Priest and Socialism in Chile Marxism Today

7/29/2019 Priest and Socialism in Chile Marxism Today

1/5

MARXISM TODAY, JANUARY, 1 97 2 II

Priests and Socialism in Chile*Maruja EchegoyenEighty Catholic priests who live and work amongthe working classes in Chile met in April in Santiagoto study the most effective way priests and laypeople could help in building socialism in Chile.What follows is a summary made up from answersgiven to questions asked at a Press Conference onApril 16, to some questions asked later of some ofthe priests taking part, and from statements madein some of the papers read.

It has been compiled by the Uruguayan journalistMARUJA ECHEGOYEN."^BackgroundDuring the final Session of the study group,eight priests held a Press Conference at whichthey read out a prepared statement and answeredquestions from journalists representing both Chileanand overseas papers. Among these pr iests wereFr Gonzalo Arroyo, chapla in of the Cathol icUniversity of Santiago, and Fr Alfonso Pujadas,Director-General of the Workers ' Movement a tthe same University. The journalists mostly represented left-wing organs. Not long before, theChrist ian Democrat dai ly La Prensa had publ ished,tendentiously and without prior authorisation, withmisleading headings, a private document circulatedin November last year among a group of priests,wrongly making it out to be the starting-point forthis meeting of Socialist priests. Gonzalo Arroyoattacked this action at the Press Conference, and itis indeed one more example of the growing inabili tyof the more right-wing sector of Christian Democracy in Chile to l isten and discuss rationally.

Questions and AnswersAre you holding this study group in defiance of thehierarchy, or with the support of the bishops ?There is no question of defiance. We are sti l lCatholic priests. We invited the bishops and somewould have been here were it not for the fact thatthe Episcopal Conference is meeting at the sametime elsewhere. The Vicar of the Southern Zone hastaken part in all our meetings.We are told that m ore than h alf those takingpart are not Chilean. Is that true ?' Translated from the Spanish by Paul Burns.

Another distortionthough if i t were true, i twould merely indicate that foreign priests have abetter sense of socio-poUtical realities and how toserve the people in the world today than Chileanones! The proport ion of fore igners amongst us isthe same as in the rest of the clergy in Chile. Thishigh proportion-nearly halfis explained by thecrisis of vocations in Chile. But what matters is thata priest should be with the working classes, not hispassport . Fai th overf lows the narrow boundariesof nat ional ism. Che Guevara , an Argent inian, didquite right to fight in Cuba, and the same can besaid with much more truth of Christians. Some ofour foreign companions have worked in the greatestpoverty for twenty years on behalf of the Chileanpeople .As for me (added Alfonso Pujadas), I came toChile to do in the open spaces here what couldnot be done, what had failed, in the pressure cookerof my native Catalonia.Why do you have to throw yourselves into politics:shouldn't a priest rem ain neutral in these matters?Such neutrality is a fallacy; it never existed. TheChu rch and priests have always had different formsof polit ical involvement. Those who talk about"neutra l i ty" and "a-pol i t ic ism" are those who,sometimes without realising it , serve the statusquo, that is, an unjust capitalist society that throughits own structures continues to make the rich richerand the poor poorer, which is a scandalouslyanti-Christian thing to do. The Cardinal of Santiagowas quite right when he said, in November 1970:"There are more evangelical values in socialismthan in capi ta l i sm".But you are causing scandal and division amongChristians. Couldn't you choose less shocking ways ofexpressing your political choice ?We are not causing any scandal among the poor ,or among those who think for themselves and seethat socialism would allow the world to free menfrom slavery so as to fulfil themselves in fuller,freer and more evangelical ways. As for divisions,there i s a much more scandalous one provokedamong the working classes by certain Christianpolicies that have taken the strength and unity outof the popula r movem ent and have sown unjustfiedsuspicions by their melodramatic anti-Communism

* We thank the Editor and Publishers of "New Blackfriars" for permissio n to reprin t this article. T his jour nalcan be obtained by writing to "NewBlackfriars", Oxford. We hope this article will stimulate urther discussion. Ed.


2/5

12 MARXISM TODAY, JANUARY, 1972

that has no roots in our social reality in this country.We are working as priests for the unity of thewhole country , and i t is our permanent contact withits people, our faithfulness to the worlcers, thatmakes us take political responsibilities. We don'tuse the word "pohtical" in a par ty poli t ical sense,but in the sense of a contribution to the buildingup of the society of men {Polls mean s "c i ty " ) .Don't forget that for the Christian there is no on eideal model of society in practice. His model onlyexists on a transcendental level and he can workin any sort of society that does not deny humanfellowship. Socialism achieves this better thancapitalism, and the facts are there to prove it.

To what do you attribute the failure o f ChristianDemocracy, which also preached fellowship?To a mistaken strategy based on an unscientificanalysis of reality and a pre-Conciliar theologywith no roots in the world of today. ChristianDemocracy was an impor ted product; i t hadnothing to do with the reality of life in LatinAmerica. I t is unders tandable in Europe, where theCatholic Church had withdrawn in to a sor t ofghetto, as a result of the political persecution andphilosophical attacks it has suffered over the lastthree hundred years . In Europe, Chr is t ian Democracy was an interesting attempt to escape from theghetto , but when i t was transplanted to LatinAmerica, no account was taken of the fact that herethe Catholic Church was t ied to the es tablishedorder, and was playing an enormous part in politics,as it always had done, directly or indirectly. Theproblem here was the opposite to the one in E urope.It was not one of trying to bring the Church outof the ghetto, but of freeing it from its historicallinks with an increasingly unjust and oppressivesociety. Christian Democracy failed also becauseit was tied to a pre-Conciliar theology, one whichemphasised the dualism between the Church andthe World, put forward a Christian model ofsociety that bore no relationship to the historicalreality of Christianity, and based itself on totallyabstract criteria, with no relevance to the facts ofhistory, let alone of Latin American history. ThisEuropean-style social Catholicism had no chance ofbeing a successful alternative to socialism: evenwithout its internal divisions and before it outlastedits h is tor ical ro le , i t lacked adequate theoreticalbases, the means to make an adequate analysis ofthe social reality from which to work out criteriafor action.

Summary of a D iscussionOne of the priests present would not accept tliBtChr is t ian Democracy had fai led . I t had , he maintained, been a positive and necessary step, and hadperformed an invaluable task in awakening the

peoplewhich Tomic had doneto the fact thatthere was no opposit ion between Catholicism andrevolu tion .(What the right wing in Chile ardently reproachTom ic with is precisely having been grist to AUende'smill. They don't ask why the Chilean peoplepreferred AUende's Popular Union Par ty to Tomic ' ssocialist version of Christian Democracy whenboth offered almost equally revolutionary solutions.)

It is quite true, the socialist priests went on,that we had two revolutionary ways offered:AUende's and Tomic ' s . One of them won, and sowe work with i t . The Chr is t ian has no o ther choice.Everyone must of course decide this for himself,but let him do so as a result of a historical, socioeconomic, scientific analysis, not on the basis oftaboos or romantic ideals and outworn formulasthat go no way towards meeting the basic problemsour peo ple suffer from .

Further Questions and AnswersHow can you reconcile the class struggle withChristian charity 7That ' s a false opposit ion , a p lay on words. Whatdoes Christian charity mean as practised by acapitalist society that exploits the riches of LatinAmerica at the cost of 45 out of every 100 childrenborn in the Continent dying before the age of five?What does Christian charity mean for officiallyCatholic governments which at th is very momentare tor tur ing mothe rs , pr ies ts , s tudents and workers ,sometimes to death , or jus t shooting them downin the streets ? The class struggle is a fact. To denyit by invoking Christian charity is hiding one'shead in the sand. But one has to make a very cleardistinction between the class struggle as a factand the use one can make of the energy of thestruggle precisely in order to overcome injustice,exploitation, killings, illiteracyall the evils ofunder-developmentso as finally to do away withthe class struggle as unnecessary.Here one must realise and fully understandthat capitalism, by its very nature and dynamism,inevitablynot because capitalists are evil menhence the fallacy of trying to convert them to

Christianity and Christian charityinevitably produces under-development, determines that therich nations get richer all the time and the poorones poorer all the time. These are not Swedish,Chinese or socialist theories; they are economicfacts; and history and statistics bear them out timeand again. This brutal fact of inequaUty will not becorrected on the level of personal intentions;we have to act on the level of the structures thatproduce inequality between classes. This action onstructures is the class struggle. I t doesn' t evenalways need physical violence. The nationalisation


3/5

MARXISM TODAY, JANUARY, 1 97 2 13

of the copper mines and the banks in Chile are twogood examples of the class struggle in action,and not only do they not run counter to the Gospel,but at this junc ture of under-developm ent an d theoppression of the poor majority by a rich minority,they are the only thing that can be asiied in thename of Christian charity.

But this class struggle means using hatred,fomentingit. Not necessarily. The class struggle in Marxistterms is not an orgy of violence in which everyonereleases his aggressive instincts and pent-up resentments. It is rational, controlled aggression.And hatred is not i ts only motive force, nor eventhe most effective one in the long run: Ghandi,Mart in Luther King and Dom Helder Camara haveundertaken effective struggles without condoninghatred as a motivation. And if a Christian is shockedat the thought of spill ing blood, there are othertechniques of class struggle, as there are of modernwareconomic, psychological, diplomatic. What isnot admissible is passivity or neutrality in the nameof charity!

Nevertheless, an armed struggle is inevitablebecause no privileged class ever gave up its privilegesexcept through force. Would you do what Cam iloTorres did and preach an armed struggle to bring thepeople to power, with a machine-gun 1That is a personal choice that depends on thehistorical moment in which each person findshimself. One always has to choose the lesser oftwo evils. As Christians, we cannot accept theviolence of those over us (institutional violence,the capitalist violence that has produced twoWorld Wars in 30 years and 50 colonial or civilwars) out of fear of using defensive violence toprotect the majority against armed exploitationby the minority. The Church has never condemnedthe use of force in self-defence, and what the peoplewho are saying "Enough" and resort ing to anarmed struggle are doing is defending themselves.Camilo Torres represents the final polit ical choiceopen to a priest . He is the example for those who,in particular historical circumstances, come to theconclusion that they have to resort to revolutionarystruggle because it is the only way left if "the lovethat men should bear their neighbour is to bemade real". One should not forget that Camilodid not give up his priesthood; he made his choiceas a priest , a priest who proclaims at Communionthat i t is the blood of the lamb, the P aschal sacrifice,that redeems the people from their sins and freesthem from slaveryand who is to say that he didw r o n g ?

You use a transcendental language, the languageof Christian faith. . . . Isn't this perhap s incomp atiblewith the atheism and materialism of Marxists ?Let 's be quite clear what we mean by these

terms. There is a lot of unwitting confusionanda lot of wilful confusion. Historical Materialismis a theory about the conditions for achievingliberty in the course of history. It does not say thatmaterialism determines the act of l iberation, butthat i t conditions it . Theologically, we would saythat historical materialism deals with the "works"that enliven faith: "Not everyone who says "Lord,Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven, but hewho does my commandment s" . He who does.Doing, in a world where the survival of humanitydepends on the economic process, means doing alsoon the level of the social relationships of p rodu ction .All this can be translated line for line info thecategories of scholastic theology. As for DialecticalMaterialism, i t is a more complex case, but i t can besaid that i ts more ingenuous and primitive forms(those condemned by the encyclicals, which areincompatible with Christian thinking and belong to aparticular epoch in certain socialist countriestoStalinism, in fact) have been completely supersededby the more important Marxist philosophers. Sartre,Merleau-Ponty, Marcuse , and many o thers, bring a l lthat has been worked out in the first half of thetwentieth century into their thinking and are waybeyond the materialism-vj-spirituality conflict , whichbelongs to the late nineteenth century.

But what about atheism ?Marx's atheism was practical, not theoretical.He was not interested in the proofs for the existenceof God , and he did not talk of armed struggle againstreligion. He was concerned with the social effectsof belief in God, the fact that religion acted as asedative for the deep evil of economic oppression.There is no point in attacking the drug; only theillness. The fight against religion in the SovietUnion owes more to the Russian tradition ofatheism than to Marx. Insofar as the building ofsocialism in Chile is true to our own history, thatshould not happen here. It is noticeable that theyoung people of Latin America have spontaneouslyby-passed that stage: they are interested in buildinga Latin-American society in which freedom hasreal meaning. Trying to fi t everyone into one mouldof thought is a hindrance rather than a help to theireffective sharing in goods and decisions. This makesdoctrinal pluralism possible. Marxists themselvesin practice are revising their att i tude to religion andare progressively more unwilling to discuss theirglobal view of life. The materialist challenge tofaith is really stronger in the advanced industrialnations, with their clinging to material comfort,their passion for accumulating consumer goodsand their refusal to ask themselves the meaning oflife in case the answer should threaten their privileges.The upper and middle Chilean classes who emigrateto the United States and Europe from fear of theirbeing brought up in "Marxist materialism", when


4/5

14 MARXISM TODAY, JANUARY, 1 9 72

the result will be that they will then be brought upin the "materialism of luxury, competition andconsumption" are fail ing in crit ical acumen, to saythe least.There is still one problem . If Christians are converted to Marx ism, what specifically Christiancontribution can they make to the building up ofsocialism ?There is no such "conversion" to Marxism, justas one cannot talk either of conversion fromCatholicism to Aristotelianism, or Scholasticism,or Existentialism. Marxism is not a religioneven ifCommunism today absorbs the re l igious energiesof millions of people. Marxism is tending to evolveinto a social science, and as an instrument ofanalysis and a method of action, i ts materialism isnot incompatible with the Christian faith. Marxistsand Christ ians have reached the same conclusionsabout the Chilean situation, and both of us areasking how we find a way out. As Christians, webring very deep-rooted and dynamic mot ivat ionsto this quest : those of Fai th, Hope and Chari ty .Fai th? Our Fai th i s not something in the a i r ; i thas always been an incarnate faith, an historicalo n e . For this reason it implies polit ical involvement.I t cannot be separa ted from human progress, andthe priestly function is indissolubly linked to theawakening of human awareness. Hope? Our hopemay refer to the Kingdom, to the second coming ofChrist , but i t begins to act here and now, in temporalstructures, because looking forward to the futurelife begins here and now, in this society in which Ihappen to l ive and for whose transformationhumanisa t ionI am inescapably responsible .Charity? Loving one's neighbour, which is the firstcommandment by defini t ion, today means workingto change the st ructures that are dest roying myneighbour, the people , the poor . Service, th epriest 's, and the Christian's, first mission, todaymeans mobilising the people, helping to form theirconsciousness of themselves as a class. Socialism,because of i ts courageous, positive values andbecause it works for class solidarity and freedomfrom economic slavery, from ignorance and il lness,from poverty and cultural slavery, is for us thepart ia l rea l isa t ion of the Kingdom of God on ear th.And we denounce capi ta l i sm because i t s implacablestructures remove all possibili ty of beginning tobring about the Kingdom of God on ear th for thevast majority of the human race. Christian faithincarnate in works, in social, polit ical, economicand revolutionary action, this coincides with thefaith of socialism. Both tend towards the creationof a classless society, towards solidarity. They aretwo Utopias (in the technical sense of the word)that back each other up. On this Utopian level, theChrist ian contr ibut ion seems to me importantbecause of i ts dynamism, its specific nature and its

universality.The other specifically Christian contribution canbe in the field of moralsas long as we put ourmoral theology in order first . The classical Marxistsdid not draw up moral treatises. Lenin was occupiedabove all by polit ical strategy; his morality accentuates the polit ical dimension and leaves personalmorality undevelop ed. An d even as polit ical morality,i t is war morality, in that i t refers to a particularhistorical moment when the classes are in open,ceaseless conflict. But in a socialist society thatovercomes the conflict between bourgeois andproletarian, other forms of morality will apply.Socialism is a continual process, a continual growthand transformation: as i t goes on, successivecontributions will go on completing and enrichingman's moral dimension. We think Christ ians havesomething to say here, above all through theirbehaviour in practice.

What do you regard as the worst obstacles Christiansand Marxists will meet in their efforts to buildsocialism ?Apart f rom capi ta l i smthe common enemy,which must be fought without quarter or hope ofreconciliation ti ll the final change is brou ght abou tthe worst obstacles for a t ime will be our mutualprejudices. Cliristians have a distorted view ofMarxism. We tend to believe that i t inevitablymeans violence, dictatorship, militant atheism,failing to see that violence, dictatorship and practicaland hypocritical atheism have always been with us,under one name or another . We a t t r ibute to theessence of Marxism what are only the externalconnotations of the first steps in the formation ofsome socialist States, and foreign steps that neednot be repeated in our countries provided we arefaithful to the concept of Marxism as an instrumentfor changing a given reality, in this case our ownreality, which is different from that of Europe orAsia. Marxists, for their part , tend to confuseChristianity v/ith some of i ts transitory historicalformsand usually the worst, not the more constructive oneswith fascism or the right-wingclericalism that compromises with colonialism ortotalitarianism to protect the Church as an Institut ion.But both Christ ians and Marxists are current lygoing through a process of honest, crit ical revisionof our ideas, pre judices, a t t i tudes and "hang-ups"with regard to each other . Dia logue may not beeasy, but i t is possible and real, and an establishedfact. In practice, we are all (except for a few fanaticsdominated by fear of change) agreed on the essentialtask: the problems of the hungryhungry forbread, a roof, heal th, f reedom, knowledge, brotherhood, dignityis not solved by offering them anexhortation, or a flag or a philosophical doctrine,but by obta ining the actual means of satisfying


5/5

MARXISM TODAY, JANUARY, 1 97 2 15

their hunger. Freedom and what goes with it , isnot asked for or given; i t is won. This is whatsociahsm is for us, and this is why we are with the

Chilean people in the polit ical mission they havechosento bui ld not a European-style Christ ianDemocracy but a Chilean socialism.

The European Common Market(Part 2)Phil Leeson

1,2

The effects on Britain's trade and balance ofpaym ents of a decision to join the E EC dep end on(amongst others) the following factors:(a) Th e direct impact of the mu tual abolit ion oftariffs in creating trade between Britain and theSix and in diverting trade from the outsidewor ld .(b) The extent to which "non-tariff barri ers" totrade, and other taxes, especially excise duties,which affect trade are reduced or harmonisedin the enlarged EE C.(c) The sharing wi th EE C producers of our presentpreferent ia l t rad ing arrangem ents wi th Ire land,Norway, Denmark and those members of theCommonweal th who are able and wi l l ing tobecome Associa te Mem bers.

(d) The loss of preferences in the rest of EF TA andtheir loss of preference in the U K ma rke t.(e) Th e com para ble loss of preference between U Kand those members of the Commonweal th whocann ot or will not associate.(f) The effect on our trade with the outside wo rldof the adopt ion of the EEC common externaltariff by us instead of our present one (which ison the average higher), and of adopting theCom mon Agricul tura l Pol icy.(g) The effect of adop ting the EE C Globa l Preference Scheme for underdeveloped countries'manufactured exports instead of our ownschemeand of adopting other modificationsto t rade as dic ta ted by the Common Commercial Policy.

(h) W hether or not any further attemp ts are ma dethrough GATT to reduce general world tarifflevels and hence negate the effect of joining.(i) The possibili ty that our balance of paym ents^ Part I appeared in the October 1971 issue.^ Throughout this article the phraseology suggests thatUK will in fact join the EEC. I hope that this might beprevented but it would be pedantic to keep on saying so.

and new focus of trade might dictate a reductionin aid to underdeveloped countries and henceaffect their purcha ses from u s.(j) The cost to the balance of paym ents of higherprices for imported food from EEC Countr ies.(k) Any loss of competitiveness which might resultfrom higher wage-costs arising from higherfood prices.(I) The reduc tion in cons um ption of food and thest imulus to home product ion of food whichhigher prices might bring, thus reducing thevolume of imports .(m) The balance of payments cost of our contribut ion to the EEC budget .(n) Th e effect of the freeing of capi tal mov em entsand the running down of the sterling balances.(o) The extent to which progress is mad e towar dsEconomic and Monetary Union wi th i t simplication for the right to use devaluation tocorrect inbalances.(p) The impa ct of joining on trade in bankin g,insurance, tourism, shipping etc.(q) Th e "dy nam ic effects" which the chang e in thet rading environment may have on Bri t i shindust ry.(r) Any changes that may occur as a result ofmembership in enabling UK to get aid in t imesof deficit from EEC Countries instead of, aspreviously, through IM F channels.(s) Any benefits that may arise as a result of theUK negot ia t ing wi th the outside world as amem ber of the EEC b loc instead of by herself.(t) Any general impact on world tradin g relationships of the accession of the UK e.g. intensification of the current trade war with America.It should be remembered that effects on thebalance of paym ents are no t the same thing as effectson living standards or on economic growth, thoughthey may be inter-connected. Further, generalfigures for the economy tell us very li t t le about the

Priest and Socialism in Chile Marxism Today

Documents