Liberation Theology: What's Its Status?

[Gabriela]

Has it been officially condemned/blessed? Who's said what about it (and who is that person, cuz I probably won't know)? What's the prognosis for it (both in terms of an eventual blessing/condemnation and its flourishing/dying out with generational changes)?

Etc.

[PhuturePriest]

I think Liberation Theology is in a murky area right now. Certain elements of it have been condemned, but then there's also people like Blessed Oscar Romero, who was seen as being ascribed to at least elements of it.

[Amppax]

Murky is a good way to put it. Ratzinger had a little bit to say about it, as head of the CDF: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html and http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/liberationtheol.htm.  The first thing I'd say is that liberation theology is really more of a spectrum of theologies. On the more radical end, liberation theology has been heavily influenced by Marxism. However, on the less radical end of the spectrum, there can be worthwhile material in liberation theology. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

I don't know too much about liberation theology off the top of my head, but echoing what Amppax said, I think it depends on the specific writings in question. 

If one's "liberation theology" is focused on the importance of giving the poor all the civil rights they are entitled to based on the Catholic concept of the dignity of each person, then of course this can be perfectly orthodox.

But there are some strands of liberation theology that are about using Jesus as a means to an end to obtain a Marx-inspired reordering of society, which is problematic for obvious reasons. I can't recall any specific sources, but I also think some liberation theology uses imagery of Jesus jumping off the cross and identifying it as an instrument of class warfare and oppression! (Again, for obvious reasons that sort of thing isn't compatible with orthodox Catholicism!)

I think the general caution with more mainstream liberation theology is that it risks undermining the eschatological dimension of the faith. Caring for the poor is important, but ultimately Christianity is about looking forward to life with God in heaven rather than trying to make this earthly life into paradise. 

[Ark]

Under JP II it was condemned. Under Francis appears to be licit. Such are the confusing times we live in where everything is murky, nothing clear.

 

[beatitude]

To provide context for that photo, the Bolivian president Evo Morales gave Pope Francis a the hammer and sickle crucifix (a designed originally created by a Jesuit priest, Luis Espinal, who was tortured to death by Bolivian paramilitaries) as a surprise during his visit. From the article:

Quote

The modified crucifix immediately raised eyebrows, with some questioning whether Morales, whose socialist and anti-church rhetoric is well-known, was trying to score a political point with a questionable, and possibly sacrilegious, melding of faith and ideology...During a news conference en route home to Rome on Sunday, Francis said he interpreted Morales’ gift through the prism of Espinal’s Marxist bent and viewed it as protest art.

After taking into consideration the time in which he lived, Francis said: “I understand this work. For me it wasn’t an offense.”

So it was sprung on him as a complete surprise, a surprise that may have had catty or even hostile intent behind it, and he said he wasn't offended but made it very clear that he was treating it as a piece of artwork rather than a devotional object.

5 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I think the general caution with more mainstream liberation theology is that it risks undermining the eschatological dimension of the faith. Caring for the poor is important, but ultimately Christianity is about looking forward to life with God in heaven rather than trying to make this earthly life into paradise. 

Again, I think context is needed. You are an American canon lawyer who lives in safety. The architects and advocates of liberation theology, whether they were Marxists or more in Blessed Romero's line, were often living under despotic regimes, witnessing cruel injustice and grinding poverty on a daily basis, and usually at risk of their own lives. Many were killed, and I think in dying they made it plain that they did look forward to life with God in heaven - if they hadn't had that faith, they would have kept quiet and done what they could to stay alive under those regimes, whether by collaborating with the authorities to secure their own comfort, emigrating, or some other way.

It's easy to say "Caring for the poor is important, but..." when we aren't one of those poor. If I were at risk of being tortured and 'disappeared', I don't think a Church whose only response was to emphasise heaven would feel like a credible witness to the Gospel for me, especially if the people saying it weren't at the point of martyrdom too. Before the ascension there was the incarnation, and by being born in a stable without the dignity of a bed, Jesus did place himself in company with the poor. I think it's natural for people who are suffering from extreme violence to be drawn to this, and to look for political liberation through spiritual means.

I agree with Amppax that liberation theology is a spectrum. It would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of liberation theologies - Bl. Oscar Romero, asked if he agreed with it, said, "Yes, of course. However, there are two theologies of liberation..." and clarified where he stood. I think it's also important to look at where the critics stand. Criticism of liberation theology as a whole mostly comes from people who never lived under a junta in El Salvador, and more often than not from people who live in countries that were sympathetic to the Salvadorean regime and other bloody regimes like it. The US, for example, gave military aid to the government of El Salvador during the civil war, largely motivated by its financial interests and hostility to anything that appeared even remotely communist, on the basis that people being kidnapped, tortured, and butchered on an industrial scale was a lesser evil than a loss of profit and a Marxist government. I think a lot of present-day critics are driven by a similar aversion to anything that looks left-wing. It's not a surprise that Catholics from Latin America who experienced what it was like or who at least live with their parents' memories of mass violence may take a different view.

[Sponsa-Christi]

23 minutes ago, beatitude said:

It's easy to say "Caring for the poor is important, but..." when we aren't one of those poor. If I were at risk of being tortured and 'disappeared', I don't think a Church whose only response was to emphasise heaven would feel like a credible witness to the Gospel for me, especially if the people saying it weren't at the point of martyrdom too.

This is a very good point, but liberation theology as a theology (i.e., a systematic way for considering the faith on an intellectual level) is very different from something like a liberation-inspired pastoral response. The Church can show her love for and solidarity with the poor without undermining the eschatological dimension of her teachings in any way. Mistaken theological arguments become problematic for the Church because theological ideas tend to transcend time and place. A "faulty" theology which had some good elements that helped people living under despotic regimes might be exported to other, safer cultural circumstances, where the logical consequences of the mistaken theological propositions can become much more severe and spiritually dangerous.

I think in general an undermining of eschatology tends to happen when Jesus is proclaimed as primarily an earthly savior. This is a problem, because it was the same mistake many of the Jews (including some of the Apostles) of Jesus' time made about the nature of the Messiah's mission. Christ was not sent to liberate God's people from the Roman occupation, as many assumed, but rather to liberate people from the bonds of sin and death. Jesus Himself speaks many times of how His kingdom is not of this world.

(Of course, this doesn't mean that the Church doesn't speak out against true injustices, since condemning the actions of murderous dictators is entirely consistent with standard Catholic moral teaching.)

39 minutes ago, beatitude said:

I think it's natural for people who are suffering from extreme violence to be drawn to this, and to look for political liberation through spiritual means.

Again, I think the main potential problem with liberation theology is that there is a tendency to present Christ as a means to an end, and it's against the first Commandment to "use" God or the faith in any way.

If anything, a just society is a means of honoring God and coming to know Him better---not the other way around.

[beatitude]

I do not view theology as purely an intellectual system but also as something that can and must be lived, and this is why phrasing like "the Church can show her love for and solidarity with the poor" doesn't sound quite right to me. It makes it sound as though "the poor" and "the Church" are completely separate things, with "us" helping "them" without them truly being a part of us. One of liberation theology's greatest achievements has been to point again and again to the poor Christ who identified himself so profoundly with the sick, the naked, and the prisoners, and the idea still provokes as much shock and scandal and derision as it did when he first made that identification.

Jesus did not overthrow Roman rule, but he also taught us to pray "thy will be done, thy kingdom come, on earth as in heaven." And as Bl. Oscar Romero put it, "Many would like the poor to keep on saying that it is God's will for them to live that way. But it is not God's will for some to have everything and others to have nothing. That cannot be of God." I do not think there is a place on earth where such a reminder ceases to be relevant. And again, I don't think liberation theologians who willingly faced martyrdom for what they were saying and doing could be accused of ignoring the eschatological dimension of their faith: the imminent risk they faced must have been a powerful reminder of Christ's victory over death and sin. Looking at the writings of people like Camera and Romero, I don't see this dichotomy between eschatological spirituality and spirituality oriented towards justice. I know it exists in certain liberation theologies, but by no means in what you term its 'mainstream' version. And for what it's worth, that dichotomy is also present in some criticisms of liberation theology - focusing on heaven can be a way for those of us who are comfortably off to avoid confrontation with painful questions that have the power to shake up our own lives. (Thinking about it, this is the same materialism Romero saw and warned against in certain strands of liberation theology - eagerness to preserve comfort down here masked by a focus on the world to come.) Heaven can seem conveniently far away, far enough not to pose any trouble; the poor are much too close. They are a reminder that Christ is close, troublesomely so.

Bl. Romero was murdered as he lifted the chalice and consecrated the Precious Blood. I think his manner of dying best sums up authentically Catholic liberation theology, and shows how it weaves together concern for justice with eschatology: in the broken bread of the Eucharist we have both a foretaste of heaven and a reminder of Christ's broken appearance "in the distressing disguise of the poorest of the poor" (Mother Teresa's wording, taken from a prayer she recited before Communion). There need not be any contradiction.

[Benedictus]

Liberation theology covers a broad movement of contexts and approaches [people, countries, struggles, ideas etc]. It's more of a tradition that has grown up out of suffering and struggle. There is diversity and variance of intensity in the movement between different countries and times, even between countries in Latin America. 

Check out Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez O.P who is said to be one of the key figures in the movement. He has some recent books and he also gives lectures, some of the them have probably been uploaded online.  He has clarified his views and understanding over the years, so it may not work to read him in chronological order. I'd read backwards  He has been a guest of both Pope Benedict and Pope Francis. The latter, more than his predecessor, knows the lived issues and context of Liberation theology first hand.

It's normal for big strands of thought to emerge out of real human experiences and for elements of it to attract apathy, acclaim or criticism. The Vatican issued guidance, and some criticism, of certain ideas expressed within the movement in the 1980's.  Some of the criticism was justified. However, there is a context to the Vatican response at that time in terms of JPll's experience in Poland, the Cold War and western intervention etc. It's nonsense though for anyone to suggest this meant the Vatican banned, discouraged or halted the movement; they didn't.

Liberation theology, sometimes as part of social teaching, is often studied as part of theological studies at many seminaries in one form or another. It has also had a major impact on various religious institutes and Bishops conferences, especially those in developing countries, poverty stricken areas or with those making sense of ongoing systemic injustices etc. 

It has been said JPll regretted how he treated Oscar Romero, but I'm not so sure how reliable that is.  Romero died for speaking up for the poor and not tolerating the torture and murder of people, including priests. This being all conducted by groups that often had US backing. They were bringing more freedom to foreign investors after all

 

Edited May 8, 2016 by Benedictus

[CatherineM]

I've seen it done the right way. Fr. Stanley Rother ran our mission in Guatemala. He lived with the poor and supported them. He thought he was safe because he said nothing about the government. He was wrong and was martyred in his rectory. 

[Era Might]

6 hours ago, CatherineM said:

I've seen it done the right way. Fr. Stanley Rother ran our mission in Guatemala. He lived with the poor and supported them. He thought he was safe because he said nothing about the government. He was wrong and was martyred in his rectory. 

Good point. To identify with, and join, the poor and outcast is itself a judgment that something is not right with the Official society. Because if the Official society was the answer, why wouldn't you rather stand with it? I think that's what angered and blinded the Pharisees the most...they were professionally devoted to the coming of the Messiah, but if the Messiah actually came, then they become irrelevant, there is no longer any need for professional Messiah waiters. Christ identified with the people who actually wanted him to come...that's what the Pharisees couldn't forgive. The powerful are the same way...they wield power on behalf of everyone else, but if everyone starts wielding their own power and addressing their own problems, the powerful are out of power. 

Edited May 8, 2016 by Era Might

[Basilisa Marie]

Beatitude and Benedictus are absolutely ON POINT in this thread. 

It's hard to explain liberation theology simply, but one of the key things (that others have mentioned too) is that in a lot of ways the Church focusing on the joys of heaven as a means to give people hope in times of struggle can backfire. If that's emphasized too much, in a way that isn't supplemented or balanced by parts of Catholic social teaching, at its worst it can passively act as a support for terrible status quos.  "Life smells of elderberries now? Heaven will be amesome if you're holy!" The impression is that we shouldn't worry about opposing injustice in this life, especially broad societal injustice, because we should focus on heaven instead. But the Kingdom of Heaven DOES have implications for this world, and Christians DO have obligations to stand up for what's right. Christians don't have to be complacent under evil dictatorships. So when liberation theologians write, at least the first ones, most wrote from a context where there's already been a heavy emphasis on eschatology swimming around in the cultural consciousness. They swing far the other way (politics, this world stuff, etc) as a kind of counterweight. But those who are swinging can swing too far, and exclusively turn Jesus into a solely political messiah and become too concerned with things of this world. 

Understanding that helped me understand why liberation theology isn't all totally evil and scary and radical and just a bunch of people trying to use Jesus as an excuse to violently overthrow the government in a communist power grab.

[Sponsa-Christi]

16 minutes ago, Basilisa Marie said:

It's hard to explain liberation theology simply, but one of the key things (that others have mentioned too) is that in a lot of ways the Church focusing on the joys of heaven as a means to give people hope in times of struggle can backfire. If that's emphasized too much, in a way that isn't supplemented or balanced by parts of Catholic social teaching, at its worst it can passively act as a support for terrible status quos.  "Life smells of elderberries now? Heaven will be amesome if you're holy!" The impression is that we shouldn't worry about opposing injustice in this life, especially broad societal injustice, because we should focus on heaven instead.

I wasn't initially thinking of the ways eschatology can "backfire." Obviously it's an abuse of theology if you're using a focus on heaven to justify an indifference to the plight of the poor. My thoughts about the risk of undermining eschatology were related to a different issue, specifically that of using God, spirituality, or Catholic doctrine as a means to an earthly end.

It's completely orthodox and uncontroversial to work for social justice because doing so is in accord with God's commands---and to honestly share some of my biases, concern for the poor and respect for the human dignity of each person is such standard perennial Catholic teaching, I'm not quite sure why the universal Church would need a separate liberation theology for this. (After all, it's not like we have a special "pro-life theology" against abortion...) But again, that's just a passing personal impression off the top of my head.

But it would be problematic if this were to work other way around---i.e., if one was interested in religion primarily as a way to bring about a temporally more just society. In that later case, social justice would become a kind of god. I'm NOT saying that all liberation theologians are like this, but I think this might be a slippery slope that those interested in liberation theology would need to be careful to avoid (just like other areas of theology have their own delicate areas where extra caution is needed). 

[Sponsa-Christi]

On 5/7/2016, 5:07:33, beatitude said:

It's easy to say "Caring for the poor is important, but..." when we aren't one of those poor. If I were at risk of being tortured and 'disappeared', I don't think a Church whose only response was to emphasise heaven would feel like a credible witness to the Gospel for me, especially if the people saying it weren't at the point of martyrdom too.

I'm saying this as an observation rather than an argument about anything, but this actually sort of was the situation in the Church's first few centuries (and also to an extent during certain other periods of history, like the English Reformation).

In the Apostolic/early Patristic era, Christians were in danger of being killed and tortured, and the Church's preaching and theological reflections on their state of persecution were extremely eschatological (though at the same time, early Christian writings on the need to show mercy to the poor are also written in quite strong tones). The earliest Christians were apparently much more interested in extolling the surpassing excellence of martyrdom than they were about considering how to build a just earthly society. Again, I'm not mentioning this to try to prove to disprove anyone's point, but I think this is something to keep in mind for the sake of maintaining a sense of perspective. 

Of course, the Church's position in society is much different now than it was pre-Constantine, so it is a good thing when the Church considers the importance of working towards a just society on earth. I'm certainly not trying argue otherwise. But such questions pertaining to the Church's role vis-a-vis civil governments are actually surprisingly complicated and don't have simple black and white answers in either direction. 

[Basilisa Marie]

9 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

But it would be problematic if this were to work other way around---i.e., if one was interested in religion primarily as a way to bring about a temporally more just society. In that later case, social justice would become a kind of god. I'm NOT saying that all liberation theologians are like this, but I think this might be a slippery slope that those interested in liberation theology would need to be careful to avoid (just like other areas of theology have their own delicate areas where extra caution is needed). 

And that's exactly why some theologians have been asked to defend themselves to the Vatican, etc, because lots of work does give the impression that religion is meant for liberation in this world and that's it. Jon Sobrino was 'notified' (not censured) by the vatican because some of his work may cause harm or errors among the faithful, because many thought he put too much emphasis on the humanity of Jesus, and has a different kind of ecclesiology, among other things. Wikipedia talks about it. I've read most of his Jesus the Liberator, and it's pretty clear that unless you have a good foundation and understand where he's coming from it's definitely volatile stuff. I mean, it's fairly volatile anyway. It's things that can very, very easily slide into a "god wants me to violently overthrow the murderous and wealthy oligarchy," which misses the point (and also, obviously, the question of the morality of things like killing hitler and overthrowing the nazis is yet another murky question [hello, bonhoeffer]). 

And you're absolutely right - those interested in reading more about liberation theology NEED to have a solid foundation first, and I really think it's better to encounter it seriously when you're in a classroom setting where a knowledgeable professor can help you understand where it sits in the greater theological landscape. Definitely not something for Joe Catholic to just order off of Amazon. 

On 5/7/2016, 11:02:52, CatherineM said:

I've seen it done the right way. Fr. Stanley Rother ran our mission in Guatemala. He lived with the poor and supported them. He thought he was safe because he said nothing about the government. He was wrong and was martyred in his rectory. 

You knew Fr. Rother??? Dude. He was a Mount grad. Some friends of mine (who now run a catholic media company) did their senior project on some video lives of the saints, and included his story. Amazing stuff.