Peter Taaffe: The church and the struggle for liberation

(Militant No. 449, 30 March 1979, p. 6)

The second of three articles

In last week’s ‘Militant’, Peter Taaffe analysed the role of Islam in the Iranian revolution. In the second article he looks at developments within the Catholic Church in Latin America over the past two decades.

The ‘Economist’ recently pointed out that “Since 1964, 9 out of 19 Latin American countries have been taken over by their armies. Seven more already had authoritarian regimes.

“With the politicians driven underground, the church has become the only legal independent body with a mass audience which can speak out against the inhuman way some soldiers treat some of their enemies. Soldiers cannot gun down priests they dislike with quite as little fuss as they gun down their lay opponents.”

The explosive social situation throughout Latin America has inevitably been reflected within the church. In fact, the church has been riven with the same bitter class contradictions as Latin American society as a whole. The conservative hierarchy – the bishops, cardinals, etc. – have in the main remained as pliable tools of the landlords and capitalists.

Such is the mood of their flock, however, that some of the church hierarchy, for example, Archbishop Hélder Câmara of Brazil, have openly denounced capitalism and have flirted with some of the ideas of Marxism in an attempt to “marry them with Christ’s teachings.” Rank and file priests close to the workers and peasants, feeling the hatred of the Latin American regimes, have not hesitated to denounce, sometimes in the most violent terms, these monstrous regimes.

One famous Colombian priest, Camilo Torres, was killed in 1966 while participating in a guerrilla war against a regime in which aristocratic members of his own family served. Many of Latin America’s radical priests have been inspired by his example, if not completely by his methods: “I took off my cassock to be more truly a priest. The duty of every Catholic is to be a revolutionary. The duty of every revolutionary is to make the revolution. The Catholic who is not a revolutionary is living in mortal sin.”

In Argentina, too, the revolutionary mood which engulfed the country in the period which preceded and followed the return of Perón in 1973 had a profound effect on the priesthood. It was estimated that fully one third of the priests in Argentina belonged to a revolutionary Catholic movement “priests of the third world”

Hierarchy

Throughout its 2,000 year history, the church has learned to bend with the wind. This movement from below thus compelled the Catholic hierarchy at the Medellin (Colombia) conference in 1968 to condemn the more abhorrent features of Latin American landlordism and capitalism. This in turn provoked a determined counter-attack by the conservative bishops.

The Pope, on his recent visit, echoed some of their fears and doubts about the “direction” in which the Catholic church in Latin America was going. In a veiled attack on the radicals at the Pueblo conference in January, the Pope declared:

“Some people claim to show Jesus as politically committed, as one who fought against Roman oppression and the authorities, and also as one involved in the class struggle. The idea of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive man of Nazareth, does not tally with the Church’s catechism.”

But the Pope’s strictures against the radicals is not borne out by proven historical fact. Karl Kautsky in his great work, ‘The Foundations of Christianity’, shows that the early Jewish communities from which Christianity arose were originally made up of exclusively plebeian elements; they were organisations of the poor, often engaged in an active struggle against Roman rule.

He also shows that the Jewish sect, the Essenes, was organised on the basis of primitive communism. Christianity borrowed the ceremonies and the idea of a Messiah from earlier organisations such as the Essenes and other sects in Palestine and throughout the Roman and Greek world.

Kautsky’s analysis was subsequently confirmed by the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’. He pointed out that in relation to the early Christians, “the first thing we encounter is a fierce class hatred of the rich.” In the gospel according to St Luke there is the famous denunciation of the rich: “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God. For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.”

Denunciation

In the sermon on the mount, we read: “Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God; Blessed are ye that hunger now, for ye shall be filled; Blessed are ye that weep now, for ye shall laugh; but woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation; woe unto ye that are full, for ye shall hunger; woe unto you that laugh now, for ye shall mourn and weep.”

This passionate denunciation of the rich was subsequently watered down by later Christian forgers.

From a religion of the poor and oppressed, Christianity gradually was adopted by the ruling class. Consequently, every effort was made to purge the basic tenets of Christianity of all their revolutionary features.

But as Kautsky points out, enough remained within the gospels to demonstrate conclusively the communistic and revolutionary origins of Christianity. If Jesus Christ existed, then he must have been a champion of the poor against the rich. He must have been an implacable opponent of Roman “imperialism”.

The radical priests in Latin America and elsewhere have drawn on these aspects of early Christian teaching in their denunciation of landlordism and capitalism throughout the continent.

The Latin American workers and peasants are not prepared to reconcile themselves to these monstrous regimes. In Mexico, the preachings of the Pope to the effect that the masses should reconcile themselves to their lot in life was greeted by booing at one particular religious gathering!

The attempt to apply the brake to the social involvement of rank-and-file priests in the struggles of the Latin American workers and peasants could undoubtedly result in a split within the church.

The ‘Economist’ pointed out: “The radicals feel more than ever that their legitimacy comes from the masses and not from the hierarchy. Some priests may now feel disheartened enough to renounce their vows, or even think of setting up a people’s church.”

As is well known, in the underground struggle against the Franco regime, the ordinary priests in many cases played a significant and even heroic role. Churches were used for meetings of the workers’ parties and trade unions. Some priests, moreover, on the basis of their experience during the Franco regime, subsequently passed through the priesthood and Catholicism, and groped in the direction of Marxism. One group of ex-priests is now the leadership of a Spanish Maoist sect, the Revolutionary Workers’ Organisation.

The involvement of the Latin American church, or sections of the church, in the struggles of the workers and peasants throughout the continent undoubtedly represents a big step forward. Notwithstanding the profound philosophical differences with religion, the Latin American Marxists will link up with those sincere Christians and others who are prepared to struggle to liberate the continent from the grip of landlordism, capitalism and imperialism.

It will not, however, be the church as an institution which will accomplish this mighty task – but the Latin American working class organised on a Marxist programme.