How Did the Pyramid of Cheops Collapse? – Folha de S. Paulo, February 8, 1969

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

I believe most readers only became fully aware of the crisis in the Church around 1964, when figures from the Catholic clergy and laity sharply opposed what was expected, given the situation created by then-President João Goulart. Since that time, the signs of this unfortunate crisis have been so severe and distinctive that it’s clear this is not just a crisis but a massive, dizzying, almost apocalyptic one. Many rightly believe it may even be the greatest of all, more significant, for example, than Arianism or Protestantism.

Faced with such a catastrophe, which would likely destroy the Church if it were mortal, the natural question is: how could things have gone so wrong so quickly?

This important question becomes even more vital if, as we discussed in our previous article, we remember the many interconnected issues that the current religious crisis shares with other crises harming the country simultaneously. Therefore, let’s seek the answer.

Imagine reading in the press that the Pyramid of Cheops had cracked and a large part had collapsed without any earthquake. Next to it, a telegraphic dispatch would report that the causes of the disaster began in 1964. It would be reasonable to question this information. How could a building have withstood all kinds of weather for thousands of years and then be cracked and knocked down without a catastrophe caused by something happening for only five years? It seems unlikely.

The same common-sense idea applies to the Holy Church of God, an entirely spiritual and supernatural institution, eternal by God’s plan and promise, and therefore much more solid than the Pyramid of Cheops.

Considering the imperfections involved in comparing the Church to worldly things, I believe the image still works well as a good illustration.

Therefore, it’s understandable that the fire at the Church in Brazil started long before 1964. In fact—and this should come as no surprise—it began to flare up around 1940.

* * *

From around 1937 to 1943, a mindset influenced by various European ideas gradually spread through Brazilian religious circles. It was characterized by a desire to resolve the conflict between the Church and the world by means of complete surrender, mainly by reinterpreting Church doctrine and reforming her laws, liturgy, and way of being to fully align with modern ideas.

The word “modern” is ambiguous, but it generally carries a positive connotation. When we talk about modern astronomy, we mean the body of knowledge from the past, refined and expanded through numerous discoveries made during ongoing research. This knowledge is the result of the efforts of earlier generations, which have brought us to the current peak and continue to push us toward even greater achievements through our work. Such modernity can only be seen as positive by the Church. Updating some secondary and optional aspects of the Church’s life can be beneficial from this perspective.

But the word “modern” also carries a terrible connotation, implying that a girl in a miniskirt is more modern than one in a regular-length skirt. A semi-naked girl would be considered more modern than one in a miniskirt, and so on. The more elaborate the work is in art, the more “modern” it is. In another context, a “moderate” socialist considers himself more modern than an anti-socialist. An extreme left-wing socialist claims to be more modern than a “moderate,” and a communist sees himself as ultramodern and looks down on socialists of all previous levels as fossils. So, we could add more examples.

In this sense, “modern” ultimately refers to something whose fullness and ultimate goal are rooted in delirium and communism. Therefore, if the Church must adapt to this second meaning of modernity, she implicitly renounces being herself.

By loudly demanding vague modernization, proposing a mix of good, debatable, and terrible ideas, and often using the good and debatable as cover for the terrible, this false modernity began to reveal itself in some notable movements. To describe very complex events within the limited scope of an article, I will only highlight the harmful aspects of two movements that took hold in Brazil between 1937 and 1943.

1. Catholic Action: a tendency to undermine the authority principle by making the laity almost independent of the clergy; habitually visiting places that all moralists disapprove of, under the pretext of taking “Christ” there; denying the harmonious inequality between social classes and encouraging class struggle.

2. Liturgical Movement: a tendency to challenge authority, sometimes equating the celebrating priest with the congregation; undervaluing certain traditional Catholic piety practices that modern non-Catholic theologians often dislike. These include devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Eucharist outside Mass, Our Lady, the Saints, sacred images, the spirituality of St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Alphonsus Liguori, the Way of the Cross, the Rosary, and others.

3. In both movements: undervaluing asceticism, sacrifice, and the fight against unruly passions through human will, strengthened by grace.

I will set aside the evaluation of related phenomena like Maritainism and focus only on these. Let the reader consider everything that causes him distress in many Catholic circles. He will find that it is almost always a result of the tendencies I have just listed.

* * *

Someone might ask: Isn’t this just a fantasy? How can we prove that such issues were already causing concern in those distant times? Weren’t things peaceful in the Church between 1937 and 1943? A book titled In Defense of Catholic Action was published in São Paulo (Editora Ave Maria) in 1943. It included a respectful preface by the then Apostolic Nuncio in Brazil, now Cardinal Benedetto Aloisi Masella, and it specifically highlighted what I am stating.

The book was written by the then-president of the Archdiocesan Board of Catholic Action of São Paulo, who also authored this article. Widely circulated among Catholic leaders, it was a bombshell that had a strong impact within Catholic circles, although the general public knew little about it. Current veterans of the TFP National Council were heavily involved in its dissemination. We are in the early stages of TFP history.