Asking a Bishop About Non-Atheistic Communism – Folha de S. Paulo, May 16, 1971

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

Bishop Ivo Lorscheiter, Secretary General of the CNBB, made some statements about the TFP in a note published in Última Hora on the 8th of this month. I read them with keen interest, not only because of the prelate’s high position in the representative body of Brazilian bishops, but also because of his renowned theological knowledge. As I read through the note, some reflections came to mind, which I will share here.

* * *

First of all, I was positively impressed by the sincere effort Bishop Lorscheiter made to speak impartially about the TFP: “I confess,” he said, “that I do not find it very easy to say the right and appropriate words” about the TFP. For this reason, fearing that he might be seen as “unfair, unjust, or one-sided” toward us, he asked us to understand his assessments as “a call for balanced reflection and constructive attitudes of cooperation.”

As a sign of his impartiality, Bishop Lorscheiter made some positive references to the TFP. Not only did he say that he respected the “personal and intimate intentions of the TFP leaders, members, and supporters,” but he also claimed that the TFP “obviously” shows “positive values in some of its attitudes and initiatives to defend the family, which motivated … a prayer program this month of May.”

All this being said, and as a response to the “sincerity and charity” he wished to refer to us, Bishop Lorscheiter suggested that the “TFP reexamine its reason for existence, objectives, methods of action, and the principles that guide its program.” He also added: “I suggest that the TFP engage in honest self-criticism regarding its recent attitude of publicly contesting documents approved by all the bishops present at the XII General Assembly in Belo Horizonte.”

Having clarified Bishop Lorscheiter’s intentions of impartiality, what can be said?

Initially, it’s hard to understand His Excellency’s attempt to stay impartial or his confusion when discussing an entity like the TFP, which is clear, simple, and logical. It’s so straightforward, simple, and logical that people from all views express enthusiasm or hostility toward it without ambiguity or hesitation, openly and definitively.

Reading Bishop Lorscheiter’s text, one might say that when discussing the TFP, he sensed violent tendencies toward bias and aimed to control them.

If this is the case, and while finding it hard to understand the reasons for these inclinations in a bishop’s heart, I respect his efforts to suppress them. At the same time, I wonder if His Excellency was entirely successful in this endeavor. With all due respect, I would say no.

Let me explain.

In his note, the distinguished secretary of the CNBB mentioned a society like the TFP, which has published numerous works. These works have made a deep impact and are widely available. Also, the TFP has carried out several public campaigns across the country. With so much material available to form an opinion about the TFP, Bishop Lorscheiter’s first concern should be to study it carefully and then judge it, from an impartial viewpoint. He can decide whether our books are good or bad, whether our campaigns are good or bad. That is what an objective judgment involves. The learned prelate can be assured that we would respectfully listen and carefully examine whatever he chooses to share with us.

However, the bishop has taken a different approach. With his mind clouded by negative impressions about us, he didn’t bother to thoroughly examine either the works or campaigns of the TFP. He also issued a statement filled with unverified suspicions. To appear impartial, he only added a few compliments to the text.

The reader can understand these suspicions through two examples.

Bishop Lorscheiter praises the prayers we offered this past May but immediately adds a suspicion: he praises these prayers as long as they are performed “within the rules of every religious act.” It seems strange that he suspects our prayers violate such rules. But if His Excellency harbors such suspicion, why does he not have these prayers examined? Nothing would be easier, since they were performed in front of an oratory that faces directly onto the sidewalk. On the contrary, His Excellency does not clarify what is happening before sharing his distrust. Once again, and with all due respect, I ask: can this be called impartiality?

Here’s another example. His Excellency appears to be concerned that the TFP is a “factor of regrettable disunity and a school that distorts mentalities.” In the Church, those who fall into error create disunity, while those who stay faithful to the truth foster unity. So, when the TFP debates with Fr. Comblin, for instance, it doesn’t divide but unites. If we’re wrong, it would be fair and kind to point it out. Conversely, if we avoid error and defend the truth firmly and politely, then how can we be called a “regrettable factor of disunity”?

A similar point could be argued about the “school that distorts mentalities.”

* * *

I do not want my words to be seen merely as a defense of the TFP. I hope to reach a more positive conclusion. So, Your Excellency, please allow me to make a request. It seems that, according to your note, our statements and attitudes regarding the family have, at least in part, received your approval. However, you only praise us when it comes to the family. Therefore, it’s worth asking what your thoughts are on what we have written about tradition and property, especially concerning property, since we have written less often about tradition.

If I am not mistaken, one can interpret from Bishop Lorscheiter’s omission in this area that his concerns are mainly rooted in this issue. Therefore, for fairness, I respectfully ask His Excellency to form and share his opinion on this matter.

Since individual property is a very broad topic, I suggest Bishop Lorscheiter focus specifically on one point. Let’s imagine a group of far-left Catholics rising to power in a country like Poland, Italy, or Brazil. By definition, these Catholics would not be atheists. Would they, as Catholics, remain obedient to the traditional teachings of the popes? For this article, that question isn’t relevant. What is certain is that they would not be atheists.

Let us also assume that these Catholics aimed to establish an economic and social system in which private property was abolished, with all assets transferred to the State or large cooperatives. And let us admit that, at the same time, these Catholics guaranteed the Church complete freedom of worship.

As you can see, Your Excellency, they would not attempt to establish a community of goods based on materialistic and atheistic Marxism, but—I am confident—on a false interpretation of Catholic doctrine.

I ask Your Excellency whether, in your opinion, Catholics could accept such a regime. The question boils down to this: Must Catholics oppose communism only when the doctrinal basis used to establish the community of goods is atheistic, or also when it is religious?

For my part, I do not doubt that, in either case, an economic and social regime involving the community of goods is unacceptable to the Catholic conscience. Does Your Excellency think so too?

I consider the answer to this question crucial for evaluating the TFP, and therefore, I ask Bishop Lorscheiter to respond with the clarity and fairness we all should expect.

* * *

One last request. Out of everything the TFP has published, the only thing Bishop Lorscheiter seems to have read is an article titled “Double Standard,” which I published in Folha de S. Paulo about the pronouncement of the 12th General Assembly of the CNBB. I examined my conscience before writing it, when I submitted it to the press, and once again now, and I see nothing wrong with it. I cannot understand from Bishop Lorscheiter’s note what he disliked about my article. Would Your Excellency kindly clarify this for me, indicating what it was?

* * *

Here are the reflections and questions that Bishop Lorscheiter’s Note suggested to me. I present them to the prelate, while assuring him that I will respectfully consider his eventual response.