Repasando las noticias y demás medios en los que pobremente me informo, reviso esto, y tomo prestada una entrevista a don Gustavo Gutierrez, que aproveche.

Nota: adjunto para los interesados una lección del padre Gustavo Gutierrez. leccion-ggutierrez

Ángel Darío Carrero entrevistó a Gustavo Gutiérrez, uno de los padres del movimiento de la teología de la liberación en América Latina.

– ¿Cuándo comienza a asumir, como punto de partida de la teología, la realidad de la violencia y de la pobreza en Latinoamérica y el Caribe?

– Comencé a trabajar en marzo del '64. Hubo una reunión convocada por Iván Illich. Lo conocí cuando estaba todavía en Puerto Rico en el año '60. Fue Iván quien citó a una reunión muy informal en Petrópolis para que dijéramos cómo veíamos el trabajo de la teología en América Latina.

– ¿Y cuál fue su aporte?

– Hablé de teología como una reflexión sobre la pastoral y sobre la vida cristiana. Eso que formulé más tarde como reflexión crítica sobre la praxis a la luz de la fe.

– ¿Lo primero que surge es el establecimiento de un método que parte de la vida real para iluminarla a la luz de la Palabra y abrir caminos concretos de liberación?

– Así es. Yo me pasé prácticamente todos mis estudios de teología sumamente preocupado en la cuestión del método. De ahí la frase: "nuestra metodología es nuestra espiritualidad".

– El tema de la cercanía a los pobres no es nuevo, pero sí la indagación en las causas de la pobreza y la lucha contra la pobreza como parte de la identidad cristiana. ¿Cuándo comienza esta transición?

– Me invitaron a hablar sobre la pobreza en Montreal en 1967. Quería tomar distancia de Voillaume, el autor de En el corazón de las masas, porque él evitaba cualquier perspectiva demasiado social en torno a la pobreza; pero la verdad es que no se puede evitar el hecho social. Hablé de tres nociones bíblicas sobre la pobreza: primero la pobreza real o material, vista siempre como un mal. La segunda es la pobreza espiritual, como sinónimo de infancia espiritual. La pobreza espiritual es poner mi vida en las manos de Dios. El desprendimiento de los bienes es consecuencia de la pobreza espiritual. Y la tercera dimensión es la solidaridad con los pobres contra la pobreza. Voillaume hablaba de que había que ser pobre. Sí, muy bien, ¿pero para qué? ¿Qué sentido tiene? No es únicamente para santificarme yo. Había que plantearse lo que significa para el otro.

– ¿Algún otro elemento importante de esta arquitectónica inicial?

– Una preocupación: ¿cómo anunciar el Evangelio hoy? La teología se hace para anunciar el Evangelio, al servicio de la Iglesia, de la comunidad. Hay muchas facultades que piensan en la teología como una metafísica religiosa, no como anuncio histórico de liberación.

– ¿Cuándo comienza a llamarse “teología de la liberación” a este nuevo modo de pensar la fe desde la perspectiva del pobre y del excluido?

– El 22 de julio de 1968 en Chimbote, Perú. Me pidieron hablar de "teología del desarrollo" y me negué. Les dije que hablaría de teología de la liberación, que era más pertinente a nuestro contexto. Otra cosa que estaba de moda era la "teología de la revolución", de la cual también tomé distancia. El peligro de la misma era que pretendía cristianizar un hecho político.

– A diferencia de otros, usted nunca estuvo de acuerdo con partidos o grupos como la Democracia Cristiana ni con Cristianos por el Socialismo, aunque acentuaba la dimensión política de la fe. ¿Por qué?

– Nunca me gustó que se usara lo cristiano como adjetivo. Lo cristiano es un sustantivo. Siempre dije: "Soy cristiano por Cristo, no por el socialismo." Que como cristiano alguien haga una opción por el socialismo es otra cosa, pero no puedo deducir el socialismo por el camino de la Biblia. De la Biblia deduzco la opción por la justicia, la opción por el pobre. La gente cuando no entiende esto dice: "Oye, pero tú niegas la política, estás del lado contrario." Yo respondo que también creo en la autonomía de lo social y lo político.

– ¿Cuándo comienza la idea de formar el libro que se convertirá en el texto fundacional de la teología latinoamericana contemporánea: Teología de la liberación. Perspectivas ?

– En realidad no pensé escribir un libro propiamente. Uno trabaja en los temas que le interesan y poco a poco va saliendo. Al comienzo de 1969, poco después de Medellín, una comisión ecuménica sobre temas de desarrollo me invitó a Ginebra. Entonces retrabajé la ponencia que había dado en Chimbote y así lo seguí ampliando.

– ¿Tuvo oferta de alguna editorial concreta?

– No, pero pasó Miguel d'Escoto, de Maryknoll, que acababa de fundar Orbis Books. Vio el libro y me dijo: "Lo publico." Fue el primer libro publicado por esta editorial. Lo hizo traducir y lo publicó en 1973, y ha sido el libro más vendido de esa editorial. Luego pasa el editor de Sígueme, de España, y lo mismo. Otro que se interesó fue Gibellini. La edición italiana es incluso anterior a la española. Ya está traducido como a diez o doce lenguas, también al vietnamés y al japonés.

– ¿Cuál es la oposición principal que recibe el libro?

– Yo diría que más que al libro, era ya a la Teología de la Liberación. Ya mucha gente estaba escribiendo. Se criticaba el enfoque marxista del análisis de la realidad, pero yo no me sentía aludido. Ahora bien, la oposición más fuerte que hemos tenido no ha sido dentro de la Iglesia, sino en algunos componentes de la sociedad civil, en los poderes fácticos, económicos, militares, políticos.

– La discusión abierta es signo de una teología que le dice algo al hombre y a la mujer de hoy, que genera diálogo crítico no sólo al interior de la Iglesia sino con la sociedad.

– Buena parte de las reacciones vienen de la acogida que tuvo. Si me hubiera quedado en un ambiente de intelectuales no hubiera tenido ese impacto. Hubo una acogida de la base, incluso con expresiones que a mí nunca me han convencido, pero que nacen de la buena voluntad, que dicen: "Yo soy de la Teología de la Liberación." Pero la Teología de la Liberación no era ni es un club en el que uno se inscribe, ni un partido. Se cantaban miembros y luego decían lo que querían y no siempre correspondía con lo que uno pensaba. Son cosas inevitables.

– Pero también hay una necesidad de encontrar fallas a una teología que provenía del sur.

– Un periodista estadounidense me preguntó: "¿Qué piensa la Teología de la Liberación de este problema mundial?" Le dije: "Usted cree que esto es un partido político y que yo soy el Secretario General. Pues no." También le dije: "A que usted no le pregunta a Metz (Juan Bautista): ¿qué piensa la teología política europea de este problema mundial? A él no, pero a esta teología sí. Claro, porque aquello sí es teología. Metz es alemán." Algunos reaccionaban de este modo porque piensan que algo venido de América Latina debe tener fallas grandes. Tienen que encontrarlas a como dé lugar. Si es latinoamericano tiene que haber alguna posición rara. Quieren cosificar una teología.

– Si uno se deja llevar sólo por lo que está escrito en la prensa, tal parece que usted ha sido condenado por la Iglesia. Y no es cierto.

– Es curioso. En mi caso nunca hubo condena, ni siquiera hubo un proceso; sí hubo un llamado diálogo, preguntas que siempre estuve dispuesto a contestar.

–¿Le parece válido este tipo de diálogo?

– Siempre he creído que la teología se hace al interior de la Iglesia. En la Iglesia hay carismas distintos. A uno que escribe teología le pueden preguntar que dé razón de su fe, así como damos razón de nuestra esperanza. A ese nivel de preguntas no hay que ofenderse.

– ¿Cuánto duró el diálogo?

– Comenzó en 1983 y concluyó de varias maneras, pero con papel oficial hace cinco años. Durante mucho tiempo todo estuvo en silencio. No hubo nada conmigo.

– ¿Qué dice el texto oficial?

– La expresión es que todo concluyó satisfactoriamente.

– ¿Tuvo varios encuentros cara a cara con el cardenal Joseph Ratzinger?

– Sí, para gran parte de ellos no fui convocado, sino que yo mismo tomé la iniciativa. Ratzinger es un hombre inteligente, educado y, dentro de su propia mentalidad, ha evolucionado, ha entendido muchas cosas. En una ocasión, en Roma, me dijo que había leído mi libro sobre Job. Yo mismo le enviaba mis libros. Siempre he creído que la distancia crea fantasmas. Me dijo que le había gustado y que los teólogos del sur teníamos poesía, que la teología europea era más fría...

– Su modo de proceder ha sido siempre poco conflictivo, enormemente dialógico y carente de dramatismo. Algunos creen que corresponde a su personalidad, pero creo que hay aquí algo profundamente eclesial.

– Exacto. Todo viene de que el mundo que más dice a mi vida no es el mundo intelectual. No es la defensa de mis ideas porque son mis ideas. Me interesa la vida de la Iglesia, el anuncio del Evangelio y la vida de las conferencias episcopales.

– La teología carga la huella de su tiempo. Estamos claramente entrando a otro tiempo en el que no se siente la misma urgencia y se abren otras rutas a la fe.

– Hasta los cuarenta años nunca hablé de la Teología de la Liberación y creo que era un cristiano de verdad. Así que seré cristiano después de la Teología de la Liberación. Cuando me hablan de que ya murió la Teología de la Liberación yo digo: "Pues mira, a mí no me invitaron al entierro y creo que tenía algún derecho." Luego les digo: "Pues fíjate, creo que un día sí va a morir." Entiendo por morir el hecho de que no tenga la misma urgencia que antes. Eso me parece normal, fue un aporte a la Iglesia en un determinado momento.

– Creo que se cuida bien de no convertir a la teología en un ídolo, en una ideología a la defensiva.

– No hay que hacer de una teología una nueva religión. Es la tendencia de la sociedad civil. Algunos piensan que la Teología de la Liberación es una especie de cristianismo distinto, el mío. Y hasta lo dicen elogiosamente, no por criticar. No creen en el cristianismo, pero sí en la Teología de la Liberación. Pues lo siento, lo importante es el cristianismo, no la Teología de la Liberación; ésta sólo se entiende al interior del cristianismo.

– ¿No cree que antes se hablaba de pluralismo teológico, pero era en realidad un pluralismo limitado, es decir, dentro de una mentalidad casi exclusivamente europea?

– Sí, y todavía en la academia teológica se habla de nosotros como teología contextual, un pensar que mantiene una estrecha relación con la realidad. Cuando me dicen esto, yo les digo para molestar: "Ay, usted tiene una idea muy mala de la teología europea. Me está diciendo que no son contextuales. Me está diciendo que es una teología que no tiene relación con la realidad. Una teología en el aire. Yo no creo eso."

– ¿Ha tenido que luchar contra cierta pretensión de superioridad?

– Muchísimo. Llamar contextual a una y no contextual a la otra es un ejemplo. Todo pensar corresponde a un contexto. Más que un rechazo a la Teología de la Liberación, es una comunicación con un punto menor, como si fuéramos algo subalterno. Ha habido muchas cosas por el estilo. Se aceptaban las ideas, pero se criticaba la Teología de la Liberación. ¿Qué es eso?

– Estábamos acostumbrados a que la teología sólo dialogara con la filosofía y no con las ciencias sociales. Es una novedad que costó aceptar al principio.

– Curioso, porque hoy las ciencias sociales están de lleno dentro de la teología. Esa crítica a la Teología de la Liberación ya prescribió. Y todo esto ocurre a pesar de que nunca dijimos que las ciencias sociales reemplazaban a la filosofía en la teología, sino que ampliábamos el abanico de luces y disciplinas humanas para trabajar el misterio cristiano.

– Además toda teología verdaderamente creadora genera resistencias. Es la prueba de fuego de su valía.

– Evidente. Mira la reacción ante el diálogo de Teilhard de Chardin con las ciencias naturales. Y el ejemplo clásico de Santo Tomás de Aquino. Hablo de un gigante frente a esta teología tan enana como la Teología de la Liberación. Tuvo resistencias enormes, fue condenado por la Universidad de París y tomó siglos que se le reconociera. Él incorporó una filosofía que provenía de un pagano, la repensó, la retomó, la mezcló.

– ¿Cree que estamos ya en un nuevo y mejor momento?

– La cosa más dura y polémica ha quedado atrás. Debe quedar para los historiadores. Y es muy bueno decir que ya pasó. Si algo ha muerto realmente es esta polémica. Yo creo que ya es tiempo de bajar el tono.

– Hay un texto en el que usted se mueve reflexivamente hacia el contexto actual de la globalización y de la postmodernidad y hacia los retos que plantea a la teología. Me refiero al ensayo ¿Dónde dormirán los pobres? Allí comienza a hacer una crítica a la tentación de hacer de la teología misma un ídolo.

– Cuando de alguna cosa que no sea Dios hago un absoluto, caigo en la idolatría. He oído decir: "Teología de la Liberación o nada." Nunca he dicho: "Si usted quiere comprender a Cristo lea la Teología de la Liberación." Ahora, si alguien me pregunta si creo que leyendo sobre Teología de la Liberación va a comprender algo importante del cristianismo, pues sí. Es provocador decirlo, pero también la justicia puede convertirse en un ídolo. He visto cómo los pobres son maltratados por personas que se creen mucho más claras políticamente que ellos. Yo estoy muy marcado por una cosa de Pascal que leí a los quince años: "El abuso de la verdad es peor que la mentira." Uno puede tener la verdad y abusar de ella. La persona es siempre más importante.

– Su reflexión más reciente ha advertido también sobre la tentación de hacer del pobre mismo un ídolo…

– Eso viene del romanticismo de algunos. Hay gente que me dice: "Todo lo he aprendido del pobre, el pobre es tan bueno." A veces, bromeando les digo: "Usted cree que todos los pobres son buenos y generosos, pues yo no les aconsejo que vayan a mi barrio a las dos de la mañana porque se quedarán como cuando nacieron, sólo que más viejitos." Es una manera de hacer entender que la opción no se hace porque el pobre sea bueno, sino porque Dios es bueno. Si el pobre no es bueno, pues también. Mucha gente se decepcionó del compromiso porque creían que el pobre era bueno. Si hubiesen entrado porque Dios es bueno, todavía estarían comprometidos.

– De hecho, en un artículo suyo titulado "San Juan de la Cruz en América Latina" deja apuntado que lo que podría ayudarnos a evitar este camino idolátrico (que aunque habla de liberación no libera) sería abrirnos a la dimensión más mística de la fe.

– Si algo tiene la mística es la capacidad de ayudarnos a depurar la noción de Dios. Si vemos el dibujo de San Juan de la Cruz, hay un momento, a partir de la mitad de la falda del monte, en el que dice que a partir de ahí no hay camino. Eso es la mística. Un caminar hacia el Señor. Seguir haciendo de Él, conforme avanza nuestra vida, nuestro único absoluto. Sin esta dimensión mística no hay verdadero compromiso con los pobres. Ahora bien, hay que cambiar la noción de mística. No es como se dice por ahí: salir de este mundo. No se trata de transmitir un mensaje, sino de "transmitir lo contemplado". A esto hay que añadir la intuición de Nadal: ser "contemplativos en la acción"..

– Lo que a veces se anuncia como mística, incluso en importantes teólogos o estudiosos, todavía tiene excesivas reminiscencias neoplatónicas negadoras del cuerpo de la historia..

– La mística no es un desinteresarse de este mundo. Todavía hay gente que encuentra muy místico a alguien que no pisa tierra. Si no le importa el pobre no estoy seguro de que se trate de una experiencia mística. Es interesante que una mística, Teresita de Lisieux, sea patrona de las misiones.

– Progresivamente usted ha ido insistiendo en la poesía como el mejor lenguaje para hablar de Dios.

– La poesía es el mejor lenguaje del amor. Y Dios es amor. El mejor lenguaje para hablar de Dios es la poesía. Un lenguaje profundo que ve el mundo y ve la relación con el otro desde una dimensión y una hondura que el concepto no ofrece. Aunque no escribamos poesía, la teología misma debe ser siempre una carta de amor a Dios, a la Iglesia y al pueblo que servimos.

you constantly hear negative associations made with "organized religion", or just religion in general.  and right now the king of smugness, bill maher, is releasing his "documentary" religulous, lampooning people of faith.  but gandhi is an example of how that religion is not only not the "opiate of the masses" or a refuge of scoundrels, but it is the greatest inspiration for good mankind has known, and has a far more positive then negative effect on the world.  think of the 20th century, and all the figures who did the most to work for peace and a positive change in our world - gandhi, martin luther king, jr., mother teresa, nelson mandela, the dalai lama, pope john paul II, jimmy carter (yeah, that's right, jimmy carter!), dorothy day, gustavo gutierrez, thich nhat hahn, haile selassie, mother jones, maharishi mahesh yogi, bhaktivedanta swami prabhupada, bono (what?!?!), thomas merton, desmond tutu, dietrich bonhoeffer, bob marley (his influence is far greater then just being an amazing musician - i'm living proof), and on and on - they were all motivated primarily by their faith.  whereas the worst dictators and greatest monsters - mao, stalin, hitler, mussolini, pol pot, etc. (and yes, hitler & mussolini were "raised catholic", but neither was a practitioner of the faith, if anything hitler was an occultist) all lacked faith.  and look throughout history and see the lives of all the saints and their examples and they far outnumber those who abused the christian faith for political gain.  and look at all the teachings of the greatest religious leaders - jesus, the buddha, lao-tzu, confucius, zoroaster, mahavira, guru nanak, and the pantheon of hindu deities.  read their teachings and you see the heart of the faiths they represent and that these are positive forces in this world.  yes, we have a fundamentalist crisis occuring in the world today, particularly in the middle east and in the islamic religion, but i still stand by my belief that faith and religion or spirituality or whatever you want to call it makes a person better.  people can and do use these things to further their own agendas and for their own gain, and a negative minded person can make a positive thing negative, but they are the exceptions i say.  and now, some words of wisdom from the mahatma.

Faith gains in strength only when people are willing to lay down their lives for it.  Faith is not like a delicate flower which would wither away the' slightest' stormy-'weather.  Robust faith in oneself and brave trust of the opponent, so-called or real, is the best safeguard.  A living faith cannot be manufactured by the rule of majority.  What is faith if it is not translated into action?  Faith is not imparted like secular subjects. It is given through the language of the heart.  Every living faith must have within itself the power of rejuvenation if it is to live. Just as the body cannot exist without blood, so the soul needs matchless and pure strength of faith.  Nonviolence succeeds only when we have a real living faith in God.  My effort should never be to undermine another's faith but to make him a better follower of his own faith.  My faith is brightest in the midst of impenetrable darkness.  Nonviolence is the first article of my faith. It is also the last article of my creed.  Even as a tree has a single trunk but many branches and leaves, there is one religion -human religion- but any number of faiths.

Your character must be above suspicion and you must be truthful and self controlled.

All your scholarship would be in vain if at the same time you do not build your character and attain mastery over your thoughts and your actions.

Civil disobedience is the assertion of a right which law should give but which it denies.  Civil disobedience presupposes willing obedience of our self-imposed rules, and without it civil disobedience would be cruel joke.  Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the State becomes lawless corrupt.  Civil disobedience means capacity for unlimited suffering without the intoxicating excitement of killing.  Disobedience to be civil has to be open and nonviolent.  Disobedience to be civil implies discipline, thought, care, attention.  Disobedience that is wholly civil should never provoke retaliation.  Non-cooperation and civil disobedience are different but branches of the same tree call Satyagraha (truth-force).

Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good.

The very essence of democracy is that every person represents all the varied interests which compose the nation.

The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within.  (attn:  u.s. government!!!)

Unless discipline is rooted in nonviolence, it might prove a source of infinite mischief.

For a nonviolent person, the whole world is one family. He will thus fear none, nor will others fear him.

The truth is that God is the force. He is the essence of life. He is pure and undefiled consciousness. He is eternal.

Independence of my conception means nothing less than the realization of the "Kingdom of God" within you and on this earth.

True nonviolence should mean a complete freedom from illwill and anger and hate and an overflowing love for all.  This freedom from all attachment is the realization of God as Truth.

Peace will not come out of a clash of arms but out of justice lived and done by unarmed nations in the face of odds.

Moral results can only be produced by moral restraints.  Moral authority is never retained by any attempt to hold on to it. It comes without seeking and is retained without effort.  True morality consists not in following the beaten track, but in finding out the true path for ourselves and in fearlessly following it.  To observe morality is to attain mastery over our mind and our passions.  Performance of duty and observance of morality are convertible.

My patriotism is not an exclusive thing. It is all-embracing and I should reject that patriotism which sought to mount the distress or exploitation of other nationalities.

Passive resistance is a method of securing rights by personal suffering; it is the reverse of resistance by arms.  Passive resistance is an all-sided sword; it can be used anyhow; it blesses him who uses it and him against whom it is used.  Passive resistance is a misnomer for nonviolent resistance. It is active than violent resistance.  Passive resistance, unlike nonviolence, has no power to change men' s hearts.  The sword of passive resistance does not require a scabbard.  Jesus Christ, Daniel and Socrates represented the purest form of passive resistance or soul force.

A person who has realized the principle of nonviolence has the God-given strength for his weapon and the world has not yet known anything that can match it.

I look upon an increase of the power of the State with the greatest fear, because although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress. We know of so many cases where men have adopted trusteeship, but none where the State has really lived for the poor.

The greater our innocence, the greater our strength and the swifter our victory.

The hardest heart and the grossest ignorance must disappear before the rising sun of suffering without anger and without malice.

Truth is what the voice within tells you.  Truth is the right designation of God.  Truth and nonviolence will never be destroyed.  Truth is like a vast tree which yields more and more fruit the more you nurture it.  Truth alone will endure, all the rest will be swept away before the tide of time.  Truth and untruth often con-exist; good and evil often are found together.  Truth is self-evident, nonviolence is its maturest fruit, it is contained in Truth, but is not self-evident.  Every truth is self-acting and possesses inherent strength.  Truth, which is permanent, eludes the historian of events. Truth transcends history.  Truth and nonviolence demand that no human being may debar himself from serving any other human being, no matter how sinful he may be.  Truth is the first to be sought for, and Beauty and Goodness will then be added unto you.  An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.  Truth without humility would be an arrogant caricature.  The quest of truth involves self-suffering, sometimes even upto death.  Use truth as your anvil, nonviolence as your hammer and anything that does not stand the test when it is brought to the anvil of truth and hammered with nonviolence, reject it.

God never made man that he may consider another man as an untouchable.  To say that a single human being, because of his birth, becomes an untouchable, unapproachable, or invisible, is to deny God.

If by strength is meant moral power, then woman is immeasurably man's superior.

I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

Each one has to find peace from within.  And to be real, peace must be unaffected by outside circumstances.

Peace is its own reward.

Poverty is the worst form of violence.

An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.

Hatred can only be overcome by love.

When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, ALWAYS.

JustFaith claims it will "energiz[e] social ministry." Along with scores of other dioceses, the Archdiocese of Santa Fe has been inviting interested Catholics to participate in this expensive program - the registration fee $250 each year for each participant, who must each buy a set of 11-13 books each year, costing $115-$125. The 30-week program also requires showing 14-16 videos every year at a cost of $300-$350 and recommends additional speakers, who are available, of course, for a stipend... not to mention the costs accrued from mandatory weekend retreats.

Expense isn't the issue, however - the product is. JustFaith is a liberationist propaganda vehicle, a "conversion-based process", to train participants to "become advocates for justice."¹

Eddie Roth, an editorial writer for the Post-Dispatch, writes in his blog that the program (which he likes, by the way) draws from Fred Kammer's Doing FaithJustice. What Roth describes is a classic liberationist (Marxist) perspective in which the religious tradition is distorted to "reveal" class antagonisms and a "need" to restructure society along Marxist lines. Roth writes:

Kammer called the sequence the "cycle of Baal...."

- First comes the "original blessing" - all the things that we need to survive and that make life especially worth living, which are seen as "gifts from God" but carry with them the obligation to protect the poor.

- Things start heading down hill, as people become "owners" - with that people start moving away from the poor as what had been seen as a gift becomes for many, Mine!

- As people move away from the poor, they move away from God.

- In God's place they create other "gods" - in the form of money, land, prestige, even The Bible itself as an object.

- With the creation of these substitutes comes self-destruction.

- Then come prophets who argue that turning away from the poor is the root of the self-destruction and exile.

- The response to which is to attack and ridicule and destroy the prophets.

- Eventually, there is a "crying out for deliverance" and, ultimately, a "restoration." ²

JustFaith materials include reading lists of works by other problematic authors, including Cloud of Witness by Jim Wallis, an evangelical minister who edits the magazine Sojourners - originally founded to support the anti-war and sanctuary movements. Currently, Wallis is promoting the New Sanctuary Movement to support illegal immigration in the US and the Faith in Public Life network of "spiritual progressives", many of whom advocate abortion and homosexual advocacy. JustFaith also recommends Selected Readings in Liberation Theology by Gustavo Gutierrez & others.³ Another recommended book is Doing Justice by Dennis A. Jacobsen, which promotes the organizing principles of Saul Alinsky. These are not Catholic materials.

Nor does Jack Jezreel, the founder and director of JustFaith, intend to support authentic Catholic social justice teaching. Jezreel is longtime speaker for the dissident Catholic organization Call to Action,⁴ which exists to change church doctrine and structure along liberationist lines. He sees JustFaith has a way to "transform parishes", as he believes they ought to be "transformed," with parishes holding all parishioners' goods in common and having a "shared economics".⁵

Since it doesn't represent a Catholic perspective, JustFaith can be - and is - used ecumenically, as it has been in Louisville, Kentucky where the program originated. Little wonder that his program is flawed and the Catholics passing through it are confused about Church teaching. There are inexpensive, authentically Catholic programs, however, to assist contemporary lay activists in developing strategies of action that foster the Faith rather than erode it.⁶ They are easily accessible if a diocese seriously wants to train Catholic social justice advocates.

1 [JustFaith General Overview 2003-04, prepared by JustFaith for "leaders planning or considering JustFaith."]

2 www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-platform/editorial-writers-notebooks/2008/08/justfaith/.

3 [handout from Interparish Social Concerns Committee, Northhampton, 2004]

4 Examples of Jezreel's talks for Call to Action meetings: 1996 CTA national conference; 1997 CTA national conference: "Spirituality of Commitment Making Promises, Friends and Justice"; The fourth West Coast CTA Conference, August 11-13, 2000 at San Jose State University: "Transformed People, Transformed Parish, Transformed World"; Keynote at CTA-affiliated Pax Christi 2007 National Conference

5 [CTANews, December 1997]; At a 2007 South Carolina JustFaith workshop, The Catholic Miscellany of the Greenville Diocese reported that "Jezreel stressed the message that ‘there are to be no poor among you'."

6 For example, the St. Antoninus Institute (www.stantoninus.net) has free study guides for parish-based Antoninus Circles, providing training in the Church social teachings and practical guidance in decision-making and behavior. Institute materials utilize the social encyclicals of the Catholic Church and the method of St. Thomas Aquinas and his teachings.

It's only been two days and already I can tell that my choice to take two classes at BC is a profound moment in my journey of transformation. I hope to live a WHOLE lifetime of change and growth, but this seems like a particularly significant time. I'm just going to summarize a little of what I'm learning and sometime in the future try to figure out what it all means and the impact.

Contemporary Spirituality. I took this class because it is taught by Robert Ellsberg and he lived for 5 years with Dorothy Day - a "servant of God". My passion for Day cannot be understated - her life is reeking havoc on my understanding of faith in action and causing me to question everything I thought I knew about being human, much less Catholic! I took the class because I wanted to be near someone who had been near her. But the course transcends so much more then her life. It encompasses the universal call to holiness and sheds light on how it is possible. In the introduction to his book All Saints, Ellsberg writes: "the stories of the saints remind us that we are called to something higher and more demanding, that holiness is our vocation and the standard by which we must be judged." I am coming to understand that my holiness is not in being Dorothy Day, or Teresa of Avila, or Martin de Porres, or whoever - but rather in answering God's call for me - whatever that may be - and using the saints as my inspiration, encouragement, and support. (My book list: A Brief History of Saints, Making Saints, My Life with the Saints, The Saints' Guide to Happiness, Friends of God and Prophets, All Saints, in addition to many articles)

Church of the Poor. This class is teaching me so much about theology - and more interestingly the possibilities of  narrative theology. I'm learning fabulous terms like ecclesiology, hermeneutics, praxis, and soteriology. I'm reading about Bartolome de las Casas, Tupac Amaru II, Jose Maria Arguedas, and Oscar Romero. We are discussing the second and third general conference of Latin American Bishops.  I was moved, powerfully, when we read Gustavo's writing "Theological Language: Fullness of Silence" and understood that he is saying whatever we have to say about God is windy words unless it speaks to the suffering of innocents. DAMN! Our professor, Nickoloff, had us read Arguedas poem to Tupac Amaru (both are important influences in Gustavo Gutierrez's work and life). Arguedas tells Tupac that though his rebellion was crushed, we will not let that stand. For all those that have fought for justice before us - and been martyred, silenced, or destroyed - they have not failed. Their success is in our hands. WHOA!

After class, while I was at midday prayer, I could feel it. I have been saying it for a while, but it was an overwhelming sensation in the silence of the chapel. I am transforming. I don't know where God will lead me or how I will continue the fight for justice and equality, or where I will care for Jesus in the face of the poor, but I will. God is leading me there - I can feel it.

I am so excited for the exchange of dialogue and ideas, to be immersed in faith issues, to go to mass everyday, to not have to fly somewhere, to meet new people. I am also thrilled to be getting a real hands on feel for whether or not I want to get a dual degree in Pastoral Ministry and Social Work. Yes, that is right. I am considering going to graduate school for the third time....and actually hoping to get a masters this time around! I have 12 graduate credits in Education and 18 in Library Science. Since deciding not to continue with library science I haven't given school much thought. One month ago I quite accidentally stumbled upon the IREPM website at Boston College. As I read program descriptions and looked at course offerings I could feel butterflies in my stomach. I set up an appointment with an adviser and spent about 30 minutes telling her about me - in terms of my career and my faith. She told me that she thought that the MA/MSW Dual Degree program was perfect for me. She said I could get a Master's in Pastoral Ministry with a concentration in Spirituality and Justice along with a Master's in Social Work with a concentration in Global Practice. At that moment I felt I knew why I had ended up in Boston. She also encouraged me to take summer classes to get a feel for the community and the offerings. (She mistakenly told me Gustavo Gutierrez would be teaching classes the week I could take vacation....but alas he is coming the following week. It is truly heart breaking so I may just have to get "sick" at work and sneak into one of his classes). I may as well do some research before I venture into yet another graduate program....I mean the third time is a charm and all but it never hurts to proceed with a little caution (something foreign to my modus operandi). I'll see how classes go and continue praying to discern if my mission includes more formal education.

If I do go back to school I can't imagine another program/place that would be better suited for me. Here is a brief description of what's got me so excited: "The program reflects the University's mission to educate individuals who are committed to the pursuit of social justice. A specific goal is to develop the skills and credentials necessary to plan, administer, and/or provide social services within a local church or church-related agency." Individuals committed to social justice? That's me, that's me! Social services within a faith based agency? That is exactly what I want to do with my life! I can just see myself doing international aid work for a Catholic organization (hopefully in Brasil or Nicaragua).

I started to contemplate all of this at a time when I could barely stand up at work I was so overwhelmed by all of my responsibilities and duties. I know that part of my initial eagerness was related to a "grass is greener" type of phenomenon. But as I stepped back from my enthusiasm I realized I don't want to live for the next big thing that will make me happy - whether that is a man, a new city/state, or a degree (which despite many attempts have not panned out). I am determined to live in this present moment and revel in the joy of right now. My staycation is an opportunity to make the most of this moment - regardless of what the future may hold - and to help explore how faith can best intersect with action. I can't think of a more exciting or fruitful way to spend my vacation.

It is the one place in my life where the intersection of faith and activism is seamless. There are too many places where the two are at odds, instead of in harmony. Despite that conflict - I wouldn't know how to distinguish between my faith and the social convictions that inform my activism. Would I serve the homeless and hungry if I didn't believe in Christ? Would I care so deeply about the genocide in Darfur and abolishing the death penalty if I didn't believe in the dignity of life? Would I accept homosexuality (and love my cousin and friends as they are) if I didn't believe that we are all made in God's image? Would I donate to various charities if I wasn't already in the practice of tithing? Would I be so concerned about the environment if I didnt' see it as God's creation? My understanding of theology is rudimentary - for sure - and there are so many ways in which I don't "qualify" as an activist. And yet....at whatever level I am at, for me faith and action are deeply intertwined.

I truly stuggle in those times when what I believe morally and what I believe socially/politically are at odds. But I refuse to give up in either domain. I will not be a buffet style Catholic practicing only the parts that are convenient for me but nor will I swallow my convictions and walk away from causes that cry out for action. I continue to seek a balance, sometimes with success, other times in failure.

Fortunately, St. Francis House has provided me the opportunity to joyfully fulfill both parts. I am heeding God's call to serve the least among us. I am volunteering for an organization that works to treat more then one symptom of a much greater social ill (St. Francis offers housing, treatment, training - in addition to nourishment). Thanks be to God.

El connotado filósofo, sacerdote dominico y teólogo de la liberación peruano Gustavo Gutiérrez cumple hoy 80 años de vida.

Reconocido por muchos como el "Padre de la Teología de la Liberación", Gutiérrez empezó a enarbolar la "opción por los pobres" a finales de la década de los '60s en varias conferencias conducidas por el movimiento Iglesia y Sociedad en América Latina (ISAL).

En 1971 publica su obra más conocida, Teología de la liberación: perspectivas (Lima: Centro de Estudios y Publicaciones), que es considerada como la obra definitiva del movimiento, y que ha sido traducida a veinte idiomas.

Relacionado:

-Gustavo Gutiérrez @ Wikipedia en español

-Gustavo Gutiérrez @ El País | Madrid, España

The reactions against liberation theology from both the right and the left are misguided. Hannity acts as though liberation theology is inherently racist – ‘how dare they actually make a distinction between white and black’! The Conservative acts as if racial prejudice is simply a thing of the past. If anyone brings the issue of race into the conversation, then they must be a racist, even if they represent that minority. The race issue, in this case, has been moved to the unconscious realm. Prejudice still exists; blacks are imprisoned in droves, are kept from the better paying jobs, and are generally looked down upon in certain circles, but since the superficial issues of the “separate but equal” doctrine have been nullified, the white man has been cathartically satisfied. He feels as if he’s done his part.

On the other hand, Colmes reaction is no better. He simply wants to dismiss the real problems that liberation theology brings to the fore. He wants to excuse the ‘separatism’ as a necessary component of ‘angry black man’ syndrome, pacifying its true intent. He sees liberation theology as a healthy form of ‘community formation’, rather than the radical foray into socio-political critique that it is.

Here is where we need a true grasp of what Liberation theology really is; and we must distinguish between two different kinds: what I will call ecclesial Liberation theology, and radical Liberation theology. First, let us look at ecclesial Liberation theology through the eyes of Gustavo Gutierrez.

Gutierrez’s view of a proper liberation theology is founded upon the life of the church. Unlike the historical materialism of Marxism, Gutierrez wants a revolution founded upon the life and deeds of Christ – and that means a quiet revolution, but not in the sense of volume. As Gutierrez himself has said, “The Eucharist is the first task of the church.” The irony is that it is a revolution, but the weapons of our warfare are bread and wine, not guns and knives (or butter). As Karl Barth was fond of saying, “To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world.” Because of the advent of Christ, the world has been changed forever. When God entered the world at the Incarnation, eternity was brought into our temporal existence. When God granted us the benefits of adoption through faith in Christ, He effectively nullified the necessity of violent revolution. Christ created a new path. If we are to live a cruciform life, a life that resembles the passive resistance of Christ and the apostles, then we must first pray, and then love. This is our revolution – when we are weak, then He is strong.

On the other hand, radical Liberation theology takes its cue from the violent revolutionary politics of the French and Russian Revolutions of the mid-19^th century. Lenin and Robespierre are its heroes – not Peter and Paul. This is a theology that refuses to break down the dividing wall of Jew and Gentile, or rich and poor, or black and white, etc. It wants to create divisions, and it wants to do so violently. Unfortunately, I believe that Jeremiah Wright’s comments often fall under this rubric. This revolution will ultimately end just like the world’s other revolutions, with the guillotine. Violence rejects the peace of Christ, even though His peace does come packed with a sword. It returns back to the shadowy covenant of Moses, where God shows favor to nations and people groups rather than to sinners.

What we need is a new hermeneutic for understanding the social - a sort of theo-epistemology which leads to a theological social structure with theologically-centered living within. When we look to God, rather than utility or capital, to determine how we must live, we will come close to something radical – and possibly even socialist. Jesus Christ died because of His radicality, yet it was a radicalism that has not yet been duplicated. In the western academic realm, it is easy to speak as if we wish to throw down our pens and pencils and pick up a sword. It’s in our nature to react with hostility when we feel subjugated. But how difficult it is to pray for our enemies, and love those who despise us. This is why Herbert McCabe says that “Christianity alone, because it is the articulate presence of Christ, the future of mankind, cannot (however hard it sometimes seems to try) wholly betray its mission. As it seems to me, like St. Peter and the twelve, we remain Christians because there is nowhere else to go: if Christianity is not the revolution, nothing else is.”[2]