In "To Be a Christian Is...To Be a Revolutionary," an autobiography published after his disappearance, Fr. James "Guadalupe" Carney (pictured) wrote: "Why are the campesinos so poor in this rich valley? They are farmers who do not have any land! We rebel against that, even if they call us communists, even if they kill us. We have to wake our people up, tell them to get organized, help them to change the situation."Carney, who'd relocated to Nicaragua after his expulsion, made trips back to Detroit in the early 1980s, one of them for his mother's funeral. It was at that time that Mulligan, who'd joined the Jesuits' Detroit Province in 1963, befriended the missionary. Afterwards, he said, as siblings sought answers about their brother's disappearance, "I practically became a member of the family." He worked with Virginia Smith and Eileen Connolly, who've since died, and Carney's brother-in-law Joe Connolly on the case. Surviving siblings and other family members still hope that his remains can be located and be given a Christian burial.
Carney's decision to join the revolutionary group was at odds with the Jesuits' mission in Central America and he accepted that, but Mulligan believes that had he lived he would have recommitted to the order."The Jesuits had a lot of respect and a lot of love for Jim Carney," the missionary said. "He was a very serious and a very careful person."
Link (here) to Irish Echo
20 comments:
Anon --Perhaps I don't understand your message but hopefully you are not suggesting either that there are no Jesuits who have supported Marxism or that Castro's tyranny has made Cuba a nation of new brotherly men and women.
That would be one monstruosly cruel lie if you are. But surely you are not.
Anon,
I was trying to be sarcastic.
Cuba, etc. are enslaved, impoverished basket cases.
But, the secular failure of socialism isn't the point. Socialism is mass brigandage and no catholic, much less a consecrated priest, ought to have anything to do with it.
I guess I failed. I'm an accountant not a theologizer/philosophist.
Anon out!
Thanks for clarifying anon.
To do justice to the man, read his autobiography. I couldn't get thru the whole thing, but the parts that I did read were moving and enlightening about what the situation was like for Fr. Carney and what he was trying to do. You don't have to agree with the politics to appreciate the idealism. When I read the "good guys" who actively participated in revolutionary activity, provoked by circumstances impossible for me to really imagine, I'm struck by how spiritual they sound - even the ones that wound up in the gulags or prisons in the USSR - they were still believers in the inherent good of man.
"When I read the "good guys" who actively participated in revolutionary activity...they were still believers in the inherent good of man."
Do you really think so? How do you reconcile that the so called revolutionaries such as Castro and Guevara executed unarmed men in cold blood? Do you really think it was because they believed in the "inherent good of man"?
Wasn't Carney, and aren't Guevara and Castro's Jesuit sympathizers aware of their heroes' grave crimes'?
This is a complicated issue--what do we say about priests who allied themselves with Franco, Batista, or the many right-wing violent figures of the twentieth century? How do we contextualize this?
"...what do we say about priests who allied themselves with Franco, Batista...How do we contextualize this?"
What exactly needs to be contextualized? Are you suggesting murderers and torturers are sometimes good things?
Furthermore why do you bring up Batista as if he was somehow Castro's antithesis?
You know Cuba was a democratic nation before Batista and Castro tore it apart in 1952 and 1959, respectively, right?
I don't believe you've responded to the issue I raised, i.e., are you condemning Catholic priests who affiliated with left wing social movements and politics but not those who throw their lot in with right wing counterparts? I picked these right-wing examples because they are regimes that were oppressive and violent.
If you are a pacifist than the answer is easier.
Franco saved Catholic Spain and stabilized the country after the savage mess caused by the Communists in the civil war. If you want to know what they were really like, read Orwell's 'Homage to Catlonia': a barbaric bunch of wrangling incompetents interested only in seeking power. Without hesitation they put the international naifs who rallied to their cause into the front line to make sure they died first. Priests and religious were murdered in vast numbers, churches, monasteries and convents destroyed or profaned. It was Franco that cleared up the ensuing chaos as no other. He was a true son of the Church and the Catholic world rallied to his defense. May he rest in peace.
So this really is about politics, i.e., Franco and right-wing thugs=good; leftists=bad.
"Thou shalt not kill."
BTW, I've read HOMAGE TO CATALONIA many times and Franco isn't exactly lauded by Orwell. He writes in fairly glowing terms about the anarchists.
"...are you condemning Catholic priests who affiliated with left wing social movements and politics but not those who throw their lot in with right wing counterparts?"
No I am not. You are the one doing that but for the left. Note that I wrote: "Are you suggesting murderers and torturers are sometimes good things?" You either didn't read that, or understood it, or are trying to throw sand in our eyes.
Once again I ask you: "...why do you bring up Batista as if he was somehow Castro's antithesis?"
It sounds to me like you want to excuse Castro's murderous tyranny. Batista doesn't work. He was a tyrant and the revolution was to rid Cuba of his tyranny, not to install Castro's.
Castro betrayed the Cuban people just like Batista, and far worst. It's a shame he appears to be one of your heroes.
You obviously didn't live in exile or under his rule for most of your life. Perhaps for you it's just entertainment.
Actually, I never said anything about him one way or the other. I understand that you don't like Castro but that is not the topic of our discussion.
"I understand that you don't like Castro but that is not the topic of our discussion."
Really? Anyone can read from the first comment onwards.
I have, and you seem to be the only one turning the exchange into one on Castro (with a detour to support the sainthood of the fascist Franco).
My posts have been about how we should view Catholic clerics' involvement and support for political causes across the spectrum and whether we have a double standard.
"...you seem to be the only one turning the exchange into one on Castro."
Comments 1, 2, 3,6 mention Cuba or Catro, not Franco.
Comment 7 jumps to Franco (Spain) and Batista (Cuba), the tyrant who preceded Castro's tyranny, and comment 8 responds to the reference to Batista.
It's you who want to divert the discussion.
I never mentioned Castro in any of my posts--I think you did and one other "anonymous" and you both agreed that Castro was a very bad dude.
The problem is that you got stuck on it and tried to tie my comments into a discussion of Castro.
I take it that you don't wish to address the problem or question I posed. No problem, but let's both move on.
p.s. If it clarifies things I am the author of the following posts: 7,9,11,12,14,16, & 18.
In post 7 you mention Batista in response to my post 6 on Castro.
The Catholic church seems to have accomodated to Castro (e.g. opposes the embargo) as it did with Franco (another Castro ally). Its intent is not political. It appears to just want to be able to bring the Word and the Sacraments to the people, whatever their political beliefs.
I never mentioned Castro and my reason for posting was not to discuss him.
I do hope you are trying to yank my chain and not as nuts as you seem.
Post a Comment