Say But One Word – Folha de S. Paulo, February 21, 1971
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Mr. Nelson Carneiro told the press that his election as senator for Guanabara is an endorsement by the national public opinion of his pro-divorce stance in the House of Representatives. He concluded that he should dedicate himself more than ever to overturn the indissolubility of the marital bond in the Senate.
Here’s the reasoning of the agitated parliamentarian: a) if he, a well-known divorce advocate, was elected by Guanabara, it is because his voters wanted divorce; b) now, since Guanabara “is the mirror of the country,” the entire Brazil desires divorce; c) therefore, he, Nelson Carneiro, is simply responding to national opinion by continuing his fight for the divorce cause.
Is it clear? Logical? Yes, but in the clouds. In reality, things are pretty different.
For many years, Mr. Nelson Carneiro has built a reputation as the Don Quixote of divorce. He shouts, protests, and stirs up trouble, but divorce remains unaccepted. If I am not mistaken, his most recent effort related to divorce—along with his involvement in other areas—was undoubtedly his unsuccessful attempt on behalf of the Civil Code draft sent to Congress by the late President Castelo Branco. I don’t know who, perhaps Mr. Nelson Carneiro himself, convinced him that the country would welcome divorce. Presumably for this reason, it was included in the bill as an expansion of the grounds for marriage annulment.
Everyone remembers that, in 1966, the TFP organized an anti-divorce petition that collected 1,042,359 signatures across 142 cities over 50 days.
Castelo Branco listened to public opinion and withdrew the bill before the campaign ended. The pro-divorce effort collapsed despite being highly praised by Mr. Nelson Carneiro.
As a result, the public became convinced that divorce was impossible and that Mr. Carneiro’s quixotic efforts were futile.
* * *
This clearly shows why many anti-divorce voters in Guanabara voted for the pro-divorce leader. They were not motivated by a desire to support divorce legalization but by their sympathy for the MDB, and possibly for Mr. Nelson Carneiro himself, who definitely gets great coverage for his personal propaganda in various print and broadcast media outlets.
From the perspective of the divorce issue, this is the true story of Mr. Nelson Carneiro’s election.
* * *
Alongside this factor, another issue arose: the anti-divorce opinion seemed completely confused, discouraged, and disconnected during the election. Every genuine Catholic moralist emphasizes that it is a serious duty for every Catholic voter to refuse to support a pro-divorce candidate. If this had been spoken and promoted from all pulpits, I am confident the electorate, which carelessly voted for Mr. Nelson Carneiro, would have denied him their support.
And I am sure that, in that case, he would not have been elected.
In the eyes of the public, the nearly unanimous silence of many preachers when facing the election to the Senate of a strong supporter of divorce reasonably suggested that they supported him or at least found him harmless.
Why this “condoning”? To me, it remains an entirely unfathomable mystery. Yet, the fact still stands that I found no mention in the press of a single sermon against Mr. Nelson Carneiro’s candidacy. I asked friends in Rio who were well-informed about the matter if they knew anything, and they knew nothing. If anything did happen, it was as if it hadn’t occurred.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Carneiro is fully aware of how unpopular divorce is. So much so that, in his mentioned interview, he states that it would be “very difficult” to introduce divorce into our laws through a constitutional amendment explicitly. There would be too great a risk of not obtaining the necessary majority for this.
We ask: Is it “very difficult” because everyone wants a divorce bill? So, does Congress, which would “very unlikely” approve divorce, not represent the country? And if it does represent it, how can we then say that the country certainly wants a divorce bill?
Someone might argue that it is because the clergy does not want divorce, and the executive and legislative branches do not want to oppose the clergy. Let’s accept this hypothesis, just for the sake of argument. If that’s true, I wonder why our public officials are unwilling to challenge the clergy. Clearly, it is due to the Church’s deep roots in our Catholic community. But then, does this community wish to disengage from the Church and, eventually, from its pastors, to follow Mr. Nelson Carneiro?
There is more. In his statements, the pro-divorce senator suggests the most straightforward way to implement divorce is through secret approval.
Yes, he asserts that if the next draft of the Civil Code significantly expands the grounds for marriage annulment without mentioning the word divorce, the principle of the bond’s indissolubility will be overthrown because, he adds, “the consequences of marriage annulment are practically the same as those of divorce.”
The reader can see the absurdity of Mr. Carneiro’s thesis. Public opinion, the Executive Branch, and the Legislature all support a divorce bill. But the only way it can be approved is secretly!
* * *
In my opinion, the idea of divorce, disguised as annulment, would catch Brazil off guard only if the Executive pushed it through with a bill that Congress would need to approve quickly, preventing public opinion from having enough time to realize the danger and speak out against it.
However, I do not expect this to happen, as some circumstances suggest the opposite.
In fact, a Civil Code reform has been on the agenda for quite some time. General Médici knew that sooner or later he would need to address this important issue, and that his right-hand man for this task would necessarily have to be the Minister of Justice. If the head of state wanted to use the creation of a new Civil Code to sneak divorce into our legislation through the back door, as Mr. Nelson Carneiro aspires to, he would not select Mr. Alfredo Buzaid as Minister of Justice. Because, as a law professor, the latter would likely detest the trick recommended by the pro-divorce leader. And since the Minister of Justice considers himself a practicing Catholic, it’s unlikely he would support a draft Civil Code that, according to Mr. Nelson Carneiro himself, would overthrow the Christian principle of the indissolubility of marriage.
* * *
As president of the TFP National Council, I have some advice to share.
It is unsuitable for divorce to be added to our laws through a dishonest trick.
Therefore, if Mr. Nelson Carneiro or any other pro-divorce leader wants a divorce bill approved, he should propose it publicly with clear details and begin a consultation with the public.
When that happens, it will be the responsibility of the CNBB [(National Conference of Bishops of Brazil] to publish a clear and concise statement against divorce and the stealth annulment option as broadly as possible.
Then, give everyone time to have a broad debate about the issue nationwide and finally hold a plebiscite.
If they don’t want a plebiscite, supporters of divorce should gather signatures for their petition, and the TFP will also promote an anti-divorce petition.
We will then see how mistaken those are who believe Brazil favors divorce.
* * *
That said, I turn to the CNBB.
The bishops know that Our Lord Jesus Christ established the indissolubility of marriage and that no human law has the authority to abolish it. They also recognize that it is their duty, even more so than that of the TFP or anyone else, to make sure that civil laws do not infringe upon what Jesus Christ instituted.
If any scheme by Mr. Nelson Carneiro threatens the marriage bond, I ask the bishops to defend it with a document that meets the characteristics listed above. In this regard, as a Catholic, I address them with a slightly adapted Centurion’s plea: say one word, and our country will be saved. The bishops do not need to move or exert themselves. It will be enough for them to speak sincerely; the laity will handle the rest and defeat the pro-divorce forces.
Will we have a divorce bill or not? This question brings up another: will our bishops speak out against it in a unified and clear statement from the CNBB?
If they speak the saving word as it is their right and duty, the Catholic laity of Brazil will rise and nip in the bud any overt or veiled pro-divorce initiative.
I do not want to believe they will refuse to speak out. If they do, the discouragement among the Catholic laity could become quite significant. In such a surprising situation, Camões’ phrase could be applied to them: “a weak king makes strong people weak.”
If that happened and a divorce bill were approved, Mr. Nelson Carneiro would not be the main reason for its victory.
