I'm assuming based on the article that Bergolglios has always been a proponent of this theology, although I'm not positive of this.

Shouldn't that be the sole purpose of the Church? I'm interested to know what was the reasoning for opposing this movement? In their opinion, what was the purpose of the Church? Did they consider "liberation" to be secondary to spreading the word of God or was it an even lower priority than that?

On the one hand, you don't want the Church wiped out by its priests running afoul of oppressive secular governments. Eyes on the life to come and all that, try to rise above your sufferings on this Earth, priests need to save individual souls.

On the other hand, Liberation Theologists are enormously brave, because they do go up against oppressive regimes and some have been tortured and killed for their pains.

Liberation theology is a school of thought that explores the relationship between Christian theology and political activism, particularly in areas of social justice, poverty, and human rights. The main methodology of liberation theology is to do theology (i.e. speak of God) from the viewpoint of the economically poor and oppressed of the human community.

Liberation theology focuses on Jesus as not only Savior but also as Liberator. Emphasis is placed on those parts of the Bible where Jesus' mission is described in terms of liberation, and as a bringer of justice. This is interpreted as a call to arms to carry out this mission of justice -- literally by some.

http://www.theopedia.com/Liberation_theology

Keep reading -- there's a lot more at that link and elsewhere.

Although it doesn't answer my question, really, in order for that to happen it would require unprecedented honesty from the leaders of the church.

Given, this seems to be a really stereotypical assumption, nonetheless It's what I had to work with from this article.

I guess my main issue is that most people believe that when they put money into that plate, their money is going to be used to provide necessities and charity to those less fortunate. If the church had alternative priorities for that money the people should know about this, especially if there seems to be a division between the proponents of "liberation theology" and the heads of the Church. Also judging by the churches actions in Africa, I have to wonder if their issues with "liberation theology" are deeper than



It seems their issues with "liberation thoelogy" could have been with the message they were spreading. Obviously the way the church functions today is contrary to the promotion of Socialism or Humanism. They are a profitable enterprise, regardless of claims to the contrary. I guess the error of my inquiry was I should know by now any answer will be complete assumption because the church has rarely been honest about the economic aspect of it's enterprise.

The Church was often aligned with business/goverment interests, and therefore saw a lot of nefarious implications in helping the poor. It was also kind of a "go along to get along" mentality, too.

I agree with others who suggest looking into this further, since it is complicated. IMO, the opposition to liberation theology is also among the lowlights in Church history. A lot of people died working for justice in Latin America, including El Salvador Archbishop Oscar Romero, a true hero of the Church.

Apparently because it doesn't put all of it's emphasis on "you're a miserable piece of shit and need to beg god every day for the forgiveness you don't really deserve."

Needless to say, we don't hang out together.

My great grandmother, whom my father would leave me with on Sundays because of my behavior, was a lunatic nutcase hardcore right wing %$%^&*&*(%$.

She would beat the crap out of me,at 4 yo, for little things like asking questions in church while the preacher was speaking or laughing when the people started speaking in tongues during prayer. She raised me to hate Catholics and Jews, my mothers side of the family happened to be catholic on my grandfathers side and Jewish on my grandmothers side. If this wasn't enough, my school found bruises on me.

Child welfare got involved and needless to say, my father did not or could not(I accept this as a possibility and bear no hatred toward him today) tell child welfare that the women who raised him, took care of him when his mother was drunk, beat her great grandchild till he bruised and bled.

I was taken. For 10 years I was traumatized, confused, all sorts of fucked up.

Hmmmm, I forgot the point I was trying to make lol.
I think I just wanted to tell you, everyone, this, in this thread because it's important that people who haven't been exposed to the worst aspects of right wing religion understand how utterly traumatic and destructive it can be.

Pardon any spelling or punctuation errors.

Sorry to hear that!

My relatives are only crazy in a philosophical way. I haven't had to put up with bad treatment, just bad advice.

If you had never seen a brick wall before in your life, and drive into it at 5 miles an hour isn't it better that you learn a wall is immobile at 5 miles an hour than later when your going 60 miles an hour?

WE face, we survive, we grow.

Why?

The X that said "blessed be the poor" also said "blessed are the meek," "blessed are the righteous," and "blessed are the peacemakers."

Why is helping the poor any more the "sole purpose of the church" than helping people be "righteous" or "meek" or "peacemakers"?

If you're a believer, then setting yourself up as Jesus' editor is inappropriate ("Sorry Jees--I can call you 'Jees,' right Sonny? Look here, it's hard to be righteous, and really off-pissing to ask people to be meek. And if you want to be aggressive and fight to change society, being a peacemaker ain't happening. But the poor--we can milk that, find a way of making ourselves feel good, be important, and kick those cretins over there--you didn't die for them, right, no, don't answer that, you're out of date and probably reactionary ... Where was I? Right, kicking the rich and power in the nuts like we've wanted to for years. So I'm cutting that nonsense out and saying that the poor are the righteous and the meek and, when they're killing the wealthy they're the real peacemakers. Don't like it, you and your Pappy and Papa can go find another editor. Maybe that Hammy guy over there on the camel. Nunc, Jees baby, just dimittis your sorry ass, it's nibbling on my proofsheets. And get a motel room every once in a while to at least shower.&quot

If you're not a believer, then you're not in the business and it's an internal matter.

You don't need to be a believer to understand the message of Christ. It's often said that atheists know the bible better than Christians. All the evidence I've encountered so far has me believing this is the rock solid truth.

Besides, most of his teachings can be found in other religions. There was very little original about his message.

Just plain rude! Fortunately its a free country, and the corruption of the Church is splashed all over the media for the world to see. People aren't buying the "if your not one of us, but out" argument.

-Laelth

Meh.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/32847

VATICAN CITY: Pope John Paul II, a reactionary in shepherd's clothing.

Wednesday, April 6, 2005

One of his great political alliances was with US President Ronald Reagan. In 1980 the gang that organised the Reagan for the presidency movement met in Santa Fe for a conference and issued a statement saying: "US foreign policy should begin to confront liberation theology (and not just react to it after the fact). Unfortunately Marxist-Leninist forces have used the church as a political weapon against private ownership and the capitalism system of production, infiltrating the religious community with ideas that are more communist than Christian."

Reagan, as president, quickly moved to form a united front with John Paul II against liberation theology. The pope fought the theology while the Reagan administration snd its Latin American allies murdered the liberationists.

Among the fallen was El Salvador's Archbishop Oscar Romero, murdered in 1980 by a right-wing death squad while saying mass. The Arena party, the death squads' legal face, sent a delegation to the Vatican weeks before the assassination protesting Romero's public statements in defence of the poor.

While the Salvadoran people regard Romero as a saint, John Paul II attempted to ban any discussion of Romero's beatification for 50 years. However, popular pressure from El Salvador later led the Vatican to put off the issue for only 25 years.

Last edited Fri Sep 27, 2013, 05:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Never read Acts, apparently.

Acts 4:32
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.