To a Young Man Enraged Against the Chilean TFP – Folha de S. Paulo, March 4, 1973

 

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

 

My dear progressive. Yes, I address you as my dear. I love your soul, redeemed by Christ Our Lord, and I will be glad to learn whether my explanations have helped you. So I will get to the point.

Indignant at the Chilean TFP’s manifesto published in Folha de São Paulo [March 2, 1973, pp. 2 & 3, titled “The Church’s Self-Destruction Leads to Chile’s Destruction”], you want to study it to refute it. I see loyalty and courage in your attitude. You do not shy away from the subject. You are not content to counterattack with insults and slander but want to oppose thesis with thesis and argument with argument. Very well.

In its manifesto, the Chilean TFP rightly presents itself as an “autonomous entity” and claims “sole responsibility” for its publications. Thus, the Brazilian TFP is not responsible for the attitude of its valiant Chilean brothers and awaits the pronouncement of the Santiago Chancery and of Chileans and Brazilians interested in this subject. The Chancery may make a statement with the prudence and circumspection this delicate subject requires.

Without delving into the merits of the issue for now, let me offer you some advice, my progressive friend. I want to tell you what, in my view, you should avoid claiming and what you should claim.

* * *

Do not claim that the Chilean TFP implicitly denied papal infallibility or the due respect owed to the Roman Pontiff when it attributed to Paul VI a share of responsibility for what is happening in Chile. You would expose yourself to being demolished with a flick of the wrist.

In fact, anyone with even basic knowledge of theology or canon law knows that the charism of infallibility protects the Supreme Pontiff only in certain acts of the Magisterium, performed under very specific conditions. And that adherence to non-infallible doctrinal teachings does not prohibit the faithful from disagreeing—with good reason—with specific acts performed by a pope.

Don’t protest right away. Listen to the famous Cardinal Cajetan, recognized as an authority among all serious theologians. See how far this distinguished author goes: “One must resist to his face a Pope who publicly destroys the Church” (in Obras de Francisco de Vitória, BAC, Madrid, p. 486). Francisco de Vitória himself, a great 16th-century theologian, teaches: “If (a pope) wished to hand over all the treasure of the Church … to his family, if he wished to destroy the Church, or other similar things, one should not permit him to act in this way; rather, one would be obliged to resist him. The reason for this is that he does not have power to destroy; it being clear therefore that if he does, it is licit to resist him” (ibid., p. 487). Further on, Vitoria insists with these very clear words: “From all this it follows that, if the Pope, by his orders and his acts, destroys the Church, one can resist him and impede the execution of his commands” (ibid., p. 487).

If these authors are not enough for you, consult, among the ancients, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, Suarez, and Cornelius a Lapide, and among the more recent authors, Wernz-Vidal, Peinador, or the Eastern Fathers such as St. John Chrysostom, St. John Damascene, and Theodoret. If you wish, I can provide you with the most interesting texts from these authors. I have a learned friend with an admirable collection of their works.

Consulting them will lead you to the conclusion that they think alike.

Surely, my young progressive friend, you would not want to accuse all of them of heresy, schism, and rebellion, as you have, in your confused fury, accused the young people of the Chilean TFP. Anyone with a modicum of seriousness and culture who deals with this subject would pityingly smile at your ridiculous role.

I see you jump up in indignation: “But then, is Paul VI a bad pope who is destroying the Church? The facts refute this slander!”

Here you are on the right track, my irascible young friend. The facts: this is the royal road your reply should follow.

The Chilean TFP asserted that Paul VI bears part of the responsibility for the demolition work being carried out by the clergy and hierarchy in Chile. It adduces facts to show that the pastors are carrying out this demolition. Finally, it cites additional facts to show that Paul VI bears some responsibility for this demolition.

If you are so angry, channel your fury toward a practical end. Gather documentation and prove that the facts cited by the Chilean TFP are false or do not support the entity’s interpretation. Then, yes: crush the TFP in this way, leave it faceless, and triumph over it joyfully.

As long as your evidence is valid, you will have my full solidarity. You will gladden my heart, for I will see that the picture of gloom and tragedy described by the Chilean TFP is false. I will join you in refuting the Chilean TFP and proclaim you a benefactor.

But to achieve this result, allow me to insist: there is only one path before you: the path of facts.

Anger is not an argument. Nor is insult. Facts, facts, facts: that is the formula!