experiential knowledg derived from ender, orientation, socio-economic and ethnic experience.to name a few.

We may even need a freedom theology upon the impositions we make upon ourselves in the name of reglition…

Thoughts?

Bruce Ferguson
 
Your assessment of Biblical scholarship is, I think, mistaken. Most contemporary NT scholars seem to agree that Jesus’ message was definitely in some sense political. Now you may dismiss them for ideological reasons, but when folks as different as N. T. Wright and Richard Horsley agree on this, I think it’s worth taking seriously.

I don’t see any solid basis for your claim that liberation theology is “junk theology.” Nor does your description of it fit a classic liberation theology text like Gutierrez’ Theology of Liberation. What Gutierrez opposes is the very dichotomy you make between the spiritual and the political. This dichotomy strikes me as Gnostic rather than orthodox and as severing no purpose except enslaving the Church to the powers of this world.

Edwin
Well said Edwin. Unfortunately it is within the nature of the beast that religion is political because it involves the distribution and exercise of power. The beauty of the Christian view of poltiics is that it leans towards a egalitarian political format; the early monastic communities were evidence of Christianity in its political format. Politics is very much connected to Catholic belief in the area of abortion, mercy killing and other moral issues

What is your take on the state of liberation theology in 2011? I have become aware in my studies of post-modern theology that we have birthed since the 1960s a number of theological framework which I refer to as “liberationist” or “freedom” theology including that reflected on within feminist, queer, economic, eco and ethnic based theologies as means and lenses from which to gathe deeper meaning within scripture and the teaching of the church…

Thanks

Bruce Ferguson
 
Hi
No I do not agree. Please speak for yourself, not for others. I have studied so-called “liberation theology” on the graduate level. It is the equivalent, in theology, of what junk science is to science. As conceived and explained by those who espoused and espouse it, it opposes the principles of all Biblical scholarship, including orthodox Catholic scholarship.

Conversion liberates (spiritually, and thus potentially in other ways, such as intellectually, morally, and even practically, as the core of our Selves is our soul, and the fruits of the Spirit are many). But Liberation Theology, so titled, is not about spiritual liberation but political liberation, with political goals as the starting point. Then those political goals are applied retroactively to the Gospels, not only misinterpreting what Jesus said, but directly contradicting his refusal to join political efforts to overthrow Roman oppression.

What is objectionable is not the true implication (application) of social justice in the Gospels (to work actively for the poor, wherever we can), but attributing to Christianity a political definition and origin.
Hi Elizabeth. A fellow theological student…that is awesome. My studies were at Vancouver School of Theology and I found myself interested somewhat in progressive aspects within systematic theology but my passion around indigenous spirituality attracted me to post modern theology. So that is my background and bias in this conversation.

Starting with your last statement I totally agree that liberation theology - while having the good intention of addressing social justice issues - it is built upon the a limited political model of marxism. That alone limits the effect of praxis with respect to Gutierrez work. You are right that “freedom theology” is not limited to the socio-economic justice but to our eternal lives as well, so we are not in disagreement there.

Yes Liberation theology is politics and it is a politics in a certain part of the world at a certain time in the world’s history and it is read back to re-adjust or position its truth to actually change the meaning of the biblical text. I agree with you.

Where I see things in a somewhat different light is that Jesus was political because he was talking about temporal power and eternal life (which is a pretty powerful concept and therefore political especially when one talks about the economic assessment of those who make it to heaven). The Sermon on the Mount was a pretty political speech in its day, time, context and audience. It was the “radical speech” in the sense that it form the roots of what Jesus social agenda was about, it was political because it involved the redistribution of goods and services.

I am sympathetic to the ideas of liberation theology (or it is more accurate to say the forms of liberation theology as we understand them in 2011) - liberationist theologies…because as Native peoples for example, we have not been able to participate fully in the church nor the benefits of the state…that is something we continue to fight for within the aboriginal struggle in Canada and it is from that place that my theology is contextualized.

I am running out of brain cells now so I will leave it at that…and I look forward to your further thinking on it as well as Edwin’s take on the conversation…Liberation theology is certainly a catalyst in the conversation about social justice but I believe that JP II showed an alternative to classic liberation theology and it is those liberationist tendencies in our faith that I fully celebrate and explore…

Cheerz

Bruce Ferguson
 
Perhaps you can point to the evidence for your claim. What I have seen from both JPII and BXVI has always been phrased more cautiously, speaking of “certain aspects” of liberation theology.

The OP’s approach seems much more in line with the official teaching of the Church than yours. There are problematic aspects to liberation theology, but that doesn’t mean it should be rejected outright.

Also, you seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on the opinions of one particular Pope. That’s certainly your prerogative–I admire JPII as well–but his magisterial authority was that of all Popes, not peculiar to himself. If he had particular issues with liberation theology, it might well be because of his history with Marxism and his legitimate concern about the Marxist aspects of LT. Such personal perspectives are certainly valid but not in themselves magisterial.

Can you support this claim? CCC 2419 says:

It seems to me, again, that this is in accord with what the OP is saying and not in accord with what you are saying. Liberation theology (which is far from a unified phenomenon but a broad theological approach) certainly had/has lots of flaws. But the basic claim that the Gospel speaks to all aspects of human life, including social justice, is a valid one. And with all due respect, if you deny this I suggest that you may be the one who is unorthodox.

One of the things I have always found appealing in Catholicism is its emphasis on social justice over against the conservative Protestant tendency to make religion a purely individual matter. I recognize that some liberal Catholics have latched on to those aspects of the Faith to the exclusion of others–in fact the parish where I attended RCIA was one such parish, and that’s one of the reasons I dropped out and went back to Episcopalianism in 1999. So I understand your concerns. But social justice is an aspect of Catholic orthodoxy, and the liberation theologians, for all their faults, have helped the Church as a whole take the embodied, incarnational nature of the Gospel seriously.

Perhaps, before we go further with this, you can point me to the document in which the Church has definitively taught that liberation theology as a whole is heretical.

I think the OP is right that even heresy can be helpful to the Church. But in fact liberation theology as a whole has never, as far as I know, been declared heretical. The Church has rightly cautioned against certain aspects of it, but that is all.

Edwin
I agree with you Edwin…well said.

Bruce Ferguson
 
They really reign in So America, specially Brasil. The Catholic Chanel in Brasil which reach millions of Catholics is a disgrace to the Faith. I can tell by talking to Catholics there specially my family, that they dont care about Rome anymore what the pope has to say. This chanel speaks against the oppressive CC. i read about them saying that Jesus is coming to them only. I have heard so many crazy things from that chanel, I refused to watch after just watching one time it was enough for me.

About hearing what they say, i come to the conclusion that the real purpose of this movement was to free themselves from the CC. if you want to believe that this movement is in defense of the poor is fine with me. i think it deceived many Catholics into believe is such but in reality its purpose was one more attack on the Church from the inside.
Wisdom seeker…I am not sure what you are saying…when I read it I want to know if you are talking about Liberation Theology with respect to the Catholic Church in Brazil? And then I re-read it in the context of what you quoted and am wondering if you are agreeing with the context of the quote you put in your response…sorry for the confusion on my part…I look forward to your thoughts on our church in Brazil…

Bruce Ferguson
 
Wisdom seeker…I am not sure what you are saying…when I read it I want to know if you are talking about Liberation Theology with respect to the Catholic Church in Brazil? And then I re-read it in the context of what you quoted and am wondering if you are agreeing with the context of the quote you put in your response…sorry for the confusion on my part…I look forward to your thoughts on our church in Brazil…

Bruce Ferguson
I dont know what you mean. I am saying the liberation theology is ruling the CC in Brasil. I went to Mass there and all I heard was this priest talking about social classes. I cant remember everything he said, I know he was preaching on social justice without discrimination. It gave me the impression that he was insighting the people against governments. against all sort of discrimination which it can be taken as also acceptance of homosexuals and their agenda.

that goes with all the Catholic Church so I hear from other Catholics over there. there is much more but i dont want to mention.
 
We have to be very careful with what we say on this issue, because we can add to the confusion rather than clarify.
  1. The Church has never said that Liberation Theology is heretical. The Church has pointed to issues with Liberation Theology, most importantly its strong Marxist language. Even Marxism has never been condemned as a heresy, but as an error. Error and heresy are not the same. Heresy is always error, but error is not always heresy.
  2. This sort of takes me over the SSPX side of the aisle. There are many people on these threads on TC Forum who hear the good fathers of the SSPX and other traditionalist groups use these terms (heresy and apostasy) and they start to include them in their own language. However, you must remember, that unless you have the level of theological and canonical education that these good fathers have, you should avoid using their tools, because you may do so incorrectly. It’s like the person who shares his medication with his neighbor. You’re not a physician; don’t imitate his work. You can kill someone. In this case, stay away from language that is loaded unless you know all of the nuances of such terms as well as these men understand them. That’s why they go to eight-years of seminary, so they can use these loaded words correctly. Sometimes, even they get it wrong. Just because we all went through the seminary, does not mean that we can all use the same language.
  3. Bl. John Paul did send out communiqués on Liberation Theology. There is a daily communiqué out of the Vatican to every bishop and every religious superior in the world. Few of the faithful ever get to see it. It’s not meant for us. He had more than just an opinion. In those communiqués, he spoke very strongly against many points in Liberation Theology. The thing that he picked apart most vociferously was the use of Marxist language in delivering the Gospel message. He himself had been a great freedom fighter, from his early days; but he was very careful not to use the language of political ideologies or endorse their methods.
  4. Bl. John Paul was more than concerned about Liberation Theology, not just because he was a Pole, but because he was a priest. It was a very long time ago, so I can’t recall which country it was. But I remember Pope John Paul arriving in Central America, walking down the reception line and stopping at a priest who knelt to kiss his ring. The priest was a Liberation Theologian. Right there, in front of the TV cameras and everyone else, he gave him a tongue lashing for his involvement in Liberation Theology. I still remember the statement, because the media could not believe what they were hearing from the usual calm and polite Polish Pope. “You have a lot to answer for, (Usted tiene mucho porque arrepentirse.)” He even waved his finger at him, in front of the entire world. When a pope does this, his position had better be taken seriously.
  5. However, let us not delude ourselves to the other extreme either. He was an advocate for social justice. This is evidenced by his approval of the foundation of over 100 religious congregations and lay Catholic movements whose mission was to liberate the poor. If one wants to understand how the Church sees this happening, one just has to look at Mother Teresa and Father Richard Ho Lung, founder of the Missionaries of the Poor. Also, read Rerum Novarum, Populorum Progreso, and Caritas in Veritate.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Perhaps you can point to the evidence for your claim. What I have seen from both JPII and BXVI has always been phrased more cautiously, speaking of “certain aspects” of liberation theology.

The OP’s approach seems much more in line with the official teaching of the Church than yours. There are problematic aspects to liberation theology, but that doesn’t mean it should be rejected outright.

Also, you seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on the opinions of one particular Pope. That’s certainly your prerogative–I admire JPII as well–but his magisterial authority was that of all Popes, not peculiar to himself. If he had particular issues with liberation theology, it might well be because of his history with Marxism and his legitimate concern about the Marxist aspects of LT. Such personal perspectives are certainly valid but not in themselves magisterial.

Can you support this claim? CCC 2419 says:

It seems to me, again, that this is in accord with what the OP is saying and not in accord with what you are saying. Liberation theology (which is far from a unified phenomenon but a broad theological approach) certainly had/has lots of flaws. But the basic claim that the Gospel speaks to all aspects of human life, including social justice, is a valid one. And with all due respect, if you deny this I suggest that you may be the one who is unorthodox.

One of the things I have always found appealing in Catholicism is its emphasis on social justice over against the conservative Protestant tendency to make religion a purely individual matter. I recognize that some liberal Catholics have latched on to those aspects of the Faith to the exclusion of others–in fact the parish where I attended RCIA was one such parish, and that’s one of the reasons I dropped out and went back to Episcopalianism in 1999. So I understand your concerns. But social justice is an aspect of Catholic orthodoxy, and the liberation theologians, for all their faults, have helped the Church as a whole take the embodied, incarnational nature of the Gospel seriously.

Perhaps, before we go further with this, you can point me to the document in which the Church has definitively taught that liberation theology as a whole is heretical.

I think the OP is right that even heresy can be helpful to the Church. But in fact liberation theology as a whole has never, as far as I know, been declared heretical. The Church has rightly cautioned against certain aspects of it, but that is all.

Edwin
Well Edwin, I never said it was heretical nor did I say the Catholic Church said it was heretical. I was responding to a post by our friend Trickster in which he said"We, often don’t do our homework and dismiss what we think to be “taboo” studies just because the church has called it heretical…and I said, and I quote" If the Church says something is heretical it is heretical" I know the Church has never said it was heretical. Perhaps you would do well to actually read what it is written before you comment on it in the manner you did.

I would reccomend the Ratzinger report, Ignatious Press for answers to your questions as to sources

I used John paul II as an example because it has been my opinion that many who post here seem to feel he was the first true Pope and that his opinion carries more weight than does others. Also he was the first Pope to confront Liberation Theology head on and with great force.
 
Well said Edwin. Unfortunately it is within the nature of the beast that religion is political because it involves the distribution and exercise of power. The beauty of the Christian view of poltiics is that it leans towards a egalitarian political format; the early monastic communities were evidence of Christianity in its political format. Politics is very much connected to Catholic belief in the area of abortion, mercy killing and other moral issues

What is your take on the state of liberation theology in 2011? I have become aware in my studies of post-modern theology that we have birthed since the 1960s a number of theological framework which I refer to as “liberationist” or “freedom” theology including that reflected on within feminist, queer, economic, eco and ethnic based theologies as means and lenses from which to gathe deeper meaning within scripture and the teaching of the church…

Thanks

Bruce Ferguson
What do you mean by that? That the Church needs a “lens to gather deeper meaning within Scripture” and these groups you mention are providing it? Feminist, queer, economic, eco and ethnic based theologies? This is merely division into artificial constructs if you will. God is God, Jesus is Jesus, and the Church is the Church. We are all His children and there are no categories within his love. Either you accept His way and His will, or you don’t. All those categories are nothing more than more ways to cause dissension, and this is what Marxists love to do. Class warfare, even if the classes are artificial/sociological and not economical, is very effective in setting up antagonism.
 
We have to be very careful with what we say on this issue, because we can add to the confusion rather than clarify.

**Bl. John Paul did send out communiqués on Liberation Theology. There is a daily communiqué out of the Vatican to every bishop and every religious superior in the world. Few of the faithful ever get to see it. It’s not meant for us. He had more than just an opinion. In those communiqués, he spoke very strongly against many points in Liberation Theology. The thing that he picked apart most vociferously was the use of Marxist language in delivering the Gospel message. He himself had been a great freedom fighter, from his early days; but he was very careful not to use the language of political ideologies or endorse their methods.
**
4. Bl. John Paul was more than concerned about Liberation Theology, not just because he was a Pole, but because he was a priest. It was a very long time ago, so I can’t recall which country it was. But I remember Pope John Paul arriving in Central America, walking down the reception line and stopping at a priest who knelt to kiss his ring. The priest was a Liberation Theologian. Right there, in front of the TV cameras and everyone else, he gave him a tongue lashing for his involvement in Liberation Theology. I still remember the statement, because the media could not believe what they were hearing from the usual calm and polite Polish Pope. “You have a lot to answer for, (Usted tiene mucho porque arrepentirse.)” He even waved his finger at him, in front of the entire world. When a pope does this, his position had better be taken seriously.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Hi Brother.First let me thank you for bringing out this little known piece of history. I wanted to do so early in the conservation but was afraid that I did I would be besieged with demands for sources,citations quotes etc to prove that it really happened as usually happens when I say anything. I know that won.t happen with you so thanks. As I did an extensive study on this period of Nicaraguan history I will expand just a bit…

The Priest to whom you are referring was Father Ernesto Cardenal, a diocesan Priest of the Diocese of Managua, Nicaragua,where the incident took place. Cardenal, along with four other Priests, his brother Father Fernando Cardenal, SJ (Jesuit), Father Alvaro Arguello, SJ (Jesuit), Father Miguel D’Escoto, M.M.(Maryknoll Missionaries), and Father Edgar Parrales, Diocese of Managua, all held cabinet level positions in Sandinista led Marxist government, which was in power in Nicaragua at the time. All four had been ordered by both their superiors and by the Vatican to resign their posts and return to their Priestly duties. All declined to do so in the interest of serving the country of Nicaragua and the Peoples Church, as the Catholic Church in Nicaragua was now called by many. The incident occurred in 1981 during a Papal visit to Nicaragua, The purpose of the Holy Fathers visit to Nicaragua was to address the issues that had arisen in that country concerning the Catholic Church, it’s role and the activities of the religious there… The admonition by the Holy Father dealt with this fact and the fact that Cardenal and many other members members of the clergy in Nicaragua had adopted Liberation theology as their guide and had in fact succeeded in creating a new Church totally in opposition to the established Church

In addition to the above five, la creme de la creme as it were, there were somewhere in the vicinity of two hundred other Priests,and approximately seven hundred Sisters, Nuns and Brothers actively serving in government positions throughout Nicaragua along with literally thousands of religious affiliated with the movement at the local level. The religious that had remained true to the Church were ridiculed, harassed, and in many cases jailed or deported. The Bishops were ignored and seen as useless impediments in the new Church of the People of God

The Peoples Church, the Liberation Theology inspired Church, to which they were all committed, outwardly claimed to be Roman Catholic in the strictest sense of the word and totally committed to social justice. In practice though,they had totally revamped the entire concept of Catholicism to suit their needs.

The Pope and Vatican were seen as hindrances and unnecessary in establishing the Church of the People of God and could and should be ignored . No longer would authority come from above. Instead, authority would come from loosely affiliated groups at the local level known as base communities. There was no need for meddling in local affairs from an outside,particularly western source. As stated by Father Leonardo Boff (Franciscan) one of the most ardent supporters of Liberation Theology, " The sacred power must be put in the hands of the people." I understand that Father Boff has since been laicised.

The true purpose of the Catholic Church was seen as the liberation of one class of people, the poor, from from oppression and the injustice of western tyranny and imperialism. Jesus was seen as a revolutionary political figure whose death was martyrdom in the face of tyranny. The mystical body of Christ was seen as all oppressed people in a collective sense. The Blessed Virgin was known as the Mother of all Revolutionaries. The Eucharist became the hard earned bread made at the hands of the poor now liberated from oppression. Heaven became the earthly paradise that would result from the freedom of tyranny.

Nicaragua was the first place that Liberation Theology was tried out on a grand scale. It failed and failed miserably.:thumbsup Hopefully it will be the last.

Lets hope that whatever models the Church uses in its programs of social justice that liberation theology isn’t one of them.
 
Hi Brother.First let me thank you for bringing out this little known piece of history. I wanted to do so early in the conservation but was afraid that I did I would be besieged with demands for sources,citations quotes etc to prove that it really happened as usually happens when I say anything. I know that won.t happen with you so thanks. As I did an extensive study on this period of Nicaraguan history I will expand just a bit…

The Priest to whom you are referring was Father Ernesto Cardenal, a diocesan Priest of the Diocese of Managua, Nicaragua,where the incident took place. Cardenal, along with four other Priests, his brother Father Fernando Cardenal, SJ (Jesuit), Father Alvaro Arguello, SJ (Jesuit), Father Miguel D’Escoto, M.M.(Maryknoll Missionaries), and Father Edgar Parrales, Diocese of Managua, all held cabinet level positions in Sandinista led Marxist government, which was in power in Nicaragua at the time. All four had been ordered by both their superiors and by the Vatican to resign their posts and return to their Priestly duties. All declined to do so in the interest of serving the country of Nicaragua and the Peoples Church, as the Catholic Church in Nicaragua was now called by many. The incident occurred in 1981 during a Papal visit to Nicaragua, The purpose of the Holy Fathers visit to Nicaragua was to address the issues that had arisen in that country concerning the Catholic Church, it’s role and the activities of the religious there… The admonition by the Holy Father dealt with this fact and the fact that Cardenal and many other members members of the clergy in Nicaragua had adopted Liberation theology as their guide and had in fact succeeded in creating a new Church totally in opposition to the established Church

In addition to the above five, la creme de la creme as it were, there were somewhere in the vicinity of two hundred other Priests,and approximately seven hundred Sisters, Nuns and Brothers actively serving in government positions throughout Nicaragua along with literally thousands of religious affiliated with the movement at the local level. The religious that had remained true to the Church were ridiculed, harassed, and in many cases jailed or deported. The Bishops were ignored and seen as useless impediments in the new Church of the People of God

The Peoples Church, the Liberation Theology inspired Church, to which they were all committed, outwardly claimed to be Roman Catholic in the strictest sense of the word and totally committed to social justice. In practice though,they had totally revamped the entire concept of Catholicism to suit their needs.

The Pope and Vatican were seen as hindrances and unnecessary in establishing the Church of the People of God and could and should be ignored . No longer would authority come from above. Instead, authority would come from loosely affiliated groups at the local level known as base communities. There was no need for meddling in local affairs from an outside,particularly western source. As stated by Father Leonardo Boff (Franciscan) one of the most ardent supporters of Liberation Theology, " The sacred power must be put in the hands of the people." I understand that Father Boff has since been laicised.

The true purpose of the Catholic Church was seen as the liberation of one class of people, the poor, from from oppression and the injustice of western tyranny and imperialism. Jesus was seen as a revolutionary political figure whose death was martyrdom in the face of tyranny. The mystical body of Christ was seen as all oppressed people in a collective sense. The Blessed Virgin was known as the Mother of all Revolutionaries. The Eucharist became the hard earned bread made at the hands of the poor now liberated from oppression. Heaven became the earthly paradise that would result from the freedom of tyranny.

Nicaragua was the first place that Liberation Theology was tried out on a grand scale. It failed and failed miserably.:thumbsup Hopefully it will be the last.

Lets hope that whatever models the Church uses in its programs of social justice that liberation theology isn’t one of them.
Thank you for filling in the blanks. I remember seeing it with my own eyes, but I could not remember the who and the place. Now that you have refreshed my memory, yes it was Fr. Cardenal. He’s still a Roman Catholic priest.

Leonardo was dismissed from the Franciscan Order when he refused to stand down, after being ordered by the Minister General. The pope had asked him to stand down. He ignored the pope. The pope asked again and again he ignored. Then the Minister General intervened and commanded under obedience that he stand down. When he failed to do so, the Minister General filed a law suit to dismiss him from both, religious life and the clerical state. The Minister General won the suit and Leonardo was laicized for disobeying the canonical successor of St. Francis. St. Francis is very explicit in his rule. Every brother owes him obedience through his canonical successors. We are not to question any command that is not a sin, even if we believe that the command is a mistake.

Leonardo claimed that the pope and the Minister General did not understand the situation and that his conscience would not allow him to obey. The Minister General, who has the authority to dictate what is and is not a correctly formed conscience, responded that Leonardo’s conscience was contrary to that of the Church and of St. Francis. Therefore, he had a moral duty to correct. The end of it all was: Minister General 1 : Leonardo 0.

It was very long ago, so my memory of the details are murky. I’m not about to go into an extensive research for the purpose of a thread. However, I believe that Leonard voluntarily signed the paper work, which allowed him to remain a Catholic and receive the sacraments.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Thank you for filling in the blanks. I remember seeing it with my own eyes, but I could not remember the who and the place. Now that you have refreshed my memory, yes it was Fr. Cardenal. He’s still a Roman Catholic priest.

Leonardo was dismissed from the Franciscan Order when he refused to stand down, after being ordered by the Minister General. The pope had asked him to stand down. He ignored the pope. The pope asked again and again he ignored. Then the Minister General intervened and commanded under obedience that he stand down. When he failed to do so, the Minister General filed a law suit to dismiss him from both, religious life and the clerical state. The Minister General won the suit and Leonardo was laicized for disobeying the canonical successor of St. Francis. St. Francis is very explicit in his rule. Every brother owes him obedience through his canonical successors. We are not to question any command that is not a sin, even if we believe that the command is a mistake.

Leonardo claimed that the pope and the Minister General did not understand the situation and that his conscience would not allow him to obey. The Minister General, who has the authority to dictate what is and is not a correctly formed conscience, responded that Leonardo’s conscience was contrary to that of the Church and of St. Francis. Therefore, he had a moral duty to correct. The end of it all was: Minister General 1 : Leonardo 0.

It was very long ago, so my memory of the details are murky. I’m not about to go into an extensive research for the purpose of a thread. However, I believe that Leonard voluntarily signed the paper work, which allowed him to remain a Catholic and receive the sacraments.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
I believe you are right that he did sign the paperwork, but I am not sure either. I do know that Cardenals brother, Fernando, voluntarily left the Priesthood at a later date due to concerns over conscience and choice.
 
I believe you are right that he did sign the paperwork, but I am not sure either. I do know that Cardenals brother, Fernando, voluntarily left the Priesthood at a later date due to concerns over conscience and choice.
That’s honest. Was he the Jesuit?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
 
I actually believe the Jesuits are still into liberation theology. However, they are seeing it as the Church sees it. Instead of subscribing to marxist concepts, they are now training future leaders social awareness without losing sight of Christ in the classrooms. So that when they are finally immersed in the world, they will be catalysts of change in light of the Gospel.

When I first read this thread, I found it frustrating since I live in a developing country. I live and breath in a society where the rich gets richer, and the poor, poorer. I didn’t get it why some here would not get the idea. I was literally mumbling to myself, “if you were in the shoes of those in South America, maybe you’ll get it.” Then I caught myself sidestepping in the red zone the Church warned about.

I stopped and reflected further on the “Preferential Option for the Poor” and I was reminded that poverty is not exclusive to developing countries. Even in “first world” countries, poverty is prevalent even though in a different kind. Poverty is not only defined by material possessions alone and cannot be enclosed in borders. Yes, there are those who are materially poor. Yet there are also those who are morally poor. There are those who are poor in hope and faith. There are those who are poor in their dignity as human beings. Cardinal Ratzinger once commented on the issue, “We are all poor.”

In the end, we are all spiritually poor.
 
I actually believe the Jesuits are still into liberation theology. However, they are seeing it as the Church sees it. Instead of subscribing to marxist concepts, they are now training future leaders social awareness without losing sight of Christ in the classrooms. So that when they are finally immersed in the world, they will be catalysts of change in light of the Gospel.

When I first read this thread, I found it frustrating since I live in a developing country. I live and breath in a society where the rich gets richer, and the poor, poorer. I didn’t get it why some here would not get the idea. I was literally mumbling to myself, “if you were in the shoes of those in South America, maybe you’ll get it.” Then I caught myself sidestepping in the red zone the Church warned about.

I stopped and reflected further on the “Preferential Option for the Poor” and I was reminded that poverty is not exclusive to developing countries. Even in “first world” countries, poverty is prevalent even though in a different kind. Poverty is not only defined by material possessions alone and cannot be enclosed in borders. Yes, there are those who are materially poor. Yet there are also those who are morally poor. There are those who are poor in hope and faith. There are those who are poor in their dignity as human beings. Cardinal Ratzinger once commented on the issue, “We are all poor.”

In the end, we are all spiritually poor.
Mother Teresa once said about the United States, “You are poorer than Calcutta, because in your country, people die of loneliness.”

I too served in South America. I saw the material poverty. You could walk around the corner from a street lined with mansions to a suburb of huts and cardboard boxes or children sleeping on the sidewalk. The one thing that I saw there that is often lacking here is a great love for the family.

There are very few nursing homes and they are not needed. People take care of their elderly parents and grandparents, sometimes of their elderly servants.

A child, whether he’s an orphan or not, he’s everyone’s child. Someone always offers him something to eat or gives him a piece of clothing. People know who he is, what he’s doing and where he’s going. In our cities, our children are often anonymous. In our schools, the only children that get noticed are the brilliant ones or the behavior problems. That middle child falls through the cracks.

I also so how they share what little they have. I worked among the poorest of the poor. I remember the first time that I was invited to someone’s home. The young man worked for the friary. He invited me to a family gathering. The home was cramped and dark. We sat outside. They asked me if I wanted some juice. I accepted. They brought out a jar, the kind that we use for instant coffee. That was the glass. The juice was Tang. It was watered down in order to stretch it. Then they brought me a plate of food. It was a tin plate that looked pretty beat up. There was rice, a little juice from the meat and a cube of stew beef. I was very humbled and embarrassed, because of their generosity. I thought about home and how we don’t have that same sense of generosity. We would probably avoid having a family gathering, if we don’t have enough money to buy food in large enough quantities to feed everyone until they can’t eat anymore. But to them, the most important part was to get together with family, listen to loud music, tell bad jokes and watch the kids play. I went back to the community house asking myself, “Who is poorer, they or us?”

I was also stationed in the mountains of Puerto Rico, which is part of the USA. In the center of the island, you would never know that you’re in the USA. The electrical power and water come and go without notice. People live in clean, but very tiny homes with many children and an abuela (grandmother). They walk long distances just to go out and buy some milk, while we drive around the corner. But the beautiful thing that I saw was the same sense of family.

I remember having to spend the night at a home in the mountains, because I could not get back to the community house. They offered me a bed. When I awoke early in the morning to pray my breviary, I found the two oldest boys sleeping on the floor in the kitchen. I was sleeping in their bed and did not know it.

I was in charge of postulants. I remember teaching the postulants to make sure that they never let a day go by, when they did not stop to teach the people about the Holy Family and show them how their families were so much like that of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, poor but generous.

Sometimes our ignorance of the rest of the world is our greatest poverty in the northern hemisphere.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
 
The only liberation theology is that of the Church Jesus founded before His death on the cross to save our souls from eternal suffering.

“Liberation Theology” is nothing but a fancy term for Communism. If you frost a turd, it doesn’t turn into a cake.
I think that Liberation Theology was meant to address a good end and that is the social justice ends and mandate of the church as taught later by JP II…I think Liberation Theology should be honoured as a pioneer theology that took a look at the real world as all good Catholic theologies do and also bring us out of our comfort zones of Catholics who are silent and allow through inaction injustice to continue…

The message of the Chruch is clear, Liberation Theology relied too much on Marxist theory (class warfare) and so it was not accepted…however, it did spark new thinking in the church and today we have what I call “liberationist theologies”…so that is why I think and argue that Libeation Theology is “still a good thing” because it is our heritage as Catholics and it is the birthing of a socially conscious catholicism for the 21st century…

Bruce
 
I dont know what you mean. I am saying the liberation theology is ruling the CC in Brasil. I went to Mass there and all I heard was this priest talking about social classes. I cant remember everything he said, I know he was preaching on social justice without discrimination. It gave me the impression that he was insighting the people against governments. against all sort of discrimination which it can be taken as also acceptance of homosexuals and their agenda.

that goes with all the Catholic Church so I hear from other Catholics over there. there is much more but i dont want to mention.
Ah, ok, thanks for the clarification wisdomseeker you are talking about the specific situation in Brazil as you pereieve it…thanks.

Bruce
 
Thank you for filling in the blanks. I remember seeing it with my own eyes, but I could not remember the who and the place. Now that you have refreshed my memory, yes it was Fr. Cardenal. He’s still a Roman Catholic priest.

Leonardo was dismissed from the Franciscan Order when he refused to stand down, after being ordered by the Minister General. The pope had asked him to stand down. He ignored the pope. The pope asked again and again he ignored. Then the Minister General intervened and commanded under obedience that he stand down. When he failed to do so, the Minister General filed a law suit to dismiss him from both, religious life and the clerical state. The Minister General won the suit and Leonardo was laicized for disobeying the canonical successor of St. Francis. St. Francis is very explicit in his rule. Every brother owes him obedience through his canonical successors. We are not to question any command that is not a sin, even if we believe that the command is a mistake.

Leonardo claimed that the pope and the Minister General did not understand the situation and that his conscience would not allow him to obey. The Minister General, who has the authority to dictate what is and is not a correctly formed conscience, responded that Leonardo’s conscience was contrary to that of the Church and of St. Francis. Therefore, he had a moral duty to correct. The end of it all was: Minister General 1 : Leonardo 0.

It was very long ago, so my memory of the details are murky. I’m not about to go into an extensive research for the purpose of a thread. However, I believe that Leonard voluntarily signed the paper work, which allowed him to remain a Catholic and receive the sacraments.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Hi Br JR>…I seem to remember that story about JPII getting mad at a priest…but in my recollection the priest was also a minister in that country’s government…does that ring any bells to you?

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top