About the TFP – Folha de S. Paulo, November 3, 1974

 

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

 

Let me highlight a statement from an interview Bishop Ivo Lorscheiter gave to Voz do Paraná, the official mouthpiece of the Archdiocese of Curitiba (December 6, 1974). The prelate states: “As far as I am concerned, the TFP is truly heretical. For me, heresy means selecting one aspect of the Christian message. In TFP’s case, only tradition, the old, is valid. That is heresy; it is seeing only one side of the issue.”

Faith is the most precious of virtues, for it is the root of all others. Thus, for a Catholic, there is no greater sin than heresy. The prelate’s accusation against us could not be more violent. In terms of “anti-TFPism,” it is as radical as possible.

Now, the value of an accusation lies above all in the veracity of the facts on which it rests. In this specific case, what are those facts?

In August 1968, Most Rev. Lorscheiter, then Auxiliary Bishop of Porto Alegre, leveled the same accusation against the TFP. On that occasion, through the prestigious pages of Catolicismo (no. 212/214, August-October 1968), I asked His Excellency to say “in which of our statements or published books he finds the basis for his very serious accusation.” The prelate remained silent, rightly so, for those who have nothing to say in their defense have no other way out.

Years have passed, and Bishop Lorscheiter is back with the same accusation. It pains me to silence a bishop of the Holy Church once again, but what choice do I have? I therefore ask Your Excellency whether, during all this time in which both the TFP and I have continued to speak out on current issues, Your Excellency has found anything to allege that we are heretics. I predict that Your Excellency will remain silent. At least, that is what I advise you to do, in the name of prudence.

* * *

By calling the TFP “truly heretical,” CNBB’s fiery secretary-general seems to mean it in the proper and strict sense of the term, that is, in the technical and specific sense of Canon Law. Soon afterward, however, when describing what our “heresy” consists of, he points to something so vague and confusing that no average canonist would dare call it heresy. In fact, according to him, “in TFP’s case, only tradition, the old, is valid. This is heresy; it is seeing only one side of the issue.”

It would seem that His Excellency sought to make us appear heretical in the eyes of the readers of Voz do Paraná, but found no basis for it, so he launched the accusation and immediately diluted its effect.

This hypothesis is not flattering to a bishop. I prefer to imagine that it was due to thoughtlessness and confusion of concepts and terms, perhaps stemming from his mind’s turmoil as he spoke about the TFP. Radicalism…

Even so, it is not easy for me to explain how, even though I pointed out to His Excellency in 1968 that for the TFP it is not only “tradition, the old” that counts, since we support many new reforms as long as they are not tainted with communism (cf. Agrarian Reform, a Matter of Conscience, pp. 9 ff., and the entire Morro Alto Declaration), His Excellency had nothing to say in response. Now, years later, he returns to the charge, always with the same unproven accusations.

* * *

In fact, inaccuracies harmful to the TFP are frequent in the prelate’s interview. For example, as we have seen, “As far as I am concerned, the TFP is heretical.” Note that this is his personal opinion. Later, he also states about the TFP: “We say: this is not a Christian position. It is heretical.”

The question arises: since Bishop Lorscheiter is the CNBB’s secretary-general, does the CNBB share his views? He does not say so, and the confusion remains, harming the TFP.

This confusion is further fueled by another statement from Bishop Lorscheiter: “The TFP issue was addressed at CNBB’s last general assembly two years ago, and it was reiterated that all radical positions cannot be maintained within the Christian faith.”

Was it said? By whom? An unsuspecting reader thinks it was said by the CNBB. Well, it absolutely did not say such a thing. “It was said,” perhaps by someone on their own behalf, during the debates. However, this statement does not appear in the CNBB’s press communiqué.

As can be seen, Bishop Lorscheiter’s statements were confusing—confusion that was entirely detrimental to the TFP.

* * *

I do not disagree with everything His Excellency said in the interview. I read in it an obvious, true, golden general principle: “Christians cannot be radical in the sense of intolerance, unilateralism, and so on.” How wonderful it would be if the vibrant secretary-general of the CNBB would examine his conscience regarding his interview to verify that it is not radical, intolerant, or unilateral; that it does not sin with the same “radicalism” he attributes to the TFP.

I am sure his conscience will tell him it is. If he wants proof, he needs only to examine his interview and the reflections I have recorded here.