In the Post-Assembly Climate – Folha de S. Paulo, February 25, 1973
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
The recent General Assembly of Bishops took place amid widespread anticipation. Among the factors contributing to this anticipation was TFP’s dissemination of Bishop Mayer’s momentous Pastoral Letter on Cursillos in Christianity. Rumors circulated that the CNBB would publish a resounding praise of the Cursillo Movement, along with an even more resounding condemnation of the TFP.
When the Assembly’s communiqué was published, it became clear that the predictions widely circulated by Cursillo propaganda were almost entirely unfounded. Regarding the Cursillos, the bishops included only this friendly reference in their final communiqué: “The Cursillos in Christianity Movement deserves a word of encouragement, especially at this time when objections are disputing its professed fidelity to Christ and His Church. It will be all the more desired and applauded the more it identifies with the spirit of the Gospel. It has been awakening dormant Christian energies in our midst and is a call from God to the generosity of lay apostles.”
A discerning reader can clearly see from these words that the Episcopate has made clear that 1) it does not endorse Bishop Mayer’s pastoral letter; 2) but it also avoids stating that the errors the Bishop of Campos pointed out have not infiltrated the Cursillo Movement.
This is quite different from the resounding praise that was eagerly anticipated.
As for the TFP, not a word—an even more surprising result than the eagerly awaited condemnation.
* * *
These observations provide background for this article’s theme.
As we have just seen, the manifest intention of the Bishops’ Assembly was to be measured and discreet. Now, anyone who adopts such an attitude in a situation of great expectation clearly aims to pour cold water on the proceedings.
Thus, it seems clear that those bishops who, after the meeting, expressed harsh antipathy toward the TFP acted contrary to the Assembly’s spirit and intentions. This is all the more regrettable because, by speaking out immediately after the Assembly ended, they gave the public the impression that they were speaking on its behalf.
In this context, Bishop Ivo Lorscheiter, CNBB Secretary General, gave a particularly surprising press interview. He told journalists that the Assembly had not condemned the TFP for three reasons. I have already examined two of them in my latest article. There remains a third. Let us analyze it.
According to Bishop Lorscheiter, the bishops remained silent about the TFP because, by condemning us, they would give the impression that we are more important than we really are. With all due respect, we doubt the objectivity of the information he provided. The TFP is discussed from north to south of the country. All the fuss some media outlets made about our anticipated condemnation proves how much public attention is focused on us. I do not believe this audience would grow even more just because the TFP was the subject of one or two paragraphs in the communiqué of the XIII Assembly of Bishops.
There is more. If Bishop Lorscheiter’s information is accurate, it would prove not TFP’s lack of importance but rather the decline in the CNBB’s prestige. Indeed, for our popularity to increase if the CNBB attacked us, the Episcopate would have to have lost much of the influence it holds in the natural order of things.
All this is so abstruse that I prefer to admit that the journalists to whom Bishop Ivo spoke did not interpret his words correctly.
* * *
Most Rev. Serafim Fernandes de Araújo, auxiliary bishop of Belo Horizonte, went much further than Bishop Lorscheiter. According to the Diário de Minas newspaper of the 17th of this month, Bishop Serafim stated that all the bishops present at the 13th Assembly had condemned the TFP. This statement is reminiscent of a magic trick: a jar is filled with a dark liquid, and when its contents are poured into a glass, the liquid flows clear. All the bishops were supposedly intent on condemning the TFP, yet their official statement, the final communiqué, did not contain any condemnation.
Immediately after this strange assertion, Bishop Serafim’s statement appears in quotation marks: “There were some differences of opinion regarding this organization. Some bishops believe that dialogue with the TFP is necessary. Others believe that we should forget about it, since its members do not admit dialogue.” Here again, I offer Bishop Serafim proof that we are open to dialogue and that the bishops who did not attack us acted more paternally than those who decided to “forget” about us.
This “forgetting,” incidentally, seems inexplicable to me. The good shepherd of the Gospel does not “forget” any sheep. On the contrary, he goes in search of any of them, no matter how lost they may be. This principle was invoked by several bishops to visit priests and laypeople in prison who were under the gravest suspicion of terrorism (or worse).
These bishops, acquaintances of Bishop Serafim, prefer to “forget” precisely the TFP, a victim of terror and an advocate of the principles that terrorists deny with bombs in their hands. Woe to us! Above all, woe to them when the Good Shepherd asks them to account for each of their sheep!
* * *
It is with special respect that I mention the name of Cardinal Odilo Scherer. With respect and sorrow, I must note that His Eminence also made statements to the press (cf. O Estado de São Paulo, 2/20/73) that I cannot leave unchallenged. His Eminence asserted that the TFP was “not on the agenda” at the meeting. However, on February 17/23, 1973, this Archdiocese’s official mouthpiece, O São Paulo, published the agenda (on page 5). It reads as follows: “At the request of several bishops present, the agenda of matters to be discussed was expanded by seven items.” The list of these items follows. In sixth place, I read: “the TFP.”
Indeed, several media outlets reported that the Assembly had formed a committee composed of Bishop Gilberto Pereira Lopes of Ipameri (Goiás), Bishop Serafim Fernandes de Araújo, auxiliary bishop of Belo Horizonte, and Bishop Antônio Afonso de Miranda of Lorena, to study the TFP in particular. Furthermore, even before the committee began its studies, other bishops prejudged the matter by issuing press statements opposing the TFP.
Therefore, I do not understand how the eminent cardinal from Rio Grande do Sul could be so misinformed as to claim that we were not on the Assembly’s agenda.
Cardinal Scherer also notes our indifference toward the “pastoral plans” adopted in the dioceses.
As a civic entity, we have no obligation to fit into such plans. However, let me state this. I am not aware of a single diocesan pastoral plan developed within the CNBB that includes open, frontal, and courageous campaigns against communism. If there is such a plan and a diocesan bishop seeks our cooperation for this purpose, please let us know. We will gladly be at your disposal. If any reader knows of a bishop with such a plan, I kindly ask you to let us know.
* * *
It is striking how contradictory the bishops’ statements are after their meeting.
Historians of our confused times will be disconcerted when they realize the extent of this chaos. However, another point will be even more disconcerting.
Why, they will ask themselves, did people speak so naturally about condemning the TFP?
