Popes and Libertarians
Castel Gandolfo – October 10, 1979
It could never be a comfortable meeting while their countries were at war, even though as princes of the Church they were supposed to forget this. The Holy Father had no nationality; he lead all Catholics in the universal church. Yet he had been the Archbishop of Lisbon and was Portuguese, and that fact lingered in the back of the minds of the Spanish prelates as an uncomfortable, hard ball of doubt no matter how much they wished to set it aside.
The three men summoned to meet with the Holy Father at his suburban retreat were their Eminences Vicente Cardinal Enrique y Tarancón; Cardinal Archbishop of Madrid and Narcís Cardinal Jubany Arnau; the Cardinal Archbishop of Barcelona. With them was Bishop Emilio Benavent Escuín; Bishop of Granada and, perhaps more importantly, the Military Bishop of Spain. All three bowed before Pope Pius XIII and kissed his ring, before taking their seats in a semi-circle arranged to face the Holy Father’s own more throne like chair.
An offer of refreshment was made and accepted before the business began.
As the Pope and his Spanish prelates enjoyed espresso another man, an ordinary priest to judge by his plain vestments, unknown to any of them, made his way to a chair in the corner where he quietly assumed a post, awaiting his Pope’s instructions.
“We are children of our nations,” the Pope began, signalling that the serious conversation was to begin. To accommodate the others, and make his point, he spoke in fluent Spanish. “But as men we are all servants of God, so we must put away the ties of our childhood and listen to His words, and do His service.”
It was not likely that any of them would argue that point.
“How may we serve you, Holy Father?” asked Cardinal Enrique, the most senior in rank of the visitors, who addressed the Pope in Latin.
“Serve me? No. We have asked you here today to see how together we can all serve the way of peace, how we can spare the lands of our birth and all of our flock there from further suffering. In short, we are to end the war; that is our service,” Pius XIII said.
“Surely that is in the hand of the Communists?” Cardinal Enrique said. “They started this.”
“I have spoken with President Mitterrand and President Bobbio, personally, and both have assured me that in their talks with the Communist leaders of our former homeland there is a desire for peace. Yes, we see the scepticism in your eyes about this,” the Pope said.
“Forgive us, Holy Father,” Cardinal Enrique said, his hands-open on his lap even as his expression was pained. “But neither of these men is – close to the Faith in matters of importance.”
“Nonetheless, they are men of learning and national leaders – and both, we may add, share our desire for a peaceful resolution.” The Pope paused on that point and waited for the others to nod their assent, if not whole hearted agreement. Then he continued. “In Portugal this war has not brought them what they wished, and created discontent within the Portuguese people. The ground for peace exists, it remains for the proper offer to be made.”
“It will be difficult for the government to accept, Holy Father,” Bishop Benavent replied.
“Our thoughts and prayers are heavy on the question,” the Pope assured them. “We are greatly troubled by the fact that a government of such long endurance, over forty years now, has lost its way. The stories of brutality done in its name are – distressing.” He raised his hand when he saw the objection in their expressions. “We are mindful that the Communists are not clean on this question. Before we were raised to this throne, we were ourselves the subject of their discipline. But this is not a matter we can resolve today. What is in our power, which is itself an extension of the power of our Lord and Saviour and not of our making, is the ability to bring Spain out of its long nightmare, to act as guide to the penitent who is need of instruction on the path to salvation.”
“Are you asking to overthrow the government, Holy Father?” Cardinal Enrique asked with astonishment.
“Overthrow, in the sense of violence, no. We see in what is happening politically in Spain, the seeds of chaos, of darkness, out of which will arrive profound suffering and loss. We can help avoid this, as can the current Spanish government, if they are made to understand that the time is long past for them to step aside. Just as General Franco is no more, so the Falange must give way to a new order, one of the people and not imposed on the people.”
The Pope’s homily was greeted with open mouthed silence.
“Prime Minister Milans del Bosch will never concede this,” Bishop Benavent replied. “The Falange will fight to the last to retain power. They have already deposed one King for even the suggestion of moving toward a more – diverse – arrangement.”
“A Spanish King may be deposed, but our Kingdom is governed by He who cannot be deposed,” the Pope said, reminding them to whom they owed their first loyalty. “As Vicars of Christ, we are pledged to the centrality of this, and our path is but one. Let us ask you then, good Bishop Benavent, you say the Falange will fight for power, and we do not doubt you in this, but what of the Army? What will they say?”
Bishop Benavent’s silence spoke volumes of the truth of Spain’s crisis. As chief Military Chaplain of Spain he may have felt the urge to defend his charge, but he could not lie to the Holy Father, either. It was an unthinkable sin. The Bishop had heard the rumblings of dissent among the officers, some of whom saw in the recent Italian matter their own future should they allow the Falange to let matters get out of hand. Others feared a revolution of the left more than they feared the wrath of a atrophying Falange. The time of change was coming.
“The Falange are widely unpopular,” Cardinal Jubany spoke-up. “In all places, even with the ordinary people who have no interest in politics. Many expected change with the passing of General Franco; an easing of life was in the air, so went the voice. Instead they received a tightening of the chains that bind them. This is like offering sugar, but serving vinegar – it leaves in the mouth a foul taste.”
“Yes, but it is unwise to stir the pot too much. The soup is hot, and could easily burn the chef,” Cardinal Enrique said.
“Better we turn down the fire,” Pius XIII replied. “Perhaps the soup, like the vinegar, needs to be sweetened. Our hope is to guide a situation where the promise is re-kindled, and the people of Spain can feel an easing of life once more. Peace with Portugal and a departure of the Falange from government will achieve this.”
“Provided it does not foment a communist revolution. There is a very real danger of this, Holy Father,” Cardinal Enrique said.
“Our Lord was a revolutionary in his day. He came not to ratify the order as He found it, but to change it. So, we too must be revolutionaries, not of the Left, but of the betterment of our flocks souls. In short, this means that we must not await the revolution, nor necessarily fulfill it, but we must be its guide, much as a mid-wife guides a new birth. This is what we wish of you.”
The looks on their faces told the Pope that he would not find his fellow revolutionaries in this bunch. Cardinal Jubany, perhaps, understood him, but it was clear that his words were lost on Cardinal Enrique and Bishop Benavent. They were too close to the order of things in Spain to lead its demise.
“Good Princes, may we present our faithful servant, Father Ricardo Ezzati Andrello, of Santiago , Chile.”
Father Ezzati, who to this point had watched and listened from the background with such attentive stillness that the others had forgotten he was even there, rose to acknowledge the Pope’s introduction.
“Father Ezzati has, at our request, made a careful study on this question. His country, like Spain, has recently been through a period of disquiet, and he too seeks solutions to the questions of revolution and authoritarian government. We believe that the Father can aid you in our quest, and so we have asked him to return with you to Spain to, as I have said, guide the path to change. This is our wish in this matter.”
Pius XIII was not surprised by the stony silence his “wish” evoked. On a deep level, to these men, he was still a Portuguese meddling in Spanish affairs, and for them he was upsetting the world they were comfortable with.
“Will no one offer a word of support to Father Ezzati?”
“Of course, of course. We welcome the Father’s mission. It will be as the Holy Father wishes,” Cardinal Enrique said with a forced smile.
“Your generosity is too much, Eminence,” Father Ezzati said.
“Good Princes, in time, you will find that future will indeed be better than the present. We ask only that you have faith, and that you remember your calling as Men of Faith. All will be well.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I fear, Holy Father, that these men will not accept change, not easily,” Father Ezzati said to the Pope once they were alone in the Holy Father’s study.
“Not at all, unless the matter is forced,” Pius XIII replied. “They are men of the fixed order. I imagine that I might have been too, had things not changed so drastically in my country.” In the more intimate discussion with his aide the Pope dropped the “royal we,” an affectation of his office which, even after a year of practice, he still found trying. “Ultimately, they are men born of a failed system, as all Earthly systems must be, but they are too invested in it to see this.”
“What can I, a humble man, bring about then, without their co-operation?” Father Ezzati asked.
“Faith is the first requirement, Father. Mine is in you, and yours must be in Our Lord and your mission. For you it will not be necessary to secure their agreement or ecstatic support for what must be done, but it will be necessary that you secure the authority of their offices to work in Spain. So, you will irritate them in my name until they will give you what you wish to have done with you. Your greatest hurdle will be to know what it is you need, and to devise your path to getting it.”
“I am overwhelmed.”
“Be not, Father,” the Pope replied. “Look to Him, and the path will be lit.”
“Yes, Holy Father.”
“And be always open for allies. Men, and women, you would not have considered so will, in this cause, be just that.”
“Yes Holy Father. And if the Socialists, not the Communists but the democratic left, should gain the upper hand?”
“You know what I find most comforting in the personalities of Berlinguer, Mitterrand and Bobbio, as wrong as they may be on questions of faith?”
“What is that, Holy Father?”
“They would rather argue with an opponent that shoot him. Were it always so, we should have a better world. Let us see if we can, at the very least, make of Spain a member of this club of arguers and not shooters.”
---------------------------------------------------
The last of the Pope’s callers was another Chilean Priest, Father Francisco Javier Errázuriz Ossa, Superior General of the Schönstatt Fathers, and president of the International Council of the Work of Schöntatt. The Schönstatt Fathers had, as their mission, the upholding of Christian personality, together with missionary work. This would be important, but it was not the only reason that Pius XII had sent for Father Errázuriz Ossa. His ancestors were Basque, and so he was of the Basque people, yet not caught-up in their present circumstances. This would aid him in carrying the Pope’s wishes to the Basques currently in revolt against Madrid: both a wish and a promise he intended to keep.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Dakota – The Libertarian Paradise?
“Closed for Liberty” reads the official sign on the door of what used to be the Secretary of State’s office in North Dakota. Some wag has posted another sign next to it that reads “Gone Fishing.”
“That was our first big victory in returning power to the people,” gloats North Dakota's Libertarian Party Governor Edward H. Crane (known locally as “Governor Ed”), a broad smile crossing his cherubic features. “Soon the rest of the bloated bureaucracy is going to follow that example.”
Libertarians are a small, divided fringe political party (“We prefer political movement to party,” explains Governor Crane) in America that has begun to achieve increased influence, particularly in the western half of the country. Their recent rise from the fringe to electoral success in some areas is, like that of Socialist and left-wing parties in urban centers, a noted side-effect of the six-year recession (or depression as many more gloomily refer to the economic downturn).
Libertarian philosophy on the whole calls for minimal regulation and a small state which enforces the minimal necessary laws required for civilized existence, takes care of defence and otherwise stays out of the citizens life. Libertarians like “Governor Ed” believe that the best solution to the economic crisis is to reduce government and return to a pre-twentieth century era of minimal government and an open economy.
“The best economic plan is a free market where individuals are free to reach their own agreements and trade without restriction or interference from government,” notes the brochure of the North Dakota Libertarian Party. “Taxes feed big government, which in turn has to justify its existence by restricting the freedom of the individual. By reducing government and reducing taxes, the balance of freedom and liberty is restored and the individual is free to accept responsibility and act in their interests without interference from a nanny state.”
“People lost faith in the big parties,” notes University of North Dakota Political Science professor Nelson Berk, referring to America’s major political parties, the Republican and Democratic Parties. “As they lost their trust in either big party to handle the economic mess, more and more have been turning to fringe parties, either out of desperation, or frustration or a combination of the two. Since North Dakota has a long tradition of the wild, rugged and highly individualistic west, it’s no surprise that that desperation or frustration has gravitated to the Libertarians, who evoke the mystical spirit of an older, frontier existence. Of course that’s nostalgia, not the reality of life in the twentieth century.”
While Dr. Berk may find it nostalgic, thousands of North Dakotans feel otherwise, or so they expressed themselves at the ballot box two years ago. Thus far, halfway through his term, as a state Governor, Ed Crane is most successful Libertarian aspirant for high office, although not the best known in the nation. That distinction belongs to Senator Ronald Galtieri from the neighbouring state of Montana. Senator Galtieri will challenge for the American Presidency, considered the ultimate prize in the nation’s politics, this fall.
Still Governor Crane is wielding the executive authority to put theory into action in a way that Senator Galtieri can’t.
“We took on and got rid of the Secretary of State’s office just so we could show what could be done with a little gumption,” Governor Ed explains. “It can be applied in many other areas.”
At the state level the Secretary of State’s office is an administrative center which looks after, among other things, licensing, land titles and electoral supervision. In many states, such as North Dakota prior to 1979, the Secretary of State is an elected official who may, or may not, be affiliated with the Governor’s ticket. In 1976 John Pase, the Libertarian candidate was swept into office with Governor Crane, and he actively worked with the Governor to abolish his own office.
Following the precepts of Libertarianism which call for smaller government, and more local control, many of the functions of the former Secretary of State’s office were passed back to local supervisory boards, county clerks and local administrators. What functions could not be passed down to the local governments were contracted out to Arthur Anderson, a private accountancy and auditing firm.
“We made a deal to pass what had been the work of bureaucrats to the private sector, and as a result we saved the North Dakota taxpayers millions,” Governor Ed says with intense satisfaction. “Instead of bureaucrats doing the work, we now have a vendor who does it in a cost-efficient manner and with a private staff. We no longer have to support the Secretary of State’s bureaucracy, so the savings are passed back to the North Dakota
taxpayer.”
“The Governor can gloat all he wants about his Libertarian success,” says Dr. Berk, striking a contrary note, “but he only got that bill through the legislature with the help of the Republicans, and they wanted the Secretary of State’s centralized land registry done away with because that was what the big land interests, which have supported the Republicans for years, wanted.”
Large land interests, such as ranchers and mining companies, must now deal with local boards and committees for various permits and over title issues, instead of a centralized office of land management in Bismarck, the state capital.
“The chance of intimidation and corruption has increased enormously,” Dr. Berk notes.
“Nonsense,” says Governor Ed with a dismissive chuckle. “What’s he saying? That the people are corrupt? Hog wash! The local people have the most interest in taking care of the local land in their area. This has given them the ability to do this.”
Asked what is next on the chopping block, Governor Ed has talks about “returning education to the local communities – in fact to the family.” With a straight face he says, “we want to abolish school boards and state educational agencies. Each family can and should take charge of educating their children in the home, or in community schools they charter and control, independent of any state overseer interfering with how they educate their kids.”
Asked how this would impact educational standards in the State of North Dakota, the Governor replied: “They will improve. Look, as it is now, the boards of education follow state guidelines which cater to the lowest common denominator, in a misguided government mandate to make students equal. If parents want their kids to go to say Harvard, or I don’t know, Oxford say, then they’ll set their schools up to teach those kids perform at the entry standards of those institutions. The kids who graduate will be better educated, better qualified, because their parents, not some faceless bureaucrat, set the standards for their education.”
Not all are in agreement, least of all the public teachers unions in North Dakota which have called the Governor’s plan “stupid.” The Federal Justice Department has filed motions to prevent the Governor from completing his plan for education, using the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a foundation (this act was originally intended to end segregation in the South, but its provisions include references to a right to education under the guidelines of the famous Brown vs. Board of Education which is credited with ending legal segregation). This time instead of fighting segregation, the federal government is bringing its power to bear to prevent the disestablishment of public schools.
“Birch Bayh has his big government agenda,” says Governor Ed, referring to the federal Attorney-General, “he has his union supporters and their political power to protect. But it is that very interference in our state affairs that shows how far from a constitutional vision of a free Republic we have drifted.”
“What the Governor is doing, in the name of ideology, is nothing short of an attempt to destroy our schools and rob every child raised in North Dakota of a quality education,” says Bill Novovich, the President of the North Dakota Teacher’s Federation. “If Ed Crane gets his way this state will, in twenty years, be a state full of illiterates and uneducated people. The rich will send their children elsewhere, but poor and working North Dakotans will be stuck with no way to educate their children, except the little one room school house run by the local benevolent society? That’s from the eighteen seventies, not the nineteen seventies. Effectively what will happen is that most people in that situation will move to another state for the sake of their kids, and we’ll be left as a ghost state. That’s not the kind of future I want to see for my state, and I think most North Dakotans will agree.”
“That’s about the union’s political interest, not about the real issue of community based education,” the Governor dismisses Novovich’s arguments.
“Ed Crane didn’t get the Secretary of State’s office abolished on his own,” warns Dr. Berk. “The Republicans had their own axe to grind there. While some of them might agree with the Governor on some his points about the education bureaucracy, you can bet your bottom dollar that they are not going to want to appear to be anti-education, so they are going to be less eager to support a bill to reduce or end government involvement in local education. When that bill comes up to a vote, that’s when Ed Crane will face a real test of his political capital.”
Among the targets of Governor Ed’s reduction programs is state support for the University of North Dakota, which he would like to see converted into a private institution financed by endowments and private contributions, and not through tax money. This point may colour Dr. Berk’s perspective, though he denies it.
“I don’t worry about his cutting back state funding to the University,” Dr. Berk says, “because it’s not going to happen. There are too many alumni of the [University of North Dakota] in the legislature who won’t stand for it.”
Governor Crane has also circulated a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which would in effect repeal the document first drafted in Philadelphia in 1787 and restore as the United States Constitution an older document known as “the Articles of Confederation.” Under these documents, the federal government, apart from a central consultative Congress, would cease to exist.
“The only way to restore small government and individuality is to go back to the beginning and destroy the federal government, which has been responsible for so much of the tyranny in our lives,” Governor Crane argues. “We need to return absolute sovereignty to the states, and get rid of that monster on the Potomac. Only then, working together as free states, can we re-forge the free union that our founders had in mind.”
Those founders, among them Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and George Washington, found the original Articles unworkable, a realization that lead to the writing of the present Constitution.
“Washington, Jefferson and Adams were all centralisers of one kind or another,” Governor Ed replies. “Washington wanted the disciplined structure of a military, Adams was a big government man, and Jefferson got dragged into it in a vain effort to protect states rights from Adams, Washington and Alexander Hamilton. What came out of Philadelphia then was a mistake, and it still is today.”
Few observes give this amendment much chance of passing. Governor Crane also believes that the United States should abandon paper money and return to a gold standard, going so far as to replace currency with gold as the medium of exchange. Senator Galtieri shares this view, and plans to run his Presidential campaign on it. The Montana Senator and a Republican Representative from Texas named Ron Paul recently introduced the Galtieri-Paul Bill in the U.S. Congress. The aim of the proposed legislation is to do exactly that and to eliminate the U.S. Federal Reserve, a sort of central bank type institution of the federal government. It is not likely that this bill will pass either house of the Congress.
Some have suggested that Ed Crane might run with Senator Galtieri on the national Libertarian ticket. This overlooks deep differences in doctrine and approach between the two – Senator Galtieri has dismissed Governor Crane’s educational ideas as unworkable for instance. Also, a ticket with two westerners might limit the Libertarian Party’s national appeal.
“Why would I run for a federal office I want to abolish?” Governor Crane asks with wide-eyed innocence. “I believe the Imperial Presidency, as they are calling it now with a good deal of justification, is part of the problem, and only when we get rid of the office and all its unconstitutional powers will we be on the road to a solution.”
Meanwhile, Governor Ed continues with his program of “setting the people free” in North Dakota, even while facing a tough re-election campaign this November. Will North Dakota become the Libertarian paradise? It seems unlikely, but then so did the election of a Libertarian governor just four years ago.
----------------------------------------------------
trying to make a minarchist "night-watchman state."
