|
Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Conclusion
|
|
|
By developing the long enumeration of doctrines that were exposed here, we sought to emphasize the intimate link that connects them and turns them into one single ideological set. All of them are bound, closely or remotely, to the following principles: a denial of the effects of original sin; as a consequence, a conception of grace as the exclusive factor of the spiritual life; and a tendency to do without authority in the hope that order will result from a free, living and spontaneous conjugation of intellects and wills. The doctrine of the mandate, incidentally upheld by European authors many of whom are worthy of consideration for various reasons, found in our ambience a fertile ground where it bore fruits unforeseen by many of its authors, and other fruits they could not, perhaps, logically deduce from it. Obviously, many people do not perceive the profound consequences implicit in the ideas they profess; others do not even profess these ideas in their totality, accepting only one or the other. However, the history of philosophy shows us that man, being naturally logical, never accepts an idea without experiencing the need to also accept the consequences that it entails. This work of ideological fructification is generally slow; but if we examine the deepest reasons for the great transformations that sometimes occur in a man we will often find them in this gradual ripening of conclusions, not even suspected in their remote beginnings. Thus, persons who have accepted some of these ideas habitually support and applaud those who take a step forward in the same field, revealing a singular enthusiasm for those who reached the most radical ideological positions, and a real want of caution in their minds to notice the flagrant errors found in these positions. In other words, we are in the presence of an idea in progress, or rather of a current of men pursuing an idea, increasingly rooting themselves in it and becoming more and more intoxicated with its spirit. If, as we said at the outset, our work can contribute to awaken the slumbering, warn the incautious against error and pull upright souls from its claws, it will have produced all the fruit we expect of it. But—it could be said—if it is true that these errors exist, is it not also true that our book, concerned exclusively about refuting them, reveals a unilateral penchant for one order of truths while forgetting others? Let us return once again to what we said in the Introduction. Catholic doctrine is composed of harmonious and symmetrical truths, and the perfection of Catholic sense consists in the ability to embrace all of them in such a way that instead of compressing or diminishing one another, they are, on the contrary, harmonized in our minds as they are in the mind of the Church. So, these truths, like the sounds of a well-played melody, should come each one in its proper place, in the right order, and with the adequate sonority. If this book were aimed at giving a panoramic idea of what Catholic Action should be, it certainly would be one-sided. But, as we have said, our intentions are more modest. We do not intend to play the whole melody but simply to emphasize certain notes that have not been played and to cancel others that disturb the harmony of the whole. In a beautiful speech at the Metropolitan Curia, Msgr. Antonio de Castro Mayer, Vicar General and delegate to Catholic Action in São Paulo, narrated a meaningful episode: During the pontificate of Pius XI, a certain Italian parish inaugurated a beautiful carillon in which each bell was named after an encyclical of that great Pontiff. The whole set constituted, thus, a representation of his doctrinal work. In that work, some bells did not please certain ears. We strive to defend them here, not because we believe they constitute the whole carillon, but because we know that without them the carillon would be irreparably flawed. * * * The eventual contenders we may encounter can take various attitudes. Some will say that they do not quite think so, that we exaggerate and that our zeal has led us to see in dark colors what had been an innocuous reality. To these we ask that they tell us precisely what they think with the clarity of one who loves the truth and the exactitude of one who loves clarity, and that they warmly stand on our side to combat the ideas they do not profess. Others will certainly disagree with us in a clear way. All we ask of them is that they completely exteriorize their way of thinking, "ut revelentur ex multis cordibus cogitationes." (1) This will be the greatest service they can render to the truth. Others, finally, will persevere in error but will try to change the formulas and, to a certain point, the doctrines; for error is necessarily a chameleon when it seeks to thrive in the shadow of the Church. But our words will have served at least as a warning to alert minds. In any case, what we wish above all is that the most beloved Catholic Action may continue to fulfill the providential designs set for it by the Church, immaculate in her doctrine, unalloyed in her obedience, invincible in combat, and glorious in victory. Laus Deo Virginique Mariae Note: 1) “So that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed” (Luke 2:35 – NAB).
|
|
