Agree-Disagree – Folha de S. Paulo, January 8, 1983

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

In the December 26 issue of Folha de S. Paulo, a particular news item gave me a sense of delight that was both exquisite and rare. In fact, I found myself agreeing with the views of some of the country’s most prominent church figures regarding the legalization of the Communist Party: Cardinals Aloísio Lorscheider and Eugênio Sales; CNBB president Ivo Lorscheiter, and the new archbishop of Porto Alegre, Cláudio Colling. That same report also once again demonstrated the consistency of my archbishop, Cardinal Paulo Evaristo Arns. Today, consistency is such a rare quality that it becomes all the more admirable when observed. One can see in Cardinal Arns’ consistency the influence of his serious university studies in Rome and Paris.

But this life is a valley of tears, as St. Bernard of Clairvaux once said. So, it’s no surprise that there’s another side to all this.

Readers are well aware that I strongly support the prelates who opposed the legalization of the Brazilian Communist Party (PCB). However, unfortunately, I cannot agree with most of the arguments they used to justify their position.

The Cardinal Archbishop of São Paulo said he is not opposed to legalizing the PCB. I disagree, but I think his arguments align with his overall thoughts and actions.

Let me explain all of this.

First, let’s analyze the arguments of the four bishops opposing the PCB’s legalization.

1. The most notable aspect of the ‘political opening,’ which is quickly nearing its final stages, is the return of political freedom to leftists of all stripes—freedom that had been largely taken away until recently due to the 1964 coup. This restoration has included those who faced repressive measures because of subversive or even terrorist activities.

Now, the vast majority, if not the entire national episcopate, has so far endorsed and supported this opening. To my knowledge, it has not been opposed by any current Brazilian residential bishop.

Thanks to this political opening, the PCB has reemerged without opposition and has frequently issued statements on television, in the press, and on the radio on any topic it considers appropriate. Incidentally, many of its statements warmly supported positions taken by the CNBB. The latter showed no signs of surprise or annoyance.

It is therefore incredibly strange that, at the very moment of taking the final step in this long process—a process that has been sometimes praised and sometimes just tolerated—precisely when a law is being debated that would give legal form to what is already clear to everyone, those high-ranking church officials—probably open to change—still repeat their earlier statements and alarmingly raise the specter of “legalizing” communism.

2. What arguments do they rely on?

The Archbishop of Porto Alegre asserts that communism could quickly spread and dominate democracy. He argues that no anti-democratic movement has the right to exist, whether it is on the left or the right. Therefore, the Communist Party has no right to exist.

In turn, opposing the Communist Party’s legal operation, the Cardinal Archbishop of Rio de Janeiro contends that it goes against the common good and therefore has no right to exist.

The Cardinal Archbishop of Fortaleza reasons similarly. Since the communists want to destroy democracy—he says—democracy has the right to prevent the legalization of the Communist Party.

The position of the Bishop of Santa Maria and president of the CNBB is similar.

3. Having briefly summarized these different arguments, I will now analyze them.

First of all, it is odd that the four high-ranking prelates, as bishops of the Catholic Church, present themselves as natural defenders of a single form of government—democracy—as if only that aligns with Catholic doctrine. However, according to the teaching of St. Pius X, there are three legitimate forms of government, so the bishops cannot condemn any of them as such.

In the Apostolic Letter “Notre Charge Apostolique,” St. Pius X condemns the errors of the “Le Sillon” movement, which claims that “Democracy alone will bring about the reign of perfect justice!” Refuting this error, the Holy Pontiff states: “Is this not an insult to other forms of government which are thereby debased to the level of sterile makeshifts?” Then, recalling the doctrine of Leo XIII’s Encyclical “Diuturnum Illud,” St. Pius X concludes: “Therefore, when he [Leo XIII] said that justice could be found in any of the three aforesaid forms of government, he was teaching that in this respect Democracy does not enjoy a special privilege. The Sillonists who maintain the opposite view, either turn a deaf ear to the teaching of the Church or form for themselves an idea of justice and equality which is not Catholic” (A. A. S., vol. 2, p. 618).

I also wonder what kind of democracy these prelates envision. It seems to be democracy as understood by the fully secular Brazilian State and the people, as defined by the no less secular UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (also cited by Cardinal Arns).

Under this concept of democracy, it is the people’s right to choose the country’s direction freely. This responsibility clearly includes the right for citizens to hear all voices across the nation’s ideological spectrum, supporting various courses.

If that’s the case, can we see the attitude of bishops who strongly claim their democratic stance but refuse the electoral college the right to hear certain voices or make certain choices as consistent? Certainly not. In this regard, I note that even at the height of its power, the Inquisition never went as far.

In fact, the Inquisition’s only concern was determining whether an individual’s doctrines aligned with the Church’s Magisterium. When it found a conflict, it condemned the false doctrine—and if the person refused to accept the Church’s judgment, it condemned that individual as well. However, it never claimed the authority to enforce this strange middle-ground dictatorship, in which people would hear only centrist voices (and note that the CNBB today embodies this centrist stance, leaning toward the center-left). Nor would they be allowed to pursue anything but centrist paths, as voters are kept from hearing teachings from other ideological or political backgrounds.

How, then, can one not call the opinion of these four prelates grossly excessive? So excessive, in fact, that it reminds me of this striking observation by Victor Hugo: “There is the intolerance of the tolerant, just as there is the fury of the moderate.” (Les travailleurs de la mer, Gallimard, 1980, 182).

I will discuss what else needs to be said about this subject in another article.