by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Dissent over the Cursillo movement is boiling throughout Brazil. On TFP tables, piles of dossiers contain statements for and against the movement, which Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer analyzed in his momentous Pastoral Letter.
Perhaps it would be interesting to publish, someday, an analysis of the Cursillo and anti-Cursillo mentalities among us, based on this opulent documentation. Without anticipating such a study, I note that the Cursillo counteroffensive is characterized by three distinct features: haste, standardization, and vacuity.
Haste: most of those who speak in favor of Cursillos do so as if out of breath. One gets the impression that they cannot find enough words to express their eagerness, panic, and indignation. Such is their haste to attack the Pastoral Letter and those who spread it that concepts, arguments, and words seem to be jumbled in their throats.
Driven by haste, each cursillista agitates in his own way, but not when it concerns their supporters. In general, they say the same things and equally avoid saying others. Thus, they repeat exactly the same arguments (Cursillos are good because they know them inside out, etc.). They casually ignore Bishop Mayer’s splendid responses in articles and interviews published this month. They also avoid, with the utmost caution, affirming or denying that the more than fifty Cursillo documents on which Bishop Mayer bases his criticism are false.
In this regard, it is particularly amusing to note the uniformity with which Cursillo participants repeat that those who have not done Cursillos cannot judge them, and that those who have done them can judge only favorably. One would say that Cursillos are something esoteric. They print materials for external use that even their apologists dare not defend. But behind closed doors, they say and do splendid things that contradict what they publish. They are like tombs whitewashed inside.
It seems that the leaders of Cursillismo all argue from the same script.
* * *
To document the vacuity of Cursillo apologetics, I would like to quote—with respect and sadness—an argument advanced by several prelates opposing the campaign to disseminate the Pastoral Letter.
These prelates proclaim themselves enthusiasts of the Cursillos in their respective dioceses and conclude that spreading Bishop Mayer’s Pastoral Letter is an affront because the document attacks what they claim is excellent.
Without considering other aspects of this argument, let me remind you that it is fundamentally flawed. Bishop Mayer does not contradict these prelates simply because his Pastoral Letter does not address the Cursillos in their dioceses.
Bishop Mayer simply states, in general terms, that within the vast network of Brazilian Cursillos, some are infected with errors while others are not. On what basis do those pro-Cursillo bishops imagine that the Cursillos in their dioceses—so excellent, according to them—are mentioned in the Pastoral Letter as infected? On what page of the Pastoral Letter is this stated? They cannot say.
This example illustrates the lack of content in pro-Cursillo apologetics.
* * *
Let us now change the subject.
The previous reflections lead us to discuss the Cursillos of Burgos.
In a recent article, I mentioned a letter from a group of Cursillistas to the magazine Vida Nueva. The letter complained about severe measures the archdiocesan authorities had taken against priests who led Cursillos and against Cursillos itself. Later, I learned that the president of the Diocesan Secretariat of Cursillos in Burgos had denied this. Out of loyalty, I also informed my readers of this. At the same time, I promised them that I would seek further information on the matter. I will now provide them with that information.
Indeed, the Diocesan Secretariat of Cursillos in Burgos drafted a note that Vida Nueva published on December 16. The note was intended as a denial of the letter previously printed in the same magazine. In reality, very much in the Cursillo style, the note denied little.
Regarding the removal of Cursillo leaders, it reported that a Franciscan and a Jesuit from the priestly leadership team had been transferred by their superiors to other cities, where they now hold different positions. In itself, this fact does not refute the priests’ guilt, since the removal of a religious does not necessarily carry a positive or negative connotation. A priest may be removed either to assign him to a higher task or to remove him from a position where his performance is reprehensible.
As stated in the Cursillista communiqué, the Secretariat itself suspended the Schools and Ultreyas, not the Archdiocese. With this information, the communiqué aims to refute the claim that the Archbishopric’s measure was punitive. However, this argument concludes nothing. It often happens that the diocesan authority, instead of acting directly against an association it is dissatisfied with, discreetly entrusts the society’s leadership with taking appropriate punitive measures. To defend itself, the Secretariat of Cursilhos in Christianity would have to state the reasons for closing the Schools and Ultreyas. It cautiously avoided doing so.
On closer inspection, the statement offers more reason to distrust Cursillos than to trust them.
* * *
Another document that does not speak in favor of Cursillos is a letter from four Cursillistas, published in the magazine Vida Nueva in the same December 16 issue. The letter’s authors provide their names, thereby assuming full responsibility for their statements. They express their solidarity with the anonymous Cursillistas whose letter Vida Nueva had published on November 11. They also affirm that the (ecclesiastical) director of Cursillos had been dismissed, the Ultreyas suspended, etc.
At the same time, the authors of this second letter complain that the Archdiocese’s hierarchy showed only “indifference or fear” toward Cursillos and assert that other “avant-garde” Catholic groups, such as JOC-HOAC, are treated similarly.[1]
Consequently, they complain that the measures against Cursillos were taken without consulting them, in violation of the principle of “co-responsibility” inherent in the post-conciliar phase. This suggests that they do not attribute the measures against Cursillos to its Secretariat but to the archdiocesan authority.
Finally, on December 16, Vida Nueva published a third letter, also signed by four Cursillistas. The document issues a virtual challenge to the Archbishop of Burgos. Why are post-conciliar priests persecuted in his archdiocese? Why does the archdiocese, having dismissed the director of Cursillos, leave the position vacant for four months?
All this shows that the president of Cursillos in Burgos sought to hide the sun with a sieve through his cunning statement.
* * *
The relevance of this information about the Cursillo crisis in Burgos to the Brazilian people lies in showing that Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer’s statements about certain Cursillos are so true that this movement arouses similar concerns even far from our country.
[1] Juventud Operaria Católica-Hermandad Obrera de Acción Católica [Catholic Worker Youth-Workers’ Brotherhood of Catholic Action].