by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
As soon as they arrived in exile, the fifteen communists who were “exchanged” to free Ambassador Charles B. Elbrick were joyfully welcomed by their Brazilian and Mexican counterparts. No cheers, applause, or tributes were missing, but most appeared dissatisfied. Thirteen went to Cuba to receive additional tributes.
Fidel Castro greeted them very formally, accompanied by the Minister of Communications and members of the Cuban Communist Party Central Committee. As is typical in these situations, there were speeches from both sides. Excited, our compatriots even seemed eager to stay and live in Cuba, as they declared that they would like to “make Cuba our home.”
Fidel Castro, whose irritable temperament is well known, may have been annoyed by the unexpected idea of such close coexistence. Press reports say he began to lecture on Cuban issues and even mentioned sugarcane planting. The reader knows the unfortunate Cubans are forced to cut sugarcane for the government. At this point in his digression, casting his venomous gaze over the thirteen guests—students, former sergeants, and intellectuals used to city life—he said maliciously, “If you want to work out, you can cut some sugarcane.”
Honestly, I thought it was a great idea. It’s definitely the first—and probably the last—time—that I agree with Fidel. What could be better than hard, healthy farm work to relax those thirteen city folks?
The thirteen visitors did not agree. Aware of the many unforeseen events one faces in a communist country, they ignored the dangerous and inconvenient invitation.
* * *
Statistics from the Pastoral Institute of the Netherlands show 400 fewer priests in the country in 1965. Priestly ordinations numbered 421 in 1957 and decreased to 145 in 1968. The total number of priests leaving the ministry reached 7.2 percent last year.
Confronted with the current wave of apostasies and the likelihood of more to come, the Dutch Episcopate has created an institute specifically to support clergy and religious who have left or are about to leave their vocation. As a result, the hierarchy is dedicated to making the process for those exiting the sacred ranks as simple and straightforward as possible.
All of this—plus the notorious Dutch Catechism and many other issues—has caused strange shifts in how the Dutch church authorities act. As a result, many priests and laypeople are surprised and worried. Two groups, “Confrontation” and “St. Michael’s Legion,” bring together and represent Dutch Catholics who stay loyal to tradition despite many challenges.
Talking about the latter’s dissatisfaction, the apparently progressive Bishop Theodorus Zwartkruis of Haarlem told the press that he receives many letters expressing surprise and confusion at what is happening. The prelate claimed that “he tries to respond to each one.” He made a chilling observation: “What is remarkable in this case is that, despite everything, they [those dissatisfied with progressivism] continue to believe in the Church.”
The number of vocations is decreasing, the scandal of apostasy is increasing, more faithful Catholics are frightened, but the bishop remains calm. He doesn’t understand how the Church’s most faithful children still believe in her!
Was it worth implementing such broad reforms to accomplish this result?
Indeed, if asked, the bishop of Haarlem would recommend even more substantial and impressive reforms as a solution to many problems.
Such is the eagerness to change: in trying to fix the effects of a disastrous change, it often leads to even greater changes.
* * *
A Bavarian friend wrote to me, worried about the spread of the same fever in his country. A supporter of what he calls “moderate reforms” in the Church and the State, he is now scared by the many things he sees changing quickly around him. He used this interesting comparison to describe his feelings about the situation: “I am like someone who wanted to change the window sills and notices that they are renovating the entire house to the point of making it unrecognizable.”
St. Thomas’s authority indeed holds little or no sway among progressives. However, Catholics who stick to sound doctrine always respect the Angelic Doctor.
Let me quote, for their benefit, an enlightening commentary from the Summa Theologica on changing civil and ecclesiastical laws:
As stated above (Article 1), human law is rightly changed, insofar as such change is conducive to the common weal. But, to a certain extent, the mere change of law is of itself prejudicial to the common good: because custom avails much for the observance of laws, seeing that what is done contrary to general custom, even in slight matters, is looked upon as grave. Consequently, when a law is changed, the binding power of the law is diminished, insofar as custom is abolished.
After these wise words, which are so apt to cure the reformatory itch that afflicts many today, the Common Doctor sets the conditions for a change to be reasonable.
Wherefore human law should never be changed, unless, in some way or other, the common weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this respect. Such compensation may arise either from some very great and every evident benefit conferred by the new enactment; or from the extreme urgency of the case, due to the fact that either the existing law is clearly unjust, or its observance extremely harmful. Wherefore the jurist says [Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff., tit. 4, De Constit. Princip.] that “in establishing new laws, there should be evidence of the benefit to be derived, before departing from a law which has long been considered just.” [1]
How does this caution in change conflict with the obsession for innovating everything everywhere, for every purpose and at every moment! What a powerful lesson in wisdom… for those who can recognize it.
[1] Summa Theologica, Ia, II ae, q. 97, art. 2, c. “Change in laws” https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2097.htm#article2 (Accessed 9/12/2025).