Talk:Liberation theology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liberation theology article.
Article policies
Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Help me out here

At one point the article says that poverty is the source of sin, while in another it says that sin is the source of poverty. Which is correct? What if you are an aboriginal with no concept of materialism? 155.85.58.253 (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Was Top

should this page be perhaps labeled Latin American liberation theology? just wondering Guppy 00:29, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why Liberation Theology instead of liberation theology, and is there a reason it shouldn't be moved? RadicalSubversiv E 19:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More needs to be written on this, especially on the current situation. It's my understanding that John Paul II largely put an end to official support for liberation theology, both by outright condemning it, and by appointing more conservative bishops and archbishops, but there is likely much more to the story of the past 25 years than that. --Delirium 02:16, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I wonder on what grounds is Bishop Trevor Elliott listed as a liberation theologian. I personally rather admire him and would characterize him as a proponent of social justice who stood up to the Indonesian military colonial regime at great risks to his church and himself. Still, it seems to require something more specific to be labeled a liberation theologian. A-giau 19:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heresy

Why is Liberation Theology listed as Heresy. There is no support for this in the article. If there are no objections, I will remove the categorisation. --Peacenik 20:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To say that Pope John Paul II made a blanket condemnation of liberation theology is very misleading. He actually embraced and promoted one of the core teachings of liberation theology: the Preferential Option for the Poor. He was constantly advocating for moral and political decisions to be made in favor of the most marginalized and vulnerable of society. --Vicwelle 18:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But he also threatened priests who were too politically active with excommunication.
A foolish statement. Excessive political activism does not render an entire theology heretical.

[edit] Aristide--theologian?

Could he properly be considerd a theologian? Other than his seminary studies, what would qualify him? In his later years, though he could be considered a political proponent of liberation theology, this doesn't necessarily make him a "theologian." (For example, a congressman might support stem-cell research. This does not make the congressman a "stem-cell researcher.")

[edit] A step too far perhaps?

"is an important and controversial school in the theology of the Roman Catholic Church" Seems incorrect. The shool is not approved, so it cannot be classified as a "school in the theology of the Roman Catholic Church". It does recruit its followers from within RCC, yet it is definitely not a part of it. RCC has a hierarhic structure and pope has the last word. Being in RCC implies that you do agree with its teachings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.31.163.35 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 17 August 2005.

Hmm, well... it stemmed from R. Catholics... it is interesting but... Saints who aren't doctors of the Church are Catholic.... you're right that it is hard to understand... and some of its theology is within the church. I'm not sure exactly. gren グレン 12:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


Well, not that important, since anyone with just little knowlage of subject will know that. I'm a catholic myself and I've never heard of "schools" being accepted within RCC. The Holy Congregation of Faith settles it all and decides on RCC's doctrine to make it consistent. That's how it legally looks.


It is a school of thought within the RC Church - that does not imply that the RCC agrees with it just that it is an area of debate. Roydosan 13:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There's some ambiguity here with "school" and "school of thought" -- it's not a formal part of the RCC, however, it is a belief held by some members of the church. Robko626 12:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Liberation Theology is no more a "school" or a "school of thought" within the Roman Catholic Church than John F. Kennedy's administration was. Liberation Theology is not taught in any Roman Catholic educational setting, and if it is brought up at all, it is only used as one of many, many examples in our modern world of what the Roman Catholic Church is NOT. 65.248.252.99 (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St Benedict's Position

I removed the following because I can't for the life of me figure out what it means. If someone knows, please reword and reintroduce into the introduction.

", and indeed in his position (1981-2005) as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was a key enforcer of the opposition of the previous pope, Pope John Paul II, to certain socialist tendencies in liberation theology" --JBJ830726 00:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Saint Benedict's position? As St Benedict died in the 6th century, I can assure you he had no position. Pope Benedict XVI, on the other hand, back when he was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine, condemned many liberation theologians for being too influenced by Marxism. What about that section do you find confusing? Makrina 20:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Problems in Official Condemnation

In reviewing the section on Official Condemnation, in light of Christian Smith's The Emergence of Liberation Theology, I thought it was a bit misleading to suggest that the Puebla conference was where the official condemnation and rejection of liberation theology occured -- specifically in John Paul II's public remarks. The Pope's inaugural speech was far more middle-of-the-road than was suggested, and Puebla was in no way the definitive condemnation of the movement. I edited accordingly. Sighter Goliant 04:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, the final sentence seems to indicate that the condemnation of the "popular church" was directed solely against the base communities. The popular church more appropriately refers to the idea that the people of the church should have more rights of electing and selecting their own bishops and so forth, not necessarily the BECs. Furthermore, the continuing clergy shortage in Latin America means that the Vatican still needs these communities for the overall health of the church. Any thoughts before I make more edits? Sighter Goliant 04:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I found that the article had been edited to say that JP steered "from" a conciliatory course, which is not the intention of the paragraph I edited some time ago. However, the wording could have been misunderstood by a casual editor who made the corresponding edit in good faith, so I changed it back and then added clarifying language. If someone does have substantial objections to the paragraph (which I will provide documentation for as soon as I locate Smith's book), then voice them here before reverting the edit. Sighter Goliant 21:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article needed? Ecclesiastical base communities

(I posted this to one of the pages for the Catholicism WikiProject, but thought it was worthwhile to post it here, too. So far, I see different articles on Central American topics that mention the CEB movement, but no article as such.

  • (1) Am I missing something? Is this covered at length within a larger topic to which those mentions need to be directed?
  • (2) If not — if I'm right that the topic needs its own article — is there someone here who can do it? I last studied the topic in any depth five years ago, and then as part of Latin American anthropology. I couldn't begin to do the topic justice, yet the CEBs are a major part of Latin American, or at least Central American, 20th-century history. Lawikitejana 07:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

See Basic ecclesial community Paul foord 13:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protestant Reactions

"it is recognized within Protestant circles as an important school of thought, enjoying equal standing with neo-Orthodoxy, feminist theology, process theology and others."

Since when are these "important schools of thought" within protestant circles--outside of things like the Jesus Seminar that are doubtfully Christian at all? It should be said within liberal protestant churches. Mordac 20:01, 03 November 2006

You replaced that sentence with the following: "However, it is recognized within liberal Protestant circles as an important school of thought, enjoying equal standing with neo-orthodoxy, feminist theology, process theology and others."
Even in its new form, your sentence passively ties "liberal Protestants" to feminist theology, process theology, and the Jesus Seminar (which according to you are "doubtfully Christian at all"). This is a technique that biased media use to establish a connection where one does not exist, and then imply that it's a universal truth.
What exactly does "liberal Protestants" mean? Dr. Martin Luther King was both liberal and Protestant, but he most certainly would have rejected process theology. Conversely, your sentence states that anyone who's not a liberal protestant (i.e. conservative Christian) agree with radical schools of thought.
The sentence is unsupported, inaccurate, biased, and unfair; so I'm removing it. Robko626 11:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theology of Liberation

"In his 1972 essay A Theology of Liberation: Perspectives, a collection of essays Gutiérrez managed to present as a single essay..." This sentence is very unclear - so much so that I'm hesitant to change it because I'm not sure what the original writer was trying to express. Are you referring to Gutiérrez's book A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics and Salvation? I wouldn't call that "a collection of essays," and certainly not just an essay - it is a book. If you're instead referring to a different work by him, is it an essay or a collection? This sentence states that it is both, which makes no sense. This may just be a quibble but if someone reading this article wanted to track down the work by Gutiérrez, it should be clear what that work is. 69.118.25.126 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redeem-Liberate distinction?

More needs to be written in this article to illustrate the distinction between redemption and liberation. Hackwrench 11:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent condemnation of Jon Sobrino & deletion of text

An user has considered it a smart move to delete this passage concerning the recent condemnation of Jon Sobrino, with the fallacious edit summary "try reading about it first." The references included precisely state that; if he has something to say about it, or correct in some point or another (I am sorry for not being a specialist of Church politics, but I don't think a theologian accreditation to participate here), he would provide a great service to the community of Wikipedia by stating his reasons here, instead of dogmatically imposing his views. Thanks, Tazmaniacs 14:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sobrino was condemned for his views on Christology NOT his views on Liberation Theology. Catholics have not been forbidden from reading his works at all. Read the Vatican Notification here if you doubt this. Roydosan 09:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions in the text

Recently, large swaths of text have been deleted by Roydosan, due to "simplistic misrepresentations" of BXVI's beliefs. However, I have yet to see a discussion on the talk page describing what is simplistic about the description of then-Cardinal Ratzinger's enumeration of ten flaws in Gutierrez's theology. I would be happy to agree with Roydosan and stop reverting his edits if he would simply take the polite step of discussing it here beforehand. I don't want to cause a fuss -- Roydosan's contributions to the article thus far have been admirable and exact. I just want to see some broader explanation of what in the contested paragraphs constitutes the misrepresentation. As to the charge that the prose is bad, I think that can be fixed with editing, not deletion. I have reverted the edits, and I politely request that we discuss the issue here before moving forward. Sighter Goliant 14:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it seems like Roydosan has a history of deleting large swaths of text without first politely discussing the issue on the talk page. Jawns317 14:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not going so far as to accuse anyone of vandalism, I will say that despite the unreferenced tag we should probably try to find and cite references for the various contested portions of the text, and if after discussion and research we cannot find corroboration we can go ahead and remove uncited portions. I will say that a portion of the Vatican's Reaction section was written by me in mid-2006 after concluding a course on the politics of the movement, but was written when I was a more green-behind-the-ears editor unfamiliar with referencing policy. Much of it can be cited as soon as I have access to my original resources, which will be sometime during the second week of May. At that point, I will be extensively citing many of the references to the JPII speeches at Puebla and the scholarly consensus on the final tally of Puebla documents -- in addition to providing a more unbiased assessment of the data, which in the article right now basically consists of Bishop's Trujillo's far-from-impartial assessment of the conference. Sighter Goliant 18:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a history of seeking accuracy Jawns317 not a history of deleting text for the sake of it. The problem with the text is that it says that Ratzinger and the Vatican condemned liberation theology per se when he did no such thing. Ratzinger only ever condemned a tendency in one form of liberation theology that went towards Marxism. If you read the interview with him in the book 'The Ratzinger Report' and in the Vatican Instruction on Liberation Theology produced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith you will see that it makes it quite clear that he was not condemning liberation theology in its entirety only the aspect mentioned. The text, left as it is, is therefore a misrepresentation of his views and of those expressed by the Holy See through the CDF. I think it is better to have no text here rather than something which is clearly wrong.

The following text is in my view inaccurate:

Former Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, strongly opposed liberation theology. Through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led by Ratzinger, the Vatican condemned liberation theology twice (in 1984 and 1986), accusing it of Marxist tendencies and of inciting hate and violence. Leonardo Boff, for example, was suspended, while others were reputedly reduced to silence.

This is wrong - he condemned certain tendencies within it he did not condemn it outright. In fact he praised certain aspects of it.

In March 1983, Cardinal Ratzinger made "ten observations" on Gutiérrez's theology, including accusing Gutiérrez of politically interpreting the Bible and of supporting a temporal messianism. Ratzinger also declared that the influence of Marxism was proven by the predominance accorded to orthopraxis over orthodoxy. Finally, this document states that these conceptions necessarily uphold a similar class conflict inside the Church, which logically leads to a rejection of hierarchy.

This is fine as a reference to Gutierrez's theology but it reads as if it is referring to all liberation theology - which it isn't.

During the 1980 and 1990s, Ratzinger continued his condemnation of liberation theology, prohibiting some dissident priests from teaching the doctrines in the Catholic Church's name and excommunicating Tissa Balasuriya in Sri Lanka for the same.

He may have done but he did not condemn liberation theology in it's entirety - which again this implies.

Under his influence, theological formation schools were prohibited from using the Catholic Church's organization and grounds to teach liberation theology, as its doctrines contradict the global Catholic Church policy.

This is a bit of a sweeping statement. Does liberation theology contradict global Catholic Church policy? Does the Catholic Church even have a 'global policy'?

Roydosan 15:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing some talk page assessments, Roydosan. I think you are correct, but I think the way to change the text in this case is to edit, not to delete. The text you have quoted can be easily edited to show the nuance in the response of the curia, but deleting it all out-of-hand does not contribute to a good article in any way. If the text had been completely false, it would have been warranted, but by your own admission, certain tendencies of liberation theology were condemned and the text can be rewritten to reflect this more accurate view. Sighter Goliant 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I have made edits in the text as per Roydosan's suggestions. I welcome review for accuracy, but would prefer that future edits show some willingness to actually engage in critical editing and not simply wholesale deletion. I also removed the Romero assassination vignette from the deleted text -- if someone would like to re-add it elsewhere, feel free. It may even be pertinent, but not in the "Vatican Reaction" section.
Wait a minute. We are taking Roydosan's interpretation on faith (you'll forgive the expression). But has anyone actually looked at, let alone cited, Cardinal Ratzinger's statements on liberation theology? Here's one I found in a search that took under two minutes: "An analysis of the phenomenon of liberation theology reveals that it constitutes a fundamental threat to the faith of the Church." [1] Maybe "he did not condemn liberation theology in it[s] entirety" but statements like this come pretty close, and I submit it would be splitting hairs to say that his more nuanced position had a more significant impact on the church than his less nuanced statements. Roydosan may view Ratzinger's writings as he wishes, but it's one POV. There are other interpretations - those made chiefly by theologians criticized and silenced by the Sacred Congragation for the Doctrine of the Faith - that argue Ratzinger's analysis was indeed more of a full-scale condemnation. See Jon Sobrino's comments Vatican Trying to End Liberation Theology, Sobrino Says here. The National Catholic Reporter had this to say, "Others believe Ratzinger will be remembered as the architect of John Paul’s internal Kulturkampf, intimidating and punishing thinkers in order to restore a model of church -- clerical, dogmatic and rule-bound -- many hoped had been swept away by the Second Vatican Council...In May 1985, Ratzinger notified Franciscan Fr. Leonardo Boff that he was to be silenced. Boff, a Brazilian, was a leading figure in liberation theology, a Third World theological movement that seeks to place the church on the side of the poor. Boff accepted Ratzinger’s verdict and withdrew to a Franciscan monastery in Petrópolis, outside Rio de Janeiro." [2] So, if Roydosan is indeed correct, that Ratzinger did not reject liberation theology outright, but only, say 90-99% of it, then it's Roydosan responsibility to talk about what Ratzinger approved of (and its effect) as well as providing a more realistic analysis of the ramifications of Ratzinger's writings, which had an effect far beyond mere intellectual analysis. Bruxism 22:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I see great validity in what both you and Roydosan are saying. The current text of the article is, I think, largely a reflection of the understanding that BXVI's assessment has been largely negative -- much more negative in many respects than JPII's own judgment. But I think the edited text as it stands now maintains the expression of that negativity without losing what nuance did exist in the then-cardinal's opinions. What the text could use now is specificity -- right now, it says things like "condemned certain aspects of" and "questioned elements of" and so forth -- if either Roydosan or you would like to start fleshing out that portion with more information and specific referenced examples, it would be great. I don't know as I am qualified at this point to do that. Sighter Goliant 14:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy to add some references and beef up the text when I get chance. But here's one quote from Ratzinger which comes directly before the quotre about it being a" fundamental threat to the church."

1. Liberation theology is a phenomenon with an extraordinary number of layers. There is a whole spectrum from radically marxist positions, on the one hand, to the efforts which are being made within the framework of a correct and ecclesial theology, on the other hand, a theology which stresses the responsibility which Christians necessarily hear for the poor and oppressed, such as we see in the documents of the Latin American Bishops' Conference (CELAM) from Medellin to Puebla. In what follows, the concept of liberation theology will be understood in a narrower sense: it will refer only to those theologies which, in one way or another, have embraced the marxist fundamental option. Here too there are many individual differences, which cannot be dealt with in a general discussion of this kind. All I can do is attempt to illuminate certain trends which, notwithstanding the different nuances they exhibit, are widespread and exert a certain influence even where liberation theology in this more restricted sense does not exist.

As can be seen he is being quite clear in that only one strand of liberation theology is being condemned. Roydosan 00:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

But as can also be seen, by saying "In what follows, the concept of liberation theology will be understood in a narrower sense," he very deliberately and cleverly tainted the term "liberation theology" as a whole by merely condemning that "narrower sense." Can you point to any scholars that said Ratzinger was, in fact, a defender of liberation theology? What about his silencing of religious who were active in the movement's most activist sectors? Is there any evidence that he actively supported the "correct and ecclesial" form of liberation theology? Whether or not he was condemning all of liberation theology, I submit that the overall impact of his repeated writing as chair of the Sacred Congregation was well-understood within the church. It would be wrong to suggest that his words did not have a chilling effect upon the practice of liberation theology, in practical terms. I'm certainly open to your point of view, but it needs to be backed up with the work of scholars, to show that there is a significant body of people who agree that the Cardinal embraced some strands of liberation theology and that his defense of liberation theology was not mere lip service to make his harsh criticisms more palatable. You haven't shown this yet. Bruxism 11:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theurgy “not understandable”

I have added the template

 The text in this article or section may be incoherent or very hard to understand, and should be reworded if the intended meaning can be determined.
See the talk page for details.

at the top of the section Reaction within the Church of the main article, because of the following phrase, to be found in the last paragraph.


“ ... the replacement of the Catholic theurgy by a democratic system featuring local selection with regard to the magisterium ...”


The whole phrase is obscure, and use of the word “theurgy”, in this context, seems entirely obscure and inappropriate.

Miguel de Servet 10:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Not to mention that liberation "theology" incorporating dialectical materialism is nonsensical...perhaps the author meant merely dialectics, but no theology can be anything but idealist...Chris kupka 03:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
See whether my edits address your concerns, please. --Orange Mike 15:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dialectical materialism refers to viewing history as a matter of class struggles, and that is something which the Church condemns —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It also, funnily enough, implies a materialist (that is, atheistic) world-view, which contradicts any "theology" (at least any "Christian" one) entirely. I see what this statement about Dialectical materialism is trying to say (and I have read Gutierrez and Boff extensively), but its just false - it's trying to align Liberation Theology with the atheistic/mechanistic philosophical basis of Marxism, and this is a false association.--DreamsReign 11:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protestants?

This article leaves the reader with the impression that Liberation Theology is an exclusively Catholic phenomenon. In South Africa, for example, two of the most prominent anti-apartheid leaders and liberation theologists are Desmond Tutu and Alan Boesak, both Protestant. Boesak does appear in the list in this article but is not identified as Protestant. I'll not go so far as tagging this article as POV, but it needs work. Roger 07:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"I'll not go so far as tagging this article as POV, but it needs work." Get onto it then. Make your own list of liberation 'theologists'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.182.79 (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List

Where is this list of Liberation theologians coming from? Even the Wikipedia articles about those people don't always say that they adhered to Liberation Theology. It probably should have some sourcing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statistical Appendix

I removed the "Statistical Appendix" section of the article. It documents the strength of the Catholic Left, not liberation theology specifically. It would therefore be more appropriate in an article about the Catholic Left, or Christian socialism in general.

If someone disagrees with me and wants to add the statistics back in (or move them to another article) please keep a few things in mind. The formatting should be fixed: this information should be organized in a table rather than a long, long list. Provide a formal citation to the source of the information. And please put the statistics BEFORE the references and external links.

That is all. Thank you. Stebbins (talk). 153.104.209.196 (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Possible NPOV Problem?

In the "Further Developments" section the first paragraph seems to be rather oddly worded for an encyclopedia entry. For example, the text reads: "There is a notion amongst some academics that Latin American Liberation Theology has had its day, a dream killed off by the Nicaraguan and Salvadoran revolutions, the 1989 demise of socialism and the 'end of history' claims of the champions of capitalism." The "a dream killed off" part sounds rather odd to me. Perhaps that should be rewritten to sound less whimsical. Also there is this other section: "However, in a very interesting new study, Ivan Petrella proves this to be an ill-conceived notion, and shows that this theology can be reinvented to bring its preferential option for the poor into the real world." I thought it odd that whoever contributed this has decided to inform us that the study is "very interesting." Also it seems like petty editorializing to claim that the author "proves this to be an ill-conceived notion." Anyway, that is all. Just thought this seemed a bit out of character for an encyclopedia entry. Lborchardt (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who is Cormac McCrory?

Cormac McCrory appears in the 2nd paragraph, "its influence diminished within Catholicism after Cormac McCrory issued official rejections." I can't find any information on Cormac McCrory. Who is he and why is he influential? Temporal User (Talk) 08:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes coming...

I'm currently enrolled in a Modern Christian Thought class and revising this page is part of my classwork. Feel free to undo any of my edits if there is not sufficient reason in your mind for the change. I'll be citing my sources. The main reference I am using at the moment is Berryman's Liberation Theology. It is a comprehensive history of the movement that has very reliable information. It also can be used to cite many of the currently existing material. Since Berryman is quoted in the article I will assume that someone used him as a source.

I'll outline all my proposed changes and reasoning below. Some changes I won't make but will only suggest.


Section 1

1. First and foremost, someone needs to decide whether this article is about liberation theology in general or the Latin American liberation theological movement. It has the elements of both. I'll assume it is the general page. If this is a correct assumption, some mention must be made of the other liberation theologies (i.e. black, feminist etc.).

2. I'm changing the first line to "Liberation theology is an interpretation of Christian faith out of the experience of the poor”

My reasoning is that it clears up the discussion over whether it is a “school” or not. In addition, the use of theology twice in the sentence is repetitive. Also, the theology is not actually specific to the Catholic Church; it simply appears so because Catholicism is more widespread in Latin America than the other Christian denominations. The other denominations are involved; they simply are involved on a lesser scale. It also gets to the point quicker and allows for shoring up of text later in the paragraph. This is one of the definitions proposed by Berryman and a similar (but more difficult) definition can be found in Gutierrez’s “A Theology of Liberation” which is the core work of the movement.

3. I’m not sure what to do with the rest of the paragraph. It really should be completely reworked but I don’t want to make too major of a change. I may rework the section. My thoughts on the second sentence of the paragraph:

Liberation theology doesn’t focus so much on Christ as on the poor and oppressed. Jesus Christ is simply used to justify Liberation Theology’s (from now on LT) claims to the church once opposition started.

The third sentence is fine. The fourth sentence needs to be reworked as well.

Saying that there is more than one liberation theology is a stretch at best. There are different ideologies but overall it is the same movement. I’m changing it to read “The theology as a whole has been rejected by the Catholic Church although many of its observations have been acknowledged”. This change pins the movement as basically in unison (which it is at least in terms of theology). I believe the movement as a whole has been rejected by Benedict. Correct me if I am wrong. It also alludes to the fact that the more recent Popes have agreed with many of movement’s observations. I don’t feel this sentence needs citing but it can be cited by using many different speeches by the last few popes not including the current one.

4. The fourth paragraph is ugly too. The second sentence runs on forever. I’m trimming the second part of the 2nd sentence off. I’ll be deleting “although its influence diminished within Catholicism after Cormac McCrory issued official rejections of the theology in the 1980s and liberation theologians were harshly admonished by Pope John Paul II (leading to the curtailing of its growth).”

This part of the second sentence is erroneous. In my study of the subject over this quarter I have yet to come across any Cormac McCrory. Even if he did denounce the movement he is not the main person to do so. I suggest replacing his name with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as he is important and fits in the time period mentioned. In 1983 he sent a letter to Peruvian bishops that listed objections to Gutierrez’s theology. That sounds like what the original author was going for. My only concern is that he is mentioned again (as Pope Benedict XVI) in the next sentence. The part about John Paul II is simply false. John Paul II was the closest any pope has come to accepting the theology. He spoke against religious involvement in politics but agreed with the “preferential option of the poor”. I’ll remove that portion. The last sentence needs to be changed as well to reflect the earlier change.

My final draft after ending the second sentence with “…Jesuits.” Is this:

“Its influence diminished within Catholicism in 1983 after Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), acting head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, formulated out a letter that listed the church’s objections to liberation theology.”

5. I’m not touching the 3rd paragraph but I will comment that it does not belong here. I’m not sure that it even belongs in the article at all. Christian Socialism is not specific to liberation theology and the political left is not specific to this article. In the least, this section needs to be moved to the “Future Developments” section.

6. I’ll be adding a paragraph taking straight from “Liberation Theology” by Berryman. It is his initial description of LT. He describes it as 1. An interpretation of Christian faith out of the suffering, struggle, and hope of the poor. 2. A critique of society and the ideologies sustaining it. 3. A critique of the activity of the church and of Christians from the angle of the poor. This description describes what I hope to have as sections in this article. By examining LT from these 3 descriptions it gives a broader sense of the theology which is more accurate than the article in its present state.



Section 2: Overview

1. The first paragraph is fine as is. I’ll cite the quote from Berryman as it is found in a book I just recently read.

2. The second paragraph needs to be reworked. The emphasis on Jesus bringing a sword is not correct. These are the extremist views that do not reflect the theology as a whole. The verses that are the true emphasis of LT are those that talk about the rescue and liberation of the oppressed. Some popular verses include Exodus 3:7-8, Isaiah 4:18-19, Matt 25:31-46, Matt 5:11-12, Matt 16:24-25, Gal 5:1. These all speak of freeing the oppressed and how the poor are blessed. They do not condone taking arms! There is not in the least mention of force being used to save the oppressed. These verses are mainly used to spread the theology throughout the rural population. They are also used to present a case for the theology but that is not their main goal. I would consider adding in Archbishop Romero when he says “If they kill me, I will rise in the Salvadoran people”. This was said after he spoke out for the poor and oppressed. He knew he had a good chance of being assassinated. He alludes to Jesus rising from the dead. The situation spreads further light on LT.

I am rephrasing and expanding the second sentence to be more accurate. It will read

“Proponents of liberation theology take these passages to mean that the church has a duty to protect and save the poor and oppressed by emancipating them. Some groups interpret these passages as a literal call to arms to carry out this Christian mission of justice.”

This change allows for description of radicals without encompassing the whole of LT into the fray. The belief that all LT’s are radical and violent is one of the major misconceptions that is keeping LT from being accepted.

The third sentence of this paragraph is only partly correct. The Marxist concepts weren’t initially part of the theology. The problem was that the Marxist concepts were so similar to liberation ideas that they were grouped together. This is the reason the church has denounced the theology for so long. I’ll change the sentence into a new paragraph that will read:

“Liberation Theology shares many concepts with Marxism such as the doctrine of class struggle. Because of these similarities it is often wrongly identified as a Marxist theology. The major difference between the two is that Marxism focuses on the rights of workers whereas Liberation Theology focuses on the rights of the poor, jobless, and oppressed.”

This is all backed by Berryman.

3. I would throw the next sentence on the end of the last paragraph I created because it will fit well there. The rest is fine as is.



Section 3: History

1. The first paragraph is alright but could use some minor revisions. In the first sentence CELAM is translated incorrectly. There is also no mention as to how the conference pushed the second Vatican Council. In addition, it was only one of the factors in Vatican II, not the sole reason the new stance was reached. I’ll change it to

“Created in 1955 in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), the CELAM (Conselho Episcopal Latino Americano - Latin American Bishop’s Conference), beginning to recognize social problems in the area, helped push the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) toward a more socially oriented stance.”

2. The second sentence could use some elaboration. A decent edit would be:

During the next four years, CELAM prepared for the 1968 Medellín Conference, in Colombia by further developing the line of thought at meetings in Havanna, Bogotá, and Cuernavaca.

This change simply expands on the other idea by adding more information. I think of it as a supplemental edit. The information is taken from “Introducing Liberation Theology” Leonardo and Clodovis Boff.


3. I’d like to add a sentence and quote after it about Father Camilio Torres before or after the next sentence. Torres was a priest turned Columbian revolutionary who felt fighting for political change was the only way. This sentence/section would read

“Shortly after Vatican II let out, a Columbian priest turned revolutionary named Father Camilio Torres preceded Liberation Theology’s thinking by stating that the revolution was “the way to bring about a government that feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, teaches the ignorant, puts into practice the works of charity, and love for neighbor, not just every now and then, and not just for a few, but for the majority of our neighbors.” Similar ideas would permeate Liberation thought for years to come.”

4. The next sentence is all wrong. First of all, Trujillo was not a major member of any of the early Bishops conferences. Secondly, the liberation theology proposed at Medellín (CELAM II) is not related at all with the CDF. In fact, the meeting openly supported Gutierrez’ idea of liberation theology which the CDF is DIRECTLY opposed to. In all honestly I don’t even know why Trujillo is mentioned here. Later in his career, he would betray the cause of liberation theology and single handedly kill CELAM by kicking all the progressives out once he became president. He is a major opponent to the cause in Latin America. I’m deleting this sentence because 1. It does not describe Medellín 2. It is not cited and 3. My sources show a direct disagreement with this sentence. Oh and one other thing… Trujillo is no longer “currently in the Vatican”, he passed away just a few days ago (April 18th 2008).

5. This section does not say anything concrete about what CELAM II achieved so I’ll add to it this:

“In August 1968, over 100 bishops met in Medellín to discuss the effects that Vatican II would have on the church in Latin America. At the beginning of the meeting a survey of living conditions in Latin America was taken and the documents produced there directly followed from the results of that survey. In these documents the bishops called for “sweeping, bold, urgent, and profoundly renovating changes” that would aid in “the transition from less human to more human conditions for each and every person”. The bishops also started using the word liberation for the first time in relation to the topic.”

Enough significant moves were made by the bishops to warrant a new paragraph (or section) for just this topic. The Medellín documents can be found at:

law.loyno.edu/~quigley/Class/classjusticepeace.pdf

6. The Fourth Sentence doesn’t make sense. What began the X (?) meeting of CELAM? It is very unclear. In addition, the third meeting of CELAM was not held until 1978 so the first part of the sentence is blatantly wrong. I think maybe the X was supposed to read next (meaning Medellín or maybe CELAM 3). In this case, the sentence can be removed as I have covered Medellín quite sufficiently in the paragraph I am adding. I’ll also be adding information about CELAM 3 so this sentence can be removed no matter what it refers to.

My sources indicate that the meeting at Mar del Plata was an informal and unofficial one by CELAM that was held BEFORE Medellín. In this sense the sentence should be deleted or at least moved.

As for the part about Paul VI, I can’t find “Church and Problems” anywhere and I have question as to whether it exists. I have a hunch that “Church and Problems” might be the section of Evangelii Nuntiandi dedicated to evangelization and liberation. If this is true, this portion was actually written to deal with CELAM 3 (not 2) and should at least be moved down the article as it is out of date where it stands now.

7. The last sentence of the first paragraph in History is iffy at best. I’m going to leave it because I don’t have a real reason to delete it. I have no doubt that CELAM was the first to use the term Liberation but beyond that I have nothing. I also know that Alves’ book was the first truly written on the topic of liberation theology. Either way, it would be nice for someone to cite this information so I know where it came from and whether it is real or not.

8. The second paragraph is not bad. The first sentence is fine and the second sentence is basically correct. I’ll be changing it some though. First “A Theology of Liberation”was written in 1971 (I have a copy sitting in front of me) not 1972. Secondly, Gutierrez was not a proponent of Marxism and actually speaks against in his book, not for it. I’ll put a more neutral summary of the book so as to avoid controversy. It will read:

In his 1971 book, A Theology of Liberation, he examines true liberation of man (especially the poor and oppressed), which he gives three dimensions. The first dimension involves political and social liberation from poverty and injustice. The second dimension involves emancipation from “those things that limit their capacity to develop themselves freely and in dignity”. The third dimension is liberation from sin and selfishness. It also involves a re-establishment of relationships between man and God and man and itself. His work was influenced by the Catholic Worker Movement, the French Christian youth worker organization, "Jeunesse Ouvrière Chrétienne" and by Paul Gauthier's "The Poor, Jesus and the Church" (1965).


This is the first wave of my edits. If you have a problem with them, please make them known as soon as possible. I will be posting the second wave of edits in a day or two. If nobody speaks up, I’ll probably just finish the changes with my third edit.

Onu Squish (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In section 1, item 6, I think you rely too much in second sources. I don't think Berryman helps understand what LTs are. At least the lines you are quoting:

>> 1. "An interpretation of Christian faith out of the suffering, struggle, and hope of the poor". This description is not enough to differentiate LT from any other theological movement.

>> 2. "A critique of society and the ideologies sustaining it". This also can be done using the most conservatives ideologies/doctrines in christianity, therefore, it can't be used to define any of them.

>> 3. "A critique of the activity of the church and of Christians from the angle of the poor". Actually, it is not from the angle of the poor, but from the angle of the Bible.

I made some changes to the definition paragraph. I will look for the bibliographical references, but please be patient because they are books I read in the seventies. Alfredo elejalde (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)