Was Liberation Theology condemned?

[SpiritMeadow]

I’m unaware of anyone here promoting LT. I believe the sole question was whether it was condemned or not. I have seen no proof that it has. It continues to be an interesting and productive way to examine scripture with a fresh look. Whether it contains a sufficiently practical application in praxis remains to be seen.

 

[christcnection1]

What was the latest “official” document on LT to come out of the Church? I would like to read what it has to say.

 

[Alexius]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Theology

I see nothing that identifies LT as a whole as specifically condemned. What I see is certain ideas and teachers frowned upon or rejected by the Vatican (but not all LT), but not condemned…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[melensdad]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Theology

I see nothing that identifies LT as a whole as specifically condemned.

That point has been made many times.

However, as an editor for Wikipedia myself, and as I have written many pages for Wikipedia, I would strongly caution people against using Wikipedia as a source document that is bulletproof in presenting the truth. It is a fluid work, often in error, and unfortunately all too often not written by experts. I must constantly check the pages I have written or edited to make sure they have not been edited to include things which are unsubstantiated or simply untrue. I’ve also experienced situations were more senior editors have edited out truths which I have written, and even footnoted.

I hardly think I’m going to be convinced by a magazine’s choice of the word condemned

And that is essentially what I wrote. While I cited many examples, the magazine being only one of them, using the word condemned, I have very clearly stated I have seen no official document using that word. In fact, if people read what I wrote, it is clear early on that I asked for proof.

What was the latest “official” document on LT to come out of the Church? I would like to read what it has to say.

With regard to chronology, I simply do not know. There are many examples of writings by Cardinal Ratzinger, during Pope John Paul II’s papacy, as well as more contemporary documents from the Vatican, that are available to read.

If you look at the latest ENCYCLICAL LETTER from Pope Benedict XVI, released Nov 30, 2007, entitled SPE SALVI you will see no specific references to L.T. but you will see numerous indications that we must be wary of any promises that put the needs of man above our journey toward salvation. Liberation Theology therefore is not overtly mentioned, but is more covertly warned against because at its core, Liberation Theology places man above salvation. This truth about L.T. has been pointed out in numerous Vatican documents.

 

[cmudd]

Why do we need an official condemnation from Rome to oppose LT? It is good enough for me that two popes have voiced and written extensively on the subject and both oppose it, in no uncertain terms. That is good enough for me!!! I will take my lead from JPII and BXVI before Chavez, Castro, Fr. Pedro Arrupe, etc…

At its heart, the problem with LT is that it necessitates an “us-vs.-them” mentality: the poor vs. the rich, the week vs. the powerful, and the laymen vs. the hierarchy. That is why it is very accurately described as Marxist. Keep in mind, that Christ came for us all; rich and poor, strong and week. LT perverts the “preferential option for the poor” (which is not an official Church position as it is currently understood) by making it a preference for the poor ***over ***the rich/powerful. That is Marxist and anti-Christian.

A far better way to approach the situation in SA is to directly address the wealthy/powerful people and bring them into a life of Christian Charity. The worst thing for priests, nuns, and laymen to do would be to cast off their Catholic identity and lead an armed revolt against the wealthy.

Also, it cannot be ignored that as practitioners of LT, many Jesuits and, to a lesser degree, Maryknolls identified the Catholic hierarchy as part of the problem (they are the wealthy/powerful right?) and attacked the Church as well. It is no wonder that Communist Russia fully supported the LT movement.

That is enough to frighten me off! Marxism and Christianity are incompatible.

 

[tpw]

There was a form of liberation theology which was held suspect where Marxist analysis was used.

If you read the statement carefully Ratzinger and by extension PJP II acknowledged the concerns that liberation theologians had (profound poverty, egregious human rights abuses, the role of international governments and economic institutions in perpetuating injustice (and that included the US and Europe as well as the existing Communist countries of the time) but seemed to encourage working with the government, rather than using Marxist analyses to address the problem.

Of course this begs the question is the government willing to work with the church? And that’s where things get problematic. How much abuse does one suffer before a resolute stance is taken? How does one take such a stance when governments fueled by arms sales from the US, China, etc. will brutally repress any opposition to them?

Non-violence is the preferred method. Many Catholics including PJII held people like M Ghandi in greata respect as well as MLK, Jr. While Ratzinger / Benedict is disturbed by civil disobedience because of his own experience in Germany in 1968, it doesn’t mean the church is opposed to it. In fact the CCC acknowledges and approves of non-violence civil disobedience in cases of grave injustice.

Hope this helps…

I can’t find any “formal” condemnation of Liberation Theology. However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Vatican has consistently opposed the theory and actively fought against it. Pope JP II and now Pope B XVI both have considered Liberation Theology to be a threat to the church.

One of the best articles on LT, as it really was practiced (with plenty of footnotes) and shows it as a real bastardization of the Church teachings is available on-line. catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=643

For those who dabble in Liberation Theology, I’d strongly suggest a prayerful reading of the subject, as it really replaces the focus onto the here and now, and minimizes salvation.

Pope John Paul II has issued stern warnings against Liberation Theology, replaced LT leaning Bishops, etc. He further equated Liberation Theology with Marxism and Socialism and considered it an evil (it should also be noted that he considered unbridled capitalism to be an equal evil, but embraced western style capitalism and democracy).

Some may also want to see this article on some of the many dangers of Liberation Theology, its ties to Marxism (socialism) and the writings of some of our leaders against the theology: newadvent.org/library/docs_df84lt.htm

The words of Cardinal Ratzinger, written while he was working against Liberation Theology under Pope John Paul II can be found here: christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/liberationtheol.htm

There are many non-Catholic sources for information on Liberation Theology. But the sources of information that hail from our Church are nearly universally opposed to it, in a very critical way. So was it officially condemned, that I don’t know. What I do know is that it was condemned in action and deeds by the Vatican, even if they did not officially make a condemnation of it verbally.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m in agreement with melensdad and found post 16 to be an inappropriate response to the discussion.

The fact is, this has been discussed before on CAF, and people really should use the Search function, and refer to links, before demanding that people restate already-stated positions.

Those of us who have done plenty of formal, academic study on this topic have a tendency to be justifiably dismissive, as the vast majority of LT is intellectually bankrupt. Whatever justifiable points it makes with regard to content, are mostly canceled by over-extension and by basically flawed scriptural premises, which attempt to do 2 things: read anachronistically into scripture cultural assumptions which are nonexistent in both the OT and NT, and converts a religious document into a political one.

As I read CAF and as I read many other forums, many of us with solid academic backgrounds (and there are many here on CAF with such backgrounds, from many sources) have little patience with fraudulent theologies in any context and from any side of the spectrum.

So while LT was not “condemned,” no scripture scholar of the dozens I respect takes LT as a credible approach or interpretation. I don’t take my direction from them necessarily, but I certainly find it validating that my own views are in harmony with theirs.

 

[markomalley]

In what measure and in what ways is it acceptable to embrace LT, if at all?

The CDF came out formally against the 'theology of liberation" back in the early 80s:

Instruction on certain aspects of the “Theology of Liberation” – Libertatis nuntius

From Part X of that document:

1. The partisan conception of truth, which can be seen in the revolutionary ‘praxis’ of the class, corroborates this position. Theologians who do not share the theses of the “theology of liberation”, the hierarchy, and especially the Roman Magisterium are thus discredited in advance as belonging to the class of the oppressors. Their theology is a theology of class. Arguments and teachings thus do not have to be examined in themselves since they are only reflections of class interests. Thus, the instruction of others is decreed to be, in principle, false.

1. Here is where the global and all-embracing character of the theology of liberation appears. As a result, it must be criticized not just on the basis of this or that affirmation, but on the basis of its classist viewpoint, which it has adopted ‘a priori’, and which has come to function in it as a determining principle.
2. Because of this classist presupposition, it becomes very difficult, not to say impossible, to engage in a real dialogue with some “theologians of liberation” in such a way that the other participant is listened to, and his arguments are discussed with objectivity and attention. For these theologians start out with the idea, more or less consciously, that the viewpoint of the oppressed and revolutionary class, which is their own, is the single true point of view. Theological criteria for truth are thus relativized and subordinated to the imperatives of the class struggle. In this perspective, ‘orthodoxy’ or the right rule of faith, is substituted by the notion of ‘orthopraxy’ as the criterion of the truth. In this connection it is important not to confuse practical orientation, which is proper to traditional theology in the same way that speculative orientation is, with the recognized and privileged priority given to a certain type of ‘praxis’. For them, this praxis is the revolutionary ‘praxis’ which thus becomes the supreme criterion for theological truth. A healthy theological method no doubt will always take the ‘praxis’ of the Church into account and will find there one of its foundations, but that is because that praxis comes from the faith and is a lived expression of it.
3. For the “theologies of liberation” however, the social doctrine of the Church is rejected with disdain. It is said that it comes from the illusion of a possible compromise, typical of the middle class which has no historic destiny.
4. The new ‘hermeneutic’ inherent in the “theologies of liberation” leads to an essentially ‘political’ re-reading of the Scriptures. Thus, a major importance is given to the Exodus event inasmuch as it is a liberation from political servitude. Likewise, a political reading of the “Magnificat” is proposed. The mistake here is not in bringing attention to a political dimension of the readings of Scripture, but in making of this one dimension the principal or exclusive component. This leads to a reductionist reading of the Bible.
5. Likewise, one places oneself within the perspective of a temporal messianism, which is one of the most radical of the expressions of secularization of the Kingdom of God and of its absorption into the immanence of human history.
6. In giving such priority to the political dimension, one is led to deny the ‘radical newness’ of the New Testament and above all to misunderstand the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, and thus the specific character of the salvation he gave us, that is above all liberation from sin, which is the source of all evils.
7. Moreover in setting aside the authoritative interpretation of the Church, denounced as classist, one is at the same time departing from tradition. In that way, one is robbed of an essential theological criterion of interpretation, and in the vacuum thus created, one welcomes the most radical theses of rationalist exegesis. Without a critical eye, one returns to the opposition of the “Jesus of history” versus the “Jesus of faith.”

You should read the whole thing for yourself, though.

If you are looking for guidance on what the Church’s position is on the topic, it is there.

 

[Elizabeth502]

mark, thank you for that reference. I knew that there had been general disapproval by the Magisterium, but since I became occupied with other scriptural foci at the time, I didn’t dwell on further specific pronouncements or documents, since it was clear to me that the “theology” held no water. Points 5 and 6 in particular speak to my own, but the broader and effective point made in this document notes the anti-theology orientation of the “LT” approach, which, while pretending to be scriptural, portends to be a discipline, when in fact it was fabricated out of whole (political) cloth, outside scriptural and theological disciplines entirely. That has always been my major issue with it.

 

[elts1956]

Thank you for chipping in! I was surprised that there was not more dialogue on this issue. I encourage you to stay on this thread to continue defending your perspective. Generally speaking I agree with you, though I am no expert on the topic.

God Bless,

JB

christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/liberationtheol.htm

Full document at above website

Liberation Theology
by
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

The following is to a “private” document which preceded the Instruction of Fall 1984.

Preliminary Notes

1. Liberation theology is a phenomenon with an extraordinary number of layers. There is a whole spectrum from radically marxist positions, on the one hand, to the efforts which are being made within the framework of a correct and ecclesial theology, on the other hand, a theology which stresses the responsibility which Christians necessarily hear for the poor and oppressed, such as we see in the documents of the Latin American Bishops’ Conference (CELAM) from Medellin to Puebla. In what follows, the concept of liberation theology will be understood in a narrower sense: it will refer only to those theologies which, in one way or another, have embraced the marxist fundamental option. Here too there are many individual differences, which cannot be dealt with in a general discussion of this kind. All I can do is attempt to illuminate certain trends which, notwithstanding the different nuances they exhibit, are widespread and exert a certain influence even where liberation theology in this more restricted sense does not exist.
2. An analysis of the phenomenon of liberation theology reveals that it constitutes a fundamental threat to the faith of the Church. At the same time it must be borne in mind that no error could persist unless it contained a grain of truth. Indeed, an error is all the more dangerous, the greater that grain of truth is, for then the temptation it exerts is all the greater.

Furthermore, the error concerned would not have been able to wrench that piece of the truth to its own use if that truth had been adequately lived and witnessed to in its proper place (in the faith of the Church). So, in denouncing error and pointing to dangers in liberation theology, we must always be ready to ask what truth is latent in the error and how it can be given its rightful place, how it can be released from error’s monopoly.

1. Liberation theology is a universal phenomenon in three ways:

a. It does not intend to add a new theological treatise to those already existing, i.e., it does not wish to develop new aspects of the Church’s social ethics. Rather it sees itself as a new hermeneutics of the Christian faith, a new way of understanding Christianity as a whole and implementing it. Thus it affects theology in its basic constitution, not merely in aspects of its content. So too it alters all forms of Church life: the Church’s constitution, liturgy, catechesis, moral options.

c. Liberation theology goes beyond denominational borders:
from its own starting point it frequently tries to create a new universality for which the classical church divisions are supposed to have become irrelevant.

These preliminary remarks have brought us right to the heart of the subject, without, however, dealing with the central question: what is liberation theology?

Initially we said that liberation theology intends to supply a new total interpretation of the Christian reality; it explains Christianity as a praxis of liberation and sees itself as the guide to this praxis. However, since in its view all reality is political, liberation is also a political concept and the guide to liberation must he a guide to political action:

“Nothing lies outside … political commitment. Everything has a political color.” A theology that is not “practical”; i.e., not essentially political, is regarded as “idealistic” and thus as lacking in reality, or else it is condemned as a vehicle for the oppressors’ maintenance of power.

A theologian who has learned his theology in the classical tradition and has accepted its spiritual challenge will find it hard to realize that an attempt is being made, in all seriousness, to recast the whole Christian reality in the categories of politico-social liberation praxis. This is all the more difficult because many liberation theologians continue to use a great deal of the Church’s classical ascetical and dogmatic language while changing its signification. As a result, the reader or listener who is operating from a different background can gain the impression that everything is the same as before, apart from the addition of a few somewhat unpalatable statements, which, given so much spirituality, can scarcely be all that dangerous.

The very radicality of liberation theology means that its seriousness is often underestimated, since it does not fit into any of the accepted categories of heresy; its fundamental concern cannot be detected by the existing range of standard questions.

I would like to try, therefore, to approach the basic orientation of liberation theology in two steps: first by saying something about its presuppositions, which make it possible, and then by referring to some of its basic concepts, which reveal something of its structure…

See above website.

 

[elts1956]

Thank you for chipping in! I was surprised that there was not more dialogue on this issue. I encourage you to stay on this thread to continue defending your perspective. Generally speaking I agree with you, though I am no expert on the topic.

God Bless,

JB

For further information go to:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html

Part of the instruction is as follows:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

INSTRUCTION ON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE
“THEOLOGY OF LIBERATION”
This instruction was adopted at an Ordinary Meeting of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and was approved at an audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect by his Holiness Pope John Paul II, who ordered its publication.
Given at Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on August 6, 1984, the Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect
Alberto Bovone
Titular Archbishop of Caesarea in Numidia
Secretary

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a message of freedom and a force for liberation. In recent years, this essential truth has become the object of reflection for theologians, with a new kind of attention which is itself full of promise.

Liberation is first and foremost liberation from the radical slavery of sin. Its end and its goal is the freedom of the children of God, which is the gift of grace. As a logical consequence, it calls for freedom from many different kinds of slavery in the cultural, economic, social, and political spheres, all of which derive ultimately from sin, and so often prevent people from living in a manner befitting their dignity. To discern clearly what is fundamental to this issue and what is a by-product of it, is an indispensable condition for any theological reflection on liberation.
Faced with the urgency of certain problems, some are tempted to emphasize, unilaterally, the liberation from servitude of an earthly and temporal kind. They do so in such a way that they seem to put liberation from sin in second place, and so fail to give it the primary importance it is due. Thus, their very presentation of the problems is confused and ambiguous. Others, in an effort to learn more precisely what are the causes of the slavery which they want to end, make use of different concepts without sufficient critical caution. It is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to purify these borrowed concepts of an ideological inspiration which is compatible with Christian faith and the ethical requirements which flow from it.
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.

This warning should in no way be interpreted as a disavowal of all those who want to respond generously and with an authentic evangelical spirit to the “preferential option for the poor.”

1. The expression, “Theology of Liberation” refers first of all to a special concern for the poor and the victims of oppression, which in turn begets a commitment to justice. Starting with this approach, we can distinguish several, often contradictory ways of understanding the Christian meaning of poverty and the type of commitment to justice which it requires. As with all movements of ideas, the “theologies of liberation” present diverse theological positions. Their doctrinal frontiers are badly defined.
2. The aspiration for ‘liberation’, as the term itself suggests, repeats a theme which is fundamental to the Old and New Testaments. In itself, the expression “theology of liberation” is a thoroughly valid term: it designates a theological reflection centered on the biblical theme of liberation and freedom, and on the urgency of its practical realization. The meeting, then of the aspiration for liberation and the theologies of liberation is not one of mere chance. COLOR=“Red”]The significance of the encounter between the two can be understood only in light of the specific message of Revelation, authentically interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church. [2]/COLOR]
   IV
   A NEW INTERPRETATION OF CHRISTIANITY
3. To some it even seems that the necessary struggle for human justice and freedom in the economic and political sense constitutes the whole essence of salvation. For them, the Gospel is reduced to a purely earthly gospel.
4. The different theologies of liberation are situated between the ‘preferential option for the poor’, forcefully reaffirmed without ambiguity after Medellin at the Conference of ‘Puebla’ [19] on the one hand, and the temptation to reduce the Gospel to an earthly gospel on the other. We should recall that the preferential option described at ‘Puebla’ is two-fold: for the poor and ‘for the young’. [21] It is significant that the option for the young has in general been passed over in total silence.
5. We noted above (cf. 3) that an authentic theology of liberation will be one which is rooted in the Word of God, correctly interpreted.

 

[tpw]

It’s hard to claim as Elizabeth502 does - that LT is intellectually bankrupt. While clearly there can be problems with it as the CDF Instruction points out and others on this thread have suggested…to claim there are NO socio–political implications to the gospel is naive.
What LT did was draw out those implications.

It would seem a “healthy” interpretation of LT would recognize both the personal character of salvation (liberation from sin) while not denying the socio-political implications. We’re not simply “individual” actors, but to a degree shaped by the social and political institutions of which we are a part.

It may also be instructive to keep in mind C. Ratzinger’s perspective. He was deeply influenced in a negative way by his experiences as a university professor in 1968 when radical elements of the student body “took over” the university. C. Ratzinger does not come to this discussion free from his own biases and/or experiences…

For better or worse - I suspect most of us on this thread come approach our Catholicism having been shaped by our experience of 1st world democratic capitalism. We have little or no experience living in a world profoundly shaped by profound dictatorships where the rule of law is relative, where we’ve been beaten down or “nurtured” by promises that rationalize away profound injustice in favor of an exclusively “other worldly” Christianity.

The question is how to build a more humane society in the spirit of the gospels.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It’s hard to claim as Elizabeth502 does - that LT is intellectually bankrupt. While clearly there can be problems with it as the CDF Instruction points out and others on this thread have suggested…to claim there are NO socio–political implications to the gospel is naive.

I never said there were no socio-political implications. Stop misrepresenting what I actually posted. No scriptural theologian says that there are no socio-political implications. We say that the methodology, and the conclusions resulting from that methodology, are intellectually bankrupt. I am also hardly naive.

What LT did was draw out those implications.

No it didn’t; that’s the entire point. It created a false premise. Then “drew out implications” from a false premise.

 

[jewells17]

I bought and listened to almost all of Richard Roher’s audio tapes where he preaches LT and Jerimiah Wright( the Obama family minister) did too. Have heard Glenn Beck and others uncover what’s behind it…Marxism. Founding Father’s special is tonight at 5pm with Beck. African American founders is the topic. For further info about LT…check this show out sometimes.