Gustavo Gutierrez / Liberation Theology

[Ruby]

Tsk....tsk....tsk.  That's what my grandmother would say.     Vince, Vince, Vince.  I could have told you that you would be majorly outnumbered because most everyone here believes in something.  I think you're the only one who has completely closed the door on there being a God.  Me and my dad won't commit to the no God period thing but we just think there isn't enough SCIENTIFIC proof of anything.  Calling religion a club for 40 years is going to ruffle the feathers of a lot of people here because they honestly and genuinely BELIEVE and try to do what's right and holy.  I wouldn't call it a club only because I think there's a lot of people who follow a religion because they're afraid of going to Hell more than wanting to go to Heaven.  KWIM?  That doesn't seem like much of a social club to me.

[Rosie]

But it is ok for him to think different from us and for us to think different then him.

[Kim]

And what a boring world it would be if we all thought the same way.

[mandy]

This is all over my head and I think I'm glad it is.

[Jennifer]

I'm an atheist. I don't have any animosity towards religion, it just isn't for me.  I can't wrap my head around an invisible God who wants us to guess at what he wants from us.  If there was a loving God person, wouldn't he want to talk to us so we would get to know him better?  Why would he allow some kids to get cancer or people to be homeless or hungry?  It never made any sense to me but I know it's important to many people.  I'm not going to tell Holly what to believe or not believe and she does think there's a God.  I won't rob her of that hope so I am a quiet atheist and will now tip toe out of this section.

[Vince]

Oct 28, 2024 12:03:17 GMT -5 scarlette said:

Vince, I know you're an atheist now but were you ever of the Catholic persuasion?  Or did you just study world religions in school?

Liberation theology and Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez is about as straightforward as Mother Teresa.  A mixture of good and scandal.  
But seriously, Liberation theology has its problems and I fully understand why some of the clergy oppose it or at least part of it.  It has the same goal as all of us, to get rid of poverty and injustice but there are a few little quirks with it.
First, it discourages the me in spirituality in order to be a we kind of army ready to fight for equality together.  By minimizing the importance of a personal relationship with God and personal growth, he minimized the sacraments which are the foundation of the church.   

Second, he didn't oppose the use of violence to achieve his goal of equality/justice and that is so un-Christlike.  Remember Jesus telling us to turn the other cheek?  One of the reasons the Jewish people reject Jesus is because he wasn't a warrior who came to overthrow the oppressive Roman governing body.  

Third, he minimized the power of prayer and therefore, minimized the power of God.  Praying to God wasn't going to fix anything so we have to take on the battle ourselves.

I'm not saying he was 100% wrong or bad, because his goal was what Jesus wants us to work for, he simply lost too much of the Catholic way in his approach.  It's not wrong to feed the poor, care for the sick and so on.  Helping those who are oppressed by giving them what they need is not encouraging the broken system.

I was Catholic from birth until college, then was in a somewhat progressive Baptist church, then a Methodist (aka the halfway house for lost Catholics), then a none. Catholic school from 1st -12th grade plus two years of college. Lots of exposure to those pesky independent-minded Jesuits along the way.

You're right that liberation theology isn't straightforward. But Christianity isn't straightforward either. Pope Francis once remarked that if you read the sermons of the church fathers in the second and third centuries about how the poor should be treated, you would think they were Maoist or Trotskyist. But the church in the second and third centuries wasn't as politically powerful; it was the Edict of Milan and the Edict of Thessalonica in the fourth century that legalized Christianity and then made it the state religion of the Roman Empire, after which it began to accumulate temporal power. So I can see why liberation theology took hold especially in Latin America, which was full of (mainly US-backed) corrupt military dictatorships from the 50s through the 80s: the vast majority were oppressed and destitute, while the church hierarchy often was concerned about maintaining its status and good relationships with the governments in power.

And you of course know that a lot of things Jesus said cause consternation.

Jesus said to turn the other cheek.
He also said "I come not to bring peace, but a sword."
He also told his disciples when preparing them for life after he was gone, "If you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

The church has tried to straddle the economic fence of capitalism vs. the common good beginning with Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum in 1891; John Paul II continued to hold that line 100 years later in Centesimus Annus, championing capitalism over socialism and liberalism provided that the state/society ensured a minimum standard of living for families. But Pope Francis recognized in 2020 in Fratelli Tutti that those ideals are further than ever from becoming a reality: the common good is generally being ignored in favor of laissez-faire capitalism. 

BTW, I see that the Catholic Worker movement is still alive and kicking. 

[Addy]

I'm glad you said that because I wondered the same thing about hope but I didn't want to hurt anyone. Everyone has their own belief system, I get that but I was worried that people making it known they don't believe in Heaven could cause someone who lost someone pain...or not. I don't really know but I felt stupid asking. I know I take some comfort in believing that there is something after this. My dad is old and he's not going to be around much longer so it means something to me to believe that this isn't the end of it. I wonder if it bothers Rosie at all? It's probably silly for me to worry about that because she has Rob to talk this stuff over with. He's agnostic and that's close to being an atheist so it probably doesn't bother her.  

[Kim]

It's not silly Addy.  I think it's sweet you think of her.  What I respect the most about you girls is how sensitive you are to the feelings of one another.  Rosie has talked about people who don't believe and her attitude is that they're all going to feel pretty silly when they die and see they didn't actually die. 

[Rob]

Oct 28, 2024 20:46:41 GMT -5 Vince said:

Oct 28, 2024 12:03:17 GMT -5 scarlette said:

Vince, I know you're an atheist now but were you ever of the Catholic persuasion?  Or did you just study world religions in school?

Liberation theology and Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez is about as straightforward as Mother Teresa.  A mixture of good and scandal.  
But seriously, Liberation theology has its problems and I fully understand why some of the clergy oppose it or at least part of it.  It has the same goal as all of us, to get rid of poverty and injustice but there are a few little quirks with it.
First, it discourages the me in spirituality in order to be a we kind of army ready to fight for equality together.  By minimizing the importance of a personal relationship with God and personal growth, he minimized the sacraments which are the foundation of the church.   

Second, he didn't oppose the use of violence to achieve his goal of equality/justice and that is so un-Christlike.  Remember Jesus telling us to turn the other cheek?  One of the reasons the Jewish people reject Jesus is because he wasn't a warrior who came to overthrow the oppressive Roman governing body.  

Third, he minimized the power of prayer and therefore, minimized the power of God.  Praying to God wasn't going to fix anything so we have to take on the battle ourselves.

I'm not saying he was 100% wrong or bad, because his goal was what Jesus wants us to work for, he simply lost too much of the Catholic way in his approach.  It's not wrong to feed the poor, care for the sick and so on.  Helping those who are oppressed by giving them what they need is not encouraging the broken system.

I was Catholic from birth until college, then was in a somewhat progressive Baptist church, then a Methodist (aka the halfway house for lost Catholics), then a none. Catholic school from 1st -12th grade plus two years of college. Lots of exposure to those pesky independent-minded Jesuits along the way.

You're right that liberation theology isn't straightforward. But Christianity isn't straightforward either. Pope Francis once remarked that if you read the sermons of the church fathers in the second and third centuries about how the poor should be treated, you would think they were Maoist or Trotskyist. But the church in the second and third centuries wasn't as politically powerful; it was the Edict of Milan and the Edict of Thessalonica in the fourth century that legalized Christianity and then made it the state religion of the Roman Empire, after which it began to accumulate temporal power. So I can see why liberation theology took hold especially in Latin America, which was full of (mainly US-backed) corrupt military dictatorships from the 50s through the 80s: the vast majority were oppressed and destitute, while the church hierarchy often was concerned about maintaining its status and good relationships with the governments in power.

And you of course know that a lot of things Jesus said cause consternation.

Jesus said to turn the other cheek.
He also said "I come not to bring peace, but a sword."
He also told his disciples when preparing them for life after he was gone, "If you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

The church has tried to straddle the economic fence of capitalism vs. the common good beginning with Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum in 1891; John Paul II continued to hold that line 100 years later in Centesimus Annus, championing capitalism over socialism and liberalism provided that the state/society ensured a minimum standard of living for families. But Pope Francis recognized in 2020 in Fratelli Tutti that those ideals are further than ever from becoming a reality: the common good is generally being ignored in favor of laissez-faire capitalism. 

BTW, I see that the Catholic Worker movement is still alive and kicking. 

I'm not going to get involved in this discussion other than to say, interpretations can feel right and be very wrong.  The "I come not to bring peach, but a sword" is the Christian nationalists excuse for the violence they commit.  Most Christians interpret that line in its context as not an invite to war but that believing in him will divide families and friends.  It will separate opposed to bringing together and that's what happened.

[Vince]

Yes, and many use his line "The poor you will always have with you" as an excuse to do nothing about poverty (including by former Texas governor, dumb bunny and generally miserable person Rick Perry).

reflections.yale.edu/article/faith-not-fear-varieties-christian-practice/poor-you-ll-always-have-you

[quinn]

I think both of you proved Scarlette's point in an indirect way.  She's explained why many don't support all of what G.G. preached.  If you observe Jesus' behavior, it was peaceful and loving.  That's what made his justified tantrum with the money changers stand out.  It makes more sense to observe his behavior than it does to try and fit his words to mean whatever a person wants it to mean.  The case for actions speaking louder than words are the two verses you both used that are twisted to support a selfish practice.  Jesus didn't take up a sword.  He preached, loved, helped the people.  Even when he was crucified  he didn't invite his followers to take up swords.  He forgave them as he died.  That doesn't seem like an acceptance for violence.  The end doesn't justify the means.

[Cathy]

When my mother was growing up, Catholics weren't encouraged to read the Bible on their own because it's so easy to misunderstand and even misrepresent it.  In my Catholic school we did read the Bible, but not independently.  The beauty of WWJD is it's about what he would DO and not what he might mean in a sentence.  

[Vince]

Oct 29, 2024 12:00:15 GMT -5 quinn said:

I think both of you proved Scarlette's point in an indirect way.  She's explained why many don't support all of what G.G. preached.  If you observe Jesus' behavior, it was peaceful and loving.  That's what made his justified tantrum with the money changers stand out.  It makes more sense to observe his behavior than it does to try and fit his words to mean whatever a person wants it to mean.  The case for actions speaking louder than words are the two verses you both used that are twisted to support a selfish practice.  Jesus didn't take up a sword.  He preached, loved, helped the people.  Even when he was crucified  he didn't invite his followers to take up swords.  He forgave them as he died.  That doesn't seem like an acceptance for violence.  The end doesn't justify the means.

It will be interesting to see what happens there is any sort of multi-party international conflict. In Tutti Fratelli, Francis acknowledged that people have gone through great contortions to justify every war in the past 75 years and says "Never again war!", but still leaves wiggle room, and "just war" remains in the catechism:

258. War can easily be chosen by invoking all sorts of allegedly humanitarian, defensive or precautionary excuses, and even resorting to the manipulation of information. In recent decades, every single war has been ostensibly “justified”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the possibility of legitimate defence by means of military force, which involves demonstrating that certain “rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy” [239] have been met. Yet it is easy to fall into an overly broad interpretation of this potential right. In this way, some would also wrongly justify even “preventive” attacks or acts of war that can hardly avoid entailing “evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated”. [240] At issue is whether the development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the enormous and growing possibilities offered by new technologies, have granted war an uncontrollable destructive power over great numbers of innocent civilians. The truth is that “never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely”. [241] We can no longer think of war as a solution, because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a “just war”. Never again war! [242]

To borrow a phrase, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than to honestly justify war under the catechism of the church. But for those bent on profiteering off war, all things are possible!

[Vince]

Also, I apologize for throwing that comment from my cousin in at the front end of my post. It was unnecessary and had nothing to do with what I wanted to really discuss, and many of you were rightly ticked off about it so it derailed the conversation from the get-go.

[Rosie]

I do not think anybody was ticked off.  We know you do not like religion and you are not as good at hiding that as maybe someone else would be and that is ok.  But honest I am not to sure what it is we are really talking about cause it seems we were talking about helping people or being in politics for people and fighting wars and now it seems you are talking about something like a WW3 or something. Its been very hard to keep up with.