The strange imputation of violence to liberation theology

Liberation theology identifies the existing distribution of power as a form of oppressive domination rooted in violence. The existing system justifies itself through a tightly woven fabric of economic, political, religious and social rationalizations. The most basic rationaliztion is the ‘paradigm of the inverted sacrifice’, wherein aggressive groups perceive harmless outsiders as ‘different’, as a threat, and ultimately sacrifices them, either through direct extermination or through oppression. In the modern era, this oppression is reflected in a ‘structure of dominance’ which guarantees the enrichment of a few and the disenfranchise‐ment of the masses. Liberation theology challenges the rationalization of the status quo on several key points: (1) the inappropriateness of using God to justify the ‘sacrifice’ of the poor and downtrodden to a system based on their exploitation; (2) the need for a fundamental redefinition of God to expunge the need for victims as the basis of the socioeconomic system; (3) the need to understand that history is a process of conflict; (4) the necessity to ‘desacralize’ all violence.

The critics of liberation theology reject these propositions either because they misunderstand them, or because they currently enjoy advantages that would be lost if these ideas were actualized. Noting the reference to violence in the literature of liberation theology, biased critics falsely assert that it preaches revolutionary violence and that liberation theologians are enemies of the poor. Over the past few years, these arguments have become less persuasive: the Vatican has recognized the need to correct structurally‐determined inequalities, and political candidates linked to liberation theology have made better showings in polls. Unfair criticism continues, but liberation theology shows promising glimmers of success in Latin America.