Liberation Theology

[chimera]

Jesus drove the money-changers out of the house of his Father. Apart from that his only actions were verbal like this forum.
Violence is permenantly sanctioned by Church doctrine on national armies, with clergy to aid soldiers’ morale with God’s blessing.
chimera

 

[levi86]

I wasn’t thinking of Stalin at all.​

And it doesn’t matter a straw whether a regime is under Church control or not - if it’s unjust, it’s unjust; being Catholic in name doesn’t alter that; all it does is compound the mischief; not heal it. But healing is what is needed.

Where does the Church “[state] VERY clearly that in some instances violence is justified and is not intrinsically “counterproductive”" ? When did violence ever avoid producing yet more violence, & that, more still ? If the Church is capable of teaching nothing better than that, then it’s not worth listening to I don’t recall Jesus leading a revolt against the Romans, unlike some of His countrymen - I do know that He refused an earthly empire as a temptation of the devil. If the Church wants to side with the devil, it should at least not to claim to be teaching the doctrine of Christ As it is, I don’t for one second believe the Church teaches anything so immoral; I’m not doubting your truthfulness, only your accuracy ##

From the CCC

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

**2264 **Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

• there must be serious prospects of success;

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

The Church states that war should be avoided if possible, but that in certain instances use of force is acceptable.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

The Church states that war should be avoided if possible, but that in certain instances use of force is acceptable.

Let me just chime in here to say explicitly what should be obvious. Neither Jesus, nor the Apostles, nor the early Church advocated using violence as a means to an end. That fact of history is simply unavoidable. In fact it wasn’t even until sometime after the Edict of Milan that the Church allowed Christians to serve in the military at all.

I believe with all my heart that Liberation Theology was a blessing for us all. It helped us to see Jesus in the poor. It helped us to see political oppression of the poor as an unacceptable evil. It gave the poor hope. It gave the rich a kick in the pants. However, after this discussion I’m beginning to see understand the point that some of Liberation Theology’s detractors. If Liberation Theology is leading some Christians to believe that it is acceptable to use killing and destruction as a means to an end, then maybe we’re better off without it.

 

[manualman]

Up to now, Liberation Theology has been infected with the same fatal flaw that inhabits the thinking of all western political/social liberals.

Consciously or not, it denies the Fall of man and ascribes the source of all misery and suffering in the world to the money/power class instead of human sinfulness. Next, it typically proposes to rectify structural injustice in society with a government program that will institute someone’s vision of ‘fairness.’ History demonstrates rather well that when government tries to do the job God intended for the grace-filled individuals to do (charity), both the giver (taxpayer) AND the recipient (poor) get no spiritual benefit out of it and, instead, tend to resent each other all the more!

I too think Americans are duped into believing in a false dilema of total capitalism versus total communism. I think the Liberation Theologians are actually ALSO stuck in that same trap. They seek to rid communism of the symptoms of its flaws, but fail to remove the actual flaws. Jesus did not advocate social foment. He did not even advocate overthrow of the Jewish hierarchy. He merely told people to do what they SAY, not what they do. Hardly revolutionary!

LT’s ought to readup more on Distributism. This is the third way that offers a LOT of promise! It doesn’t seek to eliminate free enterprise or the profit motive, but seeks to limit the size of corporations and the intergeneration transfer of wealth. Those two goals INHERENTLY would lead to a more just distribution of wealth without discarding proven economic systems or violent revolution. It also is entirely consistent with church teaching on original sin and the need of ALL men for a savior.

 

[chimera]

Legal Eagle,
“If Liberation Theology is leading some Christians to believe that it is acceptable to use killing and destruction as a means to an end, then maybe we’re better off without it.”
The human instinct against “vi et armis” led to Common Law
rules against murder. You agree with Jesus’ views. Good on you.
chimera

 

[levi86]

Let me just chime in here to say explicitly what should be obvious. Neither Jesus, nor the Apostles, nor the early Church advocated using violence as a means to an end. That fact of history is simply unavoidable. In fact it wasn’t even until sometime after the Edict of Milan that the Church allowed Christians to serve in the military at all.

**Luke 3:14 **
Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what should we do?” He said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages.”

Surely if it was immoral to serve in the military Jesus would have informed them of this.

**Acts 10:1-6 **
1In Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of the Italian Cohort, as it was called. He was a devout man who feared God with all his household; he gave alms generously to the people and prayed constantly to God. One afternoon at about three o’clock he had a vision in which he clearly saw an angel of God coming in and saying to him, “Cornelius.” He stared at him in terror and said, “What is it, Lord?” He answered, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God. Now send men to Joppa for a certain Simon who is called Peter; he is lodging with Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the seaside.”

This particular Christian was certainly unaware that it was immoral to be a member of the military

Luke 22:36
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one”.

Matthew 26:51
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

Why would Jesus allow his disciples to carry arms if he was opposed to the use of force?

 

[manualman]

I failed to make a major point in my discussion above.

Because of the LTs failure to recognize original sin, they cannot recognize that the central premise of their goal; the use of government power to establish fairness and equity is doomed because there is no human that can be trusted with that much power. Anybody who gets the job becomes corrupted by it.

Limited free enterprise throttled by Distributist laws and policies, on the other hand, do not have that shortcoming.

 

[Brendan]

. The form of Church hierarchy we see today IS different than the more egalitarian social structure of the early Christians.

I think you might benefit from reading St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Smyreans, specifically about the role of the bishop.

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.

Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Or perhaps Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians, correcting the abuses there, even though he was from a completely different diocese.

The Early Church was substantially less ‘eglatarian’ that you might think.

 

[Brendan]

Let me just chime in here to say explicitly what should be obvious. Neither Jesus, nor the Apostles, nor the early Church advocated using violence as a means to an end.

Actually Christ DID advocate violence as a means to an end. Christ told the Israelites to go to war against the Bashan and the Philistines. The end was to clear out the pagan peoples from Canaan and the means Christ chose to do that was war.

That fact of history is simply unavoidable. In fact it wasn’t even until sometime after the Edict of Milan that the Church allowed Christians to serve in the military at all.

Then when soliders asked Christ what should they do, Christ told them “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.” (Luke 3:14). Christ did NOT tell them that they had to leave the army, just to be content with their pay.

Why?

 

[Legal_Eagle]

Limited free enterprise throttled by Distributist laws and policies, on the other hand, do not have that shortcoming.

“Distributist?” Is that G.K. Chersterton?

 

[Legal_Eagle]

Christ told the Israelites to go to war against the Bashan and the Philistines. The end was to clear out the pagan peoples from Canaan and the means Christ chose to do that was war.

Where in the world is this from? I’ve never read anything close to this in the Gospels. Maybe I don’t know Scripture as well as I thought. Cite please?

Then when soliders asked Christ what should they do, Christ told them “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.” (Luke 3:14). Christ did NOT tell them that they had to leave the army, just to be content with their pay.

Why?

I don’t know. Perhaps he was merely recognizing the unfortunate situation they found themselves in.

Why didn’t Jesus order the centurion to free his slave? Matthew 8:5-13. Why did Paul and Peter not order all slave holders to free their slaves? Why did Paul and Peter not authorize slaves to revolt against their masters? Colossians 3:22. Ephesians 6:5-9. Paul’s Letter to Philemon. 1 Peter 2:18-20. Are you saying that because Jesus, Peter and Paul had opportunity to condemn slavery and yet never did that slavery is not a sin?

Why did Peter have a sword? I just don’t know.

But I do know how Jesus responded when Peter used it. “Enough of this!” “He who takes up the sword will perish by the sword.” And, I know what he said about retaliation for wrong doing in the Sermon on the Mount, and the Sermon on the Plain. I also know how the earliest Christians, the ones closest to the teachings of the Apostles, dealt with the question.

So, no, I don’t have a response to every question. I’m no guru on a mountain with all the answers to give. But I remain convinced that it is deadly sin to use or advocate the use of violence and killing as a means to and end.

 

[levi86]

I’m no guru on a mountain with all the answers to give. But I remain convinced that it is deadly sin to use or advocate the use of violence and killing as a means to and end.

With all due respect sir, perhaps you should reconsider your allegiance to a Church that has been in a state of corruption since at least the fourth century. The Church Christ founded has clearly committed a grave offence against the world and the Kingdom of God by advocating self defence.

May I suggest Religious Society of Friends?

 

[levi86]

I’m no guru on a mountain with all the answers to give. But I remain convinced that it is deadly sin to use or advocate the use of violence and killing as a means to and end.

With all due respect sir, perhaps you should reconsider your allegiance to a Church that has been in a state of corruption since at least the fourth century. The Church Christ founded has clearly committed a grave offence against the world and against the Kingdom of God by advocating self defence.

May I suggest The Religious Society of Friends?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

“I don’t recall Jesus leading a revolt against the Romans, unlike some of His countrymen”

He led one against the Jewish authorities.

The evidence for that, being…?​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

From the CCC

The Church states that war should be avoided if possible, but that in certain instances use of force is acceptable.

The Church used to support the DP for heresy - no longer, however. So maybe it will change its ideas on this subject too. Jesus nowhere favours war, so the Church has no business to do so. Otherwise it is negating the Gospel. The CCC is of no authority if it contradicts the example of Christ - which the Church is only too keen to appeal to, in the matter of the ordination of women. Why is his example appealed to in the latter instance, but not in the former ? Because it doesn’t suit the Church, that’s why.​

War leads to more war, it encourages the invention of the foulest weapons, & has, in short, absolutely no redeeming features.

The Church is supposed to be different from the world - not no better. Why bother being a Church, if all it can do is imitate the evil ways of the world around it ? How is that being a leaven in society ? What is the use of railing against condoms, if it tolerates a scourge such as war ? That looks like straining at a gnat, while swallowing a camel

 

[Jayda]

Archbishop Romero, despite his tragic end, did not act in the best interests of the Church which has always sought to seek harmony between social classes rather then destroy them.

hola Caesar,

this is extremely disrespectful to a martyred archbishop who the Holy Father recognized as a servant of God and is a candidate for canonization.

archbishop Romeo sought only to further the Church’s stated goal of having a preference for the poor, while maintaining the Church’s commitment to equality and harmony between all people…

The Marxist philosophy in the Theology of Liberation is quite disturbing. As Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger (now His Holiness Benedict XVI) condemned Liberation Theology, and rightly so. It is a dangerous teaching with aspects that defy traditional dotrines of the Church.

Archbishop Romeo, servant of God, was rightly opposed to marxism just as the Holy Father is, and Archbishop Romeo only embraced the Church’s commitment to the poor that was discussed in the Vatican II Council. just as our Holy Father Benedict XVI does. Please research these issues before you say things against somebody being investigated for sainthood by the Holy Church.

Dominus Vobiscum

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Where in the world is this from? I’ve never read anything close to this in the Gospels. Maybe I don’t know Scripture as well as I thought. Cite please?

I’m guessing the OP is taking the commands to wage holy wars in the OT as command of the Word -“not-yet”-made-flesh.​

I think this is unsound exegesis, because it reads back the NT into the OT; & Jesus is not mentioned into the OT; we might think he is, because we have sacred books which interpret [what we call] the OT in the light of what those books contain. It’s the same fallacy as is involved in claiming the CC canonised the Bible - the present is read back into the past, rather than derived from it; which is subtly different. ##

I don’t know. Perhaps he was merely recognizing the unfortunate situation they found themselves in.

Why didn’t Jesus order the centurion to free his slave? Matthew 8:5-13. Why did Paul and Peter not order all slave holders to free their slaves? Why did Paul and Peter not authorize slaves to revolt against their masters? Colossians 3:22. Ephesians 6:5-9. Paul’s Letter to Philemon. 1 Peter 2:18-20. Are you saying that because Jesus, Peter and Paul had opportunity to condemn slavery and yet never did that slavery is not a sin?

Why did Peter have a sword? I just don’t know.

But I do know how Jesus responded when Peter used it. “Enough of this!” “He who takes up the sword will perish by the sword.” And, I know what he said about retaliation for wrong doing in the Sermon on the Mount, and the Sermon on the Plain. I also know how the earliest Christians, the ones closest to the teachings of the Apostles, dealt with the question.

So, no, I don’t have a response to every question. I’m no guru on a mountain with all the answers to give. But I remain convinced that it is deadly sin to use or advocate the use of violence and killing as a means to and end.

These attempts to make Jesus lend his authority to modern (& not so modern) warfare are hopeless; Jesus, friend of the A-bomb ? Hardly - that’s like trying to make him into Jesus the Capitalist Entrepreneur. The only blood He shed was his own. ##

 

[levi86]

If all violence is evil then so is God. How many times did God directly command Israel to go to war in order to defend its territory? Deuteronomy 20 and Joshua 11 come to mind.

Malachi 3:6
“For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.”

**James 1:17 **
“Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”

If war was morally acceptable to God in the OT it is acceptable to him now.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

With all due respect sir, perhaps you should reconsider your allegiance to a Church that has been in a state of corruption since at least the fourth century. The Church Christ founded has clearly committed a grave offence against the world and against the Kingdom of God by advocating self defence.

May I suggest The Religious Society of Friends?

I don’t agree with my mother about everything either, yet she’s still my mother, I still love her, and I don’t want different one. My own children don’t always agree with me, but I hope they still love me, respect me, and don’t want a different dad. I’m sure the Quakers have a lot to offer, and I’m sure they are good and fine people. But, the Church is still my Mother, and I am still Her child. The Church and I won’t, despite our differences on this question, be parting ways.

 

[Brendan]

Where in the world is this from? I’ve never read anything close to this in the Gospels. Maybe I don’t know Scripture as well as I thought. Cite please?

Deut 4 and Numbers 21. Christ is the same God from the Old Testament. It was Christ Himself (along with the Father and the Sprit) who ordered the Israelites to go to war against the occupants of Canaan.

I don’t know. Perhaps he was merely recognizing the unfortunate situation they found themselves in.

The Church knows. It knows that active participation in the army is not contrary to Christian morals.

Why didn’t Jesus order the centurion to free his slave? Matthew 8:5-13. Why did Paul and Peter not order all slave holders to free their slaves? Why did Paul and Peter not authorize slaves to revolt against their masters? Colossians 3:22. Ephesians 6:5-9. Paul’s Letter to Philemon. 1 Peter 2:18-20. Are you saying that because Jesus, Peter and Paul had opportunity to condemn slavery and yet never did that slavery is not a sin?

Because certain types of slavery are not contrary to the Moral Law. Indentured servitude, penal labor etc… are all morally licit.

Even chattle slavery may be acceptable in certain circumstances, as God Himself commanded the Israelites to make slaves of certain peoples. The Israelites were under obligation to treat their slaves humanely, something that was forgotten in later centuries.

Why did Peter have a sword? I just don’t know.

That one is easy, because Christ told Peter to sell his cloak and buy one.