In response to Richard, I think the concerns about doctrine, while important, largely misunderstand the significance of liberation theology, which can only be understood in light of the historical relationship between the Church and longstanding structures of injustice in Latin American society.
I think it's impossible to know anything about how the Church has historically buttressed the ruling classes in these highly unequal, racially stratified and unjust societies and deny that a theology emphasizing the need for the Church to work on behalf of the legitimate demands of those at the bottom for fundamental social change, and the relevance of those demands for how we understand the Gospel message (and vice versa), constituted something genuinely new and valuable. And this quite radical shift in the perceived role of the Church in some of these societies flowed directly from the novel, bottom-up methodology of liberation theology I described. That this change in the method of producing theology would yield substantial changes in content is not all that surprising. The Church has a limited amount of
political capital, and I think a theology done by someone living and
working among the poor in, say, the slums of Lima, Peru, will provide
some different answers about how to spend that capital than one
formulated by a well-fed, well-housed cardinal at the Vatican or by
Michael Novak for that matter. (It's worth noting that, in addition to questions of Marxist influence and doctrinal purity, it was this bottom-up approach that sparked a great deal of criticism from Ratzinger in the 1980s.)
I think you're right that the social message of liberation theology is not wholly original. I think you'll find, though, that LT concepts like the "preferential option for the poor" and "structural sin," which became common in the encyclicals of John Paul II, were largely absent (at least in such explicit form) from authoritative documents before the rise of liberation theology. This seems to me to point towards the theology having made a genuine contribution to the development of the Church's social doctrine. But I think the key innovation is the priority LT places on combating structures of economic injustice, particularly in the context of Latin American society. This was surely new and remains vital. I also think you're right that the key question is how to go about restructuring society to improve the situation of the poor, although I suspect we would differ on what the evidence suggests are the most appropriate strategies. (FWIW, Michael Novak's laissez faire musings on this topic are, in my view, much farther outside the mainstream of Catholic social thought that almost anything Gustavo Gutierrez has written.)
On a side note, (this is not directed at Richard but at the critics to which he refers) it's funny to me how liberation theology's insistance that the Church involve itself in demanding that governments address moral issues associated with economic justice somehow represent an inapproriate politicization of the religion, while the Church's many efforts to combat communism in Poland and elsewhere or to demand that governments address moral issues associated with, say, abortion and homosexuality, are not.
Thanks to Eduardo for the post on the Ny Times article on liberation theology. I thought it was interesting that the article doesn't say much about the theological aspects of the movement. The theology of the movement was the Vatican's concern in the recent document relating to the works of Father Jon Sobrino SJ. That document, contrary to what the Times suggested, was a doctrinal and not a disciplinary document. The Vatican made it clear that the preoccupation with the poor and the oppressed is shared by the whole Church. The theological elements that the Vatican has criticized go to the core of the Christian message. The Explanatory Note accompanying the Notification states that Father Sobrino's "methodolgical errors give rise to conclusions which do not conform to the doctrine of the Church in certain key areas: the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Incarnation of the Son of God, the relationship of Jesus with the Kingdomof God, Jesus' self-consciousness, and the salvific value of Jesus' death."
The concern for the poor expressed is admirable. The practical strategies of the liberation theologians, though, should be judged by practical concerns (Will it Liberate? was the title of a book by Michael Novak on liberation theology that suggests the proper focus). The concerns that many have about liberation theology are its heterodox understanding of theology and its tendency to equate arguable political programs with the Gospel.
Maybe Eduardo could explain a bit more about why he thinks the theological aspects of the movement are so creative.
Richard M.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Now HERE's a great-sounding conference, brought to my attention by my colleague, Teresa Collett. An attempt to address the dearth of women in leadership positions? And it's in Rome . . . in June . . . Registration open until May 15.
From June 11-20, 2007, the Institute for Higher Studies on Women at the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum, in collaboration with the European University of Rome, will be presenting the summer course “Women’s Education and Leadership for a Better Society.”
Objective:To offer the elements necessary for fostering “feminine leadership” conducive to a society which promotes the dignity and integral development of every human being.
Program:The course consists of four seminars, which provide an international panorama of women’s reality and their opportunities to make a positive impact in their varied surroundings.
Here's an interesting article
from the front page of today's Times on the persistence of Liberation Theology. This persistence should come as no surprise. As the article
says, in the years since Cardinal Ratzinger began his (let's say)
"encounter" with liberation theology, "the social and economic ills the
movement highlighted have worsened."
The simple fact is that Liberation Theology will not and cannot die
because it represents the legitimate aspirations of the poor (in Latin
America and elsewhere) and because the message of liberation
(spiritual, but also political and economic) is too deeply embedded in
the Bible to ignore. This theology will either persist within the
Church, on the margins of the Church, or (if need be) outside the
Church.
Obviously, Liberation Theology's social science has changed over the
years. No more Marxist analysis. This is obviously a good thing, but
I don't think jettisoning Marxist frameworks fundamentally changes the
substance or significance of Liberation Theology. Marxism was never really
essential to Liberation Theology, conservative critics notwithstanding.
Liberation Theology is fundamentally a methodology: doing theology in light of
concrete work with and on behalf of the poor. As long as theologians
continue to engage in this reflection in light of liberating praxis,
they will continue to produce theology that challenges the priorities
of the institutional Church, which is committed to (and organized
around) a fundamentally different model. This will inevitably lead to
tension, and at times even conflict. But this tension can be a
positive thing, and, at the end of the day, I think there's room for
both models.
I am largely in agreement with Rick concerning Prof. Jack Balkin’s thoughts about religious exercise and developing infrastructures. Generally, I do not see a Constitutional issue, i.e., the establishment of religion, if the State grants certain protections or privileges to religious groups and organizations that are denied to certain other organizations or groups. However, I am apprehensive about the State instructing, directly or indirectly, churches through the mechanisms of “infrastructures.” But worrying about the role of the State is not the only concern that I have. The citizenry is much in need of sound and objective education about the proper role of religion in public life, for they, too, can and do have a voice in defining what these infrastructures might be. Yesterday’s Boston Globe had several letters to the editor that could relate to such matters. One letter writer, Ms. Jennifer Kelley [HERE] was highly critical of a previous letter written by a Catholic priest in response to an Ellen Goodman op-ed essay (“Trumping Women’s Rights”) discussing Gonzales v. Carhart. In Ms. Kelley’s view, “[r]eligious fables have no place in political debates” regarding her decisions about personal health and welfare. I pray that Ms. Kelley’s harsh rhetoric will not deter the Church in its important role in public discourse on any pressing issue of the day—with or without the presence of infrastructures. RJA sj
