Bishop Isnard: The End of the Matter – Folha de S. Paulo, June 10, 1973
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Fortunately, today I am finishing the comments I felt I should publish regarding the decree of Most Rev. Isnard, Bishop of Nova Friburgo, against the TFP. In my previous article, I showed how unfair the fiery prelate from Rio de Janeiro was in labeling TFP’s campaign to disseminate the great Bishop Mayer’s recent pastoral letter as aggressive and slanderous toward the Cursillos in Christianity.
But someone might argue that Bishop Isnard did not refer to the campaign itself but to the aggressive and slanderous attitudes of the young TFP volunteers in the Diocese of Nova Friburgo during the campaign to promote the book.
This objection can be easily addressed alongside Bishop Isnard’s latest claim, which I still need to address. To justify his condemnation, the prelate asserts: “Considering that the members of the aforementioned Society have publicly uttered offensive words against the Diocesan Bishop, reject his legitimate authority, and do not consider themselves in communion with him…”
I carefully reviewed the campaign reports sent by our caravans. They refer to incidents involving Cursillistas in Nova Friburgo, but they do not mention any caravan member making slanderous or aggressive comments about the Cursillos or Bishop Isnard, or challenging his authority or communion with him.
Come on, someone will say, you can’t rely solely on your sources. Listen to the other side, too. Such an objection would prompt me to ask which sources Bishop Isnard relied on…
It is certain that the prelate did not ask to speak with our people before issuing his fiery decree against them. However, audiatur et altera pars is a basic principle of justice in Roman law.
Let us admit, nonetheless, that the Bishop of Nova Friburgo’s pro-Cursillo zeal clouded his impartiality to the point of condemning, without hearing them, young people who are exemplary for their piety and zeal.
Even so, a serious criticism remains of His Excellency’s decree. In fact, it seems at odds with episcopal benevolence that, because of hypothetical excesses by young caravan members, Bishop Isnard should punish all other members and volunteers who might attend a church to receive communion, for example, when passing through Nova Friburgo for any reason. Odiosa sunt restringenda, Roman law tells us. In other words, punitive measures must be carefully limited to those who commit a reprehensible act.
In cases of priests accused of subversion, ecclesiastical authorities have emphasized that the actions of some of their members cannot be attributed to the entire clergy.
Underlying this legitimate consideration is an obvious principle of justice. Would this principle not apply to the TFP in the unproven case in which some young caravaners committed excesses in Nova Friburgo? I would like to ask Bishop Isnard this question.
* * *
To conclude this pile of issues, which did not appear in the happy times when the “smoke of Satan” had not yet entered the Church, I publish topics from a lucid letter I received from one of my most distinguished companions in action, Engineer Antônio Augusto Borelli Machado:
“I read in the March 24 edition of Jornal do Brasil that the XIII General Assembly of Bishops of Brazil, held in the first half of February, severely criticized the TFP, according to a CNBB press release.
“I am astonished by the news because the Assembly’s communiqué, published at the end of its proceedings, made no mention of the TFP. Incidentally, this caused enormous disappointment among progressive and leftist sectors throughout the country, who had been celebrating in advance with fireworks and firecrackers the long-awaited condemnation of the TFP since the beginning of the Bishops’ meeting.
Unsatisfied with the Rio newspaper’s confusing information, I sought out the sources. The CNBB press release was easy to obtain. The official “Monthly Communiqué of the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil,” which has limited circulation, was harder to obtain. But thanks to the kindness of a priest, I obtained photocopies of pages 162 and 163 of the 424-page tome for February 1973 (no. 245).
“And so I was able to unravel what I can describe as a real sleight-of-hand in the CNBB press release.
“In fact, CNBB’s ‘Monthly Communiqué’ makes it clear on pages 162 and 163 that the Bishops’ Committee charged with studying the TFP had submitted the following proposal to the Assembly for consideration:
“After reflection, we consider it pointless to address the TFP Group directly, as it has shown itself hostile to dialogue and unwilling to accept any orientation contrary to its ideas. A doctrinal text would spark controversy, exactly what the Group likes. Condemnation would portray the Group as a victim in the press. The Group considers it a victory when contested.”
“The proposal, in terms so unfavorable to the TFP, was not approved because it failed to secure the absolute majority required by CNBB’s rules of procedure (art. 21, p. 2). Incidentally, the ‘Monthly Communiqué’ says so in this convoluted way: “Since the necessary majority was not obtained either for or against the proposal…” [sic!]. As if the proposal needed a majority of votes against it to be rejected! Ah! How I miss the Church’s so-called Constantinian times, when such “lapses” simply did not happen!
“The ‘Monthly Communiqué’ continues: ‘The plenary then decided, by 143 votes, that it would be for the Presidency to state what it deemed appropriate in the final communiqué.’
“As is well known, the Assembly’s final communiqué made no direct reference to the TFP. Only a few newspapers and a CNBB press release (published 40 days later) tried to interpret the following paragraph as an indirect mention: ‘We appeal to all Catholic, religious, and civil organizations to obey the general guidelines of the Brazilian Episcopate.’ Therefore, if real, this reference could not be more innocuous.
“In view of this, what does the CNBB press release (no. 21/73 of 3/23/1973) do to provide material to detractors eager to revile and hurt the TFP? It simply presents the non-approved proposal as having been approved by the Assembly! To make the deception easier to swallow, it places another proposal that was actually approved immediately after the rejected one, presenting both as approved! It reads: ‘TFP – Tradition, Family, and Property. Proposals approved by the XIII General Assembly of the CNBB. 1. (The text of the proposal rejected by the Assembly follows.) 2. The Presidency is charged with formulating in its Final Communiqué whatever commentary it deems appropriate on this matter.’
