An Argentine priest on how not to succumb to secularism 

Spreading the faith is the very essence of the Christian vocation. However, in today’s society, which is often anti-Catholic, this task can seem almost impossible.

In an interview for Postojna, Argentine priest, philosophy,er, and writer Mariano Fazio talks about how to work on the spread of the Gospel even today and how to prevent ourselves from succumbing to secularization. According to him, three Englishmen can be an example for us: Saint Thomas More, Saint JP Newman, and GK Chesterton.

One of your books is called Reshaping the World from the Inside Out. In it, you write about how today’s Christians can change the world. But if we look at the numbers, there are about a billion Catholics in the world, but society is moving further and further away from God. Do you believe that this can be changed?

Yes, I believe that, that’s why I wrote the book. I even think that this task is inherent in the very essence of the Christian vocation. But the first condition for reshaping the world, that is, for us to be able to improve it, is to love it. The word world has two meanings in the Christian tradition. The first is the world as sin, as something far from God’s plan. The second is the world as a place of our sanctification, of our life. And this meaning prevailed in the last documents of the Magisterium.

We cannot change the world if we do not love it. Only if someone likes someone, wants the best for him, tries to advise him, and help him. And such is the relationship of Christians to the world. We love the world, so we want to make it better.

What does this mean in practice?

In order to love the world, we must know it. It is therefore very important that we know well the current culture, what ideas prevail in it, and what kind of things society solves. Because if we don’t know anything about it, if we close ourselves in a ghetto, in our self-referential world, as Pope Francis used to say, if we are not in contact with the reality of the world, we will hardly be able to change it.

How to avoid the world from changing us?

First of all, you need to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. People engaged in intellectual work think that everything is decided in the world of ideas. Thoughts are indeed very important, but more important is the experience of one’s faith. Not only from an intellectual point of view but mainly from an existential point of view. We must have a personal relationship with Jesus, a real life of prayer. It is important to personally follow Christ and live the doctrine he brought. It has many consequences in political, social, economic, and cultural life, and if we want to live an authentic Christian life, we must know it. Another important ingredient is the unity of life.

What do you mean?

We are always at risk of pharisaism. People can know the truth, and know what values ​​need to be defended, but at the same time live in such a way that their lives do not reflect these values ​​at all. Saint Paul VI. said that humanity today believes more in witnesses than in teachers. These two things are not mutually exclusive, but the witness of our life is the foundation. And one more thing must not be forgotten – Christian doctrine must be explained in an evangelical style.

Pope Francis often emphasizes this when he says that the essence of the Gospel is basically in two places: in the Beatitudes and the 25th chapter of the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. There Jesus talks about the last judgment and that we will be judged according to how we treated our loved ones. Our effort to change and improve the world will be effective to the extent that we help our loved ones.

You mentioned the danger of being locked up in a ghetto. In his book Benedict’s Choice, American conservative intellectual Rod Dreher suggests that we as a community must separate ourselves from the world and come together to strengthen each other, maintain our faith, and not succumb to the world’s secularizing influences. It’s a good idea?

It is very important that we have the support of the community and that we are very united. And not only at the level of ideas, but also to feel that we support each other, we like that we are not alone. This is necessary, but the goal is to penetrate all areas of society. Today, for example, a family is in a big crisis. But the solution is not to have a very good Christian family isolated at home. This family can mediate the Christian experience of relationships full of love, understanding, and forgiveness, for example, to their neighbors as well. And it will appeal to them and they will want to live like them.

Doesn’t the opposite happen?

The key is to be authentic Christians. This means truly following Christ with all the consequences that entail. If we doubt, we don’t have a deep spiritual life, we are at risk, I would even say it is almost certain that the secularized environment will swallow us up. I like a quote from Saint John Paul II. from Novo Millenio Ineunte, where he proposes a pastoral plan for the third millennium. He says that a Christian without a prayer life is a Christian who is jeopardizing his faith. The anti-Christian environment will not swallow us if we anchor ourselves in the Christian life, in the relationship with our Lord. 

You wrote a book about three important English Catholics who can be an example for Catholics today. They are Saint Thomas More, Saint John Paul Newman, and GK Chesterton. Why these three?

The example of these three Englishmen can be a light for us in the situation we are experiencing. We talked about the unity of life. Saint Thomas More was a loyal subject of his king, he served his country with all his abilities. But there came a moment when obedience would mean betrayal of conscience. There are moments in life when a person has to choose: either he will be faithful to what he considers to be the truth and thus preserve his dignity, or he will adapt to the circumstances. Nowadays, many Christians find themselves in such a situation, and Saint Thomas More can be a light for us. He preferred fidelity to the truth. And he did it with joy, even humor. He was joking until the last moment of his life. And he was able to do it precisely because of his faith.

Cardinal Newman is a different case.

He was a man of his time in a very anti-Catholic England. He too was deeply anti-Catholic, he was full of prejudices, but at the same time, he had a great love for the truth and searched for it all his life. In the end, he found her where he didn’t want to find her – in the Catholic Church. Man naturally seeks the truth, and when he finds it, he must adapt to it. Newman is a great example of an honest search for truth. When he found her, he accepted her, although it brought him great trouble. He experienced misunderstanding on the part of the Anglicans and, unfortunately, also on the part of his new Catholic brothers.

Chesterton is rather known for his ingenious paradoxes.

Chesterton also went through a long process of conversion. I would like to point out that he did not adapt to what was politically correct. He spoke truths that people of his time did not like, but at the same time, he did it in such a way that everyone listened to him and liked him. Great personalities such as the writer GB Shaw and HG Wells, who were agnostics with great prejudices against the Catholic Church, considered Chesterton to be their best friend. He knew how to defend the truth with a smile, and irony and at the same time with great respect for others. He was able to win the friendship of everyone he met. He is thus a great example of a defender of the faith, without acting as a hammer against heretics. He had empathy with others and that is the way even today.

They are really admirable people, but when we look at the story of Saint Thomas More, for example, it ends tragically – he was beheaded. It is a cruel example that the defense of the truth can at best exclude us from society and political life. Sometimes it may seem that it is better to give up fighting for some things so that one can continue to influence at least in some other areas.

Saint Thomas More is a great example because he used all his political capacities, he never chose martyrdom. Until he was directly asked whether he agreed or disagreed with the king’s decision, he said nothing because he wanted to continue to serve the king and be a positive influence. But at one point, he couldn’t be quiet anymore. So we have to strategically think about the defense of our values, so that, figuratively speaking, we don’t get beheaded right away. We must always strive to be in these environments, to love everyone with Christian love, and to spread the truth with wisdom. Even in the Gospel, it is said that the sons of this world are more discerning than the sons of light. We must be foresight, and cunning, and use all our abilities to make the truth prevail. It’s not about covering it up but saying it at the right time and in the right way.

However, people often have the experience that if they go against the flow and defend Christian values, they are gradually excluded. Whether from the work team, from the family, or even from a group of friends.

We Christians, and especially those who work in public, must learn to speak the truth attractively. First of all, we must be convinced that this truth is attractive in itself. But to spread the truth appealingly, we need empathy. We must know who is in front of us and try to understand him, put ourselves in his circumstances and look for what unites us.

This is not always easy.

But it can be done. We can show it with the example of abortion. What connects me to a person who defends abortion? If it is a good person, then that mother connects us. If it is a case where a woman was raped, it is a tragedy. And we, who defend life from its conception, cannot say that the mother is stolen from us because we are only interested in the child. We are just as interested in the mother as those who advocate abortion. We must try to save the mother, help her, and create a safety net because the child is not to blame for what happened. And now we can also talk about the child. It’s about creating a bridge between us and the person who thinks abortion is good or a necessary evil.

Another example can be gender ideology. All ideology is based at least in part on reality because otherwise, it would not exist. It is true that throughout history certain genders have been assigned functions that were very limited in the case of women. The criticism of these artificially created social functions is valid. But gender ideology does not understand that there are things that are simply inherent to women, and others are inherent to men. When talking about this topic, it is good to start by acknowledging that there was discrimination against women, and because of it, women had very limited options.

Saint John Paul II is an example for me. On a visit to Cuba, he said he recognized the concern of Marx’s followers for health and education. I don’t think he agreed with the Cuban health or education system. But it is simply true, at least in Latin America, that the followers of Marxism had a great sensitivity to increasing the availability of health care and education.

Another dilemma when working in a public space is what topics to pay attention to. To fight mainly for basic, although very divisive issues such as the protection of life and family? Or prefer less conflicting topics?

Benedict XVI spoke of uncompromising principles. Pope Francis said that for him all values ​​and principles are uncompromising. It wasn’t a criticism of Benedict, he just said that what he says should be applied to all values. At the same time, I don’t think that one can either protect the family and life from conception or choose to care for the poor and so on. To follow Christ means to defend all these. Love always comes first, but love is not only the service of the poor but also the defense of life. 

Do you think that Pope Francis prefers to focus on what sounds good to all people and avoids more difficult topics?

Rather, I think that the statements of Pope Francis are always interpreted very ideologically. When it comes to abortion, few popes have spoken with as much clarity on the subject as he has. František said that abortion means paying a murderer to kill one’s child. So the Pope is expressing himself clearly. At the same time, he often emphasizes the social teaching of the church. Every pope has his background, and it is logical that Francis, who comes from Latin America, where there is huge social inequality, will press on these topics.

But Benedict XVI also had very strong positions in this area. A friend of mine wrote a book about Francis, and one chapter is called Economics according to Pope Francis. It contains harsh texts about the priority of the universal destination of goods over private property. However, the last sentence of this chapter tells the reader that all these texts come from Pope Benedict XVI. The author wanted to show that Benedict XVI. and Francis are actually in great harmony.

Many do not think so.

Benedict’s big theme is the dictatorship of relativism, which is a serious cultural and intellectual problem. With Pope Francis, it is a culture of shredding, which is a practical consequence of the dictatorship of relativism. If there is no truth, whoever has more political and economic power will win. And the weakest will pay for it.