Was Plinio an enabler for Joao Clá?

by Alfonso

Nearly 20 years ago my uncle, then president of the Argentinian TFP, wrote a book for internal circulation among some TFP members, pointing out the different organizations that coexisted within the group: The public "lay" society and the internal "family of souls" as he put it. He did not approve of the second, and in no uncertain terms tried to prove that some of the practices in which this "family of souls" engaged were against Canon Law and should either be stopped or come under the watch and jurisdiction of the Church.

Enabler in chief?

The views expressed in the book had led (either shortly before or shortly after, my memory is sketchy on the dates) to his removal from the presidency of the Argentinian TFP which he had held since its founding in April 1967. When the book was circulated, it was clearly perceived within the TFP to be an attack, not only against Joao Cla Dias but against Plinio Correa de Oliveira himself. The refutation of the book was handled in Sao Pablo and signed by some members of the Argentinian TFP, but coordinated and reviewed, as any publication within the TFP, by PCO himself.

I was in SA back then, and I remember that one of my cusins came to visit me and brought a copy of the book, which I had not read until then. I devoured it one night, obviously, and, as we talked into the late hours of the night, my question was: "But how can this be written and said against JC and NOT, at the same time, be a critique or attack against PCO himself?" At the time, my cousing was either physically or mentally in the group, so he could not go that far. He thought that JC (or other abuses inside the TFP for that matter), could be attacked, but that the image of PCO could be left isolated, untouched and unstained by whatever "abuses" went around him.

I read again and again in various forums many sharp-worded criticisms to many "abuses" made by JC or others: Handling of "apostates", views about marriage, campaigns of defamation or cover ups... but, amazingly enough, most manage to still keep PCO's figure in the same high pedestal of respect, fear and veneration that we all held for him while inside the group.

I could not understand this 20 years ago, I can understand this even less today.

The reason this dual attitude escapes me is that I believe we all know some facts to be "self evident". Perhaps I am wrong, so I list them here for feedback from people that might have a different perspective:

1. PCO had unique and extraordinary graces / power of wisdom, "discernment of spirits" when it came to Revolution-Counter Revolution matters. The TFP even published a book explaining that our belief in his "prophetic" and "unerring" powers were in perfect sync with the teachings of the Church.

2. Most of the people that gave their lives to the group did so entirely, without hold backs. Some even gave their fortunes. Some gave their families. Most gave all they had. This giving, this surrendering to a call they perceived to be a Divine call (a vocation) was, again in most cases, placed in PCO's hands. From the early days of the Sempreviva, to later vows of obedience ("pelo amor e pela graca da Santissima Virgem, E POR ORDER DO SR DR PLINIO") PCO was the center of authority within the group.

3. The fact that he chose to exercise this authority sparely in most cases... the fact that he preferred to "tercerize" to others the implementation of this authority... does not detract from the fact that no one entered the group to follow JC, LAF, JAU, JATT, CVXS, BOB or any other group "leader" or quidam.

4. The most common "out" people give PCO to justify what can be perceived as a disconnect between his goodness, charity, intelligence and prophetic vision, is the classic "for the greater good" approach. As the logic goes, PCO would do anything that needed to be done (even "offering himself as a victim" in the famous disaster) to save the TFP and keep all our Our Lady's children united. I often heard (even in this Forum) stories about PCO disowning JC's actions in private. People who complained to him about "abuses" in the group were generally told to offer this as a sacrifice. 

5. The fact is that PCO kept perfectly in place and fully operational, the biggest machine for internal politics, the famous "patio" that JC used ruthlessly to cut down to size anyone who did not match his vision of what the TFP should be. I remember how in the mandatory "Jour 'a Jours" held in Praesto Summ every Sunday, he would mock and cover with innuendo any other person who in the group had any authority. Remember the attack against the "necessary channels". Did anyone noticed that in fact he became the only "necessary channel"?

6. This went on for years. This was NOT a slip of the tongue... a mistake made in one meeting, or two or ten. This was JC "modus operandi", that later was learned by people that decided to join his bandwagon. People like LAF and others. I am not aware of ANY significative effort of PCO to put an end to these practices inside the group. Does anyone?

7. I hope we don't insult PCO's memory and suggest he was unaware of this. Of all the bad things one could say about him, I would NOT say he was a naive and disconnected type of guy. Much to the contrary.

8. And to those who, still today, believe that PCO "laizzefaire" attitude toward JC was prompted by his "preserve unity and all the souls given to me" attitude... doesn't the fact that he died without naming a successor, and sat for years over the volcano that exploded after his death mean anything? What happened to unity? 

9. Was he afraid to make the tough calls? I guess fear would not be a very prophetic quality... Didn't he realize, with all the "discernment of spirits" that his "sons" were going for each other's throat the moment his body turned cold?

In an attempt to come up with a vision of PCO that reconciles the above (and other) things I think about him, I've come up with this (still evolving... ) vision:

PCO was a great Catholic author and leader. A pius man, promoter of the devotion to Our Lady and other Catholic practices in a layman's setting. Over the years, unfortunately, he let himself be surrounded by disciples that felt inclined to constant flattery and treated him like a living saint, a prophet. Maybe for the right reasons at first, he did little or nothing to stop this. He might, at the end, begin even to believe his unique role. Who knows... that's between him and God. At the end, however, he did not have the necessary courage to redress years of "tercerization" of his authority into lesser hands, and died leaving too many unanswered questions about his vocation and the road that thousands of souls that gave all to him, should take. He left them orphaned both spiritually and materially, since not even his worldly possessions were left to the TFP.

I have great admiration for the writer, leader, polemist, man of culture, virtue, class and good taste. I wish God had sent more like him in these turbulent days.

I have no time for a guy who empowered so many petty chiefs, turned a blind eye to those who had given all to him and acquired an apparent taste for his own importance and passively received strident shows of veneration and servitude. May God protect future Catholic leaders from these failings.