Hello Father,
I’m a convinced atheist, but I’m interested in some principles of the Catholic religion.
I simply wanted to ask you a historically grounded question regarding some widely known Catholic politicians of the 20th century: how do the Catholic Church view the gentlemen officially recognized as dictators, a thesis with which I disagree, whose names are Augusto Pinochet and Francisco Franco, given their actions and their proven faith?
I await your response.
Thank you very much.
Kind regards,
Giacomo
Priest’s answer
Dear Giacomo,
1. The Church, in its teaching, does not judge people.
The judgment of people belongs only to God, who knows our hearts.
2. The Church, however, judges the ideologies to which certain people adhere.
It judges whether they are in conformity with the Gospel and with human dignity.
3. For this reason, you can find judgments on capitalism and communism.
For example, Pius XI, in the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (1931) on capitalism, says that capital is not inherently vicious.
But immediately afterwards he adds: “But it does violate right order when capital hires workers, that is, the non-owning working class, with a view to and under such terms that it directs business and even the whole economic system according to its own will and advantage, scorning the human dignity of the workers, the social character of economic activity and social justice itself, and the common good” (QA 101).
4. And furthermore: “The ultimate consequences of the individualist spirit in economic life are those which you yourselves, Venerable Brethren and Beloved Children, see and deplore: Free competition has destroyed itself; economic dictatorship has supplanted the free market; unbridled ambition for power has likewise succeeded greed for gain; all economic life has become tragically hard, inexorable, and cruel…the virtual degradation of the majesty of the State, which although it ought to sit on high like a queen and supreme arbitress, free from all partiality and intent upon the one common good and justice, is become a slave, surrendered and delivered to the passions and greed of men” (QA 109).
5. On communism, he says, “Communism teaches and seeks two objectives: Unrelenting class warfare and absolute extermination of private ownership. Not secretly or by hidden methods does it do this, but publicly, openly, and by employing every and all means, even the most violent. To achieve these objectives there is nothing which it does not dare, nothing for which it has respect or reverence; and when it has come to power, it is incredible and portentlike in its cruelty and inhumanity. The horrible slaughter and destruction through which it has laid waste vast regions of eastern Europe and Asia are the evidence; how much an enemy and how openly hostile it is to Holy Church and to God Himself is, alas, too well proved by facts and fully known to all. Although We, therefore, deem it superfluous to warn upright and faithful children of the Church regarding the impious and iniquitous character of Communism” (QA 112).
6. Osserva poi che “più moderato è l’altro partito che ha conservato il nome di socialismo, giacché non solo professa di rigettare il corso della violenza, ma tempera con alcuni ragionamenti la stessa lotta di classe e l’abolizione della proprietà privata, anche se non le ripudia” (QA 112).
Tuttavia neanche questo si può conciliare con la dottrina cristiana secondo la quale “lo scopo per cui l’uomo dotato di una natura socievole, è stato messo sulla terra, è che, vivendo in società e sotto un’autorità sociale ordinata da Dio, coltivi e svolga pienamente tutte le sue facoltà, a lode e gloria del Creatore; e adempiendo fedelmente i doveri della sua professione o della sua vocazione, qualunque sia, giunga alla felicità temporale ed insieme all’eterna. Il socialismo al contrario, ignorando o trascurando del tutto questo sublime fine, sia dell’uomo come della società, suppone che l’umano consorzio non sia istituito se non in vista del solo benessere” (QA 117).
6. He then observes that “The other section, which has kept the name Socialism, is surely more moderate. It not only professes the rejection of violence but modifies and tempers to some degree, if it does not reject entirely, the class struggle and the abolition of private ownership” (QA 113).
However, this too cannot be reconciled with the Christian doctrine according to which “Man, endowed with a social nature, is placed on this earth so that by leading a life in society and under an authority ordained of God he may fully cultivate and develop all his faculties unto the praise and glory of his Creator; and that by faithfully fulfilling the duties of his craft or other calling he may obtain for himself temporal and at the same time eternal happiness. Socialism, on the other hand, wholly ignoring and indifferent to this sublime end of both man and society, affirms that human association has been instituted for the sake of material advantage alone” (QA 118).
7. Regarding atheism, the Second Vatican Council states: “The root reason for human dignity lies in man’s call to communion with God. From the very circumstance of his origin man is already invited to converse with God. For man would not exist were he not created by Gods love and constantly preserved by it; and he cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and devotes himself to His Creator. Still, many of our contemporaries have never recognized this intimate and vital link with God, or have explicitly rejected it. Thus atheism must be accounted among the most serious problems of this age, and is deserving of closer examination.
The word atheism is applied to phenomena which are quite distinct from one another. For while God is expressly denied by some, others believe that man can assert absolutely nothing about Him. Still others use such a method to scrutinize the question of God as to make it seem devoid of meaning. Many, unduly transgressing the limits of the positive sciences, contend that everything can be explained by this kind of scientific reasoning alone, or by contrast, they altogether disallow that there is any absolute truth. Some laud man so extravagantly that their faith in God lapses into a kind of anemia, though they seem more inclined to affirm man than to deny God. Again some form for themselves such a fallacious idea of God that when they repudiate this figment they are by no means rejecting the God of the Gospel. Some never get to the point of raising questions about God, since they seem to experience no religious stirrings nor do they see why they should trouble themselves about religion. Moreover, atheism results not rarely from a violent protest against the evil in this world, or from the absolute character with which certain human values are unduly invested, and which thereby already accords them the stature of God. Modern civilization itself often complicates the approach to God not for any essential reason but because it is so heavily engrossed in earthly affairs.
Undeniably, those who willfully shut out God from their hearts and try to dodge religious questions are not following the dictates of their consciences, and hence are not free of blame; yet believers themselves frequently bear some responsibility for this situation. For, taken as a whole, atheism is not a spontaneous development but stems from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction against religious beliefs, and in some places against the Christian religion in particular. Hence believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion” (Gaudium et Spes 19).
As you can see, I finally touched on atheism because, even though you claim to be convinced, it remains an existential problem that strikes at the very core of our lives.
With best wishes, I bless you and gladly remember you especially in my prayers.
Father Angelo
