If we do not defend our national sovereignty, it will fall prey to the religious left
To think of the Amazon on international terms, as if it were merely a neutral discussion without a political or rather geopolitical character, is highly naive. Some people hide their real purposes behind a seemingly moral and universal rhetoric based on environmental, indigenous, or quilombola issues; others directly propose to confiscate Brazil’s sovereignty over a slice of its territory. Both groups start from the same idea of “universality” to claim that our country must bow to a “humanity” directed and controlled by them.
The preparatory document of the Catholic Church for the Amazon Synod seeks to deceive the unaware with a supposedly moral and humanitarian argumentation when in fact it has a clearly established political orientation. This orientation is based on Liberation Theology, with explicit references to its founding meetings in Puebla and Medellin. It employs biblical arguments to establish a line of continuity between the Torah (with a Hebrew name in the text) and this theology of which the ideological axis is based on Marxism. All that remained for it to say was that Liberation Theology is a direct heir to the Old Testament, which would be tantamount to saying that Marxism is its best expression.
One should keep in mind that this orientation of the CNBB (National Conference of Bishops of Brazil) is being strengthened in the present pontificate, whereas the former Pontiff, Benedict XVI, had dismissed it outright since the time he was known as Cardinal Ratzinger. In 1984, he wrote a critical and scathing book against Liberation Theology, considering it a perversion of Catholic thought. In his book on the life of Jesus, he took up the same position, considering it as a mold of the ‘antichrist’. Christianity and Marxism would be incompatible.
It turns out that sectors of the Brazilian Catholic Church, gathered at the CNBB, try to sell an image of political neutrality as if they were strictly concerned with religious or universal issues when in fact they are deeply engaged in politics. They clearly assume leftist positions! Maybe they are trying to hide their ideas because the left has lost ground in our latest presidential election!
Curiously, this obfuscation is often done on the pretext of appearing different from evangelicals, as if the latter did politics and Catholics did not. This is a mere disguise to pretend that the opposition, the “Catholic left,” is not doing politics, which the “evangelical right” supposedly is. This is a rhetorical form of veiling their real designs.
In the 1980s, the Catholic Church, through the Pastoral Land Commission (CPT), created the MST (Landless Workers Movement) and has accompanied it ever since. Its positions are expressly anti-capitalist and revolutionary; it preaches violence and the invasion of rural and urban properties in flagrant disrespect of the law. When the law does not favor this movement, the law is but a tool of “landowners” and “conservatives.” It despises democracy and the rule of law.
The Catholic Church also collaborated decisively in the founding of the PT (Workers’ Party), making it one of its axes. Liberation Theology found it particularly fertile ground for its blossoming. This current was a tireless companion of PT administrations, meaning it was complacent with the economic and social debacle they produced, not to mention the State’s takeover by unbridled corruption.
Another commission, the Indigenous Missionary Council (CIMI), strives to turn indigenous peoples into an instrument of theirs and associated NGOs’, claiming demarcated areas would be practically cut off from the national territory. In other words, Brazil would no longer be a nation of individuals with different beliefs and ethnicities but would suffer an internal division with indigenous nations having complete autonomy on their territories. CIMI documents are written in a Marxist language, aiming at a revolutionary transformation of Brazil.
Consider just one fact: According to IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics), Brazil has around 1 million indigenous people of whom approximately 500,000 are in rural areas. They occupy 12.5% of the national territory in demarcated areas. According to CIMI and its affiliated NGOs, the country should give up 24% of its territory to half a million people, which they call “nations.” The next step would be to make them represented at the UN!
The synod’s document is full of mentions of threats of deforestation, as if Brazil were the planet’s great destroyer. Data from Embrapa Satellite surveyed by one of its most influential scholars, Evaristo de Miranda, attest to the fact that Brazil is one of the leading countries when it comes to preserving the environment. With the decisive contribution of its farmers, it boasts the unusual conservation index of more than 60% of the native vegetation. NASA, incidentally, confirms these data.
The preparatory document deals with a “Pan-Amazon” strip that would cut across all countries of the Amazon Forest, and should be managed specifically according to the ideas of the “universal church,” that is, the Catholic Church guided by Liberation Theology with its entourage of NGOs from around the world. The Church would thus be meddling in the internal affairs of these countries as if they should bow to such “universal” dictates.
General Heleno, Minister of the Cabinet of National Security, is justified in expressing his concern about the direction in which this political and leftist synod is headed. The military is concerned about the destiny of Brazil and the integrity of its territory. At issue, here, is national sovereignty. If it is not defended, it will be taken hostage by this supposedly humanitarian, environmentalist and indigenist religious left. And the very meaning of the ‘Brazilian Nation’ will be lost.