Liberation Theology - Still A Good Thing

[Mike30]

**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

It was actually the Holy Father who indicated that fact. I merely repeated his words.

If your heart is not where the Church teaches and you do not accept or agree with what the Church teaches, I suggest that is a problem and something you need to deal with.

And please recall that Pope John Paul II was also firmly in opposition to Liberation Theology. If you wish to assign a new meaning to that theory in an attempt to somehow justify it that is of course your own concern.

In ending I will say that I am not at all surprised at hearing that the conference to which you are referring to in South America is being hosted by the Jesuits. As you may or may not know, many Jesuits were among some of the most, how shall I say it it, committed? to the new and revolutionary theory of liberation.They butted heads with the Vatican frequently in those far off idealistic days. In fact the entire Jesuit order apparently chaffed under the yoke of Rome and yearned for the freedom to explore their true charism, as they saw it.

 

[trickster]

It was actually the Holy Father who indicated that fact. I merely repeated his words.

If your heart is not where the Church teaches and you do not accept or agree with what the Church teaches, I suggest that is a problem and something you need to deal with.

And please recall that Pope John Paul II was also firmly in opposition to Liberation Theology. If you wish to assign a new meaning to that theory in an attempt to somehow justify it that is of course your own concern.

In ending I will say that I am not at all surprised at hearing that the conference to which you are referring to in South America is being hosted by the Jesuits. As you may or may not know, many Jesuits were among some of the most, how shall I say it it, committed? to the new and revolutionary theory of liberation.They butted heads with the Vatican frequently in those far off idealistic days. In fact the entire Jesuit order apparently chaffed under the yoke of Rome and yearned for the freedom to explore their true charism, as they saw it.

Well again I go back to the words of the Cardinal in the youtube quoted at the beginning of this thread…we need to separate the intention of proposing theological frameworks and the methodologies and/or how we build up the arguments to our cause. To give an example…if I were a lawyer, I could argue that my client is not guilty based on what I believe…then I can pursue the arguemnen that the client is innocent due to reason a, b,c and d…what the church did in liberation theology in my understanding is like the judge who said that reasons “a” and “c” were not valid so therefore he or she will rule against me. That doesn’t mean my arguement that my client is innocent is invalid, nor does it mean reasons “b” and “d” are wrong…it only means that I constructed the arguement in such a way as to be opposed to the law in the State or nation…and I was ruled against on that basis.

Further like courts, we can appeal the decisions, re-work and re-contextualize our case with a better arguement for reason “a” and “c” so as to meet our intention our objective and that is to prove our client innocent…

That is how I see all theology…theology that is accepted by the church and theology that is not accepted…I am not aware of any theology that has been totally rejected without acknowledgement of the valid sections or arguement…and like I said in my other note to you …often these arguements contain a piece that is the “magic answer” or “missing link” that could help us work with the church to establish some other connection that would help the church clarify and create clarity on this point or that point…progressive revelation is progressive, it has not all been figured out and it takes that thinking, reasoning and continual discussion to arrive or not to arrive at ideas…

Anyways, I read your point that we have probably about exhausted this conversation between ourselve adn “agree to disagree” and move on…thanks again…look forward to your thoughts on other issues as they come up.

Bruce Ferguson

 

[JReducation]

It was actually the Holy Father who indicated that fact. I merely repeated his words.

If your heart is not where the Church teaches and you do not accept or agree with what the Church teaches, I suggest that is a problem and something you need to deal with.

And please recall that Pope John Paul II was also firmly in opposition to Liberation Theology. If you wish to assign a new meaning to that theory in an attempt to somehow justify it that is of course your own concern.

In ending I will say that I am not at all surprised at hearing that the conference to which you are referring to in South America is being hosted by the Jesuits. As you may or may not know, many Jesuits were among some of the most, how shall I say it it, committed? to the new and revolutionary theory of liberation.They butted heads with the Vatican frequently in those far off idealistic days. In fact the entire Jesuit order apparently chaffed under the yoke of Rome and yearned for the freedom to explore their true charism, as they saw it.

Actually, the Jesuits are in very good standing with Pope Benedict. They have been so since their last General Congregation. The Holy Father asked some of their theologians to work along with some Dominicans and Opus Dei in the talks with the SSPX.

I wouldn’t throw stones at them when the Holy Father is entrusting them with some very delicate assignments. Also, keep in mind that they are an exempt religious order. This right was given to them by the Council of Trent. They have much more freedom to debate with the Vatican than anyone else. It’s a freedom given to them by the Church herself, a freedom that has not been given to anyone but them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Mike30]

Actually, the Jesuits are in very good standing with Pope Benedict. They have been so since their last General Congregation. The Holy Father asked some of their theologians to work along with some Dominicans and Opus Dei in the talks with the SSPX.

I wouldn’t throw stones at them when the Holy Father is entrusting them with some very delicate assignments. Also, keep in mind that they are an exempt religious order. This right was given to them by the Council of Trent. They have much more freedom to debate with the Vatican than anyone else. It’s a freedom given to them by the Church herself, a freedom that has not been given to anyone but them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I just stated an opinion and a fact. facts are facts whether we like them or not.

 

[JReducation]

I just stated an opinion and a fact. facts are facts whether we like them or not.

I’m trying to balance it out so that others who are not familiar with the big picture do not go away thinking that the Jesuits are in trouble or outside of what is normative for them.

It’s always kind to the posters who may be lurking to give the entire picture.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[archangel04]

It’s so weird that my next assignment in my theology class is on Liberation theology. I have 3 readings to do before Tuesday. My professor is a brilliant Jesuit theologian. I’ve heard about this theology but don’t know much about it, but I guess I will find out more with the readings.
Br.JR in order avoid derailing the thread I am going to open up new one about the Jesuits, do you mind putting some of your (name removed by moderator)ut? Thanks!

 

[trickster]

That is awesome Archangel…I am looking foward to the thinking on that thread too with respect to both the Jesuits and liberaiton theology…thanks for putting it up…

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[trickster]

It’s so weird that my next assignment in my theology class is on Liberation theology. I have 3 readings to do before Tuesday. My professor is a brilliant Jesuit theologian. I’ve heard about this theology but don’t know much about it, but I guess I will find out more with the readings.
Br.JR in order avoid derailing the thread I am going to open up new one about the Jesuits, do you mind putting some of your (name removed by moderator)ut? Thanks!

Actually archangel…would it be possible for you to summarize your articles for us…that way you have it for your studies and we can comment upon it and learn at the same time!

Bruce Ferguson

 

[MartyrForJesus]

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).

Okay, sorry for being rude.

 

[trickster]

Okay, sorry for being rude.

Hey Martyr, I did not in any way sense any rudeness from you at all! You were asking a legitimate question…

I have just had another experience with Catholic Answers as they have now taken another thread that I started on “Jesus as Sundancer” probably because there is no place to talk about contemporary issues that have to do with reconciling indigenous and catholic teachings…

It seems that everytime I wanna talk about that I get shut down because people see it as paganism…and that’s not the ponit of what I am trying to talk about…so I think that while it does not belong to traditional catholicsm…there’s gotta be a more appropriate place where I can have conversation…how am I supposed to get “catholic answers” if I am not even allowed to post the “catholic questions”???

Cheerz

Bruce Ferguson

 

[MartyrForJesus]

Hey Martyr, I did not in any way sense any rudeness from you at all! You were asking a legitimate question…

I have just had another experience with Catholic Answers as they have now taken another thread that I started on “Jesus as Sundancer” probably because there is no place to talk about contemporary issues that have to do with reconciling indigenous and catholic teachings…

It seems that everytime I wanna talk about that I get shut down because people see it as paganism…and that’s not the ponit of what I am trying to talk about…so I think that while it does not belong to traditional catholicsm…there’s gotta be a more appropriate place where I can have conversation…how am I supposed to get “catholic answers” if I am not even allowed to post the “catholic questions”???

Cheerz

Bruce Ferguson

Next time I would try the spirituality section, friend.

 

[trickster]

Next time I would try the spirituality section, friend.

I think that you are right on that one…not necessarily for the discussion on theologies, but certainly on indigenous spirituality…and I am sure there is a discussion between a variety of spiritualities (Ignation, Fransiscan, etc.) and the church’s teaching…

I will certainly follow up by doing that with respect to indigenous spirituality,…

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[wisdomseeker]

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.

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.

 

[Contarini]

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.

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.

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.

Can you support this claim? CCC 2419 says:

The Church receives from the Gospel the full revelation of the truth about man. When she fulfills her mission of proclaiming the Gospel, she bears witness to man, in the name of Christ, to his dignity and his vocation to the communion of persons. She teaches him the demands of justice and peace in conformity with divine wisdom.

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.

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

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

 

[Elizabeth502]

We, often don’t do our homework and dismiss what we think to be “taboo” studies just because the church has called it heretical…

Would you agree?

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.

 

[Contarini]

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

That’s one of the most powerful posts I’ve ever read. Thanks!

 

[Contarini]

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.

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

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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.

 

[Elizabeth502]

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

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)

 

[archangel04]

Actually archangel…would it be possible for you to summarize your articles for us…that way you have it for your studies and we can comment upon it and learn at the same time!

Bruce Ferguson

I will do that but it might be a while because I have another essay that’s due on Tue. So it’s going to take me time to read through the readings there is about 30 pages in total.