In today's column by John L. Allen Jr., in the National Catholic Reporter, we read how Juan Luis Cardinal Cipriani struggles to keep some sense of order in the Peruvian Catholic Church. One of the main problems the Church there struggles with, according to Cardinal Cipriani, is the promotion of an erroneous theology of liberation.
"They created a system of pastoral work that is now inside of the church, and not only in Peru," he said. "Desacralization, making social work the first thing to do, criticizing the magisterium, involving priests in politics … It's a whole system, a parallel magisterium to the real magisterium. … This way of doing the church, the pastoral work, is still going on and is quite difficult to change."There has been recent discussion on this blog as to what constitutes orthodox Catholic belief. Orthodoxy, in the Catholic sense, revolves around questions of "right belief". Liberation Theology, as described by its proponents, cares little about doctrinal issues, but rather focuses exclusively on "right action"; or orthopraxy.
For example, under the banner of Liberation Theology, no one would care whether you believed, say, contraception, to be an acceptable practice, so long as you promote social justice, by working toward toppling those regimes deemed to be oppressive. If you read the books and articles of its promoters, you can easily detect, under their breath, a hostility toward the Catholic Church herself, who is counted as one such regime in need of being overturned. The Church, over the past few decades, has rightly been very critical of this movement which demands change, demands it now, and will stop at nothing to accomplish its vision.
Don't get me wrong. I am all for carrying out both the corporal as well as the spiritual works of mercy. Doing good works, as well as embracing doctrinal truth, together form the necessary evidence that we have repented and have put on Christ. It just goes to show how lopsided we can become when we exalt one aspect of conversion over another. Being authentically renewed in Christ must be demonstrated both by conversion of mind (the intellect) and heart (the will), such that we both believe and do that which is right.
Peace, Paul.
Three things. First, I think you've mispegged the essence of liberation theology. I think some proponents misplace perspective as do some "orthodox" Catholics. Both sensibilities being an important perspective to the Church. Either, when taken by itself, is a narrow cafeteria view.
Number two, lots of "camps" exhibit a degree of hostility to the magisterium: LeFebvrites, VOTF, and most everyone in between.
Lastly, I think St Paul's advice to love above all other virtues remains an apt lesson for us all.
"First, I think you've mispegged the essence of liberation theology."
Todd, if this is true, then you are saying the Cardinal and I are both off the mark. You were quick to tell me I am wrong, yet without any counter explanation.
"...lots of 'camps' exhibit a degree of hostility to the magisterium."
That does not make it any less offensive.
"...most everyone in between."
This claim is irresponsible. A sort of "everyone's doing it, so what's the big deal". If you cannot imagine life without hostility toward the Holy Father, please do not paint everyone else with the same color, because there are many for whom such a charge does not apply.
Peace, Paul.
My claim is hardly irresponsible. Rod Dreher fumes at bishops. So does VOTF. People in between are ticked off at how the Church is run. Typifying a group by your sense of disobedient undercurrent is far more unfair. Do you have something in writing from an avowed liberation theologian?
If you just wanted to say, "From what I've seen, I just don't like liberation theology," I'd have no problem with that. But you went beyond an expression of personal taste with arguments you can't really back up from the source (not from the critics). I don't think liberation theology is the only way to go, but I'm not going to project my personal taste into a theological discourse,
"Rod Dreher fumes at bishops. So does VOTF. People in between are ticked off at how the Church is run."
Todd, you've changed the target. You started out talking about "hostility to the magisterium", which is primarily the Pope. That's what I was responding to. I realize that not all bishops lead the way they should. That's a separate issue.
"Do you have something in writing from an avowed liberation theologian?"
My thoughts are based on experiences and discussions I have had with priests who did promote liberation theology. They are not published, so I have nothing in writing.
Further, I was forced to study this ideology in an academic setting, so my views were also formed from that experience. I have lost track of the references (which were primary sources), but my thoughts represent the jist of what I gathered from those writings. I would not have brought it up, had I not seen Cardinal Cipriani's comments, which rang true according to my experience as well.
"...you went beyond an expression of personal taste..."
There is at least one Cardinal who agrees with me. So far, you have criticized me twice, but you have yet to explain what you believe is the essence of the theology of liberation. To this point, I can only gather that you don't like what I have said, since you have offered no correction.
Peace, Paul.
First, I acknowledge the Magisterium is more than the pope. It includes the curia and bishops: this is the sense I understood and used the term. This is how Cardinal Cipriani probably means it, and he would include himself in the official Magisterium, I'm sure. But in singling out the pope, I know of people of both left and right who criticize John Paul II, though most criticism I'm aware of centers on his governing policies, not his theology (necessarily).
I did read Allen's spot on Cipriani. It doesn't surprise me a stubborn man would meet stiff resistance from equally stubborn people. Again, I wonder if the resistance is more a clash of personalities than of ideologies?
Liberation theology advocates take Matthew 25 seriously. Friends who have visited Latin America or lived there tell me I have no idea of the corruption and injustice. The American Church responded to their own experience of injustice by building an educational system and a health care system. The Knights provided insurance for Catholic men and their families. These systems aren't always in alignment with the Gospel in every particular, but the original needs they met were valid ones. Liberation theology offers an alternative for Peru. It is not the only approach to theology, but the basic principles -- as I understand them -- are not in conflict with the Gospel.
As I understand LT, the Judeo-Christian experiences of liberation, primarily the Exodus and Jesus' emphasis on preaching to the poor, form a model for the approach to evangelization and preaching and indeed, for the whole Christian life. If a reader better versed in LT were to post here, I would bow to the experience of that person's wisdom.
But on the personal front, I have indeed met a few people who were advocates of LT, but who rubbed me the wrong way. I don't need to express my displeasure at them by criticizing their philosophy. I think I can recognize when a conflict is personality-driven, and when it deals with theology.
Todd, yes, there is a correct understanding of the theology of liberation. The problem is not with the desire for liberation and justice, but with the methods employed to attain those ends.
The CDF has published Instructions in 1984 and 1986 which give that correct understanding of liberation. Anyone interested in the topic would do well to read these documents.
I believe there is also an aspect of emphasis, not just methods. Some liberation theologians claimed (or seemed to claim) that economic liberation came first, and that spiritual liberation from sin came second.
Peace, all.
Thanks, Paul, for the reference to the CDF documents. I had forgotten these existed, and were somewhat controversial amongst my few friends in liberatin theology at the time. I suppose Cardinal Cipriani has some specifics from these or from his own theology to draw upon when dealing with LT'ers in his diocese. We have nothing in print to suggest what these might be.
I always get nervous when people start bandying about the idea that good ends can justify questionable means. I part(ed) company from my LT friends in the 80's mostly because I sensed they played a little too loose with the means used (or advocated) to achieve an end. As a pacifist, of course, I feel the same way about Just War applications.
The crushing burden of corruption and other sins seems just too much to be handled by a single philosophy, however earnestly it might be proposed. Jesus saying, "This kind of demon can only be cast out by prayer and fasting" somehow comes to mind. If Cipriani is doing this, then he will have inched up a few notches in my estimation.
The reason why LT works better in Latin America is that for so long, the Church never did anything. It encouraged faithful and good Catholics, sure, but being in the wrong place at the wrong time was likely to get you shot, tortured, or otherwise lost from view. The context is always important. And neither the US nor Rome has had such a context in which the Church interacts with society as the Latin Americans have had. So I'm inclined to cut the LT crowd a bit of slack, even as I would lump them in philosophically with our president as advocates of the ends justifying the means.
Sandro Magister cranks up the heat in this article, which discusses the letters, written under Cardinal Cipriani's name, that were allegedly forged in an attempt to frame the Cardinal for numerous crimes. Rome has initiated a judicial investigation. No shortage of excitement in the Peruvian Church.