Still on Bishop Isnard’s Anti-TFP decree – Folha de S. Paulo, June 3, 1973

 

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

 

“Considering the aggressive and slanderous stance that the Tradition, Family, and Property Society (TFP) has publicly adopted in this Diocese of Nova Friburgo toward Cursillos in Christianity, a movement approved and recommended by the Diocesan Bishop…”

These words open Bishop Clemente Isnard’s decree against the TFP, which I continue to analyze in today’s article.

I find three distinct accusations in one sentence:

The TFP has allegedly adopted an “aggressive stance” against Cursillos.

In addition to being “aggressive,” this stance was “slanderous.”

It was even more reprehensible for the TFP to have acted in this way toward the Cursillos, since they were a “movement approved and recommended” by Bishop Isnard.

Since the TFP is engaged in a national campaign to publicize Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer’s pastoral letter on the Cursillos, any reader will immediately conclude that Bishop Isnard is targeting the pastoral letter.

In fact, what was TFP’s “stance” in the Diocese of Nova Friburgo? We have no Subsection or Nucleus in any of the cities under Bishop Isnard’s jurisdiction. Thus, TFP’s only activity was traveling through those areas in caravans to advertise the illustrious Bishop of Campos’ pastoral letter. This was the young caravaners’ “aggressive” and “slanderous” attitude. They peacefully and courteously disseminated an ecclesiastical document of high intellectual and moral content, based, moreover, on opulent documentation.

If Bishop Isnard disagrees with Bishop Mayer’s pastoral letter, it would be noble for him to publicly and directlyoppose it and defend the Cursillos. He should counter arguments with arguments. He should challenge the value of the documentation Bishop Mayer presented. That would be his right, and even his duty, for it is the bishop’s responsibility, more than others’, to defend those who, in his view, suffer injustice. Bishop Isnard would thus have opened a lofty and timely dialogue with his distinguished brother and neighbor from Campos. All of Brazil would have witnessed the lucid and learned dispute with interest and delight. Finally, the Church would have emerged from the episode magnified.

That did not happen. Bishop Isnard cautiously refrained from refuting the remarkable document of the Bishop of Campos. Regrettably, he found it more convenient to launch an oblique attack on him by targeting TFP’s selfless and idealistic young men.

* * *

While attending the splendid pontifical Mass celebrated in the Cathedral of Campos for Bishop Mayer’s jubilee, I listened to the congratulatory sermon delivered by the Archbishop of Niterói, Most Rev. Antônio de Almeida Moraes, under whose metropolitan authority both Bishop Isnard and Bishop Mayer serve as suffragans.

Everyone recognizes the fluency, clarity, and charm of the words of this distinguished sacred orator, the greatest or one of the greatest in contemporary Brazil. Moreover, His Excellency has been a patron of Cursillos in his Archdiocese. At a certain point in his remarkable speech, Archbishop Moraes made a statement that revealed his well-known intelligence and exemplary impartiality. He stated that Bishop Mayer’s pastoral work can be seen only as a wise cry of alarm that enables Cursillos to react against errors and deviations that have infiltrated them. Bishop Mayer thus rendered a valuable service to Cursillistas who are eager to remain closely united to the Church.

It is a pity that, before issuing his decree, Bishop Isnard—who clearly did not read the pastoral letter, or at least did not read it dispassionately—failed to listen to his metropolitan’s objective and fair opinion.

* * *

Which Cursillos does His Excellency defend in his decree? Quite evidently, those of his own diocese. And in what respect does the pastoral letter assail these Cursillos? In none whatsoever.

On page 11, the pastoral letter explicitly acknowledges that some Cursillos are untouched by the errors it denounces. If Bishop Isnard is certain that the Cursillos in his own diocese belong to this untainted category, he has only to state so publicly—and no one would gainsay him.

Therefore, his decree would not have been necessary merely to safeguard the reputation of his Cursillos.

* * *

I conclude by citing a concrete fact that invites reflections that are very appropriate to the theme.

I have a magazine in which a participant in an essential Cursillo seminar held elsewhere in Brazil reports, in very enthusiastic terms, everything that happened at the meetings. The best of his enthusiasm is directed at the very hairy priest who led those days of meetings.

To explain the priest’s fascination, the Cursillista recounts an episode. The priest gives a lecture in which he, at one point, refers to the ‘Sons of a Battle.’ He then goes to the blackboard and writes ‘Sons of a Battle.’ Enthusiasm boils over. Suspense. How will the lecture continue? The priest then apologizes to the audience for a distraction. When writing “battle,” he had made a mistake and should have written “bi***.” General laughter. Relaxation. Cursillista cordiality.

With this ignoble narration, this magazine is incomparably more damaging to the Cursillos than anything Bishop Isnard may have attributed to TFP volunteers’ activities.

Also, if this magazine falls into the hands of Bishop Isnard’s Cursillistas, it will likely harm their souls.

Here is one last question: Does Bishop Isnard want me to name this magazine so he can issue a decree condemning the unedifying and contagious attitude of the long-haired priest? If so, just let me know.

If he does not, why the double standard? Why such unwillingness to learn what evil is being done in the Cursillo movement here and there, and such eagerness to repress the spread of Bishop Mayer’s pastoral letter and punish the TFP young people for doing so?

* * *

As we are about to conclude our nationwide campaign to spread Bishop Mayer’s pastoral letter, it is unfortunate that Bishop Isnard’s decree revives a struggle that has already lasted long enough to enlighten the nation. It was the somewhat untimely decree of the Bishop of Nova Friburgo that forced us to return, with renewed emphasis, to a subject that it is time to put aside.

For my part, I intend to conclude it in the following article by analyzing Bishop Isnard’s remaining allegations against the TFP.