Cardinal Felipe Arizmendi, bishop emeritus of San Cristóbal de Las Casas and responsible for the Doctrine of Faith in the Mexican Episcopal Conference (CEM), offers readers of Exaudi his weekly article entitled “Which People?”.
***
LOOK
It is common to hear our top political leaders, from the presidency down, say that their decisions are supported because the people support them and agree with them. They boast because they do a consultation by show of hands and, as the majority of the participants are their coreligionists, everyone agrees. Legislators approve laws because they say that the people want it that way, that the people mandate their decisions on constitutional changes because they won the last elections. But, what people are they talking about? I remember the figures I shared eight days ago: They obtained only 36 million votes for the presidency of the Republic; 64 million Mexicans, between the opposition parties and abstentionism, did not support them. Where is the mandate of the people? If in the traditional Grito de Independencia, on the night of September 15, on the anniversary of our independence feats, the Zócalo of Mexico City was filled, from this they deduce that the majority of the people support them; but this is having a very partial vision of reality. Many go to that event out of conviction and to support the ruler in power, without a doubt; but many others go carried, out of curiosity, or to listen for free to the musical groups that liven up that moment. And so many demonstrations that there were so that the judicial reform would not be approved, are they not an expression of a people? To which people are they referring?
When I was a bishop in Chiapas, from time to time groups, sometimes large ones, would come to see me to ask me, for example, to remove a priest, and they would always tell me that the people were asking for it. My duty was to listen to them attentively, to take into account and analyze their reasons, but it was not always the people who asked for such a thing, but only a handful of people led by someone who had problems with the priest.
In the Chiapas jungle, some communities demanded that I celebrate Mass with corn wafers and a wine that was not made from grapes; practically the entire population urged it. Since the entire town was asking for it, should I agree? In this case, since the material of the sacrament would be changed, which would be different from that used by Jesus, if I had given in, I would be unfaithful to Jesus. Of course, I did not accept it, although for some years they rejected me. Over time, things changed. Always listen, yes, because we are one body, one family, one community; But there are decisions that transcend majority opinions. In this matter, we have a head, Jesus Christ, not popularly elected, and it is he who has marked the path for us.
In my hometown, when we were already emerging from the restrictions due to the past Covid-19 pandemic, I had to confront two local leaders of armed groups who insisted to the parish priest that the traditional Posadas of the novena before Christmas be held in the streets, and they said that this was what the people wanted. Who were they referring to? To their small group of followers, who were at their service for various interests, especially economic ones. The majority of believers were devoutly praying the Rosary in the temple, and not in the streets. Referring to the people as the basis for a demand does not always correspond to popular reality, but to sympathies or antipathies, which depend on many factors. Our pastoral duty is to analyze what is presented to us, listen to opinions, dialogue with those supposedly affected; but never decide only based on group pressure.
The popular vote to elect judges and members of the judicial bodies was not the decision of a duly regulated public consultation, but rather a proposal by the high-ranking ruler. And since his supporters do not dare to contradict him, so as not to expose themselves to his rage, his disqualifications and threats, even criminal ones, they approved the respective constitutional change. But it cannot be claimed that it is the decision of the people. Which people?
DISCERN
Pope Francis, in his encyclical Fratelli tutti, states:
“There are popular leaders capable of interpreting the feelings of a people, their cultural dynamics and the major tendencies of a society. The service they provide, uniting and leading, can be the basis for a lasting project of transformation and growth, which also implies the ability to give way to others in pursuit of the common good. But it becomes unhealthy populism when it becomes someone’s ability to captivate in order, to politically instrumentalize the culture of the people, with any ideological sign, to serve his personal project and his perpetuation in power. At other times, it seeks to gain popularity by exacerbating the lowest and most selfish inclinations of some sectors of the population. This is aggravated when it becomes, in crude or subtle ways, a subjugation of institutions and legality” (159).
“Closed populist groups disfigure the word ‘people’, since in reality they do not speak of a true people. In effect, the category of ‘people’ is open. A living, dynamic people with a future is one that is permanently open to new syntheses, incorporating the different. It does not do so by denying itself, but rather with the willingness to be mobilized, questioned, expanded, enriched by others, and in this way it can evolve” (160).
“Another expression of the degradation of popular leadership is immediacy. People respond to demands in order to guarantee votes or approval, but without advancing in an arduous and constant task that generates for people the resources for their own development, so that they can sustain their lives with their effort and creativity. In this line, I clearly said that ‘I am far from proposing an irresponsible populism’. On the one hand, overcoming inequality implies economic development, taking advantage of the possibilities of each region and thus ensuring sustainable equity. On the other hand, assistance plans, which address certain emergencies, should only be thought of as temporary responses” (161).
ACT
In every living social organism (family, people, nation, Church, etc.), as in the human body, there are many members, very different from each other. For the body to have a healthy life, members do not fight against each other, nor try to destroy each other, but rather they respect what belongs to each one and, together, they grow, develop and live. This is how we should be in society and in the Church.
