Marxism and Christianity in Latin America

Author(s): Michael Lowy and Claudia Pompan

Source: Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 20, No. 4, The Struggle for Popular Participation
(Autumn, 1993), pp. 28-42
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2633912 .
Accessed: 27/09/2011 17:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin American
Perspectives.

http://www.jstor.org
 Marxismand Christianity
in Latin America
byMichaelL6wy
TranslatedbyClaudia Pompan

For halfa century,

Marxismhas beenproscribed-under thecaricatural
epithetof "atheistcommunism"-asthe mostformidable and insidious
enemyoftheChristian faith.The excommunication decreedbythepope in
thepostwaryearswas merelythecanonicalsanctionoftheimplacableand
obsessivestrugglethathas builta wall of hostilityin LatinAmericaand
throughout theworldbetweenthefaithfulofthechurch andMarxist-oriented
politicalmovements. The breachesopened in thiswall by the surprising
convergence ofChristianityandMarxismin LatinAmericaduringthepast
30 years-particularlythrough liberation
theology-havebeen amongthe
mostimportant factors
ofsocialtransformationinthemodernhistory ofthe
hemisphere. Indeed,someof thekeysocial and politicaleventsof recent
decades-such as theNicaraguanrevolution, thepopularuprisingin El
Salvador,and thenew grass-roots workers'movement in Brazil-can be
neitherunderstood norexplainedwithoutbearingin mindtheprofound
changethathas occurredin LatinAmericanCatholiccultureas a resultof
broadsectors'havingembraced andincorporated someofthebasictenetsof
Marxism.RegardlessoftheoutcomeofRome's current authoritarian
offen-
sive-and thepossibility will
thatthisoffensive meetwithsome success
shouldnot be ruledout-these eventsalreadyconstitute an irreversible
historical
fact.
Thesedevelopments havebeena causeofconcernnotonlyforconserva-
tivebishopsand theologians, defendersof Rome's orthodoxy, and doctri-
nairesofthefaithin thehighestspheresoftheVaticanandtheConferencia
Episcopal Latino-Americana(Latin AmericanBishops' Conference-
CELAM) butalso fortheLatinAmericangeneralswhometin 1987inMar
del Plata,Argentina,and theRepublicanadvisorsto thepresident of the
UnitedStateswhometin SantaFe in 1980and 1988.In an attempt to head
MichaelLowyis a participating editorofLatinAmerican Perspectives.He residesin Parisand
is associatedwiththeGroupede Sociologiedes Religions,CentreNationalde la Recherche
Scientifique. publishedin Lua Nova (Vol. 19) in Sao Paulo,Brazil.
This articlewas originally
ClaudiaPompan,a nativeofBrazil,receivedherPh.D. inpoliticalsciencefromtheUniversity
ofCalifornia,Riverside.She currently residesinRedlands,California.

LATIN AMERICANPERSPECTIVES, Issue79, Vol.20 No. 4, Fall 199328-42

? 1993LatinAmerican
Perspectives
28
 Ldwy/MARXISM AND CHRISTIANITY 29

offthisunexpected
phenomenon,RonaldReagan'sadvisorsresorted
toclassic
policeterminology intheMay 1980SantaFe document:
("infiltration")
U.S. foreign policyshouldbegintoconfront liberation
theology(andnotjust
reacttoit a posteriori) .... In LatinAmerica,theroleoftheChurchis vitalto
theconceptof politicalfreedom. Unfortunately,theMarxist-Leninist
forces
haveusedtheChurchas a politicalweaponagainstprivateownership andthe
capitalist
system ofproduction, thereligious
infiltrating community withideas
thataremorecommunist thanChristian.

It would serveno purposeto dwell on thegrossinadequacyof such an

"analysis";sufficeit to say thatit is entirely incapableof explainingthe
internaldynamics ofthesesectorsofthechurch thatledthemtotakepositions
againstthecapitalist systemofproduction thatwereoftenmuchmoreradical
thanthosetakenby thetraditional Marxist-Leninist forces(i.e., theLatin
Americancommunist parties).
Thesameteamofexperts (nowworking forPresident Bush)haspublished
a secondreport(SantaFe II) withbasicallythesamegeneralthrust as the
albeitinslightly
first, moresophisticated
terms. Thediscussion hasnotturned
totheGramscian tacticsusedbytheMarxists, whohavediscoveredthatthe
mosteffective waytocometopoweris by"dominating thenation'sculture,
whichmeanssecuringa positionof strong influence overreligion,schools,
themass media,and theuniversities": "It is in thiscontextthatliberation
theologyshouldbe viewed,as a politicaldoctrine in theguiseofa religious
beliefthatis antipapaland anti-free-enterprise, aimed at weakeningthe
independence ofsocietyinthefaceofstatecontrol." Thecomplexandunique
relationship betweenreligiousand politicalconsiderations in liberation
theology is thus reduced to a mere "disguise," a resultof the Marxists'
Machiavellianstrategy.
A similarthrust is foundinthedocument on liberation theology presented
at the Inter-American Conferenceof ArmedForces in December1987.
Despiteitssignificantly higherlevelofdetailand"expertise"-itwas prob-
ablycomposedby a conservative
theologian actingas advisorto thearmed
forces-thisdocumentalso interprets thephenomenon withinthegeneral
framework ofa "strategy oftheinternational communist movement inLatin
America,implemented through variousmodioperandi."
Now, a minimumof good sense would sufficefor any observerto
recognizethatliberation theology-andtheconvergence ofChristianity and
Marxismincertainsectorsofthechurch-wasnotthe result
ofanyconspir-
acy, strategy, or maneuverby communists,
tactic,infiltration, Marxists,
Gramscians, or Leninistsbutratheran internal development of thechurch
itself,stemming fromits own traditionand culture.What needs to be
30 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

explainedis whyitoccurred-why, ata givenpointinhistory (i.e.,theearly

1960s) andin a givenarea (i.e.,LatinAmerica),a sectoroftheclergyand
theChristian (mainlyCatholic)laityfelttheneedtoadopttheMarxistmethod
ofinterpretation andtransformation ofreality.
In thislight,theanalysisofRome'smainopponent ofliberation theology,
CardinalRatzinger (1985: 122-130,mytranslation), is muchmoreinteresting
and insightful. Accordingto theeminent prefect of theHoly Officeof the
DoctrineofFaith,inthe1960s"a perceptible vacuumofmeaninghadarisen
in theWesternworld.In thissituation, thevariousformsof neo-Marxism
becamebotha moralforceanda promise 'ofmeaningthatseemedpractically
irresistible to academicyouth."Moreover, "themoralchallengeofpoverty
andoppression presented itselfin an ineluctable formattheverytimewhen
EuropeandNorthAmericahadattained a hitherto unknown affluence. This
challengeevidently calledfornewresponses thatwerenottobe foundinthe
existingtradition. Thechangedtheologicalandphilosophical situation was
a formalinvitation toseektheanswerin a Christianity thatalloweditselfto
be guidedby themodelsof hope,scientifically grounded, putforward by
Marxistphilosophies." The outcomewas theemergence ofliberation theo-
logians"whofullyembracedthebasicMarxistapproach."If thegraveness
of thedangerpresented by thisnew doctrinewas underestimated, it was
"because it did notfitintoany of theacceptedcategoriesof heresy;its
fundamental concerncannotbe detectedby theexistingrangeof standard
questions."Thereis no denying, thecardinalconcedes,thatthistheology,
whichcombinesbiblicalexegesiswithMarxistanalysis,is "appealing"and
has an "almostflawlesslogic."It seemstorespondto "therequirements of
scienceandthemoralchallenges ofourtime."This,however, doesnotmake
it anyless a threat: "Indeed,an erroris all themoredangerous, thegreater
thegrainoftruth itcontains."
The questionremainswhyit was Marxist-oriented "modelsof hope"in
particular thatwereabletoseducesuchlargesectorsoftheRomanCatholic
ApostolicChurchin Latin America-morespecifically, whataspectsor
elementsofthechurch'sowndoctrine andofMarxismmighthavefavored,
facilitated, or encouragedtheirconvergence. A conceptthatmightprove
usefulin thistypeof analysisis theone thatMax Weber(1971) used to
studythereciprocalrelationship betweena religiousform(theProtestant
ethic) and an economicethos(thespiritof capitalism):selectiveaffinity
(Wahlverwandtschaft). On thebasis of certainanalogies,certainaffinities,
certaincorrespondences, twocultural structuresmay-in theright historical
circumstances-enter intoa relationship of attraction,ofchoice,ofmutual
selection.Thisis nota unilateral processofinfluence butrather a dynamic
dialecticinteraction thatmayleadinsomecasestosymbiosis orevenfusion.
 LUwy/MARXISM AND CHRISTIANITY 31

The following aresomeexamplesofpossibleareasofaffinity orcorrespon-

dencebetweenChristianity andsocialism:
The liberation ofslavesand theoppressed,as a moralimperative and a
historical process.Thisidea hasitsrootsintheOld Testament; itis notmere
coincidencethatgrass-roots communities and liberation theologyattribute
so muchimportance tothebookofExodus.
The viewthatthepoor are innocent victimsofinjustice, immuneto the
reigning corruption, andtheideaofa moralimperative toacttosavethepoor.
Obviously,thereis considerabledistancebetweenthe poor of Catholic
doctrine andtheproletariat ofMarxisttheory, butthereis nodenying a certain
socio-ethical "kinship"(Verwandtschaft) betweenthetwo.
Universalism, internationalism ("catholicism" in its etymological
sense)-doctrineandtransnational institutions
thatviewmankind as a whole;
humanism, affirmation of thesubstantial unityof humankind above races,
ethnicgroups,andnations.
Criticism ofindividualism. As theMarxistsociologist LucienGoldmann
(1955) observedinhisbookonPascal,bothMarxismandChristianity reject
pureindividualism (liberal/rationalist,
hedonistic,or empiricist). For both
theories, thesupremevaluesaretransindividual: God (forreligion)andthe
humancommunity (forsocialism).
Assignment ofgreater valueto thecommunity, to community life,tothe
communalsharingof goods;criticism of anonymity, impersonality, alien-
ation,selfishcompetition in modernsocietallife.
Anticapitalism. Max Webercorrectly identifieda profound opposition
betweentheethicalrationality of theCatholicchurchand the economic
rationality of capitalism.The churchrejectsa totallyimpersonal, reified
(Versachlicht) economicsystemthatlies beyondits moraland religious
imperatives (Weber,1971:591-592).Criticism ofliberalcapitalism hasbeen
one of the basic tenetsof thechurch'smagisterium ever since the 19th
century.
The hope for a futurekingdomof justice and freedom,peace, and
brotherhood amongall mankind. The identification ofthisaffinity between
Christian andsocialistutopiasdoesnotnecessarily meanaccepting thethesis
ofNikolaiBerdiaev,KarlL6with,andmanyothersthatMarxismis merely
a secularizedavatarofJudeo-Christian messianism.
It is obviousthattheseelementshaveentirely differentmeaningsin the
twoculturalsystemsandthatformalanalogiesin andofthemselves do not
constitute a causeforconvergence. Forexample,thereis nothing farther from
thepooras construed in thechurch'straditional doctrine-astheobjectof
charity andpaternalprotection-than theroleof theproletariat in Marxist
thinking, as theagentsofrevolutionary action.Thecorrespondences outlined
32 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

abovedo notprevent thechurchfromreconciling itselfwithcapitalist order

andfromregarding socialism,communism, andMarxismas theintrinsically
perverseenemiesof Christian faith-although therehavebeenindividuals,
groups, andcurrents ofthought within Catholicism (andthevariousbranches
ofProtestantism) thathavebeenattracted tomodern revolutionary doctrines.
Whattransforms theseformalanalogiesintoa dynamicrelationship of
selectiveaffinity is a givenhistorical conjuncture, specificallytheone that
beganinthelate1950s.Thiswas,on theonehand,a globalconjuncture: the
crisisandtheological renewalofEuropeanCatholicism afterthewarandthe
electionof JohnXXIII in 1958 and hisconvening of a newcouncilwitha
viewto theaggiornamentoof churchdoctrineandpractices.On theother
hand,institutional Marxismwas thrown intoa crisisbythe20thCongressof
theCommunist PartyoftheSovietUnionandthedenunciation ofStalinism.
These eventscreatedfavorableconditionsfora moreopen relationship
betweenChristianity andMarxism, although Europe(witha fewexceptions,
e.g.,France)wouldneversee anything morethana dialogbetweenthetwo
politicallyandculturally opposedblocs.
It was in LatinAmericathatcircumstances madepossiblea muchmore
radicalconvergence. TheLatinAmerican conjuncture beginning atthatpoint
inhistory wascharacterized by(1) anaccelerated development ofcapitalism,
urbanization, and industrialization (underthe aegis of NorthAmerican
capital)thatdeepenedsocial contradictions and (2) theCuban revolution
(1959-1960),thefirst grass-rootsvictory againstimperialism inLatinAmer-
ica andthefirst socialistrevolution inthehemisphere, led byMarxistforces
ofa newkindindependent oftraditional communism.
(i.e.,Stalinist-oriented)
The comingtogether of thesetwoprocesses-one structural and socioeco-
nomic,theotherpoliticalandideological-markedthebeginning of a new
chapterin LatinAmericanhistory, a periodof social struggle, grass-roots
movements, andinsurrections thattooka quantumleap withtheSandinista
revolution andcontinues tothisday.Thisnewstagewasmarkedbya renewal
andanincreaseininfluence ofLatinAmerican Marxistthought, inparticular
(butnotexclusively)in academia.It was in thisconjuncture thata relation-
shipof selectiveaffinity betweenChristianity andMarxismwoulddevelop
amongcertain sectorsofthechurch anditssocialbaseinLatinAmerica.This
relationship,foundedon existing analogies,was tolead toa convergence or
articulation of thesetwo traditionally opposedcultures;in some cases it
wouldevenlead to theirfusionin a Marxist-Christian current of thought.
Indeed,theconceptof selectiveaffinity, whichforWebermerelydescribes
therelationship betweenmutualselectionand reciprocalreinforcement of
distinctsociocultural phenomena,stemsfroman alchemicdoctrinethat
 L6wy/MARXISM AND CHRISTIANITY 33

soughtto explainthefusionofbodiesin termsoftheaffinity ofelementsin

theirchemicalmakeup.
The past30 yearshaveseennumerous manifestations ofthisprocessof
convergenceby selectiveaffinity. The threeof mostdecisivehistorical
importance havebeen(in chronological order)theBrazilianChristian Left
oftheearly1960s,liberation theology,andtheSandinista revolution.Other
important modelsandforms-forexampleCamilism(basedon theideas of
Camilo Torres),the Christians forSocialismmovement, and the various
Christiansympathiesin Brazil's Partidodos Trabalhadores(Workers'
party-PT)-are beyondthescopeofthisarticle.
Brazil'sChristianleft,as itappearedinthe1960sintheformofJuventude
Universitaria Crista(ChristianAcademic Youth-JUC), Juventude Es-
tudantilCrista(Christian Student Youth-JEC),andAcao Popular(Popular
Action-AP), wasthefirst manifestation inLatinAmericaofthearticulation
betweenChristian faithand Marxistpoliticsas a movement witha broad
socialbase,inacademiaandevenamongtheclergy. Thisprocesswas notthe
resultofVaticanCouncilII orofthecomunidades eclesiasde base (ecclesi-
asticbase communities-CEBs)or of liberation theologyor of the 1964
militarycoup; itbeganlongbeforeall theseevents.Thatstudents werethe
firstgroupwithinthechurchto cometo knowthe"Marxisttemptation" is
notsurprising,sincethiswasthesocialgrouponwhichMarxandhisdisciples
hadhadthestrongest influence; similarprocessesoccurred laterinChileand
elsewhere.Muchhas beenwritten on JUC'shistory, in particular
thenote-
worthy worksofLuiz AlbertoGomezde Souza, OscarBeozzo, Emmanuel
de Kadt,andThomasBruneau.Whatis ofinterest toouranalysisis tosituate
processofthetransformation
itin thehistorical ofCatholiccultureinLatin
America.Two aspectsmeritspecialmention here:
TheJUCof 1960and 1962represented thefirstattempt anywhere in the
hemisphere to developa Christiancurrent of thought usingelementsof
Marxism.As such,it was a pioneering movement and was markedby a
surprisinglevelofintellectual that,despiteitsinitial
andpoliticalcreativity
setthestageforwhatwastocomelaterinBrazilandthroughout
failure, Latin
America.Pablo Richardwas rightwhenhe termed JUC's 10th-anniversary
congressin 1960"thebeginning ofa newstageinthehistory ofChristianity
inBrazilandLatinAmerica"(1984:154).It is also noteworthy thatthiswas
notjust newrhetoric buta newpracticebothwithinthestudent movement
and in thearea of grass-roots education(theMovimentode Educac,aode
Base/Grass-roots EducationalMovement-MEB) and,later,politicalaction
(AP). Furthermore, whileJUC'sdoctrine wasnottheological innature, itdid
representan effortbythelaityto playa rolein thehistorical realityofthe
34 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

country. It was not a discussionof religioustopics(Christology, Bible

exegesis,ecclesiology)butrather ananalysisfroma religious(i.e.,Catholic)
viewpoint ofBrazil'seconomic,social,andpoliticalproblems.
Duringthisfirst stage,theMarxistelements embracedbyJUCwerefew
butsignificant: certainbasicconcepts(alienation, theproletariat),
a general
analysisof exploitation (defining theworking class as "thegroupforcedto
sell itsworkon themarket in exchangeforwagesthatdo notcorrespond to
the value of its contribution to theproduction processand thatdoes not
participateinthemanagement ofsaidproduction process"[RegionalCentro-
Oesteda JUC,1979(1960)]),anda generalanticapitalist stancethatfavored
socialism(in thewordsofHerbert de Souza [1979 (1962), mytranslation],
"Wearewitnessing theendofcapitalism andthebeginning ofworldsocialist
construction").JUC'sideologsdidnotinvokeMarx,although theydidreject
theanti-Marx taboo;accordingto de Souza, "We do notviewMarxas our
master, becausewe alreadyhadone,a different one,before.However,we do
readMarx."Themainreferences ofthedocuments arestrictly
Catholic:Saint
Thomas,Leo XIII, PiusXII, JohnXXIII. Itis also worthnoting thatJUCdid
notfollowanymodelofMarxismcurrent inBrazil,suchas thatofthePartido
ComunistaBrasileiro(BrazilianCommunist party-PCB) or of anyof its
but
dissidents, attempted its own interpretation of Marx'sthought and of
Brazilianreality(reachingconclusionsmuchmoreradicalthanthePCB's,
whichweremorein linewithstatepopulism).
Why was Brazil thefirstcountryin whichthisdynamicof selective
affinitybetweenChristianity and Marxismwas able to evolve,achieving
duringthepast30 yearsa greater impactthanin anyotherchurchin Latin
America?The answer,ofcourse,lies in a seriesofhistorical and structural
factors.Particularlyrelevantto theradicalization of JUC,however,is the
traditionalinfluenceof FrenchCatholiccultureand theFrenchchurchin
Brazil in contrastto the Spanishand Italianmodelsof Christianity that
prevailedin the restof the hemisphere. PostwarFrenchtheology(Yves
Congar,Christian Duquoc,DominiqueChenu,YvesCalvez,HenrideLubac)
represented an advancedstageoftherenewalofCatholicism, raisingtopics
thatwouldlaterbe adoptedby VaticanII. Furthermore, FrenchCatholic
culturewas theonlyone thathad an uninterrupted flowof socialistfigures
andcurrents ofthought throughout the20thcentury: fromCharlesPeguyto
Esprit,fromtherevolutionary ChristiansofthePopularFront(1936-1938)
to theTemoignageChretienof theResistance(1940-1945),and fromthe
workingfathersof theMissionde Franceto the socialistConfederation
Frangaisedes Travailleurs Chretiens(FrenchConfederation of Christian
Workers-CFTC)oftheearly1960s.
 L6wy/MARXISMANDCHRISTIANITY 35

In additionto thisdiffuse influence andtheroleof Frenchmissionaries

presentat thattimein Brazil (JeanCardonneland others),two figuresof
progressive FrenchCatholicism had a directimpacton JUC in the 1960s:
FatherLebretand, above all, EmmanuelMounier.AlthoughLebretwas
hostiletowardMarxism,he did nothesitateto use categoriesfromMarxist
economicsin his studies,and he recognizedin socialism"a pro-human
reactionagainstcapitalismas an inhumansystem"(1963 [1959]: 53, my
translation).Mounierwas moreradical:categorically thecapitalist
rejecting
system, he feltthatChristians couldlearna lotfromMarxism.Describing
his socialphilosophy in 1947,he wrote:"Personalism viewsthestructures
of capitalismas an obstaclein thepathofman'sliberation thatneedsto be
destroyed and replacedby a socialistorganization of production and con-
sumption" (1963 [1947]:244,mytranslation). In JUC'sdocuments (suchas
its guidelinesfora historical ideal of 1960) notonlyis Mounierquoted
frequentlybutthemesfromhiswritings (e.g.,criticismofcapitalistanonym-
ityandimpersonality, ofthetyranny ofmoney)appearat everyturn.There
is no doubtthatforan entiregeneration of BrazilianCatholics,Emmanuel
Mounierwas thebridgebetweenChristian anticapitalismandMarxistanti-
capitalism.In suchan explosivecontextas Braziliansocietyin thatperiod
of crisisof the populistmodel (1960-1964),Mounierand Lebretwere
reinterpretedandevensurpassedina processofgrowing politicalandsocial
radicalization.
Liberation theology is nottheoriginofradicalChristianity;rather-asthe
theologians themselves stress-itis theproduct ofa practicethatbeganwith
Brazil'sJUCbetween1960 and 1962.In thewordsofClodovisBoff(Boff
andBoff,1985: 16,mytranslation),
beforeliberationtheologyemergedin the late 1960s,the churchin Latin
Americaalreadyhad a praxisof liberation.
Beforetheadventof liberation
theologians, bishops,an involvedlaity,andliberation
we hadprophetic com-
munities.Thatwas mostlyin theearly1960s.The theologyaroseduringa
second moment,and it came as the expressionof the church'spraxisof
liberation.
Hence,liberation
theologyis thetheologyofa churchofliberation,
a churchthatoptspreferentially
andwithsolidarity forthepoor.

Indeed,throughout the1960sallofLatinAmericawitnessed thedevelopment

(as a resultof theglobaland regionalconjunctiondescribed above) of a
Christian of
current thought thatwas marked by solidarity thepoor,a
with
and
consciousness-raising emancipationist praxis,participationin grass-
rootsculturalmovements, literacyprograms,neighborhood organization,
ruralunionization,and even,in somecountries,Marxist-orientedpolitical
movements. The basicidea,whichhadbegunto germinate deep withinthis
36 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

praxisas a resultof experiencewiththe poor,landlesspeasants,slum-

dwellers, workers, women,blacks,and indigenous people,was thatonlya
radicalchangeinsocialstructures-led bythepoorthemselves-couldbring
an endtopoverty.
Liberationtheology-thebodyof workspublishedsince 1971 by such
figures as GustavoGutierrez, HugoAssmann, PabloRichard,Leonardoand
ClodovisBoff,EnriqueDussel, and Frei Betto-embodiesthisidea and
placesitatthecenterofitsreinterpretation oftheGospel,itsnewhermeneu-
ticsoftheOld Testament andthemessageofChrist, anditsreformulation of
thechurch'smagisterium. Thisreformulation embraceskeyaspectsofMarx-
ismintegrated intoreligiousrhetoric in a muchmorecoherent andorganic
mannerthanin thedocuments oftheChristian leftof the1960s.Liberation
theologians saw Marxismas theonlytheory capableof offering a precise,
systematic analysisofthecausesofpoverty as wellas a specificandradical
proposalforabolishing it.Thustheold anticapitalist tradition
ofthechurch
enteredintoa relationship of selectiveaffinity withtheMarxistanalysisof
capitalistexploitation and withthecriticism launchedby LatinAmerican
Marxists(dependency theory)thatdependent capitalismwas thestructural
foundation ofunderdevelopment, poverty, andmilitary authoritarianism.
Solidaritywiththepoorwas thepointofdeparture forthisnewtheology.
The majordifference-the decisivenewelement, thequalitativeleap from
thetraditional Catholicview-was thatnowthepoorwereconsiderednot
passivevictims, theobjectofcharity and aid,butrather theagentsoftheir
own liberation. It was becauseof thischange-theresultof thepractical
experienceof involvedChristians duringthe 1960s and 1970s-that the
problematic ofliberation theology cametoconvergewiththebasicpolitical
tenetofMarxism:thattheemancipation oftheworkers willbe achievedby
theworkers themselves.
Theprioritization ofthepoorapprovedbytheCELAM inPueblain 1979
is in realitya formula forcommitment, interpreted in thetraditionalsense
(i.e.,theprovision ofassistance)bythechurch'smoremoderate andconser-
vativeranksbutina radicalsensebytheliberation theologiansandthemore
progressivesectorsof the clergy,forwhomit is a commitment to the
organization and struggleof thepoor fortheirown liberation. The class
struggle-notjust as a methodof analyzingrealitybutalso as a guidefor
action-thusbecomes,implicitly or explicitly, a keyelementin thenew
theology. In thewordsofGustavoGutierrez (1974:276-277,mytranslation),
"To denytheexistenceofclassstruggle is,inessence,totakethesideofthe
dominating sectors.Neutrality on thispointis impossible."
Some liberation theologians presenttheirrelationship withMarxismin
utilitarianterms, describing itas a scientificinstrument oran analyticaltool.
 Ldwy/MARXISM AND CHRISTIANITY 37

This typeof approachoftendistinguishes thephilosophy (or ideology)of

Marxism, whichis rejectedas incompatible withtheChristian faith,fromthe
social scienceof Marxism,whichcan and shouldbe usedin theologyas a
meansofsocioanalytical mediation. Thisdistinction arisesfrom twodifferent
butconvergent motivations: theinfluence ofAlthusser's theory ofan "epis-
temologicalbreak"betweenscienceand ideologyand his claimthatMarx
shouldbe regardedas a "manof sciencelike anyother"(e.g., Lavoisier,
Galileo) and thegreaterdefensibility, in thefaceof anti-Marxist pressure
fromRomeandconservative bishops,ofa merelyinstrumental relationship
withMarxistsocial science.Withoutunderestimating the importance of
Marxistsocialscience,itis difficult tooverlookthefactthattherelationship
betweenChristianity and Marxismin liberation theologyis broaderand
deeperthantheheuristic borrowing of a seriesof analyticconcepts.As a
processofconvergence through selectiveaffinity,thisrelationship refersalso
to certainvalues(community), ethicalandpoliticaloptions(solidarity with
thepoor),andfuture utopias(a societyfreeofexploitation andoppression).
And,inasmuchas liberation theology is theexpression of a socialpraxis,a
socialmovement, an activeexperience at society'sbase,itsencounter with
Marxismalso-and mainly-occursat thelevelof a practicalcommitment
to popularstrugglesforliberation. Marxismis not merelya methodof
interpretation but also, and above all (as Marx stressedin his "Eleventh
Thesison Feuerbach"[1975(1845)]),a methodoftransformation ofreality.
As IgnacioEllacuriahasnoted,Marxism'scontribution toliberation theology
is at once ethical,epistemological and philosophical-to
(i.e., scientific),
whichshouldbe addedsocialandpolitical.
This does not mean thatliberationtheologyembracesall of Marxist
thinking. Itobviously rejectsthoseaspectsthatitconsiders incompatible with
Christianity-for example,atheism, cosmological materialism, andcriticism
of religiousalienation.It selectivelyincorporates thoseaspectsthatare
congruent withitseffort toreinterprettheGospel,theOld Testament, andthe
church'smagisterium. However,thisreinterpretation takesintoaccountthe
situation of LatinAmerica'spoorand theexperienceof theirstruggle for
social liberation(analyzedwiththeaid of Marxism).It is in thiscomplex
dialecticthatthealchemicprocessofselectiveaffinity takesplace.
TheSandinista revolution wasthefirst onesince1789inwhichChristians,
laypeopleandclergy, playeda keyroleatthegrass-roots levelas wellas in
theleadership ofthemovement. Itwas thefirst inwhichChristians werenot
justtacticalorstrategic alliesbutanorganiccomponent oftherevolutionary
vanguard, theFrenteSandinista deLiberacionNacional(Sandinista National
Liberation Front-FSLN). Itwas also thefirst inwhichChristianity was one
38 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

ofthekeyingredients, alongwithMarxismandtheSandinotradition, ofthe

ideologythatinspired therevolutionary struggle.
In thecourseof the 1970s,a growingnumberof Christian youthand
studentsdiscovered"Sandinista Marxism."Withthesupport ofsuchpriests
andclericsas theFranciscan UrielMolinaandtheJesuit FernandoCardenal,
variousmovementswere formed,amongthemthe Christianuniversity
movement andtheChristian revolutionarymovement, mostofwhosemem-
berswouldlaterjointheFSLN. Thefirst Christian celloftheSandinistaFront
was made up of Luis Carrion,JoaquinCuadra,Alvaro Baltodano,and
RobertoGutierrez, whowenton to becomekeyleadersoftheorganization.
At the same time,FatherErnestoCardenal,founderof the Solentiname
community, did nothesitatetoproclaimhimself a Marxistwhobelievedin
Godandinlifeafter death.Apoetanda mystic, Cardenal(1973) wasadamant
thatwhatmadehima Marxistwas notreadingMarxbutreadingtheGospel.
As partof a movement of spiritualsynthesis thatis moreintuitivethan
he arguedthatMarx'scommunism,
theological, a societyfreeofselfishness
andinjustice,is whatChristiansunderstand as thekingdom ofGodonEarth.
hisdecisiontojoinanFSLN guerrilla
Justifying groupin 1977,FatherGaspar
GarciaLavianawroteina letter in 1978,shortly beforehisdeathincombat:
My faithandthefactthatI belongto theCatholicchurchforcemetotakean
processwiththeFSLN, sincetheliberation
activepartin therevolutionary of
an oppressedpeopleis an integralpartof thefullredemption of Christ.My
activecontributionin thisprocessis a signof Christian withthe
solidarity
oppressedandwiththosewhoarefighting tofreethem(n.d.:21,mytranslation).

Through theselinksinthecity(inthebasecommunities) andinruralareas

(through theComit6Evangelicode PromocionAgraria[EvangelicalCom-
mitteeforAgrarianAdvancement-CEPA]),a kindof organicunitywas
createdbetweenChristian and atheistrevolutionaries
withintheSandinista
movementthathad neverbeforebeen seen. Whenthefinalinsurrection
occurredin 1978-1979,theareaswherethestruggle was themostintense
andthebestorganizedweremainlythosein whichCEBs, Delegatesofthe
Word,andrevolutionary hadbeenworking
Christians Monimbo,
previously:
Masaya,Chinandega, Leon,Matagalpa,Esteli,andthepoorneighborhoods
ofManagua.
Something happenedin Nicaraguathathad neverhappenedanywhere
notonlytookan active
laypeopleas wellas clergy,
else: RadicalChristians,
partintherevoltagainstSomozabutalso assumedkeyresponsibilitiesinthe
newrevolutionary government undertheauspicesoftheFSLN. As testimony
tothenovelty theSandinista
ofthissituation, Frontnotedinits"Declaration
on Religion"of October7, 1980: "Christians partof
havebeenan integral
 L6wy/MARXISM AND CHRISTIANITY 39

our revolutionary historyat a level unprecedented in any revolutionary

movement in LatinAmerica,andperhapsin theworld.... Ourexperience
hasproventhatitis possibletobe a believerandatthesametimea dedicated
revolutionary andthatthereis no contradiction betweenthetwo."
ThisactiveChristian participation-criticized withgrowing hostility
by
theofficialNicaraguanchurchhierarchy (CardinalObandoandmostofthe
bishops)and by theVaticanbutsupported by thereligiousordersin the
country (particularlytheJesuits)-wasan essentialelementofSandinismo,
an originalideologystemming fromthefusionofSandino'sradicalagrarian
nationalism,revolutionary Christianity,
andtheGuevara-inspired interpreta-
tionof LatinAmericanMarxism.The terminology, symbols,andimagesof
Sandinistacultureareoftenbasedon Christian themes.Thiscan be seenat
thegrassrootsof themovement as well as in therhetoric
of someof the
FSLN's keyfigures, suchas LuisCarrionandTomasBorge.Commenting on
thisphenomenon, theItaliantheologian GiulioGirardi(1983: 63, mytrans-
lation)notes:
The clearestsignof thisinfluence lies in theverystrongethicalcontentthat
permeates therevolution, tothepointthatmanyEuropeantheoreticians ofthe
revolution,paladinsofthe"scientificity" ofrevolutionary
rhetoric,wouldnot
hesitateto classifyit as "moralist"and "ideological."Obviously,thereis no
reasonto grantChristians a monopolyon ethicalconcerns;however,the
frequency withwhichtheyoccur,thelanguagein whichtheyare presented,
andtheexplicitreference theGospel,andtheBiblebyleaderswho
to Christ,
are publiclylay peopleallowus to see in thissensibility a reflection
of the
Christianpresenceas well.

The verypracticeoftheSandinistaFrontwas also influenced byChristian

ideals,forexample,withregardtotheprincipleproclaimed byToma'sBorge:
"Ourvengeancewillbe forgiveness." The Nicaraguanrevolution abolished
thedeathpenaltyandbecamethefirst modern revolutionary movement since
1789nottouse theguillotine orperform executions afteritsvictory.
It is obviousthatthisconvergencewas notfreeof contradiction, resis-
tance,andmistrust onbothsides.AccordingtoGirardi (1983: 69),therewere
twodistinct intheSandinista
positions cadre:(1) theoldorthodox view,based
on SovietMarxism-Leninism manuals,thatChristiansare alliesbutunreli-
able ones becauseoftheirfaithandlinkswiththechurch.At best,conver-
gencewiththemcan occuronlyat thelevel of practice;at thetheoretical
level the contradictionbetweenmaterialism and idealismis total.This
attitude was oftenfoundamongtheaveragecadreswithout experienceprior
to 1979.(2) Thenew"Nicaraguan" view,inspired bytheconcrete experience
of commonstruggle, thatrevolutionary
Christians arepartofthevanguard.
40 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

The traditionalMarxisttheoryof religionmustbe reformulated so as to

recognizeitsrevolutionary
potential.
Convergence withrevolutionaryChris-
tiansis at once practicaland theoreticalas faras the liberationof the
oppressedis concerned.Thislatterattitudeis sharedbythemajority ofthe
historical
leadersoftheFSLN. An exampleof thisoriginalandinnovative
positioncan be seenin Carrion's(1985: 16,mytranslation) descriptionof
convergence andorganicfusionwithintherevolutionary processthatled to
thetriumph ofJuly1979:
I see noobstaclethatwouldprevent Christians,withoutrenouncingtheirfaith,
fromembracing all theconceptualMarxistinstruments thatarenecessaryfor
the scientificunderstanding of social processesand forthe revolutionary
orientation of theirpoliticalpractice.In otherwords,a Christiancan be a
Christian and a Marxistat thesametimewithout therebeinganycontradic-
tion.... In thissense,ourexperience is richin lessons.ManyChristians have
foughtand are fighting in theSandinistaFront;thereareevensomepriests.
AndI do notmeanonlythosefighting atthebase: someofthemaremembers
oftheSandinista Assemblyandhavegreatpoliticalresponsibilities.... I think
thatsomeoftheMarxistvanguard tendedto perceivetheprogressive revolu-
tionaryChristiansectorsas a rivalforcethatwouldtakepotential political
clientelefromthem.I think theyweremistaken, andhavingavoidedthaterror
was one of theFSLN's greatestsuccesses.We have linkedourselveswith
grass-roots structures of thechurchnotto drawpeopleawaybuttointegrate
themintotheSandinista Frontas a stageofpoliticaldevelopment without this
implying anyoppositionto theirparticipation in Christianorganizations.On
thecontrary, we leftthemin thosestructures so thatthishighercommitment
mighttaketheformofpoliticalactionin thisarea.Theirintegration intothe
FSLN was neverpresented tothemas a dilemmabetweentheirChristian faith
and theirmilitancy in theFront.Had we castthedebatein theseterms,we
wouldhavebeenreducedtoa verysmallnumber ofmilitants.

Thephilosophicalenigma-ortheoretical challenge-that MarxistChristi-

anitypresentsfromthepointofviewofhistorical ordialecticmaterialismcan
be discussedat lengthamongourselves(Marxists andatheists).If we define
Marxismabove all as materialism (abstractandmetaphysical), thenit is an
unacceptableheresy. itisconceived
If,however, as a philosophy
apriori ofpraxis
(Gramsci),a theoryoftherevolutionary practiceofglobaltransformation, its
intorevolutionary
by selectiveaffinity
integration Christianityis perfectly
comprehensible. whatis essentialforMarxistanalysisis what
Nevertheless,
happensinreality.TheexistenceofMarxist Christians-in Nicaragua, Brazil,
andothercountries-isanundeniable fact,andtheybring
socialandpolitical to
therevolutionarymovement a moralsensibility,
experienceingrass-rootswork,
anda utopian urgencythatcannotbutenrich it.
 L6wy/MARXISM AND CHRISTIANITY 41

The Vaticanhas been verymuchworriedby developments in Latin

Americaandhas beentrying in thepastfewyearsto limittheinfluence of
liberationtheology. The"Instruction on SomeAspectsofLiberation Theol-
ogy"published in 1984bytheHolyOfficefortheDoctrineofFaithcriticized
whatis calledthe"Marxistoption"ofthenewLatinAmericantheology, but
sincethisdocument didnotproducetheexpectedresults-instead ofgiving
in, theradicaltheologiansrespondedwitharguments and defendedtheir
socialchoices-Rome changeditsstrategy. Insteadoftheologicaldebate,it
hasactedatthelevelofthestructures ofpowerintheLatinAmerican church
bysystematically nominating conservative bishopsknownfortheirhostility
to liberation
theology andtotheradicalbase communities. The best-known
exampleis thenomination of Mgr.JoseCardosoto replacetheagingD.
HelderCamaraas archbishop of Recife.A conservative and a specialistin
canonlaw wholivedin Romefrom1957 to 1979,thenewbishopquickly
dismissedtheleadersoftheLand Pastoraland removedthepriestsknown
fortheircommitment to thepoor.Severaltheologicalseminariesin the
BrazilianNortheast considered tobe influenced bytheprogressive tendency
weresummarily closed.
The aim of the Vaticanwas to preparethe 1992 CELAM in Santo
Domingotoputan endtotheprioritization ofthepooradoptedbyprevious
conferencesin Medellinin 1968 and Puebla in 1979. The preparatory
document, written by theconservative CELAM leadership("Elementsfor
PastoralReflection in Preparation fortheIVthGeneralConference of the
LatinAmericanBishops,"1990),proposednotonlya triumphalist celebra-
tionoftheFifthCentennial oftheHispanicConquestandEvangelization of
Americabutalso a return tothetraditional socialdoctrineofthechurch. This
document-which wentso faras topresent Leo XlI's 1891encyclical Rerum
Novarumas "theChristian countermessage tothe warcry ofMarxism"-has
metwithconsiderable criticismfromprogressive theologians,and general
adoptionofitspoint ofview would be a serious not for
setback only liberation
theologybutforall of the social movements in LatinAmericathathave
enjoyedthematerial andspiritual of
support theprogressive church.
However,theworkof consciousnessraisingimplemented by pastoral
agents,leftistChristians,radicaltheologians, and base community leaders
duringthepast30 yearshas alreadyproducedresultsthatare irreversible.
The hundredsof thousandsof Christiansthroughout the continent (and
particularlyin Braziland CentralAmerica) who are partandparcelof the
movement ofthepoorwillnotgivein,andthetheologians
forself-liberation
andChristian layactivistswhohavediscoveredinMarxisma precioustool
forinterpreting andchanging theworldarenotlikelytochangetheirminds.
42 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

REFERENCES

Boff,LeonardoandClodovisBoff
1985 Teologiada libertaV&o no debateatual.Petropolis: Vozes.
Cardenal,Ernesto
1973"Comunismo igualreinode diosen la tierra,"pp. 37-42inMurolatino.Medellin.
Carri6n,Comandante Luis
1985"Les Chr6tiens dansla r6volution sandiniste."Inprecor246 (August):15-17.
Girardi,Giulio
1983Fe en la revoluci6n, revolucion en la cultura.Managua:EditorialNuevaNicaragua.
Goldmann, Lucien
1955Le Dieu cache.Paris:Gallimard.
Guti6rrez, Gustavo
1974Thtologiede la liberation: Perspectives.Brussels:LumenVitae.
Laviana,Comandante PadreGasparGarcfa
n.d.FolletospopularesGasparGarciaLaviana.No. 8. Managua.
Lebret,L. J.
1963Pour unecivilisation solidaire.Paris:Economieet Humanisme.
Marx,Karl
1975 "Concerning Feuerbach," in EarlyWritings. London:PenguinBooks/NewLeftRe-
view.
Mounier, Emmanuel
1963"Qu'est-ceque le personnalisme?" in Oeuvres,vol. 3. Paris.
Ratzinger, Cardinal
1985"Les cons6quences fondamentales d'uneoptionmarxiste," pp. 122-130in Theologies
Paris:Cerf.
de la liberation.
RegionalCentro-Oeste da JUC
1979"Algumasdiretrizes de umidealhist6rico cristaoparao povobrasileiro,"pp.84-97in
Luis Gonzagade Souza Lima(ed.),EvoluVdo dos catolicose da igrejano Brasil:Hipoteses
para umainterpretagdo. Petropolis:Vozes.
Richard,Pablo
1984Mortedas cristandades e nasciemento da igreja.Sao Paulo:Edic6esPaulinas.
Souza, Herbert de
1979 (1962) "Juventude cristahoje,"pp. 108-117in Luis Gonzagade Souza Lima (ed.),
EvoluCdodoscat6licose da igrejanoBrasil:HipotesesparaumainterpretaCdo. Petr6polis:
Vozes.
Weber,Max
1971Economieetsociete.Paris:Plon.