Liberation Theology

[Ellenita]

I understand Liberation Theology came from the Catholic church and was concerned with social justice. It predominately influenced the church in Latin American didn't it? Anyone know anything about it or could recommend any books please?

[Aloysius]

i know Pope John Paul II condemned it and i've seen video of him scolding a few priests for being involved with it. Catholic Church doesn't like it. i think it hasta do alot with inciting rebellions and fighting over social justice stuff.

down with liberation theology. srry :P

[Spiritual_Arsonist]

i know Pope John Paul II condemned it and i've seen video of him scolding a few priests for being involved with it.  Catholic Church doesn't like it.  i think it hasta do alot with inciting rebellions and fighting over social justice stuff. 

down with liberation theology.  srry 

I can vouch for this, Aloysius has summed it up.

[Ellenita]

Why was it condemned? What's wrong with fighting for social justice?

[Spiritual_Arsonist]

Why was it condemned? What's wrong with fighting for social justice?

I blieve the priests who taught this theology and practiced were blurring the lines between politics and faith. Rebellions I think were caused that were bloody.

[PedroX]

Ellenita,

Liberation Theology twists true theology to make the Bible seem as though the real point of redemption was earthly liberation. Clearly this is not the point of either Sacred Scripture, or Sacred Tradition. Additionally, many of the priests and theologians (largely Jesuits) actually carried guns in armed uprisings in Central America. It has been officially condemmed by the Catholic Church.

Good Question.

peace...

[Spiritual_Arsonist]

Ellenita,

Liberation Theology twists true theology to make the Bible seem as though the real point of redemption was earthly liberation.  Clearly this is not the point of either Sacred Scripture, or Sacred Tradition.  Additionally, many of the priests and theologians (largely Jesuits) actually carried guns in armed uprisings in Central America.  It has been officially condemmed by the Catholic Church.

Good Question.

peace...

I did not know they carried guns. The Jesuits sure do like "getting the job done."

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Don't you know that old Jesuit secret? Automatic weapons are very persuasive in converting people to Catholicism.

[M.SIGGA]

I took a course in Liberation Theology last semester. It teaches that the primary message and meaning of Jesus Christ coming to earth was to liberate all the oppressed and set captives free - which also condemns institutions and people that reject and disobey this ideology.

The Latin American Church and the corrupt Latin American governments monopolized on business and land ownership, and they also mistreated the poor farmers and workers. Marxism and anti-clericalism and atheism became popular among the mistreated workers who despised the Church and the government.

Catholic Liberation Theology became evident when religious and members of the clergy working among the poor began teaching and catechising liberation theology, rich with Marxist ideas, to the masses. They called the people to bear arms and fight against the opressive government for freedom - and supported their zealous actions, including murder and pillaging, with the blessings of the Church.

JPII is not against people fighting for freedoms, but he is against war and specifically anything that has to do with Marxism. Remember JPII was the author of Eastern Europe and Russia's Solidarity Movement that overthrew Communism in the 1980's. He grew up in a Communist nation and he understands the evils and dangers of flirting with Marxist and Maoist ideologies. I believe he called it a ''perversion of the faith.''

Edited November 26, 2003 by M.SIGGA

[BLAZEr]

Good Post M. Sigga

The CDF has made two statements on Liberation theology and the second was a little more lenient than the first. I have encountered some aspects of Libeartion theology helpful. However, some Liberation Theologians embraced typically marxist ideas and became violent revoultionaries.

[-I---Love]

Was Bishop Romero promoting the liberation theology, or was he merely seeking to free the poor and abused without the marxist perversion included in his teaching?

(citied please if u get ur info. somewhere -thanks)

[Ellenita]

Blazer, do you have a link to the two statements?

Is there a direct link betweeen Liberation Theology and Marxist ideas? I'm amazed since Marxism takes a very clear line on religion! I wonder how much this was down to 'spin' from the various parties which had a vested interest in discrediting the work the priests were doing with the poor?

I absolutely do not condone armed uprisings and bloody revolution, but the Jesus I see in the Gospels was deeply concerned with social justice and the poor and I believe the church must be aswell.

[Aloysius]

yes the Church should and is very concerned with social justice and helping the poor, but liberation theology says that the entire message is just about earthly liberation, while that's simply not true. that ignores the Spiritual.

Social Justice is important, but it can be perverted with marxist ideas and it can be overemphasised if the spiritual side is underemphasised. B)

[BLAZEr]

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega...eration_en.html

That's the 1984 Critique of Liberation Theology by Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Here below is the 1986 Statement. As I re-read it I noticed its much broader than just "Liberation" theology, and its clear that the CDF is setting out a "road map" for how Liberation Theology must consider itself in order to remain faithful to the Church

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega...eration_en.html

[p0lar_bear]

Ellenita,

The Church is very concerned with social justice. There have been a number of excellent encyclicals and documents on the issue (e.g. Rerum Novarum by Leo XIII, Centesimus Annus by John Paul II, and Gaudiem et Spes from Vatican II). The Catholic Church is also one of the largest, if not the largest, charitable organization in the world.

The liberation theology movement was born out of good motives. The conditions in Latin America at the time were horrible and shameful. There is simply no excuse for the way those in power behaved. The handful of rich sat in opulence, while the majority of the population were overworked at harsh jobs and lived at the brink of starvation. It was unconscionable. Those who worked with and cared for the poor in these areas were right in recognizing that this was contrary to the message of Christ and the dignity of the human person. They were right in wanting to do something to correct this. They were wrong in how they decided to go about it. Liberation theology focused exclusively on social justice issues. It was a mix of marxist ideology and a skewed theology. It saw no value in suffering and reduced Jesus' message to merely a call for temporal social justice.

Liberation theology is very linked with Marxist ideology despite Marx's views on religion. This link actually makes sense. Both Marx and those who developed liberation theology saw some of the very real problems that resulted from unbridled capitalism. Both saw a large gap between the standard of living of the rich and that of the majority as wrong. If you read Marx, his assessment of the problems in society at the time are very insightful and accurate. His solutions, after a fashion, can seem reasonable too. In fact, there are still a lot of people who espouse his ideas and a lot of people who think that, with slight modification, his vision of a communist society should be the goal of every Christian. Liberation theologists were just among the first to hold this idea. They saw communism as the only form of civil government that could be acceptable. They believed in bringing this about by any means necessary, justifying their murderous and barbarous means by their noble ends. The only social justice they saw was equality of wealth, which could only be accomplished through denying private ownership.

Their views on the "proper" social order quickly corrupted their ecclesiology. If, they reasoned, absolute equality is essential to civil governance, it must be essential in ecclesial governace. This, of course, would completely dismantle the hierarchy and leave the Faith without the protection of the Magisterium.

The Church maintain that all persons have intrinsic dignity and should be treated as persons, not things. While She does teach that all men have equal dignity, She does not teach that equality of wealth is necessary, or even that it could be legitimately mandated by a civil government. The heart of social justice is love for one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. This love encompasses both the rich and the poor, those who help you and those who do you wrong.

In condemning liberation theology, the Church is in no way saying that social justice is not important or is not connected to the Gospel. She is saying that social justice is not the only issue and that the view of social justice presented by liberation theology is a false justice.

If you want to learn about the Church's teaching on social justice, I recommend Centesimus Annus (On the Hundreth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum) by Pope John Paul II.

[Ellenita]

Interesting to see how the church was able to establish the links between liberation theology and marxism, and to recognise how attractive this would be to people who were (and it could be argued, still are to some extent) living in abject poverty and under repressive regimes. It's obvious that the church would be most wary of her priests following that route since it might be difficult to protect their theology from becoming too aligned to what is essentially a philosophy steeped in atheism. Plus of course the next step from that could be to say that there should be a 'flat structure' within the church when actually it is a hierarchy - dangerous stuff!

Of course the churches primary concern must to be the spiritual welfare of people, I understand that. However, the notion of social justice grows out from that too doesn't it? To be in the postion of power carries with it the weight of responsibility and I believe individuals will be held accountable if they abuse their position for personal gain, because that in itself is a sin. Is there evidence of the church, other than priests who subscribed to the concept of liberation theology, speaking out against the abuses carried out towards the people by those in power during that period of time in Latin America?

[BLAZEr]

Yes Ellenita, I think you are right on the money. The Church has spent much more time developing a doctrine of Social Justice than she has pointing out the dangers of Liberation Theology.

Starting in 1887 (give or take) Pope Leo XXIII wrote "Rerum Novarum" the first real social encyclical. It has been followed up with Quadragessimo Anno (whoever was pope 40 years after Leo), Popolurm Progresso (Pope Paul VI), and then Pope John Paul II wrote Laborem Exercens (on the dignity of work and the rights of workers) and Centissimus Annus (sp) which articulates the history of Social Justice in the Church for the last 100 years. Reading Rerum Novarum and Centissimus Annum will give you the best and broadest description of the Church's social teachings.

There are a few other encyclicals whose names I can't remember (and I don't have my books handy) that you can find at www.vatican.va They have a search feature and you can type "social teaching" to get the list.

[God Conquers]

The LAtin American countries are still in horrible shape, many worse than at the time of the popularity of Liberation Theology.

I'm still not sure whether Oscar Romero believed in Liberation Theology. He was certainly against priests carrying arms, but beyond that I'm not sure.

Wicked movie though.

[M.SIGGA]

The LAtin American countries are still in horrible shape, many worse than at the time of the popularity of Liberation Theology.

I'm still not sure whether Oscar Romero believed in Liberation Theology. He was certainly against priests carrying arms, but beyond that I'm not sure.

Wicked movie though.

I saw a documentary in high school about Oscar Romero, and if I remember correctly he was assasinated on the altar during mass. It was said that the main reason Archbishop Romero was not given much recognition by JPII was because he sympathized with priests who taught liberation theology and his preaching had an underlying tone of liberation theology too.

JPII is a pope who was directly threatened and affected by Nazi and Communist occupation in Poland; therefore ideologies that represent any aspect of National Socialism or Marxism will be condemned.

I believe Archbishop Romero was noble and saintly for speaking up against his unjust government instead of remaining silent like so many of his fellow clerics and peers. He didn't openly condone liberation theology, but the documentary said he didn't necessarily openly condemn it either. He should have been in line with the Pope, and treated his situation with total solidarity.

Liberation theology classifies Jesus soley as a Revolutionary, which he is, but it also forgets that he is also the Prince of Peace.

[God Conquers]

I think Liberation Theology is a tough subject. I know that to take your focus off of Christ is wrong, but it is also part of our lives as Christians to seek freedom through him in this world as well as in the next. Especially if our rights to worship Him are called into question.

Although the Prince of Peace, Jesus also said, "I come NOT to bring peace, but a sword." and the peace which he DOES bring is "not the kind that we think"... i'm totally paraphrasing but you get my point.

I think someone said that JPII couldn't support Liberation Theology because he doesn't support war is kind of off as well. No Catholic can reject war outright, because the Church holds the Just War Doctrine. So although he may have an aversion to armed conflict, he may support some military actions.