Key principle of liberation theology
Though it has distant historical roots in 16th century Christian humanism, and more immediately in Vatican II, properly speaking liberation theology stems from the 1968 assembly of the Latin American bishops in Medellín, Colombia. That session
endorsed a “preferential option for the poor” on behalf of the Catholic church in
Latin America. The movement took its name from Gustavo Gutiérrez’s 1971 book,
A Theology of Liberation.
Today it is common to speak of a variety of “liberation theologies.” In his 1995
book Liberation Theologies, Jesuit Fr. Alfred Hennelly distinguishes nine: Latin
American, North American feminist, black, Hispanic, African, Asian, First World,
ecotheology and even a liberation theology of world religions. The focus in this
article is on the Latin American form that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s.
Four ideas have been central to the movement:
The preferential option for the poor. For the liberation theologians, this
means that the church must align itself with poor people as they demand
justice. Such insistence has led to charges that liberation theology advocates
class struggle. The liberationists, however, say that they did not invent the
division of society into a wealthy elite and an impoverished majority. The
church helped create this social order: Catholic missionaries served as
evangelizers for the European conquerors, and church leaders sided with the
elites for 400 years. The point, say the liberationists, is not to involve the
church in class struggle, which is a given of the Latin American situation.
Their goal is to shift the church’s loyalties.
Institutional violence. Liberationists see a hidden violence in social
arrangements that create hunger and poverty. Thus when critics accused
theologians of advocating revolutionary violence (which most did not), they
often responded: “But the church has always tolerated violence.” They
meant that by endorsing the status quo, church leaders were acquiescing in a
system that did violence to millions of people.
Structural sin. Liberation theologians argued that there is a social dimension
that is more than the sum of individual acts. Examples frequently cited
include neocolonialism and the feudal nature of the relationship between the
Latin American oligarchy and the peasants. By extension, the redemption
from sin won by Christ must be more than the redemption of individual souls.
It must redeem, transform the social realities of human life.
Orthopraxis. This term was coined by the liberation theologians as a
counterpoint to insistence on orthodoxy, meaning correct belief. Liberation
theologians argue that what is most fundamental is correct action -- that is,
effort leading to human liberation. Most liberation theologians say the accent
on orthopraxis is a matter of balance. They wanted to remedy a
centuries-long Christian inclination to overemphasize belief at the expense of
action.
Liberation theology places a premium on social analysis. To remedy injustice, they
believe, one must first understand the social mechanisms that produce it. To do this,
many liberation theologians were drawn to Marxism. Critics found this alarming,
insisting that one cannot distinguish between Marxist “science” and its ideological
underpinnings -- atheism, materialism and totalitarianism.
Finally, liberationists stress the pastoral dimensions of their work. In Latin America,
liberation theology came to be identified with the base communities, tens of
thousands of small groups of Christians, usually 10-30 people, who come together
for scripture study and reflection leading to action.
The base communities were at the roots of much of the Vatican alarm about
liberation theology. Since they existed independent of clerical oversight, they
seemed to represent a model of “church from below”; and indeed they were
sometimes presented this way by some of their more enthusiastic advocates.
Mainstream liberation theologians have repeated, however, that there is nothing
necessarily adversarial about the base communities.
endorsed a “preferential option for the poor” on behalf of the Catholic church in
Latin America. The movement took its name from Gustavo Gutiérrez’s 1971 book,
A Theology of Liberation.
Today it is common to speak of a variety of “liberation theologies.” In his 1995
book Liberation Theologies, Jesuit Fr. Alfred Hennelly distinguishes nine: Latin
American, North American feminist, black, Hispanic, African, Asian, First World,
ecotheology and even a liberation theology of world religions. The focus in this
article is on the Latin American form that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s.
Four ideas have been central to the movement:
The preferential option for the poor. For the liberation theologians, this
means that the church must align itself with poor people as they demand
justice. Such insistence has led to charges that liberation theology advocates
class struggle. The liberationists, however, say that they did not invent the
division of society into a wealthy elite and an impoverished majority. The
church helped create this social order: Catholic missionaries served as
evangelizers for the European conquerors, and church leaders sided with the
elites for 400 years. The point, say the liberationists, is not to involve the
church in class struggle, which is a given of the Latin American situation.
Their goal is to shift the church’s loyalties.
Institutional violence. Liberationists see a hidden violence in social
arrangements that create hunger and poverty. Thus when critics accused
theologians of advocating revolutionary violence (which most did not), they
often responded: “But the church has always tolerated violence.” They
meant that by endorsing the status quo, church leaders were acquiescing in a
system that did violence to millions of people.
Structural sin. Liberation theologians argued that there is a social dimension
that is more than the sum of individual acts. Examples frequently cited
include neocolonialism and the feudal nature of the relationship between the
Latin American oligarchy and the peasants. By extension, the redemption
from sin won by Christ must be more than the redemption of individual souls.
It must redeem, transform the social realities of human life.
Orthopraxis. This term was coined by the liberation theologians as a
counterpoint to insistence on orthodoxy, meaning correct belief. Liberation
theologians argue that what is most fundamental is correct action -- that is,
effort leading to human liberation. Most liberation theologians say the accent
on orthopraxis is a matter of balance. They wanted to remedy a
centuries-long Christian inclination to overemphasize belief at the expense of
action.
Liberation theology places a premium on social analysis. To remedy injustice, they
believe, one must first understand the social mechanisms that produce it. To do this,
many liberation theologians were drawn to Marxism. Critics found this alarming,
insisting that one cannot distinguish between Marxist “science” and its ideological
underpinnings -- atheism, materialism and totalitarianism.
Finally, liberationists stress the pastoral dimensions of their work. In Latin America,
liberation theology came to be identified with the base communities, tens of
thousands of small groups of Christians, usually 10-30 people, who come together
for scripture study and reflection leading to action.
The base communities were at the roots of much of the Vatican alarm about
liberation theology. Since they existed independent of clerical oversight, they
seemed to represent a model of “church from below”; and indeed they were
sometimes presented this way by some of their more enthusiastic advocates.
Mainstream liberation theologians have repeated, however, that there is nothing
necessarily adversarial about the base communities.
