Dom Helder’s Cyclamates, Period. – Folha de S. Paulo, November 2, 1969
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
A reader writes: “You must be very disappointed. Shortly after writing the article proclaiming the need for official and public negotiations between Brazil and the Vatican on the problem of Catholic leftism, and affirming that behind-the-scenes negotiations on this matter are useless, I read news of the utmost importance in a reputable morning newspaper. According to statements made to the press in Rome by Teresina’s Archbishop Avelar Brandão, the Vatican has forbidden Archbishop Helder Camara from making any statements outside his diocese. You see, Dr. Plinio, how behind-the-scenes diplomacy can and has yielded remarkable results. It has been proven that discreet and slow measures can produce much more than the drastic and public action you advocate. I am certain you will be honest enough to retract your statements in your next article.”
It seems it’s time to close the chapter on the topic I’ve already addressed in two articles. However, with his challenge, my correspondent has left himself vulnerable to criticism, so I can’t resist delivering a final strike. In today’s article, I thus wrap up this matter with a foil rather than a pen… but it’s not my fault.
* * *
My reader prefers behind-the-scenes negotiations and doesn’t want a response in a direct, personal letter. He challenges me to defend myself in the press rather than on the sidelines. Well, he will get his wish.
Whatever my reader might think about the Holy See (from his tone, I believe he belongs to Cardinal Suenens’ “anti-Roman Curia” camp), no one can deny the great sagacity, experience, and traditional wisdom that have characterized the Vatican’s decisions for twenty centuries. Still, this measure concerning Dom Helder is so poorly considered that only utterly clumsy negotiations could have led to it.
Indeed, like any bishop, Dom Helder’s influence spans three areas in today’s fast-changing world: his diocese, his country, and the entire world. Naturally, the most significant actions a bishop can take are within his diocese, where he serves as the teacher, guide, and spiritual leader on whom religious life depends. His voice echoes in other dioceses across his country but often with less clarity, mixed with the voices of other bishops who may hold differing opinions. A bishop’s words are easily lost in the chaos of modern communication. This is true even when the bishop has much more publicity than the late President Vargas, as Dom Helder does. Truly, what impact can it have on a Catholic in Oslo, New Delhi, or Vigo when Dom Helder makes a controversial statement amid the global noise of protesting cardinals, priests, nuns, bishops who marry, theologians who preach atheism, and more?
Let’s be honest. The real damage from Dom Helder’s statements isn’t where most people think—it’s in Brazil, especially in Recife and Olinda. Simply put, the Holy See’s decision announced by Bishop Avelar Brandão will stop him from doing minor harmful acts and might cause him to commit worse ones.
Furthermore, the concept of Chinese walls is a thing of the past. No barrier separates Dom Helder’s diocese from the rest of Brazil. All he needs to do is make a statement in Recife, and rapid propaganda spreads his words across the country. When written propaganda isn’t enough, it’s replaced by word-of-mouth communication from his followers in many locations, or by his traveling prophets, like the untouchable subversive agent, Fr. Joseph Comblin. The Red Archbishop is thus free to operate directly within Brazil, which I want to keep free from the influence of the Catholic left!
And my reader describes this as the result of a well-done negotiation?
* * *
What surprises me most about the decision that brings joy to my reader is its contradiction.
If Dom Helder is the only bishop in Brazil who cannot make statements outside his diocese, then such statements are harmful. Otherwise, the restriction would be meaningless.
Given this harm, how can we explain that Dom Helder still has the right to speak out and possibly harm his archdiocese, especially in the part of the world where his influence is naturally most substantial?
* * *
To show the power of my argument, think about cyclamates for a moment. Imagine a government banning its export and use across the country but allowing free circulation within the city where it is made. The health of that city’s unfortunate residents hardly matters. Let them die! The country and the world will stay safe. What should we think of a government that behaves this way?
However, the Holy See is engaging in this nonsense to the detriment of the glorious archdiocese of Olinda and Recife. This does not harm physical health (and the pain would not be the worst, since a French writer described health as a fragile state that always ends badly), but it poses a great risk to the soul’s health, which affects the eternal destiny of an entire population.
* * *
Furthermore, cyclamates were banned, officially disavowed, and are being recalled. However, this does not apply to Dom Helder’s statements. They are neither officially disavowed nor have the books or printed materials distributed so far been recalled. In this regard, the situation is similar to allowing all cyclamates on the market to be quietly consumed until they are gone. Let the cancer spread and multiply until all cyclamates are absorbed: who cares?
* * *
But, my correspondent will argue, isn’t the ban announced by the Vatican through Bishop Avelar Brandão’s authorized words enough to neutralize Dom Helder’s ideological cyclamates?
They are not. The Church is a perfect society with enough means to resolve all issues. The ban on Dom Helder is only valid if officially published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official record of the Holy See, or, let’s say, in L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican’s unofficial mouthpiece.
In this situation, an informal statement from a bishop to unofficial newspapers has no legal authority against another bishop.
Additionally, I read the interview with Bishop Avelar Brandão about Dom Helder, which seemed utterly inconclusive.
* * *
I conclude that Bishop Avelar Brandão’s statements either convey the meaning my reader attributed to them or they do not.
If they do, they are entirely ineffective. And if they were effective, it would be unfortunate. They would show the “huge” results that behind-the-scenes negotiations can achieve.
If they don’t have the meaning my correspondent ascribes to them, then there were no negotiations.
In either case, my correspondent is wrong, period.
