Concave and Convex – Folha de S. Paulo, June 9, 1979

 

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

 

I took genuine pleasure in commenting, for my readers, on the Pontiff’s message to the bishops gathered in Puebla. Yet that pleasure carried me into the adventure of devoting five articles to the subject. Meanwhile, important events were unfolding in our country, and I was unable to analyze them, for I felt bound to the Puebla theme by the long series I had undertaken. Thus, I said nothing about the strikes. And when my articles were finally concluded, the strikes themselves had already ended. I therefore take them up now, after the curtain has fallen. I offer the reader my apologies… and I turn at once to what seems to me the crucial point of the matter.

The strikes naturally caught the attention of clear-minded individuals accustomed to closely observing the national reality. But they also had another, incomparably more difficult result. They aroused some interest and even concern among the large, amorphous, unresponsive mass that currently constitutes the majority of national public opinion.

Is there any basis for discerning, amid the considerable ripples of the latest socioeconomic earthquake, an increase in the spirit of protest among the masses? Or do these ripples merely reflect episodic dissatisfaction with the effects of inflation on the purchasing power of wages? It is not easy to answer these questions, especially because factors extrinsic to the labor unrest profoundly conditioned it. “Roughly speaking,” the press, both spoken and written, gave the strikes ostentatious support. At times, that support took on clear aspects of incitement. In addition, the climate of political openness played a strange role in this contingency, for it paved the way for all kinds of pro-strike statements. On the other hand, this apertura a sinistra “opening to the left” has created all sorts of inhibitions for those wishing to restrict the strikes. As often happens, the “apertura a sinistra” results in a “chiusura a destra” [closure to the right]. Thus, the uninhibited pro-strike behavior was matched by employers’ inhibited reaction.

Finally, and above all, a large part of the ecclesiastical hierarchy took an active, I would say convex, position in favor of the strikes, while the part of the hierarchy that did not lead the strikes adopted an attitude no less inhibited and concave than that of the employers.

Now, I am convinced that it is the Catholic Church that influences the people, the good people (“le menu peuple de Dieu,” as they used to say affectionately in France), far more than the government, unions, labor or employer leaders, or even the media.

It is easy to see how this whole game of concavities and convexities, unrelated to labor, modulated the strike movement’s dynamics and trajectory.

This brings me to the heart of this article: the attitude of the ecclesiastical hierarchy toward the strike movement. To make an uninhibited and comprehensive assessment of the issue, I will begin by dispelling a source of misunderstanding. I can see from afar people rubbing their hands together, assuming that I am going to speak out against any strike in theory and, concretely, against these latest ones. My hopeful ideological opponents will be disappointed. I think about these strikes exactly as the vast majority of our compatriots do. In principle, there can be legitimate strikes. Unfortunately, the demands made in the latest strikes—sometimes excessive, sometimes presented with excessive force—address critical but real situations. Having thus disappointed some opponents, I move on.

Why has the more convex and demanding wing of the hierarchy gone so far in supporting the strikes? Does it not realize that, by advancing to the applause of the left, it is distancing itself from the nation, which is peaceful and centrist?

Let me give an example. Cardinal Arns has openly assumed leadership of the “convex” wing, succeeding Archbishop Helder Câmara. His words, therefore, carry unique significance in these matters. I extract the following sentences from the May 3 communiqué that the cardinal published on “The Church and People’s Demands” (cf. O São Paulo, week of May 3-9):

“The Church of São Paulo has been sought out for both support and meeting spaces. On all occasions, this Church’s representatives have insisted that wages are insufficient for most of our people. They added that wage disparities are unsustainable because they lead some to wastefulness and others to cruel hunger. In such cases, justice must prevail over legal provisions, especially when those provisions are considered outdated, even by those responsible for the nation.”

If one of the major congresses of Catholic intellectuals that I suggested to the episcopate in a recent interview with O Globo were to take place these days (I am pleased to say that I have received encouraging letters from several bishops, expressing not only understanding but also vigorous support), I would ask that experts in the field conduct a thorough scientific investigation into some of the points that my archbishop’s text treats casually and superficially:

How much should a “sufficient wage” be in Brazil today? What relationship should there be between the nature of the work and the wage amount? Is it true that hierarchically unequal jobs should correspond to unequal needs, and therefore also to unequal wages? What is the legitimate difference that should exist between unequal wages? All this considered, what is the actual percentage of Brazilians whose wages are insufficient?

“The differences in wages are unsustainable,” says our pastor. What exactly does this phrase mean? Are all wage differences unsustainable in theory, even when established according to the hierarchy of workers’ skills and responsibilities? Or is only the wage difference as it exists in Brazil “unsustainable”? Why? What remedy can be applied to the situation? Eliminating all differences? Or simply reducing them? To what extent and according to what criteria? If most qualified workers, especially those with privileged leadership or managerial skills, begin to leave Brazil in search of better wages, how can the nation’s labor force avoid decline? By binding them by law to their respective jobs, as serfs were once bound to the land? Or by raising an iron curtain around the country to prevent them from fleeing?

Are there so many wage earners in Brazil who indulge in “splurging” to the point of substantially contributing to others being reduced to “cruel hunger”? In concrete terms, what does “splurging” mean in this context? What percentage of people splurge? What would cultural and social life in Brazil be like without such “splurging”? Would they become ‘proletarianized’? On the other hand, what is “cruel hunger”? In itself, all unsatisfied hunger is cruel. “Cruel hunger” is an oxymoron. If anything, it indicates extreme hunger. Where exactly are the areas of hunger in Brazil? At what point does hunger become “cruel”? Where does this “cruel hunger” exist? What percentage of the population does it afflict? To what extent does the suppression of such “splurging” contribute to eliminating “cruel hunger”?

Do not think that these questions are of purely academic interest. These issues have an undeniable intrinsic interest. In my view, it is to Cardinal Paulo Evaristo Arns’s credit that he dares to raise sensitive issues that others leave untouched. I say this even though my opinion on these issues usually differs from his. Moreover, for the prince of the Church, these anomalies are so pronounced that we are in one of those situations that demand justice based on the law or even against the law: “In such cases, justice must take precedence over legal provisions,” he says. In principle, I entirely agree that unjust laws should not be obeyed. But it is serious that a cardinal should claim that we have already reached this extreme situation in Brazil. Have we really? What concrete evidence is there of this?

Either the convex wing can produce objective, scientifically verified data to substantiate the vague and imprecise claims advanced by its leader and spokesperson, or its cries for “the people’s demands” will fail to persuade the country and forfeit any claim to the game of truth.

These are the considerations and questions I would like to present at a calm, serious, and productive Catholic conference. Will such a conference ever take place?

Let no one claim that the CNBB lacks the means to collect statistical information that even the government does not possess. Since the CNBB demands so much from the government, let it begin by demanding that the government produce this information and statistics.

Summary

The more radical wing of the ecclesiastical hierarchy has unreservedly taken a stand in support of the latest strikes.

For example, to justify them, Cardinal Arns states that for most people, wages are insufficient and wage differences are unsustainable, leading some to waste and others to cruel hunger.

This raises several questions: What is a “sufficient wage”? Is every wage difference “unsustainable”? Or are wage differences “unsustainable” only in Brazil? Are there so many wage earners in Brazil who indulge in wastefulness? At what point does hunger become “cruel hunger”?

These questions could be debated in lectures by Catholic intellectuals, as the author proposed during a recent press interview.