There has been considerable furor, especially in the Roman Catholic Church, about the assessment of "Liberation Theology". The Pope's views are contested by people within his own church. Even Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Casaroli have given expression to conflicting viewpoints, indicating disagreement in the Vatican itself.
This is perhaps as it should be. There should be debates and disagreements in each church so that the people can be exposed to differing aspects of the question.
In the case of Liberation Theology, those who are generally opposed to it are people who have stakes in the present established order. The Vatican, at least one part of it which handles power and property, would naturally have an interest in keeping investments in the world Capitalist economy safe and productive. Liberation theology is rightly perceived as a threat to the World Capitalist System, especially in a Roman Catholic area like Latin America, where Christian theology has considerable influence on the minds of people.
The usual Capitalist argument, whether openly or by implication, against Liberation Theology is that it is tainted with Marxism. And Liberation theologians are anxious to defend it from this charge - mainly for the sake of public relations and better relations with the Vatican. With the present Pope especially anti-Marxism seems to be a most essential credential for being a Christian. The Vatican "instruction" on Liberation Theology, has one whole chapter on "Marxist Analysis". Its main point is that "atheism and the denial of the human person, his liberty and his rights, as at the core of the Marxist theory". In that statement there is a good example of how truth and falsehood can be mixed together. ‘here is no doubt that atheism is a central tent in Marxist ideology. But no one who has some idea of "Marxist theory" can say that "the denial of the human person, his liberty and his rights, are at the core of the Marxist theory". That is not a fact. People who say so, do it out of malice or ignorance. Marxist theory certainly exalts the human person above all else. There is no denial of his liberty or rights, but only a radically different understanding of the rights of the working man or woman to be free from oppression and exploitation. Marxist practice may in many cases be different. That even Marxist may not always deny. But to say such a thing about Marxist theory shows only how carelessly the instruction has been prepared, and how unhelpful it is for a correct assessment of liberation theology
We can agree with the Vatican instruction that Christian theologians should use secular philosophical theories only after careful critical examination in the light of Christian theology. We have openly disagreed with the position of certain liberation theologians that "Marxist analysis" is the right tool for Christians to understand the meaning of God's actions in our time. There need be no doubt that there is a fundamental disagreement between the premises of the faith of the Church and the ideology of Marxists.
What we find difficult to accept is the affirmation of Cardinal Ratzinger in his Press Conference presenting the Instruction to the public (L'Osseruatore Romans, 10th Septr 1984, p.5); "with today's presentation of the ‘Instruction on some aspects of Liberation Theology’, critical reflection has arrived and is now within every one's reach". we need better critical reflection than what the Instruction has succeeded in providing. It has certainly generated a debate within the Roman Church, and in this sense it has a positive value. But its analysis of the issue between Christian Faith, Marxist Analysis and Liberation Theology remains amateurish and unscholarly. The Press Conference made it clear that the Instruction was no condemnation, but an invitation to debate.
When a newspaperman pointed out that the liberation theologians‘ use of Marxism was parallel to Thomas Aquinas‘ use of Aristotle, Cardianl Ratzinger admitted that "use may always be made of valid elements contained also in non—Christian knowledge, while criticising these ideologies with the key of realistic knowledge". That is a reasonable position, and we only wish it were more clearly expressed in the Instruction itself.
For us the problem with liberation theology is not its Marxist ideological taint. Such taints seem to be inescapable. Much opposition to liberation theology including“the Instruction carries with it an anti-Marxist or free-enterprise liberal ideological taint, which is even in less conformity with Christian values. Our problem can be better put in the form of certain questions, some of which are partly implied in the Instruction,but which should really be discussed between the Vatican defenders of the faith and the liberation theologians e.g.
(a) Are Liberation Theologians distorting the Gospel of Jesus Christ in too one-sided a way by undervaluing its emphasis on the Kingdom of God and reducing it to political, economic and cultural liberation ?
(b) Are the exegetical methods and principles enunciated and used by liberation theologians too one-sidedly made to order to yield the results they want ?
(c) Does liberation theology do justice to the Sacramental and pastoral ministries of the Church and the needs of people other than for political, economic and cultural liberation