LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

LEONARDO BOFF 

Leonardo Boff's chief concern has been to develop a christology for Latin American Liberation Theology. Leonardo Boff, a Franciscan priest, was born in 1938. He studied theology and philosophy at Curitiba and Petropolis in Brazil and later studied at Oxford, Louvain, Wurzburg, and Munich, where he received his doctorate.  He served as Professor of Systematic Theology at the Petropolis Institute for Philosophy and  Theology (Ferm, op. cit., p. 30).

In his Jesus Christ Liberator: A Critical Christology for our time (1978), Boff suggests five criteria for constructing a suitable christology.  They are as follows:

1.  An indigenous Latin American christology will focus on human need rather than ecclesiastical dogma and structure.  

2. Its orientation will be towards the future, asking what Christ can do for the oppressed. 

3.  It will be open to dialogue with the world, and not be concerned with preserving the religious mentality of the status quo.  

4. It will stress the  social dimension of the liberating work of Christ, with special attention given to liberation for the poor and oppressed who have no voice in determining their future.  

5.  It will have as its foundation a Christ who calls us to correct action (orthopraxis) even more than to correct beliefs or orthodoxy (Maryknoll, N.Y., Orbis Books, 1978)

Applying these five criteria, the emergent portrait of Jesus is that of one who is the liberator of the human condition (Ibid., p. 63).

He is also the one who advocates the kind of radical love that knows no human discrimination; the one who reflects "all that is authentically human"(Ibid., p. 87). 

Boff describes Christ s the one who is completely open to God, and who exhorts us  to oppose the oppressors of our day as He did in His day.  His description of the person and role of Jesus is filled with down to earth imagery: "being for others to the end," "the human being par excellence," the one who for young persons is a "tremendous high," the dissenter, revolutionary, and liberator (Ibid., pp. 238-39),  

According to Boff, Jesus's intention was not to establish a new church, but to make clear the dominant qualities of a fully human being. Boff betrays his liberal theological learnings by declaring, "It is not those who are Christian who are good, true, and just.  Rather the good, true, and the just are Christians (Ibid., p. 250). 

For Boff, a christology for Latin America comes down firmly on the side of the poor and downtrodden. To follow Christ in Latin America is to seek to change the existing social structures that support poverty and oppression.  The theology of liberation of Jesus Christ the Liberator is the pain-filled cry of oppressed Christians.  They are knocking on the door of their affluent brothers and sisters, asking for everything and yet for nothing.  Indeed, all they ask is to be people, to be accepted as persons.  All they ask is that they be allowed to fight to regain  their captive freedom ((Ibid., p. 295). 

Boff even asserts that violence might be necessary for the sake of socio-economic liberation.  However, Christians will never initiate physical violence; they will resort to it only when forced by oppressors to do so (Ferm, op. cit, p. 30).  

In his subsequent writings, Boff notes how the situation in Latin America today has striking parallels with the socio-political situation of Jesus's time.  In developing this theme-one that Juan Segundo considers an improper parallel-Boff points out that Palestine, like the countries of Latin America was a dependent state suffering from the external (Roman) control.  Jesus confronted this external domination by preaching about the reign of God that would usher in a new era of human liberation.  Jesus chose to identify Himself with the have-nots, defending their rights and promising them a better day when God's purposes would be consummated on this earth.   (Ibid., p. 31). 

In summary, we find that there are two pivotal points in Boff's Liberation Theology.  The first one is that of Christology, i.e. the doctrine of the person and work of Christ.  Unlike classical Christian theology that focuses on this issue, emphasizing the questions of deity and humanity in Jesus, Boff talks about the relevance of the person of Christ to the situation of oppression and suffering in Latin America,  The question for Boff is not so much whether Jesus is divine and human at the same time, but rather that of what is Christ doing in Latin America today.  In keeping with the spirit of the late Dr. James Cone, Boff is not so concerned with what did Jesus do back in His time relative to the situation of Palestine's socio-economic and political captivity by Rome, but rather what is Jesus doing today relative the socio-economic and political captivity of Latin America. 

The second one is that of violence.  While Boff does not actually advocate for violence, he makes it clear that structural violence, i.e. that generated by the socio-economic and political entities, generates a response defense which can in turn, become violent.  So his mention of violence in his theology, makes us in the modern era, examine what is the role, if any, of violence in our time as a means of social change.

En fin, Boff challenges us to examine, not only our general theological assumptions and presuppositions, but also, in particular our christology. Is our modern-day christology one that is limited to debating the divine vs. human nature of Christ, or is it geared towards placing the person and work of Christ in a suffering world.  

I totally agree with Deane Ferm when he says that Leonardo Boff is one of the most creative and challenging Latin American liberation theologians, one who displays the many-splendored dimensions of a full-blown liberation theology (Ferm, op. cit., pp. 31-32). 

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College Seminary 

 LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY: RUBEM ALVES 

There is a question as to whether Rubem  Alves belongs in the camp of Liberation Theology or Theology of Hope.  And since Liberation Theology and Theology of Hope appear to be similar in some respects, it is difficult to make that determination.

The thinking of Rubem Alves, more than that of most other Latin American liberation theologians, is grounded in the Theology of Hope.  This theology, exemplified particularly in the writings of the German theologians Jurgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg, emphasize the eschatological dimension of history.  History in this view is understood to be futuristic, open to new beginnings, with God as the promise of eventual fulfillment.  For these theologians, human salvation is social in character, geared toward social justice and human liberation.  God is envisioned as the "power of the future," leading humanity toward the fulfillment of social justice (Ferm, op. cit. p. 27).

Alves's close identification with European political theology has arisen, in part, from his graduate work at Union and Princeton Seminaries in the United States.  His first book, A Theology of Human Hope (1969), was based on his doctoral dissertation at Princeton University (Ibid.).

Because Alves is very much at home with the writings of Jurgen Moltmann, Juan Segundo has branded him "a disciple of Moltmann."  Such a characterization, however, is misleading, for even in his "A Theology of Human Hope," Alves is highly critical of Moltmann, a judgement that becomes increasingly severe in his later writings,  In his first book, Alves faults Moltmann for focusing almost exclusively on the transcendent dimension of eschatology, thereby giving second place to the human dimension.  For Alves, hope is not something transcendent beckoning humanity from beyond; rather hope is "the stretching out of human consciousness, as it looks beyond the unfinishedness of what is (Rubem Alves, A Theology of Human Hope. St. Meinard, Ind., Abbey Press, 1969, p. 67)."

Alves advocates what he calls a "political humanism"-that is, a creative open-ended process that continually affirms  that a better tomorrow can be achieved.  This political humanism contains three components. First, it denies finality to the present human structures; they by no means represent the final chapter in human history.  Secondly, one must always continue to hope that the future will include the elimination of  these present oppressive forms.  Thirdly, it is humanity and humanity alone that will effect these changes and created new structures that promote human justice.  Alves does not contend that the perfect social order can be achieved, but that a far better society than the present can emerge (Ferm, op. cit., p. 28).

So a fundamental question remains.  Does humankind have the capacity to create and sustain perfect social structures that mete out justice?  Or, from a Pauline, Augustinian, and Calvinistic point of view, is humanity so tainted by sin that it cannot erect these structures?  Is it possible from a Wesleyan point of view that through the power of the Holy Spirit, humankind can erect just social structures that are not perfect, but far better than what we have?  Those questions remain open-ended as human history demonstrates sincere efforts to create those structures, and at that same time, failures at the end of the day. 

For Alves the term "violence" means anything that keeps humans from realizing a better future.  In short, violence is "the power of defuturization." Alves makes much of the notion of freedom and even suggests a "language of freedom," entirely secular in nature, which "does not look behind the stars first in order to find a meaning for the earth (Alves, op. cit.,  p. 163).  

At this point we get into the squabble between "conservative" and "liberal" Christians.  Liberals will say that conservatives are so "heavenly minded that they are no earthly good," and conservatives will say just the opposite, that liberals are "so earthly minded that they are no  heavenly good."  So the question for the theological task is whether our eschatology (doctrine of the final things or history as we know it) should be whether we focus on "The other side of Jordan" as the final destiny of humankind, or whether we should focus on Jesus's words, "If I by the finger of God cast out demons, than the  reign of God is among you."  

We may ask, "Where is God in all this?"  Alves replies: "God is the power for humanization that remains determined to  make humans historically free even when all objective and subjective possibilities immanent in history have been exhausted....The beginning, middle and end of God's activity is the liberation of humans....To speak about God is to speak about the historical events that made and make people free (Alves, op. cit, p. 99)."

A fundamental question remains.  Does Alves's theology fit in more with Liberation Theology or with the Theology of Hope?  In this writer's (yours truly) opinion, to the extent that Alves does not come out strongly to emphasize that oppression and suffering are the starting points for biblical interpretation and theological reflection, that his theology fits in more with the Theology of Hope.  This is not to say, by any stretch of the imagination that Alves's theology is either heretical or worthless.  As Ferm points out, if Alves has reached the point where he can say only that "all is vanity and a striving after the wind," in fairness  to him we should point out that this fatalism is a product of years of agonizing struggle against the forces of oppression in Latin America that seem only to grow stronger (Ferm, op. cit, pp. 29-30).  

While Alves's eschatology might appear to be and remain futuristic in its orientation, I do not believe that he is living in "La La Land."  Nor do I believe that his theology is one of "In the Sweet By and By."  He wrestles with the reality of demonic and structural evil.  Because of that, I would not exclude him from the camp of Liberation Theology.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY: JUAN LUIS SEGUNDO 

Juan Luis Segundo is one of the most prolific writers among the Latin American liberation theologians, having authored more than fifteen books.  Born in Montevideo, Uruguay, in 1925, Segundo, a Jesuit, studied philosophy in Argentina, received a licentiate in theology Louivain, Belgium, in 1956, and earned a doctorate of letters from the University of Paris in 1963. Ordained a priest in 1955, he later founded the Peter Faber Pastoral Center in Montevideo and served as its director until it closed in 1975 (Ferm, op. cit., pp. 22-23).

Segundo was already spreading the seeds of Liberation Theology prior to Vatican II and the emergence of European political theology.  His early writings-Funcion de la iglesia en la realidad rioplatense (1962) and Concepcion cristiana del hombre (1964)-refute the common charge that Latin American Liberation Theology is the stepchild of European political theology.  Segundo faults Ruben Alves for aligning himself too closely with Jurgen Moltmann and other European political theologians.  In his writings, Segundo has called attention to what he considers the flaws in European political theology, primarily its failure to give sufficient credit to human beings for their political role in fashioning the future and to appreciate the close causal connection between divine and human intervention (Ibid., p, 23).

Like Gutierrez, Segundo views theology not as an academic discipline for scholars, but as the reflection of the real-life experiences of ordinary believers.  This approach can be seen in Segundo's five-volume series entitled "A Theology for Artisans of a New Humanity," a course in theology produced by and for the grassroots communities of the Peter Faber Center during the late 1960's, and early 1970's.  In this interaction with lay Christians, Segundo focuses on several issues directly related to their daily lives. First is the crisis of the Church in the modern world.  Vatican II had issued the the challenge to the Church to enter into a dialogue with the world, a challenge that often left the Church with the insecure feeling that it had no easy answers to the immense social problems the world faced.  Yet, rather than seeing this as a threat, Segundo welcomes this insecurity, insisting that it can liberate the Church from a false complacency and enable it to become a "sign of salvation" to encourage Christians to lead more constructive and authentic lives (Juan Luis Segundo, The Community Called Church. Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1973, p 98).

The Church should admit that it does not possess all the answers. And then it should get on with its first order of business, which is serving the people (Ferm, op. cit., p. 3).

Along this same time line, Segundo disavows the traditional notion of grace as prepackaged in a sacramental system.   He argues that a careful reading of the New Testament reveals that Jesus never intended to institute a formal sacramental system, and he bemoans the the fact that this system has played such an important role in the history of the Church.  Sacraments are indeed important, but primarily as "community gestures and signs," encouraging Christians to get with the process of liberation.  Segundo says that a community gathered together around a liberative paschal message needs signs which fashion it and question it, which imbue it with a sense of responsibility and enable it to create its own word about human history.  This is precisely what the sacraments are-and nothing else but that.  Through them God grants and signifies to the Church the grace which is to constitute it truly as such within the most human community (The Sacraments Today, Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1974, p.99). 

One of Segundo's most valuable contributions to Latin American Liberation Theology is his concern for the relationship between faith and ideology.  In his Faith and Ideologies he elaborates on this theme, contending that "faith is never faith without ideologies," and that ideology without faith is never an ideology."  He notes, for example, the variety of meanings attached to the term "Marxism."  Therefore, one can no more talk about an abstract "Marxist ideology" than one can extrapolate a capitalist ideology. Segundo would prefer to find new terminology that is not so laden with emotion-terminology reflective of the basic concern for Latin Americans to reconstruct their society "from the roots of their relational base up." (Our Idea of God, Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1974, p. 4).

Faith and Ideologies is but the first of a five-volume series that could turn out to be one of the stunning theological achievements of our time.  This series may do for the Liberation Theology of this generation what Paul Tillich's writings did for the relationship between theology and culture in the previous generation.  Segundo is especially important because he is a Latin American Liberation theologian whose fertile and original mind ranges far and wide over a vast spectrum of theological issues.  He creates his theological thinking as a response to grass-roots communities, while keeping his Christian faith at the very core of thinking and action ( Alfred T. Henley, Theologies in Conflict: The Challenge of Juan Luis Segundo. Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1979).

This short article demonstrates what I have said and will continue to say, i.e that Liberation Theology is not monolithic by any stretch of the imagination.  There is as much diversity and variety in Liberation Theology as there is in classical theology.  Each theologian of Liberation takes a different approach to the issue.  Each one comes up with a different paradigm.  As we study each theologian individually, we see that there are differences as well as similarities. 

This, of course, makes it difficult to characterize Liberation Theology as "conservative, liberal, or progressive," because in the final analysis, each theologian has her/is perspective as to where to begin and as to what are the "means and norms."  These are among the things that make Liberation Theology both challenging and exciting.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. 

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona,

Past Visiting Professor of Liberation Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

                                      LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

Liberation Theology is a world-wide movement which engages the oppressed and suffering people of the world.  As has been mentioned before, it is not merely another school of thought which will have its day and then gone by, but rather, a movement which emerges from and seeks to address the situation of people, who are suffering in different parts of the world.  

This essay is the beginning of several focusing on that part of the world known as "Latin America." We might ask "Why do we need to focus on Latin America?"  My response to that is that we focus on that region of the world because it happens to be a region where people are living in dire straights, and where they have been the victims of much cruelty, dehumanization, and suffering. 

Writing in 1971, Enrique Dussel stated that Latin America had not yet produced any leading theologian (Enrique Dussel, A History of the Church in Latin America. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1981, p. 112).

This situation has changed rapidly.  Since the 1970's and 1980's, Latin American theologians have written an abundance of books and articles that have led to the conclusion that their authors are at the forefront of of the making of contemporary theology (Ferm, op. cit., p. 16).

Most observers consider Gustavo Gutierrez of Peru to be the preeminent Latin American theologian. His book "A Theology of Liberation" published in Spanish in 1971, and then translated into English in 1973 has been hailed as the "Magna Carta" of Liberation Theology (A Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1973).

Gutierrez was born in 1928 in Lima, Peru. He studied for a time at the San Marcos University Medical School in Lima, where he took a particular interest in psychiatry.  Later he felt called to the priesthood.  His pursuit of theological studies took him to Louvain, Lyons, and Rome.  He returned to Peru to accept a position at the Catholic University in Lima. Ordained a priest in 1959, he moved to Rimac, a slum of Lima. He taught in the Department of Theology and Social Sciences at the Catholic Pontifical University in Lima and also served as the director of the Bartolome de Las Casas Center in the heart of Rica( Ferm, op. cit., p. 16).

Of Amerindian ancestry, Gutierrez had experienced the pangs of discrimination in his early years-an experience that prompted him to become a political activist in his undergraduate years.  His encounter with daily suffering in Rimac strengthened his resolve to focus on his priestly concerns on the plight of the oppressed. This commitment was also reinforced by his discovery of the writings of the early Spanish liberator, Bartolome de las Casas (Ibid. pp. 16-17). 

During the 1960's, Gutierrez became increasingly disenchanted with his formal theological training.  In Europe, theology had been presented primarily as an intellectual discipline, more attuned to the life of the mind than to the actual living conditions of the poor. As a priest of and to the poor, he came to see that theology-indeed the Christian faith itself -made no sense unless it came to grips with the oppression and violence endured by those who whom he was called to serve.  During the decade of the 1960's, Gutierrez encountered other priests who felt as he did-that the theology that they had been taught was irrelevant to the poor with whom they lived.  One such priest was Camilo Torres, Gutierrez's fellow student at Louvain, who became radicalized in his ministry to the poor, and was eventually murdered for his "subversive" activities (Ibid.). 

According to Gutierrez, Liberation Theology as a self-conscious movement, was born in 1968, the year that he had gathered with like-minded priests in Lima and later at the episcopal conference in Medellin, serving as the principal author of the document on peace.  He also attended the follow-up conferences in Switzerland in 1969, and Colombia in 1970 (Ibid.).

It was during this time that Gutierrez wrote A Theology of Liberation.  The book was, in essence, a reflection on what he had learned firsthand from his daily encounters with his people during the preceding decade (Ibid.).

The book is Gutierrez's answer to the question, "What is the proper role of theology and of the theologian in the attempt to faithful to both the Christian gospel and to the poor in Latin America? Historically, Gutierrez notes, theology serves a variety of purposes. One model has emphasized wisdom and understanding.  According to this model, the primary task of theology is to understand the nature of reality, and further, to provide a reasoned interpretation of the divine revelation entrusted to the Church. Thus, theology serves both to strengthen the faith of the believers and to make Christianity intellectually convincing to the non-believers. Another important theological model has stressed spiritual enlightenment and sought to bring the believer into a close relationship with Christ (Ibid.) 

Gutierrez does not wish to do away with either of these models but rather to transcend them. He suggests a vision of theology from Augustine's The City of God, and Augustine's attempt to relate the Christian faith to the everyday lives of the Christians in his turbulent time (Ibid.).  

In a later book which he writes, i.e. We Drink from our Own Wells, Gutierrez stresses the point that liberation is an all-embracing process that "leaves no dimension of human life untouched." He says that "an encounter with the Lord is the necessary point of departure for a life according to the Spirit (Ibid.).  

As one continues to engage with Gutierrez and his writings, one discovers that he believes that oppression and suffering are the starting points  for biblical interpretation and theological reflection. These conditions and situations become the prism  through which Scripture and the traditions of the Church are understood in the life of the community. 

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

Past Prison Chaplain

New York State Department of Correctional Services ne  

 The heart of the Medellin documents can be summarized in two of its passages:

By its own vocation Latin America will undertake its liberation at the cost of whatever sacrifice (The Church in the Present Day Transformation of Latin America in the Light of the Council: Second Conference of Latin American Bishops. Washington, DC, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 3rd. 3d., 1979, p23).

The Lord's distinct commandment to "evangelize the poor" ought to bring us to a distribution of resources and  apostolic personnel that effectively gives preference to the poorest and neediest sectors (Ibid., p. 175).

Medellin is the cradle of Liberation Theology.  It is a clear and unambiguous assertion that the church should exercise a "preferential option for the poor"-an ideal that has become the hallmark of Liberation Theology.  However, the documents do not represent a unanimous point of view.  Both proponents and opponents of Liberation Theology can find passages to bolster their own positions.  And the documents are far more impressive in analyzing conditions than in proposing solutions.  But what Medellin did accomplish, in the words of Phillip Berryman, was "to give a green light to creative minorities all over the continent whose participation in the liberation struggle has led to a radicalization of the themes present in Medellin ("Latin American Liberation Theology" in Sergio Torres and John Eagleson, eds, Theology in the Americas.  Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1976, p. 26).

Although Vatican II and Medellin were important catalysts, they did not produce Liberation Theology.  Liberation Theology emerged from the lives of the poor and oppressed in Latin America, and, in particular, from the small basic Christian communities (CEBs-comunidades eclesiales de base) of the dispossessed-creative minorities seeking to relate their Christian convictions to their everyday lives.  These small communities, mostly in rural areas and on the outer edges of the cities, are formed by simple Christians who gather together to worship God and live out their responsibility to make Christ real in their lives (Ferm, op. cit. p. 12).

The CEBs are trying to live in a demanding way and under the extremely difficult conditions of their environment, the good news which they have accepted; celebrating it jubilantly in worship and and proclaiming it courageously to those who have not yet heard it----When the oppressed poor accept the gospel as good news of liberation, and actually strive to become liberated from the oppression that is being suffered, they are, ipso facto, battling against the sin of the oppressor, inviting the latter to conversion...The great revelation of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the radical innovation of the good news that He brings in His preferential love for the poor and sinners (Basic Ecclesial Communities: The Evangelization of the Poor. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1982, pp.64, 67-68).

CEBs have mushroomed all over Latin America.  By the end of the 1970's, approximately eighty thousand such communities existed in Brazil alone.  The CEBs are the very stuff out of which Liberation Theology grows, for they are the "poor in action" of which Liberation Theology is but a reflection.  Many of these communities use educational methods developed by Paulo Freire. He introduced "conscientization," a process by which persons  are made aware of how important it is to integrate their religious faith with their day-to-day political and social lives (Ferm, op. cit. p. 12).

The central problem is this: How can the oppressed, as divided, un-authentic-beings, participate in developing the pedagogy of their liberation?  The starting point for organizing  the program content of education or political action must be the present, existential, concrete situation, reflecting the aspirations of the people ( Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder, 1972, pp. 33, 85).

Another major development that fed the emergence of Liberation Theology was the Christians for Socialism movement, which had its beginnings in Chile in 1971.  At a meeting of eighty priests from throughout Latin America, the movement drafted a document that stated:

"As Christians we do not see any incompatibility between Christianity and socialism.  Quite the contrary is true...it is necessary to destroy the prejudice and and mistrust that exists between Christians and Marxists (John Eagleson, Christians and Socialism: Documentation of the Christians for Socialism Movement in Latin America.  Maryknoll: Orbis, 1975. p. 4.

This statement goes beyond the Medellin conference, which tried to steer a middle course between capitalism and socialism.  The theme surfaced at a convention of four hundred Latin American Christians held in Santiago, Chile, in 1972, where final document affirmed:

"The economic and social structures of our Latin American countries are grounded on oppression and injustice, which in turn is a result of our capitalist dependence on the great power centers...We commit ourselves to the task of fashioning socialism because it is our objective conclusion....that this is the only effective way to combat imperialism and to break away for our situation of dependence.  There is a growing awareness that revolutionary Christians must form a strategic alliance with Marxists within the liberation process on this continent.  Socialism presents itself as the only acceptable option for getting beyond a class-based society (Ibid., pp. 161, 163, 168, 169)." 

This "preference for the poor by way of socialism" met fierce resistance from the established political and religious structures. Governments considered this socialist credo a distinct threat to the capitalist forces that kept them in power.  And the official teachings of the church had yet to acknowledge any merit in any form of socialism.  That would occur less than a decade later in Pope John Paul II's 1981 encyclical Laborem Exercens. The Christians for Socialism movement in Latin America did not survive as an independent force, but the seeds sown by it continued to germinate.  Its importance lies in its harsh criticism of the evils and abuses of a capitalist system that favors a wealthy minority and provides but a few crumbs for the oppressed majority (Ferm, op. cit., p. 12). 

For liberation theologians, the voices of the poor are indeed, in Dom Helder Camara's words, "the voice of God."  These theologians are convinced that social reform will come Latin America in one way or another.  These theologians are convinced that social reform will come to Latin America in one way or the other. Their primary mission is to promote this inevitable social reforms in a Christian context (Ibid., p. 15).  

In summary, we ask ourselves what is the future of theology (God-talk) in Latin America?  Will theological discourse reflect the interests of the rich and powerful, or will it reflect the aspirations and yearnings of the oppressed and poor of the region?  Will theology in Latin America be used to legitimize maintaining oppressive and unjust ideologies and systems, or will theological discourse breed and generate a movement for social justice? 

In this writer's point of view, any theology which legitimizes and supports oppressive ideological structures is a theology which must be exorcised and reprimanded.  Authentic and genuine theology must be contextualized in the lives of oppressed people and stimulate a movement that leads society in the direction of social justice.  Authentic and genuine theology should promote and reflect the ingredients of the Gospel of liberation and redemption.  

The Struggle Continues 

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 A major cause of poverty and oppression in Latin America has been and remains the economic policies of the United States government and of multinational corporations-policies that buttress repressive governments.  As one observer puts it:

The basic difference between American imperialism today and American imperialism a century ago is that it is more violent, more far reaching, and more carefully planned today (Irving Horowitz et al, eds., Latin American Radicalism: A Documentary Report on Left and Nationalist Movements.  New York: Random House, 1969, p. 194).

Between 1950 and 1955, the United States invested $2 billion in Latin America, chiefly in raw materials and agriculture.  From this investment the United States made a profit of $3.5 billion, nearly half of which returned to the United States.  As is obvious, a nation that dominates the economy of another nation dominates its political sector as well.  For this reason, the U.S. government plan for so-called development in Latin America is a sure way to maintain economic, social, and political status quo.  Furthermore, in light of the insistence of protecting national security by military might, it becomes obvious why the U.S. government and multinational corporations will inevitably support political structures that favor their own self-interests above all else. (Ferm, op. cit. p. 9).

It is not surprising...that since 1960, the amount of violence has dramatically increased on the one hand by the military governments supported by the Pentagon, and the national police (with their methods of torture often taught by the United States experts in counterinsurgency), and on the other hand by the rural and urban guerrillas. With the death of John Kennedy and the failure of the Alliance for Progress program, the United States began to support all the forces in Latin America that called themselves "anti-Communists," a euphemism for counterrevolution, that is, those governments that directed their efforts against the popular revolutions through neo-colonial militarism ( A History of the Church in Latin America, op. cit., p. 51)

With this portrait in mind, one can understand why more and more Latin Americans mistrust "foreign aid" programs and "alliances for progress," wonder whether the only way to break the spiral of violence supported by entrenched political and economic structures is literally to break the structures themselves.  After all, as John F. Kennedy used to warn us, those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable (Ferm, op. cit. p. 10).  

For a long time, Latin America had been ripe for massive social revolution.  When the social teachings of Vatican II and the social encyclicals of Pope John XXIII and Paul VI began to trickle down into Latin America, a small but growing number of bishops, priests, and lay persons found confirmation of what they themselves had come to see as the role of the church in building a new social order.  After all, six hundred bishops from Latin America had attended the opening proceedings of Vatican II in 1962, and they and their advisers could not help but be deeply committed to the social documents that they and their Latin American episcopacy, the implications of Vatican II and the papal encyclicals-in particular, the more recent Populorum Progressio were throughly discussed (Ibid.).

In 1967, bishops from Latin America, Africa, and Asia issued "A Letter  to the Peoples of the Third World," which maintained that revolution can be an appropriate means to overcome justice, and stated that the rich were inciters of violence.  More and more bishops, priests, and lay persons had come to realize that in order to remedy the desperate poverty and injustices of the masses, Latin American nations had to eliminate political and economic domination and create their own destiny in the community of nations.  Thus, beginning in the 1960's, a new era began for the church in Latin America, an era marked by a growing concern for the poor, resistance to the privileged few, distrust of the established order, and protest against the prevailing structures of the social order.  It was in this atmosphere that Latin American Liberation Theology was born (Ibid.). 

The second major event in the 1960's for the Catholic Church in Latin America was called the General Conference of the Latin American episcopacy (CELAM II) held in 1968 in Medellin Colombia.  Enrique Dussel considers CELAM II the "Vatican II of Latin America" (A History, op. cit., p. 147).

Gustavo Gutierrez points to the year 1968 as the birthday of Latin American Liberation Theology (National Catholic Reporter, Dec. 11, 1982, p. 11).

What the Medellin conference did above all else was to focus attention on the Latin American situation, particularly the pervasive human injustice and oppression.  What does God have to say and what ought the church as God's agent do about all this suffering (Ferm, op. cit., p. 11).

The theme of the conference was "The Church in the Present-Day-Transformation of Latin America in the Light of the Council (The Church in the Present-Day Transformation of Latin America in the Light of the Council:  Second General Conference of Latin American Bishops. Washington, D.C ., National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 3rd. ed., 1979). 

Sixteen documents were produced, ranging in subject matter from justice, peace, education, and youth, to liturgy, lay movements, the mass media, and the poverty of the church.  In reading the documents, it becomes apparent that the majority  of the 145 cardinals, bishops, and priests who attended this conference had been deeply and positively influenced by Vatican II-many of them had been present at it-as well as by Pope Paul VI's encyclical Popululorum Progressio of 1967, which had directly addressed the Latin American situation (Ferm, op. cit. p 11.).

To be continued.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

                              THE PREDAWN OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY (CONTINUED)

Pope Paul VI built upon the foundation laid by his predecessors, as his encyclical Populorum Progressio (1967) indicates.  He notes how trips to Latin America and Africa in the 1960's gave him a firsthand look at the plight of the poor and points out why he had established a pontifical commission "to further the progress of poor peoples, to encourage social justice among nations, to offer less developed nations the means whereby they can further their own progress (Populorum Progressio, Gremillion, the Gospel, p. 88)." 

In this encyclical the Pope writes of "the scandal of glaring inequalities" in both possession and power, and points out how the Vatican Council insisted on the imperative of expropriating landed estates that were poorly utilized and brought harm to the people (Ibid., p. 390).

He denounces those who make a profit the key motive for economic progress and deplores the fact that "a type of capitalism has been the source of excessive suffering, injustices, and fratricidal conflicts (Ibid., p. 395). 

The Pope recognizes the urgency of the situation: "We must make haste, too many people are suffering, and the distance is growing that separates progress of some and the stagnation,  not to say the regression of others (Ibid., p. 396).

He goes on to say: There are certainly situations where injustice cries to heaven.  When whole populations destitute of necessities live in a state of dependence barring them from all initiative and responsibility, all opportunity to advance culturally and share in social and political life, recourse to violence, as a means to right these wrongs to human dignity, is a grave temptation (Ibid.).

Paul VI insists that "the superfluous wealth of rich countries should be placed at the service of poor nations"; otherwise their continued greed will bring down the wrath of the poor (Ibid., p. 402).  

In short, the world, exclaims the Pontiff, is sick-sick of luxury and waste in the midst of poverty, and sick of horrendous economic and social inequalities.  It is imperative for lay persons to take the initiative in making necessary changes in the customs, laws, and structures of their communities.  He ends by declaring: All of you who have heard the appeal of suffering people, all of you who are working to answer their cries, you are the apostles of a development which is good and genuine, which is not wealth that is self-centered and sought for its own sake, but rather an economy which is put at the service of humankind; the bread which is daily distributed to all, as a source of siblinghood and a sign of Providence...Yes, we ask you, all of you, to hear our cry of anguish in the name of the Lord (Ibid., p. 413).

From the publication of Rerum Novarum in 1891 to the late 1960's, Catholic social teaching in the form of papal encyclicals and conciliar documents had undergone a steady transformation.  There was increasing concern shown for the poor, suffering, and oppressed; for the rights of workers; for the responsibilities that the wealthy nations have for the impoverished; for the defects of capitalism based exclusively on the profit motive; for the role of both church and state in liberating the oppressed. And in what area of the world needed to hear this social message more than in Latin America, where political power makes the small number of rich even richer, and the vast number of poor even poorer (Ferm, op. cit. p. 9)?

A major cause of poverty and oppression in Latin America has been and remains the economic policies of the United States government and of multinational corporations-policies that buttress repressive governments.  As one observer puts it:  The basic difference between American imperialism and today and American imperialism a century ago is that it is more violent, more far-reaching, and more carefully planned today (In Irving  Louis Horowitz, et.al, eds., Latin American Radicalism: A Documentary Report on Left and Right Nationalist Movements.  New York: Random House, 1969, p. 194)

To be Continued.

 

THE PREDAWN OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY 

We continue with our focus on the historical origins of Liberation Theology.  As I mentioned at the beginning of these essays, theology (God-talk) does not take place in a vacuum.  Liberation Theology, like all other theological movements and schools of thought did not emerge out of nowhere.  Like all other theologies, it had its historical beginnings and contextual emphasis.  

While focusing on the details of the origins of a particular theology might seem somewhat cumbersome and tedious, it is a necessary component of research on that theology.  In order for us to understand theological thought, we must ask ourselves "How did it all begin?" 

I will say about Liberation Theology the same thing that I say about all other theologies.  It is not "heaven-sent," and neither is it inerrant or infallible.  Liberation Theology, like all other theologies, is culturally and historically-conditioned.  Like all other theologies, it has its own set of assumptions, biases, and presuppositions.  Every theologian of liberation brings her/his prior assumptions and mindsets to the table.  Liberation Theology is by no stretch of the imagination, something that takes place "Tabula rasa (in a blank slate)."  

From 1930 to 1960, the Catholic Church experienced a theological and liturgical revival concentrated especially in the religious orders and seminaries.  This ferment surfaced in the general conference of the Latin American episcopacy (CELAM I), which convened in Rio de Janiero in 1955 with Pope Pius XII in attendance.  This conference addressed many issues, not the least of which was the modern role of the church in missions and in the social order.  Liberation theology was presaged in Cardinal Adeodato Piazza's reference to Jesus's first sermon to define the proper mission of the church: "The spirit of the Lord has been given to me, for He has anointed me.  He has sent to bring the good news to the poor (Ferm, op. cit. p 6)." 

Two major events of the 1960's shook the Catholic Church in Latin America to its foundations. Vatican II and the Medellin conference (CELAM II) of 1968.  It is important that we consider both events in some detail and note their impact on Latin America, for these two events, more than any others, gave official impetus to the emergence of Liberation Theology (Ibid., p. 7).

Both proponents and critics of Liberation Theology stress the importance of Vatican II and its convener, Pope John XXIII.  Gustavo Gutierrez of Peru, the leading exponent of Latin American Liberation Theology, has said that the Medellin conference would not have been possible without Vatican II and Pope John XXIII (National Catholic Reporter, Dec. 17, 1982, pp. 10-11).

In addition, C. Peter Wagner, no friend of Liberation Theology has stated: "When historians evaluate this period a century from now, it may well turn out that Pope John XXXIII will have been judged to have had more influence on the Latin American continent than any other person in the twentieth century.  Roman Catholicism will never be the same as a result of the council he called and the attitude he infused (Latin American Theology: Radical or Evangelical? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970, p. 17)."

Pope John XXIII convened the council in 1982.  It met for two months at a time for the next four years.  After the death of John XXIII in 1963, Pope Paul VI continued where his predecessor had left off.  Vatical II represents the positive response of the Catholic Church to the challenges of the modern world.  Possibly the spirit of openness to all "separated brethren" epitomized by Pope John himself had a greater impact than even the documents themselves (Ferm, op. cit., p. 7).  

Nevertheless, one should not underestimate the significance of the Vatican II documents. Of major importance is the Gaudium et Spes (1965), which emphasizes the special responsibility Christians have toward "those who are poor or in any way afflicted (Gaudium et Spes, in Joseph Gremillion, ed., The Gospel of Peace and Justice. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1976, p. 243).

This document underlies the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots, as well as the universal mandate to "count social necessities among the primary duties of modern humankind (Ibid., p. 267)."

It denies that the church is bound to any single social, economic, or political system and maintains that what is most important is the wider distribution of economic power.  Gaudium et Spes recognizes the importance of organized labor and even of the right to strike for just demands, as part of the effort to press for a fairer distribution of goods.  It affirms that the church itself, although independent of the political sector, has the right-even the duty-to pass moral judgments on political matters (Ferm, op. cit., p.7).

One finds the same spirit of willingness to confront the new demands of a changing world in the papal encyclicals issued the 1960's.  Pope John XXIII's Mater Magistra ( 1961) which builds upon the landmark social encyclicals Rerum Novarum (1891) and Quadragesimo Anno (1931), illusstrates this point well. In Quadragesimo Anno, Pius XI had advanced two basic principles: "practical morality," must govern economic affairs, and the interests of an individual or a society must be subordinate to the common good. He explicitly rejected unregulated competition and the subjugation of any society to the interests of its wealthiest members (Ibid., p. 8).

Pope John XXIII went a step further. He agreed with Pius XI that it was wrong for the powerful members of a society to determine the wage scale and he declared unjust any society in which the "human dignity of workers is compromised, or their sense of responsibility is weakened, or their freedom of action is removed (Mater et Maistra, in Gremillion, The Gospel, p. 161).

TO BE CONTINUED 

 THEOLOGY FROM A THIRD WORLD PERSPECTIVE 

DR. JUAN A. CARMONA 

It has been assumed by many of us who have been exposed to Western theology (Euro-American) that it is the "norm," and the primary validator of what constitutes or does not constitute sound theology.  It is my intention in this next series of essays to deconstruct that position.

Theology (God-talk) emerges out of the geographical context and existential realities that humanity lives in.  One could argue that theology is a "heaven-sent" enterprise.  When people treat theology in that matter, it then renders theology as a God-given legacy.  It is treated as "the faith once delivered to the saints," i.e. divinely-rendered, therefore, inerrant, infallible, and not to be questioned or tampered with.

In this series of essays, I will deal with the theology which emerges out of the existential reality and experiences of people living in the so-called "Third World," i.e. those continents of the world which have been considered underdeveloped and dependent on Euro-America.  

Because Third World Theology emerges from and deals with God-talk in an environment of colonialism and economic bondage, it is referred to as "Liberation Theology."  The question is, "liberation from what?'  Classical theology has tended to render the doctrine of liberation as something that is other-worldly.  In other words, it deals with God's liberating and salvific acts as something that will take place in the after-life and not something which is historical, i.e. taking place in our time.  Liberation Theology, in turn, focuses on God's liberating and salvific acts as something which takes place in the present, and which includes liberation from economic, political, and social bondage.  Euro-American theology has tended to view liberation or salvation as something which is "spiritual," and not something physical or present.  

NOTE:

If we include Liberal (not LiberationTheology) and Theology of Hope in this discourse, we can say that Euro-American theology at some points does deal with God's liberating and salvific acts in the present historical moment.  In some respects, they may, indeed, serve as a precursor to Liberation Theology.  

In order to have a better understanding of what Liberation Theology actually is, we must examine it in historical perspective.  We must ask how did it begin, who were the key players, and what does Liberation Theology seek to address? 

I will give a brief historical sketch of the origins of Liberation Theology and then talk briefly about its emphasis.  This will aid the reader to have a better understanding of what Liberation Theology is or isn't. 

For more than four centuries, the Catholic Church played a dominant role in Latin American history, playing a dominant role in that history, proclaiming a gospel of salvation transmitted through Spanish and Portuguese earthen vessels. The violent history of Latin American colonization, in which the Catholic Church figured prominently, is of central importance for for anyone attempting to grasp Third World theological reflections on liberation (Deane William Ferm, Third World Liberation Theologies: An Introductory Survey.  Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1986, p. 3).

Europe began its conquest of what is now called Latin America with Christopher Columbus's invasion of the West Indies in 1492.  Two years later, Pope Alexander VI negotiated the Treaty of Tordesillas, which divided the New World between Spain and Portugal, and set the stage for "patronage"-royal control over the church in the mission lands the two European nations would colonize.  Church and state worked hand in hand in the settlement of Latin America.  Spain and Portugal imposed their own feudal structures on the newly acquired territory.  The native Amerindians became Christians, usually under duress, but they never really rejected their own indigenous cultures and religions (Ibid.).

The sixteenth century saw the rapid expansion of Christian missions in Spain and Portugal conquered more and more Latin American soil.  When the Aztecs of Mexico, the Incas of Peru, and their counterparts in other areas were subdued, Dominicans and Franciscans followed closely behind.  Most of these early missionaries viewed the indigenes as ignorant children desperately in need of Christian instruction.  They preferred to make converts by peaceful means, but would resort to force if necessary.  The clerical conquerors were as ambitious as the military, one as violent as the other in their methods of conversion or control (Ibid., pp. 3-4).

From the moment Columbus set foot in the New World, cross and sword had been indistinguishable. Priests and conquistadors divided the plunder in people and land-it was a toss-up as to who was the greedier.  And long before Latin America's military regimes installed their torture chambers, the Inquisition was at work with whip and rock.  By the time of the wars of independence at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Church was the largest landowner in Latin America.  It was also the most conservative political force on the continent  ( Penny Lernoux, Cry of the People (New York: Penguin, 1982, p. 10). 

Other scholars dispute this view. Renato Poblete claims that "in Latin America, the actual transition from paganism to Christianity was accompanied with a minimum of struggle."  He also adds: 

In all respects, this was a golden age for the Latin American church and its splendor, now dimmed, can still be glimpsed in the magnificent cathedrals of Mexico, Quito, and Lima (" The Church in Latin America: A Historical Survey," in Henry A. Landsberger, ed., The Church and Social Change in Latin America. University of Notre Dame Press, 1970, pp. 40,43).

The Spanish and Portuguese conquest of Latin America did not usher in a golden age in the treatment of the indigenous inhabitants, but it was not without its martyrs and prophets, whom the liberation theologians of today regard as their progenitors (Ferm, op. cit., p 5).

The latter half of the sixteenth century saw the church consolidating its strengths as bishops and priests began to meet in provincial councils to coordinate their evangelization programs.  Fifteen such councils were held over the next two hundred years as church leaders developed catechetical instruction and rules of behavior for the converts-rule more often in keeping with Spanish customs and than native practices.  By the beginning of the seventeenth century, 120,000 Spaniards faced 12 million Amerindians scattered over 12 million square mile.  In some areas, Spanish cruelty continued unabated. Noel Erskine reports that native Jamaicans at the time of the arrival of Christopher Columbus totaled roughly 60 thousand.  A century later, the population had diminished to 1,500, only 74 of whom were pureblood natives (Noel Erskine, Decolonizing Theology: A Caribbean Perspective. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1981, p. 16).

In recent decades, an increasing and significant minority of members of the Catholic Church have shown growing concern for the staggering problems of the social order.  Catholic Action had its beginnings in Argentina in 1930, in Peru in 1935, and in Bolivia in 1938, spreading quickly to other countries.  Lay persons, prompted by the lack of priests, assumed positions of leadership and sought to apply Catholic teachings to social problems (Ferm, op. cit., p.6).

I will begin the next essay by talking about the predawn of Liberation Theology beginning in 1930.  This introduction has been given with the purpose of putting Liberation Theology in historical perspective so as to make Liberation Theology more understandable. 

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary