Dom Helder Stirs Trouble, the Communists Applaud – Folha de S. Paulo, February 1, 1970

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

As I write, Dom Helder is probably finishing his tour of the Old and New Worlds. He has not missed any chance to promote his usual policy. Let me give an example of what he proposed in Canada. Everyone knows this country’s alliance is vital to the security of the United States. The Dominion’s border with America runs from coast to coast and is the longest between two countries. If Canada were to attack the U.S., it would be like a man with a dagger in his back. Enter Pierre Trudeau, the current Canadian prime minister, known to be a leftist who is unsympathetic toward the neighboring nation. In this tricky situation, Dom Helder apparently thought the best thing to do was to urge Canada to take the lead in the Third World’s demands on the two superpowers, America and Russia. He did what he could to create tension between the two great northern nations.

However, some “toads” might object. In this case, doesn’t Dom Helder’s move also affect Moscow? The answer is simple. Who would suffer the most from the immediate inconveniences and future risks of a problem with Canada? Faraway Russia? Or the neighboring United States? The latter clearly would suffer much more. In other words, Russia’s loss from cooling relations with Canada would be mainly offset by what it would gain from the weakening of the United States. This way of presenting the issue clearly shows who Dom Helder has harmed.

* * *

When the archbishop of Recife arrived in Rome, he was greeted by the pope and soon afterwards gave a sensational interview to the press.

Then, always the traveler, he went to Montreux, where he proposed an ambitious project before the notorious World Council of Churches: a meeting of experts from major European universities with leaders of the main religions to decide on necessary “structural changes.” In this tense setting of religions and universities, Dom Helder, still utopian and unaware of practical realities, refused to involve the practical sector—businessmen. This is because utopian and demagogic minds dislike the input of people who take action, considering them killjoys who force them to leave their entertaining dreams and face the serious, dull reality of life.

* * *

Ultimately, none of this is very significant because it doesn’t go beyond Dom Helder’s importance. It’s sad, very sad, that’s for sure. And it’s especially sad because it warrants analysis. What’s truly important is what happened with Dom Helder in Rome. In this case, the significance doesn’t come from Dom Helder but from the pope. During his intense “tour,” Dom Helder met with His Holiness and later recounted his version of what happened between them. The fact that this version was widely circulated in Brazil and abroad is crucial because it suggests that the leader of Christianity has taken a stance regarding Dom Helder’s actions.

* * *

First, let us remember that, according to an “official” Vatican source, the meeting was “very cordial.”

Dom Helder spoke to the Holy Father about his “past experiences” and his “projects.” Judging by what the archbishop revealed, he did not receive the slightest censure. On the contrary, he left the audience confident and with “his bishop’s soul comforted.”

He then said Brazil “should consider socialist models proportionate to our particular needs.”

After stating that, in his opinion, this Brazilian socialism does not match what is currently practiced in socialist countries, he added: “I dream of a socialization truly capable of creating conditions for full human development as defined in the encyclical Populorum Progressio.”

Finally, he denied the claim that the Holy See had restricted his ability to speak on economic and social issues and stated that he was “completely free to express his ideas anywhere in the world,” including in Brazil.

The archbishop added a lengthy, convoluted, and ambiguous sentence to this categorical statement: “However, there is in Brazil a problem of practical opportunity stemming from the different positions on the country’s reality, which can also be found in Catholic circles.” I’ll give a prize to anyone who understands this.

* * *

It is worth noting that these statements by Dom Helder, although full of the usual twists and turns, reticence, and loopholes, generally lead readers to believe that he received a “green light” from Paul VI and accept the idea that building a Catholic socialism for Brazil is possible. Regarding this point, we hold the opposite view. If misguided Catholics and a “dreamer” archbishop attempt to establish a genuinely socialist regime, that regime will inherently contradict two commandments of God’s law: “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.” The fact that materialists, not Catholics or clergy, violate God’s law does not “baptize” or make such actions lawful.

By defending socialism right after such a “cordial” papal audience that so “comforted” him, Dom Helder leads us to believe that he said nothing contrary to the guidelines he presumably received from His Holiness.

* * *

There are 2,000,368 Catholics across Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay who have petitioned the Holy Father to take action against communist infiltration in Catholic circles. Among the signers of this very serious document are government ministers, prominent figures from the cultural, social, and political sectors, as well as leading clergy and military officials.

So far, this reverent and filial message has received no reply.

I put myself in the shoes of an average reader. Considering Dom Helder’s statements and the Vatican’s silence so far regarding the request of two million anticommunist believers, I realize that unsuspecting and somewhat naive readers might feel confused and puzzled. This is especially true because the communists have not missed a chance to celebrate Dom Helder’s “success.”

In fact, in Italy, the mouthpiece of the Italian Communist Party, L’Unità, was the only newspaper that highlighted Dom Helder’s interview. It published the entire article, announced by a front-page headline next to a photograph of police charging rioters outside a church in Rio.

* * *

We can be confident that the Vatican will take a clear stance if it is properly informed of this complex set of facts created by the red archbishop’s statements and sympathizes with the anxiety and confusion they cause among ordinary faithful. What might that stance be? A denial of Dom Helder’s statements? Or, if it aims to protect him, a supportive response to TFP’s petition? The Vatican has the stature, tradition, and experience to handle this detailed matter.