Unperceived Ideological

Transshipment and

Dialogue

 

by PLINIO CORRÊA DE OLIVEIRA

 

Introduction 

 

 

 

Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira was born in Sâo Paulo, Brazil, in 1908. He received his doctorate in Law from the Law School of the Univer­sity of Sâo Paulo. He is Professor of the History of Civilization at the University College of the University of Sâo  Paulo and Professor of Modern and Contemporary His­tory in the Colleges of Sâo Bento and Sedes Sapientiae of the Pon­tifical Catholic University of Sâo Paulo.

He has distinguished himself since his youth as an orator, lec­turer and Catholic journalist. He wrote regularly for the Catholic weekly Legionario and now writes for the monthly Catolicismo and the large daily newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo.

In 1960 he founded the Brazilian Society for the Defense of Tradi­tion, Family and Property (TFP) and has been President of its Na­tional Council ever since.

TFPs and similar autonomous organizations were later founded in twelve other countries in the Americas and Europe, inspired by the book Revolution and Counter­revolution and other works of Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira.

 

Episodes of little importance can sometimes clarify and explain all the aspects of an intricate situation. This, which is seen so frequently in novels, also happens in real life. This study arose from one of these episodes.

 

1. Twisting Words in the Service of Communist Propaganda

 

The many meanings given to the word dialogue in certain circles has sounded false to our ears for some time. We have ob­served that in the daily speech of these circles and in certain press commentaries the word dialogue is used in an artificial and forced way around a fixed point of legitimate residual meaning. Furthermore, it is used in such disconcertingly daring ways and with so many underlying mean­ings that we felt an urgent need, as if dic­tated by conscience, to protest against such a flagrant violation of the rules of good speech.

Little by little, the impressions, observa­tions and notes we gathered here and there made us feel that the diversiform twisting of the word dialogue had an underlying consistency that appeared to be something intentional, methodical and planned. In ad­dition, we had the feeling that, besides dialogue, this included other words fre­quently appearing in the lucubrations of progressivists, socialists, and communists, such as pacifism, coexistence, ecumenism, Christian Democracy, third force, and so on. Once subjected to similar twisting, these words began to form a kind of con­stellation, supporting and complementing each other. Each word was, as it were, a talisman designed to work its own psychological effect over people. And it seemed to us that the overall effect of this constellation of talismans was such as to work a gradual but deepening transforma­tion in people's souls.

From our observations, it was clear that this twisting was always done with the same objective: to weaken the resistance of non­communists by giving their souls a propen­sity towards condescension, sympathy, non‑resistance, or even surrender. In ex­treme cases, this twisting even succeeded in transforming non‑communists into com­munists.

As observations revealed to us a distinct line of consistency and an invariable inter­nal structure in the multiform and disconcerting use of these words as ef­ficacious and subtle as a talisman, we began to suspect that if someone were to discover and explain what this line of consistency and logic was, he would unmask a new and widely used artifice employed by com­munism in its incessant psychological war against non‑communist nations.

However, this was not the immediate reason why we decided to make a special study of the matter; it was rather the ex­perience we shall now describe.

 

2. Unmasking a Process

 

In 1963, we published a study entitled The Freedom of the Church in the Com­munist State. Translated into several languages, this study made its way through the Iron Curtain. Mr. Zbigniew Czaj­kowski, a director of the "Communist ­Catholic" movement Pax of Poland, deemed it necessary to immunize the Polish public against this study by publishing an open letter to us in Kierunki and Zycie i Mysi, Warsaw magazines to which he con­tributes and in which he attempted to thoroughly refute our work.[1] We answered through Brazil's well‑known cultural monthly Catolicismo, thus giving rise to a whole debate which is still not concluded.

In one of the points of his argument published in an article in Kierunki and reprinted in Catolicismo (no. 170, Feb. 1965), Mr. Z. Czajkowski enumerated the advantages that he saw in the simple fact that we were debating. Such advantages supposedly resulted from arguing as such, even though we did not come to an understanding. Between the lines of what the Pax journalist wrote about the advan­tages of our debate was an imponderable, yet very real, Hegelian influence. And ‑a small thing but rich in perspectives ‑ ap­plying Mr. Czajkowski's Hegelian and dialectical premise to all those words whose distortion and misrepresentation impres­sed us, the meaning of this same distortion and misrepresentation became clarified in a surprising manner. The point of reference explaining and ordering the entire panorama of our previous impressions and observations thus became clear, and the guileful process of psychological warfare, which until then we were only able to glimpse, was laid bare.

Whereas Mr. Z. Czajkowski alluded pro­perly to "debate," by means of an understandable association of ideas it oc­curred to us that everything he said about the matter was exactly like what we had heard or read about dialogue. Thus, the word's varied and enigmatic meaning became clear.

So the importance of certain words, and especially of the word dialogue, as artifices of psychological warfare, was unveiled to us.

The studies resulting from this discovery led us to write the present work, which we submit for the reader's evaluation.

 

3. Implicit Ideological Action, the Central Feature of the Process

 

It is important to emphasize at the outset that the process in question is designed to predispose those naturally refractory to explicit forms of Marxist preaching in such a way as to make them favor communism's tactics and doctrine and finally transform them into "useful idiots," if not convinced communists. For this very reason, the pro­cess works on mentalities in an implicit way.

A characteristic and essential note of this process is that, throughout or almost throughout its course, its patients do not perceive that they are undergoing a psychological action caused by someone, nor do they realize that their impressions and sympathies are leading them toward communism. In varying degrees of clarity, they know that they are "evolving" ideologically. But it seems to them that this evolution is a process in which they themselves are gradually discovering or deepening their knowledge of an appealing "truth," or constellation of "truths," without the aid of anyone else. As a rule, during nearly the entire process these pa­tients never realize that they are little by lit­tle becoming communists. If at a certain moment this danger were made apparent to them, they would ipso facto recognize the abyss into which they are falling and would step back.

Only in the final stage of this "evolu­tion" does the patients' interior transfor­mation become so evident that they realize they are tending towards communism. But at this point their mentality has so "evolved" that the hypothesis of be­coming adherents of communism no longer horrifies but rather attracts them.

 

4. Unperceived Ideological Transshipment: A Summary

 

We call this phenomenon ‑ or rather, this subtle process of communist propagan­da ‑ unperceived ideological transship­ment. We propose to succinctly describe its essential aspects and, since it is used in dif­ferent ways, to study especially its applica­tion in what we call the stratagem of the talismanic word. We will then illustrate the study of this stratagem with a concrete ex­ample or, more specifically, describe how the term dialogue is used to make in­numerable non‑communists inadvertently evolve towards communism.

 

The phenomenon of unperceived ideo­logical transshipment has various modal­ities. It can either develop in all its fullness and radicality by leading the patient all the way to accepting communism, or take on a less ample and radical mode, e.g. when its victim merely becomes socialist instead of communist. In both cases, the transship­ment is ideological in the strict sense of the term.

The process also may be directed only at theories and methods of action, rather than at a whole philosophical conception of the universe, of life, of man, of culture, of economics, of sociology, and of politics, such as Marxism is. Thus, a fiery anticom­munist can be "transshipped" into one who wants only to make accommodations, concessions, and retreat. This transship­ment is "ideological" in the diminutae ra­tionis sense of the word.

We thought it necessary to show, at the end of the study, how the action of the talismanic word and the process of unperceived ideological transshipment can be stopped or even prevented by a timely word of warning to the incautious.

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

 

 

 

THE NEW COMMUNIST TACTIC: PERSUASIVE ACTION IN THE SUBCONSCIOUS

 

 

 

 

Before studying unperceived ideological transshipment, it seems useful to emphasize all the importance and timeliness of the subject from the standpoint of the most re­cent strategy of the communists to conquer the world.

 

1. An Obsolete Conception of the Efficacy of the Techniques of Persuasion and Violence in the Communist Strategy

 

Many readers will stumble over a preliminary difficulty when they settle down to consider the subject seriously. It so happens that the press, television, and radio continuously present Russian and Chinese aggression against non‑communist nations as practicable most frequently through armed invasion and through social revolutions promoted by the communist parties of the various countries to be in­vaded. According to this conception, violence is far and away communism's principal instrument of conquest.

Undoubtedly, those who hold this view­point also speak of techniques of persua­sion as a means of conquest. But they view such techniques simply as elements of classic warfare, indispensable but secon­dary to military operations.

 

2. Techniques of Persuasion: More Important than Sheer Force

 

In our view, under today's conditions ideological persuasion is not regarded by the communists as something collateral, or subsidiary to, violent assault. In fact, the communists now expect greater results from propaganda than from force.

 

3. Ideological Transshipment: Its Current Importance

 

Furthermore, as far as propaganda is concerned, the direct and explicit ideo­logical effort of the Communist Party is not its only priority: unperceived ideo­logical transshipment, the indirect and im­plicit technique of persuasion, is not less, but in some aspects even more important.

These two statements are essential to broaden the horizons of many anticom­munists zealously and meritoriously com­mitted to the necessary task of alerting the world to communism's war of conquest and violent social revolution. Anticom­munists must denounce, prevent and stop the process of unperceived ideological transshipment in all its forms, including that of the talismanic word.

This first chapter is dedicated to elucidating this point.

 

4. Communism: An Imperialistic Sect

 

To demonstrate the assertions we have just made it is necessary to keep in mind, above all, what the fundamental nature of the communist movement is:

‑ An atheistic, materialistic and Hegelian philosophical sect which deduces from its erroneous principles a complete and unique conception of man, economics, society, politics, culture, and civilization;

‑A worldwide subversive organization: communism is not just a movement of a speculative nature. By the imperatives of its own doctrine it wants to turn all men into communists and shape the life of all nations entirely according to its principles. Considered in this aspect, the Marxist sect professes integral imperialism not just because it aims at imposing the thought and will of a minority on all men, but because this imposition affects man as a whole, in all aspects of his activity.

 

5. Obstacles Confronting Communist Imperialism

 

To achieve its imperialistic ambition, communism has to overcome serious obstacles. Examples:

 

A. The Unresponsiveness of the Masses

 

The communists have been preaching social revolution, bloodshed, and pillage to the entire world's working population for about a hundred years. Nearly all this time, the communists have had virtually com­plete freedom of thought and action in nearly all nations. Furthermore, they have not lacked immense financial resources and the best technicians and specialists in pro­paganda. In spite of all this, the masses have shown themselves largely unrespon­sive to the lures of Marxist demagogy ‑ which would supposedly fascinate them so easily. The fact remains that in no country has communism ever taken power by means of honest, straightforward elections. Part of this unresponsiveness is due to the fact that in many areas the situation of the needy has been considerably improved. But one should not, however, exaggerate the ideological consequences of such im­provements: in some regions, like the north of Italy, where the conditions of the work­ing classes have continuously improved since World War II, communism has achieved disconcerting successes at the polls.[2]

In addition, the cause of the chronic in­ability of the communists to win through the ballot box is also, to some degree, due to the resistance that mankind's age‑old substratum of common sense opposes to Marxism. The essentially antinatural character appearing in all aspects of com­munism clashes with this common sense. In Christian societies, this factor is com­pounded by the incompatibility between the spirit, doctrine and methods of Marxism and the spirit, doctrine and methods of the Church. The undeniable and immense con­sequence is that after a hundred years of existence and action, no Communist Party has succeeded in becoming a majority in any country. This fact must be strongly em­phasized if we are to see in their true perspective all the obstacles that com­munism faces.

 

Answering Possible Objections

 

· True, communism won the Polish elec­tions in 1957. But it is obvious that they were not free elections. Polish Catholics knew that if they defeated Gomulka they would expose their country to a Russian repression like the one suffered by glorious and unfortunate Hungary in 1956. Thus, although they were a decisive majority, the Catholics opted for what they saw as a lesser evil, namely "Gomulkian" represen­tatives. We are not discussing whether this maneuver is licit or whether it is adroit from a strictly political point of view. We emphasize, however, that in no way can it be affirmed that a congress with a com­munist majority was freely elected by the illustrious Polish people. Thus, the ex­istence of a communist majority in the Polish parliament constitutes no argument against what we have just said.

 

· In 1970, five years after the first edi­tion of this work, a Marxist government took power in Chile by means of the elec­toral process. But it is well‑known that Chilean Marxists were far from obtaining a majority in those elections. As we demonstrated at the time in an article wide­ly circulated through practically all the countries of Latin America (cf. "The Whole Truth About the Elections in Chile," in Folha de S. Paulo, 10/9/70), in the 1964 presidential elections Allende received nothing but communist support, that is, from the Socialist Party (Marxist), the Communist Party, and a few small groups of communist dissidents. Thus, all communist vote was for Allende, and he was defeated. In 1970, however, Allende was a coalition candidate and, in addition to the communist vote, was supported by parties not directly committted to Marxism. As it turned out, while leading the other candidates, Allende received only 36.3% of the votes, compared to the 38.7% he had obtained in the previous elections. There­fore, in the 1970 presidential elections there was a drop in the overall Marxist vote; for, even joined by other forces, its percentage of the total vote was smaller than it had been in 1964. Had it not been for a political division among the other candidates, the semi‑veiled but in any case scandalous sup­port of the Chilean hierarchy and clergy led by Cardinal Silva Henriquez (who went so far as to authorize Catholics to vote for the Marxist candidate), and finally, the shameful handing over of power to Allende by the Christian Democrats when the Con­gress had to make a choice between the two leading candidates, communism would have never won in Chile.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the leftist coalition failed to obtain a majority of the vote in the subsequent elections even though these elections were not held in an atmosphere of real freedom. Campaigning was restricted by the government. Besides vigorously applying whatever means of "persuasion" it had at its disposal, the government directly pressured newspaper and magazine editors, as well as radio and television stations through arbitrary in­vestigations, in one instance by seizing con­trol of stock and even closing some of them. Therefore, there was no possibility of holding a really free electoral campaign. The rank‑and‑file voter of the opposition ‑ whose voice is obviously very important in an election ‑ was deprived of the infor­mation necessary to make his free choice (cf. our articles "In Chile, a Tie Under Pressure," and "Neither Real Victory Nor Free Election" in Folha de S. Paulo, 4/11/71 and 4/18/71).

The many upheavals of the people indig­nant with the misery resulting from the ap­plication of communist principles to the Chilean economy was a very clear indica­tion of how they would have voted if there had been free elections in the months prior to the overthrow and suicide of Allende.

For all these reasons, the Chilean case, like the one of Poland, is not a valid argu­ment against the affirmation that a Com­munist Party has never obtained a majori­ty in truly free elections.

 

· If its methods of persuasion have been so insufficient so far, to what does com­munism owe its position as a great force in today's world? Certainly not to the ef­ficacy of its methods, which continuously fail to convince public opinion.

The first and most striking factor of the success of communism has been violence. it was imposed on Russia by a revolution. In other European countries, Russia, one of the victors of World War II, established communism by brute force. Violence alone, however, was not enough. Would Russia have succeeded in defeating the Nazi in­vader if it did not have the help of the Allies? The Russian armies suffered a shameful defeat at the hands of tiny Finland in 1939. How can one be sure that they could have conquered powerful Ger­many all by themselves?

Military support during the Second World War was by no means the only benefit communism received from the West. The disastrous policies of the late president Rossevelt at Teheran and Yalta complemented by the enigmatic follies of the Marshall mission in China, contributed immensely to Soviet expansion. As late as 1957, Fidel Castro sensed the unpopulari­ty of communism so well that he posed as a Catholic during the whole civil war in tiny Cuba, certain that he would not reach power otherwise. Only after seizing the reins of state did Castro tear off his mask.

All this shows that the communists would by no means have achieved the suc­cesses of which they now boast if they had always confronted resolute and perspi­cacious leaders.

Consequently, communism reached its current degree of power by violence, astuteness, and fraud, rather than by an ideological victory over the masses.

 

· Still, the scope of their successes should not be overestimated. Indeed, if after having been imposed on some coun­tries, communism had at least been able to conquer the minds and hearts of the peo­ple, why would it need a huge police ap­paratus to remain in power? Why is it obliged to control its borders so strictly? Why is it that in spite of so many controls there is a continuous flow of refugees who face the greatest risks to go across the Iron Curtain?

 

B. Failure in Organizing and Fostering Production

 

Communism, which never succeeded in convincing or genuinely conquering, has also proven incapable of organizing and producing. Its inferiority in relation to the West in this respect is admitted by the com­munists themselves. Kruschevites and post­-Kruschevites proclaim the need for fun­damental reforms in Russia's economic structure in order to increase production. According to them, these reforms must allow more free enterprise. In other words, the communists hope to improve produc­tivity by applying a principle fundamentally opposed to their doctrine. It is easy to see how this failure discredits communism both with the peoples it dominates and with world public opinion.

 

6. The Uselessness of Nuclear Power in Communist Expansion Through Violence

 

This impotence in explicit ideological persuasion and economic production naturally presents countless difficulties for the Marxist plan of world hegemony, reducing the specter of its irresistible power to much more modest proportions. In one point and one point only can the com­munist danger seem great to the eyes of all peoples: brandishing the threat of a nuclear hecatomb, perhaps on a worldwide scale. If communism is nothing as a constructive force, it is something as a destructive force.

Although it is well known that Russia's atomic capability is inferior to America's, through its own natural disposition Russia, as a thermonuclear power, constitutes a greater threat to the world than any other nation. Indeed, by their very nature, the forces of disorder and revolution are less reluctant (if at all) than the forces of order to resort to destruction to achieve their plans. The normal tendency of a highway robber hidden in ambush is to attack. His victim tends to flee rather than fight back. Thus, there is a greater risk of an atomic hecatomb being unleashed by the Soviets or the Chinese than by some nation of the West.

What is this sole point of intrinsically negative superiority worth to communist expansion? Will they overcome the obstacles to this expansion? What would a thermo‑nuclear conflict bring to the com­munists themselves? Though perhaps vic­torious initially, they would become the main victims of the hecatomb they themselves unleashed; since their power is inferior to their adversaries', soon after their aggression they would probably suf­fer reprisals greater than the harm they might have caused, and would finally lose the war.

Indeed, nothing is less probable than a communist victory. And if they did attain a victory, what would be left for them but a world in which the United States and Europe would be reduced to an immense mountain of ruins? How could they build, on these smoking and shapeless ruins, the edifice of socialism which Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Kruschev longed so much to see constructed with a most perfect and ad­vanced technology, able in a word, to com­pete with America's? Just recently, Prav­da, the official organ of the Russian Com­munist Party's Central Committee, af­firmed: "In politics it often happens that the defeats experienced by one side are not necessarily equivalent to victories of the other. The most surprising instance is that of a thermonuclear war, which would be worth nothing to the socialist bloc, even though imperialism were literally pulverized by it" (Pravda, Jan. 6, 1975, from an AFP telegram of the same date to 0 Estado de S. Paulo). This is an acknowledgment of how deadly a hypothetical Soviet ther­monuclear victory over the West would be for the communist nations themselves.

 

7. Communist Imperialism in an Impasse

 

In view of all this, one concludes that in spite of all appearances to the contrary, the global expansion of communism faces most serious difficulties deriving from profound causes, some difficult, others impossible to eliminate. Furthermore, one perceives that the communist plan of universal domina­tion faces considerable risks of failure.

 

8. A New Way Out of the Impasse: The Technique of Implicit Persuasion

 

Communism fears to venture into the path of violence. However, explicit persua­sion as promoted by the Communist Parties of different countries, has not led to encouraging results. As we have seen, the masses have been unresponsive to this technique.

Since neither violence nor explicit persua­sion will work, the way out for communism must be a new method.‑ that of implicit per­suasion. This is the central point that must be insistently brought to the attention of the public.

 

9. Conditions Favoring the Communist Technique of Implicit Persuasion

 

What is there in the Western mentality that this method of implicit persuasion can exploit?

Two factors make western mentalities especially vulnerable to this action.

 

A. Fear

 

Man's instinct of self‑preservation is very strong. Therefore, fear is an extremely im­portant factor in his mentality. The figure of the communist aggressor, as imagined by the vast masses of the Free World, con­tinues to exert all its power of intimidation, whether it be a bearded, dirty, shabby revolutionary thirsty for blood and vengeance or a cold‑blooded, heartless soldier ready to set off an atomic missile. Innumerable people are thus consciously or unconsciously influenced by a desire to sur­render nearly everything to avoid civil war or thermonuclear catastrophe.

 

B. Sympathy

 

Furthermore, communism is not really the antithesis of what many anticom­munists believe; rather, it is merely the ultimate expression ‑ more consistent and daring ‑ of certain principles they themselves accept. Liberalism, which triumphed with the French Revolution, sowed the seeds of communism throughout the West.[3] As a consequence, the fear of communism is often accompanied by a cer­tain sympathy for some of its aspects. There are ardent anticommunists who are more revolted by the violent methods and the dictatorial character of present‑day Bolshevik regimes than by the final goals of communism. They naively feel that if the West attains such goals by bloodless methods, thereby achieving complete equality of wealth and social standing, then justice, affluence, and peace will finally reign in the world.[4]

 

C. The Fear‑Sympathy Syndrome

 

In the very psychology of countless per­sons in the West there is an interplay of forces which we will call the fear‑sympathy syndrome. It arouses in influential, economic, political, intellectual, and even religious sectors of society a propensity to make an accommodation with communism.[5]

 

10. Defeatism Vs. Love of True Peace

 

This propensity is clearly not to be con­fused with the noble desire, common to all upright minds, to preserve peace by means of legitimate negotiations and judicious ac­cords that do not entail a renunciation of the fundamental principles of Christian Civilization. Unperceived ideological per­suasion goes much further than this by in­ducing the West to desire a semi‑communist regime in order to eliminate, in its relations with the other side of the Iron Curtain, the friction caused by the stark contrasts be­tween the communist regimes and those in the Free World, thus facilitating an ac­commodation between the two sides.

 

11. Fear‑Sympathy, Implicit and Explicit Persuasion United at the Service of Communism

 

While fear and sympathy seem incom­patible, they are not so in the present psychological situation of the West. In a word, communism does not need to stop intimidating in order to attract sympathies or vice‑versa. It is in its interest to main­tain all its reputation as a destructive power.

This reputation helps communism to soften the resistance of many adversaries, making them inclined to accommodate. The accomplishment of this psychological goal accentuates in these adversaries a certain sympathy for some aspects of Marxism, preparing them to accept this or that capitulation as a lesser evil, or a tolerable one.

It does not follow that communist par­ties around the world will gradually give up their explicit proselytism. Organized and dynamic parties serve communism as precious factors of intimidation and schools of formation for the leaders of future Marxist regimes.

Put simply, communism no longer ex­pects to conquer world public opinion through its parties in the Free World, but rather through the technique of implicit persuasion.

 

12. Looking Towards Chapter II

 

We have seen how communism must re­nounce explicit doctrinal preaching as its principal means of conquering the world and how it now has an opportunity to carry out an implicit ideological action. We have also indicated the vulnerable points which can be successfully exploited by this implicit action in view of the state of mind in im­portant sectors of the Free World. We now must make clear what this implicit action is by analyzing unperceived ideological transshipment.

 

 

 

CHAPTER II

 

 

 

UNPERCEIVED IDEOLOGICAL TRANSSHIPMENT

 

 

 

 

In order to get a precise focus on what unperceived ideological transshipment is, we must first show how, as a method of persuasion, it differs from the "classical" methods of a Communist Party.

 

1. The "Classical" Communist Technique of Persuasion

 

As a rule, a Communist Party is formed with a nucleus of intellectuals or semi-­intellectuals who stir up or exploit various factors of discontent and agitation. This is done through well‑known methods ‑ in­dividual recruiting in universities, unions, armed forces and so on, lectures and speeches, the press, radio, television, theater and the cinema. Once the climate has been prepared, the initial handful of adepts begins to expound communist doc­trine openly. Sometimes bold, sometimes cautious, they will do so immediately or wait according to circumstances. This in­doctrination forms a group of fanaticized recruits. The party is established; during this first phase it stirs up, stimulates, and recruits all the "Bolshevizable" people in the circles in which it is acting, people who are predisposed to adhere to communism on account of multiple ideological, moral, and economic factors.

But experience shows that after a time these first and sometimes rapid successes of the Marxist technique of persuasion stop. Once the "Bolshevizables" of a cer­tain circle are recruited, the ranks of the party grow only step by step as society, in its gradual process of ideological, moral, and economic deterioration, "prepares" new contaminable prospects. Naturally, communist propaganda can accelerate this process of deterioration, increasing the number of individuals assimilable by the party. But they are normally a minority. While communism fills its ranks with this minority, its propaganda collides with an unresponsive majority.

How can communism conquer this majority?

 

2. The Various Shades of Public Opinion and Unperceived Ideological Transshipment

 

To answer this question, one must first realize that this majority is made up of three different types of people: those in some measure sympathetic to communism, those categorically opposed to it, and those only vaguely opposed to it who do nothing.

Communist strategy is appropriately adapted to each one of these types:

· Those partly sympathetic to com­munism are influenced by communist pro­selytism, but not completely won over. They accept something of Marxism, especially its hostility to Religion, tradition, family, and property. Even so, they do not take their hostility to its ultimate conse­quences. These are the socialists and pro­gressivists of all shades, some of whom are I useful idiots" while others are actually ac­complices of communism. The communists try to gather the "useful idiots" into not specifically Marxist leftist groups. They try to place their accomplices in as many key positions as possible in such groups. Com­munism uses these groups as allies in the struggle to demolish the existing order of things and to seize power. Once this result is obtained, these unfortunate accomplices will be cast aside, persecuted and destroyed if they do not join the Communist Party immediately and subject themselves to it without reservation.

 

· The communists find it necessary to attack those categorically hostile to, and frequently even militant against com­munism with a total psychological offen­sive aiming at disorganizing, discouraging and reducing them to inaction. Taking ac­tion against anticommunist leaders is especially useful. They must feel spied upon both inside and outside their organizations, surrounded by traitors, divided among themselves, misunderstood, defamed and isolated from other currents of opinion, ex­cluded from the country's key positions and means of publicity, and so persecuted in their professional activities that, having barely enough time to provide for their own subsistence, they are prevented from acting effectively against Marxism.

Communism also frequently uses threats of personal retaliation against them and their families to impede the action of these brave men.

 

· The majority within the majority, so to speak, is made up of people indifferent to the problem of communism, unfriendly to it in different degrees, but who have no militant hostility toward it. Since they show themselves intractable to every technique of explicit persuasion, communism is left with only one way to attract them: the technique of implicit persuasion. Natural­ly, for this operation to be possible, the communist party must stay out of sight. It has to pick agents posing as non­communists or even as anti-communists to act in the various sectors of society. The less they are suspected of being com­munists, the more efficient they are likely to be. On the level of individual activism, for example, a prominent capitalist, an im­portant local politician, an aristocrat or a priest are much more useful than a simple merchant or a laborer.

Much can be done in favor of com­munism in this sector of public opinion through political parties, newspapers, and other means of publicity which appear ab­solutely unaffected by communism but do not focus on the struggle against it as a necessity of continued and capital importance.

Such persons, political parties, and media lend a prime and precious coopera­tion to communism simply by maintaining a climate of superficiality and an easy and carefree optimism regarding the communist threat. This atmosphere makes anticom­munist organizations appear emotional and extremist to the greater part of the public that could and should support them. Fur­thermore, the failure to warn the public about the present seriousness of the com­munist danger prevents the indifferent from becoming antagonistic to communism and the non‑militant anti-communists from entering the fight. These two results are precious to Marxism, sparing it great harm. While the Marxists recruit their militants, penetrate or establish organizations of “useful idiots," and freely carry on their continuous and inexorable work of destruc­tion, the greater part of public opinion that would react if it realized the real seriousness of the danger, shuts its eyes, crosses its arms, and gives the adversary free rein.

This is a considerable accomplishment, but it is not enough for communism. Unable to conquer this majority, com­munism lulls it to sleep; as long as it is unable to conquer it, communism will be forced to advance slowly. And, if some day this advance matures and becomes un­disguisable, this inattentive and distracted majority might be jolted out of its slumber and join the fight.

Thus, the red sect cannot be content with exercising the above described neutralizing and anesthetizing action over this impor­tant sector of public opinion.

Communism was very successful in founding parties practically all over the world, in organizing the left under its com­mand, and in dismantling and neutralizing countless anticommunist organizations. But communism failed when it attempted to make the majorities accept its doctrine. These are the same majorities that com­munism must persuade, more than neutralize, to win its great battle in our times.

Now, unperceived ideological transship­ment is the technique of implicit persuasion most suited to the state of mind of today's majority.

 

3. The Method of Unperceived Ideological Transshipment: Its Three Intensities and Phases

 

The method of unperceived ideological transshipment has three possible degrees of intensity and three phases. The intensity of its effects can be just as varied.

The first phase of this method is com­pletely preparatory. It consists in using the fear‑sympathy syndrome to prepare the sec­tors of opinion likely to be alarmed and react at the advance of communism, to take an attitude of inertia and even resignation. We dealt with this phase in the last chapter (item 9). Unperceived ideological transship­ment reaches its lowest intensity in this phase.

This intensity increases in the next phase. Without perceiving it, the patient of the transshipment process, whether an in­dividual, a group, or a large sector of opi­nion, changes from an attitude of resigna­tion to a somewhat favorable attitude of expectancy. The fruit of the process is no longer preparatory and negative; it now has something positive.

Finally, when it succeeds in transform­ing the sympathizer into a dedicated follower, the transshipment process reaches its full intensity and produces its characteristic result.

 

4. Definition of Unperceived Ideological Transshipment: Its Artifices

 

Essentially, the process of unperceived ideological transshipment consists in acting upon someone's mind to make him change his ideology without perceiving it.

Several different artifices can be used to obtain this result.

Usually, these artifices are:

a) Finding, in the ideological system the patient currently accepts, points of affini­ty with the desired ideological system;

b) Over‑emphasizing those points of af­finity, from the standpoint of doctrine and emotion, so that the patient puts them above all the other ideological values he accepts;

c) De‑emphasizing as much as possible the patient's adhesion to doctrinal prin­ciples which might be irreconcilable with the ideology to which he is being transshiped;

d) Attracting the patient's sympathy for the militants and leaders of the desired ideological movement, making him see them as soldiers of the over‑emphasized principles in item "b";

e) To go from this sympathy to coopera­tion in achieving goals common to the pa­tient and his former doctrinal adversaries, or to fight an ideology or a current of o­pinion inimical to both;

f) Thence giving the patient the convic­tion that the over‑emphasized principles are more consistent with the ideology of his new friends and brothers in the struggle than with his former ideology;

g) At this point, the patient's mentality will have been changed, and his assimila­tion by the new ideology will only en­counter secondary obstacles.

During nearly this whole process, the patient:

‑ will not realize that his ideas are changing, and when he finally does realize it, he won't be frightened;

‑ imagines that he is acting on his own from start to finish, unconscious that he is being maneuvered.

Thus, he is gradually transformed from an adversary into a sympathizer and final­ly a follower.

 

5. A Concrete Example of Unperceived Ideological Transshipment

Now we will briefly illustrate how a per­son hostile to communism can be un­consciously transshipped to it through the widely diffused trilogy of the French Revolution.

"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity:" Ob­viously, none of these words has an intrin­sically bad meaning. However, they can be easily abused.

If a patient's passion for Liberty is taken to an extreme through clever propaganda, a disorderly desire for a state of affairs without government or laws is created in him. Fallen human nature easily tends towards this, and the ideological germs be­queathed to the world by the French Revolution are fraught with stimuli toward it. According to the theoreticians of Marx­ism, Liberty is the end term to which the communist state should lead in its last phase.

The exacerbation of the appetite for Equality ‑ so easily produced by man's tendency to envy and revolt ‑ logically leads to the hatred of all social and eco­nomic hierarchy and to the total egalitar­ianism inherent to the communist regime once it enters the phase of state capitalism and dictatorship of the proletariat.

Once the idea of Fraternity is over­emphasized, one soon comes to hate everything that separates men and distinguishes them in a proportionate and legitimate way, and finally, to anxiously desire the abolition of all countries to establish a universal republic: another ob­jective of communism.

The reason we chose these three yearn­ings as an example is that we believe they play a role of capital importance in the Bolshevization of the West. Once these values have been over‑emphasized in some­one's mind and an unbalanced emotional climate created around them, it is easy to lead him, stage by stage, to a liberal and egalitarian reformism. This increasingly radical reformism first induces sympathy and cooperation with communists, finally leading to the acceptance of communism as the absolute and perfect realization of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.

 

6. Reform of Structures, An Indispensable Tool in Unperceived Ideological Transshipment

 

With the above example, one can easily see how much unperceived ideological transshipment, itself a process of ideological action over public opinion, can be helped by so‑called reforms of structure.

Liberalism and especially egalitarianism can and have inspired laws leading to an ever more revolutionary transformation of the institutions and life of many countries.

Under the laudable pretext of destroy­ing excessive inequalities and privileges, one can go farther by gradually abolishing legitimate privileges and inequalities in­dispensable to the dignity of the human person and the common good. As the steam roller of egalitarianism becomes heavier and more destructive through socialist and egalitarian reforms such as agrarian reform, urban renewal, corporate and industrial reform,[6] society as a whole draws closer to the communist ideal. And to the degree that public opinion becomes accustomed to this, it too will become com­munist (cf. The Church and the Com­munist State: The Impossible Coexistence, in Crusade for a Christian Civilization, vol. 6, July‑Oct. 1976, item VI, p. 27). One can see how socialist and confiscatory reforms of structure amount to indirect action over public opinion, which gradually becomes communist without perceiving it.[7]

 

7. An Objection: The Incompatibility of Liberalism with Socialism

 

One might object to the above considera­tions about the so‑called reforms of struc­ture, by saying that they are socialist ­inspired. Now, if liberalism appears to be exactly the opposite of socialism, how can one claim it has a role in these trans­formations?

True, since liberty naturally produces in­equality, an egalitarian state of affairs would require rigid State control. However, communists don't see it this way. For them, the total authoritarianism inherent to the dictatorship of the proletariat should establish equality between men once and for all. Once this goal is reached, political power should disappear, giving way to an entirely anarchical state of affairs in which complete freedom will no longer engender inequalities. For communists, the incom­patibility between liberty and equality is on­ly temporary. Liberty is provisionally sacrificed under the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to establish total equality. This, however, prepares the anarchical era in which full equality will exist side by side with total freedom. Communist authori­tarianism is therefore ultra‑liberal in spirit and purpose.

Moreover, from the standpoint of family and morality, liberalism in the capitalist regime prepares the ground for com­munism. The home is effectively destroyed to the degree that moral liberalism facilitates divorce, adultery, and the revolt of children and domestic servants. Men­talities thus become gradually accustomed to a state of affairs in which the family no longer exists. In other words, public opin­ion moves toward the "ideal" of free love inherent to communism.

 

8. What's New        About Unperceived Ideological Transshipment?

 

The shifting of Western Christian socie­ty from one leftist position to the next on the road to Marxism is an old and deep­rooted phenomenon. It essentially con­stitutes a more or less unperceived ideological transshipment to communism, a transshipment which this Christian socie­ty has been lamentably undergoing for centuries.

The phenomenon is therefore not new.

What is new, however, is the aspect that it assumes by virtue of the very special effort that certain circles make, through various artifices, to give this process an un­precedented speed. Furthermore, this shift is no longer produced in stages, from center to left or from a moderate left to one more radical, but from the center or the moderate left to a categorically communist state of affairs.

Today this process shows something new, which was barely visible in the past: a bright red color. Not only is it carried on through modern artifices, but it tends to Marxism radically and directly, and is marked by an unprecedented haste. Unperceived ideological transshipment is new above all in that it no longer plays the secondary role of a collateral tool, but has now become the tactic most used by com­munism for the ideological conquest of the world.[8]

 

 

 

CHAPTER III

 

 

 

THE TALISMANIC WORD, A STRATAGEM OF

UNPERCEIVED IDEOLOGICAL TRANSSHIPMENT

 

 

 

 

In the previous chapter we studied the process of unperceived ideological transshipment. Now we turn to the talismanic word.

 

1. A Most Effective Stratagem

 

The stratagem we refer to as the talismanic word[9] is one of the most effi­cient means to carry out unperceived ideological transshipment.

It essentially consists in acting over the minds of individuals, groups, or large com­munities in a very sui generis way, by ap­plying certain elastic words with a very astute technique.

 

2. Method of Utilization

 

The method of carrying out unpercei­ved ideological transshipment through the talismanic word can be described in general terms, even though it necessarily requires adaptations to each concrete case.

For convenience's sake, we will present this method as applied to a small group. Naturally, this method can be applied by a person acting individually over another or by a small group acting over a possibly much larger group.

This method's application is developed processively as follows.

 

A. A Point of Impressionability

 

To begin with, this method presupposes that those to whom it will be applied have a special sensitivity to a certain subject.

 

* As far as social problems are con­cerned, this sensitivity could react to, for instance:

‑ a notorious injustice, such as can hap­pen with certain privileges associated with class;

‑ a particularly dreadful risk, like that of a social revolution;

- a disaster like famine or disease.

 

* Regarding ideological problems ‑philosophy, religion, etc. ‑ the sensitive point could be:

‑ the misfortune of those who are in er­ror such as heretics, Jews, pagans, and other separated brethren,[10] and the urgent need to enlighten and teach them;

‑ the possibility of an imminent victory, on a local or global scale, of an erroneous ideology such as Marxism, with the whole sequence of religious, cultural and moral consequences that it entails;

‑ the risk that the growing clash of op­posed ideologies and regimes may ag­gravate the dangerous tensions tormenting the contemporary world to the point of causing a thermo‑nuclear war.

 

B. A Point of Apathy

 

This method also presupposes a point of apathy or indifference symmetrical to the point of impressionability in those to whom it will be applied.

* Regarding social questions, the sym­metrical point can be, for example:

‑ insensitivity to injustices no less notorious or numerous than those of cer­tain rightly detested privileges. To il­lustrate, we here recall the most serious and widespread injustices caused by the gradual but systematic grinding away of the rights of persons, families, social groups, and regions, brought about by the massification of contemporary societies (or, as Pius XII put it in his celebrated Christmas Radio Message of 1944, by the transformation of people into masses, cf. Discorsi e Radio­messaggi, Vol. VI, p. 239).

This massification can happen by the transformation of customs, by the action of socialist laws that are becoming more numerous in non‑communist countries, or by the implantation of the so‑called dic­tatorship of the proletariat. Thus, not on­ly legitimate and invaluable personal, familiar, or regional peculiarities are mer­cilessly destroyed, but also harmonious, organic, cultural or social inequalities based on just motives of the intellectual, patri­monial, or moral order are sacrificed to what many call "socialization;"

‑ insensitivity to the consideration that, if a social revolution is a very grave evil, it is usually so above all because of unjust and pernicious objectives. Nothing is more absurd than wanting to avoid the revolu­tion at any price, making the revolution therefore from top to bottom and thereby reaching precisely the destructive and un­just objectives one was trying to avoid.

In other words, it is absurd to bring about from the top, through the initiative of the natural defenders of order, the "reforms" communism would make from the bottom since this would mean, for the whole social body, "propter vitam, viven­di perdere causas" ‑ to lose the reasons for living for the sake of life itself (Juvenal, Sat. VIII, 84).

‑ Insensitivity to the fact that, if one should do everything possible against hunger and sickness ‑ considered here as social evils ‑ in no way should one try to do the impossible, the utopian, since this would only sooner or later aggravate the very same evils one desires to vanquish. In many instances, profound and lasting solu­tions for this kind of social evil are slow. This does not mean that one should not hasten to apply them. But it is necessary to apply these solutions with redoubled concern in order to prevent the natural delay of the cure from being added to the censurable slow‑down resulting from our negligence. But one must frequently give up the impatient desire for immediate results. This desire, in effect, exposes us to the risk of preferring, rather than authen­tic solutions, the violent panaceas ex­tolled by demagogy and effective only in appearance.

 

* As far as ideological problems are con­cerned, the symmetrical points can be:

‑ Insensitivity to the risks of in­temperate apostolic zeal. Since knowing the true Religion is the greatest happiness, those who do not know it are certainly to be greatly pitied. And those who use all means to bring our separated brethren to the unity of the Faith are to be praised. Therefore, we would run a serious risk if any action to this end were wanting on our part because of indifference or ignorance. However, we must not be insensitive to possible risks from the other side, that is, from the disorderly ardor of the apostle and from the naturalistic character of his methods. Disorderly zeal and naturalism can inspire the use of illegitimate techni­ques to attract non‑Catholics, techniques such as confused terminology, implicit or explicit doctrinal concessions, etc.

Considering only the apostolic efficien­cy of these illegitimate ruses, we should point out that the keenest and most con­sistent minds among our separated brethren observe them carefully. The best and most approachable non‑Catholics are the very ones who most carefully watch us in order to judge us according to our sincerity and consistence in the faith we profess. To see that we confide more in morally doubtful techniques than in the supernatural in our eagerness to obtain conversions can only cause them sadness and turn them away. We should not be insensitive, then, to these many risks.

Finally, and above all, we cannot be in­different to the risk of exposing our own Catholic brethren to doubts about their faith, persuading them ‑ under the guise of peaceful coexistence with our separated brethren ‑ to attend conferences and lec­tures, and to read books or participate in meetings in which heresy, schism, atheism, or moral corruption might enter their souls.[11] We should be even more vigilant about the preservation of Catholics than about the conversion of infidels, since in the hierarchy of the love of neighbor, no one deserves more love than the brother who participates in the same faith, as Saint Paul says: "Then while there is time, let us do good to everyone, but principally to our brothers in the faith" (Gal. 6:10);

‑ Insensitivity to the illicitness of re­nouncing some supreme and undeniable principles, and of accepting some Marxist errors, to prevent a total Marxist victory.

The victory of Marxism is undoubtedly the cause of catastrophic misfortunes. But our     worst risk is not to be conquered by it in the military or political fields, but to kneel     before the conqueror. To accept a modus vivendi that might mean renouncing prin­         ciples to avoid the fatal consequences of our defeat, to renounce expressly or tacit­ly the institution of private property, for example, in order to obtain freedom of worship (cf. The Church and the Com­munist State: The Impossible Coexistence, in Crusade, Vol. VI, July‑Oct. 1976) ‑ is       a thousand times more lamentable than suffering the persecution brought on by a        noble and virtuously faithful position on orthodoxy.

- Insensitivity to the risk of communism dominating the world before the silence and inertia of Christians. If the communists brutally present us with the alternative of          giving up the battle against their errors or accepting the risk of war, they implicitly require us to choose between the fulfillment of our duty as Christians or real apostasy. In that case, we must say like St. Peter that, whatever the cost, "It is more important to obey God than men" (Acts, 5:29).

 

C. A Talismanic Word

 

At this initial position, in which the pa­tient is at the mercy of his one‑sided state    of mind and already prepared for the psychological action that he is about to   undergo, the use of a well‑chosen word can produce surprising effects. This word is the talismanic word.

This is a word whose legitimate mean­ing is congenial and, at times, even noble; but it is also a word that has some elastici­ty. When it is used tendentiously, it begins to shine with a new radiance, fascinating the patient and taking him much farther than he could have imagined.

Twisted out of shape and distorted, wholesome and even dignified words have been used to label a number of mistakes, errors and blunders. We could even say that the effects of this technique are more harm­ful when the word being abused is more elevated and dignified ‑ "corruptio optimi pessima." Some words with a dignified connotation that have been transformed in­to deceitful talismans and placed at the ser­vice of error are: social justice, ecumenism, dialogue, peace, irenicism, and coexistence.

 

D. Stirring Up a Network of Sympathies and Phobias

 

Thus charged with a new spirit, each of these words raises up a network of impres­sions, emotions, sympathies, and phobias in persons with the states of mind de­scribed in items A and B. As shown below, this network orients the victims toward new ideological directions: philosophical relativism, religious syncretism, socialism, the policy of the extended hand, open co­operation with communism and finally, the acceptance of Marxist doctrine.

 

E. Great Propaganda Qualities

 

The prestige of propaganda leads the vic­tim of the transshipment process to become more and more attracted to these new ideological paths. The talismanic words correspond to what the media generally considers modern, pleasant and attractive. Thus, the lecturers, speakers, or writers who use these words do so for the sole reason of seeing their chances of a good reception in the press, radio, or television considerably enhanced. For this reason the person listening to the radio or the television or reading the newspaper will find these words used everywhere in every possi­ble way, with growing repercussion in his soul.

 

F. Whose Elasticity Is Used for Propaganda Effects

 

The propagandistic quality of the talis­manic word leads the writer, speaker, and lecturer to the temptation of using it with increasing frequency for every application, and even when it is not applicable, thus making himself more easily applauded. And in order to increase the opportunities of using such words, he uses them in analogous and successively broader ways, stretching their natural elasticity almost to absurdity.

 

G. Susceptible to Being Radicalized

 

With such a great range of uses for the talismanic word, the bolder uses cause the more moderate, sensible, and current ones to fall into disuse. Those who formerly would use the talismanic word with a slight­ly deformed meaning, or applaud its use as if it were a new plaything, will begin to applaud and use it in more and more ex­aggerated senses, until it reaches a climax. This is the phenomenon of the radicaliza­tion of the talismanic word.

 

H. Thus Achieving Unperceived Ideological Transshipment

 

This very process of radicalizing the talismanic word causes the unperceived ideological transshipment of those who use it. Fascinated by the word, they quickly accept as supreme and ardently professed ideals the successively more radical mean­ings that it assumes.

With the force of values accepted as supreme, these ideals in turn gradually pro­duce in the victim of the transshipment pro­cess all the interior and exterior changes of attitude toward his former adversary, described in the previous chapter (item 4).

This is how the talismanic word is used to unleash the process of unperceived ideological transshipment and bring it to a close.

 

3. How to Prevent the Success of this Stratagem

 

The reader will naturally ask if there is any way to prevent the success of the stratagem we just described.

There is a way. It is easily understood, provided that one keeps in mind some characteristics of the talismanic word.

 

A. The Talismanic Word Resists Being Made Explicit

 

The radicalized talismanic word resists being made explicit. Its real power lies in the emotion which it excites. Reflection, drawing towards the talismanic word the analytic attention of whoever uses or hears it, would disturb and impede ipso facto the sensible and imaginative fruition of the word. Keeping its meaning obstinately implicit, the talismanic word thus continues to be a vehicle and a hiding place for its increasing emotional content.

 

B. Analysis "Exorcises" the Magic Power of the Talismanic Word

 

The action of the talismanic word can be "exorcised" through its analysis. Thus, one understands the utility of this study, which is to make available to those who are in­terested the means of arresting the process of unperceived ideological transshipment by exorcising the talismanic word.

 

4. An Exception About the Use of the Word Charged with a Talismanic Meaning

 

We are not suggesting here that one should never use the word with talismanic meaning, but simply that it be used proper­ly and always in its natural and legitimate sense.

 

 

 

CHAPTER IV

 

 

 

AN EXAMPLE OF THE

TALISMANIC WORD: "DIALOGUE"

 

 

 

 

Perhaps the summary points presented above seem to be too abstract. Therefore, in this chapter we will illustrate how the talismanic word is used by analyzing how one of them, "dialogue," is utilized to carry on the unperceived ideological transshipment towards Hegelian relativism and Marxism.

 

1. Legitimate Meanings of "Dialogue"

 

A. Method

 

To describe the process of unperceived ideological transshipment carried out through the changing talismanic meanings of the word "dialogue," it is necessary:

‑ to make a preliminary study of its natural and legitimate meanings;

‑ to show in which of them evolution towards the first talismanic meaning occurs;

‑ to describe how successive talismanic meanings are then engendered one from the other under the action of the fear‑sympathy syndrome thus advancing the unperceived ideological transshipment.

 

B. Natural and Legitimate Meanings

 

a) Preparatory Character

 

This part of the study is preparatory in scope.

For the reader to thoroughly understand the precise analysis of the talismanic pro­cess which we will make later on, it would be helpful to:

‑ clearly distinguish, in light of the natural and legitimate meanings of "dialogue," the difference between that in which the first talismanic distortion occurs, and the others;

‑ keep clearly in mind the components of the legitimate meaning in which the first distortion occurs to better understand the transformations these elements undergo in each stage of the talismanic radicalization.

 

b) The Multiplicity of Legitimate Meanings

 

Analyzing the current meanings of the word "dialogue" and others connected with it, such as "dialectic ... .. argument," "polemics," etc., we can see that they are often very different and, from a certain point of view, sometimes contradictory. This occurs in all circles, regardless of the degree of education. As the years pass, the emotional burden associated with some of these words changes their meaning, with the result that persons from different generations understand them in different ways. From one region to another, and more justifiably, from one country to another, perceptible variations of meaning at times occur.

Incidentally, this phenomenon is not confined to common usage, since in philosophical language the word "dialec­tic," for example, has so many meanings that it is impossible to use it without determining precisely which meaning it is to have (see "Dialectique," Vocabulaire Technique et Critique de la Philosophie by A. Lalande).

 

c) How to Study These Meanings

 

It seems that the best way to study the various legitimate meanings of "dialogue" would be to list, study and compare each of them with the others.

However, since the nature of this work is not preponderantly linguistic, we will proceed quickly and clearly by showing a basic element in the etymology of "dia­logue" that appears in all its accepted meanings, then classifying these latter ac­cording to the twofold criterion that we will indicate later.

This method gives us a picture of the word's meanings and allows us to put in the right perspective and with the necessary precision the legitimate meanings that will be distorted by the talismanic process.

 

d) Criteria for Classification

 

Classification of the different meanings of the word "dialogue" is made:

‑ according to the objective of dialogue;

‑ in light of the consequences to dialogue arising from the emotional at­titude of those who dialogue.

With this it will be easy to see how a dif­ferent meaning corresponds to each of these modalities.

 

e) Terminology

 

It will be easier for the reader to follow our study when each of these classified meanings is accompanied by a complemen­tary explicative word, a kind of ter­minology for greater clarity.

 

f) Selection of Meanings

 

It is possible that some legitimate mean­ings of "dialogue" are not included in this classification. It was not our intention to consider all of them, but only those that are more pertinent to the criteria of classification, that is, to the very nature of dialogue.

 

g) An Important Reservation

 

It is easy to see that it matters little in understanding our thesis if the reader prefers different classification criteria or is disappointed at the lack of some other meaning of dialogue in ours.

Indeed, the classification we propose has a merely propaedeutic character. Our ex­position can be easily understood and followed once the reader has in mind the several accepted meanings of "dialogue" here made explicit with the help of the un­varying complementary words of our terminology.

 

h) Etymology of "Dialogue"

 

The Greek word dialogos is composed of dia, meaning "separation" or "disjunc­tion," and logos, meaning "word." Thus "dialogue" is used in Socrates and Plato to designate the form of intellectual elaboration that two or more speakers, pro­ceeding by questions and answers, use to distinguish things according to their genus.[12]

 

Based on this etymology, it is easy to see how in all the languages of the West the word "dialogue" (according to the dic­tionaries) has come to broadly apply to any kind of conversation.[13]

 

i) Modalities of Dialogue According to its Objective

 

A distinction should first be made about dialogue in the broad sense, the value of which will become apparent as the exposi­tion proceeds. According to its objective, dialogue:

 

1. is either such that the speakers do not intend to change each other's persuasion, which can occur:

‑ ‑ when it merely seeks the exchange of information or to entertain the parties (dialogue‑entertainment);

‑ when it seeks the collaboration of the parties for the investigation or analysis of a matter that both understand insufficiently (dialogue‑investigation);

 

2. Or, that the speakers differ on a cer­tain subject and each one seeks, by argu­ment, to persuade the other to change his conviction (argument).[14]

 

j) Corresponding Differences of Emotional Attitude

 

To these different intentions and objec­tives correspond respectively diverse emo­tional attitudes in the persons who dialogue:

 

1. When the speakers do not aim to change each other's opinions, the emo­tional attitude is one of relaxation.

This relaxation is complete and con­tinuous in "dialogue‑ entertainment."

It is also complete in the case of "dialogue‑investigation;" but as some ac­cidental and transitory differences can arise during the investigation, some passing ten­sion might appear.[15]

 

2. In the case of "argument," the emo­tional attitude of the speakers generally has a different character: differences of con­viction create a heterogeneity between the two that is in itself an obstacle to their linking with one another; the argumenta­tion which each one uses to convince the other can easily provoke a tone of relations more or less like a fight, depending on the case.

Thus, dialogue has two fundamental modalities: one distinguished by its objec­tive; the other by the emotional aspect of the relationship of one speaker to the other.

 

k) Dialogue in the Broad Sense, the Strict Sense, and Argument

 

The word "argument" is entirely suited to the mode of dialogue described above in point 2 of items (i) and (j).

But how does one designate the form of dialogue in number (1) of those items? It is also called "dialogue" and there is no word to distinguish it.

Along with the broad and etymological meaning already analyzed, let a strict mean­ing of the word thus be formed to designate mode no. (1) (which includes "dialogue-­entertainment" and "dialogue‑inves­tigation").

What is the position of the word "argu­ment" in view of these two meanings of "dialogue"? "Argument" designates one of the modalities of dialogue in the broad sense. "Argument" is the contrary of "dialogue" in the strict sense of the word, just as the species within the genus are distinguished and opposed.

 

l) Argument‑dialogue, Argument Pure and Simple and Polemics

 

There are also distinctions to make re­garding argument, which has three degrees of intensity:

 

1. Argument can have an extremely serene and cordial character, so that, while fully keeping the content of an argument, it has the amenable appearance of dialogue in the strict sense. But since each speaker is seeking to change the persuasion of the other, we should keep in mind that we are witnessing a true argument and not a dialogue in the strict sense. This mode of "argument" resembles dialogue in the strict sense only in something accidental, that is, in its form and suavity. Thus, it is not on­ly in the broad sense that the term "dia­logue" is applied to this type of argument; it is also applied in a specific and par­ticular way derived, as if by osmosis or assimilation, from the mere accidental likeness of dialogue in the strict sense to this mode of argument. We therefore call this argument‑dialogue."

 

2. In the second degree, argument has the normal emotional warmth inherent to the interlocution in which each party wants to change the persuasion of the other. To this mode ‑‑ which corresponds to the ordinary meaning of the word "argument" ‑‑ we will give the name "argument pure and simple;"

 

3. Finally, argument can become very heated emotionally, and in this case is called "polemics" (from the Greek po­lemos, war). Because of its particular vehemence, polemics generally has a bois­terous, noisy character and easily falls in­to personal attack when dealing with doctrine.[16]

 

m) Schematic Diagram of the Le­gitimate Meanings of "Dialogue"

 

These notions of the different meanings of "dialogue" are outlined below.

 

Dialogue in the strict sense ‑ Inter­locution in which each party does not aim to change the persuasion of the other. Relaxed emotional attitude.

 

Dialogue in the broad and etymological sense ‑ Indicates any type of interlocution.

 

Argument ‑ Interlocution in which each party tries to change the persuasion of the other. Emotional attitude can easily be that of a fight.

 

Dialogue‑entertainment ‑ Aims to in­form, entertain, etc. Emotional attitude of total and continuous relaxation.

 

Dialogue‑investigation ‑ Aims to in­vestigate, study, analyze. Habitually, the emotional attitude is of relaxation. Never­theless, accidental and transitory tension is possible.

 

Argument‑dialogue ‑ Emotional warmth less than usual. The content is truly an argument since it aims to change the per­suasion of the interlocutor. It is only called "dialogue" because of its acciden­tal similarity to dialogue in the strict sense.

 

Argument Pure and Simple ‑ Emo­tional warmth common to the pugnacity in­herent to the interlocution in which each party desires to change the persuasion of the other.

 

Argument‑Polemics (or merely “po­lemics") ‑ Uncommonly heated emotionally, that is, particularly vehement and boisterous.

 

n) Characteristic common to the many meanings of "dialogue".*

 

Except when taken in the broad sense, "dialogue" obviously carries a note of harmony, concord and peace in its various applications.

This note of harmony is inherent to dialogue stricto‑sensu that is, to dialogue-­entertainment and dialogue‑investigation, to which an emotional attitude of complete relaxation is proper.

As we have seen, argument can only be called "dialogue" by analogy, when it has this note of harmony to an outstanding degree, thus becoming argument‑dialogue. However mild it may be, an argument­-dialogue will never be a dialogue in the strict sense, a note of pugnacity being in­herent to all and any argument.

 

C. Pugnacity in the Several Modalities of Argument

 

What is the nature of this note of pugnacity? It is intellectual when each party wields arguments with the intention of per­suading the other to, according to the for­mula of Saint Remigius, "Burn what you adored and adore what you burned." It is volitive and emotional when the heat of col­liding wills and the stridency of different ways of feeling are added to the clash of ideas.

 

D. Is There Anything Wrong with Argument Pure and Simple or Polemics as Such?

 

Is this note of emotional, volitive, or in­tellectual pugnacity an evil in itself? Do argument pure and simple and polemics have a pejorative character? It is a must to answer these questions properly, for the stratagem of the talismanic word "dia­logue" is developed on the basis of false answers that are given to them.

We are not considering the licitness of the almost imperceptible note of pugnaci­ty in argument‑dialogue.

First, we take a look at argument pure and simple.

 

a) The subject's relation to original sin

 

Emotional, ideological, or volitive clashes are, in themselves, fruits of original sin. It would be ideal if there never were dissentions, disputes, or struggles among men.

 

But since original sin does exist, is argu­ment pure and simple profitable and legiti­mate? In principle, yes.

 

b) Logic, the way to conquer the truth and the good

 

It is necessary to realize the value of this mode of argument if one admits the objec­tive existence of truth and error, good and evil, and the fittingness of logic to lead man to the understanding of truth and free him from the snares of error, and lead him to love the good and save him from the clutches of evil.

It is thus that one can do the greatest kindness to another: free him from error and evil and give him the possession of the truth and the good.

 

c) The influence of emotional factors

 

Someone could say that argument pure and simple should be cold and without passion.

Not in our opinion. Everyone is naturally attached to his convictions, and thus generally gives them up reluctantly. This attachment is much accentuated by the fact that certain convictions logically give rise to a set of habits, a way of being, and a whole lifestyle. To change them causes a man to undergo painful transformations in certain sensitive points. Moved by the no­ble, orderly, and strong love that he has for the truth, or by the miserable, tormented, and violent love that he has for error and evil, man does not act like a cold reason­ing machine when arguing. Thus man, when arguing, engages himself totally, not just with his whole intelligence, but also with the full strength of his will and the heat of his good or bad passions.

So, argument pure and simple does not consist merely in argumentation, even though it may always maintain the primacy of reasoning, which is its main reason for being and the better part of its dignity. It is easy to see how argument pure and sim­ple often has a salient note of emotional combativity due to the indisputable right of virtue or to the frequent interference of sin.

If it is true that sometimes argument pure and simple becomes more dignified by clothing itself in noble and superior sereni­ty, at other times it is ennobled in the light of a fiery zeal for the truth and the good.

 

d) Factors of Persuasion Collateral to Argumentation

 

Sometimes the human spirit quite naturally begins to realize the truth of a thesis, finding it pleasing or beautiful. As there is a profound reversibility between the good, the true and the beautiful, love often helps to perceive the truth. The per­suasiveness of a person who argues is not only in reasoning. It is also his whole way of being and speaking that often allows the beauty or the goodness of the cause he upholds to come through. Now, in prais­ing the good and the beautiful, an emo­tional factor naturally appears that easily causes argument pure and simple to grow more ardent, at times becoming a polemic.

 

e) Legitimacy of Anger in Argument Pure and Simple

 

Someone might say that the above arguments could open the doors to anger, which should never happen in a conversation.

We just saw that man's passions have a legitimate place in the clash of ideas. This is easily explained from the moral stand­point, since no passions are evil in themselves; they are all neutral and can legitimately influence argument pure and simple unless they become intemperate. Anger is but one of these passions and, within the limits of temperance, can put its particular mark to the clash of ideas. In­cidentally, it must be said that holy anger against error and evil can often increase perspicacity rather than darken it, and so aid the lucidity of argument pure and simple.[17]

 

f) Pugnacity and Contrast Are both Necessary to Demonstrate the Truth

 

To show how much a thesis is good, true, and beautiful is often a difficult task. Just above, we spoke of the effects of original sin, the habits and passions in the human spirit, and the crises that certain changes of opinion can cause for man. Man fre­quently hesitates when he reaches the vertex of these crises.

The contradiction between the ideas whose truth he glimpses and the life he leads seems unbearable to him. The famous alternative formulated by Paul Bourget suddenly appears in his path: Will he con­form his ideas to his actions or his actions to his ideas?[18]

In such dark and painful situations, one must clearly avail oneself of all the really convincing resources of argumentation. Doubtless one of these is contrast.

Saint Thomas teaches that one of the reasons that God permits error and evil is to allow the splendor of the true and the good to shine forth through contrast.[19] It is in no way licit to disdain the use of con­trast when arguing. This recourse of the Divine Teacher is so precious that in the plans of Providence it in some way com­pensates for the countless hindrances caused by the existence of error and evil in this world. Now, how is contrast used ex­cept by the open and categorical denounce­ment of everything false in error and cen­surable in evil? It is not enough merely to praise the true and the good. In argument pure and simple it is legitimate to develop a tone of pugnacity as fully as possible. From this standpoint, it is legitimate to at­tack both false ideas and persons.

 

... In Regard to Ideas

 

First, when attacking false ideas, to show how they are erroneous, contradictory, and immoral produces a salutary impact in the mind of whoever professes them, and thereby destroys a whole series of preju­dices and disorderly attachments. The light of truth and the good odor of virtue can thus penetrate even a poor soul that short­ly before was totally imprisoned by evil.

 

... In Regard to Persons

 

Second, in the case of persons, when the attack is made so as to point out only his error and sin, without unnecessarily touching on other things, his eyes can be opened to his real state, efficaciously in­viting him to return to the truth and the good. If the attack happens in the presence of third‑parties, not only is the scandal it could cause them neutralized, but their love of the truth and the good can be increased through contrast. Obviously, such attacks are justified only when they are really necessary, and they must be made accord­ing to the rules of justice and charity so that, however clear and profound they may be, they will not destroy the person's digni­ty as a man and ultimately as a Christian.

Throughout history, when attacks of this nature have been made at the right moment in dignified terms they have done much good even when directed to potentates ac­customed to especially respectful treatment. At times they have done great good to those attacked, and have always been very edi­fying for the people. Well known are the attacks of the Prophet Nathan against David, Saint Ambrose against Emperor Theodosius, Saint Gregory VII against Henry IV, and Pius VII against Napoleon. Many fruitful graces have derived from this, both to keep souls from error and evil and to attract them to the true and the good. Times change, but the profound order of things never changes. Although certainly less manageable than potentates of former times, even our contemporary totalitarian despots are not such that it can be said that this kind of attack will never do them any good.

 

g) Artificiality of the Abolition of Argument Pure and Simple

 

As we said, argument pure and simple is not a mere clash of arguments; in some aspects it is a clash of personalities.

In it there is a contact between souls such that they have a real influence upon each other through insistence, repetition (which Napoleon considered the best rhetorical figure), and the attraction or repulsion of one contender for the other. In addition the interplay of these factors makes this mode of interlocution similar to a tournament or a battle.

This enables one to see that argument pure and simple corresponds to the profound and natural necessities of human convivium, and that to cast it aside to reduce the forms of this convivium to mere­ly dialogue in the strict sense (or to argument‑dialogue) would be grave and dangerously artificial.

 

h) Artificiality, the Cause of Confusion and Struggle

 

We call it dangerous because all ar­tificiality is dangerous. Indeed, once the forces of nature have been violated and cast out, they return with redoubled strength: "Naturam expelles furca, tamen usque recurret," said Horace tersely (Epist., 1, 10,24). By not fearing to fall into artificiali­ty because of a misconceived notion of har­mony, one loses an indispensable means for the elucidation of truth in human con­vivium. One thus inevitably slips toward confusion, which is one of the deepest and most sinister causes of disturbances, quar­rels, and prolonged, inextricable and hateful fights. It is known that nothing is more harmful to true peace ‑ the tran­quility of order (cf. St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, XIX, c. 13) ‑ than extinguishing among men the true and the good, the sole foundations of this very order. Whoever denies the licitness of argument pure and simple, thinking perhaps to work for har­mony, is in fact implanting the kingdom of discord.

 

i) Doesn't Argument Pure and Simple Destroy Charity?

 

Upon reading these considerations, more than one reader influenced by the irenicism common in our times will feel an apprehen­sion rising from the depths of his soul: Are we not imprudent in praising argument pure and simple? Even though we may be right in the abstract order of principle, since this mode of interlocution can be abused so easily isn't it better to eliminate it com­pletely? "Abusus non tollit usum," answers an old juridical proverb. If argu­ment pure and simple is licit and has a specific function in the natural order of things, it necessarily has a place in the plans of Divine Providence. Tempus tacendi et tempus loquendi ‑ "There is a time to keep silence and a time to speak" (Eccle. 3:7). Applying this principle from Scrip­ture, we can say that there are occasions when it is better not to argue, but there are others when one has the right and even the unrefusable obligation to argue. This was the example our Divine Master gave us (cf. John 8 and ff.). Thus, to never argue at all is a worse abuse than arguing badly a few times.

To present argument pure and simple as always being illicit, dangerous, and harm­ful to souls as a measure of prudence is a real doctrinal sleight of hand.

Moreover, if he who should argue is a Catholic, this sleight of hand shows a symptom of accentuated naturalism, For if to argue is a Catholic's right and even a duty, how can one admit that it is im­possible, with all the graces the Church gives, for him to do so according to the principles of justice and charity? Doesn't Omnia possum in eo qui me comfortat (Philip. 4:13) ‑ "I can do all things in him who strengthenest me" ‑ mean anything to him?

 

j) Consequence: Argument Pure and Simple Does Not Have a Necessarily Pejorative Character

 

No. It is inadmissible to condemn argu­ment pure and simple in thesis and to attrib­ute a necessarily pejorative character to it.

 

k) Neither Do "Polemics" Necessarily Have a Pejorative Character

 

All that we said about argument pure and simple applies also to polemics. Polem­ics possess the pugnacity inherent to argu­ment pure and simple in the highest degree and can therefore have ‑ when they are bad ‑ all the exacerbations that are censur­able in argument pure and simple. Analo­gously, when polemics are good they have all the qualities inherent to a well‑con­ducted argument pure and simple in the highest degree.[20] This is the position we had the opportunity of sustaining more ex­tensively in the book, In Defense of Catho­lic Action (Editora Ave Maria, Sâo Paulo, 1943), which in 1949 was praised in a let­ter written in the name of Pope Pius XII by the Under‑secretary of State, Msgr. Gio­vanni Battista Montini, later Paul VI.

For those who think that what we say about good polemics is strange, we will simply recall that, out of the evident wish of Divine Providence for the good of souls, the Holy Ghost raised up eminent polemists in the Church who enjoy the honor of be­ing raised to the altar and whose works constitute a legitimate glory of the Catho­lic Church and Christian culture. Among these are Saint Jerome, Saint Augustine, Saint Bernard, and Saint Francis de Sales.

 

1) Argument Pure and Simple, Polemics, and Public Opinion

 

We could not end these considerations without making an observation on the true dimension of the problems raised when dealing with argument pure and simple and polemics. Generally, these problems are treated by taking into account only the speakers who argue or debate. When be­cause of the theme, argument pure and sim­ple or polemics interest many people and are done with adequate publicity, they ac­tually have a social importance, since they provoke a myriad of related controversies among those who come into contact with them.

The scope of this phenomenon can cause the formation of two or more currents of opinion in the heart of society. From the noisy confusion of individual disputes emerge louder voices on both sides that are richer in thought, have greater force of ex­pression and, in turn, fire up controversies of great importance among themselves. In these controversies everything being af­firmed in the various camps is synthe­sized, defined, becomes more profound, and is carried to its ultimate consequences.

Currents of opinion thus confront each other as it were on different stages and, prodded on by greater minds, the argu­ments and polemics then have an impact on lesser minds, inspiring them and pro­viding orientation.

In their most prominent and historical­ly important forms, argument pure and simple and polemics begin, develop, and end before the eyes of the multitudes over whom they exercise a rectrix (directive) ac­tion and in which they reach their full dimension.

It can be seen from the above that apostolic strategy cannot be conceived and carried out merely with a view to the per­son or the particular current of opinion with which the Catholic disputes, but in relation to the sometimes immense public that watches the polemics or argument pure and simple as an interested spectator. Now, while a highly amenable argument (argu­ment‑dialogue) can frequently be helpful in attracting and persuading, the legitimate needs of the public mind frequently require that error and evil be refuted and chas­tised with vehemence. Thus, in certain cir­cumstances there is a risk that an inoppor­tune serenity of the defenders of the good might produce in the public a real atony of its Catholic sense or moral sensibility. Here is another proof that argument pure and simple and polemics are at times indis­pensable.

The two thousand year old struggle of the Catholic Church against religious and philosophical systems opposed to Her is a good illustration of this point. In this strug­gle, dialogue has included, more or less in­tensely, argument pure and simple and polemics not only on the level of individual contacts but also on that of groups, nations and the whole human race.

 

m) Argument Pure and Simple, Polemics, and the Militant Character of the Church

 

The systematic proscription of all argu­ment pure and simple and polemics, and the reduction of all contacts to mere argu­ment‑dialogue (the most serene and cordial type of argument), would have for the Church consequences whose importance could never be sufficiently emphasized.

Such dialogues would never be sufficient for all the tactical needs of the Church Mili­tant. Indeed, something authentically mili­tant, in the fullest sense of the word, is in­herent to "inimicitias ponam" ("I will put enmities" ‑‑ Genesis, 3:15) and to the earthly condition of the Church. She will never cease to be faced with enemies who are inspired by hostility that ranges, de­pending on the case, from simple antipathy to extreme hatred. These enemies will never be mere abstract ideas or adverse econom­ics or social conditions; they will also be men of flesh and blood, who will constitute the race of the serpent[21] until the end of the world. And the Spouse of Christ can never cease fighting them.

This does not mean that in every non-­Catholic person or institution the Church should see only an enemy. But it is utopian to imagine that in any historical period She will find outside Her bosom only men full of sympathy, who ask Her smilingly about one point or another for which they find no explanation and go from smile to smile, without greater complications, always end­ing up converted.

Furthermore, in this age of concentra­tion camps and Iron and Bamboo Curtains, a person would have to take utopianism very far to imagine that the Church faces only friendly people of good will.

Finally, this simple division of non‑Cath­olics into two categories: adversaries; and what we could call the ignorant benevolent is unfounded. In reality, there are few among the non‑Catholics whose hatred of the Catholic Church goes to the extreme, just as there are few who are exempt from any antipathy towards Her. The greater part of society simultaneously belongs, in infinitely varying proportions, to both of these categories such that benevolence, an­tipathy, and ignorance of the Church are mixed up in each one in a unique and par­ticular way. This necessarily leads each Catholic to use the language proper to each type of interlocution in proportions also in­finitely diverse. Industrious zeal is not to exclude any of them, but to use all of them separately or together as required by each particular case.

 

2. Emotional Irenistic Fermentation

 

It is necessary to place the irenistic tendency that we have been analyzing in relation to the several meanings of "dia­logue" and "argument" in its ideolog­ical context and proper psychological setting.[22]

 

A. An Evolved and Paradisiacal Order of Things: the "Era of Good Will"

 

What utopias and singular emotional conditions are capable of leading someone to admit as desirable and possible a new order of things, an era of what one could call "good will," in which men would neither argue nor debate among them­selves?

Such an order of things would suppose that the human race, having overcome the effects of original sin by an extensive evolu­tion and thus consisting only of men of good will, could inaugurate a type of social relationship in which disagreements, if there were any, would be eliminated by the elucidating action of contacts lacking combativity.

 

B. The Era of Good Will, the Anarchist Utopianism Inherent to Communism, And the Universal Republic

 

The effects of this supposed "evolution" of humanity from its present stage to the era of "good will" would not be confined to the sphere of private convivium, but would logically overflow into both the juridical and political spheres. Men who err neither intellectually nor morally, or whose error is so slight that a cordial explanation puts them immediately on the right path, necessarily have a political life without dissension or friction. Revolutions and crimes are impossible among them. Fur­ther, these utopian dreams necessarily open new perspectives in juridical relations. And from one consequence to another there log­ically can be predicted a debilitation of the functions of law and justice so extensive that the government will be reduced to having nothing more than an administra­tive role and be transformed into a kind of cooperative. This is the anarchical and cooperativist state of affairs envisioned by Communism as the ideal following the dic­tatorship of the proletariat.

By a similar linking of consequences resulting unavoidably from one another, human evolution would have to carry its effects into an even higher sphere of rela­tionship, that between nations. Rivalry of interests and ideological tension would disappear from international life.

Now unnecessary, the United Nations would die. On a world level a super­-cooperative would join the efforts of na­tions just as smaller cooperatives would on the national level. It would be an anarchical type of universal republic.

Thus, in all forms of relations between individuals and nations an utterly in­alterable concord would reign over a re­newed earth inhabited only by men of good will.

Let us not oversimplify things. Especially at the beginning of the era of good will, dialogue would not be easy or brief if something from a former era remained. It would frequently require great patience on all sides. But the certainty of the positive final result would encourage men enough to peaceably and gradually undo all the mistakes and confusion and to endure the weary delays of such a task.

 

C. Religious Irenicism in the Era of Good Will

 

Religious irenicism would be one of the most important consequences of establishing the era of good will. In such an era, the various kinds of argument ‑­especially combative and religious expedi­tions like the Crusades ‑‑ should be outlawed as intrinsically evil. Placed under the most severe opprobrium, they should give way to the other modalities of interlocution, the only licit forms of contact among different religions.

 

D. Irenicism, Ecumenism, and Modernism

 

At this point in the study of irenicism one naturally thinks of "ecumenism," the word so frequently used when speaking of dialogue.

Two forms of ecumenism should be pointed out. One type seeks ‑ in order to lead souls to the one flock of the one Shepherd ‑ to reduce as much as possible the number of arguments pure and simple and polemics in favor of argument-­dialogue and other forms of interlocution.

This ecumenism is amply based on numerous pontifical documents, especial­ly those of John XXIII and Paul VI. But another type of ecumenism goes further and seeks to extirpate any and all militant character from the relations of the Catholic Religion with others (cf. footnote 22).

This extreme ecumenism is evidently founded upon relativism or religious syncretism, whose condemnation is found in two documents of Saint Pius X, the en­cyclical Pascendi against Modernism, and the Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique against the "Sillon."

 

E. Other Forms of Ideological Irenicism

 

What we have said here about religious irenicism is easily transposed to irenicism in any other philosophical or ideological subject.

 

F. Irenicism, Relativism, and Hegelianism

 

It can be seen that the various forms of irenicism logically lead to relativism.

In fact, the exacerbated desire for unanimous, universal, and conclusive peace in everything among men leads to the underestimation of the scope of differences between them. From this underestimation one easily comes to a relativist position which, in order to suppress those dif­ferences, ends by considering all opinions to have a relative value and denying that any of them might be objectively true or false.

This total relativism is more negative than positive, denying all other systems and yet offering no positive conception of man, life, and the universe. But the irenistic impulse is not satisfied with this. Tending to go to the extreme through its own nat­ural dynamism, it takes on a Hegelian character.

It conceives the progress of thought and history as a result of the internal friction of doctrines or forces that are at the same time relatively true and relatively false. From this friction between thesis and an­tithesis would come a new relative "truth," superseding all others, which in its turn would clash with another, yielding another synthesis, and so on indefinitely. This is the end term of the long journey which, begun in simple irenicism and going through suc­cessive refinements of it, reaches relativism and, finally, Hegelianism.

 

G. Collaboration with the Best of the Separated Brethren in Fighting Irenistic Relativism

 

We observe that extreme ecumenism pro­duces tragic confusion among Catholics as well as the separated brethren, be they schismatics, heretics or otherwise. This con­fusion is certainly one of the most tragic of our confusion filled age.

Indeed, today there is no greater danger in the religious field than relativism. It threatens all religions, and any true Catholic or separated brother who seriously professes his own religion should fight it. This can only be done by the effort each one makes to maintain the natural and pro­per meaning of his belief against the relativistic interpretations that deform and undermine it. The ally of the true Catholic in this fight would be the Jew or the Mohammedan who allows not the slightest doubt about what unites or separates us. It is this kind of attitude that keeps relativism out of the fields it attempts to enter. Further, it is only once this attitude is adopted that interlocution in its various modes including argument pure and sim­ple and polemics, can help to unite souls. "Good accounting makes good friends," says the proverb. Likewise, only clarity in thinking and expressing what one thinks really leads to unity.

Exaggerated ecumenism, which tends to make everyone hide or underestimate his real discrepancies with others, leads to a regime of "maquillage," which can only favor relativism, the most powerful common enemy of all religions.

 

H. Irenicism, Dialogue, and Evolutionist Utopianism

 

The dissolution of the State in its present form and of the United Nations, replacing them with a universal anarcho‑cooperativist regime on whose summit one finds a global super‑cooperative, the consequent impos­sibility of wars (and consequent uselessness of armed forces), extreme ecumenism, reli­gious relativism, and irenicism are all corol­laries of one common principle: the evolu­tion of human nature promoted by a period of good will in which all argument dies and men only dialogue among themselves.

Having placed the irenistic tendency ‑which seeks to impose itself through talismanic dialogue ‑ in its ideological context, we briefly mention the doctrine on which this tendency is based. This is uto­pianism, traces of which are found in so many cultures throughout the course of history, and which erupted in the West with marked vigor after the Middle Ages. From Morus and Campanella to the utopian socialists of the last century, the course is easily shown, as it has been so often before.[23]

 

I. Importance of the Emotional

Aspects of Irenistic Utopianism

 

Certainly important to this study is the analysis of the emotional state correlative to this utopianism since ‑‑ as shown below ‑‑ in order to destroy the Western world, communism exploits the emotional cir­cumstances in which irenicism thrives more than the ideas upon which it is based.

Man, created for the earthly paradise and a state of integrity lost through sin, deep down feels a living desire for those conditions which according to the Divine plan he never should have lost. This ap­petite is quite explainable since each being, because of the legitimate love of self, loves what is good for itself.

In addition, the end of the aspirations of man, whom God has invited to a superior destiny, is neither in the integrity of his nature nor the earthly paradise, but in the perfect and eternal happiness of the celestial paradise.

Thus, the tendency for what we could generically and perhaps somewhat loosely call the paradisiacal throbs with a burning and unquenchable force deep down in ev­ery man. He feels this force always, though in different degrees, and it is mixed, at times consciously and at times not, with everything he thinks and desires.

Oriented by the Faith, elevated by grace, and developed according to the norms of Catholic morality, this desire of the paradisiacal constitutes an indispensable and fundamental force for the ennoblement of man in every aspect. It invites him to elevate and to perfect his soul and to im­prove the conditions of his earthly existence as much as possible. Above all, it invites him to aspire to Heaven and to think of it frequently. However, the Catholic must understand that although error, evil and, consequently, pain can be circumscribed, they are not eradicable from this world, as taught so well by the parable of the wheat and the chaff (cf. Matt. 13:24‑30). This life has a fundamental meaning of trial, strug­gle, and expiation that the faithful knows to be in accordance with the highest designs of God's kindness, justice, and wisdom. The end of man and his glorious, complete, and perennial happiness is only in Heaven.

 

J. Revolt, the Typical Emotional Element of the Irenic Utopianist

 

Because he thinks this way, the true Catholic is the contrary of the utopianist who, deprived of the light of faith, con­siders error, evil, and pain to be absurd contingencies of human existence that anger him. He thinks it natural for man to rise up against this triad of adversaries. Moreover, as the utopianist fails to con­sider the existence of another life, he is led to conclude as evident, necessary, and un­questionable that we can eliminate pain, evil, and error. Otherwise, he would be forced to admit that the very order of be­ing is absurd.

This is what his utopia is essentially based upon. Thus, it is understandable that for the utopinianist, life cannot normally have a legitimate meaning of struggle, trial, and expiation; it can only have a meaning of soft and agreeable peace. The utopianist is by definition a pacifist "á outrance;" he is ultra‑ecumenical and ultra‑irenical. None of his dreams would have interior consistency or be capable of satisfying him completely if they did not include the suppression of all struggles and controversies.

It is understood that the earthly paradise based on science and technology dreamed of by utopianism includes the satisfaction of the human passions both in what is legitimate and in what is most tempestuous, unruly, and illegitimate, for the mortifica­tion of the passions is incompatible with this irenical "paradise."

Pride and sensuality occupy a prominent place among the disorderly passions. They mark the utopianist with two main charac­teristics: the desire to be supreme in his sphere, not accepting a transcendent God, and the tendency to complete freedom in satisfying all the unruly instincts and appetites.

Because the utopianist believes only in this life, he thinks that the possibility of ob­taining from this world all the satisfaction his being desires is inherent to the nature of things. He expects in fact to obtain this satisfaction through his own efforts. He is the "worldly" man par excellence, since he puts all his hopes in this world.[24]

 

K. Irenistic Utopianism, the Characteristic of the Worldly Bourgeois and the Worldly Proletarian

 

Whether the worldly be bourgeoisie or proletarians, they have a common denomi­nator precisely in this point.

Through his fortune, social position, and political influence, the worldly bourgeois hopes to obtain complete independence, stability, and pleasure, in short, the earthly paradise his utopia promises him.

The worldly proletarian hopes to acquire the same either by becoming bourgeois or by creating for all men ‑ of which he imagines himself the center ‑ a micro­paradise achieved in the less brilliant, but nonetheless attractive conditions of an egalitarian society. In this new society the proletariat would be the owner of every­thing, and the vestiges of what was once the power of the state would be transfer­red to an organism with the cartilaginous consistency of a mere cooperative. In the egalitarian and cooperativist paradise the proletarian would be independent and gifted with stable and happy living condi­tions somehow even greater than those of the bourgeois at present.

 

L. The Fear‑Sympathy Syndrome Works in the "Worldly" Bourgeois

 

Well do we know how the utopianism of the worldly proletarian, when inebriated by communism, makes him look with hatred at the paradise of the bourgeois from which he is excluded.

But, what does the worldly bourgeois think about the perspective of a worker's paradise? Accustomed to his goods, he does not want to let them go. Nevertheless, exhausted by class struggle and fearing the perspectives of war, revolution plunder and massacre, there are times when the possibility of peacefully integrating himself in the proletarian paradise, and perhaps keeping some small advantages, smiles at him like a lesser evil. "And then," he thinks, "who knows if this paradise will not succeed, contrary to the bourgeois socie­ty, in eliminating error, evil, and suffering? Perhaps it would be worthwhile to re­nounce the advantages I now enjoy in order to enter a world where no one is subject to this triple yoke." No one... not even himself who, in the intervals between his business and his pleasures, feels so vulnerable to sickness and countless other risks.

Then, with all the impetus of his desire for a paradise on earth, the worldly bourgeois begins to find himself leaning toward socialism and glimpsing possibilities of a pact with communism. A pacifist sen­timent toward this terrible adversary rises in him. The irenical dialogue smiles at him... Along with fear, sympathy begins to act in him.

 

M. The Fear‑Sympathy Syndrome Prepares the Worldly Bourgeois for Unperceived Ideological Transshipment

 

It would be impossible for communism, to which it is capitally important to under­mine the bourgeois society, to make dedicated disciples of Marx from most of the worldly bourgeois. The theses and arguments of this prophet of darkness are arid, confused, and uncouth, and the worldly bourgeois does not enjoy lingering over or delving deeply into anything. Fur­thermore, the Marxist ideology clashes head on with all his mental habits and per­sonal interests, and he likes neither clashes nor sacrifices.

But the world communist leaders are far from being ignorant of the emotional state in which so many worldly bourgeois find themselves.

This condition is highly exploitable by communism through the fear‑sympathy syndrome. With this, the worldly bourgeois is prepared for the ideological transship­ment which, by repeating the word "dialogue" in a thousand different ways, will lead him to become communist without his perceiving it, or at least to take conces­sionist positions in the face of communism, thereby opening the doors of the citadel to the adversary.

 

3. Talismanic Meanings of "Dialogue"

 

A. Points of Impressionability and Apathy, the Psychological Frame­work of the Talismanic Word in the Worldly Mind

 

With the irenistic worldliness characterized above, it is easy to see in the irenicist the points of impressionability and apathy that, even when they are in embryo form, make him so susceptible to unperceived ideological transshipment:

 

· First point of impressionability: Quar­rels, disagreements, and wars are in themselves serious evils which must be eliminated at all cost. This is accompanied by tendencies to inaugurate the era of good will and peace;

· Second point of impressionability: To achieve this, it is necessary to put an end to controversies at any price, and replace them with irenistic dialogue;

· First point of apathy: Can this peace­-at‑any‑price be obtained? Will not drastic means be necessary to implant it, present­ing an even greater evil?

· Second point of apathy: Doesn't the abolition of controversies create moral and ideological chaos? Doesn't this mean the victory of relativism, and thus multiply the factors of discord and war? Doesn't it dis­organize public opinion? Doesn't it tend to disfigure the militant character of Holy Church? etc.

The soul or the mind pricked by ire­nicism tends not to answer the questions in the points of apathy. Simplistic, hasty, and peevish, like every utopian mind, the irenicist is not capable of taking his atten­tion away from the points of impression­ability and is irritated with someone who tries to force him to dwell on the points of apathy.

The utopianist thus becomes inclined to accept all the sequels of irenicism, even those he would have most repudiated ‑Communism and Modernism ‑ before those points of impressionability were formed in his mind.

The real solution of the problem worry­ing our irenicist would be to recognize the impossibility of absolute and eternal ideological harmony among men and the necessity of basing good relationships on realistic foundations. For this he would, among other things, take care to avoid both excesses, that is, the omission of argument-­dialogue as indicated above and the omis­sion of argument pure and simple or polemics when they are opportune. He would strive to suppress these modes of argument when for any reason they might be objectionable. But the irenicist, in­fluenced by the points of impressionabili­ty and not reacting against the points of apathy, is right from the start eager to give in to all kinds of one‑sided thoughts, feel­ings, and actions, adhering only to the solu­tions consonant with his points of impres­sionability.

In this way, the talismanic word begins to work over him.

 

B. Multiple Effects of the Talismanic Word

 

The talismanic word "dialogue" is so rich in effects that they must be classified in two groups to be studied adequately:

‑ the direct effects it produces in the mentalities of the persons fascinated by it;

‑ a process through which a mentality transformed in this way and the talismanic word "dialogue" become mutually radicalized, using "dialogue" as an instru­ment and leading the "dialoguers" to Hegelian relativism.

 

C. Direct Effects of the Talismanic Word

 

Let us first consider the five direct effects of the talismanic word.

 

a) First Effect ‑ Dialogue Solves Everything

 

The talismanic word begins to act over the irenicist prepared as described above (item A). He is told about dialogue. Next, he sees the word used in a new and special sense only indirectly related with its or­dinary and usual meaning, and thus it shines in his eyes like something modern and elegant. People begin to use it as though it were a simple and irresistible way of changing convictions. Not to dialogue is ideological backwardness right in the middle of the atomic age. To dialogue is to be up‑to‑date and show how one is effi­cient and modern. Then the irenicist begins to think: "Dialogue solves all problems." No need for arguments or polemics; the on­ly thing to do is dialogue with those who think differently, even if they are com­munists. By the affability that characterizes it, dialogue has the magic power to remove all prejudices, and guarantees its user the glory of persuading all its opponents.

 

b) Second Effect ‑ A World of Impressions and One‑sided Emotions

 

Based on one‑sided and obsessive fear of offending opponents by argument and po­lemics and on the certainty that there is no one he cannot convince through dialogue, our patient gradually forms a whole world of impressions and one‑sided emotions, of which we will mention only those found in the Catholic who argues or debates.

According to the irenicist, this kind of Catholic employs counter‑productive and old‑fashioned methods of apostolate because he is irascible, ill‑tempered, and vindictive, having no charity for those who are in error. He treats them with unjust and harmful severity and, in the final analysis, he is really the one to blame for their stay­ing outside the fold.

 

Hatred for the Most Ardent Catholics

 

This one‑sided impression creates an emotion, an antipathy against the Catholic apologist or polemicist, possibly even ha­tred. This antipathy, arising from the presupposition that all ideological con­troversy is evil, includes ipso facto and in­discriminately all those who argue or de­bate, whether properly or improperly.

However absurd it is, the apologist or polemicist begins to be hated by his brother in the Faith. The irenicist increasingly sees him as a sectarian and uncharitable Catho­lic, and his "error" as the only one for which there is no mercy: the tremendous "error" of being "ultra‑Catholic." It seems to be licit to use any weapon against someone accused of such an "error:" cam­paign of silence, ostracism, defamation, in­sult. And everything serves to document the accusations made against him. The most te­nuous and vaguest clues and even simple rumors are proof. He, the true outcast from society en route to utopia, and no one else, is utterly forbidden to participate in the dialogue.

This causes a constantly increasing deci­mation among the most ardent sons of the Church Militant, that is, the most ab­negated, most consistent, most perspica­cious and most valiant.

We need not dwell on how much the adversaries of the Holy Church gain from this.

 

Admiration of and Unconditional Con­fidence in Those Outside the Church

 

This decimation coincides with growing admiration of and confidence in those who are outside the Church. Not rarely these sentiments become a "complex" capable of becoming categorical unconditionality. This makes sense, for if all our separated brothers can be converted through smiles, it is ultimately because only a few mis­understandings and resentments keep them separated from us. Their good will is per­fect and unblemished.

When dialogue is properly done with those outside the Church, one must keep in mind both what separates us and what unites us. And by dexterously using char­ity one must know how to take advantage of what unites us in order to create, as much as possible, a cordial atmosphere when dealing objectively and tactfully with what separates us.

 

But in the irenical climate the Catholic dialoguer is concerned about something else. He sees only what unites him to those on the outside, seeing nothing of what separates him from them. Thus, he hopes to gain everything from coexistence and concession, and nothing from battle. His tactic is therefore naive, soft, and conces­sionist toward those who are outside the flock. His intransigence, energy, and suspi­cion are reserved only for those who, in­side the Church, resist the irenical atmosphere.

 

c) Third Effect ‑ Sympathy and Notoriety Resulting from the Effect of Dialogue" in the Media

 

While the apostle who argues or debates is hated and slandered because of this world of impressions and emotions, the apostle of irenic dialogue is usually considered in exactly the opposite way.

As the public ‑ perhaps now more than ever ‑ is eager for everything that might favor its optimism and its longings for ease and well‑being, it is predisposed to em­phatically admire the irenic apostle.

The average man sees the irenic apostle as having a flexible and lucid intelligence that allows him to discern the profound evils of argument and polemics, and to discover the inexhaustible apostolic pos­sibilities of "dialogue." Benevolent and affable, the irenic "dialoguer" gives the im­pression of being endowed with an irresist­ible and almost magic appeal. Modern, he is presented as a perfect and agile expert on the most recent tactics of the apostol­ate, and therefore dexterous in managing "dialogue". In a word, he appears per­fectly likeable. He is happy and jovial with prospects of a rosy future prepared by a series of easy and dizzying successes.

Appeal and optimism open the doors of notoriety for our "dialoguer." It is plea­sant to talk about him, repeat his words, and praise his actions. He seems to have the gift of resolving the most difficult pro­blems by smiling, and dissipating the most inveterate prejudices and deep seated ha­treds with simple speeches as if he were a sun. He thus becomes the center of events, and everyone's attention is focused on him. The press, the radio, and the television gladly feature him certain of pleasing the public.

 

d) Fourth Effect ‑ Mirage of the Era of Good Will Appears

 

All this opens indefinite horizons on the mind of the person subject to the process we are studying, Far away in those horizons, there begins to appear the mirage we have mentioned earlier in this chapter (item 2, A to Q. True, this mirage is generally very vague, but nonetheless ra­diant and attractive: it is the era of good will, that is, of an "evolved" order of things in which empathy, of which the fullness is love, would not only be capable of frustrating all contentions but also preventing them. Yes, preventing them by eliminating their psychological and institu­tional causes. How peace and harmony would profit from the suppression of that for which men have fought for thousands of years ‑ countries, national interests, in­heritance, class prestige, symbols of power! If only love could eliminate the words “mine" and "yours" and replace them as outmoded by "ours," peace would reign among men at last, and wars, crimes, punishments, and prisons would disappear. Government would be nothing more than a huge cooperative of spontaneous and har­monious actions favoring prosperity, culture, and health. In the era of good will, the total earthly well‑being of society would be the only purpose of man's endeavors.

This mirage, whose affinity with the anarchist myth inherent to Marxism we already noted (item 2, B), endowed with all the power of suggestion of man's deepest desires, is such that it awakens a delightful emotion in countless souls that holds them fast, and from which they have not the least desire to free themselves, as if they had taken a drug.

The word "dialogue" is thus reclothed in magic and fascinating scintillations when used in this perspective. Like a real talisman it automatically endows those who use it with its prestige and brilliance.

 

e) Fifth Effect ‑ Tendency to Abuse the Flexibility of the Word "Dialogue"

 

These various psychological factors give rise to an ever growing temptation to ex­aggerate the natural flexibility of the word in question.

Indeed, if a certain effect is obtained by using a certain word, the more it is used, the greater the effect.

Hence, there is a tendency to use the word "dialogue" for everything. Its use can become almost a vice so that an interview, an article, or a speech will not seem com­plete without some mention of dialogue.

 

D. Indirect and Reflexive Effects of the Talismanic Word

 

We now turn to the second group of ef­fects, in which the psychological fermen­tation produced by the talismanic word has an effect on the word itself.

Actually a process of mutual radicaliza­tion, this interaction then affects the very manner of conducting the dialogue.

If we imagine two "dialoguers" in which this interaction occurs, we see that they will gradually change not only the successive ways of dialoguing but the very content of the dialogue.

This process takes the "dialoguers" through several phases, from irenicism all the way to Hegelian relativism.

 

a) First Effect ‑ The Radicalization of the Word "Dialogue": New and more Radical Talismanic Meanings

 

How does the influence of this psycho­logical fermentation operate in the word?

Whoever strives to mount the heights of celebrity on the wings of the word "dialogue" will soon realize that the dif­ferent applications of this word bring an unequalled yield in popularity.

Sometimes, the word yields very little, and it seems opaque to the public. But under different conditions the talisman shines before all with its full brilliance.

As a rule, the exploiter of the talismanic word ‑ and of the public ‑ will feel this without being able to explain it, and con­sequently begin to prefer some applications over others. If he is a bit talented, he will force the natural flexibility of the word by giving it a growing number of fascinating and profitable uses.

Why is the talisman more radiant in some applications than in others? Manipulated thus by the experts of this linguistics, what is the refulgent pole with which it tends to identify itself?

What we could call the radiant force im­manent in the talismanic word "dialogue" makes itself felt more when used to in­sinuate that the myth of a regenerative, col­lectivist, and sentimental love, imagined as the directive force of a new world, is true, desirable, and viable. This myth is the pole towards which the talismanic word tends. Dialogue, in its ultimate and most hidden magical meanings, is the language of this love.

In the different stages of this quest for the ultimate meaning, "dialogue" evolves to become increasingly identified with this myth.

 

b) Second Effect ‑ the Four Phases of the Process Toward Hegelian Relativism

 

Having described in a general way the in­teraction between the irenistic emotion and the talismanic word, we will now consider the various phases in which the forms and contents of the interlocution between persons of opposite convictions are processively modified, correspondingly modifying also the meaning of the talismanic word.

Before beginning the process, the speakers desire to convince each other through arguments.

The basic objective of each party is therefore to conquer the other for truth. They will thus achieve a precious good between themselves: unity, presented le­gitimately as the fruit of truth and which therefore cannot be conceived or aimed at except through possession of truth.

 

First Phase ‑ Hypertrophy of Cordiality in Argument‑Dialogue: the Talismanic Word is Born

 

Let us imagine that an irenistic emotional fermentation can be observed in speakers disposed to argue. This fermentation, which preludes the appearance of the talismanic word "dialogue," consists in an ardent emotional desire for universal con­cord of minds and for peace in all areas of human relations.

This desire is such that it will only be satisfied when the speakers have finally reached a completely irenical and rela­tivistic conception of man, life and the cosmos.

From the emotional point of view, the speakers are thus already potentially con­quered by irenicism in favor of relativism, and, as we shall see, for its most radical form, Hegelian relativism.

Though true from the emotional point of view, this is not true with regard to ideas.

The speakers still admit the existence of an objective truth which each supposes himself to possess, while imputing objec­tive error to the other.

Logically, the tenor of their relationship regarding the debated theme can only be argument.

This argument, even while still amiable, is imbued with a note of pugnacity. Now, this note of pugnacity is in severe conflict with the emotional state of the two speakers.

There is a conflict, then, between the logically necessary procedure ‑ argument ‑ and the type of relations that the per­sons in question would like to maintain be­tween themselves. From this conflict results the first change in this type of relations.

Without realizing it, the parties desire unity more than truth.

As a consequence of these emotional dispositions, each one of them is led to believe that the other is always in good faith. Each believes that the outcome of his effort of persuasion depends only on the elimination of the other's resentments.

Therefore, both reject argument pure and simple as well as polemics, and only conceive argument as a refined, smooth form of argument‑dialogue. But this form still has an element of pugnacity which displeases the irenistic emotionality.

As a consequence, this irenistic emo­tionality distorts the meaning of argument-­dialogue by over‑emphasizing the note of cordiality and under‑emphasizing the note of pugnacity. The initial distortion in the type of relations between the two parties is thus accentuated.

The argument‑dialogue does not aim principally to obtain truth, and through that, unity; now it seeks mainly unity through cordiality in relations between the speakers. The conquest of truth through argument is only secondary.

In this way the word "dialogue" under­goes the first distortion. It comes to mean argument‑dialogue conceived irenistically and takes on an ireno ‑talismanic sense that glows with all the appeal of the irenistic myth.

The talismanic dialogue (the distorted argument‑dialogue) is now dialogue only by antonomasia.

Here we give a concrete example to make it easier for the reader to study the process of talismanic distortion of the word "dialogue" considered in the abstract. The enunciation of each phase of the process in abstracto will be followed by the descrip­tion of its corresponding phase in concreto.

Let us imagine a Thomist and an existen­tialist who are colleagues in a university, and so have many opportunities to discuss their philosophical differences. Also, the two professors frequently have arguments for the sake of entertainment while main­taining all the social relations customary between colleagues.

As for their differences, the Thomist identifies himself with truth and reason. The existentialist disagrees with the Thomist position. Each wants to persuade the other, and they consider argument as the normal way to do this.

Let us imagine further that the Thomist, desiring to convince the other party, is motivated not only by a legitimate apostolic intention but also an ardent irenistic desire for union.

At a certain point this desire overcomes his zeal, and our Thomist begins to desire unity more than truth in his argument with the existentialist.

This inversion of aims has an immediate effect on the way he views his colleague. He will naively convince himself that his colleague is attached to existentialism be­cause of a simple mistake and certain re­sentments against Thomism and ultimate­ly against the Church. For the speaker bit­ten by the fly of irenicism, the other party always behaves in the argument as if he were conceived without original sin and in­capable of a disorderly and vicious attach­ment to error.

This results in a repercussion of the irenic tendency over the procedure followed by the Thomist. If the existentialist's main obstacle to accepting the truth is resent­ment, the main thing in the argument is to prevent this resentment from remaining or becoming aggravated. The Thomist then presumes that his interlocutor will re­pudiate as always dangerous or unjust both argument pure and simple and polemic and that he will only accept argument‑dialogue when dealing with controversial issues.

In argument‑dialogue our Thomist, be­cause of irenicism, will aim principally at unity, and only secondarily at truth.

He will call this type of argument, "dialogue," to insinuate that it is just as free from pugnacity as dialogue‑investi­gation and dialogue‑entertainment.

Thus the talismanic word "dialogue" comes forth overflowing with pacifist cor­diality. "Dialogue" represents the first form of the irenistic relations between the two professors, and it glitters with the many seductions of the pacifist myth, ac­centuating our Thomist's irenic ardor and drawing him towards new variations in the way he considers talismanic dialogue and puts it into practice.

 

Second Phase ‑ Irenistic Cordiality Invades Dialogue‑Entertainment and Dialogue‑investigation: Meaning of the Talismanic Word Is Broadened

 

Undergoing changes in the first phase, the talismanic word affects the irenistic emotional fermentation, and this increased fermentation begins to impress a new and broadened meaning on the talismanic word. This is the essence of the second phase.

The irenistic interlocutor, gripped by the hidden content of the talismanic word ‑the irenic myth ‑ uses the talismanic word for everything like a toy whose enchant­ment grows as he plays with it.

The relationship between persons separated by a point of difference is not reduced to that difference. This relation­ship can legitimately include dialogues of investigation about other matters, and dialogues of entertainment about still others. These forms of relations can also legitimately have a favorable repercussion over argument‑dialogue to the degree they contribute to preventing it from being jeopardized by the resentments and per­sonal antipathies that so often unfortunate­ly arise.

So the irenistic interlocutors are led to make their dialogues of investigation and entertainment more irenist, giving them the same talismanic meaning incubated in argu­ment‑dialogue during the previous phase.

What is the irenistic distortion of dialo­gues of entertainment and investigation? In these types of dialogue, the irenistic speak­ers come to underestimate the natural pur­pose of entertainment and investigation and to irenistically overestimate the factor of cordiality. Thus the speakers conduct dialogue to produce an intense warming of affections, and entertainment and investi­gation come to serve as mere pretexts.

This warming up ‑ which they hope will help persuasion ‑ will work over the point of difference a unifying and syncretistic ac­tion more useful than exchanging argu­ments in a smooth irenistic dialogue, which still conserves remnants of pugnacity.

As the irenicist increasingly exaggerates the importance of the cordiality factor in persuasion, he is led to confide more and more in dialogue‑entertainment and dia­logue‑investigation, while considering argu­ment‑dialogue entirely secondary or even dangerous and disturbing.

This change in the structure of relations between the irenical speakers corresponds to a new stage in the evolution of the talismanic word "dialogue."

Because the most dynamic element of this talismanic word is irenistic, it extends itself from irenistic argument‑dialogue to the two other "irenicized" forms of inter­locution.

The talismanic word thus gradually en­compasses all the types of relations between speakers susceptible to irenistic impreg­nation.

In other words, besides the irenistic in­fluence, dialogue‑entertainment and dialogue‑investigation can be forms of rela­tions instrumental to argument‑dialogue and help to assure its continuation. But under the influence of irenicism, this order of values is inverted. Dialogue‑entertain­ment and dialogue-investigation begin to be seen as propulsory elements of the "per­suasive" action, and argument‑dialogue comes to have a secondary role that is in­strumental, but uncomfortably so.

In this new hierarchy of values the talis­manic word "dialogue" encompasses the three forms of interlocution mentioned above (argument‑dialogue, dialogues of in­vestigation and entertainment) and begins to incite the irenistic desires still further, giving rise to the third phase.

 

Concrete example: Under the note of irenicism instigated by the talismanic word "dialogue," our Thomist wants to convey the irenistic ferment to his other types of relations with the existentialist. Until now, these other forms (dialogue‑entertainment and dialogue‑investigation) seemed to him extrinsic to the doctrinal controversy and only capable of helping keep the cordial treatment of matters outside the controver­sy and maintain the latter in a serene and elevated atmosphere.

But now the irenical Thomist begins to see things differently. To him the oppor­tunities for investigation or entertainment no longer seem to be restricted to their natural end. As he is desirous of producing a coveted emotional neutralization in the existentialist, these opportunities for investigation and entertainment now come to serve as mere pretexts for feeding and in­creasing the irenic drive and the supreme, unconditional desire for unity existing in the existentialist.

Thus all the forms of interlocution susceptible to irenic impregnation (dialogue‑entertainment, dialogue­-investigation, argument‑dialogue) come together under the banner of irenicism.

Meanwhile, argument‑dialogue, being less suitable for irenistic warming‑up, and even dangerous because of its pugnacity, loses its principal role. To the degree it dissipates doctrinal errors it comes to have a disturbing and dangerous instrumental function in a network of relations whose main goal is to increase cordiality.

Feeling and seeing things in this way, our Thomist continues to dialogue. But how dialogue is different for him now from what it was in the previous phase! For this labor of calefaction, he avoids controver­sy as much as possible with the existentialist and puts all his effort into focusing on what is common to both Thomism and existen­tialism with indefatigable insistence, scrutinizing the most insignificant details ‑ what he calls the "existentialist aspects of Thomism." In this way our Thomist tries to decorate the austere Aquinan habit with a Kierkegaardian flamula and to put Saint Thomas in the cohort of admirers Kierkegaard had even before he was born.

Our inventive, irenic Thomist understands that a common enmity is at times the best cement for a precarious and budding friendship. He will seek to attack any vein of "essentialism" that he might find in one philosopher or another more ardently than the most dedicated existen­tialist. In this "crusade" without a cross, our Thomist is clearly not an irenicist in relation to "essentialism," whatever form or degree it may take; but he is irenicist when it comes to promote irenicism in rela­tion to existentialism.

Our irenistic Thomist still has one fear. He is afraid that the existentialist might suspect him of connivance with some un­lucky Thomist brothers who are fighting existentialism, so he attacks these Thomists as the most dangerous of all essentialists.

These are the wiles of talismanic dialogue in this second phase.

The talismanic word dialogue gradually came to designate the whole panorama of irenistic dialogues, with the predominance of the dialogues of entertainment and in­vestigation over argument‑dialogue.

 

Third Phase ‑ Irenistic Cordiality Results in Relativism: The Talismanic Word Takes On an Entirely Relativistic Meaning

 

The two previous phases developed under the banner of irenicism. However, the third phase is clearly relativistic.

Until now, the objective of interlocution under the pressure of irenicism was to in­crease unity and at the same time diminish the desire for truth. In the third phase, the desire for unity induces the interlocutors to overlook differences in order to obtain truth. To achieve this, the speakers both decide that there is no objective truth or ob­jective error and that everything is relative.

The kind of relationship between the speakers consequently changes.

Once relativism appears, true argument becomes impossible; when the speakers deal with the matter in question, they are no longer involved in a true argument because of the very fact that it is done under the auspices of relativism.

Since the passage from simple irenicism to relativism is often unperceived, the par­ties could imagine themselves to be argu­ing and even call their interlocution "argu­ment. " However, argument-dialogue prop­er has actually ceased to exist; there only remain accidental and transitory differ­ences which are inherent to dialogue‑inves­tigation (Chap. IV, 1, B, j).

This relativist transformation of the speakers' relationship now effects a new distortion of the talismanic word dialogue. From being simply irenistic, the meaning of this word becomes relativistic; thus it ceases to include argument‑dialogue in order to encompass only dialogue‑enter­tainment and dialogue‑investigation.

As the talismanic word dialogue ap­proaches the myth of the era of good will, it appears to be ever more alluring and brilliant to the irenistic relativists. It in­creases the intensity of the desire for unity and thus prepares the ground for the next phase.

 

Concrete example: Impelled from one refinement to another along the paths of irenicism by the talismanic word, our Thomist takes another step in his endeavor to dialogue.

He now begins to consider groundless the doctrinal differences that in the previous phase he had so under-emphasized in favor of the points of convergence. He begins to see these differences as having truth and er­ror on both sides and being more a matter of formulation than substance. Ultimately, he sees one global "truth," as completely relative, residually present in the most con­trary formulations, and serving as the sub­stractum of a varied and indefinitely muta­ble reality.

With a magnifying glass our irenicist begins to look for passages of Saint Thomas that appear to justify his relativism when taken out of context. He has already ceased to be a Thomist, except for the fact that he has the hope or illusion of finding presages of Kierkegaard in Saint Thomas. But in reality nothing of the Thomist re­mains. Perhaps without realizing what has happened in his mind, he has become a dedicated relativist.

This inner transformation is followed by a change in his relations with the existentialist. In this phase in which irenicism becomes relativism, he eliminates argu­ment‑dialogue, which in the former phase he regarded as the ball and chain on a prisoner's foot. The relations with the ex­istentialist are thus reduced to irenistic dialogue‑entertainment and dialogue‑inves­tigation.

Further, this Thomist who is no longer a Thomist may still call the types of in­terlocution "argument," but in reality they have nothing in common with this mode of interlocution.

The talismanic word dialogue designating the irenistic relations as they are practiced in each stage, no longer includes argument‑dialogue and refers only to the two other types of irenistic dialogue now impregnated with relativistic ideas.

To dialogue talismanically in this phase is thus to practice radical relativism. Fur­ther exciting irenistic cravings in our Thomist, the euphoria of dialoging and the talismanic prestige of irenico‑relativist dialogue now prepare him for the fourth phase.

 

Fourth Phase ‑ Irenistic Relativism Is Now Structured in Terms of Hegelianism: The Talismanic Word Assumes the Meaning of Hegelian "Play"

 

In this phase relativism, which is the plenitude and not the contrary of irenicism, receives an enrichment that is not contrary to it, but rather gives it plenitude. Avid to take relativism to its final consequences, the speakers are no longer content with a pure­ly negative relativism that merely seeks to wear away and destroy the concepts of ob­jective truth and objective error. This is because what is merely negative is repug­nant to human nature. Thus, moving to the positive phase, the interlocutors now desire to structure a complete relativistic vision of man, society, and the universe.

In this phase truth, already accepted as something relative, comes to be seen as a product of an eternal dialectic.

After assuming the character of mere entertainment and investigation, dialogue begins to be practiced as a "ludus" in which both parties admit that decantation of the truth will take place through dia­logue, just as the clash of thesis and an­tithesis produces synthesis. The last stage of the talismanic distortion of the word "dialogue" is thus produced: the Hegelian stage.

One can easily see that the clash of thesis and antithesis, caused by men of "good will" impregnated with the irenistic myth, will essentially be a cordial "ludus," becoming more cordial as it develops into successive stages.

The clash of thesis with antithesis can, at times, assume the form of argument pure and simple, or even of polemics, but it will not have their substance since it does not presuppose an absolute antagonism be­tween truth and error or good and evil. Consequently, irenistic dialogue does not aim to change the persuasion of any of the parties; it seeks to produce the elevation of both to a "truth" on a higher level.[25]

 

Concrete example: The irenical Thomist in our example cannot, in his ardor, be content with a merely negative relativism. He endeavors to build an internal dynamic to explain the relations between the thousand opposite formulations in which, to him, "truth" appears to reside.

Above all, he hopes to find something in these relations that tends to eliminate op­position to achieve unity.

He cannot conceive of this elimination as he would have before starting the talismanic process: a condemnation, based on reason, of all formulations but one that is proclaimed as the only wholly true one.

Furthermore, he is faced with a palpable fact: these opposite formulations are found to be continually and irremediably clashing.

Irremediable? Or is this clash the remedy? Our Thomist is only too happy to answer yes. From the clash of opposite relative "truths" a superseding synthesis would be produced, and through new frictions with antithetical formulations this synthesis would produce new ones resulting in a grandiose process of universal distillation of "truths" and "truth."

Well understood, contrary to the "antipathetic" and "discriminatory" manner of medieval Thomism, this distillation would neither condemn nor exclude any thing. Everything would be fraternally and lovingly absorbed in the production of successive syntheses.

Our irenical Thomist now sees Thomism itself as one of the formulations of "truth' contributing fragrant doctrinal incense to this process of universal ideological composition.

Perhaps he still considers himself Thomist. Perhaps he also undertakes the task of mutilating the work of Saint Thomas, tearing fragments from it with violent arbitrarity that helps him give the XX Century a "new view" of Saint Thomas: the common doctor seen inside out.

But in reality it is easy to see that fascinated by the irenic myth and soaring on the wings of the talismanic word, our Thomist has been transformed into a real Hegelian with just a smattering of Thomism.

How surprised our Thomist would have been in the beginning of the process if he had been able to imagine that at the end of an unperceived evolution, guided by the talismanic word "dialogue" acting as an evil star, he would have reached Hegelianism, that view of reality which he formerly regarded as the contrary of everything in philosophy that he recognized as true!

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

 

 

 

If we briefly consider the main elements of this study, the conclusion clearly and easily emerges that communism is the great beneficiary of unperceived ideological transshipment and the use of the talismanic words, particularly the talismanic word "dialogue".

It likewise becomes evident that this immense communist maneuver can be neutralized simply by someone unmasking it before the eyes of public opinion.

 

1. The Talismanic Word "Dialogue" and Communism

 

It is known that Marxism has kept its dialectical essence, even though it has aban­doned the idealistic character of Hegel­ianism. According to Marx, the ascensional march of the evolution of matter is ac­complished through thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, just as the spirit evolved in Hegel's theory.

With this we should ask how com­munism takes advantage of unperceived ideological transshipment, brought about by the talismanic word "dialogue" under the influence of the fear‑sympathy syn­drome.

It would be an exaggeration to say that the victim of this talismanic word becomes a materialist because he unperceivingly ac­cepts a dialectical philosophy.

Nevertheless, communism obtains several important advantages from this transshipment:

 

· The acceptance of a relativistic philosophy amounts to a conscious or sub­conscious break with the Faith, and it prepares the soul for explicit profession of atheism;

· The acceptance of a philosophy that serves as a cornerstone for communism prepares the soul for an open adherence to communist doctrine;

· Communism cannot accept coexistence with anyone who, contrary to itself, pro­fesses a philosophy based on the recogni­tion of the truth and the good as absolute, immutable, transcendent values existing in a perfect way in the divine essence. On the contrary, he who hopes only for the syn­thesis from the dialogue between thesis and antithesis cannot fail to expect good results from dialogue with a relativist Catholic who accepts Catholic doctrine as a relative "truth" ‑ a thesis with a dialectical at­titude toward the communist antithesis and destined for a higher synthesis. This posi­tion is all the more acceptable to com­munism since communist theoreticians, as is well known, do not consider the ultimate and definitive truth but only a moment within the eternal dialectic of matter;

· Passing to the religious field as such, we have irenic dialogue favoring inter­confessionalism and weakening all reli­gions, throwing them into a state of ab­solute confusion. Since for Marxism it is of the utmost importance to annihilate all religions, it is easy to understand what this effect means for the victory of international communism.

Actually, this preparation for commu­nism by the talismanic word only excep­tionally results in mere preparation. Af­finity produces sympathy and sympathy in­clines toward adhesion. This adhesion is made even easier by the fact that today's public opinion is saturated by a multi­faceted and intelligent system of incite­ments and attractions aimed at making the public sympathetic toward communism.

 

2. Ecumenism, Irenicism, and Communism

 

We must repeat that the word "ecumenism" clearly has an excellent meaning in itself (cf. Ch. IV, 2, D).

Nevertheless, it is also susceptible of an irenic meaning. Once all religions are ad­mitted as relative "truths" in a Hegelian dialogue, ecumenism assumes the aspect of their dialectical march toward a single, universal religion synthetically fabricated from the fragments of truth in each one and despoiled of the dross of current con­tradictions.

Seen in this light, ecumenism is an im­mense preparation of all religions, through Hegelian dialogue, to participate, once they are all united, in a subsequent dialogue with the communist antithesis.

 

3. Dialogue, Dialectical Relativism, and Peaceful Coexistence with Communism

 

While communism can only coexist with true Catholics in a state of battle (cf. the interesting article of Rev. Fr. Giuseppe De Rosa, S.J., entitled "L'Impossibile Dialogo tra Cattolici e Communisti," Ci­vilta Cattolica, Rome, 10/17/1964, pp. 110‑23), its coexistence with religions that accept dialectical relativism can well be tru­ly peaceful, since their dialogue has no pugnacity and has only the character of collaboration.

 

4. Dialogue, Irenicism, and Religious Persecution

 

Does the fact that communism accepts peaceful coexistence with the several religions that resist it perhaps indicate that the period of religious persecutions is over?

Strictly speaking, no. Communism will accept such coexistence with religions or religious groups that, taking a Hegelian position, acquiesce to dialogue with com­munism on a relativistic basis. Here it seems that communism's attitude is new, but on reflecting we see that the newness is not communism's but rather that of cer­tain religious currents whose position on relativism is becoming more and more weak and conniving. Communism perse­cuted religions when they fought it. There­fore it is consistent for communism to stop fighting those who are ready to start a relativistic dialogue with it in a climate of peaceful coexistence.

These assertions have interesting confir­mations in fact, and as we see it, the Po­lish Communist Party supports the " Pax" group for no other reason.

The persons who join "Pax," while still calling themselves Catholics, nevertheless acquiesce in collaborating with the com­munist regime in building the socialist world. These "Catholics" thus insinuate that the social thought of the Church has evolved and now supports a flexibility toward socialism that it did not have before. Now, if the thought of the Church can evolve in a social matter, it can also evolve in anything else. The position of the "Pax" group contains an implicit confes­sion of relativism that aims at presenting a completely mutable Catholic doctrine to the public. Furthermore, by accepting irenistic dialogue with the communists "Pax" reveals itself to be a tool in promoting the spread of relativism in Catholic circles all over unfortunate Poland.

This relativistic tendency can also be observed in the controversial book Il Dialogo Alla Prova (A Cura di Mario Gozzini, Messo Secolo, Vallecchi Editore Florence, 1964), in which more than one contributor insinuates that, from the point of view of dialogue, men are not divided into ideological groups but into two large supra‑ideological categories. In the various doctrinal outlooks, some people are sensitive to dialogue and capable of it, and these move toward peaceful coexistence and synthesis. These are the good. The others are insensitive to the attractions of dialogue and obstinately stick to controver­sy of a "dogmatic" nature, therefore lack­ing the mark of relativism. These are the bad, the hard‑hearted, and the intransigent.

One needs not have much political per­spicacity to see that the bad will not have the delights of peaceful coexistence, but on­ly the inflexible rigors of the most ferocious persecution.

 

5. Irenistic Pacifism and Dialogue

 

When sprouting from the soil of irenic utopia, the words "dialogue" and "coex­istence" make a trilogy with the word "peace". Irenic peace is not just the absence of thermonuclear or conventional wars, revolutions or guerrillas. It has a doc­trine and both public and private lifestyles, in which all clashing elements would be re­placed with a cordial and dialectic coexistence of thesis and antithesis in continuous collaboration to prepare the synthesis.

Irenistic dialogue is the direct application of this doctrine, the language of this life­style, and the instrument of this collabo­ration.[26]

 

6. A World of "Transshipping" Talismanic Words

 

"Dialogue," "coexistence," and “peace" as talismanic words are used enigmatically in many circumstances. But if interpreted in an evolutionist and Hegelian sense, the enigmatic character is dissipated, and these talismanic terms become clear, precise, and perfectly harmonious with each other. Now this presents us with a trans­shipping action of not just the one word "dialogue," but of a whole world of similar talismanic words.

Constructed from the irenistic lucubra­tions about relations between Catholics and non‑Catholics, this world leads to a relativism having a Marxist and Hegelian flavor.

 

7. Dialogue and the Italian Way of Communism

 

Until now, we have dealt with "dia­logue" as an instrument of unperceived ideological transshipment.

Before we finish our study we should ask if international communism is not contem­plating, along with transshipment, a large-­scale political maneuver in light of the problem we set forth in the beginning of this work ‑ the global failure of its overt proselytism.

If so, the importance of unperceived ideological transshipment becomes even more obvious to the reader.

If we consider the line of conduct as­sumed by the Italian Communist Party (ICP) regarding the internal politics of the Peninsula, we will find certain things that suggest an affirmative answer to our question.

For a long time the ICP tried to destroy religion by a violent and feverish campaign. In view of the overpowering electoral in­fluence of Catholic public opinion, after World War II the ICP gradually changed its attitude, and today its most qualified representatives state that if Catholics agree to collaborate in building a socialist economy, the communists on their part will be ready to admit religion as a valid factor of the social revolution, and allow the Church to have freedom of worship.

On these terms, peaceful coexistence with the Church would be established and com­munistic atheism would begin a regime of irenic dialogue with the Catholic Religion to search for a new synthesis. The book Il Dialogo Alla Prova (Item 4) has important passages in this line, and so does the afore­mentioned article of Fr. De Rosa (Item 3). The latter transcribes interesting com­munist documents that imply the recogni­tion of the present indestructibility of the Catholic Religion in Italy, and they suggest dialogue and peaceful coexistence between the Catholics and communists on the Pen­insula.

In opposition to the so‑called Russian Way (as in the nearly continuous ideological conflict and political persecu­tion carried out in Russia), an Italian Way thus appears, inspired by the opportunistic sense of communism and formulated in terms of irenicism, relativist dialogue, and coexistence.

The basic document of the Russian line would be the famous Ilytchev Report (a speech given by the Committee on ideology of the Russian Communist Party's Central Committee, 11/26/1963, in one of its meetings). The main document of the Italian line would be the no less famous memorandum about the Ilytchev Report of August 1964, by Palmiro Togliatti, the now deceased secretary of the ICP.

The Italian Way of communism is related to the approach followed by the Polish communist dictator Gomulka, a politics of temporization in relation to the Church, while simultaneously giving full support to the "Pax" movement. The religious homogeneity of Poland creates problems for communism there analogous to those a Bolshevik government would have in Italy.

The Italian Way ultimately shows the communist hope that a majority of the Catholics of the Peninsula, pressured by the fear‑sympathy syndrome, will accept a veiled apostasy to avoid persecution.

We do not believe this maneuver will be successful against the great majority in a nation like Italy.

But, since the communists place hopes in it in Italy's case, should we not ask if they do not also expect something from it for other Catholic countries, as Brazil and its sister nations in Latin America?

Giving the question an even broader scope, we wonder if communism doesn't have a similar maneuver in mind for coun­tries affiliated with other religions.

Everything inclines us to think so, and to us this is one of the most timely aspects of the matter dealt with in this study.

 

8. Usefulness of this Work: The Possibility of "Exorcising" the Talismanic Word and Neutral­izing the Communist Stratagem

 

As we said in the beginning of this study, the non‑communist sectors of world public opinion find themselves in a contradictory psychological situation.

To the degree they look at communism straight on, these sectors reject it out of fidelity to a whole set of values they still hold, values derived from universal com­mon sense or the Christian legacy.

But if they see communism obliquely, that is, only in its diluted and implicit manifestations, they gradually accept it more and more. The irenistic myth and the fear‑sympathy syndrome move them to­ward this.

Thus, if communism must keep hidden the real meaning of the myth in the talismanic word, by analogy the victim of this process fights back when it is made explicit.

For most people the myth, brought to mind and insinuated by "dialogue," and whose seduction is as though it were elec­trically charged, is only attractive when it is kept imprecise, diffused, wrapped up in the vapors of poetry. How wonderful it would be to dream vaguely about a de­finitive, total harmony among men in all the spheres of their relationships! But, to make this dream explicit, to strive to study it, would be the same as killing it (cf. Ch. III, 3). And why make it explicit at all? Why understand it? Myths like this are made much less to be understood than to be tasted. Someone smoking opium is not usually interested in its chemical composi­tion. He does not want to understand opium, he wants to feel it.

In order to "exorcise" the talismanic word and incapacitate its magic effect, one must first of all discover the myth in­cubated in its many meanings.

Everything in existence tends to manifest itself. The irenic myth exists in the mind of its enthusiasts ‑ Since its advance is barred from the ways of explicitness, the irenic myth, incubated in the most radical nu­ances of the talismanic word "dialogue," manifests itself as clearly and intensely as it can.

So, even when it obstinately remains im­plicit, one who knows how can detect, characterize, and expose the myth.

The process of unmasking the myth con­sists in dealing with the talismanic word in its most applauded and radiant meanings and comparing them with the successively less magical ones, even the innocent and trivial ones. Once this table of comparison of the mythical and non‑mythical meanings has been formed, by contrast one can discover the content of this word hidden in its mythical and radical meanings. In the case of "dialogue," irenicism will always emerge from the comparison. It can be seen that the irenic content decreases as the word loses its talismanic force in the comparative range, and in the trivial uses this content disappears. Thus, the relativistic and Hegelian irenic myth is the magical force of the talismanic word "dialogue".

The method of this inquiry is like an op­tical experiment, where the human eye looks at a translucent cloth illuminated from behind: as the cloth approaches the light source it becomes more luminous, and vice versa, proving that the luminosity is not immanent in the cloth but proceeds from the movable source behind it.

Analogously, we can say that "dialogue" shines with a light that does not come from the word itself, but from a myth placed behind it. The closer the word comes to the myth, the more luminous it becomes; the farther it is removed, the more opaque.

Once an observer exposes the myth, he can "exorcise" the talismanic word by divulging his discovery. By making the myth explicit, he will provide the patients of unperceived ideological transshipment with sufficient means to open their eyes to the action worked on them, see where they are being led, and defend themselves against it.

Once the myth has been exposed, its in­fluence becomes null and void. The natural repulsion people thus alerted have for com­munism will then begin to react, and the communist maneuver will be frustrated.

This book was written with the purpose of giving the victims of this process the means to efficiently defend themselves.

 

*       *       *

 

We ask Our Lady of Fatima to receive this study as a filial homage of love, and that She deign to use it, however insignifi­cant as an instrument, for the realization of the great promise made to the world at Cova da Iria:

 

“IN THE END, MY IMMACULATE HEART WILL TRIUMPH!"

 

 

 

 

MAN ALIENATED (ESTRANGED) BY THE UNNATURAL

AND ANTI‑NATURAL CONDITIONS PRODUCED BY

THE REVOLUTION (SOCIALISM, ETC.) EXPERIENCES

THE PAIN AND BITTERNESS OF THIS ESTRANGEMENT

(ALIENATION)

 

 

 

COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA TELLS HIM CONTINU­OUSLY

 THAT THIS ESTRANGEMENT (ALIENATION) IS

CAUSED BY CAPITALISM, THE BOURGEOIS, AND THE

UPPER CLASSES

 

 

 

IN THIS WAY HE BECOMES CONDITIONED TO ACCEPT

THE PRIMARY MEANING OF ALIENATION

 (DEPEND­ENCE ON ANOTHER)

 AND TO BELIEVE THAT ELIMIN­ATING INEQUALITY

 AND PRIVATE PROPERTY WILL

DISALIENATE HIM, MAKE HIM ABSOLUTELY FREE

AND ABSOLUTELY EQUAL

 

 

 

ULTIMATE END: TO HAVE MAN COMPLETELY ALIEN­

ATED TO AND BY THE STATE UNDER COMMUNISM,

AND THIS IS THE LIE HIDDEN UNDER IT ALL

 

How communism conditions mentalities against private property by using the word alienation in two different meanings

 

 

 

Schematic Diagram of the

Four Phases of Talismanic Distortion

of the Word "Dialogue" (Chap. IV, 3, D, b.)

 

 

 

	FIRST PHASE IRENISTIC PENETRATION	SECOND PHASE IRENISTIC EXPANSION	THIRD PHASE IRENISTIC TRIUMPH: RELATIVISM	FOURTH PHASE IRENISTIC‑RELATIVISTIC APOGEE: HEGELIANISM
DEGREES OF INTENSITY OF IRENISTIC EMOTION	Irenistic cordiality is set up as complementary factor indispensable to persuasion.	Irenistic cordiality becomes a dominant factor in persuasion.	Irenistic cordiality is made the exclusive factor of persuasion: relativism.	Irenistic‑relativistic cordiality is built up as the Hegelian "ludus".
REPERCUSSION OF THE IRENISTIC EMOTION IN THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE INTERLOCUTORS	In argument‑dialogue cordiality is exaggerated. Polemics and argument pure and simple are proscribed.	Irenistic cordiality infects dialogue­-investigation and dialogue‑entertain­ment, which become dominant; argu­ment‑dialogue is merely tolerated.	Dialogue‑investigation and dialogue‑ entertainment become the only forms of dialogue that are permitted. Argument‑ dialogue is proscribed.	Dialogue becomes conceived of as the Hegelian play of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.
REPERCUSSION OF THE IRENISTIC EMOTION IN THE OBJECT OF THE INTERLOCUTION	The irenistic interlocutor still admits, though begrudgingly, that objective truth and error exist, that it is necessary to convince the other interlocutor, and that unity is merely fruit of the effort of persuasion.	The irenistic interlocutor still ad­mits the existence of objective truth and error and the necessity of per­suading; however, he begins to think that the supreme end of interlocution is not truth but unity.	The irenistic interlocutor comes to admit that there is neither objective truth nor error (relativism), and thus it is not necessary to convince to attain unity.	The irenistic interlocutor comes to hold that, through the Hegelian "lu­dus" of relative "truths," unity is af­firmed and progresses.
REPERCUSSION OF THE IRENISTIC EMOTION IN MAKING THE IRENISTIC MYTH EXPLICIT	First explication of the myth: all men are of good will; dissension is always the result of resentment or misunderstanding.	Second explication of the myth: man's good will is such that the doctrinal mistakes have almost no impor­tance; the main problem is to put an end to resentment.	Third explication of the myth: the man of good will realizes that doc­trinal mistakes are not substantial. Truth is relative; cordiality itself alone brings about complete unity.	Total explication of the myth: for men of good will, progress in unity and truth is obtained through the friendly friction of relative "truths".
REPERCUSSION OF THE  IRENISTIC EMOTION IN THE CONTENT OF THE TALISMANIC WORD "DIALOGUE"	The talismanic word "dialogue, appears, designating argument‑dialogue by antonomasia.	The talismanic word "dialogue" is extended to dialogue‑investigation and ialogue‑entertainment steeped in irenicism; argument‑dialogue is prac­tically excluded.       The talismanic word "dialogue" is extended to dialogue‑investigation and dialogue‑entertainment steeped in irenicism; argument‑dialogue is prac­tically excluded.	The talismanic word "dialogue" comes to include only dialogue‑inves­tigation and dialogue‑entertainment, which are placed on an entirely rela­tivistic base. Argument‑dialogue is excluded.	The talismanic word "dialogue" comes to indicate the "ludic" friction between thesis and antithesis to pro­duce synthesis.
REPERCUSSIONOF THE TALISMANIC WORD "DIALOGUE" IN THE INTENSITY OF THE IRENISTIC EMOTION	The use of the word "dialogue,' charged with mythical‑irenistic meaning and talismanic efficacy, intensifies in turn the irenistic emotion, and in turn prepares the next phase.	The use of the word "dialogue," charged with mythical‑irenistic mean­ing and talismanic efficacy, intensifies the irenistic emotion even more, and thus prepares the next phase.                    The talismanic word "dialogue" is extended to dialogue‑investigation and dialogue‑entertainment steeped in irenicism; argument‑dialogue is prac­tically excluded.	The use of the word "dialogue," charged with mythical‑irenistic meaning and talismanic efficacy, once again aggravates the irenistic emotion and prepares the next phase.	Interaction of the talismanic word "dialogue" and the irenistic emotion to the infinite influences the Hegelian process in such a way that it develops in an atmosphere that is not only syn­cretistic, but increasingly cordial.

 

 

Beyond Nuclear Terror: Dialogue

 

Taking advantage of a month's vacation, a typical successful businessman leans back in a comfortable poolside deck chair and lets his eyes peruse the morn­ing newspaper. Adjusting his sunglasses and reposi­tioning his chair to make the most of the shade pro­vided by his parasol while sitting at the least distance possible from a nearby table which supports his frosty refreshment, he begins to scan the front page seek­ing some intellectual companionship in his newly dis­covered "paradise."

To his discomfiture, the world of reality from which he had escaped by jet only a day before has preceded him via the marvel of satellite news reporting.

The headlines have breached his makeshift wall of fantasies. Despite the tranquil ambience of his morn­ing, the rest of the world is still in chaos. Everywhere there are reports or rumors of "wars;" "emerging" nations at odds with "underdeveloped" nations and all of them in conflict with the "developed" nations: spontaneous "people's liberation movements;" uto­pian "land reform" programs; undefineable levels of world "poverty;" an attempted resurrection of "detente," the "cold war" and, above all, "dialogue." From one end of the globe to the other there is an underlying pervading fear of a nuclear holocaust... and the extermination of the human race.

"Is the good life no longer possible?" our poolside lounger asks himself. "Are the noisy pushers of paci­fism right? Are nations and national sovereignty out­moded? If the rights of nations have been voided, what then of my own rights, my business, my pro­perty? Is the only alternative to live the life of the "hippies," a communal good life bound up in an un­comfortable ribbon of "love?"

Our imaginary character's mind, at one moment was meandering comfortably down a quiet country lane, but now finds itself on a modern highway clover­leaf. His memory recalls other articles he has read, other conversations. Key words and phrases firmly rooted in his subconscious now begin to take shape...

"Our species, our kind is in such a manifold crisis, no one can be excused. If twenty years from now, the whole world blows up, you will not be able to say from the grave to the few survivors, 'I had a rigl.‑. good time.' We are asked to help rising people. We are asked by other parties to crush them. We are told they are humans, like us. We are told by other par­ties they are led by communist demons.

"Then there is the oncoming nuclear war. Albert Einstein said a nuclear holocaust is overwhelmingly likely. George Kistiakowsky, who was head of the Manhattan Project's Explosive Division and a scien­tific advisor to Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson said, 'I think that with the kind of political

leaders we have in the world ... nuclear weapons will proliferate. ... I personally think that the likelihood for an initial use of nuclear warheads is really quite great between now and the end of this century.'

"Finally, we arrive at the unadmitted crisis: ... the world‑wide tenacity of nationalism. But the revulsion against the Vietnam war ... was also the beginning of awareness among people that nuclear weapons would require us to move toward a transcendent in­ternationalism. " (Commencement to Armageddon, Ronnie Dugger, Editor, Texas Observer, 7‑10‑81).

By now, the reader will see to what conclusions our perplexed vacationer is being led by the use of key words, phrases and presuppositions. The current in­ternational socio‑economic structure will lead in­evitably to a West‑East nuclear confrontation ‑ one in which our poolside ponderer is liable to lose every­thing he has worked for. His mind races for a solu­tion. From the same commencement address he re­calls: "A human being, 'said Einstein,' is part of the whole, called by us 'universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest ‑ a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of a prison for us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all loving creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

At this nebulous solution, our character begins to dream... "perhaps there is a way to save something of what I have gained. After all, a part of something is better than oblivion." Logic and reason, which had steadfastly supported him in his economic rise and provided the good life, now are abandoned to emo­tion. And why not? After all, for some time now his mind has been drinking from this side of the ideolog­ical river as well. This idea of "consciousness" here­tofore restricted to a part of his brain remote for prac­tical considerations now begins to emerge as a solu­tion to the problem of survival.

Here, too, he finds that the wordsmiths of pacifism have been toiling a long time in his subconsciousness.

The socio‑economic link with the human conscious­ness was made clear by Thomas Merton. James Forest summarizes Merton's thoughts: "The monk is, after all, someone who takes up a critical attitude toward the world and its structures. In addition, both (the Christian monk and Marxist) share the idea that each should give according to his capacity and receive ac­cording to his need. As he stood in front of the Bud­dahs at Polonnaruwa he wrote, 'Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing ... the peace that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything ‑ without refutation ‑ without establishing some other argument.'"

This is the ideal that the imaginary man at the pool­side considers as his alternative. It is the ultimate escape from reason and logic.

This fabricated link between survival and con­sciousness has not restricted itself to the monasteries. It has already leapt over the wall and its misleading terminology forms a part of the effort being made in Catholic circles to play a leading role in the "peace" movement.

For example, on December 31, 1981, Bishop Roger Mahoney of Stockton, California wrote: "How can we become truly advocates of peace? I believe the nu­clear arms policy of our nation, as well of the Soviet Union, has long since exceeded the bounds of justice and moral legitimacy. Moreover, the arms race makes it impossible to effectively end the urgent crisis of world hunger. What is needed is, instead, a radical change of our hearts and our attitudes ‑ a new awareness of our calling to be a people dedicated to peace. "

At the same time, teams of scientists associated with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences were sent by John Paul 11 to meet with world leaders in the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, France and the United Nations. The teams bore a much publicized message about the impact of nuclear war.

Among the tenets gaining acceptance by the general public under this propaganda barrage is the belief that the possession and use of nuclear weapons is in itself immoral. Priests, nuns and members of the laity have protested the traditional teaching on a "just war" in a thousand‑word statement that challenged his assump­tion that nuclear weapons are a legitimate defensive strategy. The National Conference of Bishops en­dorsed the Vatican II Council's view in 1976 in a pastoral letter condemning the stockpiling of nuclear weapons and the "threat" to employ them.

Even more radical regarding the position of the Church is Msgr. Vincent A. Yzermans of St. Cloud, Minnesota, information director for the American bishops. Msgr. Yzermans wrote in a letter to The New York Times. Simply, the Church in the United States is becoming a 'peace' church ... in re­cent years, it has moved dramatically and swiftly from the company of the mainline Protestant and Evangel­ical churches into the quiet meeting place of the Socie­ty of Friends.

"Thank God, the American bishops are shoulder­ing their responsibility of leading this revolution, at times to the chagrin and vocal opposition of their flocks. "(Corpus Christi Caller, 12‑3‑81).

This "revolution" is already a part of the main­stream of American life, according to Marilyn Fer­guson in "The Aquarian Conspiracy: Personal and Social Transformation in the 1980's."

"I use the word 'conspiracy' in an unconventional way (sic). I'm describing the individuals, networks, groups of people all over the country, and in fact all over the planet, who are working to bring about spe­cial change; in this case, a change based on a shift of personal values ... deep personal changes ... some­thing that is some kind of external dogma. The Aquar­ian Conspiracy is characterized by people ... who have a strong sense of community and sense of connection with other people. There is a very strong and steady shift of social values going on not only in this coun­try but in other countries that has to do with moving from the material to the intangible, from economic incentives to the search for meaning."

This theme of a "search for a new beginning" that is found throughout The Aquarian Conspiracy har­monizes well with the goals of Einstein, Merton, Daniel Yankelovich (New Rules) and others. It also serves as the perfect bedfellow for the peace move­ment, whose goals "transcend" the rights of nations and individuals as well.

What we are witnessing is a natural evolution of a "war of words" that started in this country sixty years ago. At that time, the Republican Party of War­ren Harding and Calvin Coolidge responded to the sentiments of a nation disgusted with the carnage of the Great War with two related policies. The first was an arms limitation. Today we call it a "freeze." The second was detente, the Kellogg‑Briand Pact of 1928 wherein nations denounced war as an "instrument of national policy ... .. At the time," wrote Henry Steele Commager and Samuel Elliot Morison, "the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 and the London Naval Treaty of 1930 were regarded as outstanding victories for peace." A short lived peace promptly shattered by the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. Continuing, Commager and Morison wrote: "All these methods of preserving the peace ‑ by limitation, by incanta­tion, etc. ... would have been effective among nations that wanted peace." World War 11 and the resulting 66give‑aways" at Teheran and Yalta were the result of this maneuver of detente.

And if all this were not enough of a history lesson, former President Nixon recently urged a return to detente and dialogue between the United States and the Soviet Union. The former president, who also opened the way for trade negotiations with Com­munist China, said a meeting between President Reagan and Leonid I. Brezhnev would be "im­portant" and "welcome" (The Victoria Advocate, 7‑9‑82).

The clever mixture of Buddhist teachings, Catholic trappings and twisted terminology misleads the aver­age man‑on‑the‑street. With their promise of a terres­trial paradise the pacifists will end in destroying the "good life." The United States, for example, and for that matter the rest of the West have become economi­cally healthy through the use of reason and logic, not emotion. At best, the pacifist movement can be said to be misguided. The unity it seeks is one brought about by fear without a rational basis. It is a world without reason, and one that will bring about exactly what its advocates want to avoid: the annihilation of mankind.