There are themes that, by their magnitude and pervasive nature, take precedence over any others, simply because they are so unusual. This is the case of the resignation of Pope Benedict 16.
Apart from the numerous conspiracy theories that the world media would give , indifferent to the explanations he gave himself, it appears that the understanding of the topic is contaminated by nonsense: the ideological conflict of right versus left, modernity versus orthodoxy. It is intolerable -- but that is how it is.
Such reductionism, which has reached the interior of the Vatican, long torments the political and economic life of countries and becomes strongly present in South America, especially in Brazil.
If there is already a distortion in regards to countries, it is unthinkable that there is an attempt to extend it to religion.
There is no progressive religion. This term, highly questionable in essence, does not apply to an institution whose main mission is to conserve a legacy which is meant to be eternal.
It is therefore a contradiction in terms to classify the religious as either modern or reactionary. These categories have nothing to do with it.
In the Christian West, no one is required to have a religion. If you do have one, you must accept its doctrines. If you don't, it does not make sense for you to want to mold them, especially from paradigms that are entirely unrelated.
The left-right terminology arose in the French Revolution in the late 18th century, when the National Assembly seats were won in the Throne Room. The representative of the aristocracy sat on the right of the king; the Assembly, on the left.
Marx took advantage of this symbolism to assign to the left, questions of popular interest, and to the right, that of the ruling class.
If only it were so simple. To come from these assumptions and discuss topics such as the economy, the environment and even moral values conspires against good sense and efficiency.
Why, for example, would the market economy be of interest only to the elite if it is proven that it generates wealth, and by extension jobs, to all segments of society?
There is not one country that by adopting socialism has eradicated poverty or improved the lives of the people.
Countries that have embarked on this misconception -- and Russia being the most obvious example -- fared even worse. Nevertheless, the left has monopolized on topics such as social justice, human rights and environmental protection.
History has recorded somewhere around 100,000 Cubans killed following the socialist revolution in a country which at the time was about 8 million. There were about 17, 000 shootings and 80 thousand more killed in escape attempts.
The Chilean dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet accounts for about 40 thousand fallen opponents -- less than half of Cubans -- and official statistics speak for about 3,200 people dead or missing. However, Pinochet is a monster (there is no disagreement), while Fidel Castro is, in the view of some, a hero. What differentiates them? One is "right" and the other "left". Both are detestable.
On the issue of the environment, the contradiction is even more glaring. It conspires against the farmer, amid a global demand for increased food production.
The United Nations (UN) warns that if production does not increase 20% over the next ten years there will be shortages. And Brazil is a key part in this process.
But the Left -- especially the environmentalist -- insists on demonizing farmers. Hoisting themselves to be the only legitimate defender of people's rights, but innocently defending hunger... of the people.
Left and right are actually another name for irrational extremism and radicalism, which has caused much disaster and much pain to mankind. It should horror, not of pride for anyone.
Let's suppose in Christianity, a leftist priest or pastor in the Revelation of St. John is told that the righteous sit at the Father's right and the left are condemned. For this reason, can you see the absurdity of this terminology, especially in the religious sphere?