CLEARLY,
FORCEFULLY AND SOON
Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira (*)
BRAZILIAN newspapers have published abundant but scattered
reports on the agitation, aggressions, and even seizures of land that have been
taking place in our country in the last few months. Precisely because the news
is scattered, the public at large has been absorbing it with indolence. But if
one were to gather all the reports into an overall picture one would realize
that, from one end to the other, Brazil is systematically being swept by a wave
of "conscientization" — the reformist revolution of confiscatory
socialism — which is processively degenerating into armed conflict, that is,
into an immense and bloody social revolution.
Now then, in all of these news reports the action of
some priest, nun or even bishop appears as an influential, if not predominant
factor.
All Catholics zealous for the identity of the Church
with herself are sad and disconcerted at the fact that this is taking place
without any countermeasure by the Holy See in the country with the largest
Catholic population in the world. Nevertheless, we all know that a forceful and
adroit measure by John Paul II would suffice to stop all this.
It is therefore understandable that not a few
Catholics have welcomed with some hope the promise of Agnelo Cardinal Rossi
that by September John Paul II will take a decisive stand on Liberation
Theology, which is at the root of this whole catastrophe. The readers of the Folha
de S. Paulo probably had a similar reaction upon reading the news it
reprinted from the Italian magazine Panorama
about a project of John Paul II to follow a policy of containment toward
Liberation Theology in Latin America.
In me, such news causes a sad skepticism. I am not
certain that these measures will be taken. If they are, I am even less certain
that they will have the indispensable degree of efficacy. For one thing, I
believe that the ecumenical tendency that so extensively impregnates important
sectors of the Church will prevent any strong measure from affecting Liberation
Theology. And if, against all expectations, that measure is
taken, it will be neutralized by the classic method of "smoothing
over" its interpretation and execution.
Long gone are the days of Saint Pius X, the Shepherd
most sweet and most strong who, brandishing his Encyclical Pascendi as
an archangel would his sword of fire, prostrated the "Modernists."
The latter were precursors of the progressivists and leftist Catholics, and
therefore forerunners of the promoters of Liberation Theology, in which both
progressivism and "Catholic leftism" are deeply rooted.
Thus, while the promised measures to alert the
faithful do not come, it is better for us merely to analyze the events.
To make an exact tally of the occupations of land that
have taken place in the last three months it would be necessary to obtain a copy
of every Brazilian daily newspaper, something just about impossible.
If we judge only from the daily newspapers of the most
important cities, during three months there were thirty-five major occupations
of private lands.
As if planned by one central machine, the invasions
usually develop as follows:
1. In an area affected by agitation of leftist
Catholics, there appear groups made up mostly of strangers
unkown in the area. Well, sometimes their identity is known: they are
professional agitators from the four corners of
2. Even though these people are often in the vicinity
of State-owned lands they could occupy, they threaten some private property.
And after some negotiation (read intimidation) with the owner, they
uninhibitedly invade the latter's property, usually with the support of the
local parish priest or bishop. In so doing, they trample upon two Commandments
of the Law of God: "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not
covet thy neighbor's goods."
3. At the request of the owner, the law enforcement
agencies, in charge of maintaining order, intervene. They do so, in general,
softly and inefficaciously. "Negotiations" then proceed — now led by
the priest and the bishop — and the owner gradually makes concessions.
4. Several possibilities are now open: a) The landowner abandons the place to save his own life and
those of his loved ones, and waits for a better opportunity to vindicate his
rights. Of course, this will take so long that he finally will resign himself
to "selling" for a pittance the lands that had once been his own and
joining the obscure ranks of the small bourgeoisie in some mid-sized or large
city; b) Or, the landowner immediately capitulates and accepts that his land be
confiscated for a vile sum that will buy him an obscure and secure place in
urban society.
In short, the landowner would be practicing the principle
"give away some in order not to lose all."
5. It is not so rare that the landowner is simply
killed by the "poor" invaders and his family is obliged to flee
without any compensation in the near future.
6. However, cases begin to appear in which non-conformist
landowners, unaided by federal and state authorities, are starting to prepare
for armed resistance with their own resources. Will such cases tend to
multiply?
It is too early to make a forecast. If they do, the
institution of private property will have a chance to survive for a while. But
facing even this resistance the ecclesiastic agitators do not take on pacifist
airs.
Instead, they prod on the pertinacity of the squatters
and lead everything to the beginning of social warfare. Yes, class warfare, for I am certain that if such situations multiply,
tension and hatred will become ever more exacerbated on both sides: "Deep
calls unto deep" (Psalms, 41:8). And dawns of blood, with picket tines
preventing everyone, in the name of liberty, from going to work, will multiply
under the aegis of the parish priest or some local nun. Thus, the rule, with
few exceptions, consists of turning ecclesiastics into the torch-bearers of the
Red revolution.
In this manner, ministers of the Lord can be used to
make the atheistic and egalitarian revolution in the fields.
Well, having elements to see as very black a situation
that to some will appear gray at worst, I also clearly discern, in colors rosy
or white, the other side of the coin. I repeat: if John Paul II wants to brine
all this agitation to a halt, it will take him only one word. Only one word...
The situation requires that the Pontiff speak out
clearly, forcefully and soon. If he does, contemporary
(*)
“Ultima Hora”, Rio de Janeiro, August 27, 1984