Liberation Theology is in - should Yi be concerned?

[Admiral Yi]

The Wikipedia entry on Gutierrez is a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavo_Gutiérrez

Liberation theology originally developed as a Christian response to the conditions in which a great part of the Latin American population live. For Gutiérrez, the centre of the problem in Latin America is sin manifested in an unjust social structure. The theologian puts emphasis on the dignity of the poor.

It's a good start but it doesn't narrow down my confusion.  A person can, and people have, addressed themselves to the issue of "structural injustice of poverty" in a variety of ways, including political violence, all the while proclaiming adherence to liberation theology.

So my question to you remains unanswered: when you express support for liberation theology, is it just the general sentiment of caring for the poor and wishing poverty were eliminated you support, or does it extend to action?  If so, what actions?

[Viking]

The Wikipedia entry on Gutierrez is a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavo_Gutiérrez

Liberation theology originally developed as a Christian response to the conditions in which a great part of the Latin American population live. For Gutiérrez, the centre of the problem in Latin America is sin manifested in an unjust social structure. The theologian puts emphasis on the dignity of the poor.

It's a good start but it doesn't narrow down my confusion.  A person can, and people have, addressed themselves to the issue of "structural injustice of poverty" in a variety of ways, including political violence, all the while proclaiming adherence to liberation theology.

So my question to you remains unanswered: when you express support for liberation theology, is it just the general sentiment of caring for the poor and wishing poverty were eliminated you support, or does it extend to action?  If so, what actions?

That's not necessarily a reasonable request Yi. The Nazis never openly called for the murder of Jews. Providing intellectual and theological ammunition for killers is not peaceful. Identifying a problem is, at least in utopian or idealistic ways of thinking, a call to arms in and of itself.

As for Liberation Theology, my main issue with it is that it is Theology.

[Tamas]

Venezuela has been addressing the injustices of the economical system for more than a decade now without religious overtures. I think the Pope just wants to jump in on that success story and steal some of the fame for himself!

[Razgovory]

That's not necessarily a reasonable request Yi. The Nazis never openly called for the murder of Jews. Providing intellectual and theological ammunition for killers is not peaceful. Identifying a problem is, at least in utopian or idealistic ways of thinking, a call to arms in and of itself.

As for Liberation Theology, my main issue with it is that it is Theology.

I am shocked, shocked to read that.

[derspiess]

I'm concerned about religious organizations acting in overtly political fashions as I've concerns about their pernicious effects.

Lolz, like helping teh poors.

Seedy's peeps:

[Sheilbh]

Another benefit of Ratzinger's time: making liberation theology orthodox. More later.

[crazy canuck]

Another benefit of Ratzinger's time: making liberation theology orthodox. More later.

I would be interested to read your view

[The Brain]

The present pope is scum.

[grumbler]

I can't imagine why liberation theology, per se, would be controversial in the Catholic Church or anywhere else.  There would be few people, indeed, that would openly argue that the poor, and the rest of society, would not be better off if one could wave a magic wand and eliminate poverty.  Absent that, few would openly argue that the poor don't deserve respect.  In that sense, Liberation Theology is merely a series of tautologies, with the added proviso that God thinks that way, too.

As Yi notes, the public controversy comes not from Liberation Theology, but from some of the concrete plans and actions that are justified in the name of liberation theology.  I don't see anything by Gutierrez engaging in any really controversial proposals along those lines.

Now, clearly, LT is controversial in the Catholic Church, but that seems to be for reasons that only catholic theologians are in a position to understand.  What little I have read on the theological debate about the validity of LT itself seems to me to be two sides talking past each other.

[Tamas]

So if I get this right, this movement was born during the spread of communism in Latin America.
A movement uniting the two prevailing beliefs there, namely:
-Catholicism
-solving economic problems by robbing non-poors at gunpoint

And an Argentinian Pope is making this sorta' mainstream in the Vatican.

This thread is full of shocking news. 

[Jacob]

So if I get this right...

Seems unlikely.

[Tamas]

So if I get this right...

Seems unlikely.

I just don't get what is the big deal here, like grumbler.

[Jacob]

I just don't get what is the big deal here, like grumbler.

Some people feel that government policy should be focused on alleviating poverty. Other people feel that government policy should not, perhaps because they feel it is inconvenient, because they prefer the money being spent on something that benefits them more directly, or because they feel it is somehow immoral to help the poor

Liberation theology - as I understand it - states that helping the poor is moral for Catholics, and goes further by saying that not doing so is a sin.

Given that plenty of people - some of them Christians, some of them on this very board - feel that leaving poverty as it is is perfectly acceptable, putting th needs of the poor back into focus is significant.

[Sheilbh]

This appears to be a big shift in the Vatican.  Although Liberation Theology has been around, particularly in the Americas, for some time Rome has given it a cold shoulder.  Up until now.

I don't think there's really a massive shift here.

I think there's two strands of liberation theology. One is perhaps best represented by Leonardo Boff (in whom Francis is interested and has asked for his thoughts on theology of the environment) which was and is incompatible with Catholic teaching and chose not to be corrected by Ratzinger. The other was less problematic and was able to be easily corrected. Gutierrez, unlike Boff, remains a priest and a teacher of Catholic theology, in a Catholic university (albeit Notre Dame) and only had to amend his book, mostly in the introduction. He was never censured by the Vatican because his teaching was, broadly, orthodox.

But there's been a revival of interest in part I think because of a more assertive Latin American church that takes pride in their greatest theological innovators. Also I think removed from the heat of the 60s and 70s there has been more interest in liberation theology in Europe. Cardinal Muller who is editing the authorised single volume edition of Benedict's work and is a great friend of Benedict, and was head of the CDF in Benedict's Pontificate, is also a great friend of Gutierrez and has written two or three books with him. The two things aren't contradictions. Personally I'd be surprised if Benedict and Gutierrez haven't spoken to each other and exchanged letters, especially given that Benedict has done this extensively with Hans Kung who's far more heterodox (and a far lesser theologian).

However I think there are two important ways in which Francis is 'changing the Church'. The first is that he's the first post-Conciliar Pope. Every Pontificate since John XXIII has ultimately been about how to interpret Vatican II. The Popes were either major protagonists in the Council - Paul VI - or defined then and since by correct understanding of it - Benedict XVI. Francis is the first Pope who had nothing to do with the Council and was ordained after the Council. It's settled for him. So I think for him and his successors there's going to be a lot less arguing over hermeneutics and lacunae of the Council.

Secondly he is probably the most famous and prominent voice of the developing world in the world right now. I think it's unlikely that we'll have a European Pope for a while so the Church's focus is going to move inevitably from issues quite high up Maslow's pyramid, to ones lower down. The best comparison I can think of is John Paul II. Everyone knew the Church's view on Communism but JPII was able to embody that and make it far more of a priority and far more real. I think Francis (and likely his successors) will do the same with the Church's social teaching, because they are the biggest global voice from the 'global south'.

Everyone knows Benedict said things like this 'it is necessary not only to relieve the gravest needs but to go to their roots, proposing measures that will give social, political and economic structures a more equitable and solidaristic configuration.' But it's rather more urgent from a South American Pope.

Wouldn't be the first time. Leon XIII practically retracted everything his predecessor Pius IX had declared forbidden in the Syllabus of Errors.

This is a great comparison. Leo XIII didn't retract that at all and was just as intransigent, if more successful. But his style was totally different. Pius IX was all populism and the common touch while Leo XIII was intellectual and withdrawn.

A lot of this talk about Francis isn't because he's saying anything different, but because he's a charming, gregarious guy with a great turn of phrase while Benedict's a shy, awkward, German theology professor.

[CountDeMoney]

So if I get this right, this movement was born during the spread of communism U.S.-funded rise in right-wing government human rights abuses in Latin America.

A movement uniting the two prevailing beliefs there, namely:
-Catholicism
-solving economic problems by robbing non-poors at gunpoint

Lulz, no, doesn't look like you got it right at all.