I watched Cardinal Mullers lecture but I didn't note what point it was that he spoke of liberation theology unfortunately... but it seemed that he endorsed it going forward. Am I remembering rightly? I know that Pope Francis has cleared the way for Archbishop Romero's elevation to Sainthood and I'm wondering if we have been unjustly poisoned against liberation theology in the past?
Liberation Theology is not, per se, evil. The Vatican has condemned certain abuses, but those abuses are not the whole of the theology. Cardinal Mueller has studied Liberation Theology on a doctoral level and is a big fan.
Thankyou for the link, Father. It is another long lecture and I've begun to watch it in shifts. It would be good to see a Pillar article on the subject of liberation theology because until now, I've believed that it was rejected by the Church and it is still cited in discussions as something akin to 'evil'. It would be good to have a point of reference for the future when the accusation happens.
Liberation theology has had a troubled past. It got tangled up in Marxist ideology in Central/South America, mostly in response to authoritarian Rightist regimes of the period (from the 20th century). Not surprising that this should happen, as the region was conquered by mostly Spanish explorers, and Spain itself has experienced civil war between the same types of factions (see the writings of George Orwell, who actually fought in Spain's civil war, on the side of the Left/Marxists, but then had serious 2nd thoughts).
I'll share my "litmus test" for discerning the Christological correctness of "Liberation Theology". Basically, it boils down to this: for anyone espousing L. T., how much of what they say is L, and how much T? More L than T means they are most likely Marxists, and Marxism and Christianity (much less Catholicism) are contradictory: not only are they opposing value systems, they are opposing EVERYTHINGs: universalism vs relativism, eternalism vs temporalism, human dignity vs will to power, etc. - they are total opposing world views. You cannot square a circle. More T than L, as long as the Theology is consistent with Church Doctrine, then LT is likely solid.
Jesus, while he was among us, instructed us to love our neighbor as ourselves, healed the sick, and fed some of the hungry, but never took from the wealthy to give to the poor. (He did have something to say about the odds of the wealthy entering Heaven though. He also said: Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's.) These are all straight from Gospel, and documented plainly enough that any one of us can understand their meaning, and apply it even today. (I try to thank God on a regular basis for making His divine revelation so obvious. Papal encyclicals should be so clear and concise. ;) His message, I believe, is that there will be inequality/unfairness in this world, but our eternal lives will be adjudicated quite differently, and that is what *really* matters. So I think LT has been bounded pretty efficaciously - it's up to us, but woe be unto those who get it wrong, either by ignoring Christ's teaching, or by assuming to speak for Him when they have only their own worldly agenda in mind.
Thankyou for taking the time to put down your thoughts. Since hearing Cdl Mueller mention LT, I've also been doing some research into why liberation theology gained such a bad reputation and your perspective is a welcome contribution to that.
Well I certainly never thought I'd see Peter Singer referenced at The Pillar of all places, but it was an important point, well expressed. I appreciate the time and energy invested by both Mr. Camosy and the good Cardinal in articulating the sources and expressions of the attacks on human dignity seen in our society today; in identifying them so clearly, it becomes easier to counteract such efforts in our own lives, and witness against them by our words and actions.
One of the reasons why a subscription to The Pillar is essential reading (Archbishop Gomez is another).
I watched Cardinal Mullers lecture but I didn't note what point it was that he spoke of liberation theology unfortunately... but it seemed that he endorsed it going forward. Am I remembering rightly? I know that Pope Francis has cleared the way for Archbishop Romero's elevation to Sainthood and I'm wondering if we have been unjustly poisoned against liberation theology in the past?
Liberation Theology is not, per se, evil. The Vatican has condemned certain abuses, but those abuses are not the whole of the theology. Cardinal Mueller has studied Liberation Theology on a doctoral level and is a big fan.
You can see him speak about it in-depth here: https://youtu.be/lEqkSsxEWMs
Thankyou for the link, Father. It is another long lecture and I've begun to watch it in shifts. It would be good to see a Pillar article on the subject of liberation theology because until now, I've believed that it was rejected by the Church and it is still cited in discussions as something akin to 'evil'. It would be good to have a point of reference for the future when the accusation happens.
Liberation theology has had a troubled past. It got tangled up in Marxist ideology in Central/South America, mostly in response to authoritarian Rightist regimes of the period (from the 20th century). Not surprising that this should happen, as the region was conquered by mostly Spanish explorers, and Spain itself has experienced civil war between the same types of factions (see the writings of George Orwell, who actually fought in Spain's civil war, on the side of the Left/Marxists, but then had serious 2nd thoughts).
I'll share my "litmus test" for discerning the Christological correctness of "Liberation Theology". Basically, it boils down to this: for anyone espousing L. T., how much of what they say is L, and how much T? More L than T means they are most likely Marxists, and Marxism and Christianity (much less Catholicism) are contradictory: not only are they opposing value systems, they are opposing EVERYTHINGs: universalism vs relativism, eternalism vs temporalism, human dignity vs will to power, etc. - they are total opposing world views. You cannot square a circle. More T than L, as long as the Theology is consistent with Church Doctrine, then LT is likely solid.
Jesus, while he was among us, instructed us to love our neighbor as ourselves, healed the sick, and fed some of the hungry, but never took from the wealthy to give to the poor. (He did have something to say about the odds of the wealthy entering Heaven though. He also said: Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's.) These are all straight from Gospel, and documented plainly enough that any one of us can understand their meaning, and apply it even today. (I try to thank God on a regular basis for making His divine revelation so obvious. Papal encyclicals should be so clear and concise. ;) His message, I believe, is that there will be inequality/unfairness in this world, but our eternal lives will be adjudicated quite differently, and that is what *really* matters. So I think LT has been bounded pretty efficaciously - it's up to us, but woe be unto those who get it wrong, either by ignoring Christ's teaching, or by assuming to speak for Him when they have only their own worldly agenda in mind.
Thankyou for taking the time to put down your thoughts. Since hearing Cdl Mueller mention LT, I've also been doing some research into why liberation theology gained such a bad reputation and your perspective is a welcome contribution to that.
Well I certainly never thought I'd see Peter Singer referenced at The Pillar of all places, but it was an important point, well expressed. I appreciate the time and energy invested by both Mr. Camosy and the good Cardinal in articulating the sources and expressions of the attacks on human dignity seen in our society today; in identifying them so clearly, it becomes easier to counteract such efforts in our own lives, and witness against them by our words and actions.