It’s good to know that sin is still something primarily committed by individuals, and the liberationists have not departed from Christianity.

I don’t think the liberationist position is that sin is “primarily” committed by individuals, if that’s how you understood me. Sin is both personal and social. Yes, individual persons commit sin, but unlike liberals, liberationists do not see persons as mere individuals but inherently social. So we can speak of structures of sin, systems that are sinful, which in some sense precede the individual. Human beings are born into social situations of sin. It’s also important to consider how sin is not simply this or that action, but a matter of relationships.

But individuals sin. The abstract ’society’ does not.

I don’t think liberationists would see “society” as “abstract.” Society is precisely a community of persons that exists in history, not an abstraction.

What are you referring to specifically?

Sobrino’s recent little book “No Salvation Outside the Poor” is great, and would probably make a good intro to Sobrino. He has some pretty unique themes that others don’t touch on. Also his “Principle of Mercy” is fantastic. “Jesus the Liberator” and “Christ the Liberator” are longer, more technical, but great books.

The Sobinro/Ellacuria edited “Systematic Theology: Perspectives from Liberation Theology” is good… it’s an abridged version of “Mysterium Liberationis” which is a huge collection of essays on different topics in systematic theology from a liberationist perspective.

Robert McAffee Brown has some good books that introduce liberation theology, from a North American perspective: “Liberation Theology,” “Spirituality and Liberation,” and “Theology in a New Key.”

I’m not a huge fan of Boff but he is one of the big ones. I liked “Trinity and Society” and the book he got in trouble for “Church: Charism and Power” is over the top at times but over all very good. Also “Introducing Liberation Theology” by Leonardo and Clodovis Boff is pretty good.

I haven’t gotten too into Moltmann, but yes, he is a German political theologian who warmed up to liberation theology. Johann Baptist Metz is a student of Rahner who is often compared to Moltmann… German political theologian with concerns similar to liberation theology (praxis oriented), but more academic. “Faith in History and Society” is his best book.

I’m not an expert in liberation theology, though I’ve read a few works here and there. It’s difficult to get it all in one or two or three books. I really think Gutierrez’s “We Drink From Our Own Wells” is a great text, and it is written in response to criticisms, so I think it works to show quite well the greater dimension of Gutierrez’s own vision. And, although he isn’t Catholic, and a Liberation Theologian as such, I think Moltmann’s “Spirit of Life” actually has a great theological presentation of many of the conerns of Liberation Theology from a slightly different context (and one which has been influential upon Liberation Theologians, from all I understand). I would myself round it off with something from Boff, just because of his fame and connection to the movement itself.

It’s good to know that sin is still something primarily committed by individuals, and the liberationists have not departed from Christianity. All faithful, orthodox Catholics would agree that sin has a social dimension – our sins affect others in tragic ways, both spiritually and materially. Certainly our sins can help to cause others to sin. But individuals sin. The abstract ‘society’ does not.

Ok so, I am buying Gutierrez’s book “A Theology of Liberation” and in order to get free shipping I need to buy another book or two. Which other texts would you consider foundational?

Of course. But that doesn’t mean “sin is no longer something committed by an individual.” For liberationists, sin is both personal and social.

By the way, most of that book I read is not from Father Schall. There are essays from a variety of people, including Hans Urs Von Balthasar, John Paul II, and some other Latin American scholars whose names escape me at the moment.

Yes, when you mentioned that you were reading it, I spent some time with it. Read a good bit of Schall’s contribution and the Dale Vree article, the latter of which I found particularly dishonest and distorting.

I certainly want to see if they’ve distorted what the liberation theologians say.

One thing to notice is that the authors in that book hardly cite any actual liberation theologians, and when they do, it’s far from adequate. That should speak volumes. If I were going to write a book on Ratzinger’s theology and I barely cited him, it would be ridiculed, and yet this is precisely what these people seem to be doing.

Contrary to what you seem to believe, I am only concerned with what is true and good.

Good. Then I look forward to your further thoughts on liberation theology texts! Your post seemed to come to a conclusion about liberation theology based on your reading of this book. I just encourage you to read the liberationists themselves, to acknowledge that you are reading them from a different “place” than from where they were writing, and to be “charitable” (the buzz word of the Catholic blogosphere) and give them the benefit of the doubt as you read them, without whatever prejudices Schall and company may have led you to believe.

I had this argument with one of the commenters on this blog who asserted that very idea.

By the way, most of that book I read is not from Father Schall. There are essays from a variety of people, including Hans Urs Von Balthasar, John Paul II, and some other Latin American scholars whose names escape me at the moment.

I certainly want to see if they’ve distorted what the liberation theologians say. Contrary to what you seem to believe, I am only concerned with what is true and good. I could care less about my opinions or about whether a particular idea is left or right or conservative or liberal or anarchist or whatever.

I just noticed you commented on one of my posts about liberation theology. Since it’s unlikely you’ll see my response on my site, I’ll post it here.

I just wanted to set a few things clear:

I have not “deliberately avoided reading any liberation theology”. I read a book by a scholar I know and trust to begin my study of the subject. When I said “From my reading”, I was referring to my reading of Fr. Schall’s book. I wasn’t trying to imply I’m widely read in the subject. And I do intend to read some works by liberation theologians, I’m starting soon with “A Theology of Liberation” by Gutierrez.

Thank you for ridiculing me.

I addressed the first part of your statement in my response. I’m sorry it was unclear to you.

As for Kennedy, my main point is really that we just can’t focus solely on the presidency when it comes to SCOTUS selections. A Republican Senate in 1987 confirms Robert Bork – baggage or no. Again I’ll concede that the administration bungled aspects of that appointment, and Bork performed poorly at his confirmation hearings, doing little to help his own cause. But Ted Kennedy and company demagogued the issue, and we can’t forget that it is due almost entirely to Senate Democrats that Roe v. Wade was not overturned. (The practical implications of a reversal of Roe is a different matter).

Long story short, if Reagan had his way, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I would recommend Jan Crawford Greenburg’s excellent book on the Supreme Court for a better explanation of the history. I would simply say that after the Bork and Ginsburg debacles, he really didn’t have much of a choice.

Lastly, it seems funny to be critical of Republicans for not being hard-headed enough. I know that you – Policritus – are not an Obama fan, but those that are frequently tout his supposed centrism (talk about myth making) and his willingness to listen to both sides. But it was precisely the willingness of GOP presidents to compromise that led to disappointments on the pro-life front with regards to SCOTUS.