Conference Papers & Current Trends

Discussion of Rational Choice Theory

Round 2: Reviews & Rejoinders

Edward T. Brett, Professor of History at Laroche College, Pittsburgh

Although I have many reservations concerning Gill's use of rational choice theory as applied to Latin American religion, in my previous critique Iconfined myself to his ahistorical approach. His response to my comments, if anything, have only reinforced my view.

  1. Gill calls me "disingenuous" for stating that the post-Medellin option for the poor differentiates progressive Catholics from Evangelical Protestants. He rather arrogantly reminds me that Protestants also care about the poor and that pre-1968 Catholics and Protestants had programs for the poor. I never said that Protestants do not care about or work with those living in poverty. Likewise, I realize that pre-Medellin Catholics had programs for the poor. Gill seems to have missed my point. It is that the post-1968 progressive Catholic option for the poor is something new to Latin American religion. Whereas earlier programs were reformist and often premised on a developmentalist approach, the Post Medellin approach went much further. It is far more radical and is influenced in no small part by liberation theology. This is what differentiates it from Evangelical, more conservative, approaches.
  2. Again, Gill's statements that all national episcopal conferences did not take a progressive stance after Vatican II and Medellin and that the ideas presented at Vatican II did not pop out of thin air are of course true. No sane person would argue against these points. Likewise, no one would deny his contention that there were in several countries precursors to progressive Catholicism. My point is that the post-1968 form of progressive Catholicism differed quite a bit from the pre-Medellin form. The former was far more widespread and far more radical.
  3. Gill spends much time in his reply to my critique showing that there was concern among bishops and some religious orders about Protestant inroads into Latin America. I never said that there wasn't. My point was that this concern was secondary to that over communist inroads. In other words, if one wants to speculate on why the Catholic church began showing greater attention to the poor in the 1930s through the 1950s, one should concentrate more on the so called "communist threat" rather than the "Protestant threat." (Of course, this is not to say that the church's attention to the poor was the sole result of either of these "threats"). My contention here is that Gill is responding to things I never said in my critique and I find this disturbing (perhaps "disingenuous"). Gill states that the Catholic church was willing to have the state take care of the communist problem. No one would deny that the church was glad to have the state go after communists. Nevertheless, it took its own independent measures. For instance, the importation of North American missionaries to work in previously "priestless" areas beginning in the late 1930s or early 1940s was primarily aimed at nipping communism in the bud. If one looks at documents of U.S. missionary orders, one will find much concerning the fight against communism. One will also find some mention of Protestant inroads, but it is obvious which is the primary concern.
  4. Concerning my statement that elitist Catholics in the late 19th & early 20th century were far from in the pocket of the Catholic church, as Gill argues, and that the Liberal elites were mostly anticlerical, Gill notes that Liberals sent their children to catholic schools. So what! I teach at a Catholic college, but all of the Catholic students who attend are not what I would call serious-minded Catholics. Many of them give little thought to Catholicism and seldom if ever attend Catholic religious services. Gill is correct when he states that Liberals were opposed to the church's political and social power, but were not necessarily against Catholicism as a faith. But that's beside the point. No one would argue that the vast majority of Liberals would seldom have been found at a Sunday mass. My argument was that Liberal elites were not strong Catholics, who were therefore inaccessable to Protestant missionaries, as Gill implies in his article. Nothing that gill says in his response to my critique shows otherwise.
  5. Concerning Gill's remarks on CEBs, I have no disagreement. My contention was that Gill's statement that CEBs are an attempt to fight Pentecostal success, although true to a degree, is too simplistic. I see nothing in Gill's response to my critique to show otherwise.

In summary then, Gill's rational choice theory for Latin American religious developments are, in my oppinion, from an historian's perspective,simplistic and ahistorical. To be taken more seriously, he will have to work on this area.