St. Pius X Welcomed Criticism – Folha de S. Paulo, March 18, 1973
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
The Santiago Chancery has so far refused to publish anything about the Chilean TFP’s manifesto. My perplexity grows with each passing day, as I see no valid reason for this silence.
The manifesto’s subject matter is of utmost importance because it concerns the Pastors’ fulfillment of their mission to protect their sheep—and, by extension, the entire country—from the effects of communist propaganda.
The manifesto has more than enough intellectual substance to attract the attention of Chile’s Bishops Conference. Its doctrine is irreproachable, the facts it alleges are supported by extensive documentation, the exposition is well-connected, and its language is clear and elevated.
Furthermore, I am informed that the manifesto has been widely publicized by several Chilean newspapers, radio and television stations. It deserves a refutation, at least out of deference to the immense audience that has taken note of it.
Finally, especially at a time when the Church does not refuse dialogue even with atheists, the Chilean TFP deserves a considered response from the Pastors. Our sister organization, which has always stood out for its serious and noble conduct, enjoys true celebrity in its country. It had shown great foresight, in unison with Fábio Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, by unmasking Frey, the “Chilean Kerensky.” That move, which the facts would dramatically highlight three years later, gave the Chilean TFP unusual moral authority in everything it says about Kerenskys, with or without tonsure. The Chilean bishops could not remain indifferent to this very striking circumstance.
Again, the more time passes, the more perplexed I feel, because those who remain silent in the face of an accusation that must be taken into account and refuted put themselves in a regrettable position. “Silence gives consent,” says the old adage.
Even so, I prefer to wait before passing judgment. At any rate, the Hierarchy is a mother, and we must lovingly argue all presumptions in her favor. We will only resign ourselves to giving up when the force of logic and facts absolutely compels us.
* * *
Someone might say that the very fact that the Hierarchy is a mother is an excuse for its silence. Any child who points out his mother’s mistakes lacks respect for her, and her zeal for her own authority prevents her from responding to her child.
I do not believe any moralist would agree with such a despotic conception of maternal authority. It is natural for a mother who has lost her child’s affection because he rebukes her for her attitude to make every effort to defend herself and retain his esteem. This is when she has good reasons to do so. When she does not, it is her duty to acknowledge to her son that she has done wrong and to ask his forgiveness for the bad example she has set. The only thing incomprehensible about the accused mother is her silence!
Thus, an ecclesiastical authority who considers himself unjustly accused must regard it a serious pastoral duty to defend himself. If he recognizes the accusation as just, he has an even more serious duty to apologize.
On this final point, let us consider the example set by the greatest Pope of our century, St. Pius X, whom Pius XII raised to the honor of the altars.
After Cardinal Andrea Carlo Ferrari, the Archbishop of Milan, reacted violently to the daily L’Unità Cattolica’s just criticism of a publication he supported, which was steeped in modernism, St. Pius X rushed to the newspaper’s defense. He wrote to the illustrious prelate: “I am surprised that Your Eminence considers L’Unità Cattolica’s just observations an insult, as if you were accused of being unperceptive or undevoted to the Holy See. What should the Pope say in this case when he reads the “most holy criticisms” of Corriere d’Italia, L’Osservatore Romano, and the Master of the Sacred Palace, who gives an imprimatur to books soon condemned by the Index? The Pope thanks the censors who help him to recognize the evil he had not seen” (Letter to Cardinal Ferrari dated February 27, 1910).
The reader will undoubtedly recognize that St. Pius X is alluding to criticisms of the Holy See regarding publications in its official mouthpiece, L’Osservatore Romano, and to decisions by the Master of the Sacred Palace, a high-ranking Vatican dignitary who enjoyed the pope’s direct trust. In a sublime gesture of justice and gentleness, the great saint did not shy away from his responsibility for what happened. Rather, he accepted the astute and fair criticism as a form of true collaboration and thanked them for it.
This gesture of humility in no way diminished the pope, who is now venerated as a saint throughout the Catholic world.
Doesn’t the reader think that, rather than maintaining a disdainful silence, the Chilean hierarchy would be much better off following the Holy Pontiff’s shining example?
Anyway, let’s wait and see. Let’s use the waiting time to ask St. Pius X to inspire those the Chilean TFP identifies as responsible for the country’s demolition to follow his example.
* * *
Some have objected to my previous articles, arguing that, in support of my thesis, I cited only theologians before the definition of the dogma of papal infallibility. This omission was due to a desire for brevity. Our contemporaries Wernz and Vidal uphold the same doctrine in their well-known and authoritative Jus Canonicum (vol. II, p. 520). On this subject, one can also read the authoritative Peinador (Curs. Brev. Theol. Mor. II. I. p. 277). Even more striking is the opinion of a well-known Swiss theologian whom Paul VI created a cardinal, Monsignor Charles Journet, who, in his treatise L’Eglise du Verbe Incarné (vol. I, pp. 839 ff.), legitimizes the doctrine accepted by several other theologians, namely that a pope can even become schismatic. From this, it naturally follows that the faithful have the right and even the duty to resist.
* * *
Since this topic has been so thoroughly discussed, I will not return to it. It has been more than proven that the Chilean TFP had, in principle, the right to act as it did. As for the facts, let us wait a little longer before concluding that the public silence of the Chilean hierarchy proves them true.
