Tárogató, 1949-1950 (12. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)
1949-07-01 / 1-2. szám
8 TÁROGATÓ service with its spies everywhere and with its torture chambers in the illfamed Andrássy Street building which they took over from the Nazis; all these are topics which have often been described by newspapers, by testimonies of eye-witnesses, by their former colleagues and employees who were fortunate enough to escape from their clutches, all familiar so that we need not elaborate. For our purpose it is sufficient to know that the communist government’s road to its goal is a direct one and is in substance a Moscow-dictated and Moscow-protected procedure with admitted mistakes, which, however, are in fact no mistakes. Many of us thought that the Hungarian communists made grave mistakes when they distributed the land among the peasants in such a way that they could not make a living out of their new property. But there was no mistake in this: later they needed this admission by the peasants in order to introduce the kolkhozi. The communists and their fellowtravellers were already at their task of transforming Hungary into a rebuilt and reeducated state when, after the sudden death of the Prince Primate of Hungary, Bishop Joseph Mindszenty succeeded him. We get a fairly good picture of the new Prince Primate from his first circular letter which was dated October 18, 1945, eleven days after his installation. In this he talks about the new tasks after the “dreadful devastation and startling spiritual brutality.” “We must square it out with the wasted, dreadful, hatred-heated past and, sparing no sacrifice, build up the future.” “We stand before an important, perhaps decisive, turn in shaping the future. The Hungarian people face elections. We do not meddle in the electioneering struggle, we do not take a stand for any party, we explain the principles of truth and duty so that each Catholic should vote according to them. “It cannot be doubted that the future political life can only be according to the principles of democracy. We have already greeted the idea of democracy with confidence in our previous pastoral letter. The world has suffered just enough from tyranny. Tyranny drove Europe recklessly into the dreadful war, tyranny went on with the murderous struggle to a senseless length. Tyranny trampled under foot the most sacred rights of humanity during long years, despised freedom of conscience, trampled upon the rights of parents in the education of their children. Tyranny denied even the idea that a human person has the right to assert himself independently, to develop his abilities, inclinations, his individual vocation. With these abuses of tyranny democracy settled accounts. Naturally, not that sort of democracy which replaces the unlimited rule of one person with that of another; not that which replaces the selfish and violent government of one group with the similarly selfish and violent arbitrariness of another group. The basic pillar of true democracy is the fact that it acknowleges sound natural rights which must not be attacked by force, ever or by any human power. True democracy inscribes on its banner freedom of conscience, the rights of parents, the development of the worker into a free individuality and the abolition of the “slavery” of labour. In order to realize these aims, democracy stirs up -all strata of society with morally impeccable means .'.. We have also greeted with joy the declarations of the victorious powers whenever these declarations designated as a task of future democratic development the more serious appreciation of the dignity of the free human person.” He mentions that in his May circular letter he showed appreciation of democracy, but he already had misgivings. There were abuses which he, however, took for mistakes of a new system which would later disappear. He waited long and with patience, but now he has to tell that “he experienced very many phenomena in Hungarian public life which were in acute opposition to the principles of true democracy. We have to state that this trend may plunge our unfortunate and sorely-tried country into new perils. We have to state that a Christian elector cannot give his vote to such a trend which commits irresponsible and often newer suppression, newer rule by force, the abandonment of natural rights.” “It was shame enough that a year ago we yielded so much to the brutal acts of
