And John Paul II? – Folha de S. Paulo, October 28, 1978

 

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

 

I feel much more comfortable in the current post-conclave climate than I did after John Paul I’s election.

With all due respect to the dead—especially ecclesiastics of such high rank as John Paul I—I must say that the general euphoria caused by his smile left me somewhat uncomfortable. For it was such an overwhelming smile that it swept away the public’s memory of the problems that surround us on all sides. This undoubtedly had the advantage of resting exhausted souls and relaxing overly tense ones. On the other hand, it could lead to widespread carelessness. Carelessness neither eliminates nor solves problems but often aggravates them tragically. For it is the great lullaby of sentinels.

The election of a bishop from behind the Iron Curtain, such as John Paul II, to the papacy has the opposite effect. He focuses attention on the most tragic of contemporary problems, around which the others incessantly perform their infernal farandole.

That problem is obvious: should the world say yes or no to communism?

October 23, 1978: the historic embrace between Pope John Paul II and his great friend, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński, Archbishop of Warsaw and Primate of Poland

Accordingly, unlike the brief and ethereal days when Albino Luciani governed the Church, the current atmosphere is marked by expectation.

The contrast between the “de-problematization” promoted by the first John Paul and the flood of problems caused by the second raises a question I mention only in passing. Psychologists, pastors of souls, advertising experts, and high-profile politicians today recognize the sometimes decisive importance of settings. It is unlikely that the conclave ignored the “setting” qualities of the smiling Patriarch of Venice and the very opposite qualities of the concerned and cautious politician that appear in the face of the Archbishop of Krakow. It could be said that the former seemed tailor-made to dampen public memory of the problems, while the latter seemed tailor-made to revive them. It is unlikely that an assembly of the stature of a conclave would have underestimated this contrast. Did it abruptly change its policy by making a second choice so different from the first? Why?

Important questions never come alone. This one brings another in its wake. If a Polish cardinal were chosen, why would the least illustrious of them, almost unknown to the general public in the West, be preferred? Why was Cardinal Wyszynski, the “Cunctator,” whom I discussed in my August 24 article, left out? Is John Paul II also a “Cunctator”? Or is he a man accustomed to making unexpected and energetic decisions?

I see a lot of disagreement around me about whether John Paul II will bring the West closer to the East or fight the East to defend the West. All things considered, predictions are of little interest. Events are moving so fast today that it is more important to analyze them than to predict them.

Now, it seems to me that there is tremendous confusion in the public mind about the criteria for analyzing John Paul II’s possible attitudes toward the communist world. Countless people have only an imperfect understanding of what communism is, and they also have an imperfect understanding of what Catholicism is. How, then, can we properly assess whether it is logical for a pope to be anticommunist or procommunist?

Let us outline the popes’ traditional teaching in this regard:

a) Communism is a philosophical system that includes a notion of the universe and of man, and, consequently, of the relations between individuals and societies: of the model of the economy, politics, and society.

b) Catholic doctrine, based on Revelation, teaches a comprehensive view of the universe, of the relations between man and society, and of how politics, sociology, and economics should be governed by God’s law.

c) Systems—let us call them that—of such breadth either harmonize at their highest doctrinal peaks or are incompatible. This is inherent in each system’s internal logic.

d) Now, given that between atheistic, materialistic, and evolutionist principles, which are at the bottom of the abysmal cone of communism, and on the other hand, the belief in one God, pure spirit, most perfect, omnipotent, and eternal, and in Jesus Christ, Man-God, the highest and hallowed point of the Catholic religion, there is a total contradiction between the two doctrines, and there can be no point of reconciliation.

e) It follows that conflict is the only coherent mutual attitude among adherents of one doctrine toward adherents of the other.

f) All this is clear to logical minds but is more or less nebulous to countless others who slumber pleasantly in the shadows of contradictions, for whom nothing is as unpleasant as logic, especially when it is elevated to its clearest extremes.

g) Even if consistent in the pure field of doctrine, a Catholic or a communist may be more or less illogical and accommodating when assessing facts. From this point of view, how will John Paul II conduct his policy? That is the big question.

h) This problem is full of nuances. All the more so because, even when logic leads to struggle, that struggle can take countless forms. Fighting not only means attacking rigidly and head-on. It also means catching the adversary off guard, disorienting and confusing them, and thus weakening them. The communists know all this perfectly well and practice it constantly, guided by their maxim that, in the class struggle, the ends justify the means.

Of course, Catholics know that the ends do not justify the means. But using lawful means also requires a considerable range of skills. Our Lord advised his disciples to combine the innocence of a dove with the cunning of a serpent (Mt. 10:16).

i) Now, in public opinion struggles among logical minorities, the accommodating majority tends to constitute a “no man’s land.” The minority that knows how to attract the majority will win.

j) The mentors of international communism are deeply committed to attracting the majority. They try to seduce those in the “no man’s land” through its doctors of illogicality, who serve as its famous “auxiliary lines” by offering them a “way out”: a) Let Catholics who reject communist atheism and materialism accept its political and socioeconomic principles; b) In exchange for this acceptance, communists grant the Church freedom of worship, provided it does not attack the communist socioeconomic regime. In short, within the Church, there would be tolerance and free rein for socioeconomic communism. And within civil society, there would be tolerance and free rein for religion, albeit stripped of its socioeconomic implications. As a result, the State would not fight the Church, and the Church would recommend that its faithful collaborate with the collectivist State.

And so we come to the sensitive point. The popes up to John XXIII taught and acted in such a way that all Catholics knew that such an outcome was impossible, because it is fundamentally contrary to the Church’s doctrine and mission. It is well known that this conviction faded in the minds of many Catholics during the pontificates of John XXIII and Paul VI. Many went so far as to affirm, with impunity, the reconciliation between the Catholic religion and communism.

What will John Paul II’s position be on this matter? How will it affect public opinion?

Each day, we will have answers to this question, whether he is clear or ambiguous. Ambiguity in the face of the unacceptable can also be a form of acceptance.

Let us pray that his actions will bring clarity to our minds, strength to our spirits, and glory to the Holy Church of God.