August 19,
2012
David Timbs
The
Anatomy of a Peruvian Catastrophe
Pretext
On
July 21, 2012, a Catholic University in Peru was stripped on its identity. For a
revered educational institution whose motto is Et
Lux in tenerbris lucet (“And let Light shine in the darkness”), the
lights were extinguished. The institution was charged with having “gravely
prejudiced the interests of the Church.” The administration, staff and
students were consequently presented with a solemn, authoritative decree from
the Vatican,
“The Holy See, with a Decree of His Eminence the Secretary of State,
under specific mandate, has decided to remove from the Pontifical Catholic
University of Peru the right to use in its name the title Pontifical and Catholic in
accordance with Canon Law.”
The
decision followed a 2011 official Vatican visitation by Hungarian Cardinal Peter
Erdo to evaluate the University’s adherence to Church regulations and
prescriptions under Ex Corde Ecclesiae (2009)
which required compliance with conditions set by the Holy See in order to
maintain its accreditation as a recognised Catholic University. The University
had roundly refused to cooperate with the Peruvian hierarchy by denying them an
official seat on the board of governance and access to the administration of
bequests and other sources of funding. After lengthy discussions with the
Visitor and the Archdiocese of Lima, the situation ended in stalemate.
In
order to leave the door open to a possible resolution to the matter which would
in effect amount to capitulation by the University, the Vatican communiqué
concluded,
“The
renewal requested by the Holy See will make the University more capable of
responding to the task of bringing the message of Christ to man (sic: Spanish, Italian), society
and culture, according to the mission of the Church in the world.”
University
head, Marcial Rubio remains resistant to Vatican demands and insists that the
institution will set its own timelines and determine the criteria governing its
own integrity regardless of the orchestrated attempts to muzzle it and bring it
to heel. Peruvians, especially the University’s staff and students are
bewildered and somewhat confused.
Not
only has punitive action been taken against the University community, but it
could also be perceived as a collective punishment on the whole nation.
Context
Peruvian
hierarchy and clergy have, over the years, become legendary for their habit of
meddling in politics. It should come as no surprise that Cardinal Juan Luis
Cipriani himself, the Archbishop of Lima, should intervene in the administration
of the University ‘over College assets.’ The matter, however, goes far
deeper than that and the hostility has its origins in more than a squabble over
bequests. It’s all about power, clericalism and cronyism.
Peruvian
feminist and social activist, Susana Chavez [1], has documented in great detail
the history of Catholic Church involvement in national conservative, partisan
politics. She lists areas not only of concern but of what she would categorize
as abuses of ecclesiastical offices and position:
The
Church has issued public statements, open letters, organised press releases and
organizes press conferences by which the hierarchy outlines its positions on
issues related to doctrines while masking and dressing them up in political
language and then demanding that politicians make public ‘moral’ decisions
about them. Under Cardinal Cipriani’s leadership, the conservative far right
of the Church has sought to put its stamp on the political system by presuming
popular Catholicism. “Although Peru is
officially a secular state, this practice links elected officials and the church
hierarchy in the public’s perception, and creates the perception that secular
officials maintain some reverence for the church, religious authorities and
Catholic principles generally. Cardinal Cipriani and other leading clergy
have also authorized the use of the pulpit at Mass to disseminate party
political information and propaganda.
Chavez
and other commentators argue that politicization of the pulpit combined with
other forms of corruption constitute a major internal challenge to the ongoing stability, strength and viability of the faith in Peru. Added to this, a
very serious external challenge facing the Catholic Church in Peru, elsewhere in
Latin America and also in the developed West is the serious erosion of
traditional membership. The most common cited reasons for this are
secularism and the rapid growth and expansion of the fundamentalist
evangelical communities and sects.[2]
Another
fundamental issue raised in the ongoing conversation about the Peruvian Church
is the exceptionally high percentage of Opus
Dei prelates in its Episcopal Conference. Chavez observes,
“In
Peru, the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church is largely made up of members of the
conservative Catholic Order (sic) known as Opus
Dei. Juan Luis Cipriani, the Cardinal of Lima, and 15 of the country’s 30
bishops are all members of this order.”
In
2000, there were six members of Opus
Dei in the Episcopal Conference of
Peru.
It
is not surprising that Opus Dei is being perceived by many Peruvians to be the
major play-maker behind the
suppression of University’s Catholic identity.
Opus
Dei
Opus
Dei was
founded in 1932 by Spanish priest Josemaria Escriva de Belaguer. His aim was to
establish a community in which personal holiness in everyday life was to be
promoted. Initially the organisation was almost totally clerical but after Pius
XII approved its ecclesiastical status in 1950, lay people were included. It has
grown rapidly and spread globally ever since. Escriva encouraged the members to
establish themselves in every profession, private, business, secular government
and the Church. A primary focus of Opus
Dei investment of personnel and resources has been in education,
particularly tertiary institutions and in professions across the board.
It
is important to be aware of a very significant period in the early growth of Opus
Dei and the development of its identity within the Catholic Church. The
Spanish Civil War was a defining era as it marked an intense conflict between
two ideological enemies, international Socialism with its Marxist backers and
black Fascism. Franco’s Spain was the victor and one of the principal
beneficiaries in the post-war period was the Catholic Church and its privileged
clericalist sub-culture. Opus Dei
went on to export this culture especially to Latin America. A key lesson it took
with it from the experience of the Spanish Civil War was a fear of Communism
and suspicion of anything remotely involving the rhetoric of class
struggle.
As
in Spain, it established its identity by encouraging its members to achieve at
the highest levels in their professional lives in all areas of society. It
highly valued and maintained a tightly organised structure with strict clerical
control. It demanded absolute obedience of its members and their consciences
were frequently scrutinised and directed. It flourished, sect-like on a cult
of leadership, indoctrination, conservative fundamentalist education. Socially
and ecclesiastically it defended the status quo which was the genius of
Josemaria Escriva’s agenda.
Liberation
Theology
Fr
Gustavo Gutierrez OP, the acknowledged inspiration behind Liberation Theology,
took seriously the Vatican II mandates of subsidiarity and co-responsibility in
applying its vision to the local Church. Consequently, he saw the need to adapt
the vision of the Council to the needs and aspirations of wider South American
Catholicism.
He
urged the Bishops at the 1968 CELAM conference in Medellin, Colombia, to
see Vatican II through Latin American eyes. An instantly observable and constant
element across the countries of CELAM was grinding poverty with all its
attendant evils: huge gaps between rich and poor, haves and have-nots. Marxist
dialectic class warfare had been widely espoused, even in the name of Christ,
with devastating results in terms of oppression, death and further social
dislocation. Dictatorships abounded in Latin America aping the repressive black
fascist regimes of Franco’s Spain and Salazar‘s Portugal. Evangelical
protestant fundamentalism was on the move and aggressively so. Answers need to
be found quickly and wisely. Medellin opted for profound and fundamental reform
of the CELAM Churches. New directions were flagged which were mostly courageous
and prophetically so. These are spelt out in the landmark Medellin documents of
CELAM, 1968. [3]
The
Dialectic – a clash of two churches.
Noam
Friedlander in his 2005 prescient work elaborates on the conflict between
Liberation Theology and Opus Dei in Latin America and the battle for the
soul of that continent. He wrote,
“Liberation
theology, the creation of Peruvian priest, Gustavo Gutierrez, was established
after Gutierrez became disillusioned by the corruption of the Christian
Democrats in Latin America. It stands in direct opposition to authoritarian
clericalism and, in turn, to Opus Dei. Due to the reality of mass poverty and
political powerlessness, common in Latin America, liberation theology became a
popular credo.
To
Opus Dei, liberation theology proved a threat, as its philosophy teaches that
the poor must work to improve life on earth within the existing social
structures, while preparing through devotion and obedience for eternal
salvation. Furthermore, liberation theology believes that the Christian gospel
demands ‘a preferential option for the poor’ and that the Church should be
involved in the struggle for economic and political justice in the contemporary
world – particularly the Third World. By contrast, while Opus Dei also does
good work to help the poor, its more fundamentalist brand of theology is seen as
one that leaves little freedom for the individual’s conscience and is
associated with secular power structures.
As
a belief system, liberation theology was in direct opposition to authoritarian
clericalism – Escriva rejected it, and some interpreted this move of
Escriva’s as another major theological battleground between the Jesuits and
Opus Dei.” (What is Opus Dei,
London: Collins and Brown)
It
should be noted here, that it is almost axiomatic in the sociology of religion
that the more conservative, regimented and conformist Catholic religious groups
have great difficulty in dealing with the prophetic dimensions of the Church’s
teachings on social justice. It is often the case, evidently, that the Gospel of
Christ is diluted and compromised by its own servants of a particular mindset.
There is little mission here and not much enculturation of the faith either.
They have great difficulty in grasping the notions of structural sin and evil
and of making basic changes to the society which hosts these aberrations. They
have a problem with the Incarnation, not only of the Son of God, but of how his
Church assumes flesh in history.
Archbishop
Ludwig Mueller, the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, has long been associated with, spend months with and studied under
Gustavo Gutierrez. He has learnt much from him, his deeply Scripture-based
Catholic vision and his brand of liberation theology. He has recently commented
on this,
“The
theology of Gustavo Gutierrez, independent of how you look at it is orthodox
because it is orthopractic. It teaches us the correct way of acting in a
Christian fashion since it comes from faith.” – J. Allen, ‘German friend
of liberation theology named Vatican doctrinal Czar,’ NCR,
02/07/12
It
might be a matter of record that the authentic, deeply Catholic, stream of
Liberation Theology and its praxis have long eschewed and condemned violence as
a means of resolving the great issues of social injustice. One can look at the
transparent testimony of Oscar Romero, Gustavo Gutierrez and many others to
validate that.
Opus
Dei has become an institution at odds with the People of God. It has morphed
into a church within the Church and it has employed pretence, fabrication,
self-interest and sheer power to escalate hostilities and wage ideological
warfare against its fellow Catholics. This is a major scandal, an obstacle to
faith and a defeat for the Gospel.
[1]
Susana Chavez (2011), “Politicization of the pulpit: conservative Catholic
strategies in Peru.” Click [HERE]
[2]
For a thoughtful and informed view of challenges confronting the Latin American
Church, see Killian Clarke’s “A Tale of two churches: battling for the soul
of Latin American Catholicism.” HIR, Spring,
2006. Click [HERE]
[3]
The CELAM documents of Medellin 1968, click [HERE]
For
a reasonably thorough survey of Opus Dei
in Latin America and especially its highly conservative and authoritarian
catechesis campaigns in areas such as conscience and birth-control, click [HERE]
For an insightful and revealing PBS interview with NYT journalist and
commentator Roberto Suro on John Paul II – The Millennial Pope, especially on
JP II’s exposure to Liberation Theology and the filtered interpretation he
received from his minders, click [HERE]
See also James Martin SJ in America,
1995 for commentary on Opus Dei in the USA, click [HERE]
David
Timbs writes from Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
20/08/12