(Read part I here)
One sees, thus, that the struggle of the Church against Liberation Theology is mainly ecclesiological. And this makes sense, since, to "Liberationists", doctrinal Truth in any other area is irrelevant; and what is relevant is the preservation of the Church as a "Liberating structure" which shall establish the Kingdom of Justice on earth.
The third significant step in the struggle of the Holy See against "liberationists" was the ecclesiological refinement brought about by Dominus Iesus. This instruction was primarily directed not against liberationists, but against Asian and Asian-inspired "Catholic" theologians who upheld that a salvific way may be found outside Christ and His Church -- but it also had a few words which reminded Catholics that the liberation theologians' view of the Kingdom of God was equivocal and mystifying:
One sees, thus, that the struggle of the Church against Liberation Theology is mainly ecclesiological. And this makes sense, since, to "Liberationists", doctrinal Truth in any other area is irrelevant; and what is relevant is the preservation of the Church as a "Liberating structure" which shall establish the Kingdom of Justice on earth.
The third significant step in the struggle of the Holy See against "liberationists" was the ecclesiological refinement brought about by Dominus Iesus. This instruction was primarily directed not against liberationists, but against Asian and Asian-inspired "Catholic" theologians who upheld that a salvific way may be found outside Christ and His Church -- but it also had a few words which reminded Catholics that the liberation theologians' view of the Kingdom of God was equivocal and mystifying:
The mission of the Church is “to proclaim and establish among all peoples the kingdom of Christ and of God, and she is on earth, the seed and the beginning of that kingdom”. ... she is therefore “the kingdom of Christ already present in mystery” and constitutes its seed and beginning. The kingdom of God, in fact, has an eschatological dimension: it is a reality present in time, but its full realization will arrive only with the completion or fulfilment of history.
... If the kingdom is separated from Jesus, it is no longer the kingdom of God which he revealed.The result is a distortion of the meaning of the kingdom, which runs the risk of being transformed into a purely human or ideological goal and a distortion of the identity of Christ, who no longer appears as the Lord to whom everything must one day be subjected (cf. 1 Cor 15:27). Likewise, one may not separate the kingdom from the Church. It is true that the Church is not an end unto herself, since she is ordered toward the kingdom of God, of which she is the seed, sign and instrument. Yet, while remaining distinct from Christ and the kingdom, the Church is indissolubly united to both
Deus Caritas Est fulfills, six years later, the second part of the ecclesiological struggle against "Liberation theology". If Dominus Iesus made clear the true meaning of the Kingdom of God, the last encyclical is a clear rebuttal of this ideologization of the Church put into practice by the "liberationists". The message could not be starker:
The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.The ultimate Socialist-Liberationist State, the State which brings complete "justice" to Earth through the fulfillment of material urges, is not the will of the Church.
The message is so clear that it would be presumptuous to comment further on it. Now, when will this message reach seminaries and theological colleges? Do not hold your breath.
The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. The Church is one of those living forces: she is alive with the love enkindled by the Spirit of Christ. This love does not simply offer people material help, but refreshment and care for their souls, something which often is even more necessary than material support. In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live “by bread alone” (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3)—a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.
