I would agree with the short descriptions of the posters in this thread. What they did not say, since they were directly answering your question, but what ought to be said in further explication, is that while full-bore “liberation theology” is largely a third-world phenomenon in a political sense, it has most definitely had a strong effect on many churchmen in the U.S. In that respect, it’s a lot like it’s sibling, socialism, which is overtly espoused in other parts of the world, but is more like an unacknowledged undercurrent of liberal thought in the U.S.
Thus, for example, we have many priests, nuns and lay “church professionals” who tend to identify theology with “social justice” concerns which are largely just liberal political policies.
It has always seemed to me that the “liberation theology” people and their milder U.S. counterparts have things backwards. It has seemed to me that radical conversion to Christianity, based on a true love of God and resolution to do its will is the most effective foundation for a charitable approach to others. “Liberation theology”, on the other hand, identifies the two, i.e., my social action IS my devotion to God and His will, and personal devotion is a sort of secondary thing, if not a negative thing. It is for this reason, in my opinion, that the most “liberal” (socio-political action oriented) people in the Church are the ones who tend to have the least regard for those things the Church has consider conducive to “personal relationships with God”.
As I said, I think they have it backward, since I am not terribly likely to really sacrifice much for my brother if I am not motivated to do so by my personal relationship with, and devotion to God. That, I think, is also why many of the “social action” people are so reliant on political action. Political action is coercive, and always seems to place the burden of charity on others; e.g., “the rich”, “big corporations”, through taxation and the adoption of political programs aimed at “helping the poor”, which may or may not actually help the poor.
It is, to me, vexing to see the American bishops adopt political papers espousing detailed “micro-tweaking” of the political system; a little more welfare here; a bit of change to Medicaid there; a touch of foreign aid over here; a higher price for coffee or bananas over there; passing reference to the ecology. To me, that’s just not the right approach at all, particularly since they often seem to deal, not with basic morality, but with prudential judgments about which people can legitimately differ. To me, the emphasis ought to be on those things that are incontrovertible (abortion, euthanasia, etc) from the Church’s standpoint, but primarily on personal conversion.
Like socialism, “liberation theology” is discredited, but it is far from dead.
