I stand in defense of Gustavo Gutierrez who has been judged against the orthodoxy of his theology in light of the documents “Instruction on Certain Aspects of the ‘Theology of Liberation’” and “Libertatis Conscientia.” It is important to understand that although these documents by cardinal Ratzinger raise various eyebrows towards some of the practices of modern liberation theology, these are in no way a condemnation of liberation theology, or of Gutierrez’ theology for that matter. The issues however that each of these documents discuss are the following; the tendency to act towards Marxist actions, the lack of prioritization of the ultimate purpose of liberation, the tendency to call about violence for change, and the failure to address the new forms of oppression that are created. Throughout his various books, Gustavo Gutierrez addresses these issues and leaves no way for misinterpretation against the orthodoxy of his theology; in reality, his teachings are deeply rooted in Christian doctrine, however they are misinterpreted if not analyzed thoroughly.
One of the biggest issues that is compared to Gutierrez’s teachings is the idea that he promotes a Marxist and communist approach/analysis to life. What this implies is that we get rid of the class struggles that exist and that everyone work together through a single class (the working class). Specifically, the idea that we must act (praxis) in order to liberate others around us is one that stems from a similar idea of action that is rooted in the “Marxist analysis”. The difference however is that Marxism promotes an idea that all classes must be brought to a single level of struggle and suffering (the level of the proletariat). Gutierrez’s idea is one that is based on a different foundation. He quotes in his books that the class struggle must “not to be confused with the Marxist interpretation… The class struggle is a fact that no one can deny.” He believes that those on the higher levels, must delve into relationships with the marginalized in order to liberate and elevate them from their struggle. While they both aim to create equality in the long run, Marxism looks to bring everyone down to the same level while liberation theology calls for those who are fortunate to extend a hand to those in the bottom in order for everyone to go up to the same level. This stretching of the hand that Gutierrez calls for is his idea of praxis, rather than a universal struggle in the communist approach. Ultimately, Marxism was founded on the atheist approach at life, where Marx himself believed that religion was wrong and gave the people false hope. Liberation is rooted on the idea of the preferential option for the poor that God has and that we should therefore have as well; it is also important to understand that the preferential option for the poor should not be converted into an exclusive option for the poor. This idea about the preferential option for the poor leads us to answering a couple of the other arguments against Gutierrez. The first document states that some of the modern liberation theologies “put liberation from sin in second place, and so fail to give it the primary importance it is due.” It criticizes the lack of emphasis given to the fact that liberation should be from sin. Gutierrez’s theology however, fights and emphasizes this point quite clearly. It does so as well by trying to eliminate the new forms of oppression that capitalism, and like the second document states, “technology” have created. Gutierrez takes these problems by defining sin as “looking for happiness in the wrong places”. These wrong places according to Christian doctrine, are in the material world that, consequentially, capitalism has given so much importance to. According to God’s preferential option for the poor, so to Gutierrez believes that those who are not classified as poor and excluded must have and show a preferential option for the poor. He believes that these people must help the poor avoid sin which is all over their daily lives. The biggest sin of the poor is believing that it is because of God’s will that they are poor. (Sin should not be seen as a purely social or structural sin and therefore is simply defined as any rupture in the relationship between a person and God.) Consequentially, the poor live in the marginalized end of a capitalist system that reduces Christian faith to economic terms. Because the poor are in constant dire need of material goods to live, they give more importance to these relationships over the relationship with God. Ultimately, if those who are not poor are able to liberate (find happiness in the right places, through developing relationships with people and God rather than material goods) the poor from sin, they are also liberating themselves from the sin of seeking happiness in the wrong places. The reality behind these ideas is that there must be conflict to break the structures that society has formed in order to keep those who are marginalized in their place. This is another point of criticism for the Peruvian. Violence is never really justified in Christian Doctrine, however Gutierrez stands here promoting conflict. The difference is in the word. He is not promoting outright violence but necessary conflict in order for the barriers of these structures to be broken. He believes it is the same conflict that Jesus brought with him when he came to change things in favor of the poor and the marginalized. Only through this can the excluded have a fighting chance at liberation. It is even talked about in the second document by Ratzinger saying that “emancipation of young nations” has to happen. These people who are passed off from “master” to master aspire and are “prepared to fight for their freedom.” This is the same conflict that Gutierrez alludes to. Hence, Gustavo Gutierrez is actually trying to address the oppressions that technology and capitalism have created. Not through violence, but through the very same conflict that the figure of Jesus Christ brought. He quotes in his book, “Development must attack the root causes of the problems and among them the deepest is economic, social… dependence of some countries upon others (an expression of the domination of some social classes over others).” The image of Jesus Christ, although not a politically, or economically inclined figure, brought with it a whole ordeal of political and economic conflict in the society at its time. By giving a preferential option for those who were marginalized and by trying to lessen the importance of material goods, Jesus was trying to show the people that the means (individuals) are more important than the ends (material goods). So too, does Gutierrez try to emphasize the fact that in order to break capitalism’s structure of giving the material more importance than the people, there must be conflict. Gutierrez only tries to address the main issue of oppression, and he provides solutions in order to fix these issues. In doing so he sticks to the Christian doctrines rather than break them. The two documents further criticize some of the modern approaches at liberation theology and the problems that modern theology in general is proving difficult in fixing; however, this criticism isn’t directed or guided directly at Gustavo Gutierrez’s theology. The orthodoxy of Gutierrez’s teaching is unstained if one carefully analyzes his books and teachings. As a matter of fact, most of his ideas are very well summarized in cardinal Ratzinger's document, “Libertatis Conscientia.”