Liberation Theology's Civil War

July 30, 2008

Few fights are nastier than theological quarrels. This axiom has been amply confirmed by the on-going spat that has erupted between two brothers who were crucial figures in the rise of liberation theology -- the Brazilians Leonardo and Clodovis Boff.

Largely unreported outside theological circles, this dispute's importance is more than academic. It suggests that liberation theology, once so prominent in Latin America, is imploding under the weight of its own ambiguities and the force of decades of powerful critiques.

Of the two Boffs, Leonardo is the more famous. His book, Church, Charism and Power: Liberation Theology and the Institutional Church (1985), applied Marxist analysis to the Catholic Church. The then-Father Leonardo arrived at the predictable Marxist conclusion that the "institutional church" was the ecclesiastical equivalent of the "bourgeoisie" controlling the "spiritual means of production."

A theological degree isn't needed to know that such arguments are incompatible with orthodox Catholicism. Following conflicts with Brazilian bishops and the Church's official guardian of orthodoxy, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Leonardo eventually abandoned the Franciscan order and his priesthood.

His brother, Clodovis, however, maintained his priestly vows and remains a member of the Servants of Mary order. Until recently, he was invariably identified as a radical liberation theologian. But in late 2007, Clodovis dropped a theological bombshell. Shocking many friends, he published a robust critique of liberation theology "as it really exists" in the journal Revista Eclesiastica Brasileira.

Liberation theology's root error, Clodovis stated, lies in its effective substitution of Jesus Christ with "the poor" as the "first operative principle of theology." He singled out the recently-condemned works of Jon Sobrino, S.J., as exemplifying how this approach damages the integrity of Christian faith.

First, liberation theology encourages tendencies to regard the Church as a "popular movement." Church organizations subsequently begin regarding themselves virtually as militant NGOs. But why, Clodovis asked, would anyone join a Church which essentially considers itself just another social movement? Plenty of secular NGOs pursuing hundreds of causes already exist. Why bother embracing the whole apparatus of Catholic doctrine if the Church's primary objective is pursuing earthly utopias rather than saving souls?

More seriously, Clodovis suggested, when theologians prioritize the poor over Christ when it comes to understanding Christian faith, the "inevitable result is the politicization of the faith, its reduction to an instrument for social liberation." In Clodovis' view, any authentically Christian theology of freedom begins "with Christ and arrives at the poor." According to Clodovis, "the Christ-principle always includes the poor, but the poor-principle does not necessarily include Christ."

This echoes one critique of liberation theology made by Joseph Ratzinger - now Benedict XVI -- in the early 1980s.

To be sure, Clodovis claimed his article's purpose was to purify liberation theology of its errors rather than facilitate its destruction. This, however, did not prevent his brother, Leonardo, from publishing an emotionally charged rebuttal in May of this year. Dismissing Clodovis' position as "theologically erroneous," Leonardo argued that to encounter the poor is to encounter Christ. For Leonardo, "man-poor" is "the measure of all things."

But orthodox Catholic teaching is that Christ is the measure of all things; that Christ is ultimately encountered in the sacraments and the Church itself as Christ's Body; and that true knowledge of Christ is found in the apostolic faith communicated by Christ to His Church.

None of this, apparently, matters to Leonardo. His rebuttal, however, soon departs from theological disputation to predict, somewhat conspiratorially, that Clodovis' words will be used by the "local and Roman ecclesiastical authorities" to finish off liberation theology.

This reflects many liberation theologians' conviction that everything is ultimately about power. In their world, the idea that someone might change their mind through genuine conversion is dismissed as an instance of "false consciousness" - the notion that a person may think they are acting sincerely but are blind to the "real" motives driving their behavior.

In taking his stand, Clodovis Boff has effectively been labeled a "useful idiot" by his own brother. This mirrors many liberation theologians' habit of regarding those disagreeing with them as instruments of "bourgeois oppression."

Fr. Clodovis' change of mind, however, is one indication of present-day liberation theology's intellectual fragility. It's as if the theologian Michael Novak suddenly announced that he now regarded capitalism as fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.

No wonder Leonardo is so angry with Clodovis.

Dr. Samuel Gregg is research director at the Acton Institute and author, most recently, of The Commercial Society (2007).

Comments

Javier Antonio Quiñones Ortiz:

The ostensible controversy over the posturing and zombified—because it seemed alive but was always dead in both spirit and letter—so-called liberation theology (LT) is just that: a self-gratifying intellectual illusion based on failed economic, political, sociological and theological notions. Failed in the economic, sociological and political fields because LT was Marxistoid in nature, thus botched at its core. Failed theologically because it privileged the notion of a partisan God whose alleged interest in the abstract notion of “the poor” excluded the best solution to poverty there is: laissez faire capitalism, rather than theological palliatives supported by leftist governmental extortions and intrusions on their alleged behalf. What Clodovis Boff is acknowledging now is nothing new. It was always present in critiques of LT, i.e., the sine qua non of Christianity is Christ and his Church and not just the impoverished within and/or without and the latter, in turn, can only be helped out of material poverty by unrestricted capitalism.

When Michael Novak, among others, asked whether or not LT would liberate, the answer was already forthcoming: it would not because it didn’t take care of material business, thus, it couldn’t take care of the spiritual one either. Spiritually speaking one need not be poor-obsessed to be “liberated” or to “liberate” anything or anyone. Materially, one only needs utter freedom rather than the inhumane and subhuman tenets of Marxism, that don’t give a flying flip about the poor, to be “liberated.” Hence, Clodovis is arriving to the truly liberated party both late and, even then, only partially as he refuses to recognize that LT was a failed mental masturbatory endeavor from its outset because it did nothing to free its subjects from the tenets of Marxism, the most oppressive political philosophy humanity has ever known.

Bottom line: So-called LT didn’t liberate because it was and is an instrument of oppression and ignorance, both spiritually and materially. Good riddance to such garbage!

José A. Amorós: ajamoros@cs.com

Chris Manes,

The issue is not the self-righteous use of Scripture,"...of the least of these...", as Lib Theo does and you obviously do as well, but how do we really help the poor help themselves, not how we look in the process. During the height of Lib Theo more money was made writing about the poor than actually was spent helping the poor. Perhaps, if the Latin American poor had a share in the royalties on the books published by Orbis Press alone during that time, there would be no poverty there today. But things have changed in Lat Am and Lib Theo is mostly today history. Here are some reasons:

Academicians who once were not just only in the radical militant Latin American left, but also in the underground clandestine network of organizations in their respective countries became legitimate and exchanged electoral democratic processes for the guerrilla movements they once supported by direct or indirect participation. Those former “guerrilleros”, as someone pointed out recently, have traded their guns for the ballots and radical revolution for “socialism light”. Former defeats have turned into victories as they have become installed in government institutions. They no longer consider themselves “the vanguard of the people” as much anymore but “have learned to listen” to the people who are more ready to vote than to fight. That was not the case before the era of Liberation Theology. The revolution became legislature.

When the Sandinistas were overwhelmingly voted out of office in Nicaragua, the
event sent shock waves through U.S. and European observers and sympathizers who
expected Nicaragua to become the showcase of a neo-socialist incarnation of theoretical Liberation Theology and the People’s Church (“Iglesia Popular”). The disappointment was deep. The Nicaraguan people were left to their own fate as “pansistas” (“bellyists”) by their foreign supporters (as in U.S. liberals) for having “voted with their stomachs” and not with their revolutionary or class interests principles; a sort of trickle down effect slowly dripped down to the rest of Latin America replacing radical ambitions for more populist attitudes.

What changed? Where are things now? The 1980’s and 1990’s saw many countries, in fact most of Latin America, developed into democratic regimes in a region of the world known for the ups and downs of serial revolts, revolutions, coup d'états, and poverty. Where is Latin America heading? Will it become a new world “axis of people’s power”, or will it generate another generation of disappointed citizens looking for yet another way, prone to demagogues, or migration?

Today's Latin America is a very different region from that of 20-30 years ago. Now elections are reasonably consolidated in most countries, and there are no ruling
military governments, except for Cuba. But has it all changed for the better?

Where once the Base Communities, encouraged by Liberation Theology were promise of a commitment toward social and political transformation, now the hope of a coming just social kingdom offered by imported Pentecostal movements finds grounding in the practical aids and services provided by the new churches where governments and old ideologies have fallen short.

In the debate about Liberation Theology in the U.S., Liberation Theology was seen as “liberal theology” and the Base Communities were seen as an anti-hierarchy democratic movement in the Church and thus the Base Communities were seen as free associations of individuals organizing a separate structure outside the Church, indeed as a new Church altogether.

The fact was that the Base Communities could not have happened outside the Church and outside the Church they could not have integrated together an eschatological theology and an utopian hope for a more just society.

One must consider that there was an implied postponement in Liberation Theology and the Base Communities for social change in a future revolutionary society or “when the revolution comes” as was commonly said, in opposition to the more immediate change available at the community and personal level in the Pentecostal movement. The time spent in the Base Communities and Liberation Theology "analyzing reality" was used in the Pentecostal churches actually changing things. The laity was actually empowered, and the clergy came directly from the ranks of the laity, evangelizing became a more personal enterprise and programs that actually changed lives began to take hold, counseling, drug rehabs, etc.

As democracy was established and new social agendas developed, the Church lost its powerful cultural and political dominance and influence; Catholicism found itself just one influence among many in the new pluralism. In Latin America one could wonder whether if by priests introducing Marxism into the pastoral and social analysis of Liberation Theology, clericalism wasn’t reasserting itself again in social and political dominance, if not at least in influence.

The close identification of the Church, in the persons of the clergy and theologians, with a role as agent of social and political change may have had left the laity wondering whether or not the Church is needed any longer to seek spiritual redemption. Perhaps no longer perceived as dedicated to its sacramental role the Church was left without a mission after the advent of democracy. In Latin America, once this process took place, religious needs were left in a vacuum by a secularizing Church, a vacuum which was filled by the Pentecostals because liberation theology and the Base Communities were after all, in praxis, a secularizing project. As someone has said, a bit cruel perhaps, “The Church opted for the poor, and the poor opted for the Pentecostals.

From: "Religion and Democracy in Latin America: Status Quaestionis, The Changing Face of Religion in Latin America and its Possible Impact on American Foreign Policy", José A. Amorós, 2006, Symposium Paper.

Martin: adveritas@charter.net

The beauty of the Church & Her history is that there has been an engagement & dialogue of this nature that is one long, organic, continuous thread throughout her existence. It is exactly this process which reveals the Divine direction & mission which the Church has been charged with, along with the witness to its Divine Guidance.

This article certainly hearkens to the phenomenon within the church that oriented itself exclusively to the horizontal dimension of orthopraxis, with little regard to the vertical dimension of worship & awe due to the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. You cannot have one without the other, because they both form the Cross. But the horizontal flows from the vertical. The Son from the Father. The gifts from the Giver.

One of the best gifts one can offer the Father & his church is to use ones abilities & talents in the "market" of the world, in order to give to or lift the poor from their suffering.

T. Tafesse: tltafesse@yahoo.com

Dr. Gregg

Your Article is interesting. I like issues entertained at Acton. I am a strong proponent of the principles of Liberty Acton promotes. Liberation Theology is complex and has multiple strata. I am not sure Clodovis assertion that "Liberation theology's root error lies in its effective substitution of Jesus Christ with 'the poor' as the 'first operative principle of theology'" is an accurate expression of the objective reality about the movement. I did not read the book. I am not well versed on Liberation Theology (LT). I know a little bit about it. However, I believe the Church need to listen to the voice of Liberation Theology and incorporate many of the concerns of Liberation Theology. It would be, I think, unwise to expect that Liberation Theology "is imploding under the weight of its own ambiguities and the force of decades of powerful critiques". This parameter of ambiguity and Powerful critiques may not be a reliable measure for historically the church has been labeled likewise. I think the Christian Church served as an excellent incubator for the birth of Liberation Theology. We do not have to forget LT is born out of the failure of the church to address real issues to real people. If the church fails to share responsibility for major theological and social crises like this one, I do not see any chance of reconciliation. The hope I see for the crises is a two-way transformation that affects both the church and liberation theology. I don’t think Liberation Theology will implode as far as the issues it raises are not issues that concern the church. Do not forget both Jesus and Liberation theology are poor friendly. So is the church. Who else can be more poor friendly than the church. Unfortunately there are major incidents that the church failed to be poor friendly. I wonder to what extent the church is poor friendly beyond the Sunday pulpit even today. I know this sounds heretic to most of us who are in a position of power and advocates for the church. Despite some major philosophical and theological polarization, there are common grounds between the church and the LT. Considering both the church and LT are for the gospel. I don't think Jesus would condemn LT as much as the church does and did. I don't also think Jesus would applaud the church as much as most of us do and did.

Until the church raise its issues liberation theology probably may revive again in some forms. LT is complex. Don't think it is not attractive. Don't think that it doesn't address any real Jesus issues. Don't think it sounds aweful bad to the millions of voicelss poors around the World. If we do thibk that way we made a grave mistake. Concerning the "Civil war", let us not forget the church has a better and more aggressive and real version of Civil war historically and still today. Do we think the church's theological arguemnt is less militant than the LT? How many apologetic bomb shells fall in our midest in the form of books, sermons and teachings. We still servive by his grace. The issue should be is there any hope of reconcilation between our theologies not whether LT will implode.

Just to mention my concern.

Dwight W. Hayes: DwightWHay365@wacptv.ning.com

"Clodovis asked, would anyone join a Church which essentially considers itself just another social movement?+" I think Clodovis rasises a good point here a question in my minded about the sixties radicalism which suggests change by any means necessary. The moral fabric can not be destroyed by a social political revolution and have a good outcome. It is like throwing the baby out with the bath water to accept a social movement without moral restrictions or to move to a position where change by any means is the goal. Shall we kill all people on earth to bring about peace on earth?. Moral values are important to the success or failure of any movements for social change.

tom faranda: tgfar@aol.com

The above comment is meaningless. "Christians don't join a church. By virtue of their acceptance of the gospel, the(y) become part of the church."

Huh?

Regarding Matthew 25, there's an old Evangelical saying "a text without a context is a pretext." Any biblical quote by itself can be used to justify almost anything.

Chris, you may be a good example of th politicization of the gospel.

Chris Manes: lokicsm@aol.com

You wish. Liberation theology and other alternatives to the institutional church and its identification with market evangelism, will only grow in the future. The failure of historical Christianity to distinguish itself from the rhetoric of exploitation has made it basically irrelevant to growing numbers of real Christians.

As to your question about why would anybody "join" a church that is a social movement (as if churches are like country clubs), the question itself is misplaced. Christians don't join a church. By virtue of their acceptance of the gospel, the become part of the church. And in that context, they will make decisions about their lives to help the needy, the poor and the oppressed -- personal, political and religious decisions. And if they don't, then they really haven't accepted the gospel, as Jesus makes clear in Matthew 25, where the only question Jesus raises to determine who is faithful is how they treated the poor.

'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'

I wonder how Samuel Gregg and the other market evangelists will fare when Jesus raises this issue with them.

Acton Commentary