by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
What exactly is progressivism? Is it a socioeconomic or philosophical-theological movement?
In other words, is its ultimate goal to establish an egalitarian society on a global scale by abolishing borders and armies under a universal republic? Or is its program limited to the religious sphere?
In this case, what does it aim for? The establishment of a single universal religion, the abolition of the dogmas or beliefs that currently separate the various religions, and the corresponding introduction of permissive morals, which would result in the abolition of all precepts? Finally, the establishment of a horizontal and simplified ecclesiastical structure, which would give the people the leading role, hitherto held by the hierarchy?
If we ask these questions of the first genuinely literate person we meet on the street, they will probably hesitate, give incomplete and contradictory answers, and ultimately admit they don’t really know. For in this confusion, I think, lies the vast majority of our audience. Most of the time, only experts can answer the question with complete clarity. However, as sad experience shows, they almost always avoid being clear. Anti-progressives refrain from clarity because they are fearfully aware that a straightforward and courageous answer will bring down a rain of lit matches or pocketknives with their blades pointing downward. Progressives do so out of prudence because they do not benefit from clarity; the work of darkness can only thrive in darkness.
And so, the vast majority remain uninformed, hesitant, and confused, which benefits the progressivist camp.
* * *
The questions with which I began this article are not usually posed with such precision. The reason for this is not difficult to find. In fact, it suffices for the most cultivated and penetrating minds to analyze them carefully for the answer to arise as spontaneously and transparently as a burst of light.
In fact, there is no need to decide whether progressivism is one type of movement or another. The temporal “ideal” I mentioned at the beginning and the religious “ideal” are mutually dependent. One is the necessary corollary of the other. Those who aspire to a universal, egalitarian republic are necessarily inclined toward a universal, egalitarian religion, and vice versa. It is impossible for a current of thought and action that accepts one of these two banners not to take up the other at the same time. When acting in the political field, such a current will automatically produce reflections in the religious field, and vice versa.
Thus, progressivism is not only socio-economic or theological-philosophical. By its very nature, it is both.
* * *
That said, another topic about which the general public has a very vague notion also becomes clear. It is the mysterious process of “Church self-destruction,” which Paul VI once spoke of. Many people ask, “How can the immortal Church be subject to a process of self-destruction? What does it consist of?” The pontiff did not say.
However, based on what we have just seen, the answer is now unavoidable. This demolition consists of the sly, silent, torrential, and undermining penetration of modernist influence into Catholic circles. Such influence aims to replace fidelity to a single, hierarchical Church, the infallible teacher of truth and goodness, in ceaseless struggle against schisms and heresies, and upholder of austere and immutable moral precepts, with adherence to a Church without dogmas or hierarchy, open to all errors and truths, and at peace with all schisms and heresies. Progressive influence also aims to eradicate from souls the traditional ideal of Christian civilization, a temporal projection of the very concept of the Catholic Church, replacing it with the more or less veiled “ideal” of a communist “civilization.”
This demolition deserves to be called self-demolition, insofar as it is carried out by the very children of the Church, whether clergy or laity.
What immense good it would do for Brazil if all this were not said and explained within the narrow limits of a newspaper article, but rather in a serious, well-documented, complete, attractive, and accessible book that exposes and refutes the main theses that constitute the doctrinal content of progressivism!
* * *
This providential book has just been published with a nobly episcopal cover—a golden crosier on a red brocade background.
It was written by Most Rev. Antônio de Castro Mayer, Bishop of Campos, who feared neither lit matches nor a hail of pocketknives.[1] Reporting on the recent meeting of Bishops in Itaipava, the daily press rightly described him as “the most conservative Bishop in Brazil.”
Bishop Mayer’s name is mentioned with admiration and respect by all who have closely followed the development of the progressive crisis in Brazil over recent decades. Such a great figure could not go unnoticed, given his intellectual value, the depth of his thoughts, and his courageous attitudes. However, not everyone knows that Bishop Mayer’s works have been translated into several languages, earning him great renown outside our country. Today, people in Europe and the Americas regard the Diocese of Campos as a haven for those who want to keep the glorious banner of the fight against progressivism flying high.
From 1950 to the present, Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer has published impressive documents on the various aspects of this veiled offensive by universal religion and the universal republic within Catholic circles. If his powerful voice had been heard as it deserved, the country would not have suffered the dangerous upheavals to which Catholic crypto-communism exposed it. And our ideological horizon would not be as shamefully polluted as it is today, despite the promising economic progress that has been made.
Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer has just taken a far-reaching step to remedy the evils his voice sought to prevent by bringing together, in a volume titled Por um Cristianismo Autêntico (For an Authentic Christianity) (Editora Vera Cruz, São Paulo, 1971), nine pastoral letters, a pastoral instruction, and a circular letter.
I recommend that readers acquire this work, which is a must-have for their library. I advise them to go directly to the opulent alphabetical index on page 383 and beyond. There, you will find a list of all the issues that concern you, along with indications of where to find the solution in the book. This solution, always stated with lapidary clarity, abundant erudition, robust logic, and, above all, immaculate orthodoxy, will help you pass through the sooty and deteriorated atmosphere of the contemporary world with your soul unscathed.
[1] Editor’s Note: Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer was born in Campinas, state of São Paulo, on June 20, 1904. He graduated in theology from the Gregorian University in Rome (1924-1927), where he was ordained a priest on October 30, 1927. As Assistant General of Catholic Action in São Paulo (1940) and then Vicar General of the Archdiocese (1942-1943), he was consecrated a bishop and appointed coadjutor to the Bishop of Campos with the right of succession on May 23, 1948. He governed the diocese of Campos as bishop until 1981. In December 1982, Bishop Mayer broke with Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira and the TFP. The fact soon became public (Folha da Tarde, April 10, 1984; Jornal do Brasil, August 20, 1984) and is linked to the former Bishop of Campos’ rapprochement with the position of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, culminating in his participation in the episcopal consecrations of Ecône on June 30, 1988, which caused him to incur latae sententiae excommunication. Bishop Mayer died in Campos on April 25, 1991 (cf. The Crusader of the 20th Century, Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, Roberto de Mattei, with a preface by Cardinal Alfons Maria Stickler S.D.B., Gracewing Fowler Wright Books, Jan. 1, 1998).