Ambiences, Customs and Civilizations

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

How the modern world, caught up in sensuality, deceives itself when it sees only decadence in aging. When one knows how to esteem the spirit more highly than the body, growing old is to grow into what is most noble, the soul.

Although aging does entail bodily decadence, this is only the material element in the human person. The body may indeed lose its beauty and its vigor, but it may enrich itself with the translucence of a soul that knew how to develop and grow along the course of life. This translucence constitutes the highest beauty the human face may acquire.

* * *

Saint Mary Euphrasia Pelletier was born in the island of Noirmoutier of pious parents on July 31, 1796, and received in baptism the name of Rose Virginia. She entered the community of the “Refuge” of Tours in 1814, and made her profession in 1816, taking the name of Mary Saint Euphrasia. She became first mistress of the penitents, a short time after her profession, and about eight years later was made superioress of the house of Tours. Desirous of extending the benefits of her order to the very extremities of the earth, she clearly saw that a central government, a motherhouse, should be established. With help from Pope Gregory XVI, she founded Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd of Angers. She died in April 29, 1868, and her feast is celebrated on April 24. During her life, nothing representing beauty was lacking to her youth: the crispness of her features, the beauty of her eyes and her flawless skin, the distinction of her face, the nobility of her bearing, the vigor and grace of youth. Moreover, the splendor of a clear, logical, vigorous and pure soul was reflected on her face. She was a magnificent example of a young Christian maiden.

Now behold her in her old age. There remains but a dim reflection of her youthful charm. Yet another beauty, a higher one, shines in that admirable face. Her gaze has grown profoundly; a noble and imperturbable serenity foretells the transcendental and definitive nobility of the blessed in heavenly glory. Her face conserves the marks of the arduous battles of the interior and apostolic life of the saints, showing a form of strength, of completeness, of the immutable—it is maturity in the most beautiful sense of the word. The mouth is finely expressive, conveying the temper of iron. Great peace and kindness with neither romanticism nor illusion, but with some remnant of the former beauty, still shines in this face. The body has declined, but the soul has grown so much that now it is all in God, leading one to recall Saint Augustine’s statement, “Thou hast made us for Thyself, Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in Thee.”

Who would dare affirm that for Saint Mary Euphrasia growing old was growing decadent?

L'articolo Old Age: Decrepitude or Glory? Saint Mary Euphrasia Pelletier proviene da Plinio Correa de Oliveira.

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

Does the ‘Social Function’ Affect Only Private Property?

In the final part of his message to the Third CELAM Conference, John Paul II says that, faithful to its evangelical commitment, “the Church wishes to stay free with regard to the competing systems, in order to opt only for man.”

In principle, no self-respecting movement would say the opposite, that is, that it does not choose man but some system, even to man’s detriment.

What are these “competing systems” between which the message refuses to choose? Given the ideological and political landscape of our time, they appear to be capitalism and communism.

A question then arises: what does it mean, in this context, to refuse to choose between the two regimes? Given the Church’s traditional teachings on communism and capitalism, it is clear that—although she criticizes both—her objections to the communist regime are far broader and more serious than those she raises against the capitalist one. The very notion of “refusing to choose” therefore requires essential clarification:

a) The Church does not opt for either, in the sense that both contain elements incompatible with it.

b) However, the incompatibilities with one of the regimes are so much broader than those with the other that, if forced by circumstances to choose the lesser evil, the Church must emphatically opt for the one that constitutes a much lesser evil (although not a small one). Although very brief, the passage from John Paul II quoted above does not provide a basis for such a statement. However, the message touches more closely on the issue in the immediately following topic: “Hence [from its option for man arises] the Church’s constant preoccupation with the delicate question of property.”

The Right to Property

The pontiff goes on to show that this concern is timeless. To this end, he quotes St. Ambrose (4th century) and St. Thomas Aquinas, whose “vigorous teaching” has been “repeated so many times.” He then refers to papal documents “in our own times,” naming the encyclicals Populorum Progressio and Mater et Magistra. He concludes that these teachings need to be heard “in our time also, when the growing wealth of a few parallels the growing poverty of the masses.”

Viewed in their entirety, all these teachings to which John Paul II refers undoubtedly affirm the principle of private property, the denial of which is essential to any form of collectivism, whether strictly Marxist or not.

Naturally, “undoubtedly” here means objectively. Today, almost everything can be said to be “beyond doubt” subjectively. In other words, there is no shortage of those who interpret the “writings of the Fathers of the Church through the first thousand years of Christianity,” as well as Populorum Progressio and Mater et Magistra, in ways that severely restrict or even distort the principle of private property.

Thus, many may find in these words of John Paul II a subjective pretext for continuing to profess their opposition or quasi-opposition to private property.

With just a few sentences, the pontiff could have dispelled these interpretations, which continue to cause painful divisions of mind among the faithful. It is regrettable that he did not do so. I can only hope that he will offer such clarification at the earliest opportunity.

Does the Social Function Apply Only to Property?

John Paul II does not stop there concerning private property.

In the following paragraph, he states that given these disparities between wealth and poverty, “the Church’s teaching, according to which all private property involves a social obligation, acquires an urgent character.”

This is indeed a great truth taught by many previous pontiffs. The social function of property has become a commonplace, a slogan among Catholic and even non-Catholic writers on social and economic issues.

Yet even here, modern conditions demand a more precise formulation. The repeated invocation of this “venerable” slogan has led many to suppose that property alone bears a social function, as if it were the only right encumbered by a social “mortgage,” while all others stood exempt. In truth, every right carries a social function; each is, in its own way, subject to the same encumbrance. The right to work offers an obvious illustration.

Severe distortions would be avoided if all holders of rights were reminded that their rights, too, carry this encumbrance. Had this been understood, the right to strike would not have led the doctors, nurses, and staff of a major hospital in Naples to abandon their posts months ago, leaving their patients in a tragic situation. The noble profession to which they are dedicated exists not only to secure their livelihood but also to safeguard the lives entrusted to them—indeed, not only the patients already under their care at the moment of the strike but also all those who, as members of society, might at any time depend upon them.

At a moment when the property right—explicitly acknowledged by the Pontiff, for whoever affirms that this right has a social function necessarily presupposes its existence, since a function cannot float in a vacuum—stands increasingly under suspicion, it would be important for the Church, the guardian of all rights, to free it carefully from the false appearance of weakness and quasi-illegitimacy with which current circumstances have disfigured it.

These aspirations are not mine alone but those of millions of faithful who are gravely concerned about the communist danger.

May God grant that a future document of John Paul II will be attentive to them.

As I approach the final considerations of this lengthy commentary, I will pass over in silence the section on human rights, for there are no particularly urgent or contentious theoretical disputes surrounding them at present—apart, of course, from questions touching their deepest doctrinal foundations.

And so I come to the final topic.

Liberation Theology

Undoubtedly, the body of doctrines condemned by John Paul II centers on the liberation of man from the contingencies that weigh so heavily on his earthly existence. Since these doctrines operate within a theological framework—even if only to reach conclusions that, in this respect, amount to a denial of Jesus Christ—it follows that they may rightly be described as a theology of liberation.

However, it seems excessive to deduce from this that John Paul II has condemned all liberation theology. On the contrary, he formally reserved a sense of liberation theology. Here are his exact words:

“The Church feels the duty to proclaim the llberation of millions of human beings, the duty to help this liberation become firmly established (cf. Evangelii Nuntiandi, 30); but she also feels the corresponding duty to proclaim liberation in its integral and profound meaning, as Jesus proclaimed and realized it (cf. Evangelii Nuntiandi, 31).”Liberation from everything that oppresses man but which is, above all, liberation from sin and the Evil One, in the joy of knowing God and being known by him” (Evangelii Nuntiandi, 9). …

“Liberation that in the framework of the Church’s proper mission is not reduced to the simple and narrow economic, political, social or cultural dimension, and is not sacrificed to the demands of any strategy, practice or short-term solution (cf. Evangelii Nuntiandi, 33).”

“To safeguard the originality of Christian liberation and the energies that it is capable of releasing, one must at all costs avoid any form of curtailment or ambiguity, as Pope Paul VI asked: “The Church would lose her fundamental meaning. Her message of liberation would no longer have any originality and would easily be open to monopolization and manipulation by ideological systems and political parties” (Evangelii Nuntiandi, 32). There are many signs that help to distinguish when the liberation in question is Christian and when on the other hand it is based rather on ideologies that rob it of consistency with an evangelical view of man, of things and of events (cf. Evangelii Nuntiandi, 35).”

The Scope of the Message

With all this said and weighed, it is appropriate to ask what impact John Paul II’s message will have on the future of Brazil, the Latin American continent, and, consequently, the world.

In this regard, fairness dictates that we avoid two peremptory statements: it had enormous reach because it cut off communism, and it had no reach because it left the gates open to communism.

In fact, in the face of communism, the message neither closed the door entirely (which would have been highly necessary) nor left it entirely open. As I said, it closed one leaf of the door (which is still of some use).

Ultimately, what matters most in this case is that the bishops who gathered at Puebla received the papal message almost unanimously. In light of that reaction, what attitude will John Paul II adopt toward the document of more than two hundred pages that the prelates approved on the final day of the meeting and submitted to his sovereign judgment?

The bishops will follow this document as their roadmap. Given the message as it stands, the roadmap will chart the course for the future.

It is not impossible that the bishops’ document will be published with Rome’s approval even before this series is complete. In any case, I propose to comment on it for our dear Folha readers.

With fewer details than in this series, of course, as the teachings of a pontiff merit a degree of attention, analytical rigor, and breadth of commentary unmatched by any other documents written by human hands—even when the grace of God aids those hands.

Summary

All things considered, weighed and counted, what is the reach of John Paul II’s message for Brazil’s future, Latin America’s future, and the world’s future?

Justice dictates that we avoid two peremptory statements: it had an enormous impact because it stopped communism in its tracks, or it had no effect because it left one leaf of the door open to communism.

In fact, in the face of communism, the message neither closed the door entirely (and it would have been so necessary to do so) nor left it entirely open. It closed one of the doorposts (which is still somewhat helpful).

L'articolo The Message of Puebla: Notes and Comments– V (The End) – Folha de S. Paulo, May 19, 1979 proviene da Plinio Correa de Oliveira.

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

The “most obvious weaknesses of present-day civilization.”

What, then, is the conception of man—and of his “conveniences”—proposed by the new current John Paul II alludes to in his address to the Latin American bishops at the opening of the Puebla Conference?

The Link Between Atheism and Collectivism

Considering the question in general terms, does the new humanism logically lead to a right-wing, centrist, or left-wing position? The message does not say so. In the section on “the truth about man,” it identifies leftism in its various shades as the content of the new humanism, without specifying whether this link stems from the very premises of the system of errors it condemns or from one of those fortuitous coincidences that are not uncommon in history.

In my view, this is not a coincidence but a genuine logical sequence. Those who do not believe in God but only in humanity are led to see the full realization of this not in parts of humanity, such as an individual, a social class, or a nation, but in humanity as a whole, formed by the universality of men.

In turn, today’s democratic mental habits, entirely in line with this philosophy, lead us to regard the majority’s pronouncement as the authentic voice of humanity as a whole. From this, it follows that economic and social organization should aim to distribute the earth’s goods equally among all men and to assign political power to the majority (until evolution leads to the suppression of political power itself, which is opposed to complete equality). In short, these are the essential tenets of Marxist doctrine.

Criticism of Atheistic Humanism

It is easy to understand why John Paul II censures these doctrinal positions when addressing the “Truth about Man”:

“Perhaps one of the most obvious weaknesses of present-day civilization lies in an inadequate view of man. Without doubt, our age is the one in which man has been most written and spoken of, the age of the forms of humanism and the age of anthropocentrism. Nevertheless, it is paradoxically also the age of man’s deepest anxiety about his identity and his destiny, the age of man’s abasement to previously unsuspected levels, the age of human values trampled on as never before.

“How is this paradox explained? We can say that it is the inexorable paradox of atheistic humanism. It is the drama of man being deprived of an essential dimension of his being, namely, his search for the infinite, and thus faced with having his being reduced in the worst way. The Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes plumbs the depths of the problem when it says: “Only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light” (Gaudium et Spes, 22).

Further on: “Thanks to the Gospel, the Church has the truth about man. This truth is found in an anthropology that the Church never ceases to fathom more thoroughly and to communicate to others. The primordial affirmation of this anthropology is that man is God’s image and cannot be reduced to a mere portion of nature or a nameless element in the human city (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 12 and 14).”

John Paul II concludes: “This complete truth about the human being constitutes the foundation of the Church’s social teaching and the basis also of true liberation. In the light of this truth, man is not a being subjected to economic or political processes; these processes are instead directed to man and are subjected to him.”

As can be seen, contrary to what many Marxist “Catholics” would like, the Church once again (it cannot be emphasized enough) rejects Marx’s philosophy as incompatible with its own doctrine and with its action in favor of man in the earthly realm.

A Closed Door

This position of John Paul II is evidently far-reaching because Catholic circles are largely infiltrated by “apostles” of the dual thesis that the Church exists only to serve man and that Marx alone correctly learned and taught what man is and how to serve him.

However, it would be considerably anachronistic to claim that, having done this, John Paul II exhausted the subject of the relationship between the Catholic religion and communism.

Today, the most modern expression of communism is the recognition that a non-Marxist may defend a communist socioeconomic order on non-Marxist philosophical grounds and may legitimately collaborate with Marxists to establish it. For many Italian, French, and Spanish leaders of Eurocommunism, being a communist no longer necessarily entails embracing the entirety of Marxist philosophy.

In this conception—I repeat—a communist is characterized by adherence to the socioeconomic regime of communism, but is free to seek in any religious or atheistic system the philosophical foundation that seems most appropriate for justifying his socioeconomic preferences.

Anyone who is up to date on this subject and reads John Paul II’s message cannot help but wonder whether this document, which takes a clear anti-Marxist stance, also condemns the communist regime as such, irrespective of Marx’s philosophy.

The answer seems to be that there is no such condemnation in the message. In other words, the message closes one leaf of the door to Marxist collectivism and leaves the other open to non-strictly Marxist collectivism.

Summary

Communist circles are increasingly acknowledging the possibility of implementing collectivism on a non-Marxist philosophical foundation. Many in the Catholic camp seek to give this form of collectivism a religious foundation.

In Puebla, John Paul II reaffirmed that Marx’s philosophy is incompatible with Church doctrine, thereby closing one door.

But he said nothing about the possibility of non-Marxist communism, leaving the other side of the door open.

L'articolo The Message of Puebla: Notes and Comments–IV – Folha de S. Paulo, April 26, 1979 proviene da Plinio Correa de Oliveira.

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

The Church’s Mission on Earth

Commenting on John Paul II’s address at the opening of the Puebla Conference, I have so far dealt with the essentially religious part of the message. I now turn to the section on earthly society.

This division of themes strictly follows the structure of part 1 of the pontifical text, which is divided into three main sections titled “The Truth About Jesus Christ,” “The Truth About the Mission of the Church,” and “The Truth About Man.”

In the order of presentation, John Paul II gives primacy to “The Truth About Jesus Christ” because it is infinitely more important. “The Truth About the Mission of the Church” follows, and then “The Truth About Man,” which can be focused appropriately only when presented in the light of “The Truth About Jesus Christ,” another reason for it to take precedence.

From the “Truth about Jesus Christ” in the foreground, teachings concerning the Church, the spiritual and supernatural Society, derive. In the second place come the teachings on natural and temporal society, that is, the nations and their galaxy of micro-societies.

However, the scope of these teachings does not end here, because the nations and societies that comprise them are constituted by and for man.

Jesus Christ is the apex of the spiritual and supernatural order. Man is the apex of temporal society.

Thus, it is entirely logical that the message’s considerations of the temporal order should focus on man.

Is earthly life the Church’s only purpose?

For those “Catholics” who inexplicably omit or deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Church does not aim at the Kingdom of God and can only aim at the Kingdom of Man.

If presented too categorically, this exclusion from the Kingdom of God may shock the Catholic public, which these strange advocates of a kingdom without the Messiah are trying to win over. Sensing this, they present their thesis with a subterfuge: caring exclusively for the Kingdom of Man would implicitly care for the Kingdom of God, since the latter would identify with the former.

In the section of the message addressing “The Truth About the Mission of the Church,” John Paul II dispels this subterfuge by quoting one of John Paul I’s teachings: “It is wrong to state that political, economic and social liberation coincides with salvation in Jesus Christ, that the Regnum Dei is identified with the Regnum hominis.”

It is thus clear that dealing only with the ‘Regnum hominis’ amounts to denying the ‘Regnum Dei’ in some way or another.

This warning better explains how John Paul II develops the “Truth About Man.”

The pontiff reminds us from the outset that the full truth about man can be known only from a religious perspective and in the light of Jesus Christ, for “We cannot reduce it to the principles of a system of philosophy or to pure political activity.”

For Catholics, fidelity to these assertions is an imperative of conscience, especially when “faced with so many other forms of humanism that are often shut in by a strictly economic, biological or psychological view of man.” As can be seen, Marxism fits this definition like a glove. Faced with this challenge, man sometimes remains silent, dragged along “through fear of doubt, through having let herself be contaminated by other forms of humanism, or through lack of confidence in her original message.”

Here—it should be noted—the description of the Catholic who fails “to proclaim the Truth about man that she [the Church] received from her teacher, Jesus Christ,” is like another glove that fits perfectly on worldly and cheerful Catholics who are ashamed of not being in the latest fashion… and of being non-communist or intimidated by pressures and threats from the Reds.

Catholicism and Marxism

These considerations regarding the “Truth About Man” clearly show that John Paul II’s primary concern was to clarify the dividing line between the religion of Jesus Christ and Marx’s philosophy.

I refer once again to the part of the message concerning Jesus Christ: John Paul II speaks of Catholics who omit or deny the Messiah’s divinity and of others who present Him as a revolutionary. In this regard, a question arises: Is anyone who denies the divinity of Jesus Christ logically compelled to view Him as a revolutionary?

Absolutely speaking, one thing does not lead to the other, at least if we take the word “revolutionary” in its modern sense, as a subversive, violent opponent of the current socioeconomic order.

What, then, is the connection between the denial or omission of Jesus Christ and the Marxist approach?

Although John Paul II does not say so, this link becomes clear if we consider the matter from the opposite perspective.

A denier of Jesus Christ is not necessarily a Marxist, but a Marxist is necessarily a denier of Jesus Christ. Faced with the vast category of deniers of Jesus Christ, Marxists do not identify with it but fit into it as a species. Today, they are the most active, organized, and powerful species. From this, we can infer why John Paul II repeatedly referred to the specific errors of Marxism in this matter when dealing generically with errors about man.

The Church’s Position on Human Dignity, Human Promotion, and Justice

“If the Church makes herself present in the defense of, or in the advancement of, man, she does so in line with her mission, which, although it is religious and not social or political, cannot fail to consider man in the entirety of his being.”

With these words, John Paul II distinguishes the Church’s position on human dignity from that of another current he does not explicitly mention. What could it be? It is not difficult to see that it is Marxism, the most vocal, conspicuous, and different from the Catholic position, and whose mentors nevertheless seek to confuse it with.

Still without explicitly mentioning Marxism, John Paul II goes on to cite the parable of the Good Samaritan as a foundation for the Church’s position on human dignity and on two related themes, human promotion and justice.

He shows that, in such matters, the Church’s attention is not focused solely on the heavenly but also on the earthly. Thus, the pontiff teaches that “between evangelization and human advancement there are very strong links of the orders of anthropology, theology and love (cf. Evangelii Nuntiandi, 31); so that ‘evangelization would not be complete if it did not take into account the unceasing interplay of the Gospel and of man’s concrete life, both personal and social’ (Evangelii Nuntiandi, 29).”

In other words, contrary to what Marxists claim, the Church does not disdain all scientific knowledge of man and the world in its evangelization. It welcomes it eagerly without thereby deviating from its fundamental and well-defined position, which consists in analyzing this knowledge in the light of the Faith, purging it of errors, illuminating it with the higher truths of a supernatural order, and making its infallible teachings hover over man’s “certainties,” however precious yet flawed at times.

“Service of Man” and “Service to Man”

The message then turns to another burning issue. No less pressing, in fact, than the previous ones. It is the “service of man” question:

“The Church’s action in earthly matters such as human advancement, development, justice, the rights of the individual, is always intended to be at the service of man; and of man as she sees him in the Christian vision of the anthropology that she adopts. She therefore does not need to have recourse to ideological systems in order to love, defend and collaborate in the liberation of man: at the center of the message of which she is the depositary and herald she finds inspiration for acting in favor of brotherhood, justice, and peace, against all forms of domination, slavery, discrimination, violence, attacks on religious liberty and aggression against man, and whatever attacks life (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 26, 27 and 29).”

It is clear how much this Christian service-of-man conception differs from the Marxist or materialistic “Catholic” conception.

As we said, once Jesus Christ is ignored or even denied, the Church’s actions cannot be considered a service to God. Then all that remains is for it to affirm itself as being at the service of man.

If that were true, the Church would have a strictly earthly purpose: to serve humanity.

The concept of “service” implies acting habitually in someone’s favor. It also implies that the servant knows what is best for those being served. Without this, the service is not “in favor” of anyone and may be innocuous or even harmful.

In turn, this means the Church must have a clear understanding of what is good for mankind and strongly advocate for it.

This explains why, given the omission of the divinity of Jesus Christ and the extraterrestrial purpose of the Church, this new theology, as John Paul II describes it, leads a priest to use all acts of ecclesiastical life, such as sermons, homilies, and liturgy, to address exclusively earthly matters. If a reference to otherworldly themes appears in any of these acts, it is only as a concession to certain “backward” sectors of the public. But only earthly matters can be addressed before entirely “aggiornati” listeners.

In this conception, the “Kingdom of God” is ultimately reduced to the “Kingdom of Man.” The preaching of the word of God becomes revolutionary socio-economic preaching, as will be shown below.

Summary

For “Catholics” who inexplicably omit or deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, caring exclusively for the Kingdom of Man would implicitly be caring for the Kingdom of God, since the Kingdom of God would be identified with the Kingdom of Man.

In contrast, John Paul II showed in Puebla that focusing solely on the “Regnum hominis” amounts to denying the “Regnum Dei.” This would turn the preaching of the word of God into revolutionary socioeconomic preaching.

Is anyone who denies the divinity of Jesus Christ logically compelled to view him as a revolutionary? What is the link between denying or omitting Jesus Christ and the Marxist approach?

L'articolo The Message of Puebla: Notes and Comments– III – Folha de S. Paulo, April 14, 1979 proviene da Plinio Correa de Oliveira.

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

In his message to the bishops at the opening of the CELAM Conference in Puebla, John Paul II gives us the reason for the change that has taken place in the Church—as I described in the previous article—and that has resulted in an impressive number of bishops and priests no longer focusing on the eternal purpose of their mission but rather on earthly life alone.

In a section titled “The Truth About Jesus Christ,” the pontiff shows that at the root of this change is a doctrinal error stemming from “re-readings of the Gospel” (“re-reading” is the modern and cheerful term by which certain theologians refer to reinterpretation). These “reinterpretations” are “the result of theoretical speculations rather than authentic meditation on the word of God” and cause serious harm to souls.[1]

What do such “reinterpretations” lead to? The pontiff enumerates: “In some cases, either Christ’s divinity is passed over in silence, or some people in fact fall into forms of interpretation at variance with the Church’s faith.”

Conflicting in what way? For the interpreters, John Paul II continues, “Christ is said to be merely a ‘prophet,’ one who proclaimed God’s Kingdom and love, but not the true Son of God, and therefore not the center and object of the very Gospel message.”

As the reader can see, in matters of Catholic faith, these denials are equivalent to a hydrogen bomb. For what is the Church of Jesus Christ reduced to without Jesus Christ, the Man-God?

Once the divinity of Jesus Christ is forgotten or denied, the extraterrestrial purpose of the Church, so prominent in the Constantinian and preconciliar eras, disappears.

This gives rise to another series of errors. If the Church no longer forms souls for Heaven, all the teachings and activities it placed in the foreground during the Constantinian era disappear, yielding entirely—or almost entirely—to what was “secondary” to it: social indoctrination and action.

This innovation is closely tied to the “evangelical reinterpretation” by innovators who, as John Paul II says, seek to “show Jesus as politically committed, as one who fought against Roman oppression and the authorities, and also as one involved in the class struggle.” These “reinterpreters” claim that the cause of Jesus Christ’s death was “the outcome of a political conflict, and nothing is said of the Lord’s will to deliver himself and of his consciousness of his redemptive mission.”

In this regard, John Paul II teaches that “this idea of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive man from Nazareth, does not tally with the Church’s catechesis.”

As can be seen, such errors could hardly be more radical or serious. Where do they circulate? For example, in Latin America. This leads John Paul II to issue this categorical warning: “Evangelization in the present and future of Latin America cannot cease to affirm the Church’s faith.”

He further observes: “In the abundant documentation with which you have prepared this Conference, especially in the contributions of many Churches, a certain uneasiness is at times noticed with regard to the very interpretation of the nature and mission of the Church. Allusion is made, for instance, to the separation that some set up between the Church and the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is emptied of its full content and is understood in a rather secularist sense: it is interpreted as being reached not by faith and membership in the Church but by the mere changing of structures and social and political involvement, and as being present wherever there is a certain type of involvement and activity for justice. This is to forget that “the Church receives the mission to proclaim and to establish among all peoples the Kingdom of Christ and of God. She becomes on earth the seed and beginning of that Kingdom” (Lumen Gentium, 5).”

Since it is necessary to preach the truth about Jesus Christ, the same must be done regarding the Church’s mission. For, as has been said, because Christ is God, this mission is above all extraterrestrial. The pontiff thus draws the bishops’ attention to the fact that, “You are teachers of the Truth, and you are expected to proclaim unceasingly, but with special vigour at this moment, the truth concerning the mission of the Church, object of the Creed that we profess, and an indispensable and fundamental area for our fidelity.”

Given the length of this article and the previous one, let me quickly summarize what I have been saying before going any further:

a) I began by showing the full weight of the Ibero-American continent in the ecclesiastical affairs of today’s world and, ipso facto, in the temporal world as well.

b) I thus emphasized the scope of the CELAM meeting in Puebla, which brought together representatives of the episcopates of all Latin American nations for study and deliberation.

c) I then addressed the transformations that the indoctrination of a considerable number of clergymen has undergone lately: from the preaching of Jesus Christ, Man-God, founder of a Church with an extraterrestrial purpose, to the omission or denial of Jesus Christ, Man-God, and consequently to the denial of the extraterrestrial purpose of the Church, whose goal would be entirely earthly. From the affirmation of Jesus Christ as Man-God also follows the need to form each soul for Him and for eternal life. In comparison with this entirely spiritual and individual action, the observance of divine precepts by temporal societies plays a “secondary” but extremely important role.

d) I then showed, with the necessary citations, that John Paul II’s teaching on this vital matter is incompatible with the errors that have arisen regarding it, and that the pontiff emphasizes the seriousness of these errors and laments their spread in Latin America.

As a starting point for the next commentary, I would like to recall the texts in which John Paul II shows that the proponents of a merely earthly Church have a peculiar notion of Jesus Christ, “not the true Son of God,” but a “‘prophet,’ one who proclaimed God’s Kingdom and love,” who is a political leader in revolt against Roman domination, a “revolutionary” involved in the “class struggle;” in short, the “subversive man from Nazareth.”

As can be seen, here too “one abyss draws another” (Psalm 41:8). Those who deny Jesus Christ as Man-God and confine Him to the merely temporal realm ascribe to Him, even in that realm, a mission diametrically opposed to the specific earthly effects of His supernatural mission.

Summary

“Liberation theology,” “political engagement,” and “structural reforms” are expressions increasingly common among Latin American clergy, to the perplexity of a growing number of the faithful.

In Puebla, John Paul II has just condemned clergy who, by reinterpreting the Gospel, present Our Lord Jesus Christ not as the true Son of God but as a political leader in revolt against Roman domination, a “revolutionary” involved in the “class struggle,” and, in short, as the “subversive man from Nazareth.”

[1] Address of His Holiness John Paul II to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate. Puebla, Mexico, January 25-February 1, 1979). https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1979/january/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19790128_messico-puebla-episc-latam.html. The topics in quotation marks are always from the text of the message.

L'articolo The Puebla Message – Notes and Comments– II – Folha de S. Paulo, April 7, 1979 proviene da Plinio Correa de Oliveira.

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

John Paul II and the Tomorrow That Awaits Us

I have waited until now for the official text of John Paul II’s message to the bishops opening the Third CELAM Conference in Puebla, as well as the document approved almost unanimously by the prelates in the final vote days later.

Puebla’s Importance

With these two key texts in hand—one opening the great meeting and the other closing it—we can make an objective assessment of what Puebla will mean for the future of the Church in Latin America and for the universal Church. Latin America now holds such a position within Catholicism that it significantly shapes the Church’s course worldwide. Finally, Puebla matters for the future of humanity itself, since the Church’s influence—direct or indirect, explicit or implicit—extends to all nations, even those that are not Catholic, and thus profoundly conditions the unfolding of universal history in our century.

In passing, a question comes to mind as I describe this system of concentric circles of influence regarding the role, not just of Ibero-America but of Brazil, in this system. The answer immediately springs to mind. With 120 million inhabitants, the vast majority of whom are Catholic (many merely want to be so and imagine they are, which in God’s eyes is already better than nothing), and with its continent-sized territory bordering all South American nations except Chile and Ecuador, Brazil may, in more than one eventuality, have within the Ibero-American world a weight comparable to that which the latter is acquiring within the Church. From this, it can be said with all likelihood that, as the 21st century dawns, circumstances may arise in which the world’s destiny will be marked not only by Latin America but by Brazil.

Does this assessment reflect a delusion of grandeur regarding Brazil or Ibero-America?

In my distant youth, a joke was going around (or is it a historical fact, an authentic witticism? I don’t know, as I never had time to verify it), according to which one of the three Andradas (I don’t know which one, either…) used to say: “In the world, the Americas; in the Americas, Brazil; in Brazil, São Paulo; in São Paulo, Santos; in Santos, the Andradas; and among the Andradas, me…”

This was nothing more than a joke about the Americas and Brazil in the first half of the 19th century, funny because of its own wild style. This exaggeration would not have been as wild or as funny in the century from 1850 to 1950. Today, it is beginning to be true and radiant. Of course, not for the witty Andrada, whom death took away, but for the country he helped found, whose first steps he illuminated with his talent.

This evocation of Andrada’s joke—which, to some extent, contained a penetrating prediction—illustrates the perspective from which I assess Puebla’s importance in today’s history.

But history—I am talking about the big History, with a capital “H,” written for the average or less-than-average educated public—retains only the broad outlines of events.

“Aquila non capit muscas.” An eagle does not catch flies. In matters of culture, details are flies to the general public and often precious nectar to specialists.

From this point of view, I do not intend to analyze the details of Puebla, that is, the mess that occurred or did not occur there, but only the two major aspects of the event: the pope’s appeal and the bishops’ response.

I have been waiting for that response, which has not yet been released at the time of writing. Yes, Cardinal Arns took the initiative to publish it with Edições Paulinas, but without any possible changes John Paul II may make. While this provisional text may be interesting to read, it lacks the scope and “force de frappe” of the final text. And while we wait, the issue is fading into the background, replaced by the uproar surrounding Ayatollah Khomeini, the confusing and dramatic fighting in Indochina, and the fog and rumblings that are apparently beginning to disturb the Brazilian environment.

Since the full text in Portuguese is not yet available, in this series of articles I will limit myself to analyzing John Paul II’s speech using the Spanish text distributed by the Puebla Conference’s Communication Commission.

Where did people’s minds turn during the Constantinian era?

It is not possible for the average reader to understand the papal address without recalling a fact endlessly repeated in our daily lives. I will describe it in two words.

When preachers addressed the world during the so-called Constantinian Church era—that is, roughly until the Second Vatican Council began—they largely emphasized religious and moral themes.

In sermons, spiritual retreats, lectures for members of religious associations, catechism classes, and middle and higher courses of religious formation for laypeople, most subjects were religious or moral in nature.

The vast majority of works that flooded Catholic bookstores or were available in Catholic magazines and newspapers also addressed such matters.

Moral themes most often concern individual behavior. However, moral rules have a broader scope, governing the behavior of social groups and classes, families, institutions, and nations.

This led to occasional references—in my view, far too few—to collective problems, including social issues. This latter designation encompassed a wide range of issues: relationships between employers and employees, between rich and poor, and matters related to public health, education, and literacy.

Change of Course in the Post-Conciliar Era

With the dawn of the post-conciliar era, all this changed rapidly across an increasing number of religious institutions and settings. Religious themes became increasingly rare. In moral themes, those of an individual nature became scarce, giving way to political, social, and economic issues with their complex and endless ramifications. Given the content of this post-conciliar—that is, post-Constantinian—indoctrination and how it was presented, many observers had the impression that something fundamental had changed in the Church.

What was it? In the Constantinian era, it was clear that the Church’s mission was primarily directed toward the world beyond. Its supreme goal was to give glory to God by securing the eternal salvation of souls.

Of course, while this was its primary purpose, it was not its only one. The Church was not content to glorify God only in the afterlife. It prayed and taught: “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end, amen.”

“Now.” That is, in this life. The glory of God in earthly existence was achieved by professing the truth and practicing virtue in this world. This implied combating error and evil. On this earth, the Church was militant.

It was clear, however, that for the glory of God on this earth, it was not enough for individuals to profess the Faith and practice virtue. As a consequence, on a secondary level, it was necessary that families, social classes, and nations also do so.

“Secondary” is an adjective often applied to things of minor importance, but it can also describe things that are very high yet considered secondary only in comparison with others that are even higher. Such is the social question within Church teaching. It is secondary in the sense that it does not directly and immediately concern people’s extraterrestrial end, yet it powerfully conditions their eternal salvation or perdition and the happiness of nations. It is part of the core issues relating to the glory of God in this world. Therefore, among religious matters, it has a “secondary” yet extremely high importance.

I am surprised by my own language.

After quickly rereading what I have just written, I am struck by the imperfect tense in which I have conjugated certain verbs: the Church “did,” “taught,” etc., as if She, the immortal Church, no longer taught or did the same things, which is absurd.

Should I then correct this imperfect past tense? Nothing would be simpler, but instead of correcting it, I prefer to explain. The majority of the clergy no longer teach or do these things, so much so that this inappropriate imperfect past tense slips involuntarily from my pen, even though we know of bishops and priests who have taught and done them with remarkable constancy. My hand inadvertently writes the opposite of what my mind and heart would uphold, even at the cost of my own blood. Thus, one can measure the harm that such changes easily do to souls with less training in meditation and the study of such subjects.

This observation explains why John Paul II made the theme—the importance of the heavenly and the earthly in the Church—the central focus of his address to the bishops gathered for the Puebla Conference.

Summary

The uproar caused by Ayatollah Khomeini, the confusing and dramatic fighting in Indochina, and the fog and roaring that are apparently beginning to disturb the Brazilian environment are replacing a subject that, by its very nature, will condition not only the future of the universal Church but also the very history of today: the Puebla Conference.

What can be concluded about the two major events in Puebla—the pope’s message to the bishops and the meeting’s final document?

Why did John Paul II make the importance of the heavenly and the earthly in the Church the central theme of his address to the bishops?

L'articolo The Puebla Message: Notes and Comments-I – Folha de S. Paulo, March 26, 1979 proviene da Plinio Correa de Oliveira.

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

From what I hear around me from time to time and read in the newspapers, the habit of conceptualizing democracy in two different ways is becoming widespread. Not in terms of its substance, of course. The vast majority of Brazilians agree that democracy consists of the people’s sovereignty exercised at all levels of the State through representative government. It also entails affirming and protecting all individual freedoms so long as they do not offend “public order and morality” (the classic formula). In short, it is the democracy of the insurgents of American Independence, of the French revolutionaries of 1789, or of our constituents of 1891. All of it is conceived from the perspective of state secularism and updated with broader or narrower social laws according to each person’s taste.

I note in passing that, especially with regard to state secularism and, therefore, to the secular way of conceiving popular sovereignty, as well as to the often exaggerated scope with which social reforms are conceived under this view of democracy, this concept is at odds with what would be a Christian-inspired democracy according to the traditional teaching of the popes (cf. Pius XII, Christmas Radio Message of 1944, Discorsi e Radiomessaggi vol. VI, 238-240). Incidentally, I do not confuse Christian-inspired democracy with “Christian democracy.”

However, I am not delving into the Church’s traditional teachings on democracy, which are of interest to those studying the subject’s doctrinal aspects. I also refrain from considering democracy itself in theoretical terms and will limit myself to examining the inevitably exaggerated journalistic dimensions of public opinion’s attitudes toward democracy as it is currently conceived.

This latter subject contains more than one bone of contention, and I’ve picked one to address today. It concerns the attitude with which, according to democratic principles, democrats defend democracy against its opponents. I give it preference because of its particular relevance at this stage of the country’s liberalization process.

* * *

1. As I said, I sometimes hear and read that in a true democracy, with its inseparable popular sovereignty and individual freedoms, notably freedom of opinion, every individual must be guaranteed the right to diverge from certain courses of action. However, divergence would not be lawful with regard to a threefold agenda of basic human freedoms considered fundamental: freedom of conscience, thought, and religion. I copy these words almost verbatim from an author whose talent and competence deserve praise, but whom I do not mention because in our country doctrinal disagreements easily degenerate into insipid personal retaliations, which have never attracted me in my long life as a Catholic polemicist.

It seems to me that this understanding of democracy leads to a clear conclusion: the people are not sovereign. By definition, sovereign power is supreme. If someone claims the authority to tell the so-called sovereign people that there is a “fundamental agenda” they may not alter, then sovereignty no longer resides with the people at all. It passes instead to whoever sets those untouchable limits.

This intangible “agenda” undermines the very concept of popular sovereignty. In other words, it undermines the core of secular democracy—and, in its own way, of Christian-inspired democracy.

2. Incidentally, I do not understand how the triple freedom of conscience, thought, and religion can be held up as an intangible taboo, making it impossible to discuss or reject without, from another point of view, falling into an insoluble contradiction. The thesis that this triple freedom is democracy’s “fundamental guideline” is an opinion. If every opinion is open to discussion and rejection, then the triple freedom guideline must also be open to discussion and rejection. Instead of talking about a guideline, why not speak frankly of dogma, since the latter is an intangible teaching according to which the thoughts of men must be guided? So, we conclude that the triple guideline’s intangibility not only denies popular sovereignty, as we saw in the previous item, but also freedom of opinion, thereby emptying democracy itself.

3. I understand that one can argue, in favor of this democratic incongruity, that democracy must be defended against its adversaries. But this defense must consist of free, courteous, and clear discussion and effective persuasion, so that the sovereign people remain unwaveringly faithful to democratic principles. Otherwise, the defense will take the form of repressing dissenters, and in that case, the defense of democracy becomes undemocratic, and democrats extinguish democracy in the very act of preserving it. For if a law forbids the people from being anything other than favorable to the triple “agenda,” then democracy is no longer upheld by the sovereign discernment and sovereign will of the sovereign people, but by the will and force of a few.

Let us suppose that a law imposed by yesterday’s legislature prohibits today’s people from changing their minds. Or that a law imposed by today’s legislature prohibits them from changing their minds tomorrow. In either case, the law is enforced by penalties. Either of these “democratic” laws would punish the free exercise of popular sovereignty.

4. Now, then, what is political “openness” in a “guided” democracy? It is merely a change of “guidelines,” not a suppression of all guidelines. Until recently, it was a crime to fight against the principle and institution of private property. Now, this would no longer be a crime. It would become a crime to attack the triple guideline.

Under the strict logic of secular democratism, this does not free popular sovereignty from its ties or make it effective; it merely shifts their location. Yesterday, it tied the “left arm” to the penalties of the law; today, it would tie the “right arm.”

Frankly, this is not democratization.

Telling people they are free to go wherever they want, as long as it is within the triple agenda, is reminiscent of a joke. It was the case of a father who, boasting of being liberal, said: “My daughter can marry whoever she wants, as long as she marries Joseph.”

5. In a democracy, the people are king. But what is the remedy when a king is fickle? Is it to erect a super-king above him? And who, then, will restrain this super-king—yet another, even more “super,” sovereign? If the proposed remedy is a law that limits popular sovereignty, then I repeat: in certain cases, democracy must be left defenseless, on pain of suicide.

But there is a way to defend democracy without committing suicide. Frankly, I see no other way. It is to baptize it. I say “baptize” because it is important to remember that everything I have just said refers specifically to secular democracy.

A genuinely Christian-inspired democracy recognizes the people’s right to legislate freely, provided that it does not transgress the teachings and precepts of the infinitely wise and good God, the true Sovereign, King, and Father of all men. Under these precepts, nothing leads to ruin.

Under strict Catholic doctrine, the authority of God alone can circumscribe the sovereignty of temporal power, whatever its form, whether monarchical, aristocratic, or democratic. Otherwise, the people remain subject to the sovereign’s volatility, whether the sovereign is a king, an aristocrat, or a commoner.

To abstract God and confine sovereignty to “guidelines” devised by mere men—however intelligent, cultured, or experienced they may be—is ultimately to transfer sovereignty to them, even when those guidelines formally coincide with God’s law.

And who is not fickle except God, the greatest and most perfect? These men?

* * *

Naturally, a question remains. Under the current circumstances, it is quite certain that state secularism will not be abolished, at least in the medium term, if we are optimistic. What then should be done until then? Should we tell the country, with Olympian calm, to fend for itself and give up on everything? Of course not.

First of all, let us not paint too bleak a picture. As long as the current situation lasts, it is not true that public opinion (or even published opinion, which can be quite different) is so fickle on this matter. In other words, persuasive anticommunist education retains a strong margin of effectiveness.

Throughout my public life, I have devoted myself to a persuasive, nonviolent anticommunist action. Its effectiveness is evident in the continuous fury it arouses among the vast cohort of communists, socialists, fellow travelers, useful innocents, etc. This fury is also expressed in a tireless, widespread buzz of slander and in media campaigns of pharaonic proportions. No one has such rage against what is irrelevant, nor does one mobilize such means of action against something innocuous.

Therefore, I would contradict myself and declare my public action useless if I thought everything were irretrievably lost, even though anticommunists retain their legal right to argue. So let us use this faculty widely, boldly, and without prejudice to the respect and cordiality that high-level doctrinal discussion requires. That way, a viable path will remain open to the patriotism of those, like me, who are unwaveringly concerned about the communist danger.

There is more. They say that God is Brazilian. At the very moment I write, the Puebla conference shines like a rising light in the eyes of many good Brazilians. If it confirms the hopes it awakens here and there, it may diminish the dangerous communist infiltration on one of the fronts where it has been most effective: the Catholic environment. It will also help contain the distorted presentation of religion currently used to justify atheism and collectivism. How can we fail to see that the Catholic-inspired anticommunist controversy, within the bounds of legality and peace, will then gain new and precious advantages?

But at this point, another topic arises that I may devote another article to. But after Puebla.

You will then see why.

L'articolo As Long as She Marries Joseph – Folha de S. Paulo, January 27, 1979 proviene da Plinio Correa de Oliveira.

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

In Brazil, as in the rest of the world, democracy has both supporters and opponents. This has been true throughout human history, as people have devised and experimented with almost infinite variations of government—monarchical, aristocratic, or democratic.

However great the differences in this field may be, it is certain that these forms of government are, in themselves, understandable and defensible. In this matter, however, there is something neither understandable nor defensible: contradiction.

In my view, nothing is more contradictory to democracy than its dependence on compulsory voting to function. For insofar as the people are the country’s highest authority, they are the great sovereign, according to legal and political jargon. I do not see how they can be forced to vote. It would be the same as forcing a monarch to exercise his office. Whoever had the power to do so would be the true monarch, for whoever has the right to command the king is the only true king. When voting is compulsory, the supreme power does not belong to the people but to those who compel them to vote.

Furthermore, if a voter has no political convictions or patriotic ideals that freely lead him to vote, he confesses his intellectual or moral incapacity. If he then refuses to vote on that basis, forcing him to vote is equivalent to forcing a disinterested or incapable king to rule.

What advantage does such an extorted vote confer on the State? What value can it have in determining the nation’s direction?

* * *

All these considerations are related to the results of the most recent election.

According to definitive data for the state of São Paulo—which I take as an example—11.3% of voters abstained, 11.3% cast blank ballots, and 9% cast invalid votes. In other states of the Federation, these percentages appear to have been generally higher. Thus, in total, 31.6% or more of Brazilians declared themselves uninterested. The sum is considerable and has sparked multiple comments.

However, I did not see anyone ask what this figure would be if voting were not compulsory and each “sovereign” voter were free to choose not to be dragged to their respective polling station. The results would certainly be astonishing.

Insofar as compulsory voting contradicts democracy, it is undeniable that our democracy, operating on a shoestring, is even more contradictory, with an impressive number of voters who prefer to resist the law rather than exercise their sovereign right to vote.

The remedy? It consists of getting voters interested in political, social, and economic issues, or of inserting issues that interest voters into the public debate. Well, the election results clearly show that many, or even a majority, of voters were bored with the menu of issues offered during the last election.

We need to air, broaden, and enrich the political debate. We need to remove as much of the narrow-minded personalism as possible and offer voters far fewer of the monotonous myriad of candidate photographs plastering every available wall during the election period, and far more substantial party programs.

To this end, it is essential that the press, television, and radio present the real issues and the arguments for and against the various solutions available to voters.

I will give two illustrative examples of how rarely this occurs.

During the current legislative session, a divorce bill was approved. This important issue should have been the subject of speeches, public lectures with debates, the distribution of substantial, interesting, and accessible brochures, newspaper articles, and controversies that would have given it all its vitality in the public mind. In other words, the public would have had no opportunity to express their authentic opinions on the issue as long as it was not the subject of lively, entertaining conversations in social life and in the intimacy of homes. What can we find if we look for some of this material? I can only see the great Pastoral Letter on divorce by the distinguished bishop of Campos, Most Rev. Antônio de Castro Mayer, published in 1975.

Incidentally, the CNBB’s and individual prelates’ statements on divorce seemed pitifully poor, or at least the newspapers’ coverage of them did.

The same could be said of the speeches of congressmen and senators. I received substantial statements from some anti-divorce representatives. Senator Nelson Carneiro and other divorce advocates may have made equally substantial statements. They did not send them to us, certainly because they rightly judged me to be “unconvertible.” However, what I read about them in the newspapers was also poor. The result was that, amid delirious enthusiasm in artificially overcrowded galleries, the legislature approved divorce while the nation slumbered. Once the measure was enforced, almost no one used it. The nation continued to slumber alongside the hot, poisoned delicacy that Congress had served it.

It has thus become clear that the people did not truly want a divorce bill when they elected the congressmen who foisted divorce on Brazil. What, then, did the approval of divorce mean for us?

Another example is tenancy law. A majority of the urban population consists of landlords and tenants. The issue should be a hot topic for both sides. After all, their individual and household budgets are at stake.

However, the press, television, and radio have not given this important issue the proportional coverage it deserves. As far as I know, most candidates have avoided taking a position on it. As I write, Congress is deliberating on the matter at the eleventh hour, imposing on the country, it seems, a tenancy law that has no connection to the choice of current or future candidates.

To what extent do they represent the thinking of the sovereign nation on this issue? To what extent did the nation itself decide on this matter?

There would be no end to it if we turned our attention to the economic or socioeconomic problems that are constantly affected by the laws, regulations, and ordinances our country is producing today, more than ever.

The people do not even have time to form an opinion about what technocrats and businessmen (the latter with ever-decreasing influence) are deciding on the matter. But how can we assume that it is truly the people who want what they decide?

* * *

In short, the alternative is clear. The State legislates continuously. If there is no Herculean publicity effort to inform public opinion in a genuine and attractive way about what candidates want to legislate and what legislators actually legislate, the people are left on the sidelines. Disinterested voters vote only on a whim, and democracy tends to become a fiction.

Back in the days when it was lawful for the people to applaud kings but not to boo them, the people had a way to express their discontent: They remained silent as kings passed by. Hence the well-known proverb: “The people’s silence is a lesson for kings.” Voter disinterest is a lesson for the political class and the media.

I say this not to rebuke but to express my free opinion as a Brazilian. I really do not see how we can have a coherent democracy if we miss the opportunity this democratic élan offers. And what we should not want in democracy, as in any other form of government, is for it to be contradictory.

* * *

Summary

The results of the latest elections have taught the political and media classes a valuable lesson: the lack of interest among an impressive number of voters, despite voting being compulsory. How much greater would this lack of interest be if it were not compulsory?

What is the remedy? How can we prevent people from being marginalized while the State continuously legislates, voters from becoming disinterested and voting only on a whim, and democracy from becoming a fiction?

In other words, how can we have a coherent, non-contradictory democracy?

L'articolo Silence, the Great Lesson – Folha de S. Paulo, December 6, 1978 proviene da Plinio Correa de Oliveira.

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

A friend from Kansas City sent me a three-panel cartoon (from the October 13 issue of the Lawrence Journal-World). In the first panel, a man who appears somewhat advanced in age and corpulent sits in an armchair, watching a football game on television. His expression shows attention, but his body is comfortably relaxed. In the second panel, the television seems to emit unusual vibrations. Words appear on the screen announcing that World War III has broken out. The man remains in exactly the same position. In the third panel, the television returns to the game, and the man is still in the same position.

Thus, on this fictional viewer’s quiet afternoon, an event erupted that could suddenly engulf him in an atomic tragedy, ruin his country, and change the course of humanity for centuries. Moreover, it could permanently remove or impose the prospect of worldwide communist domination. None of this affects the viewer’s quiet afternoon, “ahorita, ahorita” (“In a minute, in a minute,” as my friends from Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela say). And so he doesn’t even move.

Of course, this mentality is not unique to Kansas or the United States. It extends to large segments of the population worldwide. It also encompasses large areas of São Paulo, including the Higienópolis borough, where I live. It does not creep into me, perhaps because of the meticulous care I take to preserve my mentality from the infiltration of such states of mind.

A characteristic example of this mentality is the attitude of a large portion of public opinion toward the situation in which the newspapers suddenly presented Persia to us.

This country was universally regarded as one of the West’s great barriers to the expansion of communism in Asia. Not only a firm barrier, but also one in a highly strategic position. The Persian coast holds an influential position in navigation through the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman toward Suez or the Cape of Good Hope. In short, oil distribution is largely in Persia’s hands.

And were it only distribution! Persia is not only a land barrier but also a mistress of many essential sea routes. It is also a vault holding the treasure of rich oil wells. Other wells in the oil-producing areas of the Persian Gulf are within its reach.

In short, Persia holds the most varied forms of influence in the international game of our oil-dependent world. But the West slept peacefully, believing that all this was well guarded in the strong and skillful hands of Shah Reza Pahlevi.

What would happen if those hands were suddenly seized by the dangerous communists entrenched in neighboring Russia? Numerous Westerners from my country and elsewhere, to whom I had been posing this question for some time, were startled by its impertinence. They answered me with calm authority: That cannot happen. But why? I asked. If Russia strikes anyone it wants in this world, why should the Shah alone be free from its aggression? The answer was always the same: no, it cannot happen. My interlocutors’ attitude did not change even after the coup in April of this year that brought the communists to power in neighboring Afghanistan.

Suddenly, the Shah’s hand sustains the dreaded blow and begins to tremble. The ground beneath his feet begins to move. The air around him, which we had imagined to be clear and diaphanous for millennia, grows cloudy with confusion. An unexpected and cunning coalition of ultra-conservative Islamists and communists throws the country into turmoil. The scepter wavers in the sovereign’s hands. With the scepter, the walls and routes waver, and the precious oil coffers are exposed to all kinds of assaults. In short, world domination is at stake. Depending on the course of events, it is not impossible that a third world war will break out in the medium term, if not sooner.

* * *

What are millions of our contemporaries doing while these events unfold? They behave with precisely the supine indolence of the character in the Kansas cartoon. That is, they devote a little time to a cursory reading of developments that are decisive for the world within the Persian scenario, and then immediately turn their gaze to multiple news reports about disasters, tensions, attacks, and ills that fill contemporary reality, many of which receive prominent headlines usually denied to the Iranian crisis. Then they close the newspaper, concluding, I’m not sure how, that there is nothing new and that the world can be at peace.

However, the same newspapers carry a story that reassures these calm people. Let me explain. The psychological phenomenon is exactly like this. These calm people had forgotten about the Persian case, and upon seeing it change with the establishment of a military dictatorship, they suddenly say they feel reassured.

How can they be reassured if they were already calm? It is better not to ask them this question, because no one is more irritable than those obsessed with tranquility when asked a pointed question. If they are now reassured, was their previous lack of concern only superficial? So, why this display of unreal tranquility?

Furthermore, why were they reassured? Was it because the military would silence everyone, keep the country under Western influence, keep sea routes unobstructed, and keep oil perfectly available? The answer is different.

This minute, “ahorita, ahorita,” everything is fine! That’s enough…

* * *

I am writing on the night of Wednesday, November 8. I don’t know what tomorrow’s newspapers will say, but today’s early editions report that the Shah is counting himself alone. Lacking the slightest public support, the Shah is reduced to a figurehead. However, this figure must be necessary to the Persian psyche. Otherwise, no one would leave him comfortably seated on the ancient “Peacock Throne.” Therefore, he has some popularity there.

What about the military, which has now pushed him aside? How long will they remain in power if it is true that they lack public support, which will continue to be manipulated to a large extent by communists, who can even pull off the supreme pirouette of bringing the most reactionary Mohammedan faction to their side? This question is fraught with uncertainty at a time when revolutionary psychological warfare can, in certain circumstances, be more powerful than machine guns, tanks, and cannons.

Persia remains immersed in uncertainty and confusion. The wall has not fallen, but its stones, as it were, have turned to Styrofoam. The iron vault that guards the priceless springs has become tinplate. Uncertainty reigns along the sea routes…

But for millions and millions of our contemporaries, everything is fine, since, at this moment, at this minute, at this passing second – “ahorita, ahorita” – everything is in order.

So many media outlets, which sometimes reflect the public and sometimes receive its reflection, continue to give more weight to the bitter contemporary nonsense than to the dangerous Persian confusion. That’s how things are.

Before concluding, I realize I need to correct something I said. I described the communists’ juggling act, which managed to enlist reactionary Muslims in the fight against the Shah, as a supreme pirouette. I realize this is nothing compared to another pirouette, this one truly supreme and a thousand times more tragic: having infiltrated the Holy Church of God so widely and so horribly…

Oh, the sadness!

*    *    *

Summary

In Persia, with the Shah’s scepter wavering in his hands, the wall against the expansion of communism in Asia wavers, the oil routes waver, and the precious oil coffers are left at the mercy of attack.

As a result, world domination is at risk, and a third world war is not impossible in the medium term.

What many optimists thought impossible has happened.

Despite this, millions remain in supreme idleness.

Why? Because at this moment, at this minute, at this passing second, everything is still in order.

L'articolo “Ahorita, Ahorita” (The Iranian powder keg) – Folha de S. Paulo, November 18, 1978 proviene da Plinio Correa de Oliveira.

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.

L'articolo And John Paul II? – Folha de S. Paulo, October 28, 1978 proviene da Plinio Correa de Oliveira.