A Political Tidbit – Folha de S. Paulo, September 26, 1977
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Today, I have what I consider a first-rate tidbit for my readers. It is an unpublished document whose significance is readily apparent.
At a time when the political maelstrom surrounding the issue of political institutionalization is growing ever more intense, and when the effort to get prominent figures or Church institutions to speak out on the matter is becoming clearer by the day, one question arises: to what extent can and should the Church take a stand and enter the fray?
I recently spoke with one of the most illustrious and widely respected figures in the Latin American episcopate, Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer of Campos, on this subject.
Both of us praised Cardinal Vicente Scherer, Archbishop of Porto Alegre, for his recent statements on the subject in the August 29 edition of the Voz do Pastor radio program, which he repeated in an interview with Folha on September 18.
In this regard, Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer informed me of an enlightening text he had sent on June 8 of this year to Most Rev. Geraldo Fernandes, Archbishop of Londrina and Vice President of the CNBB.
It seemed to me that the Brazilian public could not be denied access to this masterpiece of lucidity, clarity, and conciseness, which addresses such a topical issue. Yes, I managed to persuade the great bishop of Campos to allow me to publish his work in this column for the benefit of my Folha readers:
“For some time now, the debate about the country’s current form of government has been intensifying: Is it a democracy or a dictatorship?
“The issue is complicated by others: has the communist threat in Brazil become so serious that it justifies a partial application of our Constitution? Does granting complete political freedom to communist agents jeopardize the stability of our institutions? Or, on the contrary, does repression pose a risk to these institutions by exacerbating tensions and intensifying communist attacks?
“Finally, is it certain that repression is being carried out in an inhumane manner and in violation of natural law?
“I do not propose to answer here what I personally believe to be right in each of these matters. I do wonder, however, to what extent, as Bishop of the Holy Church, I have the right and duty to pronounce on them.
“As for the last question, the answer is obvious. Communism is an erroneous doctrine and, as such, has no right to freedom. Therefore, as a bishop, I cannot oppose police repression of communism.
“Unfortunately, whether for political or common crimes, police repression lends itself to abuses in all Western countries (never mind those behind the Iron Curtain, which are beyond description). The ecclesiastical authority fulfills its duty by systematically protesting these abuses.
“For their action to be entirely worthy of applause in this matter, it is essential that such abuses be duly proven. I believe that the sacred voice of the Church, rising up against them with firmness and dignity and hovering far above the media uproar of certain demagogic campaigns, can be truly effective in helping the victims of such abuses. It cannot achieve this when it is mingled with subversive noise.
“As for the other points, it seems to me that a bishop should abstain.
“It is Catholic doctrine, known to all of us, that the Church does not favor any form of government, provided it is not intrinsically unjust. Now, dictatorship, a transitional form of government whose duration may be imposed by circumstances, is not unjust in itself.
“Therefore, we bishops, as well as the CNBB, have no right to tell the country to adopt it or to choose democracy.
“This observation is all the more timely given the growing number of ecclesiastical pronouncements among us declaring that democracy is the only truly just form of government. From this, it would follow that the Church must fight dictatorship ratione peccati [under pain of sin].
“Now, Leo XIII clearly showed that the three forms of government—by one, by some, or by all—contain nothing intrinsically contrary to justice. He also showed that those who invoke the Church’s authority to compel the faithful to choose one of these forms are abusing the Church.
“And St. Pius X formally condemned as a modernist error the thesis that democracy is the only form of government in accordance with justice.
“Like all Catholics, the bishops are free to choose one of these forms. However, they may do so only when they make clear that they are speaking not as bishops of the Holy Church but as individuals expressing their strictly personal opinion.
“If this precaution is not taken, the people will not distinguish between the opinions of the citizen and the bishop in their pronouncements. And the bishops will expose themselves to using the sacred prestige of the fullness of the priesthood for the benefit of an exclusively political and entirely personal choice.
“Furthermore, how can the edifying impression of unity among the bishops be maintained in the eyes of the people if they give in to the habit of pronouncing on free and contingent matters, on which another bishop or a member of the faithful may hold an opposing opinion?
“These considerations, which are in strict accordance with Catholic tradition, are even more relevant to the CNBB, its representatives, and its representative bodies. This is because the media often present them as representatives of the episcopate’s overall thinking. Therefore, they cannot comment on matters on which the episcopate does not and cannot have an overall position.
“Allow me to add a few considerations about the appropriateness of anticommunist repression.
“As I mentioned above, communism, which is intrinsically evil, has no right to freedom. Normally, the temporal power that represses its spread performs a sacred duty.
“Normally, too, this repression is opportune, since the repression of evil is opportune except in very special circumstances (which must be carefully verified).
“Therefore, the ecclesiastical authority has the right and duty to categorically applaud the repression of communism. Although it nobly rebels against abuses, it must do so without appearing to refuse its prestige and support for repression.
“At a time when Russia and China are notoriously shaking up the world with their propaganda, asking whether the communist threat is serious in Brazil seems ridiculous. This danger is so serious that questions and hypotheses about the possible implementation of communism in our country have already been considered by the bishops of the Southern Region II of the CNBB (cf. Voz do Paraná, April 25 to May 1, 1976).
“I believe, not only as a Brazilian but as a bishop, that we should censure a government that does not repress communism within the norms of natural law rationi peccati.
“Will such repression be inappropriate? Will it exacerbate tensions? Will it aggravate the danger? These are specious questions, all essentially political in nature, on which temporal power must pronounce. As for the spiritual power, since the temporal power informs us that such repression is necessary (always carried out according to natural law, I emphasize), it is up to us to accept this assertion as normal, proven, and valid, and entirely worthy of applause. And to refrain from delving into questions that pertain exclusively to the field of political wisdom.
“It would be easy for certain media outlets to stir up demagoguery against such a course of action by claiming that a government that denies any faction of public opinion, even communists, the right to organize, disseminate their ideas, and have legal access to power is not a true democracy. Hence, I would be excluding democracy from the legitimate forms of government.
“In reality, to be authentic, democracy must effectively repress communism. For it is not in accordance with Christian doctrine that democracy should grant error every freedom to deceive the people, and evil every liberty to lead them astray, and to take supreme control of public affairs. Such would be characteristic of a neo-pagan Leviathan democracy.
“On the contrary, according to the traditional teaching of the Popes, notably that of Pius XII, a democracy that safeguards the population’s legitimate freedoms from error and evil is Christian.
“In our specific case—I emphasize—this error and evil are notoriously spread from outside the country to extinguish our national sovereignty and the remnants of Christian civilization among us.
“For all these reasons, I consider it an invasion of jurisdiction for us to discuss legitimate forms of government for our country or to hesitate without evidence or foundation regarding the necessity of anticommunist repression.”
