Dangerously Biased – Folha de S. Paulo, October 25, 1970

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

A few days ago, the Central Committee of the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil held a high-profile meeting in Rio to discuss the arrest of many priests and lay people affiliated with JOC (Catholic Worker Youth) and similar Catholic organizations. The cardinals, archbishops, and bishops at the meeting deliberated, leading to a communiqué published prominently throughout the Brazilian press.

In this article, I will focus on the communiqué rather than the arrests. Sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly, it offers a unique view on how the relationship between spiritual and secular powers should be, especially in Brazil today. If its signatories truly mean the words they expressed on this solemn occasion, we may soon witness what everyone desperately wants to avoid—a conflict between the episcopate (or at least its upper ranks) and the State.

In fact, the reader will notice that the document’s prominent signatories engage as deeply in the State’s domain regarding current socio-economic issues as they do in avoiding involvement in spiritual matters. This creates a clear lack of reciprocity, which is the fundamental condition for any normal relationship between groups and private or public institutions.

As we will see, the perspective error that caused CNBB’s Central Committee to adopt such a biased stance stemmed from its view of the roles it intends to assume in the temporal realm. It assigned these roles the scope they might have in a poorly governed state severely affected by a crisis or close to it. Conversely, when considering the State’s responsibilities in evaluating certain aspects of the country’s religious life, it imagined the Church as being perfectly managed and not facing any crisis. If the bishops’ Central Committee remains stuck in this pessimistic view of the State and maintains an overly optimistic view of the Church, it’s easy to see how relations between the two will be based on false assumptions that can only lead to misunderstandings.

* * *

Let us listen to the Central Committee:

While recognizing the government’s achievements in Brazil’s economic and social development, the Central Committee emphasizes that human development in its various forms— a goal the government has committed to in its official documents—must be fully realized at all political and administrative organization levels. This goal is not met when, to eliminate subversive and degrading terrorism—whose worst victims are the people themselves—the concern for national security leads to a climate of increasing insecurity. Subversive terrorism cannot be countered with the terrorism of repression. We reaffirm our strong condemnation of communism. However, hindering the action of the Church, distorting its image, misrepresenting its doctrine, restricting its activities, and slandering its pastors are clear ways of promoting it.

In simpler and clearer terms, this all means that the bishops praise the government’s success in promoting development, but they protest, in the name of that same development, against what they call a “climate of growing insecurity,” anticommunist “terrorism of repression,” and so on.

I will not comment on the objectivity of the facts alleged by the prelates. However, I am very surprised by their words. No one could say the prelates strayed from their own field if they had spoken on behalf of justice and charity, in other words, Christian morality. However, they spoke in the name of development. I will not say this is wrong, but it needs to be clear, and omitting this clarification sadly distorts the perspectives from which they operate.

As both Teacher and Mother, the Church cannot remain indifferent to people’s worldly progress. However, church leaders must always remember that such progress is primarily the mission of the State. The role of the church hierarchy usually involves supporting the State’s development efforts by offering friendly advice occasionally, but never forcing anything on the State in the name of progress.

It is therefore surprising to see the members of CNBB’s highest body position themselves as guardians of development and direct open, somewhat sarcastic criticism at the temporal power, which they still acknowledge has achieved developmental success.

Another surprising aspect of the quoted text involves the State’s fight against subversion. The document’s signatories felt they needed to strongly declare their opposition to communism. However, they quickly go on to accuse the State of excessive repression of communism. There is a missing element in this attitude.

In fact, the communiqué praises public authorities for the country’s development and criticizes them for their supposed flaws. Therefore, when discussing the repression of communism, the communiqué should praise anticommunist repression in general and protest against any exaggerations. However, the communiqué doesn’t contain a single word of praise for the repression of communism, but only mentions repression to highlight its exaggeration. Isn’t this omission strange?

One might object: but by declaring themselves anticommunist, don’t the members of the Central Committee implicitly endorse anticommunist repression?

Those who answered yes show themselves as easily satisfied. In fact, although CNBB’s Central Committee condemns communism, this condemnation mainly has a theoretical impact within the religious sphere. Where are the anti-communist pastors and sermons that were once so common when communism was seen as a distant threat? Where are the canonical measures to prevent communist infiltration into the Church? If we are optimistic, we might say that almost none of this is visible.

Therefore, it’s no surprise that these prelates don’t support the government’s anti-communist actions and only speak out to accuse it of exaggeration.

The Central Committee’s silence on applauding the government on this issue clearly indicates disapproval of the State.

In this regard, we are disappointed to see CNBB’s Central Committee deeply interfering in State matters in a counterproductive manner, as if trying to save a poorly governed country in crisis from chaos. This is what they refer to, just below the quoted text, as their “critical presence” in the nation’s socioeconomic reality. Let us now observe how they close the doors to temporal power, excluding any “critical presence” by the latter in matters usually reserved for the Church.

* * *

The bishops state: “In judging what is truly in accordance with the Gospel and its application, the bishops of Brazil do not admit to transferring the responsibilities that fall to them by divine mandate.”

In principle, that’s acceptable, but with some reservations. This language suggests that a faithful person can never question a bishop’s orthodoxy, and that the bishop is the ultimate and only authority in matters of faith within his diocese.

Again, while I am not suggesting this reflects the views of CNBB’s Central Committee members, their wording is clearly unfortunate because a country’s episcopate is not infallible on its own.

But let’s proceed to a different aspect of the bishops’ text.

Since the communiqué concerns current relations between the Church and the State, its warning is evidently directed at the State.

Now, let’s imagine a magistrate must judge someone for the crime of subversive activities. Among the evidence are documents with communist-Christian rhetoric. The prosecutor states that the writings are subversive. The defense attorney, however, argues that they are pure Catholic doctrine. As proof, he attaches a certificate from Bishop So-and-so saying that the document is genuinely orthodox. What should the magistrate do? According to CNBB’s Central Committee members, he should blindly accept that the bishop is right and declare the evidence of guilt null and void.

Given Brazil’s concrete and sadly exceptional conditions today, I ask the reader: Is this appropriate?

* * *

In conclusion, the texts cited in the communiqué state that the bishops have the authority to intervene extensively in the affairs of the State and do not recognize any reciprocity on this issue. They also obstruct the State’s ability to defend the country effectively against subversion.

Is this “critical presence,” which CNBB’s Central Committee considers valid in state matters but absolutely denies to the State in any issues involving the Church, not dangerously biased?