SELECTIONS BY PAULY FONGEMIE
Left Turn
Communist influence upon the Council was certain to be considerable if only because of the presence of Russian Orthodox observers. It scarcely needs pointing out that they were present only because the Soviet government felt that this would further its policy of détente - and it is also unnecessary to lay stress on the fact that for the Russians' détente is simply a tactic to be used wherever it will help in their campaign for world domination. The changing relationship between the Vatican and the Kremlin since the death of Pope Pius XII has involved a great deal of give and take - but the giving has all been on the part of the Vatican and the taking on the part of the Kremlin.
Communists have never made a secret of the fact that they regard "dialogue" as a weapon in their bid for power. Once power is achieved it is normally the sincere if naive dialoguer who is the first to be eliminated. Fr. Henri Chambre, S.J., has provided a very perceptive analysis of the Communist "outstretched hand" technique in his book Christianity and Communism. He explains how this policy is based upon Communists making common cause with Catholics in political and ideological campaigns during which the Communists refrain from overt attacks upon the Christian religion but attempt to alienate the ordinary faithful from the hierarchy and the Vatican:
The policy of the "outstretched hand" to Catholics with its corollary - a cleavage between the faithful and the hierarchy - ultimately implies the claim that in practice the Communist Party should be the arbiter and the guardian of the Christian faith and Christian attitudes of mind for those Christians who accept such a situation ...
From even a brief analysis of the Communist tactic in a country like France, where Communists are not in the majority - and the same situation is found elsewhere - one fact is evident, namely, that under the pretext of advocating certain social, economic and political claims, an effort is made to win increasingly large groups of Christians over to Communism, with all that this implies.
To achieve this, Communism monopolizes the great ideals of justice, brotherhood and peace and asks the Christian masses to work with it in order to make them realities. Communists believe that common action along Communist lines is the best means of winning the wavering masses over to its side. All the more so since common action is always accompanied by Communist explanations of the situation which, little by little will commend the justice of the Communist position to the man who is carried along by this action and, since he has no leisure, forgets to reflect upon all the suggestions that are made to him. Further, the Communist criticism of the real or imaginary weaknesses of the Church leads the Christian who listens to it without submitting it to serious examination - and this in many cases could not be undertaken - to doubt the mystery of the Church's holiness which cannot be immediately identified with that of her members, clerical or lay. At the same time Communism shakes a man's faith in the God-man, Jesus Christ, and prepares the ground for the acceptance of the Marxist concept of religion as a product of human social activity caught up in and conditioned by given economic, social and political factors. [Christianity and Communism, Hawthorn Books, 1960, pp. 37/38]
Another description of the manner in which Communists use dialogue can be found in an analysis of the Marxist-Vatican détente, published by the Institute for the Study of Conflict, which is certainly the most reputable and authoritative body in Britain concerned with the study of Communist subversion on a world wide basis. [Conflict Studies, ed. Brian Crozier, No. 45, Marxism and the Church of Rome, London] In this analysis, a principal contributor to the Jesuit journal Civilta Cattolica is quoted as follows:
Communist parties tend to use dialogue to expand their audience and make the conquest of power easier. The Christian-Marxist contradiction is insoluble, insofar as every solution implies that one or the other renounces part of its very essence.
Commenting on this, the author of the analysis explains:
This statement was simply a repetition of the fundamental reason why the Church has always condemned Marxism, namely, because of its essentially atheistic character which renders any reconciliation with Christianity impossible. The whole structure of Das Kapital, as of the Communist Manifesto, rests on the belief in philosophical materialism, which requires man to be an end in himself and the explanation of all things. The idea of God enters into it only as a contrast and as an example of the suspension of the intellect, and evasion of effort and the survival of a prehistoric mentality. Marxism and Christianity are like fire and water and any mixture resulting from an encounter can only leave the one or the other unrecognizable. Notwithstanding the numerous experiments - invariably failures - this same dialogue is still being pursued both in the political and religious spheres which merge through the ecumenical movement. [Ibid., pp. 11/12]
Communist tactics are essentially pragmatic. Their aim is to achieve power and the means they use to win converts who will further this aim is a matter of indifference to them. All that matters is to find "those who will further its ends." [Ibid., p. 12] It is worth noting that the fundamental Marxist belief, that "man is an end in himself and the explanation of all things," is not simply an axiom held in common with the mainstream of European Masonry but has clearly become, implicitly or explicitly, the basis of contemporary Modernism in both its Catholic and Protestant varieties. As was made clear in Chapter VIII, the ecumenical movement, as it exists at present, is moving not towards Christian unity but unity in Rationalism.
When interviewed in September 1974, Cardinal Mindszenty explained how Communists and democrats do not use the word "co-existence" in the same sense. "What does the word mean? To speak of co-existence between East and West is to speak of two different and unequal concepts. On the one side, the Communist side, you have an unswerving system which is disciplined despite the fact that it is based on intrinsic falsehood. On the western side, you have only a watered-down philosophy, and a lack of any effective unifying principle.
"It is a hopeless contrast. Ever since the Second World War, the West has gone on giving up political terrain step by step, merely to appease the aggressors and traducers." [Sunday Telegraph, Sept. 15, 1974]
... Pope Pius XII had refused to yield one inch to Communist pressure at the time of the Cardinal's "trial" and imprisonment in 1949. "Can you imagine a successor of St. Peter who would bow to such demands?" he had asked a vast crowd present at a public audience. "No!" they roared back. Pope Pius continued: "The Pope, by Divine promise is, even in his human weakness, invincible and unshakable, herald of truth and justice, and of the various principles governing the unity of the Church."
What had been unimaginable in 1949 had become undeniable in 1974. What brought about this calamitous volte-face in the Vatican attitude towards Communism? The process began under Pope John XXIII when, in Pacem in Terris, he made a distinction between error and the one who errs, and between false philosophical teachings and the historical movements to which they have given rise. It was claimed that although once defined the false teachings always remain the same, the movements to which they give rise are influenced by historical situations and are subject to changes of a profound nature. Thus the condemnation of Communism by earlier Popes could not necessarily be considered as applying to present day Communists in any particular country. Communism as such remained wrong, but Communists, either as individuals or as the Party in a particular country, were not necessarily so. "Besides," states Pacem in Terris, "who can deny that those movements, in so far as they conform to the dictates of right reason and are interpreters of the lawful aspirations of the human person, contain elements that are positive and deserving of approval?"
... What is quite certain is that the Russians were delighted with the way the First Session went. "In an interview published by Novosli, the Soviet news agency, the two Russian Orthodox observers at the Council, Archpriest Vitali Borovoy and Archimandrite Vladimir Kotlyarov, praised the Council's favorable and auspicious beginning as shown by the appeal of the Council Fathers for peace and by Pope John's pronouncements. They said they had both been treated with every consideration in Rome and received by the Pope with 'a real friendship.' The 'growing prestige of the Russian Orthodox Church in ecumenical relations and its contributions to the struggle for peace' had also been reflected by the special attention shown to them by the Council Fathers, the press and the Roman public generally, they observed." [The Tablet, Dec. 1, 1962, p. 1169]
... Cardinal Ottaviani had made his own views very clear in 1960 in a speech which was seen at the time as an explicit criticism of the projected visit of the Italian president to Russia and has since been interpreted as an implicit criticism of Pope John's new attitude to Communism.
"In the twentieth century it is still necessary to deplore genocide, mass deportations, slaughters like Katyn Wood and massacres like Budapest. But some still stretch out their hands to the new Antichrist and even race to see who can first shake hands with him and exchange sweet smiles. Can a Christian confronted by one who massacres Christians and insults God smile and flatter? Can a Christian opt for an alliance with those who prepare for the coming of Antichrist in countries still free? Can we consider any relaxation of East-West tensions when the face of Christ is once more spat upon, crowned with thorns and slapped?" [Inside The Council, R. Kaiser, London, 1963, p. 44]
There have been suggestions from the fringe of the traditionalist movement that Pope John had Communist sympathies. Such a suggestion is quite ludicrous to anyone in the least familiar with his life, particularly through his own writings such as Journal of a Soul. It is quite certain that Pope John's policy of replacing anathema by dialogue played into the hands of the Communists - but this no more indicates that he was sympathetic to Communism than does Chamberlain's policy of appeasement to Hitler indicate that the British Prime Minister was pro-Nazi. History contains countless examples of political and religious leaders whose errors of judgment have been most costly to those for whom they were responsible.
On 15 November 1960, Pope John received birthday greetings from Khrushchev who called him "a man of peace." It is hardly likely that anyone needs telling that to be praised by a Soviet leader as "a man of peace" is equivalent to being called "a man whose policies are helping the Soviet plan for world domination."
... There had been considerable pressure within the Council for explicit teaching on Communism as such. The Rhine-controlled commissions which prepared the texts referred only to "atheism". Cardinal Wyszynski, who had more to fear from speaking out against Communism than any of his liberal counterparts in the West, demanded that there should be a schema on Communism. "... if there is one error today which is serious and which endangers the world it is indeed this one." [Un Eveque Parle, Mgr. M. Lefebvre, Paris, 1974 p. 195] Another Bishop with ample experience of Communism in action, Archbishop Paul Yu Pin of Nanking, China, asked in the name of seventy Fathers for a chapter on Atheistic Communism to be added to the Constitution. He insisted that the Council must not neglect to discuss one of the "greatest, most evident and most unfortunate of modern phenomena" particularly in order to meet the expectations of "those who groan under the yoke of Communism and are forced to endure indescribable sorrows unjustly." [Wiltgen, p. 273] During the Second Session 200 Fathers from 46 countries had demanded a clear refutation of the errors of Marxism.
... On 13 November 1965, the Commission responsible for the schema of the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World distributed the revised version of the schema which, contrary to the rules of the Council, contained no mention of the 450 interventions and no reference to Communism. Bishop Carli sent an official protest to the Council Presidency quoting the Rules of Procedure which stated that "all amendments must be printed and communicated to the Council Fathers so that they can decide by vote whether they wish to admit or reject each one." He quite correctly pointed out that if the Commissions, and all the Commissions were Rhine Group Commissions, were to decide what the Council Fathers could and could not be allowed to vote on, then they rather than the Fathers, constituted the Council. [Wiltgen, p. 275]
HOME
---------------------- TRADITION