Cardinal Eugênio Salles’ Bombshell – Folha de S. Paulo, September 29, 1974

 

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

 

By the unquestionable imperative of his dignity and office, the Cardinal Archbishop of Rio de Janeiro is a defender of the Church Militant, entitled to a prominent place in the leadership of the battle and among the front-line combatants. Thus, one would expect His Eminence Eugênio Cardinal Salles to stand out with an energetic rejection of the recent pro-divorce offensive. From him should come words of fiery and inspiring encouragement that would draw the faithful into the good fight. From him, his diocesans should receive clear teaching that would dispel the cunning confusion spread by the adversary.

The message His Eminence sent to Rio de Janeiro residents, broadcast on the “Voz do Pastor” radio program and disseminated nationwide by O Globo on August 31, was precisely the opposite of all this.

It pains us to say so, but the words of His Eminence benefited the pro-divorce cause because of their obscure text and the ill-conceived thinking behind them.

These expressions may seem strong, but only to those who have not read His Eminence’s message. I lack the space here to quote at length from that message to justify what I have just said. But readers unwilling to form an opinion without knowing the facts need only look for the article at the Globo News Agency headquarters in São Paulo to verify this. If you prefer, ask me for the article, and I will send you a copy by mail.

* * *

I will limit myself to the essentials.

As everyone knows, according to Catholic doctrine, Christian marriage must be understood in two ways: as a natural contract between spouses and as a sacrament instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The indissolubility of marriage rests not only on its status as a sacrament but also on its status as a natural contract. Thus, the Church teaches that even among pagans—when it is not a sacrament— “Marriage was instituted by God and establishes a perpetual and indissoluble bond that no civil law can dissolve” (Pius VI, Letter Litteris tuis to the Bishop of Eger, July 11, 1789).

Thus, the introduction of divorce into civil law can never be considered a purely natural and human matter. It deeply violates the law established by God Himself, which no legislator has the right to revoke.

That said, one cannot read the following statement by His Eminence Cardinal Salles without the deepest dismay: “The acceptance [of divorce] by the State is in itself a pure regulation of human laws.” Obviously, “pure” here is synonymous with “mere.” This suggests that, in itself, the State can treat the matter as belonging exclusively to its domain, that is, the temporal sphere.

The following sentence in the introduction to divorce is either meaningless or contains an error: “[Divorce] does not affect marriage, which is an indissoluble sacrament. A country that adopts the dissolution of this bond only rules on some legal and social effects of marriage.” Since the indissolubility of the bond is one of the “effects” of marriage, this seems to imply that the State can impose the dissolution of this bond in the “legal, social” sphere, as long as it does not intend to touch the Sacrament. So, marriage would remain indissoluble in the subjective domain of each person’s innermost feelings.

This interpretation appears to be confirmed by the following sentences: “Marriage remains intact before God and conscience even where the state admits divorce.” From this perspective, the prelate adds: “The value of the Word of God remains unchanged. ‘Let no man put asunder’ what God has joined together (Mk 10:9).”

If we give any meaning to these obscure phrases, it is impossible not to recognize that they clash with the teaching of Pius VI: “It would be wrong to think that marriage, since it does not have a sacramental character, is nothing more than a purely civil contract, and therefore susceptible to dissolution by civil power. Quite the contrary, for, first of all, marriage is not a civil contract, but a natural contract instituted and ratified by divine law, prior to any civil society.” (Pius VI, Letter cited).

* * *

Conclusion: His Eminence’s message either contradicts the aforementioned pontifical documents or is meaningless. In this case, it is a jumble of incongruous concepts, and, despite what we have just read, it affirms the illegitimacy of divorce and the necessity of combating it. The effect of such an article is to increase confusion among the faithful at the very moment when divorce advocates are seeking victory through their own tactics of confusion.

In one way or another, His Eminence’s message was a bomb dropped on the anti-divorce camp.