Caminemos Con Jesus: Toward a Hispanic/Latino Theology of Accompaniment

by Roberto S. Goizueta

While the growth in both numbers and influence of Hispanics in North American Catholicism and Protestantism has been commented on widely, up until now there has been no systematic attempt to define a Hispanic theology. Roberto Goizueta, a Cuban-American theologian, aware that "Hispanic" and "Latino" can be terms imposed artificially on diverse peoples, finds a common link in the Spanish language and in a shared culture. Central to this culture is the experience of exile, of being a people at the margins of a society, who must find and make their way together. Central also is faith, and its grounding in this experience of being in exile. In delineating the very particular nature and worldview of Hispanic/Latino theology, Caminemos con Jesus challenges both traditional Euro-American theologies and modern Western epistemological assumptions. It examines the implications of this theological method for the Church and the academy, as well as for the future of the Latino community and North American society. Caminemos con Jesus provides lessons in discipleship for non-Hispanics and Hispanics alike, for students of contemporary theology, and all those engaged in pastoral and church-based work.

Genres: Theology

224 pages, Paperback

First published September 1, 1995

About the author

Roberto Segundo Goizueta, Ph.D. (Systematic Theology, Marquette University; M.A., Systematic Theology, Marquette; B.A., Political Science, Yale University, 1976), is the Margaret O'Brien Flatley Professor Emeritus of Catholic Theology in the Morrissey College of Arts and Sciences at Boston College. He is a former president of the Catholic Theological Association of America and is an honorary member of the St. Thomas More Chapel Board of Trustees. In 1996 he received the Virgilio Elizondo Award from Academy of Catholic Hispanic Theologians of the United States.

Reviews

[Miles Trujillo · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm gonna include the following because I think it's a good first gut reaction based solely on what's included in the book. I learned from a source who knows the man personally that, while he is loath to talk about his own background and complicity in an evil, capitalist system, he has taken the response commensurate with the book's argument. For a long time, after he started getting into theology, he was cut off from his family because of his unwillingness to approve of their lifestyle. He took the correct stand against the egregious wealth of his parents, and paid the price of that. Even though he eventually rekindled their relationship, it's important to show that this book is not just words. It's born from a very real opposition to the evil in this world, and that opposition cost him personally. That's all I wanted from this book. It remains imperfect, but it's laudable nonetheless.

I understand why he didn't include more about his own backstory in the book. I don't agree with it, but I understand. He didn't wanna throw unnecessary shade at his parents publicly when their relationship was already non-existent because of his commitments to God. I still think he should have explained some part of that backstory because, without knowing the backstory, it can invalidate much of his argument.

It's admittedly tough line to dot.

*********************************************************

This book was going good, making good points. I rolled with it. Then, I looked the guy up on google, and I discovered he was the son of the CEO of Coca-Cola. This guy's dad ran Coca-Cola for 16 years. This man was arguably one of the most privileged men in the entire world. Imagine it. He went to grad school for free, and never stressed about paying bills or how he would pay for school. This man never, ever knew poverty or struggle for the duration of his life.

It makes it really, really hard to take him seriously when he talks about "our" marginalization, or "our" oppression.

I disagree with some of how he frames his final arguments, but overall I would have probably recommended this to some people I know who are struggling with understanding contemporary arguments about the nexus of race, class, and gender. Since discovering this fact about the author, though, I can't in good conscience recommend this to anyone. It simply removes any weight his arguments might have had. It makes the whole argument reek of hypocrisy.

It wouldn't be such a problem if he at least recognized and engaged with this background, but since he ignores it, I can't say this book was good.

Three stars because it is good, and I'm mostly upset that I can't share this with someone struggling to understand these kinds of arguments without invalidating and casting doubt on anyone who makes some kind of a 'liberal' argument.