Last year, I have written an article about the sham “beatification” of Enrique Angelelli, Bishop of La Rioja, by Antipope Bergoglio in 2018. Angelelli (nicknamed “Satanelli” by the faithful) was a notorious leftist, who died in a car crash in 1976. The car crash was later ruled as a “murder”, even though the only eyewitness claimed it was an accident and later eyewitnesses, who came to the scene after the crash, found no evidence of another car being involved.
In this article, I would like to present someone from Argentina who most likely did achieve the crown of martyrdom: the Thomist philosopher Carlos Alberto Sacheri (1933-1974).
Sacheri was born in Buenos Aires on October 22, 1933. During his youth, he was a member of the Catholic Action.
He studied philosophy at the Université Laval in Québec, where he graduated in 1963 with “magna cum laude”. Five years later, he obtained his doctorate at the same university.
He taught Philosophy of Law and History of the Philosophical Ideas at the University of Buenos Aires. After the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina was founded, he began to teach there as well. In addition to his teaching carrier, he was the secretary of the “Sociedad Tomista Argentina” (“Argentine Thomist Society”) and the president of the “Obra de la Ciudad Católica”.
He was active speaker and was involved with Catholic youth formation in Argentina. He also worked for various periodicals, including Verbo and Cabildo.
Sacheri wrote various books, one of his more famous being “La Iglesia clandestina” (“The clandestine Church”, 1971). In it, he wrote his opinion on the Church crisis after the Second Vatican Council, that the Church had been infiltrated. His other well-known book was “El orden natural” (“The natural order”, 1975), which described the basics of natural law from the Catholic perspective and how it relates to society and politics.
He foresaw the risk to his life, which is another indication that his death can be regarded as a martyrdom. In a speech he gave on June 9, 1973, which was published after his death with the title “El universitario frente a la doctrina marxista” (“The student facing the Marxist doctrine”), he said:
“A few days ago, I was reading a text by Saint Paul, one of those texts from Scripture that are so terribly simple that one never tires of meditating on them. Saint Paul says this when speaking of Redemption: ‘Without blood there is no Redemption’. I do not believe in making easy prophecies – because these are facts that are already happening in Argentina – but in Argentina in 1973, much blood will be shed; and if we Catholics, Catholic university students, are not willing to shed our own blood in heroic militancy, Argentina will be Marxist and will not be Catholic. That is in our hands. Without blood there is no Redemption, and what is true in the strictly supernatural order, for which St. Paul speaks of the Redemption of Christ, is also true for the secular Redemption of Argentina, of a traditionally Christian society that must definitively rediscover itself on the path from which the liberalism of our grandparents led it astray.”
On December 22, 1974, a Sunday, he was returning home from Mass with his wife and children, when a car drove by and somebody from that car shot him in the head. They brought him to a hospital, but he died quickly.
Although there never was any investigation or court case, the terrorist organization ERP August 22 claimed responsibility, in a letter mocking Sacheri and blaspheming Christ. A few years later, a file was found detailing the murder in a house linked to the terrorist organization. One of his sons recognized the murderer many years later, but doesn’t want to reveal his identity, because his mother taught them forgiveness, when she led them in prayer for the murderers that night.
Many Catholics in Argentina regard him as a martyr.
A building of the Universidad Católica Argentina. Image by Wagner Fontoura, CC-BY-NC 2.0, here
Quotes
from “La Iglesia clandestina”
both of the following quotes taken from here
“The Second Vatican Council has reexamined the eternal problem of the relationship between the Church and the world. Repeated meditation on the Council documents reveals the admirable link between true tradition and authentic renewal; fidelity to the former is the indispensable condition for the effective realization of the latter. However, there are groups and organized movements within the Church that do not understand this. Such groups, determined to channel the present renewal not along the paths of the Holy Spirit but according to the ‘sense’ that they intend to imprint on the whole Church, constitute the most serious obstacle to a healthy ‘openness’ to the contemporary world.”
“In our country, ‘tercermundismo’ [this refers to a leftist priest movement founded in Argentina] constitutes the version, not the only one, but the main one, of the international progressive organization. Putting into practice its doctrines, its organization and its essentially clandestine methodology, ‘tercermundismo’ configures a ‘parallel Church’ that tries to instrument everything Christian in the service of a Marxist-inspired social revolution. The most serious of all is that many priests of good faith, sensitive to social problems, echo this preaching without realizing that they are being used as instruments.”
from “El Orden natural”
A “doctrine”
The papal teaching on social matters constitutes a doctrine. It has three main characteristics: 1) speculative synthesis; 2) practical in scope; and 3) morally obligatory. It implies a theoretical synthesis since it contains and arranges, in a harmonious whole, a set of principles covering all the fundamental aspects of the temporal order, both nationally and internationally.
But this theory of the right human order of coexistence is intended to illuminate action; it has a practical scope. “Every principle concerning the social question must not only be expounded, but must also be actually put into practice” (Mater et Magistra, n. 226).
Finally, the doctrine is morally binding, since it obliges Christians in conscience to live and act in conformity with its statements: “This doctrine is clear in all its parts. It is obligatory; no one can depart from it without danger to faith and moral ardour” (Pius XII, 29-4, 1945). (p. 31)
The root of the error
In all these apostles of change for change’s sake, the rejection of Nature and its order stems from the same fundamental error. They share the false belief that talking about the “essence” of “nature” or “order” implies falling into a rigid, immobile, totally static position. This is completely unfounded, as there is no connection between the two statements.
The real problem lies in explaining change, movement. To do so, we must recognize that in every transformation there is one element that varies and another that remains the same. If this were not the case, we could not say that a child has grown, that a seed has germinated into a plant, or that we are the same people we were when we were born 20, 30, or 70 years ago… If nothing remained the same, we would have to admit that the child, the plant, or ourselves are completely different beings from those we once were. For there to be change, there must be something that has changed, that is, a subject of change. Otherwise, there would be no change at all.
Christian philosophy opposes these errors with a very different conception that is consistent with experience. Beyond all change, there are permanent realities: the essence or nature of each thing or being. The evidence of change not only does not suppress that nature but necessarily presupposes it. Everyday experience shows us that pear trees always bear pears and not apples or walnuts, and that elm trees never produce pears. For some [“]deplorable[”] “stability”, cows always have calves and not giraffes or elephants, and, even more scandalously, calves always have one head, one tail, and four legs… And when on occasion one appears with five legs or two heads, common sense spontaneously exclaims, “How awful, poor animal, how defective!” Such reactions only prove that not only does nature exist, but that there is a natural order. The evidence of this universal order is what allows us to distinguish the normal from the abnormal. “How awful, poor animal, how defective!” Such reactions only prove that not only does nature exist, but there is also a natural order. The evidence of this universal order is what allows us to distinguish the normal from the pathological, the healthy from the sick, the sane from the insane, the motor that works well from the one that malfunctions, the good father from the bad father, the just law from the unjust law. (p. 46)
The key principle: subsidiarity
The harmony between the functions to be exercised by the State in economic matters and the scope for initiative and responsibility of individuals is determined by the principle of subsidiarity set forth in Quadragesimo Anno and reiterated in Mater et Magistra (n. 53). This fundamental concept can be summarized in the following three points:
1) Individuals and lower-level groups should be allowed to perform the tasks that they can carry out on their own initiative and responsibility.
2) The sole purpose of higher-level groups is to assist individuals and lower-level groups, supplementing them in what they cannot do for themselves; therefore, they should neither replace nor destroy them.
3) The only case in which a higher-ranking group may replace a lower-ranking one is when the latter lacks the essential elements (means and people) to act effectively.
If we link these three ideas, which complement each other, with what has been said about the private nature of the economic order, it becomes clear that the state’s action in this area consists of supplementary action in relation to private initiative. (p. 104)
The common good is an analogous term and, as such, includes various meanings, which must be distinguished and ordered. The main distinction is between the temporal common good, the end of political society, and the supernatural common good, which is God, as the ultimate end of the entire created universe. But even within the temporal order there are diversities: the common good of the family, the common good of various intermediate groups (unions, businesses, professions, municipalities, regions, etc.), the international common good, etc. Such expressions are perfectly legitimate, even though they all presuppose and refer to the common good of political society, which provides its proper and strictest meaning.
What does this good of political society consist of? Pius XI defined it in Divini Illius Magister as “the peace and security enjoyed by individuals in the exercise of their rights, and at the same time, the greatest possible spiritual and material well-being in this life, through the union and coordination of everyone’s efforts.” Indeed, just as the family is the institution whose purpose is to ensure the preservation of human life (order of generation), so too does political society or the state have its own purpose, which is the total good of man, bonum humanum perfecium (order of perfection). It follows that the goods that make up the political common good can be none other than those that make up human happiness or fulfillment. In other words, all properly human goods are part of the political common good, that is, the three categories according to Plato’s division: external, bodily, and spiritual goods. But while the former are only part of the common good as means or instruments necessary for the attainment of the spiritual, the latter are the only ones that are truly “common” by their nature.
Among the main elements of the political common good are: science, justice, order, and security. Their realization results in peace, which is like the conclusion and synthesis of the former. Peaceful coexistence in order – according to St. Augustine’s expression, pax tranquillitas ordinis – is the sign par excellence that manifests the effective realization of the good in a given society. Hence the essentially dynamic nature of the political common good, which is not so much something that is possessed and distributed, but rather a moral good that everyone contributes to realizing on a daily basis and in which everyone participates and enjoys in common. Its realization requires the coordination of all the efforts and activities of the social body, under the leadership of the State in its essential mission as manager or procurer of the common good.
This allows us to rule out a common mistake whereby, unaware of the essence of the common good, it is reduced to a mere collective good or the mere addition of individual goods, without seeing the qualitative difference that separates them. The essential difference between the common and the collective lies in the fact that the latter is private in nature, whose ownership is reserved by the State to guarantee common use. Thus, for example, a road is a collective good insofar as it is intended for common use as a means of transport. But the artificial nature of such a “community” arises if one thinks that every collective good requires a law or decision by the authorities to be considered as such; it is sufficient for the expropriated land to be sold to private individuals for the land on which the road stands to be transformed once again into private farmland.
from “Universitario frente a la doctrina marxista”
Marxism does not have a clear vision of ends, it does not have a purpose as such, a purpose in terms of good in Thomistic metaphysics, in the sense of a good, a perfection, a goal to be achieved because it is good in itself. No, Marxism despises the notion of an end, but deep down, since no one can live without ends, what drives Marxist dialectics, what constitutes its essential motor, is hatred of religion, hatred of the supernatural, hatred of absolute good. That is why atheism is consubstantial with Marxist doctrine; Marxism cannot tolerate religion, just as it cannot tolerate authentic spirituality, even in the natural sense, in the sense of culture, in its true dimension.