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