Dangerous Optimism – Folha de S. Paulo, November 29, 1970
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
In Ceará, the police confiscated instructions from the Chinese Communist Party on how its operatives should infiltrate Catholic institutions in our country.
Understandably, this caused concern across a broad range of public opinion. In 1968, a petition from the TFP, asking the Holy Father to take measures against communist infiltration in Catholic circles, was signed by 1,600,368 Brazilians. Since then, unfortunate and widely known events have shown the increasing severity of this infiltration. Therefore, it is natural that, given the sophisticated methods that communists use to spread their ideology more deeply within the Church, everyone’s concern has grown significantly.
* * *
In contrast, a high-ranking church official remains completely calm and unconcerned. I am referring to Most Rev. Aloísio Lorscheider, CNBB’s secretary general.
He shared his reasons for optimism when approached by the press.
According to Bishop Lorscheider, since Our Lord Jesus Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, “Such plans [by the Chinese Communist Party] are harmless and even ridiculous. The Church has never feared them, nor will it ever fear them.”
The police suggested that the Episcopate establish strict entrance exams for seminaries to prevent Marxist infiltration. The CNBB secretary-general opposed this: “In the Church, we are not concerned with pulling up weeds, but with letting the wheat grow. … The selection will be made on Judgment Day.”
Such reasons surprise and even unsettle me. I would very much like to discuss them with His Excellency.
* * *
In fact, besides being unfounded, this “modus agendi” [way of acting] derived from Our Savior’s promise of indefectibility to his Church, and this interpretation of the wheat and chaff parable, seemingly lead directly to absurdity. It is also concerning that a person of Bishop Lorscheider’s stature thinks this way.
If we accept the idea that the Church should ignore its enemies’ plans because it is indestructible, the logical conclusion is that we should adopt a passive stance and abandon any form of struggle. Then, what happens to the Church’s militant character?
I can already hear the objection: Catholics should not be satisfied with just the fact that the Church does not die! They should want it to thrive and expand so that the practice of virtue spreads, vice is kept in check, and as many souls as possible are saved.
I completely agree. We should be concerned about its infiltration into the Church because a victory of communism represents a serious obstacle to practicing virtue, a fundamental rejection of Christian morality, and a significant threat to the salvation of souls.
This is so clear that I see no reason for His Excellency’s lack of concern.
Or should I imagine that CNBB’s distinguished secretary shares the same belief as the notoriously controversial Chilean Cardinal Silva Henriquez, who is so convinced of Marxism’s harmlessness or even virtues that he went as far as singing a “Te Deum” in Santiago Cathedral in thanksgiving for Allende’s inauguration as president?
I prefer not to extend my guesses that far and am left without understanding anything…
* * *
Regarding the idea that seminaries should not be monitored to prevent the entry of communist agitators because the wheat is not separated from the chaff in this life, let the reader consider the absurd consequences this surprising interpretation of the beautiful parable leads to.
Communism is not the only kind of tares in this valley of tears. There are also a thousand other forms of error, heresy, schism, and moral corruption. Logic would dictate that the advocated policy of turning a blind eye to communist tares should also be applied to other types of tares in seminaries—to pushers of vice and drugs, for example.
As a result, seminaries would become educational institutions where all types of wrongdoers and corrupt influences could most easily corrupt a young man.
Can anyone with a true understanding of the sacredness of seminaries imagine a more outrageous contradiction?
* * *
I am not expressing my disagreement with the theses in the interview with the young, intelligent, and cultured secretary-general of the CNBB just for the sake of objecting.
People who know me can attest that, by nature and upbringing, I am cautious and avoid arguing just for the sake of arguing.
However, I see the disastrous example of Chile, a country that would never have fallen into the grips of Marxism if not for actions by bishops and priests like Silva Henriquez, and I sincerely hope to prevent my country from facing a similar fate. That’s why I do my best to warn our audience not to be swept up by Bishop Lorscheider’s unsettling optimism. His “laissez-faire” attitude could lead us into a comparable situation.
* * *
And since I mentioned Cardinal Silva Henriquez in passing, let me show the reader the first result he gained from his “policy of the outstretched hand” toward communism.
The Marxist government showed its claws shortly after the new president took office. It set up a commission of jurists to study the issue of divorce, and the Minister of Justice announced that legalizing abortion was urgent.
I don’t know how much His Eminence will be bothered by the legalization of abortion. Unless I’m mistaken, he was one of the most outspoken opponents of Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae, which condemned the contraceptive pill.
But I wonder what the cardinal and his followers will do in response to the threat of divorce. In my opinion, they will stay hopeful. They will claim they trust the government and fear nothing if divorce is not approved. If it is, they will remain silent or only protest on the surface. Once the dangerous measure is approved, they will argue that it could have been much worse and was not, thanks to Allende’s “moderation” and the bishops’ “prudence.” Therefore, the optimistic bishops and priests will advise accepting the fait accompli to prevent something worse.
* * *
Let me shift the topic slightly.
The “toads” are also part of the flock of optimists at all costs.
Leading the group of Chilean landowners is a gentleman who is the exact counterpart of Cardinal Silva Henriquez in church circles. He is the president of the National Agricultural Society, one of the most influential organizations of Chilean landowners.
The name of this “toad” is worth mentioning: Benjamin Matte.
Throughout the Chilean TFP’s long and notable struggle against Frei’s socialist and confiscatory land reform, Mr. Matte disagreed with our Chilean counterpart. Sometimes, he watered down their protests, and other times, he avoided them altogether. However, he never truly and effectively defended the class he had a sacred duty to protect as president of the National Agricultural Society.
Last week, he happily joined Allende, demonstrating his determination to accept “the new reality in which Chile lives” and travel to Cuba to explore how he can collaborate with his homeland’s Marxist government.
Attention, Brazilian public: This is what our “toads” would do in similar circumstances, instead of defending our country inch by inch against the deadly influence of communism.
* * *
Summing up all these considerations in a general conclusion, I affirm that communism is a danger in South America only because it encounters all kinds of “optimists.”
