Neo-Colonialism : Church Patronage

This phase is marked by the hangover of "colonialism" in the Church. Used to command alongside the State, the Church continues to be burdened by colonial baggage, which it finds difficult to shed, namely clericalization and institutionalization. Burdened in this way, the Church now finds itself confronted with a "Church-people" that is emerging in the form of basic communities and other movements. That is why we have adopted the terminology of "Crown Patronage" and "Church "Patronage" to designate the colonial and neo-colonial phases respectively.

There was an early phase of the Church involvement in the social problems of Latin America, as in the Falange movement in Chile, 1935-1941. This phase, usually known as the "ethical phase", was inspired by Catholic Action. That was a period of idealism and personalism, when it was believed that society could be restructured by preaching social justice. This was followed by the stage of Christian Democracy, which emerged with contributions of CEPAL (United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America) and the belief that the movement could join party politics and draw up programmes for change. The development decade of the 60s and massive aid programmes by the transnational commercial banks brought in the militarization of Latin America to protect the investments under the overt and covert backing of the United States.

Neither the ethical perspective nor economic analysis and development showed a way out of the impasse. Revolution, and not development, was felt to be the only way out. Most committed Christians were convinced that the teachings of the Church were insufficient for bringing about change. The Church was seen as limited to correcting abuses in the system, but not ready to raise questions about the system itself. There was a large-scale exodus of Christians in search of Marxist solutions. Camillo Torres, the Colombian priest who met his death in 1966, symbolized the dilemma of involved Christians at this point: either stay with the Church and adopt reformist positions or opt for revolution and leave the Church. Many Catholics, including priests and male and female religious, joined the ranks, while many lay people joined the movements clandestinely.

It was against this background in Latin America and the Third World in general that the Church began changing its attitude and distancing itself gradually from the Right. The Encyclical Mater et Magistra [1961] was the first indicator of the change. Then came the Second Vatican Council. The Council did not mark the beginning of a change, but rather the acceptance of drives for change that had been rejected for too long. This new acceptance saw its implementation by the Latin American Church at Medellin (1968). Medellin marked a major change in the Latin American Hierarchy, which had blocked the election of Allende in 1964 and helped elect Eduardo Frei. Despite Pope Paul VI 's rejection of any form of revolution during his visit to Bogota in 1968, the revolutionaries got the Episcopal Conferences of Latin America [CELAM] to declare at Medellin that revolution against tyranny was justified. The tyrant could be represented by "unjust structures".

Medellin defined the situation in Latin America as charged with "institutionalized violence", and made the theory of dependence its own, condemning neo-colonialism and internal colonialism, and calling for liberation. The mainstream liberation theologians who had been preparing the ground for Medellin did not always understand dependency in the same manner. For their protagonist Gutierrez, the class-struggle is an important concept for clarifying the fact that it is not nations that are at war but certain classes within nations. For the oppressive regimes, Medellin became a word that meant subversion. The Rockefeller Report warned President Nixon and his southern allies of the likely "revolutionary character" of the changes demanded by the post-Medellin Church. This warning was backed by action: Tupomaros were silenced by the Armed Forces in Uruguay in 1973. The MIR (Movement of the Revolutionary Left) brought about a coup d'etat in Chile in the same year. Montoneros in Argentina, after breaking away from the main popular body of Peronism, were equally wiped out. Fr. Carlos Mugica was a parallel of Camillo Torres, and was assassinated in Buenos Aires.

Following Medellin, the World Synod of Bishops in 1971 made "liberation" the key word and declared that "action in support of justice" was "part and parcel of the preaching of Gospel". It was understood that denunciation of injustice was consequently political but essentially evangelical. The Bishops of Brazil issued two documents that same year denouncing capitalism as "the greatest evil". Bishop Dom Candido Padin had already been responsible for the open denunciation of the doctrine of National Security in July 1968. The theme was taken up at a meeting of seven Latin American bishops and some US bishops at Riobamba in 1976. The meeting was closed down by the police.

That same year, 1976, the Brazilian bishops took an unusual step: the organization of International Days for a Society Overcoming Domination. The idea was supported by Bishops' Conferences in France, Canada, USA and Asia, as well as by the International Commission of Jurists. Many studies were collected over a period of two years, preparing for a general meeting to be held in Paris in May 1978. The meeting was cancelled due to the interference of some regimes through the Holy See. Despite such opposition the Bishops of Latin America repeated the "preferential option for the poor" at their general meeting at Puebia in January 1979. The Bishops of Nicaragua asked the USA to stop aid to Somoza. To quote from the official communique on religion issued by the National Directorate of the FSLN on October 7, 1980: "Patriotic revolutionary Christians are members of the Sandinist Popular Revolution and have been for many years. The participation of Christians, both lay and religious, in the FSLN and in the National Reconstruction Government (GRN) is a logical consequence of their outstanding identification with the people throughout the struggle against the dictatorship". It continues: "Thus Christians have been an integral part of our revolutionary history to a degree without precedent in any other revolutionary movement in Latin America and possibly throughout the world. This fact opens new and interesting possibilities for Christian participation in revolutions in other lands, not only in the period of the struggle for power but also in the next stage, that of the reconstruction of a new society".

In El Salvador, 48 hours after the coup d'etat against President Romero (Oct. 1980), the Archbishop of San Salvador, Mgr. Oscar Romero, expressed his support for the Revolutionary Junta's government. But when the Junta did not live up to the people's expectations Mgr. Romero spoke strongly against it and against the support of Washington. He was shot dead while saying Mass and after preaching: "We are living in a pre-insurrection period, and the teaching of the Church justifies insurrection when all peaceful means have proved useless".

It is important to note the active follow-up of the changes in the Latin American Church on the part of US agencies. At the Santa Fe Conference held in 1980, conservative American politicians worked out the US policy with regard to Latin America. One of their conclusions was that "in the interest of the U.S., Liberation Theology must be frustrated" (confidential report). After Reagan's election the same group established in Washington the "Center for Religion and Democracy" (1981), financed by the Republican Party and some private rightist organizations. The Center operates under the direction of the Protestant sociologist Peter Berger and the Catholic theologian Michael Novak. The elimination of Liberation Theology is the major item on the Center's agenda. This is to be done by propagating "privatized religiosity", leaving the public domain to the State. The Center seeks to encourage an apolitical religiosity which focuses on the feelings of consolation in human inferiority, delinked from any critical engagement in society. It is believed that the two avowed opponents of Liberation Theology in Latin America, namely the Archbishops Obando y Bravo and Lopez Trujillo were raised to the cardinalate in 1984 and 1985 through the good offices of the Centre.

While elsewhere it is State governments that have been throwing foreign missionaries out, in Nicaragua it is the Church Hierarchy that has been expelling the foreign missionaries who have learned to collaborate with the BCCs and with the laity involved in national reconstruction. The reestablishment of ambassadorial relations between USA and Vatican on 10 January 1984 after a break of 117 years was connected with Regan's policy towards Poland and the Eastern bloc, as well as the expectations of USA regarding the Vatican's control over the Latin American Churches, particularly the revolutionary clergy of Nicaragua.

The "Instruction on Certain Aspects of Liberation Theology", issued by the Vatican in 1984, may also be understood against the same background. Contrary to the convictions of most mainstream liberation theologians, who see the world as one and salvation history as one, and consequently as a single plane for clergy and laity to operate on, the Church magisterium has been insisting that the clergy leave the politicking to the laity, and that activists shun such Marxist concepts as class struggle. That same year one of Brazil's best known liberation theologians, Leonardo Boff, was called to the Vatican for interrogation and later forbidden to make public pronouncements for a year. As recently as 1989, Cardinal Arns of Sao Paulo was admonished by the Vatican for writing a letter to Fidel Castro, asserting that the Cuban revolution displayed "signs of the kingdom of God", and Bishop Pedro Casaldaliga, who visited Nicaragua to strengthen the basic communities, was told by the Vatican not to go there again. Both these leaders of the Brazilian Church are held in the highest esteem and veneration by the masses of the Brazilian people.

A team of Asian Bishops that visited Nicaragua and spent 10 days moving freely and meeting anyone they wanted to meet, submitted a report that is very critical of the Hierarchy of Nicaragua as unwilling to compromise and to join hands with the Sandinista government in the face of a ruthless American trade embargo and the "Contra" war. The team of Asian bishops has words of great appreciation for the achievements of the Sandinistas in their attempts at real democratization.

All of this is in keeping with the philosophy of the Trilateral Committee, which was established at the beginning of the 70s under the leadership of Zbigniew Brezezinski. Brezezinski was critical of Kissinger's policies (1969-76): shuttle-diplomacy and tight-rope walking. He favoured a compact global policy, which implied that the democratic system was no longer capable of governing and that the system was too vulnerable to undesirable changes. The Trilateral proposed that the foreign policy makers of imperialism should be "architects", not "tight-rope walkers", and that they should develop a solid edifice. This would require trans-national capitalism to adopt a new face, with a minimum of democratic freedom in politics and absolute freedom in economy. Detente would be one of the pillars of the Trilateral policy for the superpowers and the entire globe. That would prevent any further exodus into the socialist world. In practice any tendencies in this direction were to be discouraged by a powerful military force (rapid deployment). But all this is to be achieved with smiles. Detente would also include ideological pluralism.

This explains the measured and calculated opening towards Eurocommunism, which was to be used to encourage dissidence in the socialist bloc. The results of the media manipulation are clear from the developments in Eastern Europe. After the victory on technological grounds, the Trilateral decided to move on to ideological grounds. The Carter rhetoric of human rights (with control or displacement of military abuses where necessary) in the capitalist sphere of influence was meant to balance the Western embarrassment with the demands for freedom for dissenters in the Socialist bloc.

Against this background, the "upsurge of democracy" in Latin America and elsewhere is a face-saving device and a longterm illusion! Latin America is a part of the world where the Trilateral has nothing to fear, and as such can safely put up "democracy shows". Gorbachev may have learned from the Trilateral to work out a socialism with a human face but that has yet to become a fitting challenge to Trilateral's capitalism with a human face. There is no change of goals and allies in either camp, but only a change of methods. When military force does not provide the expected "security" for the imperialist logic of domination and accumulation of benefits, it is considered advisable to put on a civilian uniform or even to set up a genuinely cooperative civilian rule. The Trilateral project does not envisage justice for the masses, but only a better balance for the upper landed and commercial-industrial interests.

The new "democratization" and promotion of sub-nationalities can be explained as yet another stage in the development of world capitalism. Following the breaking down of the colonial barriers to its capital penetration and the creation of "independent" nations, the new requirement seems to be a further breaking up of the nations into "sub-nations", which would be more vulnerable and therefore more dependent on world capital for their survival.