Metro News Mx

-The Venezuelan Church maintains an ethical resistance against the government's intention to replace faith with political ideologies.

- The modern State errs in believing itself to be the granter of rights, forgetting that these are inherent to natural human dignity.

-Systematic disqualification and defamation are the new tools of persecution against institutions acting as critical voices.

-A worrying fracture of the social fabric is noted through hate speech that divides the population into irreconcilable camps.

-The Venezuelan episcopate advocates for a purification of memory so that the mistakes of the past are not repeated in the near future.

-The Church positions itself as a necessary moral reference in contexts where social silence is imposed by fear and repression.

-The impact of foreign tutelage and the presence of outside interests that complicate sovereignty and peace in the territory are analyzed.

-The campaign "Healing the Wound and Embracing Life" emerges as a pastoral response to rebuild the unity of a fragmented nation.

-A direct analogy exists between the political processes of Venezuela and Mexico regarding the use of language to polarize the people.

-True politics must transcend personal disqualification to focus on proposals that dignify the individual and their environment.

The geopolitical reality of Latin America, marked by the rise of regimes with authoritarian tendencies disguised as social justice, presents an unprecedented challenge to the autonomy of civil and religious institutions. In this context, the statements of Monsignor José Antonio Concensao Ferreira not only represent the voice of the Venezuelan ecclesiastical hierarchy but also constitute a profound diagnosis of the erosion of the Rule of Law and the manipulation of collective subjectivity. The convergence of experiences between Venezuela and Mexico suggested in the dialogue is not a fortuitous coincidence, but a symptom of a methodology of political control that utilizes polarization as an axis of governance.

The presence of Mons. Concensao Ferreira occurs within the framework of a visit to Cañada de Caracheo, a community in the municipality of Cortazar belonging to the Diocese of Celaya. He traveled alongside Iraqi priest Naim Shoshandy and Father Sergio Chuela, a Mexican Guadalupe Missionary, to venerate the relics of Blessed Fray Elías del Socorro Nieves and participate in the "Night of the Witnesses" at the Parish of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Cortazar. The event was attended by Mons. Víctor Alejandro Aguilar Ledesma, Bishop of the Diocese of Celaya, along with parish priests Adolfo Manzano and Martín Álvarez Torres, as well as vicar priests and Fr. Samuel Damián Pascual, head of the Missions Dimension in the Diocese of Celaya. Also present were Dominik Kustra, head of the North-Central Mexico zone for the Pontifical Foundation Aid to the Church in Need (ACN), and Julieta Appendini, National Director of ACN Mexico.

Historically, the relationship between State and Church in nations like Mexico and Venezuela has been marked by tensions derived from the struggle for moral hegemony. However, the contemporary phenomenon presents a dangerous mutation: the State not only seeks to separate the religious from the public but intends to absorb the religious to provide a patina of sacredness to its own political acts. When civil power attempts to organize religious festivities or supplant charity with clientelist welfarism, it is engaging in a usurpation of cultural identity. This trend, analyzed under the legal framework of freedom of worship and institutional autonomy, represents a violation of democratic plurality.

A critical point in the analysis is the conception of the origin of human rights. A philosophical and legal distortion exists in populist regimes that posit that it is the State that "grants" rights. This premise is the foundation of all dictatorship. As noted, rights are inherent to the person by their very nature (natural law), and the State’s only function is to protect them. When a ruler perceives himself as the giver of liberties, he automatically arrogates to himself the power to take them away. In Venezuela, this premise has justified the restriction of fundamental freedoms under the argument of collective well-being—a rhetoric that has also begun to permeate Mexican political discourse.

The social impact of this dynamic is fragmentation. The strategy of "fracturing the people" through pejorative labels—fostering struggle between classes or social sectors—destroys the basic social fabric. Mistrust becomes the norm, and the recognition of the other as a brother or citizen disappears. In this scenario, the Catholic Church emerges as an uncomfortable actor. Its transnational nature and its fidelity to a magisterium that transcends national borders protect it, to a certain extent, from being absorbed by the official narrative. Therefore, 21st-century persecution is no longer just bloody or physical, but has moved into the field of "civil death" through defamation.

Calling things by their name implies recognizing that the disqualification of the Church under generalized accusations is a propaganda tactic designed to undermine its moral authority. While the Church has recognized internal errors and implemented healing and justice protocols, the political use of these weaknesses seeks to silence the institution’s critical voice against human rights violations. "Civil death" is the goal: to invalidate the interlocutor so that their denunciation of poverty, corruption, or nepotism finds no echo in public opinion.

The situation in Venezuela, with twenty-seven years of a political model that has generated more economic and social questions than answers, serves as a mirror for the region’s young democracies. Venezuelans have developed a resilience based on prudence, but the internal wound is deep. The reconstruction of a nation does not happen solely through a change of names in power, but through the "purification of memory." This legal and moral concept is fundamental: recognizing the damage caused, not for revenge, but to ensure non-repetition.

The future of our societies depends on the recovery of politics as an exercise of intellectual height and human respect. Abstinence from foul language and the abandonment of disqualification as an electoral tool are indispensable requirements for peace. The Church, by remaining faithful to its mission of accompanying human dignity, becomes the last stronghold of critical analysis in a sea of voices silenced by fear. International solidarity and mutual learning between peoples like the Mexicans and Venezuelans are essential to resist the excess of absolute power that forgets its only legitimate function is to serve the person.

Well, I have the pleasure and the delight of being with none other than Monsignor José Antonio Concensao Ferreira, a bishop, one of the bishops of, uh, Venezuela, and who is also the Secretary of the Venezuelan Episcopal Conference. Just twenty-seven dioceses, I think we said, right? And nine archdioceses, I don't know if you noticed...

We have forty ecclesiastical circumscriptions.

Okay. Monsignor, obviously the whole world is looking at Venezuela because of everything that has happened, uh, but the central theme here is how the Catholic Church is, how it is living through this situation, and especially, uh, uh, a series of pressures that it seems are not only in Venezuela; in Mexico, we identify similar things in these leftist regimes where sometimes it seems the government not only wants to be the government but also wants to be the Church and organize *posadas* and religious events as if they had the authority to do so. I don't know if this happens in Venezuela, what can you tell me? How is Venezuela? Is there persecution? Is there sadness? What is the Church doing as well? Thank you, Monsignor.

Well, I’ll speak to you about the Church. The Church in Venezuela, throughout its years of history and in these last decades, has maintained its fidelity: fidelity to the Gospel, fidelity to the Magisterium, fidelity to the Pope. And precisely that fidelity is what has made us persevere and walk together. Through that fidelity, we have maintained communion. And of course, when these external circumstances or external pressures come, precisely keeping our gaze on Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the Church is what prevents us from diverting our gaze or listening to other voices that are not our own. Precisely, the Church does not come to supplant either the State or civil society; the Church comes to accompany and provide a contribution to rebuild, precisely from the great values of the Gospel, our societies.

Therefore, when there are certain institutions, or in this case certain ideologies, that want to manage faith in general and the Church in their particular way, they are mistaken, because the Church is not a competitor, but neither should it be set aside. The Church accompanies precisely in the gestation of good societies because our ultimate goal is the human person and their dignity. And at times, of course, the Church can become uncomfortable when it becomes a moral reference or a voice crying out in the midst of so much silence or so many silenced voices. Because many times the people want to speak but are afraid, so the Church has to say: "Look, even if you don't like hearing this, there are violations of the dignity of the human person here." And it is not simply to denounce it, but we have to recover this so that it does not continue, does not go further.

Eugenio Amézquita Velasco: 

Uh, at one point the Bishop of Celaya, very similar to what you are saying, uh, spoke about how the government is not there to give rights, it is there to respect them and ensure rights are upheld. Uh, does something like this happen in Venezuela, where the State wants to act as if it is "giving you the right" to do this?

Perhaps that is one of the great problems of these last decades in the world. The State believes it is the one that generates the rights of the person, right? Rights are inherent to the human person, and the people entrust certain figures who form or temporarily govern the State to protect and ensure those rights are not violated. Therein lies the great mistake of many: thinking that "you can have freedom, you can express yourself, you can do this or that because I grant it to you." No, it is inherent to the human person, and I as the State must guarantee that this can be fulfilled, that you are respected. That is why it is a great responsibility of the State, because it is the one that has to guarantee that the rights of each person are respected and never violated.

Uh, I don’t know if for the people of Venezuela—with some similarity to what is happening in Mexico—we are observing, I don't know if I'm wrong, you tell me, a kind of tutelage from the United States that enters very violently; there is a foreign military presence that is not exactly North American but Cuban, to give it a name, and a series of things begin to happen. It starts, it starts to seem like now there are political prisoners, it starts to seem like there was corruption, a series of things start appearing through this tutelage. However, the people are seeing the same faces, they see the same names, they see nepotism, they see the sister and the brother governing. What does this generate for the people? I don't know, I would be uneasy... well, are they leaving or not, or what? Because these people have been there for twenty-seven years, or it’s a government of twenty-seven years of dictatorship; they are the same ones, just passing through, changing names. What do the people think? What do they feel? What is their opinion?

I would summarize it for you in a very simple phrase: there are more questions than answers at this moment, and that is what the people are experiencing. The Venezuelan has learned to be very resilient, uh, to be very prudent, but in every Venezuelan there are many questions. Of course in the political sphere, but also in the economic: "When will it be that I have more purchasing power?" Therefore, there are very many questions that the Venezuelan is asking at this moment, and they still don’t see the answers clearly.

Uh, following the history of the United States as an empire, a power seeking to expand like any other empire, right? Uh, it has lived through very painful experiences like Vietnam, like Afghanistan, where things seemed to get out of control. Today it is in a plan and things didn't happen as... but we are seeing another strategy in Venezuela, that is, they are not doing a labor of, uh, total extirpation of the tumor; it seems they are cutting it into pieces, even with a laser, so other parts don't get contaminated, in what seems will finally be free elections. Will the people truly be able to choose whoever they want, and will whoever the people want win? Do you think this is a strategy precisely so it isn't violent, so Venezuela isn't shaken in a way that in the long run could harm it, and that the United States would obviously result in having spoiled a whole process that we are seeing so far? Do you think there is something to that?

Look, we have two narratives; we hear two narratives that are not very far apart: the narrative of the United States and the narrative of those who are exercising, well, power in Venezuela. Uh, in these two narratives, one listens to them, one keeps waiting for answers with greater clarity, but what does the Venezuelan expect, and what does the Church expect? That all this results in peace, precisely because violence leads to nothing; it generates more violence, and violence destabilizes peoples. What we aspire to is that this truly leads to a process so that we can reinstitutionalize the country. But most importantly—and I tell you this based a bit on our last exhortation—is to rebuild the Venezuelan people, who have been broken, fragmented, deeply wounded by this conflict of so many years. Therefore, we have spoken about how it is very important—and in this, the Church wants to provide support, it wants not to substitute but also, as part of the nation, to give, well, a word and an action so that the Venezuelan meets and recognizes themselves again.

The issue is not just meeting again, because there are many who meet again just to insult you; no, no, we are brothers, we are Venezuelans despite the fact that we can have differences, but we are Venezuelans and have a common interest: that memory is respected, or what we call the purification of memory—that it is not denied that bad things happened, but that we have to precisely understand that this happened and that we do not want it to be repeated. That truly, from there, we move to a process of forgiveness to reach true reconciliation. A people that does not reconcile is a people that will not progress in any sphere, in any sphere, and that is what we want at this moment. Then there are the narratives we hear from each of these—be it the United States or the government of Venezuela—but in the end, what we want is a reconciled people and a people that can live in peace with justice and truth.

This theme you are mentioning to me reminds me of Mexico, where for six years the government discourse seemed to have the desire to fracture us, to divide us, to pit Mexicans against each other: "you are *fifí*", "you are poor", "you are from such and such group." It seems to me that in Venezuela they were employing that strategy as well to fracture the people, right?

Unfortunately, it was fractured, and distrust was sown. And that is what we must return to: understanding that we can have different political ideologies, but the interest is common, and it is precisely the well-being, tranquility, and peace of all Venezuelans. And that starts with the encounter, recognition, and respect. Respect that many times we did not see in one sector and others, and that has to be recovered. In fact, taking advantage, during Lent in Venezuela the Church has the "Sharing Campaign," which is a campaign for solidarity but also precisely to incentivize, uh, the reconstruction of a certain social fabric. And this year we have opted for a slogan, a phrase: it is called "Healing the Wound and Embracing Life." Because precisely there are many wounds in Venezuelans of any political tint; there are very many wounds, well, we have to heal the wound—heal it as Jesus did—and embrace the life of the Risen One, who gives life and life in abundance. And there we are trying to provide our contribution for this people that God has entrusted to us, which is the People of God pilgrimaging in that land that we love, and that we do not wish to see fractured, nor wish to see involved in violence.

One last thing, Monsignor. Here, we are in Cañada de Caracheo, and for the audience watching this video, Monsignor wanted to come and get to know—along with other priests from other experiences in the world—well, this priest who here is the first Blessed of the state of Guanajuato, Father Elías del Socorro Nieves, martyred along with the Sierra brothers. And well, you heard closely about the process of this persecution and the final martyrdom, right? Uh, is there anything at this moment similar, like violent, direct persecution against the Venezuelan Church or against the members of the Venezuelan Church—not just against the hierarchy, right?—against the members of the Catholic Church there? Or what is the form, what is the methodology being employed that you detect?

Many times persecution is not only with blood or with violence; it is also with disqualification, and at times we have felt that clearly. The disqualification of the Church, speaking ill of it, even wanting to fracture it—that "one thing is the bishops and another thing is the common people"—and that is terrible. It is terrible when one wants to fracture any family, any people, and any church; that is terrible. And it is a bit of what we have felt in these times: seeing how they want to manipulate the religious fact for personal interests.

Has it been the case that, uh, in bad faith—I’m not talking about good faith—in bad faith, some priest or some bishop is accused, "it’s that they are pederasts," "it’s that they are this," "it’s that they are thieves," "it’s that they take advantage of the people," to, uh, give them "civil death"? That is, to finish them off, and moreover with things that aren't even true, simply just because someone did something, "they are all the same," right? Have they used that methodology?

Unfortunately, some figure in the government has said it in some program; they have said that the Church is full of pederasts. And it seems to me that it is something quite vile speaking from the human level, I’m not even talking about the specific rights of each nation and its laws. It is something very dishonorable, quite miserable, because we could also disqualify politicians. I cannot say that all politicians are bad people or that all politicians are corrupt. Furthermore, there I do dare to say: the Church, in this society, with all this misery of these horrific and painful events that have happened with pederasty, is the only social institution that has put a remedy quickly and has not been ashamed to say: "We regret having to announce that this has happened among us, and we ask for forgiveness." Because the Church, out of its own conviction from faith, does not fear asking for forgiveness, but also seeks the reparation of the harm committed by some of its members. So it is very regrettable, precisely, that any political leader uses disqualification.

Pope León, in his Lenten message, precisely told us that he invited us to practice abstinence, but an abstinence from the word, from the tongue. And when I read his words, I said: "How interesting this is, that we all should learn—politicians—abstinence from bad words, from thinking that politics is built by disqualifying and destroying the other," and not true politics, which proposes, gives ideas; that debate is necessary in politics, but a politics with a high level of language, right? Not that "because I soil the other is when I gain greater electoral and political capital." That must be discarded from our society. Enough already with the disqualification, with the defamation. We must reach the height, once again, of ideas, of proposals, of projects, and let it be the people who say: "I’m going with this project because it is more dignified," and not with this style that is more soez and disqualifying.

Monsignor, well, I don't know if you want to say anything else, and if not, please give us your blessing for all the audience who will see this video.

No, just to truly thank, uh, this people in general, the people of Mexico, for their perseverance. You are witnesses of the faith in the whole world, and for Latin America and the Caribbean, even more so. Thank you for persevering, thank you for your love for the Blessed Virgin, thank you for your testimony with your martyrs of maintaining permanent fidelity to Christ. And well, thank you for this testimony that I was able to witness firsthand of this martyr in this community. May the Lord bless you abundantly, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Thank you very much, Father. I am Eugenio Amézquita Velasco, from Guanajuato Desconocido, from Cañada de Caracheo, with none other than Monsignor, who comes from Venezuela.

#MetroNewsMx #GuanajuatoDesconocido