Casa Garcia Moreno
I Waverley Place
Saltcoats KA2I SAX
Scotland

Feast of St. John of the Cross 1978

Dear Reverend Father:

Your statement to the 1977 Synod on catechesis has been interpreted in various ways by different people.

Because you have emphasised that 'we cannot disregard Marxism....an explicit treatment of Marxism is necessary....since so many elements of the Marxist ideology, properly so called, are in the very air we breathe'; because you have insisted that 'a Christian is expected to discern and expose the system of values which this project ['a Marxist political programme'] conceals, even when its promoters are not aware of it'; because you have nevertheless endeavoured to distinguish between Marxist messianism and Christian messianism; and because you have warned Christians 'to see without blur or bias that which [in Marxism] would steer one away from Christ and from a Christian way of life', your statement has been hailed by some as exemplifying an objective and truly Catholic appraisal of Revolutionary Marxism.

Others, however, regard your statement with great alarm. And not without good reason. For within the context of criticising Marxism for 'great reliance on the process of violence itself than on a sense of justice', you nevertheless state that a Christian 'might indeed find....a genuine concern for justice' in 'a Marxist political programme'.

Almost in the same breath you reprove Marxism saying, apparently with regret, that it leaves 'no scope for the hope that people of other classes can be concerted and put themselves wholly at the service of justice', and that 'thus the idea of converting them is disregarded'.

I said 'apparently with regret' quite deliberately, for the above statements clearly imply that if, instead of disregarding the idea of converting them [i.e. classes other than the proletariat], Communists would leave some scope for the hope that they could be converted BY COMMUNISTS and thus put themselves wholly at the service of justice AS CONCEIVED BY COMMUNISTS, and if at the same time somewhat less reliance were placed on violence, 'a Marxist political programme' might well be considered acceptable to Christians.

Nor is this by any means the only ground for criticising your approach to Marxism. For you conclude by saying that catechesis should 'train [one] to discern, enabling one to confront constantly changing programmes and ideologies, no matter what new guise they may assume; MAKING ONE SENSITIVE TO EVIDENCE OF POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT (AND THERE MAY BE SUCH EVIDENCES IN THE MARXIST WORLD): GIVING ONE THE ABILITY TO APPRECIATE WITH CONSTRUCTIVE IN THIS MOVEMENT WHICH APPEALS TO SO MANY . . . . IMPARTING TO CHRISTIANS FREEDOM RATHER THAN FEAR IN THE FACE OF MARXISM: ALLOWING THEM TO OFFER HONEST AND OPEN COLLABORATION IN THE MEASURE, AND WITHIN THE LIMITS, OF THAT WHICH IS ACCOUNTED AS TRULY THE COMMON GOOD: but, by the same token, granting freedom to denounce and keep one's distance when one's Christian conscience so enjoins.

To appreciate the contrast between your attitude and that of Pope Pius XI, it is necessary only to compare the foregoing observations with the text of Divini Redemptoris, paragraph 78 of which states:

'COMMUNISM IS INTRINSICALLY EVIL AND THEREFORE NO ONE WHO DESIRES TO SAVE CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION FROM EXTINCTION SHOULD RENDER IT ASSISTANCE IN ANY ENTERPRISE WHATEVER.'

I repeat: 'IN ANY ENTERPRISE WHATEVER'—even when this or that Communist enterprise may claim to be, or be regarded by certain Christians as being, in the interests of 'Justice', 'peace' or no matter what.

For if there is one constant feature in Communist policies throughout the last four decades it is the endeavour to involve Christians in supporting Communism's various campaigns for different immediate objectives essential to the development of Communism's global strategy. And it is precisely because such Christian involvement in Communist sponsored campaigns INVARIABLY serves Communist, not Christian, purposes that Pius XI was so emphatic in declaring that NO ONE SHOULD RENDER IT [Communism] ASSISTANCE IN ANY ENTERPRISE WHATEVER.

It is true that Pius XI's command was based on experience of Communism in the thirties. But let it not be imagined that Communist strategy has since then changed its essential character. Then, as now, as Pius XI pointed out, Communism sought 'to ingratiate itself with the masses by fraudulent devices, DISGUISING ITS REAL INTENTIONS UNDER THE APPEARANCE OF IDEAS IN THEMSELVES TRUE AND ALLURING' (Ibid., para. 78).

He continued: . . . . 'seeing that the whole world is anxious for peace, the leaders of Communism now pose as the most ardent supporters of every movement for the establishment of international concord' (Ibid., p.79).

Nor did Communists by any means stop at that. Even in 1937 the Pope found it necessary to warn 'Indeed, they use every effort to make their treacherous entry into Catholic religious societies.¹ In some places, again without in any way abandoning their own opinions they succeed in inducing Catholics to cooperate with them in various charitable and humanitarian activities, SOMETIMES PROPOSING SCHEMES TO THIS END WHICH ARE QUITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHRISTIAN SENTIMENTS AND THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH.' (Ibid., para. 80)

If therefore Communist policy today is compared with that of forty years ago, the only appropriate observation is 'plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.' ('the more it changes the more it remains the same').

Certain changes have however taken place in the interim: Communism, as such, is now so totally discredited that the world is littered with tens of millions of disillusioned Communists. And, because of this, Communism's capacity to deceive the faithful would now be minimal but for two important factors:

FIRST, while Communism had been shown to be utterly discredited in terms of the practical experience of all nations subjected to its tyranny, it was precisely after this had become self-evident that Communism was found to be worthy of most respectful considerations by a Catholic clergy contemptuous of the authentic social teaching of the Church and 'open' only to the mind of the post-Christian world.

And, while no one could seriously suspect you of being a Marxist, the fact remains that, objectively appraised, your statement on catechesis would seem to epitomise this respectful attitude to Marxism characteristic of so many post-Conciliar Churchmen. For on the one hand you encourage the 'honest and open collaboration' of Catholics with Communists, while on the other hand you make no mention whatever of the need 'to advertise as much as possible by spoken and written word, the fundamental principles of the Christian social order as set forth in Papal documents' (Divini Redemptoris, 93)—a cavalier dismissal indeed of the corpus of Catholic social doctrine, especially given Pius XI's warning 41 years ago that 'unless the priest goes among the workers and the poor to put them on their guard against prejudice and false doctrine and correct their wrong impressions, they will fall an easy prey to the preachers of Communism' (Ibid., 86).

The question must be asked: Faced with the imminent prospect of Communist world domination, has the Society of Jesus today become as reluctant to mention 'Divini Redemptoris', the principal papal text on Communism, as English-speaking Churchmen have been loathe to cite 'Humanum Genus', the principal papal text on Freemasonry, in a world dominated by the Craft?

SECONDLY, by comparison with the thirties, Communist policies are now infinitely more subtle and therefore much better able to exploit the omission of the clergy to properly instruct the faithful concerning the Church's social doctrine, which has indeed been scarcely mentioned by Churchmen since Vatican II.

And it is precisely because Churchmen such as you have thus contrived to leave your flock defenseless against Communist aggression that I issue the following challenge, not only to you but to the entire Society of Jesus:

IF YOU INSIST ON PRETENDING THAT ANY CHRISTIAN PURPOSE IS SERVED BY YOUR ADVOCACY OF 'HONEST AND OPEN COLLABORATION' WITH ANY BRAND WHATEVER OF REVOLUTIONARY MARXISM, I DEFY YOU OR ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS TO CITE A SINGLE INSTANCE WHERE SUCH COLLABORATION HAS NOT REDOUNDED TO THE ADVANTAGE OF REVOLUTIONARY MARXISM AND TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF CHRISTIANS AND THE CHURCH.

I await a reply to this challenge with great interest.

With the respect due to the General of the Society of Jesus from one who, thirty years ago, was received into Mother Church by a son of St Ignatius.

Yours most sincerely
in Christ the King

Hamish Fraser

 

1. Even so, it was then quite unthinkable that a known Communist could be elected to the executive of a Catholic Action Organization. However in 1977 at the National Assembly of Workers' Catholic Action in France, none of the 10 Bishops present took exception to the election of two known, active members of the Communist Party to the Executive of the Catholic Workers' Action organization.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The foregoing 'Open Letter', in the nature of a public challenge, has been sent to the editors of the official Jesuit organs in the United Kingdom, America and France, as well as to Father Arrupe. The author wishes maximum coverage and has sent the 'Open Letter' to various journals in England, Ireland, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Malta, Canada, USA, Argentina, India, Africa, Australia and New Zealand.