Aggressive Perplexity – Folha de S. Paulo, March 28, 1971

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

From the Buenos Aires daily La Nación, dated the 6th of this month, I transcribe the text of a telegram Pope Paul VI sent to Chile’s President, comrade Salvador Allende:

“We respond with heartfelt gratitude to Your Excellency’s kind greeting to us on your own behalf and on behalf of the Chilean government and people on the occasion of Peace Day, and at the same time, We offer our fervent wishes for Christian prosperity for this beloved nation.”

I read this message with respect. However, I admit that it left me somewhat perplexed. Nothing could be more appropriate than for the head of the Church to express “fervent wishes for Christian prosperity” for the Chilean nation. Still, I wondered, what are these wishes doing in his telegram to Allende? Indeed, the new head of state came to power with a Marxist program and is carrying it out with relentless determination. Now, by its very Marxist nature, this program cannot bring Chile any real prosperity, let alone Christian prosperity, as can be understood from the traditional teachings of the Roman Pontiffs. Therefore, it seems impossible to expect Chile to attain “Christian prosperity” under Allende’s government.

That being said, the sovereign pontiff’s wishes for “Christian prosperity” could only mean the hope that Allende would completely change course or step down from power.

I then tried to interpret the telegram in this light, replacing “ad experimentum,” and the words “Christian prosperity” with others that fit my hypothetical interpretation. Here is the result I obtained: “…at the same time, we fervently hope for a complete change of course for our beloved nation.” And I was shocked. It couldn’t be! These wishes would sound aggressive, which doesn’t fit the warm tone of the telegram. Even less satisfying was the second substitution I attempted: “…at the same time, we fervently hope that Your Excellency will resign.”

So, if these two interpretations are absurd, how can we explain Paul VI’s “fervent wishes”? — I couldn’t help but wonder…

* * *

Some readers might argue that it was just a polite gesture that shouldn’t be taken too seriously. I disagree. Considering the sacred role that Our Lord Jesus Christ entrusted to the successor of Peter, every word spoken or written by him in his role as Supreme Pontiff must be regarded as fully significant. Moreover, when officially addressing a head of state, a pope unquestionably performs an activity that is an inherent part of his pontifical duties.

This is the cause of my respectful yet inevitable confusion.

* * *

My perplexity grew when I read this in La Revista Católica (No. 1015, September-December 1970), the official publication of the Archdiocese of Santiago, Chile.

The new nuncio was received on November 19 by President Salvador Allende, to whom he presented the letters accrediting him as the pope’s representative. After a friendly exchange of greetings, the nuncio and the president held a private conversation. In his brief speech, after conveying the Holy Father’s greetings and best wishes to both the president and the Chilean people, Monsignor Sotero Sanz recalled the cooperative atmosphere that has always characterized relations between the Church and the Chilean government.

I have quoted this entire passage solely to provide context for the following sentences, which are the most interesting: the new nuncio “especially emphasized his satisfaction with the social progress program to which the country is committed, for which he assured the Church’s help, recalling the initiatives it has taken for social promotion, especially through the creation of the Justitia et Pax commission within the Roman Curia and the Populorum Progressio Fund.”

Dear reader, I will take a moment to let you catch your breath. This is only fair, as surprise and perplexity are feelings that can leave you breathless.

Let’s analyze the text. We all know that Chile “is committed” to a Marxist program. So, how can the pope’s representative be “satisfied” with such a program? More importantly, how can he “assure the Church’s help” to carry out this program? How can he claim that the actions of the pontifical commission Justitia et Pax and the Populorum Progressio Fund align with implementing the plans of the communist Allende?

* * *

“How aggressive your comments are,” someone might object. I reply that they are not. In light of these statements, I am the one being attacked because they create a very serious problem for me as a Roman Catholic. And—like the sphinx—I must either solve this problem, or it will devour me.

I follow papal teachings in all aspects, modes, and measures as prescribed by Canon Law with all my heart, and the nuncio’s speech presents me with this choice: Did I misinterpret those esteemed pontifical teachings, or are the words of Paul VI’s representative in Santiago in conflict with them?

The answer to these questions is even more vital for Catholics than air is to the lungs or light to the eyes. I would be indifferent to my faith if I remained indifferent to it.

I won’t solve this perplexity unless I confront the problem directly. Similarly, many readers won’t either unless they do the same.

I am writing to help address these aggressive questions.

* * *

An apostolic nuncio officially represents the head of the Church in dealings with the government to which he is assigned. The nuncio’s documents—letters, speeches, etc.—to the government are diplomatic in nature but do not typically constitute official acts of the Church’s magisterium. Even if they did, since the nuncio is only a delegate of the pope, and any disagreement between the ideas he expresses and the teachings of the Roman pontiffs is superseded by the latter. The representative is clearly less than the one he represents.

Therefore, we Catholics must stay firm in our loyalty to the countless papal documents condemning communism, regardless of how much the nuncio in Santiago praises Allende’s Marxist program and offers his support.

But someone might ask, what about the pope’s telegram to Allende? Isn’t it an act of the Magisterium? — Clearly not. And regardless of how it’s interpreted, that telegram lacks the pope’s intent and the authority under Church law to revoke any document of the supreme Magisterium. No canonist can doubt this.

* * *

For similar reasons, I am not shaken, nor should anyone else be, by the praise that the Holy See’s official newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, lavished on Dom Helder twice in a row. But that is another story, which I will discuss later.

I still need to address a minor issue. It involves Bishop Mário Gurgel, a former auxiliary bishop of the late Cardinal Jaime de Barros Câmara. This prelate—whose intelligence and education I appreciate—gave an interview to the press on various topics, including the TFP. Regarding our organization, Bishop Mário Gurgel’s comments were reported very differently by the media. Folha de S. Paulo only quoted these words from him: “The other Catholic newspapers and organizations that act along the lines of the TFP also do not reflect the position of the Church because they are private.”

This is a perfectly true statement. Is it sufficient?

Let Bishop Mário Gurgel imagine that I went public and claimed he cannot speak on behalf of the TFP. I would have simply told the truth. However, at the same time, I would have implied a falsehood, namely that he spoke on behalf of the TFP on a certain occasion, which never happened. Therefore, after making that statement, I would feel guilty if I hadn’t immediately clarified that Bishop Gurgel never intended to speak for us.

Wouldn’t the cultured and intelligent bishop’s conscience also prompt him to do something similar regarding the TFP?