“We are converting to other religious forms.” (Father Diego Irarrázabal, CSC)
How to explain the unexplainable? Or how to explain the idyllic praise of the indigenous cultures of America, including by churchmen, almost as if the Indians are conceived without original sin?
For example, the 8th Inter-Church Meeting of Basic Christian Communities of Brazil, attended by 98 bishops and about 3,000 priests, men and women religious and laity from 21 Latin American countries in September 1992, stated in its final document that “the American continent’s 500 years of history were, in fact, ‘a long captivity: The oppressors said that our [sic!] gods were false, our rites, superstitions; our myths, heresies; our customs, sinful’”(cf. Jornal do Brasil, September 14, 1992, and Zero Hora, September 10, 1992). How do these Catholic leaders so easily consider that pagan gods, rites, myths, and customs can be “ours,” that is, Catholic?!
Likewise, how can one explain that a Catholic bishop virtually attributes the gift of infallibility to these native cultures, rather than to the Chair of Saint Peter? These indigenous peoples “are the true evangelizers of the world. We missionaries do not go to them as the ones who carry a doctrine or evangelization that Christ has brought and entrusted to us. … But we go to them knowing that Christ has already preceded us in their midst, in which the ‘seeds of the Word’ are already found. We are convinced that they live the Gospel of Beatitude and that therefore, we are required to convert to their cultures” (Bishop Tomas Balduino, Versus, p. 16).
Moreover, how to justify the fact that Catholic priests are embracing aberrant indigenous cults? For example, the Chilean priest Father Diego Irarrázabal, CSC, director of the Aymarás Institute of Studies in Puno, Peru, states: “What is happening to me and many, is that we are converting to other religious forms. I practice the service to Pachamama [Gnostic worship of ‘mother earth’ by Indians from Peru, Bolivia, and northern Chile] and do the challa [sacrificial offering to the same earth goddess] along with the indigenous communities where I am. Then I discovered a dimension of the human being, the cosmos, and divinity.When someone enters this reality, he awakens … [and] begins to live again” (Tópicos 90, pp. 223-224).
How to explain statements like these?
The transition from the Communist State to stateless communism
The metamorphosis of contemporary communism – which includes the self-dismantling of communist states – is intended to give way to more radical, pre-anarchic forms of collectivism, passing from communist state to stateless communism, the so-called self-managing socialism. In turn, this draws inspiration from philosophies such as Rousseau’s primitive tribe and noble savage, and Engels’ admirable Iroquois. The ongoing cultural revolution in the West – which the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE), for example, promotes in Spain – tends more or less clearly towards this neo-tribal goal (cf. TFP-Covadonga, Spain, Anesthetized Unperceivingly, Gagged Unwillingly, Deviated Unknowningly – The Work of the PSOE).
Indigenism and revolutionary demolition
Note, however, that for these revolutionaries, indigenism is only a pretext and the poor Indians a mere mass of maneuver, part of the neo-proletariat being mobilized to demolish the existing order of things in the Church and in temporal society and replace it with anarchic chaos. Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira masterfully demonstrated this point when he denounced the nascent indigenous revolution:
Can the Indians be qualified as communists? This question can only bring a smile.
There is nothing communist about the Indian: neither the doctrine, nor the mentality, nor the designs.
The state in which he is found presents only traces of analogy with the communist regime.
It is one of those happenstances that frequently appear when a comparison is made between stages of primitivism and decadence ‑ for example, between infancy and old age.
It is not because he is doctrinally opposed to private property that the primitive has (or almost only has) property in common.
Likewise, the man of the Stone Age did not avail himself of polished stone because he had not invented it and in no way because he thought he should not use it.
In this perspective, the Indian cannot be compared to the “civilized” man who is acquainted with the institution of private property the monogamous and indissoluble family and everything that has risen and flowered from these fertile institutions, but who has an aversion to the trunks and fruits of these trees. This “civilized” man wants to take an ax to their roots.
To summarize, an Indian people can be compared to a plant that has not grown but which can still grow. Whereas the enemy of the family and of property, homesick for communitarianism or for tribal communism (the reader may characterize it as he sees fit), is a destroyer.” Because the design of tribalist neo-missionaries is to establish “the free‑love community is a corollary of the community of goods,” upon the ruins of family and property (Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, Indian Tribalism, Communist-Missionary Ideal for Brazil in the Twenty-First Century, 1977, pp. 46-49).
In the final analysis, this is the goal of this campaign to exalt indigenous life promoted by critics of the Fifth Centenary. Accordingly, Father Irarrázabal, CSC, quoted above, maintains that, after the failure of the Soviet model, one must recreate the socialist utopia starting from the smaller, humble, and mystical scope of indigenous communities: “There is fullness in the small, humble, vital seed” (Tópicos 90, p. 208).
Excerpts from the book, The Fifth Centenary Facing the Twenty-First Century – Authentic Christendom or Tribal-Communist Revolution, pp. 74-76)