Miscellany

  • About Me

    My name is Steve Bogner, a 40-something husband and father of two boys in Cincinnati, OH. Extremism - whether conservative or liberal or whatever - is something I try to avoid. The world isn't perfect, the truth is usually in the middle, and things are rarely as simple as they seem.


  • About My Blog

    This is a moderate, Jesuit-flavored Catholic blog. I'll write about Catholicism, holiness and spirituality along with a bit of politics, social justice and Catholic mystics. I'm not an expert in any of these, but if you like reading about them, then this is a place to do that.


  • Banner Credits

    The icons in the page banner are from Fr William Hart McNichols, S.J. His work can be purchased online at www.TaosTraditions.com. The icons in my header are explained here.

  • Licensing
    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

« Merry Christmas Everyone! | Main | The Reality of Change »

December 26, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451f8e669e200d8349c6d9069e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Discomfort of Liberation:

Comments

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 :-)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search Me



The Neighborhood