This liberation theologian was once silenced by the Vatican. In the Laudato Si’ era, he’s getting a second look.

James T. KeaneJanuary 30, 2024- Review America

Leonardo Boff (Brasil TV/Wikimedia Commons)

Reflecting on more than 80 years of life in his 2022 book Thoughts and Dreams of an Old Theologian, Leonardo Boff summed up many of his theological and personal concerns in a clarion call for change. “Either we care for Mother Earth, our Common Home, and we join hands to work together in solidarity, or we join the procession of those headed for their own funeral. Here we see the importance and the urgency of nurturing good dreams that lead us to transformational activities and constantly nourish our hope,” he wrote, adding:

This is the dream I want to pass on, as my life nears toward its end, to the young people who will come after us. It is their task to take forward the dream of Jesus, of Pope Francis, of liberation theology at its broadest, and of so many others who also nurture dreams of a better humanity. These young people will have to be the leaders in shaping a better future for us, for nature, and for Mother Earth.

If those dreams and concerns sound somewhat familiar, even to a reader unfamiliar with Boff’s work, it is because many of them were also reflected in recent Vatican documents like “Laudato Si’” and “Querida Amazonia.” After the publication of the former, rumors circulated that Pope Francis had personally asked Boff for his input on the writing of the encyclical.

Leonardo Boff, the pope’s theologian?

After the publication of “Laudato Si’,” rumors circulated that Pope Francis had personally asked Leonardo Boff for his input on the writing of the encyclical.

It was not always thus. In a long and still-ongoing career, Boff was for many years one of the leading voices of liberation theology—and became a lightning rod for criticism of that theological school in the 1980s and 1990s.

Advertisement

Born in Concórdia, Brazil, in 1938, Boff entered the Franciscans in 1959 and was ordained in 1964. He earned a doctorate in philosophy and theology from the University of Munich in 1970. In the years that followed, Boff joined scholars such as Gustavo Gutiérrez, Jon Sobrino, S.J., and Juan Luis Segundo, S.J., in promoting the theology of liberation through books like Jesus Christ Liberator (1974). He was a strong proponent of comunidades de base, the small and local “base communities” which were championed by liberation theologians as centers of theological praxis in the face of economic injustice and structural sin. His 1987 book, Introducing Liberation Theology, co-written with his brother Clodovis, is still widely used in colleges and theological schools as a textbook.

In 1985, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (now the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith) censured Boff for his book Church: Charism and Power and silenced him for a year. The C.D.F., then led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, criticized Boff’s “ecclesiological relativism” in seeing both Protestant and Catholic church structures as incomplete, and also cited his praxis-based approach to theology (centered on the base communities) that, the C.D.F. argued, seemed to relativize the nature of truth.

In a 1988 book on the matter, The Silencing of Leonardo Boff: The Vatican and the Future of World Christianity, the theologian Harvey Cox suggested that the Vatican singled out Boff because it saw the “grass-roots religious energy” Boff represented as a threat to the church’s teaching authority.

Advertisement

Cox, wrote the theologian Lamin Sanneh in America in 1988, placed Boff’s silencing “in the global context of world Christianity, in particular the potential scale of the fallout from the growing challenge of third-world Christianity to the accustomed privileges of Western religious hegemony.”

Harvey Cox suggested that the Vatican singled out Boff because it saw the “grass-roots religious energy” Boff represented as a threat to the church’s teaching authority.

Tweet this

Cox saw Boff as “an evangelical radical, not a modernist” who did not want to bring the church up to date, necessarily, but to align it more closely with the Gospels, wrote America editor in chief George W. Hunt, S.J., in 1989. Cardinal Ratzinger, Hunt wrote, sought to recenter the church “intellectually and liturgically in its ancient homeland (Europe), and to achieve this his congregation must be ‘the protector not only of the integrity of the faith and the documents of Vatican II but also of their proper interpretation against cagey [non-European] theologians.’” Boff, on the other hand, found the solution to what ailed the church “not in ‘recentering’ but in ‘decentering,’ that is, a form of Catholicism ‘in which the Gospel can take root in a variety of disparate cultures and flourish especially among the poor.’”

Advertisement

Boff continued to write and teach (he was a professor of theology at the Jesuit Institute for Philosophy and Theology in Petropolis, Brazil, for 22 years) after his silencing ended, publishing such books as Ecclesiogenesis and Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor. In 1992, Boff faced a potential silencing once again from the C.D.F. Recognizing that his status as a priest under obedience in a religious order was an issue in the C.D.F.’s repeated efforts to discipline him, he resigned from the Franciscans that June. The next year, he took a position at Rio de Janeiro State University in Brazil, where he is now the Professor Emeritus of Ethics, Philosophy of Religion and Ecology.

In 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger reflected on the contretemps in a speech at the Vatican that suggested Boff’s silencing stood as a warning to other theologians. “At a distance of 15 years, it is clearer than it perhaps was then that it was not so much a matter of a single theological author, but of a vision of the church which circulates with different variations and which is still very current today,” Ratzinger said. Boff was one of many theologians censured by the C.D.F. during the pontificate of John Paul II, a process America’s editors criticized in a 2001 editorial, “Due Process in the Church.”

In recent years, in addition to Thoughts and Dreams of an Old Theologian, Boff has also published such books as Christianity in a Nutshell, Come Holy Spirit and The Following of Jesus. His theological work has increasingly focused on the ecological crisis facing the world.

“Boff’s skillful use of the sociology of knowledge enables him to explain why theologians of other ages interpreted the faith within the total social, cultural, political and economic realities of their day,” wrote Joseph P. Fitzpatrick, S.J., in America in 1990. “It also prompts him to declare why the perspective of liberation theology is the only authentic interpretation of the faith in the presence of the massive inhumanity, oppression and injustice of our day.”

Recommended for You

‘Laudato Si’’ to ‘Laudate Deum’: What has changed in Pope Francis’ climate teaching?

Peter Knox

Street artist of ‘Super Pope’ fame gets official Vatican stamp of approval

Nicole Winfield – Associated Press

Boff’s primary concern theologically and sociologically has always been the poor and marginalized, particularly in Latin America. But that might not be the audience needs to hear him the most. “The Christian slum-dweller in Lima or Sao Paulo does not need a Gustavo Gutiérrez or à Leonardo Boff in order to know that something is terribly wrong and has to change, or that the Gospel has plenty to say about the nature of that change,” wrote Kevin P. O’Higgins, S.J., in a 1990 essay for America.

“It is the comfortable Christian suburbanite—clerical, religious or lay—in North America or Western Europe who has [the] most difficulty in seeing what is wrong and what is demanded by an authentic faith.”

Boff’s 1987 book, Introducing Liberation Theology, co-written with his brother Clodovis, is still widely used in colleges and theological schools as a textbook.

James T. Keane

Facebook Theology / Environment / Vatican / Laudato Si

James T. Keane

James T. Keane is a senior editor at America.

@jamestkeane

Has the era of global boiling of the planet begun?

This expression is not mine, but that of the UN Secretary General, António Guterrez, uttered on July 27, 2023, upon learning of the unexpected acceleration of global warming. This has reached the point where the planet is entering a boiling process, given the carelessness of human processes, especially industrialism and capitalist productivism (including China) that misuse fossil energy, coal and other greenhouse-producing elements.

The average normal climate on Earth is 15 degrees Celcius. But this average has started to rise so much that it exceeded more than 17 degrees Celcius in July 2023.

This is all due to the fact that every year about 40 billion tons of CO2 are released into the atmosphere, which remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years, plus nitrous acid and methane, which is 28 times more harmful than CO2, although it stays in the atmosphere for about 9-10 years.

The consequences of this increase can be seen in prolonged droughts, the flooding of entire regions and cities, hurricanes, extratropical cyclones such as in the south of Brazil, and fires almost everywhere on the planet. The impact on human lives is huge. The well-known journal Nature Medicine estimated that the high heat of 2022 caused 61,000 deaths in Europe alone. Let’s not even talk about Africa and Asia, or poorer countries that have seen thousands of children and elderly people killed, particularly in central India, where temperatures have been soaring.

Looking at how little the big corporations and states are doing to stop this slow but ever present rise in temperature, everything indicates that we have already reached the point of no return. Science and technology have arrived late, they cannot stop the rise, they only help to mitigate the damaging effects that will be inevitable.

But not everything is fatal. It is worth remembering that the improbable can happen: human beings, under the perception of the risk of disappearing, take a leap of consciousness, towards the noosphere as Teilhard de Chardin projected in 1933, that is, uniting heart and mind (noosefera) to change the way of producing, consuming and particularly relating to nature, feeling part of it, not its masters and taking care of it.

If we look at the biography of the Earth, we see that warming belongs to the evolution of our planet. When we did not yet exist as a species on Earth, 250 million years ago, the climate reached and remained for thousands and thousands of years at 32 degrees Celcius. A massive extinction of species of living things occurred. Later, 50 million years ago, the Earth reached 21 degrees Celcius; crocodiles and palm trees adapted to this warming but there was also a major extinction of living organisms. Closer to us, 130,000 years ago, the Earth reached the temperature we are now experiencing, 17 degrees Celcius. Many creatures disappeared and the sea rose by 6-9 meters, which would have covered the whole of the Netherlands and the low-lying northern parts of the eurozone.

This increase in the earth’s climate belongs to geo-evolution. But the current one is caused by human beings themselves, not so much by the great poor majorities, but by the populations of the opulent countries, without the right measure in their actions either in the assault on nature or in the forms of sumptuous and unsympathetic consumption. It is said that we have inaugurated a new geological era, the Anthropocene. This concept means that the greatest threat to life on the planet and to the future of nature depends on human beings. In the words of biodiversity biologist Edward Wilson, humans have behaved like the Satan of the Earth and turned the Garden of Eden into a slaughterhouse. Some go even further and refer to the necrocene, given the increasing process of death (necro) of species of living beings in the order of 70-100 thousand per year. Lately there has been talk of the pyrocene, i.e. the age of fire. This is also caused by humans but particularly because the soil has become drier, the rocks have become hotter; all it takes is dry leaves and sticks on them to produce large and devastating fires almost everywhere on the planet, even in humid Siberia.

What scenarios might we face? They are all gloomy if there is no quantum leap that defines another path and another destiny for the life-system and the Earth-system. There is no denying that the planet is getting warmer day by day. The UN agencies that monitor the evolution of this disastrous event warn us that between the years 2025-2027 we will have exceeded the 1.5 degrees Celcius predicted for 2030 by the Paris agreement in 2015. Everything has been anticipated and by this date, between 2025-2027, we will reach what is happening today, a climate that could stabilize above 35 degrees, reaching 38-40 degrees in some regions of the planet. Millions will have to emigrate because they can no longer live in their beloved homelands and crops will be totally lost. Brazil, currently one of the largest exporters of food, will see its production profoundly reduced. According to James Lovelock, (Veja, Yellow Pages, October 25, 2006) Brazil, because of its vast sunny expanse, will be one of the hardest hit by global warming and climate change. Those in agribusiness should heed these warnings, for as Pope Francis wrote in his encyclical Laudato Si: How to Care for Our Common Home, addressed to all humanity and not just Christians: “Catastrophic predictions can no longer be looked upon with scorn and irony; we would leave for the next generations too many ruins, deserts and garbage” (n.161).

This is what no one wants for their children and grandchildren. But to do so we must summon up the courage and boldness to change course. Only a radical ecological change can save the conditions that will allow our continuity on this splendid planet Earth.

Leonardo Boff is an eco-theologian and has written: The Dignity of the Earth: the cry of the poor and the cry of the Earth, Vozes, various editions; Inhabit the Earth, Vozes 2022; member of the International Initiative for the Initiative of the Earth  Charter; The Protection of the Earth, Vozes 2022.

The current collapse of ethics

I perceive two main factors, among others, that strike at the heart of ethics: the globalization of predatory capitalism and the commodification of society.

The globalization of capitalism, as a mode of production and its political expression, neo-liberalism showed the perverse consequences of capitalist ethics: its structuring axes are unlimited profit, accumulated individually or by large corporations, unbridled competition, the assault on goods and services of nature, the relaxation of laws and the minimization of the state in its function of guaranteeing a minimally balanced society. Such ethics is highly conflictive because it does not know solidarity, but competition that makes all opponents, if not enemies to be defeated.

Quite different, for example, is the ethics of the Mayan culture. This puts everything centered in the heart, since all things were born from the love of two great hearts, Heaven and Earth. The ethical ideal is to create sensitive, fair, transparent and true hearts in all people.

Or the ethics of “bien vivir y convivir” of the Andeans, based on balance with all things, between humans, with nature and with the universe.

Globalization, interrelating all cultures, also ended up revealing the plurality of ethical paths. One of its consequences is the general relativization of ethical values. We know that law and order, values ​​of fundamental ethical practice, are the prerequisites for any civilization anywhere in the world.

What we observe is that humanity is giving in to barbarism towards a true global dark age, such is the ethical breakdown that we are seeing.

The second major obstacle to ethics is the commodification of society, what Karl Polaniy already called “The Great Transformation” in 1944. It is the phenomenon of the transition from a market economy to a purely market society.

Everything becomes merchandise, something already predicted by Karl Marx in his text “The Misery of Philosophy” of 1848, when he referred to the time when the most sacred things like truth and conscience would be taken to the market; it would be “the time of great corruption and universal venality”. For we live in this time: nowledge, schools, universities, neo-pentecostal churches, courses, lectures, counseling, sex, human organs, everything, everything is an object of business and gain. A self-serving and mercantilist relationship prevails, which greatly weakens solidarity, cooperation and gratuity.

The economy, especially the speculative one, dictates the direction of politics and society as a whole, which is characterized by the generation of a deep gap between the rich few and the great impoverished majorities. Here, traces of barbarism and cruelty are revealed as few times in history.

What is the ethics that can guide us as humanity living in the same Common Home? It is that ethics that is rooted in what is specific to us, as humans and that, therefore, is universal and can be assumed by all.

I believe that in the first place is the ethics of care. According to the fable 220 of the slave Higino of the roman imperial time and well interpreted by Martin Heidegger in Being and Time and detailed by me in Knowing how to care, it constitutes the ontological substratum of the human being, that is to say, that set of objective factors without which the human being would never arise and other living beings.

Because care is of the essence of what is human, everyone can experience it and give it concrete forms, according to different cultures. Care presupposes a friendly and loving relationship with reality, with an outstretched hand for solidarity and not a clenched fist for competition. At the center of care is life. Civilization must be bio-socio-centered.

Another fact of our human essence is the solidarity and ethics that derive from it. We know today through bioanthropology that it was the solidarity of our anthropoid ancestors that allowed us to make the leap from animality to humanity. They sought food and consumed it in solidarity. We all live because there was and there is a minimum of solidarity, starting with the family. What was founding yesterday is still founding today.

Another ethical path, linked to our strict humanity, is the ethics of universal responsibility. To be responsible is to realize the beneficial or harmful consequences of our personal and social actions. Either we responsibly assume the destiny of our Common Home together or else we will walk a path of no return. We are responsible for the sustainability of Gaia and its ecosystems so that we can continue to live together with the whole community of life.

The philosopher Hans Jonas, who first elaborated “The Responsibility Principle”, added to it the importance of collective fear. When this appears and humans begin to realize that they may meet a tragic end and even disappear as a species, an ancestral fear erupts that leads them to an ethic of survival. The unconscious assumption is that the value of life is above any other cultural, religious or economic value.

It is also important to rescue the ethics of justice for all. Justice is the minimum right that we give to the other, so that he can continue to exist and give him what he deserves as a person: dignity and respect. Institutions, in particular, must be fair and equitable to avoid the privileges and social exclusions that so many victims produce, particularly in Brazil, one of the most unequal, that is to say, most unfair in the world. This explains the hatred and discrimination that tear society apart, coming not from the people, but from those wealthy elites who do not accept rights for all but want to preserve their privileges.

Justice does not only apply to humans, but also to nature and the Earth, which are bearers of rights and, therefore, must be included in our concept of socio-ecological democracy.

Finally, we must incorporate an ethic of shared sobriety to achieve what Xi Jinping, the supreme leader of China, said “a moderately well-off society”. This means a minimal and achievable ideal.

These are some fundamental parameters for an ethics, valid for each people and for humanity, gathered in the Common House. Otherwise, we may experience a social and ecological Armageddon.

Leonardo Boff wrote: How to take care of the Common Home, Petropolis/Rio 2018.

A socio-ecological or ecosocialist democracy

                         Leonardo Boff

The Earth is irreversibly changing. We are entering a new climate regime that is much hotter and more threatening. Science and technology arrived late. Only with the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere did the course of the living planet change. The various types of knowledge, from the popular to the most scientific, can only mitigate the harmful effects. But those will come more often and more severe.

If we want to continue on this planet, we have to develop another civilizing paradigm, friendly to life and feeling like brothers and sisters to all other living beings, as Pope Francis postulates in Fratelli tutti(2020). Well, we have the same basic genetic code with them. Within this context, there is an urgent need for another type of democracy: socio-ecological or eco-socialist.

It would represent the culmination of the democratic ideal, exactly at this moment in which we are witnessing a serious decline in democratic ideals in a context of rising authoritarian movements. In addition, the spread of artificial intelligence that combines millions of algorithms and can threaten democracy and distort, for example , the figure of the Pope wearing a thick, rare and very expensive jacket.

Despite all this, we have to discuss the threatened democracy. Underlying it is the original idea of ​​all democracy: verything that interests everyone must be thought about and decieded by everyone.

There is direct democracy in small communities or in a country like Switzerland. When these social groupings are larger, representative democracy is projected. As the powerful generally control it, a participatory democracy was proposed in which those on the floor below could participate in the formulation and monitoring of the country’s policies.

More progress was made and a communitarian democracy was created, experienced by the Andean peoples, in which everyone participates in everything within a great human-nature harmony. It is “bien vivir y convivir”. It was seen that democracy is a universal value (N.Bobbio), lived daily in life, in the family, in associations and in the way of organizing the state. Also an endless democracy (Boaventura de Souza Santos), because it can always be perfected and never ready. Faced with the imminent risk of the disappearance of the human species, everyone, in order to save themselves, would unite around a planetary super-democracy (J.Atalli).

More or less in this line, the various forms of democracy must be thought and lived. The survivors of the great transformation of the Earth, stabilizing its average climate around 38 degrees Celsius or more, learned from these drastic changes. As a means of survival, they will have to incorporate new forms of relationships in harmony with nature and Mother Earth. Hence, this type of socio-ecological democracy was thought. It is social because it involves the whole society.

It is the great proposal of ecosocialism that has nothing to do with the frustrated real socialism that has already disappeared. This socio-ecological or ecosocialist democracy has the ecological as its structuring axis. Not as a technique to guarantee the sustainability of the human way of life, along the lines of the current paradigm of the human being dominus=lord and outside and above nature, but as frater=brother and sister, part of and within nature. , would rather be an art, a new way of tender and fraternal coexistence with nature.

The mode of production and institutions will no longer force nature to adapt to human desires. These will adapt to the rhythms of nature, taking care of it, giving it rest to regenerate. The human being will feel nature itself so that by taking care of it, it will be taking care of itself.

The uniqueness of the human being, and this has been proven by neurologists, geneticists, bioanthropologists and cosmologists, is to appear as a being-knot-of-relationships, of love, cooperation, solidarity and compassion. This was said by James D. Watson in his book “DNA: the secret of life” (2005): love and solidarity belong to the human genetic code

Such singularity appears better when we compare it with the superior simians from which we differ in only 1.6% of genetic load. They also have a corporate life. But they are guided by the logic of domination and hierarchization. But we differ from them by cooperation and commensality.

Today it is accepted that both nature and the Earth are subjects of rights. They are the new citizens with whom we must live amicably. The Earth is a biogeophysical entity, Gaia, which articulates all the elements to stay alive and produce all the biodiversity. In an advanced moment of its evolution and complexification, it began to feel, think, love and care. It was then that the human being, man and woman, who is the thinking and loving Earth, appeared.

If we want to survive together, this democracy must be a biocracy, a sociocracy, a geocracy and a cosmocracy, in short, an ecological-social or eco-socialist democracy. Time is pressing. We must generate a new awareness and prepare ourselves for the changes that will not take long to arrive. Is it a utopia? Yes, but a necessary utopia if we still want to live on this planet.

Leonardo Boff, brazilian Philosopher, Theologian and writer wrote with the german Theologian Jürgen Moltmann, Is there hope for endangered creation? Vozes, Petrópolis/Rio 2014; Caring for the Earth-Protecting Life: How to Avoid the End of the World, Record, Rio 2010.

.