Argentina's Seventh Annual Catholic Social Week, early in 1961, sent resolutions about rural life to the Argentine Bishops Conference.(1) Seeking the integration of "the two Argentinas" (industrial and rural) into one strong and wholesome and happy nation, delegates suggested several quite specific steps.
Several economic policy-decisions were called for: greater ease in land acquisition; tax reform in order to increase productivity rather than simply to increase revenues and in order to discourage poor land use by abandonment of large farms or exploitation of small farms; new inheritance laws to prevent land division into plots too small for proper development. Several responses to unemployment and underemployment due to increasing agricultural mechanization were advocated: greater industrialization in rural areas; more vocational and agriculture training for farm owners and farm workers. Several ways were indicated to remedy imbalances in rural areas when compared to urban areas: improved transportation; better water supply; improved cultural, educational, and social services. Finally, there was a cry for more priests in rural areas, in order to promote lay organizations aimed at solving farm problems.
In Argentina's diocese of Tucuman, in 1965, Bishop Juan Ferro appealed to sugar cane growers to meet their obligations of providing work during an economic depression.(2) Contained in a pastoral letter, were references to growers taking some fields out of cultivation because of low sugar prices and workers responding with demonstrations and scattered violence. Urging government and business leaders to create new employment opportunities for working people, the bishop insisted the situation be dominated "neither by an unjust and inhuman capitalism nor by those who want to live without honest work."
Late 1964, Bolivian miners, in Siglo Veinte, held hostage four Americans, a German, a Dutchman, and fourteen Bolivians.(3) A United States citizen, Monsignor Andrew A. Kennedy, serving as the archdiocese of La Paz Vicar General, played a significant role in gaining the release of the hostages and preventing a civil war.
On the sixth day, Kennedy tried to end a deadlock between the miners and the Bolivian government. During an overnight stay in Oruro, the provincial capital, he was warned by a Red Cross delegation he might be seized as a hostage. Nevertheless, empowered to negotiate by badly divided government officials, Kennedy persisted. As word of his journey was carried by radio, a message came from the leftist Vice President, Juan Lechin, who was with the hostage-takers, that Kennedy would be received with "open arms." Despite a media image of the miners as "lawless barbarians," Kennedy told a tearful group of mine union officials in Oruro,
I am determined to go to the mines to show the world how afraid I am of your supposedly terrible miners. . . . Nothing could be further from the truth. Everything depends how they are treated and understood. In their midst, I never felt I was among enemies. I understood them and they understand me. . . . [They are] overgrown children.
Upon entering the place in Siglo Viente where the hostages were held, the forty leaders of the Communist oriented union rose to welcome Kennedy. Together, they drafted a settlement to be presented to the government. Despite an initially cool reception from the wives and relatives of two miners held by government troops, the priest was able to conduct a cordial interview, which ended with the families' requesting Kennedy's blessing. Initially, the villagers were cool also. However, he succeeded in winning them over and receiving a friendly interview on the local Communist radio station.
However, the government decided to move 3,000 troops against the miners, rather than accept the mediated settlement worked out with Kennedy's help. The priest appealed by radio to President Victor Paz Estenssero to stop the troop movement. Instead, Kennedy was asked to cease his efforts, because it was imprudent for a non-Bolivian to intervene. Then, Kennedy's archbishop, Abel Antezana, became the intermediary and managed to bring about a truce and release of the hostages.
After Kennedy, who volunteered to minister in Bolivia in 1956 after serving as a Vice Chancellor in the Archdiocese of St. Louis, left the mining town of Siglo Viente, he told more about the miners and himself.
They are led by a minority of disciplined Communist, imposing themselves through fear and exploiting social injustice. However, the miners themselves are not Communists.
On my trip to the mines everything I did was governed by one idea--the miners are human beings and Christians. As Christians we must love one another. In their midst I was not among enemies but in an atmosphere of friendship.
In 1985, a protest against conditions in Bolivian tin mines was organized by local priests and supported by members of the hierarchy.(4) Eleven priests, whose parishes were in areas of government-owned and operated tin mines, had published in Presencia a letter sent to President Rene Barrientos Ortuno. They charged repression of miners by the army surveillancing mines, due to guerrilla agitation in the areas, since June.
Prior to publication of the priests' letter, the Bolivian Bishops' Conference presented an action program for alleviating problems of wages and working conditions in the mines. Suggested measures were: profit sharing, job security, improved industrial relations--all accepted by the president, with a pledge of efforts by him to remedy the mining problems. He ordered his ministry of labor to establish mixed boards, to settle conflicts over wages and working conditions in mines.
Yet, Bolivian Bishops' Conference president, Jose Cardinal Maurer, C.S.S.R., of Sucre, informed President Barrientos of support for the priests' letter. Bishops Jose Gutierrez Granier of Cochabamba and Jesus Lopez Lama of the independent prelature of Corocoro stated,
[The] action of the priests on behalf of miners has the support and understanding of the bishops. . . . [Priests] are to be commended for a courageous decision to serve the poor in a cause ever difficult because of constant economic, social, and political upheavals constant in our history.
Their attitude shows they believe in the social doctrine of the church and are seeking to apply it loyally in promoting social justice, respect for the duties and rights of the workers, harmony in their human relations, and the fulfillment of fair goals by management.
In 1961, bishops of Goria, Brazil announced establishment of a Catholic Agrarian Front.(5) It consisted of two unions: one for wage earning workers on farms or ranches and one for small landowners. Both sought promotion of the social teachings of the church in a six-point program. That program aimed for: just wages for workers, reasonable profits for landowners, promotion of modern farming techniques, adequate and decent housing, adequate health facilities, and education for the rural population.
In 1967, some Brazilian church leaders and groups spoke out strongly for real social, economic, and political reform.(6) Members of a Catholic Adult Workers' Movement in Sao Paulo issued "a last warning," to urge Brazil's government to speed up labor reform throughout the nation. The members' statement called for,
The increasing demand for reforms received broad coverage in the media throughout Brazil. Although the movement was winning sympathy and potential support among the populace, conservatives saw "the hand of communism" manipulating every reform demanded. The charge of "subversion" was leveled against Archbishop Helder Camara of Olinda and Recife in northeast Brazil by the health minister in the government Humberto Branco.
However, the tide seemed to change in support of the reform movement. Taken individually, statements seemed weak. Yet, taken collectively, they showed constantly expanding support. Ranging from general criticism of national structures by Young Christian Workers to several bishops' specific demands for government reconsideration of dependence on funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development, the statements reflected a tension so severe that Bishop Antonio Fragoso Crateus remarked there might be "more social justice in Cuba than in Brazil."
Early in 1973, the Brazilian Bishops' National Conference met in a Thirteenth General Assembly.(7) In passing nineteen detailed proposals, the Brazilian bishops expressed an intensive and extensive commitment to the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" of the United Nations. Some proposals contained specific mention of labor-management issues.
Proposal One addressed pastoral responsibility to assist the most oppressed peoples, especially with support and information for those forming trade unions and through payment of just wages by clergy, laity, and religious. Proposal Two addressed church assistance to people whose rights are least respected. That is, persons denied a family living wage for their work, a safe and healthy work environment, a Sunday rest, freedom to organize and operate unions, possession of land worked, and medical and hospital assistance--especially among rural populations. Proposal Five focused on new rights such as development, protest, and accurate information. Proposal Seven expanded on the right to development, so that it includes fulfillment of self as a person and to life in adequate social and economic structures. Proposal Nine was concerned with various types of discriminations. Cited were: families of farmers and big landowners over land possession; managers and workers within firms- marginated classes and privileged classes in decision-making and participation in cultural, social, economic and political development; rich and poor over educational opportunity and income distribution; technocrats and people representing religious and human values; opposing racial groups; employers and unesteemed women domestic workers.
On May 6, 1973 eighteen bishops and major religious superiors in northeast Brazil issued the statement, "I Have Heard the Cry of My People.(8) These leaders deemed the words from Exodus 3:7 fitting, not simply as the title for their statement, but also as an "expression of our feelings in these days." Like Moses, they hoped to continue "together with the people of God, our mission as pastors and prophets" by grasping "the daily facts and events of a suffering people." Aware of past omissions and uncertainties of the Brazilian church and feeling powerless and awed "before such a huge task," the bishops and superiors took courage from God's words to Moses, "I will be with you." So moved, their letter touched upon such topics as: human rights, the area's de facto situation, "development or underdevelopment," "a Brazilian miracle," and the leaders' response. Implications for labor-management issues will be discussed.
Human rights were addressed by way of celebrating the anniversaries of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Pacem in Terris and realizing the aims of the Thirteenth General Assembly of the National Brazilian Conference. There was sentiment on refraining from inadequate or excessive exercise of their power or right to speak out in the present and merely inviting the nation to individual and collective conversion. Yet the bishops were quite insistent.
Let it not be said . . . our task is not to talk on concrete human issues and we should limit ourselves to the so-called spiritual sphere. For us the spiritual sphere embraces man as a whole, in all his dimensions, for he must be seen in light of the unappealable judgment of God and unificative action of the Spirit.
Furthermore, it is our right and duty as pastors to treat of human problems and, hence, of economic, political and social problems. At stake in them is man and God, who has pledged himself to man.
The leaders described their role in assisting the country's conversion as "servants, ministers of liberation," sharing a "hunger and thirst for justice" with the people of northeast Brazil. The march toward liberation challenges and conflicts with criteria of luxury and distortion of data which had justified what the second CELAM Conference at Medellin called "institutional violence" and what the Brazilian Bishops Conference had characterized as "a sinful situation."
The situation had "brought international fame to the region: oppression, misery, injustice." The statement presented data covering many socio-economic conditions: per capita income, labor, nutrition, housing, and education. They claimed underdevelopment was "the most important characteristic" of the area.
Causes cited for this de facto situation were entwined in a socio-economic history of the area, one of "development-underdevelopment." There was a series of ups and downs in Brazil's economic evolution. Northeast Brazil retained the colonial-type production model which was based on huge landed-estates. However, in the last quarter of the 19th century, heavy population density and periods of drought revealed very glaringly the backwardness and weakness of the area, compared to the south-central economy. A government program, marked by misinterpretation and misunderstanding, paternalism and protectionism, reduced chances for creating conditions, which were necessary for real development.
Benevolent "protectionism" originated from . . . those at the apex looking down on "the inferior classes," as if injustices were needed in order that their generosity find an outlet. Paternalism and "cooperationism" . . . [are] instruments to check people's participation in making the decisions that affect their lives, i.e. instruments of dependence and marginalization.
The church's contribution to the appearance of "development" and reality of "underdevelopment" was criticized. Theologically, the image of God was deformed, a "God of magic" substituted for people shouldering their own historical responsibilities. Socially and politically, the church aligned itself with holders of power, identified itself more with the dominators than the donated. The church's configuration was pyramidal,
. . . preachers talking from the height of a pulpit to a people who were passively listening to them. The church, within the dominant culture, became paternalistic and at times delayed the march of the people toward liberation.
To any theological justification for the inevitability of underdevelopment, by claiming "oppressive conditions are due to fate or preternatural forces," these leaders replied that such an explanation is "incompatible with Christian anthropology."
Whatever the problems in the northeast, Brazil as a whole had to make fundamental choices. Socialism was deemed impossible, given a large penetration of foreign capital, and adopted was a "dependent, associate capitalism." Consequently, development was defined in terms of the interests, not of Brazilian society, but of realizable profits of foreign corporations and their associates in Brazil. Thus, elimination of regional disparities was sacrificed as a national priority. Along side highly disproportionate taxes for the poor and the concentration of even more income among the rich, there appeared massive propaganda, a soccer craze as patriotism, and violent repression of human rights.
The "Brazilian miracle," thus, resulted in privileges for the wealthy and punishment for the poor. For the religious leaders, the "miracle" had never gained the people's faith, devotion or hope. It was "a curse upon those who had not asked for it." Its effect was a greater marginalization of the people in the northeast. In addition to favellas for housing, worthless certificates for health care, and continuing landed-estates, there was greater exploitation of labor.
The labor unions, suffering the drama of voiding of their freedoms, can do little to defend their members or obtain only what official policies of the sector allow. Since repression has eliminated all leadership in this field, the number of henchmen in labor-union leadership posts grows. What was supposed to be an instrument aiding the working class is being transformed rapidly into a bureaucratic organization of official "cooperatism."
In assessing their expected reaction, the religious leaders of the northeast could not conceive of the church "as a reality separate from the world... a ghetto standing on its own." They knew they would not be understood by accommodating advocates of the status quo and stated the reasons,
[B]ecause of their self-centered interests, they cannot or do not want to understand even evident facts... [T]hey transform faith into a theory of our personal relations with God, without interfering in social and political action among men. They make religion something exclusive. They use it as an ideological tool, to defend groups and institutions which are not at all at the service of man and are thus opposed to God's design.
To relate further the inconsistency of religious faith with activity in the temporal sphere, John XXIII's encyclical, Pacem in Terris, was cited, as positing the reason, "in great part if not entirely . . . the lack of a solid Christian education."
There followed additional theological defense of the insistence on church involvement in socio-economic affairs, paraphrasing scripture and church documents.
[J]ust as sacraments are specific signs of faith and of redeeming grace, so can human realities, the most varied fields of activity, mediate salvation and become factors of communion with God, through service and communion with fellow humans with whom we share the same frailty and same humanity. . . .
Eternal life, which is "not yet" consummated, is "already" given to us through the Son of God in the here and now of human life. . . . This salvation comes from God and breaks into our humanity, in the tissue of history and reveals itself in the long and complex process of human liberation. . . . Without forgetting the personal and internal dimension, we cannot deny that the integral labor of humanity includes a political aspect in a socio-economic context. . . . God saves the individual person within a people "the people of God.". . .
It is clear those who, like Pharaoh, maintain a people in slavery, do not recognize the salvific thrust of the people's struggle. They will not see God's presence in the unremitting energy of the poor. Yet the "poor of Yahweh" are the privileged channel of God's revelation, the daily pulpit of God's Word, in the events of life, in hope which is not illusive, in their longing for freedom, peace and brotherhood.
The same cannot be said of oppressors . . . who at every moment give free reign to repression. The way they argue, God is dragged at their side . . . used as a tool . . . put at the service of the "established order," because this is most convenient for them.
The religious leaders were no less severe in self criticism for their own neglect of "the People of God." Convinced the hour of "the option for the poor" and fidelity to the mission had arrived, the religious leaders scolded themselves.
How many times, involved in the mesh of evil . . . the church, under deceitful disguises . . . due to ingenuousness or captiousness, in a sad deformation of the evangelical message, played the game of the oppressors and received favors from those who hold the power of money and politics against the common good?
Recalling earlier analyses of unjust socio-economic structures "resulting from capitalism dependent on large international power centers," the religious leaders promised to offer more than de facto situation descriptions. That socio-economic, political and cultural situation issued many challenges to "our Christian conscience." Institutional violence was a challenge.
Undernourishment, infant mortality, prostitution, illiteracy, unemployment, cultural and political discrimination, exploitation, growing discrepancies between rich and poor.
Repression was a challenge.
. . . curtailing the constitutional prerogatives of the legislative branch of government; the depoliticalization of rural and urban trade unions; the elimination of student leadership; the establishment of censorship; persecution of workers, peasants and intellectuals; harassment of priests and of active groups of the Christian churches--all in various forms of imprisonment, torture, mutilation and assassination.
More than challenges were cited, however. The religious leaders used Marxist concepts--"capitalistic system of production," "class society," "international capitalism," "the dominant class," "oppressive system," "alienation," and "working and oppressed classes." The summation was startling coming from Catholic leaders.
The historical process of class society and capitalistic domination necessarily leads to a fatal confrontation of classes. . . .
The dominated class has no other road to freedom except the long and difficult trek, now under way, in favor of social ownership of the means of production. This is the principal foundation of the gigantic historic project for the all-inclusive transformation of society, for a new society where it will be possible to create the objective conditions allowing the oppressed to recover their stunted humanity, to throw off the chains of their suffering, to overcome class antagonism, and finally to win freedom. The Gospel is calling us, Christians and all men of good will, to become engaged in this prophetic undertaking.
Some deemed the northeast Brazilian bishops' and religious superiors' statement more than startling.(9) A Redemptorist priest acquainted with church matters in Brazil characterized the statement as,
. . . one of the clearest statements ever taken by a group of bishops in this century. . . . Quite possible, it contains the frankest and toughest words of any ecclesiastical writing to date about . . . the church's role in the past.
Other of the "frankest and toughest" things highlighted from the statement were the denunciation of an ineffective labor movement, a semi-feudal economic system, near starvation wages, and the continuing delay of land reforms. Hence, the priest thought, "the present life-style of the majority of Brazil's northeasterners will change little."
In late October 1976 the Brazilian Bishops' Conference received from its Executive Committee a pastoral message, for release after the November 15th municipal elections.(10) After noting the past protests of pastors and congregation, as well as "clear and loud denunciation" by facts, the Bishops outlined the main points of their pastoral. Assisted by laity, priests, and religious, these bishops addressed shocking facts, their meaning (accidental or deliberate) and their interpretation in the light of politico-economic and pastoral principles.
Some of the facts, assassinations of two priests and kidnapping of a bishop, were dwelt on in the pastoral. Other facts, censorship, imprisonment, torture and murder of others--bishops, laity, priests and religious--were mentioned in passing.
A meeting of the facts went beyond blaming "the little policeman who pulls the trigger." Deeper roots created a climate of violence. Among the causes of it were: denial of justice to the poor, unpunished criminal police, maldistribution of land, conditions of the Indians and national security versus individual security.
Politico-economic principles were varied. First, the equality of all persons before the law is the basis of any society pretending to be civilized. Second, the security of each and all citizens is essential for the internal security of a nation. Third, all power comes from the people and is exercised in their name. Fourth, freedom and all human rights are prior to the nation, which gives the state responsibility to recognize, defend, and promote them. Fifth, state programs, projects, or plans (even if materially and economically excellent or successful)--without popular consultation participation--are prone to corruption and unjustified if not responsive to popular needs and desires.
The pastoral principles of the Brazilian Bishops' Conference were more specific and startling. One, "the ideology" of a national security placed above personal security was as widespread in Latin America as in countries under Soviet domination. Two, a division between good and evil, lying within everyone's heart, calls for constant conversion. Three, our struggle cannot be against people but the slavery of sin, hunger, and injustice for which people are often, unconsciously, responsible. Four, the church must follow the example of Jesus to be the hope and defense of the weak, marginalized and oppressed. Such must be the church's option and predilection, without excluding others. Five, church efforts must go beyond alms for weak, poor, unborn, Indian, migrant and other persons. There must be efforts to defend rights more strenuously and to redistribute goods more justly. Six, economic differences in themselves are not sinful; injustices that cause them are. Seven, great and little, secular and religious people must work jointly, so that all might move from less human to more human situations. Eight, the church's power is belief and hope, grace and prayer, cross and suffering . . . not weapons and violence. Nine, implementing gospel mandates will incur accusations of being Communists or subversives. Ten, merely punishing criminal police cannot alleviate the consciences of authorities so long as the socio-politico-economic system is marked by injustice and conducive to violence.
The Bishops ended the pastoral with encouragement to all working and suffering on the path of hope. Publication of the pastoral was delayed out of desire not to interfere and fear of being a political tool.
On September 18,1962 the twenty-three bishops of Chile issued a pastoral letter, "Duties of Our Day."(11) Fearful of being the target of the biblical reproach of Isaiah 6:5, "Alas, why did I keep silent?" the bishops stated their right and duty to intervene, especially at a time when Latin America was beset "by serious difficulties affecting their economic, political, and social life." Acknowledging some social orders favor Christianity and others greatly obstruct it, the bishops wished "to indicate the moral, natural, and religious principles for guidance in troubling circumstances. Their pastoral had three parts.
The first part, Present Situation, presented some social facts. A considerable part of rural people live wretched subhuman conditions.
We criticize Marxism . . . because it fails to recognize the right of every man to ownership of the means of production. Yet in our own country a minority of owners possess most of the best farmlands.
Almost one-third of the population was without a dwelling where they could develop family virtues in a normal manner. Slums stretching for miles around cities testified to great unemployment and exclusion from a means of livelihood. Nine-tenths of the population subsisted on the 50% of the national income not held by one-tenth of the population. One of every three children abandoned school after the first year, while two out of three drop out after completing grade school. The amount of protein and vegetables in the diet is far below minimum and the situation is getting steadily worse. So many citizens are unable to present grievances and obtain redress that a realistic look at the legal and social agencies gives little hope of future change.
The second part, Action, covered three aspects of life. "Charitable Giving" reminded of Christians' duty to contribute financially, even if involved in efforts to create a better economic, political or social order. "Better Distribution of Income" reminded Christians of the duty of involvement in the chief problems overwhelming so many--finding a job, learning a trade, earning a fair salary, and obtaining all social rights. Thus,
A Christian, to be worthy of that name, must . . . help to create structures that will allow those who possess little to participate more effectively in the fruits of the economy. . . . He must back social action groups and . . . in given circumstances join them. He must support such programs as agrarian reform, business reform, tax reform, administrative reform. . . . One certainly is not a good Christian, if he keeps apart from to bring social structures in line with church teachings.
"Economic Development" reminded Christians they must go beyond redistribution of wealth and increase the quantity of good and services. Labor's contribution was an ability to produce whether "manual worker, white-collar worker, technician or employer." Under present conditions, it would be anti-Christian for owners,
. . . to leave capital unproductive . . . to send it abroad . . . [or] to invest it in the production of goods and services that satisfy the artificial needs of a small segment of society when vital needs of the mass of people are not satisfied.
All were urged to participate in the various sectors of the nation's production, "without looking for excessive return for ordinary efforts." The bishops went so far as to speak of a genuine "spirituality of economic development."
The third part, Political Aspect, covered six aspects. All Christians were reminded of the obligation to vote, so as to bring about a "creation of structures compatible with a Christian concept of man and his destiny. "Communism" was viewed as diametrically opposed to such a concept. For, it regards religion as outdated and bourgeois, ripe for persecution and annihilation and opposed to the validity of the collective state. Nevertheless, said the bishops,
The real abuses of the liberal economy . . . and the introduction of heartless, atheistic liberalism into schools, factories, and all of society have been the reasons why many accept communism without scrutinizing it. . . . We reject the view that a Christian must look on communism as a phenomenon, a stage in the course of history, a necessary "moment" in its evolution and must therefore accept it as decreed by Providence.
While prudence and loyalty make any collaboration with communists impossible, church social teaching can help cooperation with "any group of persons in matters that are licit and from which good can result."
"Abuses of Liberalism" repeated comments made above; namely past church condemnation. "Political Propaganda and Voters' Obligations" warned about promises of immediate and total improvements. Citizens' voting should favor platforms considered, not solely as "theoretically best or most Christian," but also "as most effective." "Common Good" recalled how often champions of workers have been opposed "by Catholics in private and public life, whose action is in flagrant contradiction with explicit church social doctrine." Catholics were warned about "group egoism." "Public Officials" were urged to bring about more evenhanded justice for the poor by state intervention, since competing economic interests ignore others rights and weaker people are the "victim of unbearable injustices." The final aspect, "American Solidarity," urged discarding past grudges and petty interests, creating a continental union, and recognizing "common spiritual and temporal aspirations of our great community of nations."
Late 1960 saw unrest in Colombia.(12) Clashes in the street with followers of Cuba's Castro, factional disputes within Colombia's anti-Communist government, Bogota's Free University known as "Red College," infiltration by Cuba's News Agency--Presna Latina, and notoriety attached to Colombian youths as first registrants in Moscow's Friendship University only exacerbated awareness of blatant wealth, despite widespread poverty and 46,000 to 50,000 homeless families. A Colombian Bishops' Pastoral urged Catholics to implement Catholic social teaching and halt the inroads of communism.
The church . . . affirms that to live in a Christian manner and practice virtue, a minimum of well being is indispensable. . . . The present crisis demands without delay everyone, particularly those who have more, put the common welfare of people before private gain and profit; capital and land be made use of in such a way as to offer greater job opportunities; labor be paid adequately, in accordance with the social function of property.
The Colombian Bishops also called for land reform and "a crusade for the liberation of the rural population." Pinpointing unjust land distribution, as well as unfair land rents and share-cropping controls, as major evils in the depression of the Colombian farmers, these bishops said,
We have a rural proletariat lacking opportunities for education or advancement on the social scale, without resources of production and without possibility of attaining minimum conditions for a way of life consistent with human dignity.