Double Standards – Folha de S. Paulo, February 28, 1971

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

Until recently, the well-known hymn “Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat”—a majestic song of glory and triumph, performed thousands of times in churches throughout Brazil and around the world to proclaim the universal kingship of the Redeemer—was the theme song used in Vatican Radio broadcasts.

Nothing could be more fitting. However, perhaps because of that, the station’s directors have just replaced that grandiose declaration with “Jesus Christ Superstar,” a rock-style song that aligns with the “Hair” musical. The song was written by the Englishmen Andrew Lloyd and Tim Price.

Thus, Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is by all accounts King of the Universe and Humanity, and who, incidentally, proclaimed himself King (Lk 23:3), moves from being the supreme Sovereign to a mere actor who differs from others only in that he is greater—a super actor. If this new title is accepted, one could almost say that the Life, Passion, and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ were mere theater. Super theater!

The news, so shocking that it seems untrue, is nevertheless completely trustworthy. It was published by the reputable magazine Ecclesia of Madrid, in its January 23 edition.

* * *

Bishop Valdir Calheiros has long voiced concerns among the public about social unrest. An investigation by the military authorities in Barra Mansa is currently ongoing, suspecting him of being a subversive.

Of course, this investigation is subject to the uncertainties inherent in any inquiry. It could determine the prelate’s innocence or guilt. Everything depends on the evidence uncovered. For the investigation to be fair and objective, it should be carried out according to the highest standards of law, ensuring that the accused prelate has every opportunity to defend himself. This is what his friends and the public are entitled to ask for and even demand.

However, the letter that CNBB [National Conference of Bishops of Brazil] directors sent to the bishop of Volta Redonda during their recent meeting in Belo Horizonte seems to have gone much further. In that letter, they prejudge the investigation’s results even before knowing what facts it will uncover: “We cannot accept the accusation that you (Bishop Calheiros) are a subversive. We do not believe that Your Excellency is in the service of those who seek to overthrow the government,” etc.

Why claim, a priori, that Bishop Valdir Calheiros can’t be subversive? Is it because he is a bishop? What theological treatise states that a bishop is immune from this or other sins simply because he has received the fullness of the priesthood?

* * *

In fact, a bishop can clearly endorse subversion, and the difference between supporting it and being subversive isn’t very big.

For example, Father Comblin is a subversive. His revolutionary document scandalized all of Brazil. What measures did Dom Helder take to stop Father Comblin’s subversive preaching? None at all. Conversely, he gave him a chair at the Theological Institute of Recife and keeps him there despite all odds. This clearly shows support. Note that, to the dismay of the entire country, the CNBB awarded Dom Helder a prestigious vote of confidence, entrusting him with the task of reporting the results of the Belo Horizonte meeting to the press, radio, and television.

Some might dislike this comment. However, they cannot deny it. The facts it is based on are clear, and the consequences that come from them are evident.

* * *

I have another thought about this subject.

During the trial of the Dominican priests involved in the Marighela case and other subversive activities, the public looked to the bishops of the ecclesiastical districts where they served with horror, expecting them to issue a firm rebuke for their clergy’s scandalous conduct. The bishops responded to the public’s anguished questions with cold detachment: we cannot say anything now; only when the trial concludes will the criminal facts be proven or not. Only then will we speak.

Why doesn’t the same rule apply to Bishop Calheiros? In the case of this controversial bishop from Volta Redonda, why are the bishops prejudging the matter even before the investigation is finished?

* * *

Double standards… Brazilians observing recent events in Poland are led to think: “here as there, there are evil fairies.” Nothing is more contradictory than the Polish bishops’ conciliatory attitude toward their ruling communist regime, and the Catholic left’s provocative and boastful attitude in non-communist countries.

Let’s examine the facts. As widely reported in the press, the communist regime in Poland is headed for disaster. Production is declining, the population is increasing, prices are rising, and wages remain flat.

If this happened in any free country, the Catholic left would organize marches, incite strikes, and stir unrest. If the government responded, many people like Dom Helder would blame the regime and its institutions in sensational interviews.

On the contrary, what actions did the Polish episcopate take as the strikes in Gdansk, Lodz, and other places were suppressed? The bishops did not call for regime change or structural reforms. Instead, they tried to appease the masses and made it easier for the communist rulers to maintain their grip on power.

Thus, in a document signed by Cardinal Wyszynski and read in all the churches of Poland, the episcopate states: “We want to cooperate with all the children of this country, for the time has come to share the bread of reconciliation.”

In communist countries, when there is hunger, the Catholic left addresses the issue with the “bread of reconciliation.” When there is hunger in non-communist countries, they “solve” it through subversion.

Aren’t these examples of double standards?

* * *

Furthermore, in non-communist countries, Comblin-like Catholic leftists spread distrust of those in power. In Poland, as the same document states, the episcopate fosters hope in the communist government: “a new climate is emerging in Poland” with the current government, the bishops say, and “a light of hope is appearing.”

These words were spoken earlier this month. Since then, all we’ve heard about is hunger, growing discontent, threats of a Russian invasion, and so on.

Where is the “light of hope”?

Until now, the bishops have chosen to stay silent on the matter.

* * *

In Brazil, despite the strong development index achieved by various administrations, subversives are calling for the overthrow of the regime and the immediate implementation of the infamous “basic reforms.”

In Poland, the new government has officially announced that it will not raise wages due to a lack of funds. Instead of increasing pay, it suggests working more.

Finally, Russia had to provide some financial support to enable a small wage increase and prevent a widespread uprising. This is only a temporary solution, as Poland can’t rely on economic aid from Russia forever.

However, we are unaware of any Catholic voice emerging within circles close to the Polish episcopate that calls for the fall of the communist regime. In capitalist countries, even when everything seems to be correct, the regime is regarded as wrong. In other words, even if the effects of communism are negative, the regime is still seen as good. Conversely, in non-communist countries, the regime is considered bad even if the results are positive.