Liberation Theology: The Preferential Option For The Poor

This article is dedicated to the memory of my courageous and compassionate uncle: Father Peter Windram ( 1935-2000).

I first heard the term liberation theology mentioned, in my late teens, via my uncle ( on one of his occasional visits back home to Hartlepool). He was a Mill Hill missionary priest, working among the poorest of the poor in Brazil, throughout the 1970s and 1980s. I was immediately fascinated by this rather radical, yet most humane and progressive, theology; particularly at the height of Thatcherism, which seemed to me to be incredibly insidious and divisive, here in the U.K. It was alas, a time when greed was glorified, and crude, unregulated capitalism, rampaged like a cruel, relentless tyrant across the nation decimating traditional working- class communities ( especially mining towns). It also seemed to usher in a decidedly superficial age of commodity fetishism and wanton consumerism.

Liberation theology, was born out of the self-theologising of radical Catholic Action communities in Latin America, Such progressive communities were systematically opposed to the trenchant conservative politics of white evangelical America in the U.S. To this day, this conservative strand of ' Christianity' encourages individual charity over economic transformation and distributive social justice so familiar to many living in the richest country in the world.

Liberation theologians considered the Church an egregious failure in its mission to create the Kingdom of God, which they understood in the context of creating a just society on Earth; not some misty paradise beyond the pale of distant clouds, but a world in the here and now. Liberation theology, which coalesced into a movement throughout the 1960s and 1970s, attempted to establish the potential for a return of the role of the Church to the people (similar to the conditions that existed in earliest Christian communities) by nurturing critical-autonomous ‘protagonistic agency’ among the popular sectors; creating the conditions of possibility for consciousness-raising among peasants and proletarianised multitudes.

Time and again history seems to demonstrate the futility of simply denouncing unjust social structures because those whom the structures privilege will never willingly abdicate what they consider to be their birthright. The mere moral exercise of political power through passive protest is not a convincing answer since:

[…] the idea of the moral exercise of political power ignores what political power is: the state is (not as an abuse but by definition) “the monopoly of legitimate violence”. While parts of the state machine may be “very peaceful”, the threat of violence, backed up by armed forces, is always presupposed. And the practice of politics, whether in office or in opposition, is always war (mainly class war) carried on by other means. Non-violent politics is a contradiction in terms (Collier 2001, p. 104)

Henceforth, instead of fighting to change the structures of oppression, many people either focus on remaking themselves as individuals into better persons (there are plenty of self-help books out there) or they become indelibly indifferent to politics or political change. In stark contrast, to this inward looking perspective, liberation theology seeks to change society in a radical way. That's the main reason its critics deride it: They always they present a caricature and fantasy of liberation theology: a politicising theology, Marxist,;a theology that incites violence.

It is accused of advocating class struggle and revolt by those who fail to understand it. It never fails to amaze me that when the poor organise themselves in a struggle for basic human rights they are considered subversive and agitators, whilst the dominant classes refuse to admit their own violence. ( Windram, 1992, p.130

With this in mind, It is very interesting to note that, fairly recently, Pope Francis was accused of being Marxist by the ultra-conservative wing in the United States for his harsh criticism of the dominant neo-liberal economic system.

Furthermore, one of the most widely quoted statements of Dom Helder Camara ( 1909-1999) highlights, and mocks, this short-sighted perspective, 'When I feed the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why so many people are poor they call me a communist' ( Camara, 2000, p.53)

What appears to strike fear in the hearts of conservatives, who use the term 'liberation theology' pejoratively, is the fact that it refers to attempts to bring about the Kingdom of God in the immanent world. The neo - conservatives equate this with socialism, communism and anti-racism. Nevertheless, reading the Gospel from below mandates that such a project is already in the making, with the intervention of Christ into human history. It is rejected by conservatives for fear of the rise of totalitarianism. However, it could be argued that at the root of such, perhaps irrational, fear is the profound panic it cause in the hearts of those who stand to lose their wealth and status should a state of egalitarianism and equality be achieved, 'Very few Christians question the oppression, the exploitation of millions which follows the implanting of the idol- God Moloch, in the name of materialism and profit, nor the violence which is a result of this adoration.' ( Windram,1992, p.91).

It seems that, the most important principle of liberation theology is the preferential option for the poor. The God of Israel is always seen in liberation theology as a God on the side of the oppressed, the weak, orphans and widows; the stranger.

In the Exodus story, God heard the people cry and sided with the Hebrews (later to become the Israelites) against their oppressors the Egyptians.

The book of Proverbs cautions the rich 'Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the LORD will take up their case and will plunder those who plunder them.' (Coogan, 2001, Proverbs 22:22 )

One of the main themes in the Old Testament is that God will pass judgement on human behaviour and intervene in history to punish those who fail to do as they ought. The prophet Amos was particularly vocal in his support of social justice. According to Amos, God had seen the hypocrisy of the religious and political leaders of Israel. He had seen them cheating and exploiting the poor. According to Amos the leaders,'sell the just man for silver, and the poor man for a pair of sandals. They trample the heads of the weak into the dust of the earth, and force the lowly out of the way.' (Coogan, 2001, Amos 2:6-7)

Amos continues to lambast them for their greed and lack of compassion towards the poor and oppressed:

I hate, I spurn your feasts, I take no pleasure in your solemnities; Your cereal offerings. I will not accept, nor consider your stall-fed peace offerings. Away with your noisy songs! I will not listen to the melodies of your harps. But if you would offer me holocausts, then let justice surge like water, and goodness like an unfailing stream. (Coogan, 2001, Amos 5:21-24)

According to Amos, God does not want outward shows of religiosity, he is not interested in ceremonies, instead he wants social justice.

The option for the poor characterised Jesus’ earthly life. He did not live in palaces; he was at home amongst simple people. The poor held first place in his beatitudes. In the parable of the final judgement, he identifies with the most needy. ‘ Constantly Jesus invites rich people to give up their false wealth and join him in solidarity with the poor.’ ( Windram, 1992, p. 131)

Saint Paul perceives the quintessence of Christian faith in God’s preference for revealing himself in the least and the weakest in the world, 'God purposely chose what the world considers nonsense in order to shame the wise; and he chose what the world considers weak in order to shame the powerful.' (1 Cor 1:27) In other words, the option for the poor runs through the Bible like a scarlet thread.

In more recent times, those involved in the ongoing struggle for social justice like Oscar Romero , have much in common with the early Christians in that they are ultimately prepared to sacrifice their own lives for their beliefs.

‘ Ghandi and Martin Luther King are just two examples of a long line of prophetic people who glimpsed the vision which the Kingdom and announced it. They also died because of it.’ ( Windram, 1992, p.131)

Consequently, liberation theologians felt confident about their progressive approach; declaring that the demand for justice was founded on biblical teaching. Liberation theologians use the Bible (not Marx) in order to judge society - and and in their view it was very clear that an unjust society was not what God desired.

This is God in the image of Jesus Christ, who proclaims the good news of the Kingdom of God for the poor. Another principle is the attention that liberation theology always pays attention to the signs of the times. The history of salvation is seen as closely connected to the history of the people of the world. Furthermore, the third principle is that liberation theology seeks to make a contribution to change the world, not just to understand it. That's why it is often equated with Marxism. The option for the poor is rooted in the belief that every human being has been made in the image and likeness of God. And when talking about the terrible human rights violations in El Salvador, Archbishop Romero refers over and over again to man’s likeness to God: (Romero, 2005,II, p.165):

There is no dichotomy between the image of God and man. If you torture a fellow human, if you offend another human, if you destroy another human, you are offending the image of God and the Church feels that this is her martyrdom, her cross. God shows his preference for the poor in his incarnation in Jesus Christ.(Romero, 2005, II: p.165.)

Gustavo Gutiérrez, one of the founders of liberation theology, believed that theology practised from the perspective of the rich did not adequately serve the needs of the poor. To do theology from the perspective of the poor (from the underside of history) one must first live alongside the poor, 'If there is no friendship with them [the poor] and no sharing of the life of the poor, then there is no authentic commitment to liberation, because love exists only among equals.' (Gustavo Gutiérrez, 1971, xxxi)

Furthermore, he believed that traditional Christianity placed too much emphasis on orthodoxy (right belief) and not enough on orthopraxis (right action). The teachings on justice and judgement relate closely to praxis. Gutierrez used the terms first step praxis and second step praxis to show what it meant to practise theology from the perspective of the poor. First step praxis is to become genuinely committed to the poor. Second step praxis is using the Bible to critically reflect upon the commitment to the poor and use the gospel message as a starting point for liberation.

When the renowned professor of linguistics, and political philosopher, Noam Chomsky, was asked in a 2008 interview what the term Catholic Left or Religious Left meant to him, he replied:

Well of course there has been a very significant Catholic Left for a long time. It began to take on a much broader significance in the 1960s as a result of Vatican II and Pope John XXIII, and the moves of the Latin American bishops to adopt what they called the preferential option for the poor, and that brought together many strands: the worker priests in France, the activists in the Latin American church, groups like Catholic Worker and so on. But in Latin America it was a major movement, called Liberation Theology, which effectively was committing a heresy — serious heresy. It was trying to get people to take the gospels seriously, and that is real heresy. The gospels are a radical pacifist text essentially, and in fact that’s why Christians were persecuted so badly in the first few centuries of Christianity. Up until the emperor Constantine took it over, and turned it into the religion of the powerful and the rich. So the cross, which was the symbol of suffering and the poor, was placed on the shields of the Roman Empire. And from then on, essentially, the church has been the church of the rich and the powerful. And the gospels as a heretical document. I mean you can mouth the words, but you’re not supposed to think about it.

( Chomsky, 2008)

Henceforth, liberation theology can be perceived as a way of transcending mere dogma and returning to the true message and spirit of Christianity:

Liberation theology tries to discover the real Jesus Christ and not a manipulated idol, often historically associated with colonising empires and great injustices. It thereby insists on losing its privileged position in society to be the theology of a persecuted church, a martyred church. ( Windram, 1992, p. 133).

It is ultimately concerned with confronting and opposing rigid authority, but only when that authority allows great injustices to be performed in its name. The following quotation from Chomsky really appeals to me because it highlights the tension between political and religious authorities and the radical gospel message:

Actually there’s a marvellous literary portrayal of this is Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov, the Grande Inquisitor section, which describes Jesus coming back to earth, and the Grande Inquisitor finds out about it, and calls Jesus before him and sentences him to death. Because what he’s doing is undermining authority and power, and it’s subversive, and he would destroy a civilization which is based on absolute obedience to higher authority, and people being controlled by imagery, and illusion, and so on. So this guy is really dangerous, and you’ve gotta get rid of him. That essentially captures the mentality of the actual churches that developed, while the Latin American bishops in particular were going back to Christianity, organizing peasants, and base communities to read the gospels, to think about what the meaning was, how they might take their lives into their own hands and so on. And the idea of a preferential option for the poor is really shocking to the powerful. So in fact, the Catholic Left developed in this context. ( Chomsky, 2007)

Unfortunately, during the 1980's, the response on the part of the U.S. government was to aid and abet right wing militias. Consequently, if you look at the famous, or infamous, School of the America’s, now renamed, which trains Latin American officers, they publicly take credit for the fact that the U.S. army helped defeat liberation theology. Furthermore, they defeated it by deploying extreme violence:

So in El Salvador for example, the decade was framed by the assassination of an arch-bishop[ Oscar Romero] while he was reading mass in 1980, and the murder of six leading Jesuit intellectuals in 1989. Had [their] brains blown out by elite forces, armed and trained by the United States, killing tens of thousands of the usual victims in between. Reagan carried out a real, major war against the church. That was one stream. The other stream was the Vatican, which undermined Liberation Theology at every point — much as the Grand Inquisitor explained and for essentially the same reasons. Well that’s the broader context. The Catholic Left developed in the United States partly in that context, partly from its own initiatives.

( Chomsky, 2008)

Unfortunately, as Chomsky correctly points out, the Vatican under John Paul II ( waiting in the wings: 'the power behind the throne';the malevolent influence of one Cardinal Ratzinger,later to become Pope Benedict XVI ) distanced the traditional church from liberation theology and even went to great lengths to oppose and suppress it. Nevertheless, hopefully, there will be a resurgence of this progressive movement in the future. Personally, I think the Vatican has a lot to answer for. By not providing support for the Catholic Left, basically washing its hands of helping genuinely good people to support the poor in their daily struggles, they certainly played a part in allowing them to be unfairly denounced, demonised, dehumanised and ultimately murdered:

Many of the victims of (President) Reagan’s efforts in Central America were nuns, lay workers, and for clear and explicit reasons, which you can see officially stated, like the famous School of America, which trains Latin American officers. One of its advertising points is that the U.S. Army helped defeat liberation theology, which was a dominant force, and it was an enemy because it was working for the poor. ( Chomsky, 2007)

Bibliography/ References:

Camara, H.,P.(2000) in Rocha, Z. Helder, the Gift. A Life That Marked the Course of the Church in Brazil.Petrópolis : Editora Vozes.

Chomsky, N. (2007) Noam Chomsky interviewed by Amina ChaudaryIslamica Magazine, Issue 19, April-May, 2007.Available at.https://chomsky.info/200704 ( Accessed: 4/6/2021)

Chomsky, N. ( 2008) Noam Chomsky interviewed by Joe Tropea. Hit and Stay?documentary, September 24, 2008 Available at. https://chomsky.info/20080924/ ( Accessed 2/06/2021)

Collier, Andrew. 2001.?Christianity and Marxism: A Philosophical Contribution to their Reconciliation. London: Routledge.

Coogan, M.D,. (ed.) (2001) The New Oxford Annotated Bible: With the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, New Revised Standard Version. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gutiérrez, G. (1988) A Theology of Liberation. 2nd edn. Mary Knoll, N.Y: Orbis Books.

Romero, O. (2005) in Maier, M. Mons. Romero and Liberation Theology. Available at.https://www.romerotrust.org.uk/about-trust. Accessed: (1/06/2021)

Windram, P. ( 1992) Priest. Seaton Delaval: The Mustard Seed Project.