Liberation Theology

[Christmastwin]

I heard this term for the first time today after reading a post by a Jesuit priest titled “The Dangerous, Revolutionary, Subversive Mother of God” Today’s Gospel: Luke 1:46-56

What was included in the post seemed more political than anything and it really rubbed me the wrong way. It’s a public post, so I am not violating anything by copying it here… but here is the part that got me…

“Social justice? Preferential option for the poor? Income redistribution? Yes, yes and yes. And much more than that. An utter reversal of social expectations, a dramatic reordering of society, an ushering in of a new worldview, which comes about with what Luke calls the ‘rise and fall of many’ in his Gospel.”

Someone had posted further down asking the priest if he was a proponent of liberation theology (which he never responded to even when asked a second time). That got me thinking that there must be a reason why this priest does not want to admit publicly that he is.

I’ve read a little bit about it but looking to see how other Catholics see it.

Thanks.

 

[triumphguy]

When liberation theology gets in marxist dialectics and priests and religious taking up weapons in support of armed revolution it is going against Catholic teaching (though some revolutions may be “just” under just war theory).

On the other hand…

what does this mean?

*He has shown the strength of his arm,
he has scattered the proud in their conceit.

He has cast down the mighty from their thrones,
and has lifted up the lowly.

He has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.*

 

[Domnall]

Its important to note that not all advocates of “wealth redistribution” or a “preferential option for the poor” etc etc support Liberation Theology. Even in one of his youtube videos, Father Robert Barron acknowledges the somewhat subversive nature of Jesus, while still retaining himself as the Son of God.

Triumphguy is right here,

When liberation theology gets in marxist dialectics and priests and religious taking up weapons in support of armed revolution it is going against Catholic teaching (though some revolutions may be “just” under just war theory).

That was one of the huge problems/consequences of liberation theology. Also, Liberation theology develops a Christology different from Catholic dogma which totally shifts focus onto almost solely Jesus’ humanity. Last fall I wrote an undergrad research paper dealing with this issue.

 

[Khalid]

Liberation theology was condemned by the Magisterium in the early 1990s, I believe. Although I support income redistribution - that’s what taxation is, after all - in the context it was mentioned above (scant context though it may be), it seems to smell a little of Marxism to me.

 

[Chatter163]

What happened in several Latin-American countries in the seventies and eighties was that when some well-meaning priests and religious began to seek solutions to alleviate the poverty of their people, which was viewed to be at least partially caused by government policies in those countries, the clergy ended up embracing liberation theology. A small amount even became activists for the Communist guerrillas there.

Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero, who had spent most of his priestly life in support of governmen policies, when he became Archbishop of San Salvador, began to see the suffering of his people more closely, and moved away from his support of the status quo right-wing government, and embraced some of the insights of those on the other side. He did not embrace liberation theology, though, and discouraged his priests from becoming involved with Communists guerrillas, but in the minds of those who opposed him, he had became a liberationist. He was murdered in 1980.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I heard this term for the first time today after reading a post by a Jesuit priest titled “The Dangerous, Revolutionary, Subversive Mother of God” Today’s Gospel: Luke 1:46-56

What was included in the post seemed more political than anything and it really rubbed methe wrong way. It’s a public post, so I am not violating anything by copying it here… but here is the part that got me…

“Social justice? Preferential option for the poor? Income redistribution? Yes, yes and yes. And much more than that. An utter reversal of social expectations, a dramatic reordering of society, an ushering in of a new worldview, which comes about with what Luke calls the ‘rise and fall of many’ in his Gospel.”

Someone had posted further down asking the priest if he was a proponent of liberation theology (which he never responded to even when asked a second time). That got me thinking that there must be a reason why this priest does not want to admit publicly that he is.

I’ve read a little bit about it but looking to see how other Catholics see it.

Thanks.

Nothing wrong with that in and of itself. Liberation theology is wrong, but it (and hence, socialism) shares many of the same terms as Catholic social teaching.

 

[Wedded_to_God]

Liberation theology is a political movement in Catholic theology which interprets the teachings of Jesus Christ in terms of a liberation from unjust economic, political, or social conditions. It has been described by proponents as “an interpretation of Christian faith through the poor’s suffering, their struggle and hope, and a critique of society and the Catholic faith and Christianity through the eyes of the poor”, and by detractors as Christianized Marxism.

Although liberation theology has grown into an international and inter-denominational movement, it began as a movement within the Catholic Church in Latin America in the 1950s–1960s. Liberation theology arose principally as a moral reaction to the poverty caused by social injustice in that region. The term was coined in 1971 by the Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutiérrez, who wrote one of the movement’s most famous books, A Theology of Liberation. Other noted exponents are Leonardo Boff of Brazil, Jon Sobrino of El Salvador, Óscar Romero of El Salvador, and Juan Luis Segundo of Uruguay.

The influence of liberation theology diminished after proponents were accused of using “Marxist concepts” leading to admonishment by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in 1984 and 1986. The Vatican criticized certain strains of liberation theology for focusing on institutionalized or systemic sin, apparently to the exclusion of individual offenders/offences; and for allegedly misidentifying Catholic Church hierarchy in South America as members of the same privileged class that would had long been oppressing indigenous populations since the arrival of Pizarro onward.

:angel1:

 

[Tingo]

Marx’s strength was in observing the role of classes in social development. His weakness was in his belief that he had developed a science capable of explaining all things (or at the least, this was the belief of his many followers). Catholicism was, and is, largely silent on class trends and their social significance. i think this arises from the focus on individuals and their salvation, which can lead to other non-individual aspects of the human condition being ignored. Liberation theology attempted to incorporate the Marxist observations about class, and the liberation of people from class-based oppression into Catholic theology. I do not see liberation theology’s use of Marxist philosophical concepts as different in principle from Aquinas’ use of Aristotle. of course, given the present state of the world, and the impending environmental disasters, what we need are theologians able to incorporate the brilliance of the truly scientific 19th-century thinker, Charles Darwin, into Catholic thought. his understanding of the common descent of ll life has so far been recognised by he Church as simply an observation, able to be accepted by the faithful if they wish. Too little, and maybe too late.

 

[Midwest88]

Marx’s strength was in observing the role of classes in social development. His weakness was in his belief that he had developed a science capable of explaining all things (or at the least, this was the belief of his many followers). Catholicism was, and is, largely silent on class trends and their social significance. i think this arises from the focus on individuals and their salvation, which can lead to other non-individual aspects of the human condition being ignored. Liberation theology attempted to incorporate the Marxist observations about class, and the liberation of people from class-based oppression into Catholic theology. I do not see liberation theology’s use of Marxist philosophical concepts as different in principle from Aquinas’ use of Aristotle. of course, given the present state of the world, and the impending environmental disasters, what we need are theologians able to incorporate the brilliance of the truly scientific 19th-century thinker, Charles Darwin, into Catholic thought. his understanding of the common descent of ll life has so far been recognised by he Church as simply an observation, able to be accepted by the faithful if they wish. Too little, and maybe too late.

What?

 

[Khalid]

I think we all said “what?”, as evidenced by his being banned. I was about to go on a tirade against it (especially his statements about “brilliant [and] truly scientific” Darwin) earlier, when I first saw the post, until I saw that he was banned and robbed of the right of reply.

Not to mention the post was completely off-topic.

 

[Alfonsus]

Not exactly banned wholesale.
There are “certain aspects” (INSTRUCTION ON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE “THEOLOGY OF LIBERATION” - CDF 1984) of the Liberation Theology that are not compatible with Catholic faith.

Why is that? Because, as the document says, the term is so broad and there is no single “liberation theology” but as a movement it consists of many theological positions.

The expression, “Theology of Liberation” refers first of all to a special concern for the poor and the victims of oppression, which in turn begets a commitment to justice. Starting with this approach, we can distinguish several, often contradictory ways of understanding the Christian meaning of poverty and the type of commitment to justice which it requires. As with all movements of ideas, the “theologies of liberation” present diverse theological positions. Their doctrinal frontiers are badly defined.

 

[KevJohn]

I am reminded of an old bumper sticker:

Don’t immanentize the eschaton!

Most liberation theology does just this (that is, it exclusively pursues the kingdom on earth).

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am reminded of an old bumper sticker:

Don’t immanentize the eschaton!

Most liberation theology does just this (that is, it exclusively pursues the kingdom on earth).

This is a really good point – one usually forgotten by those of us who otherwise do oppose false “liberation theology,” and understand its absent scriptural basis. In addition to being an invented theology, it does just what you mention: substitutes an earthly kingdom for a heavenly one. That also opposes scripture and tradition.

 

[Miriam1947]

Nothing wrong with that in and of itself. Liberation theology is wrong, but it (and hence, socialism) shares many of the same terms as Catholic social teaching.

Socialism is against Catholic social teaching which focuses on subsidiarity.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Socialism is against Catholic social teaching which focuses on subsidiarity.

Of course. But what the OP said the priest said was not wrong in and of itself, even if the priest was intending for what he said to be a euphemism for socialism. I was just paraphrasing Quadragesimo Anno:

113. The other section, which has kept the name Socialism, is surely more moderate. It not only professes the rejection of violence but modifies and tempers to some degree, if it does not reject entirely, the class struggle and the abolition of private ownership. One might say that, terrified by its own principles and by the conclusions drawn therefrom by Communism, Socialism inclines toward and in a certain measure approaches the truths which Christian tradition has always held sacred; for it cannot be denied that its demands at times come very near those that Christian reformers of society justly insist upon.