Liberation Theology

[Ellenita]

Is it possible that JPII's experience of communism in Eastern Europe unduly influenced his decision to put a stop to liberation theology in Latin America?

[philothea]

It's possible.

However, if that was the source of JPII's motivation, then I would also suppose that God exposed JPII to communism so he would have that reaction.

[Crispy]

(edit: this is in response to the begining post, not the reply above me. i was too loong winded to get it out first )
i dont think so. i jus did a bunch of research on liberation theology b/c i had a unit in school about latin america. lib theo came up an i knew id need to do some research before id let them get away with pinning another blind fault on the church.

lib theo in theory (as with communism) is a good idea. it is to promote the lower class and the oppressed, and to remove the unjust leaders from power. the problem is that this comes from marxist idealism (IDEAL, i.e. it wont ever happen, has not will not). despite that, the even bigger problem, and the reason JP and others condemned lib theo, is that it was taking doctrine of the church and polluting it with marxism. it was preaching the freedom and well being of the poor, yes, but it was preaching it by making it priority over spiritual freedom and well being.

if theres anyone u can trust to make a good decision for the Church, its JP

Edited May 14, 2005 by Crispy

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Crispy' date='May 14 2005, 11:32 AM'] lib theo in theory (as with communism) is a good idea. [/quote]
I would say that monastic life is a good idea. Communism, a political and non-religious twist, is gravely evil. All people have the natural right to possess personal property. That's Church teaching.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Double post...sorry.

[Jaime]

The problem that I had when studying liberation theology was that it seemed like theologians were taking a premise and then trying to show that scripture "fit". That's kind of the exact opposite of how theology is supposed to be formed.

Read the scripture. How does it illumine you? (Theology)
Here's an idea. Does any scripture back this? (Liberation Theology)

Just my opinion.

BTW I studied it prior to its banning.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

To be honest, I don't even know exactly what liberation theology preaches.

[Myles Domini]

Liberation Theology is a fundamentally errant and completley unrequired branch of Theology. The doctrine that rulers can be removed for Tyranny is Thomistic and did not need any major 'updating' to be applied to the Latin American situation. Liberation Theology is at its core alien to Catholicism. It tends to alter the Catholic view of a timeless God to a God in time who suffers and politicises scripture based on the errenous marxist theory of history i.e. their is an eternal class struggle and Jesus is a social liberator who stands for the poor. As I.P. Magne taught there is a preferential option for the poor but this is within the boundaries of traditional orthodox Catholicism and recognises above all that the gospel is about the redemption of man from sin and not from social conditions. Sin is not wrong primarily because it causes oppression, oppression is a side affect of sin, which in its essence is wrong because it is damning and leads to death. Liberation Theology as proposed is an unsound ideaology that creates a 'historical Jesus' through historical critical methods underpinned by a theory of history (Marxism) that is false.

[Good Friday]

In 1984, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html"]"Instruction on Certain Aspects of the 'Theology of Liberation'."[/url] Rather than condemning liberation theology in full, as many think that the Congregation for Doctrine did, it condemned certain aspects of liberation theology -- particularly those aspects which drew from Marxist sources, since Marxism is incompatible with Catholic teaching.

I'd recommend reading the instruction; the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has good arguments for the elements of liberation theology that it condemns, and it also affirms some elements. If the liberation theologians were willing to work with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith instead of constantly working against it, they could form an authentic theology of liberation that's consistent with Church teaching. Hopefully they'll do so.

[Aloysius]

communism is not good in theory, it is absolutely evil IN THEORY. If human nature did not cause the idea to be abused and a perfect communistic nation were formed, that would be evil. Why? Because only certain people are called to give up all private property and an entire society that does not have private property is just as wrong as an entire society that does not have sex would be wrong.

it is good for monks to take vows of poverty in which they renounce all possessions.
it is bad for the government to make it so nobody has possessions but they all share.
it is bad for the government to interfere in people's private possessions at all, even if they have some good intention to help the poor or have everyone live happy and share.

therefore all forms of socialism are wrong. As Pius IX said no one can be at the same time a true socialist and a sincere Christian. it denies the right to private property.

private property, says Leo XIII, is part of what separates us from the beasts. we have mastery over the whole of creation; it was given us at the moment of our own creation in the image of God.

Now, at the heart of the socialism dillema is capitalism. Capitalism is the child of the reformation, literally. the reformation begot capitalism. Capitalism has allowed for some to ammass great wealth some because they worked hard and deserve it and some through dumb luck while others do not have anything either through their own fault or through rotton luck. people have recognized the problems that arise... saying these people have too much and these people have too little... look at the injustice! they cry. and they are right to recognize injustice. Their solution becomes, however, an even greater evil. since these people PRIVATELY OWN too much, and these people PRIVATELY OWN too little... socialists come up with the solution that nobody should PRIVATELY OWN anything. or partial socialists (eh hem western Europe and Canada et cetera eh hem) say we should take from the rich and give to the poor.

what really needs to happen but will never because Western Civilization has lost its Catholic Faith, is a just distribution of wealth. Instead of what the socialists do-- limit and/or elliminate private property; we should be spreading private property around better. not by robbing from the rich and taking from the poor, but by making sure people can have power over their own destiny. by making it so that people can own their own means of production.

anyway, back to liberation theology. the only good part is that they recognize that there is injustice. the bad part is that they try to solve it with evil socialism/marxism/communism... the bad part is that they reduce all of Christianity to this modernist class warfare.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Aloysius']anyway, back to liberation theology. the only good part is that they recognize that there is injustice. the bad part is that they try to solve it with evil socialism/marxism/communism... the bad part is that they reduce all of Christianity to this modernist class warfare.[/quote]
I'm not sure if this was meant as a reply to me or just as a reply in general, but anyway...

I agree with you regarding both communism and capitalism, and I also agree with you regarding distributism being the answer to the worldwide economic crisis. Marxism is absolutely condemned by the Church; it is an intrinsic moral evil that can never be a moral good nor even a moral neutral. Capitalism, while not intrinsically evil, is nevertheless almost entirely reliant on secular materialism often to the exclusion of Christian charity, and thus not ordered to the highest good of man. Because distributism is ordered to Christian charity it is also ordered to man's highest good, which is God, and it is therefore the most acceptable form of economic philosophy. Catholics should fight for a distributist mentality when it comes to economics, not a capitalist mentality.

As for liberation theology, I recommend reading the instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which points out all of the positives and negatives of the theology of liberation. I think liberation theology could be a very effective means of working for social justice if it would do only two things: 1) heed the counsel of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; and 2) replace its Marxist tendencies with a distributist philosophy. You're right in saying that distributism can never take hold in the developed world (what you refer to as the West) as it currently is, but it could take hold in the developing world -- in Latin America, in Africa, and in parts of Asia. The reason it can take hold there is because they do not have a culture that has abandoned God and Christian charity, and because they have an economic situation that leads them to cry out for an economic philosophy that is more compassionate than communism and capitalism.

If distributism were to take hold in the developing world, we would have to work with them on that level, and we would therefore have to witness the effectiveness and the compassion of distributism. I think that seeing distributism working in the developing world would lead many in the developed world to fight both communism and capitalism and work for distributism. That's why I think that the Church should encourage distributism as part of its missionary efforts in the developing world, especially in the Global South.

[Aloysius]

most def. now how is it that if we limit ourselves to American Politics I come out republican and you come out democrat? ah well; such is the deception of Hudge and Gudge, it's probably best to avoid both of them. good to know we ultimately agree on such things though.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Aloysius']most def. now how is it that if we limit ourselves to American Politics I come out republican and you come out democrat?  ah well; such is the deception of Hudge and Gudge, it's probably best to avoid both of them. good to know we ultimately agree on such things though.[/quote]
I think there's probably two reasons, at least for my part: 1) I have an inherent lack of trust for Republican politicians; and 2) I believe that, with very obvious and devastating exceptions such as abortion, the Democratic Party's policies are [i]better[/i] for people than the Republican Party's policies. I think both work within a capitalist framework, but Democrats work for a compassionate capitalism with limits and Republicans work for an unfettered capitalism lacking in compassion. The Democrats' economic policy has been manifestly better for the country; we can debate this until hell freezes over, but one cannot deny the recessions and economic problems that have taken place under the Reagan Administration, the George H.W. Bush Administration, and the George W. Bush Administration.

With that said, however, I am not an economist and I can't debate these points -- so I'm not going to. If someone refutes them, so be it; I've lived through all three administrations, I'm old enough to concretely remember the first Bush Administration, I've paid close attention to this Bush Administration, and I know what I see: serious economic recession under the administrations of the only three Republican Presidents I've ever known. Mathematical/economic refutations of my assertions may convince others, but they won't convince me. I lived it, and I know what I lived.

On that note, I'll say that both of our political parties thoroughly disgust me, and I detest our political system as it currently exists. I will reaffirm what everyone here will be so quick to point out to me, that no Catholic can legitimately vote for a pro-choice politician (which generally excludes most Democrats), regardless of what one may think of their economic policies. I don't care; they'll be lucky if they can get me to vote at all in the next election, and if I do it certainly won't be for any pro-choice politicians, nor will it be for any of the "pro-life pretenders" in the Republican Party.

[Ellenita]

Are there clear links to show that Liberation Theology has marxism at it's root? I thought it started off as a social injustice movement and there is a reading of the gospels which suggest Jesus was concerned with the oppressed and least in society. There is also that part in Acts where the early church sold everything and had a collective view where everyone was provided for.

Is there an argument that suggests LT was highjacked by marxist theory...and could that have been because there were moves to suppress it as a theology by the church, with the result that some (and I generalise here!) people living in what was very oppressive societies saw the church as aligning itself to a very right wing agenda or right wing regimes?

[Aloysius]

I personally see the only path towards distributism in Republican policies if we have to choose one of the two(even if it might be so slight a baby-step as to barely go anywhere).

for example, there are republicans out there with plans to elliminate all property tax and replace it with higher sales tax. This is the most obviously distributist idea any american politician in today's society has, because it promotes ownership of property.

anyway, in my family we've had the roughest times under Clinton (only democrat I lived through) and under Bush we did extremely well. Perhaps that's because my dad is a self-made small business owner... and perhaps that's why I see the slight slight slight distributist potential of the republican party. I see such potential in stuff like Bush's jargon about a "society of ownership" et cetera.

anyway, it's still just the argument between Hudge and Gugde that my man Chesterton stayed out of.


as to liberation theology... I'm not sure how it started out really; but Christ's concern for injustices does not mean that the entirety of Christianity can be reduced to such a message as liberation theology has done. Concern for injustice is one thing, but what they did was quite another.