Just a quick note on something I just read in Paul Johnson’s Modern Times to which I have just returned to finish.
Johnson, in many ways a neocon hack, is an engaging writer and intelligent historian, and in Modern Times he notes that Evangelical Protestantism grew in Latin America in the 1970s and 80s precisely because the concordats between Church and state forbidding Protestant recruiting had been stripped away after Vatican II.
Thus, the effect of the Declaration on Religious Liberty was not the freedom of the Church in the modern world, but the implosion of the Church in traditionally Catholic countries that were protected by the state.
This passage in Johnson’s book also reminded me of two connections between the architects of Vatican II and their successors and American intelligence.
As David Wemhoff notes in his book on Fr, John Courtney Murray and the CIA, American intelligence attempted to put pressure on Vatican II via Fr. Murray to make the Catholic Church more liberal.
Thus American intelligence was very likely behind Dignitatis Humanae, the “Declaration on Religious Liberty.”
Furthermore, several researchers have pointed to the link between US intelligence and several Evangelical missionary organizations to Latin America.
Is it possible that Dignitatis Humanae was planned by American intelligence to damage the Church’s influence in the world and then the same intelligence groups used Protestant missionary organizations to Americanize Latin Americans, bringing them under the economic, political, and psychological control of the Deep State?
Many arguments given in favor of religious liberty argue that Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae was crafted to protect the Church by giving it breathing room in the new modern liberal secular states that had solidified power after the two World Wars. However, it is clear that Dignitatis Humanae (or at least the interpretation of the document) has been used to deconstruct and destroy traditionally Catholic countries in which the Church was given pride of place.
In his his forth coming Lessons in Hope, George Weigel argues that he (and the other Catholic neocons) wanted to use John Paul II as a figure not only to try to secure the Church a space in the public sphere in liberal democracies but to cripple traditionally Catholic countries. While visiting Poland in 2012, Weigel writes of his shock that the Polish people had not accepted American liberalism and still wanted to be Polish Catholics :
“Throughout the week, though, I was struck by how poorly John Paul II’s intellectual project had been received and internalized in Poland, with the exception of my Polish Dominican friends, a few other scholars in Lublin and elsewhere, and a scattering of journalists, politicians, and laypeople. Poland’s emotional attachment to the late Pope was massively evident the year before in Rome, at his beatification. But John Paul’s vision of a public Church that was not a partisan Church, a Church that shaped public life by forming culture through the evangelization and catechesis of the people, was not much in evidence in twenty-first century Poland, sadly. That impression was a portent of difficulties to come in Polish public life.”
Weigel thus believes that the Church in Poland is still too militant, too traditional and too strong, and the Polish people should have heeded Weigel’s presentation of John Paul II and Vatican II as advocating American style “religious freedom.” He further strangely argues that this militancy of the Polish Church would lead to “difficulties” in Polish public life. Was that supposed to be a threat? What exactly is the goal of Catholic neocons? Should he be happy that Poland is still so proudly Catholic?