Gall and Prudence – Folha de S. Paulo, March 21, 1971

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

I was shocked to read in the press the response of the archdiocese’s news outlet, Ecclesia, to General Souza Melo’s inaugural lecture at CPOR [Centro de Preparação de Oficiais da Reserva – Reserve Officers Training Center].

Yes, the note startled me, not because of the general, but because of the Church.

Actually, people may agree or disagree with the general. But they cannot deny that his inaugural lecture meets the criteria of a solid document from an intellectual perspective. It is clear, well-structured, substantive, and unbiased. If Ecclesia wanted to challenge the general, it should have done so with an equal or higher level of intellectual tone. This aligns with the fundamental principles of a sound debate. Additionally, it is what the bulletin owes in respect to the archdiocese it has the honor of representing.

However, the note published by Ecclesia on that occasion did not align with any of these. It lacked strength in its reasoning, elegance in its language, and clarity in its presentation. It was neither impressive nor convincing; it was pathetic. That is why I was surprised. Let me explain.

I agree with the general’s statements. While I oppose Ecclesia, my love for the Church led me to expect that the archdiocese’s mouthpiece would be gracious in the arena. This was the traditional and noble ecclesiastical standard of the past. However, the exact opposite happened, and I was stunned when I realized this standard had been broken. How far will we go in this troubling chain of broken standards?

After that, I didn’t think about it again. However, I admit I was taken aback when I read a new note from Ecclesia, this time criticizing my article in the column titled “Try an Experiment, Reader.” The departure from tradition was even more abrupt than in the reply to the general. It was so startling that it almost felt unsettling. Despite all the bitterness it contains, Ecclesia‘s response is so harmless that I have no hesitation in sharing it in full. Judge for yourself.

“To Mr. Plinio C. de Oliveira. ‘Try an Experiment, Reader’ is the title of the article that Mr. Plinio Correia de Oliveira published in Folha de S. Paulo on March 7, on page 52, against the Ecclesia Information Center and one of its editorials.

“The expressions the university professor uses sporadically are so inconsistent with his class that they seem to discredit everything he says. In addition, he strikes blows at his own imagination. In fact, he interprets in his own way what we said about communism, an ‘economically debatable’ system, and then argues against what we did not affirm.

“It would be useless to engage in a controversy over the aforementioned article. It would only benefit Mr. Plinio C. de Oliveira himself and his mill. In recent years, he has already demonstrated that he is unwilling to see certain very simple things, while on the other hand, he sees too much. It would be better to refer him to our editorial ‘A Fala do General’ (The General’s Speech), published in Newsletter No. 40 of our Ecclesia Information Center, and also on the front page of the March 13, 1971 edition of O São Paulo. Canon Amaury Castanho, Director.”

* * *

Isn’t it sad? Running away is sad enough on its own. What’s even sadder is running away with such a lack of tact and agility.

For example, Ecclesia accuses me of misinterpreting what its newsletter said. Now, it is easy to claim that my interpretation was wrong. What is difficult is to prove that it actually was. Where, in Ecclesia‘s reply, is the proof? The bulletin very cautiously avoids the issue and masks its retreat by directing the reader to Newsletter No. 40, which is also evasive.

Soon afterward, Ecclesia openly explains why it avoids the discussion by saying that “it would only benefit Mr. Plinio C. de Oliveira himself.” However, the benefit would be entirely Ecclesia‘s if it could defeat me through good argumentation.

Finally, after carefully avoiding the discussion, Ecclesia, full of bile, lashes out with an insult. The newsletter claims that I am not usually acting in good faith in what I write because “I do not want to see very simple things and, on the other hand, I see too much.” What are the “simple things” that I refuse to see? What are the things about which I “see too much”? Once again, Ecclesia cautiously avoids saying it. It throws a stone and runs away because it admits that it does not see the wisdom of delving into the merits of the issues we disagree on, discussing facts and presenting arguments.

Regarding the literary part of the Note, it is no better than its dialectic. The phrase “blows to one’s own imagination” sounds awkward and distorted. The reference to my “mill” is unclear. What kind of mill is this? And what does this story about my “mill” “profiting” mean? If I had a mill, what would this “benefit” involve? Probably, when the Note’s author intended to write “water,” he wrote “benefit” by mistake. It was likely a distraction. He was thinking of some benefit while writing. In any case, this slip does not reflect well on his literary skills.

* * *

Let us now take a look at this Newsletter No. 40.

It is titled “For a Better Tomorrow.” One of its goals is to counter those who criticize Ecclesia for wanting “a new social, political, and economic order that is more humane and Christian.” As a result, it then defends itself against this accusation.

However, as far as I know, no one has accused Ecclesia of this matter. Who would want the current social order to halt its progress in a humane and Christian way? Even communists claim to seek humane and Christian progress, which they say aligns with Marxism. Therefore, Ecclesia has nothing to defend itself against in this regard.

As for me, my concern with the Ecclesia bulletin is that it has taken a very suspicious stance on private property. It leans toward supporting the community of goods, or communism, so its editors tried to address this in Bulletin No. 40.

Let us see how they defend Ecclesia.

They claim it aligns with a “social solution equidistant from capitalism and communism.” What exactly does this middle ground involve? The Ecclesia directors could only justify it against my suspicion by: 1) clearly and thoroughly outlining its program in this regard; 2) demonstrating that it contains nothing socialist or communist.

However, they are always elusive and avoid this path, choosing another escape route to show that Ecclesia does not deny “any value to many structures and institutions of our current social, political, or economic order,” which is quite different. So, once again, they do not defend it against what it has been accused of, but instead try to defend it against what it has not been accused of.

The text begins with general statements and common platitudes before focusing on the main issue of private property. This is the core point. Does Ecclesia see the community of goods as compatible with Catholic doctrine? What is their response? “We admit the legitimacy of private property.” So far, so good. The Church has recognized this for two thousand years. However, admitting private property’s legitimacy does not necessarily mean it considers communism, its opposite, unlawful, since some might see both regimes as lawful. This is the accusation against Ecclesia. Yet, it avoids giving a clear stance on this matter. In short, here too, the Ecclesia leaders sidestep the issue.

* * *

I only had one meeting with Archbishop Paulo Evaristo Arns. It was a long, meaningful, and warm discussion. Recalling the friendly atmosphere of that conversation, I feel inspired to make an appeal from these columns to the pastor of the São Paulo flock. I therefore ask him to investigate who wrote the Ecclesia note I mentioned earlier. Canon Amaury Castanho signs it. I do not know this priest, but the true author must be someone else, because even today, the intellectual level of a canon cannot be this low. Canon Amaury likely lent his name to some inept collaborator. Once the author is identified, I suggest that the archbishop dismiss him from writing, as everything indicates he is also behind the poor reply to the general and Bulletin No. 40, and is likely involved in others. I fear the archdiocese’s news outlet may sink to an even lower level, bringing shame to the distinguished institution it represents.