The Tragedy: “Alone, with Neither Leader nor Shepherd.” – Folha de S. Paulo, April 22, 1973

 

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

 

Messrs. Patrício Amunategui Monckberg and Juan Gonzalo Larrain Campbell, members of the Chilean TFP’s National Council, sent me a letter that I consider essential to publish so readers may understand the true and sinister nuances of this worldwide phenomenon of great importance in Brazil, known as Catholic progressivism. They write:

“We have been following with great interest what the Brazilian press has been reporting on the differences between the Chilean ecclesiastical authorities and the Allende government. These differences are said to have originated in a government project to impose a clearly Marxist educational system on the country through the National Unified School (ENU).

“Naturally, we sought to inform ourselves thoroughly about the problem by reading Chilean newspapers and magazines. We found that the Brazilian press’s extensive coverage of the subject has omitted nuances essential to a full understanding of the bishops’ attitude in this emergency.

“In fact, when reading what the otherwise brilliant Brazilian press has published on the subject, anyone who has not followed the unfolding of events directly in the Chilean newspapers may be left with the impression that our country’s bishops are taking a strong, categorical stance against the communist educational project and that the hierarchy is responding to the serious considerations in the Chilean TFP’s manifesto titled: ‘Church Self-Demolition, a Factor in the Demolition of Chile.’

“For the sake of truth, we feel it necessary to state that, unfortunately, this is not the case. We will now show, based on facts from the Chilean press, that the stand taken by the episcopate in our beloved, now unfortunate, country does not align with the image of anti-Marxist combativeness that the episcopal office demands.

“Let us move on to the facts.

“During the intense reaction that followed the public announcement of the government’s plan, Cardinal Silva Henriquez, Archbishop of Santiago, met with Allende. After the meeting, the Cardinal told the press in a conciliatory tone that the Church was not in conflict with the government and that, in his opinion, the existing problems could be overcome (El Mercurio, March 28, 1973).

“The following day, the Bishops’ Permanent Committee, chaired by Cardinal Silva Henriquez, issued an official statement on the matter. The bishops began by highlighting the bill’s ‘positive aspects.’ Then, in vague language that neither attacked nor named Marxism as the ideology behind the government’s draft bill, they expressed concern that it ignored the human and Christian values in Chile’s spiritual heritage. After expressing their confidence in the sound intentions of the Marxist Allende and the Minister of Education, they asked that the implementation of the educational plan be postponed. Finally, they quoted an excerpt from the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that parents have the preferential right to choose the type of education their children should receive (El Mercurio, March 29, 1973).

“This very polite and cautious language makes it clear that the government need not fear any bold action from the bishops if it turns a deaf ear to their request. Nor do the bishops seem to have the desire or strength to launch a massive and decisive protest movement against the Marxist project.

“Under these conditions, the way in which Catholic public opinion in Chile views the attitude of its ecclesiastical authorities is entirely understandable. For example:

“At the French nuns’ school in Santiago, more than 400 parents of students, discussing the matter, described the Cardinal’s flexibility in the Church’s relations with the Marxist government as ‘excessive diplomacy and appeasement’. They rejected the government’s project by an absolute majority, with only one vote against (La Prensa, Santiago, April 4, 1973).

“Three hundred fathers and mothers from the southern city of Los Angeles wrote a courageous letter to Cardinal Silva Henriquez, from which we highlight a few paragraphs: ‘We read with astonishment the statements issued by Your Eminence regarding the ENU. … The weakness of your pronouncement compromises the destiny of our children’s consciences and their integrity. … We would never have imagined that, faced with such a prospect, Your Eminence would ask the government for a simple postponement of the implementation of the ENU project, rather than issuing a categorical repudiation. … We never supposed that the Pastors of the Church in Chile would ignore the fundamental content, the very soul of the proposed reform, and implement Marxist-Leninist education in Chile. … No, Your Eminence, parents are not unaware that the ENU’s plans take our children away from the family bosom and rob us of our natural right to guide our children with freedom and Christian conscience. The State reserves for itself exclusively what was our mission, to massify them. … And Your Eminence asks for an extension of deadlines in the face of this chaos? Your Eminence hopes to talk, negotiate, and discuss with Marxists. Chilean mothers hoped to count on Your Eminence’s courage and patriotism. Yet we are left alone, without a leader and without a Shepherd… (Tribuna, April 7, 1973).

“At Santiago’s prestigious Villa Maria Academy, during the parents’ assembly that drew more than 500 people, one attendee severely criticized the cardinal for his weak statement and received warm expressions of support. Another attendee, by contrast, tried to defend the cardinal and was booed (El Mercurio, April 6, 1973).

“We could cite other equally significant facts, but we will not do so for the sake of brevity. We will only add that the pro-government newspaper Ultima Hora expressed satisfaction that the Bishops’ Permanent Committee limited itself to requesting the postponement of the implementation of the government’s bill and recognized its positive aspects (Ultima Hora, April 2, 1973).

“The facts presented show that the Chilean Bishops’ seemingly anticommunist energy, as suggested by news reports from some international agencies, is not real. With honorable exceptions, those ecclesiastical authorities continue seeking to appease the just indignation of the vast majority of public opinion in Chile.”