This is a continuation of the previous blogs (http://d.hatena.ne.jp/itunalily2/20170703)(http://d.hatena.ne.jp/itunalily2/20170704)(http://d.hatena.ne.jp/itunalily2/20170706)(http://d.hatena.ne.jp/itunalily2/20170708)(http://d.hatena.ne.jp/itunalily2/20170710). They are excerpts. (Lily)
If an outside observer who is not a theologian, but is a social scientist, could be permitted to make some suggestions as to ‘topics to be discussed in the new series — topics which might respond more adequately to the criticisms which have been made of the earlier writings — the following are some questions to be explored:
(1) Does theological reflection on the experience of the poor and oppressed always lead to the conclusion that capitalism must be replaced by a socialist system? If not, are there alternatives which combine the efficiency of the market with the equity of the “preferential love for the poor”? If socialism is the alternative, what would an ideal socialist state look like?
(2) What is the relation of private property and liberation? Must the former always be viewed as an obstacle to liberation? Or are there important ways, for instance, in which the small family farm or innovative new business can free man from oppression, whether by private interests or public authorities?’
(3) How can human:tights — especially but not only the rights of the poor — be best promoted in the modern state? What is the place of courts, or private groups, and of the media in guaranteeing those rights? Does the dialectical approach that many liberation theologians employ make a theory of rights conceptually difficult to develop? Does the preference for the poor imply a kind of “affirmative action” that may undermine the ideal of equal treatment under law?
(4) What is liberation theology’s settled attitude toward the re-democratization of Latin America? Is it to be rejected as “fraudulent,” as was the case in the early 1970s? Can the fragile new democracies of Latin America promote participation and greater opportunity for the poor and oppressed, or is total socialist transformation — all or nothing — the only possibility? If the latter, what lessons in revolutionary praxis, in terms of its impact on the well-being of the poor, are to be drawn from the failure of the revolutionism of Latin America in the 1960s?
(5) What is the “prophetic” role of the theologian? Is it only to remind the people of their moral duties to others, especially to the poor and oppressed? Or are there more specific criticisms, denunciations, and proposals that theologians can offer? Does the Bible in fact offer a blueprint for the good society? Do not those liberation theologians who believe that it does, run the same risk of identifying a particular ideology with God’s purpose in history, similar to that run by the right-wing Catholic integralists and reformist Christian Democrats whom they denounce?
(6) Finally, if the cure for the weaknesses and failures of democracy is more democracy, should not the liberation theologians devote their primary energies to developing a spirituality of socially-concerned democracy (whether capitalist or socialist in its economic form), rather than to denouncing dependency, imperialism, and capitalist exploitation? If those theories are inadequate explanations of poverty and underdevelopment (“the rich are not rich because the poor are poor”), should not the very considerable abilities of the liberation theologians now be devoted to promoting democratic participation, protecting human rights, and satisfying basic needs — rather than to the sterile revolutionism that characterized their earlier writings?
It took the official Roman Catholic church a century and a half to recognize that democracy and freedom were central elements in the Christian message. As I hope this essay has shown, it has taken only two decades for it to relate that message to human liberation. The secular left earlier defined liberation either as the overthrow of capitalism and the abolition of private ownership of the means of production (Marx) or as the extension of democracy and equality to all human beings, regardless of sex, race, or social class (Rousseau). Liberation theology will have to choose which it is to represent — democracy or revolution.
© Crisis Magazine
We encourage you to visit the Archive section of Crisis Magazine. They have undertaken the monumental task of making available every issue of the print edition of Crisis Magazine from its founding in 1982 until it transitioned to an online-only resource in 2007. There is much worthwhile material to peruse.
・This item 10281 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
(End)
