that association is committed to practical means of realization of policies set forth in such Papal encyclicals as the 1967 Progressio Populorum> and more recent. No one who knows those encylcicals and knows my policies of practice during the recent twenty-odd years could have any reasonable doubt of this fact.
Specifically, on account of the latter of the two cited Encyclicals, I concur most
emphatically to the reference to the structures of sin" currently dominating, respectively, the East and the West. The tradition of constituting powerful ealthy families prone to sundry forms of usury, as a form of ower over nations cast in the image of the Gods of Olympus, s the essence of those "structures of sin" which have ngendered the greatest evils afflicting the community of ations today.
I am content that such families should prosper, and enjoy uch prosperity for themselves. I
will never accept their fficient conspiring to constitute themslves a power above epresentative governments of sovereign nations, to such effect hat they cast themselves in the image of the mythical Gods of lympus. The former status of such families is a set of matters which is negotiable with me; the latter is not.
My particular commitments ought to be very well known from oth my
published statements and the consistency of all my olicy-formulation in consistency with those statements. I ist the most relevant of those commitments here, to ensure bsolute clarity of the import of this message of reply.
I am essentially a Christian philosopher, and, with that pecific
qualification a "philosopher king" in the sense defined y Plato. This role has emerged as a kind of metamorphosis f the central personal developments in my life during the years 934-1952. Those developments are essentially two; they are istinct, but closely interrelated.
First, at the age of twelve, I embarked upon a study of eading modern
philosophers of the seventeenth and eighteenth enturies. Out of this, I came to abhor everything repres-nted by Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, David ume, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and to establish myself, ince the period of my thirteenth and fourteenth years, a ollower of Leibniz. My development as a philosopher, and all f my principal intellectual and related achievements since, as forged in my work of disproving the central dogmas of mmanuel Kant's , in defense of Leibniz.
Second, the intertwining of my youthful preparations for possible entry
into the Christian ministry with these philo-