Intermarium of Silence
Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero
Jean Meyer writes about Andrea Ricardi's work in Confabulario of El Universal (May 3, 2026). The review of Pius XII and his role during the Holocaust, while attempting to nuance the image of the pontiff, fails to avoid oversimplifying a much more complex reality: the structural ambiguity and lack of a clear and consistent stance on the part of the Catholic High Hierarchy regarding totalitarian regimes. It even calls into question the vast body of Jewish historiography on the Holocaust, the German people, Eastern Europe, and the role of Catholic nationalism.
The historical trajectory of the Intermarium Project, which seeks to consolidate an anti-communist bloc and, in many cases, aligns with the interests of the Church, reveals that this ambiguity was not an isolated incident, but a deliberate strategy that has endured over time.
The Church, in its eagerness to maintain its power and authority, has shown itself willing to collaborate with or remain silent in the face of any power that is favorable to it, regardless of whether it comes from a Nazi state, a drug-trafficking state, a corrupt political boss, the Soviet Union, China, or other dictatorships. The Church's "ambiguity" is not a mistake, but a tactic that has facilitated its survival.
This attitude shows that the Church's true stance is not the defense of human rights, but the preservation of its own power structure.
The history of the Intermarium Project and of Catholic nationalism in general demonstrates its adaptation by evading the ethical and moral commitment that the religion itself preaches; it should come as no surprise that, ultimately, the Church has proven to be more loyal to its institutional interests than to the values it claims to promote.
In this sense, the discussion surrounding Pius XII cannot be limited to his silence or isolated actions, but must be framed within a broader logic: that of an institution which, in its quest for survival, has often preferred ambiguity.
From the perspective of the work *Intermarium: Evangelio Anticomunista* (Intermarium: Anti-Communist Gospel), these discourses can be understood not as isolated accidents or prejudices, but as components of a power strategy that seeks to maintain a hegemonic order and resist changes that threaten its legitimacy.
Catholic-rooted anti-communism in Mexico, or in Latin America, can be considered a microphysics of power that operates at subconscious and symbolic levels, and which has a great potential for escalation if it is not confronted with a critical review of its roots and functions.
This structure and its organizational intent are key to understanding the dynamics of power and resistance that still dominate in these contexts today.
Anti-communism is a form of Judeophobia that operates on different levels: not only as an individual attitude, but also as a “structure of resistance” that reinforces an exclusionary identity.
In the Mexican context, this Judeophobia without Jews is a way to maintain a discourse of victimization and confrontation with an external or internal enemy presented as a “virus” that must be combated to preserve the purity and authority of traditional Catholic institutions.
This mechanism of institutional sacralization, which seeks to keep society in a state of dependence and obedience, also explains why in Mexico, as in other countries with a history of strong religious influence and authoritarianism, these narratives remain functional.
The strategy is not only about religion, but also about how these ideas are articulated to defend certain privileges and an order that, in reality, seeks to perpetuate itself by constructing enemies and delegitimizing questioning.
The Catholic Church can generate a more progressive Vatican Council III than the previous one, but the task is to put theory into practice and end the feudal practices and inertia of an authoritarian and, at times, totalitarian culture.
