Chávez hits back at cardinal's 'dictator' criticism

[emad]

Christopher Toothaker, Associated Press in Caracas
Monday January 16, 2006
The Guardian


The Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, yesterday criticised the country's only cardinal, who used a major religious ceremony to accuse him of acting despotically and endangering one of South America's oldest democracies.

"Insults, hate, it was shameful for the Catholic church," Mr Chávez said on his weekly television and radio programme. "It was undoubtedly a provocation."

Mr Chávez demanded that the country's Roman Catholic hierarchy formally distance itself from the accusations that Cardinal Rosalio Castillo Lara made at the weekend before hundreds of thousands of people attending the procession honouring a Virgin known as the "Divine Shepherdess" in the city of Barquisimeto, about 180 miles west of Caracas.


Cardinal Castillo, 83, told worshippers that Mr Chávez's administration "has lost its democratic course and presents the semblance of a dictatorship".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,12716,1687139,00.html

[Ben Ceremos]

1. I am certain the Catholic Church

"has lost its democratic course and presents the semblance of a dictatorship". Viva Chavez, Viva Socialism!! Viva la Revolucion Bolivariana!!! Venceremos!!!

[xchrom]

2. the holy roman empire

spews more shit.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. You might be surprised to learn

The history of Central and South America includes a LOT of Catholic priests, monks, and nuns that are (or were, if they're already deceased) socialist, fighting for the poor, and many of whom have been or were murdered by fascist governments friendly to the U.S. This fascist cardinal/bishop/fool is in no way representative of the entirety of the Catholic Church down there believe me. (And I'm not even Catholic, and I love Chavez).

[gratuitous]

7. Actually, I WAS surprised a few years ago

I was in a Christian Peacemaker Teams delegation to Chiapas, and we met some Catholic bigwig (bishop?) in San Cristobal. I went into the meeting prepared to hear something along the lines of what Cardinal Lara was saying, but was quite pleasantly surprised by the man's careful speech, his superior understanding of the issues, and though we probably disagreed on means and methods, I came away thinking that he would be someone who could and would advocate for the rights of minority and indigenous peoples in the state.

What to make of Lara's remarks? Hard to say, except to point out that Mr. Chavez just stood for re-election and won handily. Would Mr. Lara like to run for re-election to his office in a vote of all the people of Venezuela?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. I'm sorry. I'm confused about your post?

Nonetheless, I will make some comments even though I'm not sure what your post meant.

How many times must Mr. Chavez have to run for election for the fascists to be happy that he won fair and square? Chavez has the backing of the majority of the people (the poor, of course). If he does not have the backing of the tiny minority of mega-rich, U.S.-friendly capitalists, that's just too bad. The country does not belong to only a tiny minority, even tho that minority think it does. It's sickening that the poor never have anyone to stand for them. Chavez is wonderful. The mega-rich minority need to leave.

[gratuitous]

11. Hmm, maybe it was badly phrased

I was responding to the post above about how many Catholics in Latin America have stood with the people and against the monied interests. In meeting with the bishop (let's just call him that, knowing that he might have been a monsignor or an archbishop or something else), I figured the bishop would, like Cardinal Lara, side with the monied interests who were making life unnecessarily hard for the poor and native peoples of the area.

My second paragraph was considering Lara's comments from the original story, which caused me to reflect on the fact that while Lara was accusing Chavez of being a dictator, Lara's own position of authority was decidedly NOT the result of any popular vote, and as the cardinal for the entire country of Venezuela, I wonder how Mr. Lara might fare in an open election of all the people of the country for his particular position? I'd guess he wouldn't do nearly as well as Chavez did, and that being the case, who is the real dictator between Lara and Chavez? The one who stood for re-election and won, or the one who was appointed to his post and never has to face a plebiscite of the people?

[phusion]

35. did you meet Bishop Ruiz?

He's a great example of Liberation Theology at work.

[1932]

10. Leonardo Boff -- Liberation Theologists. There have been many great

Catholics who have stood up for Democracy -- and the current pope and the previous pope and many at the very top of the church have undermined Liberation Theology at its roots.

[mom cat]

29. With the help of the CIA and death squads.

[saigon68]

13. I have heard some of the Bishops & Cardinals

Are very right wing pro-dictator like in the Philippines

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

40. Or the Vatican, for that matter.

[0007]

44. Hitler was a right winger.....where was the Catholic Church

and it's stance in 1934 on Hitler's campaign against the Jews?

[Judi Lynn]

46. I'd like to hear some great answers on that question, myself.

Bishop Castillo Lara might have some great opinions on this subject.

[IndianaGreen]

45. The now retired Cardinal Jaime Sin is very rightwing

The axis of evil in the Philippines are the elites, the army, and the Catholic Church.

[xchrom]

32. no, actually i wouldn't be surprised to know that.

i already knew -- dated a socialist priest who worked in el salvador.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Cardinal Lara is a rightwinger

Lara opposes liberation theology and has aligned himself with the elites.

The Catholic Church in the Philippines has played the same role that Lara has done in Venezuela by aligning itself with the elites and the army, the axis of evil.

[CatholicEdHead]

48. Vatican does this because of their history of empire

(e.g. Papal States) The heirarchy usually sides with those higher up on the chain of power. While Liberation Theology has been officially undermined, it is still around and still popular in pockets of the masses.

This starts at the diocese level where even many US Bishops or Archbishops do tend to hang around those with connections and/or money.

Liberation Theology is a bottom-up approach where the church serves the people. The historial "trationalist" (also known as "orthodox Catholics") talk about a top-down approach where the people serve the church.

[Judi Lynn]

4. Ah, the NEXT wave of destabilization attempts seems to be coming

from ""religion-"related program activities," since _Bush's original plans have fallen flat, followed by plans B and C, etc.

Keep in mind, Chavez is also responsible for the REST of the lack of subservience to _Bush throughout Latin America, as well. That's what _Bush has had Colin, Condoleeza, and Rumsfeld tell us.

[Peace Patriot]

6. "has lost its democratic course"? You mean, Chavez WASN'T elected

repeatedly, by big majorities, with literally hundreds of election monitors from the OAS, the EU and the Carter Center breathing down everybody's necks, and every one of them declaring the elections honest and aboveboard?

And who were YOU elected by, Cardinal Castillo?


----------------------

Weasel language, such as the U.S. corporate news monopolies use to dis Chavez: Lost its democratic "course," has a "semblance" of dictatorship? What does that mean, exactly? Hm-m-m? Would that be like Bush does, signing laws and saying he'll decide later whether to obey them? Illegally invading another country and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people? Torturing prisoners? THAT kind of "semblance" of dictatorship? No evidence of it in Chavez's Venezuela, nor of ANY kind of, or "semblance" of, or facts in support of dictatorship. None! Goddamned slimebag Bushites and Catholic prelates! I'd look for Oil Cartel donations in the Cardinal's coffers (or his Swiss bank account).

[Judi Lynn]

8. He has attacked Hugo Chavez before. I recall trying to find a photo

of his grubby face, to understand what kind of idiot who claims to represent higher spiritual aspiration actually ends up serving the more extreme materialistic world, instead.



He's worth his weight in those little plastic Jesuses. I'm sure he's getting a more dense, more tangible than spiritual compensation for his anti-Chavez efforts.

[ninkasi]

18. Weasel language, indeed

Unless I'm mistaken, Bush is content to let the poor freeze to death, while Chavez is providing heating oil at huge discounts. Chavez is not invading other countries, and he actually cares about the common people, instead of the ultra wealthy. For me, any comparison between Bush and Chavez leaves Chavez looking like a better man.

[Clutch Cargo]

12. The Cardinal may have violated the law?

Did he violate Venezuela's Media Content law that forbids the promoting, condoning or inciting disrespect for legitimate authorities and institutions? Or does that law just apply to broadcast media?

[Judi Lynn]

15. This open letter to a Washington Post columnist addresses the

charges propagandists have attempted to plant:

~ snip ~
You are lying to your readers, Mister Diehl, when you say, "Beginning this month journalists or other independent activists accused by the government of the sort of offenses alleged by Izarra can be jailed without due process and sentenced to up to 30 years," because you are confusing the law that protects children from obscenity in the broadcast media with the laws on national security and the President's security, which are more strict in the United States.

US Code, Title 18, Section 871, "Threats against the President and presidential successors," prohibits any offense or threat made against the President of the United States. Examples include July 2, 1996, when two people were arrested by the secret service for shouting insults at President Clinton ("You suck and those boys died...") on the occasion of an attack against a military installation in Saudi Arabia in which 19 US soldiers died; or a minister who was arrested for saying "God will hold you to account" to President Clinton, concerning his decision not to prohibit a certain kind of abortion.

US Code, Title 18, Section 1752(a)(1)(ii) declares that it is a crime to intentionally enter a restricted zone during a presidential visit, and it has been used to arrest more than 1,800 demonstrators during the Republican Convention in August of 2004, despite the fact that the demonstrators were several blocks from President Bush's location; it was also used to arrest a gentleman for carrying a sign against war on October 24, 2002, during Bush's visit to Ohio; also arrested was a dead soldier's mother for wearing an anti-war t-shirt during a speech by First Lady Laura Bush in New Jersey; and a couple in West Virginia was arrested for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts during a rally.

You know, Mister Diehl, that the Patriot Act together with an Executive Order give President Bush the power to determine when a person represents a threat to the United States. If the person is a US citizen, he can be detained for an indefinite length of time without rights, be declared an enemy of the state, and even lose his citizenship. If the person is not a US citizen, he can be detained without any rights and be brought before a secret military tribunal without anyone, not even his family members, finding out. If a foreigner in the US says that "Bush is the Devil," he can be imprisoned and end up in Guantanamo.

Your interest in having people believe that in Venezuela, journalists are threatened like foreign agents, is understandable due to the number of agents that act as journalists, in both Venezuela and the US, to diffuse opinions concocted by the US State Department:

Declassified documents from the State Department (from the NGO National Security Archives) concerning the US Office of Public Diplomacy, managed by Otto Reich during the 1970's, demonstrate that the Washington Post was one of the newspapers used by the US government to spread its black propaganda against the Sandanista government. Washington Post journalist Marcela Sanchez publicly stated that in the months before the August 2004 presidential referendum, in which President Chavez was reaffirmed, (Roger) Noriega and others in the State Department visited the Washington Post's editorial board in order to influence its reporting on that topic.

Or have you forgotten, Mister Diehl, that journalist Maggie Gallagher, who collaborated with the Washington Post, was accused of accepting money in exchange for supporting one of President Bush's proposed Constitutional Amendments?

I can't imagine, Mister Diehl, how you came up with the terms "without due process" and "summarily," which you repeat in order to give the false impression of a dictatorial Venezuela that only exists in your imagination and in that crazy quilt of scraps that is your article. Surely, it will sound "ridiculous" to you, but now and for the first time in history, the press is more free in Venezuela than in the United States. Is that what bothers you, Mister Diehl?

It is not President Chavez' fault that the Bush administration can control the globalized world with the same methods and the same men as in the 1970s. It's not my fault if the Washington Post of Katherine Graham ... which was an example for the world in the Watergate case ... now acts as if it had been bought by the Nixon Family.

Instead of your incomplete, cartoonish, and malicious portrait of Venezuelan media and laws, I would have preferred to see, from a respectable "independent newspaper," a balanced analysis of our informative landscape. But I think that it's more likely that we'll find out, in the not-so-distant future, that you too, Mister Diehl, receive money from the State Department.

Andres Izarra
Minister of Communication and Information

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=29153

[Peace Patriot]

21. Wow! Way to go, Anres Izarra! Judi Lynn, you should have identifed...

...this letter as coming from the MINISTER OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION of VENEZUELA up at the top of your post. I read it all through before I realized who was writing it.

I wish OUR politicians would defend US--the people of the U.S. whose rights are being trampled every day by the Bush junta--the way Izarra defends Venezuela and speaks truth to power!

Viva Izarra!

[Clutch Cargo]

22. Minister of Communication. That expains it.

One propagandist refuting another propagandist. That's funny!

[IndianaGreen]

23. How's Air America and Flying Tigers getting along?

When it comes to propagandist, just look at yourself in the mirror.

[Clutch Cargo]

I'm not propagandizing!

I'm opining. Big, big difference.

[IndianaGreen]

25. So is Faux News

No difference!

[Clutch Cargo]

26. I wouldn't know about faux news.

I don't watch them. Do you? News that strays from objective reporting is not news, it's commentary. If it's not distinguished as such, then that is tantamount, in my book, to a lie.

[Judi Lynn]

33. Would you care to point out the lies in his remarks?

If he's misrepresenting, I'm sure DU'ers would like to know about it. Please be good enough to indicate what whoppers he has dropped in service of propaganda, or is it possible he's pointing out obvious facts?

Hardly seems worth the effort scrawling an entire open letter meant to be read by just anyone if you're going to lay out information which can be checked by anyone.

[Solon]

20. I doubt it...

First, I have yet to hear any evidence of the law being enforced. Not to mention that under our current laws, here in the states, he could have been sued by the United States government for slander, not to mention that his church would have their tax exemption revoked. Not to mention the fact that Venezuela's media has not let up on its attacks, that I have heard, and even after they helped coordinate an illegal coup, I have not heard of any of the stations being shut down for that.

[MrPrax]

14. "lost its democratic course"

This guy is 83 years old?

Do we have any of his comments dating from 27 February 1989? The day the rioting starting over Perez's IMF reforms that left nearly 2000 dead due to military mass.

If Chevaz's ONLY legacy turns out to be NOT massacring poor people, then he is already ahead of in the 'best presidents' sweepstakes.

Too bad Chevaz is being too nice...past President's would have locked this guy up or rigged an accident. (But then again, this guy wouldn't have criticised past Presidents would, now would he)

But then again, the Guardian's coverage, like much of so-called centrist media, is really suspect...it seems trashing Chevaz is a good way of getting 'cred' with elites.

But then again, western intellectuals have always treated Latin American leftism through the lense of imperialist privilege and benign globalist expansion.


Catholic Church didn't like this guy either...

[Ben Ceremos]

16. Catholic Church

is one of the biggest vested interests in Latin America, so it's no surprise they oppose Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution. If the curse of religious ideology and oppression were ever to be exposed clearly, then it would result in mass disaffection with the false church and the people might want to exact a bit of justice on their heads...the Catholic Church is a tool of oppression and I have yet to meet any member who recognized this. Hey, Cardinal "Asshole", go suck a lemon!!!

President Chavez is a true leader, a man of the people and the first man in 40 years who I will trust in terms of politics. Viva Chavez! Viva La Revolucion Bolivariana!!! Venceremos!!!

[MrPrax]

17. Oh Yeah...

The Catholic church is a corrosive to any culture.

Like I say, the Catholic Church doesn't need a marketing guru to see where it's future lies--in countries that are literate and wealthy, the Church's influence and membership is, not only in decline, but fundamentally questioned.
Whereas in countries that are still illiterate and poor, the Church still flourishes.
The obvious solution is to promote values and political systems that will keep people stupid and poor. This foolish old Cardinal is just speaking Catholic boilerplate.

[dusmcj]

19. since the Catholic church is climbing up the ass of the rich

in South America, one would wonder why anyone cares or is surprised at their emanations. Time for another Reformation.

[IndianaGreen]

24. The Vatican opposed Archbishop Romero and sided with RW

in El Salvador.

This is more of the same, they love the poor as long as the poor get no funny ideas about breaking the chains of oppression.

[Peace Patriot]

27. From the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Venezuela

(poorly sourced, written circa 1912?)
"The religion of Venezuela has always been the Catholic faith."

(Note: The arrogance of the above statement is staggering, even for 1912-ish.)

(poorly sourced, written circa 1912?)
"One of the greatest glories of the religious orders and of the Spanish nation is the record of their unselfish devotion to the social redemption of the American races. (indigenous) The religious always defended the aborigines against their cruel assailants, being the first to claim for them the rights of humanity, and the kings of Spain fostered these humane and Christian views, promulgating a great body of laws--the leyes de las Indias--which will always be a monument of the noble principles which inspired those monarchs in their dealings with the aborigines. The Franciscans and Dominicans had the chief part in their civilizing work. In Venezuela they exercised their ministry with fruitful results; and when the conquest was completed, they still continued their mission with the greatest zeal."

(written circa 1905)
"In the sixteenth century, and almost as late as the middle of the seventeenth, the royal power was undoubtedly less efficacious for order than was that of the Church. The former depended very much on the actual force which supported it; and that force was not in evidence to any great degree in the colony; European troops seldom appeared there, and indeed the territory was too large for the armies and fleets at the Spanish king's disposal. It was, therefore, almost exclusively through the influence of the Church that the habits of civilized life could be implanted in the country--habits which, but for the Church, the conquerors would have lost, and which, as a matter of fact, they did lose to a great extent, by contact with aboriginal savagery. The conquest would probably have ended in ferocious civil wars, in which the Europeans would have lost ground, and would have sunk to the level of the tribes who were their adversaries, had not the Church spoken to their conscience, reviving the sentiments of justice and duty, which, in the heat of the struggle, had been supplanted by base passions.

"The retrogression had been terrible, and to restore the moral level of these people was a difficult undertaking. To this work, and to that of inculcating into the Indians and the negro slaves the moral and religious principles which form the basis of civilization, the Venezuelan bishops applied themselves with extraordinary energy. They encountered great resistance, and, in order to accomplish their civilizing mission, they had not only to use persuasion and gentleness, but actually to assume a sort of dictatorship so as to break up abuses, protect the weak, chastise iniquity, and finally lay the foundations of a society inspired by justice and not brute force. They made great progress in this direction; and if the work was not, after all, solidly accomplished, it was not through the lack of any efforts of theirs, but because the conditions were difficult in the extreme. In this way, then, the quasi-dictatorship of our first bishops was just and beneficial. Venezuelan society was in its medieval stage; the same phenomenon was reproduced which had occurred in Europe, when the bishops and abbots were the only persons capable of protecting the masses against the excesses of chieftains and warrior bands."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15327a.htm

--------------------

What strikes me about these passages is how much they are reminiscent of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice in their "democratizing" (read "civilizing") of the Iraqis. The arrogance. The hypocrisy. The lies that can be read between the lines, and those that stare you in the face. I imagine that it's similar also to passages written about Native Americans circa 1900. However, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice live in the 21st century, don't they?

As for Cardinal Carillo--17th Century, maybe? (At best.) I think part of what's going on here with Carillo (re Chavez) is racism.

[Peace Patriot]

28. Note: I agree with the poster above, Sarah Ibarruri, that, in the modern

era, there have been many lower level priests, nuns and monks, and one bishop that I know of (Romero), who have stood up for the poor, often at the cost of their lives. We know of the nuns slaughtered in El Salvador by US-trained death squads, and the hit on Romero. There have been many other sufferings and struggles, on the part of leftist and progressive Catholics and Catholic clerics, and a considerable conflict between believers in Liberation theology, and supporters of economic and political justice, vs. dinosaurs like Carillo and other such prelates including every Pope except John XXIII (advocates of the rich and the rightwing, basically). The dinosaurs have really tried to stamp out Liberation theology. I believe they issued an encyclical (papal pronouncement) condeming it a few years back.

[fishwax]

30. if only a US cardinal would say something similar

this administration "has lost its democratic course and presents the semblance of a dictatorship".

[Toots]

31. If Chavez does anything about it he will be proved correct

:shrug:

[Ben Ceremos]

36. Pres. Chavez

has done something about it; he spoke out in public and rebuked his slanderer. Pres. Chavez believes in the rule of law and isn't likely to go after his enemies unless they are doing something illegal. His record indicates that he upholds and advances his principles and is not a Bush-style hypocrite. Cardinal "Asshole" has very little to fear from the Pres.
Now, I am not so sure he won't get his ass beat on the street by those who know the truth of the Bolivarian Revolution. Fuck the Catholic Church in Latin America, they have screwed my people and my own family over and I wish them to be exposed for their lies . Viva Chavez!!!

[goforit]

34. This millenium has certainly been the END of Catholism!

[Voltaire99]

37. How wrothful these Christians wax...

--from Cardinal Castillo to Pat Robertson--against Chavez!

Christ must be spinning in his grave.

[zann725]

38. Chavez is like a "hair-shirt" in the Pope...and Democracy's side.

He chafes them constantly by goading their long-since gone social conscience. AND he (Chavez) "speaks Truth to authority."

Dangerous, indeed...to those politically 'deaf and blind' to the needs of "every man."

[MaryBear]

41. No way a "hair-shirt" in Democracy's side.

Democracy is us! And Chavez is us!

[Peace Patriot]

39. Just want to clarify--something I just found out. Cardinal Castillo is NOT

the leader of the Church in Venezuela. He just retired there (that's where he was born). Castillo has been a Roman Curia toady for many years, and some have accused him of shady Vatican business dealings, and of association with Opus Dei (a rightwing, pro-fascist Catholic group--supported Franco--Catholic "mafia"), and also of connivance with the Italian fascists (some of whom were involved in the Niger forgeries).

The actual bishops and other leaders of Venezuela's Catholic Church have had to issue statements distancing themselves from Castillo (who seems to be as nuts as Pat Robertson); one of them at least disavowed his statements--said he doesn't speak for the Venezuela Church.

[MaryBear]

42. All right! Title then should be FORMER bishop said. . .

Wow! What a difference a slight omission makes in apparent legitimacy of a person. This guy is a used to be! Without your careful research, Peace Patriot, we all might have thought he does indeed rep the catholic church there. Must even so have some clout, if Chavez denounced his words, though. Viva Chavez! Not real rational on the subject of him here myself I admit.

[Judi Lynn]

43. Thanks for posting the info. you uncovered. It only reinforces the image

he has projected already, doesn't it?

I found a very short article which is interesting in its own way:

25 October 2005
The Catholic Church in Venezuela

Leonardo Boff, one of the founders of Liberation Theology, said, “"For
500 years, there have been two Catholic Churches in Brazil: one of the
rich and one of the poor.”" I have many friends who are priests and nuns
who work with the poor in Brazil. Their sacrifice and dedication are a
great source of inspiration to me.

I spoke at length with Charlie Hardy, a former Catholic priest from
Wyoming, USA, who has lived in Venezuela for more than 20 years. As a
priest with the Maryknoll Order, he used to live in a slum barrio with
no electricity, running water or toilets for many years. Because of his
strong sympathies with the poor, he is a supporter of the anti-poverty
programs of President Hugo Chavez. His insightful blog site, “"Cowboy in
Caracas: A Voice from the New America"” is: http://fuego.net/

Charlie explained that because of a historical Concordia agreement
between the government of Venezuela and the Vatican, only Venezuelan-born priests are allowed to become bishops in that country. A popular saying in the Church is that when a Venezuelan priest is newly ordained, he is told, “You have to decide, do you want to serve the people or become a bishop?” It means that if a priest decides to work with the poor, he will never be promoted in the Church heirarchy.

The Venezuelan bishops that are published in the newspapers invariably
criticize the Chavez government. (The newspapers are owned by the
superrich who are opposed to Chavez.) For example, Cardinal Rosalio
Castillo Lara said to journalists on Oct. 22 that Venezuelans ought to
“"deny recognition"” to the Chavez government and organize civil
disobedience against because it because it is, "“ill-fated and dangerous".”
(snip/...)

http://proutaftercapitalism.blogspot.com/2005/10/catholic-church-in-venezuela.html



Chavez jokes around with the two main international observers: Carter (representing the Carter
Center) and Cesar Gaviria, President of the OAS (Org. of American States). The presence of the
two groups was welcomed by both sides.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

47. Ah well......

I live in Miami, which is a haven for fascists: Venezuelan ones, Salvadoran, Colombian, Cuban, etc. You name it, we have all the fascists you could want here. It makes for one malodorous fascist soup. At least they're here and not tainting their own suffering lands.