The Liberation of Puerto Rico: Liberation Theology and its Assumptions

What do Liberation theologians assume when constructing and developing their theology?  It is a known fact that no one does theology without a certain set of presuppositions.  This should come as a surprise to no one, when we consider, among other things, that no "pure objectivity" exists.  It is not always possible to know what are the underlying assumptions that each theologian is operating with.  Nevertheless, I will make every attempt to point to statements of each of the theologian that I have referred to in order to make it possible to have a notion of their assumptions.

Gustavo Gutierrez sayhs that "Liberation expresses the aspirations of oppressed peoples and social classes, emphasizing the conflictual aspect of the economic, social, and political process which puts them at odds with wealthy nations and oppressive classes (Gutierrez, p. 36)."  As one reads through his book, A Theology of Liberation, one will note that there is an emphasis on the oppressed peoples and classes of the world. From this particular quoted statement it should not be difficult for the reader to detect that Gutierrez not only assumes, but also firmly affirms that there is, in Latin America, a struggle taking place between different social groups.  While the term "oppressed groups," and "oppressive classes" can be vague in his definition the reader of the book will soon note that Gutierrez sees a division in society.  He makes a rather simple division by categorizing people into two groups: oppressive classes and oppressed groups. The development of his theology indicates that he assumes that there is an oppressed group in society. This is borne out by the fact that he accents the need for liberation to be linked with the historical transformation that is taking place in Latin America.

Hugo Assmann elaborates Gutierrez's assumption by pointing to the "starting point" in Liberation Theology. He says that this starting point is "our objective situation as oppressed and dependent peoples, which is forcing itself more and more strongly  on the consciousness of broad sections of Christian society in Latin America (Assmann, p. 43)." This is a statement which reflects the assumption that the people in Latin America are an "oppressed and dependent people."  Assmann gives a brief history of the development of Liberation Theology in Latin America.  In tracing this history, he shows that regardless of the course which Liberation Theology should take in the future, that its analytical content or central semantic axis should not be forgotten. He says "Any discussion of liberation must always go back to its essence: denouncing domination (Assmann, p. 57)." These statements point clearly to his assumptions.

While Ester and Mortimer Arias do not state their assumptions explicitly, they indicate what these assumptions are by pointing to statistical data which reveal the depth of dehumanization that exists in Latin America. They refer to the situation in Latin America as a "situation of captivity." They share their reflection in the following words: "The last decade has been hard on our people south of the Rio Grande, in political frustrations, economic exploitation, social oppression, and military and police repression. We have been living in captivity in our own land!  As in biblical times, a new theology has been born from our exile and out our captivity--the theology of liberation. We have been rediscovering the God of the Exodus, the liberating God.  Out of the depths of oppression and repression we may have something to share with Christians of the north, something of what the Lord has been saying to us throughout this dreadful experience (Arias and Arias, p. ix)."  As one reads through The Cry of My People, the assumptions of Arias and Arias take on clear language.

Jose Miguez Bonino also makes an allusion to this starting point in theological reflection.  He states that the articulation of the obedience of Christians and the account of their faith "rest on an analysis and interpretation of the Latin American situation for which the transition from developmentalism to liberation is crucial (Bonino, p. 21)."  Bonino makes a direct link between action and reflection. "Their action and their reflection are of such a nature that they make no sense outside of such an analysis. If it is wrong, they are proved wrong. An engaged faith and obedience cannot stand outside or above the world in which they are engaged. This is the reason why, in the effort to enter into this theology, we are forced to dwell on the understanding and analysis of the world in which it finds its locus (Bonino, p. 21)."

Leonardo Boff takes this same point further by saying that Liberation Theology was born as an answer to the challenges of oppressed society (Boff, p. 13). He believes that Latin America provides the context in which "action-reflection" can take place.  He says, "Latin America is today a theologically privileged place for action and for reflection, challenging problems that are faced here.  It is the only content of colonial Christianity. Liberation Theology was born of an experimental praxis (Boff, p. 13)."  Not only is Boff operating with the working assumption that Latin America is in a state of oppression, but he also assumes that it provides the best context in which this critical reflection can take place.

Juan Luis Segundo's article "Capitalism Versus Socialism" betrays the underlying premise of his Liberation Theology.  He makes a link between theology and historical sensitivity. For Segundo, "Historical sensitivity in the face of starvation and illiteracy would seem to demand a society that was not ruled by competition and the quest for profit.  Such sensitivity would regard the fact that an underdeveloped nation got basic sustenance and education as the form of liberation.  Viewed in the light of potential problems in the future, this particular matter might not seem to be of overriding importance in an affluent country. But in our countries, we cannot avoid facing the issue because we live with it twenty-four hours every day (Segundo in Gibellini, p.255)."

Segundo then poses the question: "When and if those ills are eliminated in our nations, what scientific exigencies or strictures would prevent theology from saying 'Your faith has saved you'?  It is simply a matter of giving theological status to a historical happening in all its absolute and elemental simplicity: 'Is it permitted to do good or to do evil on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill (Segundo in Gibellini, p. 256)'?

By saying that historical sensitivity would seem to demean a society that is not ruled by competition and by the quest for profit, Segundo is making an illusion to the present structures in Latin America and the First World.  This statement appears to indicate that Segundo is not in agreement with the structures of present day society in Latin America, and that consequently he is assuming that this situation of "captivity" and "dependence" should be the starting point for theological reflection.

This writer (yours truly) shares the basic assumptions of the above-mentioned theologians.  I personally make no apology for starting with these assumptions as a way of doing theology and as a way of making a theological case for the liberation of Puerto Rico from colonial subjugation.  I also believe, and make no apology for believing that oppression and suffering should be the starting points for for biblical interpretation and theological reflection.