by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
I just read in this newspaper (October 28, 1980) statements by Cardinal Aloisio Lorscheider, Archbishop of Fortaleza, about the now-famous speech in which General Coelho Neto, commander of the 4th Army Division, denounced the severity of communist infiltration in the Church and the Brazilian government. The cardinal states clearly and simply: “The last thing that can exist is a communist bishop.”
Is it a theological impossibility? Is it in the nature of the episcopal function that a bishop cannot be a communist? Cardinal Lorscheider does not claim so because it is well known that there can be communist bishops.
He bases this impossibility on a completely different line of reasoning. I will try to explain his reasoning using his own words.
-
“No one keeps a closer watch over bishops than the Holy See … no matter how closely the SNI [National Intelligence Service] observes them, it has never done so as closely as the Holy See.”
-
Now, “If the Holy See had doubts about any bishop, he would have been removed from his position long ago.”
-
Therefore, none of the bishops currently governing dioceses are communists.
-
Therefore, General Coelho Neto was wrong.
Undoubtedly, this way of dismissing the respected military officer gives Cardinal Lorscheider an advantage. From then on, firmly grounded in his previous beliefs, the cardinal can refuse to consider any evidence the general presents: it is unreasonable from the start. No matter how clear and conclusive it is, it still seems unreasonable.
How convenient!
Furthermore, the cardinal attempts to corner the commander of the 4th Army Division. According to his reasoning, anyone who claims there is a communist bishop is essentially rebelling against the pope himself. From a publicity standpoint, it’s a smart move. Either General Coelho Neto stays silent in shame, or he defies the pope. If he does the latter, he will turn the entire Catholic population of Brazil against him.
However, even when they are convenient and clever, a priori arguments don’t hold up under scrutiny. I believe this is true here.
I will now share my observations about the cardinal’s reasoning with the reader.
-
Clearly, the Supreme Pontiff cannot monitor everything that the approximately 350 bishops in Brazil do. He relies on informants. Among them, no one is better suited than the Brazilian cardinals.
Therefore, the pope’s judgment of a bishop mainly relies on what the cardinals observe. By stating that there are no communist bishops in Brazil because otherwise the pope would know, Cardinal Lorscheider implies that if there had been communist bishops in Brazil, he would have seen them and, as a cardinal, would have told the pope. Since he did not see any, there are none.
In short, General Coelho Neto was wrong, and the proof is that the Cardinal Archbishop of Fortaleza says so. Ultimately, his status as a cardinal automatically exempts him from any argument and makes any document invalid.
It’s exactly what I would call a vicious cycle.
-
Cardinal Lorscheider’s argument has another major flaw: the great ambiguity of the word “communist.” In today’s chaos, some Marxists reject the label of communist, even though others see them as such. Allende demonstrates this. There are also communists who refuse to identify as Marxists. Most importantly, there is a broad spectrum of semi-communist Marxists and semi-Marxist communists. Additionally, we must consider the spread of misunderstandings about communists who call themselves socialists, socialists who decline to call themselves communists, and more. In short, because the word “communist” is so broad, Cardinal Lorscheider would have been very careful if he had started by clarifying how he believed General Coelho Neto used it.
In everyday language, “communist” also refers to anyone who, while claiming not to be a communist, considers themselves an atheist and supports abolishing the family and private property.
Still using everyday language, this last point—private property—has a very clear symbolic meaning. If someone is an atheist, that alone isn’t enough to label them a communist. If someone supports weakening and ultimately dissolving the family, it will take some reasoning to convince the average Brazilian that they are a communist. But if someone advocates for the abolition of private property, the average Brazilian will see them as clearly communist.
From there, other meanings of the word expand. Anyone who does not explicitly declare themselves in favor of private property but demands such limits that it becomes bloodless and painful can be labeled a communist, either because they more or less subconsciously accept the principle of community of goods or because they are a crypto-communist who does not dare to fully reveal themselves.
That said, in everyday language, what exactly is a communist bishop? Is he necessarily affiliated with the BCP or the PC do B? Does he want the abolition of private property, or at least express himself in a way that shows his complete dislike for it?
Consider, for example, any of Bishop Pedro Casaldáliga’s poems that I transcribed in a recent book, The Church Facing the Escalating Communist Threat – an Appeal to the Silent Bishops, Editora Vera Cruz, São Paulo, 4th edition, 1977, 223 pages.
If, after reading these texts, someone gets the impression that they involve rejecting private property, whose fault is that if not the prelate’s? I, for example, feel this way, and it is not surprising that the same is true of General Coelho Neto.
In light of this, what is the point of Cardinal Lorscheider claiming we are wrong just because he disagrees with us?
-
As a Catholic, I wish the cardinal had responded differently to General Coelho Neto’s statements. Instead of saying, “It isn’t, because I said it isn’t,” Cardinal Lorscheider should have challenged him: let the general present the evidence for what he claims. Then the public, the Brazilian ecclesiastical hierarchy, and even the pope himself would have a clearer understanding of the truth.