（https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=10281）
Whither Liberation Theology? A Historical Evaluation
by Paul E. Sigmund
Sophia Institute, January 1, 1987
What is liberation theology? Why has a relatively new theological current in the Roman Catholic Church in Latin America become front page news in the world press? One reason for the attention liberation theology is receiving is the polarization of opinion, pro-and-con, as to its implications. For Cardinal Ratzinger, writing in a private memorandum published in the Italian press in 1984, it is a “fundamental threat to the Faith of the Church.” For the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the Holy Office) in its 1984 Instruction on Certain Aspects of the Theology of Liberation, it “uses concepts uncritically borrowed from Marxist ideology . . . .” To Catholic novelist Walker Percy, it is a “perversion of Christianity . . . . They justify killing (and) joining Marxist- Leninist revolutions.” In September 1984 the Vatican ordered a leading liberation theologian, the Brazilian Franciscan, Leonardo Boff, to observe a period of “penitential silence” beginning in April 1985.
In the United States, the Wall Street Journal frequently has published articles on the subject, and the Departments of State and Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the United States Information Agency have asked theologians to analyze and interpret the implications of liberation theology, especially its revolutionary potential for Latin America and the Philippines. In the last twelve months four major academic conferences have been held at various universities in the United States and Canada, and the founder of the movement, Gustavo Gutierrez, a Peruvian priest, is currently a Visiting Professor at the University of Michigan.
By no means all of the evaluations of liberation theology are hostile. Fidel Castro in 23 hours of interviews with a Brazilian liberation theologian, Frei Betto, published as Fidel and Religion, expressed his enthusiasm for the movement and called for a “strategic and lasting alliance” between Marxists and Christians “to transform the world.” In the United States, leading American theologians such as Robert McAfee Brown and John Coleman, S.J. have described it in enthusiastic terms. Its influence is clear in Social Analysis, an American textbook on religion and social justice by Joe Holland and Peter Henriot, S.J. This book sold 50,000 copies in its 1980 edition and in its second edition continues to be widely used by religious study groups, workshops, and seminars. At the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in Rome in December 1985, the Colombian General Secretary of the Latin American Bishops Conference, Bishop Dario Castrillon Hoyos, attacked liberation theology for using “instruments that are not specific to the Gospel” and for promoting “hate as a system of change.” The president of the Brazilian Bishops Conference replied, “Liberation theology is not a theology that assumes or justifies Marxist ideology. (It) presupposes a new consciousness of the context of oppression . . . a conversion to the poor and a commitment to their liberation. Liberation theology is indispensable to the church’s activity and to the social commitment of Christians.”
In March 1986, the Vatican published a second Instruction on the subject in which, while warning against reducing “the salvific dimension of liberation . . . to the socio-ethical dimension which is a consequence of it,” it supported “the special option for the poor” favored by the liberation theologians, and described the Basic Christian Communities which they had promoted as “a source of great hope for the church.” A few weeks later, the pope himself seemed to endorse the movement when he wrote to the Brazilian bishops that as long as it is in harmony with the teaching of the Church, “we are convinced, we and you, that the theology of liberation is not only timely but useful and necessary. It should constitute a new state — in close connection with the former ones — of theological reflection.”
What is it about liberation theology that elicits such strong opposing responses? To answer this question it is necessary to examine its history and sort out the various elements in what is a complex and evolving current of theological reflection. The term itself is taken from A Theology of Liberation, the title of a book by Gustavo Gutierrez, a Peruvian priest, which was published in Spanish in 1971 and in English two years later. But its essential elements first appeared in the 1960s. The sixties were a period of ferment and revolution both in Latin America and in the Roman Catholic Church. Early in the decade Pope John XXIII had called for an aggiornamento (updating) of the Catholic Church, and had published several socially oriented encyclicals, the best known of which is Pacem in Terris (1963). This encyclical had finally committed the Church to democracy, human rights, and religious freedom.
The commitment was formalized by the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), which ended the self-imposed insulation of the Catholic Church from modernity, opened the church to other religious and philosophical currents, and formally endorsed democratic government and religious pluralism. (See especially two of the Council’s final documents, “The Church in the Modern World,” Gaudium et Spes; and “The Declaration on Religious Freedom,” Dignitatis Humanae.) In a way those documents only recognized changes that had already taken place in contemporary Catholicism. In Europe and Latin America large Christian Democratic parties had emerged which were committed to democracy, freedom, and the welfare state; in Italy, Germany, and Belgium as well as in Venezuela and Chile, they were major contenders for power. These parties had developed as representatives of Catholic social teachings, articulated in papal encyclicals such as Rerum Novarum (1891) and Quadragesimo Anno (1931) which criticized both the egoism of “liberal capitalism” and the collectivism of “atheistic socialism.” However, while the earlier papal writings had proposed a quasi-corporatist political structure which might be either democratic or authoritarian, the Christian Democrats strongly supported pluralistic democracy, human rights, and a mixed economy.
The Second Vatican Council legitimized philosophical and religious pluralism, endorsing dialogue not only with other Christians, Jews, and Moslems but also with agnostics, atheists, and Marxists. Christian-Marxist dialogues had already been taking place in Europe; in Latin America, however, the Church strongly opposed Communism — especially in its Castroite form, which in the wake of the Cuban revolution had acquired a new appeal to intellectuals and youth. Church-inspired labor, youth, and student groups joined with the Christian Democratic Parties to promote democratic reform as a viable alternative to the Cuban model of revolution. In the same period the United States government established the Alliance for Progress to demonstrate that with U.S. financial support democratic governments could promote reforms in land tenure, taxation, education, and social welfare, thereby proving that revolution is not necessary to secure social progress. U.S. and Latin American social scientists wrote about solving the problems of modernization in the Third World by promoting development — especially economic development — which responds to a perceived “revolution of rising expectations.” As millions flocked to Latin America’s already overcrowded major cities, economists argued that the promotion of industrialization through import-substitution and economic integration, as well as agricultural development through agrarian reform, would provide the basis for a democratic response to the underdevelopment of the continent.
（To be continued）
