Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira and Augusto Pinochet
#1
Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira was an important Catholic intellectual and counter-revolutionary polemicist from Brazil. I think he has a lot of important insights to share on society and politics but one of his more controversial stances was his support of Chilean dictator Pinochet. From a Catholic point of view, I can see how we can look more sympathetically than others on the leadership of Francisco Franco for his role in squashing genocidal communists who slaughtered thousands of religious in Spain. But is Pinochet a bright too far?
Reply
#2
Augusto had a far lower body count than Francisco, if that's what you're going by.
Reply
#3
But Franco was prompted by a massive underground movement of communists and anarchists who used genocidal violence against Catholics.
Reply
#4
What makes you think Pinochet's government was not a response to communism? One has to keep in mind that all the military dictatorships, awful (not only from an ethical point of view but also from an aesthetical, supporting abysmal architecture and destroying completely the major cities; and also strategical: persecuting only the communist militia and letting the communist intellectuals reign on the universities, destroying high culture) they were all responses to communism. And this is not an American thing, for instance, in Brazil the military intervention was backed by a strong civil support (that culminated on the family's march with God for freedom). Today leftists claim it was all American supported, but they can't produce a single document to back this claim (not to mention the military was fiercely anti-American).
I'm not defending Pinochet, I'm just saying, if you want to compare atrocities, compare between Chile and Cuba not Chile and Spain: Cuba is a third of Chile but they killed almost ten times more (I expect the typical American objections to my objection for the Cuban regime: Americans think its all about them, but no, the Cuban regime is bad not because its anti-America, but because it kills people, it kills their basic freedoms, etc.)

Now, there are other problems with Plinio. +de Castro Mayer called attention to some of them, after decades of supporting Plinio's works. There are accusations of secret cults, idolatry and whatnot. I don't know much about it, but I don't take Plinio/TFP/Arautos much seriously given that with all the power they have they haven't produced a single TLM parish, leaving this struggle to much smaller groups (which, nonetheless, do contribute to right adoration).

Reply
#5
I do not see the backing of Dr. Correa de Oliveira to General Pinochet as controversial, but as the most natural thing.

In the first place, General Pinochet is the only practising Catholic Head of State that Chile has had in the past 50 years or so. Others (Frei Sr., Frei Jr. Aylwin and PIñera) were so nominally but they actively promoted divorce, contraconception, abortion or gay marriage.

General PInichet, on the other hand, resisted and oposed all moves in this direction and actually banned the so called "terapeutic abortion" that had been legalized during Frei's Christian Democratic government. During Pinochet's government several traditional Catholic holidays that had been supressed by the communists or previous the masonic governments were restored. And though he didn't  oficially reunite the State and the Church, General Pinochet gave it back a sense of public preeminence that made it look as if Chile was in fact a confessional State (this was the impression that most foreigners got when looking at oficcial ceremonies and protocol, public speeches, military parades and graduations, public ediffices, etc...).

As for the repression of the opossition during his rule, the usual narrative (even in this forum) is a blatant nonsense. In his 17-year rule 2,300 people died. Of this figure, 700 were member of the armed forces and the police!! These figures reflect that the State had to cope with a well armed and supplied guerrilla, not to innocent unarmed left-wing intellectuals. Of course there were abuses and even crimes perpetrated by agents of the state, just as it happens today in Chile, Pakistan, West Europe and the US, under democracy, theocracy or whereverocracy. His government did his duty and fought a communist urban guerrilla that wanted to unleash a revolutionary civil war and, by repressing it and avoidung such war, saved thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of lives. Or was it preferable that Chile had gone through the ordeal of Peru and its "Shining Pass", Colombia and its "Farc" or Salvador and Nicaragua with their own bloodbaths? 

Last but not least, Mgr. Lefebvre himself supported General Pinochet, and the same is and was the case with -no exageration- all Chilean Traditional Cathoics.

Fellow FishEaters; don't get too cozy in your free democracies; sometimes a bit of political violence can squeeze one's judgment and allow one to see realities beyond the official narrative of the global press.
Reply
#6
(06-14-2015, 09:31 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: What makes you think Pinochet's government was not a response to communism? One has to keep in mind that all the military dictatorships, awful (not only from an ethical point of view but also from an aesthetical, supporting abysmal architecture and destroying completely the major cities; and also strategical: persecuting only the communist militia and letting the communist intellectuals reign on the universities, destroying high culture) they were all responses to communism. And this is not an American thing, for instance, in Brazil the military intervention was backed by a strong civil support (that culminated on the family's march with God for freedom). Today leftists claim it was all American supported, but they can't produce a single document to back this claim (not to mention the military was fiercely anti-American).
I'm not defending Pinochet, I'm just saying, if you want to compare atrocities, compare between Chile and Cuba not Chile and Spain: Cuba is a third of Chile but they killed almost ten times more (I expect the typical American objections to my objection for the Cuban regime: Americans think its all about them, but no, the Cuban regime is bad not because its anti-America, but because it kills people, it kills their basic freedoms, etc.)

Now, there are other problems with Plinio. +de Castro Mayer called attention to some of them, after decades of supporting Plinio's works. There are accusations of secret cults, idolatry and whatnot. I don't know much about it, but I don't take Plinio/TFP/Arautos much seriously given that with all the power they have they haven't produced a single TLM parish, leaving this struggle to much smaller groups (which, nonetheless, do contribute to right adoration).


Further more, Pinochet's "atrocities" have been shown to be (for the most part) grossly exaggerated or patently false, most recently by the Chilean Supreme Court in 2014.  It has served communist/socialist ideals to portray a narrative that casts the extreme Left in an almost saintly glow.

What if communism had taken over in Chile? In every place communism has taken over disaster has resulted. Maybe Allende would have been better, but I don't think Pinochet was obligated to see if *this time* it would be different- different than the multiple previous incidents- Russia, then Spain, Eastern Europe, Greece, China, Southeast Asia. No, if disaster and tragedy resulted all those times before, a reasonable man would conclude it's going to happen again. Leftists want an unlimited number of tries, but no game has that.

Ironically PInochet saved the lives of thousands of communists who would have been liquidated. Watch "Nadie Escuchaba"- you can get it on Netflix- for the complaints of communists who started getting it pretty much the first few days after Castro took over. The nice bourgeois liberals also would have been destroyed. But the part of the price of protecting people is their misunderstanding and ingratitude.

You can tell if something is good or bad not by what it claims to do, but what it actually does. Leftist dictatorship produces want, misery and oppression without end. Cuba? Venezuela? Or Chile? That's an easy choice.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)