The Discomfort of Liberation

It seems to me that when the church strays too far in one direction, a new movement springs up to pull it back the other way. These forces pulling it back are often deemed radical, heretical, and in error. Yet, if there wasn’t an element of truth in them, no one would really care. This back-and-forth is one way that people, and the societal and political structures they create, naturally meander through history. It’s a sort of awkward, slow, raucous and sometimes even violent way humanity finds, shifts and focuses its communal consensus.

One of the relatively new and controversial theological movements in Catholicism, and perhaps in Christianity in general, is Liberation Theology (here's a good intro to it). It focuses on Christ as a liberator and seeks to speak of God from the perspective of the poor and oppressed of the world. It came from Latin America as theologians, priests and bishops there sought to address the condition of their people and society. They saw the poor being taken advantage of by the upper classes, and their countries at the mercy of First-World capitalist imperialism. Reading the Gospels and contemplating them from the view of the poor, they saw much of Christ’s mission in terms of liberation from poverty and oppression. The Gospel message of liberation is then seen not only in spiritual terms, but in real, materialistic, social and political terms. Jesus not only wants to liberate our spiritual side, but also our worldly side.

In Latin America this message of liberation was very dangerous for religious leaders to espouse. Dom Hélder Câmara, a Brazilian archbishop and early proponent of Liberation Theology, once said something like ‘If I give food to the poor, they call me saint. If I ask why the poor have not been eating, they call me a communist.’ As Liberation Theology led to the criticism of the social circumstances of the poor, it also led to passionate criticism of and action against the governments that were seen as oppressors of the poor. After a few years of protesting the social and political condition in El Salvador, Archbishop Oscar Romero was assassinated while saying mass. In 1980 three nuns and a laywoman were kidnapped and killed by the Salvadoran government. More recently in 1989, six Jesuits along with their housekeeper and her daughter were murdered.

Liberation Theology got into theological trouble in a couple areas. It’s frequently criticized for its affinity for Marxism. Its focus on liberation of the oppressed often leads it into a Marxist view of class struggle and historical materialism. If one’s situation is what shapes how one views the world and the options for the future, then there’s no place for the constancy of the church, salvation, Christ, and so on - that’s how the criticism seems to go. Liberation Theology is also disparaged because when it focuses so much on Christ’s liberation, it often starts to discount Christ’s redemption.

In 1984 Cardinal Ratzinger came down on Liberation Theology, calling it a fundamental threat to the faith of the church. Pope John Paul 2 also spoke against it. Though these criticisms are often mentioned, we don’t often hear their context. For example, Ratzinger narrowed the scope of his definition: ‘the concept of liberation theology will be understood in a narrower sense: it will refer only to those theologies which, in one way or another, have embraced the marxist fundamental option’. Of course, one can conveniently argue that the whole theology is wedded to Marxism. But Ratzinger also noted its value as ‘a theology which stresses the responsibility which Christians necessarily hear for the poor and oppressed’.

So anyway, with all that said, I like Liberation Theology and think it has a valuable role to play in the church. It’s not all good, certainly; but neither is it all bad. It’s like an eccentric family member who makes me feel uncomfortable because they point out how I ignore the poor and wallow in my consumerism. While I wouldn’t want to be like them and go live in an Ecclesial Base Community, their prodding does remind me of my part in the social and political environment that perpetuates poverty and oppression. It reminds me that personal holiness that doesn’t lead to justice is hollow, and faith without works is dead. While I may disdain the lack of importance Christ’s redemption plays in their life, they point to how unjust it is that I live a life built on the backs of the poor and oppressed. In the end, I think we’re both right.

So, your thoughts and comments are welcome. Please be charitable and backup your thoughts with your reasoning and feelings; approach it as an opportunity for us all to grow and learn.

Comments

[crystal]

I see a lot of value in liberation theology, because I believe in the worth of our lives here - I think Jesus felt the same way ... he came, he said, to give us a more abundant life and his ministry included healing those who were sick, advising we give money to the poor, and even raising the dead. I don't understand why there are worries that, with liberation theology, some think that redemption loses its value.

I became a catholic/christian through the teaching of the Jesuits and in General Congregation 34, the Society of Jesus writes ...

Ignatius and his followers began their preaching in poverty. They worked with the powerful and the powerless, with princes, kings, and bishops, but also with the women of the street and with the victims of the plague. They linked their ministry to the powerful to the needs of the powerless.

Today, whatever our ministry, we Jesuits enter into solidarity with the poor, the marginalized, and the voiceless, in order to enable their participation in the processes that shape the society in which we all live and work. They, in their turn ... show us the way to inculturate Gospel values in situations where God is forgotten.

Liberation theology is linked with socialism/marxism but I think that's because in Latin America, the governments that oppress the poor are usually right-wing ... in truth, I believe liberation theology desires to help those who are powerless rather than to promote any particular political view.

Sorry to be so lengthy :-)

[SpiritScout]

I like your assessment. I have learned a lot from liberation theologians. It is a shame they are so quickly discredited. I've been reading Dorothee Solle, and would recommend her for her feminine perspective on theologies of liberation.

[Jennifer]

When I first heard of Liberation Theology I was well outside the Church and I remember thinking at the time "this is what Catholicism should be like everywhere." The mere existence of Liberation Theology is one of many reasons I could never discount the Church entirely -- because it allowed room for the growth of radically Christian ideas in our very secular world. It is a shame it has become so linked with Marxism, but I agree with the previous poster that the link grew out of a reaction to the right-wing politics at work destroying most of Latin America.

[American Phoenix]

I have a very different take on Liberation Theology, having very good friends who lived through the civil war in El Salvador and who suffered through those times along with the local population. The local Jesuits there were nothing short of Marxists who really were telling people that it was okay to steal from those who were "richer". Never mind that my friend - the person whom they were stealing from - did all kinds of charitable work with the local indigenous population. Never mind that her only salary was a teacher's salary. Whatever happened to the Eighth Commandment - "Thou shalt not steal"? Did that one just go flying out the window? As you note, then Cardinal Ratzinger's 1984 Instruction on Certain Aspects of Liberation Theology is "instructive" in that it is a brand of Catholicism that has become wedded to Marxism. In that regard, it seems to me to be nothing short of heretical and unorthodox. While that may seem harsh to some, I have never found that good Christian charity or concern for the poor ever required that I be a Marxist - far from it. And neither did my friend. For a really detailed and historical look at the development of Liberation Theology and its primary proponents, I would recommend The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church by Malachi Martin. It's an excellent book. The Jesuits, at least most of them, still don't seem to get it. After the discussion that I had with the President of my Jesuit alma mater, I have concluded that I can no longer send them any donations in good conscience. I would prefer to support a truly Catholic institution.

[crystal]

To call all liberation theology Marxist is incorrect ... at its base, it is perhaps socialist and remember that the first christian community was somewhat socialist - The community of believers were of one heart and one mind. None of them ever claimed anything as his own; rather, everything was held in common. - Acts 4:32)

About Malachi Martin, Wikipedia says of him, in part ...

Martin's writings frequently present a dark, and often paranoid, view of the world, invoking at every turn, dark spirits and sodomites, demonic posession and cannabilism, lesbians and blasphemy, heresy and pedophilia, betrayal and conspiracy, satanism and human sacrifice, each being asserted as rife throughout the Catholic church, from its lowest levels to its highest .... The authenticity of Malachi Martin's writings and viewpoints was seriously called into question by the 2002 book Clerical Error by former Vatican Time Magazine correspondent Kaiser. In his autobiographical book (as above) Kaiser accuses Martin of (being) ... a liar and fantasist.

[Steve Bogner]

Crystal - No need to apologize! Thanks for your contributions here, they are sincerely appreciated.

Jennifer - I wasn't so far out of the church whe I heard about Liberation Theology, but I remember having similar thoughts. That there was room for some new thought to surface and gain traction was refreshing.

SpiritScout - Thanks for visiting & commenting! I'll admit I haven't read, or know much about the feminine aspect of theology; but I'll keep Solle in mind next time I'm searching for a new book.

A.P. - Sorry to hear you've had some bad experiences with Jesuits. I've had many, many positive ones. Jesuit preaching, my Jesuit parish, the Spiritual Exercises and Ignatian spirituality in general pulled me back into the church when I, and my family, were at an all-time low. Regardless of what the six Salvadoran Jesuits were doing, surely it didn't justify their brutal murder. Regarding Ratzinger's instruction, it looks to me like he qualified it to a certain scope of Liberation Theology, and he noted it's positive aspects too. When LT does drift into marxism, that's bad. But that seems more like a weakness of the people living it than of the theology itself. An implementation problem, I suppose.

But then, I don't know that God wants us living according to a particular theology anyway. That Christ lives in us, and we develop & nurture that relationship is the root of it all. I don't know that a person needs much theology to do that.

[Rob Marsh, SJ]

It used to amaze me that conversations about liberation theology so quickly get polarised into opposing factions. Now I tend to see it as a direct consequence of what LT is about: that our talk about God cannot help but be communal, social, and political. Or it can avoid that only by pretending that all that matters is God in Godself or God's relationship with me privately or God's opinions about my behaviour as an individual. In addition to those three aspects of theology there is all that Jesus spoke of in his ministry about the way we live together, the way we spend our time and resources, the way we allot power among us, the way we address poverty and need. You can't speak of God in these terms without getting very concrete very quickly--and when you do serious questions surface not just about what to believe but what to do. And that's threatening to us all. None of that has been cast into question by the Vatican. Indeed, Pope Benedict's own social analysis of the state of modern Europe asks many of the same questions.

The aspect of Liberation Theology that disturbs me most is 'the epistemological priority of the poor'--the idea that theologising from a comfortable position 'about' the poor and oppressed is always distorted. The language of LT speaks of the poor becoming subjects of history rather than objects of it. There are obvious echoes of Marxism there but, I think, only echoes. The truth that disturbs me I don't doubt--that if i want to speak of the poor I must first listen to them, listen deeply, even experience something of their poverty. If I don't I will never understand them--and probably never understand the gospel either.

[crystal]

About speaking of "the poor" ... I think most of us lucky ones have the idea that those in poverty are very different from us, practically another species :-). Actually they are us and we are them, or could easily be .... lose your health, lose your job, lose your savings, lose your home, lose your social status and maybe hope too. One reason it might be easier to look the other way, or to look at them through institutionalized eyes, is that if we see "the poor" clearly, we'll see we're not different.

[Rob]

Crystal: You may be dead right. But LT, as I read it, disagrees, at least to the length of affirming that "the poor" really are different. Switching between "rich" and "poor" is more than a change in personal situation (resources, opportunities, etc.). It implies switching sides in an invisible system of power that the "rich" construct and cover up. Gutierrez, if I remember rightly, has a lot to say about different kinds of poverty.

Individually I am no different to a starving Zimbabwean woman with AIDS and my own personal poverties of health or wealth will surely increase my empathy for her and maybe move me to some charitable works for her. The difficult question is whether she, from her social vantage point, can recognise that I am not that different to her, whether she wants to claim me as kin.

What is clear (to me at least) is that Jesus claims kinship with her and all the little ones, and claims his Father does too. LT calls it God's preferential option for the poor. This has been controversial precisely because it raises the theological problem of difference. Does God not love all people indifferently? Of course we want to say yes--there are many good reasons to defend that idea. But doesn't God have a character, have desires, have a project, a kingdom which creates real differences among us? It's hard to see how we could say no to that either.

[crystal]

Didn't J also mention widows, orphans, captives, refugees, the blind, etc ... maybe it isn't just the poor but people who are needy or disenfrachised?

Maybe back then, people's economic condition remained fairly stable - poor people didn't usually become rich or the rich poor, which would make more of a "culture" of poverty? But now, though it may not happen often, someone like the poor woman in Africa might have a change in financial station ... would she then still be a "poor" person? You ask if she could see you as kin - I believe people who are disadvantaged are indeed like everyone else ... they have less/no power and their personal identity has been affected by their negative experiences but they have the same desires (though less of theirs are realized), the same fears (though more of theirs are realized).

The idea that poor people are different from others is like the idea that disabled people are different. If you are blind, for instance, you go to a school for the blind (I wouldn't go), you get a job that blind people can do (I wouldn't take those jobs), you hang out with blind people so that you can have the "power" of solidarity with your kind (read = separate but equal), and as that Sasoon poem says, you won't really mind, because people will be kind.

Society keeps them different, keeps them separate, keeps them poor.