¹ These concepts of violence (distinguishing “institutionalized violence” from “counterviolence,” “repressive violence,” and “active nonviolence”) were elaborated at the Second General Conference of Latin American Bishops held in Medellin, Colombia, in 1968. The question of violence and its social bases is discussed particularly in the concluding document on “Human Promotion” (sections 1 and 2, on “Justice” and “Peace”). Cf., The Church in the Present Day Transformation of Latin America in the Light of the Council, Volume II Conclusions (Bogota, 1970), pp. 55–82Google Scholar. Berryman offers a good discussion of the Medellin documents, and their implications for radical Catholic thought and action (Berryman, P., “Latin American Liberation Theology,” Theological Studies, 34 [09, 1973], 357–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

² A good general account of these changes is provided in O'Dea, T., The Catholic Crisis(Boston, 1968)Google Scholar.

³ Ibid., especially chaps. 3 and 4.

⁴ These are only several of many alternative models which describe the church. For a stimulating discussion of such models, see Dulles, A., Models of the Church (Garden City, N.Y., 1974)Google Scholar.

⁵ Metz, J. B., “Prophetic Authority,” in Religion and Political Society eds. Moltmann, J. et al. (New York, 1974), p. 195Google Scholar.

⁶ Just as the definition of authority in terms of testimony and witness emphasizes shared experience, solidarity, and action, so too in more general terms the growing use of biblical models emphasizes God as an active presence in the world. Belief and faith are seen as most completely expressed in actions to promote social justice. This point is emphasized by Bonino, J. Miguez, Christians and Marxists: The Mutual Challenge to Revolution (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976)Google Scholar, and Miranda, J., Marx and the Bible: A Critique of the Philosophy of Repression (Maryknoll, N. Y., 1974)Google Scholar. For a more general discussion, see Levine, D., “Changing Authority Relations in the Church: Sources and Implications in Two Latin American Cases” (paper presented at the Edinburgh Congress of the International Political Science Association, 09, 1976)Google Scholar.

⁷ See Wilde, A. W., “The Catholic Church: The Political and the Pastoral,” in The Colombian National Front, eds. Berry, A., Solaun, M. and Hellman, R. (New York, 1977)Google Scholar, for a full discussion of the form these various alternatives have taken.

⁸ For Vallier, see his “Radical Priests and the Revolution,” in Changing Latin America, New Interpretations of Its Politics and Society, ed. Chalmers, D. (New York, 1972), pp. 15–26Google Scholar. Sanders' views are well expressed in his Christian realist critique, “The Theology of Liberation: Christian Utopianism,” in Christianity and Crisis, 33 (09 17, 1973), 167–173Google Scholar. See also no. 17 (October 15, 1973) which contains various responses to his article, and no. 20 (November 26, 1973), where his rejoinder appears.

⁹ Both liberation theologians and defenders of more conservative institutional positions have other conceptions of politics and the political not directly germane to our argument—for example politics as that activity through history which builds a more just society. See for example, Gutierrez, G., A Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, N. Y., 1973)Google Scholar, chap. 11 and passim, and Vekemans, R., Caesar and God (Maryknoll, N. Y., 1972)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Dulles, Models of the Church chaps. 2 and 3 provides a full discussion of the implications of this difference.

¹¹ The most useful standard source on Colombian politics remains Dix, R., Colombia: The Political Dimensions of Change (New Haven, 1966)Google Scholar. See also Borda, O. Fals, Subversion and Social Change in Colombia (New York, 1967)Google Scholar, and Wilde, A. W., Politics and the Church in Colombia (Durham, N. C., forthcoming)Google Scholar, for detailed and documented analysis of church involvement in partisan political conflict.

¹² For statements of the National Bishops' Conference condemning clerical involvement in party politics see Conferencias Episcopates de Colombia, Tomo I 1908–1953 (Bogotá, 1956), pp. 143–44, paragraphs 186–96 (1913) and p. 149, paragraphs 212–13 (1927)Google Scholar. On the partisan role of the bishops, see Gaitán, A., Por Qué Cayó El Partido Conservador (Bogotá, 1935)Google Scholar, and Posada, J. Restrepo, Dos Momentos Dificiles de la Iglesia en la Historia Patria (Bogota, 1972)Google Scholar.

¹³ Cited in Rojas, J. M. Nieto, La Batalla Contra El Comunismo en Colombia (Bogotá, 1956), p. 285Google Scholar.

¹⁴ The first quotation is from Martz, J., Colombia: A Contemporary Political Survey (Chapel Hill, 1962), pp. 83–84Google Scholar, citing from El Catolicismo, April 30, 1949. The second quotation is cited by Isaza, G. Zapata, Patricios o Asesinos? (Medellin, 1969), p. 263Google Scholar.

¹⁵ The development of Accion Cultural Popular is discussed in Wilde, Politics and Church in Colombia, chap. 7, while useful accounts of the Jesuitinspired trade unions may be found in Floridi, A. and Stiefbold, A., The Uncertain Alliance: The Catholic Church and Labor In Latin America (Miami, 1973)Google Scholar, esp. chap. 1, and Urrutia, M., The Development of the Colombian Labor Movement (New Haven, 1969), pt. 4Google Scholar.

¹⁸ The major books on Camilo Torres are Broderick, W. J., Camilo Torres (Garden City, N.Y., 1975)Google Scholar and Maldonado, O., Olivieri, G., and Zabala, G., eds., Cristianismo y Revolucidn (Mexico City, 1970)Google Scholar. The writings of Camilo Torres are available in English in Zeitlin, M., ed., Father Camilo Torres' Revolutionary Writings (New York, 1972).Google Scholar For later rebel priests, see Edwards, R., “Religion in the Revolution? A Look at Golconda,” Nacla Newsletter III, 10 (02, 1970)Google Scholar, and Weiss, A. and Belalcázar, O., Golconda: El Libro Rojo de los “Curas Rebeldes” (Bogota 1969)Google Scholar.

¹⁷ His differences with the Christian Democrats are well described in Broderick, Torres, chap. 7.

¹⁸ The hierarchy more or less explicitly endorsed candidates of the National Front by warning Catholics against voting for those who advocated violence or the destruction of the existing social order. See, for example, the passages quoted in Maldonado, O., “Las elecciones del 20 de marzo en Colombia,” CIDOC Informa, III (Cuernavaca), 04 15, 1966, pp. 137–41Google Scholar, andthat reported in Anali-CIAS (a Jesuit publication based in Bogotá), No. 21 (February 1974), pp. 44–45.

¹⁹ The extent to which Camilo Torres' actions prefigured the deliberations and conclusions of the 1968 Medellin Conference is remarkable. In many respects, he was a true precursor (more in example than writings) of the school which has come to be known as liberation theology.

²⁰ “Letter to Bishop Rubén Isaza,” in Camilo Torres' Revolutionary Writings, p. 243, where Torres notes that “The idea of working within the clerical structure of our Church was most repugnant to me,” and later, he went on to say that “When I thought about the possibility of working in the Curia, making an inquiry for them [conducting a sociological study] I felt sure that I would be separating myself from the poor, thus including myself in a closed group whose organization belongs to the powerful of the world” (p. 244).

²¹ The then archbishop of Bogotá, Cardinal Concha, believed that Torres' laicization would effectively remove any confusion of his position with that of the church. His view makes clear the essentially juridical and institutional conception of the church then predominant in the Colombian hierarchy.

²² Attitudes reported here are based on structured interviews conducted with members of the Colombian hierarchy in 1972 and 1973. Thirty-eight interviews were completed (with six auxiliary bishops, twenty-five bishops, and seven archbishops), while there were five refusals and three bishops unavailable due to sickness or absence. Only bishops who were Colombian citizens were included, thus eliminating most of those in charge of mission territories.

²³ Conferencia Episcopal de Colombia, La Iglesia Ante El Cambio (Bogotá, 1970), p. 43Google Scholar. This position is reiterated in Conferencia Episcopal de Colombia, La Justicia En El Mundo (Bogotá, 1972), p. 62Google Scholar. The distinction of spheres of competence appropriate to clergy and laity is invoked repeatedly throughout La Iglesia Ante El Cambio. In response to a general probe question, “What should be the role of the laity?” a third of the bishops in 1972–73 answered in varying terms that they should “be better Christians in theirown sphere.” Of the remaining group, well over half desired more lay involvement in the institutional church.

²⁴ Interview 80123, March 1, 1972.

²⁵ Interview 80110, June 12, 1972.

²⁶ Interview 80123, March 1, 1972.

²⁷ Interview 80117, June 12, 1972.

²⁸ Ibid.

²⁹ Interview 80134, November 22, 1972.

³⁰ Interview 80143, July 15, 1972.

³¹ Interview 80111, October 30, 1972.

³² The pope was frequently a figure of contention in past church conflicts. In 1942, for example, the majority of the hierarchy rejected a new concordat which had been accepted in Rome. Indeed, during much of Colombian history, the church's social doctrine seemed “too advanced” for local conditions. Papal authority is cited much more frequently beginning in the 1960's, after the experience of the Second Vatican Council. This increasing reference to the pope's authority is revealed in Schwan, H. and Ugalde, A., “Orientations of the Bishops of Colombia Toward Social Development, 1930–1970,” Journal of Church and State, 16 (Autumn, 1974), 488–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³³ On his visit to Colombia in 1968, the pope made several impassioned appeals to reject violence as a means of achieving social justice.

³⁴ Schwan, and Ugalde, , “Orientation of the Bishops of Colombia,” pp. 481–83Google Scholar. Considering all previous career experience, rather than simply the last post held before elevation to the status of bishop, Levine finds some 18 percent of the bishops considered themselves to have had primarily parish experience.

³⁵ This awareness is visible in several recent documents issued by the National Bishops' Conference. See particularly La Iglesia Ante El Cambio, pp. 36–37, and La Justicia En El Mundo, pp. 105–107,

³⁶ Interview 80135, July 12, 1972.

³⁷ For several concrete examples of this new orientation and the way it comes into conflict with more conventional modes of church action, see Levine, D., “Democracy and the Churchin Venezuela,” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 18 (02, 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁸ Interview 80143, July 15, 1972.

³⁹ See, for example, the influential statement by Msgr. Trujillo, Alfonso Lopez, a major defender of the nonpolitical position, in “El Cristiano Ante la Politica,” El Catolicismo (Bogotá), 02 22, 1972Google Scholar. Msgr. Trujillo is now secretary general of CELAM, the Latin American Conference of Bishops. The kind of distinction outlined here was also drawn in an article by thelate Ivan Vallier. See his “Radical Priests and the Revolution,” in Changing Latin America: New Interpretations of Its Polities end Society, pp. 15–26, where he contrasts “clerical radicalism” with “pastoral radicalism.” As the text makes clear, we believe Vallier's distinction is inadequate, as it relies on an overly narrow concept of what pastoralmeans in the contemporary church.

⁴⁰ Cf. Schattschneider, E. E., The Semi-Sovereign People (New York, 1960), esp. chaps. 1–4Google Scholar, and Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. S., “Decisions and Non-Decisions: An Analytical Framework,” American Political Science Review 57 (09, 1963), 632–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and their earlier “Two Faces of Power,” American Political Science Review, 56 (12, 1962), 947–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Two other contributions to this literature which we have found useful are Cobb, R. W. and Elder, D. C., Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda Building (Baltimore, 1972)Google Scholar, and Cobb, R., Ross, J. K. and Ross, M., “Agenda Building as a Comparative Political Process,” American Political Science Review, 70 (03, 1976), 126–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴¹ Vallier's, discussion of these points is particularly clear in his Catholicism Social Control, and Modernization in Latin America (Englewood Cliffs, 1970), esp. pp. 69–71, 79–81, and 83–87.Google Scholar

⁴² On this point, see Cobb, , Ross, , and Ross, , “Agenda Building,” particularly their discussion of issue careers, pp. 128–32Google Scholar.

⁴³ Msgr. Dario Castrillon Hoyos, “Politica y Pastoral,” reprinted in Tierra Nueva (Bogotá), 2 (July, 1973), 90. In this speech, Msgr. Castrillon went on to argue that “the unity espoused by the church is not any ordinary unity. Rather, it is a unity in love, in justice, and in truth. To destroy a unity built around injustice would be a praiseworthy priestly contribution to the construction of an authentic common good” (p. 91).

⁴⁴ Quoted in El Tiempo (Bogotá), 08 10, 1972Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Castril, , “Politica y Pastoral,” p. 93Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ This position was criticized by Thomas Merton who wrote: “The real moral issue of violence in the twentieth century is obscured by archaic and mythical presuppositions. We tend to judge violence in terms of the individual, the messy, the physically disturbing, the personally frightening… [this] makes us think that the problem of violence is limited to this very small scale, and it makes us unable to appreciate the far greater problem of the more abstract, more global, more organized presence of violence on a massive and corporate pattern (Faith and Violence: Christian Teaching and Christian Practice [Notre Dame, Ind., 1968], pp. 5–6Google Scholar).

⁴⁷ While the church has indeed come under direct official attack in some Latin American countries, this has not yet occurred in Colombia. A good analysis of the Church's situation in Chile is provided in Sanders, T. G. and Smith, B. H., The Chilean Catholic Church During the Allende and Pinochet Regimes (New York, 1976)Google Scholar, West Coast South America Series, vol. 23, no. 1.

⁴⁸ This process is outlined in great detail for Brazil in Bruneau, T., The Political Transformation of the Brazilian Catholic Church (New York, 1974)Google Scholar, and Antoine, C., Church and Power in Brazil (Maryknoll, N. Y., 1973)Google Scholar. See also the recent article by Cava, Ralph Delia, “Catholicism and Society in Twentieth Century Brazil,” Latin American Research Review, 11 (1976), 7–50Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Good evidence of this is provided by Cardinal Munoz Duque's hostile reception of some two hundred priests and nuns of the “SAL” group, urging a greater church commitment to the poor. See the New York Times, June 3, 1976, p. C-9.

⁵⁰ This dilemma was stated clearly and sharply by the Chilean bishops in the pastoral letter in which they prohibited priests and religious from participating in the movement of Christians For Socialism. See “Christian Faith and Political Activity” in Christians and Socialism, ed. Eagleson, J. (Mary-knoll, N. Y., 1975), pp. 179–228Google Scholar. The authors are particularly grateful to Thomas G. Sanders for his comments and criticisms.