The Furious Moderates
– Folha de S. Paulo, January 12, 1983 –by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
1. As I see it, four of the five prelates who addressed the issue in Folha de S. Paulo (December 26, 1982) went beyond their authority and essentially supported the creation of a hidden yet harsh centrist dictatorship in Brazil — one disguised as a strange democracy where disagreement would no longer be a right. In such a system, freedom in the secular sphere would be limited to the right — actually, the obligation — to endorse whatever the bishops decide.
As emphasized in a previous article, I agree that the PCB should not be given the right to operate.
I am convinced that no democracy, nor any of the three legitimate forms of government, can recognize such a right. This is not because communist preaching itself is a serious threat. It is permitted in England and the United States, for instance, and it poses no danger as long as it remains open and honest. Likewise, I believe it would not be a threat in Brazil.
If I were unlucky enough to be a communist, I would definitely oppose (behind the scenes, of course) my party’s legal recognition because it would only highlight the irredeemable insignificance of its electoral base.
On the other hand, this would also silence the right-wing opponents of the communists. So, what would then remain as an obstacle to communism?
Only a centrist, dictatorial democracy inspired by elements within the CNBB. In turn, the CNBB controls thousands of Catholic organizations that have been infiltrated by communists with remarkable success.
Thus, one would reach a centrist dictatorship where the “useful innocents,” the timid, the sympathizers, the liberation theologians, and finally the Casaldáligas would have an outsized voice — free to toss their vitriol at the troublesome right while leaving the gates of the sheepfold wide open to the communist wolf.
How could Prestes and Giocondo Dias not want this?
So, if I agree with the four bishops that the Communist Party should not be granted freedom, it is because I remain unwaveringly faithful to the principle of Pius IX’s glorious “Syllabus,” which condemned the statement: “Everyman is free to embrace and profess that religion which he, led by the light of reason, thinks to be the true religiontrue.” (Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, no. 1715. Preserving Christian Publications, Boonville, NY 2009, 437).
Since there is no freedom of religion, there is even less freedom for irreligion — for communism, which is atheistic by nature.
2. I therefore conclude the review of the four bishops’ opinions and move on to Cardinal Arns’s. I reaffirm that I find no inconsistencies in his position.
As usual, he speaks in absolute terms. Beneath his statement lies an unquestioning acceptance of democracy in its commonly accepted sense. He also appears to dismiss the teachings of Pius IX’s Syllabus. From these two premises — neither of which I can support — he concludes that, for the same reasons, I must also refuse to accept.
However, his stance stays consistent on a theoretical level.
In practice, this principle would grant complete freedom of action not only to communism but also to its opponents. After all, this is the system in place in the United States and in many European countries that proudly call themselves democratic. In these nations, the Communist Party has seats in Parliament, or if it doesn’t, it’s simply because it hasn’t won enough votes.
I repeat that I disagree with this idea of freedom because it does not represent what true freedom really is.
However, I acknowledge that, based on assumptions I do not accept — and which all the prelates interviewed by Folha explicitly or implicitly affirm — Cardinal Arns is the only one acting logically.
__________________________________________________________________
Index of English posts - Plinio Correa de Oliveira