Indian Cardinal opposes anti-conversion law in poll-bound state
12,000 gather as Goa starts exposition of St. Francis Xavier relics
Pope warns Vatican pension fund needs urgent reform as employees demand transparency
Pope: ‘Synod final document forms part of papal Magisterium’
Indian Church refuses to endorse political party in election
Assam Christians outraged by Hindu leader’s “divisive” remarks
Moral theologians address challenges in biomedical ethics in India
Answer: Saji Mathew Kanayankal CST
As a person with new insights, vision and initiatives, Gustavo Gutiérrez, was a man of controversies and people differed about him. For many, he was a great person who suffered both externally and internally to give birth to the message of the gospel in his context. A pious gentle and authentic spiritual person, who led a radical life despite oppositions, scrutinization and struggles. Some would say that Gutiérrez was both a prophet who denounced the abuse of the marginalized and a mystic who saw God’s presence where it seemed most absent. For some others, he was a rebel, a disobedient and a revolutionist who not only challenged existing systems and the authorities but also prompted others to challenge them. While admired by many, he was also suspected; he had both supporters and opponents all over the world. After his death, one of the notable comments goes like this; “In a world that was coming to understand the structural underpinnings of poverty and violence, and in a church only beginning to confront the challenges of modernity, Father Gutiérrez was a prophet who saw clearly how the Christian proclamation of salvation involved not merely the afterlife but included human liberation in this life as well.”
Gutiérrez started his priestly ministry in Peru, in an era of military dictatorship and guerrilla rebellions. The oligarchic structure in Peru with its evil effects of authoritarianism and centralism was marked by economic disparities, exploitation and grassroots resistance. In his priestly ministry, as a “friend and pastor” (amigo pastor), Gutiérrez had to confront the dichotomy between his life and the message of the gospel. As a person overwhelmed with the gospel message and inspired by the radical teachings of the Second Vatican council, he wondered how Christianity could speak of peace and justice in beautiful terms, in the face of poverty, injustice and exploitation. For Gutiérrez, it was a challenging time to articulate the reflections of the gospel to his living context.
The theological insights of Gutiérrez were developed through an interactive process between the socio-political context in Peru and Latin America and the critical reflection on the gospel. It is not merely an outcome of Gutiérrez’s personal reflection, rather it was the outcome of the life, experience and experiments of the entire Peruvian church. After the colonial powers, the church in Latin America was reconsidering its role in society, moving away from a conservative, hierarchical model toward a model of an agent of social justice, peace and human liberation. However, by the second half of the 1970s due to elections of new leadership within the Peruvian hierarchy, things began to change. The election of Pope John Paul II in 1978 reinforced this conservative shift. Moreover, many church leaders were close to social and political elites.
In his life as a pastor, Gutiérrez met with struggling poor people, who were the victims of exploitation and oligarchy. While confronting the gospel and Jesus of Nazareth, Gutiérrez could never accept the separation of the gospel message from real human life, because, for him, spiritual liberation and social emancipation were inseparable. Meaningful participation of the church in the realities of the world would be possible only by responding to the living experiences of the people around, like poverty, exploitation and exclusion. Instead of empathising with the poor and preaching to take care of the poor, he taught that the church needed to be a vehicle to push for fundamental political and structural changes that would eradicate all kinds of dehumanising structures.
As Leonardo Boff testifies, his fundamental theological question was: “How to understand God in the face of the suffering of the innocent; how to understand the resurrected Jesus in a world where people die before their time due to oppression; how to find the liberating God in a world where fraternity and solidarity are lacking? According to Gutiérrez, the material meaning of poverty is unequivocally evil and must be regarded theologically as sin. The salvation of the poor should not be limited to an otherworldly reality but could be realised within history and our time. The church must concern itself with life in this world, not the next and the Christian faith must engage with societal structures and work to dismantle the conditions that perpetuate poverty inequality and injustice.
Gutiérrez’s whole interest was forming a just society, especially in the context of his native land. For him, liberation cannot be merely limited to be an experience of future, rather it is a single salvific process. Peace is not simply the absence of violence but is also the positive presence of justice; it is a personal and structural reality that calls for continual conversion by the church and all of its members.
Gutiérrez’s idea of liberation can be summarised as follows: First, it is a political and social liberation that includes the elimination of the immediate causes of poverty and injustice. Second is the emancipation of the poor, the marginalised, the downtrodden and the oppressed from all kinds of dehumanising structures. Third is the liberation from selfishness and sin, a re-establishment of God and with his people. Thus, liberation theology becomes an authentic theology of salvation, with profound implications for how Christians live, believe, pray and act in a divisive world. From this view, sin is no longer an individual private act, it has social and structural dimensions and true salvation will be possible only by eradicating these structures of sin. The mission of the church is to bring good news to the poor and marginalised, to emancipate all those who are under the bandages of oppression and sin.
This spiritual and theological insight is captured in terms of “the preferential option for the poor.” By it, Gutiérrez gave voice to a disposition, a priority, a way of life that follows the paradoxical gospel injunction that the “last shall be first.” Christian disciples are called to confront the reality of poverty, oppression and injustice in all of its complexities. They must prioritise the poor and opt on behalf of those who are poor. When the poor take centre stage, they are not merely receivers of the good news, rather their struggles illuminate the reality of the world and reveal the mysterious presence of God that human language and understanding can only reach toward. Thus, the preferential option for the poor is a theocentric option that believers in the church, need to witness; they need to hear God’s option in revelation and adopt that example in their very lives.
Gutierrez was very strong in his convictions and articulations. Many of his ideas were challenging to the then-existing system. For example, he writes that the Eucharist is “an empty action” if the participants are “without a real commitment against exploitation and alienation and for a society of solidarity and justice.” “The church”, he says, “must participate in the struggle, be committed to economic and political liberation”. He also asked the Latin American church to criticise “every sacralization of oppressive structures to which the church itself might have contributed.” The task of the church must be re-defined in such a way that intra-ecclesial problems will take second place. “The purpose of the church is not to save in the sense of ‘guaranteeing heaven.’” The church “must cease considering itself as the exclusive place of salvation and orient itself towards a new and radical service of people.” Those who consciously and maliciously exploit their neighbour cannot approach the Altar without the purpose of amendment and restitution of the order of justice. Such radical statements are reflections of the authenticity of his thought and the expression of his mission.
The strong statements and radical position of Gutiérrez led to a lot of misunderstanding, doubts and suspicion. Some believed that Gutiérrez was supporting armed struggle against oppressors. He was accused as a ‘dangerous Marxist firebrand’ who used faith as an instrument of revolution. He has to undergo scrutinization and exclusion, particularly during the papacy of John Paul II. He has expressed concerns about liberation theology’s alignment with Marxist analysis, fearing that it risked reducing the spiritual message of Christianity to a political ideology.
The Vatican’s concerns were formally articulated in the 1984 Instruction on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberation”, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). While the document acknowledged the commitment of the church for social justice, it warned against the “Marxistization” of theology, cautioning that certain strains of liberation theology risked aligning too closely with materialist and class-struggle ideologies. It criticised an “excessive politicisation” of faith, expressing concern that theological concepts were subordinated to socio-political agendas. According to the document, the church’s mission should remain focused on spiritual salvation rather than direct political engagement, and it cautioned theologians against endorsing revolutionary tactics that could compromise the Church’s spiritual message.
In the face of queries, suspicions and threats, Gutiérrez remained serene and responded to critics thoughtfully. To Vatican, he clarified that the use of Marxist critique was not an endorsement of atheistic Marxism but rather an analytical tool to understand the socio-economic conditions that perpetuate inequality. He also argued that the Christian faith could not exist in isolation from the real-world conditions of believers and that Marx’s insights were simply a means to uncover the structures that kept millions in poverty. As Boff states after his death; “his inspiration is found in the sources of the Christian faith, in the deeds and in the tradition of figures such as Saint Francis of Assisi, Saint Vincent de Paul and others who gave centrality to the poor.”
In India, when we see a kind of dichotomy between Christian life and the gospel message, it is high time to redefine our being and doing. Authentic theology should come out of the living experience of the people. The possibility of political unrest as well as ecclesiastical silence should not be a hindrance to authentic Christian being and living. When the Christians are confronted with the message of the gospel both externally and internally, Gutiérrez is a source of inspiration to give radical witness to Jesus and endure every sort of suffering for the cause of the gospel. Though we have the duty to respect the authority, when gospel value is confronted, we have the moral obligation to challenge it for renewal. Struggles, labelling and scrutinization will be a part of it, however, truth triumphs in the end.
Leave a Comment