Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

These notions can never be sufficiently emphasized, avoiding dangerous generalizations, ambiguous expressions, and illogicalities of all kinds, which have so deeply hindered the clarification of this matter. So many factors of confusion can result only in misunderstandings, frictions, and incompatibilities, thereby dividing souls and rendering almost barren any effort towards establishing the Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

It should be noted well, however, that peace, according to Saint Augustine, is the "tranquility of order." If we want peace, let us restore order, and if we want order, let us found everything upon Truth. It is not by keeping silent, by hiding or diluting truth that we will attain peace. Let us proclaim it in its entirety. There is no other way to achieve that decorous and much-longed for concord among souls.

If we insisted at such length on our thesis that the mandate of Catholic Action and the participation it affords the laity in the hierarchical apostolate of the Church involve only and exclusively collaboration with the hierarchy, a docile, filial and submissive collaboration practiced without any kind of regret or displeasure, it was because we had reasons of capital importance. We are alarmed not only by the doctrinal errors contained in the theses we refute, but also by most deplorable events for which they have been the reason or pretext.

A Consequence of the Errors We Refute

It was claimed that Catholic Action, by conferring on its members a new dignity, placed them in a canonical situation radically and essentially different from that which the laity enjoyed in associations prior to Catholic Action or in organizations foreign to the framework of its fundamental associations.

The Situation of the Clergy until Now

No one is unmindful that in associations of apostolate the priest always occupies the most prominent place, not only from the perspective of mere protocol, but also because of his authority, on which depend and under which functions, in final analysis, all the organisms or departments of religious organizations. In other words, the priest in the association represents Holy Church, and the lay leaders are his instruments. They will be the more meritorious the more docile they are in the fulfillment of their social aims. This is what happens, for example, in the Marian Congregations and Pious Unions of the Daughters of Mary. The high respect due to the priestly dignity, the evident advantage the Church enjoys when the priest exercises an eminent dominion over all social activities, everything comes together so that in our Catholic circles the militant layman deems himself more correct the more he is solicitous in obeying the Father Director's guidelines.

In many sodalities, as in the associations functioning in schools, the lay brother or nun has an analogous situation, albeit inferior to that of the director. The reason for this is obvious.

How Some Intend to Belittle and Ultimately Destroy This Situation

Now, on the basis of this "participation" and of this "mandate," it has been contended that the laity demeans itself by obeying fully the ecclesiastical assistant and that Catholic Action leaders have an authority of their own that makes of the assistant a mere doctrinal censor of social activities. So long as an activity has nothing contrary to Faith or morals, the assistant should remain silent. In general, no distinction is made between an assistant who is pastor and one who is not. As for lay brothers and nuns, who are not priests, they are to simply stay quiet and vanish from the scene.

Many trusting souls believe that with this the rights of Holy Mother Church are entirely safeguarded. What an illusion! Of course, merely doctrinal problems do occur in the activities of Catholic Action wherein the assistant, by vetoing error or evil, will have implicitly made truth and good triumph. There are also practical issues regarding minute details of execution in which Catholic doctrine is not directly involved and in which the assistant normally may choose not to become involved (retaining, however, the power to do so when he sees fit). But between these two extremes there is an extensive intermediate zone, in which what is involved is not exactly a mere question of doctrine, but the application of doctrine to facts; the precise observation of concrete circumstances; the discernment of what constitutes, at a given moment, the greater glory of God; and so on. The assistant will surely find precious resources if he makes use of the insight of well-schooled laymen in clarifying such questions. Woe to him, however, if he cannot say, in these matters, the final word!

Since the reason for such rash statements was the modification introduced in Catholic Action by the mandate or participation, it having been proved that neither one nor the other brought substantial alterations, the consequences tumble to the ground. It is not futile, however, to imagine what catastrophes these consequences would lead us to in practice.

Concrete Examples of What Would Result

Let us imagine, with concrete examples, the situation resulting from that. Let us consider the case of a parish whose pastor is also the ecclesiastical assistant of the local Catholic Action nuclei. With his theological wisdom, pastoral zeal, and priestly experience, and strengthened in the certainty of his judgments by the grace of state and the irreplaceable knowledge of the needs of souls that only the practice of the confessional gives, the priest sees all the problems, dangers and needs that arise in the field the Holy Ghost placed under his responsibility. Because of the lack of priests, the immensity of the work, and the impermeability of certain groups to the priest's influence, he feels all the need –which Pius XI had seen with the keen gaze of a lynx—to multiply his own resources. He appeals to Catholic Action, that is, to those whom the Pontiff himself termed "the arms of the Church." He gathers together, therefore, the parochial sectors of Catholic Action. And immediately the fight starts. Catholic Action moves only through the impulse and initiative of the laity, so the pastor must patiently argue to persuade them that the Catholic Action nuclei of the parish should recommend that this virtue be preferred to that; that they should fight the vices rooted in the region rather than nonexistent defects; that they should work to repair the parish church rather than the dispensary; that they should build a dispensary rather than a center for associations; that they should build a center for associations rather than nothing at all. As none of these matters involves Faith and morals, it is, in final analysis, Catholic Action that will decide the timeliness, feasibility, and usefulness of the parish priest's plans, while he, who has the right of veto only in matters of Faith and morals, patiently awaits the verdict of the new officers of the hierarchy, or participating elements thereof, who will advise him if his plans will be executed or not, and, if so, to what degree and by what means. It is enough to have but a slight idea of the authority and responsibilities given to parish priests by Canon Law to understand the absurdity of this situation, and to see that the simple role of censor is far from providing the pastor with the means of action necessary to fulfill his functions and to carry the crushing burden inherent to his office. Such an erroneous situation would easily border on the ridiculous were we to imagine it happening in some small country parish where the pastor himself would have to contend with the local male and female directors of Catholic Action, whose cultural level, in certain regions, will not be much superior to that strictly necessary for the reading of a cookbook or doing the bookkeeping of the local tavern.

We will return to this subject later. For now, let us continue showing the dreadful consequences of this strange doctrine.

Are We Returning to the Time of "Masonified" Confraternities?

The reader has certainly perceived the analogy between the situation in store for the ecclesiastical assistant in Catholic Action and that of ecclesiastical authority in the old "masonified" confraternities.

In the Catholic Action nuclei, as in the old masonified confraternities, the clarity of the subtle limits existing between spiritual and temporal matters can be easily disturbed with specious arguments, like this one of the Fraternity of the Blessed Sacrament in rebellion against Bishop Vital Maria Gonçalves de Oliveira because they refused to exclude from their midst members who were Masons: "The existence and purpose of a fraternity," it claimed,

is a voluntary act of its associates and, as long as the laws of the country and of the Church are respected, only the member brothers have the right to propose an alteration or modification of the norms they themselves organized, in accordance with their interests and experience. (1)

The Imperial Council of State concluded in the same sense, giving the government the lion's share, and declared that

the organic constitution of the fraternities in Brazil being under the jurisdiction of civil authority, and the approval and supervision of the religious side being the only area pertinent to the diocesan prelates, it did not pertain to the Most Reverend Bishop's domain to order the Fraternity to exclude any of its members because of their belonging to Freemasonry, and that he could not have based himself, therefore, on this “disobedience” to declare the Fraternity interdicted. (2)

The errors presently being spread regarding Catholic Action threaten to lead us to this extremely sad situation. What a caricature of the grand dream of Pius XI!

Will One of Our Most Beautiful Traditions Disappear to Our Applause?

Since the priest is left with only the function of censor, it is obvious that his position in the parochial environment changes radically. Until now the customs and pious traditions of our people have always reserved for the priest a unique situation in any ambience in which he happens to be. In meetings of religious associations, in civic events, and even in the purely temporal ceremonies at which he happens to be present for reasons completely apart from his ministry, the priest is given a place of unmistakable primacy. One need only glance through the photographs of festive events in any newspaper collection, not just Catholic ones but any paper, to verify how true this is. That which our elders perceived, and which is perceived even today in ambiences where only vague and rare religious traditions survive, some modernizing theoreticians of Catholic Action do not perceive; and one of them already gave us the displeasure of praising in a most blatant manner a certain European country where the priest no longer occupies the central place in the protocol for ceremonies of Catholic Action, but rather the place of an obscure and distant partner.

Will the Authority of the Pastor and School Directors Be Mutilated?

If we are logical in the development of this doctrine, we must go further. If the priest is to be left with merely the role of doctrinal censor of Catholic Action's activities, it is obvious that the appointment of members to the board of directors of the various parochial nuclei, their eventual suspension, the admission of members, and the like, is to occur at the exclusive initiative of the laity itself, the priest being permitted only to oppose such names as may be contrary to faith or customs. The pastor cannot select those who seem to him more docile, zealous, capable, or influential. His natural collaborators are not freely chosen by him, and while in every government on earth the selection of one's immediate aides is considered a prerogative inherent to the exercise of authority, the parish government will, henceforth, constitute an exception.

Some elements are so imbued with this notion of superiority that they do not hesitate to remedy the "deficiencies" of many pastors by installing nuclei of Catholic Action in their parishes against their will!

The same phenomenon occurs in schools and associations. We know of the case of an institution in which nuclei of Catholic Action were founded clandestinely because its ecclesiastical director would "perhaps" withhold approval for their immediate establishment. A venerable and illustrious priest, director of a school, told us that he once received the visit of a young man who came to notify him about the foundation of the Catholic Student Youth in his institution. The respectable director considered that permission would be necessary and that he was not inclined to give it to an unknown person. The answer was immediate: "Father, I have the mandate of Catholic Action."

This is, a fortiori, the treatment tendered to religious who are not priests. Thus, whereas tradition and sense of propriety in the associations of piety that existed until now in schools and elsewhere bestowed on nuns and brothers the status of vice-directors, they are now severely proscribed from the meetings of Catholic Action by certain theoreticians, always under the pretext that they do not possess a mandate. And these doctrines proliferate! We know the case of a feminine association of Catholic Action which, gathered together in a school run by nuns, demanded the withdrawal of all the nuns from the meeting place as a condition for the work to begin. The essential difference between Catholic Action and associations like pious unions, Marian congregations, Leagues of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, and the like, lies, according to such theoreticians, precisely in this "self-government," a consequence of Catholic Action's unique mandate. Such associations do not have a mandate and are unrestrictedly dependent on their respective ecclesiastical directors while the laity, raised by the mandate of Catholic Action to the category of participants in the hierarchy, depend only negatively on the ecclesiastical assistant, a mere censor.

We do not wish to depart from the central theme of this book, that is, Catholic Action. It would not be superfluous, however, to remember that the audacious and unfounded interpretation of what some theologians wrote on the "passive priesthood" of the laity contributes, in no small measure, to creating these deviations.

All of this finds its general expression in the following statement that could well be the motto for these doctrines: "It is necessary that Catholic Action not be a dictatorship of priests and nuns."

To What Will the Authority of the Bishops Be Reduced?

Pressed by the midday clarity of certain papal documents, they recognize, of course, that Catholic Action, albeit independent of the clergy, does depend on the bishops. They even understand that the very mandate received has the effect of linking Catholic Action, over the head of the pastor, directly to the bishop, of whom it is a juridical extension. Therefore, they believe that only a bishop can perform the ceremony of reception of members of Catholic Action with due honor. All this notwithstanding, given that the very decorum of Holy Church demands that no one in a specific sector of Catholic Action be more in the bishop's confidence, as a rule, than the ecclesiastical assistant; given that the functions of the assistant are understood in an absolutely restricted way; given, on the other hand, that the bishop cannot be present everywhere, especially in a country with such vast dioceses as Brazil; given, finally, that the bishop cannot have the possibility of personally knowing laity in all the parishes of his diocese whom he can take into his immediate confidence; the result is that the Bishop's authority remains, in practice, almost entirely annulled. And not only in practice. The doctrinal exaggerations we referred to above concerning the "passive priesthood" of the laity profoundly undermined or deformed in certain souls the due respect owed to bishops. The Boletim Oficial da Ação Católica Brasileira (Rio de Janeiro) of June 1942 narrates the typical case of a young man who wrote to a respectable bishop: "best regards from your colleague in the priesthood."

It would not be necessary to say as much to understand that the doctrine of the incorporation of the laity to the hierarchy or to hierarchical functions through the mandate of Catholic Action, contains in its bosom consequences of immeasurable importance and, because of its very nature, facilitates, flatters, and stimulates man’s natural tendency to rebellion. Will it be easy to extirpate this poison when it penetrates the masses and conquers them? Who would dare sustain such an illusion?

Thank God no alteration has been made, as we have shown, in the nature of the status of the laity enrolled in Catholic Action, so all of the feverish deliriums that alleged such alteration as their motive or excuse tumble to the ground. The layman of Catholic Action should feel honored to render full obedience to the ecclesiastical assistant.

Notes:

1) António Manoel dos Reis, O Bispo de Olinda perante a História: D. Frei Vital M. Gonçalves de Oliveira, dos Men. Capuchinos, 1879, p. 70. 

2) Ibid., p. 132.

Next

Table of Contents

Prev