Social justice vs. liberation theology

[vern_humphrey]

What we need to get away from is running everything through government. This only makes the government bigger. If you want a social justice program and you develop a special interest group to put it though congress, even if you get what you want in the short run, you will be owned by the government in the long run.

You now have to depend on tax dollars and so we have to tax the people more and when you run tax dollars through the government there is a lot less money that comes out the other end after every government official takes out their paychecks. (that was a serious run on sentance, but there is no turning back in this point). SpiritMeadow, in reading some of your blog and the websites that you recommend I have found many activists that have taken this approach through Washington. I propose social justice on a more grassroots level…a kind of do it yourself and teach your children. We must move away from large governments and move toward free markets where people will really have a voice.

I have said before, an act of charity benefits two people. The recipient, who receives clothes, food, shelter and so on certainly benefits materially. But the giver also benefits – he receives grace and merit.

But when the charity comes through forced contributions (i.e., taxes), then who gains grace and merit? Is it the bureaucrat who dispenses some one else’s money?

I also point out there is a difference between charity and social justice:

ecatholic2000.com/sj/socjust.shtml

In order to define social justice, let us begin, by taking a look at what social ministry is:

Social Ministry has two main aspects: social service (also known as Parish Outreach) and social action

Social Service is giving direct aid to someone in need. It usually involves performing one or more of the corporal works of mercy. That is, giving alms to the poor, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick or imprisoned, taking care of orphans and widows, visiting the shut-ins etc. Another name for it is charity.

Social Action is correcting the structures that perpetuate the need. Another name for this is Social Justice. Through the lens of social justice, we begin to take a look at the problems and issues facing us in our own communities, the nation and finally the world, and we begin to ask questions such as, “Why is there so much unemployment in our area?” “Why are there so many poor in our community?” “How will the deforestation of our rain forests affect our global climate?” etc. Very often when you are performing social service, you also become involved in solving the problem which created the need in the first place, and the two are closely related and often blend together. An example of this would be, someone comes to your food pantry, and tells you he/she has no food, because he/she lost their job recently. You may know of an employer looking to hire someone right away for a job requiring little or no skills. You give that person food, then place that person in touch with the employer. You then would have solved both problems for that person. (a) the immediate need of food through an act of charity (social service) and (b) you would have corrected the problem which created and perpetuated the need. (social justice)

We have vast charity programs, from welfare to WIC. But where are the equally vast social justice programs – programs aimed at taking people on charity and making them self-sufficient?

 

[invocation]

What we need to get away from is running everything through government. This only makes the government bigger. If you want a social justice program and you develop a special interest group to put it though congress, even if you get what you want in the short run, you will be owned by the government in the long run.

in Liberation Theology, these are called base communities. There is no real vision of governments as adding anything positive to the discussion in most liberationists since Liberation Theology has its deepest roots in settings where the governments largely fail to serve the people in any broadly meaningful way.

in the peace of christ.

 

[vern_humphrey]

in Liberation Theology, these are called base communities. There is no real vision of governments as adding anything positive to the discussion in most liberationists since Liberation Theology has its deepest roots in settings where the governments largely fail to serve the people in any broadly meaningful way.

in the peace of christ.

How are “base communities” different from Soviets?

 

[invocation]

How are “base communities” different from Soviets?

well, they are christian for starters.

think of liberation theology as like…the franciscan movement hits the 20th century. it was strongly christocentric, with the emphasis falling on the suffering christ (here it is fed by south american piety), and argued for a strong alignment between christ and the poor (‘the crucified peoples’).

in the peace of christ.

 

[vern_humphrey]

well, they are christian for starters.

Which is a weak comment – anyone can claim to be “christian.”

think of liberation theology as like…the franciscan movement hits the 20th century. it was strongly christocentric, with the emphasis falling on the suffering christ (here it is fed by south american piety), and argued for a strong alignment between christ and the poor (‘the crucified peoples’).

in the peace of christ.

And that’s what I mean when I say it’s Marxism with a veneer of Christianity – it has a good story line, but the practice is the same old stuff.

 

[invocation]

And that’s what I mean when I say it’s Marxism with a veneer of Christianity – it has a good story line, but the practice is the same old stuff.

i am not sure what about that is particularly marxist at all. the idea of liberation, not merely soteriological, but social and economic, is clearly christian. the interpretive lens and the focus of practice is christological. the self-understanding of the body is precisely the crucified body of christ.

moreover it is clearly not a proletarian movement, nor is there some sort of well established bourgeoisie against which they are rising up. obviously marxist ideas are in the air in south america during that period, but i am not sure where you would point to some sort of facile equation of marxism with christianity in, e.g., guttierez (who has never really been in any trouble). the fact that they use sociology to analyze the situation is hardly a strike against them. the place where sobrino, for a different example, generally offends the vatican is not in his appropriation of marx but in claiming that the poor are themselves as locus of theology. this is not a marxian claim for sobrino; he argues it christologically. here again the parallels with the franciscan movement are again striking insofar as it was the interpretation of the place of poverty that got the minores in trouble in the end as well.

finally it is not clear to me, however limited the success of the communities, how we cannot be basically sympathetic to what is obviously a christian attempt to not merely think but also live christian liberation. people were drawn to it because the church has offered them nothing else.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What we need to get away from is running everything through government. This only makes the government bigger. If you want a social justice program and you develop a special interest group to put it though congress, even if you get what you want in the short run, you will be owned by the government in the long run.

You now have to depend on tax dollars and so we have to tax the people more and when you run tax dollars through the government there is a lot less money that comes out the other end after every government official takes out their paychecks. (that was a serious run on sentance, but there is no turning back in this point). SpiritMeadow, in reading some of your blog and the websites that you recommend I have found many activists that have taken this approach through Washington. I propose social justice on a more grassroots level…a kind of do it yourself and teach your children. We must move away from large governments and move toward free markets where people will really have a voice.

In theory I agree with you. Nothing would make me happier than if everyone thought that service to community was a natural part of their lives. Unfortunately that is not often the case. i applaud every effort to teach children that they have responsiblities to their communities, large and small, national and international. Actually I could be persuaded, but being on this forum has taught me the danger of that approach.

First, though this claim of charity is touted by so many, they have yet to have cured even hunger and housing in this country. Secondly there are constant threads on this forum where the topic of discussion is who is really needy. There are folks areound here who think that most needy are really lazy. If the givers are also going to be the deciders of who is worthy of help, then heaven help us. There have been threads here about whether homeless people should be allowed to vote, given health care of any kind. etc. Some here who claim charity is the true way, are also the same ones who buy the social darwinism that suggests that most everyone can achieve success should they only try. I don’t want “charity” left to them.

I agree that government sponsorship is full of problems. But tell it to the person with no health insurance. Any at all is better than none. I grieve for those who have no voice and who are ignored. I demand that we all pay some to see that all receive something. I’m open to suggestions, but frankly the rigidity found here has been the major reason I’m no longer at all convinced that simple charity can be enough.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

in Liberation Theology, these are called base communities. There is no real vision of governments as adding anything positive to the discussion in most liberationists since Liberation Theology has its deepest roots in settings where the governments largely fail to serve the people in any broadly meaningful way.

in the peace of christ.

Your point is well taken. From what I learned of base communities especially in Latin American coutnries, they were deeply spiritual groupings that worked exceptionally well in helping the people. The governments cracked down hard on them, fearing that they were empowering to the people and the killing began. Archbishop Romero paid the ultimate price, but that price was also paid by many others, nuns, laity and priests alike.

 

[vern_humphrey]

i am not sure what about that is particularly marxist at all. the idea of liberation, not merely soteriological, but social and economic, is clearly christian. the interpretive lens and the focus of practice is christological. the self-understanding of the body is precisely the crucified body of christ.

It’s because “liberation” is just a word. The underlying philosophy is not Christian, but Marxist.

moreover it is clearly not a proletarian movement,

Communism in practice has never been a proletarian movement – it is always an upper-middle class movement. List the leaders of every Communist country and see where they came from.

nor is there some sort of well established bourgeoisie against which they are rising up. obviously marxist ideas are in the air in south america during that period, but i am not sure where you would point to some sort of facile equation of marxism with christianity in, e.g., guttierez (who has never really been in any trouble). the fact that they use sociology to analyze the situation is hardly a strike against them.

Actually, it is – since their idea of ‘sociology’ is doctrinaire, not scientific.

the place where sobrino, for a different example, generally offends the vatican is not in his appropriation of marx but in claiming that the poor are themselves as locus of theology. this is not a marxian claim for sobrino; he argues it christologically. here again the parallels with the franciscan movement are again striking insofar as it was the interpretation of the place of poverty that got the minores in trouble in the end as well.

Many a dictator has used this ploy of using the poor as “locus of theology.”

finally it is not clear to me, however limited the success of the communities, how we cannot be basically sympathetic to what is obviously a christian attempt to not merely think but also live christian liberation. people were drawn to it because the church has offered them nothing else.

That is a false statement – the Church offers a great deal. I work with people who cannot read and write, people who need tutoring in math, disaster victims and so on, and the Church is there.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

i am not sure what about that is particularly marxist at all. the idea of liberation, not merely soteriological, but social and economic, is clearly christian. the interpretive lens and the focus of practice is christological. the self-understanding of the body is precisely the crucified body of christ.

moreover it is clearly not a proletarian movement, nor is there some sort of well established bourgeoisie against which they are rising up. obviously marxist ideas are in the air in south america during that period, but i am not sure where you would point to some sort of facile equation of marxism with christianity in, e.g., guttierez (who has never really been in any trouble). the fact that they use sociology to analyze the situation is hardly a strike against them. the place where sobrino, for a different example, generally offends the vatican is not in his appropriation of marx but in claiming that the poor are themselves as locus of theology. this is not a marxian claim for sobrino; he argues it christologically. here again the parallels with the franciscan movement are again striking insofar as it was the interpretation of the place of poverty that got the minores in trouble in the end as well.

finally it is not clear to me, however limited the success of the communities, how we cannot be basically sympathetic to what is obviously a christian attempt to not merely think but also live christian liberation. people were drawn to it because the church has offered them nothing else.

I think the Church has had difficulty with the whole concept because of its complicity in the government suppression. the Church was given safe passage as long as it did not side with the peasants. It taught Mark and taught that the peasants should consider themselves as the suffering Jesus, with reward in the afterlife. Now the Latin church preaches a stronger Luke message. At least that is how I see it.

I agree that the point of the base communities is to develope a fully christian living out of the gospel. And I also agree with you about Guitierrez vs. Sobrino. As far as I know Gustavo Guitierrez has never gotten into any trouble with the Vatican.

Of course, most people know little about LT, only that somehow and somewhere it got aligned with Marxism and the Vatican has not been pleased with all aspects of it. From that you get blanket statements that its all bad. That is simply not the case, as most any cursory look at the literature would tell anyone. I think Gutierrez work on Job one of the best most compelling and beautiful works I’ve ever read. The point is, always to recall that we are one family and we are responsible to and for each other.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And yet no one can say how Liberation Theology is different from Marxism. Vague statements about how it is “Christ-centered” are meaningless until you show how it is “Christ-centered.”

False claims that the Church “doesn’t offer” help to the poor don’t improve the quality of the LT argument.

 

[invocation]

It’s because “liberation” is just a word. The underlying philosophy is not Christian, but Marxist.

That is a false statement – the Church offers a great deal. I work with people who cannot read and write, people who need tutoring in math, disaster victims and so on, and the Church is there.

it seems fairly clear that the place in which the people of south america heard the word of god, when they weren’t running off to join the pentecostal movement (which is itself an indictment of the Church), was in the gospel as preached by romero and others like him, and it was these people who formed the base communities and joined convents and went on to become priests and laid down their lives for the gospel in one of the most vibrant regions of catholicism.

i think you would have to say why and how you think it is marxist and not christian. while the vatican has warned liberationists to be careful of how they use marx, they have not impugned the integrity of the theologians by suggesting they were deceivers and heretics. so clearly the issue is NOT the fear that a bunch of theologians are saying “Lord, Lord” who do not mean it. these are not leaders who have tried to thrust themselves into power on the backs of the poor as chavez has done. i don’t think anyone questions the good will of sobrino, and that of martyrs like ellacuria (who was the real philosophical backbone of the movement and definitely no marxist…which is another reason why i find the allegations that they are marxist to be fairly off base).

i think it much more reasonable to say that marx was a poor copy of christianity and its not a big surprise that marxism has faltered and christianity lived on. marx is like the gospel of luke, but with more german words and a the plot isnt as good. to desire the kingdom of god is decidedly unmarxian. for marx, the death of the individual in no way compromises the life of the whole (should the whole ever actually be achieved); in christianity, and in liberation theology, the death of one poor man turned the world upside down, and the death of every other person can only be seen in that light. there is a shadow of the truth in marx, and we plunder it like we do all the treasures of egypt.

in the peace of christ.

 

[invocation]

And yet no one can say how Liberation Theology is different from Marxism. Vague statements about how it is “Christ-centered” are meaningless until you show how it is “Christ-centered.”

False claims that the Church “doesn’t offer” help to the poor don’t improve the quality of the LT argument.

what does marxism mean to you exactly? if it means something along the lines of engels’ dialectical materialism that dominated soviet ideology…then no, the liberationists dont think that history is a natural process moving inexorably towards the universal liberation of humanity through the proletariat and revolution. moreover they do not define liberation in the strictly materialist and immanent terms.

yes, like francis and the gospel of luke, and many others, they see a close connection between the kingdom of god and the fate of the poor and believe that one cannot talk about the saving work of god without also talking about economic and social justice. it is no surprise that in south america, theologians motivated by a love of christ, recognize a crisis of justice and think christianity has something to say about it…something to say that marx never could: the death of a poor man was infinite in its implication…the death of these poor participates in that infinitely meaningful death in a very special way.

 

[vern_humphrey]

it seems fairly clear that the place in which the people of south america heard the word of god, when they weren’t running off to join the pentecostal movement (which is itself an indictment of the Church), was in the gospel as preached by romero and others like him, and it was these people who formed the base communities and joined convents and went on to become priests and laid down their lives for the gospel in one of the most vibrant regions of catholicism.

History if full of movements that people joined in droves – the ability to attract a following is hardly an endorsement, all by itself, of any movement.

i think you would have to say why and how you think it is marxist and not christian.

It emphasizes collective, not individual, action in a framework that is personality-dependent.

while the vatican has warned liberationists to be careful of how they use marx, they have not impugned the integrity of the theologians by suggesting they were deceivers and heretics. so clearly the issue is NOT the fear that a bunch of theologians are saying “Lord, Lord” who do not mean it. these are not leaders who have tried to thrust themselves into power on the backs of the poor as chavez has done.

You say that – but in fact, that’s wrong. Liberation Theology is as dependent on the Leader as any other Marxist derivitave.

i don’t think anyone questions the good will of sobrino, and that of martyrs like ellacuria (who was the real philosophical backbone of the movement and definitely no marxist…which is another reason why i find the allegations that they are marxist to be fairly off base).

Communism has it’s share of “martyrs” – as does any other such movement.

i think it much more reasonable to say that marx was a poor copy of christianity

And that’s where you’re wrong – Marxism is not a copy of Christianity, poor or otherwise.

and its not a big surprise that marxism has faltered and christianity lived on. marx is like the gospel of luke, but with more german words and a the plot isnt as good.

No, Marx is not like the Gospel of Luke.

to desire the kingdom of god is decidedly unmarxian.

Utopian schemes, when put into practice, inevatibly produce results that the proponents never intended.

That’s why Marxists are continually saying that the Soviet Union, Red China, North Korea, East Germany and so on were “not really Marxist.” But they were – Marxism is what it is. You know it by it’s fruit.

for marx, the death of the individual in no way compromises the life of the whole (should the whole ever actually be achieved); in christianity, and in liberation theology, the death of one poor man turned the world upside down, and the death of every other person can only be seen in that light. there is a shadow of the truth in marx, and we plunder it like we do all the treasures of egypt.

Which tells us nothing about Liberation Theology.

Like Marxism, it is what it is – and by its fruit, we will know it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

what does marxism mean to you exactly? if it means something along the lines of engels’ dialectical materialism that dominated soviet ideology…then no, the liberationists dont think that history is a natural process moving inexorably towards the universal liberation of humanity through the proletariat and revolution. moreover they do not define liberation in the strictly materialist and immanent terms.

yes, like francis and the gospel of luke, and many others, they see a close connection between the kingdom of god and the fate of the poor and believe that one cannot talk about the saving work of god without also talking about economic and social justice. it is no surprise that in south america, theologians motivated by a love of christ, recognize a crisis of justice and think christianity has something to say about it…something to say that marx never could: the death of a poor man was infinite in its implication…the death of these poor participates in that infinitely meaningful death in a very special way.

Nice words, but no substance.

Marxism, for example, claims to be for the poor – and everywhere it is tried the poor are exploited as badly as under their previous corrupt systems.

Essentially, Liberation Theology substitutes a shadow of Christ for Historical Determinism. It offers no real answers for the material issues it addresses, and debases the spiritual aspect by subordinating it to junk “sociology.”

 

[mmyers]

in Liberation Theology, these are called base communities. There is no real vision of governments as adding anything positive to the discussion in most liberationists since Liberation Theology has its deepest roots in settings where the governments largely fail to serve the people in any broadly meaningful way.

in the peace of christ.

I hope you are not suggsting Anarchy in the place of the government that they rid themselves of. Base Communities from what I have read are simply the local Church hierarchy instead of a government entity of some kind.

 

[invocation]

I hope you are not suggsting Anarchy in the place of the government that they rid themselves of. Base Communities from what I have read are simply the local Church hierarchy instead of a government entity of some kind.

i see no reason to think that christian community would be anarchic. christian community has taken a variety of forms, from the very democratic, with the dominicans, the charismatic leadership of the early franciscan movement, and the very structured leadership of the benedictine and cistercian movements, etc., etc. no one lives in pure anarchy, and i am not sure what that would look like, short of the kingdom of god…which clearly isn’t an option for us at the moment.

 

[JNewfield]

Thank you for your reminder to look at the “cautions” rather than rejecting the challenge of concern for and solidarity with the oppressed.

What I forgot to mention is that many posts have reminded people of the “cautions” if not outright “dangers” in Liberation Theology. What I would like to raise are the “cautions and dangers” of ignoring Liberation Theology. It is a difficult concept/movement to integrate into one’s faith perspective and there are many manifestations of the movement. But if one retreats into personal salvation concerns and fails to ask about the work of God to bring the Kingdom and liberation to the oppressed one may be missing an enliving element in spiritual life.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What I forgot to mention is that many posts have reminded people of the “cautions” if not outright “dangers” in Liberation Theology. What I would like to raise are the “cautions and dangers” of ignoring Liberation Theology. It is a difficult concept/movement to integrate into one’s faith perspective and there are many manifestations of the movement. But if one retreats into personal salvation concerns and fails to ask about the work of God to bring the Kingdom and liberation to the oppressed one may be missing an enliving element in spiritual life.

One of the many problems with Liberation Theology is that it purports to change society and economics with no clear idea of the outcome, no standards for success and no feedback to indicate progress toward success. It’s a recipe for disaster.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What I forgot to mention is that many posts have reminded people of the “cautions” if not outright “dangers” in Liberation Theology. What I would like to raise are the “cautions and dangers” of ignoring Liberation Theology. It is a difficult concept/movement to integrate into one’s faith perspective and there are many manifestations of the movement. But if one retreats into personal salvation concerns and fails to ask about the work of God to bring the Kingdom and liberation to the oppressed one may be missing an enliving element in spiritual life.

Ah you hit the nail on the head of course. There are several Catholic institutions, such as Center for Concern and the Maryknoll sisters whose work is along the lines of LT, at least in recognizing that we have a duty to our brothrs and sisters around the globe to stand with them against tyranny and abuse by corrupt governments.

If you feel uncomfortable with Sobrino’s work “Christianity at the Crossroads,” then i would try Gustavo Gutierrez, to give you some basic framework: Three I highly recommend are:" A theology of Liberation", “We drink from our Own wells”, and “On Job”. I used all from a class at Marygrove College in Detroit some years ago. Marygrove is run by IHM sisters.