Journal of Hispanic / Latino Theology
Volume 5 | Number 4 Article 4
5-1-1998 The Body of Christ: The lC aim of the Crucified People on U.S. Theology and Ethics Robert Lassalle-Klein Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley
Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.usfca.edu/jhlt
Recommended Citation Robert Lassalle-Klein, “The Body of hrC ist: The lC aim of the Crucified People on U.S. Theology and Ethics,” Journal of Hispanic / Latino Theology 5:4 (May 1998) 48-77.
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Hispanic / Latino Theology by an authorized editor of USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The 80th) of (floral 4L)
lHl’l‘ markable and profound overarching horizon of Christian historical re» viii, 5:4 (mm alism, In part two I will develop an outline of a formal philmophiml and theological concept of the Christian historical realism that has pro- The Body of Christ: cluch this important new concept of the crucified peoples, it will use The Claim of the Crucified the concept of Christian historical realism to interpret the important People claims which the crucified people place on theology and ethics; on US. Theology and Ethics Part One: Robert Lassalle-chin The l-listorical leity Milli"Crurij‘irvlPeopleand Hit" Riki'inofGoiil Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley Graduate 'l'heological Union Tm? l’ilSl‘tmitcAl RMii'rr or ‘ii it} Cirur ‘1) Po Mi:
in 1978 lgnacio Ellacuria introd int i a new idea for theology, spir- " ituality and ethics in his esoay “The Crucitiori People: An ay in His- torical He turns to the of the servant How do we talk about (Sod after Auschwitz? Soteriology.“ figure suffering from Second lsaiah “on which the Christian community fris- you ask yourselves, primitive tenecl in order to understand )esus’ death“ And he argues "this entitles; over there, on the other side, of the sea, in plenty us” to use the image to otter a christologiml interpretation not only of “How do we talk about (iod ingitio Auschwitz?“ "the death of Iesus," but of the “crucified people,” which he defines as ask friends here, my that “vast portion of humankind, which is literally and actually cruci- laden with reason, weeping and blood, fied natural, . . . historical, and personal opp‘ “om. ticuria immersed in the daily deaths of millions‘ by also reminds us of the disturbing, fact that their ongoing crucifixion has Mljeclro Casaldéliga been a defining aspect of "the, reality of the world in which the church has existed for almost two thousand years, Since lows an- Among so many Sigm which always exist, some calling for attention llitemllyl nounced the of the of God,” and others barely perceptible, them is in every time one which is the approach Reign of the crucified now in various forms in principle one, by whose light the other should be discerned and inter~ This image people appears preted. This Sign is always the historically crucifiedpeople, which joins theological writings from throughout the Third World John Waliggo, to its permanence the, always distinctive historical form of its crucifi» writing an “African Christology in a Situation of Sutiering,” agks, lUn.‘ "Who is Christ to the suffering people of Africa?“ In his study of mlgnacio Ellacurid Ugandan seminarians he finds "informants str ssecl the Suffering Servant who experienced suffering and silently suffers with all his This essay will address the claim of the historical reality of the cru- cified people of El Salvador on theology and ethics as it 1:; done in the ‘ignacio illliictiria, "The (i’rutitieti People” il/lzrstvriimi lilimirimm {Mary— United States, in part one I will explain the idea of the crucified people, knoll, NY; Ortiis Books, 1993) 55!) 604. translated from "1-1! pueblo crucihcarlo, en- the in the grounding concept historical of the crucified et reality people sayo de soteriologia historian,” Cruz y Rcwl is, ed. lgnacio ii‘llticuriii at, of El El and its Mozote, Salvador, interpreting meaning with reference (Mexico City: Cl‘R, l978) 4932. Alan in Selt’ it» 5 ll Hugh!71» (Willi) 3254i; Kc» to a governing theological concept: the reign of God The entire dis- vista Lalimmmeriranu (tr 'l‘eologtiz18 (1989) 30 , razor: de lo iglr'aiiiiii Raina ' W84 and in the edition oi cussion will be offered as a narrative a re- de Dios (San Salvaclo CA Editores, o2, Spanish soteriological exemplifying ' ' MySti’rz’umlibemtm 'ador: UCA Editoi‘es, i990) 2189 210. ’Ellacuria, "The (‘rucit’ied People,” 592, ‘l‘edro (Tamirléliga, 'I‘odiwira wins palatmzs (Estella, 1989) 45. Quoted in ion ‘7 ibid,, 580, Sobrino, Mus the l ilmt’utor: A Htlll'lr‘’rThifitlngiilRowing 0/7051”:ofNilznmlh, trains. njohn M, Wtiliggo, "Airlmn ('hrisiology m a Situation oi Britten Paul Burma and Francis McDonngh (Marylsnoll, NY; Orbis Books, W93) 253‘ [(5 in Africa, Utiv Robert Schreitor (Mdryknoll, NY; Orbh Books, 19%, 1995 2ignario Ellaruria, "Diacemir 'el signo’ de los tiempoa,” Dialronia 17 (Jami: lh- 80, ” ary/April, 1981)?)7-"1, lhicli, 164, Sll [\‘olwrl Lizsmlli‘» Klein The Body(ll/Christ 51
‘ children,”é This leads him to crit‘ ,- "classic christology," which have and incultumted traditional from the cul- “tends to reappropriated images from to Christ’s death the deaths of men Shy relating, diiily tural world of their Christian colonizcrb‘ in order to draw active analo— and women,” for failing “to draw out practical and concrete in ways gies between their own situation of oppression and that of Jesus: which Chri, am son live and hear witneos to this An~ Christology’” lii Latin America, Jon Sobrino/s recent work is thoroughly shaped other African, Kwesi A. Dickson, criticizes W «item for theology treat- by what he calls the primers between the deaths of Jo death as amilogalum ing “an emharmsmient to be ed over as a p quickly and the "crucied His most recent “written in He is people"m christology, possible." working to develop an African of the cm. theology the midst of crucifixion, but definitely in the hope of liberation," arr Writing lrom Seoul, Korea, Chung liyun asserts that “the Kyuni,r gues that “liberation and crucifixion provide the, basic tension for most of prevailing image Jesus among Asian women/s ex- theological Christian faith and aleo the basic objective, tension in chi" tology on pressions is the image ol the suffering servant," that asserting “they this continent,”{7 But he asserts that it is the power of the historical re- are out of their the making meaning suffering through stories of Jesus’ itself, which has turned the attention of Latin American liberation life and ality death." She adds a critical that Asian women note, asserting theology toward the crucified people. are well aware, that "making meaning out of suffering is a dangeroub businvss‘ , i . can be both a seed [or lihorarion an {which} and opium in Latin America , , , both Christ and the continent are today crucified. for. i ,opprossion."“ And their crosi 5 . . . force one to think. The relatively pacific “who do Kosuke Koyama, originally from japan and ii leading figure in you say that I am?" becom % a pressing question in the mouth of the cm Asian Christian theology, draws attention to the fact that "the domi- cified Christ and of the crucified people. . . . "Suffcring precede, k: gaid but the ot the ct also hit nant reality of Anian suffering is that people are wanted: wasted by mg,” Feuerhach, suffering ‘hly produces if the Situation of cm 1d and of (fhrit in them» hunger, torture, deprivation of rightg; wasted by economic exploita» thinking, poop racial and does not force us. to think, one can ask what will, or what other thinking lion, ethnic discrimination, eexual suppression wasted by can be more necessary and urgent than this?” loneliness, nonrelation, noncommunity.”l2 He quotes the blxth Assam“ hly of the Christian Conference of Asia (June 1977): “hi this situation We turn for a moment, then, to on the historical of a we that gaze reality specific begin by stating people are not to be wasted, are valu- people event of the crucifixion of the Salvadoran We fich to locate our made in God’s people. able, iinago” And he, argues, “li a person is starved, the place in the drama at the foot of their cross, of (Sod is wasted. . . . living image The empty stomach means an insult to the image oi God.”H Finally, "Imus Christ in in the describing Popular I’iety Philip. The Historical lez’ti/ ofllze Crucificd Peopleof £7! Mozolr’ Salvador T, Martinez a. :r pines/“l , “To a 70 of nation, percent whose and Our Place at the Foot of Their Cross people live in absolute poverty, conotcmtly mcndced by hunger and disease, hy ignorance and tea», dcprived of education and other basic The events which occurred in the village of iil Mozotc, Morazan, where rights, the, gap between the poor and the, rich is ever widening, on December 10 and ll, 1981, and the weeks following, form a hoartv who do we my (,‘lirisl is?""‘ His answer i5 to describe how Filipinos breaking microcosm of the historical reality of El Solvaclor’s crucified people and our place iii the foot of their croo, On March l5, 1993, the '176, “lbid,, United Nations Commission on the Truth for El Salvador issued its “ lbid., 168. From Madness to The Twelwli 4' War in 15! Salvador, ’l‘he “‘Kwoi A, in report Hope: lilirkson, fllimlovyi; Afrim {Mari/knoll, NY; ()rbis Bot a 1984? lm‘lb'. ( \iled in Robert ‘ report summarizes the brutal facts of the case: Schreitcr, "lnlri‘iduction,’ 5 (#1851 in 7'- “ Africa, (hung Hyun Kyung, “Who l. u; for A, an Women?” Asian l'acc,» oflesiis, On December ltl, 1981, in the of El Mozo , , . Mornmn, il- ccl. R. S Sugirtharajah (Mar), knoll, N lrbL Sooks, 1993, WW5) 22-1, village [El ‘3 . . , the Atlacatl Battalion Without r all the hosoke Koymim, “The Cruci Christ Challenng Human Power,” Asian vador] detained, 'is‘tani‘e, women were in , 156, men, and children who the place, The following clay,
., '157, lvador T, Martinez, “lesus Christ in in the Popular l’ioty Philippines,” “Sobrino, [ex s the Liberator, 270 l, 7.477 57A of laws, l. ‘ lhlbidv ll)ld., 250. "' lbid., 3 52 (<01er 1ussnliv» Kim: The BodynfChrisl 53
The battalion whobe members murdered the the Univer- , . , lesulix [oi l)ecomher ll, they were deliberately and sygtemdlically executed very of Central American in had been treated, trained, and , , over 200 The gure it; higher , . i [with] unidentified victims,W aity liltW] equipped by the United States; it was, indeed, the first Salvadoran bat- talion to serve as; a model of A than ottlcient in the The repori provides heartbreaking detail of soldiers” savagery: designed weapon tight against the l‘MiN.” The Atlamtl Battalion has had a partlrularly During the morning, they [the troops! proceeded to interrogate torture ferocious history, mag wring, {over 200] peasante in ill Mo/ote in Will, and in and and execute the men in various locations, Around noon, they began talk- killing dozens of villagers from 'l'emiucingo Copapayo ’l983, 68 in the hamlet of ins llanitos and 50 at the ing; out the women in groupe, separating them from their children and slaughtering (,itialsinga River in 1984?“ machinegunning them. Finally they killed the Children. A group of children who had been locked in the convent were machine-gunned The however, reaches; further in the activities through the windowa After extormiimtiiig the entire population, the sol- Pentagon report, situating diers set fire to the building of the Atlacatl Battalion within the larger horizon of US. counterin‘ surgericy policy, The writer explains that the Reagan Administration The Commissioners add that the massacre was planned with other had decided the Salvadoran Civil war provided an “ideal testing military unite as part of “Operation Resal!e,""“ which proceeded for a ground”7 for testing the etiectiveneg‘ of pthiemam "lowclntensity period of days to carry out similar slaughters of women and children conflict doctrine,“* But the seriou, and intentionality ot the US, in the surrounding villages of [Va Joya, La Rancheria, hos 'l‘oriles, Jocote government’s involvement in this lgbll counterinsurgency "experi Amarillo, and Cerro l’ando. They note the Armed Forces High Com- ment” went far beyond the status of a mere administration policy. "this ” mand of Salvador then “repeatedly denied the massacre occurre is best captured by El Salvador '5 decade of dominance among, tor- while its own chief of stall, who “was; aware that the massacre had 00 eign aid commitments between 1981 and lWl, The 1991 Pentagon re‘ curred, , . . failed to undertake any irivecitiy;alion.“72 port states:
The widely reapecied UN. Truth Commi Qion report then explic- ' The conict there ha» been the moat cxpent Amorimn eltort to have links these {11:15th as to US, it itly ' counterinsurgency policy, explains, , an all Y from rm insur brenc ) since Vietnam. Salvador has ubtyorlved at that the Atlacatl Bait lion was a Rapid Deployment infantry Battalion (BIRI) “specially trained for ’counter—i surgency' warfare, It was the “FMLN is an for the Fambuurlo Marti From for Nationul Liberation, first unit of its kind in the armed forces and had [just] completed its acronym it was officially turmed on October it}, 1980, when aeveml ot the mom important under the of United States advisers, at training, supervision military politicdlvmililary organizations working to overthrow the government of ill Stil— the beginning of that year, 1981?“ The report explicitly contradicts Vador united under its banner, in 1970 the firm of what would bect‘lme the live any impression that Mozote might have been an aberration of mili‘ politl “ military organizatiom constituting the FMLN was founded when 9' [- from the Cominun of ill Salvador tary policy restricted to the early 19805, noting that, almost a decade yzidor Cayetano Cm’pio resigned Party (l‘CS), went and founded the For of l. oration (H’Ll In 1972 later in members; of the same battalion carried out the mur- underground, Popular 1989, ' very ' the Revolutionary Army of the People (ERT’) emerged from the Cormmmi-at tiers of six jesuitb‘ and two women at the of Central Amer~ University Party with a different, younger, and more dive, r comtitueucy. in 1975 the Armed lCéL Forces of the National Resiutance (FARM) was formed by a group which left the A 1991 report prepared by the Rand Corporation for the Pentagon24 ERP when a hard line faction assassinated Roun Dalton, lgl Salvridor’s mom im- a the [5 because of l is even more ingistent on these points, portant living poet (then member of l’), ostensibly on the need to emphasize politieal as well a5 military revolutionary trcti , following year, on january 26, 1976, the Revolutionary Party of Central American
‘ " Workers was founded a of union workers, indivir: _ tilted Nations (i'omm' m on the Truth for lil Salvador, From Madness to (PRTC) during emigre left the which founded the ERP in {72, and others. in 1979, r ‘l'rwlw-Ymr War it lzmdor (March 15, 1993) 114‘ group Finally, of Liberation "’lhid, HS. {self formed the Armed Forces (FA Ll "t " lhiri. Schwarl, Americh (‘mmtmnymgency, 7t . w“ an "rank the V' ‘tnam ‘ivndrome: A Ste id., l2l. 2"l 'l‘ambts Aker, “Shattering nario for Succesa in Fl ‘alvador," unpublished mam pt, ll, (' ted in Michael vitl , lib.
L‘ 3* Klare and Peter Low , , minim l’mimur- Benjamin (: ‘hwm’z, American Conmyrmsugmcy Doctrine and El Salvador: Kornhiuh, eds, [Him-airy War/ll irgmry, and Antiturmrism in (hr few York: handout l’luuse, ill, The Frustrations of Rrgy’om:am! My lllmiom of Nation Building (Santa Monica, Calif; guilty Eighties ( W88) American l. RAND, 1991). BKSthwarz, Cr>untvrmsuqycnry, 54 Robert LassnlloKle’m The? BodyofChrisi 55
lea $15 billion, over $1 billion of which l“; in and When com- military creased from 7i to 183 millioni“ Since “tho poor are those who die bined with over $850 million in unsubsidized credits and an entimateti ~ ” before their time, as Gustavo (Jutiorrez repeatedly sayg,’ Sobrino reA CIA investment of over {55th million, the total expenditum approaches minds us that these statistics the of hundredra of $6 billion. five countries more represent suffering Only l't‘t‘k’th‘ American aid each year than millions of men, women, and children. So too both Paul ll li ilvudor, a nation of 5,3 million people,” john (8olluiir twin mi socialis, 1987) and Latin American bishops confirm the reality of "the situation of inhuman in This background, then, allows m to locate ourselves at the foot of poverty which millions of Latin Ameri-
“ the em of the crucified children of [Ll Mozote. In 1993 the UN, Truth cans live” (Puebla, no, 29, 1979), Comm axon this as a “historical Solu'ino would report that in the convent "M3 bodies were iden» Describing reality disaster,” («smarts 13} that children . r titled, including under the age of 12 [whose] .average age . . . was , , . six” The, report documents that they had all been At the origin of What we call Latin America today thou" lit-5’ an murdered with “United States-manufactured M-16 rifles” am- original firing and originating sin. To give one single fact: Some seventy years alter munition "manufactured for the United States Government at Lake 'l492, the indigenous population had been reduced to 15 patient; many City, Missouri?” if else, these facts should leave US. citizens nothing of their Cultures had been destroyed and suhleoted to anthropological about the claim of the historical of the wondering crucified death This was a . . a reality colossal LllSDSll?!‘ ., historical tit slur, and we have of El Salvador on and ethics as it is done in this coun- a name. people, theology to give it Our Current language Gallo the, e pooplee "Third try, World,” “the South," “developing Countries,” These dooignation are dl‘ tempting to say thal something is wrong, but ranch language doea not communicute how wrong, Therofore We need to speak of Cruttihed [on Sabrina on the: llinmriml Reality if [ha Crucind Pauplv peoples; metaphorical language, of course, but language which convoys and the Kingdom of God much better than (llllt’l’ tho historical ei'tormtty of the disater and his meaning tor faith." ‘l‘nia CRUCIl-‘IHJ [moi-Hr: A l-loieRiier; FACT
In "The Crucified People: Yahweh’s Servant a Suffering Today,” THE Ckucnrngo Prowl; Mnervio l'tllt int: RilioN or (too 1992 es ay written for the five hundred year anniversary of the arrival of the the Spanish in the Americas, Ion Sohrino claims a most appropriate Priority of Reign “startii for Sobrino that "to call the of the Third World ‘t‘ru' 3 point talking about the crucified peoples” (given the oc- suggests peoples ciecl casion), lo asserts that when the historical reality of “the crucified people,“ ‘Yahweh’s suffering servant,“ [nrl “the prewncc of the crucified Christ in is the mth statement people shows us what we are, we tend to it, cover it or history,’ important theological ignore up, ‘ we can make about them,"” it Submitted to the "fun- distort it, because it simply terrifies Lier Playing on the metaphor of Accordingly, the damental choice which e other State— discovery of the Americas, he, then proposes to "start by dis-covering methodological” Lllmlplll‘lt‘s 'ery ment in Latin the covercd‘up reality of our world? American christology: “to go back to lesus in onlvr to rethink all He finds lgnacio Ellucurid’s provocative phrase that “creation has theological realities in terms of him.My And, for Sobrino, this will mean that the J turned out badly for Cow“ i‘ont’irmed by “horrifying” economic data: image of the “crucified peoples" must b Qit'uated within what was “the final for the oi {mm 1971 to 1990 the number of Latin Americans living in poverty in- reality lows: Kingdom Sobrino presents several reasons why the reign oi God tunctiom‘» its a theological ultimate for l min American liberation theology. First, he
}“ion Roport, H7 (+3354), “8 (#357), H") (#366). “'l he (Trucltied Yahweh's Servant Peoples: the n. 30 Also taco "Crtu‘itieti Jl‘l. ’ Suffering, ’loday," "‘Sobrino, [2510; Lilmator, 278, Si‘ibrino, l’eoploa,” The the * Principle QfMarcy: king Crimir’dPmplefmm thy Cris: (Mari/knoll, NY; >"Sobrino, [a lie Lilmrrilur, 251i. Urhia Books. 1994 ,l 5 lated from El l‘riuripio Mi» mlia: Bruin (it In mix “Sobrino, "C ucitied Peoples,” Sit. a (as arm pueblo» say appears "’Sobrino, ,é’taiistlu? Liberator, 2M, in a revised and e. Whirl, 266, “Sobriuo, “('rucitieil 40, Peoples,” “See bohrino, and the oi Coil,” 1hr «7-» “ “lemurs Kingdom Imus (,i/vmmr, M4, mp. lbid, 67-70. 5t» Ix’oticirl Lizard/10 Klein ‘1lie Body of Christ 57
that "the Third World . . r an argues presents historical reality some- which relationships of justice and solidarity reign, then the Kingdom how oi'ialogous to that in which the very notion ot a ’Kingdom of God’ of God will have come,”47 arose/’4" Second, lib Aration theology’s formal commitment to histori- Martyrst the cal, prophetic, praxic, and popular values "can be formulated generi- Kingdom This and the substantive claims cally as [a comrriitment to] the Kingdom’s transcendence in history.”’“ methodological approach, placed on and ethics the crucified then leads Sobrino to Accordingly, “Liberation theology . . . claims to have found in the theology by peoples, search for an between the innocent death of the Kingdom of God a totality from which it can deal with all theological analogatmn prinpr “crucified and the of He turns first to the subjects and also rank them in accordance with their closeness to the people” martyrdom lesus dissatisfaction in one of Karl Rahner/s last with the ultimate mystery, now formulated as [the] Kingdom of God/"'2 Third, expressed writings applicability of the usual of in this helps liberation theology practically to overcome the danger of understanding martyrdom dogmatics and fundamental (the "tree and of death “equating the Kingdom with the church," and it Clariti s the "historh theology patient acceptance for the cause of the faith its moral in its or cal malice of the, world" for the m wage of Jesus. Fourth, it makes [including teaching] totality, with to a SCRSC respect doctrine but with the of the faith christologically since it “retri ves the historical Jesus and i _ . particular totality always in view”)*‘3to the situation of various Latin American makes central the Kingdom that Jesus preached, while applying it to martyrs. Rahner should someone the historical present/“l asks, “Why not like Bishop Romero, who died while for in s a he out of the Sobrino believes this methodological commitment, together with fighting justice *iety, struggle waged the depths of his concern as a Christian, why should he not be a historical reality ot the crucified people, places several claims on martyr?“ This question bolsters Sobrino's claim that the role ot of Christian theology and ethics (especially those clone from a liberation questions jus‘ tice in the deaths of so Latin American "have the reason many martyrs perspective) "tor obvious that the Kingdom did not come in obliged theology to rethink its to Christian Jesus’ time, and the present requires that we set it in history“M First, methodological approach martyr. dom . . i the of our at through death Jesus”R0 place the loot of the cross of sultering peoples generates the Consistent with the enunciated above, "basic task to i establish, methodologically and systematically , , the methodological principle Sobrino then follows the work of Leonardo Boff, who his reality of the antiningdomi” ’l'his is nec dry so that the "salvation "begins of from Christ the basic sacrament r . . analysis martyrdom starting Jesus brought by the Kingdom will, then, be ng saved in history from of martyrdom? He argues that should be considered as “mar- the evils of history.” Second, liberation theology must take "absolutely martyrs tyrs of the of God" and that we should be able to seriously the question of who the Kingdom is for and reaffirm that it kingdom interpret the meaning of their work in terms of its contribution to the belongs to the poor,""‘ l'Iowever, Sobrino also addresses the question building of how the kingdom or defeating the anti~kingdom. The of this is kingdom is "for" the non-poor as well, in the kingdom, the logic approach grounded in a fundamental assertion of Sobrino nonrpoor are, evangelized by the poor, most especially when the now christology: poor assume, a role, of "real kenosis, of real service to and of support Jesus did not preach himself and did not come to bear witness to him- the materially poor, of sharing in and on the fate of the taking poor/"t self. He preached God’s Kingdom and the God of the Kingdom, and Third, the historical of the. crucified us to make reality people "obliges bore witness to it with his life. 50 Jesus is also a witness and martyr for historical [the kingdom] present through mediations and to bring it the Kingdom of God. And theretore, theologically those who today bear about at all levels of historical reality,” despite the tact that it “cannot Witness with their lives to God’s kingdom, like Jesus, are martyrs, and in ever be hilly realized in history” And fourth, theology proclaims that them we find the arialogatum gtrirza'psof martyrdom.“ only when "humankind becomes a single people and a true people in
“livid, 122, "lbidt, l31. ‘3 l, “Josef Hoter and Karl Rahner, Luxikrm mid Malta, (2d ed *2 fur ’I‘lzirologia livid, 28‘), n. 31. (Preiburg: Herder, 1957—1967) 7:136. Cited in Sobrino, Jesus Hw Liberator, 265.
“lliid , l23, “Karl Rainier, "lnieiisiom ot Martyrdom: A Plea tor the roadening of the “think, 125, Classical Concept,” szcilium 163(1983) it). Cited in Sobrino, Jesus the Liberator, 265:. ““lbidt, lZo, “‘8 brino, Jesus the Liberator, 266, klbii’l., llti. 5‘ [bid., 268. 58 RobertLasagna-Klein The Belly of (“mm 59 Sobrino then identifies three typical situations" in which the “cruci~ consider it in terms of really bearing the ein of the anti-Kingdom, the tied be understood as the people" might legitimately “martyred people." becomes the rmalogatum princcps unprotected mas 3, who are put to ‘l‘here are those prietsts, nuns, catech' ', of the words, students, delegates death in huge numbers innocenin and anonymously" lie concludes trade unionism, peasants, workers, teachers, journalists, doctors, with the lawyers, deeply assertion that are the ones who who christological “they etc, structurally reproduce the of Jesus: defended most martyrdom "They abundantly and cruelly ’fill up in their esh' what is in the and attacked the with a lacking Kingdom anti-Kingdom” prophetic voice Christ’s are the passion, They Suffering Servant and they are the crul "and were to death,“2 There are those an put who die ethical “soldier’s cified C hrist t0day.”5" death," defending the kingdom by open struggle using “some sorl of violence,” l he that it is suggests possible for them to “reproduce a central THE CRUCIFIED PEOPLE: BEARERS or SAivpgnow element of martyrdom: laying down one’s life [or love" So that they too What exactly is the salvation that the crucied So- could be considered to “share in martyrdom people bring? by analogyw brino warns his reader that that God Then acceptng chooses: the crucified “and makes people them the principal means of Salvation” will turn out to be “as scandalous as there are the muscles are God's choice of the Servant and finally, who innocently and anonymously mur~ accepting the even crucified Christ to salvation/"w He then dercd, though they have not used any explicit form of violence, bring concretizes this by even four verbal, They Clo not actively lay down their lives to defend the suggesting ways in which the crucified peoples bring salvation. faith, or even, directly, to defend God’s Kingdom. They are the peasants, First, they are killed for the salvific act of establishing right and jus— children, Women and old which people, above all who died Slowly day after tice, they do simply by having made a place, {or their families and die with day, violently incredible cruelty and and communities in a world which is totally unprotected.“ actively hostile to their very existence?" By having struggled to live under difficult These words describe circumstances, many who died at El Mozote in l98l, have it innocently they made possible (or their children, or to Sobrino that "in siblings, parents suggests order to be able to call them . i ,we continue to martyrs struggle for life. Second, the biblical revelation that they must give deep thought to what is martyrdom’s analogatlmi princcps, have been chosen by God "as bringers of salvation” traneforms the and think about it at the cross of looking Jesusi" scandal of their into a suffering; powerful religious force {or the very What Sobrino finds there is not so much “the active character of necessary “struggle for justice and liberation?“ 'l‘hircl, their the suffering struggle against the anti— ingdom," or a free choice to undertake reveals that the affirmation that “Jesus ‘died for our sins,” a funda— such a he “In struggle, Rather, nds comparison with Jesus’ death, the mental stutement in the New Testament, means really “to be crushed i . . deaths of i . these murdered masses illustrate , historical inno- on a particular historical occasion—~by sinners,” And it shows that cence—because they have done nothing to deserve death to be “what should be except done about sin, another fundamental question in the poor- hurl are not even ca- vulnerability«—-~becau5e New A . , they physically Testament is clear; eradicate it . . . it” of by hearing pable avoiding it.” This aspect of their transforms it into a suffering Fourth, the crucified people are a "light to the nations."“" Here So- call to conversion and repentance, "for their deaths make clear that it brino makes the powerful argument that “the mere existence of the is these masses who are unjustly burdened with a sin which has been crucified is people what can-~antl in the last retaort the only thing that annihilating them i . , These masses, who are oppressed during their lives and die in massacres, are the ones who illustrate best the vast suf‘ “lbid, 271. fering of the world.”55 This leads Sobrino to the conclusion that, "if we 259 consider in "'lbidv terms of the to those ’* martyrdom anthKitigdom’S response lbicli, 260, who for the the the W struggle actively Kingdom, mmlogatum prinreps of lbid,, 258, Sobrino links this trait to “prophetsz, prieth and bishopss,nuns and is that Romero.” catechii ., martyr exemplified by Archbishop lilowever, “if we peasants and workers, Studi‘ni and leclur . . trylingl to establish and and leaves out the right justice,” poor who die "p 'ely” l'lowever, l am as- that their families and ‘3 serting Simply by supporting who are lbid., 26"), neighbors persecuted, are the most role in “~‘ they playing perhaps important poysible the work to establish lbid, 270, righteousness and justice “l lbid., 260. “3 lbid., 26L 60 Ruth lussallr-Klrin The Bodyof C lirist 61 can~unmask the lie by which this world’s is concealed. Im— reality what they have with them. Their suffering has generated real solidar— prisonng truth with injustice, is the fundamental sin of human beings ity, which serves as “a model of how people and churches can relate to and also of nations." For US, of and ethics still practitioners theology one a another in human and Christian way.” Amazingly, the continued contemplating the crucified people of El Mozote, Sobrino’s interpreta- belief of the crucified people in the compassion of God and the values tion (following Ellacuria) of what is revealed to us will be positively of the “offer a of kingdom faith, way being church, and a more genu~ particularly disturbing. These innocent children, crucified with bullets inc, Christian, and relevant holiness for the world today.” “manufactured for the United States Government at lake Mis' City, In the end, Sobrino says that while “it is for us to souri/"’2 reveal that necessary speak of A , . crucied peoples,“ in truth "the solo objzit'tofall this talk must be to "’l them down the cm '. the he reminds us that the United St; is much worse oft than Latin America, Because the bring from Pressing point, to terms with" the historical of God’s with . the United States ha a solution, but , . it is a bad solution, both for it and "coming reality presence crucied “has to be the cross for the world in general, On the other hand, in Latin America there are people, accompanied by ‘carrying’ and no for the crucified/"W What i solutions, only problems. But, however painful this may be, it is bet— taking responsibility believe this means for us is that ter to have problems than to have a had solution for the future of his' the crucified children of El Mozote place a claim on US. the— torv.“ and as ology ethics it is done at the foot of their cross. It means that,
at the hour to Sobrino then truth, unless we profoundly accept the truth of the cruci' suggests (again following Ellaicuria) that the poor tied and the fundamental of successive offer a peoples responsibility empires substantive solution by embodying the of a “civi« possibilities for their crucifixion, we will miss the main tact. That is, that in this world lization of as to the current "civilization of poverty” opposed capital, there is still enormous sinl Sin is what killed the servant-v—the Son of in all its and socialist fonns.”"‘ This idea is defined in capitalist utopian God—and sin is what continues to kill God’s children. And this sin is in. terms of “all in the earth’s resources so that can sharing austerely they icted by some upon others?“ stretch to everybody.” lie notes that this kind of "sharing achieves what Citing the words of Ellacuria, Sobrino that when the First World does not offer: fellowship and, with it, meaning Ignacio suggests of life.” "confronted with the crucified people . , , other worlds can know their own truth from what as in an inverted mirror."7' Finally, the crucified people live out "values that are not offered they produce, For Sobrino, the crucified serve as the of our elsewhere.“S Though it might be argued that "they generate these val- people preeminent Sign times to . . . both the of the ues because they have nothing else to hang on to,” their salvitic imr "verify historically"72 terrifying grip reign of sin on our world and the salvation offered God’s invitation portunce should not be, trivialized or discounted. Their lives offer through to with the crucified if we are to learn "community against individualism, Cit-operation against selfishness, solidarity peoples, willing any- thing from the crucifixion of our brothers and sisters at El Mozote, we simplicity against opulence, and openness to transcendence against should know that US. and ethics have not cceeded in uo‘ blatant positivism, so prevalent in the civilization of the western theology tangling our active collaboration with the of sin, from the world."‘*‘ The crucified people offer a stubborn hope in the possibilities kingdoms saving compassion of the of God mediated to us the cru- of history, and continue to be able to manifest love in the face of a reign through cified of our world, "structurally selfish world."°" in truth, the survivors of El Mozote, like people so of the have shown a many poor, willingness "to forgive their op- Part Two: pressors" and “open their arms and accept” those who come to share Christian Historical Realism and the Crut‘ificdPeople “’ UN. Commission Report, 117 (#354), lit; (#357), 119 (#366), Part one of this essay interpreted the Concept of the crucified mIgnacio Ellacuria, “Quinto Contcnario. América Latina, descubrimiento o people by locating it within the of the encubrimiento?" Riavi‘sta [minorwnwicmiii d6 lbolugiii21 (1990) 278. Cited in Sobrino, larger theological concept king- the Liberator, 26L ” Jesus 49. M Ibid, Sobrino, 195145the Liberator, 262; Sobrino, “Crucilit‘d 54, Peoples,” wSobrino, [ears the Liberator, 252. “Siblings, s the Liberator, 263. [es "Crucified 5'3. “’ “Sobrlno, Peoples," Sohrino, "C'rucificd 55, Peoples,” the ’" 7‘Sobrino, jesus Liberator, 261. lhid., 56. “Sobrino, "Crucilied Peoples,” 53 62 Robert Lthallr'chin The Body oftfhrisl o3 dom of God, and historicized it the of the the “world” and the through heartbreaking story meaning; things which we take for granted as our crucified of El El Salvador. people Mozote, The following section will “horizon” are human structures created for the communication and outline A formal and of philosophical theological concept the Christian maintenance of meaning; and all knowledge, including theological historical realism that this new produced important concept of the cru- is a search for ’ knowledge, basically meaning." Surprisingly, however, ‘d it will that Ellacuria's people. argue lgnacio key concept of “his. Ellacuria treats these as philosophical presuppositions which “must be tori ization" also the work of is (which . . . shapes Ion Sobrino) quite overcome" in order to "do justice to the reality of human knowing to the maxim of Ci 8. Peirce And it will use . , , parallel pragmatic this and Latin American theological thought.” This approach, and the structure to substantiate the claims on cruci- alternative important being placed presuppositions he develops, serve as a short introduction tied on US. and ethics. people theology to Ellac‘uria’s understanding of historical realism and the unique imc portance he places on a philosophy of historical reality for grounding Eu AcueiA’S CH sriAN HISIORICAL REALISM the claims of Latin American liberation theology. AND ‘i’nit CoNcism‘ or l”ltS'l‘ORKll'/:AHON Ellacuria proposes "three alternative fundamental principles for Christian l’lislorical Realism . . [the] conceptualization of human understanding" as it operates in and Latin American TheologicalMethod "Latin-American theological method/’7’" First, "human intelligence is not and Our discussion so far of the crucified people and the kingdom of only essentially permanently sensible, but it is there from the and God has been suffused with what I would call a profound Christian beginning fundamentally a biological activity/’7" He quotes Zubiri’s illustrative historical realism, embodied in the regular appeal to the idea of his- dictum that "a species of idiots is not biologically " viable.” And he that tt, (r .9. 3 rality, The unique form of this realism is no accident, and it argues intelligence never loses its character as an function, even in its most abstract or deserves our attention, We again pay the tax {or the crucifixion of the adaptive feeling-centered expres- sions,” Second, he that “the formal children and adults of ill Mozote (as we did in 198D when we do not emphasizes structure of intelli— . . . is not the of or the take seriously the clrii ms of those whom they have adopted as their gence understanding; being grasp meaning, but . . and spokespersons, presuming they are not informed by sophisticated the apprehending reality confronting oneself with that reality/’7" tlere, Ellacuria rst the dictum ory, or experiential referents which call for our attention. In this section develops that “confronting oneself with real as real" we will look briefly at Ignacio Ellacuria’s formal (and deeply Chris- things involves three steps: first, getting to know are ality; second, for about that re- tian) philosophy of historical reality. Ellacuria is considered by many taking responsibility doing something to have developed the most important account of the crucial (and ality; third, actually transforming reality.” ubiquitous) Latin American notion of historical reality, so central to the theology oi liberation, and the power of the concept of the crucified “lbid” 418. people, "Raid, 418—21. in 1975 Ellacuria one wrote oi his most important articles, appro- *lbidu 418. priately entitled "Toward a Philosophical Foundation for Latin Amerie tibial, 419. “We should can Theological Method?” He argues that liberation theology’s notice in this formulation a break with Kant’s tendency to di- chotomize the of inherent historical realism distinguishes it philosophically from much operations "sensibility" and “understanding,” and a profound re- jection of the basi for Kantian nomindlism in A of He tour which faculty psychology. decade later European theology. begins summarizing principles Ellacuria would finish the a bulk of philosophical opus (hilt) in de- the eminent Emerich Coreth from the her- pages length) develops philosophical scribing the structural unity of sensing and understanding in human knowing and meneutics of and Humbolt. its Heidegger, Gadamer, Ellacuria suggests role in creating and understanding historical reality: Filosoa tie, [ll realidad llisniri Salvador: these foundations were currently held by many EuropeanJNorth (San UCA liditores, 1990). 7“llllacuria, "Hacia una 419 O. American theologians as well: has a circular structure hmdamentacion," understanding h’lbid. The Spanish reads: “cl timers? cargo dé’ In z'eulidad,” "ail mu la mili— ” rumour which compromises the strength of its claims; is basi- ” understanding durl, and "cl crxcmgvsc de la realidad. A more literal translation read: the and might getting cally comprehension description of the structures of human with the burden of acquainted reality; carrying reality; and taking charge oi, or transforming reality The Word play of the cannot be trans- " original Spam really lillacuria una lgnacio "liaciu tuiidmnontacion clel método teologico Latino~ lated literally My own translation parallels the characterization of the three both of Estiulios oniericano," tmtmummmnus 301322—13 (August/September, 1975) 40945. Ellacuria and of Jon Sobrino in terms of the noetic, ethical, and priorical dimensions 64 Robert Lustre/111:,»Klein The Bodyof Christ 65
Students of philosophy will r'ecc’ignizein this a direct attack on the the intrinsic priority of knowing over reality, nor oi reality over know- Husserlian Uplihewhich sought to bracket the of (i.e., question reality ing, is possible Knowing and reality are strictly and rigorously ol the whether the objects of consciousness exist) from actually philosophy,m same genus in their root?“ Antonio Gonzalez, notes that, according), to while focusing on the “phenomenological” description of the human Ellacuri’a, this assertion “means that om has gone beyond both the mind at work. In fact, it is Ellacuria’s thesis that it is the, sub- precisely horizons of Hellenistic naturalism, and modern suliiectiyism . l , lto] ordination of the of the real to that of or at least to question meaning, a new horizon/W the archaeological description of human consciousness mean- creating What exactly is this new horizon which l‘illacuria believes places for itself (which informs work as which makes ing Heidegger’a well), Latin American theology outside the ambit of European philosophy? a fool of philosophy and in much of the First World He theology today, In his Dynamic Structum of Reality,” first offered as a course and then that, no matter what intellectuals think, argues may published posthumously in 1989, Ellacuria’s philosophical mentor, Xavier an answer, Precisely because of the priority which reality has over meaning, there is Zubiri, provides Zubiri analyzes matter, biological no real change of meaning, without a real change in reality; to try to life, the human person, society, and the dynamic structure of history as the first without to the is to a change trying change second“ mislead the subsystems of more comprehensive reality (the, c smos). He argues intelligence and its primary function, , , , To believe that by changing that, like all the subsystems of reality, history is reciprocally interactive the of that the themselves at interpretations things things change, or, with the others, But it is also inclusive of the othe is the simmmm of least, the profound consciousness of one’s location in the world [would reality We can see the implications of this approach in the difference changel, is a grave epistemological error and a profound ethical failure. between Heidegger’s definition of humanity as a "rational animal” Interpretive changes of meaning, and even purely objective analyses of (emphasizing the gap that separates human rationality from animal social and historical realities, are not real changes. And neither are they nature) and Zubiri’s of as the "animal of reali- even real changes of meaning itself, but usually changes in its formula- description humanity ties"5b the strict historical of and real— tions. However, this does not keep the intelligence from having an irre~ (emphasizing unity intelligence This follows from Zubiri’s al to historical placeable function, as a theoretical force, for the needed change in the ityt metaph approach technical and ethical orders of historical reality.” reality, in which human rationality simultaneously depends upon, in- tegrates, and adds something new to animal nature. And it is reected This leads, than, to his third and final point: “Human intelligence in Zubiri’s notion that human history is at once part oi, and adds a is not only always historit al, but this to the essenv historicity belongs novum (something really new) to, reality itself, tial structure of intelligence/"l What does human history add to reality? For Ellacuria, it adds The full impact of this claim for Ellacuria’s historical realism is im' praxis, understood as a new level of reality (historical reality), History possible to grasp without relating it to Zubiri’s debate with the Elm» evolves from, incorporates, and transforms (within limits) all of realv pean struggle to choose between the Aristotelian turn to nature (or ity’s other aspects (including the systemic and material properties of various forms of naturalism), and the turn to subsequent post~Kantian matter, biological life, sentient life, and human life) it also adds the the subject,“ Zubiri rejects both options with the claim that “neither content of history itselft In both cases, "l’raxis is identified with the his. torical process itself, in as much as this process is productive and trans- oi intelligence, See Ion Sobrino, “lgnacio llllacuria, el hombre y el cristiano," un» formative""" both of previous history and of nature. published manuscript provided by author, March 1994, 13, m lt is to notice here that l? acuria’s treatment of as In this connection Quentin lluuor argues that “this 'epochc’ is clearly _ . , de- important history rived from the Cartesian doubt, but Husserl is insistent in pointing out that it is a systemic dimension of reality allows him to speak of a philosophy of different 0 doubt be it a essentially reality, only methodically, is to take.- position 3‘ Xavier Zuhiri, lntlrligmtiu scntimtv: Intoligmria y militiad (Madrid: Alianxa with to and this l'iusserl will not do; does not enter regard reality, reality Simply Editorial, 1980, Will, 1984) 10. into the question of 'what’ thi s are” (Plumomunolngy:Its Gmesis and Prospect [New l“Gonzalez, "Aproximaciénf’ 982. The following paragraph follows Gonzalez York: Harper 'l'orchbooks, l958, l965] 49), closely, See “Aproxirna 'on,“ 984 uid, 420, "Xavier Zuhiri, my!le dimimica the la malidmi (Madrid: Alianm Editorial, “lbid. WW), “It is Antonio Gonzach who suggests this explanation in "Aproximacion a “ llllacuria himself noth the signicance of this cimtrast in "lmrodmcion la ohra lilosélica do Ignacio Ellacuria,” Esludms Centnumwriczmos 45 (November / critica a la antropologia filosol'ica dc Zubiri,” Realitas 2 ( l970) lit-137, esp, 754i, December 1990) 505%. 5” Ellacuria, [ow/fa £18In mzlx'dmi lllltlflul, 505, 66 RobertLassaIlaK/eiu The Bodyof Christ 67 "historical he treats reality” Indeed, historical as a Ellacuria then a reality metaphysi— makes crucial move, explaining, that he will treat cal This then, us to understand that in the category background, helps revelation and history as correlative realities. in fact, the article will 1975 article Ellacuria is arguing from the premise that historicity be- not to the “essential structure of assume that there are not two longs only intelligence," but to the histories, a history of God and one of hu- essential a sacred and a structure of reality i elf (historical reality)! Accordingly Bl- manity; profane history. Rather there is a single historical in which both God and lacuria presents Aristotle’s classic distinction between the operations reality human beings intervene, so that God’s intervention does not occur without some form of human of human knowng in thanria, pmxis, and fro ‘is, as representing “three participation, and human intervention does not occur without God's of how histi’irical and interact in the his- presence in some aspects" reality intelligence form.” toricity of human knowing This implies that, whether theology is in the operating mode of interpretive thrim‘ia, ethical praxis, or techni— Ellacuria argues that this assumption a “historic d” treat. constructive it must requires cally pnicsis, pay attention to the interaction of his. ment of the concept of transcendence. Such an treatment rejects "per— torical reality and intelligence in its work. to our Returning example, nicious philosophical influences” which have identified transcendence this means that the sacred sciences should function as of know- ways with “separateness,” and taught that "historical transcendence is and sepa- ing, taking responsibility for, transforming the historical of rate from reality history." He argues that these are united the crucified philosophies by people, their that interpretation “the transcendent must be outside or beyond Methodologically, this leads Ellacuria to push to free it- what is theology: immediately apprehended as real” For them, the transcendent self from the distortions which are created historical of by patterns is , . , , . . always "other, different, separated in time, . . , 5p *e, or academic , , , to seeking "recognition by lorl revolutionary elites”?3U . , essence”3 from the historical object. instead, Ellacuria argues tor methods which can Christian develop ground truly like the a notion concepts of transcendence as “something that transcends in of God and revelation in the historical of Latin lhistoryl people reality America; and not as something that transcends away from; as something that to develop proper relationships between its interpretive practices and physically impels to more, but not by taking out of; as something that the type of socio~historical commitments called for in the and Gospel; pushes forward, but at the sa me time retains." to make use of secular discourses from philosophy and the social sci— The Value of this approach for a theological of sal- ences in order to better the work of in historical real- understanding, ground theology vation is that “when one history reaches (30d historically . . . one does while sure to “the ity, simultaneously being guard against disfiguring not abandon the does not ” human, abandon real but rather and of the fait when history, purity plenitude using these secular discourses. one’s deepens roots, making more present and effective what was Christian Historical Realism and Satcriolugy already effectively present.” Here we see the deeply Christian impli» cations of Ellacuria's that Ellacuria’s 1975 article provides a synops' of the implications for premise neither intelligence (in this case, the idea of theological method which he drew from the philosophical formaliza- transcendence) nor historical reality (which includes the actual transcendence of God in tion of his Christian historical realism. Almost a decade later, Ellacuria history) can be placed above the other, Ellacun’a then further elaborated a formalized concept of Christian historical realism draws a startling insight from this argument: "God in an important l984 article, “The Historicity of Christian Salvation.” can be separated from history, but history cannot be separated from God, Sin does not make God The article asks, “What do human efforts toward historical, even socio- disappear, but rather crucifies God/l“ The idea here is no political liberation have to do with the esteiblislunent of the Kingdom that, matter how much one might deny the idea of the of God that Jesus preached?”°‘ it proceeds under the assumption that God, saving presence of God continues to permeate historical real» of the "the problem is primarily a problem of praxis. It is the problem of ity. course, radical denial of the historical reality of God will have real crucifixion, But Christians who, compelled by their faith and as an objective realization implications: here the solidarity of Jesus and of that so k to make human the crucifixion as the 0! love and faith, action correspond as much as pos- martyrsmwhich accepts price solidao sible to God’s will [or the kingdom of God].” ity, and has the resurrection as its completion and validation—vbecome
" ' ‘l’liilacuria, “l lacia una fundamental 42 no “lbid. ”‘ Ignacio lrillacuria/'l’listoricity oi Christian Salvation," Mystwiimi Liberalioms, “lbid,, 254, 253. "“ lbid,, 255i (78 RobertlxzswallerK/em The Bodyvj't‘ilzrist 59 historical of transcendence and tangible signs hope. Accordingly, a concept) which predominates in the great of his occasional Ellacuria refu. cosmic dualisms as the final for the in. majority explanation pieces, and on which we will focus here.” of as humanity sin, ing, "it may be possible to divide into a history Ellacuria makes several claims in this of sin important piece whi i I history and grace; but the division presupposes the real of
unity A would summarize under the following three the-es. First, historicii, What this means, of is that we bear history.” course, responsibility for tion is in historical realism. are our grounded indeed, concepts historici .ed actions. And, more positively, we have a crucial role to play in his- "when they refer to historical realit 53")" Ellacuria notes that this in the toric ing the kingdom of God. Thus, it is Ellacuria’s profound Chris- opposite of being abstract (in the ‘iecond, historicized tian historical realism and his commitment to the role of negative SenSe). unifying grace are concepts to tests. a , c notion of counter~ in which lead him assert subject validity Using, to that it is ‘ history historical reality itsle factual proof, Ellacuri’a argues that if a “hypotht cannot be invali— (which includes the reality of the kingdom as well as the anti-kingdom) dated by data, it is not” historicized. Indeed, he that, in this which a radical claim on the Christian suggests places disciple to take the cru— “one case, is falling into sheer idealism, no matter how much the real- cified people down from the cross. ist or the materialist one might claim to be." ’l’hird, historicization is a
procedure for and truth claims ‘sociated with a CHRISTIAN lrllsil‘olx‘li‘m Ri Al, M, (,Tiiociriiao Prom ii, testing validating 2' Illacuria holds that the truth of a AND '11 KiNt.i><.iM 0F (Lion concept historicmed concept lies in its such that “becoming reality,” its "truth can he meaeured in {its} re- l-Iisloricizaliou sults/“ti He then -'rts that it is neces try to c<,>ntinuallyrevieae the it is in the context of this Christian "historical content of a profoundly realism” given concept in light of its hintorical effects, in order to that Ellacuria his of "histori maintain develops key concept zation.” In what the “essential meaning" of that concept. Thus meaning is do. follows 1 will I believe that Ellacuria’s at least in briefly suggest why igmcio key termincd, part, in terms of the practical effects»; of a concept. of "histi’iricimtion" also concept (which Shapes; the work of Jon So~ One of Ellacuria’s ’tSl articles, published posthumo ly in 1990, is to the brino) quite parallel pragmatic maxim of C. S. Peirce. otters a summary of how he developed this approach to lustoricization of tillticuria finds two as a My reading, primary uses of the term in his procedure for testing and validating truth claims during the last work. in the First, Philosimllyof Hieiurica/ Reality, Ellacuria uses the fourteen years of his life.‘W Ellacuria begins by arguing that “it is in- term historicizat’ion to refer to the and incorporative transformative dispensable to submit the concept of human rights to a ‘hi‘a‘toriciza— which human power praxis exerts over the historical and natural di- tioni’" He also expresses the hope that "thin “higtoricization/ will men.‘ons of ()n the one, hand, "The historicization of nature illumine the and . . . reality. theory empower the pmxis of human rights," as concurs . . . in the tact that makes from nature and Salvadorans to decide humanity history try “what to do with the ‘Common’ good in a so with nature/“5 On the other, from historical tradi~ which is not praxis appropriates ciety only divided but conflicted” both by war and "the lion its concepts, values, pmcticeu, and other ways of being in reality, unjust distribution of goods.”“" simultaneously being shaped by and transforming them. In its pri‘ sense, refers mary then, historicimtion to this process. However, in a "" It was to this latter project that Ellticuria, the intellectual, dedicated 1976 article entitled “The ration public Historic of the of as most of career, Concept Property his Indeed he produced three massive volunicw containing, hun- a of lillacuriai a dreds of such Principle Deideologizatiou,” suggests that in secondary articles, posthumously published and appropriately entitled Winter the mire de li‘mriu en el Salvador 1969 1959 Salvador: sense, “Demonstrating impact of certain concepts within a par (San UCA "ditores, 1W1} Anto- nio his student Gonzélei, who edited l‘iz't' dz: [a retilidml _ ticular context is {also} . i . understood here as their historicization.”"“ oft}: drim, suggesta that for in the “histor tillacuria, ation of concepts like human or the [t is th econdary sense of the term to do with the property, rights (having verifying common . , i the d ’6 good thing for understanding their hiatorici itlon . . _ truth claims from the first of the historicization , of . proceeding meaning consists that their treatment in it ‘torical, that is, that it betting; from the fact that they are linked to an historical praxw." “f’l-llliicurin, les will dc Ia milimid losldrim, lot). “3 Ellacun’a, ”lt,a historizt ion del concepto,” 427, “""ln histor' in in del de como do desidcolo— “‘ conccpto ptopledad principio lbid., 42K ‘v gimcion,” £55m. _ (,‘mlnumwr‘lrmws 31 (1976) 42‘ 0 Translation from "The H' Ellacuri‘a, "l’listorimcion de los derechos hummios tori m’lguacio desdv lm pilot,» tion of the Concept of Property,” 'liitmnls’ 47 $01 that Serve: Its: People:My los opn’midm; y las mayorias populares,” {studio Mirror;meriomm 302 (1990) R8977 intellectual Contribution lllllltlllf/S Mimli'ml e ., . of! lest/lilo, john liasaett and Hugh 96. DC: Prose, 1W. "5“ Lacey (Washington, (iuorgetown tlnivemty will} lbid., 589. 7t} Robvrl [Assails Klein The Bodyif Christ 71 The article then that the historicization of the explains concept of GROUNDED IN A FORM or REA! lSM human involves: the rights verification in praxis of whether the truth Both Ellacuria and Peirce distinguish reality from truth, while claims, justice claims, and legal claims associated with human truth in specific grounding reality Peirce defines as "that mode of are realized or reality rights not; the clarification of whether the in virtue of which the being right ques- by real thing is as it is, of what tion serves the or irrespectively any majority just a few; the identification of the histori- mind or definite any collection of minds it to bef’l‘“ cal structures to make may represent necessary the right in Truth, on the other question historically hand, is “the of a eifcctive; the of theoretical correspondence representation cle-idcologization discussions which mis~ with its The is that object?”5 point truth for Peirce, which has to do represent historical or which distortions like with reality, legitimize oppres- the relationship of an idea to its is sion and object, ultimately knowledge slavery; and the prudential of what constitutes about which quantification reality, always maintains a of an degree independence,“ acceptable time table and degree for the realization of the in Ellacuria also rights grounds his notion of truth in what he understands qwxstim‘i,m2 by In the reality. Philosophyof Historical Reality Ellacuria asserts that While this article deserves its own extended treatment, for our “historical is the ‘ultimate of reality' object’ understood as it suffices to note how it shows at philosophy purposes that, the time of his death, an intramundane s metaphys’ not only because of its and Ellacuria had continued to the elements of historicization globalizing develop totalizing character, but as the supreme manifestation of which appear in the article from the mid 19705;. Indeed, I would Thus reality,"“"7 sug— reality always maintains a degree of primacy and And gest that it shows that Ellacuria continued to understand historiciza» Ellacurin/s autonomy, philosophical of truth demands a corre tion least in as understanding (at part) a methodological procedure (a) in between the grounded spondence concept (or intelligence) and historical historical realism, to a wide reality (b) subject range of validity testing, and (c) (though it is more than that), fundamentally designed to test truth claims, it emblem- Like Additionally, Ellacuria, Peirce believes that a key question is izcs the continued of his keen interest in the real what determining development power exactly “this correspondence or reference” of of this thought "to its ob- for the true of a in an procedure determining meaning concept ject, consissl in,” Peircc’s answer to this question leads him to a semi- contested environment, ideologically otic realism which is at once quite distinct, and yet complementary to Ellacuria’s historical realism Pragmatism For Peirce, all thought has the character of a It is hard to miss the sign which is used to "stand for an profound parallels between Ellacuria’s procto— object independent of itself,"W It stands for that dure of historicizau‘on and the pragmatic method of C. S, Peirce, I will object, however, to somebody (or something) in whom it arouses a second comment on these in more That more briefly parallels order to adapt my own approv developed sign, developed sign then functions as an priotion of Ellacuria's Christian historical realism to the semiotic di~ "interpretant" for the meaning of the original or Peirce mensions of the task at hand: that of the claim that thought sign.W describes this relationship in terms of the tri- explaining startling adic the crucified children of El interaction between a its and an Mozote are the symbol par excellence of the sign, object, intorprctant: historical reality of the kingdom of God, A Sign, or is repri’smtzimm, something which stands to somebody for These comments will be the that Peirce in some or guided by insight regarded something respect capacity. it addrcsics somebody, that is, creates in the pragmatism as Ellacun’a as a mind of that an (just regarded historicization) methodo~ person equivalent sign, or perhaps a more "which is developed That which it creator; logical procedure guided by constantly holding in view . i , sign. sign 1 call the interprcmni of the first sign, The stands for the purpose of the ideas it analyzes/“l3 in what follows, I will briey sign something, its chiral“ trace it” some significant parallels between l’eirce's pragmatic method lbid,, 9,566. and Ellacuria/s method of historicization (the sense of the “’Slbid, 5553f. secondary “‘3 For an term outlined in to the three elegant of this we above) regards factors identified above, explanation relationship john l~ iith, I’m-poseand Thought: The Mnming of I’mgnmtism (New Haven, Conn; Yale Press, 197 'l, University acuria, dc la “7” Filmmfi’a walliin hisidrica, 42. lbid, 590, ‘eirce, Collected Papers, 1,538, mCharles S. Cilllt’Chld Peirce, Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 5, ed, Charles c co [arm-N K. A72 Feihloman, lnlrmlui’li'm to My of (fliarlvs ta, Prints llartshornc and Paul Weiss Harvard Philosophy (Cambridge: University Press, 1960) para (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1969, W70) 89. 5.13, no. l. graph ‘iilllcirce, Coileca‘cd Papas, 2228‘ 72 Robert Lassallc Klein The Bodyof (Wrist 73 W A, Seen have that for tillacuria "the formal structure of intelligence the of problem verifying truth Claims regarding the of . . correspondence not the of or the but i . . understanding, being grasp meaning, a or with thought sign its object. Thus we see that, for Peirce, the and oneself with that This pray,- apprehending reality confronting reality."‘” matic method is “a Maxim of [logic/“‘0‘ a "logical rule,“W a also involves a triadic which l would can he conv “logical relationship suggest doctrine,” and a "theory of logical or true side,er in some as to analysis, definition,“20 ways analogous (though significantly different which out of his grows study of the formal laws of relation. But it that described Peirce. The first two elements of Ellacuria's sign from) by is much more than for it that, carries him into the of the ver' to know and question scheme—Agening reality taking, responsibility for doing ification of truth claims about that his of and bomething reulity-»~parallel Steps apprehending In this I find a more developed parallel to Ellacuriu’o notion that oneself with He, also adds a third confronting; reality. element, actually historicized are to concepts subject validity testa. And we have seen n. This is based on the translorming it)?“ assumption that praxis, in« that it is in the grounded distinction between truth and exem- its and in “identi~ reality, cluding; signifying conceptualizing aspects, actually plified in lillacuria’s admonition that stubborn allegiance to a tied with the historical process ‘eh‘X’l‘3 thesis "hypo, [which] cannot be invalidated by data" shows that "one is with this we that Ellacu‘ Working analogically material, might say into sheer no falling idealism, matter how much the i‘eiiliut or the ma‘ ria’s activities oi" to and trans- know, i , , getting taking responoibility for, terialist claim to be” [they] might Most significant for our could be understood to function as or pur- forming reality signs symbolic is that fact poses, however, that the validity qu on cannot be treated actions which “stand . i . to somebody for something," and "create in from the role of apart historicizalion in extahlis 1mg the of the V , V [historical of that [or an truth relationship reality] person persons] equivalent to reality and the verilication of truth claims. Sign, or perhaps a more developed sign” (understood a new praxis), DESK ‘ED FUR rm? ViiRlllit‘e‘i't’liWN D}? The idea here is. that when a new Pl’aXlSi5 elicited as a response to an 'l Ru’i‘ii (Xi Peirce a original praxis of getting to know and taking responsibility {or histori- pragmatic method is degigned to over the meaning of a and to cal reality, some transformation in historical reality is produced This concept test its truth (mime; The essence of his formulation of the method it: best response, could he, Lind ood analogically as the interpretanti We see pragmatic captured in his first formulation of the ' maxim: this reflected in ‘um 9 etforts lo historicize concepts like democ- pragmatic "Consider what effects, that might have conceivably racy and human rights in order to clarify their real meaning and to test practical bearing, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then our of these truth i‘laims associated with them by political leadersv conception efiec is the whole of our conception of the Peirce is object/'1“ working here with the triadic be- SUB or R) VAlll,ll‘lY Tl I‘Nt; relationeliip tween the (our its Sign conception), objoct (that which the Sign or con- like is also interested in the Peirce, llllacuriii, question of validity refers and its ception to), interpretant (the we conceive the For the of is determined eyflrcts object testing, Peirce, question validity by logic, of our to conception have). One way that Peirce explains the basic which he understands as “the science oi the laws of general necessaiy point is his idea that the of a or meaning sign concept may be said to signs,“H Peirce regards as "another name for semiotic "consist in logic simply how it , i i might cause {anyone or anything . , the or formal doctrine apprehending quasi-necessary, of signs"”" which governs the to act/“3’ These Sign] actions or effects then serve as the interpre» “the theory of right reasoning,” determining “what reasoning ought to tant of the real meaning of the original Sign or Our lac/“m is not a concept. conception Validity only formal question for Peirce, however, His re‘ of them is considered to be equivalent to our understanding of the alism leads him to also treat logic as “the science of i . , true of the represen- meaning original Sign or concept, tation"”’ Peirce then develops his pragmatic method as the solution to But what if the real actions or effects we observe are different than those we originally predicted deductiver from our conception? Peirce believes that clear lacuriu, I‘ilosoa dc In realm'ud lzisltirica, 419- 20, and rational thought about something will formu- lhid. R98, “‘lbidi, “lhidv Sill Collected Hill “‘Peii‘ce, Papers, ; 2%. Ibid,, 5465.
2227‘ ' “mid, lbid, 6,490. “Whirl, 2.7 ‘1' lhid 5.2V “’lhidi, 131W, 74 Robert Lasstzllchlein The Bodyof Christ 75 late a hypothesis about the object, then use the to hypothesis predict Jon $obrino has argued that "liberation theology , , , claims to the object's tutui actions under Certain circumstances The pragmatic have found in the Kingdom of God a totality from which it can deal maxim, then, is designed to help us to determine the truth of the afore- with all theological subjects, . . . ranklingl them in accordance with mentioned hypothesis (or idea) by creating a C(mzpmismibctwcm the pre— their closeness to the ultimate mystery, now formulated as lthel King- dicted and the? zctm’il (or between the (eas hypothetical meaning and dom of Codf’m this I would that Sobrino the actual Interpreting semiotically, say meaning) of the Sign or concept,m Ono must then judge is arguing that the kingdom of God functions as the preeminent sign of whether the effects 7'Ve evidence that the laws in the postulated origi- salvation on the continent, Sobrino writes “in the last nal Elsewhere, that, hypothesis do, in fact, govern the reality of the object, analysis, what liberation theology says is that the Reign of God is to be This is analogous to the way tillacuria’s notion of historicizution built in i . i and that, in the of faith, we see ourselves to works in a history light providing principle of verification for the truth claims of a be on the road, as we accomplish this partial construction, to the de. given concept First, Ellacuria believes that the a way concept repre- finitive of God,"”" Here, Peirce and Ellacuria, I sents historical Reign following n-valityto specific persons or groups can serve several would argue that this amounts to saying that the objectof the reign of is purposes (ideological, truthful, lfind this (ind legitimating, liberating, etcl historical reality. This implies, then, that the goal of (1 to be an excellent of what Peirce means a Christian 'ctplev example by sign. Second, is the realization of the of God in histori- Ellacuria's ship (or historicixation) reign notion that historicimtion is “demonstrating the of impact cal reality, lf these assertions are true, then one is forced to ask the: truth certain concepts within a context" is to l’eirce's idea particular parallel in reference to Does the of the of God that in the maxim question reality: concept reign pragmatic that the of the of a interpretant meaning and the church to historical re' could be said to preached by Jesus actually correspond “consist in , . . sign how it might cause or [anyone ality as we have it? anything apprehending the Sign] to act/’1“ Third, as l have ‘ already This question, which has challenged the faith of ,lesus’ followers in suggested, his triadic notion that the role of the in concept entering, various forms since his crucifixion, must be confrontedi For those of us and taking responsibility tor, transforming historical is some- reality here I ask, what is the meaning of this reign of God, initiatud by testis, what to Pei e’s idea that a analogous Sign refers to an objectfor a sub- in light of the helpless screams for mercy of the innocent children of El ject in which it arous ,, mother more developed sign, its intrrpretzmt Mozote? Our hearts are broken again when, reminded by Church As in any analogy, there are differences between the significant and the of the we realize are our chil' work of those teaching example saints, they philosophers as well, though I do not have time to ex- dren, and we are their parents. We are horrified by the historical real- plore them here. Rather, my purpose is to the briey exploit parallels that our taxes and our bullets make us their even as in their ity executioners, work in order to a s which treats the cruci‘ develop hypothe to us for tied in the they cry mercy people work 0t 15 icuria and Sobrino as the interpretant of The logic of the images we have explored in this essay leads us to the historlcimtion of the of (incl. However, it is worth kingdom adding the conclusion that the crucified themselves must in— that 1 would peoples finally hope that the convergence-s lat-tween two of the, most im— terpret the meaning of the kingdom of God for us, But this is too much portant philosophers of Latin and North America would contribute to for us! How can the meaning of the reign be revealed by the intentional the framework of future NorthSouth dialogues in the Americas crucifixion of so many Children? Here we turn again to the words of The CrurricdPetich Al’? the Sign of the Ignacio Ellacuria: “God can be separated from history, but history can- Hisliiricizntimi (2fIlia Kingdom ufGod not be separated from God. Sin does not make God disappear[from I will on rely what 1 have just written to legitimate the following history], but rather crucifies God’”” in history, This startling mSight adaptation of Ellacuria’s Christian historical realism to the semiotic cli- mensions of an task, In ‘5 important what follows I will conclude by try- Sobrino, lesus the Liberator, 289, n. 3L 1 ing to historicize for Us, theology and ethics the startling claim that I“‘ZlonSobrino, “Central Position of the Reign of (Bud in Liberation Theology,’ Liberation ed, the crucified children of lil are Liberationis: Fundamental Concepts of Theology, Momte the symbol par excellence of the Mysterium Ignacio lacuria and and Sabrina NY: Orbis Books, 1993) 377, in historical reality of the kingdom of God, Jon (Mary/knoll, Published Spanish as “Centralidad del reino de Dios en la toologia de la vliberi‘acion,"Mys— "’ teriimz Liberationis; Fumlammtalr’s de la dc la Liberation bid., 5.82592. Conceptos lleologm (Madrid: '1‘ Editorial 2:386, livid, 5.135. Tmtta, 1990) "7 lbicl” 255. 76 Robert l,,zzsszilth/ciii The Body of Clzmt 77 brings us up against the reality that it is our sin (at least in part) which of and selfAconlrontation with their historical reality offers the, possi‘ about the brought crucixion of the innocents of El Mozote. Can we bility of formulating a positive and lomial theological principle re- deny this? What salvation is there in such a terrible conclusion? garding the operation of grace and salvation in our world today: the We were warned that our openng hearts to the cries for mercy of efcacious impact on our hearts and minds of the hopes and dreams of the crucified people as God’s offer of salvation would turn out to he the children of Fl Mozote, as well as the tragedy of their deaths, is the "as scandalous as accepting God’s; choice of the Servant, and the em. ultimate interpretant of the truth and meaning of the kingdom of God cified Christ” to bring salvation/‘3“ But let us ask again, what salvo» in our national reality today In a world still in the grip of sin, where tion do they bring? children are murdered with US, weaponry in the name of democracy, Sobrino suggested that they struggle tenaciously against all odds our embrace of the hopes and dreams of our crucified neighbors will to feed, clothe, and nurture their children in a world structured to be an exemplary historicmation of grace and salvation guarantee their starvation. Some find in them a stumbling block, others a call to conversion. They suffer for the sinful excess of our obsessions with “national security," a growing GNP, international monetary policy, and counterinsurgency doctrine, Yet they are a “light to the nations” “the lie unmasking by which this world’s reality is concealed/‘2" re~ venting that "the United States has i . . a bad solution, both for it and for the world in [gm-literal”OThey embody the possibilities of a para- doxical "civilization of poverty” which serves as perhaps the only real alternative to the current "civilization of capital, in all its capitalist and socialist forms,"m We recall that this odd utopia involves "all sharing in the earth’s resources so austerely that they can stretch to every- body.” And, finally, they cling to "values that are not offered e se- where.”m Sobrino Though accepts the possibility that, in some ca es, it be ‘ may “because they have nothing else to hang on to,"m he sa the salvic importance of truly humanizing values should not be trivial- ized or discounted,
Is this salvation? our Do hearts bum within as we walk together on the road of our common history? Do we recognize him in the breaking of our bread with the starving? Or in the euchurist of solidarity evoked their Can we by suffering? ground this kind of faith in theological rea‘ sons? in the end, Sobrino says that while "it is necessary for us to speak of i , . crucified peoples," he believes that "the sole object of all "m this talk must he to bring7them down from the cross Finally, the historical reality oi the interconnectedness of our sins id their stiffen should be ing enough to establish the claim of the crucified peoples on theology and ethics in the United States. However, our apprehension
5’” Ibid, 260, l2"l‘bid, 261i W E lCllrltl, “Quinto Centennr 2781, Cited in Sohrino, [PSI/18thy Liberator, 2o1. ihrino, Imus the Lilimitor, 2(32 brino, “Crucified Peoples,” 54. ibrino, Jesus the ! ilmmmr, 261i, ‘lbid., 263, “will, 4*),