CHAPTER XIII, part 3
COMMUNISM, 'OSTPOLITIK' AND LIBERATION THEOLOGY
Father Gutierrez and Liberation Theology
Liberation Theology openly proclaims itself to be Marxist Socialism. Father Boff tells us it aims 'to replace the capitalist system and move towards a new society, a society of the socialist type,' and Father Gutierrez speaks of 'the concrete historical march forward in the direction of socialism.' Now what does a 'society of the socialist type' mean. Does it mean individuals working together to create a more just society? Hardly, for such has been the aim of men of good will since time immemorial. Does it mean a society in which the government limits the greed of its more avaricious citizens and controls some of the mans of production? Again, the answer must be no, for, governments have always acted in this manner. Liberation Theology means far more; it means the creation of a Marxist society. As the Primer encuentro por une Iglesia solidaria tells us: 'Christians must be committed both personally and collectively to the building of a new society. This new society must be a classless society in which there is collective ownership of the means of production.' The ownership of private property inevitably leads to oppression and hence to class warfare. The only way to eliminate oppression and to resolve class conflicts is to eliminate private property. As Father Ellacuria says, 'the task of the Church is to eradicate sin, the cause of which is private property.'
And so we see that what Liberation Theologians aim at is not just 'updating a sluggish old inventory by slapping a new label on obsolete goods,' but the creation of a 'new society,' or as Father Segundo calls it,'a new humanity.' Father Gutierrez openly says that the 'goal is the creation of a new man' with a 'new universalistic consciousness... a new way for men and women to be more human... a human being that grows progressively free of all servitude preventing it from being the agent of its own lot in history...'
And how is this to be brought about? The solution lies in the dialectic of 'class warfare.' As Father Gutierrez says, 'the construction of a different society and a new human being will be authentic only if it is taken on by the oppressed themselves.' One of the first steps in this process is the 'conscientization' of the working classes. This means, making them aware of their power and encouraging them to rise against their oppressors - the rich. The next step is for Christians to openly engage in the class struggle. 'Class struggle,' says Gutierrez, 'is a fact, and neutrality in this matter is impossible... We must avoid getting bogged down in doctrinal analysis - that is, in an attempt to treat the problem outside of the framework of the class struggle.' Indeed, the only way one can be a committed Christian is to engage in the class struggle, for it is in this process, and only in this process, that we can meet and love God - the 'God of history' who reveals himself only in history. Sin is no longer separation from God, but separation from one's oppressed brothers. Liberation has its beginning in the battle against the established order. The new parusia does not come from on high; it proceeds from the same process of salvic liberation which is the work of history. 'There is only one way to encounter Christ in the poor and to receive the power to become a son of God and a brother of man,' and that is 'to enlist sincerely and effectively in the struggle for liberation... Grace is the solidarity of the people, sin consists in failure to cooperate with that solidarity... Class solidarity lived out within this conflict is the sole means of realizing the Christian imperative.' If this results in violence, such is inevitable, for the'rich' will never give up their power willingly. Indeed, as Father Jose Miranda assures us, 'Jesus was a hardened revolutionary' and 'explicitly approved of and defended the use of violence.' And so we find liberation theologians committed to a Marxist analysis of the historical process, and indeed, according to Father Andre-Vincent, Gutierrez openly maintains that Marxism 'is the common denominator of all the theologies of liberation.'
Being a historical process, salvation/liberation is for all who 'enlist sincerely and effectively in the struggle...' Indeed, Gutierrez tells us God will judge us 'by our capacity to create brotherly conditions of life' by which of course he means revolutionary socialism. 'Only by loving mankind as he exists in the concrete historical situation can man know and love God.' But Christians, unlike atheistic Marxists, are failing to do this. And so, following the logic of his position, Marxists are certainly to be included in the salvific process. What results is a process which turns Marxists into 'Christians' and Christians into Marxists.
In Gutierrez's view liberation is not limited to the socio-economic sphere. As he states, 'modern man's aspirations include not only liberation from exterior pressures... he seeks likewise an interior liberation, in an individual and intimate dimension... man seeks liberation not only on the social plane, but also on a psychological plane. He seeks an interior freedom understood however not as an ideological evasion from social confrontation or as the internalization of a situation of dependency. Rather it must be in relation to the real world of the human psyche as understood since Freud.' Liberation theology also promises man that he will no longer suffer from penis envy and the oedepus complex!
Liberation Theologians all - or virtually all - believe in progress and evolution. As Gutierrez says in phrases reminiscent of the documents of Vatican II, 'various political events have profoundly modified history. The rapid development of science and the consequent mastery of nature; to use the new instrumentation for the understanding of social reality... have hastened the maturation of political consciousness... history demonstrates that the achievements of man are cumulative and allow for even greater achievements in generations yet to come... there is only a single process of human development definitively and irreversibly assumed by Christ.' As a result of progress man is also changing. 'The scope of our radical challenge to the prevailing social order would escape us, wee we unaware of the change that has taken place in human self-understanding - the change that has occurred in the approach to truth'. And more: 'God reveals Himself only in history and salvation is a historical process. There is only one single history, one single process adding up to the evolution of the species, and in that process, the genesis of humanity is the central axis, a genesis realized through the energy of conflict in the struggle for liberation, class against class. This truth is the primary object of faith .' The culmination of this process will be the acceptance by man of the socialist 'truth' - 'the break with the social order of oppression and the erection of a classless society.' And so it is that Gutierrez'affirms a utopia on the way to becoming a historical reality.' And this utopian society will, he also assures us, be a scientific machine age and an industrial one. When this is achieved, mankind will be liberated. This is the praxis of liberation, the manifestation of salvation history in its concrete reality.
So much for 'liberation,' but what of theology? According to Gutierrez this science comes from the people, or more precisely, from society. It is his contention that the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas reflected mediaeval and feudal society, while liberal theology - the musings of modernists over the past half century - reflected the ideas of the French Revolution. (With regard to the latter he is obviously correct.) And currently he promises us his own special brand: 'a different analysis of reality' and 'a new way to do theology based on praxis' - that is practice or action - 'praxis first, and then reflection... the pastoral activity of the Church,' he tells us, 'does not flow as a conclusion from premises... rather it reflects upon it... the only future theology has... is to become the theology of the future... our approach is to reflect critically on the praxis of liberation and not to limp after reality.' Extraordinary statement! The praxis of liberation creates reality and we are obliged to derive our theology from it. But then, such is to be expected if 'the Church springs from the people.'
How does the Church 'spring from the people?' The answer is that history is 'the locus of revelation.' Christ reveals Himself in history; all of scripture is historical. Christ became, not man, but 'poor.' Liberation praxis is the transforming action taking in the entire world and all mankind - a manifestation of the creative and redemptive action of God. The discernment of this historical process is what liberation theology is all about. (This is reminiscent of John XXIII's theory of history, of determining the activity of God by understanding the 'signs of the time.') Does it have God for its object? Yes, because 'God reveals himself only in history and salvation is a historical process' (Vatican II once again). Not only does theology and the Church spring from he people, but also virtue. 'Our new vision, attentive to structural factors, will help Christians to avoid the fallacy of proposing a personal change detached from concrete conditions, as a necessary prerequisite to any social transformation... changing the social and cultural structure is a way of changing the human heart.'
Another favorite theme of liberation theologians is that throughout history religion has supported the power structure of self interest. The accusation is false, tiresome and hypocritical The only time the Church has supported the power structure is when it is convinced either that such a structure was itself Catholic and acting in the best interests of society, or when it applied the doctrine of lesser evil. Did the early popes who were jailed and martyred support the existing power structure in Rome? Did the popes of a later era support the Byzantine Empire? Did the Church that produced a St. Thomas Moore and a St. John Fisher support the power structure during the Reformation? Did Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII and Saint Pius X support the international financial powers? All this is not to deny but that there are individual examples of men who fell short of their high calling as followers of Christ. But what makes this particular theme of the liberation theologians most offensive is their desire to see the Church support Communist regimes such as Cuba and Nicaragua, and indeed to introduce similar regimes throughout the rest of the world. Will not the future victims of such regimes look upon the Church which helped to establish them with more than a jaundiced eye?
Throughout the rest of the world! The reader should not be deluded into thinking that Liberation Theology is a South American phenomena. The Columbian Fathers speak of the 'Reverse Mission' of bringing such ideas back to Ireland. The Jesuit Order in its 32 General Congregation committed all Jesuits throughout the world to the spreading of 'Liberal Theology.' The National Jesuit News subsequently published a document entitled 'National Planning and the need for a Revolutionary Social Strategy: A Christian-Maoist perspective,' in which their members are told the Society 'must purge itself of its bourgeois social consciousness and identify with the proletariat.' No wonder that Father Juan Alfaro who teaches at the Pontifical Gregorian University of Rome instructed the International Theological Commission that 'Christ was a kind of Palestinian Che Guevara.' No wonder priests in South America are reported as active participants in guerrilla bands. No wonder that the American Bishops are trying to convince the faithful through their 'Peace Pastoral' to accept John Dewey's famous principle 'better red than dead.' Novus Ordo Catholics who donate money to the missions should know that such funds not infrequently go to support Communist guerilla activities throughout the world.
Consider Cuba. Paul VI was effusive in praise of this sad nation. In April of 1976 he said 'the world will march irresistibly towards the new order and the new man for which we all long. Cuba will play its part, joyful and disinterestedly in this grant joint undertaking.' More recently Evaristo Cardinal Arns, Archbishop of San Paulo in Brazil (the largest diocese in the world) has written to congratulate Cuban president Fidel Castro on the 30th anniversary of the Revolution, stating: 'the Christian faith discovers in the conquests of the Revolution the signs of the Kingdom of God that manifest themselves in the hearts and structures that permit and make of political conviviality a work of love... We know that this victory doesn't mean yet our freedom and that we will have to face all types of pressures and difficulties from the owners of Great Capital. I hope, however, that our comunidades eclesias de base will know how to preserve the seeds if bew life that have been sown'(Christmas 1988).
Comunidades eclesias de bas in Brazil or 'base communities' established in North American parishes have the same goal in mind: the 'wholesome socialization' of their members. Consider the statement of the Catholic International Center of Research and Information under the title of Pro Mundi Vita (University of Louvain in Belgium): 'The rejection of a pseudo Christianity is not necessarily a rejection of Christ Himself... It would appear that China accepted the spirit of Christ from another source... that is, from Marxism. If the Chinese have, in fact, created a society with more faith, more hope, and more live than the 'Christian' Apostles of Christ, we must follow where the spirit blows. The Chinese society today... is, I believe, further along than our own on the way to the true human society, the Kingdom of god, if you will. I believe China is the only truly Christian nation in the world in our days...'
'Through Marxism, the Christian ideas have reached China, ideas which were new to her... a mystique of disinterested work and service for others; an aspiration for justice: exaltation of a simple and frugal life; the elevation of the peasant masses and the disappearance of social classes - these are the ideals towards which the China of today is oriented. But are not these the ideals that have been incomparably expressed in the Encyclicals Pacem in Terris and Populorum Progressio and in the Synodal document Justice in the world [Vatican II]? Today Chinese children are being taught to have a sense of responsibility to the community, but isn't this exactly what the Second Vatican Council has asked so insistently of the People of God?'
Or again, one must wonder how the 'boat people' from Vietnam felt when Msgr. Nguyen Van Bihn, the Archbishop of Saigon, agreed to 'cooperate' with the Communist regime, or when seventeen Bishops in Brazil published a document entitled 'The Church in Vietnam is Disposed to Survive' (April 25, 1976) stating: 'What difference does it make if the regime expels foreign missionaries... In the final analysis, were not the missionaries and the Churches also the symbol of the misery and the domination of our people. The regime which 'liberates' our people can now enslave our Church.'
It is ideas like this that led Bishop Helder Camara to appoint his personal friend and adviser, Father Joseph Comblin, as a professor in his seminary. This infamous Belgian priest is the author of the 'Comblin document,' a blueprint of Communist plans for a takeover of Brazil. To quote a pertinent passage: 'Social reforms will not be made through persuasion, nor through platonic discussions in congress. How will these reformers be installed? It is by a process of force... the power will have to be authoritarian and dictatorial... the power must neutralize the forces that resist: it will neutralize the armed forces if they are conservative; it will have to control radio, TV, the press, and other media of communication and censor the destructive and reactionary criticisms... In any case, it will be necessary to organize a system of repression...'
Lenin could not have said it better!
Consider also the statement of the Bishops of Mozambique voicing support for Samora Machel, the Marxist president of this unfortunate country which, according to The Wanderer, is a 'palm fringed Gulag' in which 'baptism is forbidden by law': 'We pledge ourselves to the revolution which intends radically to transform society in Mozambique into a community for solidarity of all people of good will, whether believers or non-believers...'
And in America the 'new economy of the Gospel' and liberation theology is being spread, not only through sermons (when did you last hear Communism condemned from a Novus Ordo pulpit?), but also through such programs as Cursillo and Renew. - though in slightly less blatant form. Bishop Basil Losten of Philadelphia has attempted to draw the attention to the problem. Speaking at a Bishop's Meeting in Chicago in 1977 he stated: �It is evident that Communism finds in religion today invaluable allies in its quest for global power and empire. The fantastic plan to turn the Church into an instrument of Communist conquest would be unbelievable if we did not see it all happening before our eyes... There are people on our staff of so-called consultants who take many trips to the Soviet Union or atheistically-dominated countries. They receive a certain amount of indoctrination and then return to poison our minds and the minds of the American Catholic public. Perhaps it is to late to run the tide.'
Certainly one won't turn the tide by addressing the Bishops! And so it is that the process of 'wholesome socialization' continues unopposed by western governments and unopposed by the Church. Recalling the words of Comrade Chicherin quoted in the opening paragraphs of this chapter: 'If Rome did not exist, we would be able to deal with all the various brands of Christianity... Without Rome, religion would die...' one is led to ask if in fact such is not what we see before our eyes today.
Conservative Novus Ordo Catholics claim that John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger have condemned Liberation Theology in more recent statements. Such is by no means the case. What they have done is condemn the excesses of those who advocate either violence or class warfare. The rest of the program - the plans for the progressive socialization of society - continue to have their full approval. The old Tielhardian dream of uniting the 'rational power' of Marxism with the 'warmth' and more human nature of the Christian religion persists. Once again however, one sees the naivete - if not outright complicity - of the post-Conciliar establishment. One cannot assume a Marxist analysis without drawing the logical conclusions that such an analysis inevitably brings in its train. The Creation of a new kind of man; progressive evolutionism and historical determinism, a classless society, the elimination of private property, authority placed in the hands of the people, or more exactly, in the hands of those who control what the people think, and coercive utopianism are inseparable from such premises. As for the atheistic and materialistic ideation, even is such is not actively pushed, it will inevitably result if all the other goals are achieved.
Consider the issue of Private Property. The propaganda of Communism and the statement of liberation theologians and the teaching of the post-Conciliar 'popes' obscure the vital distinction between the voluntary surrender of one's wealth and the compulsory expropriation of other people's property. The early Church in Jerusalem had many aspects of a religious community. Yet Ananias and Sapphira were not punished by Christ because they refused to surrender their property, but because they lied. 'Whiles it remained, was it not thine own?' said St. Peter, 'and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?' (Acts 4: 35; 5: 4;) There is no evidence that the Christians in Rome, Ephesus, Corinth or Philippi 'had all things in common.' Indeed, they were appropriately reprimanded for not voluntarily supporting their religious brethren. No where does Scripture condone 'expropriation, properly carried out.' It is not without reason that the bad thief crucified with Christ has been labeled 'the first Communist.' Rather consider what Scripture says. 'What solder ever serves at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Who feeds the flock and does not eat of the milk of the flock? Do I speak these things on human authority? Or does not the Law also say these things?... He who plows should plow in hope and he who threshes, in hope of partaking of the fruits' (1 Cor. 9: 7-13). It is one thing for monks who 'are dead to the world' to give up private property, and quite another for those who remain in the world and assume the responsibilities thereof. By controlling all access to food, clothing and shelter, a socialist regime reduces its citizens to an actual state of slavery - as long as they do the bidding of the state, they are rewarded materially, but if they oppose the state they are either murdered, enslaved in 'corrective labor camps,' or incarcerated in psychiatric institutions. It is well known in Russia that a person who falls our of favor with the Party looses his apartment and his job. Unemployed for over three months, he is declared a 'parasite on society,' arrested and sent to Siberia.
Consider the classless society in which all men are equal. We pray each day 'Thy kingdom come...' Now Heaven is a hierarchical society where divine law and order prevail. Its reflection on earth is also a hierarchical society where those in authority have the responsibility to enforce God's laws in such a manner as leads to the greater good of society - the ultimate greatest good being the sanctity of its members. As to the much vaunted socialist equality, one can do no better than to quote a passage from Taylor Caldwell's Dialogues with the Devil. A soul, recently entering Hell is asked what his greatest desire was on earth. He answered with a very righteous expression 'justice for all.' The Devil continued: 'That was admirable, for who does not admire justice, even I? But I probed him. He declared that in his earthly view all men deserved what all other men possessed, whether worthy or not. 'They are men, so they are equal and being born they have a right to the fruits of the world, no matter the condition of their birth or the content of their minds, or their capacities.' I conducted him through the pleasures of my hell, and he was delighted that no soul was lesser in riches than another, and that every soul had access to my banquets and my palaces, no soul was distinguishable from another, none possessed what another did not possess. Every desire was immediately gratified, he discovered. He smiled about him joyfully. He said, 'Here justice is attained!''
'Then he saw that no face was joyful, however mean of lofty its features. He remarked, wonderingly, on the listlessness of my damned, and how they strolled emptily through thoroughfares filled with music and through streets wherein there was not a single humble habitation. He heard cries of pleasure over my laden tables, and then heard them silenced, for there was no need now for food and where there is no need there is no desire and no enjoyment. He saw that the poorest on earth were clothed in magnificence and jewels, yet they wept the loudest. He was no fool. He said, 'Satiety.' True I answered him, but satiety can live only in the presence of total equality. That night he came to me on his knees and begged for death. I struck him with my foot and said,'O man, this was the hell you made, and this was the desire of your heart, so eat drink and be merry.' He attempted to hang himself like Judas and I laughed at his futility.'
The idea of progress, evolution and historical determinism directing society towards some socialist utopia is pure illusion. If the nature of society is pre-determined, then man has no free will and no responsibility. Moreover, if such is the case, how can one rationally condemn the bourgeoisie for their failure to join the dynamic forces of history dragging us inevitably into the future? Coercive utopianism that would create a new society and a 'new kind of man' who is 'socialist' by nature is equally absurd, for man, made in the image of God, has a fallen nature, and no socialist regime will ever 'put humpty dumpty together again.' And if man is not perfectable apart from his divine vocation, than society is not perfectable apart from God.
The Socialist and Rousseauist dream places man at the center of creation, that is man independent of God and any higher authority than himself.(This is what the 'innate dignity of man' advocated by Vatican II is all about.) It follows from this premise that all authority is said to derive from man and not from God. In practice however, the leaders of such a society control the thinking of its members through education and the control of communications media. Hence it follows that socialist man, no longer able to adhere to fixed and divine criteria of right and wrong, justice and injustice, becomes once again the slave of his own passions - of the passions of his leaders. The placing of authority in man and giving him inalienable rights that are in opposition to God is nothing other than the another version of Lucifer's non serviam, I will not serve.
In the light of these facts the acts and statements of the post-Conciliar 'popes' about Communism. and their claim that such regimes govern legitimately leaves the Catholic soul in a state of mild shock. How is such be possible? Even the man on the street is aware of the fact that all Communists regimes control the education of children and by a variety of overt and covert techniques subvert their religious belief, replacing it with the false tenets of Marxist-Leninism. Those who believe that Communists are capable of changing their attitudes towards religion simply delude themselves. They have but to read the publications of the Communists to see their error. How can anyone say that a band of atheistic murdering revolutionaries dedicated to the destruction of the Church, the dethronement of Christ, and the spreading of the Kingdom of Satan on earth, ever have the authority of God (the source of all authority) to carry out such a program? (God may allow such to happen because of our sins, but He can no more approve it than he can approve the acts of Judas.) And how can a man who claims to be Peter's successor ever act in such a manner as to lend support to such regimes. To admit that Communist governments rule legitimately is to claim they derive their right to do so from God and therefore to proclaim that God is 'divided against Himself.'
Communism is but the clearest manifestation of that Rebellion of the Angels against God, of those forces who falsely promise to man that he can be 'like the gods.' In principle Marxism is the total inversion of Christian metaphysics which is why it has 'no enemies on the left' - no groups that would or could carry the rebellion to greater extremes. If it appeals to the innate sense of justice in the human soul, it does so only to use it for its own purposes, for it by its very nature denies that there is any such thing as a human soul or justice - justice is for Marxism-Leninism what promotes the Revolution. It can never be other than anti-religious because, as Marx himself said, 'the critique of religion ends up with the doctrine that Man is the supreme Being for Man.'
This is why Pius XI called Communism a 'pseudo-ideal'and said that 'no one who would ave Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever.' Pius XII described the kind of Church the Communists would find acceptable.
'A mute Church which consents to change the law of God, when its mission is to proclaim and defend it.'
'A Church which discards its intangible doctrinal foundations on which Christ has established it, in order to willingly submit itself to the caprices of the opinion and insatiably of crowds.'
'A Church without the energy to resist the oppression of consciences, to defend the legitimate rights of the people and their liberty.'
'A cowardly and servile Church... betraying the mission entrusted to it: 'Go to all the thoroughfares and preach... go and teach all the nations...'
And has not Pius XII described the post-Conciliar Church with accuracy. He continues and asks a question that should be posed to all those who have followed in his high office.
'May the Pope remain mute when the rights of teaching the children is denied to their parents, according to the orders of a minority regime which wishes to move them away from Christ? And when this state, over-stepping the limits of its competence, assumes the power of suppressing the dioceses, deposing the bishops, ransacking the ecclesiastical organization and removing from the latter the means indispensable for the well-being of souls?'
CHAPTER XIII, part 4
COMMUNISM, 'OSTPOLITIK' AND LIBERATION THEOLOGY
FOOTNOTES to chapter XIII
(1) One should not be taken in by those who would have us believe that Socialism is Communism divested of its more cruel aspects. There is no fundamental difference between Socialism and Communism. Both are based on Atheistic Marxism. Both aim to create a classless society in which all property is state owned and controlled. Socialism is but the necessary precursor of the ideal condition being striven for which is called Communism. Thus Russia calls herself 'The Union of Socialist Republics'. This relationship is made quite clear by Tage Lindbom, party theoretician and director of the archives of the 'Social Democratic Party' in Sweden for 35 years. The Tares and the Good Grain, Macon, Ga.: Mercer, 1983.
(2) It should be quite clear that the traditional Church, in condemning Communism, in no way gave a carte blanche to rampant Capitalism. (The Encyclicals of Leo XIII, especially Rerum Novarum, make this quite clear.) She however defended the 'right' to private property because she knew that there could be no political or social freedom - to say nothing of religious freedom - on the part of those who live under a system where the State controls food, clothing and shelter in an absolute manner. On the other hand she has never failed to promote Justice and Charity - as witness her teaching that all wealth is held in 'trust' and that the individual is responsible and answerable to God for how he uses the gifts of this world. As R. H. Tawney has said, mediaeval society was one in which men 'had not learned to persuade themselves that greed was enterprise and avarice economy...' (Religion and the Rise of Capitalism). The mediaeval serf who paid the state (or 'baron') one or two days a week of free labor, was infinitely better off than modern man who pays two to four times as much in the form of 'taxes' to progressively socialistic governments. Moreover, the serf could never be taxed on his home and small private holdings, but only on what he took off his land to sell at market. In addition he could not be dispossessed of his lands under any circumstances. His children were educated at the local monastery and hospitals were well endowed as caring for the 'poor' was considered both a privilege and an obligation. The serfs were not freed from their bondage as our history books would have us believe, but rather had their lands expropriated from them so their fields could be turned into pasture lands. All this is not to state that mediaeval society was 'perfect,' for even in the Garden of Eden a snake was to be found. It was however a Christian society and one that guaranteed the 'freedom' and economic security of its members.
What is forgotten in the polemic between Capitalism and Communism is that there is a Christian theory of Economics. (The new Church also seems to have totally forgotten this.) It is not a question of turning back the hands of the clock (which is not perhaps such a bad idea), but of re-establishing society on the same principles that underlay mediaeval society.
One must also dispel the error that 'the early Christians were Communists.' It is true that those living in religious communities shared their goods - they still do. But people living in religious communities are 'dead to the world,' and have no worldly responsibilities. Those living in the world only shared their goods when their possessions were in excess of their own present and future needs. Those interested in the facts relating to this issue are referred to Father John Ryan, The Alleged Socialism of the Early Church Fathers, London: Herder, 1913.
(3) Rev. Richard Wurmbrand (Lutheran), Was Karl Marx a Satanist?, Calif: Diane Books, 1985.
(4) 'It is the opium of the people. The destruction of religion, as an illusory good fortune of the people, is a requirement of its real good fortune. To demand the renouncement of his illusions in his situation is to demand the renouncement of the situation which needs illusion.' (Contribution to the Critique of Philosophy of the Right by Hagel).
(5) Works, Vol. X; Vol. XV; and The ABC of Communism.
(6) New Anti-Religious Manual.
(7) Socialism and Religion.
(8) Press conference,e May 5, 1976. Quoted in Communism and Christianity in Theory and Practice, Publ. Aid to the Church in Need.
(9) German Foreign Office Report, Vol 1, 1925, Quoted in No. 7.
(10) Bede Jarret, Social Theories of the Middle Ages, Boston: Brown, 1926. Marx denied the fecundity of money and hence was in agreement with the Scholastics on this point. But only this point.
(11) Mary Lukas and Ellen Lukas, Teilhard the Man, the Priest, the Scientist, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977.
(12) This is the origin of the concept of the 'Anonymous' or 'atheistic' Christian which is so dear to the heart of liberation theologians.
(13) The Encyclicals of Leo XIII deal with this in great detail. Space does not allow for any proper discussion of Catholic social-economic principles. The reader is referred to Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ and the Reorganization of Society, Ireland: Regina, 1945, and to R.H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism..
(14) Capitalism can of course mean many things. If Communism - the complete economic enslavement of man - is the end point of monopolistic Capitalism, it clearly is better to live under the latter where economic enslavement is only partial.
(15) See Chapter IX. The subsequent effects on Italian and world politics are documented by Avro Manhattan (The Vatican-Moscow Alliance, N.Y.: Ralston-Pilot, 1977). He refers to John XXIII as the 'pink pope' and Paul VI as the 'red pope,' and says that when John XXIII died 'Sanpetrini, instead of putting out a white and yellow papal flag from the Vatican balcony, should have hung the red flag, with the sickle and the cross well displayed on it - the true symbol of the revolution which John XXIII had started within and outside the Roman Catholic Church.'
(16) These facts have been confirmed by several authors, including Father Wiltgen, op. cit., and Avro Manhattan, op. cit.
(17) 'Ukraine: A Tragedy Without Frontiers', in Crusade for Christian Civilization, N.Y.: Jan-Feb, 1977. The reader is also referred to Vytautas Skuodis, 'Spiritual Genocide in Lithuania,' The Wanderer, June 3, 1982. The author of this samizdat (clandestine) publication was caught and given a five year jail sentence for telling the truth. Father Charles McFadden, who has totally changed his attitude towards Communism since Vatican II, documents the 'unfortunate tension between the leaders of the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Holy See.' He states that 'the Ukrainian bishops, led by Cardinal Slipyi, contend that this is one more case of misdirected 'ostpolitik' of the Vatican. They feel that, at best, the Vatican's views are based on naivete... at worst, they represent an abject surrender to those who have persecuted the Church, a 'squalid desire to fraternize with the heretical Orthodox Church (in the ecumenical hope of bringing it into unity with Rome) and even to dialogue with the atheists of the Kremlin.' (Christianity Confronts Communism, Chicago: Franciscan, 1981)
(18) Given the 'red hat' by Pope Pius XII.
(19) Josef Cardinal Mindszenty, Memoirs, N.Y.: MacMillan, 1974.
(20) Avro Manhattan, op. cit. The Castro quote from U.S. News, Dec. 11, 1972.
(21) Talk to the Congregation for the Evangelization of the Peoples, 1976. One must remember that at the time such a statement was shocking. Today post-Conciliar Catholics brought up to accept Socialism and Communism as compatible with the teachings of the Church, the statement looses all its force.
(22) For a bishop to give his oath of loyalty to an atheistic government is excommunicate himself. During the French Revolution the priests who gave their oath of fidelity to the new government were not persecuted. The Church however responded by excommunicating them.
(23) This of course means that schools, hospitals, and universities were 'expropriated' from the Church with the approval of her prelates. According to Mary Craig (Man From a Far Country, N.Y.: Morrow, 1979) Cardinal Wyszynski 'was a pragmatist... in 1950 he concluded an agreement with the [Communist] government in which he accepted the loss of Church property [except for actual churches and priests; houses], agreeing that in a Socialist country, the Church must renounce its rights to private property. This agreement incurred the grave displeasure of Pope Pius XII, and in any case was soon broken by the Government.' This same source states that Father Wojtyla - John Paul II -'steered clear of politics' in his sermons... 'Even to mention 'good' and 'evil' could bring down the wrath of the authorities....'
(24) Father Charles McFadden, once well known as a Catholic writer against Communism, now tells us that 'a constant theme running through the teaching of Christ is that the Christian moral ideal is achieved by man in proportionately higher degrees precisely to the extent that he abandons private ownership.' His latest book Christianity Confronts Communism reaches the height of intellectual dishonesty - but then, this unfortunate man is tied to the principles established by the post-Conciliar Church and is forced to grovel for his prior 'errors' in defending private property and other Church principles.
(25) To speak out against the 'political activism' of priests in south America cuts two ways. Clearly, the Communist rulers in Eastern europe would be delighted to have such a prohibition on the books. Cardinal Mindszenty could then have been silenced 'under obedience' for 'political activism,' since this term can mean almost anything from speaking the truth to carrying a gun.
(26) His 'silencing' of Father Boff for a year is a joke. Father Boff was never required to retract a single statement.
(27) The activities of John Paul II in Mexico were most confusing Petter Hebblethwaite in his article entitled Pope (Esquire, May 1979) stated: 'First reports from Pueble were most confusing. The pope was - depending on the paper you read - said to have attacked or defended liberation theology. Until one had the complete text, it was impossible to say. When it became available, the reason for the misunderstanding was clear: John Paul II had recognized the validity of the aspirations of liberation theology while criticizing some of its methods. At the same time, his energetic statements against the abuse of human rights would have brought no comfort to Generals Videla and Pinochet.' At a later date, his attitude towards the government of Argentina when he was on 'pilgrimage' there, compared to his attitude towards the leaders of Poland on similar occasions, speak volumes.
(28) Casaroli is also a great admirer of Teilhard. On the occasion of the centenary of his birth (simultaneously celebrated at both UNESCO and Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris), Casaroli sent a letter to Bishop Poupard, rector of the highly modernist Institute Catholique in Paris in which he praised the 'powerful poetic insight,' and the 'profound perception' of this man who was 'a witness of the unified life of a man seized by Christ in the depths of his being.'
(29) One does not have to be a political genius to know that this will give a clear message to the South American nations that Cuba has Rome's approval.
(30) Traditionally unsigned editorials in this publication are written by the Pope or at his direction.
(31) We have chosen Father Gustavo Gutierrez as representative of Liberation Theology because 1) We have known him personally, 2) He is a recognized world authority on the subject, 3) While he lives in Peru, he teaches in American seminaries, 4) His books are available in English (A Theology for Liberation, (11 printings up to 1973) and We drink from our Own Wells, N.Y.: Orbis, 1973 and 1984, and 5) He has never been criticized or condemned by Rome.
(32) 'Praxis,' a favorite term of current theologians, literally means 'practice.' It is a cry for 'doing' rather than thinking and another manifestation of the heresy of 'activism.'
(33) Hamish Fraser, Society of Jesus... or Judas? Approaches Supplement N0. 73.
(34) They also stated that Mao-Tse -Tung was 'a new Moses who took his country out of the oppression of feudalism and capitalism, as formerly the chosen people were taken out of the captivity of Egypt.' Some will claim that the meeting was an 'Ecumenical Colloquium', but it was a colloquium at which the majority of the participants were Catholics of high standing such as Cardinal Jusef Suenens, Angelo Hernandez (Archbishop of New Delhi in India) and Bernard Jacqueline, vice-secretary of the Secretariat of Non Believers.
(35) Published by the Govt. of Brazil to expose their internal enemies.
(36) The Wanderer, August 9, 1979. In this small island 'estimates of people in detention range between 60,000 and 100,000; many are scattered across the country in concentration camps labelled 're-education centers.' The naivete of the post-Conciliar hierarchy is beyond belief. Every exponent of Marxist doctrine has made it clear that religion - any religion - is an enemy. According to the Wold Press Review of May 1981, 'the anti-religious nature of communism has once again been demonstrated in Cambodia where only 600 of 82,000 Buddhist monks survived.' Now surely, even the most ardent liberal in America cannot accuse Buddhist monks of being anti-revolutionary agents, much less minions of the CIA!
(37) Dr. John H. Detar and Thomas M. Manion, Cursillo: To Deceive the Elect, Reno, Nevada' Athanasius, 1984. The entire RENEW program with its emphasis on 'base communities' has been exposed by The Wanderer (Oct-Dec., 1983); The Remnant (1989) and Approaches (Supple. 90).
(38) Father L. Boff was silenced for one year and never asked to retract a single statement. No other Liberation Theologian has been condemned.
(39) Who will support the clergy in a society where all property is in the hands of the state - a state which believes that religion is the opium of the people?
(40) Taylor Caldwell, Dialogues with the Devil, N.Y.: Fawcett, 1967.
(41) There is little new under the sun. Consider the words of Aristotle (circa 350 B.C.):
'This style of legislation [Socialism] wears a face and air of philanthropy. No sooner is it heard than it is eagerly embraced, under the expectation of a marvelous love to grow out of it between man and man, especially if the proposer goes on to inveigh against the evils of existing institutions, setting all down to the want of a community of goods [i.e., private property]. These evils, however are due not to a want of community or property, but to the depravity of human nature. for experience teaches that disputes are far more likely to occur among people who possess property in common and live as partners than among those who hold estates in separate tenure. The life proposed appears to be altogether impossible.'
(42) Quoted in source given in Note 3.
(43) Speech to the Romans concerning the sacred rights of the Church, February 20, 1949.
CHAPTER XIV, part 1
THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS
MODERNISM IN THE CHURCH
'In the Gospel also we read that it was foretold that our foes should rather be of our own household, and that they who have first been associated in the sacrament of unity shall be they who shall betray one another.'
Epistles of St. Cyprian LIV
�Men have rebelled against that Christianity which is true and faithful to Christ and His doctrines. In its place they have fashioned Christianity to their own liking, a new idol which does not save, which is not opposed to the passions of carnal desires nor to the greed of gold and silver which fascinates, nor to the pride of Life; a new religion without a soul, without religion, a mask of a dead Christianity without the spirit of Christ.'
Pope Pius XII
One must assume that those responsible for the changes in the Church acted with the best of intentions. Like the High Priest who justified the Crucifixion of Christ on the grounds that 'it is meet that one man should die for the people,' the current hierarchy feels that the old Church must be allowed to die so that the new Church - the Church of the 'new Pentacost,' the 'Church of today' can live. As William Blake put it: 'Caiaph was, in his own mind, a benefactor to mankind.'
What led men who presumably were 'sincere' and of 'good will' to break with the traditions established by the Apostles and the teachings held by the Church throughout the ages? What induced those responsible to follow the suggestions of the excommunicated Jesuit Tyrrell and inject 'a liberal infusion of Protestant ideas' into The Body of Christ? Why has the 'fort' been abandoned 'by those even of whom it should have been guarded?'.
Undoubtedly one could point to variety of causes. Many of the reformers felt the Church - which they still loved in a sentimental sort of way - was dying . They were convinced that the modern world, with its enlightened ways of thinking and its technological successes, had irreparably and justifiably established itself. The old Church was suitable to a former and more 'primitive' time, but the modern world and the future world - their world -had little use for the old established Order. The only way for the Church to 'survive,' was for it to accommodate itself to, and become part of the modern world. They thought that by making the Church relevant to themselves, they would make it relevant to modern man. They envisioned themselves as saving the Church by bringing it up to date. Still others, having accepted the philosophical premises of the modern world; having accepted Evolution and the Marxist dialectic as true, felt that the sine qua non for the Church's survival was for it to join the forces of 'historical determinism'.
Be this as it may, what Modernists, Liberation Theologians, and others of similar ilk do not see is that they have lost their faith and wish to share -indeed, foster - their disbelief on others. What they do not understand is that the Truth can never die nor the 'Gates of Hell prevail.'
It was perfectly obvious to those brought up in the Traditional Church that her mind and thinking was diametrically opposed to that of so-called 'contemporary man.' The innovators felt that 'if the Church did not speak to modern man' (they themselves being modern man), it was clearly the Church that was at fault. Imbued with the false ideas of liberalism and progress, they forgot that it was 'modern man who would not listen to the Church.' Despite their denials, they were 'Modernists' who sought to bring the Church -essentially a 'timeless' structure - into the modern world; not as something inimical to the modern world, not as an entity whose function it was to instruct and guide the modern world in God's ways, but as part and parcel of that world - in the 'avant-garde' and 'forefront' of its deviations from the norm which Christ established. The wished to make the Church 'relevant' in a world that itself had lost all relevance and was entleert of meaning, a world that was 'alienated' and had lost sight of 'the one thing necessary.' This is why the post-Conciliar Church has abandoned its role of 'master' (magister) and declared itself to be the 'servant.' And what is all this talk of 'serving the world,' but the rendering unto Casear of what belongs to God?. Modernists are not the first to cry 'We have no king but Caesar!'
If the Church was to be 'changed,' what guidelines and what authority was to be appealed to? In the last analysis the only alternative to 'tradition' (which is Revelation 'transmitted') is 'immanentism' (that is private judgement), or the 'collective' private judgement of those whose souls had been corrupted by the 'collective' errors of our times. More simply stated, this implies a choice between God's judgment and man's judgment. The rejection of the former in favor of the latter is rebellion. What has resulted has been described by Malcolm Muggeridge as 'suicide.'
Aggiornamento - literally, a 'bringing up to date,' became the battle cry of the innovators. But this requires a continuous process of change and hence we must seek some underlying principle by which to identify it. In the practical order this means a continuous choosing of man's judgments over God's. It is ultimately the Luciferan declaration non serviam - I will not serve. The manifestation of this rebellious principle is none other than the Revolution. By 'revolution,' I do not mean the French Revolution as such - but the forces and ideas, 'the powers and principalities' behind this disastrous event which continue to exist and rule the 'world.' As the French newspaper La Revolution Francaise said in 1879: 'the modern world is placed in front of two options: either the completion of the revolution or a simple return to Christianity.' Those who object to Aggiornamento being characterized in such terms should consider the innumerable statements of post-Conciliar prelates to the effect that Vatican II is the 'French ' or the 'October Revolution in the Church...' or that the Novus Ordo liturgy is the 'conquesta della chiesa.'
What is the real nature of this immanentism? Let it speak for itself: 'I am not what people think. Many talk about me, and very few know me. I am neither Carbonarism... nor riots, nor change from Monarchy to Democracy... nor the temporary disturbance of the public order. I am neither the screams of the 'Jacobins,' nor the rage of the 'Montagne,' nor the fight on the barricades, nor looting, nor fire, nor guillotine, nor drownings. I am neither Marat, nor Robespierre, nor Babeuf, nor Mazzini, nor Kossuth. These men are my sons, they are not me. These things are my works, they are not me. These men and these things are passing events and I am a permanent event.'
'I am the hatred of any order that man did not establish and in which He is not king and god all together. I am the proclamation of the rights of man free from the care of the rights of God. I am the establishment of the religious and social state on the will of man instead of the will of God. I am God pushed out of the world and man placed in his place. This is why I am called Revolution, that is to say, the turning upside down.'
CHAPTER XIV, part 2
THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS.
MODERNISM IN THE CHURCH