ANOTHER VOICE
A fate worse than Marx for suffering Nicaragua
AUBERON WAUGH
Perhaps I was alone in finding Mr Graham Greene's suggestion that the gov- ernment of Nicaragua might be Catholic even more alarming than President Reagan's insistence that it is Communist. If ever we have a Catholic government in this country, presided over by the unctuous Archbishop Worlock in Liverpool and the foolish, vain old Cardinal Archbishop in Westminster, I will be the first to implore President Reagan to send in his Marines to rescue us.
Mr Greene was basing his suggestion on the fact that there are a couple of unfrock- ed Catholic priests in the Sandinista Cabinet or Politburo. We can all breathe again. The closest parallel in Britain would appear to be Mr Roy Hattersley, who is merely the son of an unfrocked Catholic priest, which is not the same thing at all.
One suspects that Mr Greene's motive for making this alarming suggestion — in an open letter to President Reagan — was simply that he has visited Nicaragua, likes the place and the people and the way they are annoying the Americans, and would not wish to see them crushed by American over-reaction to the presence of a Marxist state in Central America. I have never been there and have no particular desire to go, disliking the Spanish language and having no great predisposition to like the Spanish American races, but I have been impressed by the number of my friends who have returned from Nicaragua in the last 12 months full of praise for nearly everything that is happening there.
None of these friends belongs to any- thing identifiable as the hard Left, and none is remotely impressed by anything which Moscow has to offer. The worst that could be said of any of them is that they have residual fun-revolutionary impulses, whether of Left or Right, but this sneer ignores the fact that the carnival element has always been a large part of the revolu- tionary urge, especially among middle- class revolutionaries who invariably mas- termind these unspeakable events. The message which comes through loud and clear even in my Somerset retreat is that Nicaragua, unlike El Salvador or Cuba, is still Fun. There is no reason to be surprised that a number of Catholic priests have chosen to lift up their skirts and join in.
In a thoughtful leader the Sunday Tele- graph last week explained Catholic priests' readiness to join any revolution, whether of Left or Right, in terms of an understand- able desire to be on the winning side. There need be nothing cynical about this, the leader argued, since it springs from the Catholic Church's supreme concern for the saving of souls through the dispensation of sacraments. This analysis would seem to be supported by the fact that although it is the `liberation theology' priests who make most of the headlines in reporting of Central and South American affairs, a little scrutiny will reveal just as many Catholic priests on the other side. The essence of this tactic is that whichever side wins, there will always be Catholic priests in the thick of it.
Such a view would explain Cardinal Sin's role in Marcos's Manila just as it would explain Monsignor Bruce Kent's role in CND and even Archbishop Worlock's Tole in his abject and depraved northern pro- vince, but I do not think it quite explains the gratuitously fatuous political pro- nouncements which issue with ever- increasing regularity from Cardinal Hume's residence at Archbishop's House, Westminster. To understand these — and the apparent defection of the entire Dutch hierarchy — one needs to travel beyond the tactical manoeuvring of a Church in retreat, beyond the absurdities of the second Vatican Council, beyond even St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine, to the original interpreter of the Christian reli- gion, St Paul himself. It is only when one appreciates that the inspiration of modern Christianity is in the fete des fous, call it love-feast, agape or carnival, that one can understand the appalling dangers inherent in any idea of a modern Christian or Catholic government, or understand that the notion of God's Kingdom on Earth was intended as a deliberate paradox, a contra- diction, like Burl Ives's Big Rock Candy Mountain, rather than as a blueprint for social advance:
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the
wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of the word? . . . It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom. But We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block and unto the Greeks foolishness . . . God hath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise, and God hath chosen the weak things of this world to confound the things which are mighty (I Cor. i, 19-27).
All of which is absolutely fine as a formula for a dignified withdrawal from the affairs of the world. It is easy to forget that of the two strands in the Higher Christianity only one is represented by what might be called the Mother Teresa, tradition. The other is the tradition 01 hermits and holy men, monks and cenobi- tic friars who have deliberately withdrawn from worldly affairs to seek sanctity apart. What we are seeing now — especiallY from Cardinal Hume and his running dogs — is a revival of this strand of Higher Christian rhetoric in support of more gov- ernment intervention and the creation of God's Kingdom on Earth through greater material equality. Needless to say, it is a recipe for chaos and ruin. That the salve texts which were clearly intended to urge a dignified withdrawal from worldly con- cerns should now be used to urge a greater involvement in them is also an affront to human intelligence and common sense. The great token that the Catholic Church, in particular, is not fit to organis, or have any significant voice in political affairs is surely the Church's doctrine 00 contraception and birth control. It Intel,', have come straight from God for this purpose. Good and holy Christians like Pope John Paul and Archbishop Lefebvre recognise the function of this apparently absurd and largely disregarded doctrine' They cherish it as much as if it had been written into the Nicene Creed, and regal.' it as one of the cornerstones of their fait,h' Worldly prelates, and those who see red- gion as little more than a stepping-stone .t° political influence, tend to minimise its importance. But of course it will always be there to mock them so long as the Church survives: Let no man deceive himself. If any among you seemeth to be wise in this vvollb let him become like a fool, that he maY wise. For the wisdom of this world 15 foolishness with God (I Cor. iii, 18-19)-
Previous page
