by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
A progressive and anti-militarist interlocutor challenged me: “TFP’s doctrinal action against communism and what you call its ‘Catholic’ offshoots, Christian democracy and progressivism, lacks practical scope. The military governs us, so let it solve the current problems on its own. TFP young men would do better to abandon this struggle in terms of force and focus their precious time and energy on economically productive activities rather than ideological action.”
I will set aside some psychological aspects of the objection, such as the barely disguised desire to criticize the Armed Forces and tarnish their prestige among civilians or to end TFP’s activities. I accept the objection in theory and will now respond to it.
* * *
At first glance, I notice how outdated my progressive friend’s ideas are. Events in our era have clearly shown that psychological action and counteraction can be effective. Because of this, no public figure—civilian or military—believes in solutions that rely solely on force.
Therefore, it is surprising that this objector claims that addressing and resolving the issue of subversion in Brazil can be achieved through force alone.
* * *
On the other hand, my objector’s mentality is shockingly harsh.
Let’s imagine that the armed forces of our country or any other threaten and silence the entire civilian population. Is there anything sadder for genuinely military personnel than seeing their own homeland as a conquered land, which obeys the law only out of fear? Wouldn’t an ideological effort that enlightens the people, helps them understand and value their authorities’ anti-subversive actions, and encourages them to work with those authorities to suppress subversives also hold great moral significance in this situation?
Will progressive fanatics go as far as to wish for Brazil to face this treatment of a defeated country, where only force maintains order, with all efforts to persuade against subversion stopped just to create excuses to attack the Armed Forces?
* * *
I hear my progressive whisper that the military agencies could carry out this enlightening action without anyone else’s support. Therefore, TFP’s efforts would be pointless, which would result in silencing the TFP.
Here as well, although progressive, my objector reveals himself to be surprisingly outdated. While most educators and sociologists often overemphasize the importance of cooperation from students and subordinates for effective teaching or governance, my objector instead sees the state’s coercive power as that of an old-fashioned schoolmaster who teaches his primer to an entire, quiet, and passive populace.
Not so. Public authority, whether exercised by the military or civilians, plays a crucial role in shaping and guiding national opinion. However, such a mission cannot be successfully achieved without the cooperation of multiple living forces, spontaneously created by the people themselves, full of conviction, idealism, and healthy self-determination.
Millions of Brazilians see the TFP as one of these forces.
* * *
In reality, everything narrow and awkward in my opponent’s ideas becomes even more apparent when we analyze the core of communism and, even more so, the core of what I affirm are its “Catholic” allies, Christian democracy and progressivism.
Communism is basically an ideological sect. Its followers adopt a peculiar philosophical perspective on the universe, humanity, and life. Their main aim is to impose this perspective on everyone.
Given this sect’s ideological nature, it must be challenged with ideas. In these conflicts, force can sometimes play a legitimate and necessary role, but never exclusively, because ultimately, ideas are fought with ideas.
History is full of examples of political and social systems supported only by force that have fallen due to sometimes quick and chaotic, sometimes slow and sneaky, actions of opposing ideologies. They lacked the essential ideological backing.
* * *
This statement applies to communism and is even clearer in the case of progressivism.
The latter is a problem, crisis, or disease within the Church, if I may put it that way. Due to the Church’s very nature and supernatural character, its internal issues cannot be solved by ignoring questions of doctrine and ideological action.
This is so true that in its twenty centuries of existence, the Church has never faced a doctrinal crisis where no remedy has been found.
Given the almost endless variety of circumstances in time and place, the way the Church has reached doctrinal conclusions in conflicts like this has evolved significantly over the centuries and millennia.
But often—and perhaps in most cases—the presence of error within the Church initially causes concern and invites criticism from its more perceptive members, sometimes priests or laypeople.
When challenged, supporters of error defend themselves by hiding the heretical nature of their doctrines and accusing the opposition of spreading slander. The opposition responds with evidence. This leads to a doctrinal “war” or “guerrilla warfare,” ultimately resolved by authority through doctrinal teaching.
We are far from denying the public authorities the right to protect the State from the disastrous effects that any heterodox doctrinal current might have in the temporal realm.
However, since it is an internal issue of the Church, it is undeniable that the doctrinal crisis cannot be resolved outside the doctrinal realm.
Those who denounce religious errors that harm the State in this area provide a valuable service to both the State and the Church.
When a doctrinal error with social and economic effects develops within the Church, it is like a volcano whose lava is likely to spill over into the State’s domain.
Therefore, TFP’s fight against progressivism’s social and economic effects is crucial in addressing the issues brought to our attention.
All of this clarifies why progressives aim to silence the TFP.
* * *
I hear my progressive friend sneering dismissively: “All this is myth. In reality, strength doesn’t need doctrinal support but abundance. Everything can be solved with energy, good finances, and good management.”
This time, I won’t respond. Why should I bother? What reasoning can you offer those who refuse thought its rightful place in reality?
I remain silent and envision a breed of souls Claudel mentions; they are so practical that they wish the stars would fall from the sky and turn into potatoes.
Paul Claudel, French poet, playwright and diplomat (8/6/1868-2/23/1955).