Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

(This article was published in the monthly Catolicismo, no. 150, June 1963)

Each phase of existence offers its own delights. In my days as a student, I had a special interest in looking for rare books, in the numerous stores that sold them second-hand.

Not infrequently in the course of those searches I found volumes the author had dedicated to this or that friend, with expressions that translated, at times a tender or bombastic friendship, at other times a poorly concealed feeling of superiority, and even a desire to gain the good graces of some illustrious intellectual or dangerous critic for the new book. I was never inclined to collect autographs. So I would immediately put the volume back on the shelf when it did not interest me. But I would ask myself: What would an author say, if he came here to buy a book, and saw that his friend had sold, for a paltry sum, not so much his book as the dedication on it, not so much the dedication as, in the final analysis, their friendship as well?

And then another idea occurred, startling me. If some day I should write a book and find a copy of it, with dedication, for sale in a used book store, what would I do?  It seemed to me that the best solution to avoid such a humiliating possibility was the one I came to adopt: Not to publish any.

These apprehensions of youth came back to my mind as I put together ideas for the present article. And I said to myself that this distasteful experience is one from which the author of In Defense of Catholic Action is entirely free.

Indeed, since the book had been out of print for quite a while (all 2,500 copies—a large printing for the time) and he was unable to attend to continuous requests from interested people, Dr. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira organized with some friends, I among them, a meticulous search in used book stores in São Paulo and other cities, hoping to buy back a few copies. The search proved entirely fruitless. He then went to the extreme of placing ads in the press asking if anyone would kindly sell him, second-hand, a copy of In Defense of Catholic Action, to no avail.

As it turned out, nothing is more unlikely than for him to find a volume of his work in a used book store.

Explosion or Harmonious Music? 

Yet, this it is not the only curious aspect of the history of this unique book.

Thus, for example, while In Defense of Catholic Action had a wide repercussion at the time, it certainly did not reach a large public properly so called, but remained circumscribed to that vast but somewhat restricted audience usually called “Catholic circles.” And I know that, paradoxically, not even the author himself wanted his work to extend beyond those limits. He believed that, since it dealt with specific problems of the Catholic movement, only in those circles could it be of interest and do some good.

On the other hand, it resonated in those circles like a bombshell. Many greeted it as an accurate and opportune salvo to ward off enormous dangers looming on the horizon. Others saw it as a cause for dissent and scandal, a deplorable assertion by a narrow and backward mind, attached to erroneous doctrines and prone to imagining nonexistent problems.

I can still see today the favorable and contrary reactions. I remember the enthusiasm with which I read, in Legionário, letters of support by Their Excellencies Helvecio Gomes de Oliveira, Archbishop of Mariana, Atico Eusebio da Rocha, Archbishop of Curitiba, João Becker, Archbishop of Porto Alegre, Joaquim Domingues de Oliveira, Archbishop of Florianópolis, Antonio Augusto de Assis, Archbishop-Bishop of Jaboticabal, Otaviano Pereira de Albuquerque, Archbishop-Bishop of Campos, Alberto José Gonçalves, Archbishop-Bishop of Ribeirão Preto, José Maurício da Rocha, Bishop of Bragança, Henrique Cesar Fernandes Mourão, Bishop of Cafelândia, Antonio dos Santos, Bishop of Assis, Frei Luis of Santana, Bishop of Botucatu, Manuel da Silveira D’Elboux, Auxiliary Bishop of Ribeirão Preto (today Archbishop of Curitiba), Ernesto de Paula, Bishop of Jacarezinho (today Bishop Emeritus of Gerocesarea), Otavio Chagas de Miranda, Bishop of Pouso Alegre, Frei Daniel Hostin, Bishop of Lajes, Juvencio de Brito, Bishop of Caetité, Francisco de Assis Pires, Bishop of Crato, Florencio Sisinio Vieira, Bishop of Amargosa, Severino Vieira, Bishop of Piauí, and Frei Germano Vega Campón, Bishop Prelate of Jataí.

More than anything else, I remember the deep impression I had, like most Catholics, as I read the prestigious preface with which the Apostolic Nuncio to Brazil, Dom Bento Aloisi Masella, introduced the book to the nation. Brazil venerated that Prelate as the perfect Nuncio, an opinion Pope Pius XII confirmed by making him a cardinal. I also remember the opposite reaction, which it is still too early—even after twenty years—to speak about at length.

It is not without sacrifice that I will be brief in this regard, as I would particularly enjoy letting my memory speak out and fill possible gaps with pieces from the rich and well organized file of Dr. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira. However, it is superfluous to digress about such dreams, as I know that in the present circumstances the author of In Defense of Catholic Action would not give me the much-coveted documentation.

Be it as it may, and resuming the course of my narration, as I glance at the past, for the sake of historical objectivity I cannot close my eyes to the opponents’ reaction, and a quick word about it would be in order. 

A Three-Phased Reaction

That reaction had three phases. It failed in the first, failed again in the second, but was fully successful in the third.

The first phase was one of threats. I still remember that, just back from a trip to the State of Minas, my then young friend José de Azeredo Santos—who later became a well known polemicist of indomitable coherence—informed us well humored and amused: “I was with Friar B.C., who told me a commission of theologians was set up to refute Plinio’s book. Friar B.C. says he will be sorry he published it.” But we knew that In Defense of Catholic Action had been thoroughly analyzed by two theologians already famous in Brazil, Msgr. Antonio de Castro Mayer and Father Geraldo Sigaud, so we did not worry and simply waited for the refutation. But nothing ever came.

As I write these lines, I also think of a card a very illustrious and respectable personality sent Dr. Plinio Corrêa of Oliveira thanking him for the book and saying he would soon publicly denounce the “errors” it contained. Twenty years have elapsed but nothing was ever published. How many other episodes like this could be told!

As threats of a refutation remained unfulfilled, next came the rumor phase. The book contained errors. Numerous errors! They did not say what they were. All they knew was that they were there. But there was no longer any mention of refutation, only a relentless harping on the same vague accusation throughout Brazil: There are errors, errors, errors! As Napoleon used to say, repetition is the best figure of rhetoric. But in spite of it all, In Defense of Catholic Action continued to move quickly in the bookstores.

Finally, the book sold out. In the course of time, it accomplished its difficult mission, which I will delve into below. A reprint therefore did not seem opportune. The rumors also gradually subsided. One would say that by the natural order of things, silence was falling upon the whole “affair.” But that was actually the beginning of the third phase—smooth, pervasive, and domineering.

Suddenly, in 1949, the silence is broken. From the heights of the Vatican, a voice makes itself heard, that dispels all doubts and makes the book invulnerable both from the standpoint of its doctrine and timeliness. It is a letter of praise from Msgr. Giovanni Battista Montini, then Substitute Secretary of State, written to Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira on behalf of the unforgettable Pius XII.

Yet, even at that, the deafening silence about the book continued. As far as I know, this is the only Brazilian work entirely and specifically written about Catholic Action which has been the object of a letter of praise by the Vicar of Christ. However, I am not aware that it is usually cited in works and bibliographies on Catholic Action that appear among us from time to time.

And the silence continued. Today—if only for a few minutes—that silence is interrupted as I write this preface, if only to avoid the obsolescence with which history punishes excessive inertia. But after this it will continue.

The Singular Destiny of a Book

In short, all this explains why you cannot find In Defense of Catholic Action in used bookstores. Some people actually keep it on their shelves with affection, as if it contained a precious elixir. Others lock it inside a drawer with panic, as if it were a flask of arsenic. Thus, the history of this book turned out to be completely different than I, who watched its launching with enthusiasm, or its apologists or detractors, could ever have imagined in the bygone days of June 1943.

Liturgical Movement, Catholic Action, Social Action

Around 1935, Brazil began to receive the vibrant influence of the large Catholic movements that arose with the great religious upsurge in post World War I Europe. Foremost among them was the liturgical movement whose foundations the great Dom Prosper Guéranger had laid in Solesmes already in the last century, (1) opening the eyes of the faithful to the supernatural value, doctrinal wealth and incomparable beauty of the Sacred Liturgy. That movement of spiritual renewal attained its full blossoming precisely in the period 1918-1939, at the same time as a great apostolic development, guided by the firm hand of Pius XI, spread throughout the Catholic world. Under Pius XI, Catholic Action, which as an organization of apostolate dated back in some way to the glorious days of Pius IX, assumed the fullness of its characteristic traits. It was a mobilization of all the laity as a single army of varied elements, to carry out a similarly unique but multi-faceted task: a total infusion of the spirit of Jesus Christ into the tormented society of the time. Along with this effort, and as a harmonious complement to it, there came about an admirable flourishing of social works inspired mainly in the Encyclicals Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno and aiming specifically at presenting and putting into practice a Christian solution to the social question. It was social action.

Naturally, these three great elements, which mutually complete one another, for this very reason became interwoven. And, full of enthusiasm, the flower of Catholic youth, first in Europe, and later, by way of repercussion, in Brazil, converged toward them.

Clouds on the Horizon

Whenever Providence raises up a good movement, the spirit of darkness seeks to slip into it in order to distort it. Thus it was since the beginnings of the Church, when heresies popped up even in the catacombs, seeking to drag to evil the flock of Jesus Christ already decimated by persecution. The same happens today, and that is how the devil will continue to work until the end of time.

The spirit of our century, born of the French Revolution, thus infiltrated certain circles in the liturgical movement, Catholic Action, and social action. And those imbued with that spirit sought, on the pretense of promoting Catholic values, to actually present them in a distorted fashion according to the maxims of the Revolution.

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

It would be far too long to mention here all that appears on the pages of In Defense of Catholic Action about this infiltration and its numerous manifestations. But a schematic enumeration of the main characteristics of the phenomenon is appropriate.

The spirit of the French Revolution was essentially secular and naturalistic. “Liberty, equality and fraternity” was the motto the Revolution adopted in its attempt to reform society. The influence of that spirit and motto is found in each of the multiple errors refuted in this book by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira.

Egalitarianism. As everyone knows, Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the Church as a hierarchical society, in which, according to the teaching of Pius X, to some it belongs to teach, govern and sanctify, and to others to be governed, taught and sanctified. (2)

Naturally, this distinction of two classes within the Church cannot be pleasing to the modern mentality shaped by the Revolution. It is no wonder, therefore, that in regard to Catholic Action a theory arose which, in the final analysis, tended to level Clergy and faithful. Pius XI defined Catholic Action as a participation of the laity in the hierarchical apostolate of the Church. Since he who participates has a part, it was argued, the laymen enrolled in Catholic Action have a part in the mission and task of the Hierarchy. They are, therefore, hierarchs in miniature. They are no longer mere subjects of the Hierarchy, but, so to speak, almost a fringe of it.

Liberalism. At the same time as a legitimate interest and zeal for the Sacred Liturgy appeared in the ranks of Catholic Action, several exaggerations of the so-called “liturgism” also popped up in it.

The profession of these errors, as is inherent to the liberal spirit, produced an attitude of open criticism and independence regarding the doctrine taught by the Holy See and the practices that it approved, praised and encouraged.

Accordingly, this new mentality belittled personal piety to promote exclusively liturgical acts; displayed reticence toward devotion to Our Lady and the Saints, which it  viewed  as incompatible with a “Christ-centered” formation; and manifested a certain disdain for the Rosary, the Way of the Cross, and the Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius as obsolete practices. All this flies in the face of numerous papal documents highly recommending such devotions and practices.

Perhaps even more significant was the influence of liberalism on the opinion, advocated in certain circles, that Catholic Action should not establish a modesty dress code for its members, nor should it have regulations imposing special duties and punishments for violations thereof.

The same influence clearly surfaced in the idea that no rigor was needed in the process to select new members of Catholic Action, though paradoxically it was said to be an elite organization.

Fraternity. Revolutionary fraternity involves denying everything that legitimately separates or distinguishes men: borders between nations and religions, political and philosophical currents, and so on.

In a separated brother, a true Catholic sees the brother as much as the separation. However, a Catholic influenced by the spirit of fraternity à la 1789 sees only the brother and refuses to see the separation. Hence, a series of inter-confessional attitudes and tendencies popped up in certain circles of Catholic Action. It was not simply a question of promoting a courteous clarification with separated Christians, in cases in which prudence and zeal would recommend it, but of engaging in a policy of silence and even concessions which in the final analysis served only to confuse and scandalize, rather than clarify and convert.

In the specific area of Catholic Action, these principles gave rise to the so-called “common ground tactic” and apostolate “of infiltration,” which Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira thoroughly analyzes and debunks in his book.

In the important area of social action, in which a clearly and specifically Catholic apostolate had been attaining so many fruits, a spirit of fraternity with revolutionary overtones also influenced many people in favor of non-confessional workers’ associations. This is another point which the book covers in detail.

Repercussion of the Novel Doctrines

At this point I look with great nostalgia to the peaceful and glorious times, filled with combative action but also with noble serenity, that preceded the painful shocks of which I now give a brief historical overview. In Rio de Janeiro, in a total unity of thought and action, elite priests and laity rallied around the lively and dynamic Cardinal Sebastião Leme; in São Paulo, they flocked around the venerable Archbishop Duarte Leopoldo e Silva. Cooperation was absolute. Mutual understanding was profound. The celebrated Father Garrigou-Lagrange, who visited Brazil in 1937, told me this was the note that most impressed him in the religious life of the country.

But, along with so many good things coming to us from Europe, the seeds of the spirit of 1789, contained in certain books on the Sacred Liturgy, Catholic Action and social action, also arrived. A quiet but steady fermentation became widespread. As we have just recalled, excellent practices of piety were now criticized as obsolete. Communion outside the Mass or extra Missam was branded as gravely incorrect from a doctrinal point of view. Goffiné, a famous prayer book laden with blessings and ecclesiastical approvals, was chided as the very symbol of an era marred by sentimentalism, individualism and theological ignorance, all of which had to be overcome. Marian Congregations, Sodalities and other associations were labeled as anachronistic forms of organized apostolate destined for a quick extinction, to the benefit of Catholic Action, the only one worthy to survive.

Naturally, these ideas caused reactions. But most of the time, such reactions were sporadic and fleeting. The good-natured Brazilian mindset, so confident, peaceful and inclined to accept what comes from certain European nations like France, Germany or Belgium, is averse to the kind of reaction that the circumstances required. This made it necessary to put together a list of the doctrinal errors being spread, uncover the connection that united them, expose the ideological substratum common to them all, refute each error in such a way as to delve into its poisoned roots, and thus alert souls to that insidious attack.

It was known in well-informed circles that the Apostolic Nuncio, Dom Bento Aloisi Masella, and several prelates, were concerned about the situation, but that in their wisdom they did not believe the moment for an official intervention by church authority had arrived. Then I learned that Dr. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira was weighing in his own mind whether the best thing would be for a layman to assume the role of lightning rod; and whether a book dedicated to an organized exposition and refutation of those errors would become a bombshell capable of alerting well-intentioned but incautious minds.  That could at least restrain the expansion of evil, if not completely block it, as people whose minds were already prepared to accept error could not be prevented from doing so.

So it was that, honored with a preface by the Pope’s Ambassador and an imprimatur given ex commissione by Archbishop José Gaspar D’Afonseca e Silva, out came the book.

A Bombshell and Its Wake

I have already spoken about the explosion that In Defense of Catholic Action caused. Poor little book, everything has been said about it. At one point it was said to be unprofessional: a work that required knowledge of Theology and Canon Law, yet was written by a layman. Then, of course, a layman could never have been able to write such book! And the rumors honorably attributed its authorship, first to Msgr. Antonio de Castro Mayer, and then to Father Geraldo de Proença Sigaud. A very great honor indeed, but one at variance with historical truth, as Dr. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira himself dictated the book in the course of a month of work, in the city of Santos, to the then young Archdiocesan Secretary of São Paulo’s Catholic Student Youth (JEC), José Carlos Castilho de Andrade.

Did the book attain its intended result? Yes, thanks be to God! It mobilized a brilliant and prestigious elite of intellectual fighters around the principles of In Defense of Catholic Action. Perhaps even more importantly, its success can be gauged by the attitude of an enormous number of readers… who did not like the book. They found it too categorical and inopportune. They did not disagree with its doctrines but saw the evil against which it was written as nonexistent or insignificant. Yet, after reading the book, they woke up and kept their distance from the innovators and innovations. From that moment on, progressivist errors continued to advance, but unmasked, and conquering only those who liked their true face.

As is well-known, having achieved this result, the author of In Defense of Catholic Action withdrew into silence, simply recording testimonies of support in the pages of Legionário and bearing relentless attacks with patient silence.

The sad history of these latest events was not short. But, for the author, it was studded with great reasons for joy.

Indeed, a series of papal documents now began to address those very errors hitherto called insignificant or even said to have been invented by the President of the Archdiocesan Board of Catholic Action in São Paulo. It was as if Pope Pius XII, by a strange and inexplicable coincidence, deemed the very same errors that Dr. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira had denounced as a threat in Brazil, as actually existing in several countries.

In Defense of Catholic Action was published in June 1943. The Encyclical Mystici Corporis appeared on the 29th of the same month. The Encyclical Mediator Dei came to light in 1947, and the Apostolic Constitution Bis Saeculari Die was issued in 1948. Together, these three documents enunciated, refuted and condemned the main errors dealt with in the book.

Antero de Figueiredo, a great man of letters, also discussed identical errors in his Portuguese homeland in the beautiful romance, Pessoas de Bem [Upright People].

But, someone can ask, who knows whether the errors plaguing Europe really existed in Brazil?  I ask: Has any error, regardless of its nature or importance, ever existed in Europe without immediately spreading to Brazil? At any rate, the Letter from the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries to the Venerable Brazilian Episcopate, dated March 7, 1950, clearly shows a special concern of the Holy See about similar errors in Brazil.

Finally, if In Defense of Catholic Action was based on a series of inventions, why would the letter written to the author on behalf of Pope Pius XII by the then Substitute Secretary of State, Msgr. Giovanni Battista Montini, affirm that much good could be augured from the circulation of the book? 

But the existence of those errors in Brazil is also confirmed by testimonies of high-ranking Brazilian churchmen.

First of all, it is only just to recall the memorable name of Msgr. Sales Brazil, the victorious contender of secularist Monteiro Lobato. In his book, The Great Accolades, published in 1943, with his eyes obviously focused on the national scene, he deals with problems addressed by In Defense of Catholic Action. For his part, Father Teixeira-Leite Penido, a great theologian of international renown, in his 1944 book, The Mystical Body, also mentions and refutes some of the errors denounced by In Defense of Catholic Action.

Also of unparalleled value in this matter are documents issued by venerable figures of the National Episcopate. In August 1942, the Ecclesiastical Province of São Paulo issued a circular letter to the clergy warning them against liturgical abuse. The late Msgr. Rosalvo Costa Rego, Cathedral Vicar of Rio de Janeiro during the vacancy of Cardinal Sebastião Leme, published in May 1943 an Instruction on analogous errors. Years later, in 1953, a voice as powerful as the ones mentioned in the Apocalypse arose from the ranks of the Hierarchy. It was that of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer. In his memorable Pastoral Letter on Problems of the Modern Apostolate, Bishop Mayer dealt against those die-hard errors a blow that left an indelible mark in history. The illustrious prelate received numerous expressions of support from around the country, assembled by the publisher, Editora Boa Imprensa, in a precious little work titled Repercussions.  But his Pastoral Letter was also published in Spain, France, Italy and Argentina and was praised by Catholic publications from almost all quarters. Its success was a proof that the danger which it sought to obviate was real and widespread.

In short, the existence and gravity of the problems discussed by In Defense of Catholic Action became crystal clear.

A Lion with Three Paws

So, what was the end result of the book? Did it eliminate the errors against which it was written? Is it not true that the principles of the French Revolution have a growing influence even among Catholics and that many Catholic leaders show an increasing sympathy for socialism, and even communism?

From the standpoint of morality, is it not true that an ever greater permissiveness has made inroads into many Catholic circles?

So, someone could ask, to what avail was it to publish In Defense of Catholic Action? This would be tantamount to asking what good was it to publish all the ecclesiastical books and documents that I have just cited.

Actually, it did a world of good. We owe all those books and documents, the fact that, while such errors continue to exist, a large number of people see them with disgust and sorrow, and thus escape their destructive influence.

We also owe them the fact that, while error still continues to advance, it no longer does so in a triumphal or brazen fashion. Reaction against In Defense of Catholic Action, was first an uproar and then silence. When Bis Saeculari Die arrived in Brazil, there was also some uproar but mostly silence. And a few years later, the reaction against Bishop Mayer’s Pastoral Letter was one of silence without uproar. In short, an error that loses its dynamism is like a lame, three-pawed lion—not a negligible result, come to think of it.

At a time when error advanced at a quick and triumphant pace, the specific task of In Defense of Catholic Action was to sound an alert that resonated throughout Brazil, closed doors to it in many circles around the country, and definitively paved the way for an easier comprehension of the documents of the ecclesiastical Magisterium already in existence or yet to come.

Why Recount History?

Why all this narration? I answer this question with another: Why recount history?  And if you are going to do it, why not tell, at the end of twenty years, some fragments of historical truth which—particularly when full and complete—can only benefit the Church?

Everyone knows that many Catholics were fearful at the gesture of Leo XIII opening the Vatican Archives to scholars. But the immortal Pontiff replied by saying that the true Church cannot fear true history.

* * *

On closing these lines, I turn to Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception Aparecida, Queen and Patroness of Brazil, to thank Her for all the good that Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira’s book has done. May She unite everyone in truth and charity, for the good of Holy Mother Church and the Christian grandeur of Brazil.

Eloi de Magalhães Taveiro

Notes:

1) On the role of Abbot Prosper Guéranger in the liturgical movement worldwide, see article in Legionário (Feb. 13, 1942) by the late Archabbot of the Benedictine Congregation of Brazil, Dom Lourenço Zeller, Bishop Emeritus of Dorilea.

2) Cf. St. Pius X, Encyclical Vehementer Nos, Feb. 11, 1906, at www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10law.htm

Next

Table of Contents

Prev