Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

A couple of weeks ago, Sandro Magister published an article about a rift that has arisen between the liberation theologian, Leonardo Boff and his brother, Clodovis, also a liberation theologian.  Liberation theology, for those who do not know, began in Latin America in the 1960s but took off in a very rebellious direction in the wake of the Second Vatican Council.  Their rebellion perhaps was encouraged by the lack of consequences associated with the open rebellion of the many theologians who rejected Humanae vitae.

Gustavo Gutiérrez’s book, Liberation Theology, came out at the end of 1971 and formed the seedbed for liberation theologians.  In general, Liberation theology came out of a reaction against a culture prevalent in many countries in Latin America in which the Church hierarchy was often seen as supporting governmental policies and wealthy land owners at the expense of the largely poor population. It had founded itself on Marxist philosophy in which there was assumed to be an inevitable class conflict between the oppressive capitalists (the bourgeoisie) and the working class (the proletariat).  This was probably a result of the influence of socialist revolutions that had begun to occur in many Latin American countries beginning in 1950s.  Liberation theology often sought to refashion the gospel message into one of temporal liberation of the masses from the oppression of the bourgeoisie.  In all too many cases it attenuated or outright rejected the teaching that Christ liberated humanity from the oppression of sin and death.

In 1984 the Holy See, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), came out with an instruction condemning certain aspects of liberation theology. It rejected its foundation on Marxists philosophy that saw class warfare as inevitable, and especially its advocacy of armed struggle against perceived oppressors. It condemned its anti-hierarchical orientation which placed the Church’s hierarchy in the role of oppressor. It warned against pitting so-called “orthopraxy” (right behavior/practice) against “orthodoxy” (right belief) as justification for rejecting authoritative Church teaching and making the former the only criterion for discerning theological truth. It rejected the overturning of the Church’s teaching that Jesus came to establish His heavenly kingdom with the proposition that He came to inaugurate, by His example, class warfare which would bring about a solely secularized Kingdom of God on earth.

While some liberation theologians actually, in public at least, took heed of some of these cautions, Leonardo and his brother, Clodovis, did not. Leonardo, a Franciscan, lost his teaching faculties as a Catholic theologian in 1985. He eventually abandoned his religious vows, left the Franciscan order and married.

Clodovis remained committed to his brother’s liberationist views for many years. While Clodovis was never disciplined by Rome, he was denied his teaching faculties by his order, the Servants of Mary. However, he never left his order. Recently, Clodovis has come to accept the major errors of liberation theology. Magister provides an English translation from the Portuguese of some of the central points that Clodovis, now a member of Communion and Liberation, makes about the problems with liberation theology:

“Nothing but dismal effects can follow from this error of principle. [...] When the poor acquire the status of an epistemological ‘primum’, what happens to the faith and its doctrine on the theological and pastoral level? [...] The inevitable result is the politicization of the faith, its reduction to an instrument for social liberation.”

The consequences are also grave for the life of the Church:

“The ‘pastoral action of liberation’ becomes one of the many branches of the ‘popular movement’. The Church becomes like an NGO, and so also loses substance physically: it loses workers, militants, and faithful. Those ‘on the outside’ feel little attraction for a ‘Church of liberation’, because the militants already have NGO’s, while for religious experience they need much more than simple social liberation. Moreover, because of the failure to perceive the social extent and relevance of the current spiritual malaise, liberation theology shows itself to be culturally myopic and historically anachronistic, or alienated from its time.”

In the second part of the essay, the author shows how liberation theology can “save itself” through its positive fruits only by returning to its original foundation. Which is found in the final document of the conference in Aparecida.

This document – he writes – is a “clear demonstration” of how a correct connection can be made between faith and liberating action. Unlike liberation theology, which “begins with the poor and arrives at Christ,” Aparecida “begins with Christ and arrives at the poor,” clearly establishing that “the Christ-principle always includes the poor, but the poor-principle does not necessarily include Christ. [...] The original source of theology is nothing other than faith in Christ.”

Clodovis does not reject the idea of a liberation theology but he now recognizes that it must be grounded in the truth of the gospel message–it must be Christocentric. Leonardo’s response to his brother’s return to Mother Church? Magister writes:

Leonardo Boff concedes that his brother’s intention is not that of rejecting liberation theology entirely, but of “restoring it to its original foundations, because it can be saved only in this way.”

But he adds:

“This is an intention that to me is the equivalent of saying: My brother, I stab you in the heart, but relax, it’s for your own good.”

It is interesting that Leonardo sees this as a betrayal by his brother. He obviously places a high premium on fidelity and loyalty. However, his disloyalty to the truth of the faith and his embrace of his destructive personal opinions as the “truth” that everyone else must accept has led too many people astray. Perhaps the wayward Boff will one day see the irony in his own words about his brother: Leonardo Boff’s infidelity to his religious vows has placed his hands on the spear that pierced his Master’s side.