Liberation Theology - Still A Good Thing

[JReducation]

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

Therein lies the problem. We have always had a socially conscious Catholicism. Look at the Benedictines, the Trinitarians, St. Camillus, St. Vincent de Paul, St. Catherine of Genoa, St. Elizabeth of Hungary, St. Louise de Marillac, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, St. John Bosco, St. Maximilian Kolbe, Bl. Teresa of Calcutta, St. Jose Maria Escriva, St. John Baptist de La Salle and many others.

All of these people started movements, lay and religious that address the social needs of the world to this day and all of them pre-date Liberation Theology.

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

Someone posted, it was Fr. Cardenal. He’s still a Catholic priest in good standing with the Church. The Holy Father blasted him in public, not because he was a politician, but because of his work in Liberation Theology. There were other priests who held political office before that and after that, even in the USA. In 1983, Canon Law prohibited priests, brothers and sisters from holding elected office. You can still hold offices by appointment. Br. Daniel Sulmasy is a Franciscan non-clerical brother, who is a theologian, philosopher and medical doctor and was appointed by the President of the USA to the presidential committee on medical ethics. I know that I’m not saying the name correctly, but that’s what the committee does. This is a presidential appointment. The Holy See has no problems with Brother Daniel holding said office.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[choliks]

Therein lies the problem. We have always had a socially conscious Catholicism. Look at the Benedictines, the Trinitarians, St. Camillus, St. Vincent de Paul, St. Catherine of Genoa, St. Elizabeth of Hungary, St. Louise de Marillac, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, St. John Bosco, St. Maximilian Kolbe, Bl. Teresa of Calcutta, St. Jose Maria Escriva, St. John Baptist de La Salle and many others.

All of these people started movements, lay and religious that address the social needs of the world to this day and all of them pre-date Liberation Theology.

Someone posted, it was Fr. Cardenal. He’s still a Catholic priest in good standing with the Church. The Holy Father blasted him in public, not because he was a politician, but because of his work in Liberation Theology. There were other priests who held political office before that and after that, even in the USA. In 1983, Canon Law prohibited priests, brothers and sisters from holding elected office. You can still hold offices by appointment. Br. Daniel Sulmasy is a Franciscan non-clerical brother, who is a theologian, philosopher and medical doctor and was appointed by the President of the USA to the presidential committee on medical ethics. I know that I’m not saying the name correctly, but that’s what the committee does. This is a presidential appointment. The Holy See has no problems with Brother Daniel holding said office.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Not to derail the thread, but since we’re talking about non-clerical brothers holding offices… a La Sallian brother was appointed as secretary of education here in the Philippines. Actually, he’s the second FSC appointed in a decade. The choice wasn’t that obvious.

Just sharing.

 

[JReducation]

Not to derail the thread, but since we’re talking about non-clerical brothers holding offices… a La Sallian brother was appointed as secretary of education here in the Philippines. Actually, he’s the second FSC appointed in a decade. The choice wasn’t that obvious.

Just sharing.

These are very different from the situation with the Liberation Theologians. These brothers, be they lay brothers, such as the De la Salle Christian Brothers or non-clerical brothers, such as Franciscan Brothers, are not engaging in political campaigns. They are not taking sides with any political party. The government asks them to serve. The superior discerns if some good can come from accepting the offer. If so, the superior gives the permission. The Vatican is OK with that, because the superior has the power to pull the religious if necessary.

When you engage in political campaigns, you commit yourself to a particular party ideology. That’s unacceptable.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Mike30]

Therein lies the problem. We have always had a socially conscious Catholicism. Look at the Benedictines, the Trinitarians, St. Camillus, St. Vincent de Paul, St. Catherine of Genoa, St. Elizabeth of Hungary, St. Louise de Marillac, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, St. John Bosco, St. Maximilian Kolbe, Bl. Teresa of Calcutta, St. Jose Maria Escriva, St. John Baptist de La Salle and many others.

All of these people started movements, lay and religious that address the social needs of the world to this day and all of them pre-date Liberation Theology.

Someone posted, it was Fr. Cardenal. He’s still a Catholic priest in good standing with the Church. The Holy Father blasted him in public, not because he was a politician, but because of his work in Liberation Theology. There were other priests who held political office before that and after that, even in the USA. In 1983, Canon Law prohibited priests, brothers and sisters from holding elected office. You can still hold offices by appointment. Br. Daniel Sulmasy is a Franciscan non-clerical brother, who is a theologian, philosopher and medical doctor and was appointed by the President of the USA to the presidential committee on medical ethics. I know that I’m not saying the name correctly, but that’s what the committee does. This is a presidential appointment. The Holy See has no problems with Brother Daniel holding said office.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Actually the Holy Father blasted Father Cardenal on both counts. His Holiness’ exact words to the Father Cardenal were “You must regularize your situation!” repeated twice. Father Cardenal and the other four cabinet level ministers, all Priests, had been ordered by their Superiors and the Vatican to resign their posts. All refused to do so in the name of Liberation Theology, the country of Nicaragua and the Peoples Church. Each said they would resign their posts at a future unspecified date when their services were no longer required to maintain the revolutions of Nicaragua and the Church.

 

[mro]

While I personally can understand why liberation theology is appealing (it’s about blowing up stuff in the name of Jesus man what’s not appealing about that )…

The Church has condemned it…

 

[Contarini]

Actually the Holy Father blasted Father Cardenal on both counts. His Holiness’ exact words to the Father Cardenal were “You must regularize your situation!” repeated twice. Father Cardenal and the other four cabinet level ministers, all Priests, had been ordered by their Superiors and the Vatican to resign their posts. All refused to do so in the name of Liberation Theology, the country of Nicaragua and the Peoples Church. Each said they would resign their posts at a future unspecified date when their services were no longer required to maintain the revolutions of Nicaragua and the Church.

So essentially, the story does not support your claim that liberation theology as a whole has ever been condemned by JPII or by the Church.

This particular priest was serving as a government official for a Communist regime. No wonder JPII criticized him!

You and the others who maintain that liberation theology as a whole is heretical continue to be totally unable to support your claim. Yet you keep repeating the claim you are unable to substantiate.

Edwin

 

[Mike30]

So essentially, the story does not support your claim that liberation theology as a whole has ever been condemned by JPII or by the Church.

This particular priest was serving as a government official for a Communist regime. No wonder JPII criticized him!

You and the others who maintain that liberation theology as a whole is heretical continue to be totally unable to support your claim. Yet you keep repeating the claim you are unable to substantiate.

Edwin

Not only was he serving as a government official, the Liberation Theology movement had become part and parcel of the government itself, with numerous other religious involved in the government. Heck a substantial number had been involved in the revolution itself claiming that marxists and the People of God could walk together hand in hand in the formation of this new paradise on earth.

I never said it was heretical. Please show me where I did. The Church has spoken out against it, rather forcefully in fact and more than once I might add. No less a figure than the Holy Father Pope Benedict XIV has written and spoken out against it.

The entire concept of Liberation Theology, in the way that it is presented presumes a class struggle in which the poor become the proletariat along the lines of Marxism. It essentially agrees with Marxism that a total revamping of society is required so that the poor, the proletariat can attain their rightful place in society and all outside influences will be destroyed. Liberation Theology also saw no need for the Church as we know it. Everything must, according to the framers, come from the ground up with the true Church, the People of God, existing and being run at the local level. No need at all for a hierarchical system for Church rule. No need for Bishops, no need for Popes and in reality, no need for Priests as the Priesthood was societal and could include anyone involved in the Church of the People of God.

Now I am not saying that the poor have not been oppressed and have no need of relief. They most assuredly do. And if you could find a way to remove the Marxist elements from Liberation Theology and still have a functioning system I say go for it. It would not be Liberation Theology however. It would be a wonderful thing.

But using a theological model that borrows heavily from Marxism I think is suicidal.

 

[JReducation]

While I personally can understand why liberation theology is appealing (it’s about blowing up stuff in the name of Jesus man what’s not appealing about that )…

The Church has condemned it…

The Church never said that Liberation Theology is heresy. What was said and still said is that Liberation theology is not good theology, because it accommodates the Gospel to Marxist principles.

The Gospel is supposed to shed light on human principles, not the other way around.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[trickster]

While I personally can understand why liberation theology is appealing (it’s about blowing up stuff in the name of Jesus man what’s not appealing about that )…

The Church has condemned it…

Mro…your statement reads that you like the idea of blowing things up in Jesus name? I am sure that this is a typo

My point for bringing this question was not so much about a black and white acceptance or condemnation…the church says that the theology relied too much on marxist idea of classes I think…and JP II has encouraged the development social justice as a truly cahtolic response to the challenges presented to us by those great and wonderful men and women theologians who created liberation theology.

We are in agreement that liberation theology that reflects too mcuh marxism is wrong…BUT…we should also be in agreement that the fight for soical and economic justice is central to our callings as Catholics…and now a days we are looking more towards liberationist (Note not liberation…but …liberationist) theology reflected in many new theological frameworks such as feminist, “GLBT” theology, ethnic based theoloy (such as the idea of an Aboriginal theological framework ) that I personally promote and feel called to explore…

Thuoghts?

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster (Aboriginal Concept for Transformaiton and Conversion).

 

[manualman]

The Church never said that Liberation Theology is heresy. What was said and still said is that Liberation theology is not good theology, because it accommodates the Gospel to Marxist principles.

The Gospel is supposed to shed light on human principles, not the other way around.

I’ve developed an opinion on LT that I’d appreciate your greater experience on.

It seems to me that Liberation Theology came about in a region where such enormous injustice occurs routinely that it eclipses a fundamental reality of the human condition: Original Sin. In such a society where the misery and suffering of the poor are in such stark contrast to the power and wealth of a few it must be hard to recognize that suffering and injustice in the world are the result of the sins of ALL mankind and that we all require a Savior. LT instead substitutes a worldview in which the suffering and misery of the world are a result of THEM, an outside evil force foreign to the common populace. As such, the solutions LT proposes lack the perspective of the gospel which requires repentence of us all, not just the overthrow of the evil, rich and powerful THEM.

In short, it seems to be a massive scapegoat philosophy which gains traction on the fact that the scapegoats in question are quite definitely villains. But by erring in the fundamental identification of the problem, LT is doomed to solutions that never improve it, for there are no leadership candidates free of the stain of original sin. Exterior revolution cannot counter the damage of original sin, only Christ can. As several LT priests later learned, the LT revolution quite often simply replaces one tyrant with a new one.

 

[iloveangels]

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.

Correct. It’s an attempt to use the already-present folk religion for political ends. The folk religion there is a very-poorly kept up Catholicism. Liberation theology is exploitative, predicated on Marxism instead of the Gospel, and even at the street level is not the same as the care for the poor of which the Gospel speaks.

Bruce, if you want to “develop and explore” work for the poor, go right out the door right now, take a homeless person to McDonald’s for food and coffee. Yes, they’re open 24 hours. When the two of you are done eating, give him your garment that he most lacks–shoes, coat, hat, gloves? Not used castoffs. Your own. Then come back here and we can talk.

PS, if you live out in the country and can’t find any homeless around, go to the food bank and offer hours of work and boxes of diapers and soap so that people can get the things they need. It’s winter.

 

[trickster]

Correct. It’s an attempt to use the already-present folk religion for political ends. The folk religion there is a very-poorly kept up Catholicism. Liberation theology is exploitative, predicated on Marxism instead of the Gospel, and even at the street level is not the same as the care for the poor of which the Gospel speaks.

Bruce, if you want to “develop and explore” work for the poor, go right out the door right now, take a homeless person to McDonald’s for food and coffee. Yes, they’re open 24 hours. When the two of you are done eating, give him your garment that he most lacks–shoes, coat, hat, gloves? Not used castoffs. Your own. Then come back here and we can talk.

PS, if you live out in the country and can’t find any homeless around, go to the food bank and offer hours of work and boxes of diapers and soap so that people can get the things they need. It’s winter.

Hi Iloveangels…in terms of your first paragraph, I think the jist of the thread has acknowledged that while Liberation Theology had good intent, it was the product of the educated and it relied on Marxism too much…that has been the sense of other writers on the thread. Elizabeth’s comment actually comes from another thread from a while back so I won’t pretend to remember the context for those comments…

Liberationist theology (as opposed to liberation theology) is the area that I am interested in…the role of our social, cultural and psychological experience in the interpretation, understanding and celebration of our faith…I worked for about 2 years with the homeless in Victoria BC and we worked together to formt he Inner City ABoriginal Society made up of aboriginal homeless for aboriginal homeless and it was very much a rewarding experience …thank you for making that connection…

I am interested in your view of what the role of people should be and what the role of government should be…I think that we need to be pushing Ottawa (I’m Canadian) and the provinces to become somewhat more liberatl in their archaic thinking about the poor…ah…but that is yet another thread…but we certainly should be united on social justice and I don’t think the Government of British Columbia is just in its treatment of Canadians living in poverty and/or on the margins…

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[trickster]

I’ve developed an opinion on LT that I’d appreciate your greater experience on.

It seems to me that Liberation Theology came about in a region where such enormous injustice occurs routinely that it eclipses a fundamental reality of the human condition: Original Sin. In such a society where the misery and suffering of the poor are in such stark contrast to the power and wealth of a few it must be hard to recognize that suffering and injustice in the world are the result of the sins of ALL mankind and that we all require a Savior. LT instead substitutes a worldview in which the suffering and misery of the world are a result of THEM, an outside evil force foreign to the common populace. As such, the solutions LT proposes lack the perspective of the gospel which requires repentence of us all, not just the overthrow of the evil, rich and powerful THEM.

In short, it seems to be a massive scapegoat philosophy which gains traction on the fact that the scapegoats in question are quite definitely villains. But by erring in the fundamental identification of the problem, LT is doomed to solutions that never improve it, for there are no leadership candidates free of the stain of original sin. Exterior revolution cannot counter the damage of original sin, only Christ can. As several LT priests later learned, the LT revolution quite often simply replaces one tyrant with a new one.

Manualman, interesting perspective. Two things; (1) original sin is not a concept of the Hebrew people, it is one developed by Augustine to settle the issue of whether or not christians should or could be baptized at birth and (2) there is an older tradition of “original blessing” that is about 800 years earlier than the original sin thing. So it is important I think to read the concpet of original sin and the concept of blessing in the context of each other.

Your thoughts might righly be radical in the sense of going to the roots of greed and misuse of power, but it doesn’t in my mind render the ideas that liberation theology took on as invalid. As said over and over in these liberation theology threads, the church is not against agitating for social justice, we do it everytime we fight our parliaments, congress, etc., for equal rights for minorities, social and economci justice issues and so forth…however, the key thing that I worry about in minimizing social and personal responsibility to an arguement of original sin is that we are saying that the problem is solely systemic and why try to change it…

We in fact have to change the distribution processes of resources in the world towards a better sharing of things…when less and less people in the US are richer than the remaining 99% we better get out there and “occupy something” even if it means occupy our “Letters to the Editor” section of our local paper…human beings all have a responsiblity to ensure they make christ like choices and while having wealth is not sin, it is sin to hoard wealth at the expense of the common good…

I think your theory is right…and I hope that you work in the human and personal responsibility that we all have to make…and not simply blame it on the original sin idea…

THoughts?

Bruce Ferguson

 

[manualman]

I think your theory is right…and I hope that you work in the human and personal responsibility that we all have to make…and not simply blame it on the original sin idea…

Interesting. The point of my argument is that LT often absolves the poor and the politically active of needing to repent in their own lives since evil in the world is merely the result of the sins of those OTHER people.

The real gospel rightly points out that ALL of us are sinners in need of repentence and the Grace of God to be restored. That applies to the rich who may have sinned in areas of exploitation and it applies to the poor who have sinned in other ways. The gospel simply doesn’t allow us to blame things on others. The mirror comes first. It doesn’t in LT and that’s its fatal flaw, IMO.

The problem with political solutions is that they inherently can only provide 1 of the 3 aspects of true christian charity:

1. The giver meets Christ in the poor.
2. The poor meet Christ in the giver.
3. The physical needs of the poor get met.

The government generally can only offer #3, which is 1/3 of the need, at most. Worse, they often start taking so much in taxes to provide #3 that the citizens are less able to provide private charity themselves, compunding the problem.

Would still love to have brother JR’s feedback since he’s lived in the home culture of LT far more than I have.

 

[trickster]

Interesting. The point of my argument is that LT often absolves the poor and the politically active of needing to repent in their own lives since evil in the world is merely the result of the sins of those OTHER people.

The real gospel rightly points out that ALL of us are sinners in need of repentence and the Grace of God to be restored. That applies to the rich who may have sinned in areas of exploitation and it applies to the poor who have sinned in other ways. The gospel simply doesn’t allow us to blame things on others. The mirror comes first. It doesn’t in LT and that’s its fatal flaw, IMO.

The problem with political solutions is that they inherently can only provide 1 of the 3 aspects of true christian charity:

1. The giver meets Christ in the poor.
2. The poor meet Christ in the giver.
3. The physical needs of the poor get met.

The government generally can only offer #3, which is 1/3 of the need, at most. Worse, they often start taking so much in taxes to provide #3 that the citizens are less able to provide private charity themselves, compunding the problem.

Would still love to have brother JR’s feedback since he’s lived in the home culture of LT far more than I have.

I agree. All have sinned and fallen short…so yeah…you are right that LT does not address that aspect. However, it seems to me that JP II also wrote about “social sin” or sins coming about as systemic sins…and that I believe is what LT addressed. I personally cannot be held responsible for a corrupt committee in government or corrupt deal making between government statespeople and lobbyist. I can take a personal responsiblity for ***speaking up against corrrupt systems ***because IF I DON"T, then is not my sin a sin of silence? of "omission’’… so to argue that if we all really confessed our sins truly then there would be no corruption and YOU ARE CORRECT…but what are the chances of that ?

Yes, you are also right that government can only do 1/3 of the job as you describe it … but most of us must render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers (we must participate in systemic processes as Christians, we are not separtist) and through our participation in government we perhaps might make a stab at the other 2/3 of what you talk about…at least confessiong our sins of omission with respect to systemic sin means penance and reconciliation which could include our involvement in government and speaking out against the system with other activists and yes even the mean marxists…to end injustice…

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster