Poverty, Liberation, and Human Flourishing: A Critical Reflection on Gustavo Gutierrez s A Theology of Liberation

Transcription

1 Poverty, Liberation, and Human Flourishing: A Critical Reflection on Gustavo Gutierrez s A Theology of Liberation Winnie Fung April 2018 This paper was produced in the Opus Vocation Scholars program. This material, written by Winnie Fung, is not to be circulated, shared, or published in any form, hard copy or electronic, without express permission from the author.

2 Poverty has been described in various ways, as deficit, as diminished personal and relational well-being, as a disempowering system, as a lack of access to social power, and as a lack of agency and freedom to grow. (Myers 2011) The biblical narrative portrays poverty as a consequence of the fall. Poverty leads to pre-mature death and a less-than-full-and-abundant life, which is an antithesis of God s creative will for humankind. Poverty is also complex. It is contextual and a creature of its time and space. To understand the nature and causes of poverty is not an abstract, theoretical exercise done from afar, but requires a deep and humble listening and learning from people who live in it, people who see and interpret the world from a place of marginality. This is exactly what Gustavo Gutierrez tries to do in his book A Theology of Liberation. He speaks from a particular context the Latin American experience and reality, particularly that of poverty, injustice, and oppression. This paper presents a critical reflection on Gutierrez work and highlights ideas that may be helpful to the global Church as she engages with issues of poverty and human flourishing, but also points out areas that may not be consistent with the way social scientists think about poverty today. This paper groups Gutierrez s ideas into four acts. The first act to observe where we are and to understand the reality that we are in. Here, the we refers to Christians and to the global church. In Gutierrez s case, the reality is that of poverty, misery, and oppression in Latin America. The second act is to frame our question. What are the relevant questions that we are to ask in light of the reality we live in? The third act is to address why we are even asking these questions. Why should we care? The fourth and final act is to ask: what should and what can we do about it? Understanding the Reality The first act of observing and understanding where we are is important because theology and Christian praxis are not done in a vacuum, divorced from where people are. Latin America has its own unique history and unique circumstance, as do other countries and continents. Gutierrez first points out Latin America s history of dependence, its roots in colonialism, its experience of development, and its need for liberation. The words 1

3 dependence, development, and liberation are all loaded terms, with different meanings and connotations for different people. Gutierrez takes care to unpack what he means by these terms, and as he develops his definitions and arguments, I find it useful to reflect on (i) the importance of reading from the margins; (ii) the contributions that social sciences can make; and (iii) the inherent difficulty of the task Gutierrez has undertaken, given his emphasis on speaking to a contemporary reality that by definition must be changing and evolving. First is the importance of reading from the margins. A psychologist once asked, If you want to understand oppression, do you ask the oppressor or the oppressed? The answer seems obvious. If we want to understand poverty, it is necessary and critical for us to hear from the poor. Gutierrez s work highlights the importance of hearing not just from the Western church or people who are from the majority, but also hearing from people from the margins, people who are typically voiceless. By reading from the margins, Gutierrez brings to the fore several things about poverty and human flourishing that are worth highlighting. First, Gutierrez points out that we should not just focus on the social and economic aspects of poverty. There are other important aspects and dimensions of poverty as well: The world of the poor is a universe in which the socioeconomic aspect is basic but not all-inclusive. (xxi, italics added) Second, poverty is not just a bad (as opposed to a good in economic terms). It is not just an inconvenience, but it literally means death: In the final analysis, poverty means death: lack of food and housing, the inability to attend properly to health and education needs, the exploitation of workers, permanent unemployment, the lack of respect for one s human dignity, and unjust limitations placed on personal freedom in the areas of self-expression, politics, and religion. Poverty is a situation that destroys peoples, families, and individuals; Medellin and Puebla called it institutionalized violence. (xxi) Seeing poverty as death helps us understand why real poverty [is] an evil that is something that God does not want. (xxv) This point is developed further when Gutierrez discusses the biblical and theological basis for liberation. It is worth noting that Gutierrez takes care to distinguish between three meanings of poverty: real poverty as an evil, spiritual 2

4 poverty, in the sense of a readiness to do God s will, and solidarity with the poor, along with protest against the conditions under which they suffer. (xxv) Third, Gutierrez takes care to emphasize the humanness of the poor. The poor are not a problem to be solved, nor an object whom we extend help to. It is important to realize that being poor is a way of living, thinking, loving, praying, believing, and hoping, spending leisure time, and struggling for a livelihood. (xxi) Yes, the poor do struggle for a livelihood, but they also spend and enjoy leisure time. The poor do suffer, but they also love, dream, hope and believe. Genuine solidarity with the poor is seeing them as equals and as friends: Generous solidarity with the poor is not exempted from the temptation of imposing on them categories foreign to them and from the risk of dealing with them in an impersonal way If there is no friendship with them and no sharing of the life of the poor, then there is no authentic commitment to liberation, because love exists only among equals. (xxxi) Thinking about the poor as equals redefines what we expect from the poor as well as our reasons for helping the poor. We should not expect the poor to be simply helpless individuals, victims passively waiting for a handout. Instead, the poor should be, and in fact often are, champions of the poor themselves: Being poor today is also increasingly coming to mean being involved in the struggle for justice and peace, defending one s life and freedom, seeking a more democratic participation in the decisions made by society, organizing to live their faith in an integral way (Puebla, 1137), and being committed to the liberation of every human being. (xxi) The poor today, argues Gutierrez, also bear the responsibility of showing preferential option for the poor. The call to this preferential option is not just for the nonpoor. Seeing the poor as equals also highlights the commonality that we share as part of humanity: We are all sinners in need of God s grace. Therefore loving and helping the poor is no longer a question of whether they deserve help or not: The poor deserve preference not because they are morally or religiously better than others, but because God is God, in whose eyes the last are first. This statement clashes with our narrow understanding of justice; this very preference reminds us, therefore, that God s ways are not ours. (xxviii) 3

5 This is different from the rhetoric we often hear from the secular world of economics and politics. Alberto Alesina and Edward Glaeser (2004), for instance, used data from the World Values Surveys to show that Europeans tend to think that the poor are poor because they are unlucky, while Americans tend to think that the poor are poor because they are lazy. When asked whether poor people can work their way out of poverty, 71% of Americans but only 40% of Europeans said that they can. (Alesina et al. 2001) Kluegel and Smith (1986) showed that Americans tend to blame rather than pity the poor, and even the poor themselves do so as well. As a result, Europeans are more receptive to the idea of generous welfare benefits, or social nets that protect those who are unlucky, while Americans are less welcoming to the idea of hard-earned taxpayers money going to those undeserving, lazy poor. (Alesina et al. 2001) However, in Gutierrez s argument, there is no such distinction of the deserving or undeserving poor, just as there is no distinction between deserving or undeserving sinner in God s eyes. In addition to the importance of reading from the margins, Gutierrez s work on seeking to understand poverty and oppression in the Latin American reality also highlights the contribution that social sciences can make. As Gutierrez points out, A fundamental point has become clear: it is not enough to describe the situation; its causes must also be determined. (xxiii) To examine the causes of poverty, one can benefit from incorporating the insights from economics, political science, sociology, anthropology, and psychology. To do this well, however, one needs to be aware of two major challenges. First, the fields of social sciences are always changing, as are all academic endeavors. We study a reality that is intricate and shifting. (xxiv) As a result, it may be difficult, if not impossible, for any one person to keep track of all developments in all fields. Therefore, while I appreciate how Gutierrez acknowledges that structural analysis has thus played an important part in building up the picture of the world to which liberation theology addresses itself, (xxiii) I disagree with his discussion of development, dependence, capitalism, and socialism. I find Gutierrez s treatment of rich countries versus poor countries and his categorization of capitalist system versus socialist society too black-or-white, too simplistic. Gutierrez wants to argue that poor countries should not simply mindlessly model after the economic models of rich countries, which I agree, but the reason given seems to make 4

6 strong and uncalled-for assumptions about why rich countries are rich. The poor countries are not interested in modeling themselves after the rich countries, among other reasons because they are increasingly more convinced that the status of the latter is the fruit of injustice and coercion. (14) It seems too strong a statement to make that all the wealth of rich countries is the fruit of injustice and coercion. Gutierrez also claims that social scientists have reached the conclusion that the dynamics of world economics leads simultaneously to the creation of greater wealth for the few and greater poverty for the many. (16) I would disagree with this conclusion. There are a lot more nuances than meet the eyes: Are we talking about absolute poverty or relative poverty? What do we mean by dynamics of world economics? Gutierrez may also be jumping to conclusions when suggesting the solution to the structural causes of poverty. He dismisses the possibility or efficacy of changes within the existing order, and claims that only a radical break from the status quo, that is, a profound transformation of the private property system, access to power of the exploited class, and a social revolution that would break this dependence would allow for the change to a new society, a socialist society or at least allow that such a society might be possible. (17) Gutierrez s ideas of a capitalist versus socialist society seems outdated and biased. I believe his argument would benefit from incorporating the more recent theoretical models and empirical evidence from the social sciences. Gutierrez does point out a second challenge of incorporating such insights, which I agree: If we were simply to adopt the traditional approach, we would be taking the course that has always been taken in the social sciences in their contribution to analysis. But we also know that the sciences and, for a number of reasons, the social sciences in particular, are not neutral. They carry with them ideological baggage requiring discernment; for this reason the use of the sciences can never be uncritical. (xxv) Social sciences are never morally neutral. Even as social scientists seek to understand the causes of poverty, they are working from particular worldviews and are bringing with them particular value systems. These inevitably affect the presuppositions and assumptions they make, which in turn affect the conclusions reached. We do need to learn from the social sciences, but at the same time, our interpretation of the reality we are in need to be made in the light of Christian revelation. (xxv) 5

7 In light of the word of God, Gutierrez sees sin a breach of friendship with God and others as the ultimate cause of poverty, injustice, and the oppression in which persons live. (24) To sin is to refuse to love one s neighbors and, therefore, the Lord himself. (24) Gutierrez takes care to point out that in describing sin as the ultimate cause we do not in any way negate the structural reasons and the objective determinants leading to these situations. It does, however, emphasize the fact that things do not happen by chance and that behind an unjust structure there is a personal or collective will responsible a willingness to reject God and neighbor. It suggests, likewise, that a social transformation, no matter how radical it may be, does not automatically achieve the suppression of all evils. (24) Seeing the ultimate cause of poverty and injustice as sin hence provides the basis for why Christians and the global church need to care about poverty, and it provides the direction and solution in which liberation is to be found. Framing the Question Gutierrez starts out with a very practical question: How is it possible to tell the poor, who are forced to live in conditions that embody a denial of love, that God loves them? (xxxiv) In other words, how can we find a way of talking about God amid the suffering and oppression that is the experience of the Latin American poor? (xxxiv) Gutierrez sees this as the great pastoral, and therefore theological, question. (xxxiv) Cast in a different way, the question we are dealing with is the classic question of the relation between faith and human existence, between faith and social reality, between faith and political action, or in other words, between the Kingdom of God and the building up of the world. (29) To speak about a theology of liberation is to seek an answer to the following question: what relation is there between salvation and the historical process of human liberation? (29) To answer this question, we must first define what human liberation means. Gutierrez repeatedly defines liberation as humankind being able to take control of its own destiny. Phrases such as a historical vision in which humankind assumes control of its own destiny (16); human nature gradually takes hold of its own destiny (19); encouraging them to break 6

8 with their present situation and take control of their own destiny (23) proliferate. For Gutierrez, the dynamic and historical conception of the human person is one who is oriented definitively and creatively toward the future, acting in the present for the sake of tomorrow. (21) There is a definite future-ness and a strong sense of one being responsible for reaching one s own destiny in Gutierrez s definition of a liberated person. At first glance, Gutierrez s definition seems to place a lot of weight on the person s own understanding, or desire, of his/her destiny as well as strong emphasis on the person s own striving, own will, and own means to reach that destiny. However, if one reads Gutierrez more closely, one will see that his idea of humankind s destiny the fullness of liberation is communion with God and with other human beings, which is a free gift from Christ. (24) Gutierrez points out that Christ is the one who brings us liberation: Christ the Savior liberates from sin, which is the ultimate root of all disruption of friendship and of all injustice and oppression. Christ makes humankind truly free, that is to say, he enables us to live in communion with him; and this is the basis for all human fellowship. (25) I believe this is the most important approach to liberation seeing liberation as liberation from sin, as freedom to be in communion with God and with other people, and seeing liberation as possible only because of the redeeming and liberating act of Christ. Such liberation is the most important aspect of human flourishing. However, liberation from sin is not all there is to it. If we only talk about liberation from sin, we may fall into the idealist or spiritualist pitfall that Gutierrez warns about, which are nothing but ways of evading a harsh and demanding reality. (25) It is therefore important to consider other dimensions of liberation, and to recognize that the different levels are reciprocally interpenetrating. (25) Gutierrez names two other levels of liberation that are important in the pursuit of human flourishing: liberation from social situations of oppression and marginalization that force many (and indeed all in one or another way) to live in conditions contrary to God s will for their life, and a personal transformation by which we live with profound inner freedom in the face of every kind of servitude. (xxxviii) He quotes Puebla s words: We are liberated by our participation in the new life brought to us by Jesus Christ, and by communion with him in the mystery of his death and resurrection. But this is true only on 7

9 condition that we live out this mystery on the three planes described above, without focusing exclusively on any one of them. Only in this way will we avoid reducing the mystery to the verticalism of a disembodied spiritual union with God, or to the merely existential personalism of individual or small-group ties, or to one or another form of social, economic, or political horizontalism. (xl) Why Should We Care Apart from describing the reality of the poor and setting out the question of the relation between salvation and human liberation, Gutierrez also discusses the reason for caring about the poor: The ultimate reason for commitment to the poor and oppressed is not to be found in the social analysis we use, or in human compassion, or in any direct experience we ourselves may have of poverty. (xxvii) He makes it clear that for Christians, our commitment is grounded, in the final analysis, in the God of our faith. It is a theocentric, prophetic option that has its roots in the unmerited love of God and is demanded by this love. (xxvii) Therefore, participation in the process of liberation is an obligatory and privileged locus for Christian life and reflection. (32) To participate in the process of liberation is to show a preferential option for the poor, and such an option for the poor is an option for the God of the kingdom whom Jesus proclaims to us. (xxvii) Gutierrez sees liberation, when understood as an integral whole, as the central theme of evangelization : It is at the heart of the Lord s saving work and of the kingdom of life; it is what the God of the kingdom seeks. (xl) Participation in the process of liberation should be motivated by obedience to God s will for His creation. It should rest on who God is and what God has already done and is doing. Speaking of God s act in history, Gutierrez points out that creation and liberation from Egypt are but one salvific act. (88) He emphasizes that the liberation of Israel is a political action. It is the breaking away from a situation of despoliation and misery and the beginning of the construction of a just and comradely society. It is the suppression of disorder and the creation of a new order. (88) Gutierrez goes so far as to say, The God of Exodus is the God of history and of political liberation more than the God of nature. (89) 8

10 In addition to highlighting Yahweh s salvific act through creation and through the exodus, Gutierrez also presents the work of Christ as a new creation: The work of Christ is presented simultaneously as a liberation from sin and from all its consequences: despoliation, injustice, hatred. This liberation fulfills in an unexpected way the promises of the prophets and creates a new chosen people, which this time includes all humanity. (90) Given who God is and what He has done in history, Gutierrez argues that humanity should fulfill itself by continuing the work of creation by means of its labor and by placing itself within an all-embracing salvific process. (91) To struggle against misery and exploitation and to build a just society is to be part of the saving action, which is moving towards its complete fulfillment. (91) Gutierrez unpacks this idea of building a just society and moving towards a complete fulfillment of salvation and human liberation by discussing the false dichotomy that some people have regarding temporal progress and the growth of the Kingdom. (91) Gutierrez first holds that building the temporal city is not simply a stage of humanization or preevangelization as was held in theology until a few years ago. Rather it is to become part of a saving process which embraces the whole of humanity and all human history. (91) He points out that peace, justice, love, and freedom are not private realities; they are not only internal attitudes. They are social realities, implying a historical liberation. A poorly understood spiritualization has often made us forget the human consequences of the eschatological promises and the power to transform unjust social structures which they imply. The elimination of misery and exploitation is a sign of the coming of the Kingdom. (97) Gutierrez agrees with Dom Antonio Fragoso s assertion that the struggle for justice is also the struggle for the Kingdom of God. (97) He disagrees with the idea put forward in Gaudium et spes, that the perfection of the social state is of an order completely different from that of the growth of the Kingdom of God, and they cannot be identified. (98) He highlights the three levels of liberation political liberation, human liberation throughout history, liberation from sin and admission to communion with God and argues that these three levels mutually affect each other they are all part of a single, all-encompassing salvific process, but they are to be found at different levels. Not only is the growth of the Kingdom not reduced to temporal progress; because of the Word accepted in faith, we see that the 9

11 fundamental obstacle to the Kingdom, which is sin, is also the root of all misery and injustice; we see that the very meaning of the growth of the Kingdom is also the ultimate precondition for a just society and a new humanity. One reaches this root and this ultimate precondition only through the acceptance of the liberating gift of Christ, which surpasses all expectations. (103) Gutierrez concludes that this is the reason why any effort to build a just society is liberating. And it has an indirect but effective impact on the fundamental alienation. It is a salvific work, although it is not all of salvation. (104) It is important to see that without liberating historical events, there would be no growth of the Kingdom. But the process of liberation will not have conquered the very roots of human oppression and exploitation without the coming of the Kingdom, which is above all a gift. Moreover, we can say that the historical, political liberating event is the growth of the Kingdom and is a salvific event; but it is not the coming of the Kingdom, not all of salvation. It is the historical realization of the Kingdom and, therefore, it also proclaims its fullness. (104) Taken together, Gutierrez is arguing that political and historical liberation is only a subset of the full coming of the Kingdom. He is adopting an eschatological view of the here but not yet. He points out that we should not think of temporal versus spiritual progress in dichotomous terms, but should think in terms of partial versus total fulfillment. Above all, it is important to remember that the coming and the growth of the Kingdom is not by human effort but is a gift and grace from God. What Should We Do Given that to know God is to do justice, what does this doing of justice look like in reality? (110) Gutierrez expounds what it means by the preferential option for the poor by first noting that (i) the commitment to the poor is not optional in the sense that a Christian is free to make or not make this option ; that (ii) the poor too have an obligation to make this option ; and that (iii) the great challenge was to maintain both the universality of God s love and God s predilection for those on the lowest rung of the ladder of history. (xxvi) Gutierrez focuses on what the Church, and in particular, the Latin American Church should do in light of the reality it is in. Gutierrez believes that evangelization is always an 10

12 ecclesial task. The church must be a sign of the kingdom within human history. (xli) He cites Medellin s saying that the sign must take the form of being poor, missionary, and paschal. (xli) Gutierrez notes that Latin America is the only predominantly Christian continent among those inhabited by oppressed peoples, and given this unique context, the Latin American Church faces peculiar and acute problems related to the process of liberation. (47) In discussing the mission of the Church, Gutierrez starts by recounting different models in history, focusing on their problems and their inadequacies, to prompt the reader to reflect more deeply on what the Church s role and calling should be. Gutierrez points out how there used to be a very clear distinction between the Church and the world, where the world emerged as autonomous, distinct from the Church and having its own ends and the Church s very mission was not to interfere, as institution, in temporal matters, except according to the most venerable tradition through moral teaching. (36) This distinct dichotomy is certainly not the way we should see the Church today. Gutierrez goes on to discuss the crisis of the distinction of planes model, a model which distinguishes faith and temporal realities, Church and world, leading to the perception of two missions in the Church and to a sharp differentiation between the roles of the priest and the lay person. (39) Such a distinction of planes, Gutierrez argues, should not exist. Gutierrez then zooms in to discuss the social and political role of the Church. His thesis is that many are not aware that the Church has a political role, or that the Church has political power, whether the Church wants to acknowledge it or not. He argues that many have no clear understanding of the political role of the Church. (41) As a result of ignorance, or maybe even as a result of the desire for self-preservation, a large part of the Church may have sided with the exploiting classes, or with those who wield economic and political power in today s world. (40) Gutierrez observes that the real political option of a large sector of the Church is actually the support of the established order. (41) He questions, Is the Church fulfilling a purely religious role when by its silence or friendly relationships it lends legitimacy to a dictatorial and oppressive government? (40) He points out how the dominant groups, who have always used the Church to defend their interests and maintain their privileged position, today as they see subversive tendencies gaining ground in the heart of the Christian 11

13 community call for a return to the purely religious and spiritual function of the Church. (41) The dominant groups do not like a Church that is subversive, that challenges the established order. The movie Romero about the persecuted church in El Salvador and about the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero captures this well. While the Church should not be performing a purely religious and spiritual function and should not be silent in the face of injustice and oppression in society but should speak out, there does exist a real cost to pay if the Church does so. It is true, however, that we must pay a high price for being an authentic church of the poor. (xliii) Gutierrez gives examples of the hostile reactions that the church meets in its work : In present-day Latin America this means frequent attacks on the church and its representatives and, more concretely, the determination to hamper their mission, undermine their reputation, violate their personal freedom, deny them the right to live in their own country, and make attempts against their physical integrity, even to the point of assassination. (xliii) The cross is indeed a costly one to bear. Gutierrez is well aware of the real, practical problems that face the Latin American Church on the ground. The inadequacy of the theologico-pastoral plans which until recently were considered viable by these movements, the perception of the close ties which unite the Church to the very social order which the movements wish to change, the urgent albeit ambiguous demands of political action, the impression of dealing with the concrete in the revolutionary struggle all these factors have caused many gradually to substitute working for the Kingdom with working for the social revolutions. (59) The line between working for the Kingdom and working for the social revolutions can be quite blurred and the tension quite real. Gutierrez notes how in reality, there are many priests who consider it a duty to adopt clear and committed personal positions in the political arena. Some participate actively in politics, often in connection with revolutionary groups Frequently in Latin America today certain priests are considered subversive. Many are under surveillance or are being sought by the police. Others are in prison, have been expelled from their country or have been murdered by terrorist anti-communist groups. (61) It is a difficult question to answer: In considering the problem of violence in Latin America, can we distinguish between the unjust violence of the oppressors (who maintain this despicable system) and the just violence of the 12

14 oppressed (who feel obliged to use it to achieve their liberation)? (p.64) Can there really be just violence of the oppressed? In discussing the kind of social and political system the Church should support, Gutierrez seems to champion some kind of socialist system. He cites Don Sergio Mendez Arceo: Only socialism can enable Latin America to achieve true development I believe that a socialist system is more in accord with the Christian principles of true fellowship, justice, and peace I do not know what kind of socialism, but this is the direction Latin America should go. For myself, I believe it should be a democratic socialism. (66) Socialism, characterized by the social appropriation of the means of production, opens the path to a new economy. This economy makes possible an autonomous and more rapid development as well as an overcoming of the division of a society into antagonistic classes. (67) Gutierrez portrays socialism in a very positive light, while he seems to have a very negative view of capitalism, in one instance even citing the Workers Catholic Action Movement in Chile, calling capitalism an inhuman and anti-christian system. (67) I do not believe socialism is a pro-christian system or capitalism an anti-christian system. In fact, there are much more complexities and nuances behind a well-functioning social, economic, and political system than can be explained by one or two terms alone. However, I do think Gutierrez is able to pinpoint some of the unique work to be done by the Latin American Church to promote human flourishing. He points out that the role of the Latin American Church is first to denounce the social injustice in society and to express solidarity with the oppressed. In the context of Latin America, Gutierrez argues that the denunciation of injustice implies the rejection of the use of Christianity to legitimize the established order. It likewise implies, in fact, that the Church has entered into conflict with those who wield power. (69) Gutierrez believes that we need to stress the fact that the doctrinal riches of the gospel contain a revolutionary thrust, as a lot of people have the false impression that religion is just the opiate of the people, the result of a perhaps faulty presentation of the Christian message. (69) Gutierrez ends with the exhortation that the Latin American Church should not be fixated on the past but should be committed to the present with an eye on the eschatological 13

15 hope that is in Christ. He argues that in order to reflect on what action the Latin American Church should take and to act accordingly, it is necessary to consider its historical and social coordinates, its here and now. To neglect doing this is to remain on an abstract and ahistorical theological level; or, perhaps more subtly, it is to remain on the level of a theology more concerned with avoiding past errors than with discovering the originality of the present situation and committing itself to tomorrow. (76) I believe Gutierrez s words of reflecting on the past, discovering and reframing the present, and placing our eschatological hope on what is to come also apply to the global Church. All three are needed in the fight against poverty and oppression and in the promotion of liberation and human flourishing. But ultimately, the Church needs to see the Kingdom as first and foremost a gift only on this basis can we understand the meaning of the active human participation in its coming. (132) 14

16 REFERENCES Alesina, Alberto and Edward Glaeser (2004). Fighting Poverty in the U.S. and Europe: A World of Difference, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Alesina, Alberto, Edward Glaeser and Bruce Sacerdote (2001). Why Doesn t the United States Have a European-Style Welfare State? Brookings Paper on Economics Activity (Fall 2001): Gutierrez, Gustavo (2012). A Theology of Liberation: 15 th Anniversary Edition, Orbis. Kluegel, James and Eliot Smith (1986). Beliefs about Inequality: Americans Views of What Is and What Ought to Be, New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Myers, Bryant (2011). Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practices of Transformational Development (revised and expanded edition), Orbis. Van Oorschot, Wim and Loek Halman (2000). Blame or Fate, Individual or Social? European Societies Vol.2, Issue 1, p