O All Ye That Pass by the Way… – Folha de S. Paulo, March 5, 1969

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

I just read about a disturbing incident in Santiago de Chile’s Diario Ilustrado. Let the reader judge for himself.

Eighteen priests and professors at the Catholic University’s Faculty of Theology in that capital issued a stern statement against Paul VI’s Encyclical Humanae Vitae. The situation is unusual in many ways. First, because that document deserves the full respect of the faithful, and it would be scandalous for any lay Catholic to oppose it. Then, a fortiori, it is outrageous for professors of a School of Theology to rebel against it. There is even more to this chain of aggravating factors. Indeed, a theology professor is not responsible for the doctrinal training of the faithful. That duty belongs to the bishops. By encouraging people to oppose Humanae Vitae, the 18 theologians have created an intolerable situation for bishops aware of their responsibilities. Finally, since these theologians are responsible for the religious education of a large part of future Chilean clergy, there is a concern that the next generation may become as rebellious as their teachers, or even more so. Therefore, everything about this episode is scandal, revolt, and danger.

The reader might think that the Santiago Chancery publicly disowned the rebellious clergy and removed them from their teaching roles. But that’s not true. The entire Chilean episcopate remained silent and did nothing.

Then what? Prepare for more. Dissatisfied with the Chilean bishops’ silence, the Holy See, through Cardinal Gabriel-Marie Garrone, prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, wrote to the Nuncio in Santiago, seriously rebuking the bishops’ silence. The cardinal briefly mentions an even more shocking episode in the letter: some European episcopates also publicly rebelled against the papal document. At Cardinal Garrone’s request, the Nuncio communicated the Vatican’s severe censure to the bishops and instructed them to take appropriate measures to repair the damage caused by the 18 insubordinate theologians.

A public scandal typically calls for public reparation. However, to the confused and upset public, the Chilean bishops ignored the Roman statement. They were so gentle, meek, and mild with the rebels that they only whispered the well-deserved warning to them in secret.

Meanwhile, the February 19 edition of Diario Ilustrado published the Nuncio’s letter condemning the 18 rebels. What did the Santiago Chancery do? It broke its silence, softened its tone, and issued a strong statement against the newspaper, asserting that it was lawful for the bishops not to publish the Vatican’s letter and that the newspaper had infringed on an episcopal right.

In summary, the bishops showed complete and unusual meekness when handling the serious crime of inciting the public to disobey the encyclical and the much less serious misconduct of publishing a confidential document; instead, they were furious, rowdy, and vituperative.

What contradiction best illustrates the sad trend that’s increasingly happening in Catholic circles?

As I write this, I think about Brazil.

Indeed, I just read in a reputable newspaper—whose reports should be considered accurate unless there is strong evidence otherwise—that, during a meeting led by Archbishop Rezende Costa, the clergy of Belo Horizonte appointed Fr. Michel Le Ven and another priest as “spiritual advisers” to the clergy. Father Le Ven is one of the French missionaries arrested in Belo Horizonte as a communist. According to the report, Father Le Ven will hold “periodic meetings with priests from various parishes to clarify doubts about the exercise of the priesthood.” As you can see, there is no better way to spread communism within the Church.

So, what does this appointment mean? All the newspapers reported on the start of proceedings against the missionary. None, for my part, published the conclusion of the investigation. Therefore, the public sees Fr. Le Ven as a suspected communist. Does giving him such a role not leave the public scared, shocked, and confused in this situation?

Why was this unsettling appointment scheduled?

Who will solve this mystery? Who will answer this question?

* * *

“O all ye that pass by the way, stop and see if there is any sorrow like my sorrow.” These tragic words of Jeremiah express all the suffering of faithful Catholics facing the Church’s current crisis.

Is it not appropriate for this sorrow to be made public and lead to other prayers?

P.S. This article was written when Chile’s nearly final election results arrived.

Faced with a major communist advance, Eduardo Frei positioned himself as a presidential candidate by advocating for a Christian Democratic “middle way” between supporters and opponents of communism. He aimed to implement some social reforms favored by communists to satisfy them and slow their momentum. This approach exemplifies the Christian Democratic Party’s traditional anti-communist strategy worldwide, summarized in the saying “give in some not to lose all.” According to this approach, the more concessions you make to communists, the more victories you achieve against them. Strictly speaking, conceding everything to communism would effectively kill it!

Frei boldly embarked on this journey, and Sunday’s elections were meant to test its success. The test revealed it failed. The communists won. In the last Congress, they held 18 seats and gained five more. The anticommunist National Party made a remarkable jump, increasing from 8 seats to 34. Voters distrust Frei’s questionable solutions. The CDP faced a significant defeat, dropping from 82 congressmen to 56.

Thus, it is clear that voters are moving away from the CDP’s plan to extinguish the communist fire with the gasoline of capitulations. Congratulations to Fábio Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, who predicted this outcome in his work Frei, the Chilean Kerensky.