The situation in Chile is very dramatic and, once again, the Church is on the wrong side, as this article from The New American indicates.
Chile's Conference of Bishops have echoed the calls of protesters for a new Chilean constitution as protesters ransack, loot, burn, and desecrate Catholic churches throughout the country.
This past month Chileans have seen their country ravaged by a small minority of revolutionaries, supported by the media, United Nations, and foreign international powers. Their aim is to destroy the legal system of the country and establish a communist tyranny similar to that of Venezuela and Cuba.
The protesters have an apparent affinity for fire, as they have burned down subway stations; supermarkets; small town markets and shops; commercial malls; government offices, such as the civil register for births, marriages, divorces and deaths; and they have set a couple of female police officers on fire.
Even the Catholic Church has not been spared from these acts of arson. Protesters have ransacked churches, removing pews and other works of art only to burn them in a pile outside. They have even gone as far as setting fire to the once-beautiful Iglesia de la Vera Cruz (Church of the True Cross) in Santiago, where an actual splinter from the original cross on which Christ was crucified is venerated. Fortunately, the splinter was saved from the flames.
However, images of the Virgin Mary were not so fortunate. Several were desecrated along with the church buildings themselves, which were spray-painted with images of satanic pentagrams. The host, which devout Catholics believe is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ when consecrated, was also taken and trampled on. Statues of Catholic priests, which were previously displayed on public avenues, were also destroyed.
Protesters have also graphitized city walls with slogans such as “cura muerto, abono para mi huerto,” Spanish for: “[a] dead priest [is] fertilizer for my garden.” Other graffiti states that the only church that enlightens is that which is in flames.
One might expect the Catholic population of Chile to mobilize to the defense of the symbols of their history and faith, to defend their places of worship, and to prevent additional sacrileges from taking place. Unfortunately, that hasn’t been the case either. Why?
The explanation is simple: The Catholic Church in Chile, and elsewhere throughout Latin America, is heavily infiltrated with adherents of liberation theology, who preach the gospel of Marx. These Marxist priests praise the revolution in the streets and even offer the use of churches as meeting places for the revolutionary groups, which seek to dissolve the constitutional and legal order of the country.
For example, Celestino Aós Braco, who was appointed by Pope Francis as the temporary Archbishop of Santiago following a major crisis in the Catholic Church in Chile last year, held this same position, weeks before the agreement to change the country’s constitution was signed in the National Congress of Chile.
Archbishop Aós Braco virtually endorsed the revolution. In light of all the terrorist acts and the open support from the Communist Party of Chile, Socialist Party of Chile, and other socialist groups for the protests and their demands for a new Chilean constitution, Aós Braco likewise lent his support, stating that a new constitution was necessary in order to protect the life of unborn babies. However, considering the forces behind the protests and their aims for a new constitution, it is naïve to believe that any new constitution drafted would include such protections for the unborn.
On the very same day that Aós Braco made his declaration in support for a new constitution, the first Catholic Church located on Vicuña Mackena Avenue, was attacked. And what was his reaction to this attack? He downplayed its significance, simply stating that the physical life of people is what matters most.
Unfortunately, he is not alone. Chile’s Conference of Bishops issued a statement on November 15, expressing both their support for the revolution against the current constitution and for the promotion of its replacement to be drafted by “social organizations” rather than by the political parties.
Moreover, the Conference of Bishops issued another statement from the Justice and Peace National Commission, in which they again gave their clear support for the revolution and marginalized recent attacks against Catholic Churches by emphasizing a concern for the poor. Ironically, it’s the poor who will suffer most once the Marxist revolution is completed in Chile. Below is an excerpt from that document:
We have lived four weeks of encounter with the other, during which we have recovered our trusts and our solidarity, developing daily dialogues on society and its political organization....
We must acknowledge that there are shadows too, mainly the grave violations of human rights which have been acknowledged even by international agencies, violations of the dignity of human persons, live temples which have been mistreated. We have seen a tendentious coverage by the media which has provoked an excessive fear in the population. Equally, we have seen intense violence by small groups which have mistreated carabineros [Chile’s national police force], have harmed historical patrimony, temples, public and private infrastructure and have affected the daily life of persons.
Speaking of a tendentious presentation of what is happening in Chile, the official statement from the Conference of Bishops concludes that the main unjust violence has been exerted by the government and that the media has not sufficiently shown the essential “beauty” of the previous week’s social process.
In reality, the government’s response has actually been quite weak. Meanwhile, the media in Chile has portrayed the revolution as a “peaceful demonstration” of the inconformity to the current state of affairs felt by the majority of the population. It is true that coverage by the media has been “tendentious,” or distorted from reality, but in the opposite direction than the document from the Conference of Bishops states.
It is also worth mentioning, that in a recent YouTube video put out by the Catholic Church of Chile, a group of bishops call for an end to the violence, condemning first and foremost the government for “violations of human rights.” Yet, in the same video they say nothing of the terrorist groups committing acts of vandalism.
The document from the “Justice and Peace” Commission omits even more. The desecration and violation of temples are mentioned, but only after the violation of historical patrimony. This has the effect of ascribing equal or lesser value to the worship of God than to the possessions of man. This is in direction opposition to what the Bible teaches, when Christ said, “My house is the house of prayer. But you have made it a den of thieves” (Luke 19:36).
Isn’t it a grave sin to transform God’s house into a plaything for arsonists? Apparently not to the view of Chilean bishops.
There are good bishops in Chile, but they are silent for fear of being removed and leaving their sheep unprotected, given the present state of affairs. As a result, they do not publicly disavow the Conference’s statements. Perhaps it is worth reminding them that their authority ultimately comes from Jesus Christ, the Founder of the Church.
According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the bishops are the successors to the Apostles by Christ’s grace, and they are not subject to Caesar. Given that the supreme Law of the Church is the salvation of the souls, the bishops should comply with their duties, at the very least for fear of losing their souls.
To the great bishops of ancient Christianity, in the Patristic era, to compromise the Faith by being lenient and tolerant to such outwardly satanic revolution would have been the equivalent of working for the anti-Christ. If those titans of the Church history would have been removed, they would have excommunicated the clerics who submitted to the anti-Christian movement and would have stayed in their Bishopric, even if expelled from the Palace and deprived of any salary. They would have declared the truth to their sheep and would have trusted in God that He would take care of their sustenance. More recently in history, is this not what the great prelates and priests of France did when the French Revolution took its anti-Christian turn and established the infamous “Civil Constitution of the Clergy”?
(Reposted from The New American)
