The Vatican Policy of Detente Towards The Communist Governments

The following document was written by the late Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, founder of the Brazilian Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property. In April 10, 1974, it was published with good results in the major newspapers of South America, because it provided a balanced, vigorously studied and wise answer to the most perplexing question of its day: what was the right position to take in face of the Vatican policy of détente toward Communist regimes?

The American TFP proudly reproduces this public statement which was published by the autonomous TFPs around the world, defending the practice of an obedient and submissive protest, thus opening a new era for Catholics - the era of filial resistance.

1. The Facts

It is a matter of public interest that Archbishop Casaroli, Secretary of the Vatican's Council for Public Affairs, in an interview not long ago commented on his recent visit to Cuba (cf. O Estado de São Paulo, April 7, 1974). His Excellency stressed that "the Catholics who live in Cuba are happy under the socialist regime." It is not necessary to say what kind of socialist regime he refers, for it is well known that the regime existing in Cuba is a Communist one.

His Excellency, in speaking of Fidel Castro's regime, went on to say that "the Catholics and the Cuban people in general do not have the slightest problem with the socialist government."

Wishing perhaps to give an air of impartiality to these amazing declarations, Archbishop Casaroli then lamented that the number of priests in Cuba is nevertheless insufficient: a mere 200. He indicated, furthermore, that he had asked Castro to permit greater opportunity for public worship. And he concluded by stating quite unexpectedly that "the Catholics of the Island are as respected for their beliefs as any of the other citizens."

If one considers only what is immediately apparent in these declarations, it is perplexing to discover that Archbishop Casaroli, while recognizing that Cuban Catholics suffer restrictions in their public worship, states at the same time that they are "respected for their beliefs." As if the right of public worship was not one of the most sacred of their liberties.

If the non-Catholic subjects of the Cuban regime are respected as much as the Catholics, then one can say that in Cuba nobody is respected ...

What, then, is the nature of this happiness, which according to Archbishop Casaroli the Cuban Catholics enjoy? It seems to be the harsh happiness dispensed by the Communist regime to all of its subjects, that is, the bowing of their heads under it. So Archbishop Casaroli states that "the Cuban Catholic Church and her spiritual guide always take care not to create any problem for the socialist regime which rules the Island."

Analyzed in greater depth, the observations of this high Vatican dignitary about his trip lead to conclusions of a higher order.

In an age in which His Holiness Paul VI has given more stress than ever to the importance of normal material conditions as a factor favorable to the practice of virtue, it is inconceivable that Archbishop Casaroli would consider Cuban Catholic's to be "happy under the socialist regime" of Fidel Castro, if they are immersed in misery. Hence we deduce that according to Archbishop Casaroli they enjoy at least the minimum economic conditions which are tolerable.

Now everyone knows that this is not actually the case. And, moreover, those Catholics who take seriously the encyclicals of Leo XIII, Pius XI, and Pius XII know that this cannot be, since these Popes taught that a Communist regime is the opposite of the natural order of things. And the subversion of the natural order - in the economy as well as in any other field - can only bring catastrophic fruits.

Accordingly, Catholics anywhere in the world who might be naive or ill-informed on the true social doctrine of the Church, upon reading the results of Archbishop Casaroli's inquiry in Cuba, will be led to a conclusion diametrically opposed to reality. In other words, they will believe there is nothing to fear from the implantation of Communism in the various countries, for according to this hypothesis they will be perfectly "happy," both with respect to their religious interests and their material circumstances.

It hurts to say it, but the obvious truth is this: Archbishop Casaroli's trip to Cuba resulted in a whitewash of Castro's regime.

This fact, terrible in itself, is but an episode in the policy of distention that the Vatican has been carrying out for a long time in regard to Communist regimes. Several of these moves are very well known to the public.

One of them was the trip to Russia in 1971 by His Eminence Cardinal Willebrands, President of the Secretariat for Christian Unity. The official purpose of his visit was to attend the inauguration of Bishop Pimen as the "orthodox" patriarch of Moscow. Pimen is the man in whom the Kremlin atheists place their confidence where religious affairs are concerned. This visit to him by Cardinal Willebrands was, in itself, highly prestigious to the heterodox prelate, justly considered the "dark beast" by the non-Communist orthodox people throughout the whole world. Pimen affirmed the nullity of the act through which in 1595 the Ukrainians reverted from schism back to the Catholic Church. This amounted to proclaiming that the Ukrainians must not be under the jurisdiction of the Pope, but under Pimen himself and others of his ilk. Instead of reacting in the face of this clamorous aggression against the rights of the Catholic Church and the consciences of the Ukrainian Catholics, Cardinal Willebrands and the delegation that accompanied him did not say a word. He who is silent, consents, teaches the Roman Law.

Distention ...
As is natural, this capitulation caused a profound trauma among those Catholics who follow with close attention the policies of the Holy See. The trauma was even greater among the millions of Ukrainian Catholics scattered throughout Canada, the United States, and other countries. And it was related to the dramatic dissensions between the Holy See and His Eminence, the valorous Joseph Cardinal Slipyj, Major-Archbishop of the Ukrainians during the Synod of bishops held in Rome in 1971.

Seen in its entirety, the conduct of His Eminence Cardinal Silva Henriquez, Archbishop of Santiago, Chile, constitutes another episode in the distention toward Communist governments being promoted by Vatican diplomacy. It is notorious - as the Chilean TFP demonstrated in a lucid manifesto printed by several newspapers - that the Chilean prelate used the weight of influence and authority inherent in his position to help Allende rise to power, to be inaugurated in cheerful circumstances, and to be maintained in the presidency till the tragic moment in which this atheist leader committed suicide. Acting with a flexibility incompatible with his reputation, His Eminence Cardinal Silva Henriquez attempted to adjust himself to the order of things that came after Allende's regime. But notwithstanding this, the Cardinal's constant manifestations of sympathy for the Chilean Marxists have not yet ceased. Only recently, His Eminence celebrated a Requiem Mass in the chapel of his residence for the soul of another Communist, "comrade" Toha, a former minister of Allende who, incidentally, was also an unhappy suicide. Relatives and friends of the dead attended this Mass (cf. Jornal do Brasil, March 18, 1974).

It has not been reported that the prelate suffered the slightest reproach for all these attitudes, so suitable for bringing Catholics closer to Communism. If someone imagined he would lose his archdiocese, he has been waiting in vain for it till now. Cardinal Silva Henriquez goes on calmly, still invested with the mission of conducting to Jesus Christ the souls of his populous and important archdiocese.

While he conserves his position by implementing the policy of distention, another archbishop, in contrast, has lost his archdiocese. We refer to one of the most striking personalities of the Church in the twentieth century, a person whose name is pronounced with veneration and enthusiasm by all Catholics faithful to the traditional social and economic teachings which have emanated from the Holy See. The name of this prelate, moreover, is regarded with high respect by persons of the most diverse religions. He is a fleuron of glory of the Church in the eyes of even those who do not believe in Her. This fleuron was broken recently. His Eminence Cardinal Mindszenty was dismissed from the archdiocese of Esztergom in order to facilitate rapprochement with the Hungarian Communist government.

As is evident, the visit of Archbishop Casaroli to Cuba - still abstracting from the interview he gave after leaving the Island - is inserted as a link in a chain of facts which succeed each other over a period of years.

Where will this chain end? What dolorous surprises, what new moral traumas are in store for those who continue accepting, with all its consequences, the immutable social and economic doctrine taught by Leo XIII, Pius XI and Pius XII? We are certain that innumerable Catholics, upon reading these facts again, and knowing the perplexity, anguish, and trauma expressed in these lines, will feel that their own interior drama is being depicted: It is a most intimate and poignant drama, because above and beyond its involvement with social and economic matters, it has an essentially religious character. It concerns what is most fundamental, alive, and tender in the soul of the Roman and Apostolic Catholic: his spiritual bonds with the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

2. Roman and Apostolic Catholics

The TFP is a civic, not a religious organization. However, the directors, members and militants of the TFP are Roman Apostolic Catholics. Consequently, in all of the campaigns undertaken by the TFP for the good of the country, the inspiration which keeps them in motion is Catholic.

The fundamentally anti-Communist position of the TFP is a result of the Catholic convictions of those who form it. The directors, members, and militants of the TFP are anti-Communists, because they are Catholics acting in the name of Catholic principles.

The Vatican policy of distention toward the Communist governments creates a situation which affects anti-Communist Catholics deeply, but much less, however, as anti-Communists than as Catholics. For at any moment a supremely embarrassing objection may be put to them: Does not their anti-Communist action lead to a result that is precisely opposed to the one intended by the Vicar of Christ? And how can one consider a Catholic to be consistent if he moves in an opposite direction from the Pastor of Pastors? This question leads all anti-Communist Catholics to a consideration of these alternatives: To cease the struggle? Or to explain their position?

To cease the fight, we cannot. And we cannot cease it because of a demand of our conscience as Catholics. For if it is a duty of every Catholic to promote good and fight evil, our conscience imposes on us the responsibility of propagating the traditional doctrine of the Church, and of fighting Communist doctrine.

Everywhere in the contemporary world the words "freedom of conscience" resound. They are pronounced throughout the West and even inside the dungeons of Russia . . . or of Cuba. Many times this expression, as it is so frequently used, acquires even abusive meanings. But of what there is in it of the more legitimate and sacred, it affirms the right of a Catholic to act in the religious and in the civic life, according to the dictates of his conscience.

If we could not act in consonance with the documents of the great Pontiffs who enlightened Christendom with their doctrine, we would feel more enchained within the Church than Solzhenitsyn was in Soviet Russia.

The Church is not, the Church never was, the Church never will be such a prison for consciences. The bond of obedience to the successor of Peter, which we will never break, which we love in the depth of our soul, to which we give the best of our love, this bond we kiss at the very moment in which triturated by sorrow we affirm our position. And kneeling, gazing with veneration at the figure of His Holiness Paul VI, we express to him our fidelity.

In this filial act we say to the Pastor of Pastors: Our soul is yours, our life is yours. Order us to do whatever you wish. Only do not order us to stay idle in face of the assailing red wolf. To this, our conscience is opposed.

3. The Answer, in the Apostle Saint Paul

Yes, Holy Father - we continue - Saint Peter teaches us that it is necessary "to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). You are assisted by the Holy Ghost and you are even comforted - under the conditions defined by Vatican I - by the privilege of infallibility. But this does not prevent the weakness to which all men are subject from influencing and even determining Your conduct in certain matters or circumstances. One of these - perhaps par excellence - is diplomacy. And it is here that Your policy of distention with the Communist governments is situated.

And what, then, to do? The number of lines in the present declaration is insufficient to permit the listing here of all the Fathers of the Church, Doctors, Moralists, and Canonists - many of them raised to the honor of the altar - who affirm the legitimacy of the resistance. This resistance is not separation, it is not revolt, it is not harshness, it is not irreverence. On the contrary, it is fidelity, it is union, it is love, it is submission.

"Resistance" is the word we choose on purpose, for it is the one employed in the Acts of the Apostles by the Holy Ghost Himself in order to characterize the attitude of St. Paul. St. Peter, the first Pope, had taken disciplinary measures regarding the continuity in Catholic worship of some practices remaining from the old Synagogue, and St. Paul saw in this a grave risk of doctrinal confusion and of harm to the faithful. He then stood up against St. Peter and "resisted him to his face" (Gal. 2: 11). In this ardent and inspired move of the Apostle of the Gentiles, St. Peter did not see an act of rebellion, but rather one of union and fraternal love. Knowing well in what he was infallible and in what he was not, St. Peter submitted to the arguments of St. Paul. The Saints are models for Catholics. Accordingly, in the sense in which St. Paul resisted, our state is one of resistance.

And in this, our conscience finds peace.

4. Resistance

To resist means that we will counsel Catholics to continue to struggle against Communist doctrine with all licit means, in the defense of each menaced country and Christian civilization.

To resist means that we will never use the unworthy resources of contestation nor, even less, take attitudes inconsistent with the obedience and veneration owed to the Supreme Pontiff. To resist implies, however, that we will utter respectfully our judgment in circumstances like the interview of Archbishop Casaroli in regard to the "happiness" of Cuban Catholics.

In 1968, the Holy Father Paul VI was in Bogota, the prosperous capital of Colombia, for the 39th International Eucharistic Congress. One month later, preaching in Rome to the whole world, he affirmed that he had seen there a "great need for that social justice which would place immense classes of poor people (in Latin America) in more just, comfortable, and human conditions of life" (speech of September 28, 1968).

He said this about a Continent where the Church enjoys the greatest liberty.

In contrast, Archbishop Casaroli saw in Cuba nothing but happiness.

In the face of this, to resist is to state with a serene and respectful frankness that there is a dangerous contradiction between these two declarations, and that the struggle against the Communist doctrine shall continue.

This is an example of true resistance.

5. Internal Panorama of the Universal Church

It is possible that the present declaration may cause surprise to some readers. This is because the TFP, having the maximum reluctance to take the public position that we today assume, has not yet disclosed the disconcertedness and nonconformity which is growing among Catholics in the most diverse countries as a result of the Vatican's distention toward Communist governments. Since disclosing it here would too greatly enlarge this already extensive document, for a more complete explanation of our position we limit ourselves to summarizing what is happening presently among German Catholics. An important Brazilian newspaper has provided an account of this situation written by Herman M. Goergen, a former federal German congressman and a Catholic of serene thinking and conduct.

He refers to the publication of two books about the politics of the Vatican by German authors: Wohin steuert der Vatikan? (Where is the Vatican Headed?) by Reinhard Raffalt an Vatikan Intern (The Internal Vatican) published under the pseudonym of Hieronymus. The response to both ischer Merkur, "conservative and intransigent defender of the faith and the Popes, a criticism considered by Rome to be even irreverent," with the title: "No, Mr. Pope!" In addition, Mr. Goergen affirms regarding the ousting of Cardinal Mindszenty: "A true wave of support (for the Cardinal) has swept German Catholics." The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung spoke openly of the "Christian-Marxist dreams" of Pope Paul VI. And the Paulus Gesellschaft (Society of Paul) spokesman for the dialogue between Christians and Marxists, condemned the "Ostpolitik" of the Vatican, denouncing it as "Machiavellian" because it wants to "impose upon the world a Roman-Soviet peace. In view of this language, the courtesy of the TFP is more easily contrasted.

We cannot close our commentary on the article of Mr. Goergen without stressing a grave affirmation made by him: In Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia, the contacts and agreements with the Holy See have not impeded the progress of the intense religious persecution there. This was also affirmed by Cardinal Mindszenty regarding his country.

This brings us to a state of bewilderment. The grand argument (insufficient, according to our viewpoint) for the Vatican policy of distention, given by its enthusiasts, was the prospect of an attenuation of the anti-religious fight. But practice shows that such distention does not achieve this result. Cuba is another example of this. Yet one authorized promoter of this distention such as Archbishop Casaroli declares that in this regime of persecution, the Catholics are happy with their living conditions. We ask then if distention is not synonymous with capitulation.

If it is, how can we fail to resist the policy of distention, presenting to the public the enormous error it contains?

This is one more example of how we understand the resistance.

6. Conclusion

This explanation was imperative. It has the character of a legitimate self-defense of our Catholic consciences in the face of a diplomatic system which is making the atmosphere unbreathable to them and, putting anti-Communist Catholics in a most difficult situation in which their position was becoming unexplainable to the public. We repeat this, as a conclusion, at the close of this declaration.

However, no conclusion would be complete without the reaffirmation of our unrestricted and loving obedience not only to the Holy Church but also to the Pope in all of the terms commanded by Catholic doctrine.

May Our Lady of Fatima help us in this way which we follow out of fidelity to Her message, and with the joy of anticipation that the promise She made will be accomplished: "In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph."