Learning to Live with Pluralism

• Published in: Foreign Policy in Focus 2007, p.N_A
• Main Author: Berryman, Phillip
• Format: Report
• Language: English
• Subjects: Clergy; History; Religion; Religious congregations; Secularism
• ISSN: 1524-1939

Observers have generally assessed the Aparecida meeting on its stance toward liberation theology and the "option for the poor" that the bishops called for in similar such meetings in Medellin, Colombia (1968) and Puebla, Mexico (1979). In fact, critics of neoliberalism can certain find ammunition in some strands of the Aparecida document. In their analysis of Latin American societies the bishops do reaffirm the "preferential option for the poor." They speak eloquently of the "faces of those who suffer" and mention the indigenous and Afro Latin Americans, denounce human trafficking, and express sympathy with people suffering from HIV-AIDS, and even for the incarcerated. They raise questions about free trade agreements imposed under pressure and critique copyright regimes that allow for patenting of life and the use of genetically modified organisms. They further condemn corruption in governments and question high concentration of wealth, noting that their own continent, the one with the largest number of Catholics, is also the most unequal. That may help explain why Latin American theologians, regarded as "progressive" on economic and political issues, generally avoided the kinds of topics such as abortion and homosexuality sometimes addressed by liberal theologians in North America and Europe. Although they generally endorsed the struggle for women's equality, they steered clear of what might be called "bourgeois" feminism, as did most other Latin American male intellectuals, on the grounds that these were issues of the "First World" and not of concern to Latin America. The overarching theme of the Aparecida conclusions is that the church must be one of "disciples" and "missionaries." The latter term and a call for outreach efforts, even going door to door, reflect a recognition that the Catholic Church is in a situation of pluralism and competition. Can a church used to taking its monopoly for granted make such a shift? What does the "preferential option or the poor" mean in a time when directions are not as stark as they seemed in the era of military dictatorships? Can the bishops relinquish their pretension to being the sole arbiters of truth and morality in their societies? While it provides direction for the road ahead, the Aparecida document also prompts further questions.