Fireworks, Not Bombs – Folha de S. Paulo, June 25, 1977

 

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

 

Throughout my public life, I have had the honor and joy of making so many statements, taking so many actions, and fighting so many battles against divorce that no reader of mine is unaware of my feelings about its introduction into the Brazilian Constitution.

However, I will not devote this article to fruitless lamentations. The abolition of the indissolubility of the marital bond does not mean the loss of a war, but of a battle. Yes, a battle in the terrible struggle between the Church (the authentic one, of course) and neo-paganism. A lost battle can be the vigil of a battle won. And a war can be won only in this state of mind.

It seems to me that the first step after losing the battle is to limit the damage. In this spirit, I write this article in cooperation with all those committed to continuing the fight. More specifically, the fight against the rising tide of leftism, blown by Moscow into civil society, as well as against the progressivism, self-destruction, and smoke of Satan, which are damaging the Church of God with Moscow’s cooperation.

The first point to be made is that Congress’s approval of divorce in no way demonstrates a loss of influence of the Catholic religion among the Brazilian people.

If the pro-divorce majority in Congress wanted to act in strict accordance with the democratic principles it claims as the basis of its political program—and I am speaking indiscriminately of pro-divorce members of the ARENA and MDB parties—they should wait one more year. In 1978, we will have legislative elections, giving candidates for and against divorce the opportunity to present their positions to the Brazilian people. If the elected majority were pro-divorce, then and only then could it be said that the introduction of divorce was in accordance with the wishes of a nation in clear religious decline.

Instead, the pro-divorce parliamentary majority hastily approved divorce, just two steps from the polls, without consultation.

It should also be noted that divorce was not a contentious issue in the latest federal elections. As a result, the vast majority of Brazilians did not know how their preferred candidates felt about it. By what mysterious divinatory sense could the current congressmen then claim to know how their voters felt?

It could be said that the congressmen had the means to ascertain the voters’ wishes through requests, messages, or pressure during the debate. That is precisely what I dispute.

Naturally, Catholics tend to trust their pastors to lead in addressing religious crises. But this leadership has proven wanting in intelligence, know-how, and the will to win. Through such spokespeople—considering the usual “honorable exceptions”—the voice of anti-divorce Brazil echoed in the halls of Congress, unconvincing and uncommitted.

However, this does not mean the people are less Catholic. What does it mean, then? I refrain from drawing a conclusion because it is glaringly obvious, and I move on.

In this emergency, common sense would dictate that, as soon as the first rumors of divorce danger surfaced, the national episcopate should publish a major collective pastoral letter, signed by all cardinals, archbishops, and bishops of Brazil.

A great pastoral letter need not be long. On that occasion, the bishops could have offered the faithful a concise and intelligent summary of Catholic doctrine on divorce. An argument grounded extensively in Scripture, Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium, presented in simple, direct, and lively language, could have frankly explained the sin committed by those who vote for pro-divorce candidates or, as legislators, for divorce. It could also have addressed the sin committed by married people who call an adulterous union built on the ruins of an authentic home a “new marriage.” They should have mentioned canonical penalties and one’s private and public judgment after death.

This pastoral letter should be read in installments at all Masses in all churches, chapels, and oratories in Brazil. It should be followed by an announcement that no Catholic could vote in good conscience for any congressman who declares themselves in favor of divorce. The list of these candidates should be read publicly at all Masses, immediately after the vote for or against divorce, and repeated several times in the same manner throughout the upcoming election campaign.

With all the sacred alarm bells ringing in the House of God, the Catholic people would also be invited to flood Congress with messages urging rejection of the constitutional divorce reform.

There would be no need to pressure lawmakers as long as Catholic pronouncements remained within the bounds of Christian courtesy. The voter is the principal, and the congressman is the agent. The agent cannot feel offended or pressured when the principal courteously expresses his intention.

Perhaps it could be argued that drafting the pastoral letter I have in mind would be difficult to do with any urgency. But the fact is that I am not imagining this pastoral letter. Its text has existed for two years and circulated with brilliant success during the 1975 battle for and against divorce. It was the key that locked Brazil’s doors to divorce at the time. Most Rev. Antônio de Castro Mayer, the great bishop whom all authentic Catholics in Brazil admire and applaud, published it under the title “For Indissoluble Marriage,” in 64 pages. The TFP sold it throughout Brazil, reaching a circulation of 100,000 copies.

This incomparable instrument of defense, already proven popular, could now be endorsed by the episcopate through a simple collective decree. More modestly, a clear and courageous statement from the CNBB could have had a decisive effect. It would have been a winning shot.

What did the CNBB do with this text? The bishops left it gathering dust in a drawer and took other paths.

I say “other” because there were three: sleep, drizzle, and ambiguity.

Brazil has 267 bishops. Of these, only 104 spoke out against divorce, according to the vast (and necessarily incomplete) material I was able to gather.

Less informed, of course, is the man on the street, who follows events through his favorite media outlet. For him, the damaging impression was that no fewer than 163 bishops remained silent. Perhaps many of them spoke out through small local ecclesiastical outlets, but the general public does not read these. Thus, I repeat, the damaging impression remained. Without the CNBB taking effective action to remove it, this impression cast a shadow of disinterest or discouragement, undermining the public’s perception of what the 104 who spoke out against divorce had to say.

Indeed, in this era of self-destruction and satanic smoke, so much has changed in the Church that many ignorant people may have wondered whether divorce is still as great an evil as the 104 bishops who spoke out said it was. If so, how can we explain why so many others have remained silent?

On the other hand, almost all of those who spoke—and some spoke many times—said little. Instead of substantial, resounding doctrinal pastoral letters, they showered the public with a sparse, disjointed drizzle of press interviews or brief statements, repeating, with a disconcerting poverty of argument, that they were against divorce. A mere drizzle, extensive yet disjointed. Or, to use another metaphor, simple anti-divorce fireworks rather than the great doctrinal bombardment of a collective pastoral letter that needed to be detonated.

There was no shortage of ambiguity in this sad scenario, and it further weakened the already limited reach of the anti-divorce campaign. Multiple statements against divorce contained phrases so disconcerting that they seemed more like a nod of sympathy, or at least condescension, toward divorce.

Under these conditions, it should come as no surprise that some congressmen and senators wavered, uncertain about the future direction of Catholic thought. Is it not characteristic of Satan’s smoke to present a murky picture capable of disorienting even shrewd but uninformed minds? And is it not characteristic of the process of self-destruction that the Church tragically lost this battle more because of the shortcomings, omissions, and ambiguities of its ecclesiastical leaders than because of the strength of its adversary?