Impulsive and hurriedly reformist in its Itaici-80 communiqué, the CNBB surprisingly appeared to back down in the Itaici-81 communiqué. However, in a striking back-and-forth, key members of the organization launched a fierce reformist publicity campaign in June, which I detailed in my latest article, “The Storm Begins,” where I noted the initial explosion in the series, sparked by statements from Most Rev. Pedro Casaldáliga, bishop of São Félix do Araguaia, made in Rio Grande do Sul.
Statements with an agro-reformist tone were also made by Most Rev. Edmundo Kunz, auxiliary bishop of Porto Alegre (Zero Hora, 6/30/81); Most Rev. Clemente Isnard, bishop of Nova Friburgo and vice-president of the CNBB (Jornal do Brasil, 7/11/81); and Most Rev. José Rodrigues, bishop of Juazeiro (Jornal do Brasil, 7/15/81).
As expected, Most Rev. Quirino Schmitz, bishop of Teófilo Otoni, also spoke out: “When poor families are getting poorer and the rich claim … that everything is fine, the people must use aggressive means to claim their rights.” Shortly before, the prelate had emphasized that “St. Thomas Aquinas … speaks of the prospect of armed civil conflict as a strategy for restoring justice and freedom.”
That’s going too far, don’t you think, reader? Perhaps sensing this, Bishop Quirino Schmitz immediately adds that he believes “violence is not the solution.” A step back, then. Or rather, just half a step: he goes on to say that he would understand people’s revolt and “would do nothing to prevent them … from defending their lives.”
But after this progress, in a new setback, Bishop Quirino states, “it is not the clergy who will encourage the people to resort to aggressive means.” And, wavering between caution and recklessness, the Bishop of Teófilo Otoni hints that the clergy should support violence in some cases, like in Nicaragua, for the overthrow of Somoza. Finally, he warns that people in our country are already “losing patience” (Jornal do Brasil, 7/6/1981). What does someone—a people or an individual—do when they lose their patience? They insult, threaten, attack…
Doesn’t using this language amount to a risky zigzag along the edge of the abyss? How can we understand or explain this navigation?
Anyone looking for answers to these questions will not find them in Most Rev. Ivo Lorscheiter, bishop of Santa Maria and president of CNBB’s recent lecture in Porto Alegre at the closing of a seminar by the Frente Agrária Gaúcha (Gaucho Agrarian Front). He didn’t hesitate to tell the assembled rural workers that, “in extreme cases, the only solution for achieving social change … is armed struggle, and the Church must accept this situation as inevitable.”
Furthermore, he states that the clergy “cannot sit idly by … waiting for things to happen, it needs to be combative.” What an irresponsible statement! However, aligning with the new style of progressive land reformism, Bishop Lorscheiter quickly adds that “being combative” does not mean “encouraging violent acts.” It’s a zigzag. Going further back, the prelate emphasizes that the Church condemns “all kinds of violence. … We want an active struggle, but not a violent one.”
However, during the retreat, he turns forward and states that, in some cases, the clergy may support armed movements against dictatorial regimes.
What does he mean? Is Bishop Lorscheiter considering taking up arms? Surely not. He prefers to stay in the background, meditating and “analyzing.” In fact, he warns that it is clear “it will not be the priests and bishops who will go to the front lines. … This extreme solution needs to be carefully examined.” So, who will take the “extreme solution” and go “to the front lines”? The people. Bishop Lorscheiter, along with likely others who share his views, will remain “analyzing” from the background, “before the people enter into radical confrontation.”
I don’t believe his leftist emphasis has ever gone this far. However, at the peak of his progress, he is once again pulling back. It’s a zigzag. He remembers that St. Thomas considers armed civil conflicts to be the “ultimate strategy for the restoration of justice and freedom,” and he reflects: “What guarantees us that all peaceful forms of negotiation with regimes of force have been exhausted?” In other words, maybe (note the reader: maybe) it’s not yet time for the people to take up arms in Brazil.
So, maybe it’s time to do that… It’s up to each person to decide. If some—or many—think so, then let them move forward. The CNBB president will not discourage them.
But then, a retreat happens. Bishop Lorscheiter says that it will be necessary to wait “at least another hundred years before concluding that peaceful means of changing our system are unfeasible.” Could anything be more ambiguous? ‘More than a hundred’ could mean 101, or it could mean a thousand. What exactly does “at least another hundred” signify in this context? It almost seems as if, by playing with nonsense or absurdity, Bishop Lorscheiter aims to provoke the impatience he’s stirred in earlier discussions.
He concludes by saying that, before that uncertain date, it is “very risky to talk about armed struggle” (Jornal do Brasil, 7/5/1981).
Now, what has he just done if not talk about armed struggle? Who is Bishop Lorscheiter trying to protect himself from when he backs down? Why doesn’t he say it? The only thing clear in his words is the identity of those he is trying to attack.
According to the Itaici-80 document, today’s targets are rural landowners, and tomorrow’s will be urban landowners.
Why has all this zigzagging been shaking up Catholic opinion in Brazil since February 1980, initially slowly, and then at a frantic pace over the last thirty days?
Shaking Catholic opinion throughout Brazil? The whole country, then!
