IX. 
THE THEOLOGICAL APPLICATION OF THIS CORE
THE THEOLOGICAL APPLICATION OF THIS CORE
1. The positions here in question are often brought  out   explicitly in certain of the writings of "theologians of   liberation." In others, they follow logically from their premises. In   addition, they are presupposed in certain liturgical practices, as for  example   a "Eucharist" transformed into a celebration of the people in   struggle, even though the persons who participate in these practices  may not   be fully conscious of it. We are facing, therefore, a real system,  even if   some hesitate to follow the logic to its conclusion. As such, this  system is a   perversion of the Christian message as God entrusted it to His Church.  This   message in its entirety finds itself then called into question by the   "theologies of liberation."
2. It is not the 'fact' of social stratification with  all its   inequity and injustice, but the 'theory' of class struggle as the  fundamental   law of history which has been accepted by these "theologies of   liberation" as a principle. The conclusion is drawn that the class   struggle thus understood divides the Church herself, and that in light  of this   struggle even ecclesial realities must be judged. The claim is even  made that   it would be maintaining an illusion with bad faith to propose that  love in its   universality can conquer what is the primary structural law of  capitalism.
3. According to this conception, the class struggle is  the   driving force of history. History thus becomes a central notion. It  will be   affirmed that God Himself makes history. It will be added that there  is only   one history, one in which the distinction between the history of  salvation and   profane history is no longer necessary. To maintain the distinction  would be   to fall into "dualism". Affirmations such as this reflect   historicist immanentism. Thus there is a tendency to identify the  kingdom of   God and its growth with the human liberation movement, and to make  history   itself the subject of its own development, as a process of the  self-redemption   of man by means of the class struggle. This identification is in  opposition to   the faith of the Church as it has been reaffirmed by the Second  Vatican   Council. [23]
4. Along these lines, some go so far as to identify  God   Himself with history and to define faith as "fidelity to history",   which means adhering to a political policy which is suited to the  growth of   humanity, conceived as a purely temporal messianism.
5. As a consequence, faith, hope, and charity are  given a new   content: they become "fidelity to history", "confidence in the   future", and "option for the poor." This is tantamount to   saying they have been emptied of their theological reality.
6. A radical politicization of faith's affirmations  and of   theological judgments follows inevitably from this new conception. The   question no longer has to do with simply drawing attention to the  consequences   and political implications of the truths of faith, which are respected   beforehand for their transcendent value. In this new system, every  affirmation   of faith or of theology is subordinated to a political criterion,  which in   turn depends on the class struggle, the driving force of history.
7. As a result, participation in the class struggle is   presented as a requirement of charity itself. The desire to love  everyone here   and now, despite his class, and to go out to meet him with the  non-violent   means of dialogue and persuasion, is denounced as counterproductive  and   opposed to love. If one holds that a person should not be the object  of hate,   it is claimed nevertheless that, if he belongs to the objective class  of the   rich, he is primarily a class enemy to be fought. Thus the  universality of   love of neighbor and brotherhood become an eschatological principle,  which   will only have meaning for the "new man", who arises out of the   victorious revolution.
8. As far as the Church is concerned, this system  would see   her 'only' as a reality interior to history, herself subject to those  laws   which are supposed to govern the development of history in its  immanence. The   Church, the gift of God and mystery of faith, is emptied of any  specific   reality by this reductionism. At the same time, it is disputed that  the   participation of Christians who belong to opposing classes at the same   Eucharistic Table still makes any sense.
9. In its positive meaning the 'Church of the poor'  signifies   the preference given to the poor, without exclusion, whatever the form  of   their poverty, because they are preferred by God. The expression also  refers   to the Church of our time, as communion and institution and on the  part of her   members, becoming more fully conscious of the requirement of  evangelical   poverty.
10. But the "theologies of liberation", which   reserve credit for restoring to a place of honor the great texts of  the   prophets and of the Gospel in defense of the poor, go on to a  disastrous   confusion between the 'poor' of the Scripture and the 'proletariat' of  Marx.   In this way they pervert the Christian meaning of the poor, and they  transform   the fight for the rights of the poor into a class fight within the  ideological   perspective of the class struggle. For them the 'Church of the poor'  signifies   the Church of the class which has become aware of the requirements of  the   revolutionary struggle as a step toward liberation and which  celebrates this   liberation in its liturgy.
11. A further remark regarding the expression, 'Church  of the   People', will not be out of place here. From the pastoral point of  view, this   expression might mean the favored recipients of evangelization to  whom,   because of their condition, the Church extends her pastoral love first  of all.   One might also refer to the Church as people of God, that is, people  of the   New Covenant established in Christ. [24]
12. But the "theologies of liberation" of which we   are speaking, mean by 'Church of the People' a Church of the class, a  Church   of the oppressed people whom it is necessary to "conscientize" in   the light of the organized struggle for freedom. For some, the people,  thus   understood,even become the object of faith.
13. Building on such a conception of the Church of the  People,   a critique of the very structures of the Church is developed. It is  not simply   the case of fraternal correction of pastors of the Church whose  behavior does   not reflect the evangelical spirit of service and is linked to  old-fashioned   signs of authority which scandalize the poor. It has to do with a  challenge to   the 'sacramental and hierarchical structure' of the Church, which was  willed   by the Lord Himself. There is a denunciation of members of the  hierarchy and   the magisterium as objective representatives of the ruling class which  has to   be opposed. Theologically, this position means that ministers take  their   origin from the people who therefore designate ministers of their own  choice   in accord with the needs of their historic revolutionary mission.
X 
A NEW HERMENEUTIC
A NEW HERMENEUTIC
1. The partisan conception of truth, which can be seen  in the   revolutionary 'praxis' of the class, corroborates this position.  Theologians   who do not share the theses of the "theology of liberation", the   hierarchy, and especially the Roman Magisterium are thus discredited  in   advance as belonging to the class of the oppressors. Their theology is  a   theology of class. Arguments and teachings thus do not have to be  examined in   themselves since they are only reflections of class interests. Thus,  the   instruction of others is decreed to be, in principle, false.
2. Here is where the global and all-embracing  character of the   theology of liberation appears. As a result, it must be criticized not  just on   the basis of this or that affirmation, but on the basis of its  classist   viewpoint, which it has adopted 'a priori', and which has come to  function in   it as a determining principle.
3. Because of this classist presupposition, it becomes  very   difficult, not to say impossible, to engage in a real dialogue with  some   "theologians of liberation" in such a way that the other participant   is listened to, and his arguments are discussed with objectivity and   attention. For these theologians start out with the idea, more or less   consciously, that the viewpoint of the oppressed and revolutionary  class,   which is their own, is the single true point of view. Theological  criteria for   truth are thus relativized and subordinated to the imperatives of the  class   struggle. In this perspective, 'orthodoxy' or the right rule of faith,  is   substituted by the notion of 'orthopraxy' as the criterion of the  truth. In   this connection it is important not to confuse practical orientation,  which is   proper to traditional theology in the same way that speculative  orientation   is, with the recognized and privileged priority given to a certain  type of 'praxis'.   For them, this praxis is the revolutionary 'praxis' which thus becomes  the   supreme criterion for theological truth. A healthy theological method  no doubt   will always take the 'praxis' of the Church into account and will find  there   one of its foundations, but that is because that praxis comes from the  faith   and is a lived expression of it.
4. For the "theologies of liberation" however, the   social doctrine of the Church is rejected with disdain. It is said  that it   comes from the illusion of a possible compromise, typical of the  middle class   which has no historic destiny.
5. The new 'hermeneutic' inherent in the "theologies  of   liberation" leads to an essentially 'political' re-reading of the   Scriptures. Thus, a major importance is given to the Exodus event  inasmuch as   it is a liberation from political servitude. Likewise, a political  reading of   the "Magnificat" is proposed. The mistake here is not in bringing   attention to a political dimension of the readings of Scripture, but  in making   of this one dimension the principal or exclusive component. This leads  to a   reductionist reading of the Bible.
6. Likewise, one places oneself within the perspective  of a   temporal messianism, which is one of the most radical of the  expressions of   secularization of the Kingdom of God and of its absorption into the  immanence   of human history.
7. In giving such priority to the political dimension,  one is   led to deny the 'radical newness' of the New Testament and above all  to   misunderstand the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true  man, and   thus the specific character of the salvation he gave us, that is above  all   liberation from sin, which is the source of all evils.
8. Moreover in setting aside the authoritative  interpretation   of the Church, denounced as classist, one is at the same time  departing from   tradition. In that way, one is robbed of an essential theological  criterion of   interpretation, and in the vacuum thus created, one welcomes the most  radical   theses of rationalist exegesis. Without a critical eye, one returns to  the   opposition of the "Jesus of history" versus the "Jesus of   faith."
9. Of course the creeds of the faith are literally  preserved,   especially the Chalcedonian creed, but a new meaning is given to them  which is   a negation of the faith of the Church. On one hand, the Christological   doctrine of Tradition is rejected in the name of class; on the other  hand, one   claims to meet again the "Jesus of history" coming from the   revolutionary experience of the struggle of the poor for their  liberation.
10. One claims to be reliving an experience similar to  that of   Jesus. The experience of the poor struggling for their liberation,  which was   Jesus' experience, would thus reveal, and it alone, the knowledge of  the true   God and the Kingdom.
11. Faith in the Incarnate Word, dead and risen for  all men,   and whom "God made Lord and Christ" [25] is denied. In its place is   substituted a figure of Jesus who is a kind of symbol who sums up in  Himself   the requirements of the struggle of the oppressed.
12. An exclusively political interpretation is thus  given to   the death of Christ. In this way, its value for salvation and the  whole   economy of redemption is denied.
13. This new interpretation thus touches the whole of  the   Christian mystery.
14. In a general way, this brings about what can be an   inversion of symbols. Thus, instead of seeing, with St. Paul, a figure  of   baptism in the Exodus, [26] some end up making of it a symbol of the  political   liberation of the people.
15. When the same hermeneutical criterion is applied  to the   life and to the hierarchical constitution of the Church, the  relationship   between the hierarchy and the "base" becomes the relationship of   obedient domination to the law of the struggle of the classes.  Sacramentality,   which is at the root of the ecclesial ministries and which makes of  the Church   a spiritual reality which cannot be reduced to a purely sociological  analysis,   is quite simply ignored.
16. This inversion of symbols is likewise verified in  the area   of the 'sacraments'. The Eucharist is no longer to be understood as  the real   sacramental presence of the reconciling sacrifice, and as the gift of  the Body   and Blood of Christ. It becomes a celebration of the people in their  struggle.   As a consequence, the unity of the Church is radically denied. Unity,   reconciliation, and communion in love are no longer seen as a gift we  receive   from Christ. [27] It is the historical class of the poor who by means  of their   struggle will build unity. For them, the struggle of the classes is  the way to   unity. The Eucharist thus becomes the Eucharist of the class. At the  same   time, they deny the triumphant force of the love of God which has been  given   to us.
____
____
(23) "Lumen gentium", n.9-17.
(24) Cf. "Gaudium et Spes", n.39.
(25) Cf. Acts 2, 36.
(26) Cf. 1 Corinthians 10, 1-2.
(27) Cf. Ephesians 2, 11-22.






