What is Black Liberation Theology?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qwikness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world. Do you say different?
Jesus said His kingdom did not originate from this world. I have pointed this out already.

You refuse to discuss any of the issues I have raised. You simply assume that Jesus must have meant what post-Reformation Western Christianity decided He meant (in order to accommodate the secular rulers in the desperate gamble for government support engaged in by the various Christian confessions of the early modern period). Well, I am not going to let you off the hook. You have revealed the bankruptcy of your position by your refusal to discuss the definition of the terms you are using, and your refusal to answer any of the substantive questions I’ve asked you.

In Christ,

Edwin
 
Liberation theology supported Frelimo. And Frelimo wiped out the Catholic population of Mozambique. I have no idea of remaining numbers.

Protestant evangelicals and young American Mormons have replaced the Catholic presence there.
 
Liberation theology supported Frelimo.
Theologies don’t support political parties–or take any other concrete action. One could paraphrase the familiar slogan: theologies don’t kill people, people kill people. But of course theologies, like guns, can be used to do very bad things.

Still, to be accurate you would have to say that adherents of liberation theology supported Frelimo. That is certainly an excellent example of the reasons why the Vatican issued the stern warning it did against “certain forms” or “certain aspects” of liberation theology.

Edwin
 
All I can say again and again is that the Vatican and the magisterium do not ban LT, and Ratzinger has made it quite clear that only some forms of it are questionable in his opinion. So it’s perfectly fine for anyone to read it if they wish to. If you find it dangerous to your view of faith than by all means don’t read it.
It isn’t dangerous to my view of the faith,it’s dangerous to other people’s view of the faith,because people are falling for it.
The magisterium hasn’t condemned liberation theology because liberation theology goes under the cloak of Catholic social doctrine and the sacraments. Even where liberation theology is not obviously marxist,it is a tendency toward marxist thinking. It is a world-view where the belief in social progress,in movements,in history,takes the place of traditional faith in God. The will of the masses gets conflated with the will of God.

christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/liberationtheol.htm
Cardinal Ratzinger:
< “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.” >
 
Theologies don’t support political parties–or take any other concrete action.
christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/liberationtheol.htm
Cardinal Ratzinger:
< 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 be 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. >
 
Jesus said His kingdom did not originate from this world. I have pointed this out already.

You refuse to discuss any of the issues I have raised. You simply assume that Jesus must have meant what post-Reformation Western Christianity decided He meant (in order to accommodate the secular rulers in the desperate gamble for government support engaged in by the various Christian confessions of the early modern period). Well, I am not going to let you off the hook. You have revealed the bankruptcy of your position by your refusal to discuss the definition of the terms you are using, and your refusal to answer any of the substantive questions I’ve asked you.

In Christ,

Edwin
You haven’t raised any issues – all this discussion has been a smokescreen about the meaning of “politics” and similar sophistry.

On the other hand, I have posted quotes from proponents of Black Liberation Theology. Others have posted the evils they saw first hand.

Liberation Theology is Marxism with a veneer of Christianity. Black Liberation Theology adds racism.

By its fruits, you will know it.
 
christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/liberationtheol.htm
Cardinal Ratzinger:
< 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 be 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. >
All sophistry aside, here is a quote from the founder of Black Liberation Theology:
“If God is not for us and against white people,” writes Cone, “then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community.”
Do you agree with that or not?
 
christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/liberationtheol.htm
Cardinal Ratzinger:
< 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 be 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. >
You misunderstood. My point is that adherents of a theology do things. So a statement like “liberation theology supported” should be rephrased as “adherents of liberation theology supported.” A theology is simply a body of ideas shared by a group of people.

Edwin
 
You haven’t raised any issues – all this discussion has been a smokescreen about the meaning of “politics” and similar sophistry.
If the nature of politics isn’t an issue (when discussing the relationship between theology and politics), then what is? What is the point of discussing something without clarifying what we mean by the words we are using?

You still haven’t answered the point about abortion: how can you say that it isn’t a partisan political issue? What does it mean for something to be a political issue, if abortion isn’t one? Isn’t this an obvious proof that a moral issue and a political issue can be the same thing? And if the Church can speak on moral issues, obviously it can speak on some political issues. And if it can speak on a political issue on which one party clearly stands on one side and the other on the other, then it can obviously take a partisan political position.

How is what I am saying sophistry? It’s just logic. You want to shut off any possibility that aspects of the liberation theologians’ political critique might be true, but you don’t want to muzzle the Catholic Church on issues where it supports your conservative politics. Now *that *is sophistry.

Edwin
 
You misunderstood. My point is that adherents of a theology do things. So a statement like “liberation theology supported” should be rephrased as “adherents of liberation theology supported.” A theology is simply a body of ideas shared by a group of people.

Edwin
My point is that liberation theology itself encourages political action. It has a social and political praxis. Otherwise,it would just concentrate on liberation from sin and preaching and doing the the gospel as the Church has traditionally done.

newadvent.org/library/docs_df84lt.htm
Instruction on Certain Aspects of “Theology of Liberation”

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
August 6, 1984

< 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. >
 
What gives liberation theology its power is chronic, enduring, inhumane, and marginalizing treatment of classes or races of human beings that has lasted for generations.

It was a crime to teach the Africans how to read and write. One day I drew a map of Europe, Africa and USA. First, they were surprised to hear I was not a European, even though I told them I was American.

(In my ministery to women and children in the barrios, the older women did remembered John F Kennedy very well, and knew our country sent a man to the moon.)

The people were being taught they were Portuguese. When I showed them Portugal and then Mozambique, they were shocked to find out their country was so much larger.

The SE Asians treated the Africans the worst. I remember this general store owner who sat in the middle of the room with a small table and glass of lemonade next to him. He had a long stick and told the African men to get this and get that. One carried a small package with me to the car I wanted to do myself. This man looked to me with such humiliation, sweating running up and down the ladder…The Catholic Portuguese beat their servants. And I went to a dinner party with our teachers and heard the 19 year old Portuguese teacher slapping her servant in the kitchen, he coming out trembling and sweating.

About the heat, the nursing mothers with the new government were now told they were to till the fields with picks and the men were to work in town. They said they could do so little, they were so hot and tired.

The British treated the natives fairly well but considered them the cast offs of the slave trade, inferior people, unable to learn. I was invited to an English party to meet the head of Sena Sugar from England and told him it was a matter of finding the right key to help open their minds and he left the room…It was the British colonialists in town who spread nasty rumors about us and pastor told me never to be in contact with them again. A blood bath is soon happening in Zimbabwe.

I heard a hauntingly beautiful song sung by the Africans at Mass and around the mission and asked Fr Francisco what were they saying…He said they were asking ‘Why do you persecute me?’
It made me cry.

And it started bothering me when I would see religious people as well look at them as inferiors and just want to pray for them. Later the Africans told me they considered those Catholics racist. They could tell.

So I came home fractured. To women’s ordination, a church turned in on itself, soft, effeminate. My faith was damaged. It was the rosary who healed my soul. In the late 1980’s I had this dream about my pastor working along the borders, helping people escape the military. I shared it with my friend. We prayed a 54 Day Novena for the Mozambicans because the Marxist government would not allow humanitarian aid. At the very last day of our novena, the doors were opened. Fr Francisco wrote back saying so much aid was finally coming in.

You can play on words just so much. What we have is the Word Made Flesh, the flesh derived of our Mother, Mary. The rosary is most powerful against heresies. I thought it was an old lady’s prayer. When the women missionaries prayed the rosary, I would not go in but would have nothing to do. Finally joined them. But I must say, I did not ever see the priests promoting ‘The Luta’ pray the rosary!

What is bothering me now is how many Catholics are left in Zambezia and who is in charge of St. Francis Church.
 
Obviously you’ve thoroughly confused yourself, then.😛
In your vocabulary clear thinking apparently equals confusion.

Slapping labels on things and then refusing to think about the labels is not a way to avoid confusion. It’s a way to create confusion.

You refuse to distinguish between different kinds and aspects of liberation theology, even though the Vatican document you cite does so.

You refuse to discuss the meaning of the word “political”
You refuse to discuss what Jesus meant by saying His kingdom was not of this world
You refuse to discuss what Jesus meant when He said to give Caesar what is Caesar’s and God what is God’s

You refuse any attempt at distinction or definition, and then you accuse others of being confused?:confused::D:mad::rolleyes:

Edwin
 
My point is that liberation theology itself encourages political action.
Fine, but my point was that there wasn’t being called “Liberation Theology” approving of Communist thugs in Mozambique. It was specific adherents of liberation theology who did that.

And that, again, is why the Vatican document explicitly focuses on “certain aspects” of liberation theology. They know that “theologies” are amorphous and flexible and can be reformed and reformulated. So they are pushing on certain areas where much liberation theology is deeply flawed. I have no problem with that–I am not interested in defending liberation theology as a whole. I just want Christians to take seriously the questions raised by liberation theology.
It has a social and political praxis. Otherwise,it would just concentrate on liberation from sin and preaching and doing the the gospel as the Church has traditionally done.
newadvent.org/library/docs_df84lt.htm
Instruction on Certain Aspects of “Theology of Liberation”
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
August 6, 1984
< 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 Vatican statement you quote is quite different from your own statement. You draw a disjunction between social/political liberation and the traditional “spiritual” activities of the Church. The Vatican rightly says that the former flows from the latter. That’s a huge difference.

The idea that the Church ought to confine itself to “spiritual” activities and leave matters of money and power alone is precisely the horrid error that has led to the abuses and injustices described so movingly by katgee. And this in turn has led liberation theologians into all sorts of errors and overreactions. But what they are attacking really is a problem. The right approach is not simply to throw liberation theology out of the window but to place the issues it has raised on the table and ask how the errors condemned by the Vatican can be avoided without slipping back into the post-Reformation “ancien regime” fallacy of a Church that gives spiritual aid and support to the status quo.

I didn’t raise the abortion issue just as a debating point. I think that this is exactly where liberals go wrong. The problem is that a lot of “conservatives” do the same thing. Each group has their little set of issues on which they’ll allow religion to speak, and another set of issues that mustn’t be touched because that would be mixing religion with politics. We have seen this tactic used in this campaign in particular against idealistic and deeply Christian candidates on both sides of the political fence.

Edwin
 
Liberation theology, its term was used. And the program we implemented was Pedagogy of the Oppressed, by Paulo Freire of Brazil.

I was very careful in my leadership not to cause divisions. But the African teachers became impatient with me when I was asking what was said and what were the people saying who spoke Ch’Sena. It became a concern to me because we were meeting in open huts. Bystanders would come, beyond my control and we could not ask them to leave either.

It came out that the SE Asians were charging the poor Africans twice as much for a bar of soap than the colonialists paid. The Africans could not read and we used phonics and syllables to draw from a base word that defined a real need…such as hunger. I went to a nursing mission as I got the teachers established and they wanted to be on their own. They still reported to the African friar and pastor. A week before I came back, a riot happened, a crowd of poor Africans knocking down stands around the SE Asian shops, but again, hurting their own people.

The Gospel cries out for justice, but the power is Christ, not us, not the work of our hands. Forgiveness is the most powerful act a human being can make. I really was put off by more ‘devout’ believers who were insensitive and proud. But they had good intentions. They were very kind to me.

But once you name the oppressed and the oppressor and take action in the name of the Gospel, it is all downhill. I have come to see that it is appearances, images that is a source of idolatry. The first commandment says not to have false gods. We get greedy, we want things, we fight and kill over $3 like they do there, we lie, we steal, all for the image. Same with language. So the Gospel is not just to be spoken, you know that. It is effective when it is incarnated, the Word Made Flesh. Otherwise, we are all taking different spins on what someone says…the old group consensus thing that rules the Church instead of the Standard of Christ Himself.

You know what I mean here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top