by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
As we know, Chile’s presidential elections are approaching. In a sharp contrast to the hopes Frei ignited early in his administration, the Christian Democratic experiment has failed.
In fact, there was a time when that country’s Christian Democratic regime was promoted across Latin America as the ideal solution to the problems of the Ibero-American nations.
However, things have since changed. The land reform he imposed on the country with his Christian Democratic fanaticism had negative results and alienated large, medium, and small landowners and many farmworkers. Other failures followed. While Christian Democrats feverishly attempt to form a coalition with left-wing parties—including the Communist Party—to elect a unique candidate, the overwhelming majority of Chileans are turning toward the most conservative candidate on the political scene, namely former President Arturo Alessandri. Frei is melancholically packing his bags.
A moral dilemma clearly emerges for much of the Christian Democrat electorate in this political climate: Can a Catholic team up with communists to select a shared candidate? What if that candidate is a communist?
Perhaps these were the reasons that prompted the Santiago daily Última Hora to ask that city’s archbishop, Cardinal Silva Henriquez, whether it was licit for a Catholic to vote for communists. Shockingly, the Cardinal responded yes!
Of course, this terrible solution caused disappointment and confusion across the country. Consider how much it likely pleased the Christian Democrats, socialists, communists, and their allies, especially given the political climate when it was revealed.
* * *
Like most South American countries, Chile has a brilliant and active organization of traditionalist youth, the Chilean Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property.
Its president, Mr. Patricio Larrain, sent the Chilean cardinal a letter which is a masterpiece of respect, lucidity, and firmness. It reads:
Your Eminence. On December 24, 1969, Última Hora prominently published your response to the question, “Whether the Church allowed a Catholic to vote for a Marxist candidate.” Your Eminence replied: “If he does so according to his conscience, that is fine; the important thing is that he considers, in conscience, that what he is doing is right.” On the same day, the newspaper Clarín published: “At the end of the interview, he (the cardinal) was asked if the Church, in its new spirit, maintains the punishment for Christians who vote for Marxists. He (His Eminence) replied: If a Christian votes for a Marxist in good conscience and does so for what he believes to be his duty, I understand him.”
After carefully considering both versions, the TFP believes they are easily causing a profound ideological disorientation in the population, for three reasons, which I will now explain:
-
The widespread circulation of these newspapers among a segment of the public that tends to accept such statements as genuine.
-
The coincidence of the two journalistic reports transcribed above. In principle, testis unus, testis nullus. But with two testimonies, it is already something that can attest to the authenticity of the aforementioned statements.
-
Finally, the absence of an official denial by Your Eminence greatly increases public belief in the authenticity of the statements attributed to you, as the well-known aphorism “silence gives consent” applies.
A natural outcome of this situation is a significant boost in support for the Marxist vote in the upcoming elections, along with the profound consequences this could bring. While it causes crippling discouragement among anticommunist circles, educated groups are generally surprised.
What causes this astonishment?
-
First, there is an obvious incompatibility between Marx’s philosophy and Catholic doctrine.
-
Secondly, the excommunication of Catholics who support communists (including voting for them), issued by His Holiness Pope Pius XII of blessed memory, has not been lifted despite rumors to that effect. Neither is it within the diocese’s authority to declare it suspended.
-
Third, the content of the cited journalistic versions presents a surprising endorsement of moral subjectivism. In fact, if these versions are accepted, a believer’s internal forum of conscience alone would be enough to justify following a doctrine condemned by the Church.
This serious concern leads the TFP to believe that Your Eminence did not say the words reported by the newspapers. Moreover, it suggests that the common good urgently requires a denial from Your Eminence, especially because the argument “ab absurdum”—that it would be unreasonable for Your Eminence to have made such a statement—no longer removes the need for a denial since disillusioned public opinion inside and outside the Church is becoming accustomed to accepting what would have been considered absurd five years ago.
Given the above, the TFP urges Your Eminence to promptly issue an official statement fully disavowing the words attributed to you.
With expressions of veneration and esteem, etc.
What attitude did this prelate adopt in response to the appeal of his country’s TFP in this post-conciliar era of dialogue with everyone and firm affirmations of the rights of the laity?
He responded with the fullest and proudest silence.
Be amazed, everyone, if anything still has the power to surprise you in these matters!
Cardinal Silva Henriquez with Salvador Allende. On May 1, 1971, for the first time in Chilean history, a Prince of the Church attended a rally of CUT (Central Workers Union, controlled by the Communist Party), sitting on the podium next to Marxist President Allende.
* * *
TFP’s letter was published in El Mercurio, Santiago’s top daily newspaper. However, even respect for his archdiocese’s audience didn’t prompt the cardinal to explain himself.
Instead, a loud, aggressive, and insulting voice arose to defend the shepherd from his sheep’s rightful surprise. It was not a voice, but a howl—the howl of a wolf eager for the shepherd and furious with the sheep.
That voice was Santiago’s communist newspaper, El Siglo, which published a harsh article against the TFP on January 27.
When welcoming the tyrant Fidel Castro, Cardinal Silva Henriquez avoided mentioning the crimes, torture, and violations of natural and divine law perpetrated by the Cuban regime.