Showing posts sorted by date for query LIBERATION THEOLOGY. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query LIBERATION THEOLOGY. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, November 12, 2024

Activist Bishop William Barber slams Dems for abandoning the working poor

Screengrab
Rev. William J. Barber II delivers soaring sermon in honor of Martin Luther King Jr.



Amy Goodman
DEMOCRACY NOW!
November 11, 2024


“Why is it that the issues that most of the public agrees with — healthcare, living wages, voting rights, democracy — why is it that those issues weren’t more up front?” We speak to Bishop William Barber about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’s failed election campaigns, Donald Trump’s election as president and the urgent need to unite the poor and working class. Barber is the national co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, president and senior lecturer at Repairers of the Breach and a co-author of the book White Poverty: How Exposing Myths About Race and Class Can Reconstruct American Democracy. He urges the Democratic Party to recenter economic security and poverty alleviation in its platform and draws on historical setbacks for U.S. progressive policies to encourage voters to “get back up” and “continue to fight.”democracynow.org





This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Donald Trump and his allies celebrated his election victory with calls to implement the far-right policy plan to overhaul the federal government, known as Project 2025, as Republicans also took the Senate and will probably take the House.

Meanwhile, at the White House, President Biden Thursday said he had called President-elect Trump to congratulate him and promised a peaceful transition of power.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: The struggle for the soul of America, since our very founding, has always been an ongoing debate and still vital today. I know for some people it’s a time for victory, to state the obvious. For others, it’s a time of loss. Campaigns are contests of competing visions. The country chooses one or the other. We accept the choice the country made. I’ve said many times, you can’t love your country only when you win. You can’t love your neighbor only when you agree.

Something I hope we can do, no matter who you voted for, is see each other not as adversaries, but as fellow Americans, bring down the temperature. I also hope we can lay to rest the question about the integrity of the American electoral system. It is honest, it is fair, and it is transparent. And it can be trusted, win or lose.


AMY GOODMAN: President Biden spoke in the Rose Garden a day after Vice President Kamala Harris conceded her loss in a speech at her alma mater Howard University.
VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: While I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fueled this campaign.


AMY GOODMAN: We begin our look at where Democrats went wrong with Bishop William Barber, national co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, which sought to increase voting among low-income residents, an often ignored but massive bloc. He’s a senior lecturer of Repairers of the Breach and founding director of the Center for Public Theology and Public Policy at Yale Divinity School, co-author of the new book White Poverty: How Exposing Myths About Race and Class Can Reconstruct American Democracy.

Bishop Barber, welcome back to Democracy Now! Talk about what you think happened in this election. Respond to Trump’s presidency and where you think the Democrats went wrong.

BISHOP WILLIAM BARBER II: Well, thank you, Amy, for getting up this morning and continuing to say “Democracy Now!”

You know, we’ve got a lot of questions that we must wrestle with deeply. We can’t be flippant or knee-jerk in this moment. We have to deal with the fact that America has often chosen wrong and had to pay for it later. We have to look at the fact that this week 71 million, 72 million people chose to return Donald Trump to the White House despite his vitriol, his anger, his regressiveness, his outright racism and lean toward fascism. And we may not know exactly what he’s going to do, and it may take him doing it to the point that even his followers are hurting so bad that they admit, they ask the question, “What did we do?”


But Nikole Hannah-Jones said something the other day, and I shared it with my co-chair Liz Theoharis, and she reminded us that 60 years after America’s first attempt at Reconstruction in the 1920s, right after the election of 18— excuse me, of 1865, 1866, in that area, the majority of Americans went back and embraced white supremacy. And if we think about where we are, we’re 60 years now after the ’60s, after the white Southern strategy.

And what did we see the other day? We’ve got to ask a deep question. We saw most Americans, many Americans did not vote. Trump got 2 million, almost 3 million votes less than he did in 2020. Harris received almost 13 million, 14 million votes less than her and Biden received in 2020. They got 81 million votes. A lot of people just didn’t vote.

And what’s the reason? We know that in 2020, when Harris and — Biden and Harris focused on living wages and voting rights out front, that they got 56% of the votes of those that make less than $50,000 a year in a family of four. But this year, the exit polls show that it was even, 49-49. Trump came up, Democrats went down. And the question becomes: Why? Did we adequately focus on the 30 million poor, low-wage, infrequent voters that held the key to the largest swing vote in the country? We reached out to more than 12 million of those persons.

We’ve got some serious questions to wrestle with. Did white women, for instance, who are against taking abortion rights, then — but also voted for Trump and chose Trump? They’re with Harris on the abortion issue but not for presidency. Where did Hispanic men turn out? We have a lot of wrestling to do. Why is it that the issues that the most of the public agrees with — healthcare, living wages, voting rights, democracy — why is it that those issues weren’t more up front? And why is it that persons would choose to vote against — for someone who’s diametrically against the very things that the percentage of the people say that they are for? We have some serious issues.


What we don’t now have the option to do is to give up. You know, I do think there were some failures also in the media. You know, we didn’t have — I didn’t see one debate where there was a focus on poverty and low wage, even though 800 people are dying a day from poverty, even though you have a million — over 32 million people making less than a living wage. We haven’t raised the minimum wage since 2009. Not one major debate. You didn’t hear about it in the Congress. Why didn’t the Democrats, for instance, bring up living wage in the Senate before the election and force a vote on it, to expose where the Republican Party actually stood on this critical issue? Because everywhere that raising the minimum wage and paid family leaves and things that matter was on the ballot, they won. They won, in Missouri, in Alaska, in places like that. We have some serious questions to ask.

But we also — lastly, Amy, I have to also say something. Somebody said Trump has a mandate. Nobody has a mandate to overturn the Constitution. Nobody has a mandate to engage something like Project 2025 to try to take us backwards and undo progress. Nobody has a mandate to say we’re not going to address people who are literally dying from the ravages of poverty. Nobody has a mandate to say we’re going to take away people’s healthcare.

We have to get up every morning from now until and still, with every nonviolent tool in our disposal, and challenge any form of regression, regardless of who is in office. And I thought about this. When Plessy v. Ferguson came down in 1896, the activists that chose against “separate but equal” fought 58 years, 58 years until they overturned it. They got up, and they continued to battle. And so, when we get up this morning, we’ve got to go back to the same kind of strength the people had when they woke up in 1877 and there was an election to turn back America; or when 1896 happened, Plessy v. Ferguson; or 1914, when a white supremacist entered the White House, played Birth of a Nation in his Oval Office; in 1955, when they woke up, and Emmett Till was killed; in 1963, when four girls were killed in Birmingham church; 1963, when a president was assassinated; 1968, when Martin King was assassinated. People had to own their tears, own their pain, own their frustration, but then still get back up and declare that we will still fight for this democracy, and we’ll not just go away and slink away into the dark.

AMY GOODMAN: So, I wanted to go to independent Senator Bernie Sanders tweeting, “It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they’re right.”


Well, the DNC Chair Jaime Harrison called Sanders’s statement “straight up BS.” He said, “Biden was the most-pro worker President of my life time.”

And then there was also the comment of David Brooks, who is the well-known columnist in the paper. And I wanted to go to that column. He wrote in a piece headlined “Voters to Elites” — this is The New York Times opinion columnist David Brooks — “Do You See Me Now?” — he said, “I’m a moderate. I like it when Democratic candidates run to the center. But I have to confess that Harris did that pretty effectively and it didn’t work. Maybe the Democrats have to embrace a Bernie Sanders-style disruption — something that will make people like me,” David Brooks wrote, “feel uncomfortable.”

So, if you can —

BISHOP WILLIAM BARBER II: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: — respond to that and give us the facts on the number of people we’re talking about in this country? And, of course, it’s not just about numbers. It’s about what people are dealing with, millions of people all over this country, and they could vote.

BISHOP WILLIAM BARBER II: Right. And, Amy, what we’ve got to do is get out of our feelings. It’s a total different thing to say our policies were such and such and such, and we helped people, and whether or not that was articulated and whether or not people got it. For instance, we know that, yes, we need tax credits, child tax credit, and we support that. And yes, we need healthcare, money for housing, new housing. We’re clear about that. We support that. But to say, “Wait a minute. We have to take a look at where we were and what’s going on. Is it a messaging? What is it?” Because what we know is in every — around this country, raising, for instance, the minimum wage, that would affect 32 million people who live every day for less than a living wage. For instance, yes, we need to deal with price gouging, but people also need money to buy goods, buy gas, buy whatever. And we have not raised the minimum wage, Democrats or Republican. We’ve sat on this issue now for 15 years. We’re talking about 140 million poor and low-wage people. We’re talking about 43% of our country that’s poor and/or low-wealth. We’re talking about adult population, people who make less — who are $500 away from economic ruin. We’re talking about 800 people that die per day. This is not hyperbole. And we have to be able to talk about this.

And to talk about it is not to say that a candidate was wrong. It is to evaluate what is going on and what is going to be our position. And why, for instance, why, for instance, that we did not make a determined effort right up front that every time we opened our mouths, we said, “Listen, if you elect Democrats, from the presidency to the Congress, in the first 50 days, first hundred days, we’re going to raise the minimum wage to at least $15 or a little bit more”? We have the data. Three Nobel Peace Prize economists won the Nobel Peace proving that raising the minimum wage would not hurt jobs, would not force more taxes and would not make prices rise. At some point, we have to take this very seriously.

And, you know, I know people — everybody’s in their emotions, and should be. Now, that’s not the only issue, though. And I would agree with Jaime in this. That’s not the only issue. There’s a lot of issues. We’ve got to — that’s why we have to drill down on this. What factor did race play? What factor did sexuality play and gender play? But we have to take serious that the fundamental issues — even in Mississippi, 66% of Republicans now say that they want healthcare, that they support the Affordable Care Act, or what we used to call Obamacare. We have to take seriously, when we look at these other states — when living wages was on the ballot, it won. You know, do need to then make sure that across the country we have these things on the ballot? But what we can’t do is walk away from them.

So, we have to do introspection. We have to look at why there was less voting. We have to look at why, when — and I remember in 2020 when Biden and Harris — when they were running. Every time they talked, they said, “If you elect us, we’re going to do living wages and healthcare and voting rights.” Fifty-six percent of those who make less than $50,000 a year supported that ticket. Also, we have to own the fact that some of this is not Biden or Harris or anybody’s fault. It started when the Democrats brought up for a vote to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and eight Democrats joined every Republican and blocked it, blocked it in the United States Senate, after it passed the House. We can’t have Democrats running rogue when they have power and voting against something at that time would have impacted 55 million people. And it would still be at 55 million if Biden had not and Harris had not increased the minimum wage for federal workers. But you run rogue when you have power, and then when you come back to the people for election, you say, “We are with you.” People are hurting out here. People are dying out here. And until we can face poverty and low wages in this country, we’re talking about 66 million white people. We’re talking about 26 million Black people, 60% of Black people, 30% of white people, 68% of Latino, 68% of Indigenous people. We cannot walk away from this issue.

And lastly, we cannot allow people to suggest that if you focus on this issue, that it’s a far-left issue. It’s an American issue. It’s a moral issue. It is a — the level of poverty and low wages in this country is a violation of our claim of our Constitution to establish justice and promote the general welfare. It is disgusting and damnable that we’ve not had a full-on dealing with this issue in the media, in the halls of Congress and in our election. Not one presidential candidate was asked at any of the two debates that were held, “Where would you — do you stand on the issue of poverty and low wages? And what are your plans to address it? And how will you lead this country?” For issues that affect nearly 50% of the population. We’ve got to face this issue.

And that’s why one of the things I’m saying, Amy, you know, Venice Williams said something in a poem that all of us ought to read. It said — she said this:

“You are awakening to the
same country you fell asleep to.
The very same country.

Pull yourself together.

And,
when you see me,
do not ask me
'What do we do now?' or
'How do we get through the next four years?'

Some of my Ancestors dealt with
at least 400 years
under worse conditions.”

She said:

“Continue to do the good work.
Continue to build bridges and not walls.
Continue to lead with compassion.
Continue to demand
the liberation of all.”

I would add to that, continue and seriously fight for living wages and healthcare and the end to genocide around the world and the end to the battle of war in Gaza. Continue, continue the fight for women’s rights. Continue to fight for children. Continue to fight to expand voting rights.

How much of this low vote was because of voter suppression? Why is it in a state like North Carolina, for instance, all of the Democrats at the top of the ticket won, and yet the presidency did not win? We have to deal with some serious questions. We can’t get in our emotions. We’ve got to ask serious questions because we have serious pain out here, that people are hurting, and millions of them didn’t vote either way. They just didn’t vote. I want people to hear that. The vote totals went down. They didn’t go up. They went down. And we have to take this very seriously.

Wednesday, November 06, 2024

Why are some Christians opting for the American Solidarity Party?

(RNS) — The American Solidarity Party is gaining traction with a subset of highly engaged Christian voters who see their pro-life commitments as more expansive than just opposing abortion.


Peter Sonski, presidential candidate of the American Solidarity Party, with running mate Lauren Onak. Courtesy American Solidarity Party website.
Aleja Hertzler-McCain
November 4, 2024

(RNS) — Some Christians who consider themselves more “pro-life” than just anti-abortion have had enough.

Disenchanted with Donald Trump and no longer home in a party that this summer abandoned its plank opposing abortion, this subset of highly engaged Christian voters has been turning to the eight-year-old American Solidarity Party.

“The weird way that the two-party system here has grown means that you kind of have to pick which vulnerable person you want to help protect. And a lot of people just get tired of that,” said Lauren Onak, the party’s vice presidential candidate, who is a stay-at-home mom and self-described “community organizer” from a Boston suburb.

Onak cites both “the unborn” and “people living in Gaza” as examples of concerns close to their hearts that neither major party consistently defends.


Discussed since 2011 but only legally incorporated in 2016, the party calls itself “the fastest-growing political party in the United States.” In its first presidential cycle, its candidate drew 6,697 votes, then 42,305 in the 2020 presidential campaign. This year, the party is on the ballot in six states and has write-in access in the majority.

Peter Sonski, the party’s presidential candidate, is a highly involved Catholic, as is Onak. While the party has attracted some high-profile evangelical Christian boosters, many of the most enthusiastic supporters of the party are Catholic, and the party’s platform closely resembles the Vatican’s guidance on public policy issues and Catholic social teaching.

Pope Francis has called both Kamala Harris and Trump “against life” for their stances on abortion and migration, respectively.
RELATED: Pope slams Harris and Trump on anti-life stances, urges Catholics to vote for ‘lesser evil’

Sonski, a graduate of The Catholic University of America, worked for eight years as director of communications at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, and previously served as assistant editor at the National Catholic Register, owned by EWTN News.

The father of nine, who lives in Connecticut, is against the death penalty and assisted suicide and has served in local office for more than 12 years, most recently on his local board of education.

American Media podcast host Gloria Purvis, a former host of an EWTN radio show, has educated Catholics about the American Solidarity Party.

“It’s no secret that Harris-Walz is pro-abortion,” she told RNS. “That’s not news, but what is news to many is that Trump-Vance support abortion and IVF and a host of other anti-life positions. What’s also news to people is that there is a third party that doesn’t support any of that.” Purvis has also said the “racist rhetoric” of the Trump campaign undermines “a culture of life.”


A supporter of Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris, left, argues about abortion rights with supporters of Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump, protesting alongside an event kicking off a national “Reproductive Freedom Bus Tour” by the Harris-Walz campaign, Tuesday, Sept. 3, 2024, in Boynton Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell)

The ASP platform opposes abortion, in-vitro fertilization, the death penalty, euthanasia, no-fault divorce, same-sex marriage, gestational surrogacy, pornography, cash bail, federal subsidies for fossil fuels, highway expansion, most military intervention and American arms sales to foreign countries. It promotes guaranteed universal health care, labor unions, “generous” asylum policies, a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children and subsidies for Indigenous land restoration.

Its candidates speak the language of Catholic social teaching, and Onak’s underlined the importance of local political races. “The Solidarity approach is building up communities,” she said. “It’s based on the principle of subsidiarity; the people closest to a decision should be stakeholders in making that decision.”

Onak emphasized that, while driven by Christian thinking, the party embraces religious pluralism and is not a Christian nationalist movement. Instead its leaders apply Christian ideas “to policy in ways that can help everyone,” noting that “everybody comes with their perspective.

Six party members are currently in local elected office, and beyond the Sonski-Onak ticket, 13 are running for office: three for the U.S. Senate, one for the U.S. House of Representatives, two for state legislatures, two for other state positions, and five for the Lombard library board in Illinois.

Of those, only two are women. Onak said that while many couples are involved in the party, often only one spouse runs for office, adding, “There can be for women, at least in my experience, a sort of intimidation around politics or thinking that you need to be an expert to jump in,” a misconception she is working to dispel.

Onak voted for the American Solidarity Party presidential candidate in 2020, but first logged on to a party meeting shortly after the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

Having grown up in a Democratic family, she said she became a single-issue abortion Republican voter in college. But witnessing the events of Jan. 6 and their fallout “and realizing that people had really stopped communicating and trying to see things from each other’s point of view,” Onak said, “I felt like I needed to contribute to the political world in a way that felt positive, that felt in line with my values.”

“I felt like my children would ask me, what did you do to make things better?” she said, “and I wanted to have an answer.”

While Catholics have taken the most prominent roles in the party, particularly this election cycle, some Protestants have become vocal advocates. Matthew Martens, a lawyer and author of the 2023 book “Reforming Criminal Justice: A Christian Proposal,” has written several articles, many social media posts and appeared on a Christianity Today podcast speaking about his support for the party.

Martens said his affiliation as a Southern Baptist may cause people to draw certain political conclusions; he’s largely voted Republican, but never for Trump. “I believe based on the teaching of Scripture that the fundamental obligation of government is to protect innocent life at all its stages,” Martens said. “When I have the major party candidates of both parties disclaiming that obligation, I don’t think I can, as a moral matter, vote for them,” he said.

Martens occasionally disagrees with the party on tactical issues but wholeheartedly supports its goals. “I haven’t found Protestants who are put off by the platform merely because it has a close alignment with Catholic social teaching.”

Sonski and Onak are not the only faith-based alternative candidates inspired by dissatisfaction with the two major parties. Running to the left of the Democrats is Cornel West, the Dietrich Bonhoeffer professor of philosophy and Christian practice at Union Theological Seminary, who is on the ballot in 16 states, according to his campaign.

RELATED: Cornel West, Robert George mark Jan. 6 anniversary with call for courageous leaders

West’s campaign says his campaign began during a “national crisis of moral bankruptcy and spiritual obscenity driven by a derelict duopoly of both major parties that equally places profits over people and the planet.” His vice presidential candidate, Melina Abdullah, is Muslim.

Also running on the left is Claudia De la Cruz, of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, which is on the ballot in 18 states. De la Cruz, a graduate of Union Theological Seminary and former pastor of a United Church of Christ church, cites liberation theology as the inspiration for her organizing work.



A “Your Voice Matters” sign at First United Methodist Church in Madison, Wis., Wed., Oct. 30, 2024. (RNS photo/Bob Smietana)


In an incredibly close race between Trump and Harris, the votes that go to third-party candidates in swing states could decide the race. De la Cruz and West are on the ballot in Wisconsin, and West is also on the ballot in Georgia, North Carolina and Michigan.

According to Onak, taking votes from the major parties is part of the long-term strategy of the party because she sees it as a vehicle to effect policy change. “If every pro-lifer voted for us this campaign, the GOP would definitely think twice about having taken out language from its platform, which they did, protecting the unborn,” she said.

But their policy supporting direct cash payments to families has gained traction in both parties, she said, explaining they hope to drive support for their other policy priorities.

Podcast host Purvis said her hope for Catholics is that “we can again not be consumed by idolatry and seduced by temporal power and choose to follow the risen Christ who’s often found in the face of the poor and the oppressed,” and that “Catholics will not be beholden so much to parties that don’t speak for them.”

She also hopes that “the American Solidarity Party is able to change the conversation and the outlook of American politics writ large.”

Ultimately, Onak said that seeing people become reengaged and hopeful about the political process has been the best part of the campaign.

“We want to give you someone to vote for and not against, and we think candidates should earn your vote, not scare you enough that you vote for their opponent,” she said. “We really want people to be able to walk away from the ballot box on election day feeling good about their choice.”
Opinion

Remembering Gustavo Gutiérrez

(RNS) — A group of priests, most of us working in parishes in the slums, met with Gutiérrez to talk about our experiences. Only later did we realize that what he told us in return were the first moments of what would come to be called liberation theology.


Peruvian theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez attends a news conference at the Vatican, May 12, 2015. (AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino)

Joseph Nangle
October 30, 2024

(RNS) — On an ordinary weekday in the basement of a downtown church in Lima, Peru, in the late 1960s, a gathering of priests, most of them working in slum parishes, heard theology being done in an entirely new way: from the bottom up, based on day-to-day events, working from practice to theory.

Only later did we realize that something quite remarkable was taking place, and that we were experiencing the first moments of what would come to be called liberation theology.

The leader of the group was the Rev. Gustavo Gutiérrez, a Catholic priest who was leading the discussion that day. It was there that I first heard Gutiérrez, who died Oct. 22, say, “I think the Exodus story in the Hebrew Scriptures has much to do with what we are doing here — the movement of a people from slavery to freedom: liberation.”

For several months he had invited us to meet with him weekly and share our pastoral experiences from the slum parishes where most of us we worked. Gustavo would simply listen as we spoke of the events taking place in our ministries, then, at the end, sum up what he had been hearing. We never sensed he was there to instruct or correct us. In fact, he sometimes remarked that the events we were describing were “the raw material for his theologizing.”

As the term “liberation theology” went viral, Gustavo expanded his initial reflections on this process, saying we were grappling with a fundamental question: Does God’s Word (the Holy Scriptures) have anything to say to the poor of the earth? The best way to begin answering that question, he said, was to look at the experience all around us in the so-called Third World of poor, marginalized, oppressed human beings.

Today the answer to that question and its instinctive affirmative reply is readily agreed upon: “Yes, of course, a principal theme in God’s Word to us concerns the poor among us.” At that time and place, however, this answer was not so clear. The institutional Catholic Church in Latin America was identified with powerful forces – economic, political and military elements that maintained an iron grip on the generally impoverished lives of its citizens. One archbishop in Peru celebrated the fact of so many poor, saying “this allowed the church the opportunity to be charitable toward them!”

The question about God’s Word and the recognition of victims of “institutionalized oppression” — another insight of liberation theology — were keys to understanding this “new grace” in theological terms, and, more importantly, in Catholic spirituality and pastoral practice. It turned the entire process of theologizing on its head, from ethical and doctrinal propositions to a new beginning place: reality. One can make the case now that this process has become a norm in most theological circles, even without labeling it liberation theology.

Gutierrez’s instinct about reflecting and acting on human experiences as the starting place for understanding God’s Word to humanity ran into serious obstacles. The most famous of these was the reaction of St. John Paul II and then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) at the Vatican. As the inevitable consequences of entire communities of oppressed people beginning to learn of God’s liberating Word, the Vatican leaders reacted sometimes violently against their status quo.

One can conjecture that the Polish pope and his German theologian moved from their deeply felt opposition to communism. They felt that poor people were being incited to Marxist-style revolution such as those the hierarchs had experienced, particularly in Soviet-dominated countries.

This attitude was 180 degrees apart from the intent of liberation theology. One cannot continue to oppress a people. They will protest. In the Bible’s Book of Exodus, we hear the Lord say, “I have heard the cry of the poor,” and Moses say, “Let my people go.” Liberation theology brought this consciousness of God’s will ever more clearly to oppressed human beings in Latin America and eventually far beyond. This is Gutierrez’s lasting and glowing legacy.

Sometime after my return from Peru to the United States in 1975, Gustavo called me to ask if I would approach an American religious superior and urge him to intervene with a member of his congregation in Peru. The superior was influential in many circles there and was undermining liberation consciousness among the people. Gustavo’s comment on that occasion is significant: “What’s important is not some arcane argument among armchair theologians, but essential for the popular organizations being moved by this new understanding of their religion.”

This request speaks of the importance that liberation theology has come to represent not only for marginalized people but for the Catholic Christian world and beyond. Judging, challenging, interpreting the Word of God by its relevance in ordinary life is a new spirituality. Gustavo was very strong on this point, often insisting with us who were engaged in ministry that the message of a liberating God was essentially a pastoral task.

In that and many other ways, Gustavo was a dedicated and faith-filled son of the Catholic Church. His adherence to it, despite official opposition from the highest levels of that institution, speaks volumes about his integrity as a loyal member of the church.

As a Christian, a Catholic, a member of the Franciscan order and an ordained priest in those institutions, I can say with utter honesty that Gutierrez has been the most important influence in my life. From a typically conservative cradle Catholic, educated theologically in the decade of the 1950s, I had my eyes opened to a whole new way of praying, celebrating the Catholic sacraments and above all engaging in pastoral work.

I began as a popularizer who saw his vocation as making people happy, without addressing the underlying causes of deep, widespread tragedies in the world. Gustavo opened my eyes. I was never the same again. He showed me that the Hebrew Scriptures and the gospel of Jesus Christ come with an expensive price tag, that of standing with and speaking on behalf of the millions who are denied a voice. And without promoting it, that view of Christianity inevitably provokes deep opposition.

In the words of another “liberationist,” Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “It is the cost of discipleship.”

(The Rev. Joseph Nangle is a Catholic Franciscan priest. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of RNS.)


Gutiérrez's liberation theology still inspires young Latin American theologians


(RNS) — While liberation theology has been criticized for a view of oppression that is too simplistic, young Latin American theologians say Gutiérrez opened the doors for new movements in Catholic thought, even as the Vatican warmed to his legacy.


Peruvian theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez speaks during a news conference at the Vatican, May 12, 2015. (AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino, File)
Eduardo Campos Lima
October 29, 2024

SÃO PAULO (RNS) — The death of the Rev. Gustavo Gutiérrez, called the “father of liberation theology,” at age 96 on Oct. 22 has set off a reconsideration of the theological and pastoral movement spawned by the publication of the Peruvian priest’s 1971 book, “A Theology of Liberation.”

Once a powerful influence on both faith and politics in Latin America, liberation theology grew out of Gutiérrez’s concern for the poor amid the collapse of political projects in the 1960s that tried to modernize the region’s economies, exacerbated by the political repression by military juntas in several South and Central American countries.

The result was widespread violence and poverty — something that, for Gutiérrez and his colleagues, was not natural, but produced by severe social and economic inequality.

“That was the innovation introduced by Gustavo Gutiérrez and others – including myself – when we conceived theology starting from the suffering and oppression faced by the great majority of the Latin American people. The poor are oppressed, and all oppression cries for liberation,” said Leonardo Boff, a Brazilian theologian and a prominent proponent of liberation theology himself, who called Gutiérrez “a dear friend.”

Before writing his book, Gutiérrez had visited Brazil, where a new kind of church organization was already being set in motion by urban and rural workers: so-called basic ecclesial communities, known by their Portuguese and Spanish acronym CEBs, which gathered workers in a given neighborhood into a single community where they could discuss their lives and their faith.

The CEBs inspired Gutiérrez, and his writings spread the CEB model to peasants, landless rural workers, members of Indigenous groups, factory workers and the unemployed.

Liberation theology, however, encountered criticism from Catholic Church leaders, especially in Europe, who said it owed too much to Marxist ideas in its analysis of poverty and was too sympathetic to ideas about violent revolution. Boff recalled that “Gutiérrez’s work was seen as a kind of Trojan horse designed to promote Marxism in Latin America.”

At the same time, the early years of liberation theology were also a time of intense debate as the church absorbed the changes of the Second Vatican Council, and Gutiérrez’s thought was not given its due. “Europeans couldn’t care less about the thought coming from the peripheries, especially about theological or philosophical thought,” Boff said.

But under Pope John Paul II and his doctrine watchdog, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), the Vatican would closely monitor liberation theology. Boff described how Gutiérrez once had to clarify some of his ideas for Vatican officials and the whole Peruvian episcopate. In 1984, liberation theology was officially censored, and though he was never silenced by Rome himself, Gutiérrez was relegated to the fringes of the church’s theological debates. Meanwhile, the Latin American church saw many of its most progressive leaders replaced by conservative prelates.

With the end of the Cold War a few years later, new ideas changed how Latin American thinkers, especially conservatives, saw politics and societal transformation. New generations of progressive theologians also found themselves rejecting liberation theology’s view of the poor and oppressed.

Over the past few decades, the fragmentation of categories such as “the poor” into smaller social groups and identities has been leading to several new theological movements in Latin America, more focused on the needs and realities of specific segments. Works like Gutiérrez’s may be seen by younger generations as classics from the past in that context.

“We realized that such rhetoric was too broad and nonspecific. Those ‘poor’ had no color. We’re all poor, but some of us are racialized, some of us are Black or Indigenous, some of us are women,” Colombian theologian Maricel Mena López, a professor at the Santo Tomas University in Bogota, told RNS.

A proponent of Black feminist theology, Mena said that, little by little, younger theologians also came to see liberation theology as patriarchal. “Apparently, women’s issues were not important in that theology,” she said.

Bolivian theologian Heydi Galarza, an expert in biblical studies, told RNS that the first generation of liberation theology thinkers “had great difficulty grasping the relevance of women’s issues.”

“That has been and continues to be a strong criticism,” Galarza said. “Latin American theology has gone a long way since then, with the development of new schools of thought.”

Both Mena and Galarza agree, however, that Gutiérrez opened the doors for those new movements.

“His theological work made other ones possible. I consider myself to be a liberation theologian – as well as a Black feminist theologian,” Mena said, adding that in her opportunities to talk with Gutiérrez at academic events, he always listened with great attention to all she had to say.

“He was very welcoming of feminist ideas, for instance. I never felt he was critical of them. He even told me, on one occasion, that he was glad that we were seeing things they couldn’t see back then,” she said.

The fact that his theological work started from the reality of social groups and from the practical experience with them still forms the basis for new theological approaches, Galarza said. “That nonspecific view of the poor has been overcome, but the way his theological work related to them — starting from the praxis — is still valid and can be applied to all social groups,” she said.

Pope Francis’ pontificate has also returned some vigor to liberation theology. A longtime acquaintance of Gutiérrez, the pontiff has always rejected what he considers to be “excess” in liberation theology, referring to its Marxist tendencies. But Gutiérrez’s focus on the poor and his preference for concrete theology directly connected to the people are ideas close to the pope’s own.

Indeed, under Francis the Vatican “rehabilitated” Gutiérrez, and he was invited to take part in official meetings there.

Bolivian theologian Tania Avila, a member of the women’s and Indigenous’ hubs of the Catholic Church’s Pan-Amazon Ecclesial Network, known as REPAM, writes on “integral ecology,” a holistic approach to thinking about the environment that Francis included in his 2015 environmental encyclical, “Laudato Si’.” Avila told RNS that she considers Gutiérrez a “brave theologian who challenged his own time’s limitations to see the social context.”

Avila also agreed that Gutiérrez and some of his colleagues “made an effort to recognize, decades later, that they failed to take into consideration the feeling and thinking of the women in their theological work.”

Francisco Bosch, a young Argentine theologian who has been accompanying the Latin American CEBs as an adviser to the Episcopal Conference of Latin America, said he feels close to Gutiérrez. “Theology, for him, is a love letter between God and his people. The work of the theologian is about that letter. And we’re living amid projects of hatred in Latin America,” Bosch told RNS.

In a time of political crisis and a general feeling of lack of representation, of economic hardships and environmental catastrophes, “Gutiérrez’s words are more urgent than ever,” Bosch said.

“His thought is part of the great Judeo-Christian tradition, which still has much to offer to humankind, especially in times of disorientation,” said Bosch. The “struggles of different social groups — Blacks, Indigenous, women and so on — converge and strengthen each other, telling the same narrative of emancipation when their agents discover that God walks with them.”

Friday, November 01, 2024

Gustavo Gutiérrez, founding father of liberation theology, dies at 96

(RNS) — Once criticized by Catholic conservatives and the Vatican, Gutiérrez and his emphasis on caring for the poor were rehabilitated by Pope Francis.


Peruvian theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez attends a news conference at the Vatican, May 12, 2015. (AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino)

Claire Giangravé and Aleja Hertzler-McCain
October 23, 2024

VATICAN CITY (RNS) — A towering figure in the Catholic theological landscape of the past century, the Rev. Gustavo Gutiérrez, known as the father of liberation theology, died Tuesday night (Oct. 22) at the age of 96. Described as a Marxist by his critics and under Vatican scrutiny for most of his career, he and his work were partly rehabilitated under Pope Francis.

Gutiérrez died at a nursing home in Lima, Peru, according to a statement by the Dominican Province of St. John the Baptist of Peru, which announced his passing.

In 1971, Gutiérrez published his defining work, “A Theology of Liberation,” born from his experiences as an adviser to the Latin American bishops in Medellín, Colombia. The book offered the foundation for liberation theology, a current that took over Latin America starting in the 1960s, focusing on the “liberation of the oppressed” and social justice for the poor.

Coming in the depths of the Cold War, liberation theology was met with criticism in the church and at the Vatican, which eyed with suspicion its perceived communist influences. Gutiérrez’s signature book “spawned many new theological voices from the margins, and ultimately it left a deep impact on the social teaching of the church, realized, finally, in (the) papacy of Pope Francis, who has fully embraced the language of the option for the poor,” said Robert Ellsberg, publisher of Orbis Books and the English-language editions of Gutiérrez’s work, in an interview with RNS.

In what is considered a historic moment, Francis celebrated Mass with Gutiérrez in 2013 at the papal residence home in the Vatican, accompanied by conservative Cardinal Gerhard Müller. The welcome shown the priest represented a shift in the Vatican’s attitude toward liberation theology.

In a statement to Vatican media on Wednesday, Müller remembered his “great friend” Gutiérrez as “one of the greatest theologians of this century,” saying, “He is the father of liberation theology in a Christian sense, not just a sociological, ideological, political sense, but an integral one. This will remain in the church.”

Gutiérrez was born in 1928 to family that was both Hispanic and Quechua, an Indigenous Andean people. He became a priest in 1959 after studying at the Catholic University of Lyon. His work as a theologian, writer and philosopher eventually ushered him onto the faculties of prestigious universities throughout the world, with him eventually becoming the John Cardinal O’Hara Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.

“He combined a profound sense of the unmerited gift of God’s love with the urgency of solidarity with those society considers the least important,” wrote the Rev. Daniel Groody, professor of theology and global affairs and vice president and associate provost for undergraduate education at Notre Dame, in a statement on Wednesday.

In Gutiérrez’s writings, he emphasized Christ’s message for the poor, especially the need for the church itself to be poor, and its duty to help those who live in poverty, citing especially the Beatitudes and the Book of Revelation.

“People might think of him as some kind of militant in the streets, but he was really initially a parish priest, who spent much of his life ministering among the poorest in Lima,” Ellsberg said.

Beginning in the 1950s, some theologians and priests in Latin America were seeking to ameliorate the causes of poverty, sometimes merging communist principles with Catholic social teaching to justify political activism and even armed rebellion.

Pope John Paul II, who had lived under communist rule in his native Poland, regarded these movements with skepticism. He called on the Vatican’s doctrinal department, led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who would succeed him as Pope Benedict XVI, to investigate these movements. The Vatican issued two formal documents, or instructions, in 1984 and in 1986.

The first criticized “certain forms of liberation theology which use, in an insufficiently critical manner, concepts borrowed from various currents of Marxist thought,” while the second laid out the church’s official understanding of social justice and liberation.

For decades, Gutiérrez’s writings were the subject of a dialogue between the Vatican and the Peruvian Bishops’ Conference, which in 2006 released a statement declaring that they had “concluded the path of clarification of problematic points contained in some works of the author.”

At age 70, Gutiérrez joined the Dominican order, welcomed by the Rev. Timothy Radcliffe, who is leading the spiritual reflections at this month’s Synod on Synodality at the Vatican and will be made a cardinal in December.

Archbishop Carlos Gustavo Castillo Mattasoglio of Lima, who will also be made a cardinal in December, attempted to reconcile the hardships Gutiérrez underwent during John Paul’s pontificate in a YouTube video after the Dominican priest’s death.

“Small, as he was, and with problems in his spinal column so he was very short, he knew with his smallness how to announce the gospel to us with strength and spirit, as John Paul II did,” he said, “So today we are sad because of his passing, and happy because we now have a person in heaven who will accompany us to continue on our mission, our work of the renewed church because it serves the small.”

Cecilia González-Andrieu, president-elect of the Academy of Catholic Hispanic Theologians of the United States, called Gutiérrez an “extraordinary influence on generations of theologians in this country,” in an interview with RNS.

Gutiérrez’s life had inspired U.S. Latino theologians “to be closer to the suffering of communities on the margins and the vulnerable and to keep connected always to how it is that our work impacts them and how they impact our work,” she said.

In 2018, Francis canonized Archbishop Oscar Romero of San Salvador, El Salvador, who is considered a representative of the ideals of liberation theology. A year earlier, the pope told Spanish newspaper El País that “liberation theology was a positive thing in Latin America.”

Francis wrote Gutiérrez a letter for his 90th birthday thanking God “for what you have contributed to the Church and to humanity through your theological service and from your preferential love for the poor and discarded in society.” He also thanked the theologian for “challenging the conscience of each person, so that no one can be indifferent faced with the drama of poverty and exclusion.”

Ecosocialism


Discussing the Climate Crisis: Dubious Notions & False Paths



Friday 1 November 2024, by Michael Löwy

Some of these come from half- or quarter-truths while others are based on fake news, lies and mystifications. Many are full of good will and good intentions, but would take us in the wrong direction.

If we continue with these slogans — even if painted green — we will find ourselves in a blind alley. I offer the following 10 examples as ones to avoid.

1. We must “save the planet.”

We encounter this slogan everywhere: on billboards, in the press, in magazines, in the declarations of political leaders, etc. But this is nonsense.

Planet Earth is no way in danger! Whatever the climate, it will continue to revolve around the sun for the next few billion years. What is threatened by global warming are multiple forms of the existing web of life on this planet, including ours: the species Homo sapiens.

“Saving the planet” gives the false impression that the crisis is something external to us, somewhere else, that it does not implicate us directly. It suggests that we are not asking people to worry about their own or their children’s lives, but about a hazy abstraction, “the planet.”

No wonder that less political people respond: “I’m too busy with my problems to worry about ‘the planet.’”

2. “Take action” to save the planet.

This commonplace slogan, infinitely satiated, is a variation of the previous formula.

It contains a half-truth: everyone must personally contribute to avoiding the catastrophe. But it conveys the illusion that to make “small gestures” — turning off the lights, turning off the faucet, etc. — will avoid the worst.

We thus eliminate — consciously or not — the need for profound structural changes in the current mode of production and consumption. These structural changes challenge the very foundation of capitalist production and society based on profit maximization.

3. The polar bear is in danger.

A photo we find everywhere shows a poor polar bear trying to survive among melting blocks of ice. Certainly, the life of the polar bear — and many other species in the polar regions — is threatened. While this image may arouse the compassion of a few generous souls, it does not directly seem to concern most of the population.

But the melting of polar ice is a threat not only for the brave polar bear, but for half, if not more, of humanity who live in large cities by the sea. The immense glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica will raise sea levels by tens of meters — however, only a few meters will submerge cities like Venice, Amsterdam, London, New York, Rio de Janeiro, Shanghai and Hong Kong.

This is not going to happen next year of course, but scientists note that the melting of these glaciers is accelerating. It is impossible to predict how quickly it will take place. In fact, many factors are currently difficult to calculate.

By highlighting only the poor polar bear, we hide the fact that this is a terrifying affair that concerns us all.

3. Vulnerable nations (Bangladesh, for example) suffer greatly from climate change.

This is a half-truth. Yes, warming will (and already does) acutely affect poor countries in the Global South, which are least responsible for CO2 emissions. And it is true that these countries will be the most impacted by climatic disasters, hurricanes, drought, and a reduction of water sources.

But it is a mistake to imagine that the countries of the North will not be affected by these same dangers. Have we not witnessed terrible forest fires in the United States, Canada, and Australia? Haven’t heat waves caused many victims in Europe? Haven’t we seen increased frequency and strength in hurricanes as they batter the U.S. Gulf and Atlantic states? We could multiply the examples.

If we maintain the impression that threats only concern the peoples of the South, only a minority of convinced internationalists will understand the danger. However, sooner or later all of humanity will face unprecedented disasters. We must explain to the populations of the North how this threat directly affects them too.

4. Around the year 2100, the temperature is liable to rise by 3.5 degrees C, or an almost unimaginable 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit, above the pre-industrial period.

This is an assertion found in many serious documents — but it seems to me to be both uncertain and, in some ways, a diversion.

From a scientific point of view: We know that climate change is not a linear process. It can suddenly accelerate. Many dimensions of warming have feedbacks, the consequences of which are unpredictable. For example, forest fires emit huge amounts of CO2, which contribute to warming and thus intensify forest fires. If it is therefore difficult to predict what will happen within a few years, how can we pretend to predict what will happen a century away?

From a political point of view: At the end of this century, we will all be dead, as will most of our children and grandchildren. How can we mobilize people’s attention and commitment for a future that does not concern them, directly or indirectly? Should we be worried about future generations?

It is a noble thought, argued at length for example by the philosopher Hans Jonas, who explains we have a moral duty towards those who are not yet born. While a minority might be affected by this argument, for most what will happen in 2100 does not interest them very much.

5. By 2050 we will achieve “carbon neutrality.”

This promise from the European Union and various European governments is not a half-truth, nor naïve goodwill — it is pure and simple mystification.

First, instead of committing now to the urgent changes demanded by the scientific community (the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) over the next three to four years, our leaders are promising wonders for 2050.

But this is obviously much too late. Moreover, as governments change every four or five years, what is the guarantee for these commitments, with no accountability for those making them, in 30 years’ time? It is a grotesque way of justifying present inaction with an untestable promise.

Second, “neutrality” does not mean a drastic reduction in emissions — quite the contrary! This is a misleading calculation based on offsets. Company XY continues to emit CO2, but plants a forest in Indonesia, supposedly to absorb the equivalent amount of CO2 — if the forest does not catch fire.

But even these “compensation mechanisms” have already been examined by many ecological NGOs as not being equivalent. This reveals the perfect mystification contained in the promise of “carbon neutrality.”

6. Our particular bank (or oil company) finances renewable energies, thus it participates in the “ecological transition.”

This commonplace of greenwashing is also based on manipulating “facts.” Certainly, banks and multinationals invest in renewable energies, but precise studies by the European environmental and tax justice organization ATTAC and other NGOs have shown that this is a small — sometimes tiny — part of their financial operations.

The bulk of their investment continues to move into oil, coal, gas and other fossil fuels. It is a simple question of profitability and competition for market share.

All “reasonable” governments — unlike Trump, or Bolsonaro in Brazil — also swear that they are committed to the ecological transition and renewable energies. But as soon as there is a problem with the supply of fossil energy — gas recently, because of aggressive Russian policy — they take refuge in coal by reactivating lignite power plants. They implore the (bloody) Saudi Arabian royal family to increase oil production.

Fine speeches about the “ecological transition” obscure an unpleasant truth: it is not enough to develop renewable energies. After all, these are intermittent: the sun does not always shine in northern Europe. Certainly technical advances exist in this area, but they cannot solve everything.

Above all, renewables require mining resources which risk being depleted. If the wind and the sun are unlimited goods, this is not at all the case for all the materials necessary to use them (lithium, copper, etc.).

It will therefore be necessary to consider a reduction in overall energy consumption and a selective decrease. These measures are unimaginable within the framework of capitalist production.

7. Thanks to carbon capture and sequestration techniques, we will avoid climate catastrophe.

This is an argument used more and more by governments, and is even found in certain serious documents (e.g. from the IPCC). It is the illusion of a miracle technological solution, which would save the climate without the need to change anything in our (capitalist) mode of production and in our way of life.

Alas, the sad truth is that these miraculous techniques for capturing and sequestering atmospheric carbon are far from being a reality. Certainly a few attempts have taken place, a few projects underway here and there, but for the moment we cannot say that this technology is effective, efficient or operational.

Nor has technology resolved the difficulties of either capture or sequestration (which happen in underground regions impervious to leaks). And there is no guarantee that in the future it will be able to do so.

8. Thanks to electric cars, we will substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This is yet another example of a half-truth. Yes, electric cars are less polluting than thermal cars (gasoline or diesel), and therefore less ruinous for the health of city residents. However, from a climate change perspective, their record is much more mixed.

They emit less CO2, but contribute to a disastrous “everything with electricity.” Electricity in most countries is produced with fossil fuels (coal, gas or oil). Reduced emissions from electric cars are “offset” by the increased emissions resulting from greater electricity consumption.

In France, electricity is produced by nuclear energy, another dead end. In Brazil, megadams destroy forests and are therefore responsible for increasing the carbon footprint.

If we want to drastically reduce emissions, we cannot escape a significant reduction in the circulation of private cars. There are more efficient and alternative means of transportation: free public transport, pedestrian zones, cycle paths. The electric car maintains the illusion that we can continue as before just by changing technology.

9. It is through “market mechanisms” such as carbon taxes, or emissions rights markets, or even increasing the price of fossil fuels, that we will be able to reduce CO2 emissions.

Even some sincere ecologists see these market mechanisms might be a way out. But it too is a mystification. Market mechanisms have demonstrated their complete ineffectiveness in reducing greenhouse gases.

Not only are these anti-social measures that want to make the working classes pay the price of the “ecological transition,” but above all they are incapable of contributing substantially to limiting emissions. The spectacular failure of “carbon markets” established by the Kyoto agreements are the best demonstration of this reality.

It is not through “indirect,” “incentive” measures based on the logic of the capitalist market that can put brakes on the omnipotence of fossil fuels, which indeed have made the system work for two centuries.

To start with, it will be necessary to expropriate the capitalist energy monopolies and create a public energy service with the mission to drastically reduce the exploitation of fossil fuels.

10. Climate change is now inevitable, “we can only adapt.”

We find this kind of fatalistic assertion in the media and among political “leaders.”

For example, Mr. Christophe Bechu, Minister of Ecological Transition in the French Macron government, recently declared: “Since we will not be able to prevent global warming, whatever our efforts, we must manage to limit its effects while adapting to it.”

This is an excellent recipe to justify abandoning “our efforts” to avoid the worst. However, IPCC scientists have clearly explained that if warming has indeed already started, it is still possible to stay below the red line of 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) above pre-industrial levels — provided that we immediately begin to very significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

What’s the Conclusion?

Of course we have to try to adapt. But if climate change gets out of control and accelerates, “adaptation” is just an illusion. How do we “adapt” to temperatures of 50° C (122 degrees F)?

We could multiply the examples. All lead to the conclusion that if we want to avoid climate change, we must change the capitalist system and replace it with a more egalitarian form of production and consumption. This necessary direction is what we call Ecosocialism.

Against the Current

P.S.

If you like this article or have found it useful, please consider donating towards the work of International Viewpoint. Simply follow this link: Donate then enter an amount of your choice. One-off donations are very welcome. But regular donations by standing order are also vital to our continuing functioning. See the last paragraph of this article for our bank account details and take out a standing order. Thanks.