'I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and
domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom.'
This statemen set off thoughts on the interplay of Liberation Theology, the Sociological School of Jurisprudence, and Marxist Theory. However before delving into this, a few words on gatekeepers, sentries and guardians. People with power: politicians, senior state employees, leaders of business and trades unions, church leaders, media owners and others in positions of authority have a self interest in maintaining the status quo and using it to their advantage. It is in this context that those seeking to achieve systemic change have to engage and hopefully achieve positive results. The power of the state should not be underestimated. The state doles out patronage and demands loyalty from the recipients.
Two potential allies of those seeking systemic change may be some faith organisations and the judiciary. However this may well not be the case. The rise of Liberation theology was triggered in part by the failure of the Roman Catholic Church to engage with the poor and instead to cosy up to government. The judiciary cannot be regarded in some nations as truly independent and even when it is judges have, according to Oliver Wendell Holmes, 'inarticulate major premises' that basically are attitudes derived from their background and class. In the United Kingdom the use of judicial review to oppose decisions of government and other statutory bodies enables challenges to authority. However judicial review can only delay proposals, the courts have no power to instigate change. So the judiciary is not a driver of systemic change in this regard.
But let's not be too despondent. In common law jurisdictions the principle of certainty and being bound by decisions in earlier cases is enshrined in the statement that judges are bound by precedent. If that was what happens is true the common law would never have been shaped to deal with modern society. Judges do make law. The major achievement of the Sociological School has been to inculcate the idea that the law must respond to current public, social and public interests and resolve cases where those interests do not coincide. Clearly this is in conflict with the concept of certainty. Adopting this approach may help alleviate the worst of systemic social injustice but usually governments have to legislate in order to effect change.
Marxist legal theory posits the opinion that law is the product of economic forces, the state and its laws are instruments of class oppression and wil wither away in the Marxist utopia. The reality is somewhat different! However Marxism does bring to the forefront some of the causes of systemic injustice.
Gutierrez was wrongly lambasted by some in the Roman Catholic Church as promoting Marxist Theory. It was a caricature of his position that is stated so well in the following article by Joseph Nangle OFM.
I came to know Gustavo in 1968, when he already was recognized as an outstanding scholar. He invited me with dozens of other ex-patriot priests working in Peru to weekly conversations centered on our pastoral work.
From the beginning Gustavo’s methodology gave evidence of what would become known as Liberation Theology, although at that time the phrase had not as yet been articulated.
He would invite us to share our day-to-day experiences as parish priests – the ordinary and sometimes dramatic events in our ministries. He was a great listener and for an hour or more at these meetings never interrupted us.
Toward the end of our sessions then, he would summarize what he had been hearing, but never correcting us or giving directions as to how we should be conducting our parish work. Instead, he would tell us that what we were sharing was the “raw material” of his theological reflections.
Looking back on these weekly meetings, it is clear, whether or not any of us realized it, that a new theological methodology was emerging, one that was simple and profound: an inductive, “reality to conclusions” process rather than the traditional deductive approach which repeated the tenets of the faith and applied them to every given situation.
A back story about this “new way” was one I heard years later. According to this account, several Latin American priests who had been sent to study theology in academic centers of Europe during the 1960s (the years of Second Vatican Council), returned home and began teaching. They quickly saw that “were answering questions no one was asking.” That gave rise to the obvious question: where does one begin to theologize in a way that is pertinent, appropriate, relevant to Latin America?
Gustavo Gutiérrez was a leading figure in this process. He discerned that lived experience, reality, what is going on, is a proper starting place for theological reflections which then had the task of wrestling with the follow up question, “What does God’s word have to say about each of these situations.” His questioning extended beyond personal matters to much broader issues. Much later he would put it this way: “What do the Scriptures have to say to ‘non human beings,’ impoverished people living in a world (Latin America in this case) where they are considered useless, nameless, even non-existent?”
Gustavo began expressing that what we were doing in our sessions was elaborating a “Theology of Development.” However, as I recall, he quickly laid aside that idea and suggested that our pastoral work with and for these “non-human beings” was connected with the Exodus story in the history of salvation; that our pastoral efforts were about that same movement – from slavery to freedom and dignity. A theology of liberation!
This concept and its consequences spread quickly through the post-Vatican II Latin American Catholic Church.* Thanks in great part to Gustavo’s influence and with the backing of the institutional Church, new kinds of pastoral practices began:
a preferential option for the poor guiding every aspect of our catechesis, sacramental life, bishops’ pastoral letters, lifestyles
an expanded spirituality based on a reading of the Gospel in the light of “structural, systemic, institutionalized injustices”
a growing awareness of the causes for the chasm between the “haves” and the “have nots,” both people and nations
preaching the “full Gospel”
I and millions more were fortunate beneficiaries of this, thanks to a spirit-filled thinker and firm believer in the Word Incarnate: Gustavo Gutiérrez, OP. Bless him now as he journeys home.
*It was not by any means universally accepted, however, but that is another story.
Joe Nangle OFM is a Pax Christi USA Ambassador of Peace and the 2023 Pax Christi USA Teacher of Peace. As a member of the Assisi Community in Washington, D.C., he is dedicated to simple living and social change. Joe also serves as the Pastoral Associate for the Latino community at Our Lady Queen of Peace, Arlington, Virginia.
No comments:
Post a Comment