Liberation Theology

[InTheWilderness]

On the question of revolution, I think two sets of principles apply. First and foremost is just war. All of the principles of just war would serve to limit revolution, but would not seem to in any way endorse it. Second are the principles of self defense, these limitations would also apply to a revolution.

In a certain sense therefore, all of the prerequisites, requirements, and limitations of both private, individual self-defense, and also of collective self-defense would apply. The reason all of the issues of both apply should be quite evident. Revolutions are undertaken by groups of private individuals acting outside of legitimate authority, but yet they are engaged in military action which is the legitimate right of the state. I don’t think there is ever really a moral imperative for revolution, but there may be times that it could be acceptable, under certain limitations. Basically, revolution would only be a legitimate question for consideration after a situation reaches the point where it is justifiable for both the individual to use force to protect themselves, and the point at which it would be justifiable for a foreign state to intervene with force.

Do a bit of historical research into the response of the Church to the American Revolution (which wasn’t really even a revolution in the modern sense). It was not exactly positive to put it mildly.
Also, as an FYI, the Vatican released a theological criticism of a Jesuit liberation theologian recently. It also appears his local bishop is taking action against him. Apparently he used liberation theology to make some unorthodox Christological claims.
My problem with liberation theology is that it is based on Marxist and socialist ideology to an extent. Marxism and socialism are not a part of the Christian tradition, and in practical terms are very often anti-Christian in actual practice. While Augustine used classical philosophy as the basis for his theological studies, that is a very different thing. I have no qualms with using any valid philosophical approach as the basis for studying Christian theology. However, Marxism, Leninism, socialism, communism, and Maoism are not philosophical in nature, but rather ideological. There is a very big difference between a philosophy and an ideology.

I have no doubt that many good people have supported liberation theology. There are certainly some good elements in liberation theology. However, this does not make it a good theological system.

There are also questions about the approach of liberation theology to interpretation of the Gospel message, and its application. Some have chosen to systematically reinterpret the Gospel in light of liberation theology in a way that is either detached from or in opposition to the tradition of the Church. That is clearly unwise.

While there are social aspects to the Gospel, which in turn have political implications, we should not reduce the Gospel its social elements, nor emphasis its social aspect to the point it overshadows its other aspects. Even apart from liberation theology, there is a danger of creating some sort of social Gospel that downplays the issues of Christ, God, salvation, personal holiness, repentance from sin, and other vital aspects at the core of Christianity. All you have to do is listen to the homilies of some mainstream American priests to discover that this danger does not lurk in some far away place. (I do not accuse such priests of constructing such an exclusively social message, but there are times that some have come too close for comfort.)
Finally, we must be careful to distinguish what is right for individuals to do voluntarily, what is right for the Church to do, and what it is right for us to impose upon others. While Acts and other things may suggest living in community in a way that is quasi socialist, I don’t think there is any command for us to impose such an arrangement on everyone. It could be argued that the Church could seek to move its members in such a direction, but I don’t think there is license to drag the entire world with us by force. Consider monastic living. It is a type of life that some are called to, many are called to emulate partially in regular life, but certainly not all are called to a monastic life style.

 

[PauloFreire2]

Certain liberation theologians went too far. Some were in fact communists. Those who helped the Sandinistas, for example, felt betrayed, in the end, when the Revolution won, institutionalized itself, and moved against Christianity, acting on the dictates of Marx himself. What I’m attracted to is the commitment, the sacrifice, the mobilization and ***ACTION, inherent to the movement. Being Christian IS ***revolutionary, and ***MANDATES ***action, not just contemplaton and prayer.

I think it’s sad this thread was put in the ‘Non-Catholic Religions’ category. Our next pope will probably hail from the Third World, and I guarantee he’ll have a dffierent view of Liberation Theology from Benedict’s.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

I think it’s sad this thread was put in the ‘Non-Catholic Religions’ category. Our next pope will probably hail from the Third World, and I guarantee he’ll have a dffierent view of Liberation Theology from Benedict’s.

I think a Third World Pope would do the Chruch and the whole world a lot of good. But let’s not be too critical of Pope Benedict. After all, a true shepard doesn’t necessarily lead his flock where they want to go. He’s a brilliant man, and from everything I can tell from his writings, he is very committed to justice, to peace and to the well being of the least among us. I think we all agree with the Holy Father that Marxist style “class struggle” and violent revolution is simply not Christian. That strain of Liberation Theology had to be tamped out before Liberation Theology became just another political philosophy contrary to the Gospel.

 

[spangler1982]

I think “Class Struggle” puts it too mildly when it comes to Marxism. I think “Class Warfare” is a much more accurate term.

I was listening to somebody call Fr. Mitch Pacwa on EWTN’s Open Line one time, and Fr. Mitch said a couple of very enlightening things about Liberation Theology that I didn’t know about. He said that those who were first starting to promote it used the argument that since Augustine built his theology on the pagan philosopher Plato and Aquinas on Aristotle, then therefore Marx was just another new brilliant secular philosopher who invented a new brilliant philosophy and it was the time in history for the Church to now embrace this. The big problem is, said Fr. Mitch, that central to Marxism is CLASS WAREFARE. As a follower of Jesus, you just can’t get around this.

The second thing Fr. Mitch said was that it’s a romantic myth that Liberation Theology rose up “from the people” in the poor, oppressed areas of Latin America. But If you go to the bibliography section in the back of such early books on Liberation Theology, like A THEOLOGY OF LIBERATION Gustavo Gutierrez, you’ll see that they borrow very largely from European theologians, like Jacques Maritain, Yves Congar, Rudolf Bultmann, Jürgen Moltmann, Johann-Baptiste Metz and even Deitrich Bonhoffer.

Probably the book that influenced LT the most was The Secular City (1965), by the American Protestant theologian Harvey Cox.

 

[PauloFreire2]

Whenever the theory and practice of LT drifted into Marxism, yes, great errors occurred. Nonetheless, not all LT was Marxist. Remember, Catholic social teaching, as well as the teachings of Jesus Himself, have a strong socialist quality. Indeed, Christianity, and Catholicism, in particular, are SOCIAL movements, just as much as they are religious. Christian utopianism and activism have NEVER needed Marx. The words of Jesus alone propel us into the fight for a more just order.

I am attracted to LT because of its emphasis on substance over form, in an effort to help multitudes of utterly desperate people. It’s also captivating for me in its stress on the ESSENCE of Jesus’ teachings – love in action, total service to one’s brethren, and the active, building up Christian society.

 

[PauloFreire2]

"In essence, liberation theology explores the relationship between Christian, specifically Roman Catholic, theology and political activism, particularly in areas of social justice, poverty and human rights. The main methodological innovation of liberation theology is to approach theology (i.e., speaking of God) from the viewpoint of the economically poor and oppressed of the human community. According to Jon Sobrino, S.J., the poor are a privileged channel of God’s grace. According to Phillip Berryman, liberation theology is “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”.

– Wikipedia

 

[Franciscan]

"In essence, liberation theology explores the relationship between Christian, specifically Roman Catholic, theology and political activism, particularly in areas of social justice, poverty and human rights. The main methodological innovation of liberation theology is to approach theology (i.e., speaking of God) from the viewpoint of the economically poor and oppressed of the human community. According to Jon Sobrino, S.J., the poor are a privileged channel of God’s grace. According to Phillip Berryman, liberation theology is “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”.

– Wikipedia

Sobrino was just recently silenced and refuted by the Vatican for his denial of the divinity of Christ.
latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-sobrino14mar14,1,1601917.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true
On March 13 The Curt Jester blog did an analysis of the LA Times bias against the Church(Vatican).see here…
splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/

 

[PauloFreire2]

Christianity doesn’t need Marx, and never has. Those Liberationists who appropriated it pursuant to social justice were misguided. Nevertheless, consider this scenario, which was very common in the era of communist revolution and liberation theology in Latin America:

a. Indians attacked arbitrarily and at will by the Guatemalan Army, which declared savage war upon them, simply because they inhabitted the tropical, mountainous backcountry in which communist insurgents operated.

b. Courageous, militant Catholic priests and lay religious who lived among the Indians, evangelizing, of course, but also, in order to help save their lives, instructing them on how to organize, escape the army and death-squads, and survive, together, as families of God’s children, the holocaust they faced.

These heroes were known as Liberation Theologians, and fought against a great evil, one most of us know little, if anything, about.

 

[cubalibre]

They may not have called it Liberation Theology then but the class struggle justification was certainly used when the Fidelistas took over Cuba. The first thing they did was close down all the Catholic Schools and hospitals in Cuba. Public display of Christianity was made illegal and all foreign priests were thrown out. If you were not a member of the Communist party and an avowed athiest you were not allowed to enter the elite Cuban schools or jobs. Christians don’t need Marxist-Leninist ideology. This always leads to loss of freedom and the gulag. Christ is liberating. The gospels are liberating.
saludos, cubalibre

 

[PauloFreire2]

Indeed, and that’s why I’ve appropriated the non-communist aspects of the movement for incorporation into my own theology. The activism, confrontation with corrupt power, humble, yet revolutionary lifestyle, dedication to the plight of the vulnerable, are Christian virtues well articulated by LT. I’m an ecclectic, and find it useful.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

I think “Class Struggle” puts it too mildly when it comes to Marxism. I think “Class Warfare” is a much more accurate term.

Well, as a matter of fact, there is class warfare going on in Central and South America and there has been for decades. The poor have been, and are being, exploited by the rich–and slaughtered with impunity when they resist the exploitation. That’s just a fact. So this business about the Latin American poor engaging in “class warfare” against the rich really doesn’t pass the straight face test.

You have to remember that we in the U.S. and other developed nations have absolutely never lived under the conditions that the campasinos in Central and South America live under. The very idea of us sitting back in our warm, cozy, comfortable houses, with full bellies, and absolute assurance that no death squads are going to kick our doors down tonight, while we judge them guilty of “class warfare” is appalling. If Jesus meant anything at all when he said “judge not” he was surely referring to a situation like this.

The difference between the 70’s & 80’s and today is that the battle ground today is not El Salvador, Guatamala or Peru. It’s mostly in Columbia nowadays that the poor are being massacared for their failure to obey the powers that be. But the killings and the exploitations do continue. The Church, if it is to follow Christ, must respond, and must come down on the side of the victims.

The question is not whether we respond, the question is how do we respond. I believe that Jesus would have us respond non-violently. With loving calls for repentance, not with bullets and Molotov cocktails.

Does the Church have the right to correct theological errors when it sees them? YES. And, it was correct to do so when it saw elements of Marxist style “us vs. them” class struggle, and a de-emphisis of salvation from sin emerging within Liberation Theology. BUT that does not give us the right to self-rightously sit back and condemn people who are living through things that we can’t even imagine. Nor does it give us the right to pretend that God does not excersise a “preferential option for the poor.”

 

[PauloFreire2]

You rule, Dude. You rule.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Frist of all let me admit that my opinion is a minority one not shared by all Catholics. In fact, even though I don’t know the actual statistics, I would venture to say that less than 5% of Catholics would agree with me.

I believe that revolution is unacceptable because I don’t believe that Christians are permitted to use violence as a means to an end. This is true no matter how noble or worthy that end may be. I could provide numerous Scripture references to back this up but my favorite is from the Sermon on the Plain, Luke 6:27-36. Another reference on point is from the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:38-48. If we look at how the earliest Christians viewed the matter we see that pacifisim was the rule (see St. Martin of Tours).

I believe that the only acceptable type of revolution for a Christain would be in the form of non-violent non-cooperation with evil. Two beautiful modern day models of this would be Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Sisters Jackie Hudson, Carol Gilbert and Ardeth Platte are also excellent modern day examples to look to.

I, along with Gandhi, also believe that any society born from violence would not be the kind of society I would want to live in. Violence begets violence. Look at what happend under Stalin, Mao and even Castro. The “people’s revolutions” in Russia and China led within one generation to the slaughter of millions. Even Cuba has experienced more than its share of persecution of dissidents. There is an excellent article on the realities vs. the myths about life in Cuba in the Jan.-Feb 2007 International Socialist Review. This is to say nothing about the repression of religious expression that has been a major characteristic of societies born from violent revolution.

Does God want us to be free? Yes. Does God demand that the goods the earth affords be shared by all according to need? Yes. Does the Gospel require us to demand justice for the poor and oppressed? Yes. Does the Gospel demand that we take risks? Yes. Are we premitted to use violence as a means to these noble ends? No.

​

Violent revolution is flawed by the fact that it does not go beyond the kind of behaviour all human beings are capable of - IOW, it is not distinctively Christian.

It uses violent means, which is counter-productive; for instead of rising above the sort of behaviour of which atheists, as well as Christians, are capable, a violent revolution engages in behaviour which replaces one violent regime with another, or tries to. And that kind of violence, merely leads to “more of the same”: it does not renew people, or their politics, or their motives, their conduct, nor (crucially) their hearts. Evil is in the heart of man - political evils are symptoms of that evil.

Conversion does renew, because it does not have its sources within this world (as politics does) but in the grace of God. And without interior conversion, there is no prospect at all of just dealing in society; without this conversion, evils committed by liberation theologians will replace those committed by their political opponents.

LT is, in a, way, too easily satisfied: for Jesus Christ liberates from sin, death, & the devil - & this is a far more thorough (as well as completely classless) liberation than replacing one unjust regime with another unjust regime. ##

 

[levi86]

It [revolution] uses violent means, which is counter-productive; for instead of rising above the sort of behaviour of which atheists, as well as Christians, are capable, a** violent revolution engages in behaviour which replaces one violent regime with another**,.

It seems as though your under the impression that the proponents of LT attempted to institute a Stalinist type regime. This is entirely untrue. The very fact that it was widely endorsed by the Jesuits shows that LT was loyal to The Holy Sea, a society based upon the tenants of LT would ultimately be under the control of the Church not some evil communist junta.

The Church has stated VERY clearly that in some instances violence is justified and is not intrinsically “counterproductive”

 

[PauloFreire2]

Most LTs were disgusted with the grinding poverty and heavy oppression, endemic to their social environments. Much of their new approach to theology was a rebellion against institutionalized dehumanization. :coffeeread:

 

[Peregrino]

Liberation Theology speaks to the heart of Christianity perhaps better than any modern movement. As with anything there are different strains. Strains inciting violence should be rejected outright. Violence begets violence. Change must come from the heart and through example. This was the way Christ taught.

I think the Church mistrusts LT because it challenges hierarchical authority as a form of oppression. The “class struggle” could thus be extended to challenge Church hierarchy. The form of Church hierarchy we see today IS different than the more egalitarian social structure of the early Christians. In the U.S. we ideologically lump Marxism, socialism, communism and the like all together in one big bundle of evil. It would be interesting to see what type of terminology people use to describe the early Christian communities. Jesus was a radical, he was counter-cultural and his Way was revolutionary in terms of perspective rather than violence. Jesus was a threat to the Jewish hierarchy of his day. I wonder what he would say about our modern hierarchy in the Church and society.

People like Ghandi and Martin Luther King showed us that we can engage in conflict for purposes of change without resorting to violence. Evil, whether it be economic oppression, discrimination, individual physical violence or state-sanctioned war, will flourish if ignored. As Christians we should give non-violent witness through democratic political action and the example of our daily lives. Just ignoring and accepting the existence of class differences and stratification seems to me to be as bad as endorsing them. Perhaps the Church should be more socially activist in those countries where LT exists in order to encourage the acceptance of Gospel values of change rather than just philosophically critiquing their attempts to overcome evil.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

It would be interesting to see what type of terminology people use to describe the early Christian communities. Jesus was a radical, he was counter-cultural and his Way was revolutionary in terms of perspective rather than violence.

What their contemporaries thought of the early Christian communities is evident in the way they were treated. They were persecuted. First in Jerusalem, then in Rome.

People like Ghandi and Martin Luther King showed us that we can engage in conflict for purposes of change without resorting to violence. Evil, whether it be economic oppression, discrimination, individual physical violence or state-sanctioned war, will flourish if ignored. As Christians we should give non-violent witness through democratic political action and the example of our daily lives.

Let’s not forget Dorothy Day and Peter Marin.

Just ignoring and accepting the existence of class differences and stratification seems to me to be as bad as endorsing them.

Not only do we ignore class stratification, most of us acutally benefit from it whether we know it or not.

 

[PauloFreire2]

I am a Christian revolutionary. I have spent my life studying history, theology, revolution and guerrilla warfare. At this point, my ideology is Christendom, and my tactics are those I’ve stolen from the Communists. They were organized, systematic and dedicated, and they’re well worth careful emulation in their methodology. Of course their ideology was totally wrong. I’m an ecclectic, and take what I need to serve my greater cause – CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It seems as though your under the impression that the proponents of LT attempted to institute a Stalinist type regime. This is entirely untrue. The very fact that it was widely endorsed by the Jesuits shows that LT was loyal to The Holy Sea, a society based upon the tenants of LT would ultimately be under the control of the Church not some evil communist junta.

The Church has stated VERY clearly that in some instances violence is justified and is not intrinsically “counterproductive”

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 ##

 

[PauloFreire2]

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

He led one against the Jewish authorities.