by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Cardinal Vicente Scherer spoke on a recent radio program in Porto Alegre about the rushed criticism aimed at some Brazilian bishops and priests. Excerpts from His Eminence’s comments published in the daily press can be summarized as follows:
a) Seventeen bishops from the Northeast, along with the archbishop of Belo Horizonte, his auxiliary bishop, and several priests, are under prosecution for their involvement in communist-progressive subversion.
b) When addressing this issue, the Rio de Janeiro press—which the cardinal seems to have particularly targeted—has shown bias by accepting and spreading accusations lacking evidence.
c) According to His Eminence, a judge in the case acted similarly by acknowledging the lack of evidence to prove the defendants’ guilt while simultaneously ruling against them.
d) His Eminence would not seek special treatment for the clergymen on trial if there was evidence against them. He believes they should be held accountable under the law just like any other citizen.
e) However, if clergymen are subject to common law, as His Eminence claims, they are also entitled to the fair judgment that common law guarantees to everyone.
f) Conclusion: Since the defendants are being treated unfairly, Cardinal Scherer considers it legitimate for him to demand fair and balanced treatment from the press and courts to support these unfortunate individuals.
* * *
As you can see, nothing could be clearer, more logical, or more sympathetic if… such evidence doesn’t actually exist.
The strength of Archbishop Scherer’s argument depends entirely on this simple point: the absence of evidence presented against the defendants. If this evidence doesn’t exist, His Eminence is completely correct. But if it does, then his entire argument collapses. In that case, he might have been biased in accusing the newspapers and the magistrate.
This is the clear logic of the facts. Not even a “toad” or some N-L-N-F reader could disagree with it. But someone might ask if it is respectful to reason this way when the respected position of a cardinal is at stake. Based on the principles explained by Dom Scherer himself, yes. For if all clergy are subject to logic and common law, like anyone else, then there is no disrespect in analyzing His Eminence’s attitudes from this perspective.
In any case, while defending the defendants, His Eminence clearly criticized media outlets and a magistrate on a radio program. In doing so, His Eminence gave those he accused and the public the right to express their opinions on the case in support of those whom His Eminence criticized.
So, like any other Brazilian, I am here at the debate to share my opinion.
* * *
I will set aside what concerns all defendants suspected of communist-progressive plots, as I am unfamiliar with their cases. I will focus on just one, about whom I have something to say: the famous, untouchable, and magically untouched Belgian agitator, Fr. Joseph Comblin, a professor at the Theological Institute founded by Dom Helder Câmara in Recife.
In fact, I am not the only one with something to say about this. There are 1,600,368 Brazilians.
In June 1968, the press released a document by Fr. Comblin that shocked Brazil. This document triggered widespread outrage over communist infiltration within Catholic circles. As a result, the Brazilian people’s historic and monumental message to Paul VI became widely known.
I quote certain topics from the communist-progressive document that is shaping the young clergy of Recife.
Father Comblin says:
Making laws is not enough; they must be enforced with force. At first, this approach will be authoritarian and dictatorial. Radical reforms cannot be achieved by consulting the majority because most prefer ‘shade and fresh water’ and want to avoid problems.
Power must depend on force. What form will that force take? Sometimes it will be necessary to arm the people. Other times, calling for a referendum in well-prepared conditions will be enough. At other times, the propaganda center will suffice. In any case, it will be necessary to establish a repressive system: new courts of exception against those who oppose the reforms. Ordinary judicial processes are too slow. The legislative branch also cannot rely on deliberative assemblies.
Authority must neutralize the forces of resistance: suppress the Armed Forces if they are conservative; control the press, TV, radio and other media; censor destructive and reactionary criticism.
Progressives will need to form alliances, make compromises, and get involved in questionable alliances to overthrow the government and seize power.
Now I ask my readers and Dom Scherer himself: Is there no evidence against this man?
Yes, there is. A court could rule against him using the words of Our Lord to the wicked servant: “de ore tuo te judico” — I judge you based on the words that came out of your mouth (Lk 19:22). The clear, strong, and decisive evidence against Father Comblin is found in his own words.
* * *
Let me address Archbishop Scherer regarding Father Comblin. Since the archbishop legitimately demands evidence for any allegation against third parties, he should naturally seek no less decisive punishment for those against whom evidence exists.
Therefore, it is only natural that His Eminence should publicly state that he excludes Father Comblin from his list of innocent clergy members he supports, but also insist that he face the full force of civil and ecclesiastical law.
Yes, ecclesiastical law, because despite the “procela tenebrarum” surrounding the Church of God, there is a Code of Canon Law that prescribes the punishments the Church has the right and duty to impose on communist-subversive clergy.
* * *
Someone might argue that because Father Comblin isn’t from Dom Scherer’s diocese, the latter cannot interfere in the case.
To such an objector, I would ask a question. Are the archbishop, bishop, and priests whom the Rio Grande do Sul shepherd has defended part of his diocese? No. Then why did His Eminence take an interest in them? He did so for justice and fairness—universal principles that extend beyond the boundaries of a diocese. His Eminence defended those accused of communist-progressive subversion in the name of these principles.
What, then, prevents him, in the name of the same universal principles, from declaring the guilt of the notorious communist-progressive priest?