An article by Prof. M. McKeever CSsR, published on the blog of the Alfonsiana Academy
We are not far off the 60th anniversary of Liberation Theology, which is often symbolically dated from the CELAM conference in Medellín in 1968. It is well known that this theology has been the object of dissent and conflict both within Latin America and between various theologians and Vatican authorities. The gravity of the question is evidenced by the publication of two documents on the theme by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1984 and 1986. A moral-theological evaluation of this complex and profound debate is well beyond the scope of a single blog. What seems opportune, however, is to consider Pope Leo’s Apostolic Exhortation Dilexi te (2025) as a contribution to this open debate. In what follows we will discuss this contribution under three headings: the substantial continuity with the social teaching of Pope Francis, a certain revision of the very idea of “Liberation Theology” and an authoritative, personal adhesion to a central cause of this theology: the love of the poor.
Given the often acrimonious tones of the debate on Liberation Theology over the past decades, the present Pope’s decision to continue and complete a project conceived by Pope Francis is in itself a significant fact. This courageous decision would seem to express a substantial continuity with the social teaching of his predecessor. The large number of extensive quotes from the writings of Francis, particularly from Evangelii gaudium, Fratelli tutti and Laudato si’, confirm this impression. While well known for his prudence and caution with regard to this theology while professor, religious superior and bishop in Argentina, there can be little doubt that in these documents Pope Francis endorses the essential elements of this theology: God’s revealed plan of salvation includes human promotion, the preferential option for the poor as a Gospel imperative and the denunciation of structural injustice in modern societies. Pope Leo’s decision to complete this line of reflection, not without some significant personal contributions, constitutes a major affirmation by a new Pope of the broad theological lines traced by the Theology of Liberation.
The second reason why this Apostolic Exhortation may be considered a significant contribution to the open debate about Liberation Theology is its specific theme: love towards the poor. The Pope goes to great lengths to insist that this theme is not new to Catholic theology and to the praxis of charity in the Church. The love of the poor is a paramount theme in Scripture and a constant theme in the history of the Church. In this broader sense all theology is liberation theology, in so far as it deals with God’s liberating grace as it manifests itself in history. For a contemporary Christian there can be no question of having to choose between Catholic doctrine and practice and the love of the poor: this love is constitutive of the Catholic tradition from the very beginning. Both Francis and Leo may perhaps best be understood as attempting to integrate the essential elements of Liberation Theology into the broader and older theological tradition.
A final contribution of Dilexi te to the open debate on the Theology of Liberation is the way in which the Pope personally espouses the theme of loving the poor. This he does with considerable authority given his long missionary experience in Peru. Beyond the sincerity of his personal concern for the poor, however, the Exhortation contains many elements of systematic reflection on the social phenomenon of poverty. This finds most eloquent expression in a whole section dedicated to the social structures of sin as the source of poverty and inequality. While insisting again and again that the Gospel must not be reduced to another project of social action but must be understood in terms of integral human salvation, the Pope nonetheless affirms with insistence the need to denounce the structural aspects of poverty.
It is very probable that the Pope’s attitude to Liberation Theology in this text reflects his attitude to all theology. There is a broader open debate concerning the relationship between the Church and modern culture, specifically with regards to the vision of Gaudium et spes.
Those of us who are convinced that this vision has not yet been adequately translated into practice can take some solace from the open but critical stance that Pope Leo adopts to the more specific case of Liberation Theology in Dilexi te (continua 3/5).
