An Analysis by Fr. William Hoffman

During the Vietnam era we often heard from Washington that someone had seen the “light at the end of the tunnel.” I thought of that phrase when I read about the visit to Nicaragua of the Carolina Interfaith Task Force on Central American (Bulletin, 8-4). The tunnel made me recall looking at a painting or a landscape through a long tube. The vision is concentrated on one or the other features and it is seen in detail, but the perspective is lost or distorted.

The Task Force spent about a week seeking facts in Nicaragua, but information seems to have been received with insufficient criticism and probing. I have the impression that the Task Force was in a hurry to “do something,” to rush into action, not so much because that action is especially useful or symbolic, but to relieve an internal anguish or guilt feelings.

I do not plead for endless and sterile analysis, but I certainly do plead for a nuanced appreciation of the goals, methods and self-defense of various actions in the Central American scene: revolutionary movements, revolutionary governments, the U.S. government and the Catholic Church.

1. Marxist-inspired revolutionary movements reflect the thinking of Lenin and Mao that revolutions must come from the grassroots, from the “workers” or from the “peasants.” According to them, these groups have to be lead into the revolution by intellectuals, especially by THE party. To involve the peasants (compesinos) and the (industrial) workers it is necessary to heighten their awareness of injustice. This is achieved by violence during strikes and by campaigns of terrorism that provoke very strong reprisals, massive arrests, torture, hit-squads and disappearances on the part of governments that perceive themselves as being under siege and forced to use ultimate means of self-defense.

In Latin America, these revolutionary movements tend to be a mixture of Marxists and other idealists. These latter are usually Christians who see clearly enough the injustices of the present system, but do not have a blueprint of what should replace the corrupt government.

2. Revolutionary governments come into being after a bloody struggle lasting several years. People are glad to see the fighting over and rightly say that the present order and stability are better than what immediately preceded it.

In Latin America, a Marxist-inspired revolution will not try to surpress the Church, for that would produce a popular reaction. But books used in schools (sooner or later always controlled by the government) will teach “scientific materialism” and believers will not be on the same footing as a party member or a non-believer, because they will follow an ideology other than that of the revolution.

3. The U.S., while not ideologically materialist, is pragmatically materialist. Whatever works well is good. There are principles, very good ones, but there is no one all-embracing ideology that knits them together. It is a pluralistic society.

As regards Latin America, The U.S. sees several unstable governments, some repressive in their efforts to curtail internal opposition and unrest. There are treaties binding the U.S. to go to the aid of sister nations if these are attacked by foreigners, a category into which the U.S. government wants to put “freedom fighters” when they are supplied from abroad and coached by outside military advisers.

Ultimately, the only feasible solution is to get dialogue going among the parties to the national and regional conflicts. If the U.S. is a party to those dialogues, it had better be very careful – Marxists have an ideology, but the U.S. does not seem to have its Latin American “policy” put together. May God preserve us from another Vietnam-style “solution.” If the U.S. uses heavy-handed tactics, it will provoke an outpouring of resentment and antipathy from Central and South America, and the revolutionary forces throughout the area will take on new life against the “Yankee imperialists.”

4. Lastly is the Catholic Church. She had a special place in the life of the Spanish and Portuguese colonies as she had in the mother countries. The colonists were almost all Catholics and the dividing line between Church and State was hard to distinguish at times. High churchmen were almost entirely from the mother country. As time went on, those of mixed ancestry were also chosen as bishops. Those of purely indigenous ancestry did not make up a sizable proportion of the Latin American clergy.

Even though it was practiced in the past, not without problems, ecclesiastics in government posts today too easily compromise the leadership of the Church. “Reactionary” bishops who helped sustain corrupt right-wing dictators in the past and “progressive” priests, who give their support to Marxist comandantes in the present are both examples, Church leadership is co-opted when ecclesiastics are too closely identified with the government. Such churchmen lose their ability to stand against abuses of human rights, religious freedom, political participation and economic justice. They dreamily assume that almost all threats to peace and justice are from outsiders and so there is no need for internal criticism. The Church’s best service to its members and the nation as a whole is thereby emasculated.

On his recent visit to Central America, Pope John Paul, who is no novice in matters of church survival under Marxist regimes, continually called for a united church as the only way to fulfill its crucial mission today. He called for Catholics to remain united with their leaders, the priests with their bishops (and thus avoid a “peoples” church) and the bishops with the pope.

In Nicaragua, he said, “No Christian, especially those with titles signifying a special consecration in the Church, should become responsible for breaking this unity, acting outside of or against the will of the bishops.”

Incredibly, there are priests who dismiss such weighty teachings as coming from a pope who is out of touch with the reality of revolutionary movements and governments, not only in Latin America, but in Asia and Africa too.

Now about that tube that focuses our attention on only one facet of a complex problem: use it for details but not for judgments. The problem is very complex, not simple. Let foreigners beware of seeing clearly a problem and its solution after a one-week fact-finding visit.

The Church leadership should not back wholeheartedly ANY government of the left, or the right or of the center; otherwise it becomes co-opted and cannot fulfill its best services in defense of human right, religious freedom, political participation and economic justice. The members of the church need and want to hear preached the Gospel and the social doctrine of the church, not a political ideology – certainly not of the Marxist or of the capitalist extremes, nor of another based on some strange marriage between the supposed best of both systems.