Try an Experiment, Reader – Folha de S. Paulo, March 7, 1971
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
The public was very interested in the dispute between General Humberto de Souza Mello, commander of the Second Army, and the archbishop of São Paulo. As is well known, at the start of CPOR’s current academic year, General Souza Mello delivered a speech criticizing the actions of the leftist clergy. Days later, the Ecclesia Information Center, the archdiocese’s official mouthpiece, issued a note to counter the claims made by the distinguished military officer. Both the general’s and Ecclesia’s statements warrant comment. That is what I offer readers in this article… which I end by proposing a test.
* * *
Vieira, if I am not mistaken, was the one who said that “no” is the most difficult word to say. From one perspective, I believe this observation is accurate. And, for the same reason, I think that the easiest word to say is “yes.”
Therefore, I find it very easy to comment on the statements made by the Second Army’s commander. I say “yes,” I do agree with his clear and timely stance on “religious” communism. To justify my position, I only need to recall two parts of his speech.
* * *
Let the reader consider this statement: “As Christians, we believe that communism will only succeed if Christendom, which it challenges ideologically, fails and is defeated. However, we watch with horror and astonishment as the strongholds of our traditions and faith are shaken by fierce attacks against the Church of Jesus Christ, due to the reprehensible actions of some priests who disobey the authority of St. Peter.”
Who, besides the communists and their supporters—progressives, toads, ostriches, and their ilk—can deny the facts presented by the general? They are so clear that public outrage alone is enough to prove them. The Latin proverb says scripta manent, “what is written remains.” Therefore, no display of public outrage is more evident than the 1968 petition sponsored by the TFP, signed by 1,600,368 Brazilians, including ministers of state, senior military officers, governors, prominent figures in the episcopate, judiciary, Congress, academia, and journalism. They urged Paul VI to take action to stop communist infiltration in the Church. Yet, since then, the situation has only worsened.
Some might argue that communist infiltration into the Church is a phenomenon that occurs within the religious sphere. Was it appropriate for those in the military, a different sphere, to handle it? The answer is clear in General Souza Mello’s words. The subversive actions of clergy and Catholic organizations undermine the very foundations of the State and, as a result, fall under the responsibilities of those in charge of the country’s security.
Here is another excerpt from his speech: “It is worth remembering that in 1968, according to press reports, even two archbishops advocated that our country adopt a communist regime of the type existing in Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.”
This is a serious statement. The commander of the Second Army chose not to reveal the names of the two prelates he references out of respect for episcopal dignity. However, he makes it clear that he has their names ready and is prepared to publish them immediately if challenged. This attitude aligns with both the military spirit and the teaching given by Our Lord: “Let your speech be yes, yes; no, no” (Mt 5:37).
* * *
What was the response of the official mouthpiece of the archdiocese? Neither yes nor no: “perhaps, maybe, according to, however,” etc.
At the same time, the Ecclesia statement is strangely ambiguous and filled with anger. For example, it hints, without directly saying, that many leaders, including Governor Sodré, are involved in a secretive and Machiavellian scheme to discredit the National Episcopate because it consistently promotes social justice. According to the statement, General Souza Mello’s actions suggest he is part of this plot.
Few accusations could be more insulting to a governor and a general than this one. It clearly reveals Ecclesia’s anger. However, its vague language provides no proof, only hints, and avoids a full demonstration.
The Ecclesia document dismisses the evidence offered by the general outright and without further examination. The general claimed that his accusation was based on press reports. Ecclesia responds: “It is regrettable that such a statement (by the general) is based on press reports and not on better reasons.” And this without further ado, as if he could never prove anything under any circumstances! Isn’t that fantastic?
Furthermore, what kind of evidence would Ecclesia want? The kind collected in a police investigation? But how can that be done if it’s enough to launch an investigation into a bishop for the CNBB to immediately go public, claiming that it does not admit the bishop’s guilt “a priori,” as it did a few days ago in support of the troubled prelate of Volta Redonda, Bishop Valdir Calheiros?!
* * *
The Ecclesia statement includes a significant passage that exposes the doctrines present in some Catholic circles: “For the Church, Soviet, Chinese, Yugoslav, or Czech communism indeed remains philosophically atheistic and evil, politically dictatorial, and economically questionable. Like capitalism, neo-capitalism is also a materialistic system that produces undeniable injustices and disparities among individuals and nations.”
Readers should pay close attention. From a philosophical perspective, communism is “atheistic,” and therefore “evil.” From a political standpoint, it is “dictatorial,” but the statement does not specify whether it is good or bad. Finally, from an economic perspective, communism is “questionable.” In other words, each Catholic should consider it as they wish, as it can be judged to bring either hell or paradise on earth.
Now, if a Catholic wanted to establish in Brazil an economic system where all means of production belonged to the State, similar to Russia, China, or Cuba, while also allowing complete religious freedom for the Church, would such a system be incompatible with Catholic doctrine, according to Ecclesia? Let’s analyze this:
1) Would that regime be “atheistic” in the sense of persecuting religion? — No. Therefore, it would not be “bad”;
2) Would it be considered “dictatorial”? Let’s say yes. Is a regime necessarily against Church doctrine because it is dictatorial? According to Fr. Comblin, for example, no, since his infamous document proposes a populist dictatorship. Yet this did not prevent Bishop Helder Camara from keeping him on the faculty of the Theological Institute of Recife. Moreover, Cuba is an open dictatorship. And I am not aware that Fidel Castro is unpopular among left-wing Catholics. Let’s assume that this communist-Catholic regime was not dictatorial. Then I ask whether Ecclesia would have an objection to it from a political standpoint. Logically, no. For example, it would be a regime similar to the well-known “conciliar republic,” which some intellectuals and politicians on the Italian left promote openly: a democratic republic that adopts a communist program but does not restrict freedom of worship. I do not see that Ecclesia has any political objections to this form of communism.
3) What about abolishing private property? This is an economic issue and, therefore, “debatable.” In other words, from a Catholic perspective, according to Ecclesia, there is no objection at all to eliminating individual property.
* * *
Thanks be to God, I am a Roman Catholic, and my Catholic faith deepens with each passing day. I have thoroughly studied the papal documents and affirm that the topic in the “Ecclesia” communiqué contradicts the traditional doctrine of the Roman Pontiffs. I also affirm that this same topic serves the interests of communism. By declaring that it is lawful for Catholics to accept the communist economy, it allows communist doctrines to spread among the faithful and creates an environment for them to collaborate in implementing a communist economy and society. This could be achieved through voting, as in Chile, or by force, as Fr. Comblin advocates.
This indicates that Ecclesia’s statement demonstrates that the Catholic left is pushing Brazil toward a communist-Catholic “conciliar republic.”
The conclusion is clear.
* * *
Dear reader, try this experiment. Find a priest or lay Catholic who is opposed to the TFP and ask him if I am correct in saying that communism contradicts Church doctrine, even when only “economic.” If he is very clever, he will dodge the question, saying he is busy at the moment and will answer later, etc. If he is less clever, he will also avoid the question but awkwardly, by launching a barrage of insults against the TFP. If he is foolish, he will simply say I am wrong.
In this case, ask him to write to me, challenging me with all his energy or refuting me decisively.
I don’t think he will do that, even if he’s foolish, and you know why.
