7 There is a collateral but tragic effect of
the silence of the Church about the principle of private property. By not
speaking out, She would be consenting to the progressive spread of misery
which would flow from the replacement of private property by collective
ownership.
‑ Even in a State which is not completely
collectivized, it is an obligation of the Church to make the whole truth shine
before the eyes of all.
‑ Even though the sense of property be impossible
to extirpate in certain regions of Europe because it is so deeply rooted, the
Church cannot maintain silence about the right of property without prejudice
to the moral formation of the faithful.
‑ The institution of private property must exist
because it belongs to the very natural order of things. Accordingly, even if
the proprietors were to renounce their rights of property under the pressure of
a Communist state, the Church would not be able to accept a peaceful coexistence
with that state.
‑ Nor could the Church accept a Communist regime
in a passing way, hoping that it would collapse from its own corruption or
attenuate itself.
‑ The diplomatic relations of the Holy See with
the Communist countries are on a different plane from the matter considered in
this study. The traditional official and semi‑official teaching of the
Vatican affirms the impossibility of any ideological truce, of any peaceful
coexistence between the Church and Communism. There is no lack of
declarations from Communist sources to the same effect.
‑ Finally, the Church could not accept
coexistence with a Communist state as a pious fraud ("pia fraus"). It
would be naive to think that the Communist would not immediately become aware
of violations of the pact.
|