Saint Paul: “I Resisted Him to His Face” – Folha de S. Paulo, March 11, 1973

 

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

 

As of today—Friday—I have heard nothing new about the Chilean TFP’s manifesto. Thus, there is also nothing new in the Brazilian TFP’s attitude: 1. We continue to affirm that, if the facts were narrated with dispassionate objectivity by our valuable sister organization, it has, according to the doctrine and laws of the Church, the right and even the duty to make the criticisms it made. 2. We will not form a judgment on the facts it has alleged without first hearing the pronouncement of the other party, that is, the Chancery of Santiago or the Nunciature in Chile. 3. We may take a position once that pronouncement has been issued.

In short, the matter is on hold.

* * *

If circumstances had not led me to focus specifically on this matter, I confess I would have a categorical prejudice against the thesis that Catholics have the right to make public criticisms—albeit respectfully—of certain acts of the Sacred Hierarchy. As an ardent supporter of the principle of authority in all fields, I am especially zealous in its full application to the Church and the hierarchy, particularly to the Roman Pontiff. That is how I have always been. That is how I am. That is how I hope to die.

Therefore, despite the very solid authors I cited in my last article, I understand that some readers may be surprised by my assertion that such criticism is legitimate.

While awaiting news from Chile, I will transcribe a few more quotes.

They are all drawn from an article published in August 1969 in the prestigious monthly cultural magazine Catolicismo (No. 224). The author of this article, notable for its lucidity of thought, vigor of argument, and opulence of quotations, is Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, a prominent director of the Brazilian TFP. Notably, the article was meticulously analyzed by Most Rev. Antônio de Castro Mayer, Bishop of Campos, a theologian of unsurpassed stature in Brazil today, before publication and found to be irreproachable. It was later reproduced by the outstanding magazine Tradición, Familia, Propiedad, the mouthpiece of the Argentine TFP.

Mr. Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira’s study was sent to bishops and theologians and widely distributed to the public on both sides of the Rio de la Plata, without eliciting the slightest opposition—a sign that experts accept the doctrine it contains as certain.

Let us examine some excerpts from the article.

* * *

They relate to a famous episode recounted by St. Paul (Gal. 2:11-14). St. Peter, fearing to displease the numerous baptized Jews, by his example favored the position of the “Judaizers.” Recognizing the danger this posed to the Faith, St. Paul “resisted him to his face.” When confronted with the objections of the Apostle of the Gentiles, St. Peter recognized his error and nobly yielded.

The episode raised the following questions among commentators: Are there cases in which it is legitimate to “resist [a pope or bishop] to his face”? If so, what are they?

Let us consider the answer given by St. Thomas Aquinas, whom the Church acclaims as the Angelic Doctor and Prince of Theologians:

According to him, there is a right, in certain circumstances, to publicly resist a decision of the Roman Pontiff: “…when there is a proximate danger for the faith, prelates must be censured even publicly, by their subjects” (S. Theol., II-­II, 33, 4,2). Thus, St. Paul, a subject of St. Peter, publicly rebuked him because of an imminent danger of scandal in matters of Faith. As St. Augustine’s gloss says, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects” (Gal. 2:14).

St. Thomas further observes that this episode contains lessons for both prelates and subjects: “[To] prelates, indeed, [was given] an example of humility, that they not disdain corrections from those who are lower and subject to them; subjects have an example of zeal and freedom, that they fear not to correct their prelates, particularly if their crime is public and verges upon danger to the multitude” (idem, ibidem, no. 77).

Let us move on. The reader should consider this text by Vitoria, the distinguished 16th-century theologian and canonist: “According to natural law, it is licit to repel violence with violence. Now, with such [unjust] orders and dispensations, the Pope commits violence by acting against the law. … Then, it is licit to resist him. As Cajetan observes, we do not affirm all this in the sense that someone has the right to judge the Pope or to have authority over him, but rather in the sense that it is licit to defend oneself. Anyone, indeed, has the right to resist an unjust act, to try to impede it, and to defend himself” (Obras de Francisco de Vitória, BAC, Madrid, 1960, 486-487).

Shortly after Vitoria, the no less distinguished Suarez states: “If [the Pope] lays down an order contrary to right cus­toms one does not have to obey him; if he tries to do something manifestly opposed to justice and to the com­mon good, it would be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation characteristic of a just defense (cum moderamine incul­patæ tutelæ).”

Let us now listen to the great Jesuit Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine, champion of the rights of the Papacy in the fight against Protestantism: “…just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also it is licit to resist him who attacks souls, disturbs the civil order, or, above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him or depose him, for these acts are proper to a superior” (De Rom. Pont., II, 29).

Let us turn to the famous Cornelius a Lapide, one of the greatest exegetes of the 16th and 17th centuries. He notes that, according to Saint Augustine, Saint Ambrose, Saint Bede, Saint Anselm, and many other Fathers, Saint Paul’s resistance to Saint Peter was public “so that in this way the public scandal given by Saint Peter was remedied by a rebuke which was also public” (Gal. 2:11).

On another topic, Cornelius a Lapide writes that “… superiors can be rebuked, with humility and charity, by their subjects, in order that the truth be defended” is what Saint Augustine (Epist. 19), Saint Cyprian, Saint Gregory, Saint Thomas, and the others cited above declare on the basis of this passage (Gal. 2:11). They clearly teach that Saint Peter, being superior, was reprimanded by Saint Paul…. Rightly, then, did Saint Gregory say (Homil. 18 in Ezech.): “Peter held his tongue in order that, being the first in the apostolic hierarchy, he would be also the first in humility.” And Saint Augustine wrote (Epist. 19 ad Hieronymum): “Teaching that the superiors should not refuse to let themselves be reprimanded by their subjects, Saint Peter left to posterity an example more unusual and more holy than that which Saint Paul left on teaching that, in defense of the truth, and with charity it is given to the juniors to have the boldness to resist their elders without fear” (Gal. 2:11).

* * *

Add these quotations to those from last Sunday’s, and you will have a very solid basis for affirming that the Chilean TFP did not act wrongly. Rather, inspired by St. Paul’s example, it fulfilled its duty by publicly expressing its disagreement with the conduct of the Chilean hierarchy and Paul VI in the face of the communization process in Chile, provided the facts cited by our sister organization are objective.

Here I return to my starting point: are they truly objective?

If they are not, the Chancery of Santiago will certainly protest. Let us wait, then, to see what it says…