Excerpted from Spiegel Online.
...In the early 1980s, when Pope John Paul II wanted to clamp down on what he considered a dangerous, Marxist-inspired movement in the Roman Catholic Church, liberation theology, he turned to a trusted aide: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
Now Cardinal Ratzinger is Pope Benedict XVI, and when he arrives here on Wednesday for his first pastoral visit to Latin America he may be surprised at what he finds. Liberation theology, which he once called "a fundamental threat to the faith of the church," persists as an active, even defiant force in Latin America, home to nearly half the world's one billion Roman Catholics...
======
When I visited Nicaragua in 2003, I spent some time at a Liberation Theology base community in Managua - Batahola. I was impressed with the service. It was very moving - as was the artwork.
I don't agree with everything about Liberation Theology, but there is much I do like. Here's a photo of the main mural on the podium at Batahola. It's a nativity scene with a Liberation Theology edge. In the crowd of witnesses, you can see Oscar Romero and Che Guevera, among others.
To give you a sense of what Liberation Theology is about, here's the Batahola Mission statement:
The Batahola Norte Cultural Center holds as its mission to “live a style of life which is more congenial and just, according to the gospels, and directed towards the poor. By way of our culture and an integral education, we promulgate human rights, self-esteem and equality. We believe in the empowerment of the person and the value of sharing what we are and have in order to transform this society into the Kingdom of God".
29 comments:
Never heard of Liberation Theology until I read your post, thanks.
It's so similar to so many movements of the past, including that of the Catholic church: the desire to bring a little bit of heaven to Earth. To get involved in the politics of 'human rights, self-esteem and equality'. Jesus was distinctly apolitical and we only have to look at history to see why. Every time churches begin to dabble in politics it turns out badly.
It's interesting stuff and I've just touched on it. This particular post doesn't say anything about churches dabbling in politics - they were talking about personal decisions to live humbly, sustainably, simply in ways that don't violate human rights.
Having said that, I think LT doesn't have a problem dabbling in gov't. Jesus took actions that were taken as quite political. He was executed by the gov't because he was deemed a menace to society.
The prophets in the OT repeatedly dabbled in politics. That was largely the job of prophets. So, I don't think biblically-speaking, there is any ban on taking acts and advocating policies that have political ramifications.
Still, even if you disagree with it, LT is a large factor in what's happening all across Latin America and it's worth reading up on.
It'll let us all know that, at the least, some of the so-called "communist" blows being struck south of the border are not by "godless communists."
"...are not by "godless communists."
LOL! Right. Thjey worship the same God I do.
LOL!
Che the murderer is on the mural?
LOL!
It doesn't surprise me that you admire someone who preaches hate as a virtue, Dan.
I repeat:
"I don't agree with everything about Liberation Theology, but there is much I do like."
Take your hate-mongering elsewhere, D.
"Hate-mongering"?
LOLOL! Gawd!
You invoke the name of Che and call me a hate-mogerer?
This illustrates your warpedness, my friend.
But still you count Dan as your friend, Daddy? Good for you! And surprisingly openminded.
We're comrades in music. Bound together by mandolin and guitar strings...
C'mon, Dan! We're bound by more than music...aren't we?
?
Well, I'd say we're brothers in Christ, but I didn't think you accepted me thusly...
One of the reasons I dislike this pope so much is that, as Cardinal Ratzinger, he did great harm to many Liberation theologians whom I admired. One of the worst was what he did to Leonardo Boff, the Franciscan from Brazil.
I have no truck with the likes of Che Guevera or Camillo Torres (but I am surprised that Daddio does, because the only difference between them and G.W. Bush is which set of civilians they kill), but they were the fringe of Liberation Theology--even at its height in the '80s.
But Ratzinger/Benedict tarred everyone with the same brush, including nonviolent activists like Romero (and Brazilian bishops Arns and Camera) and the gentle pacifist Franciscan Leonardo Boff. Eventually, Boff resigned his ordination and is now a layperson.
"...the only difference between them and G.W. Bush is which set of civilians they kill..."
If you really believe this, Reverend, You are truly a sick, sick puppy.
Why, D? Why is Bush right for using the largest military in the world to invade a nation unprovoked (or at least not an imminent threat to the US - I suppose one can find provocation in a dirty look, if one is so inclined) but Guevera was wrong to use violence to try to end the poverty of his people?
Michael is merely pointing out that you - by your own testimony - are okay with using violence to solve problems, if need be. Therefore, it is understandable why he or I would be reluctant to endorse Guevara, but why would you? Why is Guevara's violence wrong and Bush's right?
The manner in which they use the violence? The goal?
I'd have to go with D here, Dan. We who like to hear and discuss different views and philosophies look eagerly to see if what someone is espousing is genuinely a different way of viewing things or else it is just "hurray for our side."
You condemn Bush because bombing and military target which the enemy is purposely surrounding with civilians results in unintended and regretted civilian deaths. And you want to compare this to Guevara??
Just after the revolution Castro put Guevara in charge of La Cabaña prison. The revolution was over, they had won. Che set up a military court to try the prisoners and personally approved himself whether they were guilty of capital crimes. During the time of his supervision of the trials about 500 people were tried and all were shot to death. All of them. Teenagers, priests, civilians, all of them. And this was AFTER the revolution when they were no threat at all.
Guevara's own writings are full of his lust for killing. In his own diary in his own handwriting he wrote, "I feel my nostrils dilate savoring the acrid smell of gunpowder and blood of the enemy."
In 1957 Guevara suspected Eutimo Guerra of passing information. Just suspected. He explained later "I ended the problem with a .32 caliber pistol, in the right side of his brain." Personally.
I could go on and on. It is a subject with which I have more than a bowing acquaintance. Guevara was brutal murderer who went out of his way to kill anyone not in sympathy with him, women, children, and the elderly included.
It is exactly like my challenge for anyone to lay out the criteria by which we will read the Bible before we ever open the cover. Like that, what's the criteria for loathing a brutal violent leader even before we mention a name? No matter what criteria you choose, Guevara is far, far beyond the pale.
It has been the last decade or so that a Guevara myth has been cultivated and marketed as a capitalist item with coffee mugs and T-shirts, the very sort of capitalism that Guevara was supposedly saving the people from. This crap was wildly popular in Argentina (Guevara's native country) a few years ago and recognizing that they knew the myth but did not know the history, a couplet was popular among the young,
"Tengo una remera del Che
y no sé por qué"
I have a Che T-shirt
and I don't know why.
So how about it, Dan? Is violence ALWAYS the wrong way? Is idolizing someone who routinely and personally shot his distractors in the head loathsome to devoted pacifist or not?
Or is it just 'hurray for our side'??
I have not celebrated Che here. I personally don't really know enough about him to want to lift his praise.
I do know that many in Latin America honor him, such as this LT community.
So, I was saying that it makes sense that Michael and I don't necessarily celebrate Guevara, and I was asking D - or you, now - why demonize Guevara and not Bush, both of whom use deadly violent means to accomplish their ends?
A child molester offers a child candy to lure them into their vehicle. A mother offers a child candy if they clean their room.
We might say that they both are using candy as a bribe to control a child's actions.
But anyone who does not see the vast gulf separating a child molester and a mother because of or in spite of this seeming similarity, has deep, deep problems.
To those of us for whom all human action doesn't fit into one of two jars, violent and non-violent, with all violent actions and people being more or less the same.... for us the comparison of Bush and Guevara is very similar to the above example.
Guevara on occasion personally pulled his side arm and killed unarmed people simply because they questioned him or disagreed with him or he suspected them of something. If this is to be equated with Bush ordering military action in Iraq, you must not be surprised to find that your doctrine is not getting much support ... any more than claiming the actions of a child molester and a mother are to the same effect would get much support.
Dan, how this comes across at least to those of us with some smattering of South American history is that you advocate (foolishly) taking a punch from a thug in a domestic dispute, condemn US military action because civilians are harmed in collateral damage, and yet seem to shrug your shoulders when a person responsible for the brutal murders of hundreds of innocents is put on a religious mural with, "Hey, they seem to think he's a great guy!"
What then ARE the criteria for falling into the company of the odious? Does one have to be a white male member of a conservative political party while all others get a pass?
Just looking for the pattern here.
I repeat: I'm not celebrating Guevara. I have no opinion of him, not knowing enough about his story.
I DO know something of Che Guevera and, while I admire his goals, his means sicken me. But Che Guevera was not a liberation theologian and very few liberation theologians actively encouraged violence. When asked, during the late '70s and early '80s when most of them flourished in Latin America, many of them said that they would support a coup d'etat or a revolutionary overthrow of military dictatorships. But that's just what so many rightwing Christians support elsewhere.
I disagree with ANY use of violence by ANYONE for ANY reason. But I dislike seeing a double-standard in which people who are FAR from pacifist, like D.Daddio and other regular critics of Dan's blog, then turn around and condemn violence or the advocacy of violence when the poor use it to get their rights. It's like only American violence is okay. And that's just garbage.
Now, a significant minority of Liberation Theologians were or are pacifists. They advocated only nonviolent revolution and included people like the late Oscar Romero (Catholic Archbishop of El Salvador), assassinated in 1980 by death squads armed and financed by the U.S.A. Others of these nonviolent liberation theologians included Brazilian Archbishop Helder Camara, Brazilian Franciscan theologian Leonardo Boff, Salvadoran theologian Jon Sobrino (who just barely escaped being massacred along with his Jesuit community and their housekeeper and her daughter in 1984--again, supported by the U.S.).
So, if one is a pacifist, fine. Insist on nonviolence for everyone. If one believes in violence when rich oppressors use it, then one has ZERO grounds to criticize it when the poor use it to remove their chains.
>I disagree with ANY use of violence by ANYONE for ANY reason.
How do we reconcile this?
John 2:14-17
In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade." His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me."
Matthew 21:12
And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.
Mark 11:15
And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.
I can imagine that those on the receiving end of Jesus' actions would argue that this was not exactly pacifist behavior on His part. Is scripture in error here, or did Jesus commit a sin?
A fair question that I believe has been explained here before, but I'll be glad to respond to, as it's an easy answer (although off-topic, so let's let it end here)...
When pacifists and just peacemakers decry violence, we're generally talking about deadly or horrific violence and especially violence towards innocents. Jesus clearly didn't use deadly violence. He drove the moneychangers - and their critters - out of the temple.
There's no evidence to show that he even used the "whip" on people, it may well be that's what he used to drive the animals out.
If I were confronted with a person who was hurting a child, I'd put myself between that person and the child. If need be, I may even result to force to try to stop the situation.
But I wouldn't drop a bomb on him or his neighborhood. And I don't believe Jesus would either.
Satisfactory?
>Satisfactory?
Don't ask me. You're not trying to please me. Ask God. After all, this is His word, not mine.
Roger, you little snot (I'm foregoing the cursing, this time). I deal with a question you ask, assuming you honestly want to know what we thought.
Instead, you turn it around and use it as yet another chance to beat folk over the head with your religion. These sorts of responses (no doubt offered with no intention of being cheap weasly religiosity) are what physically sicken people about religious folk.
Learn to have regular conversations with people if you hope to be a real person one day.
I'll try to do the same.
Dan Trabue said...
>Roger, you little snot (I'm foregoing the cursing, this time). I deal with a question you ask, assuming you honestly want to know what we thought.
No, I brought up an apparent contradiction in scripture to a broad statement Michael made and you replied for him. (I think our views will be better understood if we each explain our own words.) Scripture is what is at odds here. I wanted to know how what Jesus did fit in with the statement that Michael made. That's all. If you're seeking converts to this interpretation of scripture that I assume you believe is right, you'll have to explain it in light of scripture. My last blog post was a reply to your puzzling habit of answering your posts with a question of if "it is satisfactory?" We're not in this for consensus. We're in this for truth, wherever it leads. Like I've heard it said before, our lives are shaped by scripture, and not the other way around.
Dan,
by the way, the tone of your previous post reveals you misunderstood where I was coming from. Sorry for the misunderstanding. It's hard to communicate via this medium. The enemy comes along and tries to get us to jump to sinister conclusions more times than not.
One more thing:
> (I think our views will be better understood if we each explain our own words.)
I think we're all guilty of trying to speak for Jesus, aren't we? At the end of the day our opinions are worthless and we'll never understand truth until we go to the source. If all we do is talk about Jesus and never point people to Him so they can meet Him for themselves, then we're not doing our job.
Michael:"condemn violence or the advocacy of violence when the poor use it to get their rights."
Of course, on major difference is that we are not responsible for what Che did nor what he stood for. We ARE responsible for that Bush does and what he stands for ... he stands for us. But what does that mean? Does it mean our obligation here is to not vote for (the likes of) him and to engage in rhetoric against him.
No. It's more direct that that. Bush represents us in that it is necessary for him to use violence to maintain our way of life. Anyone engaged in the consumerist/idle lifestyle ('idle' in that the person uses a great deal of things but he himself produces little or nothing) doesn't have a square inch of moral ground to stand on.
But it's the violence in the face of poverty that I find intriguing. Poverty is a curious thing. My parents who were children during the Great Depression told tales of how hard it was. I inquired whether they had enough to eat, to wear, stayed warm in the winter, etc. "Oh", they replied, "we always had plenty to eat and we had common hand-me-down clothes but they were adequate, etc."
So why were times so hard? Because, they said, no one had any money. I got the same story from my grandparents. But when I talked about this with my great-grandmother, her nongenerian face crinkled with a smile and she said, "Lord, child, no body around here ever had any money!" (She was born in 1866).
The feeling of sharp poverty my parents, and to some extent my grandparents, experienced was not because the standard of living became less, but rather because they came into contact with a "higher" standard than they'd ever known and did not have the means at that time to realize it for themselves.
This is played out many times in history and the history of Latin America is a prime example. The "poverty" Che fought against was not a diminishing of the people's standard of living as they had known it for generations, rather it was the rise of consumerism and a comparison of people's traditional lifestyle with the consumerism of the "rich" that lead to the resentment and revolutions.
This is why I didn't reply to the question. If anyone really would like a serious discussion of this and other "hard verses" for pacifism, I will soon blog on that on my blog. But I will not run off-topic on Dan's. Further, since Roger is NEVER really interested in discussion, but just wants to be a pain, I will continue my policy of not interacting with him.
>Further, since Roger is NEVER really interested in discussion, but just wants to be a pain, I will continue my policy of not interacting with him.
That's not true, and you have complimented me at times. The times you compliment me is when I seem to agree with you. When I bring up a point that contridicts your theology - all kinds of nasty comments are thrown my way. Discussion is open, not closed. Propaganda is what results when comments are deleted or labeled as off topic. Also, continuing this behavior only threatens to isolate yourself from others therefore resulting in a greater likelihood of error.
Wow! What a discussion!
Post a Comment