On May 17, 1960 Archbishop Enrique Perez Serante of Santiago issued a pastoral letter, "The Situation in Cuba."(13) With admission of Communist inroads in Cuba and a reminder of adamant opposition of Catholic social teaching to Communism, the archbishop urged his people to learn that social teaching "affords a satisfactory solution to all problems posed in economic and social fields." Indeed, he thought sincere and honorable Communists would say, "This indeed is the true solution to the social problem!"--if they knew that teaching.
The social teaching of the church was said always to have advocated a more just distribution of material goods, labeled as inhuman and cruel the plight of families lacking adequate food and housing, and petitioned the rich and public authorities on behalf of the poor--too often with too little response. The pastoral continued,
On this . . . [and] other points, the government of the Revolution is to be lauded for solicitude on behalf of the impoverished and abandoned social classes; we concede this with pleasure.
Let no one think that if men reject God to seek their daily bread, they necessarily will obtain in the new light of the sun or more easily gain it. For, it may happen they will be left without bread as well as without God. . . .
The most serious matter is that communism, the same as materialism, noticeably is engaged in seeing to it that all navigate through the sea of life with eyes bandaged, without compass or shipmate.
After presenting a pastoral and catechetical program to offset the danger or contagion of "Godlessness," Cuba's primate quoted Leo XIII, Thiers, Victor Hugo, and Montalembert on the importance of catechism in the home or school. Serantes would substitute "Communism" in Montalembert's words in the French Assembly, "There is no middle ground between socialism and the catechism."
On August 7, 1960, the Cuban Hierarchy issued its pastoral letter, "Communist Influence in Cuba."(14) It began with a reminder of Pius XII's assertion that more equitable distribution of wealth always has been an essential point of Catholic social doctrine. These Cuban bishops phrased it this way.
Our Lord God did not create the world, so that the goods which might be obtained, thanks to the ingenuity and work of people, would serve only to make life more agreeable for a few, while innumerable human beings would lack adequate means to satisfy their most elementary needs.
Satisfaction was voiced for several plans of Castro's government. Agrarian reform, with equitable indemnification for owners of large estates; great industrialization, without destroying private industry; creation of new sources of jobs, with consequent relief for widespread unemployment; increase of incomes among the most needy, with measures to reduce the costs of living--all these plans were praised by the bishops. So were additional schools and hospitals, beaches and athletic facilities, rural and urban homes. Pleasure was voiced about active efforts to clean out corrupt public administrations, gambling, and discrimination. Indeed,
Social reforms which, with regard to just rights of all citizens, tend to improve the economic, cultural, and social situation of the humble today have and always will have the most decided moral support of the church.
However, failure to tell only partial truths and to be silent about preoccupations and fears would be to neglect duties of bishops. Rather than criticize failures to implement some social reforms for the benefit of all citizens, the bishops limited themselves to the advance of Communism, "a problem of extraordinary gravity." Communism was not condemned because of certain classes of society were affected. It was condemned because,
. . . it is essentially materialistic and atheistic . . . governments guided by it are among the worst enemies of church and humanity have known . . . [it is] a system which brutally denies the most fundamental rights of man . . . it establishes everywhere dictatorial regimes . . . [it] completely subordinates economics to politics . . . it is progressively canceling property rights, converting all citizens into more than employees, into actual slaves of the state . . . [it] denies to all people the right to know the truth, makes the state itself master of all means of information and does not permit any other opinions to reach the people than those held by governing groups . . . it subordinates family life to the state in an improper manner . . . compels woman to leave her home to accomplish the hardest tasks outside of it and educates the children in the way the government desires it, without taking consulting the wishes of parents.
On November 13, 1960 Santiago's archbishop, Serante issued another pastoral letter, entitled "Rome or Moscow?"(15) Read in the cathedral, the pastoral replayed the usual reasons, Catholics should not support Communism. Noting that Communism had fared well in the last eight months thanks to "a well-known and sadly famous statesman . . . arrogant . . . of no great talent, but of extraordinary influence in the entire world outside of Russia," the archbishop listed different groups inclined to accept and/or tolerate Communism
[Those] poor in material and spiritual bread . . . those who feel satisfied with their poor fare, provided no one is better off than they . . . government leaders, inept and thoughtless for every point of view, legitimate or natural children, allied at least with certain international organizations which are open enemies of Christ and His Church . . . capitalists, who like others, follow their own interests, without fulfilling serious obligations contracted with the people. They lack paternal feeling, which no ruler ever should lack. It seems they never thought workers were, like themselves, children of the same Father, God.
The archbishop proceeded to detail manifestations of atheism and materialism that nurtured soil for Communism in government, education, and family. He expressed appreciation for financial and military assistance extended by the United States. However, for the long run more was needed than canons to destroy or gold to buy ideas.
Purely materialistic measures do not control the minds nor hearts of the people. Material bread, yes; may no one lack it but also spiritual bread--abundant and well administered, for without it the plan is incomplete. . . . The battle is really between Rome and Moscow, and Rome could lose it only if Christians cease being vigorous dough.
In September 1962, the bishop of Miami, Florida, Coleman F. Carroll, granted permission for the opening of Centro Hispano Catolico.(16) Its director was Rev. Salvador de Cistierna, O.F.M., Cap., a former professor of Catholic social doctrine, the School of Economics of the defunct Villanueva University in Havana. With the assistance of a team of ten experts, training programs would be offered in communications, social and economic planning, labor legislation, land reform, tax reform and the theory and practice of democratic government. A primary purpose of this Institute of Social Action was the preparation of Cuban leaders for the restoration of the Cuban economy, in the event of the collapse of the Fidel Castro's regime. Determined to prevent entanglements with any political faction and any underground or military group, the institute organizers chose Miami as the site because approximately 200,000 Latin Americans, mostly Cubans, resided in Dade County.
Expected to begin were some 100 professional persons and students. Intensive courses were to be social teachings, dialectic materialism, economic development, methods and techniques of social institutes, contemporary social movements, and the origin and development of syndicalism throughout the world. The institute would gather, evaluate and publish basic documentation on the Cuban revolution. Effort would be exerted also to promote understanding and collaboration between peoples of North and South America; using radio, films, pamphlets, and monographs among Spanish-speaking people both within and outside the United States. Director de Cistierna elaborated,
We are interested in orientating in a Christian manner large groups who some day will carry out the reforms imposed by social justice. In this way the future tasks of the state will be exercised with a sense of service to God and for the common welfare of society. . . .
[We aim to] expose the truth about Communism; its faults in the economic, political and social orders so that all sectors of the population will become aware communism does not offer an advantageous solution to their problems. In this aspect, Cubans' experiences could prove very valuable if skillfully presented to the Latin Americans.
Early in 1962, Juan F. Pepen, Bishop of Nuestra Senor de la Alta-gracia, issued a statement after 400 Dominican farmers, brought in from the Cibao District, protested their living conditions and left for home.(17) Thanks to the bishop's statement, a government investigative commission was established.
Many strong demands were laid out in the bishop's statement. Among them were some of the following policy and program requests: encouragement of workers' associations, more inter-American aid, release of sugar subsidies, increased wages, expanded medical and social assistance, bigger food supply, improved housing, and better training.
Late in 1962, in Santiago, an Independent Confederation of Christian Trade Unions called for guarantees of free elections.(18) Following the assassination, in May 1961, of Trujillo, the confederation organized the first nationwide labor assembly. Some of its delegates were chosen from agricultural areas by a Dominican Confederation of Christian Farmers. A delegation from the government's Labor Secretariat was also present. December 20, 1962 was the deadline for free elections in "an atmosphere of peace and equality."
There were several other assembly resolutions, as well. One called for radical reform of the labor code, which would make it an instrument of defense for rights of workers in labor-management relations. Another desired a reform of social security and its directives by a commission of labor, management and government representatives. Still another sought development of a bold government policy of agricultural reform.
In early 1963, the Latin American Confederation of Christian Trade Unionists protested the article of the proposed Dominican constitution, which would recognize only the trade union to which a majority of the Dominican workers would belong.(19) Joining a protest of the confederation's secretariat for the Caribbean area were a Joint Committee for Christian Trade Unionists of Venezuela and the Independent Confederation of Christian Trade Unionists in Santo Domingo.
The Santo Domingo group proposed establishment of a committee for joint free trade union action, containing equal representation for all trade union organizations. The Venezuela group said,
Christian trade unionism staunchly defends trade union unity in freedom and democracy. . . . [We warn the] Dominican workers against the danger of a single trade union central organization that immediately would become a pro-government and servile instrument, hence weakening the defense and effective representation of the interests of the working class.
In late 1967, Hugo Polanco Brito, Apostolic Administrator of Santo Domingo, called for radical improvement in working conditions and wages for Dominican sugar cane workers.(20) With sugar cane the main item in the Dominican economy, the bishop proposed several social and economic reforms, so that sugar-cane cutting would be more attractive in 40,000 acres of the nation's plantations. Traditionally, Dominicans refused to cut sugar-cane, because wages were so low and the working conditions were so wretched.
The reforms aimed at the plight of 20,000 migrant workers, who cut an average of 2.5 tons daily and were brought in annually from Haiti. Dominican officials desired to replace them with native workers. Dictated by worsening economic conditions, the hope was to keep in Santo Domingo more than $7.5 million in wages and service outlays (health, social security, taxes, transportation and visas) which Haitians received in 1967. The bishop revealed his proposals only after extensive talks with farm hands and their leaders.
Sugar-cutters should be treated as humans, not as things or animals.
Weighing station attendants should be observed carefully. All concerned claim sugar-cutters are cheated at this point.
Moving of cane loads should be mechanized and speeded up to permit larger workloads per day.
Most housing at sugar plantations is unfit for habitation, even for single workers. Living conditions must be improved radically.
Social security benefits hardly reach farmers.
Industry work stoppages greatly upset the income and security of farmhands. Some system should be worked out to avoid this practice.
There is no access to schools, churches, sources of amusement or sports. Social assistance services are negligible.
Some overall solution should be found for "dead" season to provide other type of work to farmers.
Most farmers agree about $1 per Spanish ton of 1,000 pounds should attract help, provided other matters are all solved.
Quite aware of a popular attitude about Haitians freely living under conditions, with "rum and fish," and permitting weight-cheating to continue unchecked, the bishop urged the government to change conditions sufficiently to attract thousands of unemployed Dominicans to sugar cane cutting.
Dominican workers have the strength and ability to perform this work, yet they feel frustrated and think the working conditions are inhuman. . . . [Farm hands] must make their contributions during this crisis and prove this work can be done by Dominicans... [Industry leaders] should find the best possible solution to the grave problem which so deeply cuts into the economy, health, and morals of our people.
Also, in late 1967, Juan Antonio Flores Santana, Bishop of La Vega, wrote letters to Dominican dailies to protest violations of farming families' right to stay on the land they cultivate.(21) The bishop was moved by earlier eviction proceedings of the large landholding Cordero family, whose members and officials he banned from the sacraments and church functions. The letter charged,
As pastor of this land, I am obliged publicly to denounce outrages committed by Ramon Cordero against farm families ejected from their lands. . . . For months we have tried to demand justice. Were this a country where law ruled impartially, this man would be in jail. . . . These farmers testify he released wild cows on their cultivated lands and poor huts, bringing destruction and endangering their children. . . . They can do little against this local boss, for he boasts that military authorities support his actions, and it is known investigation teams sent by justice authorities dine with him.
As bishop of La Vega, for months I asked government authorities to take interest and intervene in this matter, but all to no avail.
Public opinion and law mostly favored the bishop. One daily, Listen Diario, said a well-deserved reputation for devotion and prudence rendered greater force to the complaints and government response more imperative. President Joaquin Balaguer ordered an investigation and threatened expropriation of the Cordero holdings in Batero, to settle the farming families. The National Federation of Free Farmers and two other farm organizations published statements supporting the bishop. The law upheld the claim of anyone cultivating unused lands for five years, even though the title was in someone else's name. Cordero instituted legal actions against approximately a dozen families.
Opposition to the bishop originated from several sources. In addition to rekindling controversies between very conservative leaders and social-minded laity and clergy, the bishop's statement drew fire from Cordero's lawyer, Victor Garrido. Accusing the bishop of joining church leaders in wanting "to execute a land reform with state resources," Garrido labeled the Agrarian Federation of Farm Unions (FEDELAC) as a "front following directives from the La Vega priests." He claimed several Jesuit priests in radio and television were "bent on promoting social disorder." Particularly strong exception was taken to their assertions that private property has a social function and persons have a right to survive over duty to respect the holdings of others. Along with several newspaper columnists and apparently coordinating their efforts, the lawyer singled out Jesuits Jose Luis Aleman, Cipriano Cavero, and Sergio Figuredo as "leftist demagogues." Tomas Reyes Cerda, the radio commentator at La Voz del Tropico, charged,
. . . a large group of militant Catholics will address a document to Pope Paul VI, voicing alarm about the attitudes of some bishops and priests . . . by meddling in fields beyond their responsibility.
In late 1960, Ecuador's hierarchy issued a public criticism of landowners' insensitivity to needs of the poor.(22) Secularism and civil law antagonistic to the laws of God were related by the bishops to distrust of the church, anarchy in families and rancor among most of the people. Mentioning a painful balance sheet in the Catholic world, the bishops saw other effects of secularism and antagonistic laws.
This is also a cause of the great confusion that even afflicts . . . many Catholics when bishops and priests comment on papal encyclicals urging social reform. . . . If we condemn injustices of capitalism and the landed exploiters of the Indians, if we speak out against the soft life of many Catholics, who waste money of the poor on luxuries and social festivities, we are identified with communists.
In late 1961, Ecuadorian bishops' joint statement urged social reform.(23) Maintaining a reasonable and properly based social transformation indispensable and urgent needed in Ecuador, the hierarchy was very emphatic about the parameters of that transformation. Needed and necessary was: caring for sufferers, assisting a search for homes and providing opportunities for getting land and jobs. Such a transformation, however, had to rely on experts and respect the rights of divine and human law.
Early in 1961, Luis Chavez y Gonzalez, Archbishop of San Salvador, issued a pastoral letter.(24) Motivating factors for social reforms were mentioned.
Those who wish to setup social reforms only from fear of losing everything have no Christian or social spirit. . . . It is sad when the fear of communism spurs us to be just.
Yet, admitting no time should be lost, Chavez summoned individuals, institutions, and the state to devise adequate steps to improve rapidly and effectively workers' living conditions. Even though in El Salvador capital remained in the hands of relatively few people, Chavez' ideal would be "for such capital to be formed from the big and little assets of all citizens." He thought the simple distribution of existing wealth would bring economic disaster within a few days. He thought the most adequate means of achieving better distribution of the national income would be salaries based on the size of the worker's family.
On November 8, 1979 the National Council of Churches' policy-making arm or Governing Board, was scheduled to hear the pastoral message from Oscar A. Romero, successor to Chavez as Archbishop of San Salvador.(25) However, a crisis of unrest in El Salvador made it impossible for Romero to leave. Yet, the message became available through NCC News and Information Services. The message was sent after members of the British Parliament nominated Romero for a Nobel Peace Prize, yet before his assassination during liturgy in a hospital chapel.
Romero began by expressing gratitude for the assistance of several NCC staff people by name, invitation of Claire Randall--NCC Secretary General--and NCC support and encouragement for pastors and people in El Salvador and elsewhere. He continued by outlining the main points of his message: the description of Salvadoran realities, church contributions, and pastoral approach.
The description was initiated with references to documents of the Third General Assembly of Latin American Bishops, at Puebla in Mexico from January 28th to February 13, 1979. Calling violence the greatest social sin and chief characteristic of El Salvador, Romero traced its base to social injustice or "structural violence." He described as the most devastating and humiliating lash, the situation of inhuman poverty exemplified by "infant mortality, lack of adequate housing, starvation salaries, underemployment, unemployment, malnutrition, labor unrest and other problems
Also mentioned was "repressive violence" from the government. Such violence included: murder, disappearances, arbitrary imprisonments, acts of terrorism, kidnappings, and tortures. Such total disrespect for human dignity was justified by the state with the ideology of "national security." The latter considered as "subversive" any attempt at liberation by the people. With some statistics on "repressive violence," Romero quoted Puebla to explain the roots of all violence in a scandalous moral deterioration--"a horrible inventory of infidelities to and betrayal of our Christian and moral values, as much in public administration as in personal affairs." He saw everywhere "the mystery of iniquity."
Romero expressed the church's disappointment with the results of the October 13, 1979 coup. Despite support, "with prudent criticism," for hopes of liberation from a coup d'etat of young officers who overthrew General Carlos Humberto Romero, the archbishop saw continuance of the "spiral of violence." Repressive security forces and leftist groups multiplied violent activities, while the extreme right had become the main obstacle to the necessary socio-economic reforms. Tagging the extreme right as the privileged minority, Romero added,
This minority is highly reactionary when their selfish interests are at stake. Therefore, it maintains the oppression, the structural violence. Instead of helping a government which proposes the necessary changes, the right continues pressing for a government of repressive violence.
Yet, with some hope still left in the government platform, Romero challenged all with the values of service, love, solidarity, responsibility, industry, courage, and sense of community.
Part Two of Romero's pastoral message, contributions of the church, began with a reference to Puebla's "preferential option for the poor." Dismissing as scandalous a charge that the church was stooping to opportunism or demagoguery, Romeo defined a preferential option for the poor in the words of Puebla,
It is an invitation for all, regardless of social status, to accept and assume the cause of the poor as if they were assuming their own cause, the cause of Christ: "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren. . . ."
Romero specified his archdiocese's contribution to the liberation process of the people by a reference to his pastoral message of August 6, 1979.
Recalling ideas of that earlier pastoral and John Paul II, Romero conveyed his main pastoral concern,
. . . to build our church in the midst of her own clashes and oppositions. The church does not seek to be opposition . . . to clash with anyone. She raises a great affirmation of God and His kingdom. She only clashes with those who oppose God and His kingdom.
Thus, the church would have no originality and would allow itself to be dominated or manipulated by ideological systems and political parties and have no authority to announce liberation on behalf of the Lord. Yet, the church must never be an alien to politico-socio-economic realities. Denial of the world would be a sin against her own identity. Assurance of that identity by the church is accomplished primarily by evangelism.
Calling evangelism "a transforming force for all nations . . . a liberating . . . one bringing to bear all the transforming force endowed by the Holy Redeemer", Romero focused on several aspects of evangelism. First, solid doctrinal guidance was hailed, by words of John Paul II "as an instrument of action and creation when injustice increases and the distance between rich and poor grows painfully." Second, prophetic denunciation of violence and injustice, discrimination and exploitation was mentioned. However, not hate or revenge, but love must be the motive. Third, overturning abolutisms and idolatry were highlighted. Three types of idolatry were singled out--wealth and private property, national security, subordination of people's interests to ideologies and organizations. Fourth, promotion of integral human liberation was underlined, by again quoting John Paul II,
In the heart of the message . . . the church finds inspiration to act in favor of fraternity, justice, peace . . . to act against all infringements of freedom of religion, aggressions against man and any attempt against life.
Fifth, demands for structural change were forced on the church by her evangelical mission. Romero stressed the hard and conflicting consequences of this duty.
Those who benefit from obsolete structures react selfishly against any kind of change. Those who advocate violent changes clash impatiently also with the Gospel of rationality and peace.
Sixth, evangelism also forced the church to go with the people and guide them in their desire for freedom and liberation. Such summons to conversion must be adapted differently to the poor and the privileged. The poor should hear more than moralizing indoctrination about evident moral deficiencies. They must have hopeful and personalizing education, which criticizes their surroundings and encourages social and political organization of "masses, peasants and laborers." The privileged should be reminded of their duty to overcome disorder, violence and injustice--not by repression and paternalism but by justice, service, and popular participation.
Part three of the message, pastoral approach, began with praise and reminders of the work of his predecessor to implement Vatican II and Medellin. Romero reaffirmed his intention to foster themes of Chavez' 1977 pastoral week. Romero's own themes were Puebla's four pastoral options.
First, there was a searching attitude, requiring a transcendent but migratory church to apply the Gospel "to the historical moment she is living." Second, preferential option for the poor fosters closeness to the heart of the people, promotes harmony and solidarity in the entire church, and indicates the reasons for past ruptures and paths for present conversions. Third, the common pastoral plan brings into communion the bishop, spiritual charisms, and apostolic initiatives of groups and persons. Fourth, pastoral adaptation had three focuses: extensive evangelism and cultivation of popular religiosity in the mission to the masses, serving as a sign and ferment, the salt and light for ecclesiastical communities and small groups by evangelism; a follow-up personal group evangelism, with many faith options and demands urged by changes necessary to make society more humane and Christian.
Late in 1962 the Guatemalan Bishops issued a pastoral on the economic and social ills of the nation.(26) Moved by the people's sorrow and anxiety, the hierarchy stated,
. . . the incessant disturbances . . . are shaking foundations of national life . . . force us to consider quietly social problems of our nation, and to expound . . . the church's social doctrine, so that everyone may strive to put into effect urgent and necessary solutions.
Claiming to implement Mater et Magistra's call for social justice, the bishops noted the necessity of economic life to meet the demands of ethics and morals. They called for planned industrialization, just wages for workers, and more equitable distribution of land. Noting that Communism was not the answer to national problems, they insisted such could be overcome only by a "conscientious and practical carrying out of personal and social responsibilities of all citizens, especially those who are most influential." Of the industrial sector, these bishops declared,
The working people--due to lack of vocational and specialized training, on one hand, and increasing scarcity of private investment, on the other--suffer widely from a terrible scourge of total or partial unemployment and, consequently abject poverty and undernourishment.
Political instability and lack of cooperation stifle investment of foreign or national capital which little by little is being diverted to other nations, where a greater assurance of employment and safe profits are to be found.
Of the agricultural sector, the bishops declared,
. . . more productive and better cultivated regions, which surely form the basis of Guatemala's entire economy, do not see fruits of their production justly distributed among farm workers.
On large estates, farmworkers, kept in low status by centuries-old customs and overwhelmed by conditions of obvious inderiorit?, receive wages which barely keep him from starving.
Stressing that only two per cent of the people own only sixty-five per cent of the nation's cultivated lands or twenty per cent of the entire nation, the bishops said, possibilities for a flourishing agriculture,
. . . are being lost as a result of bad distribution of natural resources . . . [crying] to heaven for God's vengeance. . . . [Thus, it is absolutely necessary] to achieve a more equitable distribution of property.
The government must be a protector of "one of the basic rights of man: the right to life."
Early in 1961, Rev. Pedro Velazquez, director of the Mexican Social Secretariat (SSM), spoke at a first Mexico City convention of Catholic Action's Labor Movement, held in the presence of Archbishop Miquel Marindo y Gomez and for the benefit of six hundred workers.(27) Founded in 1920, SSM was to coordinate and direct the social action of Catholics, without political entanglements. Yet, Velazquez spoke of initiating the campaign to fight Communist infiltration of trade unions. However, the strategy was, not to enlist cooperation with other anti-Communist organizations, but to explain Marxism and Communist tactics and to compare them with a Catholic teaching on social reform.
Another SSM speaker, Rev. Carlos Talanera, stated the Mexican labor movement could not defend social and economic rights of workers, due to its heavy dependency on Mexican politics. Such was caused by a suppression of the Catholic National Workers Confederation and subsequently, a government-imposed monopoly of trade unions. Also, Talanera warned against underestimating Communist efforts in Latin America. He recalled episcopal pastorals and lay solutions in other nations, stressing the dangers and need for radical social reform.
On the other hand, Rev. William Nevins, observing for the U.S. Catholic Press Association, noticed little of the great change in clerics had filtered down to lay leaders. The latter too often still maintained traditional notions of the church--separated from worldly cares, a means for personal salvation, but not a community with mutual responsibilities nor in serious danger. Nevins, part of a Catholic Press Association study com?, traced some of these notions to the feeble status of the Mexican Catholic press and radio. Suggested improvements were: better business practices, professional competency, skills and intellectual training, consolidation of many of the poorer papers, and formation of a Latin American Union of the Catholic Press.
Late in 1960 Juan Landazuri Richetts, O.F.M., the Archbishop of Lima, in a pastoral warned that defensive actions against communism would fail, unless Catholics also worked for social justice.(28) The context of his remarks was the abundance of Cuban subversive material and sporadic riots in the mines and plantations of a US owned company, attributed to Communists. Referring to condemnations of capitalist abuses by Leo XIII and urging workers to seek their rights, the archbishop maintained that Latin America's change from agricultural to industrial societies must be guided by the church or it would be controlled by Marxism.
Late in 1961, Landzuri prepared outlines for sermons for priests, to be used at Sunday liturgy for five months.(29) Some of the topics were as follows. One, Capitalism or economic liberalism was said to be as far removed from Christianity as Communism. Naturalistic and focused only on temporal goods, Capitalism "forgets that external liberty ought to submit itself to justice and truth. Two, causes of social problems include the wealthy and laziness of the poor. The latter tend to "avoid constructive and productive efforts and wait for solutions promising the distribution of others' goods." Three, in speaking of just salary, workers have a right to a proportionate share in the profits and planning of business. All productive profits are not due workers. Capital is "a most important element and risked in every enterprise." Four, workers' associations are legitimate, because "workers need some instrument of power to demand their rights when they are unjustly denied. . . . Hence, "the workers must be organized." Fifth, about strikes, the archbishop said, "There is no simpler way to obtain the benefits sought." However, there were a few conditions: "the benefits sought to be just, not disoriented; the evil foreseen in the strike be not greater than the expected benefits."
Early in 1964, Ivan Pardo, Huacho's Vicar General was attacked by La Prenza, the influential newspaper in Lima.(30) The headline of the article read, "A New Father Bolo," alluding to a Peruvian priest (Solomon Bolo) excommunicated in 1962 for scandalous public conduct and insubordination, especially in running as a Vice Presidential candidate of the Communist Party in two national elections.
Pardo, spiritual director of the Institute of Rural Education, helped educate leaders among Peru's impoverished rural population, trying to improve the economic, social and cultural situation. Pardo spoke at a meeting in the Presidential Palace in Lima. La Prenza reported Fernando Belaunde Terry, president, applauded; Pardo used some "left words in his speech"; many who heard Pardo judged him "a perfected and more moderate Father Bolo."
La Prenza's article was seen, by the Catholic Information Center as "flagrant twisting of a news event, which evidenced not only a lack of good taste and journalistic responsibility, but lack of a sense of professional ethics." The owner of La Prenza, Pedro Beltran, former Prime Minister of Peru, opposed the land reform of Belaunde. Hence, the conflict of interests.
Newly elected, Belaunde, had sworn to speed just land distribution for millions of landless Peruvian Indians. While Peru's Congress delayed passage of a land reform law, rural Indians, especially in the Cuzco region intruded and squatted on private f arms. The incursions sometimes were organized by Communist agitators; sometimes they represented legitimate Indian yearnings for land. La Prenza had urged the government to expel them and Peru's aristocracy claimed national production irreparably would be damaged, if large land holdings were divided among the Indians.
Repeatedly Peru's hierarchy urged an orderly land reform in pastoral letters and Landazuri's social justice sermons. Pardo's Presidential Palace speech only underlined that need. He understood why rural Indians had grown so impatient as to invade the sprawling farms of absentee landlords. It was the Indians' alternative to death.
In late 1960 Cardinal Antonio Barberi, Archbishop of Montevideo in a Lenten Pastoral praised the by-laws of the Association of Catholic Leaders of Business and Management.(31) Included were a list of obligations, "which will assure the well-being of their workers much beyond human laws, on a plane outlined by the brotherhood spoken of in the Gospels." He cautioned the group that its obligation in justice to secure the well-being must not be fulfilled with "a paternalistic gesture of ostentatious generosity, almsgiving, or simple compliance with obligatory laws." Hence, he called the group to aim beyond minimum requirements of the law for their workers' welfare.