Was Liberation Theology condemned?

[Neil_Anthony]

So ignorance of our faith is bliss?

Mmmm hmmmmm… but of course when it comes to the church condemning capitalism and capital punishment… there are all sorts of exceptions to that one right I suspect it’s the same with LT, there are still aspects of it that haven’t been condemned.

 

[melensdad]

Mmmm hmmmmm… but of course when it comes to the church condemning capitalism and capital punishment… there are all sorts of exceptions to that one right I suspect it’s the same with LT, there are still aspects of it that haven’t been condemned.

Not sure why you would say that. The Church has been clear that it favors “restrained” capitalism, but certainly does not condone “unbridled” capitalism. Further, the Church has stated it favors it within a “western style” democracy.

As for capital punishment, that is a topic for a different thread, but it has not been condemned by the Church, although in practical application it is opposed by the Church. I also generally oppose it, but again, that is a different topic. It seems that you are trying to lump in “red herrings” that do not belong in this thread and take us off topic.

As for Liberation Theology, at no point did I say it was officially condemned. I believe if you read the posts, and specifically if you refer to the links and references, you will see that our Church opposes Liberation Theology, has silenced and/or removed some of the outspoken priests and bishops who favored Liberation Theology, and the Church, under Pope John Paul II considered it a threat, and considered the theology to be wrong because it focuses on man rather than eternal salvation from sin. Further Pope John Paul II re-framed the entire discussion of the poor to remove it from the dominion of the Liberation Theology proponents and place it within the context of the Church teaching.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

I tend to agree. The church from the time of Constantine until the time when the Church stopped being the State religion was not the best in its history. The Church I think rather well learned the lesson that mixing religion with politics was not such a good thing.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

So ignorance of our faith is bliss?

**Are you suggesting to me that as Catholics were are supposed to look to the Vatican first to determine whether we can read something? **

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.

Nope, and as I have said before, people who were out of favor at one time in the church are returned to favor at a later time. Time will sort this out, undoubtedly. Criticism of the church has always and will always occur. It’s a valuable component, as is the ultra right turn back the clock group.

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

That is not about LT…its about marxism.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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

I don’t think it was that hard to get. I simply mistyped Cesar for Hugo…I have no doubt you knew what I was referring to. The rest is written at a eighth grade level.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

**No I’m not mistaking them whatsoever, I simply mistyped. Caesar Chavez is very well known, Hugo is rather new on the scene. You attempt to make more of it that it obviously was. **

Quote=SpiritMeadow]Nope. Look at Redemptorus Missio and Sollicitudo Rei Socialis

OK, as I read the Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, it seems clear that Pope John Paul II is warning against LT:Liberation Theology does not put sin, or the liberation from sin first.
** A rapidly growing phenomenon in the young churches - one sometimes fostered by the bishops and their Conferences as a pastoral priority - is that of “ecclesial basic communities” (also known by other names) which are proving to be good centers for Christian formation and missionary outreach.

Developing ecclesial communities, inspired by the Gospel, will gradually be able to express their Christian experience in original ways and forms that are consonant with their own cultural traditions, provided that those traditions are in harmony with the objective requirements of the faith itself.**
In Redemptoris Misso he writes: 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.

**[If the present situation can be attributed to difficulties of various kinds, it is not out of place to speak of “structures of sin,” which, as I stated in my Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, are rooted in personal sin, and thus always linked to the concrete acts of individuals who introduce these structures, consolidate them and make them difficult to remove.65 And thus they grow stronger, spread, and become the source of other sins, and so influence people’s behavior.

I have wished to introduce this type of analysis above all in order to point out the true nature of the evil which faces us with respect to the development of peoples: it is a question of a moral evil, the fruit of many sins which lead to “structures of sin.” To diagnose the evil in this way is to identify precisely, on the level of human conduct, the path to be followed in order to overcome it.

Positive signs in the contemporary world are the growing awareness of the solidarity of the poor among themselves, their efforts to support one another, and their public demonstrations on the social scene which, without recourse to violence, present their own needs and rights in the face of the inefficiency or corruption of the public authorities. By virtue of her own evangelical duty the Church feels called to take her stand beside the poor, to discern the justice of their requests, and to help satisfy them, without losing sight of the good of groups in the context of the common good.

The motto of the pontificate of my esteemed predecessor Pius XII was Opus iustitiae pax, peace as the fruit of justice. Today one could say, with the same exactness and the same power of biblical inspiration (cf. Is 32:17; Jas 3:18): Opus solidaritatis pax, peace as the fruit of solidarity.

Here I would like to indicate one of them: the option or love of preference for the poor. This is an option, or a special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradition of the Church bears witness. It affects the life of each Christian inasmuch as he or she seeks to imitate the life of Christ, but it applies equally to our social responsibilities and hence to our manner of living, and to the logical decisions to be made concerning the ownership and use of goods.

I could go on, but you get the picture
/B]

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.**

And I said theology changes as all things do. That is a simple fact. There was nothing insulting and I in no way misread you. You attack LT because it has “changed”. All theologies do, they are a growing body of work. There would be no need for theologians otherwise.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

Yeah, he’s considered by most a hero here. I never heard anything about marxism or LT about him either.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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

I have no quarrel with anything you have said. I agree. The issue for LT has been consistently that in praxis it can go way too far. Numberous people have died in Latin America. The Church I think rightly draws the line at violence. I suspect that is easier to say than do when the bullets are coming your way. Still you have stated the situation as I believe it exists. Guitierrez has done some fine work. Especially his work on Job is compelling.

 

[melensdad]

I knew the Church has certain reservations about Liberation Theology, but has the movement been formally condemned?
. . .

Fr Jon Sobrino, an early proponent of LT was rebuked by the Vatican:

Vatican Notification on the works of Father Sobrino

Because of the theological positions he took in his works, Sobrino was the subject of a theological critique statement and an admonishment by the Vatican and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in March of 2007.

The Congregation declared that Sobrino’s “works contain propositions which are either erroneous or dangerous and may cause harm to the faithful.” While certain of his teachings were declared false, the Congregation did not condemn or censure him, or prohibit him from teaching or lecturing - for now, this is to be decided by local bishops. His own bishop, Archbishop Fernando Saenz Lacalle, archbishop of San Salvador and primate of El Salvador, has said he may not teach theology or lecture in his archdiocese, which includes UCA, and removed the nihil obstat from his writings.

More specifically the CNS shows 6 errors in Liberation Theology that are in Fr Sobrino’s work:

By John Thavis
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – The Vatican strongly criticized the work of Jesuit Father Jon Sobrino, a leading proponent of liberation theology . . .

Vatican notification nonetheless cites six categories of errors in the two books:
• Sobrino’s method makes the “church of the poor” the central context for theology, thus minimizing or ignoring the apostolic tradition of the church, especially as expressed in the declarations of early church councils;
• It’s not sufficiently clear in his work that the divinity of Christ is taught by the New Testament itself, as opposed to being a product of later dogmatic development;
• In places, Sobrino tends toward the ancient Christological heresy of “assumptionism,” treating the historical Jesus as a separate figure who was “assumed” by the divine Son of God;
• Sobrino makes too strong a distinction between Christ and the Kingdom of God, thereby devaluing the “unique and singular” significance of Christ;
• Jesus’ self-consciousness as messiah and as the Son of God are not sufficiently clear;
• The death of Christ on the Cross is reduced to a moral example, rather than understood as having universal significance for salvation.

The Vatican, which wrote: Instruction on certain aspects of the “Theology of Liberation”:

The present Instruction has a much more limited and precise purpose: to draw the attention of pastors, theologians, and all the faithful to the deviations, and risks of deviation, damaging to the faith and to Christian living, that are brought about by certain forms of liberation theology which use, in an insufficiently critical manner, concepts borrowed from various currents of Marxist thought.

What I see is that Liberation Theology has been repeatedly refuted by the Vatican. Now in no way should it be presumed that the Church does not care for the poor, nor that it does not have a nearly central focus on the poor and justice for the poor. Clearly the Church supports that, but the Church does not seem to support the theory of Liberation Theology with its errant focus. I have provided numerous examples, cited articles, given links. Most of those who seem to feel that Liberation Theology are providing little or no proof form our Church, but offer up their opinions.

Please understand I am not suggesting that that Church ignores the poor or the plight thereof, I am simply suggesting, and backing it up with Vatican documents, that the Liberation Theology that focuses on man, rather than sin, is in error. There are many areas where the Vatican and Liberation Theology are in agreement, but not at the fundamental core of LT.

SpiritMeadow:

Criticism of the church has always and will always occur. It’s a valuable component, as is the ultra right turn back the clock group.

Well I’m not sure who the “ultra right turn back the clock group” is, but I do know that there are ‘cafeteria Catholics’ who criticize the Church for its stand on abortion or things like gay marriage. I’m not sure that I see their criticism as a valuable component to the church other than it allows the secular media to constantly attack our Church as out of touch with society when it misrepresents the positions of the Church.

SpiritMeadow:

Are you suggesting to me that as Catholics were are supposed to look to the Vatican first to determine whether we can read something?

Nope, I’m suggesting that if someone does not understand the teachings of the Church it should read the words that come from the Vatican on the various topics. Those words typically offer clarity of morality which are often lacking from other sources.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Fr Jon Sobrino, an early proponent of LT was rebuked by the Vatican:
More specifically the CNS shows 6 errors in Liberation Theology that are in Fr Sobrino’s work:
The Vatican, which wrote: Instruction on certain aspects of the “Theology of Liberation”:

**Yep everyone knows about Boff and Sobrino. Everyone, or I should say everyone who is interested also knows that the dangers of LT are marxism and violence. The OP asked is it condemned? The answer was and is still NO. **

What I see is that Liberation Theology has been repeatedly refuted by the Vatican. Now in no way should it be presumed that the Church does not care for the poor, nor that it does not have a nearly central focus on the poor and justice for the poor. Clearly the Church supports that, but the Church does not seem to support the theory of Liberation Theology with its errant focus. I have provided numerous examples, cited articles, given links. Most of those who seem to feel that Liberation Theology are providing little or no proof form our Church, but offer up their opinions.

**NO that;s rather unfair. i read the same things you do. What I see is a Church quite concerned with some historical events that are attached to LT in Latin America, concerns that they be not repeated, and a basic agreement with the Goals of the movement.Its the fact that some refuse to repudiate violence as a means that keeps them in trouble. There are literally tons of articles coming from universities on LT every year. **

Please understand I am not suggesting that that Church ignores the poor or the plight thereof, I am simply suggesting, and backing it up with Vatican documents, that the Liberation Theology that focuses on man, rather than sin, is in error. There are many areas where the Vatican and Liberation Theology are in agreement, but not at the fundamental core of LT.

**I’m not sure I agree with where you see LT being focused as to sin. I also disagree that the Church is not in agreement with the “core” of LT. I see that as the base communities. **

Well I’m not sure who the “ultra right turn back the clock group” is, but I do know that there are ‘cafeteria Catholics’ who criticize the Church for its stand on abortion or things like gay marriage. I’m not sure that I see their criticism as a valuable component to the church other than it allows the secular media to constantly attack our Church as out of touch with society when it misrepresents the positions of the Church.

**Well lets eliminate the strawman argument of the media since I can cast the same accusation. I can well understand that you might not like criticisim from inside but such has always been the case. Vatican II of course is the most obvious example. I contend that both the left and right are essential to the Church, and the tension between I suggest is what has allowed the Church to maintain its existence as the longest running institution in history. God no doubt is primarily responsible, but he allowed the reformation. **
Nope, I’m suggesting that if someone does not understand the teachings of the Church it should read the words that come from the Vatican on the various topics. Those words typically offer clarity of morality which are often lacking from other sources.

I certainly have no objectiion to that and agree that everyone not only should, but they are required to. They are also required to investigate any teaching they have difficulty with and discern what they believe. They cannot hand it off to the Church to decide for them.

 

[melensdad]

I certainly have no objectiion to that and agree that everyone not only should, but they are required to. They are also required to investigate any teaching they have difficulty with and discern what they believe. They cannot hand it off to the Church to decide for them.

On many issues the voice of the Church is very clear.

I’m not sure I agree with where you see LT being focused as to sin.

Please study it more and I’m sure you will eventually agree with the Church’s position. Specifically the works of Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II (some of which I cited) both were pretty specific.

There are literally tons of articles coming from universities on LT every year.

Perhaps, but we turn to the Vatican for our spiritual guidance, not to the universities. Further, even the Catholic universities may not publish works that are in line with the teachings of the church.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Perhaps, but we turn to the Vatican for our spiritual guidance, not to the universities. Further, even the Catholic universities may not publish works that are in line with the teachings of the church.

Yet even the Vatican turns to Catholic Universities around the world for advances and debate on deep theological issues. There is much back and forth academically between Rome and the Universities. Some go from the Universities to Rome and some leave Rome and go back to University life. Writings are just part of the worldwide theological discussion of the Church and are expected to be varied and not uniform due to the source material being discussed.

 

[melensdad]

Yet even the Vatican turns to Catholic Universities around the world for advances and debate on deep theological issues. There is much back and forth academically between Rome and the Universities. Some go from the Universities to Rome and some leave Rome and go back to University life. Writings are just part of the worldwide theological discussion of the Church and are expected to be varied and not uniform due to the source material being discussed.

No argument on that point. But there has been ample evidence cited in this thread, with very specific references showing that great displeasure the Vatican has with Liberation Theology. Has it formally been condemned? I have seen no proof of that. However not only has it been soundly criticized by the Vatican, several of the proponents and outspoken leaders of the L.T. movement have been removed from their positions, forbidden from public speaking, and profoundly chastised for supporting Liberation Theology. The evidence seems overwhelming that the Church’s position on Liberation Theology is a position of strong opposition to L.T.

The arguments that it continues, as a theory, have not been shown to have been supported by the Church. The arguments that the theory of L.T. comes out of universities has also not been documented to have come from Catholic Scholars, nor has it been shown that any of it is actually supported by the Vatican except in the ways which were completely repostulated and reframed by Pope John Paul II, and when he did that he no longer referred to it as Liberation Theology!

We should all realize that many in the secular arena, as well as many Protestants believe in Liberation Theology. We certainly cannot use their support to refute the teachings of our Church, even if their research is from universities.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

On many issues the voice of the Church is very clear.

It has nothing to do with how clear the church is.And as we have established LT is not condemned in the first place. One has certain responsibilties as a human being graced by God, and that is clearly to stand for one’s beliefs, whether in accordance or not with the Church. NO one can simply anticipate the Church’s future position, or accept it without properly forming one’s own conscious. Happily early Christians did so, otherwise it is obvious we would have had no Church at all

Please study it more and I’m sure you will eventually agree with the Church’s position. Specifically the works of Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II (some of which I cited) both were pretty specific.

**SMILE oh but I have…you may be interested to note that the Latin American Bishops have once again reinterated their strong support for the “preferential option for the poor” endorced by JPII many years ago. I shall continue to read and study as I have for years. You continue to struggle for the right word to attach to what the Church teaches on LT since codemned is certainly not available nor “strongly disapprove”. Of course I always suggest to those who find these explorations dangerous that they should not partake. **

Perhaps, but we turn to the Vatican for our spiritual guidance, not to the universities. Further, even the Catholic universities may not publish works that are in line with the teachings of the church.

**But those universities are peopled in part by Catholic clergy, religious and laity, and of course the Vatican has a slue of scholars as well. I agree wholeheartedly that many write of things that are on the fringes of doctrine. But today’s “near” heresy can often become doctrine. **

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Has it formally been condemned? I have seen no proof of that.

Thanks for the straight answer.

 

[melensdad]

Thanks for the straight answer.

Conversely, we have not seen any proof that it is was not formally condemned. So it is possible that it has been and I am just unaware of the fact. I have simply not seen official Vatican documents saying it was condemned but there are many examples implying it was condemned.
"SpiritMeadow:

you may be interested to note that the Latin American Bishops have once again reinterated their strong support for the “preferential option for the poor” endorced by JPII many years ago.

Absolutely, but as I have pointed out several times, and has been apparently overlooked, THAT IS NOT the same thing as Liberation Theology. Please look over my posts, in several of them I have indicated that Pope John Paul II reframed the discussion within the doctrine of the teachings of the Church. Liberation Theology falls outside of the teachings of our Church and proof of the criticism by the Church has been submitted within this thread.

But those universities are peopled in part by Catholic clergy, religious and laity . . .

Absolutely no proof of that has been given in this thread, but a simple google search shows that many of the newer documents about Liberation Theology come from Protestants and Secularists.

SpiritMeadow:

and of course the Vatican has a slue of scholars as well. . .

The fact that the Vatican does not produce papers in support of Liberation Theology must show something! The Vatican has, however, produced many documents showing the errors of L.T., the dangers of L.T. and has used its power to silence many of the Priests & Bishops who support L.T.

Now this article, shown in part below, by the Catholic News Agency strongly implies that the Liberation Theology was, in fact, condemned, and it certainly says that the writings were condemned:

CNA:

San José, Mar 16, 2007 / 11:26 am (CNA).- A former Franciscan priest, Leonardo Boff of Brazil, who left the priesthood and the Franciscan order several years ago after his writings were condemned by the Holy See, said the decision by the Vatican to silence Father Jon Sobrino would mark a resurgence of Marxist theology in Latin America.
. . .
Boff, who together with Sobrino, Gustavo Gutierrez, and Juan Luis Segundo, was one of the most outspoken proponents of this theology, which had a significant impact on the life of the Church in Latin America, came out with a harsh reaction to the decision by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to censure several theological works by Sobrino.
. . .
“I think a condemnation such as this cheats many of the poor, because Jon Sobrino was always an ally of the poor.
. . .
In its statement against Fr. Sobrino’s work, the Vatican strongly emphasized the necessity of caring for the poor, but pointed out numerous errors in Sobrino’s approach to “the methodological presuppositions on which the [Sobrino] bases his theological reflection, the Divinity of Jesus Christ, the Incarnation of the Son of God, the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God, the Self-consciousness of Jesus, and the salvific value of His Death.”

 

[melensdad]

This statement is from a SUPPORTER of L.T. certainly indicates that L.T. was condemned:
RELIGION:

Liberation theologian Jon Sobrino, a Spaniard living in El Salvador, has been censured by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome. While Pope Benedict XVI, who was called God’s rottweiler when he headed up that office for over twenty years, did not personally sign the official “Notification,” his fingerprints are all over it.

The Jesuit priest was formally denounced, but** not silenced**, for “erroneous” and “dangerous” statements in two books written in the 1990s which – his inquisitors charge – diminished the divinity of Christ and “may cause harm to the faithful.”

This from TIME Magazine, again not an official Vatican source, certainly implies that L.T. was condemned, this time by Pope Benedict XVI:
TIME Magazine:

His arrival in Sao Paulo is also a reminder of another of the German Cardinal’s more notable crackdowns — his critique of “liberation theology,” the Latin American movement that Ratzinger and John Paul II condemned in the 1980s for mixing Church teachings with Marxism. Speaking to reporters on his plane, Benedict reiterated his warning against “mistaken mixing of Church and politics, of faith and politics,” insisting the Church’s mission was the “education of personal and social virtues,” not direct intervention in the political sphere. And while he spoke positively of the push for sainthood for progressive Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero, who was killed in 1980 while celebrating Mass, Benedict complained that Romero’s cause had been hijacked by supporters of liberation theology.

Again, as these are not official documents from our Church, I will not say that Liberation Theology has been condemned. But, again, it is very clear that several things are true.

• Our Church leaders oppose Liberation Theology
• Our Church leaders say it has elements of Marxism
• Our Church leaders have chastised theologians who push L.T.
• Our Church leaders have removed Bishops & Priests who push L.T.
• Fundamental errors in L.T. have been listed by our Church

All of these points have been made time and time again in this thread. I honestly see no further point in disputing what is obvious. Our Church opposes Liberation Theology and believes it is wrong.

 

[Alexius]

No argument on that point. But there has been ample evidence cited in this thread, with very specific references showing that great displeasure the Vatican has with Liberation Theology. Has it formally been condemned? I have seen no proof of that. However not only has it been soundly criticized by the Vatican, several of the proponents and outspoken leaders of the L.T. movement have been removed from their positions, forbidden from public speaking, and profoundly chastised for supporting Liberation Theology. The evidence seems overwhelming that the Church’s position on Liberation Theology is a position of strong opposition to L.T.

The arguments that it continues, as a theory, have not been shown to have been supported by the Church. The arguments that the theory of L.T. comes out of universities has also not been documented to have come from Catholic Scholars, nor has it been shown that any of it is actually supported by the Vatican except in the ways which were completely repostulated and reframed by Pope John Paul II, and when he did that he no longer referred to it as Liberation Theology!

We should all realize that many in the secular arena, as well as many Protestants believe in Liberation Theology. We certainly cannot use their support to refute the teachings of our Church, even if their research is from universities.

Well, I would agree with this assessment. The only thing I would mention is that Liberation Theology is spread between middle class scholars and clergy and the poor. Both embrace it to a certain extent, but I highly doubt you will find many of the upper class who support it. Why would they? If one leads toward socialism, then the wealthy are almost the enemy…

Conversely, we have not seen any proof that it is was not formally condemned. So it is possible that it has been and I am just unaware of the fact. I have simply not seen official Vatican documents saying it was condemned but there are many examples implying it was condemned.

Absolutely, but as I have pointed out several times, and has been apparently overlooked, THAT IS NOT the same thing as Liberation Theology. Please look over my posts, in several of them I have indicated that Pope John Paul II reframed the discussion within the doctrine of the teachings of the Church. Liberation Theology falls outside of the teachings of our Church and proof of the criticism by the Church has been submitted within this thread.

Absolutely no proof of that has been given in this thread, but a simple google search shows that many of the newer documents about Liberation Theology come from Protestants and Secularists.

The fact that the Vatican does not produce papers in support of Liberation Theology must show something! The Vatican has, however, produced many documents showing the errors of L.T., the dangers of L.T. and has used its power to silence many of the Priests & Bishops who support L.T.

Now this article, shown in part below, by the Catholic News Agency strongly implies that the Liberation Theology was, in fact, condemned, and it certainly says that the writings were condemned:

​

This statement is from a SUPPORTER of L.T. certainly indicates that L.T. was condemned:
[/INDENT]
This from TIME Magazine, again not an official Vatican source, certainly implies that L.T. was condemned, this time by Pope Benedict XVI:
[/INDENT]

Again, as these are not official documents from our Church, I will not say that Liberation Theology has been condemned. But, again, it is very clear that several things are true.

• Our Church leaders oppose Liberation Theology
• Our Church leaders say it has elements of Marxism
• Our Church leaders have chastised theologians who push L.T.
• Our Church leaders have removed Bishops & Priests who push L.T.
• Fundamental errors in L.T. have been listed by our Church

All of these points have been made time and time again in this thread. I honestly see no further point in disputing what is obvious. Our Church opposes Liberation Theology and believes it is wrong.

The problem is that LT is diverse. There is not one singular school of thought within it. Indeed, many have been silenced and surely some go overboard, but the Vatican has not condemned all LT, just warned against its Marxist implications. Sometimes, these warnings are made by silencing and other times they are made with outright opposition in the writings of the Church.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[melensdad]

. . . but the Vatican has not condemned all LT, just warned against its Marxist implications. Sometimes, these warnings are made by silencing and other times they are made with outright opposition in the writings of the Church.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

I’m sorry but that is simply untrue. The Vatican has listed at least 6 different theological problems with Liberation Theology AND warned against its Marxist leanings. Please go back and read the Vatican documents.

I do find something else interesting, it has been contended here on these forums by some who support L.T. that to compare L.T. to Marxism is simply incorrect. Then it has been suggested by some who support L.T. that the only problem with L.T. is the clear Marxist leanings.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I hardly think I’m going to be convinced by a magazine’s choice of the word condemned when of course we have no idea if they know what the word means in Catholic pronouncements. My advice to those who believe they are not permitted to read LT material would be not to read it. Seems that some who admitted earlier there was no condemnation have suddenly decided that no prove it hasnt’ is some proof it has…Like i said, I wouldn’t read it if I were you.