What is Black Liberation Theology?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qwikness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

Qwikness

Guest
What is Black Liberation Theology? It seems they believe in two different Gods. One for the powerful and one for the poor.

Who is this Cone person who is the author of it?

I ask because I don’t know. Everytime I hear Liberation Theology, I hear the Church is against it. Now I’m starting to hear about Black Liberation Theology. Are they related? Are they friendly?
 
Black Liberation Theology is siimilar to Liberation Theology which had its beginnings in Latin America. There is also Women’s Liberation Theology. They all share a common bond in centering their theology on the scriptures of Luke which focus so intensely on Jesus’s message of hope to those oppressed in the world.

No liberation theology is prohibited by the Church. It warns of excesses which can attach themselves to these theological interpretations. Such has happened in Latin America for instance where praxis has included certain Marxist elements. Violence is in some sense condoned as acceptable in some situations much like the Church continues to adher to the possibility of “just war.”

Cone is a well known theologian. His books can be found by a simple google of black theology and Cone.
 
Qwikness said:
What is Black Liberation Theology? It seems they believe in two different Gods. One for the powerful and one for the poor.
Click to expand...
No, except in the sense that they would say that the religion of the powerful is idolatry! For instance, the religion of ancient Egypt affirmed the hierarchy of Egyptian society. Pharaohs were seen as living gods. In that sense there is a “god of the powerful” who is a false god.

Apparently it has been dogmatically declared by the Magisterium of Americanism that adherence to black liberation theology (or even having belonged to a church whose pastor adhered to it) is a vile heresy punishable by excommunication from the ranks of those-who-may-be-president. But I do not think that the Catholic Church has taken a similar stance!

Edwin
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Black Liberation Theology is siimilar to Liberation Theology which had its beginnings in Latin America. There is also Women’s Liberation Theology. They all share a common bond in centering their theology on the scriptures of Luke which focus so intensely on Jesus’s message of hope to those oppressed in the world.

No liberation theology is prohibited by the Church. It warns of excesses which can attach themselves to these theological interpretations. Such has happened in Latin America for instance where praxis has included certain Marxist elements. Violence is in some sense condoned as acceptable in some situations much like the Church continues to adher to the possibility of “just war.”

Cone is a well known theologian. His books can be found by a simple google of black theology and Cone.
Click to expand...
While I am not sure that Liberation Theology is declared wrong in Dogma yet, it would be misleading to say that the Church says liberation theology is a good thing or that a marxist uprising is somehow legitimized by the Just War Theory.

Our Pope has written quite a bit about the subject, and its fallacies.

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

Perhaps you should read this SpiritMeadow.
 
PoliSciProf said:
Perhaps this article from the New York Times about Black Liberation Theology (May 4, 2008) will help a bit.

nytimes.com/2008/05/04/weekinreview/04powell.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link on NYT article on Black Liberation Theology. Although most of the black preachers mentioned came from protestant denominations, it is clear to Catholics that liberation theology as a generic theology has been debunked many times by Vatican and no less than JPII. Preachings based solely on slaves being liberated Moses-vs-Pharaoh style run the risk of being myopic and contextually challenged.
From the pulpit view, there is a tendency to exploit it for personal or other motives that have nothing to do with salvation of the soul.
 
Is Black Liberation Theology as prevalent in black churches as is reported? I don’t think it can be.
 
Liberation Theology is Marxism disguised as Christianity. Black Liberation Theology adds racism to the mix.
 
MarcellusW said:
While I am not sure that Liberation Theology is declared wrong in Dogma yet, it would be misleading to say that the Church says liberation theology is a good thing or that a marxist uprising is somehow legitimized by the Just War Theory.

Our Pope has written quite a bit about the subject, and its fallacies.

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

Perhaps you should read this SpiritMeadow.
Click to expand...
I think you have misunderstood what I meant. I think i wrote it poorly. What i was alluding to is that some who are in favor or condone violence as a necessary evil to be used in liberating people from dictatorship using the LT model, see it as similar to the Church’s claim that there can be a just war. I do not legitimize LT used in this manner. I’m not sure I buy Just war either, except as a purely defensive measure.

The church does not condemn it, nor has it condemned those who espouse it. It has questioned and limited Sobrino I believe and Boff and prohibited them from writing further. But it is still be taught most everywhere in theology.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Liberation Theology is Marxism disguised as Christianity. Black Liberation Theology adds racism to the mix.
Click to expand...
That is simply inaccurate. It remains what it is, valid theology. That fact that some misuse it is nothing different than the fact that some folks misuse Darwin. It doesn’t invalidate the theology at all. Just the means used to “put it forth.”
 
SpiritMeadow said:
That is simply inaccurate. It remains what it is, valid theology. That fact that some misuse it is nothing different than the fact that some folks misuse Darwin. It doesn’t invalidate the theology at all. Just the means used to “put it forth.”
Click to expand...
That’s akin to the claim that what happened in the Soviet Union, East Germany, Red China, and all other communist nations “isn’t real communism.” In fact, communism is what it is – a system for creating bloody, brutal dictatorships.

And that’s what “Liberation Theorlgy” is – communism hiding behind a verneer of Christianity.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
That is simply inaccurate. It remains what it is, valid theology. That fact that some misuse it is nothing different than the fact that some folks misuse Darwin. It doesn’t invalidate the theology at all. Just the means used to “put it forth.”
Click to expand...
By valid do you mean it is the Truth? I take it you did not read the link I provided? If you did you would understand that these people are not abusing the theology but are practicing it. It is the heart of the theology that is wrong. It re interprets scripture according to hermenuetics (re: Marxism) and not according to the Tradition layed out by the Catholic Church.

It denies that history is over after Jesus Christ which is a contradiction of Catholic Tradition. Like I said, it is not ‘officially’ a heresy yet, but why defend a theology that the Pope has expressed as being a problem within the Church?
 
MarcellusW said:
By valid do you mean it is the Truth? I take it you did not read the link I provided? If you did you would understand that these people are not abusing the theology but are practicing it. It is the heart of the theology that is wrong. It re interprets scripture according to hermenuetics (re: Marxism) and not according to the Tradition layed out by the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Catholic theologians have used all sorts of sources throughout the centuries. Condemning LTs because they draw on certain aspects of Marxist critique is a fallacy. You have to be able to show that their *results *are heretical. And it seems that sometimes they are and sometimes they aren’t. The extent to which LTs draw on Marxism also varies.
It denies that history is over after Jesus Christ which is a contradiction of Catholic Tradition.
Click to expand...
Huh? What do you mean by “history,” in what sense is it “over,” and in what sense do LTs deny this?
Like I said, it is not ‘officially’ a heresy yet, but why defend a theology that the Pope has expressed as being a problem within the Church?
Click to expand...
Because that’s how theology develops. Lots of fruitful directions in theology have developed from ideas that were in part condemned. That’s how Catholic theology works. For instance, a number of theological ideas influenced by Aristotle (including ideas of Thomas Aquinas) were condemned by the Bishop of Paris in 1277. On the one hand, this condemnation prompted theologians like Duns Scotus to go in new directions (emphasizing God’s omnipotence and the primacy of love over knowledge). But at the same time, this condemnation didn’t spell the end of Thomism. Aquinas was canonized a few decades later and it was made clear that the condemnations were lifted insofar as they applied to him. Thomism is the single most important theological tradition within Western Catholicism, and yet in 1277 it looked decidedly iffy.

Edwin
 
vern_humphrey said:
That’s akin to the claim that what happened in the Soviet Union, East Germany, Red China, and all other communist nations “isn’t real communism.” In fact, communism is what it is – a system for creating bloody, brutal dictatorships.

And that’s what “Liberation Theorlgy” is – communism hiding behind a verneer of Christianity.
Click to expand...
Again, simply not true. women’s liberation theology nowhere advocates violence as a means to achieve it’s ends. You are referring to a particular methodology adopted in some latin american countries to fight against dictatorships. Not all liberation theology is directed against political institutions at all. Some are directed toward church power and authority and teaching. Nowhere is there evidence that marxist methods are favored or used.
 
MarcellusW said:
By valid do you mean it is the Truth? I take it you did not read the link I provided? If you did you would understand that these people are not abusing the theology but are practicing it. It is the heart of the theology that is wrong. It re interprets scripture according to hermenuetics (re: Marxism) and not according to the Tradition layed out by the Catholic Church.

It denies that history is over after Jesus Christ which is a contradiction of Catholic Tradition. Like I said, it is not ‘officially’ a heresy yet, but why defend a theology that the Pope has expressed as being a problem within the Church?
Click to expand...
I have read a ton of liberation theology, black, latin and feminist. They rely on Jesus’s teaching, particularly his teachings from Luke. I have studied this under theologians at the graduate level. I agree that a type of liberation theology used in some latin american countries has become infused with Marxist doctrine. I do not adopt nor agree with it. However, that does not take from the valid theology itself. Only the marriage to another doctrine is inappropriate.

You should understand what the pope has warned about. It is the marxist element that is warned of, not the theology itself. JPII did in fact adopt some elements of it himself, especially the preferential option for the poor.

I have read Ratzinger’s report, as well as his other references to liberation theology in his works regarding biblical studies. I am quite aware of the nature of his objections to elements of the theology. As you must realize, the fact that it is not considered a marxist ideology is obvious. If it were, it would most assuredly be banned. If you will reread the opening paragraph you will see quite clearly that he considers the theology consists of many layers, only some of which are considered inappropriate.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Again, simply not true. women’s liberation theology nowhere advocates violence as a means to achieve it’s ends. You are referring to a particular methodology adopted in some latin american countries to fight against dictatorships. Not all liberation theology is directed against political institutions at all. Some are directed toward church power and authority and teaching. Nowhere is there evidence that marxist methods are favored or used.
Click to expand...
Really?

Liberation theology seeks to use the power of the state to force change in property and other relationships. It is simply old Marxism in new skins.

This is what then-Cardinal Ratzinger said about it:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Contarini said:
Catholic theologians have used all sorts of sources throughout the centuries. Condemning LTs because they draw on certain aspects of Marxist critique is a fallacy. You have to be able to show that their *results *are heretical. And it seems that sometimes they are and sometimes they aren’t. The extent to which LTs draw on Marxism also varies.

Huh? What do you mean by “history,” in what sense is it “over,” and in what sense do LTs deny this?

Because that’s how theology develops. Lots of fruitful directions in theology have developed from ideas that were in part condemned. That’s how Catholic theology works. For instance, a number of theological ideas influenced by Aristotle (including ideas of Thomas Aquinas) were condemned by the Bishop of Paris in 1277. On the one hand, this condemnation prompted theologians like Duns Scotus to go in new directions (emphasizing God’s omnipotence and the primacy of love over knowledge). But at the same time, this condemnation didn’t spell the end of Thomism. Aquinas was canonized a few decades later and it was made clear that the condemnations were lifted insofar as they applied to him. Thomism is the single most important theological tradition within Western Catholicism, and yet in 1277 it looked decidedly iffy.

Edwin
Click to expand...
I agree with your remarks. I’ve read perhaps 6 or 7 liberation theology proponents, and I have yet to read of this claim that they deny some end of history as it were. I’ve never heard of such a thing.

The wonder of theology is that it is ongoing, giving us all an opportunity to continue to grow in our understanding of God and how he would have us live and behave. Each new way of seeing enables us to open ourselves more completely to the Word and see the increasing breadth of the statements made by Jesus. This is to be expected of course, since he was no mortal human being. His words continue to open new vistas for us to explore to see the fullness of God. Theology ever growing and changing helps us to do that.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
I agree with your remarks. I’ve read perhaps 6 or 7 liberation theology proponents, and I have yet to read of this claim that they deny some end of history as it were. I’ve never heard of such a thing.

The wonder of theology is that it is ongoing, giving us all an opportunity to continue to grow in our understanding of God and how he would have us live and behave. Each new way of seeing enables us to open ourselves more completely to the Word and see the increasing breadth of the statements made by Jesus. This is to be expected of course, since he was no mortal human being. His words continue to open new vistas for us to explore to see the fullness of God. Theology ever growing and changing helps us to do that.
Click to expand...
Do you claim that General Revelation continues?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top