Statue of Jose Maria Escriva, Founder of Opus Dei in a niche of St. Peter’s Basilica. His rapid canonization reflects the lobbying power of his movement and Pope Benedict’s approval of their impact.
1,451 words
Shortly after reading Greg Johnson’s article, “Metapolitics and Occult Warfare,” I saw a Chilean documentary about Opus Dei. I am no expert in Latin America, but from the outside it seems that the Vatican has actively kept pace with Marxism and Americanism on the metapolitical terrain of Latin America. They have done this not through direct confrontation, but rather by hemming closely to the ideological force with the most wind at its back at the moment. They do this while maintaining their core values.
I do not believe that all members of the Curia are actively and cynically playing both sides. There are passionate opponents on both sides who would be happy to hear that the other side has left the Church. There are those in the middle who can accept diversity of opinions, but whether it is due to these moderates or the systemic nature of the Holy Roman Church, the Church has been dealing from both sides of the deck to their advantage.
Liberation Theology
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a Saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a Communist.” — Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Because of American suspicion of (and action against) any effort towards redistribution of income in their own backyard, the Gini Index of Latin America was (and remains today) higher than all other regions. Local priests and religious, in their pastoral duty, naturally began to address the concerns of their flock. They did this by preaching the Social Gospel and by organizing their parishioners to demand social justice.
Some of these prelates would disregard the Church’s teachings on private morality as they focused on social justice. At times when they were reprimanded by the Cardinals and Bishops (who were themselves drawn from the ruling class) some proponents of Liberation Theology would respond by calling into question the existence of church hierarchy. At its height in the late 1970s and 1980s, there were even some ordained religious who took up arms with guerillas and even more who provided logistical support. This coincided with the KGB’s focus on National Liberation movements and on US support for the Contras and other anti-communist paramilitaries.
The Church’s Movement Conservatives: Lay Ecclesial Movements
It was already quite clear when this picture was taken that Fr. Marcial Maciel, founder of Regnum Christi/Legion of Christ was a prolific sexual predator, but Pope John Paul II refused to act and endanger the movement. Only when his predecessor was incapacitated did Cardinal Ratzinger initiate the process that removed Fr. Maciel from active ministry and publicly condemned him. This was over the intense objections of senior members of his movement and supporters like Fr. Richard Neuhaus, editor of the Neo-Con journal First Things.
In response to the rise of Social Justice discourse in the Church, theological conservatives and their bourgeois backers flocked to several lay ecclesial movements to organize a reaction within the Church. These movements were more organized and better funded than Liberation Theology, which was more a school of thought that inspired activism than a centralized movement.
Perhaps the first lay ecclesial movement is the Legion of Mary, which explicitly based its structure on the Roman Legions. Membership had serious requirements and departure from the group required a written request. This group created a kind of panopticon that is common to high-involvement/new church movements, for example Jehovah’s Witnesses, but is uncommon in Catholic Parishes.
Unlike the Legion of Mary, later lay ecclesial Movements added political goals to their mission. These are implicitly pursued by their members, but rarely if ever officially admitted it. The most powerful of these groups include: Communioni e Liberationi which is quite powerful in Italy and dominates the household staff of the Pope; Regnum Christi/Legion of Christ which has over 70,000 lay members primarily in Latin America; and Opus Dei which is particularly focused on developing rich and powerful members and has approximately 90,000 adherents.
These three movements are associated with Integrism (official status for the church within the state and promotion of laws reflecting Catholic doctrine) and anti-communism. They have been successful at creating a node of power in many Latin American countries.
Opus Dei has positioned itself in the educational life of Latin America’s elite by supporting business schools (the most prestigious is IESE in Madrid) which in turn promote Austrian School and Monetarist economics. This has firmly aligned them with the economic interests of the ruling class. By promoting ordinations from within their own ranks and supporting the careers of bishops and theologians, they have bought some sway within the Vatican.
The Vatican Reprimands Liberation Theology
Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador was assassinated while performing mass in 1980, a month after he asked President Carter to end foreign aid to the military government and a day after instructing soldiers not to fire on civilians.
The Vatican was responsive to the lobbying of these reactionary lay movements. The situation, particularly in Central America, really was spinning out of control. The church was bitterly divided, and the possibility of another Luther turning the common people toward a schismatic church was increasing.
Before becoming Pope Benedict XIV, Cardinal Ratzinger was a rather controversial character due to his active suppression of many theologians while running the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (formerly the Holy Inquisition). His tenure there was the first time since Pius X that the powers of the office were so strongly utilized.
Four nuns who provided food, shelter, and transport to Marxist guerillas were raped and murdered by anti-Communist paramilitaries in El Salvador in 1989.
However, the punishments he meted out were very precise. The social Gospel could be preached as long as the Church’s stance on the “Theology of the Body” was not contradicted, prelates did not overstep their canonical limits while engaging in politics, and the hierarchical structure of the church was not put into question. If these rules were followed, the periods of silence imposed on clergy would be allowed to expire.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, in particular, the environment of repression has progressively subsided. Though Cardinal Ratzinger was personally quite conservative, he has not sought the total suppression of liberation theology, only its subjugation to the Vatican and her essential mission. He has supported the lay movements, but he has never given in to them.
The Catholic Future for Latin America
Gen. Pinochet greets John Paul II in Chile
It is wrong to assume from this that the Catholic Right has won and the Catholic Left has lost. To arrive at such a conclusion would be to suffer from a fallacy of shortsightedness.
Regardless, of whether the future of Latin America is guided by plutocrats or by Marxist strongmen, there will be a school of Catholic thought that serves the interest of the regime in power. It will be counterproductive for these regimes to, on the one hand, pry the hearts and minds of the populace away from their Church. On the other hand, by partnering with one wing or another within the church these politicians and revolutionaries legitimize and encourage the Church’s hold on the people. There is no neutral option.
Hugo Chavez receives a Bishop’s blessing
This means that the future of the Church in Latin America is secure in all eventualities. The Message of the Gospel and the Primacy of Peter will continue to be preached to all, and Catholicism will be culturally hegemonic. It no longer matters to the Pope whether there are Republics or Monarchies, cultural hegemony is the great metapolitical goal of the Vatican.
Lessons for White Nationalists
The nascent “Alternative Right” being born from the ashes of the Bush Administration and the (quite frankly) long dead Paleo-Con movement, is already showing signs of systemic similarity to the Vatican’s approach in Latin America. There is a real desire to accept a broad diversity within this movement and openness to using a wide variety of methods for expansion.
Of course to effectively pursue this there is a serious need for Self-Knowledge. It is easy to put too much weight on the issues of the day, to reject certain goals because of the objectionable associates one needs to win, or to give in to the pride of taking one’s axioms to “logical conclusions.” The 14 Words constitutes our first article of Faith. Everything shall be measured against this including personal pride and desire.
17 Comments
Left-wing Catholics still are very powerful in Brazil, the right-wing is increasingly made of Evangelicals.
Very good article but I’m confused about the conclusions. Not sure if the author is advocating pushing WN ideas into the rightwing or absorbing the rightwing into WN.
The former, in my opinion, is a waste of time since the faileocons, patriotards, and nouveau-right are ideological dross. Race is the great question of our epoch. It is the skeleton key that unlocks a greater understanding of the world. The dividing line between WN and the white right is simple but profound: race. All else is thumb-twiddling.
Absorbing the rightwing under WN hegemony is possible. But you need a fanatical WN movement to achieve it. People respect those who have firm principles and hold their ground. In general, people can only support clear and simple ideas, i.e. the 14 words, the ethnostate, etc. The rest is negotiable but anything less is unacceptable. It’s like pregnancy. One is either WN or not WN. One can’t be “a little bit” WN any more than one can be “a little bit” pregnant. The broader white coalition will form around us once we cultivate our inner strength as a movement. Our white political competition isn’t the problem. They only exist because they have no serious rivals. They’re like bubbleboy. Expose him to the open air and he drops dead.
Hmm? Im very attracted to some of the ideas that this site propagates . Im critical of Jewish influence and cultural marxism. Would I be unwelcome because Im not fully infused with a racialist ideology?
Tens of thousands of people come to this site every month. We don’t know their views. We can’t police them. We just offer our material and hope that it shapes people’s thinking.
That was a response to SD.’s post. I think I hit reply just to clarify, unless he is affiliated with the site and is in essence speaking for it which I dont think is the case. I have listened to much Jonathan Bowden who I have been introduced to via CC and never got the feeling that complete idelogical allignment was something he expected and I view the site as more or less in his spirit so so to speak.
My understanding is that Greg Johnson is a WN but Counter-Currents is an umbrella site for the New Right. And that’s that.
Do the Vatican and churches of all denominations are aware that the new world-view is now gaining ground? Do they still look at the world through the Marxist and Burgeois-Liberal prism ? It seems to me it is just a short step toward renouncing imposed conqueror’s religion and reverting to the ‘traditional indigenous” religion and culture. Added force is anti-white feeling and time to avenge. It seems there are some signs of that in Bolivia. I am not an expert on South and Central America, but I can imagine what a radical anti-white emotions and propaganda can do.
I am a Catholic. I think that one reason the Church partners with both wings of government is because (1) there is a diversity of opinion on political issues that divide left and right within the Church; and (2) the Church is not dogmatic on every issue which manifests itself in public life but at the same time the Church is committed to certain dogmas. The Church has existed side by side with worldly powers since its founding. The nature of the relationship is always changing because politics are messy. Unlike Islam, whose founder won political power in this world and administered laws and government, the founder of Christianity taught basic principles for living in this world under any government. So, for example, while the Church is concerned with caring for the poor, (that being a central dogma), the Church is not dogmatic on how this is done.
@ Patrick Le Brun
“Cardinal Ratzinger was personally quite conservative
No, he was not, and he still isn’t as the Pope. He was a liberal during Vatican II, and he still is.
From the fact that the liberal media depicts Benedictus XVI as a conservative, or worse, a reactionary or a “traditionalist”, it does not follow that he actually is. We should stop liking personalities just because the liberal Left tells us it hates them. If one looks at the facts, one soon discovers that under his rule, the Vatican called for globalist and liberal policies:
— the creation of a World Central Bank (so, more usury, and more power to the banksters)
— the management of water supply at a global level (!!!)
— a global, public healthcare (so, when it is “only” in the U.S., the bishops yell, but when the first of them wants the same thing on a global level, they’re silent)
— more immigration in White countries (if you’re suspicious, just type “World Day of Migrants and Refugees” on Google, and read the Pope’s declarations; any antifa would agree 100%…)
I have proofs of all that. I didn’t paste the links to avoid my comment being labeled as spam. But if you want these proofs, contact me on Facebook and I’ll show you. You’ll be as appalled as I was.
I think he can be described as a conservative in a certain relative sense. If compared to someone like the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his followers than Pope Benedict XVI is not a conservative, and certainly not a traditionalist. On the other hand, compared to someone like the theologian Hans Küng he is quite conservative.
As for the items you mentioned, the Holy Father deserves to be criticized on his silly and often dangerous positions in these areas. The global centralization of power will not lead to a new Holy Roman Empire, but more power for elites that hate the Catholic Church and will use that power to destroy Her. The same for immigration. How will allowing anti-Catholic Muslims flood into Europe allow for the reaffirmation of Christianity in Europe? I am sure the Holy Father’s heart is the right place, but his positions are wrong, misguided, uncharitable, and ultimately will only weaken and undermine whatever remains of the traditional authority of the Church. I would pray that Pope Benedict spends more time meditating on these issues and abandons such dangerous positions.
Yet, one cannot help but note that the Holy Father has refused to give any ground to the feminists. Indeed, it is my understanding he holds feminism in very low regard. He also refuses budge on the Church’s condemnation of homosexuality and abortion, both sacred totems of the cultural Marxists. He has also reached out to traditionalist Anglicans and the SSPX, which would strengthen traditionalists in the Church, much to the ire of the left and secular Jews. It is not without reason that the cultural Marxists and feminists view the Holy Father as the ultimate manifestation of the Patriarchy and traditional hierarchy. They also despise him for being a white male, and a German to boot!
Considering the times we are in I believe that Church could do much worse than Josef Ratzinger as pope. I know there are much worse, indeed outright malevolent, men who are waiting in the wings waiting for their chance to swoop in like vultures and dismember the Church.
“I think he can be described as a conservative in a certain relative sense. If compared to someone like the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his followers than Pope Benedict XVI is not a conservative, and certainly not a traditionalist. On the other hand, compared to someone like the theologian Hans Küng he is quite conservative.”
My point was about Ratzinger’s political views, as it’s what Mr. Lebrun focuses on. In the theological realm, Benedictus XVI may be a conservative (though not a traditionalist), but it doesn’t tell us much about his political ideas. You brought the case of Marcel Lefebvre: though a theological traditionalist, he was an staunch Africanophile. His only reservations about immigration concerned Muslims, but not African Christians. He spent an important part of his life converting Africans, which meant helping fuel the Black Continent’s demographic explosion, i.e. helping masses of people who the Church had fed and treated to come, then, to Europe (since Mgr. Lefebvre’s apostolate in Senegal, in 1947, the Senegalese population has more than decupled, without taking into account the Senegalese diaspora in Europe, chiefly in France!).
From a white nationalist perspective, there’s little to like in today’s Catholic Church. It doesn’t mean that we have to “reject” Christianity as a whole, but that we shouldn’t expect anything positive coming from the official churches, whether Catholic, Protestant or even Orthodox.
I understand your point. Certainly when it comes to feminism, homosexuality, abortion, etc. Pope Benedict is a reactionary and a counter-revolutionary. When it comes to immigration (Muslim or otherwise) Pope Benedict is sadly with the globalist, multicultural left. So much for the the left’s paranoid delusion of a Nazi pope.
“So much for the the left’s paranoid delusion of a Nazi pope.”
The problem being when the Right believes the Left’s paranoid delusion, and chooses to love what the Left loathes, and to detest what it adores. With this purely reactive behavior, the Right condemns itself to be a mere token into the Left’s hands. How many right-wing people do we know who are against organic food or who defend banksters just because the Left supports the former and opposes the latter? And how few do we know who point the fact that these stances should be on the Right?
I think people can gain the wrong idea by looking at individual declarations. Unlike a human, who thinks in timelines that reflect their lifespan… members of the RC are part of something greater than the individual.
“How will allowing anti-Catholic Muslims flood into Europe allow for the reaffirmation of Christianity in Europe?”
Well it wasn’t helping before they came in, was it? Now I see Catholic groups becoming more militant. The numbers aren’t important as the fervor.
At some deep level, the Vatican is still looking to bring Christians under one flag and that’s how their aims should be judged. So why the hell would they care about current White countries that have left them for the ‘enlightenment’ or ‘Christian-Zionism’ or ‘Marxism’ or ‘Capitalism’? Whilst other communities continue to devour each other, the faith and charity of a Catholic community stays strong.
So what does this mean for WN? It depends. The Basques are strong Catholics and fiercely independent. I guess if you formed a North-West type state that was White Catholic, then certainly the Pope wouldn’t be ‘out to get you’. It depends on what State people want and whether compromises can be made. We can’t just set up on the moon away from all the machinations of the world (as it is).
It works both ways: if Western churches are empty, it’s in part because people ared bored with being moralized every Sunday to accept the Third World’s enrichment… they already have schools and TV.
The situation with the Orthodox church is much more favourable (especially in Russia). Neither pro-nor anti-immigration, but theologically Traditional, rather than merely conservative. They are also still sympathetic to Tzarism as well as strongly pro-Putin.
See the link from Gnostic Liberation Front
<a href= http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/russia_has_awoken.htm
Former Golden Dawn members told me that the Greek Orthodox Church gives food to Pakistanis. Again, we’re talking about political conservatism, because it’s what Mr. Lebrun talks about.