Federico Reyes Heroles
Mani, or Manes in Persian, is the Prophet’s name (216-277 AD). Influenced by Christianity, Buddhism, and even Zoroastrianism—eclectic, one might say—his central tenet leaves no room for confusion: good and evil are always in conflict, without nuance. His ideas spread throughout the world, especially the Middle East. Thesis: he who nuances concedes; concessions end in self-deception. The pendulum swing was swift: Manichaeism is crude. Intelligence will find Aristotle’s golden mean. Manichaeism became a term of disparagement. The RAE (Royal Spanish Academy) warns: “A tendency to reduce reality to a radical opposition between good and evil.”
But to cancel out the possibility of distinguishing between one and the other, even as an intellectual, axiological, or evaluative exercise, is to fall into an equally serious trap: relativism. Hamas and Netanyahu are both right. There is a justification for everything; all human knowledge is relative, it depends on the observer. And ethical discernment? Defending absolute truths in the 21st century is absurd. As absurd as being incapable of establishing inviolable parameters, life in all its expressions. Manichean simplism or relativist complexity?
“Evil will not prevail,” declared Leo XIV, assuming two obvious traditions, that of Leo XIII (1878-1903), a Jesuit by training, who confronted Catholicism with the modernity of the Second Industrial Revolution and the reality of alienation and poverty among the working class. Austere, this pope was sought as a mediator by Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom in the conflict over the Caroline Islands. He sought rapprochement with the Anglican Church and Catholicism in the United States, as well as with the Greek Orthodox Church. The encyclical Rerum Novarum is a reference point for the need to adapt to new developments. He was a globalized man. A great pope.
The second tradition is also explicit: Francis is an excellent source of inspiration. The definitions begin: “I am the son of Augustine…”; “we must seek to be a missionary Church, building bridges, dialoguing…”; “…we want to be a synodal Church.” So far, nothing new. But let us return to the phrase: “Evil will not prevail.” So, EVIL exists. Rüdiger Safranski is essential here. This German philosopher took up EVIL as his central theme: Evil or the Drama of Freedom. From Hesiod to the Holocaust, via Hobbes, Rousseau, Heine, Goethe, Sade, Tolstoy, Freud, and Hitler. There is an entire chapter dedicated to Augustine’s Church. “The institution as protection against the abyss of the soul.” Safranski opens up a line of reasoning that differs from Hannah Arendt’s. The brilliant Jewish philosopher attended the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem as a journalist for The New Yorker. Her conclusion: he was not a monster or “the pit of evil.” The issue was more complex; the world faced the “banality of evil.” Relativism lurks, “…do what may be useful for the Führer,” said the Nazi military officer. Criticism rained down on Arendt. But this also gave rise to some very valuable research, particularly that of Stanley Milgram, which explains submission to authority and its terrible ethical consequences.
Leo XIII faced new developments and turned to Rerum Novarum. So did Leo XIV—AI—but the most serious thing is the armies of those submissive to authority in the Kremlin, Washington, Palestine, Israel, Managua, Caracas, Havana, Pyongyang, Delhi, Islamabad, etc. “Evil will not prevail” alludes to the sources of evil, which, according to St. Augustine, arose from the absence of good, where those who hold the world in check thrive. Hence, his mention of a new World War, with Pakistan and India on the brink.
The four words are compelling. The world is sick. Say yes to nuances, no to ethical complacency that justifies everything, and no to relativism. There are sources of evil that cost innocent lives every day.
Life is a supreme value. Pointing out evil is a duty.
Further Reading: