« American Foreign Policy: Time for a Change? Part VI | Home | American Foreign Policy: Time for a Change? Part VII »
Liberation Theology: What Happened in Latin America? Part VI
By jbcobb | June 23, 2011
Argentina
The intellectual and theological base had been laid in Rome and Medellin, and the messages were being relayed to the intended audience, but the real test of the theories had yet to be applied in the real world. The founding fathers of the Latin American liberation movement in the Church emphasized the importance of praxis, the actions, deeds, and involvement by progressive priests and clergy in the secular world. Liberation does not take place in academic arguments or in sermons at Saturday night mass. The populist movement of Juan Peron in Argentina initially proved very appealing to many members of the Catholic Church. The populist message of the Peron movement used many of the same arguments which were raised in the Columbian conference: Latin American dependence on Western industrial elites, the exploitation of the poor by the capitalist bourgeoisie, and the marginalization of indigenous peoples.
The Peron forces had garnered the support of many within the Third World Priest Movement, an Argentinean liberation group which focused on the “domination of the urban working class (the proletariat), the inhabitants of villas miserias (a lumpen proletariat?), and the campesino, including landless rural labor and tenant or share-cropping farmers” by the bourgeoisie, which included “the owners and directors of the capitalist enterprises” (Dodson, 1979, p. 215). While the Movement of Third World Priests incorporated Marxist thought regarding the exploitation of a large underclass by a smaller and more affluent group through the machinery of capitalism, the priests did not agree that the proletariat would eventually achieve victory, but that an eternal struggle would take place for a utopian society which was ultimately unobtainable in the temporal world (Dodson, 1979, pp. 215-216).
However, many supporters within the liberation movement sought to reconcile much in the Marxist theoretical framework with their Christian philosophy and democratic ideals. One of those, Rolando Concatti, tried to “synthesize Marxist and democratic interpretations of Peron’s rule by arguing that Peron gave concrete expression to the historical class struggle, while simultaneously making ‘the democratic movement’ a reality” (Dodson, 1979, p. 218). But, the reality of Peron’s Argentina would soon bring disillusionment to the Christian liberation movement. Peron quickly proved to be no more than most other Latin American politicians of that era, in that he simply sought to use the concepts of social and economic justice to solidify his support among large sectors of the poor population through a divisive campaign of class warfare.
This artificially-inflamed tension between socio-economic classes was by no means carried out for the benefit of the totality of the impoverished populace, but was strategically targeted for the benefit of certain groups which were already more politically activated and influential. Following the return from exile, and the eventual national popular election to president of Juan Peron, a sizeable majority within the Third World Priests’ Movement felt that, “For them, Peronism had become a ‘bourgeois phenomenon’ whose real strength lay in the organized working class which they saw as a labor elite” (Dodson, 1979, p. 218).
The liberation theology movement, and particularly the Movement of Third World Priests, suffered a devastating blow, and one which would effectively end the active vocal involvement of progressive Catholic clergy in Argentinean politics, in May 1974, when Father Carlos Mugica, an avid supporter of the Peron movement, was assassinated (Dodson 1979, p. 219). A shocking lesson was learned by those in the Church: direct political involvement in unstable regions involving ruthless and violent political groups is a deadly endeavor. The possible consequences of such activities proved too much for an essentially pacifist organization and, “symbolized the extent to which the priests had become embroiled in bitter political controversies and entangled in the embrace of a powerful political force whose behavior was beyond their control” (Dodson, 1979, pp. 219-220).
Topics: Foreign Policy, International Relations, Diplomacy, and Wars, Society, Cultural Issues, and Miscellaneous | No Comments »