That’s the real question, isn’t it? That’s kind of been the real question every time Ratzinger has written about liberation theology. He never refers to any specific theologians or texts, but speaks only vaguely, which of course gives the impression that “the church” opposed liberation theology as a whole.

In the case of Boff, if you read the statement on his book Church: Charism and Power (which is the only text of his to be critiqued by the Vatican to my knowledge), the problem is his ecclesiological proposals, specifically his assertion that ecclesial structures were invented by human beings and are not “divine” in the sense of being unchangeable. On a related note, his use of Marxist language to challenge the use of the church’s sacramental system was also critiqued. These are very specific concerns. Boff’s attraction to Marxism as a way of critiquing the capitalist order was not criticized. Likewise, the criticism of Sobrino had nothing to do with Marxism but with his Christological proposals. Sobrino doesn’t really use Marxist analysis at all.

Latin American theologians still for the most part assume the validity of the Marxist critique of capitalism (as does anyone in his or her right mind). Use of Marxism as a political strategy is far less common and indeed usually seen as passe, often because as was pointed out above, it is not radical enough. Indeed, few put much faith in “Marxism” as a strategy anyway. Looking more broadly, many other non-Latin American forms of liberation theology have had little use for Marxism. Black, feminist, and indigenous theologies for example hardly if ever refer(red) to Marxism. Liberationists still advocate radical social and political change, but less emphasis is placed on Marxism. Times have changed.

So why does he bring it up? Surely not because he has any idea what liberation theologians are saying today and is concerned about it. He does not seem up to speed on what is happening and is perhaps even more out of touch today than he was before. I think he’s merely bringing it up as a vague ecclesiastical warning.

And although I am a pacifist, it seems that “armed revolution” is not ruled out by the church but would be “good” or “bad” depending on a number of factors.

Fair enough, and point well-taken, but when Benedict says:

Its more or less visible consequences consisting of rebellion, division, dissent, offence, and anarchy make themselves felt, creating in your diocesan communities great suffering and a serious loss of vitality. I implore all those who in some way have felt attracted, involved and deeply touched by certain deceptive principles of Liberation Theology to consider once again the above-mentioned Instruction, perceiving the kind light with which it is proffered

Who is that being directed towards? Leo Boff? He’s been out of the priesthood for almost 18 years. Which prominent liberation theologians (and/or members of Brazilian base communities) are still using Marxist dialectic today? Why bring it up now?

Liberation theology, like other theologies, can be good and/or bad. One way to tell if a particular expression of liberation theology is good or bad is to see where it lines up with the Church on the above issues (and others like them). When liberation theology condemns consumerism, good. When it advocates armed revolution, bad.

Our need for labels and camps really hinders our ability to ‘read the signs of the times.’

In (serious) response to Excelsior: it is because of the dominance of capitalist ideology in the developed world that a disproportionate attention to liberation theology–and especially those elements in it that articulate and critique the unthought presuppositions of the West–is necessary and urgent. Pretending as though there is any sort of parity between the existent powers of capitalism and those of Marxism, and that therefore one needs to split the middle between the two, is naive. The problem with Marxism is not that it is too radical but that, as liberation theologians as well as informed thomists have understood now for quite some time, it is not radical enough.