The Prisons in a Theological Perspective

In the previous essay, I described some of the conditions in which incarcerated persons live.  In this essay, I would like to talk about a theology which emerges from those conditions.

In the strictest sense of the word, theology is a discourse about God and things related to God.  Theology reflects the ideas and notions that individuals and community of faith as a whole have about God.  In that respect, I believe that it is safe to say that every member of the community of faith is a theologian.  Every individual in the community and every community have something to say about God according to the way they perceive Her/Him.

For the purposes of this essay, I would say that there are two basic models of theology.  One is what I would call "top down" theology, which in essence, is a theology handed down by the leaders of the Church and/or other faith communities and their educational institutions (theological schools).  This type of theology consists of theories and ideas which are promoted by those in power and in the leadership of the institutional Church.  This theology is for the most part, carved up independently of the "grass roots" members, i.e. the laity.

The other model of theology is what I would call "bottom up" theology which basically reflects the beliefs and experiences of the powerless in the Church and in society.  This type of theology, like the theology of the first two centuries of Christianity, emerges from the experience of oppression, persecution, and suffering.

In this essay, I will making use of "bottom up" theology known in Latin America and in other parts of the developing world as "Liberation Theology," a movement which began in the late 1960's in Latin America, and has spread throughout the world into communities where people are oppressed because of class, gender, ethnicity/race, and sexual orientation.  While there are various modalities in Liberation Theology reflecting these social realities, the underlying assumption is that oppression and suffering are the starting points for biblical interpretation and theological reflection.  In essence, theologians of liberation believe that if theology does not reflect and and address the human condition of oppression and suffering, it is not only irrelevant, but to some extent demonic.

Liberation Theology is not just "another school of thought," or what some would consider another fad that "comes and goes."  As long as there is oppression and suffering in the world, Liberation Theology will continue to exist.  Liberation Theology emerged from a situation of suffering, and cannot cease to exist unless oppression and suffering are completely eradicated.

In a biblical and historical sense, Liberation Theology precedes historic and traditional Christian theology.  Technically speaking, Liberation Theology began when Yahweh God was revealed to the Hebrew people as they suffered the misery of bondage in Egypt.  Yahweh said to Moses "I have heard the cry of my people, and have descended to deliver them."  Yahweh's self-disclosure was the clarion call for Liberation Theology to emerge.  The theology that the Hebrews knew and were familiar with did not emerge from the academy nor from the magisterium of the Hebrew community.  Their theology arose as a result of Yahweh's self-disclosure in the midst of their bondage and Yahweh's liberating and salvific activity relative to that bondage.  It was the theology that guided them through the desert into the land of Promise.  It was the theology that sustained them in times of heresy and national upheaval.  It was the only theology that they knew.

What should be the theology that guides the ministry of the Church in the penal system?  If we are speaking of a group of people who are rightly or wrongly convicted, and living in the Babylonian Captivity" of the penal system, then it is obvious that Liberation Theology in some form should be the theology that becomes the mechanism that the Church utilizes to carry out God's mission in that context.  If the oppression and suffering of the Hebrew people were the locus and mode of divine revelation, then in the same vein, alienation, captivity, and suffering should be the the model for theologizing relative to the reality of incarceration.

People who are alienated from their families and from society, as well as suffering the abuse that occurs in the penal institutions, do not have the luxury or the interest to focus on the lofty ideals and platitudes of traditional theology.  The question that comes into the mind of confined persons is "What does God have to do with us in this situation that we are in and what is God's role, if any, in our future upon release as we seek to reintegrate into society and be reunited with our families?"  As a Christian theologian, I sustain that if theology does not emerge from or address the situation of captivity that prisoners find themselves in, it is totally irrelevant.  For prison theology to be valid, it has to be a theology that is based on Yahweh having heard the cry of the people in bondage "behind the gates."  While self-righteous people in society and in the Church continue to cry "Lock them up and throw away the keys," prisoners need to hear the voice that says "I have heard your cry and have descended to deliver you."

Through Moses, Yahweh liberated the Hebrews from bondage in Egypt.  Through Jesus Christ, God has liberated both Jew and Gentile from the bondage of false and unnecessary allegiance to those who oppress them by lording it over them.

Through the ministry of Christs's Church, both behind and outside the gates, God's salvific activity continues to move forward.  As stated at the beginning of this essay, oppression and suffering are the starting points for biblical interpretation and theological reflection.  Liberation Theology, which is in essence, the Gospel of Jesus Christ,  guides us in affirming that in Christ, the prisoners that we partner with in ministry, have experienced that if anyone be in Christ, they are a new creation.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son,  and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary

Prison Theology: The Conditions of Incarceration

As a follow-up to my previous essay on whether the goal of incarceration is to punish or to rehabilitate, I now address another issue which is hardly, if ever, addressed, and to a certain extent, totally ignored, i.e. the conditions of incarceration.  Some would argue that the conditions of a penal institution should be such, i.e. cruel, dehumanizing, filthy, etc., as a way to encourage residents not to reoffend, and subsequently come back to jail or prison.  Others would argue that the conditions of the penal institution should be such that they are conducive to habilitation, or rehabilitation so that residents can return to society as responsible persons contributing to the growth and development of a just society.

I remember that when I was working as a Corrections Counselor at the Arthur Kill Corr ectional Facility in Staten Island, New York, I would come and discuss with my family the dynamics taking place within the prison as well as some of the resources that residents had available to them during their confinement.  In one conversation, I indicated that there were a gymnasium and a swimming pool in the facility for the residents to use as part of their recreation program.  One of my daughters reacted and said "Wow, they have swimming pools?  I thought that was jail!"

Those who have the punitive mindset about incarceration would argue that jails and prisons should not  a "Club Med," resembling a vacation resort. On the other hand, those who have a correctional mindset would argue that the conditions under which incarcerated individuals live should not be brutal and dehumanizing, but rather conditions that are conducive to the acquisition of ethical values that will result in life styles upon their release and return to society.

Many people believe that incarcerated residents should suffer as punishment for the crimes they've committed, especially if these crimes have resulted in injury or even death to others in society.  Others believe that residents should be held accountable for their crimes in an environment which makes it possible for them to reflect on their actions and subsequently embark on a new direction in their lives.

From a faith standpoint, we may ask if incarceration should be geared solely to punishment or to what some would call "restorative justice."  Some in the community of faith would appeal to the Old Testament notions of punishment for wrongdoing.  Others in the community of faith would appeal to the restorative elements in  the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as reflected in the New Testament emphasis on forgiveness, repentance, and reconciliation.

Whether one favors punishment for wrongdoing as an end in and of itself, or correctional punishment leading to repentance and restoration, the fact of the matter remains that there is much human suffering taking place in the penal institutions.  Whether the suffering comes as a result of the wrongdoing of the residents, or as a result of other external factors, the fact remains that there is suffering.  The Hebrew people underwent punishment at the hands of the Babylonians because of their deviation from the norms and standards given to them by Yahweh God.  They had previously also suffered at the hands of their Egyptian taskmasters. In both cases, they experienced dehumanization, oppression, and suffering.

Do incarcerated individuals really experience suffering.  My answer to that would be an absolute "yes." They suffer the following:

1.  Physical, and some cases, emotional alienation from their loved ones.  Physical absence does not provide much opportunity for emotional nurture and in fact, decreases it to a certain extent.

2.  Physical and emotional abuse from some of those who work in the correctional system, especially in the ranks of security.  This results very often in a much lower self-esteem than what they may have had before entering the penal system.  It also contributes to the breaking of the human spirit and to a sense of despair and hopelessness.  An example of this is where certain prison employees refer to the residents as "a piece of shit," or as "dirt bags."

3.  Emotional and physical abuse from fellow-residents.  Due to the creation of an internal society where conflict and tensions exist, in many cases, residents abuse and oppress each other.  There are instances of "in-house" fighting resulting in injury and even death, and in some cases, sexual abuse from fellow residents.

4.  Emotional suffering stemming from guilt/or remorse about acts committed or alleged to have been committed.  Many residents genuinely reflect on the actions which have resulted in their incarceration, and regret them.  Others suffer not because they actually regret their actions, but because they have "been busted."

5.  Physical conditions of the institution.  In many of the older facilities, residents as well as employees have to live or coexist in slum-like conditions.  As those who live in the slums, they have to deal with the reality of things such as vermin (mice, rats, and cockroaches).

6.  Lack of proper health care.  The penal system's health care is set up in such a way as to give incarcerated persons the minimum degree of health care.  There is rampant the belief that incarcerated individuals are not entitled to the same quality of health care as people in society.  Subsequently, many residents suffer and even die as a result of this negligence.

7.  Lack of educational tools necessary for survival in a "post-release " situation.  There are many who do not believe in having "educated criminals."  There are others who believe the money used for educating jail/prison residents should be given or be used for "law abiding" citizens to be educated.

What should be the role of the community of faith relative to human suffering in the penal institutions? As a Christian minister, I propose the following:

1.  Affirm residents as people created in the image and likeness of God.

2. Establish ties of solidarity with residents.  The attitude should not be one of  condescension or paternalism, but rather one of "I am with you brother/sister."

3.   Encourage (not force or pressure) residents to participate in the community of faith.

4. Promote residential leadership in the community of faith.  From the Christian standpoint, this would involve developing the Prison Church.

5.  Advocate for the rights of residents to have quality health care and the highest level of education possible.

6.  Advocate for the right of residents to have access to decent housing conditions while incarcerated.

7.  Advocate for residents to be treated with respect and dignity while being held accountable.

8. Help prepare residents to take on leadership roles in the community upon their release.

9.  Help to strengthen the relationship between residents and their families.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary

Prisons: Punishment or Rehabilitation?

There are various philosophies underlying the correctional system enterprise.  There are some who believe that the main purpose of confinement is to punish convicted felons for the wrong they have done or have been convicted of doing. There are others who believe in confinement as a tool of rehabilitation to prepare residents to reenter society with a "clean slate." Then there are those who believe that incarceration should serve both purposes.

The late Thomas Coughlin, who was Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services while I was a prison chaplain, indicated that he had a problem with the concept of "rehabilitation." He stated that the word "rehabilitation" carried the implication of restoring residents to their original condition.  According to Coughlin, many of these residents had not been on the "right foot" to begin with, and therefore, in his opinion, the word "rehabilitation" was a misnomer.  He preferred the word "habilitation" which implied that the purpose of confinement was to have residents start off on the "right foot" upon release from prison.

Commissioner Coughlin served his term while Mario Cuomo was governor of New York State.  Governor Cuomo had a fairly liberal policy, in which residents were released relatively early to parole.  During his tenure, the Department of Correctional Services provided for residents to have access to higher educational programs while they were confined.  Various colleges and universities established satellite or residential campuses at various facilities. Many residents took advantage of this opportunity by enrolling in the college programs and obtaining degrees in different fields of study.  Both Governor Cuomo and Commissioner Coughlin believed that if residents obtained a college education during their confinement, they would be "habilitated" or "rehabilitated," and returning to the community in a much different and better condition then when they first entered the penal system.  They would then reenter society with the necessary tools to become productive and law-abiding citizens.

When Governor Cuomo was not re-elected in 1995, George Pataki, a Republican, was elected Governor of New York State.  His was a more conservative approach to incarceration in which he eliminated the college programs because according to him, tax-payers were paying too much money just for the state to end up with "educated criminals."  He rationalized that residents should not receive a free education when there were law-abiding citizens who had a difficult time financing their education.

Under Pataki's tenure, Parole Commissioners who had a more conservative bent were appointed.  Residents who appeared before the Parole Board were denied release several times before going home.  The approach under Pataki's tenure was more of a punitive one.  The mindset that existed under the Pataki administration was that "once a criminal, always a criminal."  The fundamental belief was that criminals could not change or be rehabilitated.

By the time I retired in 2009, another Democratic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, had been elected.  Like his father Mario's, his administration was more liberal in regard to Parole.  More residents were released at their first or second Parole Board appearance.

Unfortunately, under Cuomo's tenure,  the college programs were not reinstated, at least not completely.  The same mindset that existed under the Pataki administration continued to be permeated. This was in spite of the fact that it had been stated that 75% of residents who received a college degree while incarcerated, did not return to prison after their parole release.

The same thing had been said about residents who were involved in religious programs of one kind or another.  During the administration of Mario Cuomo and George Pataki, there had been proposals to lay off chaplains in order to maintain a "balanced budget."  Negotiations between the state and the faith groups resulted in no chaplains losing their jobs.  The elimination of college-level programs, and the proposed lay offs of chaplains led many to believe that the punitive mindset was the prevailing one in society, including among those who worked for the Department of Correctional Services.

As a Minister of the Gospel working in a correctional facility, I always took the approach that I wasn't there to question the guilt or the innocence of those convicted and eventually confined.  I even shared that position with the residents with whom I came into on a daily basis.  It was my position that my role as a chaplain was to:

1.  Be the face and presence of Christ in an environment of dehumanization and oppression.

2.  Affirm the dignity of the residents as creatures and children of God.

3.  Encourage the residents to join a community of faith as a part of their restoration.

4.  Encourage the residents to pursue higher education or employment that was consistent with their goals and aspirations.

5.  Nurture and upbuild the residents who were members of "the Church behind the Gates."

6.  Enable the members of the prison church to discover their gifts and utilize them in the Body of Christ.

7.  Carry out a program of theological studies that would equip the residents to exercise their gifts and serve as leaders in the prison church.

Through the above steps, the chaplains would enable the residents to be prepared to reenter society and be reunited with their loved ones.  They would return as people who would contribute to growth and social development in a positive way.

The work of the faith community with the prison residential community is neither punitive nor rehabilitative.  It is one of redemption and liberation from oppression, both individual and systemic.
It is God's liberating and salvific activity in history that will enable the "Church behind the Gates" to carry out the ministry of Christ both effectively and faithfully.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona, Visiting Professor of Theology
Tainan Theological College/Seminary

Theology from the Prison Standpoint: Prison Expansion

I think that I am safe in saying that the vast majority of us think of jails and prisons as places where criminals and "bad people" go to be punished for wrongdoing.  I'm also inclined to believe that most of us are convinced that every person who is incarcerated deserves to be confined for what they've done or been convicted of doing.  We tend to participate in the mindset of "lock them up and throw away the keys."  I would venture to say that this thinking is due to how we have been socialized and brainwashed through our social, educational, and political systems, and the role that the news media play in order to have us support the status-quo by undermining and vitiating any attempt to effect concrete social change.

Consequently, we tend to favor the expansion of the penal institutions.  In other words, we advocate for the construction of additional facilities so that we can segregate and alienate these persons from the general population in society.  It's been said that the prison enterprise is one of the fastest growing industries in America.

Dr. Robert Kruschwitz, Director of the Center for Christian Ethics and Professor of Philosophy at Baylor University, informs us that about 1 in every 100 persons is incarcerated.  While that number appears to be rather small, when multiplied, it results in hundreds of persons confined to our penal institutions.

The mere fact that people would advocate for the expansion of jails and prisons indicates that: 

1.  There appears to be a wide-supported belief that people who are confined, are people who by nature, tend to commit crimes and participate in a criminal lifestyle.

2.  Many believe that the more correctional facilities are built, the safer society will be.

I personally would question these two ideas.  I believe that they both rest on faulty premises.  I do not believe, for one single moment, that any one person or group is more criminally more inclined than another.  While I do acknowledge that there is a volitional element in the commitment of crime, I also believe that there are socio-economic factors that contribute to and result in certain criminal acts being carried out.  Furthermore, I do not believe that social safety is guaranteed by the construction of more facilities.  If, indeed, as I believe, crime is rooted in socio-economic conditions, then these conditions have to be dealt with and seen as the main factor of social crimes.  We cannot continue to take the "band-aid" approach to the solution of social problems such as criminality.  This approach does not even begin to "scratch the surface."

The question of whether correctional facilities are constructed in order to stimulate the economies of certain communities is an issue that needs to be considered.  Whether or not this is true, we cannot escape the reality that most of the people who are employed by the correctional system in these communities would have a very difficult time finding employment that would compensate with the generous salaries and fringe benefits  that they receive by being employed in a correctional facility.  At one correctional facility where I worked as a correctional counselor, some employees were heard to be complaining about "these damned inmates."  The Superintendent of the facility said to them "I don't know why you continue to complain about the inmates.  If it weren't for them, half of you would be working at MacDonald's."  Half of the staff reported to work the next day wearing McDonald's hats in order to protest what he said.

The reality is that even if these facilities were not built with the purpose of stimulating the economy or generating employment, the employees, many of whom do not have a high level of formal education, and furthermore, denounce crime and detest residents, do benefit greatly from working in the correctional system.  I remember that one co-worker at a facility where I served as a chaplain stated, "I don't know if crime pays, but it sure pays me."  Are correctional employees "poverty pimps," capitalizing on the misery of the residents?  It depends on who you ask.

Even as a chaplain who was compensated generously, and in fact, paid much higher than the average parish pastor or priest, I had to struggle with the issue as to whether I was there because I believed that God had called me to the prison ministry, or because the level of remuneration was comfortable.  Most of my colleagues in the prison ministry who wrestled with the same question would respond by saying "both/and."

As a Christian minister working in both parish and institutional settings, I've had to confront the following issues:

1. Ethical-If our actions and lifestyles are based on the teachings and example of Jesus, we would ask the question that has become popular among certain Christians, i.e. "What would Jesus do?"  Theologian James Cone says that we are not to ask what Jesus did back then, but rather, what is He doing today.  If Jesus were living in the twenty-first century, would He advocate for the expansion of our correctional facilities?  Would He support the "lock them up and throw away the keys" attitude?

While I do not wish to be presumptuous in thinking that I know for sure what Jesus would do, my reading of the Gospel accounts leads me to believe that Jesus would not advocate for prison expansion.  I strongly believe that Jesus's compassion would be more geared towards dealing with the systemic problems that generate incarceration, i.e. religious persecution, social injustice, political oppression of all types, etc.  Neither do I believe that Jesus would advocate for the concept of "lock them up and throw away the keys."  In keeping with the prophetic tradition of the Jewish community, Jesus's message and ministry were geared towards humane treatment of confined individuals and eventual release from prison.  When Jesus said that the Spirit of the Lord was upon Him to "proclaim liberty to the captives," He was not talking about some ethereal freedom, or "in the sweet bye and bye" type of freedom.  He was clearly talking about about liberation from socio-economic and political oppression, which in His day and time, included wrongful arrest and incarceration.

What, then, is the correct response of the faith community towards prison expansion?  I would not say that there is one correct answer.  As a minister/theologian, I can only offer the following imperfect and limited responses:

a.  Examine the true reasons for prison expansion.  Is it really for the safety of the community and society, or is it for the economic benefit and expediency of localities through "job creation?"

b.  Evaluate prison expansion in the light of our respective faith mandates.  In terms of the Christian faith, we evaluate the issue like we would any other social issue, i.e. in the light of the compassionate message of the Gospel, a message whose main thrust is humanization and liberation.

c.  Galvanize all social entities to achieve the maximum degree of justice relative to the increase in the numbers of incarcerated persons.  The faith community needs to insure that social and political structures respond to the basic human needs of the residents and that we cease the wrongful convictions and incarceration of innocent persons.

2.  Practical- How do Christ-loving, justice-loving, peace-loving, and people-loving individuals who are employed in the correctional system integrate compassion and justice for incarcerated individuals with the need to earn a just salary?  By a just salary, I mean a compensation that will enable them to meet the basic needs of clothing, food, education, housing, and recreation for themselves and for their families.  There are no easy answers to that question.

I do not believe that the Gospel calls for us to glorify poverty.  Consequently, I do not believe that Christians are called to take "a vow of poverty."  The Word of God calls for us to work for a just compensation and to work for the construction of a social system in which each one can receive a just compensation in accordance with her/his basic needs.

If prison expansion were to result in our obtaining employment that helps us to adequately provide for the basic needs of our family, then we are called to insure that it does not become a means of exploiting the residents nor that it becomes a means of perpetuating the "caste system" that is present in our society where some in the working class are barely able to "make ends meet," and others are earning an excessive amount of money at the expense of the underemployed.  In essence, what I am saying is that if we are to have prison expansion, then we must work for:

a.  Justice for the residents.  The residents must be treated with dignity and respect.

b.  Justice for the workers.  The employees must be given a just remuneration.

c.  Justice for the community.  The workers in the community must not be relegated to poverty and "second-class" status on account of the correctional system paying its commissioners and administrators excessive salaries and benefits.  The economy of the community has to be restructured so that there is parity between those who work in the correctional system to provide for their families, and those in the community who provide for their families in other work places.

This essay was written by one who worked one year as a counselor in the correctional setting, and 21 years as a prison chaplain.  It was written in the hope that the message of Christ's Gospel will resonate in the ears of all who read it.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen!

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona, Visiting Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary

The Central and South American Diaspora

In this final essay on the Hispanic Diaspora in the U.S.A., I will focus on all the Hispanic groups who for a variety of reasons, have migrated to and settled in the U.S.A.  Much could be said about them like has been said of other Hispanic groups.  The reasons for the immigration might be somewhat varied, but are, in essence, the same basic reasons why other Hispanic groups have come to the U.S.A.

We begin this time, by first posing the theological question, i.e. how do we evaluate the presence of Hispanics in the U.S.A. from a theological standpoint?  What does Liberation Theology have to say, if any thing, about this situation?  Is Liberation Theology as applicable to the socio-economic and political conditions of Hispanics in the U.S.A. as it is in Latin America?  If so, what are the differences and the similarities of how it is relevant?

We have previously observed that Liberation Theology in Latin America and the Caribbean addresses the issues of imperialism, colonization, genocide, classism, and racism.  It also addresses the issues of poverty and suffering.  We will discover that in the U.S.A. Liberation Theology addresses these very same issues as well as the issues of second-class treatment, immigration, and deportation.

Much of the story of Latin America in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has been one of the transformation of the colonial heritage of large-landed estates, governed by a light-skinned elite who controlled a largely non-white slave or free labor force, and often employing authoritarian methods of political control.  By the beginning of the twenty-first century, Latin America has become an overwhelmingly urban society characterized (in most countries) by racial and cultural mixture.  The economies of the region have moved in very diverse paths.  While some places remain heavily dependent on the export of agricultural products and raw materials, Latin America is the most industrialized region of what used to be called the "Third World."  After centuries of monarchs and dictators, democratic regimes prevail in many countries of Latin America.  The most enduring legacy of the colonial collisions is the staggering socioeconomic inequity in nearly every country.  As Latin America moves further and further away from the legacies created out of the collisions of the sixteenth-century Conquest, the "social question" remains the largest facing Latin Americans.  These inequities form one of they key features of Latin American identity.  The central challenge for Latin American in the twenty-first century is how to mobilize its citizens through democratic, representative politics to elect leaders who will pursue forms of economic development that will some day diminish the substantially enormous socioeconomic inequities that have so long plagued Latin America.  In many ways, the current challenge of Latin America is finally to dismantle this vicious legacy of the colonial heritage that helped define the region.  Ironically, those countries that are most successful in this pursuit of development and equity will no doubt, redefine what it means to be Latin American (Marshalll C. Eakin, The History of Latin America: A Collision of Cultures.  New York: Palgrave MacMillian, 2007, pp. 417-418).

The socioeconomic and political conditions of Hispanics in the U.S.A. must be evaluated and understood against the background of the aforementioned.  The economic conditions of many of the countries of Latin America, were generated by the foreign economic policies of the U.S.A., thus generating migration to the north.  In addition, as we have previously seen in the cases of Cuba and the Dominican Republic, we encounter the irony that migration is generated to the very same country that has given economic, military, and political support to the countries from which these Hispanics proceed, and which in turn, have been ruled by dictators.  An analogy to this situation would be that I am oppressing you indirectly by giving aid to the person who is oppressing you directly.  And then you come to running to me to escape the oppressive condition in which you find yourself due to my indirect support of that condition.

Hispanics (or Latinos) with roots in Central America include Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Nicaraguans,s Panamanians, and Costa Ricans.  While Central Americans began entering the United States in small numbers as early as the nineteenth century, immigration from Central America to the United States did not reach significant levels until the late twentieth century, and so Hispanics with roots in Central America are truly newcomers.  They are such newcomers that in 2000, 34.5% of the foreign-born population of the U.S.A. was from Central America, according to the March 2000 U.S. Census Bureau Data.  Scourges of every kind-from military dictatorships, right-wing death squads, and guerilla insurgencies to grinding poverty and hunger-are what triggered the movement north of peoples from most Spanish-speaking Central American countries.  In the 1990's, with democracy in place in Central American nations, economic chaos was the primary factor motivating Central Americans to head north the the United States.  Economic upheaval continues to drive Central American immigration to this day (Himilce Novas, Everything You Need to Know About Latino History.  New York: Penguin Group, 2007, pp. 240-241).

A significant percentage of the Central American population in the U.S.A. has relatively low levels of educational attainment.  Among the foreign born aged twenty-five or older, only 44.3% have a high school diploma, according to Census 2000 data. The high school graduation rate is lowest among those born in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and highest among those born in Costa Rica and Panama.  As a consequence, the overwhelming majority of Central Americans are employed in lower-paying jobs, and a good number live in poverty (Ibid.).

Latinos of Spanish-speaking South American ancestry, include Colombians, Ecuadorians, Peruvians, Argentineans, Chileans, Venezuelans, Bolivians, Uruguayans, and Paraguayans.  Although they began immigrating to the U.S.A. in small numbers as early as the nineteenth century, South Americans, like Central Americans, are relatively new to the American scene.  The vast of majority of Spanish-speaking South American immigrants came to the U.S.A., after 1960, and a large percentage arrived after 1980.  In the year 2000, 6.6% of the foreign-born population in the U.S.A. was from South America (Ibid.).

Most Spanish-speaking South Americans have come to the U.S.A. in search of greater economic opportunity, although some such as Colombians and Chileans, have also sought shelter from war, military dictatorships, and political instability.  In recent times, the people of South America have experienced the most trying period in their history since the days of military dictatorship almost two decades ago.  Unraveling economies, rampant unemployment, escalating crime, and social-turmoil-as well as inept rule, abuse of power, and large scale corruption-have not only fueled popular protests that have toppled governments, but have also stimulated immigration the the United States (Ibid.).

Hispanics with roots in Spanish-speaking South America belong largely to the middle and upper-middle classes and reside primarily in urban areas.  In 2000, they were most concentrated in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan region, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and the Miami-Fort Lauderdale area.  As a group, they are generally well-educated.  For this reason, they are employed in large numbers in the managerial and professional sector.  Very few are employed in agriculture (Ibid).

The Census 2000 figures relative to Americans with roots in Spanish-speaking Central and South America are not very reliable.  As with the Dominican population, the Central and South American populations in the U.S.A. are much smaller than experts estimate.  Some attribute this to a trend among Hispanics of relinquishing national self-identification and embracing a pan-Latino identity.  Many others, however, attribute the under count to the fact that the Census 2000 form did notle  include examples of possible ethnic descriptions to guide those filling it out, such as "Salvadoran," or "Nicaraguan," terms that appeared on the 1990 Census form, and a great many simply identified themselves as "Hispanic."  Based on the U.S. Census Current Population Survey for 1998 and 2000, the Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research at the University of Albany estimates that the actual size of the various subgroups of Spanish-speaking Central and South Americans in the U.S.A. was much larger in 2000 than what Census 2000 indicates (Ibid).

Relative to how much political clout Hispanics in the U.S.A. have, the following can be said: If political power is measured by the number of Hispanic leaders in all levels of government in the first decade of the twenty-first century, the answer to the question is "mucho."  And if it is measured in terms of the significance of Latino voters to the Democrats and the Republicans, then the answer is again "mucho," since both parties acknowledge that the days of alienation and so-called "voter apathy" among Latinos are gone.  With this in mind, both parties have been both courting Latinos, who are considered a "swing group," able to be won over by either party, due in part to their religious and demographic diversity.  What makes Hispanics such a sought-after voting bloc is the fact that the Hispanic population has been growing at a phenomenal rate, and thus with each passing year, Latinos constitute a greater percentage of the U.S. population.  They are projected to eventually represent 14% of the electorate. Also, a good number of Latinos are recent arrivals with no political allegiances at all, and thus their affiliation is up for grabs.  Hispanics are also concentrated in a number of key electoral states, including California, Texas, New York, and Florida (Ibid., pp. 283-284).

The question of partisan affiliation among Hispanics in the U.S.A. is a complex one from both a social and theological standpoint.  From a social standpoint, the question that is raised is whether Hispanics are participating in a genuine democratic process, or is it what is called often-time in the African-American community in the U.S.A. "the illusion of inclusion?"  Is it really a "melting pot," or is it more of "salad bowl" in which Latinos live "side by side" with other ethnic and racial communities in the U.S.A?  Based on present trends within the government of the U.S.A., i.e. criminalization, defamation, stereotyping, etc., it is safe to say that Hispanics in the U.S.A. are still being treated with condescension, and paternalism.  No one can deny that we are considered, even if in a subconscious and subtle manner, to be "second-class" citizens/residents.  As will be seen in subsequent essays, Hispanics constitute at least 30% of the incarcerated population in the U.S.A.

From a theological standpoint, the question is even more complex.  The educational, economic, and political "achievements" in the U.S.A. have been realized within the framework of the economic system known as "capitalism," a system in which a small number of people are able to "lord it," so to speak, over the resources which are necessary for survival, and also, one in which the privileged few advance at the expense of the many.  Liberation Theology, which has historic roots in Latin America, denounces such a system, which in both our Latin American countries and in the U.S.A., continue to perpetuate the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots."

In tracing the historical origins of Liberation Theology in Latin America, we find that that the end of the 1960's with the crisis of populism and the developmentalist model brought about the advent of a rigorous current of sociological thinking, which unmasked the true causes of underdevelopment.  Development and underdevelopment are two sides of the same coin.  All nations of the Western world were engaged in a vast process of development; however, it was interdependent and unequal, organized in such a way that the benefits flowed to the already developed countries of the "center" and the disadvantages were meted out to the historically backward and underdeveloped countries of the "periphery."  The poverty of Third World countries was the price to be paid for the First World to be able to enjoy the fruits of overabundance (Clodovis and Leonardo Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology.  Maryknoll, New York:  Orbis Books, 1987, p. 68).

If these inequities that our Latino sisters and brothers experienced were the driving-force behind immigration to the U.S.A., they did not cease to exist in the "land of abundance." which like for the Hebrew people, eventually turned out to be for Hispanic people "the land of bondage."  The participation in the economic and political life of Hispanics in the U.S.A. is one of engaging in "reformist" approaches to social change.  The reformist approach describes placing "band-aids" on the socioeconomic problems that Hispanics and others encounter in the U.S.A.  Liberation Theology seeks not to "reform," but rather to "overhaul and restructure" the system.  Liberation Theology enables us to see that the "reformist" approach to social change is nothing more than a perpetuation of a dehumanizing social system.

En fin, if the Gospel of Jesus Christ is to be fully and genuinely implemented in the Hispanic community in the U.S.A., it cannot be done as long as we take a "paella in the sky" approach to social change.  Neither can Hispanics afford to embrace the so-called "prosperity Gospel," that is pervasive in the U.S.A.  As Liberation Theology seeks to do in Latin America, the Hispanic Church in the U.S.A. must proclaim and implement within its own faith communities, a Gospel which calls for:

1.  Doing theology from the "periphery" and not from the "center."  The theology of the Hispanic Church needs to be one which emerges from the continued oppression and suffering in the Hispanic Dialpsora, and not one which is done from those Hispanics who "have made it," so to speak in U.S.A. society.

2.  Liberation Theology in the Hispanic Diaspora should impel us to strive for socioeconomic system in which there will no longer be a "center" nor a "periphery".  The struggle for the Hispanic Diaspora is a quest for the construction of the Beloved Community, i.e. the Reign of God in Christ.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona

Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary

The Dominican Diaspora: A "Sancocho" Theology

As in the case of the Puerto Rican and Cuban Diasporas, we again deal with a very complex situation.  The presence of Dominicans in the U.S.A. is due primarily to two factors.  The first factor is economic, military, and political support given to the dictatorships in the Dominican Republic by the government of the U.S.A.  The second factor is the economic conditions generated by the foreign policies of the U.S.A., as we have seen in Cuba, and will be seen in other areas of Latin America.

Electoral democracy and representative government have been the exception rather than the rule in the Dominican Republic for most of its history.  From the 1810's to the 1930's, the country had more than 120 rulers, ranging from Spanish and French officials to Haitian presidents.  As political scientists have often pointed out, political instability was the norm in the Dominican Republic until the 1960's.  Much like impoverished Nicaraguans, the Dominican people have been poorly served by their political leaders for much of their history.  After subjugation to Haiti (1822), then independence (1844), then resubjugation by Spain (1861), the Dominican Republic finally achieved its lasting independence in 1865.  The caudillo Buenaventura Baez held a fraudulent plebiscite (16,000 in favor, 11 against), and then signed a treaty to annex the country to the U.S.A., but the annexation treaty died in the U.S. Senate after a contentious debate.  In the 1880's and 1890's, General Ulises Heureaux dominated the nation.  Hereaux and his successor, General Ramon Caceres (1911), both died at the hands of assassins (Marshall C. Eakin, the History of Latin America: Collision of Cultures.  New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007, p. 368).

The U.SA. (under President Theodore Roosevelt) intervened in 1905 to establish a receivership that guaranteed the repayment of foreign creditors through control of the customs houses in the ports (invoking the so-called Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine).  When civil war broke out in 1916, the U.S.A. sent troops and occupied the country again until 1924, US interests were both economic and strategic.  As war raged in Europe in 1916, the U.S.A sought to blunt the German presence in the key shipping lanes of the Caribbean.  As in Cuba and Haiti, the U.S.A. military built roads, schools, communication systems, and gradually trained and equipped a police force.  Like Fulgencio Batista in Cuba, and Anastacio Somoza in Nicaragua, Rafael Leonidas Trujillo Molina (1891-1961) established a long-lasting personalistic dictatorship by assuming control of the "non-partisan" security forces created by the U.S Marines.  The racially-mixed Trujillo trumpeted "Hispanism" and the "white" Spanish heritage of the country while putting in place a brutal and repressive regime with secret police, torture, assassinations, and massacres.  In October of 1937, Trujillo ordered the execution of some 25,0003 Haitians living in the Dominican Republic (Trujillo's maternal grandmother was Haitian).  Much like the Somozas in Nicaragua, the Trujillo family assessed a phenomenal fortune (estimated at $800 million) by turning the country into their own personal business fiefdom (Ibid, pps. 368-369).

During the 1950's, Trujillo closely aligned himself with the anti-Communist foreign policy of the United States.  Despite his close relationship with the U.S.A., and the use of expensive lobbyists in Washington, President John Kennedy personally ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to assist in the assassination of Trujillo in 1961 to make way for moderate reformers rather than revolutionaries, or so he thought.  Between 1961 and 1965, however, reform failed.  In September 1963, the Dominican military deposed Juan Bosch who had been elected president in December 1962.  As the country floundered in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson, fearing a leftist uprising, sent in the U.S.A. Marines and the 82nd Airborne to take control of the country.  Within two weeks, more than 20,000 troops had landed.  Although this invasion (along with many other US military interventions in the region) has been condemned over the last 60 years, the Dominican Republic is the rare case of electoral reform and stability emerging out of U.S. military intervention (Ibid, p. 369).

From 1966 to 1978, one of Trujillo's old associates, Joaquin Balaguer (1906-2000) was elected president for three consecutive terms (1966, 1970, 1974).  Balaguer's Reformist Party lost the 1978 and 1982 elections to the Dominican Revolutionary Party, but both of these administrations were plagued by corruption scandals.  Amazingly, the 78-year old Balaguer won the 1986 election, and was elected again in 1990 and 1994.  He was forced from power in 1996 (at the age of ninety and completely blind), although he ran again for the presidency in 2000, gathering a quarter of the vote.  Despite the dominance of Balaguer, and frequent complaints of irregularities, Dominicans have now voted in ten consecutive presidential elections, and have alternated power among competing political parties.  Whatever the flaws of Dominican democracy, the country has evolved into an open, competitive, electoral democracy, and the process began more than a decade earlier than in the majority of Latin America in the 1980's (Ibid).

Before 1960, few Dominicans made their way to the U.S.A: Trujillo's ironfisted regime maintained strict control over visas and travel abroad.  After Trujillo's assassination in 1961, and fueled by the 1965 civil war, Dominican immigration rose to significant birth levels and then remained steady through the 1970's.  Then in the 1980's, when economic depression plagued the Dominican Republic, immigration soared.  In that decade alone, 250,000 Dominicans entered the U.S.A. legally, constituting the second-largest national group of immigrants from the Western Hemisphere, with Mexicans being the largest.  The 1990's and the early years of the new century also saw an unprecedented number of Dominicans immigrating to the U.S.A., due to enduring social injustice, and a continued lack of economic opportunity in the Dominican Republic (Himilce Novas, Everything You Need to Know About Latino History.  New York: Penguin Group, 2007, p. 232).

In addition to Dominicans who enter the country through legal channels and secure U.S.A citizenship, there is also a sizable undocumented Dominican population in America.  No reliable data on this population's size has been published, but many researchers assert that as many as three hundred thousand undocumented Dominicans have settled in the U.S.A.  One way that Dominicans enter the U.S.A illegally is by paying small fortune, often an entire year's wages to smugglers to transport them across shark-infested Mona Passage, the eighty-mile stretch of turbulent  sea separating the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico.  This perilous journey, undertaken in small,  rickety boats, or on rafts , costs thousands their lives every year.  If they make it across the Mona Passage and succeed at dodging the US Border Patrol agents combing the western coastline of Puerto Rico, a US territory with commonwealth status, Dominicans customarily work until they have enough money to travel to the US mainland.  They either hop a plane from Luis Munoz International Airport in San Juan to the mainland, usually New York, with false documents, pretending to be Puerto Ricans, who are American citizens, and thus needing no visa or passport, or they board container ships sailing to mainland ports, sometimes paying crew members to look the other way.  Naturally, it was much easier for Dominicans to travel illegally from Puerto Rico to the U.S.A mainland before September 11, 2001, and the establishment of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Ibid, pps . 232-233).

There is a group of Dominicans called the "retornados (returned immigrants)."  They have spent some time in the U.S.A., and then returned to the Dominican Republic, either to establish businesses with capital earned abroad or for personal reasons.  There is no reliable data indicating just how many Dominicans have gone to America and then returned to their homeland, but their number must be significant as companies and organizations that serve "retornados" special needs have cropped up in the Dominican Republic (Ibid, p. 233).

Although clearly defined Dominican communities first appeared in the United States over sixty-five years ago, Dominican-Americans have always been the invisible Latinos, especially in comparison to Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Cuban-Americans.  And since a large percentage of Dominican Americans are of mixed African, native, and Spanish descent, they have encountered the same prejudice and racial discrimination that African-Americans have suffered in the U.S.A.  Operating under the false belief that Dominican immigrants represent the poorest, most disenfranchised members of Dominican society, some Americans have argued that these immigrants shoulder the nation's social service system. While Dominicans do dominate the ranks of the small percentage of Latino's receiving public assistance, the truth is that the vast majority of Dominicans are extremely hard-working people who have never been on welfare or received food stamps or worker's compensation.  What's more, as a group, Dominicans who come to the U.S.A. are more highly educated than those on the island, and a good number among them are professional (Ibid, pps. 232-233).

 Unfortunately, too many Dominican immigrants end up in low-wage, low-status, blue collar jobs.  Based on the the US 2000 Census Current Population Survey for 1998 and 2000, the Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research at the University of Albany estimated that in 2000, the mean earnings of employed Dominicans was just below $8,000 and that 36% of the population lived in poverty.  In New York City, where Dominicans endure the highest poverty rate of all New Yorkers,  a large number of Dominican women make a meager living working the garment industry (and enjoying little protection), while Dominican men work for modest pay in manufacturing, in the restaurant and hotel industry, or as livery drivers.  No matter how scant their earnings, a good number of Dominicans send a significant portion of their paychecks to relatives  back in the Dominican Republic (Ibid, 234).

Little by little, Dominicans in New York, with the support they get from their strong, close-knit community, have been working their way up.  Some have launched small businesses or revamped preexisting ones, particularly bodegas, supermarkets, diners, family-style restaurants, travel agencies, and taxicab companies.  As an example of just how invisible Dominican-Americans are, Dominican restaurateurs in New York are apt to describe their fare as Spanish and American, which is what Cubans and Puerto Ricans cooking in America used to be called in the old days.  Thus many of their patrons, both Latinos and non-Latinos, have the false impression that they are being served by Cuban and Puerto Rican chefs.  Dominican restaurateurs fear that if they told "the whole truth," their non-Dominican clientele, unfamiliar with Dominican flavors would shy away (Ibid).

Relative to the Dominican Diaspora, we can say the following from a theological standpoint:

1.  Theology is the study about God by men and women in their relationship to God and to other persons.  Theology forces the question: How do we know or love God if we do not first know or love the neighbor, "the other?" We cannot separate theology from the experience of a people.  Experience, lived reality, is part of the ongoing process of creation and men and women's  constant struggle and dialogue with it  (Andres G. Guerrero, A Chicano Theology.  Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1987, p. 159).

Like that of other Hispanic communities in the U.S.A., the Dominican experiences is one of oppression.  A Dominican diasporic theology must reflect on the process of liberation.  It must re-invent, re-create, re-define, and re-construct in its proper context by drawing on its own proper reality.  In its vision it must search for an experience of liberation; this demands the creation of new models that aid in understanding the oppressed-colonized context out of which Dominicans think, speak, and love.  Old models cannot be inserted into new situations of liberation.  These new models need to be created in the process of liberation.  Dominican theology has to help Dominican people recognize this process.  They must envision those new models which come from an experience of oppression moving towards liberation (Ibid).

The uniqueness of the Dominican experience lies in the fact that they exist between two worlds: the impoverished and the rich. In giving direction to a Dominican theology of liberation, Dominicans cannot be neutral.  Neutrality in the global setting of rich and poor implies a choice.  To opt for the poor involves a prophetic decision, one that paves the way toward liberation for both oppressed and oppressors (Ibid).

Theologically speaking, Dominicans must look for some alternatives for strengthening their history, culture, language, and dignity as human beings.  The Church is one vehicle that can be utilized provided that we see the process of liberation going on concerning education.  Dominicans who get an education can easily be alienated from the rest of the oppressed Dominican community. There is a need to organize or institutionalize endeavor to move leadership back into the Dominican barrios in the U.S.A. (Ibid, pps. 161-162).

The Church is not doing all it could for Dominicans.  The Church as an instrument of liberation, is the last hope for the Dominican-American community.  As responsible moral entities, we must cooperate in re-directing and restructuring a just society for humanity (Ibid, p.165).

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona,
Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary

The Cuban Diaspora: A Theological Conundrum

This essay deals with the complexity that is found in addressing the matter of the Cuban Dia.spora, a complexity that surpasses that of the Puerto Rican Diaspora.  While Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated territory of the U.S.A., Cuba is no such condition or position.  Cuba is an independent and sovereign republic.  It does, however, share a colonial history with the U.S.A, just like Puerto Rico does.  However, the historical dynamics of becoming a diasporic community are different.  We will briefly address the relationship between Cuba and the U.S.A, see the difference between that history and the history of Puerto-Rico-U.S.A. relationships, and also describe the socio-economic conditi5ons of the Cuban Diaspora of the U.S.A, and then summarizing a theological view of the whole situation.

It is difficult to overstate the importance and impact of the Cuban Revolution on Latin America, the Americas, and the world.  After his rebel army toppled the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in 1959, Fidel Castro and his comrades transformed Cuba from a capitalist ally of the U.S.A. into a fully socialized economy closely linked to and heavily subsidized by the Soviet Union.  The Cuban revolutionaries carried out most of the sweeping land reforms in Latin American history, radically redistributed wealth, providing all Cubans with basic health care, education, and social services, and became an important inspiration and ally in the export of Marxist revolution to other parts of the Americas and the Third World.  The United States organized a failed attempt to invade Cuba and overthrow the Castro regime in April 1961, and the bitter conflicts between the United States and Cuba brought the world to the brink of nuclear war in October 1962.  It is hard to imagine another country of its size (seven million inhabitants in 1960) that has played such a pivotal role in world politics in the last half century (Marshall C. Eakin, The History of Latin America: Collision of Cultures.  New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007, p. 308).

One of the most striking aspects of the Cuban Revolution was the triumph of such a radically antix-United States, Marxist revolution in a country so close to the U.S.A. (90 miles of the coast of Florida), and with such a long history of integration into the U.S.A. economy.  Observers have often noted the extreme anti-Americanism of the Cuban regime was a direct result of decades of US cultural, economic, and political domination of this small island nation.  The same holds true of the anti-Americanism of the Nicaraguan Revolution of 1979.  The strong economic ties between the U.S.A. and Cuba go back to the eighteenth century.  The rapid expansion of sugar cultivation in the nineteenth century made Cuba the great sugar exporter of the world.  Much of that production was controlled by U.S.A. dominated Cuban sugar.  The sudden and dramatic U.S.A. intervention in the Cuban-Spanish War in 1898 temporarily derailed Cuban independence, as the US Army occupied and ran Cuba until 1902.  For the next three decades, the US marines intervened repeatedly to "stabilize" Cuba and to "protect American lives and property."  After 1934, the U.S.A.strongly supported Fulgencio Batista, an army sergeant/stenographer who rose to power and maintained it through his control of the Cuban Army (Ibid).

Ironically, the Cuban Revolution helped propel forward another fundamental change-this one in the U.S.A.  Although Cubans had long moved back and forth between the U.S.A. and Cuba, in the early 1960's, some 250,000 Cubans fled into exile, mainly to south Florida, and the New York-New Jersey areas.  These exiles were largely white middle-class and upper-class Cubans who were well educated.  They transformed the politics of both regions and created a very powerful political lobby in Washington that has played a role in the U.S.A politics for more than fifty years (as swing votes in more than one state).  In the early 1980's, facing internal and political challenges, Castro allowed another 125,000 Cubans to flee the island, and most again went to south Florida.  The so-called Marielitos (named after  Mariel, the key point of departure in Cuba) were largely darker-skinned and less educated than those of the 1960's wave.  Their arrival created serious rifts within the Cuban community in the U.S.A.  The hundreds of thousands of Cuban exiles have also played a prominent role in the growing "Latinoamericanization" of U.S.A. culture and society.  The bilingual and bicultural Cubans have been incredibly successful in academia, government, and the private sector.  One of the great unintended consequences of the Cuban Revolution has been the diversification and enrichment of U.S.A. society and culture as the country has become "Hispanicized" (Ibid, p. 314).

On November 2, 1966, the U.S.A. Congress adopted the Cuban Adjustment Act, which gives all citizens of Cuba admitted to or paroled into the U.S.A. after January 1, 1959, and present in the country for at least one year, the special status of political refugees, with the right to automatic permanent residence.  Under the Cuban Adjustment Act, Cuban refugees face none of the restrictions governing immigration to the U.S.A., such as presenting proof of persecution at home, and are virtually guaranteed permanent resettlement in the U.S.A. (unless they are convicted criminals), whether they simply overstay their tourist visas, or arrive anywhere on U.S.A. shores (and not just designated ports of entry) with no documentation at all.  The Cuban Adjustment Act has remained in effect to this day, though it has come under challenge at times from those who believe that Cubans should not be affored special status (Himilce Novas, Everything You Need to Know About Latino History.  New York: Penguin Group, 2008,  pps. 194-195).

Cuban Americans generally have nothing good to say about the Castro regime (Fidel Castro died in January 2017).  They considered him a dictator who stole their country, forced them into exile, caused them into incalculable suffering and pain.  They call him "the tyrant, the devil, the grime ball," and other choice names.  As for the U.S.A. sponsored embargo against Cuba, the majority of Cuban Americans are of the conviction that the only strategy for bringing an end to the Castro regime (Raul Castro, Fidel Castro's brother, became the defacto of Cuba in 2006 and is now the President), and at the same protecting the international community from potential acts of terrorism (especially bioterrorism, given that Cuba has invested heavily in biotechnology), is a continued economic blockade of the island (Ibid, p. 208.)

How does one evaluate the situation of the Cuban Diaspora from a theological standpoint?  As previously stated, it is a very complex situation.  Latin American Liberation Theology addresses the issues of oppression and suffering generated by colonization, imperialism, classism, and racism.

Cuba, for a long time, was an economic (though not directly political) colony of the U.S.A.  Their economy was controlled by U.S. economic interests, resulting in a wide gap between the "haves" and the "have nots."  As a result, there was widespread poverty.  Liberation Theology denounces poverty, and calls for a total revamping of the economic structures so that poverty can be eradicated.

The economic and indirect political colonization of Cuba came as a result of U.S.A.imperialistic interests and the quest for hegemony.  The concepts of the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny legitimized and sugar-coated this imperialistic venture.  Liberation Theology denounces thxxe e concept of one country "lording it" over another.

The migration of Cubans into the U.S.A. in 1959 was generated by economic factors.  However, it should be noted that the migration primarily involved those who were members of a privileged socio-economic class who exploited the working class.  The migration was generated by the redistribution of the wealth of the Castro regime, as well as the expanded benefits for the majority of the population.  Liberation Theology denounces the hoarding of the resources by a few who use them for their own benefit at the expense of the many.

The privileged class who migrated were primarily white.  They fled a government which was now moving to implement racial equality in Cuba.  Liberation Theology denounces people being assigned and confined to social conditions on the basis of race.

The more "well to do" Cubans of the Diaspora are the same ones who kept and maintained their fellow black Cubans on the island in a position of subservience and secondary class status.  In essence, they seek to replicate in the U.S.A. the same social-economic conditions which gave them a status of privilege on the island.  Liberation Theology denounces the concept of "privilege," and advocates for and promotes the Gospel of equality.

En fin, Liberation Theology in its application to the Hispanic Diaspora in the U.S.A. takes on a different twist on the Cuban American community.  The Puerto Rican and other Hispanic communities in the Diaspora consist primarily of people who came to U.S.A. shores as a result of economic havoc wreaked by U.S.A. foreign policy.  Cubans in the Diaspora constitute a community that fled to a country had given economic, military, and political support to a dictatorial and morally corrupt government that allowed the few to prosper at the expense of the poor masses.

A genuine Liberation Theology in the Cuban Diaspora would call for a community organizing that would mete out justice to all Cuban Americans, and not just a select few.  It calls for the Cuban American community to pursue a system in which all can have access to "the good of the land."

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona, Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary

Theology from a Puerto Rican-American Standpoint

This essay deals with a very complex situation.  It focuses on the Puerto Rican community in the Diaspora of the U.S.A.  This community has both differences and similarities with other Hispanic communities in the Diaspora.  The basic similarities are ones of colonial history, language, religion, and second-class treatment as citizens and/or residents.  The one basic difference is that unlike most other Hispanics, Puerto Ricans are U.S.A. citizens by both imperialistic imposition, and also by birth.

In order to address the issues of theological relevance to the Puerto Rican community in the Diaspora, one must first take into account their colonial history, and how that history, in turn, generated migration to the U.S.A. In addition, one must consider and evaluate the economic, political and social conditions of Puerto Ricans living in the U.S.A.  The role of religion also plays a part in making a theological assessment of the Puerto Rican-American community.

Puerto Rico hhas a peculiar status among the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean.  As one of Spain's last two colonies in the New World (along with Cuba), Puerto Rico experienced the longest period of Spanish influence in the region.  On July 25, 1898, however, U.S. troops invaded the island during the Spanish-American War.  In 1901, the U.S. Supreme Court defined Puerto Rico as "foreign to the United States in a "domestic sense" because it was neither a state of the union nor a sovereign republic.  In 1917, Congress granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in Puerto Rico, but did not incorporate the island as a territory.  Until now, Puerto Rico has remained a colonial dependency, even though it attained a limited form of self-government as a commonwealth in 1952 (Jorge Duany, Puerto Rican Nation on the Move: Identities on the Island and in the United States. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2002, p.1).

As an overseas possession of the United States, the island has been exposed to an intense penetration of American capital, commodities, laws, and customs unequaled in other Latin American countries.  Yet today, Puerto Rico displays a stronger cultural identity than most Caribbean people, even those who enjoy political independence.  In the early part of the twenty-first century, Puerto Rico presents the apparent paradox of a stateless union that has not only not yet assimilated into the American mainstream. After more than one hundred years of U.S. colonialism, the Island remains a Spanish-speaking Afro-Hispanic Caribbean nation.  Today, the Island's electorate is almost evenly split between supporting commonwealth status and becoming the fifty-first state of the Union; only a small minority favor independence (Ibid., p. 2).

Recent studies of Puerto Rican cultural politics have focused on the demise of Puerto Rican nationalism on the Island, the rise of cultural nationalism, and the enduring significance of migration between the Island and the U.S. mainland. Although few scholars have posited an explicit connections among these phenomena, they are intimately linked.  For instance, most Puerto Ricans value their U.S. citizenship and the freedom of movement that if offers, especially unrestricted access to the continental U.S.  But as Puerto Ricans move back and forth between the two countries, territorially grounded definitions of national identity become less relevant, while transnational identities acquire greater prominence.  Constant movement is an increasingly common practice among Puerto Ricans on the Island and the mainland.  We can raise questions of Puerto Rican identity, articulation, and definition.  Reconsidering the Puerto Rican situation can add much to scholarly discussions on colonialism, nationalism, and transnationalism (Ibid.).

Then original name of the island of Puerto Rico was Boriquen (some pronounce it Borinquen).  It means "land of the brave lord."  It was the name given to the island by its original inhabitants, the Taino, who were a subgroup of the Arawak, the collective name of the indigenous people inhabiting the West Indies (the islands in the Caribbean Sea, which are divided into the Lesser Antilles, Great Antilles, and the Bahamas).  The Taino, a seafaring people, inhabited not just Puerto Rico, but also the other islands of the Greater Antilles (Cuba, Hispaniola, and Jamaica), as well as the Bahama and some of the islands of the Lesser Antilles (an island group to the east and south of Puerto Rico).  In actuality, the native peoples of Puerto Rico did not call themselves "Taino" before the Spanish conquest of the Americas.  Christopher Columbus christened this subgroup of Arawak indigenous people "Taino," meaning "peace," because it was the first word they uttered when they laid eyes on the conquistador (Himilce Novas, Everything You Need to Know About Latino History.  New York: Penguin Group, 2008, p. 130).

Since all Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens-no matter if they dwell in San Juan or San Franciso-and not foreigners, they can travel freely back and forth between the island and the mainland United States without passports or visas.  In other words, their movement constitutes the internal migration of Americans, not immigration.  Confusion abounds in mainstream society about Puerto Rican citizenship status.  Most Puerto Rican mainlanders have a story or two to tell about the time they were asked to give their green card or about Puerto Rico's currency, or Puerto Rico's president.  Some may even raise the questions about the issue of "illegal" Puerto Rican immigrants in America (Ibid, p. 155).

Puerto Ricans first came to the United States in the 1860's.  After Puerto Rico was ceded to the United States at the end of the Spanish-American War, more Puerto Ricans began making their way way to the United States, and after 1917, when they were given U.S. citizenship, to the U.S. mainland to settle or to sojourn, an experience fraught with risks, uncertainty, and obstacles, including a language barrier, poverty, social isolation, and overt discrimination.  In the early days, the majority went to Florida and New York to labor in cigar-making shops.  Forty percent of those who arrived between 1890 and 1910 eventually returned to Puerto Rico (Ibid).

The first great wave of migration from Puerto Rico to the mainland United States took place only in the aftermath of World War II and lasted until 1967.  The reasons were many, but they essentially boiled down to one issue: economics.  During World War II, about one hundred thousand Puerto Ricans served in the U.S. armed forces.  Military life exposed these islanders to the "superior"quality of life on the mainland, fueling their desire to move north.  In addition, Puerto Rico's population doubled in size to two million during the first quarter of the twentieth century and continued to grow at a rapid pace due to improvements in medical services.  With so many more people on the island, the standard of living did not rise substantially, and the unemployment rate soared.  By contrast, jobs on the island were plentiful.  New York was a major destination for Puerto Rican workers who found low-paying, labor-intensive jobs in the manufacturing sector which eagerly hired unskilled and semi-skilled workers making apparel, shoes, toys, novelties, and electrical goods, and assembling furniture and mattresses. They also went to work in the food and hotel industries, the meatpacking and baking industries, distribution, laundry service, and domestic service.  About half of all these were women (Ibid).

Since 1867, islanders have settled on the mainland in spurts, depending on the health of the U.S. economy and mainland job market.  Those who went to New York City in the 1960's generally wound up in manufacturing, even though this sector had already began as a gradual decline as early as the 1950's.  Then in the 1970's, New York City was gripped by a major fiscal crisis as businesses packed up and headed south and overseas in search of low-wage non-union labor.  This shrinking of the manufacturing sector had a devastating impact on New York City's Puerto Ricans, who generally did not have the formal education needed to fill the white collar jobs that were opening in the city's growing services sector (Ibid).

Puerto Ricans have historically been the most socially and economically disadvantaged of all Hispanics.  In 1998, for instance, a full 30.9 percent of mainland Puerto Ricans lived in poverty, and 43.5 of Puerto Rican children were below the poverty line, and in 2000, approximately 40 percent of New York City's Puerto Ricans hand slipped to or below the poverty line.  The depressed economic status of mainland Puerto Ricans has been attributed to a number of phenomena, such as the disproportionate number of poor Puerto Rican migrants settling stateside as compared to immigrant groups, owing to the fact that Puerto Rican citizenship removes all obstacles to entering the mainland United States.  Low levels of educational attainment, limited job skills, disease (including a high incidence of diabetes, high blood pressure, and depression in the Puerto Rican community), and drug abuse have also been frequently cited as reasons for the economically underprivileged class of Puerto Ricans on the mainland.  Some social observers have suggested that the culprits underlying all these social circumstances are rampant ethnic and racial discrimination, the language barrier, and the process of transculturation, of straddling two cultures and two languages, which is commonly accompanied by a disorienting sense of being neither "here, nor there" (Ibid, p. 157).

However, it is also important to point out that the socio-economic status of mainland Puerto Ricans is advancing at a steady pace.  Large numbers of mainland Puerto Ricans hold professional, managerial, technical, and administrative support jobs, which are cornerstones of economic well-being.  Interestingly enough, Puerto Rican mainlanders who live outside the Northeast, have shown better socio-economic outcomes than their counterparts in the Northeast, owing to the human capital and labor market characteristics (Ibid, p. 158).

What would a model theology look like for the Puerto Rican Diaspora?  This is a very difficult question to answer, in that, religious practices among Puerto Rican-Americans vary from one community to the other.  Furthermore, there appear to be some points of solidarity among the different communities.  For example, the worship practices of the Pentecostal movement appears to be similar to that of Santeria and Espiritismo (Spiritualism).  Spiritualism (communicating with the spirits of the dead is a practice that dates back to biblical times.  We find in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) divine prohibitions of this practice.  Yahweh, the God of Israel, commands the death penalty for those engaged in this practice.

Santeria has its roots in African Spirituality. It emphasizes veneration of the ancestors, some of whom are considered to be "saints," or as is said in Spanish "santos," from which the word "Santeria" comes.  The major similarities between Pentecostalism and these other two forms of spirituality are the emphasis on individuals being possessed by external forces or spirits, and also speaking in languages (tongues) other than the vernacular as a means of conveying the divine message.  In all these three faith groups, possession by external forces leads to manifestations such as dancing and trances.  Pentecostal Christians tend to get offended at this comparison, because they believe that these occurrences in their communities stem from a moving of the Holy Spirit, whereas, in the other two communities, they are prompted by demonic and/or diabolical spirits.  The book "Masked Africanisms," by Dr. Samuel Cruz, a professor of Religion and Society at the Union Theological Seminary in New York, is a very good resources for information on the link between Pentecostalism and these other two faith groups.

Liberation Theology is relevant to the Puerto Rican community in the Diaspora of the U.S.A.  As in Latin America and other parts of the so-called "Third World," Liberation Theology addresses the issues of socio-economic and political alienation and marginalization.  "Essays from the Margins," written by Dr. Luis Rivera-Pagan, Professor Emeritus of Ecumenics at Princeton Theological Seminary, provides much helpful insight in this regard.  The Puerto Rican community in the Diaspora suffers from the historical legacy of colonialism, imperialism, discrimination, and second-class treatment in the U.S.A.  How then, we ask, does Liberation Theology address the situation of the Puerto Rican Diaspora? I would humbly submit the following:

1.  Liberation Theology emphasizes that theology should emerge from the "bottom up," and not from the "top down." In other words, theology should emerge from those who are alienated, marginalized, and powerless, not from those who are in positions of authority and power.  Since the Puerto Rican community in the Diaspora is a subjugated and marginalized group, their theological mindset and perspective must emerge from their existential and experiential reality, not from the dictates of classical Western theological hegemony.

2.  Those who are in a condition of powerlessness and subjugation are in a privileged position to receive and and understand God's revelatory acts in history.  This means, then, that Puerto Ricans in the Diaspora, together with all oppressed people, have been "chosen" to be not only the recipients, but the conveyer belts transmitting the message of God's salvific acts.

3.  Oppression and suffering are the starting points for biblical interpretation and theological reflection.  The Puerto Rican community understands the message of Scripture in the light of its experience as a colonized and suffering people.

Although Liberation Theology, in the modern sense of the word, emerged within a Christian context, it offers a message of hope for the Puerto Rican Diaspora, regardless of the variety of religious practices within our community.  It does not seek to demonize any particular religious expression, but rather, to identify with the liberating elements in all religious traditions, and to establish ties of solidarity with all those individuals whose goal is to dismantle structures of injustice and work for the construction of the Beloved Community.  Our Puerto Rican sisters and brothers in the Diaspora, as descendants of our colonized parents, and as a people who have been treated as second-class citizens in the U.S.A, have in Liberation Theology, the call and hope for a society of full equality, justice, and peace.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona

Visiting Professor of Theology Tainan Theological College/Seminary

Theology from a Mexican-American Standpoint

In these next three essays, I will be focusing on the three largest groups of Hispanics in the U.S.A. It has been previously indicated that by and large, Hispanic-Americans prefer to be identified with their country of origin.  And though there are at least three generations of Hispanics, in general, they tend to hold on to their roots and cultural perspectives.  We will begin with Mexican Americans, the oldest and largest group of Hispanics in the U.S.A.

We might begin by posing the question "How did Mexicans originate in the U.S.A.?  Why did they come here in the first place?"  The truth of the matter is that Mexicans have always been here.  They did not originate in the U.S.A. per se, but indeed, originated in the land, much of which was stolen from them by the U.S.A.  The mentality is, as pointed out in a previous essay, "We never crossed the border.  The border crossed us."

The presence of Mexican in the U.S.A. is due primarily to the conquest and subsequent occupation of Mexico by Spain, beginning in 1519, and also the westward movement, or expansion across North America by English-speaking people not long after the thirteen British colonies on the continent's eastern seaboard won their independence from Britain.  With the exhortation "Go west young man," ringing in their ears, the Anglo colonists settled the territory up to the banks of the Mississippi River between 1776 and 1800.  A track of land extending from British North America, and from the Mississippi Rivers to the Rockies caused the American republic to double in size.  The young nation was well on its way to consummating a mission in the making, a mission that would later be called "Manifest Destiny," an expansion westward to spread democracy and freedom which would culminate in the occupation by Anglo-Saxon Americans of a territory stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific (Himilce Novas, Everything You Need to Know About Latin History.  New York: Penguin Group, 2008, p. 66).

It is ironic that this westward expansion and subsequent land-theft took place soon after the thirteen colonies gained their independence and sovereignty, while at the same time, repeating the very same colonial history that they had been subjected to.  It was truly a case of formerly occupied people now becoming the occupiers.  It was the historical repetition of the oppressed become the oppressors. At his juncture, we can truly allude to the saying that those who do not learn the lessons of history are bound to repeat its errors.

A good deal of that territory between the Atlantic and the Pacific belonged to Mexico, and thus it was not long before the Anglos came into contact with the Mexicans.  Around 1790, Kentucky mountain men came trespassing on Spanish-American land to trap beavers which were coveted for their furs.  They trapped without licenses, and they traveled wherever they pleased.  Sometimes their loot was confiscated, but no matter, they kept coming back for more.  These frontier beaver trappers were grubby, bearded, and uncouth; they cussed and spat and picked fights nilly-willy.  Often the native peoples and mestizos of New Mexico would hold perfumed to their noses if they had to stand next to the Anglo trappers.  And so, the relationship between the fledgling United States and Mexico got off to a rough start (Novas, p. 66).

In an editorial he wrote in support of the annexation of Texas that ran in the July-August 1845 edition of the United States Magazine and Democratic review, a political and literary journal that was published in Washington beginning in 1837, John O'Sullivan, the magazine's cofounder and editor, put into words what the citizens of the nascent American republic had been feeling right from the start and coined "Manifest Destiny."  In his editorial, O'Sullivan maintained that "our manifest destiny" is to overspread the continent alloted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions."  In a nutshell, Manifest Destiny was an Anglo-American version of the national supremacy theory and justified the aspirations of the United States to extend its borders "from sea to shining sea."  The phrase took, and so did the sentiment.  Politicians of all persuasions made mention of Manifest Destiny in articles and speeches everywhere, and they felt as full of imperialist zeal and purpose as the Spanish conquistadores had (Ibid, p. 67).

In the first half of the nineteenth century, the American republic would work especially hard at manifesting its destiny.  Acquiring Mexican territory seemed like a logical step in American expansion, although the more extreme opponents of Manifest Destiny spoke of pushing America's borders as far north as the Arctic Circle and as far as Tierra del Fuego.  Several Mexican observers have remarked that viewed from a different perspective, Manifest Destiny could have been called "The Mexican Fate,"since the nation that suffered the most from this doctrine was Mexico (Ibid).

In the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's, some undocumented Mexicans crossed the border without guides, an extremely dangerous undertaking, then roamed the Southwest and California until finding work. Others were led or transported across the border after paying a large sum to smugglers, known as "coyotes," who profited in the millions in this human traffic.  These practices continued until the 1990's, and are still prevalent today, but a policy of stricter law enforcement in urban areas along the U.S.-Mexico border, first implemented in 1994 under Operation Gatekeeper, forced border crossers farther and farther of the beaten path and into remote desert areas of Eastern California and Arizona to avoid detection, making the crossing all the more perilous.  In the years, 1993-96, almost 1,200 persons by official counts, lost their lives in border crossings due to exposure to heat and cold, dehydration, snakebites, injury, and murder (Ibid, p. 102).

Some with border crossing cards have managed to remain in the United States by buying round-trip airlines tickets to a destination far from the border as soon as they enter the country.  Once in Chicago, Detroit, or some other place, they join friends or relatives who may have found them a job.  In the old days, when security at U.S. ports was lax, they would sell their return airline tickets which provided enough income until the first paycheck.  The new arrivals would then lose themselves in the crowd and join the vast underground economy- but, of course, without legal recourse, and always under the threat of discovery, arrest, and deportation (Ibid, p. 103).

From this history of land-theft, economic havoc, forced migration, and second-class treatment in the Diaspora of the U.S.A., we are confronted with the need for a theology which will be relevant in addressing the needs of our Mexican-American sisters and brothers.  The theology needs to emerge from their historical and present-day experiences.  It cannot be a "top-down" theology imported by the colonizers, who in fact, have forced them to migrate to the U.S.A.  It has to be a theology that in essence says that God has heard the cry of the people.  It must be a theology that puts God in solidarity with these victims of injustice and oppression.

Out of this reality, Mexican-Americans (Chicanos) will have to insist on their theology recognizing the process of liberation.  This theology will have to introduce the concept of "mestizaje."  Mexican-Americans have been discriminated against and considered inferiors because of the three races, indigenous, African, and Spanish.  Chicano theology must take a new positive by using mestizaje symbolically to reinforce their identity, and their positive cultural attributes.  This will have to be done in the same word "Black" once negative and derogatory, was symbolically given a positive and liberating meaning by black leaders (Aime Cesaire, Discourse on Colonialism.  New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972. p. 74).

Chicano leaders have to redirect the phenomenon of mestizaje strengthening their identity, toward letting the phenomenon give rise to to the struggle for equality and dignity.  No one can do this for them; they must do it themselves (Andres Guerrero, A Chicano Theology.  Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1987, p. 160).

Theologically speaking, Mexican Americans must look for some alternatives for strengthening their history, culture, language, and dignity as human beings.  The Church is one vehicle they can utilize provided they see the process of liberation taking place concerning education.  There is a need to organize or institutionalize endeavor to move leadership back into the barrios of the Southwest and wherever Mexican Americans live in the Diaspora.

Only as long as theology addresses the condition of our Mexican American sisters and brothers in the Diaspora, can it be considered faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Any theology which disregards or ignores these conditions and existential realities, is a "pseudo-theology," to which the Church must not adhere.  The theology has to be a liberating theology which stresses God's salvific activity in the midst of agony, injustice, oppression, and suffering.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona

Visiting Professor of Theology,  Tainan Theological College/Seminary

The Role of the Trinity in Hispanic-American Theology

Some years ago, a resident of the prison where I served as the Protestant chaplain, share with me the story of a young priest who was assigned to give religious instruction to the youth in the parish.  On one particular occasion, he was to explain the doctrine of the Holy Trinity to them.  He thought that hae would try to explain it to them in terms that they could understand.  Subsequently, he used the terms "Dad, Junior, and the Spook" thinking that they would understand this as the equivalent of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. An equivalent attempt to do this in the Spanish language would be "Papa, Junior, y el Cuco."

Well, how do we explain the Trinity to people living in a situation of oppression and suffering, where those categories mean little, if anything?  To people who are the victims of colonization, second-class citizenship and residency, facing inferior wages in the employment market, living in substandard conditions, and living in fear of does not matter whether God is one,two, or three persons.  What matters to them is the relevance or non-relevance of God-talk to the socio-economic and political conditions in which they live in the Diaspora of the U.S.A.  As one of my colleague theologian friends put it, Hispanic people in the U.S.A. are not concerned with theological abstractions and speculation, but rather with basic survival, or as he put it, "with getting the cheese off the trucks."

Just to briefly put things into historical perspective, the word "Trinity" is not found anywhere in the Scriptures.  It came into vogue after the fourth century, during which time the Church was embroiled in a controversy concerning the nature of God and Jesus.  The word "Trinity" was used to explain the relationship which the Father, Son and Holy Spirit had with each other, without losing their distinct identities as individual persons.

This controversy became more complicated by the teachings of Arius, who believed that Jesus was created by God.  In other words, he did not believe that Jesus was part of the Godhead or divine nature.  He taught, based on his understanding of the New Testament, that Jesus was both inferior and subservient to God the Father.  In essence, his theology made Jesus an inferior god, which in a sense, established a form of polytheism, which the Church was trying to avoid in its doctrinal formulations, and which he also, ironically enough was trying to avoid.  The Arian doctrine strongly resembles the teachings of the modern-day Jehovah's Witnesses, who also believe that Jesus is subordinate to God, not only by role, but by nature.

Another complication was that of the teachings of Sabellious, who taught that God was revealed to humankind in three different modes or forms.  Sabellius taught that at one time in history, God was revealed as Father, at another time as Son, and finally as Holy Spirit.  In essence, Sabellian doctrine, or as it came to be known "Sabellian Modalism," promoted the idea of a trinity of roles, rather than a trinity of persons.

Finally, after the Emperor Constantine called for the Church to huddle and lay this matter to rest, the Church adopted the doctrine of the Trinity.  This doctrine states that God has been revealed to humankind in the relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are distinct as to person, but not as to nature.  In other words, by nature, all three of them are divine, and can properly-speaking, be called "God."  Needless to say, this position of the Church led to the allegation that the Christian religion is one of polytheism.

The systemic theological reflections on the Trinity of European or North American origins have traditionally drawn from biblical (mostly New Testament), patristic, scholastic, and contemporary sources, mediated by the philosophical and historical categories of each age.  Within the advent of political theology in Europe and liberation-oriented theologies in the Third World within the last decades, contemporary trinitarian theologies address questions formerly regarded by theologians and non-theologians alike as the exclusive domain of the political sciences (Johann Baptist Metz, Faith in History:  Toward a Practical Fundamental Theology.  New York: Seabury Press, 1988, pp. 130-132).

 This, of course, raises the question of whether or not the doctrines of the Church are a reflection of how in its thinking society should be arranged.  Is the ancient doctrine of the Trinity one which  at a certain period in history legitimized the gradual development of Christendom, i.e. a system where the Church governed society?  Is the doctrine of the Trinity, as understood today, one which reflects the legitimization of a male-dominated society?  With the advent of inclusive language in Scripture and in Christian theology, one wonders if the theological stance of the contemporary Church would be reflective of a different social order.

Hispanic theologians seek to develop their own trinitarian structure.  Subsequently, they must take into account what other contemporary and past trinitarians have said.  The Hispanic theologians cannot evade the toil and sweat of scholarly research and reflection.  To pretend to replace the required intensity and level of scholarship with ill-conceived and pseudo-spiritual or practical theologies would amount to an escapist, non-professional theological praxis that would disqualify the Hispanic theologian as a responsible practitioner of the profession (Roberto Goizueta, Inaugural Presidential Discourse, Third Annual Meeting of the Academy of Catholic Hispanic Theologian of the United States, 3-5 June 1990, Berkley, California).

Hispanic theologians retrieve and reformulate into their own theological milieu all that they see as true and methodologically sound; the theologians allow First World theological systems to stand critically before their belief system.  They have also become acutely aware that their theology must be an even sharper critique of bourgeois and non-committed theologies that arise from a fatigued, post-modern North-hemispherical Western society (Metz, pp. 88-99).

Hispanic theologians know that their own methodology has to offer many elements, forgotten or utterly unknown, for the most part, to First World Western Colleagues.  Although some of these elements are common to all theological latitudes, they all are more intensely lived and reflected upon within the Hispanic domain.  This applies to Hispanic trinitarian theology (Sixto Garcia, "A Hispanic Approach to Trinitarian Theology: The Dynamics of Celebration, Reflection and Praxis" in We Are A People. Roberto S. Goizueta, ed.  Minneapolis: Fortress Press, p. 110).

A question that comes into play is whether or not Hispanic theology should be a trinitarian theology in the classical sense of the word?  Should Hispanic-American theology reflect the contents of the historic creeds and doctrinal formulations of the Church?  This theologian (yours truly) believes that since Hispanic-American and Latin-American theology is an anti-colonial theology which is not based on a Western biblical hermeneutic, that Hispanic-American theologians should develop their own conception of the nature and work of God and the doctrine of the Trinity, not based on a supposed Western cultural and theological superiority, but rather, within a framework of relationships of people engaged in the struggle for liberation from domination and dependency.  The notion of God should reflect the just society that Liberation Theology, on the basis of its understanding of the Gospel, seeks to create.

The construction of a Hispanic-American trinitarian system begins, like any other Hispanic theological project, with the popular religious faith of the community.  That community, in turn, reflects a faith which utilizes its situation of domination and oppression as the starting point for biblical interpretation and theological reflection (Garcia in Goizueta, p. 118).

A challenge for Hispanic-American theology lies in the following question: Should our theology follow the Catholic and Orthodox models of including experiences (the presence of the Holy Spirit in the early Church), tradition, and Scripture in its formulations, or should it subscribe to the Reformation model of "Sola Scriptura?" Another possible model might be that of "Prima Scriptura," where the traditions and experiences in the Church carry weight, not unlike that of Scripture, but rather enough weight to be included in the formation of dogma.

This theologian, though Protestant, believes that if one is to be intellectually honest, that he/she must acknowledge that both the experiences and traditions of the Church gave way to the Scriptures, i.e. that the Scriptures came as a result of the presence of the Holy Spirit in and the traditions of the Church.  To subscribe to the "Sola Scriptura" paradigm, is to deny the Spirit's role in the formation of the Church, and to invalidate or minimize the tradition, would be tantamount to believing and affirming that the Scriptures developed in a historical vacuum.  Biblical theology, itself points to revelation coming to us through the mediation and the filtering of human experience.

In Roman Catholic theology, the role of Marianism is the hermeneutical key to the trinitarian experience of the Holy Spirit.  Theologians from different Christian traditions agree that the biblical role of Mary as disciple, as hearer of the Word, and as the receptor of the Holy Spirit, can offer common points of ecumenical discussion and theologizing (Bertrand Buby, Mary: The Faithful Disciple.  Mahwah, New Jersey, Paulist Press, 1985, p. 67).

This particular discussion underscores the role of Mary in the Hispanic perception of the unity and trinity in God.  It is superfluous to be reminded of the traditionally seminal role that Mary has played through the centuries in Hispanic prayer, and liturgy.  This reality springs from an old tradition that associates Mary with the salvific activity of Jesus and through Jesus with the Father and the Spirit.  This Hispanic tradition can claim a foundational New Testament background, especially though not exclusively in the Gospel according to Luke ( Garcia in Goizueta, pp. 121-122).

In Hispanic Protestant theology, what we find is a conception of the Trinity which is based on an assemblage of Scripture passages.  Very little, if any attention is given to the cultural and social contexts from which those particular Scripture passages emerged.  Even less attention is paid to the literary form of those books in which those passages appear.  The tendency in Protestant theology is to quote the Scriptures verbatim, and at the same time, disregard how the context colors the content of Scripture.

The future of the theology of the Trinity in the Hispanic churches will depend on the attitude of the Church.  If the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches overemphasize the role of the tradition, then their trinitarian will be based on decisions that the Church made at the Council of Nicea in  325 A.D.; merely for the sake of antiquity in thinking that this position is preserving "the faith that was once delivered to the saints."  On the other hand, if the Protestant churches continue to rely on the "Sola Scriptura" model in order to define the Trinity, then they will just end up recycling and regurgitating the mechanical and robotic citation of Scripture which do not lead to a well-thought-out theology.

The future of Hispanic-American "God-talk" will always depend on how the Church as the custodian of theology, interacts with its immediate environment, and how what is taking place in that environment, leads the Church in developing its self-understanding of God's revelation in Christ.  The trinitarian theology of the Church must reflect the Church's engagement in the struggle for justice and liberation in the world.  It cannot not be Nicene for the sake of being Nicene.  Its trinitarian theology must reflect a God who has heard the cry of the people and descended to help them and deliver them from bondage.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology, Tainan Theological College/Seminary