The Nobel-winning physicist Robert B. Laughlin said that
“conflict through debate is a powerful
means of revealing truth.” It is in
that spirit that I publish this response to a criticism posted on Tim’s El Salvador Blog of the views expressed in this site regarding Liberation Theology. In part, I respond because I
thought the criticism was well-formulated.
But I also respond because I think the criticism misapprehends my
positions. According to the poster,
the analysis of the Super
Martyrio blog on liberation theology is reprehensible. Apparently, liberation
theology is an abstract noun—no people, no texts, only a straw-man about whom
you can impute what you want; just as in the Vatican instructions. So who are
these mysterious liberation theologians whom Romero rejects? Gustavo Gutierrez
from whom he took a course and with whom he spoke on the phone just a month
before his assassination? Jon Sobrino? Who helped draft Romero's 2nd pastoral
letter & Louvain address? Ellacuria? Who helped draft the 4th pastoral
letter? Rutilio Grande? Whose death caused such a profound change in Romero?
Alfonso Navarro? Need we go on?
Yes, there were some
liberation theologies with which Romero had differences, but blanket statements
like those of Carlos distort the truth and are spread by those who wish to
blunt or domesticate the prophetic ministry of Romero.
Generally, I have no trouble conceding that my analysis
of Liberation Theology tracks the Vatican instructions of 1984 and 1986. However, I reject that I have made “blanket statements” that present
Liberation Theology as an amorphous mass “about
[which] you can impute what you want.”
Neither I nor the Vatican’s instructions do that. From the first time I posted on the subject,
I opened with the proposition that Liberation Theology “has never been entirely rejected by the Church” (September 5, 2010 post—in Spanish). In that post, I specified
that I only separate Romero from Liberation Theology in three discrete areas in
which L.T. astrays from Catholic doctrine: (1) in its use of Marxist analysis;
(2) in countenancing violence under the rubric of “class struggle;” and (3) in rejecting
orthodox notions of ecclesiology (same).
Romero parts company with any Liberation Theology that seeks to do these
three things. But he accepts some of its
other premises. In the same post, I
point to Romero’s adoption of the three guiding principles accepted by John
Paul II at Puebla (the teachings relating to Christ, the Church, and mankind),
later identified by Cardinal Ratzinger as the pillars of authentic Christian
Liberation. And in a subsequent piece (April 26, 2011 post), I identify, by name,
which Liberation Theologians Romero read, and which he did not. Thus, the criticism that my analysis fails to
distinguish lines of theology or theologians is without merit.
The poster also argues that I construct a ‘straw man’
argument. A ‘straw man’ argument is when
a debater “creates the illusion of having
refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet
unequivalent proposition (the ‘straw man’), and [purports] to refute it, without ever having actually
refuted the original position” (Wikipedia).
Yet an obvious straw man appears in my critic’s post, when he asks, “So who are these mysterious liberation
theologians whom Romero rejects?”
Answer: as explained above, I never posited that Romero rejected
individual liberation theologians, personally.
Instead, I have acknowledged Romero’s personal friendships with
Liberation Theologians: “He grew to admire and know many of them personally
and he appreciated their genuine commitment to the poor,” I wrote in my April
26, 2011 post. Accordingly, the poster
is refuting a position I specifically did not take, and not my more nuanced
actual position, which acknowledges the friendships and collaborations Romero
undertook with particular individuals.
(For example, in my June 20, 2012 post, I described Archbishop Romero’s
history with Fr. Sobrino, whom I said I held in “near moral equivalency with the martyrs” because he was targeted
for assassination but only escaped death because of a fortuity.)
In general, the poster overstates the degree to which
Romero depended on the enumerated adherents of Liberation Theology. For example, there is no evidence that Romero
ever took a course from Gustavo Gutiérrez.
Not in Romero’s very detailed diary, not in any biography of Romero that
I am aware of, or even in Gutiérrez’s principal speeches and writings that
relate to Romero. Although Jon Sobrino
did collaborate with Romero, by Father Sobrino’s own admission, the draft that
he wrote for Romero’s second pastoral letter was almost entirely rejected, and
substantially reworked by Romero.
Similarly, Ignacio Ellacuría’s contribution to Romero’s fourth
pastoral letter was limited. Ellacuría was
one of several priests who advised Romero regarding the document, and the
principal drafting/revision was handled by another cleric, Fr. Fabián Amaya,
according to Romero’s diary. A recent
book about Ellacuría limits his contribution to serving as “inspiration” for a single section of Romero’s
letter. Love that Produces Hope: The Thought of Ignacio Ellacuría, edited
by María Pilar Aquino, Kevin F. Burke, Robert Anthony Lassalle-Klein. Liturgical Press, 2006.
Finally, we must be careful not to mistake Romero’s
magnanimity and desire to be inclusive to be an indication that he allowed a
particular segment to hijack his ministry.
If Romero sought to incorporate the school of Liberation Theology into
his project, it was to obtain their input and avail himself of their expertise,
together with that of other sectors to which he reached out during his archbishopric.
Interpretations [that emphasize
Romero’s] liberationist outlook may fail to adequately reflect an equally
important dimension of his life and work that is highlighted in his personal
diary: his commitment to unity … It involved overcoming divisions in the church
and in society, and also overcoming divisions between the church and
society. Appreciating Romero’s concern
for unity and therefore his Christian sense of reconciliation is at least as
important for an understanding of his theology, ministry and life journey as
understanding his Christian sense of liberation.
Latin
America Between Conflict and Reconciliation, edited by Martin
Leiner, Susan Flämig. Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2012.
As I wrote in my original response to this poster on
Tim’s Blog, I do not purport to be an expert in Liberation Theology, as I am
not specially trained or a theologian.
While I very well may be mistaken in some of my expressions regarding
this subject, I do not believe that I have committed the systemic errors
ascribed to me by my critic. I have
simply sought to point out that the generalized statement often advanced, that
Romero was a believer or practitioner of Liberation Theology,
has significant limitations, which Romero himself, often times, was eager to
point out.
See also:
My professed P.O.V.
The Blog's "Thesis" (in Spanish)
See also:
My professed P.O.V.
The Blog's "Thesis" (in Spanish)
No comments:
Post a Comment