“Justice is what love looks like in public”

  – Cornel West in The Radical King, 2015

Gustavo Gutiérrez, the influential Peruvian priest and theologian widely recognised as the “father of liberation theology,” passed away on October 22, 2024, at 96. His pioneering ideas, especially those expressed in his seminal 1971 book A Theology of Liberation, catalysed a transformation in Catholic thought by calling for a Church not just spiritually focused but also morally committed to justice and solidarity with the poor. Gutiérrez’s theology, born in the challenging context of 20th-century Latin America, argued that the Christian faith must engage with societal structures and work to dismantle the conditions that perpetuate poverty and inequality. To do theology—”el quehacer teológico,” in Gutiérrez’s words—from the perspective of the poor is to affirm the right of the poor to think faith from their own experience. His “preferential option for the poor” became one of liberation theology’s defining principles, compelling the Church to prioritise the marginalised and actively combat structural injustices.

In 1971, the first edition of Teología de la Liberación: Perspectivas rolled off the press at the Centro de Estudios y Publicaciones in Lima—a publishing house Gutiérrez and friends founded the year before to help forge a more just, compassionate world. Translated into English in 1973 as A Theology of Liberation, the work has endured as a landmark text, with Orbis Books marking its 50th anniversary last year in the decades since the critiques of Liberation Theology have evolved. Today, some scholars and activists question whether Gutiérrez’s model adequately addresses the complexities of globalisation and neoliberalism. In a world where economic and political dynamics are increasingly transnational, the nation-focused approach of traditional Liberation Theology may seem insufficient. However, Gutiérrez’s work has left an indelible impact on religious and secular movements worldwide, inspiring faith leaders, theologians, and activists to place social justice at the core of their missions. His vision of faith as “praxis”—a synthesis of reflection and action—emphasises that theology is not simply a discipline confined to intellectual circles or places of worship but an active, ongoing practice of social transformation. Gutiérrez’s legacy remains significant, especially as liberation theology’s ethos resonates with contemporary movements addressing economic inequality, racial justice, and environmental sustainability. His work has connected people across the globe in a shared mission for justice and equality, making us all part of a larger, global movement. 

The Rise of Liberation Theology 

Liberation theology emerged against political unrest and social upheaval in the 1960s and 1970s, a period in Latin America marked by economic disparities, authoritarian regimes, and grassroots resistance. The region’s colonial history had left enduring economic and social inequality patterns, with a significant portion of the population relegated to poverty. Gutiérrez, born in 1928 in Lima, was acutely aware of these injustices, witnessing the struggles of marginalised communities firsthand. His theology would be deeply influenced by this context and the teachings of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) and the 1968 Conference of Latin American Bishops in Medellín, Colombia, both signalled a shift toward social engagement within the Catholic Church. Vatican II (1962-1965), convened under Pope John XXIII, aimed to modernise the Church and reorient it toward the social concerns of the 20th century. While the Council addressed various issues, from interfaith dialogue to liturgical reform, it also emphasised the Church’s responsibility to address poverty and social injustice. Inspired by these reforms, the Medellín Conference marked a historic turning point. Latin American bishops directly confronted economic disparity and political repression issues, challenging the Church’s previous alliances with conservative power structures. The Medellín documents underscored the Church’s duty to be “the voice of the voiceless,” a phrase that would become central to liberation theology.

An Ethical Mandate

Gutiérrez’s concept of the “preferential option for the poor” redefined the Church’s mission, urging it to focus on the welfare and dignity of marginalised individuals as a moral and ethical priority. Rather than viewing charity as a one-way act of generosity, Gutiérrez argued that proper Christian ethics required an empathetic solidarity with the poor. This solidarity was not merely an act of sympathy but a radical reordering of priorities that positioned the needs of the poor as central to the Church’s spiritual mission. Gutiérrez drew on Christ’s teachings to emphasise that Christian faith and ethics are intrinsically linked to justice and equity. In doing so, he transformed charity from an occasional practice into an ongoing ethical imperative.

Gutiérrez’s concept of the “preferential option for the poor” has transcended religious boundaries, influencing secular social justice movements that advocate for human rights, environmental sustainability, and economic justice. His vision resonates today, where climate change, economic inequality, and systemic racism have disproportionately impacted vulnerable populations. This global resonance underscores the universal applicability of Gutiérrez’s theology, inspiring activists and leaders from diverse backgrounds to re-evaluate their commitment to justice. 

Liberation Theology’s Methodology

A key aspect of Gutiérrez’s liberation theology is its transformative power, reimagining theology as praxis—an inseparable combination of contemplation and action. Influenced by the “see-judge-act” model, liberation theology encourages believers to observe and understand the lived realities of the oppressed, evaluate these conditions through the lens of faith and ethics, and finally act to promote social justice. This approach contrasts with the Church’s previous adherence to a neo-scholastic framework, emphasizing abstract theological reflection over active engagement. The inductive nature of liberation theology, grounded in the lived experiences of believers, has empowered marginalised communities to see themselves in biblical narratives of liberation. Rather than interpreting the Bible solely through doctrinal tradition, Gutiérrez and his contemporaries saw scripture as a living document that speaks directly to contemporary struggles. Biblical stories of Exodus and Christ’s ministry among the poor were thus reinterpreted as calls to resist oppressive systems and advocate for social change. By encouraging believers to find their own experiences in these narratives, liberation theology propelled communities from passive faith to active resistance, transforming religion into a tool for empowerment.

Gutiérrez’s theology also intersected with other revolutionary ideas of the time, notably the educational theories of Brazilian philosopher Paulo Freire. Freire’s 1968 book Pedagogy of the Oppressed introduced the concept of “conscientisation,” or the awakening of critical consciousness, encouraging marginalised people to recognise and resist the forces of oppression. Gutiérrez’s call for a praxis-based faith mirrored Freire’s philosophy, emphasising that spiritual liberation and social emancipation were inseparable. Gutiérrez and Freire forged a profound connection between religion and education, advocating for an approach that encouraged awareness and direct action.

The Intersection of Faith and Political Critique

Liberation theology’s emphasis on social justice and structural reform led to friction within the Catholic Church, particularly during the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Both leaders expressed concerns about liberation theology’s alignment with Marxist analysis, fearing that it risked reducing the spiritual message of Christianity to a political ideology. John Paul II, whose experiences in Communist Poland informed his worldview, was particularly wary of any theological movement that appeared to endorse class struggle or revolutionary methods. In the 1984 document Instruction on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberation”, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith warned against the dangers of “excessive politicisation” in theology, underscoring the Church’s unease with the Marxist undertones in Gutiérrez’s ideas.

However, Gutiérrez and his colleagues clarified that their use of Marxist critique was not an endorsement of atheistic Marxism but rather an analytical tool to understand the socio-economic conditions that perpetuate inequality. They argued that the Christian faith could not exist in isolation from the real-world conditions of believers and that Marx’s insights were simply a means to uncover the structures that kept millions in poverty. For Gutiérrez, the Gospel’s call to love one’s neighbour required an engagement with the systemic injustices that hinder human dignity. This nuanced response helped liberation theology maintain its influence, although it faced scrutiny from Church authorities. 

The Relationship between Liberation Theology and Marxism

The relationship between liberation theology and Marxism is one of affinity and tension, rooted in shared concerns for justice and critiques of systemic inequality. Gustavo Gutiérrez and other liberation theologians saw in Marxism a valuable analytical framework that shed light on the structures of oppression and how economic and social conditions reinforced poverty. At the same time, they navigated challenges in reconciling Marxist ideas with the Christian faith, especially given the Vatican’s concerns about secular ideologies influencing the Church’s mission.

Liberation theology emerged in Latin America during the 1960s and 1970s, marked by widespread poverty and repressive regimes often backed by Western powers. Many regional governments were explicitly anti-Communist, aligning themselves with capitalist interests and neoliberal economic policies that often exacerbated inequality. The Church in Latin America, long associated with colonial power structures, was undergoing significant self-reflection, especially following the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the Medellín Conference (1968). These events encouraged the Church to reconsider its role in society, moving away from a conservative, hierarchical model and toward a model that emphasised the Church as an agent of social justice.

In this context, liberation theologians such as Gutiérrez found Marxist analysis helpful in understanding the mechanisms of oppression faced by impoverished communities across Latin America. By borrowing elements of Marxist thought, they could more effectively critique the socio-economic structures that maintained cycles of poverty and exclusion. Marxism provided liberation theology with a framework for identifying and challenging the “structural sin” embodied in systems that, according to Gutiérrez, “condemn the poor to a subhuman existence.”

The Use of Marxist Analysis in Liberation Theology

One of the primary ways liberation theology incorporates Marxist thought is through the concept of class struggle and its analysis of socio-economic power dynamics. For Marx, society’s economic base—composed of relations of production and the distribution of resources—fundamentally shapes the ideological, cultural, and political structures above it. This “base and superstructure” model highlights how ruling classes maintain power by controlling the means of production and exploiting the labour of the working classes.

Liberation theologians applied this framework to explore how economic structures in Latin America perpetuated social inequalities, often identifying poverty not merely as an unfortunate social condition but as a form of violence embedded in capitalist and authoritarian systems. For Gutiérrez, understanding poverty required looking beyond individual circumstances to the structural injustices that keep millions in poverty. This idea connected directly to his theological principle of the “preferential option for the poor,” which posits that God is especially present among the poor and that the Church must advocate. However, Gutiérrez and his contemporaries emphasised that their use of Marxist critique was selective. While they acknowledged the value of Marxist concepts in exposing social injustice, they rejected Marxism’s atheistic and materialist worldview. Rather than advocating a secular revolution, liberation theologians sought to promote a spiritual transformation that encouraged personal conversion and collective action. They argued that the Marxist analysis tools could serve the Church’s mission by helping believers to “see-judge-act,” thereby understanding their socio-economic realities and moving towards meaningful social change.

Vatican Concerns and the Church’s Response to Marxist Influence

Liberation theology’s engagement with Marxist ideas led to significant friction within the Catholic hierarchy, particularly under the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Both leaders were wary of Marxism, mainly due to its secularism and anti-religious stance, as well as its history of promoting violent revolution. John Paul II’s experiences in Communist Poland profoundly influenced his view of Marxism as a threat to religious freedom and personal dignity. The Vatican’s concerns were formally articulated in the 1984 Instruction on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberation”, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) under then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who later became Pope Benedict XVI.

The document acknowledged the Church’s commitment to social justice. Still, it warned against the “Marxistization” of theology, cautioning that certain strains of liberation theology risked aligning too closely with materialist and class-struggle ideologies. The CDF criticised an “excessive politicisation” of faith, expressing concern that theological concepts were subordinated to socio-political agendas. According to the document, the Church’s mission should remain focused on spiritual salvation rather than direct political engagement, and it cautioned theologians against endorsing revolutionary tactics that could compromise the Church’s spiritual message.

Gutiérrez and other theologians responded to these critiques by clarifying their intentions. They argued that their use of Marxist analysis was not an endorsement of Communism but a means to understand and resist the dehumanising effects of unchecked capitalism and authoritarianism. They emphasised that liberation theology was grounded in a profoundly Christian commitment to human dignity and community, which they believed could coexist with a critical analysis of class and social structures. For Gutiérrez, the Marxist critique was a tool rather than a doctrine, helping to illuminate the structural sins that obstructed human flourishing and contradicted Christian ethics.

Theological and Philosophical Tensions with Marxism

While liberation theology and Marxism emphasise justice and equity, they differ in several key areas. One significant tension is the Marxist rejection of religion as a form of “opiate” that obscures the reality of social exploitation. Marx viewed religion as a tool used by the ruling classes to keep the working class passive, offering them the promise of an afterlife in place of immediate material relief. Liberation theologians countered this by arguing that Christianity, when properly understood, actually demands active resistance to social injustice. For Gutiérrez, faith was not a retreat from the world but a radical call to engage with it. He reinterpreted the Christian message not as an otherworldly consolation but as a mandate for earthly transformation. 

Liberation theology argues that true faith requires a commitment to justice, seeing Christ’s life and teachings as examples of solidarity with the marginalised. In this way, liberation theology transforms Marx’s critique of religion into an argument for a socially engaged faith that calls for the active participation of Christians in the struggle against oppression. Another fundamental difference lies in the role of violence in social change. Marxist ideology often sees revolution and class struggle as necessary for overthrowing oppressive systems, even if that struggle involves violent resistance. Liberation theologians, however, advocate for nonviolent resistance rooted in Christian teachings, emphasising that faith-driven action must align with the Gospel’s call for peace and reconciliation. Figures like Oscar Romero, a Salvadoran archbishop and prominent supporter of liberation theology, exemplified this commitment to nonviolence, even as he spoke out against the violent repression of his people. Romero’s assassination in 1980 underscored the risks faced by religious leaders who aligned themselves with the oppressed. Still, his life and death symbolised the Church’s role in the peaceful pursuit of justice.

By engaging selectively with Marxist analysis, liberation theologians developed a unique framework that adapted Marxist concepts to align with Christian doctrine. The Marxist emphasis on collective action and class consciousness is reinterpreted in liberation theology as solidarity with the poor, a concept that prioritises empathy and moral commitment over revolutionary zeal. Where Marxism aims to empower the proletariat as a unified class against the bourgeoisie, liberation theology seeks to empower marginalised communities as dignified children of God, emphasising their inherent worth and the moral imperative to lift them from poverty. The “see-judge-act” approach, borrowed from the Catholic Action movement and integrated into liberation theology, encourages believers to observe and analyse the socio-economic conditions that perpetuate poverty, judge these conditions through the lens of faith and ethics, and then act in solidarity with the oppressed. This methodology demonstrates how liberation theology repurposes elements of Marxist critique while maintaining a theologically grounded perspective that affirms the spiritual dimensions of human life and dignity.

The Continuing Influence of Marxism on Liberation Theology

In recent years, liberation theology has evolved to address new global issues, such as climate change, economic inequality, and racial injustice. It often incorporates critiques of neoliberalism—a system that Gutiérrez and others argue perpetuates economic exploitation and marginalises the vulnerable. Contemporary liberation theologians continue to use Marxist-inspired analysis to expose the structural roots of these issues. Still, they frame their critiques within an ethical context that emphasises the spiritual dimensions of justice. This ongoing dialogue between liberation theology and Marxist analysis has influenced social justice movements beyond the Church. Many secular activists and organisations working toward economic justice, environmental sustainability, and human rights draw on the ethical frameworks pioneered by liberation theology. For example, climate justice movements increasingly focus on the disproportionate impact of environmental degradation on impoverished communities. This concern aligns with the preferential option for people experiencing poverty and draws on Marxist critiques of capitalist exploitation.

Gutiérrez’s legacy highlights the enduring relevance of liberation theology’s selective engagement with Marxism. By acknowledging the value of socio-economic analysis while maintaining a distinctively Christian vision of justice and compassion, liberation theology has created a framework that resonates with a wide range of movements dedicated to structural change. In a world where economic inequality and environmental crises continue to deepen, Gutiérrez’s work remains a critical resource for those seeking to reconcile faith with pursuing a more just and humane society.

Ethics of Radical Empathy

At the heart of Gutiérrez’s liberation theology lies an ethic of radical empathy, which redefines Christian responsibility as a commitment to address the conditions that perpetuate suffering. Gutiérrez argued that it was not enough to sympathise with the poor from a distance; instead, proper Christian ethics demanded an active commitment to transforming societal structures. This perspective challenged conventional views of charity, positioning social justice not as an optional virtue but as an ethical mandate.

The concept of the “preferential option for the poor” reshaped Christian ethics by urging believers to prioritise the needs of the marginalised over the privileges of the few. This ethical stance has found a foothold beyond theology, influencing secular social justice frameworks that advocate for human rights, equitable resource distribution, and environmental sustainability. In a world where neoliberal economic policies continue to concentrate wealth among a small elite, Gutiérrez’s emphasis on the welfare of the marginalised remains a poignant critique of global structures prioritising profit over people.

Influence on Global Thought

Gutiérrez’s ideas emerged alongside other transformative thinkers, including Paulo Freire, Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff, and Spanish Jesuit priest Jon Sobrino. Each figure expanded liberation theology’s scope by addressing various social justice dimensions, from ecological concerns to the importance of historical memory in justice. Boff’s work on environmental exploitation introduced a crucial ecological component to liberation theology, connecting human dignity with environmental stewardship. This perspective is particularly relevant in today’s era of climate crisis. Sobrino, who worked extensively in El Salvador, emphasised the importance of remembering those who suffered under oppressive regimes. This commitment further reinforced liberation theology’s dedication to human dignity and historical accountability.

Together, these thinkers created a network of liberationist ideas that transcended national boundaries, connecting communities across Latin America and beyond. Their collective impact broadened liberation theology’s applicability, adapting its principles to various pressing issues, from political repression to systemic exclusion. The collaboration among Gutiérrez, Freire, Boff, and Sobrino underscored the importance of collective wisdom and shared commitment in the fight against oppression.

The Enduring Legacy of Liberation Theology

Gustavo Gutiérrez’s legacy challenges future generations to reimagine faith as a private belief and a public commitment to justice, empathy, and collective liberation. In this sense, Gutiérrez’s theology is as relevant today as it was in the 20th century. His emphasis on solidarity, justice, and the preferential option for people experiencing poverty provides a moral framework that resonates across social movements, offering a profound reminder that true liberation is an ongoing process—a journey toward a world that upholds the dignity and worth of all. Gutiérrez’s liberation theology remains a vital call to action, urging us to view faith as a force for justice and solidarity with the marginalised. Today, his emphasis on the “preferential option for the poor” and collective empowerment resonates deeply across movements for climate justice, racial equity, and human rights, advocating that the dignity of all people be upheld in the face of systemic oppression. In a world grappling with inequality and environmental crises, Gutiérrez’s legacy reminds us that true liberation is an enduring journey—a shared commitment to reshape society toward compassion, equity, and collective hope.

Despite initial resistance, liberation theology’s principles have inspired contemporary movements that address structural injustices across social, economic, and environmental domains. Gutiérrez’s emphasis on solidarity with the marginalised remains particularly resonant in today’s struggle for climate justice. Marginalised communities, especially those in the Global South, bear the brunt of environmental degradation, facing disproportionate impacts from deforestation, pollution, and climate change. Gutiérrez’s call to prioritise people experiencing poverty compels activists to address these environmental challenges through a lens of equity, urging a shift toward sustainable practices that prioritise the most vulnerable.

Narendra Pachkhédé is a critic, essayist and writer who splits his time between Toronto, London and Geneva