The Family on the Waterslide – Folha de S. Paulo, December 7, 1977
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
To adequately express my thoughts on the decree finally approved by the Senate (in a session that lasted until the early hours of that unfortunate Sunday, the 4th), it seems appropriate to take a brief detour into another topic.
The reader will be surprised. But in journalism, it is not always true that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points.
I would like to highlight the admirable attitude of Senators Benedito Ferreira (Arena-GO) and Dirceu Cardoso (MDB-ES), who fought until the last moment, ahead of so many other congressmen, to maintain the indissolubility of the marital bond, and then at least persuaded the majority of the Senate to legislate that divorce be granted to a Brazilian citizen only once.
From the moment phrases such as “policy of the outstretched hand,” “fall of ideological barriers,” “Ostpolitik,” “détente,” etc., began to be successively incorporated into the language of politicians and intellectuals, I am certain that people’s level of insight and fiber declined wherever they were introduced.
In fact, what was the “policy of the outstretched hand” in practice? It was a marked victory for Evil. The children of Evil (or rather, its stepchildren, since Evil cannot be a father but only a stepfather) gained the ability to extend their dirty hands toward the children of Good and force them into an unpleasant choice. If they responded to that “cordial” gesture by placing their clean hand in the dirty one, it would be squeezed until it bled. If they refused that reckless handshake, a whole “clique” deliberately assigned to this inglorious role would label them fanatics, extremists, obscurantists, intolerant, and so on.
In short, the “policy of the outstretched hand” only allowed the stepchildren of Evil to deceive and then strangle the children of Good. Yet this did not prevent many short-sighted and soft-hearted children of Good (what children!) from applauding it.
What was the “fall of ideological barriers” all about? It was by no means the opening of the communist world to the penetration of free-world ideas and influence. It only served to destroy the free world’s multiple ideological defenses against the revolutionary psychological warfare waged by Moscow. Yet some in the free world embraced this formula and enthusiastically applauded it.
What has “Ostpolitik” been so far, and what is it now? It is merely a policy in which the West makes concessions to the East, while the East makes none to the West. I recall with sadness that the Holy See remains engaged in this policy even as Germany itself has already relegated it to the background. Despite this evidence, the Vatican not only maintains this policy but also enjoys the support of an impressive contingent of clergy and a much smaller — but still considerable — proportion of laypeople.
Who has softened their stance through the détente process? Of course, Kissinger and his disciples and followers, not Brezhnev and his minions and slaves. So, in its day, “détente” was met with applause in the West, while the East’s stern, cold smirk remained unchanged.
It would not be difficult to prove that President Carter’s human rights policy is nothing more than a variant of détente. And that the rights proclaimed by the uninhibited peanut farmer from Georgia are — at least in practice — more about the rights of those fighting for communism than about the rights of its victims.
In short, the generalization of these misleading or even fallacious formulas has led to the formation throughout the West of a large sector of public opinion that, while certainly non-communist, is so lacking in vision and fiber that it is permanently inclined to applaud anything that benefits communists and disadvantages non-communists.
The emergence of this perpetual non-communist cheering section for communist moves is like a deep wound deforming the face of the West. Indeed, how can we not recognize it as a decline in intelligence and a further step toward general disintegration? Does compromising with “modern” demands, retreating, yielding, and sleeping while the adversary advances not amount to an astonishing lack of principle?
In this world—in this Brazil—where the divorce movement has advanced despite encountering only nominal anti-divorce advocates (whom I prefer not to mention) and a scandalous semi-indifference—almost in an atmosphere of “outstretched hand politics” and “détente”—it is encouraging to note that there were those who fought against divorce to the end in both Houses of Congress. And that, in the Senate, in the face of the consummated divorce catastrophe, Messrs. Benedito Ferreira and Dirceu Cardoso took their noble obstinacy to the point of restricting as much as possible the evil that will now begin to corrode the Brazilian family.
It is noble and beautiful to fight for the integrity of the principles one professes. Doing so when so many are indifferent to these principles is heroic, even epic.
I took a detour through several topics to reach this conclusion, but I arrived at it with stronger evidence than if I had filled page after page with conventional praise for these two senators. By discussing topics other than divorce, I took a detour… and arrived more quickly.
However, I cannot believe that the restriction on divorce obtained by the distinguished senators constitutes an acceptable and lasting balance between the indissolubility of the marital bond and the excesses to which divorce laws generally tend.
In fact, one either recognizes that marriage is indissoluble by its very nature or affirms that it is not.
In the first case, it is logical to prohibit divorce without leaving room for the slightest concession. If marriage can be dissolved, I do not see how it can be argued that it can be dissolved only once.
Let me give an example. Every man’s right to his own honor is sacred. Consequently, it is not legitimate to slander anyone. Even if someone has committed only one slander in their life, the law must punish them severely. If a law guaranteed every citizen the right to make a single slanderous statement with impunity throughout their life, the legal principle itself would be discredited in the public consciousness, and slander would soon be accepted as normal.
I will go further because that is where strict logic leads. Man has a natural and sacred right to life. If a law allowed every man to commit a single murder, the right of all men to life would be cast down, and the world would be plunged into a sea of blood.
The same applies to divorce.
With its approval, the Brazilian family was placed at the top of the waterslide. There, perhaps it will be held for a while by the noble consistency of the two fighters whose alternative legislation the Senate majority approved.
How long will this last?
When it comes to waterslides, the solution is to avoid them. Once you accept the first slip, the rest is nothing but sliding downhill.
