by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Father Arrupe’s recent visit to Russia, as the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, has highlighted a key issue in modern religious life.
According to press reports, the purpose of the trip was to visit Moscow’s “Patriarch” Pimen, make contact with the Russian “Orthodox Church,” and participate in the “Orthodox” liturgical feast of the Assumption. All these quotation marks are mine and clash with the symbolic meaning of the trip by the illustrious successor of St. Ignatius, so I do not attribute them to him. I am the one writing, and the quotation marks are fully aligned with my mentality, so here they are.
On the left, Pimen. On the right, the Superior General of the Jesuits, Father Arrupe.
In fact, I have already explained this in a previous article (“Lessons in the Neighbor’s Garden,” Folha de S. Paulo, July 25, 1971).
Since the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church, she alone has the right to be called orthodox, a Greek adjective that refers to those who hold correct beliefs. Now, only an infallible Church—the Catholic Church—can possess the complete truth. I also dispute that Pimen is a patriarch anywhere. I am sure that the “church’ he belongs to does not deserve the name. Therefore, I deny that it is a true continuation or an authentic part of the Russian Greek-Schismatic Church of the time of the tsars.
For all these reasons, I wonder what Father Arrupe was doing with Pimen and his flock. Although I lack the information to answer this question, I do note, however, a prominent and essential fact.
By agreeing to sit side by side with Pimen and his followers, Rev. Father Arrupe implicitly acknowledged that he takes them seriously as a religion, a Church, and a hierarchy. Therefore, Pimen’s pseudo-Christian clique, which many doubted, received a valuable endorsement in the eyes of countless Catholics.
Who did this endorsement serve? Was it only for the clique? No. It does not act independently. Stalin artificially created it to mask, at least to some extent, the Kremlin’s true goal behind and beyond the Iron Curtain, which is to eradicate religion from the face of the earth. In other words, the raison d’être of Pimen’s “church” is to spread communist propaganda among those whose religious beliefs the communists aim to destroy.
From all this, it follows that the result of the eminent Jesuit’s trip was to facilitate the game of the Kremlin despots.
I do not mean to judge Father Arrupe’s intentions with these words. I only state this fact: the Kremlin has gained all the benefits.
I say this with unspeakable sadness. I am honored to have been a student of the Society of Jesus, and the principles of the great St. Ignatius of Loyola have shaped my spiritual life and character. In writing this, I felt as if I were cutting into my own flesh. Or worse, my own soul. Still, no matter how painful it is, this is the full truth, and I owe it to my readers.
* * *
I sense that “toadish” readers will shake their heads when they learn of my assessment of Father Arrupe’s trip outcome. They will wisely avoid debating the merits of the issue. Instead, they will voice complaints in a gentle, questioning manner, skirting around the main point: “Why does he adopt such peremptory language, such an exclusivist attitude, such strict logic in this matter?”
Here, I am not specifically addressing the “toads” because experience has consistently shown that a “toad” can only be convinced by a miracle of the first magnitude. One of those dazzling and sublime miracles, which I have no news of in these ordinary and dull days. My focus is only on those for whom the “toad” argument has some effect.
I ask them what else I could do besides using such logic, exclusivity, and language. Kremlin Machiavellians are carrying out a major deception in the eyes of the world, like Pimen’s “church,” to help them take control of power worldwide. So, where is our duty as anticommunists?
To remain silent? No. I am reminded, in this regard, of a verse by Edmond Rostand:
Tout ce qui, trop longtemps, reste dans l’ombre et dort, s’habitue au mensonge et consent à la mort ! [Everything that remains too long in the shadows and sleeps becomes accustomed to lies and consents to death].[1]
To watch my words? In that case, what should I say? Should I describe the atheist despots of the Kremlin as friendly gentlemen, just a little misguided in faith? Or call the mitered agents of atheism venerable and friendly pastors? That would certainly be very pleasant, mainly because it would free me from facing the sad truth that logic has led me to regarding Father Arrupe’s trip. Also, instead of “toadish” counter-propaganda, I would enjoy the abundant and flattering praise that the “toad” world always gives to those in harmony with it. However, this language would not sit well with my conscience.
Therefore, the only option I have is to speak loudly and clearly. I am compelled to do so because of my love for the Church and Christian civilization. Seeing them threatened by a masked enemy—Pimen’s sect—I step up to defend them and remove his mask.
If my reader were walking down a dark street with a friend, and suddenly a masked attacker jumped on him, what would my reader expect his friend to do? Clearly, he would expect his friend to help wrestle the weapon and mask away from the attacker.
And if his friend did that, my reader would see him as brave, devoted, and skilled.
That said, my reader should understand that, within my ability, I aim to do the same in defense of the Church and Christian civilization.
* * *
In a climate of conformity, softness, and mellowing that characterizes Western public opinion, these considerations are necessary for someone to feel comfortable reasoning logically and calling things by their proper names.
With this, most of my article is gone. However, I will use the remaining space to briefly explore the core of the issue.
It’s not new to readers. In my previous article, I had the chance to highlight the major benefits the Kremlin’s policies gain from the existence of the “Orthodox Church,” which was founded and is led by the leaders of world atheism. Examining these benefits alone weakens the credibility of this “church.” A church’s core purpose is to serve—or at least claim to serve—God. But it cannot be taken seriously as a church if it openly serves atheism, whose leaders rule it oppressively.
It seems to me, however, that the subject can be explored further. A brief history of religious persecution in communist Russia is enough to demonstrate that the pre-Bolshevik “Orthodox Church” was not merely a propaganda tool casually set up by the Kremlin or driven by random circumstances. From their start in 1917, the persecutions aimed not only at the seemingly impossible goal of eradicating religion in Russia. Given the slim chances of success, their real goal was more modest, more achievable, and therefore more effective: to terrorize, divide, and disorganize the Greek Schismatic Church, to exhaust as many of its followers as possible through brutality and confusion, and ultimately to force them to accept a new hierarchy created, appointed, and controlled by the godless. Turning religion and its ministers into agents of irreligion was the most cunning strategy in Kremlin Machiavellianism.
What stages did this process go through? We will explore this in another article. For now, I can only note that in 1971, the process is achieving spectacular results.
Evidence of this is the visit by St. Ignatius’ successor, a visit so prestigious for those visited… and so lackluster for the illustrious visitor.
[1] Chantecler, Fasquelle Editeurs, Paris, 1957, 217.