I’m writing this letter to my children and friends to explain how I see the current political electoral contingency and our position as Catholics, because this is an issue that fills me with concern for the future of the country and that sincerely worries me.
A great number of friends, whose Catholicism and good faith I know, have decided to support Milei’s candidacy for the presidency of the country. This is such a surprise and great shock to me, according to our worldview, that for weeks I have been thinking and repeating how to explain my aversion to this candidate, even if he is accompanied by Victoria Villarruel.
I am worried about Milei, I am worried about Massa, and I am worried about all the candidates for government, but I am more worried about the Argentine people, who are already subjected to a fraudulent system of manipulation of opinion and elections, and who put their hope in subjects they dress up with good qualities. And I am even more worried for Catholics who are unable to oppose or abstain from voting in an election that will bring to power a person who is anti-Christian in his proposals for political action and who, regardless of what group he comes from, is sent by the corporation to which he is affiliated.
They tell me: “It is legitimate to follow the lesser of two evils. I ask, “How can you be so sure that Milei is the lesser of evils? Surely, when we speak of doing evil, we place ourselves on the moral plane and assume that, in the absence of better candidates, the lesser evil may be something good. These statements hold true on paper, but this definition corresponds to times when evil was not publicly associated with perversity. On the moral level, the primacy of doctrine is held by the Church.
The postulates that Milei defends in the political and economic order are condemned for being contrary to the Gospels. Are we not aware that this is another step towards the de-Christianization of the country, towards the democratization of our beliefs, towards a pragmatic subjectivism already announced as a process and condemned in Christianæ Reipublicaæ, in Notre Charge Apostolique, in Diuturnum Illud, in Libertas, in Immortale Dei, in Rerum Novarum, in Mirari Vos, in the Syllabus de Quanta Cura, in Quas Primas, in Vehementer Nos, etc.? Did they not warn us, from Pius VI to Pius XII, at the beginning of these times, of what was coming, describing and condemning what was leading us away from Justice and Truth? To what extent is “Victoria Villarruel is paving the way for ours” valuable or, on the other hand, is it the imposition of a certain criteria of good and tolerance in a system that is more and more clearly globalist republican, more and more distant from the notion of the common good of Catholicism, more and more separated – much more than with the Concordats – from its mission of government according to the doctrine of Christ the King?
Libertarianism is proclaimed, the ideas of Benegas Lynch or the Austrian School. Aren’t these the doctrines that are condemned when it is said that “liberalism is a sin”? Isn’t the independence of any judgment, of any religious evaluation (except that of the Torah and the Talmud) proclaimed? What does it mean today, in prudential political practice, in political pragmatism, that “liberalism is a sin”? The more I read the encyclicals and letters of our vigorous Popes, the more clearly I see that we have gone astray: our weakness leads us to consider complicity with the wicked as good; we assent to pragmatism and are incapable of affirming emphatically what we know to be right.
Milei’s pro-life postulates are partial: No to abortion (although he is willing to have a yes or no plebiscite), but yes to contraception, yes to the IUD, yes to the morning-after pill, yes to stem cell research, yes to the selection and destruction of embryos in vitro, yes to the rental of wombs, yes to the purchase (private adoption) of babies, yes to voluntary sterilization, yes to the sale of organs…. Only no to the knife. In the moral order, he opposes aberrosexualist LGTB marriage as much as he opposes Catholic marriage, but he will not be an obstacle to the extension of rights in favor of aberrosexualist associations. Likewise, he is not against the law of quotas, “trans” rights, etc. He only rejects the teaching of this aberration in schools until the age of 18 and the change of sex until the age of 18. Does he protect children? Who will be his Minister of Health, someone who is not subject to the WHO?
We continue with the moral analysis of Milei’s candidacy: he rejects corruption, the use of the State for business, institutionalized theft, but he wants to privatize and place in the hands of private corporations sensitive areas of education, research, health… The profit motive of the capitalist sectors is greater than the theft of any civil servant. Only that it is legal and pacted.
And what happened to the fatherland, and the land, the language, the Faith and the customs of our fathers? Milei is coming to change the currency, to unite our land to the designs of the global financial powers that even impose the migrations that cause so much damage in Europe. He comes to remove us from our relative neutrality among the superpowers, to submit us to the U.S.-“State of Israel” alliance, at a time when the disputes for global power are settled in battles that destroy countries similar to ours, full of natural resources.
Milei comes to change the religious denomination of the country, to develop what not even the most radical ecumenism dared to establish. He comes to configure a State in which legal positivism and fiscal balance will prevail above all, to the detriment of Natural Law, the principle of subsidiarity, and the charity so necessary for our people. It will demand and impose the absence or the reduction of the State, making impossible the development of many territories in our country without this public investment, with the consequent economic losses.
We, Catholics, are being offered a share of power in their space through Victoria Villarruel. But the one who is offering it does not have that power, he needs us to help him get it. And in politics there are no guarantees of power. Power belongs to the one who commands or to the one who exercises it. And we ourselves and for ourselves cannot and do not know how to exercise it, so why should we believe that it will be granted to us? Because of Milei’s word? Because of his commitment to Villarruel? Villarruel herself has not yet signed any commitment, we know nothing about what her cabinet would look like. We know even less about Milei’s.
The Agenda 2030 that he claims to reject presents 17 general postulates. In this sense, the libertarian postulates only oppose these 17 points of sustainable development in detail. What do they oppose, if not the perverse and perverted abuses of an unhinged Argentine leadership? Apart from that (direct abortion and CSE), the rest of the agenda is in line with his plan. He does not oppose the WHO designs of point 3 (health and welfare), nor the postulates of point 5 (gender equality), nor point 10 (reduction of inequalities), nor any others. By the way, the Pope does not oppose them either, which makes them allies (point 17 of Agenda 2030). Their loud clamor that “we oppose Agenda 2030” is meaningless, because their entire platform and ideology corresponds to the demands of Agenda 2030, except for the above-mentioned details.
I actively participated in elections and campaigns, always supporting a municipal candidate who spoke in favor of postulates for the common good. I did this until their campaign was subordinated to the dictates of national governments, which are so close to that worldwide globalism that is the enemy of the common good. Today, all leaders ask their municipal candidates to join the demands of the aforementioned Agenda 2030, to summarize in some way the current objectives of anti-Christian Freemasonry.
I make an examination of conscience: as Catholics, acting with so many other friends and co-religionists, participating actively and with good will, raising our banners – so as not to stain our honor or that of the Church – but tolerating unpresentable issues, have we succeeded in stemming the tide?
Have we not, in many ways, with our “prudence” been functional to the advance of international anti-Christian agendas? When we mingled our feet with so many iniquitous people, did we stand against iniquity, or were we before the general public its moral upholders, its guarantors of health and the common good, when it came to presenting ourselves to the public in electoral campaigns?
(To be continued)