The Birth of Liberation Theology

[Hawk1981]

Believing that God speaks particularly through the poor and that the Bible can be understood only when seen from the perspective of the poor, Liberation Theologians perceived that the Roman Catholic Church in Latin America was fundamentally different from the church in Europe. Liberation Theology sought to apply religious faith by aiding the poor and oppressed through involvement in political and civic affairs. It stressed both heightened awareness of the “sinful” socioeconomic structures that caused social inequities and active participation in changing those structures.

Though the birth of the liberation theology movement is usually dated to the second Latin American Bishops’ Conference, which was held in Medellín, Colombia in 1968, the origins of the movement can be traced to the early 1960s when Pope John XXIII had called for an updating of the Catholic Church, and had published several socially oriented encyclicals which committed the Church to democracy, human rights, and religious freedom.

That commitment was formalized by the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) called by Pope John, which ended the self-imposed insulation of the Catholic Church from modernity, opened the church to other religious and philosophical currents, and formally endorsed democratic government and religious pluralism.

In Europe and Latin America large Christian Democratic parties had emerged which were committed to democracy, freedom, and the welfare state, and in Italy, Germany, and Belgium as well as in Venezuela and Chile they were major contenders for power.

The Second Vatican Council legitimized philosophical and religious pluralism, endorsing dialogue not only with other Christians, Jews, and Muslims but also with agnostics, atheists, and Marxists. Christian-Marxist dialogues had already been taking place in Europe, but in Latin America the Roman Catholic church strongly opposed Communism--especially in its Castroite form, which in the wake of the Cuban revolution had acquired a new appeal to intellectuals and youth.

The populist Latin American governments of the 1950s and 1960s -- especially those of Juan Perón in Argentina, Getúlio Vargas in Brazil, and Lázaro Cárdenas in Mexico -- inspired nationalistic consciousness and significant industrial development in the shape of import substitution. This benefited the middle classes and urban proletariat but threw huge sectors of the peasantry into deeper rural marginalization or sprawling urban shantytowns. Development proceeded along the lines of dependent capitalism, subsidiary to that of the rich nations and excluding the great majorities of national populations. This process led to the creation of strong popular movements seeking profound changes in the socio-economic structure of their countries. These movements in turn provoked the rise of military dictatorships, which sought to safeguard or promote the interests of capital, associated with a high level of "national security" achieved through political repression and police control of all public demonstrations.

In the same period the United States government established aid programs such as the Alliance for Progress which was intended to demonstrate that with US financial support democratic governments could promote reforms in land tenure, taxation, education, and social welfare that would prove that it was not necessary to resort to revolution to secure social progress.

United States and Latin American social scientists wrote about solving the problems of modernization in the third world by promoting development--especially economic development--which could respond to a perceived "revolution of rising expectations." As millions flocked to Latin America's already overcrowded major cities, economists argued that the promotion of industrialization through import-substitution and economic integration, as well as agricultural development through agrarian reform, would provide the basis for a democratic response to the underdevelopment of the region.

In this context the socialist revolution in Cuba stood out as an alternative leading to the dissolution of the chief cause of underdevelopment: dependence. Pockets of armed uprising appeared in many countries, aimed at overthrowing the ruling powers and installing socialist-inspired regimes. There was a great stirring for change among the popular sections of society. Students and intellectuals became disillusioned with the possibilities of reformism and argued that a more revolutionary approach along Cuban lines was necessary in the face of land reform failure and the rise of military dictatorships.

 

[Hawk1981]

The Second Vatican Council produced a theological atmosphere characterized by great freedom and creativity. This gave Latin American theologians the courage to think for themselves about pastoral problems affecting their countries. This process could be seen at work among both Catholic and Protestant thinkers on the need for a Christian ideal of history, linked to popular action, with a methodology that foreshadowed that of liberation theology; they urged personal engagement in the world, backed up by studies of social and liberal sciences, and illustrated by the universal principles of Christianity.

The Liberation Theology movement’s seminal text, A Theology of Liberation (Teología de la liberación) published in 1971, was written by Gustavo Gutiérrez, a Peruvian priest and theologian. Other leaders of the movement included the Belgian-born Brazilian priest José Comblin, Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero of El Salvador, Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff, Jesuit scholar Jon Sobrino, and Archbishop Helder Câmara of Brazil.

The liberation theology movement gained strength in Latin America during the 1970s. Because of their insistence that ministry should include involvement in the political struggle of the poor against wealthy elites, liberation theologians were often criticized—both formally, from within the Roman Catholic Church, and informally—as naive purveyors of Marxism and advocates of leftist social activism. By the 1990s the Vatican, under Pope John Paul II, had begun to curb the movement’s influence through the appointment of conservative prelates in Brazil and elsewhere in Latin America.

 

[Hawk1981]

Nicaragua was a particular hot-spot for Liberation Theology. When the revolutionary struggle began in the 1960s and 1970s with the Sandinistas, the Catholic Church did not support it staying loyal to the Somoza regime at the beginning of the revolution, but acts of repression and human abuses became prevalent by Somoza and horrified the Church. Somoza engaged in violent tactics such as the authorization of bombings of major cities, some of which targeted the church in his attempts to hold on to power.

Priests became active in the overthrow of the dictatorship, and took jobs in the revolutionary government that followed, despite being forbidden to by the Pope. The reorganization of pastoral work led to the formation of Christian base communities (CEBs), which incorporated the laity’s importance in the pastoral mission. Religious activity at the grassroots increased and brought new vitality to the church. Peasants were unable to organize under the repressive Somoza regime, but under the CEBs, these peasants were allowed to congregate and this is how the grassroots organizations were born.

 

[Hawk1981]

The concept of “liberation” was, in part, a sharp reaction to the structural theory of historical economic growth promoted by economists such as Walt Rostow in the late 1950s and early 1960s. His model postulates that economic growth occurs in five basic stages, of varying length: Traditional society; The Pre Conditions of take-off; Take-off; Drive to technological maturity; and High Mass Consumption.

Rostow asserts that countries go through each of these stages fairly linearly, and set out a number of conditions that were likely to occur in investment, consumption, and social trends at each state. Not all of the conditions were certain to occur at each stage, however, and the stages and transition periods may occur at varying lengths from country to country, and even from region to region.

Latin America did not seem to be approaching the "take-off" which had been promised by the theories of Walt Rostow's Stages of Economic Growth (1960).

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Liberation theology just produces more Communists. Including the current Pope. Yet another reason (among many) why I could never be a Catholic.

 

[Votto]

Liberation theology just produces more Communists. Including the current Pope. Yet another reason (among many) why I could never be a Catholic.

Exactly!

If were study the Bible we see some interesting facts.

In 1 Samuel 8, we see the Hebrew people clamoring for a king. They wanted to be ruled by a human king like all the other nations. Up till that time, all they had were "judges" to settle disputes. So the prophet Samuel went before God with the news and God told Samuel that they were really rejecting him as king and told the prophet to tell the people of the long list of abuses that would incur if they insisted on a human king who would be just as sinful as they. So the prophet read the long list of abuses that they would suffer but predictably they wanted one anyway, so God said they could have one with the condition knowing that once they had their human king he would not heed any of their prayers in relation to the abuses would no doubt suffer, which I think is one of the most chilling verses in the Bible. So God gave them their first king named Saul. From there, it was a spiral downward for the nation of Israel as it only took 2 more subsequent kings before the nation of Israel broke in two, and later Assyria took out the northern province and Babylon the Southern due to their wicked state under such kings.

In Thomas Pain's pamphlet "Common Sense", this was written about as a way to generate support for the American revolution to get rid of the King of England. However, after the revolution power predictably heads toward a king like state once again as we have seen from the past. Originally, the US government created the Articles of Confederation, which essentially had states having their freedom under a loose central Federal power, but it was deemed unworkable and reworked for a stronger centralized government, hence the Constitution was created a few years later. Under this provision, the Federal government had much more power with three branches of power to help divide power to help reduce the tendency for a king like state with one branch ruling over the others. However, over time the Executive Branch has increased in strength over the others to the point that the Executive Branch is often referred to as the fourth branch of government after Congress had ceded much of its power to the various departments in the Executive branch. Now these "departments" institute regulations that are essentially as good as laws, yet they are passed by unelected people on a whim. And what do we see in terms of the attitude of the people? Most have no idea who their Congressman is or even governor, but they do know who the President is and blame that person or praise that person for pretty much everything. In short, the President has become a sort of king.

But I think it only human nature to seek a king because we were wired by God to make him our king. But as the sinful nature of man dictates, they reject that leadership for another. I think that this was the message in the Lord of the Rings, since the author was a Christian. Once the ring of power is placed on the finger, it starts to change you, and not for the better. No matter how "good" you may be, it will lead you down a very dark path as well as for those around you.

In the New Testament, Jesus hints at this as well. Once he was taken to Pilate for interrogation right before being sent to the cross, Pilate asked him if he was a king. Jesus said that he was, but not of "this world". In other words, he was not a king of the human governments that were preoccupied with power and wealth. Jesus said that satan was the god of that world. He told Pilate that if he were a king of this world system, his disciples would have taken up arms to free him.

Later we see Constantine take up the fledgling religion of Christianity as his own as he told his troops to put the sign of the cross on their shields to conquer in the name of Christ. However, Constantine himself did not even convert as he continued to worship pagan deities, although it is rumored that he converted on his death bed. In other words, he saw how the religion seemed to flourish, even amongst the harshest of circumstances such as Christians being thrown to the lions, so he thought it would be good to take up their cause to help him achieve power. However, he had no knowledge of the fact that God's kingdom cannot be mingled with the world system of satan in relation to a preoccupation of wealth and political power. So Christianity enters a dark era of Inquisitions, Crusades, and endless Jewish persecution lasting centuries in Europe that climaxed with the Holocaust.

So if Black Liberation theologists wish to march down the same old path, I reckon they will have pretty much the same result. Unfortunately for Islam, the state and religion of Islam cannot stand apart because Islam is simply a means of mandating Sharia law via the state as where Christianity is not. As a result, look at all of the Islamic countries that insist on living under Sharia law. They are living hells of persecution and violence as all Islamic countries lead the world in terrorism.

And if you look at conservatives verses Leftists, you will find something interesting. Most people of faith, that is, those who practice their religion rather than simply say they are a Christian without practicing their faith, are conservatives. Their counterparts, those that are not of faith or those who do not practice their faith, lean Left. So what you wind up with are conservatives who give more of their time and money to helping the poor than those on the Left as those on the Left simply sit around complaining about poverty and whining about how we should all elect Leftists into power on the premise of them raising taxes to make them pay more in taxes with the hopes of some of that money going to those in need.

And that my friends is the dividing line. Those that don't make God their king will find a human king in his stead to fill the void. But as Jesus aptly stated, we are all sheep so choose your Shepard wisely. All other Shepards are imposters who will not do their jobs right.

 

[Hawk1981]

In 1961, President John Kennedy announced the "Alliance for Progress," an economic assistance program to promote political democracy, economic growth, and social justice in Latin America. This program followed-up on several years of economic aid introduced during the Eisenhower administration because it judged the region susceptible to social revolution and communism.

Latin America was promised over twenty billion dollars over a ten year period in public and private capital from the United States and international lending authorities during the 1960s. The money would arrive in the form of grants, loans, and direct private investments. When combined with an expected eighty billion dollars in internal investment, this new money was projected to stimulate an economic growth rate of not less than 2.5 percent a year.

This economic growth would facilitate significant improvements in employment, and in rates of infant mortality, life expectancy, and literacy rates. In agreeing to the alliance, Latin American leaders pledged to work for equality and social justice by promoting agrarian reform and progressive income taxes.

Alliance programs delivered outside capital to the region, but the Alliance for Progress failed to transform Latin America. During the 1960s, Latin American economies performed poorly, usually falling below the 2.5 percent target. The region witnessed few improvements in health, education, or welfare. Latin American societies remained unfair and authoritarian.

The Alliance for Progress fell short of its goals for several reasons. Latin America had formidable obstacles to change: elites resisted land reform, equitable tax systems, and social programs; new credits often brought greater indebtedness rather than growth; and the Marshall Plan experience served as a poor guide to solving the problems of a region that was far different from Western Europe.

The United States also acted ambiguously, calling for democratic progress and social justice, but worried that Communists would take advantage of the instability caused by progressive change. Further, Washington provided wholehearted support only to those Latin American governments and organizations that pursued fervent anticommunist policies.

Economic aid to Latin America dropped sharply in the late 1960s, especially when Richard Nixon entered the White House.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Liberation theology just produces more Communists. Including the current Pope. Yet another reason (among many) why I could never be a Catholic.

Exactly!

If were study the Bible we see some interesting facts.

In 1 Samuel 8, we see the Hebrew people clamoring for a king. They wanted to be ruled by a human king like all the other nations. Up till that time, all they had were "judges" to settle disputes. So the prophet Samuel went before God with the news and God told Samuel that they were really rejecting him as king and told the prophet to tell the people of the long list of abuses that would incur if they insisted on a human king who would be just as sinful as they. So the prophet read the long list of abuses that they would suffer but predictably they wanted one anyway, so God said they could have one with the condition knowing that once they had their human king he would not heed any of their prayers in relation to the abuses would no doubt suffer, which I think is one of the most chilling verses in the Bible. So God gave them their first king named Saul. From there, it was a spiral downward for the nation of Israel as it only took 2 more subsequent kings before the nation of Israel broke in two, and later Assyria took out the northern province and Babylon the Southern due to their wicked state under such kings.

In Thomas Pain's pamphlet "Common Sense", this was written about as a way to generate support for the American revolution to get rid of the King of England. However, after the revolution power predictably heads toward a king like state once again as we have seen from the past. Originally, the US government created the Articles of Confederation, which essentially had states having their freedom under a loose central Federal power, but it was deemed unworkable and reworked for a stronger centralized government, hence the Constitution was created a few years later. Under this provision, the Federal government had much more power with three branches of power to help divide power to help reduce the tendency for a king like state with one branch ruling over the others. However, over time the Executive Branch has increased in strength over the others to the point that the Executive Branch is often referred to as the fourth branch of government after Congress had ceded much of its power to the various departments in the Executive branch. Now these "departments" institute regulations that are essentially as good as laws, yet they are passed by unelected people on a whim. And what do we see in terms of the attitude of the people? Most have no idea who their Congressman is or even governor, but they do know who the President is and blame that person or praise that person for pretty much everything. In short, the President has become a sort of king.

But I think it only human nature to seek a king because we were wired by God to make him our king. But as the sinful nature of man dictates, they reject that leadership for another. I think that this was the message in the Lord of the Rings, since the author was a Christian. Once the ring of power is placed on the finger, it starts to change you, and not for the better. No matter how "good" you may be, it will lead you down a very dark path as well as for those around you.

In the New Testament, Jesus hints at this as well. Once he was taken to Pilate for interrogation right before being sent to the cross, Pilate asked him if he was a king. Jesus said that he was, but not of "this world". In other words, he was not a king of the human governments that were preoccupied with power and wealth. Jesus said that satan was the god of that world. He told Pilate that if he were a king of this world system, his disciples would have taken up arms to free him.

Later we see Constantine take up the fledgling religion of Christianity as his own as he told his troops to put the sign of the cross on their shields to conquer in the name of Christ. However, Constantine himself did not even convert as he continued to worship pagan deities, although it is rumored that he converted on his death bed. In other words, he saw how the religion seemed to flourish, even amongst the harshest of circumstances such as Christians being thrown to the lions, so he thought it would be good to take up their cause to help him achieve power. However, he had no knowledge of the fact that God's kingdom cannot be mingled with the world system of satan in relation to a preoccupation of wealth and political power. So Christianity enters a dark era of Inquisitions, Crusades, and endless Jewish persecution lasting centuries in Europe that climaxed with the Holocaust.

So if Black Liberation theologists wish to march down the same old path, I reckon they will have pretty much the same result. Unfortunately for Islam, the state and religion of Islam cannot stand apart because Islam is simply a means of mandating Sharia law via the state as where Christianity is not. As a result, look at all of the Islamic countries that insist on living under Sharia law. They are living hells of persecution and violence as all Islamic countries lead the world in terrorism.

And if you look at conservatives verses Leftists, you will find something interesting. Most people of faith, that is, those who practice their religion rather than simply say they are a Christian without practicing their faith, are conservatives. Their counterparts, those that are not of faith or those who do not practice their faith, lean Left. So what you wind up with are conservatives who give more of their time and money to helping the poor than those on the Left as those on the Left simply sit around complaining about poverty and whining about how we should all elect Leftists into power on the premise of them raising taxes to make them pay more in taxes with the hopes of some of that money going to those in need.

And that my friends is the dividing line. Those that don't make God their king will find a human king in his stead to fill the void. But as Jesus aptly stated, we are all sheep so choose your Shepard wisely. All other Shepards are imposters who will not do their jobs right.

I could never support a human king. The idea of a sovereign leader is absurd to me, and patently offensive. There is only one king, and he is yet to return.
Our government will progress to tyranny and civil war. This is the cyclical pattern of things. It is most shameful given what America stood for. However, spoiled and infiltrated it is ceasing to be what it was...even 20 years ago.
As for the blacks, they will go where there are directed. They are a 'hand to mouth' people. They are like wheat in the wind, thrashing around, but never progressing forward.
Many have been cursed with a suffocating mental dimness.

 

[whitehall]

The Founding Fathers thought freedom of religion was so important that they addressed it in the first Amendment to the Constitution. It took a former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR to find a concept of "separation of church and state" that did not appear in the Constitution.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The OP mentioned El Salvador Archbishop Oscar Romero, murdered by rightwing killers in 1980. Romero spoke out against poverty, social injustice, assassinations, and torture amid a growing war between left-wing peasants and a military right-wing government that had taken power in a coup and was supported by landowners.

Romero was the most popular Catholic leader in the country, a Jesuit killed while celebrating Mass in the chapel of the Hospital of Divine Providence, run by Opus Dei. Though no one was ever convicted for the crime, the UN-created Truth Commission for El Salvador concluded that the extreme right-wing politician, founder of ARENA and death squad leader Roberto D'Aubuisson had given the order. Four American nuns were also killed by rightwing terrorists about this time.

During Romero's beatification in 2015, attended by perhaps 200,000 people, Pope Francis stated, “His ministry was distinguished by his particular attention to the most poor and marginalized."

During his funeral ceremony at the San Salvador Cathedral, also massively attended, bombs exploded on the streets near the cathedral and then snipers fired from surrounding buildings, including the National Palace. Some 50 people were killed, though official government sources reported only 31 casualties. Some witnesses claimed it was government security forces that threw bombs into the crowd

Óscar Romero - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Salvadoran Civil War - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

During the bloody civil war that lasted for 12 years, both the Carter and Reagan administrations gave between $1-2 million per day to the “government” side.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The OP mentioned El Salvador Archbishop Oscar Romero, murdered by rightwing killers in 1980. Romero spoke out against poverty, social injustice, assassinations, and torture amid a growing war between left-wing peasants and a military right-wing government that had taken power in a coup and was supported by landowners.

Romero was the most popular Catholic leader in the country, a Jesuit killed while celebrating Mass in the chapel of the Hospital of Divine Providence, run by Opus Dei. Though no one was ever convicted for the crime, the UN-created Truth Commission for El Salvador concluded that the extreme right-wing politician, founder of ARENA and death squad leader Roberto D'Aubuisson had given the order. Four American nuns were also killed by rightwing terrorists about this time.

During Romero's beatification in 2015, attended by perhaps 200,000 people, Pope Francis stated, “His ministry was distinguished by his particular attention to the most poor and marginalized."

During his funeral ceremony at the San Salvador Cathedral, also massively attended, bombs exploded on the streets near the cathedral and then snipers fired from surrounding buildings, including the National Palace. Some 50 people were killed, though official government sources reported only 31 casualties. Some witnesses claimed it was government security forces that threw bombs into the crowd

Óscar Romero - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Salvadoran Civil War - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

During the bloody civil war that lasted for 12 years, both the Carter and Reagan administrations gave between $1-2 million per day to the “government” side.

Reagan never met a right wing authoritarian he didnt like. Same as Thatcher.

 

[surada]

S

The concept of “liberation” was, in part, a sharp reaction to the structural theory of historical economic growth promoted by economists such as Walt Rostow in the late 1950s and early 1960s. His model postulates that economic growth occurs in five basic stages, of varying length: Traditional society; The Pre Conditions of take-off; Take-off; Drive to technological maturity; and High Mass Consumption.

Rostow asserts that countries go through each of these stages fairly linearly, and set out a number of conditions that were likely to occur in investment, consumption, and social trends at each state. Not all of the conditions were certain to occur at each stage, however, and the stages and transition periods may occur at varying lengths from country to country, and even from region to region.

Latin America did not seem to be approaching the "take-off" which had been promised by the theories of Walt Rostow's Stages of Economic Growth (1960).

Seems to me that the sermon on the mount is about non-violent liberation theology.

 

[rupol2000]

Bible can be understood only when seen from the perspective of the poor

Is it about the fact that slaves must obey their masters (Apostle Paul) and not eat too much?

 

[rupol2000]

The main problem of Christians, Marxists and all leftist masses is that they are illiterate in matters of their own teachings, but they like to speculate on these topics. Marx is for the poor, the bible is for the poor, your rapist loves you when you're on your knees before him, yes yes yes.