Was Liberation Theology condemned?

[redmars3000]

We don’t have to re-evaluated anything its already there, people just don’t talk about it.

Read this article by Ratzinger (the watered down version of his theological essay):
christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/liberationtheol.htm

This serves as background. If you do not choose to read it, then I see no point in debating, as it will turn into me eventually copy/pasting the whole article in a series of posts (which i dont think is allowed.) If you do read it, you will find that everything you have argued so far has been addressed by Ratzinger back in 1984.

 

[melensdad]

Read this article by Ratzinger (the watered down version of his theological essay):
christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/liberationtheol.htm

If I may be so bold as to add to your post, here are a few other things to a add to the list of things to read:
Washington Post:

When Ratzinger became pope, some observers predicted it would be the death knell for liberation theology. The movement has been slipping from prominence since the mid-1980s, when Ratzinger wrote the first Vatican document formally denouncing it and prohibited some of its leading proponents – including Brazilian Leonardo Boff-- from speaking publicly.

Catholic World New wrote, on May 9, 1996

Liberation Theology is an “ideological stream which is the source of many violent actions in the Continent,” said Cardinal Josef Ratzinger . . .
Asked about the former Franciscan priest, Father Leonardo Boff, the Cardinal only said that “he has chosen his own way, he has taken a path that goes away from the doctrine of the Church.”

The Haiti Times wrote in 1987

Charged with "doctrinal error in his writings", Boff, a Franciscan priest and former theology student of Ratzinger, was allowed to be accompanied by two archbishops to help him defend his ideas: Cardinals Evaristo Arns from Sao Paolo and Aloiso Lorscheider from Fortalezza. On September 3, 1984, the CPDF published an “instruction” dated August 6 rejecting Liberation Theology in principle. The document was signed by Monsignor Ratzinger and bore the approval of Pope John Paul II. . .
Essentially, the conservative wing of the Catholic Church has formulated two criticism against Liberation Theology. First, the use of marxist analysis and other theories that in the end, it is said, defeat the cause of the poor; Monsignor Ratzinger once stated that one cannot examine injustice in Marxist terms without tacitly endorsing the philosophy’s denial of the spiritual world and of God.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It has not been condemned. Liberation theology is being done all round the globe as other theologies. Liberation theolgy rightly I think points to Jesus and his demand for justice for the poor. The ground their theology strongly in the present, where we experience God daily. The argue for more than rhetoric but real solidarity with the poor. Pope JPII, dispite certain disagreements with proponents of LT, did adopt their “preferential option for the poor”.

It seems that some turn immediately to the Church and see what she says then give an opinion. Would it not be better to read some of the material first hand and then decide what you think, then see what the Church thinks and why. Perhaps you might learn something, something the church wouldn’t object to and you can then discard what it finds incorrect. In either case, as God’s creatures invested with both soul and grace, we are required to use the odd thing between our shoulders, and not accept without question what the Church says. Now of course I cannot and do not suggest anyone has done this, but I find less discussion from the opponents of this doctrine who quote from LT documents. Rather they seem only to quote from Vatican sources.

 

[redmars3000]

It seems that some turn immediately to the Church and see what she says then give an opinion.

Isn’t this called Orthodoxy?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It has not been condemned. Liberation theology is being done all round the globe as other theologies. Liberation theolgy rightly I think points to Jesus and his demand for justice for the poor. The ground their theology strongly in the present, where we experience God daily. The argue for more than rhetoric but real solidarity with the poor. Pope JPII, dispite certain disagreements with proponents of LT, did adopt their “preferential option for the poor”.

It seems that some turn immediately to the Church and see what she says then give an opinion. Would it not be better to read some of the material first hand and then decide what you think, then see what the Church thinks and why. Perhaps you might learn something, something the church wouldn’t object to and you can then discard what it finds incorrect. In either case, as God’s creatures invested with both soul and grace, we are required to use the odd thing between our shoulders, and not accept without question what the Church says. Now of course I cannot and do not suggest anyone has done this, but I find less discussion from the opponents of this doctrine who quote from LT documents. Rather they seem only to quote from Vatican sources.

How do you learn about this stuff?

 

[melensdad]

I find less discussion from the opponents of this doctrine who quote from LT documents. Rather they seem only to quote from Vatican sources.

I’ve actually looked over quite a bit of the LT documents and it is very clear that if you go back and look at the original documents and theories and then read them over time to current, you will see that the concept of Liberation Theology has changed. Last time I checked the truth was not something that changed with time.

As for the allegation that LT was adopted by Pope John Paul II, that is, in my opinion, false. What Pope John Paul II actually did was expose LT for what it is, then he changed the whole framing of the discussion about the poor and brought it to the forefront of the church within the context of the teaching of the church. He rejected the LT approach to the poor!

But please don’t take my words for it. Look over LT theology from the 80’s, the 90’s and then look at contemporary LT and you will see it has changed. Please read some of the Church documents, and please read some of the outside analysis of the church documents. The secular media suggests that LT is a good thing, the religious media seems to side with the Church. It sure seems to be the theology of class envy, divisions of people and marxism and it is not in accord with our Church.

It has not been condemned.

It was ‘denounced’

 

[mahoneyt]

Now we are talking, yes I understand what Ratzinger says about LT. I just disagree with him about it, I know that has changed a little now that he’s Pope, because I respect the office. I have to write a theology final but will give full responses in time.

 

[melensdad]

Now we are talking, yes I understand what Ratzinger says about LT. I just disagree with him about it . . .

Hmm. Ratzinger wrote a couple of different rebukes, Pope John Paul II endorsed those rebukes and had them published from the Vatican. Seems to me you disagree with the leaders of our Church.

When it was a semi-acceptable theology, the proponents of Catholic Liberation Theology activism in the US were the Maryknoll, Paulist, and Jesuit orders. Maryknoll still seems to cling to it, but their order is waining and I believe all 5 of their seminaries have now closed. Their numbers are decreasing and their influence dropping. Still, Maryknoll, New York, is the international center of the Maryknoll Fathers and Sisters, many of whom have given their lives aiding communist terrorists in Central and Latin America. Maryknoll has produced films glorifying the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

The older Paulist Order and its Paulist Press echo the liberation message in such leading titles as: Lea Anne Hunter’s and Magdalen Sienkiewicz’s Learning Clubs for the Poor, Gregory Pierce’s Activism That Makes Sense: Congregations and Community Organizations, and John Coleman’s An American Strategic Theology. I see much less Liberation Theology coming from the Paulist Fathers lately, and they seem to have taken up a calling of ministry to young adults and are spreading evangelization through radio and internet and the theme no longer seems to focus on LT.

Most students of Liberation Theology are familiar with the Jesuits, primarily because Gustavo Gutierrez, father of modern Catholic liberationism, comes from that order. The works of other Jesuit advocates widely read in the United States include Juan Luis Segundo’s five-volume A Theology for Artisans of a New Humanity and Arthur F. McGovern’s Marxism: an American Perspective.

McGovern, was (still is?) a Jesuit professor at the University of Detroit, contends that much diversity exists among liberation advocates in regard to their commitment to Marxism. He does not deny that they derive their insights from overtly Marxist critiques of society.

But the stance of Rome is still one in opposition to Liberation Theology: cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=49761 (full story at link)

**Liberation-theology leader to be disciplined? **

Madrid, Mar. 9, 2007 (CWNews.com) - A Jesuit theologian who is a leading exponent of liberation theology will soon be disciplined by the Vatican, according to the Spanish newspaper El Mundo.

Father Jon Sobrino will be barred from teaching in Catholic schools and instructed not to publish written works, El Mundo reports, citing informed sources at the Vatican. The newspaper claims that the disciplinary measures will be announced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith within the next two weeks. . .

:knight2:

**“The only true liberation is liberation from sin.”
**

• Pope John Paul II, addressing the Latin American bishops in 1979

​

And something that is currently in the news right now, in South America: (full story here: cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200711/CUL20071121b.html )

**Chavez-Church Clash Raises Questions About Influence of Liberation Theology **
November 21, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Plans to amend the constitution to push Venezuela further along a socialist path have put President Hugo Chavez at odds with many of the country’s church leaders. Their opposition may reflect a weakening of the hold that “liberation theology” has had on the region.
. . .
Catholic bishops have been among the most outspoken critics of the amendments
. . .
In recent months, Chavez has attacked the bishops for voicing concern about the amendments, calling them variously “Pharisees,” “hypocrites” and supporters of tyrants. At the same time, the president – who is himself a Catholic – has used classic liberation theology language to describe Jesus Christ as a revolutionary and a socialist.
. . .
Another top church leader, Cardinal Jorge Urosa Savino of Caracas, said in a television interview that the changes would leave no room for any ideas other than socialism, and would put an end to “freedom of conscience, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression [and] economic freedom.”

It seems that the concept of Liberation Theology has gotten out of control and is now being used against the Church. Interesting how a false doctrine can be twisted and used against justice and against the Church. Perhaps this is what Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II were afraid of 20+ years ago?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Isn’t this called Orthodoxy?

No. I know of no papal document that required me to seek the church’s approval BEFORE I have properly informed my conscience.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’ve actually looked over quite a bit of the LT documents and it is very clear that if you go back and look at the original documents and theories and then read them over time to current, you will see that the concept of Liberation Theology has changed. Last time I checked the truth was not something that changed with time.

**Guess you never realized that theology like everything else is an evolving concept. I’m surprised at such a weak argument. **

As for the allegation that LT was adopted by Pope John Paul II, that is, in my opinion, false. What Pope John Paul II actually did was expose LT for what it is, then he changed the whole framing of the discussion about the poor and brought it to the forefront of the church within the context of the teaching of the church. He rejected the LT approach to the poor!

Nope. Look at Redemptorus Missio and Sollicitudo Rei Socialis

But please don’t take my words for it. Look over LT theology from the 80’s, the 90’s and then look at contemporary LT and you will see it has changed. Please read some of the Church documents, and please read some of the outside analysis of the church documents. The secular media suggests that LT is a good thing, the religious media seems to side with the Church. It sure seems to be the theology of class envy, divisions of people and marxism and it is not in accord with our Church.

**Of course it changes. All theology changes. If it didn’t nobody would waste time getting a degree in theology. They don’t get a degree just to learn and teach it, but to DO it. It is the antithesis of envy. It is solidarity with the poor and their struggle against institutional sin, which also is recognized in papal declarations. The fact that some have misused it by introducing marxist concepts is hardly a condemnation. It is undoubtedly a warning. The Church I agree doesn’t like it much, but it has accommodated LT so far. As it has feminist theology, women’s theology, Asian theology, african theology, black theology etc. **

It was ‘denounced’

It has not been banned. It’s being done everywhere. The literature is simply replete with it.

 

[melensdad]

No. I know of no papal document that required me to seek the church’s approval BEFORE I have properly informed my conscience.

So ignorance of our faith is bliss?

Some things are wrong and people don’t take the time, or make the effort to find out what our Church believes, and consequently what we are to obey. Not all our priests and Bishops have written things that are in-line with the teachings of our church. Some of the more vocal proponents of Liberation Theology have been forbidden from saying the mass and otherwise ‘silenced’ by the Vatican. That must say something about the illegitimacy of L.T.

I’ll offer up what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about Liberation Theology as it relates it to Atheism

**2124 **The name “atheism” covers many very different phenomena. One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to space and time. Atheistic humanism falsely considers man to be “an end to himself, and the sole maker, with supreme control, of his own history.” Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. "It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man’s hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth."

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Hmm. Ratzinger wrote a couple of different rebukes, Pope John Paul II endorsed those rebukes and had them published from the Vatican. Seems to me you disagree with the leaders of our Church.

When it was a semi-acceptable theology, the proponents of Catholic Liberation Theology activism in the US were the Maryknoll, Paulist, and Jesuit orders. Maryknoll still seems to cling to it, but their order is waining and I believe all 5 of their seminaries have now closed. Their numbers are decreasing and their influence dropping. Still, Maryknoll, New York, is the international center of the Maryknoll Fathers and Sisters, many of whom have given their lives aiding communist terrorists in Central and Latin America. Maryknoll has produced films glorifying the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

The older Paulist Order and its Paulist Press echo the liberation message in such leading titles as: Lea Anne Hunter’s and Magdalen Sienkiewicz’s Learning Clubs for the Poor, Gregory Pierce’s Activism That Makes Sense: Congregations and Community Organizations, and John Coleman’s An American Strategic Theology. I see much less Liberation Theology coming from the Paulist Fathers lately, and they seem to have taken up a calling of ministry to young adults and are spreading evangelization through radio and internet and the theme no longer seems to focus on LT.

Most students of Liberation Theology are familiar with the Jesuits, primarily because Gustavo Gutierrez, father of modern Catholic liberationism, comes from that order. The works of other Jesuit advocates widely read in the United States include Juan Luis Segundo’s five-volume A Theology for Artisans of a New Humanity and Arthur F. McGovern’s Marxism: an American Perspective.

McGovern, was (still is?) a Jesuit professor at the University of Detroit, contends that much diversity exists among liberation advocates in regard to their commitment to Marxism. He does not deny that they derive their insights from overtly Marxist critiques of society.

But the stance of Rome is still one in opposition to Liberation Theology: cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=49761 (full story at link)

:knight2:

**“The only true liberation is liberation from sin.”
**

• Pope John Paul II, addressing the Latin American bishops in 1979

​

And something that is currently in the news right now, in South America: (full story here: cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200711/CUL20071121b.html )

It seems that the concept of Liberation Theology has gotten out of control and is now being used against the Church. Interesting how a false doctrine can be twisted and used against justice and against the Church. Perhaps this is what Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II were afraid of 20+ years ago?

Do you really feel comfortably making your argument pal Cesar Chavez? Do you really think this report is news for happiness?
But I would agree, its way way easier to just look to the vatican for permission to think about anything. I’m wondering if God had that in mind.

 

[catharina]

melensdad - thank you for posting the quote from the Catechism.

Again:

2124 The name “atheism” covers many very different phenomena. One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to space and time. Atheistic humanism falsely considers man to be “an end to himself, and the sole maker, with supreme control, of his own history.” Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. “It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man’s hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth.”

It is obvious that in a nation with freedoms such as ours, one never has a gun to one’s head that persuades one to inform one’s conscience - and some popular buzzwords that seem to be “with it” too often substitute for genuine research and effective learning.

Whenever the virtue of religion is combined with political ends, it’s more than likely that the virtue of religion falls quickly into second place.

Along with the quote from the Catechism, I’ll add this:

“I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.”

Sometimes truth is so very simple.

 

[melensdad]

Do you really feel comfortably making your argument pal Cesar Chavez? Do you really think this report is news for happiness?
But I would agree, its way way easier to just look to the vatican for permission to think about anything. I’m wondering if God had that in mind.

I’m sorry. I have no idea what you are trying to say/ask.

 

[Catherine_W]

Thank you Catharina and Melensdad for being to debate this much better than I can.

 

[melensdad]

Do you really feel comfortably making your argument pal Cesar Chavez?

I think I understand your mistake. You are confusing Caesar Chavez with Hugo Chavez. Two different people. Two different nations. Both are marxist. That is why you probably confused them.

Quote=SpiritMeadow]Nope. Look at Redemptorus Missio and Sollicitudo Rei SocialisOK, as I read the Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, it seems clear that Pope John Paul II is warning against LT:

Recently, in the period following the publication of the Encyclical Populorum Progressio, a new way of confronting the problems of poverty and underdevelopment has spread in some areas of the world, especially in Latin America. This approach makes liberation the fundamental category and the first principle of action. The positive values, as well as the deviations and risks of deviation, which are damaging to the faith and are connected with this form of theological reflection and method, have been appropriately pointed out by the Church’s Magisterium.[83]

It is fitting to add that the aspiration to freedom from all forms of slavery affecting the individual and society is something noble and legitimate. This in fact is the purpose of development, or rather liberation and development, taking into account the intimate connection between the two.

Development which is merely economic is incapable of setting man free; on the contrary, it will end by enslaving him further. Development that does not include the cultural, transcendent and religious dimensions of man and society, to the extent that it does not recognize the existence of such dimensions and does not endeavor to direct its goals and priorities towards the same, is even less conducive to authentic liberation. Human beings are totally free only when they are completely themselves, in the fullness of their rights and duties. The same can be said about society as a whole.

The principal obstacle to be overcome on the way to authentic liberation is sin and the structures produced by sin as it multiplies and spreads.[84]

Liberation Theology does not put sin, or the liberation from sin first.

In Redemptoris Misso he writes:

the Church’s faith and experience that true liberation consists in opening oneself to the love of Christ. . .

As I was reading the text, I saw nothing that reinforced any support for Liberation Theology. Certainly I saw portions where the oppressed must be free of their oppression, which I took to changing their form of government to something that was not a dictorarship or marxists.

SpiritMeadow:

Guess you never realized that theology like everything else is an evolving concept. I’m surprised at such a weak argument.

No need to be insulting. But the fact is that the truth is unchanging, and if you go back and read what I wrote, I said the truth had not changed, but that Liberation Theology had. Clearly you are not carefully reading what I write but instead are reading what you THINK was written. The fact that Liberation Theology has evolved so much in such a very short span of time shows how erroneous it really is.

 

[catharina]

melensdad - I know that agribusiness bosses detested the work of Caesar Chavez, but do you actually believe he was a marxist? I lived in California for many yrs during his years of labor-organizing and all I’d ever heard was that he was definitely a lifelong Roman Catholic - no hint of marxism or of liberation theology.

 

[Alexius]

According to the “New Dictionary of Theology,” there are actually many kinds of Liberation Theology. When it comes to Marxism, Pope John Paul II warned that those who mess with it should do so with a ‘‘long spoon.’’ After the 1984 interview with LT Leonardo Boff, the CC issued the “Instructions” of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which highlighted the problems of over-doing Liberation Theology. In 1986, the CC issued an updated LT document called the “Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation.” Several forms of Liberation Theology are recognized and the CC made it clear that they identify with the poor and oppressed. There can be atleast three distinguished theologies involving the LT movement.

1. This method is pastoral such as the one used by Gustavo Gutierrez.
2. This method is academic such as the one used by Hugo Assmann and Fr. Juan Luis Segundo.
3. This one retains the LT language, but in the context of traditional Catholic teaching.

The problem of Liberation Theology tends to arise when dealing with praxis. This involves not teaching, but doing. Theology, according to Gutierrez, is second to praxis. Praxis involves standing alongside the oppressed and taking up arms if need be. Praxis is where Marxist theories of the world come into play. Some, like Leonardo Boff, see LT through the person and work of Christ. Jesus, being incarnate God, was poor, oppressed and labored. He surrounded Himself with others like Him. Boff sees Christ’s kingdom as spiritual, yet tied to this physical world. In this world, Christ was seeking to free the oppressed from physical disabilities and oppression. Finally, Boff sees Christ’s death as a lot layed out by those in authority (the oppressor). I would add that Christ goes much further. He gives the poor (and eveyone because all of us suffer) the opportunity to experience full joy without oppression in Him (eternal life).

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[melensdad]

. . . There can be atleast three distinguished theologies involving the LT movement.

1. This method is pastoral such as the one used by Gustavo Gutierrez.
2. This method is academic such as the one used by Hugo Assmann and Fr. Juan Luis Segundo.
3. This one retains the LT language, but in the context of traditional Catholic teaching.

The problem of Liberation Theology tends to arise when dealing with praxis. This involves not teaching, but doing. Theology, according to Gutierrez, is second to praxis. Praxis involves standing alongside the oppressed and taking up arms if need be. Praxis is where Marxist theories of the world come into play. Some, like Leonardo Boff, see LT through the person and work of Christ. Jesus, being incarnate God, was poor, oppressed and labored. He surrounded Himself with others like Him. Boff sees Christ’s kingdom as spiritual, yet tied to this physical world. In this world, Christ was seeking to free the oppressed from physical disabilities and oppression. Finally, Boff sees Christ’s death as a lot layed out by those in authority (the oppressor). I would add that Christ goes much further. He gives the poor (and eveyone because all of us suffer) the opportunity to experience full joy without oppression in Him (eternal life).

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Thank you for this greater explanation of L.T. Type 3, as per your outline, is essentially what Pope John Paul II did with our Church. He co-opted the terms, but repositioned the theology to be in line with the Catholic teaching and he distanced the Church from those who acted in the type of L.T. that does not place liberation from sin as the true form of salvation. The Pope did this by completely reframing the discussion and taking the high ground, leaving the proponents of L.T. to attempt to defend their activism but unable to do so within the teachings of the Church. Several of the priests were then forbidden from serving mass, Bishops were changed, etc.

melensdad - I know that agribusiness bosses detested the work of Caesar Chavez, but do you actually believe he was a marxist?

Caesar Chavez is easily identified with the marxist socialist movement here in the US. There is no question that Caesar Chavez did many good things, but his name and cause have been clearly taken up and identified with marxism.

But my post quoted an article about HUGO CHAVEZ and Liberation Theology. SpiritMeadow confused CAESAR with HUGO when he replied. There is no reason to get hung up on Casear, when we have a modern example with HUGO.

 

[catharina]

Thank you for this greater explanation of L.T. Type 3, as per your outline, is essentially what Pope John Paul II did with our Church. He co-opted the terms, but repositioned the theology to be in line with the Catholic teaching and he distanced the Church from those who acted in the type of L.T. that does not place liberation from sin as the true form of salvation. The Pope did this by completely reframing the discussion and taking the high ground, leaving the proponents of L.T. to attempt to defend their activism but unable to do so within the teachings of the Church. Several of the priests were then forbidden from serving mass, Bishops were changed, etc.

Caesar Chavez is easily identified with the marxist socialist movement here in the US. There is no question that Caesar Chavez did many good things, but his name and cause have been clearly taken up and identified with marxism.

But my post quoted an article about HUGO CHAVEZ and Liberation Theology. SpiritMeadow confused CAESAR with HUGO when he replied. There is no reason to get hung up on Casear, when we have a modern example with HUGO.

Right - and certainly, I can see clearly that you meant Hugo Chavez. However re C. Chavez, while I acknowledge that his name has been taken up by those with a marxist agenda, I don’t believe that marxism was any part of his own agenda.

If it suited marxists (those seeking followers) they could take up your name or mine too with no example from either of us that favors marxism!