Liberation Theology

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

I know Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II were both opposed to liberation theology.


what exactly is wrong with it?

i understand their condemnation, if Liberation Theology teaches that Christ ONLY came to earth to liberate the poor.

But is it wrong to say that Christ did come to Liberate the poor as long as it is acknowledged that Christ came to Earth to bring salvation?

Edited May 15, 2008 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[Socrates]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='1528991' date='May 14 2008, 09:46 PM']I know Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II were both opposed to liberation theology.
what exactly is wrong with it?

i understand their condemnation, if Liberation Theology teaches that Christ ONLY came to earth to liberate the poor.

But is it wrong to say that Christ did come to Liberate the poor as long as it is acknowledged that Christ came to Earth to bring salvation?[/quote]
"Liberation Theology" is basically Marxism gussied up in "religious" language. That is why the Popes are opposed to it. (And as we know, JPII had no problem with [i]genuine[/i] justice for the poor, being active in the Polish Solidarity movement.)

"Liberation for the Poor" in Liberation Theology is usually code for Marxist revolution. Marxist socialism (Communism) is wrong and opposed to Catholic social teaching, regardless of whether you try to introduce "Jesus talk" into it.
And liberation theologians generally try to present Christ's message as primarily political and economic, rather than spiritual.
Trying to use Christ to serve earthly political ends (particularly such un-Christian ends as Marxist revolution) I would regard as blasphemy.

[Adrestia]

The book "Following Jesus" by Segundo Galilea does a pretty good job of summing up Liberation Theology. It's a very short book. If you're really interested in this area I recommend it.

IMHO, the ideas expressed in the book are useful for personal examination... horrible for organizing a society. For example, it's good for a person to be emotionally detached from worldly goods - so that person can [i]choose[/i] to live more simply and donate his goods (for which he has worked) to the needy. It's bad for a society to decide that a person should be detached from his possessions (for which he has worked).

The point that I think is missed by some proponents of Liberation Theology is that following Jesus must be a choice.

[Socrates]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1529027' date='May 14 2008, 10:15 PM']IMHO, the ideas expressed in the book are useful for personal examination... horrible for organizing a society. For example, it's good for a person to be emotionally detached from worldly goods - so that person can [i]choose[/i] to live more simply and donate his goods (for which he has worked) to the needy. It's bad for a society to decide that a person should be detached from his possessions (for which he has worked).[/quote]
The problem is, "Liberation Theologians" seek to detach people from their earthly goods at gun-point.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1529040' date='May 14 2008, 10:24 PM']The problem is, "Liberation Theologians" seek to detach people from their earthly goods at gun-point.[/quote]no, no, no... they would be [i]so pro gun control[/i]... they'd probably use batons and just beat people to death...

[CatherineM]

Liberation Theology looks really good at first, and I was a proponent of it for many years. The problem is that you often find yourself walking a very thin line. Our goal should always be to save souls, but when you are trying to liberate people from what may be actual evil, horrible situations, or even dictatorships, there comes a point where you have to choose whether to pick up the sword. We can't save souls with the sword. We might be able to save some people, or improve some lives, but at what cost? We saved Iraq from Hussein, and look at the mess it created not only in Iraq, but elsewhere too.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1529043' date='May 15 2008, 12:26 AM']no, no, no... they would be [i]so pro gun control[/i]... they'd probably use batons and just beat people to death...[/quote]
you are obviously unfamiliar with how liberation theology actually goes down in Latin America. It is literally gunpoint, liberation theologians usually double as guerrilla warriors.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1529222' date='May 15 2008, 03:33 AM']you are obviously unfamiliar with how liberation theology actually goes down in Latin America. It is literally gunpoint, liberation theologians usually double as guerrilla warriors.[/quote]

seriously. I have an interesting book on the subject that definitely illustrates this.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1529222' date='May 15 2008, 03:33 AM']you are obviously unfamiliar with how liberation theology actually goes down in Latin America. It is literally gunpoint, liberation theologians usually double as guerrilla warriors.[/quote]My comment was not meant to reflect any situation in Latin America. I was discussing the ideology behind Liberation Theology as presented in the book. I defer to your expertise on Latin America. Sorry for the confusion.

edit:
I am qualified to speak about Jamaica. Socialists destroyed the country through a propaganda campaign that had poor people believing that they were being robbed by the wealthy. The poor felt entitled. A crime wave ensued. The middle class fled.

It would appear that the propaganda of Liberation Theology has a similar effect. Is this the case or am I heading in the wrong direction?

Edited May 15, 2008 by tgoldson

[Adrestia]

another question: Would it be fair to say that the guerrilla fighters are either manipulating or misunderstanding the idea behind the concept of Liberation Theology?

[CatherineM]

My interest was also Latin America. The people there are very devout. People wanting power know this, and use the umbrella of liberation theology for their own purposes. Sometimes they use really good people, missionaries, priest, nuns, in the same way. That's how priests or bishops end up as presidents of countries. They become so caught up in the temporal woes, that they lose sight of the real goal.