Looking for the positive side

by Alfonso

Those of us who knew Plinio Correa de Oliveira personally have no difficulty listing his qualities. Some of us might go further than others in the magnitude of those qualities. Some among his most fervent followers might even contemplate a “sin-less” PCO! But I don’t think there is any argument that PCO was a man of many qualities. Some of those qualities might even be legitimately considered as outstanding (“heroic”?), larger than life. The fact that we (and many others) are still talking about him, would certainly indicate there is something there. A great man? A great saint? A great prophet? Take your pick!

Those of us who spent any amount of time in the group have no difficulty in listing faults within the society of men that followed PCO during his lifetime and beyond. Some of us consider those faults “all too human, all too explainable,” others see structural, more serious problems. 

Some have attempted to criticize and find fault in PCO within his writings, or his public campaigns. Were they as counter-revolutionary as they could be? Did he make the best use of the means at hand to fight for the good cause? Again, a difficult area to approach, on many levels. Opinions will always be opinions, and one man’s great move might be another’s bland or mistaken actions.

It would appear that people who want to criticize PCO find the most fertile ground for their darts in placing responsibility (blame?) at PCO’s feet for those negative things that are known to have happened within the group. Wasn’t he inerrant? How could he have not known? What sort of leader-saint-prophet can let this type of activity go on under his watch? And so on, and so on.

I for one find this an interesting line of argument to explore. My reasoning is that I find hard to reconcile the image of a leader-saint-prophet of the magnitude his most zealous admirers (and, to be honest, himself to a great degree) give to PCO, with the image of a man that creates a society like the group, were the type of activity we criticize takes place rather freely.

I would like to float the idea that we should focus separately on two aspects of PCO’s personality: the great catholic intellectual and the leader. By the way, this idea of the two or many Plinios, was recently explored by Damián in his article.

As an intellectual, PCO lived at a time in which multiple errors, old and new, kept spreading, both left and right, inside and outside the Church. In spite of that, he managed to keep his Catholic principles alive and kicking. Even if this does not make him as exceptional as we once thought, there is no denying that his teachings in doctrinal matters were (and still are) useful to many of us.

In the way he presented his ideas, PCO was above all a polemist. Quick of word and with a sharp pen. Prepared as a good lawyer to present his arguments and demolish an opponent. He had wit and the ability to make his adversary lose an argument. He admired other polemists of his time, such as Carlos Lacerda. Probably he considered himself intellectually invincible. Again, this is not something that makes him the greatest saint ever… but it is certainly a gift he used admirably toward the good cause for a long time.

As a leader, however, his flaws show more openly. But we should not embrace the idea that these flaws cancel his work entirely. Not at all. I don’t think PCO created the group to glorify himself, even though this was the aspect that became dominant in the group eventually. PCO as a leader of Legionario in the 1940’s, of Catolicismo in the ‘50s and the TFP in the ‘60s is very much a leader to be respected. 

But flaws have a way of growing if they are not detected and fought in time. The enthusiasms that created the Sempreviva in 1967, the “disaster” of 1975, but especially his selection of Joao Cla Dias as his “almost perfect disciple”, started feeding an aspect of PCO’s personality which was increasingly unacceptable.

The founding of Sao Bento II with the goal of promoting the “prompt and maximum glorification of PCO”, created a structure from which nothing good could come up. The idea behind Sao Bento was to create a climate of admiration for PCO, artificially if necessary, “in reparation for the years of indifference and ignorance with which he was treated by older members of the group”.

PCO as a leader, failed to exercise the authority he unquestionably had, to curb the many excesses of his followers. He liked flattery and personal adulation, and had no compunction in “outsourcing” his authority to other much less scrupulous than he was. He was mostly insensitive to the fate of those that had given their lives to him, personally, but got caught in the machinations, intrigues and power-plays of those who operated the group in his name. Ultimately, he failed to secure the future of the organization he created, by not even trying to establish a roadmap to be followed by those he left behind.

Does that mean he was not a great intellectual and an effective counter revolutionary? Not at all. What it means is that he failed to recognize his own weaknesses, and ventured into areas he was ultimately not well equipped to handle. In my view, this is a pity, because this experiment in communal life that turned into a PCO glorifying machine is a stain in the outstanding record of an otherwise great man.