A Letter to Unknown Ministers – Folha de S. Paulo, October 26, 1969

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

It’s Wednesday evening, and the names of our future ministers are still unknown. However, I felt compelled to write a letter to two of them — the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This will be the first letter addressed to them as holders of their respective positions, since the incoming president may not have finalized their appointments yet. I hope that the modest honor of being the first to send such a letter will catch the attention of the distinguished recipients.

The reader might wonder why I call them distinguished if I don’t know their names. Usually, a future minister is considered distinguished. If not now, they will be once they become a minister. After explaining this, the question of how to address them still remains. It’s not common to address a letter to “Mr. Future Minister of Justice” or “Mr. Future Minister of Foreign Affairs.” Also, where do they live? This problem is solved by giving the letter to the pages of this newspaper. So then, unknown ministers, let me get to the point.

* * *

To be polite, I will be brief and straightforward. I want to discuss Brazil’s immunization against the communist threat.

The communist threat involves not just the actions of the Communist Party but also its preparatory or supporting groups, whether they are called Marxist, socialist, or leftist. Evidence shows that this threat is much smaller within the tiny, divided Communist Party itself than among these supporting groups. Only they are capable of infiltrating our environment. Specifically, among these supporting groups, the “Catholic left” is the only one that truly needs to be considered. The Gospel warns us about wolves in sheep’s clothing (Mt 7:15). A priest’s cassock is the most effective disguise. Or, by analogy, a Catholic leader’s reputation.

By “immunization,” I mean anything that can stop the danger. And since a danger can only be eliminated by removing its causes, I want to eliminate the influence of the Catholic left.

I’m not talking about depriving left-wingers of their freedom or deporting foreign left-wingers. Depending on each situation, these actions might or might not be fair or effective. They could reduce the danger, but can’t eliminate it entirely. In some cases, I would add, they can even be counterproductive. The Catholic left thrives on the influence of the Catholic label, and this influence can’t be removed simply through legal or judicial measures. The real solution is to remove the label.

In Brazil, there was only one religious issue: the conflict between the imperial government and Dom Vital Maria de Oliveira and Dom Antonio de Macedo Costa. Following the Holy See’s directives, the brave bishops of Olinda and Pará banned their followers from joining Freemasonry. The imperial government considered the ban illegal and arrested the bishops, sparking widespread support for the prelates, whose church immunities were violated simply for fulfilling their duties. The imperial government was forced to yield. The Rio Branco cabinet fell, and the bishops were pardoned at the request of the Duke of Caxias. A widespread celebration greeted Caxias’s just and wise action and the triumph of the two bishops.

If we want to prevent repeating the tragic mistake of the Rio Branco cabinet from both religious and civil viewpoints, we must act with justice, firmness, and wisdom.

* * *

There is a vast and radical difference between the case of the bishops of Olinda and Pará in the 19th century and today’s Catholic left. The two prominent prelates of the Empire acted entirely in line with the Catholic perspective, and then-Pope Pius IX fully supported them. In contrast, the Catholic left does not represent the Church’s thinking and does not warrant the support of the Catholic hierarchy or the people.

I understand what I am writing, and I am confident that no one in Brazil will dare to contradict me. I affirm that communism is incompatible with Catholic doctrine, not only because it is rooted in a materialistic philosophy and rejects the family institution, but also because it abolishes private property. As a result, the Church cannot be secure and free under a communist regime. I outline the reasons for this in the essay titled The Freedom of the Church in the Communist State, which has been published in eight languages and received high praise in a letter from the Holy See’s Congregation for Seminaries and Universities. For similar reasons, socialism and other derivatives of communist propaganda are plainly incompatible with religion.

People in large cities across Brazil are aware of an active communist or communist-leaning group within Catholic circles. However, many people in medium-sized and small towns have only a limited view of this situation. Therefore, I ask Your Excellency, Mr. Minister of Justice, to compile a comprehensive report that demonstrates this troubling reality using the documents seized by the police and to ensure its wide distribution throughout Brazil.

And I suggest to Your Excellency, Mr. Secretary of State, that, supported by the clamor of the vast majority of the country, you ask the Holy See to take measures on behalf of the Church to discredit the Comblins of all kinds who use the Church to demolish Brazil.

The case of Bishops Dom Vital and Dom Macedo Costa drew worldwide attention. Your Excellency, Mr. Foreign Minister, can easily imagine the significant international impact if Brazil, now threatened by subversion, asked Paul VI to take urgent and strong canonical measures to halt the left’s attempt to speak on behalf of the Church.

It would be like trying to square the circle to think that Paul VI would remain insensitive to such a fair request. From a purely diplomatic standpoint, how disastrous would it be in the eyes of the world if the pontiff refused to act to save the most populous Catholic country on earth from collapse and chaos? If this unlikely scenario turned out to be true, it could be said that the world is heading toward the final cliff.

* * *

Even the most hardened pessimists—I don’t believe your excellencies are among them—could only oppose the measures I propose by questioning their usefulness.

Suppose I agree with them “for the sake of argument.” Is that a reason not to take those measures? Why not try it if they cost nothing and can produce excellent results?

* * *

Therefore, I respectfully ask you to present this suggestion to the new head of state. Many fellow citizens will find it fair, timely, and effective. My Brazilian heart also leads me to believe that, even just for this reason, the distinguished General Garrastazu Medici will kindly support this proposal.

With my warmest regards and gratitude, I pray that Providence grants you every success in your respective tenures for Christian Brazil’s security, prosperity, and glory.