Everything You Never Wanted to Know about Liberation Theology

[cleanhippie]

If you’ve never heard of Liberation Theology: DON’T PANIC. There are worse things about which to be ignorant… for instance, the number of feet between the pitcher’s mound and home plate. Answer: 60’6” from the rubber to the back of the plate. You see? How did you get along all this time without knowing that?

But seriously, liberation theology is one of those things that some people think is the greatest thing since sliced bread but about which most have no idea. In my line of work, of course, it is very important that we know what it is, and even more important to know what it is not. By which I mean, that it is important to know that liberation theology is not the end-all-be-all of social doctrine. Some time ago I had a young man tell me that Dorothy Day foresaw liberation theology when she worked for the poor. Nonsense. Liberation theology is not synonymous with Christian charity. It is not the totality of social teaching. So what is it?

Well, for one thing it is the default position on social justice at nearly every major Catholic university in the country. It, and even the censured theologians who still advocate for it, are everywhere, so if you haven’t heard of it, there is a strong chance that your college student has.

Apart from this what is it? That depends on who you talk to, but I like to approach it from its roots. It arose out of Latin America during the 70’s and 80’s. The “grandfather” of the theology is the Peruvian, Dominican priest, Gustavo Gutiérrez (no relation). His 1971 book, Teología de la Liberación or A Theology of Liberation, was the watershed volume. His articulation was the intellectual thesis for which everyone was looking, everyone who had been toying with similar ideas for some time. What ideas were those? Well, Marxist ones.

Now, let me explain this point because no doubt some fan of liberation theology somewhere is groaning and rolling their eyes. Perhaps, they’ve let loose a choice word or two. Many contemporary defenders of liberation theology claim that Marxism has nothing to do with it. Marxism was a means of articulation, that’s all, mere dressing to deliver the meat of the theology which is essentially the Gospel in contemporary terms. Of course the problem with this position is that it is totally detached from reality, kind of like the way Cubs fans still believe they can win the Series some day.

--snip--

Liberation theology is, to my mind, the manifestation of that temptation of the Devil to our Lord in the desert. Liberation theology offers us a vision where the Church presides over an entire world where all have enough to eat, indeed over the perfect kingdom. All we need do is bow to the liar, accept his bargain, adopt his view of reality, and we can bring about a new heaven and a new earth ourselves. It is all politics. It is all about overturning the status quo. It is all about revolution.

It is little wonder, then, that the advocates of liberation theology, I’m thinking of Jon Sobrino, S.J. for instance, have characterized Christ’s divinity as “normative” but ultimately not “useful” to the liberation of the Latin American people.

To this, all I can say is – in the words of Blessed Miguel Agustín Pro – Viva Cristo Rey.

http://www.regnumnovum.com/2011/03/24/everything-you-never-wanted-to-know-about-liberation-theology/

Another poster seems to want to open a dialogue on this "liberation theology" topic, so here is a start. Since that poster is taking on the apologetic role and seems reluctant to answer directly the obvious questions that arise from those posts (and has several of us on ignore so a conversation is impossible), this is my attempt to understand where that poster is coming from and whether those ideas deserve any merit, or should it be tossed into the trash can with the rest of the rubbish that is theology (my opinion, of course).

Enjoy.

Now, to be fair, there is a lot of information and background where the --snip-- is. I do not intend to misrepresent what the author is trying to say, so I urge you to read the article at the link.

[msongs]

1. it is extorting the poor to give $$ to the church or the poor will go to hell when they die nt

[cleanhippie]

3. Without agreeing or disagreeing, that seems to be a simplistic interpretaion.

And while I am not defending this theology, it appears to overlook many of the key points.

[cbayer]

2. Omar F. A. Gutierrez lives in Omaha, NE and works for the Archdiocese of Omaha.

He has been published in the National Catholic Register, The Wanderer, and his blog is regularly picked up by trusted Catholic portals.

His latest project is called: The New Evangelization through Social Doctrine

[cleanhippie]

5. Would you say that this article is representative of liberation theology?

From my reading, it would seem that the catholic church, as an organization, is reluctant to accept this view. I am genuinely confused about who thinks what about this and whether the religious organizations feel it is "good or bad." Can you shed some light?

[dmallind]

4. Wouldn't quite agree

There are ceertainly problems both on the logical front (the idea that poverty et al are because of "sin&quot and the theological front (the equation of a correct faith with a correct action as a tautology). I'm not sure I buy the Marxist prerequisite. Some analogies sure, but Liberation Theology bases its reasoning on the Prophets and words of Jesus to explain why the poor are/should be at the front of the line.

To me the most troublesome idea is that the reversal of orthodoxy and orthopraxis is all too easy to assume. While at least for those who accept the whole idea of the doxy that should be ortho, the connection that they should then be correct in action as regards the needy is at least somewhat possible to argue, it is both illogical and in contradiction to facts that you can reverse these, which too many fans do, and pretend that to be correct in action identifies and even necessitates orthodoxy in faith.

[cleanhippie]

6. So much for the idea of opening a dialogue on what modern religion has to offer.

I guess it WAS all bullshit.

Is anyone really surprised?

[mr blur]

8. Not surprised.

I guess we just lack the Other Ways Of Knowing about this stuff.

[Igel]

7. Liberation theology is left-wing Xian Reconstructionism.

The writings of both, when not wallowing in what they hate and the people that they prefer to love (the ones that they elect), are eerily similar. (They also resemble a lot of Anglican writing between the wars. Gutierrez and Rushdoony were original only in their details, and that only if we restrict our gaze to the last century or so.)

Both want mass action to drive government practice. In the end, salvation is collective, virtue is collective, justice is less obedience to God and correction for personal sin and more about how you structure and regulate society--in other words, collective. It's too hard to have an impact working with individuals--it's best to gain the reins of power and claim to do good works by forcing others to do it. (So when you force others to obey, you can claim their virtue. How'd that work with Jesus, guys? Hmmm ... he didn't force others, and we're virtuous through his virtue. Rather the opposite, no?)

It's not about individuals. It's collective. Class. Structural. Corporate, in the systematic theological sense of the word. One finds the pack through atomization of society, so all are part of a homogeneously diverse herd; the other finds the pack through uniformity of belief.

Both assert, right up front, that Christ's kingdom is of this world. Or, rather, that they are the ones who will conquer it for their God. Both are crusaders. Both want a close alliance of church and state, mostly with the state serving the church.

At least the Reconstructionists don't see themselves in Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor the way Gutierrez certainly must: If you want followers, give them bread, spectacle, and absolution from decisions.