The Cascade – Folha de S. Paulo, October 24, 1971

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

I felt proud to be Brazilian when I read in a daily newspaper the statement by Senator Wilson Gonçalves (ARENA, Ceará) that, in Brazil, a referendum in favor of divorce would inevitably lead to its defeat. The senator explained that the majority of the lower classes of society (the most numerous) oppose divorce.

The senator is correct. The anti-divorce attitude among the lower socioeconomic classes in our population shows that they are not influenced by the major international efforts aimed at weakening our civilization in every way. Loyal to the Brazilian Christian tradition, which is rooted in balance, stability, and common sense, they continue walking confidently on the noble path set by our ancestors.

* * *

This reflection makes me think about the longstanding issue of divorce. Not to get to the heart of it, but to share some thoughts on the mindset of certain people who are very typical today. So, let us explore the topic further.

* * *

The “Hermandad Sacerdotal Española” (Spanish Priestly Brotherhood) is one of the most respected organizations in Spain today. It has been involved in significant national events with notable success and energy. While carefully avoiding any subordination to political interests, its voice has risen with a noble tone of authority and boldness on various controversies related to the Church and the cause of Christian civilization.

I read in the bulletin Dios lo quiere [God Wills It], published by the organization in Madrid (No. 12, June 1971), the following excerpt from a telegram sent by the presidents of various Catholic associations to the members of the Spanish episcopate, the Spanish authorities, and the Holy See.

Deeply concerned by credible information, we denounce to Your Excellency the plans to introduce into Spanish law the grave social and religious evil of divorce… which will cause immeasurable harm to our country. At the latest Episcopal Conference, some bishops voted in favor of amending the current law, opening the door to this evil, without, we believe, fully understanding the serious consequences of their ill-considered vote. We will oppose any Church leaders who support the legalization of divorce by all lawful means and ask the Holy See to intervene promptly so that the Spanish people do not become victims of this scheme… Respectfully.

I transcribed from the message only what is strictly necessary for the reader to understand the incredible and monstrous fact: there are bishops in Spain who support introducing divorce legislation! And this, despite the Council of Trent defining the indissolubility of marriage in the 16th century.

Fortunately, a group of priests with typical Spanish and priestly courage strongly protested this tragic defection.

Nevertheless, this defection clearly exemplifies the sinister process that Paul VI so accurately described as the “self-destruction of the Church.”

* * *

In stark contrast, around the same time that the pro-divorce bishops in Spain defected, news agencies reported that in communist Russia, the Supreme Court advised courts to be stricter in enforcing divorce laws. As is well known, the procedures for obtaining a divorce are very brief under Soviet law. However, even these rules were not being followed. That is why the Supreme Court issued this recommendation.

How can one explain this recommendation? Were they startled by the collapse that divorce (free love) is producing in Russian society? Perhaps.

In this case, the sharp contrast between the Soviet attitude and that of the Spanish pro-divorce bishops clearly exposes the extent of contradictions in which the contemporary world is immersed.

However, this situation should not be seen only as a phenomenon of large communities. These communities are made up of individuals, and this evil cannot affect communities unless it influences a significant number of individuals.

Therefore, to truly grasp the nature and extent of these contradictions, the reader must think not only about social groups or nations like Spain or Russia, but also take a moment to look around at their environment. Just around them? Allow me, dear reader, to suggest that you also look inward. Maybe then you’ll find the contradiction I am about to highlight even more real and closer to home.

Many people will celebrate upon learning about the Spanish bishops’ pro-divorce stance and will be furious both with the attitude of the Hermandad Sacerdotal and my comments. “Good for the pro-divorce bishops,” people in this situation will exclaim. And they will argue: “We are in an era of freedom, in which everyone claims the right to do what they want, and thus to change husbands or wives. Long live divorce and those paving the way for it!”

Without debating the merits of the issue, I ask: if everyone has the right to do whatever they want, do anti-divorce advocates have the right to oppose divorce, or not? If they don’t, what kind of one-sided freedom is this? If they do, how can we explain that a divorce supporter gets angry with an anti-divorce advocate? How can someone be indignant at someone exercising their right?

* * *

There is another contradiction. Among readers who support the pro-divorce stance of the Spanish bishops, many will also have praised the Russian Supreme Court’s position, which restricts divorce. “Very good,” they will have said, “this shows that communists are gradually moving closer to Catholic doctrine. If Catholics can demonstrate confidence and willingness to compromise, who knows if factions within the communist movement might support the indissolubility of marriage? It will be a great day when Catholics and communists can come together on this issue.”

But then, I ask, where does that leave us? Is it good for Catholics to support divorce, and at the same time good for the Soviets—or at least some Soviets—to oppose divorce? Ultimately, where should we be heading? Toward divorce or toward indissolubility?

This blatant contradiction does not shock people with an ultramodern, passionate, and thoughtless mentality. For them, it is enough to be “against.” That means opposing Catholics who are faithful to the Church’s traditional and immutable doctrine. In Spain, they oppose indissolubility, which aligns perfectly with Catholic teaching. Conversely, in Russia’s case, they smile at indissolubility because it allows them to suggest that Catholics and communists might eventually reach an agreement. Now then, faithful Catholics affirm that such an agreement is impossible unless Catholics cease being Catholic or communists cease being communists.

* * *

In conclusion, this mindset is full of contradictions. The first causes the second, and the second causes the third. Similar to certain waterfalls, the initial rush creates the next, and then the one after. Ultimately, the foaming waters tumble down the edge of the cliff.

How can so many contradictions accumulate and cascade in people’s minds? Is it fanaticism? Perhaps. But more than that, it’s a universal phenomenon that occurs not only in our society but worldwide, across all kinds of issues. Compared to earlier times, this real mental pollution makes people more comfortable with contradiction today. Most of the time, they aren’t bothered by illogical thinking but by logical reasoning.

I hope that this isn’t the case for readers who have patiently read me all the way to the end.

But if any readers stop halfway, furious, they belong among those who dislike logic, not contradiction, and carry a whole cascade of contradictions in their souls.