Talk:Liberation theology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Shariati

His article has a citation that said he has been compared to liberation theology. But, that is very different than being influenced by it. gren グレン 19:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

National and regional liberation theologies

The series of articles on liberation theology should focus more on the role of liberation theology within certain national political contexts. For instance, many Palestinian leaders, both Christian and Muslim, exhibit a peculiar kind of liberation theology that blends in nicely with Arab nationalism. In Africa too, there are liberation theologies that are speciallly adapted to suit the needs of tribal politics, with perhaps the saddest case being the Hutu liberation theology that was (in untold ways) conductive of the 1994 Rwands genocide. It also appears that local Churches played a significant role in the formation of Catalan nationalism, Scottish nationalism, Quebec nationalism and Walloon nationalism. Cf African theology and Asian theology. ADM (talk) 09:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the way I see it, you got two things mixed up here. One is the fact that several political movements in the 20th century were partly inspired and supported by Roman Catholic priests and/or blended their ideologies with Catholicism, e.g. Hutu Power, the independence movement of East Timor or the guerilla priests that joined the ELN in Colombia. The other thing is liberation theology, which is actually no more than an alternative method of doing theology. The guerilla priests were arguably predecessors of the liberation theologians, but nevertheless, liberation theology is basically about a specific methodology, not about the political options of a couple of clergymen. According to your definition, about any militant political ideology that is inspired by religion would count as liberation theology. Irish republicanism, the Cristeros, Afrikaner nationalism, Roundheads, Christian Identity, the People's Mujahedin of Iran – all of these brands of liberation theoloy? I don't think so. --190.19.66.192 (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Libertatis Nuntius

There should maybe be a stub article on Libertatis Nuntius, which is the name given to the 1984 instruction on certain aspects of liberation theology. [3][4] ADM (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

censored/censured

There are two uses of the word "censored" in the article that seem to me might be mistakes, and should be replaced with "censured". Can someone with more knowledge of the events confirm this? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Liberation Theology

At the top it says that Marxism is the principle idea behind it. Surely Marxism is the wrong term since that denotes anti-religion, that perhaps it should be identified and linked to Communism instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.85.173 (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Marxism is a multitude, f.ex. sociology, economy, politics and an antireligious stance. I think the antireligious stance is skipped. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Secularization

It would interesting to look at the impact of the phenomenon of secularization on liberation theology and other radical theologies. Since secularization usually implies a disenchantment of the world, then liberation theology would become practically useless since the accompanying religious environment is no longer present and can no longer be exploited by idealistic ideologies such as Marxism. ADM (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Down here in Latin America, secularization counts as an idealistic ideology. --201.250.110.150 (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Camilo Torres Restrepo

I'm surprised the article does not mention Camilo Torres, who took liberation theology to the extreme and joined the Colombian Guerrilla. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.214 (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Liberation theology isn't entirely Christian

I haven't read broadly enough in the field to expand the article, but there is clearly liberation theology that is not Christian, none of which is covered in this article. Radical Islam, Engaged Buddhism, Rastafarianism, etc. all offer examples. Is anyone familiar enough with any of these schools to make edits? Hash789 (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a book that I have not yet had a chance to read. Toward a Jewish Theology of Liberation: The Challenge of the 21st Century, by Marc Ellis. I cannot speak to the contents, but the existence of the book confirms what you are saying. Sterrettc (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Political terminology?

This term seems to be ripe for the politicizing. I don't see why any political writers should be cited in the lede section. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 21:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"and as a call to arms"

I removed the above section as this euphemism inaccurately and inappropriately portrays liberation as a violent movement. As a whole, liberation theologians do not advocate a "call to arms." Volare12 (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no, some do. There were considerable developments of "Just War" theory during the 70s and 80s. You have also removed the social unrest point. I'm surprised at some of the citation requests as well. Praxis and the link to James 2:14-16 and the whole reworking of the Doctrine of Justification surely demonstrate that. I don't have time to make revisions now and don't want to revert a good faith edit, but would you think about changes? --Snowded ^TALK 08:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I strongly agree with Volare12. Flatterworld (talk)

Agree with him as much as you want, the fact remains that there is a strand in Liberation Theology that does justify revolution, and the use of violence. Further the legitimization of social unrest is clearly mainstream in its history. "Call to Arms" may be inappropriate but the new wording doesn't work. I'm going to revert per W:BRD while we discuss. --Snowded ^TALK 19:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem removing anything that you've tagged as unreferenced. Should I do it, or do you want to? Athene cunicularia (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a "strand" in Liberation Theology that explicitly advocates a use of violence: I'm not opposed to a qualified statement as such (as long as it has citation). How significant is the strand explicitly advocating violence to the movement as a whole? I think it important to distinguish between 'revolution' and 'violence.' Writing of social unrest and revolution is not necessarily advocating a "violent revolution" unless explicitly stated as such. Volare12 (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Social unrest and agitation do not necessarily involve violence hence my concern about its removal. I am away from my books at the moment, but the advocacy of violence was an acceptance that violence may in certain circumstances be the only valid response (hence the links to just war theory). i'll hunt something down, for the moment I assume that social unrest is not controversial --Snowded ^TALK 04:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, I think the term social unrest is not controversial. Per the removal of social unrest, are you referring to the sword/peace sentence being discussed in previous section of talk page? If so, please see comments there. Volare12 (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

I think it is incorrect to state that the Catholic Church, or Pope Benedict as a private theologian or in one of his offices, has condemned Liberation Theology as such. For such a statement, I do think there must needs be a citation that says, "I do herewith condemn LT (though acknowledging the may have got some things right, as, just to mention, even atheists do sometimes)." If there is such a statement, all right. But as far as I know (I have only occasional knowledge, though), Pope Benedict only defends his own Congregational of Faith document which, as far as I etc., only says that putting society change before salvation, and misuse of the articles of faith as metaphors for liberation is false, and probably also that using morally wrong means or worldly engagement of clerics is false - which is all of course most just, but not yet a condemnation of LT as such. It does for example not yet say that a secondary metaphorical meaning of articles of faith must be totally banned, only that it must really be secondary (I don't say anything about whether this should be wished for, only that I think it is not banned). "Jesus was not Spartacus" (Deus Caritas est) is of course quite anti-LT, but still no formal condemnation since it does not exclude a sentence as "Though Jesus was not Spartacus, it may be wise to achieve some things Spartacus tried to achieve, as the things we think to be most conform to the common good, in our Christian engaging in politics." I would also find it interesting if there are serious (not simulatory) efforts to develop a LT within the boundaries of the Magisterium. --77.4.122.136 (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of Liberation

I've just come across Albert Nolan's: Jesus before Christianity: The Gospel of liberation and Jürgen Moltmann's The Gospel of Liberation. The Gospel of Liberation shows the Gospel as the liberation event. It advocates a theology of liberation centred around the good news, the kingdom of God and Jesus' praxis. It needs to be addressed. Alan347 (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Poverty source of sin, or other way around?

These two statements, from the heading and overview aren't necessarily contradictory, but it seems their relationship needs to be expounded upon:

Therefore, these theologians use sociology and economics sciences to understand poverty, since they considered poverty was the source of sin.

In essence, liberation theology explores the possibility to fight against poverty by suppressing its source, which is sin.

24.14.37.87 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Sin is the source of poverty Alan347 (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Alleged KGB Involvement

I made the following edit to the article, attaching it to the bottom of the Historical section.

-- Alleged KGB involvement According to Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence official ever to have defected from the former Eastern Bloc, Liberation Theology was created by the KGB with the help of Kremlin controlled religious front groups in South America (The Kremlin's Religious Crusade). "In 1968, the KGB-created CPC was able to maneuver a group of leftist South American bishops into holding a Conference of Latin American Bishops at Medellin, Colombia. The Conference’s official task was to ameliorate poverty. Its undeclared goal was to recognize a new religious movement encouraging the poor to rebel against the “institutionalized violence of poverty,” and to recommend it to the World Council of Churches for official approval. The Medellin Conference did both. It also swallowed the KGB-born name 'Liberation Theology.' Liberation Theology was then formally introduced to the world by the World Council of Churches. Recent disclosures show that a whole army of KGB cooptees and deepcover officers was sent from Moscow to help."---

It was removed once due to "poor sourcing and unlikely to be true". The writer is a former intelligence official, the highest ranking to ever defect (at least that's what his Wiki says, which I didn't edit!). Of course, that doesn't mean he's telling the truth, but the fact that he IS a former high ranking intelligence official and has several published books makes me consider him a valuable source. I also wrote it as "alleged", as anything controversial ought to be labeled as such. I placed this under the history section, but perhaps it can find a better home under criticism? I'm not sure, but I do think it belongs somewhere.

As for poor sourcing, it's possible I didn't edit the sourcing into this correctly. Any help in writing this better or putting it in better would be highly appreciated. In the meantime, went ahead and put my edit back in to place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo5600 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The standard for notability isn't whether you personally find it interesting. It's whether multiple reliable sources discuss the matter. So far, none have. "Alleged" is a word to avoid as it is non-neutral. If the statement cannot be made without it, then the statement doesn't rise to our standards of verifiability and notability. Simply putting "alleged" in front of a spurious claim doesn't mitigate the fact that it's just one guy making an exceptional claim for which there are no reliable sources. See WP:REDFLAG for further explanation. "Exceptional claims require high-quality sources."--Loonymonkey (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This assertion was sourced to FrontPage Magazine, which is notoriously not a reliable source for exceptional claims like this about anybody they dislike. If you can find reports from less fringey sources that report the same allegations as something to be taken seriously, then the material could be restored. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There won't be any reliable sources supporting this claim. It's a conspiracy theory, and a bad one: the idea that the Roman Catholic bishops of Latin America would "recommend" liberation theology to the protestant-orthodox WCC is simply hilarious. −88.79.91.194 (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to edit this right but I just read "POPULORUM PROGRESSIO (On The Development Of Peoples)" by Pope Paul VI and it does not say anything about returning to the way of the early church. The article cites it as saying so. Footnote No. 8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.143.220.178 (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Theurgy “not understandable”

I have added the template

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)

While Marx was influential among liberation theologians, his "dialectical materialism" is actually based on Hegel's dialectic. So dialectic is not just mechanistic Marx, but also has mystical and religious interpretations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.80.7 (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Liberation Theology is propaganda

Partisans of Liberation Theology seek to rescue their dying religion (Roman Catholicism) from the hands of secularism and atheism by making it more appealing to the poor and oppressed. This is the religious version of greenwashing of multinational corporations who try by all means to clean their reputations by, falsely, giving a distorted image of their real goals. As a person from Latin America I see this thing happening over and over again: rebels who fight in the name of Jesus or the Virgin (see: Cristero War), religious movements who allegedly protect the poor by imposing their dogma and Catholic charities that "help" the indigenous people by destroying their cultures and traditions. Only the EZLN seems to me a true genuine movement that doesn't mix religion with politics. The Liberation Theology main tenet (that poverty is caused by sin) is the same mantra we have been fooled to believe in for centuries and certainly, there's anything revolutionary in that. I perfectly understand why Latin Americans are always portrayed and stereotyped as Catholic zealots when even so-called revolutionary, anti-poverty, anti-misery movements bear the seal of the Catholic Church.--Scandza (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Source?

What makes you think religion and politics can be separated? 96.54.198.229 (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Given its historical context, liberation theology sure seems preferable to the branches of the church which actively supported the military dictatorships.

I do not hold to liberation theology, but the comment above just typifies a lack of appreciation for why the theologies developed. Firstly, there is a plurality of liberation theologies, and you seem to only acknowledge the one which addresses poverty. Liberation theologies developed as a response to the injustices that surrounds a significant proportion of the world. Historically the gospel has been interpreted through the eyes of white, rich countries. As oppose to the individualistic, and largely eschatological view of salvation in western Christianity, Liberation Theology seeks to answer the question of poverty (among others) and views salvation as more here-and-now (both groups agree that salvation is here and yet to come but have different emphases on either side of the spectrum). If you ask me, issues such as poverty, racism, and sexism are big issues that are relevant to theology. When these Liberation theologies developed these issues had not historically been tackled by theology and so it is only legitimate that they should exist. Either way, this chat page on Wikipedia is hardly the correct place to air polarised and monocultural opinion. I suggest this thread is deleted as it contributes in no way to the improvement of the article. 86.161.209.74 (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Liberation theologians base their social action upon the Bible scriptures describing the mission of Jesus Christ, as bringing a sword (social unrest)

I respectfully, but adamantly disagree and removed the below. The below sentence is an inaccurate over-generalization conveying a violent approach of all liberation theologians. The scriptures listed are not all relevant to the point. Someone in May 2010 requested a citation with no response as of yet. Volare12 (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Liberation theologians base their social action upon the Bible scriptures describing the mission of Jesus Christ, as bringing a sword (social unrest), e.g. Isaiah 61:1, Matthew 10:34, Luke 22:35–38 Matthew 26:51–52 — and not as bringing peace (social order).

I strongly agree with Volare12. Flatterworld (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please consider changes to the above statement due to the following objections: 1) ongoing lack of citation, 2) Leads reader to believe that liberation theologians base the entirety of their social action ideas on this juxtaposition of sword and peace or these bible verses, 3) Matthew 26 text conflicts with statement itself, 4) Leads reader to think Liberation Theologians believe the singular "mission" of Jesus was to "bring a sword." I am not opposed to a qualifying referenced statement on this point, but this is too far-reaching, with no reference and should be re-written with citation or completely removed. Volare12 (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the -- or at least a -- key Biblical text for the Liberation Theology movement was the Book of James, with its emphasis on deeds, rather than grace. Although recent academic scholarship has placed this text in the context of the Pauline/Judaic controversy over the importance of acting according to Mosaic Law -- an ancient dispute once considered dead & forgotten for centuries -- this interpretation has given renewed importance to a work Luther dismissed as a "right strawy epistle". (And if it is important to this school of thought, James ought to be mentioned in this article.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As well most Liberation Theologians see Jesus' comments in Matthew 25: 31-46 and Luke 4:18 as being strong signposts of God's preferential option for the poor / oppressed / marginalised. User:Kiwimac —Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Article needs to complete information cited

The supporters of this theology are hypocritical enough to accuse the Vatican of disagreeing with their concepts because of the mere desire of choosing a political side opposed to theirs? These "liberators" are opposing not only the Pope himself, but distorting principles learnt by civilization since the prehistorical era. Apologize me, but what is wrong is that is missing that South America has NO opposing political parties AT ALL. Right wing is dead on arrival. Brazil (for exemple) is a White Socialist Dictatorship, which means it pretends to be a Democratic nation, but supports other dictatorships throughout the world, and its a one-party country, where political parties are all joint by an alliance based in exchange of titles and pensions, all claiming left wing preference. There is censorship. People are fired from TV, radio or simply "turned-off" coincidently after criticizing PT (the brazilian "labours party") which each day accommodates itself more on taking control of private property. And about the theology, there are lots of priests infiltrated in brazilian official catholic churches, very identifiable during masses and even funerals; they are connected to the labours party, and openly support it... Now, there is a bible that is going to be published by them and it has lots of distortions of the original manuscripts, based in marxist concepts (I red a bit in the net to comprove it and worse, it costs only seven dollars at the bookstore!). They were not supposed to be doctrinating anyone with their particular dogmatic in the name of the real Catholic Church. P.S.: The Landless "Workers" movement is a terrorist movement where some murderers invade farms (private domains) that produce food to be exported, distributed around the country and that generate richness. These are facts, not unbiased information. Who lives, knows.

CONCLUSION: this article needs more depth in order to reveal more of the true colours behind this theology (it's controversies, I mean - they do not befriend the most charitable people out there). There is information to be added, and the story behind of what happens to Latin America related to this is more complex. I could add something, but I need more profound knowledge of this myself, and concensus. It's a warning to say that South America subject should be quoted with more caution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.6.36.53 (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you might deign to provide some proof for this assertion? User:Kiwimac —Preceding undated comment added 07:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

Aren't they Anglicans? Whether Anglicans are Protestants is quite unclear. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

While Anglicans see themselves as steering a middle path between Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism, they are generally acknowledged to be Protestant. User:Kiwimac —Preceding undated comment added 07:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I always thought the Anglicans saw themselves as Catholic, in unbroken succession from St Augustine, just not Roman. MidlandLinda (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Liberation theology is disguised marxism

Liberation theology is disguised marxism.Any politics of liberation theology, never reduced misery of any people.In fact, liberation theology ever incresed misery and corruption.Agre22 (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)agre22

I appreciate the fact that you so willingly communicate your ocean-like wisdom to us, the ignorant masses, but know that this page exists to discuss possible improvements regarding the article. In fact, people misusing Wikipedia talk pages to announce their wholly irrelevant personal opinions ever increase misery and cynicism, especially among innocent ones like me, who search these pages in flaming desire for unbiased information based on fact and accurate description, collocated according to its relevance. Till next time, then. --190.19.66.192 (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Right on. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL you made me laugh. Your comment should become the standard response to this type of stupidities. Well said! --87.221.86.109 (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Very interesting subject indeed. In fact, I suppose that two (very) different topics should be considered under the same designation of "liberation theology". Hence my suggestion to create a disambiguation part that should enable to reach on the one hand, the historical movement, whatever more o less legated to Marxism. And on the other hand, a link to the long ago pre-existing theological approach of liberation in Buddhism (see Prajna and Moksha) Crocy (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"Orthodoxy" vs. Liberation theology

The wording

"Orthodoxy" vs. Liberation theology

implies that the structural-sin interpretation is heterodox and the individual-sin interpretation is "orthodox". I find this being the major non-neutral POV of the article. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

proposal: substitute "orthodoxy" for some other label on liberation-theology-rejecters. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Theologians - list lacks sources altogether

I have tagged the section "Theologians" because it has zero reliable sources which are necessary to back up claims that these people adhere to liberation theology. Please research and add reliable secondary sources to document them. Also, the list should be restricted to only notable theologians, i.e. those who have an associated article on Wikipedia. I have deleted a single redlink. Thank you for your help in improving Wikipedia! Elizium23 (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

Liberation Theology is in fact much broader than only the Latin American variety. I recently added brief introductions to other forms of liberation theology and hope to add more soon. The basic header for this entry is simply wrong, stating that liberation theology is fundamentally a Latin American thing. That is simply wrong on a historical basis. Hope to add yet another section on Palestinian like theo when I have the time. Xphilosopherking (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

POV and Significant Viewpoints

I added the POV tag back and included the "Not all Viewpoints" tag.

Liberation Theology may have started as a Catholic theological distinctive, but it is much much broader than that now. Until Protestant Liberation theology is included, or the article title is changed to be limited to Catholic iterations of this, the article is slanted. ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this. This is a big problem with this page. It really offers a very narrow vision of liberation theology as being a Latin American thing alone. It is not. It is much broader than that. I have started to try to remedy this and have added sections on various other forms of LT (black, womanist, ex-Muslim, Palestinian). But the main intro to this article needs to be entirely reworked. I may do this later but it is a much larger project than simply adding a few brief paragraphs here and there, which is what I have done. Xphilosopherking (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"Liberation Theology is a political movement..."

Jesus was a political movement. So I suggest this terminology be revised to read "Liberation Theology is a movement in Christian theology..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.214.186.128 (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. As an academically trained theologian, I read the first sentence of the article and thought to myself "wtf?". Changing it to "Liberation Theology is a movement in Christian theology ..." would make it accurate. As it stands it's not.141.70.11.61 (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Robert Schreiter in his book Constructing Local Theologies proposes that LT is a type of local theology that focuses on subverting unjust social structures via Christian praxis. I think this is a good way to approach LT. Xphilosopherking (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Liberation Theology and "Black Theology"

I am extremely thankful to see so much information regarding progressive Christian movements here. However, the term "Liberation Theology" seems, from the Overview and History sections in the Wiki article, to be a recent name under which to group certain texts or thinkers with similar goals (much the same way "existentialism" functions). For instance, the page mentions 1955 and the work of CELAM and the Roman Catholic Church, and yet, Howard Thurman's book, "Jesus and the Disinherited" was published in 1949, was immensely influencial, and is considered a cornerstone of liberation theology. James Cone's "Black Theology of Liberation" appeared in 1970, and whose contribution goes unmentioned in the article, although his name appears in the right link column. Finally, Martin Luther King is not mentioned, although he stands as one of the people who, through the civil rights movement, brought liberation theology into the popular arena. Why jump back to Augustine when Liberation Theology began here in the Americas? 130.245.246.174 (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have recently added a brief section on Black Theology and hope you (or others) will expand on it. It is important and deserves our attention as much as the material from Latin America. Xphilosopherking (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Islamic liberty theologians

Is it possible to add any Islamic thinkers? Ali Shariati, who has been called the ideologue of the Iranian revolution (by Foucault) is an excellent example, or even Muhammad Iqbal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea, but the problem is that Muslim thinkers very rarely call themselves theologians or consider their work as theology. This is certainly the case for Iqbal whose Reconstruction I know very well. For the moment, I think expanding to other forms of Christian LT is a good beginning step. The question is, what do these Muslims call their efforts? Shariati and Iqbal call it reform, so I think their efforts belong under that heading, Muslim Reform Movements, or something along those lines. Xphilosopherking (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

First things first ...

This article simply does not define what Liberation Theology is. It needs a clear statement of the problem that Liberation Theologists see; what they see as a solution; how they see the Church (and other Christians) facilitating that solution. Yes, this is hard. No, it isn't obvious from this article.

The history, theology and other headings here become far more meaningful to a nonChristian reader when you actually define what you are going to discuss, before you discuss it. Biff alcatraz (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have recently tried to fix this with a solid and broad definition based on a cited and respected academic source. Xphilosopherking (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

KGB

According to this article the KGB played a large roll in promoting Liberation Theology especially in South America. [5]. The single source is probably too thin to putin the artilce, but this may be worth pursuing. Golden Eternity (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

A Google search indicates that this account seems to have taken off among Traditionalist Catholics but its certainty has been questioned by John Allen in Crux and it has been subjected to a thorough historical critique by Matthew Shadle on the Catholic Moral Theology blog.

As Goldern Eternity suggests, it seems questionable whether this KGB defector's account constitutes a reliable source. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Making the first sentence clearer to the layperson

As a layman, I find the opening sentence pretty confusing:

"Liberation theology refers to forms of local or contextual theology that propose that knowledge of God based on revelation leads necessarily to a Christian theological praxis that opposes unjust social and political structures.

Is there any way to rewrite it so that the average person has a better idea about what the article is about at a glance? I see that the second sentence explains the subject in more everyday language. However, when I googled "liberation theology," the above quote came up at the top of the search. A person who doesn't bother to click on the link to this article might be left confused or might seek the info elsewhere. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I cut out that sentence and expanded the one following it. It's an improvement but is still a bit vague. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

McCabe?

Herbert McCabe should not be listed here without caveat. He explicitly repudiated liberation theology (since it denies divine simplicity), although he did embrace communism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.137.197 (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberation theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130904165644/http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2007nov/shaffer.html to http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2007nov/shaffer.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

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. Liberation theology is considered by the church as heretical because it downplays the divine nature of Jesus Christ,afundamental belief at the heart of core Catholic Doctrines. Leaders of liberaion theology have been criticised or in some cases excommunicated— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.120.175 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 24 February 2013

References

Liberation theology is not a heresy, at least, so far. Like feminist theology, inculturation etc, it is still in its period of development. Let's stay open and God bless us. Ama.clef (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberation theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130611191146/http://www.abuelas.org.ar/material/documentos/BERGOGLIO2.pdf to http://www.abuelas.org.ar/material/documentos/BERGOGLIO2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussing Non-theologian Activists

190.84.85.25 added Camilo Torres Restrepo as an example of liberation theology. He isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article, and I think he should be. However, I removed him from the introduction because he has no theological legacy; he left no influential writings. The real question is, how shall we talk about activists and politians who were inspired by Liberation theology, although they did not contribute toward producing this theology? I am thinking here of Camilo Torres Restrepo, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and the Sandinista National Liberation Front. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I think my remarks below about Aristide below apply to Torres, too. His Wikipedia page calls him a "predecessor of liberation theology," but that doesn't make him a theologian, either. The FSLM and FMLN are only listed in this article under "Related Movements," which seems reasonable. Dgndenver (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Aristide--theologian?

Could he properly be considered 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.")

He is an ordained Priest. Your analogy is deeply flawed, as it is more like saying: "a Congressman isn't necessarily a Politician." But that sounds silly, doesn't it? Priests study Theology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.182.5 (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The article on Aristide correctly describes him as a "proponent" of Liberation Theology. Dictionary.com defines proponent this way: "a person who advocates a theory, proposal, or project. synonyms: advocate, champion, supporter, backer, promoter, protagonist, campaigner, booster, cheerleader." All of that seems to fit Aristide well. A theologian is someone who works and in particular writes (professionally or not) in the academic field known as theology. If merely believing in, advocating, and acting on the work of any theologians made one a theologian, then all Christians would be theologians, which is absurd. I am going to remove Aristide. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to revert and explain why. Dgndenver (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Palestinian Liberation Theology?

Is there any reason for notability for this? I work in the area and this is certainly the first I have ever heard of it. Could either do with deletion or some serious backing up on its notability versus other liberation theologies that are not mentioned. 148.88.172.100 (talk) 06:54, 18 November 2015‎ (UTC)

It also skirts the edge, at least, of POV issues. Please remember to sign your posts. Dgndenver (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@148.88.172.100: I have added a hatnote to Political theology in the Middle East#Palestinian Liberation Theology. In the world of contemporary liberation theology, I think it's quite notable. Sabeel has nonprofit organizations dedicated to its support in several other countries.

I would suggest that Political theology in the Middle East be the main article on the topic, and this article focus on how Palestinian thinkers may have impacted or changed liberation theology as a broader movement and theological milieu. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Jose Miranda

The name Jose Miranda could be added to this article - he is the author of "Marx against the Marxists: The Christian Humanism of Karl Marx". Vorbee (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

José Porfirio Miranda does not exist. I have begun a draft at User:Sondra.kinsey/sandbox/José Porfirio Miranda. I'll probably publish to mainspace in a week or so. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Jose Miranda

The name Jose Miranda could be added to this article - he is the author of "Marx against the Marxists: The Christian Humanism of Karl Marx". Vorbee (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

José Porfirio Miranda does not exist. I have begun a draft at User:Sondra.kinsey/sandbox/José Porfirio Miranda. I'll probably publish to mainspace in a week or so. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

List of theologians

Hey all--

In the 'see also', is there support to either make a list of theologians OR make it a new section? I know WP:BOLD, but I just want to make sure that other people see that this is a problem. ɯɐɔ 💬 15:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Thisisnotcam: I don't understand your proposal. There is a list at Liberation_theology#Theologians. What is the problem you are trying to solve? What would you like to do differently? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sondra.kinsey: Sorry about that -- the wording is iffy. Lemme try that again. Is there support to make a separate "List of liberation theologians" article? It seems like there are enough theologians in that see also list that could warrant its own article. Wait. On second thought, disregard that. I think my reasoning was that that section of the article was getting a bit cluttered, so consolidating it could help; it doesn't make sense once I really think it through.  Self-trout ɯɐɔ 💬 19:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liberation theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311004611/http://betacanadaandtheworld.com/liberationtheology.html to http://betacanadaandtheworld.com/liberationtheology.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150526044306/http://americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/gutierrez-vatican-never-condemned-theology-liberation to http://americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/gutierrez-vatican-never-condemned-theology-liberation
• Added Kingdom theology tag to https://theologykristen.blogspot.com/2021/11/kingdom-theology.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Who Is Active On This?

Hi all,

I'm new/old here on Wikipedia. Done stints editing in the past, mostly on Organised Crime related articles.

Here to help out with Liberation Theology content. I wanted to know who is active, if there is a working group, as well as wanting to introduce myself. Don't wanna step on any toes.

Give me a shout if you're digging or not digging what I'm doing.

Appreciate any advice or heads ups.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlJoHoBro (talk • contribs) 23:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, what is your previous account, and why have you not logged back into it? Elizium23 (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Theologians section

The reason the "Theologians" section is tagged, despite being a "See also" is because there needs to be some WP:RS evidence that each person teaches Liberation Theology in some form. Just because it is "See also" does not mean it is exempt from Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Elizium23 (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

All the listed theologians have their scholarship of liberation theology in their profile lead, and there is no existing consensus that listing profiles without making any claim about their importance, significance or contribution requires additional citation. ItsPugle (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is not a reliable source, we cannot rely on their articles for sourcing to conform with the WP:V policy. In-line citations must be in the same article. They can easily be imported from the article of origin, of course. Elizium23 (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There's nowhere else I could find on Wikipedia where such citing is required for a See also section either, indicating no existing consensus as you suggest. While WP:NOTRS is true, that I'm not objecting, there's no existing precedent or understanding that every link in the See also section needs to have an external reference to qualify its relationship. ItsPugle (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Most articles would not place such a list in the "See also" section, it is more or less an abuse of this item. Elizium23 (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Would a better solution to be to remove the entire section then? I'm happy with that compromise, since a quick search for "liberation theologians" ought to list some. ItsPugle (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)