Liberation Theology Lives On

In February 2007 at the Basilica of Santa Sabina in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI presided over the Ash Wednesday mass, which is, for Catholics, a solemn occasion marking the beginning of the 40-day season of Lent.

During the liturgy, a distinguished few worshipers out of hundreds in attendance were invited to approach Benedict in the basilica’s sanctuary, and receive ashes from the pontiff himself. Among them was a short, Peruvian friar of the Dominican Order, dressed in the Order’s characteristic white and black habit.

This friar was Father Gustavo Gutierrez, who in 1971 authored the seminal book The Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, Salvation, which both coined the term “liberation theology” and earned Gutierrez recognition as the movement’s intellectual father.

This intimate, solemn encounter between the Pope and the Peruvian friar might confuse those familiar with the popular media rendering of a fractious relationship between the Vatican and Latin American liberation theologians.

According to this telling, Benedict – previously recognized as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican bureau that oversees Catholic doctrine – is cast as the leader of a Vatican condemnation of liberation theology in the 1980s. Striking with the ferocity of a Rottweiler, the future pope ran liberation theologians out of the church as heretics with communist agendas.

Unfortunately, this oft-repeated account gravely misrepresents the interaction that actually took place between Rome and Latin America in the 1980s. The true story is one of equal parts critique, modification, and acceptance.

Far from being stamped out, the theological ideas and reflections characteristic of liberation theology have left a profound impact on the Catholic Church that endures today, not only in Latin America, but also in Rome.

The Mustard Seeds of a New Reflection

Liberation theology developed in the wake of the renewal of the Catholic Church brought about by the Second Vatican Council. Convened by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI from 1962 to 1965, a major focus of the Council was encouraging a greater engagement between the Church and the modern world.

One of the Council’s most important documents, Gaudium et Spes, stated that the Church has “the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel.”

The “signs of the times” observed by Latin American Catholics of the day included economic inequality, dehumanizing poverty, and the concentration of political power in the hands of undemocratic governments. These “signs” posed the following question to the church, as outlined by Gutierrez: “How do we talk about God who is revealed as love in a situation characterized by poverty and oppression?”

From this backdrop liberation theology emerged. Among its central characteristics was the articulation of God’s “preferential option for the poor,” which contended that God does not remain neutral in the face of social situations where the poor are exploited, but rather “opts for” or takes the side of the poor in their struggle for justice.

Liberation theologians also understood the salvation won by Jesus not as a narrow notion of spiritual afterlife, but as an “integral salvation” freeing all spheres of human life – including the material and social – from the chains of personal as well as “social” and “structural” sin. Building the “Kingdom of God” with mandates of justice and equity as preached by Jesus, was therefore a fundamental part of the Church’s salvific mission.

These ideas developed and spread as priests, nuns, and lay leaders formed small groups of poor Catholics throughout Latin America to interpret and discuss the Bible in light of their socioeconomic position and the insights of liberation theology.

These “base communities” played an integral role in sparking or providing support for a multitude of social movements that challenged the entrenched powers of injustice prevalent in countries across Latin America.

Liberation theology’s rise accelerated when Latin America’s bishops affirmed liberation theology’s basic precepts at their 1968 Conference in Medellín, Colombia, to be later developed at their next conference in Puebla, Mexico in 1979. Meanwhile, the continent’s power elite panicked.

They began to encroach on the Church’s autonomy, and repress liberation theology’s most stalwart proponents. As a result, the Latin American Church saw many of its bishops, priests, sisters, and lay leaders martyred by the region’s dictatorships and their surrogates.

Latin America Meets Rome

Within its history, the Catholic Church has witnessed numerous internal movements led by so-called firebrands.

In the 12th century, when St. Francis of Assisi led his band of barefoot brothers throughout the towns and villages of Italy to preach the Gospel and beg for food, he attracted the suspicion of many of the Church’s established clerics.

Four hundred years later, when St. Ignatius Loyola instructed his fellow Spaniards on how to develop a spiritual life that finds God in all things, he was briefly imprisoned by the Spanish Inquisition.

That these men and the communities they founded – the Franciscans and Jesuits respectively – are among the most influential and revolutionary in the history of the Catholic Church demonstrates that scrutiny by the ecclesiastical officialdom does not consign one to lack of influence within the Church.

Quite the contrary, these and other similar examples demonstrate a common behavior of renewal movements throughout the history of the Church – that is, an attempt to rearticulate the Catholic faith in a manner more relevant and responsive to the changing times.

Thus, it was not extraordinary that liberation theology’s ascendance captured the interest of Vatican officials in the late 1970s and 1980s. An official investigation into the orthodoxy of the fundamental principles of liberation theology was begun by the Vatican’s Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), headed by then-Cardinal Ratzinger.

It is worth noting that at this time, the Roman Curia, as Vatican officials are collectively known, was dominated by Europeans, who from their Eurocentric perspective approached this unfamiliar, foreign-born product with suspicion.

Having spent their formative years witnessing their own continent torn asunder by the ideological torrents of fascism and soviet communism, many in the Curia remained distrustful of anything bearing even a vague resemblance to communist ideology.

(This was certainly true of the worldviews of the Vatican’s two main protagonists: the Polish Pope John Paul II and the German Ratzinger.)

Such suspicions were exploited by the elite political interests threatened by liberation theology to raise alarm in Rome about “Marxists in priests’ dress” through foreign diplomats and sympathetic churchmen.

For example, Roger Vekemans, a Belgian Jesuit living in Latin America with ties to many Church leaders in Europe, saw his projects receive huge sums from the CIA and US AID while making something of a career out of branding liberation theology “a contagion” and its priest adherents “carriers of the bacillus.”

Further heightening suspicions was the fact that in the years after the 1959 Cuban Revolution, Cuba was widely embraced by many Latin American social movement activists as the model for creating social change in the region. Not only did the Church have a rocky relationship with the Cuban government, but the Cuban model implied the tactical adoption of guerrilla warfare, and, contingently, bloodshed – a thought the Church abhorred.

By the time the CDF began its inquiry into liberation theology, however, the Latin American Left’s enchantment with Cuba had already begun to wane.

Nonetheless, many Latin American bishops and the superiors of religious orders came to the defense of liberation theologians and their pastoral work with the poor before the Roman Curia.

Moreover, as the violence against bishops, priests, and sisters intensified, it became increasingly more difficult for liberation theology’s opponents to paint the victims as merely “political activists” – as three nuns and one laywoman who were raped and killed by Salvadoran paramilitaries were famously written off by Jean Kirkpatrick, U.S. Ambassador to the UN – when they so closely resembled the martyrs integral to Christian tradition and identity.

This connection was especially manifest upon the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador, who was gunned down at the altar while celebrating Mass in March 1980 on the orders of military officials.

During the course of their investigations, the CDF’s produced two key documents on liberation theology.

The first document, or “instruction” in Vatican terms, was published in 1984 and expressed criticism of “certain aspects” of plural “theologies of liberation [emphasis added].”

Recognizing that there existed different variants of liberation theology, “which are not simply different but more often incompatible with one another”, the instruction criticized theologians whose work included the wholesale adoption of Marxist ideological concepts “in an insufficiently critical manner” and reduced Christianity “to a purely earthly gospel.”

While some voices under the broad characterization of liberation theology were culpable of such a reductionist bent, the heart and the vast majority of the movement were not.

The CDF made this apparent in the first instruction by coupling its critiques of certain tangential areas of liberation theology with a strong affirmation of Liberation Theology’s central principles:

More than ever it is important that numerous Christians, whose faith is clear and who are committed to live the Christian life in its fullness, become involved in the struggle for justice, freedom, and human dignity…More than ever, the Church intends to condemn abuses, injustices, and attacks against freedom … [and] to struggle, by her own means, for the defense and advancement of the rights of mankind, especially of the poor.

Turning an eye toward Liberation Theology’s powerful opponents waiting to pounce on the Instruction and manipulate it into an endorsement of the status quo, the CDF reiterates this point again: the Instruction’s limited critiques, the CDF writes, “should not at all serve as an excuse for those who maintain the attitude of neutrality and indifference in the face of the tragic and pressing problems of human misery and injustice.”

The CDF produced a second instruction with a greater focus on liberation theology’s positive aspects, published in 1986 under the title of “Christian Freedom and Liberation”.

Nearly twice as long as the 1984 instruction, the second instruction stated unequivocally that, “injustice to … the poor is a grave sin and one which destroys communion with God,” and that such “evil inequities and oppression …[which] openly contradict Christ's Gospel … cannot leave the conscience of any Christian indifferent.”

Worth noting is that during the period of Rome’s investigations into liberation theology, not one liberation theologian received a formal, permanent sanction from the Vatican.

And while some liberation theologians clarified their writings in light on the CDF’s concerns, most focused more on the affirmation than critique in the CDF instructions, and continued preaching the incumbency of the Church to be a force of justice in the world with renewed zeal.

Fruit That Will Last

If one seeks to find a lasting effect of liberation theology on the teaching and orientation of the Vatican, one need look no further than Rome’s consistent condemnations of the global effects of neoliberal capitalism over the past two decades.

Pope John Paul II is well remembered for his staunch criticism of Soviet communism and support for liberation movements in his native Poland.

Later into his pontificate, and despite his failing health, he maintained this vigor when attacking neoliberalism and blessing global efforts to construct a more just and democratic form of globalization.

During his 1999 exhortation, Ecclesia in America, John Paul stated “in many countries of America, a system known as ‘neoliberalism’ prevails; based on a purely economic conception of the human person, this system considers profit and the law of the market as its only parameters, to the detriment of the dignity of and the respect due to individuals and peoples.”

And in a sermon during his 1998 visit to Cuba, he lamented “the resurgence of a certain capitalist neoliberalism”, noting that “from its centers of power, such neoliberalism often places unbearable burdens upon less favored countries. The result of such an economic system was clear: “the wealthy grow ever wealthier, while the poor grow ever poorer.”

John Paul was an early backer of the movement for the cancellation of the foreign debt of third world countries, saying in 1998 that the “heavy burden of external debt … compromises the economies of whole peoples and hinders their social and political progress.”

Of course, popes back into the 19th century have questioned the morality of capitalism, condemning excessive greed and affirming principles like the right of workers to form unions.

Liberation theology was able to place these economic principles of justice into a more central location within the body of the Church’s teaching, and clarify beyond doubt with whom the Church’s primary allegiance lies, in terms of economic relations.

Also, from its theological perspective, liberation theology focused the Church’s attention on those most victimized by neoliberalism: the poor in the Global South.

Like his predecessor, Pope Benedict remains concerned about the injustices of neoliberalism.

Last May, Benedict traveled to Aparecida, Brazil to address the opening session of the Fifth Latin American Bishops Conference. Setting the conference’s tenor, Pope Benedict criticized neoliberalism for “treating profit as the supreme value” while creating “ever increasing sectors of society that find themselves oppressed by immense poverty or even despoiled of their own natural resources. As an antidote to this, Benedict stressed the importance of “the preferential option for the poor [which] is implicit in the Christological faith in the God who became poor for us.”

Moreover, Benedict sees value-free neoliberalism as an example of the secularizing forces responsible for the erosion of Christian identity in Europe and around the world – a deep personal concern of his.

New Possibilities, New Potential

While the intellectual and doctrinal battles over liberation theology raged, liberation theology never died on the ground, for it was an authentic and organic articulation of the faith by those facing debilitating poverty.

Though declining in number, there are still thousands of base communities persisting throughout the continent, making them still a unique and important dimension of the Latin American Church, praised in the bishops’ document at Aparecida as “recapture[ing] the experience of the first communities [of Christians] as described in the [biblical text] Acts of the Apostles.”

Many of Latin America’s current priests and bishops were influenced by liberation theology during their seminary training and early years of ministry, and many emergent social movements in Latin America continue to bear liberation theology’s trademarks.

And still, on occasion, church leaders die because of their advocacy for social change: as recently as 2005 Sister Dorothy Stang was gunned down in the Brazilian Amazon for her activism on behalf of the landless peasants inhabiting the region.

The enduring impact of liberation theology notwithstanding, the Church in Latin America has changed tremendously since liberation theology’s heyday.

Over the last 25 years, bishop retirements and the subsequent appointments of their successors by Rome have changed the general shape of the region’s episcopate from one that was activist in orientation, to one that is more passive and administrative.

While the bishops still collectively show a strong affinity to the tenets of liberation theology, as seen in the final document produced at Aparecida, these tenets are less often integrated into the heart of concrete pastoral strategies to the degree they once were in decades past.

The political milieu in Latin America has changed dramatically as well during the last 25 years, creating new possibilities for the expression of liberation theology.

For one, Cuba is no longer viewed as the model for social change in the region; rather, what has emerged from the grassroots are more diverse, power-to-the-people movements united around “one no and many yeses” rather than a singular ideology and guerrilla strategy.

These social movements have not only formidably stemmed the tide of neoliberalism in the region, but have also translated their power into significant national electoral victories in many countries.

The democratic election of left-of-center heads of state in Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Ecuador has led many commentators to talk about a “New Left” in Latin America, united by a rejection of neoliberalism and a commitment to help the poor.

Among the more prominent of these “New Left” leaders, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva, a former metal worker and union leader, was pushed into office in 2002 by a Workers’ Party Movement that owes much of its history and success to liberation theology and the Brazilian base communities.

Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, another prominent member of this group who has occasionally sparred with his country’s bishops, has also frequently expressed his belief and esteem for the Christian faith.

These New Left leaders are also unique from their left-of-center counterparts in Europe and elsewhere in that they largely have not approached the non-negotiable Catholic issue of abortion – some of them have even expressed pro-life positions – further allowing for positive relations with the Church.

Another important change in the region is the explosion of Latin Americans abandoning the Catholic Church for various evangelical protestant sects.

While estimates vary, some researchers speculate that over 20% of Latin America’s Catholics have converted to evangelicalism over the last 25 years.

This trend has much to do with the history of liberation theology and is important in evaluating its future potential.

Although protestant groups have existed in Latin America since at least the early 20th Century, the explosion in their membership began at a time when liberation theology was an important phenomenon in both Latin American Catholicism and society – that is, about 25 years ago – and grew as liberation theology’s influence in the concrete operation of the Catholic Church’s declined.

To understand the relationship between these two belief systems, one must compare their messages and delivery.

When it came to understanding the important social questions of the time, evangelicalism offered a viewpoint radically different than Catholic liberation theologians: extremely individualist in spiritual orientation, evangelicalism saw poverty as a result less of unjust systemic forces than personal failure, with riches being a sign of God’s favor.

The potent antidote this provided to the effects of liberation theology was not lost on the region’s dictatorships and their supporters in Washington.

Following the recommendations of well-connected conservative think tanks like the Santa Fe Committee, the Reagan administration reached out to Latin American evangelical groups and encouraged the work of U.S.-based evangelical missionaries in Latin America.

Meanwhile, the U.S. evangelical-conservative coalition which was ascending to a position of great influence on domestic issues, began holding the Reagan Administration’s Latin American foreign policy line – particularly the support of the Nicaraguan Contra counterrevolutionaries – with the furor of a crusade.

The region’s U.S.-friendly dictatorships were all too eager to welcome these new missionary advances. In 1987 both the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and El Salvador’s military government rolled out the red carpet for the anti-Catholic U.S. preacher Jimmy Swaggart, hosting the Louisianan at public preaching engagements in their nations’ major sports stadiums and meeting with him privately.

Guatemalan dictator Efrain Ríos Montt went even further: angered at the Catholic Church’s criticism of the Guatemalan military regime, he converted to evangelicalism and became an ordained minister of the California-based Gospel Outreach/Church of the Word.

As a general, president, and now evangelical minister, Ríos Montt went on to claim divine inspiration for his government’s policies, a major part of which included the massacre of large sectors of Guatemala’s rural campesino population.

In addition to this early political backing and the bankrolling by powerful U.S. interests, the growth of evangelicalism in Latin America has also benefited from the Catholic Church’s gradual retreat from pastoral strategies based on the principles of liberation theology.

It is true that although reaching radically different conclusions, both liberation theology and evangelicalism are similar in that they articulate religious faith in a way that makes it relevant to the specific social state of believers.

Yet as Catholic preaching has become less concretized to the present social reality, it has created a vacuum that evangelicalism has filled.

First, the gradual de-emphasis on base communities has created an opening for evangelicalism’s rapid growth. Many converts are drawn to evangelicalism for the intimate feeling of community provided by smaller church groups.

Moreover, while nearly anybody can become an evangelical pastor, the pool of aspirants to the Catholic priesthood are limited to men who are open to committing to an unmarried lifestyle, and able to complete the equivalent of a Master’s level education in a region where many people do not complete high school.

This has not only given evangelicalism the advantage of generating more leaders faster, but has at times added to the impression that the Catholic clergy is out of touch with the common experience of the majority, a perception that has been compounded by a historical reliance on foreign-born clergy in many areas in Latin America.

Whatever direction liberation theology takes to respond to these new changes in Latin America, one thing is certain: it will not die out.

For one, the strong history of base communities led to the creation of many well-informed and passionate lay leaders or “catechists” who were knowledgeable about the Bible and able to articulate the Catholic faith to their peers.

It is likely that groups of Catholic lay leaders such as these will go far in reclaiming some of the turf of quotidian religious dialogue lost to evangelicals.

More importantly, liberation theology has been and remains an authentic expression of faith in a situation of unjust economic inequities and poverty.

As long as these conditions persist, people of faith will continue to look for solace and hope in God – a God who preferentially opts for the poor.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer

No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.

The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.

Sotto Voce

Former liberation theologian says movement fueled decline of Catholicism in Brazil

The long dominance of liberation theology is at the root of the decline of Catholicism in Brazil, according to Friar Clodovis Boff.

Until 2007, the religious was an important theologian of liberation theology, although not as famous as his brother Leonardo, a former Catholic priest who is one of the founders of the movement, which gained popularity in the 1970s and emphasized freedom from poverty and oppression as the key to salvation.

Then, in a move that alienated him from his famous brother, Clodovis Boff published the article “Liberation Theology and Return to Fundamentals,” in which he accused liberation theologians of making the poor the center of theology instead of Jesus Christ.

Now, Boff has written a book calling for a re-centering of the Latin American Catholic Church in Christ.

“It is necessary for the Church to once again emphasize Christ as priest, as master and Lord, and not just the fight against poverty and the climate crisis,” he said at the launch of the book “The Crisis in the Catholic Church and Liberation Theology,” written in collaboration with Father Leonardo Rasera and recently released by Ecclesiae.

“These are important questions, but without drinking from Christ, who is the source, everything dries up, everything dies,” Boff said.

In the late 1960s, when liberation theology began its long dominion of religious thought in Brazil, more than 90% of Brazilians were Catholics.

Since then, the percentage of Catholics in the Brazilian population has decreased and now stands at 51%.

Moreover, Brazilian Catholics have a very low rate of church attendance. A survey conducted by Georgetown University's Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) in 36 countries last year showed that only 8% of Brazilian Catholics go to Mass on Sunday. The rate was the third lowest among the analyzed countries.

For Boff and Rasera, the decline in church attendance is due to the deposit of faith not being passed on.

With liberation theology, “faith is instrumentalized in terms of the poor,” Boff writes in the book. “One falls into utilitarianism or functionalism in relation to the Word of God and to theology in general,” he continues.

He says liberation theology “appeals to ideas such as ‘margins of gratuity’ and ‘eschatological reserve’ to assert its respect for the transcendence of faith. In fact, the part of transcendence is, in this theology, the smallest and least relevant part, the ‘lion’s share’ falling, as always, to the ‘liberating reading’ of faith.”

According to the friar, this is leading many Catholics to Protestantism, esotericism, neopaganism, and even Satanism.

“Far from having disappeared, it would be absurd to say so, faith in Christ continues to be a reference for the Church,” the friar said in a launch of his book in which he spoke on the theme “The Crisis in the Catholic Church: Lack of Faith, Ideologies, and Worldliness.”

“But the decisive question is whether faith in Christ is your central, main, determining reference,” he said. “It is not a question of the Church affirming the centrality of Christ only in formal and theoretical terms but of affirming it existentially and operationally, as being the beating heart of all its life and action,” the friar said.

“Doctrinally affirming the primacy of Christ in the Church costs little,” he said.

“Affirming, however, in an existential way, that Christ is the absolute center of the Church, costs, and a lot: It costs the heart and the soul, when it does not cost tears and perhaps blood,” he said.

In his book, Clodovis talks about how he collaborated with proponents of liberation theology during the pontificates of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

For him, it is necessary that liberation theology be rethought with Christ at the center, not the poor, in order to be “timely, useful, and necessary,” as St. John Paul II said in his letter to the Brazilian bishops in 1986.

Pope Benedict’s Holy War Against Liberation Theology in South America: Pontiff and Conservative Church Face a Rollback (Contribution)

The recent election of former Bishop Fernando Lugo as President of Paraguay poses a sticky dilemma for the Vatican and underscores the hostile political environment facing Pope Benedict XVI when he arrives in South America.

Lugo, who was known to his constituents as the “Bishop of the Poor” for his support of landless peasants and for being an advocate of Liberation Theology, a school of thought which took shape in Latin America in the 1960s.

Recognizing the pressing need for social justice, Liberation Theology was minted by Pope John XXIII to challenge the Church to defend the oppressed and the poor. Since its emergence, Liberation Theology has consistently mixed politics and religion.

Its adherents have often been active in labor unions and left-wing political parties. Followers of Liberation Theology take inspiration from fallen martyrs like Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador and Dorothy Mae Stang, an American-born nun who was murdered by ranching interests in Brazil.

Romero, an outspoken voice for social change, was gunned down in 1980 by a right wing death squad during a Mass in the chapel of San Salvador’s Divine Providence hospital. Stang, an advocate of the poor and the environment, was shot to death in the Brazilian Amazon in February 2005; her assailants were later linked to a powerful local landlord.

Joseph Ratzinger: Doctrinal Czar

During the 1980s and 1990s Benedict, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, acted as John Paul II’s doctrinal czar. At the time, John Paul was in the midst of a fierce battle to silence prominent Church liberals. “This conception of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive of Nazareth,” the Pontiff once said, “does not tally with the church’s catechism.”


In 1983 the Pope wagged his finger at Sandinista government minister and Nicaraguan priest, Ernesto Cardenal on a trip to Managua, warning the latter to “straighten out the situation in your church.” Cardenal was one of the most prominent Liberation Theologians of the Sandinista era.

Originally a liberal reformer, Ratzinger changed his tune once he became an integrant in the Vatican hierarchy. As prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican’s doctrinal watchdog agency, Cardinal Ratzinger warned against the temptation to view Christianity in an exclusively political light. Liberation Theology, he once said, was dangerous as it fused “the Bible’s view of history with Marxist dialectics.”

Calling Liberation Theology a “singular heresy,” Ratzinger went on the offensive. He blasted the new movement as a “fundamental threat” to the church and prohibited some of its leading proponents from speaking publicly. In an effort to clean house, Ratzinger even summoned outspoken priests to Rome and censured them on grounds that they were abandoning the church’s spiritual role for inappropriate socioeconomic activism.

As Pope, Ratzinger has not sought to hide his lack of esteem for Liberation Theology. During a recent trip to Brazil, he was pressed by reporters to comment on Oscar Romero’s tragic murder in El Salvador. The Pope complained that Romero’s cause had been hijacked by supporters of liberation theology. Commenting on a new book about the slain archbishop, the Pope said that Romero should not be seen simply as a political figure. Hoping to avoid any meaningful political discussion on the matter, Benedict said “He was killed during the consecration of the Eucharist. Therefore, his death is testimony of the faith.”

How to Handle Lugo?

Despite his best efforts however, Benedict has not been able to impede the rise of the Bishop of the Poor in Paraguay. Lugo long has had differences with the Vatican, which could now create some political friction between Asunción and the Papal See. When Lugo left the priesthood to pursue politics, the Vatican refused to accept his resignation, arguing that the Bishop already made a “lifetime commitment.” Defying the Pope, Lugo formed the center left Patriotic Alliance, which brought together leftist unions, indigenous people and poor farmers.

When Lugo announced his intention to run in what turned out to be his victorious presidential race, the Vatican sent him a letter declaring that the Holy See had “learned with surprise” that some political parties “have the intention of presenting him as a candidate in the coming Presidential election in Paraguay.” It added: “The acceptance of that offer would be clearly against the serious responsibility of a bishop … Canon Law prohibits priests from participating in political parties or labor unions.” The letter asked Lugo “in the name of Jesus Christ” to “seriously reflect on his behavior”.

Lugo replied tartly, “The Pope can either accept my decision or punish me. But I am in politics already.” Hardly amused, the Vatican suspended Lugo from his duties “a divinis,” meaning that he could no longer say Mass or carry out other priestly functions such as administering the sacraments. This was enough to enable Lugo to stand in the Presidential elections, but his victory now presents the Vatican with a dilemma over whether to “reduce him to lay status.” Vatican officials said it was up to the Pope to decide, and that Benedict would “take time to study the situation”.

Brazilian Challenge

Though Benedict has long opposed Liberation Theology, it’s unclear what he might do at this point to halt its spread. Unlike the 1980s when South America was in the midst of right-wing military rule, the region has now undergone a decided shift to the left which is confounding the Papacy.

In Brazil, the world’s most populous Roman Catholic nation, some 80,000 “base communities,” as the grass-roots building blocks of liberation theology are called, are flourishing. What’s more, nearly one million “Bible circles” meet regularly to read and discuss scripture from the viewpoint of the theology of liberation.

Liberation Theology advocates have strong links to the labor movement which helped propel the current regime into power; this history turned President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva into being a long time ally. The movement has been particularly strong in poorer areas of the country such as the Amazon, the hinterlands of northeast Brazil and the outskirts of large urban centers like São Paulo, an urban center of nearly 20 million people.


In the latter city, the followers of liberation theology prominently display their politics. For example, during last year’s May Day celebration, liberation theologists draped a wooden cross with black banners labeled “imperialism” and “privatization” and applauded when the homily criticized the government’s “neoliberal” economic policies, the kind backed by Washington.

Chávez and Pope Benedict

Try as he might, Benedict has been unable to halt the re-emergence of Liberation Theology, and Paraguay and Brazil are just the tip of the iceberg. For years Venezuela has been a religious battleground, with President Chávez pursuing a combative relationship with the Catholic Church. Unlike some other Latin American countries which had a stronger liberation theology movement, the Venezuelan Church never had a leftist tendency except among diocesan priests.


A clash between the government and the Church was probably inevitable, and shortly after taking office Chávez started to chastise Venezuelan bishops, accusing them of complicity with the corrupt administrations that preceded his rule. The Venezuelan leader accused the Vatican’s former representative in Venezuela, Cardinal Rosalio Castillo Lara, of allying himself with the country’s “rancid oligarchy.” Memorably, Chávez suggested that priests such as Castillo Lara ought to subject themselves to an exorcism because “the devil has snuck into their clerical robes.” Incensed, the cardinal compared Chávez to Italian dictator Benito Mussolini.

During the April 2002 coup, prominent Catholics such as Cardinal Ignacio Velasco sided with the opposition against the president. Velasco was even accused of offering his residence as a meeting place for the coup plotters. What is more, he signed the “Carmona decree” that swept away Venezuela’s democratic institutions. Senior Catholic bishops themselves attended the inauguration ceremony for Pedro Carmona, Venezuela’s Dictator-For-a-Day.


But when Chávez was able to quickly overturn the coup and return to power, the hard line Church establishment was humiliated. Relishing his triumph Chávez launched a rhetorical broadside on the Vatican, calling on the Pope to apologize, on behalf of the Catholic Church, for the “holocaust” of the indigenous peoples of Latin America during the colonial era, and for the imposition of Christianity. The Pope, who is close to Castillo Lara, is reportedly anti-Chávez but has met with the Venezuelan leader at the Vatican.

Hoping to neutralize the power of the Catholic Church, Chávez frequently quotes from the Bible. Puckishly, he also tells his supporters in his public addresses that Christ was an anti-imperialist. Even as Chávez spars with the Church, Protestants have provided a key pillar of the president’s political support. Over the last few years, Chávez has done his utmost to cultivate their support, with Protestants making up 29% of the population. He even declared that he was no longer a Catholic, but a member of the Christian Evangelical Council.

In The Andes, Pope Faces Hostile Political Environment

In the Andes, the situation is not much more promising for Pope Benedict.

Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa is a Catholic Socialist and has called for a “new Catholicism” in the 21st century which would challenge globalized capitalism. The President has said that his real education came from working as a lay Salesian missionary in the mid-1980s in the largely indigenous province of Cotopaxi. During his speeches, Correa invokes the words of Leonidas Proaño, probably Ecuador’s most famous liberation theologian.

Bolivia’s Evo Morales has never been a fan of ecclesiastical authority and has said that Catholic bishops “historically damaged the country” by functioning as “an instrument of the oligarchs.” What’s more, Morales tapped Rafael Puente Calvo, an ex-Jesuit and a staunch liberation theologian, to be his Deputy Minister of the Interior.

In Paraguay, Brazil, Venezuela, and up and down the Andes Pope Benedict faces a very changed political climate from the 1980s. A new generation of leaders, allied to the Pope’s ideological foes, has to be making life difficult for the conservative church hierarchy. If he wants the Vatican to maintain its influence in the region, Pope Benedict is going to have to be creative, diplomatic and extremely cautious in his regional initiatives.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer

No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.

The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.

Sotto Voce

Brazil's poor need the church to revive its role as a force for political change (Opinion)

Whatever happened to liberation theology? 

Back in the 70s, the big idea was that salvation was unavoidably political. 

Just as Moses led his people out of slavery, so it was the task of the church to help lead people out of poverty. 

Inspired by the work of Latin American base communities in the Roman Catholic church, theology became a tool to give the poorest a rallying point for resistance to political oppression, not least in the area of land reform.

But in the early 90s the Vatican became increasingly nervous of priests behaving as revolutionaries. They shut down the base communities and appointed a succession of conservative bishops in places like Brazil to stamp out the creeping influence of Marxism – an ideology that was loathed by the Polish pope John Paul II. 

From here on in, liberation theology was something that would only exist in the textbooks of trendy European intellectuals. That, at least, is the popular wisdom. But it's not the full picture. Liberation theology in South America may no longer be influential in the mainstream churches, but it remains a potent force among the poor themselves.

Driving north out of Brasilia, one appreciates the problems Brazil continues to have with land distribution. For over an hour one passes through the same vast farm. It is mile after mile of fenced off monoculture, with the land being worked by huge machines that look like Transformers. This is partly how Brazil got to be the fifth largest economy in the world. But nestled between the fields of powerful agribusiness farms one finds a completely different Brazil.

The red flag of the The Landless Workers Movement (MST) welcomed us to the settlement. MST is the largest social movement in Latin America with over a million members. Like the 17th-century Diggers, they are squatters with attitude. Priced off the land and receiving no benefit from Brazil's supposed economic miracle, they find what land they can and occupy it, living communally and growing their own crops.

I cooked over a wood fire for 35 families. They said my farofa wasn't bad for a gringo. Fried onions and garlic, pork scratchings and cassava flour. We discussed the disgusting pesticides that the farm's aeroplanes spray over the settlement as a way of getting them to move on. 

The MST insists that the death of a two-year-old boy from the camp was a direct result of exposure to these chemicals. And the institutional churches do little to help. Yet a rough painting of Christ stood guard at the entrance of the next MST settlement we visited. And a quote from Matthew's gospel: "I will be with you to the end of time." As we left, one of the workers made an impromptu speech quoting Brecht on dialectics and raised her fist in a defiant leftist salute. Here, Jesus and Marx walk hand in hand.

Liberation theology inspired the founding of the MST back in 1984, during the fall of the dictatorship. Indeed, even before liberation theology found its name, it was the influence of the Catholic church's teaching that land distribution must have a social function which spooked the powerful Brazilian landowners who backed the military coup against communism in 1964. 

But with some heroic exceptions, the mainstream churches have given up the struggle of the social gospel in favour of a feel-good theology that brings in the punters. But even without institutional support, liberation theology remains alive and well in the settlements of the countryside and city favelas. What they need to do now is remind the churches of their own teaching: "I come to bring good news to the poor and freedom to the captive."

DePaul and the Vatican's Long Leash (Contribution)

The most recent scandal in American academia is the firing of Dr. Norman Finkelstein by De Paul University, despite the recommendations of his colleagues and peers, students, and his publishing record, all of which would normally assure academic tenure to someone in his position.

It seems therefore, that Dr. Norman Finkelstein application failed not because of any professional or personal failings, but rather because of considerations external to his person, none of which have been explained.

To date, the only apparent reason for this outcome is the unremitting public, and no doubt, private, campaign against Dr. Finkelstein's competence by Alan Dershowitz, a professor of law at Harvard, and one of the leading apologists for Zionism, which, appeared to be motivated by personal pique after Dr. Finkelstein's painstaking analysis revealed the legal invalidity of Dershowitz' arguments which support Israeli violations of international law.

One would suspect that because De Paul is a Catholic university, continuing charges of anti-Semitism together with the Holocaust culpability accusations, were not left out of this offensive.

Those who find Dr. Finkelstein's firing shocking have attributed weakness of character to the officials at the University for yielding to these pressures.

Before I adduce what I think are other unmentioned, if not hidden, seminal factors contributing to this dismissal, I think it might be worth while to elaborate for purposes of a better understanding of the issues involved, on the work of Dr. Finkelstein and the position of the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church in the world today.

Dr. Finkelstein has made significant contributions in the fields of Zionism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and established, almost single-handedly, the field of critical Holocaust studies, work which required considerable courage as it is contrary to the political position of the United States and the Israeli/Zionist lobby.

It might seem a truism to remark that had Finkelstein confined himself to arcane research minutiae in these fields, publishing only in academic journals, the university might well have been able to continue to employ him.

However, it was precisely the critical public light that Finkelstein threw upon issues upon which the United States, and other Western countries have used in pursuit of their interests, that seems to have sounded his academic death knell at De Paul University.

His critique connected anti-Semitism and the Holocaust to Zionist protectionism with respect to Palestinians.

For decades Israel and its apologists have insisted that a critique of Israeli policies and practices is always a cover-up for a deeply-seated and incorrigible anti-Semitism, the very same poison that led to the Holocaust.

Thus anyone criticizing Israel, the Jewish state, is ipso facto an anti-Semite who wishes to bring about second Holocaust upon the Jewish people.

The Roman Catholic Church has been in the Jewish firing line for decades, continuing to be charged with both a historical and an enduring anti-Semitism.

That there was both collaboration between the Church and some Nazis, and the official Church afforded protection to Nazis both during and after the war continues to serve Jews as a continuing paradigm.

Of course it is also true that the Church and many of its members were persecuted by the Nazis, is not politically advantageous to the Zionists and is therefore relegated out of the public purview.

In response to the charges, the official position of the Church now insists that Christianity is a "daughter" religion of Judaism and not a "fulfillment" thereof and has removed all language deemed offensive to Jews from its prayers. More importantly from a Zionist point of view, the Holy See has established diplomatic ties with Israel and promotes cultural and religious dialogues, qua Church and qua individual Catholics, with Israel and leading Israeli-Jewish scholars, despite serious outstanding disagreements between them such as and the continuing tax and visa pressures the Jewish state exerts against Catholic institutions.

There are however, another three factors connected to this scandal which bear mentioning as they might indicate what might develop from the Church, which could have enormous bearing on the political environment of both Europe and the US.

Two are intra-Catholic issues: the issue of Catholic university autonomy and the issue and status of liberation theology. The third issue concerns the Church leadership and political Islam.

The former may explain how the firing took place, as well as indicate future positions that will be taken in Catholic universities, while the latter two provide two reasons for it. A point to be emphasized is that De Paul Catholic University is not an independent institution of higher learning.

In the Catholic world, there are two types of universities: a pontifical university which falls under direct control of Rome and a Catholic university. Until 1991, a Catholic university enjoyed full autonomy as an independent institution.

The scope of the term "Catholic" was fairly fluid, often just meaning that it was founded by Catholics and administered by them. It did not necessarily mean that it explicitly advocated, or acted, with the approval of Rome. However, this is no longer the case.

In 1991, Pope John Paul II issued his Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Universities, known by its introductory latin phrase, Ex Corde Ecclesiae - from the heart of the Church.

This has proven to be a telling phrase, as the Constitution subjugates a Catholic university to Rome - no doubt the heart of the Church - concerning faith and morals, i.e. doctrine, thus undermining, if not removing entirely, that exercise of freedom necessary for a university to retain its integrity qua university.

And it is precisely in those fields which are controversial that controversy is likely to be stifled.

This constitution was received with much trepidation in the United States as it was understood as an attempt to extend Rome's control where it previously had been absent. Pontifical universities or pontifical faculties in secular universities, such as in Germany, had seen their staff fired by Rome for holding opinions or positions that either questioned! or contested those of the Magisterium, the teaching office of the Church.

Two examples stand out, although there are many more.

During the reign of Pope John Paul II, Prof. Fr. Hans Küng, at Tübingen University in Germany had his faculties as a Catholic theologian removed by Rome for daring to question the issue of papal infallibility, while Prof. Fr. Charles Curran, teaching about homosexuality in a questioning and opening manner that did not contradict any infallible statements made by the Pope, was dismissed from the pontifical Catholic university in Washington DC.

The Finkelstein affaire seems to justify the deep felt fear of those who were originally against Ex Corde Ecclesiae and in a manner possibly more insidious than originally suspected or foreseen.

I shall argue that Rome's reach into the universities is no longer confined to arcane doctrinal issues, as in the cases mentioned above, but to issues of the wider political arena, which the Church hierarchy will either promote or defeat, depending on how it assesses its interests, within Catholic institutions.

It is my contention that the dismissal of Dr. Finkelstein, concerns the fundamental question of how the Church leadership is positioning itself in this changing world. Dr. Finkelstein's work, both academic and political, relates indirectly to the doctrinal issue of liberation theology, a subject which was deemed almost dead until very recently.

Rome had both condemned its focus, its approach and methods and some of its leading exponents.

However, it has recently begun to raise its head once again, undoubtedly because the state of affairs that it originally addressed not only has not disappeared, but has worsened exponentially in the more than two decades since it was first censured.

Furthermore, it has now been explicitly referred to in the political arena of the new governments, elected by the masses of the poor and underprivileged in South America, and whose programs are threatening the status quo determined by the US.

What was and is Roman Catholic liberation theology? And how does it affect Dr. Finkelstein?

Historically the Roman Catholic Church, as a state church, or church of the empire, has been aligned with the rich and the powerful, or what is called at times "law and order". With respect to the poor, the underprivileged and the oppressed, it developed the giving of alms or charity in order to relieve their suffering.

With the development of sociology in the nineteenth century by Marx, and the modern phenomenon of an urban proletariat in the industrializing cities, a social phenomenon dependent upon capitalism, a new understanding of what it meant to be poor came about.

The official Church never chose to understand the poor either as a class, or as a level of society that was the outcome of particular political and social powers, institutions and structures.

While Popes have condemned capitalism and communism verbally, they have completely shied away from taking any positions that would either undermine, or at least confront, the human misery that results from particular institutions in the capitalist West, although they did vociferously condemn the atheism of the Soviet bloc countries.

For the upper hierarchy, the poor have always just been poor people or individuals.

Furthermore, the upper reaches of its hierarchy are completely out of touch with the suffering of hundreds of millions of people in the world.

As an institution, it is not democratic, does not hold itself accountable to the masses of Catholics, has a celibate priesthood that functions not unlike a closed and secretive brotherhood which swears loyalty to the Church, and not the Truth.

In the West, the vast majority of this class has its material needs and wants satisfied without experiencing any of the agonies of either holding on to, or losing a job, and the need to support a family.

Thus its experience differs radically from that of the ordinary person.

Furthermore, the Church also exists, and functions, as a political entity, the Vatican State, having diplomatic relations and interests which it seeks to protect and promote, while adopting political alignments it considers beneficial.

The theology of this church is sacramental, notional other worldly, with salvation dispensed by the priestly class to the laity.

In contrast to this detached stance, liberation theology began to flourish after Vatican II, which seemed to signal the Church's confident entry into modern life breaking with its traditional, conservative, pre-modern, pre-industrial and pre-urban past.

It also seemed to be a break with the feudal exercise of hierarchical power and authority over its adherents, and gave indications that the laity would take a much greater part in Church life, rather than being the mere recipients of Church favors.

It does not seem accidental that Vatican II took place both in the wake of, and during the time which the liberation movements in Africa and Asia brought about the dismantlement of the old empires, followed by the creation of new nation states, in which surged visions of freedom and development for the newly enfranchised populations which had previously experienced oppression, deprivation and dispossession under the yoke of colonialism.

Liberation theology, the tools of which were developed in Europe, received its huge impetus from Spanish-speaking theologians of Central and South America, many, if not most of whom, were originally trained in Europe.

As a theology, it went far beyond traditional metaphysical doctrines in its search of liberation of the individual. It recognized that if poverty, deprivation and oppression were the material conditions of a person's life, then such a life could never be free, and it set as its goal to analyze the society in which such lives were lived.

Liberation theology, by exposing and critiquing the concentration and control of wealth and power in the hands of the few at the top of the political, economic and social pyramid, showed how the structures and institutions of capitalist society resulted in both a dispossessed, impoverished, oppressed and powerless rural peasantry and the creation of an impoverished urban proletariat.

Using Marxist tools of analysis, these studies revealed that these social conditions of poverty were the deliberate and predictable results of the structures and institutions of capitalist society, and not mere accidents.

That is to say, that human destruction and suffering produced in these economies was both intentional and unavoidable, and not merely an undesirable by- product of their functioning.

It was this analysis which brought about a new attitude towards and understanding of the class of the poor, seeing them not as backward, incompetent lazy people, who brought their fate upon themselves, but rather as victims of institutional violence.

This understanding led to new focus in theology called a "preferential option for the poor" which developed the social doctrine of serving "the poor and the oppressed."

It was both the exposure to the suffering of the poor and the findings of this theology which moved priests to side with the people.

The focus of salvation swung from the priest and his administration of the sacraments to consciousness-raising of the poor, to the creation of base communities of support and co-operation in which the poor began to be empowered by running their own lives.

They began to read the bible for its message of liberation, and began to understand themselves as actors, to subjects, becoming co-workers with Christ towards their own human salvation within life-giving communities of support.

Liberation theology led to an empowerment of the poor, and thus had the potential of confronting the rich and powerful to demand a change in the institutional structures.

Given that South America's economies were dominated by a capitalist United States, working in cohorts with local powerful wealthy ruling groups and manipulating political power in their favor, it is not surprising that such socio-economic critiques of Central and South America would cause more than one confrontation: with the local ruling powers, with the upper hierarchy of the Church, and not far behind, the United States government, which represented big business interests.

Two historical events occurred in the Church to bring to a halt the spread of liberation theology and its political concomitants: the election of Pope John Paul II in 1978, and his appointment, in 1981, of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly referred to as the Holy Inquisition.

Both men were intractably anti-Communist and identified Marxism with the communism of the Soviet Union: the Pope from his experience living in Communist Poland, and Cardinal Ratzinger as a result of the student uprising in Tübingen University in 1968, an experience which indelibly affected his approach to life, placing him firmly on the right in the conservative camp. Here the term "conservative" means the conservation of those structures of power that already exist for the sake of order.

In the late 1970's, first under Carter, and then under Reagan, the United States began covert persecutions of political liberation movements, informed by liberation theology, in Central and South America, in particular Nicaragua and then El Salvador.

The collapse of the Somoza regime in Nicaragua as a result of the exposure of its huge corruption with respect to the funds that had poured into the country to aid in the reconstruction, following an earthquake that devastated the capital Managua and the failure of a rightist, repressive, pro-US government to take power, occasioned the persecutions.

The Sandinistas, with Catholic priests in leadership positions, espoused a political program to benefit the poor through government programs for literacy, medical care, housing, etc. and aided by Cuba, led the struggle for power in Nicaragua and won. In El Salvador, the violence of the right-wing, repressive government was being exposed by the leading church figure, Archbishop Oscar Romero, who had originally been a pro-government conservative bishop.

However, the horror of the violence brought about his political conversion, and adopting a liberation theology stance, he used his church forum in the struggle against the government's violence.

He was subsequently assassinated by government soldiers. Against the background of these struggles to be rid of these oppressive regimes, a fateful convergence took place in the early 1980's.

The Reagan government saw the liberation movements as being against the interests of the US, which, of course, they were, and he labeled them both "communist" and "terrorist", the slogans used to categorize the "enemies" of the United States.

Not long thereafter, Rome began to seriously question liberation theology.

And it is important to remember that at this time, the non-Communist trade union in Poland, led by Lech Walesa, was being supported openly by the Pope, support that was later said to have contributed to the collapse of Communism in Poland.

Those who were writing with this focus were aggressively examined, questioned and warned, putting them on the defensive.

This assault led, in 1984, to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under Ratzinger, issuing its first Instruction against liberation theology.

It was a strong censure against its tools of analysis, particular in its repudiation of Marxist analysis, while accusing it of neglecting the divine Jesus.

This first official damper was subsequently followed by a second Instruction in 1986, which put it on the defensive.

The effect of these two instructions was to maintain the status quo of the Church which continued therefore to serve the interests of the rich and the powerful, almost by definition.

The poor were to continue to receive charity, or handouts. What the Church did not, and would not, conceive, or maybe just not concede, is that the interests of the rich conflict, even unto death, with the interests of the poor, and because the socio-economic political framework permits and protects this arrangement, this becomes a theological issue because it goes to the heart of the question as to what it means to be human.

And it is at this point precisely that liberation theology picks up the challenge, and focusing on the problem of humanity uses the template of Jesus' humanity to explicate more fully the basic s of our humanity.

But the official church chose to forego this option, and through its Instructions, which are in essence condemnations, de-legitimized liberation theology.

Although it has remained the most vital and meaningful understanding of God for the poor, providing them hope and inspiration, it was relegated to the margins of theological discussion by those in power.

This intellectual marginalization however was not accompanied by an inactivity on the part of the Magisterium, the Inquision. It sent out warnings that those theologians who insisted on continuing in this field that could be up for censure.

Over the years many theologians were persecuted by the church, resulting, in one spectacular case, in the defection from the order of Franciscan Friars and the priesthood, Leonardo Boff, one of the leading Brazilian liberation theologians, after he was silenced more than once by the Church.

Until very recently liberation theology seemed to have been in the doldrums, but a recent condemnation has broken the silence. It appears that liberation theology has come back to haunt the official Church, and this time, not by theologians, but by politicians.

But what the latest event reveals is the continuing rejection of by the present Pope and his Magisterium, or teaching body, reminding those who might have forgotten, that the Roman Catholic Church remains one of the main players on the world stage, which can still, and will, bring its weight to bear where it so desires.

Ignorance of its power and interests creates a vacuum in both political analysis and then political programs, which affects profoundly those whose views and visions are in opposition to it, without their even being aware of the source of this counter-point power.

The most recent theologian to be condemned is Fr. Jon Sobrino, sj, (a Jesuit) one of older and more prominent liberation theologians who did not stop his work despite being warned repeatedly by Rome.

In December, 2006, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under its new prefect, the American, William Joseph Cardinal Levada, appointed by Pope Benedict XVI as his replacement, issued a Notification against Fr. Sobrino concerning arcane theological formulations about Jesus' divine nature, as opposed to His human nature, formulations that have no bearing on the life of an ordinary Catholic, let alone on the lives of those who not only continue to be "poor and oppressed" but to all those who have joined their ranks as a result of the unchecked, rapacious, capitalist imperialist policies of the US, Europe and their client states, such as Israel.

Why was Sobrino censured at the end of December 2006 for some ideas he had originally published in 1992 and 1999 especially since these books are in circulation even now? What served as the provocation at this time?

When the Holy See issues such Notifications, it does not explain itself beyond the actual text that it publicizes. The same principle worked when De Paul University gave no explanation for the dismissal of Dr. Finkelstein.

I however, would like to surmise, believing that the Church does not act, at least with regard to the Pope, without a policy, even if that policy and vision is not spelled out.The immediate effect of this censure on Sobrino is that his bishop removed his teaching faculty as a Catholic theologian, but given the historical context, there is a much broader thrust to this Notification.

Fr. Sobrino is a Basque theologian who has been teaching in the Jesuit University of Central America in San Salvador, El Salvador, where four Jesuits, with whom he was living, were killed by an assassination squad in 1989, as part of the US supported murderous political repression of indigenous political liberation movements in Central and South America.

Sobrino escaped that particular horrific event because only because he was out of the country at the time. However, Sobrino continued his work in liberation theology, remaining on the side of the poor, a focus which is reflected in these new regimes in South America.

Therefore the timing of the censure is not accidental. It comes at a period when indigenous governments are actually standing up the United States in the interests of their own populations and whose economic policies do not serve US interests. First and foremost of these leaders is Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who has already been overthrown once by pro-US forces, but who was voted back into power.

He has been followed in other countries by Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Evo Morales in Bolivia.

Although Luis da Silva in Brazil and Michelle Bachelet in Chile were elected on similar tickets, they have not been as confrontational as Chavez. However, none of these governments represent the interests of the rich and powerful, although some might be too weak at this time to stand up to these forces.

In all of these countries the vast majority of the population is Catholic, and Chavez has not hesitated to call upon the Jesus of liberation theology in support of his socio-political goals! .

That this can have a domino effect upon the people can already be seen.

To use a phrase coined by Chomsky, these governments are providing the "threat of a good example" that is, an example for the poor of the world to attempt to wrest their fate out of the rapacious grip of US capitalism.

The stakes are enormous and therefore the counter-force that these examples will inevitably produce will be extremely dangerous. This is what happened with Saddam Hussein who had both modernized and strengthened Iraq such that he anticipated being a regional power, and thereby influencing the surrounding countries.

But this is precisely what the US could not permit, and the outcome is well known.

Therefore we have to understand that the confrontation of power that is lining up in South America is not for amateurs as it involves the very highest stakes which have served as the motivation for Western imperialism--the control of resource and markets.

Given the attitude of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, it is reasonable to assess that the intention of Sobrino's censure is to condemn these new leftist leaders in Central and South America, while aligning the Church and its considerable sphere of influence with the US.

What, it may be asked now, is the connection between Dr. Finkelstein, a Jew, and liberation theology?

Well, the problem for Dr. Finkelstein is that in the context of Palestine/Israel, he has addressed the same questions that liberation theology addresses, and has also taken the side of the "poor and the oppressed."

It needs only a small amount of imagination to draw the same damning assessment of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and its ally, the US, as liberation theology draws about the oppressive regimes of Central and South America and their ties with the US.

Here, surprisingly, there appears to be a lacuna in global comparative political analysis. It has not been remarked that there is an almost virtual identity of the repressive and violent Central and South American governments and the repressive and violent Israeli government.

These governments have not confined their persecution within their own borders, or even the borders of militarily occupied territory, but have not hesitated to conduct attacks in neighboring countries to either undermine or to uphold governments, depending on the particular situations.

At the same time, it would not be unreasonable to expect progressive Arab and Palestinian movements to begin to make common cause with forces with the progressive governments of South America, although one can well imagine that everything will be done to prevent this from occurring by the establishments of the US, Europe and the official Roman Catholic Church.

This nexus continues to maintain that Zionism is not colonialism, is not an integral part of the capitalist-imperialist hegemonic outreach in the Middle East, nor is it a loyal client for other capitalist ventures, eg Iran-Contra affair.

In order to maintain the bluff of a legitimate Jewish state in Palestine, the Zionist/Holocaust narrative is promoted with full force against those who challenge its veracity, both historically and politically.

The fact that the Holocaust cannot be challenged in Europe, on pain of imprisonment, seems to prove this point.

After all, pace Galileo, why should it be a crime if I say that the world is flat?

Norman Finkelstein has challenged these positions. He has also challenged one of its supreme spokesmen, Alan Dershowitz.

But that he has done this now, at this critical juncture in world politics, is what caused De Paul University, and the Catholic Church, to either go along with Dershowitz or hide behind the proverbial petticoat, achieving, in either case, its desired outcome.

Had Finkelstein come up for tenure five years ago, De Paul might not have fired him. Yet timing is all. The third factor which plays into his firing is one that has not been mentioned at all, and yet, taking the overall position of the Church, it certainly makes sense.

It is by now, a well-known fact that "Islamic fundamentalists" were invented originally by the US, in order to discredit and prevent the spread of Arab democratic secularism, which spearheaded Arab liberation movements.

They naturally posed a threat to the capitalist, imperialist ambitions, particularly in the oil-rich Middle East, just in the same manner as the South American liberationist governments are doing at this time, because liberation movements demand that the resources and their benefits of these resources of a country remain in that country.

However, it turns out that the Islamic liberationist movements are no less anti-US than the secular democratic ones were and therefore have been attacked with virulence by spokespeople and governments of Europe and the US, and Israel.

This anti-Islamic stance, exacerbated after September 11, 2001, carries with connotations of an anti-arabism perforce because the Arabs have so much of the oil, has found a very deep resonance in the pronouncements of Pope Benedict XVI. He called Islam a "violent" religion, contrasting it, no doubt, with a peaceful Christianity.

Furthermore, this Pope has stated on more than one occasion that Europe is a "Christian" continent, and therefore there it is most inappropriate for Turkey, a Muslim country, to join the European Union.

This is a political position of the right which is echoed in the profound anti-Muslim feelings that have erupted in France, with a former President of France, Giscard D'Estaing expressing exactly the same view.

It should be no surprise that this condemnation of Islam finds a resonance in attitudes towards Palestine, where the democratically elected Islamic Hamas government has been attacked and mortally undermined by Israel, the US and Europe.

What has not been re-iterated is that Hamas was elected because of the corruption of the pro-Western Fatah leadership. Furthermore, Hamas seems to function in Palestine pretty much as liberation theology functions in South America, serving society at its most basic level, providing material and communal services, while condemning the US-backed Israeli onslaught.

Furthermore, I was personally informed by Christians that many of them voted for Hamas because they are not corrupt and have been serving the people who they say they represent.

Thus we have several interests converging in the demise of Dr. Finkelstein: the loss of autonomy of Catholic universities, the anti-liberationist position of the Church and its lining up with Western capitalist global interests and an anti-Islamic stance which harks back to a xenophobia one would have wished had disappeared from the world.

Is it any wonder, then, that Dr. Finkelstein was booted from De Paul Catholic University?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer

No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.

The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.

Sotto Voce

Under Pope Francis, liberation theology comes of age

Pope Francis' Sept. 11 meeting with Dominican Father Gustavo Gutierrez was an informal one, held in the in the pope's residence, the Domus Sanctae Marthae, and not listed on his official schedule.

Yet the news that Pope Francis had received the 85-year old Peruvian priest, who is widely considered the father of liberation theology, has excited interest far beyond the Vatican's walls.

During the 1990s, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith conducted a lengthy critical review of Father Gutierrez's work, and required him to write and rewrite articles clarifying some of his theological and pastoral points.

But within a single week in early September 2013, the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, published an interview with Father Gutierrez, an article by the theologian himself, and two articles praising his work -- one of them by the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard L. Muller.

Following years of Vatican criticism of liberation theology under Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, these events might seem to indicate a reversal of policy under Pope Francis. It would be more accurate to say they represent the fruit of a long and painful process, through which the church has clarified the nature of its commitment to the world's poor today.

Liberation theology emerged in Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s. It finds in Scripture the principles and inspiration for working to free people from unjust social patterns and structures. Its starting point often is the concrete situation of Latin America's predominantly poor people and how they understand the Scriptures as relating to them in their struggles for freedom from sin and from unjust social structures.

During the 1980s, the Vatican's doctrinal office under then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict, issued two major documents on liberation theology. The documents praised the movement's concern for the poor and for justice, but condemned a tendency to mix Marxist social analysis and concepts such as "class struggle" with religious commitments to end poverty and injustice.

The consequences of theologians adopting Marxist methods, Pope Benedict later told Brazilian bishops, included "rebellion, division, dissent, offense (and) anarchy," which were still "creating great suffering in your diocesan communities and a serious loss of vital energy."

On another occasion, he told an interviewer that the "politicization of the faith" by some liberation theologians had contributed to the "widespread exodus" of Latin American Catholics to Pentecostal and other Protestant churches.

Many Jesuits embraced liberation theology as part of what a 1975 decree by the order called their "commitment to promote justice and enter into solidarity with the voiceless and the powerless."

Not surprisingly, any signs of sympathy with secular ideas of revolution drew concern from the Vatican. In 2007, the doctrinal congregation warned of "erroneous or dangerous propositions" in the work of Jesuit Father Jon Sobrino. The following year, Pope Benedict found it necessary to ask the Jesuits as an order to reaffirm their adherence to church teaching on a number of controversial questions, including "some aspects of the theology of liberation."

As superior of the Jesuits' Argentine province from 1973 to 1979, then-Father Jorge Mario Bergoglio discouraged politicization among his priests, especially during the military dictatorship that took power in Argentina in 1976. In the polarized atmosphere within the order, he was hardly counted as a friend of liberation theology.

But the future pope's pastoral work for and with the poor was constant, and would eventually find expression at the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean, held in 2007 in Aparecida, Brazil.

The conference's concluding document, of which then-Cardinal Bergoglio was a principal author, did not use the term "liberation theology," but its strong words about the "building of a just and fraternal society" that ensures "health, food, education, housing and work for all" reflect the spirit of the movement in its orthodox version.

Pope Francis' election was thus a powerful affirmation of the belief that the pursuit of social justice is a necessary consequence of Christian faith. But less than nine months before the papal conclave, a less heralded appointment had already signaled that this belief, as formulated in liberation theology, enjoyed favor at the church's highest levels.

When Pope Benedict named Archbishop Muller to head the doctrinal office, in July 2012, he surely knew that the man he was making the highest custodian of church teaching after the pope himself was an admirer and co-author of none other than Father Gutierrez.