Great interview published by El Universal to Jorge Cardinal Urosa Savino, Caracas Archbishop about the current situation in Venezuela:

For Jorge Cardinal Urosa Savino, the ministry of the word not only is feasible, but it is a must, mostly nowadays, when, in his view, “the intended way to take us is dictatorship and the country’s downfall.” He noted his dislike of permanent exposure to the media, yet feels the need to speak to the country.

The communiqué from the presidency of the Venezuelan Bishops’ Conference on the spoiled food is noteworthy because it refuels the controversy under which the boundaries between the spiritual mission of the Catholic Church and its interference in politics are so blurry, to such an extent that it is accused of dealing with matters which are not their business.

Politicians say so whenever what one says is not appropriate for them. Bishops’ remarks on social and political life always are in line with supreme principles. We do not go into circumstantial details, except for the result of a government wrongful behavior. The statement referred by you is in accordance with our mission as shepherds of the people of God. In addition, we, bishops, are fully entitled, as citizens, to give our opinion, particularly when the common good, freedom, justice and peace are at stake.

Therefore, the Church is worried not only about a breaking point, such as spoiled food.

It is a breaking point, but a heavy one. Not only hundred thousand tons of food has been lost, but also what does this mean. Firstly, there is likely administrative corruption; further, inefficient management of activities which should correspond to individuals. All of this happens because the government, which tries to cover all areas, is in a totalitarian fashion and going beyond its own tasks, such as ensuring personal and material security of citizens, good working order of public utilities, sovereignty and the country’s independence. Thus, the government has embarked upon production, distribution and marketing of every kind of goods. It attempts to take part in all aspects of Venezuelans’ lives by imposing a Marxist-communist line.

Should the government be efficient and honest in management of the property taken over, would the Venezuelan Church have the same reporting position?

No matter what efficient and honest, it would be fulfilling functions that should correspond to individuals, who, according to the Constitution have the right to engage in economic activities. Such intervention in all the fields of economy, going beyond necessary controls, is an expression of the Marxist-communist line intended to be imposed by the president (Hugo Chávez), which, incidentally, was refused by the people on December 2, 2007 (in a referendum on the constitutional reform). Marxist totalitarianism allows those who occupy top government positions absolute control over the rest of people and this is something questioned by the Church social doctrine, because it leads to gross injustice and people’s submission to the government.

While totalitarianism fills the political, economic and social life, it also enters family life and individual intimacy. Are we reaching such extreme cases in Venezuela? Is it time to chase the Catholic religion?

I hope not, but we are on that way. There is surely the attempt at taking hold of people consciousness, but they have not made it because there is a strong democratic spirit in most Venezuelans.

Was Jesus Christ, as President Chávez claims, the first socialist in the history?

There is a big mistake here. Jesus Christ was not a socialist or monarchist or republican or liberal or a political leader. He was a religious leader; more precisely, the son of God becoming a man. He is above any system, ideology or regime. Such remarks aim at misleading people’s religious feelings. Jesus Christ promotes fraternal love, justice, the human being’s magnanimity. The values proposed, forcefully, by this socialism put power not in the people’s hands, but in their leaders’; remove pluralism, any dissent and different opinions not necessarily opposed to the government thinking.

Great interview published by El Universal to Jorge Cardinal Urosa Savino, Caracas Archbishop about the current situation in Venezuela:

For Jorge Cardinal Urosa Savino, the ministry of the word not only is feasible, but it is a must, mostly nowadays, when, in his view, “the intended way to take us is dictatorship and the country’s downfall.” He noted his dislike of permanent exposure to the media, yet feels the need to speak to the country.

The communiqué from the presidency of the Venezuelan Bishops’ Conference on the spoiled food is noteworthy because it refuels the controversy under which the boundaries between the spiritual mission of the Catholic Church and its interference in politics are so blurry, to such an extent that it is accused of dealing with matters which are not their business.

Politicians say so whenever what one says is not appropriate for them. Bishops’ remarks on social and political life always are in line with supreme principles. We do not go into circumstantial details, except for the result of a government wrongful behavior. The statement referred by you is in accordance with our mission as shepherds of the people of God. In addition, we, bishops, are fully entitled, as citizens, to give our opinion, particularly when the common good, freedom, justice and peace are at stake.

Therefore, the Church is worried not only about a breaking point, such as spoiled food.

It is a breaking point, but a heavy one. Not only hundred thousand tons of food has been lost, but also what does this mean. Firstly, there is likely administrative corruption; further, inefficient management of activities which should correspond to individuals. All of this happens because the government, which tries to cover all areas, is in a totalitarian fashion and going beyond its own tasks, such as ensuring personal and material security of citizens, good working order of public utilities, sovereignty and the country’s independence. Thus, the government has embarked upon production, distribution and marketing of every kind of goods. It attempts to take part in all aspects of Venezuelans’ lives by imposing a Marxist-communist line.

Should the government be efficient and honest in management of the property taken over, would the Venezuelan Church have the same reporting position?

No matter what efficient and honest, it would be fulfilling functions that should correspond to individuals, who, according to the Constitution have the right to engage in economic activities. Such intervention in all the fields of economy, going beyond necessary controls, is an expression of the Marxist-communist line intended to be imposed by the president (Hugo Chávez), which, incidentally, was refused by the people on December 2, 2007 (in a referendum on the constitutional reform). Marxist totalitarianism allows those who occupy top government positions absolute control over the rest of people and this is something questioned by the Church social doctrine, because it leads to gross injustice and people’s submission to the government.

While totalitarianism fills the political, economic and social life, it also enters family life and individual intimacy. Are we reaching such extreme cases in Venezuela? Is it time to chase the Catholic religion?

I hope not, but we are on that way. There is surely the attempt at taking hold of people consciousness, but they have not made it because there is a strong democratic spirit in most Venezuelans.

Was Jesus Christ, as President Chávez claims, the first socialist in the history?

There is a big mistake here. Jesus Christ was not a socialist or monarchist or republican or liberal or a political leader. He was a religious leader; more precisely, the son of God becoming a man. He is above any system, ideology or regime. Such remarks aim at misleading people’s religious feelings. Jesus Christ promotes fraternal love, justice, the human being’s magnanimity. The values proposed, forcefully, by this socialism put power not in the people’s hands, but in their leaders’; remove pluralism, any dissent and different opinions not necessarily opposed to the government thinking.