Pope Francis Invites Founder of Liberation Theology to the Vatican

[Fantine]

When opposition to liberation theology is so extreme that it is perceived to be better to keep depraved despots in power than to support change because of a slight possibility that the new leaders could be "godless Communists," I think that there are lots of feelings involved in the opposition.

The difference between Pope Francis and Pope John Paul is that Francis saw life under the depraved despots in different Central and South American nations for many years, and he knew that supporting depraved despots because you fear change is not acceptable.

For Pope John Paul, it was more like "depraved despot?" Or "the unknown?" Hmmm...better to stay with the depraved despot.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I've got a copy of The Theology of Liberation on my bookshelf, but it's still on the 'to read' list. Anyone here read it?

I haven't; I do not own a copy.

It's a pity your question has gone unanswered while folk argue about Nazism being socialist or not.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

When opposition to liberation theology is so extreme that it is perceived to be better to keep depraved despots in power than to support change because of a slight possibility that the new leaders could be "godless Communists," I think that there are lots of feelings involved in the opposition.

The difference between Pope Francis and Pope John Paul is that Francis saw life under the depraved despots in different Central and South American nations for many years, and he knew that supporting depraved despots because you fear change is not acceptable.

For Pope John Paul, it was more like "depraved despot?" Or "the unknown?" Hmmm...better to stay with the depraved despot.

It's comforting to see that you can crawl inside the mind of a dead Pope

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

When opposition to liberation theology is so extreme that it is perceived to be better to keep depraved despots in power than to support change because of a slight possibility that the new leaders could be "godless Communists," I think that there are lots of feelings involved in the opposition.

The difference between Pope Francis and Pope John Paul is that Francis saw life under the depraved despots in different Central and South American nations for many years, and he knew that supporting depraved despots because you fear change is not acceptable.

For Pope John Paul, it was more like "depraved despot?" Or "the unknown?" Hmmm...better to stay with the depraved despot.

Except that "the unknown" wasn't unknown. John Paul lived under communism, same as Francis lived under authoritarianism. And many of the Latin American dictators came into power precisely through the overthrow of Soviet-backed Marxists (example, Augusto Pinochet overthrowing Salvador Allende).

I think it's a good thing Gutierrez and Francis have met, but lets not pretend the communist program in Latin America wasn't supported by and as brutal as the Soviet variety. A far more tenable argument is that liberation theology isn't as brutal as communism.

 

[MKJ]

I do understand that there is a difference between Statist and a Socialist

I was pointing out attributes that National Socialism and Stalinist Socialism have in common, and both are Statist ideologies
I am not saying that all Statists are Socialists, but it is one of the characteristics that both National Socialism and Stalinist Socialism share

I see. Yes, they do have that in common for sure.

The Stalinists were communists of course, but I think you would really have to describe the Nazis as a sort of mixed economy, fairly middle of the road really.

But if we want to worry about excessively authoritarian governments, they come in all kinds of flavours.

 

[MKJ]

When opposition to liberation theology is so extreme that it is perceived to be better to keep depraved despots in power than to support change because of a slight possibility that the new leaders could be "godless Communists," I think that there are lots of feelings involved in the opposition.

The difference between Pope Francis and Pope John Paul is that Francis saw life under the depraved despots in different Central and South American nations for many years, and he knew that supporting depraved despots because you fear change is not acceptable.

For Pope John Paul, it was more like "depraved despot?" Or "the unknown?" Hmmm...better to stay with the depraved despot.

That is not the reason for opposing Liberation Theology. The problem with liberation theology is it has a Marxist understanding of the revelation of history, which is not compatible with Christianity.

No pope in recent history that i know of shied away from social justice issues, including in some cases political ones.

 

[mark46]

This seems a normal discussion on OBOB, where many think that socialism is anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, and anti-American. We will continue to discuss such rubbish.

With regard to liberation theology, it is NOT its belief in socialism that is issue with the Church, or that has ever been at issue. It is its theology. Socialism is well accepted by the Church is dozens of countries. To think that socialism or communism implies Stalinism and state oppression is an idea of a bygone era, that of McCarthy, and of the Cold War.

Those who follow liberation theology have helped the poor against oppression. While decrying the violence, I suspect the pope will celebrate this political position.

As is often the case, this pope will set us straight, and after the meetings, we wills ay that nothing has changed, and we will go on with our own perverse understandings of socialism.
==========
Just BTW, we have done political polls here. My "socialist" component is 0%.
==========
In US foreign policy, we have had a habit of supporting dictators who oppress the people, because of the stability of dictatorship and protection of the profits of our companies and those of the countries involved. The US has tended to oppose the instability of rebellion, unless it was against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. We have protect many, many. For example, today we protect the sheiks in the Middle East, and want nothing to do with the toppling of Assad in Syria. It was somewhat surprising that we helped the oppressed in Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya.

 

[Rhamiel]

This seems a normal discussion on OBOB, where many think that socialism is anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, and anti-American. We will continue to discuss such rubbish.

many many many times have we been warned agianst the inhuman nature of Socialism
here is an encyclical by Pope Leo XIII, one of the bravest and boldest of the modern Popes
QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS

here is a quote by Pope Benedict XV

BENEDICT XV (1914-1922):
The condemnation of socialism should never be forgotten
“It is not our intention here to repeat the arguments which clearly expose the errors of Socialism and of similar doctrines. Our predecessor, Leo XIII, most wisely did so in truly memorable Encyclicals; and you, Venerable Brethren, will take the greatest care that those grave precepts are never forgotten, but that whenever circumstances call for it, they should be clearly expounded and inculcated in Catholic associations and congresses, in sermons and in the Catholic press.” (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914, n. 13)

or should I quote what Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI had to say on Socialism?
the teachings are the same

 

[MKJ]

many many many times have we been warned agianst the inhuman nature of Socialism
here is an encyclical by Pope Leo XIII, one of the bravest and boldest of the modern Popes
QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS

here is a quote by Pope Benedict XV

or should I quote what Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI had to say on Socialism?
the teachings are the same

And we also know that when those documents say socialism, they mean a very specific form of it, and specific aspects of it.

just like when they talk about capitalism, which in its purest form is a sort of radically individualist social Darwinism.

 

[Rhamiel]

And we also know that when those documents say socialism, they mean a very specific form of it, and specific aspects of it.

just like when they talk about capitalism, which in its purest form is a sort of radically individualist social Darwinism.

can you produce any papal documents that support socialism?

you say that the ones I produced are only against a specific kind

can you show me when a Pope talks about the "good kind of Socialists"? (if such a thing exists)

 

[S.ilvio]

I hope and pray that under Pope Francis' Pontificate the Vatican and the advocates of Liberation Theology grow closer in mutual respect and understanding...

 

[MKJ]

can you produce any papal documents that support socialism?

you say that the ones I produced are only against a specific kind

can you show me when a Pope talks about the "good kind of Socialists"? (if such a thing exists)

The earlier ones mean what was commonly meant by socialism at the time they were written. That is, systems where the state owned all or almost business capital.

But in any case, since they explain what they see as the problem of socialism, which relates to particular aspects of collectivism, it is easy enough to see if any particular case applies.

I would also point out that most of the things Americans commonly call socialism, aren't. Like universal health insurance. In fact that is probably a good test - if the pope supports it, it probably isn't what they meant when they were saying socialism is a problem.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

So......about liberation theology......

 

[mark46]

Folks oppose what they call "liberation theology" because the proponents of this philosophy protect the poor against US supported right wing governments, to the point of supporting armed insurrection against those governments. They oppose priests being involved in politics (a bit ironic considering their own heroes in the US).

I think that we shall see the Pope Francis does not like the policies, ways and leadership of the West.

And yes, there are theological mistakes that these groups make. The theological nuances are certainly not the reason for opposition to them.

I'm sure we'll lots more from the Holy Father in the coming weeks.

So......about liberation theology......

 

[Rhamiel]

Folks oppose what they call "liberation theology" because the proponents of this philosophy protect the poor against US supported right wing governments, to the point of supporting armed insurrection against those governments. They oppose priests being involved in politics (a bit ironic considering their own heroes in the US).

I think that we shall see the Pope Francis does not like the policies, ways and leadership of the West.

And yes, there are theological mistakes that these groups make. The theological nuances are certainly not the reason for opposition to them.

I'm sure we'll lots more from the Holy Father in the coming weeks.

no, I do not care about US interests in Latin America

I am against Liberation Theology because it supports a Marxist worldview of class warfare

liberation theologians do not seem to understand that Jesus said "My Kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36)
and like other Progressives they are caught up in a Utopian fantasy that inevitably ends in disappointment and jaded cynics as the best case scenario

Also, Liberation Theology is just sloppy theology, poor Biblical scholarship to reinterpret everything into a Marxist world view

The Church is perfectly able to speak out for the poor, for the worker, for the disenfranchised without picking up the sloppy theology of Liberation Theology

 

[Fantine]

God thinks advocacy is so important that the third person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit, is called "the advocate."

He is therefore the defender," "the advocate," as well as the "mediator" who fulfills the function of intercessor. It is this meaning of "advocate-defender" that now interests us, while not forgetting that some Fathers of the Church use Parakletos in the sense of "Counselor" particularly in reference to the Holy Spirit's action in regard to the Church. For the present we shall speak of the Holy Spirit as the Paraclete-Advocate-Defender.

The Holy Spirit as Advocate

I have always felt called to speak out for the helpless and hurting. I think that is why I have always felt such an affinity to the Holy Spirit.

Being an advocate is holy--it is sharing in the work of the Holy Spirit.

Missionaries who speak out for those who are exploited are doing God's work.

 

[MKJ]

And yes, there are theological mistakes that these groups make. The theological nuances are certainly not the reason for opposition to them.

Why would you say this? The CC has rejected lots of other movements because of theological errors - Jansenism, just as an example.

The theological error of accepting a Marxist dialectical view of history is pretty significant. Significant enough that it is bound to lead to significant errors about its practical application.

 

[Michie]

Is Pope Francis Welcoming Liberation Theology?

With a bit of breathless excitement (“a progressive theological current&#8220, there is news in Rome that Pope Francis is welcoming liberation theology back into the Vatican. On Sunday, Sept. 8, the Vatican announced a meeting between the pope and Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Mueller has co-authored a book with Gustavo Gutierrez, a Peruvian who is considered the founder of liberation theology, and the two will present the book to Pope Francis.

Liberation theology came out of Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s, emphasizing a preferential option for the poor, but with strong ties to Marxist ideals as well. In 1984, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) noted that liberation theology began with the premise that all other theologies were no longer sufficient, and a new “spiritual orientation” was needed. Further, Cardinal Ratzinger said of this theology,

The idea of a turning to the world, of responsibility for the world, frequently deteriorated into a naive belief in science which accepted the human sciences as a new gospel without wanting to see their limitations and endemic problems. Psychology, sociology and the marxist interpretation of history seemed to be scientifically established and hence to become unquestionable arbiters of Christian thought.
​

Neither Ratzinger nor his predecessor, Bl. John Paul II, were “fans” of liberation theology, as they were particularly concerned with its socialist and Marxist roots.

So, is Pope Francis a fan? Is he welcoming liberation theology back into the Church after Benedict and John Paul swept it out the doors? Despite the reports of the meeting between Francis, Mueller and Gutierrez, don’t be fooled. Sandro Magister, a reporter in Rome who follows developments in the Catholic church, has this to say:

Jorge Mario Bergoglio [now Pope Francis] has never concealed his disagreement with essential aspects of this theology.

His theologians of reference have never been Gutiérrez, nor Leonardo Boff, nor Jon Sobrino, but the Argentine Juan Carlos Scannone, who had elaborated a theology not of liberation but “of the people,” focused on the culture and religious sensibility of the common people, of the poor in the first place, with their traditional spirituality and their sensitivity to justice.
In 2005 – when the book by Müller and Gutiérrez had already been released in Germany – the then-archbishop of Buenos Aires [Bergoglio] wrote:

“After the collapse of the totalitarian empire of ‘real socialism,’ these currents of thought were thrown into disarray. Incapable of either radical reformulation or new creativity, they survived by inertia, even if there are still some today who anachronistically would like to re-propose it.”
​

Acton’s Director of Research, Samuel Gregg, has addressed the question about Francis’ stance on liberation theology in National Review Online. Shortly after Francis’ election, Gregg took on allegations that the new pope was a proponent of this theology. Gregg’s conclusion?

Continued- http://blog.acton.org/archives/59780-pope-franics-welcoming-liberation-theology-vatican.html

 

[Michie]

*dp*

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

I haven't; I do not own a copy.

It's a pity your question has gone unanswered while folk argue about Nazism being socialist or not.

I think I will move it up in my queue and get to it sooner. It seems like a timely thing to do.