The Message of Puebla: Notes and Comments– III – Folha de S. Paulo, April 14, 1979

 

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

 

The Church’s Mission on Earth

Commenting on John Paul II’s address at the opening of the Puebla Conference, I have so far dealt with the essentially religious part of the message. I now turn to the section on earthly society.

This division of themes strictly follows the structure of part 1 of the pontifical text, which is divided into three main sections titled “The Truth About Jesus Christ,” “The Truth About the Mission of the Church,” and “The Truth About Man.”

In the order of presentation, John Paul II gives primacy to “The Truth About Jesus Christ” because it is infinitely more important. “The Truth About the Mission of the Church” follows, and then “The Truth About Man,” which can be focused appropriately only when presented in the light of “The Truth About Jesus Christ,” another reason for it to take precedence.

From the “Truth about Jesus Christ” in the foreground, teachings concerning the Church, the spiritual and supernatural Society, derive. In the second place come the teachings on natural and temporal society, that is, the nations and their galaxy of micro-societies.

However, the scope of these teachings does not end here, because the nations and societies that comprise them are constituted by and for man.

Jesus Christ is the apex of the spiritual and supernatural order. Man is the apex of temporal society.

Thus, it is entirely logical that the message’s considerations of the temporal order should focus on man.

Is earthly life the Church’s only purpose?

For those “Catholics” who inexplicably omit or deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Church does not aim at the Kingdom of God and can only aim at the Kingdom of Man.

If presented too categorically, this exclusion from the Kingdom of God may shock the Catholic public, which these strange advocates of a kingdom without the Messiah are trying to win over. Sensing this, they present their thesis with a subterfuge: caring exclusively for the Kingdom of Man would implicitly care for the Kingdom of God, since the latter would identify with the former.

In the section of the message addressing “The Truth About the Mission of the Church,” John Paul II dispels this subterfuge by quoting one of John Paul I’s teachings: “It is wrong to state that political, economic and social liberation coincides with salvation in Jesus Christ, that the Regnum Dei is identified with the Regnum hominis.”

It is thus clear that dealing only with the ‘Regnum hominis’ amounts to denying the ‘Regnum Dei’ in some way or another.

This warning better explains how John Paul II develops the “Truth About Man.”

The pontiff reminds us from the outset that the full truth about man can be known only from a religious perspective and in the light of Jesus Christ, for “We cannot reduce it to the principles of a system of philosophy or to pure political activity.”

For Catholics, fidelity to these assertions is an imperative of conscience, especially when “faced with so many other forms of humanism that are often shut in by a strictly economic, biological or psychological view of man.” As can be seen, Marxism fits this definition like a glove. Faced with this challenge, man sometimes remains silent, dragged along “through fear of doubt, through having let herself be contaminated by other forms of humanism, or through lack of confidence in her original message.”

Here—it should be noted—the description of the Catholic who fails “to proclaim the Truth about man that she [the Church] received from her teacher, Jesus Christ,” is like another glove that fits perfectly on worldly and cheerful Catholics who are ashamed of not being in the latest fashion… and of being non-communist or intimidated by pressures and threats from the Reds.

Catholicism and Marxism

These considerations regarding the “Truth About Man” clearly show that John Paul II’s primary concern was to clarify the dividing line between the religion of Jesus Christ and Marx’s philosophy.

I refer once again to the part of the message concerning Jesus Christ: John Paul II speaks of Catholics who omit or deny the Messiah’s divinity and of others who present Him as a revolutionary. In this regard, a question arises: Is anyone who denies the divinity of Jesus Christ logically compelled to view Him as a revolutionary?

Absolutely speaking, one thing does not lead to the other, at least if we take the word “revolutionary” in its modern sense, as a subversive, violent opponent of the current socioeconomic order.

What, then, is the connection between the denial or omission of Jesus Christ and the Marxist approach?

Although John Paul II does not say so, this link becomes clear if we consider the matter from the opposite perspective.

A denier of Jesus Christ is not necessarily a Marxist, but a Marxist is necessarily a denier of Jesus Christ. Faced with the vast category of deniers of Jesus Christ, Marxists do not identify with it but fit into it as a species. Today, they are the most active, organized, and powerful species. From this, we can infer why John Paul II repeatedly referred to the specific errors of Marxism in this matter when dealing generically with errors about man.

The Church’s Position on Human Dignity, Human Promotion, and Justice

“If the Church makes herself present in the defense of, or in the advancement of, man, she does so in line with her mission, which, although it is religious and not social or political, cannot fail to consider man in the entirety of his being.”

With these words, John Paul II distinguishes the Church’s position on human dignity from that of another current he does not explicitly mention. What could it be? It is not difficult to see that it is Marxism, the most vocal, conspicuous, and different from the Catholic position, and whose mentors nevertheless seek to confuse it with.

Still without explicitly mentioning Marxism, John Paul II goes on to cite the parable of the Good Samaritan as a foundation for the Church’s position on human dignity and on two related themes, human promotion and justice.

He shows that, in such matters, the Church’s attention is not focused solely on the heavenly but also on the earthly. Thus, the pontiff teaches that “between evangelization and human advancement there are very strong links of the orders of anthropology, theology and love (cf. Evangelii Nuntiandi, 31); so that ‘evangelization would not be complete if it did not take into account the unceasing interplay of the Gospel and of man’s concrete life, both personal and social’ (Evangelii Nuntiandi, 29).”

In other words, contrary to what Marxists claim, the Church does not disdain all scientific knowledge of man and the world in its evangelization. It welcomes it eagerly without thereby deviating from its fundamental and well-defined position, which consists in analyzing this knowledge in the light of the Faith, purging it of errors, illuminating it with the higher truths of a supernatural order, and making its infallible teachings hover over man’s “certainties,” however precious yet flawed at times.

“Service of Man” and “Service to Man”

The message then turns to another burning issue. No less pressing, in fact, than the previous ones. It is the “service of man” question:

“The Church’s action in earthly matters such as human advancement, development, justice, the rights of the individual, is always intended to be at the service of man; and of man as she sees him in the Christian vision of the anthropology that she adopts. She therefore does not need to have recourse to ideological systems in order to love, defend and collaborate in the liberation of man: at the center of the message of which she is the depositary and herald she finds inspiration for acting in favor of brotherhood, justice, and peace, against all forms of domination, slavery, discrimination, violence, attacks on religious liberty and aggression against man, and whatever attacks life (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 26, 27 and 29).”

It is clear how much this Christian service-of-man conception differs from the Marxist or materialistic “Catholic” conception.

As we said, once Jesus Christ is ignored or even denied, the Church’s actions cannot be considered a service to God. Then all that remains is for it to affirm itself as being at the service of man.

If that were true, the Church would have a strictly earthly purpose: to serve humanity.

The concept of “service” implies acting habitually in someone’s favor. It also implies that the servant knows what is best for those being served. Without this, the service is not “in favor” of anyone and may be innocuous or even harmful.

In turn, this means the Church must have a clear understanding of what is good for mankind and strongly advocate for it.

This explains why, given the omission of the divinity of Jesus Christ and the extraterrestrial purpose of the Church, this new theology, as John Paul II describes it, leads a priest to use all acts of ecclesiastical life, such as sermons, homilies, and liturgy, to address exclusively earthly matters. If a reference to otherworldly themes appears in any of these acts, it is only as a concession to certain “backward” sectors of the public. But only earthly matters can be addressed before entirely “aggiornati” listeners.

In this conception, the “Kingdom of God” is ultimately reduced to the “Kingdom of Man.” The preaching of the word of God becomes revolutionary socio-economic preaching, as will be shown below.

Summary

For “Catholics” who inexplicably omit or deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, caring exclusively for the Kingdom of Man would implicitly be caring for the Kingdom of God, since the Kingdom of God would be identified with the Kingdom of Man.

In contrast, John Paul II showed in Puebla that focusing solely on the “Regnum hominis” amounts to denying the “Regnum Dei.” This would turn the preaching of the word of God into revolutionary socioeconomic preaching.

Is anyone who denies the divinity of Jesus Christ logically compelled to view him as a revolutionary? What is the link between denying or omitting Jesus Christ and the Marxist approach?