The Message of Puebla: Notes and Comments–IV – Folha de S. Paulo, April 26, 1979

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

The “most obvious weaknesses of present-day civilization.”

What, then, is the conception of man—and of his “conveniences”—proposed by the new current John Paul II alludes to in his address to the Latin American bishops at the opening of the Puebla Conference?

The Link Between Atheism and Collectivism

Considering the question in general terms, does the new humanism logically lead to a right-wing, centrist, or left-wing position? The message does not say so. In the section on “the truth about man,” it identifies leftism in its various shades as the content of the new humanism, without specifying whether this link stems from the very premises of the system of errors it condemns or from one of those fortuitous coincidences that are not uncommon in history.

In my view, this is not a coincidence but a genuine logical sequence. Those who do not believe in God but only in humanity are led to see the full realization of this not in parts of humanity, such as an individual, a social class, or a nation, but in humanity as a whole, formed by the universality of men.

In turn, today’s democratic mental habits, entirely in line with this philosophy, lead us to regard the majority’s pronouncement as the authentic voice of humanity as a whole. From this, it follows that economic and social organization should aim to distribute the earth’s goods equally among all men and to assign political power to the majority (until evolution leads to the suppression of political power itself, which is opposed to complete equality). In short, these are the essential tenets of Marxist doctrine.

Criticism of Atheistic Humanism

It is easy to understand why John Paul II censures these doctrinal positions when addressing the “Truth about Man”:

“Perhaps one of the most obvious weaknesses of present-day civilization lies in an inadequate view of man. Without doubt, our age is the one in which man has been most written and spoken of, the age of the forms of humanism and the age of anthropocentrism. Nevertheless, it is paradoxically also the age of man’s deepest anxiety about his identity and his destiny, the age of man’s abasement to previously unsuspected levels, the age of human values trampled on as never before.

“How is this paradox explained? We can say that it is the inexorable paradox of atheistic humanism. It is the drama of man being deprived of an essential dimension of his being, namely, his search for the infinite, and thus faced with having his being reduced in the worst way. The Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes plumbs the depths of the problem when it says: “Only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light” (Gaudium et Spes, 22).

Further on: “Thanks to the Gospel, the Church has the truth about man. This truth is found in an anthropology that the Church never ceases to fathom more thoroughly and to communicate to others. The primordial affirmation of this anthropology is that man is God’s image and cannot be reduced to a mere portion of nature or a nameless element in the human city (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 12 and 14).”

John Paul II concludes: “This complete truth about the human being constitutes the foundation of the Church’s social teaching and the basis also of true liberation. In the light of this truth, man is not a being subjected to economic or political processes; these processes are instead directed to man and are subjected to him.”

As can be seen, contrary to what many Marxist “Catholics” would like, the Church once again (it cannot be emphasized enough) rejects Marx’s philosophy as incompatible with its own doctrine and with its action in favor of man in the earthly realm.

A Closed Door

This position of John Paul II is evidently far-reaching because Catholic circles are largely infiltrated by “apostles” of the dual thesis that the Church exists only to serve man and that Marx alone correctly learned and taught what man is and how to serve him.

However, it would be considerably anachronistic to claim that, having done this, John Paul II exhausted the subject of the relationship between the Catholic religion and communism.

Today, the most modern expression of communism is the recognition that a non-Marxist may defend a communist socioeconomic order on non-Marxist philosophical grounds and may legitimately collaborate with Marxists to establish it. For many Italian, French, and Spanish leaders of Eurocommunism, being a communist no longer necessarily entails embracing the entirety of Marxist philosophy.

In this conception—I repeat—a communist is characterized by adherence to the socioeconomic regime of communism, but is free to seek in any religious or atheistic system the philosophical foundation that seems most appropriate for justifying his socioeconomic preferences.

Anyone who is up to date on this subject and reads John Paul II’s message cannot help but wonder whether this document, which takes a clear anti-Marxist stance, also condemns the communist regime as such, irrespective of Marx’s philosophy.

The answer seems to be that there is no such condemnation in the message. In other words, the message closes one leaf of the door to Marxist collectivism and leaves the other open to non-strictly Marxist collectivism.

Summary

Communist circles are increasingly acknowledging the possibility of implementing collectivism on a non-Marxist philosophical foundation. Many in the Catholic camp seek to give this form of collectivism a religious foundation.

In Puebla, John Paul II reaffirmed that Marx’s philosophy is incompatible with Church doctrine, thereby closing one door.

But he said nothing about the possibility of non-Marxist communism, leaving the other side of the door open.

The Message of Puebla: Notes and Comments–IV – Folha de S. Paulo, April 26, 1979

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

What, then, is the conception of man—and of his “conveniences”—proposed by the new current John Paul II alludes to in his address to the Latin American bishops at the opening of the Puebla Conference?

The Link Between Atheism and Collectivism

Criticism of Atheistic Humanism

It is easy to understand why John Paul II censures these doctrinal positions when addressing the “Truth about Man”:

As can be seen, contrary to what many Marxist “Catholics” would like, the Church once again (it cannot be emphasized enough) rejects Marx’s philosophy as incompatible with its own doctrine and with its action in favor of man in the earthly realm.

A Closed Door

This position of John Paul II is evidently far-reaching because Catholic circles are largely infiltrated by “apostles” of the dual thesis that the Church exists only to serve man and that Marx alone correctly learned and taught what man is and how to serve him.

However, it would be considerably anachronistic to claim that, having done this, John Paul II exhausted the subject of the relationship between the Catholic religion and communism.

In this conception—I repeat—a communist is characterized by adherence to the socioeconomic regime of communism, but is free to seek in any religious or atheistic system the philosophical foundation that seems most appropriate for justifying his socioeconomic preferences.

Anyone who is up to date on this subject and reads John Paul II’s message cannot help but wonder whether this document, which takes a clear anti-Marxist stance, also condemns the communist regime as such, irrespective of Marx’s philosophy.

The answer seems to be that there is no such condemnation in the message. In other words, the message closes one leaf of the door to Marxist collectivism and leaves the other open to non-strictly Marxist collectivism.

Summary

Communist circles are increasingly acknowledging the possibility of implementing collectivism on a non-Marxist philosophical foundation. Many in the Catholic camp seek to give this form of collectivism a religious foundation.

In Puebla, John Paul II reaffirmed that Marx’s philosophy is incompatible with Church doctrine, thereby closing one door.

But he said nothing about the possibility of non-Marxist communism, leaving the other side of the door open.

Contato

What, then, is the conception of man—and of his “conveniences”—proposed by the new current John Paul II alludes to in his address to the Latin American bishops at the opening of the Puebla Conference?