About an Imaginary Dog – Folha de S. Paulo, December 15, 1974

 

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

 

I have just received from a friend a back issue of a major Rio de Janeiro morning newspaper.

I read the following topic in a serious section featuring various news items on political, economic, and cultural life: “Most Rev. Antônio de Castro Maia, Bishop of Campos, had a dog he called Maritain. As far as we know, Jacques Maritain did not have dogs.”

This newspaper is particularly rich in ecclesiastical news and is even said to be CNBB’s favorite. This does not prevent it from launching a most irreverent joke at the illustrious Bishop of Campos (whose name, incidentally, is not Maia but Mayer). It insinuates that if Maritain had a dog, it would have been very funny to name it after Bishop Mayer in retaliation.

I have never seen such a blunt and disrespectful joke about a prelate.

But what is most noteworthy is that I can confidently report that Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer, a close friend of mine, has never owned a dog.

Should I add that he could not have named his dog Maritain? We live in such confusing times that I’d better do it out of an excess of caution.

Everything in this little note boils down to malice, slander, and irreverence.

Why give so much importance to this nonsense? Isn’t it obvious that a bishop of the intellectual and moral stature of the distinguished prelate of Campos would never commit the mischief this news story ascribes to him?

Undoubtedly. But I am not writing this comment to defend my friend Bishop Mayer. My goal is to analyze the mentality and methods of his attacker.

This is not about wasting time analyzing his individual psychology. My goal in this brief sample is to analyze the campaign method that progressives, socialists, and communists continually employ against that prelate and the TFP.

From the beginning to the end of each year, an effervescence of untruths bubbles up against us from north to south across the country. As some grow old, others come to replace them in an almost uninterrupted succession. Curiously, the same untruth sometimes erupts simultaneously in the far north and far south of the country before spreading to the center. How did it arise at the same time in such distant corners?

Someone may ask me: What right do I have to attribute this attack to progressives or similar sources? The explanation is simple.

Jacques Maritain’s influence in Brazil was significant, reaching its peak between 1940 and 1960. From the outset, it was embraced by Catholic elements that constituted what was then known as the Catholic left, Christian Democracy, and related movements.

These circles gave rise to the Catholic leftism that supported [former leftist President João] Goulart and almost brought Brazil to its knees. In the post-Goulart era, they continue to operate within centrist or leftist circles. They exert influence by inviting people to take one more step toward the left. They rarely ask for more than one step. But once that step is taken, they ask for another, and then another…

At that time, the team that wrote the São Paulo weekly Legionário and later joined forces in the monthly Catolicismo immediately rose up against Maritain’s influence. Bishop Mayer’s sharp and astute pen supported the anti-Maritain offensive in both publications. My unforgettable friend José de Azeredo Santos also stood out in this struggle. Outside our team, the equally unforgettable Father Arlindo Vieira, S.J., did so as well.

Thus, with Azeredo, Father Arlindo Vieira, and Maritain deceased, the news I transcribed above is a splash from that controversy. Where does it come from? Where could it come from but from Maritainist circles, whose tendencies have now become explicit in the progressive current?

I don’t know why this burst of bile took written form, since progressives prefer not to write. As I said, they take pleasure in careful oral detraction because it is intangible.

Moreover, they always avoid doctrinal refutation (and rightly so, since their doctrine is indefensible). Instead, they focus on personal accusations.

Therefore, the little note in the Rio de Janeiro newspaper serves a useful purpose: to catch the opponent’s trickery in the act. Scripta manent…

As a final comment, happy are those against whom their opponents cannot successfully articulate arguments or methods. “Successfully”? How popular or unpopular are Bishop Mayer and the TFP? This is a topic I will discuss at any moment. I am sure many people will be surprised when I tell them everything I have to say about it.