Part 2: Liberation Theology “What do we want for an alternative society?”

Diego and Gabriela Silang fought for self-rule against Spain,
monument at Santa, Ilocos Sur , overlooking Banaoang Pass

Abe V Rotor

Freed from their master, the subjects faced self-rule. The end led however, to autocracy. Dictatorships prevailed where people were weak. The few where wealth and power were concentrated took the helm of government. A new master was born.

The paradox is even greater if we take the case of the woman who is now doubly jeopardized of her status of being a woman and at the same time poor. For poverty plagued the newly independent states now depleted of resources. Neophyte managers ran new governments poorly. These scenarios naturally led to a paradigm still reminiscent of the cities of the French Revolution, which sought social justice, this time addressed to the new master in cohort with the old one. Here Liberation means first and foremost, meeting the people’s basic needs, removal of inequities of wealth distribution, respect of the rights of the common man. It was also a call for the end of the vestiges of colonialism in the guise of capitalism. Thus, the birth of the masses. Conflict then moved away from the David and Goliath model. There must be a solution to an Abel and Cain conflict.

To poor people, God is a God of the poor. Being poor is also historical but people cannot accept that. It is structural. Unjustly structural. Like the pork barrel and other hidden compensations for members of congress. What is sin then?

From the viewpoint of this paradigm, sin is likewise structural. Graft and corruption is structural sin. If the dialectics is that poverty is the result of unjust structure, this model calls also for a dialectical method: bring out the conflict.

Liberation from sin is not being passive, but active participation in bringing about a new society, as Christ died to redeem the sins of mankind.

Feminist Theology
“Where art thou, woman?”

The breed of Tandang Sora and Joan of Arc’s local version, Gabriela Silang, comes to the picture in this period. Recently at one time five world leaders were women sitting side by side with men plotting the course of world affairs.

Had it not been for the paradigm of this period, the world would hear more of the whimpers and moans of a suffering woman, cast away from a man’s world. Her DNA is no different from the male’s, and that is a biological fact. Physical, mental, sexual and emotional attributes, scientists say, are potentially equal. Thus, the birth of Women’s Liberation. And man found a partner at work and at home. Bread winning is shared, so with housekeeping.

The dignity of a person is in accepting responsibility. When one accepts responsibility one also exercises freedom to choose and to decide. Liberation theology plus feminist theology points out one important aspect of this paradigm which has a social dimension. Here the woman rises and history will never be a history solely that of men. While sin in man is pride, in women it is passivity. “I think therefore, I am,” to women becomes more compassionate and caring. Breaking from passivity brings into the woman self-worth and self-assertion, and above all, wholeness of being.

Continued...