Are the Segments Falling Apart? – Folha de S. Paulo, March 20, 1978

 

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

 

A few decades ago, the Church’s influence on the Brazilian people was so profound that I formed an “ecclesiocentric” impression of the national reality, in which the hierarchy’s guidance was the most influential factor in events. Hence, the internal life of the Church—where this guidance was, so to speak, elaborated—was the most active element in the life of the country.

Of course, my rather bold impression had nuances, the most important of which is obvious: as a spiritual society, the Church limited itself to acting within its own field. It intervened in the temporal field only when there was a risk of violating one of God’s commandments.

Thus, the Church refrained from influencing a wide range of issues not out of weakness but out of a noble recognition of the intrinsic limitations of its field of action. An “ecclesiocentric” conception would be inappropriate for these issues. Even so…

Yes, even so, a distinction had to be made. It was enough for someone in one of these specifically temporal areas to suggest something contrary to the Church’s teaching to encounter its clear, serene, but unyielding opposition. And the hierarchy most often prevailed in that confrontation.

I have said elsewhere and repeat here that this immense influence has suffered a marked decline in Brazil—as indeed throughout the world—because of the progressive crisis that began undermining Catholic circles as early as the final years of Pius XII’s pontificate.

How could this influence not diminish if the faithful find in the Church the nauseating “smoke of Satan” to which Paul VI publicly and officially referred?

To recall another of his statements, imagine a beautiful palace built on a high point in a city. Everyone sees it and admires it. The entire population boasts of it. If the palace owners suddenly decide to demolish it and its once-splendid facade begins to look like a ruin, how can the building’s prestige among citizens be prevented from declining? Now, Paul VI himself also publicly and officially alluded to the Church’s mysterious “process of self-demolition.” The source of the Church’s prestige is the Church itself. If it demolishes itself, how can we imagine that it will not destroy its own prestige?

Here is an example of self-demolition caused by the smoke.

Early last month, the daily press reported that Paul VI, speaking at the Lenten audience, expressed his “immense regret” over the growing number of apostasies among the priesthood. In 1975 alone, 4,000 priests, friars, and nuns deserted. On this subject, Paul VI said, “The statistics disturb us, the individual cases disconcert us, the motivations demand our reverence and compassion, but they cause us immense pain.”

That they cause immense pain is readily understood. In passing, it is much less clear how, given “the motivations” for these apostasies, Paul VI affirms that they demand “reverence and compassion.” As for compassion, it can still be explained in many cases. But reverence?

Let us return to the subject at hand.

The news adds that most of these apostasies occur in the context of marriage. However, it is not uncommon for them to occur due to a doctrinal break with the Catholic Church. According to the news, in many cases, this break takes the form of clear adherence to Marxist doctrine.

To my knowledge, these widely reported facts have not been denied by anyone in Brazil or abroad. How can we imagine that such calamitous events would not undermine the prestige of religion?

Nevertheless, it is worth noting two ecclesiastical events that took place last week. One concerns the International Days for a Society Overcoming Domination, which were approved (if at all) at the last minute during the episcopate’s meeting in Itaici, at the proposal of Most Rev. Cândido Padim, bishop of Bauru. Cardinal Bernardin Gantin, assisted by Fr. Roger Heckel, S.J., as well as Most Rev. Roger Etchegaray, Archbishop of Marseille and President of the French Episcopal Conference, and others, were here in recent days to discuss this matter with the CNBB. From the news and press commentary, it is clear that the Days aim to address all forms of inequality that still exist, including those within the Church. If the Days’ task is ever completed, there will be no more domination or inequalities. In other words, the world will have become communist without Moscow having committed itself (at least openly) to this move.

Be amazed, O peoples! Paul VI seems to have expressed reservations about the already notorious International Days for a Society Overcoming Domination. And be amazed once again, O peoples! Cardinal Lorscheider would have been the channel for these reservations to the Brazilian episcopate and would have been openly contradicted by Dom Helder Camara, the red archbishop, Paul VI’s favorite bishop and great friend of the cardinal archbishop of Fortaleza.

All according to what the press reported or implied.

If a group of friends can be compared to a fruit full of life, with its segments clinging closely together, one would say that the immense tangerine of left-wing Catholicism in Brazil has lost some of its vigor and cohesion. The segments seem to be falling apart.

The incident in the Eastern Region II (Minas and Espirito Santo) of the CNBB also points in this direction. The respective bishops, meeting a few days ago, decided to categorically reject a draft document prepared by the preparatory commission for the CELAM (Latin American Episcopal Council) meeting to be held soon in Puebla. Now, this proposal, which mitigates some of the theses approved at the CELAM meeting in Medellin in 1968, seems to enjoy Rome’s blessing.

Considering these facts as a whole, one is led to believe that different nuances may eventually gain ground within the ranks of “Catholic leftism,” which until now has been so compact, united, and well-directed. On one side would be the ecclesiastical extreme left, of which Dom Helder is an undisputed symbol. On the other side is a somewhat (or slightly) less radical left, influenced by Paul VI’s hesitations and often described as “Hamletian.”

What will these nuances lead to? The question can only be answered by reference to an exciting historical point whose scope is incompatible with the dimensions of this article. Some say that when the left splits into radical and moderate factions, the radicals initially gain power but lose sympathy. In a second round, based on that sympathy, the moderates oust the radicals from power. In a third round, they end up implementing the radicals’ program, albeit slowly and with many smiles. So, the split can sometimes be a loss for the left, but it is more often a smart move that pays off in the medium term.

Is this applicable to the current case?

The first step would be the Helderian tyranny under which we have lived until now. The second step—or move—would be the split.

There is great confusion in a Church infiltrated and intoxicated by the “smoke of Satan” and subject to the feverish comings and goings of those who “self-destruct” her, and it is not easy to discern such subtle developments. A careful observation of the unfolding facts will enable us to do so.

For my part, I intend to make this observation with a heart overflowing with the desire that everything will lead to the cessation of self-destructive activities and the expulsion of the “smoke of Satan,” while maintaining the impartial serenity of those who refuse to form a distorted view of reality born of the suggestions of soft optimism or melodramatic catastrophism.